HomeMy WebLinkAboutBZN Tech Doc (DRAFT) 10.03.19TECHNICAL DOCUMENTATION
Bozeman Community Housing Action Plan
DRAFT 10.3.19
Prepared by:
Christine Walker, Navigate Consulting
Wendy Sullivan, WSW Consulting
Seana Doherty, Freshtracks Collaboration
Navigate/WSW/FreshTracks Table of Contents - 1
Incentive Strategies Summary ............................................................................................................................................................................... 2
REMOVAL OF REGULATORY BARRIERS .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4
FEE WAIVER/DEFERRAL* ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 9
ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS (ADU)* .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 13
OTHER STRATEGIES REVIEWED – For Later Consideration ................................................................................................................................................................... 15
Regulations Summary .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 17
COMMERCIAL LINKAGE ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 18
INCLUSIONARY ZONING (IZ) .................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 24
OTHER STRATEGIES REVIEWED – For Later Consideration ................................................................................................................................................................... 28
Partnership + Land Strategies Summary ............................................................................................................................................................... 29
PUBLIC/PRIVATE/INSTITUTIONAL PARTNERSHIPS FOR DEVELOPMENT and LAND BANKING .............................................................................................................. 30
OTHER STRATEGIES REVIEWED – For Later Consideration ................................................................................................................................................................... 39
Preservation Strategies Summary ........................................................................................................................................................................ 40
DEED RESTRICTED HOUSING (PERMANENT) ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 41
COMMUNITY LAND TRUST (CLT)* ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 46
CO-OP HOUSING (MOBILE HOMES) ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 49
OTHER STRATEGIES REVIEWED – For Later Consideration ................................................................................................................................................................... 50
Housing Programs Strategies Summary ............................................................................................................................................................... 53
PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING (PSH) AND TRANSITIONAL* ....................................................................................................................................................... 54
HOMEBUYER ASSISTANCE* ................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 58
EMPLOYER ASSISTED HOUSING ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ 59
OTHER STRATEGIES REVIEWED – For Later Consideration ................................................................................................................................................................... 64
Funding Strategies Summary ............................................................................................................................................................................... 68
GENERAL FUND* ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 70
TAXES DEDICATED TO HOUSING ........................................................................................................................................................................................................... 73
LOW INCOME HOUSING TAX CREDITS* (LIHTC) .................................................................................................................................................................................... 77
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING ................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 80
OTHER STRATEGIES REVIEWED – For Later Consideration ................................................................................................................................................................... 82
Navigate/WSW/FreshTracks Incentive Strategies - 2
Introduction – How to Use this Document
This Technical Documentation is provided to capture the technical content provided as a part of the action planning process and record comments
received. This document is intended to be used as a resource as the plan evolves to recall issues and concerns raised and to show where education
may be needed in the event comments do not comport with actuality.
The document contains six sections, consistent with the grouping of strategies used throughout the process to ensure that community housing
needs are being address from multiple angles. These include:
Incentives: How do we make it easier?
Regulations: How do we make it happen?
Partnerships + Land: How do we work together?
Preservation: How do we keep what we create?
Housing Programs: How do we get people into homes?
Funding: How do we pay for it?
Each strategy section leads with the name of the strategy category and prioritization of strategies within the category. The prioritized strategies
contain detailed information, including:
• Basic definition;
• identified issues related to the strategy, separated into:
o Issues “In General” on best practices, some of which may or may not be related to needs or issues in Bozeman; and
o Issues that are “Bozeman Specific” largely found in the needs assessment or collected through additional research as part of the
action plan process;
• A “Working Group Input” section that encompasses the input received at the sessions, with comments shown as received, pursuant to
general input or as related to specific, identified questions; and
• “Summarized action strategy” which condenses the input received into actionable items for each strategy moving forward.
The non-prioritized strategies that were reviewed are listed with a basic definition and a “comments” section to be used if/when these strategies
are considered at a later date.
Navigate/WSW/FreshTracks Incentive Strategies - 3
Incentive Strategies Summary
The tables below summarize the incentive strategies.
• Priority Action Strategies: are presented in detail.
• Strategies for later consideration: are grouped in a table for further discussion.
Note on Existing Strategies: Many strategies are currently in place or have been used in Bozeman (delineated with an “*”). Priority strategies that
are in place should be reviewed for potential changes or modifications that can improve their effectiveness. Strategies in place that received few or
zero votes do NOT mean the strategy should go away, it simply means that the strategy is not currently a priority for additional action.
Priority Action Strategies
TOTAL Green "YES"
Yellow
“NO/needs
enhancement”
Strategy
12 18 6 Removal of regulatory barriers
6 6 0 Fee Waiver/Deferral*
3 3 0 Accessory dwellings*
Other Strategies Reviewed - For Later Consideration
TOTAL Green "YES"
Yellow
“NO/needs
enhancement”
Strategy
5 5 0 Flexible Development Standards* (on going)
4 4 0 Density Bonus
3 4 1 Short term rental restrictions* (on going)
0 0 0 Fast Track Processing
* Indicates that Bozeman has implemented all or a portion of the tool listed; alterations may be available to better meet community housing needs
Navigate/WSW/FreshTracks Incentive Strategies - 4
REMOVAL OF REGULATORY BARRIERS
Updating/modifying code provisions and procedures that impede community housing development. For example, complex planned unit
development (PUD) requirements can be barriers to building a variety of dwelling types. Complete code review and rewrite might be required.
Issues
In General
Every community has barriers to the development of community housing. Removal of regulatory barriers may include:
• Easing affordable housing restrictions and zoning constraints;
• Decreasing complexity of approvals – discretionary vs. administrative review options, duplicative approvals, etc.;
• Complex application requirements - application details, plan submissions, review process(es);
• Building codes interfering with rehabilitation/redevelopment ability;
• Impact fee layering and structure – e.g. per unit or per square foot, etc.; and
• Archaic requirements – rights of way, easements, etc. – that do not comport with modern needs/advances/designs.
Goal: Design codes that are streamlined, easy to understand and consistent. Codes that help produce desired development; discourage undesirable
development.
Factors, other than simply whether a product is affordable or not, should be justification for alternative standards – i.e. reduced parking
requirements if in the right location, right type of product, shared parking opportunities, etc.
Form-based codes, properly designed, are one example of regulations offering greater predictability to developers and community outcomes. The
definition of form-based code is a land development regulation that fosters predictable built results and a high-quality public realm by using
physical form (rather than separation of uses) as the organizing principle for the code. A form-based code is a regulation, not a mere guideline,
adopted into city, town, or county law.
Examples: Breckenridge, CO; Mammoth Lakes, CA; state level: CA – parking reduction law allows developers to construct fewer parking spaces for
affordable housing developments located within a half-mile of transit (no discretion), jurisdictions required to adopt zoning allowing ADUs in all
single family and multi family zones, up to 30% density bonus permitted by-right if specified affordability criteria met, etc.
Navigate/WSW/FreshTracks Incentive Strategies - 5
Bozeman Specific
Developer interviews and focus group comments as part of HNA:
• Planning process viewed as cumbersome and complex with layers of codes and various plans (community, strategic, downtown,
neighborhood, etc.) that often conflict, are unpredictable, time consuming and not transparent.
• Easiest product type to develop is a single-family, detached product.
• It is easier and often less expensive to develop outside of Bozeman, discouraging infill development.
• Planned Unit Development (PUD) tool allows code flexibility, but the PUD process requires a high level of design during initial submitals
making it expensive on the front-end of the process which adds to the development risk.
Bozeman development regulations were recently updated to achieve the following:
• Promote public health and safety.
• Create a functional community that is beautiful, healthful and efficient.
• Balances the desires of the City Commission, developers and individuals in the community.
• Support economic development.
The new regulations contain elements designed to encourage the development of community housing, including the Planned Unit Development
(PUD), incentives in the Affordable Housing Ordinance, and the Cottage Housing Ordinance.
WORKING GROUP INPUT
Session 1 – Tools Review Comments (June)
Up-zoning, by-right duplex and tri-plex development in all R zones
Up-zoning
Prohibit 1-story in commercial
Change PUD points to allow more options for affordable projects to meet points (i.e. LEED-ND or Enterprise Green Communities)
Remove regulatory barriers
Bad to say “removal,” adjust is better (x2)
Reduction in Park Dedication requirement (city gets benefit, not developer) – x2
Navigate/WSW/FreshTracks Incentive Strategies - 6
Session 2 – Strategy Development Discussion (July)
Concern:
• Sets up for substandard/cheap development – “relaxing” barriers instead?
Primary barriers:
• Over-estimate the complexity of fixing this
• Rewrite section on garages
• Form restrictions – all units facing common area, roof requirements, etc.
o Cottage housing ordinance and Article 5
• Utility easements – cannot build smaller neighborhoods due to large requirements
• Turf fields – cannot create lower cost housing (higher taxes to maintain, less land to build
Challenges:
• Planning department stretched thin
• Fixing staff capacity has a big impact on time for processing
• Speed with which review happens and how funds are applied
• One spent $500K to take PUD to concept level
• PUD application check-list asks for tremendous details (get there sooner with less detail)
o To do affordable rentals in a meaningful way, a PUD is required
o Long time – concept, preliminary – requires what many communities require at final, final
o Point system – 20 points, flexibility
Type of development desired vs. getting:
• Fix code so we like its result – development types
• No one building smaller affordable homes, but lots of “not the right ones”
• Lot size – smaller, increased density (MF in SF zone?)
• Bringing through an application for other than single family homes is complex
Navigate/WSW/FreshTracks Incentive Strategies - 7
• Getting:
o 2,500 square foot, single family detached on 5,000 sq ft lots (easiest)
o 60% is zoned R-1 (single family only); cannot do duplexes in this zone; can do ADU (special use permit required if detached)
o High end apartments
o High end condos
• Desired:
o City to communicate through codes what is wanted and provide codes to help get it
o Studios, one-bedroom: 600 to 750 sq ft (tiny and small homes) – would be sold
o Rentals below $1,200/month for 1-bedroom (500/600 sq ft)
o We want the bridge
o Missing middle – duplex/townhomes – micro would help (80 to 120AMI)
§ Allow movement from rentals into ownership
o Mix of units in the city (dispersed) – e.g. old downtown intersperses unit types
Other:
• Housing policy and transit policy need to be linked:
o Need for transit and in-city parking increases when housing is further out.
o Need transportation to be part of our housing policy (and vice-versa) especially if we desire to reduce parking
Steps: Get process more predictable, transparent, useful and create what we want
• Form committee to explore code inconsistencies/disconnects
• Include UBC code and all codes in review (cottage housing ordinance, ADU, PUD, etc.)
• Use list of recent PUD relaxations as a starting point – can any be universally applied? County as example: ADUs were given blanket approvals despite
application process – removed the process.
• Make predictable
• Look at fixed incentives (in exchange for community housing benefit to community)
o Impact fees are part of this
Who should be involved/help do this:
Committee (stakeholders) and city staff – include those who know and use the codes
Navigate/WSW/FreshTracks Incentive Strategies - 8
Summarized Action Strategy
- Make process more predictable, transparent, useful and ensure
codes produce what we want.
- Engage a third party or form committee to explore code and
associated regulations for inconsistencies and disconnects.
- Include all city codes and associated standards in review
(engineering standards, cottage housing ordinance, ADU, PUD,
etc.).
- Use list of recent Planned Unit Development (PUD) relaxations as
a starting point.
See above
Navigate/WSW/FreshTracks Incentive Strategies - 9
FEE WAIVER/DEFERRAL*
Water/sewer tap fees, building permit or other fees waived in part or whole to reduce cost to build
community housing. General funds or other source needed to cover cost of fees waived.
Issues
In General
Fee waivers are differentiated from fee deferrals in that the former need not be paid back – general
funds or other source is needed to cover the cost of fees waived.
Deferred fees allow the developer to pay for fees out of sale or occupancy proceeds. If deferred, as opposed to waived, for community housing,
this has the effect of placing the burden on the buyer and can raise otherwise affordable housing prices above affordable levels.
Fee waivers can be used to produce ownership or rental housing and serve a wide range of incomes. Fee waivers are also helpful in demonstrating
local support for community housing to attract other funding sources.
Fee waivers alone may not be sufficient to stimulate private sector/profitable development.
Fee waivers are more difficult if fees are not through city-operated services (e.g. water, sewer), which is not uncommon. District agreements/
reimbursement agreements can be used.
Examples: Breckenridge, CO; Crested Butte, CO; Truckee, CA.
Bozeman Specific: (see HNA, pp. 87 - 88)
Bozeman has been assessing impact fees since 1996 to assign costs of services to those who require
new public services and to limit unnecessary cost increases to existing citizens and property
owners. Impact Fees are a one-time fee used to increase the capacity of:
• Water
• Sewer
• Fire/EMS
• Transportation Systems
Potential Impact
How much: TBD
For whom: All income levels,
incentivizes private sector to address
100 – 150% AMI.
