President Jones Under committee reports, we have a couple of items tonight, let me get my glasses. The first one is under Climate, Conservation and Parks, committee report, and we have the easement request for Kiwanis Park. So, committee reports will have the staff presentation. We already had a staff presentation in committee, but I believe there were a couple of specific questions to David Selvage that he was going to provide that information on with. So, we'll start with that, David.
David Selvage Good evening Council, can you hear me?
President Jones I can hear you; we can't see you.
David Selvage I’m, I’m in my natal environment in Alberton, so.
President Jones Okay.
David Selvage So, staff really appreciated the conversation and discussion at last meeting. We heard that this is an appropriate route to go possibly, but the questions were specific to what's, what's this do for the project? And it seems the consensus is amongst, the building officials and the developer’s architect that we're talking about six additional units to a project. That six additional units translates into what probably makes a much better project, a more affordable project, for redevelopment of what is downtown property which is what our comprehensive land use plans call for in density, in that this is where density is desired. So, this is a tool available. There may not be any additional reviews available. This is an allowed use in the zone, if it meets all the requirements for design excellence, and meets all the conditions and is permitted to occur within the next three years, this project may go forward. What nobody knows is what are the developers plans? And they may be available this evening, but with that I would close the response and stand for any questions, if required?
President Jones Thank you David. Okay, next in order are questions from Council. Mr. Carlino.
Alderperson Carlino Yeah, I was curious if anybody could update us on the most current vacancy rate in Missoula?
President Jones Actually, Mr. Nugent is able to answer that question, I believe. Mike.
Alderperson Mike Nugent Yeah, there's, there's no one method that that measures vacancy rates, so you go to a couple different store sources. The Western Montana Chapter of NARPM says it sits at about 2.%9 and another organization that tracks it, Sterling Commercial Real Estate says it's, it's 3.5%. So, I would, I would venture it's probably somewhere right in the middle there; it's trending up. Last year, annually according to the Five Valleys Housing report, it was 1.4% for the year, so it's trending up, but we don't have full years data or even full Q2 data yet.
President Jones Thank you. Any other questions from Council? Okay, go ahead.
Alderperson Carlino Yeah, I saw that the developer was saying that they were going to have issues with developing this project and they're looking at partnering with the city to develop this and I was curious if there's been any private conversations that anybody could share with about that or if there's been any talk about requests for TIF funds or anything along the line of how the developer has been reaching out to us trying to partner with the city to help develop this? Is there any updates from anybody on with the City about that?
President Jones Is there anyone here who can answer that question? Who's on the meeting tonight?
Ellen Buchanan There have been no applications for TIF assistance on this project.
President Jones Okay. Thank you Ellen. All righty, okay we've got, oops I thought I had someone, but they've gone away so. All right any other questions from Council? Seeing no other raised hands, we will take a motion and I believe it's….are you? Do you have another question Daniel? Okay, we go to the chair typically since this is committee reports but our chair is not present tonight. So, I think it's Mr. Hess, are you in order to make the motion?
Alderperson Hess I, I believe it's Ms. Savage. I, I’m not certain though….
President Jones That’s right, are you vice chair Ms. Savage.
Alderperson Savage I am vice chair.
President Jones Okay then, the motion as vice chair for Climate, Conservation and Parks.
Alderperson Savage All right, so the recommended motion is to approve an easement to provide for emergency egress and safe gathering area in Kiwanis Park for benefit of the grantees (MC Real Estate Development, LLC) parcels with conditions as outlined and authorized the Mayor to sign.
President Jones Thank you for the motion; that is in order. We will take public comment on the motion. Is anyone here to provide public comment on this motion? If so, you need to come up to the podium. State your name and try to keep it at 3 minutes or less please.
Hannah Kosel Hello, my name is Hannah Kosel, K-O-S-E-L. I’m a tenant of Ward 3. For the first time since moving to Missoula this summer, I am not packing all of my belongings into my car to take the four to five trips it would take to get to a new rental unit and save on a U-Haul. I’m really fortunate; this is the first year I was able to resign a lease allowing me to enjoy the leisure of a Missoula summer, so far without smoke and without personal housing instability. I’m delighted that this fall I’ll be able to harvest the squash that I planted this spring and that just in the past few weeks got their first blooms. However, last year at this time, I was in a much different situation. Seven other residents amongst three units and just one home in Missoula had to find rentals in a town with a less than 1% vacancy rate, those are the data that we had at that time. My former roommate has since had to move twice in just this past year and went from our big, beautiful brick home with a fenced yard to a month-to-month lease and a trailer with no doors on the bedroom or bathroom. With this proposed development, 12 renters will face a split this displacement in a community for the housing crisis has become even worse than a year ago when I was last moving or two years ago when the developer was planning on redeveloping this property. And I want to make it clear that I’m fully aware that City Council cannot directly prevent this displacement due to the severe disparity that in power that tenants and landlords experience in this state. However, the City Council has a responsibility to preserve and uphold their mission to preserve affordable housing and the creative means that they can. Some of you have placed concern that these properties would not qualify as safe and affordable housing, so then I ask what actions will you take to hold the property owners accountable for the living conditions that they have or have failed to provide? How will we ensure that the safety of tenants in Missoula are prioritized before granting easements or city funding to developers? How do we take the time needed to answer these questions and ensure that we aren't rushing development or therefore displacement? We know that voting yes on this easement will speed up the process of development and displacement of these residents. We don't know what the landlords will do if you vote no. We can assume that they won't end the leases since you wouldn't have granted them the financial benefit to do so. We can hope and maybe in some way, the City can require that they fix the properties that they've neglected, that is their legal responsibility to upkeep, and we can guarantee that the majority of Missoulians, which at a meeting the other day said it was 52% of Missoulians are renters. We're watching closely to this vote, and we will be reminded that by you voting no to this easement or taking longer to figure out what this can look like that our City Council members will take every last chance you can with the power that you do have to stand in solidarity with renters all across this community. Thank you.
