Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHousing Task Force - 08/12/2020EDEN PRAIRIE HOUSING TASK FORCE MINUTES Wednesday August 12, 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 Rick Getschow, City Manager Janet Jeremiah, Community Development Director Amanda Pellowski, Community Development Administrative Assistant   WELCOME Howe-Pullis called the meeting to order at 5:35 pm. Members absent were Moquist, Fischer, Peacock and Seiple. APPROVAL OF JULY MINUTES Farley moved, and was seconded by Robinson, to approve the July 2020 minutes without modifications. Motion carried 5-0. CONVERSATION/FEEDBACK FROM CITY LEADERS City Manager Rick Getschow commended the Task Force for all they’ve accomplished since their kickoff fourteen months ago. Their draft report, in his opinion, is exactly what the City Council is looking for. Once the Task Force presents their recommendations, Council will take one to two years to dive into each section and determine whether to implement them. He stated his appreciation for the sections that are fully formed, such as the Inclusionary Housing Policy, the Tenant Protection Ordinance, and the Housing Trust Fund, which will help the Council hit the ground running. The other recommendations that were included because of the Task Force’s passion - such as out of the box ideas, LRT and senior housing development - are great suggestions for the Council. He pointed out that the public won’t be as familiar with their work as the Council is, and encouraged them to take as much time as needed during the Council meeting to explain their recommendations. Howe-Pullis wants to acknowledge everyone’s work by having them help present different sections at the Council meeting. Getschow said that would be fine. Howe-Pullis asked which meeting they’ll present at. Getschow responded the Task Force can choose any of the upcoming September or October Council meetings. Howe-Pullis asked what to expect after the presentation; how soon will the Council take up their proposal. Getschow guessed since the Council has had exposure to most parts of the report, and since there are only a few small pieces in the report they’re not familiar with, that it will be accepted by the Council the night of the presentation. Farley asked if there needs to be community meetings before approval. Getschow explained that the Council will be accepting the work the Task Force has done, but that’s different from implementing it. They may be able to adopt one of the recommendations they’re familiar with in the next three months, but they’ll need more discussion on the less familiar topics, such as the trust fund. Palmquist asked for advice on setting up the report to make implementation easier, so it doesn’t all fall to City staff. She wondered if it made sense to have another group to provide support while recommendations are being evaluated and rolled out. Getschow expressed his confidence in City staff’s ability to do the work needed for implementation. Staff will be able to handle that part, but there will still be a need for advocacy and citizen engagement, so staff aren’t the only ones communicating why these recommendations are good for the City. He wasn’t sure exactly what advocacy will look like, though. Howe-Pullis suggested including advocacy as part of the communication section of the report to so volunteers can help when the need arises. For example, the neighborhood meeting for the Common Bond project. There were some attendees who were concerned about how an affordable housing project would change the neighborhood, but there were also attendees who shared their thoughts on how great it would be. Having advocates there to share how the development would be good for the neighborhood made a positive impact on the meeting. She asked if it’s possible to invite advocates to similar meetings in the future. Bomben stated her view of the report is to provide the Council with the “what” and then leave it up to City staff to determine the “how”. Getschow stated the Task Force members have become subject matter experts over the last year. The City will definitely want to continue to tap into that knowledge. Palmquist requested that the Council be made aware that Task Force members are willing to help with next steps. She asked which Council meeting the Townline Road development is being discussed at and if it would help to have Task Force members present. Getschow answered that the Lofts at Anderson Reserve come before the Council on Tuesday August 18. He had the sense that concerns about the project are more around density, height and parking – not affordable housing – but welcomed Task Force members to attend if they’d like. Howe-Pullis asked Getschow for his thoughts on housing trust funds. Getschow stated the City has many funds that are used for specific purposes and that are audited. Many neighboring cities with trust funds keep them under the purview of city government. But he does understand the benefit of having the Community Foundation manage the fund in order to increase the scope for donations. He’s of the opinion that the fund should be housed by the city, but maybe they could find a way to still include the Foundation. Bomben’s understanding was that the Community Foundation would be involved with the fund more as a capital campaign to gather money to go towards projects, but the fund would still be housed by the City. Getschow stated he was thinking along the same lines. Howe-Pullis stated one of the Foundation’s priorities is housing and any funds they’ve dedicated to that priority would remain theirs to control, but if the City had an affordable housing trust fund under the Foundation, the City would have control over that fund. Farley’s understanding was similar to Howe-Pullis’ – the City would have total control over the fund, but the purpose of having it housed by the Foundation was so that tax deductible donations could be made, as requested by Councilmember Nelson. Having the fund housed by a designated 501c3 organization could be valuable in attaining donations from large companies. Getschow expressed concern that the fund might not be eligible for state or federal grants if it’s housed outside the City. Bomben stated Onward Eden Prairie has a fund housed by their organization and another housed by the Eden Prairie Community Foundation. They’re able to move funds between the two. Perhaps the City could do something similar. Stanley hoped that matching state or federal grant money would still be honored for cities with funds housed with a non-profit since non-profit administration is included as a legitimate route in state statute, but conceded that sometimes it’s difficult to tell what the legislature will do. Howe-Pullis asked Janet Jeremiah if she had any feedback. Jeremiah commended the Task Force on doing a great job. She referred back to neighborhood meetings and stated they’re informal and not a City process. The City sometimes helps the developer with mailing labels and who to