HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-11-25 City Commission AgendaA. Call to Order - 6:00 PM - Commission Room, City Hall, 121 North Rouse
B. Pledge of Allegiance and a Moment of Silence or Mindfulness
C. Changes to the Agenda
D. FYI
E. Commission Disclosures
F. Approval of Minutes
F.1 Approval of Regular Meeting Minutes: 01-28-25 Regular Meeting Minutes(Maas)
G. Consent
THE CITY COMMISSION OF BOZEMAN, MONTANA
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
Tuesday, February 11, 2025
How to Participate:
If you are interested in commenting in writing on items on the agenda please send an email to
comments@bozeman.net or visit the Public Comment Page prior to 12:00 p.m. on the day of the
meeting. At the direction of the City Commission, anonymous public comments are not distributed to
the City Commission or staff.
Public comments will also be accepted in-person and through video conference during the appropriate
agenda items but you may only comment once per item.
As always, the meeting will be recorded and streamed through the Commission's video page and
available in the City on cable channel 190.
For more information please contact the City Clerks' Office at 406.582.2320.
This meeting will be held both in-person and also using an online video conferencing 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
+1 669 900 9128
Access code: 933 7244 1920
Consider the Motion: I move to approve the combined City Commission minutes as submitted.
1
G.1 Accounts Payable Claims Review and Approval (Edwards)
G.2 Ratification of City Manager signature on the Standard Audit Contract Amendment
2024(Hodnett)
H. Public Comment on Non-agenda Items Falling Within the Purview and Jurisdiction of the
Commission
I. Action Items
I.1 Ordinance 2025-###, Final Adoption to Repeal and Replace Division 38.380 of the Bozeman
Municipal Code in Support of Affordable Housing Production(Montana/Fine)
I.2 Resolution 2025-##, Adopting Transportation and Engineering Infrastructure Review Fee
Schedule(Ross)
J. Other Agency Hearing
J.1 Public Hearing for Roers Affordable Housing at Urban Farms Low-Income Housing Tax Credit
(LIHTC) Application to Montana Housing(Munfrada)
K. Appointments
K.1 Appointment to the Community Development Advisory Board(Newby)
L. FYI / Discussion
M. Adjournment
This is the time to comment on any matter falling within the scope of the Bozeman City
Commission. 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 City Commission
cannot take action on any item which does not appear on the agenda. All persons addressing the
City Commission shall speak in a civil and courteous manner and members of the audience shall be
respectful of others. Please state your name, and state whether you are a resident of the city or a
property owner within the city in an audible tone of voice for the record and limit your comments
to three minutes.
Written comments can be located in the Public Comment Repository.
Consider the Motion: Having reviewed and considered the staff report, draft ordinance, public
comment, Economic Vitality Board and Planning Commission recommendations, and all information
presented, I hereby adopt the findings presented in the staff report for application 24529 and move to
approve the proposed Affordable Housing Ordinance.
Consider the Motion: I move to adopt the Resolution setting a fee schedule for Transportation and
Engineering Infrastructure Review.
Consider the Motion: I move to appoint up to four at-large members to the Community Development
Board for terms ending December 31, 2027.
City Commission meetings are open to all members of the public. If you have a disability that
requires assistance, please contact our ADA Coordinator, David Arnado, at 406.582.3232.
2
Commission meetings are televised live on cable channel 190 and streamed live on our Meeting
Videos Page.
3
Memorandum
REPORT TO:City Commission
FROM:Alex Newby, Deputy City Clerk
Mike Maas, City Clerk
Jon Henderson, Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT:Approval of Regular Meeting Minutes :
01-28-25 Regular Meeting Minutes
MEETING DATE:February 11, 2025
AGENDA ITEM TYPE:Minutes
RECOMMENDATION: Consider the Motion: I move to approve the combined City Commission
minutes as submitted.
STRATEGIC PLAN:1.1 Outreach: Continue to strengthen and innovate in how we deliver
information to the community and our partners.
BACKGROUND:In 2013, The Clerks' Office identified goals related to the Commission’s
priority of Improving Technology Utilization and Proficiency.
Improvements included:
• Live streaming broadcast of the City Commission Meeting
• Meeting efficiency
• Better access of meeting information for staff and the public
• Time savings
• Streamlined approach to citizen involvement and public comment In
addition to the City Commission, many City Boards utilize the system as well.
Beginning January 5, 2021 meetings in the Granicus platform have been
closed captioned. Those captions are searchable using the advanced search
option on our video view page.
Users are always welcome to contact the City Clerks' Office at 406.582.2320
or email BozemanClerksDepartment@bozeman.net for assistance.
UNRESOLVED ISSUES:None.
ALTERNATIVES:As determined by the Commission.
FISCAL EFFECTS:None.
Attachments:
4
01-28-25 City Commission Draft Minutes.docx
Report compiled on: February 5, 2025
5
Bozeman City Commission Meeting Minutes, January 28, 2025
Page 1 of 12
THE CITY COMMMISSION MEETING OF BOZEMAN, MONTANA
MINUTES
January 28, 2025
DUE TO A TECHNICAL ERROR,THE RECORDING OF THIS MEETING BECAME CORRUPTED AT 11:19 P.M.
THIS WRITTEN RECORD IS THE OFFICIAL RECORD OF THE MEETING’S CONTENTS.
Present:Terry Cunningham, Joey Morrison, Douglas Fischer, Emma Bode
Absent:None
Excused:Jennifer Madgic
Staff Present at the Dais:Interim City Manager (ICM) Chuck Winn, City Attorney (CA) Greg Sullivan, City
Clerk (CC) Mike Maas, Community Development Director (CDD), Erin George, Senior Planner (AP) Susana
Montana
A)00:11:11 Call to Order -6:00 PM -Commission Room, City Hall, 121 North Rouse
B)00:13:05 Pledge of Allegiance and a Moment of Silence or Mindfulness
C)00:13:46 Changes to the Agenda
00:14:01 Excuse the Absence of Commissioner Jen Madgic.
00:14:15 Motion to authorize the absence of Commissioner Jen Madgic.
Joey Morrison: Motion
Douglas Fischer: 2nd
00:14:15 Vote on the Motion to authorize the absence of Commissioner Jen Madgic.The Motion carried
4 -0.
Approve:
6
Bozeman City Commission Meeting Minutes, January 28, 2025
Page 2 of 12
Terry Cunningham
Joey Morrison
Douglas Fischer
Emma Bode
Disapprove:
None
D)00:14:39 Public Service Announcements
ICM Winn announced the beginning of the City Hall remodel and Finance Department has relocated to
the second floor; and announced the designated accessibility seating in the Commission Room.
E)00:15:53 FYI
Cr. Bode announced the first Coffee with a Commissioner on the last Friday of the month, beginning this
Friday at 9 a.m. at Mukai Coffee; commended staff on the road clearance efforts, especially on a paved
shared use pathway; uplifted Consent Item G.14 with HRDC related to the Home Buyer Education
program; lastly, framed the conversation around neighborhood character.
F)00:20:30 Commission Disclosures
G)00:20:49 Consent
G.1 Accounts Payable Claims Review and Approval
G.2 Authorize the City Manager to Sign a Grant Agreement with One Valley Community
Foundation for Investment in the Regional Housing Coalition
RHC Grant Agreement FY2025.pdf
City of Bozeman Grant Request.pdf
G.3 Authorize the City Manager to Approve the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Application
for PPE and Quick Response Vehicle Outfitting.
Assistance to Firefighters Grant Routing form_.pdf
FEMAGO -FY25 AFG_Submitted_.pdf
G.4 Authorize the City Manager to Approve the Application Submission to MT Department
of Natural Resources (DNRC) for Branch Out Bozeman: Volunteer Planting Sites and
Voucher Program -Round Two.
Complete_with_Docusign_FY25_DNRC_IRA_Grant_a.pdf
G.5 Authorize the City Manager to Approve the Submission of a Grant Application to MT
Department of Natural Resources for an Urban and Community Forestry Grant for the
City of Bozeman's Urban Forest Management Plan
Complete_with_Docusign_FY2025_DNRC_PD_Grant_.pdf
G.6 Authorize City Manager to Approve the Bureau of Justice Edward Byrne Memorial
Justice Assistance Grant Award
Award_Package_FAW-186957.pdf
FY25 BJA Grant Routing form_Signed_Updated.pdf
7
Bozeman City Commission Meeting Minutes, January 28, 2025
Page 3 of 12
G.7 Authorize the City Manager to Sign a Professional Services Agreement with Weston
Solutions for Environmental Services on the 2025 Transportation Alternatives Bike/Ped
Project and Pathway Preservation Project
Professional Services Agreement with Weston Solutions for Transportation
Alternatives.pdf
Weston Solutions Scope and Fee for Transportation Alternatives.pdf
G.8 Authorize the City Manager to sign a Professional Services Agreement with Jacobs for
Engineering Services to Study the Phosphorous Removal Process in Place at the Water
Reclamation Facility
Bozeman Phosphorus Short Form PSA Engineering_Final Jacobs Executed 1.10.25.pdf
G.9 Authorize the City Manager to Sign an Agreement with the Montana Department of
Transportation (MDT) for Utilities Relocates Associated with MDT Work on North 7th
Avenue
9313000_CITY_OF_BOZEMAN_928
9313000_CITY_OF_BOZEMAN_938
9313000_CITY_OF_BOZEMAN_904
9313000_CITY_OF_BOZEMAN_EXHIBIT_MARKED
MDT ADDENDUM A
MDT NONDISCRIMINATION 2022
G.10 Authorize the City Manager to Execute an Agreement with the Montana Department of
Transportation (MDT) for Utilities Relocates Associated with MDT Work on North 7th
Avenue
9477000_CITY_OF_BOZEMAN_938
9477000_CITY_OF_BOZEMAN_904
9477000_EXHIBIT_MARKED
MDT ADDENDUM A
MDT NONDISCRIMINATION 2022
G.11 Authorize the City Manager to Sign a Professional Services Agreement with Advanced
Engineering and Environmental Services, LLC (AE2S) for Integrated Water Resource Plan
Phase 1 Services
2501163 IWRP PSA-clean.docx
Exhibit A and B _ P05097-2024-004
G.12 Authorize City Manager to Sign Professional Services Agreements for Facilities
Contractors Term Contracts
Blanton Contracting PSA (Professional Service Agreement) Contract 2025.01.01.pdf
Golden Eagle Construction PSA (Professional Service Agreement) Contract 2025.01.01.pdf
Greater Gallatin Contractors, Inc. PSA Contract 2025.01.01.pdf
Greenspace Landscaping PSA (Professional Service Agreement) Contract 2025.01.01.pdf
inContour PSA (Professional Service Agreement) Contract 2025.01.01.pdf
Langlas & Associates PSA (Professional Service Agreement) Contract 2025.01.01.pdf
LONG Building Technologies PSA (Professional Service Agreement) Contract
2025.01.01.pdf
8
Bozeman City Commission Meeting Minutes, January 28, 2025
Page 4 of 12
Metalworks of Montana, Inc. PSA Contract 2025.01.01.pdf
Moore Technology, LLC PSA (Professional Service Agreement) Contract 2025.01.01.pdf
Parker Environmental, Inc. PSA (Professional Service Agreement) Contract 2025.01.01.pdf
Pioneer Technical Services PSA (Professional Service Agreement) Contract 2025.01.01.pdf
Plan One Architects PSA (Professional Service Agreement) Contract 2025.01.01.pdf
Sanbell PSA (Professional Service Agreement) Contract 2025.01.01.pdf
Slate Electrical PSA (Professional Service Agreement) Contract 2025.01.01.pdf
Tate Management PSA (Professional Service Agreement) Contract 2025.01.01.pdf
K2 Ventures PSA (Professional Service Agreement) Contract 2025.01.01.pdf
Alpine Precision Striping PSA (Professional Service Agreement) Contract 2025.01.01.pdf
G.13 Authorize the City Manager to Sign an Amendment 1 to Professional Service Agreement
with Pioneer Technical Services for Geotechnical Investigation at Bozeman Sports Park
Pioneer PSA First Amendment.docx
Bozeman Sports Park SOW Amendment.pdf
G.14 Authorize City Manager to Sign a Second Amendment to the Professional Services
Agreement with Human Resource Development Council IX
Second Amendment for Community Housing Program FY25-FY26.pdf
Scope of Services for Community Housing Program FY25-FY26.pdf
G.15 Authorize the City Manager to Sign a Task Order 008 with Sanbell for Design Services for
a North 7th Avenue Pedestrian Crossing
Task Order 008 Full.pdf
G.16 Adopt a Resolution to Authorize Change Order Two for Highland Construction for Glen
Lake Rotary Park Parking Lot
GLRP_Change-Order-2_Resolution.docx
Glen Lake Rotary Park - Change Order No. 2_signed (1).pdf
00:21:00 City Manager Introduction
ICM Winn provided the highlights of the Consent Agenda.
00:22:12 Public Comments
Mayor Cunningham opened the Consent Agenda for public comments.
00:23:06 Daniel Carty commented on items G.4 and G.5 thanking the City for its work on the
urban forest.
00:23:51 Motion to approve Consent Items 1 - 16 as submitted.
Douglas Fischer: Motion
Emma Bode: 2nd
00:24:12 Vote on the Motion to approve ConsentItems 1 - 16 as submitted.The Motion carried 4 - 0.
9
Bozeman City Commission Meeting Minutes, January 28, 2025
Page 5 of 12
Approve:
Terry Cunningham
Joey Morrison
Douglas Fischer
Emma Bode
Disapprove:
None
H)00:24:25 Public Comment on Non-agenda Items Falling Within the Purview and
Jurisdiction of the Commission
Mayor Cunningham opened the general public comment period.
00:24:58 John Meyer commented on affordable housing and developers' litigation, specifically
the Guthrie.
00:26:17 Roger Blank commented in opposition to the updated Affordable Housing Ordinance
(AHO).
00:27:38 Daniel Carty commented on the Midtown Association's UDC update.
00:28:22 Felix Spinelli commented in opposition to the updated AHO.
00:31:34 Natsuki Nakamura commented in opposition to the Guthrie 2 and housing prices.
00:34:05 Scott Mayer commented in opposition to the Guthrie.
00:35:54 Gary Delean commented in opposition to the Guthrie 2.
00:37:55 Anthony Smith commented on not receiving a right-of-way permit and the December 3,
2024, standoff.
00:42:32 Kristen Newman commented to commend the City's continued improvements related to
accessibility.
00:43:27 Cindy Miller commented in opposition to the Guthrie.
00:47:18 Taesan Josephson commented on the Guthrie and community degradation.
I)00:49:00 Special Presentation
I.1 00:49:03 Snow Plowing Odd-Even Parking Pilot Program
Transportation and Engineering Director, Nick Ross, presented the pilot program.
10
Bozeman City Commission Meeting Minutes, January 28, 2025
Page 6 of 12
J)00:59:01 Action Items
J.1 00:59:03 Ordinance 2025-### to Repeal and Replace Division 38.380 of the
Bozeman Municipal Code in Support of Affordable Housing Production
Affordable Housing Ordinance DRAFT for 01 28 25 CC mtg.pdf
24529 AHO update CC Staff Report 01 22 25.pdf
01:01:32 Staff Presentation
Senior Planner, Susana Montana, presented the ordinance. She entered the staff report, application
materials, and all public comments into the record. She presented background on the AHO and previous
strategies, public engagement, summarized public comments, and summarized revisions in the AHO.
Economic Development Program Manager, David Fine, presented the AHO feasibility testing and base
scenarios, the Type A incentives, the Type B incentives, the Type C incentives, a summary of incentives,
and off-site alternatives.
Planner Montana presented the zoning amendment criteria, an overview of public comments, Economic
Vitality Board recommendation, and the Community Development Board (CDB) recommendation,
changes made to the AHO in response to CDB, and staff recommendation.
Program Manager Fine presented potential proposed amendments to the AHO and provided a
recommended motion.
01:44:10 Questions of Staff
03:14:55 Mayor Cunningham called the meeting into Recess.
03:14:58 Mayor Cunningham called the meeting back to order.
03:15:03 Public Comment
Mayor Cunningham opened this item for public comments.
03:15:31 Garret Summers commented in opposition to the ordinance.
03:18:05 Anja Lincke commented on behalf of Forward Montana in favor of the ordinance.
03:20:46 Deanna Campbell commented in opposition to the ordinance.
03:24:21 Alison Sweeney commented in opposition to the ordinance.
03:27:31 Nathan Stein, Executive Director of Headwaters Housing Trust, commented in support
of the ordinance.
03:30:16 Christian Hoover commented in support of the ordinance.
11
Bozeman City Commission Meeting Minutes, January 28, 2025
Page 7 of 12
03:31:54 Daniel Carty commented in opposition to the ordinance.
03:34:18 Wayne Mortimer commented in opposition to the ordinance.
03:35:52 Karen Sanchez commented in opposition to the ordinance.
03:39:16 Patty McGown commented in opposition to the ordinance.
03:42:27 Steve Kirchhoff commented in opposition to the ordinance.
03:46:10 Emma Campasion commented in support of the ordinance.
03:48:41 Zeth Stone commented in opposition to the ordinance.
03:51:08 Lila Cebulla commented in opposition to the ordinance.
03:52:31 Natsuki Nakamura commented in opposition to the ordinance.
03:55:44 Emily Talago, Midtown Representative to Inter-neighborhood Council, commented in
opposition to the ordinance.
03:59:05 Scott Boyd commented in opposition to the ordinance.
04:01:56 Mayor Cunningham extended the meeting until 11 p.m.
04:02:01 Public Comment continued
04:02:02 Diana Sauther commented in opposition to the ordinance.
04:05:24 Tyson O'Connell commented in support of the ordinance.
04:09:13 Kristen Newman commented in support of the ordinance.
04:12:03 Susan Riggs commented in support of the ordinance.
04:14:16 Noah ten Broek commented in opposition to the ordinance.
04:17:45 Beth MacFawn commented in opposition to the ordinance.
04:21:15 Clarifications of Staff
04:21:39 Questions in Response to Public Comments
12
Bozeman City Commission Meeting Minutes, January 28, 2025
Page 8 of 12
04:25:49 Discussion
04:50:12 Meeting Extended to 11:15 p.m.
04:50:20 Discussion continued
05:09:35 Meeting Extended to 11:30
05:10:59 Motion to approve Having reviewed and considered the staff report, draft ordinance, public
comment, Economic Vitality Board and Planning Commission recommendations, and all information
presented, I hereby adopt the findings presented in the staff report for application 24529 and move to
approve the proposed Affordable Housing Ordinance 2025, as reflected in the staff report.
Emma Bode: Motion
Joey Morrison: 2nd
05:11:00 Clarification on Process
05:12:13 Motion to amend for the proposed staff amendments one through four.
Emma Bode: Motion
Joey Morrison: 2nd
05:12:48 Discussion
05:13:09 Vote on the Motion to amend for the proposed staff amendments one through four.The Motion
carried 4 - 0.
Approve:
Terry Cunningham
Joey Morrison
Douglas Fischer
Emma Bode
Disapprove:
None
05:13:39 Motion to amend the ordinance to require that if a developer is proposing to utilize incentive B
or C than they are required to notify everyone within a 200 foot radius of the property and if in a
neighborhood association, must notify the neighborhood association, of a preapplication for the
13
Bozeman City Commission Meeting Minutes, January 28, 2025
Page 9 of 12
residents to offer their comments on the project; the developer must include the concerns and a
narrative about how they were addressed, or why they were not addressed.
Emma Bode: Motion
Joey Morrison: 2nd
05:16:30 Discussion
Vote on the Motion to amend the ordinance to require that if a developer is proposing to utilize incentive
B or C than they are required to notify everyone within a 200 foot radius of the property and if in a
neighborhood association, must notify the neighborhood association, at least 45 days prior to submission
of a site plan application for the residents to offer their comments on the project; the developer must
include the concerns and a narrative about how they were addressed, or why they were not addressed.
The Motion carried 4 - 0.
Approve:
Terry Cunningham
Joey Morrison
Douglas Fischer
Emma Bode
Disapprove:
None
Motion to amend section 38.380.040.C.3.a.i. of the ordinance to require that a site plan proposing to
utilize housing incentives that is required to create ADA parking spaces must locate those spaces on the
same site as the building.
Emma Bode: Motion
Joey Morrison: 2nd
Discussion
Vote on the Motion to amend section 38.380.040.C.3.a.i of the ordinance to require that a site plan
proposing to utilize housing incentives that is required to create ADA parking spaces must locate those
spaces on the same site as the building.The Motion carried 4 - 0.
Approve:
Terry Cunningham
Joey Morrison
Douglas Fischer
Emma Bode
14
Bozeman City Commission Meeting Minutes, January 28, 2025
Page 10 of 12
Disapprove:
None
The meeting was extended to 11:45 p.m.
Motion to amend section 38.380.050.A to clarify that shared amenities must be available to affordable
units within the affordable calculation, excluding parking; if parking is provided, it must be offered to
affordable units under the same terms as to the market rate units, including at an additional cost that is
outside of the affordability calculation.
Emma Bode: Motion
Joey Morrison: 2nd
Discussion
Vote on the Motion to amend section 38.380.050.A to clarify that shared amenities must be available to
affordable units within the affordable calculation, excluding parking; if parking is provided, it must be
offered to affordable units under the same terms as to the market rate units, including at an additional
cost that is outside of the affordability calculation.The Motion carried 4 - 0.
Approve:
Terry Cunningham
Joey Morrison
Douglas Fischer
Emma Bode
Disapprove:
None
Discussion on Additional Amendments
Motion to amend the ordinance modifying Type A and Type C incentives to strike any height incentives in
zoning districts R-S, R-1, R-2, and RMH, limit height incentives in R-3 to a 4-plex, and limit R-4 height
incentives to only one additional story.
Joey Morrison: Motion
Douglas Fischer: 2nd
Discussion
Meeting extended until Midnight.
15
Bozeman City Commission Meeting Minutes, January 28, 2025
Page 11 of 12
Discussion continued
Vote on the Motion to amend the ordinance modifying Type A and Type C incentives to strike any height
incentives in zoning districts R-S, R-1, R-2, and RMH, limit height incentives in R-3 to a 4-plex, and limit R-
4 height incentives to only one additional story.The Motion carried 4 - 0.
Approve:
Terry Cunningham
Joey Morrison
Douglas Fischer
Emma Bode
Disapprove:
None
Motion to amend the incentives to cap the maximum height allowance in the Type C incentives to no
more than two additional stories.
Joey Morrison: Motion
Douglas Fischer: 2nd
Discussion
Vote on the Motion to amend the incentives to cap the maximum height allowance in Type C incentives
to no more than two additional stories.The Motion carried 4 - 0.
Approve:
Terry Cunningham
Joey Morrison
Douglas Fischer
Emma Bode
Disapprove:
None
Discussion
Motion to amend the ordinance to remove Type C incentives for later consideration.
Douglas Fischer: Motion
Emma Bode: 2nd
16
Bozeman City Commission Meeting Minutes, January 28, 2025
Page 12 of 12
Discussion
Vote on the Motion to amend the ordinance to remove Type C incentives for later consideration.The
Motion failed 1 - 3.
Approve:
Douglas Fischer
Disapprove:
Terry Cunningham
Joey Morrison
Emma Bode
Discussion
Vote on the Motion to approve Having reviewed and considered the staff report, draft ordinance, public
comment, Economic Vitality Board and Planning Commission recommendations, and all information
presented, I hereby adopt the findings presented in the staff report for application 24529 and move to
approve the proposed Affordable Housing Ordinance 2025, as reflected in the staff report.The Motion
carried 3 - 1.
Approve:
Terry Cunningham
Joey Morrison
Emma Bode
Disapprove:
Douglas Fischer
K)FYI / Discussion
L)Adjournment
17
Memorandum
REPORT TO:City Commission
FROM:Nicole Armstrong, Accounts Payable Clerk
Rhonda Edwards, Accounts Payable Clerk
Aaron Funk, City Controller
Melissa Hodnett, Finance Director
SUBJECT:Accounts Payable Claims Review and Approval
MEETING DATE:February 11, 2025
AGENDA ITEM TYPE:Finance
RECOMMENDATION:The City Commission is recommended to make a motion and approve
payment of claims as presented.
STRATEGIC PLAN:7.5. Funding and Delivery of City Services: Use equitable and sustainable
sources of funding for appropriate City services, and deliver them in a lean
and efficient manner.
BACKGROUND:Montana Code Annotated, Section 7-6-4301 requires claims to be presented
to the City Commission within one year of the date the claims accrued.
Claims presented to the City Commission under this item have been
reviewed and validated by the Finance Department. The Department has
ensured that all goods and services have been received along with necessary
authorizations and supporting documentation. Please provide approval for
checks dated January 29th, 2024.
UNRESOLVED ISSUES:None
ALTERNATIVES:The City Commission could decide not to approve these claims or a portion
of the claims presented. This alternative is not recommended as it may
result in unbudgeted late fees assessed against the City.
FISCAL EFFECTS:The total amount of the claims to be paid is presented at the bottom of the
Expenditure Approval List posted on the City’s website at
https://www.bozeman.net/departments/finance/purchasing.
Report compiled on: August 21, 2024
18
Memorandum
REPORT TO:City Commission
FROM:Melissa Hodnett, Finance Director
SUBJECT:Ratification of City Manager signature on the Standard Audit Contract
Amendment 2024
MEETING DATE:February 11, 2025
AGENDA ITEM TYPE:Agreement - Vendor/Contract
RECOMMENDATION:Consider the Motion: I move to ratify the City Manager's signature on the
Standard Audit Contract Amendment 2024.
STRATEGIC PLAN:7.5. Funding and Delivery of City Services: Use equitable and sustainable
sources of funding for appropriate City services, and deliver them in a lean
and efficient manner.
BACKGROUND:MCA Section 2-7-503 requires that a financial report be prepared annually.
This statute also requires a biannual audit of the financial report - including
the accounts, financial records, and transactions of all administrative
departments of the City - by independent certified public accountants
selected by the City Commission. The City Commission and City
Administration have historically believed that an annual audit provides a
higher level of financial assurance and fiscal integrity than a biannual audit,
and this intension is expressed in Section 5.09 of the City Charter. The
Association of International Certified Public Account (AICPA) through AU-
C210 requires the terms of an audit engagement to be documented in an
audit engagement letter.
The audit services standard audit contract for fiscal years 2023, 2024, and
2025 and audit engagement letter for fiscal year 2023 is with the audit firm
Eide Bailly, LLP. The current standard audit contract is being amended to
reflect a rate reduction of $10,716 for the audit period covering 7/1/2023 to
6/30/2024 and to define the audit scope in Sections 1, 2, and 7 of Appendix
A and B as conducting a single audit in accordance with the provisions of
Uniform Guidance because the Entity expended a total amount of federal
awards equal to or in excess of $750,000 during the fiscal year(s).
UNRESOLVED ISSUES:None
ALTERNATIVES:None
FISCAL EFFECTS:Savings of $10,716 were realized in fiscal year 2024.
19
Attachments:
City of Bozeman Standard Audit Contract Amendment
2024.pdf
Report compiled on: January 30, 2025
20
FORM/LGE-ContractAmendment Page 1 of 2 Updated July 2024
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
STANDARD AUDIT CONTRACT AMENDMENT
This contract amendment is made this 27 day of January , 2025, by and among Eide Bailly,
LLP , Certified Public Accountant (Contractor) and City of Bozeman, Montana , Governmental
Entity (Entity).
Audit Period and Payment: This contract amendment covers the following audit period(s):
July 1, 2023 to June 30, 2025
Reason for amendment: Revised contract dates , type of audit performed, estimated
hours/costs, cancelling contract year
Amendments:
Paragraph 2.a. on page 1 of the standard audit contract is amended to read as follows:
$ 125,500 for initial (or sole) audit covering 7/1/2022to
6/30/2023 .
$ 100,000 for subsequent audit covering 7/1/2023 to 6/30/2024
$ NULL for subsequent audit covering 7/1/2024 to 6/20/2025
Any provision of this contract that does not allow Entity to define its financial reporting framework
as prescribed in 2-7-504(2), MCA and ARM 2.4.401(2), or Contractor to opine on Entity's financial
statements in accordance with Entity's defined financial reporting framework, is amended to
accomplish the same and identifies Entity's financial reporting framework as:
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles.
The Small Government Financial Reporting Framework, as defined at ARM 2.4.401.
Subject to State's approval of Entity's financial reporting framework, Entity shall include any
supplementary information required by ARM 2.4.401.
Sections 1, 2, and 7 of Appendix A on pages A1 and A2 are amended to read as follows:
1. Audit Periods and Dates of Engagement
a. This audit will cover the fiscal year(s) ending June 2023 and
b. Date to commence audit work ending September 2023 .
c. Date to submit final audit report to the Entity December 2023
2. Time and Price for Engagement
a. Estimated total hours is 700 .
b. Price for audit personnel is $89,000
Price for travel is $5,000 .
Price for report preparation is $ 31,500 .
Total price for the engagement is $125,500.
21
FORM/LGE-ContractAMENDMENT Page 2 of 2 Update July 2024
7. The audit scope with regard to federal financial assistance received by the Entity for the
above fiscal year(s) will be as indicated below:
The audit will be a single audit conducted in accordance with the provisions of
Uniform Guidance because the Entity expended a total amount of federal awards
equal to or in excess of $750,000 during the fiscal year(s), or such other dollar
amount ($Amount) that is effective for the fiscal year(s) being audited.
The audit will not be a single audit conducted in accordance with the provisions of
Uniform Guidance and will not include audit coverage of any federal financial
assistance in accordance with requirements of that federal regulation, because the
Entity expended a total amount of federal awards of less than $750,000 during the
fiscal year(s), or such other dollar amount ($ ) that is effective for the fiscal year(s)
being audited.
Sections 1, 2, and 7 of Appendix B on pages B1 and B2 are amended to read as follows:
1. Audit Periods and Dates of Engagement
a. This audit will cover the fiscal year(s) ending June 30, 2024 and
b. Date to commence audit work ending September 2024.
c. Date to submit final audit report to the Entity December 2024
2. Time and Price for Engagement
a. Estimated total hours is 700.
b. Price for audit personnel is $ 95,000
Price for travel is $ 5,000 .
Price for report preparation is $ 0 .
Total price for the engagement is $ 100,000 .
7. The audit scope with regard to federal financial assistance received by the Entity for the
above fiscal year(s) will be as indicated below:
The audit will be a single audit conducted in accordance with the provisions of
Uniform Guidance because the Entity expended a total amount of federal awards
equal to or in excess of $750,000 during the fiscal year(s), or such other dollar
amount ($Amount) that is effective for the fiscal year(s) being audited.
The audit will not be a single audit conducted in accordance with the provisions of
Uniform Guidance and will not include audit coverage of any federal financial
assistance in accordance with requirements of that federal regulation, because the
Entity expended a total amount of federal awards of less than $750,000 during the
fiscal year(s), or such other dollar amount ($Amount) that is effective for the fiscal
year(s) being audited.
Sections 1, 2, and 7 of Appendix C on pages C1 and C2 are amended to read as follows:
1. Audit Periods and Dates of Engagement
a. This audit will cover the fiscal year(s) ending N/A and N/A
b. Date to commence audit work ending .
22
FORM/LGE-ContractAMENDMENT Page 2 of 2 Update July 2024
c. Date to submit final audit report to the Entity
2. Time and Price for Engagement
a. Estimated total hours is N/A .
b. Price for audit personnel is $ N/A
Price for travel is $ .
Price for report preparation is $ .
Total price for the engagement is $ N/A .
7. The audit scope with regard to federal financial assistance received by the Entity for the
above fiscal year(s) will be as indicated below:
The audit will be a single audit conducted in accordance with the provisions of
Uniform Guidance because the Entity expended a total amount of federal awards
equal to or in excess of $750,000 during the fiscal year(s), or such other dollar
amount ($Amount) that is effective for the fiscal year(s) being audited.
The audit will not be a single audit conducted in accordance with the provisions of
Uniform Guidance and will not include audit coverage of any federal financial
assistance in accordance with requirements of that federal regulation, because the
Entity expended a total amount of federal awards of less than $750,000 during the
fiscal year(s), or such other dollar amount ($Amount) that is effective for the fiscal
year(s) being audited.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF:
Certified Public Accountant
Eide Bailly, LLP
Firm Name
By: Date:
Authorized Representative
Governmental Entity
City of Bozeman, Montana
Entity Name
By: Date:
Authorized Representative
Montana Department of Administration,
Local Government Services Bureau
By: Date:
Authorized Representative
02/05/2025
23
Memorandum
REPORT TO:City Commission
FROM:
Susana Montana, Senior Planner
Chris Saunders, Community Development Manager
Erin George, Director of Community Development
Renata Munfrada, Housing Division Manager
David Fine, Economic Development Urban Renewal Manager
Britt Fontenot, Economic Development Department Director
SUBJECT:
Ordinance 2025-###, Final Adoption to Repeal and Replace Division 38.380
of the Bozeman Municipal Code in Support of Affordable Housing Production
MEETING DATE:February 11, 2025
AGENDA ITEM TYPE:Community Development - Legislative
RECOMMENDATION:
Consider the Motion: Having reviewed and considered the staff report, draft
ordinance, public comment, Economic Vitality Board and Planning
Commission recommendations, and all information presented, I hereby adopt
the findings presented in the staff report for application 24529 and move to
approve the proposed Affordable Housing Ordinance.
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 Commission held a public hearing on provisional adoption of
Ordinance 2025 ### - the Affordable Housing Ordinance (AHO) on January
28, 2025. Following the public hearing and the receipt of public comment,
the mayor closed the hearing and brought up the AHO for motion and vote.
The City Commission made motions on several amendments to the AHO and
directed staff to return with language reflecting those amendments for a
vote on final adoption. A vote on provisional adoption of the AHO as
24
amended was 3-1. This ordinance has strikeout and underline, which reflect
changes to the Ordinance since provisional adoption. Following any final
adoption, staff will produce a clean version of the Ordinance for signature
and codification. The following summary reflects those amendments:
Sec. 38.380.030.F.
