Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHousing Task Force - 07/15/2020EDEN PRAIRIE HOUSING TASK FORCE MINUTES Wednesday July 15, 2020 HTF Members  Chair Joan Howe-Pullis Vice Chair Lyndon Moquist Carol Bomben Terry Farley Marlene Fischer Joan Palmquist Anne Peacock Ken Robinson Emily Seiple  Staff  Jonathan Stanley, Housing and Community Services Manager Amanda Pellowski, Community Development Administrative Assistant   WELCOME AND RECAP FROM LAST SESSION Howe-Pullis called the meeting to order at 5 pm. Members absent were Moquist, Fischer and Seiple. APPROVAL OF MARCH AND JUNE MINUTES Palmquist moved, and was seconded by Farley, to approve the March 2020 and June 2020 minutes without modifications. Motion carried 6-0. CHANGES TO THE DRAFT WRITTEN REPORT Stanley asked the group whether they’d prefer to keep the presentation to Council scheduled on August 18th or move it to one of the two meetings in September: September 1st or 15th. Howe-Pullis suggested waiting to the end of the meeting to make a decision. Howe-Pullis asked the group to go section by section through the report. Farley suggested starting with the recommendations that were just added to the report. Farley asked about the paragraph on the first page about the number of affordable units in Eden Prairie. It needs numbers filled in. Palmquist was confirming the numbers. Stanley wondered if the numbers should not be included in the report because of the difficulty in determining which ones are correct – some likely include single family housing and may not contribute to the goals the City is trying to meet. Palmquist would like to call that out since it’s a substantial number of units. She also feels it’s important to correct the typo in the Aspire plan. Stanley stated he’s concerned about including the numbers and thinks it may cause confusion because those units aren’t administered by the City, and addresses and income levels are unknown. Farley suggested including the number as a footnote, since it’s significant, but explaining why it’s not included in the overall number of affordable units. Stanley suggested the group strengthen the argument for trying to gain units at 30% AMI as they are most difficult to produce. Howe-Pullis agreed with trying to gain units at 30% AMI since that’s where the biggest gap is. Palmquist and Stanley will work together to make sure the numbers are representative. The group moved on to discussing the Inclusionary Housing Policy section. Stanley received feedback from City leadership about recommendation two – allowing 100% affordable developments and not requiring mixed income. The City doesn’t have a requirement, so that should be reworded. Stanley added recommendations three and four to the draft. He’s checking with the City Attorney to see if recommendation three - requiring landlords to accept housing vouchers - is legal, especially when the City isn’t providing some sort of incentive to the property. He wasn’t sure whether to include this as part of the Inclusionary Housing Policy because it will require a “hook” in order to be able to monitor compliance. Recommendation four – affirmative fair housing marketing plans - are common in subsidized affordable properties, but not in market rate properties. This would require market rate properties to also adopt a plan designed to encourage those lease likely to apply. Palmquist asked if any neighboring cities do it for mostly market rate properties. Stanley wasn’t sure. Palmquist asked if elderly waivers would be a type of voucher covered by recommendation three. Stanley agreed elderly waivers are an important component. Farley suggested including elderly waivers in recommendation three and referring back to it in the senior section. Stanley has seen broad language that refers to any public, tenant-based assistance. Perhaps they should consider that in order to cover all possibilities. Or they could use the wording “Section 8 or other tenant-based rental assistance”. Farley asked if other communities require landlords to accept housing vouchers. Stanley replied it’s generally not a requirement in neighboring cities. Minneapolis tried to make it a requirement but it was very controversial. It might work better for Eden Prairie because it will be tied to a policy and will be tied to a developer requesting something from the City. After a quick internet search, Palmquist found that St Louis Park, Richfield and Bloomington require landlords to accept vouchers. Farley suggested including that in the report since the Council likes to know what neighboring cities are doing. Stanley cautioned against comparing to cities that have Housing & Redevelopment Authorities that give out their own section 8 vouchers. Eden Prairie doesn’t do that because vouchers in Eden Prairie are overseen by the Met Council’s Metro HRA. Farley thought they could call out that there are administrative differences and still include that those cities require acceptance of vouchers. Stanley said the other cities shouldn’t be described as requiring vouchers if they are only administering them. In the case of Bloomington, they receive a certain number of vouchers to distribute to residents, who have to go out and find properties that will accept them but it’s not clear if all landlords are required to accept the vouchers. Farley stated more research is needed to determine if other cities have a requirement for accepting vouchers. Howe-Pullis believes the number of landlords in Eden Prairie who accept vouchers has declined over the last several years. Stanley replied there’s not at present an official count of how many properties accept vouchers, but it does seem low. His office is trying to encourage landlords through the Property Managers Group to accept vouchers, but many still turn them down. Farley asked why they turn them down when they have affordable units. Stanley responded