* Three tools received a score of 6
Priority Rank
Navigate/WSW/FreshTracks Incentive Strategies - 10
The city also imposes other requirements/fees on real estate development in relation to the size of the proposed development, including planning
application fees (base fee and scaled fee), building permit fees, parkland dedication, water rights in-lieu fees, affordable housing (multi-family
exempt), and fees to mitigate off-site infrastructure impacts. Developers through focus groups and interviews indicated that off-site infrastructure
fees are unpredictable, non-transparent, difficult to assess and often discourage infill development.
City of Bozeman Development Fees (7/15/19)
1,700 square foot unit
Development Impact Fees Single Home
Residential* Multi-household**
Transportation Impact Fee $ 7,152.00 $ 4,436.00
Water Impact Fee $ 2,526.00 $ 2,526.00
Wastewater Impact Fee $ 1,522.00 $ 1,522.00
Fire/Emergency Medical Service $ 339.75 $ 241.35
Water Distribution Fees ?
Wastewater Distribution Fees ?
Off-site Infrastructure Fees Variable Variable
Parkland Dedication In-lieu Fee ?
Affordable Housing In-lieu Fee ? $ -
*Includes Townhomes **Includes Accessory Dwellings
City of Bozeman Calculator $ 11,539.75 $ 8,725.35
For additional information please see City of Bozeman Impact Fees Webpage.
Developers and builders of lower priced homes (targeting households earning 65% - 80% AMI) can seek impact fee waiver if funds are available in
the Affordable Housing Fund. Impact fees are paid by the developer and reimbursed of impact fees paid can be sought by the developer after
property is sold to a qualified buyer.
Navigate/WSW/FreshTracks Incentive Strategies - 11
WORKING GROUP INPUT
Session 1 – Tools Review Comments (June)
Include all types of housing with the fee waivers - condos, rentals, etc.
Include condos and townhomes
Include condos and rentals
Session 2 – Strategy Development Discussion (July)
• Waiver – concerns:
o Cannot waive under state law unless replace the fee with another source
o Will this hurt city capacity (not enough funding?)
§ Project costs increase when staffing decreases
§ Frustration – don’t feel city is delivering on needed staff
o If we have a complex process, do we really save money with a waiver?
• What about Deferral:
o Currently have in place for AHO required units
o Out of the general fund and re-coop at resale (e.g. upon sale by first buyer of the unit)
§ Problem – places the burden on home buyers to pay this: people we are trying to help.
§ Revisit resale recoop and who it is affecting
• Reduce fees?
o To incentivize desired development
§ Example: pay for some fees through TIF in downtown to incentivize smaller units (studio, 1-b)
o Hard to do with exactions – don’t know cost upfront
§ Knowing all fees upfront would help
§ Refers to infrastructure impact study required on a development-by-development basis: done near end of process -
o To get lower priced homes, will reduced fees make a difference?
§ For offsite fees perhaps
§ Front-loaded costs magnify the risk
§ Need to attach strings – permanent deed restriction if given
Navigate/WSW/FreshTracks Incentive Strategies - 12
• Steps:
o Revisit resale re-coop (timing)
o Fee structured to incentivize desired development (example of TIF usage downtown)
o Upfront predictability (know city costs/fees upfront in project)
Summarized Action Strategy
- Current fee deferral for 65% to 80% inclusionary zoning units
imposes the payment of the fee on homebuyers that we are
trying to help – revisit.
- Structure fees to incentivize desired development (e.g. lower fees
for smaller ownership and for-rent units, etc.).
- Explore options to cover the cost of reduced fees – general fund,
tax increment financing (TIF), etc.
- Create an upfront schedule of all fees for developments –
predictability.
- Ensure homes benefit the community (deed restricted) if get
reduced fees.
See above
Navigate/WSW/FreshTracks Incentive Strategies - 13
ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS (ADU)*
Allowing/encouraging accessory dwellings if used by residents and employees. Appropriate in many neighborhoods yet compliance monitoring is
needed.
Examples: Fort Bragg, CA (free second unit designs; BP only); CA state (ministerial review, reduced parking, etc.).
WORKING GROUP INPUT
Session 1 – Tools Review Comments (June)
• Allow in house ADU within R-1
• Increase the supply of ADU units
• Decrease the cost of ADUs (i.e. permitting, impact fees, parking regulations)
• Provide incentives and release restrictions for ADUs in new subdivisions
• Provide incentives and remove restrictions for ADUs in new subdivisions
Session 2 – Strategy Development Discussion (July)
• Move up?
• Flexibility needed:
o City allows in all residential zones
o All zones allow two primary homes
o Need to address parking – this is a challenge and location specific (on whether reductions will work)
o Expensive to build
o R-1 detached needs special use permit to produce a detached ADU (necessary?)
o Can we have pre-engineered designs available – owner only need pick one and get a building permit (saves costs, time) (e.g. Fort Bragg, CA)
§ Architecture school designs:
• These are project specific (tie with architecture on defined lots; not universal design)
• Not cheap – expensive to build
§ Tiny home options? Can do as ADU now
• Work with high school partner to build – this is set up, just need a buyer to move forward
• Deed restrict or not?
o If get incentive/public break to build then yes
o Don’t just drop regulations – ensure they are creating community housing to get a “break”
Navigate/WSW/FreshTracks Incentive Strategies - 14
Steps:
• Review parking requirements
• Special use permit – necessary for detached units?
• Make pre-designed units available (building permit only)
• Deed restrict if public incentive received to build
Summarized Action Strategy
Moved to an Action Strategy per Strategy (July) discussion and public input received at the August Open House
- Explore removing special use permit requirement for a detached
ADU in R-1 zone (make it ministerial review only)
- The city has taken steps to decrease the cost of ADUs, educate
the community about these cost reductions and explore
opportunities for additional reductions (i.e. permitting, impact
fees, parking regulations).
- Make pre-engineered ADU designs available for free – only a
building permit needed to construct.
- Deed-restrict units that receive an incentive/public break to build
to ensure community benefit – e.g., require long term rental,
resident/employee occupancy.
See above
Navigate/WSW/FreshTracks Incentive Strategies - 15
OTHER STRATEGIES REVIEWED – For Later Consideration
Total Strategies
5
Flexible Development Standards* (on going) – Flexible development standards enable a community to modify land use
regulations in exchange for development providing a public benefit, in this case, housing for community residents at
prices they can afford. May include reductions in parking, setbacks, open space, height limits, road widths, etc. Specific
bonuses, overlay zones, incentive zones, and performance zoning can be used. Quality, compatibility, safety and
neighborhood impacts are concerns.
Examples: Buena Vista, CO
Tools Review Comments (June):
• Add code section for tiny homes on wheels
• Flexible development standards – x4
• Remove code restrictions on residential building except for life/safety codes – x2
• Allow for greater height
• Allow tiny homes on wheels state statute
• Provide significant incentives
Strategy Development Discussion (July):
Notes:
• Develop/design by-right: get more administrative approvals in the code
• Clear, understood, quantifiable, approved by staff and do not need full plan to know what developer gets – predictable.
o Now require PUD to get this – outside PUD possible?
Steps:
• City changes are in effect – monitor
• Comments for future consideration:
o Create predictable list of incentives that are by-right (approved by staff) in exchange for providing community
housing benefit
o Create tiny home ordinance – permit tiny home villages
o Restore mobile home code section
Navigate/WSW/FreshTracks Incentive Strategies - 16
4
Density Bonus - Providing addition density or FAR in exchange for workforce housing. Must be large enough to entice
development yet small enough for livability and compatibility. Must be large enough to entice development yet small
enough for livability and compatibility. Can be used to produce ownership or rental housing and target low to middle
income households.
Examples: Mammoth Lakes, CA; Crested Butte, CO; Frisco, CO; Whitefish, MT.
Tools Review Comments (June): Would need more restrictions on other densities to be effective.
Strategy Development Discussion (July):
• Parking is an issue with density bonuses
• Be careful with allowing in specific areas – community compliant
• Not effective if existing zoning is high (e.g. when zoned at a level where developers have trouble building to existing
densities).
• May need to modify existing densities for bonuses to be effective.
3
Short Term Rental restrictions* (on going) - Prohibitions in zones where employees and residents reside, limiting the
number in defined areas, requirements that dwelling units be occupied as primary residences part time, prohibiting STR of
restricted community housing.
Tools Review Comments (June): Short-term rentals to condos
Strategy Development Discussion (July):
• City adopted restrictions in 2017; monitor.
0
Fast Track Processing - Gives priority to development applications that include restricted community housing. May mean
that approvals have fewer discretionary elements and more ability for planning staff to grant approval. Can also include
an advocate on Town staff to help navigate entitlements (i.e., ombudsman approach).
Examples: Truckee, CA; Longmont, CO
Tools Review Comments (June): None
Strategy Development Discussion (July):
• Need more staff capacity in order to fast track applications.
• Potential for discontent among market rate developers if other projects move ahead
Navigate/WSW/FreshTracks Regulations Strategies - 17
Regulations Summary
The tables below summarize the partnership strategies.
• Priority Action Strategies: are presented in detail.
• Strategies for later consideration: are grouped in a table for further discussion.
Note on Existing Strategies: Many strategies are currently in place or have been used in Bozeman (delineated with an “*”). Priority strategies that
are in place should be reviewed for potential changes or modifications that can improve their effectiveness. Strategies in place that received few or
zero votes do NOT mean the strategy should go away, it simply means that the strategy is not currently a priority for additional action.
Priority Action Strategies
TOTAL Green
"YES"
Yellow
“NO/Needs
enhancement”
Strategy
6 10 4 Commercial linkage
0 1 4 Inclusionary zoning*
Other Strategies Reviewed - For Later Consideration
TOTAL Green
"YES"
Yellow
“NO/Needs
enhancement”
Strategy
1 1 0 Residential linkage
0 0 0 Annexation policies
* Indicates that Bozeman has implemented all or a portion of the tool listed; alterations may be available to better meet community housing needs.
Navigate/WSW/FreshTracks Regulations Strategies - 18
COMMERCIAL LINKAGE
Commercial linkage requires new commercial development to provide housing or fees for a portion of employees generated from the
development. Fees charged as part of this program must be linked to the need for housing generated by new development through jobs created.
Nexus studies are required to determine the mitigation requirement.
In General
Commercial linkage may be applied to either new development and/or redevelopment. Linkage often targets lower income ranges (below 60% or
80% AMI), related to the types of jobs that new commercial development generates. A range of compliance options are often offered to developers
to create flexibility: development on site, off site, land or fees in lieu.
For example, Aspen, CO allows developers to “transfer credits” – if they over-build affordable
housing units, they can apply them to future projects, or sell credits to other developers.
If development of units is required, design standards must ensure desirable/livable units.
If existing housing stock is permitted to be deed restricted as an option for compliance, guidelines
must ensure units are suitable for local occupancy and purchase (e.g. good condition, low HOA fees,
mortgage-friendly, etc.).
Linkage fees require a nexus study to show relationship between requirement and impact. Fee
collections fluctuate with building activity. Fees are typically applied based on the square foot of development. Fees should be sufficient to support
production of community housing through other methods – public land acquisition/development, redevelopment, public/private partnership,
leverage with state/federal funds, etc.
Concerns with the above include the financial burden on development, as well as:
• Some types of commercial development may be encouraged or discouraged if fees vary significantly by commercial type (e.g. retail vs.
bar/restaurant vs. lodging, etc.) – this can be a positive or negative depending on the desired type of development.
• Development regulations, regardless of the type, are only productive if development is occurring.
• It is resource intensive for an entity to manage the linkage program.
Potential Impact
How much: TBD; dependent upon
development activity.
For whom: Often households earning
80% AMI or less. Collected fees may be
used for a variety of housing
product/programs.
Navigate/WSW/FreshTracks Regulations Strategies - 19
In MT, the impact fee statute may require two-thirds majority of the governing board to define the use of linkage fees for community housing as a
“public facility.” Title 7, Chapter 6, Part 16 (see §7-6-1601).
Examples: Boulder, CO; Breckenridge, CO; Truckee, CA; Park City, UT
The importance (and benefit) of linking housing with commercial/job-generating development:
A housing shortage for employees working in the community will adversely affect Bozeman’s economic growth and long-term viability. With an
unemployment rate of 2.5% and projected by the state to drop to 2%, nearly all of the local
labor force is already employed. Employers are competing with other businesses for the same
employees, including increasing wages to the extent possible to retain customers and afford to
operate. Employers must attract workers from outside of the area and talent from outside must
be recruited.
