HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-18-06 Planning Board Minutes.doc
AGENDA
THE CITY OF BOZEMAN PLANNING BOARD
COMMISSION MEETING ROOM,
CITY HALL, 411 EAST MAIN STREET
TUESDAY, JULY 18, 2006
7:30 P.M.
ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE
Planning Board President and Zoning Commission Chairman JP Pomnichowski called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and directed the secretary to record the attendance.
Board Members Present Staff Present Visitors Registered
JP Pomnichowski Andrew Epple, Planning and Community Tom Henesh
Erik Henyon Development Kanako Vance
Nathan Minnick Chris Saunders, Assistant Director, Mike Jarrett
Peter Harned Planning and Community Development Mary Martin
Randy Carpenter Kelly Marple, Recording Secretary Heidi Graf
Nicholas Lieb Julie Langaker
Dave Jarrett Gwenn Stokoe
Brian Caldwell Richard Reid Caren Roberty Mare Boustead
Steve Kirchhoff Dani Kamp
Mike Hope Dennis Rowe
Edward Sypinski Jeremy Shea
Lyle Happel
Vicki DeBoer
Allan Lien
Rick Klein
Evan Schoepke
M. Youngman
Tracy Menuez
ITEM 2. PUBLIC COMMENT (0-15 MINUTES)
{Limited to any public matter within the jurisdiction of the Planning Board and not scheduled on this agenda. Three-minute time limit per speaker.}
Evan Schoepke, 1711 South 11th Avenue, distributed information to the Planning Board and stated that he was a student at MSU who recently visited several cities in Europe as well as
the city of Los Angeles. Mr. Schoepke stated that from his travels he had learned some lessons on cities and observed what worked and what didn’t work. Mr. Schoepke went
on to say that after a trip to Olympia, Washington, he was impressed that they have bio-diesel buses, a diverse culture, a high level of activism, and a sense of community and pedestrian
culture. In regards to city planning, Mr. Schoepke stated that he had found a book entitled “EcoCities” which he encouraged the Bozeman Planning Board members to read because the book
contained ideas on how to avoid sprawl, how to make more efficient communities so less cars are used, and how to create thriving pedestrian communities.
ITEM 3. MINUTES OF JULY 5TH, 2006
President Pomnichowski called for corrections or additions to the minutes of July 5, 2006. The minutes were approved and will stand as written.
ITEM 4. PROJECT REVIEW
Workforce Housing Text Amendment, #Z-06152 – (Workforce Housing ZCA). A Text Amendment Application to revise local development regulations to remove requirements from Title 18 for restricted
size lots and units and to create requirements in a new Title 16, Housing for provision of workforce housing (Saunders).
Chris Saunders presented the application and went over some of the stages the application has been through. Planner Saunders described state laws which applied to this amendment, and
stated that the recommendation from staff is that a public hearing be held where the public could weigh in on this issue.
Applicant Mary Martin, member of Community Affordable Housing Board came forward and stated that she was there to provide education regarding a workforce housing ordinance hearing being
reviewed this evening. Ms. Martin then did an introduction and history of affordable housing. Theresa Martin, from CAHAB advisory board, went over the draft highlights as previously
handed out to members of the board. Another member of CAHAB, Vicki DeBoer, then presented the benefits of homeownership and stated that she is also with AWARE, an organization which
assists people with disabilities. Ms. DeBoer stated that acquiring a home was a wealth-building mechanism, then went over some of the social benefits of homeownership.
President JP Pomnichowski then asked for questions of applicant from board members, hearing none, she OPENED THE MEETING FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.
Mike Jarrett, 845 W. Arnold stepped up and stated that he was a homebuilder in Bozeman. Mr. Jarrett continued by saying that he thinks this amendment is a bad decision because it stated
that 25% of lots in any subdivision need to be constructed before commercial lots, therefore the houses that he builds are too expensive because he has to subordinate 25%. Mr. Jarrett
then gave the example of Montgomery County, where inclusionary houses were built, which resulted in having no more land to develop. Mr. Jarrett ended by saying that he would probably
build in areas other than Bozeman if this were to pass.