President Jones Thank you for your comments. Anyone else that wants to provide public comment on this item? Come on up to the mic.
Bob Moore Excuse me, Bob Moore again. I couldn't hear the presentation too well, but I did hear the word TIF, T-I-F, I guess and of course that causes my blood pressure to go up. As most of you members actually knew I then somebody said something about TIF that they were not going to use or not they had not been requested to use TIF money. Is that correct?
Alderperson West Yep.
Bob Moore That is correct? That they’re not? Well, that, that's very good and I hope if they do, whoever it is I don't know anything about this project. I hope TIF money is not used in it. No TIF money, remember that no TIF money. Thank you.
President Jones Thank you. Anyone else in the audience that wants to provide public comment on this motion? Come on up.
Anna Good evening. Hi, my name is Anna, I’m a tenant in one of the homes being taken down at Kiwanis in Ward 1. These properties are not specifically low-income properties but because of the cheap rent, obviously many low-income people live there. Just in my time living there, the house has been a community compound because of the free store, lots of people use the free store out front, and just the people who live through that house and pass through that house are also artists, musicians, and lots of blue collar workers. We personally found out that our landlords were more seriously considering this redevelopment through the Julian article published on May 11th about it. The lease has always been month to month but currently 30 days is just not enough time to find new housing in a housing crisis. Missoula is in need of housing, a great need of affordable housing but that doesn't feel genuine if we're okay with compromising the existing affordable housing in the city, and displacing those current residents. I know that City Council members don't have power to stop private landowners from doing what they want with their property, but I am asking you to listen to this with empathy and consideration as, as people who just want safe and secure housing because this choice will affect us. Thank you.
President Jones Thank you. Anyone else in the room that wants to provide public comment on this item? Okay, I’m going to go to the attendees, we've got some hands raised there now. So, Matt Sullivan, you should be able to unmute yourself and provide public comment on this item. There you go.
Matt Sullivan Okay. Thanks Gwen and thanks to all the members of the City Council, you guys have a tough job clearly as being exposed to this process and I appreciate the work that everyone's doing here. I, you know my wife Caroline and I own this property and we have since 2018. As we stated in the subcommittee meeting, we let, we've let folks…. I guess let me back up….So, one of the most frustrating experiences of going through this process with the City is, is the disinformation that is being perpetuated here by an organized group of folks. I just heard from some members of the community …..
Alderperson Carlino Point of order…no personal attacks.
President Jones Just, just to clarify, that’s an out of order…just go ahead with your comments Mr. Sullivan.
Matt Sullivan Okay, like for example, like when we see articles in the paper when people speak on these topics, Daniel included, there's misrepresentation. There's not 15 tenants here, we’ve rented, or 12, or whatever the numbers are that are made up and no one's ever taken the time to talk to us, including the tenants, who we've tried. We've reached out to almost all of them on these issues and described to them. The main concern here, which is I think this placement and I can appreciate that. My wife and I are totally comfortable with talking to the tenants about the fact that you know we've we may potentially develop this property. We have been since we rented them all out, it's why we rented them out a month a month and explained them to that during the lease cycle. As I explained to three out of the four, the five tenants that we have in these five total units that exist today, that we're considering to expand to 18 to provide more inventory and housing in the city of Missoula, mid-market housing. We explained to them that look, you're under a 30-day lease. It takes about six months once this process even gets going for us to get permits to build, let alone interview the builder, hire the builder, secure financing, all that stuff. We're going to continue to be up front with our tenants, as we are with all of our folks that we, we work with and help them understand the timeline so they can plan accordingly but I want to be very clear, like my wife and I are good people and I know that in my heart, and we've told all these folks the truth about this property since we owned it back in 2018. And you know we're hoping that we can create something that the City is proud of, that we're proud of that, really provides more housing to community members. It's not just these folks that are speaking up here. We rent to folks that are nurses at St. Pat’s, cops, we have two folks that we run to that work for the City. We have folks who work at various restaurants around town, I know two, a brother and sister who live in a unit of ours that are servers that come to mind. Like, I heard this disinformation on the last thing from Mr. Carlino where you know we're killing all the housing that like normal people live in. That's just not true Daniel, we rent to the mid-market of Missoula, and we don't have, in these cases, affordable income houses. No one, we don't receive checks from sec, you know section 8 housing vouchers here at these houses. We do in some of our other properties that we've built since 2014. We don't accept checks from the V.A. for disabled veterans like we do in some of our properties that we've developed around the city since 2014. So, what's fru…. just to share with you what's challenging about the situation is no one including Daniel or including some of the other folks who are shaking their head, Kristen Jordan...I’m not sure…
President Jones Mr., Mr. Sullivan, we are over time. I appreciate the comments, but we also really try to not mention specific individuals. So, I’m just going to give you another few seconds to wrap up. I appreciate the comments but just keep it without mentioning individuals, okay?
