Journal of Proceedings

Missoula City Council

-
Council Chambers (in person) or ZOOM Webinar (virtually)
Attend in person: City Council Chambers, 140 W. Pine, Missoula, MT
Members Present:
  • Stacie Anderson, 
  • Mirtha Becerra, 
  • Daniel Carlino, 
  • Jordan Hess, 
  • Gwen Jones, 
  • Mike Nugent, 
  • Jennifer Savage, 
  • Sandra Vasecka, 
  • and Heidi West
Members Absent:
  • John P. Contos, 
  • Kristen Jordan, 
  • and Amber Sherrill
Administration Present:
  • Marty Rehbein
  • and Jim Nugent, City Attorney
Administration Absent:
  • Mayor John Engen

1.

  

The virtual meeting of the Missoula City Council was called to order by Acting Mayor Gwen Jones.

3.

  

President Jones We will take public comment on items that are not on the agenda.  If anyone wants to provide public comment on items not on the agenda, I’ll go to the attendees first in the virtual mode.  I’m not seeing any raised hands.  If there's anyone in the room tonight that wants to provide comment on items not on the agenda, now's the time, if you want to come up to the podium.  Come on up.  If you just want to state your name and we allow 3 minutes per public comment.

David Everingham Thanks.  Carbon footprints, a new butterfly fly building is not a necessity.  An 80,000 square foot barn at fairgrounds for 4-H, this is not a necessity.  Proposed community center 55 million, this is not a necessity.  Three new hockey ice rinks, not a necessity.  Rodeo grounds in my public land, I think that's ridiculous, but that's my own opinion.  An antique 111 year old, obsolete, outdated 120,000 square foot steel concrete granite limestone building, that has no parking, the federal building, no insulation either.  What about global warming?  Seems as though this has been forgotten.  Where are we going to get the money for these projects?  I’ve asked to fix Lolo Street bridge for two years; it is rotting out.  Rebar is exposed on 100% of the north sidewalk.  Poor maintenance, if any, has contributed to this, but your answer is we don't have the money.  My taxes go up $500.00 a year, that increases the cost of housing for everyone, unaffordable housing.  I’ve asked to see the utility bill for the federal building for eight months.  The City can't get it, the county can't get it, I can't get it from U.S. General Services Administration property manager, Dan Hill.  I did a tour with him.  He said he didn't want to give it up till after the acquisition.  My Montana constitutional rights have been violated.  Montana constitution article 2 section 9 right to know no person shall be deprived of all public bodies or agencies of state government and its subdivisions except in cases in which demand of individual privacy clearly exceeds the merits of public disclosure, 2-1-402 legislative declaration Montana, as one of sovereign states within the union has the constitutional authority to enact laws protecting the environment of the state and safeguarding the public health, safety, and the welfare of the citizens of Montana.  However, this authority has been often, too often been ignored by the federal government.  All of these projects have massive carbon footprints.  You plan to have 400 employees in that building, where will they park, or will I park if I need to go to court?  I’ll park in Frenchtown and hike in.  There are three giant new motels in downtown, a huge apartment building, no parking maybe some in the parking structure.  I don't see any planning for the future in any of these projects.  The driving force in the federal building is historic preservation.  Polar bears don't need historic preservation to survive.  They need ice and it's melting.  We the taxpayers of Missoula county have not had the right to vote on any of these projects or the 15 million dollar leveraged bond for the fairgrounds.  I suggest you get the utility bill from the U.S. General Services and the yearly operating costs and share that public information.  We need transparency, this is the whole idea of a democracy.  This federal building deal is illegal we could build a new state-of-the-art, super-efficient smart building at the fairgrounds or the city-owned railing park property.  They are centrally located and have plenty of room to park.  You can even have the commissioners and Mayor's offices with a view of Lolo Peak.  Let's plan for our children and our grandchildren, stop unnecessary carbon footprints.  I have the right to know how we will pay for the yearly operating costs of that building.  I have the right to know how we will pay for the renovation.  I spent five years remodeling Missoula County Courthouse built in the same year.  The federal building is totally inaccessible; it is all labor intensive proposed a proposal of 40 million dollars to renovate it won't even do half.  I’m appalled that there has been no planning for any of this, especially carbon footprint study.  We need to know this, or it could lead to legal ramifications.  Thank you very much.

President Jones Thank you.  I just wanted to confirm your name was David Everingham?

David Everingham Yeah.

