Whitefish Community Housing Committee

Whitefish Community Housing Committee Minutes Monday, November 27, 2023, at 4:00 p.m. City Hall – City Council Conference Room Present: Cameron Blake, Ben Davis, Rhonda Fitzgerald, Leanette Galaz, Carolyn Pittman, Daniel Sidder Staff: Dana Smith, City Manager; Wendy Compton-Ring, Senior Planner; Luke Sponable, Housing Planner, Guest – Ian Fleming, Forward Montana 1. Call to order - 4:10 pm by Rhonda 2. Communications from the public Ian introduced himself. 3. Approval of minutes from the October 23rd meeting Moved by Carolyn Pittman, Seconded by Leanette Galaz, all in favor. 4. Communications from Staff. Dana – thanked for participation at Council. STR Position posted within a month for enforcement officer, Interviews in new year. Leanette – could this committee receive posting when done? Dana - yes Cameron – which department will position be in? Dana - Office position in finance department, deciding planning or finance as lead director. Code enforcement under zoning code. Both would be involved. Cameron – question - complaint based or can it be proactive. Dana – staff will be proactive going forward with the new position, the current process is complaint driven/reactive due to staffing. Ronda – compliant driven has been problematic and often frustrating? Dana - Will work with property owner first before court. Message you are not in a short-term rental zone. New hire – would set up a website first so the public could see who can rent. Cameron & Leanette – can map go in paper. Dana - Map is layered and some HOA’s don’t allow it so it could be confusing. But can refer to the map online. Leanette - Publicity when hired. Dana- paper may charge, press release they may run but could edit. Rhonda and Leaneete suggested press release – if other papers pick up Pilot will follow. Dana – Council suggested City reach out to WCVB on STR position so they can educate – rent from registered. WCVB forming position at their retreat. Daniel – how many repeat offenders? Dana – We don’t have that data, 30-day plus we can’t regulate. Need to go through each rental. We can’t have anything more restrictive than what is Montana Landlord-tenant act. Rhonda – technically Airbnb, etc. not under landlord-tenant, not a tenant. Important to hosts to not be under that law. Dana – the 30-day plus (actually are renting for less time) are hard to prove. Daniel – isn’t Bozeman working with Airbnb, so have to have a listing number. Dana – We require a listing number already; Bozeman is requiring Airbnb to register. Also limiting types of STR’s.  Our biggest concern is the pending lawsuit in Whitefish. If we win have the means to move forward. Rhonda- clarifying that WCVB – will address visitor end of it. Should be outreach to owner and property manager from City. Dana – education plan - enforcement officer will address. Leanette – is there an expectation that numbers of violations will decrease with enforcement. Dana – yes – but heavy front-end workload. Discussion over enforcement – lots to do with items other than STR too. Cameron – what do we hope the STR numbers will show? Dana – both registrations up, total listings down. Rentals will shift to long-term rental but sill market – she doesn’t think rents will decrease. Discussion over what market rent will do. More options for rentals. Luke- time frame if go to court based upon previous experience? Dana – varies - not sure – need to ask legal. Currently our attorney has a heavy workload and just focuses on criminal cases. The new hire will take to court. Leanette – does STR pay the same taxes? Dana - Airbnb collects lodging tax but not City resort tax. Where Airbnb collects doesn’t reveal who is paying/in compliance. Maybe Big Sky found a work around – can look at. 5. Resort tax plan discussion. Dana passed. More steps to go. Council drafting ordinance. Dana – looking at better enforcement mechanism. Random audit of businesses. Confirming collections. Take resort tax plan and give guidance for council. Each entity should propose (housing WF, WHA, non-profits). Have process/guidelines in place to apply for money. 12 months plus away for timing. Could go back to Legacy homes. Need concrete guidelines. Cameron – is there a task for this committee. Dana – consider as next priority (after annexation) – expand requirements of development side of resort tax. Need standards in place – maybe just Legacy homes, maybe more. Daniel – Legacy 2.0 – go a little further with dollars. Ben – pitch in $ on private project? Whole program. Dana – same as incentive. Other non-profits have approached City. As well as private developers. Carolyn – Can we increase numbers of affordable within Roadmap? Dana – resort tax money could have a higher price per unit. Different AMI’s have different dollar contribution. Wanted to get on radar as next priority after annexation. Daniel – survey past developers. Wendy - is there an opportunity to partner with developers who haven’t considered affordable. Could we help facilitate. Ben – skeptical of using public money on private developments. Rather have City build. Leanette – have had a model for a long time with government financing programs (LITEC) Rhonda – used to be Farm Home loan to help buy house, down payment and buy down of interest rate. A number of Cameron – split land and building ownership to bring down purchase price. Could money go to NW land trust to buy land. Dana – yes. Brainstorm on different ideas, votec houses, different models. 6. Discuss annexation policy. Luke reviewed document – (attached) WCHC Annexation Policy Discussion. Discussed community housing definition in Roadmap. 