Pima County Housing Commission
Pima County Administration Building
130 W. Congress – 11th
Floor Conference Room
Members
Present: Members
Absent: Staff & Guests:
Tim
Escobedo Henry Boice Betty Villegas
Frank
Moreno Frank Thomson Gary Bachman
David
Greenberg Daniel
Tylutki
Jon Miles Hank
Atha
Kathleen
Longnecker Margaret
Kish
Ken
Anderson Celina
Cuaron
Ed
Taczanowsky Samantha
Romero
Steve
Craddock
Marcos Ysmael
Scott Place Michael
McDonald
Terry
Galligan
Lori Lustig
Commission Chair Frank Moreno called the meeting to order at 3:07 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
July 18, 2005
First item
on the agenda – approval of the minutes from July 18, 2005, Chair Frank Moreno
stated the following corrections:
·
Add Supervisor Richard Elias as a guest.
·
Item #2 subheadings should read “minutes from June 20.
·
Page 4 Last paragraph should read, “Ed Taczanowsky made
motion to forward conceptual guidelines as they are to public hearing”.
Motion by Ken Anderson to approve the July 18,
2005 minutes with noted corrections.
Seconded by Ed Taczanowsky. Motion
carried unanimously.
2004
Housing Bond applications were presented by Betty Villegas at the direction of
both sub-committee members.
Sub-Committee
A met on August 10, 2005 and recommends the following:
Motion by Ed Taczanowsky to recommend Board of
Supervisor approve Casas Bonitas III, IV, V project as presented.
Seconded by Kathleen Buske. Motion
carried unanimously.
Motion by Ed Taczanowsky
to recommend Board of Supervisor approve Sylvester Drive project as presented.
Seconded by Kathleen Buske. Motion
carried unanimously.
Subcommittee
B met on August 11, 2005, with two committee members present. The projects were
summarized without a formal recommendation.
Motion by Ed Taczanowsky to recommend Board of
Supervisor approve Ghost Ranch Lodge project as presented.
Seconded by Kathleen Buske. Motion
carried unanimously.
Motion by Ed Taczanowsky to recommend Board of
Supervisor approve Corazon Del Pueblo project as presented.
Seconded by Kathleen
Buske. Motion carried unanimously.
Ken Anderson asked
about whether all bond projects just approved were homeownership or
rental. Betty Villegas responded that 2
projects were rental and 2 were homeownership.
Betty Villegas
discussed that while sitting in on both sub-committees, each one had a
different approach on reviewing and scoring the applications. After discussing the matter with Deputy
County Administrator Hank Atha, he recommends that Staff halt acceptance of
applications until after the Commission has a better process that will be
consistent.
Ed Taczanowsky asked
if there was a legal reason as to why the County Administrator would halt
taking application. Betty Villegas
responded that it was not due to legal reasons but rather the need for the
commission as a whole to be consistent in the way applications are reviewed and
scored. She also stated that the
Commission needs to look at the whole program and come up with a complete
process on how to allocate the 2004 housing bond funds.
Motion by David Greenberg to delay taking
applications until after the public hearing, and after the full commission had
a chance to review process and agree to some revisions.
Seconded Ed Taczanowksy. Further discussion on having a training by
all commissioners, making it a mandatory workshop.
Dave Greenberg changed motion to state that
in addition to suspending accepting new applications after the public hearing,
and after the Commission has met to review the process, that this issue be a
high priority with the training session be scheduled prior to the October 17th
Commission meeting.
Ken Anderson asked
whether staff could hold any new applications.
Betty Villegas stated that since the clock starts ticking once an
application is taken, staff would prefer not holding them until they can be
processed.
Motion carried unanimously.
Marcos Ysmael
distributed the General Obligation Bond Reconciliation Report. Gave a summary of the amount to be awarded
if the Board of Supervisors funds all projects recommended for approval.
David Greenberg
stated that he would like to discuss the relationship between ownership and
rental at a future meeting.
Betty Villegas stated
that she has noted future agenda items from previous meeting on this agenda,
including the issue raised by David Greenberg about ownership v rental for bond
projects.
End of staff report.
Betty Villegas
distributed a draft agenda, and recommendation guideline that staff had
discussed for the upcoming public hearing.
Discussion on how the
public will be noticed for the public hearing.
Motion by Ed Taczanowsky
to follow the regular open meeting laws for the public hearing.
Seconded by David Greenberg. Further discussion on making sure that we
follow the open meeting laws for a public hearing, and not do any extra
advertising for the hearing.
Motion carries unanimously.
Discussion
on the format of public hearing. It was
decided that Chair would run meeting and staff would do the background
information and a short presentation on affordable housing. The hearing will be formatted in the same
way as the Supervisors and City Council meetings, with individuals filling out
speaker cards, and having a 3-minute limit for speaking along with ending the
public hearing within 2 hours. It was
also decided that a decision should not be made at the end of meeting but
rather to wait until the October 17th meeting.
Further
discussion on the table to be presented, and whether an alternative table
should be presented. Kathy Buske stated that at the meeting held on July 17,
2005, it was motioned and passed that the Commissioners could individually
research and possibly come back to this meeting and present an alternative
table to the one in the November 16, 2004 memo. She stated that, she and other Commissioners came up with an
alternative table that she presented and distributed. She then explained the differences between the 2 tables. Ed Taczanowksy then stated that when the
original table was presented, it was based on collecting the fee using the
valuation cost without including the land, yet the amount shown used a sales
price. He than stated that the table being presented showed the fee collected
using the final sales price of home including the land, which he felt was the
intent of the original table, and would produce more funds. The table presented had a cap in the amount
of Kathleen Buske stated that the table being presented was much clearer, and
easier to understand. She then went
through the conditions listed at bottom of table, outlining what she and others
are recommending be changed. They
included:
1. The residential
closing agent will forward a check at close of escrow to the Pima County
Housing Trust Fund. Kathleen
Buske explained that the funds would be collected at time of closing, based on
full sales price including land and options.