President Jones Thank you.  I didn't push the button until right after you started, just want to confirm.  Thank you for your comment.  Okay, anyone else that wanted to provide public comment on items not on the agenda?  Come on up.

Bob Moore My name is Bob Moore.

President Jones Good to see you again in Council. 

Bob Moore Well, I quit coming to these meetings.  I swore I’d never come to another one because I never accomplished anything, but I thought I would try one more, especially when I saw the article that the Roxy wanted a hundred thousand dollars.  I hope this hundred thousand dollars doesn't end up in the budget.  Is it Mayor? Can’t answer the questions?  The hundred thousand dollars, he didn't specifically ask, whoever this is, didn't specifically ask for tax money, but by implication, he is asking for tax money.  The non-profit of community cinema operating costs in its budget for the fiscal year 2023 has increased by a hundred thousand dollars, drivers included the higher cost of goods and energy, so forth.  This hundred thousand dollars is apparently going to be divided up among around, if remember correctly, 46,000 people who attend the Roxy movie theater.  Now, I have no, no anything against the Roxy Theater.  I do have a strong opposition to taxpayers paying.  I think you gave enough when you gave millions of dollars to the Lamborgh family, millions of dollars to the Marriott Hotels, millions of dollars for a bridge, stupid walk bridge across Reserve and on and on and on.  This is only a hundred thousand dollars, but the idea is the same.  Tax the taxpayers, tax anybody you can find tax, tax, tax it, tax it.  I got a suggestion for you.  I got my bill here from the medical thing.  This year they've charged people who worked on me $48,924.67; that's what they've charged the providers to, to me.  Last year it was something, I didn't bring it with me, but it was something over a hundred thousand dollars.  Now if you care to, you can add that to the city budget and pay that to me.  It would be just as well spent as what you're doing.  Thank you.

President Jones Thank you Mr. Moore.  Anyone else with public comment on items not on the agenda?  Okay seeing none, we will go forward with the agenda.  Marty if you could go through the committee agenda please.

Budget and Finance Committee, July 20, 9:00 – 1:40 p.m.

Climate, Conservation and Parks Committee, July 20, 1:55 – 3:05 p.m.

Housing, Redevelopment, and Community Programs Committee, July 20, 3:20 – 4:40 p.m.

President Jones Thank you.

5.

  

President Jones Next on our agenda is the consent agenda.  Items on the consent agenda were approved in City Council committees to be placed on the consent agenda to save time at Council meetings by voting on them as a package.  The city clerk will read the list aloud so citizens watching on MCAT, or YouTube will know what is on the consent agenda.  We'll invite community comment on these items before we vote.  Marty, if you could read through the consent agenda please?

President Jones Thank you Marty.  Is there any public comment on the consent agenda?  If anyone in the room wants to come up and comment on the consent agenda.  Let me check, we do have one person virtually, Mr. Larson.  You should be able to unmute yourself and we're taking public comment on the consent agenda.

Matt Larson Yes, Matt Larson, Ward 3.  This is regarding the claims, the police are buying $20,000.00 worth of, I believe, body cameras from Axon.  It's called the dynamic bundle; it's on the first page of claims.  I’m wondering why they're spending the $20,000.00 on the, the body cameras since we already have all body cameras for the police, I believe.  So, I was wondering if anybody could elaborate on that.  I believe we got like a federal grant for that, so just wondering why it's coming up on this, this claims, this week?  Also wondering about the planning for $95,000.00, just wondering why we have to plan for all this stuff like, like the federal building for instance.  We, we spent $400,000.00 to plan on whether or not we were going to take the federal building where the post office is; I just think it's a waste of money.  I don't know just, just my opinion there.  Yeah, thanks.

President Jones Thank you for your public comment.  Any Councilors who want to separate the question or abstain from voting?  And let me check online.  Okay seeing none, we will have a roll call vote on the consent agenda Marty

  • AYES: (9)Alderperson Anderson, Alderperson Becerra, Alderperson Carlino, Alderperson Hess, Alderperson Jones, Alderperson Nugent, Alderperson Savage, Alderperson Vasecka, and Alderperson West
    ABSENT: (3)Alderperson Sherrill, Alderperson Contos, and Alderperson Jordan
    Vote result: Approved (9 to 0)
  • Approve and authorize the Mayor to sign a professional services contract with A&E Design to complete Police Facilities Planning for a cost not to exceed $95,000.

