HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-23-25 Public Comment - N. Nakamura - WARD ballot education presentationsFrom:Natsuki Nakamura
To:Bozeman Public Comment; David Fine
Subject:[EXTERNAL]WARD ballot education presentations
Date:Tuesday, September 23, 2025 10:22:28 AM
Attachments:WARD Presentation - 9.15 Commentary - Natsuki Nakamura.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear City Commission and Staff:
I have a few questions regarding the special presentation on the feasibility of the WaterAdequacy initiative.
Slide 10 seems to suggest that under the status quo, a 90-unit multifamily is not feasible(states there is a $6.1M gap). If the assumptions in this analysis are true, how does the
City plan on closing the gap for these market-rate projects? Through TIF? Donated Cityland or property? Increased height bonuses? (Due to HB 492, the City can't really
reduce parking any more than the State mandated...) Will the City give out thesesubsidies to projects, even if they provide 0-5% affordable units?
The City as well as Commissioners on the campaign trail have boasted of 1000+affordable units in the pipeline, which are reliant on LIHTC federal subsidies. All of
these projects will proceed as normal under WARD, given that LIHTC projects are 40-100% affordable for rent at the 60% AMI, well above the requirements of WARD. The
presentation states that WARD is "likely to restrict the housing market's ability to keepup with labor force demand." Would WARD make feasible projects no longer feasible?
Is the unaffordable housing supply we have been seeing (with estimates of a 20%vacancy rate) helping meet labor force demand?
In "ballot education" presentations, David Fine has attributed the recent slow in growthto be a result of the lack of affordability in Bozeman (i.e. working folks can't afford to
move here). If this is true, then is the unaffordability of recent developmentsexacerbating the slow in growth? Is this putting additional financial strain on the City
since it has not seen the increase in property tax revenue that previous projectionspredicted?
The for-sale analysis assumes around a $528k construction cost. If the assumptions inthis analysis are true, there is still room for sufficient profits with a 30-unit project that
is 33% affordable, depending on land costs. With efforts to increase starter homesthrough changes such as removing minimum lot sizes, is $150k land costs per home a
reasonable assumption?
Also, I am not sure if my previous comments regarding the ballot education presentation made
it into the public comment repository, so I am reattaching for distribution.Thank you,
Natsuki NakamuraWARD working group member