Journal of Proceedings

Missoula City Council Meeting

October 21, 2019, 7:00 pm City Council Chambers 140 W. Pine Street, Missoula , MT

Members Present: Stacie Anderson, Mirtha Becerra, Michelle Cares, Heather Harp, Jordan Hess, Gwen Jones, Julie Merritt, Jesse Ramos, Bryan von Lossberg, Heidi West

Members Absent: Julie Armstrong, John DiBari

Administration Present: Ginny Merriam, Communications Director, Jim Nugent, City Attorney, Marty Rehbein

Administration Absent: Mayor John Engen, Dale Bickell, Chief Administrative Officer

1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL

The meeting of the Missoula City Council was called to order by Mayor John Engen at 7:00 PM in the City Council Chambers at 140 West Pine Street

2. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES

2.1 Minutes for September 23, 2019

The minutes were approved as submitted.

2.2 Minutes for October 7, 2019

The minutes were approved as submitted.

3. SCHEDULE OF COMMITTEE MEETINGS

3.1 Committee Schedule for the week of October 21, 2019

4. PUBLIC COMMENT

Doug Grimm said he represents the Upper Rattlesnake Community Forum. About two years ago he talked about a problem and the solution that he had suggested wasn’t really taken at that time. He said if you look at the map up there, look at the coal train and see an arrow where the coal train disappears into the trees, that’s where he almost lost his life several weeks ago. When he was four years old, his father was in a horrific train crash this side of Miles City. A trestle collapsed and he was the first person in the train to survive. He managed to survive that and Doug said he’d hate to see himself get hit by a locomotive that was going 15 miles an hour here in Missoula. There are four streets coming in from both sides of that track where the Madison Street crosses the Rail Link and that people are headed north. People on Spruce Street are headed east. From the north side of the track people are coming down off Waterworks Hill on West Greenough Drive which is also known as Duncan Drive. From the west, coming in north,

1

Second Street East so the crossing arms go down and the traffic for the cars is stopped. You know the traffic is going to stop and a train is coming because about two blocks away the engineer pulls a horn that is really loud. Doug lives a mile from the crossing up the Rattlesnake, and if he’s in his yard, he can hear every train whistle that comes across that crossing. Just before the train engine gets to the crossing, he pulls the horn again and usually doesn’t let go of it until he’s halfway across the street. What is happening is if you come down West Greenough Drive and what happened to him was the crossing arms came down and there were two or three cars ahead of him that stopped at the crossing arm and they all waited for 127 cars to pass them by. When the crossing arms went up, the cars from northwest Greenough Drive crossed the crossing and the first car wanted to make a left-hand turn and go south onto Madison but there are cars on Spruce Street and are trying to cross and they can’t get through. So, the first car, the second car and third car stops, Doug is ending up stopped on the railroad tracks.

Acting Mayor von Lossberg said he was sorry to interrupt but they have a full agenda with five public hearings and Doug’s pushing four minutes. He said he and Heidi, his representatives, would love to follow up with him and there are plans in work right now with Public Works around that intersection and they would be happy to go over those plans with him. He asked that Doug reach out to him.

Doug Grimm said he saw he saw a train coming at him and he floored his car and jump onto the sidewalk and drove on it.

Acting Mayor von Lossberg said we are all glad that he took action to be safe.

Un-named person said a lot of us are from Montana so he thinks a lot of people will feel some solidarity when he says that the reason that this is Big Sky Country is because we don’t have a lot of tall buildings. Our monuments are not to man but to nature. The reason people like to live here is because of the canyons and peaks and so much richness to living here, but it’s also trouble to live here when the living expenses are getting out of control. We, Montanans, know that the world is getting bigger and understand that this city is going to grow. With climate change and whatnot, more people are likely to start moving here. The city is going to get bigger. The only thing that a lot of us dispute is how that happens. For some reason the Missoulian has heard this awful rumor that people in Missoula strongly support and indeed encourage the taxpayer giveaway of over $16 million to a Wisconsin millionaire. That ain’t Montanan. He was born in Missoula and so he can speak freely for everyone he knows who is from here when he says that’s not Montanan. If you believe, as Martin Luther King, Jr. did, that budgets are moral documents, then we are obligated to ask ourselves whether it should be our local government’s priority to further enrich local tycoons while homelessness in Missoula is now so bad that we have billboards announcing the exact number of homeless children all over our town. That seems like a strange contradiction to him. A huge number of Missoulians are struggling worse than ever to meet ends meet but it seems that all the City can do is squeeze already desperate taxpayers for just a little more in perpetuity. He said we have all these music venues to get drunk at so we can forget what a dumpster fire our town is turning into. Thank God we aren’t using tax money to a deal with affordable housing. What the City Council communicated to the citizens of Missoula at last week’s meeting is that they don’t care about us. Entertaining wealthy tourists at all costs may be Nick Checota’s prime directive but it’s not shared by the rest of the people who are from here. The City wants him and his neighbors to pay this fancy new eyesore, a venue we don’t need, don’t want and shouldn’t be talking about. There already enough concert venues in this town owned and operated by Mr. Checota: the Top Hat, the Wilma and the Kettle House and he also enjoys exclusive booking rights at the Osprey

2

Stadium. This monopoly behemoth is celebrated as a revolution and touted as a jet engine in the middle of an economic crisis by our local media. Many of us are from Missoula and were born here but somehow have less agency over how our tax dollars are going to be spent because of the constant misuse and abuse of tax increment financing.

Troy said if the City continues to abuse TIF by taking tax money from hardworking Montanans, then TIF should be outlawed altogether. Becoming dependent on future gains and projected earnings to pay for existing projects seems a precarious gamble when considering every short period of American history. By forcing Montanans to further enrich a Wisconsinite is just plain wrong and a Wisconsinite that apparently wants to transform Missoula into Austin, Texas. A Sunday article in the Missoulian demonstrated that Orwell meant when he said that journalism is printing something that everybody doesn’t want printed. Everything else is public relations. Congratulations, Missoulians. The best PR a millionaire can buy in a sleepy mountain town. We have nothing against Austin personally but to our elected representatives, we are not Austin. Austin sucks. If Austin is so great, why don’t you move there and leave Missoula alone. We are not Austin. We don’t want to be Austin. We don’t want to be anyplace else other than Missoula because Missoula has sole and Austin doesn’t. There’s a lot of spirit in Austin but not sole. Spirit adds in alcohol. Sometimes that contributes negatively to suicide rates in Montana which is still number one in the nation for suicide statistics, but nevertheless one of Mr. Checota’s primary profit drives is alcohol sales. Look at the state of Seattle or Portland and San Francisco with their homeless epidemics now to proportions that should be declared a national emergency or at least a national disgrace. Policy shapes towns and as we watch Jeff Bezos corporating Seattle, most of us are concerned that Nick Checota is doing the same thing to Missoula. Many of us are concerned the City Council is allowing it to happen. Don’t turn Missoula into a place that nobody wants to live in. Don’t bring your big city problems to our small town. When in Rome do as the Romans do. When in Missoula have respect for the people who live here. Missoulian incorrectly assumes that Kevin Hunt is the only member of the public to speak critically about the project. Hunt’s questions are our questions. Hunt’s questions why TIF funding wasn’t used for badly needed affordable housing. Hunt said that raising property taxes causes people to move out of buildings which causes them to be demolished and then the area is declared blighted, thereby necessitating the use for even more TIF. Developers love the cycle of destruction because it’s good for them, their egos and their enterprises, but it’s bad for everyone else. If you don’t understand that or are profiting from it, you are not fit to represent Missoula. Kevin Hunt said, “Is it in the public interest to side virtual monopoly or on major cultural entertainment events to one entity?”

Dan said Hunt’s questions are our questions. Hunt questions why TIF funding wasn’t used for badly needed affordable housing. Hunt said that rising property taxes cause people to move out of buildings which causes them to be demolished, and then the area is declared blighted, thereby, necessitating the use of even more TIFs. Developers love this cycle of destruction because it’s good for them, their egos and their enterprises but it’s bad for everyone else. If City Council doesn’t understand that or are profiting from that, then you’re not fit to represent Missoulians. Kevin Hunt asked is it in the public interest to cede virtual monopoly on major cultural entertainment events to one entity? Hunt’s criticism was not limited to this riverfront development and Nick’s entitlement to public money but also to the Mayor’s decision to suddenly move the Council vote from today to last Wednesday. It also seems like Nick Checota has bought the town. Montana has a lot of history with going from copper kings to hotel tycoon robber barons to concert venue robber barons. None of the locals share any enthusiasm for it. These kinds of shenanigans are why people have lost faith in democratic government because crony capitalism

3

so often amounts to little more than organized crime for sophisticated types to rule no matter who is office. Why do we vote for you people? Could it be that we trusted you, and that you wouldn’t cave to the same corporate crap that has ruined a lot of other cities already? Could it be that we trust there are people employed in this building, as public interests and trustees, working on behalf of the public good, after all that is the task of the officials, correct? Working to look after the community, working to guarantee our children will have a safer, healthier and freer Missoula in the future. We have entrusted you this responsibility because we, the people, can’t come to City Council meetings all the time and look over the admin of our town. When the Missoulian acts like there’s only one crazy guy in this whole town who opposes this development, many in this community does not oppose this project because that language is far too soft to even remotely reflect just how much your community loathes the very idea of this project. The fact we’re even having this conversation infuriates us beyond your imagination. We, the people, don’t always have time to come here and gripe because we are far too busy trying to make ends meet, which is becoming more and more difficult to do, especially when our city officials continue to add more and more of a burden on those of us who still live here. Many thought it was implicit when they voted for City Council that they wouldn’t sell us out to out-of-state people like this.

Kristi Stack said she’s in Ward 6. We, the people, don’t always have time to come to Council meetings and gripe on the fact that we are far too busy making ends meet, which is becoming more and more difficult to do especially when our city officials continue to add more and more of a burden on those who still live here. Many of us thought it was implicit when we voted for you that you wouldn’t sell us out to out-of-state people like this. Many of us thought it was implicit that Council would actually represent your community for the apparent representative democracy we have here. The question is whether the City Council represents the people or money. The issue is not whether this development is good for the community, but the issue is now is that you’re installing the most significant development projects in our city’s history without the opinions of the people whose property taxes will go to pay for this. We didn’t consent to this. We are well aware that Missoula has a consent issue after all Crack Hower wrote a book about us because of it. We, the community, that you want to pay for this construction, do not consent to it. It will not improve our lives. It will only burden us with more debt that could be spent in far more better ways. The issue now is that Council now tried to sneak this past the Montanans that they represent. What’s even worse, the reasoning for abruptly fast-tracking the meeting on this issue could be more self-contradictory. They are trying to avoid rumors so they thought a good way to avoid rumors, which spread rapidly in this town according to our Mayor, is the best way to avoid rumors is to sneak around. The issue now is why are you deliberately keeping homeowners out of the discussion on something that they’ll be paying for? There’s a trust issue here. If you continue to demonstrate an outright regard bordering on contempt for the people who have lived in this community far longer than the Wisconsin millionaire you want us to make even wealthier, then you clearly do not represent Missoulians. Nick Checota is already wealthy and you want to line his pockets with our money. We are outraged by that.

Jesse said tax increment financing should be illegal or at least drastically amended and curtailed. Tax increment financing shouldn’t be the silver bullet. TIF money was used to build the Stockman bank and was used to turn the Mercantile into the Marriott. TIF money was used to help enrich Peter Lambros at Southgate Mall and now TIF money is being used again to further enrich Nick Checota. Tax increment financing schemes that serve as corporate giveaways highlight how politicians often hide where tax money is actually being spent. In today’s digital age, it would be very easy for the government to publish detailed records of the budgets online which could include a detailed list of all the contracts that the government is bidding on. The

4

politicians continue to use their archaic pre-digital excuse that government business is just too complicated for the public to witness to. If that’s true, then we have a major problem. If you can’t explain tax collection schemes to the people, you’re taking them from, then you shouldn’t be doing them at all. The Checota deal and the politics and shenanigans and propaganda surrounding it help make perfectly clear that tax increment financing regulations require immediate and drastic amendments. Too often TIFs are used to justify projects that the public aren’t supposed to be able to understand. If you can’t explain a tax collection scheme at a fourth- grade level, then you shouldn’t be doing it at all. Unfortunately, the public lack the magical abilities to conjure elaborate spells that shape the trajectory of our community. Now the community is asking the City Council to take note of the fact that your community is not okay with this application of tax increment financing and we probably need to get rid of TIFs altogether. The public does not have the magic wand of legislation and don’t know how to amend things or how to pass ordinances. That is super boring and that is why that’s the Council’s job. Publicly financed projects are extremely complicated and largely inevitable. The question isn’t whether a convention center of this type could be something that could benefit the city greatly. The question is whether it’s being handled in the best way possible. Missoula is growing and changing. We can all see this and it is all of our responsibility to ensure that it grows in a healthy way. Increased tourism can be an enormous boom to a midsized city like Missoula but one of the historical risks of tour centric economics is that the new jobs and slightly increased wages created by the tourist dollars don’t keep the pace with the cost of living increases that the tourism causes.

Brian West, Ward 6, said increased tourism can be an enormous boom to a mid-sized city like Missoula but one of the historical risks of tourism centric economies is that the new jobs and slightly increased wages created by the tourist dollars do not keep pace with the cost of living increases that the tourism causes. What is the point if all we accomplish is to improve the city’s total income on paper but in reality, all of that increased income goes to the wealthiest people or corporations in the community? The hotel owners, the bar owners and the entertainment magnates. If the policies of the Mayor and the City Council benefit the extremely wealthy elite business owners and out-of-town hotel chains at the detriment of the overall citizenry, then what recourse do the people of Missoula have other than to exercise their electoral power and call for a change in the staffing of the City Council? We have an absentee ballot for the Missoula City Council election taking place on November 5. We will be speaking to our Councilmembers after the meeting and will encourage every other person here to seek out their Councilmembers and discuss the issue with them directly. These issues can be extremely complicated and we all have other obligations and responsibilities that prevent most of us from studying the proposals and the underlying circumstances in enough detail to know with absolute certainty what the consequences of such policies might be. That is the Council’s job. The City Council is elected for the explicit purpose of managing these complicated affairs in our interest. If his Councilmembers and the City Council in general can address the concerns raised here today in a satisfactory way and make reasonable assurances that this much needed and inevitable development is being handled in an ethical and responsible manner and will not be used as a taxpayer subsidy of wealthy business owners, then we support our City Councilmembers in the coming election.

