Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-05-24 - Economic Vitality Board - Agendas & Packet MaterialsA. Call to Order - 6:00 PM B. Changes to the Agenda C. Approval of Minutes C.1 Approve the May 1, 2024 Economic Vitality Board Meeting Minutes (DiTommaso) D. Public Comments THE ECONOMIC VITALITY BOARD OF BOZEMAN, MONTANA EVB AGENDA Wednesday, June 5, 2024 General information about the Economic Vitality Board is available in our Laserfiche repository. If you are interested in commenting in writing on items on the agenda please send an email to comments@bozeman.net or by visiting the Public Comment Page prior to 12:00pm on the day of the meeting. Public comments will also be accepted in-person and through Video Conference during the appropriate agenda items. As always, the meeting will be streamed through the Commission's video page and available in the City on cable channel 190. For more information please contact Brit Fontenot, bfontenot@bozeman.net This meeting will be held both in-person and also using an online videoconferencing system. You can join this meeting: Via Video Conference: Click the Register link, enter the required information, and click submit. Click Join Now to enter the meeting. Via Phone: This is for listening only if you cannot watch the stream, channel 190, or attend in- person United States Toll +1 253 205 0468 Access code: 984 4147 6350 This is the time to comment on any matter falling within the scope of the Economic Vitality Board. There will also be time in conjunction with each agenda item for public comment relating to that item but you may only speak once per topic. Please note, the Board cannot take action on any item which does not appear on the agenda. All persons addressing the Board shall speak in a civil and courteous manner and members of the audience shall be respectful of others. Please state your name and place of residence in an audible tone of voice for the record and limit your comments to three minutes. General public comments to the Board can be found in their Laserfiche repository folder. 1 E. Action Items E.1 Consider, discuss, and provide recommendation to staff regarding the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Consolidated Housing Plan, Community Engagement Plan and Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) goals and funding priorities.(Munfrada) E.2 Consideration of the Cancellation of the July 3, 2024 Economic Vitality Board Meeting.(Brit Fontenot) F. FYI/Discussion G. Adjournment I hereby move to recommend that the City of Bozeman prioritize [PRIORITY] in the FY 2024-2028 Consolidated Housing Plan, Annual Housing Action Plan, and for the use of Community Development Block Grant funding. After Board discussion and consideration, I move to cancel the July 3, 2024 Economic Vitality Board meeting. This board generally meets the first Wednesday of the month from 6:00 pm to 8:00 pm. City Board meetings are open to all members of the public. If you have a disability and require assistance, please contact the Acting ADA Coordinator, Max Ziegler, at 406.582.2439 (TDD 406.582.2301). 2 Memorandum REPORT TO:Economic Vitality Board FROM:Jesse DiTommaso, Economic Development Specialist Brit Fontenot, Economic Development Director SUBJECT:Approve the May 1, 2024 Economic Vitality Board Meeting Minutes MEETING DATE:June 5, 2024 AGENDA ITEM TYPE:Minutes RECOMMENDATION:Approve the May 1, 2024 Economic Vitality Board Meeting Minutes. STRATEGIC PLAN:1.2 Community Engagement: Broaden and deepen engagement of the community in city government, innovating methods for inviting input from the community and stakeholders. BACKGROUND:In accordance with Commission Resolution 5323 and the City of Bozeman's Citizen Advisory Board Manual, all boards must have minutes taken and approved. Prepared minutes will be provided for approval by the board at the next regularly scheduled meeting. Staff will make any corrections identified to the minutes before submitting to the City Clerk's Office. UNRESOLVED ISSUES:None ALTERNATIVES:As recommended by the Board. FISCAL EFFECTS:None Attachments: 050124 EVB Minutes.pdf Report compiled on: May 29, 2024 3 Bozeman Economic Vitality Board Meeting Minutes, May 1, 2024 Page 1 of 2 THE ECONOMIC VITALITY BOARD MEETING OF BOZEMAN, MONTANA MINUTES May 1, 2024 A) 00:06:37 Call to Order - 6:00 PM B) 00:06:46 Disclosures • There were no disclosures. C) 00:06:53 Changes to the Agenda • There were no changes to the agenda. D) 00:07:00 Approval of Minutes D.1 00:07:04 Approve the April 18, 2024 Economic Vitality Board Meeting Minutes 041824 EVB Meeting Minutes.docx 00:07:12 Motion to approve the April 18, 2024 Economic Vitality Board Meeting Minutes. Sara Savage: Motion John Carey: 2nd 00:07:15 Discussion on abstention, recusal, and disclosure. 00:10:30 Vote on the Motion to approve Approve the April 18, 2024 Economic Vitality Board Meeting Minutes. The Motion carried 7 - 0. Approve: Sara Savage Craig Ogilvie Danielle Rogers John Carey Katharine Osterloth Malory Peterson Mona Schwartz 4 Bozeman Economic Vitality Board Meeting Minutes, May 1, 2024 Page 2 of 2 Disapprove: None E) 00:10:56 Public Comments • There were no public comments. F) 00:11:55 FYI/Discussion F.1 00:12:07 Community Housing Program Update 00:12:10 David Fine, Economic Development Program Manager, provided the community housing program update. 00:44:49 Questions of staff 01:47:20 Public Comment 01:47:48 Emily Talago, Public Comment • Emily Talago, the Midtown Neighborhood Representative, commented on parking requirements and affordability calculations. She encouraged the board to have a super meeting summit to look at affordable housing holistically. 01:51:54 Brit Fontenot noted the records request for the board. G) 01:54:04 Adjournment 5 Memorandum REPORT TO:Economic Vitality Board FROM:Brit Fontenot, Economic Development Department Director David Fine, Economic Development Program Manager Renata Munfrada, Community Housing Program Coordinator SUBJECT:Consider, discuss, and provide recommendation to staff regarding the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Consolidated Housing Plan, Community Engagement Plan and Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) goals and funding priorities. MEETING DATE:June 5, 2024 AGENDA ITEM TYPE:Plan/Report/Study RECOMMENDATION:I hereby move to recommend that the City of Bozeman prioritize [PRIORITY] in the FY 2024-2028 Consolidated Housing Plan, Annual Housing Action Plan, and for the use of Community Development Block Grant funding. STRATEGIC PLAN:4.5 Housing and Transportation Choices: Vigorously encourage, through a wide variety of actions, the development of sustainable and lasting housing options for underserved individuals and families and improve mobility options that accommodate all travel modes. BACKGROUND:The City of Bozeman was recently designated as an "Entitlement Jurisdiction" by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), meaning that the City is now eligible to receive direct federal funding from the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program. These funds can help address several needs in Bozeman, including but not limited to: infrastructure; economic development projects; public facilities installation; Community Centers; housing rehabilitation; public services; acquisition; microenterprise assistance; and homeowner assistance. Before receiving these funds, the City of Bozeman must put together a Consolidated Plan, which is a HUD-required document that requires the City to assess their affordable housing and community development needs and make data- driven, outcomes-based investment decisions. Additionally, the City strives to ensure the provisions of fair housing throughout the community. As a recipient of federal funding, the City of Bozeman must affirmatively further fair housing by taking meaningful actions to overcome patterns of segregation, promote fair housing choice, eliminate disparities in opportunities, and foster inclusive communities free from discrimination. Federal and state fair housing laws prohibit discriminatory practices in any industry-related business or transaction that may affect the 6 ability of protected class members to secure housing and live in the housing of their choice. In addition, to the Consolidated Plan, the City will also be developing a Fair Housing Plan, which will identify how needs differ for different community members, how current City policies and programs can better meet community needs, and where barriers to fair housing exist. The City is engaging with residents, stakeholders, and the community at large to help identify housing, community development, economic development, and public service needs and priority outcomes throughout the development of the Consolidated Plan and Fair Housing Plan. UNRESOLVED ISSUES:None at this time. ALTERNATIVES:As recommended by the Economic Vitality Board. FISCAL EFFECTS:None at this time. Attachments: 2019 Bozeman Community Housing Needs Assessment.pdf 2019 Bozeman Community Housing Action Plan.pdf 2023 Belonging in Bozeman Equity Plan.pdf 2024 City of Bozeman Multifamily Market Conditions.pdf 2020 MT Consolidated Plan.pdf Report compiled on: May 28, 2024 7 Bozeman, Montana Community Housing Needs Assessment Wendy Sullivan, WSW Consulting South Lake Tahoe, CA wendy@wswconsult.com Christine Walker, Navigate, LLC Jackson, WY christine@navigatejh.com Prepared by: February 2019 8 City of Bozeman Community Housing Needs Assessment, Feb. 2019 Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting, Inc. TOC EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................. 1 RECENT TRENDS .............................................................................................................................. 1 COMMUNITY HOUSING NEEDS .......................................................................................................... 5 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 9 PURPOSE ....................................................................................................................................... 9 STUDY AREA ................................................................................................................................... 9 METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................................ 10 SECONDARY AND LOCAL DATA SOURCES ........................................................................................... 11 “AFFORDABLE” DEFINED ................................................................................................................ 12 CONTINUUM OF HOUSING .............................................................................................................. 13 DEFINITIONS ................................................................................................................................. 15 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................................... 16 SECTION 1 – POPULATION AND HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHICS ............................................... 17 POPULATION AND HOUSEHOLDS ...................................................................................................... 17 OWNER AND RENTER HOUSEHOLDS ................................................................................................. 17 TYPE OF HOUSEHOLDS ................................................................................................................... 18 AGE OF POPULATION ..................................................................................................................... 19 HOUSEHOLD SIZE .......................................................................................................................... 20 HOUSEHOLD INCOME ..................................................................................................................... 21 SECTION 2 – ECONOMIC TRENDS ............................................................................................ 25 JOB ESTIMATES AND PROJECTIONS ................................................................................................... 25 JOB GROWTH ............................................................................................................................... 26 WAGES ....................................................................................................................................... 27 JOBS TO HOUSEHOLD RATIO ............................................................................................................ 28 UNEMPLOYMENT .......................................................................................................................... 30 UNFILLED JOBS ............................................................................................................................. 31 COMMUTING ................................................................................................................................ 32 Employer Commute Assistance ............................................................................................. 33 EMPLOYERS, EMPLOYEES AND HOUSING ........................................................................................... 34 Difficulty Hiring or Retaining Employees .............................................................................. 35 Difficulty Finding Housing ..................................................................................................... 37 SECTION 3 – HOUSING INVENTORY ......................................................................................... 39 HOUSING UNITS AND OCCUPANCY ................................................................................................... 39 TYPE OF UNITS .............................................................................................................................. 40 AGE OF UNITS .............................................................................................................................. 40 OWNERSHIP OF UNITS ................................................................................................................... 42 COMMUNITY HOUSING INVENTORY .................................................................................................. 43 Ownership ............................................................................................................................. 43 Rental .................................................................................................................................... 44 SPECIAL NEEDS HOUSING AND SHELTER ............................................................................................ 47 MSU STUDENT HOUSING ............................................................................................................... 49 Residence Hall Inventory ....................................................................................................... 50 Student Apartments .............................................................................................................. 50 EMPLOYER ASSISTED HOUSING ........................................................................................................ 51 PENDING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT .............................................................................................. 52 9 City of Bozeman Community Housing Needs Assessment, Feb. 2019 Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting, Inc. TOC SECTION 4 – OWNERSHIP MARKET CONDITIONS .................................................................... 54 OWNERSHIP INVENTORY ................................................................................................................. 54 HOME SALES PRICES ...................................................................................................................... 55 SALES COMPARED TO AVAILABILITY .................................................................................................. 57 COMMUNITY HOME SALES ............................................................................................................. 59 CURRENT AVAILABILITY .................................................................................................................. 60 HOMEBUYER PROFILE AND PREFERENCES .......................................................................................... 61 MORTGAGE AVAILABILITY ............................................................................................................... 64 SECTION 5 – RENTAL MARKET CONDITIONS ............................................................................ 66 RENTAL INVENTORY ....................................................................................................................... 66 MARKET RENTALS ......................................................................................................................... 67 Variation in Rents ................................................................................................................. 68 COMMUNITY RENTALS ................................................................................................................... 68 VACANCY RATES AND TURNOVER ..................................................................................................... 69 Market Rate Rentals ............................................................................................................. 69 Community Rentals ............................................................................................................... 69 AVAILABLE RENTALS ...................................................................................................................... 70 RENTER PROFILE AND PREFERENCES ................................................................................................. 71 Renter Profile ........................................................................................................................ 71 Renter Problems .................................................................................................................... 71 Unit Preferences .................................................................................................................... 71 Community Rentals ............................................................................................................... 72 SECTION 6 – HOUSING PROBLEMS .......................................................................................... 73 COST-BURDENED ........................................................................................................................... 73 OVERCROWDING ........................................................................................................................... 74 LOSS OF HOUSING ......................................................................................................................... 74 Mobile home parks ............................................................................................................... 75 Affordable Rental Properties – Expiration ............................................................................ 75 Short Term Rentals ............................................................................................................... 75 HOMELESSNESS ............................................................................................................................ 79 SECTION 7 – COMMUNITY HOUSING RESOURCES AND PROGRAMS ........................................ 80 COMMUNITY HOUSING ORGANIZATIONS AND PROGRAMS ................................................................... 80 CITY PROGRAMS ........................................................................................................................... 86 Affordable Housing Fund ...................................................................................................... 86 Down Payment assistance .................................................................................................... 86 Affordable Housing Ordinance (AHO) ................................................................................... 86 Incentives to Develop Lower and Moderate Priced Homes ................................................... 87 SECTION 8 – CURRENT AND PROJECTED HOUSING NEEDS ....................................................... 89 CATCH-UP NEEDS (CURRENT CONDITIONS) ........................................................................................ 89 Unfilled jobs .......................................................................................................................... 89 Functional Rental Market (5% Vacancy) ............................................................................... 90 Balanced Ownership Supply (5-months supply) .................................................................... 90 KEEP-UP (FUTURE NEEDS) .............................................................................................................. 91 Job growth ............................................................................................................................ 91 Retiring employees ............................................................................................................... 92 SUMMARY OF NEEDS ..................................................................................................................... 92 10 City of Bozeman Community Housing Needs Assessment, Feb. 2019 Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting, Inc. TOC NEEDS BY OWN/RENT AND INCOME ................................................................................................. 93 COMMUNITY RENTAL LEVEL OF SERVICE ............................................................................................ 95 AMI Level .............................................................................................................................. 96 Bedroom Size ........................................................................................................................ 97 SPECIAL NEEDS HOUSING ............................................................................................................... 98 HOUSING PROGRAMS IN COMPARATIVE COMMUNITIES ...................................................... 100 APPENDIX A: TRENDS, CALCULATIONS AND PROJECTIONS ................................................... A-1 APPENDIX B: EMPLOYER SURVEY FILL-OUT ........................................................................... B-1 11 City of Bozeman Community Housing Needs Assessment, Feb. 2019 Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting, Inc. 1 Executive Summary Recent Trends The City of Bozeman has experienced rapid growth and recovery from the recession since 2012. This has led to many positive aspects for the economy and housing market: • Jobs have increased on average 4.4% per year, adding over 11,000 jobs to the City. All job sectors, other than construction, now have more jobs than they did at the peak prior to the recession. (See Section 2 – Economic Trends, pp. 25-7) • The unemployment rate dropped from a peak of 7% down to 2.5% last year. Residents have jobs and many opportunities are still available. (See Section 2 – Economic Trends, pp. 30-1) • Residential development activity picked up significantly. The number of homes constructed per year dropped from a high of 1,000 pre-recession to a low below 250 units for each of 2009 through 2011. Since 2012, about 4,800 housing units have been constructed, averaging about 800 units per year. (See Section 3 – Housing Inventory, pp. 40-2) • The sales prices of homes have more than fully recovered for all product types. The median sale price of homes, including single-family homes, townhomes and condominiums, increased 75% since 2012. This is an average rise of 10% per year. (See Section 4 – Homeownership Market Conditions, p. 56) • Rentals have more than recovered both in terms of rent rates and occupancy. Rents have increased about 35% to 40% since 2012 (5% to 6% per year) and now exceed prerecession peaks. Vacancy rates have dropped from an average of 30% for many properties during 2010 and 2011 to 1% this past winter. (See Section 5 – Rental Market Conditions, pp. 68-70) • University student enrollments have increased since 2007. The growth rate peaked at an average of 4% per year between 2009 to 2016 and tapered off to between 1% to 2% per year in 2017 and 2018. (See Section 3 – Housing Inventory, p. 47) Despite this progress, employers are concerned about their ability to continue to find and retain skilled workers to fill the jobs necessary to support the continued expansion that the economy demands. A survey fielded in the fall of 2018 shows that: • 53% of nearly 500 employer respondents, representing 31% of jobs in the City, feel that housing that is affordable to the workforce is one of the more serious problems in the City of Bozeman. • Another 22% feel that it is the most critical problem in the area. (See Section 2 – Economic Trends, p. 34) 12 City of Bozeman Community Housing Needs Assessment, Feb. 2019 Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting, Inc. 2 The rapid growth has been accompanied by several negative effects that hurt the ability to continue to support it: • Wages have significantly lagged the increase in home sale and rental prices. Wages increased only 2.6% per year on average since 2012. Wages now average about $44,800 per year in the City. This is 2% higher than wages paid in the County overall, but is not sufficient to make up the wage/housing price gap. (See Section 2 – Economic Trends, p. 27) • Nearly all of the local labor force is already employed. The 2.5% unemployment rate is projected by the state to drop under 2% in the near future, lowering the ability for the area to fill new jobs and support job growth. This means several things: o Employers are competing with other businesses for the same employees. When one employee leaves a local job for another, this does not decrease job vacancies and support growth, it just moves vacancies around. o Employers have been in a wage war for at least the last two years. Many have increased wages to the extent that their ability to retain customers and afford to operate, much less grow, is being adversely affected. About 79% of survey respondents indicated they now pay higher wages than other areas in the County for like jobs. o Employers must attract workers from outside of the area. Much of the local skilled workforce is employed. Talent from outside must be recruited. The tight and expensive housing market makes this very difficult. (See Section 2 – Economic Trends, pp. 26, 30-2) • There is little housing supply that residents and employees can afford. If homes are not available, then workers must seek housing in other areas. o It takes twice the income today ($104,000) than it did in 2012 ($52,000) to purchase the median priced home in the City ($385,000). The supply of homes for sale under $400,000 is below 2-months. Anything under 5- to 6-months is a situation where demand outstrips supply. When homes do become available, they are not on the market long and residents often must compete with cash buyers moving in from outside the area to purchase homes. (See Section 4 – Homeownership Market Conditions, pp. 57-9) o The average rent of available units are affordable to households earning $62,800 (about 100% AMI). Vacancy rates have not exceeded 3% the past several years and are only 1% this winter. As rents continue to increase, families and resident occupants are being priced out and replaced by roommate households. When rental markets are this tight, the rental 13 City of Bozeman Community Housing Needs Assessment, Feb. 2019 Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting, Inc. 3 market cannot absorb new residents or employees moving to the area. (See Section 5 - Rental Market Conditions, pp. 70-1; Section 6 – Housing Problems, p. 74) • The high housing prices mean that even entry-level professional jobs do not pay enough for employees to afford to stay in Bozeman. This affects newly graduated students as well as other recruited employees. (See Section 2 – Economic Trends, pp. 37-8) Residents and the community have experienced rising problems as the result of the disconnect between the housing supply, price and resident needs: • Residents and employees that cannot find housing in the City must look to other areas. Young families wanting to purchase often leave Bozeman and end up in Belgrade or other areas; however, sale prices in other areas are also increasing. The median sale price of a single-family home in Belgrade rose 83% from 2012 ($175,000) to 2018 ($320,000). Looking outside of Bozeman is becoming less of an option. (See Section 5 – Homeownership Market Conditions, pp. 56-7) • The percentage of households paying over 30% of their income for rent plus utilities is very high (55%). These households are considered to be cost burdened, often having insufficient income left over for other life necessities including food, clothing, transportation and health care. (See Section 6 – Housing Problems, p. 74) • Not only is housing supply low, but units at lower price points for residents are being lost. Available data from the City and property manager interviews show that: o One mobile home park (15+ units) was redeveloped last year and another (20+ units) is proposed to be removed for redeveopment this year; o Property managers have lost long-term rentals when owners have sold their homes in the strong seller’s market and, to a much lesser extent, rentals converting to short term rentals; o One community rental low-income housing tax credit property with 44 units converted to market-rate rentals at the end of 2018. Existing tenants can retain their below-market rents for up to two years, but units will be rented at much higher market rates as they vacate. o Better tracking of the loss of lower-priced units for residents is needed. (See Section 8 – Housing Problems, pp. 75-80) • Service providers for the homeless population have seen an increase in low- wage working residents using their services. These persons are employed, but have lost their rentals for various reasons (rent increase, home sold, etc.). They cannot find replacement housing so have been seeking shelter services. (See Section 3 – Housing Inventory, p. 48; Section 8 – Current and Projected Housing Needs, p. 99) • Residents are stuck in their homes. With no rentals available, renters cannot move around as their housing situation changes. Renters cannot save for down 14 City of Bozeman Community Housing Needs Assessment, Feb. 2019 Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting, Inc. 4 payments when most of them are cost-burdened to purchase homes. Owners looking to move up in housing as their families grow, or move down in housing as they age, cannot find options they can afford on the market so stay in their homes, or leave the area. Rising interest rates exaggerates this problem. (See Section 4 - Homeownership Market Conditions, pp. 62-6; Section 5 - Rental Market Conditions , p. 70; Section 6 – Housing Problems, p. 74) What can help? More housing and more diversity in housing is needed at prices that residents and employees can afford and that provides them choices, the ability to move as life circumstances change and that allows employers to fill jobs, recruit and retain employees and support business, resident and student growth. The goal should be to meet the spectrum of needs as illustrated below in the Housing Bridge. (See Section 1 – Introduction, pp. 13-14) Source: US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Consultant team. *Incomes reflect the AMI for an average-sized 2-person household. The good news is that the City of Bozeman is not starting from scratch. The City has community housing units, organizations and programs to build from: • The City has 947 community rental units that are rent-restricted to prices at which income-qualifying residents can afford. This represents about 8% of rentals in the City. Vacancy rates are very low (about 1%) and turnover in the senior properties is only a handful of units each year. Many have long waitlists. (See Section 3 – Housing Inventory, pp. 44-6; Section 5 – Rental Market Conditions, pp. 69-71) 15 City of Bozeman Community Housing Needs Assessment, Feb. 2019 Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting, Inc. 5 • About 138 community ownership units have been provided 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, pp.43-4) • There are six social service organizations in the City that have been addressing housing needs of residents and many special needs populations. They have a collaborative working relationship and build on each others’ resources when beneficial to stretch limited financing opportunities. Recent state funding cuts, as well as the inability to fill needed job positions, among other factors, has limited their ability to provide the extent of services demanded, however. (See Section 7 – Community Housing Resources and Programs, pp. 81-6) • The City has several programs in place, including an affordable housing fund to provide assistance to facilitate affordable housing development; a down- payment assistance program that provides up to $10,000 for home purchasers and is recovered upon resale of the home; an Affordable Housing Ordinance (AHO) requiring a certain percentage of homes within a new subdivision to be lower- and/or moderate-priced homes; and incentives to encourage the development of lower- and moderate-priced homes. (See Section 7 – Community Housing Resources and Programs, pp. 87-9) ! About 29% employers responding to the survey indicated they have been assisting their employees with housing. Most pay higher wages than competitors (79%). Some provide units for their employees, either owned by the employer (9%), master-leased for employees (4%) or temporary/relocation housing assistance for new hires or other employees (8%). Others provide financial assistance to help with rent/move-in (9%) or down payments/mortgages (4%). (See Section 3 – Housing Inventory, pp. 52-3) • There are over 1,000 residential units in the pipeline of development in the City, targeting multiple needs, from students to community rentals to mid-market and luxury housing. Fewer ownership opportunities are in the pipeline than rentals, but at least 9 units developed through the Affordable Housing Ordinance will be provided at prices affordable for households earning about 80% AMI (2-person household income of $50,640). (See Section 3 – Housing Inventory, pp. 53-4) Community Housing Needs1 The below information can be used to help prioritize partnerships and programs to address housing needs and deficiencies and respond to the above issues. 1 This entire section is summarized from Section 8 – Community Housing Needs and Section 4- Ownership Market Conditions, Homebuyer Profile and Preferences and Section 5 – Rental Market Conditions, Renter Profile and Preferences. 16 City of Bozeman Community Housing Needs Assessment, Feb. 2019 Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting, Inc. 6 An estimated 5,405 to 6,340 housing units for residents and employees are needed by 2025, or an average of about 770 to 905 units per year. About 60% of the housing needed should be priced below-market: 3,210 to 3,765 units (460 to 540 per year). This means ownership housing mostly priced below $350,000 (150% AMI) and rentals mostly priced below $1,000 per month (60% AMI). These figures include housing for employees needed to fill unfilled jobs, units needed to open up the current tight rental and ownership markets and provide choices to households, employees filling jobs vacated by retirees, workers filling new jobs, plus related non-employee resident housing needs. The range is based on whether the City of Bozeman desires to keep up with future job growth in the City only (low estimate) or job growth occurring in the neighboring unincorporated area as well (high estimate), recognizing that job growth in broader area will impact housing demand in the City. The extent to which each segment of estimated housing needs is addressed by local housing programs will be an extension of housing policy, resources and desired direction with respect to community housing. Setting housing goals and policy direction will occur in Part 2 of this study through the development of a Bozeman Community Housing Action Plan. Summary of Housing Needs Through 2025 Low* High Catch-Up 1,460 1,460 Unfilled Jobs (9% of jobs) 728 728 Functional rental market (5% vacancy rate) 481 481 Balanced for-sale market (5-month inventory) 252 252 Keep-Up 3,945 4,880 New jobs (1.9% avg growth/year) 2,915 3,850 Retiring employees (12% of jobs) 1,030 1,030 TOTAL through 2023 5,405 6,340 Below market (at least 60%)** 3,210 3,765 Market-rate (no more than 40%) 2,195 2,575 *”Low” refers to keeping up with new job growth in the City of Bozeman only; “high” refers to keeping up with new job growth in the Bozeman area (includes the neighboring unincorporated area). All other need calculations are the same for low and high columns. **Below market homes include ownership mostly priced between $160,000 up to $350,000 and rentals mostly priced under $1,000 per month. This is shown in the following section. Both ownership and rental housing are needed. The precise ratio pursued will be a reflection of housing policy as well as demand. The table below recommends a heavier focus on rentals given prevailing market problems and needs. 17 City of Bozeman Community Housing Needs Assessment, Feb. 2019 Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting, Inc. 7 Distribution by Own/Rent and AMI Income: Units Needed through 2025 Income Range Maximum Income (2-p household) Owner Income Distribution Renter Income Distribution <30% AMI $18,990 16% 23% 30.1 to 60% $37,980 22% 60.1 - 80% $50,640 8% 16% 80.1 - 100% $63,300 10% 11% 100.1 - 120% $75,960 10% 8% 120.1 - 150% $94,950 13% 20% Over 150% Over $94,950 43% TOTAL Units Needed - 2,210 - 2,620 3,195 - 3,720 NOTE: Shading indicates where there is a shortage of housing supply for residents and employees. Units needed in the lighter shade are limited: • For ownership: Condominium product exists on the market in the lighter shaded 120 to 150% AMI range – the focus here should be on townhomes and/or small single-family homes to diversify options for residents. Providing ownership priced under 60% AMI is challenging; rentals are more typical. • For rentals: Units provided in the lighter shaded price points should be priced under $1,200/month for entry-professionals. Homeownership enables residents to build equity, achieve more stable housing and strengthen community investment. • About 60% of needed ownership units should be priced affordable for residents and employees. This includes homes priced between $160,000 up to $350,000 (or $400,000 if a single-family home). This would provide ownership opportunities for households earning between $40,000 through $95,000 per year (between about 80% and 150% AMI). o Homes priced below $160,000 are also undersupplied (under 70% AMI). Producing homes at these low price points will require substantial subsidies or programs such as Habitat for Humanity. Rentals are more typical options at this income level. o Preferred product types are single-family homes, townhomes and townhome-style condominiums with a garage or carport and small yard. Residents will forego some preferences in order to afford a home in a desirable location. o More diversity of product is needed in terms of size and type of unit. 18 City of Bozeman Community Housing Needs Assessment, Feb. 2019 Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting, Inc. 8 • Rentals are in tight supply. Rentals support businesses in need of employees and help new residents gain a foothold in a community. o About 61% of rentals should be priced affordable for resident and employee households. o Households earning under 30% AMI are often termed special needs households, such as seniors on fixed income, persons with disabilities or other special needs. Many households earning under 30% AMI in Bozeman are student households living off-campus, which do not fit the profile of special needs households and are candidates for different product. (See also, Section 1 – Population and Household Demographics, Household Income) o The majority of rentals should target households earning at or below $40,000 per year (under 60% AMI), although some entry professional employees would benefit from units priced up to 80% AMI (about $50,000 per year). o Rents should mostly be affordable for entry-level workers earning about $10 to $18 per hour through professionals earning up to $25 per hour. This ranges from about $500 up to $1,200 per month. o Renters desire to live in the City nearer their jobs. Renters also desire to have extra storage and in-unit washers/dryers. Renters want pet-friendly rentals. 19 City of Bozeman Community Housing Needs Assessment, Feb. 2019 Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting, Inc. 9 Introduction Purpose This report provides an updated housing needs assessment of the City of Bozeman. It is part one of a two-part process that is intended to help the City of Bozeman understand and devise a plan to address the housing needs of residents and the workforce. By doing so, this will ensure the City has the housing necessary to support a thriving community – housing to support businesses, economic development, community vibrancy, and residents and visitors alike. This report evaluates the spectrum of housing needs in the City, providing an overview of special needs programs and emergency housing options, as well as affordable rentals through home purchase opportunities. In doing so: • This report answers the specific question of how much, what type and at which price points housing is needed to support City of Bozeman employees, employers and residents. This includes identifying needed homes for rental and ownership at price points ranging from lower-wage earners and entry-level workers through management positions. • This report does not, however, provide the same level of detail for senior, student and special needs housing. Trends in these populations are identified, but specific housing product type needed in terms of special care facilities, student dorms versus apartments or age-restricted developments have not been identified. These populations require special housing design, services and considerations that require expertise and methods unique from resident housing needs analysis. Study Area Although it is recognized that housing is a regional issue, this report focuses on the City of Bozeman – its residents, employees, jobs and employers. The focus is to help the City determine its primary housing needs and priorities for their Community Housing Program. When evaluating housing needs associated with future job growth, however, the analysis is expanded to also include jobs located in the “Bozeman area.” This includes jobs located within city limits and with businesses in the neighboring unincorporated area, but that have Bozeman as their physical address. 20 City of Bozeman Community Housing Needs Assessment, Feb. 2019 Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting, Inc. 10 Methodology Primary research was conducted to generate information beyond that available from existing public sources and included: Kick-Off Meeting. Early in the process we held a discussion with the City of Bozeman Housing Working Group and City staff at a kick-off session to target primary housing concerns and goals from this process. The Housing Working Group is an evolving entity that was formed to first help distribute and gather information for the needs assessment in Part 1, but that will also be instrumental in Part 2 to participate in the community housing action planning process to identify housing goals, priorities and actions to address identified needs. City of Bozeman Employer Survey. A short on-line survey was distributed to employers to reach large and small businesses in the City of Bozeman. The employer survey probed the number of year-round and seasonal workers (summer and winter), where workers live (commute patterns), employee retention and recruitment issues, to what extent housing for employees is perceived to be an issue, and employers’ level of support for housing assistance, among other information. The survey link was emailed to city businesses through generous support from the Chamber, City of Bozeman business licensing, CAHAB, the housing working group assisting with this effort and other City of Bozeman staff and council. The survey link was also made available on the City’s project page website and advertised through newspaper publications and other media. We also followed up with some employers by phone to generate a deeper understanding of issues. Survey responses represent: • 491 businesses or about 10% of all businesses in the City of Bozeman. • A significant 31% of jobs in the City. City of Bozeman Employer Survey Response Summary Complete Responses Total in the City of Bozeman % represented by survey Employers 491 4,997 (est) 10% Jobs represented 16,521 53,022 31% Source: Employer survey responses; QCEW address file, MT Dept of Labor & Industry; Bureau of Labor Statistics 21 City of Bozeman Community Housing Needs Assessment, Feb. 2019 Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting, Inc. 11 Appendix B contains information on the industry representation of the survey, a survey fill-out with results, and open-ended comments received. Select survey comments are also quoted in several sections of this report. REALTOR® and Lender Focus Group. A focus group with five REALTORS® and three lenders in the City. Information was obtained on the housing market including current prices, recent trends, occupancy patterns, availability and what different types of households are seeking when looking to purchase or rent a unit. Information was also collected on the availability of financing and resident challenges. Developer and builder focus group. A focus group with nine developers and builders in the City. Information was obtained about the development environment including costs, trends, entitlement process, inclusionary zoning ordinance, and incentives and barriers to the development of community housing. Property Manager and Affordable Rental Manager Interviews. Five market-rate rental property managers and eleven (11) managers of income- and rent-restricted LIHTC, Project-Based Section 8, Section 811 and Section 202 rental properties were interviewed. This group provided information on the rental market including rents, vacancy rates, recent trends, renter profiles and units most in demand. The income- and rent-restricted property managers also provided detailed information on their rental inventory, which is summarized in this report (see Section 3 - Housing Inventory). End User Focus Group. A focus group with ten members representing service providers and end users. Information was obtained on special needs service provision and the role of housing, including availability, waitlists, costs, and design requirements to attend to special needs. Stakeholder Discussions and Interviews – Additional interviews occurred with larger employers (e.g. University, school district, city), developers, CAHAB members, city staff, community stakeholders, Realtors and housing organizations. This included formal interviews and information gathering. Secondary and Local Data Sources A variety of sources of published information were used in the preparation of this report, including but not limited to: • 2010 US Census data and population projections • 2012-2017 American Community Survey data (ACS) • Employment information from the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW), the US Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), US Bureau of Labor Statistics and MT Dept. of Labor & Industry. 22 City of Bozeman Community Housing Needs Assessment, Feb. 2019 Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting, Inc. 12 • U.S. Census Bureau, LEHD Origin-Destination Employment Statistics • 2012 and 2018 Area Median Income from the Department of Housing and Urban Development and MT Housing. • Current MLS listings, recent home sales and historic sale trends acquired through the Gallatin Association of REALTORS®. • City property ownership and residential records from the City of Bozeman GIS Department and based on Montana Department of Revenue records. • Existing reports, including the 2012 Community Housing Needs Assessment, 2012-2016 Community Housing Action Plan, City of Bozeman Strategic Plan, 2009 Bozeman Community Plan, and 2018 EPS Demographic and Real Estate Market Assessment. “Affordable” Defined This report centers on an understanding of “what is affordable” for households in Bozeman. The term “affordable” may often be associated with low-income housing. In more and more communities, however, affordability is a problem for a broad range of income levels; not just low-income. For purposes of this report, rental housing is “affordable” when the rent does not exceed 30% of a household’s gross income. Ownership housing is “affordable” when the housing payment (mortgage, insurance, HOA, etc.) does not exceed 33% of a household’s gross income.2 The 30% standard is commonly applied by federal and state housing programs, local housing initiatives, mortgage lenders and rental leasing agents. Federal and state housing programs typically categorize housing “affordable” for various income levels as a percentage of the Area Median Income (AMI). AMI is published annually by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for each county and varies by household size. The 2018 AMI for Gallatin County is shown below. Gallatin County AMI by Household Size: 2018 AMI Level 1-person 2-person 3-person 4-person 30% $16,620 $18,990 $21,360 $23,730 50% $27,700 $31,650 $35,600 $39,550 60% $33,240 $37,980 $42,720 $47,460 80% $44,320 $50,640 $56,960 $63,280 100% $55,400 $63,300 $71,200 $79,100 120% $66,480 $75,960 $85,440 $94,920 150% $83,100 $94,950 $106,800 $118,650 200% $110,800 $126,600 $142,400 $158,200 Source: Montana Board of Housing; US Dept. of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) 2 This is the standard used by the current Affordable Housing Ordinance (AHO) in Bozeman. 23 City of Bozeman Community Housing Needs Assessment, Feb. 2019 Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting, Inc. 13 The average household size in Bozeman is about 2-persons. The below table shows the affordable rents and home purchase prices at various household incomes and the respective AMI level for an average-sized 2-person household. Maximum Affordable Housing Costs AMI Equivalent* Household Income Max Rent Max Purchase Price** 30% $18,990 $475 $70,410 50% $31,650 $790 $117,355 60% $37,980 $950 $140,825 80% $50,640 $1,265 $187,765 100% $63,300 $1,585 $234,705 120% $75,960 $1,900 $281,645 150% $94,950 $2,375 $352,060 200% $126,600 $3,165 $469,410 Source: Consultant team *AMI for the average sized 2-person household earning the respective income. **Assumes 30-year mortgage at 5.5% with 5% down and 20% of the payment covering taxes, insurance and HOA fees. Interest rates affect the borrowing power of buyers, impacting the price of home they can afford. Affordable purchase prices in the above table assume an average mortgage interest rate of 5.5%, which is slightly above the current rate. For every 1% rise in interest rate, the purchasing power of a household decreases by about 10%. This should be considered when evaluating the affordability of housing and establishing prices for community housing. Continuum of Housing Housing for the residents and workforce should accommodate a wide range of incomes. This includes households on fixed incomes, entry-level service employees making $10 to $18 per hour, up to business managers making $100,000 or more per year. It must also provide options for households at various life stages to buy or rent – from new school graduates, to young families, to empty-nesters. Providing a range of ownership and rental housing allows households to grow and change within a community, thus supporting a diverse and vibrant community and economy. More specifically: • At the lowest income levels (under $30,000 per year; below 50% AMI), homelessness and the threat of homelessness are important issues. Special populations who are unable to work (e.g., seniors and the disabled) may require Interest rates significantly affect the purchasing power of buyers. 24 City of Bozeman Community Housing Needs Assessment, Feb. 2019 Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting, Inc. 14 assistance at the lower income levels. Affordability problems, especially for renters, may also be present among the lowest wage workers. • As incomes increase to between $50,000 to $60,000 per year (about 80% to 100% AMI), households are often looking to buy their first home. Policies at this level are typically designed to help bring homeownership within reach, including down payment assistance and first-time homebuyer loans. • Finally, at the highest levels (over $75,000 per year; 120% AMI), upper income groups fuel the market for step-up and high-end housing. Housing for this group may be addressed by the free market; although more and more housing markets are starting at 150% AMI or more. The Housing Bridge, illustrated below, portrays a spectrum of housing that is affordable and most likely to be sought out by households in different income groups. It indicates the number and percentage of households earning different area median incomes and type of housing likely to be needed at the different income levels. The Housing Bridge depicts what may be ideal for most communities – the availability of housing that is affordable to households at all income levels and provides options for changing life circumstances. Source: US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Consultant team 25 City of Bozeman Community Housing Needs Assessment, Feb. 2019 Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting, Inc. 15 Definitions The following terms are used in this report: Affordable Housing As used in this report, housing is affordable if the monthly rent or mortgage payment is equal to or less than 30% of gross household income (before taxes) for renters; 33% for owners. This is the standard employed by the Affordable Housing Ordinance (AHO) in Bozeman. Area Median Income (AMI) A term that generally refers to the median incomes published annually for counties by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). AMI is used to set income and rent limits for affordable housing programs statutorily linked to HUD income limits (e.g. low-income housing tax credit rentals). Common affordability categories used are as follows: • Extremely Low Income – At or below 30% AMI • Very Low Income –Between 31% and 50% AMI • Low Income – From 51% to 80% AMI • Moderate Income – From 81% to 100% AMI American Community Survey (ACS) The ACS is part of the Decennial Census Program of the U.S. Census. The survey was fully implemented in 2005, replacing the decennial census long form. Because it is based on a sample of responses, its use in smaller areas (under 65,000 persons) is best suited for monitoring general changes over time rather than for precise estimates due to margins of error. Average household size There are about 2.0-persons per household in the City of Bozeman. This refers to the number of persons living in a housing unit – includes all adults and children. Catch-up Needs The number of housing units needed to catch up to meet the current shortfall in housing available for residents. Community Housing The term used in this report to refer to housing units that are affordable to city residents and employees and to be created through the City’s housing program. This includes housing serving special needs populations through low-income households up to just below market. It encompasses housing serving the spectrum of needs for residents of the community. Cost Burdened When housing costs exceed 30% of a household’s gross (pretax) income. Housing costs include rent or mortgage and may or may not include utilities, homeowner association fees, transportation or other necessary costs depending upon its application. Employee (or Workforce) Housing Housing intended for and affordable to employees and households earning local wages. 26 City of Bozeman Community Housing Needs Assessment, Feb. 2019 Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting, Inc. 16 HOME Funds Grants from HUD to states and units of general local government to implement local housing strategies designed to increase homeownership and affordable housing opportunities for low and very low-income households. In-commuter Refers to an employee that works in the City of Bozeman, but that lives outside the community (e.g. in Belgrade, Four Corners, etc.) and must travel into the City for work. Keep-up Needs Keep-up refers to the number of housing units needed to keep up with job growth and retiring employees and the housing units needed to house non-employee residents and employees filling jobs through 2025. Occupied housing unit Occupied housing unit means housing units that are occupied by persons that consider Bozeman as their usual place of residence or that have no usual place of residence elsewhere. (US Census definition). Occupied units are also referred to as resident households in this report. Workforce (or Employee) Housing Housing intended for and affordable to employees and households earning local wages. Acknowledgements We would like to thank all of those who have helped us and have given us their time and assistance. Information in this report relied on participation from the Community Affordable Housing Advisory Board (CAHAB), City of Bozeman Community Development and GIS staff, City Commissioners, Gallatin Association of Realtors, Bozeman Chamber of Commerce, property managers, developers, lenders, Realtors, community stakeholders, and significant involvement and input from local employers through the Employer Survey. Particular thanks goes to the special needs service providers that participated in providing data, interviews, focus group participation and assistance with survey outreach. This includes: the Human Resource Development Council (HRDC), Habitat for Humanity of Gallatin Valley, Family Promise, Reach, Thrive, HAVEN, Greater Gallatin Homeless Action Coalition (GGHAC), Veterans Alliance of Southwest Montana, and Gallatin Mental Health Center. Information presented in this report is as much based on data and numbers as it is on the experiences and observations of those living in the community, which would not have been possible without local participation. We appreciate the opportunity to work with communities that have a desire to understand and address the housing needs of local residents and the workforce. 27 City of Bozeman Community Housing Needs Assessment, Feb. 2019 Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting, Inc. 17 Section 1 – Population and Household Demographics This section of the report provides population and household estimates and describes the demographic characteristics of households, including the mix of owner and renter households, family type, age and household income. This information is necessary to understand the mix, size and type of housing that is needed by the resident population. Apparent from the below is the impact of students and student households in Bozeman: • Incomes, age of residents, and average household size are all lower than the County as a whole. • The percentage of renter households is higher than the County.3 Population and Households The population of and number of households in the City of Bozeman has increased at a rate exceeding 3% per year since 2010. In eight years, the City grew by over 10,000 people and 5,000 households. 2010 2015 2016 2017 2018 Average % growth per year (2010- 2017) Population 37,280 43,405 45,250 46,596 48,105 3.2% Households 15,775 18,734 19,396 20,133 20,866 3.5% Source: US Census; ACS; Intercensal Census; consultant estimates Owner and Renter Households The majority of households in the City are renter-occupied (56%). This has remained consistent since 2010. The renter-occupancy rate is much lower in Gallatin County as a whole (38%). Student households predominately rent, raising the proportion of renters in the City. Owner- and Renter-Occupied Households: 2017 City of Bozeman Gallatin County Owner-occupied 44% 62% Renter-occupied 56% 38% TOTAL 100% 100% Source: 2017 5-year ACS; Consultant team (2016) 3 See also “Demographic and Real Estate Market Assessment, 2018” (Economic and Planning Systems), pp. 12-14 (Demographics). 28 City of Bozeman Community Housing Needs Assessment, Feb. 2019 Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting, Inc. 18 Type of Households There has been little change in the mix of households by type in Bozeman since 2010. As shown below: • Persons living alone are the largest household segment (32%), followed by roommate households (23%), again reflecting the effect of student households. • Only about 15% of households are comprised of a couple with children. • While significant differences are seen in the mix of households in Gallatin County, single parent households (9%) are the same in both the City and County. These households often have the most difficulty securing suitable and affordable housing. Household Distribution by Type: 2017 City of Bozeman Gallatin County Couple, no children 20% 28% Couple, with children 15% 21% Single parent households 9% 9% Living alone 32% 28% Other non-family households (e.g., roommates) 23% 14% TOTAL 100% 100% Source: 2010 US Census; 2017 5-year ACS Comparing owner and renter households: • Owners are comprised of a higher percentage of couples, both with and without children, then renters. • The majority of single person owner householders are 55 years of age or older (60%). This indicates that move-down opportunities as households become empty nesters and age may be an important housing option for this group. • On the other hand, the majority of single person renter householders are under age 55 (73%), which is not surprising given the student population. Realtors report that most first time buyers are typically in their 30’s. • Renters are more likely to be living alone (37%) or with roommates (34%) than owners. • Another 10% of renters are single parent households. 29 City of Bozeman Community Housing Needs Assessment, Feb. 2019 Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting, Inc. 19 Household Type by Tenure (2017): City of Bozeman Source: 2017 5-year ACS The household mix, particularly presence of families, should continue to be monitored. Data on school district enrollments indicates that, while enrollments have been increasing in the K-12 schools since 2009, the rate of growth has been on a generally declining trend. Further, enrollment in Kindergarten has been relatively stable at 530 kids since 2013.4 Realtors noted that young families (couples wanting to have children) that are purchasing their first home typically move outside of the City to find suitable housing they can afford, meaning a single-family home or townhome with a small yard. Providing more homes that are affordable for these households can help retain families in the City. Age of Population There has been little change in the age distribution of the population in the City since 2010. City of Bozeman residents are generally younger than in the County as a whole, which again reflects the student population; however, the City reports a lower percentage of children under 18. 4 See Appendix: Trends, Calculations and Projections for school district data. 33% 23% 8% 27% 9% 10% 8% 10% 37% 34% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% Couple, no children Couple, with children Single parent Living alone Other non- family % of Households Owner households Renter households 30 City of Bozeman Community Housing Needs Assessment, Feb. 2019 Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting, Inc. 20 Population Distribution by Age: 2017 City of Bozeman Gallatin County Under 5 5% 6% 5 to 17 10% 14% 18 to 24 28% 16% 25 to 39 26% 23% 40 to 54 13% 17% 55 to 64 9% 12% 65 and over 9% 11% TOTAL 100% 100% Source: 2017 5-year ACS Age by Tenure: 2017 Source: 2017 5-year ACS Household Size Households average about 2.2 people per household in the City, showing no change since 2010. Gallatin County households are larger on average, at about 2.4 persons. The larger number of family households with children in the County helps boost the size of Gallatin County households, and particularly owner-households, when compared to the City. 16% 64% 67% 70% 84% 36% 33% 30% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Age 15 to 34 35 to 54 55 to 64 65 and over % of Households Age of Householder Rent Own 31 City of Bozeman Community Housing Needs Assessment, Feb. 2019 Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting, Inc. 21 Average Household Size: 2017 City of Bozeman Gallatin County Total: 2.19 2.38 Owner occupied 2.29 2.50 Renter occupied 2.10 2.17 Source: 2017 5-year ACS Owner households in the City are slightly larger on average (2.3 persons) than renter households (about 2.1 persons), which is not a significant difference. Although a larger percentage of renter households are one-person, there is also a high percentage of roommate households, contributing to the relatively high percentage of 3-person and larger households. Realtors and property managers both have observed that as rents rise, family occupants are priced out and replaced by roommate households – multiple incomes can afford the higher rent. Household Size by Tenure (2017) City of Bozeman Source: 2017 5-year ACS Household Income Because the purpose of this study is to determine the availability and need for housing that is affordable to residents, it is important to understand the income distribution of households in the City. Income can be measured as a standard dollar amount – how 4% 7% 18% 35% 37% 5% 14% 14% 41% 27% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 5+-persons 4-persons 3-persons 2-persons 1-person % of Households Household Size Owners Renters 32 City of Bozeman Community Housing Needs Assessment, Feb. 2019 Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting, Inc. 22 much a household earns through wages or other income source – or placed in the context of Area Median Income (AMI). The AMI represents the median family income of an area. This means that the AMI does not incorporate incomes from non-family single and roommate households, which make up 56% of households in Bozeman. As a result, the HUD reported Area Median Income for all families in Gallatin County ($81,200) is higher than the median income of all households. Gallatin County AMI by Household Size: 2018 AMI Level 1-person 2-person 3-person 4-person 30% $16,620 $18,990 $21,360 $23,730 50% $27,700 $31,650 $35,600 $39,550 60% $33,240 $37,980 $42,720 $47,460 80% $44,320 $50,640 $56,960 $63,280 100% $55,400 $63,300 $71,200 $79,100 120% $66,480 $75,960 $85,440 $94,920 150% $83,100 $94,950 $106,800 $118,650 200% $110,800 $126,600 $142,400 $158,200 Source: Montana Board of Housing; US Dept. of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) The below table equates the median income of households in Bozeman to the equivalent AMI level for an average sized 2-person household. As shown: • The median income of all households in Bozeman was about $49,200 in 2017. Meaning that about one-half of households earn below this level and one-half earn above. This is equivalent to about 80% AMI for the average-sized household. • The median income of owners ($79,700; 125% AMI) is more than double that of renters ($35,000; 55% AMI). Median Household Income: 2017 2017 5-year ACS HUD AMI equivalent for 2-Person Household All households $49,217 80% AMI Owner-occupied $79,662 125% AMI Renter-occupied $35,012 55% AMI Source: 2017 5-year ACS; US Dept. of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) 33 City of Bozeman Community Housing Needs Assessment, Feb. 2019 Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting, Inc. 23 Households with University students that do not reside in on-campus residence housing are included in the ACS calculation of median household income. Because many students have little to no income, this can bring down the median income of an area.5 As shown below, in the City, the median owner-occupied household income is slightly higher than in the County, whereas the median renter-occupied household income is slightly lower. The higher proportion of renter households in the City results in a median income for all households being about $10,000 lower in the City compared to the County overall. Median Household Income: 2017 Gallatin County City of Bozeman All households $59,397 $49,217 Owner-occupied $78,804 $79,662 Renter-occupied $36,428 $35,012 Source: 2017 5-year ACS The income distribution of Bozeman households by AMI is shown below. Ideally, housing that is available to residents should be priced proportionate to household income distributions. Based on existing distributions, this means that: • About 61% of rentals should be priced affordable for households earning under 80% AMI. • About 41% of ownership housing should have sales prices that are affordable for households earning between 60% and 150% AMI. Bozeman Household Distribution by AMI: 2018 Own Rent Total <30% 8% 23% 16% 30.1-60% 8% 22% 15% 60.1-80% 8% 16% 12% 80.1-100% 10% 11% 10% 100.1-120% 10% 8% 9% 120.1-150% 13% 7% 10% 150%+ 43% 13% 27% TOTAL 9,200 11,666 20,866 Source: Ribbon Demographics, LLC; Consultant team *See Section 3 – Housing Inventory for household estimates. It should be noted that the high percentage of renter households earning under 30% AMI is affected by the student population. Compiled 2016 5-year ACS data shows that about 20.7% of persons in the City fell at or below the poverty rate. When off-campus 5 See ACS PUMAS data. See also, “Inequality in College Towns,” available at https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/inequality-in-college-towns/ 34 City of Bozeman Community Housing Needs Assessment, Feb. 2019 Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting, Inc. 24 students living in the City are removed, this drops to 11.8% of the population – an 8.9 percentage-point drop. Poverty threshold incomes are roughly equivalent to HUD area median incomes for households earning under 30% AMI.6 Because the above AMI distribution table represents households and not population, however, the impact of removing student households from the under 30% AMI households is likely to be less than that observed for residents in poverty. 6 See Appendix A – Trend, Calculations and Projections, Effect of Student Population on Poverty Rate for this data. 35 City of Bozeman Community Housing Needs Assessment, Feb. 2019 Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting, Inc. 25 Section 2 – Economic Trends This section presents information necessary to understand the housing needs of employees based on the mix of jobs and wages, job growth, and employer needs and concerns regarding employment and housing. More specifically, information is presented on: • The number of jobs, job trends and projections, and local wages; • The ratio of jobs to households to understand the relative housing supply for employees in the City; • The unemployment rate and scarcity of labor; • Commuting patterns and employer commute assistance; and • Employer problems and perceptions on employment and housing. Job Estimates and Projections Through 2025, an estimated 7,400 jobs will be added in the City of Bozeman; about 9,300 in the Bozeman area. This assumes that jobs in the City will grow at the same rate as the rest of the County.7 Jobs Estimates and Projections: 2012 to 2025 # of Jobs Average Yearly % growth 2012 2018 2025 Bozeman City (61% of county jobs) 41,874 53,020 60,430 1.9% Bozeman Area (77% of county jobs) 52,540 66,525 75,825 1.9% Gallatin County 68,562 86,815 98,970 1.9% Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA); U.S. Census Bureau, LEHD Origin-Destination Employment Statistics; Montana Dept. of Labor & Industry Job and Labor Force Projections for Southwest Region (2017 to 2027); consultant team 7The projected job growth rate is estimated from Montana Dept. of Labor job projections for the Southwest Region combined with the actual growth rate of jobs in Gallatin County since 2012. The methodology applied is consistent with that used in “Demographic and Real Estate Market Assessment, 2018” (Economic and Planning Systems). See Appendix A – Trends, Calculations and Projections for more detail. 36 City of Bozeman Community Housing Needs Assessment, Feb. 2019 Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting, Inc. 26 State estimates may be low in light of recent job growth and the fact that 54% of employers responding to the survey indicate that they expect to increase employment. “Within the next five (5) years, do you plan to increase employment, decrease or stay the same?” Source: 2018 City of Bozeman Employer Survey Growth will be limited, however, by the ability for businesses to recruit employees to fill jobs, particularly if unemployment drops below 2% as predicted by the state. With the 2.5% unemployment rate in 2018, many employers indicated that their ability to grow has already been impacted. Job Growth Since 2012, jobs in Gallatin County have increased an average of 4.4% per year, adding about 16,500 jobs. Just over 10,000 of these new jobs are in the City. Most of the job growth was from a mix of service, trades and professional industries: • About 50% of the job growth was in construction (2,820 jobs), accommodations and food services (2,160 jobs), professional/technical (1,620 jobs), and real estate/leasing (1,530 jobs) industries. • Manufacturing, retail trade, and health care and social services (about 1,300 jobs each) comprised another 24%. • Of all industries, only construction jobs remain below peak pre-recession levels. Increase your number of employees 54% Reduce your number of employees 2% Stay about the same 35% Don’t know 9% We cut back one position cause of the hiring difficulty. However I will need at least one more employee in 2019. We just hired but it took 6 months to find someone and number of applicants was very small. 2018 Employer Survey comments 37 City of Bozeman Community Housing Needs Assessment, Feb. 2019 Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting, Inc. 27 Number of Jobs: 2012 to 2017 Gallatin County, Bozeman area, City of Bozeman Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW), U.S. Census Bureau, LEHD Origin-Destination Employment Statistics, consultant team Wages The average wage in 2018 in Gallatin County is about $43,900, which is only slightly higher than the state. Wages have been increasing at about the same 2.6% rate. In the Bozeman area, the average wage in 2018 is about 2% higher ($44,800) than the County. Comments from employers indicate that the recent labor shortage has increased competition for workers, resulting in rising wages. About 79% of survey respondents stated that they pay higher wages for the same/similar job than nearby communities. The 2% difference, however, is not sufficient to compensate for the higher cost of housing (and living) in the Bozeman area. Change in Average Wage: 2012 to 2018 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 (est) Avg yearly growth Montana $37,096 $37,575 $38,878 $40,056 $40,716 $42,045 $43,282 2.6% Gallatin County $37,611 $36,487 $37,639 $39,565 $40,969 $42,611 $43,865 2.6% Bozeman area - - - - - - $44,803 - Source: Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages, MT Dept. of Labor and Industry, consultant team 68,562 72,001 75,083 78,574 82,134 85,030 - 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Number of Jobs Year Gallatin County Bozeman area (77% of jobs) City of Bozeman (61% of jobs) I can't afford to pay enough to attract employees to grow my business. Costs are high and retail pricing is tough to keep pace, putting a pinch on business to retain employees. Our employee costs are up 20% over 3 years ago. 2018 Employer Survey comments 38 City of Bozeman Community Housing Needs Assessment, Feb. 2019 Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting, Inc. 28 The economy in Bozeman is moderately diversified. Of the highest growth industries in recent years, about half pay above average wages (about $43,900 per year) and half pay below. The strong lower-paying service sector (retail, recreation, accommodations), however, requires a continued diversified housing stock to ensure all sectors of the economy are maintained. Jobs and Wages by Industry Sector: Bozeman Area, 2017/18 Source: MT Dept. of Labor and Industry, QCEW by location Jobs to Household Ratio The jobs to household ratio is used to calculate the number of housing units needed to accommodate future job growth in the City (see Section 8 – Current and Projected Housing Needs). By utilizing a ratio that relates jobs to total resident households in the City, rather than just employee-headed households, housing calculations will include units needed for non-employee and employee resident households alike. This is based on the assumption that needed resident housing in the future will retain the same ratio of total occupied housing units to jobs as present. This ratio also indicates whether an area has enough housing for employees to live near employment centers and, alternatively, sufficient jobs in residential areas to support $0 $10,000 $20,000 $30,000 $40,000 $50,000 $60,000 $70,000 $80,000 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% Accommodation and Food Services Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation Retail Trade Other Services Administrative Support and Waste Management Real Estate, Rental, and Leasing Educational Services Manufacturing Health Care and Social Assistance Construction Public Administration Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services Finance and Insurance Average Yearly Wage % of Total Jobs % of jobs Average yearly wage 39 City of Bozeman Community Housing Needs Assessment, Feb. 2019 Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting, Inc. 29 residents.8 An imbalance in jobs and housing creates a larger volume of commuters, longer commute times, traffic congestion, and reduced air quality. It also affects employee turnover, ability to fill jobs, and commute costs, among other impacts. Generally, a jobs to household ratio in the range of 0.75 to 1.5 is considered beneficial for reducing vehicle miles traveled and commuting, although this varies based on locale. Higher ratios indicate a higher percentage of in-commuting is needed to fill the surplus of jobs. In Gallatin County, the ratio of jobs in the County to households in 2017 was about 1.9. • Based on the above standard, this reflects that the housing supply in the County overall is tight, which is an observation made by Realtors, as well as supported by the rising housing costs in the County (see Section 4 – Ownership Market Conditions). • This also means that in-commuting is needed to help house workers who are filling county jobs. As shown in the commuting discussion, below, about 17% of jobs in Gallatin County are filled by in-commuters. Jobs:Household Ratio Gallatin County, 2017 Jobs (2017) - BEA 85,030 Housing units – Intercensal census 49,444 Housing occupancy rate – 2017 1-year ACS 90% Occupied housing units 44,310 Jobs:household ratio 1.92 Sources: BEA, LAUS, LEHD, consultant team The ratio in the City of Bozeman is much higher at 2.54 and the Bozeman region is not much better (2.41). In other words, workers in Bozeman must look to other areas to find housing due to the lack of supply in the City – this pressures an already tight market county-wide and helps escalate housing costs throughout the County. Jobs:Household Ratio9 Bozeman Area City of Bozeman Jobs (2018) 66,525 53,020 Households 27,550 20,865 Jobs:household ratio 2.41 2.54 Sources: BEA, LAUS, LEHD, consultant team 8 For more detail, see https://enviroatlas.epa.gov/enviroatlas/DataFactSheets/pdf/Supplemental/EmploymentHousingRatio.pdf 9 See Appendix A – Employment to Households Methodology for more detail. 40 City of Bozeman Community Housing Needs Assessment, Feb. 2019 Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting, Inc. 30 Unemployment In Gallatin County, the unemployment rate has been rapidly declining since 2012. When unemployment drops below the natural cycle of employment/unemployment, typically around 5%, this can be one indicator of a labor shortage. The unemployment rate is well below this level, at 2.5% for the County and 3.8% for the state. Unemployment Rate: Gallatin County and Montana – 2012 to 2017 Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) LAUS When unemployment is this low, businesses encounter several problems: • The remaining labor pool often does not have the requisite skills needed for many jobs; • Businesses “trade” employees, competing with each other for the same skilled labor force. This results in wage wars and simply moves vacant positions around; and • Businesses must attract employees from outside the area to fill jobs. With an expensive and tight housing market, the ability to attract employees is extremely difficult. 6.0% 5.4% 4.7% 4.2% 4.1% 4.0% 3.8% 5.1% 4.1% 3.5% 3.0% 2.8% 2.8% 2.5% 0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 3.0% 4.0% 5.0% 6.0% 7.0% 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Unemployment Rate Year Montana Gallatin County 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 41 City of Bozeman Community Housing Needs Assessment, Feb. 2019 Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting, Inc. 31 Unfilled Jobs Employers have reported increased difficulty recruiting and retaining workers to fill positions. With unfilled positions, this decreases the ability for a business to provide quality services and reduces their ability to generate needed revenue. The combination of low local unemployment with the lack of housing to attract needed workers from other area compounds the problems employers have finding qualified workers to fill jobs. • About 46% of employers reported that they have at least one unfilled job, totaling 1,451 vacant jobs. This equates to 9% of jobs provided by all survey respondents. • If this is extracted to all jobs in the City, this means that about 4,600 jobs would be vacant. Unfilled Jobs Survey Respondents # jobs unfilled 1,451 % jobs unfilled 8.8% Source: 2018 City of Bozeman Employer Survey The ability for employers to fill these jobs has been getting more difficult. Almost 50% of employers stated that recruiting and retaining employees has gotten harder over the past three years. I have people who want to hire [my business] but I just don't have the crew to handle everyone. I literally didn't get a day off for almost 2 months this summer because we were so short staffed. 2018 Employer Survey comments Not only is there lack of housing, but there is a lack of quality applicants. 2018 Employer Survey comment 42 City of Bozeman Community Housing Needs Assessment, Feb. 2019 Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting, Inc. 32 “To what extent has your ability to find and retain qualified employees changed over the past three years?” Source: 2018 City of Bozeman Employer Survey Commuting Of the 53,000 jobs in the City of Bozeman, about 57% (30,250 total) are held by a resident of the City. The remaining 22,800 jobs are filled by in-commuters. In Gallatin County as a whole, a lower 17% of jobs (15,000 jobs) are filled by workers that live outside of Gallatin County. Jobs Held by Residents Gallatin County City of Bozeman Jobs (2018) – BEA (est) 86,816 53,022 Wage & Salary jobs – BEA (est) 62,251 38,020 % W&S held by resident – LEHD 76% 40% # W&S jobs held by a resident 47,343 15,251 Sole Proprietor (SP) jobs – BEA (est) 24,564 15,003 % SP jobs held by resident 100% 100% Total jobs held by resident 71,907 30,253 % jobs held by a resident 83% 57% Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA); U.S. Census Bureau, LEHD Origin-Destination Employment Statistics, consultant team10 10 LEHD uses Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages files to estimate where workers live. This information reflects only wage and salary jobs and does not include the about 30% of jobs that are held by sole proprietors. BEA sole proprietor estimates are mostly based on where the proprietor lives, meaning, by definition, reported sole proprietor jobs in the City of Bozeman are filled by residents of the City. This adjustment was made to compute the percentage of all jobs that are filled by resident workers. Improved/gotten easier 3% Stayed about the same 26% Declined/gotten harder 48% Don’t know/not applicable 23% 43 City of Bozeman Community Housing Needs Assessment, Feb. 2019 Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting, Inc. 33 Employers responding to the survey reported a similar 62% of jobs being held by resident workers. About 20% commute from the Belgrade area, followed by 6% residing west of the City. About 45% of employers indicated that at least some of their in-commuting employees would prefer to live in or nearer to Bozeman if housing they could afford was available. Employers estimate that up to 59% of employees on average would prefer to be in Bozeman. Where City of Bozeman Workers Live: 2018 % Jobs City of Bozeman 62% Belgrade area 20% Manhattan area 3% Three Forks area 2% Four Corners, West Gallatin, Greenwood, etc (west of the City) 6% Chestnut, Livingston, etc (east of the City) 3% Gallatin gateway, etc (south of the City) 3% Other 0% TOTAL Jobs (survey) 16,521 Source: 2018 City of Bozeman Employer Survey Employers report several adverse effects from in-commuting employees, including: • Losing employees to jobs found closer to their home; • Tardiness or increased “sick days” due to commuting; and • The “hidden” cost of commuting. Employer Commute Assistance About 25% of employers indicated they provide their workers with some work commute options or assistance. Of these: We have employees commuting from Belgrade, Manhattan, Churchill and Butte and eventually tire or find jobs closer to where they live. Everyone wants to live in Bozeman but finds the cost of living to be too high. The answer is to live near by but when all the money is going to housing and the cost of commuting there is no money to make the needed repairs to their vehicles. 2018 Employer Survey comments 44 City of Bozeman Community Housing Needs Assessment, Feb. 2019 Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting, Inc. 34 • On-site vehicles were the most commonly provided (31% of employers providing assistance), followed by a travel stipend (25%). • Telecommuting (20%), carpool program (14%) and bus stop at the business (12%) all help reduce daily car-travel days. • Of the 26% of employers that provide “other” services, this includes company- paid vehicles, flexible scheduling, parking passes, fuel compensation, and pick-up service. Type of Assistance % of Employers On-site vehicle for employee errands 31% Travel stipend (i.e., travel time compensation, etc.) 25% Telecommuting 20% Carpool program 14% Bus stop at business location 12% Bicycling incentives 9% Bus/shuttle (operated/financed at least in part by your business) 6% Bus passes/coupons 0% Other 26% Source: 2018 City of Bozeman Employer Survey *totals over 100% because respondents could select more than one type of assistance. Employers, Employees and Housing 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. About 5% of employers feel that the availability of housing is not a problem or a lesser problem. A majority of these employers reported that their ability to hire has not changed over recent years. Many felt that employees can make it work in the current housing environment and that the market will sort itself out. Let the market place sort out any perceived housing shortage. Needless city regulations are driving up the cost of housing. 2018 Employer Survey I’ve lost engineers (moved out of state)… Lack of affordable housing is the biggest factor in hiring right now. It is limiting my ability to grow my company. 2018 Employer Survey comments 45 City of Bozeman Community Housing Needs Assessment, Feb. 2019 Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting, Inc. 35 Do you feel that the availability of housing that the workforce can afford in the City of Bozeman is: Source: 2018 City of Bozeman Employer Survey Difficulty Hiring or Retaining Employees To understand more about some of the problems experienced by employers, employers were asked if they had anyone refuse a job offer or leave their employment within the past year for various housing and cost-of-living related reasons. A total of 60% of employers experienced at least one of the listed issues. Based on responses: • About 42% of employers had someone decline a job offer or leave employment because the cost of living in the area was too high; • Almost one-third (32%) had someone leave their employment or decline a job offer because they found a different job and 25% because they could not find or lacked suitable housing. • About 11% each reported employees leaving or declining jobs due to tiring of the commute or a lack of day care. • Lack of transportation affected 8% of employers. Organizations that provide services for lower- income earners (e.g. less than $12.50 per hour; $25,000 per year) indicated that access to housing near transportation is scarce for populations that need it. One of the more serious problems 53% The most critical problem in the region 22% A moderate problem 20% Not a problem 3% One of the lesser problems 2% Lack of availability for day care is a major issue for our employees. We have many young parents who have no option other than to stay home to raise families. 2018 Employer Survey comments Retention is proving difficult. Candidates want to move here, but when they do, they find it extremely difficult to stay. I've had 4 employees move away because of housing costs. 2018 Employer Survey 46 City of Bozeman Community Housing Needs Assessment, Feb. 2019 Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting, Inc. 36 Did anyone refuse a job offer or did anyone leave your employment in the past 12 months because they: % of Employers experiencing the problem Found the cost of living in the area to be too high 42% Found a different job 32% Could not find/lacked adequate housing 25% Long commute/tired of commuting 11% Lacked day care 11% Lacked transportation 8% No response/not applicable 40% TOTAL* 168% Source: 2018 City of Bozeman Employer Survey *The sum of the results is over 100% because some employers experienced more than one of the problems. The 32% of employers that had an employee decline a job or leave employment because they found another job were asked a follow-up question probing more specifics. As shown below: • About 50% had an employee take a job elsewhere in the City. • About 46% had employees leave Gallatin County altogether. • About 35% had employees take a job elsewhere in Gallatin County. If you had employees leave your employment to take a different job, do you know the nature of their new employment? Source: 2018 City of Bozeman Employer Survey *The sum of the results is over 100% because some employers had multiple employees leave for various reasons. 50% 35% 46% 15% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Took a job with another business with a location in Bozeman Took a job with another business located in the region (e.g. Belgrade, Big Sky, etc.) Relocated out of Gallatin County Don’t know Percent of Respondents I lost a good employee to another competitor in Great Falls, where the employee could afford to own land rather than rent endlessly in Bozeman. 2018 Employer Survey 47 City of Bozeman Community Housing Needs Assessment, Feb. 2019 Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting, Inc. 37 Difficulty Finding Housing Employers were asked to indicate the level of difficulty that their employees or potential employees have locating housing in the area given a scale from 1 (“no problem”) to 5 (“major difficulty”). As shown below: • Service and maintenance job holders were stated by over 50% of employers to have “major difficulty” finding housing. This includes entry wait staff, dishwashers, retail and lodge clerks and housekeeping, janitorial and manufacturing positions. Most of these jobs pay below $15/hour requiring rentals in the $500 to $750 range for one salary. Many of these employees work multiple jobs. • Construction and skilled trades also have major difficulty according to 41% of employers. The current construction boom in the County overall means wage competition is high and retention difficult for many employers. Higher labor costs make it more expensive to build homes, which increases the cost of homes brought to market. • 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. The service industry is traditionally an entry level employer. This makes it very difficult for a majority of our staff to earn enough to live in Bozeman. Even our mid and upper level managers struggle to find housing, especially those who are single parents. Several staff are working two and three jobs just to get by. 2018 Employer Survey It took me 3 months to find a place inexpensive enough for a teacher to purchase. Another 3 months trying to find a single mom (a supervisor at MSU) a place she could manage. Both purchased in Belgrade but work in Bozeman. Many college students entering the professional work force are interested in staying in Bozeman however the wages for entry level professional jobs do not allow for them to afford staying. 2018 Employer Survey comments 48 City of Bozeman Community Housing Needs Assessment, Feb. 2019 Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting, Inc. 38 “To what extent do your employees have difficulty locating housing in the area?” % of employers stating their workers have a “major difficulty” finding housing: Other service (wait staff, dishwashers, laundry, etc.) 57% General maintenance/labor (janitorial, manufacturing, etc) 53% Retail/lodge service clerks 51% Construction/repair/skilled trades 41% Office support staff 36% Entry level professionals 37% Mid-management 26% Upper management 18% Source: 2016 Employer Survey Several employers offered input on housing options that would most help their employees and businesses. This ranged from entry-level rentals and homeownership to needing more diverse product type. In general: • Current rents exceeding $1,000 per month are not sustainable for service employees earning $12 or less per hour. Rentals in the range of $500 to $800 per month are needed; • For entry level professionals, rentals under $1,200 per month and homeownership starting at $250,000; • More home size diversity, offering smaller homes on smaller lots (e.g., homes for purchase in the 1,000 to 1,500 square foot range); • More rentals suitable for one-person households without roommates; and • More pet friendly rentals – this has affected many employers. 49 City of Bozeman Community Housing Needs Assessment, Feb. 2019 Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting, Inc. 39 Section 3 – Housing Inventory This section presents information necessary to understand the availability of homes for City of Bozeman residents and employees, including: • The resident occupancy rate of homes; • The mix of units by type and age to understand the quality and diversity available; • Development activity in the City and the mix of housing provided; • Existing community housing, meaning affordable and income-restricted ownership and rental housing and housing for special needs populations; • An overview of MSU student housing and growth; • The participation of employers in helping with housing for their employees; and • Residential projects that are pending construction or near final approval. Housing Units and Occupancy There are an estimated 23,100 housing units in the City of Bozeman in 2018. This is based on 2010 housing unit estimates supplemented with residential building permits issued since May 2010 (an estimated 5,636 units).11 The occupancy rate of housing has been consistent since 2010, at 90%. This means that residents of Bozeman occupy 90% of the housing inventory. Occupancy in Gallatin County is slightly lower – about 87%. Of the 10% of units that are vacant, only 2% to 3% are used for seasonal or recreational use; this is compared to 7% in the County. In other words, the influence of second homeowners on the housing market in Bozeman, while present, is not substantial. Housing Units and Occupancy 2010 2018 Total Housing Units 17,464 23,100 Occupied Housing Units 15,775 20,866 % Occupied 90% 90% % Vacant for seasonal or recreational use 2% 3% % Other vacant 8% 7% Source: 2010 US Census; 2017 5-year ACS; City of Bozeman building permit data; Consultant team 11 See Appendix – methodology section 50 City of Bozeman Community Housing Needs Assessment, Feb. 2019 Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting, Inc. 40 Type of Units • Single-family detached homes (40%) are the predominate home type in the City. While these are a preferred product-type for residents, they also tend to be among the most expensive. • Only 14% are single-family attached units, which include townhomes; another 8% are duplexes. More diversity in this product would provide more options for residents looking to purchase. • The 20% of units that are in larger 5+-complexes mostly include apartment buildings and condominiums. • Only 3% of units are mobile homes. Housing Units by Type: 2018 TOTAL units 23,100 Single-family - detached 40% Single-family - attached 14% Duplex 8% 3- or 4-plex 14% 5+-units 20% Mobile home 3% Source: 2017 5-year ACS Age of Units The age of housing stock in an area can be indicative of the quality of housing available. • About 50% of housing units in the City is less than 20 years old, having been built since 2000. A higher percentage of existing housing stock was built in the last eight years than during the prior ten (2000 to 2009). • Much of the City’s oldest housing stock is located in desirable neighborhoods in the City, meaning walkable, near amenities and close to schools within the Bozeman school district. Realtors indicated that properties in the right location, despite their age, may still demand a high price. 51 City of Bozeman Community Housing Needs Assessment, Feb. 2019 Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting, Inc. 41 Year Housing Built TOTAL units 23,100 Built 2015-2018 14% Built 2010-2014 11% Built 2000 to 2009 24% Built 1980 to 1999 20% Built 1960 to 1979 17% Before 1960 14% Source: 2010 US Census; City of Bozeman building permit data; Consultant team As shown below, development slowed significantly during the recession. The number of units constructed fell from a high of over 1,000 in 2005 to a low of just over 200 units in 2009 through 2011. Recovery since 2012 has been rather steep, but has yet to reach the pre-recession peak. Residential development has been relatively stable since 2015, at about 800 units per year. Residential Construction Volume: 2005 to 2018 (est.) Source: City of Bozeman; EPS report (fix); Consultant team The below table shows residential production by unit type since 2010. As shown, about 41% of units are single-family homes and 44% are multi-units with 3-or-more units. The majority of these are larger apartment and condominium projects. Only 7% are townhomes – middle-density housing that Realtors note is the second most desirable product for first time resident purchasers next to single-family homes. 1,066 703 768 361 211 242 216 435 814 908 782 733 816 811 - 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 (est) Housing Units Constructed Year of Permit 52 City of Bozeman Community Housing Needs Assessment, Feb. 2019 Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting, Inc. 42 Housing Units Built Since 2010 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018* TOTAL Total % TOTAL 242 216 435 814 908 782 733 816 725 5,671 100% Single-family 143 161 247 388 283 266 296 350 203 2,337 41% ADU 2 10 11 6 13 14 9 29 9 103 2% Townhouse 21 4 38 74 77 24 72 53 29 392 7% Duplex 8 8 28 14 40 35 74 112 52 371 7% Multi (3+) 68 33 111 332 495 443 282 272 432 2,468 44% *Data through September 2018 Source: City of Bozeman; EPS Report; Consultant team In the 2018 Demographic and Real Estate Market Assessment study by Economic & Planning Systems, it was found that middle-density housing comprised a higher percentage of production between 2005 and 2010 (32%) than in more recent years (18%). The percentage of townhomes produced, however, has remained relatively consistent. Units Built by Density Type: 2005-2010 and 2011 – 2016 Source: City of Bozeman; Demographic and Real Estate Market Assessment 2018, Economic & Planning Systems, p. 44 Ownership of Units While Bozeman residents occupy about 90% of the housing units, a lower 80% of condominiums, townhomes and single-family homes are owned by Bozeman residents, as estimated from owner mailing addresses in Department of Revenue records. Renters living in units that are owned by out-of-area (non-Bozeman) owners account for the difference. 53 City of Bozeman Community Housing Needs Assessment, Feb. 2019 Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting, Inc. 43 Unit Ownership by DOR Address: 2018 Source: MT Dept. of Revenue Assessor data, Consultant team Community Housing Inventory Community housing refers to homes, either ownership or rental, that are affordable to households earning within specific income ranges or for special needs households. These are below-market rate units or units meeting special needs that typically require some subsidy to build – whether through state or federal funds and grants, city assistance, private donations or private financing. Community ownership, rental and special needs units in the City are summarized below. Ownership A total of 138 community ownership units have been constructed in Bozeman: • 26 were developed by HRDC and utilize a land trust mechanism to maintain the below market sales prices for 99 years. These units will retain their affordability upon resale to target income buyers; • 20 were built through the Habitat program. This program is unique in that it can provide ownership units for households earning under 50% AMI. Only 8 units remain in the program; the rest have been purchased in full by their owners or sold on the open market. The Habitat Board voted in 2017 to use a ground lease to keep all future homes in their program long-term; • 8 were constructed through the Affordable Housing Ordinance (AHO). These units have a cap on the initial purchase price to ensure affordability to the target 68% 86% 72% 80% 13% 5% 10% 7% 20% 10% 18% 13% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Condominium Single-family residence Townhome TOTAL Percent of Housing Units Non-MT resident Other MT resident Bozeman resident 54 City of Bozeman Community Housing Needs Assessment, Feb. 2019 Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting, Inc. 44 income household. Upon resale, homes may be sold at market, but any cash subsidy used to ensure affordability to the initial buyer will be recaptured; and • 84 were purchased by HRDC and sold to owners earning between 50% to 120% AMI through a down-payment program. The home may be resold at market prices and the down-payment will be recaptured at resale. Affordable Ownership Homes Constructed: 2018 Project Name Total units Unit type Beds Initial Income Limit Project type Year in service Term of affordability Expiration Humble Homes 2 Single-family detached 1 80% HRDC program 2018 Land trust 99-year West Edge Condos 84 Condominium, stacked-flat 1, 2, 3 50% - 120% HRDC purchase 2010- 2014 Initial purchase - recapture Resale, DP recapture West Babcock 24 Single-family detached 3 80% HRDC program 1996 Land trust 99-year Lakes at Valley West PUD 8 Townhomes 3 80% Inclusionary zoning 2017/18 Initial purchase - recapture Resale Habitat homes 20 Single-family - 50% Habitat program Since 1991 Initial purchase Until sold or purchased by owner* Source: City of Bozeman, HRDC, Habitat for Humanity, consultant team Of the 138 ownership units constructed, only 26 use mechanisms to ensure permanent affordability, meaning that they will remain affordable for subsequent buyers within the target income group. All permanently affordable homes are targeted for households earning 80% AMI. Affordable Ownership Homes by AMI: 2018 AMI level: 50% 80% 100% 120% TOTAL TOTAL built 46 80 10 2 138 TOTAL retaining affordability upon resale 0 26 0 0 26 Source: City of Bozeman, HRDC, Habitat for Humanity, consultant team Rental A total of 947 affordable community rental units have been constructed in Bozeman. This equates to about 8% of the rental housing stock. Maximum rents are established such that the target income household pays no more than 30% of their income for rent and, for some properties, rent and utilities combined. Some properties carry limited term requirements during which they must remain affordable. The low-income housing tax credit (LIHTC) program is one such program that permits the affordability to expire after a certain period of time – often 29 years or more. After 15 years, these properties may apply for a “qualified contract” to end the 55 City of Bozeman Community Housing Needs Assessment, Feb. 2019 Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting, Inc. 45 affordability term early.12 Upon expiration of the affordability period, the project may revert to market-rate rentals. The below table provides more detail on the existing community rental units, including their relevant expiration date. As shown: ! Affordable rentals are a mix of low-income housing tax credit (LIHTC), project- based section 8, MT Board of Housing funding, and non-profit owned properties. ! Two properties are voluntarily operated as affordable rentals, meaning they could charge market rates. One is owned by a non-profit. The other (Dairy Keep) was built with affordable rental subsidies for which the term of required affordability has expired, but the owner continues to operate under affordability guidelines. ! A total of 260 units (25% of the community rental stock) are limited to occupancy by seniors and/or persons with disabilities. ! Only Pond Row Apartments (22 units) have an affordability expiration period within the next five years; although many more properties are or will be eligible to apply for a “qualified contract” during this period. 12 This process allows an owner, at any time after the 14th year of the 15-year compliance period, to request the state housing agency to find a buyer who will operate the building as an LIHTC property. If the housing agency is unable to find a qualified buyer within a year, the land use restrictions terminate. The owner is free to operate the building at market rate subject to a three year period that caps rents for exiting tenants at the LIHTC rents and prohibits eviction except for good cause. 56 City of Bozeman Community Housing Needs Assessment, Feb. 2019 Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting, Inc. 46 Inventory of Affordable Rentals: City of Bozeman, 2018 Name Total units Affordable units Bedrooms Income Limits Project type Year Built/In Service Expiration Baxter Apts 48 47 1, 2 40%, 50%, 60% LIHTC 2006 2040 Boulevard Apts 39 39 Studio, 1, 2 80% PBS8 1914, 1983 remodel NA Bridger Apts I 44 43 2, 3 50%, 60% LIHTC 2003 2037 Bridger Apts II 46 46 1, 2 40%, 50%, 60% LIHTC 2005 2039 Bridger Peaks Village 60 59 1, 2 60% LIHTC, seniors 2004 2031 Castlebar Apts I 36 35 2, 3 60%* LIHTC 2000 2038 Castlebar Apts II 36 29 2, 3 60%* LIHTC 2003 2042 Comstock Apts I 24 24 2 60% LIHTC 1996 2039 Comstock Apts II 34 33 1, 3, 4 50%, 60% LIHTC 1999 2033 Comstock Apts III 28 28 1 40%, 50%, 60% LIHTC 2001 2044 Dairy Keep Apts 10 10 2, 3 30%, 60% MT Board of Housing - Expired – voluntarily affordable Darlinton Manor 100 88 Studio, 1 60% AMI PBS8, LIHTC, seniors/ disabled 1974, 1980; 2000 in service NA Gallatin Manor 64 62 2, 3 No limit Non-profit owned 1972 NA Greenwood Plaza 50 50 2, 3, 4 60% AMI PBS8 1982 NA Haggerty Apts 11 11 1, 2 40%, 50%, 60% LIHTC 2014 2058 Larkspur Commons 136 136 1, 2, 3 50%, 60% LIHTC 2017 2062 Legion Villa 61 60 1, 2 80% PBS8, seniors/disabled 1975 NA Pond Row Apts 22 22 2, 3 40%, 50%, 60% MT Board of Housing - 2024 Spring Run Apts 17 17 1 50% Section 811, disability 2006 NA Stoneridge Apts 48 48 2, 3 60%* LIHTC 2016 2061 Summerwood Apts 36 36 1 50% Section 202, seniors 2006 NA West Babcock Apts 24 24 2, 3 80% Bought expired LIHTC; non-profit owned 1996 NA TOTAL rentals 974 947 - - - - - Source: Property manager interviews, City of Bozeman, HRDC, HUD, Consulting team *No response from Stoneridge and Castlebar LIHTC properties – assume <60% AMI, but some may be lower (40% and 50%). 57 City of Bozeman Community Housing Needs Assessment, Feb. 2019 Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting, Inc. 47 The below table breaks down community rentals by bedroom size and AMI level. This is useful to understand the extent to which the existing community rental inventory is serving households in need. • Very few units are specifically for households earning under 30% AMI ($475 or less for rent). Many of the project based section 8 (PBS8) units (180+ units), however, are occupied by fixed income residents earning under 30% AMI. In PBS8, the rent is set based on the income level of the occupant, down to a minimum rent of $25. Most of these properties allow up to 80% AMI households to qualify, but 80% AMI households would pay maximum property rents. • The majority of units are available for 60% AMI households (54%). This is the upper limit for the LIHTC properties. • One property has no income limits. It is voluntarily rented at below-market rents, but the rent is not scaled based on income level. A household must earn a minimum of $1,566 per month to afford a 2-bedroom, but may earn more than that to occupy the unit. Most current tenants, however, earn 80% AMI or below. Affordable Rentals by AMI and Bedrooms: 2018 Income Limit: <30% 40% 50% 60% 80% No limit TOTAL Studio/1-b 0 6 119 183 91 399 2-b 3 5 113 220 28 32 401 3-b 1 0 4 101 4 30 140 4-b 0 0 0 7 0 7 TOTAL # 4 11 236 511 123 62 947 TOTAL % 0% 1% 25% 54% 13% 7% 100% Source: HUD, property manager interviews, consultant team Special Needs Housing and Shelter Several non-profit organizations provide housing and services for special needs populations. This includes homeless or near-homeless families and individuals, persons needing mental and behavioral health assistance, families and individuals affected by domestic violence and individuals with developmental disabilities. Each of the below service organizations, and their other programs, are described in more detail in Section 7 – Current Housing Resources and Programs. The housing assistance they offer as part of their service is summarized below: ! The Western Montana Mental Health Center (WMMHC) offers comprehensive services for individuals with mental health and substance use disorders. Occupants of their housing options are paired with case management services and counseling. WMMHC reports a 50-person waitlist for their transitional units and increased need for units particularly geared for adolescents and their families. 58 City of Bozeman Community Housing Needs Assessment, Feb. 2019 Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting, Inc. 48 ! 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. o Family Promise provides 12-beds of rotational shelter for up to 4 families that can be occupied for up to 90-days. Family Promise annually serves about 15 families through their sheltering program. Family Promise also has 4 units of transitional housing in Bozeman (may be occupied up to two years). o HRDC has transitional housing (may be occupied up to two years) as well as a fall/winter warming center and spring/summer day center offering temporary shelter. o Both organizations have seen increased need for transitional units in recent years – even those that could afford a rental unit have been seeking assistance because of the inability to find housing. ! REACH provides residential, vocational and transportation services to adults with developmental disabilities. Their housing options are paired with 24/7 resident services, with the level of staffing and assistance varying based on the level of support needed. REACH estimates they have a waitlist of 100 individuals, but REACH does not have capacity to expand housing options. ! Haven provides support services for families and individuals affected by domestic violence. They offer shelter for domestic violence victims seeking to leave their situation, but stay off the street. Haven is in process of planning a replacement facility for their aging units and to serve larger families. They have seen a 14% increase in individuals coming to them for help in the past year. Affordable housing is a major issue. I have one employee that lives at the men's warming center currently due to lack of availability of affordable options. 2018 Employer Survey comments 59 City of Bozeman Community Housing Needs Assessment, Feb. 2019 Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting, Inc. 49 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 MSU Student Housing There were 16,902 students enrolled in Montana State University (MSU) last year. Enrollment at Montana State University (MSU) has been steadily growing since 2007. The growth rate peaked between 2009 to 2016 at an average of 4% per year and has tapered off to between 1% to 2% per year in 2017 and 2018. MSU projects growth to continue at about 1% per year. In response to this growth, MSU added 1,700 beds since 2011, investing about $110 million in new residence halls and added capacity. The includes the 512-bed resident hall currently under construction, which will be ready for occupancy in the fall of 2020. As summarized in the below table, MSU houses about 29% of their 2018 enrollment, or 4,916 students. 60 City of Bozeman Community Housing Needs Assessment, Feb. 2019 Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting, Inc. 50 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 Taken a step further, of the 16,902 students, about 9,233 reside in housing units off- campus. 2018 enrollment 16,902 Living on-campus (residence halls) 4,116 Living off-campus and in the City (%) - ACS 59% Living off-campus and in the City (#) 10,033 Living in University student apartments 800 Students residing in non-University housing in the City 9,233 Sources: MSU, 2016 5-year ACS (see Appendix A – Trends, Calculations and Projections) MSU Residence Hall beds and apartment inventory is discussed in more detail below. Residence Hall Inventory MSU has 4,200 beds in residence halls for students and will increase that capacity to 4,700 by fall 2020. ! Freshmen are required to occupy dormitories unless they receive an exemption. About 170 students last year received an exemption, most because they are living at home. ! Returning students may occupy dorm beds. About 28% to 30% of dorm beds are filled by returning students. ! Dorms carried a 2% vacancy rate in the fall of 2018. This jumps in the summer to about 90% to 95%, at which time the University is able to do maintenance on the dorms to prepare for the next school year. Student Apartments MSU also provides 542 apartments that house an additional 800 students. These are units built and owned by the University located in northwest campus. No additional student apartments are planned for the near future. 61 City of Bozeman Community Housing Needs Assessment, Feb. 2019 Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting, Inc. 51 ! Unit rents are governed by the MT Board of Regents for the entire state system of 11 campuses. Rates are well behind the market, but the Board does not want to raise the rates for students. ! Units are mostly meant for married students, students with children and graduate students. A small percentage are available to undergraduates. MSU Student Apartments 1-b 2-b 3-b 4+-b Total Number units 106 346 90 0 542 Monthly rent $637 $562-783 $783-862 n/a Source: Montana State University ! About 1/3 are presently occupied by married couples with children, 17% by single parents with children and 28% by single graduate students. ! Some units are available for transitional housing for staff, such as a faculty guest researcher for one year or one semester. ! Units are typically 97% occupied in the fall and spring and 83% unoccupied in the summer, but tenants are paying rent to retain their unit. The University always has someone wanting to reside in a unit. Employer Assisted Housing About 29% of employers responding to the survey indicated they provide some sort of housing assistance to their employees. Of employers that provide assistance: ! Most pay higher wages than competitors (79%). This included industries across the board. ! 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. I have had to raise wages to get employees so that they can afford to live here. The down side to that is that I have had to raise my rates and have lost customers that can no longer afford my services. 2018 Employer Survey comments 62 City of Bozeman Community Housing Needs Assessment, Feb. 2019 Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting, Inc. 52 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. Realtors and property managers also have seen activity from employers pick up in the past two or three years: ! Realtors have seen more business owners searching for properties to purchase in order to lease to their employees. Most are medium-sized businesses or a couple businesses purchasing together. Multi-plex units (4- to 8-plex) are popular. ! 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. o Construction companies often seek units for the summer months. o The medical field desires to have units available for traveling nurses and temporary or on-call workers. o One property manager has three units leased for J-1 visa workers in the accommodations industry. Pending Residential Development The below table summarizes residential projects that have been approved, permitted, or are under review/near final. This information is important to consider when reviewing estimated housing needs and determining the extent to which projects in the pipeline may address some of the need (see Section 8 – Current and Projected Housing Needs). As shown below, the City has about 920 residential units that have received final approval or permits and another 169 that are under review/near final. One 200+ affordable apartment project (<60% AMI) just submitted an application this year. Of 63 City of Bozeman Community Housing Needs Assessment, Feb. 2019 Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting, Inc. 53 these: • Over 1,000 will be rental apartments, • About 107 will be condominiums, some available for rental, and • A total of 9 units will be affordable ownership (<80% AMI); other ownership product will be market-rate through luxury units. In addition, the University is constructing a 512-bed residence hall on campus. Under Construction, Approved Development and Pending*: City of Bozeman, January 2019 # of units Type of homes Price Point Rosa Apartments (final) 72 apartments low market rentals Lincoln Property (final) 44 apartments market rentals Icon Apartments Ph. I (final) 320+ apartments market rentals 23rd and College (final) 12 apartments student rentals South University District Apts 268 (887 bed) apartments student rentals Silver Creek Apartments (in final review) 118 apartments market rentals Black Olive Development 47 apartments market rentals SoBo Lofts 42 apartments market rentals Creekside Apartments Ph. 2 71 apartments market rentals Southside Lofts (final) 17 condominiums luxury 27 North Condos (final) 16 condominiums market One 11 (preliminary review) 51 condominiums luxury BG Mill (final) 10 condominiums luxury Wallace and Babcock NA condominiums luxury McChesney Work-Live (final) 13 (4 constructed, 9 pending) condominiums likely market rentals MSU Student Housing (under construction) 512 beds dormitory students Affordable developments Georgia Way (pulled permits) 3 townhomes ownership West Wind (approved) 6 AHO <80% ownership New proposal (2019) 200+ apartments <60% AMI (LIHTC) Source: City of Bozeman, interviews *list of pending applications is incomplete – focuses on affordable projects only 64 City of Bozeman Community Housing Needs Assessment, Feb. 2019 Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting, Inc. 54 Section 4 – Ownership Market Conditions This section evaluates how much home sale prices have changed since the housing study completed in 2012. It provides an overview of recent sales activity and the current availability of homes. It evaluates the affordability of homes to residents and provides information on mortgage availability. Ownership Inventory About 45% of households in the City own their homes. This equates to about 9,200 owner-occupied households in 2018. Owner-Occupied Housing: City of Bozeman, 2018 2018 Total Households 20,866 Owner-occupied 9,200 Source: US Census, 2017 5-year ACS, consultant team • Owned homes are dominated by single-family units (69%). • Attached single-family units (e.g. townhomes, row homes) comprise about 18% of owned units; 5% are in larger condominium complexes. • Mobile homes make up only 1% of units. Owner-Occupied Units by Type: 2017 Source: 2017 5-year ACS Single family detached 69% Single family attached (e.g. townhomes) 16% 2, 3, or 4-plex 9% 5+-units 5% Mobile home 1% 65 City of Bozeman Community Housing Needs Assessment, Feb. 2019 Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting, Inc. 55 Home Sales Prices Home sale price trends in the City of Bozeman show strong recovery since 2012. Homes in 2018 sold for an average of $223/square foot. As shown below: • Median sale prices bottomed between 2010 (single- family homes) and 2012 (condominiums) during the recession. • All home types met or surpassed peak pre- recession prices by 2015. • Median home sale prices in the City of Bozeman increased about 75% since 2012, averaging about 10% per year. Attached product shows larger percentage gains than single-family homes since 2012. Median Home Sale Prices: 2005 to 2018 City of Bozeman Median Sale Price of Homes by Type: 2012 to 2018 Single- family Townhome Condominium ALL Sales 2012 $255,000 $170,000 $145,000 $220,000 2018 $427,500 $334,900 $285,000 $385,000 Percent change 68% 97% 97% 75% Average yearly % change 9.0% 12.0% 11.9% 9.8% Source: Gallatin Association of Realtors, MLS; consultant team Home sale prices have increased an average of 9% (single-family homes) to 12% (attached product) per year since 2012. 66 City of Bozeman Community Housing Needs Assessment, Feb. 2019 Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting, Inc. 56 Finding properties affordable for residents in neighboring areas has also become more difficult, meaning “less expensive” home options for those willing to commute are becoming scarcer. • Single-family home sale prices in Belgrade and Greater Manhattan have increased faster than Bozeman since 2012 – rising 83% and 102%, respectfully. Homes in Greater Three Forks increased slightly slower at 61%. • Median sale prices are still below Bozeman, but by less of a margin than in 2012 in Greater Manhattan and Belgrade. The median sale price of single-family homes in Belgrade were 31% below Bozeman in 2012 and are now 25% lower; Greater Manhattan was only 10% lower than in the City in 2018. • Realtors noted that many young families from Bozeman have ended up in Belgrade when purchasing in order to afford to buy a single-family home. With rising prices, however, townhomes in Belgrade are now a more likely option for first-time homebuyer families. Median Single-Family Home Sale Price: 2012 to 2018 City of Bozeman and other regions Greater Manhattan Belgrade Greater Three Forks Greater Bozeman area City of Bozeman 2012 $192,500 $175,000 $155,000 $326,250 $255,000 2018 $389,000 $320,000 $250,000 $515,000 $427,500 % change 102% 83% 61% 58% 68% Source: Gallatin Association of Realtors, MLS; consultant team A rapid rise in home prices, combined with higher mortgage interest rates (up about 1% on average) and slow wage growth, have made homes less affordable to Bozeman residents since 2012: • Wages increased on average 2.6% per year since 201213; home prices by 9% to 12% - 3 to 4 times faster. • In 2012, an income of about $52,000 would have purchased the median priced home in the City ($215,000) – or about 100% AMI for a two-person household. In 2018, it requires an income of $104,000 to afford a median priced home in the City ($385,000). This equates to 164% AMI. • Households need to earn about 2.6 average wages to afford to purchase a single- family home in Bozeman. 13 See Section 2 – Economic Trends. In 2012, an income of $52,000 would purchase the median priced home; in 2018, about $104,000 was needed. 67 City of Bozeman Community Housing Needs Assessment, Feb. 2019 Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting, Inc. 57 Household Income Needed to Afford Median Home: City of Bozeman, 2018 All Unit Types Single- family Town- home Condominium Median home sale price (2018) $385,000 $427,500 $334,900 $285,000 Income needed to purchase $104,000 $115,300 $90,300 $76,900 AMI level 164% 182% 143% 121% # of avg wages needed to purchase ($44,800 average wage) 2.3 2.6 2.0 1.7 Source: Gallatin Association of Realtors, MLS; HUD; QCEW; consultant team Sales Compared to Availability The number of homes for sale on the MLS has been mostly below a 3-month supply of housing since 2016. A general rule of thumb is that when the number of homes available for sale is below a 6-month supply, it is a seller’s market – meaning that there are more buyers than homes available to purchase, resulting in rising prices. Bozeman has been in a strong seller’s market for at least the past few years. As of January 2019, there were 198 residences listed for sale on the MLS – about a 2.3- month supply. Comparing listings to sales last year by price, we find that: • Lower priced homes are in shorter supply than higher priced homes. Homes priced under $400,000 have a 1.8-month supply; homes over $700,000 have an over 5-month supply. • Realtors noted that properties over $600,000 tend to sit on the market longer; those under $400,000 move quickly. o Homes priced under $400,000 in the City are mostly condominiums and townhomes. Home priced under $300,000 are mostly condominiums, but typically nice and in good shape. Cash buyers are strong competitors for residents at these prices. • The below chart illustrates the significant shortage of listings priced between $200,000 to $500,000 compared to sales last year. There are no properties currently listed that are priced below $200,000. 68 City of Bozeman Community Housing Needs Assessment, Feb. 2019 Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting, Inc. 58 Residential Sales Compared to Residential Listings: Price City of Bozeman Source: Gallatin Association of Realtors, MLS; consultant team Evaluating the supply of units available by type of units shows: • There is a 1.3-month supply of townhomes on the market. Realtors noted these go fast when they come available. • There is a 2-month supply of single-family homes and 2.4-month supply of condominiums. Residential Sales Compared to Residential Listings: Type Source: Gallatin Association of Realtors, MLS; consultant team 35% 8% 57% 30% 12% 58% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% Condominiums Townhomes Single family % of Units Type of Unit Sales (2018) Listings (1/10/2019) “Townhomes go fast!” Local Realtor 69 City of Bozeman Community Housing Needs Assessment, Feb. 2019 Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting, Inc. 59 Community Home Sales A total of 34 homes were offered for sale at below-market prices since 2014. Only two of these homes will remain affordable for subsequent purchasers. More specifically: • The homes were sold at prices for households earning between 50% and 120% AMI and all were priced below $200,000 – no homes on the MLS are currently available at these prices. • Humble homes construction was overseen by the HRDC. These are the only homes sold since 2014 that use a land trust mechanism to ensure the sales prices remain below-market for subsequent buyers. • West Edge Condominiums were purchased during the recession by the HRDC in 2009. Proceeds from Phases 1 and 2 were used to develop the final Phase 3. Because units were not FHA approved, local lenders were essential to ensuring 30-year, fixed rate financing was available to purchasers at 80% loan-to-value, with HRDC holding silent second mortgages for the balance. The silent second down payments will be recaptured upon resale. • Lakes at Valley West PUD included eight (8) affordable townhomes as part of the City’s mandatory affordable housing ordinance adopted in 2017. All homes were either sold or under contract by May 2018. Buyers are also eligible to receive up to $10,000 in down payment assistance through the City. Affordable Home Sales Since 2014: City of Bozeman Project Price Size Number Type Humble homes (2018) 80% AMI $135,000 300 sq ft 1 Single-family starter home, plus garage $174,900 600 sq ft 1 West Edge Condominiums (2010, 2011, 2014) 50% to 120% AMI $95 - $96,000 1-bdr 84 total; 24 in phase 3 Condominium $97 - $122,000 2-bdr $108 - $135,000 3-bdr Lakes at Valley West PUD (2018) – 80% AMI Start at $199,500 3-bdr 8 Townhome Source: City of Bozeman, HRDC, interviews, consultant team 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 70 City of Bozeman Community Housing Needs Assessment, Feb. 2019 Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting, Inc. 60 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. Current Availability Condominiums are the most available property at lower price points. • Residents desire townhome-style condominiums, but stacked-flat/apartment-style are not preferred. • Realtors noted that nice condominiums can be found for $260,000 and up in the City; less expensive ones are older. • The most affordable condominium currently available (under $235,000) was built in the 1980’s. • Homeowners association dues, condominium association dues and acquiring loans on non-FHA approved properties can pose challenges for residents wanting to purchase. All townhomes listed were constructed since 2013. Most are priced between $345,000 and $415,000. The most affordable single-family homes are about $300,000. Both homes are under 980 square feet and were built in the 1930’s. The more desirable product in terms of condition and age will be priced over about $500,000. An HOA due of $150 per month is equivalent to adding $22,000 to the purchase price. 71 City of Bozeman Community Housing Needs Assessment, Feb. 2019 Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting, Inc. 61 Residential For-Sale Listings by AMI and Type: City of Bozeman, 2018 AMI Level Max Purchase Price* Single- family Townhome Condominium Total # % Under 60% $140,000 0 0 0 0 0% 60.1 - 80% $190,000 0 0 0 0 0% 80.1 - 100% $235,000 0 0 1 1 1% 100.1 - 120% $280,000 0 0 9 10 6% 120.1 - 150% $350,000 8 2 19 29 16% 150.1 – 200% $470,000 31 11 25 67 37% Over 200% AMI >$470,000 65 1 9 75 41% TOTAL - 104 14 63 181 100% Median List Price $497,000 $361,750 $385,000 $419,000 Average List Price $624,538 $458,450 $388,173 $529,420 Average PPSF $272 $193 $238 $254 Source: Gallatin Association of Realtors, MLS; consultant team *Assumes 30-year mortgage at 5.5% with 5% down and 20% of the payment covering taxes, insurance and HOA fees. Homebuyer Profile and Preferences The primary buyer segments in the current market are: • Transplants from higher cost cities seeking a safe and more affordable community with amenities and a good school system to raise their family; • Local residents, mostly first-time homebuyers and move-up buyers, who are seeking ownership options with space to start and raise families. This also includes some seniors who are searching for smaller, lower maintenance homes; • Investment buyers who purchase properties for the purpose of renting them out or otherwise making a profit; and • Second home buyers, most of which seek homes outside of the City or condominiums in or near downtown. Home preferences are summarized in the below table, with more detail following. 72 City of Bozeman Community Housing Needs Assessment, Feb. 2019 Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting, Inc. 62 Preferred Housing Options: Local, Transplant and Second Home Buyers Preferred Unit Type Price Location Local resident: First time homebuyer (couples, starter family) Single- family/Townhome 2 or 3 BR w/ carport or garage Small yard $225,000 to $375,000 Bozeman school district, near parks; will compromise on location/buy in other communities Local resident: Move-up buyer (growing families) Single- family/Townhome 3 BR+ <$450,000 Bozeman school district, will compromise Local resident: Move-down (senior) Single story, low maintenance, ground level condominium or small ranch home/lot <$400,000 In city, walkable preferred Transplant buyer 3+-b single-family home (families); condominium (singles) All prices Bozeman school district, walkable (family); near downtown (singles); do not need to compromise on location Second Home buyers Condominiums in downtown; property in county Luxury Downtown; or county between Bozeman and Belgrade Source: REALTOR® focus group Realtors indicate they regularly see buyers from high cost, out of state regions, such as California, Colorado, Seattle, and Texas. Realtors estimate that transplants comprise up to 50% of buyers in the current market.14 • Transplants made money elsewhere and have the ability to set up shop in Bozeman and telecommute or work locally. These resources enable them to make cash purchase offers, giving them a competitive advantage over local buyers who often need financing to purchase a home. • In comparison to housing prices from where they are relocating, Bozeman housing prices seem relatively inexpensive. Bozeman also offers other features they are seeking such as natural and cultural amenities, walkable and safe neighborhoods, and a quality school system. • Families are the predominant demographic of transplants looking to purchase. Realtors indicate they prefer larger 3 or 4-bedroom single-family homes located 14 This is supported by US Census data, which shows that 75% of resident growth in the City since 2010 is a result of in-migration from other areas. While 36% of in-migrants were from other areas of Montana, Washington, California and Colorado topped the list of out-of-state migration since 2010. See Appendix A – Trends, Calculations and Projections, Migration of City Population 73 City of Bozeman Community Housing Needs Assessment, Feb. 2019 Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting, Inc. 63 in the Bozeman School District, in a walkable neighborhood, and with a small yard for pets. • There are also young, single professional transplants that seek small 1-bedroom condominiums in or near downtown that require little maintenance. Local residents make up the next largest percentage of buyers, perhaps 30 to 40%. They are predominantly first-time homebuyers and move-up buyers, with a few move- down/senior buyers. Realtors indicate that local resident buyers are increasingly priced out of the Bozeman market and seek options in the surrounding area. • First-time homebuyers are mainly young, newly married or not yet-married couples. They are mostly two income households and are searching for homes priced from $225,000 to $300,000. • The preferred unit type is a 3-bed/2-bath single-family home with a small yard and a garage. They will settle for a townhome and some may consider a tiny home with a carport or garage. They want a small yard. • Couples and young families who are looking for a more rural setting and a small yard will not typically consider an apartment-style (stacked-flat) condominium. Condominiums also come with high homeowner dues (around $150/month and rising), which add to the cost to purchase these homes. Higher down payments are also required because none of the condominiums in Bozeman are FHA- approved. • Local buyers desire a location within the Bozeman School District and near parks, but will compromise on location and purchase in nearby communities. Options in nearby communities have become more limited as prices in these communities have increased. Buyers used to be able to find single-family homes in Belgrade they could afford; now most look at townhomes. Some get discouraged and leave the area altogether. • Many first-time homebuyers, seeking creative ways to get into the housing market, have a roommate with them to help off-set their housing costs. In order for lenders to count rental revenue from the roommate toward a mortgage payment, the home is required to have an additional kitchen or an accessory unit on the property. There are also examples of local buyers converting older split- level homes into duplexes. Realtors indicated that in the last few years, there has been a lack of people selling their homes. The lack of inventory to either move-up or move-down in housing, combined with rising interest rates, which decrease purchasing power, discourages this buyer segment. This stagnates the housing market and limits the ability of local residents at different stages of life to find suitable housing options. 74 City of Bozeman Community Housing Needs Assessment, Feb. 2019 Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting, Inc. 64 • Move-up buyers are generally families with children moving from condominiums and searching for a single-family home. The cost differential between these products is hard to bridge. • Seniors looking to down-size find limited inventory of single story or ground level units to meet their needs under $400,000. They often find it cheaper to stay where they are. Their options are to either stay in their home or leave the community. • Homeowners in the City are feeling financial pressure from increased property taxes and special assessments to make infrastructure improvements. • When locals do sell, the buyers for the most part are out of state transplants. Realtors estimated that about 5% to 10% of buyers in recent years are either investment buyers or second home buyers. Based on other data presented in this report, these buyers likely constitute the upper end of this range.15 • The short term rental market has generated some activity, but as noted in Section 5 – Housing Problems, short term rentals that are licensed or advertised is a relatively small percentage of total housing units in the City. • Realtors are seeing a few examples of parents buying homes for their kids while they are attending college, but this seems to be limited. • Second home buyers don’t tend to compete with local residents for housing. They prefer larger homes out of town on large lots (e.g., Gallatin Heights) or luxury condos near downtown. Mortgage Availability For single-family homes, townhomes and duplexes, conventional and government- backed mortgages are readily available at competitive rates. Given the high price of homes, USDA loans are often not available. Other factors may exist to limit opportunities. Based on interviews with local lenders and Realtors: • Interest rates are rising. The average local rate most residents get is 4.875%. This is the highest rate millenials have seen. 15 Neither the state Department of Revenue nor local Realtors track this data in a database. This information must be extrapolated from interviews and other related data sources. Based on ACS occupancy data (Section 2 – Housing Inventory, Housing Units and Occupancy), 10% of homes in total are vacant, with 2% to 3% being vacant for second home/vacation use. MT Department of Revenue (DOR) property ownership data (Section 2 – Housing Inventory, Ownership of Units) shows that 80% of condominiums, single-family homes and townhouses are owned by residents of the City of Bozeman, 7% by other residents of Montana, and 13% by out of state owners. The out-of-area owners mostly comprise a combination of investment buyers (including individuals and businesses) and second homeowners. DOR data represents total housing unit ownership, not just recent sales, meaning any yearly fluctuations in the percentage of out of area purchasers due to changes in market demand is not reflected by DOR data. 75 City of Bozeman Community Housing Needs Assessment, Feb. 2019 Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting, Inc. 65 • Participation in first time home buyer classes has slowed down in the last couple of years. Rising interest rates, high priced homes, student loans and a perception that 20% down is required has reduced home buying interest. Education is needed. • Credit scores can be an issue. Many students do not have them (e.g., no prior debt) or they may be poor due to lack of knowledge (e.g., missed utility bill, high credit card debt, etc.). This can also be an issue with older buyers who have never owned a home. Education is needed. • Down payment is always an issue with first time buyers. Rents are high; households cannot save. About 75% get assistance through family gifted funds. • Conventional loan products are the most frequently used. Government programs (e.g., FHA, VA, etc.) are cumbersome. If using down payment assistance through the state board, FHA or VA is required. • The largest limitation to residents buying: their loan qualification limit. o First time homebuyers typically qualify for $225,000 or less. Finding homes at this price is hard. Some search for a year. If looking in the City, condominiums are about the only option. o Two-income resident households typically max out at $375,000 when rates were at 3.5% interest. With rates 1.5% higher, this has dropped. Cash buyers are tough competition. Condominiums pose other problems: • No condominiums are FHA approved in the City, meaning FHA, VA loans are not available. Local lender conventional loans must be found. • Average HOA dues are $150 per month. This is factored into the loan qualification and lowers the amount households can qualify for by about $22,000. • If down payment assistance is being used through the state, FHA or VA is required, meaning condominiums are a problem. HRDC was successful locating a local lender for West Edge Condominiums that would also work with HRDC’s and the City’s down payment programs. 76 City of Bozeman Community Housing Needs Assessment, Feb. 2019 Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting, Inc. 66 Section 5 – Rental Market Conditions Rental Inventory About 56% of households in the City rent their homes. This equates to just under 11,700 renter households in 2018. Renter-Occupied Housing: City of Bozeman, 2018 2018 Total Households 20,866 Renter-occupied 11,666 Source: US Census, 2017 5-year ACS, consultant team Rentals are roughly represented by one-third each in one of three categories of units: • Single-family detached units and attached units (e.g., townhomes, row homes); • Smaller attached duplex, triplex and four-plex units; and • Larger 5+-unit complexes, which are comprised mostly of apartments and condominium projects. • Mobile homes comprise only 5% of the rental inventory. Rental Units by Type: 2017 Source: 2017 5-year ACS Apartments provide the most secure source of rental housing for long-term resident tenants. Condominiums, single-family homes/townhomes and smaller attached units may be sold by their owners or pulled from the long-term rental market (e.g., short- term rented, owner moves in, etc.). For example, one property manager reported losing Single family (attached and detached) 31% 2, 3, or 4-plex 29% 5+-units 35% Mobile home 5% 77 City of Bozeman Community Housing Needs Assessment, Feb. 2019 Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting, Inc. 67 up to 15 units this year due to owners selling homes (5% of managed stock) and the loss of one (1) unit to conversion to short-term rental. Market Rentals Market rents have been increasing significantly over the past few years. Property managers report an increase 35% to 40% since 2012. Rents have surpassed pre- recession prices and, for some units, have reached the point where households could pay less per month if they could purchase the home. Interviews with property managers of 1,155 units in the City indicated the following: • On average, units rent for between $600 to $800 per bedroom – units with fewer bedrooms at $800/bedroom and units with more bedrooms closer to $600. One-bedroom units may demand $1,000 or more. • During the fall of 2018, some property managers observed a slight slow-down in renter activity for the first time in several years, meaning some properties sat for three-weeks instead of filling in two-weeks, for example. Some are moderating rent increases this year (e.g., $50/month instead of $100/month (or more)). • When rents increase too rapidly, good tenants are lost. Property managers encouraged owners to keep yearly increases below $100 during recent years; some still increased rents $200 or more. Market Rents by Unit Size, January 2019 Professionally-Managed NOTES Market Rents 1 Bedroom $475 - $1,100 $790 average Big range, most are between $700 to $1,000 2 Bedroom $600 to $2,100 $1,350 average Most priced above $900; units above 1,500 are typically single-family homes 3 Bedroom $1,200 - $2,500+ $1,850 average Single-family homes mostly comprise the upper end (over $2,200) 4 Bedroom $2,400 to $3,000+ Few units $2,700 average Source: Property Manager interviews, consultant team 78 City of Bozeman Community Housing Needs Assessment, Feb. 2019 Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting, Inc. 68 Variation in Rents Rents vary significantly within each bedroom size. Rent differences depend mostly upon location, condition and property type. Units downtown can demand more; new construction or renovation can demand more; and renters will pay more for single- family homes. Families will pay more to be in the Bozeman school district. Renters will also pay more for pets. Several property managers increase asking rents by $100 per month if owners will allow dogs, in addition to collecting pet deposits. Because they are scarce, pet units often rent faster. Community Rentals Community rentals are rent-limited and income-restricted units that charge below market rents to ensure prices are affordable to target households. This includes low- income housing tax credit (LIHTC) and other subsidized properties. Rents for community rentals In the City of Bozeman are much lower on average than market-rate rents, although there is some overlap in rent rates for 2-bedroom and smaller units. Generally, for 2-bedroom and smaller units, community unit rents are about 30% lower than market rents; for larger units, community unit rents are 50% lower. The overall average apartment rent of $800 is priced affordable for a 2-person household earning about $32,000 (50% AMI). Community Rents by Unit Size, 2018 Studio/1-Bedroom $545 - $821 $683 average 2-Bedroom $548 - $1,168 $858 average 3-Bedroom $618 - $1,245 $932 average 4-Bedroom (one property) $1,372 Overall Average* $800 Source: Property manager interviews, consultant team *Weighted average based on the number of units by bedroom size. See Section 2 – Housing Inventory. 