Matt Sullivan It's just frustrating to like have, no one's reached out to us to just say hey what's the deal? Can we work together? Can we come up with a win-win situation? Can we make sure that tenants are informed to give them adequate notice? You know things like that that we're totally open to. We'd love to work with the city on. You know, it's really just that simple. We'd like to the facts to be true, and we'd like to work together to provide more housing to mid-market renters like we do in Missoula for a number of other folks that aren't represented here in these meetings. So, I appreciate your time and again, I really do thank you and I really do hope Daniel and Kristen, we can work together. I hope that it's, you know the development, we provide is one that's, that's valuable to the community. Thank you.
President Jones Thank you. All right moving on to other public comment, we've got other raised hands. Gwen Nicholson, you should be able to unmute yourself and provide public comment, and please try to keep it to 3 minutes.
Gwen Nicholson Yes man, oh pardon me. I just wanted to say that I support the comments of the people who spoke first, especially the one from attendance union. I just think that this easement is probably something that probably should be delayed because I think a lot of things still have to be worked out. I think people need to have more communication going back and forth and I think we need to think more deeply about the value of replacing housing that people are currently using and displacing people into a market where it's going to be extremely difficult to find equivalent housing or even housing at all in some cases, not just in this one specific instance but in instances like this that will happen and will continue to happen as long as the housing market is like this. And yeah, just that I think there should be more of a voice for tenants and I’m glad to hear that I think some of the tenants are making their voices heard. Thank you, that's my comment.
President Jones Thank you. Okay next we have Chloe Runs Behind. You should be able to unmute yourself and provide comment.
Chloe Runs Behind Great, thank you Gwen. My name is Chloe Runs Behind. I’ve lived in Missoula for four years and these four years doing, due to the rapidly increasing housing prices, I’ve had to move four times, which I know a lot of people have very similar experiences, but I love this place and the community that has found me, and I’ve given a lot to Missoula through organizing work in return. However, myself and many other organizers and activists have been or are being pushed out of Missoula due to affordable housing. One specific house, 401 East Front Street that was called a blight to the neighborhood in the newspaper and is currently being threatened by these development plans has housed many passionate and influential community organizers, the majority of whom are LGBTQ+ community members. For years before I moved here, the Front Street house has been a known queer house, a safe space for low income queer people to live, create community, birth art and music and action. For years, the Front Street house has been a refuge for me, a place where I could go to feel safe and welcome despite not having never lived there and I know it's not just me. This house is loved by many across Montana and this house is nestling in hearts from coast to coast. Long before my time in Missoula in the 1900’s, a specific section of East Front Street was part of Missoula’s restricted district, a place that sex workers called home, bringing and keeping business to Missoula. For years, we feared that the Front Street house and the memories that holds in his old bones and peeling paint would get destroyed and the property owners made sure to instill that fear and instability without being open about the timeline. Of course, it benefits the landlords to portray themselves as transparent but from my experience, that is very far from the truth. Maybe it's because we're queer and used to transients, suddenly being unwelcome, being erased that we figured that this would happen eventually, but now it's in motion. A house that was brought to Missoula by train, a landmark of both Missoula and queer history could suddenly be erased. I love Missoula. I love this house more. A vote yes on this easement would be a great wake-up call that the City truly cares more about money than about the people that have shaped this place, that the city cares more about money than those who I call family. It would give me another good reason to leave this place on top of my rent slowly eclipsing my income. Please, please think about what gentrification is doing to the City; I know it's impossible not to. Please listen to the voices of those who are showing up today. Thank you.
President Jones Thanks for your public comment. Okay, next in line we have Winona Rachel, and you should be able to unmute yourself Winona.
Winona Rachel Hi, my name is Winona and I’m a resident of Ward 1. I’ve been a renter in Missoula for three years and have moved twice already this year. And similar to others who have been commenting, I would urge you to take more time in making a decision on the Kiwanis Park easement and also reconsider removing existing affordable housing during a housing crisis. Also, as Chloe mentioned, the Front Street property is home to queer and trans individuals, and when I first moved to Missoula, I found community there and found it to be a safe space and these individuals are disproportionately affected by housing instability. And I know that the City Council may not have the ultimate power in making this decision, but again I would urge you to delay deciding until more information comes to light. Thank you.
President Jones Thank you for your comments. Anyone else in the attendees room virtually who wants to provide comment? I’m not seeing any other raised hands and anyone else in the room? If you want to come up and provide comment, just state your name and try and keep it to 3 minutes.
Akulesh Bemler I’m Akulesh Bemler and I just have a process comment. If you would please, somehow, perhaps make more copies of the agenda for perhaps more audience members? That would be a good idea, I think, as I got the last one. Thank you.
President Jones Thank you for that. Okay. All right, I’m not seeing any other public comment. So, at this point, we can go to Council comments. So, if anyone from Council has comments? Mr. Carlino.
Alderperson Carlino Well, if it's in order, first I move that we send this item back to committee, and can I speak to that motion? I think this is interrupting motion.
President Jones If there's a motion on the floor, my understanding is this is in order, but since this is on committee reports, we will have to vote on it and there will have to be an affirmative majority in order to send it back to committee. So, yes, you can speak to that.
