Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAugust2019_Open House Feedback Summary 9.5.19 1 Public Open House Summary of Feedback August 20, 2019 I. Summary of Feedback—pages 2 & 3 II. All Comments Organized by Station—Appendix A 2 I. Summary of Feedback The purpose of the August community open houses was to solicit input on proposed strategies developed by the Housing Working Group, in conjunction with technical expertise from consultants. The open houses provided an opportunity for the community to weigh in on the work to-date of the working group. The August open houses were the second opportunity in the Community Housing Action Plan process for public feedback as shown above in the blue circles. This document provides a brief summary of themes that emerged from the collected comments at the open houses. It is estimated that approximately 50 people attended the two open houses at the downtown library. Members of the working group staffed the various stations at the open houses and helped gather feedback. The full set of comments from the August open houses are presented in Appendix A for your review. This document will be reviewed by the Housing Working Group to inform their planning session in September. 3 Summary of Themes OBJECTIVES Regarding Community Housing Action Plan objectives: Jobs/Homes Ratio: Comments generally supported the objective of producing at least 350 below market rate units (under 150% AMI) per year to keep up with job growth. A few found this ambitious and others wanted more. Number of Homes Built/Preserved: Participants were asked to provide feedback on preferred metric to track the progress of the Plan. Participants expressed a preference that either a numerical goal (in total or by AMI level) be used, or a percentage of units produced. Own/rent Ratio Objective: Respondents generally agreed that the current own/rent ratio (44%/56%) should either be retained or ownership boosted slightly. Income Target Objective: There was general agreement that the full range of incomes should be served, including safety net programs, rentals below 80% AMI and ownership housing up to 120% AMI. Very few recommended going higher than 120% AMI and several indicated 80% AMI and below seemed to be the highest need given area wages and incomes. STRATEGIES Regarding the strategies, general themes included: • Produce a diversity of product at the range of needed prices; • Consider the community impacts of any incentives provided for community housing production; and • Work to preserve existing affordable homes in addition to creating new ones. Regarding the themes from the various strategy categories: Preservation: Responses were mostly supportive of preserving newly created community housing as affordable through permanent, or at least long-term, deed restrictions. The concept of a land trust to oversee management, maintenance and compliance was also supported. Regulations and incentives: More comments than not generally desired that requirements for housing should span commercial and residential (single family and multi-family) alike; however, requirements should be joined and balanced with incentives and consider potential impact on landowners. 4 There was general agreement with the top tier incentives (fee waiver/deferral and removal of regulatory barriers). Accessory dwelling units was a lower tier incentive that received several comments in support. Funding: Several concepts were raised, including Tax Increment Financing (TIF), housing bond, fee on short-term rentals and alternative taxes, such as luxury tax or a tax on second homeowners. Some concerns over raising property taxes (mil levy) as a preferred option were raised. Partnerships/Land: There was general support for the idea of exploring partnerships with various local public agencies--- city, county, school district, hospital, etc. to provide land for community housing production. Comments also expressed the need to balance other priorities for the land such as open space, agricultural land, parks, recreation and housing concerns. It was also desired that annexations are not lost in the mix – those lands should be considered as well. Programs: Top tier community housing programs were generally supported (permanent supportive housing and down payment assistance). Respondents supported pairing down payment assistance with employer programs and suggested financial literacy courses should be provided in the schools. Lower tier programs receiving the most interest included: co-op housing for mobile home parks and employer-assisted housing programs. A-1 II. Appendix A: All Comments Organized by Station Station 1: Setting the Context Feedback on Process, Income Bridge, Working