Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAffordable Housing Board - Minutes - 02/05/2015MINUTES CITY OF FORT COLLINS AFFORDABLE HOUSING BOARD Date: Monday, February 5, 2015 Location: CIC Room, City Hall, 300 Laporte Ave. Time: 4:00–6:00pm For Reference Troy Jones, Chair Lisa Poppaw, Council Liaison 970-817-0587 Sue Beck-Ferkiss, Staff Liaison 970-221-6753 Board Members Present Board Members Absent Troy Jones Diane Cohn Curt Lyons Eloise Emery Tatiana Martin Jeffrey Johnson Terence Hoaglund Staff Present Sue Beck-Ferkiss, Social Sustainability Specialist Beth Rosen, Affordable Housing Program Administrator Dianne Tjalkens, Admin/Board Support Councilmembers Present Guests Call to order: Troy Jones called to order at 4:02pm. Agenda Review: Nominations and elections have been added to the agenda. Public Comment: none Member Comments: Eloise is attending Commission on Disability and Human Relations Commission as our liaison. Review and Approval of Minutes Tatiana moved to approve the January 8, 2015 minutes as amended. Curt seconded. Motion passed unanimously, 7-0-0. Correction: 3rd page, Curt’s comment, change “under-inflation” to “underemployment” AGENDA ITEM 1: Underwriting Criteria for Federal Funding—Beth Rosen Beth reviewed the affordable housing underwriting criteria for ranking projects. The document explains requirements for rehabilitation, non-displacement, relocation, eligibility, etc. When federal guidelines are not met, Beth will determine quickly and let the board know for which funds the project is eligible/not-eligible. This allows Beth to align projects to appropriate funding sources. Document also explains to applicants the minimum project requirements, jurisdictional boundaries, eligible costs, etc. Federal funds are more restrictive, but the City uses the federal restrictions as guidelines for City funds as well. The applicant needs to have site control, appraisals before funds are released, reasonable costs, affirmative marketing plans, compliance with land use codes, etc. These are minimum thresholds that need to be understood before applying. Affordability requirements include restrictive covenants for minimum 20 years. Income determination methods are described, as well as occupancy and rent restrictions, how to comply with federal guidelines, accountability for the affordability period, income levels, site visits, and monitoring. Providers now have missions of affordability. For-profits may require more scrutiny. HOME program requires underwriting guidelines. Can differentiate what is mandatory for HOME versus other programs. HOME will only allow one time funding, so underwriting needs to show sustainability, which is good practice for projects. Current providers who come in for rehab, will have review of cumulative funds received and cannot receive HOME again. Example: Coachlight Plaza window replacement will show acquisition cost, rehab costs, and current request. Building new units is the main priority. New construction should be sustainable for 20 years. Types of development to fund: acquisition, acquisition with rehab (including comprehensive needs assessment), and new construction. Rehab only requests don’t require comprehensive needs assessment, though is best practice; it is good to know condition of property and what else needs repair and rehab. Beth will let board know questions to ask when looking at projects. New development requires third party market assessment. Making sure do not over-subsidize projects; making sure understand developer capacity; want to know developer’s fees; loan-to-value limits; developer must understand conditions for predevelopment reimbursement; neighborhood compatibility (do not fund substandard housing or locations); compliance with City codes; capital needs assessment; accessibility; etc. Beth asked board to provide feedback on document. This is a screening tool for staff to provide input and ranking to the Affordable Housing Board (AHB) and CDBG Commission so they can ask good questions in before making recommendations. Sue added that this is a tool and aide for people applying as it pulls all funding requirements together in one place. Comments/Q&A • How do you remedy a violation of affordability restriction? o Right to enforce by repayment, compliance, or foreclosure. • How do you know reliability of the needs assessment? o Third party assessment. • When they do come back, there is flexibility to award more but boards will be informed of all funds given. o If they come in 15 years later, even if not initially honest/accurate about future needs, must balance resident needs/wellbeing as well. • Before this, how did applicants find answers to questions? o Was not