Brandon Bryant said he was born and raised in Missoula. He said in order to earn their imminent reelection opportunity, the City Council must account for these very legitimate concerns. The City Council must also account for the appearance that this vote was rushed and hidden, moved ahead of schedule with little reason or notice. As previously stated, hiding a City Council vote on this very important issue is a terrible way to dispel rumors and increase vote confidence. On the

5

contrary, such under-handed tactics give the citizens of the city great cause for concern and if these issues are not addressed satisfactorily, they will have no recourse but to clean house and elect new representatives. If we allow bureaucrats to steal everything that isn’t nailed down, then they alone guarantee their collective fate will involve their continuing subsidence to bullies, thieves and liars. We owe our children better than that and owe nothing to Nick Checota. The reason this is big sky country is because we don’t have tall buildings and our monuments are not to man but to nature. That is why people like it out here. Whether it’s sitting by a stream or hiking a mountain, people like the big sky out here. The world is getting bigger and with climate change and whatnot, more people are more likely to start moving here and reminding you of this. We know that this city is going to get bigger and the only thing they dispute is how the city gets bigger and for some reason the Missoulian has heard an awful rumor that people in Missoula strongly support and encourage the taxpayer giveaway of over $16 million to a Wisconsinite millionaire.

Brandon Zimmer said he worked for Nick Checota for a number of years. He was employed at the Top Hat from 2009 until almost 2017. The most important thing for him is that there are still local business owners in this town trying to continue booking music, having live music, promoting shows, housing artists from out of state and still try to make a living. When he quit working for Nick Checota, he didn’t have any more opportunities for a while until he started his own business which he feels he’s doing great now. There are a lot of folks who are out of work and the clubs are closing at a rapid rate. There’s probably been four or five that have closed since he took over ownership of the Top Hat. It’s imperative for people to consider that there are other people in this town who are also trying to make a living in the entertainment industry.

Denel Carlino said he’s running for the Public Service Commission in his district and the people standing with him are super passionate about stopping climate change and helping social justice. The people standing with him introduced themselves as Olivia, Nick, Gemma, Hannah, Lottie Hall, Matthew Jeconie. Denel said that he wished they were here today to talk about a green new deal resolution for our city and to talk about maybe a climate plan that could get us there in time. He wished they were here to talk about a climate emergency resolution but instead they will focus on the bare minimum for right now and get everyone on board with that. Since January, he’s been working on no fossil appeal money pledge campaign in Montana. They see how big climate change is a problem. Species are going extinct every day. Millions of people are dying from climate-related effects every year and natural disasters are increasing at unprecedented rates right now so we should be doing everything we can to stop climate change. He knows a lot of the Council has voted for efforts that do stop climate change and appreciates that but basically they want everyone to sign onto a this pledge campaign because a lot of them will be career politicians here and they want Council to sign on now to agree not to take fossil fuel money throughout their campaigns because this money corrupts our politicians and gets us deeper into this mess and keeps us from stopping climate change. You can look up the website nofossilfuelmoney.org for more information. He asked Jesse Ramos to sign onto the pledge and he also asked Dave Strohmaier to sign onto the pledge so that we all can be on the same page throughout their time as politicians and then can have more trust. He sees really attentive people on this Council and that’s awesome. They also care and resonate with our community and that is great. They have about 2,000 politicians in the U.S. signed on so far.

Nick read the pledge to everyone. He also said the last time the Mayor laughed it off and said he wished he was offered fossil fuel money so he could turn it down. If fossil fuel money isn’t really a player on the local level, then it should be easy to sign and if not, people might wonder if it’s their future political aspirations they’re thinking about.

6

Anthony Jay Cox said he’s holding in his hands a form that’s available on the City website. It’s called the request for refund of paid city surcharge fees. Everyone he’s talked to say they haven’t heard of this. He filled it out. Just put your name on it, date of birth, mailing address, phone and email. It says would you like any possible refund converted to pay other fines, fees you owe? The court fines that a refund is due, a check will be mailed to the address provided above. Anyone can do that. He said anyone can fill it out and see if you get a refund. He did that. The amount seems to have been minimized but when he filled out the form, waited a couple of months, he got a check in the mail for $65. A lot of people could benefit from this. What it comes down to is the access to information. It seems like when Council was first talking about Resolution 8302, in reference to a court case that happened last September 11, it was Franklin versus Missoula. Basically, it said Missoula can’t tack on $25 just because someone shows up at court. There are state offenses that you can’t put $25 on it and say we want more money out of that. They said not only can you not do that anymore but you have to pay all that money back and it goes all the way back to 2003 which is when this was first enacted. In 2004 it became $10. In 2005 it became $15. It’s growing fast. In 2008 it became $16. In 2011 it became $18. In 2013 it had ballooned all the way up to $25 which was a 500% increase for this original surcharge. He wondered if crime all of a sudden go up 500%. Did wages all of a sudden go up 500%? It just points to the picture that we need some more money. Well, we need some money too because we’ve paid these surcharges and there is no real constitutional right to be able to charge the people for those surcharges so in the interest of actually getting people the refunds that that they deserve, what we need to be focusing on is public awareness. You have to let somebody know that this exists in order for them to actually get the refund. If the City Attorney could make it so the link on his Facebook site connected to this; that would be awesome. One post in two years, which is a broken web link that doesn’t take you there.

Gwen Hoppe said she was watching MCAT and then suddenly that show switched to something else and she’s not sure what happened there. She was listening to these young people talk about the new event center and she was impressed with their interest. She thought it came down very quickly. She has not followed it in real detail but suddenly it was a done deal and she would have liked more time to digest it.

5. CONSENT AGENDA

Acting Mayor von Lossberg said, thank you, Ms. Rehbein. And I realize Ms. Rehbein touched on this but I just want to clarify because I appreciate that it can be confusing. Item 5.3 the rezone at South 9th Street West, we are having a public hearing on that under Section 8 Public Hearing. This part appears under the consent agenda is that this was an action we took in Committee of the Whole to set the public hearing and I probably am just making it more confusing. Just please know that you’ll have an opportunity to comment on the South 9th Street project under the public hearing. I’m sure that was worse than if I’d just said nothing. With that, is there any public comment on any of the items on the consent agenda? Are there any Council…okay, she tricked me. Are there any Council questions? Alright, seeing none, we will have a roll call vote on the consent agenda.

8 Ayes, 4 Absent

AYES: (8): Alderperson Anderson, Alderperson Becerra, Alderperson Cares, Alderperson Hess, Alderperson Jones, Alderperson Merritt, Alderperson von Lossberg, and Alderperson West

ABSENT: (4): Alderperson Armstrong, Alderperson DiBari, Alderperson Harp, and Alderperson Ramos

7

Vote result: Approved (8 to 0)

5.1 Claims - Oct 15, 2019

Ratify claims in the amount of $997,251.40 for checks dated October 15, 2019.

Vote result: Approved

5.2 Claims - Oct 22, 2019

Approve claims in the amount of $679,604.98 for checks dated October 22, 2019.

Vote result: Approved

5.3 Rezone of property located at 2320 South 9th Street West and legally described as 1.88 acres of Lot 4 in RM Cobban Orchard Homes, in Section 29, Township 13 N, Range 19 W, P.M.M. from RT5.4 Residential (two-unit/townhouse) to RM1-35 Residential

Ratify first reading and preliminary adoption and the setting of a public hearing for October 21, 2019 on an ordinance to rezone property located at 2320 South 9th Street West and legally described as 1.88 acres of Lot 4 in RM Cobban Orchard Homes in Section 29, Township 13 N, Range 19 W, P.M.M. from RT5.4 Residential (two unit/townhouse) to RM1-35.

Vote result: Approved

5.4 Purchase one Type 1 and one Type 2 Fire Engines

Approve and authorize the Mayor to sign a contract with Hughes Fire Equipment in the amount of $889,459.00 for the purchase of one Type 1 and one Type 2 fire engines.

Vote result: Approved

5.5 2018 Open Space Bond expenditures

Set a public hearing for November 4, 2019 to consider a resolution approving expenditures of up to $775,000 of 2018 Open Space Bond proceeds for the Clark Fork River Sustainable Access and Restoration Project, Open Space Reforestation Project, and Missoula Conservation Lands Trailhead Improvement Projects, as detailed in Exhibit A of the resolution.

Vote result: Approved

5.6 Resolution Requesting Distribution of Remaining Funds from MDT’s Bridge and Road Safety and Accountability Program

Adopt a resolution requesting that Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) distribute the City of Missoula’s remaining allocated share of Bridge and Road Safety and

8

Accountability Program funds for the current year, committing to the City’s contribution of five percent in matching funds, and authorizing the Mayor to execute further documents as may be necessary for the distribution of funds.

Vote result: Approved

5.7 Wastewater Main Influent Pump Upgrade

Approve and authorize the Mayor to sign the purchase agreement with Falcon Environmental Corporation to purchase one influent pump for the Wastewater Treatment Utility for a sum not to exceed $58,708.00.

Vote result: Approved

5.8 Reserve Street Lift Station Construction

Award the bid for construction services on the Reserve Street Wastewater Lift Station to Western Municipal Construction for an amount not to exceed $839,625.00 and authorize the return of bid bonds.

Vote result: Approved

5.9 Purchase of one (1) Case Front End Loader for Garden City Compost

Approve the purchase of one (1) 2019 Case 921G Backhoe from Titan Machinery of Missoula, Montana in the amount of $284,836.80.

Vote result: Approved

5.10 Purchase of Street Division Pickup

Approve the purchase of one (1) 2019 Dodge 2500 4-wheel drive Regular cab pickup from Lithia Dodge of Missoula in the amount of $36,077.00.

Vote result: Approved

5.11 Purchase of Street Division Pickup

Approve the purchase of one (1) 2019 Dodge 3500 4-wheel drive Regular cab pickup from Lithia Dodge of Missoula Montana in the amount of $39,436.00.

Vote result: Approved

5.12 Purchase one (1) One Ton Truck for Street Dept.

Approve the purchase of one (1) 2020 Ford F350 4-wheel drive regular cab pickup from National Auto Fleet Group, this purchase is through Sourcewell formerly known as NJPA, in the amount of $34,177.00.

9

Vote result: Approved

5.13 Waiver of Missoula Municipal Code Chapter 9.30 Noise Control for MDT at Orange Street Underpass for concrete testing.

Approve a waiver from MMC 9.30 Noise Control for HDR Inc., an engineering contractor for the Montana Department of Transportation, for concrete borings in the Orange Street underpass.

Vote result: Approved

5.14 Professional Services Agreement with L.F. Sloane Consulting Group, Inc. for Missoula City Cemetery Strategic Plan Project

Approve and authorize the Mayor to sign a professional services agreement with L.F. Sloane Consulting Group, Inc. for the Missoula City Cemetery Strategic Plan Project for an amount not to exceed $25,500.

Vote result: Approved

5.15 2019 Missoula Downtown Master Plan

Adopt a Resolution of Intent to adopt the 2019 Missoula Downtown Master Plan as an amendment to the 2035 Missoula Growth Policy, replacing the 2009 Missoula Greater Downtown Master Plan, and set a public hearing for Monday, November 4, 2019

Vote result: Approved

6. COMMENTS FROM CITY STAFF, AGENCIES, BOARDS, COMMISSIONS, AUTHORITIES AND THE COMMUNITY FORUM

7. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS

7.1 Lights on After School Proclamation

Acting Mayor von Lossberg proclaimed October 24, 2019 as Lights on After School Proclamation.

Acting Mayor von Lossberg said Flagship is a great program. His daughter has done it and he’s sure several Councilmembers’ children have also.

Alderperson Merritt gave a shout-out to the Flagship Program. If you’ve never taken advantage of the opportunity to volunteer with that organization, she highly encouraged it. This week is one of their fundraising drives so if you’d like to contribute to an awesome after-school program that benefits our kids, they would be a great one.

7.2 Proclamation - Crime Victim Advocates and Social Workers Appreciation Day

Alderperson Ramos proclaimed, for Mayor John Engen and Missoula Board of County Commissioners, October 21, 2019 as Crime Victim Advocates and Social Workers Appreciation Day. He mentioned that Tuesday they’re going to have a Crime Victims

10

Advocates Appreciate Day at Conflux Brewery from 4:30 to 6:00 p.m. He encouraged everyone to come and thank the advocates. As a son of an advocate, he can tell you its tiresome work and it’s incredibly important to the community and these women not only give their time and money but also a large piece of themselves to every victim that they work with.

Chantel Gainer, Director of Relationship Violence Services, said thank you for making today happen. This is the second year that they’ve celebrated Advocate Appreciation Day. What was read in the proclamation by Councilman Ramos is what advocates do every day. The great irony is advocates never look for the spotlight. They work one-on- one with folks in quiet rooms and those folks are having really hard days. When we can help them through the criminal justice system and work with their partners to find affordable housing for them, help get kids into great programs and take that burden off of families, it helps heal some of that and some of this is the work that Council and Commissioners touch every day. Whether it’s transportation so you can get to and from school and to and from your work, whether it’s housing that you can afford, jobs that pay a living wage, your work helps support the healing that folks need when they have experienced these sorts of crimes and abuse. She appreciates their partnership and being able to do this work in a community that cares and very much she appreciates the time that is being taken out to spotlight the work of advocates.

8. PUBLIC HEARINGS

8.1 Resolution to adopt the 2019 Open Space Plan, an issue plan of the Growth Policy

Commissioner Slotnick moved the adoption of the resolution of intention to adopt the plan. Commissioner Vero seconded the motion. The motion passed on a voice vote.

Acting Mayor von Lossberg said the first two items today happen to do with open space. Donna, are you or, Grant, are you coming up? Okay. And you’re going to do a presentation, correct? Yeah. Okay. And, Grant, if you could just make sure that mic is nice and close.

