HomeMy WebLinkAbout1-13-2020 Public Comment - M. Alverson - Affordable Housing OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
435 Ryman •Missoula MT 59802
(406) 552-6020 •Fax: (406) 327-2105
attorneyOci.missoula.mt.us
Legal Opinion 2019-004
TO: Mayor John Engen, City Council,Dale Bickell,Eran Pehan, Ellen Buchanan,
Chris Behan,Mike Haynes, Denise Alexander, Mary Mccrea, Ginny Merriam,
Leigh Griffing, Steve Johnson,Marty Rehbein,Kirsten Hands, Department
MRA, Department City Attorney
FROM: Jim Nugent, City Attorney
DATE February 26, 2019
RE: Montana local governments prohibited from exercising any power applying to or
affecting licensing of landlords or regulating landlord activities with regard to
tenants beyond what Montana's Residential Landlord Tenant Act provides for.
FACTS:
Recently there have been inquiries about the Missoula City Council's ability to attempt to adopt
ordinances pertaining to landlords with respect to residential rental relationships.
ISSUE:
Does a Montana local government have power to regulate landlord licensing or relationship
activities between landlords and tenants?
CONCLUSION:
No. Montana state local government law prohibits Montana local governments from exercising
any power that attempts to license landlords or regulate landlord activities with regard to tenants
beyond what is provided in The Montana's Residential Landlord and Tenant Act.
LEGAL DISCUSSION:
Montana state law sets forth"The Montana Residential Landlord and Tenant Act of 1977"in
sections 70-24-101 through 70-24-442 MCA. This law is approximately sixteen(16)pages long
as codified in the Montana Code Annotated. Montana state law in title 70, chapter 25 MCA
entitled"RESIDENTIAL TENANTS SECURITY DEPOSITS"sets forth in sections 70-25-101
through 70-25-205 MCA state laws pertaining to residential tenant's security deposits.
Montana Code Annotated title 7 is entitled"LOCAL GOVERNMENT". Chapter 1 sets forth
general provisions of Montana state law pertaining to Montana local governments. Part 1 of
chapter 1 is entitled"NATURE OF SELF-GOVERNMENT LOCAL GOVERNMENTS"
Section 7-1-111 MCA is entitled"POWERS DENIED".
Subsection 7-1-111(13) MCA enacted in 2001 pertains to residential landlords and states:
"POWERS DENIED. A local government unit with self-government
powers IS PROHIBITED FROM EXERCISING THE FOLLOWING: . . .
. (13)ANY POWER THAT APPLIES TO OR AFFECTS LANDLORDS,
as defined in 70-24-103, WHEN THAT POWER IS INTENDED TO
LICENSE LANDLORDS OR TO REGULATE THEIR ACTIVITIES
WITH RESPECT TO TENANTS BEYOND WHAT IS PROVIDED IN
Title 70, chapters 24 and 25. This subsection is not intended to restrict a
local government's ability to require landlords to comply with ordinances
or provisions that are applicable to all other businesses or residences
within the local government's jurisdiction." (emphasis added)
The general composition of title 70, chapters 24 and 25 MCA that are cross referenced to within
this subsection are identified in the first paragraph of this legal opinion.
The section 70-24-103 MCA definition of"landlords" that is cross referenced to is set forth in
subsection 70-24-103(7) MCA and states:.
"(7) `Landlord"means (a) the owner, lessor, or sublessor of the dwelling
unit or the building of which it is a part; or(b) a manager of the premises
who fails to disclose the managerial position".
CONCLUSION:
No. Montana state local government law prohibits Montana local governments from exercising
any power that attempts to license landlords or regulate landlord activities with regard to tenants
beyond what is provided in The Montana's Residential Landlord and Tenant Act.
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
/s/Jim Nugent
Jim Nugent, City Attorney
JN:jb
-2-
Actual Legislative Intent of
MONTANA RESIDENTIAL LANDLORD AND TENANT ACT OF 1977
The act was passed in 1977 to make sure that tenants have protections against unscrupulous landlords
and that landlords have a clear process for dealing with problem tenants.Apr 11, 2004
From the committee minutes and history of the law.
7-1-111
(13) any power that applies to or affects landlords, as defined in 70-24-103,when that power is
intended to license landlords or to regulate their activities with regard to tenants beyond what is
provided in Title 70, chapters 24 and 25. This subsection is not intended to restrict a local government's
ability to require landlords to comply with ordinances or provisions that are applicable to all other
businesses or residences within the local government's jurisdiction.
