[MissoulaGov] Committees 8-13-08

[Shakespeare & Co.]

I have a question:

How come nobody ever talks about retaining affordable commercial space
at street level?

Huge implications here.

At 03:15 PM 8/15/2008, Jim McGrath wrote:


>Content-class: urn:content-classes:message

>Content-Type: multipart/alternative; 

>boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C8FF1C.1D0E8B5E"; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-59642B88

>

>Your concerns are ones I share. The Missoula 

>Redevelopment Agency, in actuality, has been 

>pretty concerned about some of those issues as 

>well. The first (downtown) district had a policy 

>regarding not losing housing and assisted the 

>retention and creation of affordable housing. 

>The second district as well, and I assume the 

>third. These policies can be a part of the 

>creation and operation of the district.

>

>By the way, the “carrot” of redevelopment money 

>can make the “stick” of other constraints more 

>effective. A development cannot get 

>redevelopment funds unless they meet zoning 

>requirements, for example, so parking constraints would need to be resolved.

>

>The tension between 

>redevelopment/gentrification/blight is always 

>going to be there. But the political will of communities can shape these.

>

>I think it’s safe to say I have been one of the 

>few critics of redevelopment in Missoula, and I 

>have always acknowledged that our agency has 

>performed far better than the standard at 

>meeting community goals. As I noted before, 

>building parks or helping the Mountain Line 

>(because they have no direct positive impact on 

>taxable value) are not the standard fare for 

>redevelopment agencies. Neither is helping 

>tax-exempt housing projects, like the Bridge 

>Apartments or the Palace apartments.

>

>By the way, unless something changed, the ONLY 

>city funds that the living wage ordinance attaches to are MRA funds. J

>

>I am glad to see some critical thinking and 

>review of redevelopment and some skepticism of this tool.

>

>

>----------

>From: Eric Taylor [mailto:ectbo at hotmail.com]

>Sent: Friday, August 15, 2008 2:42 PM

>To: Jim McGrath; Derek Goldman; Jason Wiener; missoulagov at cmslists.com

>Subject: RE: [MissoulaGov] Committees 8-13-08

>

>So, with the "hip strip" URD there is a chance, 

>at the Penwell building for instance, that the 

>URD could aid the property owner in converting 

>the property into high income condos. Off-street 

>parking requirements, are one of the issues the 

>owner's of the Penwell would face with a conversion.

>

>There was some discussion in the Missoula BID 

>meetings (available on line), about the owner of 

>the Penwell, considering a conversion to condos.

>

>Condo residents would probably have more money 

>to spend in the business district, for some that 

>would be an advantage. Some lower income folks 

>would be displaced by the loss of affordable 

>retals, but that should not be a concern, or should it?

>

>What if people become displaced and are unable 

>to find affordable housing? Our community's 

>point in time homeless surveys have shown the 

>situation in Missoula is getting worse for those 

>living on the edge. One of the possible causes 

>is the lack of affordable housing, combined with 

>low paying jobs. Many of these low wage jobs are 

>service jobs. Many of these are located in the urban core.

>

>Statistics compiled by the Missoula BID, 

>Downtown Ambassadors (also available on line), 

>show a rise in problem behaviors between the 

>haves and the have-nots downtown. Will further 

>gentrification and reduction of affordable 

>rental units help, or hasten the conflicts?

>

>Affordable housing, livable wages, poverty 

>issues, and services for the disadvantaged could 

>all be part of the Missoula BID's Downtown 

>Master Plan. I wonder why this is not the case?

>

>I think if we added these things to the master 

>plan we  could create a Downtown environment 

>that welcomes people from all walks of life.

>

>Here is an interesting article:

>http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695244577,00.html

>

>

>----------

>Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2008 13:32:07 -0600

>From: jmcgrath at missoulahousing.org

>To: derekmgold at hotmail.com; 

>jwiener at ci.missoula.mt.us; missoulagov at cmslists.com

>Subject: Re: [MissoulaGov] Committees 8-13-08

>I’ll take a stab. I’m sure others will chime in if I misstate things.

>

>When an area is designated an urban renewal 

>district, all the properties continue to pay the 

>property taxes they are currently assessed. 

>However, as property values increase (presumably 

>due to redevelopment activities) and so do 

>taxes, the “increment” –i.e. the additional 

>taxes above the starting point­are set aside in the redevelopment fund.

>

>Properties pay taxes to various jurisdictions – 

>the city, the county, the state, the schools, 

>the university, the Mountain Line transit 

>district. Even though the city may be the 

>creator and controller of the redevelopment 

>district, all tax increments feed the fund. And 

>all jurisdictions lose the increment for their 

>general funds during the life of the district.

>

>So yes, the funds come from the general funds of 

>the various bodies (only about one quarter will 

>be from the city), but only the amount that 

>would have been added to the general fund due to 

>increased value since the beginning of the 

>district. If the value in the district does not 

>increase, then there is no fund. The MRA’s 

>second district (URDII) – the one the Champion 

>site is in­grew very little for many years.