Grant Carlton said, I am the Open Space Program Manager for Missoula Parks and Rec. I’m two weeks and fairly one long day into my tenure at this point so I do have the Director of Parks and Rec, Donna Gaukler, here with me to help answer questions. I also want to introduce Jennifer Davis and Kylie Paul from Missoula County Parks Trails and Open Lands. They will be here as well for support and to answer questions. I’ll jump right in with some background on the Open Space Plan. It does update and replace the ’95 and 2006 update to the ’95 Open Space Plan. And this plan is part of the larger ongoing Parks Recreation, Open Space and Trails planning efforts. It will stand alone until the rest of the planning efforts come to fruition. And the plan addresses the needs of a growing and evolving community and builds on the successes of the 2006 Update to the Open Space Plan while incorporating new information, data and public input which I’ll talk about a little bit more in just a moment. And the idea here is that this plan guide’s open space programs in the Missoula Planning Region which I’ll show a map of in just a moment, including expenditures of funds for open space. And when combined with other relevant plans for the County and the City, it serves as a continued sort of statement of our priorities and vision for open space in our community. So, this is the map of the planning area. And so, one of the primary purposes of this open space plan is to, like I said, inform open space priorities and investments in this planning area. And it also

11

assists in allocating limited resources both from the open space bond but as well as other sources. I want to make sure that we were clear that this plan is not specifically dedicated to open space bond funding alone. One thing to note is this area is similar to the area donated by the 2006 Update with slight adjustments to be more consistent with the County’s Missoula Planning Region. Yeah, and so this open space plan encompasses the vision and high-level objectives for the next decade of open space work and efforts in our community. And it carries three basic tenants, the ideas of conservation, protection and connection. And all of those are sort of overarched by the idea that we want to make sure that our residents can access open space, trails, parklands, larger conservation lands from every sort of neighborhood in our community. Jumping into some of the highlights from the plan itself, this is sort of a depiction of conceptual framework from the plan and this model is basically the structure of the open space system as laid out in the plan. And it’s sort of three basic areas, anchor areas, which are some examples of those are North Hills, Jumbo, Blue Mountain and then your urban green space which are your sort of nature, public accessible nature as Greenough and your neighborhood parks like Bonner and then corridors which connect those spaces, Bitterroot Trail, the Clark Fork River riparian area. And so, the idea is to apply this framework to achieve diverse open space and conservation outcomes in the planning area. And as part of that some of the implementation considerations funding, of course, including open space bond but again other sources as well. That’s obviously one of the primary thresholds for undertaking certain projects. Types of open space, which I’ll talk about in just a moment in more detail. Geography of high open space value which is a project of data and mapping so your cornerstones, which I have a map to show you as well here in just a moment. And then one thing I want to highlight is stewardship. So, when we’re talking about open space work, we’re not only looking, as part of this plan, we’re not only looking at frontend acquisition and conservation efforts, but we’re also taking a good long look at stewardship implications involved with some of these projects. So, we’re making sure that we have the resources and the ability to steward these projects in this open space work in a sustainable manner. And then the plan also highlights the benefits and services of open space and I’ve got a slide on that and I’ll dig into that a little bit more later in the presentation. Open space types. So, we have our conservation lands which are sort of larger scale areas like Blue Mountain, Pattee Canyon. We have our park lands, historical and cultural and scenic resources. An example of that would be the Moon Randolph Homestead, agricultural lands which are largely protected by conservation easement, both large and small, and then our corridors. And this is a map that shows our cornerstone layer which is a product of deed collection, planning efforts and input from the public as well as partners. And so, cornerstones are essentially areas of high open space value. They include a mix of both public and private lands. They’re not tied to any specific property boundaries and they are in no way regulatory. I want to highlight that. It’s important to note that this cornerstone layer, if you will, does not prevent development and it does not change the use of the underlying land. It simply identifies areas that possess certain favorable natural resource values. I think we all know the values and benefits of open space. This is not an exhaustive list but just some examples of what open space can provide a community. Ecosystem services. Some examples of ecosystem services of flood control, water and air quality, storm water management, fire mitigation, the conservation of habitat and movement corridors for wildlife, conservation of agriculture and important soils, the protection of scenic view sheds, culture and history, climate resiliency, which is

12

important and is becoming more and more important, equity inclusion, health and wellness both mental and physical and I just realized that my notes are up there.

Acting Mayor von Lossberg said, that’s always handy.

Grant Carlton, Open Space Program Manager, said, yeah so that includes both, mental and physical wellness as well as this idea of open space which can sort of be tied to all of these values. And then economic benefits. So, sort of attracting a talented workforce and the businesses to employ them. I wanted to quickly highlight the public process. So, there was a robust public process involving community focus groups, a county-wide statistically valid survey, open space, open house and questionnaire, public comment period on the plan itself and then the involvement of the Advisory Committees from both the County and the City, which I’ll talk about a little bit more, their review in just a moment. But the idea is basically that it was a diverse public process, input gathering efforts to create this plan. And I wanted to note that some of the outcomes of those processes are highlighted in the appendences, in the plan itself if you guys wanted to take a look at that, if you haven’t already. So, the open space plan was reviewed and recommended by both City and County advisory committees, including City Parks and Rec Board, City Open Space Advisory Committee (OSAC), the County Open Lands Citizen Advisory Committee (OLC), I believe is what they call that and, lastly, the Missoula Consolidated Planning Board. And their review entailed a conclusion that the 2019 Missoula Urban Area Open Space Plan is indeed in conformance with the…both the 2035 Missoula City Growth Policy and the 2016 Missoula County Growth Policy. And that board did recommend that the 2019 Open Space Plan be adopted by the Missoula City Council as an issue plan to the 2035 Missoula City Growth Policy and adopted by the Missoula Board of County Commissioners as an issue plan to the 2016 Missoula County Growth Policy based on findings of fact and conclusions of law. So, in conclusion, the 2019 Open Space Plans, goals, objectives and implementation strategies are indeed consistent with and conform to both City and County Growth Policies and stated goals, some of which include the preservation of natural resources, acknowledging and responding to climate change, preserving agriculture and water quality in some neighborhoods and helping avoid development in hazard areas. It was a product of robust public process, as I just highlighted, and it does qualify as an issue plan under City and County Growth Policies. So, the action requested tonight, basically for both the Council and the Commission, the idea is to adopt the resolution of intent to adopt the 2019 Missoula Urban Area Open Space Plan as an issue plan to the respective Growth Policy, so the 2035 Missoula City Growth Policy for City Council and the 2016 Missoula County Growth Policy for the Board of County Commissioners as both recommended by the Missoula Consolidated Planning Board. I think that is all that I have.

Acting Mayor von Lossberg said, great. Thanks, Grant, and a process question, is do you have a separate presentation on the ordinance, I’m guessing? So, I know I was asking about opening both. Let’s just take them one at a time in the interest of your guys’ time. So, with that, are there any questions for Grant from anyone up here? Okay, with that, I will open the public hearing on the resolution to adopt the 2019 Open Space Plan, an issue plan of the Growth Policy for Council. Do you need to open, Mr. Strohmaier?

Commissioner Strohmaier said, yeah, I’ll go ahead and open the public hearing on behalf of Missoula County Board of County Commissioners.

13

Acting Mayor von Lossberg said, great, thank you. With that, the public comment period is open. Is there anybody who would like to make public comment on the 2019 Open Space Plan as an issue plan of the Growth Policy? Okay, I will close the public hearing for the Council.

Commissioner Strohmaier said, consider it closed for the Commission.

Acting Mayor von Lossberg said, and I will turn this over to our Parks Chair, Ms. Jones.

Alderperson Jones said, thanks and thanks, Grant. This is a big one to jump in on in the first week at work. I am going to make a motion that we adopt a resolution of intention to adopt the 2019 Missoula Urban Area Open Space Plan as an issue plan of the 2035 Missoula Growth Policy and procedurally we will send back to committee the motion to adopt the plan itself, so we are adopting the resolution of intent tonight but send the actual adoption of the plan back to committee so that procedurally we are correct on everything and there you go.

Acting Mayor von Lossberg said, Ms. Rehbein, is that clear?

City Clerk Rehbein said, crystal. Thank you.

Commissioner Strohmaier said, do we have a motion on behalf of the Commission? Mr. Slotnick.

Commissioner Slotnick said, I would move that the Missoula County Board of County Commissioners adopts this resolution of intent to adopt the 2019 Missoula Urban Area Open Space Plan as an issue plan of the 2016 Missoula County Growth Policy as recommended by the Missoula Consolidated Planning Board.

Commissioner Vero said, second.

Commissioner Strohmaier said, any further discussion on the part of the Commission?

Commissioner Vero said, thanks for all your great work on this.

Acting Mayor von Lossberg said, yeah, well done. All the cooperation too.

Commissioner Strohmaier said, yeah, absolutely. This is a good piece of work and I’m super proud of both the City and the County in terms of both taking the initiative relative to plans like this and also blowing the dust off of older plans to bring them up to the year 2019 in the 21st Century.

Acting Mayor von Lossberg said, do you have to do a vote or anything?

Commissioner Strohmaier said, we probably should. On the part of the Commission, all in favor.

Upon a voice vote the motion passed.

Commissioner Strohmaier said, okay, unanimous.

Acting Mayor von Lossberg said, alright. And we have a motion for Council. We’d had a public hearing. We’ll have a roll call vote.

9 Ayes, 3 Absent

14

Acting Mayor von Lossberg said, okay. And is that all of the work for the Commissioners? I believe it is.

Commissioner Vero said, [inaudible, off microphone]

Acting Mayor von Lossberg said, you have to say, oh, apparently, it’s the will of Council that you stay for the entire night. Just kidding.

Commissioner Strohmaier said, you’ve given us our money’s worth already.

Acting Mayor von Lossberg said, yeah. Thank you very much for joining us.

Moved by: Alderperson Jones

Adopt a resolution of intention to adopt the 2019 Missoula Urban Area Open Space Plan as an Issue plan of the 2035 Missoula City Growth Policy and return this matter to the Parks and Conservation committee in order to consider the resolution to adopt the plan.

AYES: (9): Alderperson Anderson, Alderperson Becerra, Alderperson Cares, Alderperson Hess, Alderperson Jones, Alderperson Merritt, Alderperson Ramos, Alderperson von Lossberg, and Alderperson West

Vote result: Approved (9 to 0)

8.2 Update MMC 12.56 Open Space Conservation Ordinance

Donna Gaukler, Director of Missoula Parks & Recreation, said, I bring before you MMC 12.56, which is the Open Space Ordinance and our reasons for updating it is the pending adopting of the new 2019 Open Space Plan and the recent approval of the 2018 Open Space Bond. The primary changes with this update is actually, we provide definitions that match the Open Space Plan. We clarify terminology. We’ve included and provided for review of capital improvements by the Open Space Advisory Committee per the 2018 Open Space Bond. We also made some changes to the makeup and appointments of OSAC members and they changed to conversion and diversion of open space based on changing the 40% of registered voters to those voting and then a 60% yes in favor to a greater than 50%. Ultimately, what we’re recommending is obviously an adoption of the ordinance that allows us to go forward and do the work related to this plan and the bond. And I do have a review of the ordinance itself that I’ve highlighted to touch on the major items. This is so everybody can read it. So, clarifying the procedures applicable to the expenditure of funds related to the new conservation bond issuance and also the makeup and roles of the Open Space Advisory Committee. We did add a whole series of sections through that update and I will be stopping on updates that are content-oriented as opposed to every single edit that allowed the content changes to make sense throughout the document. We’ve added terms. These terms are consistent with the Open Space Plan, our bond language. We have identified the difference between a conservation bond fund and an open space bond fund with the conservation bond funds being those general obligation bonds approved by the voters, whether it’s City or County election, referendum. We also note that the Open Space Plan is many-fold and open space covers many types of lands and so we would allow for those to provide guidance. We’ve included the most recent bond in the language and also added that this does

15

include guidance for the request donations grants, etc. Again, most of the edits that you’re seeing before you may be more current terminology that we use, changes from 1980 to 2019. The next content or more significant change is it allows for improvements to open space lands. The old ordinance was quiet on improvements. They’re certainly allowable through Montana Code Annotated Chapter 76.6. They’re certainly allowable through the 2018 bond and absolutely allowable through each of our plans but it was not included in the ordinance so we’ve done that. We’ve clarified administration of funds, how the funds are actually tracked, who reviews them and what legal requirements apply. Most of the changes, once again, are in line with what’s been common practice and precedence or putting it in line with the edits and getting them into the right sections. One of the other content changes is acknowledging that we are working within the Missoula Planning Region and, therefore, the Open Space Advisory Committee members should represent that open space planning region so it does include members outside of the incorporated city limits. We did have 12 members and are looking to go back to 11 so that we have the odd number and that does include one appointee by Park Board, three by the Mayor and seven by the City Council to provide a well-balanced board. And I also want to assure you that all of these changes have gone through the Open Space Advisory Committee and we’ve made edits at their request. We outline the committee’s work again and include the role of improvements as well as acquisitions. Going on through, again, emphasizing the role of capital improvements and OSAC’s review and recommendations to the City Council in making expenditures from open space bonds. And on November 4, as you know, there will be a public hearing on the first request for use of open space bonds for capital improvements. Last, there…we changed the requirement for 40% of the registered electors and Missoula County does not scrub its voting records. They’re very progressive about allowing people to stay on the register and so to actually have a turnout of that volume is virtually impossible. And so, we believe that allowing the people who live here, come to vote, to make that decision in areas that have gone through significant public vetting and, of course, there’s no better public vetting than an actual referendum, is the appropriate way to address any conversion or diversion of open space. And, with that, unless there’s questions, those are the recommended edits.

Acting Mayor von Lossberg said, any questions for Donna? Okay, with that, I will open the public hearing on the ordinance. Is there any public comment on the update to the Open Space Conservation ordinance? Alright, seeing none, I will close the public hearing. This lives in Parks. Ms. Jones.

Alderperson Jones said, thank you. I’ll make a recommended motion to adopt an ordinance generally amending Title 12, Chapter 12.56 of Missoula Municipal Code entitled “Open Space Acquisition” in order to clarify the procedures applicable to the expenditure of funds related to a new conservation bond issuance as well as the makeup and role of the Open Space Advisory Committee in reviewing open space proposals and I’d like to speak to it.

Acting Mayor von Lossberg said, you may.

Alderperson Jones said, this has been a labor of love. It’s taken a lot of work on behalf of Donna and her staff to get this ordinance up to date because a new bond was approved in 2018 which had different language. This needed to be addressed and also the opportunity was used to clean it up, basically, and bring it current. And I, first of all, just

16

wanted to say there was a huge amount of public process that went into not only the plan that we discussed earlier but this ordinance. And I had the opportunity to sit through the Open Space Advisory Committee, several of their meetings as they worked through this, so it was very thoroughly vetted by the members of the public that are appointed to those positions. And really I think the main changes in this ordinance are reflecting that we have a bond that has passed that is a reflection of our values which are different now than 10 or 20 or 25 years ago, as our world changes, and we have more people in this valley and we look at the land use differently. This is a reflection of that because this is a bit of a different focus than prior bonds have had. So, that’s the main thrust of it. Just wanted to put it out there. Thank you, Donna, for all of your work on this and that’s all I have. I’m very much in support of it.

Acting Mayor von Lossberg said, thank you. Additional comment from Council? Alright, I will simply echo everything that Gwen said. Thank you everyone and Donna for the good work on this. With that, we’ve had a public hearing, we’ll have a roll call vote.

9 Ayes, 3 Absent

Moved by: Alderperson Jones

[Second and final reading] Adopt an ordinance generally amending Title 12, Chapter 12.56 of the Missoula Municipal Code, entitled “Open Space Acquisition,” in order to clarify the procedures applicable to the expenditure of funds related to a new conservation bond issuance as well as the makeup and role of the Open Space Advisory Committee in reviewing open space proposals.