it’s because of the perception that section 8 tenants ruin property, there are racial stereotypes associated with vouchers, and properties don’t want to have to deal with the administration and compliance with HUD standards. Farley asked if the group was in agreement in keeping recommendation 3 and 4 in the report and building on them. The group agreed. Farley asked Stanley to describe his addition to section one for a package of fee adjustments/waivers as a tool that can be used. Stanley explained this came out of his experience working in New York City where they used tax incentives and other benefits that were automatic if a developer’s proposal met the city’s standards for affordability. This made the process predictable and helped avoid haggling. The downside is some of the adjustments and waivers are controversial. Howe-Pullis liked that a “by right” package would make the process cleaner, cut down on negotiations and help developers know exactly what to expect. She asked how the incentives would be determined. Stanley thought it would be determined by a mini-work group within the City. Farley asked if other tools could still be used in negotiations. Stanley stated having a “by right” package wouldn’t limit discussions for other incentives that could be used. It would just clarify the ones that are automatically included. He suggested adding language to clarify it’s up to the City to determine which incentives to use. Palmquist stated the “Affordable Units in Eden Prairie” chart on page six needs to be moved - there may be a better chart for that section. Palmquist and Farley will work on it. Palmquist has a chart to be added that shows the growth of units in perpetuity. Farley asked Stanley for in perpetuity terms the City has already successfully negotiated. Palmquist will use those numbers to create a chart. Farley will work on the rationales for recommendations three and four. Howe-Pullis offered to help. Stanley will work on wording for the option of requiring acceptance of housing vouchers and will send Farley suggestions. Farley moved on to section two about unique housing opportunities due to transportation and Southwest Light Rail. Howe-Pullis will contact Seiple to get transportation numbers. Farley moved on to section three, Affordable Housing Trust Fund, and stated the second recommendation is new – developing partnerships, especially with the Eden Prairie Community Foundation. The foundation would be very interested in administering the trust fund for the City, which would create benefits such as allowing tax-deductible donations, heightened marketing, and possibly more donations from large corporations. The foundation would manage tracking and reporting. The fee would be 1-2%. Legally trust funds are allowed to use up to 10% of their assets for administration fees. The City would still decide where the money should go. Stanley expressed some concern with the perception of adding an extra layer of oversight by having the foundation manage the trust fund. The City does a good job of working directly with developers and financial advisors. He asked how decision making would work if the foundation managed the trust fund. Farley clarified that the City would tell the Foundation the amount of the check and who to make it out to. The foundation would do due diligence, would distribute the check per the City’s instructions, and would handle the reporting. Palmquist suggested adding some description of what the process would look like since others might have the same concern as Stanley. Stanley asked if the City would be seeding most of the money into the fund. Farley responded the money could come from a variety of places: the existing account the City has (the Inclusionary Housing account), TIF funds, developer buy-outs, a mandate, or corporate donations. Farley will work on rewording this section and will get Stanley and Howe-Pullis’ feedback. The group continued to section four, Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing (NOAH). Peacock stated NOAH is thought of in the industry as multi-family. Palmquist asked Stanley if this section is going to be confusing to the Council. Stanley agreed that NOAH is almost always multi-family properties of scale. His recommendation is to keep it focused on multi-family. Farley asked if they should leave out recommendation three. Palmquist stated Habitat for Humanity would be a great partner because they’re helping people find and buy their own homes. Peacock agreed it would be a great partnership, but suggested putting it in its own section since single family homes aren’t considered part of NOAH. Palmquist suggested to moving it to the section on building partnerships. Stanley stated the first recommendation about reaching out to smaller multi-family properties is important. Farley suggested adding smaller multi-family properties under the rationale, and perhaps add text to the report in order to expand the definition of NOAH to single family homes. Peacock will read it over and send some thoughts. Farley moved on to section five on Tenant Protection and asked for thoughts on the third recommendation regarding inspections. Howe-Pullis felt it made sense, but wondered about the legality and what objections might come up. Palmquist remembered the Council stating a desire to do more for tenant protection beyond when a building is sold. This seems to be a good way of dealing with the issues expressed by the renters who had joined a previous Task Force meeting. Stanley stated they would need to research the legal aspect of surprise inspections as suggested. Howe-Pullis added surprise inspections could be onerous to tenants as well. Farley asked how much notice has to be given. Stanley replied they would need to research that. Howe-Pullis asked if HUD inspections have advance notice. Stanley replied they do, but he doesn’t know how much notice