Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-0225 VLHA Meeting MinutesMinutes Vail Local Housing Authority (VLHA) February 25, 2016 at 11:30 AM Attending the meeting were members: Scott Ashburn Steve Lindstrom Mary McDougall James Wilkins Town staff attending the meeting: Alan Nazzaro George Ruther A quorum of VLHA Members being present, Steve Lindstrom called the meeting to order at 11:25. I. Meeting Notice and Approval of minutes The Board considered the minutes sent with the Meeting Packet for previous VLHA Meeting held on 2/25/16. James Wilkins moved to accept all of the minutes as presented. Scott Ashburn seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. II. Audit Exemption Resolution 2016 The Board considered the Audit Exemption Resolution for the 2105 Fiscal Year. Mary McDougal moved to approve the Resolution as written. Scott Ashburn seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. III. Chamonix Neighborhood Development A. Deed Restrictions Terms & Conditions: The discussion opened on the Chamonix Neighborhood Development and Deed Restrictions. The question was posed, if one of things the Town should consider is whether there needs be separate Master Deed Restrictions for rental units versus for-sale units as a general practice? That is a question staff can research. A general discussion ensued regarding having a variety of restrictions for the Chamonix Neighborhood, like a Resident Only (RO) Deed Restriction, which would have fewer requirements than the current Master Deed Restriction and could be placed on higher priced units. This was compared to the Peak One “Non-income” Deed Restriction, which only requires residency and employment within Summit County to be a Qualified Owner/Resident. It was suggested that lenders’ perspectives on the restrictions placed upon the units be considered to preclude any difficulties down the road with obtaining mortgages. Information received from Alpine & 1st Bank: Both do mortgages on deed restricted units through: in-house portfolios selling them to other mortgage lenders Some issues exist with the restriction surviving foreclosure Right to cure by the Town of Vail, could give a measure of security The discussion went on to look at the current Master Deed restrictions in light of the Chamonix Neighborhood and the question came up, “What are the Objectives”? What is the target? Town of Vail employees versus Eagle County in general Longevity in the Valley vs. new comers Families with children vs. adult households Taken together, the current restrictions all seem to be targeting first time home buyers: owner-occupancy price appreciation cap full-time employment in the county not owning other property in the county household size limits The question was posed, “What’s wrong with owning more than one property”? One response given was that we can help provide home ownership when it is not otherwise affordable, but not investment property. Another point was made about what happens in times of economic distress, if an owner needs to rent out a room to help make ends meet or is out of the state temporarily? In response it was noted that most of the deed restrictions reviewed from other jurisdictions do not limit an owner from renting a room or temporarily being out of the home, but owner-occupancy is a standard requirement across the board. The point was made that the Town of Vail has had the same restrictions in place for quite some time and the same lottery system, which together keep getting the same results. Perhaps it is time to consider a variety of deed restrictions to meet different needs. Instead of a Master Deed restriction for all Employee Housing Units, maybe we need to differentiate: A Master Deed Restriction for rental units A Resident Only (RO) deed restriction for higher priced for-sale units with fewer requirements Other for-sale units with different restrictions, possibly including some with income requirements The discussion went on to consider that the cost of construction is so high currently that it requires greater subsidies than in the past to create affordable housing. We need to think strategically about this, perhaps: units with more subsidies have greater restrictions impose a 1.5% appreciation cap instead of the 3% currently used use 2% or the annual average rise in wages, which ever is less It was noted that the Miller Ranch appreciation caps are the model for what not to do. They range from 3-6% and are compounded annually, resulting in those units getting to be much less affordable. This discussion ended with the supposition, “Are we helping to put roofs over people’s heads or helping them invest for the future? Can’t do both”. B. RFQ/RFP Process There was a brief discussion regarding the RFQ/RFP process for the Chamonix Neighborhood development. RFQ would be sent out to elicit response from interested developers Short list of “qualified” developers obtained RFP sent to the short list containing: Draft Development Agreement with Town’s perspective of development “Must have” items for the Town Helps eliminate “off-the-wall” proposals that don’t meet our needs We may end up with a Design-build contract for a price certain or a partnership deal where the developer would be responsible for pre-sales through certificates of occupancy. This is yet to be determined. Time is of the essence and this needs to be fleshed-out and brought before Town Council at the March 15th Meeting. IV. Lottery Process Amendments The discussion moved to the Lottery System and what the objective of that process seems to be. The current lottery is biased towards longevity in the valley and Vail employees/residents. This stems from the history of when it was implemented and the penchant at the time of helping long time residents stay in Vail. It was pointed out that many of the respondents to the Chamonix Neighborhood survey have lived in the area 10 years or less, which would lower priority status under the current system. Town Council has previously stated that they want to attract families with children back to the Town of Vail, but the current system is biased towards older households. It was also pointed out that many neighboring jurisdictions do not use a lottery, but rather do pre-sales or first come, first served methods. They only resort to a lottery when multiple offers are made on specific units. After much discussion the following “opportunities” were outlined for future consideration for changes in the lottery system: Annual Appreciation Cap Rental Room-mate allowances Place of employment bonuses Owning other property at the time of application (is this realistic) V. Next Meeting It was decided that there needs to be a follow-up meeting with the staff and VLHA to crystalize some of the Lottery, Deed Restriction and RFQ/RFP recommendations to Town Council. It was decided to meet the same time next week to continue the discussion. There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 1:45 PM. Respectfully Submitted, ____________________ Housing Staff INTRODUCED, READ, ADOPTED AND APPROVED this ______ day of ___________________, 2016.