The lack of housing supply that employees can afford is making it challenging for employers to
find and retain skilled workers, which affects the ability to provide quality services, not to
mention the high cost of employee turnover and training to employers. By ensuring the
availability of homes for employees needed to fill jobs in Bozeman, the bottom line of
businesses are boosted through saved employee recruitment/training costs, improved customer
service and repeat business, and increased year-round clientele as more people making their
living locally reside in the community.
Please review pp. 25-38 of the Bozeman Community Housing Needs Assessment report (“Section 2 – Economic Trends”) to refresh on employer
problems and the importance of Community Housing to their success.
• The majority of employers feel that the availability of housing that is affordable for the workforce in the City of Bozeman is one of the more
serious problems (53%). Another 22% feel that it is the most critical problem in the area. (2018 Employer Survey)
• Housing is hard to come by for more than service and labor positions. Entry level and mid-management employees are also reported to
have trouble finding housing by a respective 37% and 26% of employers.
• 43% of jobs are held by in-commuters, which equates to about 19,000 employees.
o Average employee wage: $44,800;
There is a lot of job poaching going on by many
businesses in Bozeman. If they see a good
employee when they visit my businesses they
have no qualms about offering more money to
come work for them…
Hiring a properly qualified person is difficult in
our local market due to the low unemployment
rate, leading us to recruit out of state. The
hangup however for qualified candidates to
come here is always the cost of housing.
2018 Employer Survey comments
Navigate/WSW/FreshTracks Regulations Strategies - 20
o HUD 100% income limit for an average 2-person household: $69,600
o See case study on the impact of workforce housing in Breckenridge for more information if desired:
http://www.townofbreckenridge.com/home/showdocument?id=8908
Comparison of Housing Linkage Requirements
Town of Mammoth Lakes code is purely fee-based. Fees are due at time of building permit issuance.
Town of Mammoth Lakes, CA
Use 2015 Housing Impact
Mitigation Fees
Residential $5,700/unit1
Lodging $3,700/room2
Retail/Restaurant $2/sq. ft.
Office $2/sq. ft.
Light Industrial $1/sq. ft.
Services $2/sq. ft.
1Exemptions include additions, RMF-1 Zone multiple family projects of 4 or fewer units where average habitable sq. ft. does not exceed 1,300 sq.
ft. per unit, legal secondary units, and apartments.
2Room = a hotel or motel key. Fee includes accessory uses in a lodging project (e.g., retail, restaurant, conference)
Navigate/WSW/FreshTracks Regulations Strategies - 21
Park City, Utah
Park City, Utah, has a more complicated fee structure itemized by type of commercial development. Job generation is based on a survey of
businesses in many similar communities pursuant to a Nexus study. The below generation rates reflect estimates of the employees needed for
each type of business. Restaurant/Bar are typically the most job-intensive; high-end hotels (e.g., Four Seasons) can require upwards of 2-employees
per room.
Commercial Development
The developer shall be required to mitigate 20 percent of the employees generated. For projects with a commercial component, the minimum
affordable housing requirements shall be determined according to the following formulas:
Employee Generation by Type of Use.
Type of Use Full Time Equivalents (2080 hours)
per 1,000 net leasable square feet
Restaurant/Bar 6.5
Education 2.3
Finance/Banking 3.3
Medical Profession 2.9
Other professional services 3.7
Personal services 1.3
Real Estate/Property management 5.9
Commercial/Retail 3.3
Recreation/amusements 5.3
Utilities 2.9
Lodging/hotel 0.6/room
Condominium Hotel Greater of lodging/hotel calculation or residential mitigation rate
Overall/General 4.4
Navigate/WSW/FreshTracks Regulations Strategies - 22
WORKING GROUP INPUT
Session 1 – Tools Review Comments (June)
Employers
Incentives to help with commercial linkage
This would drive business “jobs” away from Bozeman
Unintended consequence
Session 2 – Strategy Development Discussion (July)
1. Issues and concerns?
• In support - high paying jobs drive service jobs;
• Need to test amounts: e.g., if charged $2/sq ft – how is that with respect to land cost difference? Can we/do we need to stay below this?
• Be conscious of unintended consequences:
o Impact on employers and attraction to Bozeman: city vs. county (easier to build?)
§ County – very limited opportunity for commercial per zoning, services
§ Motivator is Bozeman name (marketing)
o We have already driven light industrial out of city and 95% of industrial overall to Belgrade/etc.
• If commercial linkage, need residential linkage too to keep it spread across the community/fair
o Do not isolate one group to address housing – need to do as a community (all pitching in).
2. Useful tool? Nuances for Bozeman?
• It is dependent upon development – fluctuates, unpredictable
• Consider type/size of development – little vs. big employers
• Voluntary? Incentives? – can encourage those that want to build housing now: let those build housing that want to (above commercial, etc)
• Should it be fee based or require development – vary by business size/type?
• We had a Big Box ordinance – many developments came in just below size to avoid: still raised $1.5M
• Advantage to those that exist (in terms of not paying impact)
o What about in terms of not being able to find housing/place employees?
Navigate/WSW/FreshTracks Regulations Strategies - 23
3. Next steps?
• Conduct nexus study – evaluate the potential impact of linkage
o Will this prompt a wave of development?
• Identify peer communities and what has worked and failed
• Success of business growth and potential impact
• This is part of a large suite of solutions – will contribute to help the problem, not solve
o Consider the cost of not doing it.
Summarized Action Strategy
- Conduct Nexus Study.
- Identify peer communities and evaluate what has worked and
not worked: learn from others.
- Make it easy for employers to build housing today if they want
to: e.g. residential above commercial or on same lot.
Evaluate the potential impact of linkage on community housing
and businesses.
Consider the impact on business growth and the impact on the
community of doing nothing (status quo).
Navigate/WSW/FreshTracks Regulations Strategies - 24
INCLUSIONARY ZONING (IZ)
Requires that a percentage of residential units in new subdivisions/PUDs are restricted to community housing. Market rate homes support below
market units. Most effective if new subdivisions/PUDs are developed.
In General
Many communities have a combination of inclusionary zoning and linkage programs implemented through different ordinances.
IZ applies to new residential subdivisions, requiring a percentage of units to be priced at levels that residents and employees can afford. Ranges
vary between 5% (base rate in Breckenridge) to 60% (Crested Butte, CO), with the most common ranges being between 10% and 25%.
Requirements typically affect multi-family and single-family developments.
Options for compliance can include: building units on-site, building or purchasing off-site units,
dedicating vacant land, providing subdivided lots or a cash contribution to a housing fund (cash in
lieu). Units built for ownership typically serve households earning 80% AMI or higher; rentals below
80%. If development is required, design standards for the required units must ensure
desirable/livable units.
Concerns include: the financial burden on residential development; market-rate homes must achieve
sufficient price points to support below-market prices for IZ homes. In some cases, IZ may discourage
smaller scale projects and market-affordable solutions.
Examples: Whitefish, MT (20%); Boulder, CO (25%); Burlington, VT (15% to 25%)
Bozeman Specific (see Bozeman Community Housing Needs Assessment, pp. 86-87)
The City of Bozeman has a mandatory Affordable Housing Ordinance (AHO) that applies to:
• Subdivisions which propose 10 or more for-sale market rate homes (single-family homes or townhomes)
• Annexations where the net developable area could result in 10 or more dwellings
• Developments seeking to use incentives to develop affordable housing
Current Impact
How much: 8 units under the current
AHO; affordable only to the initial
buyer – recapture restriction.
For whom: Presently targets 65% to
100% AMI (ownership);
Most codes target <80% AMI (rentals);
range of ownership (e.g., 80% up to
120%+).
Navigate/WSW/FreshTracks Regulations Strategies - 25
Condominiums and rental units are exempt from the AHO.
The number of affordable homes a developer is required to build is a percentage of the total dwellings in the development plan. The developer
may choose to build and sell:
• 10% lower-priced homes (targeting households earning 65% - 80% AMI)
• 30% moderate-priced homes (targeting households earning 81% - 100% AM)
• Mix of lower and moderate priced homes – 3 moderate priced homes may be substituted for each lower-priced home eliminated from the
10% starting point.
Any fraction is met by a fee in-lieu. There are alternative means of meeting the requirement including cash or in-kind payment in-lieu, or donation
of land.
Lower-priced homes have buyer qualification criteria verified and certified by the City, a primary residence requirement, and a recapture restriction
to ensure any cash or non-cash subsidies are paid back in the event of default or at time of sale, transfer or refinance. Developers of moderate-
priced homes must provide evidence that the initial owner will use the home as their primary residence at time of sale.
WORKING GROUP INPUT
Session 1 – Tools Review Comments (June)
Expand to rental – (times 4)
Inclusionary zoning
Tie with incentives (park)
Yes, include rentals in all
Navigate/WSW/FreshTracks Regulations Strategies - 26
Session 2 – Strategy Development Discussion (July)
1. What is working with the current AHO?
• Not really working
• Generated $1 to 2 million for housing
2. What is NOT working with the current AHO?
• No units yet produced
• No protections for existing units that are torn down – replacement needed?
• Does not address missing middle
• Does not include rentals or condos
• Deed restrictions are not permanent – need to change this and have them be permanent
o Balance permanence with equity building
3. Other considerations?
• Do not create “ghettos” – integrate housing, don’t concentrate (perception that present AHO does integrate)
• Protect the value of both market rate and affordable homes (design, etc.)
4. Should Bozeman revisit the current AHO ordinance?
• Yes - rewrite
• Evaluate what has worked/not
• Reduce parking space requirements, setbacks in exchange for housing (tie AHO requirement with incentives)
• PUD revisit
• Incentives as part of AHO
5. Specific elements of AHO to evaluate/revisit?
Why is it not applied to multi-family?
• This is “in the works” –
• Question on legality of restricting rents for rentals – explore options (e.g. fee-in-lieu instead of build); look to other communities where rent
control is illegal (Colorado, pre-2019 California) and apply to rentals
• If cash-in-lieu is collected on multi-family product, the funds should be earmarked to produce multi-family.
Navigate/WSW/FreshTracks Regulations Strategies - 27
Percent requirement range: 10% to 30%?
• The 30% even at a higher priced unit does not make sense – developers won’t do
Income target: 65% to 100% now (ownership only)?
• Consider up to 120% per the recent needs assessment for ownership
• Includes rentals (see above)
Other:
• PUD chapter – update affordable housing points and link to AHO (now these are inconsistent)
6. Other considerations raised (options in addition to AHO):
• Other codes (incentives – removing barriers):
o Look at full UDC for improvements/adjustments
o Create incentives to get more product in the missing middle (e.g. look at single family zone, allow MF, mixed types – more like historic
downtown is already)
o Produce a better balance of product and household size (e.g. not so many large homes; usable homes in line with household sizes)
Summarized Action Strategy
- Revisit Affordable Housing Ordinance: evaluate what has worked and not.
- Apply to multi-family development, as well as single-family: ownership
and rental.
- Incorporate incentives along with housing development requirement.
- Consider addressing up to 120% AMI for ownership.
- Require deed restrictions to be permanent.
- Ensure consistency with other development codes.
Navigate/WSW/FreshTracks Regulations Strategies - 28
OTHER STRATEGIES REVIEWED – For Later Consideration
Total Strategies
1 RESIDENTIAL LINKAGE (Yes 1; No 0) – Requiring new residential development to contribute to restricted community housing relative to
employee demand generated by the new residential units. Mitigation rate often increases with house size. The fees in lieu provide a
revenue stream that fluctuates with building activity. Nexus required.
Tools Review Comments (June):
• All new employers contribute $1,000 per employee to go to HRDC for rental assistance program
0 ANNEXATION POLICIES (Yes 0; No 0) - Negotiating restricted community housing as part of annexation agreements. Policy based. Entities
have discretion in negotiations. This is a widespread practice among communities with workforce housing programs.
Tools Review Comments (June):
• Annexation policies!
Navigate/WSW/FreshTracks Partnerships Tools - 29
Partnership + Land Strategies Summary
The tables below summarize the partnership strategies.
• Priority Action Strategies: are presented in detail.
• Strategies for later consideration: are grouped in a table for further discussion.
Note on Existing Strategies: Many strategies are currently in place or have been used in Bozeman (delineated with an “*”). Priority strategies that
are in place should be reviewed for potential changes or modifications that can improve their effectiveness. Strategies in place that received few or
zero votes do NOT mean the strategy should go away, it simply means that the strategy is not currently a priority for additional action.
Priority Action Strategies
TOTAL Green
"YES"
Yellow
“NO/Needs
enhancement”
Strategy
23
7
23
7
0
0
Public/Private/Institutional Partnerships for
Development combined with Land banking
12 12 0 Employer Assisted Housing (see Programs)
Other Strategies Reviewed - For Later Consideration
TOTAL Green
"YES"
Yellow
“NO/Needs
enhancement”
Strategy
0 0 3 Property Management
* Indicates that Bozeman has implemented all or a portion of the tool listed; alterations may be available to better meet community housing needs.
