Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAffordable Housing Board - Minutes - 08/03/1995AFFORDABLE HOUSING BOARD MEETING MINUTES August 3, 1995 The meeting of the Affordable Housing Board began at 4:10 p.m. in the Community Planning Conference Room, 281 North College Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Board members present were Chairperson Mary Cosgrove, Bob Browning, Joanne Greer, Susan Nabors, Tom Sibbald, and Sue Wagner. Staff member present was Dickson Robin. Ms. Cosgrove called for public comment. Ms. Stitzei distributed information concerning definitions of affordable housing, the spread of housing supply, and the entities providing that supply. Ms. Stitzel commented on a dearth of, and need for, factual information concerning such items. Ms. Cosgrove noted the wealth of detail in the minutes of the last meeting. Moved by Ms. Greer, seconded by Ms. Wagner: To approve the minutes of July 6, 1995. Motion approved unanimously. The affordable housing policy agenda for 1995-1997 was discussed. Mr. Robin distributed the latest version adopted by City Council on the prior Tuesday and the initiatives to be undertaken during 1996-1997. $15,000 has been applied for development of a public education program regarding affordable housing issues. Mr. Robin stated his wish to bring in City employees to form a public awareness team to formulate a campaign to educate the public. Tess Heffernan, in particular, was noted as a potential member of this team. Mr. Robin advocated the presence of the Board in this role and requested the formation of a committee to review this issue. Ms. Cosgrove welcomed the presence of Ms. Heffernan at a Board meeting, pending a decision by the Board to assist further. Ms. Greer offered to spearhead a subcommittee oriented to public education. Mr. Robin recommended a subcommittee to review the Provincetown issue. Ms. Cosgrove noted her conversation with Mike Ludwig concerning the negative effect of the NIMBY concept on effective development. Two prevalent issues raised by those groups are property value and crime. Mr. Ludwig suggested that research be compiled to counteract those negative assertions within a public education program and encouraged the Board to participate in that process. Mr. Sibbald stated that at least seven studies have addressed the perception of negative property value impacts. Two of those studies are available through the University of Indiana and the Urban Land Institute. Mr. Robin has ordered the study through the Urban Land Institute. Mr. Sibbald further stated that: bad land plans should not be supported simply because they are brought forth in the name of affordable housing; developers have AHB Minutes • • August 3, 1995 Page 2 used the affordable housing effort to advance plans that are not worthwhile on their merits; that a balance is needed to ensure that the important issues are addressed and resolved; that P&Z has generally been able to ferret land use decisions out of neighborhood objections; that a bad land use decision for low- and moderate -income housing is aggravated later due to lack of capital to deal with the bad design. The Board discussed the negative perceptions of affordable housing and the housing populations. Mr. Robin noted the mechanisms in place to deal with potential development problems. Ms. Greer expressed irritation over unfair labeling of the residents. She noted success with privately assisted properties and recommended review by the press with the private developers and managing agents of assisted housing within the community. This effort can be done privately. Ms. Cosgrove suggested that a committee meeting be held following the attendance by Tess Heffernan, with ideas to be brought forth by Board members and non -Board members. Rusty Collins, Lou Stitzel, and Sister Mary Alice were mentioned as potentially involved people. Mr. Browning questioned the status of an affordable housing survey. Mr. Robin mentioned the use of a map by Ken Waido at the Lincoln Center Mayor's meeting. Mr. Browning stated that such an inventory would be a valuable education tool and that the map used by Mr. Waido was of little value. The Board spoke approvingly of such an inventory, with private and Housing Authority developments labeled discretely. Mr. Browning and Mr. Sibbald expressed concern about the City's ability to formulate such a map. Mr. Robin suggested that Mr. Browning and Mr. Sibbald assist in that effort. Ms. Cosgrove noted the next item on the affordable housing policy agenda; housing production and methods of stimulating it. Ms. Cosgrove and Mr. Sibbald stated that the stated ideas have been discussed for some time. Ms. Cosgrove next raised the policy agenda issue of student housing. She noted recent reports on student abuse of property and its effect on neighborhoods. Ms. Janett, in prior conversation with Ms. Cosgrove, had advocated mechanisms to inform the students of the image they create and ask for the students' cooperation. Mr. Robin noted the presence of a CSU committee to develop a long-term student housing plan. Mr. Waido has been working with this committee. Ms. Greer mentioned potential zoning restrictions for unrelated persons in a household. Mr. Robin stated that the City could not legally enforce such zoning. Mr. Sibbald expressed dismay that the policy agenda had been adopted without suggestions from the Board. He further stated that the problems with student housing stemmed more from property appearance and treatment than the numbers of students in a house. Mr. Sibbald advocated a property maintenance ordinance, with consequences flowing to the landlord. Mr. Robin noted a similar approach already taken by the West Central Neighborhood group. AHB Minutes • • August 3, 1995 Page 3 Discussion was held whether public concern about