The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSupplemental Materials - Ad Hoc Housing Committee - 12/10/2020 - PowerPoint Presentation1Ad Hoc Housing Council Committee December 10, 2020 Ad Hoc Agenda 2 1.Call Meeting to Order 2.Approval of November 12, 2020 Minutes 3.Agenda Review 4.Discussion Items a.Review: Anti-displacement and Housing Stability b.Explore: Funding and Financing for Housing c.Explore: Occupancy and Rental Regulations 5.Next Steps a.Process Check-in b.Future Meetings & Priority Topics Step 8: Implement* (Spring +) Step 7: Consider Adoption* (Feb/Mar) Step 6: Prioritize Strategies* (Jan) Step 5: Evaluate Strategies(Dec) Step 4: ID Strategies, Criteria (Nov/Dec) Step 3: Engage Community (Oct/Nov) Step 2: Greatest Challenges (Sep) Step 1: Vision (Aug) Housing Strategic Plan Process Progress to Date 50+Strategies Identified Thus Far Consultant Support Community Engagement, Priorities Peer Cities & Leading Authors Discussion Item 4 TOPIC: REVIEW ANTI-DISPLACEMENT AND HOUSING STABILITY QUICK(ER) WINS Presenter: •Clay Frickey, Redevelopment Manager Discussion Question: •Would Committee members like to see any of these three quick(er) wins move forward now or be evaluated and considered within the full planning process? Review: Anti-Displacement Quick(er) Wins •Legal defense fund –eviction prevention •Critical once eviction moratorium lifted •$125,000 for 2021 •Support financial literacy programs •Could supplement competitive process •Need to iron out details •Gentrification mapping •GIS able to support •Timeframe for completion TBD 5 Greatest Challenge Alignment: Challenge #6:Housing policies have not consistently addressed housing stability and healthy housing, especially for people who rent. Discussion Question: Would Committee members like to see any of these three quick(er) wins move forward now or be evaluated and considered within the full planning process? Discussion Item 6 TOPIC: EXPLORE FUNDING AND FINANCING STRATEGIES Presenters: •Sue Beck-Ferkiss, Housing Policy and Program Manager •Victoria Shaw, Sr Financial Analyst Discussion Questions: •What feedback or questions do Committee members have on the range of strategies identified? •Would the Committee like staff to explore moving forward on the quick(er) win to partner with Metro DPA to expand down payment assistance opportunities for borrowers with incomes up to $150k? Explore: Funding and Financing Questions addressed •What incentives do we have already? •What have those yielded? •What might they yield in the future? •How did we determine $8.8M gap? •What are possibilities to close that gap? •What are opportunities beyond City funding? 7 Greatest Challenge Alignment: Challenge #3: The City does have some tools to encourage affordable housing, but the current amount of funding and incentives for affordable housing are not enough to meet our goals. Existing Incentives Other Incentives Fee Credits (Previously Waivers)X Private Activity Bond X Development Incentives (Density Bonus, Priority Processing, Fee Delay) X Land Bank Program X X Land Trust Partnership X X X Special Taxing District X Direct Subsidy Serves up to 80% AMI Serves up to 30% AMI Requires Permanent Affordability Requires Ownership Affordable Housing Capital Fund X Competitive Process Grant X Past City Subsidies by Development 9 New Construction Projects: Project - Completion Date:Competitive Process Funding Capital Funds $ Discounted Land Fee Waivers Total City Provided Subsidy # Units Subsidy per unit # Units @ 30% AMI Waiver per Unit Oakridge Crossing $ - -$ -$ 90,923$ $ 90,923 110 $ 827 13 $ 6,994 Redtail Ponds - 2015 1,391,077$ 274,762$ 1,665,839$ 60 27,764$ 40 6,869$ Village on Redwood- 2017 2,719,700$ 100,708$ 2,820,408$ 72 39,172$ 13 7,747$ Village on Horsetooth - 2018 1,125,000$ 233,700$ 352,319$ 1,711,019$ 96 17,823$ 43 8,193$ Mason Place - 2020 1,123,338$ 876,662$ 326,081$ 2,326,081$ 60 38,768$ 60 5,435$ TOTAL:6,359,115$ 876,662$ 233,700$ 1,144,793$ 8,614,270$ 398 21,644$ 169 6,774$ Note: Mason Place per unit waiver is less because it is adaptive reuse Rehab Projects: Project - Completion Date:Competitive Process Funding Capital Funds $ Discounted Land Fee Waivers Total City Provided Subsidy # Units Subsidy per unit Northern Hotel-2018 $675,000 $675,000 47 $14,362 Village on Shields-$3,135,011 $3,135,011 285 $11,000 DMA Plaza -2020 $2,500,000 $2,500,000 124 $20,161 TOTAL:$6,310,011 $0 $0 $0 $6,310,011 456 $13,838 Home Ownership: Project - Completion Date: Competitive Process Funding Capital Funds $ Discounted Land Fee Waivers Total City Provided Subsidy # Units Subsidy per unit Avondale Cottages - 2016 $745,000 $745,000 10 $74,500.00 Harmony Cottages - Phase I - 2020 $480,000 $480,000 12 $40,000.00 Harmony Cottages - Phase II - 2021 $400,000 $400,000 8 $50,000.00 TOTAL:$1,625,000 $1,625,000 30 $54,166.67 Median Subsidy: $27,764/unit Median Excluding Rehab: $38,970/unit Limits of Existing Direct Subsidy •Competitive Process Funding has been $1.5M-$3M per year •At median subsidy, would support 38-77 units •Affordable Housing Capital Fund has $500,000 per year (Thru 2025) •At median subsidy, would support 12 units •This can also be used as a funding source to provide