Recommendation to Amend the Inclusionary Housing Program Guidelines to (a) Modify Available Preference Points, Including Adding a Preference for Eligible Alameda Unified School District Employees; and (b) Revise Underwriting Standards; and Direct Staff to Prepare a Proposed Amendment to the City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance to Clarify the Appeal Process. (Housing 266)
I got her. Potter. As we all know, we don't have sufficient affordable housing below market housing for the public. And this item goes to changing the preference points, how they're allocated to people that are trying to obtain the units. And so I wanted to have staff present on that what this proposal is. Okay. Thank you very much. I'm Debbie Porter. I'm the city's community development director. And the item before you this evening is a recommendation to amend the preference points for the city's inclusionary housing program. The inclusionary housing program is the requirement that market rate developers provide 15% of their units affordable to very low, low and moderate income households . And we contract with our housing authority to administer our inclusionary housing program. We use a lottery system when we award those inclusionary units. And our lottery system also entails a an opportunity for preference points to be granted. And those preference points. We're proposing to amend the preference points and streamline them. Currently, we provide a preference point for first time homebuyers. We would remove or eliminate that as a preference point and make it a program requirement, a threshold requirement so that you would if you're going to participate, you have to be a first time homebuyer. And we currently have a preference point for large families, and we are proposing to eliminate that preference point two, and we're proposing to eliminate that. We as part of our fair housing requirements, we conduct an analysis of impediments to fair housing and large families that are not discriminated against disproportionately within the city in terms of fair housing . So we think it's more straightforward to just require a minimum requirement that you must have the family size must be equal to the number of bedrooms. So if you have a two person household, you could apply for a one or two bedroom household. And our third preference point that we currently provide is a preference point. If you live or work in Alameda and we are proposing to maintain that preference point and then expand the preference point or add an additional preference point for a USDA employees. Alameda Unified School District. Alameda Unified School District Employees for moderate income units only a maximum of one unit per project, or no more than 30% of the moderate income units that might be available in any given project. And the reason that we are recommending this preference point to the Council and this revision to our inclusionary housing program is because the city has an opportunity to access $30 million in affordable housing funds from our former redevelopment agency. And we have been directed by the State Department of Finance to run that funding through the school district because those funds are available as part of the 1991 pass through agreement between the school district and the former redevelopment agency. And the district and the Housing Authority have negotiated a memorandum of understanding about how that process would work for the housing authority to access that money to build low and very low income housing. And part of what was agreed to was that the housing authority would request city staff to bring a preference point for moderate income ownership units before the Council as consideration for the school district. Processing and sending these funds through to the Housing Authority and staff is recommending, therefore, that the Council approve this revision. In the preference points. We are recommending other changes to our inclusionary underwriting guidelines and to the appeal process. We have had our inclusionary ordinance in place for over 15 years and this is the first time council staff has brought clean up recommendations and kind of best practices and bringing our program guidelines current. So that is staff's recommendation this evening. And how long would this additional preference point to a USG employees be for. Through 2050 that the project area runs till 2046? We have the opportunity to receive these funds through 2046 and if monies coming in and projects are being built three years out was that was the logic for coming up with 2050. Okay. And is it based on when the money actually comes in or does this start immediately? How does how do we make sure that we're getting money that is somehow is it somehow tied to actual receipt of money so that we know that new units are being built that would not be built, but for receipt of this . Correct. So every year we prepare an annual recognized obligation payment schedule, a ROPS, and every year we, we put down the funding that will come to us for projects that have affordable housing units that can be reimbursed. And we are sitting right now on invoices from seven from. 17, 17, 18, and then four, 18, 19. So for the past three fiscal years, we have received these funds and we have projects for which we want to reimburse the housing authority for money that they have advanced in anticipation of this MRU getting finalized, which was finalized by a UCD board and the Housing Authority Board of Commissioners in May of this year. Okay. So is there going to be some way to have oversight to ensure that these monies did in fact come in from a USD