Navigate/WSW/FreshTracks Partnerships Tools - 30
PUBLIC/PRIVATE/INSTITUTIONAL PARTNERSHIPS FOR DEVELOPMENT and LAND BANKING
Definitions:
Public/Private Partnerships: Public/institutional organizations partnering with the private sector for development expertise to build community
housing on publicly owned site. May be public-owned vacant or under-utilized land. May also include institutional properties.
Land Banking: Land banking, or land acquisition for future development, refers to acquiring land through purchase, trades, life estates, donation
(non-profits), in-lieu requirements for eventual community housing development.
Issues
In General
Using publicly owned land for housing can catalyze development and provide public oversight to achieve the type, amenities, and price point of
housing needed.
A prioritized inventory of parcels can create partnerships and provide a predictable pipeline of new
housing.
An RFP/RFQ process is effective for selecting development partners; clear project goals and
objectives are essential to establish a solid basis for any RFP/Q and related partnership.
Housing may compete with other desired uses of public parcels.
Public ownership of land can be retained using long-term leases to ensure the public asset is used as intended, although this approach may
complicate financing.
Land banking works well when the responsible agency (typically public or non-profit) is poised to act quickly when the right parcel becomes
available; an inventory of potential parcels that meet specified criteria allows agencies to act more quickly; public-ownership of land can reduce
long-term carrying costs if the entity is exempt from property taxes.
Example: Breckenridge, CO (accounts for 75% of community housing built); Winter Park, CO; Boulder, CO; Fort Collins, CO
Potential Impact
How much: TBD
For whom: Varies; typically below
150% AMI (low to moderate)
Navigate/WSW/FreshTracks Partnerships Tools - 31
Bozeman Specific
The City estimates that there are approximately 500 acres of undeveloped commercial land, 140 acres of industrial land, and 1,900 acres of
residential land (Table 29 and Table 30) within city limits. In the residential zones, most of the remaining vacant land is not well served with
infrastructure. Residential land that has infrastructure is comprised of scattered unbuilt lots and remaining lots in newer subdivisions and master
planned developments. (See Demographic and Real Estate Market Assessment (2018), EPS, p. 79: available at:
https://www.bozeman.net/Home/ShowDocument?id=7141)
Some employers and local public institutions have property that may be suitable for community housing: Bozeman Deaconess Hospital, School
District, Gallatin County, City of Bozeman, Montana State University, etc. Some initial discussions have occurred about future uses of these lands
for community housing. There will be different challenges with each partnership that would need to be identified and addressed.
WORKING GROUP INPUT
Session 1 – Tools Review Comments (June)
PUBLIC/PRIVATE/INSTITUTIONAL PARTNERSHIPS:
Be aggressive in approaching non-profits and philanthropic
organizations about $$
Difficult for school district = current growth and limits on legal ability
Land acquisition via funded partnership with employers, government,
etc.
Public/private/institutional (school district)
LAND BANKING:
Land banking! Proactive approach
Land banking with deed restrictions x2
Who should do it? …. HRDC/City of Bozeman x 2
How? Taxation, grants and regulation
Where? Infill areas current mobile parks
Buy land during downturns from banks
Navigate/WSW/FreshTracks Partnerships Tools - 32
Session 2 – Strategy Development Discussion (July)
1. What criteria should be used for prioritizing? (Location, access Infrastructure, topography, water & sewer, appropriate zoning, degree of
potential controversy politically or with neighbors, near public transit/pathways, ripe/ready for development, others?)
Criteria for future prioritization of lands owned by public entities
1. Location (near work, transportation, grocery, walkable)
2. Ready for development
3. Near services (health, gas, stores, etc.)
4. Political support in place
5. Infrastructure in place
6. Zoning in place
7. Neighbor support or at least, not against
Criteria for future prioritization of privately owned lands:
1. Legal issues tying up land
2. Price to buy land
3. Partnership potential (available to work on site)
4. # of owners, complicated sale
5. Location (close to services, transportation, etc.)
Navigate/WSW/FreshTracks Partnerships Strategies - 33
2. What specific parcels do you feel should be considered?
Navigate/WSW/FreshTracks Partnerships Strategies - 34
Public entity Name of Parcel/Location Rating (E=easy, M=Medium,
H=Hard_
Notes
Montana State University
(Blue on Map)
Hard Use of MSU lands constrained
by University Regents mission,
who is focused on student,
research.
Provide housing for 1/3 of
students. Not doing any
employee housing
School District
(Green on map)
Patterson Parcel M Constraints: competing needs
with future school needs
Bus Barn Site (18 acres) E/M Would need a new location for
bus barn which sits on 3 of 18
acres
Golden Steam M Future competing needs
Baxter (20 acres) M
Chief Joseph Cite M Corner piece open
Constraints on all District lands: ok for staff housing, can’t use for non-school related housing
Bozeman Health (Yellow)
East Highland Site M -Open to community benefit
use of land
-Constraints—land important to
open space, parks, trails, nature
reserve, politics (board focused
on health via open space), not
interested in managing housing,
sewer, water, hill
Navigate/WSW/FreshTracks Partnerships Strategies - 35
Public entity Name of Parcel/Location Rating (E=easy, M=Medium,
H=Hard_
Notes
County (orange) Law Center Full use, not open for
housing
Park M Currently used as park
Open to housing but case
needed for higher value
Would need to find park site
replacement
Fair Grounds M Very political (history, Fair
board)
Center location key for success
of fair
Future: conversation with fair
board about housing
Parcel Next to Rest Home ---1 acres, near
services, other housing, transportation
E (TOP PRIORITY SITE) ***** North half would like entity on
land to subsidize operations of
rest home
City (purple) Fowlers Ave E Stream, street issues
Laurel Park H Sewer main for city, city garage
on site
Cemetery (not being used) H, M Key open space on hill near city
used for recreation, need more
research
Snow Field H Political challenges
Limon Creek No Topography challenge, water
source, far from center
Navigate/WSW/FreshTracks Partnerships Strategies - 36
3. Are there partnership needs or challenges to consider? General Constraints:
School District (green) – cannot use for non-school housing;
only school employees
MSU (blue) – constrained by University Regents mission:
student and research focus
City (purple) and County (orange) – competing needs/uses,
political/resident support, topography, changing uses (e.g.
undeveloped space to housing)
Bozeman Health (yellow) – not housers, health providers
Navigate/WSW/FreshTracks Partnerships Strategies - 37
Other Summary Comments:
o Gallatin County Rest Home property – make it a priority
o Consider all land options, easy to complex (private, public, redevelopment)
o Surprised that Bozeman Health land is medium (not easy)
o Why Opportunity Zone doesn’t stretch to Main Street?
o Surprised that Bozeman School Dist. (BSD7) has invested so well in lands for future needs---good job!
o Can the GIS map show vacant lots in Bozeman?
o Expand partnership map to include transportation hubs/routes
o Status of Mandeville farmland?
o Land swaps public to private?
o City limits are a barrier to partnerships
o BSD7. – housing homeless youth? Can school district service this need?
o Build over downtown parking lots keeping/increasing # of spaces
o 100 Acre park owned by Gallatin County = difficult
o Gallatin County Fairgrounds = M? Future success of fairs?
o Former warming center was on the Fairgrounds…
o Discussion on Gallatin Rest Home & 10 acres is underway = M
o BSD7’s Patterson property = M
o BSD7’s Bus Barn property = Easy or Medium (build around barn?)
o Land exchange with BSD7
o MSU – Board of Regents control the land (teaching, research, out-reach)
o MSU = recently build $100 million in student housing
o MSU – Faculty housing more complicated
o Housing build above Commercial property?
o BZN Health (BH) – Did wage increases to help employees with housing
o BH land has extensive GVLT trail system (healthy to be outdoors!)
o BH currently not much appetite for development
o BH employee growth in West Bozeman and not at Hospital
o Add Billings Clinic to land partner list. Already talking housing in N. BZN
Navigate/WSW/FreshTracks Partnerships Strategies - 38
Summarized Action Strategy
- Establish criteria to prioritize site(s).
- Understand partner and site constraints.
- Facilitate partnerships
- Issue Request for Proposals with desired community housing
outcomes
- Keep prioritized list for future housing opportunities
(see above)
(see above); collect more detail when a site is targeted for
action
- Establish criteria to prioritize sites(s).
- Inventory potential opportunities.
- Include vacant, underutilized, redevelopment.
- Understand constraints.
- Idaho Pole Site – current potential, private site (see map)
(see above)
(see above);
create land map of more opportunities; research
Navigate/WSW/FreshTracks Partnerships Strategies - 39
OTHER STRATEGIES REVIEWED – For Later Consideration
Total Strategies
0
Property Management – Contracting to manage rental units. Could work both ways – public sector hires private firm or
private sector hires public/non-profit. Could be used with Employer Assisted Housing.
Typically serves moderate to upper-income households (below 120% AMI)
Examples: Santa Barbara Coastal Housing Partnership, CA; Whistler Home Run program, BC
Tools Review Comments (June): None
Navigate/WSW/FreshTracks Preservation Strategies - 40
Preservation Strategies Summary
The tables below summarize the partnership strategies.
• Priority Action Strategies: are presented in detail.
• Strategies for later consideration: are grouped in a table for further discussion.
Note on Existing Strategies: Many strategies are currently in place or have been used in Bozeman (delineated with an “*”). Priority strategies that
are in place should be reviewed for potential changes or modifications that can improve their effectiveness. Strategies in place that received few or
zero votes do NOT mean the strategy should go away, it simply means that the strategy is not currently a priority for additional action.
Priority Action Strategies
TOTAL Green "YES"
Yellow
“NO/needs
enhancement”
Strategy
13 13 0 Deed restricted housing (permanent)
12 12 0 Community land trusts*
3 3 0 Co-op housing (mobile home parks)
Other Strategies Reviewed - For Later Consideration
TOTAL Green "YES"
Yellow
“NO/needs
enhancement”
Strategy
5 5 0 Housing rehabilitation and weatherization*
5 8 3 No net loss/replacement policy
0 0 0 Condominium conversion policy
0 0 0 Deed restriction – local preference (NEW)
0 0 2 Acquisition of Market Units
* Indicates that Bozeman has implemented all or a portion of the tool listed; alterations may be available to better meet community housing needs.
Navigate/WSW/FreshTracks Preservation Strategies - 41
DEED RESTRICTED HOUSING (PERMANENT)
Dwelling units permanently restricted by occupancy (local employee/resident), income level, and with rent/resale restrictions to retain affordability
in rising and high cost housing markets.
Issues
In General
Creation of deed restricted housing that is sold for below market prices requires subsidies (public or private) to allow the home to sell for below
market prices. Subsidy investment may occur through direct investment, regulations (inclusionary zoning, etc), incentives (fee waivers, density
bonus, etc.).
Deed restrictions may be permanent or non-permanent.
Permanent deed restrictions utilize a “subsidy retention” model where the initial subsidy placed in the home remains with the same home to
maintain its affordability long-term. The home is sold at affordable prices to later buyers. Every buyer of the deed restricted home benefits from
the initial subsidy
Non-permenant or limited term deed restrictions may utilize a “subsidy recapture” provision to recoop the subsidy placed into a unit plus a portion
of the appreciation of that home when the home is sold. The home is sold at market prices and is no longer restricted to be affordable for future
buyers. The recooped subsidy monies can be reinvested in another home or home buyer. This is
similar to Bozeman’s current AHO restriction.
In markets where housing prices grow at faster rates than local incomes (such as Bozeman), subsidy
recapture requires larger and larger amounts of public funds to keep the homes affordable to the
same kinds of families. The need for larger and larger subsidies can be prevented with subsidy
retention, or permanent affordability.
Subsidy retention or preservation mechanisms include deed restrictions (covenants running with
the property) and community land trusts (ground leases). In exchange for public assistance in purchasing a home, the buyer agrees to limits the
price at which they sell that home as follows:
Current Program
How much: 138 community ownership
units created since 2012, only 26 will
retain their affordability upon resale.
(See Section 3 – Housing Inventory,
pp.43-4)
Navigate/WSW/FreshTracks Preservation Strategies - 42
- If the resale formula is based on increases in income and not the housing market, the home remains affordable
- Resale formula that balances wealth creation for homeowners and preserves long-term affordability
- Households still earn equity, just not as much as an unrestricted home
- Benefits of homeownership for family: a decent home, stability, security, equity buildup, tax savings
- Benefits for the community: inventory of community housing, stability, diversity, improvement of neighborhoods without displacement,
inclusive neighborhoods, maximum public ‘return on investment,’ employees can find/afford homes.