AYES: (9): Alderperson Anderson, Alderperson Becerra, Alderperson Cares, Alderperson Hess, Alderperson Jones, Alderperson Merritt, Alderperson Ramos, Alderperson von Lossberg, and Alderperson West

ABSENT: (3): Alderperson Armstrong, Alderperson DiBari, and Alderperson Harp

Vote result: Approved (9 to 0)

8.3 Interim ordinance to amend Title 20 City Zoning- Extreme Weather Shelter

Acting Mayor von Lossberg said, thank you. We will go to item 8.3 interim ordinance to amend Title 20 City Zoning-Extreme Weather Shelter. Presentation is from Ms. Gress.

Jen Gress, Development Services, said, and the purpose of tonight’s item is to adopt an interim zoning ordinance for the use Extreme Weather Shelter. I’ll provide a short background and then I’ll go over the proposed amendments using the draft ordinance dated October 16, and I’ll ask you for a motion to adopt the interim ordinance. So, just to be clear, the language in the draft ordinance dated September 19, is the same as the language in the draft ordinance dated October 16. The difference between the two is that the October 16, version includes updated language in the front and making it clear that the ordinance expires in six months. So, some background. Missoula lacks adequate services to address the increased need of our homeless and at-risk populations in our shelter system during extreme weather effects. And this results in unsafe overcrowding in our permanent shelter system. It also results in people remaining outdoors and encampments and other places not meant for human habitation during extreme weather, jeopardizing the safety and wellbeing of these individuals. So, general amendments to

17

Title 20 to include the extreme weather use are currently in process and proposed amendments are set to go to the Planning Board on November 5. And these amendments to Title 20 won’t be in effect until mid-January which is well into the time of year that we expect to have extreme weather possible. So, the Housing and Community Development has secured a host location and is raised to help provide services as soon as November 1. So, this interim ordinance is needed to help fill the gap between the potential for extreme weather and the timing when the permanent ordinance could take effect, and will serve the purpose of protecting the public health and safety of our community. So, staff is before you today, again, to request adoption of an interim ordinance that will take effect prior to November 1 and will be replaced by the general amendments once those are adopted. As I just noted and you’re aware, the Extreme Weather Shelter is on two amendment tracks. First, the interim ordinance. State law provides for consideration of an interim zoning ordinance for up to six months in order to protect the public safety, health and welfare, allows for abbreviated procedures and legal notice of the public hearing be placed seven days in advance. The interim ordinance is what we’re going to be talking about tonight. The second track is the general amendments making permanent changes to Title 20. During the general amendment process, staff requested and received agency comments regarding proposed language. Those initial comments were integrated into this interim ordinance. Additional staff coordination with city agencies for the general ordinance and any refinements to the language will come forward through the general amendment process which includes a public hearing with the Planning Board and will come before the City Council in December for final consideration and adoption. The approach for the proposed amendments comes from research that was done by the Housing and Community Development office and recognition that a common practice is to relate the intermittent accessory use of Extreme Weather Shelter to religious assembly and an evaluation of our existing zoning regulations resulted in noting that Title 20 didn’t adequately address this need. There are three proposed amendments for the interim ordinance incorporating the Extreme Weather into Title 20. The first opposed amendment will create a new use designated in the public and civic use group of the use classification chapter. The second will amend the religious assembly use designation. And the last proposed amendment will create a new section in the use and building specific standards chapter to provide additional guidance. The public and civic use group in the use classification chapter will be amended twice. First, by adding a new use description for Extreme Weather Shelter. The addition of this language helps define the use by providing a unique description and makes an applicant aware of the criteria required for an Extreme Weather Shelter by referring them to the use and building specific chapter. The second amendment in the public and civic use group will clarify entities that meet the use description of religious assembly can provide Extreme Weather Shelter and will reference the use and building specific chapter again. The proposed amendments for the interim ordinance include the addition of a new section to the use and building specific standards chapter called Extreme Weather Shelter. This section will provide criteria and guidelines for agencies to follow, noting that facilities will be available for the homeless and at-risk populations. The use will be accessory to and intermittent to the primary use on site and will be subject to all relevant city requirements like building and fire codes. Amendments will provide a programmatic process that entities should follow. The Housing and Community Development office will be instrumental in helping to administer these facilities and will maintain a list of locations, providing services, as well as providing guidance facilities management plan. Management plans should address existing

18

regulations that currently apply to emergency homeless shelters which include provision for continuous on-site management, staff training an intake screening process of participants, a client code of conduct and a neighborhood relations plan. Agencies providing shelter are being requested to work with the Housing and Community Development office to evaluate the facilities and management plans on an annual basis. In addition, the Housing and Community Development office will coordinate with City agencies to ensure safety precautions are met. So, as I mentioned previously, the interim ordinance for the Extreme Weather Shelter is going through the adoption process simultaneously with the general amendments to adopt permanent changes into Title 20. So, this timeline slide shows how the interim ordinance fits into the timeline for the general amendments and that will be adopted in December. And, again, the interim ordinance is being requested because the final adoption of the general ordinance will be mid-December with an implementation date in mid-January, which is well into our winter season. So, staff recommends that Council move to adopt an interim zoning ordinance establishing the Extreme Weather Shelter. And this concludes my presentation. If you have any questions, I’d be happy to answer them.

Acting Mayor von Lossberg said, thank you, Ms. Gress. Any questions from Council? It’s like I lost my train of thought for a second, sorry. I’ll open the public hearing. Is there any public comment on the interim ordinance? Let’s let this person speak and then, okay, if you could come up to the mic.

Jim Morton said, good evening. Jim Morton of the Human Resource Council. I’m here in support and very appreciative of all the work that’s gone into this. I don’t need to go into all the need that we know exists in our community that prompted this so good work to everybody that worked on it. Thank you.

Acting Mayor von Lossberg said, thank you, Mr. Morton. Do you want to come on up, I need you to come to the mic, sorry.

Kristi Speck said, I just wanted to know if there was any language in the ordinance that talks about what the definition of extreme weather is.

Acting Mayor von Lossberg said, well we’ve heard that and we’ll see if we get that answered. Any additional public comment on the ordinance? Alright, I’ll close the public hearing. Ms. Gress, could you respond to the question around definition of extreme weather?

Jen Gress, Development Services, said, the Title 20 definition ordinance is not going to cover that, but Eran Pehan of the Housing and Community Development office, their process is going to go through and explain that and if she’d want…do you want to come and explain what that definition is?

Acting Mayor von Lossberg said, thanks. Ms. Pehan.

Eran Pehan, Office of Housing and Community Development, said, in a lot of communities they use a temperature trigger for the definition of emergency winter shelter. We’re opting not to do that as a community for a couple of reasons. Mostly because in our community, November 1 through March 31, is really what we refer to as hypothermia season. Any night during that period of time someone could theoretically die on the street. Setting a temperature trigger also creates a little bit of a logistical nightmare in terms of making sure staff are there on a nightly basis and making sure that

19

the services are available, and you’re not triggering those same day, so that we have everything we need in place. And so, we will define this as the period of November 1 through March 31 of every year.

Acting Mayor von Lossberg said, thanks. I think I closed it but just one last check. Anybody else, public comment? Okay. This, I’m assuming, lives in Public Safety and Health. No. Land Use and Planning. Mr. Hess.

Alderperson Hess said, thank you. I move on the first reading we adopt an interim zoning ordinance amending Title 20, Missoula City Zoning Ordinance Chapter 20.40, creating a new section 20.40.055, and Chapter 20.105, and amending Section 20.105.030 establishing a new use entitled “Extreme Weather Shelter” and providing regulations governing the use pursuant to 76-2-306, Montana Code Annotated and I’d like to speak to the motion briefly.

Acting Mayor von Lossberg said, one quick correction. Marty just put it up, final reading as opposed to first reading.

Alderperson Hess said, final reading.

Acting Mayor von Lossberg said, thank you. Go ahead and speak to it.

Alderperson Hess said, okay. So, I really appreciate the work that staff had put into this. I think there’s been a misconception that this is coming at the last moment out of lack of work on it and it couldn’t be farther from true. I know that staff have been working on a permanent solution ever since we started with what was a temporary solution last year. And it takes time to write good legislation and that’s what we’ve done here and I really appreciate all the work. This legislation has the potential to save lives this winter and I’m very grateful for the work that’s gone into it.

Acting Mayor von Lossberg said, thanks. Additional comments from Council? Ms. Jones.

Alderperson Jones said, I’m glad we’re having discussions now and I appreciate all the work that went to bring this and I kind of wanted to just bolster what Jordan had mentioned. There’s some misconception because we’re hearing it now, it just recently came across our desks, and I know that for months and months there have been many meetings on this. I wasn’t in that working group. I think you were Bryan, and some other people from the City. It’s a hard, hard problem to attack so thanks for all of your time spent on it and I hope we have a light winter.

Acting Mayor von Lossberg said, thanks. Any additional comments? I’ll be quick. I appreciate the people that are hanging in there. This ordinance and even the final one are just a component of solving this problem and I’m going to look to Eran in the back because if I screw any of this up, hopefully she’ll shake her head violently. But I want to be really clear because there was an editorial in the paper on Sunday and to be honest, there’s a lot of adjectives I could use for it but they are not appropriate for this meeting. Folks who have been working on this issue and, yes, I’ve been working on this from a Council standpoint since before the snow cleared from last year. And the second sentence of the editorial states that there’s essentially no plan. That is, at best, lazy writing and at worse, something that I won’t describe. The City in its budget process and the County in its budget process allocated $50,000 to these efforts. That was a change

20

from years before. We spent months, as I said, from before the time the snow cleared from last winter convening the groups of people that worked on this issue last year and learning from the experience, learning what went well. We were using the Transit Center. There were obviously shortcomings to that approach. We were trying to save lives and do the best that we could do. There is a plan, contrary and to be blunt, a simple phone call to either Eran Pehan, to the Communications Director, to Teresa Williams with the Homeless or to myself could have clarified that there is indeed a plan. And we’re in the process, in fact, this week a schedule committee meeting of rolling out that plan with a joint meeting with the Commissioners. So, it’s frustrating to see that. It is more frustrating to see that then put on social media which has quickly become my least favorite thing in the world, serving in an elected office, and see it going around the community, but it’s factually just untrue. So, I’m looking forward to having a bigger in- depth discussion on Wednesday at Committee of the Whole and follow up on this item and what the plan is and with the partners we actually started discussing that today with some of the folks in the neighborhood around the Pov. We have great partners in this effort, and obviously, I feel a little strongly about it when it comes to this particular ordinance, which is enabling certain other partners to help us in this effort. I’m completely in support. And with that, we will have a roll call vote.

9 Ayes, 3 Absent

Moved by: Alderperson Hess

[Final reading] Adopt an interim zoning ordinance amending Title 20, Missoula City Zoning Ordinance Chapter 20.40, creating a new section 20.40.055, and Chapter 20.105, and amending Section 20.105.030 establishing a new use entitled “Extreme Weather Shelter” and providing regulations governing the use pursuant to 76-2-306, Montana Code Annotated.

AYES: (9): Alderperson Anderson, Alderperson Becerra, Alderperson Cares, Alderperson Hess, Alderperson Jones, Alderperson Merritt, Alderperson Ramos, Alderperson von Lossberg, and Alderperson West

ABSENT: (3): Alderperson Armstrong, Alderperson DiBari, and Alderperson Harp

Vote result: Approved (9 to 0)

8.4 Rezone of property located at 2320 South 9th Street West and legally described as 1.88 acres of Lot 4 in RM Cobban Orchard Homes, in Section 29, Township 13 N, Range 19 W, P.M.M. from RT5.4 Residential (two-unit/townhouse) to RM1-35 Residential

This item was returned to the Land Use and Planning Committee.

Jenny Baker, Development Services, said, hey, you did that last week. I’ve done so many of these lately. Give me one second. I’m really sorry about that. Apologies for the confusion. This is closer. It has the wrong date. But in any event, it is the right item. So, we’re talking about rezoning 2320 South 9th Street West from RT5.4 Residential to RM1- 35 Residential. The reason for the request is to allow the construction of a 36-unit affordable senior housing building contingent upon funding. Here is the location of the property. It’s outlined in red. It is on 9th Street. It is just east of Reserve. It’s at the end

21

of 9th Street where it terminates before connecting to Eaton. It doesn’t go the whole way through. This is part of the City’s Ward 6 and part of the Franklin to the Fort Neighborhood Council. You can see that there is a church on the east end of this property and that is to remain and then the west end of the property is where the new construction would take place. This slides the Growth Policy designation for this area. All of the area that’s in green is residential high density in the Growth Policy and that means dwelling units between 24 and 43 dwelling units per acre. The zoning districts that correspond to that designation are RM1-35. That’s one of them. The current zoning of RT5.4 allows less density than the Growth Policy recommends. RT5.4 allows eight dwelling units per acre and corresponds to residential medium density. As you’ve seen in the staff report, there was a subdivision request on this parcel and the new development would take place on what will be Lots 2 through 5. That subdivision hasn’t been filed yet but I understand that it is in the process of the final plat being compiled to come into our office. In looking at some of the goals in the Growth Policy, there are things that are related to livability and it emphasizes the inclusion of all age groups in the city. There is another goal that talks about safety and wellness and that discusses the provision of adequate social services including access to affordable and safe housing. There is a housing goal which talks about developing sufficient supply to meet the needs of all age groups and income levels. And there is also a section on community development which talks about focusing inward and supporting more compact development patterns. All of these goals support this redevelopment in compliance with the Growth Policy. This shows the current zoning. The subject property, outlined in red here, is currently RT5.4, as I mentioned. That’s a residential medium density district which allows eight dwelling units per acre. You can see that surrounding this there are some other districts just to the east on Eaton Street, going further east, it’s RM2.7 which is a multi-dwelling district that allows higher density. And then, as you go over to Reserve Street, there is a business district that if used residentially, would also permit higher density. This slide compares the current zoning district with the one that is requested, and you can see the similarities and differences. One difference is that the current zoning allows single-detached dwellings and duplex building types whereas RM1- 35 allows all building types and that includes multi dwellings. And the parcel area is different, 5,400 square feet in RT5.4, 3,000 square feet is the minimum parcel area and then the area per unit is 1,000 square feet in RM1-35. The setbacks are very similar. The main difference is that on the side setback there is 7.5 feet for RT5.4, 5 feet for the side setback in RM1-35. In this particular instance, there is an irrigation ditch which runs along the western boundary of this property. And because there’s an easement on the south of that ditch, the five feet side setback, in fact, wouldn’t happen and there’s 10 feet from the center line and the applicant has said that they will build a building at, at least 35 feet or 30 feet from that property line. So, it would exceed the minimum setback. The height difference, 30 feet is permitted currently, up to 35 with a steep roof pitch. 35 is permitted outright in the requested district. Of course, the main difference is the number of units per acre that are permitted in the two different districts. The current one allows eight per acre and RM1-35 allows up to 43. These are the review criteria and in assessing them this request does comply with the Growth Policy’s land use recommendation for this area. In terms of public services and transportation, this is an area that is served by City sewer, water, police and fire. The current church is not connected to water but will do so as a result of the subdivision when that is filed. All new development will connect to both sewer and water. This location is