all in one place. Had multiple manuals. • Coordinating with Strategic Plan—waiting for it to be done to finalize this? o HOME projects contracted before September will have to comply. o Not a rule book, but a how-to. o Brings together existing documents as a guide. o Ask City attorney if need to adopt this document. • If AHB or CDBG Commission has ultimate decision, should be made clear these are guidelines staff use to vet and make process fair, but ultimate decision is not staff. o Competitive process is explained in document, but can make it clearer that this is a document for staff to use to vet projects and align funds. o If tool and not policy (does not restrict decision making), perhaps doesn’t need adoption. o Document could take projects out of running for HOME and/or CDBG funding, but AHF monies still available. o Criteria can prevent project from moving forward. o Not new rules though. Way to communicate rules. • Have years with more funds, and ones with less. We’re asking to plan ahead for 20 years, but might not have enough funds. We may need flexibility to break up funding to finance good projects. o AHF if unallocated does not go away. Does not have timeliness issue federal funds have. Flip side is being mindful of projects desired and being able to hold funds for better projects. o Putting most of money into one cycle in future, which will help. If only give fraction of what asked for, how do we tell them they can’t come back? o Acquisition/Rehab section shows need for due diligence. If know about deferred maintenance, can come in as a phased project. • Beth will ask City attorney if document should be adopted by Council, if needs support from AHB and CDBG Commission, or can be implemented administratively. HOME requires underwriting guidelines. • This can be beneficial to bringing new developers into affordable housing. • Embrace best practices, but if HOME has requirements, maybe put those all in one place as federal requirements. Some circumstances where can take more risk, and can use City funds. Need to understand parameters. Example is when complete rehab at one time will cause major displacement, while can be done in phases and avoid displacement. o A consultant assisted with this document. o Comprehensive needs assessment is mandatory for HOME only. Example: project comes in multiple years for multiple rehabs, but would have been better to know actual condition and capital needs of property before starting funding rehabs. Look at projects holistically with full knowledge of all needs. o Would be strategic for projects to disclose capital needs in advance. • Board will review and make suggestions via email. Beth will return for vote. AGENDA ITEM 2: Fee Study Memorandum from the City Finance department Sue said Jessica Ping-Small said this study does not answer the question the board has on balancing fees to structure size. Troy would like more information on true impact of smaller house sizes. Sue is unsure if Finance will do a study that will answer the board’s question, but will follow up with Jessica. This study was geared toward revenue diversification. Comments/Q&A • Two years ago had presentation on fee structure analysis, but did not touch on small homes, ADUs, etc. o It had been 10-15 years since review of the fee structure. • AHB should review the Capital Improvement Expansion Fees document that was reviewed in 2012. • Should bring this issue up at Council. Through HAPS have identified small house, minimum house size has been taken care of, still have this issue. Next steps on solution we have started. Get them excited about assigning a new study to Finance or other department. • Increasing fees on small homes and decreasing on large homes encourages larger homes which is not environmentally responsible. Goes against triple bottom line. o Minutes from meeting two years ago said fees on smaller units went up as factor of household size. o Can look at AIS from the Council meeting to get summary of Capital Improvement Expansion Fees document.  Sue will find and forward to board. • Finance is looking at fees as revenue source, not in terms of affordability. o Triple bottom line terms. Finance needs to look at how benefits community. o Look at water, sewer, etc. impact of smaller homes compared to larger. o No one is building small homes locally. Can get info from other communities. o Can use modelling.  