Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-13-16 CAHAB MinutesCommunity Affordable Housing Advisory Board Wednesday, January 13, 2016, 8:00am, City Commission Chamber – 121 N. Rouse Ave. A. Call meeting to order – Brian LeMeres Called meeting to order at 8:04AM Mary Martin Sharron Southard David Magistrelli Melvin Howe Kevin Thane I-Ho Pomeroy Hattie Baker Brian LeMeres Wendy Thomas - Introductions to I-Ho Pomeroy B. Changes to the Agenda – No Changes to the Agenda C. Public Comment – No Public Comment D. Approval of Minutes from December 9th, 2015 and November 23rd, 2015 Melvin Howe moves to approve minutes. Kevin Thane makes recommendations on changes to the meeting from November 23rd . Board unanimously approves the minutes with changes. E. Action Items 1. Recommendation to Montana Board of Housing on QAP Scoring Kevin Thane begins discussion of the scoring – board ceases discussion to allow Natalie Myer to do presentation with regards to sustainability. Natalie Myers begins her presentation. She suggests that “super insulated building envelope” be changed as it can be loosely defined. She suggested R-40 walls and R-60 attic insulation. She also suggested reviewing the air change per hour to verify insulation. There is a compliance issue in the state and she feels verify they comply could be incentivized. Natalie Myers suggests adding the “water sense” label being required for water fixtures to verify that they are water conserving fixtures. Kevin Thane states that he agrees with the R-value requirement. He questions if the water sense label has premium to get that stamp on it. Natalie Myers verified that typically no, there is not. They are readily available and typically in the same affordability range. Kevin Thane suggests adding Natalie Myers suggestions to the requirements. Hattie Baker clarifies whether Natalie Myers is suggesting both R-values and air-change per hour or just one. Natalie Myers said there’s nothing wrong with requiring both, but states that she was just offering options. Kevin Thane begins his presentation of recommended QAP scoring criteria. Mr. Thane suggests limiting the rent cost on units to keep them affordable. Board discusses the best way for Kevin Thane to present the suggestions to the board. Kevin Thane gives an overview stating that the broad goal is change the way the Mary states that we do not have the power to change the IRS regulation. Kevin Thane states that his understanding was different and that he thought it did not have to be 30%. Mary questions Kevin Thane suggestion to put caps on rental costs stating that is already in place. Kevin states that as AMI increases, rent goes up. Mary responds that is how the market works and that its then encouraging individuals to make less money to stay in the unit. Mary states that the developer simply builds the property and leaves it to the non-profit to keep the rents low. Mary states that to get the units to 30% AMI, they must be subsidized. Kevin Thane states that he is aware of that, but that these are suggestions, they will not be required. It will simply get the project more points. It will be skewed towards preservation projects. Wendy Thomas clarifies whether the board of housing looks at preservation and new building together or separate. Mary Martin clarifies that they look at both together. Wendy Thomas clarifies that eventually the projects may time out and people could lose their affordability, so preservation projects are important too. Mary Martin points out that the Board of Housing may not be interest in the public transportation piece because not all communities in the state have public transportation. Kevin Thane points out that his goal was not to require additional points, he was trying to add more categories for the developers to chose from to reach those points. Mary Martin points out that reducing energy usage only works on rehabilitation projects. Kevin Thane states that the building has a proposed amount of energy use and that he is saying points should be given if they can reduce the proposed energy cost. Mary Martin points out that installing LED’s are a tenant cost. Kevin Thane points out that if the builder installs them, that they won’t need to be replaced for years. Mary Martin indicates that she is hesitant to make these suggestions because the City is professionals in the area. Mary Martin states that if you require someone to be from Montana, it’s a violation of fair housing laws. David Magistrelli states that he thinks that Kevin Thane did a great job and that it’s important to make the program more accessible. Some points may need some tweaking, but there are great suggestions. Melvin Howe states that he appreciates the work Kevin Thane has done. He expresses concern with affordability and space for fitting in the sips panel in a wall. Hattie Baker clarified that’s why Natalie Myers suggested two options – if you can’t fit the sips, you could achieve an ACH value. Melvin Howe questions whether the project would be successful if they can’t achieve the requirements. Kevin Thane states that this is just one piece of the points system. They do not have to meet each criteria, but use it to gain additional points. Hattie Baker states that she thinks that the points are great and will allow for additional points. You don’t have to use all of them, you use what you can depending on where you are in the state. Brian Lemeres questions the bus stop portion of the suggestions and whether it will be biased towards communities with public transportation. He questions if there are other points available that favor other communities. Kevin Thane states there are points available for relationship to grocery stores, etc. Hattie Baker questions if there is a way to not ding smaller communities while still incentivizing those that