is required. HUD uses a complicated performance ranking system to determine how often properties are inspected. Howe-Pullis stated more information is needed before the group can determine whether to include the third recommendation. Stanley will speak with the Fire Department to get more information. Farley shared there were many new additions in section six – senior living. Palmquist drafted the second recommendation about partnering with PROP to test the feasibility of a home sharing program for seniors. She explained that Molly Koivumaki with PROP was about to ask their board to do a feasibility test before the pandemic hit. Farley asked if the program would be exclusively for seniors. Palmquist responded the person sharing a home might not be a senior. Having a younger person could provide benefits to both the senior and the younger person. Lutheran Social Services has a similar program for people with disabilities. Farley asked the group to confirm they’d like to keep the new recommendation. All concurred. Farley will mention it in the out-of-the box section with a reference back to senior housing. Farley stated in section seven, out of the box strategies, the only recommendation with enough information is Attached Dwelling Units (ADUs). Stanley stated referencing the limitations for ADUs is key to the recommendation. He strongly supports it. Palmquist and Howe-Pullis also support the recommendation. Palmquist suggested removing the limitation of only allowing caregivers or family members to occupy an ADU. Stanley and Farley agreed. Robinson shared that Minnetonka has an ADU ordinance. Minneapolis is allowing up to four-plexes on a property. Developers would find converting single family into duplexes or triplexes more feasible. City of Minneapolis has gone far with zoning changes to allow that, but it’s been controversial. Since Eden Prairie doesn’t have much available land left, this could be a good option to create more housing. Minnetonka’s ADU ordinance is clear and could be a good example to build from. Howe-Pulls asked if the group agreed with removing the family member/caretaker ADU restriction. The group agreed it should be taken out. Farley asked about the limitation that building materials for ADUs be consistent with the neighborhood. Bomben stated some neighborhoods have association rules that would apply. Farley agreed the recommendation would need to state that homeowner association rules still apply. They may also need to ask for legal advice. Stanley asked if the group had considered some of the ideas he sent such as a City-supported single family application to the Minnesota Housing Impact fund and participation in the Community Fix-Up Fund. Farley wondered where the best place was to incorporate them in the report. Stanley recommends that the City invest in an impact fund to make single family homes feasible to low income households, which is out of the box, so perhaps would fit in that section. Howe-Pullis suggested expanding Single Residence Occupancy (SROs) to include types of homes like Onward Eden Prairie and Esther Homes. Stanley stated the guest who suggested SROs at a previous Task Force meeting was referring to SROs being an eligible housing type for large multi-family properties. But it could also be written to include housing like Onward Eden Prairie. Palmquist encouraged including the stories of Onward Eden Prairie and Esther Homes in this section to show the success of the projects and encourage pursuing similar applications. Bomben agreed and added SROs are a good option for those who want to live independently but require services. Howe-Pullis and Bomben will work on this part of the report. Howe-Pullis suggested making the recommendation about “Communication/Education of Eden Prairie Community around affordability” its own section since it’s such a key component. It will be crucial to moving forward and gaining support. Bomben agreed. It will be important for City Council and City Staff to have concise language when speaking to residents. Farley suggested wording the recommendation to have the City’s Communications staff develop a plan to educate community on affordable housing and how it’s designed to enhance the community. Palmquist asked if that should be in the Inclusionary Housing Section. Howe-Pullis felt a communication plan is broader than the Inclusionary Housing Policy. Farley could see how a communication plan ties in with Inclusionary Housing, but agreed it should have its own section. She will include a reference to it in the Inclusionary Housing section and in the report’s introduction. Palmquist suggested including in the communications section some recommendations to the Council about next steps so the Task Force’s work can be carried forward. Howe-Pullis asked how City Council will approach the Task Force’s recommendations – if they’ll tackle them at one time or in pieces. Stanley thought it’s likely the Council will address them separately. Howe-Pullis asked if they should prioritize the recommendations or leave that up to the Council. Stanley thought it should probably be left up to the Council. He suggested updating the communication/education recommendation to have Office of Housing and Community Services staff work in conjunction with Communications staff. DISCUSS AREAS WHERE MORE INFO AND RESEARCH IS NEEDED PLAN FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETING Howe-Pullis asked if there will be a Task Force meeting in August. Stanley stated that was up to the group. The group agreed there should be an August meeting. Farley suggested waiting until the August meeting to decide whether to present to the Council on September 1st or 15th. Palmquist asked if the Task Force minded if she shared the draft report with a contact at PROP to get suggestions. There were no objections. ADJOURN Howe-Pullis adjourned the meeting at 7:32pm.