Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAffordable Housing Board - Minutes - 12/04/2014CITY OF FORT COLLINS AFFORDABLE HOUSING BOARD BOARD MEETING MINUTES CIC Room, City Hall 300 Laporte Ave Fort Collins, Colorado December 4, 2014 4:00–6:00pm Chair: Troy Jones Staff Liaison: Sue Beck-Ferkiss 970-221-6753 City Council Liaison: Lisa Poppaw Board Members present: Troy Jones, Diane Cohn, Curt Lyons, Eloise Emery, Terence Hoaglund, Tatiana Martin Board Members absent: Jeffrey Johnson Staff present: Sue Beck-Ferkiss, Social Sustainability Specialist; Dianne Tjalkens, Board Support; Beth Rosen, Affordable Housing Specialist Council Members present: None Guests: none Meeting called to order by Troy Jones at 4:08pm. AGENDA REVIEW No changes. PUBLIC COMMENT None. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Diane moved to approve the November 13, 2014 minutes as presented. Tatiana seconded. Motion passed unanimously, 6-0-0. NEW BUSINESS ITEM 1: AFFORDABLE HOUSING BOARD WORK PLAN Sue created a draft based on last month’s discussion, tying the work plan to the City’s seven key outcome areas. She prioritized the goals, and requested input. The board discussed changes and Sue took note of edits. Discussion/Q & A: • Tatiana asked to eliminate the verbiage about prioritization, and change the formatting from numbers to bullets. • Diane asked to have the goals read to the group. Sue read each item and gave explanations. • Sue reminded members that the board charge is to advise Council and working with others is done in order to gain information to better advise Council. The board may engage the public for educational purposes. • Troy said he is surprised it is not in the bylaws to work with the CDBG Commission. Sue said the Commission’s bylaws mention the Affordable Housing Board. • Troy added that the competitive process is buried in the work plan. He would like it to have more prominence. • Tatiana does not feel Fort Collins Housing Authority (FCHA) needs to be specifically called out in the work plan as the board does not discuss the FCHA report and it does not affect the work of the board. • Troy requested the competitive process be at the beginning of the work plan and have its own paragraph. The board has two special meetings per year for this purpose and it is a significant undertaking. • Eloise said this document should communicate to anyone in the public what we do, and make it clear. • Diane suggested putting the paragraph on the three key strategies toward the end. The strategies give the context of why we do what we are doing. • Tatiana suggested viewing this as you would a resume. Sue suggested it is more of a roadmap, but we do want the data to be clear. • Diane suggested the competitive process be added to the list of nine work items. The primary roles of the board should be listed at the top. • Eloise added that “continue to play a critical role” is very vague. Sue explained that the board’s role is morphing and we are unsure what the role will be. It may be beneficial to remain vague. • Curt said the CDBG Commission gets better presentations than the board. Can the Affordable Housing Board get presentations from applicants? Sue said that is part of the bigger conversation about changes to the competitive process. • Beth Rosen asked if FCHA was called out because of its quasi-judicial relationship to the City. Sue said Council likes this board to have an idea what FCHA is doing and reviewing their report is an easy way to do that. Beth said it could be expanded to monitoring the status of affordable housing developments in the City. Sue said that could go into the articulated roles. We don’t review projects like the Planning and Zoning board does; we are on the policy level, not the project level. • Tatiana added that if we know a project is coming up, we can request a presentation and send a recommendation to Council. • Tatiana said “Recognizing the interdependence of affordable housing and a multitude of other areas…” is a confusing sentence. Sue suggested different language and the board agreed. • Board members requested adding liaisons to the Senior Advisory Board, Commission on Disability and CDBG Commission. Sue added that the Human Relations Commission is now being staffed by Social Sustainability and it would be good to have a board member reviewing their minutes. • Eloise volunteered to liaison for the Commission on Disability and the Human Relations Commission. • Troy said on item 5, the word “funding” is puzzling what it refers to. Sue said that wording came from last year’s work plan. Tatiana suggested removing the word “city” from that item. Sue said the funding is state, federal, and any other source. • Diane added this feels tangential to this board’s role, and more a staff role. Tatiana suggested alternate language. • Terence asked if the board would be included in the discussion of impact fees. Tatiana suggested the board can request a presentation. Sue added that the board can be more proactive in asking to be addressed. • Diane wondered about the language of “investigating” in item 7. The board discussed that investigating is appropriate considering the Housing Affordability Policy Study. • Tatiana would like to address