79 City of Bozeman Community Housing Needs Assessment, Feb. 2019 Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting, Inc. 69 Vacancy Rates and Turnover As a general rule, double-digit vacancy rates are considered to be very high, rates at or below 3% are very low, and a vacancy rate of around 6% that is trending downward is typically an indication to developers that construction of additional units should begin. These “rules of thumb,” however, vary by market area. The average vacancy rate in Bozeman was about 1% in December and January. Property managers of market rate and community rental properties report vacancy rates have consistently been between 0% to 3% over at least the past six years. Many tenants are “afraid to move” in this environment: they cannot afford to buy a home nor can they find another rental. Vacancy Rates: City of Bozeman (Dec. 15, 2018 to Jan. 4, 2019) Vacancy Rate Community rentals 1.9% (10 units) Market-rate rentals (interviews) 0.8% (9 of 1,155 units) Market-rate rentals (advertised) 1.2% (140 units) Source: Craigslist; Apartment Finder; local websites, newspaper; interviews; consultant team Market Rate Rentals • During the recession, market rate managers reported vacancy rates of about 30%. Reduced rent, free-month rent or other concessions were used to attract renters. This lasted for about 1.5 years before beginning to turn around in 2010/2011. • Over the past several years, units have usually been re-leased before they are vacated by the prior tenant – property managers report they typically only have a “vacancy” when a lease is ended early or new units are coming on line. Vacant units are typically filled within two-weeks on average: within one-day during the summer, but perhaps up to one month over the winter. • Interviewed properties turn over about 30% to 50% of their units each year. The most turnover occurs during the summer months. This is due to lease schedules, student schedules and new tenant activity – more people move in the summer than winter into and out of Bozeman. Some properties only have a couple of units turnover each month during the winter. Community Rentals • The recession had a shorter impact on community rentals. Many of the non- LIHTC community rental properties and senior properties (e.g., project based 80 City of Bozeman Community Housing Needs Assessment, Feb. 2019 Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting, Inc. 70 section 8, section 202, etc.) remained full. Some non-senior LIHTC properties had 30%+ vacancies for about 6-months until the market resettled; some reduced rents and offered low or no deposits upon move-in. • Many community rental properties have waitlists varying from 26 up to 100 people; units are usually filled immediately upon becoming available. Most non- senior LIHTC properties do not carry waitlists, but available units will be filled within two-weeks. • Most senior and non-LIHTC community properties reported 5% turnover last year combined (19 units), which is typical. Many properties have only one to three units come available during the year. • Non-senior LIHTC properties reported higher turnover rates – about 30% up to 50% of units per year. Similar to market-rate properties, summer months are the highest turnover season. Available Rentals Interviews and research of listings on Craigslist, Apartment Finder, local property manager and project websites, and the local paper turned up about 140 vacant long- term rentals in mid-December and early January. Of these, the average rent was about $1,570 per month; affordable for a two-person household earning about 100% AMI. Rents of Vacant Units by AMI: City of Bozeman, Dec. 15, 2018 to Jan. 4, 2019 AMI level Max AMI Rent Studio/1- bedroom 2- bedroom 3+- bedroom Total listings % listings <30% AMI $475 1 0 0 1 1% 30.1 to 60% $950 0 6 0 6 4% 60.1 - 80% $1,260 6 17 7 30 21% 80.1 - 100% $1,580 0 19 18 37 26% 100.1 - 120% $1,900 2 5 36 43 31% 120.1 - 150% $2,375 0 4 12 16 11% Over 150% AMI Over $2,375 0 1 6 7 5% TOTAL units - 9 52 79 140 100% Average Rent - $1,130 $1,360 $1,750 $1,570 - Sources: Interviews, project and property manager websites, Apartment Finder, Craigslist, newspaper, consultant team 81 City of Bozeman Community Housing Needs Assessment, Feb. 2019 Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting, Inc. 71 Renter Profile and Preferences Interviews with property managers provide some insight on the profile and preferences of renters in Bozeman: Renter Profile • Property managers have seen more demand from construction and technological employees in recent years. • Student demand has remained consistent over the past several years. • Most market rate properties report that students occupy 30 to 40% of their units. One manager noted a drop off last year in students in his property, mostly equated to new rentals coming on line. • Studio and 1-bedroom units are typically young professionals and graduate students. Most are single, but a few are couples. • Two-bedrooms are typically occupied by student roommate households or young professionals. Couples using the second bedroom as an office/work from home is also common. • Market rate rental managers reported few families renting units – anywhere from 5% up to 20% of units. Some are in two-bedrooms, but more are in 3- bedroom units or larger. Typically families in their 20’s are renting and in their 30’s are renting just until they find a home to buy. The high price of for-sale homes in Bozeman has been extending their rental term. Renter Problems • The largest qualification issues property managers see are applicants with no credit history. This affects students, as well as older applicants. Most property managers permit the household to have a co-signer if they have no or poor credit. • While overcrowding happens, it is not a problem. It is more common during the school year when rentals are most scarce, but is typically detected quickly. Unit Preferences More rentals in general are needed in Bozeman. Property managers indicated rental preferences and unit types that are in particular short supply: 82 City of Bozeman Community Housing Needs Assessment, Feb. 2019 Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting, Inc. 72 • 1-bedroom units. All property managers reported that they do not have enough 1-bedroom rentals and that more are needed. Studio apartments are also in demand. • Pet-friendly. All property managers reported that pet-friendly units are needed. These properties typically lease-up the fastest and can demand higher rent. • In-unit washer/dryer and extra storage are strong preferred amenities. • Two- and 3-bedroom units comprise the largest component of rental inventory in Bozeman. Managers of 2- and 3-bedroom townhomes and townhome-style condominiums noted that this style unit moves fast; they will be full when comparable apartment-style units are available. Community Rentals • Occupants of units are a mix of all household types, seniors, Bozeman employees, fixed income and retired occupants. • Full time students are not eligible to occupy LIHTC properties. At least one household member must be employed. Students occupied a small proportion of other community rental properties (less than 5%). • Income qualification can be a problem for two-earner households seeking two- and three-bedroom units that are rent-restricted. Many two-earner households earn too much for rent-restricted units, but too little to afford a market rate rental. • Managers report that 1-bedroom units are almost always full. These are the easiest to lease. Larger 3-bedroom unit occupancy varies by property, with family-oriented properties finding them easy to lease and more urban or dense properties taking longer to lease. • Senior-restricted rentals are always full; more are needed. • Many occupants have service pets or companion animals in properties that do not allow pets. Several of the LIHTC properties allow pets. 83 City of Bozeman Community Housing Needs Assessment, Feb. 2019 Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting, Inc. 73 Section 6 – Housing Problems Cost-burdened Cost-burden indicates the extent to which housing costs exceed what Bozeman households can afford. Households are considered to be cost burdened if their housing payment16 exceeds 30% of their gross income, and extremely cost burdened if it exceeds 50%. Cost burdened households often have insufficient income left over for other life necessities including food, clothing, transportation and health care. ACS data shows that rentals are not priced at levels that are affordable for the majority of residents. In 2017, a very high 55% of renters were cost-burdened; about 30% were extremely cost burdened. This compares to about 24% of owners that were cost- burdened. These ratios are similar to the County overall. Rents increasing at a rate of 7% or more per year since 2012 compared to a yearly 2.6% increase in area wages has likely increased cost burden among renters. Data from the 2012 5-year ACS shows a lower (but still substantial) 47% of renters were cost- burdened. Property managers have observed that when rents jump more than $50 to $100 per year, existing tenants (singles, couples, families) tend to be replaced with roommate households to afford rising rents. Households Paying 30% or More of Income for Housing Costs: 2017 Source: 2017 5-year ACS 16 The US Census defines “housing payment” to include rent and mortgage plus utilities. 15% 25% 17% 25% 8% 30% 7% 30% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Own Rent Own Rent Gallatin County City of Bozeman 50% or more 30 to 49.9% 84 City of Bozeman Community Housing Needs Assessment, Feb. 2019 Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting, Inc. 74 Overcrowding Overcrowding does not have a strict definition. Most property managers allow no more than 2-persons per bedroom in their units. The Census Bureau defines overcrowded housing units as those with more than 1-person per room. Based on the ACS, renter households were more likely to be overcrowded (0.9%) than owner households (0.1%) in 2017. The ACS indicates overcrowding is slightly more prevalent in the County overall than in the City. Interviews with property managers verify this low rate of overcrowding. Most stated that it happens, more typically during the school year, but it is not considered a problem. With well-managed properties, extra occupants are typically identified quickly. Households with 1-or-more Persons Per Room: 2017 Gallatin County City of Bozeman Own 0.9% 0.1% Rent 2.5% 0.9% Total 1.5% 0.5% Source: 2017 5-year ACS Loss of Housing Local data on the loss of lower-priced housing for residents in the City is limited. • Prices of homes lost through redevelopment are not tracked. • Conversion of apartments to for-sale condominiums is also not tracked given that this permitting process occurs at the state level. • Short-term rentals, although permitted by the City, are not tracked to understand their prior use – i.e. if they were long-term rented or owner- occupied prior to being short-term rented. • Finally, there are several large mobile home parks that are adjacent to, but not annexed by the City, some of which have been lost in the past. The City does not govern these developments. The below reports available information from the City, other housing organizations, property managers and media coverage. 85 City of Bozeman Community Housing Needs Assessment, Feb. 2019 Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting, Inc. 75 Mobile home parks There are about 123 acres in the City of Bozeman where mobile home parks are allowed; about 34 acres are in use for manufactured homes and some exist in a mix of several other zones. When lost, few options exist to relocate homes, many homes are not structurally able or sound enough to be moved, and like alternatives are not available in today’s housing market. In the County, an estimated 200 families have been displaced from mobile home parks parks since 2006, including Bridger View Trailer Court.17 In the City, since 2012: • One 12+-unit mobile home park was lost last year (Willson trailer park) in the City. Lot rents were $280 per month. • The Aspen Crossing redevelopment proposal (2019), if approved, will replace Sunset Mobile Home Park (about 20+ units). The development is in an urban renewal district, meaning the developer would front relocation costs; financing for which may be made available through tax increment financing funds. Affordable Rental Properties – Expiration LIHTC properties have limited required affordable life. When the term of affordability expires, they may convert to market-rate rentals. At least one expired LIHTC project in the City, West Babcock apartments (24 units, built 1996), was purchased by a non-profit to retain affordability. Since 2012, only Aspen Meadows, a 44-unit townhome LIHTC development, expired. As of early 2019, units are converting to market-rate rents. Existing tenants may retain their restricted rents for up to two years. As units vacate, rents will be increased. Of the 13 remaining LIHTC properties in the City, only Pond Row apartments (22 units) are set to expire in the next five years; although many more properties are or will be eligible to apply for a “qualified contract” during this period to end the affordability term early (see Section 3 – Housing Inventory for more information). Short Term Rentals With the explosive growth in short-term vacation home rentals available through websites such as VRBO, AirBnB and other online hosting sites, understanding the effects of short-term rentals on available housing for residents have come to the forefront in 17 See “A place to land: the slow struggle for Bozeman’s mobile homes,” K. Houghton, Bozeman Daily Chronicle, Apr. 29, 2018. 86 City of Bozeman Community Housing Needs Assessment, Feb. 2019 Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting, Inc. 76 many communities. Some are impacted to a greater extent than others. Among the highest impacts seen in the mountain west are in high-cost resort communities. Data on the conversion of units – either long term rentals or previously owner-occupied homes to short term rentals – is not tracked. Information on the number of short term rentals in the City, however, and from property manager interviews provides some insight. Advertised rentals In early January 2019, only 430 short term rentals were advertised on Airbnb in Bozeman; 374 on VRBO. Some of these units include hotels and commercial leasing properties that also use these sites. Each site represents about 2% of total housing units in the City; or about 4% of housing units combined, keeping in mind that some properties may be advertised on both sites. Listings on Airbnb have increased substantially since 2013. A cumulative 1,084 properties were listed in 2018 – this includes properties that may only have been on the site for one month, for example; meaning not all properties were available year-round. Cumulative Airbnb Properties Advertised Each Year 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 52 151 357 602 842 1,084 Source: Airdna.co Based on usage data from Airdna, prime short-term rental activity is in the summer. Average property occupancies peak in July (85%) and are at their lowest in November (38%). As shown in the below map, advertised properties are scattered throughout the City, 87 City of Bozeman Community Housing Needs Assessment, Feb. 2019 Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting, Inc. 77 Esri, HERE, DeLorme, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community Short Term Rental Properties City Limits Zoning R-S (Residential Suburban) R-1 (Residential Single-Household, Low Density) R-2 (Residential Single-Household, Medium Density) R-3 (Residential Medium Density) R-4 (Residential High Density) R-5 (Residential Mixed Use High Density) R-O (Residential Office) R-MH (Residential Mobile Home) REMU (Residential Emphasis Mixed Use) B-1 (Neighborhood Business) B-2 (Community Business) B-2M (Community Business District-Mixed) B-3 (Central Business) M-1 (Light Manufacturing) M-2 (Manufacturing and Industrial) BP (Business Park) UMU (Urban Mixed Use) HMU (Historic Mixed Use) PLI (Public Lands/Institutions)$ 0 ½1¼ Miles Short Term Rental Properties Map created by City of Bozeman GIS Department Created for planning purposes only 1/7/2019 88 City of Bozeman Community Housing Needs Assessment, Feb. 2019 Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting, Inc. 78 Short-term Rental Requirements The City has been requiring short-term rentals to receive a city permit since at least 2016. The state also requires a permit. The state of Montana collects a 7% tax on short- term rental stays. The City does not receive funds from these collections. The City adopted revised short-term rental regulations in December 2017. During the public comment process prior to adoption, the City reported receiving more comments on this issue than any in the past. The new regulations reduce the intensity and types of short-term rentals that are allowed in residential district. Non-complying short-term rentals in operation prior to January 1, 2017, may apply for a conditional use permit to grandfather in the operation of their units. The revised regulations allow three types of short-term rentals: • Type 1 is renting one or more rooms in an owner-occupied home; • Type 2 is renting an owner-occupied dwelling without the owner present during the full rental; an accessory dwelling unit to the owner’s primary dwelling units; or a unit within an owner-occupied duplex. • Type 3 is renting a unit that is not owner-occupied. Type 3 is only permitted for the most part in non-residential districts. Currently 47 properties are permitted. This includes 36 Type 3 properties, eight (8) of which are owned by out-of-state owners and one by a non-Bozeman Montana resident. In other words, most are owned by City of Bozeman residents. • The City is working on increasing enforcement. The City finds listed properties that do not have permits and is sending out letters this year to inform owners of the requirement. • The City also has the authority to revoke permits due to violations. This has not yet been needed. General housing impacts As noted above, the number of short term rentals that are licensed or advertised is a relatively small percentage of total housing units in the City. In addition: • About one-half of the housing stock in the City is under some form of an HOA; many HOAs do not permit short-term rentals. • The number of Type 3 rentals in residential areas is very small (less than 30). 89 City of Bozeman Community Housing Needs Assessment, Feb. 2019 Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting, Inc. 79 • Property managers that were interviewed that had some short-term rentals in their pool noted a couple reverted back to long term rental when the new city regulations were adopted. • Prior to the new regulations, property managers saw some conversion of units to short-term, but not significant. Of much larger impact has been owners selling occupied rentals now that home prices are high. One manager lost up to 15 long- term rental units to owner sales last year; that same manager only saw one short-term rental conversion. Homelessness Determining needs for shelter and services for homeless people requires a specialized study and is beyond the scope of this project. Data availability and information collected through interviews, however, shows that homelessness and the need for transitional housing is a consistent need. As part of the Montana Continuum of Care Coalition, homeless point-in-time counts are conducted annually during the last week in January by the Greater Gallatin Homeless Action Committee. Wide variation is seen year-to-year given the one-day status of counts. The general trend, however, has been a decline in homeless counts throughout the state. The Bozeman district also shows a declining trend between 2013 and 2017. Counts bumped up in 2018, however, from the prior year to 133 people. Counts for 2019 are being collected. 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Homeless individuals 236 286 241 121 119 115 133 Source: Point-in-time homeless surveys, MT Continuum of Care Coalition Family Promise and HRDC both provide shelter for homeless (see Section 2 – Housing Inventory). • Family Promise wants to add more transitional housing units to their inventory to assist more families. As the end of 2018, a project/plan to identify more transitional housing has not been identified. • HRDC operates a warming center in the fall/winter and day center in the spring/summer, but sees increased need for assistance for families that are currently homeless. 90 City of Bozeman Community Housing Needs Assessment, Feb. 2019 Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting, Inc. 80 Section 7 – Community Housing Resources and Programs This section provides a brief inventory of local community housing resources and existing programs available in Bozeman. Community Housing Organizations and Programs There are 6 organizations summarized below that are helping to address housing needs for special needs, low income and other households in the City. As illustrated below, these organizations have a collaborative relationship, joining resources where helpful to improve service. There is a table at the conclusion of this section summarizing available programs and service levels. HAVEN is the nonprofit serving survivors of domestic violence. It was founded in 1979 and provides confidential shelter, crisis intervention, support, referrals and education for domestic violence victims. Haven operates a 10-bed shelter in a building that was donated to the organization in 1981 by the City of Bozeman. Last year, they served 1,116 unduplicated participants, a 14% increase from the previous year. Haven is currently in the planning stages for a new facility to replace their current facility that was built in 1921. The current building has major structural problems, having been constructed on a rubble stone foundation, and it also has substandard electrical wiring and lacks handicapped accessibility features. The current facility is limited to serving small household units of women and their children. HABITAT FOR HUMANITY of Gallatin Valley is a Community Housing Development Organization (CHDO) that provides a sweat-equity homeownership program for households earning 50% AMI or below. It is one of the few organizations that is able to provide homeownership opportunities for very low income households. • Habitat has constructed about 20 homes in the City of Bozeman since 1991 and 75 total in the greater Bozeman area (Park County, Gallatin County and the eastern part of Madison County). Of these, about 8 homes in Bozeman remain in the Habitat program; 50 homes in the greater Bozeman area. All other homes have either been purchased by the owner (mortgage paid off) or sold on the open market. The Habitat board decided in 2017 to utilize the land trust model or ground lease on all future homes to keep them in the Habitat program. • Habitat builds about 2 homes per year (down from 3 to 4 in 2011/2012). Habitat anticipates steady annual output of 3 to 4 units per year going forward in the nearby community of Belgrade. Habitat does not anticipate much near-term housing development within the City of Bozeman, mainly due to the high price of land and lots in the City. 91 City of Bozeman Community Housing Needs Assessment, Feb. 2019 Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting, Inc. 81 • Habitat does not keep a waitlist, but about 6 interested homeowners contact them each month. • As a CHDO, Habitat has access to HOME funds. Habitat recently received $750,000 (the largest amount ever received) to build 4 homes in Belgrade in 2019. Habitat has the capacity to leverage volunteer labor and construct a 1,200 square foot, 4-bedroom home for $180,000. Habitat also offers homeowner rehabilitation assistance, performing 8 to 10 repairs each year. About 20% of the critical repairs are in City of Bozeman, 70% immediately outside the City limits or within Gallatin County and the other 10% in Park County. Habitat for Humanity also provides limited homebuyer counseling, such as income qualification services, and financial literacy classes, utilizing HRDC’s homebuyer education program for its clients. REACH has been supporting adults (18 years or older) with developmental disabilities since 1974 by providing residential, vocational and transportation services. REACH provides four levels of residential supports, including supportive living, transitional housing, standard adult housing, and Intensive housing. • REACH housing services, including transitional living, adult housing, intensive services and group homes is summarized in Section 2 – Housing Inventory. All housing provides services to occupants, from basic day and evening on-site staffing through intensive 24-hour care and services. • REACH also provides supportive living, in-home care for about 35 clients. This is the most independent living where folks rent or own their own housing and REACH provides services. Most live in town because their clients have limited options for transportation. • In 2016, REACH opened the Greenway Apartment Complex which contains 10 total units. Capacity was increased by 2 residential flats because an older facility with 8 units was torn down to build the new facility. The Greenway Apartment Complex was a $1.4 million project and included a partnership with Gallatin County to gain access to a $750,000 HOME grant. The balance was raised through private philanthropy. The complex is deed restricted for 30 years to serve extremely low-income adults with developmental disabilities. 92 City of Bozeman Community Housing Needs Assessment, Feb. 2019 Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting, Inc. 82 There are no plans for additional units. The state reimbursement rate does not cover REACH’s operating costs; fundraising is required to cover the gap. In 2015 there were 91 people waiting for services in Bozeman, and it is estimated that figure is now about at 100 people. The State of Montana has a waiting list of more than 2,000; some of which may be getting services, but need a higher level of service. Service centers around the state declined because of state funding cuts, increasing the waiting list. WESTERN MONTANA MENTAL HEALTH CENTER (WMMHC) offers comprehensive mental health services and they offer housing assistance as necessary to fill this goal. Section 2 – Housing Inventory summarizes the transitional units, studio apartments, and Hope House short-term and day beds run by WMMHC. Much of the housing they do provide was completed with assistance from other organizations and the City, as follows: • The 10 transitional units operated by WMMHC are on land donated by Deaconess Hospital. • Since 2012 WMMHC completed a facility with six studio apartments. Critical to making the project financially feasible was the provision of infrastructure as part of the larger development and low-interest gap financing from the City. • WMMHC does not currently have the resources or organizational capacity to complete another stand-alone project in Bozeman, although they see an acute need for beds offering adolescent support with some family involvement. A collaborative partnership may be possible. FAMILY PROMISE of Gallatin Valley provides housing, services, and resources for homeless families throughout the Gallatin Valley. Family Promise is a founding member of The Greater Gallatin Homeless Action Coalition, which is a community network of concerned citizens and services providers working together to actively prevent and end homelessness in the Gallatin Valley. • Family Promise provides intensive case management and shelter for families with children. Their rotational shelter is made possible through the coordination of 21 religious congregations which provide overnight shelter in local churches. Family Promise also operates a day center with case management, employment, housing, and other resources for the families in their sheltering program. As summarized in Section 2 – Housing Inventory, the rotational shelter program has the capacity to house a maximum of four families, up to 12 individuals, for a period of up to 90 days in the City. They also operate 7 transitional housing units, 4 in Bozeman and 3 in Belgrade, which provide transitional housing for families for up to two years. They also work with HRDC Housing First to assist with security deposits to help transition families into homes. 93 City of Bozeman Community Housing Needs Assessment, Feb. 2019 Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting, Inc. 83 • Family Promise has trained over 2,500 volunteers in the last 13 years to assist families in their transition to more stable living situations. Last year they had 750 active volunteers. • Family Promise sees the need for more affordable rental development near public transportation and employment centers. • They also have need for more transitional housing, which is part of their long- term vision. HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL (HRDC) is a major provider of affordable housing and related services in Bozeman. Founded in 1975, the Human Resource Development Council is a non-profit community action agency serving Gallatin, Park and Meagher Counties. The HRDC provides over 30 different programs and services in Housing, Food & Nutrition, Child & Youth Development, Senior Empowerment, Community Transportation, Home Heating–Energy–Safety, and Community Development to help individuals and families struggling to meet their basic living needs (shelter, food, etc.). In addition to providing a wide range of supportive services, HRDC also refers customers to a network of community partners. Services offered in housing include: Affordable housing development, acquisition and sale. The development and rental activity of HRDC is summarized in Section 2 – Housing Inventory. In general: • For rentals, HRDC through Resource Property Management manages over 300 community housing units; 24 of which are in Bozeman. HRDC also helps with tenant qualification and placement within other affordable properties in the area. • For homeownership, HRDC is contracted with the City to qualify buyers and help manage sales of units through the Affordable Housing Ordinance. HRDC has a long history acquiring and developing or rehabbing properties for resale in the region. This recently includes the West Edge Condominiums in Bozeman. Homeownership assistance, which includes: • Down payment assistance and homebuyer counseling. These programs operate together. Counseling provides goal setting, readiness assessment, defined actions steps, resource navigation and budget coaching. Down Payment Assistance provides gap financing, in the form a zero-interest deferred second mortgage, to help cover down payment and closing costs. Households must earn below 80% AMI and bring 1% of the housing cost to the table to qualify. Properties also need to fall below prices set by the MT Department of Commerce – which was recently about $225,000. These properties are scarce in Bozeman. 94 City of Bozeman Community Housing Needs Assessment, Feb. 2019 Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting, Inc. 84 • Homebuyer education is offered to anyone wanting to participate. It provides information on the home purchase process and helps individuals assess homeownership readiness, understand the importance of good credit, manage finances, find and maintain a home after purchase. A total of 405 individuals completed the course last year. • Foreclosure prevention, which offers foreclosure intervention counseling to help homeowners understand and navigate this process to try to keep their home. Housing First initiative for homelessness assistance and prevention. This was launched in 2009. It provides case management services in the form of financial coaching, resource management, housing support and navigation through other services available in the community. It takes a “housing first” approach to individuals and families experiencing or at risk of homelessness. • Units and beds provided for homeless individuals and families are summarized in Section 2 – Housing Inventory and consists of a seasonal warming center (fall/winter), day center (spring/summer) and transitional housing. Numbers of individuals seeking assistance in their warming center have been rising. • The Housing First Program also operates the Revolving Loan Program, for cases in which a household’s housing is in jeopardy but falls outside of Federal regulations and the household is financially able to repay the zero interest loan. • The Program also partners with Section 8 to assist with Housing Navigation Services to 211 households (327 clients) in 2018, most of which do not need rental assistance, but just need help finding a home. Rental assistance. HRDC sees a wide variety of people seeking assistance and many do not need rent assistance. In recent years, they have seen a rise in people wanting property search assistance having lost their home to owners selling or newcomers that cannot find units with the below 2% vacancy rate. • Section 8 program management and assistance with lease ups, inspections, paperwork and housing navigation. The Section 8 Voucher Program is for households earning less than 50% AMI. The voucher requires recipients to pay no more than 30% of their income for rent and subsidizes property owners for the balance of the rent up to HUD established Fair Market Rents (FMR). The primary challenge with this program is finding rentals in Bozeman that fall within the HUD FMR standards – most properties are priced too high: 1- bedrooms below $700 to $800 per month and 2-bedrooms below $1,000 are rare. The program has consistently had a more than 12-month wait list, which recently dropped just below 12-months. • Home to Stay emergency rental assistance for households experiencing homelessness or at risk for such. Eligible households must be currently homeless 95 City of Bozeman Community Housing Needs Assessment, Feb. 2019 Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting, Inc. 85 or have received an eviction notice resulting from a sudden or unexpected drop in income. This is temporary, limited assistance that can help households in emergency situations retain their home. • Housing navigation services see about 10 to 15 people per week. This program helps people find homes whether needing Section 8 placement, below market rentals or even market rentals. In this tight rental market, the typical search avenues: Craigslist, Facebook, newspaper, property managers, etc., does not work. It is largely a word of mouth market and this program works with property managers to learn of units coming on line to help with placement. Summary of Housing Programs Available in Bozeman HOMEOWNERSHIP PROGRAMS Sponsor Outcomes through 2011 2012-2016 production 2018 service Acquisition and sale of homes HRDC 15 2 NP Homeowner rehab assistance* Habitat 37 25 About 2/year in city Down-payment assistance* HRDC 104 84 16 loans (14 in Gallatin County) Weatherization of homes and rentals* HRDC 431 581 NP Weatherization/repairs for homeowners (with volunteers) Rotary Not avail. 54 NP Emergency repairs HRDC Not avail. 22 NP Homebuyer education* HRDC - - 405 individuals Pre-purchase counseling* HRDC 1779 1,440 198 households (71% increase from 2011) Foreclosure counseling* HRDC 200 48 NP OTHER PROGRAMS Section 8 rent subsidies* HRDC 273 450 414 households Transitional rent subsidies HRDC/HAVEN/ Family Promise 0 6 NP Assisted in-home care REACH - - 35 clients Note: Unless indicated otherwise, service area for programs is Bozeman; programs with * serve tri-county area (Gallatin, Park, Meagher). The Rotary repair program serves Bozeman and Belgrade. NP = information not provided 96 City of Bozeman Community Housing Needs Assessment, Feb. 2019 Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting, Inc. 86 City Programs Affordable Housing Fund The City maintains an affordable housing fund financing through property taxes. The average collection between 2012 and 2018 was about $150,000 per year, and it has risen significantly since that time with the 2018 collection just over $300,000. Any payments in lieu received for Affordable Housing Ordinance (AHO) compliance will also go into this fund (see below). 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.), some of which is summarized above (e.g. Haven, WMMHC, etc.). 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) Down Payment assistance The City allows households to qualify for up to $10,000 in down payment assistance, financed through the Affordable Housing Fund. This is often paired with additional assistance through HRDC’s program. Homebuyers must bring at least $1,000 to the table to qualify. This money is attached as a lien on the property, so the money is recaptured when the home is sold or refinanced. In 2018, $80,000 was paid to help eight households get into the homes developed as a result of the Affordable Housing Ordinance. Affordable Housing Ordinance (AHO) The City of Bozeman first adopted a Workforce Housing Ordinance on July 16, of 2007. Ordinance 1710 was a form of inclusionary zoning that required 0.4 workforce housing units per the net area of development in acres. The ordinance was in effect until July 18th of 2011 when it was suspended for one year due to the downturn of the Bozeman housing market. That suspension remained in place until December 2015 with the adoption of the current Affordable Housing Ordinance No.1922 (AHO). The AHO was adopted as a voluntary inclusionary zoning requirement with contingencies to revert to 97 City of Bozeman Community Housing Needs Assessment, Feb. 2019 Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting, Inc. 87 mandatory requirements if certain affordable housing production benchmarks were not met by June 12, 2017. The benchmark of 27 affordable homes was not met by the deadline and the AHO switched to mandatory in July of 2017. The AHO 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 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. 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) Incentives to Develop Lower and Moderate Priced Homes The City offers a series of procedural adjustments and subsidies to encourage the development of lower and moderate priced homes. 98 City of Bozeman Community Housing Needs Assessment, Feb. 2019 Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting, Inc. 88 For lower priced homes (targeting households earning 65% - 80% AMI): • Developers and builders can seek impact fee deferment if funds are available in the Affordable Housing Fund. Impact fees are secured with a lien and the homebuyer pays back the fees at time of sale, transfer, or refinance. • Developers can request concurrent infrastructure and housing construction. For lower and moderated priced homes (targeting households earning 81% - 100% AMI), a developer can request: • A reduction in the minimum lot size. • A parking requirements reduction (2 spaces per 3-bedroom dwelling). 99 City of Bozeman Community Housing Needs Assessment, Feb. 2019 Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting, Inc. 89 Section 8 – Current and Projected Housing Needs This section addresses the question: How many additional housing units are needed to address housing deficiencies for residents and support the labor force needed to sustain businesses and the economy. Needs are projected through 2025 and quantified in two categories: • Catch-Up Needs – the number of housing units needed to address current deficiencies in housing based on employees needed to fill unfilled jobs and the number of ownership and rental units needed to provide a functional housing market. • Keep-Up Needs – the number of units needed to keep-up with future demand for housing based on projected job and related resident growth and jobs that will be vacated by retiring employees. Housing shortages worsen when local job growth and the need for more workers exceeds the growth in available housing units. This section estimates housing units needed to support employers, keep up with future job growth and improve housing options for area residents and is, therefore, a subset of the total demand for housing in the Bozeman area. In other words, these figures should not be mistaken as representing the entire housing market for projects – retirees moving in from elsewhere, second homeowner purchases, and other market segments are outside the scope of this analysis. Catch-up Needs (Current Conditions) Unfilled jobs Employer survey respondents reported that they had 1,451 vacant jobs in total – or about 9% of jobs. About 728 housing units are required to house employees needed to fill the 1,451 vacancies. Because this represents survey responses only, which comprised about 30% of total jobs in the City, this figure should be considered conservative. 100 City of Bozeman Community Housing Needs Assessment, Feb. 2019 Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting, Inc. 90 Units needed to help fill vacant jobs Survey only Vacant jobs 1,451 Jobs per worker 1.2 Employees per household 1.6 Housing units needed 728 Functional Rental Market (5% Vacancy) The current rental market in the City is not functional because vacancies average about 1%. When vacancy rates are this low, the rental market is near capacity and cannot absorb new residents or employees moving to the area. This results in several issues: • Renters have difficulty moving from one unit to another as their circumstances change; • New employees struggle to find housing when hired to support an expanding economy; • Rents increase at rates much faster than incomes; and • Landlords have little incentive to make repairs and capital investments. A 5% vacancy level, while still low, provides some choice and availability of units for residents and employees. To increase the vacancy rate to 5%, approximately 481 additional rental units are needed. Rentals Needed for a Functional Market Renter-occupied units (2018) 11,666 Vacant Units (Section 5) 140 Total rentals 11,806 Number of rentals if 5% vacancy rate 12,427 Difference 621 New units needed (Difference minus existing Vacant Units) 481 Balanced Ownership Supply (5-months supply) As of January 2019, there were 198 residences listed for sale on the MLS – about a 2.3- month supply. For homes priced under $400,000, the supply drops to 1.8-months. A general rule of thumb is that when the number of homes available for sale is below a 6- month supply, it is a seller’s market – meaning that there are more buyers than homes 101 City of Bozeman Community Housing Needs Assessment, Feb. 2019 Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting, Inc. 91 available to purchase, resulting in rising prices. The actual balanced range typically varies between 5- to 7-months supply depending upon the community. By providing more housing ownership opportunities at prices that residents can purchase, this promotes movement in the market by allowing renters to move into ownership, growing families to move up in housing, and empty-nesters to free up their larger homes in favor of down-sizing. This movement accommodates the housing needs of residents at various stages of life. About 252 more homes are needed to generate a 5-month supply of for-sale housing on the MLS. For-sale Homes Needed for a Balanced Supply MLS sales (2018) 1,083 Average sales per month (divide by 12) 90 5-month supply 450 MLS listings (Jan. 2019) 198 Difference: Additional MLS listings needed for 5-month supply 252 Keep-Up (Future Needs) Job growth To keep up with estimated job growth and non-employee resident needs over the next five years, between 2,915 to 3,850 housing units will be needed to house new employees. This would be equivalent to between 415 and 550 housing units per year. This estimate should be updated with actual job changes over time as data become available. The range depends upon whether the City keeps up with growth in city jobs only or focuses more regionally on the Bozeman area, which includes businesses located in the neighboring unincorporated county. It is also based on maintaining the current in- commuting rate (43% of jobs are filled by in-commuters in the City). Producing more or less housing than estimated below would be equivalent to either decreasing or increasing the in-commuting rate, respectively. The calculation includes units needed for non-employee household growth by retaining the same ratio of total occupied housing units to jobs (2.54) as present, rather than focusing solely on employee-headed households. 102 City of Bozeman Community Housing Needs Assessment, Feb. 2019 Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting, Inc. 92 City of Bozeman (61% of county jobs) Bozeman area (77% of county jobs) Jobs 2018 53,020 66,525 Households 2018 20,865 27,550 Jobs:Household ratio 2.54 2.41 Jobs 2025 60,430 75,825 Households needed (divide jobs by ratio) 23,780 31,400 Housing units needed (2025 minus 2018 households) 2,915 3,850 Retiring employees Employers will need to fill the jobs vacated by retirees in addition to any newly created jobs. Some retirees will likely leave the area upon retirement; however, when they sell their homes, not all will be affordable for new workers filling their jobs. Employers reported on the City of Bozeman survey that about 12% of employees (2,057 total) will be retiring over the next five years. About 1,030 housing units will be needed to house the employees filling jobs vacated by retirees. Because this represents survey responses only, which comprised about 30% of total jobs in the City, this figure should be considered conservative. Retiring employees % to retire by 2020 12.5% # to retire 2,057 Jobs per worker 1.2 Employees per household 1.6 Housing units 1,030 Summary of Needs Based on estimated catch-up and keep-up needs, between 5,405 to 6,340 housing units for residents and employees are needed by 2025, or an average of about 770 to 905 units per year. About 60% of the housing needed should be priced below-market: 3,210 to 3,765 units (460 to 540 per year). As discussed below, this means ownership housing mostly priced below $350,000 (150% AMI) and rentals priced below $1,000 per month (60% AMI). 103 City of Bozeman Community Housing Needs Assessment, Feb. 2019 Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting, Inc. 93 The extent to which identified housing needs may be addressed by the market will be influenced by changes in housing prices over time, the availability of land, developers’ construction of community housing, and the presence or absence of programs to facilitate more development. These factors will be an extension of housing policy, resources and desired direction with respect to community housing. Setting this policy direction will be a goal of Part 2 of this study through the development of a Bozeman Community Housing Action Plan. Summary of Housing Needs Low* High Catch-Up 1,460 1,460 Unfilled Jobs (9% of jobs) 728 728 Functional rental market (5% vacancy rate) 481 481 Balanced for-sale market (5-month inventory) 252 252 Keep-Up 3,945 4,880 New jobs (1.9% avg growth/year) 2,915 3,850 Retiring employees (12% of jobs) 1,030 1,030 TOTAL through 2023 5,405 6,340 Below market (at least 60%)** 3,210 3,765 Market-rate (no more than 40%) 2,195 2,575 *”Low” refers to keeping up with new job growth in the City of Bozeman only; “high” refers to keeping up with new job growth in the Bozeman area (includes the neighboring unincorporated area). All other need calculations are the same for low and high columns. **Below market homes include ownership mostly priced between $160,000 up to $350,000 and rentals mostly priced under $1,000 per month. This is shown in the following section. Needs by Own/Rent and Income There is need for both ownership and rental housing in the City of Bozeman that is available to the local workforce. About 41% of new units should be for ownership and 59% for rent. This mix is based on the following: • New workers moving to the area to fill unfilled jobs will mostly rent (70%); • Rentals are needed for the functional rental market; • Ownership is needed for the balanced ownership market; and • Keep-up needs should roughly meet existing owner and renter ratios (56% rent). The precise ratio, however, is somewhat dependent upon desired direction and housing policy. Rentals can help new workers and residents get established, while ownership helps to retain workers and enable residents to build equity, achieve more stable housing and strengthen community investment. 104 City of Bozeman Community Housing Needs Assessment, Feb. 2019 Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting, Inc. 94 Summary of Housing Needs by Own/Rent Through 2025 Low High Units needed through 2025 5,405 6,340 Ownership 2,210 2,620 Rental 3,195 3,720 Ownership housing should be created based on the income distribution of households in Bozeman, as shown below. • Prices for locals should range as low as about $160,000 up to about $350,000 (or up to $400,000 if a single-family home). This would provide ownership opportunities for households earning between $40,000 through $95,000 per year (between about 80% and 150% AMI). The current for-sale market is not providing a sufficient supply of homes in this price range. • Homes affordable for households earning under $40,000 per year are also undersupplied; however, producing homes at this price will not occur without substantial subsidies or programs such as Habitat for Humanity. These households also often have trouble qualifying for loans and meeting down payment purchase requirements. Rentals are more typical options at this AMI. • Homes priced over $350,000 are oversupplied when compared to the proportion of local workforce households that can afford to purchase these homes. About the only product needed up to $400,000 would be single-family homes. Homeowner Income Distribution Compared to Homes Availability Income Level MAXIMUM Affordable Price Owner Income Distribution For-Sale Listings (Jan. 2019) Under 60% $140,000 16% 0% 60.1 - 80% $190,000 8% 0% 80.1 - 100% $235,000 10% 1% 100.1 - 120% $280,000 10% 6% 120.1 - 150% $350,000 13% 16% Over 150% >$350,000 43% 78% TOTAL - 100% 198 listings NOTE: Shading indicates where there is a shortage of housing supply for residents and employees. Condominium product exists on the market in the lighter shaded 120 to 150% AMI range – the focus here should be on townhomes and/or small single-family homes to diversify options for residents. Providing ownership priced under 60% AMI is challenging; rentals are more typical. 105 City of Bozeman Community Housing Needs Assessment, Feb. 2019 Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting, Inc. 95 There are very few units available to rent at any price point in the City. More rentals in general are needed, but in particular: • Rentals affordable for residents should be mostly priced below $1,000 per month for households earning under $40,000 (or about $20 per hour). These are households earning below 60% AMI. Only seven (7) rentals in this price range were advertised for rent in mid-December 2018. • There is also a shortage of units priced up to about $1,200 for entry-level professionals earning about $50,000 per year. Renter Income Distribution Compared to Available Rentals Income Range Maximum Affordable Rent Renter Income Distribution Available Rentals* <30% AMI $475 23% 1% 30.1 to 60% $950 22% 4% 60.1 - 80% $1,260 16% 21% 80.1 - 100% $1,580 11% 26% 100.1 - 120% $1,900 8% 31% Over 120% Over $1,900 20% 17% TOTAL - 100% 140 listings *Available rentals include rentals available in the City in mid-Dec 2018. NOTE: Shading indicates where there is a shortage of housing supply for residents and employees. Units provided in the lighter shaded price points should be under $1,200 for entry- professionals. Households earning under 30% AMI are often termed special needs households and include seniors on fixed income, persons with disabilities or other special needs. Many households earning under 30% AMI in Bozeman are student households, however, that are living off-campus, which do not fit the profile of special needs households. Student households are candidates for different product. (See also, Section 1 – Population and Household Demographics, Household Income) Community Rental Level of Service We know from the above analysis that more rentals affordable for households earning under 80% AMI are needed. These are categorized as “low income” rentals by HUD. The purpose of this analysis is to understand whether existing community rental units are proportionately serving the needs of each low-income group of renters (renters earning under 80% AMI), or are they providing more assistance to one group over others. This evaluates the level of service of existing community rentals in two ways: 106 City of Bozeman Community Housing Needs Assessment, Feb. 2019 Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting, Inc. 96 • By comparing the distribution of units by AMI to the distribution of low-income renters by AMI; and • By comparing the distribution of units by bedroom size to the size of low-income renter households. For each of the below comparisons, if the percentage distribution of community rentals approximates the percentage distribution of low income renter households either by income or bedroom/household size, then community rentals would be providing an equal level of assistance to each renter group. AMI Level The following table compares the current distribution of community rental properties to the income ranges of low income renter households in the City. Because community rental properties are all restricted to be affordable to households earning under 80% AMI, this analysis focuses on the distribution of Bozeman renter households that earn below 80% AMI as well. We know from the above analysis that more rentals affordable for households earning under 80% AMI are needed. The purpose of this analysis is to understand whether existing community rental units are proportionately serving the needs of each low- income group of renters, or are they providing more assistance to one group over others As shown below: • About 38% of low income renters earn below 30% AMI. Only 0.4% of community rental units are specifically targeted for 30% AMI. This means that the current inventory of community rentals serves a proportionately lower percentage of this income group than other income groups. This is the most underprovided category of community rental housing based on income distributions in the City. • Community housing serves a larger percentage of renter households earning between 50-60% AMI than other low income categories (54% of units vs. 12% of renters). This does not mean that no more 50-60% AMI units are needed; to the contrary, more are needed based on reported near-zero vacancies and waitlists. This just indicates that the community housing inventory is serving a larger proportion of this AMI group than other low income groups. 107 City of Bozeman Community Housing Needs Assessment, Feb. 2019 Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting, Inc. 97 Distribution of Community Rentals by AMI Compared to Low-Income (<80% AMI) Renter Households by AMI AMI Level Distribution of Renters earning under 80% AMI Distribution of Community Rentals <30% 38% 0.4% 30-50% 24% 26% 50-60% 12% 54% 60-80% 27% 20% Total < 80% AMI 7,112 947 *The “no income” limit community rentals (7%) were added to the 60-80% AMI category given that almost all of these rentals are occupied by 80% AMI or below households. See Section 3 – Housing Inventory, Community Housing inventory section. Note too that this evaluates the target income level of the unit, not the actual income of the occupant of the community rental. Many rentals in the 50-60% category, particularly the project-based section 8 properties, currently house persons earning under 30% AMI. In other words, more of the extremely low income population are being served by existing community housing units than unit distributions may indicate. Additionally, many <30% AMI households are student households, as indicated in Section 1 – Population and Household Demographics, Household Income. These households do not fit the profile of special needs households and are candidates for different product. Bedroom Size The distribution of community rental units by bedroom size compared to the household size of renters earning <80% AMI are well matched. Note that there is cross-over among these categories because, for example, one-bedroom units may have 1- or 2-persons, 2- bedroom units may have 2- or 3-persons, etc. In general, however, there is not a significant under- or over-representation of units in any particular size category. We often see below 80% AMI rental units lacking in smaller 1-bedroom units compared to household distributions in other communities; Bozeman community rentals are well distributed. 108 City of Bozeman Community Housing Needs Assessment, Feb. 2019 Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting, Inc. 98 Distribution of Community Rentals by Bedroom Size Compared to Low-Income (<80% AMI) Renter Households by Size Special Needs Housing The need for housing for a range of individuals and households with special needs is at least as great as that for ownership and rental housing for employees and other residents. Trends reported by social service and special needs organizations show that: • WMMHC has a 50-person waitlist for their transitional units serving persons with mental health and substance abuse disorders. WMMHC reports an increased need for units particularly geared for adolescents and their families. • Family Promise and HRDC have seen an increased need for transitional units to assist the homeless population and visits to the warming center and day center have increased. The lack of housing available has increased visitation from the low-wage working residents (near minimum wage) and persons that have lost housing due to owners selling their units or other factors. • REACH has a waitlist of 100 individuals with developmental disabilities waiting for services, which increased recently due to state funding cuts. REACH does not have the capacity or resources to expand their housing options. • Haven had a 14% increase in individuals affected by domestic violence coming to them for help this past year. Without sufficient shelter options, Haven’s service population can either leave their domestic situation and be homeless or stay in their abusive situation. The need for ownership and rental housing in the City of Bozeman, identified above, is inclusive of some components of special needs housing: 47% 30% 13% 9% 42% 42% 15% 1% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 1-person household or 1-bedroom unit 2-person household or 2-bedroom unit 3-person household or 3-bedroom unit 4+-person household or 4+-bedroom unit % of Households or Unit <80% AMI Households - persons Community rentals (<80% AMI) - bedrooms 109 City of Bozeman Community Housing Needs Assessment, Feb. 2019 Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting, Inc. 99 • Rentals for households earning under 30% AMI help serve seniors and persons with disabilities on fixed incomes, for example. All project-based section 8, section 202 and LIHTC rental properties that are restricted for seniors and/or persons with disabilities have no vacancies and no more than 5% turnover during the year. • Identified ownership gaps for households earning below 50% AMI are candidates for Habitat for Humanity’s sweat-equity ownership program. There are no purchase opportunities for these households in the City. • Realtors report that seniors wanting to downsize are unable to find suitable low- maintenance, single-level product, much less at prices they can afford. As noted in the introduction to this report, these populations require special housing design, services and considerations that require expertise and methods unique from resident housing needs analysis. This research shows that there is a need for housing across the entire continuum of housing for Bozeman residents, which include the above. 110 City of Bozeman Community Housing Needs Assessment, Feb. 2019 Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting, Inc. 100 Housing Programs in Comparative Communities The below tables summarize housing programs, policies and approaches in four other communities that have similar access to amenities, a university with student housing demand, and community housing programs in place. These include: • Burlington, Vermont • Bend, Oregon • Fort Collins, Colorado • Missoula, Montana The first table provides comparison statistics to understand the context of each community in relation to Bozeman. The second table provides a summary of the Affordable Housing Inventory in each jurisdiction, including the number of income- or price-restricted ownership and rental units and their term of affordability. This information will be useful as Bozeman pursues formation of a Community Housing Action Plan. 111 City of Bozeman Community Housing Needs Assessment, Feb. 2019 Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting, Inc. 101 DRAFT DRAFT City of Bozeman Community Housing Needs Assessment DRAFT DRAFT Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting, Inc. 2 Comparison Communities – Key Metrics Bend, OR Burlington, VT Bozeman, MT Fort Collins, CO Missoula, MT Population (2017 Census est) 94,520 42,239 46,596 165,080 73,340 2017 General Fund – Expenses $105,906,516 $73,194,209 $31,600,000 $148,917,021 $57,564,062 Total Housing Units 1 (2017 ACS) 41,772 16,631 19,972 63,244 33,936 # Occupied housing units (resident households) (2017 ACS) 37,831 16,067 18,114 60,376 31,756 % Housing Occupied by residents 90.6% 96.6% 90.7% 95.5% 93.6% Median Sale Price (all housing units) 2 (Jan to Oct/Nov 2018) $435,000 $293,700 $375,110 $383,500 $294,900 Deed Restricted Units 1,198 218 973 1,174 1,677 % Resident households in deed restricted units 3.2% 1.4% 5.3% 1.9% 5.3% Area Median Income 2018 (HUD) $69,600 $93,000 $81,200 $85,100 $70,400 Affordable purchase price of median income household (5.5% loan) $258,100 $344,800 $301,000 $315,500 $261,000 Affordability gap3 $176,900 ($51,100) $74,110 $68,000 $33,900 1ACS is not a precise count of units and households; however, due to availability and consistency for comparison, this data was used. 2Sources: Central OR Assn of Realtors; NW VT Board of Realtors; Gallatin Assn of Realtors; Ft. Collins Board of Realtors; Missoula Organization of Realtors 3Underrepresents the actual gap in each community. Single-family homes sell for much higher than the median shown; condominium price points do not include HOA fees ($300/month effectively adds $45,000 to the sale price), nor reflect the condition of units or special assessments. 112 City of Bozeman Community Housing Needs Assessment, Feb. 2019 Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting, Inc. 102 Income- and Price-Restricted Housing Inventory CDBG – Community Development Block Grant, AHR = Affordable Housing Fund, CLT = Community Land Trust, MRA = Missoula Redevelopment AgencyBozeman, MT1085 (973 permanently affordable (PA)) LIHTC, Project Based Section 8, land trust, Habitat for Humanity, purchase/resale 138 26 PA 947 44 units, plus 122 beds <80% AMI owner (PA); <30% to 80% AMI (rental)Missoula, MTLIHTC, City HOME, State HOME, CDBG, Project Based Section 8, Public Housing, NSP1, CLT, MRA 1,535 <80% AMI owner; <60% AMI rental 3,456 total (1,174 permanently affordable (PA)) 1,677 (not including manufactured) 218 (includes housing trust units) 50 All CLT <80% AMI 230 230 PA 3,226 944 PA Not available 451 manufactured housing units Approx. 240 Homeless/ special needs 92 units- Homeless/Trans itional Owned units: <80% AMI; 99 year term <30% (19.8% of units); 40%-60%- 76.5% of units; >70% (3.8% of units); Terms vary: 25 years to permanent Rental: 65% AMI; Owner: 75% AMI; 99 year term Burlington, VTInclusionary Zoning 81, plus 14 co-op 123 Fort Collins, COCDBG, HOME, deferred loans, city funds, AHF, rehab grant, Habitat for Humanity, other developers. Affordability level and term Bend, OR1,198 Affordable Housing Fee and CDBG 46 695 39 Total Units Production Tools Owner Rental Other (shelter, transitional, special needs) 113 APPENDIX A: City of Bozeman Community Housing Needs Assessment, Feb. 2019 Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting, Inc. A-1 Appendix A: Trends, Calculations and Projections APPENDIX A: TRENDS, CALCULATIONS AND PROJECTIONS ...................................................... 1 SCHOOL DISTRICT ENROLLMENT TRENDS ............................................................................................. 2 JOBS ESTIMATES AND PROJECTIONS .................................................................................................... 3 Gallatin County Jobs Estimates ................................................................................................ 3 Bozeman Jobs Estimates .......................................................................................................... 4 HOUSING UNIT AND HOUSEHOLD ESTIMATES ....................................................................................... 5 Housing Units in the City ......................................................................................................... 5 Households in the City ............................................................................................................. 6 JOBS TO HOUSEHOLD ESTIMATES ........................................................................................................ 6 Employees per Employed Household: 1.6 ................................................................................ 6 Jobs per Employee: 1.2 ............................................................................................................ 7 EFFECT OF STUDENT POPULATION ON POVERTY RATE ............................................................................ 8 ESTIMATE OF OFF-CAMPUS COLLEGE STUDENTS RESIDING IN BOZEMAN ................................................... 9 MIGRATION OF CITY POPULATION .................................................................................................... 10 114 APPENDIX A: City of Bozeman Community Housing Needs Assessment, Feb. 2019 Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting, Inc. A-2 School District Enrollment Trends K-12 Enrollment History K-12 Enrollment Change (% year-over-year) 5,481 5,656 5,776 5,961 6,186 6,294 6,505 6,742 6,888 6,995 7,151 7,307 7,482 7,662 7,837 7,934 8,108 8,188 8,290 8,416 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 Students Actual 0.00% 1.00% 2.00% 3.00% 4.00% 5.00% 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 Actual 115 APPENDIX A: City of Bozeman Community Housing Needs Assessment, Feb. 2019 Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting, Inc. A-3 Kindergarten Enrollment History Jobs Estimates and Projections The projected job growth rate is estimated from Montana Dept. of Labor job projections for the Southwest Region combined with the actual growth rate of jobs in Gallatin County since 2012. The state projects a low growth rate of 0.9% over the next several years, with growth being limited by a projected low unemployment rate (less than 2%). Gallatin County has been growing at about 4.8% per year since 2012, which is twice the rate of the rest of the Southwest region. Consistent with the methodology used in “Demographic and Real Estate Market Assessment, 2018” (Economic and Planning Systems), it is assumed that the county will continue to grow at twice the rate of the Southwest region – at about 1.9% on average through 2025. Gallatin County Jobs Estimates Jobs are higher than in the EPS report because Bureau of Economic Analysis jobs counts for 2017 are now available. The 2017 job count for Gallatin County is 85,030. Estimated jobs from the prior report showed 85,500 jobs being reached in 2020. Projections and assumptions in this report are as follows: • Growth between 2017 and 2018 occurred at 2.1%. This splits the difference between actual growth between 2016 and 2017 (3.5%) and the state estimated growth rate (0.9%). • Job growth occurs at a rate of 1.9% through 2025, as described above. 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 4-yr old K - - - - - - 21 31 36 29 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 5-yr old K 451 433 501 458 528 520 504 521 497 504 521 536 552 560 568 577 586 595 604 613 Total Kindergarten 451 433 501 458 528 520 525 552 533 533 557 572 588 596 604 613 622 631 640 649 451 433 501 458 528 520 525 552 533 533 557 572 588 596 604 613 622 631 640 649 - 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 Students Actual Projected 116 APPENDIX A: City of Bozeman Community Housing Needs Assessment, Feb. 2019 Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting, Inc. A-4 Estimated Gallatin County Jobs: 2018 to 2025 Gallatin County 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 est. 2025 est Jobs 68,562 72,001 75,083 78,574 82,134 85,030 86,815 98,970 Est. growth rate per year - - - 2.1% 1.9% Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA); Montana Dept. of Labor & Industry Job and Labor Force Projections for Southwest Region (2017 to 2027); consultant team Bozeman Jobs Estimates U.S. Census Bureau, LEHD Origin-Destination Employment Statistics utilizes the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW) files to determine the location of wage and salary jobs (i.e., excludes sole proprietors) based on the employers report location. This program was used to determine the percentage of jobs within the city of Bozeman. QCEW data by location was received from the MT Dept. of Labor & Industry showing the number of jobs in Gallatin County within businesses reporting a Bozeman location. This includes businesses both within the city and the neighboring unincorporated county, but that have a Bozeman location. These sources show that 61% of Gallatin County jobs are in the city; 77% in the Bozeman area. LEHD 2014 QCEW Location 2017/18 Gallatin County jobs 48,805 Gallatin County jobs 43,080 City of Bozeman jobs 29,841 Bozeman area jobs 33,112 % in city 61% % in area 77% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, LEHD Origin-Destination Employment Statistics; Montana Dept. of Labor & Industry QCEW location data Jobs estimates utilizing these ratios are as follows: # of Jobs Average Yearly % growth 2012 2018 2025 Bozeman City (61% of county jobs) 41,874 53,020 60,430 1.9% Bozeman Area (77% of county jobs) 52,540 66,525 75,825 1.9% Gallatin County 68,562 86,815 98,970 1.9% Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA); U.S. Census Bureau, LEHD Origin-Destination Employment Statistics; Montana Dept. of Labor & Industry Job and Labor Force Projections for Southwest Region (2017 to 2027); consultant team 117 APPENDIX A: City of Bozeman Community Housing Needs Assessment, Feb. 2019 Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting, Inc. A-5 Housing Unit and Household Estimates Housing Units in the City • Base: 2010 US Census housing unit and household counts for the City of Bozeman. • New units: 2010 to 2018 building permits issued by the city. • Total: Add new units permitted to 2010 base housing unit figures Assumptions: • 50% of units built in 2010 were not captured by the US Census (Census is taken in April). Method: • Year 2011 housing units = 2010 + 0.5 * 242 building permits in 2010 + 216 building permits in 2011 • Year 2012 housing units = 2011 + 435 residential permits in 2012 • Repeat year 2012 method for all other years. Year Housing units Residential Permits Issued 2018 23,100 811 2017 22,289 816 2016 21,473 733 2015 20,740 782 2014 19,958 908 2013 19,050 814 2012 18,236 435 2011 17,801 216 2010 17,464 242 Source: 2010 US Census; City of Bozeman residential permits 118 APPENDIX A: City of Bozeman Community Housing Needs Assessment, Feb. 2019 Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting, Inc. A-6 Households in the City Housing Occupancy: 2010 US Census CITY HOUSING OCCUPANCY Total housing units 17,464 100% Occupied housing units 15,775 90.3% Source: 2010 US Census Housing Occupancy Rates: 5-year ACS data 2017 5-yr ACS 2014 5-yr ACS 2012 5-yr ACS Average 90.7% 89.9% 90.0% 90.2% Assumption: 90.3% occupancy retained through 2018 Estimated Households, 2012 and 2018 2018 2012 2010 Housing units 23,100 18,236 17,464 Households 20,866 16,472 15,775 % occupancy 90.3% 90.3% 90.3% Jobs to Household estimates The number of jobs per employee and the number of employees per employed household are used to translate job growth into the number of housing units needed by workers to fill new jobs. This is used in Section 8 to translate “unfilled jobs” into the number of housing units need to house employees filling those jobs. Employees per Employed Household: 1.6 Households by Number of Workers in the Household: City of Bozeman Households Total: 18,114 No workers 3,398 1 worker 7,139 2 workers 6,125 3 or more workers 1,452 Source: 2017 5-year ACS Total workers = 7,139 * 1 + 6,125 * 2 + 1,452 * 3 = 23,745 workers Workers per employed household = 23,745 / (18,114 – 3,398) = 1.6 119 APPENDIX A: City of Bozeman Community Housing Needs Assessment, Feb. 2019 Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting, Inc. A-7 Jobs per Employee: 1.2 The number of jobs held per employee was estimated by dividing the number of jobs in Gallatin County in 2015 by the average employed labor force during the year. • Bureau of Labor Statistics LAUS estimates the number of employed labor force living in Gallatin County. • LEHD estimates the percentage of resident employees that work in the county. • Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) provides total jobs estimates in the county (Wage & Salary jobs and Sole Proprietors) • 1-year ACS estimates the percentage of employed labor force living in Gallatin County that also works in the county. Where Employed Gallatin County Residents Work: 2015 1-year ACS Employed Residents % Total employed residents: 55,044 100% Worked in state of residence: 53,994 98% Worked in county of residence 51,635 94% Worked outside county of residence 2,359 4% Worked outside state of residence 1,050 2% This data is put together as follows to arrive at the number of job that Gallatin County residents hold on average: 2015 Jobs in selected area (BEA Wage & Salary) 55977 % jobs held by county resident (LEHD) 79% # Wage & Salary jobs held by resident 44,110 Sole proprietor jobs (BEA) 22,597 TOTAL jobs held by county resident (Wage & Salary jobs held + Sole Proprietor jobs) 66,707 Employed labor force living in county (LAUS) 57,576 Employed resident labor force that works in county (ACS) 94% Labor force holding local jobs 54,010 # jobs held by resident employee (TOTAL jobs held by resident / Labor force holding local jobs) 1.2 120 APPENDIX A: City of Bozeman Community Housing Needs Assessment, Feb. 2019 Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting, Inc. A-8 Effect of Student Population on Poverty Rate As shown below, when the population of students in the city of Bozeman are removed from the total number of people in poverty in the city, the percentage of the population in poverty drops from 20.7% to 11.8% - a drop of 8.9 percentage-points. About 54% of the off-campus student population earns below the Poverty Threshold (3,426 students of 6,314 total). Places with Populations of 10,000 or More and Statistically Significant Differences in Poverty Rates with Exclusion of Off-Campus College Students: 2012-2016 Places Total number of people in poverty universe1 Percent off- campus college students2 Poverty rates Differences All people All people excluding off- campus college students Est. MOE Est. MOE Est. MOE Bozeman city, Montana 38,500 16.4% (6,314 total) 20.7% 1.7 11.8% 1.4 8.9% (3,426 total) 2.2 Source: U. S. Census Bureau, 2016 American Community Survey 5-year estimates; available at: https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2017/demo/income-poverty/acs5yrs.html Note: MOE is margin of error. This number when added to and subtracted from the estimate forms the 90 percent confidence interval. Margin of errors are based on standard errors associated with any sample. 1Poverty status is determined for individuals in housing units and noninstitutional group quarters. The poverty universe excludes children under age 15 who are not related to the householder, people living in institutional group quarters, and people living in college dormitories or military barracks. 2Off-campus college students include all students who are enrolled in college, not living with their families, and not living in college dormitories. The below table shows the income levels by household size that equate to persons being in poverty. The majority of off-campus student households do not have children. These are roughly equivalent to earning under 30% AMI for each respective sized household. 121 APPENDIX A: City of Bozeman Community Housing Needs Assessment, Feb. 2019 Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting, Inc. A-9 Poverty Thresholds for 2018 by Size of Family and Number of Related Children Size of family unit Related children under 18 years None One Two Three Four Five Six Seven Eight or more One person (unrelated individual): Under age 65 13,064 Aged 65 and older 12,043 Two people: Householder under age 65 16,815 17,308 Householder aged 65 and older 15,178 17,242 Three people 19,642 20,212 20,231 Four people 25,900 26,324 25,465 25,554 Five people 31,234 31,689 30,718 29,967 29,509 Six people 35,925 36,068 35,324 34,612 33,553 32,925 Seven people 41,336 41,594 40,705 40,085 38,929 37,581 36,102 Eight people 46,231 46,640 45,800 45,064 44,021 42,696 41,317 40,967 Nine people or more 55,613 55,883 55,140 54,516 53,491 52,082 50,807 50,491 48,546 Source: US Census, available at: https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/income- poverty/historical-poverty-thresholds.html Gallatin County AMI by Household Size: 2018 AMI Level 1-person 2-person 3-person 4-person 5-person 6-person 7-person 8-person 30% $16,620 $18,990 $21,360 $23,730 $25,650 $27,540 $29,430 $31,350 50% $27,700 $31,650 $35,600 $39,550 $42,750 $45,900 $49,050 $52,250 60% $33,240 $37,980 $42,720 $47,460 $51,300 $55,080 $58,860 $62,700 Source: HUD AMI 2018 Estimate of Off-Campus College Students Residing in Bozeman An estimated 10,033 students live off-campus and within the City of Bozeman. About 800 of these off-campus students are housed in the 542 MSU Student Apartments (see Section 2 – Housing Inventory). 2018 population – est. (see Section 1) 48,105 Total school enrollment - MSU 16,902 Total residing in residence halls - MSU 4,116 Living off-campus and in the City (%) – ACS (see below) 59% Living off-campus and in the City (#) 10,033 Living in MSU Student Apartments – MSU 800 Living off-campus and not in MSU apartments 9,233 122 APPENDIX A: City of Bozeman Community Housing Needs Assessment, Feb. 2019 Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting, Inc. A-10 2016 5-year ACS data was used to estimate the percentage of students living off-campus and in the city, as shown below. College or Graduate School Enrollment: 2016 5-year ACS Total ACS population 36,450 Enrolled in public college or graduate school 10,637 % enrolled 29% Off-Campus College Students from Poverty Rates Table, above Off-campus college students, not living with their families, and not living in resident halls (see above Poverty table) 6,314 Off-campus college students, not living with their families, and not living in residence halls 59% Source: 2016 5-year ACS Migration of City Population About 75% of Gallatin County’s population growth since 2010 is from people moving to the county from other areas of Montana or other states. Gallatin County Net Migration, 2010 - 2017 Total Share of Change Births 8,521 47% Deaths (3,909) -21% Net Migration 13,685 75% TOTAL change 18,297 100% Source: US Census Bureau, consultant team Of in-migrating residents, 39% were from other areas of Montana, such as the greater Missoula area. The rest are from other states. Many residents moved from the Front Range of Colorado, the Pacific Northwest, and California’s Bay Area. Many of these areas have comparable or higher housing costs than Bozeman. 123 APPENDIX A: City of Bozeman Community Housing Needs Assessment, Feb. 2019 Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting, Inc. A-11 Gallatin County In-Migration: 2011 – 2015 Source: US Census Bureau, “Demographic and Real Estate Market Assessment, 2018,” Economic and Planning Systems, p. 21 124 APPENDIX B: City of Bozeman Community Housing Needs Assessment, Feb. 2019 Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting, Inc. B-1 Appendix B: Employer Survey Fill-out CITY OF BOZEMAN EMPLOYER SURVEY The City of Bozeman is sponsoring this study on workforce housing needs. It is very important that we receive input from employers in the area to determine the extent to which the availability of housing for employees may be impacting employers and business operations. This information will be used to understand how needs may best be addressed in the City of Bozeman. Please respond to the questions below for all business locations of the same type you operate in or near the City of Bozeman. If you operate more than one type of business in the city, please complete a separate survey for each business type. If you are a sole proprietor or hire no employees, please respond as applicable for yourself as a business owner. All results are strictly confidential and the responses from individual businesses will not be reported. If you have any questions, please contact the independent consultant assisting with this study, Wendy Sullivan, at (303) 579-6702 or wendy@wswconsult.com. THANK YOU very much for your time. 1. Type of business you have in Bozeman (if you have more than one type of business, please fill out a separate survey for each business type): N=491 % response # response 7% Bar/restaurant N=36 13% Retail sales (grocery, sporting goods, etc.) N=63 1% Lodging/hotel/accommodation N=6 5% Health care and social assistance N=27 20% Construction N=99 1% Education/School district N=7 2% Non-profit N=10 3% Finance/banking/insurance N=13 7% Real estate/property management N=34 3% Recreation/ entertainment/ arts N=14 8% Personal/commercial services (massage, hair care, day care, laundry, car repair, etc.) N=39 14% Professional/technical services (legal, scientific, technical, computers, etc.) N=67 2% Government, public service N=10 1% Transportation, utilities N=3 6% Manufacturing or wholesale trade N=31 1% Agriculture/ranching N=5 5% Other: See open endeds (attached) N=27 100% TOTAL N=491 2. Approximately how many employees does your business CURRENTLY employ in the Bozeman area (include all office locations of the same business type in Bozeman)? (N=491) NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES (include yourself) Full time (30+ hours/week) Part time (30 hours or less per week) TOTAL* Employees Year-round employees (employed Jan-Dec; year- round contracts) 5,571 2,978 8,650 Employed less than year-round (e.g. employees on 9- month contracts, etc.) 3,861 4,006 7,871 *TOTAL differs because some respondents did not specify whether jobs were FT or PT. 3. How has your ability to recruit and retain qualified employees changed over the past three years? (N=490) 1) 3% Improved/gotten easier 2) 26% Stayed about the same 3) 48% Declined/gotten harder 4) 23% Don’t know/not applicable 4. Within the next five (5) years, do you plan to: (N=482) 1) 54% Increase your number of employees 2) 2% Reduce your number of employees 3) 35% Stay about the same 4) 10% Don’t know 5. To what extent do your employees or potential employees have difficulty locating housing in the area? (Scale from 1 to 5) (N=488) 1 – No 2 3- 4 5-Major Not Avg Problem Moderate Difficulty Applicable GENERAL SERVICE AND LABOR Office support staff 13% 9% 21% 20% 36% 48% 3.6 Retail/lodge service clerks 5% 8% 16% 20% 51% 78% 4.1 Other service (wait staff, dishwashers, laundry, etc.) 5% 6% 9% 23% 57% 80% 4.2 General maintenance/labor (janitorial, manufacturing, etc) 9% 9% 14% 16% 53% 71% 4.0 Construction/repair/ skilled trades 7% 7% 18% 27% 41% 64% 3.9 PROFESSIONAL STAFF/POSITIONS Entry level professionals 8% 9% 21% 26% 37% 46% 3.7 Mid-management 11% 13% 27% 23% 26% 50% 3.4 Upper management 27% 16% 28% 12% 18% 49% 2.8 Other 21% 5% 12% 21% 42% 84% 3.6 Any more thoughts on the housing needs of your employees? See Open Endeds – Attached 6. Do you feel that the availability of housing that the workforce can afford in the City of Bozeman is: (N=486) 1) 2% Not a problem 2) 2% One of the region’s lesser problems 3) 20% A moderate problem 4) 52% One of the more serious problems 5) 22% The most critical problem in the region 125 APPENDIX B: City of Bozeman Community Housing Needs Assessment, Feb. 2019 Navigate, LLC; WSW Consulting, Inc. B-2 7. How many positions within your business are unfilled? (N=460) 46% report at least one unfilled job (N=211) UNFILLED JOBS Full time (30+ hours/week) Part time (30 hours or less per week) TOTAL* Unfilled Jobs Year-round employees (employed Jan-Dec; year-round contracts) 628 302 944 Employed less than year- round (e.g. employees on 9-month contracts, etc.) 307 187 507 *TOTAL differs because some respondents did not specify if unfilled jobs were FT or PT. 8. If you have unfilled positions, can you briefly state why they are unfilled (e.g., lack of applicants, not currently looking to fill them, just became available, etc.)? See Open Endeds – Attached 9. About how many of your employees do you estimate will be retiring over the next five (5) years? (N=461) Total = 2,057 (about 12% of employees) 10. Did anyone refuse a job offer or did anyone leave your employment in the past 12 months because they: (mark all that apply): (297 employers of 491 total (60%) reported at least one of the following reasons) 41% Could not find/lacked suitable housing N=123 13% Lacked transportation N=40 18% Lacked day care N=53 19% Long commute/tired of commuting N=55 69% Found the cost of living in Bozeman to be too high N=205 53% Found a different job. (GOTO Q11 if selected) N=157 Adds to over 100% due to multiple response Any additional input on the above and/or other issues that have made it difficult for you to hire and retain employees that you want to share? See Open Endeds – Attached 11. If you had employees leave your employment to take a different job, do you know the nature of their new employment: (mark all that apply)? (N=155) 50% Took a job with another business with a location in Bozeman 35% Took a job with another business located in the region (e.g. Belgrade, Big Sky, etc.) 46% Relocated out of Gallatin County 15% Don’t know 12. To the best of your knowledge, where do your employees live? Please enter the approximate number of employees that reside in each location. (N=470) 01) 62% City of Bozeman 02) 20% Belgrade area 03) 3% Manhattan area 04) 2% Three Forks area 04) 6% Four Corners, West Gallatin, Greenwood, etc (west of the city) 05) 3% Chestnut, Livingston, etc (east of the city) 06) 3% Gallatin gateway, etc (south of the city) 07) 0% Other See open endeds (attached) 13. Would any of your employees that live outside of Bozeman prefer to live in or nearer the City if housing they could afford was available? (N=446) 45% Yes – approximate % of in-commuters: 59% average 15% No 40% Don’t know/unsure 14. Do you provide your employees with any of the following work commute options or assistance? (125 employers of 491 total (25%) reported at least one of the following) 6% Bus/shuttle (operated/financed at least in part by your business) 0% Bus passes/coupons 12% Bus stop at business location 31% On-site vehicle for employee errands 14% Carpool program 9% Bicycling incentives 25% Travel stipend (i.e., travel time compensation, etc.) 20% Telecommuting 26% Other (see open endeds attached) Adds to over 100% due to multiple response 15. Does your business provide any of the following types of housing or cost of living assistance for your employees? (MARK ALL THAT APPLY) (140 employers of 491 total (29%) reported at least one of the following) 9% Employer-owned units rented or provided as compensation to employees 4% Employer-leased units rented to employees 4% Down payment/mortgage assistance 16% Assistance with housing search 8% Temporary/relocation housing 9% Rent assistance (help with first/last/deposit; monthly rent stipend; etc.) 79% Pay higher wages than nearby communities for the same/similar jobs 10% Other (see open endeds attached) Adds to over 100% due to multiple response 16. In the future, would you be willing to assist with the provision of workforce housing? (N=456) 9% Yes, for my employees only 3% Yes, for any employee in the community 40% No, I am not willing to support housing for employees 49% Uncertain/need more information 17. In case we have any follow-up questions to clarify some of your survey responses, can you provide the following information: Please remember survey responses are and will be kept CONFIDENTIAL. Name of business, Contact info Data not reported 18. Do you have any additional comments about housing issues? See Open Endeds – Attached Thank you for your participation. 126 Q1: Type of business you have in Bozeman - Other (write in) Art Publishing Catering Commercial Janitorial & Floor Refinishing Editor Event Venue Food Service Contract at Fraternity Food Truck Janitorial Landscape Construction landscape maintenance Landscape Services Landscaping Lawn Care & Snow Removal media Printing/design publishing seasonal Service and Sales Start up - clothing Upholstery, Speciality trade US office for German Company writer, editor, publishing coach Q5: Any more thoughts on the housing needs of your employees? (N=236) 3 of my employees live outside of BozemanA clean, safe, solid, reliable and affordable public transportation network in the valley would help alleviate the housing issue in Bozeman. Nobody "has" to live in Bozeman to work in Bozeman. A solid public transportation network (Streamline on steroids) would help people to commute from Livingston to Three Forks. Affordable housing Bozeman has become fictional. It is a poor reflection on our community and its growth. Affordable housing is a huge issue and my ability to staff in childcare affect others ability to work. Affordable housing is a major issue. I have one employee that lives at the men's warming center currently due to lack of availability of affordable options. Affordable housing is especially difficult for single parents and for women without college degrees. Affordable housing is needed for many. The wages in the Gallatin Valley make it hard for employees to own a home in this current market. Affordable housing is the number one concern of my employees. Average salary is $35-$45k/year and none of them can find affordable rent/housing without having multiple roommates. Affordable housing needs to become available. We can't pay more to offset the rising cost of living in Bzn. It's out of control Affordable housing that allows pets without huge pet deposits is hard to find. Affordable housing to make it where employees don't have to work multiple jobs to make ends meet. Affordable options with yards must be available at prices that wages in bozeman can support. All are long-time Bozeman residents who own their own homes. All of my employees come from two income households - sometimes working more than one part time job. If for some reason their situation changed, they could not afford to live here on their own. Rent prices are so high. All of my employees live with their parents, siblings or in homes purchased by their parents. None of my employees can afford to live on there in Bozeman or Belgrade. All our employees have to commute to downtown to work because they can't afford downtown housing prices & on another note they all drive so there is minimal parking. All we hear from employees is that they are having trouble finding rental housing they can afford. and with Average Home sales at $430,00+/- its IMPOSSIBLE to BUY 127 Almost all our employees live far enough that they need to commute to downtown to come to work and struggle to find parking.Are young staff can't even imagine buying a home or condominium and are resigned to renting in the near term and moving away from Bozeman in the long run. It's a major problem. As a realtor I work with people every day who come to Bozeman passionate about the area and raising their families here. Then the reality that they cannot find affordable housing hits. Many have decided to move to other areas, some decide to rent hoping things will improve at some point, and others purchase above their comfort level and have to get second jobs. I believe that the lack of affordable housing is a serious crisis for our area. Ask for more places to allow pets At the wages that are paid in the valley, housing is way too high. Because there is not any affordable housing in town, it drives up wages which drives up the cost of any new construction. Belgrade (and the other "bedroom communities") are NOT the answer! Too far to drive or too long on the road makes that a bad choice for most. Bozeman is a very expensive place to live. We are severely lacking in affordable rental options especially those that allow pets. Bozeman is so expensive and wages are not able to keep up. Bozeman is unaffordable for working class families. How about fulfilling the needs of the working poor instead of high dollar liberal white neighborhoods. The struggle is real out here and the hypocrisy is shameful. People are more concerned about their view being obstructed from high rise buildings than poor working families struggling to find housing. Bozeman needs to reduce the cost of rent. Some of my employees are adults with families and while I pay >$15/hr, this is not enough to afford a single family home in Bozeman. Build more affordable housing City planning and building dept's want affordable housing but they continue to mandate new codes and policies that continue to drive the cost of building homes up.City service fees and taxes are becoming too high for the average worker to afford to stay in Bozeman, this is in reference to employees who have purchased houses before the prices became unreasonable. I'm losing long time employees to these rising costs plus the cost for day to day living expenses in our area, my employees can no longer afford to live in this town. There is no margin for when they have extra expenses, like car repairs. Cost of housing has proven difficult. We did have a new employee, full time just over 3 years ago who living in their car for the first 6 months of employment, due to the housing costs. Our starting wage is $15.00 for full time, and they still could not afford deposit + rent for a new place and took 6 months to save. Employee housing challenges: 1) sharing an apartment with 3 other young professionals because our staff member can't afford an apartment on their own, 2) not being able to afford a townhouse or condo by themselves, 3) definitely NOT able to afford buying a stand-alone house by themselves without multiple roommates. Young married couples going through the same challenge. VERY discouraging, and we are losing professional staff to open positions in outlying towns because of this housing issue! Employees are able to find housing in the current market. Employees are forced to live in areas outside greater Bozeman area due to housing shortage and high cost of housing. (no surprise) Employees can find some housing but they all wish for single family home with yard for dog, garden, etc. This is a big challenge. People don't move to Bozeman to live in an apartment or condo with room mates Entry level employees are willing to sacrifice housing needs in order to live here. Mid and Upper Management employees have families to support and find it harder to live here with the cost of living. Even though the rental market has little occupancy, single employees tend to find housing with roommates which makes it affordable enough for them. Housing for young families that is affordable on early career wages (under $70k combined) is non- existent. Higher wage employees who can afford housing are faced with very little inventory on the market (this is major turn off when attempting to relocate higher paid candidates to the Bozeman area) Everyone struggles here. There is no affordable housing in this place! We have to pay higher wages which lowers our ability to expand our business. We pay above average anyway but they still struggle to live here. Most are trying to leave area when they can afford to. Everyone would like a house but it is hard to save enough for a decent down payment. Everything is too expensive. Even what Bozeman calls "affordable housing" is a joke both price-wise and quality-wise. 128 Extremely high housing costs For someone making minimum wage to $15 per hour, housing in Bozeman is not feasible. They have to live in Belgrade, or work multiple jobs. There is no housing available for those that cannot afford to buy a house. Most of our employees need to rent - buying an affordable house is not an option - they cannot afford a down payment, or choose not to - they are renters, and there is no affordable renting for them in Bozeman From what my employees tell me, rent is way to high. A mortgage would be about the same except they can't afford the large down payment. Have to supply housing to get them to stay Having affordable housing would be huge. housing cost and availability have risen to the top as the top challenge for employers recruiting employees from outside the area Housing costs are a major factor in hiring. Many of our staff driving from Begrade, Gateway or Livingston which creates challenges in winter. Housing has not been an issue as all employees have their housing settled before taking employment with us. Housing in Bozeman is more expensive than it should be because of the City of Bozeman's policies that limit supply and drive design costs. Housing in Bozeman is ridiculous. Its expensive and hard to find a place. Housing in the Bozeman area is extremely expensive for standard hourly workers to afford. Many have to choose other places to live, but then transportation is a problem because of the streamline hours. We need REAL affordable housing for workers to fill retail and service jobs. If there is not afordable housing you will continue to see businesses having to limit their hours, services, or close their businesses because they can't afford to pay employees what they need to afford to live here (consumers don't want to pay an extra 25-40% or more so you can pay your employees $15/HR) Housing is a major stressor for all of us. Please commit to turning this study into action items, and then finally delivering. Housing is available, employees are just reluctant to bite the bullet to live in beautiful Bozeman. Housing is much more expensive than Utah where we came from. Much more expensive than AZ where we also have rented. housing is not affordable for new people moving in to the area Housing is too large a share of take home pay in Bozeman. We have one employee that continues to live in Butte because he cannot afford to live in Bozeman Housing is very expensive in relation to the compensation. Housing prices continue to increase as well as rental prices. Meanwhile the costs of running a business increase but earnings don't. Affordable housing is non existent whether you are looking or buy or rent. Between the university student population and the population growth of the area, prices stay high. What is considered "affordable" housing is not affordable. I am a sole proprietor and own my own home so don't have current concerns about the effect of housing availability on my business. However, I have wanted to move from Belgrade into Bozeman as most of my business is conducted in Bozeman. I have resolved to stay in Belgrade as the cost of housing in Bozeman is far outside my budget. Truly, I don't know how anyone who works for an average wage can afford to live in Bozeman - it's obscene!I am a sole proprietor living with my parents as I grow my business. As I look at housing prices increase by 20% in one year, I am discouraged about the possibility of my business supporting a living wage in the Bozeman market. The rental market is even worse. It makes more sense to buy a home and rent out additional bedrooms to offset costs, than it does to try and rent a 1 bedroom apartment. I am a sole proprietor with no employees, so this issue does not directly affect me. However, I know this is an issue for many businesses. I am self-employed and work digitally. My husband and I bought a townhouse 2 years ago, but we almost couldn't afford it because the housing market was so expensive -- and he has a very good paying job! I can recall my employees having trouble finding adequate housing in Bozeman 20 years ago and they were making solid middle class wages I can't afford to have employees because the cost housing is too expensive I couldn't imagine moving here now. There is no way we would be able to find affordable housing. I know colleagues who have left Bozeman after running a business here for 10+ years, simply because they can't afford hosing.I currently hire college and high school students to be assistant coaches. I would love to hire a professional head coach and have fielded inquiries from as far afield as the national coach of Brasil. There is no way I can afford to pay such a person well enough to have them live in Bozeman 129 I have an employee who moved here 3 years ago, intending to buy a house in town, but since the housing costs have risen so rapidly, she's now considering moving to Livingston I have no employees, except myself.I have not had any employees for quite a few years now. When I did have employees I paid them well so they could afford to live in Bozeman. I feel this is a part of the affordability problem that does not get addressed. It seems that employers, both private and public, do not pay the worker bees enough to live here in our hive. I think low wages are a part of the problem that employers, both private and public, do not want to discuss too much. I have one employee living in my camper in the KOA for $800 a month because it was the cheapest and fastest housing available to this person who moved from another state. My other full time employee lost $1800 to a housing scam targeting the region. I have one employee that lives in their own home in Bozeman. The other home owners live outside of bozeman. I have professional piers and co-workers who are having a tough time securing places to live, and/or housing that costs their entire paycheck. Many have, are looking for, or considering a second job, even with a 40+ hour professional job. Most wages are around 40k in Bozeman for professionals, and even with 2 people making that amount, most of your money goes to housing, with less than enough left over for bills and food. An unfortunate injury or car repair is enough to send most people in a tailspin in Bozeman. I manage 2 apartment complexes that include 200 total units. I can provide housing for my employees when I need to. I pay above average for my industry, and I offer full benefits to FT staff, but I have still had management-level staff leave for work they find less satisfying but that pays significantly better in order to afford housing here. Also, housing that is suitable for one person without roommates or housing that accepts pets is extremely difficult to find. I pay my longtime employee well above the minimum wage and average wage for retail in Bozeman and she could never afford to buy a home here at the current home prices. She has had to move out of rental situations because those homes sold for well above what she could pay and finding new rentals has been very difficult both in finding anything available and the high rent prices. She would like to buy but doesn't feel like she will be able to at the current home prices. I wouldn't be able to buy a house here now either and was lucky to have bought a house over 10 years ago. I really don't feel my situation is typical or reflective upon the housing and employment markets as a whole.I was once an employee for the company in the Bozeman area. I moved here from San Francisco. My thought when I accepted the job was that the housing would be much easier to find in Bozeman. It took me almost 2 months to find reasonable price, not affordable. I was by myself and was looking for a studio or one bedroom but there was none. I can tell from personal experience that the variety of housing in the city is lacking for individual. I didn't want to move to Bozeman to have to find a roommate. It is not a problem now that I can afford the rent, but for young professional who move to Bozeman from other State, the lack of housing for professional was a big deal. We want privacy.I would say definitely within the past 2 years there has been quite the buzz around the restaurants about employees having difficulties finding housing they can afford, especially during the summer months. We have seen a large amount of entry level employees that are new to Bozeman, only last a few month, not able to find permanent affordable housing, leaving no other option than to move. I'd like to see tighter regulation of the short-term rental industry. I've lost engineers (moved out of state) because they had a single income family and didn't see a way to buy a home here in Bozeman. Lack of affordable housing is the biggest factor in hiring right now. It is limiting my ability to grow my company. If I were to hire someone, i can guess what I would be able to pay them. Knowing the current housing situation in the valley, I would assume that it would not be easy for them to find affordable housing for the amount of money they would be making, and what they would most likely end up accepting would not be the ideal living situation. If my employee wasn't here with her boyfriend who's an MSU professor, she would not be able to afford housing based on her wages at my business and her other jobs all combined. She definitely would not be able to buy a house. If the city is truly concerned about housing costs they need to quit raising taxes at ridiculous rate. Otherwise this is just an exercise to appear they care. If they can't afford to live here at the wages we can afford to pay them they won't move here or stay here long. It has become exceedingly difficult for a young working family to find affordable housing that suits their needs, is reasonably close to our office and in a good school district, especially in the case when their family is growing. It is a problem It is crazy to expect others with more money to subsidize those without so they can afford to live in Bozeman! 130 It is not hard to find housing, but it is hard to find affordable housing. I have had to raise wages to get employees so that they can afford to live here. The down side to that is that I have had to raise my rates and have lost customers that can no longer afford my services. It is the number one issue we are up against. It is the single biggest deterrent to attracting employees from outside of Bozeman who have the skill sets we need. It is very expensive to live in the city of Bozeman. for the wage I can afford to pay my employeesIt isn't a new problem really, Bozeman has been an expensive place to live for decades. The problem of finding an affordable place that accepts pets is huge--more than one time employees have lived in vehicles because of it. Housing and real estate in general are so high they devalue many jobs that pay pretty well and put the dream of owning a home completely out of reach for most working people. Continuing down the same old path isn't going to work. Growth needs to be much smarter and pay its own way. Bozeman needs to think of how it will look as an urban center that supports a diverse selection of business and property use and get busy with the county to prevent any further sprawl. With that urban center, there must be affordable housing for people that work instead of letting SWIMBA dictate to the city that only housing for the rich is going to be built. it more difficult for the service industry workers to find affordable housing in bozeman city limits, easier in belgrade. It's expensive to live in Bozeman. Belgrade is still pretty high too. It also seems Bozeman builders build houses in winter and have problems later on with foundations cracking, roofs leaking, or basements flooding. To keep it cheap we cut corners and pay later. It's not just the cost of housing, but the logistics... increased traffic, construction road closures and slowdowns, and the feeling that what used to be close by in a small town is now just harder to get around in. It's not just the cost of housing, it's the total cost of living mainly high property taxes, higher food and gas prices etc. WE NEED A LOCAL OPTION SALES TAX READ MY LIPS!!!! It"s to expensive! With in the next 5 years all laborers will have to commute to Bozeman. Because they can"t afford rent in Bozeman. Just the same as everyone we need more affordable options for people in Bozeman. Less expensive housing is good for everyone! let market forces handle rent, housing etc... by interjecting govt manipulation, you do nothing but skew markets and create un necessary rules etc, which, inevitable make it worse,, Let the free market respond to housing needs. Adam Smith was right on - Let the invisible hand of supply and demand determine pricing and supply. Keep government out of it and all will even out in the long run. Living near workplace would not be financially feasible without family assistance. Low housing stock makes finding housing difficult for all pay levels. Affordability makes it even more difficult for those making lower wages. lower cost Lower pay/complexity staff have a very hard time finding affordable housing, especially with pets. Lower the cost of living Managed growth is difficult, but if red tape reduces new unit construction then we will all suffer. Prices are high and availability low Many college students entering the professional work force are interested in staying in Bozeman however the wages for entry level professional jobs do not allow for them to afford staying. Many employees can't afford to live in Bozeman and have to commute. Many employees make $10/hour and stay under 30 hours/week. Having rent cost them $1,000k a month is not sustainable for these employees, making turnover incredibly high impacting businesses in Bozeman. More affordable housing is needed, especially for students, or those freshly graduated in the range of $700-$800/month. Many of my past staff members have left employment with us citing cost of housing and moved back home; All other employees live in Belgrade where it is slightly affordable but not by much.Monthly rental rates and home purchase prices are high for many reasons, one being the natural effects of supply and demand. City regulations that reduce supply will increase demand and thus increase costs. One of my employees live in Belgrade and another in Livingston where the housing supply in higher. A big part of the affordable housing solution for Bozeman is to accept/include housing within a 35 mile radius. More affordable housing for families More affordable housing is essential to recruit support staff employees to our area. More affordable less of a commute. The cost of housing creates huge stress and unhappy employees 131 more housing options below $250K and more rentals under $1200 More options and supply of housing is needed. More pet friendly places that have parking available as well as washer/dryer facilities that are affordable based off income. No one can afford to live here anymore... Most are college students. So I would guess their ability to find and pay for housing would be better summarized with a survey directed toward college students. About 75% of our employees are college students. Most do not live in Bozeman but in Belgrade, 4 corners and three forks. Most do not live in town unless they have lived in town for the last 10 years or more. Most employees can not afford to live in Bozeman. They live in outlying towns or if stay in Bozeman they must have multiple roommates. Most employees live in Belgrade/not Bozeman because of price. Most of my employees are MT State U. students. With a 2.+/-% unemployment rate in Bozeman and a 20% increase in housing costs, my pool of perspective employees is slim! most of my employees are one income family's and can hardly afford to live in Bozeman without help from either family or assistance programs. Rent increases are out of control Most of my employees live outside of Bozeman and commute from Belgrade, Three forks and further to work. There is definitely a need for affordable housing. But that growth has to be well thought out and located. Most of my guys can't afford to live in Bozeman so they either live in Belgrade or rent. Most of our staff are married women who have husbands and their own homesmost of our technicians/support staff/ laborers live with other people to make housing affordable, even if they are older. Some people who have gone through divorces and want to live along often find roommate(s) to help offset the cost of not having two incomes supporting a family anymore. MSU wages do not keep up with rising cost/availability of housing Multiple employees have sought housing outside city limits in the last yearMy employee and a contract worker who works for me both have to seek housing outside of the city limits (Belgrade and Four Corners) to afford anything for both rent and purchase. The low-wage status that is common for most area jobs is the real problem- people can't afford to live on what employers pay here. The University and Hospital are the worst offenders paying starting wages around $10/hour. My employee rents. Owning a house with three children, dual income is not feasible My employees all live Belgrade, due to housing costs of living in Bozeman is too expensive. Especially small single family homes. My employees tends to need to make wages higher than we can justify paying in order to afford housing in this area. My guys have a hard time with application fees. They find plenty of applications to fill out. My partner is also my son. He lives in Manhattan. Cannot afford Bozeman. Myself & my 3 employees are fortunate to have established residences. n/a Need affordable housing - not million dollar condos filling up the downtown area Need affordable, pet friendly rentals Need more affordable housing need more affordable housing. period. need more low cost in city limits Need to see more middle income housing nice rental units currently cost above wage limits for my employees. incentives for homeowners to create living-wage rentals (i.e. apartments above garages) would be well received. Consider parking for all the growth in Bozeman. No No. I am self-employed and do not have any other employees. I have housing. Not at this time. Not sure if there is a solution, Bozeman is highly trendy and attract wealth that is willing to pay top dollar for everything, Bozeman is becoming a little Park Avenue (NY) of the valley, I don't think putting affordable housing will work, unfortunately, some outskirt neighborhood or town will are becoming dormitory towns for Bozeman. Maybe it is time to think of a larger valley transportation system. Of my 40 employees I only have 4 that live in Bozeman due to the cost of housing. 132 One of the biggest problems I see is the cost of housing within the Bozeman Community, the costs are too high for general rent, as well as power costs, the cost of electricity has gone up in the last year and rent keeps going up within the city of the Bozeman. Our employees are highly educated and mostly in the science industry and come with alot of experience. In this industry we are able to pay very high wages so housing is not an issue for our employees. However, housing is a huge issue in Bozeman for most individuals. Our support staff, paraprofessionals, custodians and other hourly staff have major difficulty have difficulty affording housing in Bozeman. Beginning teachers are paid a salary of $40,375 which makes it possible, but tough when competing with college students for houses in their price range. People need places to live, and they can't afford anything in Bozeman anymore. Even as a business owner I can't, I moved to Livingston while am trying to start up my business. I don't know how people can afford to live in Bozeman anymore. Perhaps if you lower TAXES we may be able to find employees. Property taxes directly and indirectly impacts the cost of housing. Please keep this in mind every time you add additional property tax to Bozeman. Rent is high and requires multiple roommates to work sometimes. Retention is proving difficult. Candidates want to move here, but when they do, they find it extremely difficult to stay. I've had 4 employees move away because of housing costs. Seasonal nature of Bozeman rental housing directly affects our staffs' decision to stay on at work or move from the Bozeman area Self employed is only me Small businesses can only afford to pay so much money to their employees before we go broke and there is no point having a business. The wages that we pay which I feel are high for the area BARELY qualify them to purchase an ENTRY LEVEL HOME IN THIS AREA. RIDICULOUS! To top this off WE ARE GENERAL CONTRACTORS!!!! Even WE can barely provide them an affordable home with the mess the city of Bozeman has created!!!! The city of Bozeman gives privelage to the WEALTHY. WHY???? Most of the WEALTHY around here didnt come from here! We are in construction and real estate and see all the cashflow coming into our businesses being generated by out of area money moving here. Smaller homes with less property are desired. 2,500sq.ft. lots with 1,000-1,500 sq.ft. homes! Some line employees have to live in Livingston and commute over an icy hill in the winter so they can have more affordable housing. Taxes, traffic and cost of living in Bozeman has gotten out of control Tellers seem to be ok in this town since most of them are single and have a roommate with no kids. Once you put a kid in the mix everyone that is less than management has a struggle. Although their life choices have a big part of it too. Not everyone needs a sweet ride in Bozeman. temp housing and affordable housing The City does not want affordable housing although they say it. It is expensive all around to live in Bozeman based on the living wage. I own the business and make good money, The wages go up so does the cost of everything. The city needs to loosen up some of the code to allow employers to put housing on the business properties. Really need outside of the box thinking and adaptability on this which the city planning does not allow very well. The city of Bozeman makes housing so expensive that prices are outrageous. Constant road blocks and reatricitions from building and planning department slow construction and in turn less supply or higher prices result. The commute is getting longer and longer (relatively of course), but some infrastructure and roads projects to get people in and out of downtown area easier will help.The cost of housing in Bozeman is prohibitive to many. I started my business because I wasn't able to afford to live here as a lawyer on just my legal salary (with the attendant student loan debt). I work 80-90 hours a week most the year and am still barely treading water; as such, I am likely relocating next year. Young professionals now almost always carry a large amount of student loan debt. If Bozeman wants to continue to attract these people, there needs to be a wider variety of housing that truly is affordable in light of the debt we carry right out of college and grad school. The cost of housing is a factor for recruiting and retaining all employees regardless of "professional" or "general service/labor" status. Wages/salary must be higher to address the cost of housing or housing must stabilize. It is very difficult for younger professionals to buy-in to Bozeman with lower salaries. The cost of housing is still unachievable for anyone who earns less than 38,0000 per year 133 The cost of living here in Gallatin Valley has made it especially difficult for us to recruit even though we pay a fairly good wage for nurses and techs. The cost of living in Bozeman versus what we can pay are so far apart that it is causing serious problems. The building costs, inflated land values, city impact fees, etc are in an unstable place that few find the willingness to take that kind of risk. Especially when they can go somewhere like Boise and make more and the cost of living is significantly less. We lose a lot of people to Boise. The greatest concern for all of them has been the quality and size of place for the price of the place. I have ended up renting my own home and apartment to them. The housing is priced too high. The housing shortage is causing employees to demand higher wages. As a construction company the prices I charge builders then has to increase. This causes builders to have to further inflate their prices on new homes. The need for the commuting roads to get figured out supercedes the need for housing in our opinion. If the roads are able to get people around town more easily then housing also becomes less of an issue.The only 2 employees we have are my husband and myself who have lived in Bozeman and owned a house for over 25 years. We only occasionally hire other consultants to help us. We did have 1 employee in the past year, but he made more than enough to afford housing as he was a software engineer. The pricing is way to high. The reason I don't have employees is due to housing issues! The service industry is traditionally an entry level employer. This makes it very difficulty for a majority of our staff to earn enough to live in Bozeman. Even our mid and upper level managers struggle to find housing, especially those who are single parents. The tourism industry is a major income provider and employer in Bozeman. Affordable, achievable housing must be a priority, if Bozeman is going to continue to be a diverse, and vibrant economy. There are few options.... someone keeps shutting off the development of new homes.... until supply catches up, prices will continue to be high. There are not enough one bedroom options available in town (not shared rental, but true one bedrooms). There are oh so many houses empty in the winter. People with lots of money tend to be less community oriented. There definitely needs to be more affordable housing available. An adult shouldn't need three room mates to afford a place to live, and barely at that. There is a huge wage to housing cost ratio gap. Employees are looking at livingston and belgrade as affordable alternatives for housing. There needs to be more affordable housing and more housing that allows pets. We have had several employees move in the last month because they can't afford to live here anymore. We pay above minimum wage. 13 an hour or more. There same complaints as every local. The wealthy move in and the rent and purchase prices for homes skyrockets to match what they'll pay for a home here leaving the lower and middle classes who lived here prior to the boom having to move to an outlying town to survive in the area or to stick with a place there been for years regardless of whether it sorta their current housing needs or not. They all share housing with at least 1 other income earner, and all have more than 1 job. Necessary to drive to work, Bozeman is walkable and bike-able to a very small segment of population. Please do not use Boulder CO, Portland, or Seattle as models for planning, caters to elite, not reality. They are discouraged by housing prices, but realize after purchasing that they are growing their self worth faster than most other homeowners throughout the state They can not find affordable housing, so they go out to Belgrade, which causes problems in the winter. They dont make enough to have their own residence( price too high) without working 2 jobs or having room mates They need affordable rental options because I can't afford to pay them more, I pay them more then any other business comparison in the area already and they should be able to make a living off what I pay them but can't because housing is so expensive They need less expensive housing. Period. They tell me that they are angry because their salaries don't match the cost of housing. Several staff are working two and three jobs just to get by. Younger staff tell us that they can't afford to stay in Bozeman. They want smaller single family homes with less land. They want very nice expensive housing very convenient to downtown for cheap!! There is currently lots of affordable housing. It just isn't nice enough and close enough to downtown for most of the younger workers 134 This is a non-scientific survey, and the City of Bozeman should stop doing this kind of junk social non-science. When will the City stop these amateurish efforts? Waste of everyone's time and the City resources, leading to bad policy. To find housing in Bozeman that doesn't consume 70-75% of a blue collar workers income in nearly impossible. Especially if there are dogs within their family. Too expensive even for renters Too expensive to live in Bozeman or surrounding areas. Transportation is linked to housing. Our underdeveloped public transportation system requires car ownership...and most affordable places don't have good car storage, this creates myriad issues for tenants, more cost to have a garage. With higher density in the community core, we can reduce some of the requirement for personal car ownership. Parking requirements should not control availability of dense affordable housing in the community core. Wages have increased to compensate for the increased cost of living. Employers must increase wages to pay to livable wages in Bozeman. Clients must understand Bozeman is an expensive place to live and expect to pay accordingly. We all own our homes, but the cost of living has driven our rent up in our space and costs of running a business has gone up. We are lucky, that long time residents work for us. New people do not have the ability to get into housing bases solely on local wages We are self employed, however, people are constantly asking us if we have any extra work because they just need more money to make it here. Housing always being part of the issue. We can't afford to pay enought to professional level employees to purchase homes moderatly priced homes in the area. Luckily our recent hires (3 years ago) of professional level employees have spouses that work at a similar pay level so they can afford to purchase We currently have no employees living in Bozeman because housing and rental costs are prohibitive. We deal with a lot of people in the court system, trying to make new starts, etc. There needs to be a safe house or housing community / forum where people of the same ilk (in recovery, etc) can find stable, affordable housing so they are not surrounded by parties and partiers all the time. The only way for a young person to afford a place these days is to have like four roommates, and usually there is a lot of substance abuse going on in such households. We have a very difficult time getting employees to begin with and when we do we have to compete with high wages because they can't afford housing. We have lost two employees in the past three years at least partially due to cost of living in Bozeman. We have several young ladies that are single mothers that have difficulty meeting their housing needs for themselves and their children on a regular basis. We have employees that commute more than 30 miles one way to try to find affordable housing. We just need affordable housing for working class families and individuals. Renting a property is on par with winning the lottery. We need a significant increase in affordable housing that is actually affordable based on the average pay in Bozeman, which is very low compared to a lot of the nation. We need affordable rental housing...at or under $500.00 per month We need houses/condos that are affordable enough to BUY so employees will stick around ! We need housing close to downtown that is affordable for employees in retail. We have increased our starting pay to $12.50/hr to recruit and retain good salespeople. We need more affordable housing in the area as well as assisting 1st time home buyers. We need more supply. Any other measures that the City is trying to accomplish are futile. Help developers increase supply, and get out of the way. Lower impact fees also. we need to include condo's and make the land reasonably priced for contractors to build reasonable homes We pull a lot from the same base of employees in restaurants and lodging, having more access to affordable/economical housing would lend itself to opening up more opportunities for highly skilled food and beverage persons to move in. In our opinion most f&b employees that come in and find themselves in housing with roommates, etc. tend to not stay in employment as long and generally have a lower skill set/level of professionalism or advanced certifications and specializations. We've lost several good employees due to lack of housing. When an employee wants to improve there health & wellbeing housing opportunities are important, otherwise they are sometimes stuck living with delinquents. 135 When housing needs don't seem to be an issue it usually disguises itself elsewhere such as difficulty paying other bills, less on food and much less on items or entertainment that keep people active and help them to have an enjoyable lifestyle With housing prices so high and wages not increasing, it's hard to attract good talent. You can't offer a $17/hr paying job and expect anyone to be able to live here. With the average sales price of a home being well over 300k and the rentals being about 2 k per month, housing for a single income family is near impossible. Would be nice if they didn't have to live in Belgrade, or in the multiplex jungles west of town. Yes, we need to have housing available that meets the national average of income levels for entry level positions. Yes. Stop the articles that la el bozeman as the last best town! Bozeman used to be a great place now it sucks! Young people trying to get started into a career and into the job force have a huge problem finding affordable housing. Q8. If you have unfilled positions, can you briefly state why they are unfilled? (N=232) 1 of 10 positions is unfilled due to lack of skill set in the local market and we've lost candidates due to lack of available affordable housing for a family. Other positions are unfilled due to competitive labor market for retail employees where we struggle to retain employees due to high cost of living in the area compared with the modest wage they receive to work in retail. a combination of unqualified and unmotivated workforce. Wages are also a factor. Actively recruiting now to replace positions. all my existing positions are currently filled Any organization our size is going to have unfilled positions. That's just the nature of business. Tight job markets causes lack of applicants. Low unemployment rate causes a lack of qualified applicants. Applicants cannot afford to live in the city of Bozeman or surrounding areas. Applicants needing higher pay, and more than 30 hours to survive in Bozeman. Because I can't afford to pay a salary that will give health benefits and allow an employee to live in the valley. WE NEED A LOCAL OPTION SALES TAX!! Budgetary discussions (internal) Business is picking up. can't afford current work force in current market conditions and stay in business. Can't afford to hire employees at the pay they need to survive and maintain housing and health. Can't afford to pay unskilled workers the wages it takes to live in the Bozeman Area Can't find anybody willing to work in Bozeman for $20+ an hour. Can't find people who want to work... no applications to ads Candidates are not wanting to start out at $40,000 per year plus sales. They say they cant afford it here. Candidates who have planned on moving have canceled because they cannot find normal housing or affordable housing. Cannot find qualified people for the job Cant find quality applicants with out paying more. Carpenters due to not having enough of them in Bozeman or near by that are really "Carpenters". If you can read a tape measure that does not make you a carpenter. cost of living in the bozeman area. lack of skilled labor. city of bozeman has created a liberal Mecca Costs of living in Bozeman for working people are excessive. Need regular ideally free train and bus service to Belgrade, Manhattan and Three Forks where there is more affordable housing.Let's have a long term vision that includes protecting our natural resources/transportation/housing so we don't end up looking like Salt Lake Could not find affordable housing currently looking currently not in the main season for venue service. Currently recruiting Difficult to find entry level workers Entry level employees can not afford to live in the Gallatin County. Period. Finding qualified individuals Growing and just at the point of needing another employee hard to support single parent with child or single person on one income 136 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. Hiring challenges Housekeepers are hard to find. People start their own businesses and charge $30/hr and do not want to work for an established company, with a starting wage of $15/hr. They do not understand overhead. Housing and lack of desire to work. Housing costs, wages compared to housing costs, lack of quality applicants with high level of skills, competitiveness of competing entry level positions and low unemployment rates I am currently unsure how of how many open spots are available due to not having a current representation to profits over salary. I am not able to pay someone enough to fill the position. I am working on my startup once I feel more comfortable with my financial, I will look for full time to help with the business. I can't afford to pay enough to attract employees to grow my business. I can't find good help for a reasonable price. I cannot afford to hire them I cant find employees in Bozeman. I could take on an employee, but qualified individuals who would be flexible enough to work within my schedule are difficult to find in this current economic environment. I do not have employees. I had to downsize to being a DBA sole proprietor (owner/operator) because I couldn't afford to hire/keep employees at a liveable wage. I have been looking for a manager with experience in the car audio field. I have not found anyone locally. I have been turned down by two prospects from outside the area because of the cost of living in Bozeman I have people who want to hire me but I just don't have the crew to handle everyone. I have quite a bit of seasonal fluctuation in my employment, as do most painters. I had 9 this summer, but I'm down to 4 right now. In a couple of months, I will be crewing up again. I'm careful to not hire people who are just moving to Bozeman without understanding the cost of living here so I wait longer to find team members who already live here or have lived here for a few months. If I were asked this question during the summer months, I would have a different answer. We tend to pay much better than other restaurants, and also carry a local popularity that I believe gives us an edge on hiring. That being said, even paying more, and having the reputation of a enjoyable work environment, I literally didn't get a day off for almost 2 months this summer because we were so short staffed. We have had luck the past 2 years hiring staff at the beginning of the MSU school season. We can only hope those hires stick thought the year, and carry past the summer season. It is extremely hard to find qualified people and offer competitive pay. Everyone wants 40 hrs a week and $60-$100K a year. I find majority of Bozeman is in the service /working class type jobs, making it difficult to reach those payrolls. It doesn't seem like a Bozeman problem, more of a generation problem :( It is hard to believe that while Bozeman is one of the most expensive places to live we have some of the lowest wages in the state. That is why finding employees is difficult. It is much more difficult to find the part time seasonal employees . I do not anticipate having trouble filling the full time roles. It's difficult to find good, reliable labor in Bozeman. just became available Just became available Just became available, lack of applicants Just became available. labor market does not show up when scheduled. young people have shitty work ethic Lack applicants, as well as lack of qualified applicants. Lack of applicant, but also there is a new influx people who have serious drug problems or domestic issues who are not capable. Lack of applicants Lack of applicants 137 Lack of applicants - we simply get no one to apply. We occasionally get applicants when advertising (Indeed, Chronicle, Craigslist, etc.), and when we do, they rarely work out - they don't show up for interview, they don't show up for first day of work, etc. Not sure if they are seriously trying to find a job (satisfying unemployment eligibility?), or if they found another job. lack of applicants , job jumping , low unemployment rate Lack of applicants and applicants that want to work with good work ethic lack of applicants and the ones I have interviewed live about 30 miles away Lack of applicants and the price I can afford per hour is lower than what an applicant can live on here in Bozeman. Lack of applicants and the wage we offer to entry level employee's is not enough for out of state applicants to want to move here once they see how expensive the housing market is to either purchase or rent. Lack of applicants and those that do apply expect higher starting wage than the business can afford. We are effectively being priced out of market due to high starting rates (in comparing with similar businesses around MT) my businesses are highering in at a starting wage $3-$4 more than anywhere else in state and still cannot attract employee because of Bozeman's overall high cost of living-housing being a big part. Lack of applicants and unmotivated people. Lack of applicants and when we do higher people they don't stay long. Lack of applicants from within MT (we don't accept applications from out of state without any secured lodging), not able to pass a drug test, loss of fresh hires for different jobs with higher wages. lack of applicants looking to move to this area do to cost of living Lack of applicants or qualified applicants Lack of applicants that are qualified Lack of applicants that are willing to be paid $11 - $12 per hour for less than 30 hours per week; in addition to having a desire to work the hours/schedule that I as an employer need filled. Lack of applicants that can pass a background check. Many applicants are not seeking more than 10 hours a week. lack of applicants with the technical experience. Lack of applicants, hard to move them here due to cost of living Lack of applicants. Lack of applicants. In our case, they have to have CDL's, and the process for that is cumbersome. I realize that is a state problem, but it has a distinct impact on the city. Two weeks to get a date for a written drive test is unacceptable. Lack of applications Lack of available professionals in the area. Most people I talk to about filling those positions do cite housing markets as being one of their primary concerns in relocating. Lack of available, qualified workforce due to lack of workforce housing! Lack of employees so I hire sub contractors. Lack of experience, and everyone wants to start off at $18 an hour due to high living costs Lack of experienced applicants Lack of office space. Lack of people wanting to work. No place for them to live. Lack of professional talent that can accept a 50k salary with full benefits AND be able to live in Bozeman. Lack of qualified applicants Lack of qualified applicants lack of qualified applicants Lack of qualified applicants and those not willing to commute into Bozeman from outside areas that are more affordable. lack of qualified applicants in the area Lack of qualified applicants in the Bozeman area. Lack of qualified applicants that can live in Bozeman and work for wages available in childcare. Lack of qualified applicants that show up for the interview (lots of people accept the interview and then don't show so they can get their unemployment check) Lack of qualified applicants, in the process of creating/posting, multiple offers rejected due to wage and cost of living Lack of qualified applicants, so must look outside area. Once qualified applicants discover the cost of available housing here, they back out of the application process. Lack of qualified applicants. 138 Lack of qualified applicants. lack of qualified applicants. I have starting wages that are at the high end of each skill group and still have a shortage of skilled applicants Lack of qualified employees is typically the issue or lack of people willing to work for the money we can offer as a business Lack of qualified individuals. Also individuals have a poor work ethic and therefore not a good fit. Lack of skilled appilcant lack of skilled applicants lack of skilled applicants - cost of living too high - no affordable housing Lack of skills I need Lack of stable labor pool little to no responses for skilled or semi-skilled labor ads. Very hard to find employees to do work, one of the most common topics among employers Looking to expand our company. Lots of applicants; many not qualified, or often times lost to the job market writ large. It's difficult to offer a wage commensurate with living expenses in Bozeman, esp. housing. Management prerogative & our recruiting processes, for the most part. Some positions are difficult to fill, so those are open as well. Very few are open because of lack of qualified applicants. my positions are filled due to my type of business. All of the employees except the owner live in Manhattan, and Belgrade. N/A na no applicants available No applicants, or homeless persons that don't meet hygiene requirements No applications, quality of candidates very poor. No one will apply. Or show up for work. Worker can"t afford to live in Bozeman. No openings No skilled workers that will pass security clearance and background checks No unfilled positions. We still have interest from potential employees but no positions needing filled. Non-unfilled, however we cut back one position cause of the hiring difficulty. However I will need at least one more employee in 2019 Not able to fill them at this time due to reduced revenue. not currently looking Not currently looking because this is "off season". But in the summer, there is a lack of applicants. Not currently looking to fill the position. Anticipate the need within 6 months. Not currently looking to fill them Not currently looking to fill them. Not enough qualified applying for position. Some applying from out of town, but cannot wait for their housing arrangements to be made before offering them a position. Not hiring Not looking Not looking to fill Not looking! Not receiving very many applicants; it's very hard to offer an affordable wage in the Bozeman area. We have tried to increase the rate but it doesn't seem to be enough. Other cities have several applicants for the same position/pay. On hold at this time part of it is a tight labor market, but also when relocating emloyees from out of state to MT they find the housing prices unaffordable or not comparable to where they are moving from. Lack of affordable quality childcare is also a major problem in our area. People want more $ Poor applicants. Don't show up for interviews. Don't show up after being hired. Position just became available. Professional positions requires 4 mo typical to find the right person. 139 qualified candidates willing to work searching for candidate now seasonal business open 9/1- 11/15 seasonal workers are not as hard to find in this area as they are in others, but it's hard to offer them a living wage with the higher cost of living in this valley. paying them adequately cuts into my own cost of living. Self run and operated. Technical employees. The State unemployment rate is too low. The cost of living in Bozeman is so expensive that potential employees would find higher paying jobs elsewhere. As a cabinet manufacturer our goods are subject to a lot of competition, I can't afford to pay 30/hr that the tradesmen need. There are no applicants. We have raised wages every year, and now consider ourselves to be among the highest paying employers in Bozeman's lodging industry. People can't afford to live here, so they aren't enough people looking for work. There are no skilled workers in the area. Most of the skilled labor force that I would use works for themselves. The valley is growing way to fast and most people dont actually want to work. There are not enough service workers for the number of services available. There is a major gab in the working class in Bozeman. There is a labor shortage in Bozeman thus a lack of applicants. There Unfilles because you can't get a piece of property for cheap can't rent a house you can't do anything there. It's completely unaffordable to live the only way you can live there as a middle class person is to work in big sky and never see your family. There used to be several times a year word of mouth would bring or find people looking for full and or part time work. Over the past one and a half years that has not happened Tight employee market combined with a much higher cost of every employee so they can pay their rent has definitely become a factor. Tow truck driver, qualified applicants willing to stay sober 24/7 or 24/5 Transient population: many don;t stay in the area long term, reporting a lack of (affordable) housing options for their family. My business cannot support the overhead of offering housing support. Trying to pay a labor enough to support themselves while passing the cost on to the client has created a situation where one or the other is going to give. I hate to say it, I'm trying to buy more equipment to replace employees... Which creates less of a need or opportunity for people looking which honestly hurts my heart and I feel for those people I'm now trying to replace with iron. Typical cycle to get them filled. Unavailable qualified applicants Various reasons, but not housing-based. Very difficult to find qualified workers. Was able to obtain housing through work We are always looking for qualified individuals but do to the niche industry we are necessarily looking to full "unfilled" positions, rather if someone comes along or submits a resume that is qualified, we would most certainly find a position for them. We are currently recruiting, but we have a lack of applicants. We are unable to find and retain salespeople to work weekends through the summer and holiday months, our busiest seasons. We can't afford to fill them right now. We can't find employees that will work for $15 per hour. They all want $30 which doesn't work for our margins. We do not have unfilled positions currently. We don't have unfilled positions because we pay our employees higher than other businesses in our sector, and provide a very positive work environment. We have a very small operation, two to three employees, with only one being a part-time position to support full-time staff. In the future we would like to see the business grow in a way that demands more staffing, housing, directly influencing skill level, greatly influences our ability to do so. We have plenty of applicants and people are genuinely interested, but when they try to find a place to rent or buy the cost closes the door. We have suffered the lowest number of applicants for our hourly positions we have experienced in the last 10 years. 