President Jones Under new business, we have our legislative update and action on bills. And Jessica, are you here to present on that? So Mr. Carlino, I see your hand is up. We're going to have the report first from staff and then we'll go to your specific item, okay? That's the order of business. So, all right Jessica, are you here to present on this?
Jessica Miller Good evening. Hi, Jessica Miller in the Mayor's office. Let's see, it's been a couple of weeks since I presented and so there are a number of new bills that are not great for local government that have popped up and are moving through the legislature. So, some of the local government spending bills that we are seeing, we have House Bill 865, which is local government expenditure limit this one is very similar to House Bill 324, which died in committee in-house local government earlier in the in earlier in the session. HB 865 is very similar, that one has a hearing tomorrow morning, it just limits what local government can spend. It limits it to the rate of population increase plus inflation, and Senate Bill 519 is revised laws related to maximum mill levies. That one is new since the last meeting we had here, or the last meeting I spoke at anyway. And Senate Bill 511 is revised government entity limitations on property tax increases. Senate Bill 523 is generally revised tax increment financing laws and that one had a hearing today over in Helena. That one would completely change our, our entire tax increment financing program. So, those bills have all come up in the last couple of weeks and they're all still in committee and either had hearings in the last week or will within the next couple of days. Excuse me. Other bills that we've got in committees this week, we have Senate Bill 379 which revises zoning laws. This is a bill that a lot of language was taken out of other dead bills and, and put into this one for some ADU’s and things like that, so we're, we're pushing back against that one and really trying to, to move forward with Senate Bill 382 which is the larger land use bill which provides, it really improves land use for all communities and yet allows each community to kind of grow in the way that works best for them and still allows local residents to have, have good input. Other bills that we see in committee tomorrow, we have Senate Bill 381. It requires, that's one of, that's the one that would require one City Council member per ward of first-class cities, and we have talking points for our lobbyist on that. And Senate Bill 420, which would require the election of City officials on even number of years, and we have our lobbyist ready to testify on that one as well tomorrow, against that one as well. So, we are testifying against both of those. Senate Bill 500 is the uniform duration limit for latecomer agreements, which that's when people pay extra developers, pay extra to upsize a pipe for example and then additional property owners pay that back as they as they add to onto it later and this would limit that payback time to three years, which of course usually it takes 15 or 20 years for, for all that construction to be seen through. So, we are, we are testifying against that one as well. We did see two new bills that were both introduced since the last time I presented to you, and both passed out of committee today. So, it's House Bill 825 providing funding to address an affordable housing and House Bill 829 established a Montana Workforce housing tax credit, and both of those we are supporting and both of those did pass out of committee today. So, that is good news on the housing front and it's nice to see those moving forward and then another new bill that was just introduced that we don't have a hearing for yet is Senate Bill 551, which is this session's iteration of the tourist tax, which would allow us to capture a little bit of that tourism revenue that that we see from our I think it's 3 million tourists we get each year and be able to put a little bit of a tax on hotels, dining out, and rental cars those things that that the visitors to Missoula do and be able to use it for some property tax relief. So, that is my report for this week.
President Jones Thank you Jessica. I understand, all right, well we do have a motion that we're going to entertain that I think is on Senate Bill 323, but as for the report that Jessica just gave, any questions regarding the report? So, Ms. Sherrill.
Alderperson Sherrill Thanks. First, I wanted to say that the attachment on the legislative update is actually the committee schedule, so I'm hoping we can get that changed because it's nice to be able to look through all the bills and where we are with everything so hopefully we can get that done. And also, Jessica, I have a question about I think it the numbers 551 on the tourist tax. Could you tell us what that is that just lifting the population cap? What, what's the mechanism there?
Jessica Miller No, so this one is a little bit different. So, so for those who, who don't have a lot of familiarity with, with what's been done in previous sessions. Some smaller communities in Montana have the ability to put on a resort tax and so that's available to communities like Whitefish and West Yellowstone where they can have a resort tax for their, for their visitors and it's on luxury items and that's a very broad definition and those smaller communities that are very tourism focused are allowed to have that, but there is a population cap on that. Several sessions, there have been various iterations of a local option bill or a tourist tax where it would just raise the, the, the population size for those communities. This one is a little bit more tailored and the biggest difference I think in this one versus previous years is the, the definition here is very much a tourist oriented activity, as opposed to a luxury tax and the, sorry I, I had this text wrap on my screen and I believe I closed my tab. So, previously, the, in the resort tax and in some previous iterations of, of the tourist tax bill that has come through previous sessions, the, the definition has been pretty broad and then there are very specific items that are not included in that. And here, the focus is more on that tourist oriented activity where it's goods or services normally sold to transient visitors or tourists including rental motor vehicles, services sold by hotels motels other lodging or camping facilities, food served or prepared by a restaurant, fast food, store or other food service establishment, food and drink served by taverns, bars, nightclubs, services provided by a destination ski resort events such as college or professional sporting games, movies, concerts, performances. guided services such as white water rafting fishing and hunting trips. So, it kind of removes that that broad definition that we've seen in some of the previous bills that that we've heard some push back on and then of course, there are still a lot of a very specific exclusions from here as well. So, that's one of the big things. I think in previous years also the cap has been 4% and I think this one is 3%, although now that I'm skimming it, I'm not seeing it right at the moment. So that may have been more detail than you wanted, sorry.
President Jones All good, thank you. I want to just go to any other questions on the report before we go to your item, Mr. Carlino. Your hand is up, did you have a? Okay, do you still want to ask a question or? Sure, go ahead.
Alderperson Carlino Yeah, I was just wondering. I noticed that the City of Missoula's position throughout the entire State Senate of Senate Bill 323, we were neutral on that, and I was curious why we were neutral and I was curious when the city of, City of Missoula’s position changed and why, why that change occurred?
President Jones So can I put a pin in that? That's the topic that we're going to get to tonight, but I'm trying to do all of the questions on the rest of the legislative report before we get to that, all right? So hang on. Let's go to Ms. Anderson.