student housing focused more on the household composition or property appearance. Ms. Cosgrove noted a mini task force report regarding those divergent views. Mr. Sibbald stated that the mini task force reported that restrictive zoning of unrelated persons within a household could increase stresses on affordable housing by increasing the number of units needed for those residents. Mr. Sibbald and Ms. Greer noted that Greeley has a household standard regarding the number of unrelated persons in a dwelling. Mr. Sibbald stated that the existence of such a standard gives him leverage as a landlord to remedy problems in households that violate that standard. He recommended that elimination of the standard would be a disservice to landlords. Mr. Sibbald noted that the standard was not addressed in the policy agenda and inquired whether it was contained within the land use policy agenda. Mr. Robin stated it was not on any agenda, although the West Central Neighborhood group has explored this area. He suggested that someone from Zoning address the Board regarding enforcement of the standard. Mr. Sibbald stated that he would like a one -page memo from staff within the next 60 days regarding Item 7(b)(1) on the policy agenda. Mr. Robin stated that items of discussion have included street width, triple trenching, and standards for manufactured housing. Mr. Sibbald noted that this item has been a topic of discussion for some time, and Mr. Robin assented to produce the requested memo, containing an update on staffs intentions and the time frames involved. Ms. Cosgrove informed the Board that she had received a letter from Mayor Azar! replying to the Board's memo of various items of concern and discussion. Ms. Cosgrove expressed discouragement that the Board's issues were not well addressed. She felt that the Board had not been adequately heard on the issues. She requested the assistance of staff for continuing updates on those items. Mr. Sibbald stated that he felt that Mayor Azarl's memo expressed that the items listed were being addressed in some fashion, except for those which were impossible to do. Ms. Cosgrove reiterated her request for continuing updates. Regarding Item 7(d) in the policy agenda, members of the Board noted that housing types were not broken out and expressed a desire to see more itemization, to ensure that some types of housing, such as manufactured housing, were not excluded. Regarding Item 7(e), Mr. Sibbald stated that a need existed for an inventory of affordable housing. He stated the following: that no one knew where all the available affordable housing existed; that the Larimer County Housing Consortium, after spending $30,000 on a needs assessment, was not reporting any success; that without knowing the inventory, a particular segment of the market could be overstimulated, when resources could be better used elsewhere. AHB Minutes • • August 3, 1995 Page 4 Ms. Cosgrove called for suggestions for Board action on the policy agenda items. Ms. Greer echoed the need for an affordable house inventory. Mr. Robin stated that, in terms of staff time, 7(a) was viewed as a priority. Several members of the Board stated that an inventory of housing was needed for the public awareness program. Mr. Robin requested input on the indices needed to track progress. Mr. Sibbald stressed the need for the public awareness program to personalize the population of low- and moderate -income housing, accompanied by an inventory, to allow acknowledgment of the need for housing within the community. He further stated that a certain growth rate would generate a certain number of people needing housing, and those rates were not known. Mr. Robin replied that such assumptions could be made without empirical data and that the public awareness program would be designed to open the eyes of the community to eliminate stigmas attached to the concept of affordable housing. He stated that an inventory should be made and progress should be measured, but that the assumption could be made that affordable housing is a continuing community need. Ms. Cosgrove spoke of her experience on a phone bank in Loveland in campaigning for a referendum. The callers had prepared answers to all concerns. She suggested a brainstorm session to prepare answers to questions that may come up in the awareness program. Ms. Nabors stated that information concerning the location and number of housing units would be an essential part of the information offered to the public. Ms. Cosgrove suggested that a committee compile what data would be needed for the information process. Ms. Nabors stated that such information has been requested for four years and has not been produced. Mr. Robin and Mr. Browning noted the difficulty affordable housing projects go through for approval. Mr. Sibbald noted that not every project has difficulty and declined Mr. Robin's suggestion to assist in that issue. Ms. Cosgrove invited ideas for the next meeting on suggestions for Council. Mr. Robin noted that Council was still reviewing some of the findings. Ms. Cosgrove echoed Mr. Sibbald's statement concerning Council developing a policy first and then asking for Board comment. She expressed confusion on the role of the Board in this process. Mr. Robin noted that the policy draft was required of staff since the last Board meeting. Mr. Sibbald dissented, stating that the concept had existed since May. Ms. Cosgrove stated that she would discuss with Ms. Janett the role of the Board in commenting on policy during its development. Mr. Krcmarik made the following comments concerning Provincetown: There are 339 acres, with approximately $3.8 million of costs and bonds. The City had viewed two approaches of a traditional RFP, or a nontraditional RFP, in which possibilities of development were left open. He noted