Affordable Housing Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes November 10, 2014 Kept documents initially created for October 27, 2014. Distributed meeting minutes from October 20 meeting. Motion to Approve; Seconded. Roll Call Members: Caprena Latimore, Tampa Bay CDC - x Michael Drapkin, Amerinational Community Services Michelle Kukec, the Coalition for the Homeless Michael Bundy, Coldwell Banker FI Grey and Son x Katherine Britton, Berkshire Hathaway x Crystal Lazar, Habitat for Humanity of East and Central Pasco x Regina Pointer Lester Cypher, The Volunteer Way, Inc Mark Wickham, Youth and Family Alternatives, Inc. Cathy Pearson, Assistant County Administrator, Pasco County Public Services Members of the Public/All Other Interested Parties Randy Fleming, Interested in AHAC; Representing National Development Foundation. Builds affordable housing in 6 states, mostly in Florida. Looking to get back into development. Confirmed location for December 3 Final Public Hearing; Meeting at Land O Lakes Community Center, Back Building. 8:30 a.m. A little earlier in the day because we are trying to capture additional committee members. 2014 Active Projects and Work Groups Planning and Development Department (Becca Stonefield) Webpage on the PDD website Trying to keep a general summary of the internal PDD projects; will be updated for 2015 when we start moving. Has links to websites on various projects. Contact information for the staff that you can go to if you have any questions. Heard from a lot of people that committee members want to get engaged. PDD staff will be main points of contact for those endeavors.
Mixed Use Trip Reduction Measures development should provide at least the opportunity for connections. Should not be completely auto-dependent. Affordable Housing Crossover à transit. Want density in the right places. Important to the transit system and for individuals that don t have a car or can t afford a car. Assists in eliminating geographic displacement. Affordable housing collocated with office/light industrial uses as well. Land Development Code reviewing the code to see what changes need to be made to allow these types of developments to occur naturally. TOD will allow for specific development types in specifically approved locations. Action Plan Discussion: Able to take large-scale ideas and started talking through what all of these barriers mean, what we would like to see improved in affordable housing policy. Committee had asked staff to put this in a format that makes sense. Had talked about a procedure and/or structure; two action plans will allow for specific procedures and actions associated with recommendations. In previous AHAC, it has been more language-oriented; we have already done a lot, so now we want to reframe ourselves around specific policy initiatives. Matrix system is the best way to convey that. Inclusionary Zoning Action Plan The order of the action plan is the order that we would like to see things occur. Specific hierarchy that we have to follow. One of the things that came up is that the AHAC was great to give general recommendations and lead us to the place we want to be. We definitely do need a task force that would have the skill set to develop a very specific inclusionary zoning policy and ordinance. Will give us a chance to dig into the recommendations. 2 nd thing Nexus Fee Study. Need to identify what the cost is and what the relationship is between affordable housing and both market rate housing and nonresidential uses. What is the cost, and who contributes most to the need for affordable housing. Will find out the true need for affordable housing in Pasco County. Able to see some information through Shimberg Center and the Census, costs, cost burden, but true need and where gaps are don t have a really good test for that right now. 3 rd Evaluate alternatives to inclusionary zoning; including but not limited to fee in lieu. This will apply to those that do not want to construct affordable housing in their developments. We have benchmark for how well this works, as we have done this in Wiregrass already. Community Development administers that fund; created the structure already. There are a couple of things we don t have a precedent for development right transfer, construction off site so we will have to evaluate those to determine if they make sense for Pasco County. 4 th Identify mechanisms to utilize funding; came directly from AHAC recommendations. Don t want this to just be a new construction program. Need balance between new construction and
rehabilitation; rental and homeownership. Want this to be unique to Pasco County and Pasco County s needs. 5 th Monitoring have to go through and identify monitoring and administrative needs for this type of program. If other monitoring requirements occur, administrative expenses would have to be identified as well. Financial Incentives - We would like, to the greatest degree possible, allow for construction on site to be the most financially appealing strategy. What we would like to do is make it financially appealing if developers are not sure, the financial incentive would be to construct on site. Geographic Restrictions Idea is to use market area boundaries to identify geographic restrictions to where funds can be expended. Transportation issue right now in Pasco County between where individuals live and where they work. Geographic restriction may not make it to where they are living right where they work, but it will allow for funds to be reinvested back into the community in which they are received. Assists in eliminating gentrification issues. Likely the nexus study will point us to the natural connection between where funding is received and where it should be expended. Would like to give the overall structure and drill down and allow for task force to further solidify recommendations. Focus on real work as opposed to legal structure of document. Throughout the action plan, you will see the associated housing policy and the impact. Every strategy has a direct impact on creating affordable housing. Nothing that has been recommended that is extraneous; logical steps to create a dedicated affordable housing structure. The 18 th is the meeting of the new BCC; we have discussed this as a staff as to how to approach them. We are taking this to our BCC on December 16 th ; less than a month since the new commissioners came into office. We are going to come in and discuss the recommendations of the committee and ask for approval of the recommendations in concept. Don t want to alienate the first two members of the BCC; will work on establishing a workshop in 2015 to discuss further and what the strategy is for presentation. Pushing for nexus study right away; we can sell the rest if we have the data to back it up. May be necessary to brief the new commissioners to discuss these concepts in depth. Affordable Housing Summit on December 10 th essential for the discussion on how important SHIP funding is; will translate into the legislative delegation discussion as well. Pushing for full SHIP funding next fiscal year. Barriers to Affordable Housing Started prioritizing barriers a few meetings ago; the goal after that was that we would take this and translate into some recommendations to alleviate the barriers. Recommended courses of action were concepts that came directly from AHAC members.