Alderperson Anderson Great, thanks so much. Mine actually is about 551, I am super excited that Senator Pope is bringing forward this bill. Have we, I know in the past that we have looked and done some rough numbers about the financial impact that potentially could have on Missoula in a very positive way. Ms. Miller or I see Mr. Bickell is here with us today, do we have a rough idea? I know that we've looked in the past about, I, I don't mean to put you on the spot and please feel free to follow up with me, but you know what just the simple, a modest small to modest increase on just simple things like car rentals, alcohol purchased in restaurants and hotel additional hotel tax, just those three things could bring a you know a very decent amount of money into our community and the fact that this is also targeted towards property tax relief, I feel is like one of the things that Ms. Jones and I have been yelling into the void about for quite some time. So, I would like any more information that you might have on this?
Jessica Miller We did do a workup on that on the beginning of the session and actually we do have this, we have a document linked on Our Missoula in Session page, which is under, on our website, The City of Missoula if you go to government and then Missoula in session is on that menu or it's also linked down at the bottom of our home page and it's under here under quick links to learn more about Montana's property tax system and we've just got some kind of random statistics in there, not random but some, some helpful statistics in there and we did work up a number on local option tax, as well and this number is from Missoula County because we get it from the Tourism and Recreation of the Institute for Tourism and Recreation in research and they do those county-wide. And so, county-wide, based on just out of state visitors on the money that out of state people spend on hotels, motels, bed and breakfast, outfitters guides, rental cabins, restaurants, and bars, that number would be 3.8 million with a 3% local option tax coming into Missoula County and that's just from folks who don't live in Montana.
President Jones Anything else? All right, any other questions before we go to Mr. Carlino? I don’t see any other raised hands, so okay Mr. Carlino.
Alderperson Carlino I’ll start with the motion. I move that the City of Missoula's position on Senate Bill 323 go back to the neutral position that we had before. And can I speak to that motion?
President Jones Why don’t you just briefly outline your, your thoughts and then I'd like to have staff speak to it and ask staff questions and then we'll have more Council comment, but go ahead and just briefly kind of summarize your thoughts. Okay?
Alderperson Carlino Yeah, so, Senate Bill 323 is a bill that has wide bipartisan support and large support from the environmental and housing community across the state. Senate Bill 323 makes it to where urban areas would no longer exclusively zone for only single family homes to be built. It's a bill that is attempting to address our housing crisis by allowing two, three, four plexes to be built in towns that, in the larger towns in Montana and in the smaller urban areas allow for duplexes. The City was neutral on this the whole time that it was going through the state senate and I'm glad to say that every single one of our state senators voted yes on this bill, every state senator in Missoula did and it passed 47 to 3. There were only 3 state senators that actually voted against this after they heard all the housing advocates and environmental advocates asking for this to be passed. I won't name every group that supported this bill but for example the Montana Environmental Information Center was a proponent, Shelter Whitefish was a proponent, North Missoula Community Development Corporation, Bozeman Tenants United, Missoula Tenants Union and the list goes on and on of all of the house people who publicly supported this bill. I currently live in a three-plex, which is illegal to be built in the vast majority of residentially zoned areas in Missoula right now. I'm lucky enough to afford to live here by splitting a one bed, a one-bedroom place in a three-plex and I wish that more people in Missoula would be able to have those types of affordable options to be built. No matter what we do with our zoning encode reform in Missoula, the other towns and municipalities restrictive zoning will also harm our affordable, our chance of having an affordable housing market. It's a statewide issue and we cannot solve it alone here in Missoula and lastly, the single-family, zoning neighborhoods for only single family homes has a long history of dividing people on class, wealthy, wealthy neighborhoods and pushing people that can't afford a single-family home out of those neighborhoods. It's a very, in just zoning map that we should not uphold as a City and I understand the idea of local control and I support local control, but having local control to stop multi-family housing from being built and to uphold these classist, racist zoning maps is not a good use of local control. I support having affordable housing market in the in this time of the housing crisis and I hope that you all will, will find some common ground and not even you don't have to go ahead and support Senate Bill 323, but I ask that we be neutral go back to our neutral position that we had when it was in the state senate. So, we can help make sure that we're not killing this affordable housing bill in the State House.
President Jones All right, thanks. So, Jessica, I, I am not sure if you want to speak to this or Eran Pehan, we have a department head here who can speak to this also. So, maybe first of all, my initial question would be let's address the rationale of having an oppose on this bill and I think it basically speaks to a much bigger context than just the bill. So, I'm not sure Erah or Jessica, whoever you want to start off with that?
Jessica Miller If I could just jump in real quick and answer the question that was asked earlier as far as why the status changed? There was an early draft of the bill that basically said we didn't have to, or we couldn't be, we couldn't require more from a four plex than we do from a single family, but it didn't require us to allow like fourplexes everywhere. And so, as the version changes and a staff reviews change our, our status can be updated as far as that goes. And so, I imagine that that our status changed at the time that the bill text changed as well.
President Jones Great thanks. And so, Eran if you want to join the meeting, and I think, if you can just maybe start off with some general information? I mean, we've talked just extensively about Senate Bill 382, which we are supporting and why in my mind that's so important to support compared to 323. What’s, what's the long game here?
Eran Pehan Yeah, absolutely. Eran Pehan with Community Planning, Development, and Innovation. So, we are largely opposing Senate Bill 323 on the issue of preemption. And the issue that preemption presents for us here is that it forces us to change our zoning in a way that does not comply with our Growth Policy. So, per other sections of state law, zoning must comply with Growth Policy. So, we can't take forward a zoning regulation or a map amendment that doesn't comply with our Growth Policy. In this bill, the state gives us until January 1, 2024 to get our Growth Policy revised to meet the mandated zoning requirements, so that, so that we would comply. So, we would see ourselves quickly become, come into a situation where we were in non-compliance and that might actually hold up some development that we would hope to bring before Council. We also largely oppose this bill because we have a better option in Senate Bill 382, which Council president Jones mentioned. Senate Bill 382 set some expectations and some criteria for communities across the state large communities across the state to meet and essentially choose from a menu of five very progressive land use policies that will help move the needle on housing, that allows communities to pick the policies that make the most sense for that based on contextual information, geography, where they're at in their planning and development and growth cycle. We feel like this, the elimination of single-family zoning or allowing for up to fourplexes by right is something that should absolutely be considered as part of that menu of options and is something that we hope our community can dive deep and have conversations about as part of our comprehensive code reform effort. We feel like that change deserves the level of conversation and planning in our community that SB 382 allows us to have, to prepare for a change of that magnitude. And speaking again, based on the shift from neutral to oppose, an earlier version of this bill did not increase density I think, as maybe they had intended it to. It nearly removed regulation for types of development in single-family zone. The sponsor was made aware that that bill was not meeting the intention and they amended the bill and changed the language at which point in time, we changed our stance to oppose, again in recognition of the fact that we have a better option in Senate Bill 382 and passing multiple bills in the session that attempt to achieve the same thing in different ways just leaves us with a conflicting jumble or mess of bills that we now have to wade through and is going to delay implementation at the end of the day. So, we would prefer that we, we funnel our support towards a bill that allows us to honor local control and make the decisions, again from a suite of progressive land use options, make the decisions that make the most sense for our community in Missoula.