Getting real fee numbers is difficult from pro-forma to Planning committing to fees. If have hypothetical situation, could put rough numbers to it. • Infill versus redevelopment. Schools in Old Town have extra capacity; outskirts are at capacity. Impact on system already in place versus new home in greenfield with new infrastructure. o Redevelopment/infill project with underutilized infrastructure should not pay same fees as that which requires new infrastructure regardless of size. o Where do we have surplus infrastructure? o Small house is different issue than excess capacity on infrastructure. • Cameron Gloss did infill study about 8 years ago. May have potential to be an ally. • Sue will send AIS to board. If get clear on issue can request Council assign impact study for equitable share of fees. o Troy and Curt will meet with Cameron and Sue, and then brief the board. Board will decide of subcommittee necessary at March meeting. o If going to make argument that surplus capacity in infrastructure, mapping will be useful. o Look at under-enrollment in schools. AGENDA ITEM 3: Nominations and/or Election of Affordable Housing Board Officers for 2015 Officers can serve two years if they choose. Board agreed to maintain current roles. Call for nominations: Curt nominated Troy as Chair and Tatiana as Vice-Chair. Terence seconded. Motion passed unanimously, 7-0-0. Jeffrey moved and Diane seconded a motion to appoint Troy as the Affordable Housing Board Chair for 2015. Motion passed unanimously, 7-0-0. Jeffrey moved and Diane seconded a motion to appoint Tatiana as the Affordable Housing Board Vice-Chair for 2015. Motion passed unanimously, 7-0-0. AGENDA ITEM 4: Affordable Housing Board Work Plan Tatiana moved and Eloise seconded a motion to adopt the 2015 Affordable Housing Board Work Plan as presented. Motion passed unanimously, 6-0-1. Jeffrey was not present for vote. AGENDA ITEM 5: Housing Affordability Policy Study: Land Bank update Soliciting proposal for full market analysis of land bank properties—external evaluation to compare to internal study. Have completed appraisals. Internal committee consists of planners, Finance, and Economic Health. There is potential for CMO to funds the new analysis. Staff may look at getting one or more properties ready to sell in the next year or two. Staff tried to get transitional housing into the Kechter property, but had planning/development needs, so will rent property instead. Committee will look at viability of putting properties into play, whether should acquire new properties, and whether ordinance needs to be changed regarding deposition. Sue is working on update memo to Council, and will share at later date. Some HAPS recommendations are moving into the 5-Year Housing Strategic Plan that the subcommittee has been working on. Superboard meeting will be March 9 for Strategic Plan at Museum of Discovery, 6:00–7:30pm. All boards and commissions are invited to participate. Committee members will facilitate. Staff is working on the outreach plan now. AGENDA ITEM 6: Other Business Open Board Discussion • Jeff spoke during public comment at Council meeting. Talked about HAPS and thanked Council for interest in affordable housing and three things implemented from HAPS: increase in HBA, amendment to land use code to eliminate 800ft2 minimum, and lobbying for changes to construction defect law. Need multi-prong approach for housing affordability. Message was well received. Should continue using public comment. • Tatiana will attend March Council meeting—announce superboard meeting. • Planning for future public comments: o Board will select who will attend next Council meeting monthly. o Keep message positive and factual. o Also address needs/what is not being worked on. Follow up with memo. o Or send memo in advance. o April 21 topic: Land Bank o New Council and mayor in May. Can introduce board and purpose. • Does the board need to know about Economic Health Strategic Plan? o Working on strategic plans as a service area. Economic Health makes opportunities along employment continuum; Social Sustainability focuses on getting people ready for employment. • Diane is member of Interfaith Council (IFC): starting place of Food Bank., CARE housing, HPI, and others. This year, focus of IFC is affordable housing. Sue will be honored at annual dinner in April. May, will have regular meeting program to educate members on affordable housing. Late October panel discussion on shared and creative housing (ex: L’Arche community, for people caring with those with disabilities) and how we live together. IFC is comprised of approx. 30 faith based orgs and 30 non-profit orgs. Liaison Reports • None. Future Meetings Agenda • March 5: Beth Rosen, fee study memorandum discussion • March 26: Spring Competitive Process special meeting • May 7: Tentative Murphy Center and/or Redtail tour • Unscheduled: Update from FCHA Review of City Council 6 Month Agenda Planning Calendar • Not discussed. Meeting Adjourned: 6:04pm Next Meeting: March 5