140 We lack applicants to fill the positions. We try to always have a position open for the right canditate We're fine, but most of my colleagues say that the problem is a lack of willing workers who show up on time, work every shift, and are sober. Q10. Any additional input on the above and/or other issues that have made it difficult for you to hire and retain employees that you want to share? N=127) Affordable Technical school training in the Bozeman area is non existent and the education in high schools do not promote adequate growth in Bozeman All costs have gone up across the board, city fees, power bills, food costs, etc. This town is slowly becoming too expensive for the average folk to stay here. An employee parking lot downtown. Parking is the number one complaint of patrons. Much of the parking downtown seems to be occupied by business staff. As a small business we want to pay our employees fairly but are concerned we can not keep up with the cost of living in Bozeman As stated above, hard to pay at a high level in the service industry. As the business owner, keeping up with the wage demands of those needing housing has deeply cut into my profit margins, to the point of making it difficult for ME to afford housing, and to conduct business in Bozeman. Because Bozeman is such an expensive place to live, I feel that the citizens turn to ordering items online instead of shopping locally because they feel they can't afford to support local small businesses. Because of cost of living and the wage we can offer, it makes it difficult to stay competitive with pay. Being a seasonal employer is tough Being seasonal is tough. Health Insurance is very expensive. Can't afford to grow a small business with the cost of living here in Bozeman. Child care is a huge issue. Not enough providers, especially for infants. College age / younger don't have good work ethics, don't know how to be a good employee, if they don't like a schedule or the work, they leave, there is no loyalty or commitment to an employer Cost of decent labor has gone to high Cost of healthcare caused us to discontinue to offer it as a benefit to full-time employees. They went where healthcare was offered to even part-time employees. Cost of housing and difficult to deal with property management companies Cost of living is high, wages I offer are competitive but the hiring pool is small and the skill sets are low. I could hire 1 -2 full time people and save money (less staff) instead of paying lower wages to MSU students. Costs are high and retail pricing is tough to keep pace, putting a pinch on business to retain employees. Our employee costs are up 20% over 3 years ago. Definitely more skilled people moving here, costs have increased due to cost of housing. Employees leave for higher wages without considering cost/benefit of other benefits Entry-level employees cannot afford to live in Bozeman, cannot afford to drive distances, cannot afford reliable vehicles and are always looking for something they perceive to be better. Everyone wants to live in Bozeman but finds the cost of living to be too high. The answer is to live near by but when all the money is going to housing and the cost of commuting there is no money to make the needed repairs to their vehicles. High density housing is not a solution to this problem. High overall costs of living in the area compared to the income levels employers can provide. The ratio is out of whack. WE NEED A LOCAL OPTION SALES TAX!!! Hourly wage must be competitive Housing costs are #1 housing, commute, weather I am glad that the COB is finally looking a the framework to a hopefully solution. I can not pay as much as Big Sky and the yellowstone club pay. My guys head that way. I can't retain the skilled workers I need because the cost of living is too high I couldn't meet the wage demand the employee required for a living wage in Bozeman 141 I currently own a downtown business that I am considering moving. The rent is so high that I have difficulty paying employees what I would like to. I currently pay them $10 /hr for part time and $15/hr for a manager. I would like to pay them $13/$18 but my rent is roughl $3500/ mth for a location just off main st. The question of affordable housing is only a small piece. It more of a question of an affordable community for all. I get several out of town applicants each year that are looking to relocate to Bozeman. Once they dig into actually finding housing, they generally elect not to move to Bozeman. I had a couple of employees that needed housing on a short term notice in Bozeman do to a couple of issues. We couldn't find anything for them. I have many applicants who want to live in Bozeman and like the idea of living here but don't realize the cost of living in Bozeman and are usually unwilling to long term make the sacrifices needed to live/work here even though we pay a very competitive salary. i have no employees I know I work from home. I am my only employee, and I will likely have to move because I can't afford to live in Bozeman (my hometown) much longer. I lost a good employee to another a competitor in Great Falls, where the employee could afford to own land rather than rent endlessly in Bozeman. I tried to hire an employee this year, however, the employee couldn't afford to take the job because I don't offer health insurance. The high cost of living in Bozeman meant she needs a job with health insurance because she doesn't have enough income to pay premiums. I'm in the direct marketing business, so people that join my team, are already living here or in other locations. If they are coming from a place with cheap housing its hard to recruit them. In order to recruit and retain qualified individuals in this market where the cost of housing is so high, we have to offer high wages. This in turn puts more strain on the business in order to stay competitive in our market segment and moreover, it puts strain on our staff to carry the workload of what would normally be performed by additional people. The higher payroll limits what our business can carry, even though we still may be shorthanded. It's hard enough for a single person renting a room to afford to live here. Families that are making the prevailing wage are having an even harder time. It's hard to be full time in a personal business because you have no guarantee of income. So I part time with another paid job and still don't make enough to live in Bozeman. Just the age group of people not wanting to work hard. Issues with finding sober employees Knowledge and know how. Lack of availability for day care is a major issue for our employees. We have many young parents who have no option other than to stay home to raise families. Lack of loyalty and work ethic that exists too much these days! Low unemployment means people have plenty of options, and high wages in construction-related services lures people away from occupations that they are actually trained and more suited for. Rapid development comes with costs. low unemployment rate Most everyone that is not in a business or professional position that I know of are planning to leave the area. We are downsizing because of the issues going on in this place. I am retiring and leaving Bozeman. My current employees include my 2 kids My employees used to love Bozeman but now they hate Bozeman. My last employee and her family could barely afford the house they rented and because there's such a shortage they paid for all repairs to the rental for fear they'd be kicked out or their rent would be raised because there's always someone desperate for housing to replace them. It did not feel secure and they finally decided to leave Bozeman after finding work in Oregon. The lack of housing encourages slumlords. My last employee to leave moved to Virginia. Cost of living is much lower and wage was slightly higher. Easy to find housing for his family to be. N/A na Need more robust public transit. Potential employees have mentioned not wanting to use their vehicles on a daily basis. no 142 No problem with my business but I hear from many many others that there is just no way to stay in Bozeman. They have to live elsewhere, particularly in Belgrade, and commute. No turnover of permanent positions in the last 5 years. If I had to hire from outside the area to fill a professional position, I couldn't afford to pay a wage to compensate for the high housing costs. We are a very small company that manufactures specialty laboratory equipment for global sales. We cannot adjust pricing levels to afford salaries sufficient to accommodate local housing costs. Housing costs may eventually chase our business out of the area to an area where we can pay a competitive wage that is sufficient for local housing. not my employee but I am aware of people turning down offers because of the lack of housing that fits the budget Not only is there lack of housing, but there is a lack of quality applicants One applicant expected to be able to purchase a home for $200,000 in neighborhoods where home were selling for $350,000 or higher. Another applicant wanted to buy a large home on 10+ acres just outside of Bozeman for $350,000 so she could have horses. One employee wanted to buy a home but he had too much consumer debt and was not financially stable (so he currently rents). One employee left who owned a house in Bozeman but did not like the way Bozeman "feels these days". One independent contractor I work with finally found housing in Clyde Park, so it's harder than ever for us to meet in person. Previously employed seasonal, part-time worker grew tired of commute from Manhattan. Quality of applicants is terrible. REAL Affordable housing is necessary to continue the Bozeman life. Housing has become elitist and there aren't enough options of housing for lower income people. Every community needs layers of wealth and we are pushing away our working class. Sick and tired of hearing about affordable housing, when right across the street from my business, they moved out over 100 trailer houses/families and made a PARK out of it! Now I hear their will be more trailers removed for affordable high rises. Get your act together! Some people don't want to spend as much of their income on housing as it takes to live in this area. They can spend a smaller percentage of their pay on housing in other parts of the country. They always admit that they will be giving up our "quality of life" aspect to do so. It's a trade off. Staff under 40 are frustrated and upset that they will never be able to buy a house in Bozeman. The rental market is small, expensive and most don't allow pets. There is a lot of emotional turmoil in this group, particularly. We have lost three skilled people in the last couple of years who have left MT to live elsewhere. One of our department heads' children and her family left the state because they couldn't make ends meet despite working professional jobs. Start up business I am trying to keep housing for myself, I cannot hire any staff right now because I would not feel comfortable having staff relying on my business, because I would like to pay employees enough to be able to live in Bozeman, and have quality of life. Starting hiring rate not enough income to support cost of living here. State government pay rate for entry level administrative jobs is not enough for the cost of living in this area. Stop coddling young people! Housing is more affordable for those willing to work. Sure they might not be able to afford alcohol and pot and boats and lots of time off, but that's all good! Supply & demand The City of Bozeman building and planning departments are a Nazi Regime. requirements for design, infrastructure, etc... are out of hand. we are building 1400-1500 SF homes in Three Forks and keeping them in the 215K to 289K price range. Designs are simple, and governing agencies in the City or HELPFUL. We avoid working in Bozeman so we don't have to deal with the City. The city of Bozeman seems as if they don't want the town to grow and aren't planning on growth. Our running joke is the Bozeman motto is: If you DON'T build it, they WON'T come. The cost of housing is pushing the cost of living up and making it hard to compete with the national chains. As a small local business, it is harder to offer a competitive wage. the economy is booming, anyone that wants a job can have one. Affordable housing in Bozeman, means getting a house in Three forks or Manhattan and driving into Bozeman just like people do in New york or California. Quit trying to mandate affordable housing in Bozeman, that ship has sailed. The government regulations and "slow" development time frame of approving new neighborhoods have increased costs of land which has increased the overall costs. 143 The housing market has pushed employees of ours back to where the came from due to being able to own a home as opposed to paying double that mortgage for rent here. The increase in the cost of living is making it more difficult to hire entry level employees. The need to continue raising our hourly rate of pay to a rate that is not sustainable in a small business - due to the high cost of living in Gallatin County The over regulation of the town on short term rentals has impeded opportunities for employees. The recovery thing is really key here I think. I've witnessed a lot of young people (and older too - middle age) have a really difficult time in finding affordable and stable housing. I'm hopeful for such projects as those complexes being built behind Costco, but I'm afraid a lot of new housing being built is priced out of most folks' range. (i.e. most of the apartments are too fancy - marketing to a more affluent base). The rent costs and housing costs don't compete with the income we can offer. They are too steep for young leaders and families, which is who we are needing. The requested wage from employees because of cost of living has gotten to high that it is making it difficult to keep labor costs at a level that is reasonable. There are more rentals available now than ever before. Please need to stop getting pets before they buy a house. They also need to be willing to living in apartment style housing. We have affordable housing in Bozeman, it just isn't where people are willing to live. They might have to have a roommate, but people don't seem willing to do that either. 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. Really is a terrible way to steal employees but I guess that's the climate that Bozeman has created- and it is a real shame. You work with someone, train them, try to take good care of them, only to have them stolen by someone's willing to pay a bit more. Really is a poor statement on many in the business community! There used to be plenty of college students who wanted to work part time during the school year. This seems to have almost dried up, which puts even more pressure on businesses looking for employees. These above issues are currently happening to co-workers at my second job. They are not stellar hires in the first place and the work ethic is low but all want higher wages so they can smoke drink and party and pay rent in that order of importance They just aren't here because they can't afford it. they refuse to show up to work when scheduled and when they do show up they are lazy and have poor communication / customer service skills This is crazy..I am asked to fill out a survey on affordable housing, all the while the city is approving high-priced condos being built downtown. And even though the plan says to build upward in the character of the neighborhood (which they are not) and affordable (which they are not) I am now going to have to move from my VERY affordable housing downtown because I am getting smothered and pushed out by these condos. This is what happens when Democrats run a city To hard to find employees due to the construction boom going on here in Bozeman wages are too competitive. Too many jobs. Everyone consumes in Bozeman. Too many people with income out of state that do not need to work. Traffic sucks! Fix the lights so they don't make you stop at everyone. Add another lane to 19th at I-90. Trying to pay a labor enough to support themselves while passing the cost on to the client has created a situation where one or the other is going to give. I hate to say it, I'm trying to buy more equipment to replace employees... Which creates less of a need or opportunity for people looking which honestly hurts my heart and I feel for those people I'm now trying to replace with iron. Unable to find people who are qualified and want only part-time work. Wages are outgrowing our capacity to pay them. Wages in this town are too high for retail. We are lucky as we get several applications a week. Our problem lies with millennial mentality (All about me and my needs, your lucky to have me) We do not make enough money to pay are expenses- especially rent downtown- to pay our employees the living wage they deserve. We do not track the reason for employee departures. We had an intern we were considering hiring this year. She moved to CO because the cost of living lower there. 144 We have employee's moving out of the immediate city of Bozeman area due to the fact they can not afford to purchase a home or rent a home on their own. This impacts their ability to get to work during the winter months depending on the weather. Most are able to make it into work however sometimes they are not timely. We have employees commuting from Belgrade, Manhattan, Churchill and Butte and eventually tire or find jobs closer to where they live. We have increased our wages significantly to help with the high cost of housing in the area. We have gotten to the point we cannot increase wages much higher and worry employees will resign to move to less expensive areas. We just can't pay people enough for them to support themselves in this town. We just hired but it took 6 months to find someone and number of applicants was very small. We lost three employees in the last 4 years due to pay vs housing issues. 3 of the 4 moved to another part of the state, or out of state due to housing. We need to support local business. The City needs to market and push this to the community. We need to increase our wages and the way to make that possible is increase sales. We offer what we feel our competitive wages for the job required. We mostly employee college age students, which has been harder to find as it appears that a majority of the Msu students do not need to work (they receive complete financial support from their parents). Non-college students have a hard time paying for rent, even with our competitive, way above minimum wage hourly rate, making it harder and harder to find quality employees. We've had employees that have lived in their vans and moved when it got cold. We've had employees that realized they weren't going to be able to buy a house or settle down given the wages in the industry and the cost of housing in the region. We've had employees that have moved here lured by the amount of jobs but then found that it's unsustainable for them to build a life here and moved away. We've had no difficulty in hiring for any of our jobs. Work ethic with young people, not the lack of housing is the problem finding and retaining help in Bozeman. If someone wants to work 40 plus hours a week and bust their ass to get ahead instead of skiing and fishing they could afford their rent. Work force development needs a bigger focus in the high schools to inform kids that there are great opportunities in the construction trades. Yes, a lack of people applying & a lack of stable applicants. Young employees just getting started find cost of living far to high and overwhelming. Even though this one employee doesn't officially leave until December 21st He is leaving this year. Its too much to cover all his expenses and we pay higher than many apprenticeship programs from the start. Q12. To the best of your knowledge, where do your employees live - Other: (N=18) Bear Canyon area, MT Billings and Missoula, MT Bridger Canyon area California Clarkston, MT Emigrant, MT Ennis, Helena Gallatin County Helena, MT Out of area Spokane, WA Springhill area, MT Townsend, MT Wilsall, MT Q14. Do you provide your employees with any of the following work commute options or assistance - Other: (N=31) 2/3 employees we purchased company cars and the 3rd gets a 250 monthly car allowance Company paid vehicles company vehicle 145 company vehicles Company Vehicles for Foreman Compensation for housing employee meal Flexible Scheduling Fuel gas money I provide parking pass for parking garage. I am on teh wait list for 2 more passes. lent an employee a personal vehicle Mileage pat MT work comp laws do not encourage employer sponsored transportation due to liability issues Parking Parking pass pick them up & loan vehicle pickups private parking Program specific options Ride Share Take home vehicle Thank you're doing OK and on that note there's plenty of buses in options for people with no transportation The bus is free. Passes/coupons is N/A We go pick them.up we have a parking lot at no charge we pick them up we pick up if needed work truck Q15. Does your business provide any of the following types of housing or cost of living assistance for your employees - Other: (N=13) Department Director position receives a housing stipend. No other employees do. For retail employees?? How in the hell am I going to provide housing for employees I can barely house myself making 100,000 a year I work out of my garage. How does that count? Income eligible assistance lending personal camper for housing Meals My kids not able to do any of these relocation bonus some have lived with me some relocation available for certain positions We've start to pay higher wages, but still not competitive Q18. Do you have any additional comments about housing issues? (N=138) A major factor driving the cost of housing is the ongoing trend of putting tax increases for everything on the property owners. This needs to change! A manager making $40,000 should be able to afford to own a place to live in Bozeman. Advocate for renters rights, ban Airbnb and the other types, and regulate rent price increases. Bozeman has not stepped up to accommodate for growth that benefits its residents. Affordable housing does not currently exist within the city limits of Bozeman. The tiny homes trial is a joke. The prices per sq. ft. are not any better than a larger home. This is not a solution. It is an attempt to put a bandaid on a big problem. 146 After living for years in Jackson Hole, a community with a much larger income/housing gap, I can attest from experience that the so called "affordable housing" programs did not work well, and tended only to exacerbate the problem. Also, local companies (Smith's, Albertsons) that provided employee housing created an even larger problem for employees by lowering wages due to "provided" housing while charging rent that was near enough market value to force a poverty situation. It became a slum scenario with migrant workers being the majority of the work force. As a business owner I had difficulty finding affordable housing close to downtown. It took me 18 months to find a rental 10 blocks from downtown and I was renting from a private party, a family that was born and raised in Bozeman and believed in keeping costs affordable. I could not afford a commercial property. As employers we are doing the best we can to provide a great working & teaching environment, as well as provide higher pay than most new apprentices. Its just a challenge to see employees struggle so because housing is so very high! Asking business to support community housing is borderline offensive, and deflects the problem of our community (land owners) not providing affordable house onto already struggling mom and pop establishments. I hope this question is not a genuine solution being entertained. Bad situation in Bozeman, Renters rights are far behind where they should be. Gentrification has over inflated the market and wages do not equate cost of living. Bozeman is no longer a viable option for many young professionals and families. Bozeman's real estate market and cost of living is disproportionate from low wages. I believe there are lots of infill development opportunities that could be utilized to allow downtown employees to live and work in a closer radius- so they are invested in the culture and community of Bozeman as well as the commerce. City is doing a poor job of working with contractors for lower cost living homes/rentals. Contractors HAVE to make money, and they cant with the City in the middle City regulations make it tough, along with a plethora of other influences, that drive the prices higher. I am working on an affordable housing project that is to come online late next year and will hopefully help fill some of the void of affordable housing in Bozeman. I DO NOT think that everybody needs to own a home. Affordable rental options for people is very important. What defines a home needs to be considered. Not everyone should have to have a 2000/sf home with fancy finishes. I think a family of 4 in 800/sf with a single bath is acceptable. Safe, sound, no frills. Not everyone earns the same, not everyone gets to live the same. This should not be a matter of social engineering to try to make it that everyone can have a home they own. City/County continue to increase property taxes which directly impacts ability to house employees - need to find alternate sources of revenue to supplement needs/wants of Bozeman area. College-aged kids gobble up housing units. this has been going on for decades. Seems the quickest solution to making more rentals available is to outfit the campus with affordable housing for students - freeing up space in the city and also reducing the cost of rentals (increased supply). Create more incentives for Developers so they can offset the higher cost of construction subs and materials in this market as well as making the process at the city easier. Encouraging big box stores and national retailers to locate in Bozeman brings more housing needs and traffic, driving up the cost of living in Bozeman without providing employee wages sufficient to pay for housing. Its time to look at the tradeoffs in quality of life and cost of living compared to expanding the businesses in Bozeman. Bozeman is loosing its uniqueness and desireability and it won't be long before the outskirts look like Belgrade. Every growing City eventually needs an entity, a housing authority, that is financially involved with the development of affordable or workforce housing. The City of Bozeman must consider how to approach this if the housing issue is to be seriously addressed. Policy is not nearly enough - developers will continue to have incentive to build luxury real estate in the Gallatin Valley and the gap will widen between the have's and have-not's in our community. First time homebuyers seem to be debt heavy, thus are finding it difficult to qualify for housing in the Bozeman area. from an economic development perspective, attainable housing presents one of the largest business challenges in the area where wages and housing cost and availability (particularly urban-style condos and apartments) are misaligned Go Community Land Trust. The only sustainable option for long term affordability. Half of the people who work here that reside in Bozeman are renters and not homeowners, i.e. recent graduates that have not purchased a home. It is my prediction when they do it will be Belgrade or Manhattan. Housing (downtown specifically) requires additional parking which I understand is an ongoing issue but certainly needs consideration. Housing issue is just the start. Hopefully property value will drop and everyone that left their home can come back before all the liberals in California people take it over. Thanks for fucking up a beautiful place 147 I agree that housing and the high costs are an issue. I also believe that the free market has a way of resolving these issues when services diminish. I also feel like Bozeman is overbuilding at the moment and we don't have sustainable job infrastructure to handle the growth. They'll all turn into foreclosures because the cost of housing is unaffordable for what the job market allows. I am a one-man show so I do not have any employees that depend on my business for support but I personally believe affordable housing is a serious issue that needs to be addressed in Bozeman. The majority of the available positions do not pay enough for the majority of people to cover rent without having a number of roommates. I don't believe the solution is building more crappy apartment complexes where you cram in as many housing units as builders like Rotherham are able to build. There needs to be more consideration given to town homes and condos that allow people more space along with their own garages. Units they can comfortably living in with one or two children so they don't have to move out as their families grow. I am a small business owner who is also a renter. We have enough stress running a business, but when the lease ends, we have to compound that with the less than 2% vacancy rate and its almost unbearable. It is frustrating to see rent constantly rise and yet the vacancy rate stays the same. When will Bozeman begin to support the workforce and not just cater to the wealthy. I am concerned that housing development continues to spread further and wider throughout the valley rather than increasing density closer to the city core. I am concerned about the environmental impacts - loss of agricultural land, wild land, water impacts and the impact of increased drive time/distances (lack of adequate public transportation). It seems that there are many new homes being built, but still they are insanely expensive. I am the only person working in my office. I have many clients who are either business owners or employees who cannot find adequate housing in Bozeman. I believe it is a serious problem. Thanks for addressing this. I believe Bozemans low income housing solution is Belgrade/gateway, etc. Don't sacrifice the quality of the city to make low income housing. Embrace the desire of people wanting to move here and pay more for housing. I believe it is one of the top 3 issues facing the Bozeman community today and in the next 5 years as we continue to grow. It cannot continue the way it has gone. I believe the city should be looking into how to bring or create a qualified work force for the housing issue, instead of asking how employers are going to help with the rising costs of living in the area. The lack of competition in the builders for both residential and commercial projects creates a small pool to choose from when building- they can name their price and consumers don't have options. Housing costs are in part due to the lack of trained trades people; and the high cost of land in the area. The issue won't resolve itself until such time that Gallatin County schools and employers within all aspects of the construction market (plumbers, masons, electricians, framers, roofers, etc,) in the area work together to create a qualified workforce that can work for a wage that is comparable to the national average and still afford to live in the area. I believe the issue is all due to supply and demand. As the City is trying to mandate provisions they are making the issue worse by reducing supply thus increasing cost. The present course that the City is going down is completely wrong to solve the issue. I believe the questions for the commission are: How do we help facilitate an increase in the supply of housing? What are the causes of the increased costs of housing? How do we, as a community, mitigate those increased housing costs? Are we putting up barriers to the construction of affordable housing? I definitely do not think it is the land owners'/ developers' problem to provide low cost housing. It's Bozeman, and if you want to live here, it's the going rate-sorry! Until the attitude of trailer houses, and old cabins (low rent) changes with the "powers that be", their will ALWAYS be a shortage from this time forward! I do know it is a huge issue. I know a lot of people that cannot afford to live here. It is unfortunate the cost of living is high and wages have to be low as commercial rent is unreasonably high and shipping of products to Montana is astronomical. These are things people do not think about when complaining about costs of goods in the city. I do not own this business, I am the store manager of the business I do think there is a lack of affordable housing in Bozeman. However it hasn't effected our ability to find high quality employees. 148 I don't feel like the city has done enough to tackle the housing affordability issue. There are so many communities we can learn from who have dealt with the situation we're in: Bend, Jackson, Fort Collins, just to name a few. We don't need to reinvent the wheel, we just need to take parts of other affordable housing plans and put them in place here in Bozeman. If we don't mandate affordable housing quickly, we will lose the working class members of our community. Expecting people to move further and further away and commute in to Bozeman for work every day is not a solution. If people leave town at the end of each work day and take their Bozeman wages to another community, we as a city are the ones who are losing in the long run. We need people of all classes to live and work in Bozeman and keep their money cycling through the Bozeman community both in support of the many small businesses and the many non-profits that are such a big part of this community. I don't know what the immediate solution is for the thousands of people moving here annually, that can't find housing in the city area, but I do hope the City will not only look for affordable solutions but I hope it will support developers that intend to build for the longevity of our city center--- I feel pretty strongly that some of the problems could be solved if more student housing--not just dorms, but apartments--was built closer to campus. This would free up many family homes and apartments in Bozeman for employees. This would also ease some of the traffic issues as there would be fewer people driving to campus. It would also be nice to have some sort of incentive for bike commuting. We only have one car at home and one of us bikes to work. There is no incentive for this. I know it has a built in incentive because we are saving money on gas and a car payment. I feel that the cost of housing is so high for the average person to afford to live here. To many hand outs. I have lived here 54 years. When I retire in a few years I will move out because it is so expensive. Bozeman caters to the wealthy and has turned into a very snobby uppity town. If your not rich you don't live here. Its that simple I have many friends who are faced with either needing to move outside Bozeman or possibly outside of the state because their jobs do not pay enough to afford their rent/mortgage. It is definitely a problem that still needs some creative problem solving. I have never heard of low income housing making a better community. I urge the city to be careful. Large scale low income housing becomes crime centers nation wide. We have a nice community and it is hard to make it here. That hard keeps out many bad elements. I just think Bozeman is slowly becoming a place where well off people can live and everyone else will need to live outside of Bozeman and commute. I know many of my clients struggle with finding affordable housing! I know that housing is a huge issue for people in Bozeman. I manage 200 units between 2 apartment complexes. I rent 3 units to someone who brings in employees to work at their hotels in housekeeping. They want more units. My units are some of the most affordable in Bozeman so we are 100% full, but there are still some people who cannot afford them. I don't think that the City should try to get into the housing business, but adjust the permitting process to make it easier to build affordable apartments. I moved here from a large city that had a wide variety of housing options for people in every financial bracket. That is not the case here in Bozeman, and I believe it is going to continue to cause businesses and individuals problems (I hear from business owners all the time that they cannot staff their positions because people can't afford to live here on what they are able to pay them). It took me 3 months to find a place inexpensive enough for a teacher to purchase. Another 3 months trying to find a single mom (a supervisor at MSU) a place she could manage. Both purchased in Belgrade but work in Bozeman. People that work in the education sector ought to be able to live in the city they work in. It is my single complaint with this beautiful town - and it breaks my heart when people call me and tell me (like a married couple that both worked at MSU did recently) that they are leaving Bozeman because they just cannot afford to stay here. I really feel a tourist tax makes sense in our city to get some money back in exchange for the large tourism industry. I also think the major area employers need to be held accountable for paying living wages to their employees. I really think my answers are atypical and should not be used for serious policy making. I recently moved to Belgrade so I could purchase a house instead of a condo. I would rather live in Bozeman simply for the "commute" which really isn't a big deal. I've been here since 1999 and about half my friends have now moved to Belgrade. Cost is a big part of it but the culture is changing so much in Bozeman. The locals still smile and say hi but all these new comers especially the city folk need to find their friendly side. No one cares how much money you brought with you, we care about who you are as a person and where you're going to fit into this amazing community. 149 I support affordable housing. This means housing that is a stepping stone to a better life. Affordable should not be the end point for someone in their life, but a means to allow the individual to gain the skills needed to afford a nice home in the future. Two income families are the best way to create success as one income earners will always be behind. I think that more zoning should be done for apartment buildings closer to town. I think the city should stop approving crappy developments that are filled with $400k or more houses I understand that it isn't an easy problem and that it is largely as a result of the other successes. I will keep informing myself on the City of Bozeman's efforts and offer information and insight as it is requested. I would love to get together to discuss more, and to collaborate ideas in hopes to the start of a solution I've heard of many businesses that have lost employees or potential employees due to the housing issues. Most important is the high cost. I'm a psychologist in private practice, and the only employee in my business. I decided to start private practice rather than working for a community agency in large part because I knew I could be better able to afford housing. I have also made decisions around what insurance I accept based on what I pay for housing (for example, not accepting Medicaid, even though I would like to). I am hoping to close on a house soon, but it was hard to find something in Bozeman that I could afford. I'm in construction and bigger building pay more. I am liking all of these apartment buildings. Increase housing supply via density. Don't waste any more time or money on studies that do not provide a real solution. This is the only solution. Instead of forcing developers leave parts of the development available for low income, have a fee per lot that goes towards the development of a low income subdivision. This would eliminate having to have design features of the development trying to be put into a lower priced home. It is a tough nut to crack. Builders want to make money, landlords want to make money, the city needs impact fees for the additional services. Low income housing has negative connotations. Gentrification/segregation is also not the answer. Perhaps newly approved multi-unit buildings could require one rent-assisted unit per 8 free-market units at 50% of rent and available to those demonstrating financial need. It is difficult to know the solutions but it is also very, very difficult to watch whole affordable neighbor hoods being torn down and replace with UP scale housing and then the city pretends they are addressing the problem. Make developers accountable, assess them for impacts because they are here for the big bucks. It is too difficult for people to find affordable housing here. It needs to change It seems as though Bozeman will have to begin looking at models where other rural but affluent places have planned for the stratified layers of income through various housing opportunities, e.g. Aspen, Colorado and the Roaring Fork Valley have had major shifts in the past years. So much so that they even have teacher housing now. It's out of control, thanks to the real estate industry. Just affordable homes that are pet friendly Keeping land affordable and build costs affordable will help maintain the health of the Bozeman community. Let the free market work it's magic and stop the social engineering. let the market deal with housing.. you are not only fooling with housing, you are dealing with incomes, types of jobs, etc.. and trying to manipulation housing can only lead to a worsening of the problems.... Stay out of the real estate business Let the market drive the cost of housing, quit trying to fix it. Government can only make things worse. What Bozeman is experiencing is no different than any other growing city has experienced, the difference is the City of Bozeman thinks they need to fix it. Fix the lack of common sense within the city planning, building dept. and city managers first, then everything else will work more efficiently. Let's not price ourselves out of good humans. More comments to be provided during in-person meeting with [removed] regarding employer data. More RV, Tiny home, community cottages, and trailer lots would be a substantial step in the right direction. More units downtown are a good thing. My lowest paid employees can afford downtown rent. Most concerned about teachers, police, etc. that need to be part of our community here in Bozeman! Prefer small, single family homes to major apartment complexes. The Icon apartments project in particular will not help affordable housing. MSU's unbridled growth is responsible for most of it my business (10 year anniversary would be March 2019) may have to close because housing costs and resulting wage demands would require daycare costs that families can't afford and I'll be out of business. My cell is a good way to contact me.please be respectful and email first. [data removed] 150 My family is looking into moving somewhere more affordable. Our housing situation is about to change and our rent will more than double within a year and a half. If we can't find a suitable home for a family of four, plus two cats, where I can have an on site shop or large garage then we will be looking elsewhere. That would mean my company would move as well. Needless city regulations are driving up the cost of housing. If park requirements were reduced, if smaller lot sizes were allowed, if architectural guidelines were loosened, the cost of land and the cost of construction would decline and more buyers could buy real estate. no No offense to Commissioner Mehl, but his claim that AirBnB/VRBO units don't have a notable effect on long-term rentals being available is not correct. 200 additional units on the market would make a very big difference, indeed. We don't want this community to have its service workers banned to an outlying area....it smacks of elitism. None None at this time. None that are fit to print. The housing price numbers in yesterday's paper represent a huge failure across the board. Not at this time. Not everyone gets to live in the mansion in downtown Beverly Hills Not supplying the requested information because that's not confidential and odd to ask. NPR said we were the largest growth community of our size in the country, tough to believe but even if it's close, matching good zoning with speedy units must occur. I like the housing look and feel and greenspace, we're much better than Missoula Our elected leaders in bozeman are really dropping the ball. This has been talked about for years and nothing gets done. I guess it makes people with money feel good to talk the talk. Time for some actual action! Our son-in-law just got a job witha company in the Four Corners area but they probably won't be able to afford to live in the area because rent or the cost of buying a house is so expensive. Outside money influences the market too much. The only thing sustaining the inflated rates is out of state money making it increasingly harder for the people that do live and work here. Permit takes 2 months that once took 2 weeks. Building department requires everything electronic so the cost to submit plans is astronomical. Then the system is terrible requiring staff to push a button and that could take up to a week. Planning is key. Micro, high density housing is not an answer to this problem. Rent is absurd in this town. Rentals need to be more affordable. Period. For an employee making $15/hr, rent cannot force them to take another job. Bozeman needs to do better. Seriously, you need to stop looking to Socialism for answers. If the City of Bozeman REALLY cared about housing being more "affordable" you'd focus on improving and increasing infrastructure, streamlining the development and permit process, and let capitalism solve the problems as the market can do when given liberty. Something needs to change to keep the value of Main Street high and the access to good employees available Stop building high-end apartments that aren't affordable for the working class Supply of starter homes (ie homes in the $100,000-$200,000 range) is non-existant in the valley. A person earning $45,000 a year can only qualify for a $150,000 loan. Either the cap on income for income-based HRDC loans needs to be raised for Gallatin valley, or more city funded/subsidized projects need to be started that build single family homes at or below that price point. Thank you for conducting this research. We are a growing community and a growing school district. Finding affordable housing for our growing workforce will be an important issue. Thank you for this survey! It was a relief to be able to voice some of these concerns, and I'm glad someone is asking. . I serve as the main recruiter for our company and good help is hard to find!! Housing is definitely a barrier for folks wanting to move here, from out of or in state, not to mention the fact that living ain't easy for a lot of the folks around here helping build all these new buildings. Thank you for this survey. As a sole proprietor working from home, I haven't faced the housing issues/needs/difficulties of other businesses with more employees. Like many Bozeman residents, however, I'm concerned with the rising housing (and other) costs of living in this increasingly popular place. But being self-employed, and the only employee, I don't have to worry about finding appropriate housing for other employees. Thanks. Thanks for doing the survey 151 The city and county could easily incent existing landlords to lower rent by offering lower taxes in exchange for rent control pricing. This program exists in some other cities, and it works. From what I observe the focus is always on new development in this market, but by offering a tax break in exchange for set rental prices you would see participating. City and county taxes take up an average of 1.5-2 months of rent in a unit that rents for 90% of market pricing. That's hard math for an investor to make work in terms of pricing rentals. The city has to see their role as an opportunity to help people rather than make money when times are good. The most sustainable and healthy communities in downturns are the ones who pour into their people during upswings in the economy. The City needs to stop their amateurish attempts at social and economic engineering. If you can name a city that's done it successfully (you can't), just copy their approach. Otherwise, get back to focusing on the City's real functions: streets, parks, police, and fire. Stay in your lane, for Pete's sake! The city of Bozeman has gotten themselves into the so-called affordable housing situation by allowing rampant development and growth. As always, let the market place sort out any perceived housing shortage. The city talks about affordable housing but increases regulation on subjective matters like design, pedestrian friendly first level, setbacks (which are all design issues and not for safety) and it increases time to get approved and increases costs to build. The main way to increase affordable housing is reducing the regulation and speeding up the process of development so we have many more lots on the market keeping the price low. A lot of builders would like to build more affordable homes quickly and sell them at a reduced profit if the lots were available to do so. As of 11-27-2018 there are 44 single family building lots on the market in the city of Bozeman priced between $0 and $150,000, and only one of those lots is priced under $100,000. I think that shows the problem. If there were 200+ lots on the market than builders would be able to purchase lots under 70K and build lower cost homes. The building costs due to labor is very high as well which shows we need more qualified labor in the area as well. The housing density of Bozeman do not allow for anything other than a city environment without room for families to grow. Ie food sources other than costly and generic markets The housing market in Bozeman is insane! Bozeman seems to cater to only high-income people. Although I won't be retiring, probably ever, I've considered moving into a 50+ community to simplify my life. However, even the very limited 50+ options here cater only to the very rich. There should not be such a disparity between groups (income, socioeconomic status, housing, etc.). I'm often told I could get a handsome price for my house if I sold it--my response is always the same. And move where? I couldn't afford anything even a fraction of the size of my house in Bozeman. I bought my house in Bozeman for $58,000 in 1989 and now, apparently, it could sell for about $600,000 (a very similar house two doors down just sold for $584,000). Does that seem okay to you? Think about it. The housing situation in Bozeman is terrible and needs to change. The rent and purchase prices of housing are completely untenable and very demoralizing, especially to young people like myself who grew up in the area. PLEASE require that developers provide a large percentage of new homes (50+%) AND lots at affordable rate (commensurate with area incomes). These should be attractive and of similarly good quality as compared to the expensive options flooding the market, not trashy, below market mini houses or sprawling apartment complexes. The rental rates are too high especially for the wages available. Most places require the renter to work multiple jobs and then struggle to afford much after rent is paid. There are ways to manage affordable housing; plenty of other cities have done so with subsidies and incentives to builders and developers. It's going to take more than just action by the City of Bozeman however. It's a challenge to get a builder or developer to pass on seemingly lucrative work in order to build affordable housing when the resources to sustain their business don't pencil. There is a "political" aspect to housing that it seems is being overlooked as I hear people scream for "affordable" housing. The construction of apartments in appropriate areas which allows people to rent, is, in my opinion more of a solution to the problem than building cheap homes in flood zones for example. Don't make the same mistakes that so many states have made, and why so many of us are leaving those states. Let supply and demand work itself out. There seem to be two competing agendas. One to increase density in downtown Bozeman which is creating more housing but it's more expensive and is driving up prices, the other initiative is against sprawl which seems to be where it is more feasible to build at lower cost and therefore offer lower cost housing options to employees. I wish these two strategies could work in tandem so that we are accomplishing what we need in order to take care of our workforce and provide for diversity in our community 152 This is a systemic problem in our community. It is far worse now than in the past because construction is now year round thanks to being able to pour cement in the winter. We are now pulling in workers from other parts of the country and paying a fortune in housing expenses. This problem is a big problem. Folks in the past "hired" as consultants have no idea what the roots of the problem really are and have never dug into them like this time. Appreciate that. The problem will get worse if its not a long sighted plan thats put together and put together with the aid of folks that have HEART for this community and struggle to survive the Real Estate Industry. Those that eat, sleep, breathe their work and community understand the many many many things that have created this monster. They can be fixed. But not overnight. Not sure why nobody seems to get that. LONG SIGHTED PLANS THAT ARE EXECUTED. There is no such thing as immediate solution to this mess! Though I recognize that we have a limited supply of affordable housing, I also feel that the type of "affordable" housing that tends to be built to meet these demands is quite honestly, ugly. The west end of Bozeman is nothing but a future ghetto, devoid of a sense of community, without walking distance retail. These crammed in bedrooms stacked on top of each other, with shared walls, no yard, no garden, limited parking, constructed with no thought to the location of the sun when deciding where to put windows, will only cultivate in its inhabitants a desire to leave. It would be better to build in ways that make people feel comfortable, like they are part of a community, like they are where they belong. Growth in this valley is inevitable. How the growth is managed and what the development looks like is up to us. Financial and land constraints will play a part, but critical thinking and problem solving might help create something worthwhile. Wanting to see diverse and affordable housing as Bozeman continues to grow. Not only for the sake of employees, but also for the sake of kids leaving home, for the mentally ill, and for young families. We need a non-resident realestate tax. Too much housing is taken up by people who do not live here. Residents who make their money in this economy have to compete for housing with people who make their money in other economies which is unfair. The pay scale in MT is not the same as in Los Angeles. To make the playing field level for local residents there needs to be a tax on non-residents who buy up the housing to alleviate the burden on local residents. We need housing that allows animals here in the Bozeman area. Not only that it is hard to find reasonable housing for an individual. It is hard to find any housing that allows having the animal. We need to equalize the cost of government by transferring some of the tax burden from property owners (only 50% of the population here) and visitors to the area. WE NEED A LOCAL OPTION SALES TAX!!! We own and manage the [removed] in Bozeman. We really do not have employees besides our selves as owners, we use occasional labor providers/ We recently opened our location in the Bozeman area and are still too new to have experienced housing issues in the area. We struggle to afford a full suite of benefits for employees while keeping wages competitive. This survey almost suggests that now the private business owner could be suggested to add an addititional housing benefit? I thought that's what paychecks were for- housing, food, health insurance, entertainment... what are employers going to be asked to add to their benefit package next- a food stipend? We would not be willing to provide housing incentive because when we have had employees they are skilled positions that pay enough that they don't need incentives. I know this is not the case with many service related businesse 153 Where do I begin? The city requirements have become so stringent that it's difficult to build anything "affordable". For example, we bought a lot in [removed] several years ago and even though the subdivision had been given final plat, we were not able to get a building permit for several years because of a failed intersection close by. The extra interest we paid before we could develop is the first thing to drive the cost up. Next, the city decided to change the design requirements during this time and what was going to be 4 units to provide "affordable housing" to the city became 3 because a sprinkler system was now required which drove up the cost and forced us to provide 3 units instead of 4, which means we would need higher rent on the 3 to make up for not having 4. It's virtually impossible to develop a piece of ground in this city because of the strict requirements of the city. Many developers go elsewhere because it simply does not work mathematically. I'm not suggesting that there be no rules. That's one thing I love about Bozeman...the leaders are thoughtful and seem to care about quality more than quantity, but there is a point where the regulations become too much and drive the cost up so much that no one but the rich can afford to live here. Many costs that seem like impact fees should cover get passed onto builders and developers and the costs just keep going up and up. My suggestion is to bring some people into the conversation who have actually been successful at thoughtful development, people who have built things, managed a work-force, run a company, instead of relying on people to make decisions who have no experience in these areas. When I have an accounting question, I call my accountant. When I have a legal question, I call my attorney. If you want to TRULY provide affordable housing to this community, call someone who has been successful at it and ask them how to make it work. I can assure you that more restrictions, higher fees and more difficulty in getting things approved will only continue to drive the costs up and affordable housing will be impossible because builders will go elsewhere where they can actually have some profit at the end of the day. Thank you and good luck! Why do we need a survey to tell us what we already know?? I'd like to know why condo high-rises are getting approved and including less parking than living spaces??? Corner of Lamme and Willson is to have 51 units and 47 parking spaces???? Yes. I firmly believe that the city government should be completely ashamed of their handling of 'affordable housing' in Bozeman. First, the discussion should be geared back toward workforce housing, to encompass all types of housing. Second, if the city government would get out of the way of the free market, the problem would in many ways be less severe than it currently is. Quit spending time and resources exploring the problem, and quit voting against affordability in our marketplace at every turn. It is two- faced, and a terrible abuse of authority. Shameful. If our city leaders and community members were to just be honest and own up to the fact that they don't REALLY care about providing workforce housing, then we could at least quit being wasteful of resources in pretending to be concerned. I would be glad to discuss housing anytime, but all previous offers to do so have been turned down. Any efforts that I have been associated with in addressing workforce housing has been hindered by the city government. This survey is itself, just another opportunity for the city to create the illusion that it is taking action. The votes on Monday night show only misguided ideas or continued impediment to real solutions. [name removed] 154 Bozeman Community Housing Action Plan Working together to strengthen community by increasing the inventory of quality homes across the spectrum of needs. April 9, 2020 Amendment Prepared by: Christine Walker, Navigate Consulting | Wendy Sullivan, WSW Consulting | Seana Doherty, Freshtracks Collaboration 155 Bozeman Community Housing Action Plan – April 9, 2020 Amended Version WSW Consulting, Inc.; Navigate, LLC.; Freshtracks Collaboration TOC Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 1 BOZEMAN COMMUNITY HOUSING ACTION PLAN .............................................................................................................................................. 3 1. OBJECTIVES ........................................................................................................................................................................................................... 5 2. HOUSING ACTION STRATEGIES .................................................................................................................................................................................. 6 Timeline for Implementation ............................................................................................................................................................................. 7 Roles and Responsibilities .................................................................................................................................................................................. 9 Action Strategy Descriptions ............................................................................................................................................................................ 10 3. CORE COMPONENTS ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 24 APPENDIX A – ACTION PLAN PROCESS, DEFINITIONS AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................ A-1 COMMUNITY HOUSING ACTION PLAN PROCESS .................................................................................................................................................................. 1 DEFINITIONS ................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 3 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4 FRONT COVER PHOTO BY ANDY AUSTIN, VIEW OF SPANISH PEAK FROM BOZEMAN 156 Bozeman Community Housing Action Plan – April 9, 2020 Amended Version WSW Consulting, Inc.; Navigate, LLC.; Freshtracks Collaboration 1 Executive Summary The Bozeman Community Housing Action Plan outlines a partnership framework to address community housing in Bozeman over at least the next five years. Community Housing is defined as: Homes that those who live and/or work in Bozeman can afford to purchase or rent. This includes apartments, townhomes, condominiums, emergency shelters, accessory dwelling units, mobile homes and single-family homes – all dwelling types – serving the entire spectrum of housing needs. The Plan presents a set of actions that address a range of community housing needs. The 2019 City of Bozeman Community Housing Needs Assessment study showed that between 5,400 to 6,340 housing units are needed over the next five years to address the current housing shortfall for residents and the workforce and to keep up with job growth. About 60% of these units need to be priced below-market to meet the full range of community housing needs. This includes a mix of housing unit types to diversify options for residents, with prices ranging primarily between $160,000 and $400,000 for ownership and $500 to $1,200 per month for rent. This plan was developed to begin addressing identified community housing needs and to create a lasting framework for implementation that will evolve as the community and its housing needs continue to evolve. The partnership framework for accelerating community housing in Bozeman is based on the recognition that no one entity can solve the local housing challenges – it takes a community to build a community. Utilizing the 2019 City of Bozeman Community Housing Needs Assessment as a base to understand the housing needs of residents and employees in Bozeman, a local Housing Working Group, comprised of Bozeman community stakeholders, with input from the public and technical assistance from consultants, created this Plan. Strategies to meet housing needs have been identified and prioritized; roles and responsibilities have been assigned. A timeline for achieving priority strategies has also been established, recognizing that this Plan will have life beyond this timeline and will continue to evolve and meet changing community housing needs over the long term. By including various community members in its implementation (employers, institutions, community organizations, and stakeholders), the Plan acknowledges that community involvement is necessary for the Plan’s success. 157 Bozeman Community Housing Action Plan – April 9, 2020 Amended Version WSW Consulting, Inc.; Navigate, LLC.; Freshtracks Collaboration 2 Objectives established in the Plan that will continue to be tracked to ensure progress is made, include: • Ensuring community housing serves the full range of incomes without losing sight of safety net programs for extremely low income and homeless families. This includes safety net rentals below 30% AMI (about $20,000 per year), additional resident and employee rentals up to 80% AMI (about $55,000 per year), and ownership housing up to 150% AMI (about $104,000 per year). • Producing community housing at a rate that exceeds, or at least matches, job growth so that new employees can find homes. • Striving to produce community housing at a rate that matches the spectrum of community housing needs, while also preserving what we have through a target of no net loss of existing community housing stock below 80% AMI. The following graphic summarizes the strategies Bozeman will pursue over the next five years. The primary affordability level that each strategy will address is illustrated below and represents the provision of a diversity of housing for community members across multiple income levels and in various life stages. Bozeman City Commission Amendments The Bozeman City Commission voted on January 13, 2000 to incorporate amendments into the October 16, 2019 Bozeman Community Housing Action Plan. Those amendments are incorporated into this April 9, 2020 version and are shown in “pink” text throughout the document. The amendments were not reviewed by either the Housing Working Group or Consultant Team, but are incorporated at the request of the City of Bozeman. 158 Bozeman Community Housing Action Plan – April 9, 2020 Amended Version WSW Consulting, Inc.; Navigate, LLC.; Freshtracks Collaboration 3 Bozeman Community Housing Action Plan Bridge 5800 UNITS NEEDED BY 2025 159 Bozeman Community Housing Action Plan – April 9, 2020 Amended Version WSW Consulting, Inc.; Navigate, LLC.; Freshtracks Collaboration 4 Bozeman Community Housing Action Plan This section presents the Bozeman Community Housing Action Plan. This Plan will focus the community housing partnership framework and increase the ability to meet community housing needs in Bozeman. The primary components of the Plan include: 1. Objectives. Plan objectives are established to help monitor progress. Objectives should be revisited as community housing needs evolve. 2. Action Strategies. The action strategies represent the prioritized strategies that have been developed to meet housing objectives. The action strategies include defined roles and responsibilities and a timeline for achievement. This is the Action part of the Plan. Because not every strategy can be implemented at once, the sequence of strategies were prioritized by evaluating current partner capacities and resources, understanding that some strategies may need to be implemented before others can be successful, and recognizing that others may have current political or legal limitations that will take more time. This prioritization is defined in more detail in the Action Strategy section. 3. Core Components. The core components represent the core operational needs to implement strategies, administer an inventory of community housing, and track the progress of the Action Plan. This structure is needed for successful implementation and to ensure continuation of the partnership framework to increase the availability of community housing in Bozeman. The Appendix contains a summary of the Action Plan process, defined terms used in this Plan, and acknowledgements of Plan participants. This Plan is also accompanied by Technical Documentation, which contains important information for Plan implementation. The Technical Documentation contains detail on each housing action strategy. The Technical Documentation should be referenced by implementing parties to understand the detailed background behind the formation of each strategy, best practices for each strategy, other communities implementing the strategy, and implementation steps and roles specific to Bozeman. 160 Bozeman Community Housing Action Plan – April 9, 2020 Amended Version WSW Consulting, Inc.; Navigate, LLC.; Freshtracks Collaboration 5 1. Objectives The Bozeman Community Housing Action Plan presents a set of actions that address a range of community housing needs. The 2019 City of Bozeman Community Housing Needs Assessment study showed that between 5,400 to 6,340 housing units are needed over the next five years to address the current housing shortfall for residents and the workforce and to keep up with job growth. About 60% of these units need to be priced below-market to meet the full range of community housing needs. This includes a mix of housing unit types to diversify options for residents, with prices ranging primarily between $160,000 and $400,000 for ownership and $500 to $1,200 per month for rent. As community housing needs change, the Housing Action Plan will evolve accordingly. The actions identified in this Plan are designed to help Bozeman improve the availability of community housing, defined as: Homes that those who live and/or work in Bozeman can afford to purchase or rent. This includes apartments, townhomes, condominiums, emergency shelters, accessory dwelling units, mobile homes and single-family homes – all dwelling types – serving the entire spectrum of housing needs. The following objectives for meeting community housing needs will be tracked to monitor progress and revisited as community housing needs evolve: • Income Levels. Community housing should serve the full range of incomes without losing sight of safety net programs. The primary focus should be on: o Ownership housing from 80% to 120% AMI, while also incentivizing the production of missing middle housing up to 150% AMI; o Additional resident and employee rentals up to 80% AMI; and o Safety net rentals below 30% AMI. • Jobs-Housing Relationship. Produce community housing at a rate that exceeds, or at least matches, job growth at income levels and ratios being earned by Bozeman employees. • Community Housing Built and Preserved. Strive to produce community housing at a rate that matches the spectrum of community housing needs, while also preserving what we have through a target of no net loss of existing community housing stock. 161 Bozeman Community Housing Action Plan – April 9, 2020 Amended Version WSW Consulting, Inc.; Navigate, LLC.; Freshtracks Collaboration 6 2. Housing Action Strategies Recognizing that there is no silver bullet – that no one housing strategy can do it all – the Housing Working Group evaluated about 40 different methods that could be used to address community housing needs in Bozeman. The reviewed options were based on strategies that have been used in high-amenity communities throughout the nation to address a variety of community housing needs. This process is described in more detail in the Appendix. Of the different options reviewed, the Working Group, with input from the public, housing needs assessment and technical assistance from the consultants, prioritized 17 of the options to implement within the next five years. Prioritization was required because neither the City nor the implementing partners have the capacity or resources to implement every strategy at once, nor would every strategy necessarily be effective in Bozeman. The other options are not lost, however. As the City and partners expand their capacity and successes, more strategies can be brought into the housing program to increase the impact of the actions taken. The 17 strategies identified for implementation over the next five years cover a range of options and target a variety of incomes and housing types, ensuring that community housing needs are being addressed from multiple angles. This includes: Funding: How do we pay for it? Programs: How do we get people into homes? Regulations: How do we make it happen? Incentives: How do we make it easier? Partnerships: How do we work together? Preservation: How do we keep what we create? The graphic on page two of this Plan (Executive Summary – Bozeman Community Housing Action Plan Bridge) summarizes the housing strategies that Bozeman will implement over the next five years and the primary affordability level that each strategy will address. This section provides more detail on the developed strategies, to-date, as follows: • Timeline for implementation: Shows the anticipated schedule for implementation for each community housing strategy over the next five years. • Roles and responsibilities: Identifies the Bozeman entities, organizations or stakeholders that will be responsible for implementing each strategy. Lead and supporting roles are identified. • Action strategy descriptions: Provides more detail on each of the 17 housing strategies, presented in the order shown on the timeline. A definition is provided for each strategy, along with a summary of the proposed action steps. A summary of non- prioritized strategies is also provided, many of which will be revisited for potential addition to the Action Plan as the housing program matures, capacity is added, and community needs change. 162 Bozeman Community Housing Action Plan – April 9, 2020 Amended Version WSW Consulting, Inc.; Navigate, LLC.; Freshtracks Collaboration 7 Timeline for Implementation The 17 housing strategies identified for implementation within the next five years are shown on the timeline below. Strategies will be monitored and modified as needed to ensure effectiveness. The bottom of the timeline shows existing housing strategies that will continue and that will also be monitored as part of this Plan. Strategies on the five-year timeline were identified as being “easy,” “medium,” and “hard” to implement, meaning: • “Easy” strategies utilize existing capacity, organizations and momentum in Bozeman. This includes tweaking what already exists to focus more specifically on housing and borrowing on current programs that are already under development. These strategies are also perceived as having good political and community support. • “Medium” strategies may require additional steps to complete, including more capacity or consultants; additional public outreach and input; new partnerships and/or more funding to ensure success. • “Hard” strategies will require a combination of additional capacity, expertise and possibly local financing; may have complex implementation or approval systems; and may have varied political or public support requiring additional research and education. State statutory limitations may be in place for some, requiring creative approaches or possibly legislative changes to implement. 163 Bozeman Community Housing Action Plan – April 9, 2020 Amended Version WSW Consulting, Inc.; Navigate, LLC.; Freshtracks Collaboration 8 Timeline of Priority Action Strategies Abbreviations: HRDC = Human Resources Development Council Strategies Type General Funds Funding Tax Increment Financing (TIF)Funding Community Land Trust Preservation Deed Restricted Housing (permanent)Preservation Inclusionary Zoning Regulation Public/Private/Institutional Partnerships Partnership/Land Home Buyer Assistance Program Program Removal of Regulatory Barriers Incentive/Regulation Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU)Incentive Fee Waiver/Deferral Incentive Co-op Housing (mobile home parks)Preservation Key: Employer Assisted Housing Program Action Phase Land Banking Partnership/Land On-going Phase Taxes Dedicated to Housing Funding Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC)Funding Flexible Development Standards Incentive City changes in effect; evaluation Short-Term Rental Regulations Regulation City adopted 2017; monitor Housing Rehabilitation and Weatherization Preservation Habitat for Humanity; HRDC Self Help Build Program Habitat for Humanity Senior Housing Program Various Funding HRDC, City Easy- exists; Medium-redirect for housing 1 to 2 years Short Easy-current; modify Mid Long 3 to 5 years 5+ years Medium Medium Hard Medium Hard Hard Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH) and Transitional Federal and State Grants/Loans – CDBG. HOME, USDA/Rural Development, Section 8 Easy-in process Medium Medium-modifications Medium Hard Hard Hard Hard On-going programs - to continue 164 Bozeman Community Housing Action Plan – April 9, 2020 Amended Version WSW Consulting, Inc.; Navigate, LLC.; Freshtracks Collaboration 9 Roles and Responsibilities The Housing Working Group recognized that utilizing partners that are already working on or that have expertise with various identified strategies have a role either leading or supporting identified actions. This includes the City, HRDC, Habitat for Humanity, primary employers and others working with or alongside each other to further housing goals in the community. Joint implementation provides the ability to share resources and capacity and leverage successes for a more robust and effective housing program. More specific involvement for each strategy is summarized in the Technical Documentation for this Plan. Matrix of Responsibilities: Action Strategies Strategies are sorted in the same order of the timeline presented above. Abbreviations: City = elected officials, advisory boards, and staff; HRDC = Human Resources Development Council; FUSE = Frequent Users Systems Engagement; Habitat = Habitat for Humanity; Chamber = Bozeman Chamber of Commerce; Prospera = Prospera Business Network; MSU = Montana State University; TBD = To Be Determined; Community Foundation = Bozeman Area Community Foundation STRATEGIES Type Lead Support General Funds Funding City TBD Tax Increment Financing (TIF)Funding City TIF Districts Community Land Trust Preservation HRDC/Habitat HRDC/Habitat Deed Restricted Housing (permanent)Preservation City HRDC/Habitat Inclusionary Zoning Regulation City 3rd party expert Public/Private/Institutional Partnerships Partnership/Land School district City support/convene potential partners; County; Habitat Home Buyer Assistance Program City/HRDC Prospera/Chamber Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH) and Transitional Program HRDC FUSE Team, hospital Fee Waiver/Deferral Incentive City TBD Co-op Housing (mobile home parks)Preservation HRDC Bozeman Cohousing Land Banking Partnership/Land City/Community Foundation TBD Employer Assisted Housing Program Prospera City, Habitat Removal of Regulatory Barriers Incentive/Regulation City 3rd party expert Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU)Incentive City MSU Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC)Funding HRDC City Taxes Dedicated to Housing Funding City Community/philanthropy (non profit) Commercial Linkage Regulation City TBD Flexible Development Standards Incentive Short-Term Rental Regulations Regulation Housing Rehabilitation and Weatherization Preservation Self Help Build Program Senior Housing Program Federal and State Grants/Loans – CDBG. HOME, USDA/Rural Development, Section 8 Funding On-going programs - to continue HRDC, City City changes in effect; evaluation City adopted 2017; monitor Habitat; HRDC Habitat for Humanity Various 165 Bozeman Community Housing Action Plan – April 9, 2020 Amended Version WSW Consulting, Inc.; Navigate, LLC.; Freshtracks Collaboration 10 Action Strategy Descriptions This section provides a short summary of the Action Strategies, with more detailed information provided in the Technical Documentation for this Plan. Strategies are color-coded based on the primary category type shown in the timeline: Funding: Blue Partnerships: Purple Programs: Red Regulations: Orange Incentives: Yellow Preservation: Green Strategies are summarized as follows: • Priority Action Strategies: Each priority action strategy is summarized and presented in order of implementation. A definition is provided for each strategy, along with a summary of the proposed actions. • On-Going Strategies: Each strategy that is on-going, meaning they are functioning and not currently a priority for additional changes or action at this time, are summarized. This includes the definition of the strategy, its current status and comments received. • Potential Strategies for Future Consideration: Strategies that were evaluated, but not yet prioritized for implementation, are summarized. This includes the definition of the strategy, along with comments from the public and Housing Working Group. Note that the strategies with a (*) indicate that the program is already in the place. 166 Bozeman Community Housing Action Plan – April 9, 2020 Amended Version WSW Consulting, Inc.; Navigate, LLC.; Freshtracks Collaboration 11 Bozeman Action Plan Strategies General Funds*An annual or occasional budget allocation primarily to support staffing, pre-development and gap financing for community housing. • 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. Tax Increment Financing (TIF)* Allows a local government or redevelopment authority to generate revenues for properties targeted for improvement. As improvements are made within the district, and as property values increase, the incremental increases in property tax revenue are earmarked for a fund. Expenditures of TIF- generated revenues are subject to certain restrictions and must be spent within the district. • Use of TIF to support community housing needs to be explored at the local and state levels. • Downtown is considering the use of TIF to incentivize Studios and 1- bedroom units and/or units that have long-term affordability assurances. • Considerations: o More TIF for housing means less money is available for other community priorities. o Potential challenges with state regulations and use for housing. o May be vulnerable at the state – care in crafting. o The establishment of any new TIF districts should balance competing community funding priorities. • Use TIF to incentivize long-term affordable housing within the districts including incentivizing ADUs and 1-bedroom units in the Downtown BID and incentivizing tax-credit qualifying projects. This amendment serves to clarify and combine the first two actions listed in this strategy. Community Land Trust* 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. • 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. • Facilitate a community land trust presentation to the City Commission. 167 Bozeman Community Housing Action Plan – April 9, 2020 Amended Version WSW Consulting, Inc.; Navigate, LLC.; Freshtracks Collaboration 12 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. • Transition to a permanent restriction when publicly subsidized community housing units are created. • Align with other policies: fee waivers and incentives. • Create a permanent deed restriction that balances long-term affordability with wealth creation. • Structure the eligibility and occupancy criteria to ensure “fairness.” • Increase management capacity - begin by evaluating existing capacity, considering adjustments, and/or establishing a new entity, such as a Housing Authority or Community Land Trust. • Emphasize customer service, such as one point of contact. • Facilitate a deed restricted housing presentation to the City Commission. Inclusionary Zoning* Requires that new residential subdivisions and PUD’s include/build homes that are deed restricted for community housing. • 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. Work with CAHAB to develop a recommendation for adjusting the single-household and townhome ownership requirements in the inclusionary zoning ordinance to include up to 120%. • Require deed restrictions to be permanent. • Ensure consistency with other development codes. • Work with CAHAB to develop a recommendation on incorporating Condominiums into the inclusionary zoning ordinance, possibly targeting 100% AMI. • Research the feasibility of including multi-family rental units in the inclusionary zoning ordinance, possibly targeting 80% AMI. 168 Bozeman Community Housing Action Plan – April 9, 2020 Amended Version WSW Consulting, Inc.; Navigate, LLC.; Freshtracks Collaboration 13 Public/Private/ Institutional Partnerships Public/institutional organizations partnering with the private sector for development expertise to build community housing on publicly owned site. May be vacant or under-utilized land. May also include institutional properties. • 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. * Strategies "Public/Private/Institutional Partnerships" and "Employer Assisted Housing" were seen as aligned by the Bozeman City Commission, and they amended the document to combine them into one strategy. Homebuyer Assistance* Down payment assistance of grants or second mortgages for qualified buyers. Can be used for restricted or market units. • 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. • Work with community partners to evaluate the establishment of home buyer assistance funds from non-city sources for home purchase made outside the inclusionary zoning ordinance. Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH) and Transitional* PSH pairs housing with supportive services to transition chronically homeless into home security. Transitional housing provides temporary assistance to bridge the gap from homelessness to permanent housing. • 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). 169 Bozeman Community Housing Action Plan – April 9, 2020 Amended Version WSW Consulting, Inc.; Navigate, LLC.; Freshtracks Collaboration 14 Water/sewer, building permit or other fees waived in part or whole or deferred until occupancy/sale to reduce upfront cost to build. General funds or other source need to cover cost if fees waived or reduced and/or for the deferral period. • Update Affordable Housing Ordinance to reflect how fee waiver is implemented. • 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. Co-op Housing 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. • Explore as a means to preserve mobile home parks. • Reach out to NeighborWorks Montana through HRDC o Explore how the program works. o Verify that it can work in Bozeman/with Bozeman area mobile home parks, including evaluating parks and residents for interest and feasibility. Land Banking Acquiring land for eventual community housing development. Acquisition may occur through purchase, trades, life estates, donation (non-profits), in-lieu requirements. • Establish criteria to prioritize sites(s). • Inventory potential opportunities. • Understand constraints. • Include vacant, underutilized, redevelopment. 170 Bozeman Community Housing Action Plan – April 9, 2020 Amended Version WSW Consulting, Inc.; Navigate, LLC.; Freshtracks Collaboration 15 Employer Assisted Housing Employers providing housing support to employees. May be direct employee support (help with housing search, down payment, rent/mortgage, relocation) or master lease/buy/construct units. • Need education of and outreach to employers – present options and educate on tools available. • Hold symposium/education session. May be led by Chamber, Prospera, employers that currently have assisted housing programs in place, or another. • Next step: o Gauge interest in options from employers. Use information from the employer survey from the Needs Assessment as a starting point. o Find leaders to carry forward * Strategies "Public/Private/Institutional Partnerships" and "Employer Assisted Housing" were seen as aligned by the Bozeman City Commission, and they amended the document to combine them into one strategy. Updating/modifying code provisions and procedures that impair community housing development. For example, ensuring codes are consistent, simplifying applications. Complete code review and rewrite might be required. • Implement a biannual code revision process to make it easier for boards, committees, development professionals and the general public to suggest revisions to address current and future community housing needs. • Ensure process is predictable, transparent, useful and that codes produce what we want. • Engage third party to edit, reorganize and reformat the UDC to be more streamlined, functional and user friendly. Remove duplicative language and inconsistencies. • Engage third party to review all city codes, regulations and policies to identify disconnects and recommend methods to resolve. • Explore revisiting Engineering Design Standards and Specifications Policy to allow more compact development standards. • Explore adding code section for Moveable Tiny Homes. Coordinate at the state level. 171 Bozeman Community Housing Action Plan – April 9, 2020 Amended Version WSW Consulting, Inc.; Navigate, LLC.; Freshtracks Collaboration 16 An ADU is a second smaller home sharing a lot with a single-family or townhome residence. Some examples include an apartment over a garage, a tiny house in the backyard, or a basement apartment. Accessory dwellings that may be restricted for use by residents and employees require compliance monitoring. • Explore removing special use permit requirement for a detached ADU in • R-1 zone to allow by-right. • 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. Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC)* A federal program that creates an incentive to finance rental housing for households below 60% AMI. • Work with the “Complete Count Committee” to assist with the 2020 census count. An “Entitlement Community”, or city with a population of 50,000, receives increased and direct tax credit allocations. • Get Bozeman representation on the Montana Board of Housing. • Align regulations and zoning with Qualified Census Tracts to encourage LIHTC development. 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. Approval requires extensive public education. • Pursue either a mill levy or bond issue. • Coordinate with a comprehensive education campaign. • Consider citywide Special District. • Evaluate what entity should hold funds collected (City, new Housing Trust fund, etc.). • Evaluate who should administer allocation of funds, taking into consideration accountability requirements with the use public funds. • Establish allocation criteria that considers: scoring system, leverages funds, aligns with income targets, requires permanent affordability. • Conduct a legal review of Montana Code to determine the most appropriate sustainable funding sources for Commission review. 172 Bozeman Community Housing Action Plan – April 9, 2020 Amended Version WSW Consulting, Inc.; Navigate, LLC.; Freshtracks Collaboration 17 Commercial Linkage Requires new commercial development to provide housing or pay fees for a portion of employees needed to fill the new jobs generated by the development. Nexus study is required to determine the mitigation requirement. Fluctuates with building activity. • Conduct Nexus Study to 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). • 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. continue to encourage residential above commercial or on same lot. • Conduct a legal review of Montana Code to determine the most appropriate sustainable funding sources for Commission review. Review of Planned Unit Developments (PUD) Planned Unit Developments (PUD) are a mechanism to gain relaxations from City Code by providing public benefit above and beyond what would otherwise be required. The PUD process can be lengthy and cost prohibitive in some cases due to the information needed prior to approval. This strategy would seek to further define elements of the code that could be standardized for approval when Community Housing needs are the focus of Code relaxations. • Evaluate past PUD relaxation approvals. • Explore changes in the UDC and other City standards to minimize the need for PUD relaxations. • Develop a pattern book and template for review of PUD criteria when a PUD includes construction of affordable homes 173 Bozeman Community Housing Action Plan – April 9, 2020 Amended Version WSW Consulting, Inc.; Navigate, LLC.; Freshtracks Collaboration 18 Up-Zoning With the goal of allowing increased density where appropriate this strategy would seek to identify areas where density could contribute to increased housing supply. The strategy is meant to create uniformity in decision making and lend some level of certainty to property owners looking to aid Community Housing efforts by adding to the housing supply beyond what current zoning would allow. Tools in this strategic area may include changes to policy as well as text within the City Code. • Align growth policy recommendations with the density goals supporting up- zoning. • Develop expanded criteria to be used for evaluation of up-zoning applications. • Develop appropriate transition standards when up-zoning existing parcels. • Identify areas ripe for up-zoning. NOTE: The CAHAB Commission Liaison, in coordination with the City Manager, shall work with the Community Development Department to advance the action plan items that require coordination with community partners, providing regular updates to the Commission. 174 Bozeman Community Housing Action Plan – April 9, 2020 Amended Version WSW Consulting, Inc.; Navigate, LLC.; Freshtracks Collaboration 19 On-Going Strategies Modified land use regulations in exchange for community housing. May include reductions in parking, setbacks, open space, height limits, road widths, etc. Quality, compatibility, safety and neighborhood impacts are concerns. • 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 Amend utility and engineering standards to enable the creation of tiny home villages. o Evaluate reasons why mobile home parks are not being built or updated, consider adjustments to the building codes, engineering standards and UDC to encourage. Short Term Rental (STR) Regulations* Prohibiting or limited the use of homes for STR in specified neighborhoods or zones; placing resident-occupancy requirements on units that are rented short-term (e.g. rent bedroom only; ADU and primary home cannot both be STR; etc); require registration and charge fees; or other options. • City adopted restrictions in 2017; monitor. 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 inventory of Community Housing; rather improves the quality of the existing housing inventory. • Implementing partners: Habitat for Humanity; HRDC • Comments/benefits: o Enables people to stay in their homes. o Weatherization serves households earning <60% AMI. o Provides low interest loans to rehab homes. o Differentiate rehab (e.g. The Boulevards) from weatherization. o Keep – it’s a good thing. Self Help Build* Homebuyers receive low interest loans and technical assistance for their construction of homes. Requires large time commitment • Implementing partner: Habitat for Humanity • Comments: o Active in the area; keep doing it. o Scalability is a problem – modest production. o Land costs are a challenge in Bozeman. 175 Bozeman Community Housing Action Plan – April 9, 2020 Amended Version WSW Consulting, Inc.; Navigate, LLC.; Freshtracks Collaboration 20 Senior Housing* High density, smaller, low maintenance units designed for retiring residents. • 260 affordable rentals for seniors and/or persons with disabilities exist in the City; multiple managers/providers are involved. • Comment for future: o Research full range of senior housing & service needs o Understand what is working well and not. o Expand reach of needs to more than low- income renters. • Identify partners – a leader for this program. Federal and State Grants/Loans – CDBG, HOME, USDA/Rural Development, Section 8* Federal and State grants/loans for affordable housing, generally for construction of units. These include CDBG, HOME, and USDA/Rural Development. Major federal funding cuts proposed. Can only serve low income households (<50%, 60% or 80% AMI). Competitive and complicated grant application and administration process. • Primary implementing partners: City, HRDC • Comments: o Utilized to the max right now. o Allocation process skewed toward smaller communities. Takes longer to pull required information together in larger population communities such as Bozeman. o Highly competitive. o A population >50,000 would push Bozeman to an “Entitlement Community” status, which would increase availability and provide direct access to funding sources. 176 Bozeman Community Housing Action Plan – April 9, 2020 Amended Version WSW Consulting, Inc.; Navigate, LLC.; Freshtracks Collaboration 21 Other Strategies Reviewed – For Future Consideration HOUSING PROGRAMS • Construction Education Extension • Public Sector Development Work with local education system (high school technical extension, community colleges, post-secondary education) to provide training in the construction trades industry. Initiating, designing, financing and constructing dwelling units by municipalities, counties and/or housing authorities. Similar to developing other public infrastructure. • Shortage of construction labor – program can help build local labor/expertise. • High school and MSU as potential partners. • Requires public sector capacity and specific expertise. • Has financial risk. FUNDING • Construction & Debt Financing with Favorable Terms • Private Donations/Grants • Special Improvement District • Opportunity Zones 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 to develop housing. Tax deductible contributions to a non-profit organization, which purchases or develops housing. Competes with other charitable causes. 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. The Opportunity Zones investment incentive was established in 2017 to encourage long-term private investments in low-income communities. 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. • Favorable terms include 90% 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. • Donations to non-profit builders. • Philanthropic grants. • Consider a 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. • 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. 177 Bozeman Community Housing Action Plan – April 9, 2020 Amended Version WSW Consulting, Inc.; Navigate, LLC.; Freshtracks Collaboration 22 Other Strategies Reviewed – For Future Consideration (Continued) PRESERVATION • No Net Loss • Condominium Conversion Policy • Deed Restriction – Local Preference • Acquisition of Market Units Requires 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 can be used to fund replacement. 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. A deed restriction can be structured to give occupancy priority to certain households, as long as the priority does not discriminate against protected classes (race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, national origin and, generally, source of income) in violation of the Fair Housing Act. Common preferences include employees that are working a certain number of hours in the community, employees that have worked a certain number of years in the community, and critical employees such as emergency service providers. 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. • A demolition fee was discussed in the ”Funding” strategy session. • Homes transition from serving lower incomes to higher incomes – red to green on the bridge. • Some demolition and redevelopment is good. • Provide plan for displaced individuals. • Disincentivizes rehabilitation and redevelopment. • Must define substandard/unsafe housing that is best removed/redeveloped. • 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. • Big Sky requires 1590 hours of employment in community. • Be careful to not discriminate against “new locals.” • More bang for your buck with other options. 178 Bozeman Community Housing Action Plan – April 9, 2020 Amended Version WSW Consulting, Inc.; Navigate, LLC.; Freshtracks Collaboration 23 Other Strategies Reviewed – For Future Consideration (Continued) REGULATIONS • Annexation Policies • Residential Linkage Negotiating restricted community housing as part of annexation agreements. Policy based. Entities have discretion in negotiations. This is a widespread practice among communities with community housing programs. Requires new residential development to provide housing or pay fees for a portion of employees needed to fill the new jobs generated by the development. Nexus Study required. Mitigation rate often increases with house size. Fluctuates with building activity. • Could apply to County “donuts” within the City. • Consider if commercial linkage is applied. Ensure all type of development contributes to community housing impacts, not just one group. Providing additional density in exchange for community housing. Must be large enough to entice development yet small enough for livability and compatibility. Not effective if existing zoned densities are high (e.g. when zoned at a level where developers have trouble building to existing densities). Gives priority to developments that include community housing. May include expedited approval; help navigating entitlements (ombudsman approach). • Parking will be of concern if more density allowed in some areas. • May need to modify existing densities for bonuses to be effective. City currently has density minimums in all residential districts in place. • Need more staff capacity in order to fast track applications. • Potential for discontent among market rate developers if other projects move ahead. 179 Bozeman Community Housing Action Plan – April 9, 2020 Amended Version WSW Consulting, Inc.; Navigate, LLC.; Freshtracks Collaboration 24 3. Core Components The Bozeman region has several programs, organizations and structures in place that are addressing community housing needs. This Action Plan presents the ability to evolve the housing program to better meet the needs of residents and employees by creating, strengthening and defining a partnership framework to address housing needs. This will allow Bozeman to leverage resources and capacity throughout the community and region. We recognize that programmatically and administratively, this requires additional capacity to manage an inventory of permanently restricted housing. Core components are the tasks and structures needed to ensure that the partners and Plan continue to move forward. To ensure support and continuation of this partnership, a sound administrative structure needs to be established, along with housing program support to manage community housing that is produced through this Plan. Most of this structure needs to be in place within the first two-years of Action Plan implementation, as shown below. Core Components Timeline *Darker blue = the action phase for each element; lighter blue = on-going phase. CORE COMPONENTS LONGER TERM Quarter 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 2022+ 1. Action Plan Administration 2. Action Plan Coordinator/Facilitator - Action Plan to Work Plan 3. Housing Program Management Housing guidelines Deed restrictions (permanent) Unit management/housekeeping Inventory tracking 2019 2020 2021 180 Bozeman Community Housing Action Plan – April 9, 2020 Amended Version WSW Consulting, Inc.; Navigate, LLC.; Freshtracks Collaboration 25 Each item is generally defined below, followed by the recommended implementation for each core component. For more detail, please reference the Technical Documentation for this Action Plan: 1. Action Plan Administration – includes procuring and managing the budget and staff to implement the Plan. The first steps of administration will be to: o Submit the Action Plan for acceptance by the City Commission; o Present the Plan to Gallatin County for recognition; o Budget for 3 years of implementation (staff, contractors, etc.); and o Evaluate existing community housing program management (housing guidelines, deed restrictions-permanent, unit management, inventory tracking, etc.) and consider adjustment to meet community housing objectives. 2. Identify Action Plan Partner Coordinator—identifying a staff person/contractor who will serve as the convener of the Action Plan to assist with a regular meeting schedule (quarterly to begin) to track progress, learn of partner successes and challenges, and gather information for potential Plan modifications. • Staff for this position could either be: 1) City of Bozeman Affordable Housing Manager, 2) Contractor with City, or 3) Contractor with another entity, such as the Bozeman Community Foundation. • Role of coordinator: o Facilitation of partner meetings (at least quarterly to begin); o Summarize and advertise the “collective impact” of Action Plan partners (update quarterly and track and advertise through a published “Placemat” document or website); o Public outreach/communications tasks; o Partnership Development to build capacity of existing partners and recommend and bring in new partners; o Project management: work with partners on teams to implement strategies (research, facilitate teams, data analysis, outreach, etc.); and o Work Plan development: Concurrently, the coordinator would work with each Action Plan partner to take steps to develop a work plan for community housing from identified roles and tasks in the Action Plan. At the city, this would include, for example, incorporating the Plan into any Memorandums of Understanding (MOU) or contracts for implementation with supporting partners, as well as prioritizing strategies for which the City has a role and identifying capacity and next steps for implementation. 181 Bozeman Community Housing Action Plan – April 9, 2020 Amended Version WSW Consulting, Inc.; Navigate, LLC.; Freshtracks Collaboration 26 Action Plan to Work Plan Graphic Bozeman Community Housing Action Plan CITY AH PROGRAM MANAGER CITY CONTRACT COMMUNITY FOUNDATION ACTION PLAN WORK PLAN Community City County HRDC Habitat for Humanity School District Building Industry Chamber of Commerce 182 Bozeman Community Housing Action Plan – April 9, 2020 Amended Version WSW Consulting, Inc.; Navigate, LLC.; Freshtracks Collaboration 27 3. Community Housing Program Management – ensuring clear tracking, monitoring and management of units to retain community housing goals: a. Housing guidelines – providing information on community housing development specifications, affordability levels, ownership and rental qualification procedures, sale/resale and rental standards, compliance and grievance processes, unit management, etc. The City and HRDC has guidelines in place; ensuring compatibility with new permanent affordability deed restrictions will be needed. b. Deed restriction (permanent) – ensuring consistency, clarity, and that community housing goals are met, which means preserving affordability in perpetuity for community housing produced. c. Unit management/housekeeping – having a central structure in place to monitor and manage the sales/rental occupancy, qualifications, maintenance, compliance monitoring, waitlists, etc. of community housing units. This oversight will require additional capacity as the inventory of homes expands. d. Inventory tracking – maintaining a database of deed-restricted rental and ownership units to track their effectiveness, continued affordability, turnover, and occupancy to ensure the housing program and units are meeting goals. HRDC has acquired HomeKeeper, a deed restricted housing tracking program, that can be very effective for this purpose. 183 Bozeman Community Housing Action Plan – April 9, 2020 Amended Version WSW Consulting, Inc.; Navigate, LLC.; Freshtracks Collaboration A-1 APPENDIX A – Action Plan Process, Definitions and Acknowledgements Community Housing Action Plan Process The Action Plan process began with an update to the “2012 Affordable Housing Needs Assessment for the City of Bozeman, Montana,” to: • Identify how much, what type, at which price points, and for whom community housing is needed both currently and projected over the next five years; • Inventory existing resources and capacity; and • Understand current housing achievements. 184 Bozeman Community Housing Action Plan – April 9, 2020 Amended Version WSW Consulting, Inc.; Navigate, LLC.; Freshtracks Collaboration A-2 Using the 2019 City of Bozeman Community Housing Needs Assessment report and employer survey as the foundation, the Bozeman Community Housing Action Plan process kicked off in May 2019. The process included six work sessions with the Housing Working Group over a six-month period, two public open houses and online participation opportunities for public input. The consultant team provided technical assistance and expertise on housing solutions in the intermountain west and, guided by a professional facilitator, worked with the over twenty (20) community members comprising the Housing Working Group to decide upon and craft strategies to make the Plan “Bozeman.” Input from the public helped ground the approach through open house and online opportunities for participation. Throughout this process, the community drove the Plan’s priorities and development, resulting in the Bozeman Community Housing Action Plan. More specifically, the process: • Began with an overview of key findings from the 2019 City of Bozeman Community Housing Needs Assessment and employer survey to shape initial goals and priorities for the community housing Action Plan. The public weighed in at the first open house and online regarding community housing objectives; Housing Working Group members were additionally presented with information on the necessary components of successful housing programs; core needs for housing plan implementation; and how other communities have been addressing similar housing challenges. • At the second session, the Housing Working Group was presented with near 40 tools that other communities have used to address community housing needs. Through input from the consultants and discussion among the Group, the Housing Working Group prioritized tools they felt would be most effective for Bozeman. • The Housing Working Group then spent two technical work sessions on the prioritized tools to develop action strategies. Through this process, the Housing Working Group learned about best practices in comparable communities, developed strategies, and discussed roles and responsibilities for implementation. The outcome of these sessions was presented to the public in a second open house to evaluate priorities and get input on drafted actions. • The final session modified the actions and priorities pursuant to public input received. Objectives were revaluated; a timeline for prioritized action strategies was developed; and roles and responsibilities were identified among the various partners to implement the Plan. 185 Bozeman Community Housing Action Plan – April 9, 2020 Amended Version WSW Consulting, Inc.; Navigate, LLC.; Freshtracks Collaboration A-3 Definitions The following definitions are provided and coincide with those used in the City of Bozeman Community Housing Needs Assessment (February 2019). Affordable housing – As used in this report, housing is affordable if the monthly rent or mortgage payment is equal to or less than 30% of gross household income (before taxes). Area Median Income (AMI) – A term that generally refers to the median incomes published annually for counties by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). AMI varies by household size. AMI is used to set income and rent limits for housing programs statutorily linked to HUD income limits (e.g. low-income housing tax credit rentals). Community Housing – Homes that those who live and work in Bozeman can afford to purchase or rent. This includes apartments, townhomes, condominiums, emergency shelters, accessory dwelling units, mobile homes and single-family homes – all dwelling types – serving the entire spectrum of housing needs. The report City of Bozeman Community Housing Needs Assessment (February 2019) identifies community housing needs in Bozeman in 2019 through 2025. Community Housing Action Plan – A partnership framework with actionable strategies to increase the inventory of community housing – dwellings that Bozemanites can afford to purchase or rent. Missing Middle – Generally refers to ownership housing needed for residents and employees earning over 80% AMI, yet that cannot afford market-rate housing. In Bozeman, this generally refers to households earning between about 80% AMI up to 150% AMI (an average-sized 2.0-person household earning between $55,700 to $104,400 per year). 186 Bozeman Community Housing Action Plan – April 9, 2020 Amended Version WSW Consulting, Inc.; Navigate, LLC.; Freshtracks Collaboration A-4 Acknowledgements We would like to thank everyone who gave their time and assistance to create the Bozeman Community Housing Action Plan. Input from local employers, Realtors, developers, end-users, lenders, and property managers (through targeted interviews and focus group meetings) and 491 businesses or about 10% of all businesses in the City of Bozeman (through an employer survey), were central to identifying the community housing needs and several strategies that are the focus of this Plan. Development of the Plan relied on funding from the City of Bozeman and philanthropy along with extensive participation from the City of Bozeman staff and community stakeholders, leaders, and residents that formed the Housing Working Group: Bozeman Community Housing Action Plan Working Group *Many working group members are affiliated with multiple organizations in Bozeman. Only the primary affiliation of each member is listed above. We cannot thank the community enough for the wealth of insight and experience they brought to this process. The Bozeman Community Housing Action Plan would not exist without this broad and extensive participation. NAME AFFILIATION Bill Fiedler & Penny Zacharisen (Alt)Chamber of Commerce Brian Popiel SWMBIA Bridget Wilkinson Bozeman Area Community Foundation Connie Campbell-Pearson Gallatin Valley Interfaith Association David Magistrelli Habitat for Humanity Desiree Smith Bank of Bozeman/Residential Lending Ellen Beck Gallatin Association of Realtors Erik Nelson ThinkTank/Development Jason Smith Bozeman Health Karin Jennings West Paw/Manufacturing Kathi Thorson Legacy Properties/Property Management Kevin Thane CAHAB Lila Fleishman & Brian Guyer (Alt)Missing Middle Loren Olsen & Marty Madsen City Staff Mathieu Menard Gallatin County Planner Pat Strauss Bozeman School District Paul Reichert Prospera Rob Pertzborn Intrinsik/Achitect Scott MacFarlane Gallatin County Commission Susan Riggs & Chris Naumann (Alt)Downtown Partnership Terry Cunningham City Commission Tracy Ellig & Michael Becker (Alt)Montana State University Tracy Menuez HRDC 187 engage.bozeman.net/belonging -0 -188 Table of Contents At-A-Glance..........................................................................................................................................2 Introduction........................................................................................................................................ 3 Acknowledgements............................................................................................................................4 A Truthful History of Bozeman...............................................................................................................8 Process and Timeline....................................................................................................................... 15 Key Terms.......................................................................................................................................... 17 Terms Found in the Plan........................................................................................................................ 17 Equity and Inclusion Terms....................................................................................................................18 The Equity and Inclusion Plan.........................................................................................................20 Housing.....................................................................................................................................................21 Transportation..................................................................................................................................24 Health and Wellbeing..............................................................................................................................26 Education..................................................................................................................................................28 Childcare and Youth Programming...................................................................................................... 30 Economic Stability................................................................................................................................... 32 Community Resiliency............................................................................................................................ 34 Community Safety and Civic Health..................................................................................................... 36 Community Liaison Report Summaries......................................................................................... 39 What’s Next....................................................................................................................................... 41 Conclusion......................................................................................................................................... 42 Appendix A: References..........................................................................................................................43 Appendix B: Implementation Workbook..............................................................................................43 engage.bozeman.net/belonging - 1 -189 At-A-Glance OVERVIEW The process of bringing this document together involved extensive collaboration and input from community members, partner organizations, and local government to identify needs, gather data, and create a comprehensive plan. The plan reflects a personal approach by incorporating individual experiences in the community and outlines goals and recommendations to address a range of issues, with the mutual consent and commitment of Bozeman’s organizations, individuals, and government bodies. KEY PLAYERS ● Belonging in Bozeman Internal Committee ● Belonging in Bozeman Steering Committee ● Bozeman City Commission ● Economic Vitality Board ● Community Liaisons ● City of Bozeman Executive Leadership Team PROCESS The development of this plan entailed extensive engagement with community members and partner organizations to delineate needs and gather pertinent data. Efforts concentrated on removing participation barriers and fostering diverse pathways for input in envisioning the plan, formulating goals, and defining specific recommendations. Building upon prior initiatives like the Inclusive City Report, commitments of the Cities for CEDAW initiative, and the 2020 Equity Indicators Report, this plan signifies a crucial milestone in advancing equity and inclusion in Bozeman. Key milestones are outlined in the timeline and elaborated upon in the key terms section. This Equity and Inclusion Plan stands as a testament to the collaborative spirit and dedication of Bozeman's diverse stakeholders towards creating a more equitable and inclusive community. Grounded in shared experiences and fortified by comprehensive data and engagement, this plan serves as a blueprint for action, signaling a commitment to foster a community where every voice is heard, and every individual thrives. Its implementation marks a pivotal step towards a future where equity and inclusion are woven into the fabric of Bozeman's identity. engage.bozeman.net/belonging - 2 -190 Introduction You hold in your hands, or on your screen, a collectively-developed roadmap for ongoing shared action to create a City of Bozeman that is equitable and inclusive for all who live in, work in, and visit the city. WHAT IS AN EQUITY AND INCLUSION PLAN? The purpose of the Belonging in Bozeman Equity and Inclusion Plan is to ensure that all residents, visitors, and City of Bozeman employees can thrive regardless of their race, identity, or life circumstance. It builds upon the 2021 Equity Indicators Report by moving forward with 8 issue areas identified by the community as Priority Needs. Through committee work and public survey, vision statements were created for each issue area. Then, committee members, community liaisons, and community members developed and refined goals and recommendations for each vision statement to move Bozeman in the direction of making those visions a reality. WHOSE PLAN IS THIS? This plan embodies a collective partnership involving the entire Bozeman community: it's a collaborative effort between local government, nonprofits, businesses, community groups, educational institutions, residents, employees, and visitors alike. While our organization plays a pivotal role in leading this initiative and our city government approves it for action, it's crucial to remember that no single entity or group holds more significance than others. This isn't a checklist solely for our organization or any specific group to execute; rather, it's a comprehensive roadmap for collective action, where every individual and entity's contribution is equally valued and essential to its success. A long legacy of civic engagement in Bozeman: at left, community gathers for the kickoff event for this planning process in February 2023 (Photo credit: Vince Pagán-Hill). At right, in the late 1920s, the Montana Federation of Colored Women’s Clubs convention at an unknown Montana location. Belle McDonald, who co-founded the Bozeman chapter with her sisters, is pictured in the front row, third woman from the right (photographer unknown; photo source here). engage.bozeman.net/belonging - 3 -191 Acknowledgements LAND We acknowledge and honor, with respect, the Indigenous Nations on whose traditional homelands the City now stands and whose historical and cultural relationships with the land continue to this day. Montana's intricate tribal territories, shaped by historic treaties, are highlighted in this map, offering a glimpse into ancestral lands. Explore more with this guide from Montana State University. Among the Indigenous nations of this region are the Séliš (Bitterroot Salish), Qlispé (Pend d’Orreille), Ktunaxa (Kootenai), Pikuni (Blackfeet), Tsistsis’tas (Northern Cheyenne), Apsáalooke (Crow), Anishinaabe (Chippewa), Nehiyawak (Cree), Metis, Nakoda (Assiniboine), A’aninin (Gros Ventre), Dakota, Lakota, and others. In acknowledging these people, the land, the plant, animal, and water relatives, it is important to recognize that our ability to live and work here, is due to colonizing policies, practices of genocide, cultural erasure, and the enslavement of Black people. engage.bozeman.net/belonging - 4 -192 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We recognize that meaningful reconciliation efforts with Indigenous peoples have not occurred in this country, and we encourage a growing awareness of our individual and shared abilities to effect changes that will lead us to a more equitable future for all in our community. GOVERNMENT We thank the members of the Bozeman City Commission: Mayor Cynthia Andrus, Deputy Mayor Terry Cunningham, Commissioner I-Ho Pomeroy, Commissioner Jennifer Madgic, Commissioner Christopher Coburn, and Commissioner Douglas Fischer. We thank the members of the Economic Vitality Board: Chair Katharine Osterloth, Vice Chair Danielle Rogers, Board Member Will Shepherd, Board Member Sara Savage, Board Member Craig Ogilvie, Board Member John Carey, and Board Member Malory Peterson. We thank Jeff Mihelich, City Manager; Chuck Winn, Assistant City Manager; Kira Peters, Assistant City Manager; Josh Waldo, Fire Chief; and Jim Veltkamp, Police Chief. PROJECT TEAM We thank the leaders of this project: Dani Hess, Community Engagement Coordinator, Belonging in Bozeman Co-Lead; Nakeisha Lyon, Associate Planner, Belonging in Bozeman Co-Lead; and Takami Clark, Communications and Engagement Manager. We thank the Community Liaisons who served as bridges between specific communities within Bozeman and the larger project team to ensure their voices were heard: Chace McNinch, Kristen Newman, and Jhenniffer Cifuentes. We thank the members of the Belonging in Bozeman Internal Team (some individuals pictured above): Andy Knight, Deputy Police Chief; Ali Chipouras, Sustainability Program Specialist; Calvin Van Ryzin, Water Treatment Plant Operator; Renata Munfrada, Economic Development Specialist; Sarah Rosenberg, Historic Preservation Officer + Associate Planner; Kyle Kors, City Service Worker; Renee Boundy, V.E.T.S. Court Coordinator; Josh Charles, Fire Captain; Julie Hunter, Executive Assistant; Alicia Paz-Solis, Engineer I; Cassandra Tozer, Human Resources Director; Scott McMahon, Information Technology Director; engage.bozeman.net/belonging - 5 -193 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Tony Modugno, Building Inspector II; Jennifer Giuttari, Assistant City Attorney; Kesslie Carlson-Ham, GIS Analyst; Matthew Lee, Water Conservation Specialist; and Kaitlin Johnson, Budget Analyst. We thank Morten Group, LLC for their support throughout this process: Mary F. Morten, President; Vince Pagán-Hill, Project Director; Jessica Kadish-Hernández, Consultant; and Lisa Gilmore, Senior Consultant. COMMUNITY We thank the Bozeman Extreme History Project, led by Crystal Alegria and Dr. Cheryl Hendry and the contributors to the historical narrative Dr. Shane Doyle, Crystal Wong Shors, Stacey Haugland, Rachel Phillips, Dr. Mary Murphy, Scott Birkenbuel, Bob Cruz, Dr. Barbara do Amaral, Judith Heilman, Pearl Michalson, Marsha Small, Michael Spears, and Dr. Walter Fleming. We thank our community chat hosts: City of Bozeman staff, Gallatin City-County Health Department (GCCHD), HRDC, Bienvenidos a Gallatin Valley, Gallatin Valley Interfaith Association, First-Generation Students Association at MSU, Gender Equity Alliance at MSU, and Bridgercare Peer Educators. We thank each member of the Belonging in Bozeman Steering Committee: Krista Dicomitis, Human Resource Development Council IX (HRDC); Marilyn King, Bozeman School District #7; Bethany Davies, Big Sky Chamber of Commerce; Scott Birkenbuel, Ability Montana; Ariel Donohue, Montana State University; Michelle Bossert, Gallatin County; Mikayla Pitts, The Montana Racial Equity Project; Katie Michael, Bozeman Health; Kendall Levinson, Montana Language Services; Kaleigh Mency, Pride Foundation; Lyla Brown, Forward Montana; Lei Anna Bertelson, Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women; Amber Traxinger, Community Health Partners; Becky Wilbert, City of Belgrade; Valerie Webster, Gallatin Valley Interfaith Association; Karen DeCotis, Bozeman Dharma Center; Sara Freedwoman, Queer Bozeman; Ben Frentsos, Greater Gallatin United Way; Meshalya Cox, CoEquity Consulting; Joey Morrison, Bozeman Tenants United; Tori Sproles, Child Care Connections; Sophia Fortuanto, Thrive; and Kate Batchelder, Gallatin City-County Health Department. We thank Montana State University faculty, staff, and students who contributed to the plan: Dr. Kaylin Greene and SCOI 499 Sociology Capstone students; Professor Mikayla Pitts and HTH 445 Ethic of Care students; Susan Gallagher, Western Transportation Institute. engage.bozeman.net/belonging - 6 -194 November 8, 2023 Bozeman City Commission 121 N Rouse Ave Bozeman, MT 59715 Dear Residents and Visitors: The Gallatin Valley has long been a place of opportunity. Indigenous people from across the northwest and northern plains came here to hunt, heal, gather, and celebrate. For many thousands of years, it has sustained diverse plant, animal, and human communities. Today, Bozeman continues to have a lot to offer to those in search of a better quality of life, connection to nature, and a place to call home. However, whether all people can access these things is becoming a larger and larger concern. Disparities in people’s ability to fulfill their basic needs and thrive within our growing city are more apparent than ever. That is why the Belonging in Bozeman Equity & Inclusion Plan is so important. This community-led plan identifies areas of need and outlines the steps we need to take to address the challenges facing underserved groups in our community. It will take determined leadership, commitment of resources, and focused effort of not just the City of Bozeman, but local and regional partners, and community members themselves to make this effort a success. We all have a role to play in ensuring Bozeman is a community where everyone belongs. This change won’t happen overnight. This plan outlines the necessary goals, recommendations, and resources for the next 3-5 years. It will take changes in all aspects of our community down to the individual level to make sure we make our aspirational visions a reality and create the city we want to live in. As a city, we aim to weave equity throughout our work and encourage others to do the same to ensure that all who want to be here can thrive regardless of race, identity, or life circumstance. This will make our city stronger and keep Bozeman as a special place of opportunity. Thank you to all who have played a role in the creation of this plan. We look forward to our continued partnership with you to create a more inclusive, welcoming, and equitable city. Sincerely, Mayor Cynthia Andrus Deputy Mayor Terry Cunningham Commissioner Christopher Coburn Commissioner Douglas Fischer Commissioner Jennifer Madgic engage.bozeman.net/belonging - 7 -195 A Truthful History of Bozeman Researched and written by the Extreme History Project The man for whom the city of Bozeman is named and his fellow wealthy white counterparts are only one group of people who have shaped life in the Gallatin Valley, yet too often their narrative is presented as the default. This framing neglects the long and complex history of the many peoples who have called this region home, including Indigenous nations, Chinese immigrants, Black migrants, and more. As part of this Equity & Inclusion planning process, Bozeman’s Extreme History Project – whose work has already done much to educate residents and visitors on many overlooked and underappreciated aspects of the city’s history – wrote a comprehensive historical account of Bozeman that “seeks to center human experience, diverse perspectives, and the influence of individual and collective efforts in creating Bozeman.” The following historical account seeks to center human experience, diverse perspectives, and the influence of individual and collective efforts in creating Bozeman. The approach centered on roundtable discussions that engaged descendant community members, local equity advocates, and historical experts. These voices shaped the structure of the narrative, guided its questions, and illuminated its focal points. It is important to note that this approach does not yield a comprehensive, linear chronicle of Bozeman’s history; gaps and unanswered questions remain. However, what has emerged serves as a foundational framework – a mosaic of stories and viewpoints that collectively helps readers to reimagine Bozeman’s past and invites us all to reflect, question, and participate in an ongoing dialogue about Bozeman’s multifaceted heritage. Beavers and bison, flora and fauna, were the original inhabitants of this place we now call Bozeman. Séliš (Bitterroot Salish), Qlispé (Pend d’Orreille), Ktunaxa (Kootenai), Pikuni (Blackfeet), Tsistsis’tas (Northern Cheyenne), Apsáalooke (Crow), Anishinaabe (Chippewa), Nehiyawak (Cree), Metis, Nakoda (Assiniboine), A’aninin (Gros Ventre), Dakota, Lakota, and other indigenous nations who have engage.bozeman.net/belonging - 8 -196 CITY CONTEXT AND HISTORY millennia-long relationships with this land, also had millennia-long relationships with these plant and animal Relatives. For Indigenous people, this Valley was a gathering place, it provided seasonal sustenance and shared space. Settlers arrived in the 1860s with a vastly different understanding of land and ownership. Settlers killed the bison, dismantled beaver dams, plowed the land, and built a city on top of the water. Colonization served to sever the relationships that Indigenous people had with their Relatives, profoundly altering the landscape and its inhabitants. In 1863, gold seekers bound for Alder Gulch invaded the Gallatin Valley, a region allocated as Lakota Territory under the 1851 Treaty of Fort Laramie. In this valley, John Bozeman recognized an opportunity to amass personal wealth. Utilizing Indigenous trails, in 1863 Bozeman and John Jacobs laid out the Bozeman Trail and led the first wagon train of emigrants through the Gallatin Valley to gold mines in Alder Gulch the following year. At the crossing of what we now call Bozeman Creek, Bozeman, William Beall, and Daniel Rouse platted a town to supply emigrants. When Indigenous people retaliated, the United States Infantry and Cavalry entered the Valley and built Fort Ellis under the guise of protecting emigrants. From Fort Ellis, soldiers enacted a brutal campaign of violent dispossession. Another fort, Fort Parker, the first Indian Agency on the Crow Reservation, marked the forced transition to Reservation life for the region’s Indigenous people. It was government-sanctioned violent dispossession of Indigenous people that enabled non-Indigenous American settlement in the Gallatin Valley in the 1860s and all subsequent economic growth. For Indigenous people, construction and operation of the Forts marked the beginning of a forced transition from their traditional buffalo hunting lifestyle. For the residents of the small town of Bozeman, the Forts signaled safety and stability. For people like Nelson Story, the Forts were the source of a massive accumulation of wealth; it is men in this latter group whose names are now given pride of place in the Gallatin Valley. According to the federal population census of 1870, there were just over 400 people living in Bozeman, outside of Fort Ellis. These early settlers were not exclusively white Americans. Nearly 20% of Bozeman’s population in 1870 were immigrants, the majority of whom came from Germanic states. The Speith and Krug brewery, opened by two German immigrants was a saloon, public hall, and focal point for social and civic activity in Bozeman that served as a cornerstone for the town’s German community. By 1880, engage.bozeman.net/belonging - 9 -197 CITY CONTEXT AND HISTORY Chinese immigrants made up at least 16% of Bozeman’s immigrant population. Bozeman’s Chinese residents lived in lodging rooms in hotels, at their workplaces and businesses, in residential houses, and in the area known as “China Alley” - an alleyway located between East Main Street and East Mendenhall Street, and North Bozeman Avenue and North Rouse Avenue. They ran businesses like laundries restaurants, and boarding houses in China Alley and on Main Street in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. One particularly successful Chinese businessman, Chin Ah Ban, owned several restaurants on Main Street over the course of the early 20th century. Most of Bozeman’s early Black community came to Montana as refugees from racial violence in the post-Civil War South. Some, like Lizzie Williams, Samuel Lewis, and Richard and Mary McDonald played pivotal roles in the community’s economic and social development through their investment in real estate, businesses, and homes during the early 1870s. Like their Chinese counterparts, businesses like Lizzie Williams’s restaurant and Samuel Lewis’s barber shop were located on Main Street and were patronized by the entirety of the Bozeman community. Despite their contributions to the founding of Bozeman, memory of these Black and immigrant founders has been erased by a city whose streets now bear the names of their white American contemporaries – Beall, Story, Black, Cooper. While people like Chin Au Ban, Lizzie Williams, and Samuel Lewis, became financially successful, most early Black, Chinese, and other immigrant residents worked in service roles, predominately in domestic service for Bozeman’s middle- and upper-class families. As the 20th century approached, these working-class people became increasingly more segregated into the neighborhoods north of Main Street as investment and enhancement on the south side attracted residents of affluence. Main Street became an economic dividing line. The domestic labor of the Bozeman's minority and working-class residents afforded middle- and upper-class white residents the time and ability to establish churches, clubs, and voluntary associations. During the era when the government's presence in Bozeman was relatively modest, civic organizations, churches, and volunteer associations shaped the civic and social fabric of the community. In this, women played influential roles. Mary Alderson organized with the Women’s Christian Temperance Union (WCTU), fought for Montana women’s right to vote and helped successfully secure this right for white women in Montana in 1914, six years ahead of the nationwide enactment of the 19th Amendment. In doing this advocacy work, she asserted white women’s right to participate in the city’s and state’s civic affairs. engage.bozeman.net/belonging - 10 -198 CITY CONTEXT AND HISTORY Black women in Montana also came together for social and intellectual connection and civic improvement. Founded in 1921, The Montana Federation of Colored Women’s Clubs gave voice to Black women throughout the state. In Bozeman, the McDonald sisters – Mollie, Belle, and Melissa – along with club president Eva Robinson, formed a chapter called the Sweet Pea Study Club that raised money to help Black high school students attend college, advocated for civil rights legislation, and worked to improve racial relations at the state and local level. By the turn of the twentieth century, Montana was one of the most ethnically diverse states in the country, and the population in Bozeman reflected this larger trend. Yet today, Montana is among the whitest states in the country. Legislation and formal and informal racial discrimination and exclusion accounts for this shift. One of the first ordinances to be adopted after the City of Bozeman was incorporated in 1883 was Ordinance No. 8, “Concerning Offenses Against Good Order and Morals." Ostensibly passed to protect the business district from the threat of fire, Section 5 of the ordinance allowed Bozeman police to closely monitor the Chinese and conduct raids against supposed opium dens and arrest and fine Chinese residents. Ordinance No. 8 also included gendered definitions of “morality.” Section 7’s prohibition against “in any public place...in a dress not belonging to his or her sex, or in an indecent or lewd dress...” reflects an early attempt to legislate gender expression. State laws also impacted Bozeman residents. In 1909, the Montana State legislature passed an anti-miscegenation law that made interracial marriage illegal, nullified existing unions, and rejected those from other states. The number of young, single African Americans living in Montana dropped between 1910 and 1930. This bill threatened the Black family structure; with a limited choice of legal spouses in Bozeman, young Black Bozeman residents had to look elsewhere for marriage prospects. Belle Ward, the granddaughter of Richard and Mary McDonald, went to Helena to marry a Black man in 1925. Fred Harris Jr. moved with his parents to Tacoma, Washington in 1918. At that time, there was not a single person living in Bozeman that he might legally marry. The adoption of this anti-miscegenation bill, which remained in law until 1953, shows the shift from a society in Montana that offered a future for a Black community into one that did not. Bozeman’s minority communities also encountered racial discrimination in the form of threats, belittlement, harassment, and exclusion. The Chinese were seen by some as lowly and immoral, Chinese men were seen as less of “men” based upon their clothing. Mocking and finding amusement in Chinese accents or broken English was a common sentiment found in early newspapers. Chinese residents were frequent victims of conflict and assault at their places of business and on the streets of Bozeman; some faced open threats of lynching. Bozeman’s Black community faced threat in the form of a resurging Ku Klux Klan in the 1920s. In August 1926, 1,000 people attended a Klan picnic and public lecture at the Bozeman Hot Springs. By the mid-20th century, Black people were increasingly excluded from public engage.bozeman.net/belonging - 11 -199 CITY CONTEXT AND HISTORY space in Bozeman. One example occurred in 1950 when nationally recognized singer Dorothy Maynor came to Bozeman for a concert and the Baxter Hotel refused to let her stay there. Decades of formal and informal exclusionary practices have created a sense of invisibility among Bozeman’s minority residents. For Indigenous people, this goes back to the formal violent exclusion of the 1860s and 1870s. People with disabilities have also been formally excluded, displaced by institutionalization since 1877 when Warm Springs hospital was built in western Montana. In some cases, invisibility is due to outmigration – by the 1930s, half of Montana’s Black residents had left, Bozeman’s Chinese community precipitously dropped in the same period. Invisibility is compounded by the rebranding of the land which has erased Indigenous history and the naming of places which celebrates specific aspects and people of our past, while erasing others. Despite this, Bozeman residents have worked to hold on to their culture and customs, actively dismantle barriers, and create inclusive spaces. A key effort in this was and is claiming visible space as the region’s Indigenous people have done for over fifty years at the annual Montana State University (MSU) Powwow. The Powwow represents an ongoing tradition spanning countless generations—stretching back hundreds, even thousands of years—where people gather, revel in each other's company, and reconnect with their origins. Despite its complicated history, MSU has played a key role in efforts to create community and inclusive spaces. MSU was established in 1893 through the Morrill Act, a piece of legislation that utilized wealth from stolen Indigenous land to fund higher education. Through its democratization of higher education, the land grant, though problematic, provided a path to diversity. The Multicultural Resource Center, established in 1999 by the Associated Students of Montana State University with leadership by the Black Student Union. Evolving over the years, it became the Diversity & Inclusion Student Commons in 2017. The Department of Native American Studies and the American Indian Council were established to advance education for and about American Indians of Montana and to promote community and academic success for MSU’s Native students. Over the past five decades, these entities have evolved into a central hub for Indigenous life in Bozeman. The University serves as a magnet for diverse students and families, contributing to the presence of people of color in the community. However, this influx is often perceived as temporary, with the notion that diverse individuals are primarily students and, consequently, transient residents. The paradox engage.bozeman.net/belonging - 12 -200 CITY CONTEXT AND HISTORY emerges as MSU attracts diversity, albeit temporarily. It functions as a dynamic hub for a variety of perspectives and people, yet a considerable number do not stay in Bozeman, facing challenges in establishing more permanent roots. Notably, the visibility of Native families is predominantly associated with MSU, but many can only afford to reside in Bozeman during their college years, relying on scholarships or loans for support. This dynamic raises important considerations about the sustainability of diversity within the community beyond the confines of academic pursuits. Beyond MSU, other groups have worked to build community. In the 1990s, Stacey Haugland realized that she would have to push hard to make space for herself and other lesbians in Bozeman. She hung posters around town advertising a “Lesbian Community Potluck” to be held at her house. What began as casual gatherings evolved into the formation of Gallatin Area Lesbian Society. Haugland later became a plaintiff in a successful legal effort to decriminalize homosexuality in Montana in 1997. Meanwhile, another notable legal battle unfolded at Bozeman airport, where a lawsuit addressed accessibility issues. The lawsuit sought improvements in infrastructure and services to ensure equal access for all travelers, highlighting the importance of inclusive facilities in public spaces. The legacy of past efforts for inclusivity and visibility endures in the ongoing advocacy of Bozeman's residents who continue to fight for a community that embraces diversity and ensures equal representation in the 21st century. In the 21st century, the City of Bozeman has passed several ordinances and resolutions to support and celebrate Bozeman’s diverse population. The City Commission continued its commitment to inclusivity with its endorsement of the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) in 2022 along with the official recognition of Indigenous Peoples’ Day and Juneteenth holidays. These holidays recognize the city's rich multicultural heritage and are marked by celebratory events throughout town and on the MSU campus. engage.bozeman.net/belonging - 13 -201 CITY CONTEXT AND HISTORY Delving into the past serves as a poignant reminder that Bozeman has always been a diverse locale, with historical factors contributing to the evolving nature of its diversity. Our historical narratives reveal harassment, discrimination, and the struggle for visibility alongside stories of community building, resistance, and resilience. Find the full-length version of this history on the city website. engage.bozeman.net/belonging - 14 -202 Process and Timeline The process to develop this plan was grounded in input from community members and partner organizations to define needs, gather data, and chart a path forward. Community engagement efforts focused on reducing barriers to participation and creating multiple ways for everyone to help establish the vision for the plan, generate goals, and define the specific recommendations to achieve them. The content of the plan built on previous efforts defined in the Inclusive City Report, commitments of the Cities for CEDAW initiative, and the Equity Indicators Report. Key milestones in the process are outlined in the following timeline and further defined in the key terms section. 