Group, Community Housing Definition ● Community Housing Definition ○ Add mobile homes, modular housing should be mentioned ○ Add mobile homes to definition ○ This is too broad ● Working Group ○ Do-ers: Builders need to be part of plan ○ Where is the input from people that borrow and risk to go vertical – plan check, financial viability key to plan ● Smaller builders’ input Feedback on Housing Needs ● Single parent home data—missing, would like to see this (SS$ single moms not able to cover 60%) ● Local funding needed for all incomes ● Minimum wage job = rent affordable at $450, 30-50% AMI Feedback on Objectives Income Targets - Draft Objective: Community housing should serve the full range of incomes without losing sight of safety net programs. Focus on rentals below 80% AMI, entry-level ownership from 80% to 120% AMI, and safety net rentals below 30% AMI. Question: Are the income targets appropriate? • Focus on 80-120% AMI • Focus on 120% • AMI 100-150% priority – How can city focus on strategies in this area • 60-120% focus A-2 • Define narrowly (Community Housing) • Focus on higher to ownership • Focus on where need is biggest—80% AMI and below • Skewed toward higher incomes need to get back to a level playing field • Need to have ownership housing in the lower range too (to 80% AMI) • Spread focus to 30-140% AMI safety net programs some below 30% • Focus on 60-100% AMI (4) • 80% AMI below should be focus – these people ‘til jobs filled • Focus on range of income • Spectrum that shows programs under 120% • Need more incentives for middle class rentals • Focus on all incomes but with different approaches • All but with different approach • Missing program for 30%-80% • Are relative proportions of safety net/rentals/entry level ownership? Reasonable given prospective growth in these categories for regulation? • Focus on 60%-100% AMI. Build homes to own in this range. Keeps stability in employment force. Own/Rent Ratio - Draft Objective: Aim for about the same mix as current (44% own/56% rent) or a slightly higher ownership ratio. Question: Is the current own/rent ratio objective appropriate? • More affordable rentals for the middle class. No, $1400 for 100% is not affordable • Aim for higher ownership rate at least 60%. Address supply and demand. Get state, city + county involved • Increase ownership percentage Jobs/Homes Ratio - Objective: Produce community housing at a rate that exceeds, or at least matches, job growth. (i.e., at least 350 below market units per year – below 150% AMI for ownership and below 80% for rental) Question: Is objective too ambitious, too low, or about right? • Tie AMI targets to actual jobs available/wages; wages = dent affordability • Match growth take care of people here now • Pace depends on type of job • Doesn’t account for in-migration • Too much growth • Loss of existing “affordable” because of growth A-3 • Exceed job growth • Focus growth on 60% + exceed employment growth Number of Homes (Built/Preserved) - Objective: An objective by which to measure progress is desired, but the preferred approach is unclear. Top selections include: strive for an achievable number; base on the percentage of community housing built; or base on the number of homes needed to match job growth. Question: Should objective be based on achievable amount, % of units, # to keep up with job growth or other? • Use #s • Base measure off of affordable #s - approved, preapproved, concept. • Number of units/year, clear and easy to wrap head around • How many and distribution? • % of units that are not • # based on % • Measure - % + # • Measure plan: 1) % and 2) units per AMI • % + number in class and peg to demographics General Comments on Various Topics ● Use established programs to gain support and show it can work ○ Show progress to build momentum for partnership ○ Action: Show progress since needs assessment on next placemat ● For future ○ Public comments host at both fire station and library ● Outreach station at Farmers Market ● Should have been announcement about venue change ● Don’t treat us a like a ski resort town ● Wetland mitigation - keep wetlands in place where they are, mitigating elsewhere is not working. ● More regulations on short term rentals. City has some regulations but (?) ● How do we keep homes affordable for people who already own homes. Specifically, concerned about seniors who want to age in place – can we (?) their property taxes so they can stay in their homes perhaps only if they’re (?) a certain fixed income ● Height is lowering our quality of life ● Consider scattered sites! A-4 ● Transportation is key to planning around community housing ● No parking reductions for market rate units – not getting <100% AMI ● Regulation of 2nd/3rd homes (reduce vacant homes) ● Where’s the accountability for affordable criteria? ○ i.e., we are losing existing affordable housing units ○ City says “affordable” priority but approving market rate/high end apts - especially in downtown core ○ Struggling with credibility of this process b/c of One 11 Project ○ How does this fit with plan downtown? Promised affordable and getting luxury ● Need to have mix of housing types and incomes in areas! ● Diversity of type within neighborhoods: income, age, household structure. ● City – restrictive policies decreasing supply ● $ from other places. Educate people. “Code of the West” ● Belgrade 10,000 population triggers state regulations – fire service – close to this. Station 2: Regulations Feedback on Tools ● Top Tier ○ Comment--Commercial Linkage--Employer down payment assist programs are a better idea ● Bottom Tier ○ Comment--Residential Linkage--This won’t work, doesn’t make sense due to local workforce Comments on Questions: 1. Do you agree with the current priorities or would you have them in a different order? ○ Annexation is really top - keep low 2. Would you add to or change the proposed actions for either inclusionary zoning or commercial linkage? ○ Mandate affordable housing alternatives in all devs – below the 80% mark included. A-5 ○ No more parking spot expansion give aways for developers limit size and scope of project unless they have enough room 3. What are three positives and three negatives to requiring the production of community housing in Bozeman? o “incentives” for developers are ridiculous then incentive is $. Create an actual one they cannot cross for # parking spots, size of units, etc. o “regulations” to building community housing – developer will be ticked off. Too bad. This is about providing for people who need homes – not someone who has several and is making $ off of people with less § Need tool for existing neighborhood. Sounds like inclusionary zoning is a start. § Do we want to be Aspen or inclusive, current regulation leads to Aspen-like § 24% of cost of home is due to regulation. Builders can’t survive w/that. § Reduce regulation for building for affordable housing. Reduce zoning, reduce lot price. Feedback on Top Tier Tools (Commercial Linkage + Inclusionary Zoning) Commercial Linkage: • Home ownership should be possible in this income range too. (30% - 80% AMI) • Yes! However, this needs to happen with cost being shared by developer and other stakeholders, please do it. Seems like smartly willing the commercial interests that are partly (largely?) responsible for producing a housing solution. • Will the city provide houses (if) when they expand? • Does this apply to businesses? No exemption. • As a small construction company, most of our employees live outside the city limits. If we were required to provide housing – that would be a boon; however, it would make our bottom line costs increase! Therefore, construction costs increase as well. We’d be caught in a viscous loop. • Focus on 60% - 100% • Request builders include affordable housing in their plans • Developers could help ease the shortage if given the tools (i.e. incentives, zoning, help, etc.) There also needs to be restrictions placed on the “affordable” housing so that they may be kept as being affordable. A-6 • You’ve been studying this for a while. When are changes to be made? There are so many things – small steps – that can be made before you do another study. Consider. Inclusionary Zoning • 10% seems low; perhaps 20-30%; thinking long term diversity • Bend model works best - every new unit (permit) pays a fee. Across the board, easy to manage, can’t game system, Broad based and accepted. • Don’t reduce parkland fees • Align inclusion occupancy with any current displacement • Expedited review process (as an incentive) • Increase requirement of inclusionary to 25-35% • Stop regulating square footage to allow smaller + tiny house below AMI 100% • The most economical type of building “condos” are excluded from affordable housing plan. Because of an arbitrary exclusion from the ordinance create a fund to eliminate this exclusion. • No condo and rental exemption • What about mobile home parks? Modular housing? • Proposed Action: 1 in 10 small lot, 1 of 10 condos, 1 of 10 apartments • Entire burden falls on land subdividers • The entire cost of the affordable housing problem will eventually fall on the landowner. This is not an equitable tax. The developers will run their numbers and lower price paid to landowner. • It is much, much easier to solve whit is a financial issue with funding rather than sticks and bricks. Let democracy work and vote for or against funding for affordable