HomeMy WebLinkAboutCAHAB Minutes 03-03-2020 DRAFT
Community Affordable Housing Advisory Board
March 3rd, 2020 | 8:00 AM | City Hall Commission Room: 121 N. Rouse Ave
A. 08:00:48 AM (00:00:41) Call Meeting to Order & Roll Call
Present Were:
Brian Guyer (Ex Officio Member)
Greg Stratton
Noel Seeburg
Kevin Thane (Chairman)
David Magistrelli
Kyla Tengdin
B. 08:00:56 AM (00:00:49) Changes to the Agenda
C. 08:01:21 AM (00:01:14) Board Disclosures
D. 08:01:33 AM (00:01:26) Public Comment
Please state your name and address in an audible tone of voice for the record. This is the time for
individuals to comment on matters falling within the purview of the Committee. There will also be an
opportunity in conjunction with each action item for comments pertaining to that item. Please limit
your comments to three minutes.
E. 08:01:56 AM (00:01:49) Minutes for Approval:
02-12-20 Minutes (PDF)
o City of Bozeman Video Streaming Site
08:01:59 AM (00:01:52) MOTION to approve minute for February 12th meeting: David Magistrelli
08:02:05 AM (00:01:58) MOTION SECONDED: Greg Stratton
08:02:08 AM (00:02:01) VOTE: All in Favor – Motion Carried 5-0
F. 08:02:44 AM (00:02:37) Action Items
1. (Continued) Discussion and Action Regarding Disbursement Criteria for the City of
Bozeman’s Workforce Housing Fund
Bozeman Workforce Housing Fund Allocation Process v2
Bozeman Workforce Housing Fund Allocation Process v1
Bozeman Workforce Housing Fund Request Worksheet
Updated Materials Provided by Chairman Thane
o Bozeman Workforce Housing Fund Allocation Process v3
o Updated Bozeman Workforce Housing Fund Request Worksheet v4
o CAHAB Project Proposal Score Sheet
o Community Housing Fund Proposal Scoring Methodology v2
08:03:33 AM (00:03:26) Chairman Thane explained that green highlighted text in the documents up for
discussion represent changes approved by CAHAB and that items highlighted in yellow indicate
proposed changes to review. Board members started with the Workforce Housing Allocation Fund
Criteria v3.
08:07:09 AM (00:07:02) Board member Greg Stratton raised a concern that many items in the funding
request worksheet are directly tied to the Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance and asked if funding should be
opened to other homes.
08:10:52 AM (00:10:45) Director of Community Development Director Marty Matsen shared that down
payment assistance is available for any purchase under the Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance, but that the
spending authority comes from the City Commission level. He discussed the possibility of language
which would provide spending authority to a certain level without each item going before the City
Commission.
08:13:31 AM (00:13:24) In response to a comment from board member Kyla Tengdin, Director Matsen
shared that while condos aren’t required to provide affordable housing under the ordinance, there is
nothing preventing down payment assistance from being provided on the purchase of condos. The
group continued to discuss ways to expedite spending authority and the process for recipients to be
eligible for down-payment assistance.
08:20:53 AM (00:20:46) Chairman Thane asked members to raise hands if they were in favor of including
the language highlighted in yellow regarding the Fund Allocation Process on p.1 of the Workforce
Housing Allocation Fund Criteria v3 document. Members supported 5-0 with a showing of hands.
08:21:09 AM (00:21:02) Board members discussed proposed wording, highlighted in yellow on p. 1,
paragraph 2 of the Community Housing Fund Proposal Scoring Methodology v2 document. Via a
showing of hands, board members supported 3-1 the change for forms to be tallied and returned
“within 14 days of the CAHAB meeting at which the proposal was initially presented.”
08:24:53 AM (00:24:46) Board members discussed wording further in paragraph 2 regarding the scoring
process for proposals including dwelling units versus those that don’t.
08:29:20 AM (00:29:13) Affordable Housing Program Manager, Tanya Andreasen, proposed a language
change to “city staff” or “city staff liaison” rather than “administrative assistant” for routing and scoring
process. Director Matsen also recommended that wording be changed to “City Staff” and “14 business
days.”
08:33:37 AM (00:33:30) Board members voted 5-0 to support changing the language from
“administrative assistant” to “city staff” in all places throughout the document that referenced
08:34:59 AM (00:34:52) Board members revisit the 14 day vs. 14 business day vs. 10 business day
timeline referenced for proposal scoring. Board members supported 10 business days through informal
vote.
08:37:43 AM (00:37:36) Board members reiterated support (5-0) for inserting language regarding the
comparison of proposals which include dwelling units compared to proposals that do not include
dwelling units.
08:38:52 AM (00:38:45) Board members discussed the proposed wording changes, highlighted in yellow,
in paragraph 4 of the Scoring Methodology Worksheet regarding minimum points related to dwelling
units. Members supported proposed changes 5-0 with an informal vote.
08:40:20 AM (00:40:13) Board members discussed proposed changes, highlighted in yellow, in final
paragraph regarding when recommendations expire. Board member Greg Stratton asked to eliminate
the wording “if extenuating circumstances have prohibited progress on the proposal.” Members
supported changes 5-0.
08:43:08 AM (00:43:01) Board Liaison, Tanya Andreasen, recommended changing language at the end of
the second paragraph to “a staff recommendation both of which will be included in the proposal
materials” to “a staff recommendation both of which will be included in the packet materials.” Board
members supported the change 5-0.
08:44:58 AM (00:44:51) Board members discussed the Updated Bozeman Workforce Housing Fund
Request Worksheet v4.
