Pima County Housing Commission

Committee Meeting

July 18, 2005 – 3:30 p.m.

 

Pima County Administration Building

130 W. Congress - 1st Floor Conference Room

 

Members Present:              Members Absent:                       Staff & Guests:

 

Tim Escobedo                  Henry Boice                            Carol Norris

Frank Moreno                    Scott Place                             Betty Villegas                       

David Greenberg                                                                   Gary Bachman       

Jon Miles                                                                                 Hank Atha

Kathleen Longnecker                                                                 Margaret Kish

Ken Anderson                                                                         Daniel Tylutki

Ed Taczanowsky                                                              Terry Galligan

Steve Craddock

Frank Thompson

                                                                                               

I.                    Welcome & Call to Order

Commission Chair Frank Moreno called the meeting to order at 3:40 p.m. with a quorum present.  Betty Villegas made reference to the official roster and asked the Commission to sign above their name.

 

II.               Approval of Minutes from April 27, 2005 

First item on the agenda – approval of the minutes from June 20, 2005, No additions or corrections were noted.

 

Motion by David Greenberg to approve the June 20 minutes.

Seconded by Ken Anderson.  Motion carried unanimously.

 

III.        Staff Reports

Betty introduced Daniel Tylutki, the newest member of the staff for the Affordable Housing Program.  Daniel distributed the Housing Bond Application Tracking Sheet and provided information on each of the listed projects including: MLK Depot Plaza reviewed and recommended by the Commission on June 20, 2005; Sylvester Drive Estates, 13 unit single family development; Casa Bonita, III, IV, V – multi-family, scattered site for SMI, LIHTC; Corazon del Pueblo, Habitat for Humanity collaborative project, 20 units in Phase I; Ghost Ranch Lodge, LIHTC, elderly housing. Projects 2, 3 4 and 5 are still in the underwriting process.  Mr. Anderson asked about the non-profit status of the organizations. Betty Villegas clarified that the applicants are all non-profit organizations and that once the application packets are completed; these will be distributed to the Commissioners. Mr. Greenberg requested that staff add an additional column that show a recap of bond funds available.  Hank Atha also suggested that it would be useful information for the Commission to have the total projected budget of the project represented on the spreadsheet.  Daniel Tylutki provided this information verbally, and stated that he would add these columns to future spreadsheets.

Mr. Anderson inquired about the number of rental units vs. home ownership units that are represented on the Housing Bond Application spreadsheet, and asked for clarification regarding the charter of the Commission as one to increase home ownership.  Betty Villegas stated that the Commission can limit the number of rental units that are funded through the bond funds, and that it can be a future agenda item for discussion.

 

Gary Bachman addressed the 2005 Annual Action Plan that is transmitted to HUD for the coming fiscal year for entitlement projects including CDBG, HOME, and ESG and to address other questions that HUD has regarding community planning.  The 2005 Annual Action Plan was developed to include all programs under the Community Development and Neighborhood Conservation department. Betty directed the Commission to information regarding the down-payment assistance programs, and stated that staff is working on a down payment initiatives with the Town of Sahaurita and the Town of Marana.

 

Betty Villegas addressed the Commission and distributed a draft of the Housing Bond Fund application draft that was developed by staff and requested input from the Commission regarding changes to the application that may prove helpful. Hank Atha asked how cost was evaluated and addressed in the application process.  Betty provided information regarding the data collected from applicant to assess the cost.  Mr. Atha asked if the cost of the project was considered in the scoring of the application. Betty stated that infrastructure costs are supported by bond funds, with dramatic changes in these costs over the past several years. Mr. Atha stated concerns relating to the 1997 projects in process. He recommended that the Commission consider the issue of escalating inflation as a future agenda item. Ms. Villegas stated that it is currently taking $40,000 in subsidy, leveraging multiple sources for families to become homeowners, sometimes resulting in 5 or 6 liens on a home. Betty Villegas recommended that the Commissioners address the issue related to escalating infrastructure costs, gap financing, and bond fund caps on future agendas. Mr. Atha also stated that the commission should consider innovative building strategies in using bond funds for homeownership.