Alderperson Carlino Thank you. You know from hearing all the from all the tenants today, it's become pretty apparent that more time to talk about this, more time to have more public comment, would be really appropriate and first I want to just set the stage of what exactly this easement means. Of course, we cannot control landlord and tenant rights, but right now the landlords and developers do have a financial incentive to keep the renters in their unit because they get to collect rent every month, that's their financial incentive. If we grant the easement then they have a financial incentive to yeah they could keep collecting rent or they have a bigger financial incentive to be able to create 18 units and have much more money coming in each month. So, right now, their financial incentive is to leave it the renters in their homes, although they could develop it to 12 instead of five units with the easement granted, then they could develop it to 18 units, which would give them a big financial incentive granted by the City Council. That's our power; we have power over their financial incentive. It's a really hard time to find a place to live in Missoula, especially for the 52% of renters in town and I’m surprised that the vacancy rate is up at 2.9% now, but it's been around 1% and even down to 0.3% in the past couple years, and it's still a really hard time to find a place to live, especially affordable place like where these people are living right now. And if there's anything that we can do to help slow down this process, I think it's, it would be the most helpful thing to do as a Council, to do something within our, the power that we do have to send it back to committee and take more time on this item. And I want to point to our Housing Policy, a place to call home, it has a section in there talking about preserving currently affordable homes those that are subsidized and those that are market rate naturally affordable homes. These are the market rate naturally affordable five units that we have on Front Street and if you're gonna vote to just grant these easements and things then you somebody needs to tell us how we're gonna actually follow that policy. How are we gonna, how are we gonna preserve currently naturally affordable homes in Missoula that are not subsidized, that are just market rate, that are subject to the landlord tenant act? How are we gonna preserve them if we're not gonna use our vote to, to do so?
President Jones Next in comments, we have Ms. West.
Alderperson West Sorry, I’m a little bit confused about the process. So, I, I am not going to support the motion to send it back to committee and I believe that means back to Parks. I. what I am hearing the developer say is it's going to take at least six months for them to even be able to mobilize on this, so that is a bit more time. I disagree with your argument of financial incentive. I think the result would be that we see 12 units and in order to make that whatever the financial package is pencil, those 12 units are going to be more unaffordable. I don't know that we can, I don't think we can guarantee the outcome that you would like by sending it back to committee, and it there there's just no way to do that. So…
President Jones Okay, any other comments from Council? Ms. Anderson.
Alderperson Anderson Thanks madam chair. I also will not be supporting this. I think that there's a difference between preserve and delay and this is a delay and I don't think that this genuinely preserves this affordable housing in any long term and I think that I agree with miss west that their concern would be that the developer sort of throws up their hands and says City Council is too unpredictable, I’m not going to bother, I’m going to move forward with 12 units because I can do that starting tomorrow. And that absolutely goes against our larger goal of having more stock in general and hoping that these are going to be you know mid-range affordable, affordable in air quotes, but there you know we need more housing stock at all levels of the run and we need less at the very top and if we you know basically kick per, delay this easement, it doesn't accomplish any of our goals and I think it gives a false sense that we have some control over this when we don't have any.
President Jones Thank you. Any other comments from Council? Mr. Carlino.
Alderperson Carlino I could understand that, but the tenants and a lot of the commenters today were asking for a delay if because if we can't preserve maybe a delay would be helpful but I do want to point out that when the Grant Creek developers wanted to delay, they got a delay and, and it kind of shows like you know what this what happens with our city government and how tenants feel in this town. We feel like the developers have more say than the tenants and that's what happened at the Grant Creek in a way and that right now the landlords and developers I’m sure will have a city government that gives their way and I just want to show that this is really frustrating for us renters who have almost nowhere to go in town. So, I think when you listen to the developers for a delay and then not listen to the tenants for delay who are just needing a place to live, it just really shows I think who our government's working for.
President Jones Mr. Hess.
Alderperson Hess The Grant Creek folks got a delay imposed upon them; the developers got it delayed imposed upon them. They did not want to delay. They, they said as much at that at that meeting where the delay was imposed upon them. So, I just wanted to correct the record on that.
President Jones All right, Ms. Becerra.
Alderperson Becerra Yeah, I, I too wanted to clarify that. I’m not entirely sure what delay my colleague is talking about. That, that first rezone came in and was denied. Two years later, it came back as a different proposal and I, I find that trying to combine the two different, very different scenarios is not helping the conversation that we're trying to have right now. Thanks.
President Jones Ms. Vasecka.
Alderperson Vasecka Thanks. I have to respectfully disagree with my colleague, Daniel, there. I have, I’m a renter, so, I, I understand that my landlord who owns the property does, does have more power than me as a tenant and that's exactly how private property rights work. So, I, I just wanted to, want to point that out and I, I will not be supporting this motion to sending it back to committee.
President Jones Mr. Nugent.
Alderperson Mike Nugent Thanks madam president. I, I understand what's trying to be accomplished and I said it in committee meeting, but I, I really think that we need to be careful implying that we have the ability to do things we don't because even if we delay this, even if we send it back to committee, even if we vote it down, the owners still have the ability to under the terms of their lease give notice as to whatever is going to happen and basically evict people from, from those units and then they could decide to do a completely different project if they wanted to. And I know we're focusing on one part of the, the, the goals of the housing report but there are, there are more goals. One of them is more dense living downtown and you know we, we talk about development and we either have the opportunity to go out and build on fields or we have the ability to build more densely in the community, and whatever we do we're wrong and whatever we do the developer's a bad guy, but the reality is that our growth plan calls for, for dense development downtown. So, there are going to be times where an older building is torn down to build a more dense housing development, which generally would line up with the goals. So, I think that, that suggesting, suggesting that we have these broader opportunities in this vote; I just don't agree with it, and I don't know how it works, as far as this conversation goes, but I feel like we've got emotional before and we’ve kind of talked it out but….