housing. • Affordable housing ordinance is biased/written for large conglomerate entities (builder/developer). A landowner/developer is excluded should be allowed to provide/sell affordable lots. • Include rentals in Inclusionary zoning • Deed restrictions not permanent but longer • Not enforcing inclusionary housing does not show commitment to affordable housing priorities! • IZ Damages affordability and production of homes • Create zone district to protect affordability via size of units • Don’t allow out of state ownership of any homes/ speculators. State level possibly make it happen • Is it too soon to judge current inclusionary zoning? A-7 • No, not too soon to judge current inclusionary zoning. • The IZO only applies to single family homes? Really? • Definitely should apply IZO to multi-family buildings and if possible should also incentivize or at least be compatible with mixed use projects. Station 3: Incentives Feedback on Tools Top Tier ● No comments Bottom Tier ● Explore incentives for existing homeowners to place their home in a deed restriction prior to resale ● ADUs: ○ Raise priority ○ Puts development of housing options in the hands of property owners ○ Keeps these housing options much closer than in hands of developers ○ More ADUs but not for short term rentals. Can you guarantee they’d be used for residents? ○ Give ADU owners a break on site impact fees! ○ If ADUs are limited to 600 SF, wouldn’t it make sense to decrease the impact fees accordingly? Last time I stopped at planning the SID fees started at 1400 SF. That cost can prohibit some owners from building an ADU ○ Change building codes to make easier to add ADUs ○ Support incentives for ADUs and short term rental restrictions! Don’t think building permit fees are an issue ● Air BnB ○ Big driver behind housing needs here--do not allow. It’s a business & not a home A-8 Feedback on Top Tier Tools (Fee Waivers and Removal of Regulator Barriers) Fee Waivers/Deferrals • Only profit in the higher end because of cost of land, regs, etc. • Consider fee waiver for < 80% income folks • Is there a way to incentivize fees for city/county employee’s homes? (Think police officers, fire department) & blue collar (carpenters)? • Reduce impact fees for ADUs and provide a flow chart of steps required to build an ADU on city website, to meet planning requirements so resident can make a more informed decision to build/convert their garage AND particular to NENA: spell out the need to get thru and expedited COA and waive/decrease the fees for that process. Removal of Regulatory Barriers • Recognize role of NCOD in inflating property values. No buffer zone and NCOD, it is already too big, must counter its inflating effect. • The net result is supply of new product diminished by regulations • Allow housing off grid to be built within city limits • FAR cap of 0.5 on SFRs, higher for “missing middle” Other Comments: • Make some ordinances allow mobile home parks. Discourage transfer to other uses. • Allow more mobile home parks and preserve existing parks • No Zone Seventh. What was the zoning south historic district in 1925? • Zoning buffer between residential and business zones should be considered • No incentives here! Solution - annex land behind cats paw and PMUD 5000 units. Eminent Domain? • Biggest issue - state of MT exempt well rules severely limited. Proposed action: petition exempt well status. • No outlet for Bozeman - sewer issues Belgrade, Manhattan, Livingston, 4 Corners • Remove regulations for alternative housing i.e. tiny homes, yurts, etc. • Target builders so they can succeed in specified price target ranges • Simplify UDC to be easier for small scale developers • Unregulate equals incentive • What is the cost to affordable housing with each regulation? Currently 24.5% of every home is directly from R • Condos must be included in affordable housing program • If you take an area of low income, make it mandatory that another be created A-9 • Make it easier to add a driveway to relieve parking congestion • Reconsider current regulation to reduce regulatory requirements for affordable homes • Maximize supply, reign in demand, business comm. advertising • Growth directed into existing community. Within boundaries, 20 yr supply of land for houses and updated every 5 yrs. Protect the “open spaces.” • City staff to help I.D. other funding programs for affordable development • Allow for smaller lots, smaller homes, tiny homes • Utilize Existing structures downtown. Don't build anymore downtown to protect the integrity of historical value of downtown. • All housing development must contain housing for lower income people – include those below the 80% mark. Station 4: Preservation Feedback