    Vote result: Approved
  • Approve and authorize the Mayor to sign a Memorandum of Understanding between International Association of Fire Fighters Local 271 and the City of Missoula for the 2022 Paramedic Certificate Program (Missoula College)

    Vote result: Approved
  • Set a public hearing on August 8, 2022, on a resolution levying a special assessment and tax on the lots, pieces and parcels of land situated within Street Maintenance District #1 of the City of Missoula, Montana generally located in the downtown area in the amount of $135,733.00  for the purpose of defraying the cost of flushing and removing street rubbish from streets and avenues in the district during the fiscal year 2023.

    Vote result: Approved
  • Approve the Master Service Agreement with Baker Tilly Municipal Advisors for provision of municipal advisory services for the City of Missoula, the Missoula Redevelopment Agency and the Missoula Parking Commission. Fees to be paid based upon services rendered as stated per contract.

    Vote result: Approved
  • [First reading and preliminary adoption] Set a public hearing on July 25, 2022 and preliminarily adopt an ordinance generally amending Title 5, Missoula Municipal Code, the City Business Licenses and Regulations Ordinance, to incorporate additional provisions within Chapters 5.04 Definitions and 5.08 Licensing Provisions Generally and creation of a new Chapter 5.120 entitled “Cannabis” to incorporate regulations concerning legislative changes in the cannabis industry, reorganize definitions, and update outdated process language.

    Vote result: Approved
  • Set a public hearing for August 15, 2022 with final consideration on August 22, 2022 for resolutions on the fiscal year 2023 Budget, CIP, Resolutions increasing certain fees, Permissive Medical Levy, and the work plans and budgets for the Downtown Business Improvement District, Tourism Business Improvement District, Park District #1, and Road District #1.

    Vote result: Approved

8.

  

President Jones We do have one item under final consideration.  It's the city subdivision regulations state law changes and I think Jen Gress is here.  Jen was there any additional, any additional information that you were gonna provide?  If so, we, any kind of an update or any questions that were unanswered?  I’ll give it to you first.

Jen Gress I don't have anything to add to what we talked about on Wednesday afternoon.

President Jones Okay thank you.  Were there any questions from Council then? Seeing none, I am looking for a motion and this is in Land Use and Planning, so Mr. Hess.

Alderperson Hess Thanks.  I move that we adopt a, a resolution amending the Missoula City Subdivision Regulations, Articles 1 Introductory Provision, Article 2 Definitions, Article 3 Subdivision Design Standards, Article 4 Review and Approval Procedures, Article 5 Submittal Requirements, Article 6 Variances, Article 7 Errors Corrections and Adjustments, and Article 8 Exempt Land Divisions, incorporating applicable State Legislative Changes from the 2017, 2019, and 2021 legislative sessions along with limited clarifying amendments based on consideration of the review criteria.  And after public comment, I’d like to speak to the motion.

President Jones Thank you.  Okay, any public comment on the motion that is in order, on this item?  If you are attending virtually, please raise your hand, I’ll call on you.  I’m not seeing any public comments, so Mr. Hess back to you for comments.

Alderperson Hess Thanks.  We've seen this several times.  We had a comprehensive public hearing, presentation last week and a good discussion in the Land Use and Planning Committee.  So, I just wanted to highlight that this will likely be a fairly brief item tonight but it's, it's had quite a bit of eyes on it.  It's been through the planning board process and really I want to just thank Jen for the work, to keep our regulations up to date.  Sometimes the legislature makes changes that that regardless of merit or substance, we have to integrate into our local regulations and Jen has done that that here along with some other clerical fixes.  So, this is, this is good housekeeping to keep our regulations in order and I’m fully supportive.

President Jones Thank you.  Any other comments from Council on this item?  All right, then we will have a roll call vote Marty.

  • Moved by:Alderperson Hess

    Adopt a resolution amending the Missoula City Subdivision Regulations, Articles 1 Introductory Provision, Article 2 Definitions, Article 3 Subdivision Design Standards, Article 4 Review and Approval Procedures, Article 5 Submittal Requirements, Article 6 Variances, Article 7 Errors Corrections and Adjustments, and Article 8 Exempt Land Divisions, incorporating applicable State Legislative Changes from the 2017, 2019, and 2021 legislative sessions along with limited clarifying amendments based on consideration of the review criteria. 