President Jones Thanks Eran and I understand that Senate Bill 382 has bipartisan support and bipartisan sponsors, correct?
Eran Pehan Correct. It’s, it’s supported across both aisles and by every planning jurisdiction in the state in addition to the league, whereas SB 323 because of the host of issues that that we articulated is not supported by [inaudible] divisions across the state or the league.
President Jones Question, are there other questions from Council? Otherwise, Ms. Sherrill.
Alderperson Sherrill I couldn’t figure out how to raise my hand online. I have a few questions and I don't know if it's for, I don't know who they're for, some of them will be fairly fast, so if that's okay. Is 382, would that leave us and would we still be in compliance with our Growth Policy, if 382 were to pass?
Eran Pehan Yes, we would be because that also gives us time to amend our other policies to make sure, again we're looking at this holistically. We're making these changes in a way that allows us to move our entire system forward, not just certain sections of our system and at piecemeal fashion that won't actually move the needle in the ways that we intend it to.
Alderperson Sherrill May I have a couple of more? Okay thanks. And if 382 and 323 were both to pass, how, how would those work together? That, that I know you, you mentioned, that was my concern looking at this is one looks a little more comprehensive than the other, but like how, how those are going to work together and the confusion with in that. Anyway, can you, could you speak to that or Daniel, I don't know if you can speak to that, if, if you know? If you have thoughts on that? I mean, I think that that to me that's a really big deal of, of these two things working together and maybe one is better than the other.
Alderperson Carlino I could speak to it, I suppose. They're completely different bills, 382 is asking local governments to make five changes to their code and 323, the one that we're talking about right now, would allow, would get rid of neighborhoods being zoned for only single family in urban areas and would allow for multi-family, two, three, four plexes for example. HB 382 that could pass and governments could not change, could still uphold single family zoning everywhere. I think they both should pass, but I don't think they're contradictory in any way.
Alderperson Sherrill Eran, could you speak to that as well? I'm just kind of on the ground wondering how those would work together and so, but, but we could do the same thing, it would just be that one was dictated for us and then the other we would make a choice about whether we were going to do it or not?
Eran Pehan Correct. SB 382 allows local governments to choose from, from a menu of potential options. The important thing is that local governments have to choose from that menu, and they have to choose five things that they are not already doing today, they have to be five new things. And so one, so one, one thing that there, there is some potential conflict that hasn't been resolved yet between the slate of several dozens of bills that are kind of picking around the edges in a less comprehensive way versus how SB 382 is attempting to approach this in a more comprehensive way is that if cities are mandated to do a bunch of these things ahead of, it, it may be that that then we get to implementation of SB 382 and cities might struggle to come into compliance with that and it's important because coming into compliance with SB 382 provides us access to many of the incentives including infrastructure incentives for, for the benefit of housing that are tied to the this legislative session as well. And so, there is actual money and there is actual resource that is tied to coming into compliance with some of these bills. So, the, the mandate to come into compliance with a bunch of these ahead of time might get us down the road to SB 382 and then there's a conflict in the sense that now we have to find more menu options to meet and then there's timing conflicts with all of those as well. Again, timing conflicts that will put us in non-compliance with our Growth Policy, that will put us in non-compliance with other legally mandated aspects of our zoning policy and our, our growth policies and so, so those are the things that we're trying to balance and manage and we don't have clear answers from the legislature about how they are going to deal with the many conflicts that these kind of dueling bills present or if they're going to be dealt with through legal interpretations or litigations by cities after the fact, we, we just don't know that, but, we do know that the conflict between those bills exists.
Alderperson Sherrill I don't want, I know there are other people with their hands up. Yeah, the number of bills that are out there is just staggering and how they're all going to try to work together is going to be something that we're all going to figure out on lots of different ones. So, the one, so one, number 323 would not have public process, it would mandate that this was allowed and 382 would have public process in us deciding what kind of things we're picking from the menu, is that kind of?
Eran Pehan SB 382 allows us to engage in a public conversation about what those menu items should be, what as a community do we want to do to address our housing, our housing needs as opposed to SB 382 and several other bills that are proposed that just mandate that we do it and with no, with no local process.
President Jones Great thanks. Ms. Anderson.
Alderperson Anderson Thanks Madam chair. My question is for Ms. Pehan, in regards to currently as things stand now here in the City of Missoula, we have a variety of different zoning codes that allow different housing types. How much of the City currently does not allow for duplex, or you know any sort of multi-family to be built? I know for example there are neighborhoods where they are predominantly built out as single family, but the [inaudible] actually would have allowed for the building of more dense, is just that's not what the neighborhood sort of came to be and it's not you know sort of origin stories of.
Eran Pehan I apologize, I should have come prepared with that stat. I don't have it off the top of my head. I believe it's somewhere in the realm of 30%, but I will get back to you. I'll, I'll get back to you on that. You know we have; we have essentially eliminated single family zoning in the City of Missoula when we made ADU’s at buy right, in every single zoning district you can build in ADU in every zoning district across the city. We do have other zoning districts that we have that where the Growth Policy the zoning map, the future zoning map does articulate a higher density than what is zoned on the ground today as well, so that those parcels would have to be rezoned into those higher densities to allow for those types of development but the Growth Policy the future growth map calls for that and that would be supported upon a rezone. And so, it's not quite as simple as what the map says today in terms of what would actually be allowable that we could, we could do some work on that and get you guys some numbers.