two, which then their employees received a benefit? Yes. How is that going to happen? Well, so through the memorandum of understanding that's been executed between the USDA and the housing authority, all of the funding is done on a reimbursement basis. And all of the marketing and advertising and outreach for the unit availability will be coordinated between the housing authority and the school district. Okay. So can someone go to the housing authority, for instance, annually and see, you know, what? And that in fact, you know, if in fact, employees were able to receive these preference points and obtained access to units and that in fact moneys were received from AUC. Yes, there would be some kind of formal report that that is available to ensure that, you know, because honestly, my concern is that we have many people in the city that will not that do not work for Alameda Unified, that do, in fact, desire affordable housing. So I wanted to make sure that somehow there's a real relationship that there is a are additional homes being built to offset that preference to a USDA employees? So there will be some kind of report that will be accessible to the public annually. Yeah. We'll somehow demonstrate that. That. Right. Yes. Okay. And then I want to. Catherine, I'm going to go ahead and call a cab. Thank you, Alan. At this time, the public speaker. I in council. Thank you so much for your time. I stand in opposition to a portion of the measure and five G and that is the portion that allocates 30% of affordable housing to the moderate income homeownership opportunities. I say that because I think 30% is a very big portion of what is in very limited supply. And personally, I'm a single parent. I 100% physical legal custody. I have no financial support. I truly don't feel that I deserve less of a chance to get into affordable housing than a teacher. The way that this preference points system is that if you're an 82 employee and that does not mean a teacher, that means any employee part time, full time at all that you get an additional preference points. You would have four preference points instead of three. Everybody else in the general public can maximum only get three preference points. So this gives the EEOC employee an advantage over everybody else. I feel it's an unfair advantage, discriminates based upon profession and occupation. I think, to be quite honest, federal fair housing regulations don't limit discrimination based upon occupation. But I think we could kind of all agree that that might not really be quite fair in terms of the affordable housing, the $30 million of funding. I'd like to know what will happen to that $30 million of funding if we don't agree to this MRU. What is happening to that funding right now? Well, it does appear. Will it be given to housing authority anyway? Why wasn't it directed to the Housing Authority as a partner to begin with? If it was allocated for a USD, why isn't USD building their own housing with that money? I started a thread about this on a public Facebook group and the thread generated over 150 comments. Susan Davis, the acting community manager for USD, commented. Mike McMahon, who's a former school board member, commented The post is deleted after about 48 hours. There were so many people commenting and this post was deleted. People didn't know about this measure being brought before the city and there were a lot of different opinions, but nobody on that board was in the position I am. Where they're seeking affordable housing. And I think that that voice needs to be heard. I definitely wasn't reaching it through that community bulletin board. And I do think that this issue is a broad issue that's going to impact residents and workers of the city. And it's something that needs to be thought about, you know, carefully and thoughtfully so that, you know, people get a fair chance. Yes. Thank you. Thank you. Council members. I'd like to remember that. Yes. Can we have Miss Potter answer the question of what happens if the MCU is not? Sign. So the MCU has been seen in what the MCU says is that if the city council does not approve that the preference point for one one inclusionary moderate income unit minimum or a maximum of 30 moderate income units in any given project. By September of this year that the MCU, the district, will honor the costs incurred in the 1617 fiscal year for affordable housing and in 1718. But that's it. And then we the money is lost. We the money goes to the money essentially goes into a waterfall and goes to all the taxing entities and does not stay in Alameda. Remember Ashcroft. Thank you. And I appreciate the the explanation. Miss Potter and I, I do understand the speaker's concern. I mean, I'm concerned we just aren't producing enough housing, affordable housing. We might have an opportunity to do something about that just a little later in this agenda. But at the same time, I don't know how we would benefit from turning back money that will go to help building affordable housing. Yes, a percentage of that housing at the moderate income level will be allocated to any USDA employee. But without it, that additional housing wouldn't get built. And just by comparison, $30 million. I wish we went further. But for instance and correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Potter, the new senior affordable housing that's going up at the corner of Sherman and Buena Vista next to Del Monte, that was about a $30 million project for 30 units. $88 million. 