IN TITLE 70 THERE IS NO MENTION THAT LANDLORDS ARE SPECILIZED OR SOLELY
RESPONSIBILE FOR LOCAL RENTAL RATES
WITH THE LOCAL OGVENMENT EXCLUSIONS HOWEVER BOTH CITIES AND CITIZENS
HAVE TO ASK THE LANDLORDS/PROPERTY MANAGERS FOR A SEAT AT THE TABLE AND
CAN LEGALLY COLLUDE TO CHANGE AND MANIPULATE MARKET RATES CAN CHARGE
DIFFERENT RATES FORDIFFERENT TIMES OF SEASONS AND CAN EXCLUSIVELY
CONTROL RENTALS LIKE A STATE ORDAINED MONOPOLY
Who can ask for an Attorney General's opinion as to the legislative intent—which I have found from
Legislative records of MONTANA RESIDENTIAL LANDLORD AND TENANT ACT OF 1977
So if that is the intent then the powers denied local government in 7-1-111 as they perrtain to rental
rates does not need to exist and should be struck
REMEMBER—A COURT CANNOT BE MOVED BY THE WEATHER OF THE DAY BUT BY THE
CLIMATE OF THE ERA The law was passed in 77 43 years ago when economies and population were
so much different. As it stand now this law 7-1-111 pertaining to Landlords givens them a state
ordained monopoly and is truly hurting everyone but them. If you want the State to take this over then
by all means DO NOTHING and remember they will take the taxes too—First rule of government
Government Feeds itself FIRST!
No Local government share or even a shot of the 6% of their own Rental Vehicle Tax
So here is who can ask for an Attorney Generals's Opinion:
The EXACT WORDING TO REQUEST
AG's Opinion: MCA 2- 15 (7) to give an opinion in writing, without fee,to the legislature or either
house of the legislature, to any state officer, board, or commission, to any county attorney, to the city
attorney of any city or town, or to the board of county commissioners of any county of the state when
required upon any question of law relating to their respective offices. The attorney general shall give
the opinion within 3 months following the date that it is requested unless the attorney general certifies
in writing to the requesting party that the question is of sufficient complexity to require additional time.
If an opinion issued by the attorney general conflicts with an opinion issued by a city attorney, county
attorney, or an attorney employed or retained by any state officer, board, commission, or department,
the attorney general's opinion is controlling unless overruled by a state district court or the supreme
court.
And from the AG's website:
Standing: The requestor must have standing for an opinion that is,the request must be submitted and
signed by one of the following: an elected state official; the leadership of the Montana House or
Senate; a department head, chairperson of or chief counsel for a state office, board, or commission; a
city attorney,town attorney, or county attorney; or the chairperson of or attorney for a board of county
commissioners, 2-15-501(7) of the Montana Code Annotated.
The request must involve a question of law relating to the requestor's office, MCA 2-15-501(7).
Because it does not say"current"member it, does not mean I cannot request it and be successful.
But I do believe that as the Commission of Bozeman YOU SHOULD to SHOW YOU CARE about
HOW PEOPLE RE SUFFERING
The Question is simple in MCA7-1-111 as it pertains to landlords since the ileigislative inent was not to
regulate rents and its unintended consequence is that now you have a state ordained monopoly
shouldn't it be struck from 7-1-111 so the governments closest to the people suffering be allowed to
regulate accordingly, after in Bozeman municpal codes thewords, "Quality of Life of our Residents,"
appears 146 times. Your residents are hurting you can help now you ak or I will but it's coming.
Rental Car Tax
Cumulative End-of-Month Collections
- ($million)
JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN
FY2015 0.283 0.824 0.831 1.612 2.532 2.534 2.918 3.180 3.178 3.682 3.859 3.866
FY2016 0.458 0.846 0.848 1.812 2.835 2.843 3.274 3.548 3.550 4.009 4.249 4.253
FY2017 0.536 0.947 0.957 1.848 2.812 2.816 3.069 3.549 3.553 3.855 4.374 4.376 -
FY2018 0.246 1.007 1.008 1.995 3.116 3.124 3.696 3.881 3.882 4.470 4.798 4.815 4
FY2019 0.597 1.113 1.125 2.190 3.661 3.688 4.341 4.576 4.576 5.479 5.675 5.687 '?_2
FY2020 0.808 1.287 1.313 2.439 3.958
Five Year Average Collection Pattern(FY2015-FY2019)
Percent of FYE Revenue Collected by End of Month
JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN F'±E
Average 9.22% 20.59% 20.73% 41.11% 65.02% 65.23% 75.19% 81.44% 81.46% 93.44% 99.79% 99.98% 1CC .
High 12.24% 21.61% 21.86% 42.61% 66.67% 66.86% 77.00% 83.44% 83.49% 96.26% 99.94% 100.06% 1_0
Low 5.12% 19.55% 19,76% 38.47% 64.20% 64.29% 70.05% 80.39% 80.39% 88.01% 99.70% 99.91% 1CC•0 c
HJ2 Forecast Allocated to Months Using Average Collection Pattern Percentage,
FY2020 Actual Collections and Straight Line Extrapolation from Year-to-Date Collections
JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN FYE
HJ2 Forecast 0A96 1.109 1.116 2.214 3.501 3.513 4.049 4.385 4.387 5.032 5.374 5.384 5.3£5
Actual Collections 0.808 1.287 1.313 2.439 3.958
%of HJ2 15.0% 23.9% 24.4% 45.3% 73.5%
Extrapolation 3.713 4.280 4.635 4.637 5.319 5.680 5.691 5.692
Monthly Collections
JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN rY�
FY2015 0.283 0.542 0.007 0.781 0.920 0.002 0.383 0.262 -0.002 0.504 0.177 0.007 0 002
FY2016 0.458 0.388 0.001 0.964 1.023 0.008 0.431 0.274 0.002 0.459 0.241 0.003 -C
FY2017 0.536 0.411 0.011 0.891 0.964 0.004 0.252 0.481 0.003 0.302 0.519 0.004 0 CO2
FY2018 0.246 0.760 0.001 0.988 1.121 0.008 0.572 0.185 0.002 0.588 0.328 0.017 -0 cl;_,
FY2019 0.597 0.516 0.012 1.065 1.471 0.028 0.652 0.235 0.000 0.904 0.196 0.011 0.CI:5
FY2020 0.808 0.479 0.026 1.125 1.519
Rental Car Tax
Through End of Month
6
- FY2015 -- --.'-'-.
