Loading...
01-12-2010DowntownPH 1 DOWNTOWN HOUSING PUBLIC HEARING 2 January 12, 2010 3 4 Following are the summary minutes from the Downtown Housing Public Hearing 5 held on Tuesday, January 12, 2010, at 5 30 p m , at City Hall Council Chambers, 6 200 N Church, Las Cruces, New Mexico 7 8 COUNCIL PRESENT Terrence Moore, City Manager 9 Miguel Silva, Councilor District#1 10 Dolores Connor, Councilor District #2 11 Olga Pedroza, Councilor District #3 12 Nathan Small, Councilor District #4 13 Gil Sorg, Councilor District#5 14 15 STAFF PRESENT David Dollahon (Comm Dev (CD), Neigh Sery Admin ) 16 David Weir (CD Director) 17 Jan Lauterbach (CD, Neigh Programs Spec —Aff Hsg ) 18 Vera Zamora (CD, Housing Dev Coordinator) 19 Christine Logan (CD, Economic Dev Administrator) 20 William Slettom (CD, Downtown Dev Coordinator) 21 Diana Garcia-Parra (Recording Secretary) 22 23 PRESENTERS Thomas Hassell (CLC Housing Authority) 24 Mark Allison (Supportive Housing Coalition) 25 Michael Burkett (DPS Design) 26 27 PUBLIC PRESENT Phil Ewing Josh Lyon Kathy Blanchard 28 Michael Le Blanc Gracy Aguirre Flo Dougherty 29 Paul Miller Win Jacobs Liz Oliver 30 Colleen Boyd Parry Lyon Monte Sarvo 31 Diana Lyon Liz Smith Carl Jensen 32 Laura Szalan Valerie Fernandez Greg Gendall 33 Michael Huerta Emily Coss Grady Oxford 34 Michael Arrieta Elizabeth Oliver Bruce Begin 35 Vicky Rall Gary Sandler Dave Blanchard 36 Terri Baca Mike Beckett Cindi Fargo 37 G G Lundeen Mary Lou Jones 38 Justin Hawman Kerry Bulsterbaum 39 David Chavez Wayne Hubet 40 Robert Green Bill Stowe 41 Tom Whatley Klaus Wittern 42 Ruben Smith Wil Hart 43 Jerry Smith Gil Jones 44 Marian Smith Tom Andrews 45 Jim Oliver Bernie Begin 46 Jim Turrentine Diana Alba 1 1 PRESENTATIONS 2 3 Mr Moore opened the meeting at 5 35 p m He began by stating that the 4 purpose of this meeting was to provide everyone the opportunity for background 5 information, as well as public input, relative to the proposals associated with 6 Downtown Housing Development activity Additionally, it is an opportunity for the 7 Mayor and City Council to receive additional background so that they can further 8 contemplate and prepare for the upcoming City Council meeting, Tuesday, 9 January 19th, in which there will be the opportunity to further consider the subject 10 and offer whatever direction plausible in order to move on Much of this meeting 11 is the result of everyone's interest and expectations coming together to receive 12 that input, but then again, it's also imperative to do as much as possibly to make 13 sure that the information has been clarified and a lot of good commentary is 14 made in this regard 15 16 Mr Moore then introduced Mark Allison representing the Supportive Housing 17 Coalition of New Mexico, and David Dollahon, Neighborhood Services 18 Administrator Both would have an opportunity to address any specific thoughts 19 regarding the proposal process 20 21 Mr Moore stated that one of the points for clarification he wished to offer was for 22 the City of Las Cruces to state that any ability a local government entity may 23 have regarding forwarding a proposal, including and not including public input, 24 the direction and expectation is to be as transparent as possible relative to public 25 input and possibilities, proposals, etc This is the environment the City tries to 26 perpetuate and that's another reason for this meeting to offer as much 27 commentary as possibly 28 29 Mr Moore then made introductions of Councilors, Downtown representatives, 30 and staff, as stated above 31 32 David Dollahon gave a brief powerpoint history of the area, attached (#1) for your 33 reference 34 35 Thomas Hassell gave a powerpoint presentation explaining Tax Credit Funding, 36 attached (#2) for your reference 37 38 Mr Hassell explained that the tax credit funding concept is very complicated 39 Basically this is, in a sense, a private development, but it's also funded using 40 federal money that is going to be leveraged towards the development. First, this 41 is an Internal Revenue Service Program that has been in existence for quite 42 some time It has been very successful in developing affordable housing across 43 the nation Basically the federal government has a tax credit allocation that goes 44 to each state that participates The tax credits in New Mexico right now are 45 roughly 3 9 million dollars annually The state agency that receives that tax 46 credit is the New Mexico Mortgage Finance Authority located in Albuquerque 2 1 Those tax credits are then given out in a competitive proposal that developers 2 compete in The state agency has a qualified allocation plan and an application 3 process that they go through to review it. If one is successful at receiving an 4 allocation, then they actually get the tax credit. Annually there might be 15-20 5 applications statewide They usually award anywhere from 4-5 of those 6 applications for construction during that period The credits are then given back 7 over to the developer who partners with a syndicator The syndicator basically 8 has both individual and corporate investors who are interested in purchasing 9 those tax credits The syndicator works to try to find a group of investors who 10 are willing to pay money to buy the credits so that they can use the credits for 11 their own personal use, however, the equity or the money comes back to the 12 development. This is a very large portion of what's needed to develop the 13 housing 14 15 Mr Hassell continued presenting Attachment#2 16 17 Mark Allison also gave a powerpoint presentation on the Supportive Housing 18 Coalition, Affordable Housing Proposal, attached (#3) for your reference Mr 19 Allison did mention that the timeline is imposed by the annual funding cycle of the 20 financing and not something they made up, so they are working under time 21 pressure as well 22 23 Mr Dollahon continued with the end of his powerpoint presentation, attached 