Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Downtown Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
URA reviews downtown enhancement guidelines; members ask for clarifications, scoring and funding changes
Summary
Board members discussed edits to downtown enhancement program guidelines, proposed changing 'reimburse' language to 'fund', simplifying scoring, clarifying third spaces, and considering direct-pay levels; a marketing subcommittee item will be placed on the March agenda.
The Livingston City Urban Renewal Agency on Feb. 25 reviewed draft guidelines for a new downtown enhancement program and asked staff to return a revised draft addressing several clarifications, including how funding is disbursed, scoring simplification and the definition of "third spaces."
Board members recommended several edits: change the packet language from "reimburse" to "fund" for a small direct-payment tier so applicants without up-front cash can access funds; simplify project-scoring from a 1–10 scale to 1–5; and rework a strict three-year "must remain in use" requirement so project duration is considered in scoring rather than being an absolute threshold. Staff agreed to soften the three‑year language and instead rank longer-lasting installations more favorably in the criteria.
The packet links the program to the downtown master plan and includes examples of eligible projects; members asked staff to clarify whether preferred project types should map to particular funding sources and to add clearer examples, including indoor "third spaces" such as pop-up markets or community rooms. The board also discussed enforcement mechanisms for maintenance obligations; staff said owner participation agreements, repayment or clawback language and civil claims are options if recipients fail to maintain funded work.
Grant feedback and Sarah’s emailed comments were read into the record. Sarah supported the tracked changes and suggested adding a field on the application to indicate whether the project requests a direct pay or reimbursement path. Julie Evans and others asked whether a $2,000 direct-pay cap was sufficient; staff said $2,000 paid all costs for some small volunteer-led projects but that the board could adjust the amount (board members discussed $3,000–$5,000 as alternatives).
The board asked staff to: change reimbursement language where appropriate to allow pre-funding for small projects, provide a simplified scoring rubric, add clearer examples of third spaces and show the downtown master plan references with correct capitalization. Staff said they would return a clean draft with those edits at a future meeting.
Separately, Lisa Garcia moved to add to the March agenda a formal vote to create a marketing subcommittee to prepare promotional materials for the downtown enhancement program and broader URA outreach; the motion passed by voice vote. Board members said the subcommittee could draft collateral, plan outreach events and coordinate with partners such as the downtown business improvement district (TBID) and the Park County Housing Coalition. Staff also agreed to invite downtown master-plan consultants to a future meeting.
No final funding allocations were made; the discussion produced direction for redrafting the guidelines and adding outreach items to the next agenda.