5 --ie-FY2016
,FY2017
4 -;-FY2019 ---
0 3 - FY2020
E 2
O JUL AUG SEP TOCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN FYE
Rental Car Tax
7 Collections v.Forecast
jl-+-HJ2 Forecast -
6 1�
5 - Extrapolation from YTD!
-Actual Collections
c
E
3
CA 2
1 -
JUL r AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY .,Ur. _
• P'iea 45
Medical Marijuana Sales Tax
Cumulative End-of-Month Collections
$million
JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN FYE
FY2015 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
FY2016 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
FY2017 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
FY2018 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.391 0.400 0.405 0.798 0.840 0.859 1.296 1.332 1.347 1.347
FY2019 0.458 0.542 0.565 0.850 0.873 0.916 1.181 1.266 1.290 1.624 1.671 1.701 1.737
FY2020 0.364 0.392 0.438 0.846 0.955
Average Colleciton Pattern Assuming Proportional Revenue Collection
Percent of FYE Revenue Collected by End of Month
JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN FYE
Average 14.83% 17.56% 18.32% 40.26% 41.25% 42.83% '64.17% 68.28% 69.67% 94.68% 97.39% 98.83% 100.00%
High 26.35% 31.19% 32.53% 48.97% 50.24% 52.76% 68.02% 72.88% 74.28% 96.18% 98.88% 100.00% 100.00%
Low 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 29.03% 29.66% 30.04% 59.20% 62.35% 63.73% 93.52% 96.23% 97.92% 100.00%
Fiscal Note Forecast Allocated to Months Using Average Collection Pattern Percentage,
FY2020 Actual Collections and Straight Line Extrapolation from Year-to-Date Collections
JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN FYE
Fiscal Note Foreca- 0.386 0.458 0.477 1.049 1.075 1.116 1.671 1.779 1.815 2.466 2.537 2.574 2.605
Actual Collections 0.364 0.392 0.438 0.846 0.955
%of Fiscal Note 13.96% 15.03% 16.83% 32.47% 36.68%
Extrapolation 0.992 1.486 1.581 1.614 2.193 2.255 2.289 2.316
Monthly Collections
JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN FYE
FY2015 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
FY2016 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
FY2017 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
FY2018 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.391 0.009 0.005 0.393 0.042 0.019 0.437 0.036 0.015 0.000
FY2019 0.458 0.084 0.023 0.286 0.022 0.044 0.265 0.085 0.024 0.334 0.047 0.029 0.036
FY2020 0.364 0,028 0.047 0.407 0.110
Medical Marijuana Sales Tax
2 Through End of Month
1.8 FY2018
-+.t--FY2019 - -___Q
1.6 =•FY2020ff
---..-�
1.4
1.2 -
N
0 1
E 0.8
0.6
0.4
i
0.2
JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR T APR MAY JUN FYE
Medical Marijuana Sales Tax
3 Collections v.Forecast
- Fiscal Note Forecast
25 ;
- Extrapolation from
YTD
2 -Actual Collections
- 1
05 -
JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN FYE
Accommodations Sales Tax
Cumulative End-of-Month Collections
$million
JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN FYE
FY20151. 4.614 4.731 8.890 12.640 12.956 14.368 15.932 16.049 17.321 19.209 19.360 19.306
FY20166 2.266 266 4.774 4.965 10.009 14.707 14.929 16.126 18.008 18.099 19.193 21.276 21.446 21.513
FY2017 2.274 5.196 5.412 10.238 14.639 14.894 16.467 18.040 18.268 19.485 21.842 21.898 21.861
FY2018 1.784 5.663 5.831 10.678 15.647 16.009 17.462 19.467 19.536 20.753 23.276 23.557 23.527
FY2019 2.244 5.957 6.230 11.212 16.492 16.753 18.809 20.805 21.036 23.589 25.656 25.811 25.783
FY2020 3.441 6.711 6.905 13.154 18.308
Five Year Average Collection Pattern(FY2015-FY2019)
Percent of FYE Revenue Collected by End of Month
JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN FYE
Average 9.25% 23.40% 24.26% 45.56% 66.19% 67.45% 74.32% 82.38% 83.03% 89.60% 99.35% 100.07% 100.00%
High 10.53% 24.07% 24.79% 46.83% 68.36% 69.40% 75.32% 83.71% 84.13% 91.49% 99.91% 100.28% 100.00%
Low 7.58% 22.19% 23.08% 43.49% 63.97% 64.98% 72.95% 80.69% 81.59% 88.21% 98.90% 99.69% 100.00%
HJ2 Forecast Allocated to Months Using Average Collection Pattern Percentage,
FY2020 Actual Collections and Straight Line Extrapolation from Year-to-Date Collections
JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN FYE