2. Funds contributed
to the Pima County Trust Fund by new home construction will be designated for
down payment assistance for new home purchases. Ken
Anderson asked if this would exclude rentals? Kathleen Buske explained that
funds would only be used to assist in new home ownership. She stated that program is to help
affordable housing, and since homeownership is the goal, the program should
help people become homebuyers. Ed
Taczanowksy remarked that this would meet the interpretation of “nexus” where
if you are collecting funds from new home construction, it should be used for
buying new homes.
3. Up to 25% of the
funds contributed by new home construction may be designated for the
contributing project at time of plat, at the request of the
homebuilder/developer. Kathleen Buske explained that it
would be at the discretion of builder/developer on using funds for the
contributing project.
4. Affordable
Housing programs of the Pima County Housing Trust Fund, other than down payment
assistance for new home purchases, will be funded by sources other than new
home construction contributions.
Kathleen Buske explained that this goes back to trying to find another
funding mechanism to fund other programs that need to be accomplished such as
renovations of existing homes. Ed Taczanowksy then stated that his
industry is “the only one coming to the table as a group and we have an answer,
and you never see anyone else coming forward financially to address this
issue”. He further stated that by
keeping the funds for new homes only and not allowing the funds to be used for
existing homes might be the one way in which we can possibly engage some of
these other stakeholders to start participating financially.
5. Homebuilder/Developer
may submit an alternative proposal in keeping with the goals of the Pima County
Housing Trust Fund and the intent of the contribution recommendations to the
Pima County Housing Commission for review and approval. Kathleen Buske stated that collaboration and dialogue is
important and as long as its in keeping with the goals of the housing trust
fund, homebuilders/developers should be allowed to think outside the box.
Motion by Kathleen Buske to present the
table just presented with the conditions at the public hearing on September 12.
Seconded by Ed Taczanowsky.
Discussion on motion presented
included whether the cap of $3,750.00 should be included. After much discussion it was agreed upon to
change the cap from $3,750.00 to $10,000.00. Discussion also on the recapture
of funds provided, and it was agreed that a sixth item be added to the table
stating a recapture provision. Hank
Atha asked whether the commission would broaden the use of funds especially
once the bond fund runs out. Betty Villegas stated that another nexus for new
home purchases is homebuyer education and counseling, and therefore, should be
included as an eligible funded program. She stated that Pima County requires
that all homebuyers assisted with down payment and closing costs funds, whether
resale or new homes, go through a HUD certified homebuyer and education program
prior to closing. Ed Taczanowsky
disagreed and stated that the persons he represents would not look at using
funds collected through this fee as paying for something associated to the sale
of the home being purchased. Ken Anderson called for the question.
Kathleen Buske accepted
friendly amendments to the motion that included changing the recapture
provision and increasing the cap on the table.
Motion carries eight to
one.
Tim Escobedo stated that he had
several questions and concerns regarding the conditions and therefore that is
why he voted against it.
It was discussed that everyone
understood that this table was being presented as another option and nothing is
final. The original table has some
flaws, and the table presented may e a way of clearing up the flaws.
Ed Taczanowsky offered to have
Bright Futures consulting to present the table, and fill in the blanks in the
table. SAHBA could have them (Bright Futures) fill in the blanks with current
numbers. Gary Bachman wanted to make it clear that the issue is based on
rezoning not actual permits, and it is very difficult to know what rezoning
will come up. Ed Taczanowsky stated that the original memo stated
valuations. Further discussion on what
the tables should include. This will be
only for new plats and rezoning. Hank Atha stated that it would be good to have
Bright Futures run the numbers. Ed Taczanowsky will contact John from Bright
Futures. Betty Villegas asked staff to present the original table with current
numbers collected from development services. Daniel Tylutki distributed table
and explained the numbers from past three years. Marcos Ysmael further
explained how they came up with the valuation numbers. Further discussion on
the differences between the two tables presented. Ed Taczanowsky commented that though he appreciated that hard
work of the staff, the table presented by Kathleen Buske is much clearer. Betty Villegas asked for clarification on
the fees collected at escrow, whether the amount would show on the buyer or the
seller side of the statement. David Greenberg stated that it would show as a
seller cost of the seller side of the HUD I closing statement. Betty Villegas
then stated that though she understands the collecting at escrow is much
easier, she is not comfortable with the conditions that are included as part of
the table. Frank Moreno stated that all this information presented was a little
overwhelming, it still needs to be presented at the public hearing where we
will need to see what the public comments will be.
Gary Bachman then presented a
report that showed that in order for the Commission to reach the goal set by
the Board of Supervisors to increase the home ownership rate by 10% by 2010, we
will need an additional approximately 5.2 million a year from now until then.
That should be the goal for the Commission to consider when looking at the
revenue stream.
The discussion then went to the
bond program, where Betty Villegas recommended a full day retreat where the
Commission takes a field trip to see some of the past and current projects.
Steve Craddock said h would like clarification regarding ownership versus
rental. He also commented that he would like for staff to research land
currently owned by Pima County that could be used for affordable housing
projects.
Ed Taczanowsky made a
motion
directing staff to work with county attorney and look into increasing the
recording fee as a possible revenue stream.
Ken Anderson seconded
motion.
Motion passed
unanimously.
Ed Taczanowsky motioned
to adjourn.
Tim Escobedo seconded
motion.
Motion passed
unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 5:00
PM.