Both subsidy recapture and retention programs take resources to manage homebuyer qualification and sales. Retention programs require greater
resources to manage and steward the homes consistent with the terms of the restriction, including educating homebuyers regarding benefits and
responsibilities of subsidized homeownership, and monitoring and enforcing homeownership compliance with restriction terms.
See Center for Housing Policy report “Preservation of Affordable Homeownership: A Continuum of Strategies”, April 2007 by Rick Jacobus and
Jeffrey Lubell; and YouTube video (8-minutes) “Understanding Subsidy Retention”, April 2014 by Rick Jacobus for additional information.
Bozeman Specific
AHO Ordinance: (HNA, pp.86-7)
Bozeman’s Affordable Housing Ordinance (AHO) requires a percentage of the of total dwellings in subdivisions which propose 10 or more for-sale
market rate homes (single-family homes or townhomes) to be lower priced homes (targeting households earning 65% - 80% AMI) and/or
moderate-priced homes (81% - 100% AMI). Eight units have been created since the ordinance became mandatory in 2017.
Lower-priced homes have buyer qualification criteria verified and certified by the City, a primary residence requirement, and a recapture
restriction to ensure any cash or noncash subsidies are paid back in the event of default or at time of the first resale, transfer or refinance.
Developers of moderate-priced homes must provide evidence that the initial owner will use the home as their primary residence at time of sale.
The use of any recaptured funds is limited to:
- Down payment assistance (at or below 80% AMI)
- Affordable rental opportunities (at or below 60% AMI)
- Affordable homeownership opportunities (at or below 80% AMI)
Navigate/WSW/FreshTracks Preservation Strategies - 43
The City’s Affordable Housing Program, including the AHO, is managed under the City’s Community Development department and has one staff
person, the Affordable Housing Manager. HRDC is contracted with the City to qualify buyers and help manage sales of units through the Affordable
Housing Ordinance.
About 138 community ownership units have been created since 2012 and have been sold at below-market prices to families and other households
earning between 50% to 120% AMI or $31,600 to $75,960 per year. Only 26 of these will remain affordable upon resale to benefit multiple
households in the future. (See Section 3 – Housing Inventory of the Bozeman Community Housing Needs Assessment, pp.43-4)
Housing Market: (HNA, pp.59-60)
Realtors expressed that there is a strong market for deed restricted homes in Bozeman:
• Deed restricted homes give buyers, that otherwise have no options, the ability to purchase a home. A recent 300+ square foot “tidbit”
home had three buyers trying to qualify within one-week’s time.
• Realtors stated that the market for ownership with permanent affordability is strong. Buyer options are limited by price. If a home is
available at their price point with a permanent restriction, they will buy it. This has the added benefit of ensuring the subsidy to create this
product will benefit multiple households over time rather than just one.
• Realtors also advised that the restriction should limit who can buy, otherwise residents will be beat out by cash buyers.
WORKING GROUP INPUT
Session 1 – Tools Review Comments (June)
Deed restricted housing (permanent) maintains volume of entry level housing
Permanent deed restrictions x2
Navigate/WSW/FreshTracks Preservation Strategies - 44
Session 2 – Strategy Development Discussion (July)
Comparison of current non-permanent, subsidy recapture deed restriction model to a permanent, subsidy retention model
Recapture Retention (permanent)
No net gain in units Better meets our goal!
Someone gets an initial start Accumulate a modest amount of equity, better than renting
Once sold, no longer affordable Growing inventory at a variety of income levels
Affordable Housing Ordinance - fee deferment creates benefit (incentive) for
developer Stability and increase in homeownership
Deferred fee waiver transfers fee requirement from developer to second buyer More management and resources ($)
Change needed to revamp regulations
What happens in a down market?
Needs to balance wealth building and permanent affordability
4. Should subsidy retention be utilized when publicly subsidized community housing units are created?
Yes.
Retention is a “no brainer”, it protects the public investment.
5. What barriers are preventing the use of permanent deed restrictions? (management capacity, retention mechanisms, homeownership
program policies and procedures, etc.)
• Organizational capacity in the community
• Program structure and mechanisms to ensure affordability that consider “fairness”
• Bureaucracy: time required to unpack the regulation and to make changes
• Alignment with other policies: fee waivers and incentives
Navigate/WSW/FreshTracks Preservation Strategies - 45
6. If deed restrictions are utilized, who should manage/steward the deed restricted units? (City, HRDC, Community Land Trust, other?)
• Evaluate existing capacity and roles (City, HRDC)
• Consider adjustments or new entities, such as a Housing Authority or Community Land Trust
• Emphasize customer service, such as one point of contact
• A 3rd party could manage
Summarized Action Strategy
- Transition to a permanent restriction when publicly subsidized
community housing units are created.
o The permanent deed restriction should balance long-term
affordability with wealth creation
o Structure the eligibility and occupancy criteria to ensure
“fairness.”
- Align with other policies: fee waivers and incentives.
- Increase management capacity.
- Emphasize customer service, such as one point of contact
A third party can manage – e.g. the community land trust
Begin by evaluating existing capacity, considering adjustments,
and/or establishing a new entity, such as a Housing Authority
or Community Land Trust.
Navigate/WSW/FreshTracks Preservation Strategies - 46
COMMUNITY LAND TRUST (CLT)*
Community nonprofit owns land, develops housing and provides long-term stewardship for permanent affordability through long-term ground
leases. Typically, single family or townhomes for moderate and middle-income households.
Issues
In General
CLTs have been used to ensure permanent affordability of owned homes, cooperative housing, and rental housing, and even nonprofit space.
CLTs are a national model and can be complex organizations that typically provide the following
services:
- Administration and Operations (running the CLT organization)
- Portfolio Development (creating the homes to be brought into the CLT’s portfolio)
- Stewardship (maintaining and preserving the CLT’s portfolio of homes and homeowners)
There are about 225 CLTs currently operating in the United States, some of which have been in
operation for 30 years or more.
Community land trusts are usually non-profits governed by a volunteer board. CLTs may play a role otherwise filled by local government.
CLTs require education, time, staff and thoughtfulness to manage and execute.
Requires funding. Northern California Land Trust is working on building an acquisition loan fund for sufficient reserves to allow faster purchase of
properties to compete in the high-cost, fast-pace housing market. Relying on typical subsidies has been too slow for many purchases.
Deed restrictions serve the same affordability purpose as CLT. Both carry resale price restrictions, but CLT applies them through a long-term ground
lease agreement rather than deed restriction. Neither is necessarily more or less challenging to administer.
Example: NW MT Community Land Trust (Kalispell, MT); Northern California Land Trust (Berkeley, CA)
Potential Impact
How much: TBD
For whom: Middle to moderate (80%
to 150%)
Navigate/WSW/FreshTracks Preservation Strategies - 47
Bozeman Specific (see HNA, pp. 83 – 5)
HRDC operates a community land trust (CLT) program that includes 24 3BR single-family homes and two Humble Homes in Bozeman and two CLT
homes in Livingston – and is developing 52 deed-restricted units in Big Sky and planning 24 two-bedroom and 3-bedroom townhomes to add to its
CLT program’s portfolio in Bozeman.
Since initial implementation, the CLT business model is evolving from a recapture and rebuild program to permanent affordability because of the
time, labor and resources required to replenish the supply. The permanent model requires a more robust entity to manage and steward the homes
consistent with the terms of the restriction, including educating homebuyers regarding benefits and responsibilities of subsidized homeownership,
and monitoring and enforcing homeownership compliance with restriction terms.
HRDC currently operates a community land trust program under its corporate structure and governance, owning and leasing land to owners of
affordably priced homes located on this land, collecting fees, and managing resales of CLT homes. HRDC’s governing board is tasked with oversight
and direction for many diverse programmatic commitments over a 3-county service area and has little connection to the mission or activities of the
CLT program. Like most other community land trust programs or organizations, ground lease fee revenue collected from CLT homeowners is
insufficient to cover the administrative and program costs. This revenue shortfall needs to be covered through grants and operating support raised
by HRDC.
Efforts to establish an “umbrella” or Bozeman-wide community land trust with support from HRDC are underway. This is in recognition of the
changing community housing needs (extending above 80% AMI), need to increase management and stewardship capacity with a model of
permanent affordability, and value of having an organization focused solely on community housing.
WORKING GROUP INPUT
Session 1 – Tools Review Comments (June)
Create umbrella CLT organization
CLT x3
Make it community wide
Who – HRDC or Habitat
Navigate/WSW/FreshTracks Preservation Strategies - 48
Session 2 – Strategy Development Discussion (July)
Habitat is using this model going forward to maintain permanence of affordability. Working with Trust Montana, a statewide Community Land
Trust (CLT). Trust Montana takes on some of the management responsibilities and Habitat retains some, such as selecting homebuyers.
Community Land Trust could be a possible management entity
1. Is the current community land trust model of recapture/rebuild effective? Are problems/changes needed?
Move to a retention model.
2. Should the current model operate with a permanent deed restriction model?
Yes.
3. Who should be a part of an “umbrella” community land trust?
No comments.
Summarized Action Strategy
- Consider establishing a Community Land Trust (CLT) organization
that has the capability to take on management responsibilities of
permanent restrictions.
- Coordinate with existing housing providers with CLT homes to
increase efficacy and avoid redundancy.
Motion is currently underway in Bozeman to do this
Navigate/WSW/FreshTracks Preservation Strategies - 49
CO-OP HOUSING (MOBILE HOMES)
Common ownership and management of purpose-built communities. As related to preserving mobile home parks, residents form a corporate
entity that purchases the park, placing the responsibility of park maintenance in the hands of the residents. Residents can self-organize to purchase
or seek assistance. Neighborworks Montana can provide assistance in Montana.
WORKING GROUP INPUT
Session 1 – Tools Review Comments (June)
Expand income to include all income levels
All income levels all on one piece of property
Like idea of co-op model to purchase mobile homes—like HRDC doing in Livingston, MT
Session 2 – Strategy Development Discussion (July)
Like what Neighborworks/HRDC doing in this area; get more information
Summarized Action Strategy
Moved up to an Action Strategy pursuant to public input at August public open house.
- Explore as a means to preserve mobile home parks.
- Reach out to NeighborWorks Montana through HRDC
Explore how the program works,
Understand if it can work in Bozeman/with Bozeman area
mobile home parks.
Navigate/WSW/FreshTracks Preservation Strategies - 50
OTHER STRATEGIES REVIEWED – For Later Consideration
Total Strategies
5
Housing rehabilitation and weatherization* – Repairing, updating, enlarging, improving energy efficiency, and providing
handicapped accessibility, typically with Federal or State grants with strict limitation on who can be served. Staff/time
intensive.
Does not increase the inventory of community housing; rather improves the quality of the existing housing inventory,
making homes safer and more comfortable, and lowering utility bills for occupants.
Tools Review Comments (June):
• Tiny homes with potential to own
• Low interest loans to rehab homes
Strategy Development Discussion (July):
• Separate Housing Rehabilitation (e.g. The Boulevards) and current weatherization program
• Enables people to stay in their home
• Weatherization serves households earning <60% AMI
• Keep – think it is a good thing
Navigate/WSW/FreshTracks Preservation Strategies - 51
Total Strategies
5
No net loss/replacement policy - Requiring replacement of below-market dwellings occupied by residents when
redevelopment occurs. Similarly-priced units should be replaced on site or another site, or a fee-in-lieu of replacement
could be allowed. Demolition tax used to fund replacement.
• A demolition fee was discussed with funding
Tools Review Comments (June):
• No net loss, similar restrictions as TIF projects
• Provide similar plan for displaced individuals as TIF regulations
• No net loss replacement particularly lower income
• Must define substandard/unsafe housing that is best removed/redeveloped
• Ordinance requiring replacement of low-income housing when it is removed for more expensive development
• Likely to disincentivize redevelopment of existing low-value developments, neighborhoods
• Expand to rentals to help lower income renters afford rent
Strategy Development Discussion (July):
• Homes transition from serving lower incomes to higher incomes – red to green on the rainbow
• Some demolition and redevelopment is good
• Disincentivizes rehabilitation and redevelopment
Navigate/WSW/FreshTracks Preservation Strategies - 52
Total Strategies
0
Condominium conversion policy - Limiting or prohibiting conversion of apartments to condominiums to retain rental
housing. May require some portion of converted units to be restricted community housing or provide first right of refusal
of sales to apartment occupants, among other conditions. Some impose a conversion fee that goes into a housing fund.
Possible state legislative/process change in MT needed to track.
• A conversion fee was discussed with funding
Tools Review Comments (June): None
Strategy Development Discussion (July):
Entry level housing option
A conversion fee was discussed in the “Funding” strategy session.
Converted apartments to condominiums can create an entry level homeownership opportunity.
Conversions from apartments to condominiums are overseen by the state – would need to establish a city tracking system
0
Deed restriction – local preference (NEW) – (info).
