HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-13-12 Community Affordable Housing Advisory Board MinutesCity of Bozeman
Community Affordable Housing Advisory Board (CAHAB)
December 13, 2012
12:00 pm – 1:00 pm
City Commission Room, City Hall
Attending:
Brian LaMeres, Ann Kesting,
Melvin Howe, Kyle Terrio, Mary Martin, Chris Mehl
Absent:
Kris Keller, Margaret Boardman, Dave Magistrelli
Staff:
Tracy Menuez
Public:
John Stone Goff
The meeting was called to order
at 12:05 pm by Chair Brian LaMeres.
Public Comment:
John Stone Goff introduced himself to the board. He represents Gallatin Chance Ranch, a new local non-profit. He is assessing housing
opportunities for youth aging out of the foster care system (ages 18+). He provided the board with information regarding Gallatin Chance Ranch.
Board Member Reports
Mary Martin reported
that subisidized rental housing owners/managers have continued to experience near zero vacancy rates as a result of an overall tightening of the rental housing market.
Ann Kesting
reported that realtors are staying busier this year than normal at this time, and that the market remains string. Chris Mehl asked about average days on market for homes less than $250,000;
Ann responded that those homes are typically under contract in a matter of a few weeks.
Brian LaMeres reported that the quarterly plan check fees at the City (a strong indicator of
future development) were at their highest in four years.
Kyle Terrio reported that the Warming Center’s new facility on Industrial Drive would be opening on Saturday. He reported that
to date, the center has been serving more families than usual, and that the new facility will make serving families much easier.
Action Items
Approval of minutes from November 8,
2012. Melvin moved to accept the minutes of the November 8, 2012 meeting; Ann seconded the motion, which was approved unanimously.
Non-Action Items – Work Session re: affordable housing
Tracy referred the board to the preliminary information sent out to prepare for the session. From that information, she compiled
a list of incentives that was placed on the board. The list consisted of the following incentives:
Expedited permit process for affordable housing/developments
Impact fee relief
Parking
reductions
Parkland/open space reductions
Mixed use zoning
Donation of publicly owned land
Programs to identify qualified buyers/renters
Density bonus
Accessory Dwelling units (ADUs)
Setback
reductions
Zero lot line configuration
Land assembly strategies
Financing assistance for affordable housing developers
Down-payment assistance for buyers
Mary commented that many of
the items either are currently in use, or have been tried in our area. She has heard a lot about expedited process, impact fee relief, and parking reductions from developers of affordable
housing, particularly those participating in the Low Income Housing tax Credit (LIHTC) program. She commented that she likes the direction of the recent impact fee discussions, and thinks
that the recommended changes do a lot to help affordable housing. Ann added that she wasn’t sure if impact fees could be incentivized further for the purposes of affordable housing than
they already were with the recommended changes and agreed that the direction of the recommendations was positive. Chris Mehl briefly recapped the previous month’s impact fee discussion
for anyone that had not been present.
Each member was asked to select their #1, 2, and 3 from the proposed list for discussion purposes. Brian selected down-payment assistance programs
as #1, explaining that he felt that existing program worked well and should be maintained. For #2/3 he selected mixed use development and ADUs. Kyle selected density bonus as his #1,
citing transportation costs as a factor of affordability; for #2 and #3 he selected mixed use development and ADUs, respectively. Ann selected zero lot lines/reduced setbacks as her
#1, explaining that lot reconfigurations can make smaller homes more appealing. Ann selected mixed use development as #2 and donation of publicly owned lands as #3. Mary selected financing
assistance for both purchasers and possibly developers of affordable housing as her #1, followed by #2/3/4 mixed use, setback reductions, and parking reductions. She commented that she
often hears from LIHTC developers regarding parking, and in her experience in managing LIHTC units that the parking requirements can be excessive. Low income families typically have
fewer vehicles, leading to empty parking lots in LIHTC developments. Melvin disagreed, pointing out that many areas seem to lack parking, but Mary countered that she was addressing subsidized
rentals in particular.
Melvin stated that his #1 would be to emphasize mixed use development, with one idea of assessing upper level, unutilized space in commercial buildings. Chris Mehl asked Tracy for clarification
on what she was referring to with the mixed use bullet; Tracy replied that originally she had been thinking about the City’s Residential Mixed Use (RMU) zoning, but thought that it could
be interesting to see what types of options would be available in the Trip Exchange District (TED). The need for additional student housing was discussed; despite the addition of several
thousands of students, MSU has not added new student housing in some time. The newly proposed housing for students should help alleviate general rental housing concerns in Bozeman. Melvin
discussed his #2 and #3, density bonus and land donation, respectively.
The group reviewed the top suggestions, finding that they broke down into three main areas of focus:
Land use
policy and regulatory reforms – Tracy will talk with the planning department regarding the options discussed
Financial assistance – the group felt that there were not necessarily any
new programs to add here, but to merely state their support of the work presently being done
Identification of public lands for donation/swap
Chris Mehl asked that input be solicited
from HRDC, LIHTC developers and the building community, particularly regarding the policy list – what barriers do they encounter? Melvin asked for additional information regarding other
communities with positive metrics in the creation of affordable housing. Brian asked that the board consider this discussion in the context of the budget – for what uses do we want to
reserve the funds?
FYI
Chris Mehl asked the board to be thinking about a replacement for Tim Dean, and asked that we make a recommendation when candidates are considered.
The next
meeting is scheduled for January 10, 2013 at noon in the Madison Room. Tracy will be sending a poll out to determine if this meeting time is still best for the group.
The meeting was
adjourned at 1:15 pm by Chair LaMeres.
FYI
Chris Mehl requested that the board consider suggesting a replacement for Tim Dean’s position.
Adjourn
The meeting was adjourned at
1:15 pm by Chair LaMeres.