Alderperson Anderson So just to clarify, the 30% is what is currently in a rough estimate with the caveats that you made about the, the there are places that are not zoned in compliance with the Growth Policy, which is why we're doing a whole big revamping, it's 30 that it's not allowed? Not 30% where it is allowed?
Eran Pehan Yeah, I’ll, I’ll confirm. I'll get that number for you. There is a number that is being used at the legislature that is wildly inaccurate, it's a number that states essentially 65% of, of Missoula is owned a single family and that largely ignores the fact that all of our commercial areas are zoned for multi-family development. It's just looking at single family and multi-family and ignoring a commercial zoning designations across our community, which are all zoned for multi-family housing. And so, so that, that number that has been thrown around very publicly is an inaccurate number, but I, I can get those numbers and send them to you. I don't want to put too much weight on, on that 30% because I'm pulling from somewhere in the recesses of my mind, but I will, I will get you the right number and send that to you tomorrow.
Alderperson Anderson I appreciate that, and I do really appreciate the fact that you pointed out the, the numbers that you know no surprise the legislate what's being banted around at the legislature is inaccurate and paints an inaccurate view of what actually is available to build on the ground here in Missoula. So, thank you for that clarification and the numbers you know I realize there's a lot on your plate but would be Illuminating I think.
President Jones Thanks. Mr., Nugent.
Alderperson Mike Nugent Thank you Madam president. A question for maybe Ms. Pehan or Mr. Carlino, or anybody who wants to answer it. I've been doing a lot of research on this build this afternoon and my understanding is the sponsor of 382, Senator Mandeville, has commented on how he does not feel that these bills contradict each other. So, I was wondering if, if you have heard those comments or you can explain why, why maybe that's not accurate in your mind?
President Jones Eran. We can’t hear you Eran.
Eran Pehan I can speculate a little bit on, on why he might feel that way. I think from a pure, pure policy perspective that they may not conflict. What I'm speaking to is the conflicts and an implementation perspective and I think that many of the bill sponsors have a hard time identifying those conflicts because they're not on the ground implementing. And what we're seeing is a lot of these individual bills that are being written again are being written in a very piecemeal fashion. And so, and so this bill, particularly as well or excuse me, SB 323 is a zoning bill, and it was written with no mention or context, or mind paid to the Growth Policy implications. In the State of Montana, your Growth Policy must match your zoning your zoning code and so that right there just shows you that there, there isn't that, there isn't that reflection between different pieces of code or legislation or law that might be conflicting with one another. We're seeing that across the board and so, those conflicts might not exist between the two bills, but they exist in terms of how we have to legally, how we have to implement and the legal regulation that exists around the code and our Growth Policy implementation. And so, those are things that on the ground, planning directors are identifying that most bill sponsors are unaware of and it's just us figuring out at the end of the day, again how we take this jumble of land use code that's being written, as opposed to a more comprehensive bill like SB 382 and make sense of it.
President Jones Thanks. Mr. Nugent, anymore?
Alderperson Mike Nugent Not right now.
President Jones All right. Ms. West and then Ms. Sherrill.
Alderperson West I have, excuse me, two questions. And so my first one is around accessory dwelling units, which are allowed in all zoning districts by right at this point. I think what we when it was a conditional review process, we most often saw you know external accessory dwelling units built in people's backyards, but could you, but accessory dwelling units within existing homes like creating a secondary unit is also a permitted use or can you speak to that a little bit more? So…
Eran Pehan Yeah, so we have multiple types of ADU’s that are allowable by right; those are internal and external ADU’s. So, they can be an external ADU, which is what we know more commonly as a granny flat or above the garage or a backyard cottage, but internal ADU’s are also an ADU type, which could include a basement unit or a mother-in-law unit that is within the internal structure of the home; those are both identified types in our ADU code.
Alderperson West Essentially, you could take any house and turn it into a duplex ,in function? Okay.
Eran Abiding by the ADU code, yes.
Alderperson Anderson And then my second question is just, I just want to make sure that that I understand this SB 323 correctly. This only, only would apply to single family zoning districts? And the reason I ask is because there's obviously one other zoning designation in our code that does not allow for residential development and that would be the heavy industrial and I think there's obvious reasons for that and I just want to make sure that this change would, you know, not allow someone to build you know “affordable housing” next to some horribly toxic use.
Eran Pehan That is correct. This bill addresses single family zones only. There is another bill, Senate Bill 245, which seeks to allow for multi-family use in industrial and heavy industrial zones, and that is also working its way through the legislature, the City of Missoula also opposes that bill.
President Jones All right, Ms. Sherrill.
Alderperson Sherrill I’m wondering, so the timing on 282 is upon approval. So, if this passes, we could start the process of figuring out you know the public process, the process of figuring out you know what kind of you know items we want, we don't want and, and then the 323, is, starts at the beginning of next year? So, I think it's, I think that's right….. anyway some, January of 2024. I think, I'm just wondering you know one of the things and I, I understand we need to go, go through process here but you know moving forward code reform faster has just been something that that I, I keep talking about and I, I know that we have to go through process and I'm trying to be patient in that but I also know that we need housing desperately, and so we need some of these changes. How do you see, I'm not gonna, how do you see 382 kind of moving, moving through our system and how quickly do you see kind of us being able to make those changes?
Eran Pehan So, I think we're well positioned with code reform to be in compliance with 382. Cities will have a various timelines to be in compliance based on where they're currently at in their Growth Policy process or update process. We will, we have a code reform update that we're getting ready to submit a referral in so that we can get in front of Council and provide a more substantive update on code reform, but we will have the results of our, our code audit within the, I think early, late spring, early summer in front of Council, and that will allow us to, to review the recommendations from our code reform team in terms of some short-term deliverables that we can start to move on much more quickly and, and that was a commitment that we had made to Council all along that the two-year time frame for code reform is the delivery of the unified development ordinance and our comprehensive Growth Policy update that has those big value-based conversations about things like the elimination of single-family zoning and, and other tools that our community has at its disposal, but we will be delivering things along the way. We will be making changes to our code like we recently did when we eliminated conditional use. We will be making changes along the way because we understand there's an urgency to the moment that we want to address as well.
