January 12, 2005 minutes
|
MEMBERS PRESENT: |
|
Alan Bowes, Barbara Carswell, Ernie Eck, Mark Gonzales, Rev. Sharon Howell , Kirk McClure, and Kirsten Roussel |
|
|
|
|
|
MEMBERS ABSENT: |
|
Clint Bradley, Lawrence Bush, Paul Davis, Lynn Goodell, and Larissa Long |
|
|
|
|
|
STAFF PRESENT: |
|
Monica Cardin and Margene Swarts |
|
|
|
|
|
PUBLIC PRESENT: |
|
Rebecca Buford, Lawrence Community Land Trust, Chad Lawhorn, Lawrence Journal-World |
Carswell called the meeting to order at 4:15 p.m.
Introductions
Staff and members introduced themselves.
Approval of December 13, 2004, minutes
McClure moved to approve the December 13, 2004, minutes. Howell seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.
Discuss procedure for allocating the HTF funds
Carswell stated she wanted to explain why this item was on the HTF agenda. She stated that Tenants to Homeowners, Inc. made a presentation to the City Commission in November, 2004 outlining the community land trust program was and the issues it addressed. The general feeling from the City Commission was that the project and concept is something Lawrence should look at. There was a suggestion that it was something the HTF Board should look at and that is why the Board came out of hibernation in December, 2004 to address it. The December meeting allowed the Board to examine the land trust concept. The meeting today is to address the role of the HTF Board, mission and procedures. The Board needs to discuss whether this program should be looked at by the Board based on the policies and procedures.
Gonzales stated that he met with Tim Keller, Keller and Associates, regarding appraisals of property. He noted that land-leases are not big in Douglas County. Keller did not have an answer regarding equity. Keller had a question regarding market equity.
Buford stated that there was no problem with people doing market comparisons. The appraisal is not lessened because it is a land trust property. Buford noted she spoke with Hal Crady, who saw no problem and did not foresee a problem. The comparable market appraisal would be plugged into the resale formula.
Carswell noted that the Board got into the nuts and bolts of the program. She really believed that the City Commission supports the land trust. There are land trust programs out there, so there is a model to be followed, with policies and procedures already in place. It is not the Board’s place to debate whether or not the land trust is right for Lawrence.
McClure disagreed. He stated the City Commission thought it was a good idea, but since they do not know housing, they directed the Board to flesh it out and to determine if it is the best use of the funds.
Carswell stated that she was not sure if she got that directive and wondered if the Board needed to go back to the City Commission for clarification regarding the land trust. One of the goals of the City Commission is to improve the livability of all Lawrence neighborhoods. Developing affordable housing through the land trust does improve the livability of neighborhoods.
Swarts added that the City Commission adopted those goals in December, 2004.
McClure noted that there are two other processes going on: the Task Force on Homeless Services and the creation of another Task Force on Affordability. Both of those may have demands for the funds.
Carswell noted that the Vice-Mayor made the comment regarding the Task Force on Housing Affordability in August and the Task Force has not been formed. She thinks that at this time, the Board has had four projects that have come to the staff because they know there are funds available. Carswell stated the Board should look at the four and come to a consensus for recommendation to the City Commission that either clarifies the Board wants this on hold or there is going to be an absolute commitment for funding of the land trust.
McClure expressed a concern regarding a round of funding without announcing it community-wide. He stated that the Board should not be conducting a round of funding without direction from the City Commission.
Gonzales stated that the first round of funding spent the accumulated interest. He asked what would be an amount the Board would consider for a round of funding.
Carswell stated that the Board spent the interest ($66,000), but after much discussion decided that what they did spend the money on, did not really make a meaningful impact in Lawrence. From that discussion, the Board decided that it could not make a meaningful impact with that amount of money. The Board has not received any funding directive from the City Commission
McClure stated the Board did not follow through with its recommendation on title transferring fees. Partially, because the Mayor thought the State Housing Trust Fund was looking at that as possible funding source and he did not want to compete with that. He told the Board to do some more research and to come back in two weeks with a more concrete proposal.