Utilization of the Type B and C incentives now includes a requirement
for the developer to hold a preapplication community meeting. A
notice for the meeting must be mailed to owners of all property and
all mail addresses withing a 200-foot radius of the proposed
development. If the development is located within a city recognized
neighborhood association, the developer must provide written notice
of the meeting to the presiding officer of the applicable neighborhood
association, to the city neighborhood liaison, and to the chair of the
inter-neighborhood council. This amendment is located on pages 11
and 12 of the Ordinance.
Sec. 38.380.040 Incentives
All minimum ADA spaces must be located on the same site as the
dwellings.
The Type A Incentives for multi-household dwellings are amended to
only allow for one additional story of height in R-3 if the proposed
building has four or fewer total dwellings.
No height in incentives in R-S, R-1, R-2, and RMH
Adds M-1 to the list of height incentives, where it was previously
omitted.
For the Type C incentives, only one (1) additional story of height is
available in R-3 and R-4.
For the Type C incentives, no more than two (2) additional stories of
height are available in R-5, R-O, REMU, B-1, B-2, B-2M, B-3, and UMU.
For the Type C incentives, the minimum parking requirement is
increased to 0.75 spaces per dwelling.
Sec. 38.380.050 – Development Standards for Affordable Dwellings
Subsection D is amended to read:
Access to shared amenities, including parking, by residents of the
affordable dwellings must be the same as those in market-rate
dwellings in the development. For amenities other than parking,
the cost of any such amenity must be included in the required
affordable rental rate.
UNRESOLVED ISSUES:
None at this time.
ALTERNATIVES:As amended by the City Commission.
FISCAL EFFECTS:None at this time.
25
Attachments:
24529 AHO update CC Staff Report 01 22 25.pdf
Affordable Housing Ordinance For Final Adoption.docx
Report compiled on: February 3, 2025
26
Page 1 of 64
Project 24529; City Commission Staff Report for the Bozeman Municipal
Code (BMC) Division 38.380 Affordable Housing Text Amendment--
Ordinance 2025-###
Public Hearings:
Community Development Board meeting – January 13, 2025.
City Commission public hearing – January 28, 2025.
Project Description: Repeal Bozeman Municipal Code (BMC) Division 38.380, Affordable
Housing, and replace it in its entirety with an amended Division 38.380, Affordable
Housing. See Appendix B on page 42 for a summary comparison of the incentives
offered by the current Affordable Housing provisions of Division 38.380 and the
proposed AHO incentives.
Project Location: The Ordinance is applicable City-wide.
Recommendation: The proposed Affordable Housing Ordinance amendment to the
Bozeman Unified Development Code (UDC) meets the Section 38.260.010
Zoning Text Amendment criteria for approval as noted below in Section 2.
Economic Vitality Board Motion: Having heard the staff presentation and considered public
comment, and all information presented, the Board made the following two
recommendations to the City Commission: (1) Both Type B and C incentives should
have a minimum parking requirement and (2) the 60% of AMI affordability level
should be evaluated every three years and should be based on HUD-AMI data as well
as other metrics and information (please see the Economic Vitality Board discussion
on page 7 below).
Community Development Board Motion: Having reviewed and considered the staff report,
draft ordinance, public comment, recommendation from the Economic Vitality
Board, and all information presented, the Community Development Board acting
as the Zoning Commission, adopts the findings presented in the staff report for
application 24529, and moves to recommend approval of the proposed Affordable
Housing Ordinance 2025, as reflected in the staff report (please see the
Community Development Board discussion on page 9 and Appendix C below).
City Commission Recommended Motion: Having reviewed and considered the staff report,
draft ordinance, Economic Vitality Board and Planning Commission
recommendations, public comment, and all information presented, I hereby adopt
the findings presented in the staff report for application 24529 and move to
approve the proposed Affordable Housing Ordinance 2025, as reflected in the staff
report.
27
City Commission Staff Report for the Affordable Housing Ordinance 2025, Division
38.380 Repeal and Replacement Text Amendment, Project No.24529
Page 2 of 64
Report: January 21, 2025
Staff Contact: Susana Montana, Senior Planner, Community Development
Department
David Fine, Economic Development Department, Housing Manager
Agenda Item Type: Action – Legislative
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................... 3
Project Summary ................................................................................................................. 4
Public Comment.................................................................................................................. 6
Economic Vitality Board and Planning Commission Comments ....................................... 7
Alternatives ......................................................................................................................... 7
SECTION 1 - RECOMMENDATION AND FUTURE ACTIONS ...................................... 10
SECTION 2 - TEXT AMENDMENT STAFF ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS ..................... 11
Section 76-2-304, MCA (Zoning) Criteria………………………………………………12
PROTEST NOTICE FOR ZONING AMENDMENTS ......................................................... 27
APPENDIX A - DETAILED BACKGROUND AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION .............. 29
APPENDIX B - COMPARISON OF CURRENT DEEP AND SHALLOW INCENTIVES
WITH PROPOSED TYPE A, B AND C INCENTIVES……………………………………42
APPENDIX C - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD COMMENTS………………57
APPENDIX D -- NOTICING AND PUBLIC COMMENT................................................... 61
APPENDIX E - APPLICANT INFORMATION AND REVIEWING STAFF ..................... 64
FISCAL EFFECTS ................................................................................................................. 64
ATTACHMENT LINKS ........................................................................................................ 64
28
City Commission Staff Report for the Affordable Housing Ordinance 2025, Division
38.380 Repeal and Replacement Text Amendment, Project No.24529
Page 3 of 64
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report is based on the proposed ordinance text, advisory board recommendations, Planning
Commission recommendations, public comment received to date, and staff evaluation of zoning
text amendment criteria of Section 76-2-304 Montana Code Annotated (MCA). The ordinance is
for rental housing only. For-sale housing would be added at a later date.
Policy Question
The 2021 state legislature adopted House Bill 259 which forbid the city to require developers to
build affordable housing as part of their project. The city is now only allowed to use incentives to
encourage rather than mandate the construction of affordable housing.
A 2021 analysis of the costs of building housing of various types prepared by the housing
economics firm, Root Policy Research, suggested that various zoning code incentives provided to
housing developers would make economically feasible a certain amount of long-term affordable
housing at specific designated affordability levels. The current and proposed affordable housing
ordinance (AHO) places an emphasis on affordable housing as a public benefit in exchange for the
flexibility allowed through the allowance of various zoning incentives such as relief from lot size,
density, parking and building height limits.
The City Commission adopted a replacement for the outlawed Inclusionary Zoning AHO, by
Ordinance 2105, on October 27, 2022. The new AHO uses non-cash financial incentives through
the Unified Development Code as a voluntary incentive to create affordable housing.
Since the current 2022 AHO has been in effect, 12 residential developments have qualified for and
taken advantage of its incentives, resulting in 1,005 income-restricted affordable dwelling units
committed to be income-restricted for a period of 30 years. One policy issue revolves around
whether the flexibility allowed by the citywide incentives of the 2022 Affordable Housing
Ordinance (AHO) are too broad to be assured that utilizing the parking and height incentives on
“in-fill” projects, in particular, would result in a project that may not be in “character” with the
existing neighborhood or may have negative impacts on the site environs. Is this impact an
acceptable exchange for the public benefit of providing long-term (30 or 50 years) affordable
housing units within that development? The projects utilizing the incentives on undeveloped
(“greenfield”) or redeveloping sites have generally been deemed successful in providing affordable
units while creating a new mass and scale “character” in its environs or in matching the scale and
massing of nearby apartment complexes in developing areas of the city such as its northwest and
southwest edges.
The proposed AHO seeks to remedy or reduce perceived negative impacts of incentives on both
in-fill and greenfield sites while preserving, conserving or building new affordable housing. Please
see Appendix A of this report for more information on efforts by the city in providing affordable
housing.
29
City Commission Staff Report for the Affordable Housing Ordinance 2025, Division
38.380 Repeal and Replacement Text Amendment, Project No.24529
Page 4 of 64
Project Summary
Proposed Affordable Housing Ordinance Incentives
The proposed Affordable Housing Ordinance is a proposal to amend the land use regulations of
Chapter 38, Unified Development Code (UDC) of the Bozeman Municipal Code (BMC) in support
of affordable rental housing production. The proposed amendments will affect land use, lot size,
residential density, building height, and parking standards for targeted residential and mixed-use
districts. The amendment applies to new development and applies to projects undergoing
development review under Chapter 38 of the City’s Unified Development Code (UDC) and which,
by the effective date of the ordinance, has reached “adequacy” in this review.
The amendment would repeal the current UDC Division 38.380, Affordable Housing, in its
entirety and would replace it with a new set of standards addressing:
(1) incentives to build below-market-rate affordable rental dwelling units in the city;
(2) criteria and qualifications for the granting of the incentives;
(3) clarification of administration of the affordable housing program;
(4) extension of the duration of affordability for subject dwellings from thirty (30) years to
fifty (50) years;
(5) establishing the minimum percentage of affordable dwellings per project and the
maximum rental rate measured by the Bozeman Area Median Income (AMI); and
(6) establishing four (4) options of non-cash financial incentives to produce below-market-
rate affordable dwellings in the city. Please see Appendix B for a comparison of the current
and proposed AHO incentives and Attachment A for a link to the entire proposed revised
AHO ordinance and Attachment B for a link to the current Affordable Housing Ordinance
No. 2105.
The current AHO offers two types of incentives: Shallow Incentives and Deep Incentives. The
proposed AHO re-names and amends the two types of incentives as Type A Incentives, Type B
Incentives, creates a third set of incentives called Type C Incentives, and creates a fourth option
called Off Site Contribution in which a developer utilizing the incentives may request to pay cash-
in-lieu to the affordable housing fund or donate buildable land to the city for the production of
affordable housing rather than provide the affordable units on-site within the subject development.
The city would establish administrative procedures for the application and implementation of a
cash-in-lieu program. The city would use all cash-in-lieu funds to support the creation or
preservation of affordable dwellings.
30
City Commission Staff Report for the Affordable Housing Ordinance 2025, Division
38.380 Repeal and Replacement Text Amendment, Project No.24529
Page 5 of 64
Overall. based on City Commission guidance at an August 20, 2024, work session, on Advisory
Board and Planning Commission recommendations and public comments received to date, the
proposed AHO addresses these comments and recommendations by:
(1) reducing the building height and parking incentives offered for affordable housing
projects;
(2) extending the affordability term from 30 years to 50 years;
(3) lowering the affordability level from 80% of AMI to 60% of AMI;
(4) requiring a greater number or percent of affordable units in a development in exchange
for the greater incentives;
(5) incorporating development standards for the affordable dwellings within a market-rate
development to insure equity in construction and amenities;
(6) specifying the contents of the mandated Affordable Housing Plan for projects using
incentives; and
(7) clarifying Assumptions and Calculations for affordable units and for the Administration
and Compliance of the AHO program,
The changes to the current AHO Section 38.380 generally lower or reduce the development
incentives offered to market-rate developers in exchange for providing a greater number of
affordable units at a lower AMI rental rate and for a longer period of time. The remaining
incentives were carefully designed, based on experience and data, to respond to market conditions,
such as land, material and labor costs and demand for specific housing types, and to offer the
specific development incentives to make inclusion of the affordable units financially feasible.
The proposed amendments replace in its entirety the provisions of Division 38.380 of the Unified
Development Code (UDC) as well as:
(1) Section 38.540.050.A.1(b)(1) which clarifies the parking for developments using the incentives
of 38.380; and
(2) amends Section 38.700, Definitions, to clarify the definition of an affordable home relative to
38.380.
All other provisions of the current Ordinance 2105 remain in effect including:
(1) 38.200.010 placing the review authority for affordable housing projects of 38.380 to the
Director of Economic Development;
(2) 38.270.030. Completion of Improvements (concurrent construction);
(3) the citywide provisions of Tables 38.310.030.A (permitted residential uses), 38.320.030.A (lot
area), 38.320.030.B (lot width) and 38.360.040 (ADUs);
31
City Commission Staff Report for the Affordable Housing Ordinance 2025, Division
38.380 Repeal and Replacement Text Amendment, Project No.24529
Page 6 of 64
(4) 38.320.060 Zone Edge Transitions;
(5) 38.340.040 Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District Certificate of Appropriateness;
(5) 38.360.120.A and 38.360.120.C, Cottage Housing;
(6) 38.410.030.G, Lot Depth;
(7) 38.420.020.A, Parkland dedication;
(8) 38.540.050.A.1 and Table 38.540.050-1, Parking;
(9) 38.700.050.D, Definitions of “Developer”; and
(10) 38.700.090.G, Definition of Household.
Note that the provisions of concurrent construction of infrastructure is not explicitly stated in the
revised 38.380, it remains a provision of the UDC and remains available to qualifying applicants.
Likewise, the provisions, processes, standards and guidelines of 38.340.040 Neighborhood
Conservation Overlay District Certificate of Appropriateness remain in effect and are not changed
by this revised 38.380.
Broad Issues
Limited housing opportunities within the city negatively impacts economic development,
transportation networks, and sustainability. Lack of housing directly effects many areas of life for
Bozeman citizens including health, economic and social stability, and wellness. Affordable
housing needs must be addressed to maintain a sufficient resident workforce in all fields of
employment. To ensure the public safety and general welfare of the residents of the city, affordable
housing needs must be addressed. See Appendix A for a history of city efforts to provide safe,
sanitary, and affordable housing to its residents.
The purpose of incentives is to encourage and enable construction of housing that would be
unlikely or impossible without the incentives. The incentives codified in this ordinance will
advance the city's legitimate interest in assuring that additional housing is built in the city. This
ordinance is proposed pursuant to the city's self-governing powers, the city’s zoning authority, and
the police power to protect public health, safety, and general welfare.
Public Comment
The Economic Development Department’s Housing Team hosted an open house to discuss options
for amending the current Affordable Housing Ordinance (AHO). Staff presented a slide show on
housing issues and options for incentives toward supporting low-income-affordable housing in the
city and they queried participants as to their preferences of incentives that could be offered
developers of affordable housing or mixed market-rate and affordable housing projects. Staff also
hosted a short on-line and “hard copy” survey to query residents about their concerns and
32
City Commission Staff Report for the Affordable Housing Ordinance 2025, Division
38.380 Repeal and Replacement Text Amendment, Project No.24529
Page 7 of 64
preferences for incentives to offer in an updated AHO. The AHO survey is closed now and the
results are now available in the Resource Documents section on AHO Engage Bozeman along with
written comments received at the Open House. The Economic Development staff’s open house
slide show as well as Mayor Cunningham’s housing presentation slide show can be viewed in the
Resource Documents section of that webpage.
Continuing written public comments on this draft AHO will be archived and available through the
“Community Development & Specific Projects” folder in the City’s Laserfiche archive for both
2024 and 2025. Due to the December 21st publication date of the public notice, one comment on
this draft AHO is archived in the 2024 folder here and is the last comment letter at the bottom
dated 12/27/24. The remaining comments received after the public notice publication date can be
found in the 2025 Community Development & Specific Projects folder in the Affordable Housing
Ordinance subfolder here. Comments provided orally at City Hall public meetings are available
through the recordings of those meetings. Links to recordings are noted in this report following
the pertinent discussion. For general public comments about affordable housing in the city go to
this link or:
https://weblink.bozeman.net/WebLink/Browse.aspx?id=286701&dbid=0&repo=BOZEMAN
Economic Vitality Board
The Economic Vitality Board (EVB) has the duties of the advising on housing policy in the city.
The EVB discussed the elements of the proposed AHO revision on December 4, 2024. There were
two persons providing oral public comment at the meeting and six persons commenting in writing
in advance of the meeting.
The oral public comments included the following topics:
1. It was stated that the current AHO program fails to provide a benefit to the city, and
it is anticipated that the update will also fail. It destroys the historic character and
sense of place where the incentives are granted; for example, the Guthrie (located
at N. 5th Avenue at Villard), Block B (511 E. Babcock) and the Yard (Tamarack
and Front Streets) projects.
2. A citizen provided written comments to the EVB in which he proposes a 3-step
program to improve the city’s affordable housing program.
3. The Ability Montana organization stated that they urge the AHO to provide
accessible parking close to the development project entrances; a “drop off zone” is
inadequate. The speaker urged the Board to review the Belonging in Bozeman
accessibility recommendations.
The written comments to the EVB can be found at this link. The video recording of the EVB can
be found here. The Affordable Housing agenda discussion begins at 9:14 in the recording. Public
Comment begins beyond that at 1:38 in the recording. Questions to staff begin at 28:30 in the
33
City Commission Staff Report for the Affordable Housing Ordinance 2025, Division
38.380 Repeal and Replacement Text Amendment, Project No.24529
Page 8 of 64
recording. Board discussion begins at 57:10 in the recording. The Board voted 6-0 in favor of each
of three motions recommending approval of the ordinance with amendments.
The EVB discussion of the proposed AHO update included the following topics:
1. Build in review of the Area Median Income (AMI) affordable levels every two years or
so due to changes in the HUD-designated income levels and market conditions in Bozeman
such as housing need/demand and housing production needs.
2. Type C no parking requirement; what is the ADA parking requirement if no parking is
required?
3. Will change in the incentives affect existing affordable housing projects in the pipeline?
4. What areas or zoning districts would a 7-story building be allowed with the Type C
incentives?
5. Types B and C should have a minimum parking requirement.
6. Affordable dwelling unit size should be a quality, livable space.
7. Concern with the cash-in-lieu option that no affordable housing will result.
After discussion by the Board, three separate motions were made, seconded, and approved
unanimously, 6 to 0 to recommend to the City Commission the following amendments to the AHO
proposal:
Motion 1: The Type C incentive should have a minimum parking requirement.
Motion 2: Both Type B and C incentives should have a minimum parking requirement.
Motion 3: The 60% of AMI affordability level should be evaluated every three years and
should be based on HUD-AMI data as well as other metrics and information.
Staff response to the EVB recommendations.
The proposed AHO now proposes minimum vehicle and bicycle parking requirements for all
housing types except Types A and B Incentives which exempt townhouse or rowhouse
dwellings of 1,200 square feet of livable space or less from on-site parking. The small
townhouse and rowhouse is deemed a suitable match for the city’s “missing-middle”/
workforce housing demand and staff opines that the exemption of parking for this type of
housing would facilitate its development, particularly in new subdivisions or other “greenfield”
sites. Additional flexibility is provided for parking placement if the developer chooses to use
it.
Sections 38.380.020.I, Assumptions and Calculations and 38.380.070.A.1, Administration, of
the proposed AHO establishes procedures for review of AMI requirements as used in this
Division. Staff opines that these administrative provisions enable the review and use of
34
City Commission Staff Report for the Affordable Housing Ordinance 2025, Division
38.380 Repeal and Replacement Text Amendment, Project No.24529
Page 9 of 64
standard metrics other than U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) AMI
for Bozeman, if appropriate and anticipates the metrics will be reviewed annually.
Community Development Board, acting as the Planning Commission
The Community Development Board, acting as the Planning Commission, held a public meeting
on Monday, January 13, 2025, to discuss the proposed AHO and make a recommendation to the
City Commission. Fine of the Economic Development Department, the Board asked questions of
staff and shared their comments and opinions including the following summary. The specific
questions and discussions are noted in Appendix C of this report.
• Not comfortable with “one size fits all” approach in that the ordinance allows the same
incentives for in-fill sites and greenfield sites. Can the city differentiate between in-fill and
greenfield development in granting incentives such as the parking exemptions?
• Is concurrent construction still available with this ordinance?
• Type B and C incentives should have a minimum of one parking space required or should
have a requirement of a parking study for the development to identify the impact of lesser
parking to on-street parking resources in the area. The parking study requirement could be
required of in-fill development rather than developments on the outskirts of town.
• Type B or C incentives—limit them both to 4 stories and 36 dwelling units max.
• Do the incentives for housing in the M-1 district apply to the NEHMU? There is talk that
the NEHMU would be rezoned as an M-1 district.
• Due to changes in workforce income, rent levels at the current 80% of AMI is not
“affordable”; setting the rent levels at 60% is good.
• The AHO should not change any UDC provision that allows the City Commission to
reclaim a development application that seeks to use the incentives.
• There is concern that landowners seek to rezone properties within established lower density
neighborhood to the B-2M district which this AHO would allow four additional stories;
this would be out of scale with the neighborhood.
• The City Commission should be required to approve a cash-in-lieu option.
• The impacts of a particular development using incentives on its environs (parking, scale)
should be evaluated and stated in any approval document.
• The parking incentives are appropriate to facilitate production of affordable housing.
• The applicant using incentives in their project should hold a neighborhood meeting to
inform the neighbors of the proposal.
• The Type C incentives would allow 6 story buildings in the REMU districts and 8 story
buildings in the B-2M districts.
• Concern with maintenance of the units/ affordable buildings over the 50-year affordability
period.
35
City Commission Staff Report for the Affordable Housing Ordinance 2025, Division
38.380 Repeal and Replacement Text Amendment, Project No.24529
Page 10 of 64
• This AHO is a compromise regarding public concerns with the current AHO and is an
acceptable trade-off.
Commissioner Madgic made the following Motion which was seconded by Board Member
Lloyd. The Motion passed five to two (5 to 2) with Commissioner Madgic and Board Member
Egnatz dissenting.
Having reviewed and considered the staff report, draft ordinance, public comment,
recommendation from the Economic Vitality Board, and all information
presented, the Community Development Board acting as the Zoning Commission,
adopts the findings presented in the staff report for application 24529, and moves
to recommend approval of the proposed Affordable Housing Ordinance 2025, as
reflected in the staff report.
Alternatives
1. Do not adopt the ordinance as presented, based on findings of non-compliance with the
applicable zoning text amendment criteria contained within the staff report;
2. Do not adopt the ordinance and direct staff to make the following changes to the text:
a. Establish a minimum parking requirement for all Types of incentives; and/or
b. Include other (specific) amendments to address issues identified or
recommendations made by advisory bodies or public comments; or
3. Continue the public hearing on the application, with specific direction to staff to supply
additional information or to address specific items.
SECTION 1 - RECOMMENDATION AND FUTURE ACTIONS
Having considered the criteria established for a zoning text amendment, the Staff finds the
proposed AHO replacement of UDC Section 38.380 meets the minimum criteria for approval as
proposed and, therefore, recommends approval of the application as submitted. The city’s
Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed and considered the amendment and did not
identify infrastructure deficiencies associated with the proposed amendment.
The Economic Vitality Board (EVB) held a public meeting to discuss these amendments on
December 4, 2024. As noted above, the Board unanimously (5 to 0) recommended the proposed
AHO be adopted with minimum parking requirements for Type B and C incentives and
recommended that the AMI household income levels be evaluated every three years for relevancy
to Bozeman’s affordable housing needs. These recommendations have been incorporated into the
proposed AHO as presented. A link to the video recording of the EVB meeting is here.
36
City Commission Staff Report for the Affordable Housing Ordinance 2025, Division
38.380 Repeal and Replacement Text Amendment, Project No.24529
Page 11 of 64
The Community Development Board (CDB), acting as the Planning Commission pursuant to
76.2.304 MCA, considered the proposed AHO at a January 13, 2025, public meeting and
recommended approval of the AHO as presented by a vote of 5 to 2. The CDB comments on the
proposal are summarized above. A link to the video recording of the CDB meeting is here.
The City Commission will hold a public hearing on the text amendment on January 28, 2025, at
6:00 p.m. in the Commission Room at City Hall, 121 N. Rouse Ave, Bozeman, Montana. Remote
electronic participation may also be available. Instructions for participating remotely will be
included on the meeting agenda. The agenda is available in the Events portion of the City’s website
at https://www.bozeman.net/home at least 48 hours prior to the meeting.
At the City Commission’s public hearing the City Commission may act to approve, modify, or
reject the proposal, as Affordable Housing Ordinance for UDC Division 38.380, or may continue
the public hearing to another date. The City Commission may revise the proposed AHO
amendment referred to in the public notice during the public hearing process.
SECTION 2 – ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT STAFF ANALYSIS AND
FINDINGS
Strategic Plan Implementation
In April 2018, the City Commission adopted a Strategic Plan to guide city policy formation and
its implementation. Strategic Plan priorities relevant to this AHO include the following:
4.2 High Quality Urban Approach - Continue to support high-quality planning, ranging
from building design to neighborhood layouts, while pursuing urban approaches to issues
such as multimodal transportation, infill, density, connected trails and parks, and walkable
neighborhoods.
City-adopted building codes, zoning codes, utility and infrastructure codes and master plans all
play a role in supporting high-quality planning and development throughout the city. The proposed
AHO is one key element in this array of strategies to retain a high-quality urban approach to
building and servicing city neighborhoods. The AHO focuses on non-cash development incentives
to produce needed affordable housing that, otherwise, the private sector would not produce. These
AHO incentives are often paired with financial incentives such as Tax Increment Financing or Tax
Credits to produce the lower-income affordable housing.
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.
The AHO seeks to provide development incentives to encourage smaller lots and dwelling units
that make most efficient use of land already served by public utilities and services such as water,
37
City Commission Staff Report for the Affordable Housing Ordinance 2025, Division
38.380 Repeal and Replacement Text Amendment, Project No.24529
Page 12 of 64
sanitary sewer, stormwater management, transit, police, fire, medical care, schools, libraries,
recreation and the like. The AHO focuses on serving the city’s low-income households,
particularly the city’s service workforce, who could not afford to rent market-rate dwellings. The
AHO would require income-restrictions for a minimum of 50 years. The AHO incentives for
increased density in the higher-density zoning districts, particularly in the northwest and southwest
regions of the city, would provide increased ridership for the new transit district to extend service
to those developing areas of the city.
7.3 Best Practices, Creativity & Foresight- Utilize best practices, innovative
approaches, and constantly anticipate new directions and changes relevant to the
governance of the City. Be also adaptable and flexible with an outward focus on the
customer and an external understanding of the issues as others may see them.
City leadership has been vigilant in researching and understanding the housing needs of its citizens
and in seeking to fund various approaches to meeting this need. Over the decades, they have tried
many financial and non-financial strategies for producing housing for its workforce and those in
need of assisted housing. When the inclusionary zoning AHO was adopted, it was amended
several times to better address market conditions and housing needs. This proposed AHO also
seeks to be flexible and creative in responding to current market conditions, housing policy and
housing needs of the city’s low-income workforce as measured by the city’s AMI.
Section 76-2-304, Montana Code Annotated (MCA), Zoning Criteria
In considering applications for zoning text amendment approval under this title, the advisory
boards and City Commission must consider the following criteria (letters A-K below). As an
amendment is a legislative action, the Commission has broad latitude to determine a policy
direction.
A zone text amendment must be in accordance with the growth policy (criteria A) and be designed
to secure safety from fire and other dangers (criteria B), promote public health, public safety, and
general welfare (criteria C), and facilitate the provision of transportation, water, sewerage, schools,
parks, and other public requirements (criteria D). Therefore, to approve a zone text amendment
the Commission must find that Criteria A-D are met.
In addition, the Commission must also consider criteria E-K and may find the zone text amendment
to be positive, neutral, or negative with regards to these criteria. To approve the zone text
amendment, the Commission must find the positive outcomes of the amendment outweigh
negative outcomes for criteria E-K. In determining whether the criteria are met, Staff considers the
entire body of plans and regulations for land development. Standards which prevent or mitigate
negative impacts are incorporated throughout the entire municipal code but are principally in
Chapter 38, Unified Development Code.
38
City Commission Staff Report for the Affordable Housing Ordinance 2025, Division
38.380 Repeal and Replacement Text Amendment, Project No.24529
Page 13 of 64
The existing development review processes and standards were previously found to satisfy all of
the following criteria during earlier reviews. The focus of this report is only on the proposed AHO
amendments. Where a finding of Neutral is presented, it represents that the criteria is either not
applicable to the proposed amendments or that the change does not materially advance or detract
from compliance. Therefore, a finding of Neutral is not an indication of a deficiency in the
proposed amendments or the existing standards.
As noted below, the required criteria A through D are met by the proposed AHO. For Criterion
H, Character of the District, the proposed AHO is deemed neutral in satisfying this criterion as
demonstrated on page 22. The Criterion J, Value of Buildings, is also deemed neutral in that the
proposed AHO may affect existing buildings as a property is redeveloped but the value of the new
building and property would increase. Criterion F, Effect on Motorized and Non-motorized
Transportation Systems is deemed “neutral” the proposed AHO as the parking incentives are likely
to increase competition for on-street parking resources in the neighborhood where an affordable
housing project using the parking incentives is located. This is balanced by the provision of low-
and moderately priced housing.
Overall, the proposed AHO meets the MCA zoning criteria for a text amendment.
A. Be in accordance with a growth policy.
This criterion is met. A growth policy provides a high-level vision of how a community hopes to
develop over time. As a key tool to implement the growth policy, zoning must be in accordance
with the growth policy per 76-2-304(1)-(a), MCA. The proposed AHO, inclusive of Division
38.380, Affordable Housing, and the two associated changes to the Definitions zoning text of the
Bozeman Municipal Code (BMC), positively address numerous relevant Bozeman Community
Plan 2020 (BCP) growth policies as noted below, particularly those seeking to facilitate housing
and “missing middle” affordable housing.
Goal N-3: “Promote a diverse supply of quality housing units”.
Policy N-3.1—"Establish standards for provisions of diversity of housing types in a given
area.”
N-3.3 Encourage distribution of affordable housing units throughout the City with priority
given to locations near commercial, recreational, and transit assets.
N-3.4—"Require development of affordable housing through coordination of funding for
affordable housing and infrastructure.”
N-3.7— “Support compact neighborhoods, small lot sizes, and small floor plans, especially
through mechanisms such as density bonuses.”
N-3.8— “Promote the development of “Missing Middle” housing (side by side or stacked
duplex, triples, live-work, cottage housing, group living, rowhouse/townhouses, etc.) as one of
the most critical components of affordable housing.”
39
City Commission Staff Report for the Affordable Housing Ordinance 2025, Division
38.380 Repeal and Replacement Text Amendment, Project No.24529
Page 14 of 64
N-3.9— “Ensure an adequate supply of appropriately designated land to accommodate Low
Income Housing Tax Credit development in qualifying census tracts.
Dwelling units in apartment buildings provide the most efficient use of units of land and this
housing type is supported by the incentives of the proposed AHO which offers increased building
heights, increased residential density, and lower or no minimum parking requirements in exchange
for long-term rental housing affordability.
The AHO also broadly supports “missing middle” townhome and rowhouse housing types by
allowing those types of housing in the lower-density R-1, RS and RMH districts, by reducing lot
widths, lot size and lot coverage. For this type of housing with exclusively small units (1,200 gross
square feet or less), no parking is required. This supports “diversity of housing” and affordable
units throughout the community. It should be noted that recent changes in state law require the R-
1, RS, and RMH districts to allow duplexes with or without affordability requirements.
The BCP establishes the City’s policies for land development. It continues concepts and
community priorities that were established in several prior plans and growth policies. As early as
1972, the community’s planning documents identified affordable housing as a priority concern.
Affordability of housing is influenced by many issues. Only a few of them are under control of the
city. Lending practices, personal housing preferences, labor and materials availability, and land
costs are examples of material housing cost influences that the city does not control.
Bozeman’s policy for many years has been to establish zoning districts that have access to
centralized public services, and which can accommodate housing of various types and densities
that can satisfy local housing needs and preference of surroundings. However, in order to
accommodate current and anticipated population growth, more efficient use of land for housing
within the city limits, close to public services and within the designated BCP Growth Area is
needed. This development is planned to occur both in newly annexed areas and existing developed
area. Infill development has been a long-standing community priority. Zoning regulations that
allow a variety of housing types at higher densities enable construction at economies of scale and
obtains maximum or most efficient use of property. This approach lessens pressure for the
annexation of farmland on the edge of the city yet within the Growth Area. Higher density “in-
fill” development of undeveloped or underdeveloped lands within the city keeps initial housing
construction/development costs lower than building housing on County “green fields” which also
results in more efficient long-term operational costs of maintenance of roads, water, sewer,
stormwater management facilities, and public safety services. It is noted that the City’s Climate
Action Plan encourages compact development and higher development densities.
BCP discusses housing affordability. The discussion identifies national and local trends and issues
affecting affordability and housing needs. The AHO affordability incentives are designed to
encourage construction of homes at prices that market rate construction generally cannot reach.
The AHO incentives can be paired with other housing support such as Low-Income Housing Tax
40
City Commission Staff Report for the Affordable Housing Ordinance 2025, Division
38.380 Repeal and Replacement Text Amendment, Project No.24529
Page 15 of 64
Credits. The proposed AHO’s incentives recognizes these land use parameters and market forces
and was crafted to respond to these factors in such a way as to result in as many low-income
affordable dwellings as is possible under current market conditions and current state regulations.
Providing development incentives to facilitate construction of rental housing affordable to
households with annual incomes below the city’s Area Median Income (AMI) supports several
growth policy goals including:
R-2.4 Social Equity: Provide solutions that are inclusive with consideration to populations that
are often most fragile and vulnerable to sudden impacts.
Goal N-1: “Support well-planned, walkable neighborhoods.”
N-1.1. Promote housing diversity, including missing middle housing.
N-1.11--“Enable a gradual and predictable increase in density in developed areas over time”;
EE-1.4 Support employee retention and attraction efforts by encouraging continued
development of affordable housing in close proximity to large employers.
The proposed AHO incentives allow for smaller lots and dwelling unit size in exchange for low-
income affordability of rental housing. The developments that take advantage of these incentives
are expected to be more walkable by virtue of smaller block sizes. The Community Design
standards of Article 4 and the Project Design standards of Article 5 of the UDC are not changed
by this AHO. The AHO does incentivize the smaller lots and dwelling unit size that are expected
to meet the demands for “missing middle” housing for the city’s service workforce. The incentives
are combined with the permitted uses in zoning districts so that higher intensity development is
located in locations determined by district designation to be appropriate to more development.
Increased numbers and locations of mixed-use zoning districts supports implementation of housing
and employment in close proximity to larger employers.
Sustainability and mobility options can also support housing affordability. Examples of
community plan objectives that integrate with housing affordability include:
Goal DCD--1: “Support urban development with the City.”