Mara Boustead, 4239 E. Baseline Road, stated that she was a homeowner in this valley for 16 years, she can’t afford health insurance because taxes have tripled and can’t afford to do
maintenance on her house. Ms. Boustead asked what would the procedure be if someone moves into these “affordable houses” and then can’t afford the maintenance, who will pay for the
maintenance when they move out, and how can we ensure that our taxes won’t have to pay for this. Ms. Boustead also posed the question of why the government should be responsible for
people who cannot afford a house, and went on to say that the statement by a CAHAB member stating that there is less teen pregnancy because of homeownership is ridiculous. Ms. Boustead
is planning on moving away from Bozeman because she cannot afford to live here anymore, and ended by saying that when she got out of college, she had to work, save money, and buy her
own home, and if this amendment passes it will be enhancing entitlement by giving people homes.
Jeremy Shea, 176 Blue Roan Lane, stated that he was against inclusionary zoning because he believes it is another form of subsidized housing, and will cause housing costs to go up across
the board. He added that it will force developers (if they choose to develop here) to increase lot costs, builders will increase their costs, supply will dry up, prices will go up,
and Bozeman will end up with more expensive houses. He ended by saying that this will increase costs for everyone just to benefit a few, and that is basically a lottery system that
won’t work.
Terry Jones, residing at 22nd and 24th Avenue located in HRDC Land Trust, stated that when she moved to Bozeman she noted that the wages are low and cost of living is higher, ands he
had to take a cut in pay. Ms. Jones stated that she had bought a home through the HRDC in 1998, and if it were not for affordable housing through the HRDC, she would not have been able
to buy the home. She ended by stating that this program is for people who work at wages well below the median.
Mr. Andrews, 4202 Graf Street, stated that affordable housing is a noble cause which should empower people to get a home using down payment matching programs or other methods, and that
inclusionary zoning is not the way to do it. Mr. Andrews encouraged tonight’s presenters to do their homework and see if this program is feasible. Mr. Andrews posed the question of
whether it is right for a small group of workers to pay for this, when it is a citywide need. Mr. Andrews suggested that big retailers contribute to a fund to make a down payment matching
fund, and raised the question of who is on the list to receive this benefit, and how do we ensure that these people are working hard to earn what they receive. Mr. Andrews stated that
his wife is a realtor and he asked her to research how many homes are under currently for sale in Bozeman for under $200,000, and she found 36 homes. Mr. Andrews asked if the percentage
of affordable homes for sale meet the existing need, and if we do determine we need affordable housing - this is not the way to go about it.
Rick Klein, Bozeman resident, started by agreeing with what the mayor commented on earlier that day noting this is subsidized housing, not affordable housing. Mr. Klein would like to
know what would happen if a homeowner had a catastrophic happenstance, who pays for the housing then? He would also like to know what happened to the money from big box stores, and
asked if partnering with Habitat for Humanity had been considered. Mr. Klein ended by stating that he is not opposed to affordable housing, being he does not believe in having housing
subsidies be on the backs of taxpayers.
Eric Rosette, 2200 W. Dickerson, #67, stated that he is a homebuilder in Bozeman, and if inclusionary zoning does pass and the costs are passed down and lots become more
expensive, he and his company will not build here anymore and will go where affordable housing will be practical. Therefore, the number of building permits in Bozeman will go down.
Jennifer Owens, 35 W. Clara Court, stated that she was a realtor with ERA Landmark and has worked with large numbers of people eligible for affordable housing. Ms. Owens asked if the
programs available are being used, she believes that supply and demand will be raised, and that we should look at programs already in place and use them instead of creating new bureaucracy.
Scott Teal, lives in Moab Utah, said that he would like to iterate what he has learned, he met a foreign shopowner who told him that this country has invested in him, and these are not
subsidies or entitlements, but investments in people. He added that if people question the social value of home ownership, they are deluded and he encourages this program to happen.
