HomeMy WebLinkAboutAffordable Housing Board - Minutes - 02/07/2013CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AFFORDABLE HOUSING BOARD
REGULAR BOARD MEETING MINUTES
281 N. College Ave.
Fort Collins, Colorado
February 7, 2013
Chair: Dan Byers
Staff Liaison: Ken Waido, 970-221-6753
City Council Liaison: Lisa Poppaw
Board Members present: Dan Byers, Jeffrey Johnson, Troy Jones, Curt Lyons, Tatiana
Martin, Karen Miller
Board Members excused: Terence Hoagland
Staff present: Ken Waido
Other Staff present: Kathryn Grimes, Note Taker
Guests: Shelby Sommer, Clarion Associates LLC; Ishbel Dickens, Manufactured
Homeowners Association of America; Jessica Ping-Small, City Revenue and Project
Manager
Meeting called to order with a quorum present at 4:05 p.m. by Chair Dan Byers
Public Comment
None.
Affordable Housing Displacement Relocation Mitigation Strategies
Ken Waido: Gave a PowerPoint presentation for an overview of the salient points of the
Public Review Draft Document before the board opened the meeting up to public comments.
The board will need to listen to public comments, have a discussion, then vote to make
recommendations to the City Council on items and issues related to the document.
The draft document has two major sections: 1) options for mobile home park stabilization
and preservation, and 2) options for displacement and relocation assistance of mobile home
park residents and what would be required for that particular section, Seven major
recommendations of the document are:
1) Continue to expand the inventory affordable housing units.
2) Continue to offer money and funding for these projects.
3) Create a Mobile home park zone for park preservation.
4) Create a grant or loan program for infrastructure maintenance.
5) Require one year notice of future park closures.
6) Provide relocation costs
7) Potential resident purchase of the park.
Dan Byers: At this time, we will open this up to public comment. Please keep your
comments to five minutes.
Susan Harmon: I currently reside at the mobile home park at 1601 N College Avenue. My
grandparents purchased a mobile home there in 1985. I now live there with my mother. The
park has been there since 1965. It is considered to be one of the nicer park although it is in a
highly desirable area of town for redevelopment. I thoroughly support the recommendation
extending the notification from six months to one year. We are looking at a resident
population of mostly over 55 years of age, senior citizens, who have very low income or
fixed income. Plus they’re elderly, set in their ways, resistant to change. It’s going to take
time for their families and other agencies to work with them when they need to relocate. A
year would definitely be a better option so they don’t feel the pressure. When you’re eighty
years old, six months seems like today and a year seems like tomorrow. So I thoroughly
support the year notification.
Again, relocation expenses, paid by the developer or the owner, I support as well. The reason
being, again, we’re looking at seniors. Most of them have very low income. There are
residents that have been in these parks for twenty years or more and it’s because of their
income. If they were forced to find the funds to move a mobile home, they’re not going to
find it because, number one, they don’t have the resources available to themselves, number
two, they don’t have an income to replace any kind of loan they would take, and the cost of
moving a mobile home is anywhere from eight to twelve thousand dollars which is ridiculous
in itself. But and then we’re talking about where would they move. Now that is a concern to
me that I hope this board will start thinking about. I had some time to speak with Ken about
what the zones mean and where they are and I understand it more now. But if you only have
“X” number of parks there that are zoned and all of a sudden we are finding that there are
eight parks that are closing, where are they going to go? Because a lot of these parks are
already filled. I’ve not seen anything that talks about the creation of another Mobile Home
Park Community for the residents that would be required to move if they are in a designated
targeted redevelopment area. So that’s something I would like to have this board discuss;
where are they going to go.
The mobile home park zoning was something new to me. I thank you again, Ken, for your
clarification on this subject. I do think that if you give mobile home park zones it is going to
give a more secure feeling to those residents in those zones. If the park is zoned for a mobile
home park, the chances are of it being redeveloped into something different are smaller. The
seniors I work with need some sense of security. A mobile home park zone might make them
feel a little bit more secure in their homes in those areas. Who is going to make that
determination of the value of that home? If it isn’t enough to compensate for their relocation,
that’s not begin fair to our seniors again. There is a great deal of people who do not have
access to computers and how will they get their opinions validated and heard? Nor do they
have access to get to these meetings. Has it ever been considered an option to hold a half
hour question and answer meeting at the clubhouses at some of these mobile home parks for
those folks who don’t have computers, can’t get out to these meetings, and don’t have the
resources to find out what we are talking about here? Because we’re talking about their lives
and where they’re going to live. So how many of the people who answered your survey were
from these mobile home parks? I would like to add that you have meetings at these parks to
include the actual residents of these parks in these decisions. We have to be appreciative of
our seniors and the greatest generation and we have to be helping them.
Nick (no last name given): Because, I’m not eighty five, I’m ninety and I can’t be moving
nowhere. It would be very hard for me to make a change right now. I cannot live with my
children; they have their own families. As far as cost, it costs quite a bit to move a home.
