[MissoulaGov] committee update 6-10-09

[Daniel S. Hall]

There is some confusion on this discussion that needs to be addressed, I want to address what I feel is probably one of the more recurring themes that needs clarification.  The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 allows private property owners to decline listing as a historic resource.  Historic private property that is listed on the National Register of Historic Places or eligible for listing on the National Register occurs only with the consent of the private property owner.  This has been the standard approach for the National Register and private property for over four decades.  Dan Hall
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Ryan Morton 
  To: missoulagov at cmslists.com 
  Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 5:54 PM
  Subject: Re: [MissoulaGov] committee update 6-10-09


  Perhaps, the Hist. Pres. Officer could have more power to administratively approve projects so that less folks have to go through a hearing to get a building permit.  People who are upset about their property being listed as historic should chime in now or get their properties delisted asap.

  Anyhow, I'll hold off more comments until the planning board hearing.

  Ryan Morton
  Government Affairs Director
  Missoula Building Industry Association
  406.543.4423 or 406.546.0902 (cell)
  ryan at buildmissoula.com




------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  From: missoulagov-bounces at cmslists.com [mailto:missoulagov-bounces at cmslists.com] On Behalf Of Geoff Badenoch
  Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 8:39 AM
  To: 'Bob Jaffe'; missoulagov at cmslists.com
  Subject: Re: [MissoulaGov] committee update 6-10-09


  Putting on my prognosticator's hat with respect to the historic preservation issue, I predict most heartburn will be generated by "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. 



  I wonder if this is the best way to go about this. Maybe it is, because historic preservation is a good thing.  It ties us to our past, older structures are interesting to look at and provide a valuable visual texture to local architecture and so on. That said, historic preservation seems to always have to make its case over and over again every generation.  And every so often, it turns to regulation to help do its important work.  Yet, like so many issues in Missoula, we are setting the table for yet another classic Missoula confrontation that may end up setting us back on this issue.  "It will add cost to my project!" "This added step is taking time I don't have--winter is coming!" "It's dangerous to put so much power into one person's (the historic preservation officer) hands" "You mean I need someone's historic OK to re-roof my family's home?" "If the Historic Preservation Commission is unable to get a quorum in order to act on an issue, it gets postponed?" Some of these predictable objections are more relevant than others, but I can hear the wailing and anti-government voices tuning up. Ideally our community would be able to create a workable approach to supporting meaningful historic preservation, but I am afraid the process Bob has described makes me think we will either end up eroding support for historic preservation, or making local government look bad, or both.  



  Geoff Badenoch

  P   Please consider the environment before printing this email. 

  -----Original Message-----
  From: missoulagov-bounces at cmslists.com [mailto:missoulagov-bounces at cmslists.com] On Behalf Of Bob Jaffe
  Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 11:33 PM
  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





------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  _______________________________________________
  -----Please delete extra content when replying to messages------

  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/20090611/d1fa5f92/attachment.htm>