on Tools Top Tier • No comments Bottom Tier • No comments Feedback on Top Tier Tools Community Land Trust • Seems like a viable option and opportunity for 65% - 100% income folks that would value add’l community infrastructure upon ownership • Habitat & HRDC already do this – no need to create another non-profit to manage/fund • Land Trust non-profit(s) should look at working w/ local farmers & ranchers looking to sell their land to arrange for purchase of property as land trust for development of affordable housing (as opposed to unaffordable housing if for- profit developer buys it). +2 Deed restricted housing (permanent) • Want written rules how to get out of deed A-10 • Deed restrictions not permanent now but make longer time commitment in the future • When Affordable Ordinance was proposed, it was stated that new homeowners are left behind it was stated that non-homeowners are left behind economically because didn’t benefit from appreciation. Yet once ordinance implemented, they don’t get their appreciation, so why better than nothing Comments on Questions: 1. Do you agree with the priorities established? Why or why not? ○ Yes, CLTs are an excellent tool to address A H because they allow owners to benefit/participate in gains of RE values but at a regulated sustained rate. 2. Were you aware of the deed restricted ownership units in Bozeman prior to this session? ○ No 3. Do you feel a permanent source of units that are and will remain affordable to residents and employees is a good thing? ○ Yes, permanent deed restrictions will enable homeowners to realize some gains but keep affordability for other buyers. ○ It’s a tool we’ll need to use if market remains high. Problem is folks don’t gain assets – it’s a tradeoff 4. Do you see value in having a Community Land Trust in Bozeman with a sole focus on housing for local residents and employees? Why or why not? ○ Yes, the more narrowly focused CLT is, the more likely they will be able to complete their objectives. Other Comments • Preserve Mobile Home Parks! Encourage owners to upgrade and keep homes in good shape (Park owner) influences. • Preservation of affordability of subsidized units. Who/how to keep affordable? Examples: o Larkspur commons rent initially $932/month 5/18 now $1031/month market rate. o Castlebar currently $900/month increases every time there is a bump up in their social security payments. • With the rate of redevelopment, especially in areas close to downtown and campus, I think some form of “No Net Loss” should be kept on the table for a top A-11 tier strategy; I’m especially concerned about redevelopment as it effects the availability of affordable housing close to MSU, where extremely low-paid graduate employees work • Permanent is best x 4! • A Community Land Trust in Bozeman sounds like a good solution. I would love to be a part of that! • A permanent source of units (well planned, well maintained at affordable rents/prices) sounds great • Provide Incentive or a funding tool to acquire homes to put under perm restriction. Acquisition costs less than new dev’t. • Think a community land trust worth trying. Would like to see more examples • Why do we keep having these discussions? We know we need affordable housing & yet the city continues to approve demolition of affordable housing for million dollar condos. • Follow your own plan! Quit approving high-rise condos that are not affordable and not built to the character of the neighborhood. Million dollar condos without enough parking downtown are not affordable and catering to 2nd home/vacation buyers. • Structuring to be “fair” – not enough – need to be equitable. People in low income situations are in big need of a great many things. Housing placement as imp as just having it. Downtown needs it as much as out of town. Rein in development of high-end stuff • Educate homeowners (maybe also incentivize) about potential for adding deed restriction to home sales – to maintain affordability • Incentivize developers at 200 – 300k range to get missing middle product • Address supply & demand issues • Mobile home parks should be part of this solution • Focus on missing middle • No net loss should be top priority • Mobile home park preservation x 2 • Preservation needs 2 tracks and requires different strategies o New – deed o Existing – resident owned, HUD subsidized A-12 Station 5: Funding Feedback on Tools Top Tier ● Luxury income tax ● State advocacy ● Vacant home tax Bottom Tier • No comments General Comments ● Allocate 1% of TIF for NE Bozeman affordable housing developments ● How are Opportunity Zones helping with affordable housing? Aren’t they for business development? Developers with money are benefiting, not those of us