2020: Inclusive City Policy Review On June 8, 2020, in response to local and national calls for action to address violence against Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC), the Bozeman City Commission directed the City Manager to review the city’s policies, training, and frameworks. The “Bozeman as an Inclusive City: Review of Policies'' report was released on July 22, 2020 and established the commitment to conduct a “gaps analysis” and develop equity indicators to ultimately guide an equity and inclusion plan for the community. 2021: Establishing a Baseline - Equity Indicators Project & CEDAW priorities In 2021, The City of Bozeman launched the Equity Indicators Project to measure equity and access to resources in the City. The purpose was to establish a baseline to make Bozeman a more inclusive, welcoming, and equitable place. The resulting Equity Indicators Report, released on July 31, 2021, revealed key needs and gaps in priority areas identified by the community such as housing, healthcare, and education. The Equity Indicators Hub is a resource that tracks the data behind this plan. Data comes from publicly available databases like the 2020 Census, American Community Survey, and local data sharing partners. Check out the Equity Indicators Hub and find interactive data displays as well as the open data portal where local partners and community members can access the data themselves to inform and support their efforts in the Gallatin Valley. Also in 2021, the City of Bozeman signed on to Resolution 5384, Establishing Bozeman as a City for the Convention on the Elimination of All forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). This local grassroots effort defines key priorities for the city to undertake to conform with this United Nations convention. These priorities include continuing to collect data around disparities in our community as well as developing an equity and inclusion plan. engage.bozeman.net/belonging - 15 -203 PROCESS AND TIMELINE 2022: Beginning Action — Belonging in Bozeman In the spring of 2022, the City convened the internal Belonging in Bozeman team with city staff from across all departments in the organization to guide the development of the city’s first Equity & Inclusion Plan. The team helped shape the definitions of key terms to be used in this plan and establish a community engagement strategy and an outline of this very document. 2022 also marked the year that the the City of Bozeman established both Juneteenth and Indigenous People’s Day as officially recognized holidays. Indigenous People’s Day began with the vision, followed by years of action, and ultimately success of Indigenous Peoples Day Montana, a group of local and state organizers who helped make this holiday official in the City of Bozeman. 2023: Continuing Action — Equity & Inclusion Planning Process The Equity and Inclusion Planning Process kicked off with the official launch event on March 7, 2023. A Steering Committee of organizational partners doing work across all eight topic areas was established to meet monthly throughout the process. That spring, three Community Liaisons were hired to elevate community voices and gather input from communities that often face additional barriers to participating in local government processes, such as the Spanish-speaking community, LGBTQ+ community, and the disability community. In June, a community-wide survey gathered input from nearly 400 community members on the plan’s Vision Statements. With this input, the final Vision Statements were drafted and edited with input from both the Belonging in Bozeman Steering Committee and internal city staff team. In August, a half-day workshop was held with these two groups to generate the goals and recommendations of the plan. Broader community input was sought on the goals and recommendations through Community Chats, held from July-September. Throughout the year, guidance was sought and updates were provided to the city’s Economic Vitality Board on a monthly basis, and on a quarterly basis with the City Commission. With all of this input, the project team met with city staff and community partners to ensure that the plan’s aspirations were balanced with what could be realistically achieved in the next 3-5 years. With over 15 different city departments and over 30 community partner organizations, the team dug into the details like establishing lead and partner organizations, metrics, and resources needed for implementation. And, finally, this report was drafted from September to November and considered for approval by the city’s Economic Vitality Board and City Commission in December 2023. engage.bozeman.net/belonging - 16 -204 Key Terms The following terms are helpful to understand as you take in the plan: Terms Found in the Plan Vision Statements: Vision Statements serve as bold, short, and consistent phrases that clearly state a desired outcome for all individuals in our community. This plan’s Vision Statements are based on the Equity Indicators Report (2021), priorities of the Convention for the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) per Resolution 5384, and feedback from City staff, applicable advisory bodies, and community members. Goal: Goals put visions into practice by describing the overarching action that must be taken in order to achieve the vision. Recommendation: Recommendations take goals to a finer level of detail by clarifying the steps that must be taken in order to achieve the goal. Priority #1, #2, #3: A prioritization matrix helped rank the priority level of each recommendation based on “cost/difficulty” and “impact/urgency.” Cost and difficulty depends on factors like existing efforts underway, staff capacity, resources available, and cost. Impact and urgency depends on alignment with existing city/partner priorities and how directly the recommendation addresses the goal, vision statement, and relevant equity indicators. Priority #1 indicates recommendations that have relatively high impact/urgency, are most difficult/costly to implement, and may need more time to gather resources and build capacity. Begin first, but progress may not occur for 2-3 years. Priority #2 indicates recommendations with relatively high impact/urgency, are relatively less difficult/costly and should be undertaken early, progress expected within 1-2 yrs. Priority #3 indicates recommendations that have relatively lower impact/urgency and are least difficult/costly and should be undertaken after progress and/or successful implementation of #1 and #2 recommendations. Progress expected in 3+ years. Lead org + partners: The organization that is leading the effort to carry out a particular recommendation and the fellow organizations that are contributing to the effort. Metric: The result or action taken that indicates whether a recommendation has been advanced or partners have made progress. Progress: The category expressing movement or headway on a recommendation. Will be updated annually by the City of Bozeman to show: “Not yet started” / “In-progress” / “Ongoing” / “Complete” engage.bozeman.net/belonging - 17 -205 KEY TERMS Equity and Inclusion Terms Access: The elimination of discrimination and other physical or structural barriers that result in some people being unable to use a physical space, benefit from a service or resource, or join and participate in an activity, event, program, or organization. Belonging: A feeling of belonging revolves around trust, openness, empathy, connection, purpose, and agency within a particular group, organization, or community. An individual feels like they belong when they can show up as their authentic self and feel valued, understood, respected, safe, and represented. Organizations can contribute to a culture of belonging by supporting policies, practices, and programs that foster a sense of security, acceptance, and celebration across identities. Belonging in Bozeman: The initiative undertaken by the City of Bozeman to complete this Equity & Inclusion plan. Initially begun as the “Inclusive City” effort that resulted in the Inclusive City Report & Recommendations, the Belonging in Bozeman effort builds off of this early work to expand and sustain the city’s work in equity and inclusion. Equality: Sameness; treating everyone the same regardless of identity, life circumstance, or needs. The same resources or services may be available to all, but some people may face barriers in accessing or benefitting from them. Equity: Recognizing differences in people’s identities, life circumstances, and needs to ensure that all are welcome, valued, and can thrive in our community. When we strive for equity, we intentionally create systems that are informed by people’s lived experiences so that everyone can access and benefit from the services and resources they need. EQUALITY Everyone gets the same - regardless of if it’s needed or right for them. EQUITY Everyone gets what they need - understanding the barriers, circumstances, and conditions. engage.bozeman.net/belonging - 18 -206 KEY TERMS Diversity: Variation and difference across individuals in a group, organization, or community. A group can be described as diverse when it is made up of individuals of varying characteristics including (but not limited to!) race, ethnicity, language spoken, nationality, cultural identity, spiritual practice, age, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, ability, and income or socioeconomic status. When we strive for diversity, we honor the richness, value, and benefits of bringing people with different perspectives, identities, and experiences together. Inclusion: What we do with diversity. An individual, a group, an organization, or community is inclusive when it leverages and celebrates the skills, abilities, and talents of all of its members. When we strive for inclusion we are aware of how our words, actions, and beliefs impact others. Inclusive spaces are those in which people are respected, heard, and feel like they belong, even when they hold different identities, experiences, or perspectives from each other. engage.bozeman.net/belonging - 19 -207 The Equity and Inclusion Plan “When it comes to equity, where are our city’s gaps and needs, and what indicators would demonstrate movement on closing these gaps and addressing these needs?” This was the question asked by the Equity Indicators Project in 2021. “How do we translate the data from the Equity Indicators Report into tangible actions to create a more equitable and inclusive city within the next 3-5 years?” This was the question asked – and, now, answered – by this Equity & Inclusion planning process. The plan directly builds upon the 2021 Equity Indicators Report by addressing eight distinct issue areas that correspond to the eight themes/categories of gaps/needs found in that report. The planning process has been grounded in the data from the Equity Indicators project every step of the way. For example, the Vision Statements Overview document made available to Community Chat hosts in the summer of 2023 contained statistics and facts from the Equity Indicators Report to guide discussions. Each section of the plan begins with a collectively-developed vision statement of what an equitable and inclusive Bozeman would be like for all, followed by a list of goals and recommendations to make that vision a reality. View the full implementation workbook which includes priority level, organizational leads + partners, resources needed, metrics, and progress in Appendix B. To view the equity indicators that serve as the baseline data guiding this plan, please visit the Equity Indicators Hub. Our collective vision for the City of Bozeman: Housing is available, affordable, accessible, and safe. Childcare and youth programs are high quality, affordable, and accessible. A variety of transportation options exist to meet mobility needs. A thriving economy offers readily available living-wage jobs and fair work environments. Healthcare services and health programs that address physical, mental, and sexual & reproductive well-being are available, accessible, and inclusive. Access to community spaces and resources fosters social connection, health, and resilience in a changing climate. Local government and major institutions prioritize safety, inclusion, and representation. Learning opportunities allow for full participation and foster growth and success. engage.bozeman.net/belonging - 20 -208 Housing is available, affordable, accessible, and safe. Housing has been an issue for Bozeman residents for many years; concern has increased as costs have skyrocketed following the COVID-19 pandemic. This is well-documented across several existing reports. The Bozeman Community Housing Needs Assessment (2019) revealed that prior to the pandemic, housing costs were already becoming unmanageable — the percentage of households paying over 30% of their income for rent plus utilities was 55%. Bozeman’s Equity Indicators Project (2021) found housing access to affordable housing was the top need identified by survey takers (69% reported “large need”). The most recent Gallatin Valley Housing Report (2023) confirms that the post-COVID real estate price surge has been staggering: “the median price of a newly-built single-family home in 2022 was $950,000, nearly double the amount recorded in 2019.” This plan proposes making equitable and inclusive housing a reality in Bozeman by focusing strategically on homelessness, displacement, aging in place and universal building accessibility, increasing community knowledge, and lobbying for local solutions at the state level, so that Bozeman residents of all ages, abilities, and income levels can feel confident and secure in calling Bozeman their home. HOUSING GOALS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Goal 1. Develop a coordinated strategy to address homelessness in the Bozeman area. 1. Identify and prioritize Housing First approaches to address housing instability and homelessness. 2. Support partner organizations by funding transitional and emergency housing initiatives and programs. 3. Work with partners to leverage creative funding mechanisms, incentives, and existing assets to increase long-term affordable housing supply and housing preservation for people earning below 60% of AMI. (Federal funding, LIHTC, TIF, Community Land Trusts, Community Housing Fund, land banking, city-owned land etc.) engage.bozeman.net/belonging - 21 -209 HOUSING Goal 2. Reduce displacement of residents who work and go to school in Bozeman but cannot afford to live in Bozeman. 1. Evaluate city employee housing cost burden and consider options for employee housing assistance. 2. Convene local partners to explore the potential for co-operative housing models. 3. Strengthen coordination with MSU and partnerships with the Office of Off-Campus Student Life and student housing developers and property management companies. Goal 3. Promote aging-in-place and universally accessible residential development. 1. Conduct an educational workshop for design, construction, and real estate professionals on universal design practices and adaptable dwellings within residential developments. 2. Codify development incentives for design that enables aging in place and universal accessibility beyond the requirements of the building code, for example: ○ Establish requirements for the number of adaptable units in developments that utilize city Community Housing Funds; ○ Amend division 38.430 of the UDC to include an option in the novel public benefits section to include universal design best practices and incentives for elevators in multistory buildings Goal 4. Increase community knowledge in housing issues. 1. Host workshops for landlords and tenants on the Montana Tenant Act and Fair Housing Act, becoming a Housing Choice Voucher Landlord, Resident-owned community models. 2. Develop and distribute materials to support understanding of community housing approaches, programs, and terms such as: ○ Area Median Income and how affordability in housing development is defined ○ Housing subsidy/financing programs and terms such as LIHTC, TIF, deed restrictions, etc. ○ Issues around local control, state legislation, and local incentive strategies – what can and can’t we do at the local level and why? ○ Rental, mortgage, and down payment assistance programs ○ Short term rental regulations ○ Urban camping regulations ○ Definition of homelessness (McKinney Vento, HUD) engage.bozeman.net/belonging - 22 -210 HOUSING Goal 5. Support and defend local housing solutions at the state legislature. 1. Identify and pursue local and state revenue streams for the creation of affordable housing and housing assistance programs: ○ Available to residents regardless of immigration status or english proficiency (local) ○ Dedicated mills (local) ○ Sales tax (state) ○ Circuit breaker in the 70th MT Legislative session to target relief to homeowners on a fixed income and renters (state) ○ Preserves the ability to use Tax Increment Financing as a tool for affordable housing (state) engage.bozeman.net/belonging - 23 -211 A variety of transportation options exist to meet mobility needs. Bozeman’s main street has changed dramatically since the 25th Infantry Bicycle Corps, a unit of Black soldiers, passed through it in 1897, “attracting much attention and interest.” Today, an onlooker in downtown Bozeman will find a mix of bicycles, pedestrians, buses, and cars, and a population ready for these varying modes of transit to be more accessible to all. This plan proposes focusing on the most vulnerable travelers, meaning those who rely on getting where they need to go without a personal vehicle. That means people who walk or use a wheelchair, ride a bike, share rides, or take the Streamline Bus or Galavan system. There are many beneficial reasons why people choose to not drive; however, many don’t even have the option - some are too young to get behind the wheel, some can’t afford to own vehicles, others are unable to drive due to age or disability. That’s why these recommendations prioritize meeting mobility needs for all Bozeman residents, visitors, and employees by expanding reliable transit and paratransit services, going beyond ADA compliance, prioritizing winter mobility, and using an equity lens in parking management. TRANSPORTATION GOALS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Goal 1. Expand reliable transit and paratransit services, prioritizing winter accessibility. 1. Leverage new revenue streams to support increased frequency of fixed-route transit and paratransit service (for example, paid on-street parking, future UTD ballot measure, federal grants). 2. Ensure that city funds contribute to comparable service of paratransit to fixed-route transit operations. 3. Develop standards and formalize processes for ensuring bus stops are comfortable, safe, shaded from sun, and accessible to riders in the winter. 4. Pilot a “Snow Angels” program to connect volunteers and people with disabilities, older adults who are unable to remove snow from their sidewalks 5. Prioritize snow and ice removal at transit stops engage.bozeman.net/belonging - 24 -212 TRANSPORTATION Goal 2. Center the most vulnerable road users in transportation infrastructure design. 1. Develop and implement an Equity Impacts Tool to utilize in Transportation Planning and train staff, directors, and decision makers in this approach. 2. Mitigate implicit bias and enhance freedom of movement in transportation design and behavior, (for example, update the city’s Complete Streets Resolution with an equity component). 3. Retrofit bicycle lanes to separate vehicles and bicyclists. 4. Strengthen partnership with Gallatin County and Montana Department of Transportation for safety improvements on streets not within the City’s jurisdiction. 5. Leverage expertise of the disability community to educate design and building professionals on accessible community design, for example: ○ Seasonal (summer/winter) inclusive interdisciplinary walking audits with members of the disability community, contractors, engineers, and others to assess for ADA compliance and foster co-design of built environment ○ Develop a Sidewalk Audit process for city staff to implement ○ Conduct parks accessibility audits and develop standards Goal 3. Prioritize equity in parking management practices. 1. Develop a public outreach and education campaign about the proper use of accessible parking spaces and access aisles. 2. Improve enforcement and responsiveness of PD/Parking Enforcement Officers when vehicles are parked unlawfully in accessible spaces, as per city ordinance. 3. Ensure accessible parking spaces are provided in areas where the city does not require the provision of on-site parking. 4. Use an Equity Impacts Tool to evaluate parking fines and fees, towing and impounding practices, and allocation of enforcement resources. engage.bozeman.net/belonging - 25 -213 Healthcare services and health programs that address physical, mental, and sexual & reproductive well-being are available, accessible, and inclusive. Healthcare access and quality is only one of the five key Social Determinants of Health, but it is, of course, a critical one. We know that health is greatly influenced by the other four – neighborhood, education, community, and economic stability – which you’ll see in other issue areas of the plan. Over the last several years, Bozeman residents have consistently reported access to healthcare, mental health services, and substance use as top concerns. This is evident in the 2021 Equity Indicators Report as well as the 2020 Community Health Needs Assessment report. Through this Equity and Inclusion planning process, participants have identified ways to make progress in these areas and reduce disparities by amplifying the voices of groups often marginalized in healthcare settings, such as the disability community. This plan proposes achieving equitable & inclusive health & well-being for Bozeman residents and workers through continuing education for professionals, increased coordination between agencies, support and implementation of proven efforts, and expansion of meaningful language access. HEALTH + WELLBEING GOALS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Goal 1. Support continuing education for health professionals on working with underserved communities. 1. Provide opportunities for health professionals to participate in training on: Healthcare Allies training; Disability identity, wellness, etiquette; Working with LEP (Limited English Proficiency) patients. 2. Increase access to mental health supports and training for health professionals and first responders. Goal 2. Increase coordination between health agencies to reduce barriers to healthcare services and programs. 1. Coordinate across organizations to enable data sharing to better characterize health disparities and social needs in underserved communities. 2. Improve referral and case management processes across health care and social service providers to connect patients/clients with community resources. engage.bozeman.net/belonging - 26 -214 HEALTH + WELLBEING Goal 3. Support and implement proven health education and healthcare access efforts. 1. Expand the use of harm reduction approaches to treat substance use disorder. 2. Increase telehealth offerings and publicly available telehealth spaces for clients (e.g. private telehealth rooms in libraries and other community spaces). 3. Support access to reproductive healthcare and comprehensive sexual education. Goal 4. Expand meaningful language access in clinical settings and in health promotion programs. 1. Provide on-demand interpretation in clinical and public health settings, train providers and professionals in its use, and translate signage and documents. 2. Partner with organizations to reach underserved communities through mobile/pop-up health clinics and health education and promotion programs engage.bozeman.net/belonging - 27 -215 Learning opportunities allow for full participation and foster growth and success. Bozeman is a college town, home to Montana State University – the largest university in Montana, Wyoming, and the Dakotas, with students hailing from all 50 states. At the K-12 level, U.S. News and World Report ranks Bozeman High School as #1 in the State of Montana. When it comes to equity and inclusion both within and outside of these institutions, however, access and achievement gaps persist for some students. This plan advocates for a more equitable and inclusive education landscape in Bozeman through expanding opportunities for multilingual learners, supporting higher education for underserved communities, prioritizing “cradle-to-career” educational systems, and increasing support for students experiencing homelessness. EDUCATION GOALS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Goal 1. Expand opportunities for multilingual learners of all ages. 1. Increase resources for multilingual education. 2. Provide meaningful language access to school services, online, and print materials to provide LEP families with the information they need. 3. Partner with local educators, organizations, and employers to provide English learning opportunities for Spanish-speaking residents. Goal 2. Increase recruitment and resources to support higher education for underserved communities. 1. Continue to foster professional development opportunities for educators that emphasize LGBTQ+ allyship, cultural humility, supporting students with disabilities, and inclusive learning environments. 2. Support growth in resources for recruitment, retention, and graduation of American Indian & Alaska Native students at MSU. engage.bozeman.net/belonging - 28 -216 EDUCATION Goal 3. Prioritize the creation of “cradle-to-career” educational systems by investing in sector-based strategies and career pathways. 1. Prioritize funding mechanisms to support early literacy interventions for 4-year olds, targeting families earning low-incomes, experiencing housing instability, or limited english proficiency. 2. Continue to engage students in budget processes and strategic planning. 3. Establish avenues for mentorship and shadowing for students at all levels who are exploring career paths in fields in which they are underrepresented (eg: women in the trades, BIPOC in executive leadership or local government). 4. Target professional development in alternative energy technologies to existing contractors to grow their skills and experience. 5. Increase opportunities for underserved youth in Junior Leadership Programs geared towards photonic, aviation, and manufacturing sectors. Goal 4. Increase wrap-around support and resources available to students experiencing homelessness. 1. Partner with local schools and universities to assess the needs of affected students and assist with support delivery. 2. Distribute materials to educators around the prevalence of homelessness, resources to support students and families, and the intersectionality of this issue. 3. Partner with educators and schools to build a coordinated strategy to address homelessness. engage.bozeman.net/belonging - 29 -217 Childcare and youth programs are high-quality, affordable, and accessible. In Bozeman’s 2021 Equity Indicators Report, early childhood care and education was identified as a large or moderate need across all demographic subgroups. An April 2023 article published by Bozeman radio station The Moose ran with the headline, “How on earth do Bozeman families afford preschool or daycare?” In addition to affordability, availability is limited. The current number of licensed childcare providers and the number of available preschool and infant spots only meet about half of the demand for childcare in Gallatin County (Child Care Connections). This plan envisions a City of Bozeman in which programming for children and youth is affordable, of excellent quality, inclusive of young people of varied backgrounds, and accessible to all. To this end, the plan’s co-authors have identified the following goals: reducing barriers for underserved children, increasing program capacity, increasing program and provider subsidies, and recruiting and retaining quality staff. CHILDCARE + YOUTH PROGRAMMING GOALS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Goal 1. Reduce barriers to out-of-school opportunities and programs for underserved children. 1. Evaluate and address barriers around participation in out-of-school programs, including transportation and cost. 2. Support participation in city programs and activities for families of children with disabilities. 3. Explore opportunities to integrate indigenous food systems, languages, and culture into summer and after school programs. Goal 2. Increase capacity of after-school and summer programs. 1. Perform an equity impact analysis of the city’s enrollment processes, level of subsidy, and scholarships for recreation programs and youth camps. 2. Establish and continue partnerships with governmental and non-profit organizations for free use of space access, subsidies, and other mechanisms to support youth programming within Gallatin Valley. 3. Develop a quick response plan for providing childcare in the case of emergency school closure or other community emergencies. engage.bozeman.net/belonging - 30 -218 CHILDCARE + YOUTH PROGRAMMING Goal 3. Increase subsidy for childcare programs and providers. 1. Lobby for additional local, state, and federal funding/subsidy of quality childcare. Goal 4. Recruit, develop, and retain quality staff. 1. Support efforts to recruit multilingual and multicultural staff for recreational programming. 2. Implement a mentorship and training program for youth who want to work as future recreation/camp leaders. 3. Spotlight the value and contributions of child care and youth programming employees through a communications campaign. engage.bozeman.net/belonging - 31 -219 A thriving economy offers readily available living-wage jobs and fair work environments. Bozeman’s unemployment rate was just 1.8% in September 2023, but this is just one piece of the overall economic picture. In the words of a stakeholder in the 2021 Equity Indicators Project, “I wish my salary kept up with cost of living expenses.” This need for more livable wages given the high local cost of living continues to be prevalent in 2023, and the state’s most recent Labor Day report affirmed this, stating that Bozeman and the surrounding area was one of the “most expensive areas of the state relative to income levels.” Additionally, gender-based wage gaps continue to persist, as do race-based disparities in median household income. This plan proposes moving Bozeman towards an economy that is equitable, inclusive, and thriving, by fostering fair and inclusive work environments, supporting and recognizing inclusive businesses and employers, expanding access to city contracts and funding for local businesses, and supporting the growing Hispanic and Latino workforce. ECONOMIC SECURITY GOALS AND RECOMMENDATIONS GOAL 1: Serve as a model for fostering fair and inclusive work environments. 1. Introduce a Minority and Women-Owned Business criteria into the city’s RFP scoring process. 2. Bolster guidance and accountability measures for city vendors in adhering to: The city’s Non-Discrimination and Equal Pay requirements; Federal labor law as it relates to fair treatment of workers. 3. Continue to narrow the gender pay gap among city employees. Goal 2. Support and recognize inclusive businesses and employers. 1. Distribute guidance on being a fully accessible workplace/employer for people with disabilities. 2. Develop an Inclusive Businesses Toolkit (LGBTQ+, Disability, BIPOC) and recognition program. Goal 3. Expand access to city contracts and funding for local firms, businesses, and vendors. engage.bozeman.net/belonging - 32 -220 ECONOMIC SECURITY 1. Evaluate TIF funding eligibility criteria to: ○ Target TIF benefits to communities that have been historically disadvantaged ○ Prioritize the development or preservation of workforce housing ○ Consciously and proactively work to reverse patterns of racial inequity in investment and development 2. Provide training on how to apply for city contracts/become a city vendor and connect experienced city vendors with small business owners to subcontract and gain experience. Goal 4. Support the growing Hispanic + Latino workforce to our economy and community. 1. Support the Montana Compact on Immigration. 2. Partner with local financial institutions to provide access to banking and lending opportunities for Hispanic + Latino workers. engage.bozeman.net/belonging - 33 -221 Access to community spaces and resources fosters social connection, health, and resilience in a changing climate. Individuals from all over the world come to the Gallatin Valley to appreciate its vast open spaces and natural resources. However, when it comes to resources for residents and employees, our city’s most vulnerable residents disproportionately struggle to afford basic utilities and bear the brunt of the effects of extreme weather and climate change most deeply. The human resources offered by the diversity of identities and experiences of our city staff and residents are also not yet fully appreciated. This plan proposes to create a more equitable and inclusive Bozeman in this area by increasing knowledge and use of resources for underserved communities, recognizing and celebrating diversity among city staff and the community at large, responding to climate change and extreme weather’s disproportionate impact on vulnerable community members, and alleviating the utility cost burden for low-income residents. COMMUNITY RESILIENCY GOALS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Goal 1. Increase knowledge and use of resources for underserved communities. 1. Coordinate to develop shared platforms and spaces for underserved communities to connect with resources and service providers and share information about meeting individual and community needs. Goal 2. Recognize and celebrate diversity among city staff and community at large. 1. Actively support events like Juneteenth, ADA Month, and Indigenous People’s Day and learning opportunities for the broader community on equity issues 2. Evaluate city employee engagement through an intersectional lens. engage.bozeman.net/belonging - 34 -222 COMMUNITY RESILIENCY Goal 3. Respond to the disproportionate impacts to vulnerable community members due to climate change and extreme weather. 1. Develop emergency preparedness programs that: a. Ensure multilingual communication and outreach during extreme weather events (cold, heat, flooding, smoke/fire) b. Develop policies for employers to mitigate impacts of extreme heat and wildfire smoke/poor air quality for people who work or live outside c. Establish guidance for safe, accessible, ADA compliant, and inclusive use of alternative facilities d. Identify ways to provide food access during supply chain disruptions 2. Work with partners to ensure investments in the urban tree canopy are equitably distributed across neighborhoods. Goal 4. Alleviate utility cost burden for low-income residents. 1. Support home energy efficient and weatherization for low-income residents through: ○ Assistance programs, rebates and incentives for upgrades and improvements ○ Installation of heat pump water heaters ○ Solar for All programs ○ Outreach about how to improve indoor air quality during wildfire smoke events 2. Incorporate water equity considerations into the city’s Water/Wastewater Rate Study and its implementation. Goal 5. Prioritize food access for low-income communities. 1. Work with partners to improve access to healthy local food and nutrition programs through the sharing and celebration of cultural and indigenous foods. engage.bozeman.net/belonging - 35 -223 Local government and major institutions prioritize safety, inclusion, and representation. Bozeman’s inclusive city review process began in 2020 in the context of national calls for action to address violence against Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) and the roles that the policies, training, and frameworks of local governments play in the same. During the 2023 equity and inclusion planning process, rebuilding of trust between city government, police, and marginalized groups was identified as an important ongoing process. The City realizes that equity and inclusion are not one-time projects but ongoing work to ensure that all can truly belong in Bozeman. As the City looks to continue embedding equity- and inclusion-based policies, practices, and programs into the fabric of its existence, this section of the plan elaborates how that will come about. This plan proposes a more equitable and inclusive City of Bozeman in the areas of community safety and civic health by creating an organizational structure to sustain and grow Belonging in Bozeman efforts, deepening engagement with underserved communities, addressing language barriers, ensuring city staff and law enforcement demographics reflect the city, elevating equity in decision-making processes and policy development, providing ongoing training, and promoting transparency and open communication between the City, Police Department, and community. COMMUNITY SAFETY + CIVIC HEALTH GOALS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Goal 1. Create organizational structure to sustain and grow Belonging in Bozeman efforts. 1. Create a new staff position, a dedicated budget, and an outline of how this position will fit and grow within the organization to advance the work of Belonging in Bozeman. 2. Retain interdepartmental Belonging in Bozeman committee with representation from City of Bozeman departments and update the committee charter. 3. Continue to convene external partners to implement the Belonging in Bozeman Plan. 4. Create a full time position to serve as ADA Coordinator. engage.bozeman.net/belonging - 36 -224 COMMUNITY SAFETY + CIVIC HEALTH Goal 2. Deepen engagement with underserved communities. 1. Identify funding, resources, and partners to develop a Civic Academy program to create a pipeline of talented, connected, and diverse staff, advisory board members, elected officials and non-profit leaders. 2. Evaluate and formalize the Community Liaison roles, for example: Hire a part-time Disability Community Liaison and a full-time Bozeman PD Community Liaison. 3. Establish a Community Engagement Compensation Policy that outlines ways in which community members who face barriers to participation may receive compensation for providing input on city initiatives. 4. Foster relationships with student organizations at MSU to reduce barriers to accessing community spaces and events. Goal 3. Address language barriers to local government services and public engagement processes. 1. Implement on-demand interpretation services and train frontline city staff in utilizing them. 2. Develop and implement a comprehensive Language Access Plan. 3. Consider multilingual learning opportunities (language classes/training) and benefits for multilingual staff (add-pay for multilingual staff in qualifying languages). Goal 4. Ensure city staff and law enforcement demographics reflect at minimum the demographics of the community. 1. Evaluate advertising and recruitment strategies to reach more diverse applicant pools. 2. Update City of Bozeman Hiring Practices Policy. 3. Continue to review minimum qualifications in Class Specifications. 4. Track the factors that contribute to employee turnover, candidate withdrawals, and rejections of offers. 5. Create a Second Chance Background Screening Process. engage.bozeman.net/belonging - 37 -225 COMMUNITY SAFETY + CIVIC HEALTH Goal 5. Elevate equity in city decision-making processes and policy development. 1. Develop an Equity Impacts decision-making tool and train elected officials, advisory board members, and staff in its use. 2. Establish a Disability/Accessibility Advisory Board that meets quarterly and as needed to provide guidance on accessibility and design of city facilities, policy, and programs. 3. Build staff capacity and resources needed to broaden communications and engagement in the city budget development process. 4. Neutralize gendered language in city policies and municipal code. Goal 6. Provide high-quality, ongoing, and relevant training to all city staff and decision-makers. 1. Establish a budget and menu of annual Governing for Racial Equity training for city staff (including elected officials and advisory board members; department directors and managers/supervisors). 2. Promote the exchange of knowledge between City of Bozeman staff, Bozeman PD, and local community leaders on topics such as: De-escalation, implicit bias, and bystander intervention; Mental Health First Aid; LGBTQ+ Everyday Allies; Know Your Rights; Disability awareness and etiquette training for first responders). Goal 7. Promote transparency, open communication, and responsiveness between the City, Police Department, and the community. 1. Develop standard procedures to ensure timely communications and response to address incidents of hate in the community. 2. Provide city staff and leadership with media training on the city’s community engagement framework and share learning opportunities with community partners. To view the full plan in workbook format, including priority level, organizational leads + partners, resources needed, metrics, and progress, please refer to Appendix B. engage.bozeman.net/belonging - 38 -226 Community Liaison Report Summaries As we stated when we began this planning project, the Equity Indicators Report found that not everyone has equal access to the opportunities or resources they need in order to thrive in Bozeman. This reflects a common theme in equity and inclusion assessments across the country: that different people may experience the same place in a profoundly different manner, especially when considering groups that are often marginalized, underrepresented, or under-resourced. People of all identities have been important participants in the civic life of Bozeman for hundreds of years. That has continued to be true for this process, and highlighted below are the perspectives of several communities within the larger Bozeman community. Community Liaisons were hired as paid city staff members for the duration of this project and played an instrumental role in bringing more voices from the community to this effort. Liaisons hosted and participated in community chats, amplified messages and engaged their networks in providing input, and incorporated their expertise and lived experience into crafting the goals and recommendations of the plan. Complete Community Liaison reports can be found at engage.bozeman.net/belonging. Jhenniffer Cifuentes is a healthcare professional in Bozeman whose years of experience have informed her focus on health & well-being recommendations of the plan. As a Community Liaison, Jhenniffer supported a bilingual Community Chat held with Spanish-speaking community members. Attendees shared their stories of working hard to support their families, build community, and learn English. Issues they face include employment discrimination, wage theft and lack of access to healthcare and reliable transportation. Jhenniffer then helped convene partner organizations in the health & well-being topic area to discuss how to elevate the need for more support and coordination across organizations to address issues like language access raised by the community. The results of her work are reflected in Health & Wellbeing recommendations under Goals #2 and #4. Kristen Newman is a local disability advocate and Certified ADA Coordinator who works as an ADA Accessibility Specialist with Ability Montana. Along with her Service Dog, Cricket, Kristen worked to understand existing gaps in policies and protocols at the City of Bozeman and organized and facilitated three Community Chats. She successfully worked on a mayoral proclamation to proclaim July as Americans with Disabilities Month in the City of Bozeman. Kristen advanced the input from the community by working with city staff to develop actionable steps such as increasing funding allocations to provide comparable service for Galavan paratransit, addressing winter mobility issues on sidewalks and at transit stops, deepening engagement with people with disabilities, and prioritizing public and private accessibility through development codes, advisory bodies, staff positions, and community outreach. Kristen’s efforts are woven into each of the topic areas of the plan. engage.bozeman.net/belonging - 39 -227 COMMUNITY LIAISON REPORTS Chace McNinch is a talented local entertainer who has performed as a musician across the country and was recently named “Montana’s Funniest Human Person” in a local comedy competition. Chace’s work in Bozeman connects her to many diverse communities in settings that allow tough topics to unfold in approachable settings. As a proud Bozeman resident and member of the LGBTQ+ community, Chace hosted a pop-up activity at the 2023 Bozeman Pride Stroll, organized and facilitated two Community Chats, and gathered input through one-on-one conversations on how to create a more inclusive city for LGBTQ+ residents. Voices from her engagement efforts emphasized the need for safe community gathering spaces to connect with others and learn about resources, recognize and support local businesses who are welcoming to all, foster opportunities and policies that build trust between local government, law enforcement, and marginalized communities, as well as invest in affordable housing solutions at the local and state level. The results of Chace’s efforts are reflected in the Housing, Community Resiliency, and Community Safety & Civic Health topic areas. Chace (right) hosting her community chat with members of Bozeman’s LGBTQ+ community. engage.bozeman.net/belonging - 40 -228 What’s Next The above section outlined the what of the Equity & Inclusion plan: the goals to realize the vision, and the recommendations to achieve the goals. Next comes the how and the who. The full plan, presented in an implementation workbook in Appendix B, includes categories that address organizational leads for each recommendation and partners who will collaborate, priority levels and corresponding timeline for completion, resources needed to undertake the recommendation, and metrics for tracking progress. This plan is a 3-5 year plan, which means it will be updated at least every five years as the contexts and needs of our community change. Each year, the City of Bozeman will provide an update to the public and the City Commission on the progress of implementing the plan. Community partners and lead organizations will help provide insight into their work to inform annual progress updates. You can stay in the know about how this work will unfold on the city’s website at engage.bozeman.net/belonging. engage.bozeman.net/belonging - 41 -229 Conclusion On February 3, 1881, John Anderson and Julia Harris, two early Black settlers of Bozeman, were married in Gallatin County. Both were born into slavery elsewhere and arrived in Bozeman by the early 1870s. Their marriage certificate notes that they were “join[ed] in lawful wedlock…with their mutual consent.” (source: Bozeman Magazine) With their mutual consent. Two formerly enslaved individuals found, in Bozeman, a place that valued and affirmed their personhood, a place where the government noted that their will as free people was essential to their union and their forward movement in their life together. Bozeman in 2023 is still a city that deeply values and affirms individual freedom and personhood. And, like the Anderson-Harris marriage, individuals in our city come together to create forward movement in their collective lives, with their mutual consent. With the commitment and mutual consent of Bozeman’s organizations, individuals, and government bodies, it is our deepest hope and aim that the vision outlined in this Equity and Inclusion Plan will become reality. engage.bozeman.net/belonging - 42 -230 Appendix A: References Bozeman As An Inclusive City: Review of Policies (2020). https://www.bozeman.net/home/showpublisheddocument/10779/638188783173930000 Equity Indicators Project (2021). https://www.bozeman.net/home/showpublisheddocument/11674/638213125785900000 Gallatin Valley Sensitive Lands Protection Plan. https://gallatinvalleyplan.bozeman.net/ “Best High Schools in Montana.” U.S. News and World Report. Accessed at https://www.usnews.com/education/best-high-schools/montana. Eavis, Victoria. “The plight of Bozeman’s homeless people.” Montana Free Press. Accessed at https://montanafreepress.org/2023/01/05/options-limited-for-bozemans-growing-homeless-popul ation/. Schontzler, Gail. “Bozeman women advanced standing of Black people in Montana.” The Philadelphia Tribune. Accessed at https://www.phillytrib.com/bozeman-women-advanced-standing-of-black-people-in-montana/artic le_3590e670-de4a-55c2-8af8-355ebc404ab8.html. Wolfe, Michelle. “How on earth do Bozeman area families afford preschool or daycare?” The Moose 94.7. Accessed at https://mooseradio.com/how-on-earth-do-bozeman-area-families-afford-preschool-or-daycare/. State of Montana. “Social Determinants of Health.” Montana.gov. Accessed at https://dphhs.mt.gov/publichealth/chronicdisease/SDOH/index. Montana State University. “Diversity at a Glance.” Montana.edu. Accessed at https://www.montana.edu/diversity/glance/index.html. Alegria, Crystal. “Bozeman’s Historic African American Community.” Bozeman Magazine. Accessed at https://bozemanmagazine.com/articles/2022/02/01/112993-bozemans-historic-african-american-c ommunity. Gallatin Association of Realtors. “2023 Gallatin Valley Housing Report.” Accessed at https://www.flipbookpdf.net/web/site/defdf32480f906ff3a8d2acfe17d0b1e9dd3aa22FBP24580780 .pdf.html. Anacker, Caelen. “25th Infantry Bicycle Corps (1896-97).” Blackpast.org. https://www.blackpast.org/african-american-history/25th-infantry-bicycle-corp-1896-97/ engage.bozeman.net/belonging - 43 -231 NBC Montana Staff. “Gallatin Co. voters strongly support urban transportation district.” NBC Montana. Accessed at https://nbcmontana.com/news/local/gallatin-co-voters-strongly-support-urban-transportation-dist rict. Montana Department of Labor and Industry. “2023 Montana Labor Day Report.” Mt.gov. Accessed at https://lmi.mt.gov/_docs/Publications/LMI-Pubs/Labor-Market-Publications/LDR20221.pdf FRED Economic Data. “Unemployment Rate in Gallatin County, Montana.” Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. Accessed at https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MTGALL1URN. engage.bozeman.net/belonging - 44 -232 1 engage.bozeman.net/belonging Appendix B Complete Belonging in Bozeman Plan Implementation Workbook TABLE OF CONTENTS HOUSING............................................................................................................................................... 2 TRANSPORTATION................................................................................................................................6 HEALTH & WELLBEING.........................................................................................................................9 EDUCATION.........................................................................................................................................11 CHILDCARE + YOUTH PROGRAMMING............................................................................................14 ECONOMIC SECURITY........................................................................................................................ 16 COMMUNITY RESILIENCY.................................................................................................................. 18 COMMUNITY SAFETY + CIVIC HEALTH.............................................................................................20 233 2 engage.bozeman.net/belonging HOUSING | Housing is available, affordable, accessible and safe. Goal 1. Develop a coordinated strategy to address homelessness in the Bozeman area RECOMMENDATIONS Priority Lead Org + Partners Resources needed + notes Metric Progress 1. Identify and prioritize Housing First approaches to #1 City of Bozeman, HRDC, Staff time, partner participation White paper/report Not yet started address housing instability and homelessness One Valley’s Regional Housing Coalition in HUD Consolidated Plan development published and incorporated into strategy to address homelessness 2. Support partner organizations by funding transitional and emergency housing initiatives and programs #2 City of Bozeman, HRDC, Family Promise, Haven City generals funds allocated via non-profit grant award process Dollars allocated each year to housing In-progress; Ongoing 3. Work with partners to leverage creative funding mechanisms, incentives, existing assets to increase long term affordable housing supply and housing preservation for people earning below 60% of AMI (Federal funding, LIHTC, TIF, Community Land Trusts, Community Housing Fund, land banking, city-owned land etc.) #1 HRDC, City of Bozeman, Headwaters Community Housing Trust, Family Promise, Haven, Local lenders, One Valley’s Regional Housing Coalition City staff support and collaboration on projects, grant opportunities, HUD Consolidated Plan development, political support from local, state officials Number of units produced for people earning below 60% AMI (MT data from NLIHC illustrates need at different income levels) In-progress; Ongoing Goal 2. Reduce displacement of residents who work and go to school in Bozeman but cannot afford to live in Bozeman RECOMMENDATIONS Priority Lead Org + Partners Resources needed + notes Metric Progress 1. Evaluate city employee housing cost burden and #2 City of Bozeman HR staff time/potential outside Report shared with City Not yet started consider options for employee housing assistance consultants to survey staff, propose options with cost estimates, examples from other communities and program implementation guidance Management 234 3 engage.bozeman.net/belonging 2. Convene local partners to explore the potential for co-operative housing models #3 City of Bozeman, NeighborWorks MT, HRDC, Bozeman Tenants United, local landlords, North Missoula Community Development Corporation Staff time, coordination meetings, align with equity and engagement priorities of HUD Consolidated Plan Create partner list, host partner meeting Not yet started 3. Strengthen coordination with MSU and partnerships with the Office of Off Campus Student Life, student housing developers and property management companies #3 City of Bozeman, MSU Office of Off Campus Student Life Staff time, support from organizational administration/leadership Create partner list, host partner meeting Not yet started Goal 3. Promote aging in place and universally accessible residential development RECOMMENDATIONS Priority Lead Org + Partners Resources needed + notes Metric Progress 1. Conduct an educational workshop for design, construction, and real estate professionals on universal design practices and adaptable dwellings within residential developments #3 Ability MT, City of Bozeman Funding for developing and implementing resources and workshops Host workshop, share materials and resources on city and partner websites Not yet started 2. Codify development incentives for design that enables aging in place and universal accessibility beyond the requirements of the building code, for example: A. Establish requirements for the number of adaptable units in developments that utilize city Community Housing Funds B. Amend division 38.430 of the UDC to include an option in the novel public benefits section to include universal design best practices and incentives for elevators in multistory buildings #2 City of Bozeman, Ability MT, AARP Livable Communities Staff time, potential consultant assistance, City Commission support, support from the development community, public Code amendment adopted Not yet started 235 4 engage.bozeman.net/belonging Goal 4. Increase community knowledge in housing issues RECOMMENDATIONS Priority Lead Org + Partners Resources needed + notes Metric Progress 1. Host workshops on the Montana Tenant Act and Fair Housing Act for landlords and tenants, becoming a Housing Choice Voucher Landlord, and Resident-owned community models #2 City of Bozeman, HRDC, Neighborworks MT, Montana Fair Housing 501c3, Bozeman Tenants United Staff time, coordination meetings to develop resources, workshop objectives, plan and host workshops Host up to 3 workshops on the different topics recommended Not yet started 2. Develop and distribute materials to support understanding of community housing approaches, programs, and terms such as: ● Area Median Income and how affordability in housing development is defined ● Housing subsidy and financing programs and terms such as LIHTC, TIF, deed restrictions, etc. ● Issues around local control, state legislation, and local incentive strategies – what can and can’t we do at the local level and why? ● Rental, mortgage, and down payment assistance programs ● Short term rental regulations ● Urban camping regulations ● Definition of homelessness (McKinney Vento, HUD) #3 City of Bozeman, HRDC, NeighborWorks MT, Montana Fair Housing 501c3, Bozeman Tenants United, One Valley’s Regional Housing Coalition Staff time, coordination meetings Share materials and resources on city and partner websites In-progress 236 5 engage.bozeman.net/belonging Goal 5. Support and defend local housing solutions at the state legislature RECOMMENDATIONS Priority Lead Org + Partners Resources needed + notes Metric Progress 1. Identify and pursue local and state revenue streams for the creation of affordable housing and housing assistance programs: ● Available to residents regardless of immigration status or english proficiency (local) ● Dedicated mills (local) ● Sales tax (state) ● Circuit breaker in the 70th MT Legislative session to target relief to homeowners on a fixed income and renters (state) ● Preserves the ability to use Tax Increment Financing as a tool for affordable housing (state) #1 City of Bozeman, HRDC, Bienvenidos a Gallatin Valley, Montana Housing Coalition, MT Infrastructure Coalition, MT League of Cities and Towns, state legislators, state-wide TIF administrators, Chamber of Commerce, One Valley’s Regional Housing Coalition Staff time, coordination meetings, funding for lobbying efforts Increase local and state funding sources for affordable housing creation and assistance programs In-progress 237 6 engage.bozeman.net/belonging TRANSPORTATION | A variety of transportation options exist to meet mobility needs. Goal 1. Expand reliable public transit and paratransit services, prioritizing winter accessibility RECOMMENDATIONS Priority Lead Org + Partners Resources needed + notes Metric Progress 1. Leverage new revenue streams to support increased frequency of fixed-route transit and paratransit service, for example: ● Paid on-street parking ● Future UTD ballot measure ● Federal grants #1 HRDC/Streamline and Galavan, City of Bozeman Political support from local and state officials, voter support, city and partner staff time and coordination for grant applications and administration Local ballot initiatives proposed/passed, Amount of new revenue sources, dollars allocated each year, increase in frequency of these services In-progress; Ongoing 2. Ensure that city funds contribute to comparable service of paratransit to fixed-route transit operations #1 City of Bozeman, HRDC/Streamline, UTD Board, MPO, ASMSU City and partner staff time and coordination Proportion of city funding dedicated to fixed route vs paratransit is increased and reported to support staff/operations/capital Not yet started 3. Develop standards and formalize processes for ensuring bus stops are well lit, comfortable, safe for women and girls, shaded from sun, and accessible to riders in the winter #2 City of Bozeman, HRDC/Streamline, UTD Board, MPO, ASMSU, CEDAW Task Force Staff time; Revisit MOU between city and HRDC that outlines responsibility to maintain bus stops (signage, snow removal, etc.) Creation of standards and of added capacity needed to adhere to standards and processes In-progress; Ongoing 4. Pilot a “Snow Angels” program to connect volunteers and people with disabilities, older adults who are unable to remove snow from their sidewalks #2 City of Bozeman; MSU Office of Student Engagement; Greek Organizations; County Community Service Workers program Staff time; Volunteers Pilot program implemented In-progress 5. Prioritize snow and ice removal at transit stops #1 City of Bozeman, HRDC Staff time to update MOU; Additional staff capacity to respond to calls and maintain locations; potential coordination with Snow Angels program MOU updated Not yet started 238 7 engage.bozeman.net/belonging Goal 2: Center the most vulnerable road users in transportation infrastructure design RECOMMENDATIONS Priority Lead Org + Partners Resources needed + notes Metric Progress 1. Develop and implement an Equity Impacts Tool to utilize in Transportation Planning and train staff, directors, and decision makers in this approach #2 City of Bozeman Staff time; training (eg: use Equity Impacts Tool to help prioritize major capital investments that require voter approval like the Bozeman Community Center, or are multi-year infrastructure investments like Fowler or Kagy Ave) Tool and training developed and piloted Not yet started 2. Mitigate implicit bias and enhance freedom of movement in transportation design and behavior, for example: A. Update the city’s Complete Streets Resolution with an equity component #3 City of Bozeman Staff time Complete Streets Resolution updated, integrated into new project/reconstruction processes and designs Not yet started 3. Retrofit of bicycle lanes to separate vehicles and bicyclists #2 City of Bozeman Staff time; Budget for technical assistance/ consulting may be needed; Included in process to develop bicycle master plan Bicycle Master Plan adopted, retrofits included in CIP Not yet started 4. Strengthen partnership with Gallatin County and Montana Department of Transportation for safety improvements on streets not within the City’s jurisdiction #2 City of Bozeman, MDT, Gallatin County, MPO, MT League of Cities and Towns City and partner staff time On-going meetings with Gallatin County and MDT In-progress; Ongoing 239 8 engage.bozeman.net/belonging 5. Leverage expertise of the disability community to educate design and building professionals on accessible community design, for example: A. Seasonal (summer/winter) inclusive interdisciplinary walking audits with members of the disability community, contractors, engineers, and others to assess for ADA compliance and foster co-design of built environment B. Develop a Sidewalk Audit process for city staff to implement C. Conduct parks accessibility audits and develop standards #2 City of Bozeman, Ability MT City and partner staff time and coordination; Budget for technical assistance/ consulting and implementation of design changes may be needed Development of Mobility, Sidewalk, and Accessibility Audit Tools, audit reports and evaluation process for design changes Not yet started Goal 3: Prioritize equity in parking management practices RECOMMENDATIONS Priority Lead Org + Partners Resources needed + notes Metric Progress 1. Develop a public outreach and education campaign about the proper use of accessible parking spaces and access aisles #1 Ability MT, City of Bozeman Staff to develop educational programming and tools, and coordinate public outreach Educational materials on City’s website Not yet started 2. Improve enforcement and responsiveness of PD/Parking Enforcement Officers when vehicles are parked unlawfully in accessible spaces, as per city ordinance #3 City of Bozeman Staff time and capacity to enforce and respond Increased amount of citations by PD/Parking Enforcement Officers for this issue Not yet started 3. Ensure accessible parking spaces are provided in areas where the city does not require the provision of on-site parking #2 City of Bozeman Staff time Adoption of process for review during development and retrofit of streets Not yet started 4. Use an Equity Impacts Tool to evaluate parking fines and fees, towing and impounding practices, and allocation of enforcement resources #2 City of Bozeman Staff time; training (eg: use Equity Impacts Tool to help evaluate areas with high amounts of parking citations, towing and impounding occurrences, audit of existing fines and fees for citations, and prioritize allocation of enforcement funds, staff, and other resources) Tool piloted by PD and Parking Division Not yet started 240 9 engage.bozeman.net/belonging HEALTH & WELLBEING | Healthcare services and health programs that address physical, mental, and sexual & reproductive wellbeing are available, accessible and inclusive. GOAL 1: Support continuing education for health professionals on working with underserved communities RECOMMENDATIONS Priority Lead Org + Partners Resources needed + notes Metric Progress 1. Provide opportunities for health professionals to participate in training on: ● Healthcare Allies training ● Disability identity, wellness, etiquette ● Working with LEP (Limited English Proficiency) patients #2 Bridgercare, Ability MT, MT Language Services, GCCHD, Clinic + hospital partners Coordination meetings to discuss scope/cost with potential trainers and organizations receiving training; training budget; staff time Number of trainings hosted by trainers; number of staff trained at various organizations In-progress 2. Increase access to mental health supports and #3 City of Bozeman, Gallatin Centralized directory of Directory of In-process, training for health professionals and first responders Behavioral Health Coalition (GBHC), local law enforcement, Clinic + hospital partners trainers/training is being developed by GBHC training budget; staff time, Employee Assistance Programs specific to mental health trainers/trainings created and shared across orgs, number of trainings hosted Ongoing GOAL 2: Increase coordination between health agencies to reduce barriers to healthcare services and programs RECOMMENDATIONS Priority Lead Org + Partners Resources needed + notes Metric Progress 1. Coordinate across organizations to centralize and #2 GBHC, Bienvenidos a Staff time; data sharing Number of organizations In-progress; share data to better characterize health disparities Gallatin Valley - MCC, agreements; coordination participating in data Ongoing and social needs in underserved communities Proyecto Salud, GCCHD, GBHC, HRDC, Clinics + hospitals meetings with GBHC, Help Center, Bienvenidos/MCC coordination efforts 2. Improve referral and case management processes #2 GCCHD, GBHC, Proyecto Coordination across Increased utilization of In-progress; across health care and social service providers to Salud, Bienvenidos a Gallatin organizations to utilize referral referral and case Ongoing connect patients/clients with community resources Valley, Clinics + hospitals, social service providers tools management tools 241 10 engage.bozeman.net/belonging GOAL 3: Support and implement proven health education and healthcare access efforts RECOMMENDATIONS Priority Lead Org + Partners Resources needed + notes Metric Progress 1. Expand the use of harm reduction approaches to treat substance use disorder #3 CHP, Clinics + hospitals, GCCHD, Help Center, GBHC Continuation of Medication- Assisted Treatment options, Naloxone distribution, Coordination with local law enforcement; alignment with GBHC’s Strategic Plan; State Opioid Response Program Info about harm reduction approaches posted on websites, 2-1-1 directory In-progress; Ongoing 2. Increase telehealth offerings and publicly available telehealth spaces for clients (e.g. private telehealth rooms in libraries and other community spaces) #3 Bozeman Public Library Staff time to develop and post info about flexible use of these spaces, Open Door at BPL Info posted at locations and on websites Not yet started 3. Support access to reproductive healthcare and comprehensive sexual education #1 Bridgercare, Proyecto Salud, CEDAW Task Force Collaboration across organizations, avenues for delivery of education/materials Additional avenues created for curriculum/materials Not yet started GOAL 4: Expand meaningful language access in clinical settings and in health promotion programs RECOMMENDATIONS Priority Lead Org + Partners Resources needed + notes Metric Progress 1. Provide on-demand interpretation in clinical and public health settings, train providers and professionals in its use, and translate signage and documents #1 Clinics + hospitals, GCCHD, MT Language Services Funding for tools and technology needed; training for staff Number of organizations publicizing language accessibility and effectively providing language access In-progress; Ongoing 2. Partner with organizations to reach underserved communities through mobile/pop-up health clinics and health education and promotion programs #1 Proyecto Salud, Clinics + hospitals, Bienvenidos a Gallatin Valley, Bridgercare, GCCHD, Cover Montana Staff time to participate/support Health Fairs, Community Health Worker programs, “Pop-up” clinics Number or organizations attending and supporting Health Fairs In-progress; Ongoing 242 11 engage.bozeman.net/belonging EDUCATION | Learning opportunities allow for full participation and foster growth and success. GOAL 1: Expand opportunities for multilingual learners of all ages RECOMMENDATIONS Priority Lead Org + Partners Resources needed + notes Metric Progress 1. Increase resources for multilingual education #2 BSD7 Potential grant funding New staff positions In-progress; Ongoing 2. Provide meaningful language access to school services, online, and print materials to provide LEP families with the information they need #1 BSD7, Thrive, MT Language Services Potential grant funding Materials are translated, professional interpretation is available In-progress; Ongoing 3. Partner with local educators, organizations, and employers to provide English learning opportunities for Spanish-speaking residents #1 World Language Initiative, Bozeman Adult Learning Center, Bozeman Public Library, Bienvenidos a Gallatin Valley, English Para Todos Classroom space, coordination meetings, continued grant funding Classes are held In-Progress, Ongoing GOAL 2: Increase recruitment and resources to support higher education for underserved communities RECOMMENDATIONS Priority Lead Org + Partners Resources needed + notes Metric Progress 1. Continue to foster professional development #2 MSU Event space, coordination Professional development In-progress, opportunities for educators that emphasize LGBTQ+ meetings courses are hosted, see Ongoing allyship, cultural humility, supporting students with progress in MSU’s annual disabilities, and inclusive learning environments Diversity Report 243 12 engage.bozeman.net/belonging 2. Support growth in resources for recruitment, retention, and graduation of American Indian & Alaska Native students at MSU #2 MSU’s American Indian/Alaska Native Student Success Services, Gear Up, Tribal colleges & universities Staff support AI/AN identifying student enrollment at MSU In-progress, Ongoing GOAL 3: Prioritize the creation of “cradle-to-career” educational systems by investing in sector-based strategies and career pathways RECOMMENDATIONS Priority Lead Org + Partners Resources needed + notes Metric Progress 1. Prioritize funding mechanisms to support early literacy interventions for 4-year olds, targeting families earning low-incomes, experiencing housing instability, or limited english proficiency #2 BSD7/Bozeman Reads, HRDC + Head Start, Preschools Additional funding to cover the costs of certification/ standards needed for the co-enrollment process with Head Start programs Increased literacy heading into Kindergarten In-progress; Ongoing 2. Continue to engage students in budget processes and strategic planning #2 BSD7, ASMSU Staff/Administration time, Engage students in the development of school budgets, and strategic planning Meeting is held or information is presented In-progress; Ongoing 3. Establish avenues for mentorship and shadowing for students at all levels who are exploring career paths in fields in which they are underrepresented (eg: women in the trades, BIPOC in executive leadership or local government) #1 City of Bozeman, MSU/Gallatin College, Chamber of Commerce Coordination meetings Mentor connections are established Not yet started 4. Target professional development in alternative energy technologies to existing contractors to grow their skills and experience #1 City of Bozeman, MSU/Gallatin College, SWMBIA, Chamber of Commerce Coordination meetings, networking meetings Enrollment from local contractors increases Not yet started 244 13 engage.bozeman.net/belonging 5. Increase opportunities for underserved youth in Junior Leadership Programs geared towards photonic, aviation, and manufacturing sectors #1 City of Bozeman, MSU/Gallatin College, 4-H, Chamber of Commerce Staff time, Coordination meetings Increased number of youth in leadership programs geared towards photonic, aviation, manufacturing sectors Not yet started GOAL 4: Increase wrap-around support and resources available to students experiencing homelessness RECOMMENDATIONS Priority Lead Org + Partners Resources needed + notes Metric Progress 1. Partner with local schools and universities to assess the needs of students experiencing homelessness and assist with support delivery #2 BSD7, MSU, HRDC + Blueprint, local and state McKinney Vento staff Staff time Available data is compiled, Report is shared Not yet started 2. Distribute materials to educators around the prevalence of homelessness, resources to support students and families, and the intersectionality of this issue #2 HRDC + Blueprint; BSD7, MSU Staff time Resources are distributed In-progress, Ongoing 3. Partner with educators and schools to build a coordinated strategy to address homelessness #1 City of Bozeman, BSD7, HRDC, MSU Staff time Meetings are held Not yet started 245 14 engage.bozeman.net/belonging CHILDCARE + YOUTH PROGRAMMING | Childcare and youth programs are high quality, affordable, and accessible. GOAL 1. Reduce barriers to out-of-school opportunities and programs for underserved children RECOMMENDATIONS Priority Lead Org + Partners Resources needed + notes Metric Progress 1. Evaluate and address barriers around participation in out-of-school programs, including transportation and cost #2 City of Bozeman, Eagle Mount, Bienvenidos a Gallatin Valley, YMCA, local sports clubs and camps Staff time, funding Increased participation in out-of-school programs from those who face barriers Not yet started 2. Support participation in city programs and activities for families with children with disabilities #2 City of Bozeman, Eagle Mount, Ability MT Staff time Increased participation by children w/ disabilities In-progress; Ongoing 3. Explore opportunities to integrate indigenous food systems, languages, and culture into summer and after school programs #1 City of Bozeman, YMCA, Native American Studies faculty, staff, students Staff time; coordination meetings Programs have indigenous elements embedded Not yet started GOAL 2: Increase capacity of after school and summer programs RECOMMENDATIONS Priority Lead Org + Partners Resources needed + notes Metric Progress 1. Perform an equity impact analysis of the city’s enrollment processes, level of subsidy, and scholarships for recreation programs and youth camps #1 City of Bozeman Staff time City has equity impact analysis report Not yet started 2. Establish and continue partnerships with governmental and non-profit organizations for free use of space access, subsidies, and other mechanisms to support youth programming within Gallatin Valley #1 Greater Gallatin United Way, YMCA, City of Bozeman, BYEP Staff time Space has little to no charge for partners Not yet started 246 15 engage.bozeman.net/belonging 3. Develop a quick response plan for providing childcare in the case of emergency school closure or other community emergency #1 City of Bozeman, YMCA, Greater Gallatin United Way, Gallatin County Emergency Management Staff time MOU/Plan is developed Not yet started GOAL 3: Increase subsidy for childcare programs and providers RECOMMENDATIONS Priority Lead Org + Partners Resources needed + notes Metric Progress 1. Lobby for additional local, state, and federal #1 City of Bozeman, Child Care Lobbyist, staff time, elected Representatives attend Not yet started funding/subsidy of quality childcare Connections, Early Childhood Community Council, Greater Gallatin United Way, state legislators official support and provide comment on bill hearings, write letters GOAL 4: Recruit, develop, and retain quality staff RECOMMENDATIONS Priority Lead Org + Partners Resources needed + notes Metric Progress 1. Support efforts to recruit multilingual and multicultural staff for recreational programming. #1 City of Bozeman Staff time Share job postings with Bienvenidos/MCC Not yet started 2. Implement a mentorship and training program for youth who want to work as future recreation/camp leaders #1 City of Bozeman, BSD7, YMCA, MSU Staff time Meetings are held Not yet started 3. Spotlight the value and contributions of child care and youth programming employees through a communications campaign #2 City of Bozeman, Child Care Connections Staff time Communications campaign runs Not yet started 247 16 engage.bozeman.net/belonging ECONOMIC SECURITY | A thriving economy offers readily available living-wage jobs and fair work environments. GOAL 1: Serve as a model for fostering fair and inclusive work environments RECOMMENDATIONS Priority Lead Org + Partners Resources needed + notes Metric Progress 1. Introduce a Minority and Women-Owned Business #2 City of Bozeman Staff time; guidance from SBA RFP criteria developed and Not yet started criteria into the city’s RFP scoring process on Disadvantaged Businesses and Women Owned Business programs included in RFP scoring template; guidance and info provided on city website 2. Bolster guidance and accountability measures for city vendors in adhering to: ●The city’s Non-Discrimination and Equal Pay requirements ●Federal labor law as it relates to fair treatment of workers #1 City of Bozeman, CEDAW Task Force Staff time Update equal pay/non-discrimination affirmation that vendors sign to include additional resources and information regarding equal pay best practices and City of Bozeman’s commitment to CEDAW on city website Not yet started 3. Continue to narrow the gender pay gap among city employees #1 City of Bozeman Staff time; policies outlined in Res. 4601 and Res. 5169 (Sec. 1.E) Annual pay equity report In-progress; Ongoing GOAL 2: Support and recognize inclusive businesses and employers RECOMMENDATIONS Priority Lead Org + Partners Resources needed + notes Metric Progress 1. Distribute guidance on being a fully accessible workplace/employer for people with disabilities #2 Ability MT, City of Bozeman; Downtown Bozeman Partnership; Staff time; coordination meetings Guidance available online, shared by lead orgs and City of Bozeman Not yet started 248 17 engage.bozeman.net/belonging One Valley Community Foundation 2. Develop an Inclusive Businesses Toolkit (LGBTQ+, Disability, BIPOC) and recognition program #2 City of Bozeman, Downtown Bozeman Partnership, Ability MT Staff time; coordination meetings Guidance available online, shared by lead orgs and City of Bozeman Not yet started GOAL 3: Expand access to city contracts and funding for local firms, businesses, and vendors RECOMMENDATIONS Priority Lead Org + Partners Resources needed + notes Metric Progress 1. Evaluate TIF funding eligibility criteria to: ●Target TIF benefits to communities that have been historically disadvantaged ●Prioritize the development or preservation of workforce housing ●Consciously and proactively work to reverse patterns of racial inequity in investment and development #3 City of Bozeman Staff time; Consultant support TIF criteria updated Not yet started 2. Provide training on how to apply for city contracts and become a city vendor, connect experienced city vendors with small business owners to subcontract and gain experience #3 City of Bozeman; Prospera Staff time; coordination meetings; additional budget to host trainings/hire trainers Guidance posted on city website; training hosted Not yet started GOAL 4: Support the growing Hispanic + Latino workforce to our economy and community RECOMMENDATIONS Priority Lead Org + Partners Resources needed + notes Metric Progress 1. Support the Montana Compact on Immigration #2 South North Nexus, Bienvenidos a Gallatin Valley Support from organizations across Gallatin Valley, to learn more, visit the website. Number of organizations supporting the compact In-progress; Ongoing 2. Partner with local financial institutions to provide access to banking and lending opportunities for Hispanic + Latino workers #2 Bienvenidos a Gallatin Valley; local banks and lenders Staff time; coordination meetings Resources developed for bank staff and immigrant workers Not yet started 249 18 engage.bozeman.net/belonging COMMUNITY RESILIENCY | Access to community spaces and resources fosters social connection, health, and resilience in a changing climate. GOAL 1: Increase knowledge and use of resources for underserved communities RECOMMENDATIONS Priority Lead Org + Partners Resources needed + notes Metric Progress 1. Coordinate to develop shared platforms and spaces for underserved communities to connect with resources and service providers, and share information about how to meet individual and community needs #1 Help Center, 2-1-1, City of Bozeman, Bienvenidos, Rainbow Collective, MTREP, MSU DISC, Thrive, Ability MT, CEDAW Task Force Staff time, coordination meetings A resource sharing platform is developed, implemented, and maintained between partner organizations In-progress, Ongoing GOAL 2: Recognize and celebrate diversity among city staff and community at large RECOMMENDATIONS Priority Lead Org + Partners Resources needed + notes Metric Progress 1. Actively support events like Juneteenth, ADA Month, and Indigenous People’s Day and learning opportunities for the broader community on equity issues #2 City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, Belonging in Big Sky, MSU DISC, Ability MT, CEDAW Task Force Staff time, coordination meetings, funding for event development and promotion Number of events supported, educational materials on City and partner organization websites In-progress; Ongoing 2. Evaluate city employee engagement through an intersectional lens #3 City of Bozeman HR staff have begun development of survey Survey complete and results are reported In-progress GOAL 3: Respond to the disproportionate impacts to vulnerable community members due to climate change and extreme weather RECOMMENDATIONS Priority Lead Org + Partners Resources needed + notes Metric Progress 1. Develop emergency preparedness programs that: A. Ensure multilingual communication and outreach during extreme weather events (cold, heat, flooding, smoke/fire) #2 City of Bozeman, Gallatin County Emergency Management, Southwest MT Community Organizations Active in Emergency and Risk Management staff position recommended in FY26 (Bozeman Fire), coordination meetings, budget request Developed emergency preparedness/response management plan Not yet started 250 19 engage.bozeman.net/belonging B. Develop policies for employers to mitigate impacts of extreme heat and wildfire smoke/poor air quality for people who work or live outside C. Establish guidance for safe, accessible, ADA compliant, and inclusive use of alternative facilities D. Identify ways to provide food access during supply chain disruptions Disaster (COAD), HRDC, BSD7, GCCHD 2. Work with partners to ensure investments in the urban tree canopy are equitably distributed across neighborhoods #2 City of Bozeman, Branch Out Bozeman initiative, local landscaping companies and nurseries Staff time, coordination meetings, budget for tree plantings Increased funding for tree plantings in low tree canopy areas In-progress; Ongoing GOAL 4: Alleviate utility cost burden for low-income residents RECOMMENDATIONS Priority Lead Org + Partners Resources needed + notes Metric Progress 1. Support home energy efficient and weatherization for low-income residents through: ●Assistance programs, rebates and incentives for upgrades and improvements ●Installation of heat pump water heaters ●Solar for All programs ●Outreach about how to improve indoor air quality during wildfire smoke events #1 City of Bozeman, HRDC, Gallatin College, MT DEQ, local and regional solar energy companies Staff time, coordination meetings, funding; HRDC’s weatherization program; Solar for All EPA grants Quantity of energy efficient upgrades and weatherization improvements, incentives created, training and outreach conducted, and educational materials available on City’s website and physical locations In-progress; Ongoing 2. Incorporate water equity considerations into the city’s Water/Wastewater Rate Study and its implementation #1 City of Bozeman Staff time, funding for consultation regarding water equity considerations Water equity considerations incorporated and implemented in Water/Wastewater Rate Study Not yet started GOAL 5: Prioritize food access for low-income communities RECOMMENDATIONS Priority Lead Org + Partners Resources needed + notes Metric Progress 1. Work with partners to improve access to healthy local food and nutrition programs through the sharing and celebration of cultural and indigenous foods. #2 City of Bozeman, HRDC, BSD7, MSU, local food producers and non-profits Staff time, coordination meetings, Library and HRDC’s MarketPlace Teaching Kitchen Events held and participation; resource information on City’s website and physical locations In-progress; Ongoing 251 20 engage.bozeman.net/belonging COMMUNITY SAFETY + CIVIC HEALTH | Local government and major institutions prioritize safety, inclusion, and representation. GOAL 1: Create organizational structure to sustain and grow Belonging in Bozeman efforts RECOMMENDATIONS Priority Lead Org + Partners Resources needed + notes Metric Progress 1. Create a new staff position, dedicated budget, and an outline of how this position will fit and grow within the organization to advance the work of Belonging in Bozeman #1 City of Bozeman Staff time, FY25 budget recommendation Staff position hired Not yet started 2. Retain interdepartmental Belonging in Bozeman committee with representation from City of Bozeman departments and update the committee charter #2 City of Bozeman Staff time Charter is updated Not yet started 3. Continue to convene external partners to implement Belonging in Bozeman Plan #1 City of Bozeman Staff time, coordination meetings Annual progress on recommendations reported Not yet started 4. Create a full time position to serve as ADA Coordinator #1 City of Bozeman Staff time, FY25 budget recommendation Staff position hired Not yet started GOAL 2: Deepen engagement with underserved communities RECOMMENDATIONS Priority Lead Org + Partners Resources needed + notes Metric Progress 1. Identify funding, resources, and partners to develop a Civic Academy program to create a pipeline of talented, connected, and diverse staff, advisory board members, elected officials and non-profit leaders #2 City of Bozeman, Forward Montana, MSU Extension’s Local Government Center Staff time; coordination meetings; potential grant funding Grant/funding options identified, and program proposal developed Not yet started 2. Evaluate and formalize the Community Liaison roles, for example: ● Hire a part-time Disability Community Liaison ● Hire a full-time Bozeman PD Community Liaison #1 City of Bozeman Staff time, recommendation in FY25-FY26 budget Community Liaison report, staff positions hired Not yet started 252 21 engage.bozeman.net/belonging 3. Establish a Community Engagement Compensation Policy that outlines ways in which community members who face barriers to participation may receive compensation for providing input on city initiatives #2 City of Bozeman Staff time, dedicated budget Compensation policy adopted Not yet started 4. Foster relationships with student organizations at MSU to reduce barriers to accessing community spaces and events #3 City of Bozeman; MSU DISC, Disabled Student’s Association Staff time; coordination meetings Community Engagement staff meets regularly with student leaders, DISC staff Not yet started GOAL 3: Address language barriers to local government services and public engagement processes RECOMMENDATIONS Priority Lead Org + Partners Resources needed + notes Metric Progress 1. Implement on-demand interpretation services and train frontline city staff in utilizing it #1 City of Bozeman Staff time; Training; Interdepartmental coordination Number of customer-facing department staff trained and utilizing on-demand interpretation tools In-progress, Ongoing 2. Develop and implement a comprehensive Language Access Plan #2 City of Bozeman Staff time; budget in FY25 Language Access Plan implemented Not yet started 3. Consider multilingual learning opportunities (language classes/training) and benefits for multilingual staff (add-pay for multilingual staff in qualifying languages) #3 City of Bozeman Staff time; Identify qualifying languages and potential cost Training implemented and policy proposed and implemented Not yet started GOAL 4: Ensure city staff and law enforcement reflect the diversity within our community RECOMMENDATIONS Priority Lead Org + Partners Resources needed + notes Metric Progress 1. Evaluate advertising and recruitment strategies to reach more diverse applicant pools #2 City of Bozeman Staff time Report details the efficacy of strategies used Not yet started 2. Update City of Bozeman Hiring Practices Policy #2 City of Bozeman Staff time Updated Hiring Practices Policy established In-progress; Ongoing 253 22 engage.bozeman.net/belonging 3. Continue to review minimum qualifications in Class Specifications #3 City of Bozeman Staff time Education and experience requirements reviewed In-progress; Ongoing 4. Track the factors that contribute to employee turnover, candidate withdrawals, rejection of offers #2 City of Bozeman Staff time Data is collected Not yet started 5. Create a Second Chance Background Screening Process #3 City of Bozeman Staff time Screening tool and protocol is developed and implemented Not yet started GOAL 5: Elevate equity in city decision making processes and policy development RECOMMENDATIONS Priority Lead Org + Partners Resources needed + notes Metric Progress 1. Develop an Equity Impacts decision making tool and train #1 City of Bozeman, Staff time; Coordination Tool developed, training Not yet started elected officials, advisory board members, and staff in its use Government Alliance on Race & Equity (GARE), CEDAW Task Force meetings with GARE staff; Training and resources shared with community partners conducted, Tool is piloted for key projects (Transportation Master Plan, Recreation program enrollment/subsidy) 2. Establish a Disability/Accessibility Advisory Board that meets quarterly and as needed to provide guidance on accessibility and inclusive design of city facilities, policy, and programs #3 City of Bozeman, Ability MT Staff time (ADA Coordinator position to act as staff Liaison) Board established Not yet started 3. Build staff capacity and resources needed to broaden communications and engagement in the city budget development process #3 City of Bozeman Staff time Community Engagement staff training, Community Engagement Plan developed in coordination with Finance + City Manager Not yet started 4. Neutralize gendered language in city policies and municipal code #3 City of Bozeman Staff time Ordinance passed In-progress GOAL 6: Provide high quality, ongoing, and relevant training to all city staff and decision makers 254 23 engage.bozeman.net/belonging RECOMMENDATIONS Priority Lead Org + Partners Resources needed + notes Metric Progress 1. Establish a budget and menu of annual Governing for Racial Equity training for city staff: ● Elected officials and advisory board members ● Department Directors and Managers/Supervisors ● All city staff #1 City of Bozeman Training budget request; staff time Number of people trained In-progress 2. Promote the exchange of knowledge between City of Bozeman staff, Bozeman PD, and local community leaders and advocacy groups with community members on topics like: ● De-escalation, implicit bias, and bystander intervention ● Mental Health First Aid ● LGBTQ+ Everyday Allies ● Know Your Rights ● Disability awareness and etiquette training for first responders #1 City of Bozeman; Bridgercare; Community Connections; MT Legal Services; Ability MT Staff time; Coordination with PD for training schedule and budget Number of trainings held for community members; Number of trainings held for staff Not yet started GOAL 7: Promote transparency, open communication, and responsiveness between the City, Police Department, and the community RECOMMENDATIONS Priority Lead Org + Partners Resources needed + notes Metric Progress 1. Develop standard procedures to ensure timely communications and response to address incidents of hate in the community #1 City of Bozeman Staff time; Coordination between Communications & Engagement Manager, PD, City Manager, City Commission Standard Operating Procedures developed In-progress; On-going 2. Provide city staff and leadership with media training and training on the city’s community engagement framework, share learning opportunities with community partners #2 City of Bozeman Staff time Staff trained Not yet started 255 233073 Multifamily Market Conditions 03-04-2024.docx M E M O R A N D U M To: David Fine, MPA, Economic Development Manager Renata Munfrada, Community Housing Program Coordinator City of Bozeman From: Brian Duffany, Principal Keely Maher, Associate Subject: Multifamily Market Conditions; EPS #233073 Date: March 4, 2024 The City of Bozeman asked Economic & Planning Systems (EPS) to prepare an analysis of market conditions for multifamily housing, including market rate and affordable multifamily housing, to inform allocations from the 4.0% Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program. There are approximately 1,300 new units of housing proposed in 2024 that will use 4.0% LIHTC funding. We do not know yet if all of these projects will be constructed in 2024; we think it is more likely that they will be spread out over at least two years due to the capacity of general contractors and construction labor in the Bozeman area. This memorandum contains four main sections outlined below. • Proposed Projects – An overview of the new 4% LIHTC developments being considered in Bozeman. • Market Conditions and Absorption Indicators – Reviews trends in multifamily construction (unit deliveries), vacancy rates, and rents. • Household Income and Capture Rate – Compares the number of households at or below 60% of AMI to the current and proposed LIHTC inventory. • Recent LIHTC Property Data – Presents information on wait lists and vacancy rates for LIHTC properties built over about the past 10 years. 256 Memorandum: Multifamily Market Conditions Page | 2 Proposed Projects The list, to date, of projects being considered in the city are listed in Table 1. Five projects are proposed to be income limited at or below 60% of AMI. Two projects are proposing to use income averaging and open to households earning between 50% and 70% of AMI. At this planning stage, HRDC is a potential partner in three of the projects. HRDC is nonprofit housing development and property manager, and service provider in the region. HRDC maintains wait lists and interest lists across numerous properties it manages in the region and will be able to draw from those lists to help with initial lease up. Table 1. Proposed 4% LIHTC Projects Market Conditions and Absorption Indicators This section of the memorandum compares trends in the multifamily inventory growth to vacancy rates and rents. Since 2014, the Bozeman market has added over about 3,000 multifamily units or just over 300 units per year (Table 2). The Bozeman market area includes the city limits and some areas outside the city between Belgrade and Bozeman to about Four Corners. These data reflect almost entirely market rate projects. The years with the largest supply increases were 2015 with 333 units, 2020 with 678 units, 2022 with 485 units, and 2023 with 787 units. Table 2. Multifamily inventory and new unit deliveries, 2014-2023 Project Units Proposed Income Limits Non-profit partner? 14th & Patrick 155 <=60% AMI HRDC N. 3rd Apartments 216 <=50-70% AMI Hearthstone Midtown Aspen 40 <=50-70% AMI HRDC Aspen 8 126 <=60% AMI HRDC Aaker 146 <=60% AMI TBD Rocky Mountain Flats 300 <=60% AMI TBD Roehrs Construction 300 <=60% AMI TBD Total 1,283 Boundary Development TBD <=60% AMI TBD Source: Economic & Planning Systems Z:\Shared\Projects\DEN\233073 Bozeman MT Advisory Services\Data\LIHTC Analysis\[233073 Proposed LIHTC Projects.xlsx]Sheet1 Inventory (units)2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Ann. # Inventory (units)3,158 3,491 3,742 3,788 3,813 4,052 4,730 4,913 5,398 6,185 3,027 336 Deliveries (units)86 333 251 46 25 239 678 183 485 787 3,113 311 Source: CoStar; Economic & Planning Systems C:\Egnyte\Shared\Projects\DEN\233073 Bozeman MT Advisory Services\Data\[233070 - Costar Data_Updated.xlsx]T-Inventory Change 2014-2023 257 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. Page | 3 When new supply is brought to the Bozeman market it is absorbed at a reasonable pace. In 2015, the 333 new units resulted in an increase in the vacancy rate from 5.1 percent to 7.4 percent. By the end of 2016, the vacancy rate dropped back to 5.5 percent. In 2016, another 251 units were added and the vacancy rate continued to drop to a low of 2.5 percent in 2018 — a level that indicates a shortage of supply. During much of the period between 2018 and 2022, the vacancy rate was below 5.0 percent. Market analysts generally consider 5.0 to 7.0 percent to be an indicator of a balanced market. In 2019 and 2020, 918 units were added and the vacancy rate only reached 5.3 percent in 2020. In 2021, the vacancy rate dropped back to 3.8 percent when 183 more units were brough to the market. Some of the largest supply increases in the past 10 years were in 2022 and 2023 when a total of just under 1,300 new units were developed. The vacancy rate at the end of 2023 was 9.4 percent. Given past trends and the historic strength of the Bozeman market, we expect this supply to also be absorbed within a year or two. Figure 1. New Unit Deliveries vs. Vacancy Rate, 2014-2023 The shortage of supply has allowed property owners to raise rents, particularly between 2020 and 2022. From 2020 through 2021, rents increased by 8.8 percent while the vacancy rate dropped from 5.3 to 3.8 percent. From 2021 through 2022, average rents increased by 7.5 percent while 485 new units were delivered with the market vacancy rate at 4.8 percent. The increases in supply in 2022 and 2023 reduced the upward pressure on rents, as rents only increased by 0.3 percent. The average apartment rent is now at approximately $1,944 per month. 258 Memorandum: Multifamily Market Conditions Page | 4 Table 3. Average Monthly Rent, 2014-2023 Household Income and Capture Rate EPS estimated the market share of renters that the current and projected LIHTC inventory captures. The first step in that analysis is tabulating the number of renter households in the market area, comprised of the Bozeman and Belgrade Census County Divisions (Figure 2). From the Census’ 5-year ACS estimates, this area has approximately 16,600 renter households that comprises nearly 90 percent of all renter households in Gallatin County (Table 4). The proposed LIHTC projects will be available to households earning 60% of AMI or less, and there are about 7,400 renter households at or below 60% of AMI in the market area, or 45 percent of all renter households. These 5-year ACS household estimates undercount the actual number of households. The 5-Year ACS data are a rolling 5-year average and not a point in time estimate. So, the market share calculations that follow somewhat overstate actual market share. We have also not factored in the potential for these properties to draw people from other areas of Gallatin County and surrounding counties that also have housing shortages. Figure 2. Market Area Map: Bozeman and Belgrade Census County Divisions 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Change Ann. % Avg. Monthly Rent $1,472 $1,480 $1,523 $1,560 $1,589 $1,618 $1,656 $1,803 $1,938 $1,944 $472 3.1% Ann. % Change 0.6%2.9%2.4%1.9%1.8%2.4%8.8%7.5%0.3% Source: CoStar; Economic & Planning Systems Z:\Shared\Projects\DEN\233073 Bozeman MT Advisory Services\Data\[233070 - Costar Data_Updated.xlsx]T-Rent 2014-2023 259 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. Page | 5 Table 4. Renter Households By Area Median Income Range, 2022 (ACS 5-Year Estimates) Renter Households Gallatin County Bozeman CCD Belgrade CCD Households Less than 30% AMI 3,669 2,826 601 3,427 31% to 60% AMI 4,548 3,298 726 4,024 61% to 80% AMI 2,767 2,048 369 2,417 81% to 100% AMI 2,054 1,356 495 1,851 101% to 120% AMI 1,527 1,034 345 1,379 121% to 150% AMI 1,518 1,212 128 1,340 Greater than 150% AMI 2,419 1,829 357 2,186 Total 18,502 13,603 3,021 16,624 100.0%73.5%16.3%89.8% 60% AMI or Less 8,217 6,124 1,327 7,451 % of Total Less than 30% AMI 19.8%20.8%19.9%20.6% 31% to 60% AMI 24.6%24.2%24.0%24.2% 61% to 80% AMI 15.0%15.1%12.2%14.5% 81% to 100% AMI 11.1%10.0%16.4%11.1% 101% to 120% AMI 8.3%7.6%11.4%8.3% 121% to 150% AMI 8.2%8.9%4.2%8.1% Greater than 150% AMI 13.1%13.4%11.8%13.1% Total 100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0% 60% AMI or Less 44.4%45.0%43.9%44.8% Source: US Census ACS; Economic & Planning Systems Z:\Shared\Projects\DEN\233073 Bozeman MT Advisory Services\Data\[233073 HH by AMI.xlsx]T- AMI (Market Area) Market Area Total Market Area 260 Memorandum: Multifamily Market Conditions Page | 6 From the HUD database of tax credit properties, EPS identified 1,517 housing units income restricted at or below 60% of AMI (Table 5). These roughly 1,500 units represent a market share of 20 percent of the 7,451 renter households in the eligible income ranges. The nearly 1,300 units that are being considered in Bozeman would bring the total inventory to 2,800 units and the market share of 60% of AMI renter households to approximately 38 percent. That still leaves a substantial number of renter households – over 60 percent and 4,600 households – that would also qualify for these properties. At the property level, no individual proposed project would have more than 4.0 percent market share. Table 5. 60% AMI LIHTC Market Share, Current and Projected Many renter households are in unaffordable living situations. Half of renters in the Bozeman CCD are cost burdened (paying more than 30 percent of income in rent), including about 25 percent who are severely cost burdened (paying 50 percent or more of income in rent). The figures are similar in the Belgrade CCD where just over 40 percent are cost burdened including just over 20 percent who are severely cost burdened. Description Gallatin County Units and Households Market Share Market Area Units and Households Market Share Renter Households 60% AMI or Less 8,217 7,451 Current Market Share <60% AMI LIHTC Units 1,517 18.5%1,517 20.4% Projected Market Share Existing <60% AMI LIHTC Units 1,517 1,517 Proposed <60% AMI LIHTC Units 14th & Patrick 155 1.9%155 2.1% N. 3rd Apartments 216 2.6%216 2.9% Midtown Aspen 40 0.5%40 0.5% Aspen 8 126 1.5%126 1.7% Aaker 146 1.8%146 2.0% Rocky Mountain Flats 300 3.7%300 4.0% Roehrs Construction 300 3.7%300 4.0% Subtotal 1,283 15.6%1,283 17.2% Total 2,800 34.1%2,800 37.6% Source: HUD LIHTC Database; Economic & Planning Systems Z:\Shared\Projects\DEN\233073 Bozeman MT Advisory Services\Data\LIHTC Analysis\[233073 HH by AMI.xlsx]T-Market Share 261 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. Page | 7 Recent LIHTC Property Data EPS contacted property managers for LIHTC projects built in the past 10 years to obtain information on vacancy rates and wait lists. All properties are essentially full with the only vacancies being for units that are turning over to be re-leased to new tenants (Table 6). Most properties report less than 5.0 percent vacancy. Boulevard Apartments and Darlington Manor noted that their vacancies are largely in tenant turnover and readying units for new tenants. Property managers indicated that most tenants stay for many years once they find secure housing. This does not allow for much mobility in the market for new tenants to find housing, hence the need to add new supply. Table 6. Newer LIHTC Property Vacancy Rates and Wait Lists Project Name Year Built AMI Range # Units Vacancy Rate Waitlist Arrowleaf Park 2022 60% AMI 136 1.3%15 interest list Baxter Apartments (Rehab)2022 60% AMI 48 0.1%20 people per bedroom size waitlist Boulevard Apartments (Rehab)2021 60% AMI 41 Approx. 5%111 on waitlist Comstock Apartments (Rehab)2022 60% AMI 86 0.1%20 people per bedroom size waitlist Darlinton Manor (Rehab)2020 60% AMI 100 Approx. 5%72 on waitlist (elderly and disabled) Larkspur Commons 2016 60% AMI 136 2.9%9 people on waitlist Perennial Park 2021 60% AMI 96 1.0%12 on interest list Stoneridge Apartments 2016 60% AMI 48 2.5%2-2.5 yr. wait Timber Ridge Apartments 2023 60% AMI 30 3.4%2-2.5 yr. wait Total 721 Source: Economic & Planning Systems Z:\Shared\Projects\DEN\233073 Bozeman MT Advisory Services\Data\LIHTC Analysis\[Property List - RM edits 2.8.24.xlsx]Sheet1 262 Memorandum: Multifamily Market Conditions Page | 8 Conclusions The proposed LIHTC properties represent a substantial increase in housing supply for low income renters. EPS’ opinion is that this supply will be absorbed by the current demand from renters, and the expected continued growth of this region. Several points noted below summarize the demand for affordable housing. • The Bozeman market has seen several cycles where large amounts of new supply are added, the vacancy rate rises, and then stabilizes within a year or two. • The median home price in the Bozeman area is over $800,000, and nearly $600,000 in the Belgrade area. This is out of reach for most people, making renting the only other option. • The household income limits for qualification purposes in this area are high, which opens up the LIHTC property market to more people. The median family income for a family of 4 is $126,400 (100% of AMI). For a 2-person household at 60% of AMI it is $50,500. That is equivalent to two people earning $12.00 per hour or one person earning $24.00 per hour. The current average wage in retail trade is $21.40 per hour and is one of the largest and fastest growing industries in this region. • The Gallatin County economy continues to add jobs, approximately 90 percent of which are in the Bozeman and Belgrade area. From 2022-2023Q2, jobs grew by 5.1 percent or 2,200 jobs. Retail, accommodations, and food services sectors—typically lower wage industries—accounted for about half of the new jobs during this period. 263 State of Montana Consolidated Plan for Housing and Community Development April 1, 2020 through March 31, 2025 FINAL Submitted April 30, 2021 Montana Department of Commerce Montana Department of Public Health and Human Services DOCConPlan@mt.gov https://commerce.mt.gov/conplan 264 2020–2024 Montana Consolidated Plan for Housing and Community Development Plan Year 1 (2020) April 1, 2020 – March 31, 2021 Plan Year 2 (2021) April 1, 2021 – March 31, 2022 Plan Year 3 (2022) April 1, 2022 – March 31, 2023 Plan Year 4 (2023) April 1, 2023 – March 31, 2024 Plan Year 5 (2024) April 1, 2024 – March 31, 2025 265 State of Montana i 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan Table of Contents Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 1 ES-05 Executive Summary - 91.300(c), 91.320(b) ..................................................................................... 1 The Process ................................................................................................................................................... 8 PR-05 Lead & Responsible Agencies 24 CFR 91.300(b) ............................................................................. 8 PR-10 Consultation – 91.100, 91.110, 91.200(b), 91.300(b), 91.200(I) and 91.315(l) .............................. 8 PR-15 Citizen Participation – 91.105, 91.115, 91.200(c) and 91.300(c) ................................................. 34 Needs Assessment ...................................................................................................................................... 38 NA-05 Overview ...................................................................................................................................... 38 NA-10 Housing Needs Assessment - 24 CFR 91.305 (a,b,c) .................................................................... 38 NA-15 Disproportionately Greater Need: Housing Problems - 91.305 (b)(2) ......................................... 46 NA-20 Disproportionately Greater Need: Severe Housing Problems – 91.305(b)(2) ............................. 49 NA-25 Disproportionately Greater Need: Housing Cost Burdens – 91.305 (b)(2) .................................. 53 NA-30 Disproportionately Greater Need: Discussion – 91.305 (b)(2) .................................................... 54 NA-35 Public Housing – (Optional) ......................................................................................................... 54 NA-40 Homeless Needs Assessment – 91.305(c).................................................................................... 58 NA-45 Non-Homeless Special Needs Assessment – 91.305 (b,d) ........................................................... 63 NA-50 Non-Housing Community Development Needs - 91.315 (f) ........................................................ 76 Housing Market Analysis ............................................................................................................................. 79 MA-05 Overview ..................................................................................................................................... 79 MA-10 Number of Housing Units – 91.310(a) ........................................................................................ 79 MA-15 Cost of Housing – 91.310(a) ........................................................................................................ 95 MA-20 Condition of Housing – 91.310(a) ............................................................................................. 101 MA-25 Public and Assisted Housing – (Optional) ................................................................................. 113 MA-30 Homeless Facilities – 91.310(b)................................................................................................. 114 MA-35 Special Needs Facilities and Services – 91.310(c) ..................................................................... 128 MA-40 Barriers to Affordable Housing – 91.310(d) .............................................................................. 129 MA-45 Non-Housing Community Development Assets – 91.315(f) ..................................................... 141 MA-50 Needs and Market Analysis Discussion ..................................................................................... 147 MA-60 Broadband Needs of Housing occupied by Low- and Moderate-Income Households - 91.210(a)(4), 91.310(a)(2) ..................................................................................................................... 150 MA-65 Hazard Mitigation - 91.210(a)(5), 91.310(a)(3) ......................................................................... 151 Strategic Plan ............................................................................................................................................ 152 SP-05 Overview ..................................................................................................................................... 152 266 State of Montana ii 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan SP-10 Geographic Priorities – 91.315(a)(1) ........................................................................................... 152 SP-25 Priority Needs – 91.315(a)(2) ...................................................................................................... 153 SP-30 Influence of Market Conditions – 91.315(b) ............................................................................... 156 SP-35 Anticipated Resources - 91.315(a)(4), 91.320(c)(1,2) ................................................................. 156 SP-40 Institutional Delivery Structure – 91.315(k) ............................................................................... 159 SP-45 Goals Summary – 91.315(a)(4) ................................................................................................... 166 SP-50 Public Housing Accessibility and Involvement – 91.315(c) ......................................................... 167 SP-55 Barriers to affordable housing – 91.315(h) ................................................................................. 168 SP-60 Homelessness Strategy – 91.315(d) ............................................................................................ 171 SP-65 Lead based paint Hazards – 91.315(i) ......................................................................................... 172 SP-70 Anti-Poverty Strategy – 91.315(j) ............................................................................................... 174 SP-80 Monitoring – 91.330 ................................................................................................................... 175 Annual Action Plan .................................................................................................................................... 176 Expected Resources .............................................................................................................................. 176 AP-15 Expected Resources – 91.320(c)(1,2) ......................................................................................... 176 Annual Goals and Objectives ................................................................................................................ 179 AP-20 Annual Goals and Objectives – 91.320(c)(3)&(e) ....................................................................... 179 AP-25 Allocation Priorities – 91.320(d) ................................................................................................. 181 AP-30 Methods of Distribution – 91.320(d)&(k) ................................................................................... 183 AP-35 Projects – (Optional) ................................................................................................................... 195 AP-38 Project Summary ........................................................................................................................ 195 AP-40 Section 108 Loan Guarantee – 91.320(k)(1)(ii) .......................................................................... 195 AP-45 Community Revitalization Strategies – 91.320(k)(1)(ii) ............................................................. 197 AP-50 Geographic Distribution – 91.320(f) ........................................................................................... 197 Affordable Housing ............................................................................................................................... 197 AP-55 Affordable Housing – 24 CFR 91.320(g) ..................................................................................... 197 AP-60 Public Housing - 24 CFR 91.320(j) ............................................................................................... 198 AP-65 Homeless and Other Special Needs Activities – 91.320(h) ........................................................ 199 AP-70 HOPWA Goals – 91.320(k)(4) ..................................................................................................... 201 AP-75 Barriers to affordable housing – 91.320(i) ................................................................................. 201 AP-85 Other Actions – 91.320(j) ........................................................................................................... 203 Program Specific Requirements ............................................................................................................ 205 AP-90 Program Specific Requirements – 91.320(k)(1,2,3).................................................................... 205 267 State of Montana iii 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan Appendix A: Citizen Participation Plan Appendix B: Fair Housing and Housing and Community Development Surveys Appendix C: Documentation of Public Meetings and Focus Groups Appendix D: Public Comments and Agency Responses Appendix E: Documented Outreach Efforts Appendix F: Supplemental Data Appendix G: Application for Federal Assistance Appendix H: State and Program Certifications Appendix I: Notification of Waiver Use to HUD Field Office Appendix J: Minimum Housing Rehabilitation and Property Standards List of Tables Table 1 – Responsible Agencies .................................................................................................................... 8 Table 2 – Agencies, Groups, Organizations who Participated .................................................................... 11 Table 3 – Other Local / Regional / Federal Planning Efforts ....................................................................... 32 Table 4 – Citizen Participation Outreach .................................................................................................... 35 Table 5 – Housing Needs Assessment Demographics................................................................................. 39 Table 6 – Total Households Table ............................................................................................................... 39 Table 7 – Housing Problems 1 ..................................................................................................................... 39 Table 8 – Housing Problems 2 ..................................................................................................................... 41 Table 9 – Cost Burden > 30% ...................................................................................................................... 41 Table 10 – Cost Burden > 50% .................................................................................................................... 42 Table 11 – Crowding Information – 1 of 2 .................................................................................................. 42 Table 12 – Crowding Information – 2 of 2 .................................................................................................. 42 Table NA-1 – Need for Housing Activities ................................................................................................... 45 Table 13 – Disproportionally Greater Need 0 - 30% AMI ........................................................................... 46 Table 14 – Disproportionally Greater Need 30 - 50% AMI ......................................................................... 47 Table 15 – Disproportionally Greater Need 50 - 80% AMI ......................................................................... 47 Table 16 – Disproportionally Greater Need 80 - 100% AMI ....................................................................... 48 Table 17 – Severe Housing Problems 0 - 30% AMI ..................................................................................... 50 Table 18 – Severe Housing Problems 30 - 50% AMI ................................................................................... 50 Table 19 – Severe Housing Problems 50 - 80% AMI ................................................................................... 51 Table 20 – Severe Housing Problems 80 - 100% AMI ................................................................................. 51 Table 21 – Greater Need: Housing Cost Burdens AMI ................................................................................ 53 Table 22 – Public Housing by Program Type ............................................................................................... 55 Table 23 – Characteristics of Public Housing Residents by Program Type ................................................. 55 Table 24 – Race of Public Housing Residents by Program Type ................................................................. 56 Table 25 – Ethnicity of Public Housing Residents by Program Type ........................................................... 57 268 State of Montana iv 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan Table NA-2 – HCV Waiting List .................................................................................................................... 57 Table 26 – Homeless Needs Assessment .................................................................................................... 59 Table 27 – Rural Homeless Needs Assessment ........................................................................................... 59 Table NA-3 – “How long has it been since you had a place you considered home or a permanent place to live?” ............................................................................................................................................. 61 Table NA-4 – Nature and Extent of Homelessness ..................................................................................... 62 Table NA-5 – Need for Services and Facilities for Special Needs Populations ............................................ 63 Table 28 – HOPWA Data ............................................................................................................................. 64 Table 29 – HIV Housing Need ...................................................................................................................... 64 Table NA-6 – Elderly Population by Age ..................................................................................................... 65 Table NA-7 – Disability by Age and Gender ................................................................................................ 66 Table NA-8 – Total Disabilities Tallied ......................................................................................................... 66 Table NA-9 – Homeless Persons who Left Home because of Domestic Violence ...................................... 68 Table NA-10 – Need for Services and Facilities for Persons with Physical and Developmental Disabilities ................................................................................................................................................... 70 Table NA-11 – Need for Services and Facilities for Persons with Substance Use Disorders ...................... 72 Table NA-12 – HIV Service Providers .......................................................................................................... 72 Table NA-13 – Need for Services and Facilities for Persons with HIV/AIDS ............................................... 73 Table NA-14 – Domestic Violence Service Providers .................................................................................. 73 Table NA-15 – Need for Services and Facilities for Victims of Domestic Violence ..................................... 75 Table NA-16 – Need for Community and Public Facility Activities ............................................................. 76 Table NA-17 – Need for Infrastructure Activities ....................................................................................... 77 Table NA-18 – Need for Human and Public Services .................................................................................. 77 Table 30 – Residential Properties by Unit Number .................................................................................... 80 Table 31 – Unit Size by Tenure .................................................................................................................... 80 Table MA-1 – Housing Units Estimates ....................................................................................................... 84 Table MA-2 – Housing Units by Type .......................................................................................................... 85 Table MA-3 – Property Structure Types ..................................................................................................... 85 Table MA-4 – Housing Units by Tenure ...................................................................................................... 86 Table MA-5 – Residential Dwellings – Construction Era/Year .................................................................... 87 Table MA-6 – Residential Dwellings – Number of Bedrooms by Construction Era/Year ........................... 87 Table MA-7 – Unit Size by Tenure ............................................................................................................... 88 Table MA-8 – Residential Dwellings – Number of Full Bathrooms by Construction Era/Year ................... 88 Table MA-9 – Residential Dwellings – Number of Half Bathrooms by Construction Era/Year ................... 88 Table MA-10 – Residential Dwellings – Total Square Feet by Construction Era/Year ................................ 89 269 State of Montana v 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan Table MA-11 – Residential Dwellings – Heated Area by Construction Era/Year ........................................ 89 Table MA-12 - Residential Dwellings – Condition (CDU) by Structure Type ............................................... 90 Table MA-13 – Residential Dwellings – Building Style by Structure Type .................................................. 90 Table MA-14 – Residential Dwellings – Year Built by Foundation Type ..................................................... 91 Table MA-15 – Residential Dwellings – Foundation by Structure Type ...................................................... 91 Table MA-16 – Residential Dwellings – Presence of Basement by Structure Type .................................... 91 Table MA-17 – Residential Dwellings – Exterior Wall Construction by Structure Type .............................. 92 Table MA-18 – Residential Dwellings – Grade by Structure Type .............................................................. 92 Table MA-19 – Residential Dwellings – Year Built by Grade ....................................................................... 92 Table MA-20 – Residential Dwellings – Exterior Wall Construction by Structure Type .............................. 93 Table MA-21 – Residential Dwellings – Roof Material by Structure Type .................................................. 93 Table MA-22 – Residential Dwellings – Effective Year by Grade ................................................................ 94 Table MA-23 – Residential Dwellings – Effective Year by Foundation Type ............................................... 94 Table MA-24 – Residential Dwellings – Effective Year by Structure Type .................................................. 95 Table MA-25 – Residential Dwellings – Grade by Condition (CDU) ............................................................ 95 Table 32 – Cost of Housing ......................................................................................................................... 95 Table 33 – Rent Paid ................................................................................................................................... 96 Table 34 – Housing Affordability ................................................................................................................. 96 Table 35 – Monthly Rent ............................................................................................................................. 96 Table MA-26 – Cost of Housing ................................................................................................................... 98 Table MA-27 – Amount of Rent Paid .......................................................................................................... 98 Table MA-28 – Median Housing Costs ........................................................................................................ 99 Table MA-29 – Average Market Rental Rates ............................................................................................. 99 Table MA-30 – Housing Affordability (Percent of Units Affordable to Households) ................................ 101 Table MA-31 – Households by Year Home Built ....................................................................................... 101 Table MA-32 – Age of the Housing Stock .................................................................................................. 102 Table 36 – Condition of Units ................................................................................................................... 102 Table 37 – Year Unit Built.......................................................................................................................... 103 Table 38 – Risk of Lead-Based Paint ......................................................................................................... 103 Table 39 – Vacant Units ............................................................................................................................ 104 Table MA-33 – Households at Risk of Lead-Based Paint Hazard .............................................................. 107 Table MA-34 - Households at Risk of Lead-Based Paint by Tenure by Income ........................................ 108 Table MA-35 – Change in Vacant Housing Units ...................................................................................... 109 Table 40 – Total Number of Units by Program Type................................................................................. 113 Table 41 – Facilities Targeted to Homeless Persons ................................................................................. 114 270 State of Montana vi 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan Table MA-36 – Facilities and Housing Targeted to Homeless Households ............................................... 127 Table 42 – HOPWA Assistance Baseline .................................................................................................... 128 Table MA-37 – Need for Services and Facilities for Special Needs Populations ....................................... 130 Table MA-38 – Elderly Population by Age................................................................................................. 131 Table MA-39 – Disability by Age and Gender ........................................................................................... 133 Table MA-40 – Total Disabilities Tallied, Aged 5 and Older ...................................................................... 134 Table MA-41 – Need for Services and Facilities for Persons with Physical and Developmental Disabilities ................................................................................................................................................. 135 Table MA-42 – Homeless Persons who Left Home because of Domestic Violence ................................. 137 Table MA-43 – Domestic Violence Service Providers ............................................................................... 137 Table MA-44 – Need for Services and Facilities for Victims of Domestic Violence .................................. 139 Table MA-45 – HIV Service Providers ....................................................................................................... 141 Table MA-46 – Need for Services and Facilities for Persons with HIV/AIDS ............................................. 141 Table 43 – Business Activity ...................................................................................................................... 142 Table 44 – Labor Force .............................................................................................................................. 142 Table 45 – Occupations by Sector ............................................................................................................. 143 Table 46 – Travel Time .............................................................................................................................. 143 Table 47 – Educational Attainment by Employment Status ..................................................................... 143 Table 48 – Educational Attainment by Age ............................................................................................... 143 Table 49 – Median Earnings in the Past 12 Months ................................................................................. 144 Table 50 – Geographic Priority Areas ....................................................................................................... 153 Table 51 – Priority Needs Summary .......................................................................................................... 153 Table 52 – Influence of Market Conditions ............................................................................................... 156 Table 53 – Anticipated Resources ............................................................................................................. 157 Table 54 – Institutional Delivery Structure ............................................................................................... 160 Table 55 – Homeless Prevention Services Summary ................................................................................ 163 Table 56 – Goals Summary ........................................................................................................................ 166 Table SP-1 – Length of Homelessness ....................................................................................................... 172 Table 57 – Expected Resources – Priority Table ....................................................................................... 177 Table 58 – Goals Summary ........................................................................................................................ 180 Table 59 – Funding Allocation Priorities ................................................................................................... 182 Table AP-1 – CDBG Affordable Housing Development and Rehabilitation Ranking Criteria .................... 185 Table AP-2 – CDBG Public Facilities Ranking Criteria ................................................................................ 187 Table AP-3 – 2020 HOME Purchase Price Limits ....................................................................................... 190 Table 61 – Project Information ................................................................................................................. 195 271 State of Montana vii 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan Table 62 – Geographic Distribution .......................................................................................................... 197 Table 64 – 1-Year Goals for Affordable Housing by Support Requirement .............................................. 198 Table 65 – 1-Year Goals for Affordable Housing by Support Type ........................................................... 198 Table AP-4 – HOME Affordability Periods ................................................................................................. 207 Table AP-5 – HOME and HTF Maximum per Unit Subsidies ..................................................................... 217 List of Figures Figure 1 – Homeownership Rates ............................................................................................................... 86 Figure 2 – Single-Family Permits and Valuation in Montana ...................................................................... 98 Figure 3 – Housing Price Index, State of Montana vs. United States........................................................ 100 Figure 4 – Homeowner Vacancy Rate in Montana ................................................................................... 110 Figure 5 – Rental Vacancy Rate in Montana ............................................................................................. 111 Figure 6 – Unemployment Rate ................................................................................................................ 146 Figure 7 – Montana Unemployment Rate ................................................................................................ 146 Figure 8 – Full- and Part-Time Employment ............................................................................................. 147 List of Maps Map 1 – Median Home Value by Census Tract ........................................................................................... 99 Map 2 – Median Contract Rent by Census Tract ...................................................................................... 100 Map 3 – Vacant Housing Units .................................................................................................................. 111 Map 4 – 2000 Census, “Other Vacant” Housing Units .............................................................................. 112 Map 5 – 2010 Census, “Other Vacant” Housing Units .............................................................................. 112 Map 6 – Concentrations of Multiple Housing Problems ........................................................................... 148 Map 7 – Concentrated Minority Census Tracts ........................................................................................ 148 Map 8 – Concentrated Low-Income Block Groups ................................................................................... 149 272 State of Montana viii 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan This page intentionally left blank 273 State of Montana 1 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan Executive Summary ES-05 Executive Summary - 91.300(c), 91.320(b) 1. Introduction The Consolidated Plan for Housing and Community Development helps the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) comprehensively fulfill three basic goals: provide decent housing, provide a suitable living environment, and expand economic opportunities. The consolidated planning process is the framework Montana uses to identify eligible housing and community development priorities consistent with the demonstrated and projected needs of local governments. The State of Montana encourages community and economic development that catalyzes local revitalization to build an economy that provides good jobs and creates enduring prosperity and resiliency. These goals are used to assess Montana’s affordable housing and community development needs and market conditions, make data-driven, place-based investment decisions, and measure the impact of HUD funds. The Consolidated Plan is a collaborative process that assists in shaping effective, coordinated neighborhood and community development strategies. The Montana Departments of Commerce (Commerce) and Public Health and Human Services (DPHHS) work collaboratively to allow for strategic planning and citizen participation. As the lead agency for the Consolidated Plan, Commerce follows HUD’s guidelines for citizen and community involvement and is responsible for overseeing citizen participation requirements that accompany the Consolidated Plan and the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME), Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG), and Housing Trust Fund (HTF) programs, as well as those programs that complement the Commerce planning processes already at work in the state. Purpose of the Consolidated Plan The 2020-2024 Montana Consolidated Plan for Housing and Community Development is a comprehensive 5-year planning document that outlines how the State will address its housing, planning, infrastructure, economic, and homeless needs, with special emphasis on serving special needs populations. As part of this process, Commerce develops the 2020-2021 Montana Annual Action Plan (AAP), which anticipates how HUD resources received by the State during the first year (Plan Year 1) of the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan period will be used. Historically, in tandem with the development of the Consolidated Plan, the State has participated in efforts to develop an Analysis of Impediments (AI) to Fair Housing Choice in Montana. The AI has allowed the State, as well as entitlement communities—the Cities of Billings, Great Falls, and Missoula— to examine barriers to fair housing that exist within the state, including discriminatory actions, omissions, or decisions related to housing; or actions, omission, or decisions that have a discriminatory effect of restricting housing choices for protected classes. With HUD’s final rule, issued by Secretary Benjamin Carson on July, 23, 20201, Montana is no longer required by regulation to complete an AI; rather, the State is asked to certify that it will “affirmatively further fair housing” in accordance with the 1968 Fair Housing Act and other applicable statutes. In this Consolidated Plan, Montana hereby certifies 1 https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/ENF/documents/6228-F- 01%20Preserving%20Housing%20and%20Neighborhood%20Choice.pdf 274 State of Montana 2 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan that it has and will continue to take steps to affirmatively further fair housing. (Specific barriers to fair housing in the state are detailed in sections SP-55 and AP-75 of this document). Goals of the Consolidated Plan The federally established goals of the HUD programs administered by the State of Montana are to provide decent housing, a suitable living environment, and expanded economic opportunities for the state’s low- and moderate-income residents. The State of Montana strives to accomplish these goals by maximizing and effectively utilizing all available funding resources to conduct housing and community development activities that serve the economically disadvantaged residents of the state. By addressing need and creating opportunity at the individual and neighborhood levels, the State of Montana aims to improve the quality of life for all residents of the state. HUD’s Community Planning and Development (CPD) Programs (i.e., CDBG, HOME, ESG, and HTF) help to develop viable communities by funding activities within the umbrella of the following three goals: • Provide decent housing by supporting appropriate housing for homeless persons and assisting those at risk of homelessness; preserving the affordable housing stock; increasing the supply of permanent affordable housing, without discrimination; increasing the supply of supportive housing for persons with special needs (e.g., the elderly; frail elderly; persons with mental, physical, and developmental disabilities; persons with substance use disorders; persons with HIV/AIDS and their families; public housing residents; Veterans; and victims of domestic violence); supporting homeownership through homebuyer assistance; and providing affordable housing near job opportunities. • Provide suitable living environments by improving the safety and livability of neighborhoods; improving access to quality facilities, infrastructure, and services; reducing the isolation of income groups within communities through de-concentration of low-income housing; revitalizing deteriorating neighborhoods; restoring and preserving properties of special historic architectural or aesthetic value; and conserving energy resources. • Expand economic opportunities by creating and retaining jobs; establishing, stabilizing, and expanding small businesses; providing public employment services; encouraging the employment of low-income persons in projects funded under this plan; providing reasonable mortgage financing rates without discrimination; providing access to capital and credit for development activities that promote long-term economic and social viability of the community; and reducing generational poverty of those living in publicly assisted housing by providing empowerment and self-sufficiency opportunities. The State of Montana will work to integrate efforts in these three areas into broader community development of public and community facilities, economic development, and housing strategies that recognize the limitations in traditional affordable housing initiatives and look to identify and capitalize on opportunities to innovate. The State of Montana will seek to identify projects that satisfy criteria developed to help communities improve access to affordable housing and transportation while protecting the environment and will leverage emerging data and tools that measure the true cost of commuting to residents of affordable housing. 2. Summary of the objectives and outcomes identified in the Plan Needs Assessment Overview The following list presents the objectives and desired outcomes of the 2020-2024 Montana Consolidated Plan for Housing and Community Development. It is important to note that one of the State’s chief objectives and desired outcomes is to address statewide and local challenges resulting from the COVID-19 (coronavirus) pandemic. In addition to prioritizing projects that address the impacts of COVID-19 and resulting health, safety, and economic concerns, Commerce will use CDBG resources to 275 State of Montana 3 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan meet the CDBG National Objectives Low and Moderate Income and Slums and Blight. Furthermore, Commerce and DPHHS will use Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) resources (i.e., “CDBG CARES” and “ESG CARES”) to bolster efforts to control the epidemic and mitigate its economic impact. For details about Montana’s CDBG CARES and ESG CARES programs, see Montana’s 2019-2020 AAP as amended. There may be a need to direct resources by use of project selection criteria, which may be updated annually, based on year-to-year need and local circumstances. 