80 million for 30. Over 33 units. For 32 units. So that was in the when when that project went into contract. Construction costs have gone up a bit. But Will the good news is we will get housing out of this affordable housing and you know, some will go to USD employees, but without that money we wouldn't have that source of funds to help build it. But I just I don't want to pit one group against the other. I want to recognize we have a housing supply shortage and we need to do something about that. Thank you. So I'm sorry the public comment part was completed, but I want to follow up on so any other council comments at this time or questions otherwise? I'm going to go ahead and ask. Okay. So can you explain what public outreach occurred on this item? Did the city have any meetings with community members for their feedback? We did not. The community outreach consisted this agenda. This item was actually agenda is for June 5th. And when that agenda was posted in that staff report was posted, then Ms.. Allen was able to see the item and then engage in the the Facebook, the social media conversation. And then it was followed up with a continuation to tonight's meeting, and it was part of tonight's posted agenda. Okay. But the city did not itself hold any outreach on this item. Okay. In regards to housing, when it get built, what housing would not get built. But for this 30 million. Because I actually don't know that that's a true statement. We have housing that gets approved. We have, for instance, a project tonight and the developer is going to provide the funding we have site is will site. Will this money go to, for instance, site A that is not funded currently 43 million short well by this money go to get that housing funded. This these funds are restricted to very low and low income units only so they would. So it is possible that for the very low and low income portion of the units that yes the money there could be funding from this source for the city, even housing projects. Okay. But that goes to my concern of how do we, in fact, know that this money is going to building the units, that then we're giving the preference to points to a USD four as opposed to just any units. So the concern. Right. That we had to speaker on this, if there is no money from this, a USD that goes to the affordable housing, then will a US employees do not get preference points for so than for all members of our community equally. Or do they do they only get preference points when it is in fact housing built with the USD money. There are preference points for a USDA employees for the very low and low income units that are built with these moneys. But these funds cannot be used for moderate income units. So there is an A. So under the inclusionary program, we are creating a preference point for a max of 30% of moderate income units. That are those moderate income units where in fact there was a low and very low built or. Dependent independent. So then do you keep track and you say, okay, over here there's the low and very low five units. So then we're going to do five units moderate. Is there any relationship between what's being built with a USD money and the number of moderate units being where we're awarding additional preference points? Now those are two independent programs. So how do you figure out how many moderate units that we give a USD employees a preference point for then? Well, we have proposed we have proposed that we have proposed a minimum of one moderate income unit per project up to a maximum of 30. What is that based on? That was based on the negotiations between the school board and the housing authority. And the request then was made to city staff to bring that proposal to the council. But is it based on dollar amounts? You have $30 million supposedly from a USDA that's going to may be used to build housing. It may or may not, right? No, it absolutely has to be. Paid for. Low and very low income housing. It is on a reimbursement basis only. It's based on invoicing and it will only go to use used for very low and low. Income housing than the moderate units. Is that the moderate units immediately they become available. The USD employees get a preference point for even if we haven't built any new units that are affordable or low, very, very low or low affordable. Have already we have already generated over about $3 million worth of expenses on very low and low income housing over the past two and a half fiscal years, which well are already eligible to be refunded with this money before there is a single moderate income unit that is made available on a preference point basis only. So costs have already been incurred and will be reimbursed before we ever award one inclusionary moderate income unit. Okay. But is there then do you are you going to be keeping track of the number of units that are built very low and low that then offset the moderate or the relationship, which is they get 30% regardless of the number of units of the very low and low. That's correct. During the time period of the B WEP and the pass through agreements life, you. Know, there's not a relationship really is 30% period, regardless of how many very low and low are funded. That's correct. Okay. So let me speak to my attorney then. There was also a concern of then some sort of discrimination. Can we in fact, award reference points to one group of employees when there's no relationship between the number of units being built with that money and what they're being awarded, they're getting 30%, regardless of how many units are being built with these moneys. And that would seem to me like there's some sort of legal challenge there. So the way this evolved was because the path the 1991 pass through agreement had all of the moderates, not moderate, had all of the housing money, which was in redevelopment terms there, 20% of the generated tax increment. 