Dan Kamp, 24 Riverside Drive, stated that he was on two affordable housing task forces in the late eighties and studied many of the same issues and concerns here tonight. Mr. Kamp said
that he would like to reiterate what he has learned, especially regarding affordable housing he has done for Dab Dabney, the Comstock Apartments, and MSU. Mr. Kamp said that there are
ways
to maximize efficiency of construction and supply affordable housing, and that he was a housing designer and two ways to create affordable housing were to lower costs of materials, lessen
designing, zoning, and planning requirements, and to subsidize the units themselves. He stated that both of these avenues need to be explored completely, and if we require the developer
to subsidize part of the project, the project will be sold to higher income anyway because they will be able to afford it. Mr. Kamp said that he is not opposed to subsidizing housing,
but there needs to be an equitable subsidy, you can’t ask homebuilders to bear the cost, need the whole community to sign on for it and pay for it. Mr. Kamp continued by saying that
we should not take one part of the industry and make them pay for it, and that his cant be driven by one small group or a political entity, we need a way that is equitable for everyone
involved.
Richard Reid, 1802 W. Lincoln, stated that you should work for what you get, and if someone stands around with their hand out, they are nothing but a beggar. Shouldn’t ask City of Bozeman
to pay for your home, should go somewhere else where it is feasible to own a home.
Paul Bussey, lives elsewhere but his mail comes to Four Corners. Mr. Bussey said he would like to know if cost offsets are in the proposed regulations, and if for each affordable unit
that they provide, what is the likelihood that given the current trends in density, those will be realized, and how much of a price reduction will there be when there is increased density.
Kay Embry, 5 W. Belleview Circle, asked if we have an affordability housing issue, and said that we are talking about subsidized housing. She added that the HRDC showed 99 units under
$200,000, and if people can’t afford to live in the City Of Bozeman, there are options elsewhere such as Belgrade, Gallatin, Four Corners, and Manhattan. Ms. Emery stated that she bought
a house here after coming up with a creative way to afford it, and that there are ways to improve wealth, it just takes time and work. She added that home ownership is a privilege,
not a right and she would like to define if we have an affordable housing issue here. Ms. Emery added that to improve supply, developers will have to sell lots, and that the cost of
land is what is driving up price of housing. She stated that since the affordable housing has to be built first on the lot, she is not sure what lending institution will lend money
for that kind of
set up. She would also like other options to be explored, such as manufactured homes, incentives to builders to create whatever affordable housing is, to lessen the burdens on the developers.
Hearing no more comment, President and Chairwoman JP Pomnichowski then CLOSED THE PUBLIC COMMENT PORTION OF THE MEETING and returned discussion to board.
Ms. Pomnichowski invited staff or applicant to address the questions posed. Theresa Martin stated that regarding sprawl, according to studies, this program does not increase sprawl
and the programmatic questions that came up such as income guidelines and following a board of guidelines, the hope is that through the use of this program we will be able to provide
assistance at a deeper level. Theresa Martin stated that she teaches a homebuyer instruction course which teaches how to get down payment assistance and how to manage money, and it
is getting tighter to find a family earning less than the 20% median. She added that if these homeowners miss a payment or can’t maintain their house, they are a homeowner and if they
don’t take care of it, they don’t build equity, it is not a situation where the community is taxed. In regards to what happened with the big box money, it was split, $100,000 to Mr.
Dabney, the remainder was split between the downtown connectivity, multi-family housing, ½ for homeownership and down payment assistance. Addressing the Habitat for Humanity question,
because of costs they haven’t been able to build here since 1996. Addressing the question asking what is an affordable house, there is a range of prices to build a strong community,
the communities we compete with (Missoula) are more attractive because house prices are higher here, so people make the choice to move there. There has been houses provided, but unfortunately
their prices increase because supply is low and demand is high.
President JP Pomnichowski asked Staff to address public questions. Director Andrew Epple stated that he has worked with this issue for 15 years, as well as Mr. Kamp, and some of the
strategies included trying to reduce development costs, sidewalk setbacks were changed to build on smaller lots, 25 feet to 15 feet for same reason, to build more efficiently. Street
standards have changed, instead of 37 feet, can be as little as 31, less asphalt, less street construction, all should reduce house costs. Director Epple described the “Top of Pile
Policy”, where affordable housing projects go first. Park land can now be dedicated, higher density projects were being penalized, and could not build out, once you achieve 12 units
per acre, do not have to provide park land. Some of these issues they have been able to implement, and as Kate Embry mentioned, the real issue is the price of land. The City Of Bozeman
reduced its impact fees, but this did not reflect a reduction in housing costs. The forces driving up the costs are numerous, and the steps they have taken have not made an effect.