Policy DCD--1.1: “Evaluate alternatives for more intensive development in proximity to high
visibility corners, services and parks.”
DCD-1.2— “Remove regulatory barriers to infill.”
DCD 1.5— “Identify underutilized sites, vacant, and undeveloped sites for possible
development or redevelopment, including evaluating possible development incentives.”
Goal DCD-2: “Encourage growth throughout the City while enhancing the pattern of
community development oriented on centers of employment and activity. Support an increase
in development intensity within developed areas.
Policy DCD-2.1- “Coordinate infrastructure development, land use development and other
City actions and priorities through community planning.”
41
City Commission Staff Report for the Affordable Housing Ordinance 2025, Division
38.380 Repeal and Replacement Text Amendment, Project No.24529
Page 16 of 64
DCD-2.2- “Support higher density development along main corridors and at high visibility
street corners to accommodate population growth and support businesses.”
DCD-2.7- “Encourage the location of higher density housing and public transit routes in
proximity to one another.”
DCD-3.6 --Evaluate parking requirements and methods of providing parking as part of the
overall transportation system for and between districts.
Goal DCD-4: “Implement a regulatory environment that supports the Community Plan goals.
Policy DCD-4.4: “Differentiate between development and redevelopment. Allow relaxations
of code provisions for developed parcels to allow redevelopment to the full potential of their
zoning district.”
The AHO does not change the future land use map or zoning designation of land within the city to
address these policies. Rather, it offers density and building height incentives and parking
reductions in the city’s higher residential, commercial, and mixed-use zoning districts that can
implement these BCP policies in exchange for long-term housing affordability. Chapter 3 of the
BCP describes the various future land use designations and notes that higher densities are
appropriate and needed to accomplish policies of the plan.
Evaluation and consideration of alternate means to address transportation needs, including parking,
is directed by the BCP. Local and national experience has identified that affordable housing has a
lower, but still existent need for motor vehicles. The proposed amendments adjust parking
incentives to better fit the location and scope of development to amount of required parking
compared to the existing affordable housing incentives. Minimum parking for accessibility,
bicycles, and a ratio per dwelling is included in the regulations. The existing flexibility for location
is expanded. Tools other than individual project parking provision also exist in the municipal code
which can be used to manage public parking utilization more holistically.
The BCP seeks to coordinate housing with employment opportunities. The AHO addresses the
following policies by providing incentives to mix housing and jobs in the city’s M-1 light
manufacturing districts. Whereas, apartments are now permitted as an accessory use per building
in the M-1 districts and they are permitted only above the ground floor, the AHO allows housing
on the ground floor of buildings and deems residential uses as accessory to the non-residential uses
within the development as a whole rather than on a per-building basis.
M-1.1 Prioritize mixed-use land use patterns. Encourage and enable the development of
housing, jobs, and services in close proximity to one another.
M-1.12 Eliminate parking minimum requirements in commercial districts and affordable
housing areas and reduce parking minimums elsewhere, acknowledging that demand for
parking will still result in new supply being built.
42
City Commission Staff Report for the Affordable Housing Ordinance 2025, Division
38.380 Repeal and Replacement Text Amendment, Project No.24529
Page 17 of 64
M-1.4 Develop safe, connected, and complementary transportation networks for pedestrians,
bicyclists, and users of other personal mobility devices (e-bikes, electric scooters, powered
wheelchairs, etc.).
The character of the community is also a subject of BCP goals, objectives, and actions. Please see
the discussion under Criterion H.
B. Secure safety from fire and other dangers.
This criterion is met. Building code standards for fire resistance, fire sprinklers for larger buildings,
exiting, seismic durability, and other protection remain in place and will continue to protect the
public. The requirements to avoid floodplains and similar physical hazards remain in place.
Requirements in the municipal code for access by emergency services, suitable water and sewer
services, and other safety features remain. Review of individual applications will provide an
opportunity to check for function of these parameters. The Applicability wording in the AHO
Section 38.380.020 below specifically states that the City can impose conditions to address
identified safety and other concerns. Generally applicable BMC authorization to impose conditions
where needed and justified remains.
“The incentives in this division supersede the applicable standards otherwise provided in
this chapter. All other provisions of this chapter remain applicable. The city retains the
authority to approve, approve with conditions, or deny an application based on compliance
with other portions of this code but may not attach conditions to an approval that have the
effect of negating the incentives provided in this division. The incentives in this division
are in addition to the departures for housing creation provided in 38.320.070.”
The Development Standards for Affordable Dwellings section of the AHO (38.380.050) mandate
that the affordable dwelling units must be comparable in construction, design features, appliances,
and other amenities to the market-rate units within the development.
The purpose of the incentives is to support creation of homes that would otherwise likely not be
built. The rental cost limits and availability of additional housing enable homes for people who
otherwise may not have them thereby reducing danger, such as weather exposure, to those people
from housing insecurity.
C. Promote public health, public safety, and general welfare.
This criterion is met. The existing standards addressing this criterion remain in place such as
floodplain protections, road improvements, provision of water, sanitary sewer and stormwater
management facilities and similar public services. See also responses to Criteria B and D. The
incentives do authorize construction on smaller lots and in taller buildings. Such allowances are
43
City Commission Staff Report for the Affordable Housing Ordinance 2025, Division
38.380 Repeal and Replacement Text Amendment, Project No.24529
Page 18 of 64
not inherently counter to this criterion. Standards remain for building codes and utility codes and
setbacks remain for light, air, privacy, utility services, emergency services, and other services to
protect public health and physical safety.
Housing access is a substantial factor in public safety and wellness of individuals. Cost of housing
is a significant influence on housing access. The AHO incentives provided are intended to
encourage creation of homes available to persons with incomes lower than the Area Median
Income. Bozeman has experienced very high price escalation for homes over the past few years.
The prices are increasingly beyond the income of many of Bozeman’s workers. Loss of employees
due to lack of housing has been identified by many employers as a barrier to success and growth.
In turn, lack of economic opportunity damages the community as a whole.
D. Facilitate the provision of transportation, water, sewerage, schools, parks and other
public requirements.
This criterion is met. The City conducts extensive planning for municipal transportation, water,
sewer, parks, and other facilities and services provided by the City. The adopted plans allow the
City to consider existing conditions and identify enhancements needed to provide additional
service needed by new development. The City implements these plans through its capital
improvements program (CIP). The CIP identifies individual projects, project construction
scheduling, and financing of construction. The CIP projects are targeted to facilitate new housing
in the most efficient locations while upgrading existing, older facilities and systems serving the
built environment.
The amendments do not alter the requirements for the identified services. Considering the
municipal code as a whole, the standards requiring provision of the infrastructure listed in this
criterion are not being changed with these amendments and the development that takes advantage
of the AHO incentives can be accommodated by these assets and services. To the extent that the
amendments facilitate housing for the necessary staff to operate the identified services, they are
supportive of their provision.
E. Reasonable provision of adequate light and air.
This criterion met. Adequate light and air are provided by a mix of site development standards
including building setbacks, on-site open space as well as building code requirements for air for
combustion and ventilation. Each standard addresses a different functional element. There is no
specified quantity of day light or other physical outcome required by this criterion. The standard
is for reasonableness and adequacy, which vary by type of use and other specifics of development.
Building codes also address this criterion through requirements for ventilation and lighting and the
AHO does not change any of these standards.
44
City Commission Staff Report for the Affordable Housing Ordinance 2025, Division
38.380 Repeal and Replacement Text Amendment, Project No.24529
Page 19 of 64
The AHO incentives provide for smaller lot sizes and smaller dwelling sizes. Setbacks remain the
same so even on the smaller lots and for smaller dwellings, there is opportunity for light and air to
reach individual rooms. Building code requirements for emergency exit windows in sleeping areas
will also help ensure there is access to light and air. The Block Frontage design standards for
ground floor dwellings’ provision for light, air, privacy, and safety remain in place.
The incentives provide for additional building height ranging from one to four stories depending
on the depth of rental rate control for the homes and the zoning district. Depending upon the
neighboring-built environment, a four-story addition to the number of stories already allowed by
the zoning district can create a significantly taller building. However, to reduce such perceived
negative impacts to the environs, the proposed AHO includes a provision that, when a building
seeking building height incentives abuts a lower intensity zoning district, the transition in building
height standards of 38.320.060.B.2.c apply. This zone edge transition in building height provides
a step-back requirement that leaves visual access to the sky for its neighbors. It does not entirely
remove all visual impacts of the taller building, but no city zoning standard, or state law protects
or preserves viewscapes or designates “air rights” of views to any adjacent landowner.
F. The effect on motorized and non-motorized transportation systems.
This criterion is neutral. The City conducts extensive planning for municipal transportation, trails,
and parks related to this criterion and services provided by the City. The adopted plans allow the
City to consider existing conditions and identify enhancements needed to provide additional
service needed by new development. The proposed AHO does not alter these plans, nor does it
relieve any development using the incentives from providing roads, trails and other transportation
facility built to city standards. The existing standards for collector and arterial streets are not
changed. The requirements for multiuse paths and recreational trails are not changed.
The proposed AHO positively addresses the following BCP goals and growth policies:
Goal DCD-2: “Encourage growth throughout the City while enhancing the pattern of
community development oriented on centers of employment and activity. Support an increase
in development intensity within developed areas.
Policy DCD-2.1- “Coordinate infrastructure development, land use development and other
City actions and priorities through community planning.”
DCD-2.2- “Support higher density development along main corridors and at high visibility
street corners to accommodate population growth and support businesses.”
DCD-2.3— “Review and update minimum development intensity requirements in residential
and non-residential zoning districts.”
DCD-2.7- “Encourage the location of higher density housing and public transit routes in
proximity to one another.”
45
City Commission Staff Report for the Affordable Housing Ordinance 2025, Division
38.380 Repeal and Replacement Text Amendment, Project No.24529
Page 20 of 64
DCD-3.6 --Evaluate parking requirements and methods of providing parking as part of the
overall transportation system for and between districts.
Goal DCD-4: “Implement a regulatory environment that supports the Community Plan goals.
Policy DCD-4.4: “Differentiate between development and redevelopment. Allow relaxations
of code provisions for developed parcels to allow redevelopment to the full potential of their
zoning district.”
M-1.1 Prioritize mixed-use land use patterns. Encourage and enable the development of
housing, jobs, and services in close proximity to one another.
M-1.12 Eliminate parking minimum requirements in commercial districts and affordable
housing areas and reduce parking minimums elsewhere, acknowledging that demand for
parking will still result in new supply being built.
M-1.4 Develop safe, connected, and complementary transportation networks for pedestrians,
bicyclists, and users of other personal mobility devices (e-bikes, electric scooters, powered
wheelchairs, etc.).
The AHO does not change the zoning designation of land within the city to address these policies.
Rather, it offers density and building height incentives and parking reductions in the city’s higher
residential, commercial, and mixed-use zoning districts that can implement these BCP policies in
exchange for long-term housing affordability.
The BCP seeks to coordinate housing with employment opportunities. The AHO addresses the
following policies by providing incentives to mix housing and jobs in the city’s M-1 light
manufacturing districts. Whereas, apartments are now permitted as an accessory use per building
in the M-1 districts and they are permitted only above the ground floor, the AHO allows housing
on the ground floor of buildings and deems residential uses as accessory to the non-residential uses
within the development as a whole rather than on a per-building basis.
M-1.1 Prioritize mixed-use land use patterns. Encourage and enable the development of
housing, jobs, and services in close proximity to one another.
M-1.12 Eliminate parking minimum requirements in commercial districts and affordable
housing areas and reduce parking minimums elsewhere, acknowledging that demand for
parking will still result in new supply being built.
M-1.4 Develop safe, connected, and complementary transportation networks for pedestrians,
bicyclists, and users of other personal mobility devices (e-bikes, electric scooters, powered
wheelchairs, etc.).
46
City Commission Staff Report for the Affordable Housing Ordinance 2025, Division
38.380 Repeal and Replacement Text Amendment, Project No.24529
Page 21 of 64
However, the proposed incentives include reduction of required parking, to as little as zero for
small size (1,200 sf) townhome and rowhouse dwellings. The previous ordinance’s reduction in
street cross section for a new street class called a yield street is eliminated as it was not proven to
be useful to subject developments, the narrower yield street did not accommodate on-street
parking, and it did not respond to market desires.
The proposed AHO better fits parking requirements to the location and scale of development than
the current AHO incentives. Local and national experience has identified that affordable housing
has a lower, but still existent, need for motor vehicles. Minimum parking for accessibility, bicycles,
and a ratio per dwelling is included in the proposed incentives. The existing flexibility for location
is expanded. Tools other than individual project parking provision also exist in the municipal code
which can be used to manage public parking utilization more holistically.
For development with reduced or no on-site parking, parking by project residents and guests must
be accommodated by on-street parking spaces. This will result in additional pressure for parking
in some adjacent areas, particularly for in-fill developments. Persons constructing affordable
housing can choose to provide more than the minimum parking incentives. Local parking use
studies have found that price-limited housing in the 60% or less AMI range does use less parking
than market rate homes. The AHO requires multi-household developments to provide from 5% to
50% of the total housing units as affordable to households with annual incomes no greater than
60% of AMI for Types B and C Incentives and no greater than 80% of AMI for Type A Incentives.
Affordable housing developments using the lower or no parking incentives and located in
neighborhoods close to the city’s downtown or the university will cause additional pressure on
local public parking assets. Without increased bus service to those areas, parking management
strategies, such as permit parking districts, may be warranted. The recent establishment of the
transit district may enable expansion of bus service to areas developing with urban-scale housing,
connecting homes to employment centers.
Some parking districts with associated permit systems are already in place around MSU and
Bozeman High School. A parking benefit district system has been adopted in Chapter 36 Article
4 Division 3 of the municipal code but has not yet been activated. Active parking management
could be expanded to address possible impacts from the reduced parking requirements where
affordable housing projects without parking congregate.
The growth policy includes DCD-3.6 “Evaluate parking requirements and methods of providing
parking as part of the overall transportation system for and between districts.” Continuation of the
ongoing evaluation of parking options and alternative means to manage parking is consistent with
the growth policy.
The nature of an incentive is that it inevitably involves a trade-off of one good thing for another.
In this case, the City is willing to accept some additional risk of overflow parking and street
congestion in order to support the desired outcome of increasing low- and moderately priced rental
housing stock.
47
City Commission Staff Report for the Affordable Housing Ordinance 2025, Division
38.380 Repeal and Replacement Text Amendment, Project No.24529
Page 22 of 64
G. Promotion of compatible urban growth.
This criterion is met. The City’s UDC Section 38.700.040.c defines compatible development as:
“The use of land and the construction and use of structures which is in harmony with adjoining
development, existing neighborhoods, and the goals and objectives of the city’s adopted
growth policy. Elements of compatible development include, but are not limited to, variety of
architectural design; rhythm of architectural elements; scale; intensity; materials; building
siting; lot and building size; hours of operation; and integration with existing community
systems including water and sewer services, natural elements in the area, motorized and non-
motorized transportation, and open spaces and parks. Compatible development does not
require uniformity or monotony of architectural or site design, density, or use.”
There is no one pattern or method in which to build a community. Many different configurations
of uses and buildings can coexist well. The City has adopted many land use and building design
standards to avoid or mitigate demonstrable negative impacts of development. Most of those
standards remain as presently adopted. The adoption of the AHO incentives is a legislative
determination that under the new standards as well as the remaining existing standards,
compatibility can be maintained. Where additional building heights are allowed by the Type C
AHO incentives, the development is subject to the height transition step-back provisions of
38.320.060.B.
Compact development in locations close to public infrastructure and services not only meets BCP
policies and objectives, but it is the most efficient and economical development for installing,
maintaining, repairing, and replacing over time public infrastructure. The proposed AHO
facilitates compact development in locations within the city that meets these objectives and that
increases the number of dwellings available and affordable to median-income households.
Therefore, staff concludes this criterion is met.
H. Character of the district.
This criterion is neutral. Goal N-4: Continue to encourage Bozeman’s sense of place.
Goal DCD-2: Encourage growth throughout the City, while enhancing the pattern of
community development oriented on centers of employment and activity. Support an increase
in development intensity within developed areas.
DCD-2.9--: “Evaluate increasing the number of stories allowed in centers of employment and
activity while also directing height transitions down to adjacent neighborhoods.
48
City Commission Staff Report for the Affordable Housing Ordinance 2025, Division
38.380 Repeal and Replacement Text Amendment, Project No.24529
Page 23 of 64
Preserving the existing character of the community is often raised in public comments and other
community feedback. There is a tension between preserving what is already here, acknowledging
what may already be allowed by zoning already in place but is unbuilt, addressing what is needed
under today’s conditions, and preparing for the future. New development that reflects today’s
market/housing preferences, development pressures, and economics are not the same as what
existed many years ago. Acknowledgement of this ongoing change process is woven through the
BCP, see Criterion A above, and the plans that came before it. Freezing the status quo is not the
adopted policy of Bozeman whether in previously undeveloped areas or areas that have been
developed for many decades and no part of Chapter 38 forbids new construction when regulatory
standards are met.
The proposed AHO incentives allow higher densities, taller buildings, and parking reductions; and
at the same time will facilitate development of smaller dwellings than the historical norm in
Bozeman. This will result in a different character for those projects than the baseline standards in
place now. Bozeman’s development standards steadily evolved over the past 30 years as
community needs and household preferences changed. It is expected that the community will
continue to evolve. It is expected that most development will continue to follow the baseline
standards. Therefore, the majority of the community will continue to evolve as the baseline
standards are revised. Constant change is expected in a growing community. With the proposed
changes to the AHO including revised parking standards, more limited height of buildings, and
capped maximum building size, it is anticipated that the individual projects that use the affordable
housing incentives will be less different from the baseline and therefore fit better within its
environs and the overall community framework.
Section 76-2-301 MCA says “Municipal zoning authorized. For the purpose of promoting health,
safety, morals, or the general welfare of the community, the city or town council or other legislative
body of cities and incorporated towns is hereby empowered to regulate and restrict the height,
number of stories, and size of buildings and other structures; the percentage of lot that may be
occupied; the size of yards, courts, and other open spaces; the density of population; and the
location and use of buildings, structures, and land for trade, industry, residence, or other purposes.”
Section 76-2-302, MCA says “…legislative body may divide the municipality into districts of the
number, shape, and area as are considered best suited to carry out the purposes [promoting health,
safety, morals, or the general welfare of the community] of this part.” Emphasis added.
The City has adopted form and intensity standards in Division 38.320 as part of the implementation
of the zoning enabling language cited above. The City has adopted building and site design
standards in Divisions 38.510 and 38.530 also as part 6 of the implementation of the zoning
enabling language cited above. These standards remain and are applied to all development
according to the district in which the development is located. Part of the incentives offered in the
current AHO ordinance waived portions of these design standards. The proposed AHO eliminates
these waivers. All affordable housing projects must meet the design and site development
standards of 38.510 and 38.530. Projects located within the scope of 38.340, Neighborhood
49
City Commission Staff Report for the Affordable Housing Ordinance 2025, Division
38.380 Repeal and Replacement Text Amendment, Project No.24529
Page 24 of 64
Conservation Overlay District standards, are subject to review for certificate of appropriateness
standards as may be relevant to the building use and location.
Character of a district is made up of many different elements; including but not limited to uses,
size of lots, and building features. There is no one pattern, design style, or method which is always
the best way to build a community. The City has adopted a range of zoning districts to address
different needs. The zoning districts are amended from time to time as needs of the City and its
resident’s change. The City regularly updates its regulations to stay current with the changing
needs and values of the community. Many different configurations of uses and buildings can
coexist well, and the City does not restrict specific architectural styles. The City’s growth policy
and allowed land uses per zoning district encourage mixed uses.
The City’s residential zoning districts all provide for a range of residential uses and building
configurations. This is long standing practice and does not change with this ordinance. The
ordinance does not alter the uses allowed in individual zoning districts with the exception that it
would allow, as an incentive for affordable housing, townhomes and rowhouse types in RS
(Residential Suburban), R-1 (Residential Low Density) and RMH (Residential Manufactured
Home) districts where they are not now permitted. State law requires that duplexes (two-
household dwellings) be allowed in these same districts, so the impact of the incentive is minor on
the character of these districts.
Incentives inevitably involve a trade-off of one good thing for another. In this case, the City is
willing to accept some difference in the character of in-fill sites in order to support the desired
outcome of increasing low- and moderately- rental rate housing stock. Depending on the district
and depth of commitment to price-limited homes to be provided (5% to 50%), an additional 1 to 4
stories are permitted as incentives. Minimum lot sizes are reduced or waived. Parking requirements
are reduced or waived. Depending on how incentives are applied it will result in a different and
more intensive character of development than would otherwise be possible within the specific
district. Type B incentives limits apartment buildings to a maximum of 36 dwellings each and a
maximum of four stories in height or that which is permitted in the zoning district, whichever is
less. This better integrates affordable housing projects into the zoning districts where apartments
and mixed-use developments are permitted.
Any development proposing housing may elect to use the incentives. It is not possible to predict
how many or where they will occur. Any residential district and most non-residential district,
including the M-1 Light Manufacturing District, may see new development using the incentives.
It is beneficial to the city, to the neighborhoods and to the residents that affordable housing be
distributed throughout the community and not concentrated in just one portion per BCP Objective
N-3.3: “Encourage distribution of affordable housing units throughout the City with priority given
to locations near commercial, recreational, and transit assets.”.
This proposal amends the UDC text only and not the zoning map. The proposal does not add or
delete zoning districts.
50
City Commission Staff Report for the Affordable Housing Ordinance 2025, Division
38.380 Repeal and Replacement Text Amendment, Project No.24529
Page 25 of 64
I. Peculiar suitability for particular uses.
This criterion is met. The proposed amendments are not changing the zoning map, or the uses
allowed within zoning districts with the exception that it would allow, as an incentive,
development of townhouses and rowhouses in the RS, R-1 and RMH districts. Townhomes and
rowhouses have their own definitions in the UDC Section 38.700 noted below. The AHO does
not amend these definitions. It just allows this housing type to the mix of types allowed within
those districts. Townhomes lie upon “fee-simple” (ownership) lots which can be purchases
separately from their attached neighboring home and lot. A rowhouse is attached to a similar
house which shares the land or lot upon which the row of attached houses lie. The following
definitions are found in UDC 38.700:
“Townhouse. A dwelling unit, located on its own lot, which shares one or more common or
abutting walls with each wall having no doors, windows or other provisions for human passage
or visibility with any other dwelling units, each located on its own lot. A townhouse does not
share common floors/ceilings with other dwelling units. Each of the attached dwelling units
must have:
1. Independent water and sewer service lines and metering pursuant to the applicable
plumbing code and all other city regulations;
2. Individual services for all private utilities; and
3. A two-hour fire separation separating the dwelling unit from any adjoining dwelling units.”
“Townhouse cluster. A building consisting of three or more dwelling units, each meeting the
definition of a townhouse, placed side-by-side and/or back-to-back.”
The AHO does not amend this definition of a townhouse. It allows this type of housing in the RS,
R-1 and RMH districts. The incentives encourage the development of this “missing middle” type
of housing by allowing smaller lot size and widths and reduced parking in all residential districts
in exchange for affordable dwelling units. The Type A incentives encourage the development of
townhouse and rowhouse development by exempting their development of lot size, width, lot
coverage, density, and parking when all dwellings therein are 1,200 gross square feet or less in
size.
The AHO does not alter the design standards for townhouse and rowhouse development found in
38.360.250.
“Rowhouse. A dwelling unit that shares one or more common or abutting walls with one or more dwelling units. A rowhouse does not share common floors/ceilings with other dwelling
units.”
“Rowhouse cluster. A building consisting of three or more rowhouses.”
51
City Commission Staff Report for the Affordable Housing Ordinance 2025, Division
38.380 Repeal and Replacement Text Amendment, Project No.24529
Page 26 of 64
The AHO does not amend this definition of a rowhouse. It allows this type of housing in the RS,
R-1 and RMH districts with the same incentives as noted above for townhouses.
J. Conserving the value of buildings.
This criterion is neutral. The proposed amendments are not changing the zoning map, or the uses
allowed within zoning districts other than allowing townhouse and rowhouse dwellings in the RS,
R-1 and RMH districts. No zoning standard is being created which will reduce allowed building
areas or otherwise restrict the development capacity of a specific property. On the contrary, the
incentives allow greater development and intensity of development of a particular site which
increase the utility and may benefit value of an existing building by allowing reconfiguration of
uses. However, the income-limitation requirements for homes constructed with the incentives
will reduce individual home costs and may prevent valuation increases for a building as a whole.
The AHO amendments may increase motivation for redevelopment of underdeveloped properties
by landowners who seek to increase the utility of their property in such a strong economic market
as exists in the city. With the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District (NCOD), which does
not change with the AHO, the standards of the NCOD continue to apply. Adaptive reuse and
renovation of existing buildings is allowed and encouraged in the NCOD and the proposed AHO
may facilitate such for some existing buildings. With or without the AHO amendments, it is
anticipated that the value of land and new buildings would increase under naturally occurring
redevelopment of underdeveloped properties over time.
K. Encourage the most appropriate use of land throughout the jurisdictional area.
This criterion is met. The zoning map and future land use map of the BCP growth policy identify
areas where specific uses are generally deemed appropriate. However, both occur at a broad level
of detail and do not authorize construction. The proposed amendments do not alter the zoning map.
Both residential and most non-residential districts contain the opportunity for housing construction
in some form. The proposed amendments allow townhouse and rowhouse development in the RS,
R-1 and RMH districts and allow housing on the ground floor of buildings in the M-1 light
manufacturing district. As noted above, duplexes are required to be allowed in all districts where
a single home is allowed. The addition of the “missing middle” townhouse/rowhouse-type of
housing in the RS, R-1 and RMH districts and the expansion of residential uses in the M-1 districts
are consistent with the following BCP growth policies.
Goal N-1: “Support well-planned, walkable neighborhoods.”
N-1.1. Promote housing diversity, including missing middle housing.
N-1.2 --“Increase required minimum densities in residential districts.”;
52
City Commission Staff Report for the Affordable Housing Ordinance 2025, Division
38.380 Repeal and Replacement Text Amendment, Project No.24529
Page 27 of 64
N-1.11--“Enable a gradual and predictable increase in density in developed areas over time”;
Goal N-3: “Promote a diverse supply of quality housing units”.
Policy N-3.1—"Establish standards for provisions of diversity of housing types in a given
area.”
N-3.3 Encourage distribution of affordable housing units throughout the City with priority
given to locations near commercial, recreational, and transit assets.
N-3.7— “Support compact neighborhoods, small lot sizes, and small floor plans, especially
through mechanisms such as density bonuses.”
N-3.8— “Promote the development of “Missing Middle” housing (side by side or stacked
duplex, triples, live-work, cottage housing, group living, rowhouse/townhouses, etc.) as one of
the most critical components of affordable housing.”
EE-1.4-- Support employee retention and attraction efforts by encouraging continued
development of affordable housing in close proximity to large employers.
The proposed AHO ordinance positively addresses these growth policies and does not change the
zoning map or the BCP future land use map (FLUM). Therefore, the criterion is met.
PROTEST NOTICE FOR ZONING AMENDMENTS
In the case of written protest against the proposed zoning text amendment to Division 38.380 of
the Bozeman Municipal Code, protests signed by the owners of 25% or more of the area of the
land within the amendment area or those lots or units within 150 feet from land directly impacted
by a proposed change, the amendment shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of
two-thirds of the present and voting members of the City Commission.
The City will accept written protests from property owners against the proposal described
in this report until the close of the public hearing before the City Commission. Pursuant to
76-2-305, MCA, a protest may only be submitted by the owner(s) of real property within the area
affected by the proposal or by owner(s) of real property that lie within city limits affected by the
proposal. The protest must be in writing and must be signed by all owners of the real property. In
addition, a sufficient protest must: (i) contain a description of the action protested sufficient to
identify the action against which the protest is lodged (including the application number, 24055);
53
City Commission Staff Report for the Affordable Housing Ordinance 2025, Division
38.380 Repeal and Replacement Text Amendment, Project No.24529
Page 28 of 64
and (ii) contain a statement of the protestor’s qualifications (including listing all owners of the
property and the physical address), to protest the action against which the protest is lodged,
including ownership of property affected by the action. Signers are encouraged to print their names
after their signatures. A person may in writing withdraw a previously filed protest at any time prior
to final action by the City Commission. Protests must be delivered to the Bozeman City Clerk,
121 North Rouse Ave., PO Box 1230, Bozeman, MT 59771-1230.
54
City Commission Staff Report for the Affordable Housing Ordinance 2025, Division
38.380 Repeal and Replacement Text Amendment, Project No.24529
Page 29 of 64
APPENDIX A – DETAILED BACKGROUND AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Revisiting the 2022 AHO
After two years’ experience with the current incentive program, in the summer of 2024, at the
direction of the City Commission, staff began a series of meetings to engage the public and
citizen advisory boards on the AHO in response to public comment.
• August 5, 2024 – Community Development Board
• August 7, 2024 – Economic Vitality Board
• August 8, 2024 – Inter-Neighborhood Council
• August 12, 2024 – Community Development Board Special Meeting
• August 20, 2024 – City Commission Work Session
• October 21, 2024 – Affordable Housing Ordinance Open House
• December 4, 2024 – Economic Vitality Board
The City Commission held a work session on August 20, 2024, to discuss the affordable housing
incentives of AHO No. 2105 to see if they need to be bolstered or adjusted to provide affordable
housing that that meets the needs of the city’s low-income households while being compatible
with the community. During the work session on the AHO, the City Commission asked staff to
propose revisions falling into three categories:
1. Administrative changes to provide clarity in its application;
2. Enhancements to better incentivize the voluntary creation of new affordable housing units;
and
3. Amend or remove the “deep” incentives in response to current market conditions and
substantial public feedback (link to work session video).
The Commission’s discussions can be found in the following link to the video of that session
beginning at 5:05 of the session.
In response to City Commission direction, staff proposes to repeal and replace the existing
affordable housing regulations of Section 38.380 of the Unified Development Code (UDC) to
positively address issues and concerns with the previous AHO incentives and to respond to current
market forces since AHO 2105 was implemented in 2022. Typical housing input variables that
have changed since the adoption of the AHO include the costs of land, labor, materials, financing,
design and approvals, infrastructure costs, taxes, permitting fees and review times. Other variables
include the timing of when multiple new residential developments come onto the market and can
be “absorbed” by households seeking new accommodations, as well as the increase in demand for
55
City Commission Staff Report for the Affordable Housing Ordinance 2025, Division
38.380 Repeal and Replacement Text Amendment, Project No.24529
Page 30 of 64
rental housing by households earning less than the Bozeman Area Medium Income (AMI). This
AHPO is not for “for sale” housing.
Proposed Affordable Housing Ordinance Incentives
The proposed Affordable Housing Ordinance is a proposal to amend the land use regulations of
Chapter 38 of the Bozeman Municipal Code (BMC) in support of affordable housing production.
The proposed amendments will affect land use, residential density, building height and design, and
parking standards for targeted residential and mixed-use districts. The amendment applies to new
development and applies to projects undergoing development review under Chapter 38 of the
City’s Unified Development Code (UDC).
The amendment would repeal UDC Division 38.380, Affordable Housing, in its entirety and would
replace it with a new set of standards addressing (1) incentives to build below-market-rate
affordable dwelling units in the city; (2) criteria and qualifications for the granting of the
incentives; (3) clarification of administration of the affordable housing program; (4) extension of
the duration of affordability for subject dwellings from thirty (30) years to fifty (50) years; (5)
establishing the minimum percentage of affordable dwellings per project and the maximum rental
rate measured by the Bozeman Area Median Income (AMI); and (6) establishing four (4) options
of non-cash financial incentives to produce below-market-rate affordable dwellings in the city.
Please see Appendix B for a comparison of the current and proposed AHO incentives and
Attachment A for a link to the entire proposed revised AHO ordinance and Attachment B for a
link to the current Affordable Housing Ordinance No. 2105.
The current AHO offers two types of incentives: Shallow Incentives and Deep Incentives. The
proposed AHO re-names and amends the two types of incentives as Type A Incentives, Type B
Incentives and creates a third set of incentives, called Type C Incentives, and creates a fourth
option called Off Site Contribution in which a developer utilizing incentives may request to pay
cash-in-lieu to the affordable housing fund or donate buildable land to the city for the production
of affordable housing rather than provide the affordable units on-site within the development. The
city may establish administrative procedures the application and implementation of a cash-in-lieu
program. The city must use all cash-in-lieu funds to support the creation or preservation of
affordable dwellings.
The proposed AHO addresses these changes in housing demand and market inputs with the goal
of balancing the economics of producing housing by the private sector, including where affordable
land for such housing can be acquired, with the goal of preserving the overall zoned character of
the “receiving” area while achieving a supply of long-term affordable housing and promoting the
public health, safety, and welfare.
To respond to current market forces, community goals, and Commission direction, Division
38.380 is being replaced in its entirety. Other sections, such as the parking Section
38.540.050.A.1.b and definitions Division 38.700.170.S, which are affected by the revisions, are
56
City Commission Staff Report for the Affordable Housing Ordinance 2025, Division
38.380 Repeal and Replacement Text Amendment, Project No.24529
Page 31 of 64
being amended to match up with the revised incentives-based approach and to clarify related
wording.
For more details, see Appendix B of this staff report for a summary of the proposed incentive
changes and see Attachment A on page 64 for a link to the full text of the proposed AHO
Ordinance.
Elements of the proposed amendments include:
1. Repeal Division 38.380, Affordable Housing, in its entirety. Replace with a new Division 38.380, Affordable Housing, changing the incentives provided for creation of affordable
housing. The amendments are required by and consistent with recent changes in state law.
The new wording describes how and when incentives can be used, how the program is
administered, and what incentives are provided. Incentives are applicable to rental housing
only; the AHO addressing “for sale” dwelling units will be proposed at a later date.
These rental housing incentives include, but are not limited to, more permissive form and
intensity standards such as increased building height and density, decreased lot sizes, lot
widths and lot coverage, and decreased parking requirements.