Goal is to create framework to review the LDC; here is what is happening, the Comprehensive Plan Housing Element supports these concepts; how can we change the procedural requirements, eliminate barriers, etc., to allow for the increased availability of affordable housing. Will be more aggressive asking to review/analyze/digest our existing LDC and look to see what changes can be made. Grouped together initial few all tied into one another. Addressing one is addressing all as we want to look at concept holistically. A lot of the most successful counties addressed all of these together in form based code concepts, alternative standards, etc., to allow developers to have more flexibility in the construction of their housing developments. Administrative Processing - PDD just hired 12 new people as well as significant technology improvements; PDD is taking this initiative to decrease processing time and increase efficiencies. Will also start to report back to the BCC on whether or not this is working. Two part recommendation review and determine if the process is working; also look to see if any additional changes can be made to improve affordable housing opportunities. Fee and Dedication work done to revise fee schedule to allow for increased efficiency. Also look to see what could be decreased/eliminated/reduced to allow for increased affordable housing production. Also is a financial incentive for developers to construct in existing neighborhoods. Goal is we lay the groundwork; this is what we would like to see and evaluate. Street Width does it make sense to impose a typical cross section simply because it was adopted across the board, or is there a way we can re-address for neighborhoods we are trying to revitalize? Also, contemplating rehabilitation standards. Building codes we cannot change; land development code oriented impediments are things we can evaluate. Impact fee credits part of the government acquisition impact fee credit. After 3 years, if the homeowner does not take the impact fee credit and transfer it to another piece of property, it becomes funds available for community development. Way to leverage local funds with other funding sources. The question was asked if the committee was comfortable using these matrices as the basis for the report committee agreed. Report will frame a lot of this discussion. Current courses of action will be incorporated into the plan will show what the County is doing and is planning on doing within timeframes.
Best Practices for Inclusionary Zoning Left it up to the committee to determine if they wanted to review best practices or if they had a comfort level with the material thus far. Committee was comfortable at this time. One thing that was noticed in review of the best practices was the need to be flexible. Glad that we talked about different options. Also need to look at financial incentives so we are not taking land for less than what it is valued at. Density bonuses and financial incentives need to be created so it is a value added component to the developer. Has to be worthwhile to the developer. Affordability most of what is shown in best practices is that there is a long term affordability restriction. Had initially discussed that the objective was met with the first homebuyer; other locations have a long term affordability for homeownership. We are already meeting a lot of the points that are laid out in successful inclusionary zoning programs. When talking about long term affordability for rental, CDD has a system in place for monitoring of long term affordability. Currently for homeownership, there is no assurance on long term affordability; we base it on initial purchase. When the initial buyer goes to sell, it met the objective at the time of purchase. No system in place to capture this data long-term. If we want to see long term affordability we can put in deed restrictions or covenants; just no procedure in place right now. Would be interesting to see how this would be administered. Some of the homes that were sold initially as affordable housing, in the not too distant future, they will be priced out of what the affordable buyer can buy. We would have to either create a structure, or we could determine that the reinvestment back into the program funds is sufficient. [Open Discussion Related to NSP Program, Loan Payments, Program Income, Etc.] There is a possibility of a developer building some of the units, and then paying a fee per unit for the units that they choose not to construct. We could just build that in so they have the opportunity to do both. Nexus Study is going to tell us a lot if the study is telling us that there are certain areas with a gap of affordable housing, we can focus funds in those areas as well. Going back to meeting minutes from October 20 th motion to approve with Mike Bundy showing as an attendee. Seconded. Approved. Confirmation of Next Meeting November 24, 2014.