Pima County Housing Commission
Pima County Recreation Center
2805 E Ajo Way Room 104
Members
Present: Members
Absent: Staff & Guests:
Tim
Escobedo Henry Boice Patrick Cavanaugh
Frank
Moreno Ed Taczanowsky Hank Atha
David
Greenberg Margaret Kish
Jon Miles Betty
Villegas
Kathleen Buske Gary
Bachman
Ken
Anderson Marcos
Ysmael
Steve
Craddock Daniel
Tylutki
Frank
Thomson Samantha Romero
Scott Place Carlos
Renova
Terry
Galligan
Corky Poster
Meeting called to order by Chair Frank Moreno at 1:45 PM.
II. Approval of Minutes from October
17, 2005
Motion by Ken Anderson to approve the minutes as
written.
Seconded by Kathleen Buske. Motion
carried unanimously.
Betty Villegas presented a draft copy of the Housing Trust
Fund contribution fee schedule and guideline recommendations memorandum. She stated that the memorandum is from Chair
Frank Moreno to County Administrator Chuck Huckelberry, which he in turn will
present to the Board of Supervisors.
IV.
2004 General Obligation Bond Program
Betty Villegas stated that the main purpose of the meeting
was to discuss the bond application process and come to an agreement on how to
review, score and make recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. She went through the background of the bond
program. She also went through the
eligible uses of the bond funds as it pertains to affordable housing.
Discussion on the number of units provided by the 1997 General
Obligation Bond program, cost of the projects, funds available, and
affordability.
Steve Craddock stated his concern for the time it took for
the process from the time the Commission makes the recommendation to the time
the Board of Supervisors approves the Contract. He stressed that timing is very important in getting these
projects completed as costs will only continue to rise and can affect the
project.
Frank Thomson asked whether an analysis of the 1997 and the
2004 bond projects exists that compares what the project is and how the project
compares to what the major builders are doing. His concern is whether bond
program is cost effective for what Pima County is trying to achieve. Betty Villegas responded that the bond program
has always been open to all builders/developers. Frank Thomson stated that in his experience major builders will
never get involved with the current process because that is not the way they do
business. Kathleen Buske responded that
there are currently joint projects between non profits and for profits where it
will be a mixed income development and it makes it more cost effective when the
non profit does the affordable units. She stated it is a new thought process,
and we need to look at it and see if it is working.
Staff, Marcos Ysmael clarified that “the purpose of the
bonds is to serve the public benefit. This program is funding projects that
wouldn’t otherwise happen in the private sector because they just don’t pan
out. It is allowing projects to happen on small, vacant tracks of land that are
just deteriorating and not helping to improve neighborhoods. And for a
neighborhood to be able to take that vacant land and turn it into a higher use
such as home ownership it then expands our tax base, it helps the neighborhood
become more stable, so there are some other public benefits that need to be
measured into the mix here. While that cost effectiveness is a concern, there
are other concerns when we start looking at the public benefit factors.” He
concluded that it is not always easy to analyze and measure the public benefit.
Hank Atha asked Frank Thomson to be more specific about the
kind of cost comparison he would like for staff to report. Frank Thomson responded that he wants to
know what the cost of delivering these types of programs. What is the cost per square foot for this
type of housing? Hank Atha asked staff
to provide data showing the cost per square foot for some current
projects.
Frank Thomson continued discussion on what he felt these
types of programs usually not being cost effective, and that he would suggest the
Commission only work with builders, nonprofit/profit whoever, who are able to
demonstrate that they are able to deliver a cost effective product. As opposed
to subsidizing builders who do radically non cost-effective products but they
are able to do it because all of these subsidies are thrown in. He stated that
the Commission would want to subsidize good building techniques, and good
builders whether the builders are nonprofit or for profit.
Betty Villegas responded that most major builders don’t want
to participate. They aren’t going to go after these small projects of 4-50
units because it’s not cost effective for them. We need to support the smaller builders
that will work with nonprofit housing providers to build affordable housing because
it provides a need in our community. This is a program that is working to
expand affordable housing in Pima County.
Hank Atha commented that the cost per square foot should be
evaluated and be part of the scoring criteria.
Betty Villegas then directed the Commissioners to the
scoring criteria handout. She went
through and highlighted the process that involves staff looking at the
threshold items listed, then the program priorities that are reviewed by the sub
committee than if it meets the acceptable
Ken Anderson commented that he was concerned with the Enable
2000 requirements that would leave out manufactured housing. He would recommend that the Commission
exclude this requirement from any manufactured housing
project applications that are received.
Further discussion on whether the Enable 2000 should be part of the
scoring criteria, which goes above the standards of the Pima County Inclusive
Design Ordinance. Discussion on trying
to keep the criteria as simple and as uncomplicated as possible. Frank Thomson stated that he would oppose
the Commission requiring the Pima County Inclusive Design Ordinance enforced
within other local jurisdictions that do not have the same code
requirements. Betty Villegas responded
that the ordinance is good for the people we are serving as most will live in
their homes and age in place and therefore may need the additional
accessibility. She stated that it has
been a requirement for all bond projects regardless of where they are
located. Kathleen Buske further stated
that if someone is asking for Pima County funds, than they should follow Pima
County ordinances and codes regardless of where your project is located. Jon Miles than explained to the Commission
how the 1997 Bond Advisory Committee implemented the Inclusive Design plus the
additional Enable 2000 requirements. He
stated that the Committee studied this and had quite a bit of discussion prior
to implementing the requirement, deciding that it was important enough to
include. Further discussion on whether
the Enable 2000 should remain or be removed completely.
Ken Anderson made a
motion to remove
the Enable 2000 from the scoring criteria.
Frank Thomson seconded.
Discussion on what exactly Enable 2000 includes.
Frank Moreno called
for the question. Roll Call Vote. Motion carried 5 for 2 against.
Hank Atha referred everyone back to the scoring criteria and
stated that the cost per unit is very vague and needs to be included in the
scoring criteria. Discussion on how the
cost should be scored, what should be used.
Gary Bachman explained that sometimes the best quality of housing isn’t
necessarily the cheapest, but the long term benefits of quality housing for
affordable housing is a better investment and use of these funds.
Further discussion on what affordable housing should look
like. Frank Moreno recommended that the
Commission look at the scoring criteria and come back to the next meeting
prepared to bring thought out suggestions and modifications to the existing
document.
Kathleen Buske commented that the Commission has been
consistently asked at almost every meeting to give feedback and comments and
failed to do so. Betty Villegas stated
that it is very important that the Commission give staff direction on what they
want to see as criteria, and if they don’t provide the feedback, staff will
provide what they feel is appropriate for scoring the bond applications. It was decided that the Commission would
send staff their comments by December 5, 2005.
It was also decided that the next meeting would be moved up to December
12, 2005 due to the holidays.
Call to the
Audience
Terry Galligan stated that there is a sense of urgency in
trying to finalize the application. He
also stated that since there is not a non profit on the Commission, he would be
willing to answer any questions or address any issues that may come up.
Carlos Renova stated that as a housing provider, CPLC is
very proud of what it has been able to accomplish and working directly with the
families that they put into these homes is what is important. These families deserve a quality home that
they can be proud of.
Terry Galligan then commented that they work with the
families that are at 80% of median income, and it is not easy trying to get
them qualified for these programs. The
funds needed are many. The bond funds
is one source, many times there are 4 or five other sources of leverage. The
commission needs to put that in perspective when talking about affordable
housing.
Motion to adjourn
meeting at 3:40 pm by Frank Thomson
Seconded by Ken
Anderson Passed unanimously.