1. Support existing Montana communities: a. Target funding toward existing communities to increase their capacity to respond to health, safety, economic, and other needs resulting from COVID-19; strengthen community revitalization efforts; improve the efficiency of public works investments; and safeguard rural landscapes and natural resources; b. Encourage appropriate and comprehensive planning, market studies, preliminary architectural reports, flood prevention plans, and other studies or plans that address health, safety, economic, and other concerns resulting from COVID-19 as well as support the sustainability of local communities, affordable housing, public works investments, vital employment centers, and the environment; c. Enhance the unique and resilient characteristics of all communities by investing in healthy, safe, and walkable neighborhoods—rural, urban, or suburban; d. Encourage the rehabilitation of existing rental and owner-occupied homes, particularly for those with special needs and the elderly; and e. Encourage the development and rehabilitation of community facilities and services located within walkable neighborhoods and/or served by public transportation systems, particularly for those with special needs and the elderly. 2. Invest in vital public infrastructure: a. Provide funding preference for infrastructure projects that address the impacts of COVID-19 and health and safety concerns; b. Encourage appropriate and comprehensive pre-development planning activities for public infrastructure, including asset management, needs analysis, preliminary engineering and/or architectural reports, and other studies or plans; c. Provide funding opportunities to improve the safety and efficiency of public infrastructure, promote healthy, safe, and walkable neighborhoods, and safeguard the environment; and d. Provide funding opportunities to serve eligible Montanans, particularly special needs and elderly populations, with safe, efficient public infrastructure. 3. Enhance Montana’s economic competitiveness: a. Provide funding preference for economic development and revitalization projects that address the impacts of COVID-19; b. Provide reliable and timely access to employment centers, educational opportunities, services and other basic needs by workers, as well as expanded business access to markets; c. Support comprehensive planning for downtown revitalization, business development, and other studies or plans to attract and retain talent in Montana communities; 276 State of Montana 4 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan d. Provide job opportunities to eligible Montanans to strengthen communities within the state; e. Encourage activities that support and strengthen new and existing businesses, particularly those located within traditional downtown business centers comprising a mix of businesses, housing, and services; f. Encourage mixed-use development that contributes to broader revitalization efforts in Montana communities; and g. Seek opportunities to achieve multiple economic development goals, such as removing barriers to collaboration, leveraging multiple funding sources, and increasing energy efficiency, through a single investment. 4. Promote equitable, affordable housing in Montana: a. Provide funding preference for affordable housing projects that address the impacts of COVID-19; b. Expand location- and energy-efficient housing choices for people of all ages, incomes, races and ethnicities to increase mobility and lower the combined cost of housing and transportation; c. Encourage housing activities that incorporate energy-efficient design to help advance solar deployment and other onsite renewable energy installations in affordable housing that is aligned with the Federal Renewable Energy Target; d. Encourage activities to acquire and/or construct new affordable housing for homeownership or rental in areas where existing investment in infrastructure, facilities, and services leverages multiple economic, environmental, and community objectives; e. Encourage appropriate and comprehensive planning, market studies, preliminary architectural reports, and other studies or plans in support of the efficient construction of affordable housing; and f. Encourage financial mechanisms that increase homeownership opportunities and provide rental assistance to eligible Montanans, particularly those with special needs and the elderly. 5. Reduce homelessness in Montana: a. Provide funding preference for projects that address the shelter and housing needs of Montanans impacted by COVID-19; b. Encourage activities that address the housing needs of homeless Montanans and/or those at risk of homelessness; c. Encourage activities that increase the level of assistance programs to homeless Montanans and/or those at risk of homelessness, with the goal of achieving stable and sustainable housing; and d. Encourage the development and rehabilitation of non-rental facilities for the shelter of temporarily homeless Montanans. 3. Evaluation of past performance Commerce and DPHHS have received annual funding for the CDBG, HOME, and ESG programs for over 5 years. Commerce and DPHHS have received annual funding for the HTF Program for 4 years (beginning 2016). Activities have been completed with reduced administrative budgets while adhering to increased regulatory requirements. The decrease in program funding makes it increasingly difficult to address the needs across the state as programs are oversubscribed for funding. Resources available through these programs are vital to organizations struggling to obtain scarce funding to serve households at or below 277 State of Montana 5 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan 80% of area median income (AMI). As demonstrated in past performance reports, these programs have been a critical funding source for constructing senior and health facilities in rural areas, developing homeless facilities that provide services and support throughout the state, and providing clean water and sanitary sewer to support the growth of vital, resilient communities across Montana. Commerce evaluated its past performance in Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Reports (CAPER) for each year during the 2015-2019 period. These documents state the objectives and outcomes identified in each AAP and include an evaluation of past performance, which compares measurable goals and objectives with actual performance. These documents can be found on Commerce’s website at https://commerce.mt.gov/conplan/documents. 4. Summary of citizen participation process and consultation process The Consolidated Plan process provides citizens an opportunity to provide input in the development of the plan and to evaluate and comment on the proposed plan to improve the effectiveness of its covered programs. Montana follows the standards set forth in its Citizen Participation Plan (Appendix A) during development and proposal of its Consolidated Plan documents, including the 2020-2024 Montana Consolidated Plan for Housing and Community Development and the 2020-2021 AAP. Of note, to safeguard public health and safety and allow for more flexibility as needed, the State updated its Citizen Participation Plan to provide for virtual outreach (e.g., telephone blast messages, emails, Facebook ads) and virtual meetings (e.g., webinars, Facebook and Instagram live streams). Additionally, in accordance with HUD guidance and in an effort to be responsive to critical needs, the State allowed for a minimum 5-day public comment period in certain circumstances to expedite the process by which plans are updated and programs implemented. Finally, it is worth noting that the State, in accordance with flexibilities provided by HUD through a Mega Waiver, developed the plan through April 2021, although development was initially planned through August 2020. By extending its timeline, the State provided the public and stakeholders with more time to consider COVID-19 and comment on emerging needs. Commerce and DPHHS provided multiple opportunities for the public and stakeholders to comment on the creation and development of the draft 2020-2024 Montana Consolidated Plan for Housing and Community Development and the 2020-2021 AAP. First, in November and December 2018 the Departments conducted a Fair Housing Survey (Appendix B). Then, in February and March 2020 they conducted a Housing and Community Development Survey (Appendix B). To promote the Housing and Community Development Survey, Commerce and DPHHS developed a flyer with scan code, provided information on the Consolidated Plan webpage, and sent invitations to participate to approximately 5,000 contacts. When the Housing and Community Development Survey closed in March 2020, over 300 respondents had completed it. The Departments also held several focus groups to garner information from beneficiaries and stakeholders about affordable housing, economic development, community and public facilities or “infrastructure,” planning, and homelessness with the aim of determining local and statewide needs and informing plan goals. Commerce and DPHHS’s first public meeting on March 23, 2020, sought input on the development of the draft 2020-2024 Montana Consolidated Plan for Housing and Community Development and 2020- 2021 AAP. Commerce and DPHHS’s second public meeting on April 14, 2021, sought feedback on the published draft 2020-2024 Montana Consolidated Plan for Housing and Community Development and 2020-2021 AAP. Both meetings were limited to remote participation due to concerns about COVID-19. Commerce announced the public meetings by emailing notices to approximately 5,000 contacts and publishing advertisements in newspapers across Montana. Approximately 22 individuals participated in 278 State of Montana 6 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan the first meeting via webinar or phone. Approximately 16 individuals participated in the second meeting via webinar or phone. Consistent with Montana’s CPP and in accordance with Montana’s CPD Mega Waiver, the State provided 7 days’ notice of the second public meeting and 16 days for the public to review the draft Consolidated Plan and provide comment. Recordings of and/or minutes for each public meeting and focus group are available on Commerce’s website at https://commerce.mt.gov/conplan. Documentation of meetings (presentations, minutes, and official transcripts) are provided as Appendix C. 5. Summary of public comments Verbal comments regarding the development of the draft 2020-2024 Montana Consolidated Plan for Housing and Community Development and draft 2020-2021 AAP were received during the public meeting on March 23, 2020. Commerce accepted comments through April 23, 2020, but did not receive written comments subsequent to the public meeting. All comments received were considered and incorporated into the draft documents. Verbal comments regarding the published draft 2020-2024 Montana Consolidated Plan for Housing and Community Development and draft 2020-2021 AAP were received during the public meeting on April 14, 2021. Commerce accepted comments through April 23, 2021, and received one written comment subsequent to the public meeting. All comments received were considered and incorporated into the final documents. A summary of all public comments received during the development of and public comment periods for the draft 2020-2024 Montana Consolidated Plan for Housing and Community Development and draft 2020-2021 AAP are provided as Appendix D. Additionally, minutes and/or official transcripts of meetings are published on Commerce’s website at https://commerce.mt.gov/conplan and provided as Appendix C. 6. Summary of comments or views not accepted and the reasons for not accepting them All comments were considered during the development of the draft 2020-2024 Montana Consolidated Plan for Housing and Community Development and draft 2020-2021 AAP. A summary of public comments or views received on the draft 2020-2024 Montana Consolidated Plan for Housing and Community Development and draft 2020-2021 AAP that are not accepted, if any, and the reasons for not accepting them are provided as Appendix D. 7. Summary The 2020-2024 Montana Consolidated Plan for Housing and Community Development functions as: • A comprehensive 5-year planning document outlining the use of HUD funds primarily in the non- entitlement areas of Montana that identifies the state’s housing, planning, infrastructure, economic, and homeless needs, with special emphasis on special needs populations, and the respective, planned resource investments to satisfy those needs; • A participatory public process among citizens, organizations, businesses, and other stakeholders; • An application by the State of Montana for federal funds under HUD’s formula grant programs; • A strategy document to be followed in carrying out HUD’s programs in Montana; and 279 State of Montana 7 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan • A management tool for assessing state performance in carrying out HUD’s programs in Montana. 280 State of Montana 8 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan The Process PR-05 Lead & Responsible Agencies 24 CFR 91.300(b) Describe agency/entity responsible for preparing the Consolidated Plan and those responsible for administration of each grant program and funding source The following are the agencies responsible for preparing and administering the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan for Housing and Community Development and 2020-2021 AAP and those responsible for administration of each grant program and funding source. Table 1 – Responsible Agencies Agency Role Name Department/Agency Lead Agency Scott Osterman, Director Montana Department of Commerce CDBG Administrator Cheryl Cohen, Interim Division Administrator HOME Administrator HTF Administrator ESG Administrator Gene Hermanson, Division Administrator Montana Department of Public Health and Human Services HOPWA Administrator Narrative Commerce is the lead agency overseeing the development of the 2020-2024 Montana Consolidated Plan for Housing and Community Development and 2020-2021 AAP. Commerce administers the CDBG, HOME, and HTF programs covered by this plan. DPHHS administers the ESG Program as well as Montana’s cooperative partnership with North and South Dakota: the Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) Program (“Tri-State Housing Environments for Living Positively,” or “Tri- State HELP”), which is funded via competitive award and not through a CPD formula grant. Consolidated Plan Public Contact Information Cheryl Cohen, Interim Division Administrator Community Development Division Montana Department of Commerce Phone: 406-841-2770 Email: DOCConPlan@mt.gov Web: http://commerce.mt.gov/conplan PR-10 Consultation – 91.100, 91.110, 91.200(b), 91.300(b), 91.200(I) and 91.315(l) 1. Introduction The 2020-2024 Montana Consolidated Plan for Housing and Community Development was developed in accordance with the 2020 Plan Year Citizen Participation Plan. This process provides a unifying opportunity for units of local government, the State of Montana, the public, interested organizations, and the private sector to take part in shaping Montana’s unique communities, vital public infrastructure, economic competitiveness, housing opportunities, and homelessness programs. A list of all agencies, individuals, businesses, and organizations Commerce consulted in the development, preparation, and review of the 2020-2024 Montana Consolidated Plan for Housing and Community Development and 2020-2021 AAP is contained in Appendix E. 281 State of Montana 9 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan Provide a concise summary of the state’s activities to enhance coordination between public and assisted housing providers and private and governmental health, mental health and service agencies (91.215(l)) The State of Montana strives to improve the delivery of housing and community development assistance to all Montanans. Commerce and DPHHS specifically support policies and programs that promote decent, safe, affordable housing and community services for the homeless and low-income households such as food banks, mental health centers, senior centers, and other facilities. Commerce and DPHHS maintain an email list of parties interested in the HUD-funded programs addressed in the 2020-2024 Montana Consolidated Plan for Housing and Community Development, as well as the planning process (see Appendix E). Regular updates and information about the programs and the development, preparation, and review of the 2020-2024 Montana Consolidated Plan for Housing and Community Development are sent to this list, especially when soliciting public comment or providing notice of public meetings. Commerce’s Montana Board of Housing, known in the community and conducting business as Montana Housing (MH), has used a broad-based “team” approach to address affordable housing issues through the Housing Coordinating Team. This model of addressing affordable housing issues is under assessment, and Commerce, is considering how to most effectively engage “team” members in the future. Commerce and DPHHS, with other key partners, are working collaboratively to address housing and healthcare needs in Montana, as outlined below. • Medicaid Innovation Accelerator Program (IAP) – Safe and affordable housing is increasingly recognized as an essential component of health and an effective strategy for curbing high health care costs. Seeking to maximize Medicaid to reimburse for supportive housing services with the aim of improving health outcomes and reducing health care expenses, Commerce and DPHHS participated in the IAP in 2019 and 2020. The objectives of this collaboration were to (1) explore the viability of adding to or strengthening pre-tenancy and tenancy-sustaining services and (2) identify and secure housing resources for Medicaid beneficiaries receiving pre-tenancy and tenancy-sustaining services. Part and parcel to this work is an effort in seven of Montana’s largest cities to identify frequent users of emergency shelters, emergency rooms, and correctional facilities. The IAP began the important work of aligning housing and healthcare policy in the state. • Mainstream Vouchers – Commerce and DPHHS successfully completed a joint application for Mainstream Vouchers, which resulted in an award of 78 tenant-based vouchers, to be administered by the state PHA, with a $461,462 annual budget authority in November 2019 and May 2020. Assistance provided through this program will aid non-elderly persons with disabilities in obtaining decent, safe, and sanitary rental housing and connect residents with relevant, voluntary supportive services. • Interdepartmental Housing Integration Project (IHIP) – With support from the Montana Healthcare Foundation, DPHHS, Commerce, and the MTCoC are establishing an interdepartmental housing and healthcare collaborative that will develop and advance priorities to best serve Montanans across housing and healthcare delivery systems. Areas of particular interest are homelessness, housing insecurity, and health services integration, with a focus on housing that is a social determinant of health. This effort furthers work that began during the IAP and involves identifying and engaging key stakeholders, inventorying current resources and efforts, and collaboratively setting priorities and developing a program structure. IHIP funds will support grant management activities, stakeholder planning and engagement, data analytics coordination, and contracted assistance. 282 State of Montana 10 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan The Mental Health Oversight Advisory Council is a statutory state advisory agency that provides guidance and oversight to DPHHS in the development and management of an effective public health system. The Council’s membership includes consumers of mental health services, their immediate family members, advocates for consumers or family members of consumers, the public at large, mental health service providers, legislators, and department representatives. The Council’s objective is to create a mental health system that effectively serves families and individuals throughout Montana, including programs for housing, employment, education, and socialization. Both Commerce and DPHHS are members of the Council. Describe coordination with the Continuum of Care and efforts to address the needs of homeless persons (particularly chronically homeless individuals and families, families with children, veterans, and unaccompanied youth) and persons at risk of homelessness The Montana Continuum of Care Coalition (MTCoC) is a diverse statewide collaboration of homeless service providers including nonprofits, faith-based organizations, and local and state governments dedicated to planning and coordinating programs to make homelessness rare, brief, and one-time only. The Coalition was established for the purpose of carrying out the duties of the national Continuum of Care program, as provided for in federal statute 24 CFR Part 578. The MTCoC system is predicated upon community and regionally based continuum of care systems, which form the statewide coalition and continuum of care process. Commerce and DPHHS are involved in MTCoC meetings and committees. The MTCoC coordinator participated in the development, preparation, and review of the 2020-2024 Montana Consolidated Plan for Housing and Community Development. Funds for permanent supportive housing and rapid rehousing across Montana are available on a competitive basis through the State’s MTCoC process. The 12 regional MTCoC districts, housed within 9 of the state’s 10 Human Resource Development Councils (HRDCs), serve the entire state of Montana with homeless assistance funds. Each of these regional MTCoC districts provides specific services of crisis stabilization and housing supports for veterans, unaccompanied youth, families with children, and chronically homeless individuals and families. All of Montana’s regional MTCoC districts were invited to participate in the development, preparation, and review of this document, and serve as repositories for public review of the draft plan. Describe consultation with the Continuum(s) of Care that serves the state in determining how to allocate ESG funds, develop performance standards and evaluate outcomes, and develop funding, policies and procedures for the administration of HMIS DPHHS has an invested and integral role with the MTCoC. They coordinate strategy with ESG and participate in regular monthly meetings. The MTCoC and DPHHS have a joint agreement and policy statement affirming their mutual guidance for Montana’s use of ESG funds including those provided to Montana as part of the CARES Act. Subrecipients of ESG must use Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) and work with their local Coordinated Entry System (CES) to operate the program. DPHHS is no longer the leading agent for HMIS; however, they were involved with the system transition, participating on the transition committee and working with the new providers, Pathways/MISI, to ensure a smooth transition. DPHHS continues to be involved in HMIS developments, training, and regular data cleaning. 283 State of Montana 11 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan 2. Describe Agencies, groups, organizations and others who participated in the process and describe the jurisdictions consultations with housing, social service agencies and other entities Table 2 – Agencies, Groups, Organizations who Participated # Agency/Group/ Organization Type(s) What Section of the Plan Was Addressed by Consultation? Action 1 Montana Department of Commerce (Commerce) State Housing Needs Assessment; Public Housing Needs; Homeless Needs – Chronically Homeless; Homeless Needs – Families with Children; Homelessness Needs – Veterans; Homelessness Needs – Unaccompanied Youth; Homelessness Strategy; Non-Homeless Special Needs; HOPWA Strategy; Market Analysis; Economic Development; Lead-Based Paint Strategy; Anti-Poverty Strategy; Other – Infrastructure Attended planning meetings to develop plan sections; included on email listserv; participated as public repository; attended public meetings 2 Montana Department of Public Health and Human Services (DPHHS) State Housing Needs Assessment; Homeless Needs – Chronically Homeless; Homeless Needs – Families with Children; Homelessness Needs – Veterans; Homelessness Needs – Unaccompanied Youth; Homelessness Strategy; Non-Homeless Special Needs; HOPWA Strategy; Lead-Based Paint Strategy; Anti-Poverty Strategy Attended planning meetings to develop plan sections; included on email listserv; participated as public repository; attended public meetings 3 A.W.A.R.E., Inc., Regional organization Housing Needs Assessment; Public Housing Needs; Homeless Needs – Chronically Homeless; Homeless Needs – Families with Children; Homelessness Needs – Veterans; Homelessness Needs – Unaccompanied Youth; Homelessness Strategy; Non-Homeless Special Needs; HOPWA Strategy; Market Analysis; Economic Development; Lead-Based Paint Strategy; Anti-Poverty Strategy Included on email listserv 4 Action for Eastern Montana Regional organization Housing Needs Assessment; Public Housing Needs; Homeless Needs – Chronically Homeless; Homeless Needs – Families with Children; Homelessness Needs – Veterans; Homelessness Needs – Unaccompanied Youth; Homelessness Strategy; Non-Homeless Special Needs; HOPWA Strategy; Market Analysis; Economic Development; Lead-Based Paint Strategy; Anti-Poverty Strategy; Other – Infrastructure Participated as public repository 5 Action Inc. Nonprofit Housing Needs Assessment; Public Housing Needs; Homeless Needs – Chronically Homeless; Homeless Needs – Families with Children; Homelessness Needs – Veterans; Homelessness Needs – Unaccompanied Youth; Homelessness Strategy Provided input during focus group 284 State of Montana 12 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan # Agency/Group/ Organization Type(s) What Section of the Plan Was Addressed by Consultation? Action 6 Affiliated Developers, Inc. Nonprofit Housing Needs Assessment; Homeless Needs – Chronically Homeless; Homeless Needs – Families with Children; Homelessness Needs – Veterans; Homelessness Needs – Unaccompanied Youth; Non-Homeless Special Needs Provided input during focus group 7 Anaconda Housing Authority PHA Housing Needs Assessment; Public Housing Needs; Homelessness Strategy; HOPWA Strategy; Lead-Based Paint Strategy Included on email listserv 8 Bear Paw Development Corporation Regional organization Housing Needs Assessment; Non-Homeless Special Needs; Market Analysis; Economic Development; Lead-Based Paint Strategy; Anti- Poverty Strategy; Other – Infrastructure Included on email listserv 9 Beartooth Resource Conservation and Development Area, Inc. Regional organization; nonprofit Housing Needs Assessment; Public Housing Needs; Homeless Needs – Chronically Homeless; Homeless Needs – Families with Children; Homelessness Needs – Veterans; Homelessness Needs – Unaccompanied Youth; Homelessness Strategy; Non-Homeless Special Needs; HOPWA Strategy; Market Analysis; Economic Development; Lead-Based Paint Strategy; Anti-Poverty Strategy; Other – Infrastructure Included on email listserv; provided input during focus group 10 Besaw Integrity Consulting Business Leaders Housing Needs Assessment; Public Housing Needs; Homeless Needs – Chronically Homeless; Homeless Needs – Families with Children; Homelessness Needs – Veterans; Homelessness Needs – Unaccompanied Youth; Homelessness Strategy Provided input during focus group 11 Big Sky Economic Development Authority Regional organization Housing Needs Assessment; Public Housing Needs; Homeless Needs – Chronically Homeless; Homeless Needs – Families with Children; Homelessness Needs – Veterans; Homelessness Needs – Unaccompanied Youth; Homelessness Strategy; Non-Homeless Special Needs; HOPWA Strategy; Market Analysis; Economic Development; Lead-Based Paint Strategy; Anti-Poverty Strategy; Other – Infrastructure Included on email listserv; provided input during focus group 12 Billings Housing Authority PHA Housing Needs Assessment; Public Housing Needs; Homelessness Strategy; HOPWA Strategy; Lead-Based Paint Strategy Included on email listserv 285 State of Montana 13 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan # Agency/Group/ Organization Type(s) What Section of the Plan Was Addressed by Consultation? Action 13 Blackfeet Housing Authority PHA Housing Needs Assessment; Public Housing Needs; Homelessness Strategy; HOPWA Strategy; Lead-Based Paint Strategy Included on email listserv 14 Butte Public Housing Authority (PHA) PHA Housing Needs Assessment; Public Housing Needs; Homelessness Strategy; HOPWA Strategy; Lead-Based Paint Strategy Included on email listserv 15 Butte-Silver Bow Consolidated City-County County Housing Needs Assessment; Public Housing Needs; Homeless Needs – Chronically Homeless; Homeless Needs – Families with Children; Homelessness Needs – Veterans; Homelessness Needs – Unaccompanied Youth; Homelessness Strategy; Non-Homeless Special Needs; HOPWA Strategy; Market Analysis; Economic Development; Lead-Based Paint Strategy; Anti-Poverty Strategy; Other – Infrastructure Included on email listserv; provided input during focus group 16 Butte-Silver Bow Urban Revitalization Agency (URA) Regional organization Market Analysis; Economic Development Provided input during focus group 17 Cascade County County Housing Needs Assessment; Public Housing Needs; Homeless Needs – Chronically Homeless; Homeless Needs – Families with Children; Homelessness Needs – Veterans; Homelessness Needs – Unaccompanied Youth; Homelessness Strategy; Non-Homeless Special Needs; HOPWA Strategy; Market Analysis; Economic Development; Lead-Based Paint Strategy; Anti-Poverty Strategy; Other – Infrastructure Included on email listserv 18 Chippewa-Cree Housing Authority PHA Housing Needs Assessment; Public Housing Needs; Homelessness Strategy; HOPWA Strategy; Lead-Based Paint Strategy Included on email listserv 19 City of Billings Local Housing Needs Assessment; Public Housing Needs; Homeless Needs – Chronically Homeless; Homeless Needs – Families with Children; Homelessness Needs – Veterans; Homelessness Needs – Unaccompanied Youth; Homelessness Strategy; Non-Homeless Special Needs; HOPWA Strategy; Market Analysis; Economic Development; Lead-Based Paint Strategy; Anti-Poverty Strategy; Other – Infrastructure Included on email listserv 286 State of Montana 14 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan # Agency/Group/ Organization Type(s) What Section of the Plan Was Addressed by Consultation? Action 20 City of Colstrip Local Housing Needs Assessment; Public Housing Needs; Homeless Needs – Chronically Homeless; Homeless Needs – Families with Children; Homelessness Needs – Veterans; Homelessness Needs – Unaccompanied Youth; Homelessness Strategy; Non-Homeless Special Needs; HOPWA Strategy; Market Analysis; Economic Development; Lead-Based Paint Strategy; Anti-Poverty Strategy; Other – Infrastructure Provided input during focus group 21 City of Great Falls Local Housing Needs Assessment; Public Housing Needs; Homeless Needs – Chronically Homeless; Homeless Needs – Families with Children; Homelessness Needs – Veterans; Homelessness Needs – Unaccompanied Youth; Homelessness Strategy; Non-Homeless Special Needs; HOPWA Strategy; Market Analysis; Economic Development; Lead-Based Paint Strategy; Anti-Poverty Strategy; Other – Infrastructure Included on email listserv 22 City of Helena Local Housing Needs Assessment; Public Housing Needs; Homeless Needs – Chronically Homeless; Homeless Needs – Families with Children; Homelessness Needs – Veterans; Homelessness Needs – Unaccompanied Youth; Homelessness Strategy; Non-Homeless Special Needs; HOPWA Strategy; Market Analysis; Economic Development; Lead-Based Paint Strategy; Anti-Poverty Strategy; Other – Infrastructure Attended public meeting; provided input during focus group 23 City of Kalispell Local Housing Needs Assessment; Public Housing Needs; Homeless Needs – Chronically Homeless; Homeless Needs – Families with Children; Homelessness Needs – Veterans; Homelessness Needs – Unaccompanied Youth; Homelessness Strategy; Non-Homeless Special Needs; HOPWA Strategy; Market Analysis; Economic Development; Lead-Based Paint Strategy; Anti-Poverty Strategy; Other – Infrastructure Included on email listserv 287 State of Montana 15 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan # Agency/Group/ Organization Type(s) What Section of the Plan Was Addressed by Consultation? Action 24 City of Livingston Local Housing Needs Assessment; Public Housing Needs; Homeless Needs – Chronically Homeless; Homeless Needs – Families with Children; Homelessness Needs – Veterans; Homelessness Needs – Unaccompanied Youth; Homelessness Strategy; Non-Homeless Special Needs; HOPWA Strategy; Market Analysis; Economic Development; Lead-Based Paint Strategy; Anti-Poverty Strategy; Other – Infrastructure Included on email listserv 25 City of Missoula Local Housing Needs Assessment; Public Housing Needs; Homeless Needs – Chronically Homeless; Homeless Needs – Families with Children; Homelessness Needs – Veterans; Homelessness Needs – Unaccompanied Youth; Homelessness Strategy; Non-Homeless Special Needs; HOPWA Strategy; Market Analysis; Economic Development; Lead-Based Paint Strategy; Anti-Poverty Strategy; Other – Infrastructure Included on email listserv 26 City of Shelby Local Housing Needs Assessment; Public Housing Needs; Homeless Needs – Chronically Homeless; Homeless Needs – Families with Children; Homelessness Needs – Veterans; Homelessness Needs – Unaccompanied Youth; Homelessness Strategy; Non-Homeless Special Needs; HOPWA Strategy; Market Analysis; Economic Development; Lead-Based Paint Strategy; Anti-Poverty Strategy; Other – Infrastructure Provided input during focus group 27 Communities for Veterans Regional Organization Housing Needs Assessment; Public Housing Needs; Homeless Needs – Chronically Homeless; Homeless Needs – Families with Children; Homelessness Needs – Veterans; Homelessness Needs – Unaccompanied Youth; Homelessness Strategy; Non-Homeless Special Needs; HOPWA Strategy; Market Analysis; Economic Development; Lead-Based Paint Strategy; Anti-Poverty Strategy; Other – Infrastructure Included on email listserv 288 State of Montana 16 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan # Agency/Group/ Organization Type(s) What Section of the Plan Was Addressed by Consultation? Action 28 Community Action Partnership of Northwest Montana (HRDC) District X Regional organization; Services – Elderly Persons; Services – Children Housing Needs Assessment; Public Housing Needs; Homeless Needs – Chronically Homeless; Homeless Needs – Families with Children; Homelessness Needs – Veterans; Homelessness Needs – Unaccompanied Youth; Homelessness Strategy; Non-Homeless Special Needs; HOPWA Strategy; Market Analysis; Lead- Based Paint Strategy; Anti-Poverty Strategy Included on email listserv; participated as public repository; provided input during focus group 29 CTA Architects & Engineers Business leaders Housing Needs Assessment; Non-Homeless Special Needs; Market Analysis; Economic Development; Other – Infrastructure Included on email listserv 30 Cushing Terrell Business leaders Housing Needs Assessment; Non-Homeless Special Needs; Market Analysis; Economic Development; Other – Infrastructure Provided input during focus group 31 Dawson County Housing Authority PHA Housing Needs Assessment; Public Housing Needs; Homelessness Strategy; HOPWA Strategy; Lead-Based Paint Strategy Included on email listserv 32 District IV Human Resource Development Council (HRDC) in Havre Regional organization; Services – Elderly Persons; Services – Children Housing Needs Assessment; Public Housing Needs; Homeless Needs – Chronically Homeless; Homeless Needs – Families with Children; Homelessness Needs – Veterans; Homelessness Needs – Unaccompanied Youth; Homelessness Strategy; Non-Homeless Special Needs; HOPWA Strategy; Market Analysis; Lead- Based Paint Strategy; Anti-Poverty Strategy Included on email listserv; participated as public repository; provided input during focus group 33 District VI Human Resource Development Council (HRDC) in Lewistown Regional organization; Services – Elderly Persons; Services – Children Housing Needs Assessment; Public Housing Needs; Homeless Needs – Chronically Homeless; Homeless Needs – Families with Children; Homelessness Needs – Veterans; Homelessness Needs – Unaccompanied Youth; Homelessness Strategy; Non-Homeless Special Needs; HOPWA Strategy; Market Analysis; Lead- Based Paint Strategy; Anti-Poverty Strategy Included on email listserv; participated as public repository 34 District VII Human Resource Development Council (HRDC) in Billings Regional organization; Services – Elderly Persons; Services – Children Housing Needs Assessment; Homeless Needs – Chronically Homeless; Homeless Needs – Families with Children; Homelessness Needs – Veterans; Homelessness Needs – Unaccompanied Youth; Homelessness Strategy; Non-Homeless Special Needs; HOPWA Strategy; Lead-Based Paint Strategy; Anti-Poverty Strategy Included on email listserv; provided input during focus group 289 State of Montana 17 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan # Agency/Group/ Organization Type(s) What Section of the Plan Was Addressed by Consultation? Action 35 District XI Human Resource Development Council (HRDC) in Superior Regional organization; Services – Elderly Persons; Services – Children Housing Needs Assessment; Public Housing Needs; Homeless Needs – Chronically Homeless; Homeless Needs – Families with Children; Homelessness Needs – Veterans; Homelessness Needs – Unaccompanied Youth; Homelessness Strategy; Non-Homeless Special Needs; HOPWA Strategy; Market Analysis; Lead- Based Paint Strategy; Anti-Poverty Strategy Included on email listserv; participated as public repository; provided input during focus group 36 District XII Human Resource Development Council (HRDC) in Butte Regional organization; Services – Elderly Persons; Services – Children Housing Needs Assessment; Homeless Needs – Chronically Homeless; Homeless Needs – Families with Children; Homelessness Needs – Veterans; Homelessness Needs – Unaccompanied Youth; Homelessness Strategy; Non-Homeless Special Needs; HOPWA Strategy; Lead-Based Paint Strategy; Anti-Poverty Strategy Included on email listserv 37 Eastern Plains Economic Development Corporation Regional organization Housing Needs Assessment; Public Housing Needs; Homeless Needs – Chronically Homeless; Homeless Needs – Families with Children; Homelessness Needs – Veterans; Homelessness Needs – Unaccompanied Youth; Homelessness Strategy; Non-Homeless Special Needs; HOPWA Strategy; Market Analysis; Economic Development; Lead-Based Paint Strategy; Anti-Poverty Strategy; Other – Infrastructure Included on email listserv; attended public meeting 38 Ecolibrium Business leaders Housing Needs Assessment; Homelessness Strategy; Non-Homeless Special Needs; HOPWA Strategy; Market Analysis; Economic Development; Lead-Based Paint Strategy; Other – Infrastructure Included on email listserv 39 Fort Belknap Housing Authority PHA Housing Needs Assessment; Public Housing Needs; Homelessness Strategy; HOPWA Strategy; Lead-Based Paint Strategy Included on email listserv 40 Fort Peck Housing Authority PHA Housing Needs Assessment; Public Housing Needs; Homelessness Strategy; HOPWA Strategy; Lead-Based Paint Strategy Included on email listserv 290 State of Montana 18 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan # Agency/Group/ Organization Type(s) What Section of the Plan Was Addressed by Consultation? Action 41 Garfield County County Housing Needs Assessment; Public Housing Needs; Homeless Needs – Chronically Homeless; Homeless Needs – Families with Children; Homelessness Needs – Veterans; Homelessness Needs – Unaccompanied Youth; Homelessness Strategy; Non-Homeless Special Needs; HOPWA Strategy; Market Analysis; Economic Development; Lead-Based Paint Strategy; Anti-Poverty Strategy; Other – Infrastructure Provided input during focus group 42 GL Development Private Industry Housing Needs Assessment; Public Housing Needs; Homeless Needs – Families with Children; Homelessness Needs – Veterans; Homelessness Needs – Unaccompanied Youth; Homelessness Strategy; Non-Homeless Special Needs; Market Analysis; Economic Development; Lead-Based Paint Strategy; Anti- Poverty Strategy; Other – Infrastructure Included on email listserv 43 Glasgow Housing Authority PHA Housing Needs Assessment; Public Housing Needs; Homelessness Strategy; HOPWA Strategy; Lead-Based Paint Strategy Included on email listserv 44 Good Samaritan Ministries Nonprofit Housing Needs Assessment; Public Housing Needs; Homeless Needs – Chronically Homeless; Homeless Needs – Families with Children; Homelessness Needs – Veterans; Homelessness Needs – Unaccompanied Youth; Homelessness Strategy; Non-Homeless Special Needs; HOPWA Strategy; Economic Development; Anti-Poverty Strategy Attended public meeting 45 Great Falls Public Housing Authority (PHA) PHA Housing Needs Assessment; Public Housing Needs; Homelessness Strategy; HOPWA Strategy; Lead-Based Paint Strategy Included on email listserv 46 Great Northern Development Corporation Regional organization Housing Needs Assessment; Public Housing Needs; Homeless Needs – Chronically Homeless; Homeless Needs – Families with Children; Homelessness Needs – Veterans; Homelessness Needs – Unaccompanied Youth; Homelessness Strategy; Non-Homeless Special Needs; HOPWA Strategy; Market Analysis; Economic Development; Lead-Based Paint Strategy; Anti-Poverty Strategy; Other – Infrastructure Included on email listserv; participated as public repository 291 State of Montana 19 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan # Agency/Group/ Organization Type(s) What Section of the Plan Was Addressed by Consultation? Action 47 Great West Engineering Business leaders Housing Needs Assessment; Non-Homeless Special Needs; Market Analysis; Economic Development; Other – Infrastructure Included on email listserv; provided input during focus group 48 Habitat for Humanity of Gallatin Valley Services – Housing Housing Needs Assessment; Homeless Needs – Chronically Homeless; Homeless Needs – Families with Children; Homelessness Needs – Veterans; Homelessness Needs – Unaccompanied Youth; Homelessness Strategy; Non-Homeless Special Needs; HOPWA Strategy; Market Analysis; Lead-Based Paint Strategy; Anti-Poverty Strategy Included on email listserv 49 HAVEN Services – Victims of Domestic Violence Housing Needs Assessment; Homeless Needs – Families with Children; Homelessness Needs – Unaccompanied Youth; Homelessness Strategy; Non-Homeless Special Needs; Market Analysis; Anti-Poverty Strategy Included on email listserv 50 Headwaters RC&D Regional organization Housing Needs Assessment; Non-Homeless Special Needs; Market Analysis; Economic Development; Lead-Based Paint Strategy; Anti- Poverty Strategy; Other – Infrastructure Included on email listserv 51 Helena Housing Authority PHA Housing Needs Assessment; Public Housing Needs; Homeless Needs – Chronically Homeless; Homeless Needs – Families with Children; Homelessness Needs – Veterans; Homelessness Needs – Unaccompanied Youth; Homelessness Strategy; HOPWA Strategy; Lead- Based Paint Strategy Included on email listserv; provided input during focus group 52 Homeword Regional Organization Housing Needs Assessment; Public Housing Needs; Homeless Needs – Chronically Homeless; Homeless Needs – Families with Children; Homelessness Needs – Veterans; Homelessness Needs – Unaccompanied Youth; Homelessness Strategy; Non-Homeless Special Needs; HOPWA Strategy; Market Analysis; Economic Development; Lead-Based Paint Strategy; Anti-Poverty Strategy; Other – Infrastructure Included on email listserv; participated as public repository; attended public meeting; provided comment 53 Hot Springs Community Association Civic leader Housing Needs Assessment; Homelessness Strategy; Non-Homeless Special Needs; Anti- Poverty Strategy; Market Analysis; Economic Development; Other – Infrastructure Included on email listserv 292 State of Montana 20 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan # Agency/Group/ Organization Type(s) What Section of the Plan Was Addressed by Consultation? Action 54 Housing Solutions, LLC Business leaders Housing Needs Assessment; Homelessness Strategy; Non-Homeless Special Needs; HOPWA Strategy; Market Analysis; Economic Development; Lead-Based Paint Strategy Included on email listserv 55 Human Resource Development Council (HRDC) District IX in Bozeman Regional Organization; Services – Elderly Persons; Services – Children Housing Needs Assessment; Public Housing Needs; Homeless Needs – Chronically Homeless; Homeless Needs – Families with Children; Homelessness Needs – Veterans; Homelessness Needs – Unaccompanied Youth; Homelessness Strategy; Non-Homeless Special Needs; HOPWA Strategy; Market Analysis; Lead- Based Paint Strategy; Anti-Poverty Strategy Included on email listserv; participated as public repository; provided input during focus group 56 Intermountain Planners, Inc. Business leaders Housing Needs Assessment; Non-Homeless Special Needs; Market Analysis; Economic Development; Other – Infrastructure Provided input during focus group 57 Interstate Engineering Business leaders Housing Needs Assessment; Non-Homeless Special Needs; Market Analysis; Economic Development; Other – Infrastructure Provided input during focus group 58 Kadrmas, Lee and Jackson Business leaders Housing Needs Assessment; Non-Homeless Special Needs; Market Analysis; Economic Development; Other – Infrastructure Provided input during focus group 59 KLJ Engineering Business leaders Housing Needs Assessment; Non-Homeless Special Needs; Market Analysis; Economic Development; Other – Infrastructure Included on email listserv 60 Lake County Community Development Corporation Regional organization Housing Needs Assessment; Public Housing Needs; Homeless Needs – Chronically Homeless; Homeless Needs – Families with Children; Homelessness Needs – Veterans; Homelessness Needs – Unaccompanied Youth; Homelessness Strategy; Non-Homeless Special Needs; HOPWA Strategy; Market Analysis; Economic Development; Lead-Based Paint Strategy; Anti-Poverty Strategy; Other – Infrastructure Included on email listserv; attended public meeting 61 Land Solutions, LLC Business leaders Housing Needs Assessment; Non-Homeless Special Needs; Market Analysis; Economic Development; Other – Infrastructure Included on email listserv; provide input during focus group 293 State of Montana 21 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan # Agency/Group/ Organization Type(s) What Section of the Plan Was Addressed by Consultation? Action 62 Lewis & Clark County County Housing Needs Assessment; Public Housing Needs; Homeless Needs – Chronically Homeless; Homeless Needs – Families with Children; Homelessness Needs – Veterans; Homelessness Needs – Unaccompanied Youth; Homelessness Strategy; Non-Homeless Special Needs; HOPWA Strategy; Market Analysis; Economic Development; Lead-Based Paint Strategy; Anti-Poverty Strategy; Other – Infrastructure Included on email listserv; attended public meeting; provided comment 63 Living Independently for Today and Tomorrow (LIFTT) Regional organization Services – Persons with Disabilities Housing Needs Assessment; Public Housing Needs; Homeless Needs – Chronically Homeless; Homeless Needs – Families with Children; Homelessness Needs – Veterans; Homelessness Needs – Unaccompanied Youth; Homelessness Strategy; Non-Homeless Special Needs; HOPWA Strategy; Market Analysis; Economic Development; Lead-Based Paint Strategy; Anti-Poverty Strategy Included on email listserv; participated as public repository 64 Livingston Food Pantry Other – Food Bank Housing Needs Assessment; Homeless Needs – Chronically Homeless; Homeless Needs – Families with Children; Homelessness Needs – Veterans; Homelessness Needs – Unaccompanied Youth; Homelessness Strategy; Non-Homeless Special Needs; HOPWA Strategy; Anti-Poverty Strategy Included on email listserv 65 Local Initiatives Support Corporation (LISC) Regional Organization Housing Needs Assessment; Public Housing Needs; Homeless Needs – Chronically Homeless; Homeless Needs – Families with Children; Homelessness Needs – Veterans; Homelessness Needs – Unaccompanied Youth; Homelessness Strategy; Non-Homeless Special Needs; HOPWA Strategy; Market Analysis; Economic Development; Lead-Based Paint Strategy; Anti-Poverty Strategy; Other – Infrastructure Included on email listserv 294 State of Montana 22 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan # Agency/Group/ Organization Type(s) What Section of the Plan Was Addressed by Consultation? Action 66 Madison County County Housing Needs Assessment; Public Housing Needs; Homeless Needs – Chronically Homeless; Homeless Needs – Families with Children; Homelessness Needs – Veterans; Homelessness Needs – Unaccompanied Youth; Homelessness Strategy; Non-Homeless Special Needs; HOPWA Strategy; Market Analysis; Economic Development; Lead-Based Paint Strategy; Anti-Poverty Strategy; Other – Infrastructure Included on email listserv 67 Malta Opportunities Nonprofit Market Analysis; Economic Development Provided input during focus group 68 Midwest Assistance Program Regional organization Market Analysis; Economic Development; Anti- Poverty Strategy; Other – Infrastructure Included on email listserv 69 Miles City Area Economic Development Council Regional organization Market Analysis; Economic Development Attended public meeting 70 Miles City Public Housing Authority (PHA) PHA Housing Needs Assessment; Public Housing Needs; Homelessness Strategy; HOPWA Strategy; Lead-Based Paint Strategy Included on email listserv 71 Missoula County County Housing Needs Assessment; Public Housing Needs; Homeless Needs – Chronically Homeless; Homeless Needs – Families with Children; Homelessness Needs – Veterans; Homelessness Needs – Unaccompanied Youth; Homelessness Strategy; Non-Homeless Special Needs; HOPWA Strategy; Market Analysis; Economic Development; Lead-Based Paint Strategy; Anti-Poverty Strategy; Other – Infrastructure Attended public meeting; provided input during focus group 72 Missoula Public Housing Authority (PHA) PHA Housing Needs Assessment; Public Housing Needs; Homelessness Strategy; HOPWA Strategy; Lead-Based Paint Strategy Included on email listserv; attended public meeting; provided input during focus group 295 State of Montana 23 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan # Agency/Group/ Organization Type(s) What Section of the Plan Was Addressed by Consultation? Action 73 Montana Association of Counties Regional organization Housing Needs Assessment; Public Housing Needs; Homeless Needs – Chronically Homeless; Homeless Needs – Families with Children; Homelessness Needs – Veterans; Homelessness Needs – Unaccompanied Youth; Homelessness Strategy; Non-Homeless Special Needs; HOPWA Strategy; Market Analysis; Economic Development; Lead-Based Paint Strategy; Anti-Poverty Strategy; Other – Infrastructure Included on email listserv 74 Montana Board of Housing (MH) State Housing Needs Assessment; Public Housing Needs; Homeless Needs – Chronically Homeless; Homeless Needs – Families with Children; Homelessness Needs – Veterans; Homelessness Needs – Unaccompanied Youth; Homelessness Strategy; Non-Homeless Special Needs; HOPWA Strategy; Market Analysis; Lead- Based Paint Strategy; Anti-Poverty Strategy Included on email listserv 75 Montana Business Assistance Connection Regional organization Housing Needs Assessment; Public Housing Needs; Homeless Needs – Chronically Homeless; Homeless Needs – Families with Children; Homelessness Needs – Veterans; Homelessness Needs – Unaccompanied Youth; Homelessness Strategy; Non-Homeless Special Needs; HOPWA Strategy; Market Analysis; Economic Development; Lead-Based Paint Strategy; Anti-Poverty Strategy; Other – Infrastructure Included on email listserv 76 Montana Community Development Corporation Regional organization Housing Needs Assessment; Non-Homeless Special Needs; Market Analysis; Economic Development; Lead-Based Paint Strategy; Anti- Poverty Strategy; Other – Infrastructure Participated as public repository; attended public meeting; provided comment 77 Montana Continuum of Care Coalition (MTCoC) Regional organization Housing Needs Assessment; Public Housing Needs; Homeless Needs – Chronically Homeless; Homeless Needs – Families with Children; Homelessness Needs – Veterans; Homelessness Needs – Unaccompanied Youth; Homelessness Strategy; Non-Homeless Special Needs; HOPWA Strategy; Market Analysis; Economic Development; Lead-Based Paint Strategy; Anti-Poverty Strategy Included on email listserv 78 Montana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) State Lead-Based Paint Strategy; Other – Infrastructure Included on email listserv 296 State of Montana 24 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan # Agency/Group/ Organization Type(s) What Section of the Plan Was Addressed by Consultation? Action 79 Montana Department of Labor & Industry (DLI) State Market Analysis; Economic Development; Anti- Poverty Strategy Included on email listserv 80 Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation State Economic Development; Other – Infrastructure Included on email listserv 81 Montana Department of Revenue (DOR) State Housing Needs Assessment; Economic Development; Market Analysis Included on email listserv 82 Montana Department of Transportation State Non-Homeless Special Needs; Economic Development; Other – Infrastructure Included on email listserv 83 Montana Economic Developers Association (MEDA) Regional organization Market Analysis; Economic Development Provided input during focus group 84 Montana Fair Housing Regional organization Housing Needs Assessment; Homeless Needs – Chronically Homeless; Homeless Needs – Families with Children; Homelessness Needs – Veterans; Homelessness Needs – Unaccompanied Youth; Homelessness Strategy; Non-Homeless Special Needs; HOPWA Strategy; Lead-Based Paint Strategy; Anti-Poverty Strategy Participated as public repository; attended public meeting; provided comment 85 Montana Human Rights Bureau State Housing Needs Assessment; Homeless Needs – Chronically Homeless; Homeless Needs – Families with Children; Homelessness Needs – Veterans; Homelessness Needs – Unaccompanied Youth; Homelessness Strategy; Non-Homeless Special Needs; HOPWA Strategy; Lead-Based Paint Strategy; Anti-Poverty Strategy Participated as public repository 86 Montana Independent Living Project (MILP) Regional organization Services – Persons with Disabilities Housing Needs Assessment; Public Housing Needs; Homeless Needs – Chronically Homeless; Homeless Needs – Families with Children; Homelessness Needs – Veterans; Homelessness Needs – Unaccompanied Youth; Homelessness Strategy; Non-Homeless Special Needs; HOPWA Strategy; Market Analysis; Economic Development; Lead-Based Paint Strategy; Anti-Poverty Strategy Included on email listserv; participated as public repository 297 State of Montana 25 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan # Agency/Group/ Organization Type(s) What Section of the Plan Was Addressed by Consultation? Action 87 Montana League of Cities and Towns Regional organization Housing Needs Assessment; Public Housing Needs; Homeless Needs – Chronically Homeless; Homeless Needs – Families with Children; Homelessness Needs – Veterans; Homelessness Needs – Unaccompanied Youth; Homelessness Strategy; Non-Homeless Special Needs; HOPWA Strategy; Market Analysis; Economic Development; Lead-Based Paint Strategy; Anti-Poverty Strategy; Other – Infrastructure Included on email listserv; provided input during focus group 88 Montana Reentry Initiative Task Force Statewide multi-agency task force Housing Needs Assessment; Public Housing Needs; Homelessness Strategy; Non-Homeless Special Needs; Market Analysis; Anti-Poverty Strategy Included on email listserv 89 Montana State Library State Housing Needs Assessment; Homeless Needs – Chronically Homeless; Homeless Needs – Families with Children; Homelessness Needs – Veterans; Homelessness Needs – Unaccompanied Youth; Homelessness Strategy; Non-Homeless Special Needs; HOPWA Strategy; Lead-Based Paint Strategy; Anti-Poverty Strategy Participated as public repository 90 Montana State University – Local Government Center State Housing Needs Assessment; Non-Homeless Special Needs; Market Analysis; Economic Development; Anti-Poverty Strategy; Other – Infrastructure Included on email listserv 91 Montana West Economic Development Nonprofit Market Analysis; Economic Development Provided input during focus group 92 Morrison-Maierle Business leaders Housing Needs Assessment; Non-Homeless Special Needs; Market Analysis; Economic Development; Other – Infrastructure Provided input during focus group 93 Mountain Plains Equity Business leaders Housing Needs Assessment; Homelessness Strategy; Non-Homeless Special Needs; HOPWA Strategy; Market Analysis; Economic Development; Lead-Based Paint Strategy Included on email listserv; participated as public repository 94 Murtagh Municipal Engineering Business leaders Housing Needs Assessment; Non-Homeless Special Needs; Market Analysis; Economic Development; Other – Infrastructure Included on email listserv 298 State of Montana 26 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan # Agency/Group/ Organization Type(s) What Section of the Plan Was Addressed by Consultation? Action 95 NeighborWorks Great Falls Nonprofit Housing Needs Assessment; Public Housing Needs; Homeless Needs – Chronically Homeless; Homeless Needs – Families with Children; Homelessness Needs – Veterans; Homelessness Needs – Unaccompanied Youth; Homelessness Strategy; Non-Homeless Special Needs; HOPWA Strategy; Market Analysis; Lead- Based Paint Strategy; Anti-Poverty Strategy Included on email listserv 96 NeighborWorks Montana Regional Organization Housing Needs Assessment; Public Housing Needs; Homeless Needs – Chronically Homeless; Homeless Needs – Families with Children; Homelessness Needs – Veterans; Homelessness Needs – Unaccompanied Youth; Homelessness Strategy; Non-Homeless Special Needs; HOPWA Strategy; Market Analysis; Economic Development; Lead-Based Paint Strategy; Anti-Poverty Strategy; Other – Infrastructure Included on email listserv; participated as public repository; provided input during focus group 97 Nittany GrantWorks Business leaders Housing Needs Assessment; Homeless Needs – Chronically Homeless; Homeless Needs – Families with Children; Homelessness Needs – Veterans; Homelessness Needs – Unaccompanied Youth; Non-Homeless Special Needs; Market Analysis; Economic Development; Other – Infrastructure Provided input during focus group 98 North Central Independent Living Services Regional organization Services – Persons with Disabilities Housing Needs Assessment; Public Housing Needs; Homeless Needs – Chronically Homeless; Homeless Needs – Families with Children; Homelessness Needs – Veterans; Homelessness Needs – Unaccompanied Youth; Homelessness Strategy; Non-Homeless Special Needs; HOPWA Strategy; Market Analysis; Economic Development; Lead-Based Paint Strategy; Anti-Poverty Strategy Included on email listserv; participated as public repository; attended public meeting; provided comment 99 North Fork Development, LLC Private Industry Housing Needs Assessment; Homeless Needs – Chronically Homeless; Homeless Needs – Families with Children; Homelessness Needs – Veterans; Homelessness Needs – Unaccompanied Youth; Non-Homeless Special Needs Provided input during focus group 100 Northern Cheyenne Housing Authority PHA Housing Needs Assessment; Public Housing Needs; Homelessness Strategy; Non-Homeless Special Needs; HOPWA Strategy; Lead-Based Paint Strategy; Anti-Poverty Strategy Included on email listserv 299 State of Montana 27 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan # Agency/Group/ Organization Type(s) What Section of the Plan Was Addressed by Consultation? Action 101 Open Aid Alliance & Yellowstone AIDS Project Regional organization Housing Needs Assessment; Homeless Needs – Chronically Homeless; Homeless Needs – Families with Children; Homelessness Needs – Veterans; Homelessness Needs – Unaccompanied Youth; Homelessness Strategy; Non-Homeless Special Needs; HOPWA Strategy; Anti-Poverty Strategy Included on email listserv; provided input during focus group 102 Opportunities, Inc. Regional organization Housing Needs Assessment; Homeless Needs – Chronically Homeless; Homeless Needs – Families with Children; Homelessness Needs – Veterans; Homelessness Needs – Unaccompanied Youth; Homelessness Strategy; Non-Homeless Special Needs; HOPWA Strategy; Lead-Based Paint Strategy; Anti-Poverty Strategy Participated as public repository 103 Poplar (City of) Housing Authority PHA Housing Needs Assessment; Public Housing Needs; Homelessness Strategy; HOPWA Strategy; Lead-Based Paint Strategy Included on email listserv 104 Prospera Business Network Regional organization Housing Needs Assessment; Non-Homeless Special Needs; Market Analysis; Economic Development; Lead-Based Paint Strategy; Anti- Poverty Strategy; Other – Infrastructure Included on email listserv 105 Ravalli County Economic Development Authority Regional organization Housing Needs Assessment; Public Housing Needs; Homeless Needs – Chronically Homeless; Homeless Needs – Families with Children; Homelessness Needs – Veterans; Homelessness Needs – Unaccompanied Youth; Homelessness Strategy; Non-Homeless Special Needs; HOPWA Strategy; Market Analysis; Economic Development; Lead-Based Paint Strategy; Anti-Poverty Strategy; Other – Infrastructure Included on email listserv 106 Reach Inc. Nonprofit Non-Homeless Special Needs Attended public meeting; provided comment 300 State of Montana 28 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan # Agency/Group/ Organization Type(s) What Section of the Plan Was Addressed by Consultation? Action 107 Richland Economic Development Corporation Regional organization Housing Needs Assessment; Public Housing Needs; Homeless Needs – Chronically Homeless; Homeless Needs – Families with Children; Homelessness Needs – Veterans; Homelessness Needs – Unaccompanied Youth; Homelessness Strategy; Non-Homeless Special Needs; HOPWA Strategy; Market Analysis; Economic Development; Lead-Based Paint Strategy; Anti-Poverty Strategy; Other – Infrastructure Included on email listserv 108 Richland Housing Authority PHA Housing Needs Assessment; Public Housing Needs; Homelessness Strategy; HOPWA Strategy; Lead-Based Paint Strategy Included on email listserv 109 Robert Peccia & Associates Business leaders Housing Needs Assessment; Non-Homeless Special Needs; Market Analysis; Economic Development; Other – Infrastructure Provided input during focus group 110 Rocky Mountain Development Council Regional organization Housing Needs Assessment; Homeless Needs – Chronically Homeless; Homeless Needs – Families with Children; Homelessness Needs – Veterans; Homelessness Needs – Unaccompanied Youth; Homelessness Strategy; Non-Homeless Special Needs; HOPWA Strategy; Lead-Based Paint Strategy; Anti-Poverty Strategy Participated as public repository 111 Ronan Housing Authority PHA Housing Needs Assessment; Public Housing Needs; Homelessness Strategy; HOPWA Strategy; Lead-Based Paint Strategy Included on email listserv 112 Rural Community Assistance Corporation Regional organization Market Analysis; Economic Development; Anti- Poverty Strategy; Other – Infrastructure Included on email listserv 113 Rural Economic Designs Business leaders Housing Needs Assessment; Non-Homeless Special Needs; Market Analysis; Economic Development; Other – Infrastructure Provided input during focus group 114 Salish & Kootenai Housing Authority PHA Housing Needs Assessment; Public Housing Needs; Homelessness Strategy; Non-Homeless Special Needs; HOPWA Strategy; Lead-Based Paint Strategy; Anti-Poverty Strategy Included on email listserv 115 Snowy Mountain Development Corporation Regional organization Housing Needs Assessment; Non-Homeless Special Needs; Market Analysis; Economic Development; Lead-Based Paint Strategy; Anti- Poverty Strategy; Other – Infrastructure Included on email listserv; provided input during focus group 301 State of Montana 29 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan # Agency/Group/ Organization Type(s) What Section of the Plan Was Addressed by Consultation? Action 116 Southeastern Montana Development Corporation Regional organization Housing Needs Assessment; Public Housing Needs; Homeless Needs – Chronically Homeless; Homeless Needs – Families with Children; Homelessness Needs – Veterans; Homelessness Needs – Unaccompanied Youth; Homelessness Strategy; Non-Homeless Special Needs; HOPWA Strategy; Market Analysis; Economic Development; Lead-Based Paint Strategy; Anti-Poverty Strategy; Other – Infrastructure Included on email listserv; provided input during focus group 117 Stahly Engineering & Associates Business leaders Housing Needs Assessment; Non-Homeless Special Needs; Market Analysis; Economic Development; Other – Infrastructure Included on email listserv; provided input during focus group 118 State Bank of Townsend Business leaders Housing Needs Assessment; Market Analysis; Economic Development Included on email listserv 119 Summit Housing Group Business leaders Housing Needs Assessment; Homelessness Strategy; Non-Homeless Special Needs; HOPWA Strategy; Market Analysis; Economic Development; Lead-Based Paint Strategy Included on email listserv 120 Summit Independent Living Center Regional organization Services – Persons with Disabilities Housing Needs Assessment; Public Housing Needs; Homeless Needs – Chronically Homeless; Homeless Needs – Families with Children; Homelessness Needs – Veterans; Homelessness Needs – Unaccompanied Youth; Homelessness Strategy; Non-Homeless Special Needs; HOPWA Strategy; Market Analysis; Economic Development; Lead-Based Paint Strategy; Anti-Poverty Strategy Included on email listserv; attended public meeting 121 Sweetgrass Development Regional organization Housing Needs Assessment; Public Housing Needs; Homeless Needs – Chronically Homeless; Homeless Needs – Families with Children; Homelessness Needs – Veterans; Homelessness Needs – Unaccompanied Youth; Homelessness Strategy; Non-Homeless Special Needs; HOPWA Strategy; Market Analysis; Economic Development; Lead-Based Paint Strategy; Anti-Poverty Strategy; Other – Infrastructure Included on email listserv 122 Tamarack Properties Management Company Business leaders Housing Needs Assessment; Homelessness Strategy; Non-Homeless Special Needs; HOPWA Strategy; Market Analysis; Economic Development; Lead-Based Paint Strategy Included on email listserv 302 State of Montana 30 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan # Agency/Group/ Organization Type(s) What Section of the Plan Was Addressed by Consultation? Action 123 The Center for Children and Families Services – Children, Persons with Disabilities, Victims of Domestic Violence, Education, Victims; Child Welfare Agency Housing Needs Assessment; Homeless Needs – Families with Children; Homelessness Needs – Unaccompanied Youth; Homelessness Strategy; Non-Homeless Special Needs; Market Analysis; Anti-Poverty Strategy Included on email listserv 124 Town of Ekalaka Local Housing Needs Assessment; Public Housing Needs; Homeless Needs – Chronically Homeless; Homeless Needs – Families with Children; Homelessness Needs – Veterans; Homelessness Needs – Unaccompanied Youth; Homelessness Strategy; Non-Homeless Special Needs; HOPWA Strategy; Market Analysis; Economic Development; Lead-Based Paint Strategy; Anti-Poverty Strategy; Other – Infrastructure Included on email listserv 125 Triple Divide Consulting Business leaders Housing Needs Assessment; Public Housing Needs; Homeless Needs – Chronically Homeless; Homeless Needs – Families with Children; Homelessness Needs – Veterans; Homelessness Needs – Unaccompanied Youth; Homelessness Strategy; Non-Homeless Special Needs; HOPWA Strategy; Market Analysis; Economic Development; Lead-Based Paint Strategy; Anti-Poverty Strategy; Other – Infrastructure Included on email listserv 126 Triple Tree Engineering Business leaders Housing Needs Assessment; Non-Homeless Special Needs; Market Analysis; Economic Development; Other – Infrastructure Provided input during focus group 127 Trust Montana Regional organization Housing Needs Assessment; Homeless Needs – Chronically Homeless; Homeless Needs – Families with Children; Homelessness Needs – Veterans; Homelessness Needs – Unaccompanied Youth Attended public meeting; provided comment 303 State of Montana 31 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan # Agency/Group/ Organization Type(s) What Section of the Plan Was Addressed by Consultation? Action 128 U.S. Department of Agriculture- Rural Development (USDA-RD), Montana Field Office Federal Housing Needs Assessment; Homelessness Strategy; Non-Homeless Special Needs; Market Analysis; Economic Development; Anti-Poverty Strategy; Other – Infrastructure Included on email listserv 129 U.S. Department of the Interior – Bureau of Indian Affairs, Indian Health Services Federal Housing Needs Assessment; Public Housing Needs; Homeless Needs – Chronically Homeless; Homeless Needs – Families with Children; Homelessness Needs – Veterans; Homelessness Needs – Unaccompanied Youth; Homelessness Strategy; Non-Homeless Special Needs; HOPWA Strategy; Market Analysis; Lead- Based Paint Strategy; Anti-Poverty Strategy; Other – Infrastructure Included on email listserv 130 United Way of the Lewis & Clark Area Nonprofit Housing Needs Assessment; Public Housing Needs; Homeless Needs – Chronically Homeless; Homeless Needs – Families with Children; Homelessness Needs – Veterans; Homelessness Needs – Unaccompanied Youth; Homelessness Strategy; Non-Homeless Special Needs; HOPWA Strategy; Market Analysis; Economic Development; Lead-Based Paint Strategy; Anti-Poverty Strategy; Other – Infrastructure Attended public meeting; provided comment; provided input during focus group 131 Western Montana Mental Health Center Regional organization Housing Needs Assessment; Homeless Needs – Chronically Homeless; Homeless Needs – Families with Children; Homelessness Needs – Veterans; Homelessness Needs – Unaccompanied Youth; Homelessness Strategy; Non-Homeless Special Needs; HOPWA Strategy; Anti-Poverty Strategy Included on email listserv 132 Whitefish Housing Authority PHA Housing Needs Assessment; Public Housing Needs; Homelessness Strategy; HOPWA Strategy; Lead-Based Paint Strategy Included on email listserv 133 Windemere Real Estate Business leaders Housing Needs Assessment; Homelessness Strategy; Non-Homeless Special Needs; Market Analysis; Economic Development; Lead-Based Paint Strategy Included on email listserv 134 Yaak Valley Forest Council Regional organization Market Analysis; Economic Development Attended public meeting 304 State of Montana 32 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan Identify any Agency Types not consulted and provide rationale for not consulting Table 2 lists those agencies, groups, and organizations that the State consulted with and who took a proactive step in participating in the development of the draft 2020-2024 Montana Consolidated Plan for Housing and Community Development. For a complete list of agencies, groups, and organizations that Commerce contacted regarding the development of the draft plan, see Appendix E. Commerce made every effort to be inclusive of all state and local agencies, groups, and organizations in this planning process. Table 3 – Other Local / Regional / Federal Planning Efforts Name of Plan Lead Organization How do the goals of your Strategic Plan overlap with the goals of each plan Main Street Montana Project Governor of the State of Montana The 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan, the 2020-2021 AAP, and the Governor’s business plan for the state share the same primary goals to provide decent housing, a suitable living environment, and expand economic opportunities in Montana. These plans seek to protect Montana’s quality of life by providing assistance and support to local community growth planning processes; developing housing, public health and safety, and local infrastructure strategies for sustainable growth and development; and assisting local efforts to revitalize historic downtown business districts. Both plans seek to strengthen and promote Montana to recruit businesses and workers by creating a statewide business and employee recruitment and retention strategy focused on Montana’s quality of life; preserving Montana’s outdoor recreation opportunities and environment; and strengthening public safety and infrastructure across Montana. State Montana Continuum of Care DPHHS The MTCoC provides funding for many of the same activities provided through the HUD-funded programs addressed in the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan and 2020- 2021 AAP for homeless individuals and families. 2020-2024 Consolidat ed Plan City of Billings The State and the City of Billings share the same primary goals to provide decent housing, a suitable living environment, and expand economic opportunities by preserving the existing affordable housing stock, creating new affordable housing opportunities, and expanding housing choice options for existing and potential residents to foster stable, socio-economically diverse neighborhoods. 2019-2023 Consolidat ed Plan City of Missoula The State and the City of Missoula share the same primary goals to provide decent housing, a suitable living environment, and expand economic opportunities by ending homelessness, increasing affordable rental housing and homeownership opportunities, providing public facilities and infrastructure, achieving economic development, encouraging sustainability and decreasing or mitigating environmental hazards in housing and neighborhoods, eliminating barriers to affordable housing, planning to meet future community development needs, and expanding capacity to support community service needs. 2020-2024 Consolidat ed Plan City of Great Falls The State and the City of Great Falls share the same primary goals to provide decent housing, a suitable living environment, and expand economic opportunities by rehabilitating public facilities to meet ADA accessibility standards and increase energy efficiency; building or rehabilitating transitional housing and providing assistance to homeless or special needs persons; providing support to community service agencies; assisting first-time homebuyers with down payment and closing costs; constructing, purchasing, and rehabilitating new and existing affordable homes for ownership and rental; and funding economic development projects that create jobs for persons of low to moderate income. 305 State of Montana 33 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan Describe cooperation and coordination among the State and any units of general local government, in the implementation of the Consolidated Plan (91.315(l)) Commerce worked cooperatively with DPHHS, the Montana Department of Labor & Industry (DLI), and DOR to develop the 2020-2024 Montana Consolidated Plan for Housing and Community Development. Commerce reached out to local governments through a variety of outlets, including surveys and focus groups. Table 2 provides a comprehensive list of local governments that participated in the Consolidated Plan process. The State of Montana works continuously to ensure that its state agencies and local governments across the state are informed about and involved in the implementation of the HUD-funded programs covered by the Consolidated Plan. Commerce and DPHHS oversee trainings, presentations, and workshops to provide information about the HUD-funded programs, including eligibility, available funding, and application guidelines. Commerce regularly presents to or participates in events of the Montana Association of Counties, the Montana League of Cities and Towns, the Montana Downtown Association, the Montana Housing Partnership Conference, the Montana Rural Water Conference, and the Qualified Allocation Plan. Commerce and DPHHS provide on-going technical assistance to local governments to help communities prioritize local needs, plan for meeting those needs, and successfully obtaining HUD funds and other funding sources for implementing projects. The State of Montana engages in additional public processes to draft and adopt administrative rules governing the application guidelines and administration manuals for the HUD-funded programs covered in this Consolidated Plan. Efforts to enhance coordination with private industry, businesses, developers, and social service agencies The State of Montana interacts with other agencies, businesses, developers, social service agencies and other organizations to enhance the coordination of efforts to develop housing, support communities, and generate economic development. Commerce supports a broad-based approach to address affordable housing and community development issues through the Consolidated Plan Steering Committee; Water, Wastewater and Solid Waste Action Coordinating Team (W2ASACT); and the Montana Economic Developers Association (MEDA). Additionally, the Community Technical Assistance Program (CTAP) housed within Commerce’s Community Development Division (CDD) provides direct technical assistance to local governments and elected officials, land use planners, associated professionals and members of the public on issues related to land use planning and development throughout the state. CTAP helps educate constituents on planning best practices, policy and even regulations that promote affordable housing and support resilient community and economic development. Through hands-on training, workshops, webinars, online resources, direct technical assistance by phone or email, and collaboration with local, state, and federal agencies, communities learn how to more effectively utilize policy, code and regulations such as zoning, subdivision, building code and tax increment financing tools to help—not hinder—the development of affordable housing alternatives in their jurisdiction. Additionally, the link between affordable housing and transportation alternatives, proximity to jobs, public services and education is also an important focus of the CTAP program. The Montana Main Street Program (another CDD program) further supports these actions by offering additional technical assistance aimed at downtown revitalization through proactive planning and development incentives that support diversity in housing alternatives in Montana’s rural communities. Through these coordinated efforts, private industry, businesses, developers, and social service agencies have resources available to them and an opportunity to provide input into the Consolidated Plan. 306 State of Montana 34 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan Narrative (optional): Not applicable. PR-15 Citizen Participation – 91.105, 91.115, 91.200(c) and 91.300(c) 1. Summary of citizen participation process/Efforts made to broaden citizen participation Summarize citizen participation process and how it impacted goal-setting Three key steps were taken to follow Montana’s citizen participation process. First, two surveys regarding housing and community development needs and fair housing needs were circulated. Second, ten focus group meetings on the topics of economic development, homelessness, housing, infrastructure, and planning were held. Finally, Montana held public hearings to provide the public the opportunity to offer input in the development of the 2020-2024 Montana Consolidated Plan for Housing and Community Development and 2020-2021 AAP (Consolidated Plan) documents. Commerce developed a list of over 5,000 contacts of members of the public; city, town, and county officials; independent and professional consultants; for-profit entities; nonprofit entities; state and federal agencies; and, various other organizations that play a role in the development of a comprehensive housing, community, and economic development strategy for Montana (Appendix E). The stakeholders were notified of all aspects of the development of the Consolidated Plan documents, including links to the surveys, invitations to attend public meetings, and notice of availability of draft documents for review and comment. All meetings were limited to remote participation due to concerns about COVID-19; all meeting materials, minutes, and transcripts were made available via the Commerce website; and all Consolidated Plan documents were available in hardcopy at designated repositories throughout the state or upon request. Commerce developed a scan code and posted links on its website for online survey participation. All surveys were publicized on flyers and visual boards displayed at repositories and other strategic locations. When the Housing and Community Development Survey closed in March 2020, over 300 respondents had completed it (Appendix B). In 2020, Commerce also held ten focus group meetings to gain input from stakeholders with expertise related specifically to affordable housing, economic development, community and public facilities or “infrastructure,” planning, and homelessness. Two focus groups on homelessness were conducted March 31 and April 16, with 9 and 14 attendees, respectively; one focus group on planning was conducted April 3, with 13 attendees; three focus groups on affordable housing were conducted November 16, 17, and 18, with 3, 2, and 4 attendees, respectively; one focus group on economic development was conducted November 19, with 8 attendees; and three focus groups on infrastructure were conducted November 23, 24, and 25, with 5, 2, and 3 attendees, respectively. In all, over 50 experts attended the ten focus group meetings. Commerce published meeting minutes or official transcripts for all ten focus group meetings on its website; these minutes and transcripts are provided in Appendix C. Commerce held two public hearings while developing the 2020-2024 Montana Consolidated Plan. The first hearing took place on March 23, 2020; the second hearing was held April 14, 2021. Approximately 38 individuals attended both hearings, with 22 participants recorded for the first hearing and 16 participants recorded for the second hearing. Montana’s first hearing and comment period were announced March 8, 2020, and comments were accepted March 9 to April 23, 2020. Montana’s second 307 State of Montana 35 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan hearing and comment period were announced April 7, 2021, and comments were accepted April 8 to April 23, 2021. Commerce also shared information about the 2020-2024 Montana Consolidated Plan during its Mega Waiver and 2015-2019 AAP amendments hearing on April 14, 2020. This hearing and associated comment period were announced March 27, 2020, and comments were accepted March 28 to April 28, 2020. As stated previously, consistent with its CPP and in accordance with its Mega Waiver, the State provided 7 days’ notice of the second hearing and 16 days for the public to review the draft Consolidated Plan and provide comment. Public comments and views submitted during the surveys, public hearings, and comment periods were used in determining the goals and priorities of the Consolidated Plan. Documentation detailing the citizen participation process, along with official transcripts and/or meeting minutes of all meetings held, is available on Commerce’s website. Commerce used its website throughout the development of Montana’s Consolidated Plan to enhance public participation, increase access to information, and publish plan documents (Appendix E). Commerce utilized email and newspaper advertisements to notify the public of all plan activities (Appendix E). Furthermore, Commerce made the plan available in hardcopy at various repositories across the state and upon request. Citizen Participation Outreach Table 4 – Citizen Participation Outreach # Mode of Outreach Target of Outreach Summary of Outreach Outcomes URL (If applicable) 1 Other – Email Listserv Non-targeted/ broad community Summary of response/attendance: Commerce announced the development and availability of the Draft 2020-2024 Montana Consolidated Plan for Housing and Community Development and 2020-2021 AAP by emailing notice to the Consolidated Plan contact list. Summary of comments received: See Appendix D for a summary of comments received and responses provided. Summary of comments not accepted and reasons: See Appendix D for a summary of comments not accepted and reasons. See Appendix E for a list of citizens and organizations consulted. 308 State of Montana 36 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan # Mode of Outreach Target of Outreach Summary of Outreach Outcomes URL (If applicable) 2 Public Meeting Residents of Public and Assisted Housing; Other – Developers of Housing, Economic Development Specialists, Planners, Service Providers, and Individuals Experiencing or At Risk of Experiencing Homelessness Summary of response/attendance: Commerce and DPHHS invited various stakeholders to participate in five focus groups, which included affordable housing, economic development, community and public facilities or “infrastructure,” planning, and homelessness. Summary of comments received: See Appendix D for a summary of comments received and responses provided. Summary of comments not accepted and reasons: See Appendix D for a summary of comments not accepted and reasons. See Appendix E for documentation showing citizens and organizations invited to participate in each of the focus groups. 3 Public Hearing Non-targeted/ broad community Summary of response/attendance: Commerce and DPHHS held two public hearings: one before publishing the draft plan and one after publishing the draft plan. The first hearing was held on March 23, 2020, and sought input on the development of the plan; the second hearing was held on April 14, 2021, and sought feedback on the published draft plan. Both meetings were limited to remote participation due to concerns about COVID-19. Summary of comments received: See Appendix D for a summary of comments received and responses provided. Summary of comments not accepted and reasons: See Appendix D for a summary of comments not accepted and reasons. N/A 4 Newspaper Ad Non-targeted/ broad community Summary of response/attendance: Commerce announced the development and availability of the Draft 2020-2024 Montana Consolidated Plan for Housing and Community Development and 2020-2021 AAP by publishing advertisements in newspapers across Montana. Summary of comments received: See Appendix D for a summary of comments received and responses provided. Summary of comments not accepted and reasons: See Appendix D for a summary of comments not accepted and reasons. N/A 309 State of Montana 37 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan # Mode of Outreach Target of Outreach Summary of Outreach Outcomes URL (If applicable) 5 Internet Outreach Non-targeted/ broad community Summary of response/attendance: Commerce announced the development and availability of the Draft 2020-2024 Montana Consolidated Plan for Housing and Community Development and 2020-2021 AAP on its website, as well as posted all plan documents for public review. Summary of comments received: See Appendix D for a summary of comments received and responses provided. Summary of comments not accepted and reasons: See Appendix D for a summary of comments not accepted and reasons. https://commerce. mt.gov/conplan 6 Other – Public Repositories Non-targeted/ broad community Summary of response/attendance: Commerce provided the public with access to hardcopies of the Draft 2020-2024 Montana Consolidated Plan for Housing and Community Development and 2020-2021 AAP at over 20 publicly accessible locations across Montana. Summary of comments received: See Appendix D for a summary of comments received and responses provided. Summary of comments not accepted and reasons: See Appendix D for a summary of comments not accepted and reasons. https://commerce. mt.gov/conplan/re positories 310 State of Montana 38 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan Needs Assessment NA-05 Overview Needs Assessment Overview The following narrative describes Montana’s socioeconomic characteristics, including population, race and ethnicity, disability, poverty, and unemployment rates with respect to housing needs. Data in this section was gathered from the U.S Census Bureau, the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, and HUD. This information was used to analyze Montana’s current social and economic status and determine prospective trends and patterns in growth over the next 5 years. Tables in this Section were pre-populated with HUD data from the 2013-2017 American Community Survey (ACS), and where indicated, Commerce provided additional data. Local, state, and federal agencies recognize the role that transportation costs play in calculating the affordability of housing. HUD encourages the coordination of housing, transportation, water, and other infrastructure investments to make neighborhoods more prosperous, allow people to live closer to jobs, save households time and money, and reduce pollution. The Location Affordability Index and other tools help planners, policymakers, and the private sector make decisions about land use, housing, transportation, and economic development by illustrating how housing and transportation costs impact affordability. The State of Montana will use these tools and other data resources to help stakeholders understand, and ultimately reduce, the combined housing and transportation cost burden borne by Montana families. NA-10 Housing Needs Assessment - 24 CFR 91.305 (a,b,c) Summary of Housing Needs The State of Montana has a population of 1,029,862 with 423,091 households (2017 5-year and 1-year ACS estimates). This represents a 4.1% population increase and a 3.3% household increase since 2010 (2010 Census, 2006-2010 ACS, base year). Montana’s median household income for 2017 according to ACS 1-year estimates is $53,386, a 25.1% increase over 2010. Table 5 details these assessment demographics. The 2010 Census indicates that the State of Montana has 482,825 housing units, with 409,607 occupied and 73,218 vacant. According to the ACS (most recent 5-year estimates), Montana’s 2018 housing stock includes 505,685 total units, of which 423,240 units are occupied with 286,553 owner-occupied units and 136,687 renter-occupied units. This housing stock comprises 80,947 multifamily units, 368,582 single-family units and 55,335 mobile home units. 2018 estimates show a homeowner rate of 67.7% and a renter rate of 32.3% as well as a homeowner vacancy rate of 1.4% and a rental vacancy rate of 6.3%. The 2019 Montana Housing Status Survey, also known as the Point-In-Time (PIT) Homeless Survey, counted 1,357 homeless persons, including 410 homeless individuals belonging to a family with children, 8 unaccompanied homeless youth, and 939 homeless adults. Of the 1,357 homeless persons counted, 228 are considered chronically homeless. HUD categorizes housing problems based on three conditions: 1. Overcrowding (more than 1.0 person per room or, in cases of severe overcrowding, more than 1.5 persons per room), 2. Lack of complete plumbing or kitchen facilities, and 311 State of Montana 39 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan 3. Cost burden (more than 30% of income goes to housing or, in cases of severe cost burden, more than 50% of income goes to housing). HUD provides custom tabulations of ACS data from the U.S. Census Bureau, known as the “CHAS” data (Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy). These data demonstrate the extent of housing problems and housing needs, particularly for low-income households. These data, specific to Montana, are provided in Tables 6 through 12. Table 5 – Housing Needs Assessment Demographics Demographics Base Year: 2010 Most Recent Year: 2017 % Change Population 989,415 1,029,862 4.1% Households 409,607 423,091 3.3% Median Income $42,666 $53,386 25.1% Data Source: 2010 Census; 2006-2010 ACS (Base Year), 2013-2017 ACS (Most Recent Year) Number of Households Table Table 6 – Total Households Table Household Type 0-30% HAMFI* >30-50% HAMFI* >50-80% HAMFI* >80-100% HAMFI* >100% HAMFI* Total Households** 56,825 54,710 79,915 44,675 176,530 Small Family Households** 13,910 13,905 24,425 17,025 88,525 Large Family Households 2,390 3,215 5,545 3,590 13,010 Household contains at least one person 62-74 years of age 10,960 12,490 19,595 11,125 43,060 Household contains at least one person age 75 or older 8,090 11,075 11,525 4,855 12,585 Households with one or more children 6 years old or younger 7,405 8,005 11,290 6,725 23,845 Data Source: 2012-2016 CHAS * HUD Median Family Income (HAMFI) ** The highest income category for these family types is >80% HAMFI Housing Needs Summary Tables 1. Housing Problems (Households with one of the listed needs) Table 7 – Housing Problems 1 Housing Problems Renter Owner 0-30% AMI >30- 50% AMI >50- 80% AMI >80- 100% AMI Total* 0-30% AMI >30- 50% AMI >50- 80% AMI >80- 100% AMI Total* NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS Substandard Housing - Lacking complete plumbing or kitchen facilities 965 860 590 295 2,710 575 250 345 200 1,370 312 State of Montana 40 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan Housing Problems Renter Owner 0-30% AMI >30- 50% AMI >50- 80% AMI >80- 100% AMI Total* 0-30% AMI >30- 50% AMI >50- 80% AMI >80- 100% AMI Total* Severely Overcrowded - With >1.51 people per room (and complete kitchen and plumbing) 240 570 420 85 1,315 80 85 170 90 425 Overcrowded - With 1.01-1.5 people per room (and none of the above problems) 885 630 905 395 2,815 295 495 570 420 1,780 Housing cost burden greater than 50% of income (and none of the above problems) 19,145 4,970 765 155 25,035 10,555 6,045 4,140 870 21,610 Housing cost burden greater than 30% of income (and none of the above problems) 4,525 11,635 7,510 1,025 24,695 4,550 6,265 11,130 5,705 27,650 Zero/negative Income (and none of the above problems) 2,025 0 0 0 2,025 1,900 0 0 0 1,900 Data Source: 2012-2016 CHAS * Total less than 100% AMI 313 State of Montana 41 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan 2. Housing Problems 2 (Households with one or more Severe Housing Problems: Lacks kitchen or complete plumbing, severe overcrowding, severe cost burden) Table 8 – Housing Problems 2 Housing Problems Renter Owner 0-30% AMI >30- 50% AMI >50- 80% AMI >80- 100% AMI Total* 0-30% AMI >30- 50% AMI >50- 80% AMI >80- 100% AMI Total* NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS Having 1 or more of four housing problems 25,760 18,670 10,190 1,955 56,575 16,055 13,135 16,355 7,285 52,830 Having none of four housing problems 6,945 8,315 21,560 11,405 48,225 4,595 14,595 31,810 24,025 75,025 Household has negative income, but none of the other housing problems 2,025 0 0 0 2,025 1,900 0 0 0 1,900 Data Source: 2012-2016 CHAS * Total less than 100% AMI 3. Cost Burden > 30% Table 9 – Cost Burden > 30% Household Type Renter Owner 0-30% AMI >30-50% AMI >50- 80% AMI Total 0-30% AMI >30-50% AMI >50-80% AMI Total NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS Small Related 6,790 5,295 2,720 14,805 3,420 3,380 5,665 12,465 Large Related 1,140 1,040 590 2,770 530 725 1,250 2,505 Elderly 4,865 4,310 1,550 10,725 7,075 5,885 5,080 18,040 Other 12,270 7,070 3,890 23,230 4,560 2,565 3,535 10,660 Total need by income 25,065 17,715 8,750 51,530 15,585 12,555 15,530 43,670 Data Source: 2012-2016 CHAS 314 State of Montana 42 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan 4. Cost Burden > 50% Table 10 – Cost Burden > 50% Household Type Renter Owner 0-30% AMI >30- 50% AMI >50- 80% AMI Total 0-30% AMI >30- 50% AMI >50- 80% AMI Total NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS Small Related 5,485 1,655 130 7,270 2,685 1,800 1,320 5,805 Large Related 870 190 0 1,060 405 250 180 835 Elderly 3,470 1,450 410 5,330 4,375 2,670 1,680 8,725 Other 10,400 2,075 390 12,865 3,435 1,405 1,050 5,890 Total need by income 20,225 5,370 930 26,525 10,900 6,125 4,230 21,255 Data Source: 2012-2016 CHAS 5. Crowding (More than one person per room) Table 11 – Crowding Information – 1 of 2 Household Type Renter Owner 0-30% AMI >30- 50% AMI >50- 80% AMI >80- 100% AMI Total 0- 30% AMI >30- 50% AMI >50- 80% AMI >80- 100% AMI Total NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS Single family households 980 1,020 1,185 435 3,620 335 415 630 425 1,805 Multiple, unrelated family households 120 125 30 35 310 45 135 135 100 415 Other, non-family households 70 60 140 20 290 4 49 0 14 67 Total need by income 1,170 1,205 1,355 490 4,220 384 599 765 539 2,287 Data Source: 2012-2016 CHAS Table 12 – Crowding Information – 2 of 2 Criteria Renter Owner 0-30% AMI >30- 50% AMI >50- 80% AMI Total 0-30% AMI >30- 50% AMI >50- 80% AMI Total Households with Children Present N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Data Source: 2012-2016 CHAS Describe the number and type of single person households in need of housing assistance. The 2013-2017 ACS recorded 30.4% or approximately 127,672 single-person households in Montana in 2017. The exact distribution of single-person households among all households by cost burden is unknown. However, since both the elderly and young adults may represent a proportionally greater number of single person households than other adults, the percentage of single person households requiring assistance is likely greater than multiple-person households in the state. 315 State of Montana 43 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan According to the 2019 Montana PIT Homeless Survey, there were 1,357 homeless persons in Montana in 2019. Of those, there were 410 individuals belonging to a family with children, 8 unaccompanied homeless youth, and 939 homeless adults. Of the 1,357 homeless persons counted, 228 individuals are chronically homeless with 194 of the 228 individuals representing adult-only households. Estimate the number and type of families in need of housing assistance who are disabled or victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking. Respondents to the 2020 Housing and Community Development Survey ranked the need in Montana for additional services and facilities for both victims of domestic violence and persons with physical and/or developmental disabilities. Results indicate services and facilities are a medium priority for victims of domestic violence while services and facilities are a low to medium priority for persons with physical and/or developmental disabilities. According to the 2019 PIT count, victims of domestic violence accounted for 18.9% of Montana’s homeless population while persons with physical disabilities accounted for 25.0% and persons with developmental disabilities accounted for 35.3%. What are the most common housing problems? According to the 2013-2017 ACS, in 2017 27.9% of households in Montana experienced a housing cost burden, meaning they paid 30% or more of their income on housing. Of note, cost burden fell most heavily on households with an annual income of less than $20,000, with 77.1% of this bracket paying 30% or more of their income on housing. Additionally, renters were more cost burdened than homeowners with a mortgage, with 45.4% of renters paying 30% or more of their income on housing versus 29.0% of homeowners paying 30% or more of their income on housing. Respondents to the 2020 Housing and Community Development Survey indicated that affordable housing for the workforce (especially teachers and service industry workers), the elderly, and the disabled is in short supply throughout the state. Respondents also indicated that affordable housing is especially elusive in resort communities where the tourism-based economy relies heavily on seasonal, low-wage work, home purchase prices are high, and long-term rentals are being converted to short- term rentals. Are any populations/household types more affected than others by these problems? From the above data it appears that households with very low incomes (0-30% AMI) and renters are more affected than others by housing problems. It also appears that the elderly and the disabled are significantly affected by housing problems and that a lack of housing options for the general workforce (especially teachers and service industry workers) impacts communities across the state. For the elderly, housing problems are expected to persist given that the population over age 60 represents just over 25% of the total population in Montana, and the population age 85 and older is the state’s fastest growing age group and is projected to increase 57% by 2030.2 Due to “fixed” incomes and higher medical and/or supportive services expenses, housing affordability is of particular concern for the aging population. 2 Montana State Plan on Aging available online at https://dphhs.mt.gov/Portals/85/sltc/documents/AgingReports/MontanaStatePlanonAging2019-2022.pdf 316 State of Montana 44 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan Describe the characteristics and needs of Low-income individuals and families with children (especially extremely low-income) who are currently housed but are at imminent risk of either residing in shelters or becoming unsheltered 91.205(c)/91.305(c)). Also discuss the needs of formerly homeless families and individuals who are receiving rapid re-housing assistance and are nearing the termination of that assistance Low-income households commonly utilize a higher portion of their income on basic needs including housing. The percentage of Montana households that are housing cost burdened, i.e., that pay 30% or more of their income just on housing, increases as income decreases. Lower-income households (under $50,000 per year) experience housing cost burden at a rate of 51.8% compared with 7.7% of higher- income households ($50,000 or more per year). The correlation between lower incomes and housing insecurity is even more apparent when data for lower-income households is disaggregated. Extremely low-income households (under $20,000 per year) experience housing cost burden at a staggering rate of 77.1% (2013-2017 ACS). Households in financial struggle are at great risk of homelessness, and households who have been homeless face a real risk of becoming homeless again. Of the 1,357 homeless persons counted in Montana during the 2019 PIT Homeless Survey, 228 were considered chronically homeless. While some formerly homeless families and individuals receive rapid re-housing assistance, this is not an entitlement, and many do not receive assistance. Furthermore, even if assistance is secured, the formerly homeless family or individual must obtain a unit that is both available and amendable to such assistance. Low- and extremely low-income households unable to secure affordable housing face difficult choices. If they pursue housing that costs more than what they can afford, they are forced to severely limit the expenditure of income on other necessities such as food and healthcare. If they obtain affordable housing, it may not be decent, safe, or sanitary. Poor or no credit, unemployment or underemployment, and lack of cash savings further jeopardize the ability of low- and extremely low-income households to maintain stable housing. If a jurisdiction provides estimates of the at-risk population(s), it should also include a description of the operational definition of the at-risk group and the methodology used to generate the estimates: The State of Montana considers persons with a severe housing cost burden, persons living in overcrowded or severely overcrowded housing, persons with severe mental illness, persons living with disabilities, persons with substance use disorders, victims of domestic violence, and persons living with HIV and their families as at-risk per HUD and U.S. Census definitions. Specify particular housing characteristics that have been linked with instability and an increased risk of homelessness Overcrowding, seen in both renter and homeowner households, is one characteristic linked with instability and an increased risk of homelessness. Compared with 5,193 (1.3%) households in 2011, approximately 6,333 (1.5%) households in 2017 lived in overcrowded conditions, defined as 1.01-1.50 persons per room. Compared with 2,056 (0.5%) households in 2011, 2,680 (0.6%) households in 2017 lived in severely overcrowded conditions, defined as more than 1.50 persons per room. These figures represent a 22.0% and 30.4% change from 2011 to 2017 for crowding and severe overcrowding, respectively. A second housing characteristic linked with instability and an increased risk of homelessness is housing that lacks complete kitchen facilities. A lack of these facilities indicates that the housing is likely unsuitable. In 2017 approximately 4,150 occupied housing units or 1.0% of Montana’s housing stock lacked complete kitchen facilities. 317 State of Montana 45 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan A third housing characteristic linked with instability and an increased risk of homelessness is housing that lacks complete plumbing facilities. Similar to housing that lacks complete kitchen facilities, a lack of complete plumbing facilities indicates that the housing is likely unsuitable. In 2017 approximately 2,159 occupied housing units or 0.5% of Montana’s housing stock had inadequate plumbing facilities. Discussion The 2020 Housing and Community Development Survey asked participants which housing activities are the highest priority. Two hundred and forty-eight participants responded, identifying five priority activities each and ranking them from 1 to 5 with 1 being the highest priority. Responses indicate new construction of affordable rental housing, new construction of affordable for-sale housing, and rental assistance (e.g., vouchers) are the highest priorities (Appendix B). Responses also indicate, based on total priority rankings, that new construction of affordable rental housing, new construction of affordable for-sale housing, rental assistance (e.g., vouchers), rental housing rehabilitation, and first- time homebuyer education and down payment assistance are among the top five priorities for housing activities (Table NA-1). Table NA-1 – Need for Housing Activities 1 (Highest Priority) 2 3 4 5 (Lowest Priority) Total Priority Rankings 1–5 New construction of affordable rental housing 82 48 30 21 8 189 New construction of affordable for-sale housing 42 41 18 28 21 150 Rental assistance (e.g., vouchers) 22 33 29 25 12 121 Rental housing rehabilitation 11 25 24 27 31 118 First-time homebuyer education and down payment assistance 12 10 34 25 27 108 Development of mixed-income housing (i.e., development that deliberately accommodates families with a range of income levels) 8 17 23 10 29 87 Preservation of federal subsidized housing 16 13 10 14 32 85 Homeowner housing rehabilitation 12 17 16 22 16 83 Energy efficient retrofits (installing energy-efficient windows or lighting, upgrading insulation, etc.) 6 13 19 21 15 74 Demolition/removal of dilapidated, unsafe housing 13 7 16 12 19 67 Development of mixed-use housing (i.e., development that blends residential and commercial, cultural, or other uses into one space) 5 7 9 18 12 51 Development of housing in downtown corridors 4 3 8 12 9 36 Other (specify below)* 11 4 0 0 5 20 Data Source: 2020 Housing and Community Development Survey 318 State of Montana 46 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan *Other priorities, based on survey responses, include development of accessible affordable housing for persons with disabilities and seniors, development of workforce housing, development of year-round shelters, development of tiny homes and small single room occupancy units, development of net zero affordable housing, development of permanent supportive housing with robust service integration, development of affordable housing for persons coming out of incarceration or persons with felony records, assistance (vouchers) for persons with disabilities coming out of state facilities, and investment in manufactured homes. NA-15 Disproportionately Greater Need: Housing Problems - 91.305 (b)(2) Assess the need of any racial or ethnic group that has disproportionately greater need in comparison to the needs of that category of need as a whole. Introduction Housing problems include four conditions: (1) Lacks complete kitchen facilities, (2) Lacks complete plumbing facilities, (3) Has more than 1.0 person per room, and (4) Has cost burden over 30%. These conditions are addressed throughout this section. While the Census and ACS do not delve deeply into the physical condition of housing units, selected questions from these surveys do explore various housing difficulties households face. The following tables and narrative consider the housing needs of specific racial or ethnic groups compared with household needs as a whole. Appendix F provides a more in-depth analysis of Montana’s demography. 0%-30% of Area Median Income Table 13 – Disproportionally Greater Need 0 - 30% AMI Housing Problems Has one or more of four housing problems Has none of the four housing problems Household has no/negative income, but none of the other housing problems Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Jurisdiction as a whole 41,810 100% 11,094 100% 3,924 100% White 35,590 85% 8,845 80% 3,190 81% Black / African American 210 1% 50 0% 0 0% Asian 210 1% 4 0% 95 2% American Indian, Alaska Native 3,595 9% 1,615 15% 470 12% Pacific Islander 0 0% 0 0% 15 0% Hispanic 1,400 3% 245 2% 150 4% Data Source: 2012-2016 CHAS *The four housing problems are: 1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities, 2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities, 3. More than one person per room, 4. Cost Burden greater than 30% 319 State of Montana 47 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan 30%-50% of Area Median Income Table 14 – Disproportionally Greater Need 30 - 50% AMI Housing Problems Has one or more of four housing problems Has none of the four housing problems Household has no/negative income, but none of the other housing problems Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Jurisdiction as a whole 31,808 100% 22,905 100% 0 0% White 27,995 88% 19,875 80% 0 0% Black / African American 254 1% 75 1% 0 0% Asian 95 0% 130 1% 0 0% American Indian, Alaska Native 1,360 4% 1,865 17% 0 0% Pacific Islander 49 0% 0 0% 0 0% Hispanic 1,255 4% 625 6% 0 0% Data Source: 2012-2016 CHAS *The four housing problems are: 1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities, 2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities, 3. More than one person per room, 4. Cost Burden greater than 30% 50%-80% of Area Median Income Table 15 – Disproportionally Greater Need 50 - 80% AMI Housing Problems Has one or more of four housing problems Has none of the four housing problems Household has no/negative income, but none of the other housing problems Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Jurisdiction as a whole 26,540 100% 53,370 100% 0 0% White 24,080 91% 47,775 90% 0 0% Black / African American 130 0% 135 0% 0 0% Asian 240 1% 275 1% 0 0% American Indian, Alaska Native 850 3% 2,650 5% 0 0% Pacific Islander 10 0% 25 0% 0 0% Hispanic 750 3% 1,290 2% 0 0% Data Source: 2012-2016 CHAS *The four housing problems are: 1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities, 2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities, 3. More than one person per room, 4. Cost Burden greater than 30% 320 State of Montana 48 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan 80%-100% of Area Median Income Table 16 – Disproportionally Greater Need 80 - 100% AMI Housing Problems Has one or more of four housing problems Has none of the four housing problems Household has no/negative income, but none of the other housing problems Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Jurisdiction as a whole 9,240 100% 35,434 100% 0 0% White 8,590 93% 32,455 92% 0 0% Black / African American 0 0% 74 0% 0 0% Asian 110 1% 250 1% 0 0% American Indian, Alaska Native 305 3% 1,270 4% 0 0% Pacific Islander 0 0% 10 0% 0 0% Hispanic 135 1% 650 2% 0 0% Data Source: 2012-2016 CHAS *The four housing problems are: 1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities, 2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities, 3. More than one person per room, 4. Cost Burden greater than 30% Discussion Housing problems disproportionately affected households with lower incomes, as demonstrated in Tables 13-16. A housing problem reported in the 2000 and 2010 Census and subsequent ACS reports is cost burden, which occurs when a household has gross housing costs that range from 30.0 to 49.9% of gross household income. For homeowners, gross housing costs include property taxes, insurance, energy payments, water and sewer service, and refuse collection. If the homeowner has a mortgage, the determination also includes principal and interest payments on the mortgage loan. For renters, gross housing costs include monthly rent plus utility charges. According to 2017 ACS data, in 2017 27.9% of households in Montana experienced a housing cost burden, meaning they paid 30% or more of their income on housing. Transportation costs are the second largest budget item for most households. Thus, while Montana is vast and largely rural, higher-density infill housing projects that take advantage of existing buildings, infrastructure, and transportation options to recognize the opportunity for mixed-use, flexible-use, and mixed-income projects is an appropriate focus for reducing cost burden. Prioritizing housing options in existing neighborhoods has the benefit of decreasing commuting costs and time while increasing walking and cycling options and the health and well-being of residents. Another type of housing problem reported in the 2000 and 2010 Census and subsequent ACS reports is overcrowding, which, as mentioned earlier, occurs when there is more than 1.0 person per room in a household. Overcrowding (1.01-1.50 persons per room) increased from 5,193 (1.3%) households in 2011 to approximately 6,333 (1.5%) households in 2017, a percent change of 22.0%. According to 2012-2016 ACS, Montana’s racial composition is as follows: • White: 911,907 (89%) • Black or African American: 4,260 (0%) 321 State of Montana 49 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan • American Indian and Alaska Native: 67,222 (7%) • Asian: 7,481 (1%) • Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander: 841 (0%) • Some other race: 5,158 (1%) • Two or more races: 26,522 (3%) • Two races including some other race: 1,435 (0%) • Two races excluding some other race, and three or more races: 25,087 (2%) In the income bracket of 0-30% AMI, 210 or 1% of Black/African American households and 3,595 or 9% of American Indian/Alaska Native households have one or more housing problems. In comparison to Tables 13-16, these data show that Black/African American and American Indian/Alaska Native households in this group experience housing problems at a disproportionate rate. In the income bracket of 30-50% AMI, 254 or 1% of Black/African American households have one or more housing problems. In comparison to Tables 13-16, these data show that Black/African American households in this group experience housing problems at a disproportionate rate. In the income bracket of 50-80% AMI and 80-100% AMI, 24,080 or 91% and 8,590 or 93% of White households, respectively, have one or more housing problems. In comparison to Tables 13-16, these data show that White households in these groups experience housing problem at a disproportionate rate. These data also show that White households comprise the vast majority of households in the 50- 100% AMI income range. NA-20 Disproportionately Greater Need: Severe Housing Problems – 91.305(b)(2) Assess the need of any racial or ethnic group that has disproportionately greater need in comparison to the needs of that category of need as a whole. Introduction Severe housing problems include four conditions: (1) Lacks complete kitchen facilities, (2) Lacks complete plumbing facilities, (3) Has more than 1.5 persons per room, and (4) Has cost burden over 50%. These conditions are addressed throughout this section. While the Census and ACS do not delve deeply into the physical condition of housing units, selected questions from these surveys do explore various housing difficulties households face. The following tables and narrative consider the housing needs of specific racial or ethnic groups compared with household needs as a whole. Appendix F provides a more in-depth analysis of Montana’s demography. 322 State of Montana 50 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan 0%-30% of Area Median Income Table 17 – Severe Housing Problems 0 - 30% AMI Severe Housing Problems Has one or more of four severe housing problems Has none of the four severe housing problems Household has no/negative income, but none of the other severe housing problems Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Jurisdiction as a whole 32,745 100% 20,170 100% 3,924 100% White 27,760 85% 16,675 83% 3,190 81% Black / African American 210 1% 50 0% 0 0% Asian 150 0% 65 0% 95 2% American Indian, Alaska Native 2,790 9% 2,425 12% 470 12% Pacific Islander 0 0% 0 0% 15 0% Hispanic 1,165 4% 485 2% 150 4% Data Source: 2012-2016 CHAS *The four severe housing problems are: 1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities, 2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities, 3. More than 1.5 persons per room, 4. Cost Burden over 50% 30%-50% of Area Median Income Table 18 – Severe Housing Problems 30 - 50% AMI Severe Housing Problems Has one or more of four severe housing problems Has none of the four severe housing problems Household has no/negative income, but none of the other severe housing problems Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Jurisdiction as a whole 13,908 100% 40,805 100% 0 0% White 12,290 88% 35,580 87% 0 0% Black / African American 0 0% 330 1% 0 0% Asian 24 0% 200 0% 0 0% American Indian, Alaska Native 720 5% 2,500 6% 0 0% Pacific Islander 4 0% 45 0% 0 0% Hispanic 485 3% 1,395 3% 0 0% Data Source: 2012-2016 CHAS *The four severe housing problems are: 1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities, 2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities, 3. More than 1.5 persons per room, 4. Cost Burden over 50% 323 State of Montana 51 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan 50%-80% of Area Median Income Table 19 – Severe Housing Problems 50 - 80% AMI Severe Housing Problems Has one or more of four severe housing problems Has none of the four severe housing problems Household has no/negative income, but none of the other severe housing problems Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Jurisdiction as a whole 7,910 100% 72,005 100% 0 0% White 6,880 87% 64,970 90% 0 0% Black / African American 55 1% 210 0% 0 0% Asian 45 1% 465 1% 0 0% American Indian, Alaska Native 490 6% 3,010 4% 0 0% Pacific Islander 0 0% 35 0% 0 0% Hispanic 235 3% 1,810 3% 0 0% Data Source: 2012-2016 CHAS *The four severe housing problems are: 1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities, 2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities, 3. More than 1.5 persons per room, 4. Cost Burden over 50% 80%-100% of Area Median Income Table 20 – Severe Housing Problems 80 - 100% AMI Severe Housing Problems Has one or more of four severe housing problems Has none of the four severe housing problems Household has no/negative income, but none of the other severe housing problems Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Jurisdiction as a whole 2,519 100% 42,164 100% 0 0% White 2,185 87% 38,855 92% 0 0% Black / African American 0 0% 74 0% 0 0% Asian 20 1% 340 1% 0 0% American Indian, Alaska Native 250 10% 1,325 3% 0 0% Pacific Islander 0 0% 10 0% 0 0% Hispanic 45 2% 745 2% 0 0% Data Source: 2012-2016 CHAS *The four severe housing problems are: 1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities, 2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities, 3. More than 1.5 persons per room, 4. Cost Burden over 50% Discussion Severe housing problems disproportionately affected households with lower incomes, as demonstrated in Tables 17-20. A severe housing problem reported in the 2000 and 2010 Census and subsequent ACS reports is severe cost burden, which occurs when a household has gross housing costs that represent 50.0% or more of 324 State of Montana 52 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan gross household income. For homeowners, gross housing costs include property taxes, insurance, energy payments, water and sewer service, and refuse collection. If the homeowner has a mortgage, the determination also includes principal and interest payments on the mortgage loan. For renters, gross housing costs include monthly rent plus utility charges. According to 2017 ACS data, in 2017 27.9% of households in Montana experienced a housing cost burden, meaning they paid 30% or more of their income on housing; the portion of this segment that is considered severely cost burdened, meaning they paid 50% or more of their income on housing, is not specified. Transportation costs are the second largest budget item for most households. Thus, while Montana is vast and largely rural, higher-density infill housing projects that take advantage of existing buildings, infrastructure, and transportation options to recognize the opportunity for mixed-use, flexible-use, and mixed-income projects is an appropriate focus for reducing cost burden. Prioritizing housing options in existing neighborhoods has the benefit of decreasing commuting costs and time while increasing walking and cycling options and the health and well-being of residents. Another type of severe housing problem reported in the 2000 and 2010 Census and subsequent ACS reports is severe overcrowding, which, as mentioned earlier, occurs when there is more than 1.5 persons per room in a household. Severe overcrowding (more than 1.51 persons per room) increased from 2,056 (0.5%) households in 2011 to approximately 2,680 (0.6%) households in 2017, a percent change of 30.4%. According to 2012-2016 ACS, Montana’s racial composition is as follows: • White: 911,907 (89%) • Black or African American: 4,260 (0%) • American Indian and Alaska Native: 67,222 (7%) • Asian: 7,481 (1%) • Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander: 841 (0%) • Some other race: 5,158 (1%) • Two or more races: 26,522 (3%) • Two races including some other race: 1,435 (0%) • Two races excluding some other race, and three or more races: 25,087 (2%) In the income bracket of 0-30% AMI, 210 or 1% of Black/African American households and 2,790 or 9% of American Indian/Alaska Native households have one or more severe housing problems. In comparison to Tables 17-20, these data show that Black/African American and American Indian/Alaska Native households in this group experience housing problems at a disproportionate rate. No households (any race) experienced severe housing problems at a disproportionate rate in the 30-50% AMI income bracket. In the income bracket of 50-80% AMI, 55 or 1% of Black/African American households have one or more severe housing problems. In comparison to Tables 17-20, these data show that Black/African American households in this group experience housing problems at a disproportionate rate. In the income bracket of 80-100% AMI, 250 or 10% of American Indian/Alaska Native households have one or more severe housing problems. In comparison to Tables 17-20, these data show that American Indian/Alaska Native households in this group experience housing problems at a disproportionate rate. 325 State of Montana 53 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan NA-25 Disproportionately Greater Need: Housing Cost Burdens – 91.305 (b)(2) Assess the need of any racial or ethnic group that has disproportionately greater need in comparison to the needs of that category of need as a whole. Introduction A household is considered cost burdened when their housing expenses represent more than 30% of their gross income. When housing expenses exceed 50% of their gross income, a household is considered severely cost burdened. Table 21 and the narrative below consider the cost burdens of specific racial or ethnic groups compared with household needs as a whole. Appendix F provides a more in-depth analysis of Montana’s demography. Housing Cost Burden Table 21 – Greater Need: Housing Cost Burdens AMI Housing Cost Burden <=30% 30-50% >50% No / negative income (not computed) Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Jurisdiction as a whole 296,595 100% 61,850 100% 50,059 100% 4,152 100% White 271,355 91% 55,710 90% 44,330 89% 3,335 80% Black / African American 705 0% 335 1% 225 0% 4 0% Asian 1,590 1% 425 1% 205 0% 100 2% American Indian, Alaska Native 12,475 4% 2,315 4% 2,635 5% 540 13% Pacific Islander 90 0% 55 0% 4 0% 15 0% Hispanic 5,785 2% 1,900 3% 1,655 3% 150 4% Data Source: 2012-2016 CHAS Discussion According to 2012-2016 ACS, Montana’s racial composition is as follows: • White: 911,907 (89%) • Black or African American: 4,260 (0%) • American Indian and Alaska Native: 67,222 (7%) • Asian: 7,481 (1%) • Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander: 841 (0%) • Some other race: 5,158 (1%) • Two or more races: 26,522 (3%) • Two races including some other race: 1,435 (0%) • Two races excluding some other race, and three or more races: 25,087 (2%) 2012-2016 ACS data, when compared with CHAS data presented in Table 21, show that of cost- burdened households (spending 30-50% of income on housing), 55,710 or 90% of Whites and 335 or 1% 326 State of Montana 54 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan of Blacks/African Americans have disproportionately greater need. Based on this same data, no households (any race) considered severely cost-burdened (spending more than 50% of income on housing) have disproportionately greater need. In 2017, 27.9% of households in Montana experienced a housing cost burden, meaning they paid 30% or more of their income on housing; the portion of this segment considered severely cost burdened, meaning they paid 50% or more of their income on housing, is not specified. In the period from 2012 to 2017, cost burden disproportionately affected households with lower incomes, as demonstrated in Table 21. NA-30 Disproportionately Greater Need: Discussion – 91.305 (b)(2) Are there any Income categories in which a racial or ethnic group has disproportionately greater need than the needs of that income category as a whole? There is some variability in the number of housing problems and level of cost burden experienced by each population across income categories. However, it is clear that housing problems, and specifically cost burden, disproportionately affect households in the lower income brackets. The group with the greatest need based on the number of households with housing problems within the jurisdiction as a whole was consistently households at or below 30% AMI. And data show that Blacks/African Americans and American Indians/Alaska Natives in this income category have disproportionately greater need than other racial groups. Data also suggest that Blacks/African Americans in the 30-50% AMI range have somewhat disproportionately greater need than other racial groups. If they have needs not identified above, what are those needs? None. Are any of those racial or ethnic groups located in specific areas or neighborhoods in your community? The largest non-white group in Montana is American Indian/Alaskan Native. This ethnic group is largely located on seven Indian reservations, but the population is disbursed throughout all areas of the state and has a significant presence in select urban centers (e.g., Billings). While needs vary across income categories and geographic locations for this group, data show that American Indians/Alaska Natives in the 30% AMI and below bracket experience disproportionately greater need in comparison to other racial groups. NA-35 Public Housing – (Optional) Introduction The Rental Assistance Bureau within Commerce is the statewide Public Housing Authority (PHA). In Montana, PHAs are setup under state law at the local level to better meet the needs of the local community. The statewide PHA does not own or operate any public housing units but does administer the following programs: Housing Choice Vouchers (HCV); Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing (HUD- VASH); Section 811 Supportive Housing for Persons with Disabilities; Moderate Rehabilitation; Mainstream Vouchers. Commerce also administers the Project Based Section 8 Program for the state of Montana. Commerce is concerned about the number of subsidized housing units and their underlying contracts that are at risk of expiring since expiration would severely affect the affordable housing stock in the state. 327 State of Montana 55 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan It is a significant challenge for tenant-based voucher holders (HCV, HUD-VASH, Mainstream) to find a unit with rent at or below the PHA payment standard, which are set at 110% of the fair market rent, particularly in high cost areas such as Bozeman, Kalispell, Whitefish and Missoula. With vacancy rates extremely low in many of our communities, losing any subsidized housing units would be detrimental. Tables 22-25 present data on public housing units and public housing residents. Data in these tables have not been updated since the submission of Montana’s previous Consolidated Plan (2015-2019) because more current data are not accessible on the PIH Inventory Management System or IMS (previously the PIH Information Center). Totals in Use Table 22 – Public Housing by Program Type Program Type Certificate Mod- Rehab Public Housing Vouchers Total Project- based Tenant- based Special Purpose Voucher Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing Family Unification Program Disabled* # of units vouchers in use 0 301 0 3,571 0 3,480 52 0 0 Data Source: PIH Inventory Management System or IMS, formerly PIC (PIH Information Center) * Includes Non-Elderly Disabled, Mainstream 1-Year, Mainstream 5-Year, and Nursing Home Transition *Includes Non-Elderly Disabled, Mainstream One-Year, Mainstream Five-year, and Nursing Home Transition Characteristics of Residents Table 23 – Characteristics of Public Housing Residents by Program Type Program Type Certificate Mod- Rehab Public Housing Vouchers Total Project- based Tenant- based Special Purpose Voucher Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing Family Unification Program Disabled* # Homeless at admission 0 11 0 19 0 10 9 0 0 # of Elderly Program Participants (>62) 0 24 0 646 0 638 6 0 0 # of Disabled Families 0 90 0 1,356 0 1,303 28 0 0 328 State of Montana 56 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan Program Type Certificate Mod- Rehab Public Housing Vouchers Total Project- based Tenant- based Special Purpose Voucher Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing Family Unification Program Disabled* # of Families requesting accessibility features 0 301 0 3,571 0 3,480 52 0 0 # of HIV/AIDS program participants 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 # of DV victims 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Data Source: PIH Inventory Management System or IMS, formerly PIC (PIH Information Center) * Includes Non-Elderly Disabled, Mainstream 1-Year, Mainstream 5-Year, and Nursing Home Transition Race of Residents Table 24 – Race of Public Housing Residents by Program Type Program Type Race Certificate Mod- Rehab Public Housing Vouchers Total Project- based Tenant- based Special Purpose Voucher Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing Family Unification Program Disabled* White 0 235 0 2,823 0 2,740 50 0 0 Black/African American 0 6 0 30 0 29 1 0 0 Asian 0 1 0 16 0 15 0 0 0 American Indian/Alaska Native 0 59 0 696 0 690 1 0 0 Pacific Islander 0 0 0 6 0 6 0 0 0 Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Data Source: PIH Inventory Management System or IMS, formerly PIC (PIH Information Center) * Includes Non-Elderly Disabled, Mainstream 1-Year, Mainstream 5-Year, and Nursing Home Transition *Includes Non-Elderly Disabled, Mainstream One-Year, Mainstream Five-year, and Nursing Home Transition 329 State of Montana 57 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan Ethnicity of Residents Table 25 – Ethnicity of Public Housing Residents by Program Type Program Type Ethnicity Certificate Mod- Rehab Public Housing Vouchers Total Project- based Tenant- based Special Purpose Voucher Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing Family Unification Program Disabled* Hispanic 0 13 0 122 0 121 1 0 0 Not Hispanic 0 288 0 3,449 0 3,359 51 0 0 Data Source: PIH Inventory Management System or IMS, formerly PIC (PIH Information Center) * Includes Non-Elderly Disabled, Mainstream 1-Year, Mainstream 5-Year, and Nursing Home Transition *Includes Non-Elderly Disabled, Mainstream One-Year, Mainstream Five-year, and Nursing Home Transition Section 504 Needs Assessment: Describe the needs of public housing tenants and applicants on the waiting list for accessible units: According to the Desk Guide for Using IDIS to Prepare the Consolidated Plan, Annual Action Plan, and CAPER/PER, version March 2015, state grantees are not required to complete this section. What are the number and type of families on the waiting lists for public housing and section 8 tenant-based rental assistance? Based on the information above, and any other information available to the jurisdiction, what are the most immediate needs of residents of public housing and Housing Choice voucher holders? According to the Desk Guide for Using IDIS to Prepare the Consolidated Plan, Annual Action Plan, and CAPER/PER, version March 2015, state grantees are not required to complete this section. Nevertheless, Table NA-2 provides the number and percentage of families on the waiting list for Montana’s HCV Program. 1,791 families with children, 681 elderly families, and 1,537 families with disabilities are on the waiting list. Table NA-2 – HCV Waiting List Applicants on Waiting List Families with Children Elderly Families Families with Disabilities Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 4,694 1,791 38% 681 15% 1,537 33% Data Source: Commerce (HousingPro – 3/16/21) How do these needs compare to the housing needs of the population at large According to the Desk Guide for Using IDIS to Prepare the Consolidated Plan, Annual Action Plan, and CAPER/PER, version March 2015, state grantees are not required to complete this section. Discussion: According to the Desk Guide for Using IDIS to Prepare the Consolidated Plan, Annual Action Plan, and CAPER/PER, version March 2015, state grantees are not required to complete this section. 330 State of Montana 58 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan NA-40 Homeless Needs Assessment – 91.305(c) Introduction In 1986, the Urgent Relief for the Homeless Act was introduced, which chiefly established basic emergency supplies for homeless persons such as food, healthcare, and shelter. The act was later renamed the McKinney-Vento Act after the death of one of its chief legislative sponsors and was signed into law in 1987. This legislation continues to set policy for state and local governments to address homelessness in their jurisdictions. HUD has historically defined the term “homeless” according to the McKinney-Vento Act, which states that a person is considered homeless if they lack a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence. A person is also considered homeless if they have a primary nighttime residence that is: • A supervised publicly or privately operated shelter designed to provide temporary living accommodations; • An institution that provides a temporary residence for individuals intended to be institutionalized; and, • A public or private place not designed for, or ordinarily used as, a regular sleeping accommodation for human beings.3 Within this context, homelessness can be defined as the absence of a safe, decent, stable place to live. A person who has no such place to live stays wherever he or she can find space, such as an emergency shelter, an abandoned building, a car, an alley, or any other such place not meant for human habitation. Causes of homelessness include job insecurity and job loss; declining household incomes; stagnant wages that force households to live paycheck to paycheck, often one setback away from financial crisis; lack of affordable housing; and loss of health coupled with high medical costs. Other factors, which may cooccur with the causes listed above, are substance use disorder, mental illness, and domestic violence. In the wake of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, more households are at-risk of homelessness, facing one or more of the causes or factors identified herein. Furthermore, a lack of or inadequate systems of support often serve as primers for homelessness, especially for veterans, persons with substance use disorders, persons with severe mental illness, persons with HIV/AIDS, victims of domestic violence, and emancipated youth. Because of the many and layered causes of homelessness, addressing the needs of the homeless population is an extremely complex endeavor. Tables 26 and 27 assess the needs of the homeless population in Montana. Because the state uses PIT counts to consider homeless needs, Table 26 is limited to the number of persons experiencing homelessness on a given night. Because the PIT count does not distinguish between homelessness and rural homelessness, data are not provided for Table 27. 3 The term “homeless individual” does not include any individual imprisoned or otherwise detained pursuant to an Act of Congress or a state law (42 U.S.C. § 11302(c)). HUD also considers individuals and families living in overcrowded conditions to be “at risk” for homelessness. 331 State of Montana 59 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan Homeless Needs Assessment Table 26 – Homeless Needs Assessment Population Estimate the # of persons experiencing homelessness on a given night Estimate the # experiencing homelessness each year Estimate the # becoming homeless each year Estimate the # exiting homelessness each year Estimate the # of days persons experience homelessness Unsheltered Sheltered Persons in Households with Adult(s) and Child(ren) 54 356 --- --- --- --- Persons in Households with Only Children 0 8 --- --- --- --- Persons in Households with Only Adults 291 648 --- --- --- --- Chronically Homeless Individuals 77 98 --- --- --- --- Chronically Homeless Families 2 10 --- --- --- --- Veterans 69 136 --- --- --- --- Unaccompanied Youth 0 8 --- --- --- --- Persons with HIV 2 2 --- --- --- --- Data Source: 2019 Montana Homeless Survey Notes: Chronically homeless, HIV, and veteran counts do not include accompanying individuals. Indicate if the homeless population is [ ] All Rural Homeless [X] Partially Rural Homeless [ ] Has No Rural Homeless Rural Homeless Needs Assessment Table 27 – Rural Homeless Needs Assessment Population Estimate the # of persons experiencing homelessness on a given night Estimate the # experiencing homelessness each year Estimate the # becoming homeless each year Estimate the # exiting homelessness each year Estimate the # of days persons experience homelessness Unsheltered Sheltered Persons in Households with Adult(s) and Child(ren) --- --- --- --- --- --- 332 State of Montana 60 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan Population Estimate the # of persons experiencing homelessness on a given night Estimate the # experiencing homelessness each year Estimate the # becoming homeless each year Estimate the # exiting homelessness each year Estimate the # of days persons experience homelessness Unsheltered Sheltered Persons in Households with Only Children --- --- --- --- --- --- Persons in Households with Only Adults --- --- --- --- --- --- Chronically Homeless Individuals --- --- --- --- --- --- Chronically Homeless Families --- --- --- --- --- --- Veterans --- --- --- --- --- --- Unaccompanied Youth --- --- --- --- --- --- Persons with HIV --- --- --- --- --- --- Data Source: N/A Notes: N/A For persons in rural areas who are homeless or at risk of homelessness, describe the nature and extent of unsheltered and sheltered homelessness within the jurisdiction: Homelessness in Montana has many faces: mothers fleeing domestic violence with their children, veterans sleeping in tents or on sidewalks in need of shelter and supportive services, young students couch surfing or sleeping in vehicles, and transient families without work and with few resources. In rural areas, homelessness is not noticeable in the ways it is in urban areas. Many households experiencing homelessness in rural Montana are doubled up with family or friends or are able to find assistance from a faith-based community organization for days at a time. Yet, they lack a “fixed, regular and adequate nighttime residence.” With limited economic opportunities and few resources for navigating factors that contribute to or put households at risk of homelessness (e.g., job loss, substance use, mental illness), many of Montana’s poor, rural households have to make the difficult decision to stay and face uncertainty or leave and abandon their communities and social networks. If data is not available for the categories “number of persons becoming and exiting homelessness each year,” and “number of days that persons experience homelessness,” describe these categories for each homeless population type (including chronically homeless individuals and families, families with children, veterans and their families, and unaccompanied youth): Data necessary to assess the number of Montanans becoming and exiting homelessness each year and the number of days that Montanans experience homelessness are not currently available and it is not feasible to infer an assessment based on existing data. 333 State of Montana 61 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan Nature and Extent of Homelessness (Optional) HUD released the 2019 Annual Homeless Assessment Report (AHAR) 4 documenting the national issues related to homelessness. As documented in the AHAR, the nation’s homelessness declined (-12.3%) from 2007 to 2019 while Montana’s homelessness increased (18.0%). The AHAR highlighted the fact that Montana has the highest rate of unsheltered veterans in the nation (19.0%), and that Montana has experienced the largest increase in the number of chronically homeless individuals nationally, more than doubling at a staggering 134.0%. The 2019 Montana PIT Homeless Survey counted 1,357 homeless persons, including 410 homeless individuals belonging to a family with children, 8 unaccompanied homeless youth, and 939 homeless adults. Of the 1,357 homeless persons counted, 228 are considered chronically homeless. At the time of the survey, Montana’s homeless population was a majority of white persons that were either a household of adults only (69.2%) or a household with adults and children (30.2%). Men represented the majority of respondents (58.4%), while women represented the majority of households with children (77.9%). Additionally, the majority of households were sheltered (74.6%) versus unsheltered (25.4%). During the 2019 Montana PIT Homeless Survey, in response to the question, “How long has it been since you had a place you considered home or a permanent place to live?” respondents answered as shown in Table NA-3. Table NA-3 – “How long has it been since you had a place you considered home or a permanent place to live?” Length of Time Chronically Homeless Military Veterans Families with Children Un-accompanied Youth Individuals Families Individuals Families 1 week or less N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Less than 30 days 13 1 29 0 23 1 More than 1 month 2 1 27 0 31 0 More than 3 months 5 0 28 0 25 2 More than 6 months 6 2 28 4 28 2 More than 1 year 38 3 30 0 18 1 More than 2 years 110 5 55 0 10 1 Missing or N/A 1 0 3 0 0 1 Total 175 12 200 4 135 8 Data Source: 2019 Montana Homeless Survey The nature and extent of homelessness, as evidenced in the 2019 Montana PIT Homeless Survey, is detailed in Table NA-4. 4 https://www.hud.gov/press/press_releases_media_advisories/HUD_No_20_003 334 State of Montana 62 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan Table NA-4 – Nature and Extent of Homelessness Race/Ethnicity Sheltered Unsheltered Total White 667 238 905 Black or African American 29 7 36 Asian 4 4 8 American Indian or Alaska Native 175 59 234 Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 7 5 12 Other 22 7 29 Two or More Races 108 25 133 Total 1,012 345 1,357 Hispanic 112 28 140 Not Hispanic 900 317 1217 Data Source: 2019 Montana Homeless Survey Estimate the number and type of families in need of housing assistance for families with children and the families of veterans. According to the 2019 Montana PIT Homeless Survey, the number of persons needing shelter or housing assistance in the state on any given day is approximately 1,360 individuals. Households with adults and children accounted for 30.2% of the total homeless population in Montana while veterans (primary respondents only) accounted for 20.3% of Montana’s homeless population surveyed for veteran status. Based on data gathered, the estimated number of families with children and the estimated number of veterans in need of housing is 410 and 205, respectively. Describe the Nature and Extent of Homelessness by Racial and Ethnic Group. According to the 2019 PIT Homeless Survey, the majority of homeless persons in Montana are white (66.7%). Individuals describing themselves as American Indian/Alaskan Native represent the second largest percentage of the homeless population (17.2%). Blacks/African Americans make up about 2.7% of homeless persons; Hispanics account for 10.3% while non-Hispanics account for 89.7%. According to 2019 ACS 1-year estimates, American Indian/Alaska Native individuals make up 6% of Montana’s population and 5% of Montana’s households and Blacks/African Americans make up 1% of Montana’s population and less than 1% of Montana’s households. The comparison of 2019 PIT and 2019 ACS data shows that American Indians/Alaskan Natives and Blacks/African Americans experience homelessness at a disproportionately higher rate than other racial groups. Describe the Nature and Extent of Unsheltered and Sheltered Homelessness. Although nearly every county across the state has a homeless population, emergency shelters either do not exist or are often not easily accessible to those residing in more rural counties. Of the homeless population counted during the 2019 PIT Homeless Survey, 74.6% were sheltered while 25.4% were unsheltered. The majority of homeless persons in Montana, thus, have some form of temporary shelter and have a strong need for supportive services and/or transitional or permanent housing. Discussion As discussed earlier, homelessness is experienced when an individual lacks a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence or has a primary nighttime residence under certain circumstances. This definition incorporates many different homeless crises Montanans may face. 335 State of Montana 63 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan Reducing homelessness, especially for veterans and the chronically homeless, is a critical priority in Montana. NA-45 Non-Homeless Special Needs Assessment – 91.305 (b,d) Introduction HUD defines special needs populations as those who are “not homeless but require supportive housing, including the elderly, frail elderly, persons with disabilities (mental, physical, developmental), persons with substance use disorders, persons with HIV/AIDS and their families, public housing residents and any other categories the jurisdiction may specify.”5 Because individuals in these groups face unique housing challenges and are vulnerable to becoming homeless, a variety of support services are needed in order for them to achieve and maintain a suitable and stable living environment. Each of these special needs populations will be discussed in terms of their size and characteristics, services and housing currently provided, and services and housing still needed. The 2020 Housing and Community Development Survey asked participants which special needs populations—including the elderly, frail elderly, persons with disabilities (mental, physical, developmental), persons with substance use disorders, and persons with HIV/AIDS, as well as persons that are homeless or at-risk of homelessness, victims of domestic violence, veterans, and persons recently released from prison—have the highest needs for services and facilities. Two hundred and twenty-nine participants responded, identifying five priority populations each and ranking them from 1 to 5 with 1 being the highest priority. Not considering persons who are homeless or at-risk of homelessness, responses indicate persons with mental illness, the elderly and frail elderly, and veterans have the highest needs for services and facilities (Appendix B). Responses also indicate, based on total priority rankings, that persons with mental illness, persons who are homeless or at risk of homelessness, persons with substance use disorders, the elderly, and victims of domestic violence are among the top five priority groups in need of services and facilities (Table NA-5). Table NA-5 – Need for Services and Facilities for Special Needs Populations 1 (Highest Priority) 2 3 4 5 (Lowest Priority) Total Priority Rankings 1–5 Persons with mental illness 65 33 34 23 16 171 Persons that are homeless or at-risk of homelessness 31 22 37 16 24 130 Persons with substance use disorders 15 35 27 24 19 120 The elderly (age 65+) 30 29 19 17 22 117 Victims of domestic violence 18 21 23 29 24 115 The frail elderly (age 85+) 36 28 14 19 16 113 Veterans 20 13 21 17 21 92 Persons with physical disabilities 1 20 18 29 21 89 Persons with developmental disabilities 6 12 15 21 33 87 Persons recently released from prison 3 11 13 19 15 61 Other (specify below)* 2 0 0 2 3 7 Persons with HIV/AIDS 0 0 1 1 0 2 Data Source: 2020 Housing and Community Development Survey 5 Consolidated Plan Final Rule 24 CFR Part 91. