[MissoulaGov] Committee Update 5/20/09

[LaNette Diaz]

>From prior research, cities in Montana that use maintenance districts do so

based on sq. footage.

ld

On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 10:41 AM, Jim McGrath
<jmcgrath at missoulahousing.org>wrote:


>  I’ll take a stab.

>

> Taxes are based the way they are because that is how state law –in all

> states—is written.

>

> Districts can be assessed using several formula’s – frontage, value, or by

> parcel –each property assessed the same.

>

> The governing body chooses.

>

> Each technique is ‘fair’ and each technique has winners and losers.

>

>

>

> *From:* missoulagov-bounces at cmslists.com [mailto:

> missoulagov-bounces at cmslists.com] *On Behalf Of *Jed Taylor

> *Sent:* Friday, May 22, 2009 10:25 AM

> *To:* missoulagov at cmslists.com

>

> *Subject:* Re: [MissoulaGov] Committee Update 5/20/09

>

>

>

> Why are property taxes based on assessed valuation and not square footage?

> Isn't the case that maintenance districts are assessed by square footage

> without regard to assessed valuation?

>

>

>

>

>

>

>  ------------------------------

>

> *From:* missoulagov-bounces at cmslists.com [mailto:

> missoulagov-bounces at cmslists.com] *On Behalf Of *Bob Jaffe

> *Sent:* Friday, May 22, 2009 08:09

> *To:* Eric Taylor; missoulagov at cmslists.com

> *Subject:* Re: [MissoulaGov] Committee Update 5/20/09

>

> There probably will be some tendency to say that taxes are not going up if

> we drop the general fund mills even though we are replacing it with a

> maintenance district. It’s possible that the swap will in fact be a wash but

> also likely there will be an increase. Folks have been wanting greater

> investment in a number of areas that maintenance districts can help. I’m not

> sure if the added specificity as to where the money will be spent will be

> enough to make an increase palatable.

>

> At our last meeting Mr. Hendrickson said that we shouldn’t ask for more

> taxes until we cleaned our own house a little better. I believe he is

> suggesting that there is more money to be had through efficiencies and

> savings. I’m hoping he brings forward something specific enough for us all

> to discuss in a way that fits into the protocol of how the budget gets

> processed.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>  ------------------------------

>

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

> *Sent:* Thu 5/21/2009 4:52 PM

> *To:* Bob Jaffe; missoulagov at cmslists.com

> *Subject:* RE: [MissoulaGov] Committee Update 5/20/09

>

> <<according to my crystal ball there will be maintenance districts on our

> tax bills this November.>>

>

> <<Bottom line is that they are proposing to keep taxes static.>>

>

> If I understand this correctly, the tax bill we receive in the mail this

> November- the amount we will be required to pay in FY 2010 will go up, but

> it is not because of higher taxes. It is because of the soon to be referred

> and approved maintenance district(s).

>

> <<We are the only major city in Montana that has not structured its taxes

> this way.>>

>

> Your tax bill will go up, but we did not raise taxes. This sounds like

> administrative election year magic to me.

>  ------------------------------

>

> Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 21:59:09 -0600

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

> To: missoulagov at cmslists.com

> Subject: [MissoulaGov] Committee Update 5/20/09

>

> Greetings,

>

> We started the day late with PAZ at ten. Our first item was to look at a

> few modifications to the Mill Site project. There were a couple of minor

> plat amendments and a phasing plan. The new phasing plan calls for the bulk

> of the project to be built in 2012 with the northwest portion being built in

> 2015. We also learned that the stadium parking lot will be built this summer

> as well as the trail connection to California street. The MRA board is

> considering putting the whole park development out to bid for construction

> this summer. Bonding and Bidding environments may be good enough right now

> to support getting the whole thing done up front. We are going to get a more

> detailed update on all that in Conservation.

>

>

>

> One of the sticking points in the project has been the road under the

> tracks connecting to Cregg lane.  Way back when, the bridge was built to go

> over a log pond. Not a road. So now that they want to put a big road with

> lots of traffic under it, MRL is saying no deal.  They want the developer to

> build them a new bridge to the tune of a million bucks.  We learned that

> negotiations had progressed to where the developer was on board with this

> idea and just needed to figure out how to pay for it. Otherwise the holdup

> is just deciding when it is the right time to pull the trigger.  Once they

> start they will need to make millions of dollars of additional investment in

> infrastructure before they can sell the first lot.  They need to be

> confident that the market is ready before they start the process rolling. It

> turns out that they are lucky DEQ stalled the project for an extra year

> because otherwise there is a good chance they would have poured all that

> money in right before the market cooled down and the whole thing could have

> gone bust.

>

>

>

> Next was setting the public hearing to consider RLD 4 zoning for the Gables

> subdivision in Orchard Homes. We approved this subdivision a couple of years

> ago. There was a successful zoning protest and a supermajority was not there

> to support the zoning. So it was annexed and subdivided with no zoning in

> place.  Then the developer never built the thing and the plat is scheduled

> to expire next week. He has indicated that he would like to do mini-storage

> units on the site. Last week his attorney, Alan McCormick, sent us a letter

> indicating we had no right to try to regulate what he did with the property

> since it is not zoned. So we decided to go ahead and zone it.

