[MissoulaGov] committee update 6-10-09

[Bob Jaffe]

Maybe Jim or someone from the housing crowd can post a link to the
income numbers you request.  

The 3500 number is correct. It includes all the older homes in the
districts like the University area. The ordinance will follow right
behind the zoning rewrite and will be considered a rezone for the
subject properties. They all will be receiving advance notice of the
planning board hearings.

 

From: missoulagov-bounces at cmslists.com
[mailto:missoulagov-bounces at cmslists.com] On Behalf Of Jed Taylor
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 2:26 AM
To: missoulagov at cmslists.com
Subject: Re: [MissoulaGov] committee update 6-10-09

 

There are 3,500 qualifying properties in Missoula that will come under
historic preservation control?  If that number is not a typo, is this a
function of some rather large districts where individual properties get
scooped up by one net?  How does this work dovetail with the zoning
rewrite work?

 

Also, is there any information available somewhere to estimate just how
many Missoula residents make 80% or less of the AMI?  What is the AMI?
These numbers would be rather revealing as to how income is distributed,
how it's likely not a bell curve, and how many people - council members
included - would qualify.

 

Also, am I to fear this rabble that seeks affordable housing in a town
where many are getting by working two or three jobs at $10 / hour?  Or
should I reserve my concern for local legislators this out of touch with
what's going on in their own city and seem to be afraid of pretty much
everything that comes before the Council, and who apparently assume
someone who isn't pulling down six figures is an untouchable sure to
ruin the neighborhood?

 

It's the casual public comments I find to be the most revealing.

 

 

 

________________________________

From: missoulagov-bounces at cmslists.com
[mailto:missoulagov-bounces at cmslists.com] On Behalf Of Bob Jaffe
Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 23:33
To: missoulagov at cmslists.com
Subject: [MissoulaGov] committee update 6-10-09

Greetings,

First I want to thank the folks who contributed comments last week
regarding the cost of developing housing in Missoula. The information
was very helpful.

 

In Conservation this morning we reviewed the plan for the development of
the new Silver park at the Mill Site.  Nothing really new from past
Millsite presentations I have seen. There will be some loop trails and a
central patio type structure.  There was some discussion about reducing
the amount of turf grass and incorporating native grasses and other low
water plantings where appropriate.

The plan is still to put in the parking lot near the stadium and
complete the connection to California street this summer for sure. MRA
is also looking at putting the whole park out to bid to see how it comes
back. If the stars align they may just go ahead and build the whole
thing this year.

 

In PAZ we heard a presentation about historic preservation from Jennifer
Buddenborg of the National Trust for Historic Preservation. The gist was
that historic preservation makes a place unique and desirable. It is
green and sustainable. It creates jobs, increases tourism, and is good
for the economy. Our next item was to consider sending the new historic
preservation ordinance to the planning board. This is an amendment to
the zoning code to incorporate an extra review process to protect
historic assets.  This came before us a while ago but it had too many
problems to move forward. The current version is much closer to
something that could be adopted so we did vote to send it on.

The basic idea is that there will be an inventory maintained of all
historic assets. These are properties that are on the historic register,
qualify to be on the register, or are contributing properties to an
historic district.  Currently there are about 3500 such properties
identified in Missoula. In order to get a building permit to do anything
to the exterior of one of these properties there will be an extra step
where the preservation officer will need to review the application to
confirm that the project is appropriate. Some projects will be able to
be confirmed by the preservation officer, some will need to go to the
preservation commission. Approval will be based upon a number of factors
including design standards to be developed for each historic district.
It will be very interesting to see how this progresses through planning
board.

 

After lunch we reconvened for A&F. We looked at a project being put
together by the Rocky Mountain Development Group to purchase the old
Missoula Athletic Club.  The MAC went under a couple of years ago. The
property has since been foreclosed on by the banks. Fortunately this
qualifies the property for the Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP).
The NSP is the piece of the bailout funding that went to help foreclosed
homeowners. There are the traditional set of strange rules and hoops to
jump through but in the end Montana gets about $19 million. Rick
Wishcamper and his partner Mike are the local experts on how to put
together for profit real estate deals with the government's money. For
this project they are requesting $5 million in NSP money plus an
additional $400,000 or so from another federal pot. That covers about
half the cost of the $10 million dollar project. The other half also
comes from the feds from some kind of HUD loan program. They are going
to build a 115 unit complex on the 3.5 acre site and rent the units to
folks who are at 80% area median income. The way the rules all work out
that means they could rent a two bedroom apartment for $722 including
utilities. It sounds like a pretty sweet deal for the developer but I
guess that's what public private partnerships are all about. The feds
are dumping all kinds of money into getting properties out of
foreclosure and creating affordable housing. That's exactly what these
guys are doing.

As a side note, Renee voiced concern about the hazards of putting 115
low income households all in the same place. She thought it was ironic
that the funds were for neighborhood stabilization when this many poor
people in the same place was likely to destabilize the neighborhood. She
appeared to be having trouble finding the right word to describe the
element that would live in such housing. Jason pointed out that he
himself was the element since he easily qualified. Stacy also noted that
her family purchased their home through assistance programs from
HomeWord. Renee conceded that it was likely she herself may fit into the
80% AMI category.

The discussion reinforces the point that most folks can't afford housing
in this town. I imagine that just about everyone on council would be
hard pressed to purchase a home in today's market if they didn't already
have equity. This was the point of the video the Mayor's office put out
last year. To show that the folks who need assistance in housing are not
destitute and impoverished, but are just like you and me. So no reason
to be fearful of "affordable" homes in your neighborhood.   

We voted to authorize the mayor to send the application on to the state
to compete for the NSP funds.

 

In public Works we set the public hearing to establish SID 544 to
install sewer lines in a chunk of the middle rattlesnake. Will Snodgrass
was there and made much fuss about the legality of the whole process and
again challenged the integrity of Steve King and Bruce Bender. He seems
quite certain that these two are pulling off some kind of nefarious scam
against the people of Missoula. If I understand him right, his complaint
is that we should not be using federal funds to install the sewer unless
we have first fully evaluated alternative methods of disposal.  I take
it he thinks the alternative methods are superior and we haven't given
them due consideration.

 

Once we were full on into the bored and sleepy part of the day we took
up the budget again. Still not really a whole lot going on there.
Everyone has cut back on all sorts of stuff. The administration has come
up with a scheme to fund what's left. We're not really in a position to
argue whether some department's office supply budget is appropriate.
I'm sure there is always a little more we could squeeze out of the
departments but sitting on council all we know is what they tell us. If
they are asking for new money we can debate whether we think the new
thing is worthy of the taxpayers money. But this year they were all
requested to find 3% to cut from their budgets. They are presenting us
with the list of how they have tightened up to get there.  So far these
lists appear well thought through and I haven't seen much to challenge.

 

Thanks for your interest, 

    

 

Bob Jaffe

Missoula City Council, Ward 3

1225 South 2nd West

Missoula, MT 59801

(406) 728-1052

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.cmslists.com/pipermail/missoulagov/attachments/20090611/acfbd96e/attachment.htm>