    AYES: (9)Alderperson Becerra, Alderperson Carlino, Alderperson Hess, Alderperson Jones, Alderperson Nugent, Alderperson Savage, Alderperson Vasecka, Alderperson West, and Alderperson Anderson
    ABSENT: (3)Alderperson Sherrill, Alderperson Contos, and Alderperson Jordan
    Vote result: Approved (9 to 0)

9.

  

The City Council will hold this public hearing open until they take up the item for final consideration on July 25, 2022.

President Jones We do have one public hearing to open tonight.  State law and City Council rules set guidelines for inviting community comment in a formal way on certain issues.  Following a staff report on each item, City Council and the Mayor invite community comment.  All right, so tonight under 9.1 we have resolution vacating the South Sussex Bypass right-of-way and a related public utility easement vacation, and so we will start with a staff presentation on this item, and it looks like Brandt is here, Brandt Dahlen.  Good evening.

Brandt Dahlen Thank you and if you don't mind Marty, maybe making Steven and Jeff a panelist in case there's any questions further?  So, everyone can hear me okay?

President Jones Yes we can hear you and Marty will take care of that.

Brandt Dahlen All right, thank you.  Okay, so you might have seen this majority of it before but there's a little bit, a little bit of addition from some agency comment that I’ll be adding in.  So, hello I’m Brandt Dahlen of Public Works and Mobility, Surface Transportation and Engineering.  Today, I will be presenting the proposed South Sussex Bypass right of way and public utility easement vacation.  This is a petition request from WGM group on behalf of Casa Loma, LLC to vacate public right-of-way and public utilities located in the 900 block of South Avenue West.  This petition was first brought before the Public Works Committee on June 15, 2022 and then the following week on June 22, 2022, when the resolution of intent was passed.  Intersection improvements will be installed, okay making sure I’m not too far…. They'll be installed at both South and Stephens, a roundabout and Sussex and Stephens a stop controlled intersection to maintain transportation use and access for and around the proposed development.  This vacation will provide a more usable rectangular area for development, as opposed to two triangles.  This provides more buildable area and increases the number of housing units which as a result more affordable units.  So, this is Exhibit A in the resolution that WGM has prepared.  The right way vacation is depicted in blue, and the public utility easement is depicted in red.  Here's the preliminary plan for the intersection of the right-of-way improvements that are required conditions by the developer and provide some of the public benefit in the form of transportation improvements in exchange for the vacation.  The alley of this block was vacated in 1975 but the underlying 20-foot wide utility easement remains.  WGM has coordinated with the City and other present utility companies to either abandon unnecessary utilities or relocate the ones that are still desired.  They have coordinated with the major utility companies are providing a new public utility easement on three sides of the block for any relocated utilities to travel.  So, the City has required eight conditions of approval, these are in Exhibit B of the resolution.  They include the design and installation of intersection and other right-of-way improvements dealing with the present and future utilities on the parcel, the dependence of the route designation change, which should be known in a month or two, any easements or right-of-way required to be granted, and affordable housing requirements.  Another one requires the bypass to remain open until transportation infrastructure improvements are constructed that will provide safe and convenient movement around the site.  So, some of the public benefits being provided by the new right-of-way infrastructure are opening the currently closed off West Sussex Avenue, which reestablishes the grid network and helps disperse traffic.  The roundabout at South and Stephens will enhance access to the fairgrounds and the Playfair Russell Park Trail.  It will also increase safety by adding missing pieces of sidewalk and reducing the crossing distances of intersections.  Lastly, it will also improve bus access to the Missoula County Public Schools at Sentinel.  So, the affordable housing benefits, you know, they're setting aside 20% of rental units to be restricted for people earning up to 80% of the annual median income for a minimum of 35 years, which equals a household of two earning up to $52,250.00 per year, which the estimated impact is 242 households over that period of affordability.  So, some of the agency comments we got was NorthWestern Energy requested a 10-foot wide public utilities meant to reroute existing utilities around the block, as WGM has prepared and is shown here.  City utilities had requests relating to the fire hydrant in an unnecessary sewer main; they will be abandoned at the Stephens right of way and Missoula Fire had requests relating to the design of fire access roads, fire hydrant location, and demolition standards that will be addressed during the stage process, building permits and demolition permit phases.  Parks and Rec had some comments related to the design of the roundabout, an extension of the commuter trail, and wanted to make sure they were involved in the design process.  Public Works and Mobility will make sure to include Parks and Recreation in the right-of-way stage process, as things progress.  So, we recommend that you adopt a resolution to vacate this public right-of-way and public utilities easement.  Thank you for your time tonight and let me know if you have any questions.