70% occupancy is the main goal. Ownership. Ben - Using the term community housing in place of affordable in roadmap. Carolyn - referred to roadmap – community housing at attainable prices. Dana – goal is primary resident. Goal in plan says AMI goal, but that was was taken away by legislature. Luke – only applicable by annexation – voluntary only. Dana- forcing annexation not included. Luke – size of parcels? Larger subdivisions – looking 10 minimum where could subdivide by parcels. Will depend on zoning. Ex. 2-acre parcel. Some still in zooming that is 5-10 acre min. Daniel – What type of parcels. Cameron – where? Wendy – should look at urban services map. Plan for state law showing all areas – it has a boundary – will bring the map next time. Circle around town – Karrow for ex. Daniel – existing structures then don’t qualify? Only subdivisions? Luke – Staff goal is simple, easy to administer. Likely developer agreement. Rhonda – community goal? – flexibility is often a trojan horse. Ben – should be a program – not a negotiation with Council. Like Legacy homes. Discussion over plans and developer agreement for annexation. Leanette – Community goals – community members need to understand. Not clear right now. Such as definition of Community housing. Dana – this is just a committee workpaper – some directly from Roadmap. Don’t need to change Roadmap but can better explain with final document. Cameron – Could 20 acres subdivide ahead of annexation to avoid? Lookback? Use historic lot size? Ben – what if every parcel annexed with a developer agreement – all residential units owner occupied and then down road developer could ask for release of up to 20- 30%. Administrative process. Wendy – under new MT Land Use have to establish zoning outside City Limits Cameron – could zoning be owner occupied? Discussed rental versus owner – rental meets with over 30-day occupancy. Full-time occupancy met. Ben – in theory could do with any future subdivision. No size issues (of parcels) Dana - Exception - Single family already built that needs septic. Examples around lake with failed septic. State law says have to connect and we want to annex. Rhonda, exception – water quality, health and safety. Dana – annexation is voluntary. Discussion around affordability, developers do market analysis, depends on where market is. Daniel – would we gross more units with higher density? Ben – doesn’t impact price for most projects. Exception – luxury condominium. Cameron – Zoning, density will be determined ahead with Growth Policy. Rhonda – certain parts of town more appropriate for density – should vary. Leanette - can Commitee share ideas with growth policy committee? Wendy – expectation is that Luke writes the housing chapter and we feed him what to write. Our committee is the public. Dana – we are just talking about annexation policy. Primary versus second home split per Roadmap. We aren’t looking at density. Density is the growth policy. Both would be used at time of annexation. Zoning for now is County or in accordance with current growth policy.  Leanette – we want a functional annexation policy that developers will use. Daniel – what would it look like to work with County? Coordinated plan. Dana- politics won’t allow. Discussion and explanations. Dana - 382 would have forced us to coordinate but County got themselves exempted from 382. All are interested in moving forward with Ben’s suggestion – Annexation – all owner occupancy, ask for administrative removal of up to 20-30%. How exceptions would work - next step – legal review with Angie, then staff can draft. This would answer most questions on Luke’s document. Ben – confirmed we aren’t requiring workforce housing. Rhonda – What if annex 5 acres with a house and then later subdivide. Dana – may need to look at zoning when annex – if can build more would have restriction? Daniel – Staff goals – easy to administer and enforce. Dana - at time of sale. Audit by tax records – which show residency. Enforcement tends to get complaint driven – like Trail View. Ben – would be WHA. Enforcement at deed transfer. Rhonda – State created mechanism for checking residency – property tax rebate. 7. Other items not on the agenda. i) Carolyn – is anyone in charge of Roadmap? Would be interesting to have an update. Luke - set up a meeting in late October inviting a list of who was involved. Not the best turnout. Housing WF and City were the only ones who had meaningful updates. Dana – bring RoadMap recap page to next meeting. ii) Rhonda – WCVB – giving $150,000 a year through 1% to Housing Whitefish, but not getting meaningful recognition. 8. Next committee meeting. a. Tuesday, December 19th at 4:00 p.m. 9. Adjourned at 5:50 pm WCHC Annexation Policy Discussion 11/27/23 Goal of Annexation Policy (2022 Housing Roadmap): Maintain the 70% Full time occupancy rate of homes • Develop and adopt annexation policy requiring a significant percentage of homes developed on annexed property be deed restricted Community Housing. • Balance the community housing percentage policy with state regulatory concerns/conservative legislature. The 2017 Plan recommended 80% community housing. • Considerations: o Best practice includes affordability requirements for deed restriction to ensure community housing is affordable for intended occupants. At a minimum, require a deed restriction “light”. Applicability: • ONLY applicable to Annexation by Petition (voluntary by request of property owner). • Ownership housing product (would not include control of rentals as rentals are subject to Landlord Tenant Act). • May only require a Light deed restriction due to Legislative changes prohibiting any requirement of price or income restrictions. • Larger parcels (subdivisions)? Staff Goals: • Easy to understand and administer. • Easy for property owner/applicant to understand what is required and receive annexation from the Council without extensive public hearing process. Methods: • Developer Agreement is most likely method to document requirements. o Runs with the land o Allows for flexibility Other Issues to Consider: • County land being subdivided just below the minimum to avoid the annexation requirements. This could result in inappropriately sized properties to develop, and  inefficient implementation of transportation plans, utilities, pedestrian/bicycle connections, open space, etc. • Existing and future zoning density considerations for annexed property on edges of town (typically larger residential lots); Growth Policy update could be part of the review of these areas • Future Legislative prohibition Additional Information: Staff will complete additional land analysis of areas within the Urban Growth Boundary – outside city limits. Discussion: 1. What percent of housing should be required to be provided to primary residences? 2. What size of parcel should be subject to these requirements? 3. How should this policy apply to annexations that don’t contain a specific project proposal? 4. Incentives to encourage additional housing?