HJ2 Forecast 2.441 6.172 6.400 12.020 17.460 17.794 19.606 21.730 21.904 23.636 26.207 26.399 26.380
Actual Collections 3.441 6.711 6.905 13.154 18.308
%of HJ2 13.04% 25.44% 26.17% 49.86% 69.40%
Extrapolation 18.658 20.557 22.785 22.967 24.783 27.479 27.680 27.660
Monthly Collections
JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN FYE
FY2015 1.795 2.819 0.117 4.159 3.750 0.316 1.412 1.563 0.117 1.273 1.888 0.151 -0.054
FY2016 2.266 2.507 0.191 5.044 4.698 0.223 1.196 1.883 0.091 1.094 2.083 0.170 0.067
FY2017 2.274 2.922 0.217 4.826 4.400 0.255 1.573 1.574 0.228 1.216 2.357 0.057 -0.037
FY2018 1.784 3.878 0.169 4.847 4.968 0.363 1.452 2.005 0.069 1.218 2.522 0.281 -0.029
FY2019 2.244 3.713 0.273 4.982 5.280 0.261 2.056 1.996 0.231 2.554 2.066 0.155 -0.028
FY2020 3.441 3.271 0.193 6.249 5.154
Cumulative Accommodations Sales Tax Receipts
30 Through End of Month
-- -FY2015
25 -~FY2016
--�FY2017
20 FY2018
FY2019 L
N
0 15 FY2020
E ,'a
10
5
0
JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN FYE
Accommodations Sales Tax
30 Collections v.Forecast
+-HJ2 Forecast
25
Extrapolation from
YTD
20
Actual Collections
N
0 15
10
5 -
0
JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN FYE
Page 4
Rental Car Tax
Cumulative End-of-Month Collections
$million
JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN FYE
FY2014 0.328 0.678 0.680 1.769 2.119 2.219 2.474 2.859 2.865 3.151 3.517 3.517 3.479
FY2015 0.283 0.824 0.831 1.612 2.532 2.534 2.918 3.180 3.178 3.682 3.859 3.866 3.868
FY2016 0.458 0.846 0.848 1.812 2.835 2.843 3.274 3.548 3.550 4.009 4.249 4.253 4.252
FY2017 0.536 0.947 0.957 1.848 2.812 2.816 3.069 3.549 3.553 3.855 4.374 4.378 4.380
FY2018 0.246 1.007 1.008 1.995 3.116 3.124 3.696 3.881 3.882 4.470 4.798 4.815 4.812
FY2019 0.597 1.113 1.125 2.190 3.661 3.688 4.341 4.576 4.576 5.479 5.675 5.687 5.692
Five Year Average Collection Pattern(FY2014-FY2018)
Percent of FYE Revenue Collected by End of Month
JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN FYE
Average 8.91% 20.69% 20.80% 43.47% 64.52% 65.10% 74.22% 81.84% 81.90% 92.19% 100.03% 100.18% 100.00%
High 12.24% 21.61% 21.86% 50.86% 66.67% 66.86% 77.00% 83.44% 83.49% 95.20% 101.08% 101.09% 100.00%
Low 5.12% 19.47% 19.54% 41.47% 60.92% 63.78% 70.05% 80.65% 80.68% 88.01% 99.71% 99.95% 100.00%
HJ2 Forecast Allocated to Months Using Average Collection Pattern Percentage,
FY2019 Actual Collections and Straight Line Extrapolation from Year-to-Date Collections
JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN FYE
HJ2 Forecast 0.434 1.009 1.014 2.120 3.147 3.176 3.620 3.992 3.995 4.497 4.880 4.887 4.878
Actual Collections 0.597 1.113 1.125 2.190 3.661 3.688 4.341 4.576 4.576 5.479 5.675 5.687 5.692
%of HJ2 12.2% 22.8% 23.1% 44.9% 75.0% 75.6% 89.0% 93.8% 93.8% 112.3% 116.3% 116.6% 116.7%
Extrapolation 5.692
Monthly Collections
JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN FYE
FY2014 0.328 0.349 0.002 1.090 0.350 0.099 0.255 0.385 0.006 0.286 0.366 0.000 -0.038
FY2015 0.283 0.542 0.007 0.781 0.920 0.002 0.383 0.262 -0.002 0.504 0.177 0.007 0.002
FY2016 0.458 0.388 0.001 0.964 1.023 0.008 0.431 0.274 0.002 0.459 0.241 0.003 -0.001
FY2017 0.536 0.411 0.011 0.891 0.964 0.004 0.252 0.481 0.003 0.302 0.519 0.004 0.002
FY2018 0246 0.760 0.001 0.988 1.121 0.008 0.572 0.185 0.002 0.588 0.328 0.017 -0.003
FY2019 0.597 0.516 0.012 1.065 1.471 0.028 0.652 0.235 0.000 0.904 0.196 0.011 0.005
Rental Car Tax
Through End of Month
6 FY2014 -
FY2015
5 - FY2016
-�FY2017 - --- -
4 t FY2018
m
FY2019
3
0
E
69 2
1 _ -
0
JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN FYE
Rental Car Tax
6 Collections v.Forecast
-*--HJ2 Forecast - --
5
Extrapolation from YTD _ --
4
Actual Collections - --- _
U)
c 3
0
E 2
1
0
JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN FYE
Page 44
Medical Marijuana Sales Tax
Cumulative End-of-Month Collections
$million
JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN FYE
FY2014 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
FY2015 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
FY2016 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
FY2017 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