2. The amendments remove references to the former affordable housing standards in the
Section 38.700, Definitions, to revise the definition of “affordable home” to “affordable
dwelling” and repeal the definition of “affordable housing” and “yield street”.
For a comparison of the current (2022 AHO No. 2105) with the proposed AHO incentives, please
see Appendix B.
The proposed AHO would replace BMC Division 38.380 with a new set of standards addressing:
(1) incentives to build below-market-rate affordable rental dwelling units in the city;
(2) criteria and qualifications for the granting of the incentives;
(3) clarification of administration of the affordable housing program;
(4) extension of the affordability period for subject dwellings from thirty (30) years to fifty
(50) years;
(5) establishing the minimum percentage of affordable dwellings per project and the
maximum rental rate allowed measured by the Bozeman Area Median Income (AMI); and
(6) establishing options of off-site land dedication or cash-in-lieu alternatives as a means
of meeting the affordable housing required to use the incentives (see Attachment A on page
64 for a link to the proposed AHO).
The proposed AHO seeks to provide land use incentives through additional building height,
reduced lot size, width, lot coverage and residential density standards, reduced parking, allowing
57
City Commission Staff Report for the Affordable Housing Ordinance 2025, Division
38.380 Repeal and Replacement Text Amendment, Project No.24529
Page 32 of 64
two-unit townhomes and rowhouses in R-1, RS and RMH zoning districts, expanded allowance
for housing in M-1 light manufacturing districts as an accessory or principal use, among other
incentives in exchange for providing affordable rental housing at 60% or 80% of AMI for 50 years
(see Appendix B for a summary of incentives).
This 2025 AHO update does not address for-sale dwelling units; that aspect of affordable housing
will be proposed in a later amendment.
Current severely limited housing opportunities within the city negatively impacts economic
development, transportation networks, and sustainability. Affordable housing needs must be
addressed to maintain a sufficient resident workforce in all fields of employment, and to ensure
the public safety and general welfare of the residents of the city. However, with the limited
financial resources available to the city, and the regulatory constraints placed upon the city by the
State Legislature, the target of producing affordable housing of all types is difficult to achieve.
The proposed AHO utilizes all the zoning code incentives available that are balanced by current
market conditions, including (1) the type and location of buildable lands that can accommodate
urban scale housing and can connect to city infrastructure; (2) the type and rental rate of housing
that can satisfy local demand; (3) financial institution’s lending policies; and (4) and the scale of
risk and required return on investment that the private sector is willing to take.
Several reports, studies, and plans document the city’s housing needs, including the 2019
Community Housing Needs Assessment, the 2021 Unified Development Code Affordable Housing
Assessment (Clarion Report), the 2020 Community Housing Action Plan, the 2021 Root Policy
Research Feasibility Analysis of Certain Development Incentives in Exchange for Affordable Units
in Bozeman, the 2021 One Valley Community Foundation “A Seat at the Table” Report, the 2024-
2028 Bozeman Fair Housing Plan, and the 2021 Gallatin County Regional Housing Study. Each
of these studies document the need for housing and the challenges in providing housing at costs
affordable to residents. The City of Bozeman evaluated and implemented many different
approaches over the years with limited success compared to the need. The current work continues
the City’s efforts and commitment to practical and achievable actions, within the City’s control,
to support creation of housing and specifically housing at lower (below market-rate) rents. The
issue remains very challenging. The tools available to Bozeman are limited, especially compared
with the scope of the challenges. The suggested actions will not solve all the issues; however, they
represent important tools to advance incremental progress.
58
City Commission Staff Report for the Affordable Housing Ordinance 2025, Division
38.380 Repeal and Replacement Text Amendment, Project No.24529
Page 33 of 64
Policy Background
The recent pandemic amplified existing housing and work trends, and housing prices have greatly
increased over the past three years. An article by Tim Ford in the May 1, 2022, Bozeman Magazine
shows median single home sale prices in the Bozeman area increasing over the first quarter 2020
to first quarter 2022 by $389,000. This is an increase of 76% in two years. The following year the
median sales price in 2023 had increased an additional $10,500 showing a continued elevation in
location housing prices. Average sale price remained over a million dollars in the same time
horizon.
Chapter 1 of the Bozeman Community Plan 2020 includes a section titled “To Grow Or Not To
Grow, If So, How?” This section considers the question of whether or not the City should continue
policies encouraging development within City limits. Several different related issues are discussed,
and the section concludes that construction within the City is a better outcome.
Affordable housing is a long-standing community concern. It was first addressed in the 1972
Master Plan for the community and then all subsequent community land use plans. Several reports,
studies, and plans including the Community Housing Action Plan and the One Valley Community
Foundation, Gallatin County Regional Housing Study, document the needs for housing and the
challenges in providing housing at costs affordable to residents. The state legislature has limited
the tools the city has to support affordable housing construction. The city is required to use
incentives to encourage construction rather than mandating the construction of affordable housing.
The proposed ordinance places an increased emphasis on affordable housing as a public benefit in
exchange for the flexibility allowed through the updated Division 38.380.
The city has many ongoing efforts to support creation of housing overall including:
o supporting and completing infrastructure construction,
o primarily of-right development review except where required by state law,
o use of tax increment financing in support of housing,
o general fund support for affordable housing projects, and
o many others.
The city consistently reviews and updates its regulations to keep them relevant and effective.
Over the past 20 years, the city has increased allowed development intensity and removed
possible cost barriers by the following and other actions:
• reduced standards such as land area per type of home by up to 60%,
• reduced setbacks from property lines by as much as 58%,
• removed requirements for minimum home sizes,
• increased maximum allowed heights,
• authorized accessory dwellings for all residential zoning and reduced standards related to
accessory dwelling several times,
59
City Commission Staff Report for the Affordable Housing Ordinance 2025, Division
38.380 Repeal and Replacement Text Amendment, Project No.24529
Page 34 of 64
• simplified landscaping standards and encouraged lower water use plantings,
• approved dozens of zone map amendments to allow more intensive uses, and
• simplified review processes.
• flexible zoning districts that allow for a wide range of housing types
Despite this work, the cost of housing has continued to escalate, especially compared to wages.
There has been continuing high demand for housing from across the nation. This was particularly
reinforced during the pandemic. Bozeman’s growth into a metropolitan statistical area has also
expanded our profile and brought attention from firms and persons who may not otherwise have
considered locating here. This demand has supported increased housing costs.
Home prices are keyed to the Area Median Income (AMI). AMI is established each year by the
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. AMI is a standard measure used for many
functions including determination of housing affordability. A home is considered affordable if a
household pays 33% or less of its income for housing. AMI is the amount of money where half of
the households earn more and half less in the county. The AMI includes adjustments for
households with more or fewer members.
The gap between cost of construction and wages is not limited to Bozeman city limits. The One
Valley Community Foundation prepared a housing study in 2021 looking at the entire county and
affordable housing issues. Across all housing types and locations, they found consistent gaps in
available wages and cost of construction. The following image is from that report.
60
City Commission Staff Report for the Affordable Housing Ordinance 2025, Division
38.380 Repeal and Replacement Text Amendment, Project No.24529
Page 35 of 64
There are no regulations that have such impact that their removal could be even close to offsetting
such large increases in home prices and capital gaps between wages and cost of construction. The
city can, and is, examining what it does control to identify such incremental improvements as may
help.
Unified Development Code Revisions to Support Housing Affordability
In 2021, the city initiated a two-year process to revise its unified development code to remove
barriers to housing creation. To do so, the City retained Clarion and sub consultants to review the
City’s land use regulations. The scope of work included a code audit of the entire UDC, the
creation of administrative departures to facilitate housing creation, the replacement of the planned
unit development (PUD) process with a new streamlined planned development zone (PDZ) process
and, finally, a replacement of the affordable housing ordinance. This work was supported by
multiple public outreach efforts including but not limited to:
April 20, 2021, outreach to the development community
April 26, 2021, joint meeting of the planning board and zoning commission
May 12 and September 8, 2021, meetings of the community affordable housing advisory
board
61
City Commission Staff Report for the Affordable Housing Ordinance 2025, Division
38.380 Repeal and Replacement Text Amendment, Project No.24529
Page 36 of 64
September 15, 2021, Neighborhoods outreach meeting
March 1, 2022, City Commission Policy Discussion
After an open public process with several public events, Clarion provided a report with
recommendations of possible regulatory changes. The City Commission considered that report on
March 1st and directed staff to begin drafting amendments to regulations. Commission materials
[external link] for the March 1st meeting are available online through the City’s archive.
Materials in the Commission packet included the staff memo, financial feasibility analysis of the
suggested incentives for affordable housing, and the Clarion housing assessment report. The public
review process for the individual ordinance followed required procedures for public notice,
meetings, and hearings providing multiple opportunities for interested persons to meaningfully
comment and participate.
The first of the amendments to move forward was the Housing Departures for Housing Creation
text amendment, Ordinance 2111. Ordinance 2111 completed final adoption on June 28, 2022. The
effective date of the ordinance is July 28, 2022. The second amendment was a replacement of
Division 38.430, Planned Unit Development, and associated amendments to other sections. The
Commission held a public hearing on Ordinance 2104 on July 12, 2022, and directed an
amendment before moving forward. Final adoption of Ordinance 2104 occurred on Sept 27, 2022.
The City Commission also adopted a replacement for the previous affordable housing ordinance
pursuant to Ordinance 2105. The Commission held a public hearing on Ordinance 2105 on August
23, 2022, with final adoption on October 27, 2022, and an effective date of November 26, 2022.
The new affordable housing Ordinance used non-cash financial incentives through the unified
development code as a voluntary incentive to create affordable housing. This work was
necessitated by passage of House Bill 259 by the 2021 state legislature which forbid the city to
require construction of affordable housing.
Since the passage of HB 259, the city is required to use incentives to encourage construction rather
than mandating the construction of affordable housing. The current and proposed AHO places an
emphasis on affordable housing as a public benefit in exchange for the flexibility allowed through
the AHO incentives.
Following the passage of House Bill 259, the City Commission sought to replace the city’s
Affordable Housing Ordinance (AHO) with one that does not require any of the actions prohibited
by House Bill 259. Instead, the new AHO offered non-cash but realistic financial incentives to
property owners and developers willing to construct housing at levels of affordability consistent
with the housing needs and goals identified in the City’s Community Plan, the Community
Housing Needs Assessment, and the Community Housing Action Plan. The current Affordable
Housing Ordinance (AHO) was adopted in 2022 by Ordinance 2105, pursuant to the city’s self-
governing powers, the city’s zoning authority, and the City’s police power to protect public health,
safety, and general welfare. The current AHO provides a suite of incentives to developers who
62
City Commission Staff Report for the Affordable Housing Ordinance 2025, Division
38.380 Repeal and Replacement Text Amendment, Project No.24529
Page 37 of 64
include below-market rental or for-sale units within their residential or mixed-use development.
These incentives include (1) reduced or exemption from on-site parking for all dwelling units
within the development, (2) reduced lot size, (3) increased residential density, (4) additional
building height, (5) townhouse and rowhouse project allowed in lower density R-1, RS and RMH
residential districts, (6) concurrent construction allowance, (7) reduced street widths, and (8)
relaxed building design standards.
Modeling Non-Cash Financial Incentives
One of the main reasons why housing is expensive is because land remains expensive. When State
or local laws restrict adding more housing units on the same amount of land, buildable land
becomes scarcer, demand goes up, and homes become more expensive. In most development
projects, land costs are the largest single expense alongside the cost of construction materials,
labor, design, and financing. This cost ends up playing a major role in determining the viability
of a development project and whether it will move forward.
Developers can only build affordable housing or include affordable units within their development
if they can anticipate a suitable return on their time and financial investment. They need to be
offered either cash or non-cash financial incentives to produce the affordable units. Cash
incentives can include direct cash subsidies to the developer, tax credits used for other income
sources, reduced impact fees or infrastructure fees. Non-cash financial incentives typically focus
on allowing more housing unit per unit of land because it spreads the cost of land, design,
permitting, materials, labor, financing, and infrastructure across a larger number of units, resulting
in a lower per-unit cost. The lower per-unit cost allows the affordable unit to be rented below-
market. As noted above, the non-cash financial incentives include exemptions from zoning
regulations and standards that limit the number of dwelling units per land area. These can include
lot area, lot coverage, lot width, lot size/density limits, building height, parking requirements, open
space requirements, and some land use limits such as the type of housing permitted within a
particular zoning district.
In 2022, the City of Bozeman engaged Clarion Associates and their sub-consultant, Root Policy
Research, a firm specializing in housing economics, to propose changes to the unified development
code (UDC) to use non-cash financial incentives through the development code to incentivize the
production of community housing units. An appropriate way to evaluate any incentive is to apply
a “but for” test: The incentive must enhance the feasibility of providing affordable housing units
that would not be financially feasible “but for” the application of the incentive. The team developed
prototype proformas of for-sale and rental housing types from single household detached housing
units to multi-household units based on regional housing prototypes and costs, market data and
interviews. These proformas create base case scenarios for evaluating the financial feasibility of
affordable housing production within existing code. The consultants modeled the following base
case scenarios:
63
City Commission Staff Report for the Affordable Housing Ordinance 2025, Division
38.380 Repeal and Replacement Text Amendment, Project No.24529
Page 38 of 64
• 3-story rental residential with standard parking requirements (2.0 spaces for a 2-bedroom
unit);
• 3-story multifamily condo development with standard parking requirements (2.0 spaces for
a 2-bedroom unit)
• For-Sale townhomes with a 3,000 square foot lot size
• Single-household units with a 4,000 square foot lot size
The UDC currently allows for these base case scenarios in applicable zoning districts, where
townhomes and multi-household, respectively, are currently allowed.
The consultants applied code incentives to these base case scenarios to see how the incentives
change the feasibility of providing affordable housing units. These incentives constitute a bonus
on what is currently allowed by the code. The proposed code changes include the following
incentives:
• Reduced lot size requirements
• Reduced parking requirements
• Increased building height allowances
The consultants adjusted the base case scenarios by allowing smaller lot sizes, increased building
heights, and/or parking reductions in exchange for the inclusion of income-restricted, affordable,
units in the development. They evaluated the impact of these bonuses on project feasibility and
projected the percentage of affordable housing units these incentives would facilitate that would
likely not exist “but for” the incentive. Root modeled these base case scenarios in 2021 and
updated the same scenarios based on 2024 construction costs and AMI data. Root Policy
Research’s, “Bozeman AHO Analysis for Shallow Incentives—Market Conditions Update”
(2024). Clarion found that incentives that would ordinarily enhance affordability had only modest
impact in the Bozeman market. Yet, long-term affordable housing units remain community assets
and every unit counts. Based on these projects Staff and Clarion recommended the creation of the
Shallow Incentives. The 2022 Shallow Incentives and the proposed Type A incentives are based
on the analysis by Root Policy Research.
Type A Incentives (replacement for shallow incentives)
The new Type A incentives constitute a replacement for the shallow incentives and are based on
the updated 2024 financial analysis (attached) conducted by Root Policy Research.
Type A Incentives:
• 5% of Rental Units up to 80% AMI for single-household detached and single-household
attached dwelling units.
• 5% of Rental Units up to 60% AMI, or 8% of units up to 80% AMI for apartment buildings.
• Smaller single detached and townhome lots
64
City Commission Staff Report for the Affordable Housing Ordinance 2025, Division
38.380 Repeal and Replacement Text Amendment, Project No.24529
Page 39 of 64
• Multi-household buildings get 1-2 stories taller with lower parking requirements.
These Type A Incentives are designed to allow the market to produce long-term affordability with
a range of housing unit types without the provision of cash or another subsidy.
Type B and Type C Incentives (replacement for Deep Affordability Incentives)
In 2022, Clarion recommended larger code-based incentives for developments that produced
affordability well-beyond what the market would produce with code-based incentives alone. These
projects, like GMD’s Arrowleaf and Perennial Park low-income housing tax credit (LIHTC - “Li-
Tech”) development and the Bridger View development near Story Mill Park, produced
affordability in 50% or more of their units by harnessing federal monetary subsidy, social impact
investing, and private philanthropy. In exchange for this depth of affordability, Staff and Clarion
recommend the creation of what became the Deep Incentives.
Based on public participation and policy direction from the Bozeman City Commission staff is
revising the deep incentives and proposing two new types of incentive, the Type B Incentives, and
the Type C incentives to replace them.
Type B Incentives (replacement for deep incentives)
• Height allowed by the underlying zoning district or 4 stories, whichever is less;
• 0.25 space per dwelling parking requirement.
Type C Incentives (replacement for deep incentives)
• 1-4 story height bonus, depending on zoning district;
• 0.5 space per dwelling parking requirement.
Given the massive public and private incentives required to produce deep affordability, Staff
believes providing more significant incentives are appropriate, and likely necessary, to make more
projects like these possible.
While the legislature prohibited requiring affordable housing, state law does allow communities
to provide incentives to encourage creation of affordable housing. The incentives provided in the
new Division 38.380 of the ordinance, occur in three tiers. See proposed section 38.380.040
beginning on page 11 of the ordinance for details. Developments providing a greater number of
dwellings meeting rent rates have additional incentives. The incentives apply throughout the
entirety of a development including qualifying residential buildings, even if some buildings in the
development contain no price limited dwellings. The provisions of 38.380 do not affect other
incentives or tools the City has to support affordable housing, like direct funding.
65
City Commission Staff Report for the Affordable Housing Ordinance 2025, Division
38.380 Repeal and Replacement Text Amendment, Project No.24529
Page 40 of 64
City Initiatives to Support Housing Affordability
The current project is a continuation of a long series of efforts in support of producing affordable
housing. The city works hard to leverage opportunities and partnerships that can help carry forward
housing production and especially housing for the least advantaged. These efforts include but are
not limited to:
• Regular analysis of housing needs and creation of housing action plans to identify tools
and options for housing, most recently the Community Housing Action Plan;
• Direct financial support from general funds for multiple affordable housing projects;
• Financial support for homebuyer education and down payment assistance;
• Accommodating new annexations to provide land for housing;
• Supporting rezonings for in-fill development of housing near transit;
• Flexible zoning districts that allow for a wide range of housing combinations;
• Administrative of-right reviews of most development to provide certainty to the public and
development communities;
• As noted above, many zoning code revisions have been made over the past 20 years; and
• Infrastructure (e.g. streets, water, and sewer) planning and construction support to avoid
delays in being able to bring homes to production and be cost effective in installation and
operation of essential services.
As noted earlier, the city’s first inclusionary zoning policy was adopted in 2007 by Ordinance No.
1709, but it was placed “on hold” until 2012. Other actions included over the years:
• 2015 by Ordinance 1922, the City Commission replaced the 2007 Inclusionary Zoning
provision;
• 2016 by Ordinance 1930, a revision to implement Ord. 1922;
• 2017, by Ord. 1980 to remove condominiums from Inclusionary Zoning (IZ) requirements;
• 2019 by Ord. 2012, to revise IZ standards;
• 2021, the Montana State Legislature adopted House Bill 259 which prohibits local
governments from requiring housing fees or the dedication of real property for the purposes
of providing housing for specified income levels or sale prices, and which prohibits zoning
regulations that require housing fees or the dedication of real property for the purposes of
providing housing for specified income levels or sale prices. In other words, they
prohibited Inclusionary Zoning;
• 2022, Ord. 2104 replaced Planned Unit Development with Planned Development Zones,
one of which was to produce affordable housing; and
• 2022, Ord. 2105 (current Affordable Housing zoning) established non-cash financial
incentives to developers who provide affordable housing.
In addition to the above zoning non-cash financial incentives, the City continues its financial
support for creation of housing, including, among others:
66
City Commission Staff Report for the Affordable Housing Ordinance 2025, Division
38.380 Repeal and Replacement Text Amendment, Project No.24529
Page 41 of 64
• Supporting and completing infrastructure construction such as roads, water, sanitary sewer,
and stormwater systems to accommodate urban-scale and density growth;
• Use of Tax Increment Financing in support of housing in Urban Renewal Areas;
• General fund support for the Affordable Housing Fund and for specific affordable housing
projects;
• Community Development Block Grant funds supporting housing and, in particular,
affordable housing; and
• Support of on-going studies, strategies and staffing of City Housing Programs.
67
City Commission Staff Report for the Affordable Housing Ordinance 2025, Division
38.380 Repeal and Replacement Text Amendment, Project No.24529
Page 42 of 64
APPENDIX B: COMPARISON OF THE CURRENT AHO SECTION 38.380
DEEP AND SHALLOW INCENTIVES TO THE PROPOSED TYPE A, B
AND C INCENTIVES.
The Affordable Housing Ordinance (AHO) is a repeal and replacement of the current Ordinance
2105 which would amend the land use regulations of Chapter 38 of the Bozeman Municipal Code
(BMC) in support of affordable rental housing production. The proposed amendments will affect
land use, residential density, building height and design, and parking standards for targeted
residential and mixed-use developments. The amendment applies to new development and applies
to projects undergoing development review under Chapter 38 of the City’s Unified Development
Code (UDC) and which has not received a determination of application completeness or
“adequacy” for further review, public notice, and processing.
The AHO would replace UDC 38.380 with a new set of standards addressing (1) incentives to
build below-market-rate affordable rental dwelling units in the city; (2) criteria and qualifications
for the granting of the incentives; (3) clarification of administration of the affordable housing
program; (4) extension of the duration of affordability for subject dwellings from thirty (30) years
to fifty (50) years; and (5) establishing the minimum percentage of affordable dwellings per project
and the maximum rental rate allowed measured by the Bozeman Area Median Income (AMI); and
(6) establishing options of off-site land dedication or cash-in-lieu alternatives as a means of
meeting the affordable housing required to use the incentives.
The current AHO offers two types of incentives: Shallow Incentives and Deep Incentives. The
proposed AHO replaces the Shallow and Deep Incentives with three types of incentives: Type A
Incentives which are a variation of the Shallow Incentives, Type B Incentives which are a variation
of the Deep Incentives, Type C Incentives which are another variation of the Deep Incentives, and
two more options allow Off-Site Land Donations and Cash-in-Lieu Contributions to satisfy the
affordable dwellings for projects utilizing Incentives.
The following section compares the current Shallow and Deep Incentives to the proposed Types A, B and C Incentives.
68
City Commission Staff Report for the Affordable Housing Ordinance 2025, Division
38.380 Repeal and Replacement Text Amendment, Project No.24529
Page 43 of 64
CURRENT Table 38.380.020-2: Affordable Homes Required Shallow Incentives
Minimum
Percentage of
Homes
Maximum Percentage of AMI Duration
Rental
Dwellings
For-Sale
Dwellings
(includes
condominiums)
Type of Housing
Single-
Household
Detached
Dwelling
=>5% 80% of AMI 120% of AMI =>30 years
Single-
Household
Attached
Dwelling
=>5% 80% of AMI 120% of AMI =>30 years
Multi-
Household
Dwelling
=>5% 80% of AMI 120% or AMI =>30 years
PROPOSED Table 38.380.020-1 Affordable Dwellings Required Type A Incentives
[Changes are in
highlighted text]
Minimum
Percentage of
Dwellings
Maximum Percentage of AMI Duration
Rental Dwellings
Single-Household
Detached Dwelling
All dwelling unit
types
=>5% 80% of AMI =>50 years
Single-Household
Attached Dwelling
=>5% 80% of AMI => 50 years
Multi-Household
Dwelling
=>5% or,
=>8%
60% of AMI
80% of AMI
=> 50 years
69
City Commission Staff Report for the Affordable Housing Ordinance 2025, Division
38.380 Repeal and Replacement Text Amendment, Project No.24529
Page 44 of 64
I. Comparison of Shallow Incentives to proposed Type A Incentives
1. Single household Detached Dwelling Units
Shallow Incentives (existing)
For each single household detached dwelling a minimum lot size of 3,000 square feet, or 2,500
square feet, if the applicant demonstrates that all applicable city regulations related to lot
development, access and utilities can be met.
Proposed Type A Incentives [no change proposed]
For each single household detached dwelling a minimum lot size of 3,000 square feet, or 2,500
square feet, if the applicant demonstrates that all applicable city regulations related to lot
development, access and utilities can be met.
2. Dwellings in attached townhome or rowhouse buildings.
Shallow Incentives (existing)
For each single household attached dwellings (townhouse or rowhouse), a minimum lot size of
2,200 square feet (sf), or 1,800 sf, if the applicant demonstrates that all applicable city regulations
related to lot development, access and utilities can be met.
Proposed Type A Incentives (New incentives are underlined).
1. For single-household detached dwellings, a minimum lot size of 3,000 square feet.
Alternatively, if the applicant demonstrates that all other applicable city regulations related to
lot development, access, and utilities can be met, a minimum lot size of 2,500 square feet is
allowed.
2. For each single household attached dwelling (townhouse or rowhouse)
a. A minimum lot size of 2,200 sf or 1,800 sf if the applicant demonstrates that all
applicable city regulations related to lot development, access and utilities can be met.
b. No minimum lot width, maximum lot coverage or maximum floor area ratio
requirement if the applicant demonstrates that all applicable city regulations related to
lot development, access and utilities can be met.
c. A townhouse or rowhouse development that includes only dwellings of 1,200 square
feet or less of livable square footage is exempt from a minimum on-site parking
requirement but may provide one parking space located within a driveway area in the
required front setback, provided that the building in which the dwellings are located is
three or fewer stories in height.
d. In addition to the above incentives, a townhouse or rowhouse cluster with four or fewer
attached homes that includes only dwellings of 1,200 livable square feet or less in size
70
City Commission Staff Report for the Affordable Housing Ordinance 2025, Division
38.380 Repeal and Replacement Text Amendment, Project No.24529
Page 45 of 64
is exempt from the following: Minimum lot size; Lot coverage; Floor area ratio; Lot
area per dwelling unit density standard; Lot width; and Minimum parking requirement.
e. For affordable housing developments in R-3 districts, nine (9) additional feet of
height, provided that if the development is adjacent to a lower intensity residential
zoning district, the transition height setback provisions of 38.320.060.B apply.
f. For affordable housing developments in R-4 districts, five (5) additional feet of height,
provided that if the development is adjacent to a lower intensity residential zoning
district, the transition height setback provisions of 38.320.060.B apply.
3. Multi-household dwellings and dwellings in mixed-use buildings.
Shallow Incentives (existing)
For multi-household dwellings and mixed-use buildings:
a. Ten percent reduction in lot area for applicable dwelling type in Table 38.320.030.A.
b. One additional story of height (maximum 15 feet per story) beyond that allowed in the
RS, R-1, R-2, R-3, RMH, R-4, R-5, R-O, NEHMU, and B-1 zoning districts.
c. Two additional stories of height (maximum 15 feet per story) beyond that allowed in
the UMU, REMU, B-2, B-2M, and B-3 zoning districts.
d. Minimum vehicle parking requirement of one stall per dwelling for all districts other
than B-3 and bicycle parking standards and requirements of 38.540.050 still apply.
e. Minimum vehicle parking requirement of 0.75 stall per dwelling for B-3 district;
bicycle parking standards and requirements of 38.540.050 still apply.
f. Townhouses and rowhouses (two attached units) are principal uses in the R-1, RS, and
RMH zoning districts.
Proposed Type A Incentives [New incentives are underlined deleted text is struck-
through.]
For multi-household dwellings and mixed-use buildings:
a. In all zoning districts:
i. The residential off-site parking standards of 38.540.070.A may be expanded up
to 1,000 linear feet from the commonly used entrance to the residential building.
ii. Up to 80% of the residential open space requirements of 38.520.060 may be
met by providing private balconies provided every affordable dwelling is
provided a balcony and access to a ground floor common open space is
provided for all residents.
71
City Commission Staff Report for the Affordable Housing Ordinance 2025, Division
38.380 Repeal and Replacement Text Amendment, Project No.24529
Page 46 of 64
Ten percent reduction in lot area for applicable dwelling type in Table
38.320.030.A.
b. For affordable housing developments in the RS, R-1, R-2, R-3, RMH, R-4, R-5, R-
O, NEHMU, and B-1 districts, one additional story of height (maximum 15 feet per
story), provided that if the development abuts a lower intensity residential district,
the transition height setback provisions of 38.320.060.B apply.
c. For affordable housing developments in the UMU, REMU, B-2, B-2M, and B-3
districts, two additional stories of height (maximum 15 feet per story), provided
that if the development is adjacent to a lower intensity residential zoning district,
the transition height setback provisions of 38.320.060.B apply.
d. Minimum motor vehicle parking requirement of one space per dwelling for all
districts other than B-3; however, the bicycle parking standards and requirements
of 38.540.050 remain applicable.
e. Minimum motor vehicle parking requirement of 0.75 stall per dwelling for B-3
district; however, bicycle parking standards and requirements of 38.540.050 remain
applicable.
f. For affordable housing developments in R-3, R-4, R-5, R-O and RMH, the
minimum area per dwelling standards in Table 38.320.030.A do not apply.
g. For the M-1 zoning district:
i. An apartment building in an M-1 zoning district is a principal use and
the prohibition on locating residential uses on the ground floor of an
apartment building in M-1 zone in Table 38310.040.C does not
apply.
ii. In determining the maximum allowable residential square footage of
a development in M-1, Table 38.310.040.C fn6 is calculated for the
development as a whole rather than per individual buildings.
h. Townhomes & rowhouses (two attached units) are principal uses in the TR-1,
RS and RMH zoning districts.
72
City Commission Staff Report for the Affordable Housing Ordinance 2025, Division
38.380 Repeal and Replacement Text Amendment, Project No.24529
Page 47 of 64
II. Comparison of current Deep Incentives versus proposed Type B Incentives
Changes are highlighted. Note that various elements of the Deep Incentives of the current AHO
are divided into the two new types of incentives in the proposed update: Types B and C.
CURRENT Table 38.380.020-1 Affordable Homes Required for Deep Incentives
Minimum
Percentage of
Homes
Maximum Percentage of AMI Duration
Rental
Dwellings
For-Sale
Dwellings
(includes
condominiums)
Type of Housing
Single-
Household
Detached
Dwelling
=>50% 80% of AMI 120% of AMI =>30 years
Single-
Household
Attached
Dwelling
=>50% 80% of AMI 120% of AMI =>30 years
Multi-
Household
Dwelling
=>50% 80% of AMI 120% or AMI =>30 years
Proposed Table 38.380.020-2 Affordable Dwellings Required for Type B or C Incentives
Changes are
highlighted
Minimum
Percentage of
Dwellings
Maximum Percentage of AMI Duration
Rental Dwellings
All dwelling unit
types.
Single-Household
Detached
Dwelling
=>50% 80% of AMI => 50 years
Single-Household
Attached Dwelling
=>50% 80% of AMI =>50 years
Multi-Household
Dwelling
=>50% 60 % of AMI =>50 years
73
City Commission Staff Report for the Affordable Housing Ordinance 2025, Division
38.380 Repeal and Replacement Text Amendment, Project No.24529
Page 48 of 64
Current Incentives for Table 38.380.020-1-- Deep Incentives. If the developer
proposes to construct affordable homes that meet the standards in Table 38.380.020-1 in the same
geographically contiguous development as market rate homes, the developer may apply the
following incentives to all primary buildings in the development in which 50 percent or more of
the gross floor area contains residential uses:
1. For single household detached dwellings:
a. Minimum lot size of 2,000 square feet (sf); or 1,600 sf if the applicant demonstrates
that all applicable city regulations related to lot development, access and utilities can
be met.
b. No minimum lot width requirement above that necessary for access and utilities if the
applicant demonstrates that all applicable city regulations related to lot development,
access and utilities can be met.
c. Off-street parking requirement of one space per dwelling.
d. Concurrent construction of infrastructure and dwellings per 38.270.030 is allowed.
2. For single household attached dwellings (townhouses and rowhouses):
a. Minimum lot size of 1,600 sf; or 1,400 sf if the applicant demonstrates that all
applicable city regulations related to lot development, access and utilities can be met.
b. No minimum lot width requirement if the applicant demonstrates that all applicable
city regulations related to lot development, access and utilities can be met.
c. Off-street parking reduction to one space per dwelling.
d. Concurrent construction of infrastructure and housing per 38.270.030 is allowed.
3. For multi-household dwellings and mixed-use buildings:
a. One additional story of height (maximum 15 feet per story) beyond that allowed in the
RS, R-1, R-2, R-3, or RMH zoning districts.
b. Two additional stories of height (maximum 15 feet per story) beyond that allowed in
the R-4, R-5, R-O, NEHMU, and B-1 zoning districts.
c. Four additional stories of height (maximum 15 feet per story) beyond that allowed in
the UMU, REMU, B-2, B-2M, and B-3 zoning districts.
d. No minimum on-site vehicle parking requirement, but bicycle parking standards and
requirements of 38.540.050 still apply.
e. Townhouses* and rowhouses* (two attached units) in the R-1, RS, and RMH zoning
districts.
f. Exemption from each of the following for buildings containing dwellings, unless an
alternative standard is provided in this division:
74
City Commission Staff Report for the Affordable Housing Ordinance 2025, Division
38.380 Repeal and Replacement Text Amendment, Project No.24529
Page 49 of 64
(1) Minimum lot size, lot area per dwelling units, and lot width requirement in all
zoning districts.
(2) Section 38.510.030.E to J block frontage standards, provided that vehicle parking
is prohibited between the front or side of a principal building and a public or private
street;
(3) Section 38.530.040.E maximum façade width standards;
(4) Section 38.530.040.F roofline modulation standards;
(5) Section 38.530.050 building detail standards; and
(6) Section 38.530.060 building material standards.
(7) Concurrent construction of infrastructure and housing per 38.270.030.
4. Developments subject to 38.380 may use yield streets without requirement for
additional zoning review requirements beyond that for the development within which
the yield street will be used. A yield street has the following characteristics:
a. Forty-foot right-of-way with two-way dedicated travel in a 16-foot advisory yield zone
for motor vehicles and five-foot walkways outside on either side.
b. Staggered seven-foot-wide parallel parking spaces which may include chicane style
streetscape for varying width of paved area.
c. No parking in front of private property that blocks access to property adjacent to the
street.
d. Passing areas every 100 feet minimum for sight line assurance and yielding capabilities.
