[MissoulaGov] committee update 8-20-08

[Geoff Badenoch]

[For the record, I used to work for the Missoula Housing Authority on the
Market Square and Garden District projects]

 

Thanks to the Council Committee for the attention given to the MHA Garden
District low-income housing project.  I think there will be few arguments
about the necessity of this project, and that the site is appropriate for
it. At the very outset of its project planning, MHA offered to grant the
City--at no cost--the easement needed to construct and maintain the tunnel
because it helps the community expand its trail system and would be a
convenience to MHA residents and neighbors. That's the kind of attitude the
community wants all of its developers to have.  This was its position up
through 2007 and it may still be.

 

By way of history, it is important to remember the fact that this MHA
project was originally conceived in 2003 or so.  At the time, the community
had already spent nearly two years doing planning work on Russell Street and
Russell Street Bridge reconstruction.  And yet, the initiation date of the
Russell Street public improvements kept being pushed off-first 2006, then
2007, then 2010--now it's even further out.  There were problems with
getting the original project consultants to get the job done and they had to
be separated from the project.  Those squabbles consumed a lot of planning
time and money. That situation was completely out of the MHA's sphere of
influence yet it directly affected its project planning.

 

The money for actually constructing the Russell project, including the $6
million from the Feds for the Bridge, has been eroding at a minimum of 5-10%
a year due to inflation, while the prospect of additional state, local and
federal resources for the Russell projects is diminishing.  It is looks to
me like we are in an expanding universe on the Russell project-it is going
away from us at an accelerating rate.  And we still don't have agreement on
the Draft EIS eight years into the project. One of the reasons MHA is having
such a hard time telling the City what the future of the land on Russell
will be is because, for a host of reasons, the future of Russell Street
itself is so uncertain. (To some extent, I believe this also affects the
homeWORD mixed-use/low income housing project at the Liberty Lanes site, but
I can't speak to that.) Again, Russell Street project management was outside
of MHA's control.

 

There was a time when the MHA imagined its land improvements and the Russell
Street improvements were going to occur contemporaneously by now.  Under
that scenario, it is possible to stage construction and improvements in a
coordinated and cost-saving fashion.  With the Russell Street project
continuing to recede into the future, the MHA land value faces downward
pressure.  It's plain to see why.  Anyone who might buy that frontage on
Russell and build something there would have to do so with the knowledge
that someday Russell Street (and its Bridge) is going to be completely torn
up for a year or more. [Or, it's NOT going to get done and the existing
sub-standard situation would continue.].  Also, a BIG hole would have to be
dug next to the new owner's property to accommodate a tunnel that has to go
under both Russell Street and the sewer beneath the street. That really
makes it disappointingly hard to market a commercial property.  On the other
hand, if Russell Street and the Bridge had been completed--even the first
phase from Broadway to Third-the value of the MHA land (and the accompanying
property taxes) would have gone way up.  The longer the future of Russell
Street remains uncertain, the more likely the community will see a less than
desirable use on the frontage. Not because MHA wants to see crappy
development, but because they will, over time, become less choosy about to
whom they sell the land.  Who could blame them?

 

Under the circumstances, it seems to me to be very unfair to ask MHA to bear
untenable burdens for the cost of public improvements which the City imposes
when the Russell Street project is one the City itself has failed to
meaningfully advance.  

 

For that reason, I hope the Council can be patient with the Missoula Housing
Authority and realize it has done its work in good faith. I am hopeful a
spirit of compromise can continue in the discussions of the project
requirements.  

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.cmslists.com/pipermail/missoulagov/attachments/20080821/7dc96142/attachment.htm>