24 (#4) for your reference 25 26 Michael Burkett gave a quick presentation on the design and elevations of the 27 proposal, attached (#5) for your reference Mr Burkett stated the design had 28 more of an urban type density where the building is more about the people and 29 the street that it addresses and how you get into the building The 60 units are 30 configured along Water Street, predominantly, with the parking on the backside 31 There is approximately one space per unit and right now they are just under that 32 and still trying to hit that as a goal The elevations show a predominantly three- 33 story building The only piece that comes up to a fourth level is the stairs so that 34 one can access the roof and have a roof terrace to enjoy the views of the sunset 35 and the Organs The material is very indigenous They are looking at stucco 36 finish and responsible applications of solar shades used in certain parts of the 37 project where they are more affleckable There are minimal spaces available 38 outside for some small court areas 39 40 Q & A/Comments. 41 42 Kathy Blanchard Ms Blanchard stated she owns a building on the Downtown 43 Mall She had a question on the options How do they flow? Prioritized? What 44 is to be decided on when Council meets and what do they mean? 45 3 1 Moore Mr Moore stated that primarily what they mean are options for 2 review and consideration He asked Mr Dollahon to further elaborate 3 4 Dollahon There is no priority ranking associated with the options They were 5 just numbered #1 - #5 #1 is the resolution as it is presented, which is to provide 6 the EI Paso Electric Lot. The other options were dust that, options There was no 7 serious discussion with the Housing Authority, Tom Hassell or Mark Allison 8 These were options that were considered and that staff felt could still comply with 9 the Master Plan, which is either taking up a smaller area and making the building 10 taller; looking at pursuing a parking deck with the project with the City or 11 someone else's assistance on the same parcel along with Mark and Tom, or 12 having another parking structure elsewhere to be done by the City or others to 13 offset the loss of parking associated with the development on the lot. #5 is 14 looking at the lot that is essentially catty-corner 15 16 As it is positioned tonight and as the resolution currently sits with the City 17 Council, option #1 is what is before them If Council wanted to pursue another 18 option, which if they have that directive based on the public comment received, 19 then staff would have to make an amendment at Tuesday's City Council meeting 20 Staff just wanted to give those options for considerations and take no ownership 21 in them 22 23 Flo Dougherty Ms Dougherty has a business in the Downtown Mall She 24 had several concerns, one being why this hearing wasn't heard a little bit earlier 25 She did appreciate the in-depth and lengthy presentations Her other concern 26 was that Councilor Connor presented some options at the last Council meeting 27 and she wondered if those were considered at all because she thinks there were 28 some nice choices in her presentation of options 29 30 Moore Mr Moore addressed her first question as to why they are having 31 this at this particular point and time He advised that much of it is in response to 32 the direction and interest offered December 21St However, as a City 33 administration, he thinks they should have taken more initiative to have 34 something like this in the first place prior to the presentation being made on 35 December 21St, so it could have been at least dully noted that there was this 36 opportunity for dialogue and engagement prior to offering any consideration 37 Therefore, this is part of the corrective practice offered as part of the 38 administration and they will do that from here on out. On behalf of the 39 administration, Mr Moore wished to apologize for any inconvenience in that 40 regard Nevertheless, they were there now and hopefully would be able to be 41 square and in much better shape as they prepare for next week 42 43 As far as the options presented by Councilor Dolores Connor and other folks 44 during the December 21St meeting, some review and analysis have been since 45 achieved in that regard To specifically answer what the possibilities might be or 46 might not be, respectively, he asked Mark Allison be given the opportunity to talk 4 1 a little bit about what can work and what cannot work and David Dollahon to 2 respond accordingly as well 3 4 Dollahon Mr Dollahon stated they did incorporate some of the concerns 5 raised by Councilor Connor Those are essentially options on the options page, 6 #4 and #5 He believes there was consideration of one of Councilor Connor's 7 options which was to look at the lot in front of Insta-copy They removed the 8 option because it doesn't comply with the Downtown Master Plan because 9 housing was not proposed on that lot. Mr Dollahon asked Councilor Connor if 10 there was another one he missed? 11 12 Connor- (Inaudible — Referred to the City Office Center at 575 S Alameda) 13 14 Dollahon Mr Dollahon re-stated Councilor Connor's other option which was 15 the City Office Center at 575 S Alameda, located at the southeast corner of 16 Alameda and Lohman This building is where the Community Development 17 Department is located and it is also known as the old hospital 18 19 Allison Mr Allison stated they did investigate a number of sites They're 20 looking for something of sufficient size and dimensions in order to do a project 21 like this They're looking for walkability and a proximity to amenities They really 22 want to be a part of the Downtown Revitalization effort. They think that what they 23 can offer would contribute to that. Their understanding from reading a number of 24 community plans that have been passed basically since 1984 all the way to last 25 year of 2008, they were under the impression