invite, but otherwise they try to stay hands off. The City could ask developers if they’re comfortable having Task Force members attend. If the developer is trying to get approval for an affordable project, they’ll probably be happy to have advocates there. It might also be possible to notify the Task Force of public hearings related to affordable housing. She also referred back to the conversation about tax deductible donations and stated she thought donations to the City are tax deductible. Getschow confirmed they are but stated the City has to be careful about the way fundraising could be perceived. That’s where it would be helpful to have a partnership with the Foundation. Getschow and Jeremiah left the meeting at 6:19. DISCUSS REPORT DRAFT AND MISSING PIECES Farley suggested adding a separate part to section one so that NIMBY, Not In My Backyard, mindset is addressed right away and lays the groundwork for what affordable housing means. Also, once the recommendations are finalized, she will list them all on a single page. Appendixes and footnotes will need to be updated and more graphs will be added to the report. Howe-Pullis received feedback on the report from Seiple. Seiple recommended removing the statement about a housing shortage for upper income levels. Farley was concerned about removing it entirely since it’s mentioned in Aspire. She suggested making it a footnote instead. Howe-Pullis shared another of Seiple’s suggestions for the second page of the report. They should acknowledge the success the City has already had negotiating affordable units with developers by adding the wording “Building on the success of recent projects that include affordable units like...” Farley will remove appendix C that lists speakers and research. She suggested adding the credentials of the Task Force and asked the group to think about how to best format it. Palmquist asked everyone to send Howe-Pullis a list of three to four bullets about their background that details their experience with housing. Farley suggested adding commentary for each graph to help readers easily understand what they mean. Palmquist will work on those descriptions. Howe-Pullis plans to have conversations with Hopkins and Minnetonka to understand development around the SWLRT, as she’d like to have stories about good use of development near light rail. Farley asked about the impact those communities have seen on economics and crime. Howe-Pullis agreed it would be good to have that information in anticipation of NIMBY type questions. Stanley will think about how to get that information. The SWLRT Technical Implementation Council might be able to help. Howe-Pullis shared another part of Seiple’s feedback, that the “possible other options” sections are jarring and some seem sarcastic. They detract from the report. Stanley noticed a hint of sarcasm in some of the alternatives, but it varied depending on the bullet point. He thought it might be good to take a close look and re-write as needed. Palmquist hoped they could re-write instead of completely removing because some have good ideas. Farley asked for opinions on leaving the other options with the recommendations or putting them in the appendix. She and Howe-Pullis will think about how to handle. Howe-Pullis shared Seiple’s recommendation for a new idea in the out-of-the-box section that would increase density by zoning for duplexes and triplexes instead of single family housing. Farley felt it was harmless to include it in the report as an idea to be explored. Bomben suggested adding ideas to the out-of-the-box section about building partnerships with nonprofits such as Onward Eden Prairie or other transitional programs that provide support in addition to housing. Howe-Pullis wondered if that should be included with SROs and other mission based programs. Palmquist stated the report needs a paragraph that explains Onward Eden Prairie is an SRO to show that the city is already doing this and describe how it’s working. Bomben will work on a draft. Howe-Pullis suggested adding wording to the communications section about the benefits of having economically diverse housing in Eden Prairie. Farley dropped off the call at 6:57pm. Howe-Pullis wondered how much advance notice there is for properties below $200,000 being placed on the market. With enough notice there could be connections made with partners like Habitat for Humanity. Bomben had heard from Robinson that there’s no way to know about properties for sale until they’re listed. Palmquist stated they don’t necessarily need to know about them ahead of time; perhaps there’s a systematic way to keep track of them once they’re listed. She was surprised at the number of houses sold for less than $200,000 in Eden Prairie – it was significant. Bomben asked if there’s a way to know which neighborhoods are depressed, or have houses that are under water. Stanley replied that the City’s Assessing department doesn’t have specific information but usually has general ideas about trends. He’ll ask them about it. Palmquist asked Stanley if he remembered seeing information about where people who live in Eden Prairie work and where people who work in Eden Prairie live. He’ll look for it. Robinson stated there’s no database to give previews of properties for sale. The only tool they have is MLS (Multiple Listing Service). The competition in the $200k price range is extreme. Someone would have to constantly watch for a listing. In last 300 days there were 70 units under $200k sold. PLAN FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETING Howe-Pullis asked Stanley for advice on having multiple presenters. Stanley suggested keeping it to five or less to limit shuffling. Howe-Pullis asked who would be interested in presenting. She thinks Peacock should present the NOAH section. Palmquist felt Farley should present something since she’s done a lot of work on the report. Howe-Pullis asked Palmquist if she’d present charts. Palmquist responded she will be there to help with questions. She also felt Seiple should be a presenter, as she’d bring a young, fresh perspective. Howe-Pullis asked which Council meeting they should present at. The general consensus was for the September 15th meeting. Howe-Pullis asked how the Task Force should prepare – whether they should send out the draft and continue updating it via email. Palmquist agreed and suggested having a practice the week before the meeting. Howe-Pullis asked Stanley if there are any sections he’d like to present. Stanley replied he’d like to help kick off the presentation and is comfortable helping present any section. Howe-Pullis will create a draft of the PowerPoint presentation and will get help from Palmquist deciding which charts to include. Palmquist was thrilled about the positive feedback the group received for the report. Stanley reminded the group of Getschow’s comment not to worry about time. He encouraged the group to take their time and to be thorough. ADJOURN Howe-Pullis adjourned the meeting at 7:25 pm.