President Jones Okay. Do you have any more, Ms. Sherrill? All right, thanks. Kind of along the same lines, just one last question here Eran. When I look, we talk a lot about having a comprehensive approach versus a piecemeal approach and right now we're doing code reform and we're trying to be really comprehensive and I've heard and read and studied for years how with housing and affordable housing it's so easy to have unintended consequences if things are not done comprehensively and holistically because basically with the economic forces behind it, you just, you just push something to the side, you don't resolve it. And so, I'm looking at 382, Senate Bill 382, which we keep talking about it, is a comprehensive approach and I just wanted to talk about some of the language. It talks about analyzing existing conditions, population projections, identifying and analyzing existing and projected housing needs for the projected population, looking at on the ground Public Safety and Emergency Services, as well as what we project we will need, looking at utility services, what we have in existence versus what we will need, having an analysis of economic development, as well as natural resources and the environment, having a land use and future land use map, having area plans, and then having an implementation plan and then under Section 19, we keep talking about the menu of things. The tools in here are great, they're not fluffy frankly, they're incredibly substantive and very strong. And so, I think we're doing a lot of this with our current code reform and I'm really apprehensive about having a bunch of one-off bills that are also passed that then complicate our code reform, complicate the implementation of 382, and don't get us where we're going in the long run, and they sound like great labels that are being put on things, but we're not, it's going to slow things down. And did you have, I just want to have you talk a little bit more about a why a comprehensive approach is so important in terms of creating more housing and affordable housing?
Eran Pehan Yeah, you know our, our support around SB 382 really aims for that the comprehensive approach because we know at the State of Montana, we, we need a comprehensive rewrite of our subdivision and planning act and that was a really bold, ambitious recommendation that came out of the governor's housing task force. SB 382 delivers on that, and we feel like checks off, checks the boxes on the vast majority of recommendations that came from the governor's housing task force, which is why it has bipartisan support and is supported across the board by planning directors, the league and industry professionals including the association of planners and others because it does just that. It is the comprehensive overhaul that we need, that doesn't mean that that things can't happen more quickly and things can't happen around that comprehensive overhaul, but our, our recommendation or our opinion is that those should happen at the local level because only us at the local level, only our local municipal governments understand how those things that will happen ahead of or around the comprehensive nature of 382 will interact with how we choose to deploy 382. We'll be having those local community conversations, we'll know what our suite of menu options that meets our local needs are, and we'll know what we can do in addition to that, above and beyond that. We're not going to stop with those five menu options. SB 323 really talks about a valid solution to addressing housing in communities by the elimination of single-family zoning, but that should happen in conjunction with conversations about all the other things that we're going to be doing too and how they will work together with that. That alone will not solve the problem; it has to happen in conjunction with a variety of other tools that we're deploying as well. At the same time, in conjunction with strategies like that, which is why it needs to happen at the local level so it can be comprehensive, it can be complementary, and it can happen with the community input and involvement and engagement in conversation by those most impacted at the neighborhood level, as well.
President Jones Great thanks. Let’s go to public comments. I've got folks who I assume are here to provide public comment. If you want to come up and state your name for the record, and try and keep it to 3 minutes and then we'll go back to Council comment.
John Wolverton Good evening City Council. My name is John Wolverton. I live on 8th Street, formerly Ward 6, now Ward 3. It’s no secret we're in a house in crisis. I move just once in a while through a lot of different demographic circles in this town, and there's stories in these circles is we are in a housing crisis. This is particularly problematic for our younger generations, that's who I hear it most from, we're losing they're moving out of town. We get to do something; this is more urgent than this conversation is allowing it to be. I urge you; I'm urging the city to support SB 323, urbanists and planners and citizens that work to save their cities from a host of bills agree that this type of prescription is the right thing to do. It's a great idea, it's elegant, it's very minimum of action to address the housing crisis. We don't need to search far online to find all the good and equitable reasons that duplex, triplex, and fourplex should be allowed by right in all zones. The [inaudible] should get out of its way, out of its own way and support this bill. It'll be a positive accelerant and set a better baseline to all the good results we'll see in our code modernization. Thank you.
President Jones Thank you Mr. Wolverton. Anybody else, public comment?
Danny Tenenbaum Hi, my name is Danny Tenenbaum. I'm a former State Representative for House District 95, which is included the Westside and Riverfront neighborhoods, in the River Road Neighborhood as well. I'm just here in support of the motion to shift the position of the city on SB 323 to neutral. As Council member Carlino stated, there's a lot of organizations that I think we really respect and whose work we admire who are in support of 323, which would ensure the legalization of really small scale, multi-family housing in cities across Montana. The Montana Environmental Information Center, which was one of the, the key supporters of 323 is probably also one of the key proponents of local control throughout, ever since the Montana Constitution came into play and they looked at 323 and its effect on land use planning, and said that this is a bill that we're going to support even though it does you know set some needed guardrails on local control just because of the effect it would have on encouraging sustainable and inward development. I just want to address very quickly 382 because I was on the, the housing task force the governor's housing task force and that was a bill that we worked on and in addition to SB 323, which was a bill that we helped shape in that process. Those were meant to be complementary, and I think as adopted they will be complementary and, the, if you read the housing task force report, the intention was never for just the 382 Bill to be adopted alone. If you look at the criteria that is laid out in 382, the options that cities are given to adopt in order to comply for their comprehensive plan to comply, they're quite modest. I think there are 15-18 options for, for cities and they just have to choose 5, and some of them are you know at some place in the city there has to be a zoning district that allows for example single residence occupancy units, which are, it's, it's like a type of apartment where some of the units don't have bathrooms I think and they just have communal bathrooms, a little bit old style. Other criteria that cities can adopt as part of their five are just a slight reduction in setbacks, another criteria is a slight reduction in the aesthetic requirements and some design codes, the same thing with parking minimums and impact fees on ADU’s. If a city does all of that with their zoning code, if 382 is, is passed and it passed into law, and I assume it will be then they're zoning ordinances are in compliance with 382. The housing task force wanted more and I think the people of Montana want more and I think the, the 47 to 3 vote in the Senate on 323 is a reflection that we're not going to get out of this housing crisis, we're not going to get out of this statewide housing shortage unless we do more. I just wanted to add that I, I hope that the city can, can go neutral on 323; there are so many bad bills that are being considered in the legislature and some good ones that I think the city would, it would be a better use of resources for the city to focus its lobbying efforts on those pieces of legislation. Thanks for having me.