Tools Review Comments (June):
Big Sky affordable housing requires 1590 hours of employment in community
Discrimination of “new locals”
0
Acquisition of market units - Usually involves investing public funds to lower the sales price in exchange for restricted
community housing. Inability to obtain condo mortgages can result in units being rented. Public sector purchases can
drive up prices for low-end market units.
Tools Review Comments (June): None
Strategy Development Discussion (July):
More bang for your buck with other options
Navigate/WSW/FreshTracks Housing Programs Strategies - 53
Housing Programs Strategies Summary
The tables below summarize the partnership strategies.
• Priority Action Strategies: are presented in detail.
• Strategies for later consideration: are grouped in a table for further discussion.
Note on Existing Strategies: Many strategies are currently in place or have been used in Bozeman (delineated with an “*”). Priority strategies that
are in place should be reviewed for potential changes or modifications that can improve their effectiveness. Strategies in place that received few or
zero votes do NOT mean the strategy should go away, it simply means that the strategy is not currently a priority for additional action.
Priority Action Strategies
TOTAL Green "YES" Red “NO” Strategy
12 12 0 Permanent Supportive Housing and Transitional*
0 0 0 Homebuyer assistance*
12 12 0 Employer Assisted Housing
Other Strategies Reviewed - For Later Consideration
TOTAL Green "YES" Red “NO” Strategy
6 6 0 Senior Housing* (on-going)
1 1 0 Self Help Build* (on-going) (Habitat for Humanity)
0 0 0 Construction education extension (NEW)
0 0 1 Public sector development
* Indicates that Bozeman has implemented all or a portion of the tool listed; alterations may be available to better meet community housing needs.
Navigate/WSW/FreshTracks Housing Programs Strategies - 54
PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING (PSH) AND TRANSITIONAL*
Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH) is a model that pairs housing assistance with case management and supportive services to help chronically homeless
individuals and families lead more stable lives and help them transition from homelessness to home security.
Transitional housing refers to a supportive – yet temporary – type of accommodation that is meant to bridge the gap from homelessness to permanent housing
by offering structure, supervision, support, life skills, and training.
Issues
In General
PSH often developed through partnerships, land donations/banked land, philanthropy, federal and state funding streams such as LIHTC, HUD
Supportive Housing Program, Section 811, HOME, grants.
Management-intensive programs- 24-hour care/assistance common. Requires collaboration between service providers, property managers, and
tenants to preserve tenancy and address tenant needs. Includes services such as:
1. 24-hour supportive staffing
2. Case management
3. Life skills training
4. Medical care
5. Behavioral health care, support and mental evaluation
6. Re-entry support
Examples: Fort Collins, Denver, Boulder, CO; Missoula, MT
Bozeman Specific (see HNA, pp. 47-9; 80-5)
Need for transitional units has been on the rise among the homeless/near-homeless. Even those that could afford a rental have been seeking
assistance due to the lack of housing.
Several local organizations provide transitional housing and case management/services:
Potential Impact
How much:
For whom: Chronically homeless;
transitional/crisis housing
Navigate/WSW/FreshTracks Housing Programs Strategies - 55
• WMMHC offers comprehensive services for individuals with mental health and substance use disorders. 10 transitional units.
• Family Promise and HRDC both work to address homelessness in the Gallatin Valley. HRDC provides assistance for homeless individuals and
families while Family Promise works exclusively with families.
• Haven offers a domestic violence shelter. 10 beds.
• REACH pairs developmental disability case management with some housing options.
Special Needs Housing and Shelter Summary: 2018
Organization For whom Type Number in City Term of Use/Occupancy
WMMHC
Mental/
behavioral health
"Transitional units"
(long term) 10 units Occupied; 50-person waitlist
Studio apartments 6 apts Completed since 2012; City provided gap
financing
Evaluation center
Hope House - short
term beds (72 hours) 10 beds Quasi-medical center, mental health
stabilization Hope House - day
beds 5 beds
Family
Promise
Homeless Rotational
scheduled shelter
Up to 4 families
and no more
than 12 persons
at a time
Must participate in Family Promise Program
and be in good standing
Homeless Transitional housing
(Canterbury House) 4 units Up to 2 years if family remains in good standing
in the Family Promise Program
REACH
(est. 100 on
waitlist)
Developmental
disabilities
Transitional living 18 beds Two apt complexes, permanent housing units
Adult housing 16 beds 24-hour awake care
Intensive housing 11 beds 10 permanent housing and 1 emergency bed;
24-hour intensive care
Group homes 4 units Serve up to 25 individuals with 24-hour services
Greenway
Apartments (2016) 10 units <30% AMI with developmental disabilities;
30-year restriction
Haven Domestic
violence Shelter 10 beds 1,116 individuals served in 2018, 14% increase
from 2017; serves women and their children
HRDC
Homeless
individuals and
families
Warming
center/emergency
shelter
40 beds; 287
clients (2018) Seasonal nightly shelter (Nov to March)
Day center
(May to Sept)
196 clients
(2018) Seasonal daily shelter (May to Sept)
Transitional housing
(Carriage House)
2-b units;
10 households
Housing for up to two years; case management
services
Source: Interviews, focus group, consultant team
Navigate/WSW/FreshTracks Housing Programs Strategies - 56
These organizations have a collaborative relationship, joining resources where helpful to improve service and work to provide non-duplicative
services and fill target gaps. Strong partnerships have already been used to produce existing homeless housing options – city donated building, city-
provided infrastructure, low-interest gap financing through the city, Gallatin County partnership to gain access to HOME grant, etc.
WORKING GROUP INPUT
Session 1 – Tools Review Comments (June)
None
Session 2 – Strategy Development Discussion (July)
4. What is working well among existing organizations and services offered
• All is working well but under funded—i.e. FUSE project example of great collaboration between these service providers
5. Where can improvements be made?
• Improve clarity around type of programs, who is being serviced, etc—use consistent language
6. Which organizations are best positioned to do more?
• Each doing well at specific population they are focused on
• HRDC strongest at pulling collaborations together and PSP projects (i.e. FUSE PROJECT)
7. What steps are needed to begin expanding options? – whom, what, how?
• See table below
What's working what's not Who & what next?
(+) FUSE project - great coalition 5 programs in place. Needs funding after YR1. (delta)
collective need? Funding
-Map incentives to PSH work.---offer to developers
-HRDC to create sub-bridge of needs in this area (under current
Needs Bridge).
-Future: housing group to advocate for state funds.
Navigate/WSW/FreshTracks Housing Programs Strategies - 57
Summarized Action Strategy
- Inform developers of PSH incentives/opportunities.
- Identify needs (HRDC).
- Form housing group to advocate for more state funds.
- Implement FUSE model to more efficiently and effectively
provide services (HRDC).
Navigate/WSW/FreshTracks Housing Programs Strategies - 58
HOMEBUYER ASSISTANCE*
Down payments or second mortgages for purchasing units. Can be used for restricted or market units.
Examples: Bozeman, MT; Mammoth Lakes, CA; Placer County, CA
WORKING GROUP INPUT
Session 1 – Tools Review Comments (June)
None
Session 2 – Strategy Development Discussion (July)
What's working what's not Who & what next?
• Education key -- community education up to 120% financial
literacy.
• Leverage private sector
• Expand up to 120% AMI
Have 3 doing: City, HRDC, Habitat
WHO: HRDC (program is for lower income levels); research another partner to take on higher
level incomes
Summarized Action Strategy
- Build upon existing program through the City, HRDC, Habitat for
Humanity.
- Seek local funding to serve households up to 120% AMI.
- Community education program – financial literacy and assistance
options.
- Work with employers to assist employees. Technical assistance,
loan/grant options, administration, etc.
Input from public open house suggested:
- Pairing down payment assistance with employer
programs.
- Suggested financial literacy courses should be provided
in the schools.
Navigate/WSW/FreshTracks Housing Programs Strategies - 59
EMPLOYER ASSISTED HOUSING
Employer Assisted Housing (EAH) means providing housing support to employees. Employers can provide land and partner in development of
housing. EAH is often direct employee support, such as help with finding housing, down payment, rent/mortgage, relocation or master
leasing/providing rentals.
Issues
In General
Employers may have land or capital for housing. (Quasi)-public, private and non-profit agencies can
partner with employers to provide technical assistance, property management, support for
homeownership programs and/or development of housing to facilitate EAH. For example:
• Property management entities can assist employers in sharing, managing and maintaining
housing. It would allow employers to not be “in the housing business,” yet still help supply
housing for their employees. Could operate where the (quasi)-public sector hires private/non-
profit company or private sector hires public/non-profit.
• An EAH can facilitate housing development for employees that they can afford by coordinating financing or partnerships with multiple
employers to develop housing or coordinating an upfront master lease program for rental projects to ensure tenants and rents for
developers (mitigate risk).
• Helping employers with the guidelines/contracts/technical assistance needed to establish down payment assistance programs or other EAHs;
pooling employer resources to help employers leverage combined funds and be more effective.
Barriers to EAH for some employers may be the high cost of housing, desire not to be involved in employees lives outside of work, desire to not be
in the housing business, or lack of capacity.
Getting multiple employers to coordinate on projects has been challenging in Jackson, WY. For example, on a master-leased development project,
employers have been reluctant to commit to the long-term master leases that are needed to support favorable developer financing for a project
(e.g. 10+ years). The same has been a challenge in Winter Park, CO.
Potential Impact
How much: TBD
For whom: Often rentals below 100%
AMI; larger employers may pursue
ownership.
Navigate/WSW/FreshTracks Housing Programs Strategies - 60
Example: Santa Barbara Coastal Housing Partnership, CA (employer memberships open access to various EAH opportunities; short, helpful videos at
http://www.coastalhousing.org); Jackson, WY (school district provided the land upon which CHT developed and manages ownership project for
school employees). Big Sky, MT (Habitat for Humanity is constructing homes for school district employees on school district land).
Bozeman Specific (see Bozeman Community Housing Needs Assessment, pp. 49-52)
MSU provides housing for about 29% of their student enrollment. MSU has 4,200 beds in residence halls for students and will increase that capacity
to 4,700 by fall 2020.
Residence hall beds 4,200
Vacancy rate (fall 2018) 2%
Occupying students 4,116
MSU Student apartment units 542
Students housed in apartments 800
Total students in University housing 4,916
% of total enrollment (2018) 29%
Source: MSU
About 29% of employers responding to the survey indicated they provide some sort of housing assistance to their employees - mostly through
higher wages and assistance with housing search.
• Some provide units for their employees, either owned by the employer (9%), master-leased to ensure units for employees (4%) or
temporary/relocation housing assistance for new hires or other employees (8%).
• Others provide financial assistance in the form of rent assistance (9%) or down payments/mortgage assistance (4%).
• Businesses providing units and/or financial assistance are primarily in the construction, professional/technical, transportation/utilities, non-
profit and real estate industries.
Navigate/WSW/FreshTracks Housing Programs Strategies - 61
Does your business provide any of the following types of housing or
cost of living assistance for your employees?
% of responding
employers
Pay higher wages than nearby communities for the same/similar jobs 79%
Assistance with housing search 16%
Employer-owned units rented or provided as compensation to
employees 9%
Rent assistance (help with first/last/deposit; monthly rent stipend; etc.) 9%
Temporary/relocation housing 8%
Down payment/mortgage assistance 4%
Employer-leased units rented to employees 4%
Other assistance 10%
Source: 2018 City of Bozeman Employer Survey, consultant team
Other types of assistance listed included lending a camper for housing, housing stipend and relocation bonuses.
Employers have primarily acted independently in providing their assistance.
Several property managers have units that are master-leased by employers. In recent years, construction companies, the medical field and some
professional employers (engineering, etc.) have been the most active in searching for units.
§ Construction companies often seek units for the summer months.
§ The medical field desires to have units available for traveling nurses and temporary or on-call workers.
§ One property manager has three units leased for J-1 visa workers in the accommodations industry.
Navigate/WSW/FreshTracks Housing Programs Strategies - 62
WORKING GROUP INPUT
Session 1 – Tools Review Comments (June)
How is this different from “commercial linkage”
Absolutely develop community inventory of land ownership
Provide employers with tools to evaluate possible programs
Make employer programs more incentive based not mandatory
Open up financing options
Target to larger employers
Create workforce housing workshop for employers
Employer assisted housing
Continue to link housing with transit opportunities
More employer programs through Urban Renewal Districts
Session 2 – Strategy Development Discussion (July)
7. What incentives can be used to entice employers to produce/provide more housing assistance for their employees?
• Education, outreach---especially for high-income employees
• Help understanding options, tools available
• Larger employers: help with management, vetting but more research needed
• Smaller employers: need co-op model to address needs collectively, support to do so
• Needs specific help on the technical and legal side of providing housing
• Highlight, celebrate employers who are already stepping up to do housing in BZN and region (case studies) --EDUCATION
• Bring in outside expertise for an educational event to increase awareness of options, kick off future collaboration
8. What types of programs may most assist employers to provide/improve EAH? (e.g. property management, down payment program or
rental assistance, employee + housing matching service, technical/development assistance, etc.)