Passing pullout areas to be not less than 25 feet long. Driveway accesses may serve as
passing areas.
e. Snow management plan, including enforcement provisions, must be provided during
initial development review.
(1) No snow storage in passing areas;
(2) Adequate storage areas or removal methods must be provided to address two 25-
year storms.
f. Stormwater must be managed within the right-of-way unless an alternate method
compliant with municipal standards is provided.
g. A comprehensive street signage plan must be included with initial submittal and
executed with infrastructure plans and construction including but advisory signage for
yielding to pedestrians/bikes/PTDs and other vehicle travelers.
h. The proposed design must be consistent with accessibility requirements established by
any governmental agency.
i. Design shall address inclusion of any proposed street furnishings, amenities, plantings,
etc.
j. Yield streets are exempt from the requirements of 38.550.070 for installation of street
trees adjacent to individual lots.
75
City Commission Staff Report for the Affordable Housing Ordinance 2025, Division
38.380 Repeal and Replacement Text Amendment, Project No.24529
Page 50 of 64
k. The city may limit speeds to less than standard for a local street.
l. Maintenance must be maintained by landowners in the development unless the city
explicitly assumes responsibility. A funding mechanism equal to that for private streets
in 38.400.020 is required for private maintenance.
m. Length may not exceed 400 feet without intersecting with a street. Ends must terminate
at a street or be provided a fire code compliant turn around. A total length may exceed
400 feet if there are crossing streets with a yield street.
n. Adjacent buildings must not exceed three stories unless setup space for fire department
ladder trucks is provided adequate to access all buildings in excess of three stories.
Proposed Type B Incentives compared to the current Deep Incentives [New
incentive text is underlined, deleted text is struck-through.]
Type B Incentives allow:
1. For single household detached dwellings:
a. 2,000 or 1,600 square feet minimum lot size and no minimum lot width for single
household detached dwellings if the applicant demonstrates that all applicable city
regulations related to lot development, access and utilities can be met.
b. off-street parking required at one space per dwelling.
2. For townhouse or rowhouse dwellings:
a. 1,600 to 1,400 sf lot size and no minimum lot width if the applicant demonstrates that all
applicable city regulations related to lot development, access and utilities can be met.
b. Off-street parking requirement of one space per dwelling. A townhouse or rowhouse
development that includes only dwellings of 1,200 livable square feet or less of livable
square footage is exempt from a minimum on-site parking requirement but may provide
one parking space located within a driveway area in the required front setback, provided
that the building in which the dwellings are located is three or fewer stories in height.
c. For affordable housing developments in R-3 districts, nine (9) additional feet of height,
provided that if the development is adjacent to a lower intensity residential zoning district,
the transition height setback provisions of 38.320.060.B apply.
d. For affordable housing developments in R-4 districts, five (5) additional feet of height,
provided that if the development is adjacent to a lower intensity residential zoning district,
the transition height setback provisions of 38.320.060.B apply.
76
City Commission Staff Report for the Affordable Housing Ordinance 2025, Division
38.380 Repeal and Replacement Text Amendment, Project No.24529
Page 51 of 64
3. For multi-household or mixed-use buildings:
For multi-household dwellings and mixed-use buildings:
a. When incentives are requested, the building height of any building in the
development is limited to that permitted in the zoning district or four stories,
whichever is less and the maximum number of dwellings in a single
building is limited to that permitted in the zoning district or 36 dwellings,
whichever is less.
b. ADA parking spaces must be provided in accordance with applicable
building codes.
c. In addition to the ADA parking required, a minimum of .25 vehicle parking
spaces per dwelling are required. One short-term parking space located at
the main building entrance must be provided and identified as a loading
zone.
d. Bicycle parking standards and requirements of 38.540.050 apply. The
number of secure bicycle racks provided must exceed or be equal to 50
percent of the number of dwellings within the development.
e. For multi-household dwellings and mixed-use buildings in all zoning
districts the minimum lot area per dwelling does not apply.
f. For the M-1 zoning district:
i. An apartment building in an M-1 zoning district is a principal use and
the prohibition on locating residential uses on the ground floor of an
apartment building in M-1 zone in Table 38310.040.C does not apply.
ii. In determining the maximum allowable residential square footage of
a development in M-1, Table 38.310.040.C fn6 is calculated for the
development as a whole rather than per individual buildings.
a. One additional story of height (maximum 15 feet floor to floor height per story) beyond
that allowed in the RS, R-1, R-2, R-3, or RMH zoning districts.
b. Two additional stories of height (maximum 15 feet floor to floor per story) beyond that
allowed in the R-4, R-5, R-O and B-1 zoning districts.
c. Four additional stories of height (maximum 15 feet per story) beyond that allowed in the
UMU, REMU, B-2, B-2M, and B-3 zoning districts.
d. No minimum onsite vehicle parking requirement, but the bicycle parking standards and
requirements of 38.540.050 still apply.
e. Townhouses & rowhouses (two attached units) [are principal uses] in the R-1, RS and
RMH zoning districts.
f. Exemption from each of the following for buildings containing dwellings, unless an
alternative standard is provided in this division:
77
City Commission Staff Report for the Affordable Housing Ordinance 2025, Division
38.380 Repeal and Replacement Text Amendment, Project No.24529
Page 52 of 64
1. Minimum lot size, lot area per dwelling unit density standard, and lot width
requirements, as noted in subsection B.1 and 2 above.
2. Section 38.510.030.E to J block frontage standards, provided that vehicle parking
is prohibited between the front or side of a principal building and a public or private
street;
3. Section 38.530.040.E. Maximum façade width standards;
4. Section 38.530.040.F, Roofline modulation standards;
5. Section 38.530.050, Building detail standards; and
6. Section 38.530.060, Building material standards.
g. Concurrent construction of infrastructure and housing per 38.270.030.
h. Developments subject to 38.380 may use yield streets without requirement for
additional zoning review requirements beyond that for the development within which
the yield street will be used. A yield street has the following characteristics:
a. Forty-foot right-of-way with two-way dedicated travel in a 16-foot advisory yield
zone for motor vehicles and five-foot walkways outside on either side.
b. Staggered seven-foot-wide parallel parking spaces which may include chicane
style streetscape for varying width of paved area.
c. No parking in front of private property that blocks access to property adjacent to
the street.
d. Passing areas every 100 feet minimum for sight line assurance and yielding
capabilities. Passing pullout areas to be not less than 25 feet long. Driveway accesses
may serve as passing areas.
e. Snow management plan, including enforcement provisions, must be provided
during initial development review.
(1) No snow storage in passing areas;
(2) Adequate storage areas or removal methods must be provided to address two 25-
year storms.
f. Stormwater must be managed within the right-of-way unless an alternate method
compliant with municipal standards is provided.
g. A comprehensive street signage plan must be included with initial submittal and
executed with infrastructure plans and construction including but advisory signage for
yielding to pedestrians/bikes/PTDs and other vehicle travelers.
h. The proposed design must be consistent with accessibility requirements
established by any governmental agency.
i. Design shall address inclusion of any proposed street furnishings, amenities,
plantings, etc.
78
City Commission Staff Report for the Affordable Housing Ordinance 2025, Division
38.380 Repeal and Replacement Text Amendment, Project No.24529
Page 53 of 64
j. Yield streets are exempt from the requirements of 38.550.070 for installation of
street trees adjacent to individual lots.
k. The city may limit speeds to less than standard for a local street.
l. Maintenance must be maintained by landowners in the development unless the
city explicitly assumes responsibility. A funding mechanism equal to that for private
streets in 38.400.020 is required for private maintenance.
m. Length may not exceed 400 feet without intersecting with a street. Ends must
terminate at a street or be provided a fire code compliant turn around. A total length may
exceed 400 feet if there are crossing streets with a yield street.
n. Adjacent buildings must not exceed three stories unless setup space for fire
department ladder trucks is provided adequate to access all buildings in excess of three
stories.
NEW Proposed Type C Incentives (compared with AHO Ordinance 2105 Deep
Incentives with Yield Street provision deleted. Additions are underlined and deletions are
struck-through.)
1. For single household detached dwellings:
a. Minimum lot size of 2,000 square feet; or 1,600 square feet (sf) if the applicant
demonstrates that all applicable city regulations related to lot development, access and
utilities can be met.
b. No minimum lot width requirement above that necessary for access and utilities if the
applicant demonstrates that all applicable city regulations related to lot development,
access and utilities can be met.
c. Off-street parking requirement of one space per dwelling unit.
d. Concurrent construction of infrastructure and dwellings per 38.270.030 is allowed.
2. For townhouses and rowhouses:
a. A development that proposes a single grouping of two townhouses or rowhouses are a
principal use in the R-1, RS and RMH zoning districts.
b. A minimum lot size of 1,600 sf or 1,400 sf if the applicant demonstrates that all applicable
city regulations related to lot development, access and utilities can be met.
c. No minimum lot width requirement if the applicant demonstrates that all applicable city
regulations related to lot development, access and utilities can be met.
d. Off-street parking requirement of one space per dwelling unit. A townhouse or rowhouse
development that includes only dwellings of 1,200 livable square feet or less of livable
square footage is exempt from a minimum on-site parking requirement but may provide
79
City Commission Staff Report for the Affordable Housing Ordinance 2025, Division
38.380 Repeal and Replacement Text Amendment, Project No.24529
Page 54 of 64
one parking space located within a driveway area in the required front setback, provided
that the building in which the dwellings are located is three or fewer stories in height.
e. Concurrent construction of infrastructure and housing per 38.270.030 is allowed.
3. For multi-household dwellings, other than those in paragraph 2 above
(townhouse/rowhouse), and mixed-use buildings:
a. One additional story of height (maximum 15 feet floor to floor height per story) beyond
that allowed in the zoning districts.
b. Two additional stories of height (maximum 15 feet floor to floor per story) beyond that
allowed in the R-4, R-5, R-O and B-1 zoning districts, provided that where any building in
the development which utilizes building height incentives abuts a lower intensity
residential district, the transition height setback provisions of 38.320.060.B apply.
c. Four additional stories of height (maximum 15 feet per story) beyond that allowed in the
UMU, REMU, B-2, B-2M, and B-3 zoning districts, provided that where any building in
the development which utilizes building height incentives abuts a lower intensity
residential district, the transition height setback provisions of 38.320.060.B apply.
d. No minimum onsite vehicle parking requirement, but bicycle parking standards and
requirements of 38.540.050 still apply. ADA parking spaces must be provided in
accordance with applicable building codes. In addition to ADA parking spaces, a minimum
vehicle parking requirement of 0.5 space per dwelling is required. One short-term parking
space located at the building entrance must be provided and identified as a loading zone.
f. Bicycle parking standards and requirements of 38.540.050 still apply with the number of
bicycle racks provided must exceed or be equal to 50% of the number of dwellings within
the development.
g. For multi-household dwellings and mixed-use buildings in all zoning districts the
minimum lot area per dwelling does not apply.
h. For the M-1 zoning district:
i. An apartment building in an M-1 zoning district is a principal use and the
prohibition on locating residential uses on the ground floor of an apartment building
in M-1 zone in Table 38310.040.C does not apply.
ii. In determining the maximum allowable residential square footage of a development
in M-1, Table 38.310.040.C fn6 is calculated for the development as a whole rather
than per individual buildings.
NEW AHO Section 38.380.060, Alternatives for Land Donation and Cash-in-lieu.
As an alternative to constructing the affordable dwellings required by 38.380.020, the applicant
may qualify for the incentives listed in 38.380.040 by:
80
City Commission Staff Report for the Affordable Housing Ordinance 2025, Division
38.380 Repeal and Replacement Text Amendment, Project No.24529
Page 55 of 64
A. An applicant may donate one or more parcels of land within the city limits to the city for
the purpose of building affordable dwellings, subject to the following:
1. The donated land may be one or more undeveloped parcels or ready-to-build lots
but must be capable of being used as the site of residential dwellings that meet the
standards of this division. All donated land will be used only to support the creation
or preservation of affordable dwellings.
2. The value of the donated land must be equal to or exceed the cost of designing,
obtaining land use and building approvals for, installing or upgrading infrastructure
for, and constructing the number of affordable dwellings the applicant would
otherwise be required to provide in return for the requested incentives in
38.380.040, as established by an independent valuation and economic report dated
no less than one year prior to transfer of the ownership of the land to the city and
produced by one or more independent firms selected by the city and paid for by the
applicant.
3. The city commission must approve the donation of land pursuant to 2.08.100.
B. An applicant may provide a cash-in-lieu payment to the city’s community housing fund.
The review authority may establish administrative rules and procedures for the calculation
and implementation of a cash-in-lieu program. The city must use all cash-in-lieu funds to
support the creation or preservation of affordable dwellings. The following apply to
payment of cash-in-lieu:
1. For each affordable dwelling required by 38.380.020, but not provided, the cash-
in-lieu amount will be established based on a per dwelling price adopted by
resolution of the commission.
2. The per dwelling amount must be based on the difference between the average new
construction rental rate for apartments in the city and the established affordable
rental rate calculated over the course of 20 years.
3. The cash-in-lieu amount must be determined on the number, type of dwellings, and
mix of bedrooms identified as affordable in the affordable housing plan and
proposed to be constructed.
4. Cash-in-lieu payments must be paid prior to issuance of a building permit for any
dwelling in the development.
In addition to amendments to the Affordable Housing Division 38.380, Section
38.540.050.A.1.b(1) of the Bozeman Municipal Code would be amended as follows:
“Affordable dwellings housing. When calculating the amount of required parking for
affordable dwellings housing, as defined in section 38.700.020, of this chapter if the project is
guaranteed for use as affordable housing for a minimum period of 30 years and the use as affordable housing is
81
City Commission Staff Report for the Affordable Housing Ordinance 2025, Division
38.380 Repeal and Replacement Text Amendment, Project No.24529
Page 56 of 64
subject to long term monitoring to ensure compliance and continued use as affordable housing, required parking
spaces must be calculated based on number of bedrooms outlined in Table 38.540.050-1, but may not exceed 1.5
spaces per unit. if the project is subject to an approved affordable housing plan, then required
parking spaces must be provided pursuant to division 38.380.”
Division 38.700, Definitions, of the Bozeman Municipal Code would be amended as follows:
1. That the definition of “affordable home” in 38.700.020. – A definition be amended as
follows: “Affordable dwelling home. A residential dwelling unit for rent or purchase
that a subdivider or developer has committed to making affordable as an affordable
home at the AMI levels to qualify for the incentives in pursuant to 38.380.
2. That the definition of “affordable housing” in 38.700.020. – A definition be repealed.
3. That the definition of “yield street” in 38.700.170. - S definitions (subsection 9 within
the definition of "Street Types") be repealed.
82
City Commission Staff Report for the Affordable Housing Ordinance 2025, Division
38.380 Repeal and Replacement Text Amendment, Project No.24529
Page 57 of 64
APPENDIX C – COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD COMMENTS AT
THE JANUARY 13, 2025, PUBLIC MEETING
Upon hearing the staff report, the Community Development Board, acting as the Planning
Commission, offered the following questions and comments of staff. Staff responses are
summarized below.
• Do the incentives apply to the entire development or to a particular building?
o Staff response: They apply to the entire development project. For example, if the
developer requests the parking reduction incentive, it would apply to the entire
development and not just to the building that included the affordable dwellings.
• Since different areas of the city have different resources such as transit availability, does
the ordinance allow the city to require a parking study to evaluate the impact of no or less
parking for a project?
o No, if an applicant requests an incentive and the proposed project qualifies for the
incentive, then the project receives the incentive as-of-right, and no study is
needed.
• For the incentive that requires a zone edge transition in building height, does the transition
apply within the same zoning district?
o No, the transition in building height only applies if the project site abuts a lower
density residential zoning district.
• Does the ordinance allow the city to calibrate the advantages and disadvantages to the
neighborhood in granting incentives to a project producing affordable housing?
o If the project meets the criteria for the particular incentive(s) requested and the
submitted housing plan meets the standards of the ordinance, the project receives
the incentives.
• Can the city say “no” to a project seeking to use the incentives?
o If the project meets the criteria and standards of the AHO as well as the other criteria
and standards of the UDC, the city cannot deny use of the incentives. Section
38.380.020.A of the AHO states that all other code provisions of the UDC remain
in effect and apply to the project. If the project does not meet all other applicable
code provisions, the city can deny the project.
• Can the city differentiate between in-fill and greenfield development in granting incentives
such as the parking exemptions?
o Differentiating between areas of the city in granting incentives may be contrary to
the city’s growth policies that seek affordable housing in all parts of the city. The
AHO does not differentiate between in-fill and greenfield locations.
• How will the city assure that the affordable dwelling units remain affordable for the 50-
year period?
83
City Commission Staff Report for the Affordable Housing Ordinance 2025, Division
38.380 Repeal and Replacement Text Amendment, Project No.24529
Page 58 of 64
o The developer will record a deed restriction on the property for the affordable units
that goes with the land for the 50-year period.
• How does the affordable dwelling units get allocated within the development?
o The developer submits an affordable housing plan which identifies where the
affordable units will be located within the development and when they will be built?
The AHO Development Standards stipulate that the affordable units must be built
and occupied prior to or at the same time as when the market-rate units are built
and occupied.
• The Type B incentives for multi-household buildings, the incentive grants a building height
of four stories or whatever the zoning district allows “whichever is less”. Why is this an
incentive?
o This provision is intended to assure moderately scaled buildings in the particular
zoning district.
• How does the cash-in-lieu provision work?
o If the developer wishes to contribute cash to the city in lieu of any or all of the
affordable dwelling units he is required to provide based on the incentives he
receives, the city’s housing program staff will calculate the dollar amount for this
contribution based on the size of the unit, the AMI rental rate required for that unit,
on the duration of the affordability required for that unit, and multiplied by the
number of units the developer seeks to cash out.
• Will the City Commission be the entity that must approve using the cash-in-lieu option?
o The city’s Housing Program staff will make that determination.
• In a multi-phased development, the ordinance states that the affordable units must be
completed, and a certificate of occupancy be issued for them prior to or at the same time
as the market-rate units.
o The Affordable Housing Plan would specify where and when the affordable units
would be built and occupied in relation to the market-rate units.
• Does this ordinance replace all the provisions of Ordinance 2105 or just the provisions of
Section 38.380?
o This ordinance just replaces the provisions related to Section 38.380.
• How do the provisions of the proposed AHO relate to projects using LIHTC?
o The incentives and requirements of the proposed AHO work with any LIHTC
(pronounced Lie-tech) provisions for a wholly affordable housing development.
There is always a financing gap with LIHTC projects, and the incentives offered by
this AHO help to close that financing gap.
• The current AHO offers the public opportunities to comment or to appeal a decision on the
project. Does the proposed AHO offer the same?
o Those public comment and appeal provisions of the UDC are unchanged by this
ordinance.
• Is concurrent construction still available with this ordinance?
84
City Commission Staff Report for the Affordable Housing Ordinance 2025, Division
38.380 Repeal and Replacement Text Amendment, Project No.24529
Page 59 of 64
o Yes, the provisions of 38.270.030 allowing concurrent construction are unchanged.
• The ordinance offers incentives for townhouses, but this ordinance is for rental units only.
o Yes, we anticipate that we will come forward in the near future with provisions for
“for sale” units which will apply to townhome dwellings on fee-simple lots.
However, it may be that a developer seeks to build townhomes and keep the units
as rentals until he is ready to sell the lots with the income restriction.
• Does the ordinance have a provision that explicitly preserves trees?
o No, the AHO does not have such a provision and, instead, relies on other provisions
of the UDC to preserve trees, wetlands, flood zones and the like.
• Do the architectural standards of the UDC still apply to developments seeking these
incentives?
o Yes, the building and design standard exemptions of the current AHO have been
removed from this proposal and those standards still apply.
• How does the city assure the quality and proper maintenance of the affordable units over
time?
o The AHO Development Standards require all units within the development, both
affordable units and market-rate units, to be built with the same features and of the
same quality. Once built, and over the 50-year duration of the affordable
requirement, there is no specific requirement or standard for maintenance of the
building or unit. Typically, the owner of affordable units in a development will
keep it in good conditions so that at the end of the affordability period, it will be
easy to re-finance or in good condition for sale. The UDC does not have
maintenance standards for buildings over time. The State legislature has not
granted cities a Building Maintenance Code to assure that older buildings continue
to meet building codes.
• What is the justification for granting an exemption from parking for 1,200 square feet sized
townhouses/rowhouses?
o The 2021 Root Study analyzed various types of housing and found that the small
sized townhouse is the most economical type of house to build and is most suited
for sale to “missing middle” households in the city.
• Type B and C incentives should have a minimum of one parking space required or should
have a requirement of a parking study for the development to identify the impact of lesser
parking to on-street parking resources in the area. The parking study requirement could be
required of in-fill development rather than developments on the outskirts of town.
• Many workers of the city’s businesses have to commute farther and farther from the city
to find housing they can afford. Do we know the number of affordable housing units
needed to accommodate those workers in the city?
o The latest Census may have those numbers. It could be as many as 14,000 units.
• Type B or C incentives—limit them both to 4 stories and 36 dwelling units max.
85
City Commission Staff Report for the Affordable Housing Ordinance 2025, Division
38.380 Repeal and Replacement Text Amendment, Project No.24529
Page 60 of 64
• Do the incentives for housing in the M-1 district apply to the NEHMU? There is talk that
the NEHMU would be rezoned as an M-1 district.
o The NEHMU would not qualify for the M-1 incentives unless it does rezone.
• Has the Sustainability Advisory Board provided comment and ideas on this AHO?
o We have not taken this proposal to the Sustainability Advisory Board for comment.
• Due to changes in workforce income, rent levels at the current 80% of AMI is not
“affordable”; setting the rent levels at 60% is good.
• It would be helpful to match text of the AHO with some images, drawings.
• Can the AHO require applicants to hold a neighborhood meeting to share the project with
neighbors and the affordable housing plan should have a section that includes the public
comments received at that meeting and by public notice.
o The Guthrie Apartment project’s applicant held a neighborhood meeting, but a
summary of the comments received were not included in the application or in the
staff report.
• Regarding Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing (NOAH), how many such units are we
losing?
o That data is not collected by any source that we are aware of.
• How can we assure maintenance of the affordable units over the 50-year period?
• The AHO should require the applicant to hold a neighborhood meeting.
• The AHO should not change any UDC provision that allows the City Commission to
reclaim a development application that seeks to use the incentives.
• The AHO should require a parking study for any development application that seeks to use
the parking reduction or exemptions of the AHO.
• There is concern that landowners seek to rezone properties within established lower density
neighborhood to the B-2M district which this AHO would allow four additional stories;
this would be out of scale with the neighborhood.
• Each AHO project should be evaluated by the relevant growth policies They are not “one
size fits all” projects.
• There is concern with one size fits all approach to the AHO.
• I like the Type B and C options and the requirements of the Housing Plan and the AMI
change.
• The City Commission should be required to approve a cash-in-lieu option.
• There should be a neighborhood meeting with the comments therein noted in the housing
plan or other approval documents.
• The impacts of a particular development using incentives on its environs (parking, scale)
should be evaluated and stated in any approval document.
• The parking incentives are appropriate to facilitate production of affordable housing.
• The applicant using incentives in their project should hold a neighborhood meeting to
inform the neighbors of the proposal.
86
City Commission Staff Report for the Affordable Housing Ordinance 2025, Division
38.380 Repeal and Replacement Text Amendment, Project No.24529
Page 61 of 64
• The Type C incentives would allow 6 story buildings in the REMU districts and 8 story
buildings in the B-2M districts.
• Concern with maintenance of the units/ affordable buildings over the 50-year affordability
period.
• This AHO is a compromise regarding public concerns with the current AHO and is an
acceptable trade-off.
• The tradeoff of the proposed AHO is worth it if the projects using incentives, are spread-
out all-over town.
• Areas of town are developing differently. We want a quality city. I am opposed to no
parking allowances in some locations of the city.
• The city does a lot to facilitate affordable housing. With the AHO the burdens of the
incentives are localized. I prefer a housing tax to fund the construction of affordable
housing rather than granting these incentives. Let the city or a non-profit organization
building the long-term affordable housing rather than the private sector.
APPENDIX D - NOTICING AND PUBLIC COMMENT
Notice for text amendments must meet the standards of 38.220.410 & 420. Notice was published
in the Bozeman Daily Chronicle on 2/21/2024, 12/28/24 and 1/4/25 and contained all required
elements. The notice and text were also provided through the City’s Community Development
web viewer and the Bozeman.net news page. Notice was provided at least 15 calendar days before
the public hearing before the Community Development Board in their capacity as the Zoning
Commission, and not more than 45 days prior to the City Commission public hearing. The City
exceeded the required notice provision. Hearing dates are on the first page of this report.
The Economic Development Department’s Housing Team hosted an open house to discuss options
for amending the current Affordable Housing Ordinance (AHO). Staff presented a slide show on
housing issues and options for incentives toward supporting low-income-affordable housing in the
city and they queried participants as to their preferences of incentives that could be offered
developers of affordable housing or mixed market-rate and affordable housing projects. Staff also
hosted a short on-line and “hard copy” survey to query residents about their concerns and
preferences for incentives to offer in an updated AHO. The AHO survey is closed now and the
results are now available in the Resource Documents section on AHO Engage Bozeman along with
written comments received at the Open House.
Several written public comments have been received on the need to revise the AHO and they are
found a this link through the Laserfiche archive. If additional written comments are received prior
to the Community Development Board/Zoning Commission meeting, they will be placed in the
project folder in Laserfiche.
87
City Commission Staff Report for the Affordable Housing Ordinance 2025, Division
38.380 Repeal and Replacement Text Amendment, Project No.24529
Page 62 of 64
Public Comment Summary of Topics:
• The projects utilizing the incentives result in loss of mature trees, wetlands, and their
habitat.
• If trees are on a proposed AHO site, an independent urban forest ecologist must
evaluate the project for a Tree Equity Score (TES) and if the TES is less than 75, more
trees should be planted.
• The affordability period of 30 years is insufficient; Increase the affordability period to
99 years.
• The “swap” of off-site, distant land for no affordable units within a development is
inappropriate and the “gifted: land may never be developed with affordable housing.
• The projects provide only a few (in one case, only two) affordable units for height
incentives on a development that is out of scale with the neighborhood.
• Loss of “naturally occurring affordable housing (NOAH) with redevelopment projects
and the new development should require the same number of affordable units as that
were destroyed in addition to the AHO requirements.
• The text of the ordinance should specifically state that developments located within the
Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District must comply with the provisions,
processes, standards, and guidelines of UDC Section 38.340.
• AHO developments within the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District (NCOD)
should have height transition requirements (within the same zoning district) and limit
the height incentives to result in no more than two stories higher than the building next
to it.
• Require affordability period to be 75 years.
• Density does not create affordability as shown by the 1,100 apartments for rent in
Bozeman listed on Apartment.com at unaffordable rents, rather, it ruins the essence of
the community.
• Instead of demolishing NOAH units, we should empower our city and residents and
invest in a Housing Authority to produce permanently affordable units.
• The AHO allows administrative review of developments using incentives rather than
the City Commission; the AHO should state that all AHO projects can be appealed to
the City Commission per UDC 38.250, Appeals, Deviations, Departures and Variance
Procedures; The current AHO Ordinance 2105 states and should be included in the
proposed AHO to read: “K. Decisions of the community development director and other
review authorities are subject to the appeal provisions of division 38.250 of this chapter.”
• Section 38.200.010, Review Authority, of the existing AHO Ordinance 2105, Section
J should be added to the proposed AHO to state: “J. The city commission or its
designated representatives may require the applicant to design the proposed development
to reasonably minimize potentially significant adverse impacts identified through the
review required by these regulations. The city commission or its designated representatives
88
City Commission Staff Report for the Affordable Housing Ordinance 2025, Division
38.380 Repeal and Replacement Text Amendment, Project No.24529
Page 63 of 64
may not unreasonably restrict a landowner's ability to develop land, but it is recognized
that in some instances the unmitigated impacts of a proposed development may be
unacceptable and will preclude approval of the development as submitted. Recognizing
that the standards of this chapter are minimum requirements, and the public health, safety,
and general welfare may be best served by exceeding those minimums, the city commission
or community development director may require as a condition of approval mitigation
exceeding the minimums of this chapter.”
• Remove the NCOD area from the AHO and limit the AHO’s use to greenfield sites.
• Designate an Affordable Housing Overlay Zone within the NCOD which preserves
NOAH sites and allows new “neighborhood-friendly” affordable housing to be built as
part of redevelopment or infill projects.
• Require the City Commission to make the final decision on any AHO project located
within the NCOD.
• Amend subsection D of BMC 38.410.130, Water Adequacy, to require 33% affordable
housing in all residential developments of 3 or more units that seeks to pay cash-in-lieu
of water rights.
• Reduced parking and increased height “dwarfs” existing homes. Please replace this
with affordable housing overlays for suitable infill or redevelopment sites or with a
public housing authority that actually provides long-term affordable housing without
severely disrupting the quality of life of those living near it.
• I like the building height transition zone provisions for the building height incentives.
• Developers will provide parking according to what they perceive is needed for their
tenants even if they take advantage of AHO incentives.
• It is good that the exemptions from the building design and site design standards have
been removed from the AHO. The standards of the NCOD should continue to apply.
• The ordinance should have a provision that allows the city to deny a project using the
AHO incentives if it is determined that the impacts of the development are onerous,
and the city should be able to impost conditions of approval needed to mitigate negative
impacts of the development on the neighborhood.
• There have been demolitions of 95 existing homes, NOAH units in the city in the past
five years.
• The change in the AMI metric from 80% of AMI to 60% of AMI is good.
• The additional building height in the urbanized areas of town, particularly the B-2M
districts is concerning. Those “spot zoned” B-2M districts should have height
transition zone requirements even for sites within the same district.
• The AHO incentives are not producing a diversity of housing types to meet the
demands of the city’s workforce; this does not address growth policies.
• Prohibit the use of land donations and cash-in-lieu unless the city adopts a housing
authority and uses that land and cash to build permanently affordable housing.
89
City Commission Staff Report for the Affordable Housing Ordinance 2025, Division
38.380 Repeal and Replacement Text Amendment, Project No.24529
Page 64 of 64
• The language around the cash-in-lieu is confusing; perhaps an example calculation
would be helpful.
• Before drastically reducing parking for AHO projects, we need a viable non-car option
for people who need to get to work, run errands and enjoy Bozeman and Montana.
• We need to focus on building and preserving missing middle housing, not just
complexes.
• Protect older homes with an Affordable Housing Protection Overlay District and
protect manufactured homes in Manufactured Home Parks
APPENDIX E - APPLICANT INFORMATION AND REVIEWING STAFF
Applicant: City of Bozeman, PO Box 1230, Bozeman MT 59771
Representatives: Department of Community Development, City of Bozeman, PO Box 1230,
Bozeman MT 59771; and Economic Development Department/ Housing Division, City of
Bozeman, 212 N. Rouse Avenue, Bozeman, MT.
Report By: Susana Montana, Senior Planner and Chris Saunders, Community Development
Manager and David Fine, Economic Development Department, Housing Manager
FISCAL EFFECTS
No unusual fiscal effects have been identified. No presently budgeted funds will be changed
by this Amendment.
ATTACHMENTS
The full application and file of record can be viewed at the Community Development
Department at 20 E. Olive Street, Bozeman, MT 59715.
Attachment A: Link to the proposed AHO Ordinance
Attachment B: Link to the current AHO Ordinance No. 2105
90
February 11, 2025, for City Commission Final Adoption
ORDINANCE 2025-###
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BOZEMAN, MONTANA TO REPEAL
AND REPLACE DIVISION 38.380 OF THE BOZEMAN MUNICIPAL CODE FOR AFFORDABLE
HOUSING; ESTABLISH A 50 YEAR AFFORDABILITY PERIOD; AMEND SECTION
38.540.050.A.1.B.(1) FOR PARKING STANDARDS; AMEND 38.700.170 DEFINITIONS TO AMEND
THE DEFINITION OF AFFORDABLE HOME, REPEAL THE DEFINITION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING,
AND REPEAL THE DEFINITION OF YIELD STREET.
WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman (the “City”) has adopted land development and use standards to
protect public health, safety and welfare and otherwise execute the purposes of Montana Code
Annotated §§ 76-1-102, 76-2-304, and 76-3-102; and
WHEREAS, the Economic Vitality Board held a public meeting on December 4, 2024, and, by a
unanimous vote of 6 to 0, recommended to the Bozeman City Commission that the policy
modifications included in the staff memorandum for the proposed amendments to the affordable
housing ordinance be approved with the provisions that: (a) Incentive Types B and C have
minimumparkingrequirements;and(b)thatthe60percentAreaMedianIncome(AMI)affordable
rental rates be reviewed every three years and be established based on the current AMI and
other relevant metrics and housing needs data; and
WHEREAS, after proper notice, the Community Development Board, acting in their role as the
City’s zoning commission, held a public hearing on January 13, 2025, to consider the proposed
amendments and made a recommendation to the City Commission that the amendments
included in this ordinance be approved; and
WHEREAS,afterpropernotice,theCityCommissionhelditspublichearingonJanuary28,2025, to
receive and review all written and oral testimony on the proposed amendment to the zoning
regulations; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission has reviewed and considered the recommendations of advisory
bodies, including the zoning commission, public comment, the staff report, all information
presented, and all applicable zoning text amendment criteria established in Montana Code
91
February 11, 2025, for City Commission Final Adoption
Ordinance 2025-XX
Page 2 of 24
Annotated § 76-2-304 and finds the proposed amendments are [insert determination whether
consistent with] the criteria.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BOZEMAN,
MONTANA:
Section 1
Legislative Findings
The City Commission hereby makes the following findings in support of adoption of this
Ordinance:
1. The City’s 2018 Strategic Plan affirms that affordable housing is one of the city’s main
strategic goals, stating in Goal 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.”
