Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-07-26 Public Comment - E. Talago - Special Assessment MethodologyFrom:Emily Talago To:Bozeman Public Comment Subject:[EXTERNAL]Public Comment: Special Assessment Methodology Date:Friday, August 7, 2026 12:08:29 PM Attachments:Comment_ Special Assessment Methodology Aug2026.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. Please file the attached public comment. With gratitude, Emily Talagobcc: Bozeman City Commission Dear Mayor and Commissioners, Throughout the Unified Development Code update, I did not hide my skepticism toward Bozeman's increasing emphasis on form-based planning. Those concerns remain. As the community conversation about zoning continues, however, I have become increasingly uncomfortable that our public dialogue has drifted almost entirely toward what buildings should look like while giving comparatively little attention to how our land use system is intended to function. I had long held that the market would regulate the livability of new projects, requiring a competitive product, and that design standards were things best handled on a subdivision or district level. Recent construction of a sizable number of ubiquitous multifamily projects throughout the US has admittedly given me pause. My father, a third generation nurseryman who also worked the blast furnaces of Bethlehem Steel (and made a study of FLW's architecture) remarked to me once while we gazed up at one of these new buildings: "For much of their history, prisons were designed architecturally to be punitive. They intentionally deprive the convicted of nature, beauty, and art; both the vegetation of the living world and the built creative composition of human minds and hands…What have these building tenants done to deserve such a sentence?" To that end, I can now concede that I appreciate a few code based design guardrails to hopefully ensure future residents don't confuse their (usually quite expensive) new digs for penitentiaries...and yet, the importance of zoning extends much beyond a fleeting architectural or aesthetic exercise. Zoning is the City's primary tool for coordinating private property rights with public infrastructure, transportation systems, parks, utilities, emergency services, economic development, and long-term capital investment in those functions. It establishes expectations that influence redevelopment, property values, and ultimately the fiscal sustainability of municipal government. With adoption of the Unified Development Code, Bozeman fundamentally updated its land use regulations and introduced new consolidated zoning districts intended to guide future growth. That transition presents an opportunity, and I would argue, an obligation, to consider whether the systems built upon our zoning framework continue to function as intended. This consideration is relevant to recent conversations about height in the B3, zoning transitions, the standards for the NCOD, housing needs, and a scheduled conversation just around the corner: the City's special assessment methodology. Bozeman's Current System Bozeman levies four jurisdiction-wide special assessments: tree maintenance, street maintenance, arterial and collector streets, and parks and trails, all computed under MCA 7-11-1024(3)(a)(i) as assessable area. Residentially zoned parcels are capped at 15,000 square feet regardless of actual size; commercial parcels are assessed on full parcel area; Public Lands and Institutions parcels are generally assessed at 25% of area. Appendix A shows the effect across representative properties. A 245-unit apartment community on 628,484 square feet of R-C land pays $1,238.30 annually, the same sum two single-family lots would pay, while a 268-unit complex on a comparably sized commercial parcel pays $57,717.28. Two private schools requiring similar special use approvals were billed $7,019.02 and $1,238.30 respectively, a gap attributable to zoning classification rather than enrollment, traffic generation, or measured service demand. History and Enabling Authority Before 2009, Montana cities financed these services under fragmented statutes, including the former park district law in Title 7's Part 40. Senate Bill 57 (2009) consolidated special districts under Title 7, Chapter 11, Part 10, and MCA 7-11-1024 now gives governing bodies six methods for computing assessments: assessable area, equivalent benefit, taxable valuation, lineal front footage, traffic-based metrics, and density of units. Subsection (2) defines assessable area as the portion of a parcel