|
1. |
What are the key elements of the issue? What precipitated it?
In 2004 the City completed a comprehensive update of the City’s Below Market Rate (BMR) provisions in the zoning code. This study took approximately 18 months to complete and included meetings with property developers, apartment owners, trade organizations, and affordable housing advocates. After adoption of changes to the BMR code staff prepared BMR Administrative Procedures to assist staff and developers in complying with the program provisions.
The Tri-County Apartment Association has raised concerns about zoning code and Administrative Procedures provisions for rental units in the BMR program. Specifically they would like the City to review:
- Requirement for a year-long lease of BMR units
- Requirement for prospective BMR tenants to be certified by the City
- $100 fee from prospective BMR tenants for the city to certify their eligibility
- Income qualifications for BMR households.
- Eligibility priorities: residency/place of work requirements and prohibition against employees of the landlord occupying BMR units in the landlord’s facility.
- Methodology for rent calculation for BMR units
The majority of their concerns are with the Administrative Procedures; Due to the inactive rental development market, not all of the provisions have been implemented.
|
|
2. |
How does this relate to the General Plan or existing City Policy?
Housing and Community Revitalization Sub-Element
Action Statement
E.1.b Comprehensively review and update the Below Market Rate (BMR) programs to better address affordable housing needs. Review code requirements for terms and conditions, review and update administrative processes to enhance marketing, monitoring and compliance. (Accomplished with 2004 study).
|
|
3. |
Origin of issue: |
|
|
|
Council Member(s): |
Howe |
|
|
|
|
General Plan: |
|
|
|
|
|
City Staff: |
|
|
|
|
|
Board or Commission (identify name of the advisory body from the list below): |
|
|
|
|
|
(Arts, Building of Code Appeals, BPAC, Child Care, Heritage Preservation, Housing and Human Services, Library, Parks and Recreation, Personnel and Planning) |
|
|
_________ Board or Commission ranked this study issue _____ of _____
Board or Commission ranking comments: |
|
|
4. |
Multiple Year Project? |
Yes |
X |
No |
|
Expected Year Completed |
2005 |
|
5. |
Estimated work hours for completion of the study issue (use 5 or 8-hour increments): |
|
|
(a) Estimated work hours from the lead department |
250 |
|
|
|
(b)Estimated work hours from consultant(s): if applicable: |
|
|
|
(c)Estimated work hours from the City Attorney's Office: |
40 |
|
|
(d)Estimated work hours from Finance: |
5 |
|
|
|
(e)Estimated work hours from other department(s): |
|
|
|
|
|
Department: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Department: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Department: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Estimated Hours: |
295 |
|
|
7. Cost of Study: Please mark appropriate item below.
X Costs covered in operating budget – 230 Housing and 242 Community Planning
Costs covered by project - n/a
X Budget modification needed for study – $30,000
|
|
|
|
|
6. |
Expected participation involved in the study issue process? |
|
|
(a) Does Council need to approve a work plan? |
Yes |
|
No |
X |
|
|
(b)Does this issue require review by a Board/Commission? If so, please list below: |
Yes |
X |
No |
|
|
|
|
Housing and Human Services Commission
Planning Commission |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(c) Is a Council Study Session anticipated? |
Yes |
|
No |
X |
|
|
(d)What is the public participation process?
Workshops with owners of BMR rental units, notification to general public and BMR tenants on waiting lists? |
|
|
7. |
Cost of Study: Please mark appropriate item below. |
|
|
|
Costs covered in operating budget |
n.a. |
|
|
|
Costs covered by project |
n.a. |
|
|
X |
Budget modification needed for study |
$30,000 |
|
Explain below what the additional funding will be used for:
Consultant services to collect and evaluate data associated with rents and low income households. Staff found that during the previous study the information supplied by the consultants was more readily accepted by the property owners and developers. The previous consultant’s fees were $20,000; however, they were able to reuse information from a recently completed study from another city. |
|
8. |
Potential fiscal impact to implement recommendations in the Study approved by Council, if any: |
|
|
|
|
Mark a range for the items below: |
$500 or none |
$50K or less |
$51K - $100K |
$101K - $500K |
$501K or more |
|
|
Capital expenditure range |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating expenditure range |
|
X |
|
|
|
|
|
New revenues/savings range |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Explain impact briefly: Possible changes in costs to administer the program
|