2. The City’s 2019 Community Housing Needs Assessment finds additional housing, and more
diversity in housing, is needed at prices residents can afford. The Needs Assessment also
determined the city needs housing that provides choices, supports the ability to move to new
locations as life circumstances change, and the ability for employers to fill jobs, recruit and
retain employees.
3. The Bozeman Community Plan 2020 acknowledges that zoning and land use regulations are
processesthatinfluencethecostofhousing.TheCommunityPlansupportshousingregulations
that allow for a range of housing types intermixed in a given neighborhood, denser
development, and efficiencies of various types that can help reduce housing costs.
4. The Bozeman Community Plan 2020 establishes goals, objectives and policies to increase the
supply of affordable housing in the city including: Goal N-3, Policy N-3.3, which encourages
the“distributionofaffordablehousingunitsthroughoutthecitywithprioritygiventolocations
near commercial, recreational and transit assets;” Policy N-3.8, which encourages the City to
“promote the development of “Missing Middle” (side by side or stacked duplex, triplex, live-
work, cottage housing, group living, rowhouses/townhouses, etc.) as one of the most critical
components of affordable housing;” Policy M-1.12, which seeks to “eliminate parking
92
February 11, 2025, for City Commission Final Adoption
Ordinance 2025-XX
Page 3 of 24
minimum requirements in commercial districts and affordable housing areas and reduce
parking minimums elsewhere, acknowledging that demand for parking will still result in new
supply being built;” and Policy EE-1.4, which seeks to “support employee retention and attraction
efforts by encouraging continued development of affordable housing in close proximity to large
employers.”
5. The Bozeman Community Plan 2020 encourages compact, contiguous development and infill
development to achieve efficient use of land and infrastructure and reduce urban sprawl.
6. The 2020 Community Housing ActionPlandefines community housing as: “homes those who
live and work in Bozeman can afford to purchase or rent. This includes apartments,
townhomes,condominiums,emergencyshelters, accessorydwellingunits,mobilehomesand
single dwelling homes – all dwelling types – serving the entire spectrum of housing needs.”
7. The 2024-2028 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Consolidated Housing Plan
reinforced theissues identifiedinthe2019 Community HousingNeeds Assessment,including
increasing and preserving affordable rental opportunities as a top need in the community.
8. TheConsolidatedHousingPlanfoundthat,in2020,therentalvacancyratewastwopercentage
points below what is considered healthy for a market with adequate supply, underscoring the
tightnessinBozeman’srentalmarket.Nearly5,300rentersinBozemanarecost-burdenedand
1,880 homeowners are cost-burdened.
9. The City of Bozeman 2024-2028 Fair Housing Plan found that land development regulations
that increase development costs make residential development overly expensive and can
limit the supply of affordable housing. In some communities, this has a direct impact on racial
and ethnic minorities, larger households and families with children, and persons living with
disabilities because these groups are disproportionately represented among those residing in
lowercosthousing.Limits orprohibitionsonmultifamilyhousingorrestrictionsonhousehold
occupancy are examples of how land development codes can negatively affect the groups
protected under the Fair Housing Act.
10. Accordingtothe2024Point-in-Time(PIT)Count,409individualsareexperiencinghomeless in
Bozeman, which equals 20% of all residents experiencing homelessness in the State of
Montana.Homelessnessisincreasinglyrelatedtorapidlyrisingrentalhousingcostsrelativeto
incomes,limitedandlowproductionofaffordablehousingunits,andlimitedresourcestoserve
low-income households.
93
February 11, 2025, for City Commission Final Adoption
Ordinance 2025-XX
Page 4 of 24
11. The City has, through multiple iterations of its land use regulations spanning decades, made
revisions to its development standards to support production of housing including: reducing
land area per dwelling requirements, authorizing accessory dwellings in all residential zoning
districts, authorizing mixed-use buildings and apartment buildings in the majority of non- residential
districts, reducing parking requirements, capping dedication of parkland, zoning the majority of
residential areas for multiple dwelling buildings, limiting short term rentals to prevent diversion of
units from the housing stock, increasing building heights in all residential districts, simplifying review
processes, providingfor concurrent constructionof infrastructure and housing, and creating by-right
approvals for regulatory compliant developments, among other actions.
12. TheCityfacilitateshousingdevelopmentbyundertakingcomprehensiveplanningforlanduse,
facilities,andservicesnecessarytosupporthousingdevelopment,andbyestablishingacapital
improvement program to support timely installation of infrastructure which reduces delays
in the ability to plat subdivisions and complete other development.
13. In 2021, the Montana State Legislature prohibited the City from adopting regulations that
require housing fees or the dedication of real property for the purposes of providing housing
for specified income levels or sale prices. As a result of the passage of HB 259, in 2022, the
City adopted Ordinance 2105 to replace prior affordable housing requirements by offering
incentives to property owners and developers willing to construct housing at levels of
affordability consistent with the housing needs and goals identified in the Community Plan,
the Community Housing Needs Assessment, and the Community Housing Action Plan.
14. According tothe 2023 Bozeman Economicand Market Update,the increasein housing prices
hassignificantimplicationsforaffordability,workforceattractionandretention,andqualityof
life.
15. Insufficient affordable housing supply within the city negatively impacts economic vitality,
transportation networks, and sustainability. Affordable housing needs must be addressed to
maintainasufficientresidentworkforceinallfieldsofemployment,andtoensurepublicsafety
and general welfare of city residents. According to the 2023 Bozeman Economic and Market
Update, 7,400 households are at or below 60% of the area median income yet Bozeman only
currently has 1,517 units of income restricted housing.
16. This Ordinance aims to create more housing options across the spectrum of need, more
innovative and diverse development projects, dynamic and resilient neighborhoods, and to
improve land use and public infrastructure efficiency.
94
February 11, 2025, for City Commission Final Adoption
Ordinance 2025-XX
Page 5 of 24
17. This Ordinance is adopted pursuant to City’s self-governing powers, the city’s zoning
authority,andtheCity’spolicepowertoprotectpublichealth,safety,andgeneralwelfare.The
incentives codified in this Ordinance will advance the City’s efforts to provide more housing diversity
at prices that residents can afford.
18. ThestaffreportaccompanyingthisOrdinancefoundtherequiredcriteriaforazoningcodetext
amendment are satisfied, including that the Ordinance substantially complies with the 2020
Community Plan.
19. TheCityCommissiondeterminestheincentivesprovidedinthisOrdinancearecompatibleand
consistent with all other provisions of Chapter 38 of the Bozeman Municipal Code.
20. The City Commission further determines the housing developed through the use of the
incentivesofthisOrdinancewillbecompatiblewithexistingandfutureusesanddevelopment
in the city.
21. The required public hearings were advertised more extensively than required in state law and
municipal code by publication in the Bozeman Daily Chronicle and the City of Bozeman’s
Engage Bozeman website, and all persons had the opportunity to review the applicable
materials and provide comment prior to a final decision.
22. The Bozeman Community Development Board acting as the City’s zoning commission
conducted its public hearing according to state law and, after considering application
materials, staff report, Economic Vitality Board comments, and all submitted public
comments, recommended to the City Commission that this ordinance be approved as
presented, as documented in the recording of their January 13, 2025, public hearing.
23. The City Commission conducted a public hearing to provide all interested parties the
opportunitytoprovidecommentregardingthisordinancepriortotheCityCommissionacting
on the application.
24. The City Commission considered the application materials, staff analysis and report, zoning
commission recommendation, all submitted public comment, and all other relevant
information.
95
February 11, 2025, for City Commission Final Adoption
Ordinance 2025-XX
Page 6 of 24
Section 2
That Division 38.380 (Affordable Housing) of the Bozeman Municipal Code is repealed in its
entirety and replaced to read as follows:
“Division38.380.-AffordableRentalHousing Sec. 38.380.010. – Purpose
A. The purpose of this division is to promote the public health, safety, and welfare by
incentivizing increased production of affordable rental housing to meet the needs of city
residents and businesses and the goals of the adopted growth policy and the community
housing action plan and to maintain the affordability of housing.
B. The purpose of this division is also to provide regulatory incentives to ensure housing
affordability in new development and redevelopment. The incentives in this division
require affordable rental rates and provide for an increase in the amount of affordable
housing provided as a landowner increases the use of the incentives. The greater the
incentives being requested the greater the affordability required.
Sec. 38.380.020. -Applicability and Affordability Requirements
A. Theincentivesinthisdivisiontaketheplaceofandsupersedetheapplicable regulationsof
this chapter where a regulation of this chapter directly addresses the same subject. All
other regulations of this chapter 38 remain applicable including without limitation all
processes, development standards, and definitions. The city retains the authority to
approve, approve with conditions, or deny an application based on compliance with other
regulations of this code but may not attach conditions to an approval that have the effect
of negating the incentives provided in this division. The incentives in this division are in
addition to the departures for housing creation provided in 38.320.070.
B. The incentives in 38.380.040 may be approved in conjunction with a preliminary plat,
master site plan, or site plan, or sketch plan, that:
1. Contains or will contain dwellings that will be offered for rent or lease; and
2. Provides at least the minimum percentages of affordable dwellings in the
development at rental rates affordable at no more than the maximum
percentages of the area median income (AMI) established in Tables 38.380.020-1, 2, and
3 of this division.
96
February 11, 2025, for City Commission Final Adoption
Ordinance 2025-XX
Page 7 of 24
C. Tables38.380.020-1,2,and3providetherequiredpercentageofaffordabledwellings,the
affordability thresholds, and the duration of the affordability period for the types of
housing to be constructed in a development in reliance on incentives:
Table 38.380.020-1
Affordable Dwellings Required with Type A Incentives
Type of Housing Minimum
Percentage of
Dwellings
MaximumAMI
Percentage for
Rentals
Duration of
Affordability
Period
Single-Household
Detached Dwelling
≥ 5% of Dwellings 80% of AMI ≥50 Years
Single-Household
AttachedDwelling
(Rowhouses and
Townhouses)
≥ 5% of Dwellings 80% of AMI ≥50 Years
Multi-Household
Dwelling
≥5%ofDwellings
at or
≥8% of Dwellings at
60% of AMI
or
80% of AMI
≥50 Years
Table 38.380.020-2
Affordable Dwellings Required with Type B or C Incentives
Type of Housing Minimum
Percentage of
Dwellings
MaximumAMI
Percentage for
Rentals
Duration of
Affordability
Period
Single-Household
Detached Dwelling
≥50% of Dwellings 80% of AMI ≥50 Years
Single-Household
AttachedDwelling
(Rowhouses and
Townhouses)
≥50% of Dwellings 80% of AMI ≥50 Years
Multi-Household
Dwelling
≥50% of Dwellings 60% of AMI ≥50 Years
97
February 11, 2025, for City Commission Final Adoption
Ordinance 2025-XX
Page 8 of 24
D. Each affordable dwelling must be maintained as affordable pursuant to the adopted
affordable housing plan and the compliance document required pursuant to 38.380.030
for no less than fifty (50) years. The affordability period begins to run at the issuance of a
certificate of occupancy for each building wherein affordable dwellings are provided. For
subdivisions that rely on an incentive, the affordability period does not begin at the time
finalplatisrecorded;rather,theaffordabilityperiodforeachaffordabledwellingbeginsat
the time each affordable dwelling in the subdivision receives a certificate of occupancy.
E. For the entire affordability period, except for adjustments as may be authorized pursuant
to 38.380.070.A, an affordable dwelling must be rented only to persons whose household
income is verified to not exceed the applicable AMI thresholds.
F. An applicant may provide all or a portion of the required affordable dwellings on a site
other than the site or parcel where the incentives are applied only if the affordable
dwellings will be provided in the same development.
G. Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU), short term rentals, and group living are not eligible to be
used as affordable dwellings and cannot be considered as qualifying affordable dwellings.
H. The following applies to previously approved annexations, subdivisions, or site plans that
request to provide affordable dwellings in exchange for incentives as provided in this
division:
1. A previously annexed but undeveloped parcel of land, a subdivision that has
received final plat, or an approved site plan that received final approval prior to
[insert effective date of enabling ordinance] and that has not previously received
an incentive in return for commitments to provide affordable housing, may apply
for the incentives in this division. The application for the previously undeveloped
parcel must comply with the standards and procedures of this division.
2. Only the portion of the amended plat or site planapplication, including associated
code standards and conditions of approval, pertaining to the request for approval
of one or more incentives will be subject to amended plat or site plan review.
I. Assumptions and Calculations.
1. All references to area median income (AMI) are to the most recent AMI values for
the city established by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD). As HUD publishes updated AMI values, the values are immediately
effective without further action by the city. The city may establish administrative
98
February 11, 2025, for City Commission Final Adoption
Ordinance 2025-XX
Page 9 of 24
rules and procedures for application and implementation of AMI in calculating
maximum rental rates.
2. The maximum rental rates of an affordable dwelling are based on the AMI of a
household and corresponding number of bedrooms within each affordable
dwelling.Thefollowingestablishesthemaximumrentalrateofeachbedroomtype
based on the correlation between the number of bedrooms with the
corresponding area median household income:
a.Efficiency unit: AMI for a one-person household;
b.One-bedroom dwelling: AMI for a two-person household;
c.Two-bedroom dwelling: AMI for a three-person household; and
d.Three-bedroom unit or larger: AMI for a four-person household.
3. Ifthecalculationoftherequirednumberofaffordabledwellingsresultsinafraction
ofanaffordabledwelling,thedevelopermustconstructaffordabledwellingsequal
tothenextlowerintegerandeitherprovideacash-in-lieupaymentfortheadditional
fractional amount or construct an additional affordable dwelling.
4. Income averaging of the rental rates for affordable dwellings is allowed. Income
averaging allows an applicant to establish affordable dwelling rental rates so the
average rental rate for all affordable dwellings in a development meets the
required AMI level. The city may establish administrative rules and procedures to
implement income averaging. As an alternative, the applicant may use an income
averaging procedure adopted by the Montana Board of Housing or the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
Sec. 38.380.030. -Affordable Housing Plan Required; Pre-Application Meeting
A. For a development authorized pursuant to 38.380.020.B to request incentives under this
division the applicant must submit an affordable housing plan at the time of submittal of
the application for preliminary plat, master site plan, or site plan. The affordable housing
plan, upon approval of the development, controls the rental rates and occupancy by
income verified persons of all affordable dwellings within the development for the entire
affordability period.
B. A subdivision preliminary plat, master site plan, or site plan that requests incentives may
not receive approval for the development until the affordable housing plan has been
approved.
99
February 11, 2025, for City Commission Final Adoption
Ordinance 2025-XX
Page 10 of 24
C. The affordable housing plan shall be approved if the plan is in compliance with the
standards and criteria in this division, including but not limited to the standards in
38.380.020 and any administrative procedures related to this division.
D. An approved affordable housing plan binds the applicant and the applicant's successors
in interest to comply with the plan for the duration of the affordability period. The
approved affordable housing plan must be incorporated into a recorded restrictive
covenant, deed restriction, or other document (referred to as the compliance document)
acceptable to the city attorney, which implements the affordable housing plan. The
compliance document must be recorded in the records of the Gallatin County Clerk and
Recorder as follows:
1. For subdivisions where the incentives were requested and approved as part of the
preliminary plat, the compliance document must be recorded with the final plat;
and
2. For site plans, unless a compliance document was recorded with the subdivision,
the compliance document must be recorded prior to the issuance of a building
permit. The affordability period begins on the date of issuance of a certificate of
occupancy.
E. Contents of an Affordable Housing Plan.
1. A description of the requested incentives in 38.380.040.
2. The applicable AMI and maximum rental rates applicable to each affordable
dwelling.
3. The total number of affordable dwellings, and market-rate dwellings in the
development.
4. A narrative describing how the applicant will ensure the rental of the affordable
dwellings is only to income verified people for the duration of the affordability
period. In addition, the narrative must describe the management system the
applicant will use to meet the above requirement.
5. A description of how each affordable dwelling will comply with the development
standards of this division.
6. Adescription ofcommonamenitiesorfacilitiestheapplicant willprovideandhow
the applicant will ensure the occupants of the affordable dwellings will have the
same access to such amenities or facilities.
7. A description of how each incentive will apply to each building within the
development, regardless of whether the building contains affordable dwellings or
100
February 11, 2025, for City Commission Final Adoption
Ordinance 2025-XX
Page 11 of 24
market rate dwellings or both.
8. The number of bedrooms in each dwelling in the development.
9. Clearlyidentifyonthepreliminarysiteplanorpreliminaryplatthespecificlocation
of each affordable dwelling.
10. Information sufficient to determine the timing of construction and distribution of
affordable dwellings and market-rate dwellings throughout the development.
11. If the development is to be constructed in phases, provide a description of how
the affordable dwellings will be distributed among the phases including whether
the applicant proposes to have any subsequent phase of market rate dwellings
rely on affordable dwellings provided with earlier phases.
12. Any other information the review authority determines necessary to evaluate the
compliance of the affordable housing plan with the requirements of this division.
F. Preapplication Community Meeting.
1. Prior to the submittal of a site plan application pursuant to 38.230.090, an
applicant for an affordable housing development proposing to use Type B or Type
C incentives must hold a community meeting to inform residents and property
owners of the proposed development and to solicit feedback from the
community.
2. At least 15 business days prior to the community meeting, the developer must
mail by first class mail written notice of the community meeting to the owners of
all property and all mailing addresses within a 200-foot radius of the proposed
development site.
3. In addition to the above, if the proposed development is located within the
boundaries of a city recognized neighborhood association pursuant to chapter 2,
article 5, written notice of the community meeting must be provided at least 15
business days prior to the meeting to the presiding officer of the applicable
neighborhood association, to the city neighborhood liaison, andtothe chair of the
InterNeighborhood council.
4. The meeting must be conducted in a location within city limits.
5. The notice must include:
a. The date, time, and location of the community meeting;
b. At a minimum, the notice must include the location of the proposed
development, a description of the proposed development, a description
of the incentives the applicant proposes to use, and the number and
location of market rate and affordable units;
c. A statement inviting the communityto attend the meeting and informing
101
February 11, 2025, for City Commission Final Adoption
Ordinance 2025-XX
Page 12 of 24
the community that the purpose of the meeting is to seek community
input on the proposed development and the use of incentives; and
d. Contact information for the developer and any other project
representatives, including the mailing and email addresses and
telephone number of the person who may be contacted for further
information.
6. The community meeting and required notice does not supplant or otherwise take
the place of notice required by this chapter for the development application.
7. At the community meeting:
a. The developer must discuss the proposed development, including key
project details, incentives proposed, design elements, transportation
and parking, and how the project intends to address affordable housing
needs in the community.
b. The developer must allow adequate time for the public to ask questions
and provide comments. The developer must accept written comments
for 10 business days after the community meeting.
c. A representative from the City may attend.
8. A site plan application that proposes to use Type B or C incentives must contain
the following:
a. A copy of the mailed notice of the community meeting;
b. A detailed summary of all comments and suggestions made at or after
the meeting;
c. A copy of any materials distributed at the community meeting; and
d. Whether and if so how the developer has addressed comments made by
the community. If the developer has not incorporated community
comments into the site plan application, the developer must explain why
community comments were not addressed in the application.
9. A site plan application is not complete unless the application includes the required
documentation of the community meeting.
Sec. 38.380.040. - Incentives.
A. The number of affordable dwellings must meet or exceed the minimum standards set
forth in section 38.380.020 needed to qualify for the applicable incentive. Any incentive
not requested in the affordable housing plan in 38.380.030 is waived.
B. Incentives may be applied to dwellings:
102
February 11, 2025, for City Commission Final Adoption
Ordinance 2025-XX
Page 13 of 24
1. In a residential-only development; or
2. In a mixed-use development. If the mixed-use development contains a mix of
residential and nonresidential primary uses, the incentives in this section are only
availableif50 percent or moreofthegross floorareaofthedevelopment contains
residential uses.
C. Type A Incentives (Table 38.380.020-1). The applicant may apply the incentives in this
subsection as follows:
1. For single-householddetacheddwellings, aminimumlotsizeof3,000 squarefeet.
Alternatively,iftheapplicantdemonstratesthatallotherapplicablecityregulations
related to lot development, access, and utilities can be met, a minimum lot size of
2,500 square feet is allowed.
2. For single-household attached dwellings (townhouse or rowhouse):
a. A minimum lot size of 2,200 square feet. Alternatively, if the applicant
demonstrates that all other applicable city regulations related to lot
development, access, and utilities can be met, a minimum lot size of 1,800
square feet is allowable.
b. No minimum lot width, maximum lot coverage, or maximum floor area
ratio requirement if the applicant demonstrates that all other applicable
city regulations related to lot development, access, and utilities can be
met.
c. A townhouse or rowhouse development that includes only dwellings of
1,200 square feet or less of livable square footage is exempt from a
minimum on-site parking requirement but may provide one parking space
located within a driveway area in the required front setback, provided that
the building in which the dwellings are located is three or fewer stories in
height.
d. In addition to the above incentives, a townhouse or rowhouse cluster with
four or fewer attached homes that includes only dwellings of 1,200 livable
square feet or less in size is exempt from the following:
(1)Minimum lot size;
(2)Lot coverage;
(3)Floor area ratio;
(4)Lot area per dwelling unit density standard;
(5)Lot width; and
(6)Minimum parking requirement.
e. For affordable housing developments in R-3, nine (9) additional feet of
103
February 11, 2025, for City Commission Final Adoption
Ordinance 2025-XX
Page 14 of 24
height, provided that if the development is adjacent to a lower intensity
residential zoning district, the transition height setback provisions of
38.320.060.B apply.
f. For affordable housing developments in R-4, five (5) additional feet of
height, provided that if the development is adjacent to a lower intensity
residential zoning district, the transition height setback provisions of
38.320.060.B apply.
3. For multi-household dwellings and mixed-use buildings:
a.In all zoning districts:
(1)The residential off-site parking standards of 38.540.070.A may be
expanded up to 1,000 linear feet from the commonly used entrance
to the residential building. Notwithstanding the above, all required
ADA spaces must be located on the same site as the dwellings.
(2)Up to 80% of the residential open space requirements of 38.520.060
may be met by providing private balconies provided every affordable
dwelling is provided a balcony and access to a ground floor common
open space is provided for all residents.
b.For affordable housing developments in the RS, R-1, R-2, R-3, RMH, R- 4,
R-5, R-O, NEHMU, and B-1 districts, one additional story of height
(maximum 15 feet per story)is allowed., provided that if the development
abuts a lower intensity residential district, the transition height setback
provisions of 38.320.060.B apply.
c.For affordable housing developments in the R-3 district, the incentive of
one additional story of height (maximum 15 feet per story)is only allowed
if the proposed buildings have four or fewer total dwellings.
d.For all zoning districts, if a multihousehold or mixed use development is
adjacent to a lower intensity residential district, the transition height
setback provisions of 38.320.060.B apply.
e.For affordable housing developments in the UMU, REMU, B-2, B-2M, and
B-3, and M-1 districts, two additional stories of height (maximum 15 feet
per story), provided that if the development is adjacent to a lower
intensity residential zoning district, the transition height setback
provisions of 38.320.060.B apply.
f.Minimummotorvehicleparkingrequirementofonespaceperdwellingfor
all districts other than B-3; however, the bicycle parking standards and
requirements of 38.540.050 remain applicable.
104
February 11, 2025, for City Commission Final Adoption
Ordinance 2025-XX
Page 15 of 24
g.Minimum motor vehicle parking requirement of 0.75 space per dwelling
for B-3 district; however, the bicycle parking standards and requirements
of 38.540.050 remain applicable.
h.For affordable housing developments in R-3, R-4, R-5, R-O and RMH, the
minimumareaperdwellingstandardsinTable38.320.030.Adonot apply.
i.For the M-1 zoning district:
(1)AnapartmentbuildinginanM-1 zoningdistrictisaprincipaluseand
theprohibitiononlocatingresidentialusesonthegroundfloorofan
apartment building in M-1 zone in Table 38310.040.C does not
apply.
(2)Indeterminingthemaximumallowableresidentialsquarefootageof
a development in M-1, Table 38.310.040.C fn6 is calculated for the
development as a whole rather than per individual buildings.
D. Type B Incentives (Table 38.380.020-2). If the applicant proposes to construct affordable
dwellings that meet the standards in Table 38.380.020-2 in the same development as
market-rate dwellings, the applicant may apply all of the following incentives to all
buildingsinthedevelopmentinwhich50percentormoreofthelivablefloorareacontains
residential uses:
1. For single-household detached dwellings:
a. A minimum lot size of 2,000 square feet. Alternatively, if the applicant
demonstrates that all other applicable city regulations related to lot
development, access, and utilities can be met, a minimum lot size of 1,600
square feet is allowed.
b. Off-street parking requirement of one space per dwelling.
2. For single-household attached dwellings (townhouses and rowhouses):
a. A minimum lot size of 1,600 square feet. Alternatively, if the applicant
demonstrates that all other applicable city regulations related to lot
development, access, and utilities can be met, a minimum lot size of 1,400
square feet is allowed.
b. No minimum lot width requirement if the applicant demonstrates that all
applicable city regulations related to lot development, access, and utilities
can be met.
c. Off-street parking requirement of one space per dwelling. A townhouse or
rowhousedevelopmentthatincludesonlydwellingsof1,200livablesquare
feet or less of livable square footage is exempt from a minimum on-site
parking requirement, but may provide one parking space located within a
105
February 11, 2025, for City Commission Final Adoption
Ordinance 2025-XX
Page 16 of 24
driveway area in the required front setback, provided that the building in
which the dwellings are located is three or fewer stories in height.
d. For affordable housing developments in R-3, nine (9) additional feet of
height, provided that if the development is adjacent to a lower intensity
residential zoning district, the transition height setback provisions of
38.320.060.B apply.
e. For affordable housing developments in R-4, five (5) additional feet of
height, provided that if the development is adjacent to a lower intensity
residential zoning district, the transition height setback provisions of
38.320.060.B apply.
3. For multi-household dwellings and mixed-use buildings:
a. When incentives are requested, the building height of any building in the
development is limited to that permitted in the zoning district or four
stories, whichever is less and the maximum numberof dwellings in a single
building is limited to that permitted in the zoning district or 36 dwellings,
whichever is less.
b. ADA parking spaces must be provided in accordance with applicable
building codes. Notwithstanding the provisions of 38.540.070, all required
ADA spaces must be located on the same site as the dwellings.
c. In addition to the ADA parking required, a minimum of .25 vehicle parking
spaces per dwelling are required. One short-term parking space located at
the main building entrance must be provided and identified as a loading
zone.
d. Bicycle parking standards and requirements of 38.540.050 apply. The
number of secure bicycle racks provided must exceed or be equal to 50
percent of the number of dwellings within the development.
e. For multi-household dwellings and mixed-use buildings in all zoning
districts the minimum lot area per dwelling does not apply.
f. For the M-1 zoning district:
g. An apartment building in an M-1 zoning district is a principal use and the
prohibition on locating residential uses on the ground floor of an
apartmentbuildinginM-1zoneinTable38.310.040.Cdoes not apply.
(1) In determining the maximum allowable residential square footage of
a development in M-1, Table 38.310.040.C, footnote 6, is calculated
for the development as a whole rather than per individual buildings.
106
February 11, 2025, for City Commission Final Adoption
Ordinance 2025-XX
Page 17 of 24
E. Type C Incentives (Table 38.380.020-2). If the applicant proposes to construct affordable
dwellings that meet the standards in Table 38.380.020-2 in the same development as
market-rate dwellings, the applicant may apply the following incentives to all buildings in
thedevelopment in which 50 percent or moreofthelivablefloorarea contains residential
uses:
1. For single-household detached dwellings:
a. A minimum lot size of 2,000 square feet. Alternatively, if the applicant
demonstrates that all other applicable city regulations related to lot
development, access, and utilities can be met, a minimum lot size of 1,600
square feet is allowed.
b. Off-street parking requirement of one space per dwelling.
2. For single-household attached dwellings (townhouses and rowhouses):
a. A development that proposes a single grouping of two townhouses or
rowhouses is a principal use in the R-1, RS, and RMH zoning districts.
b. A minimum lot size of 1,600 square feet. Alternatively, if the applicant
demonstrates that all other applicable city regulations related to lot
development, access, and utilities can bemet, a minimum lot size of 1,400
square feet is allowed.
c. No minimum lot width requirement if the applicant demonstrates that all
applicable city regulations related to lot development, access, and utilities
can be met.
d. Off-street parking requirement of one space per dwelling.A townhouse or
rowhouse development that includes only dwellings of 1,200 square feet
or less of livable square footage is exempt from minimum on-site parking
requirements,butmayprovideoneparkingspacelocatedwithinadriveway
area in the required front setback, provided that the building in which the
dwellings are located is three or fewer stories in height.
3. For multi-household dwellings other than those in paragraph 2 above and mixed-
use buildings:
a. One additional story of height (maximum 15 feet per story) beyond that
allowed in the R-3 and R-4 RS, R-1, R-2, R-3, or RMH zoning district. For
affordable housing developments in the R-3 district, the incentive of one
additional story of height (maximum 15 feet per story) is only allowed if
the proposed buildings have four or fewer total dwellings.
b. Two additional stories of height (maximum 15 feet per story) beyond that
allowed in the R-5, R-O, REMU,and B-1, B-2, B-2M, B-3, M-1, and UMU
zoning districts, provided that where any building in the development
107
February 11, 2025, for City Commission Final Adoption
Ordinance 2025-XX
Page 18 of 24
which utilizes building height incentives is adjacent to abuts a lower
intensity residential zoning district, the transition height setback
provisions of 38.320.060.B apply.
c. Four additional stories of height (maximum 15 feet per story) beyond that
allowed in the UMU, REMU, B-2, B-2M, and B-3 zoning districts provided
that where any building in the development which utilizes building height
incentives abuts a lower intensity residential zoning district, the transition
height setback provisions of 38.320.060.B apply.ADA parking spaces must
be provided in accordance with applicable building codes.
Notwithstanding the provisions of 38.540.070, all required ADA spaces
must be located on the same site as the dwellings.
d. InadditiontoADAparkingspaces,aminimumvehicleparkingrequirement
of 0.75 space per dwelling is required. One short-term parking space
located at the building entrance must be provided and identified as a
loading zone.
e. Bicycle parking standards and requirements of 38.540.050 apply. The
numberofbicycleracksprovidedmustexceedor beequalto50percentof
the number of dwellings within the development.
f. For multi-household dwellings and mixed-use buildings in all zoning
districts the minimum lot area per dwelling does not apply.
g. For the M-1 zoning district:
(1) AnapartmentbuildinginanM-1zoningdistrictisaprincipaluseand the
prohibition on locating residential uses on the ground floor of an
apartmentbuildinginM-1zoneinTable38.310.040.Cdoesnotapply.
(2)In determining the maximum allowable residential square footage
of a development in M-1, Table 38.310.040.C, footnote 6, is
calculated for the development as a whole rather than per individual
buildings.
Sec. 38.380.050. - Development Standards for Affordable Dwellings
A. The affordable dwellings must be constructed with the same features, such as appliances,
as market-rate dwellings within the same development but the quality of the features
may vary between market rate and the affordable dwellings.
B. The mixofbedrooms perunit inaffordable dwellings mustbeas similar aspossible tothe
mix of bedrooms per unit of the market-rate dwellings in the development.
108
February 11, 2025, for City Commission Final Adoption
Ordinance 2025-XX
Page 19 of 24
C. A one-bedroom dwelling must include a bedroom separated from other living areas of the
dwelling by a solid door. For the purposes of this division, a one-bedroom dwelling must
be greater than or equal to 450 square feet of floor area.
D. Access to shared amenities, other than including parking, by residents of the affordable
dwellings must be the same as those in market-rate dwellings in the development. and
For amenities other than parking, the cost of any such amenity must be included in the
required affordable rental rate.
E. All the affordable dwellings to be developed pursuant to this division must be completed
and a certificate of occupancy issued prior to or at the same time as the market- rate
dwellings. The timing of construction and distribution of affordable dwellings throughout
a development must be approved in the affordable housing plan.
F. For multiple-phase developments or developments with more than one building:
1. In addition to 38.380.050.E, an applicant may be issued a certificate of occupancy
for market rate dwellings in buildings that do not contain affordable dwellings only
if the market rate dwellings are issued a certificate of occupancy at the same time
or after certificates of occupancy are issued for affordable dwellings and only for
market rate dwellings in proportion to the number of affordable dwellings.
2. Anapplicantmayusetheincentivesprovidedbyaffordabledwellingsinaprevious
phase of a development in a subsequent phase that consists of market-rate
dwellings.
Sec. 38.380.060. - Alternatives for Land Donation and Cash-in-Lieu
As an alternative to constructing the affordable dwellings required by 38.380.020, the applicant
may qualify for the incentives listed in 38.380.040 by:
A.An applicant may donate one or more parcels of land withinthe city limitsto the city for
the purpose of building affordable dwellings, subject to the following:
1. The donated land may be one or more undeveloped parcels or ready-to-build lots
but must be capable of being used as the site of residential dwellings that meet
the standards of this division. All donated land will be used only to support the
creation or preservation of affordable dwellings.
2. The value of the donated land must be equal to or exceed the cost of designing,
109
February 11, 2025, for City Commission Final Adoption
Ordinance 2025-XX
Page 20 of 24
obtaininglanduseandbuildingapprovalsfor,installingorupgrading Infrastructure
for, and constructing the number of affordable dwellings the applicant would
otherwise be required to provide in return for the requested incentives in
38.380.040, as established by an independent valuation and economic report
dated no less than one year prior to transfer of the ownership of the land to the
city and produced by oneormore independentfirmsselected by thecityandpaid
for bythe applicant.
3. The city commission must approve the donation of land pursuant to 2.08.100.
B.An applicant may provide a cash-in-lieu payment to the city’s community housing fund.
The review authority may establish administrative rules and procedures for the
calculation and implementation of a cash-in-lieu program. The city must use all cash-in-
lieufundsto support the creation or preservation of affordable dwellings. The following
apply to payment of cash-in-lieu:
1. For each affordable dwelling required by 38.380.020, but not provided, the cash-
in-lieu amount will be established based on a per dwelling price adopted by
resolution of the commission.