President Jones Mr. Carlino.
Alderperson Carlino Perhaps the developers of Grant Creek did not want the delay, but there was definitely special treatment going on in that in, in that proposal. We spent more time on that than anything else and the people that didn't want apartments in their neighborhood were able to have quite a say in the public process and we had a development agreement and a lot of extra special things, and I just feel like when renters are coming to City Council and asking us to do something within our power, with our vote, to help in some way, I think it we really just shouldn't brush it off and we should be more empathetic and, and listen to the renters that are coming to ask for help and, and vote the way that they want us to, to help delay this.
President Jones Any other comments? Ms. Savage.
Alderperson Savage I just want to say that I am not going to support the motion to send it back to committee because I don't know what that would accomplish. As Mr. Nugent has pointed out in committee and tonight, the owners can do pretty much what they want with their property. I don't, I don't want to displace people that's never something that I want to do but I don't think that we would accomplish much by sending it back. Like they said, 6 months people do have time. I understand it's a terrible rental market, I get that, but what I don't like is being accused as a Council person of giving more preference to a different development project. I personally did not do that, I personally am not brushing anything under the rug, and that is really frustrating to me.
President Jones Ms. West.
Alderperson West Thanks. I just wanted to point out that those are two entirely different processes. Grant Creek was a rezone, and this is a very small easement outside of this private property even. So, there are different processes. They do not equate, they have different rules, and with that I’m going to call the question.
President Jones Okay, that motion is in order to call a question; it is non-debatable. We can take public comment on calling the question, which means we end debate and vote. Is there any public comment on calling the question? Seeing none in the room and seeing no raised hands, we will vote on calling the question to end debate. Marty if you can do a roll call vote on that.
President Jones Okay so the motion to call the question passes, which means we go to vote on the motion to send back to committee, and we have taken public comment on that. And we have had have we had public comment on that Jordan? On the motion to send back to committee, we'll take public comment on that and then we will vote on that motion. Any public comment on the motion to send back to committee? If so, please come up to the podium. Say your name and 3 minutes please.
Maggie Bernstein Great. For the record, my name is Maggie Bernstein. I know I just kind of hustled here, but I’ve been eagerly kind of watching and awaiting this because it really affects my neighborhood. Candidly, I feel like downtown, I’ve said it so many times a is a neighborhood and I don't feel that we are represented adequately by our City Council and that the decisions being made are not really minded towards the people who actually live here. And a lot of the people who live downtown are really rocking people who make this community the special place that we all love, and I know you all know that. You know, I think where a lot of my concern lies is around some of the considerations around TIF and the MRA. I think that we've heard around other projects feeling like that changing the position of the MRA to ask for some affordable housing requirements it's too late in the game for a number of different projects and that makes me feel kind of concerned and worried that you know perhaps that there are conversations or ideas and meetings being had with developers that maybe the public is not privy to quite yet and I would hate for this to move forward without some further commitments from the MRA around some transparency. You know, we all are very aware that they have written a letter of intent, well not necessarily a letter of intent but it's pretty explicit when you write a letter that states something is blighted when that's the very nature of what you need to receive TIF funding, that the writing is on the wall for that to happen and I think that looking at the city's Housing Policy where it states that we need to preserve existing affordable housing. I don't know what's happening with the sound…..I would really like to see some commitment from the MRA to not move forward with spending money on projects that displace people because I think it's out of line with the city's Housing Policy and I think that's a really, really easy way for the city to find some real teeth on what that policy looks like because the commitment's there but there's really not many details in the city's Housing Policy. And so I think a lot of folks who are involved and passionate about this project feel that maybe we would like some commitments for what is going to happen in the future, not just for this house but for others to prevent displacing people on taxpayer dollars and so I personally would really, really love to see this be tabled and then that you all return to this with some policy, some guidance for the MRA around not spending on displacement and then revisiting projects like this and others. Thanks.
President Jones Thank you. I’m gonna go to our attendees, virtual attendees, for public comment. We have Diane Stensland-Bickers, if you could unmute yourself and provide public comment on the motion to send this back to committee.
Diane Stensland-Bickers Hi, can you hear me?
President Jones Yes, we can hear you.
Diane Stensland-Bickers Hi, this is Diane Stensland-Bickers and I’d just like to say that in my opinion sending this back to committee is a waste of everyone's time. I feel for the people that may be displaced, it's a horrible thing to happen to anybody right now in this market but it's a waste of time to send this back to committee. That's all, thanks. Bye.
President Jones Thank you. Okay, next we have Chloe Runs Behind. If you would like to provide public comment on the motion to send back to committee.
Chloe Runs Behind Thank you. I just wanted to express some concerns around the fact that Council members seem to be ignoring the fact that many of the commenters today acknowledge that we understand that sending it back to committee or delaying this vote wouldn't have any effect on what the property developers or property managers choose to do, but if you do think that there is really no power that you have over the developers choices, I do have some questions which are what is currently being done to preserve currently affordable housing? Why are Council members directly opposing the request of community members, especially a community member who's directly affected by this displacement? While the property owner says that there will be at least 6 months until construction begins, what will be done to ensure that the property owners give tenants an adequate amount of notice before eviction because 30 days is not enough? What will be done to ensure that none of the units built can be used as short-term rentals? Can any, anything be done to ensure that portion of these units are truly affordable when compared to service workers incomes? And I think that these are all questions that could be explored further if the process is delayed. And that’s the only comment. Thank you.