housing affordability to all wage earners in the item relating to efforts to end homelessness. • Curt agreed that he would like to see the board expand its efforts to the whole spectrum of housing needs, rather than just low income housing. • Diane and Eloise agreed that we should include all wage earners without eliminating reference to ending homelessness. • Troy said individual members have volunteered for the Point in Time Count, and homelessness issues should continue to be listed as a separate point. • Beth Rosen asked if the board has a mission statement. Troy said the strategic plan has been used for this purpose. Beth noted that all the bullet points relate to housing affordability across the entire spectrum. She felt homelessness is one aspect of this spectrum that is being called out specifically. She suggested creating a vision for the beginning of the work plan that discusses affordability across the spectrum. Sue took note of suggested language for a vision statement. • Curt added that we are trying to include more middle income people in the housing affordability conversation; we are not really concerned about the top wage earners. • Sue added that affordable housing serves up to 80% AMI. Denver’s plan notes critical need at 0-30% AMI, 30-80% AMI is considered workforce rental, and 60-80% AMI is workforce ownership. Sue clarified the incentives available to affordable housing are for projects that serve people at 80% AMI or below. Those above 80% AMI are not eligible for a subsidy. This is a line the City has drawn. • Beth added this is based on a number HUD publishes annually. • Sue will make edits, send the revisions to the board via email, and the draft can be voted on at the next meeting. ITEM 2: AFFORDABLE HOUSING ANNUAL REPORT Sue reviewed the board’s minutes and correspondence to Council in 2014 and used this information to compile the annual report draft. Discussion/Q & A: • Terence requested adding the date of the board retreat. • Tatiana asked if the board would like to include everything sent to Council. • Diane said the presentations are not included. Sue that is part of the normal work, and it mentions recommendations made as a result of the presentations. Tatiana moved to approve the 2014 Affordable Housing Board Annual Report, as amended. Diane seconded. Motion passed unanimously, 6-0-0. ITEM 3: FEDERAL SOURCE OF FUNDING CRITERIA—BETH ROSEN Beth requests a recommendation from the board to Council in support of having one grant allocation process in the spring, in which all housing funds are available, and an optional process in the fall in the event that excess or additional funds become available. If and when there is funding or a timelines need on the part of an applicant, there could be the possibility of funding in the fall. Currently we hold back HOME funds to allocate in the fall. In August we submit an annual plan to HUD for the dollars received in October. Then the fall process allocates funds from the previous HUD distribution. This year, Council just approved 2014 Affordable Housing Funds for use. All housing applicants could come in together, all the proposed applications for the year would be reviewed, and decisions could be made based on all projects and all available funds. This would allow better alignment of funding to projects. Sue added that the eligible expenses at the federal level shift, which makes it even harder to match funds to projects. Beth provided a hand out and reviewed the funding sources. CDBG funding’s focus is on community building, not housing. These funds must be used to benefit low and moderate income persons, aid in prevention of blight, or meet an urgent need, such as a disaster or emergency. CDBG funds can only be used by the local government or awarded to nonprofit or governmental entities. The City has identified housing as the most important need, so CDBG funds have never been used toward parks, streets, or other blight remediation. It is the responsibility of the City to verify the income eligibility of the person’s served. CDBG has limited eligible housing activities, such as homeowner rehab, down-payment assistance, closing costs, acquisition of property for rental housing, public improvements, etc. New construction is not eligible. CDBG funds can support the construction of new housing, but not pay for construction. An example is that Redtail Ponds got an allocation of CDBG funds, but Beth had to identify eligible costs for reimbursement, which is complicated. For planning purposes it is more sensible to have all projects and all funds reviewed at the same time. Sue added that the Affordable Housing Fund (AHF) is the most flexible funding source. HOME funds are used for housing for low and moderate income households and expanding the capacity of non- profit housing providers. Nonprofits and for-profits are eligible and anything that leads to getting a low income household into housing is an eligible expense. Projects must be vetted for feasibility and agency capacity. There is a requirement that 15% of the annual allocation be set aside for CHDOs. The only active CHDO in Fort Collins is Habitat for Humanity. There are federal regulations for HOME funds. Once funds are put into a