2. The per dwelling amount must be based on the difference between the average
new construction rental rate for apartments in the city and the established
affordable rental rate calculated over the course of 20 years.
3. Thecash-in-lieuamountmustbedeterminedonthenumber,typeofdwellings,and
mix of bedrooms identified as affordable in the affordable housing plan and
proposed to be constructed.
4. Cash-in-lieu payments must be paid prior to issuance of a building permit for any
dwelling in the development.
Sec. 38.380.070. –Administration
A. Theapplicablereviewauthorityshallenforceall rulesandregulations,and takeallactions
necessary for the effective operation and enforcement of this division, unless such
authority is expressly reserved to the city commission or another city official, including
but not limited to:
1. Promulgate any rule or regulation necessary to the operation and enforcement of
this division,including butnot limitedto maintenanceofthe affordabledwellings,
periodic reporting, and notice and tenant protections in the event of foreclosure.
2. Adopting application, monitoring, reporting forms, compliance documents, and
obtaining any other information required from applicants for implementation of
110
February 11, 2025, for City Commission Final Adoption
Ordinance 2025-XX
Page 21 of 24
this division. Establishing standards for determining AMI requirements, including
income- averaging, and calculating and making available to the public the AMI
required to qualify for the various incentives listed in this division.
3. Establishingstandardsforthequalificationofrenters,ongoing incomeverification
andeligibility,primaryoccupancyrequirements,andreportingandperformanceof
property management entities.
4. Establishing standards that will allow the review authority to approve an upward
adjustment of the AMI standards for renter qualification if an affordable dwelling
remainsvacantformorethan30calendardaysandnopersonqualifyingwithinthe
required AMI applies for the affordable dwelling.
5. Monitoring compliance with this division, notifying the subdivider, applicant, or
current owner of the property of noncompliance, and ordering compliance,
including imposing sanctions permitted by this division.
B. All rules and regulationsestablished by the applicable review authority are subject to city
commission review and modification.
Sec. 38.380.080. -Noncompliance and Sanctions
A. If the city determines an applicant, its successor, or the current owner of a property fails
to comply with any requirements of the affordable housing plan, or the requirements of
this division, or with the provisions of a compliance document, the applicable review
authority must notify the applicant, its successor, or the current owner of the property of
the noncompliance in writing and order compliance. Notification must describe the date
by which the person or entity must be in full compliance and must describe the nature of
the noncompliance and the sanctions for noncompliance.
B. In addition to other remedies available to the city pursuant to this chapter, if the person
or entity remains in noncompliance on the date by which compliance was required, the
city may impose one or more sanctions, including but not limited to the following:
1. Issuing a civil penalty pursuant to 24.02.040;
2. Enforcing the requirements of the compliance documents;
3. Withholding or revoking building permits;
4. Issuing stop-work orders;
5. Withholding or revoking certificates of occupancy; and
6. Any other sanction available under local, state, or federal law.”
111
February 11, 2025, for City Commission Final Adoption
Ordinance 2025-XX
Page 22 of 24
Section 3
That Section 38.540.050.A.1.b(1) of the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended as follows:
“Affordable dwellings housing. When calculating the amount of required parking for
affordable dwellings housing, as defined in section 38.700.020, of this chapter if the project is
guaranteed for use as affordable housing for a minimum period of 30 years and the use as
affordable housing is subject to long term monitoring to ensure compliance and continued use
asaffordable housing, required parking spaces must be calculated based on number of bedrooms
outlined in Table 38.540.050-1, but may not exceed 1.5 spaces per unit.if the project is subject
toan approved affordable housing plan, then required parking spaces must be provided pursuant
to division 38.380.”
Section 4
That Division 38.700 of the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended as follows:
1.That thedefinitionof“affordablehome”in38.700.020.–Adefinitionsbeamendedas
follows: “Affordable dwelling home. A residential dwelling unit for rent or purchase
that a subdivider or developer has committed to making affordable as an affordable
home at the AMI levels to qualify for the incentives in pursuant to 38.380.
2.That the definition of “affordable housing” in 38.700.020. – A definitions be repealed.
3.That the definition of “yield street” in 38.700.170. - S definitions (subsection 9 within
the definition of "Street Types") is hereby repealed.
Section 5
Repealer.
All provisions of the ordinances of the City of Bozeman in conflict with the provisions of
this ordinance are, and the same are hereby, repealed and all other provisions of the ordinances
of theCityofBozemannotinconflictwiththeprovisionsofthisordinanceshallremaininfullforce
and effect.
Section 6
Savings Provision.
This ordinance does not affect the rights and duties that matured, penalties that were
112
February 11, 2025, for City Commission Final Adoption
Ordinance 2025-XX
Page 23 of 24
incurred or proceedings that were begun before the effective date of this ordinance. All other
provisions of the Bozeman Municipal Code not amended by this Ordinance shall remain in full
force and effect.
Section 7
Severability.
That should any sentence, paragraph, subdivision, clause, phrase or section of this
ordinance be adjudged or held to be unconstitutional, illegal, or invalid, the same shall not affect
the validity of this ordinance as a whole, or any part or provision thereof, other than the part so
decided to be invalid, illegal or unconstitutional, and shall not affect the validity of the Bozeman
Municipal Code as a whole.
Section 8
Codification.
This Ordinance shall be codified as appropriate in Sections 2 – 4.
Section 9
Effective Date.
This ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after final adoption.
PROVISIONALLY ADOPTED by the City Commission of the City of Bozeman, Montana, on first
reading at a regular session held on the day of , 2025.
TERENCE CUNNINGHAM
Mayor
ATTEST:
MIKE MAAS
City Clerk
113
February 11, 2025, for City Commission Final Adoption
Ordinance 2025-XX
Page 24 of 24
FINALLY PASSED, ADOPTED AND APPROVED by the City Commission of the City of
Bozeman, Montana on second reading at a regular session thereof held on the of
, 2025. The effective date of this ordinance is ______, 2025.
TERENCE CUNNINGHAM
Mayor
ATTEST:
MIKE MAAS
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
GREG SULLIVAN
City Attorney
114
Memorandum
REPORT TO:City Commission
FROM:Nicholas Ross, Director of Transportation and Engineering
SUBJECT:Resolution 2025-##, Adopting Transportation and Engineering Infrastructure
Review Fee Schedule
MEETING DATE:February 11, 2025
AGENDA ITEM TYPE:Resolution
RECOMMENDATION:Consider the Motion: I move to adopt the Resolution setting a fee schedule
for Transportation and Engineering Infrastructure Review.
STRATEGIC PLAN:7.5. Funding and Delivery of City Services: Use equitable and sustainable
sources of funding for appropriate City services, and deliver them in a lean
and efficient manner.
BACKGROUND:Infrastructure plans associated with development applications are reviewed
and approved by the Department of Transportation and Engineering.
Infrastructure Review generally follows a 10-stage process as outlined in the
City of Bozeman Public Infrastructure Review Process Road Map found on
the Infrastructure Review page of the city's online Development Center.
Infrastructure Stages 1-2 are accepted and reviewed as part of the Planning
Application and cost of service for these stages have been previously
considered and assessed through the Community Development Fee
Schedule. Cost of services for Stages 3-10 of Infrastructure Review have not
previously been considered under Community Development fee studies and
currently do not have application fees associated with the service.
The Director of Transportation and Engineering seeks to offset Engineering
Division personnel costs and provide an incentive for improved quality of
submissions by setting direct fees for Infrastructure Review services not
previously assessed for development applications.
City Management gave approval to consider fees of this type in 2023. The
Engineering Division then partnered with BerryDunn to prepare an
Infrastructure Review Process Cost of Service and Fee Study (attached). This
study aimed to evaluate the level of effort and resources that the
Engineering Division expends on service delivery. The study projects the full
cost of providing public infrastructure review services related to applicable
development activity throughout the city and proposes fees for these
services as described in the attached Resolution and Fee Schedule.
115
The Division seeks a fair manner of fee assessment which requires
consideration of the varied types and scale of submissions. In order to
accomplish this goal, the Division has estimated level of effort for each of
stages 3-10. Stage 3 and 6 were found to vary greatly based on scale of
project while the remaining phases required relatively consistent levels of
effort. For this reason, the proposed fee structure includes a Base Fee of
$1,650 plus a variable fee of $43.10 per sheet reviewed in said application.
The variable fee per sheet equates to a production rate of 1/2 hour per sheet
at an average hourly rate for the Division of $86.19. Design Resubmissions
are further assessed at a rate of $86.19 per sheet which equates to a
production rate of 1 hour per sheet reviewed. This lower production rate
considers the additional time required for communication and re-review of
issues found in the initial review. Construction Revisions are further assessed
at $172.39 per sheet which equates to a production rate of 2 hours per
sheet. This lower production rate considers the extensive additional time
spent on communication and field visits when problems arise during
construction. Similar to Engineering Permit Fees updated and adopted in
2024, the Division proposes assessing the Infrastructure Review Fees
considered in this Resolution at a 75% rate of cost recovery, which is
reflected in the proposed fee structure.
For comparison, consultant rates for a mid-level engineer typically range
between $120 and $150 per hour. The Division has previously used
consultant support for Infrastructure Review and direct costs ranged from
$5,000 to $35,000 per submission. The typical cost of review by the Division,
if the proposed fee schedule is adopted, would range between $3,000 -
$5,000.
The Engineering Division allocates between 6-7 FTE worth of staff to
development review for which Infrastructure Review is a substantial part.
Based on the scale of applications reviewed and approved by the Division in
recent years, the fees considered in this Resolution are projected to collect
upwards of $1m in revenue to offset cost of service to the city.
UNRESOLVED ISSUES:None
ALTERNATIVES:As suggested by Commission
FISCAL EFFECTS:See attached Fee Study.
Attachments:
Resolution Adopting Transportation and Engineering
Infrastructure Review Fee Schedule
Bozeman MT Infrastructure Review Fee Study Project Report
Report compiled on: January 22, 2025
116
Version February 2023
RESOLUTION 2025-##
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BOZEMAN,
MONTANA, ADOPTING A FEE SCHEDULE FOR INFRASTURCTURE REVIEWED
AND APPROVED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND
ENGINEERING.
WHEREAS, pursuant to §7-6-4013, Mont. Code Ann. when a local government has
authority to establish a fee for a service to those served by the local government, the fees must be
reasonable and related to the cost of providing the service.
WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman collects fees to cover a portion of the administrative
costs of processing and reviewing zoning, subdivision, annexation, growth policy proposals
and other planning related review processes; and
WHEREAS, the Department of Transportation and Engineering is responsible for
review, approval, inspection, and acceptance of infrastructure associated with development
applications as outlined in the City of Bozeman Public Infrastructure Review Process Road Map.
WHEREAS, the Department seeks to set a fee schedule for these activities for which have
not previously been set through Engineering Permit and Community Development fee
schedules; and
WHEREAS, the Department commissioned an Engineering Infrastructure Review Fee
Study to examine the full cost to the city for providing these services and propose a manner of cost
recovery as described in the Engineering Infrastructure Review Fee Schedule.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Commission of the City of
Bozeman, Montana, to wit:
117
Version February 2023
Section 1
Transportation and Engineering fees associated with infrastructure review are
established as detailed in the Engineering Infrastructure Review Fee Schedule.
Section 2
The Transportation and Engineering Division Fee Schedule goes into effect April 1,
2025.
PASSED, ADOPTED, AND APPROVED by the City Commission of the City of
Bozeman, Montana, at a regular session thereof held on the _____ day of ___________________,
2025.
___________________________________
Terence Cunningham
Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Mike Maas
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________________
GREG SULLIVAN
City Attorney
118
Infrastructure Review Base Fee $1,650
Infrastructure Review Variable Fee $43.10 per sheet
Design Resubmission Review Fee $86.19 per sheet
Construction Resubmission Review Fee $172.39 per sheet
Fireline Review Service Fee $700
Design Resubmissions - (Stage 3 )
Constuction Resubmissions - (Stage 6)
Engineering Infrastructure Review Fee Schedule
Pursuant to City Commission Resolution
119
Bozeman
Infrastructure Review Cost of Service (CoS) and Fee Study
Submitted By:
BerryDunn
2211 Congress Street
Portland, ME 04102-1955
207.541.2200
Kevin Price, Principal
kprice@berrydunn.com
Jesse Myott, Project Manager
jmyott@berrydunn.com
Submitted on:
January 22, 2025
120
Infrastructure Review CoS Fee Study – Final | January 22, 2025
i
Table of Contents
Section Page
Table of Contents ...................................................................................................................... i
1.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Project Background ............................................................................................................ 1
1.2 Abbreviations and Terms ................................................................................................... 2
2.0 Approach and Work Performed ......................................................................................... 3
2.1 Work Performed ................................................................................................................. 3
3.0 Infrastructure Review Services: Technical Analysis ....................................................... 5
3.1 Department Overview ........................................................................................................ 5
3.2 Transportation and Engineering Financial Analysis ............................................................ 6
3.3 Summary of Financial Analysis Findings ............................................................................ 8
4.0 Recommendations and Considerations ........................................................................... 9
4.1 Proposed Fees and Charges Structure .............................................................................. 9
4.2 Fee Level Recommendations ...........................................................................................10
4.2.1 Infrastructure Review Services ....................................................................................10
4.2.2 Fireline Review Services .............................................................................................11
4.2.3 Resubmission Review Services ...................................................................................12
4.3 Summary of Recommendations and Considerations .........................................................13
5.0 CoS Model Overview .........................................................................................................15
5.1 Cost Model Framework .....................................................................................................15
Appendix A: Cost Model .........................................................................................................16
121
Infrastructure Review CoS Fee Study – Final | January 22, 2025
1
1.0 Introduction
This section provides a high-level background of the project as well as key terms and
their definitions.
1.1 Project Background
The City of Bozeman (City) partnered with Berry, Dunn, McNeil & Parker, LLC (BerryDunn) to
prepare an Infrastructure Review Process Cost of Service (CoS) and Fee Study. This study
aimed to evaluate the level of effort and resources that the City’s Department of Transportation
and Engineering (Department) Engineering Division (Division) expends. The study projects the
full cost of providing public infrastructure review services related to applicable development
activity throughout the City.
The results offer a full cost determination for Division infrastructure review core service
categories. Establishing a full cost baseline enables the development of more detailed revenue
and expenditure forecasts, which can serve as a foundation for assessing the level of fees
necessary to meet cost recovery targets, sustain current levels of service, and fund goals,
initiatives, and enhanced service delivery in the future. The final project report includes
recommendations based on objective analytical findings, institutional knowledge, and
considerations related to best practices in policy, process, level of service, and funding. The
analysis also identifies possible barriers and challenges to implementing recommendations and
considerations, where applicable.
Until now, the Division has never assessed a fee for public infrastructure review services
despite increased demand for review services as a result of extraordinary construction and
development activity throughout the City. To that end, the Division has become increasingly
aware that the cost of providing services is continuing to increase year-over-year. For these
reasons, the Division is interested in understanding the full cost of providing infrastructure
review services and considering recommendations that will align fee levels in the future to
reflect these costs, satisfy cost recovery targets, and generate sufficient revenue to help ensure
business and service level continuity.
The final project report provides the City with an overview of proposed fees and charges as well
as associated revenues and expenses for each permit, inspection, and service category
applicable to the public infrastructure review. The report also documents the estimated
percentage of full costs recovered to deliver review services at proposed fee levels. This will
allow Department/Division leadership to make informed policy decisions regarding fee and
charge adjustments if desired. Finally, this report describes BerryDunn’s approach to the
analysis and its understanding of the Department’s organizational structure, services provided,
findings, considerations, and recommendations.
122
Infrastructure Review CoS Fee Study – Final | January 22, 2025
2
1.2 Abbreviations and Terms
Table 1.2: Project Abbreviations, Terms, and Definitions
Abbreviation/Term Definition
BerryDunn Berry, Dunn, McNeil & Parker, LLC
City City of Bozeman
CoS Cost of Service
Department Department of Transportation and Engineering
Division Engineering Division
EE Full-Time Employee
FTE Full-Time Equivalent
FY Fiscal Year
ICRP Indirect Cost Rate Proposal
MS Microsoft
PSA Personnel Services Analysis
ROW Right of Way
SME Subject Matter Expert
State State of Montana
123
Infrastructure Review CoS Fee Study – Final | January 22, 2025
3
2.0 Approach and Work Performed
This section outlines how BerryDunn approached the project, summarizes major tasks
performed within each project phase, provides an overview of how the cost model was
developed, and offers a high-level synopsis of project deliverables.
2.1 Work Performed
BerryDunn’s approach to completing this study involved five phases:
• Phase 0 – Project Initiation and Management
• Phase 1 – Full Cost Modeling and Fee Analysis
• Phase 2 – Proposed Fee Schedule, Recommendations, and Considerations
• Phase 3 – Draft CoS and Fee Study Report
• Phase 4 – Final CoS and Fee Study Report
BerryDunn’s Microsoft (MS) Excel-based CoS model was central to this approach, forming the
basis for calculating the City’s full cost of providing public infrastructure review services.
BerryDunn used the model to develop fee adjustment forecast scenarios and to assess the
fiscal impact of implementing new fees.
After an initial project planning call with the Division project team to clarify goals and objectives,
identify known project constraints, and refine dates and/or tasks, BerryDunn requested and
reviewed documentation and data to better understand the Division’s current processes and
funding for the infrastructure review services environment.
BerryDunn conducted a project kickoff meeting and scheduled a series of follow-up meetings
with Division subject matter experts (SMEs) involved in the CoS analysis. BerryDunn also
followed up with Division staff on multiple occasions throughout the project to confirm our
understanding of the data and information provided. A main component of these conversations
was to discuss the level of personnel effort required to deliver infrastructure review services to
customers and discuss the expenses incurred to provide those services.
BerryDunn reviewed the core components (stages) of the infrastructure review process and
analyzed them on a time-per-staff activity basis by which costs were assigned accordingly.
Other charges, such as penalties, fines, and State of Montana (State)-mandated fees, were
excluded from the analysis.
BerryDunn employed an activity-based costing methodology that analyzes the major process
steps required to provide services (e.g., infrastructure review packet intake, meetings,
walkthroughs, permit issuance, and inspections) and the staff time and resources required to
provide each service, issue each permit, and conduct each inspection. This methodology relies
on time estimates provided by Division SMEs, which BerryDunn then validated through the cost
124
Infrastructure Review CoS Fee Study – Final | January 22, 2025
4
model’s built-in checkpoints.
Furthermore, BerryDunn employed a standard cost accounting methodology to identify and
assign expected costs to the core components of the infrastructure review process. This
methodology uses identified expected expenses—mainly from the Division’s adopted fiscal year
(FY) 2025 operating budget segments—and, in some instances, actual expenses incurred to
determine full cost allocation. Finally, where detailed and/or accurate data was nonexistent,
BerryDunn used institutional knowledge from Division SMEs to develop assumptions and
proportional assignment of expenses based on weighted averages and other standard analytical
techniques.
BerryDunn prepared a CoS model to project the total cost of providing all services analyzed in
this study for FYs 2023 – FY 2028. The total cost determination was based on the Division’s FY
2025 adopted expenditure budgets, actual expenditures incurred, key staff input and institutional
knowledge, City financial document reviews, and data reviewed during fact-finding sessions and
project status meetings. BerryDunn reviewed findings with the Division on multiple occasions,
identifying needed revisions and allowing the opportunity for the project team to give feedback
and request revisions before approving final deliverables.
BerryDunn also developed revenue and expense forecasts for FY 2026 – FY 2028. These
forecast scenarios included estimated revenue generation based on proposed fee levels should
they be adopted. Furthermore, BerryDunn worked with Division SMEs to identify and project
expected expenditures for FY 2026 – FY 2028. This was completed in order to assess the
estimated impact of increased expenditures across core service categories and the level of cost
recovery realized should the City choose to adopt fee levels as proposed.
125
Infrastructure Review CoS Fee Study – Final | January 22, 2025
5
3.0 Infrastructure Review Services: Technical
Analysis
This section provides a general overview of the Department’s organizational structure,
BerryDunn’s major technical findings, and BerryDunn’s projections based on those findings.
3.1 Department Overview
The Department is responsible for providing a wide range of facility and infrastructure
maintenance, transportation, engineering, and inspection services to help protect the health
and safety of residents, visitors, and commercial partners throughout the City. To help
ensure the City develops in a sustainable, well-designed, and prosperous way with a
strategic development-friendly environment, the Department makes certain that all work
performed throughout applicable areas of the City adheres to all federal, state, and local
municipal code sections and health and safety provisions. Table 3.1.1 summarizes
BerryDunn’s understanding of the Department’s current structure and operations.
Table 3.1.1: Departmental Overview
Function Function Description
Department
The Department has broad responsibilities, including providing transportation
safety and engineering services, solid waste and recycling services, street
maintenance, and helping ensure a quality built environment through a capital
improvement program. The Department strives to be responsive to the community
and provide outstanding customer service to help realize the broader City vision
centered around sustainable, strategic development and the promotion of
economic development.
Transportation
Services
The Division helps ensure the realization of City goals to improve transportation
system safety throughout the community and commits to prioritizing planning and
implementation of appropriately designed roads, trails, sidewalks, bicycle
facilities, and transit networks to help residents, visitors, and commercial partners
move around the City safely and efficiently. It does so by adhering to the goals
and priorities outlined in the Bozeman SAFE Plan.
Capital Services
The Division is responsible for designing, permitting, and inspecting construction
activity in the public right of way (ROW). The City engineer and engineering
review staff directly manage public works projects and technical assistance to all
operating departments. In addition, engineering staff work with both private and
public developments to help ensure compliance with City specifications for
constructing or replacing sidewalks; these staff also issue commercial and
residential encroachment permits and provide inspection services.
Development
Review Services
The Division is responsible for reviewing development applications including
proposed public infrastructure improvements such as sanitary sewer and water
mains, fire water service lines to buildings, storm sewer mains, street and
transportation improvements, and streetlights. The City must approve all
126
Infrastructure Review CoS Fee Study – Final | January 22, 2025
6
Function Function Description
improvements. Division costs for the entitled phase of development proposals,
from annexation through site plan/plat approval, are accounted in the City’s
Community Development fees.
3.2 Transportation and Engineering Financial Analysis
The City estimates that approximately half of Division costs are allocated to Development
Review. This is an FTE-based estimate where the Division’s 14 FTE’s include six Development
Review Engineers who utilize approximately 1 FTE worth of additional time from Transportation
and Capital staff to assist in reviews.
BerryDunn reviewed all Division services delivered in FY 2023 and determined that the full cost
of providing all reviews, permits, and inspections was $2,519,818. The identified and assigned
revenue to specific service functions was $0 due to no fees for services being assessed.
BerryDunn reviewed all Division services delivered in FY 2024 and determined that the full cost
of providing all reviews, permits, and inspections was $3,031,351. The identified and assigned
revenue to specific service functions was $0 due to no fees for services being assessed.
Additionally, revenue and expense forecasts were developed for FY 2025 – FY 2028 to reflect
the projected cost recovery environment without the adoption of infrastructure review fees and
charges and with the adoption of proposed fees and charges. These forecasts reflect the
Division’s current revenue and expense environment and historical and projected levels of
service. The following table highlights the Division’s projected expenditures and no cost
recovery should the proposed fees and charges not be adopted.
Table 3.2.1: FY 2023 – FY 2028: Financial Analysis Summary – Without Fee Adoption
FY Revenue Expense Net Cost Recovery
2023 $0 $2,519,818 ($2,519,818) 0.0%
2024 $0 $3,031,351 ($3,031,351) 0.0%
2025 (budget) $0 $3,317,800 ($3,317,800) 0.0%
2026* $0 $3,483,690 ($3,483,690) 0.0%
2027* $0 $3,657,875 ($3,657,875) 0.0%
2028* $0 $3,840,768 ($3,840,768) 0.0%
*estimated
The Division has experienced increased expenditures for personnel and non-personnel
segments over the past few FYs, a trend that is likely to continue. Left unchecked, these trends
might have consequential effects on the Division's ability to continue delivering services at
current levels. Furthermore, revenue generation across all core service segments is nonexistent
due to the lack of adopted fees and charges for services.
127
Infrastructure Review CoS Fee Study – Final | January 22, 2025
7
For these reasons, BerryDunn recommends the City consider adopting select fees in FY 2026
(proposed fees and charges are outlined in Section 4.0). By doing so, new fees for services will
generate additional revenue to offset increased expenditures, help fund enhanced service
delivery functions, and improve service delivery quality and timeliness. Table 3.3.2 outlines
estimated revenue and expense scenarios for Division infrastructure review services between
FY 2026 and FY 2028 with the adoption of proposed fee increases and fee additions outlined in
Section 4.0.
Table 3.2.2: FY 2023 – FY 2028: Financial Analysis Summary – With Fee Adoption
FY Revenue Expense Net Cost Recovery
2023 $0 $2,519,818 ($2,519,818) 0.0%
2024 $0 $3,031,351 ($3,031,351) 0.0%
2025 (budget) $0 $3,317,800 ($3,317,800) 0.0%
2026* $1,130,824 $3,483,690 ($2,352,866) 32.5%
2027* $1,176,057 $3,657,875 ($2,481,818) 32.2%
2028* $1,199,578 $3,840,768 ($2,641,190) 31.2%
*estimated
BerryDunn recommends the City consider adopting the proposed fees and charges in Section
4.0. Even upon adoption of these fees and charges, the Division will have an opportunity to
assess revenue generation levels along with revenue requirements annually and make
additional fee adjustments if warranted. Furthermore, revenue generated from the adoption of
proposed fees and charges will help cover a significant portion of the estimated annual full cost
to operate the Division and deliver infrastructure review, transportation, and engineering
services. Due to the unique nature of Division services, revenues are cyclical, tend to fluctuate
annually, and are often influenced by macroeconomic activity. For these reasons, BerryDunn
also recommends conducting an annual CoS analysis as part of the budget development
process and considering additional fee adjustments as necessary,
BerryDunn estimates the Division will have an overall cost recovery ceiling between 30.0% and
33.0 % specific to infrastructure review fees and charges revenue through FY 2028. Without
major operational adjustments to the service delivery structure, sustained expenditure
reductions, year-over-year major fee increases, or without major macroeconomic/development
activity impacts, the current proposed fees and charges environment is not expansive enough to
generate revenue levels that consistently sustain Department operations at cost recovery levels
greater than 33%. This is not a negative outcome. Rather, this allows for policy decisions to be
made regarding increased revenue generation for core service segments in the future if desired.
Division staff should also take care to monitor local indicators related to construction and
development demand and trends. To help ensure that Division services continue to be delivered
at current levels and that increased service levels can be achieved to accommodate increased
customer demand, select fees will most likely need to be systematically increased in future FYs
128
Infrastructure Review CoS Fee Study – Final | January 22, 2025
8
to help offset increased expenditures.
3.3 Summary of Financial Analysis Findings
Table 3.4.1 summarizes key financial findings of BerryDunn’s analysis of the Department’s
transportation and engineering current fees and charges environment.
Table 3.3.1: Summary of Financial Analysis Findings
Summary of Findings
Category Findings
FY 2023 Revenue and Expense
BerryDunn identified and assigned $0 of revenue and $2,519,818
of expenses to Division services analyzed for this study. The
Division’s cost recovery rate for all FY 2023 infrastructure review
services analyzed was 0.0% due to the lack of adopted fees and
charges.
FY 2024 Revenue and Expense
BerryDunn identified and assigned $0 of revenue and $3,031,351
of expenses to Division services analyzed for this study. The
Division’s cost recovery rate for all FY 2024 infrastructure review
services analyzed was 0.0% due to the lack of adopted fees and
charges.
FY 2025 Revenue and Expense
BerryDunn identified and assigned $0 of revenue and $3,317,800
of expenses to Division services analyzed for this study. The
Division’s cost recovery rate for all FY 2025 infrastructure review
services analyzed was 0.0% due to the lack of adopted fees and
charges.
Average Annual Expense and
Cost Recovery Without the
Adoption of Proposed Fees and
Charges – FY 2026 Through FY
2028 (Estimated)
BerryDunn identified and assigned an average of $0 for projected
revenue and $3,660,778 of projected annual expenses to
engineering services analyzed for this study. The Division’s
estimated cost recovery rate for all infrastructure review services to
be delivered from FY 2026 through FY 2028 is projected to be
0.0% should proposed fees not be adopted.
Average Annual Expense and
Cost Recovery With the
Adoption of Proposed Fees and
Charges – FY 2026 Through FY
2028 (Estimated)
BerryDunn identified and assigned an average of $1,168,819 for
projected revenue and $3,660,778 of projected annual expenses to
engineering services analyzed for this study. The Division’s
estimated cost recovery rate for all infrastructure review services to
be delivered from FY 2026 through FY 2028 is projected to be
31.9% should proposed fees be adopted.
Cost Recovery Increase
BerryDunn estimates that the Division might realize a 2% to 3%
increase in the cost recovery rate for each additional $75,000 of
revenue generated annually (FY 2026 baseline).
129
Infrastructure Review CoS Fee Study – Final | January 22, 2025
9
4.0 Recommendations and Considerations
This section outlines BerryDunn’s recommendations and considerations based on its
financial analysis, current services environment analysis, and meetings with staff and
stakeholders to discuss Division and citywide priorities.
4.1 Proposed Fees and Charges Structure
The Division’s proposed fees and charges structure related to infrastructure review services is
divided into the following eight unique review/permit/inspection/service categories, which are all
supported with administrative oversight and customer service elements:
Table 4.1.1: Proposed Fees and Charges Structure
Service Category Description
Plan Review (Stage 3) The final infrastructure review will take place after the reviewing engineer
deems the planning application as adequate.
Additional Permits
(Stage 4)
Engineering Permits are typically required as part of development. These
permits are reviewed by Transportation Division and fees assessed
separately for each permit.
Pre-Construction
Meeting(s) (Stage 5)
The pre-construction (pre-con) submittal review and meeting will take
place after an infrastructure approval letter has been issued for Stage 3. If
applicable, Stage 4 permits have been approved and issued.
Construction
Changes/Revisions
(Stage 6)
Construction changes or revisions are only applicable to review and
document significant field changes.
Pre-Pavement (Pre-Pave)
Meeting(s) (Stage 7)
The pre-pave walkthrough is only applicable for paving that will be
publicly maintained. The walkthrough will occur after curb and gutter have
been installed.
Final On-Site Walkthrough
(Stage 8)
The final inspection takes place after all public infrastructure has been
completely installed in accordance with approved plans.
Project Certification/Final
Project Closeout (Stage 9) Final acceptance takes place after a complete closeout procedure.
Two-Year Warranty
Walkthrough (Stage 10)
The City will schedule a two-year warranty inspection walkthrough no less
than 75 days, and no more than 120 days, prior to the expiration of the
maintenance bond.
130
Infrastructure Review CoS Fee Study – Final | January 22, 2025
10
4.2 Fee Level Recommendations
4.2.1 Infrastructure Review Services
BerryDunn recommends the City consider adopting the following proposed infrastructure
review services fee levels. This proposed fee structure applies a base fee and a variable fee
to each application under review. The base fee consists of stages with relatively stable levels
of effort regardless of application. The variable fee scales to size of application based on
number of sheets reviewed and escalates for resubmissions and construction changes.
Table 4.2.1: Infrastructure Review Services Base Fee – Core Cost Components
Service Category/Type Hours Fee Level at Cost Proposed Fee Level Cost Recovery
Plan Review (Stage 3) Not Applicable to Base Fee Calculations
Additional Permits (Stage 4) 1.0 $74.88 $56.16 75.0%
Pre-Construction Meeting(s)
(Stage 5) 5.0 $354.42 $265.82 75.0%
Construction
Changes/Revisions (Stage 6) Not Applicable to Base Fee Calculations
Pre-Pave Meeting(s) (Stage 7) 5.0 $354.42 $265.82 75.0%
Final On-Site Walkthrough
(Stage 8) 7.0 $522.87 $392.15 75.0%
Final Project
Certification/Closeout
(Stage 9)
6.0 $224.65 $336.98 75.0%
Two-Year Warranty
Walkthrough (Stage 10) 5.0 $435.01 $326.26 75.0%
Totals 29.0 $2,190.92 $1,643.19 75.0%
In addition to the base fee levels outlined above, BerryDunn recommends a variable fee
multiplier of 0.5 hours per sheet for Plan Review (Stage 3). This multiplier shall escalate to 1.0
hours per sheet for plan revisions and 2.0 hour per sheet for Construction Revisions once the
initial plan is approved (see Section 4.2.3 for greater detail).
The complete infrastructure review fee proposed is outlined in the table below.
131
Infrastructure Review CoS Fee Study – Final | January 22, 2025
11
Table 4.2.2: Infrastructure Review Services Fee – Proposed
Fee Name Base Fee Multiplier Multiplier
Description At Cost Cost
Recovery
Infrastructure
Review Fee $1,650.00 $43.10*
X ($43.10) 0.5
Hour for each
sheet
reviewed
$2,190.92 75.0%
*Calculated based on an overall average loaded hourly rate of $86.19 for all Division personnel.
Based on historical levels of service necessitating the average review of 189 public
infrastructure review packets—consisting of an average of 26 sheets each—BerryDunn
estimates that $495,000 of revenue could be generated annually between FY 2026 and FY
2028 should the fee levels be adopted as proposed.
4.2.2 Fireline Review Services
The Division acknowledges that infrastructure review for firelines requires a significantly lower
level of effort and seeks to establish a separate fee for these services.
Table 4.2.3: Fireline Review Services Base Fee – Core Cost Components
Service Category/Type Hours Fee Level at Cost Proposed Fee Level Cost Recovery
Plan Review (Stage 3) 3.0 $258.58 $258.58 100.0%
Additional Permits (Stage 4) 1.0 $86.19 $86.19 100.0%
Pre-Construction Meeting(s)
(Stage 5) 2.0 $172.39 $172.39 100.0%
Construction
Changes/Revisions (Stage 6) Not Applicable to Base Fee Calculations
Pre-Pave Meeting(s) (Stage 7) Not Applicable to Base Fee Calculations
Final On-Site Walkthrough
(Stage 8) Not Applicable to Base Fee Calculations
Project Certification (Stage 9) 2.0 $172.39 $172.39 100.0%
Two-Year Warranty
Walkthrough (Stage 10) Not Applicable to Base Fee Calculations
Totals 8.0 $689.56 $689.56 100.0%
132
Infrastructure Review CoS Fee Study – Final | January 22, 2025
12
The complete fireline review fee proposed is outlined in the table below.