President Jones Thank you and if the developer is present in the meeting, if they had any comments this is a time for the developer, if they desire to provide any comments.  T

[unknown/unannounced speaker] The developer's not here but WGM is here, as a representative and we have that presentation that we presented a couple weeks ago, if you guys want to see it again, but we don't have any new information to share.

President Jones Okay, that’s fine.  All right, so we'll take public comment on this item.  If anyone in the room wants to give public comment on this item, now's the time to come up to the podium.  Okay seeing none, we will go to the attendees who are attending virtually.  You can raise your hand if you want to provide public comment on this item.  I’m not seeing any raised hands.  So, are there any questions from Council regarding this item?  Mr. Carlino.

Alderperson Carlino Yeah, I’m curious if you could tell us Brandt how long the industry standard has been 35 years for this?  And you know with buildings in tech, with technology advancing and buildings being able to last longer, I’m just trying to figure out how we're still at the 35 years of affordability, rather than longer?

Brandt Dahlen Sorry, I have no idea.  I don't really deal with affordable housing and unfortunately Emily is out of town and didn't get invited to this meeting.  So, I can look into it though.

Alderperson Carlino I guess Jeremy has his hand up.  Thank you though.

Brandt Dahlen Yeah.

President Jones Jeremy, were you able to answer that question?

Jeremy Keene Thank you.  Jeremy Keene, Director for Public Works and Mobility.  So, it was explained in committee that the 35-year standard is really based on the, the life of the building before it's going to need repairs and maintenance and it's also tied to the financing of a typical building.  And so, that, that's where the industry lands in in terms of the 35-year time limit, in terms of the time the time that we can ask for affordability to be guaranteed because at that point, there's refinancing and additional investments that have to be made in the property.  So, if we go beyond that 35 years, it becomes less feasible for the developer to actually finance and build the project.

President Jones Thanks Jeremy.  Any other questions from Council on this matter?  Mr. Carlino.

Alderperson Carlino Yeah, I guess it’s to clarify….I was just curious how long have we been using 35 years as the standard for things like this?

Jeremy Keene I, I’m not able to answer that.  I don't know.

President Jones All right, any other questions from Council?  Ms. Rehbein, you have your hand raised.

Marty Rehbein I do.  I will say that the inclusion of a condition related to affordability is a new thing for the City, but this sort of a condition has not been traditionally, in part, of the street vacation process.  So, that, I don't know if that answers your question about how long we've been doing, it but in my 31 year career, this is a relatively new way of, of working on affordability for the City.

President Jones Great, thank you Marty.  Okay, other questions from Council?  Seeing none, we will keep this open, this hearing will remain open until July 25, 2022 when we will take it up under final consideration.  All right, thank you Brandt and Jeremy, appreciate your time tonight.

10.

  

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.

  • Moved by:Alderperson Savage

    Approve an easement to provide for emergency egress and safe gathering area in Kiwanis Park for benefit of the Grantee’s (MC Real Estate Development, LLC) parcels with conditions as outlined and authorize the Mayor to sign.

    AYES: (8)Alderperson Jones, Alderperson Nugent, Alderperson Savage, Alderperson Vasecka, Alderperson West, Alderperson Anderson, Alderperson Becerra, and Alderperson Hess
    NAYS: (1)Alderperson Carlino
    ABSENT: (3)Alderperson Sherrill, Alderperson Contos, and Alderperson Jordan
    Vote result: Approved (8 to 1)
  • MOTION

    Moved by:Alderperson Carlino

    Return Item 10.2.b to committee for further discussion.

    AYES: (1)Alderperson Carlino
    NAYS: (8)Alderperson Hess, Alderperson Jones, Alderperson Nugent, Alderperson Savage, Alderperson Vasecka, Alderperson West, Alderperson Anderson, and Alderperson Becerra
    ABSENT: (3)Alderperson Sherrill, Alderperson Contos, and Alderperson Jordan
    Vote result: Failed (1 to 8)
  • ​​​MOTION

    Moved by:Alderperson West

    [Mover] moved to end debate.