fee credits •City leverage aim is 10:1 or better •Existing resources have largely been maximized for potential already 10 Breakdown of $8.8M Gap •Median gap of ~$39k/unit from prior developments (2015-2020) •Need to deliver 228 units/year to reach goal •$38,970 * 228 = $8.8M •Caveats •Median cost means half of projects have required more •Many prior projects featured one-time funding opportunities •Existing sources like PAB already maximized •Raw material costs have already risen •Land cost may also rise towards build-out •Marginal cost per unit expected to increase •Assumes we only need 228 units/yr 11 Generating Additional Revenue •No Silver Bullet •Any single mechanism would likely have to be maxed out to reach $8.8M annual yield, with significant negative consequences •Portfolio approach will be most stable •Options for expanding existing funding sources •Options for adding additional funding sources 12 Potential Scale for Direct Opportunities 13 Action Opportunity Potential Yield Expand Affordable Housing Fund Scalable –Medium to High Expand Affordable Housing Capital Fund (New dedicated sales tax) Scalable –Medium to High Pursue Residential & Commercial linkage fees Scalable -Medium to High Explore General Obligation Bond for Affordable Housing One-time -Medium Explore Tax Increment Financing in new URA areas Opportunity based -Low Explore Demolition Tax or Fee Opportunity Based -Low Indirect & Influence Opportunities •PAB availability & requirements •LIHTC •Maximizing State and Federal Programs •Expand partnerships •Metro districts •Metro DPA program (potential quick(er) win) •Community Land Trusts •Health organizations •Employers 14 Discussion Questions: •What feedback or questions do Committee members have on the range of strategies identified? •Would the Committee like staff to explore moving forward on the quick(er) win to partner with Metro DPA to expand down payment assistance opportunities for borrowers with incomes up to $150k? Discussion Item 15 TOPIC: EXPLORE OCCUPANCY AND RENTAL REGULATIONS Presenters: •Marcy Yoder, Neighborhood Services Manager •Justin Moore, Code Compliance Lead Inspector •Shelby Sommer, CU Denver Masters Student Discussion Questions: •Is there openness to explore what tools best achieve the vision and balance the tension inherent in this solution, given the community feedback and interest? •If staff begins to scope this conversation, what are the key considerations Councilmembers want to see included? What additional questions need to be explored and/or answered? Explore: Occupancy & Rental Regulations Currently 3 unrelated people or a family plus 1 unrelated person."U+2" Intent is reduced neighborhood issues (parking still # 1) by limiting occupancy. Complaint-based: 160 to 200 cases annually 1/3 to 1/2 found in violation 16 Greatest Challenge Alignment: Challenge #6:Housing policies have not consistently addressed housing stability and healthy housing, especially for people who rent. Current State The 2018 Corona Insights Survey highlighted a couple of key points: • There is a shift in profile of occupancy ordinance violators. •In 2005, 71% of violators were college students. •In 2018 only 47% are estimated to be students. • The ordinance is well known with 89% of residents being aware of it. Many are neutral towards it, but more residents support the ordinance (42%) than oppose it (24%). The biggest split is homes with a college student are more likely to oppose the ordinance than support it, while homes without a student have the opposite stance. • Proximity to suspected ordinance violators is correlated with lower neighborhood quality ratings. 17 Community Engagement •Participants saw zoning and occupancy restrictions as a significant barrier to having enough housing and to having housing that is affordable to all residents. •Assumptions:Eliminating U+2 will •Create more affordable housing •Create more housing units •Destroy my neighborhood –go back to multiple negative impacts parking, noise, trash, etc. 18 Everyone has healthy, stable housing they can afford.-City of Fort Collins Draft Housing Vision Healthy Stable Affordable 1 in 4 households report a family member with a respiratory ailment 46.9% housing units are renter-occupied 60.6% rental households are cost-burdened Sources: City of Fort Collins Air Quality Division, 2018 American Community Survey 5-year Estimates Research Approach 1. Literature Review 2. Community Benchmarking 3. Community Interviews 50 communities screened 20 communities researched 14 benchmarking criteria per community Ames, Iowa Austin, Texas Boulder, Colorado Westminster, Colorado How could the City of Fort Collins regulate rental housing to help achieve the vision? Regulating Rental Housing Oc c u p a n c y •Limits number of individuals in a dwelling unit •Minimal impact on health and safety •30% of communities reviewed have a “unique occupancy” element •FC could pair U plus 2 with other rental regulation(s) Re g i s t r a t i o n •Disclose rental unit and provide basic information •Helpful to establish a baseline •60% of communities reviewed have a registration element •More effective in addressing health and safety if paired with inspection