Chris Saunders described some of the tools to be used, such as the existing programs in place, regulatory funds, subsidy-type funds, we act as a sponsor-type agency, so some tools are
on the table. In regards to the question of manufactured housing, the City Of Bozeman allows manufactured housing in any and all districts, but there has not been a strong demand for
those, from the subdivision side, there have been a few in last few years, but not a lot. That is from the public side, question of density bonus, language as presented in draft ordinance
is essentially same in CAHAB proposal, unable to answer questions Mr. Bussey asked. Mr. Saunders remarked that the questions were good ones, and in regards to the market result of increased
density question, he does not have an answer, market side would be able to answer.
Steve Kirchhoff stated that as City Commission liaison, in his view, as the commission stands, the majority on the commission is in favor of moving some of this program forward.
The goals of the commission are not to establish a government handout system, just to acknowledge what is happening in the City Of Bozeman. The university is looking at what people
can afford and what is available, the belief of commission is that people who make community work should have a decent shot. Fear in the industry that this will cause sprawl, and people
just barely in the market will have to absorb cost. We don’t know for certain what is going to happen.
Brian Caldwell stated that is an important communitywide issue, and the burden associated with providing assistance should be paid for every member of community, not just one specific
group. His personal belief is that a real estate transfer tax (could be as low as a ¼ point) would be beneficial, and if a fund of 20 million dollars was generated, it would be borne
by everyone and would limit the exaggerated prices. The important part is that it needs to be equitable, it is an assistance to get affordable housing, but the gain at any given period
is that there is a payback into the program, if there is a desire in this community to have affordable housing, he thinks its feasible. The way the current draft is written, the number
is 25%, 10% of workforce housing is a realistic number, the term should be either in perpetuity or 30 years, in regards to the gain on the sale of the home – he doesn’t believe that
it should involve the subsidy, the notion of the windfall takes away from the pride in ownership that was talked about tonight. The issues of the offsetting of the costs, densities
are getting increasingly dense and there are incentives for this, need to address that we have given the incentives away. The most important thing is the timing of the adoption of the
affordable housing units, size and scale should be established, if the neighborhood has a mix of units, reasonable expectations of sizes should be met. The current mechanism for affordable
housing is unjust, should be borne of entire community.
Dave Jarrett stated emphatically that we do not have an affordable housing problem in Bozeman Montana now to date, period. From January 1st until today, he pulled the numbers, and 160
were sold at an average price of $163,000, the median was $172,000. That’s 156 that have sold this year. We are doing 300 per year. There are 30 on the market right now with a median
price of $175,000, average $163,000, at least 20-30 % are 3 bedroom 2 bath units. Something that is driving this, maybe HRDC, is pushing this for a reason or another. Mr. Jarrett would
recommend that everybody on this board make a comment tonight, think about the input from the public, look at history of inclusionary zoning in other states that have had this and where
it has worked and see what has truly happened in other communities. This will create a tremendous problem for the city to make work. Let’s go back and get some concrete comments regarding
this, such as what happens if someone misses a payment and defaults, what happens to that deed restriction, who is going to buy it, is the bank going to take it back? There are many
legal problems inside this document that need to be considered.
Erik Henyon stated that he has a problem with the information from the Bay Area Economics presentation last night. Who pays for inclusionary units, builder may see an increase in lot
price and small returns, it is simple economics – price goes up, gets passed on to consumer, will be absorbed by homeowner. In regards to the landowner bearing most of the cost, they
are not economists, how do they know. Mr. Henyon stated that they used California in many models, and California has the lowest home ownership in the U.S. with 48%. Inclusionary zoning
causes fewer homes to be built, Mr. Henyon went over several slides presented the previous night and indicated where he found them to be factually incorrect. Mr. Henyon stated that
the UDO should be enough, it is unneeded to add another mandate. He stated that the numbers look good on the slides, but facts show that they are incorrect. Mr. Henyon stated that
this should not come at the expense of the community, if building permits go down, how much tax revenue are we going to lose in the city, won’t have the tax support to
provide health and wellbeing. If we don’t create revenue, it is obvious that building permits are going to drop, and revenues will drop.