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Community Planning and Development. 1995. 14. 336 State of Montana 64 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan *Other priorities, based on survey responses, include youth (especially homeless youth), transition-age youth (aging out of foster care), and persons in the criminal justice system. Of note, several respondents indicated it was difficult to rank these groups since all are considered highly vulnerable and many factors listed for ranking are co-occurring. HOPWA Because the State of Montana’s HOPWA funds are provided via competitive award and not through a formula grant, a discussion of HOPWA is not included herein, and HOPWA data are not provided in Tables 28 and 29. For information about the State’s HOPWA program, funded via competitive award, please see Montana’s HOPWA Annual Progress Report. Table 28 – HOPWA Data Current HOPWA formula use: Cumulative cases of AIDS reported N/A Area incidence of AIDS N/A Number of new cases prior year (3 years of data) N/A Rate per population N/A Rate per population (3 years of data) N/A Current HIV surveillance data: N/A Number of Persons living with HIC (PLWH) N/A Area Prevalence (PLWH per population) N/A Number of new HIV cases reported last year N/A Data Source: CDC HIV Surveillance HIV Housing Need (HOPWA Grantees Only) Table 29 – HIV Housing Need Type of HOPWA Assistance Estimates of Unmet Need Tenant based rental assistance N/A Short-term Rent, Mortgage, and Utility N/A Facility Based Housing (Permanent, short-term or transitional) N/A Data Source: HOPWA CAPER and HOPWA Beneficiary Verification Worksheet Describe the characteristics of special needs populations in your community: Elderly and Frail Elderly Persons HUD defines “elderly” as persons age 62 or older while the Census Bureau defines this segment of the population as persons age 65 or older. Sub-segments of this population include the “extra elderly” (75 and older) and the frail elderly (85 and older). The U.S. National Center for Health Statistics notes that a number of older citizens have limitations caused by chronic conditions that constrain Activities of Daily Living (ADLs). ADLs are divided into three levels, from basic to advanced. Basic ADLs involve personal care and include tasks such as eating, bathing, dressing, using the toilet, and getting in or out of bed or a chair. Intermediate, or instrumental, ADLs are tasks necessary for independent functioning in the community. These include cooking, cleaning, laundry, shopping, using the telephone, using or accessing transportation, taking medicines, and managing money. Social, recreational, and occupational activities that greatly affect the individual’s quality of life are advanced ADLs. Playing bridge, bowling, doing 337 State of Montana 65 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan crafts, or volunteering for one’s church are examples of advanced ADLs. Persons are considered “frail elderly” if they are unable to perform three or more activities of daily living.6 Size and Characteristics According to 2010 Census, 146,742 residents in the state of Montana were age 65 or older. Per 2018 estimates, 198,902 residents were age 65 or older, a 35.5% change from 2010. Table NA-6 shows these total counts of the elderly population along with a breakout of smaller age brackets for the group. 2018 estimates indicate that 79,319 persons (39.8%) were extra elderly, or 75 and older, while 22,695 persons (11.4%) were frail elderly, or 85 and older. According to the State of Montana’s Aging Services Unit, by the year 2025 Montana will have the fifth highest per capita older population in the United States.7 Between 2000 and 2010, the fastest-growing cohort was persons age 55 to 64 followed by persons age 65 and older. Between 2010 and 2017 the fastest-growing cohort was persons age 65 and older, with the cohort age 55 to 64 ranking as the third fastest-growing group. As shown in Table NA-6, from 2010 to 2018, the two elderly sub-groups with the greatest growth were age 67 to 69 and 70 to 74, each yielding more than 48.0% increases. Table NA-6 – Elderly Population by Age Age 2010 Census 2018 Estimates % Change Population % of Total Population % of Total 65 to 66 19,811 13.5% 29,134 14.6% 47.1% 67 to 69 26,745 18.2% 39,588 19.9% 48.0% 70 to 74 34,186 23.3% 50,861 25.6% 48.8% 75 to 79 25,637 17.5% 34,678 17.4% 35.3% 80 to 84 20,342 13.9% 21,946 11.0% 7.9% 85 or Older 20,021 13.6% 22,695 11.4% 13.4% Total 146,742 100.0% 198,902 100.0% 35.5% Data Source: 2010 Census SF1 Data; 2018 Single-year-of-age Estimates (CDC) People with Disabilities (Mental, Physical, Developmental) HUD defines a person with a disability as any person who has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities. Physical or mental disabilities include hearing, mobility and visual impairments, chronic alcoholism, chronic mental illness, AIDS, AIDS related complex, and mental delay that substantially limits one or more major life activities. Major life activities include walking, talking, hearing, seeing, breathing, learning, performing manual tasks and caring for oneself.8 HUD defers to Section 102 of the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act of 2000 for the definition of developmental disability: a severe, chronic disability of an individual that is attributable to a mental or physical impairment or combination of mental and physical impairments. Many persons with disabilities require support services to maintain healthy lifestyles. The services that are required often depend on the individual and the type of disability. For example, a person with a mental disability may require medical assistance, weekly counseling sessions, or job placement assistance. Specialized transport services and physical therapy sessions are services that might be required for a person with a physical disability. 6 http://law.justia.com/us/cfr/title24/24-4.0.2.1.12.2.3.2.html 7 https://dphhs.mt.gov/sltc/aging.aspx 8 http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/disabilities/inhousing 338 State of Montana 66 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan Many persons with disabilities live on fixed incomes and thus face financial challenges similar to those faced by the elderly. Furthermore, many persons with disabilities, especially those transitioning from psychiatric hospitals and structured residential programs, benefit from supportive services provided in addition to or in conjunction with affordable, stable housing. Households affected by mental illness are at increased risk of homelessness. The 2019 PIT Homeless Survey shows that 25.0% of Montana’s homeless population had a physical disability while 35.3% had a mental disability. Size and Characteristics Data from the 2017 ACS show 138,205 persons with disabilities in Montana, with an overall disability rate of 13.6%. Table NA-7 presents disabilities by age and gender. The age group with the highest disability rate is persons age 75 and older. Males had a slightly higher disability rate than females at 14.5% and 12.7%, respectively. Children under 5 had the lowest disability rate, at less than 1.0% for both males and females. Table NA-8 breaks down disabilities by disability type for persons age 5 and older. Per 2017 ACS data, the most common disability is an ambulatory difficulty, followed by a hearing difficulty. The third most common disability is cognitive. Table NA-7 – Disability by Age and Gender Age Male Female Total Disabled Population Disability Rate Disabled Population Disability Rate Disabled Population Disability Rate Under 5 296 0.9% 252 0.8% 548 0.9% 5 to 17 4,834 5.7% 3,249 4.1% 8,083 4.9% 18 to 34 8,979 7.9% 6,349 5.8% 15,328 6.8% 35 to 64 29,059 14.9% 25,922 13.1% 54,981 14.0% 65 to 74 15,409 29.7% 10,895 21.2% 26,304 25.5% 75 or Older 15,122 49.5% 17,839 47.4% 32,961 48.3% Total 73,699 14.5% 64,506 12.7% 138,205 13.6% Data Source: 2017 5-Year ACS Data Table NA-8 – Total Disabilities Tallied Disability Type Population Hearing difficulty 49,510 Vision difficulty 21,844 Cognitive difficulty 47,715 Ambulatory difficulty 66,524 Self-care difficulty 22,363 Independent living difficulty 41,631 Total 249,587 Data Source: 2017 5-Year ACS Data People with Alcohol or other Drug Addictions According to the National Coalition for the Homeless, for persons “just one step away from homelessness, the onset or exacerbation of an addictive disorder may provide just the catalyst to plunge them into residential instability.”9 For persons with substance use disorders, housing is complicated. Persons who have stable housing are much better able to treat their addictions. However, obtaining 9 http://www.nationalhomeless.org/publications/facts/addiction.pdf 339 State of Montana 67 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan stable housing while suffering from addiction can be quite difficult, and the frustrations caused by a lack of housing options may only exacerbate addictions. Persons with alcohol or other drug addictions (primary respondents only) accounted for 20.8% of Montana’s homeless population surveyed for addictions. Size and Characteristics DPHHS published the 2018 Montana Prevention Needs Assessment Survey that was conducted in schools across the state to evaluate adolescent substance abuse.10 At the time of the survey, within the past 30 days, 28.3% of students reported using alcohol, of which 16.5% reported binge drinking, and 15.0% reported using marijuana. Based on figures reported during the 2016 survey, both alcohol use and marijuana use was up in Montana’s 2018 student population. In addition, the Trust for America’s Health found that Montana ranked 43rd of all 50 states and the District of Columbia for highest drug overdose mortality rates in the United States in 2018, with 12.2 per 100,000 people suffering drug overdose fatalities.11 The Trust for America’s Health also found that in 2018 Montana’s rate of alcohol-related deaths was 17.0 (per 100,000) and Montana’s rate of drug-related deaths was 13.0 (per 100,000).12 Persons with HIV/AIDS Studies show that housing assistance enables persons living with HIV/AIDS to achieve housing stability, improve health outcomes, and reduce overall public costs. Housing is also identified as a strategic point of intervention to address HIV/AIDS and overlapping vulnerabilities (such as age, race, mental illness, drug use, or chronic homelessness). Size and Characteristics According to information gathered from DPHHS, a total of 749 persons were living with HIV infection in Montana as of January 4, 2021. A total of 1,299 cases of HIV have been reported in Montana, of which 550 persons are known to have died. The HIV Epidemiology Profile for Montana released additional data regarding characteristics of those diagnosed with HIV. Males make up 85% of this population. The largest age group that has received diagnoses were those age 55 and older, accounting for 40%. Non- Hispanic, white persons account for the highest portion of the HIV population at 85%. The demographic distribution of new HIV diagnoses in Montana during the 2011-2018 period reveals that new cases are not evenly distributed among Montana’s counties based on geography, but are evenly distributed among Montana’s counties based on population. Yellowstone (26%), Missoula (18%), Cascade (9%), Gallatin (9%) and Flathead (8%) counties accounted for more than 70% of new HIV diagnoses between 2001 and 2018.13 This is consistent with the counties with the highest population of persons living in Montana and living with HIV. Persons with HIV/AIDS (primary respondents only) accounted for 0.4% of Montana’s homeless population surveyed for HIV/AIDS. 10 http://www.bach-harrison.com/mtsocialindicators/ProfileReports.aspx 11 https://www.tfah.org/article/new-national-data-present-a-mixed-picture-some-drug-overdoses-down-but- others-are-up-and-suicides-rates-are-increasing/ 12 https://www.tfah.org/state-details/montana/ 13 https://dphhs.mt.gov/Portals/85/publichealth/documents/CDEpi/StatisticsandReports/SurveillanceSnapshots/ ADAHIVsnapshot2018.pdf 340 State of Montana 68 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan Victims of Domestic Violence Domestic violence describes behaviors that are used by one person in a relationship to control the other. This aggressive conduct is often criminal, including physical assault, sexual abuse, and stalking. The U.S. Department of Justice defines domestic violence as a pattern of abusive behavior in any relationship that is used by one partner to gain or maintain power and control over another intimate partner.14 Victims can be of all races, ages, genders, religions, cultures, education levels, and marital statuses. Victims of domestic violence are at risk of becoming homeless due to an unstable living environment. If domestic violence victims flee the home, they often face finding emergency shelter and services for themselves and their children. Victims of domestic violence are predominantly women. However, children can also be affected as either victims of abuse or as witnesses to abuse. The U.S. Department of Justice found that throughout their lifetime, over 25 million women and 7 million men were victimized by an intimate partner.15 Size and Characteristics Pinpointing a specific number of victims of domestic violence can be difficult because many cases go unreported. However, statistics are available. According to the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, 1 in 3 or 33% of women and 1 in 4 or 25% of men experience some form of physical violence by an intimate partner. Montana’s rates of physical violence by an intimate partner are slightly higher than the national figures, with 39.2% of women and 32.6% of men experiencing intimate partner physical violence in their lifetimes.16 According to the 2019 PIT Homeless Survey, there were 1,357 homeless persons in Montana in 2019. Of this count, 257 (18.9%) persons indicated they left home because of domestic violence. Of note, 69.3% of primary respondents and accompanying individuals who cited domestic abuse resulting in homelessness were female. See Table NA-9 for detailed counts. Table NA-9 – Homeless Persons who Left Home because of Domestic Violence Gender Count of Primary Respondents Count of Accompanying Individuals Total Count Males 26 52 78 Females 129 49 178 Missing or N/A 1 0 1 Total Count 156 101 257 Data Source: 2019 Montana Homeless Survey What are the housing and supportive service needs of these populations and how are these needs determined? Elderly and Frail Elderly Persons The Older Americans Act of 1965 has been the main instrument for delivering social services to senior citizens in the United States. This Act established the federal Administration on Aging and related state agencies to specifically address the many needs of the elderly population. Despite limited resources and funding, the mission of the Older Americans Act is broad: “to help older people maintain maximum independence in their homes and communities and to promote a continuum of care for the vulnerable elderly.”17 The Administration on Aging encompasses a variety of services aimed at the elderly 14 https://www.justice.gov/ovw/domestic-violence#dv 15 https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/183781.pdf 16 https://assets.speakcdn.com/assets/2497/montana_2019.pdf 17 http://www.nhpf.org/library/the-basics/Basics_OlderAmericansAct_02-23-12.pdf 341 State of Montana 69 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan population, such as supportive services, nutrition services, family caregiver support, and disease prevention and health promotion. In Montana, support for the elderly population is provided by the Senior and Long Term Care Division, and the Aging Services Unit, within DPHHS. This state unit administers a wide variety of senior-based services for residents over age 60, with the goal to provide services that allow seniors to remain independent.18 The unit’s programs and services include adult protective services, long term care resources, information and referral services, legal resources, community resources, and financial planning. The 2019-2022 Montana State Plan on Aging outlines the fundamental concerns facing Montanans as the population continues to age.19 Montana’s State Plan on Aging includes the following goals: • Goal 1: Improve access to the Older Americans Act services for seniors and their caregivers to provide the supports needed for them to continue to live in their homes and be active in their communities for as long as they choose. • Goal 2: Improve collaboration with the Title VI Directors and other Tribal members to better facilitate Title III and Title VI coordination and services to all Montana’s seniors. • Goal 3: Improve the dignity, safety, and respect of older adults living in Montana through the Montana Aging Network. These goals will be achieved by providing quality services through: • Implementing effective programs for seniors, adults with disabilities, caregivers, and older American Indians in Montana; • Collaborating with Montana Tribes to improve access to services for reservation communities through Title III and Title VI coordination; • Obtaining data and conducting comprehensive data analysis to determine the outcomes and areas for improvement in existing programs; and • Focusing the State Unit of Aging (SUA) involve in future grant funding and initiatives to those that align with core goals and objectives. Services and Housing Needed for Elderly While there are a number of different housing and service programs that aid the elderly population in Montana, the general population is continuing to age and live longer, which will require additional services and resources to meet the ever-growing needs of the elderly. The Montana State Plan on Aging identifies various needs for the elderly, including care/case management, caregiving support, elder abuse prevention, employment, health care/health/mental health, health insurance, health promotion, housing, and others. According to the Center for Housing Policy, housing is and will continue to be a priority need for the elderly population. A growing number of older households face severe housing costs burdens, and many require assisted or long-term care housing and services. As the Baby Boomer generation continues to grow, many will prefer to remain independent, requiring in-home services and adaptions to existing homes. Thus, there is a greater focus on in-home care and expanded home health services to meet the needs of a more independent elderly population. Because most elderly persons are on a fixed income, these increasing costs may fall on publicly funded programs in the state. 18 http://www.dphhs.mt.gov/sltc/services/aging/index.shtml 19 https://dphhs.mt.gov/Portals/85/sltc/documents/AgingReports/MontanaStatePlanonAging2019-2022.pdf 342 State of Montana 70 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan Services and Housing Currently Provided for Persons with Disabilities Under DPHHS’s Developmental Services Division, the Developmental Disabilities Program contracts with private, nonprofit corporations to provide services across the lifespan for individuals who have developmental disabilities and their families. The focus of the program is to tailor care to the individual and provide it in as natural an environment as possible.20 The Montana Development Center (MDC), which closed in 2018 in accordance with a mandate included in Senate Bill 411, was administered by the Developmental Disabilities Program and was the state’s only residential facility for individuals with developmental disabilities with 24-hour care for those with the most severe behaviors or severe self- help deficits. Since closure of the MDC, House Bill 387 passed during the 2019 Montana legislative session, addressing the persisting needs of persons with disabilities through the development of the Intensive Behavior Center (IBC), a 12-bed facility that serves as an option for individuals who are not able to be safely served in the community. The IBC is in operation and currently serves adults with autism spectrum disorder in a therapeutic environment.21 DPHHS’s Addictive and Mental Disorders Division (AMDD) administers mental health services through Medicaid programming, grant funding, the Montana State Hospital, and the Montana Mental Health Nursing Care Center. AMDD supports a continuum of mental health services, including inpatient psychiatric care, community-based habilitation services, community-based rehabilitation services, and crisis response services, all of which seek to provide services to individuals in the least restrictive environment and maintain continuity within their lives and home communities. Inpatient and residential programs, such as behavioral health group homes, adult foster care, crisis stabilization, acute inpatient hospitalization, Montana State Hospital, and Montana Mental Health Nursing Care Center inherently provide temporary shelter to individuals with mental illness on either a short-term or long-term basis. AMDD also implements supportive programming, including tenancy support services, transitional housing funds, supported employment, and wrap-around community-based services that support individuals with mental illness as they receive treatment and seek recovery. Services and Facilities Needed for Persons with Disabilities The 2020 Housing and Community Development Survey asked participants which special needs populations have the highest needs for services and facilities. Two hundred and twenty-nine participants responded, identifying five priority groups each and ranking them from 1 to 5 with 1 being the highest priority. Responses indicate the need for services and facilities for persons with disabilities is medium to low, as shown in Table NA-10. See Appendix B for a more detailed breakout of survey responses. Table NA-10 – Need for Services and Facilities for Persons with Physical and Developmental Disabilities Highest Priority (“1”) Ranking Total Priority (1-5) Ranking Persons with physical disabilities 11th of 12 (Low Priority) 8th of 12 (Medium Priority) Persons with developmental disabilities 8th of 12 (Medium Priority) 9th of 12 (Low Priority) Data Source: 2020 Housing and Community Development Survey Individuals with mental illness continue to experience homelessness and housing insecurity at high rates. Mental health providers frequently cite a lack of affordable housing, a lack of housing services, and overall housing instability as a contributing factor to an individual’s inability to successfully receive treatment for mental illness. Increased housing services for both housing transitions and housing 20 http://www.dphhs.mt.gov/dsd/index.shtml 21 https://dphhs.mt.gov/dsd/ibc 343 State of Montana 71 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan maintenance, as well as the development of transitional and supportive housing units with integrated mental health services, continue to be needed within Montana. Services and Housing Currently Provided for Persons with Addictions AMDD is the designated state adult mental health agency for DPHHS. The mission of AMDD is to implement and improve an appropriate statewide system of prevention, crisis intervention, treatment and recovery for Montanans with mental and substance use disorders. AMDD assesses the need for substance use disorder treatment and prevention services throughout Montana. Those services are available through contracts with state-approved programs that practice a co-occurring approach to treatment. The division reimburses for a full range of outpatient and inpatient services, as well as education programs for DUI offenders and youth charged as a Minor in Possession. AMDD also organizes and funds activities designed to prevent the use of alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs by youth and the abuse of those substances by adults. People with substance use disorders who have family incomes below 200% of the federal poverty level are eligible for publicly funded treatment services. In addition, the Medicaid program funds outpatient and residential substance use treatment for adults and adolescents who are Medicaid eligible. The Montana Chemical Dependency Center, located in Butte, is the only in-patient substance use treatment center administered by the State. It has 16 treatment beds for men, 16 treatment beds for women, 8 detox beds, and 8 stabilization beds.22 Services and Housing Needed for Persons with Addictions According to the Healthy People 2020 national objectives, there were 22 million Americans struggling with a drug or alcohol problem in 2005. Of those with substance abuse problems, 95% are unaware of their problem.23 Obtaining treatment is a primary concern for many, which often includes high costs and other impacts on the person’s ability to obtain or retain an income and housing. The National Coalition for the Homeless notes that other needs for persons with substance use disorders include transportation and support services, including work programs and therapy access. Barriers also include programs that follow abstinence-only policies. These programs are often unrealistic for persons suffering from addictions because they fail to address the reality of relapses. A person living in supportive housing with an addiction problem who experiences a relapse may suddenly become a homeless person.24 The 2020 Housing and Community Development Survey asked participants which special needs populations have the highest needs for services and facilities. Two hundred and twenty-nine participants responded, identifying five priority groups each and ranking them from 1 to 5 with 1 being the highest priority. Responses indicate the need for services and facilities for persons with substance use disorders is medium to high, as shown in Table NA-11. See Appendix B for a more detailed breakout of survey responses. 22 http://www.dphhs.mt.gov/mcdc/ 23 http://www.healthypeople.gov/2020/TopicsObjectives2020/overview.aspx?topicId=40#star 24 http://www.nationalhomeless.org/publications/facts/addiction.pdf 344 State of Montana 72 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan Table NA-11 – Need for Services and Facilities for Persons with Substance Use Disorders Highest Priority (“1”) Ranking Total Priority (1-5) Ranking Persons with substance use disorders 7th of 12 (Medium Priority) 3rd of 12 (High Priority) Data Source: 2020 Housing and Community Development Survey Services and Housing Currently Provided for Persons with HIV/AIDS A combination of private nonprofit providers and DPHHS provide HIV/AIDS services in Montana. As part of the effort to combat HIV in the state, DPHHS orchestrates the HIV Prevention Program. The State of Montana instituted the AIDS Prevention Act in 1997 and revised it in 2009. The Act institutes routine testing. DPHHS also has an HIV/AIDS Treatment Program. DPHHS works in collaboration with local city- county health departments, as well as community-based organizations to provide the following services for eligible HIV positive individuals: • AIDS Drug Assistance Program: This program provides anti-retrovirals, protease inhibitors, hydroxyurea and pentamidine to qualified individuals at no cost. • Health Insurance Continuum of Coverage Program: This program allows eligible individuals to continue their private health insurance by paying all or part (up to $800) of their monthly premiums. • HIV Case Management: The goal of the case managers is to deliver comprehensive outpatient health and support services to meet the HIV-related needs of individuals and families with HIV. Seven case management sites in the state serve the governor's five planning regions.25 HIV testing and services are provided by numerous public health clinics throughout the state. Free HIV testing is also provided by many nonprofit organizations along with a bevy of other services, such as case management, transitional housing, housing referrals, food pantries, direct financial assistance, support groups and mental health counseling. A partial list of HIV service providers in Montana is provided in Table NA-12. Table NA-12 – HIV Service Providers Service Organization Location RiverStone Health Billings District VII HRDC Billings Rocky Boy Tribal Health Box Elder Bridger Clinic Bozeman District 9 HRDC Bozeman Browning Tribal Health Browning Butte AIDS Support Services Butte Dawson County Health Department Glendive Hill County Health Department Havre Lewis and Clark City-County Health Department Helena Flathead City-County Health Department Kalispell Central Montana Family Planning Lewistown Open AID Alliance Missoula Partnership Health Center Missoula Data Source: DPHHS Services and Housing Needed for Persons with HIV/AIDS Persons living with HIV/AIDS have multiple needs in terms of services. In addition to receiving regular medical attention, case management, and income support, many persons need access to permanent 25 http://www.dphhs.mt.gov/publichealth/hivstd/treatmentprogram.shtml 345 State of Montana 73 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan housing solutions. According to HUD, 9 out of 10 persons utilizing HOPWA benefits are extremely low to low income. Increased funding for housing for persons living with HIV/AIDS is one of the greatest needs of the HIV/AIDS support programs. For example, there is generally a high need for increased scattered site housing availability, because traditional assisted housing options that involve grouping funding recipients on one site or complex are ineffective in that they can endanger the confidentiality of residents. Additionally, program recipients have a need for longer-term housing options. As the treatment of AIDS has advanced, people are living longer with the disease. Thus, longer-term housing options are needed. However, the funding of these long-term housing options can be expensive. The 2020 Housing and Community Development Survey asked participants which special needs populations have the highest needs for services and facilities. Two hundred and twenty-nine participants responded, identifying five priority groups each and ranking them from 1 to 5 with 1 being the highest priority. Responses indicate the need for services and facilities for persons with HIV/AIDS is low (in relation to other special needs populations), as shown in Table NA-13. See Appendix B for a more detailed breakout of survey responses. Table NA-13 – Need for Services and Facilities for Persons with HIV/AIDS Highest Priority (“1”) Ranking Total Priority (1-5) Ranking Persons with HIV/AIDS 12th of 12 (Low Priority) 12th of 12 (Low Priority) Data Source: 2020 Housing and Community Development Survey Services and Housing Currently Provided for Victims of Domestic Violence The Montana Coalition Against Domestic & Sexual Violence is a statewide coalition of individuals and organizations working together to end domestic and sexual violence through advocacy, public education, public policy, and program development. The Coalition’s goals are to eliminate all forms of oppression, to provide support, network opportunities and training, and to encourage increased awareness and understanding.26 Services for victims of domestic abuse are provided by a variety of nonprofit and faith-based organizations across the state. Many of the shelters have 24-hour crisis lines and offer temporary housing, advocacy, referral programs, counseling, and transportation, as well as many other services. A partial list of domestic violence service providers is shown in Table NA-14. Table NA-14 – Domestic Violence Service Providers Homeless Service Organization Counties Served Rosebud & Treasure County Victim Witness Program Rosebud, Treasure Glasgow Police Department – Victim Witness Valley, Daniels, Sheridan, Phillips Dawson County Domestic Violence & Sexual Assault Program Dawson, Wibaux, Prairie Phillips County Domestic Violence Program Phillips Custer Network Against Domestic Abuse & Sexual Assault Custer, Rosebud, Treasure, Garfield, Powder River Custer County Attorney’s Victim-Witness Assistance Custer, Carter, Fallon, Powder River, Garfield Richland County Coalition Against Domestic Violence Richland, McCone The Family Violence Resource Center Fort Peck Reservation Northeast Montana Victim/Witness Program Phillips, Valley, Roosevelt, Sheridan, Daniels 7th Judicial District Victim Witness Program Dawson, Wibaux, Prairie, McCone, Richland Angela’s Piazza: Women’s Drop-In Center Yellowstone 26 http://mcadsv.com/about/philosophy/ 346 State of Montana 74 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan Homeless Service Organization Counties Served Montana Legal Services Association Yellowstone, Big Horn, Carbon, Golden Valley, Musselshell, Park, Rosebud, Stillwater, Sweet Grass, Wheatland, Treasure Billings Area Family Violence Task Force Yellowstone Billings City Attorney’s Office Domestic Violence Unit Yellowstone Yellowstone County Attorney’s Office – Victim Witness Office Yellowstone YWCA Billings – Gateway Yellowstone, Carbon, Stillwater, Big Horn, Rosebud, Musselshell Stillwater County Advocates Stillwater Crow Victims Assistance Program Crow Reservation Healing Hearts Northern Cheyenne Reservation Northern Cheyenne Tribe Northern Cheyenne Reservation ASPEN Meagher, Park, Sweet Grass Park County Victim Witness Assistance Program Park Carbon County Victim-Witness Program Carbon Domestic and Sexual Violence Services of Carbon County Carbon, Stillwater Montana Legal Services Association Blaine, Glacier, Hill, Pondera, Liberty, Teton, Toole Hi-Lines Help for Abused Spouses Chouteau, Glacier, Toole, Teton, Pondera, Liberty CASA CAN Children’s Advocate Network Cascade Family Advocacy Malmstrom Air Force Base Personnel and Families YWCA Great Falls Cascade, Toole, Pondera, Teton, Glacier, Chouteau, Judith Basin, Meagher, Liberty Victim Impact Program – Pre-release Program Cascade Victim-Witness Assistance Program Cascade, Others as Needed Voices of Hope Cascade Domestic Violence Program/Judicial Court Fort Belknap Reservation, Blaine District IV HRDC Domestic Abuse Program Hill, Blaine, Liberty Fergus County Attorney Victim Assistance Program Fergus, Petroleum, Judith Basin SAVES, Inc. Fergus, Wheatland, Golden Valley, Musselshell, Garfield, Petroleum, Judith Basin Musselshell/Golden Valley Victim Witness Assistance Program Musselshell, Wheatland, Golden Valley SAVES, Inc. – Satellite Office Musselshell, Wheatland, Golden Valley Toole County Victim Advocate Program Toole Anaconda Victim Witness Program Deer Lodge Jefferson County Victim/Witness Advocate Program Jefferson Gallatin County Victim Assistance Gallatin HAVEN Gallatin, Madison, Meagher Help Center Gallatin, Madison, Park MSU Voice Center Montana State University Butte Silver Bow County Attorney Victim Witness Advocate Program Silver Bow Montana Legal Services Association Beaverhead, Deer Lodge, Gallatin, Granite, Madison, Powell, Silver Bow Safe Space, Inc. Silver Bow, Deer Lodge, Powell, Granite, Jefferson, Madison Powell County Victim Services Powell Women’s Resource Center/Community Support Center Beaverhead, Madison City of Helena Victim Services – City Attorney’s Office Lewis & Clark Friendship Center Lewis & Clark, Jefferson, Broadwater, Meagher 347 State of Montana 75 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan Homeless Service Organization Counties Served Montana Legal Services Association Lewis & Clark, Jefferson, Broadwater, Meagher YWCA of Helena Lewis & Clark, Jefferson, Broadwater Broadwater County Attorney Victim Witness Program Broadwater Beaverhead & Madison County Victim/Witness Advocacy Program Beaverhead, Madison SAFE Ravalli Flathead County Attorney’s Office Flathead The Abbie Shelter Flathead Lincoln County Crisis Solutions Lincoln Lincoln County Victim Witness Program Lincoln First Step Resource Center – Saint Patrick Hospital Missoula, Ravalli, Granite, Powell, Sanders, Lake, Flathead Reservation, Any County Requesting Services Missoula City-County Relationship Violence Services Crime Victim Advocate Services Missoula Montana Legal Services Association Mineral, Missoula, Ravalli, Sanders Student Advocacy Resource Center Missoula YWCA of Missoula Missoula, Mineral, Sanders, Granite, Lake, Ravalli CSK Tribal Crime Victim Advocate Program Flathead Reservation, Lake, Sanders, Missoula SAFE Harbor Lake, Flathead Reservation Granite County Victim-Witness Program Mineral Mineral County Crime Victim Advocate Program Mineral Mineral County Help Line Mineral Sanders County Coalition for Families Sanders Data Source: Montana Coalition Against Domestic Violence Services and Housing Needed for Victims of Domestic Violence The 2020 Housing and Community Development Survey asked participants which special needs populations have the highest needs for services and facilities. Two hundred and twenty-nine participants responded, identifying five priority groups each and ranking them from 1 to 5 with 1 being the highest priority. Responses indicate the need for services and facilities for victims of domestic violence is medium, as shown in Table NA-15. See Appendix B for a more detailed breakout of survey responses. Table NA-15 – Need for Services and Facilities for Victims of Domestic Violence Highest Priority (“1”) Ranking Total Priority (1-5) Ranking Victims of domestic violence 6th of 12 (Medium Priority) 5th of 12 (Medium Priority) Data Source: 2020 Housing and Community Development Survey Discuss the size and characteristics of the population with HIV/AIDS and their families within the Eligible Metropolitan Statistical Area: According to information gathered from DPHHS, a total of 749 persons were living with HIV infection in Montana as of January 4, 2021. A total of 1,299 cases of HIV have been reported in Montana, of which 550 persons are known to have died. The HIV Epidemiology Profile for Montana released additional data regarding characteristics of those diagnosed with HIV. Males have attributed for 85% of this population. The largest age group that has received diagnoses were those age 55 and older, accounting for 40%. Non-Hispanic, white persons account for the highest portion of the HIV population at 85%. Discussion N/A 348 State of Montana 76 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan NA-50 Non-Housing Community Development Needs - 91.315 (f) Describe the jurisdiction’s need for Public Facilities: The 2020 Housing and Community Development Survey asked participants which community and public facility activities are the highest priority. Two hundred and thirty-three participants responded, identifying five priority activities each and ranking them from 1 to 5 with 1 being the highest priority. Responses indicate childcare facilities, youth centers, and healthcare facilities are the highest priorities (Appendix B). Responses also indicate, based on total priority rankings, that childcare facilities, community centers, youth centers, parks and recreational centers, and healthcare facilities are among the top five priority activities needed (Table NA-16). Table NA-16 – Need for Community and Public Facility Activities Activities 1 (Highest Priority) 2 3 4 5 (Lowest Priority) Total Priority Rankings 1-5 Childcare facilities 80 40 33 20 18 191 Community centers 21 34 40 38 33 166 Youth centers 29 29 33 37 27 155 Parks and recreational centers 18 31 27 33 39 148 Healthcare facilities 29 35 24 22 13 123 Senior centers 10 21 31 26 24 112 Residential treatment centers 23 21 21 17 16 98 Public buildings with improved accessibility 15 12 12 17 33 89 Other (specify below)* 7 1 2 1 5 16 Data Source: 2020 Montana Housing and Community Development Survey *Other priorities, based on survey responses, include indoor and outdoor recreation centers, mental health centers, centers for persons with substance use disorders, centers for veterans, centers to support organizations that promote independent living and community-based services as opposed to institutional services, large-scale facilities for large (500+ persons) business and community events, and facilities accessible to persons with disabilities. How were these needs determined? These community development needs for the state of Montana were determined based on responses to the 2020 Montana Housing and Community Development Survey and stakeholder input during a focus group discussion. Describe the jurisdiction’s need for Public Improvements: The 2020 Housing and Community Development Survey asked participants which infrastructure activities are the highest priority. Two hundred and thirty-four participants responded, identifying five priority activities each and ranking them from 1 to 5 with 1 being the highest priority. Responses indicate street and road improvements, water system improvements, and broadband (Internet) expansion are the highest priorities (Appendix B). Responses also indicate, based on total priority rankings, that street and road improvements, water system improvements, sidewalk improvements, bicycle and walking paths, and sewer system improvements are among the top five priority activities needed (Table NA-17). 349 State of Montana 77 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan Table NA-17 – Need for Infrastructure Activities Activities 1 (Highest Priority) 2 3 4 5 (Lowest Priority) Total Priority Rankings 1-5 Street and road improvements 72 40 48 19 16 195 Water system improvements 41 26 24 27 19 137 Sidewalk improvements 12 46 37 23 14 132 Bicycle and walking paths 27 14 24 26 23 114 Sewer system improvements 13 31 22 27 18 111 Broadband (Internet) expansion 30 25 16 16 23 110 ADA (accessibility) improvements 18 15 14 20 23 90 Storm water system improvements 4 8 14 18 19 63 Solid waste facility improvements 1 5 11 9 31 57 Flood drainage improvements 5 9 6 14 10 44 Bridge improvements 7 8 5 15 8 43 Other (specify below)* 2 0 3 2 9 16 Data Source: 2020 Montana Housing and Community Development Survey *Other priorities, based on survey responses, include expansion of public transportation (especially in rural Montana), infrastructure to promote recycling, infrastructure improvements that are sustainable and environmentally friendly, street and road improvements in rural areas, activities to ensure safe water supply, multi-use paths along highways, cell phone access, traffic system improvements, and integrated water system improvements. How were these needs determined? These community development needs for the state of Montana were determined based on responses to the 2020 Montana Housing and Community Development Survey and stakeholder input during a focus group discussion. Describe the jurisdiction’s need for Public Services: The 2020 Housing and Community Development Survey asked participants which human and public services are the highest priority. Two hundred and thirty-two participants responded, identifying five priority services each and ranking them from 1 to 5 with 1 being the highest priority. Responses indicate mental health and chemical dependency services, childcare services, and transportation services are the highest priorities (Appendix B). Responses also indicate, based on total priority rankings, that childcare services, mental health and chemical dependency services, youth services, transportation services, and healthcare services are among the top five priority services needed (Table NA-18). Table NA-18 – Need for Human and Public Services Services 1 (Highest Priority) 2 3 4 5 (Lowest Priority) Total Priority Rankings 1-5 Childcare services 44 35 32 26 22 159 Mental health and chemical dependency services 69 34 20 19 15 157 Youth services 21 23 30 39 26 139 Transportation services 23 20 30 31 22 126 Healthcare services 23 29 23 20 25 120 350 State of Montana 78 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan Services 1 (Highest Priority) 2 3 4 5 (Lowest Priority) Total Priority Rankings 1-5 Senior services 13 23 31 28 23 118 Employment services 12 23 22 14 17 88 Tenant/landlord counseling 5 11 10 12 15 53 Fair housing education and activities 4 7 7 9 16 43 Homebuyer education 6 9 5 12 6 38 Health education and activities (e.g., mitigation of lead-based paint, radon, and asbestos hazards) 6 4 8 5 14 37 Crime awareness education and activities 3 9 7 5 13 37 Other (specify below)* 2 1 0 0 2 5 Data Source: 2020 Montana Housing and Community Development Survey *Other priorities, based on survey responses, include self-reliance and self-development services, independent living services, tenant and landlord supports, and emergency services. How were these needs determined? These community development needs for the state of Montana were determined based on responses to the 2020 Montana Housing and Community Development Survey and stakeholder input during a focus group discussion. 351 State of Montana 79 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan Housing Market Analysis MA-05 Overview Housing Market Analysis Overview: Montana is America’s fourth largest state, encompassing more than 147,000 square miles; this equates to 607 square miles more than Maine, South Carolina, West Virginia, Maryland, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Delaware combined. Montana is also home to seven federally recognized and one state-recognized Tribal Nations that are located across the state. Due to this immense geography, the housing market differs throughout Montana. According to the Bureau of Business and Economic Research at the University of Montana, affordable housing is an increasingly difficult problem for communities—both large and small—across the state. 27 Their 2020 report, Affordable Housing in Montana, concluded that Montana has relatively little affordable housing that are available for low-income households, and much of the existing affordable housing inventory is aging and needing rehabilitation. As a result, many low-income households are being priced out of housing markets where they cannot afford to rent or buy. According to the National Low Income Housing Coalition, 32,774 or 24% of renter households in Montana are extremely low income, yet there is a shortage of 17,697 housing units that are available to extremely low income renters. 28 In addition, 89% of extremely low income renters are “cost burdened,” meaning that they spend more than 30% of their income on housing costs and utilities, and 68% of extremely low income renters are “extremely cost burdened,” meaning that they spend more than 50% of their income on housing costs and utilities. These housing cost burdens extend to very low income and low-income renters as well; 62% of very low-income renters are “cost burdened” and 17% are “extremely cost burdened,” while 24% of low-income renters are “cost burdened” and 4% are “extremely cost burdened.” Cost burdened households are more like than other renters to sacrifice other necessities like healthy food and healthcare to pay the rent, and to experience unstable housing situations like evictions. The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated issues relating to housing availability and affordability. Many homeowners and renters from more populous states have seen Montana as an advantageous place to be. As a result, the price of homes and apartments for sale have dramatically increased, along with the price of homes and apartments for rent. The housing impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic have outstripped the ability of the market to provide rental rates that low-income families, seniors, and individuals with disabilities can afford. MA-10 Number of Housing Units – 91.310(a) Introduction The following provides information about the housing market, the supply and demand for housing over time, building permit data and related price information for both rental properties and homeownership opportunities in Montana. 27 Affordable Housing in Montana, Bureau of Business and Economic Research, University of Montana, December 2020. http://www.bber.umt.edu/pubs/econ/AffordableHousing2020.pdf 28 https://nlihc.org/housing-needs-by-state/montana 352 State of Montana 80 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan All residential properties by number of units Table 30 – Residential Properties by Unit Number Property Type Number % 1-unit detached structure 347,540 69.4% 1-unit, attached structure 16,978 3.4% 2-4 units 38,416 7.7% 5-19 units 25,215 5.0% 20 or more units 17,290 3.5% Mobile Home, boat, RV, van, etc. 55,660 11.1% Total 501,099 100.0% Data Source: 2017 5-Year ACS Data Unit Size by Tenure Table 31 – Unit Size by Tenure Unit Size Owners Renters Number % Number % No bedroom 1,385 0.5% 7,393 5.4% 1 bedroom 9,303 3.3% 29,209 21.5% 2 bedrooms 59,917 21.1% 51,586 38.0% 3 or more bedrooms 213,563 75.2% 47,619 35.1% Total 284,168 100.0% 135,807 100.0% Data Source: 2017 5-Year ACS Data Describe the number and targeting (income level/type of family served) of units assisted with federal, state, and local programs. A number of programs help address the housing needs in Montana: • CDBG, • HOME, • HTF, • Housing Tax Credit Program, • Multifamily Coal Trust Homes Program • HCV Program, • HUD-VASH, • Section 811 Supportive Housing for Persons with Disabilities, • Mainstream Voucher Assistance • Moderate Rehabilitation Program • ESG and Rapid Re-Housing, • Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act Program, • Section 184 Indian Home Loan Guarantee Program • U.S. Department of Agriculture Rural Development (USDA-RD), • Montana Veterans Home Loan Program, • Montana Housing Loan and Down Payment Assistance Programs, and • Habitat for Humanity. CDBG serves income-qualified households of low to moderate income (at or below 80% of AMI) through housing, economic development and community development activities. 353 State of Montana 81 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan HOME serves income-qualified households of low income (at or below 80% AMI) with further targeting of households with very low incomes (at or below 50% AMI) through housing activities. This assistance provides funding for down payment and closing cost assistance for first time homebuyers, acquisition and/or rehabilitation of existing multifamily rental units, new construction of multifamily or single- family housing in partnership with local governments who work with Community Housing Development Organizations (CHDOs) and various nonprofit organizations. Rent and home purchase prices are limited by HUD-issued HOME rents for multifamily properties receiving HOME financing and by HUD-issued purchase price limits for homebuyers receiving HOME down payment and closing cost assistance. Similarly, HUD annually publishes subsidy limits that determine the maximum amount of HOME funds that can be invested in each home assisted by the program. Properties or homebuyer programs that receive HOME assistance are subject to 5- to 20-year periods of affordability during which ongoing compliance with HOME regulations is required. HTF serves income-qualified household of extremely low income (at or below 30% AMI) through construction or rehabilitation of multifamily properties. Like HOME, HUD determines maximum rents for HTF-assisted units as well as per-unit subsidy that can be provided. Properties that receive HTF assistance are subject to 30-year periods of affordability during which ongoing compliance with HOME regulations is required. Housing Tax Credit Program allocates Montana’s share of federal Low-Income Housing Tax Credits, which provides funding for multifamily housing development. The housing tax credit is available under Section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and is overseen by MH. Properties assisted with HTC funds must meet the MH affordability compliance period, consisting of the initial 15-year compliance period, plus at least an additional 15 years. The credit is a federal income tax credit for owners of qualifying rental housing which meets low-income occupancy and rent limitation requirements. Household income limitations are determined based on the area’s median gross income as determined by HUD. Depending upon the IRS election of a minimum set-aside, the buildings constructed with HTC assistance must have either a) at least 20% of the total units in the property must be rent restricted and occupied by eligible tenants at or below 50% of area median gross income, or b) at least 40% of the total units in the property must be rent restricted and occupied by eligible tenants at or below 60% of area median gross income. Multifamily Coal Trust Homes Programs makes available $15 million of Coal Tax Trust Fund dollars to develop affordable rental homes by providing developers with low-interest rate loans; it is a result of House Bill 16 that was passed during the 2019 legislative session. Multifamily Coal Trust loans can be used for projects such as new construction, acquisition and/or rehabilitation of existing multifamily rental homes, acquisition of land for multifamily rental homes and land trusts, and mobile or manufactured homes. Eligible applicants include non-profits, for-profits, or government entities. Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) Program provides assistance to income-qualified renters at or below 50% of area median income. Under the HCV Program, a renter finds a suitable home and receives a voucher that pays a rent subsidy equal to the difference between the rent charged by the property owner (with some limitations based on HUD voucher payment standards and HCV program regulations) and 30% of the renter’s adjusted gross income. In addition, there is a portfolio of Project Based Section 8 properties in Montana. At those properties, all residents pay 30% of their income toward rent, while HUD pays the remaining portion of the rent to the property owner through a contract managed by MH within Commerce. 354 State of Montana 82 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing Program (HUD-VASH) combines HUD housing vouchers with U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) supportive services to help veterans who are homeless and their families find and sustain permanent housing. Veterans must be VA health care eligible and meet the McKinney Act definition of homelessness to participate in the program. The VA makes this determination. Income qualifications generally follow the HCV Program, serving income-qualified veteran households at or below 50% of area median income with veterans paying 35% of adjusted gross income for rent. Section 811 Program subsidizes rental housing with supportive services for very low- and extremely low- income adults with disabilities, allowing persons with disabilities to live as independently as possible in the community. Section 811 provides project-based rental assistance (PBRA) to state housing agencies, which can be applied to new or existing multifamily housing complexes funded through different sources, such as Federal Low-Income Housing Tax Credits, Federal HOME funds, and other state, Federal, and local programs. At the time of admission, at least one person in a household considered for a unit receiving 811 PBRA rental subsidies must be non-elderly (18-61 years of age), disabled, and receiving or be eligible to receive Medicaid and services and supports provided through DPHHS. Individuals must have extremely low incomes at or below 30% AMI and be in the DPHHS caseload. The Mainstream Voucher Assistance helps non-elderly persons with disabilities, allowing participants to connect with supportive services while paying 30% of the household’s adjusted gross income for rent. The program is open to persons aged 18-61 with disabilities who meet at least one homeless preference as defined by HUD. Aside from serving a special population, Mainstream vouchers are administered using the same rules as other HCV. The Moderate Rehabilitation Program provides project-based rental assistance for households with incomes at or below 50% of the area median income. Participants pay 30% of the household’s adjusted gross income toward rent. Properties in the Moderate Rehabilitation Program maintain a contract with Commerce that is renewed annually. Emergency Solutions Grant and Rapid Re-Housing assists homeless households move as quickly as possible into permanent housing and achieve stability in that housing. Homelessness prevention services are available to at-risk individuals. Individuals or families at or below 30% of AMI who lack a stable and adequate nighttime residence may be eligible, particularly if they do not have sufficient resources or support to prevent them from moving to an emergency shelter. The Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act Program provides federal funds directly from the Indian Housing Block grant to Montana tribes to use for income-eligible tribal member households. Income eligibility is calculated according to a process set by HUD. Uses of the funds are determined by the Tribe in coordination with the Indian Housing Block grant program. The Section 184 Indian Home Loan Guarantee Program is a home mortgage product specifically designed for American Indian families, tribes, or tribally designated housing entities. With Section 184 financing, borrowers can get into a home with a low down payment and flexible underwriting. Section 184 loans can be used, both on and off native lands, for constructing, rehabilitating, purchasing, or refinancing a home. The U.S. Department of Agriculture Rural Development (USDA-RD) offers a variety of programs to build or improve housing in rural areas, provide direct loans or loan guarantees to help low- and moderate- 355 State of Montana 83 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan income rural Americans buy safe, affordable housing in rural areas. USDA-RD also offers loans and grants to help rural residents make health and safety repairs to homes. USDA-RD’s Multi-Family Housing Programs offer loans to provide affordable rental housing for very low, low-and-moderate income residents, the elderly, and persons with disabilities, as well as rental assistance to help eligible rural residents with their monthly rental costs. The Montana Veterans’ Home Loan Program provides 30-year fixed first mortgage funds to Montana residents who are serving or have served in the military through the federal armed services and the Montana National Guard, for the purchase of their first home. The mortgage interest rate is 1% lower than the Montana Housing regular bond program rate or the Fannie Mae 60-day lock rate, whichever is lower. There is no income or asset limits for qualified Veteran borrowers. Montana Housing Loan and Down Payment Assistance Programs assist qualified individuals with low- interest loans, down payments, and closing costs, reducing the amount of up-front cash needed to purchase a home. The Regular Bond Program is a 30-year, low-interest rate loan for first-time homebuyers; this program is limited to homebuyers with income and purchase price below the posted limits. The Bond Advantage Down Payment Assistance Program provides up to $10,000 for down payment and closing cost assistance. The MBOH Plus 0% Deferred Down Payment Assistance Program provides up to $6,500 for down payment and closing cost assistance; for this program, the income limit is $55,000. The 80% Combined Program provides homebuyers who are eligible for MH financing with an alternative to an FHA-insured loan, eliminating the need for mortgage insurance. Finally, the Mortgage Credit Certificate is a dollar-for-dollar tax credit that reduces the amount of federal income tax paid by a first-time homebuyer. Habitat for Humanity has a number of locally run affiliates of Habitat for Humanity International, a nonprofit, housing organization. Habitat for Humanity works in partnership with qualified families to build and renovate decent, affordable housing. The houses then are sold to the families at no profit and with no interest charged. Volunteers provide most of the labor, and individual and corporate donors provide money and materials to build Habitat houses. Partner families themselves invest hundreds of hours of labor—“sweat equity”—into building their homes and the homes of others. Their mortgage payments go into a revolving Fund for Humanity that is used to build more houses. In addition, there are a number of Montana Community Action Agency programs and local nonprofits that help residents facing a short-term crisis and provide assistance to help households obtain funds for paying rent. Provide an assessment of units expected to be lost from the affordable housing inventory for any reason, such as expiration of Section 8 contracts. In Montana, there are 4,310 apartments with Section 8 contracts that provide critical rental subsidy to residents with very low incomes. In the next 10 years, 44% or 1,896 units have contracts that are set to expire. In addition, there are 1,737 units in Montana with USDA-RD rental assistance, and 20% of those are at risk of losing subsidy within the next 10 years.29 29 Affordable Housing in Montana, Bureau of Business and Economic Research, University of Montana, December 2020. http://www.bber.umt.edu/pubs/econ/AffordableHousing2020.pdf 356 State of Montana 84 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan Does the availability of housing units meet the needs of the population? Montana has a high demand for renting and owning housing units. This is demonstrated by the 1.4% homeowner vacancy rate and the 6.3% rental vacancy rate, as compared to the national homeowner vacancy rate of 1.0% and the national rental vacancy rate of 6.5%.30 Describe the need for specific types of housing: The 2019 Montana PIT Homeless Survey counted 1,357 homeless persons in Montana. Local governments and private organizations continue to request funds to provide housing for the homeless or those at risk of becoming homeless as well as the need for housing with supportive services or temporary, transitional housing. Montana has high demand for housing is demonstrated by the 1.4% homeowner vacancy rate and 6.3% rental vacancy rate. This compares with the national homeowner vacancy rate of 1.0% and rental vacancy rate of 6.5%. Increasing cost burden, low vacancy rates, and competition for available units underscore the need for more affordable rental and homeownership developments across the state. Montana will promote equitable, affordable housing by expanding location and energy efficient housing choices for people of all ages, incomes, races, and ethnicities to increase mobility and lower the cost of housing. In addition, Montana will encourage activities to acquire and/or construct new affordable housing to buy or rent in areas where existing investment in infrastructure, facilities, and services leverages multiple economic, environmental, and community objectives. In 2005, the Census Bureau reported that Montana had 449,791 total housing units. Since that time, the Census Bureau has continued to release estimates of the total number of housing units in the state. The annual estimates of housing stock are presented in Table MA-1. By 2019, there were estimated to be 519,935 housing units in Montana. Table MA-1 – Housing Units Estimates Year Housing Units 2005 449,791 2006 458,002 2007 465,868 2008 473,401 2009 479,025 2010 483,006 2011 484,148 2012 484,809 2013 485,771 2014 491,515 2015 494,222 2016 497,749 2017 510,408 2018 515,161 2019 519,935 Data Source: Census Data 2005-2019 30 https://www.census.gov/housing/hvs/data/rates.html 357 State of Montana 85 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan Type and Tenure Single-family homes, duplexes, triplexes or fourplexes, apartments, and mobile homes together accounted for over 99.8% of Montana’s housing stock in 2015 and 99.9% of Montana’s housing stock in 2019. Although this overall proportion did not change considerably between the 4 years, there were some minor changes in the composition of Montana housing stock. The share of housing units accounted for by mobile homes fell by around two percentage points and the share of triplexes, fourplexes, and apartments grew by around a percentage point. By 2017, 72.5% of all housing units in the state were single-family homes, 2.6% were duplexes, 5.2% were triplexes or fourplexes, 9.6% were apartment units, and 9.9% were mobile homes. Table MA-2 provides additional details of housing units by type. Table MA-2 – Housing Units by Type Unit Type 2010 5-Year ACS 2017 5-Year ACS Units % of Total Units % of Total Single-Family 339,245 71.9% 339,245 72.5% Duplex 16,136 3.4% 16,136 2.6% Triplex or Fourplex 20,934 4.4% 20,934 5.2% Apartment 39,894 8.5% 39,894 9.6% Mobile Home 55,137 11.7% 55,137 9.9% Boat, RV, Van, Etc. 377 0.1% 377 0.1% Total 471,723 100.0% 471,723 100.0% Data Source: 2010 and 2017 5-Year ACS Data To further explain the types of properties in Montana Table MA-3 breaks down the structure types of all housing. The majority of housing in Montana are 1-unit detached structures being 69.4% of all structures. The minority of housing in Montana are 1-unit attached structures being 3.4% of all structures. Table MA-3 – Property Structure Types Property Type Number Percent 1-Unit detached structure 347,540 69.4% 1-Unit attached structure 16,978 3.4% 2-4 units 38,416 7.7% 5-19 units 25,215 5.0% 20 or more units 17,290 3.5% Mobile Home, boat, RV, van, etc. 55,660 11.1% Total 501,099 100.0% Data Source: 2017 5-Year ACS Data Over 25,000 housing units were added to the Montana housing market between the 2010 Census and 2017 ACS, as seen in Table MA-4. Within occupied housing units, the proportion of renter-occupied units grew and the proportion of owner-occupied grew between 2010 and 2017. The number of vacant housing units also increased by 10.8%. 358 State of Montana 86 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan Table MA-4 – Housing Units by Tenure Tenure 2010 Census 2017 5-Year ACS % Change Units % of Total Units % of Total Occupied Housing Units 409,607 84.8% 419,975 83.8% 2.5% Owner-Occupied 278,418 57.7% 284,168 56.7% 2.1% Renter-Occupied 131,189 27.2% 135,807 27.1% 3.5% Vacant Housing Units 73,218 15.2% 81,124 16.2% 10.8% Total Housing Units 482,825 100.0% 501,099 100.0% 3.8% Data Source: 2010 Census Data; 2017 5-Year ACS Data The Census Bureau estimates homeownership rates annually. These data on homeownership rates are presented in Figure 1. This figure compares homeownership rates for Montana and the United States from 1986 through 2018 and shows that Montana had consistently higher homeownership rates, with the exception of 2007, over this time as compared to national figures. While homeownership rates are lower in Montana in more recent years than in the mid-1990s and early 2000s, they remain higher than rates in the 1980s. Figure 1 – Homeownership Rates Montana Assessor Data The following section will explore 2019 assessor data for the state of Montana as drawn by the Montana Department of Revenue (DOR) in order to evaluate the condition of housing units throughout the state. According to the2019 ACS, there were 519,935 housing units in the state of Montana. The assessor data is not likely to include housing located on Montana’s Tribal Reservations or Reservation Trust Lands, which according to the 2010 Census included 28,220 units. When Tribal housing is included, the total comprises some 548,155 housing units in 2019. Data presented includes information on structure types, foundations, number of bedrooms, year built, and other characterizing information. It also includes information on the quality of materials and workmanship used in the original construction of the dwellings as demonstrated by grade. This 359 State of Montana 87 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan information provides a holistic look at Montana’s housing stock, enabling the State to identify rehabilitation and redevelopment opportunities. Residential Property Class Dwellings The following section presents information about the residential property class, including housing characteristics and conditions of the dwellings. According to Montana assessor data, there are a total of 429,724 residential dwelling units in Montana as of 2019. Table MA-5 shows the residential units by year built. Around 29% of all units were built before 1960, with single-family units comprising 98.8% of these older units. Additionally, the data shows there are 227,369 units that were built before 1980. Table MA-5 – Residential Dwellings – Construction Era/Year Year Built Condominium /Townhouse Mobile Home Single-Family Total 1959 and Earlier 657 768 124,965 126,390 1960-1969 1472 5,632 25,159 32,263 1970-1979 2,664 24,006 42,046 68,716 1980-1989 3,248 9,804 27,254 40,306 1990-1999 4,508 14,018 38,054 56,580 2000-2009 9,915 8,139 48,999 67,053 2010-2017 4,314 3,207 26,553 34,074 2018 707 129 3,497 4,333 2019 0 7 2 9 Total 27,485 65,710 336,529 429,724 Data Source: MT DOR TY 2019 Table MA-6 shows the residential dwellings by number of bedrooms and construction year. The data indicates that three-bedroom dwellings are the most common for all residential dwellings in Montana, accounting for 44.3% of all dwellings. Residential dwellings built in the 1990s and 2000s tended to have three bedrooms, accounting for over half of all dwellings built during those two decades. Table MA-6 – Residential Dwellings – Number of Bedrooms by Construction Era/Year Year Built None/ Studio 1 Bdrms 2 Bdrms 3 Bdrms 4 Bdrms 5 Bdrms 6+ Bdrms Total 1959 and Earlier 1,451 13,796 43,284 42,215 19,513 4,921 1,210 126,390 1960-1969 370 1,675 8,666 12,993 6,176 2,015 368 32,263 1970-1979 520 2,303 19,003 31,632 11,301 3,359 598 68,716 1980-1989 333 1,909 9,911 19,818 6,450 1,555 330 40,306 1990-1999 404 2,589 9,912 30,098 9,944 2,976 657 56,580 2000-2009 601 3,775 10,778 33,974 12,344 4,405 1,176 67,053 2010-2017 453 2,310 5,655 16,975 5,895 2,146 640 34,074 2018 55 253 722 2,999 707 216 81 5,033 2019 0 0 4 5 0 0 0 9 Total 4,187 28,610 107,935 190,709 72,330 21,593 5,060 430,424 Data Source: MT DOR TY 2019 Table MA-7 confirms that three-bedroom units are the most common for owner-occupied units, while two- bedroom units are the most common for renter-occupied units. 360 State of Montana 88 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan Table MA-7 – Unit Size by Tenure Bedrooms Owners Renters Number % Number % No Bedrooms 1,385 0.5 7,393 5.4 1-Bedroom 9,303 3.3 29,209 21.5 2-Bedroom 59,917 21.1 51,586 38.0 3+ Bedrooms 213,563 75.2 47,619 35.1 Total 284,168 100 135,807 100 Data Source: MT DOR TY 2019 Residential dwellings are presented by the number of full bathrooms and construction year. Table MA-8 illustrates that most residential dwellings have one or two full bathrooms, accounting for 38.6% and 45.8% of dwellings, respectively. Newer dwellings, particularly those built after 1980, tended to have two bathrooms over one, as evidenced by the fact that 62.4% of dwellings built in the 1990s, 60.2% of dwellings built in the 2000s, and 62.4% of dwellings built in the 2010s have two full bathrooms. Conversely, older dwellings tended to have fewer bathrooms, with 63.3% of dwellings built prior to 1960 having only one full bathroom. Table MA-8 – Residential Dwellings – Number of Full Bathrooms by Construction Era/Year Year Built None 1 Bath 2 Baths 3 Baths 4 Baths 5 Baths 6+ Baths Total 1959 and Earlier 4,353 82,033 31,922 3,199 352 54 37 129,456 1960-1969 1,555 16,711 11,737 2,115 120 19 6 32,263 1970-1979 1,112 32,458 28,478 6,250 353 42 23 68,716 1980-1989 713 13,354 21,144 4,585 413 65 32 40,306 1990-1999 664 8,584 35,311 10,670 1,088 187 76 56,580 2000-2009 820 8,220 40,351 14,641 2,266 484 271 67,053 2010-2017 625 4,198 21,256 6,545 988 279 183 34,074 2018 45 503 2,815 778 124 40 28 4,333 2019 0 3 6 0 0 0 0 9 Total 9,887 166,064 196,600 49,545 5,778 1,191 659 429,724 Data Source: MT DOR TY 2019 Similarly, Table MA-9 presents the number of half bathrooms for each dwelling by construction year. 78.4% of dwellings have no half bathrooms and 20.7% of dwellings have one half bathroom. Table MA-9 – Residential Dwellings – Number of Half Bathrooms by Construction Era/Year Year Built None 1 Bath 2 Bath 3 Bath 4 Bath 5 Bath 6+ Baths Total 1959 and Earlier 109,688 16,247 429 18 4 4 0 126,390 1960-1969 25,154 6,887 216 5 1 0 0 32,263 1970-1979 52,097 16,105 488 24 1 1 0 68,716 1980-1989 30,861 9,089 338 15 1 1 1 40,306 1990-1999 44,010 12,042 461 49 7 3 8 56,580 2000-2009 47,910 18,125 899 84 18 11 6 67,053 2010-2017 24,426 9,110 469 54 9 4 2 34,074 2018 2,932 1,333 64 3 0 1 0 4,333 2019 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 Total 337,087 88,938 3,364 252 41 25 17 429,724 Data Source: MT DOR TY 2019 361 State of Montana 89 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan Table MA-10 presents data on residential dwellings. Data in this table have not been updated since the submission of Montana’s previous Consolidated Plan (2015-2019) because more current data are not available. Table MA-10 demonstrates the total square footage of residential dwellings by construction year and includes basements, first, second, and additional floors, attics and unfinished areas. Most dwellings in Montana, as demonstrated by the data below, are between 1,001 and 2,000 square feet. The data shows that a majority of units with 1,000 square feet or less were built before 1980, with those dwellings accounting for 76.5% of dwellings under 1,000 square feet. Dwellings with 3,000 to 5,000 square feet were most prominent in the 2000s, with dwellings built in the 2000s accounting for 31.3% of dwellings with that square footage. Table MA-10 – Residential Dwellings – Total Square Feet by Construction Era/Year Year Built 1,000 or Less 1,001- 2,000 2,001- 3,000 3,001- 4,000 4,001- 5,000 Over 5,000 Total 1959 and Earlier 30,694 60,227 31,695 5,362 1,073 405 129,456 1960-1969 9,144 9,509 12,138 2,457 419 117 33,784 1970-1979 22,600 20,863 20,726 5,722 1,138 326 71,375 1980-1989 7,449 16,856 10,820 4,048 1,074 449 40,696 1990-1999 5,322 24,852 14,499 8,058 2,533 1,280 56,544 2000-2009 5,624 25,933 17,168 10,775 4,414 2,590 66,504 2010 411 1,347 782 520 202 131 3,393 2011 348 1,095 662 498 183 104 2,890 2012 12 61 4 5 2 0 84 Total 81,604 160,743 108,494 37,445 11,038 5,402 404,726 Includes basement, first, second, additional floors, half, attic and unfinished area footage. Data Source: MT DOR 2012 Table MA-11 shows the heated area of residential dwelling by construction date. Much of the data for these residential dwellings is not available. However, of the data that is presented, most dwellings have between 1,001 and 2,000 square feet of heated area. Table MA-11 – Residential Dwellings – Heated Area by Construction Era/Year Year Built 1,000 or Less 1,001- 2,000 2,001- 3,000 3,001- 4,000 4,001- 5,000 Over 5,000 Data Not Available Total 1959 and Earlier 8,177 12,315 2,580 524 121 48 102,625 126,390 1960-1969 1,924 3,959 1,349 259 52 16 24,704 32,263 1970-1979 3,675 8,844 3,885 823 158 56 51,275 68,716 1980-1989 1,235 5,236 2,742 797 199 75 30,022 40,306 1990-1999 549 4,711 3,109 1,541 519 381 45,770 56,580 2000-2009 509 3,534 2,759 1,846 935 839 56,631 67,053 2010-2017 189 1,209 868 574 294 347 30,593 34,074 2018 5 49 57 50 29 53 4,090 4,333 2019 0 1 0 0 0 0 8 9 Total 16,263 39,858 17,349 6,414 2,307 1,815 345,718 429,724 Data Source: MT DOR TY 2019 CDU is defined by the Montana Appraisal Manual as a composite rating of the overall condition, desirability, and usefulness (CDU) of a structure. Table MA-12 presents residential dwellings’ CDU by structure type. Most residential dwellings were rated as fair or above. Mobile homes were more 362 State of Montana 90 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan susceptible for low ratings of unsound, very poor or poor, with mobile homes accounting for 31.5% of dwellings with these three ratings, while comprising only 15.3% of all dwellings in this data. Table MA-12 - Residential Dwellings – Condition (CDU) by Structure Type Condition (CDU) Condominium/Townhouse Mobile Home Single-Family Total Percent of Total Unsound 805 1,183 2,889 4,877 1.1% Very Poor 15 1,516 4,438 5,969 1.4% Poor 89 6,056 10,777 16,922 3.9% Fair 791 17,959 40,087 58,837 13.7% Average 7,506 26,056 140,083 173,645 40.4% Good 11,635 11,125 99,815 122,575 28.5% Very Good 4,746 1,385 29,747 35,878 8.3% Excellent 1,898 419 8,693 11,010 2.6% Total 27,485 65,710 336,529 429,724 100.0% Data Source: MT DOR TY 2019 Table MA-13 presents data on residential dwellings by building style and structure type. 40.0% of single- family dwellings were classified as conventional, followed by 30.5% of single-family dwellings were classified as ranch. Table MA-13 – Residential Dwellings – Building Style by Structure Type Building Style Condominium/Townhouse Mobile Home Single-Family Total A-Frame 0 0 728 728 Bi-Level 13 0 13,679 13,692 Bungalow 0 0 9,152 9,152 Condominium 19,632 0 57 19,689 Conventional 94 0 134,844 134,938 Early American 0 0 660 660 Earth Shelter 0 0 393 393 Foursquare 0 0 96 96 Log 4 0 20,329 20,333 Mobile Home 0 65,710 65,710 Modern 0 0 3,781 3,781 Old Style 1 0 32,124 32,125 Other 1 0 4,077 4,078 Ranch 38 0 102,561 102,599 Shotgun 0 0 410 410 Split Level 0 0 12,183 12,183 Townhome 7,702 0 115 7,817 Traditional 0 0 1,340 1,340 Total 27,485 65,710 336,529 429,724 Data Source: MT DOR TY 2019 Table MA-14 shows the foundation type by year built of residential dwellings. 82.2% of dwellings had a concrete foundation. The next most common foundation type was pier, with 7.7% of dwellings. There were 26,281 dwellings that were classified as having no foundation. 363 State of Montana 91 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan Table MA-14 – Residential Dwellings – Year Built by Foundation Type Year Built Block Concrete None Other Pier Slab Stone Wood Total 1959 and Earlier 1,254 115,904 1,306 91 4,661 1,163 1,745 266 126,390 1960-1969 353 25,693 2,537 10 3,212 398 29 31 32,263 1970-1979 1,023 45,042 10,652 37 11,181 622 39 120 68,716 1980-1989 600 29,392 4,069 27 5,040 787 26 365 40,306 1990-1999 1,145 44,636 4,398 54 4,927 1,136 40 244 56,580 2000-2009 419 59,748 2,152 61 2,351 2,176 23 123 67,053 2010-2017 406 28,806 1,130 43 1,590 2,021 15 63 34,074 2018 17 3,853 36 5 113 307 2 4,333 2019 2 2 1 0 4 0 0 0 9 Total 5,219 353,076 26,281 328 33,079 8,610 1,917 1,214 429,724 Data Source: MT DOR TY 2019 Most dwellings without foundations were mobile homes, as seen in Table MA-15, and mobile homes were more likely to have no foundation than other foundation types. The most common foundation type for condominiums/townhouses and single-family dwellings was concrete. Table MA-15 – Residential Dwellings – Foundation by Structure Type Foundation Type Condominium /Townhouse Mobile Home Single-Family Total Block 35 2,209 2,975 5,219 Concrete 26,028 15,123 311,925 353,076 None 104 24,660 1,517 26,281 Other 132 196 328 Pier 21 23,017 10,041 33,079 Slab 1,279 452 6,879 8,610 Stone 5 7 1,905 1,917 Wood 13 110 1,091 1,214 Total 27,485 65,710 336,529 429,724 Data Source: MT DOR TY 2019 Data was also collected regarding the presence of a basement. This data is presented in Table MA-16, by structure type. The data showed that 39.4% of dwellings have a full basement, with single-family homes accounting for 94.2% of dwellings with full basements. It was most common to have no basement, with 44.9% of dwellings having none. Over half of condominiums/townhouses had no basement, and more than nine out of ten mobile homes had no basement. Table MA-16 – Residential Dwellings – Presence of Basement by Structure Type Basement Type Condominium/Townhouse Mobile Home Single-Family Total None 16,184 60,219 116,348 192,751 Crawl Space 3,187 2,981 23,850 30,018 Partial 554 300 36,703 37,557 Full 7,560 2,210 159,628 169,398 Total 27,485 65,710 336,529 429,724 Data Source: MT DOR TY 2019 Table MA-17 presents data regarding exterior wall construction by structure type. The data indicates that 91.8% of single-family dwellings, and 95.5% of condominiums/townhouses had frame exterior wall construction. The next most common exterior wall construction for single-family dwellings was log, and for condominiums/townhouses is masonry. 364 State of Montana 92 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan Table MA-17 – Residential Dwellings – Exterior Wall Construction by Structure Type Exterior Wall Construction Condominium/Townhouse Mobile Home Single-Family Total Frame 26,250 0 308,772 335,022 Frame and Masonry 605 0 3,673 4,278 Log 135 0 21,132 21,267 Masonry 495 0 2,952 3,447 Mobile Home 0 65,710 0 65,710 Total 27,485 65,710 336,529 429,724 Data Source: MT DOR TY 2019 Table MA-18 depicts residential dwelling grade by structure type. Cheap and poor grades only represent 1.5% of the total dwellings in this data, and single-family dwellings account for 93.9% of dwellings with these two grades. Low cost and fair grades comprise 28.3% of dwellings, and single-family dwellings comprise 77.2% of dwellings with those grades. Mobile homes comprise 21.7% of dwellings with low cost or fair grades, while comprising only 15.3% of the total dwelling units. Condominiums/townhouses were most likely to have an average grade, with 53.0% of condominiums/townhouses having an average grade. Table MA-18 – Residential Dwellings – Grade by Structure Type Grade Condominium/Townhouse Mobile Home Single-Family Total Percent of Total Cheap 1 387 1,607 1,995 0.5% Poor 2 4,445 4,447 1.0% Low Cost 46 26,382 22,233 48,661 11.3% Fair 1,326 2 71,610 72,938 17.0% Average 14,563 24,218 162,968 201,749 46.9% Good 7,568 14,136 56,013 77,717 18.1% Very Good 2,567 13,378 15,945 3.7% Excellent 977 585 2,942 4,504 1.0% Superior 336 1,091 1,427 0.3% Extraordinary 99 242 341 0.1% Total 27,485 65,710 336,529 429,724 100.0% Data Source: MT DOR TY 2019 Table MA-19 continues the discussion on grade, but by year built. According to this data, dwellings built before 1960 were most likely to have a fair or average grade, with 79.0% of dwellings built prior to 1960 within these grades. Dwellings built since 1980 are most likely to have average or good ratings, with 79.4% of dwelling built after 1980 having an average or good grade. Table MA-19 – Residential Dwellings – Year Built by Grade Year Built Cheap Poor Low Cost Fair Average Good Very Good Excellent Superior Extra- ordinary Total 1959 and Earlier 1,037 2,818 16,559 48,633 51,238 5,231 744 115 12 3 126,390 1960-1969 216 273 5,991 4,564 18,789 2,203 202 24 1 32,263 1970-1979 253 325 19,265 6,888 34,219 7,033 655 75 3 68,716 1980-1989 135 325 3,623 4,423 22,641 7,704 1,215 213 22 5 40,306 1990-1999 109 277 1,386 3,536 27,824 18,883 3,377 1,007 158 23 56,580 2000-2009 114 237 1,119 3,045 29,633 23,698 6,295 2,025 713 174 67,053 2010-2017 114 178 672 1,693 15,550 11,345 3,012 907 476 127 34,074 365 State of Montana 93 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan Year Built Cheap Poor Low Cost Fair Average Good Very Good Excellent Superior Extra- ordinary Total 2018 17 14 46 155 1,854 1,614 445 137 42 9 4,333 2019 1 1 6 1 9 Total 1,995 4,447 48,661 72,938 201,749 77,717 15,945 4,504 1,427 341 429,724 Data Source: MT DOR TY 2019 As seen in Table MA-20 wood siding/sheathing is the most common exterior wall construction for all dwellings, as well as being the most common for single-family dwellings and second most common condominiums/townhouses. The second most common exterior wall construction for single-family dwellings and most common for condominiums/townhouses was Masonite. The most common exterior wall construction for mobile homes was aluminum/vinyl, followed by wood siding/sheathing. Table MA-20 – Residential Dwellings – Exterior Wall Construction by Structure Type Exterior Wall Construction Condominium/Townhouse Mobile Home Single-Family Total Asbestos 30 54 10,174 10,258 Aluminum/Vinyl 3,668 34,566 57,865 96,099 Block 169 6 890 1,065 Brick 780 8 6,177 6,965 Masonite 11,785 14,056 83,946 109,787 Other 500 661 24,839 26,000 Shingle 78 56 10,317 10,451 Stone 57 7 680 744 Stucco 836 53 12,350 13,239 Wood Siding/Sheathing 9,582 16,243 129,291 155,116 Total 27,485 65,710 336,529 429,724 Data Source: MT DOR 2012 Roof material is shown in Table MA-21 by structure type. Asphalt shingles were the most common roof material for all residential dwellings, accounting for 68.3%. Table MA-21 – Residential Dwellings – Roof Material by Structure Type Roof Material Condominium/ Townhouse Mobile Home Single-Family Total Asbestos 5 168 769 942 Asphalt Shingles 22,749 31,390 239,514 293,653 Composition Roll 262 4,413 8,837 13,512 Copper 9 68 77 Metal 908 29,127 60,252 90,287 Other 598 109 961 1,668 Slate 6 7 220 233 Built up Tar and Gravel 838 267 3,126 4,231 Tile 99 22 1,021 1,142 Wood Shake 1,755 73 9,229 11,057 Wood Shingle 265 125 12,532 12,922 Total 27,485 65,710 336,529 429,724 Data Source: MT DOR TY 2019 Table MA-22 presents effective year by grade for residential dwellings. According to the Montana Appraisal Manual, the effective year is assigned to a structure based upon its condition as of the effective evaluation and may be greater or less than the structure’s actual age. The highest number of 366 State of Montana 94 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan dwellings with a grade of cheap or poor had an effective year of 1939 and earlier. The highest number of dwellings with a grade of average and above had an effective year of 2000-2009. Table MA-22 – Residential Dwellings – Effective Year by Grade Effective Year Cheap Poor Low Cost Fair Average Good Very Good Excellent Superior Extra- ordinary Total 1939 and Earlier 356 585 1,305 886 297 50 5 2 3,486 1940-1949 168 452 1,497 1,490 311 17 1 3,936 1950-1959 262 584 2,882 4,169 2,085 94 13 1 10,090 1960-1969 318 794 8,049 13,669 7,534 420 28 2 30,814 1970-1979 349 814 17,731 8,286 26,134 2,680 178 22 2 66,196 1980-1989 187 463 11,729 9,072 58,714 9,415 962 138 6 3 100,689 1990-1999 118 334 3,504 9,240 48,455 20,803 3,406 862 105 16 86,843 2000-2009 111 232 1,229 4,110 39,121 29,277 7,488 2,229 674 143 84,614 2010 or Later 126 189 735 2,016 19,098 14,961 3,864 1,249 640 178 43,056 Total 1,995 4,447 48,661 72,938 201,749 77,717 15,945 4,504 1,427 341 429,724 Data Source: MT DOR TY 2019 Foundation type by effective year is shown in Table MA-23. Concrete foundations were the most likely foundation types for all effective years and accounted for 82.2% of foundation types. The second most common, pier foundations, were most common in dwellings with effective years between 1970 and 1979. Table MA-23 – Residential Dwellings – Effective Year by Foundation Type Effective Year Block Concrete None Other Pier Slab Stone Wood Total 1939 and Earlier 28 2,733 143 5 429 36 95 17 3,486 1940-1949 24 3,332 117 5 367 26 53 12 3,936 1950-1959 86 8,464 368 12 897 106 130 27 10,090 1960-1969 239 24,880 1,710 26 3,278 290 298 93 30,814 1970-1979 990 47,905 5,735 51 10,255 727 404 129 66,196 1980-1989 1,256 82,417 7,668 43 7,324 1,053 574 354 100,689 1990-1999 1,414 72,052 5,441 62 5,841 1,437 255 341 86,843 2000-2009 689 74,405 3,824 72 2,881 2,494 81 168 84,614 2010 or Later 493 36,888 1,275 52 1,807 2,441 27 73 43,056 Total 5,219 353,076 26,281 328 33,079 8,610 1,917 1,214 429,724 Data Source: MT DOR TY 2019 Table MA-24 presents data regarding residential dwelling structure type by effective year. The information provided shows dwellings with effective years prior to 1960 were overwhelmingly single- family dwellings. Condominiums/townhouses with effective years in the 2000s were much more prevalent than preceding effective years. Mobile homes were most likely to have effective years in the 1970s-1990s, accounting for 70.0% of all mobile homes. 367 State of Montana 95 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan Table MA-24 – Residential Dwellings – Effective Year by Structure Type Effective Year Condominium/Townhouse Mobile Home Single-Family Total 1939 and Earlier 15 3,471 3,486 1940-1949 1 8 3,927 3,936 1950-1959 782 562 8,746 10,090 1960-1969 358 3,901 26,555 30,814 1970-1979 435 16,430 49,331 66,196 1980-1989 3,274 14,975 82,440 100,689 1990-1999 5,342 14,578 66,923 86,843 2000-20019 11,593 10,933 62,088 84,614 2010 or Later 5,685 4,323 33,048 43,056 Total 27,485 65,710 336,529 429,724 Data Source: MT DOR TY 2019 Table MA-25 presents CDU by grade. Looking at this data, dwellings that fall into the categories between cheap and low cost, and between unsound and poor, comprise 18,343 units and represent redevelopment opportunities rather than rehabilitation opportunities; these account for 4.3% of all dwellings. Dwellings that are rated between fair and good and between unsound and poor may be able to be renovated to meet current codes and standards. There are 9,392 dwellings in these categories, accounting for 2.2% of all the dwellings in this data set. Table MA-25 – Residential Dwellings – Grade by Condition (CDU) Grade Unsound Very Poor Poor Fair Average Good Very Good Excellent Total Cheap 551 426 349 318 279 52 16 4 1,995 Poor 602 678 927 1,137 909 165 24 5 4,447 Low Cost 2,108 3,301 9,401 20,465 12,305 953 106 13 48,661 Fair 636 1,206 4,421 20,980 38,191 6,820 602 82 72,938 Average 956 323 1,659 14,571 99,731 70,138 11,066 3,304 201,749 Good 20 24 147 1,213 20,208 37,172 15,397 3,535 77,717 Very Good 3 10 11 84 1,685 5,922 6,275 1,955 15,945 Excellent 7 68 318 1,165 1,851 1,095 4,504 Superior 1 1 16 162 454 793 1,427 Extraordinary 1 3 26 87 224 341 Total 4,877 5,969 16,922 58,837 173,645 122,575 35,878 11,010 429,724 Data Source: MT DOR TY 2019 Discussion N/A MA-15 Cost of Housing – 91.310(a) Introduction Below is information regarding the costs of housing throughout the state. Cost of Housing Table 32 – Cost of Housing Base Year: 2010 Most Recent Year: 2017 % Change Median Home Value $173,300 $209,100 20.7% Median Contract Rent $521 $647 24.2% Data Source: 2010 5-Year ACS (Base Year); 2017 5-Year ACS (Most Recent Year) 368 State of Montana 96 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan Table 33 – Rent Paid Rent Paid Number % No cash rent 11,700 8.6% Less than $500 35,052 25.8% $500-999 68,019 50.1% $1,000-1,499 16,463 12.1% $1,500-1,999 2,759 2.0% $2,000 or more 1,814 1.3% Total 135,807 100.0% Data Source: 2017 5-Year ACS Housing Affordability Table 34 – Housing Affordability % Units Affordable to Households Earning Renter Owner 30% HAMFI 11,305 No Data 50% HAMFI 40,040 18,770 80% HAMFI 82,070 55,005 100% HAMFI No Data 85,550 Total 133,415 159,325 Data Source: HAMFI Based on the number of households earning 0-30% of the AMI there are not enough rental units in Montana affordable to households earning 30% HAMFI with only 11,305 available (as noted above). What this means is that a small percentage of persons at 30% HAMFI can find units that are affordable. As incomes increase so does the availability of affordable units. Monthly Rent Because this Consolidated Plan is for a state grantee and analysis herein considers the entire state of Montana, in which monthly rents vary significantly, monthly rent data are not provided in Table 35. Table 35 – Monthly Rent Monthly Rent ($) Efficiency (no bedroom) 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom 4 Bedroom Fair Market Rent N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A High HOME Rent N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Low HOME Rent N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Data Source: HUD FMR and HOME Rents Is there sufficient housing for households at all income levels? No. Since 2006, the average cost to rent an eligible subsidized housing unit has been increasing while the amount of dollars from HUD has been decreasing. As a result, the number of people that can be assisted by HUD programs in Montana has declined. The poverty rate in Montana has been increasing, with an estimated 139,063 people living at or below the poverty level in Montana in 2018. At an average household size of 2.34 in 2018, this translates into 59,428 households, well beyond the number of households that can be assisted with the available resources. On the other end of the scale, the median home price in Missoula—one of the nation’s least affordable cities, according to a City Lab analysis—is $355,900. While the basic rule of thumb is that an affordable 369 State of Montana 97 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan home is 2.6 times a household annual take-home pay, a Missoula home priced at the median would cost 8.5 years’ worth of wages, leaving great demand for affordable housing. How is affordability of housing likely to change considering changes to home values and/or rents? Ranked 48th in population density with a population just over 1 million residents living in a state covering more than 147,000 square miles, Montana has a wide range of home values and rents that fluctuate based on a range of local conditions. These conditions include, but are not limited to, declining oil, gas, and coal development in the east, a volatile forest products industry31 in the west, stagnant grain and livestock prices, and strong housing markets in some areas. These factors converge to decrease the affordability of housing as either home values and/or rents increase or incomes stagnate or even decline. In particular, affordability of housing for individuals with special needs and senior citizens is likely to decrease due to declining levels of assistance and fixed income as living costs increase. How do HOME rents / Fair Market Rent compare to Area Median Rent? How might this impact your strategy to produce or preserve affordable housing? According to Census (ACS 2017), Montana’s median rent was $647, a comparable amount to Fair Market Rent, except in Montana’s most urban cities of Missoula, Billings, and Bozeman. Montana remains committed to assisting local counties and municipalities in finding ways to address the needs of low- and moderate-income households across Montana, including assisting with affordable, accessible rent where that need has been identified. The Census Bureau also reports the value of construction appearing on a building permit, excluding the cost of land and related land development. As shown in Figure 2 the construction value of single-family dwellings generally increased from 1980 through 2012. After dropping in 2008, values started to rise again in the past few years. The distribution of housing values around the state of Montana as reported in the 2017 ACS is presented below. Map 1 shows that the areas with the highest home values were in and near urban areas surrounding Missoula, Bozeman, Kalispell, and Helena. In addition, home values were generally higher in the western portion of the state. The median home value in Montana has increased since 2000. In 2010, the median home value was $173,300, but in 2017 that same home value has grown to $209,100. This is an increase of 20.7%. Table MA-26 shows both the median home value and the median contract rent for the state of Montana. Table MA-27 shows the number of households and their respective rent paid. Approximately 68,019 households paid rent between $500 and $999 a month. 1.3% of households pay more than $2,000 or more a month. 31 https://missoulian.com/news/local/western-mt-mills-thriving-due-to-sky-high-forest-products- prices/article_9e4d5f49-4231-53f2-9fe2-e7a59dfed1d8.html 370 State of Montana 98 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan Figure 2 – Single-Family Permits and Valuation in Montana Table MA-26 – Cost of Housing Base Year: 2010 Most Recent Year: 2017 Percent Change Median Home Value $173,300 $209,100 20.7% Median Contract Rent $521 $647 24.2% Data Source: 2010 5-Year ACS (Base Year); 2017 5-Year ACS (Most Recent Year) Table MA-27 – Amount of Rent Paid Rent Paid Number Percent No cash rent 11,700 8.6% Less Than $500 35,052 25.8% 500-999 68,019 50.1% $1,000-1,499 16,463 12.1% $1,500-1,999 2,759 2.0% $2,000 or more 1,814 1.3% Total 135,807 100.0% Data Source: 2007-2011 ACS Maps 1 and 2, illustrate data on median gross rent prices by census tract derived from the 2017 ACS. In this situation, gross rent refers to monthly contracted rental fees plus average monthly utility costs, which includes electricity, water and sewer services, and garbage removal. Some similarities can be seen when comparing these maps. For example, the areas with the highest gross rent costs were in or near the major cities in the state and were concentrated in the western half of the state, the majority of the state, however, had average rents between $400 and $500 per month. As seen in Table MA-28, the median rent in 2017 was $647, compared to median rent in 2010 at $521. The median home value in 2017 was $209,100, compared to the median home value in 2010 at $173,300. 371 State of Montana 99 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan Table MA-28 – Median Housing Costs Housing Cost Base Year: 2010 Most Recent Year: 2017 % Change Median Contract Rent $173,300 $209,100 20.7% Median Home Value $521 $647 24.2% Data Source: 2010 5-Year ACS (Base Year); 2017 5-Year ACS (Most Recent Year) Table MA-29 presents data on average market rental rates. Data in this table have not been updated since the submission of Montana’s previous Consolidated Plan (2015-2019) because more current data are not available. Table MA-29 shows the average market rental rates for the state of Montana. The average rental rate for an efficiency is $510.00, while the average rent for a one-bedroom is $561.60. The total average rent for the state of Montana is $777.20. Table MA-29 – Average Market Rental Rates Number of Bedrooms Single-Family Apartment Mobile Homes “Other” Average Market Rents Efficiency $431.30 $517.10 $ $ $510.00 One $537.00 $574.60 $400.00 $475.00 $561.60 Two $726.40 $693.00 $527.40 $636.60 $690.50 Three $964.10 $901.70 $673.30 $810.50 $905.30 Four $1,350.80 $1,255.60 $ $1,136.70 $1,327.40 Total $888.20 $694.2 $614.70 $732.30 $777.20 Data Source: 2014 Montana RVS Survey Map 1 – Median Home Value by Census Tract 372 State of Montana 100 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan Map 2 – Median Contract Rent by Census Tract Another indicator of housing cost was provided by the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA). The FHFA, the regulatory agency for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, tracks average housing price changes for single-family homes and publishes a Housing Price Index (HPI) reflecting price movements on a quarterly basis. Figure 3 shows the housing price index for one quarter from each year from 1975 through 2019. As seen therein, the Montana index has been lower than the United States index since the late 1980s, with a near convergence in the mid-1990s. The housing price index in Montana increased for the next 10 years to 12 years, surpassing the national index in 2008. Although the state index fell during that time, it has remained higher than the national level and has begun to rise. Figure 3 – Housing Price Index, State of Montana vs. United States 373 State of Montana 101 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan Table MA-30 shows the housing affordability within the state of Montana. There is a total of 82,070 renter households at the 80% HUD Area Median Family Income (HAMFI) versus the 55,005 owner households at the same level. Table MA-30 – Housing Affordability (Percent of Units Affordable to Households) Earning Renter Owner 30% HAMFI 11,305 No Data 50% HAMFI 40,040 18,770 80% HAMFI 82,070 55,005 100% HAMFI No Data 85,550 Total 133,415 159,325 Data Source: HAMFI MA-20 Condition of Housing – 91.310(a) Introduction: The condition of housing in the state of Montana has been examined in order to demonstrate the work that is needed over the next 5 years. For Owner-Occupied units, there are 68,747 households, or 25%, which have at least one housing condition. The vast majority of Owner-Occupied units, 207,030 households or 74%, have no selected conditions. For Renter-Occupied units, the balance is similar, with the majority of units (60%) being free of conditions, but 38% having at least one. The age of the housing stock is also reported in the 2017 ACS. The age of the housing stock has been grouped into nine categories, ranging from 1939 or earlier through 2010 or later. Table MA-31 shows that substantial numbers of housing units were added to the stock in the 1970s, with those units accounting for 18.6% of the housing stock, and in the 2000s, with those units accounting for 15.0%. Table MA-31 – Households by Year Home Built Year Built 2010 Census 2017 5-Year ACS Households % of Total Households % of Total 1939 or Earlier 62,150 15.5% 57,740 13.7% 1940 to 1949 23,641 5.9% 20,794 5.0% 1950 to 1959 41,536 10.3% 40,517 9.6% 1960 to 1969 35,846 8.9% 36,425 8.7% 1970 to 1979 80,323 20.0% 78,205 18.6% 1980 to 1989 49,036 12.2% 47,229 11.2% 1990 to 1999 60,384 15.0% 58,311 13.9% 2000 to 2009 48,412 12.1% 63,108 15.0% 2010 or Later 17,646 4.2% Total 401,328 100.0% 419,975 100.0% Data Source: 2010 and 2017 5-Year ACS Data Table MA-32 shows the age of the housing stock in Montana before 1950 through 2018. Between 1950 and 1979, 101,930 owner-occupied houses were added to the housing stock in Montana. During that same timeframe 53,217 renter-occupied houses were added. The table also shows that there is more than double the number of owner-occupied houses in Montana than renter-occupied. 374 State of Montana 102 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan Table MA-32 – Age of the Housing Stock Year Unit Built Owner-Occupied Renter Occupied Number % Number % 2000 or Later 59,789 21.0% 20,965 15.4% 1980-1999 72,954 25.7% 32,586 24.0% 1950-1979 101,930 35.9% 53,217 39.2% Before 1950 49,495 17.4% 29,039 21.4% Total 284,168 100.0% 135,807 100.0% Data Source: 2017 5-Year ACS Definitions Under Section 104(d) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, housing activities may be completed to replace “occupied” and “vacant but occupiable” low/moderate income dwelling units that are demolished or converted to a use other than as low/moderate income housing as a direct result of funded activities. Section 104(d) provides that dwelling units that meet the definition of “substandard housing unsuitable for rehabilitation,” and that have been vacant for at least 6 months prior their conversion or demolition, are exempt from coverage under the plan. For purposes of this plan, Commerce will use the following definitions when considering funding. “Standard housing” is defined as a housing unit which, at the minimum, meets the following standards: • Housing Quality Standards (HQS) set forth in the Section 8 Program for HQS • All zoning ordinances and uniform codes adopted by the state, which are national or international codes “Substandard suitable for rehabilitation” means a housing unit, or in the case of multifamily dwellings, the building(s) containing the housing units, where the estimated cost of making the needed replacements and repairs is less than 75% of the estimated cost of new construction of a comparable unit or units. “Substandard not suitable for rehabilitation” means any such housing unit or units for which the estimated cost of making the needed replacements and repairs is greater than or equal to 75% of the estimated cost of new construction or a comparable unit or units. These definitions are not intended to prevent the preservation of substandard housing not suitable for rehabilitation if the project sponsor and/or Commerce determine that the unit or units should be rehabilitated and preserved to achieve other goals established for the project, including, but not limited to, the preservation of buildings with historical or architectural significance. Condition of Units Table 36 – Condition of Units Condition of Units Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied Number % Number % With one selected Condition 60,801 21.4% 54,580 40.2% With two selected Conditions 1,544 0.5% 3,079 2.3% With three selected Conditions 207 0.1% 234 0.2% 375 State of Montana 103 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan Condition of Units Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied Number % Number % With four selected Conditions 8 0.0% 0.0% No selected Conditions 221,608 78.0% 77,914 57.4% Total 284,168 100.0% 135,807 100.0% Data Source: 2017 5-Year ACS Year Unit Built Table 37 – Year Unit Built Year Unit Built Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied Number % Number % 2000 or later 59,789 21.0% 20,965 15.4% 1980-1999 72,954 25.7% 32,586 24.0% 1950-1979 101,930 35.9% 53,217 39.2% Before 1950 49,495 17.4% 29,039 21.4% Total 284,168 100.0% 135,807 100.0% Data Source: 2017 5-Year ACS Risk of Lead-Based Paint Hazard Table 38 – Risk of Lead-Based Paint Risk of Lead-Based Paint Hazard Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied Number % Number % Total Number of Units Built Before 1980 151,425 53.3% 82,256 60.6% Housing Units build before 1980 with children present 15,925 5.7% 13,790 10.2% Data Source: 2017 5-Year ACS (Total Units) 2012-2016 CHAS (Units with Children present) Lead-Based Paint Hazards Older homes, particularly those built prior to 1978, have a greater likelihood of lead-based paint (LBP) hazards than homes built after 1978, when lead as an ingredient in paint was banned. Environmental issues play an important role in the quality of housing. Exposure to LBP, which is more likely to occur in these older homes, is one of the most significant environmental threats posed to homeowners and renters. An understanding of the harmful effects of lead poisoning on children and adults in both the short- and long-term is increasing. Evidence shows that lead dust is a more serious hazard than ingestion of LBP chips. Dust from surfaces with intact LBP is pervasive and poisonous when inhaled or ingested. Making the situation more difficult is the fact that lead dust is so fine that it cannot be collected by conventional vacuum cleaners. LBP was banned from residential use because of the health risk it posed, particularly to children. Homes built prior to 1980 have some chance of containing LBP on interior or exterior surfaces. The chances increase with the age of the housing units. Information below shows the risk of LBP exposure in owner- and renter-occupied houses. HUD has established estimates for determining the likelihood of housing units containing LBP. These estimates are as follows: • 90% of units built before 1940; • 80% of units built from 1940 through 1959; and • 62% of units built from 1960 through 1979. 376 State of Montana 104 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan Other factors used to determine the risk for LBP problems include the condition of the housing unit, tenure and household income. Households with young children are also at greater risk because young children have more hand-to-mouth activity and absorb lead more readily than adults. The two factors most correlated with higher risks of LBP hazards are residing in rental or lower-income households. Low- income residents are less likely to be able to afford proper maintenance of their homes, leading to issues such as chipped and peeling paint, and renters are not as likely or are not allowed to renovate their rental units. Vacant Units Information about vacant units suitable or not suitable for rehabilitation throughout the state of Montana is not available; thus, data are not provided in Table 39. Table 39 – Vacant Units Suitable for Rehabilitation Not Suitable for Rehabilitation Total Vacant Units N/A N/A N/A Abandoned Vacant Units N/A N/A N/A REO Properties N/A N/A N/A Abandoned REO Properties N/A N/A N/A Need for Owner and Rental Rehabilitation In Montana, there are 340,153 parcels with housing units on them (a “parcel” could be a complex multifamily building). The ACS 5-year estimates report that Montana has 429,724 housing units. Of that number, according to DOR, 2.6% are in excellent condition; 8.3% are in very good condition; 28.5% are in good condition; 40.4% in average condition; 13.7% are in fair condition; and 3.9% are in poor condition. These last two categories (fair and poor) are candidates for potential rehabilitation and represent more than 75,000 houses across Montana. Clearly there is a need for rehabilitation to retain these houses as part of Montana’s housing stock. Estimated Number of Housing Units Occupied by Low or Moderate Income Families with LBP Hazards According to the 2017 5-Year ACS data, 233,681 housing units built before 1980 are at risk of LBP hazards. Data show owner occupied households faced a risk of LBP at all income levels. Renter-occupied households had a higher rate of risk for LBP, with lower income levels facing more LBP risks as documented in 738. Discussion: National Efforts to Reduce Lead-Based Paint Hazards In 1991, Congress formed HUD’s Office of Healthy Homes and Lead Hazard Control to eradicate LBP hazards in privately owned and low-income housing in the United States. One way it has done this is by providing grants for communities to address their own lead paint hazards. Other responsibilities of this office are enforcement of HUD’s LBP regulations, public outreach and technical assistance, and technical studies to help protect children and their families from health and safety hazards in the home.32 Then in 1992, to address the problem more directly, Congress passed the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act, also known as Title X, which developed a comprehensive federal strategy for reducing 32 “About the Office of Healthy Homes and Lead Hazard Control.” 21 February 2011. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. 12 May 2014. 377 State of Montana 105 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan lead exposure from paint, dust and soil, and provided authority for several rules and regulations, including the following: 1. Lead Safe Housing Rule – mandates that federally-assisted or owned housing facilities notify residents about, evaluate, and reduce LBP hazards. 2. Lead Disclosure Rule – requires homeowners to disclose all known LBP hazards when selling or leasing a residential property built before 1978. Violations of the Lead Disclosure Rule may result in civil money penalties of up to $11,000 per violation.33 3. Pre-Renovation Education Rule – ensures that owners and occupants of most pre-1978 housing are given information about potential hazards of LBP exposure before certain renovations happen on that unit. 4. Lead Renovation, Repair and Painting Program Rule – establishes standards for anyone engaging in target housing renovation that creates LBP hazards.34 A 10-year goal was set in February 2000 by President Clinton’s Task Force on Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks to Children to eliminate childhood lead poisoning in the United States as a major public health issue by 2010. To achieve this goal, they released the following four broad recommendations in their “Eliminating Childhood Lead Poisoning: A Federal Strategy Targeting Lead Paint Hazards,” report: 1. Prevent lead exposure in children by, among other actions, increasing the availability of lead-safe dwellings through increased funding of HUD’s lead hazard control program, controlling lead paint hazards, educating the public about lead-safe painting, renovation and maintenance work, and enforcing compliance with lead paint laws. 2. Increase early intervention to identify and care for lead-poisoned children through screening and follow-up services for at-risk children, especially Medicaid-eligible children, and increasing coordination between federal, state and local agencies who are responsible for lead hazard control, among other measures. 3. Conduct research to, for example, develop new lead hazard control technologies, improve prevention strategies, promote innovative ways to decrease lead hazard control costs, and quantify the ways in which children are exposed to lead. 4. Measure progress and refine lead poisoning prevention strategies by, for instance, implementing monitoring and surveillance programs. Continuing these efforts, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services launched Healthy People 2020, which included the goal of eliminating childhood blood lead levels ≥10 µg/dL (micrograms per deciliter).35 As part of the National Center for Environmental Health, the program works with other agencies to address the problem of unhealthy and unsafe housing through surveillance, research and comprehensive prevention programs.36 In 2010, the Environmental Protection Agency enacted the Lead Renovation, Repair, and Painting Rule (RRP). This rule requires that any firms performing renovation, repair, and painting projects that disturb LBP in homes, childcare facilities and pre-schools built before 1978 must be certified by the EPA.37 33 “Lead Programs Enforcement Division - HUD.” Homes and Communities - U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). 12 May. 34 “Lead: Rules and Regulations; Lead in Paint, Dust, and Soil.” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 31 Dec. 2008. 35 http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/Lead/ 36 http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/eehs/ 37 http://www2.epa.gov/lead/renovation-repair-and-painting-program 378 State of Montana 106 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan Lead-Based Paint Hazards for Children Children’s exposure to lead has decreased dramatically over the past few decades due to federal mandates that lead be phased out of items such as gasoline, food and beverage cans, water pipes, and industrial emissions. However, despite a ban in 1978 on the use of lead in new paint, children living in older homes are still at risk from deteriorating LBP and its resulting lead contaminated household dust and soil. Today LBP in older housing remains one of the most common sources of lead exposure for children.38 Thirty-eight million housing units in the United States had LBP during a 1998 to 2000 survey, down from the 1990 estimate of 64 million. Still, 24 million housing units in the survey contained significant LBP hazards. Of those with hazards, 1.2 million were homes to low-income families with children under 6 years of age.39 National Efforts to Reduce Lead Exposure in Children There have been a number of substantive steps taken by the United States to reduce and eliminate blood lead poisoning in children. The Lead Contamination Control Act (LCCA) of 1988 authorized the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to make grants to state and local agencies for childhood lead poisoning prevention programs that develop prevention programs and policies, educate the public, and support research to determine the effectiveness of prevention efforts at federal, state, and local levels. The CDC has carried out these activities through its Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Program.40 One of the most significant actions the CDC has taken to lower blood lead levels (BLLs) in children over the past few decades is their gradual changing of the definition of an EBLL. For example, during the 1960s the criteria for an EBLL was ≥60 micrograms per deciliter (µg/dL). It then dropped to ≥40 µg/dL in 1971, to ≥30 µg/dL in 1978, ≥25 µg/dL in 1985, and most recently, ≥ 10 µg/dL in 1991.41 Roughly 14 out of every 1,000 children in the United States between the ages of 1 and 5 have blood lead levels greater than 10 micrograms of lead per deciliter of blood. This is the level at which public health actions should be initiated according to the CDC. Results of National Efforts All of these coordinated and cooperative efforts at the national, state and local levels have created the infrastructure needed to identify high-risk housing and to prevent and control lead hazards. Consequently, EBLLs in U.S. children have decreased dramatically. For example, in 1978 nearly 14.8 million children in the United States had lead poisoning; however, by the early 90s that number had dropped substantially to 890,000.42 According to data collected by the CDC, this number is dropping 38 “Protect Your Family.” March 2014. Environmental Protection Agency. Web. 2 May 2014. 39 Jacobs, David E., Robert P. Clickner, Joey Y. Zhou, Susan M. Viet, David A. Marker, John W. Rogers, Darryl C. Zeldin, Pamela Broene, and Warren Friedman. “The Prevalence of Lead-Based Paint Hazards in U.S. Housing.” Environmental Health Perspectives 110 (2002): A599-606. Pub Med. 12 May 2014. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1241046/pdf/ehp0110-a00599.pdf 40 “Implementation of the Lead Contamination Control Act of 1988.” Editorial. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 01 May 1992: 288-90. 05 Aug. 1998. Centers for Disease Control. 12 May 2014. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00016599.htm 41 Lanphear, MD MPH, Bruce P et al. “Cognitive Deficits Associated with Blood Lead Concentrations” Public Health Reports 115 (2000): 521-29. Pub Med. 12 May 2014. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1308622/pdf/pubhealthrep00019-0027.pdf 42 Eliminating Childhood Lead Poisoning: A Federal Strategy Targeting Lead Paint Hazards. Feb. 2000. President’s Task Force on Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks to Children. 12 May 2014. https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/about/fedstrategy2000.pdf 379 State of Montana 107 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan even more. In 1997, 7.6% of children under 6 tested had lead levels ≥10 µg/dL. By 2012, even after the number of children being tested had grown significantly, only 0.62% had lead levels ≥10 µg/dL.43 Amidst all of this success, a debate exists in the field of epidemiology about the definition of EBLLs in children. A growing body of research suggests that considerable damage occurs even at BLLs below 10 µg/dL. For example, inverse correlations have been found between BLLs <10 µg/dL and IQ, cognitive function and somatic growth.44 Further, some studies assert that some effects can be more negative at BLLs below 10 µg/dL than above it.45 While the CDC acknowledges these associations and does not refute that they are, at least in part, causal, they have yet to lower the level of concern below 10 µg/dL. The reasons the CDC gives for this decision are as follows: it is critical to focus available resources where negative effects are greatest, setting a new level would be arbitrary since no exact threshold has been established for adverse health effects from lead, and the ability to successfully and consistently reduce BLLs below 10 µg/dL has not been demonstrated.46 Lead-Based Paint Hazards in Montana Table MA-33 presents the total number of housing units estimated to have LBP risks and shows that a significant number of housing units in the state were at risk of LBP contamination, a total of 223,681 units. Table MA-33 – Households at Risk of Lead-Based Paint Hazard Year Built Households 1939 or Earlier 57,740 1940 to 1949 20,794 1950 to 1959 40,517 1960 to 1969 36,425 1970 to 1979 78,205 1980 to 1989 . 1990 to 1999 . 2000 to 2004 . 2005 or Later . Total 223,681 Data Source: 2017 5-Year ACS Data Table MA-34 presents data regarding the number of households at risk of LBP hazards, broken down by tenure, presence of children age 6 and under, and income. Owner-occupied households showed 15,925 units with young children at risk of LBP exposure, and renter-occupied households showed 13,790 units. In total, 24,078 households showed the capacity to pose LBP health risks for children age 6 or younger. 43 http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/data/StateConfirmedByYear1997-2012.htm 44 Preventing Lead Poisoning in Young Children. Aug. 2005. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 12 May 2014. https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/Publications/PrevleadPoisoning.pdf 45 Matte, MD, MPH, Thomas D., David Homa, PhD, Jessica Sanford, PhD, and Alan Pate. A Review of Evidence of Adverse Health Effects Associated with Blood Lead Levels < 10 µg/dL in Children. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Work Group of the Advisory Committee on Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention. 12 May 2014. https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/ACCLPP/SupplementalOct04/Work%20Group%20Draft%20Final%20Report_Edite d%20October%207,%202004%20-%20single%20spaced.pdf 46 Preventing Lead Poisoning in Young Children. Aug. 2005. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 12 May 2014. https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/Publications/PrevleadPoisoning.pdf 380 State of Montana 108 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan Owner-occupied households faced a risk of LBP at all income levels. Renter-occupied households had a higher rate of risk for LBP, with lower income levels facing more LBP risks. Table MA-34 - Households at Risk of Lead-Based Paint by Tenure by Income Income One or More Children Age 6 or Younger No Children Age 6 or Younger Total Owner Occupied Households 30% HAMFI or less 1,145 13,380 14,525 30.1-50% HAMFI 1,235 15,460 16,695 50.1-80% HAMFI 2,940 25,365 28,305 80.1% HAMFI or more 2,300 15,425 17,725 100.1% HAMFI and above 8,305 63,665 71,970 Total 15,925 133,295 149,220 Renter Occupied Households 30% HAMFI or less 3,230 18,600 21,830 30.1-50% HAMFI 3,310 13,940 17,250 50.1-80% HAMFI 3,610 16,175 19,785 80.1% HAMFI or more 1,255 6,665 7,920 100.1% HAMFI and above 2,385 13,765 16,150 Total 13,790 69,145 82,935 Total 30% HAMFI or less 4,375 31,980 36,355 30.1-50% HAMFI 4,545 29,400 33,945 50.1-80% HAMFI 6,550 41,540 48,090 80.1% HAMFI or more 3,555 22,090 25,645 100.1% HAMFI and above 10,690 77,430 88,120 Total 29,715 202,440 232,155 Data Source: 2012-2016- HUD CHAS Data Montana Lead Removal Efforts The State of Montana has a commitment to ensure that recipients of HOME, CDBG, HTF, and ESG funds administer programs that adequately limit the risks associated with LBP. Recipients of funding through these grant programs are required to comply with all federal, state, and local LBP regulations. Although a large portion of the state’s housing stock may be at risk of LBP exposure, it is important to note that one cannot assume all of these units contain LBP, and the presence of LBP alone does not indicate the extent of exposure hazards. Education and awareness of the potential hazards and the need to properly maintain, control, and abate LBP is crucial. Applicants for CDBG, HOME, and HTF funds are made aware of the requirements of the LBP regulations before they apply for funds. If funded, applicants receive additional information on dealing with LBP hazards. Technical assistance is available throughout the project. Commerce also promotes lead training whenever it is offered in Montana. The State of Montana supports rehabilitation and construction activities to ensure that households, particularly those with children, benefiting from federal housing programs are safe from LBP hazards. Both Commerce and DPHHS provide education and information on LBP hazards to parents, families, healthcare providers, grant recipients, and contractors. Commerce requires that any contractor or subcontractor engaged in renovation, repair, or painting activities is certified and uses lead-safe work practices, as required by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. If rehabilitation or homebuyer assistance is funded by CDBG, HOME, or HTF, and the unit funded was built prior to 1980, LBP risks must 381 State of Montana 109 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan be assessed. If a unit has LBP that is chipping, peeling, or deteriorating, it must be remediated or removed during rehabilitation or prior to securing funds for homebuyer assistance. For many projects, CDBG, HOME, and HTF funds can be used to assist with the cost of LBP testing and remediation. In addition, Uniform Physical Condition Standards (UPCS)/HQS inspections are performed annually at HOME, HTF, Section 8, and other public rental properties throughout the state. UPCS/HQS inspections are also conducted on all homes purchased with HOME assistance prior to the commitment of HOME funds. State staff conducting UPCS inspections complete UPCS training as well as HUD’s online Lead- Based Paint Visual Assessment Training. The more populated areas of the state tend to have more access to resources for appropriately dealing with LBP hazards. However, rural areas of the state, where rehabilitation is often the largest part of housing strategies, remain under-prepared to address LBP hazards. Significant portions of rehabilitation program budgets now go to addressing LBP hazards, and there is an increasing need for federal funding to support the remediation of LBP hazards. The state has only one accredited lead analysis laboratory, Northern Analytical Laboratories of Billings, that can perform analyses on paint chips, dust wipes, and soil. The state also has several individual contractors and a limited number of companies certified to perform LBP activities within the state. For the ESG Program, all units constructed prior to 1978 and assisted with ESG funds must undergo an LBP visual assessment if a child under the age of 6 is or will be living in the unit or a pregnant woman will live in the unit unless an exemption applies. The visual assessment must be completed prior to ESG assistance being provided, and annually thereafter. Depending on the results of the visual assessment, additional steps may be required before assistance can be provided for that unit. In addition, for all households assisted with ESG funds and constructed before 1978, property owners or managers must adhere to disclosure requirements. Vacant Housing Table MA-35 shows the change in number of vacant housing units between the 2010 ACS and 2017 ACS. Growth in the vacant housing stock between 2010 and 2017 was driven largely by an increase in the number of units classified as seasonal, accounting for 53.2% of the total vacant housing units. The second disposition group with the most growth over this time period was “other vacant.” These units are typically the most problematic, as they are not available to the marketplace. Where such units are grouped in close proximity to each other, a blighting influence may be created. There were 20,583 “other vacant” units in 2017, accounting for 25.4% of all vacant units. Table MA-35 – Change in Vacant Housing Units Disposition 2010 5-Year ACS 2017 5-Year ACS % Change Units % of Total Units % of Total For rent 7,499 10.7% 8,594 10.6% 14.6% Rented, not occupied 1,477 2.1% 1,874 2.3% 26.9% For sale only 4,732 6.7% 4,954 6.1% 4.7% Sold, not occupied 1,758 2.5% 1,603 2.0% -8.8% For seasonal, recreational, or occasional use 34,892 49.6% 43,186 53.2% 23.8% For migrant workers 304 0.4% 330 0.4% 8.6% Other vacant 19,733 28.0% 20,583 25.4% 4.3% Total 70,395 100.0% 81,124 100.0% 15.2% Data Source: 2010 and 2017 5-Year ACS Data 382 State of Montana 110 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan Census data regarding homeowner vacancy rates, as drawn from the annual surveys conducted by the Census Bureau, were also examined. As shown in Figure 4, the homeowner vacancy rate in Montana has fluctuated and crossed the national rate at various times throughout the past 34 years. After spiking in 2009, the homeowner vacancy rate for the state decreased in 2010 and hovered around 1.6%. In 2016, it increased to 2.0% then decreased to 1.5% in 2018. Figure 4 – Homeowner Vacancy Rate in Montana Some of these patterns are reflected in the rental vacancy rates, as shown in Figure 5. With the exception of the mid-1980s and one point in 2005, rental vacancy rates in Montana have remained lower than national rates. Map 3 shows the distribution of vacant units across the state as of the 2010 Census. There tended to be higher concentrations of vacant units in the western portion of the state, with almost all of the Census tracts with vacancy rates 44.8 to 64.1% on the western side of the state. By contrast, however, vacant units classified as “other vacant” were concentrated in the eastern portion of the state. Maps 4 and 5 demonstrate the change and location of “other vacant” units throughout the state between the 2000 and 2010 Census. 383 State of Montana 111 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan Figure 5 – Rental Vacancy Rate in Montana Map 3 – Vacant Housing Units 384 State of Montana 112 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan Map 4 – 2000 Census, “Other Vacant” Housing Units Map 5 – 2010 Census, “Other Vacant” Housing Units 385 State of Montana 113 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan MA-25 Public and Assisted Housing – (Optional) Introduction Below is information regarding public and assisted housing. Table 40 shows the number of units in the state by program type. Totals Number of Units Table 40 – Total Number of Units by Program Type Program Type Certificate Mod- Rehab Public Housing Vouchers Total Project- based Tenant- based Special Purpose Voucher Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing Family Unification Program Disabled* # of units vouchers available 0 292 3,861 0 3,861 364 0 0 # of accessible units Data Source: PIC (PIH Information Center) *Includes Non-Elderly Disabled, Mainstream 1-Year, Mainstream 5-Year, and Nursing Home Transition Describe the supply of public housing developments: Montana has 19 PHAs (12 HUD funded PHAs and 7 Tribal PHAs) administering subsidized housing in local communities. There are 400 public housing properties for the elderly and 700 public housing properties for the disabled. Describe the number and physical condition of public housing units in the jurisdiction, including those that are participating in an approved Public Housing Agency Plan: There are 12 PHAs and 7 Tribal PHAs in Montana, who own and manage over 5,900 public housing units. These PHAs struggle with aging infrastructure; the cost of completing the capital improvement projects that are necessary to comply with Real Estate Assessment Center (REAC) requirements are difficult within an underfunded capital needs budget. Describe the Restoration and Revitalization Needs of public housing units in the jurisdiction: Information on the Restoration and Revitalization Needs of all of Montana’s PHAs was not available. Describe the public housing agency's strategy for improving the living environment of low- and moderate-income families residing in public housing: As Montana’s statewide public housing authority, Commerce does not own or operate any public housing units. Discussion: In 2000, the State of Montana had 412,633 total housing units. Since that time, the total housing stock increased each year, reaching 429,724 units in 2018. According to the ACS in 2018, Montana’s housing stock included 336,529 single-family units, 27,485 condominiums/townhouse units, and 65,710 mobile 386 State of Montana 114 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan home units. Of the 482,825 housing units counted in Montana in the 2010 census, 409,607 units were occupied, with 278,607 counted as owner-occupied and 131,189 counted as renter occupied. This equated to a homeownership rate of 68%. The Rental Vacancy Survey indicated a vacancy rate throughout the state of 3.7%. The construction value of single-family dwellings generally increased from 1980 through 2018, reaching over $210,000. MA-30 Homeless Facilities – 91.310(b) Introduction DPHHS works with the MTCoC to leverage resources and provide increased and coordinated services to homeless across the state. ESG funds are used to meet the needs of the homeless or those at risk of homelessness at the local level. Activities include rental assistance, financial assistance of rental application fees, security and utility deposits and payments, case management, housing search and support for toll free telephone referral hotlines for domestic abuse and other homeless individuals and families, referral to mainstream resources, and assistance to shelters for the homeless and victims of domestic and sexual violence, youth homes, and food banks. All HRDCs submit work plans, budgets, and reports outlining which of the allowable activities will be undertaken. Facilities Targeted to Homeless Persons Table 41 – Facilities Targeted to Homeless Persons Emergency Shelter Beds Transitional Housing Beds Permanent Supportive Housing Beds Year-Round Beds (Current and New) Voucher / Seasonal / Overflow Beds Current and New Current and New Under Development Households with Adult(s) and Child(ren) 444 31 223 311 0 Households with Only Adults 517 111 144 630 0 Chronically Homeless Households 0 0 0 245 0 Veterans 12 0 103 572 0 Unaccompanied Youth 0 0 2 3 0 Describe mainstream services, such as health, mental health, and employment services to the extent those services are used to complement services targeted to homeless persons Mental Health Center, Billings a. “The HUB” “The HUB” is a drop-in center serving both the homeless and those at risk of becoming homeless by acting as a resource site for individuals in the community while promoting a motivational environment. The HUB assists with information about housing, food stamps, SSI, SSDI, homeless shelters, health care providers and other community resources. 387 State of Montana 115 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan The HUB staff provide crisis intervention and vocational opportunities while facilitating groups designed to empower individuals by expanding their social skills and increasing their ability to become more self-sufficient. Services available include one meal a day prepared and served by HUB clients, laundry facilities, mail and phone services, access to outerwear, sleeping bags, blankets, backpacks, and hygiene products. The HUB serves an average of 130 men and women daily. b. Projects for Assistance in Transition from Homelessness (PATH) Program The PATH Program is part of SAMHSA’s Recovery Support Strategic initiative to reduce or eliminate homelessness for individuals with serious mental illness or co-occurring serious mental illness and substance use disorders. Through its required and elective services, the PATH Program links a vulnerable population who experience health disparities to mainstream and other supportive services. Collectively, these efforts help homeless individuals with serious mental illness secure safe and stable housing, improve their health, and live self-directed, purposeful lives. All individuals who have a serious mental illness, or co-occurring serious mental illness and substance use disorder, and are experiencing homeless or are at imminent risk of becoming homeless are eligible for the PATH Program. In addition, participants in the PATH Program must have been deemed ineligible for commercial or public health insurance programs, have formally determined the insurance unaffordable, or for services not sufficiently covered by insurance. The PATH Program provides a variety of services. These include: case management, medication management, and prescription renewal within 3-5 days of enrollment; referral to community behavioral health services, including supportive services; referral to primary health services, job training, education services, and housing services; screening and diagnostic treatment services; habilitation and rehabilitation services; community behavioral health services, including support services; primary health services, job training, education services, and housing services; substance use disorder treatment services; and supportive residential services. Western Montana Mental Health Center, Butte a. Adult Case Management (ACM) ACM services are based on a recovery model of care defined as “an individualized process of transformation by which people move from lower to higher levels of fulfillment in areas of hope, active/growth orientation, satisfaction with social networks, control of life decisions and level of symptom interference.” This service is strength based where the ability, skills, and desires of the client are the primary determinants of the ACM activity. Case management may include assessing the client’s mental status, monitoring the client’s ability to function in the community, supporting the client in efforts to remain stable, planning treatment goals and future needs, linking the client to needed community services, or outreach to determine the client’s status and needs. Think of the case manager as the hub of the wheel and the spokes of the wheel as the client's needs for housing, benefits, job, school, legal access, medical care access, socialization opportunities, and support. The ACM program provides case management services to adults diagnosed with severe and disabling mental illnesses. The Butte office currently has 11 fulltime adult case managers, 1 part-time case manager/residential worker, and 1 ACM program 388 State of Montana 116 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan lead/case manager. This program also provides the PATH Program services to the homeless or at-risk population that have mental illnesses. There are 2 adult case managers that are designated to provide these services. This program also provides case management services to veterans under contract with the VA. There are 2 adult case managers that are designated to provide these services as well. b. Share House Share House provides residential and an integrated support service for co-occurring or dual disorders (persons who have substance use disorders as well as mental health disorders) and homeless individuals. Share House staff are on site 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The goal is to have residents become self-sufficient as they progress in their recovery. Share House services are a part of the community effort to end chronic homelessness. Share House provides a drug- free supportive living environment, case management services, life skills groups, rehabilitation aide services related to the development and utilization of life skills, coordinates referral to clinical services, employment, vocational planning, nutritional and medical care, and permanent housing. Supportive housing services are accessed by completing an admission packet and interview. Available slots are based on admission process approval. HUD Supported Housing Share House’s residential program has six beds that are designated for homeless individuals who are also chemically dependent. The Poverello Center, Missoula a. Healthcare for the Homeless The Poverello Center collaborates with Partnership Health Center’s Health Care for the Homeless Clinic to provide onsite medical treatment to homeless individuals and families. Services include: • Short-term emergency shelter • Veterans housing and services • Daily hot meals, sack lunches and food pantry services • Toiletries, bathrooms, and shower facilities • Emergency clothing and laundry services • Mail, phone, and messaging services • Scheduled educational classes and a computer lab • Medical services through the Healthcare for the Homeless Clinic • Alcoholics Anonymous and other support groups • Community resource and referral • Homeless outreach services • Community outreach and educational programs b. 211/First Call for Help First Call for Help provides a link between dozens of nonprofit organizations and people in need of their services, connecting the homeless to housing, employment, and support services across the community. 389 State of Montana 117 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan RiverStone Health, Billings a. Healthcare for the Homeless Designed to provide temporary medical services for homeless persons and to facilitate ongoing medical care for people who remain in the Billings area, clinics are located at sites that serve homeless individuals and families, providing routine preventive healthcare, immunizations, acute/chronic illnesses care, mental healthcare and therapy, assessment of chemical dependency, counseling, emergency dental care and financial assistance for prescriptions. Case management services are offered to assist persons in obtaining assistance through local agencies. Lewis and Clark County a. HealthCare for the Homeless HealthCare for the Homeless is a program of the Cooperative Health Center. It provides temporary medical services and case management to homeless individuals and families. Visits are by appointment or walk-in. Missoula County a. Healthcare for the Homeless Eligible homeless members of the Missoula community may work with a case manager to address difficulties in accessing medical, dental, and pharmacy services. Montana Office of Public Instruction (OPI) a. McKinney-Vento - Education for Homeless Children and Youth Program (EHCY) The OPI currently provides funding for EHCY programs in the following districts; Billings, Bozeman/Belgrade, Browning, Great Falls, Helena, Kalispell/Evergreen, Missoula and Sidney. God’s Love Shelter, Helena a. Healthcare for the Homeless God’s Love Shelter offers primary health care, temporary lodging, meals, and social services. U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Montana Health Care System, Ft. Harrison a. The Acquired Property Sales for Homeless Providers Program The Acquired Property Sales for Homeless Providers Program makes all VA foreclosed properties available for sale to homeless provider organizations—at a 20 to 50% discount—to shelter homeless veterans. 390 State of Montana 118 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan The Supportive Services for Veteran Families Program provides grants and technical assistance to community-based, nonprofit organizations to help veterans and their families stay in their homes. b. Health Care for Homeless Veterans (HCHV) Program The VA’s HCHV Program offers outreach, exams, treatment, referrals, and case management to veterans who are homeless and dealing with mental health issues, including substance use. Montana offers 436 HCHV programs for veterans to receive healthcare from trained, caring VA specialists provide tools and support necessary for veterans to get their lives on a better track. More information is available through the VA’s toll-free hotline (1-877-222-VETS (8387)) or visit the HCHV Program website at http://www.va.gov/homeless/hchv.asp. c. Homeless Patient Aligned Care Teams Program VA’s Homeless Patient Aligned Care Teams Program provides a coordinated “medical home” specifically tailored to the needs of homeless veterans that integrates clinical care with delivery of social services with enhanced access and community coordination. Implementation of this model is expected to address many of the health disparity and equity issues facing this population and result in reduced emergency department use and hospitalizations, improved chronic disease management, improved “housing readiness” with fewer veterans returning to homelessness once housed. d. Homeless Veterans Dental Program VA’s Homeless Veterans Dental Program provides dental treatment for eligible veterans in a number of programs: Domiciliary Residential Rehabilitation Treatment, VA Grant and Per Diem, Compensated Work Therapy/Transitional Residence, HCHV (contract bed), and Community Residential Care. VA is working to expand dental care to all eligible veterans in this program. e. Project CHALENG Project CHALENG (Community Homelessness Assessment, Local Education and Networking Groups) brings together providers, advocates, and other concerned citizens to identify the needs of homeless veterans and work to meet those needs through planning and cooperative action. This process has helped build thousands of relationships between the VA and community agencies so that together they can better serve homeless veterans. f. Substance Use Disorder Treatment Enhancement Initiative VA’s Substance Use Disorder Treatment Enhancement Initiative provides substance use services in the community to aid homeless veterans’ recovery. 391 State of Montana 119 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan g. The Readjustment Counseling Service’s Vet Center Programs The Readjustment Counseling Service’s Vet Center Programs feature community-based locations and provide outreach activities that help to identify homeless veterans and match them with necessary services. Project Homeless Connect Great Falls Project Homeless Connect Great Falls provides a range of free services to people experiencing homelessness or at risk of becoming homeless, including dental cleanings, extractions, clothing, and haircuts. List and describe services and facilities that meet the needs of homeless persons, particularly chronically homeless individuals and families, families with children, veterans and their families, and unaccompanied youth. If the services and facilities are listed on screen SP-40 Institutional Delivery Structure or screen MA-35 Special Needs Facilities and Services, describe how these facilities and services specifically address the needs of these populations. Warming Center, Bozeman The Warming Center offers seasonal shelter to anyone in need—families with children, single adults and couples are welcome. Separate sleeping areas are provided. Trained staff and volunteers are onsite at all time during operating hours. The Center is open 7:00 PM to 7:00 AM, 7 days per week during the winter months. HAVEN Battered Woman’s Shelter, Bozeman HAVEN offers alternatives for adults and families who need a place to go when their home is no longer a safe place. HAVEN offers a 15-bed shelter where women and children can escape crisis and plan for a future free from violence. Hotels are reserved and available for male survivors, families with boys age 18 and older, and when the shelter is at capacity. The staff offers comprehensive services including counseling, advocacy and connections to community resources. Family Promise of Gallatin Valley, Bozeman Family Promise of Gallatin Valley is a nonprofit network of interfaith organizations working together to end homelessness, one family at a time. The mission statement: To empower homeless families with children to achieve self-sufficiency through partnerships, services, and advocacy. Montana Rescue Mission, Billings (MRM) Montana Rescue Mission provides emergency, temporary care and rehabilitative services from a distinctly Christian perspective for those seeking help and solutions. 