08:46:10 AM (00:46:03) Board members discussed the “Viability of the proposed project” ranking on p.
4. Members discussed the scoring range as well as the placement of the question within the scoring
sheet.
08:53:14 AM (00:53:07) Board members discussed the scoring range for all of the scoring criteria
questions, comparing 1-5 and 1-10 as well as the weight of the questions. Dwelling units are weighted so
that projects with more dwelling units will score higher.
09:00:57 AM (01:00:50) Board members supported (3-0) ranking 1-5 across the board for scoring
criteria.
09:01:44 AM (01:01:37) Board members supported (4-1) ranking 1-5 for the “Viability of the proposed
project.”
09:02:45 AM (01:02:38) Tanya Andreasen addressed the question “Ability of this project to address a
community need,” stating that the needs of the community can change from one budget cycle to
another. Members informally voted 3-2 to keep the question as-is.
09:04:35 AM (01:04:28) Board members discussed whether to change the ranking range for “Alignment
with Community Housing Action Plan.” Board members did not make any changes to the proposed
wording.
09:05:38 AM (01:05:31) Board members discussed “Alternate funding sources have been secured /
solicited.” Members supported existing suggested wording 5-0.
09:06:53 AM (01:06:46) Board members reviewed scoring range for “Thoroughness of Application /
budget.” Board members supported leaving suggested wording as is, 5-0.
09:08:27 AM (01:08:20) Community Housing Program Manager, Tanya Andreasen asked about the
“Thoroughness of the application” criteria and suggested changing it from “Complete and
understandable” to “Detailed and understandable” as well as from “Incomplete or hard to decipher” to
“Lacking detail or hard to decipher.”
09:09:33 AM (01:09:26) Continued “Perceived Need for Workforce Housing funds for project viability.”
Mr. Stratton suggested removing the criteria altogether. Mr. Stratton pointed out that applicants
should score higher if they don’t need workforce housing funds in order to be viable. Board members
supported 5-0 to remove the question.
09:11:42 AM (01:11:35) Board members discussed the criteria for “Willingness to be flexible in grant /
loan request.” Board members supported criteria 5-0, as suggested.
09:12:27 AM (01:12:20) Board members discussed criteria for “Scope of project in terms of # of
affordable housing units built / preserved.” Ranking will change from 1-10 to 1-5. Five or fewer units
will get 1 point, each increment of 5 additional units adds one additional point up to 5 points.
09:13:29 AM (01:13:22) Mr. Guyer asked about HRDC’s Wheat Drive Warming Center project and how it
would score using this criteria. The project does not have dwelling units, but offers emergency shelter,
which would score lower compared to projects with dwelling units. The group discussed running some
scenarios to see how scoring works with sample projects.
09:17:03 AM (01:16:56) Board members discussed criteria for “Requested investment of Community
Housing funds per unit.” Scoring range will be changed from 1-10 to 1-5. Board members supported
wording 5-0 with change to scoring range.
09:18:25 AM (01:18:18) Board members supported 5-0 “Opportunity Cost” scoring as-is on proposed
document with a typo correction of “provide” to “provided.”
09:19:21 AM (01:19:14) Board members discussed wording for “Funds Recapture” criteria with change
to scoring range from 1-10 to 1-5. Changes include: Full loan repayment upon completion of project = 5;
Loan repayment within 5 Years = 4; Loan repayment within 10 Years = 3; Repayment upon sale of
transfer = 2; and Grant request = 1. Mr. Guyer pointed out that this question along with two others tilts
favor toward rentals over home ownership due to scoring higher based on number of units and the
inability to recapture funds if utilizing a land trust.
09:23:46 AM (01:23:39) Board members supported removing the question 3-2.
09:24:10 AM (01:24:03) Board members discussed criteria for “Project’s generation of long-term or
permanently affordable housing.” Members supported 5-0 to keep wording as-is with a change to the
scoring range to 1-5.
09:24:37 AM (01:24:30) Board members discussed “Target Income of those benefiting from proposal”
criteria. Members voted 5-0 to leave scoring wording as-is with a change in scoring range to 1-5.
09:25:30 AM (01:25:23) Board members discussed “Uniqueness of Proposal” scoring criteria. Members
discussed whether it was worthwhile to score innovative projects higher when traditional projects are
completed because they’ve been successful in the past. Members voted 3-1 to strike the question.
09:29:25 AM (01:29:18) Board members discussed “Funds Availability” criteria. Members voted 3-1 to
leave criteria as-is.
09:31:44 AM (01:31:37) Board members discussed “Administrative / Overhead cost burden” criteria.
Members voted 5-0 to strike the question.
09:33:50 AM (01:33:43) Board members discussed criteria regarding “Ongoing project operation cost.”
Board liaison, Tanya Andreasen raised the point of ongoing overhead expenses for the homeowner or
tenant. Members voted to modify the criteria to “Ongoing Project Affordability” for the homeowner or
tenant and to include “Provide points for affordable HOA costs, low maintenance, etc.” The criteria
would be modified to remove “Environmental design, Solar panels, and Building envelope efficiency.”
Members supported changes 5-0.
09:38:57 AM (01:38:50) Board members discussed “Construction Costs” criteria. Members voted 4-1 to
strike the question due to too many variables.
G. 09:41:19 AM (01:41:12) Adjournment | 9:30 AM
For more information, please contact Tanya Andreasen at tandreasen@bozeman.net.
This board generally meets the 2nd Wednesday of the month from 8:00AM to 9:30 AM
Committee meetings are open to all members of the public. If you have a disability and require assistance,
please contact our ADA coordinator, Mike Gray at 582-3232 (TDD 582-2301).