20% of that money had to go to build affordable housing. 80% could go for other purposes. The 1991 pass through agreement had the 20% housing money flow through to the school district. And since it was in 1991 and none of us were here. My understanding, reading the agreement is that the intention was that the school district was going to attempt to build housing. That didn't happen over the course of time. So we now are trying to protect that money flowing through since redevelopment has been dissolved, that that money, which otherwise, as Ms.. Potter described, would go through the waterfall and and would go through all the various taxing entities, not be designated for housing. That that money be protected and continue to flow to the city of Alameda to build affordable housing in Alameda since the school district. So the school district worked with the housing authority, which is the entity that continues to build affordable housing in the city. And this is the deal they worked out. They're trying to retain the notion that that school district employees would gain some benefit from the pass through money. And the way they did that is by having it flow through. As Ms.. Potter explained, the housing authority does not build moderate income. It always was intended that there be low, very low and moderate income available to the school district employees. The housing authority can't doesn't control moderate. The city does throw inclusionary policy. So this was the transaction that was negotiated between the school district and the housing authority with the blessing of the Department of Finance, to be able to retain that consideration and to keep those moneys flowing through to the city of Alameda. So you are being asked to assist, make that happen by allowing for this this portion of the moderate income housing to be made available to eligible employees of the school district. They still have to meet all the requirements, the eligibility requirements. So because of all of that, I do not believe there is anything improper, legally improper about doing that. Okay. So none of that addressed my question. I'm sorry. My question goes to the relationship of you have a third of the bill, a third of the units being offered with the preference point. That is very valuable. I can look at this room. In fact, I'm just going to ask, if you work for AUC, do you raise your hand? One person raised their hand. Okay. It's a percentage. It's a relatively small percentage of all of the people in our communities. They're looking for housing. So but you are going to be giving a third of a preference point that is very valuable. It's 30%. And I'm looking for a relationship. I would think that there would have to be some sort of relationship between the percentage that we're offering these this preference point to and the number of units that are being built. So let me just say one thing. We aren't giving 30% of the moderate income units at each project to our school district employees they up. That is the maximum amount that potentially could be qualified for. If there are zero unified school district employees who can qualify, all of those moderate income units will be available to other citizens in Alameda. So I appreciate that. But the cap is the maximum of 30%. But that's much greater than the number of people as the percentage of the people in our community that are seeking the sort of housing. And I'm trying to figure out how we came up with that relationship and if it is actually just arbitrary. It was a negotiation between the school district and the housing authority to try to honor the 1991 pass through agreement and the intention of that agreement. And that is the consideration that was arrived at. So it's not based on the number of new units that would be built or the number of employees from a U.S. city, anything like that. It's not based on numbers. It's based on something negotiated. So arbitrary, it appears. Yes. I'd like to make a motion because I don't want to lose $30 million that we've already paid taxes on. I'd like to make a motion that we follow the recommendation, amend this inclusionary housing, and we can take our chances with whatever might happen. We lose that $30 million. We don't build any affordable housing with it. So to someone else. So again. We've all seconded the first, second and third seconds. So I will not be supporting this. I think it is critical that the city do outreach and figure out a way that there's actually a relationship between what's being offered and for the money that's being considered. And also that we know, in fact, that units are being built with that money. I think that it is extremely valuable and I really appreciate the comment that on a USD board there is no one that qualifies for this and what the value of that is. And I will tell you, there's no one here on City Council that also participates in that, and I agree with the Speaker it is extremely valuable . That being said, I'm going to go ahead and call to clarify all those. There has to be a role. We have to do role. Although some. Yeah. I. I. I. I. Mayor Spencer. Oppose carry. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Next item five k. Recommendation to support city efforts to attain a zero waste goal by approving update to zero waste implementation plan and authorizing the acting city manager to negotiate and execute a contract not to exceed 300,000, including contingency to conduct targeted technical assistance to commercial businesses, multifamily properties and adoption of related by budget resolution.