Li c e n s i n g •Obtain a license to rent a unit •Provides motivation to comply since license can be revoked •30% of communities reviewed have a licensing element •More effective in addressing health and safety if paired with inspection In s p e c t i o n •Examination of dwelling unit conditions •Best way to ensure health and safety •90% of communities reviewed have an inspection element •Can phase or scale to address a subset of properties How could the City of Fort Collins regulate rental housing to help achieve the vision? Fort Collins, CO Ames, IA Austin, TX Boulder, CO Westminster, CO •Focus on neighborhood quality •Primarily complaint-based system (tricky to enforce) •No cost-recovery •Varied inspection intervals •Full cost recovery through program fees •Concerns about a higher standard for rental properties •Administration by fire department •Incident in 2012 prompted program development •Focus on properties with a pattern of violations •Need to better scale qualifying criteria to property size •Funded through utility bill fee •Print occupancy limits on licenses •Strong linkage with parking enforcement program •SmartRegs introduced in 2012 •Third party inspectors •Focus on townhomes and condos •Registration on honor system •Effective inspections(gas-flame appliance example) •Concerns about administrative citation effectiveness Community Interview Summary Occupancy Registration Licensing Inspection Recommendations for Fort Collins How could the City of Fort Collins regulate rental housing to help achieve the vision? Development •Carefully define problem(s) before advancing solution(s) •Engage diverse stakeholders •Examine for alignment or conflicts with other requirements Administration •Emphasize education and easy to understand information •Explore non-City partnerships •Consider sustainable funding sources Other •Do not expect to eliminate retaliation (real or fear of) •Research potential impacts on housing affordability •Collaborate with other Colorado communities and the State of Colorado Options for consideration •Revise current occupancy code •Streamline and expand Extra Occupancy Rental House Process •Create an option for Extra Occupancy for homeowners adding renters/boarders to the dwelling they occupy •End occupancy code and replace with •Rental registration •Rental licensing •Revisit nuisance codes that address parking, noise, trash, etc. 24 Discussion Questions: •Is there openness to explore what tools best achieve the vision and balance the tension inherent in this solution, given the community feedback and interest? •If staff begins to scope this conversation, what are the key considerations Councilmembers want to see included? What additional questions need to be explored and/or answered? Step 8: Implement (Spring +) Step 7: Consider Adoption (Feb/Mar) Step 6: Prioritize Strategies (Jan) Step 5: Evaluate Strategies(Dec) Step 4: ID Strategies, Criteria (Nov) Step 3: Engage Community (Oct/Nov) Step 2: Greatest Challenges (Sep) Step 1: Vision (Aug) Overall Next Steps Key 2021 Dates: •January 7, 2021 -Draft Plan released •Jan 7 -Jan 21 -Community review •Jan 21 -Feb 3 -Staff Revisions •Jan 26 –Council Work Session –Strategy Prioritization, Plan Indicators, & Guiding Principles •Feb 16 –Adoption (1st Reading) 2020 Next Steps: •Incorporate remaining strategies •Begin strategy evaluation •Design process for strategy prioritization •Draft plan for January release Next Steps Where to Head Next 26 August: Overall Focus & Priorities September: Challenges & Existing Conditions October: Housing Types & Zoning November: Housing Types & Zoning; Displacement and gentrification December: Displacement and gentrification; Funding & Financing; U+2, Rental licensing January: Strategy prioritization, Review of Funding & Financing February: Plan Deep Dive March: Implementation, End-of-Term April: Where to Head Next •Systemic racism and housing •Applying an equity lens •Displacement and gentrification •Differing perceptions of density and NIMBY •Preserving existing affordable housing •Public/private partnerships or Innovative Partnerships •Dedicated funding source •“Missing Middle” Housing Types •ADUs and Tiny Homes •Expanding home ownership •Demand-side strategies, e.g., livable wage •U+2, Rental licensing, tenant protections •City Goals and Alignment, e.g., climate action •City’s financing tools, e.g., CDBG & CCIP •Nexus of economic policies and housing affordability Italics indicate these topics have been discussed or highlighted at prior meetings Process Check-in 27 Commitment made to check-in on process and content Discussion Prompts: •What feedback do Councilmembers have on the pre-work? •What feedback do Councilmembers have on the process overall? •Any adjustments for the December meeting? 28 BACKUP 29 Housing Affordability Along the Income Spectrum AMI 0% Below 80% AMI is City’s Definition of Affordable Housing 80% $69.7K/yr 200%100% $87.2K/yr 120% $105K/yr $415K Market Housing $320KPurchase Price Goal is defined by AHSP (188-228 units/year) Fewer attainable options are available to Middle Income Earners Goal is harder to define & City influence may be outweighed by market forces Occupancy Cases 2018-2020 30