Caren Roberty stated that she would like to focus on the ordinance that Mr. Kirchhoff suggested.
Mike Hope asked what will happen if housing market goes in the other direction and prices start to fall. He brought up the interest rate equation that is going on right now, and what
happens if you can get enough low interest, or a better source for down payments. Mr. Hope stated that he employs 100 people in town, there is 2% unemployment, which has nothing to
do with prices of homes in Bozeman. Mr. Hope said that if someone wants to build a million dollar house and doesn’t want to live around anybody, he should be able to, he doesn’t think
you can force anyone to live in a multi-unit complex. He said that if you get people into home ownership, but then cap it, then you are holding them back, not allowing people to get
an appreciation cycle and it is a huge hindrance, keeping people where they are at. Shouldn’t tell people what they are going to make, not the American way. Could start having losses,
pent up demand and not enough supply, can point fingers all over, huge amount of lots are becoming available, have to look into down payment assistance programs, not opposed to 1% transfer
tax, sprawl is a legitimate concern.
Steve Kirchhoff made the comment that they are going to pass this, and he doesn’t think the city commission is going to listen to a word we say here.
Edward Sypinski stated that we are responding to a real housing need here, what kind of character of community are we trying to form here, and who do we want living in our community.
Not sure this is a slam dunk for city commission to pass this, and is it appropriate for city to have a affordable housing ordinance. Maybe can do this on an ad hoc basis. He questioned
what our charge/responsibility is as an advisory board.
Erik Henyon stated that the solutions are not in creating more regulations and mandates, what are the real issues, affordability issues, wages are not commensurate, can we look at increasing
wages, looking at tax abatement for companies, but not this policy.
Caren Roberty asked how we are to accomplish that.
Mike Hope stated the thing that has increased the fastest in the hospitality industry is employee cost, can’t hire anybody at $8.00 per hour, can’t raise prices fast enough to keep up
with costs. Our profits as a percentage have shrunk in last four years. Salaries have been driven up, we have created tons of service industry jobs, need to figure out how to better
drive people on the bottom side so they want to make more money. 10% of his employees don’t care if they work or not. How do you negotiate with a flawed policy, need to throw this
policy out and come up with better ideas by sitting down and coming up with a better plan. Think we can agree on some ideas outside this policy.
Randy Carpenter thinks there are some problems, as Chris Saunders and Andrew Epple were describing earlier, there is an inequality of income that creates a problem, which will always
be there. San Francisco study should be thrown out because methodology is so flawed. Pass on cost to the other 75%, if we could do that, we would already be, flipping will be less
attractive, this won’t solve the problem, just one more tool, this will have an impact on land values. If return of 3% is too low, people are not forced to do it. One concern Mr. Carpenter
has, if the builder has equivalency that is required, hopes that could be relaxed
somewhat. Mr. Carpenter has some questions about what happens in case of foreclosure, dedication of land in the case of foreclosure. Real estate tax would raise a lot of money, don’t
think it will have a lot of impact on sellers.
Brian Caldwell said that the issue of sustained affordability, the cap of what someone could gain from selling their property, there should be no limit, they shouldn’t financially gain
from the gift of this program, but should financially gain as much as the mortgage they pay. It should go to other modes of affordable housing. If the home provided through this policy
is a $300,000 home, and 50% of home is financed/paid for, as a recommendation to CAHAB, the way to maintain sustainability, limit the gain made by homeowner. Major concern is section
C - subject to the whims of nonprofits, to make it more equitable, take to heart that you profit from the part you participate in, and not the community’s investment in you.
President JP Pomnichowski began by saying that she agrees with a lot of what’s been said, we need a four-pronged approach to affordability. Mortgage assistance, qualification, equitability,
a lot of aspects not in the jurisdiction of the planning board. Board can help shape the policy that must work with the rest of this, once a policy is passed, it won’t be the end all
be all, more participants will be involved. Struck by who is not in attendance tonight. I don’t know anyone who hasn’t rented first, then ought a shoebox house, one bedroom, or studio
units. If someone needs a leg up in this market to get into something, there are some tangible numbers we can toss around. Her suggestions would be – the city requires 10% of each
development be put into restrictive-sized lots, that has been done, no restricted-sized units put on restricted- sized lots.