President Jones Thank you for your comment. Gwen Nicholson public comment on this.
Gwen Nicholson Hello, thank you for throwing it to me, Gwen Nicholson. I just wanted to say that one, I think there's an argument for delaying in the name of the historicity like of the site itself. I think not enough time has been devoted to adequately documenting its impacts within Missoula’s history and its community. I also want to draw a distinction. I don't, I think that there's an attitude that low income and mid-market housing are interchangeable in some way, shape, or form and I do not feel like that is the case. I feel like it is more valuable to preserve low income housing even if it is at a lower density than it is to create higher density midmarket housing just because I think one market is something that's been extremely choked out and I think it's probably better to have more on the lower end of the pyramid than it is to kind of like expand the middle, especially because the middle isn't affordable just by and large. And then also, I think there's utility in delaying this process in some way, shape, or form, maybe not through sending it back to committee but delaying this process to send a message that tenants do have a voice within these proceedings and that I think there's utility in combating the reputation of the City Council as a rubber stamp for development projects, which I can assure you this is absolutely the reputation that the City Council has. So, that's my comment, thank you for your time.
President Jones Thank you. Seeing no other public comment, Marty we will have a roll call vote on the motion to send back to committee. Mr. Moore, we had already taken comment in the room on this item. Would you like to provide public comments still?
Bob Moore About oh, this comment?
President Jones This is on the motion to send back to committee. We're not even on the main motion right now. Okay, so back to the roll call vote Marty on the motion to send back to committee.
President Jones Thank you. So, that motion fails. It does not go back to committee. We are back to the main motion in front of us, which is approving an easement for fire access basically. And back to Council comments, Mr. Nugent.
Alderperson Mike Nugent Thank you madam president. I am, I just want to put out there that the, the decision that the way I see it in front of the Council right now is we can approve an easement through a public park for, for fire emergency exit basically and get 18 units in a place we want to build densely, or we can say no, and the developer tomorrow could go do 12. To me, that's the question in front of us and everything else is, is relevant information to the broader conversation but not within our decision-making process. And you know I listen to the public comment and I, I hear the frustration and it's valid and things like not getting like 30 days not being enough time to, to be given notice you need to leave your apartment, that's completely valid. Whether we vote yes or no on this, that doesn't change, that's Montana tenant landlord that's a that's a state legislature thing. I always find interesting when, when we get accused of being a rubber stamp or a roadblock and it just depends on which way the wind's blowing because this week we've gotten lots of emails from the tenants union that are all very well written and I appreciate it, discussing this project, and in the same vein we've gotten several emails about our development process and how it's a constant roadblock and the developers think it takes far too long and there's constantly things in the way. So, you know, I think that it's easy to get kind of laser focused on one issue instead of realizing that you know the City Council has to take a broad view on some of this and to me the decision is do we want to encourage more density in a moment where we have the ability to do so or do we want to forego that moment and risk there being less density with maybe 12 units or maybe even less because if they just went with what could be zoned there, they could do even less units than that and just make them very high end. So, I would rather see 18 units versus what's currently there now, which is 5. I think the history of the house is very interesting and I honestly didn't know much about it until I started hearing some of the comments, and you know I think that that's a conversation that that this community is going to have over and over again, but the reality is in in the system there's little we can do about some of these things in certain situations and this isn't one where they're coming and asking for our permission on whether they can tear down that house or not because that's not the question in front of us. And again, I think that that to imply that it is, is giving people hope where we don't have it and I understand that the platform is important to talk about this, but I think we need to be careful of that. I think that one other thing I commented out there and my colleague Councilman Carlino has pointed out that you know the financial incentive for the developers would be to continue collecting rent, and I agree with you, but the other thing is most people when they, when they develop projects they, they use consultants who come before us regularly. We see a lot of the same companies and what those people are going to start recommending to them is if your property is vacant, you're going to have a better chance of getting this done because there's no heartfelt stories attached to it. And my concern there is that then we are going to, to eliminate stock even longer whereas at least now we've had these units on and we will have them on for at least a little while longer as opposed to these developers just turning around and saying well if the City Council only cares about the people who are in them and we, they the developers have the ability to just say okay we can make them vacant in two months. My concern is they'll just do that, so I think that the com the whole conversation is more, more complex than the way it's played out. I look forward to having more conversations with the tenant’s union. I, I’ve enjoyed the, the few conversations I’ve had so far, and I do think that this is a great thing to be developed in Missoula. I think that now's the time and you've heard me say on Council many times that I think the, the home ownership rate that's 48%, that means the rental rates 52% is, is something we should be embarrassed by and try and work on and you know I think that's kind of where it starts. So, I will, I will be voting for this motion for this easement for, for the sole reason if I want to make sure that we get this property as dense as it can while we have the opportunity to do so.
President Jones Thank you. Ms. West.