 

Frank Thompson asked for clarification on the application in regards to recommending projects to the Board of Supervisors.  Betty Villegas clarified that staff may recommend to the Commission, but the application must score at least 80 for the Commission to recommend funding to the Board of Supervisors.  She also clarified that the Commission recommends the projects to the Board of Supervisors.

 

Mr. Thompson discussed a Phoenix model using a revolving loan fund.  Mr. Thompson requested that staff provide the Commission with details regarding this program.  His concern is that homeowners receive a “windfall” of equity, but there is no mechanism to redirect/recapture funds for new projects. Betty stated that she will consult with bond counsel on this issue.  Supervisor Elias clarified that the bond funds are for public right of way, public infrastructure only.  Wealth building is a primary goal of this program. Since the projects require leverage funds from multiple sources, there are liens associated with the housing, which will reduce the risk of homeowners incurring a “windfall”. Additionally, these built in restrictions encourage families to remain in their homes and at the same time protecting the governmental resources invested in the project. 

 

Supervisor Elias stated that the Commission will need to consider building in protections for the funds that will comprise the Housing Trust Fund. These funds will not have the same protections as the bond funds or other entitlement programs.

 

Mr. Greenberg requested that staff research issues related to possible recapture of funds, possible silent seconds on properties or other models that would be applicable and bring back information to the Commission.  Concern regarding the protection of the bond funds given that the number of rentals that are being proposed in the applications. 

 

Mr. Craddock asked if the County has reviewed current land holdings, with existing infrastructure.  These properties may prove   fairly easy to design a project around these properties.  Supervisor Elias stated that it would be very useful to update the review of land holdings for the County and other jurisdictions.  Supervisor referred Betty to John Regan to utilize GIS capabilities to determine what land is available.

 

 

IV.     Discussion on Contribution Fee Structure

Chair Moreno referred the Commissioners to the transcripts and minutes of the Board of Supervisors and the November 16, 2004 memo regarding the establishment of the Housing Commission.

 

Mr. Taczanowsky clarified that the Commission is to hold public hearings on the contribution fee structure.  The concept for affordable housing fee should be discussed in its entirety. A roof top fee for fee on property should be up for discussion. 

 

Mr. Anderson asked if legal counsel could explore the issue of a fee on pre-owned homes, and to determine if state law precludes this.

 

The issue of a possible closing fee was discussed, such as what Rancho Sahuarita has written into their covenants.  The State of Arizona has a $2 transfer fee, per transaction, paid to the State of Arizona general funds.  SABHA attorney has researched this issue and Mr. Taczanowsky will provide information to the Commission regarding this fee.

 

There was discussion on exploring other revenue stream possibilities, including those that may require legislative action and also discussion on revenue streams that would include both resale homes and new construction homes.

 

Chair Moreno stated that the Commission needs to maintain the “philosophy” of the Board of Supervisors in enacting the Housing Trust Fund.  Supervisor Elias directed the Commissioners to items A through H that clarify the Board’s philosophy. Ms. Longnecker read from the minutes that Table A is to be used as a guideline.

 

Mr. Craddock stated that there is a community crisis, which is why the Commission is addressing the issue of affordable housing. 

 

Mr. Thompson discussed the barriers to affordable housing.  He shared some of the issues that he perceives as problems contributing to the high cost of housing, including the impact of regulations on the cost of a house, and the application of regulations across the board.

 

Mr. Taczanowsky discussed some of the issues he had witnessed in California, and warned that Pima County could be heading in that same direction.  He further stated that he believes the Commission needs to look at the big picture, to get enough money into the Housing Trust Fund from various sources so that programs can help families get into housing.  Mr. Anderson stated that the range for the contribution fee is between 2/10 of 1% and 1 1/2 % on a million dollar home, which are not difficult numbers to achieve, and is in favor of moving forward with what we currently have while looking at other revenue sources in the future. Mr. Escobedo stated the Commission has the  basic guidelines that are identified in A through H, but that the Commission has the ability to look for additional sources of funding  so that the Commission should move forward. 