needing affordable housing ● Tax on 2nd homes that are off the rental market (i.e., snowbirds) ● There is more money out there to raise the price of housing then there is to keep housing affordable. Therefore, the best way to keep housing affordable is through regulation at state, county and city level that addresses the affordability problem at the supply and demand level. ● Change ordinance to include condos ● Make all condos available for funding through affordable housing ordinance ● Don’t support capital gap - address supply and demand. Most gaps can be made ● STR fee makes a lot of sense ● Please be careful about how any needed tax increase (including 2nd home, luxury, etc.) might be passed on to renters (or just used as an excuse to raise rents, because there are definitely landlords looking to take advantage of this market.) ● Property tax on appreciation so all homeowners/land owners contribute in a more equitable manner. ● As the current affordable housing crisis affects the county as a whole additional funding from property taxes should be dealt with at the county level ● Use a bond for city to buy enough land to meet housing needs ● Moratorium on luxury unaffordable rentals! A-13 ● Is there any potential for flexible taxes to discourage/focus on out-of-state landlords, snow birds, upper margins of housing spectrum? ● Developers of larger subdivision are driving growth that’s increasing taxes for existing residents that not contributing to the things that their development is causing i.e. increased need for schools, fire station, police, etc. Sounds like state impact fee laws need to get changed so existing residents aren’t taking this cost hits for these!! Developers raking in the dough while local residents have to pay for these things that come w/ the growth caused by the developers! ● Allow to build over grid within City limits and give tax break since they aren’t using city water or power. ● Use bond for city to buy enough land to meet housing needs Feedback on Top Tier Tools LIHTC ○ Promote funding across CDBG, home, housing trust fund and LIHTC to the max opportunity and points ○ Tax second home owners more ○ City developer with LIHTC program for middle class ○ LTCC not really affordable---who is keeping an eye on property managers ■ I Pay $1000 month in rent for my unit—isn’t this close to market rate? ○ LTCC not even affordable – pay 1000/month in Larkspur ● Taxes Dedicated for housing ○ Consider a fund to buy all land needed to meet housing needs ○ Don’t increase property taxes! ○ Specifically, I'm concerned about an increase in property taxes ● General Fund ○ “General fund won’t work.” A drop in the bucket. Another source or fund need to be found besides it all is falling on the landowner. A bond (more democratic) or a property tax Other Comments: ● City staff to help ID other funding programs for affordable development A-14 Station 6: Partnerships Feedback on Tools Top Tier ● Land Banking - City bond – use $ to buy land for community housing focus on 60% - 100% AMI Land Prioritization ● I support land banking and partnership BUT think that trails, parks, in city open spaces are important and shouldn’t be i.e. don’t develop (G) highland glens ● Don’t want Lot G by the hospital developed – it’s too busy ● Don’t develop lot across hospital!! ● If these lots are used they must be allowed to go vertical or more stories General Comments • Expand and distribute Humble Homes model to develop “orphan lots” • Trails, open space and parks are not merely important they are ESSENTIAL! for public health. Also, some lands are not appropriate for construction due to slope, soils, riparian features, etc. – these should remain open Feedback on Top Tier Tools Land Banking • Consider a fund to take advantage of distressed land in recession • Can there be a development boundary/limit, so the Gallatin Valley doesn’t get fully developed? I don’t remember town name of somewhere in Oregon it has development limit ring, outside of which is designated agriculture, and must remain so. • Anyway to incentivize farmers not to sell their land to help maintain open space? • I like the idea of land banking, but along the lines of others who have described open space and ag land concerns, any land banking purchase should align with comprehensive planning to incentivize medium/high density res. & multi-use builds & blocks once development takes place (i.e. net land banking for affordable sprawl to result) • Which annexations in BOZ have contributed affordable housing? A-15 • The Gallatin Valley has known very high quality soil, which is becoming lost/developed @ alarming rate. How can we prevent loss of this precious resource? • Land banking criteria: walkability, proximity to bus transportation to reduce pollution Public/Private/Institutional Partnerships • No to developing regional Park we need open spaces & (?) land ● I’ve just been talked to about how much MSU’s hands are tied when it comes to developing their own housing stock. As a graduate student employee, I ask you to not give up your role in that conversation. MSU owes it not only to the graduate employees it recruits to this place but also to its own mission interests (largely accomplished with graduate employees) to increase Family and Graduate Housing. General comments • Partnerships are critical. It is imperative that entities work together to build affordable housing. City of BZN, HRDC, Habitat for Humanity must set aside their petty differences and work together – no one can do it alone. Each entity brings incredible resources to the table – funding, regulation, building expertise. No entity can build housing as inexpensively as HFH – volunteer labor, donated materials, national partners. Others that must be involved are SWMBIA, Gallatin Co. • Land is too expensive for developers to create affordable housing. How to make it cheaper for development for affordable housing • Will the city profit from the purchase of the land & sale for development we don’t want the city to loose $ on sale of property for affordable housing, but should have a cap on profit • How can city assist in the cost of materials? • Reduce property tax for developers for affordable housing • We needed to do better outreach to build commitment for solution. • Less than 1% of BZN responded to survey and that’s not representation of community. • How can the city affect cost ability? With a large demand subcontractors can change what they want • More investors create competition. Competition is good. • Only big investors are starting subdivisions. This effects the investors’ property. A-16 • Insure the land owners are not the only ones carrying the load of funding affordable housing • Common question: what is an opportunity zone? • If there is a way that the city can subsidize land costs for developers for affordable housing, that would be important • Need more presentations about plan • Provide free childcare • 50% of all BZM builders went out of business during recession • Move fairgrounds to Mandeville Farm and develop fairgrounds as housing • What a wall, fun station! • Sustainable integrated all income levels • Self sufficiency • Let’s create a integrated village? Station 7: Programs Feedback on Tools Top Tier (Permanent Supportive Housing and Down Payment Programs) ● You got the priorities right here ● HRDC doing needs assessment Bottom Tier ● EAH (Employer Assisted Housing) ○ (in Belgrade) MTM mgmt consider building employee housing ○ Create rental assistance programs ○ Employer program: require MSU + seasonal employers to create their own housing ● Co-op or Co-housing ○ Increase priority of co-op/co-housing for mobile home parks ○ Look at co-op for housing ownership 60-100% AMI ○ Encourage development for more mobile home parks ○ Mobile Home should be part of definition & priorities A-17 Feedback on Top Tier Tools Permanent Supportive Housing • FUSE – Frequent User Systems Engagement • TCH needs (?) Bridge report • AMI – Area Median Income • More advocacy for state level funding • Public Bank? • Tenant landlord law enforcement, health and safety • Put weight on state to allow cities to regulate • Support institution (?) to apply for medicaid/build medicaid bridge Homebuyer Assistance • If the bulk of the homebuyer assistance funding comes from cash in lieu then the landowners is bearing the entire brunt of the is tax is this an equitable tax? • Make Financial Literacy a required class for high school graduation • Down payment program! expand to higher AMI! yes • Down payment program action committee – Margaret (?) • This tool should be a higher priority. Through financial literacy & education on programs, folks may learn that homebuying is within their reach. • Require more courses/educations • Invest in housing savings account options for employees - consider matching @ traditional cost of turnover (employers) • Employee housing match? • Increase public awareness of programs • Lack of financial literacy in schools • Banks should recommend resources for DPA + Realtors • As an agent I see upfront cost as a major problem • Public banking - North Dakota example • Prioritize funding/programming to target populations who are leaving Bozeman as a result of housing crisis • Incentives for existing homeowners to sell @ reduced price to sustain affordability Other Comments • Put all of this online • What about programs for those earning minimum wage in our community?