benefited by the district and permits that area to be reduced below the parcel's actual size, which is the statutory basis for Bozeman's residential cap. Montana courts require only that an assessment bear a reasonable relationship to the benefit received, and give cities considerable latitude in selecting a method, provided the result is not arbitrary, fraudulent, or grossly unjust. Today’s ease and access to linked parcel data libraries means the methodology modeling that once required months-long analysis to test for gross injustice, can now be completed in a day. Approaches in Peer Cities Montana's other major cities generally use different methods for comparable services. Great Falls and Missoula assess citywide parks on taxable valuation, so the levy tracks the value of built improvements rather than lot geometry. Helena assesses several jurisdiction-wide districts on impervious surface area, tying the charge to stormwater and pavement demand rather than zoning classification. Billings segments its downtown commercial core into a premium street maintenance rate while assessing the broader residential city at a lower baseline. Appendix B summarizes these approaches by city, district, and statutory authority. Bozeman's zoning-based model is one legitimate choice among several available under state law, but not the only one. Policy Questions for Consideration Should assessment methodology account for unit count, documented service demand, or development intensity, in addition to or instead of zoning classification and parcel geometry? Should the residential cap apply uniformly, or should large multi-family and institutional developments be assessed closer to their actual footprint and service consumption? Should the City examine Helena's impact driven engineering model approach, or a hybrid valuation method, as a supplement to assessable area for jurisdiction-wide districts? Should assessment policy distinguish between one-time development incentives, such as the twelve-unit cap on Cash-in-Lieu of Parkland, and the perpetual operating levies at issue here? Should the City reexamine how zoning signals redevelopment potential in already-built neighborhoods, given that roughly 73% of subdivisions carry private covenants limiting density, leaving older neighborhoods without such protections to absorb a disproportionate share of speculative zoning's practical consequences? Within the NCOD specifically, where standards often foreclose the infill capacity a zoning designation implies, should the City treat that designation as a reliable signal of development capacity at all, including for purposes unrelated to design review? A zoning designation such as R-B communicates a certain development capacity, but in practice, that capacity generally requires demolition and parcel assembly. A 40% coverage limit constrains incremental additions on a small lot in ways that have nothing to do with market demand or serviceability, and everything to do with the geometry of a lot platted a century ago. The practical result is that the zoning describes what could be built after demolition and reassembly, not what can be accomplished while retaining existing structures the NCOD explicitly exists to protect. In that circumstance the zoning label is a signal in name only, and treating it as a meaningful predictor of redevelopment, whether for assessment purposes or otherwise, overstates what the code actually permits on the ground. The new zoning designations fit comfortably onto greenfield land, where the map and the ground start from the same blank, graded condition. Over already-built neighborhoods, the same designations sit uselessly atop decades of existing lots, structures, and ownership patterns. The systems layered on the zoning map, including special assessments, inherit that mismatch. The code text is adopted, and that decision stands. What remains is the work of examining how the map interacts with parcel-by-parcel realities on the ground, and a systems based approach to land use reflective of how our city functions. I would ask the Commission to treat special assessment methodology as part of that broader review, alongside the ongoing NCOD design standards conversation, rather than as a separate technical matter to revisit later. Respectfully and with gratitude, Emily Talago Appendix A: Representative Assessment Outcomes Representative Property Parcel Size (ft²) FY26 Basis Current Annual (FY26) Est. Without 15,000 ft² Cap (FY26)** Difference** 155-unit affordable apartment community (B2-M) 141,902 Full parcel $11,714.68 $11,714.68 $0.00 216-unit affordable apartment community (R-D) 255,429 15,000 sq. ft. $1,238.30 [$21,086.91] $19,848.61 268-unit apartment community (REMU) 699,138 Full parcel $57,717.28 $57,717.28 $0.00 245-unit apartment community (R-C) 628,484 15,000 sq. ft. $1,238.30 [$51,884.42] $50,646.12 99-unit apartment community (B-3) 32,645 Full parcel $2,694.95 $2,694.95 $0.00 108-unit apartment community (R-C) 440,479 15,000 sq. ft. $1,238.30 [$36,363.69] $35,125.39 119-unit apartment community (R-D) 184,778 15,000 sq. ft. $1,238.30 [$15,254.32] $14,016.02 44-unit apartment community (R-B) 257,004 15,000 sq. ft. $1,238.30 [$21,216.93] $19,978.63 Animal hospital (R-A) 62,639 15,000 sq. ft. $1,238.30 [$5,171.15] $3,932.85 47-room motel (B2-M)99,500 Full parcel $8,214.21 $8,214.21 $0.00 Private School (RD, formerly R5 with SUP) 117,176 15,000 sq. ft. $1,238.30 [$9,673.27] $8,434.97 Private School (RA, formerly RMH) 522,720 85,023 sq. ft. $7,019.02 [$43,152.28] $36,133.26 **Estimated uncapped assessments assume each district's FY26 assessment rates are applied to the property's full parcel area while holding all other elements of the assessment methodology constant. These estimates are provided solely to illustrate the influence of the 15,000 square-foot cap and are not necessarily recommendations for future policy without intentional deliberation. Appendix B: Special District Methodologies in Montana's Major Cities City District Boundary Type Statutory Factor Methodology Bozeman Parks and Trails District Jurisdiction-Wide (3)(a)(i) Assessable Area Lot square footage; residential capped at 15,000 sq. ft.; commercial uncapped. Arterial & Collector Street Assessment Jurisdiction-Wide (3)(a)(i) Assessable Area Lot square footage with standard zoning caps sheltering under-built residential lots. Street Maintenance Assessment Jurisdiction-Wide (3)(a)(i) Assessable Area Uniform geometric calculation for plowing and sweeping, protected by residential caps. Tree Maintenance District Jurisdiction-Wide (3)(a)(i) Assessable Area Forestry costs spread across lot square footage with standard zoning ceilings. Local SIDs Limited Block (3)(a)(iv) Lineal Front Footage Capital improvements split by property width abutting the work. Helena Open Space Maintenance District No. 1 Jurisdiction-Wide (3)(b) Character & Quality Sliding scale based on impervious footprint; vacant/green land pays lowest base rate. Street Maintenance District No. 1 Jurisdiction-Wide (3)(b) Character & Quality Flat baseline fee plus per-square-foot charge for impervious pavement. Stormwater Utility Assessment Jurisdiction-Wide (3)(b) Character & Quality Billed on runoff volume and impervious surface metrics. Urban Forestry District Jurisdiction-Wide (3)(a)(ii) Equivalent Benefit Uniform flat rate per parcel for right-of-way tree management. Great Falls Park District No. 1 Jurisdiction-Wide (3)(a)(iii) Taxable Valuation Cost distributed by state tax value; improvements raise the bill. Street Maintenance District Jurisdiction-Wide (3)(a)(i) Assessable Area Flat rate per square foot across the full parcel, no zoning cap. General Boulevard District No. 3570 Limited District (3)(a)(iv) Lineal Front Footage Funded according to linear feet facing the tree boulevard. Missoula Park District Number 1 Jurisdiction-Wide (3)(a)(iii) Taxable Valuation Citywide operations levied against state-assigned taxable valuation. Road & Street Maintenance Jurisdiction-Wide (3)(a)(i) Assessable Area Base operational road care allocated via total square footage. Sidewalk & Curb Assessment Limited Block (3)(a)(iv) Lineal Front Footage Targeted repair costs billed by abutting foot length. Billings Street Maintenance District 1 Limited (Downtown) (3)(a)(i) Assessable Area Commercial core pays a premium rate per sq ft for high-frequency care. Street Maintenance District 2 Jurisdiction-Wide (3)(a)(i) Assessable Area Residential city limits at a lower baseline rate per square foot. Park Maintenance Districts Limited Subdivisions (3)(a)(ii) Equivalent Benefit Uniform flat rate per lot for local subdivision greenbelts. Arterial Construction Fee District Jurisdiction-Wide (3)(a)(v) Estimated Traffic Expansion fees allocated by estimated vehicle trips generated by zoning size. Kalispell Street Tree & Landscape Districts Limited Subdivisions (3)(a)(i) Assessable Area Subdivision landscape maintenance split by internal lot square footage. Street Maintenance & Lighting Limited Corridors (3)(a)(iv) Lineal Front Footage Corridor lighting and localized repaving spread by linear boundary footage.