Alderperson West Thank you. I agree with everything that Mike just said. He did a very great, I think a really good job of framing the decision space that we have in front of us and I, I think this property was purchased in 2018 with the very transparent plan of redeveloping that, this site. In that, you know the relationship between the landlord and the tenants is a contract that we as the City Council aren't party to and that delaying this any further is, isn't a guarantee even that this housing is going to preserved even just in the short term. The current owner has the right, they had the right to remove these buildings you know back in 2018, and they chose not to do that. They can have the right to tear them down now without this easement and the difference in what we would see without the easement is that you know there would be 12 units in the future instead of 18. And I, I also want to say that this is a very, because it's an easement an emergency egress easement on through parkland, it is a very I guess minor I’ll call it land use decision of the use of parkland in an emergency situation. It's not, it doesn't rise to the degree of impact of other land use decisions we've had in front of us that we could, I guess, use as a tool to incentivize or direct the project. So, it you know it's not a right-of-way vacation, it's not a rezone, it's not annexation, and it's not even an easement you know removal internal to the property. And I also want to just be very clear that I, I guess I feel like City Council doesn't you know we don't enter into any sort of conversations with developers. You know like there's no conversation happening between the developers of this project and us directly. We are, you know as individuals, we are a policy making body and I think for our decisions to be, I guess impartial be the word or to be based on the larger picture that would be entirely inappropriate, and I, I guess I feel like there is some insinuation that those sorts of conversations happen and that there's, I don't know it's like, like incentive for us to choose one developer over the other in different processes and that just isn't the case and isn't true. So, yeah I understand that this isn't a great situations for the folks that live there. I also understand that approving this easement does not mean that these folks are without their homes tomorrow. I understand that this is a process that is still going to take a while even with this easement being granted because the City does not move quickly, as we've seen in all those emails that we've gotten this week about how long it takes for things to get through Development Services, and I don't think that's not that's necessarily accurate either, but it will take a while. So, I will be supporting this easement because I think it does meet our density goals in downtown Missoula and is in line with all of our development plans and because I also feel that this has been in the works for four years, at least and that you know a temporary, small delay is not going to add any benefit to the situation.
President Jones Thank you Heide. Anny other comments from Council? Mr. Hess.
Alderperson Hess Thanks. We've been asked a few times tonight to do something that is within our power and I wanna, I wanna reiterate that I don't believe the requested action is in our power. I think that members of this body think about gentrification every day. I think that members of this body think about housing prices every day. I think that members of this body think about houselessness and the role that our housing crisis has had on that every day. I think that everyone on this body thinks that artists and musicians and community organizers and everyone in our community deserves a safe, affordable, comfortable, reasonable place to live. That's not the decision before us and it is, it's, it's inappropriate for members of this body to imply that it is the decision before us. It is not the decision before us; the decision before us is not, does not have an impact on the private relationship between the landowner and the tenants and that, that sucks and but it's not the truth. It doesn't, we don't have power over that right now and to say otherwise is disingenuous and it's false and it gives people false hope and that is just really inappropriate to me. So, I am really, I feel terrible for the people who live here, who are going to not live here because of the fact that we have a system that is, that is controlled at the state, that is driven by capitalism, that is not sensitive to the needs of the tenants, in this particular situation, but I do think that we have a decision before us that is not the decision that we've been told we have by, by some folks right now. And I just, I can't in good faith perpetuate this idea that we have the ability to, to change a system with this vote. We don't. We have the ability to, to… As Mr. Nugent said, we have the ability to make a, a project 18 units instead of 12 or four; that's the only ability we have.
President Jones Mr. Carlino and then Ms. Becerra.
Alderperson Carlino Okay, I will point out that we also have the ability to send it back to committee, which would delay it a little bit and I want to point out that the developer did email the whole City Council and the Mayor's office saying that they, they're going to want to partner with the city to help develop this and they asked for meetings with Council members in the Mayor's office, those are true things. And I guess, I have no hope that that we can send this back to committee at this point or delay it any farther and nobody was asking for it to be preserved, they were asking for it to be delayed, but nobody still can answer the question about how we're going to preserve currently affordable housing that are market, that are naturally currently affordable not subsidized. I’d love to hear an answer to how we're going to preserve naturally affordable housing in Missoula without putting in some sort of regulations or without being creative and, and sometimes delaying things, but I’m mostly just sad that we're going to lose a little piece of Missoula’s history and we're gonna have to watch another important part of Missoula that we all love get gentrified and have trees cut down, going into Kiwanis Park to build condos for frankly people that not every day working people in Missoula.
President Jones Ms. Becerra.
Alderperson Becerra Thanks. I, I have lived in Missoula for 18 years and I worked as a planner for a good chunk of those years and I have seen the transformation that this town has gone through, some of it positive some of it not and I am fully aware that relocation is a real challenge and that we need to do more, but we can continue to collaborate with many organizations in town to, to improve on that and find opportunities for relocation assistance programs that, that we can make available to our community. I really don't think it's beneficial to the conversation to, to create a dynamic of property owner versus renter. I really do think that it's collectively all of our responsibility to find more housing for everyone in Missoula who needs it. So, I, you know, I, I really, I wish for us to not polarize this issue more than it already has been. I also wanna point out that you know Grant Creek has been brought up many times, there's a sore spot I think for many people about that process and that's unfortunate, but I want to point out something to clarify. That was a rezone, it requires significant and robust public process because it needed to deal with issues such as fire, traffic, density. We needed to engage many multiple agencies and that process is, it's kind of a de facto delay if you will because it takes so long to get all the answers that we needed in order to make an informed decision. Lastly, I think that from my, from my planning years back then, I can tell you that every development that was easy has been done and all we have before us now is really complicated, complex, multi-layered and, and we have the humane aspect of it that is a significant one. So, I know it's not easy on either side and I think right of way vacations and granting of easements has become a new tool, and I feel that we don't have a policy that can guide that new tool, and we need to work on it. We need to have some clear expectations for the city, for the developers, for tenants, for everyone, so that we can, we can get the most out of those pieces of infrastructure that we hold in trust for the public. So, this is not the time, definitely not the time to get creative with that policy, but I do hope that we, we work on that because my guess is that we're gonna see more of these potential vacations and easements, granting of easements. That’s all I have to say and I, I will be supporting this proposal because I don't believe that delaying will get anyone any more time than they have already had, and my, my primary job on City Council is to aid in the development of policies that will ultimately be effective at helping my community find a place to live. It is not my job to give them false hope. Thanks.