Mr. Sibbald's suggestion of a third option in AHB Minutes • August 3, 1995 Page 5 which the City would serve as a developer and master planner. Finance staff is researching those three possibilities. Mr. Krcmarik further stated that the process is being reviewed by many other boards and commissions within the City, as well as the Finance Committee of City Council. Mr. Wanner has stressed to staff to be creative and keep their options open. Ms. Kneeland is enthusiastic about generating a mix of income strata in the development. Mr. Krcmarik reviewed financial aspects of Provincetown. Nine percent interest is generated for the bonds, or approximately $41,000 per quarter. Consulting fees for planning would be $50,000-100,000, with an additional three months for the project to go through a consultant RFP. Mr. Sibbald questioned the type of input to be made by the other boards and commissions. Mr. Krcmarik noted that Natural Resources Board requested 160 acres for wetlands and buffer ground. The City is pursuing a valuation of the property. Mr. Sibbald noted the proximity of the property to the envisioned Fort Collins/Loveland buffer, and that much of the property along County Road 32 is not developable as wetlands. He stated that the Natural Resources Board should not dictate the value of the property, particularly when a great deal of undevelopable property lies nearby. Mr. Sibbald advocated a balanced approach to deciding on the acreage of public ground within Provincetown. Mr. Krcmarik stated that input would be received and reviewed from all the affected Boards. He noted that if 160 acres is not developed, then at a value of $3,000 per acre, the City would lose much of the revenue needed for bond and interest payments. Mr. Sibbald offered to explain his idea to the Board. Ms. Cosgrove stated that she would have to visit the property before voting on a particular course of action. Ms. Nabors invited Mr. Sibbald to explain his idea. Mr. Sibbald stated his view that the City would master -plan the Provincetown property for a mixed -use community, with reasonable natural resource area provided for a 700-800 unit development. By going through the master plan process, the City could reduce overall development time, thereby driving up the value for developers. Developers with different emphases - single-family, townhomes - could participate by buying parcels of the development. Once the property is free and clear of the bond encumbrances, remaining property could be used for affordable housing efforts, either on the property itself or by being traded for property elsewhere. Mr. Sibbald and Mr. Krcmarik discussed the potential interest for participation by developers. Mr. Sibbald recommended that the City contact those who have expressed interest to discuss their views on the master plan process and their willingness to participate in acquiring smaller parcels. Ms. Cosgrove invited comments on the Community Development Corporation discussions. Ms. Nabors and Ms. Wagner commented on the lack of funding in the AHB Minutes • • August 3, 1995 Page 6 absence of a specific goal for the funds. There are no assets presently within the CDC to fund any projects. Ms. Nabors stated that the City would have to form a new CDC for affordable housing projects; the present CDC is focused on community development. Mr. Sibbald expressed frustration with the lack of funding and stated that economic development funding would probably not survive the '96 Federal budget process. Ms. Nabors stated that Provincetown was seen as a viable project for the CDC, if funding became available. Ms. Wagner noted that the business community was not participating. Mr. Sibbald questioned whether the business community would be motivated to participate in view of apathy by City Council to economic development. He expressed pessimism that anything would be accomplished without a specific program to drive funding. Ms. Nabors stated that progress could be made but that the pace of progress would be dependent on being project -specific. Ms. Cosgrove stated that staff was needed who were hired to focus on and promote the project and not be proceedings to many different directions. Ms. Greer asked for the CDC's role in Provincetown. Ms. Nabors stated that the CDC could gain an asset from the Provincetown project. Mr. Sibbald stated that using Provincetown as a capitalization tool would result in nothing until approximately 1998. He stated that unless the CDC could capture resources quickly, the available resources would dwindle to nothing in a short time. He suggested that existing staff, including former grant writers, be used to put a project for funding in place. Ms. Nabors noted that the purpose of the CDC was to pool resources, provide technical assistance, and minimize overhead for different organizations. Mr. Sibbald stated that some nonprofit groups felt threatened by the CDC and that the CDC was seen as a competing entity for resources. He further stated that the CDC had not started as project -specific, was now trying to turn project -specific without leadership, and doubted that it had the wherewithal to make a project happen. Mr. Robin advised the Board concerning Pioneer. A proposed mobile home park developer is approaching the City with an annexation and rezoning application, for 200-300 units of mobile homes, just south of the previous Summitview site. The applicant is asking for MM zoning without a PUD condition for use by right. The project will appear first before Council in September for annexation and then Planning and Zoning later in September. In response to questions by the Board, Mr. Robin stated that the project was new, but he anticipated opposition, as with prior proposals. The developer is willing to take Pioneer residents who have acceptable homes. Pioneer has 170 