President Jones Thanks Mr. Tenenbaum. Come on up, state your name please.
Chet Phillips My name is Chet Phillips, I'm the staff organizer for North Missoula CDC. I also live and work on the north and west sides, and I'm currently work on the north and west sides, excuse me and live at 806 Locust Street in the lower rattlesnake. I do so because my family was unable to find anything that we could afford really in either neighborhood when we moved to Missoula and that's on our two professional incomes. My, my partner is a social worker at Partnership Health, but even on our two professional incomes, we're paying too much for where we rent now in the lower rattlesnake and we would prefer to be living on the north side frankly, but we're unable to find anything available that we could afford, and I think that speaks to the urgency here. With respect to the really hard work that City staff do and will be doing in our comprehensive code reform process, I would submit that the burden of compliance that follows 323 for something that was perhaps likely going to happen in the code reform process anyway is less than the burden on working families in Missoula that is the result of the lack of affordable housing in in our city. Furthermore, we all know that even once say 323 passes, if it does, there will still be a process. The, the process of permitting and then building still puts us years away from actually having the new duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes online for working families who desperately need it now. I told a Lyft driver on my way over here that I was coming to speak on a legislation that related to affordable housing. She immediately began telling me the story about how she and her husband were, as she said, nearly homeless last year because and this is just out of the blue, last year because they their month-to-month lease was non-renewed so that the landlord could raise rents and that they then struggled to find anything that they could get approved for, anything that they could afford, money for a deposit, etc., because they were so little availability. SB 323 would not reverse the intention or, or do anything to really counteract the intention of comprehensive code reform, it would reset the kind of baseline in our city for what's allowable. And on behalf of North Missoula CDC, an organization that's been listening to Northside and Westside residents for the past 26 years, I submit that there is a real equity issue among neighborhoods where the burden of having, being able to build affordable housing in some neighborhoods and yet not in others, means that the infrastructure needs the, the pressure to kind of have rapid growth while also maintaining livable neighborhoods falls only on certain neighborhoods disproportionately. So, that's why we actually believe that yes duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes ought to be allowed in every neighborhood in the City of Missoula and that that need is urgent enough that the increased burden of compliance is something we ought to bear for our people. Thank you very much.
President Jones Thank you Mr. Phillips. Anyone else, public comments? I’ll see if I have anyone online. I’m not seeing any raised hands online. Okay, so let's go to comments from Council and then we'll have a vote. Ms. Vasecka, your hand is raised.
Alderperson Vasecka Thank you. While Senate Bill 323, it does allow multi-housing, it does not mandate it. You're still required to get a permit. As a city, we need to take measures to address the housing crisis now with a sense of urgency, which is what SB 323 represents. This bill does come from the governor's bipartisan housing task force, 382 is a great long-term plan; however we are in an urgent housing crisis now. With the conversation this evening, I believe that Section 2 of Senate Bill 323 does cover any pond plug with other laws. While I personally do support Senate Bill 323, I believe that at least would be beneficial for our City Council to at least officially have a neutral stance other than opposing it or supporting it. So, I do ask for my colleagues and Council to vote for this to have a mutual stance. Thank you.
President Jones Mr. Nugent.
Alderperson Mike Nugent Thanks Madam president. You know, I'm, I'm really torn and kind of frustrated with everything that's kind of going on in the broader housing conversation and it's clear that, that we have a lot of people working really hard to do the right thing and that there's not necessarily agreement among everybody on what the right thing is. I, I would like to see this bill amended to, to say that multi-units need to look like the Mansion Apartments we learned about a few months ago or otherwise maintained single-family appearance, but allow for multi-family in all these zones. I, I don't think it's completely fair to say an ADU equates to a duplex because they're really not the same thing. I mean they do result in two units but the some of the restrictions on ADU’s on size and stuff like that doesn't make them an across the board comparison, comparable property, in my opinion, for lack of a better word. I also understand the frustration you know from, from staff kind of being pulled in many different directions and that all makes sense to me. It's interesting that TED came up because honestly the legislature created that TED process several sessions ago to make developing housing easier and this Council, not this version of it, but the City Council for, for maybe some good reasons and some questionable put a whole lot of restrictions on that power and we've basically rendered that tool useless. So, I don't necessarily blame the legislature for questioning why if cities will meet the moment and do the right thing and it's clear that as a legislature, I don't think they feel cities including Missoula but across the board are meeting the moment and I want to do code reform right and I understand that that takes a long time, but I did appreciate Ms. Sherrill’s question about or kind of comment about, if it could go faster, I think we'd be better off because I think that there's just a frustration. You can hear it in the comments in the room that there's just a frustration that we aren't doing anything to, to help right now and, and I can tell you even though interest rates have gone up and, and demand shifted it is still very hard for working Missoulian’s who don't qualify for any subsidies to find housing in Missoula. So, you know, we're bringing on a lot of units that are subsidized and I think that's a huge part of our puzzle, but there's still so much more to do and I'm a little bit frustrated that we, we shifted from neutral to oppose, because like, like it's been pointed out I mean this bill passed 47 to 3, and everybody from Missoula supported it. I'm sure there was good reach out to our Senators to educate them on kind of where the city was coming from, but it feels like now all we accomplish by coming and speaking against it is making the target that's already on cities like Missoula's back even larger because it gives them the tools say look, Missoula is against this but they still haven't solved the problem and we've given them other tools like TED and things like that and we, we still haven't met that moment. So, you know, I, I've, I've kind of shifted on this but I think I'm going to support this to go to neutral tonight. If, if we were shifting it to go to support, I don't know that I'd be quite there because I don't think it's perfect, but I don't like I don't like where we're at, but I think that we, we need to start getting things done quicker and I think that this message is only going to get louder. It's coming from the legislature, it's coming from the people in the audience, and I think that's something we have to start listening to.
President Jones Ms. Savage.