22

1/4 of a mile to Franklin Park and there is a bus that runs on Eaton. With the subdivision being filed, there will be installation of sidewalk all along the frontage of the property. The sidewalk network in the adjacent neighborhood is just continuous. There will also be an increase in traffic on this as a result of this development if it occurs. There are subdivision improvements that are required when it is filed and those include pavement of 9th Street in front of the property. In terms of compatibility of urban growth, this looks at the density of some surrounding developments. There aren’t any multi-dwelling districts in the immediate area but there are other districts or there are other developments in this area that have a higher density than the current zoning would permit. And so this is a little bit higher than those but kind of in keeping with the urban growth pattern in that area, when you are considering public health and safety, any new development here will meet zoning, engineering and building codes so there will be the provisions to keep some open space and setbacks to allow light and air circulation. With the district character and the suitability of uses the proposal for this is residential in an area that has primarily residential development so it is similar in that way. It’s just permitting a different building type. And higher density. You’re familiar with the protest provision in state law and that says that if 25% of owners of parcels within 150 feet of the subject property, and that’s shown by the blue outline on the slide, if 25% of those people file protest petitions, then the vote on this has to be two-thirds of those present and voting for it to pass rather than a simple majority. This actually, I was trying to update and that’s why I have the wrong set of slides. I currently have 29 petitions altogether. There are 11 valid petitions from owners and so that meets the threshold needed for the protest provision to be invoked. There are additional protests which are posted online and the reason that they are not in the valid category and there are additional ones, is largely because of distance. They come from people who live outside of this 150-foot parameter. We received a good number of public comments on this proposal. Neighbors’ concerns include that the density of the proposed project is incompatible with existing development pattern. There is concern about the increase of traffic on a dead-end street. There is concern about the inadequate parking provision when the development occurs and also the lack of existing pedestrian infrastructure and no street lights. We’ve received a number of letters of support both from individuals and from agencies including the Housing and Community Development Department, Housing Authority, Aging Services and also the Human Resource Council. At this point, I have more than eight neighbor comments in support of the project. They are posted online. I believe there are 10. This item went to the Planning Board and their discussion largely centered around the zoning as related to the project versus a general vote. As you know, rezoning’s can’t be conditioned and so you are voting not on this project but on the zoning in general. The Planning Board discussed that extensively and they felt that they could not approve the motion to bring this forward so there were two no votes, or I’m sorry, there were five no votes and two ayes to bring it forward so the motion didn’t pass. After they took their general vote, they took another vote sort of asking among themselves if they could vote on just this project, what would they say, and in that case the vote was different. There were five votes in support, 1 abstention and 1 who continued to vote no. That brings us to the motion which is to approve the adoption of an ordinance to rezone 2320 South 9th Street West from RT5.4 Residential to RM1-35 Residential based on the findings of fact in the staff report. If you have any questions, I will be glad to try and answer them. Additionally, Dale McCormick is here from PCI and the applicant, Alex Burkhalter, from Housing Solutions.

23

Acting Mayor von Lossberg said, yeah, I was going to ask if the applicant would like to say anything.

Dale McCormick, Professional Consultants, Inc., said, representing Alex Burkhalter with Housing Solutions LLC. I want to thank Jenny for all of her work and assistance with this project. To give a little bit of a chronology of how we got here, on June 12, 2019 we met with the Development Services staff at a pre-application meeting to discuss the rezoning, the property recently subdivided as the Mountain View Chapel Subdivision to place the affordable senior housing project on four of the five lots leaving the church on the zoned lot. At this pre-application meeting, the plan needed a development was discussed but staff encouraged us not to pursue that path because of the consistency of the rezoning with the Growth Policy and Housing Policy. So, we presented the project to the Franklin to the Fort Neighborhood Council on July 30 and one of the questions that came up at the neighborhood meeting was raised of whether a traffic impact study would be needed. So, when he asked the City Engineer, he responded, based on the number of units and lack of mitigation options, I would say no, a traffic impact study is not needed. So, on July 15, the Missoula City Council held a public hearing on whether there is an established need for affordable housing as a requirement of the Montana Board of Housing for assisting with financing this project. Council expressed their conclusion that there is, in fact, a need for affordable housing and affordable housing for seniors, in particular. So, on October 1, Missoula Consolidated Planning Board met and reviewed the rezoning request. Though they voted on the main motion, two in support and five against, they conducted the second vote that was to conditionally approve this particular development and the vote was five in favor, one against and one abstention. Further discussions with staff included that it was not possible to conditionally approve the zoning change. The pros zoning change to RM1-35 is in accordance with our Missoula City Growth Policy 2035 which has designed this property with a land use of residential, high density, which is greater than 24 dwelling units per acre. The proposed use, as the Sky View Affordable Senior Housing Project, would consist of 36 units on 1.88 acres. This project would be at a proposed density of 19 dwelling units per acre, well below that 24 dwelling units per acre land use designation. According to the Growth Policy, affordable housing is a community goal and Missoula has a focus inward policy that promotes compact development. Infill development is encouraged in the urban core where infrastructure already exists. It also states that while many seniors might have substantial equity in their homes, many will also choose to downsize. Downsizing could mean a more diverse selection of housing types or a lower maintenance home. And Missoula aspires to be a community where members of all income groups can find decent housing and positive steps must be taken to address the availability of safe, affordable housing. This is an area where there’s a transition from lower density west of Reserve Street in the County to higher density east of Reserve Street where this affordable senior housing would be located. Our proposed zoning is, therefore, more compliant than the existing zoning with as far as the land use recommendation of the Growth Policy. Improvements to South 9th Street West are required to widen the street as a result of the Mountain View Chapel Subdivision which is in the final plat process and the record set has been circulating and that there’s an improvements agreement and letter of credit to ensure those improvements will occur. New boulevard sidewalks are required along the entire frontage of this property, including the lot with the church on it. The Reserve Street Transportation Corridor is less than two blocks to the west of the subject property and Eaton Street is one block to the east. 9th Street West is currently

24

and the street, however, Eaton Street can easily be accessed via Margaret Street and South 10th Street West. Emergency services are located nearby. There is a fire hydrant across the street and the property has nearby access to Reserve Street. There is sufficient room for emergency vehicles to turn around at the end of 9th Street. Fire Station 2 on Mount Avenue is two miles away. The police station is 3.2 miles away with the neighborhood patrol on an ongoing basis and ambulance service is available 1.3 miles away on Burlington Avenue. So, the proposed zoning has the same 35-foot building height restriction as the current zoning district. The 20-foot front and rear yard setbacks of the proposed zoning are the same as the existing zoning. And the five-foot side yard setback of the proposed zoning is only 2.5 feet less than the existing zoning. However, as Jenny said, due to a 10-foot irrigation ditch easement, the west side yard setback will be greater than the current zoning requires. The building that is proposed will have a 30-foot side yard setback, three times what’s required to buffer against existing residential development, the west. This proposed affordable senior housing is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood as a higher density residential use at a location that is adjacent to a non-residential use of the Mountain View Chapel and the Opportunity Resources residential care facility to the north. Nearby, higher density developments also include Aspen Grove Townhomes and Bridge Court Village planned unit subdivision to the south and Huntington Place density bonus subdivision to the west and the West Central Square planned unit development subdivision to the north. So, this is a view of Huntington Place so the red is the adjacent development that is being depicted in the photo to show nearby examples of higher density development. That one is a planned neighborhood cluster density bonus project. This one is Aspen Grove that is just to the south and you can see what it looks like on the street. And then this is a bit further to the south. It’s the Burlington Square project which is an affordable housing project for seniors. And that’s a view closer up so you’ve got a sense for that. And all of these projects are adjacent to single-family residences that are one-story in height. So, there is a jux position of higher density housing next to single-family residential housing in the neighborhood. So, we concur with staff’s recommendation of approval and request that you recommend approval of our rezoning request. I’ll turn it over to Alex Burkhalter. He can explain the history of the project from his perspective and more specifics on the proposed building and the population it will serve. And if you have any questions, I’m happy to answer them.

Acting Mayor von Lossberg said, Mr. Burkhalter.

Alex Burkhalter, Housing Solutions, said, I guess there’s a lot of things that I don’t want to just keep saying over and over but I will try to bring a few new things to what Dale and Jenny hadn’t yet shared, some specifics about the proposed project that would be located here. It’s a 36-apartment homes for seniors, senior being defined as 55 and older. The building would have rent and income limits and those rules are enforced by the Montana Board of Housing. They’re checking on us regularly, annually, if not more often to make sure we’re following them. What those rules would get us are one and two-bedroom apartments renting between $525 and $815 per month. That’s all in with utilities paid. 60% of those apartment homes would be rented for less than $600 per month. Based on our market study that’s between 20 and 40% below what the market is. And those residents I mentioned, income limits in addition to being 55 and older there will be no more than $30,000 per year with most of the units limited to less than $25,000 per year. So, that’s a bit about the project. Why is it here? Why have we proposed it

25

here? As I’ve shared previously, where else? We looked extensively and haven’t been able to find other bare ground that is suitable for this and affordable. The ground that hasn’t been developed is generally in commercial districts with commercial pricing, you know, and the reason why it hasn’t been built on yet, not even the market rate developers can afford to do anything there. This is a quiet neighborhood and we have quiet residents. Seniors 55 and older, one person per household, there might be the odd married couple, but they’re quiet residents looking for the same thing that folks in this neighborhood have. Why in Franklin to the Fort? Why not in another part of town? Franklin to the Fort neighborhood, because of its original development pattern, has larger lots like what’s available here. In other areas of town that have developed more traditional single-family lot development, they’re built out and it’s just not practical for us to aggregate and purchase like six individual homes, tear them down and then build a development like this somewhere like Lewis and Clark neighborhood or the Slant Streets. It’s just with our home prices, it’s just not financially feasible. Another thing that brought us here, frankly why we started looking in this area, is the Growth Policy and the future land use plan. That’s why we initiated with staff and why we brought this project forward. It was in the Growth Plans that this type of housing, at this density, be placed in this area. And I think that’s why we see staff has recommended it. Why now? Why this project now? Well, Montana is aging. I read something, we’re known as the grayest western state and our aging population will only continue to grow. Missoula with its health services is a major hub for seniors. Rent prices make it nearly impossible for many seniors on a fixed income. A market study found that there’s a need for 266 homes just like this right now, right now. Also, in Missoula, 805 households. 805 households would be both age and income qualified for a project like this. You know, it’s interesting when you talk about affordable housing, it’s almost become a household topic. Everybody is talking about affordable housing. And we have an opportunity to bring affordable housing to Missoula with this project for seniors. The funding mechanism for this, housing tax credits, is very competitive. It’s a very long process. Our original application was turned in all the way back in April. In May we found out we’d made the first cut and now here we are, near the end, one week from today, the Montana Board of Housing will make its decision. We’re one of eight applicants, possibly seven, I’ve heard recently that one of them was returned for noncompliance at another of the developer’s project, so we could be one of seven. We have dollars to fund probably five, maybe six, which makes this project very, very likely it could happen. So, what’s next? As I mentioned, we’re one week away from where we’re knowing whether or not we have the funding. And the funding is very competitive but once you get it, projects get done. They’re able to move through completion. Initially, we had been pushing hard to have the zone change tonight, for you folks to take a vote and approve the change of zoning in order to take that message to Helena that this project is shovel-ready, zoning’s been changed, it’s ready to go. All we need to do is turn in for a building permit. We, as recently as 10 days ago, made a pivot. After listening to neighbors and listening to concerns of some other folks, the question kept coming up, what happens if you don’t get the funding? What happens if it isn’t 36 units of affordable housing? What then. Anything allowed under RM1-35 could be built. And, based on those comments, I’d respectfully request you wait on your decision tonight. Let me go to Helena. Let me take a strong message of the need in Missoula for this type of housing to the decision-makers in Helena and come back to you with the information of whether or not we did get the credits. Because with the housing credits, with the funding to make this project happen, with a zone change, we can tell you what will be built here. It’ll be Skyview Senior

26

Housing. So, with that, I’d be happy to answer any questions you may have and I will report back as soon as I know.

Acting Mayor von Lossberg said, great. Thanks, Mr. Burkhalter. So, before I open the public hearing, I want to mention that, it’s my understanding from hearing from the committee chair, Mr. Hess, as well as at least one other Council person, Ms. Merritt, of a desire to return this to committee. I believe that’s correct, Julie and Jordan, so I think people…and it’s Councilmembers’ prerogative to return an item to committee, so I wanted to mention that before we get into the public hearing. But, with that, we’ll open the public hearing. And I want to thank everyone for sticking around. I appreciate how late the evening is and how long you’ve been sitting out there so thanks for sticking in there. But the public hearing is open and if you’d like to comment on the rezone application, this is the time.

Malcom Lowe, 1114 Margaret, said, I’m just not quite within 150 feet. So, I saw this delay of the vote based on what happened at the meeting on Wednesday. So, I just want to cover some ground we’ve already covered and some other, excuse me, I’m fighting a cold, some other new ground. So, Jenny Baker has emphasized that a rezone is a rezone is a rezone and it must be decided on the merits of the zoning density, not on the project. We’re very frustrated in this case that the Council feels that the ends justifies the means for this project. What we’re looking at is a process to deviate from the normal process by postponing this vote, by sending a message to Helena that we are, you know, you’ve come up with a creative strategy with these delays and with these straw-polls to basically advocate for the contractor. The Planning Board expressed in their vote that they are clearly opposed to this density on this site and they have good reasons for that. If the Council had been asked to approve this zoning purely on zoning, nothing to do with affordable housing, they would have turned it down. It is not appropriate. It is too dense. It is too drastic a change for what exists there now and it’s not just the zoning but it’s what actually exists. They are single-family homes. It’s too stark a contrast. It’s a bad zoning precedent. And this process of straw-polls is a way of achieving conditional approval which is essentially what you would do by postponing this vote and I suspect you’re probably going to take a straw-poll tonight on how we feel about this, you are essentially creating a conditional approval and that is, I think, bad policy and a bad way to move forward. How can you justify the rezoning of this entire lot for a project which will only occupy part of it? We’re all talking about the part that’s only on half of it. You would be rezoning the whole thing and they would be allowed to do whatever they wanted with the other half, including another 40 units. I’m not hearing anybody saying that, that this entire lot is being rezoned. Yes, there’s a church there now but there’s no guarantees after it’s rezoned that that church will remain. It’s an old building. So, to approve the spot zoning of the whole lot, you’re handing the property owners a golden egg while diminishing the value of our single homes next door. The city government has abandoned this caution to help Mr. Burkhalter meet application deadlines, once again advocating for the contractor. Some of us, myself included, have expressed that if this entire lot is to be zoned RM1-35, we would rather it be this project for seniors than an unspecified project with up to 81 units but let me be clear, it does not mean I support this project. It means only that we consider it the lesser of two evils in the face of an unsympathetic Council. I want to emphasize that the current proposal for spot rezoning of this entire lot would still allow the owner to develop the other half of the property to incredibly high density. We have no indication of how the City plans to address the

27

significant infrastructure demands that this project would create. We do, however, know that the project will not contribute to the tax base to help pay for those needed improvements. Mr. Burkhalter will get some $6 million in tax credits yet his project will not contribute to the schools, the parks, the roads or his much-touted nearby bus line. I object to that. And we will strenuously object to any requirement that we pay for sidewalks which heretofore our quiet neighborhood has never needed. Even Mr. Burkhalter admits this is not an ideal site. Just, he laments, that he’s looked high and low in Missoula and just can’t find anything better. The fact remains it is not an ideal site and the neighborhood knows it and we will feel this more than anyone. Rather than justifying poor zoning decisions and advocating for him through a deviant process, the City should be helping him find more ideal sites. Thank you.