>

>There are specific rules about what the funds 

>can be used for, but they are most often used to 

>assist private development activities. The 

>reason for this is built into the logic of how 

>the redevelopment fund works: the funding should 

>be targeted to make property values in the 

>district increase, and to combat “blight.” Our 

>MRA has been more generous than most in 

>committing funds to public works that pay no 

>taxes –like parks­on the theory that they help 

>increase overall values. But more likely they will go to tax-paying projects.

>

>Yes it is a subsidy to private and usually commercial property.

>

>

>----------

>From: missoulagov-bounces at cmslists.com 

>[mailto:missoulagov-bounces at cmslists.com] On Behalf Of Derek Goldman

>Sent: Friday, August 15, 2008 1:18 PM

>To: Jason Wiener; missoulagov at cmslists.com

>Subject: Re: [MissoulaGov] Committees 8-13-08

>

>re, the proposed urban renewal district for the Hip Strip:

>Can someone please explain to me how this works? 

>if so designated, would funds for "renewal" 

>projects come from general tax revenues? Would 

>these funds only apply to projects on public 

>property (like sidewallks) or could they fund 

>improvements to someone's privately-owned 

>commercial property? ie: does this amount to a 

>public subsidy of highly-valued private commercial property?

>(no offense to the Hip Strippers-- I love that 

>neighborhood! Just concerned about what is the 

>best use of city funds during times of a budget 

>shortfall, and whether this is the most-blighted neighborhood). --Derek

>

>

>----------

>Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2008 07:56:15 -0600

>From: JWiener at ci.missoula.mt.us

>To: missoulagov at cmslists.com

>Subject: [MissoulaGov] Committees 8-13-08

>Bob is on vacation once more. I will be filling in.

>

>Public Health and Safety started off the day 

>with an update from the police department. The 

>session focused mostly on the Hells Angels 

>weekend. Chief Muir said that the police "could 

>not have planned for [the weekend] to go as 

>smoothly  as it did." Still, the visit cost 

>Missoula an extra $93,000 in overtime and other 

>costs; savings of $46,000 from the budgeted 

>amount were realized by scheduling training and 

>the like for times when officers were not 

>patrolling. Chief Muir  pointed out that the 

>overall volume of criminal activity in town went 

>down during the weekend, which just goes to show 

>that having an extra 60 some police officers on 

>duty reduces crime. The guiding philosophy of 

>the police during the weekend seemed like to be 

>harm reduction. Other than responding to 

>specific complaints on incidents, the police 

>didn't engage our visitors for surveillance and 

>interdiction. There were federal officers around 

>for those purposes and they were in town and at 

>the Testicle Festival. The main criminal 

>activity seems to be some drug arrests in 

>conjunction with a reported sexual assault 

>(still under investigation) and a concealed 

>weapons charge. To keep the police presence from 

>being overwhelming foot and mobile patrols were 

>limited to 32 officers in downtown at one time. 

>Chief Muir reported no complaints about too much police over the weekend.

>

>We also looked at preliminary racial profiling 

>numbers, just the number of stops by demographic 

>group. A citations versus warnings analysis is 

>still being calculated. The counts were required 

>by legislation from the last state legislative 

>session. The results basically follow the 

>population distribution except for African 

>Americans, who were pulled over at a rate four 

>times greater than their representation in the 

>Census population. Chief Muir speculated that 

>the Census data inaccurately represented the 

>number of African Americans in town or that 

>their representation in populations just passing 

>through, but not living in town, was high enough 

>to explain the difference (160 stops of African 

>Americans vs about 40 that would have been 

>predicted). Chief Muir added that if those stops 

>yield high warning rates, as opposed to 

>citations, it might be a sign that the 

>disproportionate stops are less warranted, which 

>would be a troubling set of events. At any rate 

>over 90% of the stops were Caucasians, like our population.

>

>The Chief closed with a warning that the 

>department will be short staffed and might not 

>meet all its benchmarks. Right now, they are 

>authorized to have 102 officers but there are 4 

>vacancies and 7 officers on limited or light 

>duty (2 permanently). Coming soon, a couple 

>police officers will be deployed to Iraq, which 

>will further reduce our local force and hamper 

>the Chief's ambition to do problem-oriented 

>policing, which is aimed at root causes rather 

>than criminal behaviors. This wasn't, he said, a 

>plea for more personnel but a warning that 

>performance might lag because of the shortages.

>

>In PAZ, talked about a conflict in the 

>calculation of height regulations on hillsides. 

>The issue arises because of the discrepancy 

>between the natural slope of a hill and the 

>finished slope, after grading and all. All 

>parties seemed to feel like the issue was being 

>addressed in the zoning rewrite and that there 

>was not sufficient urgency to justify amending 

>the existing ordinance ahead of the rewrite, 

>provided that is successful, which we all hope it will be.

