ROARING FORK HOUSING AUTHORITY INITIATIVE MEMORANDUM To: Steering Committee and Staff From: Andy Knudtsen, Economic and Planning Systems 303-623-3557 Kathy McCormick, McCormick & Associates 303-499-1915 Colin Laird, Healthy Mountain Communities 963-5502 Subject: Summary of Discussion August 7, 2002 Date: August 21, 2002 Summary of Discussion August 7, 2002 Participants Tracy Bennett, Town of Basalt, Town Council Scott Chaplin, Town of Carbondale, Town Council Russ Criswell, Town of Carbondale, Town Council Tom Stone, Eagle County, Board of County Commissioners Walt Stowe, Garfield County, Board of County Commissioners Susan Hunke, Mountain Regional Housing Corporation Colin Laird, Healthy Mountain Communities Kathy McCormick, McCormick and Associates Andy Knudtsen, Economic & Planning Systems Three-Year Goal for Organization The steering committee was asked about their vision for the organization. Committee members described the following activities as part of a “three-year goal” for the regional housing authority: ? Establish an inventory of housing. ? Set goal for production. ? Establish a funding source. ? Become an active developer that will participate in project development. ? Build partnerships with land trusts. ? Define need (specifically match unit type with tenure). ? Work with local towns to provide land. ? Assemble parcels of land for development. ? Help owners build equity. ? Focus on housing for emergency workers. ? While there is an emphasis on for-sale housing, the consensus was to include rental housing as a goal at a lower priority. ? Provide loan assistance to home purchasers. ? Establish revolving loans for down payment assistance. ? Provide better definitions of eligibility. ? Create uniform definitions for all jurisdictions in the Lower Roaring Fork Valley. ? Educate the community (particularly in terms of deed restrictions.) ? Help residents move up to market. While some residents may choose to stay in subsidized housing, there should be a goal to help them move up by moving out. ? The regional housing authority should function as a clearinghouse of information, drawing from the resources provided from a number of different housing organizations on the state level. There was discussion about including Aspen/Pitkin County more formally in the regional housing authority discussions. Steering committee members felt that although they could learn a lot from upper valley successes and mistakes, this effort was about housing the lower valley workforce. There was agreement that the upper valley governments should be briefed on this effort. Staffing and Budget The steering committee agreed that there are two central elements of the proposed Regional Housing Authority. They include organization and short term funding and housing development and long-term funding. Each contains a different set of issues/goals and timeframes and, although they are ultimately connected, can be discussed separately. Short-term Funding Short-term funding must cover annual administration costs, estimated at $150,000 to $200,000. Since local governments can create the regional housing authority through an intergovernmental agreement (no public vote is required), this could be accomplished through annual contributions from member governments regardless of a successful ballot question. A key part of the short-term funding discussion involved the length of time local governments would contribute to the authority before the entity could be funded through a successful ballot question. Many members thought two years was reasonable timeframe before a ballot question. Given the current budget estimates for the regional authority ( approximately $150,000 to $200,000 annually), steering committee members discussed a number of ways of reducing this cost for the interim period before a ballot question. Some suggestions were made about covering the interim costs, such as in-kind services from existing housing staff. Alternatively, existing housing positions could be cut, with the funds made available to the regional housing organization. Finally, committee members discussed the activities of the proposed housing authority to illustrate the value of the entity and its staff to address current affordable housing needs and alleviate affordable housing-related demands on current local planning staff. This list will be particularly important as committee members discuss the need to fund the Housing Authority on an interim basis with their colleagues. The proposed activities include: ? Provide consistency in applying program standards to applicants seeking housing; ? Advise local governments about housing policy; ? Review and comment on proposed affordable housing projects submitted by developers to meet local housing requirements; ? Evaluate and/or undertake potential development opportunities for local governments, area non-profits or the regional housing authority; ? Provide a consistent source of updated information regarding sales and rent trends in the area; ? Comment on job creation as it relates to proposed non-residential development and its potential impact on housing demand in the area; ? Facilitate public-private partnerships that would result in additional housing for moderate income households; ? Provide a centralized source of information about affordable housing for residents and developers in the area; and, ? Administer deed restrictions and oversee program administration. It is likely that income verification and related tasks would continue to be provided by the GCHA. The regional housing authority would administer the contract for these services. Long-term Funding The committee discussed the long-term funding needs particularly as they relate to the authority’s ability to be an active force in the development process. Although the administrative, coordination, analysis and policy functions of a regional housing authority can be covered through annual contributions from local governments, the authority will need resources from a combination of fees and taxes to develop housing in partnership with the public and private sectors. After discussing the advantages and disadvantages of fees and taxes (property and sales), committee members agreed that a sunset clause will be critical to the success of a funding program. The committee discussed a range of years that a tax would be in effect. The discussion included 5 to 15 years and many of the participants were comfortable with a 10-year tax, although more information about revenues and expenditures is needed prior to finalizing the timeframe. Suggestions were also made to shorten to period to allow a year for assessment and to lessen the perceived burden to the voters (i.e., nine years appears to be less than ten years). The committee members felt that the ten year time frame was ample time for a regional housing authority to show success in the affordable housing arena. At that time, the housing authority will have data from the previous time period to document the effectiveness of the program and ask for an extension of the tax support. If it could not show success, it did not deserve more public support. The committee asked for estimates for the subsidy requirement needed to achieve the targeted production goal. The funding estimate will be used to derive the type, magnitude, and duration of the optimal tax proposal. EPS will return with estimates for expenditures, revenue, and required subsidies for project development and administration. Ballot Proposal Committee members briefly discussed a proposed tax initiative and posed the question, “Why would voters support this?” To answer this and related questions, members made the following points that need be addressed before voters would support a tax. They include: ? Define a production target. ? The cap on production should address concerns from the private sector. ? Define clear limits and clear goals, which will generate support. ? Create development guidelines to address NIMBY concerns. For example, the housing authority could establish a minimum ratio of free market units to affordable units, limit the total number of units in any given project, and establish design guidelines. PAGE 4 OF 4 ROARING FORK HOUSING AUTHORITY INITIATIVE HEALTHY MOUNTAIN COMMUNITIES