Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-03-11 Community Affordable Housing Advisory Board minutesCity of Bozeman Community Affordable Housing Advisory Board (CAHAB) March 3, 2011 12:30 pm – 2:00 pm HRDC Conference Room Attending:      Carson Taylor (City Commissioner), Brian LaMeres (City of Bozeman Finance Department), Kris Keller (Community Representative), Jan Bergman (Community Representative) Absent (excused): Daniel Simonich (Community Representative), Dave Magistrelli (Community Representative), Mary Martin (Community Representative) Staff : Tracy Menuez (HRDC), Tim McHarg (City Planning Department), Bob Risk (City Building Department), Courtney Kramer (City Planning Department) Public: None The meeting was called to order at 12:35 pm by Chair Brian LaMeres. There were no changes to the agenda. Kris Keller moved to approve the minutes from January 20, 2011 and February 3, 2011. Public Comment – please limit your comments to 3 minutes or less. Action Items International Property Maintenance Bob Risk, City Building Department, presented information to the board regarding adoption of the International Property Maintenance Code. The board was interested in hearing this information and how it could support their work in providing safe, decent affordable housing. Kris used an example of a substandard unit that is rented – does the owner have an obligation to fix the property, or can they simply kick the renters out? Bob responded that a property owner could terminate a lease and choose not to rent a property if the repairs were too costly/inconvenient, etc. He added that everything is currently a discretionary decision, IPMC would provide building department officials with specific guidelines regarding property condition. At this time, building officials use the International Building Code, which does not provide the direction necessary for older buildings and could ultimately prove very costly for their owners. Brian asked if the IPMC would replace anything the City currently has on the books. Bob replied that it would supplement building codes, which only really apply/function when the building is being built. We do not currently have anything that addresses the condition and needs of an existing building. Tim added that the consistency of IPMC provides certainty to tenants and building owners. The commission has been concerned if this is an appropriate role for a city, however; Tim stated that city staff is already heavily involved in investigating complaints regarding property condition and IPMC would simply provide them with a tool to better complete that work. Brian asked how this would be enforced. Bob replied that it would still be by complaint. Tim added that the city would still not have any ability to intervene in a contract between a renter and landlord, that is, if a property were found to be substandard and in need of repair in order to continue renting it, it is the landlord’s prerogative to make the necessary repairs and continue renting the property. Kris commented that a tenant would at least still have some rights if a lease were to be terminated in this manner; specificity will benefit all involved. Bob commented that most people are well intentioned, and just don’t know that there is an unsafe condition present. Generally, the building department is providing them education about what is safe. Courtney added that the IPMC adoption also establishes penalties for non-compliance. Brian asked if there are monetary penalties in place at this time. Tim replied that the city can take civil action. Tracy asked what drawbacks would be present if the commission were to approve this. Tim replied that the State of MT has put in place regulations that do severely hamper the City’s ability to administer the IPMC. For example, the building department cannot be in charge of enforcement, meaning that while it is a natural function of the building department, the work will have to be done by planning. Tracy asked about potential fiscal impacts. Tim replied that there are virtually none as this work is currently being done, albeit without a guide. Tracy asked if it was true that Great Falls had a similar program; Tim replied yes. Kris commented that this seems like a sensible approach and that she would like to see this adopted. Brian asked why everyone doesn’t do it. Bob replied that IPMC has been developed over 70 years, many jurisdictions have their own codes that they have developed in that time. Courtney added that the commission had this in front of them in September 2010 and backed away from the topic. Carson had no comments regarding the commission decision, but did comment that the commission has a long list of issues to tackle. A benefit of IPMC is that it could address concerns in numerous areas (historic preservation, safety, and vacation rental conversions). Tim commented that the Commission is currently in their goal setting process and hearing from lots of competing interests. It will be important that they hear from this group about our priorities as well. There is still a lot of work to do before anyone can make a recommendation for adoption, but it would be helpful to get it on the planning department’s “to do” list. Tracy will make sure that the commission gets CAHAB’s recommendation that IPMC be explored for adoption. Rental rehab program Tracy briefly outlined a potential rental rehabilitation revolving loan fund program to help landlords for low income renters make necessary repairs to ensure housing safety. More about this program will be presented at a future meeting. FYI/Discussion Tracy asked Brian for a brief financial report. He reported that there are approximate balances of $405,000 in the workforce housing mill funds, $60,000 in the CDBG RLF, and $153,000 in Big Box. Big Box will be reduced by the commitment to Homestead Apartments. Adjourn The meeting was adjourned at 2:00 pm by Chair LaMeres.