Table 4.2.4: Fireline Review Services Base Fee – Proposed
Fee Name Base Fee Multiplier Multiplier
Description At Cost Cost
Recovery
Fireline
Review Fee $700.00 $0 - $689.56 ~100.0%
Based on historical levels of service necessitating the average review of 45 public infrastructure
review packets related to fireline reviews, BerryDunn estimates that $31,000 of revenue could
be generated annually between FY 2026 and FY 2028 should the fee levels be adopted as
proposed.
4.2.3 Resubmission Review Services
General resubmission and construction change/revision reviews require significant staff time
and resources. For this reason, BerryDunn recommends the following fees for general and
construction resubmissions reviews.
Table 4.2.5: General Resubmission Review Services Base Fee – Proposed
Fee Name Base Fee Multiplier Multiplier
Description At Cost Cost
Recovery
General
Resubmission
Review Fee
$0 $86.19*
X ($86.19) 1.0
Hour for each
sheet
reviewed
$86.19 100.0%
*Calculated based on an overall average loaded hourly rate of $86.19 for all Division personnel.
Table 4.2.6: Construction Resubmission Review Services Base Fee – Proposed
Fee Name Base Fee Multiplier Multiplier
Description At Cost Cost
Recovery
Construction
Resubmission
Review Fee
$0 $172.39*
X ($172.39)
2.0 Hours for
each sheet
reviewed
$172.39 100.0%
*Calculated based on an overall average loaded hourly rate of $86.19 for all Division personnel.
BerryDunn estimates, on average, $605,000 of revenue could be generated annually between
FY 2026 and FY 2028 should the fee levels be adopted as proposed.
Though there is no way to know for certain what construction and development activity will look
like in the future throughout the City, the analyses and projections are based on historical
service performance, known future expense impacts, and historical levels of service. For these
reasons, Department staff should monitor local indicators related to construction and
133
Infrastructure Review CoS Fee Study – Final | January 22, 2025
13
development trends and building permit activity. Staff should track, in detail, the number of
applications reviewed, permits issued, and inspections conducted for the most common
infrastructure review and transportation and engineering services provided. Staff should also
assess additional fee adjustments for specific services, as needed, on a FY basis to determine
adjustments’ potential impact on revenue generation and to offset applicable costs.
The recommended fee levels and subsequent projected revenue gains represent an ambitious
three-year plan to increase revenue generation and help keep pace with known expense
increases expected in future FYs. In doing so, BerryDunn projects an additional $919,000 of
revenue could be realized annually, helping to achieve an overall cost recovery level of 25.0%
for select services through FY 2028. Projections and estimates are based on volume
assumptions provided by City staff. Should annual volume estimates be less (or more) due to
changes in development activity, revenue estimates outlined in this report might not reflect
actual revenue generation levels, and cost recovery targets may increase or decrease.
Furthermore, should fees as proposed lead to a decline in demand, revenue estimates and
projections may also be impacted, and cost recovery targets may not be met.
4.3 Summary of Recommendations and Considerations
Table 4.3.1: Summary of Recommendations and Considerations
Summary of Recommendations
Category Recommendation
1 Fee Adoption
BerryDunn recommends the City consider adopting the fees for
infrastructure review services outlined in Section 4.2.1. In doing so,
BerryDunn estimates the Department might realize $495,000 of
revenue annually between FY 2026 and FY 2028.
2 Fee Adoption
BerryDunn recommends the City consider adopting the fees for fireline
review services outlined in Section 4.2.2. In doing so, BerryDunn
estimates the Department might realize $31,000 of revenue annually
between FY 2026 and FY 2028.
3 Fee Adoption
BerryDunn recommends the City consider adopting the fees for
resubmission review services outlined in Section 4.2.3. In doing so,
BerryDunn estimates the Department might realize $605,000 of
revenue annually between FY 2026 and FY 2028.
4 Fee Schedule Updates
BerryDunn recommends the Division monitor cost recovery levels
annually, which would guide staff to set fee levels aligned with desired
cost recovery targets and maintain revenue requirements. BerryDunn
recommends the Department wait until the close of FY 2026 to
consider additional fee adjustments other than those proposed in
Section 4.2.
5 Cost Recovery
BerryDunn recommends monitoring targeted ranges of cost recovery
annually related to specific permit and service categories. BerryDunn
also recommends considering adjusting fees accordingly when cost
134
Infrastructure Review CoS Fee Study – Final | January 22, 2025
14
Summary of Recommendations
Category Recommendation
recovery levels begin to significantly impact budget and/or funding
levels needed to sustain operations and service delivery.
6 Fee Monitoring
The Division should annually review all fee levels, once adopted, and
consider adjustments in accordance with budgetary requirements, staff
effort, and permit and service volume. The Division should undertake a
thorough fee review every two to three years, when major personnel or
budgetary adjustments are made, or when macroeconomic events
occur.
135
Infrastructure Review CoS Fee Study – Final | January 22, 2025
15
5.0 CoS Model Overview
This section outlines the technical and financial analysis tabs BerryDunn compiled to
develop the cost model used for this study.
5.1 Cost Model Framework
Table 5.1.1 summarizes the format, technical construct, and content of the cost model
developed for the Department. This includes a summary description of each tab in the model.
Table 5.1.1: Cost Model Framework and Organization
Cost Model Framework
Model Section/Tab Description
1 Cover Tab Contains the title of the study, Division project manager contact
information, and BerryDunn contact information.
2 Engineering Dashboard Tab
Contains a high-level overview of all service categories with a
comparison of assigned revenue, as well as current percentage
of total revenue, projected revenue, projected expenses, and cost
recovery levels.
3 Engineering Services Tab Contains a more detailed listing of revenue and expense
allocations by line item across core divisional functions.
4 Engineering Worksheet Tab
Contains all revenue and expense data, cost recovery percentage
by service category, functionality to develop forecast scenarios
and adjust cost recovery goals by service category to project and
assess fee levels.
5 Infra Review Fee Schedule
Tab
Contains full cost determinations across core service delivery
components, proposed fee levels, and projected cost recovery
levels.
6 Engineering Employee (ee)
Tab
Contains the list of all full-time personnel assigned to the study,
annual salary by position, annual benefit expense by position,
and various hourly rates calculated by position.
7 Engineering Employee (ee)
Alloc Tab
Contains full-time personnel time assignments and expense
forecasting functionality by specific infrastructure review service
component.
8 Engineering icrp Tab
Contains the indirect cost rate proposal calculation methodology
and well as the non-personnel expense cost rate proposal and
methodology.
136
Infrastructure Review CoS Fee Study – Final | January 22, 2025
16
Appendix A: Cost Model
The CoS model developed for the Department is attached as an MS Excel file.
137
Memorandum
REPORT TO:City Commission
FROM:Renata Munfrada, Community Housing Program Coordinator
David Fine, Economic Development Program Manager
Brit Fontenot, Director of Economic Development
SUBJECT:Public Hearing for Roers Affordable Housing at Urban Farms Low-Income
Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) Application to Montana Housing
MEETING DATE:February 11, 2025
AGENDA ITEM TYPE:Citizen Advisory Board/Commission
RECOMMENDATION:Public Hearing for Roers Affordable Housing at Urban Farms Low-Income
Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) Application to Montana Housing
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:Roers Companies is proposing a new construction, high quality, 145-unit,
100% affordable (LIHTC) apartment project located at 8553 Huffine Lane,
Bozeman, MT. The project is located on the sprawling west side of the city,
where significant development has occurred over the last several years. This
single-building project will contain 59 two-bedrooms, 66 three-bedrooms,
and 20 four-bedroom units, catering to the large population of renters at the
60% Area Median Income (AMI) level in Bozeman, The project is on 3.3 acres
of land, located at Urban Farm, a master planned development that is set to
have single-family, commercial, retail, office, recreation, and hospitality. The
project will seek a real estate tax-exemption by potentially partnering with
the Human Resource Development Council (HRDC).
This public hearing is required for any affordable housing project applying for
real property tax exemption from the Montana Board of Housing as a Low-
Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) project. As part of the statutory
requirements for this exemption, there must be an opportunity for the
public to comment on whether this low-income housing project meets the
community's housing needs. No action of the City Commission is required for
this hearing.
UNRESOLVED ISSUES:None
ALTERNATIVES:None
138
FISCAL EFFECTS:None
Attachments:
Roers Affordable Housing at Urban Farms.pdf
Report compiled on: January 22, 2025
139
January 16, 2025
Re: Roers Affordable at Urban Farms
To All Interested Persons:
Roers Bozeman Affordable Apartments Owner LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company in
partnership with Human Resource Development Council of District IX, Inc., a Montana nonprofit
corporation specializing in preservation and development of affordable housing, are soliciting
public comment on community housing needs in relation to the following low-income rental
housing complex to be constructed at the following address in Bozeman, Montana:
Project Name: Roers Affordable at Urban Farm
Address: 8553 Huffine Lane Bozeman, Montana 59718
Number of units: 145
This project will include one building consisting of fifty-nine (59) two-bedroom units, sixty-six
(66) three-bedroom units, and twenty (20) four-bedroom units for families. The parties are seeking
a 4% low-income housing tax credit allocation from the Montana Board of Housing to construct
and preserve the affordability of the property and are planning to apply for the exemption from
real property taxes available to qualifying low-income housing tax credit projects under Montana
Code Annotated Section 15-6-221. As part of the application process for low-income housing tax
credits, and pursuant to the statutory requirements for this exemption, there must be an opportunity
to comment on whether this low-income rental housing project meets a community housing need.
No vote or action on behalf of the local agency is required in relation to this opportunity for public
comment. Please see attached project summary for additional project information.
Do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or if you need any further information
about this project. Thank you.
Sincerely
Winthrop & Weinstine, PA
Jason C. Harby
30593122v1
140
1
Executive Summary – Roers Affordable at Urban Farm
Project Overview Roers Companies is proposing a new construction, high quality, 145-unit, 100% affordable (LIHTC) apartment project located at 8553 Huffine Lane Bozeman, MT. The project is located on the sprawling west side of the city, where significant development has occurred over the last several years. This single-building project will contain 59 Two-, 66 Three- and 20 Four-bedroom units, catering to the large population of renters at the 60% AMI level in Bozeman. The project is on 3.3 acres of land, located at Urban Farm, a master planned development that is set to have single family, commercial, retail, office,
recreation and hospitality. The project will seek a real estate tax-exemption by potentially partnering with the Human Resource Development Council (a non-for-profit organization), as well. Roers Residential will be managing the property once it begins operations. Roers Residential has extensive management
experience in over a dozen states with more than 5,600 units under management.
Approvals/Timeline
Roers has submitted for site plan approval to the City of Bozeman and is anticipating construction commencement in Q3 of 2025. The Roers team will also seek an issuance of tax-exempt bonds and an award of 4% federal LIHTCs through the Montana Board of Housing.
Design & Amenities The design process is underway with initial plans in place. The project will also include a leasing space,
community room/lounge, fitness center, patio/grill area, dog park, and storage lockers, which will all be centrally located on the first floor. Unit Amenities will include high quality hard surfaced countertops, ceiling fans, low flow efficient appliances, and spacious living areas.
Two Carlson Parkway | Suite 400Plymouth, MN 55447763.285.8808
141
Memorandum
REPORT TO:City Commission
FROM:Alex Newby, Deputy City Clerk
Mike Maas, City Clerk
Chris Saunders, Community Development Manager
SUBJECT:Appointment to the Community Development Advisory Board
MEETING DATE:February 11, 2025
AGENDA ITEM TYPE:Citizen Advisory Board/Commission
RECOMMENDATION:Consider the Motion: I move to appoint up to four at-large members to the
Community Development Board for terms ending December 31, 2027.
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:The Community Development Board has four positions available due to a
combination of vacancy and the expiration of terms. The new terms will
expire on December 31, 2027. The four at-large positions are Mayoral
appointments.
The City Clerks' Office posted the notice of positions online and ran a legal
ad in the Bozeman Daily Chronicle. Applications were open and accepted
until November 8, 2023. Six applications were received.
UNRESOLVED ISSUES:None
ALTERNATIVES:As determined by the Commission.
FISCAL EFFECTS:None
Attachments:
01-20-23 - CAB Applications - Jason Delmue.pdf
09-11-24 - CAB Applications - Michael Stone.pdf
09-19-24 - CAB Applications - Kate Richter Green.pdf
10-16-24 - CAB Applications - Andrew Webster.pdf
11-19-24 - CAB Applications - Mark Egge.pdf
11-27-24 - CAB Applications - Lessa Millard.pdf
Report compiled on: December 2, 2024
142
From:City of Bozeman, MT
To:Agenda
Subject:*NEW SUBMISSION* Citizen Advisory Board Application
Date:Friday, January 20, 2023 4:46:57 PM
Citizen Advisory Board Application
Submission #:2198294
IP Address:98.127.252.86
Submission Date:01/20/2023 4:46
Survey Time:22 minutes, 45 seconds
You have a new online form submission.
Note: all answers displaying "*****" are marked as sensitive and must be viewed after your login.
Read-Only Content
Applicant Information
Full Name
Jason Delmue
Residential Address
18 E. Peach St.
Bozeman, MT 59715
Primary Phone
4066002896
Additional Phone
Current Occupation
small-scale, compatible infill development Downtown
Employer
My Bad Self
Email
delmue@yahoo.com
Which position are you applying for?
Community Development Board
Do you live in City Limits? (Some positions do require you live within Bozeman city limits, while others do not.)
Yes
How long have you lived in the Bozeman Area?
11 years or more
Have you ever served on a City or County Board or Commission?
Yes
143
Where, how long, and what Board?
Bozeman Area Bicycle Advisory Board from 2006 to when the advisory boards were reorganized, at which time I was
the President of BABAB.
Please describe your professional and personal experiences, interest, and qualifications that make you a good fit
for this board.
Keenly interested in sustainable growth and local governance and have been following the City's several plans and
code updates as well as the proceedings of the Community Development Dept and Commission. Professional
education in accounting, then law. Professional experience in reading and applying statutory/code regimes. Personal
experience in compatible infill development Downtown, from planning through construction and site maintenance.
Versed in the pressures of growth and the trade-offs.
The City of Bozeman strongly values diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI). Describe any efforts you have engaged
in to expand your understanding of DEI.
I am generally familiar with DEI in our community, most regularly in the City and School District's efforts to promote
DEI (and, in the case of the schools, the complimentary SEL). Specifically regarding the City of Bozeman's efforts, I
read the policy review Bozeman as an Inclusive City, watched the Fall 2021 Roundtable on Equity and Inclusion, and
read the quarterly Inclusive City Reports as well as saw some of the presentations to the Commission. I will continue
to pay attention to this.
References
Read-Only Content
Reference #1 Full Name
Rob Pertzborn
Phone
4065828988
Email
rpertzborn@intrinsikarchitecture.com
Section Break
Reference #2 Full Name
Taylor Lonsdale
Phone
4065822286
Email
tlonsdale@bozeman.net
The Bozeman City Charter, voted in by the citizens of Bozeman in 2008, requires annual ethics training. If
appointed, do you understand you will be expected to take online and in person ethics training?
Yes
How did you hear about this board or vacancy?
From following the City Commission and the Community Development Advisory Board
Is there any other information that you feel we need to know?
I have a track record of prioritizing community benefit over personal interest. One example was pursuing bike lanes
on Peach Street, on which my house fronts. Working with others on BABAB and Rob Pertzborn, we measured the
street sections block by block to determine how bike lanes could fit. The solution was to remove parking on the
south side of Peach (my side) and have only a bike lane. Doing so reduced the development potential of my own
property (as well as removed the street parking).
144
Read-Only Content
Thank you,
City Of Bozeman
This is an automated message generated by Granicus. Please do not reply directly to this email.
145
WELCOME
Thank you for your interest in joining a City Board. The City of Bozeman elected officials and staff believe in the value of public participation and local governance in the
decision-making process and encourage all interested members of our community to apply. As set forth in Resolution 5323, the City is committed to building Boards that
advance the City’s goals of increasing diversity, equity, and inclusion. Because of this goal, the City is actively working to achieve membership that reflects, at the least, the
demographics of our community. Women, minorities, individuals with disabilities, veterans, and other underrepresented groups are encouraged to apply.
CONTACT INFORMATION
The City will need to communicate with all board members via email for a number of annual communications, so a valid email address is required for all applicants. Please
notify the City Clerks' Office if your email address changes for any reason.
The City will need to communicate with all board members via email for a number of annual communications, so a valid email address is required for all applicants. Please
notify the City Clerks' Office if your email address changes for any reason.
Please note that your application will become public information. All required fields are marked with a red asterisk *.
STANDARDS OF CONDUCT
Each official and employee serving on a multimember agency is expected to devote the time and effort necessary to ensure the successful functioning of such agency
(Bozeman Municipal Code, Section 2.03.490.C.). Additional standards of conduct and norms are included in Resolution 5323 and Ordinance 2157.
Applicant Information
* Full Name
Michael Stone
* Residential Address
621 N 17th Ave
Bozeman MT 59715
* Primary Phone
(406) 945-1323
* Current Occupation
Software Engineer
* Employer
Trinity Technology Group, Inc.
* Email
mfstone11235@gmail.com
Which position are you applying for?
Community Development Board
Do you live in City Limits? (Some positions do require you live within Bozeman city limits, while others do not.)
Yes
How long have you lived in the Bozeman Area?
1-5 years
* Have you ever served on a City or County Board or Commission?
No
Where, how long, and what Board?
**SKIPPED**
* Please describe your professional and personal experiences, interest, and qualifications that make you a good fit for this board.
I have 10+ of experience in GIS in Montana and a robust understanding of Montana's geography. I have worked as a planner for Cascade County, MT and led the process
for revising their county-wide zoning regulations and growth policy assessment during my tenure. As the GIS Manager for Gallatin County, I created the county's first road
naming and addressing standards and policies. I have extensive experience in community development from these professional experiences as well as personal pursuits.
* The City of Bozeman strongly values diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI). Describe any efforts you have engaged in to expand your understanding of
DEI.
I have actively engaged in expanding my understanding of DEI through various channels. This includes professional work in fair housing and equity, reading literature about
systemic inequality, and facilitating community discussions that foster inclusivity. I also regularly reflect on my own experiences and biases, seeking feedback to improve.
These efforts help me advocate for equity and create inclusive environments in both personal and professional settings.
Page | 1 146
References
Please provide name, phone, and email contact information for two references.
* Reference #1 Full Name
Eric Semerad
* Phone
(406) 582-3050
* Email
eric.semerad@gallatin.mt.gov
* Reference #2 Full Name
Sean O'Callaghan
* Phone
(406) 582-3130
* Email
ean.ocallaghan@gallatin.mt.gov
* The Bozeman City Charter, voted in by the citizens of Bozeman in 2008, requires annual ethics training. If appointed, do you understand you will be expected to take online
and in person ethics training?
Yes
How did you hear about this board or vacancy?
City website
Is there any other information that you feel we need to know?
I am a landlord but not for property in Gallatin County.
If you have a disability that requires assistance or need accommodations, please contact our ADA Coordinator, Max Ziegler, at 406.582.2439.
Please note that for most City Boards, materials are distributed electronically for each meeting.
Your application and all information submitted is considered a public record. All applications are included in the City Commission’s Meeting materials for consideration which
are electronically archived and available to the public.
Page | 2 147
WELCOME
Thank you for your interest in joining a City Board. The City of Bozeman elected officials and staff believe in the value of public participation and local governance in the
decision-making process and encourage all interested members of our community to apply. As set forth in Resolution 5323, the City is committed to building Boards that
advance the City’s goals of increasing diversity, equity, and inclusion. Because of this goal, the City is actively working to achieve membership that reflects, at the least, the
demographics of our community. Women, minorities, individuals with disabilities, veterans, and other underrepresented groups are encouraged to apply.
CONTACT INFORMATION
The City will need to communicate with all board members via email for a number of annual communications, so a valid email address is required for all applicants. Please
notify the City Clerks' Office if your email address changes for any reason.
The City will need to communicate with all board members via email for a number of annual communications, so a valid email address is required for all applicants. Please
notify the City Clerks' Office if your email address changes for any reason.
Please note that your application will become public information. All required fields are marked with a red asterisk *.
STANDARDS OF CONDUCT
Each official and employee serving on a multimember agency is expected to devote the time and effort necessary to ensure the successful functioning of such agency
(Bozeman Municipal Code, Section 2.03.490.C.). Additional standards of conduct and norms are included in Resolution 5323 and Ordinance 2157.
Applicant Information
* Full Name
Kate Richter Green
* Residential Address
4624 McCafferty St.
Bozeman MT 59718-5708
* Primary Phone
(310) 699-4645
* Current Occupation
Vice President Current Programming
* Employer
BeAlive Studios
* Email
kate.richter@gmail.com
Which position are you applying for?
Community Development Board
Do you live in City Limits? (Some positions do require you live within Bozeman city limits, while others do not.)
Yes
How long have you lived in the Bozeman Area?
1-5 years
* Have you ever served on a City or County Board or Commission?
No
Where, how long, and what Board?
**SKIPPED**
* Please describe your professional and personal experiences, interest, and qualifications that make you a good fit for this board.
I am a fourth-generation Montanan (now raising a fifth gen here!) and a graduate of Montana State University (Go Bobcats!). I have spent the bulk of my career in
entertainment and am fortunate to have relocated back to Bozeman last Summer. Bozeman today is not the Bozeman of my college days. Many positive and many negative
changes have happened in recent years and I have a vested interest in this community and State. I would love to have a more active role in this beautiful town.
* The City of Bozeman strongly values diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI). Describe any efforts you have engaged in to expand your understanding of
DEI.
Growing up in Billings I was surrounded by diversity. My mother was a teacher in low-poverty schools and my father was a prosecuting attorney. From a young age they
opened my eyes to the issues that can affect people - based on socio economic disparity or other factors - and stressed the importance of helping others if you are
fortunate enough to afford to volunteer time or resources. Not only do I try to engage in my community but I am now including my daughters in my efforts.
Page | 1 148
References
Please provide name, phone, and email contact information for two references.
* Reference #1 Full Name
Amanda Schultz
* Phone
(406) 581-0881
* Email
amanda.schultz@gmail.com
* Reference #2 Full Name
Liz Reeve
* Phone
(310) 745-9487
* Email
lizsreeve@icloud.com
* The Bozeman City Charter, voted in by the citizens of Bozeman in 2008, requires annual ethics training. If appointed, do you understand you will be expected to take online
and in person ethics training?
Yes
How did you hear about this board or vacancy?
Montana Festival
Is there any other information that you feel we need to know?
Though I have not served on a City Board, I have served on many boards and volunteer. I was on the Board for MCFTA in Midland, Michigan for 5 years and volunteered at
the local shelter as well as for various local events. Currently, I work with Haven here in Bozeman, am team Manager for my daughter's hockey team, and am very involved
in their sports and academics. I also LOVE being back in Bozeman and love hiking, yoga, and DJ'ing youth hockey games.
If you have a disability that requires assistance or need accommodations, please contact our ADA Coordinator, Max Ziegler, at 406.582.2439.
Please note that for most City Boards, materials are distributed electronically for each meeting.
Your application and all information submitted is considered a public record. All applications are included in the City Commission’s Meeting materials for consideration which
are electronically archived and available to the public.
Page | 2 149
WELCOME
Thank you for your interest in joining a City Board. The City of Bozeman elected officials and staff believe in the value of public participation and local governance in the
decision-making process and encourage all interested members of our community to apply. As set forth in Resolution 5323, the City is committed to building Boards that
advance the City’s goals of increasing diversity, equity, and inclusion. Because of this goal, the City is actively working to achieve membership that reflects, at the least, the
demographics of our community. Women, minorities, individuals with disabilities, veterans, and other underrepresented groups are encouraged to apply.
CONTACT INFORMATION
The City will need to communicate with all board members via email for a number of annual communications, so a valid email address is required for all applicants. Please
notify the City Clerks' Office if your email address changes for any reason.
The City will need to communicate with all board members via email for a number of annual communications, so a valid email address is required for all applicants. Please
notify the City Clerks' Office if your email address changes for any reason.
Please note that your application will become public information. All required fields are marked with a red asterisk *.
STANDARDS OF CONDUCT
Each official and employee serving on a multimember agency is expected to devote the time and effort necessary to ensure the successful functioning of such agency
(Bozeman Municipal Code, Section 2.03.490.C.). Additional standards of conduct and norms are included in Resolution 5323 and Ordinance 2157.
Applicant Information
* Full Name
Andrew Webster
* Residential Address
880 North 15th Avenue
Bozeman MT 59715
* Primary Phone
(651) 380-9011
* Current Occupation
Retired from a career in International Marketing
* Employer
None
* Email
andrew59715@gmail.com
Which position are you applying for?
Community Development Board
Do you live in City Limits? (Some positions do require you live within Bozeman city limits, while others do not.)
Yes
How long have you lived in the Bozeman Area?
11 years or more
* Have you ever served on a City or County Board or Commission?
Yes
Where, how long, and what Board?
To many to list here.
* Please describe your professional and personal experiences, interest, and qualifications that make you a good fit for this board.
I've served on multiple city and nonprofit boards since the 1990's, including Planning Commission Chair.
* The City of Bozeman strongly values diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI). Describe any efforts you have engaged in to expand your understanding of
DEI.
I served as a Peace Corps volunteer in the 1980's, before the term was invented.
References
Please provide name, phone, and email contact information for two references.
Page | 1 150
* Reference #1 Full Name
Kathy Webster
* Phone
(406) 581-7632
* Email
andrew59715@gmail.com
* Reference #2 Full Name
Dr. Justin Eisel
* Phone
(218) 428-4301
* Email
andrew59715@gmail.com
* The Bozeman City Charter, voted in by the citizens of Bozeman in 2008, requires annual ethics training. If appointed, do you understand you will be expected to take online
and in person ethics training?
Yes
How did you hear about this board or vacancy?
It was suggested I apply for it by several community members
Is there any other information that you feel we need to know?
**SKIPPED**
If you have a disability that requires assistance or need accommodations, please contact our ADA Coordinator, Max Ziegler, at 406.582.2439.
Please note that for most City Boards, materials are distributed electronically for each meeting.
Your application and all information submitted is considered a public record. All applications are included in the City Commission’s Meeting materials for consideration which
are electronically archived and available to the public.
Page | 2 151
WELCOME
Thank you for your interest in joining a City Board. The City of Bozeman elected officials and staff believe in the value of public participation and local governance in the
decision-making process and encourage all interested members of our community to apply. As set forth in Resolution 5323, the City is committed to building Boards that
advance the City’s goals of increasing diversity, equity, and inclusion. Because of this goal, the City is actively working to achieve membership that reflects, at the least, the
demographics of our community. Women, minorities, individuals with disabilities, veterans, and other underrepresented groups are encouraged to apply.
CONTACT INFORMATION
The City will need to communicate with all board members via email for a number of annual communications, so a valid email address is required for all applicants. Please
notify the City Clerks' Office if your email address changes for any reason.
The City will need to communicate with all board members via email for a number of annual communications, so a valid email address is required for all applicants. Please
notify the City Clerks' Office if your email address changes for any reason.
Please note that your application will become public information. All required fields are marked with a red asterisk *.
STANDARDS OF CONDUCT
Each official and employee serving on a multimember agency is expected to devote the time and effort necessary to ensure the successful functioning of such agency
(Bozeman Municipal Code, Section 2.03.490.C.). Additional standards of conduct and norms are included in Resolution 5323 and Ordinance 2157.
Applicant Information
* Full Name
Mark Egge
* Residential Address
1548 S Grand Ave
Bozeman MT 59715
* Primary Phone
(406) 548-4488
* Current Occupation
Transportation Planner
* Employer
High Street Consulting Group
* Email
mark@eateggs.com
Which position are you applying for?
**SKIPPED**
Do you live in City Limits? (Some positions do require you live within Bozeman city limits, while others do not.)
Yes
How long have you lived in the Bozeman Area?
11 years or more
* Have you ever served on a City or County Board or Commission?
Yes
Where, how long, and what Board?
Bozeman Parking Commission (2017 – 2021), outgoing chair; Bozeman Planning Board (2019 – 2021), member; Streamline UTD Board (2020 – Present), chair. Community
Development Board (Jan. 2024 – Present)
* Please describe your professional and personal experiences, interest, and qualifications that make you a good fit for this board.
I am a planning professional (focused on statewide transportation planning) and an AICP Certified Planner. I have been an active participant in statewide policy
conversations about housing development and affordability, including as a member of the Governor’s Housing Task Force (and subtask co-lead for the Task Force’s first and
third report). I’m a subject matter expert on transportation planning and the interrelationship between land use planning and multimodal transportation systems.
* The City of Bozeman strongly values diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI). Describe any efforts you have engaged in to expand your understanding of
DEI.
Equity is central to my work in transportation planning, where we ask not just what the best projects are, but also who benefits from those investments. For instance, in the
coming weeks, the Bureau of Transportation Statistics will release a new Transportation Insecurity Analysis Tool and dataset. I led the development of the tool, which
supports analysis of transportation and housing costs and analysis of equity in the transportation system in terms of safety and access to daily destinations.
Page | 1 152
References
Please provide name, phone, and email contact information for two references.
* Reference #1 Full Name
Randy Carpenter
* Phone
(406) 582-8937
* Email
randy2029@gmail.com
* Reference #2 Full Name
Cathy Costakis
* Phone
(406) 581-8650
* Email
costakisce@gmail.com
* The Bozeman City Charter, voted in by the citizens of Bozeman in 2008, requires annual ethics training. If appointed, do you understand you will be expected to take online
and in person ethics training?
Yes
How did you hear about this board or vacancy?
Current Member
Is there any other information that you feel we need to know?
Application to the Community Development Board
If you have a disability that requires assistance or need accommodations, please contact our ADA Coordinator, Max Ziegler, at 406.582.2439.
Please note that for most City Boards, materials are distributed electronically for each meeting.
Your application and all information submitted is considered a public record. All applications are included in the City Commission’s Meeting materials for consideration which
are electronically archived and available to the public.
Page | 2 153
WELCOME
Thank you for your interest in joining a City Board. The City of Bozeman elected officials and staff believe in the value of public participation and local governance in the
decision-making process and encourage all interested members of our community to apply. As set forth in Resolution 5323, the City is committed to building Boards that
advance the City’s goals of increasing diversity, equity, and inclusion. Because of this goal, the City is actively working to achieve membership that reflects, at the least, the
demographics of our community. Women, minorities, individuals with disabilities, veterans, and other underrepresented groups are encouraged to apply.
CONTACT INFORMATION
The City will need to communicate with all board members via email for a number of annual communications, so a valid email address is required for all applicants. Please
notify the City Clerks' Office if your email address changes for any reason.
The City will need to communicate with all board members via email for a number of annual communications, so a valid email address is required for all applicants. Please
notify the City Clerks' Office if your email address changes for any reason.
Please note that your application will become public information. All required fields are marked with a red asterisk *.
STANDARDS OF CONDUCT
Each official and employee serving on a multimember agency is expected to devote the time and effort necessary to ensure the successful functioning of such agency
(Bozeman Municipal Code, Section 2.03.490.C.). Additional standards of conduct and norms are included in Resolution 5323 and Ordinance 2157.
Applicant Information
* Full Name
Lessa Millard
* Residential Address
614 S Ferguson Ave Ste 3
BOZEMAN Montana 59718
* Primary Phone
(406) 581-5599
* Current Occupation
Principal Landscape Architect
* Employer
inContour, Landscape Archtiecture
* Email
lessa@incontour.com
Which position are you applying for?
Community Development Board
Do you live in City Limits? (Some positions do require you live within Bozeman city limits, while others do not.)
No
How long have you lived in the Bozeman Area?
11 years or more
* Have you ever served on a City or County Board or Commission?
Yes
Where, how long, and what Board?
Tree Board, 4 years; Design Review Board 4 years
* Please describe your professional and personal experiences, interest, and qualifications that make you a good fit for this board.
With over 20 years in landscape architecture and as a Bozeman native, I bring a deep understanding of the city’s development needs. My four years on both the Tree Board
and Design Review Board have given me valuable insight into how City Boards function and contribute to Bozeman’s growth. Currently not serving on any other boards, I
have the time and commitment to dedicate to the Community Development Board. I’m passionate about responsible growth while preserving our identity.
* The City of Bozeman strongly values diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI). Describe any efforts you have engaged in to expand your understanding of
DEI.
As a woman in a traditionally male-dominated field, I’ve gained valuable insight into the challenges surrounding diversity, equity, and inclusion, including barriers that can
affect minority-owned businesses. I’ve deepened my understanding of DEI through workshops on inclusive design and community engagement. As a landscape architect, I
prioritize accessibility, cultural representation, and equitable access, striving to foster inclusivity in every aspect of my work and community involvement.
Page | 1 154
References
Please provide name, phone, and email contact information for two references.
* Reference #1 Full Name
Jami Lorenz
* Phone
(406) 207-7392
* Email
jamilorenz@gmail.com
* Reference #2 Full Name
Scott Bechtle
* Phone
(406) 599-1742
* Email
scottb@bechtlearchitects.com
* The Bozeman City Charter, voted in by the citizens of Bozeman in 2008, requires annual ethics training. If appointed, do you understand you will be expected to take online
and in person ethics training?
Yes
How did you hear about this board or vacancy?
City Board Webpage
Is there any other information that you feel we need to know?
Thank you for your consideration. I look forward to potentially serving on this important City Board!
If you have a disability that requires assistance or need accommodations, please contact our ADA Coordinator, Max Ziegler, at 406.582.2439.
Please note that for most City Boards, materials are distributed electronically for each meeting.
Your application and all information submitted is considered a public record. All applications are included in the City Commission’s Meeting materials for consideration which
are electronically archived and available to the public.
Page | 2 155