development, additional HOME funds cannot be allocated to that project again. On the other hand, CDBG funds can be requested multiple times for the same project, such as in the rehabilitation of the property. HOME funds have additional restrictions that sometimes make them harder to use. For example, if HOME funds are used, the entire property must be brought up to HOME standards. Villages on Cunningham Corner received both CDBG and HOME funds, but a major rehab is being done and will bring the property up to standard. HOME also requires a 25% local match, underwriting criteria, property standard guidelines, and long-term monitoring and compliance. The City has an automatic allocation annually of HOME and CDBG funds based on a formula. Affordable Housing Fund (AHF) has no limits or restrictions, other than being used to support housing. It can be used for the local match, emergency repairs, administrative costs, rental repairs, etc. Discussion/Q & A: • Eloise asked if the flexibility provided by two cycles per year is worth keeping. Beth said this was based on the tax credit allocation process which had two cycles, but has recently condensed to one as well. It is reasonable to expect all applicants to come in once a year, so that we can submit a plan to HUD that covers what we actually plan to do, rather than submit a substantial amendment each year. • Curt asked about CDBOs. Beth said the city does not have any CDBOs now. • Curt asked about the definition of “viable urban community.” Beth said it is the CDBG definition. • Eloise asked if the green community that was proposed at Willox and College would have qualitied. Beth said it is being built by a for-profit developer and is therefore not eligible for CDBG funds. • Troy asked if there was a flood that damaged properties, would it still need to be a nonprofit or government agency that used the funds. Beth said yes. Tatiana said LHIP could apply for the funds and use them to help homeowners. Beth added that in the 1997 flood, the City requested and received disaster relief funds that were used immediately to help displaced people. • Diane asked why there is a minimum allocation for AHF. Beth said that is not per project, but a minimum allocation from the City to the fund. An enhancement offer was accepted in the 2015/16 BFO cycle, so there will be more funds available in the next two years. • Tatiana is concerned whether there will be a reserve put in place in case of a disaster. Sue added that there are always general fund dollars. If Council wanted something funded, we could have an additional competitive process. • Beth added that we may not allocate all $2 million if we do not have good projects. If all funds are not allocated, there would be a fall process as well. • Tatiana said this whole bank of funds is for human services as well. Beth said the human services are always funded in the spring already. • Tatiana asked the negative impacts of the change to the process. Beth said it streamlines the process and eliminates the need of applicants coming in over two or three cycles to get all the funds they need for a single project. • Diane asked if this will help in the bricks and sticks versus public services dilemma. Beth said you would not see more of this issue than previously. Diane added the board wants to make sure it is following its charge to review projects in an equal way. Does this process pull out the social projects? • Beth said it adds another lens for comparison. • Diane said comparing non-development to development is apples to oranges and is frustrating. • Beth said it could look very similar to what the board saw this fall; however, the board would also have $750,000 of CDBG funds. Troy moved the Affordable Housing Board recommend that Council put all grant funds in Spring Competitive Cycle and hold an optional fall cycle as funds are available. Terence seconded. Motion passed unanimously, 6- 0-0. • Tatiana said if you have an out of state developer come in to purchase land, and then the funds are all gone to do land acquisition, they will pull out and we lose a potential project. • Troy said the pros outweigh the cons in that potential scenario. • Diane said when we look at the history of who comes in the fall cycle, they are not generally new. • Sue asked what happened with Cunningham Corners. Beth said the amount of money available was due to a project going bankrupt, making the funds that had been allocated available again. In such a case, under the new process, there would be a fall cycle to allocate the recuperated funds. • Tatiana asked if the CDBG Commission is in support of this. Beth said yes. ITEM 4: HOUSING AFFORDABILITY POLICY STUDY—BOARD FEEDBACK Sue sent the work session summary. Board members are requested to send their notes to Sue. Sue and David Schwartz are considering sending a memo to address items that were not covered in the work session, as she did not receive as much guidance as anticipated. At the first work session Council said they did not want any new taxes, fees, or revenue sources. However, Council is now interested in an Affordable Housing Capital fund. This will be discussed more at the Saturday retreat. One idea brought forward by a Councilmember is to sell