FY2018 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.391 0.400 0.405 0.798 0.840 0.859 1.296 1.332 1.347 1.347
FY2019 0.458 0.542 0.565 0.286 0.308 0.351 0.616 0.701 0.725 1.059 1.106 1.136 1.172
Average Colleciton Pattern Assuming Proportional Revenue Collection
Percent of FYE Revenue Collected by End of Month
JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN FYE
Average 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 29.03% 29.66% 30.04% 59.20% 62.35% 63.73% 96.18% 98.88% 100.00% 100.00%
High 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 29.03% 29.66% 30.04% 59.20% 62.35% 63.73% 96.18% 98.88% 100.00% 100.00%
LOW 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 29.03% 29.66% 30.04% 59.20% 62.35% 63.73% 96.18% 98.88% 100.00% 100.00%
Fiscal Note Forecast Allocated to Months Using Average Collection Pattern Percentage,
FY2019 Actual Collections and Straight Line Extrapolation from Year-to-Date Collections
JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN FYE
Fiscal Note Forecas 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.177 0.181 0.183 0.361 0.381 0.389 0.587 0.604 0.610 0.610
Actual Collections 0.458 0.542 0.565 0.286 0.308 0.351 0.616 0.701 0.725 1.059 1.106 1.136 1.172
%of Fiscal Note 74.95% 88.73% 92.56% 46.77% 50.38% 57.53% 100.94% 114.79% 118.75% 173.49% 181.20% 186.03% 191.93%
Extrapolation 1.172
Monthly Collections
JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN FYE
FY2014 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 -0.001
FY2015 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
FY2016 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
FY2017 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
FY2018 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.391 0.009 0.005 0.393 0.042 0.019 0.437 0.036 0.015 0.000
FY2019 0.458 0.084 0.023 -0.279 0.022 0.044 0.265 0.085 0.024 0.334 0.047 0.029 0.036
Medical Marijuana Sales Tax
Through End of Month
1.5
FY2014
1.3 FY2015
1.1 -- -FY2016 1�,. -
FY2017
0.9 FY2018 - -
0 0.7 FY2019
E 0.5
0.3
0.1 ✓ 1-
-0 1 JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR- MAY JUN FYE
Medical Marijuana Sales Tax
1.4 Collections v.Forecast
Fiscal Note Forecast
1.2 Extrapolation from -- --- _--
1 YTD
---Actual Collections
(n 0.8
C --
0.6
E - -
69
0.4
0.2
0
JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN FYE
Page 37
- i
i
i
i
N �
Accommodations Sales Tax
Cumulative End-of-Month Collections
$million
JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN FYE
FY2014 1.140 4.066 4.173 7.666 10.940 11.717 13.319 14.383 14.473 15.509 17.379 17.514 17.568
FY2015 1.795 4.614 4.731 8.890 12.640 12.956 14.368 15.932 16.049 17.321 19.209 19.360 19.306
FY2016 2.266 4.774 4.965 10.009 14.707 14.929 16.126 18.008 18.099 19.193 21.276 21.446 21.513
FY2017 2.274 5.196 5.412 10.238 14.639 14.894 16.467 18.040 18.268 19.485 21.842 21.898 21.861
FY2018 1.784 5.663 5.831 10.678 15.647 16.009 17.462 19.467 19.536 20.753 23.276 23.557 23.527
FY2019 2.244 5.957 6.230 11.212 16.492 16.753 18.809 20.805 21.036 23.589 25.656 25.811 25.783
Five Year Average Collection Pattern(FY2014-FY2018)
Percent of FYE Revenue Collected by End of Month
JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN FYE
Average 8.92% 23.43% 24.20% 45.75% 66.08% 67.94% 74.91% 82.71% 83.28% 88.91% 99.24% 100.00% 100.00%
High 10.53% 24.07% 24.79% 46.83% 68.36% 69.40% 75.81% 83.71% 84.13% 89.72% 99.91% 100.28% 100.00%
Low 6.49% 22.19% 23.08% 43.64% 62.27% 66.70% 74.22% 81.87% 82.39% 88.21% 98.90% 99.69% 100.00%
HJ2 Forecast Allocated to Months Using Average Collection Pattern Percentage,
FY2019 Actual Collections and Straight Line Extrapolation from Year-to-Date Collections
JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN FYE
HJ2 Forecast 2.195 5.763 5.953 11.255 16.254 16.713 18.428 20.346 20.487 21.870 24.411 24.599 24.599
Actual Collections 2.244 5.957 6.230 11.212 16.492 16.753 18.809 20.805 21.036 23.589 25.656 25.811 25.783
%of HJ2 9.12% 24.22% 25.33% 45.58% 67.04% 68.10% 76.46% 84.58% 85.51% 95.90% 104.30% 104.93% 104.81%
Extrapolation 24.599
Monthly Collections
JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN FYE
FY2014 1.140 2.926 0.107 3.493 3.274 0.777 1.601 1.065 0.090 1.036 1.870 0.135 0.054
FY2015 1.795 2.819 0.117 4.159 3.750 0.316 1.412 1.563 0.117 1.273 1.888 0.151 -0.054
FY2016 2.266 2.507 0.191 5.044 4.698 0.223 1.196 1.883 0.091 1.094 2.083 0.170 0.067
FY2017 2.274 2.922 0.217 4.826 4.400 0.255 1.573 1.574 0.228 1.216 2.357 0.057 -0.037
FY2018 1.784 3.878 0.169 4.847 4.968 0.363 1.452 2.005 0.069 1.218 2.522 0.281 -0.029
FY2019 2.244 3.713 0.273 4.982 5.280 0.261 2.056 1.996 0.231 2.554 2.066 0.155 -0.028
Cumulative Accommodations Sales Tax Receipts
Through End of Month
30
FY2014
25 --x--FY2015
-+-FY2016
20 -�FY2017
ti ---FY2018 -- - -
0 15 --
FY2019
E
v� 10
5
0
JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN FYE
Accommodations Sales Tax
30 Collections v.Forecast
-�-HJ2 Forecast
25
Extrapolation from
YTD
20 -Actual Collections
1"
N
0 15 /
E 10 � r'
5
r�
0
JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN FYE
Page 4
Ideas for temporary housing relief
Dec. 9, 2019: From Michelle Alverson 406-577-4395
TO: Mayor Andrus
Commissioner Terry Cuningham
Dear All,
I have spoken, although not in front of you, simply because of my health issues, but through
letters and calls and various columns.
Housing matters to everyone at the moment. You have a great many families suffering in
Bozeman due to the rental market. I took the time to look this up in the Bozeman Municipal Code
"Quality of Life of Residents," is mentioned 146 times in our city codes.
This idea of hold on we are trying to do our best when it comes to housing is not upholding the
Quality of Life many Bozeman Residents have come to love. Throwing constant symposiums and the
Citizens Housing Board as wells as the Community Housing Needs Assessment done by 2 people one
from Jackson Hole and the other from Lake Tahoe—WHY? I read that whole thing 3 times. I can see
the infiience of their areas in the report.
I have three suggestions that can actually bring some relief NOW versus in 5 years—which is
what many of the housing assessment report depends on and they also make the assumptions that
everything will stay as it is.
I am not referring to low income renters, but rather a combo of income based sliding scale up to
33% of total family income and a rent cap using Ocotber 2019 rates (they have no summer rentals
included and no student rates included that's why that month is the best) with a sunset in the code and
also a vacancy fee be cause when units are vacant that directly effects water, sewer, and other city
services. Oakland for example—WHOSE RENTS ARE LESS THEN OURS —charges S6.00 per sq ft
for an empty unit in an unblighted area and $10. per sq ft in a blighted area. Your budgets are based on
X amount of services, when those services are not being used it can create budget issues for you.
Three Things to do now that would HELP FAMILIES NOW:
1 If you instituted a rent sliding scale income based rents, from 150% of Federal Poverty Level
which would be $25,385.00 for a family of 2 to 46,000.00 (low wrung of median income for family of
2) for two years, add the sunset language into the code. Use HRDC or someone like that to oversee it
they have the ability. Make it a special RFP—Ideally with no additional staff costs built in.
2.Freeze Rents at October's 2019 rates (see enclosed) for a period of 24 months, again add the
suunset language into the code.
3.Add a Vacancy Fee identical to Oakland's $6.00 per sq ft for non blighted areas, and $10. per
sq ft for blighted areas. This you can sunset but if it becomes obvious that this works you can always
extend the sunset date.
i
While property management companies may scream, remember they charge potential renters up
to $65. non refundable just to apply, and if landowners complain let's remember who actually pays
those property taxes IT IS THE RENTERS! No landlord makes rent where all expenses are not
included, insurance and property taxes.
These three things allow time to pass and wages to catch up a bit, people to settle a bit more,
hopefully do away with the 3 and 6 month leases that do nothing but artificially increase the rental
prices.
