Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-8-12 Community Affordable Housing Advisory Board MinutesCity of Bozeman Community Affordable Housing Advisory Board (CAHAB) November 8, 2012 12:00 pm – 1:00 pm City Commission Room, City Hall Attending:      Brian LaMeres, Ann Kesting, Melvin Howe, Dave Magistrelli, Chris Mehl Absent: Kris Keller, Mary Martin, Tim Dean, Kyle Terrio, Margaret Boardman Staff: Tracy Menuez, Chris Saunders Public: None The meeting was called to order at 12:05 pm by Chair Brian LaMeres. No public comment was submitted. Board Member Reports Ann Kesting reported that single family units and condos at lower price points (less than $250,000) have seen a decrease in supply. Inventories are down 21% for single family homes, down 45% for condominiums, and down 37% for land. Brian asked where the buyers are coming from; Ann replied that most are local. Chris Saunders commented that this seems related to the tightness in the rental market – few units with increasing rents makes buying attractive. Ann added that rates are still low, making buying affordable and attractive. She also commented that prices are stable, especially in the condo market. More condo developments are becoming eligible for lending as well. Brian mentioned that his condo development was considering requiring owner occupancy. Ann responded that this may be detrimental to owners, as it restricts the pool of buyers for their properties at resale. Action Items None Non-Action Items – Presentation by Chris Saunders regarding Impact Fees Planner Chris Saunders provided the board with a review of the City’s impact fee structure and proposed impact fees (handouts are attached). He began by explaining that there are 4 fees (water, sewer, street, fire) in the city, all legally independent of each other, with differing methodologies of calculating the fee. The city has a dedicated webpage for impact fees at http://www.bozeman.net/Depar tments-(1)/Planning/Impact-Fees-(1). He demonstrated navigation of the page and how it ties to ongoing city projects. Planner Saunders provided the board with a handout on the water impact fee to demonstrate. He first discussed (with regards to water) what types of costs are eligible for impact fee use and which are not. Under state law, impact fees are a charge for a service. Belgrade and Manhattan also have impact fees, and Billings has a “system investment” fee. In short, many communities charge impact fees, and even those that don’t have impact fees per say may have fees are similar. Chris explained how impact fees might be used for a new facility. For instance, the new $50 million wastewater treatment plant was paid for with a mix of 1/3 impact fees and 2/3 rate payers. The $42 million water treatment plant is being paid for similarly. This ratio was selected because the need for these new facilities could be attributed by 1/3 to expansion needs and 2/3 to updates and new compliance. Impact fees are put together using long range, systematic needs planning for each item, considering several factors. The entire impact fee study can be found at the city’s webpage. Regarding this year’s proposed fee structure, Chris Saunders noted some changes. One significant change in this study is that impact fees for water will not be based on meter size, rather, the fees are based on the size of the lot and unit. For the first time, the City has data regarding utility demand, which provided better information regarding demand/person and estimated occupancy based on square footage. This also provides an incentive for denser development, which will have smaller fees based on the new study. Another significant change is that in previous years, about 1/3 of the amount charged in the water fee was for supply expansion. The City is currently studying the best way to bring increased supply to the City, as such, that fee is not included in the proposal. It may be added at a later date when a water supply mechanism is identified and costs are clearer. Chris noted that demand/housing unit based on size is being used as a component in calculating all four fees, and that no real differences have been noted between attached and detached units of similar size (other than land use). He briefly reviewed examples of fees for various types of housing (see attached handout). Planner Saunders briefly discussed the Trip Exchange District (TED), which is in the downtown area. Studies have concluded that dense, mixed-use development, such as that of the TED, results in a 20% reduction in trip demand. As such, transit impact fees in the TED are proposed to be lower than in the remainder of the City. Planner Saunders also discussed the demand profile of new construction versus existing homes. Typically, new construction is much more efficient for wastewater, however; about the same for water. The primary reason for this is the exterior irrigation systems in new homes. Planner Saunders returned the board’s attention to the City’s impact fee page, particularly the documents used to set the state for the recommendations. He added that the City hopes to put a cost estimator on their website upon approval of the fees. The City commission met regarding the proposed structure in October. Their questions and comments have gone back for staff review. The general desire is to have the fee structure approved by the end of the year. Implementation is straight-forward; the schedule you are subject to is the one in place when you submit. Chris wrapped up the presentation pointing out the proposed schedule’s positive implications for affordable housing and opened the floor for questions. Ann Kesting asked if the water supply costs might be added in at a later date. Chris Saunders replied that once the City selected the desired alternative for meeting increased supply demands they would then have to choose how to fit it into their impact fee structure. Chris Mehl added that there are a number of methods being proposed at this time, and it’s difficult to assess the final costs. Chris Saunders commented that water supply is complicated and expensive. Melvin asked if the City had any subsurface sources. Chris Saunders replied that we do, but it’s difficult to access. Outside of the City’s three main sources: Hyalite, Sourdough, and Lindley Creek, water gets more difficult to access and more expensive. Chris Mehl added that as we are a closed basin, we have to prove that anything we take out in indeed ours. Chris Saunders mentioned that our water storage issue is most difficult in the winter months, because the sources are frozen. Melvin pointed out the vast increases in efficiency over the years. Chris Mehl suggested that the board could have a presentation from Anders Lewendahl and/or Rob Evans regarding energy efficiency, and how we could incentive greener building. Chris Mehl asked that the board what he needs to know with regards to this study and affordable housing. Tracy reminded the board that they make a number of references to impact fees in the affordable housing plan, and that is part of the larger picture where the board will discuss costs and incentives for affordable housing. In December, the board will discuss incentives that are used to promote affordable housing, in January, the finance department will present on the funds available for affordable housing, and in February and March, the board will work on recommendations for the use of those funds. Ann Kesting stated that she thought the new schedule of impact fees could have positive implications for affordable housing, saving nearly $5000 on the target homes. The board thanked Chris for his presentation. FYI Chris Saunders informed the board that Planning Director Tim McHarg has announced that he is leaving the City. His last day will be November 21st. Many thanks to Tim for all of his fantastic work on affordable housing issues! Tracy shared news regarding the Warming Center and the Flying Signs fundraiser. Adjourn The meeting was adjourned at 1:15 pm by Chair LaMeres.