 

Ms. Longnecker stated that the tables and figures were generated in November. She than asked that if the Commission takes the guidelines and holds a public hearing, can we look at other options and adjust the fee or does the fee need to stay the same?  Supervisor Elias stated that the Commission is not going to be able to solve the issues related to affordable housing.  The Commissioner should look at the table, and explore developing other funds, given the severity of the issues related to affordable housing and adjust it accordingly.  The table looks at homeownership only, and the issues related to affordable housing are much broader.

 

Mr. Escobedo stated that the table was based on unincorporated Pima County. Funds will benefit other municipalities and this table does not take that into consideration.  The burden should not fall on unincorporated Pima County. 

 

Chair Moreno asked the Commissioners how they wanted to proceed. Mr. Greenberg stated that the Commission needs to hold the public hearing, scheduled for September 12, 2005.  Betty Villegas stated that Commission may want to discuss the table at the August meeting, given that the table is based on 2003-04 information.  Ms. Longnecker stated that, if the table is as is presented at the public hearing, and subsequently the Commission wants to change the table, the Commission would have to hold another public hearing.  Supervisor Elias suggested that the Commission may want to develop several alternatives and present these alternatives at the public hearing, giving the Commissioners more latitude in making their recommendation.  Mr. Greenberg stated that it is important for the Commission to have input on the table, and be aggressive at the next meeting to develop alternatives to the existing table.

 

Betty offered the staff assistance can also look at the table and develop alternatives for the Commissioners consideration. The existing table indicates structure only, and left out the land.  Perhaps staff should consider the value of the land and structure for review by the Commission. 

 

Mr. Thompson clarified procedural rules. The Commission is not locked into any position or issue, and can make a substitute motion.  No one on the Commission has agreed to recess for the purpose of a caucus.  The Commission adheres to open meeting laws.

 

A motion was made to forward the staff report, as is to the public at the public hearing and take input, and the Commission will discuss after the public meeting

Motion was seconded by Ken Anderson.

 

 

Ms. Longnecker offered a substitute motion to look at the table and discuss other options so that the Commission can present alternatives at the public hearing.

Seconded by Mr. Thompson

Substitute motion passed on a vote of 5 yeas, 4 nays

 

The original motion was not acted upon, given that the substitute motion passed.

 

Mr. Greenberg stated that the Commission needs to remain focused on the goal of having a continual pool of money for affordable housing in Pima County. Mr. Thompson clarified that the Commission is moving forward with the public hearing, and at that meeting the table will be discussed along with other alternatives.

 

Mr. Anderson asked staff if they knew what the benchmark number that the Commission was trying to achieve was as the November 16, 2004 memo states Pima Countys  goal is to increase affordable home ownership by 10% by the end of the decade.  Staff will provide that information at a future Commission meeting.

 

 

IV.                Call to the Audience

     

Introduction of Carol Norris, who will be providing technical assistance and support to the Housing Commission, provide training, materials related to affordable housing, the Housing Trust Fund, the administration of those funds, etc.  HUD is paying for this technical assistance to the Commission.  Carol will be available to the Commission in the late Fall.

 

Terry Galligan, Old Pueblo Community Foundation, addressed the Commission and thanked them for their work.  Mr. Galligan addressed the issue of current and future projects, and the reality that, due to rising costs, it will be necessary to leverage 3 or 4 sources of funds for families that are considering homeownership.

 

Steve Craddock begin a new discussion on the possibility of a Real Estate Transfer Fee, and whether the Commission could consider moving in that direction.  Discussion on whether it requires new state legislation.  Other fee options were also discussed.  Hank Atha stated that staff would explore and ask for a legal opinion on other fees, and provide that opinion to Commission at a future meeting.

 

Motion to adjourn by Tim Escobedo, Frank Thomson seconded.

 

Meeting adjourned at 5:32 PM