I saw in Ask Bozeman on Facebook just this week a gal signed a six month lease and one month
in the management company started raising her rent by 35. a month to "gear up" to where they wanted
it. That is pure greed.
I truly hope you will consider these options and not just continue the cycle of running out and
not caring because you are hurting the "Quality of Life of the very Residents," you are supposed to be
governing
These actions will make a huge difference in 24 months time. While other policies failed like
rent control, all of these come with sunset dates and can equalize things for a pocket of renters that
measure 53% in total.
Please see the www.rentjun lg e.com tables on exactly how much rents have gone up. We truly
need to slow the market.
r
INLY RESPONSE LETTER SENT TO
COMMISSIONER CUNINGHAM AND TO MAYOR ANDRUS
As a former State Representative, and a former City Commissioner in a Montana town, I took a
great deal of time to ensure what I purposed would be legal and not out of bounds. l double checked all
of the landlord tenant statutes there is nothing in there that would preclude a temporary rent hold while
wages, policy and additional housing come online and catch up.
I did take the time to go through federal law specifically as it applies to bad actors in a fine
market, which we have now. Since we can get a special program authorization and variation from
HUD it seems like something we should take advantage of. Consumer laws on the federal level would
supersede and through that you could actually slow the market. AGAIN NOT FOREVER as I
purposed sunset language, if we take the time to do it now we have a healthier market in 3 years instead
of more and more desperate families paying higher and higher rent, child care, etc and the very teal
possibility of outer lying communities starting to charge an "out of area" surcharge to a renter who
works in Bozeman but lives in out lying towns .. Belgrade, Clyde Park, Livingston, Three Forks,
Manhattan, Logan because their city services and budgets are not prepared this is the offset to that
budget pressure.
Specific to Montana, i am not sure if you realize this but the Rights enumerated in the
beginning o9bur 1972 Constitution are very clear about Quality of life and the expectations of that See
Article 3 and 4.
Of course if you the entire commission to beholden ONLY to landlords and not really to renters
then the most obvious thing to do would be to use the HUGE pots of Affordable Housing money
available in the Bozeman Fiscal office to make the the landlords whole and to help families bet keep
their budgets in line at 33% of their income and i do know there is quite a lot of those funds because I
know someone who works in that office.
I can understand why you want the vacancy fee because a city budget is always based on
usage.
Again 1 read the housing assessment 3 times, PEOPLE ARE SICK OF TALK TALK TALK they
want and rightly expect you the Commission to act in the best interests of City residents. I double
checked "Quality of Life of Bozeman Residents," is mentioned 146 times. in the Municipal Code of
Bozeman. Taking 24 months so that the policy of the Commission can catch up and the 4vages can
catch up aas well as more housing to come online and if need be utilizing the affordable housing funds
that are just sitting there then so be it, but you cannot expect people to be patient for 36 to 60 months
while more housing comes on line.
I can't move, I have the world's 80th worst case of Crohn's Disease i have to be able to get to a
hospital with medical professionals who know me within no more then ten minute. i\1v husband and I
have lived in a motel for 2 years, paid over$3,000. in application fees only to be told someone else got
it, or 30 other reasons.
My grandmother instilled something special in me that what I go through others do to and I
should work to fix the road behind me and with every poicy I have worked with that goal in mind. The
reason I cannot move is my health and my husband's health and job.
My grandmother was the postmaster at Gallatin Gateway for over 35 vear� my tamily settled
there when it was Salesville and my great grandparents James Overstreet & Nell O\ built the
first hotel which is now a private residence. My great great grandfather was a dratt tcam dri%or when
they drug the Sequoia logs up and down to West Yellowstone to build that roaC hec A:`er that he
became the personal driver for Dr. Caroline McGill.
To be frank I find your tone of dismissiveness offensive and basicall • nie on -he head
like a 3 year old or like I am ignorant and it is not appreciated. If you like 1 am :c:-tair. we :an use the
initiative process, I am very well aware of how to do that I do my research.
