Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAffordable Housing Board - Minutes - 04/02/1998• • CQUJ14� CITY OF FORT COLLINS AFFORDABLE HOUSING BOARD Meeting Minutes April 2, 1998 Bob Browning, Chair Joanne Greer, Vice Chair Chuck Wanner, City Council Liaison The meeting of the Affordable Housing Board began at 4:15 p.m., at 281 North College Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Board members present included: Chairman Bob Browning, Bruce Croissant, Sylvie Glass, Mike Nicely, and Kay Rios. Joanne Greer arrived later. Staff present: Ken Waido, Ann Watts, Joe Frank, and Timothy Wilder. Also present: Chuck Wanner, City Council. Public discussion. Christa, from CARE Housing, expressed concern that the rebate looked somewhat slanted on the lower AMI and wondered if it could be bumped up, starting at a higher rebate. Mr. Browning noted that rebate schedule is on the agenda and will be discussed further. School District Fees in Lieu of Land Dedication. The agenda order was switched to allow Ms. Turnquist to attend open house on site selections for other projects. Ms. Turnquist explained this is a fee that the School District will be putting into place via the City; a fee in lieu of land dedications for school sites. These fees would be collected at the time the development is happening and then turned over to the School District. All monies will be collected throughout the community to buy school sites in the desired locations, where growth is apparent. This will be proposed to Council April 21, for both Poudre and Thompson Valley School Districts. Ms. Turnquist also noted any new dwelling units constructed in Fort Collins, in one of the School Districts, would have this fee applied to the dwelling unit. The fees are parallel to fees currently paid by developments that are in Larimer County in Loveland and Berthoud. If this proposal is passed by Council, it will go into effect June 1. Ms. Turnquist reiterated this is not a City fee; it is a School District fee. The City will administer and collect the fee at the time a building permit is issued and then passed on to the School District, quarterly. Ms. Glass commented that an organization like Habitat, when building a home, would end up paying a fee that they originally would not have incurred. Ms. Turnquist stated the School District would choose whether they wanted the dedication or the fees; most cases would probably be to collect fees. Mr. Waido commented if the project dedicated land,they would not, then, pay the fee; it's in lieu of. Mr. Browning stated it appeared they would end up with a double income source. Mr. Wanner commented an owner would have to give something, the land or the money. Ms. L Affordable Housing Board Meeting of December 4, 1997 Page 2 Rios suggested keeping the status quo. Both Ms. Rios and Ms. Glass noted they were uncomfortable agreeing with this proposal. Moved by Ms. Glass, seconded by Ms. Rios: The Board will write a letter to City Council, addressing their concerns about this proposal, mainly the impact any increase in fees will have on affordable housing. Motion approved unanimously. The letter will need to be completed the Wednesday before April 21. Changes to Rebate Schedule Mr. Waido distributed the same information to the Board as was presented last month, in addition to graphs prepared by Mr. Browning. The Subcommittee met after the last meeting and refined the curves. Mr. Browning gave a brief explanation of the different graphs. On the first graph, rebate started at 55% AMI as tax credit structure starts at 50%; therefore, this may attract some private sector money. He noted no mathematics was behind them; the concept of the rental graph is to get impact fees up fast, to hopefully stimulate housing. In relation to the home ownership curve, the question is how much of a house payment is affordable at what level, to 80 percent; start in the neighborhood of $142,000 gross on the house. A flat down payment assistance would be made, similar to the HOME program. Mr. Waido commented the rebate program was originally intended to attract the private sector and questions have arisen as to the achievement of that goal, but the "Ownership 2" graph definitely is a change in philosophy, away from the builder to the buyer. Ms. Glass commented this gives the owner a chance to get what they want instead of just what is available on the market. Mr. Browning agreed, noting it would give more of a choice. Mr. Wanner commented that at 80 percent AMI, one would probably have the financial and personal resources to get over the hump. Therefore, the lower AMI percentages will wash. Mr. Nicely noted this issue has been discussed for several months, and the Board needs to make a decision which direction they want to pursue. Moved by Mr. Nicely, seconded by Ms. Rios: The Board agrees with the rental graphs in hand, as well as the home ownership graph showing the straight -across line. Mr. Browning confirmed they are not ready to go to Council with this, but this is the direction the Board wants to pursue. Mr. Waido questioned since the "Ownership 2" concept is a priority, maybe the Board should look at those sources and pull more money into that program, i.e. down payment and closing costs, assistance program. Affordable Housing Board Meeting of April 2, 1998 Page 3 Ms. Watts suggested making it available only in the absence of the home buyer program, since there are periods during the year when that might not be available. Mr. Wanner noted the Board might consider doing it on a sliding scale for projects that are designed to be a hundred percent affordable by design, e.g., Lopez, where you have homes funded, others cash incentive. Ms. Greer questioned whether, if a person for home ownership was qualifed for a home grant, could they also qualify for this program, or is it one or the other? Ms. Watts commented her suggestion would be to make it one or the other, HOME first; and then the rebate would be available if HOME is not. Mr. Waido stated those are options that will need to be discussed further. Motion approved unanimously. Proposed Policy - Rebates and Special Purpose Districts Mr. Waido drew a diagram to aid in the explanation of this proposal. He explained that a development project pays a series of fees, i.e. park fees, street fees, water and sewer fees. These fees go to various City departments to cover the costs for services. The general fund, primarily made up of sales tax revenue and property tax revenue, is the basis for the rebate program. There is no relationship between fees collected and the rebate program. The general fund, which is a different revenue source, is used for the rebate which goes back to the development. The program, by Code, is that rebates are for fees that are "imposed by the City." The issue is what to do when the City is not going to be the provider of water and sewer if there is a district out there that does. Mr. Waido went on to state that the developer is still paying