    AYES: (7)Alderperson West, Alderperson Savage, Alderperson Nugent, Alderperson Jones, Alderperson Hess, Alderperson Becerra, and Alderperson Anderson
    NAYS: (2)Alderperson Carlino, and Alderperson Vasecka
    ABSENT: (3)Alderperson Sherrill, Alderperson Contos, and Alderperson Jordan
    Vote result: Approved (7 to 2)

President Jones Okay, the last item on our agenda tonight is item 10.4.1 under committee reports.  We have a, an appointment to the Missoula Redevelopment Agency Board.  I don't think we have staff here to present on that necessarily unless Ellen, did you want to provide any comments to that?  Ellen Buchanan.

Ellen Buchanan No, other than to say that that Mr. Lawson’s background is, is incredibly appropriate for the type of work that MRA does.  He's got background in urban planning.  He's got background in finance.  He's got background in affordable housing.  He's been very engaged in the community, particularly around the development of the Housing Policy.  So, I, you know from what I know, he would be a great addition to the board but it's the Mayor's appointment and not the staffs.

President Jones Great thank you.  Any questions from Council?  I’m going in order here but given that it's a nomination, I think we'll quickly move on to the motion but any questions from Council?  Seeing none, I will need a motion from Ms. West, this is in your committee I believe.

Alderperson West It is, yes.  So, the recommended motion is to confirm the Mayor's appointment of Jack Lawson to the Missoula Redevelopment Agency Board for a term beginning immediately and expiring on April 30, 2026.  And may I speak to it?

President Jones Let me call for public comment first and then we'll review it.  Any public comment on the nomination of Jack Lawson to the Missoula Redevelopment Agency Board?  All right, I have Amy Sullenberg is raising her hand.  Amy, if you can unmute yourself, you should be able to talk.

Amy Sullenberg Great, can you hear me?

President Jones Yes we can.

Amy Sullenberg Okay, it's kind of windy, I’m sitting outside.  Just very, very briefly, this was brought to my attention and as one of the many non-profits for which Clearwater Credit Union under Jack's leadership supports.  I just think this is a, a brilliant move.  He, Jack, is amazingly community-minded and bringing somebody with his expertise in finance is going to be crucial, as we solve many of our problems and this just fits with MRA perfectly.  So, I’m just super excited for this and wanted to speak in favor of Jack Lawson.  That’s it.

President Jones Thank you.  Any other public comment on this motion?  Then we'll go back to Ms…..

Alderperson Anderson Madam Chair

President Jones Oh okay, yes, come on up. 

Bob Moore Do you have, can I have a comment?

President Jones Yes, now is public comment on appointing Jack Lawson to the Missoula Redevelopment Agency Board. okay.

Bob Moore Okay.  I don't know Jack Lawson.  I am very familiar with the MRA.  The MRA is basically nothing but a welfare program for whoever has the ear of the decision maker.  Ms. McKinney just gave several things that makes Jack Lawson sound like some kind of a fantastic financial man type thing.  The facts are, the only concern they really need is when the Mayor wants to buy a motel that's listed, at that time, for around six or seven hundred thousand dollars and he wants to pay them a million one.  That don't take financial acumen or any other thing you can think of.  I don't have a clue what it takes, all I do know that this welfare payments to, to certain people from the taxpayer’s money is a disgrace.  It should be terminated immediately.  One lady was. I’ve said mentioned the word MRA several times, I don't know if you afforded against him but it's not getting us anything.  It didn't create that stupid walk bridge over Reserve it didn't do, it didn't do it at all.  How about the millions of dollars the game to get this shopping center whatever it got to it, what happened?  How did, how did all this financial acumen get the two hotels, well maybe it's 3 now, 2 hotels pronounced.  Whoever, was his name Jack Lawson is?  It should have been tested to see if he wants to continue the crazy way that you're taking taxpayers money.  My taxes are going up, luckily I can afford my taxes, but I know a lot of people can and I don't want to pay it, it's being done.  It never stops, never stops….When will it ever stop taking taxpayers money and giving it to people like Lambros, the big bank over here, hotels?  Does that third hotel, is it getting too money I don't really know, but all kinds of things.  And I have asked, where's the Mayor?  Is the Mayor running the city now?

President Jones So, we’re, we're on the motion for Jack Lawson to be appointed to the Missoula Redevelopment Agency.

Bob Moore Yeah, I’m trying to say, I’m trying to say why he should not be …..

President Jones We’re over time here.  So, we're going to have to move on, all righty.  Thank you.

Bob Moore Just one more question.  I hope he is not like the ones that are on there now.

