Pima County Housing Commission
Pima County Recreation Center
2805 E Ajo Way Room 104
Members
Present:
Members Absent: Staff
& Guests:
Tim
Escobedo Ken Anderson Honorable Supervisor Richard Elias
Frank
Moreno Steve Craddock Hank Atha
David
Greenberg Margaret Kish
Jon Miles Betty
Villegas
Kathleen Buske Gary
Bachman
Henry Boice Marcos
Ysmael
Ed
Taczanowsky Daniel Tylutki
Frank
Thomson Samantha Romero
Scott Place Lisa
Giannini
Terry
Galligan
Lori Lustig
David
Greenr
Erin Morris
Anna
Anderson
Meeting called to order by Chair Frank Moreno at 3:01 PM.
II. Approval of Minutes from August
22, 2005 and September 12, 2005
August 22, 2005: Frank Moreno stated some
typographical corrections, and a correction on page 4 sentence 5, after “the
amount” left blank should read $3,750.00.
Motion by David Greenberg to approve the
minutes with noted corrections.
Seconded by Ed Taczanowsky. Motion
carried unanimously.
September 12, 2005: Public
Hearing Minutes
Motion by Ed Taczanowsky to approve the minutes
Seconded by Jon Miles Motion carried unanimously.
Frank
Moreno asked the Commissioners to hold all questions until after the Staff
Report was completed.
Betty Villegas stated that staff would address all
the questions that came up at the Public Hearing.
1.
Statutory ability for Pima County to collect funds at escrow :
a.
Since it is a voluntary fee, the fee can be collected at permitting or
escrow.
2.
Assessment or budget of funds needed for homebuyer counseling and
education.
a. Gary Bachman stated that staff
sent out a survey to 8 non-profit agencies that provide this service. Based on survey, the average gap to fund
homebuyer education and counseling for the agencies is estimated at
$67,000.00. Ed Taczanowsky asked if
that was per year, and Gary Bachman responded that yes, it is per year.
3.
Chart presented by Commissioners be completed using Bright Futures data.
a.
Daniel Tylutki presented the table that showed a total of 2, 326 new home
sales in Pima County. Using the full
sales price from 2004 data provided in cohorts of 5000(ex:
$150,000.00-$154,999.00) and assuming that 94% of all new home sales are from rezoning,
the annual revenue calculated from the roof top fee would have been
$2,043,269.00. Daniel clarified that the 2,326 was only for
new homes in unincorporated Pima County.
4.
Information on warranties comparing new homes to rehabilitated homes.
a.
Marcos Ysmael presented a matrix showing the warranties offered by new
home builders and Remodeler contractors.
The information was from telephone inquiries to the different sales
offices, and was not consistent. Marcos
called the Registrar of Contractors and was told that warranties are two years
for workmanship. Frank Thomson stated
that new home warranties are significantly greater than remodeling
warranties. He also stated that we need
to know this information so that the Commission is clear on how the funds collected are being used.
5.
Legal reasons why resale cannot be included in the fee structure.
a.
Betty Villegas stated that in discussing with the County Attorney, the legal reasons we cannot collect fees on
resale transactions is because the County does not have the statutory authority
to collect any type of fee. The Recorders office can collect a recording fee
and there is a real estate transfer fee on the books that is really a recording
fee. The County would need to ask the state legislature to change the existing
ARS (Arizona Revised Statute) that would allow us to implement a fee. Staff has
recommended to Deputy County
Administrator Hank Atha that this item be placed on the agenda for the next state legislative session
6.
Does the recommendation from the Commissioners dedicating the revenue
from the fee to new construction only violate the Federal Housing Act?
a.
Gary
Bachman gave this comment. “Will the
action of the Commission adversely impact protected classes? There are two laws, one is the Civil Rights
Act and the other is the Accessibility Laws. Technicalities would include
families, those with disabilities, and minorities. Unless there was a blatant action or intention on part of the Commission
to exclude particular classes from participation in our programs it would be
difficult for a complaint to stick. Pima County and the Commissioners have an
obligation to make sure that our programs and projects have a broad reach in
the community. The programs should be designed to attract those who are least
likely to participate to apply. That’s somewhat of our mission.” Gary finished his comment by stating that it
would be appropriate in the future for the Commission to have a discussion on
fair housing.
IV.
Discussion and Possible Action on Contribution
Schedule
Frank Moreno thanked staff for their presentation. He then opened up discussion to see what action might be taken in recommending
to the Board of Supervisors. He
instructed the Commission to discuss the recommendation in two sections. The first being the actual Chart (Table),
and the second, the conditions of the Chart (Table).
Frank Thomson apologized for not
attending the prior meeting where much of what he was asking was
discussed. He wanted clarification on
the opinion memo presented by Hank Atha on the collection of the
contribution. Hank Atha responded that
the fee was voluntary and does not require statutory authority to collect. He
further stated that the contribution is based on the development agreement
between the County and the Developer.
Frank Thomson also asked for clarification on other issues relating to
the table and the collection mechanism.