Every month we get enough to pay the rent from Social Security. And that’s all. We don’t
have the money to move. Thank you.
Dan Byers: Is there anyone else who has public comments? If not, this concludes the public
input portion.
BOARD DISCUSSION:
Dan Byers: Let’s open this up to discussion. Our goal is to provide recommendation to City
Council.
Troy Jones: Could you help me understand number three?
Ken Waido: We’re looking at it as a step by step process. The first step is if the Council says
to create a mobile home park district. Then the City’s Land Use Code team would draft a
zoning district to be put into the Land Use Code. This strategic plan recommends which
mobile home parks should be put into that district. The details of what would and would not
be permitted in the zone have yet to be fleshed out.
Ishbel Dickens: A list of a range of options can be included in the zoning plans. It has not
been universal throughout all communities. It is what makes sense in that particular area. The
ordinance itself can also have exemptions.
Dan Byers: What was the reason the zoning went away?
Ken Waido: The city went to a more mixed-use land use concept.
Shelby Sommer: The city is shifting. The growth aspect is changing from outward growth to
inward growth. That is where the redevelopment pressure becomes stronger.
Dan Byers: To move forward, let’s go over each item. Number one, I think we all agree with
that one. Number two, you have to offer relocation assistance to be in compliance.
Jeffrey Johnson: We should consider striking the rationale. I’m suggesting we delete
“because” from the rest of the sentence.
Troy Jones: That makes sense. I’ll go along with you on that one.
Dan Byers: Rather than strike it out, maybe we could find a better way to say it. The city
could decide this on a case-by-case basis.
Jeffrey Johnson: I agree with that.
Troy Jones: Yes, that’s a good idea.
Troy Jones: Number three makes sense to me.
Dan Byers: There’s quite a bit of work to be done on this.
Curt Lyons: Is the intent of creating the zoning to deter development?
Ken Waido: No, it’s to preserve the mobile home park community as a mobile home park
community.
Dan Byers: Is there any opposition to the mobile home park zone? It sounds like the board
agrees on number three with additional clarification. Let’s talk about number four.
Troy Jones: One park on the north has a huge storm water management issue, big potholes,
etc. This seems like one that needs some redevelopment. Having the grant program in place
would help these issues.
Ken Waido: The Affordable Housing Strategic Plan has an action item for the City to look at
a permanent funding source for the Affordable Housing Fund. If a permanent funding source
is found, the AHF could have additional financial resources over what is available now.
Jeffrey Johnson: I agree that loan and grant money is critical. Infrastructure upkeep is
important. Could you get some money to take care of this? This seems to be an opportunity to
get some details. Can you sweeten it up with a loan or a grant? To make the property owner
feel better about infrastructure upkeep.
Dan Byers: Move on to number five. A lot of these parks are at full capacity. Is there space
to move all? I like the one-year notice.
Karen Miller: I would support removing the six-month caveat.
Tatiana Martin: I would rather see the six-month option included.
Jeffrey Johnson: I like the alternative of having both.
Troy Jones: That doesn’t seem like the way it’s written. To what extent do we want the early
closure tied to incentive? The developer isn’t on the hook to pay anything.
Ken Waido: We could combine numbers five and six somehow.
Karen Miller: It does kind of dovetail. It could force people into unfavorable conditions.
Dan Byers: I think we should keep five and six separate. They are two separate issues.
Ishmel Dickens: Six month closure would be allowed, it is between the owner and the
tenant, if everyone has left before the year then they can close the park.
Curt Lyons: Some kind of mutually satisfaction would be good.
Tatiana Martin: Residential apartment leases are month to month after one year, but I don’t
know for mobile homes.
Dan Byers: Concisely rewording number five: One-year notice is required unless the mobile
home park owner provides a packet plus the tenant shows they can leave or they are lawfully
evicted.
Karen Miller: I want it to say they will be appropriately relocated to each party’s mutual
agreement.
Dan Byers: Number six; does it say “Federal Funds”?
Troy Jones: I don’t support number six. The developer has to pay for relocation. I don’t
think the developer should pay for the relocation of everyone.
Dan Byers: That wouldn’t provide any assistance. That takes affordable housing out of the
community.
Karen Miller: Yes, that’s true.
Cory Lyons: I’m thinking of it like any other property. If somebody buys an apartment
building, it’s not the tenant’s right to be there forever.
Karen Miller: But you purchased the mobile home and you can’t compensate for it. Now
they can’t use their home anymore.
Jeffrey Johnson: There is a human component to this. But there is also a market component,
too.
Karen Miller: I think the park owner should at least pay the tenant for the home.
Dan Byers: I keep coming back to people being “involuntarily” displaced from their home.
Troy Jones: I’m uncomfortable with the A. Why is it the developer’s cost to move it? I agree
with the B and C. I can’t support A. Should we pull number six and vote on the rest?
Jeffrey Johnson: Change “market value” to “assessed value”, i.e., the assessor’s analysis of
real market value.
Dan Byers: I make a motion to accept numbers one, two, three, four, and seven.
