[MissoulaGov] Committees 8-13-08

[Jim McGrath]

Well, again, as in the case of housing, a public redevelopment agency could have a policy of preserving or increasing affordable commercial space. However, the tool to do that might have limited impacts. 
essentially, redevelopment districts and other public subsidy programs (which Missoula has few to choose from other than tax increment districts) offer a trade off of tax funded support tied --if they choose to-- to social goals, whatever they might be. 
How effective those linkages are depends on a lot of things --many beyond local control. (Like the larger economic condition.)

Again --as a critical voice re the MRA-- I have to say that Missoula has tried more than many communities have to enforce community goals through its redevelopment subsidies. with mixed success.


-----Original Message-----
From: Geoff Badenoch [mailto:geoffb at ism.net]
Sent: Fri 8/15/2008 6:40 PM
To: 'Shakespeare & Co.'; Jim McGrath; 'Eric Taylor'; 'Derek Goldman'; 'Jason Wiener'; missoulagov at cmslists.com
Subject: RE: [MissoulaGov] Committees 8-13-08
 
I don't have a good answer for that-at least one I am certain or satisfied
about.  If I had to guess, I would say it probably has something to do with
the "commercial" nature of the space.  It has to do with market forces, that
is, people who have commercial space get to lease it for what the market
will bear.  The market determines what is "affordable."  With respect to
housing, something everyone needs, society typically recognizes that it is
possible for the market to price some people out of the market altogether so
we create housing assistance programs, housing authorities with public
housing, etc.  I think it could be argued that we don't do enough to
mitigate the market forces of housing affordability, but that wasn't your
question.

 

Back in the 80's before the reinvestment and redevelopment of Downtown
occurred, it was the run down commercial part of Missoula.  Southgate Mall
had been open for five years or so and the Downtown was dim, dirty and broke
down.  Ironically, it was the only place a new generation of entrepreneurs
could afford to rent commercial space to do business.  Many great Missoula
businesses that I have loved for years-today's established Downtowners-got
their start there then.  Yep, this stuff goes in cycles and I am now old
enough to say I have seen the cycles come and go.

 

-----Original Message-----
From: missoulagov-bounces at cmslists.com
[mailto:missoulagov-bounces at cmslists.com] On Behalf Of Shakespeare & Co.
Sent: Friday, August 15, 2008 4:27 PM
To: Jim McGrath; Eric Taylor; Derek Goldman; Jason Wiener;
missoulagov at cmslists.com
Subject: Re: [MissoulaGov] Committees 8-13-08

 

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. :-) 
 
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 <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
point-are 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 in-grew 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 parks-on 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
<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/HipStr
ipRequest.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. Find
<http://www.windowslive.com/explore/messenger?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_messenger_ya
hoo_082008>  Out How
 

  _____  

Talk to your Yahoo! Friends via Windows Live Messenger. Find
<http://www.windowslive.com/explore/messenger?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_messenger_ya
hoo_082008>  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
<http://www.cedarmountainsoftware.com/> . 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.cmslists.com/pipermail/missoulagov/attachments/20080815/b238edf9/attachment.htm>