392 State of Montana 120 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan a. The Women and Family Shelter The services offered by the Montana Rescue Mission meet women and women with children at their point of need. Montana Rescue Mission works with them to address the root issues that brought about homelessness, including classes in parenting, life skills, anger management, proper nutrition and food preparation, conflict resolution and spiritual development. Chapel services are offered on a regular basis and staff is available for one-on-one counseling. There are real life situations that give them a chance to utilize these new skills. In addition, there are educational opportunities to improve these skills and a dedicated computer lab that can be used for resume preparation, job searches, and General Education Development (GED) preparation. b. REACH-Out REACH-Out is a program just for kids. It stands for Recreation, Education, Arts, Culture, and Health outside the Shelter and gives kids experiences that help them see life outside of their homelessness. Tours, museums, activities and fun take place on a regular basis. Tutoring and afterschool homework assistance is offered, and all kids are supported in their classroom requirements. Butte Rescue Mission, Butte Begun in 1972, the Butte Rescue mission serves Southwest Montana to feed, clothe, shelter and transform homeless individuals. The Poverello Center, Missoula The Poverello Center collaborates with Partnership Health Center’s Health Care for the Homeless Clinic to provide onsite medical treatment to homeless individuals and families. Services include: • Short-term emergency shelter • Veterans housing and services • Daily hot meals, sack lunches and food pantry services • Toiletries, bathrooms, and shower facilities • Emergency clothing and laundry services • Mail, phone, and messaging services • Scheduled educational classes and a computer lab • Medical services through the Healthcare for the Homeless Clinic • Alcoholics Anonymous and other support groups • Community resource and referral • Homeless outreach services • Community outreach and educational programs Union Gospel Mission of Missoula, Missoula United Gospel Mission of Missoula is a ministry to the homeless and hurting in Missoula. 393 State of Montana 121 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan a. The Day Center The Day Center provides basic needs to the homeless and needy: restrooms, clean water, the use of a phone, bus passes, toiletries, rides to local churches, movies and friendship. b. The Women & Children’s Shelter The Women & Children’s Shelter is open each night for women with children and for single women. Daily shuttle transportation is provided to and from the shelter, with overnight lodging and home-cooked meals, while families are supported in goal setting and in pursuing available housing options and opportunities to grow socially and spiritually. Onsite staff and volunteers serve up good food and great fellowship. Women and children of any faith background are welcome, with the understanding that this and all Mission programs are founded and operated with a Christian world view. A Ray of Hope, Kalispell A Ray of Hope provides a safe harbor for those in the community with nowhere else to turn. Those who seek help are provided with food, clothing, shelter and most importantly, job training which provides an avenue to develop competency in meeting life’s financial, emotional, family, legal and rehabilitation challenges. Samaritan House, Kalispell Samaritan House is a homeless shelter and transitional living program in Kalispell, Montana. The mission of the Samaritan House is to provide shelter and basic needs for homeless people, while fostering self-respect and human dignity. Rescue Mission, Great Falls Great Falls Rescue Mission is a nonprofit Christian organization committed to caring for hungry, hurting and homeless men, women and children of North Central Montana. a. Men’s Ministries In addition to shelter, every man is provided with help in finding a job, seeking housing, spiritual counsel, life skill classes, accountability and friendship. b. Women and Families Shelter Providing shelter, care, counseling and a place of safety for women, children and families. c. Food Ministries Great Falls Rescue Mission serves three meals a day. d. Clinic Ministry 394 State of Montana 122 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan Dental, chiropractic, optical and legal clinics are offered at no charge to those who are homeless or on low or limited incomes. These services are provided by volunteer professionals in the area. Medical clinics are provided by a local doctor, a family nurse practitioner and MSU nursing students. The Friendship Center, Helena The Friendship Center provides a safe shelter and a broad range of support services at no charge for anyone who has suffered domestic violence, sexual assault, dating violence or stalking. God’s Love, Helena God’s Love Shelter offers primary health care, temporary lodging, meals, and social services. YWCA, Helena a. Women’s Shelter The YWCA provides transitional housing services for up to 33 women and their daughters at any given time through the “WINGS” program. Each woman has a furnished bedroom and shares common bathrooms, kitchen, and common areas. The YWCA provides an entry point for women transitioning from homelessness to permanent housing. “WINGS” (a transitional housing program) is in an intensive, research-based program requiring a 6- to 24-month stay, case management services, a minimum of 20 hours work per week, goal setting, and life skills classes. b. The Placer Pantry The Placer Pantry provides basic toiletries to anyone in the community in need. Individuals may “shop” for the items they need on a monthly basis based on the size of their family and the products on hand. The Pantry serves people who are employed and unemployed, housed and homeless Family Promise of Helena, Helena Family Promise provides a home-like environment. Families have a place to stay, home cooked meals, transportation, and an advocate to help them get back on their feet. The Family Promise Day Center is equipped much like a home: laundry, showers, kitchen, computers, phone, space for kids to nap, etc. Good Samaritan, Helena Good Samaritan Ministries serves as the social justice arm of the Diocese of Helena and Helena's four Catholic parishes. Good Samaritan Ministries, motivated by Catholic social teaching, works in the community to advance family life, human dignity and the common good. They provide services to meet the physical, social, emotional and spiritual needs of individuals and families of all faiths, especially those most in need. The types of assistance provided include: diapers/formula, clothing, household items, furniture, rental assistance, auto repair, utilities/ propane, gasoline, medical prescriptions, eyeglasses, and childcare. 395 State of Montana 123 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan Good Samaritan also serves as a vocational training site for many employees and volunteers, offering a structured work environment that helps individuals build self-esteem and prepare them to move on to other positions in the community. St. Vincent dePaul, Billings The Society of St. Vincent de Paul is the largest lay organization within the Catholic Church. The Billings Society has been actively serving the poor with the following ministries: baby basics, educational certification program, holiday food baskets, refurbished electronics for students, and Toys for Tots. New Life Mission, Poplar The New Life Mission is a food pantry providing food assistance. Tumbleweed and Montana Foster Care Independence Program, Yellowstone County The Tumbleweed Runaway Program Inc. administers HopeLink (a youth Transition-in-Placement program). The mission for the program is to support youth in their transition from homelessness to successful independent living by promoting healthy choices and strengthening individual resources. Tumbleweed further aims to prevent poverty and homelessness among the growing, yet largely overlooked, population of youth who are highly vulnerable to homelessness. HopeLink utilizes a comprehensive model to effectively promote youth success in the key areas required for healthy adulthood — independence, permanent housing, employment, life skills and self-reliance — areas that will significantly change the course of a youth’s life. Valor House, Missoula; Housing MT Heroes The Valor House and Housing MT Heroes are transitional housing programs for homeless veterans whose goal is working towards stable housing. Both programs seek to assist homeless veterans in need, including elderly, disabled, and Native American veterans, and those coping with mental illness and substance abuse. Participating residents will identify personal goals focusing on housing and stability; increasing skills and income; and improving self- determination. Watson’s Children’s Shelter, Missoula Janice Joseph Watson opened Jack and Jill Nursery and Day Care in 1968 after retiring as an elementary school teacher. Police and child protection social workers had few alternatives when they needed a place for children who were abandoned, abused, neglected or whose parents were incarcerated. The two shelters at Watson’s are designed to provide a safe, comfortable and welcoming environment for children. 396 State of Montana 124 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan Western Montana Community Mental Health Center, Kalispell Kalispell Safe House crisis stabilization facility is available to provide a least restrictive level of care in the community when a client is experiencing an acute psychiatric crisis, in imminent risk of psychiatric hospitalization, in need of medication adjustment, and/or in need of 24-hour supervision to maintain safety and avoid hospitalization. Client referrals must be at least 18 years of age and must receive prior authorization from the AMDD or their utilization review contractor, First Health. It is the responsibility of the crisis stabilization staff to facilitate the prior authorization process. Referrals are usually made by a member of the client’s treatment team and/or a mental health professional who recommends this level of care. Generally, admissions to crisis facilities are for clients who voluntarily agree to comply with admission criteria and to cooperate with treatment recommendations. Youth Homes, Missoula The mission of Youth Homes is to help every youth feel safe, have a sense of belonging and find a place to call home.” Youth Homes prepares children with tools for self-reliance because kids aging out of the foster care system without a permanent family are three times more likely to drop out of school and become homeless within 1 year of moving out on their own. Mountain Home Montana, Missoula A nonprofit in Missoula where young mothers between the ages 16-24 who are pregnant and/or parenting may access housing, supportive services, and mental health services. MHM helps vulnerable young families with their basic needs, including safety, shelter, food, educational and employment opportunities, and access to mental health therapy and medical care by utilizing best practices to provide individualized support and case management that teach our moms the parenting and life skills necessary for independent living. Florence Crittenton, Helena Florence Crittenton provides innovative, comprehensive services and nurturing programs that engage and empower children, young adults and young families to thrive and build productive lives. Florence Crittenton’s Residential Program and community services are aimed at wrapping services around young families and providing them with the tools and support needed to be successful. Their philosophy is that the organization has the opportunity to change the parenting behavior of these young parents, but also positively affect the outcomes of the next generation in their babies. Salvation Army Men’s Transitional House, Helena The Salvation Army’s program helps transition men into stabilized living including education for life skills, money management, budgeting, how to seek and secure employment, and weekly case management. Currently, there are no programs that specifically transition single men back into society. Helena has a men's shelter program, but this is temporary emergency housing, not a transition into stable living. This program is looking to expand the current Transitional Housing Program, which predominately has been for families, to incorporate single men on a larger level. 397 State of Montana 125 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan Family Promise of Yellowstone Valley Family Promise is an organization dedicated to facilitating the long-term rehabilitation of homeless families. Family Promise is a ministry of local faith communities to homeless families in the Billings area. These faith communities take turns hosting homeless families at their congregations every 10-12 weeks. Together, they mobilize community resources: houses of worship for lodging, congregations for volunteers, social service agencies for assessment and referrals, and existing facilities for day programs. Nationally, 80% of the families that Family Promise serve go on to long-term housing. The Community Café, Bozeman The Community Café is part of HRDC’s Emergency Food and Nutrition Initiative, striving to improve food security throughout the Gallatin Valley. The Café provides a restaurant style dinner service to anyone who eats regardless of their ability to contribute, operating on a pay what you can model, allowing those who can contribute to pay it forward for others who cannot. In 2014, the Café provided over 50,000 dinners. The Café provides delicious, family- friendly meals 7 days a week from 5:00 PM to 7:00 PM, 365 days a year. Community Action Partnership of Northwest Montana, Kalispell (CAPNM) CAPNM partners with the Samaritan House to sponsor the annual Flathead Valley Project Homeless Connect each June. Over 40 local agencies and businesses partner to aid the homeless and impoverished in one convenient location. CAPNM knows that homelessness and poverty are serious needs in Flathead Valley, with approximately 500 people homeless and 45% of those individuals are families with children. Other community needs that Project Homeless Connect addresses are hunger, knowledge of employment and education opportunities, knowledge of affordable housing options, as well as assistance with attaining medical services, dental services and public assistance. The direct services offered at the event are free medical and dental services, financial and employment assistance, pet services, ID services, haircuts, veteran’s services, legal assistance, financial education, public assistance, vision services, housing counseling, senior services, bicycle repair, food baskets, etc. YWCA, Missoula a. Ada’s Place Transitional This 18-month program is designed to help homeless survivors of domestic violence and their children work toward self-sufficiency and independence. Ada’s Place offers participants the opportunity to gain knowledge, education, and skills in a variety of areas while working on goals that will assist them in obtaining permanent housing and achieving economic security. b. Gateway Assessment Center A short-term assessment, referral, and supportive services program located at the Salvation Army (339 W. Broadway). The program offers YWCA case management and short-term motel stays for homeless families. 398 State of Montana 126 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan c. Rapid Re-Housing Program This program offers rent and deposit assistance as well as support services for homeless families in Missoula County. d. Ada’s Place Emergency Housing This 50-day emergency housing program is available for homeless one and two parent families who are committed to seeking stable, permanent housing. Senior Community Service Employment Program, Montana Department of Labor and Industry The Senior Community Service Employment Program can link senior homeless persons to help with rent, childcare, utilities deposits, transportation, health and dental assistance along with providing employment assistance. Community action agency education and employment resources GED GED diploma counseling and training is available. Having an education, even a high school one, can help break the poverty cycle. That GED is a key to pursuing further higher education, such as a college degree. It can also place people onto a career path and ideally allow them to generate a sustainable income. Certified Alternative Education Instructors provide students one-on-one, self-paced instruction classes. Montana Subsidized Employment Program The Montana Subsidized Employment Program can provide job development and employment opportunities for individuals who have been laid-off, are unemployed, have, had a reduction in hours, or are under-employed. This is offered for low-income individuals or those facing poverty in Montana. Summer Youth Employment & Training resource The Summer Youth Employment & Training resource was created to provide struggling and low- income youth the opportunity to work during the summer months. Among other things it will provide them with job- readiness training, work experience, and soft skills while getting paid. Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Employment and Training Many Montana community action agencies also offer the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Employment and Training. This will help people that are on food stamps achieve their long-term self- sufficiency goal. The nonprofit works with partners to facilitate opportunities for education, work experience and job retention training activities. One-on-one support is provided to clients from customized case management services, all of which can assist with overcoming obstacles which prevent individuals from becoming employed. 399 State of Montana 127 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Similar to above, the Work Readiness Component is for Montana individuals who are receiving Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). The program can help them with their pursuit of self-sufficiency. The community agency will offer opportunities for job readiness training and other services. Youth Employment Youth Employment for Participants is another option for low-income youth and teenagers that range in age from 14-21. It can assist those that are school drop outs, pregnant or parenting, youth with a criminal history, and those with little experience or education. The disabled may also benefit from this resource. Montana State Workforce Investment Board - One-Stop Services All of the workforce programs that are offered in Montana work together to serve all of the targeted populations. A customer that is part of one targeted population, regardless of the specifics, may be served by one or more of the workforce programs. For example, a homeless veteran could be served by Workforce Investment Act Adult, Workforce Investment Act Dislocated Worker, and the veteran program through one or more agencies. Co-enrollment into the various programs with different operators is expected throughout the state to leverage resources for participants. Other Other general employment and training resources can assist clients in starting or advancing a career. The services include On the Job Training, Career Guidance, Case Management, GED Referral, Education Assistance, Occupational Skills, and Job Search Instruction. Homeless Special Needs Assessment Table MA-36 shows the number of facilities and housing targets in Montana. There are currently 351 year-round emergency shelter beds needed for households with adults and children, and 395 year- round emergency shelter beds needed for households with only adults. Table MA-36 – Facilities and Housing Targeted to Homeless Households Emergency Shelter Needs Transitional Housing Beds Permanent Supportive Housing Beds Year-Round Beds (Current and New) Voucher/Seasonal/ Overflow Beds Current and New Current and New Under Development Households with Adult(s) and Child(ren) 444 31 223 311 0 Households with Only Adults 517 111 144 630 0 Chronically Homeless Households 0 0 0 245 0 400 State of Montana 128 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan Emergency Shelter Needs Transitional Housing Beds Permanent Supportive Housing Beds Year-Round Beds (Current and New) Voucher/Seasonal/ Overflow Beds Current and New Current and New Under Development Veterans 12 0 103 5 0 Unaccompanied Youth 0 0 2 3 0 Data Source: DPHHS MA-35 Special Needs Facilities and Services – 91.310(c) Introduction With the aging of the Baby Boomers there will be an increased need for senior housing in the coming years, which could result in the increased need for special needs facilities and services. The current amount of senior housing remains inadequate to keep up with the demand for these units throughout the state and this trend will continue. The Consolidated Plan noted that is a significant need for special needs housing. Persons with mental health disorders, disabilities, or homeless populations are discussed in other sections demonstrating need. Additionally, as is evident through the utilization of resources within the HOPWA Assistance listed below, persons living with HIV/AIDS need continued assistance for housing, utilities, and rental assistance. HOPWA Assistance Baseline Table Because the State of Montana’s HOPWA funds are provided via competitive award and not through a formula grant, a discussion of HOPWA is not included herein, and HOPWA data are not provided in Table 42. For information about the State’s HOPWA program, funded via competitive award, please see Montana’s HOPWA Annual Progress Report. Table 42 – HOPWA Assistance Baseline Type of HOWA Assistance Number of Units Designated or Available for People with HIV/AIDS and their families TBRA N/A PH in Facilities N/A STRMU N/A ST or TH Facilities N/A PH Placement N/A Data Source: HOPWA CAPER and HOPWA Beneficiary Verification Worksheet To the extent information is available, describe the facilities and services that assist persons who are not homeless but who require supportive housing, and programs for ensuring that persons returning from mental and physical health institutions receive appropriate supportive housing DPHHS works with the MTCoC to leverage resources and provide increased and coordinated services across the state. Activities include rental assistance, financial assistance of rental application fees, security and utility deposits and payments, case management, housing search and support for toll free telephone referral hotlines for domestic abuse and other homeless individuals and families, referral to mainstream 401 State of Montana 129 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan resources, and assistance to shelters for the homeless and victims of domestic and sexual violence, youth homes, and food banks. Describe programs for ensuring that persons returning from mental and physical health institutions receive appropriate supportive housing. As discussed in PR-10, Commerce and DPHHS, with other key partners, are working collaboratively to address housing and healthcare needs in Montana, through the IAP, Mainstream Voucher Program, and IHIP. The Mental Health Oversight Advisory Council works to create a mental health system that effectively serves families and individuals throughout Montana, including programs for housing, employment, education, and socialization. Funds for transitional housing, permanent supportive housing, and rapid rehousing across Montana are available on a competitive basis through the MTCoC process. Each of the 12 regional MTCoC districts, housed within 9 of the state’s 10 HRDCs, provides specific services of crisis stabilization and housing supports for veterans, unaccompanied youth, families with children, and chronically homeless individuals and families. The State of Montana will continue to encourage activities that address the housing needs of those returning from mental and physical health institutions to ensure that they receive appropriate supportive housing. Specify the activities that the jurisdiction plans to undertake during the next year to address the housing and supportive services needs identified in accordance with 91.215(e) with respect to persons who are not homeless but have other special needs. Link to one-year goals. 91.315(e) The State of Montana will work to encourage activities that address the housing needs of those at risk of homelessness, encourage activities that increase the level of assistance to programs serving those at risk of homelessness, and encourage the development and rehabilitation of non-rental facilities for the shelter and transition of temporarily homeless Montanans. Montana will continue to support efforts by local governments and partner organizations providing HIV services, substance abuse services, disability services, aiding victims of domestic violence, and assisting the disabled. For entitlement/consortia grantees: Specify the activities that the jurisdiction plans to undertake during the next year to address the housing and supportive services needs identified in accordance with 91.215(e) with respect to persons who are not homeless but have other special needs. Link to one-year goals. (91.220(2)) N/A MA-40 Barriers to Affordable Housing – 91.310(d) Negative Effects of Public Policies on Affordable Housing and Residential Investment Non-homeless special needs populations in the state include the elderly and frail elderly, persons living with disabilities, persons with substance use disorders, victims of domestic violence, and persons living with HIV and their families. These populations are not homeless, but are at the risk of becoming homeless and therefore often require housing and service programs. The 2020 Housing and Community 402 State of Montana 130 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan Development Needs Survey indicated the highest need for persons with mental illness, followed by persons that are homeless and persons with substance use disorders. According to HUD, special needs populations are “not homeless but require supportive housing, including the elderly, frail elderly, persons with disabilities (mental, physical, developmental), persons with substance use disorders, persons with HIV/AIDS and their families, public housing residents and any other categories the jurisdiction may specify.” Individuals in these groups face unique housing challenges and are vulnerable to becoming homeless, so a variety of support services are needed in order for them to achieve and maintain a suitable and stable living environment. Each of these special needs populations will be discussed in terms of their size and characteristics, services and housing currently provided, and services and housing still needed. The 2020 Housing and Community Development Survey asked participants which special needs populations have the highest needs for services and facilities. Two hundred and twenty-nine participants responded, identifying five priority populations each and ranking them from 1 to 5 with 1 being the highest priority. Responses indicate persons with mental illness, the elderly and frail elderly, persons that are homeless or at-risk of homelessness, and veterans have the highest needs for services and facilities (Appendix B). Responses also indicate, based on total priority rankings, that persons with mental illness, persons that are homeless or at-risk of homelessness, persons with substance use disorders, the elderly, and victims of domestic violence are among the top five priority groups in need of services and facilities (Table MA-37). Table MA-37 – Need for Services and Facilities for Special Needs Populations 1 (Highest Priority) 2 3 4 5 (Lowest Priority) Total Priority Rankings 1-5 Persons with mental illness 65 33 34 23 16 171 Persons that are homeless or at-risk of homelessness 31 22 37 16 24 130 Persons with substance use disorders 15 35 27 24 19 120 The elderly (age 65+) 30 29 19 17 22 117 Victims of domestic violence 18 21 23 29 24 115 The frail elderly (age 85+) 36 28 14 19 16 113 Veterans 20 13 21 17 21 92 Persons with physical disabilities 1 20 18 29 21 89 Persons with developmental disabilities 6 12 15 21 33 87 Persons recently released from prison 3 11 13 19 15 61 Other (specify below)* 2 0 0 2 3 7 Persons with HIV/AIDS 0 0 1 1 0 2 Data Source: 2020 Housing and Community Development Survey *Other priorities, based on survey responses, include youth (especially homeless youth), transition-age youth (aging out of foster care), and persons in the criminal justice system. Of note, several respondents indicated it was difficult to rank these groups since all are considered highly vulnerable and many factors listed for ranking are co-occurring. 403 State of Montana 131 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan Elderly and Frail Elderly Persons HUD provides a definition of “elderly” as persons age 62 or older. The U.S. National Center for Health Statistics notes that a number of older citizens have limitations caused by chronic conditions that constrain ADLs. ADLs are divided into three levels, from basic to advanced. Basic ADLs involve personal care and include tasks such as eating, bathing, dressing, using the toilet, and getting in or out of bed or a chair. Intermediate, or instrumental, ADLs are tasks necessary for independent functioning in the community. These include cooking, cleaning, laundry, shopping, using the telephone, using or accessing transportation, taking medicines, and managing money. Social, recreational and occupational activities that greatly affect the individual's quality of life are Advanced Activities of Daily Living (AADL). Playing bridge, bowling, doing crafts, or volunteering for one’s church are examples of advanced ADLs. “Frail elderly” is defined as persons who are unable to perform three or more activities of daily living.47 Size and Characteristics According to 2018 CDC data, 198,902 residents in the State of Montana were age 65 or older, which equated to about 18.6% of the total population. Table MA-38 presents a breakdown of the elderly population by age in Montana in 2018. While elderly is defined as persons over 62, “extra elderly” persons are those over the age of 75. Within the elderly population in Montana, 39.8% were extra elderly. According to the State of Montana’s Aging Services Unit, by the year 2025 Montana will have the fifth highest per capita older population in the United States.48 The elderly population in Montana grew 35.5% between 2010 and 2018. The two age groups with the greatest growth over this decade were those ages 70 to 74, with 48.8% growth, and those aged 67 to 69, with 48.0% growth. Table MA-38 – Elderly Population by Age Age 2010 Census 2018 Estimates % Change Population % of Total Population % of Total 65 to 66 19,811 13.5% 29,134 14.6% 47.1% 67 to 69 26,745 18.2% 39,588 19.9% 48.0% 70 to 74 34,186 23.3% 50,861 25.6% 48.8% 75 to 79 25,637 17.5% 34,678 17.4% 35.3% 80 to 84 20,342 13.9% 21,946 11.0% 7.9% 85 or Older 20,021 13.6% 22,695 11.4% 13.4% Total 146,742 100.0% 198,902 100.0% 35.5% Data Source: 2010 Census SF1 Data; 2018 Single-Year-Of-Age Estimates (CDC) Services and Housing Currently Provided The Older Americans Act of 1965 has been the main instrument for delivering social services to senior citizens in the United States. This legislation established the federal Administration on Aging and related state programs to specifically address the many needs of the elderly population nationwide. Despite limited resources and funding, the mission of the Older Americans Act is broad: “to help older people maintain maximum independence in their homes and communities and to promote a continuum of care for the vulnerable elderly.”49 The Administration on Aging encompasses a variety of services aimed at the elderly population, such as supportive services, nutrition services, family caregiver support, and disease prevention and health promotion. 47 http://law.justia.com/us/cfr/title24/24-4.0.2.1.12.2.3.2.html 48 http://www.dphhs.mt.gov/sltc/services/aging/Newsletter/2012May.pdf 49 http://www.nhpf.org/library/the-basics/Basics_OlderAmericansAct_02-23-12.pdf 404 State of Montana 132 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan In Montana, support for the elderly population is provided by the Senior and Long Term Care Division, specifically the Aging Services Unit, within DPHHS. The Aging Services Unit administers a wide variety of senior based services for residents over age 60, with the goal to provide services that allow seniors to remain independent.50 Their programs and services include adult protective services, long term care resources, information and referral services, legal resources, community resources, and financial planning. The 2019-2022 Montana State Plan on Aging outlines the fundamental concerns facing Montanans as the population continues to age.51 Montana’s State Plan on Aging includes the following goals: • Goal 1: Improve access to the Older Americans Act services for seniors and their caregivers to provide the supports needed for them to continue to live in their homes and be active in their communities for as long as they choose. • Goal 2: Improve collaboration with the Title VI Directors and other Tribal members to better facilitate Title III and Title VI coordination and services to all Montana’s seniors. • Goal 3: Improve the dignity, safety, and respect of older adults living in Montana. Services and Housing Needed While there are a number of different housing and service programs that aid the elderly population in Montana, the general population is continuing to age and live longer, which will require additional services and resources to meet the ever-growing needs of the elderly. The Montana State Plan on Aging identifies various needs for the elderly, including care/case management, caregiving support, elder abuse prevention, employment, health care/health/mental health, health insurance, health promotion, housing, and others. According to the Center for Housing Policy, housing will be a priority need for the elderly population. A growing number of older households will face severe housing costs burdens, and many will require assisted or long-term care housing and services.52 In addition, as the Baby Boomer generation continues to grow, many will prefer to remain independent, requiring in-home services and adaptions to existing homes. Thus, there is a greater focus on in-home care and expanded home health services to meet the needs of a more independent elderly population. Because most elderly persons are on a fixed income, these increasing costs may fall on publicly funded programs in the state. People with Disabilities (Mental, Physical, Developmental) HUD defines a person with a disability as any person who has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities. Physical or mental disabilities include hearing, mobility and visual impairments, chronic alcoholism, chronic mental illness, AIDS, AIDS related complex, and mental retardation that substantially limits one or more major life activities. Major life activities include walking, talking, hearing, seeing, breathing, learning, performing manual tasks and caring for oneself.53 HUD defers to Section 102 of the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act of 2000 for the definition of developmental disability: a severe, chronic disability of an individual that is attributable to a mental or physical impairment or combination of mental and physical impairments. 50 http://www.dphhs.mt.gov/sltc/services/aging/index.shtml 51 https://dphhs.mt.gov/Portals/85/sltc/documents/AgingReports/MontanaStatePlanonAging2019-2022.pdf 52 Lipman, Barbara., Jeffery Lubell, Emily Salmon. “Housing an Aging Population: Are We Prepared?” Center for Housing Policy (2012). 21 May 2014. 53 http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/disabilities/inhousing 405 State of Montana 133 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan Many persons with disabilities require support services in order to maintain healthy lifestyles. The services that are required often depend on the individual and the type of disability. For example, a person with a mental disability may require medication assistance, weekly counseling sessions or job placement assistance. Specialized transport services and physical therapy sessions are services that might be required for a person with a physical disability. Many people with disabilities live on fixed incomes and thus face financial and housing challenges similar to those of the elderly. Without a stable, affordable housing situation, persons with disabilities can find daily life challenging. In addition, patients from psychiatric hospitals and structured residential programs have a hard time transitioning back into mainstream society without a reasonably priced and supportive living situation. The U.S. Conference of Mayors 2013 Hunger and Homeless Survey found that mental illness was cited 44% of the time as a cause of homelessness among unaccompanied individuals. Likewise, they reported that 30% of homeless adults in their cities had severe mental illness.54 Size and Characteristics Table MA-39 presents a tally of disabilities by age and gender. Data in this table have not been updated since the submission of Montana’s previous Consolidated Plan (2015-2019) because more current data are not available. As shown in Table MA-39, Montana’s total population of persons with disabilities is 127,803, with an overall disability rate of 13.1%. The age group with the highest disability rate is persons aged 75 and older. Males had a slightly higher disability rate at 13.9%, than females, at 12.3%. Children under 5 had the lowest disability rate, at less than 1% for both males and females. Table MA-39 – Disability by Age and Gender Age Male Female Total Disabled Population Disability Rate Disabled Population Disability Rate Disabled Population Disability Rate Under 5 155 .5% 188 .6% 343 .6% 5 to 17 5,059 6.1% 3,188 4.1% 8,247 5.1% 18 to 34 7,481 6.9% 5,467 5.3% 12,948 6.1% 35 to 64 28,874 14.6% 24,357 12.2% 53,231 13.4% 65 to 74 12,068 30.2% 8,913 22.1% 20,981 26.1% 75 or older 14,191 52.2% 17,862 50.2% 32,053 51.1% Total 67,828 13.9% 59,975 12.3% 127,803 13.1% Data Source: 2012 5-Year ACS Data Table MA-40 presents data on disabilities by type for those 5 years of age and older. Data in this table have not been updated since the submission of Montana’s previous Consolidated Plan (2015-2019) because more current data are not available. Per Table MA-40, the most common disability is physical disability, followed by an employment disability. The third most common disability is mental disability. 54 http://www.usmayors.org/pressreleases/uploads/2013/1210-report-HH.pdf 406 State of Montana 134 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan Table MA-40 – Total Disabilities Tallied, Aged 5 and Older Disability Type Population Sensory disability 36,572 Physical disability 71,541 Mental disability 41,086 Self-care disability 17,107 Employment disability 53,146 Go-outside-home disability 39,271 Total 258,723 Data Source: 2000 Census SF3 Data Services and Housing Currently Provided Under DPHHS’s Developmental Services Division, the Developmental Disabilities Program contracts with private, nonprofit corporations to provide services across the lifespan for individuals who have developmental disabilities and their families. The focus of the program is to tailor care to the individual and provide it in as natural an environment as possible.55 The Montana Development Center (MDC), which closed in 2018 in accordance with a mandate included in Senate Bill 411, was administered by the Developmental Disabilities Program and was the state’s only residential facility for individuals with developmental disabilities with 24-hour care for those with the most severe behaviors or severe self- help deficits. Since closure of the MDC, House Bill 387 passed during the 2019 Montana legislative session, addressing the persisting needs of persons with disabilities through the development of the Intensive Behavior Center (IBC), a 12-bed facility that serves as an option for individuals who are not able to be safely served in the community. The IBC is in operation and currently serves adults with autism spectrum disorder in a therapeutic environment.56 DPHHS’s AMDD administers mental health services through Medicaid programming, grant funding, the Montana State Hospital, and the Montana Mental Health Nursing Care Center. AMDD supports a continuum of mental health services, including inpatient psychiatric care, community-based habilitation services, community-based rehabilitation services, and crisis response services, all of which seek to provide services to individuals in the least restrictive environment and maintain continuity within their lives and home communities. Inpatient and residential programs, such as behavioral health group homes, adult foster care, crisis stabilization, acute inpatient hospitalization, Montana State Hospital, and Montana Mental Health Nursing Care Center inherently provide temporary shelter to individuals with mental illness on either a short-term or long-term basis. AMDD also implements supportive programming, including tenancy support services, transitional housing funds, supported employment, and wrap-around community-based services that support individuals with mental illness as they receive treatment and seek recovery. Services and Facilities Needed The 2020 Housing and Community Development Survey asked participants which special needs populations have the highest needs for services and facilities. Two hundred and twenty-nine participants responded, identifying five priority groups each and ranking them from 1 to 5 with 1 being the highest priority. Responses indicate the need for services and facilities for persons with disabilities is medium to low, as shown in Table MA-41. See Appendix B for a more detailed breakout of survey responses. 55 http://www.dphhs.mt.gov/dsd/index.shtml 56 https://dphhs.mt.gov/dsd/ibc 407 State of Montana 135 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan Table MA-41 – Need for Services and Facilities for Persons with Physical and Developmental Disabilities Highest Priority (“1”) Ranking Total Priority (1-5) Ranking Persons with physical disabilities 11th of 12 (Low Priority) 8th of 12 (Medium Priority) Persons with developmental disabilities 8th of 12 (Medium Priority) 9th of 12 (Low Priority) Data Source: 2020 Housing and Community Development Survey Individuals with mental illness continue to experience homelessness and housing insecurity at high rates. Mental health providers frequently cite a lack of affordable housing, a lack of housing services, and overall housing instability as a contributing factor to an individual’s inability to successfully receive treatment for mental illness. Increased housing services for both housing transitions and housing maintenance, as well as the development of transitional and supportive housing units with integrated mental health services, continue to be needed within Montana. People with Alcohol or Other Drug Addictions According to the National Coalition for the Homeless, for persons “just one step away from homelessness, the onset or exacerbation of an addictive disorder may provide just the catalyst to plunge them into residential instability.”57 For persons with substance use disorders, housing is complicated. Persons who have stable housing are much better able to treat their addictions. However, obtaining stable housing while suffering from addiction can be quite difficult, and the frustrations caused by a lack of housing options may only exacerbate addictions. According to the 2013 U.S. Conference of Mayors Hunger and Homelessness Report, substance use is one of the most cited causes of homelessness.58 Size and Characteristics DPHHS published the 2018 Montana Prevention Needs Assessment Survey that was conducted in schools across the state to evaluate adolescent substance abuse.59 At the time of the survey, within the past 30 days, 28.3% of students reported using alcohol, of which 16.5% reported binge drinking, and 15.0% reported using marijuana. Based on figures reported during the 2016 survey, both alcohol use and marijuana use was up in Montana’s 2018 student population. In addition, the Trust for America’s Health found that Montana ranked 43rd of all 50 states and the District of Columbia for highest drug overdose mortality rates in the United States in 2018, with 12.2 per 100,000 people suffering drug overdose fatalities.60 The Trust for America’s Health also found that in 2018 Montana’s rate of alcohol-related deaths was 17.0 (per 100,000) and Montana’s rate of drug-related deaths was 13.0 (per 100,000).61 Services and Housing Currently Provided AMDD is the designated state adult mental health agency for DPHHS. The mission of AMDD is to implement and improve an appropriate statewide system of prevention, crisis intervention, treatment and recovery for Montanans with mental and substance use disorders. AMDD assesses the need for substance use disorder treatment and prevention services throughout Montana. Those services are available through contracts with state-approved programs that practice a co-occurring approach to treatment. The division reimburses for a full range of outpatient and inpatient 57 http://www.nationalhomeless.org/publications/facts/addiction.pdf 58 http://www.usmayors.org/pressreleases/uploads/2013/1210-report-HH.pdf 59 http://www.bach-harrison.com/mtsocialindicators/ProfileReports.aspx 60 https://www.tfah.org/article/new-national-data-present-a-mixed-picture-some-drug-overdoses-down-but- others-are-up-and-suicides-rates-are-increasing/ 61 https://www.tfah.org/state-details/montana/ 408 State of Montana 136 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan services, as well as education programs for DUI offenders and youth charged as a Minor in Possession. AMDD also organizes and funds activities designed to prevent the use of alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs by youth and the abuse of those substances by adults. People with substance use disorders who have family incomes below 200% of the federal poverty level are eligible for publicly funded treatment services. In addition, the Medicaid program funds outpatient and residential substance use treatment for adults and adolescents who are Medicaid eligible. The Montana Chemical Dependency Center, located in Butte, is the only in-patient substance use treatment center administered by the State. It has 16 treatment beds for men, 16 treatment beds for women, 8 detox beds, and 8 stabilization beds.62 Services and Housing Needed According to the Healthy People 2020 national objectives, there were 22 million Americans struggling with a drug or alcohol problem in 2005. Of those with substance abuse problems, 95% are unaware of their problem.63 Obtaining treatment is a primary concern for many, which often includes high costs and other impacts on the person’s ability to obtain or retain an income and housing. The National Coalition for the Homeless notes that other needs for persons with substance use disorders include transportation and support services, including work programs and therapy access. Barriers also include programs that follow abstinence-only policies. These programs are often unrealistic for persons suffering from addictions because they fail to address the reality of relapses. A person living in supportive housing with an addiction problem who experiences a relapse may suddenly become a homeless person.64 Victims of Domestic Violence Domestic violence describes behaviors that are used by one person in a relationship to control the other. This aggressive conduct is often criminal, including physical assault, sexual abuse and stalking. The U.S. Department of Justice defines domestic violence as a pattern of abusive behavior in any relationship that is used by one partner to gain or maintain power and control over another intimate partner.65 Victims can be of all races, ages, genders, religions, cultures, education levels and marital statuses. Victims of domestic violence are at risk of becoming homeless due to an unstable living environment. If domestic violence victims flee the home, they are often faced with finding emergency shelter and services for themselves and their children. Victims of domestic violence are predominantly women. However, children can also be affected as either victims of abuse or as witnesses to abuse. The U.S. Department of Justice found that throughout their lifetime, over 25 million women and 7 million men were victimized by an intimate partner.66 Size and Characteristics Pinpointing a specific number of victims of domestic violence can be difficult because many cases go unreported. However, statistics are available. According to the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, 1 in 3 or 33% of women and 1 in 4 or 25% of men experience some form of physical violence by an intimate partner. Montana’s rates of physical violence by an intimate partner are slightly higher 62 http://www.dphhs.mt.gov/mcdc/ 63 http://www.healthypeople.gov/2020/TopicsObjectives2020/overview.aspx?topicId=40#star 64 http://www.nationalhomeless.org/publications/facts/addiction.pdf 65 https://www.ovw.usdoj.gov/domviolence.htm 66 https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/183781.pdf 409 State of Montana 137 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan than the national figures, with 39.2% of women and 32.6% of men experiencing intimate partner physical violence in their lifetimes.67 According to the 2019 PIT Homeless Survey, there were 1,357 homeless persons in Montana in 2019. Of this count, 257 (18.9%) persons indicated they left home because of domestic violence. Of note, 69.3% of primary respondents and accompanying individuals who cited domestic abuse resulting in homelessness were female. See Table MA-42 for detailed counts. Table MA-42 – Homeless Persons who Left Home because of Domestic Violence Gender Count of Primary Respondents Count of Accompanying Individuals Total Count Males 26 52 78 Females 129 49 178 Missing or N/A 1 0 1 Total Count 156 101 257 Data Source: 2019 Montana Homeless Survey Services and Housing Currently Provided The Montana Coalition Against Domestic & Sexual Violence is a statewide coalition of individuals and organizations working together to end domestic and sexual violence through advocacy, public education, public policy, and program development. The Coalition’s goals are to eliminate all forms of oppression, to provide support, network opportunities and training, and to encourage increased awareness and understanding.68 Services for victims of domestic abuse are provided by a variety of nonprofit and faith-based organizations across the state. Many of the shelters have 24-hour crisis lines and offer temporary housing, advocacy, referral programs, counseling, and transportation, as well as many other services. A partial list of domestic violence service providers is shown in Table MA-43. Table MA-43 – Domestic Violence Service Providers Homeless Service Organization Counties Served Rosebud & Treasure County Victim Witness Program Rosebud, Treasure Glasgow Police Department – Victim Witness Valley, Daniels, Sheridan, Phillips Dawson County Domestic Violence & Sexual Assault Program Dawson, Wibaux, Prairie Phillips County Domestic Violence Program Phillips Custer Network Against Domestic Abuse & Sexual Assault Custer, Rosebud, Treasure, Garfield, Powder River Custer County Attorney’s Victim-Witness Assistance Custer, Carter, Fallon, Powder River, Garfield Richland County Coalition Against Domestic Violence Richland, McCone The Family Violence Resource Center Fort Peck Reservation Northeast Montana Victim/Witness Program Phillips, Valley, Roosevelt, Sheridan, Daniels 7th Judicial District Victim Witness Program Dawson, Wibaux, Prairie, McCone, Richland Angela’s Piazza: Women’s Drop-In Center Yellowstone Montana Legal Services Association Yellowstone, Big Horn, Carbon, Golden Valley, Musselshell, Park, Rosebud, Stillwater, Sweet Grass, Wheatland, Treasure Billings Area Family Violence Task Force Yellowstone Billings City Attorney’s Office Domestic Violence Unit Yellowstone 67 https://assets.speakcdn.com/assets/2497/montana_2019.pdf 68 http://mcadsv.com/about/philosophy/ 410 State of Montana 138 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan Homeless Service Organization Counties Served Yellowstone County Attorney’s Office – Victim Witness Office Yellowstone YWCA Billings – Gateway Yellowstone, Carbon, Stillwater, Big Horn, Rosebud, Musselshell Stillwater County Advocates Stillwater Crow Victims Assistance Program Crow Reservation Healing Hearts Northern Cheyenne Reservation Northern Cheyenne Tribe Northern Cheyenne Reservation ASPEN Meagher, Park, Sweet Grass Park County Victim Witness Assistance Program Park Carbon County Victim-Witness Program Carbon Domestic and Sexual Violence Services of Carbon County Carbon, Stillwater Montana Legal Services Association Blaine, Glacier, Hill, Pondera, Liberty, Teton, Toole Hi-Lines Help for Abused Spouses Chouteau, Glacier, Toole, Teton, Pondera, Liberty CASA CAN Children’s Advocate Network Cascade Family Advocacy Malmstrom Air Force Base Personnel and Families YWCA Great Falls Cascade, Toole, Pondera, Teton, Glacier, Chouteau, Judith Basin, Meagher, Liberty Victim Impact Program – Pre-release Program Cascade Victim-Witness Assistance Program Cascade, Others as Needed Voices of Hope Cascade Domestic Violence Program/Judicial Court Fort Belknap Reservation, Blaine District IV HRDC Domestic Abuse Program Hill, Blaine, Liberty Fergus County Attorney Victim Assistance Program Fergus, Petroleum, Judith Basin SAVES, Inc. Fergus, Wheatland, Golden Valley, Musselshell, Garfield, Petroleum, Judith Basin Musselshell/Golden Valley Victim Witness Assistance Program Musselshell, Wheatland, Golden Valley SAVES, Inc. – Satellite Office Musselshell, Wheatland, Golden Valley Toole County Victim Advocate Program Toole Anaconda Victim Witness Program Deer Lodge Jefferson County Victim/Witness Advocate Program Jefferson Gallatin County Victim Assistance Gallatin HAVEN Gallatin, Madison, Meagher Help Center Gallatin, Madison, Park MSU Voice Center Montana State University Butte Silver Bow County Attorney Victim Witness Advocate Program Silver Bow Montana Legal Services Association Beaverhead, Deer Lodge, Gallatin, Granite, Madison, Powell, Silver Bow Safe Space, Inc. Silver Bow, Deer Lodge, Powell, Granite, Jefferson, Madison Powell County Victim Services Powell Women’s Resource Center/Community Support Center Beaverhead, Madison City of Helena Victim Services – City Attorney’s Office Lewis & Clark Friendship Center Lewis & Clark, Jefferson, Broadwater, Meagher Montana Legal Services Association Lewis & Clark, Jefferson, Broadwater, Meagher YWCA of Helena Lewis & Clark, Jefferson, Broadwater Broadwater County Attorney Victim Witness Program Broadwater Beaverhead & Madison County Victim/Witness Advocacy Program Beaverhead, Madison 411 State of Montana 139 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan Homeless Service Organization Counties Served SAFE Ravalli Flathead County Attorney’s Office Flathead The Abbie Shelter Flathead Lincoln County Crisis Solutions Lincoln Lincoln County Victim Witness Program Lincoln First Step Resource Center – Saint Patrick Hospital Missoula, Ravalli, Granite, Powell, Sanders, Lake, Flathead Reservation, Any County Requesting Services Missoula City-County Relationship Violence Services Crime Victim Advocate Services Missoula Montana Legal Services Association Mineral, Missoula, Ravalli, Sanders Student Advocacy Resource Center Missoula YWCA of Missoula Missoula, Mineral, Sanders, Granite, Lake, Ravalli CSK Tribal Crime Victim Advocate Program Flathead Reservation, Lake, Sanders, Missoula SAFE Harbor Lake, Flathead Reservation Granite County Victim-Witness Program Mineral Mineral County Crime Victim Advocate Program Mineral Mineral County Help Line Mineral Sanders County Coalition for Families Sanders Data Source: Montana Coalition Against Domestic Violence Services and Housing Needed The 2020 Housing and Community Development Survey asked participants which special needs populations have the highest needs for services and facilities. Two hundred and twenty-nine participants responded, identifying five priority groups each and ranking them from 1 to 5 with 1 being the highest priority. Responses indicate the need for services and facilities for victims of domestic violence is medium, as shown in Table MA-44. See Appendix B for a more detailed breakout of survey responses. Table MA-44 – Need for Services and Facilities for Victims of Domestic Violence Highest Priority (“1”) Ranking Total Priority (1-5) Ranking Victims of domestic violence 6th of 12 (Medium Priority) 5th of 12 (Medium Priority) Data Source: 2020 Housing and Community Development Survey People with HIV/AIDS and Their Families National research demonstrates that housing is the greatest unmet service need among people living with HIV/AIDS. Part of this can be attributed to several personal and structural factors unique to this population: loss of income due to progressive inability to maintain employment, disease progression requiring accessible facilities, and policy requirements that limit residence in temporary or transitional programs. It is estimated that as many as half of all people living with HIV/AIDS will need housing assistance at some point in their illness.69 In addition, homelessness is a barrier to outpatient care and HIV/AIDS specific therapies. The National Coalition for the Homeless reports that between one-third and one-half of all persons with HIV/AIDS are either homeless or at risk for becoming homeless.70 Research shows that among people with HIV/AIDS, there is a strong correlation between housing and improved access to, ongoing engagement in, and treatment success with health care. When people are housed, they can access and adhere to drug treatments and therapies, which may require fewer hospitalizations and emergency care.71 This is 69 http://nationalaidshousing.org/legisadvocacy/hopwa/ 70 http://www.nationalhomeless.org/publications/facts/HIV.pdf 71 http://nationalaidshousing.org/legisadvocacy/hopwa/ 412 State of Montana 140 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan partially due to the fact that complex medication regimens require that medicines be refrigerated and administered according to a strict schedule. Furthermore, homeless HIV positive individuals have a death rate that is five times greater than that of housed HIV positive people, 5.3 to 8 deaths per 100 people compared to 1 to 2 per 100 people.72 Size and Characteristics According to information gathered from DPHHS, a total of 749 persons were living with HIV infection in Montana as of January 4, 2021. A total of 1,299 cases of HIV have been reported in Montana, of which 550 persons are known to have died. The HIV Epidemiology Profile for Montana released additional data regarding characteristics of those diagnosed with HIV. Males have attributed for 85% of this population. The largest age group that has received diagnoses were those age 55 and over, accounting for 40%. Non-Hispanic, white persons account for the highest portion of the HIV population at 85%. The demographic distribution of new HIV diagnoses in Montana during the 2011-2018 period reveals that new cases are not evenly distributed among Montana’s counties. Yellowstone (26%), Missoula (18%), Cascade (9%), Gallatin (9%) and Flathead (8%) counties accounted for more than 70% of new HIV diagnoses between 2001 and 2018.73 This is also consistent with the counties with the highest population of persons living in Montana and living with HIV. Services and Housing Currently Provided A combination of private nonprofit providers and DPHHS provide HIV/AIDS services in Montana. As part of the effort to combat HIV in the state, DPHHS orchestrates the HIV Prevention Program. The State of Montana instituted the AIDS Prevention Act in 1997 and revised it in 2009. The Act institutes routine testing. DPHHS also has a HIV/AIDS Treatment Program. DPHHS works in collaboration with local city- county health departments, as well as community-based organizations to provide the following services for eligible HIV positive individuals: • AIDS Drug Assistance Program: This program provides anti-retrovirals, protease inhibitors, hydroxyurea and pentamidine to qualified individuals at no cost. • Health Insurance Continuum of Coverage Program: This program allows eligible individuals to continue their private health insurance by paying all or part (up to $800) of their monthly premiums. • HIV Case Management: The goal of the case managers is to deliver comprehensive outpatient health and support services to meet the HIV- related needs of individuals and families with HIV. Seven case management sites in the state serve five planning regions. HIV testing and services are provided by numerous public health clinics throughout the state. Free HIV testing is also provided by many nonprofit organizations along with a bevy of other services, such as case management, transitional housing, housing referrals, food pantries, direct financial assistance, support groups and mental health counseling. A partial list of HIV service providers in Montana is provided in Table MA-45. 72 http://www.nationalaidshousing.org/PDF/Housing%20&%20HIV-AIDS%20Policy%20Paper%2005.pdf 73https://dphhs.mt.gov/Portals/85/publichealth/documents/CDEpi/StatisticsandReports/SurveillanceSnapshots/A DAHIVsnapshot2018.pdf 413 State of Montana 141 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan Table MA-45 – HIV Service Providers Service Organization Location RiverStone Health Billings District VII HRDC Billings Rocky Boy Tribal Health Box Elder Bridger Clinic Bozeman District 9 HRDC Bozeman Browning Tribal Health Browning Butte AIDS Support Services Butte Dawson County Health Department Glendive Hill County Health Department Havre Lewis and Clark City-County Health Department Helena Flathead City-County Health Department Kalispell Central Montana Family Planning Lewistown Open AID Alliance Missoula Partnership Health Center Missoula Data Source: DPHHS Services and Housing Needed Persons living with HIV/AIDS have multiple needs in terms of services. In addition to receiving regular medical attention, case management, and income support, many persons need access to permanent housing solutions. According to HUD, 9 out of 10 persons utilizing HOPWA benefits are extremely low to low income. Increased funding for housing for persons living with HIV/AIDS is one of the greatest needs of the HIV/AIDS support programs. For example, there is generally a high need for increased scattered site housing availability, because traditional assisted housing options that involve grouping funding recipients on one site or complex are ineffective in that they can endanger the confidentiality of residents. Additionally, program recipients have a need for longer-term housing options. As the treatment of AIDS has advanced, people are living longer with the disease. Thus, longer-term housing options are needed. However, the funding of these long-term housing options can be expensive. The 2020 Housing and Community Development Survey asked participants which special needs populations have the highest needs for services and facilities. Two hundred and twenty-nine participants responded, identifying five priority groups each and ranking them from 1 to 5 with 1 being the highest priority. Responses indicate the need for services and facilities for persons with HIV/AIDS is low (in relation to other special needs populations), as shown in Table MA-46. See Appendix B for a more detailed breakout of survey responses. Table MA-46 – Need for Services and Facilities for Persons with HIV/AIDS Highest Priority (“1”) Ranking Total Priority (1-5) Ranking Persons with HIV/AIDS 12th of 12 (Low Priority) 12th of 12 (Low Priority) Data Source: 2020 Housing and Community Development Survey MA-45 Non-Housing Community Development Assets – 91.315(f) Introduction According to DLI’s 2020 Labor Day Report74, Montana and the nation as a whole experienced the longest economic expansion in history from July 2009 and February 2020. During this period, Montana workers expanded their economic output by roughly 20% and added nearly 50,000 payroll jobs. The state’s 74 http://lmi.mt.gov/Portals/193/Publications/LMI-Pubs/Special%20Reports%20and%20Studies/LDR-2020- Accessible.pdf 414 State of Montana 142 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan economy became more diverse and robust, increasing real personal income, wages, and Montanans’ standard of living. From 2009 to 2020, real GDP expanded by 19.8% to $47.1 billion, and personal income expanded by 52% to $52.4 billion. However, in March 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic struck Montana, prompting the state’s economic performance to quickly change as public health and safety measures were enacted to stop the spread of the virus. The COVID-19 mitigation measures caused a large but temporary impact to short-term economic performance, resulting in sharp increases in Unemployment Insurance claims and a need for relief for individuals, businesses, and industries. In Montana, the pandemic-induced recession appears to have been relatively short, with employment levels quickly rebounding after the phased reopening of the economy. Montana had the 16th smallest job loss among states, and jobs have been quick to return with roughly 40,000 payroll positions added in May and June. Even with a strong recovery and rapid job growth, it is likely that the pandemic will have continued impacts on Montana’s economy. The magnitude of the job loss during the first months of the pandemic means that it may take several years for unemployment levels to rebound. Economic Development Market Analysis Table 43 through Table 49 contain data relevant to economic development in Montana. Business Activity Table 43 – Business Activity Business by Sector Number of Workers Share of Workers % Agriculture, Mining, Oil and Gas Extraction 34,930 7.5% Arts, Entertainment, Accommodations 54,080 11.6% Construction 40,942 8.8% Education and Health Care Services 116,588 24.9% Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate 27,881 6.0% Information 8,468 1.8% Manufacturing 23,204 5.0% Other Services 24,608 5.3% Professional, Scientific, Management Services 41,195 8.8% Public Administration 0 0.0% Retail Trade 59,171 12.7% Transportation and Warehousing 24,692 5.3% Wholesale Trade 11,932 2.6% Total 467,691 100.0% Data Source: 2015-2019 ACS (Workers), 2019 Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (Jobs) Labor Force Table 44 – Labor Force Criteria Status Total Population in the Civilian Labor Force 526,388 Civilian Employed Population 16 years and over 497,995 Unemployment Rate 4.8% Unemployment Rate for Ages 16-24 N/A Unemployment Rate for Ages 25-65 N/A Data Source: 2017 5-Year ACS 415 State of Montana 143 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan Table 45 – Occupations by Sector Occupations by Sector Number of People Management, business and financial 76,551 Farming, fisheries and forestry occupations 8,617 Service 94,399 Sales and office 111,134 Construction, extraction, maintenance and repair 62,437 Production, transportation and material moving 48,322 Data Source: 2017 5-Year ACS Travel Time Table 46 – Travel Time Travel Time Number Percentage < 30 Minutes 382,809 83.3% 30-59 Minutes 58,736 12.8% 60 or More Minutes 17,882 3.9% Total 459,427 100.0% Data Source: 2017 5-Year ACS Education: Educational Attainment by Employment Status (Population 16 and Older) Table 47 – Educational Attainment by Employment Status Educational Attainment In Labor Force Not in Labor Force Civilian Employed Unemployed Less than high school graduate 16,661 1,891 13,555 High school graduate (includes equivalency) 104,969 5,723 37,759 Some college or associate’s degree 134,299 5,690 40,582 Bachelor’s degree or higher 138,454 3,248 23,055 Data Source: 2017 5-Year ACS Educational Attainment by Age Table 48 – Educational Attainment by Age Age 18-24 yrs 25-34 yrs 35-44 yrs 45-65 yrs 65+ yrs Less than 9th grade 1,488 1,909 1,614 4,165 6,838 9th to 12th grade, no diploma 11,868 7,150 5,042 12,227 10,499 High school graduate, GED, or alternative 34,311 33,783 30,300 84,531 57,709 Some college, no degree 40,552 32,988 27,024 69,576 40,538 Associate’s degree 4,147 12,479 12,763 26,799 9,677 Bachelor’s degree 7,029 31,383 28,163 54,527 31,016 Graduate or professional degree 390 9,753 13,853 27,752 19,861 Data Source: 2017 5-Year ACS 416 State of Montana 144 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan Educational Attainment – Median Earnings in the Past 12 Months Table 49 – Median Earnings in the Past 12 Months Educational Attainment Median Earnings in the Past 12 Months Less than high school graduate $20,453 High school graduate (includes equivalency) $27,027 Some college or Associate’s degree $30,517 Bachelor’s degree $40,403 Graduate or professional degree $53,595 Data Source: 2011-2015 ACS Based on the Business Activity table above, what are the major employment sectors within the state? In order of share, the employment sectors are: • Education and Health Care Services (1st); • Retail Trade (2nd); • Arts, Entertainments, and Accommodations (3rd); • Construction (4th) and Professional, Scientific, Management Services (4th); • Agriculture, Mining, Oil and Gas Extraction (5th); and • Finance, Insurance and Real Estate (6th) Describe the workforce and infrastructure needs of business in the state. According to MEDA’s Montana Next Generation Analysis, the state needs to invest in infrastructure to continue to attract talent and business, including remote business.75 Therefore, increased investments in broadband and 5G technology will attract new development, and help Montana’s existing businesses grow and innovate. In terms of workforce, Montana’s Next Generation Analysis identified that Montana is a state with a high level of state-to-state migration, with 5,000 domestic in-migrants per 100,000 residents. This ongoing influx of new residents can be a positive catalyst for economic dynamism and workforce development. However, MEDA emphasized the importance of workforce development programs and affordable housing to retain this economic driver. Furthermore, respondents to the 2020 Housing and Community Development Survey indicated that affordable housing for the workforce especially teachers and service industry workers, the elderly, and the disabled is in short supply throughout the state. Describe any major changes that may have an economic impact, such as planned public or private sector investments or initiatives that have affected or may affect job and business growth opportunities during the planning period. Describe any needs for workforce development, business support or infrastructure these changes may create. The State of Montana intends to nurture emerging industries and encourage innovation by strengthening the role of universities as technology incubators through research, development, and commercialization; to foster innovation and encourage knowledge-based industries to locate and grow in Montana; and to support entrepreneurs and small businesses to achieve their potential to achieve growth and stability. 75 https://www.medamembers.org/media/userfiles/subsite_48/files/2020-06- 30%20Montana%20Next%20Generation%20Analysis%20%20FINAL.pdf 417 State of Montana 145 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan How do the skills and education of the current workforce correspond to employment opportunities in the state? One of Montana’s strengths is our educated workforce. 94% of Montana’s population has a high school diploma, and 31% of Montana’s population has a bachelor’s degree or higher. Our skilled workforce and quality K-12 education system are recognized as an important strength, but we must provide education and training opportunities aligned with the needs of the private sector. Forming partnerships among educators, workforce development professionals, and the private sector will help identify opportunities to connect education and training to the skills necessary in an ever-changing economy. Describe current workforce training initiatives supported by the state. Describe how these efforts will support the state's Consolidated Plan. There are a variety of workforce training initiatives in Montana. These include workforce training initiatives in the trade, transportation, and utility; professional and business services; manufacturing; leisure and hospitality; and education and health services sectors. A complete list of programs and training providers is supplied on DLI’s website at http://lmi.mt.gov/Career/Programs. Describe any other state efforts to support economic growth. According to Governor Gianforte’s Montana Comeback Plan, priorities for economic growth include: • Develop value-added agriculture to preserve the Montana brand through our supply chains, and to ensure that Montana producers can capture more of the value they create. • Expand manufacturing through investing in trades education and apprenticeship opportunities, creating workers with in-demand skills and better-paying jobs. • Grow the technology sector through incentives, such as broadband, to encourage bringing remote work jobs and technology companies to Montana. • Responsibly develop our natural resources, balancing economic growth with conservation. • Boost tourism, travel, and hospitality, supporting these leading industries in Montana as they recover from the COVID-19 pandemic. Discussion Prior to 2007, unemployment in Montana had been on a generally downward trend for nearly two decades thanks to the steady growth in the number of employed persons, which slightly but consistently outpaced the rate at which new members were added to the labor force. However, a large growth in unemployment came after 2007, when the unemployment rate jumped and continues to rise until 2010. Since 2010, the unemployment rate in the state has been falling steadily, reaching 5.6%. Looking at this rate compared to the national unemployment rate, Montana has had a lower rate than the national average since 2002, as shown in Figure 6. Figure 7 shows the state unemployment rate since 2008. The state saw its highest unemployment rate at the beginning of 2010 and it has been declining since that time, reaching 6.5% at the end of 2013. Full- and Part-Time Employment The U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis provides an alternate index of employment; a count of full-time and part- time jobs in the state (Figure 8). These data differ from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics data discussed previously in that they are collected where workers are employed rather than at the household level, and the same person may be counted twice in this dataset if he or she works more than one job. 418 State of Montana 146 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan Figure 6 – Unemployment Rate Figure 7 – Montana Unemployment Rate 419 State of Montana 147 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan Figure 8 – Full- and Part-Time Employment MA-50 Needs and Market Analysis Discussion Are there areas where households with multiple housing problems are concentrated? (include a definition of “concentration”) The number of housing units with at least one or more housing problems is concentrated in the following Census Tracts indicated in the colored sections of Map 6. Concentration is defined as those areas in the 75th percentile on a statewide basis. The percentages of concentration are listed below. • At least 5.8% substandard (most was 45%) • At least 24.58% with a severe cost burden (most was 100%) • At least 7.7% with overcrowding (most was 38%) • At least 42% with a cost burden (most was 100%) Are there any areas in the jurisdiction where racial or ethnic minorities or low-income families are concentrated? (include a definition of “concentration”) Map 7 and Map 8 reflect areas with greater than 25% of the populations declaring a racial category other than “white only” based on ACS data. According to ACS data, “income” is areas with >30% low income. Concentration is defined as a percentage of the population greater than 25%. What are the characteristics of the market in these areas/neighborhoods? The local housing markets vary widely across the state and are largely dependent on geographical and social issues specific to any given area. Planning activities such as market analyses undertaken by local organizations and local governments identify local housing needs that are used to ensure a measured, targeted approach is taken when investing federal funds. The state is so geographically large, covering more than 147,000 square miles, and demographically diverse with housing and community development needs that vary widely, that it is not feasible to identify and describe specific market characteristics for the areas that may receive state assistance. 420 State of Montana 148 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan Map 6 – Concentrations of Multiple Housing Problems Map 7 – Concentrated Minority Census Tracts 421 State of Montana 149 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan Map 8 – Concentrated Low-Income Block Groups Are there any community assets in these areas/neighborhoods? Every Montana community has its own unique assets that citizens and local leaders leverage to bolster local housing markets. A variety of organizations supported by Commerce, including CHDOs, HRDCs, CRDCs, work with citizens and local leaders to promote and strengthen local assets, including natural resources and human capital. Are there other strategic opportunities in any of these areas? The State of Montana interacts with other agencies, businesses, developers, social service agencies and other organizations to enhance the coordination of efforts to develop housing, support communities, and generate economic development. Commerce supports a broad-based approach to address affordable housing and community development issues through the Consolidated Plan Steering Committee, W2ASACT, and MEDA. Additionally, CTAP, which is housed within CDD, provides direct technical assistance to local governments and elected officials, land use planners, associated professionals and members of the public on issues related to land use planning and development throughout the state. CTAP helps educate constituents on planning best practices, policy and even regulations that promote affordable housing and support resilient community and economic development. Through hands-on training, workshops, webinars, online resources, direct technical assistance by phone or email, and collaboration with local, state and federal agencies, communities learn how to more effectively utilize policy, code, and regulations such as zoning, subdivision, building code and tax increment financing tools to help— not hinder—the development of affordable housing alternatives in their jurisdiction. Additionally, the link between affordable housing and transportation alternatives, proximity to jobs, public services and education is also an important focus of the CTAP program. 422 State of Montana 150 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan The Montana Main Street Program, also housed within CDD, further supports these actions by offering additional technical assistance aimed at downtown revitalization through proactive planning and development incentives that support rural communities. Through these coordinated efforts, private industry, businesses, developers, and social service agencies have both resources and an opportunity to provide input into the Consolidated Plan. Summary In 2005, the State of Montana had 449,791 total housing units. Since that time, the total housing stock has increased the number of units, reaching 519,935 units in 2019. According to the ACS in 2017, Montana’s housing stock included 364,518 single-family units, and 54,998 mobile home units. Of the 501,099 housing units counted in Montana in the 2017 ACS, 419,975 units were occupied, with 284,168 counted as owner-occupied and 135,807 counted as renter occupied. This equated to a homeownership rate of 67.7%. Montana has a homeowner vacancy rate of 1.4% and a rental vacancy rate of 6.3%. The construction value of single-family dwellings generally increased from 1980 through 2018, reaching over $210,000. Results from the 2020 Housing and Community Development Needs Survey regarding housing topics showed needs prioritized as follows: new construction of affordable rental housing, new construction of affordable for-sale housing, rental assistance, and first-time homebuyer education and down payment assistance. Comments received from focus group meetings echoed these sentiments, indicating that there is an increased demand for affordable rental housing. Results from the 2020 Housing and Community Development Needs Survey regarding human and public service topics showed needs prioritized as follows: childcare services, mental health and chemical dependency services, youth services, transportation services, and healthcare services. In addition, the 2020 Housing and Community Development Needs Survey indicated the highest need for a specific subset of a population prioritized as follows: persons with mental illness, persons that are homeless or at risk of homelessness, and persons with substance use disorders. MA-60 Broadband Needs of Housing occupied by Low- and Moderate-Income Households - 91.210(a)(4), 91.310(a)(2) Describe the need for broadband wiring and connections for households, including low- and moderate-income households and neighborhoods. Montana ranks 50th in the nation among states scored by broadband coverage, speed, and price access in 202076. Only 86.7% of Montanans have access to competitive broadband service, compared to the national average of 94.3%.77 In rural and tribal areas, access to competitive broadband service is even lower; only 73.3% of persons in rural areas and 73.5% of persons in tribal areas have access to competitive broadband service. In addition, 11 out of Montana’s 56 counties have less than 50% broadband coverage and 4 out of Montana’s 56 counties have less than 25% broadband coverage. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) defines competitive broadband coverage as three or more service providers of asymmetrical digital subscriber line (ADSL), cable, fiber, fixed wireless, or satellite 76 https://broadbandnow.com/research/best-states-with-internet-coverage-and-speed 77 https://www.medamembers.org/media/userfiles/subsite_48/files/2020-06- 30%20Montana%20Next%20Generation%20Analysis%20%20FINAL.pdf 423 State of Montana 151 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan service at speeds of great than or equal to 25 Mbps (download) and 3 Mbps (upload). In Montana, substantial numbers of low- and moderate-income households reside in both rural and tribal areas, so the need for broadband wiring and connections could be significant. The State of Montana is committed to expanding broadband access, especial in rural communities. According to Governor Gianforte’s Montana Comeback Plan, it is a statewide priority to work with consumers, stakeholders, and service providers to increase broadband access throughout Montana to close the digital divide.78 To accomplish this, the State of Montana is dedicated to balancing resources available from HUD for broadband infrastructure – particularly through CDBG and HOME – with other state and federal resources, such as the Coronavirus State Fiscal Recovery Funds under the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, which can be used to make necessary investments in broadband infrastructure. Describe the need for increased competition by having more than one broadband Internet service provider serve the jurisdiction. Montana is the least competitive broadband marketplace in the nation; the lack of internet access and competition is due to Montana’s geography. In total, there are 120 providers offering competitive broadband services within the state.79 205,000 residents only have one provider to choose from, another 36,000 people do not have any provider offering services at their home address. However, not all Montana residents have so few choices. Certain places in Montana are well-connected; when it comes to speed, price, and availability, the best ranking cities in Montana are Billings, Great Falls, Kalispell, Missoula, and Butte. MA-65 Hazard Mitigation - 91.210(a)(5), 91.310(a)(3) Describe the jurisdiction’s increased natural hazard risks associated with climate change. According to Commerce’s Montana Resiliency Framework, natural disasters—particularly wildfires, droughts, flooding, and severe storms—threaten communities across the state and are projected to accelerate due to climate change.80 According to the Montana Department of Emergency Services’ (DES) State of Montana Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan, the hazards that pose the most threat for the state— listed based on probability, severity, and impact—are: wildfires, flooding, earthquakes, droughts, and severe weather.81 From 2000 through 2014, there were more than 240 large wildfires (>5,000 acres) within 10 miles of Montana communities, affecting more than 230,000 Montana residents. From 2010 to 2014, there were five federal disaster declarations for flooding in Montana, causing millions of dollars of damage to roads, bridges, buildings, and homes. Montana is also one of the most seismically active states in the United States; since 1925, there have been five shocks that have reached intensity VII or greater, and hundreds of less severe tremors felt throughout the state. Describe the vulnerability to these risks of housing occupied by low- and moderate-income households based on an analysis of data, findings, and methods. The types of natural disasters that pose the greatest risk to housing occupied by low- and moderate- income households in Montana are flooding, wildfires, and severe weather. The State of Montana has not undertaken a comprehensive study to measure the risk of these natural disasters specifically to low- and moderate- income households. 78 https://gregformontana.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Montana-Come-Back-Plan.pdf 79 https://broadbandnow.com/Montana 80 https://comdev.mt.gov/Portals/95/shared/MRCI/docs/Montana-Resiliency-Framework.pdf?ver=2021-01-13- 114713-527 81 https://drought.unl.edu/archive/plans/GeneralHazard/state/MT_2018.pdf 424 State of Montana 152 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan Strategic Plan SP-05 Overview Strategic Plan Overview The goals of this strategic plan align with Montana’s goals to provide decent housing, a suitable living environment, and expanded economic opportunities for the state’s extremely low, low-, and moderate- income residents. The State of Montana strives to accomplish these goals by maximizing and effectively utilizing all available funding resources to conduct housing and community development activities that serve the economically disadvantaged residents of the state. By addressing need and creating opportunity at the individual and neighborhood levels, the State of Montana aims to improve the quality of life for all residents of the state. The goals of this strategic plan are as follows: • Provide decent housing by supporting appropriate housing for homeless persons and assisting those at risk of homelessness; preserving the affordable housing stock; increasing the supply of permanent affordable housing, without discrimination; increasing the supply of supportive housing for persons with special needs (e.g., the elderly; frail elderly; persons with mental, physical, and developmental disabilities; persons with substance use disorders; persons with HIV/AIDS and their families; public housing residents; Veterans; and victims of domestic violence); supporting homeownership through homebuyer assistance; and providing affordable housing near job opportunities. • Provide suitable living environments by improving the safety and livability of neighborhoods; improving access to quality facilities, infrastructure, and services; reducing the isolation of income groups within communities through de-concentration of low-income housing; revitalizing deteriorating neighborhoods; restoring and preserving properties of special historic architectural or aesthetic value; and conserving energy resources. • Expand economic opportunities by creating and retaining jobs; establishing, stabilizing, and expanding small businesses; providing public employment services; encouraging the employment of low-income persons in projects funded under this plan; providing reasonable mortgage financing rates without discrimination; providing access to capital and credit for development activities that promote long-term economic and social viability of the community; and reducing generational poverty of those living in publicly assisted housing by providing empowerment and self-sufficiency opportunities. SP-10 Geographic Priorities – 91.315(a)(1) Geographic Area Housing and community development needs vary widely across Montana. The extreme diversity in available housing, age of housing stock, and overall range in population complicate the assessment of the type and degree of housing and community development needs. Because of the limited availability of resources and the extent of community development and housing needs, Commerce and DPHHS programs are implemented on a statewide basis rather than with geographic priorities. Entities receiving CDBG, HOME, and HTF funds typically have previous grant awards substantially drawn down before they are eligible to apply for additional program funds. This method has been shown to disburse funds equitably throughout the state, providing all areas an opportunity to apply for funds and providing an incentive for grant recipients to complete projects on a timely basis. Over time, all funding methods, whether through a formula, competitive, or non-competitive process, tend to effectively distribute grant assistance throughout the state. 425 State of Montana 153 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan Because the State of Montana does not have geographic priorities for any of its federally funded CPD programs, data are not provided in Table 50. Table 50 – Geographic Priority Areas Area Name Area Type Area Description N/A N/A N/A General Allocation Priorities Describe the basis for allocating investments geographically within the jurisdiction (or within the EMSA for HOPWA) Priorities for funding are based on the following: the Consolidated Plan Needs Assessment and Market Assessment; feedback from the Fair Housing and Housing and Community Development surveys, focus groups, and public meetings; and the objectives and outcomes set by the State of Montana to identify projects that help communities improve access to affordable housing and transportation while protecting the environment and measuring the true cost of commuting to residents of affordable housing. The State’s housing and community development needs are established and prioritized by local communities and addressed through the State’s process of distributing funds to local communities (see AP-30 Methods of Distribution). SP-25 Priority Needs – 91.315(a)(2) Priority Needs Table 51 – Priority Needs Summary # Priority Need Priority Level Population Income Level Family Type Homeless Non-Homeless Special Needs 1 Affordable Housing Preservation and Construction High Extremely Low Low Moderate Middle* Large Families Families with Children Elderly Public Housing Residents See below for Priority to Reduce Homelessness Elderly Frail Elderly Persons with Mental Disabilities Persons with Physical Disabilities Persons with Developmental Disabilities Persons with Alcohol or Other Addictions Persons with HIV/AIDS and their Families Victims of Domestic Violence Description: Encourage rehabilitation of existing and development of new rental and owner-occupied affordable housing located within walkable neighborhoods and/or served by public transportation systems, particularly for those with special needs and the elderly. Basis for Relative Priority: As shown in the Needs Assessment, approximately 56,575 renter households and 52,830 homeowner households in the state have one or more housing problems. Of households with housing problems, 25,250 renters (45%) and 34,545 (65%) owners are cost burdened, paying more than 30% of their income on housing expenses. The proportion of these households that are severely cost burdened, paying more than 50% of their income on housing expenses is more than 43% for both renters and owners (25,130 and 22,715, respectively). Results from the 2020 Montana Housing and Community Development Survey show that preserving and constructing affordable housing is a high priority, with more than 93% of respondents indicating that they would allocate resources to this category. *Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) only 426 State of Montana 154 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan # Priority Need Priority Level Population Income Level Family Type Homeless Non-Homeless Special Needs 2 Community Planning High Extremely Low Low Moderate Large Families Families with Children Elderly Public Housing Residents Rural Chronic Homelessness Individuals Families with Children Mentally Ill Chronic Substance Abuse Veterans Persons with HIV/AIDS Victims of Domestic Violence Unaccompanied Youth Elderly Frail Elderly Persons with Mental Disabilities Persons with Physical Disabilities Persons with Developmental Disabilities Persons with Alcohol or Other Addictions Persons with HIV/AIDS and their Families Victims of Domestic Violence Non-Housing Community Development Description: Encourage comprehensive planning, downtown master planning, business development planning, market studies, preliminary architectural reports, asset management, needs analysis, preliminary engineering reports, flood prevention plans, and other studies or plans that support the sustainability of local communities, affordable housing, public works investments, vital employment centers, and the environment. Basis for Relative Priority: The first step in revitalizing communities, improving the efficiency of public works investments, and safeguarding rural landscapes and natural resources is planning. Planning for the location and density of future land uses, the needs for public facilities and amenities, the economic and marketing strategy of a community or business, and preliminary design of a potential project results in efficient, affordable, and resilient development and helps communities prioritize local projects. Approximately 69% of respondents to the 2020 Montana Housing and Community Development Survey indicated that they would allocate resources to planning for communities. 3 Improving and Sustaining Vital Public Infrastructure High Extremely Low Low Moderate Large Families Families with Children Elderly Public Housing Residents Rural Chronic Homelessness Individuals Families with Children Mentally Ill Chronic Substance Abuse Veterans Persons with HIV/AIDS Victims of Domestic Violence Unaccompanied Youth Elderly Frail Elderly Persons with Mental Disabilities Persons with Physical Disabilities Persons with Developmental Disabilities Persons with Alcohol or Other Addictions Persons with HIV/AIDS and their Families Victims of Domestic Violence Non-Housing Community Development Description: Provide funding opportunities to serve Montanans of low income, particularly special needs and elderly populations, with safe, efficient public infrastructure; improve the safety and efficiency of public infrastructure; promote healthy, safe, and walkable neighborhoods; and safeguard the environment. Basis for Relative Priority: In the fall of 2014, the Montana Section of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) issued a cumulative grade of C- for Montana’s aging infrastructure. The report warned that Montana’s aging infrastructure is approaching a critical state of disrepair, from neighborhood roads and community schools to safe drinking water, from dams that produce energy and prevent flooding to waterways that irrigate fields, this infrastructure is used by all Montana residents and is essential to our economic future. The State of Montana is committed to investing its federal funds to provide safe, efficient public infrastructure to serve Montanans, particularly those of low to moderate income or with special needs. Results from the 2020 Montana Housing and Community Development Survey show that improving and sustaining public infrastructure is a high priority, with more than 90% of respondents indicating that they would allocate resources to this category. Results also indicate that preserving and constructing community and public facilities is a high priority, with approximately 77% of respondents indicating that they would allocate resources to this category. 427 State of Montana 155 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan # Priority Need Priority Level Population Income Level Family Type Homeless Non-Homeless Special Needs 4 Economic Revitalization High Extremely Low Low Moderate Large Families Families with Children Elderly Public Housing Residents Rural Chronic Homelessness Individuals Families with Children Mentally Ill Chronic Substance Abuse Veterans Persons with HIV/AIDS Victims of Domestic Violence Unaccompanied Youth Elderly Frail Elderly Persons with Mental Disabilities Persons with Physical Disabilities Persons with Developmental Disabilities Persons with Alcohol or Other Addictions Persons with HIV/AIDS and their Families Victims of Domestic Violence Non-Housing Community Development Description: Support and strengthen new and existing businesses, particularly those located within traditional downtown business centers comprising a mix of businesses, housing, and services. Basis for Relative Priority: As industries shift in Montana and the United States, many communities within the state are struggling with the lack of well-paying jobs, cost of attracting new businesses, and disinvestment in their downtowns. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, this type of degradation causes residents, visitors, and businesses to relocate as economic opportunities, property values, health outcomes, and community vitality declines. To reverse this trend, Montana needs to invest in economic infrastructure, job training, and downtowns that will catalyze businesses with well-paying jobs. Furthermore, to attract and retain this workforce, Montana needs to create vibrant, walkable, and unique communities with access to work, schools, and other amenities. Results from the 2020 Montana Housing and Community Development Survey show that revitalizing local economies is a high priority, with more than 76% of respondents indicating that they would allocate resources to this category. 5 Reducing Homelessness High Extremely Low Large Families Families with Children Elderly Public Housing Residents Rural Chronic Homelessness Individuals Families with Children Mentally Ill Chronic Substance Abuse Veterans Persons with HIV/AIDS Victims of Domestic Violence Unaccompanied Youth N/A Description: Encourage activities that provide assistance and shelter to homeless Montanans and those at risk of homelessness, particularly homeless veterans, youths and children, and the chronically homeless living in unsheltered locations. Basis for Relative Priority: HUD released the 2019 AHAR documenting the national issues related to homelessness. As documented in the AHAR, the nation’s homelessness declined (-12.3%) from 2007 to 2019 while Montana’s homelessness increased (18.0%). The AHAR highlighted the fact that Montana has the highest rate of unsheltered veterans in the nation (19.0%), and that Montana has experienced the largest increase in the number of chronically homeless individuals nationally, more than doubling at a staggering 134.0%. The 2019 Montana PIT Homeless Survey counted 1,357 homeless persons, including 410 homeless individuals belonging to a family with children, 8 unaccompanied homeless youth, and 939 homeless adults. Of the 1,357 homeless persons counted, 228 are considered chronically homeless. At the time of the survey, Montana’s homeless population was a majority of white persons that were either a household of adults only (69.2%) or a household with adults and children (30.2%). Men represented the majority of respondents (58.4%), while women represented the majority of households with children (77.9%). Additionally, the majority of households were sheltered (74.6%) versus unsheltered (25.4%). Approximately 71% of respondents to the 2020 Montana Housing and Community Development Survey indicated that they would allocate resources to reducing homelessness. Narrative (Optional) N/A 428 State of Montana 156 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan SP-30 Influence of Market Conditions – 91.315(b) Influence of Market Conditions Table 52 – Influence of Market Conditions Affordable Housing Type Market Characteristics that will influence the use of funds available for housing type Tenant-Based Rental Assistance (TBRA) As shown by the previous sections, the demand for rentals has increased and is expected to continue to increase throughout the course of this plan. Montana expects to see the need for TBRA to persist as the number of cost-burdened families grows. Although Montana does not currently fund TBRA with CPD funds, the 2020 Housing and Community Development Survey results indicated a high level of need for rental assistance (among all activities, rental assistance ranked third as an overall priority). TBRA for Non- Homeless Special Needs The Non-Homeless Special Needs populations have a variety of housing needs throughout the state. The increase in demand for and in the price of rentals will place a high need on TBRA for special need populations within the state. These increases make rentals unaffordable to many special needs populations. As stated previously, although Montana does not currently fund TBRA with CPD funds, the 2020 Housing and Community Development Survey results indicated a high level of need for rental assistance (among all activities, rental assistance ranked third as an overall priority). New Unit Production As shown by the Market Analysis section, housing production has not been keeping pace with demand, resulting in an increase in price. New unit production will increase the number of affordable units available to Montana households. The 2020 Housing and Community Development Survey results indicated a high level of need for new unit production, especially for rental housing (among all activities, new construction of affordable rental housing ranked first as an overall priority while new construction of affordable for-sale housing ranked second). Rehabilitation Montana continues to see inadequate housing production coupled with high demand for rental and homeownership units. This trend is even more pronounced in light of COVID-19. These conditions necessitate rehabilitation of existing units, both rental and homeowner, in order to meet the needs of households throughout the state. The results of the 2020 Housing and Community Development Survey also indicated a strong need for unit rehabilitation, especially for rental housing (among all activities, rental housing rehabilitation ranked fourth as an overall priority while homeowner housing rehabilitation ranked eighth). Acquisition, including preservation As shown in this plan, there are a number of subsidized units at risk of expiring. As the demand for affordable rental units continues to increase, the loss of these units will place additional households in need. The 2020 Housing and Community Development Survey results indicated a strong need for acquisition including preservation (among all activities, preservation of federal subsidized housing ranked seventh as an overall priority). SP-35 Anticipated Resources - 91.315(a)(4), 91.320(c)(1,2) Introduction This section describes the HUD resources expected to be allocated by program throughout the state of Montana during Plan Year 1 (April 1, 2020 to March 31, 2021) and through the remainder of the Consolidated Plan period, which ends March 31, 2025. The total amount expected for the remaining 4 years of the Consolidated Plan considers a 5% decrease in funding per year. 429 State of Montana 157 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan CDBG, HOME, and HTF administrative allocation caps and expected program revenues are detailed in AP-15 Expected Resources for each year of the Consolidated Plan. Under CDBG, HOME, and HTF, the Director of Commerce is authorized to reallocate up to 15% of each program’s total allocation among grant categories, depending on the needs in the state during any given plan year. A reallocation of more than 15% of a program’s total allocation or the creation or elimination of a grant category within a program is considered a substantial amendment and requires further steps as identified within the Citizen Participation Plan (Appendix A). See AP-15 Expected Resources for more information. Table 53 – Anticipated Resources Program Source of Funds Expected Amount Available Year 1 Expected Amount Available Remainder of ConPlan Narrative Description Annual Allocation Program Income Prior Year Resources Total CDBG Public/ Federal $6,682,297 $0 $178,764 $6,861,061 $23,550,962 State allocation; CDBG funds matched in some grant categories by units of general local government; State funds used to meet CDBG match requirements Uses of Funds: Acquisition, Administration and Planning, Economic Development, Housing, Public Improvements, Public Services, and Homeowner Rehabilitation. National Objectives include Low and Moderate Income and Slums and Blight. Preference given to activities that address impacts of COVID- 19. HOME Public/ Federal $3,135,479 $562,120.25 $0 $3,697,599.25 $11,050,623 State allocation; HOME funds matched by subrecipients Uses of Funds: Acquisition, Administration, Homebuyer Assistance, Multifamily New Construction, Multifamily Rehabilitation, and New Construction for Ownership. Preference given to activities that address impacts of COVID-19. HOPWA Public/ Federal $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Montana only receives HOPWA competitive funds Uses of Funds: N/A ESG Public/ Federal $732,063 $0 $0 $732,063 $2,580,069 State allocation; ESG funds matched by subrecipients Uses of Funds: Financial Assistance, Homelessness Prevention, Overnight Shelter, Rapid Re-housing (Rental Assistance), Rental Assistance Services, and Street Outreach. HTF Public/ Federal $3,000,000 $0 $0 $3,000,000 $10,573,144 State allocation Uses of Funds: Acquisition, Administration, Multifamily New Construction, and Multifamily Rehabilitation. Preference given to activities that address impacts of COVID-19. 430 State of Montana 158 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan Explain how federal funds will leverage those additional resources (private, state and local funds), including a description of how matching requirements will be satisfied The State of Montana will accomplish the goals of the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan by effectively maximizing and utilizing all available funding resources to conduct housing and community development activities that will serve economically disadvantaged residents primarily residing in the non-entitlement areas of the state as well as those experiencing impacts as a result of COVID-19 repercussions. The CDBG Program requires 50% match for Economic Development (ED) projects. This match can come from a variety of sources, including cash investment, bank loans, state or federal loan programs, or grants. Most CDBG-ED grants are at least partially matched with funds from the state Big Sky Economic Development Trust Fund, the federal Economic Development Agency, private bank loans, or owner equity. The CDBG Program requires 25% match for Public Facilities projects. This match is usually provided either by a direct cash contribution or by incurring a loan or issuing bonds to be repaid through user charges or property tax assessments. Other local match sources include loan or grant funds from other competitive state grant programs, funds expended for predevelopment planning, the recently appraised value of land or materials provided by the applicant, and the value of labor performed by the applicant’s employees. The 25% match requirement may be waived if the local government demonstrates financial hardship. The State of Montana provides state general fund match for the administration of the CDBG Program. The HOME Program requires 5% match funding for projects.82 Local match sources include local costs of infrastructure installation to serve HOME-assisted units, proceeds from bond financing, private grants, deferred or waived state or local taxes or fees, cash, and the value of donated land. Funds will also be leveraged with resources from CHDOs, which may be funded with HOME funds through the CHDO set- aside. Awards for CHDO activities will be given preference over non-CHDO activities and the HOME Program may not award any project activities until at least 15% of HOME Program funds have been allocated to meet the HUD CHDO set-aside requirement. Although the 24-month CHDO reserve commitment deadline has been waived, CDD anticipates continuing to meet that commitment. ESG funds are frequently matched by subrecipients who provide rental assistance, transitional housing and/or supportive services through the MTCoC. A significant amount of local ESG subrecipients contribute additional resources such as block grant funds, local public funds, and local philanthropic foundation resources to the homeless programs they operate. ESG grant funds are required to be matched 100% after the first $100,000 of the fiscal year grant. The state recipient must transfer the benefit of this exception to its subrecipients that are least capable of providing the recipient with matching contributions. See 24 CFR § 576.201 (matching requirement) for further details. No match is required for CDBG Affordable Housing Development and Rehabilitation or Housing Stabilization Program grants, but the applicants’ ability to leverage other private, local, state, or federal funds is considered when ranking a proposed project for CDBG housing grant funding. No match is required under the HTF Program, which provides a much-needed source of leveraging for other funding programs aimed at the preservation and expansion of rental housing stock in Montana. 82 In addition to the 5% match collected for projects, the State uses match in reserve to meet its 25% match obligation (24 CFR § 92.218). See 24 CFR § 92.220 for eligible forms of matching contributions. 431 State of Montana 159 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan If appropriate, describe publicly owned land or property located within the state that may be used to address the needs identified in the plan The State of Montana does not anticipate that any publicly owned land or property will be used to address the needs identified in this Consolidated Plan. Most state-owned land is either maintained as state recreational land or managed so as to obtain the highest financial return possible for the state’s K- 12 public school system and other beneficiaries, as mandated by Montana statute. Local entities leveraging CDBG, HOME, or HTF grant funds may use publicly owned land or property to help accomplish a local project on a case-by-case basis, and in most cases, such donations or offers will be considered local match resources. Discussion Program leveraging for specific program years is discussed in AP-15 Expected Resources. SP-40 Institutional Delivery Structure – 91.315(k) Explain the institutional structure through which the jurisdiction will carry out its consolidated plan including private industry, non-profit organizations, and public institutions. Commerce is the lead government entity responsible for Consolidated Plan activities funded through CDBG, CDBG CARES, HOME, and HTF. DPHHS is the lead government entity responsible for Consolidated Plan activities funded through ESG and ESG CARES. 432 State of Montana 160 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan Table 54 – Institutional Delivery Structure Responsible Entity Responsible Entity Type Role Geographic Area Served State of Montana State government Administration of CDBG, CDBG CARES, HOME, HTF, ESG, and ESG CARES programs and grant awards. Affordable Housing [x] Ownership [x] Rental [ ] Public Housing [x] Homelessness [x] Non-homeless special needs Community Development [x] public facilities [x] neighborhood improvements [x] public services [x] Economic Development [x] Planning Statewide Montana cities and towns Local government Administration of CDBG-, CDBG CARES-, HOME-, and HTF-funded projects serving residents of the jurisdiction. Affordable Housing [x] Ownership [x] Rental [ ] Public Housing [x] Homelessness [x] Non-homeless special needs Community Development [x] public facilities [x] neighborhood improvements [x] public services [x] Economic Development [x] Planning Within municipal boundaries Montana counties Local government Administration of CDBG-, CDBG CARES-, and HOME-funded projects serving residents of the jurisdiction. Affordable Housing [x] Ownership [x] Rental [ ] Public Housing [x] Homelessness [x] Non-homeless special needs Community Development [x] public facilities [x] neighborhood improvements [x] public services [x] Economic Development [x] Planning Within county boundaries or within municipal boundaries if joint administration of project serving residents of both the municipality and unincorporated areas of a county 433 State of Montana 161 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan Responsible Entity Responsible Entity Type Role Geographic Area Served Certified Regional Development Organizations Private, nonprofit corporation Administration of CDBG-funded projects. Affordable Housing [ ] Ownership [ ] Rental [ ] Public Housing [ ] Homelessness [ ] Non-homeless special needs Community Development [ ] public facilities [x] neighborhood improvements [ ] public services [x] Economic Development [x] Planning Within 1 of 11 regional areas across Montana Community Housing Development Organizations (CHDOs) Private, nonprofit corporation Administration of HOME and HTF grants. Affordable Housing [x] Ownership [x] Rental [ ] Public Housing [x] Homelessness [x] Non-homeless special needs Community Development [ ] public facilities [ ] neighborhood improvements [ ] public services [ ] Economic Development [ ] Planning Within area certified as part of grant application Tribal housing authorities Public housing authority Administration of HOME and HTF grants for non-tribal housing. Affordable Housing [x] Ownership [x] Rental [ ] Public Housing [x] Homelessness [x] Non-homeless special needs Community Development [ ] public facilities [ ] neighborhood improvements [ ] public services [ ] Economic Development [ ] Planning Within tribal nation boundaries 434 State of Montana 162 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan Responsible Entity Responsible Entity Type Role Geographic Area Served Human Resource Development Councils Nonprofit community action agency Administration of HOME, HTF, ESG, and ESG CARES grants. Affordable Housing [x] Ownership [x] Rental [ ] Public Housing [x] Homelessness [x] Non-homeless special needs Community Development [ ] public facilities [ ] neighborhood improvements [ ] public services [ ] Economic Development [ ] Planning Within 1 of 12 regional districts across Montana Assess of Strengths and Gaps in the Institutional Delivery System The mission of Commerce is to foster community-led diversification and sustainability of a growing economy; maintain and improve infrastructure, housing, and facilities; and promote Montana's positive national and international image. Through its employees, public and community partners, and media contacts, Commerce works to: • Improve the state’s economy through business creation, expansion, retention, and diversification of the economic base; • Provide technical assistance and training for Montana’s entrepreneurs, businesses, and their employees in partnership with local governments and local/regional development groups; • Enhance the growth of the economy through promotion and marketing of tourism development; • Promote access to new foreign and domestic markets for Montana goods and services; • Provide financing for homeownership and rental assistance; • Improve infrastructure and housing by providing grants and technical assistance; • Manage the investments of government funds; and • Provide fair and equal treatment of employees and customers. The mission of DPHHS is to improve and protect the health, well-being, and self-reliance of all Montanans. DPHHS works to: • Increase economic security and self-sufficiency of families; and • Provide essential services and linkages to community resources. Commerce and DPHHS have forged strong relationships with the Montana League of Cities and Towns, the Montana Association of Counties, the Montana Economic Developers Association, housing organizations, entitlement communities, private housing developers, and private sector businesses to promote economic, community, and affordable housing development statewide. These organizations and agencies have created partnerships with local government entities, social service agencies, benefit providers, faith-based organizations, philanthropic groups, and private industry leaders to deliver housing, job, and community services throughout the state. 435 State of Montana 163 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan Experienced Commerce and DPHHS staff are responsible for the award and administration of federal and state funds to eligible entities. While all staff take advantage of nationally recognized training, two Commerce staff are certified Housing Development Finance Professionals, four Commerce staff are actively working on certification to become Economic Development Finance Professionals, and one Commerce staff is certified with the American Institute of Certified Planners. Additionally, Commerce employs a land use attorney. Gaps in the institutional delivery system exist primarily due to funding limitations that are outside the control of the State. CDBG, HOME, HTF, and ESG resources are not adequate to meet the needs of Montanans of low to moderate income, with special needs, or experiencing homelessness. Areas of opportunity exist for increased collaboration to ensure that services are delivered. The State seeks to actively engage the public and private sectors in broad discussions regarding the economic, social, environmental, and health needs and opportunities in Montana. Availability of services targeted to homeless persons and persons with HIV and mainstream services Table 55 – Homeless Prevention Services Summary Homelessness Prevention Services Available in the Community Targeted to Homeless Targeted to People with HIV Homelessness Prevention Services Counseling/Advocacy X X X Legal Assistance X Mortgage Assistance X Rental Assistance X X X Utilities Assistance X X Street Outreach Services Law Enforcement X Mobile Clinics Other Street Outreach Services X Supportive Services Alcohol and Drug Abuse X X Child Care X X Education X X Employment and Employment Training X X Healthcare X X HIV/AIDS X X X Life Skills X X X Mental Health Counseling X X X Transportation X X Other Other 436 State of Montana 164 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan Describe the extent to which services targeted to homeless person and persons with HIV and mainstream services, such as health, mental health and employment services are made available to and used by homeless persons (particularly chronically homeless individuals and families, families with children, veterans and their families and unaccompanied youth) and persons with HIV within the jurisdiction Homeless persons living with HIV receive services and referrals through the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program, Open Aid Alliance, and District 7 HRDC which offers case management and housing assistance through HOPWA. Once housing and healthcare needs have been met, employment services are encouraged. Describe the strengths and gaps of the service delivery system for special needs population and persons experiencing homelessness, including, but not limited to, the services listed above Community partners working together to provide services—including the District 7 HRDC and Open Aid Alliance, both of which receive funding from a competitive HOPWA grant—are a strength of the service delivery system. There continue to be significant gaps in the service delivery system for people living with HIV, such as: • The lack of temporary shelter appropriate for people with compromised immunity. The majority of our clients who are at-risk of homelessness end up in emergency hospital care with serious medical issues. The limited funding for limited hotel stays is not enough time to secure housing. • The lack of stable housing availability for people in difficult financial circumstances. Provide a summary of the strategy for overcoming gaps in the institutional structure and service delivery system for carrying out a strategy to address priority needs Affordable Housing Preservation and Construction: The State will continue to work to preserve existing and construct new affordable housing by increasing collaboration between and within Commerce and DPHHS; and between the State and its local government, federal government, nonprofit, and private sector partners. CDD manages the HOME and HTF programs to rehabilitate existing and construct new affordable housing. CDD meets regularly with Montana Housing staff to share information regarding projects the divisions have in common. To the extent possible, the divisions align requirements and share monitoring activities. Commerce and DPHHS coordinate with service providers to reduce barriers for financing permanent affordable housing for those experiencing homelessness. CDD remains active in the annual Housing Partnership Conference to maintain and grow relationships with the nonprofit and private sector to monitor trends in housing needs and help identify and solve barriers to affordable housing. Commerce will continue to provide fair housing information, housing education, and homebuyer counseling in partnership with the HRDCs and CHDOs across the state. Community Planning: The State has accomplished major strides in increasing funding and technical assistance for communities to engage in comprehensive, strategic, and preliminary design planning for community, housing, economic development, flood prevention, and infrastructure projects. CTAP, within CDD, continues to provide technical assistance in the areas of land use planning and community development to communities across the state. As part of those services, assistance is provided for comprehensive, strategic, and preliminary infrastructure design planning. Targeted assistance will be provided to communities affected by the decline in the coal industry and to communities with substantial population changes resulting from COVID-19 and the rise in teleworking. CTAP has assisted numerous local counties, cities, and towns with adoption of comprehensive growth policies, zoning for 437 State of Montana 165 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan temporary workforce housing, annexation policies, preliminary engineering reports for increasing capacity in water and wastewater systems, and updated subdivision regulations. Efforts to assist communities in prioritizing and funding critical community service facilities, housing, public infrastructure, and economic development projects are ongoing. CTAP continues to provide training and education statewide to local governments, nonprofits, and the private sector on topics related to community planning. Improving and Sustaining Vital Public Infrastructure: The State is keenly aware of the need for improving and sustaining vital public infrastructure, and the importance of safe, efficient infrastructure. During the 2019 Legislative Session, House Bill 5 and House Bill 652 were put forward to fund and authorize capital and infrastructure projects throughout the state. Infrastructure needs persist statewide, and the State continues to use existing state and federal funding to address critical needs. Economic Revitalization: The State continues to work to revitalize Montana’s economy and local business districts by increasing collaboration within Commerce; and between the State and its local government, federal government, nonprofit, and private sector partners. CDD manages the CDBG-ED program, offering a “one-stop” approach to grant opportunities for economic development, historic preservation, and downtown revitalization. CDD meets regularly with the Montana Office of Tourism and Business Development within Commerce, the Montana Economic Developers Association, and the Certified Regional Development Corporations to coordinate potential job creation, workforce training, and revolving loan fund projects with eligible CDBG-ED grants, and to monitor economic data collectively in order to address needs as they arise. In addition, Commerce is actively involved in the annual Montana Downtown Conference, MEDA Conference, and other state and regional meetings to maintain and grow relationships with the nonprofit and private sectors to monitor trends in economic development and help collectively identify and solve barriers to economic revitalization in communities across Montana. Reducing Homelessness: The State continues to work toward creating community and statewide partnerships, with emphasis on providing “one-stop” referral services. The State and the MTCoC, working with homelessness staff, have adopted a strategic plan for dealing with homelessness, with the intent of reducing or eliminating the length of time any person must experience homelessness. Family Strategies: • Reallocate MTCoC funded transitional housing beds to Rapid Re-housing or Permanent Supportive Housing • Prioritize ESG for Rapid Re-housing of families • Dedicate or prioritize use of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) funds for Rapid Re- housing of TANF-eligible families • Increase availability of PSH beds by shortening lengths of stay Individual Strategies: • Reallocate MTCoC-funded transitional housing beds (current inventory of 255) to Rapid Re- housing or Permanent Supportive Housing • Dedicate PSH turnover beds for chronic homeless (200 non-CH beds available) • Increase availability of PSH beds by shortening lengths of stay • Increase availability of PSH beds by prioritizing HCV for PSH Graduates • Prioritize ESG for Rapid Re-housing of individuals 438 State of Montana 166 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan SP-45 Goals Summary – 91.315(a)(4) Goals Summary Information Table 56 presents Montana’s goals for all 5 years of the Consolidated Plan period (2020-2024). See Table 58 in AP-20 for Montana’s goals for Plan Year 1 of the 5-year Consolidated Plan period. Table 56 – Goals Summary # Goal Name Start Year End Year Category Geographic Area Needs Addressed Funding Goal Outcome Indicator 1 Preserve and Construct Affordable Housing 2020 2024 Affordable Housing Statewide Affordable Housing Preservation and Construction CDBG: $4,000,000 HOME: $11,500,000 HTF: $10,000,000 Rental Units Constructed: 60 Household Housing Units Rental Units Rehabilitated: 130 Household Housing Units Homeowner Housing Added: 10 Household Housing Units Homeowner Housing Rehabilitated: 15 Household Housing Units Direct Financial Assistance to Homebuyers: 250 Households Assisted Funding and outcome goals are 5-year estimates. The State of Montana will use CDBG, HOME, and HTF funds to support affordable housing activities that benefit low to moderate income persons. 2 Plan for Communities 2020 2024 Non-Housing Community Development Statewide Community Planning CDBG: $2,500,000 Other: 75 Local Governments Assisted Funding and outcome goals are 5-year estimates. The State of Montana will use CDBG funds to help communities engage in various types of planning, including comprehensive community development, housing, public infrastructure, business, downtown revitalization, flood prevention, and preliminary project design. A wide variety of activities will be funded that primarily benefit low to moderate income persons throughout the state. 3 Improve and Sustain Public Infrastructure 2020 2024 Non-Housing Community Development Statewide Improving and Sustaining Vital Public Infrastructure CDBG: $13,000,000 Public Facility or Infrastructure Activities other than Low/Moderate Income Housing Benefit: 5,000 Persons Assisted Public Facility or Infrastructure Activities for Low/Moderate Income Housing Benefit: 100 Households Assisted Funding and outcome goals are 5-year estimates. The State of Montana will use CDBG funds to improve existing and construct new public water, wastewater, and storm drain infrastructure that primarily benefits low to moderate income persons throughout the state. 4 Revitalize Local Economies 2020 2024 Non-Housing Community Development Statewide Economic Revitalization CDBG: $10,000,000 Jobs Created/Retained: 250 Jobs Businesses Assisted: 20 Businesses Assisted Façade Treatment/Business Building Rehabilitation: 5 Businesses Funding and outcome goals are 5-year estimates. The State of Montana will use CDBG funds to create jobs, expand businesses, and revitalize historic downtown business districts. A wide variety of activities will be funded that primarily benefit low to moderate income persons through the state. 439 State of Montana 167 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan # Goal Name Start Year End Year Category Geographic Area Needs Addressed Funding Goal Outcome Indicator 5 Reduce Homelessness 2020 2024 Homeless Statewide Reducing Homelessness CDBG: $2,500,000 HOME: $2,500,000 HTF: $3,500,000 ESG: $3,500,000 Tenant-Based Rental Assistance/Rapid Rehousing: 1,000 Households Assisted Homeless Person Overnight Shelter: 400 Persons Assisted Homeless Prevention: 2,400 Persons Assisted Housing for Homeless Added: 100 Household Housing Units Funding and outcome goals are 5-year estimates. The State of Montana will use CDBG, HOME, HTF, and ESG funds to provide shelter and services for homeless persons and persons at risk of homelessness. Activities may include construction, rehabilitation, and direct assistance to serve this clientele throughout the state. Goal Descriptions Estimate the number of extremely low-income, low-income, and moderate-income families to whom the jurisdiction will provide affordable housing as defined by HOME 91.315(b)(2) CDBG, HOME, and HTF resources will be used to provide affordable housing to LMI households throughout the 5-year period. Based on the estimates above, each year approximately 150 LMI households will be provided housing through new construction and rehabilitation activities, 30 LMI households will receive direct financial assistance for home purchase, and 20 LMI households experiencing homelessness will be housed through housing for homeless added. Through the ESG Program, approximately 350 LMI persons will be assisted every year under rapid re- housing. In addition, under CDBG and ESG, approximately 80 LMI persons will utilize overnight shelter annually. SP-50 Public Housing Accessibility and Involvement – 91.315(c) Need to Increase the Number of Accessible Units (if Required by a Section 504 Voluntary Compliance Agreement) Not applicable. Activities to Increase Resident Involvements Not applicable. Is the public housing agency designated as troubled under 24 CFR part 902? Not applicable. Plan to remove the ‘troubled’ designation Not applicable. 440 State of Montana 168 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan SP-55 Barriers to affordable housing – 91.315(h) Barriers to Affordable Housing Local jurisdictions and the State Legislature determine land use controls, tax policies, zoning ordinances, building codes, fees and charges, growth limitations, and other policies and laws affecting affordable housing. Commerce and DPHHS encourage local jurisdictions and the State Legislature to consider possible impacts to affordable housing when updating policy and enacting laws. Furthermore, both agencies are committed to providing technical assistance to local governments and nonprofit organizations so they are in the best position to take maximum advantage of HUD and State Board of Housing programs to maintain a supply of, and facilitate the creation of new, affordable housing. Several barriers to affordable housing development, housing choice, and maintained residency in housing were identified in the Needs Assessment, Market Analysis, 2018 Fair Housing Survey (Appendix B), and 2020 Housing and Community Development Survey (Appendix B). Participants in Commerce’s housing focus groups (Appendix C) outlined several barriers to affordable housing development, including: • Capacity challenges at all levels (from the State to grantees and partners), especially in the midst of COVID-19); • Cumbersome grant processes and unpredictable grant timelines (e.g., grant application process and funding cycle); • Insufficient program funding, which is exacerbated by the high and rising costs of building and infrastructure; and • Design constraints. The 2018 Fair Housing Survey had 691 respondents. Takeaways from the survey are as follows. • Affordability and unit size were the most important factors in housing choice for both renters and owners. • 36% of respondents indicated they had witnessed housing discrimination. Level of income was the primary grounds for perceived discrimination, followed by race and criminal background. Source of income, familial status, and disability were also listed as principal grounds of perceived discrimination. • 66% and 10% of respondents who witnessed discriminatory behavior said that perceived discrimination resulted from actions taken by rental owners/managers and PHA employees, respectively. • More than 24% of respondents indicated they wouldn’t know what to do if they experienced or witnessed discrimination, and a staggering 85% of respondents said they were not familiar with or were only somewhat familiar with fair housing laws. The 2020 Housing and Community Development Survey had 303 respondents; approximately 200 of these indicated that their community or organization faced barriers to decent, affordable housing. Barriers cited are as follows. • Insufficient decent, affordable, and accessible housing stock—especially for persons with disabilities, seniors, the workforce, and individuals transitioning out of institutional and correctional facilities. • Housing markets that price out extremely low, low-, and moderate-income families and service workers, especially housing markets in resort communities where short-term rentals are common and luxury homes are prevalent. 441 State of Montana 169 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan • Land availability and cost; development costs. • Restrictive building codes and zoning regulations. • Funding and financing for decent, affordable housing. • Lack of supportive services and case management for special needs populations. • Lack of public transportation for workers. • Underutilized tenant-based rental subsidies (vouchers) resulting from limited housing options and uncooperative landlords. • Inadequate, coordinated planning efforts. • Developers not incentivized to develop in rural areas. Strategy to Remove or Ameliorate the Barriers to Affordable Housing Although removing or ameliorating barriers to affordable housing falls primarily to local jurisdictions and the State Legislature, Commerce requires its CDBG, HOME, or HTF grantees to develop an Affirmatively Fair Housing Marketing Plan (AFHMP). An approved AFHMP is one element of the special conditions of Commerce’s contracts with grantees and staff monitor for compliance during CDBG, HOME, and HTF project visits. A comprehensive discussion of barriers to affordable housing, and additional information on specific strategies identified to remove or ameliorate such barriers, can be found in Section AP-75 Barriers to Affordable Housing of this Consolidated Plan. Annually, AAPs will propose actions to be taken while CAPERs will report actual, completed actions for specific program years. Additional considerations related to the amelioration of barriers are listed as follows: Cost of land: According to DOR83, the statewide market value of residential property has increased each biennium since 2015. From 2015 to 2019, the residential improvements market value increased 32% while the residential land market value increased 24%. Continued increases are anticipated in part due to high demand in the market for both primary and secondary homes, especially from out-of-state buyers with high purchasing power. Cost of materials: Raw material prices have been increasing over the past several years. Early increases can be attributed to a strong economic climate and trade disputes. More recently, increases are attributable to uncertainty and instability in the market resulting from COVID-19. Lumber accounts for upwards of 5% of construction costs. Lumber production in Montana declined sharply from 2004 to 2010 (985 million board feet to 503 million board feet) and has been relatively stagnant through 2018 (480 million board feet in 2017). Lumber prices have been somewhat volatile in the past decade, with the most rapid increases experienced in 2017 and 2018.84 Cost of labor: According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics85, following the great recession (2007 to 2009) and the preceding housing bubble, employment for most construction occupations declined, seeing more losses than many other occupations. Since 2012, many of the hardest-hit construction occupations have begun recovering. As a result, most construction occupations have growth rates that 83 https://mtrevenue.gov/publications/biennial-reports/ 84 http://bber.umt.edu/events/2019Pres.asp 85 https://www.bls.gov/iag/tgs/iag236.htm; https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2013/article/occupational- employment-projections-to-2022.htm 442 State of Montana 170 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan exceed the 10.8% average for all occupations. In fact, 2 of the 10 fastest growing occupations (insulation workers, mechanical; helpers—brickmasons, blockmasons, stonemasons, and tile and marble setters) are expected to be in construction. The construction industry employed roughly 6,092,200 workers nationally in 2012. Construction industry jobs are projected to increase to over 7,300,000 by 2022 (an increase of more than 21%). Cost of Building Codes and City Planning Rules and Regulations: Land use regulations are a necessary part of ensuring the health and safety of individuals and communities. Zoning and subdivision regulations are meant to efficiently guide development in communities while building codes are designed to ensure that home construction is safe. The most important aspect of the relationship between land use regulation and housing affordability is the type and form of regulation. Traditional “exclusionary” zoning can limit the supply and accessibility of affordable housing, thereby raising home prices by excluding lower income households. Exclusionary zoning is typically considered zoning that has the effect of keeping certain population groups, or in some cases, additional population of any kind, out of a community or neighborhood. Techniques such as large- lot zoning, high floor area or minimum residential floor area requirements, which increase housing costs, have been challenged for their potential exclusionary effects. Well-crafted land use policies can break the chain of exclusion by incorporating policies that increase housing densities, encourage a mix of housing types, and promote regional fair share housing or other inclusionary housing elements. Montana has traditionally employed minimal land use regulations at the local level; outside of the incorporated communities, most regulations serve the purpose of limiting the subdivision of property to create new lots. Some communities have tried to address neighborhood concerns about higher density developments by establishing design standards and more resident-participatory review processes. As local Montana communities recognize the need for more affordable housing, each community has to balance the public interest in limiting increased housing costs while protecting the public health, safety, welfare and quality of life through land use regulations. Impact Fees: The adoption of impact fees is an alternative available to local governments for generating the revenue necessary to accommodate new development. Impact fees were specifically authorized by the Montana Legislature in 2005 to help local governments pay for improvements, land, and equipment necessary to increase or improve the service capacity of public facilities and services (including water, wastewater, transportation, storm water, flood control, police, emergency medical rescue, fire protection, or other public facilities). Several communities in Montana have adopted impact fees for funding one or more facilities or services, including Bozeman, Polson, Hamilton, Belgrade, Bainville, Kalispell, Missoula, Whitefish, Circle, Miles City and Sidney. Financing Barriers: Affordable financing was identified as a crucial need during one of the three housing focus groups Commerce conducted in November 2020. According to one source86, following the great recession (2007 to 2009), it has become more difficult for low-income households to buy homes, in part because of shifting notions of “creditworthiness.” The median credit score for purchasing a home is now more than 40 points higher than it was prior to the recession. The 10th percentile, which is deemed the “lower bound of creditworthiness to qualify for a mortgage” is currently 657; before the recession, it 86 https://www.vox.com/22264268/covid-19-housing-insecurity-housing-prices-mortgage-rates-pandemic-zoning- supply-demand 443 State of Montana 171 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan was under 600.87 In addition, scores are often determined based on existing debt, but not on-time rent and utility payments. Furthermore, households without traditional employment, such as “gig” workers, have difficulty getting a proper assessment of income and thus have challenges securing available financing. These barriers to affordable housing disproportionately affect low- to moderate-income families. So, despite the fact that interest rates are historically low, good financing continues to be elusive for many families. In an effort to ameliorate financing barriers, MH administers loan and mortgage programs that offer alternatives to conventional loan products. SP-60 Homelessness Strategy – 91.315(d) Reaching out to homeless persons (especially unsheltered persons) and assessing their individual needs Montana divides itself into 12 districts to participate annually in the national PIT counts of homeless, unduplicated one-night estimates of both sheltered and unsheltered homeless populations, occurring during the last week in January of each year. One finding from that survey is that a significant segment of the homeless population is women, children, and families that have experienced life-altering situations, such as job loss, disaster, divorce, or abuse that have driven them into homelessness. Montana uses the continuum of care model that originated with HUD, with the goal of supporting the transition of homeless individuals into stabilized self-sufficiency in affordable housing. It is important to note that the MTCoC feels that multiplying a single night’s data into an annual estimate does not necessarily result in an accurate representation. Addressing the emergency and transitional housing needs of homeless persons Montana encourages efforts to provide shelter and other basic needs to people who are currently homeless and supports these efforts with CDBG Public Facilities and ESG funds. In addition, because preventing homelessness is much less costly than addressing the problem after housing has been lost, Montana also supports efforts that will: • help people in crisis who are at risk of losing existing housing (homeless prevention); and • place homeless people into permanent and affordable housing accompanied by intensive services that will aid them in establishing long-term stability (rapid re-housing). Helping homeless persons (especially chronically homeless individuals and families, families with children, veterans and their families, and unaccompanied youth) make the transition to permanent housing and independent living, including shortening the period of time that individuals and families experience homelessness, facilitating access for homeless individuals and families to affordable housing units, and preventing individuals and families who were recently homeless from becoming homeless again. Table SP-1 shows the length of time since those surveyed during the 2019 PIT count had a home. In other words, it indicates how long respondents had experienced homelessness at the time of the survey. Of note, the majority of respondents (242 or 24%) indicated that it had been 2 years or more since they had a home. Unfortunately, research indicates that the longer homelessness is experienced, the more difficult and costly stabilization and re-housing is. 87 https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/103273/housing-finance-at-a-glance-a-monthly- chartbook-november-2020_0.pdf 444 State of Montana 172 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan Table SP-1 – Length of Homelessness Length of time since had home Child and Adult Household Child Only Household Adult Only Household Chronically Homeless Veteran Un- Accompanied Youth HIV Less than 1 mo 23 12% 1 1% 163 87% 14 7% 29 16% 22 12% 2 1% 1 mo 31 19% 133 81% 3 2% 27 16% 13 8% 1 1% 3 mo 25 20% 2 2% 99 79% 5 4% 28 22% 13 10% 6 mo 28 20% 2 1% 109 78% 8 6% 32 23% 7 5% 1 yr 18 14% 1 1% 114 86% 41 31% 30 23% 7 5% 2 yrs or more 10 4% 1 0% 231 95% 115 48% 55 23% 12 5% 1 0% Missing/NA 1 14% 6 86% 1 14% 3 43% 2 29% Not homeless 1 9% 10 91% 1 9% Total 136 13% 8 1% 865 86% 187 19% 205 20% 76 8% 4 0% Data Source: 2019 Montana Homeless Survey (primary respondents only) Help low-income individuals and families avoid becoming homeless, especially extremely low- income individuals and families who are likely to become homeless after being discharged from a publicly funded institution or system of care, or who are receiving assistance from public and private agencies that address housing, health, social services, employment, education or youth needs DPHHS works with the MTCoC to leverage resources and provide increased and coordinated services to homeless households across the state. DPHHS aligns its strategy for reducing and ending homelessness with the MTCoC districts. DPHHS and subgrantees of ESG funding participate in MTCoC strategic planning discussions and attend working meetings. The MTCoC prioritizes and ranks homeless projects each year and prepares a consolidated, statewide continuum of care application in response to the Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA). Projects originate from local community continuums of care or a state agency. Project approvals are based on performance and capacity criteria as well as local needs and HUD priorities. The ESG Program coordinates its strategy with the MTCoC to meet the needs of the homeless and those at risk of homelessness at the local level. Funded activities include rental assistance, financial assistance of rental application fees, security and utility deposits and payments, case management, housing search and support for toll free telephone referral hotlines for domestic abuse; referral to mainstream resources; assistance to shelters for victims of domestic and sexual violence, youth homes, and food banks. All HRDCs submit work plans, budgets, and reports outlining which of the allowable activities will be undertaken. SP-65 Lead based paint Hazards – 91.315(i) Actions to address LBP hazards and increase access to housing without LBP hazards The State of Montana complies with the HUD LBP requirements established in 2000. As shown in the Market Analysis, about 53% of all owner-occupied units and 61% of all renter-occupied units in Montana are at risk of containing LBP. Projects involving structures built prior to 1980 are considered to have the potential for LBP and consistent procedures have been developed to ensure compliance with federal regulations. Of the housing at risk of containing LBP, approximately 6% and 10% of owner- and renter-occupied units, respectively, have children present. In 2012, the Center for Disease Control recommended that physicians and parents take action steps for children with elevated lead levels greater than or equal to 5 445 State of Montana 173 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan ug/dL. The DPHHS Healthy Homes and Lead Poisoning Prevention Program conducted a 2012 field study in 11 counties in Montana, using Medicaid enrollment to identify and test children from 1 to 5 years old. Of the nearly 600 Montana children tested 3% had levels greater than or equal to 5 ug/uL; 25% of all children tested had levels higher than 1 ug/uL. The State of Montana supports rehabilitation and construction activities to ensure that households, particularly those with children, benefiting from federal housing programs are safe from LBP hazards. Both Commerce and DPHHS provide education and information on LBP hazards to parents, families, healthcare providers, grant recipients, and contractors. Commerce requires that any contractor or subcontractor engaged in renovation, repair, or painting activities is certified and uses lead-safe work practices, as required by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. If rehabilitation or homebuyer assistance is funded by CDBG, HOME, or HTF, and the unit funded was built prior to 1980, LBP risks must be assessed. If a unit has LBP that is chipping, peeling, or deteriorating, it must be remediated or removed during rehabilitation or prior to securing funds for homebuyer assistance. For many projects, CDBG, HOME, and HTF funds can be used to assist with the cost of LBP testing and remediation. In addition, UPCS/HQS inspections are performed annually at HOME, HTF, Section 8, and other public rental properties throughout the state. UPCS/HQS inspections are also conducted on all homes purchased with HOME assistance prior to the commitment of HOME funds. State staff conducting UPCS inspections complete UPCS training as well as HUD’s online Lead-Based Paint Visual Assessment Training. How are the actions listed above integrated into housing policies and procedures? In the adopted CDBG Housing and HOME/HTF grant application guidelines, applicants are required to document that proposed rehabilitation activities have been assessed for LBP or lead water service lines; that the applicant has the resources to ensure that certified LBP inspectors and contractors are available to accomplish the proposed activities; and that the cost and design of the proposed activity takes LBP removal and remediation into account. Applicants for CDBG and HOME/HTF funding are required to certify that they accept all program requirements, including compliance with all state and federal LBP requirements and regulations. Additionally, HTF projects require a qualified professional to certify that the assisted project only uses lead-free pipes, solder, and flux. Commerce requires that Preliminary Architectural Reports (PARs) funded with state or federal funding, or submitted in support of a grant application for any state or federal funding, meet Commerce’s PAR standards, which have been adopted as part of the requirements for CDBG, HOME, and HTF grant applications. These standards, among other things, require every PAR to describe all concerns, deficiencies, compliance issues, and relevant regulations related to LBP, evaluate the existence of LBP in any existing facilities, and describe all mitigation measures that will be implemented to remediate any LBP. Commerce’s Tenant-Based Housing Choice Voucher Program Administrative Plan requires all HCV rental units to meet HQS, including LBP assessment, disclosure, testing, remediation, and on-going unit maintenance as applicable. 