the Land Bank properties or the Sherwood property to support the fund. He also suggested a rental licensing and inspection program. This would add safety, but adds fees that may negatively affect affordability and would be too low to fund a capital fund. An example of a cash-in-lieu fee is if a project comes in for TIF, it could receive more funding by building affordable housing units or providing cash-in-lieu, which could contribute to the Affordable Housing Capital Fund. Sue would like to look at each Land Bank property to determine best use of each. Staff goes back to Council in January and the technical team will look at options to bring to Council. The recommendations on influencing existing policies felt good to most, and removal of minimum house size passed on first reading. Land use and municipal code will change. If builders used the minimums under building codes they could get units as small as 200 ft2. The fee structure will be researched in the next fee study and more public outreach will be done. The Affordable Housing Capital fund concept has the most support from Council at this time. Saturday Sue will be presenting to Council on homelessness. At end of January national experts will come in to lead discussions with the community, and will return to discuss more with targeted stakeholders in order to create a plan. Discussion/Q & A: • Troy asked about TIF. Sue said Council liked the idea of creating an Affordable Housing Capital fund, but it was not clear how the money would come in and out of the City. • Diane said she thought the mayor was saying to re-look at the GMA. • Sue said she is unsure that is what the mayor was implying, but there is a request in to Planning to look at removing Mountain Vista from the GMA. • Curt asked why anyone would want to shrink the GMA. Sue said “no growth” is the short answer. • Troy asked if there was discussion around mobile home communities. Sue said there was discussion about the value of mobile home communities and Council members were not in agreement on this topic. It is currently unfunded to make the improvements. If the City had a capital fund, it could be used to support affordable housing including infrastructure improvements. • Troy is happy to hear there is discussion around developing another fund. • Sue said it would be great to have, but the question is where the money comes from for the fund. ITEM 5: MEETING MATTERS—CHANGE AMOUNT OF TIME FOR MONTHLY MEETINGS? Sue noted that the meetings are running beyond the scheduled end time of 6:00pm, but that Dianne, the minute- taker, cannot stay past 6:30pm. The board’s options are to have less on each agenda, be more efficient with time, add more meetings, or change the time of the meeting. Discussion/Q & A: • Troy feels it is important to have the ability to have meetings continue past 6:30pm. • Curt would like to schedule less ambitiously so we don’t preclude dialogue. • Tatiana said things come up last minute that may be important to the board and members need to provide input. We need to be able to wedge things in that need recommendations. • Terence said those go at the beginning of the agenda. • Eloise suggested having a second meeting, every other month. • Curt suggested additional meetings as needed. • Sue said it seems to help to have special meetings for special topics. • Curt said some presentations do not seem relevant to affordable housing and take a half hour or more. For example, the board spent an inordinate amount of time on exterior maintenance and BOB funding. • Sue said when someone asks to come to the board, she can request the speaker only focus on how it affects affordable housing. For example, there was the Vine/Timberline upgrade in BOB2.0, that would affect housing. Also, Redtail II is included in BOB2.0. • Troy said the open board discussion is always scheduled for the end, and is very important, but never gets its time. • Eloise asked if the board could be flexible to meet at different times, such as over lunch for extra meetings. • Sue suggested using Doodle polls for meetings at different times. • Diane said she is busy and wants to put volunteer time in the most effective place. If we just have additional meetings, is that the best use of time? We could tighten up the meetings to be more efficient. She is already doing additional meetings on a subcommittee and liaison-ships that take additional time. • Sue will look into flexibility of minutes and note taking resources, and be more cautious about what makes it onto the agenda. • Tatiana prefers the minutes we have. • Terence said he is already over-scheduled and does not want to add more time. OTHER BUSINESS ITEM 1: OPEN BOARD DISCUSSION • Curt said he learned that it is against Colorado law for a municipality to set its own minimum wage. • Sue will follow up on this and share what she finds. ITEM 2: LIAISON REPORTS • Not discussed. ITEM 3: FUTURE MEETINGS AGENDA • Not discussed. ITEM 4: CITY COUNCIL SIX-MONTH PLANNING CALENDAR REVIEW • Not discussed. – Meeting adjourned at 6:28pm by Troy Jones – The next meeting of the Affordable Housing Board is scheduled for: January 8 at 4:00pm Participants will meet at: Fort Collins City Hall Council Information Center 300 Laporte Ave