Housing Needs Task Force Final Report

Housing Needs Task Force Interim Report

January, 2007

Housing Needs Task Force Members

Commissioner Dennis “Boog” Highberger, Chair

Rebecca Buford, Tenants to Homeowners

Dennis Constance, Living Wage Alliance

James Dick, Pine Tree Townhomes, INC.

Mary Grob, Douglas County Bank

Barbara Huppee, Lawrence-Douglas County Housing Authority

Gwen Klingenberg, Lawrence Association of Neighborhoods

Bob Santee, Santee Denning Construction

Phil Struble, Landplan Engineering

Lavern Squier, Lawrence Chamber of Commerce

Bill Yanek, Lawrence Board of Realtors

Staff Liaisons

Lesley Rigney, City of Lawrence

Margene Swarts, City of Lawrence

Background

In May, 2005, the City in partnership with Aquila hosted a Community Housing Assessment Team (CHAT) whose purpose was to assess the availability of affordable housing in the city and make recommendations for increasing the stock. As a result of the CHAT Report and as a result of a recognized community need, the City Commission authorized then-Mayor Highberger to establish the Housing Needs Task Force. With members from both the non-profit and for-profit development sectors, bankers, neighborhoods and economic development the group set as their goal: that everyone who works in Lawrence should be able to live in Lawrence.

Summary

The CHAT report projected the population of Lawrence to grow to 104,700 by 2015, and projected a demand for an additional 1,690 (under $130,000) affordable owner-occupied units and 2,347 affordable (under $700) renter-occupied units. The report recommended that, in order to meet the growing demand, the City refine the development process, encourage desirable project types, expand capacity of existing housing programs and establish a clear and predictable growth vision[1].

The group met first during April, 2006, less than one year after the CHAT Report was released. They started their work by studying the CHAT report and recommendations as well as information on minimum housing standards and local demographics. They invited many housing entities to speak to the group as both sources of information and to solicit input. Commissioner Highberger asked each presenter, “What could this group or the City do to support your current efforts?” The following individuals presented:

Barbara Huppee, LDCHA reported on their different programs and the demographics of the clients. She noted the high cost of land and shrinking government subsidies as being the biggest barrier to providing more housing. She also noted that the organization maintains a six month – two year waiting list for their programs.
Brian Jimenez, Neighborhood Resources Department talked about minimum housing standards and noted the deteriorated conditions of much of the city’s affordable housing stock.
Jean Lilley, Habitat for Humanity reported that Habitat could build more homes if there was more land available. She also told the group that the CHAT-recommended 169 additional homes per year would be impossible to produce with existing organizations which currently provide affordable housing.
Rebecca Buford, Tenants to Homeowners reported the status of the newly-formed Lawrence Community Land and Housing Trust, which is acquiring and offering permanently affordable housing stock in the city. She emphasized the importance of recycling limited subsidies through some retention method--like the housing trust. She also noted the high cost of land as being the biggest barrier to increasing their activities.
Sheila Stogsdill, Planning Department talked to the group about inclusionary zoning and the newly-adopted development code and how they both might further affordable housing.
Ron Durflinger, Lawrence Homebuilder’s Association, talked about the potential barriers in the development process.

In July, 2006, after spending the first several meetings gathering information, the group came up with a preliminary list of possible tools/solutions to address the affordable housing challenge in Lawrence. The list that was generated included:

Alternative building – consider affordability and regulatory barriers associated with modular homes
Inclusionary zoning – requiring a certain percentage of new development to be affordable and/or allowing density increases in exchange for developers adding affordable housing to new developments
Establishing a Housing Trust Fund with a stable funding source – consider what other states and communities are doing to fund affordable housing, less strings attached to these and more local control
Traditional Neighborhood Design - allow for or require a variety of types of housing within new developments. Work along-side new development code.
New development code – how might it impact affordable development, mixed-income, mixed-types
Neighborhood Revitalization Act – Can this be used to further affordable housing?
Regulatory barriers – streamlining regulations to reduce the cost of housing
Land and Housing Trust – consider results other cities have experienced
Consider Incentives for rehabbing existing housing stock
Long-term efficiency – energy efficient housing and landscaping
Land acquisition - incentives for people to donate land, perhaps transferring benefits between projects
Neighborhood acceptance of projects – fit of affordable housing with existing neighborhood, involving neighborhoods in planning process, maintenance of housing, mixed-income development
Infill lots – lack of and expense of
Housing Co-ops – providing both ownership and rental opportunities, higher density
Employee incentives for homeownership
Meeting needs of 80-100% MFI

The group agreed that while each of the items deserved attention, they would focus their recommendations on three possibilities: modular housing, inclusionary zoning and establishing a Housing Trust Fund. Modular housing, while remaining a viable option for housing in general, was not determined to be substantially more affordable than current construction practices. Additionally, the Task Force found no substantial regulatory barriers associated with modular housing and therefore, no local changes regarding modular housing are recommended at this time.

The Task Force recognizes that efforts have been underway to adopt the new development code (which has been done), to address and remove regulatory barriers in the development process and to adopt Traditional Neighborhood Design standards. We encourage the City to continue in this positive direction.

Recommendations

The City should adopt an incentive-based inclusionary zoning ordinance. Instead of requiring a certain percentage of new development be affordable, the City should come up with a package of incentives that would allow for developers to realize an expedited review process, density bonuses, waived permits and fees, and other appropriate incentives, in exchange for offering a percentage of new units at affordable rates. The City should also consider offering incentives to developers who rehabilitate existing housing stock and offer it for resale at affordable rates. This ordinance should be reviewed annually to determine the effectiveness and if the ordinance has not achieved the desired effect the City Commission may modify the existing ordinance or consider adopting a similar ordinance that contains requirements as well as incentives.

The City should establish a Housing Trust Fund and should pursue a dedicated funding source that could raise an additional $500,000 annually to further affordable housing activities. In addition to pursuing legislative authority to raise the mortgage registration fee, the City should consider a voluntary “round-up” program where the rounded up amount from utility bills, parks and recreation fees, building permit fees, etc. would be funneled into the Housing Trust Fund. The City should continue efforts to identify supplementary funding streams for such a fund, which would increase the capacity of non-profit developers to provide additional affordable housing in Lawrence. The additional funds would complement current funding streams (mainly federal) and allow for needs at all points of the housing spectrum, from emergency shelter to transitional and permanent housing, to be more adequately addressed.

The Task Force realizes that implementing these two recommendations will not solve the affordable housing issue in Lawrence and the City Commission should give consideration to any other reasonable measures that might address the situation. Further, the Task Force should reconvene after the inclusionary zoning ordinance has been in effect for one year in order to assess the effectiveness and determine the need for mandatory participation.

[1] The Lawrence/Douglas County CHAT Report, Executive Summary, P. 2.