President Jones Thank you for your comment.  Okay, I’m going to go to Ms. West.  You had comments on this motion?

Alderperson West Thank you.  So, I, I met Jack Lawson, I don't remember maybe five or six years ago at the State Housing Conference and he and several of his staff at the Clearwater Credit Union were present, precisely because as an organization, they are very involved in the well-being of people in the Missoula community.  Jack, I think, is an exceptional candidate to fill this position.  He, as Ellen mentioned, has a breadth of experience and they've been involved in many really unique, we'll say it pilot projects, we'll call them pilot projects that have launched in the Missoula community.  I believe they've supported the Footprint Fund, which is a Climate Smart Missoula project that has also invested in things like the Cornerstone project which, is an affordable housing project here in Missoula and they are always open to trying creative ways to meet needs in the Missoula community.  So, I think the board would definitely benefit from his experience and perspective and his involvement with things like the Housing Policy because he is very familiar with goals we have for the broader community.  And I also want to just point out that he is the president of a credit union, which is a different structure of financial institutions than our banks are.  They are different and function differently and have different mechanisms of accountability, yeah just they're, they're not the same thing.  So, yeah I support his recommendation and I hope the rest of you will as well.

President Jones Thank you.  Any other comments from Council regarding this matter?  Mr. Carlino.

Alderperson Carlino Yeah, the Missoula Redevelopment Agency is essentially a political body that unilaterally decides how tax money's spent on redevelopments around town, and there's a lot of frustration in town about redeveloping, either places that are getting gentrified or redeveloping banks or hotels with taxpayer money, and to not continue that cycle, I’m not going to be supporting this or any reappointments to the MRA right now.  Thanks.

President Jones Ms. Becerra.

Alderperson Becerra Thank you.  I just wanted to say that I, I know jack from his work with IRC and providing U.S. Banking education to refugee members of the community arriving in Missoula.  And I also want to add that Jack does not only collaborate when asked, but he always seems to seek opportunities to get engaged with, with the community.  I think he's his creative approach to helping this community through the credit union will be a really good addition to the MRA Board, so I fully support his nomination.

President Jones Thank you.  Ms. Anderson.

Alderperson Anderson Thanks so much.  I did miss last Wednesday so I wasn't able to provide opportunity when this came before committee, and I just want to speak as well in support of Mr. Lawson and just the MRA in general.  I think that there continues to be this disinformation about what it is it does and what type of opportunities it presents and provides for our community.  It is not corporate welfare.  It is not subsidizing banks, if, as our former president Bryan Von Lossberg used to say, if you're the international headquarters for puppies and kittens and you are in a TIF district, you are able to apply for the you know opportunities and programs that they have.  It is not a particular type of business and to the flip side to that, there is hardly an affordable housing project in this community that doesn't have TIF funds in it.  So, it is a symbiotic relationship, and you need one to create the other and I think when you do a better job of communicating that.  In regards to Mr. Lawon, I mean, he is exactly the type of person that you want to have making these large decisions.  He has an incredible background.  If you had an opportunity to look at his resume and he has a B.A. in biology and environmental studies.  He has an M.A. in development studies from the University of London of school of Oriental and African Studies.  He worked for Senator, Bernie Sanders.  He was a land use planner.  I mean the, the diversity of knowledge and lived experiences that he brings to our community and to serve on this board, making some really tough decisions I think is really important and I mean also to Ms. West's point about working from a credit union.  I mean there's you know they may be considered in the larger banking umbrella, but they're not for profit entity.  He employs over 170 fellow Missoulians, so the struggles that every employer is having he is seeing firsthand and so I mean I’m happy to support him for this position and I think that we're pretty lucky that he's willing to give up his time and talents for this community.  Thank you.

President Jones Great.  Seeing no other comments, I’ll just briefly say that I’m thrilled to support Jack Lawson.  He has an amazing background that I think he'll bring to the Missoula Redevelopment Agency, not only the fact that he understands finance, but he's been an urban planner.  He's studied sustainable development.  I have no doubt that he will provide excellent input that will not only stretch those dollars further but provide great impact and always keep a climate lens on everything too.  He, just, he's got an amazing background and as running Clearwater Credit Union, he has he has taken public engagement to a new standard I think in this city and he's exactly the kind of person we want to see on MRA and I also don't want to lose sight of the fact that because we have a robust MRA program, we are positioned in Missoula so that we actually have some tools for affordable housing, compared to other communities that have not invested in their redevelopment agency, as Missoula has.  So, we, we are well positioned and you, in order to have those affordable housing tools, you have to have that Missoula Redevelopment Agency that has created that foundation.  So, seeing no other comment and we've had public comment on this, we will take a roll call vote on this item.