• Need exposure to all—create menu of options, make it easy
Navigate/WSW/FreshTracks Housing Programs Strategies - 63
9. Is more research of employer needs, education of options, EAH experiences and/or interest in coordinated EAH participation needed to
help focus an EAH program?
• Yes but do a symposium event to bring this all together
• See who steps forward to take this on
• Who could host, lead event: Larger employers, Chamber, Habitat (as a provider of housing for employees), banks, City, HRDC,
Prospera, Community Foundation, lending institutions, employers interviewed as part of needs assessment
Summarized Action Strategy
Moved up to an Action Strategy pursuant to public input at August public open house.
- Need education of and outreach to employers
- Hold symposium/education session.
- Next steps:
o Gauge interest in options from employers.
o Find leaders to carry forward
Present options and educate on tools available.
May be led by Chamber, Prospera, employers that currently
have assisted housing programs in place, or another.
Use information from the employer survey from the Needs
Assessment as a starting point.
Determine who is well suited to coordinate, educate and assist
employers around EAH
Navigate/WSW/FreshTracks Housing Programs Strategies - 64
OTHER STRATEGIES REVIEWED – For Later Consideration
SENIOR HOUSING*
Defined: High density, smaller, low maintenance units designed for retiring residents. Can free up housing stock for employees, especially if
strategy prevents purchase by second-home buyers or STR conversion.
Issues
In General
Seniors of all incomes are a growing sector of the population. Senior housing is often age restricted to persons over 55 or over 62.
Senior housing is designed for aging in place: living space and bedrooms are usually on the same level, considerations are made for mobility, vision,
and hearing impairments, maintenance by the owner/tenant is minimized.
A diversity of housing choices helps retiring employees and older seniors remain in the community.
Senior housing can help free up other housing for employees by providing options to seniors so they can sell existing homes.
Bozeman Specific (HNA, pp. 4; 45-6; 61-4; 70; 72)
Realtors report that seniors wanting to downsize are unable to find suitable low-maintenance, single-level product, much less at prices they can
afford. They cannot sell their existing older home and afford to pay $400,000 or more for a new one. They can either stay in their current home or
leave the community.
• Single story, low maintenance, ground level condos or small ranch homes/lots are preferred in city/walkable.
Of the existing 947 affordable community rentals in Bozeman, 25% (260 units) are limited to occupancy by seniors and/or persons with disabilities.
Turnover in seniors rentals is only a handful of units each year (5% turnover last year; 19 units total). Long waitlists exist. Units are always full.
Navigate/WSW/FreshTracks Housing Programs Strategies - 65
Inventory of Affordable Rentals: City of Bozeman, 2018
Name Total units Affordable units Bedrooms Income Limits Project type Year Built/In Service Expiration
Bridger Peaks Village 60 59 1, 2 60% LIHTC,
seniors 2004 2031
Darlinton Manor 100 88 Studio, 1 60% AMI PBS8, LIHTC, seniors/
disabled
1974, 1980;
2000 in service NA
Legion Villa 61 60 1, 2 80% PBS8, seniors/disabled 1975 NA
Spring Run Apts 17 17 1 50% Section 811, disability 2006 NA
Summerwood Apts 36 36 1 50% Section 202, seniors 2006 NA
TOTAL rentals 274 260 - - - - -
Source: Property manager interviews, City of Bozeman, HRDC, HUD, Consulting team
Session 1 – Tools Review Comments (June)
Can senior housing be co-op housing?
Session 2 – Strategy Development Discussion (July)
1. What is working well among existing organizations and services offered for seniors?
• Not sure what is working well—have some units but need survey to understand what’s working well. Wait lists long so clearly need
more. Any incentives for developers in place? Could you create incentives for developers to include senior housing since this is a
priority?
2. Where can improvements be made?
• Yes, expand inventory---More research into total housing needs for seniors up to 120% AMI—only have info for low income senior
housing
• More research on type of housing and services available in this spectrum—up to 120%
3. Which organizations are best positioned to do more? Not sure. ID partner to work with on this—bring into WG since this is a focus
4. What steps are needed to begin expanding options? – whom, what, how?
• ID partners, more research
Navigate/WSW/FreshTracks Housing Programs Strategies - 66
What's working what's not Who & what next?
-Too much focus on low income/subsidized.
-Is this a program?
-Or-- about product inventory, walkability?
Product needs: small, under 400K, age in place -- services
included.
-Date (sub bridge) on larger range of seniors.
-Match products/program to wider needs.
-Incentives and funding for more senior housing? (i.e. cottages
ordinance)
-See notes below
Total Strategies
1
Self Help Build* (on going)- Homebuyers receive low interest loans and technical assistance for their construction of
homes. Requires large time commitment.
Examples: Crested Butte, CO; National Affordable Housing Network (MT)
Session1 - Tools Review Comments (June):
Habitat for Humanity currently doing; keep doing
Include the very low
Session 2 – Strategy Development Discussion (July):
Scaling challenges – modest production
Land costs are a problem in Bozeman
0
Construction Education Extension (NEW) - Work with local education system (high school technical extension,
community colleges, post-secondary education) to provide training in the construction trades industry.
Examples: Hobbs, NM
Session1 - Tools Review Comments (June): Think this is important. MSU doing tiny home work. Small HS pilot in the
works. Find out more.
Session 2 – Strategy Development Discussion (July):
Shortage of construction labor – program can help build local labor/expertise.
High school and MSU as potential partners
Navigate/WSW/FreshTracks Housing Programs Strategies - 67
Total Strategies
0
Public Sector Development – Initiating, designing, financing and constructing dwelling units by municipalities, counties
and/or housing authorities. Less cost, greater quality control and similar developing other public infrastructure. More
financial risk and specific expertise required.
Example: Breckenridge, CO
Session1 - Tools Review Comments (June): None
Session 2 – Strategy Development Discussion (July):
Requires public sector capacity and specific expertise.
Has financial risk
Navigate/WSW/FreshTracks Funding Strategies - 68
Funding Strategies Summary
The tables below summarize the partnership strategies.
• Priority Action Strategies: are presented in detail.
• Strategies for later consideration: are grouped in a table for further discussion.
Note on Existing Strategies: Many strategies are currently in place or have been used in Bozeman (delineated with an “*”). Priority strategies that
are in place should be reviewed for potential changes or modifications that can improve their effectiveness. Strategies in place that received few or
zero votes do NOT mean the strategy should go away, it simply means that the strategy is not currently a priority for additional action.
Priority Action Strategies
TOTAL Green
"YES"
Yellow
“NO/needs
enhancement”
Strategy
9 9 0 General funds*
9 11 2 Taxes dedicated for housing
3 3 0 LIHTC (Low Income Housing Tax Credits) *
0 0 0 Tax increment financing (TIF) – moved up per public comments
Other Strategies Reviewed - For Later Consideration
TOTAL Green
"YES"
Yellow
“NO/needs
enhancement”
Strategy
6 6 0 Opportunity Zones
3 3 0 Impact fees
1 1 0 Federal and State Grants/Loans* – CDBG. HOME,
USDA/Rural Development
1 1 0 Community Housing Fund (NEW)
0 0 0 Special Improvement District (SID)
Navigate/WSW/FreshTracks Funding Strategies - 69
0 0 0 Debt financing with favorable terms
0 0 0 Private donations/grants
0 0 0 Revolving loan fund (NEW)
* Indicates that Bozeman has implemented all or a portion of the tool listed; alterations may be available to better meet community housing needs.
Navigate/WSW/FreshTracks Funding Strategies - 70
GENERAL FUND*
An annual or occasional budget allocation primarily to support staffing, pre-development and gap financing for community housing.
Issues
In General
• Discretionary source of funds, allocation can change with change in leadership.
• Policy driven, not voter approved for a specific use offering flexibility on use.
• Often used to cover costs not allowed with other sources of funds, such as land acquisition, pre-development, gap financing for units
targeting households earning >80% AMI, and management of programs.
• No consistent policies for the use of funds.
Bozeman Specific: (p. 86 of Bozeman Community Housing Needs Assessment)
The City allocates a portion of property tax collections to an affordable housing fund. The average
allocation between 2012 and 2018 was about $150,000 per year, and it has risen significantly since
that time with the 2018 allocation just over $300,000. The City uses these funds for a down payment
assistance program, low interest loans and other assistance to facilitate affordable housing
development (e.g. impact fee reimbursements, etc.). The Community Housing Advisory Board (CAHAB)
makes recommendations to the City Commission on use of funds in the affordable housing fund.
The current balance is $936,000, about $436,000 of which is committed for several uses, including:
• Affordable Housing Manager salary
• HRDC for contracted services (e.g., qualifying occupants)
• Housing Needs study and plan
• Road to home ($40,000)
• Down payment assistance ($200,000)
Current Impact
How much: City Commission allocated
the equivalent of 5 mills or about
$540,000 to the housing fund for fiscal
year 2020.
Navigate/WSW/FreshTracks Funding Strategies - 71
WORKING GROUP INPUT
Session 1 – Tools Review Comments (June)
Increase general fund and city wide affordable housing Mil levy
Increase funding in city wide manner
Develop loan fund for construction and land acquisition
Session 2 – Strategy Development Discussion (July)
This funding source pays for the basic operations of the city, such as fire, police, library
Competes with other city priorities
At its cap, Montana does not allow a higher fee
10. Should a fixed % of the property tax be dedicated to housing each year (more certainty), or should this decision be made on a year-to-
year basis (more discretionary)?
• Keep year to year for the short-term while working to secure a broad-based, reliable funding source.
11. If fixed, what % is appropriate? Also see Taxes Dedicated to Housing.
• Keep at the 5 mils for the short-term
12. How should the funds be used/prioritized?
• Establish allocation criteria: Not first come / first served
• Current uses: Down Payment Assistance; HRDC programs; Reserve on purpose, to be able to react to an opportunity
13. How should the funds be managed/awarded? Who coordinates and reviews fund applications?
• The city has an affordable housing fund.
• Evaluate where the funds should be held (Housing Trust Fund), structure (existing/new), and who (consider accountability on use of
public funds)
Navigate/WSW/FreshTracks Funding Strategies - 72
Summarized Action Strategy
- Maintain in the short-term until broad-based, reliable funding
source is secured.
- Establish allocation criteria to inform use of the City’s Affordable
Housing Fund.
Navigate/WSW/FreshTracks Funding Strategies - 73
TAXES DEDICATED TO HOUSING
Sales, property, lodging, short-term rental fee, real estate transfer, excise tax, vacancy tax, unit demolition or conversion fees. Voter approval
required in most states. Revenue stream can be used for most housing-related activities. Recent ballot initiatives throughout the US have had
mixed results. Approval requires extensive public education.
Issues
In General
A flexible, reliable funding source and/or revenue stream can be created to respond to local conditions and used for most housing-related
activities.
Voter approval required in most states. Recent ballot initiatives have had mixed results. Approval
requires extensive public education.
Tax options are limited by statute in Montana (see “Bozeman specific” info below).
Examples: Summit County, CO (0.725% sales tax); Breckenridge, CO (lift ticket tax); Vancouver, BC
(empty homes tax); Routt County, CO (1-mil property tax); Mammoth Lakes, CA (administratively
dedicates 1% of 13% TOT tax to housing); Highland Park, IL (residential demolition tax of $3,000/unit
up to $10,000/building).
Bozeman Specific:
Montana is a “home rule” state. The Montana constitution grants self-governing cities, municipalities, and/or counties the authority to exercise any
power not prohibited by the constitution, law, or charter. The City of Bozeman is a self-governing city, and therefore has authority to exercise any
power not prohibited by Bozeman’s charter, the Montana Constitution, or the Montana Code Annotated. The City has identified affordable housing
in its comprehensive community plan, has allocated general funds for affordable housing and has adopted an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance
(AHO).
The City Attorney has reviewed the legality of several revenue streams to permanently fund the creation of permanently restricted community
housing units, the following revenue options have been prioritized by the City for potential use:
Potential Impact
How much: One mill levy equals about
$108,000 per year. Maximum
allowable levy of 218.90 mills with
For whom: All income levels and
rental/ownership.
Navigate/WSW/FreshTracks Funding Strategies - 74
• Unit Demolition or Conversion Fees. A policy that seeks to discourage the removal of existing community housing units from the market by
imposing fees when an existing residential unit is to be demolished or a residential rental unit is converted to ownership.
Conversions are currently not tracked by the city; conversion of apartments to for-sale condominiums is a State-level process.