fees, but the water and sewer fees being paid do not go to the City department for that service, because the City is not providing that service. It goes, instead, to the District, and the District is paying the costs. Mr. Waido reiterated that there is no relation from the District back into the rebate program, a completely different, separate, source. He further noted this is where policy is: rebates are for fees imposed by the City. These fees are not imposed by the City but by the District, so the question before the Board is how much of a rebate to provide the developer. Mr. Waido commented on another question: Whether to include these fees which went to the District and calculate that amount of fees, or just calculate the fees paid to the City? Mr. Waido noted in the past, the Board said to only rebate those paid to the City; there would be no proportional reduction because they didn't pay everything to the City. And Affordable Housing Board Meeting of December 4, 1997 Page 4 Staff says that is one issue this rebate program is designed to do; facilitate development, project the revenue sources of sales and property taxes, and therefore, calculating the water and sewer fees collected by the District and the total amount of fees paid by the development making the rebate. Ms. Rios commented that there is never any money coming from the collection of water and sewer that gives money back to the developer, so it is an incentive, rather than a rebate program. Mr. Frank noted on the map where the districts are, areas in the center which are the areas that would be excluded, and he also noted areas where it is included. He pointed out that if a development is in Fort Collins, and it is affordable, why not apply that to everybody in the City of Fort Collins? Ms. Greer commented that was a lot of territory. Mr. Waido stated that most of the vacant, undeveloped ground suitable for development is located in those areas. That there is not a lot in the white area left to build. It was noted the bottom line is, should district fees be included in the numbers that rebates are based on. Mr. Browning commented that no part of the money was going into plan investment fee, so essentially it is placing Fort Collins' general fund money into an escrow account to, for example, buy a new water plant for Wellington. Mr. Frank noted it is not Fort Collins' fees collected, but District fees. Mr. Waido stated whenever this issue goes to Council, it will not go independently, but with whatever changes are suggested to the rebate program. Mr. Croissant noted he agrees with the idea. He also commented the issue of whether School District fees in lieu of land is going to be an inhibitor, barrier, to affordable housing and should be applied in the same scheme; that in attempting to make affordable housing available, a school fee is just like a rebate fee, just another entity. Mr. Browning suggested the Board propose a percentage of all fees paid, so when a school issue or any other issue arises, it comprises only a part. Mr. Waido noted that fees eligible for rebate are included in the administrative ranges that can be changed with a designated ordinance. The Board agreed to leave the wordsmithing to the Staff. Mr. Waido suggested it be worded something to the effect that the fees that the rebate, or whatever the word to use for rebate, fees are from a list that the Board is supplied and reviews every year. Moved by Mr. Browning and seconded by Mr. Nicely: The Board supports the proposal of rebate of all fees within the City for affordable housing. Motion passed unanimously. 9 Affordable Housing Board Meeting of April 2, 1998 Page 5 TRAC Update Mr. Waido noted TRAC still has not closed and he gave some wrong information last month. Housing Authority has not purchased the construction note from First National Bank. Until the construction note is purchased by the Housing Authority, they cannot begin foreclosure proceedings. He further stated, TRAC is still trying to get units closed on their own, and in the process is doing things to get people qualified that are causing the Staff to be concerned. Approval of Minutes Moved by Mr. Croissant, seconded by Mr. Nicely: To approve the minutes from February 5 and March 5, 1998. Motion approved unanimously. Subcommittee Report Mr. Wilder noted there was nothing to update the Board on this month. Affordable Housing Needs Assessment Ms. Watts reported this is a relatively long-term study, her major project. She has reviewed most of the available data and hopes to be able to reanalyze and get her own sense of what is going on, and from there, develop some policy recommendations for the Board and City Council to review. Ms. Watts noted she is trying to get some raw data from several studies and wanted the Board to be aware that the outcome of this assessment could be some radical recommendations and new directions. She is tentatively on the Council work program for early June. Other Business Mr. Waido informed the Board that next Thursday, CDBG will hold a public hearing soliciting public comments on how to spend the change of HUD flood mitigation funds. Mr. Waido noted it should be obvious, since homes were lost in the flood, to use the money accordingly, but neighborhood groups have lobbied with the Water Board to make recommendations to use the funds for storm drainage improvements. Mr. Waido suggested someone from the Board attend and make their recommendations. Moved by Mr. Croissant, seconded by Ms. Glass: That having discussed this issue, the Board agrees that these funds should go to housing projects. Motion passed unanimously. 0 491 Affordable Housing Board Meeting of December 4, 1997 Page 6 Ms. Glass noted she should be able to attend that meeting on the 9th on behalf of the Board. Mr. Waido commented that CARE Housing is attempting to build their next project. He questioned how visible the Board wants to become in making public comments about the need for affordable housing in the public arena in front of the Planning and Zoning Board, or if the issue goes to appeal on the City Council level. Ms. Greer and Ms. Glass both agreed the Board should be made aware when these issues arise so a representative can be present. Mr. Waido's last item was that CDBG recently solicited applications for FY 98 program, which started in October of this year. He noted they received applications requesting more money than ever before; a total of 32 applications, requesting $4.6 million. Ten of those applications requested $2.6 million specifically for housing -type projects, with only $1.4 million available. Mr. Waido commented the Commission will have a tough time recommending how to use those funds. Mr. Browning informed the Board he will not be at next month's meeting. Ms. Greer will meet with Mr. Waido and compile the agenda for May's meeting. Mr. Croissant suggested the term "Affordable Housing Development Incentive Grant Program" instead of "rebate." The meeting adjourned at 5:45 p.m.