Whitefish Community Housing Committee
Regular MeetingWhitefish, MT · December 19, 2023
Minutes
WHITEFISH COMMUNITY HOUSING COMMITTEE
MINUTES
December 19, 2023 at 4:00 p.m.
1. Call to order:
The meeting was called to order at 4:00 p.m. by Ben Davis
Present: Ben Davis, Rhonda Fitzgerald, Leanette Galaz, Roxann Gallagher, Carolyn
Pitman, Daniel Sidder, Jeff Raper, Dwarne Hawkins,
Absent: Cameron Blake
Staff: Luke Sponable, Housing Coordinator/Long-Range Planner, Angela
Jacobs, City Attorney
Others: One (1) person from the public was in attendance (Bob Horne)
2. Communications to the public:
Bob Horne - spoke about the 4 Housing measures passed by the legislature at the last
session. Big changes to how city reviews developments. Very little public input at time
of permit review – scope of appeal is limited. Bozeman is already ahead of us. Jim Getz
has submitted a draft complaint to be filed against SB382. The units produced by the
bill will be market rate, no control over cost. We need inclusionary zoning and linkage
requirement tools back. Bill was more about removing red tape than getting affordable
housing. Consider buy-downs. Unclear why the cities
3. Minutes from November 27th: Moved by Rhonda Fitzgerald, Seconded by Jeff Raper, all
in favor.
4. Review Final Deed Restriction Documents: Tabled for future discussion. Angie can send
final docs to committee for review. No plans to take for approval by City Council at this
time.
5. Discuss Annexation Policy Proposal:
Luke – presented an updated proposal which outlined a proposal for properties
petitioning for annexation to be required to accept a deed restriction to limit occupancy
of additional units/properties to local residents with some exemptions for specific
circumstances.
Ben – policy goal was to stabilize owner occupancy percentage
Angie – not sure about legality, this is a new concept
1
Rhonda – Very clean and easy to understand
Daniel – curious to hear about potential impacts this policy might have
Jeff – It will limit the drive for housing. Some of the buyer pool will be cut out. Some
might develop under county rules in a piecemeal fashion which will be more difficult to
work with once annexed. We don’t want to encourage significant development on the
periphery. Roads may not be developed if the subdivision does not occur after
annexation. Still does address prices to be affordable.
Rhonda – Community strongly feels that we don’t need more second homeowners. They
are willing to forgo development if it's not responding to the needs of the community.
Leanette – We are very interested in policy that gives locals an advantage in buying over
corporations and cash buyers.
Daniel – Is there any precedent?
Luke – Breckenridge Colorado uses a similar policy but has some more teeth to the
program since they also utilize TDR’s to control density.
Rhonda – It's not apples to apples when comparing to other communities.
Angie – We are just focusing on remaining a community than affordability with this
program.
Leanette – Vacancy Tax is another solution to get at the same issue, even more
restrictions in other international communities to maintain worker housing. They face the
same issues.
Jeff – What happens when owners life changes and they no longer meet the intent of the
deed restriction? Are they forced to sell?
Ben – Not necessarily. We would only qualify buyers at purchase so they would not be
forced to sell. They could rent to a local.
Rhonda – some HOA’s have similar restrictions. Its just a requirement that owners have
to deal with.
Daniel – How much of the new growth in housing is coming from Annexations? Should we
target more infill or core properties?
Rhonda – Yes but we still need to prevent whole neighborhoods of dark homes. The
council is looking just at annexations under this policy. It will help us get back to the
traditional 70/30 split.
Ben – It is a long-term goal. We need this in place as we continue to grow.
Rhonda – many recently annexed neighborhoods do serve primarily locals/workforce so
it's not all vacation rentals. Does the census data for growth take into account
annexations?
Jeff – So this program will essentially be a condition of annexation?
Ben – Yes but the deed restriction will be recorded on the property at time of annexation
and be enforced for future purchasers of the property.
Jeff – very reliant on enforcement.
2
Ben – not necessarily, similar requirements exist for many homebuyers for FHA loans and
other loans when you sign your purchase docs. We won't have much ability to follow up
or have future enforcement. Shouldn’t take much staff time.
Roxann – At some point we would likely be able to see some level of price adjustment
and drive the land cost down if you add restrictions to the sale of the properties.
Daniel – like don’t want to see people develop in the county to skirt these regulations and
create more hardship for us down the road.
Angie – septic permits are hard to get and will limit the density that can be built outside
of the city limits.
Jeff – you can also create a standalone system but is likely cost prohibitive. There are pros
and cons to this policy. May be faced with a lawsuit. People will pay more to be in the
59937-zip code.
Ben- how do we do this logistically? There are some parts missing in the actual system of
how this will work.
Luke – Similar to Legacy Homes. Much simpler though. Staff will work towards drafting a
more complete document and bring back more info on comparable programs in other
jurisdiction.
