Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCAHAB Minutes 03-27-2019 Community Affordable Housing Advisory Board March 27th, 2019 | 10 AM | City Hall Commission Room: 121 N. Rouse Ave A. 10:00:52 AM (00:00:15) Call meeting to order & Roll Call  Excused Absences (attended other Ethics Trainings): o Noel Seeburg o Steve Wheeler  Present Were: o Henry Happel (Planning Board Chair) o David Magistrelli o Greg Stratton o Kevin Thane (CAHAB Chair) o Dulaney Collins o Jody Bartz o Martin Matsen (CAHAB Staff Liaison – Director of Comm. Dev.) B. Changes to the Agenda C. Public Comment Please state your name and address in an audible tone of voice for the record. This is the time for individuals to comment on matters falling within the purview of the Committee. There will also be an opportunity in conjunction with each action item for comments pertaining to that item. Please limit your comments to three minutes. D. Minutes for Approval (None) E. 10:01:32 AM (00:00:55) Non-Action Items 1. 2018 Ethics Training 10:01:40 AM (00:01:03) Director of Community Development, Marty Matsen introduced the ethics training and described the format. 10:04:57 AM (00:04:20) Slide show begins – overview of changes in ethics training and make-up opportunities. 10:10:19 AM (00:09:43) First Scenario Discussion: Sandy is a member of the Northeast Urban Renewal Board. She owns a restaurant in the district and is very invested in improving the district for both her business and Bozeman in general. She is diligent about filling out her Financial Disclosure Form each year and notes her business and property interests on the form. A developer recently brought before the board a proposal for a hotel in the adjacent unused lot. Sandy is very excited about the hotel, as she’s had some conversations with the owners and expects the two to share some parking facilities and of course, the hotel will bring in customers for her. She doesn’t mention this at the NURB meeting because she has no direct business interests in the project, and since her form is on file staff can bring it up if they think it’s a conflict. Sandy enthusiastically approves the hotel. Has Sandy correctly followed the process? Board members discussed Sandy’s obligation as a board member from an ethical perspective. 10:18:39 AM (00:18:03) CAHAB Board Chair, Kevin Thane asked about an actual situation that may be a conflict. Board members discussed the situation and determined that he took the correct course of action. 10:22:22 AM (00:21:46) Second Scenario Discussion: Gwen is an active member of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board and vehemently opposes a proposed Parks Maintenance District. The subject has been discussed at the board a number of times, and while a few members agree with her, the majority of the board supports the creation of the district. Gwen feels like her voice isn’t being heard, so she puts in public comment to the City Commission, and writes a letter to the Chronicle expressing her concerns about the district, acknowledging her experience with the project given her membership on the RPAB. She makes sure to include “on behalf of RPAB” in her letters to reinforce her legitimate opinion and so that others will take her seriously. Has Gwen done anything wrong? Board members held a general discussion regarding the situation, sharing their thoughts on the ethical duties of Gwen as a board member. 10:31:16 AM (00:30:40) Third Scenario Discussion: Neil is the chair of the Midtown Urban Renewal Board, and is responsible for setting the agendas. He also owns a hotel in the district. Recently the agendas have been pretty full with new activity in the district, so he wants to prioritize retail and food service projects as he views that as a gap to fill with new development. A proposed hotel has asked the board to be considered for $40,000 in incentives. Neil knows that this amount of a request needs to be approved by the MURB and does not go before the City Commission, but he doesn’t want to put it on an agenda as his hotel is covering the needs of the district at the moment. He didn’t get any incentives when he built his hotel, so if they are in a time crunch they can proceed without the incentives. Neil informed the applicant the board is focusing on other priorities and that the request will not be considered at this time. Has Neil acted within his authority? Board members discussed whether Neil worked within his role when he limited the applicant’s access to the board agenda. 10:38:38 AM (00:38:01) Fourth Scenario Discussion: Jenny is a member of the Community Affordable Housing Advisory Board, and also works for a local non-profit that helps to coordinate placement of low- income individuals in affordable housing, and she is happy that her involvement on the board can help facilitate a community need her job also addresses. Since she is an expert in the area, she makes sure that developers coming before the CAHAB are fully aware of the different resources in the community, and gets frustrated when someone asks for an incentive when they haven’t gone through all the steps to minimize development costs, such as working with Habitat for Humanity to potentially have them build some of the houses. She votes no on these projects since there are so many local organizations that could also benefit from a developer utilizing their resources, and only votes yes on projects that maximize these resources. Is Jenny doing anything wrong or is this appropriate given her position? Board members discussed whether Jenny acted appropriately in providing direction to maximize the utilization of community resources available to the developer. Members discussed the importance of being impartial and transparent through the process. 10:49:37 AM (00:49:01) Fifth Scenario Discussion: Olive is a member of the Parking Commission, and with the rest of the commission is working to coordinate an expansion to the downtown parking garage. This week the Parking Commission is considering the construction contract for the garage, which includes as a sub-contractor an architecture firm for which her son works. Olive wasn’t sure if her approving the contract would show favoritism to a relative so she emailed the chair of the Parking Commission to let her know of the relationship, and the chair thanked Olive for letting her know. When the commission got to the item Olive did not disclose the conflict since she already did, and since her relation was once- removed from the contract before them, she voted to approve the contract. Did Olive go overboard with her disclosure, was it correctly handled, or was it not enough? Board members discussed whether Olive’s disclosure to the Parking Commission Chair was handled correctly. Board members also discussed whether the board chair acted ethically in not disclosing to other board members the information that Olive had shared with him. 11:02:26 AM (01:01:49) Board members held a final discussion regarding the importance of transparency and conclude the ethics discussion. F. FYI/Discussion G. 11:05:06 AM (01:04:29) Adjournment | 11:00 AM For more information please contact Lacie Kloosterhof at lkloosterhof@bozeman.net. This board generally meets the second Wednesday of each month at 8:00 AM Committee meetings are open to all members of the public. If you have a disability and require assistance, please contact our ADA coordinator, Mike Gray at 582-3232 (TDD 582-2301).