Chris Saunders said that there has been a couple in the last couple of months, and in a year to 18 months, building permits are starting to be issued.
President JP Pomnichowski stated that she doesn’t think we should demand of one industry 25%, if feasible, we should stay at 10%. She stated that there should be a review of this policy
on a periodic basis, at least a four year review, so if the market corrects itself and this is no longer needed, a review can be made. 3% cap not enough to gain equity, President JP
Pomnichowski said that she likes what other board members have said to solve that.
Dave Jarrett then suggested we go item by item and vote on each.
President JP Pomnichowski asked if there were any objections to that suggestion.
Mike Hope said that he would like to make a motion that the city commission can do what they want to do. We were a unified board last time and the commission threw out everything agreed
upon. Thinks affordable housing is valuable, but doesn’t think we will agree. Whether commission agrees with the UDO or not, it’s a game of who can stall the most.
Mike Hope made a motion to approve Z-06152, Erik Henyon seconded.
Brian Caldwell stated that he thinks it would be sloughing off responsibility of the board if this isn’t given full purview of their time. The value of their opinion relative to the
commission, if we think the current document is amiss, we should try and come up with alternatives.
Dave Jarrett stated that he doesn’t think we have an affordable housing problem, it is
irrefutable that there is no problem.
Erik Henyon said that there are alternatives out there, this is not the solution, and he can’t stand behind this at all. Would like to see more community involvement behind this, this
is a subsidy that will enable people and not let them grow as much as they can.
Nathan Minnick stated that this was trapping builders, and we are not addressing their freedom,.
President JP Pomnichowski asked for further discussion from the board.
Brian Caldwell stated that our task as board is to review this proposal, even with the best edits it is not worthy of approval. Some form or shape of this will adopted on August 7.
Mike Hope stated that the city commission’s elected officials are elected by public, if they make right decisions, they will get reelected, if not, they won’t. Thinks that if this passes,
people will get more involved in voting. Won’t be on a board that is a rubber stamp. Mr. Hope offered the solution of getting diverse officials in one room, with a representative from
each industry to be a part of it.
Caren Roberty stated that this is a complex issue, and when you make one change, it will affect a lot more things, it is difficult tonight to give rationales of why they arrived on their
decisions, difficult to explain why they reached their decisions.
MOTION: President JP Pomnichowski asked for further discussion, hearing none she asked that the Planning Board members only vote on a motion to approve. In favor were Steve Kirchhoff,
Caren Roberty, Randy Carpenter, Edward Sypinsky, opposed were Brian Caldwell, Dave Jarrett, Erik Henyon, JP Pomnichowski, and Mike Hope.
President JP Pomnichowski asked for discussion on the second motion.
Brian Caldwell described the forwarded motion – Part one is that 25% shall go to 10%, threshold shall go from five to ten, sustained affordability is achieved by not capping the potential
return amount of the home financed by the participant. The timing of the construction of affordable housing shall be concurrent with marketplace homes, the issue of the review of an
individual plan shall remove the sentence that a nonprofit can weigh in. The size of the unit should be specific to what is considered a safe home to provide adequate housing.
President JP Pomnichowski would like to offer an amendment to Erik Henyon’s motion – a provision for a policy review every four years and changes to the policy based on that review,
and a consideration for one bedroom and studio.
Erik Henyon stated that he would like to withdraw his motion at this time.
President JP Pomnichowski stated that she will withdraw reference to one bed and studio.
Randy Carpenter stated that he would like to ask staff if they believe the market is cooling off, as well as the feasibility of studying this every two years, not a full blown study,
just some review of this every two years.
Dave Jarrett thinks two years is equitable because of market changes.
Chris Saunders stated that the point is well taken that there is a certain lag time before it takes effect, four years would be enough on initial implementation period, and added that
there could there be a program to monitor this. Director Epple stated that reporting to the commission is going to happen regardless.