Alderperson Savage Thank you. And I apologize for being off camera, I am in a family situation here and so sometimes it's a little hard to be on camera in the evenings. I, I have just a few comments. I've heard from a lot of people today and I've heard from a lot of people that I highly respect and I've come down to, I'm also going to vote to support a neutral stance and it really does come back to the fact that I live on the Northside and that my neighborhood is feeling the pressures of growth every single day, in every single way, and we are not getting the infrastructure we need to support that growth. And when I see neighborhoods, like the Northside like Franklin to the Fort that have been a traditional working class, taking on the burden of our housing crisis, it deeply frustrates me. And so, I am going to vote to support a neutral stance and I also would just like to add that I feel like this is a little weird for us to be weighing in at this point in the game. City Council does not set the City's position on legislation, nor were we asked about it, nor were we included in any of those decisions or any of those positions. So, it does feel a little strange at this point, coming in at the last minute. I don't know if that's something we’d do in the future a little differently if you want City Council input on where the city stands and some of these things. It would be great to have conversations way earlier than when we get to a place where it seems a little contentious, so that's a little frustrating for me. This, the Council just doesn't set that, doesn't set those positions. So, that's all I have, thank you.
President Jones Thanks. Anybody else for comments tonight? Ms. West.
Alderperson West I have to say, I'm, I agree with a lot of what Jennifer just said, but just also want to add a few thoughts. I think, especially when it comes to the, the big A, affordable housing, there's really nothing in our zoning code that's going to change where those end up. Primarily because they can only end up in qualified census tracts, so it doesn't matter if we zone all of Missoula, you know, as dense as possible, but if it's not in a quality qualified census tract, it is not going to end up in a different neighborhood and that is the majority of the density that both the Northside and the Westside is seeing right now are those projects. I mean the big density, we are seeing lots of smaller scale projects and I, I even though I agree with a lot of what everyone has said, I, I don't know that this is a great way forward, mostly because I do believe that we're a self-governing city and that our residents deserve involvement in our policy decisions and shaping their own neighborhoods. And while I realize that that isn't always fast enough for everyone, I also feel like there is integrity in that process by giving people a voice that they deserve and that includes renters, it includes owners, it includes everyone having access to that conversation and this would not allow that and especially because we're in the middle of having that conversation. I, I feel like this is like just cutting people out, so I don't think I'm going to support it just because I want people to have buy-in, in the code that we actually do come up with for our community.
President Jones Mr. Carlino.
Alderperson Carlino Yeah, people are really struggling in Missoula right now to find an affordable place to live, and our restrictive zoning is a, is a big issue and it's causing us to have an unaffordable housing market. Just before I moved to my new place, I was living on 5th Street and it's the only street in the University District that allows for multi-family housing to be built nowadays. I was living in what was a single family home but was converted to a three plex, which allowed me and 7 other young adults to live there at an affordable place. What would have just been one single family home was able to now house 8 struggling renters in Missoula because we were able to turn into a three plex because it was luckily on 5th Street. Every other street in the University District would not allow for that three plex to be built, it would not allow for a single family home to be converted into a three-plex, and there would be no affordable housing options that can be built. It, it's just really tough for renters in Missoula right now and people that are trying to find a place to live, and we have people from the community showing up. We have housing advocates and environmental advocates from across the state asking us to step up and do something. Waiting 3 years for us to reform our restrictive classes zoning maps is much too long and my family members and friends are all getting pushed out of town in the meantime. I understand it sounds really nice to have bought your house back when it was affordable, but please have some empathy for our neighbors who are struggling and need this housing supply as soon as possible. Please vote to go back to neutral and let's let our lobbyists spend their time doing something that's not opposing affordable housing in Montana.
President Jones Ms. Anderson.
Alderperson Anderson Thanks Madam chair. I appreciate, appreciate the comments from the public and that my council member brought this up for us to have a further discussion and I really appreciate that Ms. Pehan was able to join us tonight to give us some really good information and some good background on kind of the whole process. I, you know, I'm an advocate for local control. I am super frustrated by the fact that the legislature outside of Marilyn Marler, I don't know if there's anybody else who's actually served in local government who's in the legislature. I might be wrong, there might be a couple of people from Billings, so the actual implementation part, I take really seriously and appreciate Ms. Pehan’s points on that. I think there's good intent behind Senate Bill 323 in terms of like okay if we can have a diverse more diversity of housing types, you know that's good for all scales, but the implementation part of it I don't like the fact that it mandates for everywhere you know yes there's a couple thresholds for 5,000 versus 50,000, but it absolutely takes away any local control, any local process, any local participation, and I think that that you know the point was set either by Ms. Pehan or Ms. Miller, that Senate Bill 323 doesn't allow communities to intentionally grow, expand, and infill the way that Senate Bill 382 does and that to me is really important because land use issues are some of the most contentious issues that we deal with on Council, and if we basically do more to even cut out the public in that process, I think it makes for you know a more divided community. I think Ms. Pehan highlighted the fact that you know multiple housing types are available in a vast majority of housing zoning jurisdictions. In our City, we cannot mandate that if something is zoned that they build out to the highest density, it is up to the private land owner and builder to basically build what they want within that zoning type, so there is instances where there is more dense zoning available that they are not taking advantage of and we can't mandate that because that's what they've decided that they want to build and, and yet there are also places where we are working to incentivize more dense building because it goes with our growth code and it is a part of a comprehensive you know plan because it's close to transit, it has the infrastructure in place to be able to accommodate the more dense housing. I think the other part that Senate Bill 323 is short-sighted on is, is the fact that you know what is the on the ground implementation of that if everywhere there's a single family housing unit, all of a sudden becomes a four-plex. There are certain places especially in my neighborhood where the water infrastructure isn't there to support that, the sewer infrastructure, the wastewater isn't there and so when we do things in a more comprehensive manner, comprehensive does not mean slower. I think that that is a part where it is not the Senate Bill 323 does not provide a mechanism to more quickly build out housing, it actually makes it slower and harder because, as Ms. Pehan highlighted, the actual implementation process on the ground as a potential mess with you know the process that we already have in place. Whereas, Senate Bill 382 has things like you know if you look at page 22 of the bill, it talks about the fact that as it would allow for permitted use of triplexes and fourplexes and residential units, it will eliminate minimum lot size or reduce the existing minimum lot size, you know a duplex residential units where single family homes are permitted but what 382 allows is for a community to engage in a public process to meet its particular needs and is not a blanket mandate from the state, as 323 is. And so, what may work in Missoula may not work in Great Falls and I think it's pretty, everyone at this table recognizes that we have a housing crisis a crisis and I think it's pretty far-fetched to imply that we are intentionally doing things that make it slower or harder because every single one of us around this table is directly affected by it, either themselves or a direct family member who is struggling with housing in this community and we are doing what we can. And I do not think that 323 makes it easier, I think it makes it harder. It's a good bill and concept and a mess in implementation, so that's why I think we should stay with a pose and put our efforts to 382 and I don't necessarily think that staying with oppose makes that our lobbyists are spending a whole lot of time on one particular thing and not supporting bills that actually would have a positive impact in others, they are able to juggle multiple things all at once. So, I will continue, I will be voting to have this stay in the opposed category.