President Jones Ms. Anderson.
Alderperson Anderson Thank you mad….…there we go, mics being tough tonight. Okay, mics being tough tonight. Okay, thanks madam chair and I wanted to thank my colleagues for their eloquent comments and their passion. You know, we have tough decisions to make every day on Council and it requires community input and collaboration and compromise on all sorts of things, and that's the way the public process is, but I think to Mr. Hess’s point, really you know a lot of there's a lot being made about things that are not applicable to this particular situation. There are implications that there's more there that actually is there and it's creating a lot of unnecessary animosity and a lot of unnecessary, you know, us against them when we all need to be working together to solve these problems. The problems that we need to solve on the larger level is not this particular easement. It does not change the difference of whether or not these tenants are going to be displaced 2 months from now, 4 months from now, 6 months from now, that is not what we are debating. We are debating whether or not to grant a fire access easement in a piece of grass in the Kiwanis Park that would allow for a denser development that is in line with our Housing Policy and in line with our Growth Policy and those are our guiding documents and that's what we're having conversation about. So, to say well if we delay, we can answer more questions about like whether or not we can require some of these to be affordable, permanently affordable…. not in front of us, we don't have the ability to do that. We could delay you know 5 years and that we at that point hopefully things will have changed, but it doesn't change what the decision-making box is that we're in right now and whether or not we can require longer lease times and notice times, not in our purview. And it is sometimes incredibly frustrating for us who are on Council, for the lack of decision-making box because we do want to do what's right for the community. We do want to protect those who are most vulnerable. We do want a thriving, diverse community that is welcoming to all sorts and that you know people in the service industry and people who are artists and creatives, they bring so much to our community and we all recognize that, but this decision does not affect, have the ability to change any of that and yes we do need to do more and we need to work together to you know within our power and then we also need to advocate to the centers of power that are holding us back from the things that we can do to actually address some of these issues. That is not what's happening today and to imply otherwise, I will agree with my colleagues is incredibly disingenuous because you're creating the sense of that we're in it for the landlord or that we're in it for the rent developers… Hogwash, that is not what this is and it is incredibly frustrating to imply otherwise to create the sense of us versus them when that is not the case in this and we are all in this together and we do better when we work together on these things. And it's just like that does nobody any good to imply otherwise and it gives a false sense of hope, it creates wedges when there shouldn't be, it creates harder working relationships, and we actually need to all be working together and to say well the developer sent an email asking for a….Well, yeah, that's, they, they are publicly allowed to send emails, it doesn't mean that anything nefarious happened. It's just the fact that we were in receipt of an email, which is publicly you know foible information. So, there's nothing deceitful going on here. We're not in cahoots. We are trying to do the best we can with what we have in the decision-making box that we are legally allowed, and to imply otherwise just creates more distressed and disingenuous and is disingenuous and makes it harder to come together to have the conversations that we need to be having to address larger systemic problems. And that is all I have to say,
President Jones Thank you. Seeing no other hands raised, I’ll just provide a few short comments to preserve naturally occurring affordable housing, the homeowner has to want to partake in any program that we're ever able to tip up. So, I think we need to be careful about how we frame things and how we use our policies and pull pieces out of them and argue that because it's the same with MRA and using tax increment financing. The property owner has to want to use these programs, we don't force them on people and in the big picture, I want to just scope out a little bit, take a step back. The City of Missoula is working to create as much affordable housing as we possibly can using the tools that we have, but the reality is that's going to be a very small portion of housing units that are built in the next few years. The majority of the housing units that will be built will be by private developers and that's, that's just a fact. That doesn't mean we're pro-developer or not pro-developer, it's just a, it's common sense, it's reality and we as a city need to not only work on building and collaborating with developers and property owners to build subsidized affordable housing, we also need to be a collaborative partner in building regular market, market priced housing that is not subsidized. And the better partner we can be in all of those endeavors means the more housing that we're going to get built in the long run. S, when we have something as simple as this in front of us, a floating easement that will only be used if there is ever a fire and those people that living in those 6 units can use that to leave the premises if there's fire, something as simple as this, and we make such a big deal out of it and make it so complicated, and try to obstruct it and delay it, we need to think long and hard about those messages that we're giving to developers who are not going to even try and work with the city to make a better project when it would have been something simple on our behalf, if we could have made it a better project with more density in an area as coveted as this area. So, I appreciate the advocacy. I appreciate that people in Missoula feel so strongly about this, but it's also, we've got to focus on where a decision space is and not cut off our nose to spite our face because if we make things like this very, very complicated, it sends a bad message and we're going to get less housing units built in the long run and that is not going to help any of us. So, we are all in this together. So, seeing no other comments, we will take a roll call vote on the motion to approve the easement.
President Jones Thank you, that passes.