Gonzales stated that the Board is still waiting for direction.
Carswell added that the City Commission did not want to act on their suggestion.
McClure read from the August, 2004 City Commission minutes.
Carswell stated that she did not leave that meeting feeling like they gave the Board a task.
Gonzales asked how much interest the Housing Trust Fund has gained. Swarts stated approximately $60,000.
Gonzales stated that it made sense to open up an RFP based on the interest that the Board has seen. He looks at the number of people the Board would help and noted that the more people the Board can affect, the more it can do.
Carswell commented the Board has to look at whether it is a short-term impact or long-term affordability. She stated that the Board may not quantitatively compare projects. Carswell reviewed the evaluation criteria from the previous RFP.
Roussel agreed that if they Board is going to allocate funds, it needs to issue an RFP. She suggested that they announce an RFP for $60,000. The Board can look at small projects, but also encourage the land trust. She does not feel comfortable without opening the RFP to other agencies.
Howell stated that she thinks the Board should go back to the City Commission and revisit the title transfer tax.
Carswell stated she would be happy to ask the City Commission for further direction.
Bowes stated that he would prefer the Board advise them of what the Board thinks it should do.
Carswell noted that the Board has already done so.
Bowes then stated that the Board should do an RFP.
Gonzales asked for a dollar amount. He reiterated that the Board needs to go into the City Commission meeting with an idea of what the Board wants to exactly do.
There followed a brief discussion regarding an RFP.
Carswell stated that there is nothing in the mission or policies that state the Board has to do an RFP. It can fund things that the Board believes to be within the mission statement and polices. There are no legal reasons to do an RFP.
Eck suggested not using the entire amount for funding.
Carswell noted that the Board had a really hard time when it just used the interest.
McClure stated that he is having a hard time making a decision because of the Task Force on Homeless Services and Highberger’s proposed Task Force.
Gonzales commented that the Board should do another round of funding to see what the impact is. It is doing nothing right now and at least the Board could put enough money in to make an impact.
Carswell suggested $260,000 to get something meaningful or at least something to pass onto another Task Force.
Bowes stated that he feels the Board has a real opportunity to do something, but it is just reviewing and worrying about the City Commission. The City Commission gave this responsibility to the Board and the Board should do what it thinks is best.
Roussel moved to approach the City Commission for a RFP for the full amount of the principal plus interest in the Housing Trust Fund. Bowes seconded the motion.
McClure stated that part of the reason for going with the entire amount is the lack of a steady funding stream. The Board got resistant and vague direction from the City Commission. He believes that if they used less than the full amount, the Board is right back where it started and makes no impact.
Carswell suggested compromising and using half of the amount. The future then has the possibility for seed ideas, but it could currently make a meaningful start on things. The Board then would be in a much stronger position to advise the City Commission on the use of the funds.
Roussel amended her motion from the full amount to $300,000. Bowes withdrew his second.
Carswell stated that the Board told the City Commission what it thought would work with sound reasons and it was unacceptable to the City Commission. The previous RFP made no significant impact. The Board will make no significant impact unless there is a steady funding source, so the only meaningful thing to do is spend the whole amount.
Bowes stated that he heard the former chair, Ed Tato state that the Board is at a loss as to what to do.
The motion died due to lack of a second.
Gonzales moved to do a RFP for $160,000, which is $100,000 plus the interest. Eck seconded the motion.
There followed a discussion regarding the amount for the RFP.
Roussel stated that with no action, the Task Force will be going after this money or the City Commission will take it back.
The motion failed.
Carswell stated that she would be happy to go to the City Commission and reflect this discussion and ask for more clarity so there is less ambiguity. The Board concurred.
Gonzales left the meeting.
Swarts advised the she will get the Housing Trust Fund item on the agenda so Carswell can give them a report on January 18, 2005.
Carswell stated that she would like to give a summary of where the Board is and that the Board does not have a clear enough guidance of what they want the Board to do.
Miscellaneous
There were no miscellaneous items.
Adjourn
There being no further business, Carswell adjourned the meeting. The meeting ended at 5:15 p.m.