Troy Jones: I second the motion.
Dan Byers: For number five; number five states: require a one year notice for relocation and
no less than the six-month minimum required by the State of Colorado, however, as an
alternative, the City could offer a six month notice detailed relocation report on all available
mobile home parks within twenty five miles by contact information to the park owners and
documented relocation costs and in addition, the mobile home park owner insures that all
tenants have been relocated to their mutual satisfaction or have otherwise abandoned or sold
their homes.
Curt Lyons: I move to accept number five as just stated.
Karen Miller: I second. And I agree with number six with a change of “market value” to
“assessor’s opinion of real market value”.
Troy Jones: I am in favor of everything but A. I would support A with a cap of $6,000 (for
single-wide units) - $8,000 (for doubl-wide unitse).
Tatiana Martin: I like it except for A.
Jeffrey Johnson: I don’t know how I feel about A. I accept B and C with “fair market value
determined by assessor”.
Curt Lyons: No opinion. It’s too long. There are so many parts to the equation.
Troy Jones: I move to recommend Item Six to council as written with the following
exceptions: Item A, having a cap of $6000 (single-wide) - $8,000 (double-wide) for
relocation and Item B with “full actual value according to the assessor’s opinion” and C with
the “½ attribute”.
Dan Byers: I second. All in favor? Five. Opposed? One: Jeffrey Johnson.
Jessica Ping-Small
City Revenue and Project Manager
City of Fort Collins
Capital Improvement Expansion Fee Update
A PowerPoint presentation was given concerning the first review of fees since its first
comprehensive implementation in 1996. The consultants doing the update are Duncan &
Associates, based in Texas. The capital expansion fee is a capital fee that a developer pays to
“buy into” the City functions. The fees are impacted by incremental expansion, level of
service present, service units, functional population, and equivalent dwelling units. The data
was updated to the present day. Costs per acre have increased from $20,000 to $30,000.
Trails have been added to the study.
BOARD DUSCUSSION:
Dan Byers: So costs are going up because there are more people to service?
Jessica Ping-Small: No. Fees are increasing for smaller units, not as a factor of population
but as a factor of household size. Household size has changed, it has gone down, and we have
added trails. Fire fees are increasing because the infrastructure has grown.
Jeffrey Johnson: How many cities in the US have Capital Expansion?
Jessica Ping-Small: It’s more common now, but I couldn’t say exactly how many.
Curt Lyons: The impression is, it seems like there’s a penalty for building smaller units.
How is that good for the city? How does that generate revenue for the city?
Jessica Ping-Small: It’s a formula based on certain data. It’s a question of, “Does City
Council approve that way of reviewing things or does Council want to do something else?”
Ken Waido: This issue came up in previous years. Looking at Park Land fees; there are
other ways that cities get parks built. Is this adjusted with credits and considerations of land
dedication in mind?
Jessica Ping-Small: No. This is just flat data. No credits or considerations are given. We
retain the methodology of the original study. Everything has been updated. Reduction in
household size. Household size is decreasing. Staff will recommend review every three to
five years.
Ken Waido: Biggest impact fees are in smaller housing units. The cost of affordable housing
will go up. State law allows housing authorities to be exempt from certain impact fees unless
housing authority partners with a private entity. This is an ongoing discussion.
Jeffrey Johnson: A real emphasis on subsidized housing; look at the folks that don’t qualify
for subsidized housing but they still can’t afford a larger home. These fees affect this
segment.
Dan Byers: Based on your data, is that to correlate the city’s infrastructure cost has gone up
that much?
Jessica Ping-Small: Yes. The value of the infrastructure has gone up, it’s a formula, we can’t
change that. City Council has to decide how they want to form this.
Ken Waido: Are you going to raise the issue with Council of giving affordable housing a
break?
Curt Lyons: How is this not penalizing sustainability building? How does that make Fort
Collins a better place to live? The formula implies that smaller houses have a bigger impact
than larger houses.
Dan Byers: I will get an email around about our opinions on this. We’ll get something back
to you about our opinions on this.
Ken Waido: Her AIS is finished. Do a memo to City Council. Communicate by email. The
work session is Tuesday the 12th. Draw up a brief memo to the Council, let them know that
the Board is still gathering notes on this and will have a formal response by the meeting in
March.
Troy Jones: We would like the Council to consider going easy on the smaller houses. Keep
the fees the way they are for affordable housing. Don’t increase those.
Other Business
Ken Waido: The Student Housing Action Plan, we need to do something with that. Write a
generic memo about that for next week. We can delay everything else, approval of the
minutes, election of officers, until the March meeting.
Troy Jones: I need to get back to everyone on Monday after I review my notes. I liked the
notion of having the code language we could comment on. That was extremely helpful in
being able to analyze exactly what the impacts were.
Dan Byers: I did want to get something out in written form.
Troy Jones: We didn’t have a quorum last month so it will be an informal memo for the
Student Housing Action Plan.
Meeting adjourned at 8:05pm by Chair, Dan Byers.