Daniel – Can we look at providing additional incentives to get more from these
developers?
Rhonda – they are getting city services in exchange
Roxann – Since this in voluntary the risk of lawsuit is lower
Rhonda – if the MAID lawsuit is successful what happens to the policies?
Angie – we would return to the previous zoning regulations as they were prior.
Ben – Lets determine what the deed restriction would say and how we want to enforce
it.
6. Housing Roadmap Progress Update:
Luke – highlighted the various projects and initiatives that have taken place in the past
year since the 2022 Whitefish Housing Roadmap was implemented.
Rhonda – when will the final deed restrictions go to Council?
Angie – we may change our focus now that we are going with this Annexation policy
Ben – without a program we don’t need those immediately
Luke – the plan was to use the deed restrictions for Annexation Policy but with the
direction we are heading that will be a standalone restriction specific to Annexation and
not the light deed restrictions. We could still get it to council in Spring.
Rhonda – why not take it to council anyway?
Daniel – but now we are superseding them with this 70% policy for annexation, so it's not
needed for anything we are working on. This is simpler.
Angie – the others would come into play later.
Jeff – much of this is in anticipation of the growth policy rewrite but the law is being
challenged.
3
Angie – we just have to consider that some elements may not be needed but it is largely
the same process regardless.
Rhonda – on 4.2 I wasn’t aware that the Land Trust had bought 2 Trailview units. That is
great.
Carolyn – How can we access vacant land? Wouldn’t that be a good option to buy down
properties and build housing?
Angie – the CLT is a great tool but land costs still prohibitive.
Daniel – having shared equity is important. We have had many conversations with the
NMCLT.
Carolyn – we should do some PR and get the word out. Many people could benefit from
the Land Trust model.
Ben – Daniel can you update us on the Rental Assistance Program
Daniel – We are looking to get about $250k total funding, $50k coming from the
community. Hoping to launch in January and start funding in March. If you live and work
in whitefish or looking to move to whitefish and paying more than $30% of income while
being under the area median income, then you are eligible. Some other considerations
for disabled and retired persons are included at request of council. Retirees may need to
prove that they worked in Whitefish for a prior number of years.
Rhonda – is there a work hour requirement?
Daniel – 32 hours, recognizing that it may vary seasonally or be made up of more than
one job.
Carolyn – What about Depot Park?
Dwarne – There was some contamination discovered in the soil. We are working with the
railroad and consultants to determine extent and next steps. Likely residual
contamination from previous uses which shouldn’t significantly delay the project. DEQ is
aware.
7. Communications from Staff:
None.
8. Next Committee Meeting:
3rd Tuesday; 4-6PM – Monday, January 22nd, 2024
9. Adjourn: The meeting adjourned at 5:40 PM
4
Agenda
WHITEFISH COMMUNITY
HOUSING COMMITTEE AGENDA
Tuesday, December 19, 2023, at 4:00 p.m.
City Hall – City Council Conference Room
1. Call to order.
2. Communications from the public.
3. Approval of minutes from the November 27th meeting.
4. Review final deed restriction documents.
5. Discuss annexation policy proposal.
6. Housing Roadmap progress update.
7. Communications from Staff.
8. Other items not on the agenda.
9. Next committee meeting.
a. Maintain fourth Monday schedule from 2023?
b. Monday, January 22nd at 4:00 p.m.
10. Adjourn.
Committee Documents:
Click here to access the Whitefish Community Housing Roadmap
Click here to access the 2022 Whitefish Area Community Housing Needs Assessment
Click here to access the Workforce Housing Needs Assessment
Click here to access the 2017 Whitefish Strategic Housing Plan
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?
WCHC Annexation Policy Discussion
12/19/23
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 or lawsuits
Proposal from 11/27:
All residential properties which petition for annexation into the City of Whitefish must accept
a deed restriction limiting occupancy of the property to full-time residents. Properties or
portions of a development may be exempted based on the following criteria:
• Properties where no further development can occur due to the underlying land use
designation and/or zoning or other environmental constraints.
• In order to encourage annexation, properties which are annexing by petition for the
primary purpose of accessing City services due to the failure of an existing septic
system or water service are eligible to receive one (1) exemption to the occupancy
requirement. Future subdivisions of the property will be subject to the full-time
occupancy requirement.
• Properties which subdivide (or condominiumize) may (at any time in the future)
request a release of the residency requirement up to 30% of the total number of
newly created lots (or units).
Discussion:
1. Does the Committee agree with the overall concept?
2. Does the Committee agree with the exemption, as an incentive, for properties
annexing to obtain water/sewer?
3. Does the Committee agree with the exemption for to release up to 30% of properties
upon subdivision?
4. What about condo developments? We have seen condos in one building, but we have
also seen multiple buildings on one lot be condo-ed. Condos are an ownership
pattern, and it should probably apply.
Get email alerts for Whitefish
A daily email when new agendas and minutes are posted.