units remaining. Mr. Robin stated that Shelley Stephens has applied to HUD for emergency Section 8s for Pioneer residents, not limited to Fort Collins. Mr. Donaldson is negotiating with Rusty Collins of Neighbor -to -Neighbor to provide counseling and a clearinghouse for AHB Minutes August 3, 1995 Page 7 funding for the Pioneer residents. The City held an information session with Pioneer residents and received a number of applications for home assistance, a dozen of which were for home ownership. Mr. Donaldson is also assisting residents in selling their mobile homes. Board members discussed the market for used trailers. Mr. Robin stated that the City is initiating an RFP process for a grant for mobile home park relocation assistance or home buyer assistance. $235,000 is allocated to that effort. Mr. Sibbald advised Mr. Robin to also write the RFP for a loan process to allow CDBG funds to be loaned to a for -profit enterprise. Mr. Sibbald stated that costs can be a detriment to a developer, so that if a low -interest CDBG loan were available to a private developer, it could stimulate some applications. Board members discussed the advantage of loan programs and redistributing loan income for other projects. Mr. Robin gave the Board an overview of Pioneer residents' feelings at the City information meeting. They have expressed frustration, particularly with the City, have retained an attorney, and may seek litigation against the City. The history of the project was discussed: the City stating it would not abandon the Pioneer issue; the expectations that the statement raised; and the situation as it now exists. Mr. Robin stated that although some residents are interested in home assistance, the majority wish to move their units to a new park. Mr. Robin noted the ineffectiveness of the recent survey. The residents did not want the City involved in the survey. Survey questions included: income levels, without defining the categories; and prior knowledge of rezoning. The residents were generally not in favor of moving to apartments. The residents wish another mobile home park to be available to them. In response to a query by Ms. Greer, Mr. Robin and the Board discussed the original Donaldson Summitview proposal. Although problems existed in the proposal, the denial was due to neighborhood opposition. In response to a comment about miscommunication at the Council meeting, Mr. Sibbald stated that Council members were explained the meaning of their vote in unequivocal terms and that the applicant was approved with rezoning to IL, which was unacceptable. Mr. Robin noted that the new developer would abandon the project if MM zoning were not granted. Mr. Browning asked if the Pioneer residents were being informed that a mobile home park was going to be available. Mr. Robin stated that he was informing people of the type of proposal; that there were no guarantees; that he encouraged residents to explore other options. Mr. Browning and Mr. Sibbald stated that the residents are aware that no mobile home parks are available before Pioneer is redeveloped but that the City and Housing Authority assured residents otherwise. Mr. Sibbald expressed doubt that emergency Section 8 assistance would be available. Mr. Robin noted the existence of the special reserve fund to which application was being made. Mr. Sibbald compared the Pioneer issue with the hurricane destruction of mobile homes in Pensacola and the need for emergency AHB Minutes August 3, 1995 Page 8 assistance in that setting. Mr. Robin concurred but stated that the Pioneer situation did fall under the guidelines for emergency assistance. Mr. Sibbald and Mr. Browning stated that the City and Housing Authority had not abided by their commitment to the Pioneer residents, and that the residents view the City and Housing Authority as one entity. Mr. Robin reported on his recent visit to Pioneer and echoed the residents' frustrations. Mr. Sibbald expressed some bafflement on City actions in rezoning, displacement of the residents, and views on the Harmony Corridor Plan. Mr. Robin expressed hope that the current proposal would be approved; Mr. Sibbald stated that it would not be timely for the Pioneer residents. Mr. Robin informed the Board that Mr. Donaldson would be willing to delay redevelopment of the Pioneer site should other mobile home sites become available. Mr. Browning, stated that the prior rezoning effort may have been motivated more to prevent litigation than to move the park. Ms. Cosgrove asked that the Board work plan be placed on the next agenda, to be specifically addressed. She stated that the Utility Department is willing to present new ideas in response to the Board's previously expressed concerns. The Utility Department has stated that some of the items they reported on were in error, and they wished to clarify those issues for the Board. Problems were discovered as a result of the Board's statements. Mr. Sibbald stated that a fiscal analysis study will be reviewed by Council in October, a portion of which will be a range of new impact fees to be levied on developments. Mr. Sibbald requested a short memo from staff enumerating the elements of that discussion. He stated that new fees will be added and masked as growth -related. He does not feel that the proposals will viably include affordable housing as an exception. Ms. Greer asked whether progress had been made on the Planning and Zoning appeal process. Ms. Cosgrove and Mr. Sibbald stated that the Board's recommendation had been declined by Council in work session. Nothing further has been heard from HUD concerning the conflict of interest situation. Mr. Robin stated that he would advise the Board of HUD's response. Mr. Browning moved for adjournment, seconded by Ms. Nabors. Upon a unanimous vote, the meeting adjourned at 5:55 p.m.