446 State of Montana 174 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan SP-70 Anti-Poverty Strategy – 91.315(j) Jurisdiction Goals, Programs and Policies for reducing the number of Poverty-Level Families The State of Montana, in coordination with nonprofit organizations and the private sector, can ensure individuals and families have pathways out of poverty by supporting local and regional efforts to increase household incomes and provide affordable housing options. All of the strategies and priorities identified in this Consolidated Plan target the improvement of economic conditions of Montanans of low to moderate income, from the rehabilitation and new construction of affordable units, homebuyer assistance, and temporary shelter services to investment in compact, walkable development where efficiencies of public infrastructure, community services, and employment centers encourage healthy, vital, and resilient communities. Appendix F discusses poverty in Montana over the last two decades and includes the state’s poverty rate as well as its geographic distribution. How are the Jurisdiction poverty reducing goals, programs, and policies coordinated with this affordable housing plan The priority needs, program goals, policies, procedures, and guidelines for the CDBG, HOME, HTF, and ESG programs, as well as other state programs that fund affordable housing, job creation, and community services, are all in alignment in addressing the impacts of poverty and increasing the quality of life and economic prosperity of Montanans of lower incomes. Montana is committed to utilizing employment as the primary strategy for poverty reduction. The state has a well-coordinated employment and training system, which ensures that resources for advancement through employment, such as the Workforce Investment Act, TANF, and other state resources such as higher education, are available to low-income families. The Work Readiness Component provides employment and training services to individuals receiving cash assistance. Administrators of these programs meet regularly to ensure coordination and results. The State provides a series of work support programs to stabilize families as they increase their skills and seek better employment. These supports include TANF, energy assistance, health care, childcare, housing assistance and advocacy. SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, formerly the Food Stamp Program) provides benefits to eligible families to supplement their food budget and increase their ability to purchase healthy foods. SNAP Nutrition Education, operated jointly with Montana State University, teaches participants to use their food stamp benefits wisely. The Healthy Montana Kids program provides health coverage to children of households of lower incomes, and Medicaid coverage has been expanded and is provided under the Affordable Care Act. Montana’s minimum wage has increased steadily over the past several years. It is currently $8.75, which is higher than the federally mandated minimum wage of $7.25. 447 State of Montana 175 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan SP-80 Monitoring – 91.330 Describe the standards and procedures that the state will use to monitor activities carried out in furtherance of the plan and will use to ensure long-term compliance with requirements of the programs involved, including minority business outreach and the comprehensive planning requirements The goals of the Consolidated Plan will be monitored annually as required by the CAPER, which is submitted to HUD at the conclusion of each program year. Monitoring consists of: • HOME- and HTF-funded projects (as applicable) are monitored annually to determine compliance with housing codes and applicable HUD regulations and Commerce policies. Project monitoring is based on a guide found in the HOME Grant Administration Manual. Key issues include assessment of affirmative marketing actions, outreach to minority and women owned businesses, data on the amount and use of program income, number of projects, and eligibility of tenants and homebuyers, rent levels, purchase prices, and compliance with subsidy limits. Following the monitoring visit, staff provides a written letter to the grantee indicating any issues or findings identified. The grantee must respond to any issues or findings. • Homebuyer and rental grantees provide annual certifications to the HOME Program. Certifications require homebuyer grantees to verify either that homes are continuing to be used as the principal residences of participants, or if transfer of the property has occurred, that program income has been recaptured and accounted for. All rental projects must certify that inspections for HQS are complete and that affordability requirements regarding income and rent limits have been met. In addition, each property’s financials are reviewed. • HOME-funded rental projects receive onsite visits every 1 to 3 years, depending on the results of a risk analysis performed by staff after each onsite visit. These onsite visits allow staff to verify that tenant income certifications, rental agreements, rent limits, and inspection results meet HUD and Commerce requirements. Staff also review the facility’s condition to ensure it remains safe, decent, and sanitary. • CDBG-funded projects receive periodic onsite monitoring visits during the plan year. Program staff monitor the critical elements of each project at least once. Staff completes an extensive checklist, reviewing each project element for compliance with all applicable federal, and state program requirements. Following the monitoring visit, staff issue a formal letter to the chief elected official of the local government reporting on the monitoring visit, noting any findings as may be applicable, and asking the local government to respond promptly. • CDBG staff monitor all projects through regular contacts with the local project manager and written quarterly and drawdown progress reports. These reports provide information and updates concerning project activities and progress on objectives from start-up through closeout of the project. • DPHHS provides onsite monitoring of the ESG Program via regularly scheduled monitoring visits by program staff, using a monitoring tool. Staff review the matching requirements, budget, and performance (both financial and operational) against contracted activities in the approved ESG work plans, and reviews fiscal accountability and timeliness of report submission. This monitoring is part of a comprehensive annual review of all programs funded by the Intergovernmental Human Services Bureau. 448 State of Montana 176 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan Annual Action Plan Expected Resources AP-15 Expected Resources – 91.320(c)(1,2) Introduction This section describes the HUD resources expected to be allocated by program throughout the state of Montana during Plan Year 1 (April 1, 2020 to March 31, 2021) and through the remainder of the Consolidated Plan period, which ends March 31, 2025. The total amount expected for the remaining 4 years of the Consolidated Plan considers a 5% decrease in funding per year. CDBG general planning and administration allocations are capped at 20% of the annual CDBG allocation in addition to eligible program income received during the program year. For Year 1, Montana will cap its general planning and administration allocations at 20% of its allocation, which results in a cap of $1,336,459, and will not use any portion of program income for general planning and administration costs. The use of administrative funds for the state will not exceed 3% plus $100,000, which is included in the $1,336,459 cap. The balance of general planning and administrative funds will go to units of general local government for general planning and administrative costs to support the completion of project activities. General planning activities are eligible planning activities under Section 105(a)(12) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974. Any administrative funds not awarded to grantees for general planning or administrative costs will be redirected to project costs for completing activities. CDBG planning funds that are used for standalone planning-only activities will meet either the Low and Moderate Income or Slums and Blight National Objectives. HOME administration allocations are capped at 10% of the annual HOME allocation in addition to eligible program income received during the program year. The amount of federal HOME administrative funds will not exceed $313,547 for Year 1. Revenue received during a project’s period of affordability is considered recaptured and will not be used for administration. HTF administration allocations are capped at 10% of the annual HTF allocation. The amount of federal HTF administrative funds will not exceed $300,000 for Year 1. The use of administrative funds will not exceed 10% for state HTF staff and grantee administrative costs to support the completion of project activities. Expected revenues for CDBG include repayments for funding loaned to businesses that create job opportunities for Montanans of low to moderate income, as well as income attributable to the Neighborhood Stabilization Program. Expected revenues for HOME include recaptured funds and program income generated by the HOME Homebuyer Assistance Program. The amount of program income received in any given plan year varies depending on the housing market, interest rates and the general economy. To achieve the most effective and efficient use of CDBG funds, the Director of Commerce may reallocate up to 15% or $1,002,345 of the total CDBG allocation among grant categories, depending on the needs in the state during the plan year. A reallocation of more than 15% of the total allocation, or the creation or elimination of a grant category, is considered a substantial amendment to this AAP and would require further steps as identified within the Citizen Participation Plan (Appendix A). Reallocations may also be made to any remaining balances within a grant category within the last 3 months of a 15-month obligation deadline to meet the HUD Timely Distribution requirement. 449 State of Montana 177 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan To achieve the most effective and efficient use of HOME funds, the Director of Commerce may reallocate up to 15% or $470,322 of the total HOME allocation among HOME Housing Development Program and HOME Homebuyer Assistance Program grant categories, depending on the needs in the state during the plan year. A reallocation of more than 15% of the total allocation, or the creation or elimination of a grant category is considered a substantial amendment to this AAP and would require further steps as identified within the Citizen Participation Plan (Appendix A). Reallocations may also be made of any remaining balances within a grant category within the last 3 months of a 24-month obligation deadline to meet the HUD obligation requirements. Reallocations or awards may not be made until at least 15% or $470,322, of the CHDO set-aside requirement has been obligated. The HTF allocation may also be moved between projects that serve those experiencing homelessness and other projects. Reallocations of up to 15% or $450,000 may be authorized by the Director of Commerce. Table 57 describes the HUD resources to be used across the state to achieve the objectives of each program. Table 57 – Expected Resources – Priority Table Program Source of Funds Expected Amount Available Year 1 Expected Amount Available Remainder of ConPlan Narrative Description Annual Allocation Program Income Prior Year Resources Total CDBG Public/ Federal $6,682,297 $0 $178,764 $6,861,061 $23,550,962 State allocation; CDBG funds matched in some grant categories by units of general local government; State funds used to meet CDBG match requirements Uses of Funds: Acquisition, Administration and Planning, Economic Development, Housing, Public Improvements, Public Services, and Homeowner Rehabilitation. National Objectives include Low and Moderate Income and Slums and Blight. Preference given to activities that address impacts of COVID- 19. HOME Public/ Federal $3,135,479 $562,120.25 $0 $3,697,599.25 $11,050,623 State allocation; HOME funds matched by subrecipients Uses of Funds: Acquisition, Administration, Homebuyer Assistance, Multifamily New Construction, Multifamily Rehabilitation, and New Construction for Ownership. Preference given to activities that address impacts of COVID-19. HOPWA Public/ Federal $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Montana only receives HOPWA competitive funds Uses of Funds: N/A 450 State of Montana 178 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan Program Source of Funds Expected Amount Available Year 1 Expected Amount Available Remainder of ConPlan Narrative Description Annual Allocation Program Income Prior Year Resources Total ESG Public/ Federal $732,063 $0 $0 $732,063 $2,580,069 State allocation; ESG funds matched by subrecipients Uses of Funds: Financial Assistance, Homelessness Prevention, Overnight Shelter, Rapid Re-housing (Rental Assistance), Rental Assistance Services, and Street Outreach. HTF Public/ Federal $3,000,000 $0 $0 $3,000,000 $10,573,144 State allocation Uses of Funds: Acquisition, Administration, Multifamily New Construction, and Multifamily Rehabilitation. Preference given to activities that address impacts of COVID-19. Explain how federal funds will leverage those additional resources (private, state and local funds), including a description of how matching requirements will be satisfied The State of Montana will accomplish the goals of the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan during Plan Year 1 by effectively maximizing and utilizing all available funding resources to conduct housing and community development activities that will serve economically disadvantaged residents primarily residing in the non-entitlement areas of the state as well as those experiencing impacts as a result of COVID-19 repercussions. The CDBG Program requires 50% match for Economic Development (ED) projects. This match can come from a variety of sources, including cash investment, bank loans, state or federal loan programs, or grants. Most CDBG-ED grants are at least partially matched with funds from the state Big Sky Economic Development Trust Fund, the federal Economic Development Agency, private bank loans, or owner equity. The CDBG Program requires 25% match for Public Facilities projects. This match is usually provided either by a direct cash contribution or by incurring a loan or issuing bonds to be repaid through user charges or property tax assessments. Other local match sources include loan or grant funds from other competitive state grant programs, funds expended for predevelopment planning, the recently appraised value of land or materials provided by the applicant, and the value of labor performed by the applicant’s employees. The 25% match requirement may be waived if the local government demonstrates financial hardship. The State of Montana provides state general fund match for the administration of the CDBG Program. The HOME Program requires 5% match funding for projects.88 Local match sources include local costs of infrastructure installation to serve HOME-assisted units, proceeds from bond financing, private grants, deferred or waived state or local taxes or fees, cash, and the value of donated land. Funds will also be leveraged with resources from CHDOs, which may be funded with HOME funds through the CHDO set- aside. Awards for CHDO activities will be given preference over non-CHDO activities and the HOME Program may not award any project activities until at least 15% of HOME Program funds have been allocated to meet the HUD CHDO set-aside requirement. Although the 24-month CHDO reserve commitment deadline has been waived, CDD anticipates continuing to meet that commitment. 88 In addition to the 5% match collected for projects, the State uses match in reserve to meet its 25% match obligation (24 CFR § 92.218). See 24 CFR § 92.220 for eligible forms of matching contributions. 451 State of Montana 179 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan ESG funds are frequently matched by subrecipients who provide rental assistance, transitional housing and/or supportive services through the MTCoC. A significant amount of local ESG subrecipients contribute additional resources such as block grant funds, local public funds, and local philanthropic foundation resources to the homeless programs they operate. ESG grant funds are required to be matched 100% after the first $100,000 of the fiscal year grant. The state recipient must transfer the benefit of this exception to its subrecipients that are least capable of providing the recipient with matching contributions. See 24 CFR § 576.201 (matching requirement) for further details. No match is required for CDBG Affordable Housing Development and Rehabilitation or Housing Stabilization Program grants, but the applicants’ ability to leverage other private, local, state, or federal funds is considered when ranking a proposed project for CDBG housing grant funding. No match is required under the HTF Program, which provides a much-needed source of leveraging for other funding programs aimed at the preservation and expansion of rental housing stock in Montana. If appropriate, describe publicly owned land or property located within the jurisdiction that may be used to address the needs identified in the plan The State of Montana does not anticipate that any publicly owned land or property will be used to address the needs identified in this AAP. Most state-owned land is either maintained as state recreational land or managed so as to obtain the highest financial return possible for the state’s K-12 public school system and other beneficiaries, as mandated by Montana statute. Local entities leveraging CDBG, HOME, or HTF grant funds may use publicly owned land or property to help accomplish a local project on a case-by-case basis, and in most cases, such donations or offers will be considered local match resources. Discussion Program leveraging for the 5-year Consolidated Plan period is discussed in SP-35 Anticipated Resources. Annual Goals and Objectives AP-20 Annual Goals and Objectives – 91.320(c)(3)&(e) Goals Summary Information Table 58 presents Montana’s goals for Plan Year 1 of the 5-year Consolidated Plan period (2020-2024). See Table 56 in SP-45 for Montana’s goals for all 5 years of the Consolidated Plan period. 452 State of Montana 180 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan Table 58 – Goals Summary # Goal Name Year Category Geographic Area Needs Addressed Funding Goal Outcome Indicator 1 Preserve and Construct Affordable Housing 2020 (Apr 1) to 2021 (Mar 31) Affordable Housing Statewide Affordable Housing Preservation and Construction CDBG: $795,535 HOME: $2,288,900 HTF: $2,010,000 Rental units constructed: 12 Household/Housing Units Rental units rehabilitated: 26 Household/Housing Units Homeowner Housing Added: 2 Household/Housing Units Homeowner Housing Rehabilitated: 3 Household/Housing Units Direct Financial Assistance to Homebuyers: 50 Households Assisted Funding and outcome goals are Year 1 estimates. Montana will use CDBG, HOME, and HTF resources to fund affordable housing activities that benefit extremely low-, low-, and moderate-income persons, as well as persons impacted by COVID-19. 2 Plan for Communities 2020 (Apr 1) to 2021 (Mar 31) Non-Housing Community Development Statewide Community Planning CDBG: $500,000 Other: 15 Local Governments Assisted Funding and outcome goals are Year 1 estimates. Montana will use CDBG resources to help communities engage in various types of planning including comprehensive community development, housing, public infrastructure, storm water management, bank stabilization, flood prevention, economic development, downtown revitalization, and preliminary project design. A variety of activities will be funded that primarily benefit low- and moderate-income persons, persons impacted by slums and blight, as well as persons impacted by COVID-19. 3 Improve and Sustain Public Infrastructure 2020 (Apr 1) to 2021 (Mar 31) Non-Housing Community Development Statewide Improving and Sustaining Vital Public Infrastructure CDBG: $2,636,295 Public Facility or Infrastructure Activities other than Low/Moderate Income Housing Benefit: 1,000 Persons Assisted Public Facility or Infrastructure Activities for Low/Moderate Income Housing Benefit: 20 Households Assisted Funding and outcome goals are Year 1 estimates. Montana will use CDBG resources to improve existing and construct new public water, wastewater, and storm drain infrastructure that primarily benefit low- and moderate-income persons, as well as persons impacted by COVID-19. 4 Revitalize Local Economies 2020 (Apr 1) to 2021 (Mar 31) Non-Housing Community Development Statewide Economic Revitalization CDBG: $2,000,000 Jobs created/retained: 80 Jobs Businesses assisted: 3 Businesses Assisted Funding and outcome goals are Year 1 estimates. Montana will use CDBG resources to create jobs, expand businesses, and revitalize historic downtown business districts. A variety of activities will be funded that primarily benefit low- and moderate-income persons and persons impacted by COVID-19. 453 State of Montana 181 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan # Goal Name Year Category Geographic Area Needs Addressed Funding Goal Outcome Indicator 5 Reduce Homelessness 2020 (Apr 1) to 2021 (Mar 31) Homeless Statewide Reducing Homelessness CDBG: $450,000 HOME: $533,032 ESG: $677,159 HTF: $690,000 Tenant-based rental assistance/Rapid Rehousing: 200 Households Assisted Homeless Person Overnight Shelter: 80 Persons Assisted Homelessness Prevention: 480 Persons Assisted Housing for Homeless added: 20 Household/ Housing Units Funding and outcome goals are Year 1 estimates. Montana will use CDBG, HOME, HTF, and ESG resources to provide permanent housing, shelter, and services for homeless persons and persons at risk of homelessness. Activities may include operation and maintenance of shelters to be responsive to COVID-19 health and welfare concerns, construction or rehabilitation of housing or shelters, and direct assistance to serve this clientele throughout the state. Goal Descriptions HOME will specifically provide funds to assist extremely low-income, very low-income, and low-income families (as listed in Table 58). HOME funds will be used in the following strategic goals: to assist with providing 16 households access to new or rehabilitated rental units, providing 30 households opportunities for homeownership, and assisting 20 households who are homeless or at-risk of homelessness with permanent housing. HTF will specifically provide funds to assist extremely low-income households (as listed in Table 58). HTF funds will assist with providing 22 households access to new or rehabilitated rental units and assisting 5 households who are homeless or at risk of homelessness with permanent housing. ESG Homeless prevention funds can only help those families that are under 30% AMI, which is either at or below extremely low-income. ESG Rapid Rehousing (RRH) is used to help families that are homeless and presumably have little to zero income. RRH does not require income eligibility at initial assessment. AP-25 Allocation Priorities – 91.320(d) Introduction The State of Montana will prioritize the award of HOME and HTF funds to eligible applicants that propose to preserve and construct affordable housing and reduce homelessness. The State of Montana will prioritize the award of CDBG funds to eligible applicants that propose to preserve affordable housing, engage in community planning, improve and sustain vital public infrastructure, revitalize local economies, and reduce homelessness. The State of Montana will continue to use ESG funds to reduce homelessness across the state. Because the State of Montana’s HOPWA funds are provided via competitive award and not through a formula grant, a discussion of HOPWA funding priorities is not included herein, and HOPWA allocation priorities are not provided in Table 59. For information about the State’s HOPWA program, funded via competitive award, please see Montana’s HOPWA Annual Progress Report. 454 State of Montana 182 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan Funding Allocation Priorities Table 59 – Funding Allocation Priorities Program Goal Admin Preserve and Construct Affordable Housing Plan for Communities Improve and Sustain Vital Public Infrastructure Revitalize Local Economies Reduce Homelessness CDBG $795,535 12% $500,000 7% $2,636,295 39% $2,000,000 30% $450,000 7% $300,467 4% HOME $2,288,900 73% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $533,032 17% $313,547 10% HOPWA N/A ESG $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $677,159 93% $54,904 7% HTF $2,010,000 67% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $690,000 23% $300,000 10% Reason for Allocation Priorities The State of Montana identified the allocation priorities set forth above for Plan Year 1 through the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan Needs Assessment and Market Analysis, past experience administering the competitive and non-competitive CDBG and HOME grant programs, and consultation with the state’s local government, nonprofit, and private sector partners, as well as Montana’s citizens. The allocation priorities also reflect the extent to which eligible entities have other sources of funding available to accomplish each priority. With respect to the ESG Program, the State of Montana does not currently allocate funds based on priority needs but rather focuses on allocating funds, in consultation with the MTCoC to ensure the provision of ESG services statewide so all homeless and near homeless Montanans have access in or near their communities. Based on planning, ESG funds are allocated to 9 of the 10 regional HRDCs in Montana. Funds are distributed based on a formula allocation, reflecting areas of poverty and general population, as set forth in Section 53-10-502, Montana Code Annotated (MCA), pertaining to the federal Community Services Block Grant (CSBG). Each allocation of funds is based on poverty levels and general population in each service area, relative to the poverty and general population of the entire state. All HRDCs submit work plans, budgets, and reports outlining which of the allowable activities will be undertaken. How will the proposed distribution of funds address the priority needs and specific objectives described in the Consolidated Plan? The priority needs and the allocation of funds to address those needs, as set forth above, are designed to specifically address Montana’s objectives described in this AAP, as well as community development needs resulting from COVID-19. (Note: Montana’s allocation of CDBG-CV funds is detailed in its 2019- 2020 AAP.) Support existing Montana communities. Montana will target CDBG, HOME, and HTF funding towards existing communities to increase community revitalization; improve the efficiency of public infrastructure; safeguard rural landscapes and natural resources through comprehensive planning; eliminate or reduce the presence of slums or blight through comprehensive planning; rehabilitate existing homes; build social, economic, and environmental resiliency to severe events; and develop and rehabilitate community facilities and services within walkable neighborhoods and/or neighborhoods served by public transportation systems, as well as responsiveness to COVID-19 repercussions. 455 State of Montana 183 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan Invest in vital public infrastructure. By using CDBG funds for public infrastructure, Montana will encourage appropriate and comprehensive pre-development planning activities for public infrastructure; provide funding opportunities to improve the safety and efficiency of public infrastructure; build social, economic, and environmental resiliency to severe events; safeguard the environment; and maximize existing public infrastructure investments, as well as responsiveness to COVID-19 repercussions. Enhance Montana’s economic competitiveness. Montana is committed to utilizing economic opportunities as the primary strategy for poverty reduction. Montana will use CDBG funds to revitalize local economies; provide reliable and timely access to employment centers, educational opportunities, services, and other basic needs by workers; build economic diversification and resiliency; and expand business access to markets, with a particular focus on employment opportunities located within traditional downtown commercial district comprising a mix of businesses, housing, and services. Institutions may collaborate with local governments to access CDBG funds for workforce training and education courses to increase job creation, retention, and advancement opportunities. Commerce will use CDBG funds for a variety of activities that primarily serve low- and moderate-income persons throughout the state, as well as those that are impacted by COVID-19. Promote equitable, affordable housing in Montana. Montana is committed to being a great place to live, work, and play, where the quality of life starts with equitable access to affordable housing. Montana will use CDBG, HOME, and HTF funding for preserving and constructing affordable housing that increases mobility and lowers the combined cost of housing, utilities and transportation, building social and economic resiliency to severe events, improving (or require per HOME and HTF regulations) access to broadband at assisted properties, and increasing homeownership and rental opportunities for eligible Montanans, particularly the homeless, disabled, elderly, and other disadvantaged populations, as well as responsiveness to COVID-19 repercussions. Reduce homelessness in Montana. Through the MTCoC, Montana and its partners have focused attention to developing the state’s coordinated entry processes by region with the goal of ending homelessness in the state. This goal will be accomplished by assisting individuals and families experiencing homelessness to receive rapid quality services and referrals leading to long-term stability of permanent housing and self-sufficiency. Agencies are also dedicated to preventing homelessness through case management, rent and rental arrears assistance, using limited homeless prevention funding. Montana will target CDBG, HOME, HTF, and ESG funds to activities that address housing needs and programs offered to homeless Montanans and/or those at risk of homelessness. Commerce will use CDBG, HOME, HTF, and ESG funds to provide permanent housing, shelter, and services for homeless persons and persons at risk of homelessness. Activities may include operations and maintenance of shelters to be responsive to COVID-19 health and welfare concerns of individuals who are homeless or at-risk of homelessness, construction or rehabilitation of housing or shelters, and direct assistance to serve homeless or those at risk of homelessness throughout the state. These activities will be included in the grant categories listed previously, as well as those that are impacted by COVID-19 health and welfare concerns. AP-30 Methods of Distribution – 91.320(d)&(k) Introduction Montana’s Methods of Distribution are identified for CDBG, HOME, ESG, and HTF for Plan Year 1. For purposes of providing more detailed information, the IDIS eCon Planning Suite System distribution method table (Table 60 – Distribution Methods by State Program) has been supplemented and 456 State of Montana 184 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan reformatted to provide the public with a clearer picture of the state’s Methods of Distribution for Plan Year 1. Montana distributes CDBG funds for eligible activities under the following categories: CDBG Affordable Housing Development and Rehabilitation; CDBG Housing Stabilization Program; CDBG Public Facilities; CDBG Economic Development; and CDBG Housing, Public Facilities, and Economic Development Planning. Montana distributes HOME and HTF funds for eligible activities under HOME Homebuyer Assistance Program, HOME Housing Development Program, and HTF Program. Montana distributes ESG funds for eligible activities under ESG Program. Information about evaluation criteria, allocations, award thresholds, and anticipated outcomes for each of the state’s programs is detailed below. Of note, Commerce publishes application guidelines for programs according to each program’s funding cycle. These guidelines adhere to the methods of distribution outlined herein; they also outline additional considerations such as broadband project integration. Under HOME and HTF, for example, projects involving the new construction of four or more units are generally required to install broadband infrastructure. Although not required, CDBG projects with a broadband component may have a competitive advantage. Examples of CDBG projects that could incorporate broadband installation are Public Facilities projects involving the construction of libraries or senior centers and Economic Development projects seeking to provide increased internet access to businesses in rural, underserved areas of the state. Prospective grantees are encouraged to consult application guidelines or contact Commerce staff for further information. Distribution Methods Community Development Block Grant (CDGB) Over the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan period, CDBG funds will be used for various activities authorized in Section 105(a) of the amended 1974 Housing and Community Development Act that meet the CDBG National Objectives Low and Moderate Income and Slums and Blight. Low and Moderate Income National Objective The State of Montana annually certifies that not less than 70% of aggregate CDBG funds received during a 3-year period (as identified to HUD) shall be used for activities benefitting persons of LMI. CDBG funds are distributed throughout the state’s non-entitlement areas (outside Billings, Great Falls, and Missoula) and target activities that serve persons of LMI. Projects funded with CDBG resources typically provide a community-wide benefit. Slums and Blight National Objective To expand the CDBG Program beyond the Low and Moderate Income National Objective, Montana will use CDBG funds (specifically, planning and economic development resources) to reduce, eliminate, or prevent slums and blight and address COVID-19 impacts across the state. Planning-only and economic development activities undertaken during the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan period will meet the Low and Moderate Income or Slums and Blight National Objectives by benefitting LMI persons or preventing or eliminating the presence of slums and blight. While, up to this point, no planning-only or economic development activities have proposed to or met the Slums and Blight National Objective, the need to prevent or eliminate the presence of slums and blight exists in communities across the state. During the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan period, the State will educate 457 State of Montana 185 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan and encourage communities to take the necessary steps to submit planning and economic development grant applications for planning-only and revitalization activities that specifically meet the Slums and Blight National Objective. CDBG funds are reserved in each of the grant categories detailed below, based on a percent of the total funds available for distribution to local governments. The State is allowed $100,000 plus 3% of the State grant for administration and technical assistance, in accordance with HUD regulations. The State is allowed 3% of the program income received by units of general local government (whether retained by the unit of general local government or paid to the State) and funds reallocated by HUD to the State; however, the State does not use any portion of program income for administration and technical assistance. To achieve the most effective and efficient use of CDBG funds, the Director of Commerce may reallocate up to 15% of the total CDBG allocation among National Objectives (assuring that no less than 70% of CDBG funds will be used for LMI beneficiaries) and grant categories, depending upon needs in the state during any given plan year. A reallocation of more than 15% of the total allocation, or the creation or elimination of a grant category, will be considered a substantial amendment to this AAP and will require further steps as identified in Montana’s Citizen Participation Plan (Appendix A). Reallocations may also be made of any remaining balances within any grant category within the last 3 months of a 15-month obligation deadline to meet the HUD Timely Distribution requirement. State Program Name: CDBG Affordable Housing Development and Rehabilitation Funding Sources: CDBG Describe the State Program addressed by the Method of Distribution: Within the Priority Needs of Preserve and Construct Affordable Housing and Reduce Homelessness, CDBG funds are utilized for the acquisition, new construction, and rehabilitation of rental or homeownership units made available to households at or below 80% AMI, with preference for those activities that address impacts related to COVID-19. New construction activities must be undertaken only in certain circumstances and in partnership with community-based organizations. Describe all of the criteria that will be used to select applications and the relative importance of these criteria: CDBG Affordable Housing Development and Rehabilitation funds are only available for non- entitlement units of general local government via a competitive process that involves completing Commerce’s Uniform Application for housing-related loan, grant, and tax credit programs. CDBG Affordable Housing Development and Rehabilitation applications that are proposing to address impacts related to COVID-19 may get preference and/or have greater flexibility in submission of technical documents as part of an application. Commerce will provide further guidance in its application guidelines. The CDBG Affordable Housing Development and Rehabilitation ranking criteria and maximum possible points for each criterion are listed in Table AP-1. Table AP-1 – CDBG Affordable Housing Development and Rehabilitation Ranking Criteria Ranking Criterion Maximum Possible Points Community Planning 175 Need for Project 175 Project Strategy 150 Community Efforts and Citizen Participation 100 458 State of Montana 186 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan Ranking Criterion Maximum Possible Points Benefit to Low- and Moderate-Income Persons 200 Implementation and Management 175 Total Maximum Possible Points 975 If only summary criteria were described, how can potential applicants access application manuals or other state publications describing the application criteria? (CDBG only): CDBG grant program applications, grant application guidelines, project grant administration manual, and other relevant information and resources are available on Commerce’s website at http://comdev.mt.gov/programs/cdbg. Describe how resources will be allocated among funding categories: For Plan Year 1, Montana will allocate $900,000 in CDBG funds to Affordable Housing Development and Rehabilitation activities. The Affordable Housing Development and Rehabilitation allocation amount is based on beneficiary data of the project area, the feasibility and need for the activity, and the availability of other federal or state resources for the activity, with a preference for those activities that address impacts related to COVID- 19. Describe threshold factors and grant size limits. Each project funded must meet the CDBG National Objective of benefiting persons of LMI. Up to $450,000 in CDBG funds may be awarded per project for project activities. Anticipated Outcome Measure: Ten rental or homeowner units will be constructed or rehabilitated. In addition, approximately 20 LMI persons will be provided overnight shelter. State Program Name: CDBG Housing Stabilization Program Funding Sources: CDBG Describe the State Program addressed by the Method of Distribution: Within the Priority Need to Preserve and Construct Affordable Housing, CDBG funds are utilized for activities to create or preserve homeownership with a specific focus on solving health and safety issues and improving accessibility and energy efficiency for single-family households at or below 80% AMI, with preference for those activities that address impacts related to COVID-19. These activities may include acquisition and/or rehabilitation of housing units made available to LMI persons. Describe all of the criteria that will be used to select applications and the relative importance of these criteria: CDBG Housing Stabilization Program funds are only available for non-entitlement units of general local government via a non-competitive process that involves completing an application in collaboration with a CHDO. Applicants who are not working with a CHDO must receive approval by Commerce. Once approved for funding, the applicant will remain part of the non-competitive pool for a period of no more than 5 years to accomplish the goals established in their application and will gain access to the set-aside for this funding category. If only summary criteria were described, how can potential applicants access application manuals or other state publications describing the application criteria? (CDBG only): CDBG grant program applications, grant application guidelines, project grant administration manual, and other relevant information and resources are available on Commerce’s website at http://comdev.mt.gov/programs/cdbg. 459 State of Montana 187 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan Describe how resources will be allocated among funding categories: For Plan Year 1, Montana will allocate $300,000 in CDBG funds to Housing Stabilization Program activities. Funds that are not awarded within the first 12 months of the program year, as established in this Consolidated Plan and AAP, will be made available to the Public Facilities, Economic Development, and Affordable Housing Development and Rehabilitation categories of funds. Describe threshold factors and grant size limits. Each project funded must meet the CDBG National Objective of benefiting persons of LMI. Each housing unit must be inspected by an individual with construction repair expertise and have a budget for acquisition and/or rehab based on the inspection report to correct health and safety issues as well as ADA improvements. Anticipated Outcome Measure: Three homeowners will be assisted. State Program Name: CDBG Public Facilities Funding Sources: CDBG Describe the State Program addressed by the Method of Distribution: Within the Priority Needs to Improve and Sustain Vital Public Infrastructure and Reduce Homelessness, CDBG funds are utilized to construct new or rehabilitate existing public infrastructure or community service facilities to either benefit discrete geographical areas with an LMI percentage of 51% or higher or provide direct benefits to LMI persons, with preference for those activities that address impacts related to COVID-19. Describe all of the criteria that will be used to select applications and the relative importance of these criteria: CDBG Public Facilities funds are only available for non-entitlement units of general local government via a competitive process that involves completing the W2ASACT’s Uniform Application. CDBG Public Facilities applications that will reduce homelessness or provide support for a community service facility and are proposing to address impacts related to COVID-19 may get preference and/or have greater flexibility in submission of technical documents as part of an application. Commerce will provide further guidance in its application guidelines. The CDBG Public Facilities ranking criteria and maximum possible points for each criterion are listed in Table AP-2. Table AP-2 – CDBG Public Facilities Ranking Criteria Ranking Criterion Maximum Possible Points Community Planning 175 Need for Project 175 Project Concept and Technical Design 150 Community Efforts and Citizen Participation 100 Need for Financial Assistance 200 Benefit to Low- and Moderate-Income Persons 150 Implementation and Management 175 Total Maximum Possible Points 1,125 If only summary criteria were described, how can potential applicants access application manuals or other state publications describing the application criteria? (CDBG only): CDBG grant program applications, grant application guidelines, project grant administration manual, and other relevant information and resources are available on Commerce’s website at http://comdev.mt.gov/programs/cdbg. 460 State of Montana 188 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan Describe how resources will be allocated among funding categories: For Plan Year 1, Montana will allocate $2,636,295 in CDBG funds to Public Facilities activities. The Public Facilities allocation amount is based on beneficiary data of the project area, the feasibility and need for the activity, and the availability of other federal or state resources for the activity, with a preference for those activities that address impacts related to COVID-19. Describe threshold factors and grant size limits. Each project funded must meet the CDBG National Objective of benefitting persons of LMI. Up to $450,000 in CDBG funds may be awarded per project for project activities. Anticipated Outcome Measure: Approximately 1,000 LMI persons will be served with new or improved public infrastructure systems; approximately 20 LMI households will be served with access to new or improved community facilities that provide support services to LMI households; and homeless facility operations and maintenance may be assisted, with approximately 5 units of permanent or temporary housing for homeless individuals or youth may be constructed or rehabilitated. State Program Name: CDBG Economic Development Funding Sources: CDBG Describe the State Program addressed by the Method of Distribution: Within the Priority Need to Revitalize Local Economies, CDBG funds are utilized to make loans or grants to businesses for various acquisition, construction, installation, or rehabilitation activities that support economic development (e.g., facilities improvements, equipment purchases, and employee trainings), with preference for those activities that address impacts related to COVID-19. Describe all of the criteria that will be used to select applications and the relative importance of these criteria: CDBG Economic Development funds are only available for non-entitlement units of general local government and non-government entities such as local businesses via a competitive application process that ranks applicants on their ability to demonstrate that 51% or more of jobs created or retained are held by or will be filled by qualified LMI persons, document an areawide benefit, or show they will exclusively serve a specific, limited clientele. CDBG Economic Development applications that are proposing to address impacts related to COVID-19 may get preference and/or have greater flexibility in submission of technical documents as part of an application. Commerce will provide further guidance in its application guidelines. If only summary criteria were described, how can potential applicants access application manuals or other state publications describing the application criteria? (CDBG only): CDBG grant program applications, grant application guidelines, project grant administration manual, and other relevant information and resources are available on Commerce’s website at http://comdev.mt.gov/programs/cdbg. Describe how resources will be allocated among funding categories: For Plan Year 1, Montana will allocate $2,000,000 in CDBG funds to Economic Development activities. The Economic Development allocation amount is based on beneficiary data of the project area, the feasibility and need for the activity, and the availability of other federal or state resources for the activity, with a preference for those activities that address impacts related to COVID-19. 461 State of Montana 189 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan Describe threshold factors and grant size limits. Each project funded must meet the CDBG National Objective of benefitting persons of LMI or reducing, eliminating, or preventing slums and blight. Up to $400,000 in CDBG funds may be awarded per project for project activities. Anticipated Outcome Measure: 80 jobs will be created or retained, and 3 businesses assisted. State Program Name: CDBG Housing, Public Facilities, and Economic Development Planning Funding Sources: CDBG Describe the State Program addressed by the Method of Distribution: Within the Priority Need to Plan for Communities, CDBG funds are utilized to engage in comprehensive planning, downtown master planning, business development planning, market study development, preliminary architectural report development, asset management, needs analysis, preliminary engineering, and other studies or plans that support resilient communities through affordable housing, public works investments, vital employment centers, and the environment. Describe all of the criteria that will be used to select applications and the relative importance of these criteria: CDBG Housing, Public Facilities, and Economic Development Planning applications are only available for non-entitlement units of general local government via a competitive process in which applications are accepted on an ongoing basis and reviewed and ranked according to the extent to which they align with CDBG National Objectives and address Montana’s Priority Needs as set forth in this Consolidated Plan. CDBG Housing, Public Facilities, and Economic Development Planning applications that seek to complete activities in a designated Opportunity Zone or that are proposing to address impacts related to COVID-19 may get preference and/or have greater flexibility in submission of technical documents as part of an application. If only summary criteria were described, how can potential applicants access application manuals or other state publications describing the application criteria? (CDBG only): CDBG grant program applications, grant application guidelines, planning grant administration manual, and other relevant information and resources are available on Commerce’s website at http://comdev.mt.gov/programs/cdbg. Describe how resources will be allocated among funding categories: For Plan Year 1, Montana will allocate $500,000 in CDBG funds to Housing, Public Facilities, and Economic Development Planning activities. The Housing, Public Facilities, and Economic Development Planning allocation amount is based on beneficiary data of the project area, the feasibility and need for the activity, and the availability of other federal or state resources for the activity, with a preference for those activities that address impacts related to COVID-19. Describe threshold factors and grant size limits. Each project funded must meet the CDBG National Objectives of benefitting persons of LMI or reducing, eliminating, or preventing slums and blight. Up to $50,000 in CDBG funds may be awarded per project for project activities. Anticipated Outcome Measure: Assistance will be provided to 15 local governments. 462 State of Montana 190 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan State Program Name: HOME Homebuyer Assistance Program Funding Sources: HOME Describe the State Program addressed by the Method of Distribution: Within the Priority Need to Preserve and Construct Affordable Housing, HOME funds will be awarded to eligible applicants (nonprofit organizations, CHDOs, and local governments) that may apply for funding individually or with housing partners to provide down payment and closing cost assistance within the maximum amounts established annually by HUD to income-eligible homebuyers to help them purchase a home. All eligible applicants will be required to identify how HOME funds will meet the goals and objectives of the 2020- 2024 Consolidated Plan and local planning efforts. Assisted homebuyers must complete homebuyer education and counseling, and the purchased home must meet UPCS. The purchase price for the property cannot exceed HUD purchase-price limits, which are established annually. Recapture and Resale provisions are enforced through deed restrictions placed on the HOME-assisted homes for the applicable period of affordability. Describe all of the criteria that will be used to select applications and the relative importance of these criteria: Those applicants that can demonstrate capacity to comply with the HOME regulations and requirements for homebuyer down payment and closing cost assistance are eligible for HOME funds. HOME Program applications, grant application guidelines, the project grant administration manual, and other relevant information and resources are available on the Commerce website at http://comdev.mt.gov/Programs/HOME. Describe how resources will be allocated among funding categories: For the 2020 Program Year, the State of Montana will allocate $600,000 in HOME resources to HOME Homebuyer Assistance Program activities. The HOME Homebuyer Assistance Program allocation amount is based on beneficiary data of the project area, the feasibility and need for the activity, and the availability of other federal or state resources for the activity. Describe threshold factors and grant size limits. All funded HOME Homebuyer Assistance Program activities must meet HOME requirements. HOME funds may be provided in an amount up to 30% of the purchase price limit (as presented in Table AP-3) per homeowner for down payment and closing cost assistance as a 0% interest, deferred loan. HOME funds may be provided in an amount up to 40% of the purchase price limit per homeowner for down payment and closing cost assistance as a 0% interest, deferred loan to individuals with a disability or individuals who are enrolled members in a state- recognized Native American tribe. The purchase price for the property cannot exceed HUD purchase price limits, which are published annually and listed below. Resale or recapture provisions must be placed on the HOME-assisted home for the applicable period of affordability, assistance is provided as a 0% interest, deferred loan, and projects must follow all applicable HOME regulations and guidelines for homebuyer assistance. The HUD-published purchase price limits for Montana are listed below. Table AP-3 – 2020 HOME Purchase Price Limits Metropolitan FMR Area Name Existing Single-Family Home Newly Constructed Single-Family Home Carbon Co – Billings $228,000 $271,000 Yellowstone Co – Billings $228,000 $271,000 Golden Valley Co $157,000 $271,000 Cascade Co – Great Falls $176,000 $271,000 Missoula Co – Missoula $285,000 $285,000 Beaverhead Co $171,000 $271,000 Big Horn Co $157,000 $271,000 463 State of Montana 191 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan Metropolitan FMR Area Name Existing Single-Family Home Newly Constructed Single-Family Home Blaine Co $157,000 $271,000 Broadwater Co $218,000 $271,000 Carter Co $157,000 $271,000 Chouteau Co $157,000 $271,000 Custer Co $157,000 $271,000 Daniels Co $157,000 $271,000 Dawson Co $160,000 $271,000 Deer Lodge Co $157,000 $271,000 Fallon Co $158,000 $271,000 Fergus Co $157,000 $271,000 Flathead Co $264,000 $271,000 Gallatin Co $315,000 $315,000 Garfield Co $157,000 $271,000 Glacier Co $157,000 $271,000 Granite Co $183,000 $271,000 Hill Co $157,000 $271,000 Jefferson Co $265,000 $271,000 Judith Basin Co $157,000 $271,000 Lake County $227,000 $271,000 Lewis & Clark Co $243,000 $271,000 Liberty Co $157,000 $271,000 Lincoln Co $180,000 $271,000 McCone Co $171,000 $271,000 Madison Co $219,000 $271,000 Meagher Co $157,000 $271,000 Mineral Co $172,000 $271,000 Musselshell Co $185,000 $271,000 Park Co $223,000 $271,000 Petroleum Co $157,000 $271,000 Phillips Co $157,000 $271,000 Pondera Co $157,000 $271,000 Powder River Co $157,000 $271,000 Powell Co $157,000 $271,000 Prairie Co $157,000 $271,000 Ravalli Co $266,000 $271,000 Richland Co $228,000 $271,000 Roosevelt Co $157,000 $271,000 Rosebud Co $157,000 $271,000 Sanders Co $205,000 $271,000 Sheridan Co $157,000 $271,000 Silver Bow Co $157,000 $271,000 Stillwater Co $238,000 $271,000 Sweet Grass Co $185,000 $271,000 Teton Co $170,000 $271,000 Toole Co $157,000 $271,000 Treasure Co $157,000 $271,000 Valley Co $157,000 $271,000 Wheatland Co $157,000 $271,000 Wibaux Co $157,000 $271,000 Limits effective April 1, 2020 464 State of Montana 192 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan Anticipated Outcome Measure: 50 homebuyers will be assisted with down payment and closing cost assistance. State Program Name: HOME Housing Development Program Funding Sources: HOME Describe the State Program addressed by the Method of Distribution: Within the Priority Needs to Preserve and Construct Affordable Housing and Reduce Homelessness, HOME funds can be used to acquire, rehabilitate, or construct affordable rental units, homeownership units, or permanent housing for homeless individuals or youth. HOME funds will be awarded to any eligible applicant (nonprofit organization, CHDO, and/or local government) who may apply for funding individually or with housing partners. Commerce will set aside a minimum of 15% of HOME funds for activities sponsored, developed, or owned by CHDOs. CHDO or CHDO-partnered applicants will receive first consideration on eligible projects that meet the criteria of the HOME Housing Development Program. The HOME Program may not award any project activities until at least 15% of the HOME Program funds have been allocated to meet the HUD CHDO set-aside requirement. All eligible applicants will be required to identify how the investment of HOME funds will meet the goals and objectives of 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan and the local planning efforts. Eligible applicants are encouraged to partner with other organizations to provide collaborative and cost-effective projects that will benefit the community and households receiving HOME assistance. Describe all of the criteria that will be used to select applications and the relative importance of these criteria: HOME Housing Development applications are ranked according to the applicant’s ability to meet the application criteria and align with the goals in the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan. HOME Program requirements, grant application and guidelines, the project grant administration manual, and other relevant information and resources are available on the Commerce website at https://comdev.mt.gov/Programs/HOME. Describe how resources will be allocated among funding categories: For Program Year 2020, the State of Montana will allocate $2,221,932 in HOME resources to HOME Housing Development activities. The HOME Housing Development allocation amount is based on beneficiary data of the project area, the feasibility and need for the activity, and the availability of other federal or state resources for the activity. Describe threshold factors and grant size limits. All funded HOME Housing Development activities must meet HOME requirements. The amount of grant ceiling will be determined through underwriting criteria and subsidy limit determinations reviewed during the application process. No grant will be awarded that exceeds the HOME maximum subsidy limit as established by HUD. Anticipated Outcome Measure: 10 rental or homeowner units will be constructed; 10 rental or homeowner units will be rehabilitated; and 5 units of permanent housing for homeless individuals or youth will be constructed or rehabilitated. 465 State of Montana 193 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan State Program Name: HTF Program Funding Sources: HTF Describe the State Program addressed by the Method of Distribution: Within the Priority Needs to Preserve and Construct Affordable Housing and Reduce Homelessness, HTF funds will be used to increase and preserve the supply of rental housing for extremely low-income households, particularly the homeless, disabled, elderly, and other disadvantaged populations, including homeless families. The rental units must not exceed the HOME maximum per-unit subsidy limits and HUD-established rent limits will be required for each assisted unit. Commerce will not use HTF funds to assist first-time homebuyers, for homeownership housing financing, or for refinancing existing debt. Describe all of the criteria that will be used to select applications and the relative importance of these criteria: Commerce will accept HTF applications on a competitive basis. Commerce will then prioritize project proposals from eligible entities through a ranking process. Applications will be ranked to determine how closely a project aligns with the intent of the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan and HTF Program goals and objectives and ranking criteria. HTF Program requirements, grant application and guidelines, the project administration manual, and other relevant information and resources are available on the Commerce website at http://comdev.mt.gov/Programs/HTF. Describe how resources will be allocated among funding categories: For Program Year 2020, Commerce will allocate $2,700,000 in HTF resources to complete HTF program activities, with $2,000,000 designated for preserving and constructing affordable housing and $700,000 designated for reducing homelessness. The allocation amount is based on beneficiary data of the project area, the feasibility and need for the activity, and the availability of other federal or state resources for the activity. If no applications are submitted to the HTF program to address homelessness activities, 100% of the funds will be used for housing preservation and new construction activities to benefit extremely low-income households. Describe threshold factors and grant size limits. All funded HTF activities must meet HTF requirements, including the HOME Program’s maximum per-unit development subsidy limit for housing assisted with HTF funds. The maximum per-unit subsidy is the same as for the HOME Program (24 C.F.R. 93.300(a)) and is calculated using the Uniform Application Form for Montana housing programs, available on the Commerce website. Anticipated Outcome Measure: 5 rental units will be constructed; 5 rental units will be rehabilitated; and 10 units of permanent housing to reduce homelessness will be constructed or rehabilitated. State Program Name: ESG Program Funding Source: ESG Describe the State Program addressed by the Method of Distribution: Within the Priority Need to Reduce Homelessness, ESG funds will support activities that provide a comprehensive approach to address the needs of persons who are homeless or at risk of homelessness. These activities are intended to assist in the prevention and alleviation of homelessness; provide temporary and/or permanent housing for persons who are homeless; and encourage the development of projects that link housing assistance programs with efforts to promote self-sufficiency. The MTCoC system has been developed to help 466 State of Montana 194 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan ensure that persons who are homeless or at risk of homelessness are able to access needed emergency shelter, street outreach, homelessness prevention, and rapid rehousing services statewide. Describe all of the criteria that will be used to select applications and the relative important of these criteria: Needs assessments and strategic planning are conducted by the HRDCs to ensure the best alignment of resources available with the needs of LMI persons within the services areas. Partnerships with other organizations are considered essential to eliminate duplication of services to best meet the needs within each community. Funding is provided to emergency shelters operating in the various service areas. Reporting of services and outcomes are submitted annually to the National Association of State Community Service Providers (NASCSP) and reported to Congress as part of the CSBG Program. The ESG Program Policy Manual is available on DPHHS’s website at http://dphhs.mt.gov/Portals/85/hcsd/documents/ESGPolicyManual.pdf. Describe how resources will be allocated among funding categories: For Plan Year 1, Montana will allocate $54,904 to ESG administration, $73,207 to HMIS, and $603,952 to ESG program-specific activities for a total of $732,063. Describe threshold factors and grant size limits. Grant activities and amounts are determined at the local level by each HRDC in accordance with the MTCoC plan. Anticipated Outcome Measure: 830 individuals in 350 households will be served with rental assistance and housing relocation and stabilization services; 60 persons will be assisted with overnight shelter. In addition, 480 persons will receive homeless prevention services. Montana, South Dakota, and North Dakota are ineligible to receive HOPWA formula funds due to population and need demographics, however, there still exists a need for such housing assistance in our communities. The three states organized a tri-state regional program named “Tri-State Housing Environments for Living Positively” or “Tri-State HELP,” a partnership between one state agency and four private agencies to apply for competitive HOPWA funds and serve those individuals seeking help. Montana was assigned two sponsor organizations: one representing the western half of the state and one representing the eastern side of the state. One sponsor is in South Dakota and one sponsor is in North Dakota; this was determined based on population and need. Housing coordinators and case managers have built strong relationships and referral systems with not only the Ryan White program in all three states but also their communities’ vast client service networks. With the large geographical area covered by the Tri-State HELP HOPWA program, the entire states of Montana, South Dakota, and North Dakota, the grantee has contracted with Montana State University to help provide training and technical assistance, monitoring, data collection, Annual Performance Report (APR) reporting, and program support of programmatic issues and resources to assist sponsor agencies. Discussion All methods of distribution for the CDBG, HOME, HTF, and ESG programs are designed to meet specific program requirements, ensure the most effective use of the funds, and attain the State of Montana’s goals and objectives as set forth in the Consolidated Plan. 467 State of Montana 195 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan Commerce and DPHHS notified the CPD Director of the Denver HUD Field Office, Kathleen Burke, that the State of Montana anticipated using waivers for certain regulatory requirements associated with CPD grant programs to prevent the spread of COVID-19 and to facilitate assistance to eligible communities and households economically impacted by COVID-19. Notification was sent 2 days before the State anticipated using the waivers and requested flexibilities. Commerce and DPHHS’s joint notification of anticipation to use waivers is included as Appendix I. AP-35 Projects – (Optional) Introduction All activities funded with CDBG, HOME, or HTF funds during Plan Year 1 must meet one of the project objectives presented in Table 61. Funds will be awarded through the processes described in AP-30 Methods of Distribution. Table 61 – Project Information # Project Name 1 Preserve and Construct Affordable Housing 2 Plan for Communities 3 Improve and Sustain Vital Public Infrastructure 4 Revitalize Local Economies 5 Reduce Homelessness Describe the reasons for allocation priorities and any obstacles to addressing underserved needs Commerce accepts applications from eligible entities across the state to address underserved needs and provides technical assistance to eligible entities to support successful application submissions. Funded activities are limited to those that are submitted to Commerce for consideration. Allocation priorities are set based on information gathered from the Consolidated Plan Needs Assessment and Market Analysis, as well as prior year application submissions and program trends. Because Commerce does not know the types and scopes of applications that will be received during any plan year, it can only estimate funding and anticipate outcomes. Additionally, the CDBG, HOME, and HTF programs are often oversubscribed and, thus, unable to meet all the needs of eligible entities due to limited funding. AP-38 Project Summary Project Summary Information See AP-35 Projects. AP-40 Section 108 Loan Guarantee – 91.320(k)(1)(ii) Will the state help non-entitlement units of general local government to apply for Section 108 loan funds? No. Available Grant Amounts Not applicable. 468 State of Montana 196 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan Acceptance process of applications Not applicable. 469 State of Montana 197 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan AP-45 Community Revitalization Strategies – 91.320(k)(1)(ii) Will the state allow units of general local government to carry out community revitalization strategies? No. State’s Process and Criteria for approving local government revitalization strategies Not applicable. AP-50 Geographic Distribution – 91.320(f) Description of the geographic areas of the state (including areas of low-income and minority concentration) where assistance will be directed As described in this AAP, the State of Montana will not target any particular geographic area for special assistance. However, the State will allow any non-entitlement community to apply for CDBG, all communities and nonprofits to apply for HOME, and entitlement communities and nonprofits to apply for HTF funding, dependent on eligible activities and programs. Entitlement communities may apply for HOME funds if their project demonstrates clear segregation between State-assisted units and Entitlement-assisted units. ESG funds are distributed throughout the state. HTF application guidelines will consider geographic diversity based on data points gathered from federal, state, and regional sources that correspond to this Consolidated Plan, this AAP, and HTF Program goals and objectives to serve the homeless and those at risk of homelessness. However, because it is not possible to predict which entities will apply for HTF funding to address local needs, geographic distribution for the HTF Program is not specified. Geographic Distribution Because the State of Montana does not have geographic priorities for any of its federally funded CPD programs, data are not provided in Table 62. Table 62 – Geographic Distribution Target Area Percentage of Funds Rationale for the priorities for allocating investments geographically Not applicable. Discussion Not applicable. Affordable Housing AP-55 Affordable Housing – 24 CFR 91.320(g) Introduction Tables 64 and 65 summarize Montana’s 1-year goals for a number of categories that relate to affordable housing. These goals are related only to the federal resources provided through CDBG, HOME, HTF, and ESG, and do not include numbers for those persons assisted through other federal or state resources. 470 State of Montana 198 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan Table 64 – 1-Year Goals for Affordable Housing by Support Requirement 1-Year Goals for the Number of Households to be Supported Homeless 1,340 Non-Homeless 40 Special-Needs 25 Total 1,405 Table 65 – 1-Year Goals for Affordable Housing by Support Type 1-Year Goals for the Number of Households Supported Through Rental Assistance 600 The Production of New Units 14 Rehab of Existing Units 26 Acquisition of Existing Units 50 Total 690 Discussion As the information above demonstrates, a significant number of households are served annually through the State of Montana’s affordable housing programs. Rental assistance will be completed with ESG resources that include financial assistance including rental application fees, security and utility deposits, last month’s rent, utility payments, moving costs, and short-term rent assistance. The production of new units will be completed with CDBG, HOME, and/or HTF resources in coordination with Housing Tax Credits and private financing for rental projects. Rehabilitation of existing units will be completed with CDBG, HOME, and/or HTF resources. Acquisition of existing units will be completed primarily with HOME resources through down payment and closing cost assistance. AP-60 Public Housing - 24 CFR 91.320(j) Introduction The State of Montana Housing Division manages and oversees HCV funds to PHAs throughout the state. The State of Montana will continue to work with the PHAs to house Montana’s low-income households. Actions planned during the next year to address the needs to public housing This AAP is for a state grantee, and therefore no summary information is available on the actions planned for multiple PHAs in Montana. This information can be obtained by contacting a given PHA within a designated geographic area. Actions to encourage public housing residents to become more involved in management and participate in homeownership This AAP is for a state grantee, and therefore no summary information is available on the actions planned for the PHAs in Montana. The state will work on collecting information and supporting activities that encourage public housing residents to become more involved in management and participate in homeownership. 471 State of Montana 199 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan If the PHA is designated as troubled, describe the manner in which financial assistance will be provided or other assistance Not applicable. Discussion This AAP is for a state grantee, and therefore no summary information is available on the actions planned for multiple PHAs in Montana. This information can be obtained by contacting a given PHA within a designated geographic area. AP-65 Homeless and Other Special Needs Activities – 91.320(h) Introduction Homeless and other special needs activities will be carried out according to the eligible uses of funds for CDBG, HOME, HTF, and ESG. Homelessness in Montana may be due to leaving one’s home as a result of domestic violence, lack of medical assistance, lack of stable employment, leaving a state correctional or mental health facility, or as a result of impacts from COVID-19. Many households experiencing homelessness double up with family, friends, or others and may be able to find temporary assistance from a faith-based community. Non-homeless special needs populations in the state include the elderly and frail elderly, persons living with disabilities, persons leaving a correctional facility, persons with substance use disorders, victims of domestic violence, and persons and the families of persons living with HIV. These populations may not be homeless but may be at risk of becoming homeless and, therefore, often require housing and service programs relevant to their specific special needs. The State of Montana will work to encourage activities that address the housing needs of those at risk of homelessness, encourage activities that increase the level of assistance to programs serving special needs groups including those at risk of homelessness, and prioritize funding to those individuals that are homeless or at risk of homelessness who are impacted by COVID-19. This includes supporting activities to reduce homelessness and encouraging the development and rehabilitation of non-rental facilities for the shelter and transition of temporarily homeless Montanans. Additionally, HOME, CDBG, HTF, and ESG will continue to support efforts by local governments and partner organizations providing permanent supportive housing, support for COVID-19 health and welfare response, HIV services, substance abuse services, disability services, aid to victims of domestic violence, and assistance for the disabled. Describe the jurisdictions one-year goals and actions for reducing and ending homelessness including Reaching out to homeless persons (especially unsheltered persons) and assessing their individual needs Montana divides itself into 12 districts to participate annually in the national PIT counts of homeless, unduplicated, one-night estimates of both sheltered and unsheltered homeless populations, occurring during the last week in January of each year. One finding from that survey is that a significant segment of the homeless population is women, children, and families that have experienced life-altering situations, such as job loss, disaster, divorce, or abuse that have driven them into homelessness. Montana uses the continuum of care model that originated with HUD, with the goal of supporting the transition of homeless individuals into stabilized self-sufficiency in affordable housing. It is important to note that the MTCoC has expressed that multiplying a single night’s data into an annual estimate does not necessarily result in an accurate representation. 472 State of Montana 200 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan Addressing the emergency shelter and transitional housing needs of homeless persons Montana encourages efforts to provide shelter and other basic needs to people who are currently homeless and supports these efforts with CDBG Public Facilities and ESG funds. In addition, because preventing homelessness is much less costly than addressing the problem after housing has been lost, Montana also supports efforts that will: • help people in crisis who are at risk of losing existing housing (homeless prevention); and • place homeless people into permanent and affordable housing accompanied by intensive services that will aid them in establishing long-term stability (rapid re-housing). Helping homeless persons (especially chronically homeless individuals and families, families with children, veterans and their families, and unaccompanied youth) make the transition to permanent housing and independent living, including shortening the period of time that individuals and families experience homelessness, facilitating access for homeless individuals and families to affordable housing units, and preventing individuals and families who were recently homeless from becoming homeless again See the Strategic Plan, Table SP-1, which shows the length of time since those surveyed during the 2019 PIT count had a home. Of note, the majority of respondents (242 or 24%) indicated that it had been 2 years or more since they had a home. Unfortunately, research indicates that the longer homelessness is experienced, the more difficult and costly it is to stabilize and re-house. Helping low-income individuals and families avoid becoming homeless, especially extremely low-income individuals and families and those who are: being discharged from publicly funded institutions and systems of care (such as health care facilities, mental health facilities, foster care and other youth facilities, and corrections programs and institutions); or, receiving assistance from public or private agencies that address housing, health, social services, employment, education, or youth needs DPHHS works with the MTCoC to leverage resources and provide increased and coordinated services to homeless households across the state. DPHHS aligns its strategy for reducing and ending homelessness with the MTCoC districts. DPHHS and subgrantees of ESG funding participate in MTCoC strategic planning discussions and attend working meetings. The MTCoC prioritizes and ranks homeless projects each year and prepares a consolidated, statewide continuum of care application in response to the NOFA. Projects originate from local community continuums of care or a state agency. Project approvals are based upon performance and capacity criteria as well as local needs and HUD priorities. The ESG Program coordinates its strategy with the MTCoC to meet the needs of the homeless and those at risk of homelessness at the local level. Funded activities include rental assistance, financial assistance of rental application fees, security and utility deposits and payments, case management, housing search and support for toll free telephone referral hotlines for domestic abuse; referral to mainstream resources; assistance to shelters for victims of domestic and sexual violence, youth homes, and food banks. All HRDCs submit work plans, budgets, and reports outlining which of the allowable activities will be undertaken. If it is determined that there is a particularly high need to help individuals being discharged from publicly funded institutions and systems of care, such as health-care facilities, mental health facilities, foster care or other youth facilities, and corrections programs and institutions, then subrecipient agencies will be assisted, as allowed, through the ESG Program. As agencies continue to work in their communities’ coordinated assessment/entry process, they will be able to best determine which stream of funding and which organizations can best serve different demographics of need. Because ESG subrecipients are also 473 State of Montana 201 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan the local Community Action Agencies (CAAs), they can provide other key services that address health, employment, and education, as well as refer households to organizations with whom they have established relationships and coordinated programs. See Table SP-2A and SP-2B in the Strategic Plan for tangible targets for reducing homelessness. Individuals and families that have been negatively impacted by COVID-19 through job loss and underemployment may be unable to pay rent. These Montanans face instability and an increased risk of homelessness. By identifying these characteristics in association with the “At risk of homelessness” definition § 576.2 (1) (iii) (G), ESG allows Homeless Prevention funds to assist these individuals and families so that subrecipients may help program participants regain stability in their current permanent housing or achieve stability in other permanent housing, ultimately preventing an individual or family from moving into an emergency shelter or another place described in paragraph (1) of the “homeless” definition in § 576.2. In Plan Year 1, HTF funds will also support homeless prevention activities by increasing and preserving the supply of rental housing for extremely low-income households, particularly the homeless, disabled, elderly, and other disadvantaged populations. Discussion See SP-60 Homelessness Strategy for more information about Montana’s strategy for reducing homeless ness and addressing other special needs. AP-70 HOPWA Goals – 91.320(k)(4) Because the State of Montana’s HOPWA funds are provided via competitive award and not through a formula grant, a discussion of HOPWA goals is not included herein. For information about the State’s HOPWA program, funded via competitive award, please see Montana’s HOPWA Annual Progress Report. AP-75 Barriers to affordable housing – 91.320(i) Introduction Local jurisdictions and the State Legislature determine land use controls, tax policies, zoning ordinances, building codes, fees and charges, growth limitations, and other policies and laws affecting affordable housing. Commerce and DPHHS encourage local jurisdictions and the State Legislature to consider possible impacts to affordable housing when updating policy and enacting laws. Furthermore, both agencies are committed to providing technical assistance to local governments and nonprofit organizations so they are in the best position to take maximum advantage of HUD and State Board of Housing programs to maintain a supply of, and facilitate the creation of new, affordable housing. Several barriers to affordable housing development, housing choice, and maintained residency in housing were identified in the Needs Assessment, Market Analysis, 2018 Fair Housing Survey (Appendix B), and 2020 Housing and Community Development Survey (Appendix B). Participants in Commerce’s housing focus groups (Appendix C) outlined several barriers to affordable housing development, including: • Capacity challenges at all levels (from the State to grantees and partners), especially in the midst of COVID-19); 474 State of Montana 202 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan • Cumbersome grant processes and unpredictable grant timelines (e.g., grant application process and funding cycle); • Insufficient program funding, which is exacerbated by the high and rising costs of building and infrastructure; and • Design constraints. The 2018 Fair Housing Survey had 691 respondents. Takeaways from the survey are as follows. • Affordability and unit size were the most important factors in housing choice for both renters and owners. • 36% of respondents indicated they had witnessed housing discrimination. Level of income was the primary grounds for perceived discrimination, followed by race and criminal background. Source of income, familial status, and disability were also listed as principal grounds of perceived discrimination. • 66% and 10% of respondents who witnessed discriminatory behavior said that perceived discrimination resulted from actions taken by rental owners/managers and PHA employees, respectively. • More than 24% of respondents indicated they would not know what to do if they experienced or witnessed discrimination, and a staggering 85% of respondents said they were not familiar with or were only somewhat familiar with fair housing laws. The 2020 Housing and Community Development Survey had 303 respondents; approximately 200 of these indicated that their community or organization faced barriers to decent, affordable housing. Barriers cited are as follows. • Insufficient decent, affordable, and accessible housing stock—especially for persons with disabilities, seniors, the workforce, and individuals transitioning out of institutional and correctional facilities. • Housing markets that price out low- to moderate-income families and service workers, especially housing markets in resort communities where short-term rentals are common and luxury homes are prevalent. • Land availability and cost; development costs. • Restrictive building codes and zoning regulations. • Funding and financing for decent, affordable housing. • Lack of supportive services and case management for special needs populations. • Lack of public transportation for workers. • Underutilized tenant-based rental subsidies (vouchers) resulting from limited housing options and uncooperative landlords. • Inadequate, coordinated planning efforts. • Developers not incentivized to develop in rural areas. Actions it planned to remove or ameliorate the negative effects of public policies that serve as barriers to affordable housing such as land use controls, tax policies affecting land, zoning ordinances, building codes, fees and charges, growth limitations, and policies affecting the return on residential investment Although removing or ameliorating barriers to affordable housing falls primarily to local jurisdictions and the State Legislature, Commerce requires its CDBG, HOME, or HTF grantees to develop an Affirmatively Fair Housing Marketing Plan (AFHMP). An approved AFHMP is one element of the special conditions of 475 State of Montana 203 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan Commerce’s contracts with grantees and staff monitor for compliance during CDBG, HOME, and HTF project visits. Discussion The State will continue to use its resources to inform local jurisdictions and the State Legislature as they perform their duty to address barriers to affordable housing. Additionally, Commerce and DPHHS staff have historically engaged a steering committee to discuss and implement actions related to the AI. Although Montana is no longer required by regulation to complete an AI, future work may continue at the State’s option. AP-85 Other Actions – 91.320(j) Introduction The following are actions planned for Plan Year 1 of the 5-year Consolidated Plan period. Actions planned to address obstacles to meeting underserved needs All activities which will be funded under the State’s CDBG, HOME, HTF, and ESG programs will address obstacles to meeting underserved needs. The State will identify and respond to underserved needs as they arise from self-evaluation and citizen participation. In addition, the State continually provides technical assistance and planning resources to help communities engage in comprehensive planning, downtown master planning, business development planning, market studies, preliminary architectural reports, asset management, needs analysis, preliminary engineering, disaster planning, and other studies or plans that support the sustainability of local communities, affordable housing, public works investments, vital employment centers, and the environment. Actions planned to foster and maintain affordable housing The State has identified preserving and constructing affordable housing as one of its high priority needs. As set forth in this Consolidated Plan, actions planned to foster and maintain affordable housing include developing additional rental housing, developing additional homeownership units, providing down payment assistance, providing owner-occupied rehabilitation, and supporting other housing activities. These actions will be funded through the HOME, CDBG, and HTF programs, as set forth above. Actions planned to reduce lead-based paint hazards The State will continue to diligently undertake rehabilitation and construction activities to ensure that households, particularly those with children, benefitting from federal housing programs are safe from LBP hazards and comply with current requirements of Title X of the Residential Lead Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992. Both Commerce and DPHHS provide education and information on LBP hazards to parents, families, healthcare providers, grant recipients, and contractors. Commerce requires that any contractor or subcontractor engaged in renovation, repair, and painting activities that disturb LBP in homes and childcare facilities built before 1978 is certified and follows specific work practices to prevent lead contamination. In addition to complying with Title X, UPCS inspections are performed on all homes (renter or owner-occupied) assisted with HTF, HOME, Section 8, and other public funds. UPCS inspections are also conducted on all homes purchased with HOME assistance prior to the commitment of HOME funds. State staff conducting UPCS inspections complete UPCS training as well as HUD’s online Lead-Based Paint Visual Assessment Training. 476 State of Montana 204 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan Units that ESG-eligible households live in or move into must adhere to LBP requirements as set forth by HUD. Actions planned to reduce the number of poverty-level families The State, in coordination with nonprofit organizations and the private sector, work to ensure individuals and families have pathways out of poverty by supporting local and regional efforts to increase household incomes and provide affordable housing options. All of the strategies and priorities identified in this Consolidated Plan and AAP target the improvement of economic conditions for Montanans of low to moderate income, from the rehabilitation and new construction of affordable units, homebuyer assistance, and temporary shelter services to investment in compact, walkable development where efficiencies of public infrastructure, community services, and employment centers encourage healthy, vital, and resilient communities. Appendix F discusses poverty in Montana over the last two decades and includes the state’s poverty rate as well as its geographic distribution. Actions planned to develop institutional structure Gaps in the institutional delivery system exist primarily due to funding limitations that are outside the control of the State. CDBG, HOME, HTF, and ESG resources are not adequate to meet the needs of Montanans with less than low to moderate incomes, particularly the homeless, disabled, elderly, and other disadvantaged populations. However, the ability to effectively relay information regarding existing grant opportunities and technical assistance from the State to eligible entities continues to be one of Montana’s greatest challenges. There are areas of opportunity for increased collaboration vertically and horizontally, as well as across and between agencies, organizations, and the private sector to ensure that services are delivered to the greatest number of eligible entities and individuals in the state. During Plan Year 1, the State will actively engage state agencies and the public and private sectors in broad discussions and educational opportunities regarding the economic, social, environmental, and health benefits of creating walkable, resilient communities with increased opportunities and access to affordable housing, community services, existing public infrastructure efficiencies, and jobs. Actions planned to enhance coordination between public and private housing and social service agencies The State, through its CDBG, HOME, HTF, and ESG programs, will continue to coordinate with public and private partners to discuss current projects and methods to better coordinate efforts throughout the state, including the following initiatives: • DPHHS is represented on various social service state advisory groups to ensure housing services are coordinated with social services for needy populations in Montana. • DPHHS works proactively with its MTCoC partners to ensure that efficient and effective coordination of services exists between affordable housing and social services. • Commerce participation in the IHIP and the MTCoC. Discussion The State of Montana is committed to addressing critical needs, and to this end, during Plan Year 1, will undertake the actions outlined above. To further the goals and objectives of the CDBG, HOME, and HTF programs, the Anti-displacement and Relocation Assistance Plan is included with this AAP. 477 State of Montana 205 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan ANTI-DISPLACEMENT AND RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PLAN Montana CDBG, HTF, and HOME programs 1) The Montana Department of Commerce (Commerce) encourages applicants to design their projects to temporarily relocate or displace as few persons as necessary to meet the goals and objectives of the State CDBG, HTF, and HOME programs and critical local community development needs. 2) Commerce will carefully consider any proposed relocation and/or displacement activities during application ranking. 3) When a proposed CDBG-, HTF-, or HOME-funded project could result in direct or indirect involuntary displacement of community residents (including businesses), the applicant must prepare a plan which describes the actions to be taken to assist such persons to remain in their neighborhoods as required by 24 CFR 570.606. To provide equitable and reasonable assistance to those persons who will be involuntarily and permanently displaced, the plan must include relocation assistance as required in 24 CFR 42.350. The adequacy of any displacement mitigation plan will be assessed by the Commerce on the basis of: -- Its responsiveness to temporarily relocated and displaced persons; -- The timeliness of the remedy; and -- The reasonableness of projected costs, including safeguards that will be established to assure prudent use of scarce public resources. 4) Grant recipients must replace on a one-for-one basis all occupied and vacant habitable low- and moderate-income dwelling units demolished or converted to a use other than as low- and moderate-income housing. The one-for-one replacement requirement will not apply if the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) finds there is an adequate supply of available, vacant low- and moderate-income dwelling units in standard condition in the area. 5) Commerce will require CDBG, HTF, and HOME recipients to provide benefits to any person involuntarily and permanently displaced as a result of CDBG-, HTF-, and/or HOME-funded activities in accordance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Act. 6) Commerce will require all CDBG, HTF, and HOME recipients to certify that they will comply with both this and their own residential anti-displacement and relocation assistance plan. Program Specific Requirements AP-90 Program Specific Requirements – 91.320(k)(1,2,3) Introduction This section of the AAP outlines specific requirements of Montana’s CDBG, HOME, ESG, and HTF programs. Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG) Reference 24 CFR 91.320(k)(1) 478 State of Montana 206 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan Projects planned with all CDBG funds expected to be available during the year are identified in the Projects Table. The following identifies program income that is available for use that is included in projects to be carried out. 1. The total amount of program income that will have been received before the start of the next program year and that has not yet been reprogrammed $0 2. The amount of proceeds from section 108 loan guarantees that will be used during the year to address the priority needs and specific objectives identified in the grantee’s strategic plan $0 3. The amount of surplus funds from urban renewal settlements $0 4. The amount of any grant funds returned to the line of credit for which the planned use has not been included in a prior statement or plan $0 5. The amount of income from float-funded activities $0 Total Program Income: $0 Other CDBG Requirements 1. The amount of urgent need activities $0 2. The estimated percentage of CDBG funds that will be used for activities that benefit persons of low and moderate income Minimum 70% Overall Benefit - A consecutive period of one, two or three years may be used to determine that a minimum overall benefit of 70% of CDBG funds is used to benefit persons of low and moderate income. Specify the years covered that include this Annual Action Plan. 3-year period: 70% 2020, 2021, and 2022 are the years covered in this AAP. HOME Investment Partnership Program (HOME) Reference 24 CFR 91.320(k)(2) The jurisdiction must describe activities planned with HOME funds expected to be available during the year. All such activities should be included in the Projects screen. In addition, the following information should be supplied: 1. A description of other forms of investment being used beyond those identified in Section 92.205 is as follows: Commerce will not use HOME funds beyond eligible uses identified in 24 CFR Section 92.205. 2. A description of the guidelines that will be used for resale or recapture of HOME funds when used for homebuyer activities as required in 92.254, is as follows: Commerce’s grantees will use recapture provisions for the Montana HOME Program for HOME-assisted homebuyer projects including down payment assistance, closing costs, or other HOME assistance provided directly to the homebuyer. When Commerce grants HOME funds to a community land trust, the resale provision will be used. State recipients and subrecipients are eligible entities (entities) to carryout HOME-assisted homebuyer activities and must use the recapture provisions when HOME assistance is provided directly to the homebuyer. The HOME-assisted homebuyer subsidy can be structured through 0% interest or low interest loans, grants, deferred payment loans, or interest rate subsidies. 479 State of Montana 207 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan When Commerce provides HOME assistance as development subsidy only, it will follow the resale provisions detailed below, in accordance with 24 CFR 92.254(a)(5)(ii)(A)(5), which states “If the HOME assistance is only used for the development subsidy and therefore not subject to recapture, the Resale option must be used.” 3. A description of the guidelines for resale or recapture that ensures the affordability of units acquired with HOME funds? See 24 CFR 92.254(a)(4) are as follows: Requirement for Homebuyer Assistance Recapture provisions will only be used for direct assistance to the homebuyer and resale provisions will be used for all development subsidy and homebuyer assistance when homes will be placed in a community land trust. Any of the entities who have elected to provide homebuyer assistance under this program are required to specify their recapture or resale provisions as applicable for the period of affordability. Written agreements for homebuyer assistance activities funded by Commerce will include the appropriate provisions to ensure the period of affordability, principal residency requirements, and any other recapture or resale terms and conditions to comply with HOME regulations. Principal Residency The initial homebuyer must reside in the home as his/her principal residence for the duration of the period of affordability (see Table AP-4). If the home is transferred within the period of affordability, the resale or recapture provisions will be enforced. Period of Affordability The recapture and resale provisions are in effect for a period of affordability based on the total amount of HOME funds provided directly to the homebuyer that enabled the homebuyer to purchase the unit or the amount of HOME funds invested in the development of the unit. Any HOME program income used to assist the homebuyer or development is included when determining the period of affordability under recapture or resale provisions. The minimum affordability periods for recapture and resale provisions are outlined in Table AP-4. Table AP-4 – HOME Affordability Periods HOME Assistance to Buyer Period of Affordability Less than $15,000 5 years $15,000 - $40,000 10 years More than $40,000 15 years Written agreement and enforcement mechanisms Whether using recapture or resale, entities must establish and enforce provisions through a written agreement with the homebuyers that accurately reflects the resale or recapture provisions, before or at the time of sale. Commerce will use deed restrictions, trust indenture, covenants running with the land, mortgages, or other similar enforcement mechanisms to retain the authority to ensure the provisions being used are in accordance with those stated in the written agreement with the entities. Commerce will specify which enforcement mechanism it will use. During grant monitoring of the HOME Program entities, Commerce will review the deed restrictions, trust indenture, covenants running with the land, mortgages, or other similar mechanisms placed on the HOME-assisted property to ensure the provisions being used are in accordance with those stated in the 480 State of Montana 208 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan written agreement with the entities. During the period of affordability, the entities must complete an annual compliance check to ensure that the initial homebuyer still resides in the property as his/her principal residence. The most current utility statement, proof of paid taxes, or certificate of homeowner’s insurance are acceptable documentation. If a homeowner voluntarily or involuntarily transfers his or her property (e.g., through sale or foreclosure) during the period of affordability, the appropriate recapture or resale provisions will go into effect. Commerce must be notified of a voluntary or involuntary sale or transaction changing ownership, and the applicable recapture or resale provisions must be employed. Triggering resale or recapture provisions Noncompliance occurs when the homeowner does not comply with the terms and conditions of the written agreement during the period of affordability, which includes when the homeowner does not occupy the unit as their principal residence, or when the home is voluntarily or involuntarily transferred in a transaction changing ownership without proper notice and the appropriate provisions were not enforced. In the event of noncompliance, the appropriate recapture or resale provisions will go into effect, and the homeowner is subject to repayment of all HOME assistance invested in the housing unit. This is based on the amount of HOME subsidy invested in the property (subsidy includes any program income or HOME funds invested). The repayment amount is not subject to any reductions that might otherwise apply under the recapture or resale provisions listed in this document. 1. Resale Provisions Resale provisions will be used when HOME assistance is only used as development subsidy and therefore is not subject to recapture. If homebuyer assistance is provided for a home that will be put into a community land trust, resale provisions will be used. The resale option is typically used in areas with predominantly high home sales prices, areas subject to rapidly appreciating housing costs, areas with a shortage of affordable homes for sale and no available land to build new homes. Commerce has adopted the following provisions for resale requirements as specified in the HOME rule at CFR 92.254(a)(5)(i). Under these resale provisions, Commerce will ensure that when a HOME-assisted homebuyer sells his or her property, either voluntarily or involuntarily, during the period of affordability, the following will apply: • The property is sold to an eligible low-income household who will use the property as his or her principal residence through the period of affordability; • The original homebuyer receives a fair return on investment, (i.e., the homebuyer’s down payment (if any is made at the time of purchase) plus capital improvements made to the house); and • The property is sold at a price that is “affordable to a reasonable range of low-income buyers.” Ensuring Long Term Affordability If the housing is transferred, voluntarily or otherwise, during the period of affordability, it must be made available for subsequent purchase only to another buyer whose household qualifies as low income and will use the property as its principal residence. To qualify as low-income, a household’s income must be below 80% AMI. An organization awarded HOME funds for housing development must enforce these affordability requirements. 481 State of Montana 209 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan Fair Return on Investment If a home is sold during the period of affordability, the price at resale must provide the original HOME- assisted homebuyer a fair return on investment. Net proceeds (after senior debt and sales costs) to the seller shall not exceed the sum of: 1. The reimbursement of the original owner’s down payment and/or closing costs made at the time of initial purchase, if any; 2. The principal paid on the senior debt during the period of ownership; 3. The investment in eligible capital improvements defined as any individual improvement made specifically to the structure or major system of the HOME-assisted housing unit in which the cost was more than $3,000 and where applicable, the work was properly permitted, inspected locally, and the actual cost has been documented with third party receipts. The value of the owner’s investment (the sum of 1-3 above) will be adjusted by using the Housing Price Index (HPI) as measured by the Federal Housing Finance Agency. The change in the HPI from the original purchase to the time of sale will be applied to the value of the owner’s investment, so that the value of the investments is increased or decreased by the amount of increase or decrease in the housing market overall. Continued Affordability In addition to ensuring that the HOME-assisted homebuyer receives a fair return on investment, the entities will ensure that the housing under a resale provision will remain affordable to a reasonable range of low-income homebuyers. The sales price may not exceed a price that is affordable to households with incomes at or below 80% AMI. To be affordable, a household would be expected to pay no more than 32% of its monthly income for mortgage principal and interest, property taxes, and insurance. And in no case could the price exceed the HOME Program purchase price limits as defined by HUD and provided on Commerce’s website. 2. Recapture Provisions Direct HOME Subsidy/Amount Subject to Recapture Commerce has adopted the following provisions for recapture as specified by 24 CFR 92.254 that are outlined in the HOME regulations and in CPD notice 12-003. Homebuyers assisted under HOME will be required to adhere to recapture guidelines applied to their home. An organization awarded HOME funds (the “subrecipient”) for homebuyer assistance will be instructed to use the recapture method and must submit their policy for the applicable recapture method if a home is sold during the period of affordability, to include: • Recapture of the entire direct HOME subsidy; and • Owner investment is returned first. Commerce may also adopt recapture provisions that differ from the model provisions in the HOME regulations. The particular recapture provision adopted (whether one of the models or an alternate approach) requires an amendment to the AAP and HUD approval. Commerce or an entity can never recapture more than the amount of available net proceeds upon voluntary or involuntary sale or transaction changing ownership, unless noncompliance has occurred. Net proceeds is defined as the sale price of the home minus the superior loan repayment (not including HOME loans) and any closing costs. If the amount to be recaptured is more than the net proceeds (i.e., 482 State of Montana 210 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan foreclosure or declining housing markets) the seller would be required to repay the balance of the net proceeds, which could be less than the original HOME direct subsidy. Recapture of the Entire Direct HOME Subsidy The following are the conditions under which Commerce will enforce the use of recapture of the entire direct HOME subsidy as a recapture provision. In this recapture provision, Commerce or the entity recaptures the entire amount of HOME subsidy provided to the homebuyer before the household receives proceeds from the sale of the property. This recapture is limited to the net proceeds available from the voluntary or involuntary sale or transaction changing ownership during the period of affordability. This recapture provision will be enforced in the event of a voluntary or involuntary sale or transaction changing ownership that occurs during the period of affordability years 0 through 9, as applicable to Table AP-4. Enforcement of the recapture provision that occurs during the period of affordability years 10 through 15 (see Table AP-4) will follow the recapture provision owner investment is returned first. If the period of affordability is less than 10 years, recapture of the entire direct HOME subsidy will only be used; no other recapture provision will be permitted. This will be enforced through the written agreement with the household. As an example, if the assisted unit received $12,000 in HOME assistance and the unit is voluntarily or involuntarily sold or a transaction changing ownership has occurred during year 4, the entire direct HOME subsidy ($12,000) would need to be repaid according to the net proceeds calculation. If the assisted unit received $42,000 in HOME assistance and the unit is voluntarily or involuntarily sold or a transaction changing ownership has occurred during year 11, the entire direct HOME subsidy recapture provision would not be triggered, rather the owner investment is returned first recapture provision would be triggered. Owner Investment Returned First The following are the conditions under which Commerce will enforce the use of owner investment is returned first as a recapture provision. In this recapture provision, Commerce or the entity recaptures all or a portion of the HOME subsidy provided to the homebuyer but allows the homebuyer to recover their entire investment (down payment and capital improvements made by the owner since the purchase) before recapturing the HOME investment. This recapture includes the net proceeds available from the voluntary or involuntary sale or transaction changing ownership during the period of affordability. However, if net proceeds are insufficient, the homebuyer may not receive their entire investment back, and Commerce or the entity may not be able to recapture the full amount due from the net proceeds available. Eligible capital improvements include permanent property improvements that improve or enhance the basic livability or utility of the property but are not normal or recurring maintenance items. The value of capital improvements will be based on the actual costs of the improvements as documented by the homeowner’s receipts. This recapture provision will be enforced in the event of a voluntary or involuntary sale or transaction changing ownership that occurs during the period of affordability years 10 through the minimum years (see Table AP-4) to include owner investment is returned first. This will be enforced through the written agreement with the household. 483 State of Montana 211 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan As an example, if the assisted unit received $40,000 and the unit is voluntarily or involuntarily sold or a transaction changing ownership has occurred during year 10, the homebuyer’s investment would be calculated based on the documented capital improvements made during the period of affordability and any investment made during the original sale. This amount would be deducted from the amount to be repaid according to the net proceeds calculation that would be paid to homeowner and Commerce or the entity. 4. Plans for using HOME funds to refinance existing debt secured by multifamily housing that is rehabilitated with HOME funds along with a description of the refinancing guidelines required that will be used under 24 CFR 92.206(b), are as follows: Not applicable. Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) Reference 91.320(k)(3) 1. Include written standards for providing ESG assistance (may include as attachment) ESG is administered by DPHHS, Intergovernmental Human Services Bureau (IHSB) as part of a statewide plan for ending homelessness in Montana. Of Montana’s 10 regional HRDCs, 9 receive ESG assistance (87.5% of the grant funds). DPHHS retains 2.5% for administrative costs, and 10% supports the HMIS upgrade requirements. Overarching Goals and targeting include: • Addressing the housing needs of families and individuals at risk of homelessness or facing the possibility of homelessness (Homeless Prevention); • Increasing the level of assistance programs to families and individuals who are homeless so that they may achieve stable and sustainable housing (Rapid Rehousing); and • Providing case management and referral services to families and individuals so they have access to supportive stabilization systems. ESG funds are used to meet the needs of the homeless or those at risk of homelessness at the local level. Program components include Homeless Prevention, Rapid Rehousing, HMIS, and limited Emergency Shelter and Street Outreach assistance. Eligible activities include rental assistance, financial assistance for rental application fees, security and utility deposit payments, case management, housing search, support for toll free telephone referral hotlines for victims and survivors of domestic abuse and other homeless individuals and families, referrals to mainstream resources, essential services and shelter maintenance assistance to shelters for the homeless and victims of domestic and sexual violence, youth homes, and food banks. All HRDCs submit work plans based on local need and priorities, budgets, and reports outlining which of the allowable activities will be undertaken. DPHHS works with the MTCoC to leverage resources and provide increased and coordinated services to homeless Montanans across the state. DPHHS aligns its strategy for reducing and ending homelessness with the MTCoC districts. DPHHS and subgrantees of ESG funding participate in MTCoC strategic planning discussions and attend working meetings. The MTCoC prioritizes and ranks homeless projects each year and prepares a consolidated, statewide continuum of care application in response to the NOFA. Projects originate from local community continuums of care or a state agency. Project approvals are based on performance and capacity criteria as well as local needs and HUD priorities. 484 State of Montana 212 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan In this way, the ESG Program requirements are aligned with other formula programs and rental assistance programs to increase efficiency and coordination among the different programs. This framework will maximize community-wide planning and strategic use of resources to: • Standardize eligibility determinations; • Prevent and end homelessness through direct funding of the most critical services to help people achieve long-term housing stability and avoid becoming homeless again; • Improve coordination and integration with mainstream services and focus on shortening periods of homelessness; • Improve coordination within each community’s homeless services including services funded by other programs targeted to homeless people; • Improve targeting of those most in need; • Improve data collection and performance measurement; • Allow each community to tailor its program to the particular strengths and challenges within the community; and • Marshal available resources capitalizing on existing strength and increased efficiency. The specific standards and eligibility guidelines by which subgrantees implement the ESG Program are set forth in Montana’s ESG Policy Manual. Individuals and families that have been negatively impacted by COVID-19 through job loss and underemployment may be unable to pay rent. These Montanans face instability and an increased risk of homelessness. By identifying these characteristics in association with the “At risk of homelessness” definition § 576.2 (1) (iii) (G), ESG allows Homeless Prevention funds to assist these individuals and families so that subrecipients may help program participants regain stability in their current permanent housing or achieve stability in other permanent housing, ultimately preventing an individual or family from moving into an emergency shelter or another place described in paragraph (1) of the “homeless” definition in § 576.2. The ESG Program Policy Manual is available on the DPHHS website at: http://dphhs.mt.gov/Portals/85/hcsd/documents/ESGPolicyManual.pdf. 2. If the Continuum of Care has established centralized or coordinated assessment system that meets HUD requirements, describe that centralized or coordinated assessment system. Implementation of Montana’s coordinate assessment system, known locally as the Coordinated Entry System (CES), occurred simultaneously with the rollout of a new HMIS; both launched in earnest in September 2018. Earlier versions of CES were largely paper-based; these were fully integrated into the new HMIS including a custom built By-Name-List. The MTCoC board designated the new HMIS Vendor and Lead (Pathways MISI) to also be the statewide CES Lead. While the MTCoC is structured around 12 districts, CES focuses on hubs, which are the largest cities or towns in each district. New statewide CES Standard Operating Procedures were adopted in August 2018, and while each district is required to comply with the CES Policies and Procedures, they are free to organize their own front doors and can implement more detailed prioritization policies and case conferencing processes. Monthly local CES Leader roundtables are conducted to facilitate peer learning, and to continue trouble shooting and system improvement. Data Dashboards track inflows, outflows, and destinations by state and community. The HMIS/CES Lead conducts monthly CES data quality reports and provides onsite visits as well as one-on-one consultations. 485 State of Montana 213 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan 3. Identify the process for making sub-awards and describe how the ESG allocation available to private nonprofit organizations (including community and faith-based organizations). ESG funds are allocated to 9 of the 10 regional HRDCs in Montana. Funds are distributed based on a formula allocation, reflecting areas of poverty and general population, as set forth in Section 53-10-502, MCA, pertaining to the federal CSBG. The amount of funds allocated is based on poverty levels and general population in each service area, relative to the poverty and general population of the entire state. All HRDCs will submit work plans, budgets, and reports outlining which of the allowable activities will be undertaken. 4. If the jurisdiction is unable to meet the homeless participation requirement in 24 CFR 576.405(a), the jurisdiction must specify its plan for reaching out to and consulting with homeless or formerly homeless individuals in considering policies and funding decisions regarding facilities and services funded under ESG. Not applicable. 5. Describe performance standards for evaluating ESG. Reporting of services and outcomes are submitted annually through the CAPER to the NASCSP and reported to Congress as part of the CSBG Program. DPHHS provides onsite monitoring of the ESG Program via regularly scheduled monitoring visits by program staff, using a monitoring tool and reviewing a selection of case files. Staff reviews the matching requirements, budget, and performance (both financial and operational) against contracted activities in the approved ESG work plans, and reviews fiscal accountability and timeliness of report submission. This monitoring is part of a comprehensive annual review of all programs funded by the Intergovernmental Human Services Bureau. Housing Trust Fund (HTF) Reference 24 CFR 91.320(k)(5) 1. How will the grantee distribute its HTF funds? Select all that apply: [X] Applications submitted by eligible recipients [ ] Subgrantees that are State Agencies [X] Subgrantees that are HUD-CPD entitlement grantees 2. If distributing HTF funds through grants to subgrantees, describe the method for distributing HTF funds through grants to subgrantees and how those funds will be made available to state agencies and/or units of general local government. If not distributing funds through grants to subgrantees, enter “N/A”. HTF recipients and subgrantees include Montana’s entitlement communities (Billings, Great Falls, and Missoula) and nonprofit organizations. HTF recipients and subgrantees are eligible to apply for HTF funding, alone or in partnership. Non-entitlement local governments may apply in partnership with an eligible subgrantee. Nonprofit organizations must have an Internal Revenue Service 501(c)(3) or 501(c)(4) nonprofit designation to be an eligible recipient of HTF funds. Partner organizations may include for-profit entities, other nonprofit organizations, CHDOs, HRDCs, and PHAs. Within the Priority Needs to Preserve and Construct Affordable Housing and Reduce Homelessness, HTF funds will be used to increase and preserve the supply of rental housing for extremely low-income households, particularly the homeless, disabled, elderly, and other disadvantaged populations, including homeless families. The HTF funds awarded must not exceed the HOME maximum per-unit subsidy limits and rent limits each assisted unit must not exceed HUD-established rent limits. Commerce will not use HTF funds to assist first-time homebuyers, for homeownership housing financing, or for refinancing existing debt. 486 State of Montana 214 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan Commerce will accept HTF applications on a competitive basis. Commerce will then prioritize project proposals from eligible entities. Applications will be ranked to determine how closely a project aligns with the intent of the State of Montana Consolidated Plan and HTF Program goals and objectives and ranking criteria. This is more fully described in the HTF narrative of AP-30. HTF Program applications, grant application guidelines, the administration manual, and other relevant information and resources are available on Commerce’s website at http://comdev.mt.gov/Programs/HTF. 3. If distributing HTF funds by selecting applications submitted by eligible recipients, a. Describe the eligibility requirements for recipients of HTF funds (as defined in 24 CFR § 93.2). If not distributing funds by selecting applications submitted by eligible recipients, enter “N/A”. HTF recipients and subgrantees include Montana’s entitlement communities (Billings, Great Falls, and Missoula) and nonprofit organizations. HTF recipients and subgrantees are eligible to apply for HTF funding, alone or in partnership. Non-entitlement local governments may apply in partnership with an eligible subgrantee. Nonprofit organizations must have an Internal Revenue Service 501(c)(3) or 501(c)(4) nonprofit designation to be an eligible recipient of HTF funds. Partner organizations may include for-profit entities, other nonprofit organizations, CHDOs, HRDCs, and PHAs. b. Describe the grantee’s application requirements for eligible recipients to apply for HTF funds. If not distributing funds by selecting applications submitted by eligible recipients, enter “N/A”. Eligible applicants must complete an application adhering to the requirements outlined in the HTF application guidelines. Commerce will review applications and award funds to those projects most closely aligned with the goals and objectives of the program. c. Describe the selection criteria that the grantee will use to select applications submitted by eligible recipients. If not distributing funds by selecting applications submitted by eligible recipients, enter “N/A”. Eligible applicants must provide responses in the application to the following ranking priorities. a. Geographic Diversity and Housing Needs b. Capacity of the Applicant c. Affordability and Financial Feasibility d. Appropriate Design and Long-Term Solution e. Long-term Planning and Management f. Readiness to Proceed Eligible applicants must also provide signed certifications, supporting documentation, budget, implementation schedule, management plan, market analysis, and other documents that may include a Preliminary Architectural Report or Capital Needs Assessment, depending on new construction or rehabilitation, to demonstrate the project’s ability to meet the HTF Program guidelines. Commerce will use the HTF allocation to increase and preserve the supply of rental housing for extremely low-income families, giving preference to the homeless, disabled, elderly, and other disadvantaged populations, as well as those impacted by COVID-19. • Eligible project activities can generally be any of the following that result in units that can be occupied by income-eligible households at the completion of the HTF-funded project: o Demolition of existing substandard housing that is not suitable for rehabilitation, or of non-residential structures that are not suitable for conversion to housing units; o Site improvements, such as landscaping, paving, sidewalks, curbs and gutters, onsite utilities, etc., related to rehabilitation or new construction of rental housing; 487 State of Montana 215 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan o Construction of new rental housing units; o Rehabilitation of existing substandard rental housing that is suitable for rehabilitation; o Conversion of existing non-housing structures into housing units; and/or o Reconstruction of an existing rental housing project. d. Describe the grantee’s required priority for funding based on geographic diversity (as defined by the grantee in the consolidated plan). If not distributing funds by selecting applications submitted by eligible recipients, enter “N/A”. Commerce will prioritize applications for all qualified projects based on geography using the metrics listed below. All counties will be scored based on established metrics using ACS data, and projects will receive a low, medium, or high funding priority based on their location. • Percentage of families in poverty; • Available and affordable housing units; • Rental housing cost burden; • Transportation plus housing cost burden; • Substandard housing conditions; and • Percentage of total population experiencing homelessness. e. Describe the grantee’s required priority for funding based on the applicant's ability to obligate HTF funds and undertake eligible activities in a timely manner. If not distributing funds by selecting applications submitted by eligible recipients, enter “N/A”. Commerce considers in the Readiness to Proceed Priority the project’s ability to obligate HTF funds and undertake eligible activities within 9 months of award and assesses whether projects can be completed and occupied within 4 years of award. f. Describe the grantee’s required priority for funding based on the extent to which the rental project has Federal, State, or local project-based rental assistance so that rents are affordable to extremely low- income families. If not distributing funds by selecting applications submitted by eligible recipients, enter “N/A”. All HTF units will remain affordable as HTF units for a minimum of 30 years by demonstrating a supported cash flow through the HTF 30-year period of affordability, achieved through a request for HTF Operating Assistance and/or with the documented availability of federal, state, or local project-based rental subsidy. All funded HTF activities must meet HTF requirements, including the HOME Program’s maximum per- unit development subsidy limit for housing assisted with HTF funds. The State has elected to use maximum per-unit subsidy limits for the HOME Program (24 CFR 93.300(a)), which are calculated using the Uniform Application Form for Montana housing programs available on the Commerce website. Applicants must submit this information through the Uniform Application for Montana housing programs to describe and document how the project will maintain a positive cash flow through the minimum, required 30-year period of affordability. Projects with partner funding for which additional years of affordability are required or requested must demonstrate cash flow throughout the additional term. As part of that demonstration, the applicant will be required to describe and document: a. The need for any request for HTF Operating Assistance funds; and/or b. The applicant’s ability to provide federal, state, or local project-based rental subsidy. 488 State of Montana 216 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan g. Describe the grantee’s required priority for funding based on the financial feasibility of the project beyond the required 30-year period. If not distributing funds by selecting applications submitted by eligible recipients, enter “N/A”. The HTF application requires projects to have at least a 30-year period of affordability, during which the property must meet income-eligibility and rent limit requirements. During the period of affordability, the grantee will need to provide a certification of compliance. Additionally, the Affordability and Financial Feasibility Priority includes additional questions regarding the financial viability of the proposed project to ensure that: • The grant will only be an amount necessary to provide quality affordable housing that is financially viable for at least the statutorily required period of affordability; and • The sources and uses of funds (including any operating cost assistance and reserves) for the project are reasonable and will not provide an undue benefit. h. Describe the grantee’s required priority for funding based on the merits of the application in meeting the priority housing needs of the grantee (such as housing that is accessible to transit or employment centers, housing that includes green building and sustainable development features, or housing that serves special needs populations). If not distributing funds by selecting applications submitted by eligible recipients, enter “N/A”. Appropriate Design and Long-Term Solution Priority requires the applicant to respond to questions to determine the extent to which an applicant demonstrates that the project aligns with and will contribute to the achievement of the Consolidated Plan goals and objectives as well as other factors, including but not limited to, broadband internet connectivity, walkability, visitability, energy efficiency and conservation, smoke-free, and accessibility. i. Describe the grantee’s required priority for funding based on the extent to which the application makes use of non-federal funding sources. If not distributing funds by selecting applications submitted by eligible recipients, enter “N/A”. While no match is required for the use of HTF funds, Commerce will carefully consider applications that leverage other funding sources to achieve the project activities. Affordability and Financial Feasibility Priority requires the applicant to respond to questions to determine the extent to which the applicant demonstrates that the projects’ grant will only be an amount necessary to provide quality affordable housing that is financially viable for at least the statutorily required period of affordability and that the sources and uses of funds (including any operating cost assistance and reserves) for the project are reasonable and will not provide an undue benefit. 4. Does the grantee’s application require the applicant to include a description of the eligible activities to be conducted with HTF funds? If not distributing funds by selecting applications submitted by eligible recipients, select “N/A”. [X] Yes [ ] No [ ] N/A 5. Does the grantee’s application require that each eligible recipient certify that housing units assisted with HTF funds will comply with HTF requirements? If not distributing funds by selecting applications submitted by eligible recipients, select “N/A”. [X] Yes [ ] No [ ] N/A 489 State of Montana 217 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan 6. Performance Goals and Benchmarks. The grantee has met the requirement to provide for performance goals and benchmarks against which the grantee will measure its progress, consistent with the grantee’s goals established under 24 CFR 91.315(b)(2), by including HTF in its housing goals in the housing table on the SP-45 Goals and AP-20 Annual Goals and Objectives screens. [X] Yes [ ] No 7. Maximum Per-unit Development Subsidy Amount for Housing Assisted with HTF Funds. Enter or attach the grantee’s maximum per-unit development subsidy limits for housing assisted with HTF funds. The limits must be adjusted for the number of bedrooms and the geographic location of the project. The limits must also be reasonable and based on actual costs of developing non-luxury housing in the area. If the grantee will use existing limits developed for other federal programs such as the Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) per unit cost limits, HOME’s maximum per-unit subsidy amounts, and/or Public Housing Development Cost Limits (TDCs), it must include a description of how the HTF maximum per-unit development subsidy limits were established or a description of how existing limits developed for another program and being adopted for HTF meet the HTF requirements specified above. Commerce uses the HOME maximum per-unity subsidy amounts for the HTF Program. The HOME and HTF subsidy limits are presented in Table AP-5. These limits are subject to change based on HUD’s annually published bases. Table AP-5 – HOME and HTF Maximum per Unit Subsidies Bedrooms Base89 Total Subsidy 0 $63,881 X 240% $153,314 1 $73,230 X 240% $175,752 2 $89,049 X 240% $213,717 3 $115,201 X 240% $276,482 4+ $126,454 X 240% $303,489 8. Rehabilitation Standards. The grantee must establish rehabilitation standards for all HTF-assisted housing rehabilitation activities that set forth the requirements that the housing must meet upon project completion. The grantee’s description of its standards must be in sufficient detail to determine the required rehabilitation work including methods and materials. The standards may refer to applicable codes or they may establish requirements that exceed the minimum requirements of the codes. The grantee must attach its rehabilitation standards below. In addition, the rehabilitation standards must address each of the following: health and safety; major systems; lead-based paint; accessibility; disaster mitigation (where relevant); state and local codes, ordinances, and zoning requirements; Uniform Physical Condition Standards; and Capital Needs Assessments (if applicable). Commerce established rehabilitation standards for all housing units rehabilitated with HTF funds (see Appendix J). 89 https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2020-06-04/pdf/2020-12084.pdf 490 State of Montana 218 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan The recipient and subgrantee will be required to follow all rehabilitation standards as set forth in 24 C.F.R. § 93.301(b) and Appendix J of this document, which include but are not limited to: • Applicants are strongly encouraged, to the maximum extent possible, to adopt smoke-free requirements in all housing units and include the three basic visitability features that increase access to friends and family for individuals with disabilities (a zero-step entrance, doors with 32 inches of clear passage space, and a wheelchair-accessible half-bathroom on the main floor). • Substandard not suitable for rehabilitation means any housing unit or a building containing housing units where the estimated cost of making the needed replacements and repairs is greater than or equal to 75% of the estimated cost of new construction of a comparable unit or units. • Substandard suitable for rehabilitation means any housing unit or a building containing housing units where the estimated cost of making necessary replacements and repairs is less than 75% of the estimated cost of new construction of a comparable unit or units. 9. Resale or Recapture Guidelines. Below, the grantee must enter (or attach) a description of the guidelines that will be used for resale or recapture of HTF funds when used to assist first-time homebuyers. If the grantee will not use HTF funds to assist first-time homebuyers, enter “N/A”. N/A 10. HTF Affordable Homeownership Limits. If the grantee intends to use HTF funds for homebuyer assistance and does not use the HTF affordable homeownership limits for the area provided by HUD, it must determine 95% of the median area purchase price and set forth the information in accordance with §93.305. If the grantee will not use HTF funds to assist first-time homebuyers, enter “N/A”. [ ] The grantee will use the HUD issued affordable homeownership limits. [ ] The grantee has determined its own affordable homeownership limits using the methodology described in §93.305(a)(2) and the limits are attached. N/A 11. Grantee Limited Beneficiaries or Preferences. Describe how the grantee will limit the beneficiaries or give preferences to a particular segment of the extremely low- or very low-income population to serve unmet needs identified in its consolidated plan or annual action plan. If the grantee will not limit the beneficiaries or give preferences to a particular segment of the extremely low- or very low-income population, enter “N/A.” Any limitation or preference must not violate nondiscrimination requirements in § 93.350, and the grantee must not limit or give preferences to students. The grantee may permit rental housing owners to limit tenants or give a preference in accordance with § 93.303(d)(3) only if such limitation or preference is described in the action plan. The Geographic Diversity and Housing Needs Priority requires the applicant to respond to questions to determine the extent to which the applicant demonstrates that the projects’ grant will consider the extent to which the applicant will produce affordable housing to complement existing federal, state, and local efforts to increase the supply of decent, safe, and sanitary affordable housing for extremely low- income families, particularly the homeless, disabled, elderly, and other disadvantaged populations. 491 State of Montana 219 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan 12. Refinancing of Existing Debt. Enter or attach the grantee’s refinancing guidelines below. The guidelines describe the conditions under which the grantee will refinance existing debt. The grantee’s refinancing guidelines must, at minimum, demonstrate that rehabilitation is the primary eligible activity and ensure that this requirement is met by establishing a minimum level of rehabilitation per unit or a required ratio between rehabilitation and refinancing. If the grantee will not refinance existing debt, enter “N/A.” N/A Discussion Not applicable. 492 Memorandum REPORT TO:Economic Vitality Board FROM:Brit Fontenot SUBJECT:Consideration of the Cancellation of the July 3, 2024 Economic Vitality Board Meeting. MEETING DATE:June 5, 2024 AGENDA ITEM TYPE:Citizen Advisory Board/Commission RECOMMENDATION:After Board discussion and consideration, I move to cancel the July 3, 2024 Economic Vitality Board meeting. STRATEGIC PLAN:2.1 Business Growth: Support retention and growth of both the traded and local business sectors while welcoming and encouraging new and existing businesses, in coordination with the Economic Development Plan. BACKGROUND:The July, 2024 Economic Vitality Board meeting is scheduled for July 3. Due to the federal holiday and staff availability, staff is requesting that the Economic Vitality Board consider cancelling the July 3, 2024 Economic Vitality Board meeting. UNRESOLVED ISSUES:None. ALTERNATIVES:As determined by the Economic Vitality Board. FISCAL EFFECTS:None. Report compiled on: May 30, 2024 493