  • Moved by:Alderperson West

    Confirm the Mayor’s appointment of Jack Lawson to the Missoula Redevelopment Agency Board for a term beginning immediately and expiring on April 30, 2026.

    AYES: (8)Alderperson Nugent, Alderperson Savage, Alderperson Vasecka, Alderperson West, Alderperson Anderson, Alderperson Becerra, Alderperson Hess, and Alderperson Jones
    NAYS: (1)Alderperson Carlino
    ABSENT: (3)Alderperson Sherrill, Alderperson Contos, and Alderperson Jordan
    Vote result: Approved (8 to 1)

11.

  

None.

12.

  

President Jones I will pass on communications from the Mayor.

President Jones For general comments of City Council, I’m gonna go around the horseshoe and we'll start with Ms. Vasecka.

Alderperson Vasecka I’ll pass tonight, thanks.

President Jones Okay, Ms. Anderson.

Alderperson Anderson I’ll pass.

President Jones Mr. Nugent.

Alderperson Mike Nugent Pass.

President Jones Mr. Carlino.

Alderperson Carlino Yeah, I guess I’ll just speak to the comments about trying to listen to, I was just trying to listen to the tenants and people that are public commenting, that wanted to delay the easement and I don't think it was disingenuous at all to say that delaying it, would help slow down the process of development.  And I think it's disingenuous for Council members to act like we have no power over gentrification and no power over helping our tenants in town.

President Jones Ms. Becerra.

Alderperson Becerra I will pass, thanks.

President Jones Mr. Hess.

Alderperson Hess Thanks.  There was a really good presentation to the, then it was the Administration and Finance Committee on February 9th, I believe, about the Missoula, about the Missoula federal building which was constructed beginning in 1913 and there's a ton of good information in there, and also on our Engage Missoula webpage which might be a good resource for anyone who has any questions about that project.  I think there's some real inherent sustainability of reusing a building that was frankly, that will frankly last as long as someone takes care of it.  We don't build buildings like this anymore and it's a shame and that building was, is 109 years and counting and will easily last another 109, and if, if the local governments take care of it.  So, I think there's a lot of sustainability baked into that.  Also, while the inside of the building is chopped up and kind of weird, the federal government has been a good steward of it with historically accurate double hung windows, but that have been upgraded to be energy efficient and there's just there's features like that throughout the building that are, that demonstrate that historic preservation does not have to be at odds to our climate goals, and in fact, I, I think it, it rarely is.  Lastly, I want to say that the there's a lot of information available on the Engage Missoula webpage and I want to highlight one piece which is that the current estimate is that the city and county will spend 20 million dollars to redevelop the federal building, which is in contrast to spending 31 million dollars to build a new city hall or 28 million dollars to add on to and renovate the existing city hall or 20 million dollars to, to lease the amount of space required.  This is through 2034 and to be clear, that's just city costs, so, so, but I think it shows that it's economically prudent.  And lastly, there's all this information on Engage Missoula and there's other information available that satisfies someone's right to know, which is a sacred right in my opinion Montana and to, to levy an accusation that someone is being denied their right to know has to be backed up with the demonstration that they took the time to try to know.  And I don't know if that's the case here, but I just think that's a serious accusation and I think there's a lot of information available about it.

President Jones Thank you.  Ms. Savage.

Alderperson Savage I’ll pass, thank you.

President Jones And Ms. West.

Alderperson West I just want to remind everyone that the fair is coming up.  I get to spend my birthday at the fair every year it turns out and that there are deadlines coming up if you want to exhibit in the fair.  Most things like the creative arts or what they haven't like fabric and fiber and culinary arts departments, those things close on July 29, 2022, so you still have time to make and enter projects and then a lot of the agricultural divisions like vegetables or flowers and those sorts of things end early in August.  So, check out the Missoulafairgrounds.com exhibitor guide, and yeah see what is there and see if you want to enter and share your talents with folks that come visit the fair.

President Jones Thank you.

15.

  

President Jones We will stand adjourned.  Thank you for your service.  

The meeting adjourned at 8:09 p.m.

No Item Selected