• Commercial Linkage Fee (see Regulatory worksheet)
• Short-term Rental Conversion/Annual Registration Fee. A policy that seeks to discourage the conversion of a long-term rental to short-term
by imposing conversion fee or an annual registration fee that discourages the continued marketing of a unit as a short-term rental. Tracking
conversion fees is cumbersome – units transfer in and out of STR; annual registration fee is easier to track/manage.
Example: Taos, NM ($100 of $400 annual fee applied to Affordable Housing Fund, see https://www.taosnews.com/stories/taos-council-
approves-short-term-rental-fee,47423)
• Mill Levy. A voted levy specifically earmarked for funding permanently restricted community housing. A levy for this purpose must be placed
on the ballot and passed by a majority of those voting on the question. The city could seek a levy with a durational limit or ask the voters to
approve a permanent levy. Under this approach, all property tax payers in the city would contribute to the housing trust fund.
Example: Seattle, WA (see https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/2016-seattle-housing-levy-results/); Denver, CO (combines
impact fee and mill levy into one housing fund) (see https://www.denvergov.org/content/denvergov/en/denver-office-of-economic-
development/housing-neighborhoods/DenversPermanentFundforHousing.html)
WORKING GROUP INPUT
Session 1 – Tools Review Comments (June)
Increase general fund and city wide affordable housing Mil Levy
Sales tax x5; Sales tax on non-necessary items
Vacancy tax implemented in Vancouver – 1% of assessed property value or rent to income qualified tenant long-term
Float a bond (open space bond etc.)
Do no harm
Navigate/WSW/FreshTracks Funding Strategies - 75
Session 2 – Strategy Development Discussion (July)
1. If a fixed yearly Mill Levy % is desired, what % is appropriate? Should this be for a set duration or permanent?
• Mill Levy or Bond Issue?
• Citywide District?
• There is tax fatigue as the city grows
2. Should Unit Demolition or Conversion Fees be pursued? What are the challenges/opportunities?
• Replacement fee
• What is the objective? To stop transition or raise funds?
• Impacts to market movement
• Existing units are substandard, don’t meet code
• Replacement increases the value and generates higher tax revenues
3. Should Short-term Rental Conversion/Annual Registration Fees be pursued? What are the challenges/opportunities?
4. How should the pursuit of these potential revenues be prioritized?
• Ease/Difficulty in establishing the tax, how funds can be used, AMI restrictions, amount generated.
• See Taxes Dedicated to Housing Prioritization table below:
5. How should the funds be managed (e.g. Housing Trust Fund, other); how should funds be used (e.g. prioritization, criteria, etc.)?
• Allocation: Scoring system, self-generating, every project leveraged 3:1, land acquisition, RFQ/P – competitive, supplement community
outcomes, target incomes, align with other carrots (non-monetary), permanent affordability, and high desirability.
Navigate/WSW/FreshTracks Funding Strategies - 76
Taxes Dedicated to Housing Prioritization
Difficulty (easy, medium, hard) Use (Operating, Capital, etc.) AMI Funds Generated ($, $$,
$$$)
General Fund Easy now,
long term unknown, uncertain Unrestricted Full spectrum of
need $
Property Tax - Mill Levy
HARD,
long-term education campaign
needed
Generally capital, depends on ballot
language <120% AMI $$$
Unit Demo Conversion
Fee
Medium
administration, nexus required Capital <80% AMI <$
Short Term Rental Fee Easy/medium
Administration, nexus required Capital <80% AMI <$
LIHTC Medium Capital <60% AMI $$
Summarized Action Strategy
- Pursue either a mill levy or bond issue.
- Coordinate with a comprehensive education campaign.
- Consider citywide Special Improvement District
- Evaluate what entity should hold funds collected (City, new Housing Trust fund, etc.).
- Evaluate who should administer allocation of funds; consider accountability requirements with the use of public funds.
- Establish allocation criteria that considers: scoring system, leverages funds, aligns with income targets, requires permanent
affordability.
Navigate/WSW/FreshTracks Funding Strategies - 77
LOW INCOME HOUSING TAX CREDITS* (LIHTC)
A federal program that creates an incentive to finance rental housing for households below 60% AMI; 4% tax credits allow mixed-income. Projects
effectively utilizing the LIHTC are usually 30 to 100+ unit projects, and may be sponsored by a for profit, non-profit, or housing authority. Credits
are allocated through the Montana Board of Housing and are highly competitive. Often done through public/private partnerships. Multifamily sites
needed. See “Tax Credit Housing in 90 Seconds” to learn more.
Issues
In General
The LIHTC can generate 30 to 70% of the total equity to develop a housing site, often bringing several million dollars of outside investment to local
housing solutions. Specific expertise, and willingness to work within the constraints of the program are needed.
LIHTC properties have limited term of affordability - typically 29 years or more. After 15 years, these properties may apply for a “qualified contract”
to end the affordability term early. When the term of affordability expires, they may convert to market-rate rentals. Policies for preservation to
prevent expiration are helpful.
Full time students are not eligible to occupy LIHTC properties. At least one household member must be employed.
Bozeman Specific: (HNA, pp. 45-6; 53; 69-70)
Many LIHTC rentals exist in the city – over 650 units. A few have expired in the past – West Babcock
Apts was repurchased to retain its affordability; Aspen Meadows expired in 2018 – 44 units are now
market rate. Development of 200+ units of LIHTC is proposed in 2019.
Vacancy rates are less than 2% in existing LITHC rentals. During the recession some projects reached
30% vacancy, but recovered within a couple of years. Turnover is about 30 to 50% per year; vacancies
are typically filled within two weeks.
Interviews disclosed the following elements of the LIHTC program in Bozeman:
• Limited property in Qualified Census Tracts. Properties in these tracts are awarded equity boosts making LIHTC projects more viable.
• Currently no Bozeman representation on the Montana Board of Housing.
Existing Impact
How much: 651 units exist in the city;
200+ pending.
For whom: Renters under 60% AMI
primarily.
Navigate/WSW/FreshTracks Funding Strategies - 78
• The Montana Qualified Allocation Plan (QAP) or LIHTC qualifying criteria makes it challenging for Bozeman projects to score competitively,
(e.g. such as the limit on construction cost per unit and high Bozeman construction costs.
• A population increase to 50,000 would create additional LIHTC funding opportunities. Current population of Bozeman is 46, 596 (2017,
Census) and is estimated to hit 50,000 in the next 5 years.
WORKING GROUP INPUT
Session 1 – Tools Review Comments (June)
Be proactive in identifying properties for development
Reduce buyout options
Session 2 – Strategy Development Discussion (July)
1. What are the challenges with the Montana Board of Housing qualified allocation plan?
• Lack of Bozeman Representation on the Montana Board of Housing
• Lack of enough credits/allocation
o The 2020 census is important to get to 50,000 in population and qualify as an “Entitlement Community”. Support the
“Complete Count Committee”
2. Should City of Bozeman participation in funding LIHTC require lower affordability targets (units at <50% AMI)? Longer terms of
affordability?
3. Who should be involved?
4. How to encourage developers?
• Provide land
• We have eager developers but no allocation
Navigate/WSW/FreshTracks Funding Strategies - 79
Summarized Action Strategy
- Work with the “Complete Count Committee” to assist with the
2020 census count.
- Get Bozeman representation on the Montana Board of Housing.
An “Entitlement Community”, or city with a population of
50,000, receives increased and direct tax credit allocations.
Navigate/WSW/FreshTracks Funding Strategies - 80
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING
Allocation of new property and/or sales tax in urban renewal districts (URD). Usually supports economic development projects; use for community housing is not
common. Authorized to improve economic conditions with or connecting to an URD in MT. (see §7-15-4288 MRA)
WORKING GROUP INPUT
Session 1 – Tools Review Comments (June)
NONE
Session 2 – Strategy Development Discussion (July)
• Takes tax money from schools
• Change TIF criteria to consider community housing
• Potential challenges with state regulations and use for housing
• Whitefish TIF already exists
• Vulnerable at the state
• Unpopular at state level, risk that it will go away
• Could add to existing development agreements
• Downtown District – considering use to incentivize ADUs and 1-bedroom units
• Super
• Indirectly supports community housing
• One (1) vote to move to Top Tier
Navigate/WSW/FreshTracks Funding Strategies - 81
Summarized Action Strategy
Moved up to an Action Strategy pursuant to public input at August public open house.
- Change TIF criteria to allow or include set aside for community
housing.
- Considerations:
o More TIF for housing means less money is available for other
programs, such as schools.
o Potential challenges with state regulations and use for
housing.
o May be vulnerable at the state – care in crafting.
TIF indirectly supports housing.
Bozeman Downtown District is considering the use of TIF to
incentivize ADUs and 1-bedroom units.
Navigate/WSW/FreshTracks Funding Strategies - 82
OTHER STRATEGIES REVIEWED – For Later Consideration
Total Strategies
6
Opportunity Zones - The Opportunity Zones investment incentive was established in 2017 to encourage long-term private investments
in low-income communities. Two Opportunity Zones are eligible to receive private investments through opportunity funds in the
Bozeman area. The program does not explicitly address below-market community housing but may be designed to do so.
Tools Review Comments (June): Didn’t Bozeman get one of these?
Strategy Development Discussion (July):
• Need education
• Tax credit projects get an equity boost in Opportunity Zones
• It is an Economic Development tool, not a lot of “naturally occurring affordable housing”
• City’s AHO could require some affordable housing in opportunity zones
• Not recommended for immediate use – new, untested, and complex
• Need education
• Economic Development tool, does not have any affordability incentives or controls
• City’s AHO could require some community housing in opportunity zones
• Tax credit projects get an equity boost in Opportunity Zones
3
Impact (or linkage) fees - A fee directly linked to the need for community housing generated by new development through jobs
created. Nexus required. Tools Session Comments: (consultants) Commercial linkage is a priority tool for discussion (see regulations),
which may set impact fees as an option for compliance.
Regulations discussion item – Commercial Linkage
1
Federal and State Grants/Loans* – CDBG. HOME, USDA/Rural Development (on going) - Major federal funding cuts proposed. Can
only serve low income households (<50%, 60% or 80% AMI). Competitive and complicated grant application and administration
process.
Tools Review Comments (June): None
Strategy Development Discussion (July):
• Allocation process skewed toward smaller communities, takes longer to pull required information together in larger population
communities such as Bozeman
• Highly competitive
• Utilized to the max right now
• Entitlement community (population >50,000) would push Bozeman to an “Entitlement Community”, which would increase
Navigate/WSW/FreshTracks Funding Strategies - 83
available funding sources and provide direct access
Primary implementing partners: City, HRDC
• Utilized to the max right now.
• Allocation process skewed toward smaller communities. Takes longer to pull required information together in larger
population communities such as Bozeman.
• Highly competitive.
• A population >50,000 would push Bozeman to an “Entitlement Community” status, which would increase availability and
provide direct access to funding sources.
1
Community Housing Fund (NEW) – local investments
Tools Session Comments: None.
Strategy Session Comments: Was not discussed as a funding tool. This is a mechanism to steward and allocate funds received. It will be
discussed in future work sessions.
0
Special Improvement District (SID) – Special Improvement Districts (SIDs) are typically formed to fund public improvements, typically
infrastructure (roads, sewer, etc.) or maintenance of City facilities or services. Costs are distributed across the properties within the SID
that benefit from the improvements. Use specifically for housing is not common.
Tools Review Comments (June): None.
Strategy Development Discussion (July):
• City wide special improvement district
• Requires approval by 60% of the property owners in the proposed district
• System in place
• State regulations may be a challenge
• One (1) vote to move to Top Tier
0
Debt Financing with Favorable Terms - Low interest loans, tax exempt bonds, certificates of participation and other forms of
development financing available to housing authorities, cities, counties and some non profits.
Tools Review Comments (June): Debt financing with favorable terms – 100% LTV, 30 – 40 amortizations.
Strategy Development Discussion (July):
• Favorable terms include 100% LTV (loan to value) and 30-40 year amortization.
• Create a pot of money to use and leverage.
• Interest rates are currently low; more effective in high-interest rate environment.
• Four (4) votes to move to Top Tier
0 Private donations/grants - Tax deductible contributions to a non-profit organization, which purchases or develops housing.
Competes with other charitable causes.
Navigate/WSW/FreshTracks Funding Strategies - 84
Tools Review Comments (June):
• Donations to non-profit builders
• Philanthropic grants
Strategy Development Discussion (July):
• One (1) vote to move to Top Tier
0
Revolving loan fund (NEW) – for acquisition and preservation
Tools Review Comments (June):
None.
Strategy Development Discussion (July):
• Down Payment Assistance uses a revolving loan fund
Was not discussed as a funding tool. This is a mechanism to steward and leverage funds received. It will be discussed in future work
sessions.