[MissoulaGov] Committee Update 5/20/09

[Jed Taylor]

Thanks.  I guess what I'm wondering is whether anyone knows the reasoning
behind why assessed valuation is so widely considered the preferred method.
It seems to me that of three methods (assessed, square footage, and parcel),
assessed valuation is the least fair, since what a taxpayer receives in
services from his local government has little relation to what his house is
worth, especially relative to others in different neighborhoods within the
city.
 


  _____  

From: Jim McGrath [mailto:jmcgrath at missoulahousing.org] 
Sent: Friday, May 22, 2009 10:42
To: Jed Taylor; missoulagov at cmslists.com
Subject: RE: [MissoulaGov] Committee Update 5/20/09



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/O
perating%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 HotmailR. See how.
<http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/QuickAdd?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutor
ial_QuickAdd1_052009>  

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.cmslists.com/pipermail/missoulagov/attachments/20090528/7084d6d8/attachment.htm>