Acting Mayor von Lossberg said, additional public comment?

Jim Morton, Human Resource Council, said, what I would like you to do is just step back from this project and think about if we were here proposing homeownership. And the reason I’m doing that is that I’ve heard a lot about change. Neighborhoods don’t like change. I understand that. But neighborhoods are going to change. This neighborhood, somebody with means, financial means, can come in, buy a lot, a house, extend it 35 feet. The ownership is changing. The Montana Cooperative Development Center has taken the initiative talking about co-op ownership of homeownership, co-housing. Why am I talking about that now? Because things are changing. Groups of people go in and buy a structure, rehab it. It’s not a duplex. It’s not a triplex. They own it. They live there. They go inside and make that structure what meets their demands. So, if the neighborhood I lived in and the neighborhood every one of you lived in, it’s susceptible to that. People with money are going to do that. The people who are low income are going to get left out. And this Council has stood up for those folks over and over again with the Growth Policy. I heard at the Planning Board neighbors, and I respect their opinion, they’re good, decent people, but they are in a neighborhood where people can come in and build up to 35 feet. Single-family ownership isn’t that anymore across this country. And the other thing is you can build up to 35 feet and you’ve got five adults, teenagers with cars, and their friends all have cars, you get traffic problems. So, why I’m talking about this is that as you hear our projects, as developers, please think about the change and the way we look at ownership, the way we look at development. This is not a site that’s on a steep slope. This is not a site where children are going to be crossing a busy thoroughfare. It’s also on a steep slope where the neighbors have received from their insurance company exceptions to any flow from that slope. Those are projects that you’ve heard. It’s gut-wrenching to hear those neighbors as well. But this project, if it doesn’t go, another project will come. So, our neighbors are going to have to face a change just like I will and you will in this community. I don’t know what to say other than it seems like people with means are going to do okay. People who are low income, seniors, worked hard, are not. So, I appreciate your understanding and your efforts to mitigate for all of us. You have a hard job and I think everybody in this room understands that so thank you.

Acting Mayor von Lossberg said, additional public comment?

Donna Ferguson said, I reside at 2405 South Kemp Street West with my husband, Darrell, where we have lived for 47 years. We definitely have objections to the high- density infill. I don’t need to go through all the things that have been mentioned before,

28

transportation, poor infrastructure, all of these issues. My major issue is if you don’t rezone this to RM1-35, we don’t have to worry about all the different things that have been brought up as possibilities. And, as they come along, we’ll continue to fight them because that’s not what we want. And I’d still like to know if anyone…this is the question in my mind if, why are not the interests and the financial investment of the people who live in this neighborhood not as important or more important than that of the developer or the people who are going to exist in the infrastructure that you’re…or the structure that you plan to build? And at one of your committee meetings, it was brought up that it’s not being a good citizen if you don’t take a hit for the community. I don’t buy that. I don’t believe in it. Why do we have to take hits? We worked hard. We have our investments. Okay, $225 to $280,000, not big by any standard or value by a lot of your wards. Ward 6 is one of the four that you all know are considered good for infill. Pack it in. Nobody’s going to complain. Nobody has the money to fight you. Everybody’s out busy working, eating out, making a living and have a good time. They don’t even hear about what’s going down. And I think it should not be rezoned, especially since we don’t know what the other half is going to be. And when you’re saying 1.88, you’re not going to put…those five lots are not 1.88. That 1.88 is more than those four lots. Thank you for your time.

Acting Mayor von Lossberg said, thank you. Additional public comment?

Terry Dodson said, I own a small home in Ward 6. It’s not very far from where the proposed complex would be built. I’m sure you’re all aware of the pressing need that we have for more affordable senior housing in Missoula. Presently, there are long waiting lists on all the existing units. And as more and more Baby Boomers reach the age, they will be requiring this type of housing and with no more being built, the situation will just continue to get worse. Seniors have enough to worry about as they age, health issues being one of the biggest ones, without having to worry about a place to live that fits into their budget. I have lived and worked in Missoula for over 50 years but when I can no longer stay in my little modest home, due to health reasons or cost of maintenance or taxes, I won’t be able to afford to go out there and rent in the market rate rents and I can’t afford to live at the Springs or the Village and those fancy places either. So, I’d have to go to some affordable housing. I would like to remind you all that we are all aging and that the available land in Missoula is becoming very scarce. If we don’t take advantage of what’s out there now, there may not be any place for the younger generations to go either when their time arises. I have looked over the proposed site several times and I feel it is in a really good location for a senior home, even if it might have a couple of drawbacks. It’s a safe neighborhood and its close enough in so the residents can have access to the bus line. Isolation can be an issue with aging so being close enough into the main part of town helps to make them feel connected. The Burlington Square Apartments for seniors on Clark Street has 51 units and I don’t think you could find a quieter place in all of Missoula. There’s very little activity around there on any given day. So, I sincerely hope that you will strongly consider allowing this area to be rezoned so that the construction of this much-needed complex can go forward. Thank you.

Acting Mayor von Lossberg said, thank you. Additional public comment?

Susan Kohler said, I’m the CEO of Missoula Aging Services where we promote the independence, dignity and health of older adults and those that care for them. One of our strategic goals is advocacy for older adults and those who care for them and clearly

29

housing is an area that advocacy is important. Every day Missoula Aging Services either gets phone calls or people walking in who are looking for more affordable housing. They may want to downsize out of their places because they no longer can afford to take care of their yards or the snow removal or the cost of maintenance, and it’s really hard to find affordable, trustworthy maintenance people that they can rely on. In addition, as you age, you run into the chances of an inability to walk up and down stairs. In many homes, laundry facilities are on a different level, bedrooms are on a different level and people will leave their homes for those kinds of reasons. The other aspect I wanted to point out was for those individuals that are married a spouse will die and aging wears a woman’s face. Right now, the statistics show that men are living in America to age 76, women are to age 81. And so what we find often in those couples is that when one passes, often the male, then the woman starts to feel a little more uncomfortable in their home and that they managing all of what they’ve managed before, that they shared with their spouse, and now those additional responsibilities along with understanding and managing the finances for their rest of their lives. I believe this project is, as 36 units, it’s for moderate incomes, not for low incomes, it’s moderate incomes. And right now, and it's been mentioned before, that a lot of older adults cannot afford the high cost of our corporate- owned facilities in Missoula and are looking for something a little more different. As I said, aging wears a woman’s face so facilities like this will end up with widowers, single women who never married and divorced women. It’s not to say there won’t be couples but that is what we’re hearing the most when people are coming through our doors. I walked the neighborhood. I don’t live in the neighborhood so I don’t want to take away from what the neighbors are concerned about but I think it’s really hard to get tax credits and this is a good location. I think it will bring improvement to the area just by the attention of the City improving the roads and sidewalks in the area and I certainly hope transportation will also be there. I’m asking the members of City Council to approve the rezoning for this project. If this project is approved, I hope the developers, City and the neighborhood work together to make this a welcoming new home for the tenants. I also hope there will be continued discussion in how to improve the streets, lighting and bus stop locations to enhance the neighborhood. Thanks for the opportunity.

Acting Mayor von Lossberg said, thanks. I made my wife sign a contract that she won’t pass away until after me and I intend to hold her to it. Additional public comment?

Monte Hurdle, Ward 3, said, I’ve lived here in Missoula from the mid-60s to the mid- 80s and then I lived in Seattle for 30 years. And there I was teaching and working variously in clinical addiction counselor. I was working with the homeless and addiction population in downtown Seattle and then I returned to Great Falls to take care of my dad for five years. And I moved back here two years ago. What did find? I found that Missoula is the most expensive city in Montana and not too far behind Seattle. That measures on the national index of affordability for cities of this size it’s 140. One hundred being average so we’re way above average nationwide. So, the first person that came to the mic, he said that putting in the Skyview it would be a disaster and I can understand your comment. You like your neighborhood. You’ve been there for a while. You have no idea what kind of disaster looms around the corner which I witnessed after living in Seattle for 30 years. Right now, 65% of my income goes for housing and how long will that be? Probably not too long. One article in the Missoulian estimated or speculated in the next several years, 20,000 more people moving to Missoula. And then with the venue going in on the triangle, which displaced some affordable housing in the first

30

proposal I think was that it was going to be for affordable housing. It seems like that’s gone. But with that venue, it’s going to attract a lot of people to Missoula, out-of-state folks probably and some of them might want to stay. The top floor of that is for a penthouse. And in Seattle, my experience was penthouses went for hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of dollars and they were owned by people from Hong Kong and Singapore and London. They weren’t local people that had local interests in mind. In addition to that, with the influx of out-of-state people, a lot of what we have as rentals that we’ve taken off the market for Air B&Bs, if the City doesn’t do anything. So, you think it’s a disaster to your neighborhoods…

Acting Mayor von Lossberg said, sir, I’m going to just…yeah, focus on us.

Monte Hurdle said, okay. Anyway, so, from experience of Seattle when hundreds of people were showing up daily in the ‘90s and now in the last few years the estimate was 75,000 people a year that could be where Missoula is going. Driving rents up. Driving people out of their apartments into the streets, into living in their cars. One estimate said there are like 40,000 homeless people in Seattle. I don’t know what the estimate here for Missoula is right now but I could be one of them. More pressure on the rental market, landlords aren’t in it for ultraistic reasons. They’re in it to make money. So, if the rents are raised to the point where I can’t afford it and there’s no place to go, then I’m out in the street. I’m 70. So, I guess my point here is that we need to look at the Skyview as not us versus them, but as a community and look at more resources that Missoula has that can also address the problem. In Shakespeare’s Caesar, he’s given the warning, beware the ides of march, and he ignored it and it didn’t work at well for him. Things that are arriving on the horizon they are still a ways off, but I think they’re telling the city of Missoula it’s time to start acting for the people. We don’t need a venue on the triangle. That could have been a wonderful place for affordable housing. It was land that was available in the city.

Acting Mayor von Lossberg said, sir, I’ve let it go long and I’m happy to give everyone some extra time considering how long everyone stayed, but I need you to bring it back to the rezoning, support or oppose.

Monte Hurdle said, so, for the rezoning, yes, I support it and it will take some pressure off for a lot of people and it will be affordable. We don’t have rent control in that sort of situation its quasi rent control.

Acting Mayor von Lossberg said, okay, thank you, sir. Additional public comment?

Sonja Skovlund said, I live in Ward 4. First, I want to acknowledge all the people who stayed here and who came out because we all feel deeply about our neighborhoods. And I want to advocate for rezoning, and because I feel that being fearful that this would be blight to this neighborhood that instead I would encourage you to think that it will enhance the neighborhood. And I say that because I was able to move my mother 1-1/2 years ago to the Burlington Apartments and that has meant a great deal to our family and especially to her. And the benefits of living there for all of those residents, they’ve been stated several times tonight, and I can just attest to all of that. It’s safe for her and for all of them. They lock the doors at 6:00 p.m. It’s very close to the hospital and all kinds of other medical resources that our seniors need and also to grocery shopping. And it addresses the issue again of isolation and loneliness. Those people in that facility look out for each other and take care of each other and not only that but they’re looking out for

31

the people in the neighborhood. And they’re there for a long time, as long as they possibly can be. They’re not in and out. And so, they really do have a vested interest in the neighborhood as a whole and where they live. They have to keep their apartments clean and tidy, and I mean that is part of the arrangement of living there and that is reflected out in the grounds and everywhere. And I know that there’s an issue or a concern about the transportation, but my mother would have liked to have been here this evening. She did not have any desire to be out this late, and so I don’t really either and I’m 29.

Acting Mayor von Lossberg said, I’m sure you’re not alone in the room.

Sonja Skovlund said, right, yeah. So, I was trying to keep this short. They don’t want to be out after it gets dark and seniors don’t really want to be out early in the morning and so as far as making more traffic issues in that part of the day, I really think it’s more of a non…I mean, it’s not as much as an issue. I would just like to boldly say that. So, just given the need for affordable housing for our seniors who are a precious commodity in our community and in our lives and that we take care of them. If there could be a senior housing in my neighborhood, I would advocate for that but I advocate for this rezoning. Thank you.

Acting Mayor von Lossberg said, thank you. Additional public comment?

Cathy Campbell said, I live in the Lynnwood Senior Condos in the University area and I’m an active member of the Missoula Senior Center. Because of these two venues, I’ve had lots of opportunities to talk to both the people that need affordable housing and those that are in senior housing that are being forced out by gentrification. This project, the Skyview, is not a project for low income seniors. This is a way to address the needs of middle-income seniors. These are seniors retiring from careers such as teachers, nurses, civil employees, small business and nonprofit workers. Pensions on these jobs are often minimal or non-existent in many circumstances. Many of these seniors are just above being able to qualify for subsidized housing and often must continue to supplement their small pensions and Social Security by staying employed, usually part- time, well into their 70s. They usually hold jobs that could well be beginning work experiences for younger and student workers. And most of the savings of these seniors, after raising and educating their children, are the result of the equity they have obtained from the sale of a modest home, if they were able to afford a home in Missoula in the first place. This means that often these modest homes, as they become available, become first-home buyers’ purchases in great family neighborhoods. And if the savings of those seniors is rapidly depleted by Missoula’s escalating housing costs, many of the seniors may have to consider moving to areas where outside of Missoula where services are even less available or they have to severely downgrade their living conditions. So, please approve this Skyview project as submitted by the Housing Solutions. Missoula must address the housing needs of all its citizens of every income and age level. Senior complexes of this modest size are good fits in every Missoula neighborhood, wherever adequate space can be found. Seniors are an enriching part of every neighborhood. They volunteer and actively participate in civil meetings, such as neighborhood meetings. They participate in local activities and community projects. Seniors are good neighbors and especially those of them that are retiring from professional careers such as I mentioned. And I, hopefully, ask that you continue to support all of the housing that

32

has come before you but especially this project for affordable housing for moderate- and middle-income seniors. Thank you.