President JP Pomnichowski called for a vote, those in favor were Edward Sypinski, Steve Kirchhoff, Caren Roberty, Brian Caldwell, Randy Carpenter, and JP Pomnichowski, those opposed
were Dave Jarrett, Mike Hope, and Erik Henyon.
MOTION: Caren Roberty made a motion stating that as homes sell, the funds will be recaptured. Edward Sypinski seconded the motion.
Brian Caldwell stated that those donations to affordable housing should go to affordable housing, and it should go toward down payment assistance plans and programs already on the books,
he would not support this motion.
Chris Saunders asked for clarification from Ms. Roberty in regards to the intention for the repayment, would those funds go back to the original development or a subsequent unit. Caren
Roberty responded that a reimbursement for the 10 homes they built, they would get back their money when the home sells. Chris Saunders then asked about the monies which are spent from
dollars in hand today to reduce amount of subsidy from builder, city recoups a portion of that, then that money would help reduce the amount of subsidy on a home being built at that
time. Caren Roberty stated that after houses are built, they will reimburse the builder. Brian Caldwell said that that defeats the purpose of perpetuity.
Steve Kirchhoff said that he is not sure he follows it, and not sure why it is better than doing what Brian Caldwell said earlier (putting money back in programs).
Caren Roberty said that it was widely suggested to her by builders that contacted her, that this will help recoup quite a bit of money, no sources to building fees and impact fees.
Dave Jarrett asked stated that they would have difficulty tracking down the developer at a later date.
Caren Roberty stated that when the homeowner sells the house, they will have a kitty built up.
Caren Roberty then withdrew her motion. Edward Sypinski seconded.
President JP Pomnichowski described the motion on the table, to forward the recommended changes to the policy as described by Brian Caldwell.
Erik Henyon stated that he has a problem with the fact that Ms. Roberty works with CAHAB, and believes there is a conflict of interest. He added that it is inappropriate for Ms. Roberty
to be voting on this and she should step back from making motions and commenting.
President JP Pomnichowski stated that she had previously asked for the city attorney’s opinion on this, and no conflict exists.
President JP Pomnichowski then asked for discussion on the motion. Director Epple recommended approval of the workforce housing ordinance. Mike Hope stated that this whole process
was written to move it down to where you want it to be, it was purposefully inflated, and he believes that is dishonest and he refuses to participate in this process.
President JP Pomnichowski asked him to remain and participate, to which Mr. Hope stated that he would not because it is a sham, numbers were overwritten on purpose, and he will watch
from outside and not participate. Mr. Hope then left the board table at that time.
President and Chairwoman JP Pomnichowski called for order at that time.
Steve Kirchhoff said to call Jeff Campbell of MSU and the CEO of Deaconness Hospital and the City Commission to get their opinions on workforce housing. If people are going to say we
need a task force, or if you want to propose an alternative, you should. Brian Caldwell doesn’t like this ordinance, but he is trying to get people to agree.
Erik Henyon stated the he will personally bring an alternative proposal tomorrow.
Dave Jarrett mentioned that as he stated earlier, he must leave at 10:30 p.m. and he is not dropping out.
Brian Caldwell stated that he believes their feelings have clearly been heard, and the majority does not want to recommend this plan, don’t need to be sold down the river on all the
things, but input is our duty, so we should vote.
President JP Pomnichowski called for a vote at this time, those in favor were Edward Sypinski, Steve Kirchhoff, Caren Roberty, Brian Caldwell, Randy Carpenter, and JP Pomnichowski, those
opposed were Dave Jarrett and Erik Henyon.
Chair Pomnichowski noted that those in favor reflect they are in favor of funds being recaptured for builder’s impact fees.
ITEM 5. OLD BUSINESS: None.
ITEM 6. NEW BUSINESS: None
ITEM 7. ADJOURNMENT
President JP Pomnichowski stated that the Planning Board will adjourn at this time, Zoning Board will remain. There being no further business to come before the City Of Bozeman Planning
Board, the meeting was adjourned at 10:37 p.m.
_______________________________ _________________________________
JP Pomnichowski, President & Chair Andrew C. Epple, Director
City of Bozeman Planning Board Planning and Community Development