President Jones Ms. Sherrill.
Alderperson Sherrill Thanks. I, I went into tonight honestly having no idea which way I was going to vote. I've talked about it, I've been reading about it, I'm, I, I purposely waited to put my hand up not because I want to have the last word and I think actually Sandy's up so she can have the last word, but mainly because I wanted to hear my colleagues and what their, their thoughts were around it. I appreciate Jennifer's comment that this is, this is weird that now we're weighing in on it since we haven't weighed in on the others, but if you look at the whole list I'm really glad we aren't weighing in on the others. I appreciate Ms. Anderson's comment that everyone around this table cares about housing. I, I think that's and the fact that we I it wouldn't be a hard decision for me if we didn't have 382 to be honest. I mean I think that we would have to we have to do something, we have to do something as fast as we can. I'm not even, I'm sitting here not even totally sure which way I'm going. I, I'm uncomfortable with not having a public process. I and I say that because, as Ms. Anderson pointed out, the rezones higher densities are always the most contentious and you know, I, I voted for him too. I mean, I, we sit here, and we have a lot of people that are unhappy in the neighborhood sometimes with how we vote, but you know we are tasked with the greater good of the community not just for our neighborhood. So, I'm, I'm uncomfortable with not having a public process. I'm, I'm a little bit stuck on that. I, I don't like to lose local control, but you know sometimes I, I think I generally would always vote against something losing local control but in this instance for some reason that's not what's holding me back. Yeah, I guess, I, I don't know, I haven't been back from spring break very long, I'm really struggling with trying to figure out where I am with this but I'm a little bit stuck on the lack of local control. I'll be honest, I don't think that Missoula specifically moving from opposing to being neutral is going to change the outcome of this, appreciably, but I do think it's important that we vote hoping that it will. So, I'm gonna let the conversation finish. I'm not gonna, I'm not gonna say yet.
President Jones Ms. Vasecka you already spoke once. So, it's to the discretion of the chair….[inaudible] If you had a clarification on anything; otherwise, I'd like to have my comments and we wrap this up. Did you have any specific item to clarify?
Alderperson Vasecka Yes, my colleague said that this would be mandating multi-housing in these areas, and I would like to politely disagree with that. This only allows it, and a permit is still required.
President Jones Correct. Thank you. Thank you for that clarification. Okay I have some quick comments and then we will wrap this up. First of all the fact that we spent over an hour on it tonight begs the question of what a complicated issue this is and frankly why City Council doesn't decide. We, we create policy, and the executive branch figures out the legislature because with 4,000 bills, we simply can't do this, but it's been a good conversation tonight. And first of all, I want to start off by saying I think we're all on the same team, it's just a question of how we get where we're going because it's, I really don't want it to slide into us versus them. Missoula was the city in Montana that was out ahead on housing frankly back in 2014-2015, we started doing our housing policy, it took three years to do a good one. We set up our first the first housing policy in all of Montana. We set up the first affordable housing trust fund in all of Montana. I really wish the legislature had been paying attention when we were paying attention and figuring out some of the tools along the way because I'd love to have a funding source for the Housing Trust Fund. I'd love to have more tools to work with. They figured it out in the last year and a half, which is good. We now have a housing crisis and we're you know paddling as fast as we can but first of all I think we're on the same team, it's just a question of how we get where we're going. And for me, the local decision making is really big. The other cities in Montana are opposing this for a reason because these are local conversations that should happen on a local level. I have sat through, as Ms. Sherrill referenced, really contentious rezones and this Council has backbone, and this Council has voted yes. We have done it, so we're up for those hard conversations, but what shocks me is the level of those hard conversations on those issues which are minor issues compared to the broad sweeping powers of 323, and the community doesn't really know what's going on or having any say in it. And I don't think that's going to end well in the long run because there's not any faith in the process then, so I think this needs to be a local decision-making issue. And also, by not opposing it, we're in a situation where we are basically telling other cities in Montana and towns that this should be made, this decision should be made for them too. We're telling Mile City and Belgrade and Laurel and all these other cities, it's okay for the legislature to do this and that's not a comfortable place for me to be in. So, it may sound esoteric but honestly it's really important, we need to be paying attention to these issues. The other thing is, I think I certainly understand the logic behind it and the equity issues. Our code reform is working holistically on this and my understanding is they have just finished the equity audit and then they are finishing up the land audit and that's why they're creating the foundation so that we have conversations where we can figure out tools to equalize things because if we're just changing zoning, the complex economic forces that truly drive how stuff is driven we're not going to be dealing with that and that's the bottom line issue of how are we going to pull every neighborhood into this conversation and have every neighborhood contribute. So, that's why I do think it's important to do it holistically and I look at my neighborhood, which is in Ward 3, it's zoned RT 2.7 and if it's been zoned like that for decades. If zoning was the most important issue, then my neighborhood would look very different than it is, it does have some levels of density, but it's got a ton of single-family homes because historically that's the way it was built. So, we have places like Sxwtpqyen area where it’s green fields, and we are, we have created a master plan for tons of density because we can drive the bus on that one, but for these other neighborhoods where it's far more entrenched, it's a different conversation and I think this is going to cause more problems in the long run, but I also will say I think we're splitting hairs tonight. And I also don't think our vote tonight will have much influence at all on the legislature, they're going to do what they're going to do, but those are my reasons for voting no on it. So, we will take a roll call vote Marty.
Marty Rehbein And for the record folks, there was a public comment that was submitted on this item on the agenda. So, you might want to take a look at that. It’s from Robin, I think it’s [inaudible]. So, on motion to return the City's position on SB 323 to neutral.
President Jones Thank you. That motion passes.