Acting Mayor von Lossberg said, thank you. Additional public comment? Mr. McMillan, we changed the road with the weight thing.

Mark McMillan, Ward 6, said, what’s that?

Acting Mayor von Lossberg said, we changed that road…

Mark McMillan, Ward 6, said, oh, yes, I saw that, thank you. Just cleaning up the books for you.

Acting Mayor von Lossberg said, that’s right.

Mark McMillan, Ward 6, said, I know you guys are busy. Those little details get overlooked once in a while. I live on 10th Street just west of Russell to give you some perspective. I hope to make it to senior status at some point. I agree that this is a problem and while I’m for the idea of the Skyview project, I’m not in favor of it here. I don’t want to forget to thank Jenny Baker. Of all the City departments I’ve dealt with in the last few years, she is by far the most prompt, responsive, complete and thorough in terms of replying to emails and questions so thank you. I know she’s been working on this for a while. Was it 29 petitions? Of those 29 petitions that were submitted, and remember I live just west of Russell Street, I put out eight feelers and got nine back in opposition to it and these range from the 1500 block of 5th from a senior citizen to another retired person on the 1300 block of 13th, right off of Johnson. And they’re all in agreement. And if you read those, you’ll see all the comments. I think only one was short of personal written comments on there as to why they oppose it, which is always a NIMBY but then there’s always nobody answers why. I didn’t follow this totally but I’d really like to know how that whole tax thing worked out with Skyview when it was proposed for 1600 Cooley Street. But I also think maybe that wasn’t the greatest place either because of the areas it had to go through here. And I think when Mr. Lowe was referring to the disaster, I think this is going to trigger the hot-button topic of sidewalks which are essentially for all intensive purposes non-existent here, for a place that never would have needed them, wouldn’t have had to see this for 20 years, it’s just interesting how this might trigger that sidewalk development all the way back to the bus routes. Now, this is maybe some really crazy thinking, but years ago there was talk about the 14-acre Forest Service site right along the path, south of Mount Street, places like that. And we’re doing land swaps with libraries and everything else like I would almost like to see, rather than take this neighborhood and make it a major thoroughfare, and it is close to the bus route but not that close, especially in wintertime, I don’t think the 36 units really makes a dent. If we have 200, that’s where I look at sites like the 14 acres over there. Right off the path would be a whole lot better. It’s a lot closer to the main road of Russell which is all going to get redone in the future. A lot closer to the ambulance, which is going to be theoretically needed more for seniors, puts you at a tenth of the distance maybe. Some of the other things, you know, it’s just going to trigger at 9th Street where there’s not going to be a traffic study so is that going to…is it going to take problems to arise for that to happen and who’s going to pay for it? The smell test on the delays and the roads and how we’re rezoning this entire property, if you look at the tax details on the church, it was built in 1980. The economic life of the church is listed on the

33

tax site as 40 years. The smell test doesn’t really pass. If you check the tax records, it didn’t make sense to me and it says this could be wrong, but in 2015 there was $3,200 in property taxes paid on that property. That jumped up to $3,350 in ’16, $5161 in ’17, $8,500 in 2018 and all of a sudden, it’s dropped down to $3,795. So, between the delayed vote, nobody talking about the real impact of what the sidewalk costs are going to be to all of those surrounding neighbors to get these people to already develop sites like Spurgin Road or the bus routes on Eaton but essential this has really limited access. I would not want to live on 1100 block of Margaret if this went in. And then the whole idea that this is a blank space where the church is not makes me wonder why we’re voting on the entire property for this piece. And it just looks suspicious too that there’s a parking lot in the center of it. So, is there some pre-planning going in for this to go from 36 to, just by special visual observation, 72? And are you looking at my time?

Acting Mayor von Lossberg said, no.

Mark McMillan, Ward 6, said, oh, okay.

Acting Mayor von Lossberg said, my screen went off.

Mark McMillan, Ward 6, said, I don’t know where I’m at.

Acting Mayor von Lossberg said, 4-1/2.

Mark McMillan, Ward 6, said, thanks. I haven’t been here in a while so…

Acting Mayor von Lossberg said, no and…

Mark McMillan, Ward 6, said, I’ve spared you all of that.

Acting Mayor von Lossberg said, I’ve let people run…

Mark McMillan, Ward 6, said, thanks.

Acting Mayor von Lossberg said, I appreciate everyone coming late and staying late so…

Mark McMillan, Ward 6, said, but, essentially, I’ve been here since 7 o’clock to support the neighbors. This was going in an inappropriate place by me at Washburn and 10th, I would hope that the people on the other end would support their other neighbors and hopefully you’ll see from those that I did submit or the ones that have been submitted that all the petitions in opposition don’t concentrate right here in 29 houses adjacent to this place. I think sometimes 150-foot provision for contact is a little short when considering the major routes to and from these places. But, again, I think a bigger project that actually solves the problem and looks to the future, because right now we might have 200. But, hopefully, like I said, if I make it to senior, are we going to be at 5 or 6 or 700? And when we look at alternative sites, and I think this was only looked at because it was bare ground, well, the Forest Service, as far as I know, were in negotiations a while back for development at that, if anybody knows where I’m talking about, it’s essentially just west of Russell along the Bitterroot Trail. That is a Forest Service, what do you call it, fleet, mostly fleet. There’s some other divisions in there but you also got to wonder why, in terms of government efficiency, that’s there and not out by the Airport. Oh, my time is up.

Acting Mayor von Lossberg said, just for the record…

34

Mark McMillan, Ward 6, said, that’s the five-minute…get down, huh?

Acting Mayor von Lossberg said, we are over six, Mark, so, it’ll be time…

Mark McMillan, Ward 6, said, hey, thanks, because I’ve left you guys alone for a long time. I’ve been really busy.

Acting Mayor von Lossberg said, okay.

Mark McMillan, Ward 6, said, alright, thank you.

Acting Mayor von Lossberg said, thanks. Additional public comment?

Michael Gobb said, I live at 1115 South Clark Street. It’s about 300 feet from the Skyview or proposed Skyview project. My parents purchased the home in 1978 and I’ve lived there since 1980, ’81 so I’m really familiar with the area and the history. I guess, where’s the precedent for rezoning a lot in the middle of RT5.4 placing and rezoning the lot that’s surrounded by RT5.4 to this MR1-35? Where’s the precedent to that? I’d say there probably isn’t any. And the reason why is that it’s such a drastic change, it’s just poor planning. You can’t have that drastic of a change in this kind of a neighborhood. There will be an impact. And some of the examples that were given, and I know these by memory because this weekend I went out and looked at them, Huntington Place, Aspen Grove and Burlington Square Apartments, there’s no comparison to those developments to this neighborhood. There’s none. And so, if this were rezoned and that building were erected, it would definitely destroy the character of that neighborhood. And I know the zoning is classified as like both of them are classified as residential. Well, there’s nothing residential about a three-story building in the neighborhood that’s got single-family homes. And I went to the Planning Board meeting on 10-1 and they had problems with this drastic of rezoning. They thought it was just too much for the neighborhood so they voted no. I know there was the straw-vote afterward but I really can’t wrap my mind around that, honestly. If this area is wrong, it can’t be rezoned in general for RM1-35, then what makes it appropriate for Skyview that’s being zoned at…in order to build it, it has to be zoned to RM1-35. So, what…I can’t wrap my mind around that. Why would it be not appropriate for in general but appropriate this specific, you know, project? That makes no sense to me. I guess one reason, you know, one reason I think that it is, is because of the popularity and the need in our community for this kind of housing and nobody disagrees with that but you’re going to…one neighborhood is going to be sacrificed literally for this other community. And I just don’t agree with that. I think that’s terrible planning. The community doesn’t deserve that. Most people live there for a long time and I ask that you vote no to rezone this property. Thank you.

Acting Mayor von Lossberg said, thanks. Any additional public comment? Okay. As I indicated at the beginning with that, I’ll close the public hearing. As I indicated at the beginning, at the request of the Chair and Councilwoman Merritt, this has been requested to go back to committee. I’m simply going to say since there’s been some comments about that, that it is an absolutely normal, in fact, it is the most regular process we go through on contentious items when we hear information during the public hearing and send things back to committee. I would argue that if you were to look at issues that come before us, and that is by far the rule rather than the exception. So, this is completely in keeping with the process we have on items for and specifically referenced in our Council

35

Rules to return an item to committee. That’s been the request. Mr. Hess, when would you expect to hear this?

Alderperson Hess said, I’d like to hear this on November 6.

Acting Mayor von Lossberg said, okay, Wednesday, November 6. Clerk, you’ve got that information? Alright, with that, we’re going to move on to the rest of the agenda. I’m guessing several of you don’t want to stick around for comments from Council so please feel free to take off. I would just ask you to take conversations, maybe outside or down the hallway. If we need to, we’ll close the door. You’re free to stick around and I do, one last time, I appreciate that you all sat through a very long evening to get to this point for comments so thank you for doing that. We all appreciate that.

8.5 Fiscal Year 2020 Quarter 1 Budget Amendment

Acting Mayor von Lossberg said, thank you. I’m going to take a quick out-of-order item. I’d like to quickly handle item 8.5, Fiscal Year 2020 Quarter One Budget Amendment. Ms. Griffing, if you’d could come up. You may. Destroys our whole process for people making people give short presentations, so, right, if we provide a chair?

Leigh Griffing, City Finance, said, today I’m bringing the Quarter 1 FY20 Budget Amendments to Council, and a little bit about our process first. In late August, City Council passed a resolution that we call the appropriations resolution. This is really the budget adoption resolution. And the way that the language in this resolution is worded, we lumped together all of the expenditures, the transfers, the revenues and so forth. And City Council approves the resolution that sets the spending level by each budgeted fund for the entire city. We have over 180 funds, over $200 million in expenditures in FY20 budget. So, that was passed on August 19, of this year. Subsequently, we have some housekeeping items to bring to City Council and we’ll do this throughout the year. Usually at the beginning of the year and the end of the year we have a couple of these housekeeping items where we want to get everything in the appropriate category and so forth and that’s the bulk of what I’m bringing today. State law tells us that the governing body may amend the budget during the fiscal year by conducting public hearings at regularly scheduled meetings and that’s what we are doing tonight. And I’m asking City Council to adopt a resolution amending the annual appropriations for the City of Missoula, Montana as set forth in the fiscal year 2020 budget that decreases the total City budget by $131,095.00 and increases revenues by $89,282.00. Now, it seems kind of strange that we’re coming and asking everybody to decrease the amount of funds that folks can spend but again this really just has to do with the true up of the categories where everything lives, and fortunately, an app that allows us to reduce the total spending by $131,000. So, I will quickly go through the exhibit that outlines each of these items to be amended. In the general fund, during the budget process the Fire Department came and asked City Council to create a new fund, their all hazards fund, so that they could keep track of things like wildland revenues that they bring in when they rent out some of their firefighting equipment. And that was in the general fund so we need to remove that from the general fund now that they received that approval to have a separate fund. In Housing and Community Development, we want to increase in appropriation. Since the MRA Board approved funding for half the expense of the new full-time position of the Grant Administrator 1. That’s also bringing in…that’s part of the revenue that’s coming in, $14,282.00 from MRA. In our special revenue funds, we’re

36

increasing the Park District for their new requests that got added to another fund so just making sure it’s in the appropriate categories. And we also have a $75,000 grant that was received by Housing and Community Development from the Montana Health Care Foundation for $75,000 and that is to fund Missoula new Supportive Housing. We also had a new request of $105,350 in the core equipment replace program and again that was the parks that was categorized in the Parking Commission so we get to reduce the Parking Commission by $892,124 for a net total reduction of expenditures of $131,095 and increase in revenues of $89,282. There is just an informational piece at the end of this exhibit that I wanted to point out to folks and these are the budget transfers. So, whenever we sort of transfer funds between actual accounting funds, we don’t need to come and ask City Council approval but we want to bring this as an informational item so everybody knows what’s happening. And if you look at those monthly budget reports that are posted on the web and see some changes, they’re often due to a transfer such as this. The operating budget on the left, general fund, major departments had requests. A lot of this was for the core equipment replacement program and we’re transferring that budgetary authority to the capital projects funds for accounting purposes. And that is the end of my presentation. I’m here for any questions. Thank you.

Acting Mayor von Lossberg said, thanks, any questions from Council for Ms. Griffing? Mr. Ramos.

Alderperson Ramos said, thank you, Mr. President. I want to start by apologizing. I was not here during the committee meeting when this was talked about on the 25th. I just had a couple of quick questions if that’s okay. So, according to the City website, the fiscal year 2020 budget booklet will be published later this fall. Will those changes that we’re approving tonight be reflected in that booklet or are you going to have to update that as well?

Leigh Griffing, City Finance, said, that booklet is usually published with the approved budgetary level that nets the amount that was approved on August 19th of this year.

Alderperson Ramos said, okay, perfect. Thank you very much. So, just a quick question. I’m going to go through the pages as they are outlined inside. So, number one, it looks like this is a correction, the change number one in the budget amendments, the first amendment. It just looks like this is a correction to a double counting error. Is that correct?

Leigh Griffing, City Finance, said, are you talking about the fire one?

Alderperson Ramos said, yes.

Leigh Griffing, City Finance, said, so, when that was expenditures that was related to Fire’s baseline budget and this had been in the Fire’s general fund budget for previous years but since City Council, at the same time as they approved the budget adoption, approved that new fund, that all hazards fund, for the Fire Department, it’s moving those expenditures out of the general fund into the all hazards fund.

Acting Mayor von Lossberg said, no changes to total amount, just moving into the new account that was created as virtual of us adopting the budget.

37

Alderperson Ramos said, perfect. And, just so you know, I’m supportive of the resolution before us tonight, but I just had a couple of quick clarification questions. So, you segway beautifully into my next question. What’s the purpose of all hazards fund?

Leigh Griffing, City Finance, said, the Fire Department has rented out some of their firefighting equipment, they call it wildland fire equipment to, let’s say, other municipalities or other states when we’re not using it. They rented it out to municipalities in California, Washington, Oregon, and Arizona over the last handful of years. They wanted to more closely track what was happening with those revenues and so they also wanted to be able to use it for, you know, future equipment replacement and so forth and desired to put it in its own segregated fund for that purpose.

Alderperson Ramos said, so, I suspected that but just want to clarify. So, on amendment #3, can you just speak a little bit more in detail about the nature of the $453,000 as the additional expenses?