are larger and close to public transportation. Wendy Thomas comments that this state is very diverse. She thinks that there are opportunities for all of these communities to apply successfully. She said the board tries to be very understanding of what is going on in the state. Hattie Bakers states that if the points favor larger communities, maybe smaller communities should be required to achieve fewer points. Brian Lemeres questions if the current points system is an equal playing field for all communities regardless of size. It is confirmed that Brian Lemeres questions how community support effects the points system – does it matter how much money went to the project from The City. Kevin Thane states that to his understanding, it doesn’t matter how much money you give, it’s a matter of support, but developers may suggest that more money will look more favorably. Brian Lemeres reads comment from Anders Lewendal who was unable to attend today. His comment touched on changing other costs of living, not just housing costs. Kevin Thane states that those are valuable items to discuss, but that it doesn’t necessarily pertain to what we are trying to achieve here. Open discussion up for public comment – No public comment. Brought back to the board for discussion and vote. Kevin Thane moves to move forward these suggestions to the board of housing, with the changes that have been proposed and accepted in discussion with an endorsement from the CAHAB board to present this to the Board of Housing at their next meeting in Bozeman. David seconds the motion. Discussion of the motion -Hattie Baker proposes changing the portion where you need a local entity to support the project if you already are a local entity. They chose to strike that portion of the suggestions. Mary Martin questions which direction we are going with the energy conservation portion suggested with regards to R-value versus ACH. Board agrees that it can be either and agrees to make them worth the same number of points. Mary Martin questions if they are defining water conservation as water sense. Board clarified that yes, they are indicating water sense. Board votes – unanimously approves. Recommended Motion: I move to recommend to the Montana Board of Housing the revisions to the application scoring process as presented to the CAHAB. F. FYI/Discussion 1. Plan a Special Meeting of the CAHAB to discuss the Inclusionary Zoning manual. – Wendy Thomas begins presentation. The Affordable Housing manual will be presented to the Commission on February 1st. Wendy suggests potential dates to meet regarding the manual prior to the commission meeting. Kevin Thane suggests that we review it prior to it going to legal. Wendy points out that this is a resolution and does not have the same requirements as an ordinance and can be changed without much difficulty. 2. Additional Discussion of Marketing Ideas for the affordable housing program. Brian Lemeres begins discussion on how to market the affordable housing program. We had previously brainstormed ideas on how to market to professionals. Brian Lemeres reads the portion of the meeting minutes where this was discussed previously. Kevin Thane suggests putting together a presentation for the Gallatin Valley Association of Realtors to make them know what is happening and how they can utilize the program. Hattie Baker states that she is currently working to get HRDC, the City and GAR together. Sharon Southard suggests making a contest for architecture students to design properties that meet the requirements and offer a scholarship for the students. She also suggests putting together something for the lenders to get educated on the program. Heather from HRDC states that they are working with local designers to put together some proto-types with no upfront cost, but that you pay a fee to use the designs. Hattie Baker suggests working with a draftsman, not necessarily just an architect. They are significantly cheaper with one cost upfront without the fee in the future. David states that Habitat for Humanity has a whole manual of affordable housing designs that are readily available with no cost. Wendy Thomas questions how we would be able to run the contest. Board discusses who can pull people from various areas of the community to develop a committee to get the process started. They will follow up at the next meeting with the progress. Brian Lameres questions the meeting time of the board and whether we should change it. He is looking from feedback from the board about what times are best to meet. Alicia Kennedy will distribute a poll to the board to explore changing meeting time. Kevin Thane states that he would like to discuss what is happening with city land holds and whether they can be used for affordable housing. Also, whether we should purchase land with the affordable housing funds for the program. I-ho states that she thinks it would be great to be able to donated city-owned land toward the program. Melvin Howe questions whether putting a number of the same home on city-owned land would create issues with diversity in the community. David states that often you can’t tell a Habitat for Humanity home from the others in the community. Sharon points out that she has been in communities where all the homes look the same and so she understands Melvin’s concern. Melvin Howe comments that is what he was referring to: getting enough diversity to make it look like a well thought community. G. Adjournment – meeting adjourned at 9:38AM For more information please contact Alicia Kennedy at akennedy@bozeman.net This board generally meets the second Wednesday of the month at 8:00am Committee meetings are open to all members of the public. If you have a disability and require assistance, please contact our ADA coordinator, Chuck Winn at 582-3232 (TDD 582-2301).