>

>In A&F, we took up a request from commercial 

>property owners in the vicinity of the Hip Strip 

>to go looking for blight, which would be the 

>first step toward creating an urban renewal 

>district for the Hip Strip. There wasn't a heck 

>of a lot of concern that there won't be 

>opportunities to find blight; see the memo for 

>some suggestions from the neighborhood at 

><ftp://www.ci.missoula.mt.us/Packets/Council/2008/2008-07-21/Referrals/HipStripRequest.pdf>ftp://www.ci.missoula.mt.us/Packets/Council/2008/2008-07-21/Referrals/HipStripRequest.pdf. 

>Some of the impetus for the request seemed to be 

>coming from projects in the planning phases that 

>would require structured parking. I have a 

>financial concerns with putting growth in urban 

>renewal districts since the property tax cap 

>makes it so the only way to keep revenues in 

>line with inflation is by adding new property to 

>the tax rolls. If development is happening 

>anyway, we would be causing future budget 

>issues. Ellen Buchanan pointed out the URD 

>revenue can and is often used for public works 

>projects that would otherwise need to be paid 

>for from the general fund so the URD can 

>function complimentarily rather than 

>competitively. One of the catalyzing projects is 

>a proposed redo of the Penwell building, the 

>white three story number on the corner of 3rd 

>and Higgins. The owners may request rezoning to 

>add height. While this is an accepted practice 

>in historic restoration, one person from the 

>neighborhood appeared to register opposition. I 

>think we got some foreshadowing of some 

>resistance from the neighborhood to increased 

>heights and more urban character that might come 

>with redevelopment. We decided to proceed with 

>the blight study since it doesn't commit us to a 

>cause of action but the vote was not unanimous 

>and the full Council won't consider the question 

>until August 25 so Ellen can go on vacation next week.

>

>After lunch, we returned to the budget. Because 

>the state has told us that we have grown 

>considerably more slowly than we thought based 

>on building permits and because insurance 

>premiums went up significantly, we are on the 

>wrong side of a balanced budget right now, 

>mostly since the tax base ended up being smaller 

>than anticipated. The mayor's budget included a 

>3.5% increase in property taxes--1.92% for a 

>general obligation bond approved for the Miller 

>Creek fire station and the balance to cover 

>inflation and new budget requests. The 

>administration said that raising taxes by 4.82% 

>instead of 3.5% would cover the difference, if 

>that is the direction we decide to go. Since 

>city taxes are about 30% of a property tax bill, 

>the increase to what a person pays would be 

>about 1.4% with the voted debt service for the 

>fire station or .88% without that debt service. 

>The total cost would be something like $26 for a 

>$225,000 home; the additional bump would be $7 on that home.

>

>Mentioning taxes produced some talk reflecting 

>deep-seated angst about paying for city 

>services. Once the venting was done, we decided 

>to proceed by deciding exactly what needs to be 

>funded and then figure out where that puts us 

>relative to the need for additional tax revenue 

>rather than starting with a revenue number. Next 

>week in committee each Council member will bring 

>forward specific suggestions, which were not 

>bountiful during committee, and we'll seek to 

>whittle our costs down to the bone before 

>returning to the revenue issue. We did dispense 

>with some outstanding expense items, deciding 

>that a raise for the municipal judge and small 

>additional requests from the city band ($1000) 

>and the Missoula Cultural Council ($2500) were 

>not feasible in the current climate. Marilyn 

>also removed her request for an energy 

>conservation officer, which wasn't in the 

>mayor's budget but seems necessary if we are 

>going to seriously reduce the city's energy 

>consumption and CO2 emissions. That's 

>unfortunate because it is a position that could 

>pay for itself with even small efficiencies. 

>Stacy succeeded in persuading us to add $35,000 

>to the neighborhood parks maintenance fund (now 

>at $125,000 rather than the $250,000 planned for 

>last year) so we can start knocking out 

>bathroom, lighting and trail upgrades that will 

>need to precede replacing playground equipment 

>and the like. We will have to figure out how to 

>finance that increase along with whatever else makes it through committee.

>

>We have until mid-September to pass a budget and 

>we'll be spending a few more weeks to wrap it up, I expect.

>

>Thanks for your interest,

>J.

>

>*******

>Jason Wiener, Alderman, Ward One

>1238 Jackson St.

>Missoula, MT 59802

>                (406) 542-3232

>jwiener at ci.missoula.mt.us

>

>

>

>----------

>Talk to your Yahoo! Friends via Windows Live 

>Messenger. 

><http://www.windowslive.com/explore/messenger?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_messenger_yahoo_082008>Find 

>Out How

>

>

>----------

>Talk to your Yahoo! Friends via Windows Live 

>Messenger. 

><http://www.windowslive.com/explore/messenger?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_messenger_yahoo_082008>Find 

>Out How

>_______________________________________________

>Note: This list is NOT an official service of 

>the City Of Missoula. But posts to this list may 

>be entered into the public record.

>Subscribe or view archives at Missoulagov.org

>List Serve hosting provided by www.CedarMountainSoftware.com.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.cmslists.com/pipermail/missoulagov/attachments/20080815/e8fae16f/attachment.htm>