There was more discussion about the table presented by the Commission,
and how they came up with the different breaks. Frank Thomson asked the Commission to explain the rationale for
the table presented as opposed to the original table. Their was further discussion in response to the questions from
Frank Thomson.
Ed Taczanowsky asked if it would be
appropriate to put a full motion on the table for everyone to discuss. Frank Thomson wanted to discuss a couple
more items before a formal motion was made.
Frank Thomson commented that he was not sure the commission should
restrict the use of funds strictly for new homes. He stated that we should not limit the use, but rather make new
homes a priority. David Greenberg
stated that he would like to see it modified to allow the builder /developer of
a given community keep 25% of the fees collected in the same project. He also stated that he listened to the
people at the public hearing and makes the funds more flexible to use in the
resale market as well. Frank Thomson
agreed. Frank Thomson also stated that
he felt the builders should have the opportunity to com up with an alternative
plan, if it will be in the best interest of Pima County and affordable
housing. Ed Taczanowsky responded
stating that from his member’s point of view, “the level of fees that you’re
talking about per unit is significant. It’s significant to the point where we
are the only building industry association that I know of that has voluntarily
come in and said, Yes, we will participate in a per rooftop fee for affordable
housing. And because of that, and because of the leadership that the County has
demonstrated with helping us realize what a good community is and how to build
it, we’re sitting here at the table. And I am ready to make a motion that would
cover all of these points, unless someone else would like to give it a try”. Frank Moreno asked if everyone was okay with
the table prior to the motion being made.
Ed Taczanowsky stated that the only change he would make is to lower the
cap from $10,000.00 to $5,000.00.
Ed Taczanowsky then made the following motion:
That the Commission accepts the
contribution table recommended by the Housing Commission changing the cap limit
from $10,000.000 to $5,000.00,
That the fee be collected at escrow
versus permitting using full sales purchase price, That at the developers
discretion 25% of the fees generated from the (developers) project be used in
that project, using the same eligibility requirements as the Housing Trust
Fund, and setting a time frame to be determined by staff for the funds to be
used or rolled back into the Housing Trust Fund,
That the funds collected from the
fee be used for other programs modeled after the Arizona Housing Trust Fund,
including but not limited to down payment and housing counseling and education,
And that no more than 10% should be
set aside for rehabilitation projects.
Seconded by David Greenberg
Frank Moreno asked for clarification
on how the 25% set aside would work. Ed
Taczanowsky used and example of how that would work stating that if a
subdivision had 100 houses at $100.00 per unit, there would be $10,0000. 00
contributed, of which the contributing developer could use $2,500.00 for clients
buying in same subdivision. There would
also be a time limit that staff would determine is appropriate.
Jon Miles stated that he was against
changing the cap from $10,000.00 to $5,000.00.
He further stated that people who are buying houses at that expensive price can afford
$10,000. Frank Thomson stated that he
felt all fees were too high and although he was not in agreement with the
Table, he supports the $5,000.00 cap and asked the maker of the motion to add
back condition number 5 giving the builders the ability to submit an
alternative method to the Board of Supervisors. Ed Taczanowsky replied that as the maker of the motion he would
not make that change. Further
discussion on the motion.
Ed Taczanowsky called for the question
Motion passed 8 to 1
V.
Call to the Audience
Terry Galligan from Old Pueblo
Community Foundation stated:
I just wanted to make one quick
comment; I am Terry Galligan from Old Pueblo. On your vote, I wasn’t clear on if
you did add into the housing counseling/homebuyer education. And there wasn’t
really any indication of a cap on that or an amount. To put a 10% cap on the
rehab is also an area I thought should be revisited.
I have a question for Gary
Bachman. Was $67,000.00 additional or
recommended?
Betty Villegas commented that those types
of questions will be looked at and discussed in more detail when the Commission
starts working on programs.
Marilyn Robinson stated:
My name is Marilyn Robinson, and I
have been involved in affordable housing in this community for over twenty
years. And I just wanted to say first of all I wanted to thank the Pima County
for creating a Housing Commission. But I am a little concerned about the
purpose. Because it states that the purpose of the Commission is to increase
the amount of housing in Pima County that is affordable to low/median income
families. And I am not yet hearing that happening out of this Commission. And I
am not at all of your meetings, so maybe you are. And then the other thing is
with the Trust Fund, I think a Housing Trust Fund is a wonderful thing that the
County has agreed to do. But again, that is your role to carry that out. And it
states on your website, and maybe you need to change you website, that the
primary purpose of the Trust Fund will be to assist Pima County low income
residents to purchase and improve housing. And I don’t know that you’ve
achieved that. Thank you.
Frank Moreno thanked the public for
their comments.
Ed Taczanowsky asked staff if the
Board of Supervisors had passed the two projects up and if so, how many new
units of affordable housing that would provide.
Supervisor Richard Elias answered
that he thought it would be 200 units.
Motion to adjourn meeting by Tim Escobedo
Seconded by Ed Taczanowsky Passed unanimously meeting adjourned at 4:05 PM