>

> For now the proposal is for interim zoning of RLD 4 which is what the

> original proposal called for. Then we will send it through the formal

> process with planning board to establish permanent zoning.

>

> The developer’s representative, Nick Kaufman of WGM group, was there to

> explain that they were indeed looking at a mini-storage project for the

> site. They intend to work with the neighbors to develop a proposal and come

> in with a PUD request.  Dave had some choice words as to his feelings on

> mini-storage facilities. I can’t find the quote but it was something to the

> effect of ‘vile scourge on the landscape.’ Regardless of the varying

> opinions on these places the committee members voted to set the public

> hearing to establish interim zoning.

>

>

>

> Our next item was an update from Mike Barton and Roger Millar on the work

> plan and work load at OPG. Urban initiatives has pretty much the same stuff

> going on next year except they budgeted a bunch of time to develop an

> Agriculture lands policy. Roger did a presentation on the OPG workload

> through the first three quarters of FY09. The gist is that things are slower

> than last year but this last quarter has picked up substantially. Overall

> fee revenue is down something like 7%. Not really that bad considering what

> is going on in other places around the country. The powerpoint will be

> attached to the PAZ minutes and is worth looking at if you are into that

> stuff.

>

>

>

> In A&F we took up the maintenance district discussion. We discussed this on

> the list a couple of weeks ago. The basic idea is that we have the authority

> to set up maintenance districts to tax people for certain stuff like

> maintaining the roads or the parks or the trees and a few other things.

> These districts can be for very small areas or for the whole city.  The

> appeal of maintenance districts is that they are outside of our mill levy

> cap. The legislature, in its infinite wisdom, has prohibited us from raising

> our general fund mill levy by more than half the rate of inflation. This of

> course means that we eventually go broke. Maintenance districts give us the

> ability to cost shift a bunch of stuff outside of this limitation. We are

> the only major city in Montana that has not structured its taxes this way.

> There is definitely some controversy here but according to my crystal ball

> there will be maintenance districts on our tax bills this November.

>

>

>

> There were two good items in Public Works. We set the public hearing for an

> SID to finally do some traffic calming on Philips street.  There will be a

> few of these things that make you curve right and then left when you go

> through the intersection. They seem to work and the fire trucks can get

> through them OK. There will also be a bunch of bulb outs near the school as

> part of the safe routes to school program.

>

> We also directed staff to come up with some proposals for reducing the

> speed limit on Reserve street near the CS Porter school. DOT did a traffic

> study and determined that we can set it as low as 30 MPH and they offered to

> pay for the various signing facilities. There are a number of options on how

> exactly we want to implement this so staff is going to work on it and bring

> back a package for us to take through the process. School representatives

> were there to encourage us to make the reductions full time instead of just

> during specific hours since they have events going on all day every day.

> They also offered special thanks to Jim Hausauer and Reggie Bardgett for

> pushing this effort forward.

>

>

>

> In Budget Committee of the Whole (BCOW) the Mayor presented the

> administrative budget for FY2010.  Lots of other press on this so I’m not

> going to dwell on it too much. Bottom line is that they are proposing to

> keep taxes static. It all works because we had a reduction of $450,000 in

> our General Obligation bond payments and they are proposing to cut the

> contribution to the employee health plan by $500,000. Magic! We pick up

> $950,000 to keep the general fund solvent without raising taxes. The

> administration argues that the health fund is in plenty good shape without

> the money but it sounds like the police union may be feeling a bit more

> protective about the employer contribution. It is currently about $680 per

> month per employee. It would go down $100 per month with the

> administration’s proposal. More to come on this in the next few weeks.

> Budget details can be found here:

>

>

> ftp://www.ci.missoula.mt.us/documents/Council_Review_FY10_Operating_Budget/Operating%20Budget/

>

>

>

>

>

> Thanks for your interest,

>

>

>

> Bob Jaffe

>

> Missoula City Council, Ward 3

>

> bjaffe at ci.missoula.mt.us

>

> 406-728-1052

>

> Messages and attachments sent to or from this e-mail account pertaining to

> City business may be considered public or private records depending on the

> message content. The City is often required by law to provide city records

> to individuals requesting records, some of which are not public records and

> have limited scope of distribution pursuant to state law. The City is

> required by law to protect private, confidential information. This message

> is intended for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are

> not the intended recipient of this transmission, please notify the sender

> immediately, do not forward the message to anyone, and delete all copies.

> Thank you.

>

>

>  ------------------------------

>

> Insert movie times and more without leaving Hotmail®. See how.<http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/QuickAdd?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_QuickAdd1_052009>

>

> _______________________________________________

> -----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/20090522/df6de2d9/attachment.htm>