96£b-LL9-90b
uos.t�,Ald allOLIOIN
`a.iuD PootJ a)leZ
•g5noua Llo►.t Jou tue I asneoaq aut inoge a.teo .ianau liim noX sABs ii
aut of `a3i-I jo Xitleno sivap!sa-I ueu.tazog Jnoge sa.tea uotssi ILuoO aqi gonLu moLI anoge Xes Xilea.t iegi
soop iegm s.teaX Z ui D IH.LON ouop aneq am asneoaq X.12ue uie I Xi?liiei3 '2uigIou Xioinlosge 2utop
glim Ae)lo oq of aldoad Joadxa Jouueo no,( pue.iamsue aqJ aou si uogoeut asneoaq 2uigaautos op XIlenioe
iilm noX odoLl Xw si JI 'Jena Lio jlas ,{w apt.td I uLwozog of sloN.iew leJLioi.it?l!wis uo poseq go.teaso.i
FLU op I •aLu aztuo.ged Jou op asuald inq`stgi pea.I of au111�?uiAei.toj aouenpe ul S�Uuq j
�I It�L 32IOY\ OIt NOI.LDV aniie20u.to anliisod oq Jl l0gjogm.toj 2uplool am aldoad iegm
st uotioe asneoaq auoXue Luoij Jnq aui uio.g aou antietJiul ue3o odu ueuiazog saJeLu sitl.L-aa2uol uana
iiem of pasoddns am a,a.aou sLliuoui t7Z isul all.ioj A.ip of Jno .raiva.t 012uis X.tana 2unq aneq noX mou
PUB TMO3d allj 30 �IXOI'k 3HL SI qof spoissimuoD oqj •paddu.iis we s3ipwej--ioNmalu
aqi of osu of aldoad ioadxa pue spueq uoili uo its aouueo uoisstututoo H2II.LNg aqi xlisauog
-iva.uno of i 10Z of joeq aqi lie iuom ii paoTJou aneq pinom noX ivas I spugo all
peal jj •siva.I agJ aJellul :\Ileioiilue XQLIJ saseal glow 9 pue £ LIJTm XBme op of Jot aneq noA osld •smuii
Juouissasse autsnOH aql peat I ,ao" pinom nox raiiai AU pew noXjl •o2un2uel uteld Lit ley aieis
of noA xjq pino:a I sju3A i� of � .ioj iiem isnf pue tun aou op st Xin.zi ow of pw, suu inoxj! oS
From Rent Jungle .com Rates from 2011 through October 2019
https://-,v-,vv.rentiungle.cojiVaverage-rent-in-bozeman-nit-rent-trends/
Bozeman Rent Trends
The average apartment rent over the prior 6 months in Bozeman has increased by S65(5.500)
One bedroom units have increased by S10(1.1?'cl and hvo bedroom apartments have increased by S126'IIP,
2000
1.500 !�
1.000
500
0
All Beds 1 Beds —2 Beds
Month All Beds 1 Beds 2 Beds
1/2012 521 464 584
1/2013 996 555 763
1/2014 1,292 625 892
1/2015 1,113 660 740
1/2016 1,228 877 1,031
1/2017 1,201 830 1,070
1/2018 1,160 702 1,141
1/2019 1,173 875 1,149
10/2011 632 485 614
10/2012 538 475 532
10/2013 935 0 913
10/20141,203 669 854
10/2015 1,305 755 1,101
10/2016 1,021 683 1,031
10/20171,197 738 1,071
10/20181,137 954 1,080
10/20191,294 998 1,323
11/2011 606 593 570
11/2012 481 475 450
11/2013 1,213 650 995
11/20141,238 640 747
11/2015 1,209 769 1,072
11/20161,024 656 997
11/2017 1,150 722 1,107
Month All Beds 1 Beds 2 Beds
11/2018 1,168 925 1,192
11/2019 1,238 885 1,275
12/2011 590 520 574
12/20121,109 475 700
12/2013 1,402 640 995
12/20141,142 686 800
12/20151,234 720 1,075
12/20161,197 824 1,070
12/20171,176 739 1,187
12/2018 1,232 1,083 1,249
2/2012 585 488 585
2/2013 564 542 615
2/2014 1,021 575 854
2/2015 1,268 695 774
2/2016 1,213 898 1,132
2/2017 1,220 950 1,098
2/2018 1,208 729 1,161
2/2019 1,125 823 1,014
3/2012 586 490 570
3/2013 631 0 639
3/2014 956 541 782
3/2015 1,262 709 839
3/2016 1,250 833 1,209
3/2017 1,175 903 1,069
3/2018 1,149 732 1,113
3/2019 1,341 945 1,158
4/2012 543 488 585
4/2013 642 521 698
4/2014 864 539 761
4/2015 1,091 707 876
4/2016 1,041 739 978
4/2017 1,141 830 1,100
4/2018 1,123 741 1,070
4/2019 1,438 922 1,500
5/2012 470 479 548
5/2013 735 697 722
5/2014 841 597 795
5/2015 1,039 717 860
5/2016 1,178 839 1,145
Month All Beds 1 Beds 2 Beds
5/2017 1,118 788 1,121
5/2018 1,205 794 1,156
6/2012 660 700 591
6/2013 871 778 659
6/2014 1,034 583 778
6/2015 1,145 679 886
6/2016 1,178 838 1,132
6/2017 1,114 816 1,110
6/2018 1,203 885 1,172
7/2012 687 700 602
7/2013 875 560 617
7/2014 1,131 660 892
7/2015 1,191 744 956
7/2016 1,236 902 1,125
7/2017 1,162 787 1,139
7/2018 1,252 851 1,161
8/2012 849 0 634
8/2013 1,167 0 783
8/2014 1,248 676 897
8/2015 1,187 728 1,002
8/2016 1,246 909 1,182
8/2017 1,192 758 1,143
8/2018 1,247 881 1,198
9/2011 605 0 585
9/2012 495 495 536
9/2013 1,089 0 954
9/2014 1,193 656 844
9/2015 1,310 700 1,100
9/2016 1,105 708 1,062
9/2017 1,214 798 1,109
9/2018 1,235 921 1,143
��
_ I