Leigh Griffing, City Finance, said, so, I can pull up the website but these have to do with, if you remember during the budget, we had the new requests and tax scenario document which outlined a lot of the new requests. And a large amount of those new requests did not get added into the right category in the Parks District and so that’s why we are now bringing this budget amendment forward. They are being paid for by the revenues and assessments that the City Council approved during the budget so this is again a housekeeping item, just making sure it’s getting into the right fund.

Alderperson Ramos said, okay, excellent. And then for my next question, I just want to preface it by reading a couple of quick things from the City website. So, the first thing is a finding from the audit that completed in February of this year. It was found, about the Parking Commission, so it states finding #2018-001 Material Misstatements Missoula Parking Commission, a discreetly present component unit. Several adjusted entries were proposed as a result of our audit procedures to adjust ending balances to underline supporting documentation. When adjustments are proposed as a result of audit procedures, the qualitative and quantitative impacts of the financial statements may indicate deficiencies in eternal control over financial reporting. The City of Missoula Finance Department and the contracted accountant for Missoula Parking Commission lack a formal financial closed process that ensues…ensures all ending balances at the reporting date are complete. Audit adjustments were proposed to correct capital assets, prepaid expenses, accounts receivable machinery and equipment expense, improvement expense and bad debt expense. We recommend management ensure the City of Missoula Finance Department and contracted accountant have adequate financial closed procedures to ensure financial records are complete and accurate including those of discreetly presented component units. And I just want to follow up with one last thing, just your response to that on the subject of the material misstatements finding. You put clients’ response and corrective actions. We acknowledge the auditors’ comments and control procedures for financial information recognizing the effects of staff turnover and implementation of the technologies on our financial reporting. The City Finance Department and Missoula Parking Commission will implement standing monthly meetings beginning January, 2019. Additionally, the Director of the Missoula Parking Commission will ensure there is a clear pathway and set plan to facilitate a formal financial risk closure close process between the City of Missoula Finance Department, the Missoula Parking Commission, the contracted accountant. Lastly, the City of Missoula staff will review all

38

of the Missoula Parking Commission’s accrual adjustments for accuracy as part of the year-end control procedure. So, I do have a point to reading all of this. I want to say to my question regarding the Parking Commission Amendment #7. So, expenditures approved in August for the Parking Commission fund 7350 were $3.5 million. This $892,000 amendment is a 26% reduction. What is driving this reduction? And I guess for a little bit more clarification, what I’m curious about, and may be concerned about, is so this audit was just completed roughly in January this year for the 2018 budget cycle, or fiscal year budget. What I’m concerned about is maybe because that means technically we’re conducting the fiscal year 2019 audit right now so what ’m concerned about is maybe whatever same errors were plaguing the Parking Commission in fiscal year 2018 carried over to 2019 and this is a remedy of that. Am I completely off-base?

Leigh Griffing, City Finance, said, yes.

Acting Mayor von Lossberg said, yes.

Alderperson Ramos said, okay. So, can we explain that a little bit more?

Acting Mayor von Lossberg said, yup.

Leigh Griffing, City Finance, said, certainly.

Alderperson Ramos said, completely?

Leigh Griffing, City Finance, said, so, we do, in fact there is a lot of staff turnover that was happening including a couple of software conversions all led to the audit finding. It’s has the positive result of we have a closer relationship with the Parking Commission now. They have an independent audit firm that they have present their monthly financials to their board and have since before I started at the City, so I don’t know the entire history behind but it’s sort of made for a bit of a triangulation of information. Now that we meet monthly and have monthly closed procedures enacted, all of that information is flowing much more clearly. This adjustment has to do with W-desk software and having primarily those parks items being totaled under the Parking Commission total. If you’ll remember the slide up at the top, where all of the funds for the budget adoption resolution, are summarized together had the Parks District new requests summed into the Parking Commission totals. So, it’s simply a software glitch. It’s a new software. It is definitely better budget software than we’ve had in the past and we’ve been able to close the budget and produce reports in a much more timely fashion than we ever had historically but there are still a couple of those items that are going to pop out and those housekeeping in accounting items are going to pop out and that’s what the Parking Commission one was.

Alderperson Ramos said, perfect. Forgive me, I just had to clarify that. I appreciate that. And next I just want to talk about budget transfers on page 2. Most are very self- explanatory but 1 and 2, I’ve summarized it basically info tech projects, and can I get a little more information on transfers 1 and 2?

Leigh Griffing, City Finance, said, so, they’re the equipment projects that were in the CIP and, sorry, I did not bring a full CIP presentation, but that’s all of those items on the left in the general fund and in the Road District fund are purchases primarily related to software upgrades and core equipment requests that were discussed during the CIP presentations

39

in the budget public hearings, now being transferred over to capital budget funds to be able to be tracked with their associated debt service accurately in the future.

Alderperson Ramos said, excellent. Thank you. And items 3 and 4, is that just court technology upgrading basically?

Leigh Griffing, City Finance, said, I believe so.

Alderperson Ramos said, okay. And, lastly, well, second to last, 5, 6 and 7, public safety vehicles, it’s roughly $250,000, is that roughly police cruisers or are they going to be included in that transfer.

Leigh Griffing, City Finance, said, so, Department 290, you can see there in 6, in police so that could be some police cruisers. Again, we didn’t bring the details to this presentation. 300 on line 7 and 8 are for fire.

Alderperson Ramos said, okay. And my last question, I promise, Bryan, I can’t find fund 4023 in the capital budget so I don’t know exactly what the $30,000 transfer is for. It says it’s going from the operating budget to fund 4023. I just can’t find it. It might have been a typo.

Leigh Griffing, City Finance, said, okay. The fund is fire projects so it would be non- equipment related fire projects.

Alderperson Ramos said, okay. And did I just miss it in the capital budget then? That fund? I just couldn’t find it today. I thought it might have been a typo.

Leigh Griffing, City Finance, said, I think the best thing to do would be able to have a conversation or email over this when I can pull up all of the detail for you.

Alderperson Ramos said, thank you. But I’m supportive.

Leigh Griffing, City Finance, said, so, apologies that I don’t have the detail with me.

Alderperson Ramos said, I’m supportive of the resolution. Thank you.

Acting Mayor von Lossberg said, additional questions? So, I just want to clarify that as Ms. Griffing did, the Parking Commission fund being decreased by $892,000 doesn’t represent anything to do with caffer issues that were discussed. It represents that multiple accounts got collapsed into that into the software. It’s also not representative of what we approved was what we approved in the budget and there’s no change to that. With that, I will open the public hearing. Is there any comment on the budget amendments? I will close the public hearing. This is in, I would assume, A&F? Ms. Harp, are you going to…

Alderperson Harp said, I am her stand-in.

Acting Mayor von Lossberg said, okay.

Alderperson Harp said, yes. So, I move to adopt a resolution amending the annual appropriations for the City of Missoula, Montana as set forth in the fiscal year 2020 budget that decreases the total city budget by $131,095 and increases revenue by $89,282 in order to recognize approved expenses not reflected in the final adopted budget and to increase expenses and revenues related to Grants Administrator I position in the Housing and Community Development. And may I speak to it?

40

Acting Mayor von Lossberg said, you may.

Alderperson Harp said, I just want to thank you. I think it’s really important that you’re bringing this forward and it’s just all simply housekeeping stuff. It doesn’t actually change anything and we went through this in depth in the committee and I think it was really important for those of us who were at the committee to hear the presentation and thank you for all of your good work on all of this. Thank you.

Acting Mayor von Lossberg said, additional Council comments? We’ve had a public hearing, we’ll have a roll call vote.

9 Ayes, 3 Absent

Acting Mayor von Lossberg said, thank you. We will go to item 8.3 interim ordinance to amend Title 20 City Zoning-Extreme Weather Shelter. Presentation is from Ms. Gress.

Moved by: Alderperson Anderson

Adopt resolution amending the annual appropriations for the City of Missoula, Montana as set forth in the fiscal year 2020 budget that decreases the total city budget by $131,095 and increases revenues by $89,282 in order to recognize approved expenses not reflected in the final adopted budget and to increase expenses and revenues related to the Grants Administrator I position in Housing and Community Development.

AYES: (9): Alderperson Anderson, Alderperson Becerra, Alderperson Cares, Alderperson Hess, Alderperson Jones, Alderperson Merritt, Alderperson Ramos, Alderperson von Lossberg, and Alderperson West

ABSENT: (3): Alderperson Armstrong, Alderperson DiBari, and Alderperson Harp

Vote result: Approved (9 to 0)

9. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE MAYOR - None

10. GENERAL COMMENTS OF CITY COUNCIL

Alderperson Merritt announced that the Missoula High School Speech and Debate is having the Missoula competition here on November 15 and 16. They are very much in need of judges to judge the speech and debate competition. It takes hundreds of hours of volunteer time to make this happen and it’s really an important event for our kids, so if you have time and are able to, that you will check out Missoulaspeechanddebate.com to go and sign up.

Acting Mayor von Lossberg said, called on Ms. Harp. He said, for the record, she has been present for some time.

Alderperson Harp announced that the League of Women Voters is going to be putting on two sessions Wednesday, October 30 and November 6. They will both be at the public library starting at 7 o’clock. This is on the topic of In My Backyard: Equitable Homeownership. The first session is going to talk about how to lower the cost of housing for both renters and homeowners. Part 2 is going to actually be talking about where we’re going to be able to fit housing within our community.

Alderperson West said she’s sad everybody’s left. She spoke to TIF funding and its use for affordable housing in our community. She works for the North Missoula Community Development

41

Corporation (NMCDC) and two years ago she took over the management of a seven-unit affordable housing development. She had no intimate experience with the process and it resulted in an affordable housing crash course with an incredibly steep learning curve. Funding sources for intentional affordable housing development are extremely limited and largely confined to federal HUD funds on either the state or city level that come in the form of CDBG or HOME funds. The second funding source that is available and allocated through the Montana Board of Housing are either in the form of 4% or 9% low income housing tax credits, like the Skyview project, which is headed to Helena to try to get some of those coveted 9% low-income housing tax credit funds. The only local funding source that the City of Missoula has used to subsidize affordable housing are MRA funds. The project she’s aware of include $144,631,000 for the development of Clark Fork Commons granted to the NMCDC in 2004 that resulted in the construction of 25 community land use homes. In 2007 and 2008, Homeword, Solstice and Equinox development received $450,000 to $500,000 in MRA funds that helped develop 69 affordable homes. In 2015, the MRA purchased a large lot in the Sawmill District at the cost of $488,000 and sold at an extremely subsidized price to Homeword which made Sweetgrass Commons 26 units of affordable rentals a possibility. In 2016, the Missoula Housing Authority received over $20,000 in MRA support for their affordable California Street six-plex. In 2018, the project that I worked on, Lee Gordon Place, received $81,200 for the deconstruction of public infrastructure components of the development process resulting in the construction and sale of seven homes to income-qualified households. In a system where funding for affordable housing is limited, complicated and often highly competitive, MRA funding is an integral tool and as now the only local funding tool we have to subsidize affordable housing. And it does a benefit to affordable housing projects that are built with urban renewal districts. The projects she just listed might not be all of them but it totals over $1.2 million in subsidies that have resulted in the construction of 133 affordable homes that service a spectrum of Missoula incomes. The reality is that these would not have been possible without MRA subsidy.

Alderperson Ramos thanked his mother, since she sat here this whole evening, he wanted to thank her for her steadfast dedication to victims and inspiring him as he performs his Council duties.

Alderperson Becerra said the Downtown Missoula Partnership is hosting the 12th Annual Montana Downtown and Main Street Conference. That goes from October 23 to 25. It will cover and feature panel topics and tours of planning and implementation, arts and culture, marketing and events, place making and tourism to help build and promote your downtown and if you can, try to attend it.

Alderperson Cares responded to Mr. Cox who came and spoke during public comment for the second time around the surcharge refund. She likes that he comes occasionally to remind us that this is a thing. We are not doing anything nefarious. We do the best thing by providing this. We refund the surcharge refund and being in compliance and you can Google Missoula Surcharge Fund and find the website and submit the form that he had mentioned. We’ve been doing this since September of 2018. Maybe he’ll come back once a quarter and remind people that it’s a thing that they could do.

11. COMMITTEE REPORTS

11.1 Administration and Finance committee (AF) report

11.2 Budget Committee of the Whole (BCOW) committee report

42

11.3 Committee of the Whole (COW) committee report

11.3.1 October 9, 2019 Committee of the Whole report

11.3.2 October 16, 2019 Committee of the Whole report

11.4 Land Use and Planning (LUP) committee report

11.4.1 October 9, 2019 Land Use and Planning report 10:00 AM will be available at a later date

11.4.2 October 9, 2019 Land Use and Planning report 1:40 PM will be available at a later date

11.4.3 October 16, 2019 Land Use and Planning report

11.5 Parks and Conservation (PC) committee report

11.5.1 October 9, 2019 Parks and Conservation report

11.5.2 October 16, 2019 Parks and Conservation report

11.6 Public Safety and Health (PSH) committee report

11.6.1 October 16, 2019 Public Safety and Health report

11.7 Public Works (PW) committee report

11.7.1 October 9, 2019 Public Works report

12. NEW BUSINESS

13. ITEMS TO BE REFERRED

13.1 Administration and Finance committee referrals

13.1.1 Missoula Food Bank and Community Center - Partnership Health Center Lease/Purchase Concept

13.2 Budget Committee of the Whole referrals

13.3 Committee of the Whole referrals

13.3.1 Department of Natural Resources and Conservation Floodplain Update

13.3.2 In My Backyard - Equitable Homes for All

13.3.3 Community Winter Shelter Plan

13.4 Parks and Conservation committee referrals

13.5 Land Use and Planning committee referrals

13.6 Public Safety and Health committee referrals

13.6.1 Referral-DPHHS Emergency Rule banning the sale, transport of flavored vape products

13.7 Public Works committee referrals

43

13.7.1 Professional Services Agreement with WGM Group for the West Pine and May Street Water Main Replacement Project

13.7.2 Professional Services Agreement Amendment #3 with WGM for Wyoming St.—Prince St. to California St.—Water Main Extension Project

13.7.3 Utility Adjustments Agreement with MDT for the Desmet Interchange Highway Construction Project

13.7.4 Utility Adjustments Agreement with MDT for Reserve St. Resurfacing Project

14. MISCELLANEOUS COMMUNICATIONS, PETITIONS, REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS

Heather Harp is now the liaison to Public Art Committee and one of the Council representatives to the Chamber of Commerce.

14.1 Administratively approved agreement report

15. ADJOURNMENT

The meeting adjourned at 10:15 p.m.

______

Martha L. Rehbein, CMC, City Clerk John Engen, Mayor

______

Kelly Elam, City Clerk Office

44