that affordable housing rental 26 projects were considered to be one of the top three catalyst projects the 27 community had decided to support, so they thought that everything they were 28 doing was consistent with those goals They did get caught a little bit flat-footed 29 at the last Council meeting 30 31 They would like to be more inclusive and all, but they've got a very limited 32 number of sites in the downtown core that would meet the needs of a project like 33 this They looked at another project catty-corner to that, which is a little bit 34 smaller in size, also the parking structure issue which was heard at the Council 35 meeting would be the same there as it is at the original site 36 37 They did look at the Insta-copy site as well, which is actually 1 5 acres They 38 could make that work from a design standpoint, but did not know that that was off 39 the table They did pitch that as one other possibility They understand that for 40 the businesses, until Main Street gets opened back up and people park in the 41 front of the building where it was originally intended, the project would actually 42 block access to the back doors 43 44 The last option they would obviously not be able to do this round The project 45 would be in jeopardy about the financing based on the geographic priority that 46 was discussed earlier and would not be part of the core, again which is less 5 1 desirable because they really want to be part of the community Obviously 2 there's a building on the site and it would have to be razed They understand 3 there are some significant environmental concerns It would probably cost the 4 City up to a half million dollars to remediate, so they are not even sure that that 5 could happen for the next round 6 7 They were opened up to options and alternatives, but this project site, original as 8 proposed, seems like the one that would work for this round this year 9 10 Wayne Hubet: Mr Hubet is with the Alameda Depot Historic District and 11 also on the Board of the Downtown Las Cruces Partnership and a member of the 12 design committee He had two questions and would like to first mention that he 13 loves the design He thinks the concept is beautiful and the location is excellent, 14 but he has a couple of concerns One thing he feels is important is there must be 15 enough parking for each unit. Each unit must have its own parking slot. Right 16 now he heard there were 60 units proposed and there aren't quite 60 parking 17 slots available, that is a major concern he thinks should be addressed The only 18 other concern he has for Mr Moore is does he actually think there will be funds 19 available through the City to build a parking structure in the downtown area 20 relatively soon? 21 22 Moore Mr Moore stated that last Friday he provided an update to Mayor 23 and City Council via his City Council Information Letter, which is his weekly 24 report on various subjects and matters to be aware of One of the substantive 25 items included the bonding capacity for capital projects and likely there will be a 26 debate amongst Mayor and City Council as to what opportunities can be 27 achieved in that regard So to answer the question if some capacity or some 28 ability exist? Possibly, yet at the same time there are numerous competing 29 interests across the board and his job is to advise Mayor and City Council as to 30 what capabilities they have in general It is in his second paragraph of the 31 weekly information report and it better defines the answer to the question in 32 terms of what the general capability in terms of revenue bond and capacity for 33 infrastructure projects, whether that funding is committed for one or several 34 There is a whole process that must be engaged before something like that can 35 be considered Mr Moore asked Mr Dollahon to address the other items for Mr 36 Hubet. 37 38 Dollahon Mr Dollahon advised Mr Hubet's only other issue was the need to 39 provide one parking stall for each unit, and turned it over to Mark 40 41 Allison Mr Allison advised that was a concern of theirs as well They 42 really want to self-park this project. Right now they have 60 units and because of 43 the tight-site dimensions, one sees 55 units The options to them would be 44 seeing if the City would agree to counting on-street parking or working out a deal 45 with a private landlord for renting space or reducing the size of the project so 46 they get a one-to-one ratio They think it's important to self-park the project 6 1 They're trying to figure out what that would mean in terms to the design It might 2 mean the reduction of five units He would hope they could try to figure out a 3 way to do two or three units to come in at about 57 The smaller they go, the 4 more difficult it is for them to pencil out the operations and make a cash flow 5 because of the economies of scale But they do understand there are concerns 6 about parking in the neighborhood so they would do whatever they could to self- 7 park this project. 8 9 Liz Oliver- Ms Oliver stated she owns the Organ Mountain Quilt Shop in the 10 Downtown Mall She stated there has been so much going on with the 11 revitalization of downtown She finds it odd that they are deciding to put in a low- 12 income housing right in the midst of it and tell us that 60% of this median income 13 is $18,000 when most of those employment options are usually part-time She 14 doesn't know where people are going to find the disposable income that they say 15 there is It sounds also like the decision is already made since most of the 16 people here are talking on behalf of the project, rather than anybody with 17 opposing views 18 19 The other concern was parking They've had problems with parking for two 20 years since they've been in La Esquina and they have not been able to get the 21 City to help them without lots and lots of complaining and letter writing and 22 picture taking She's not exactly sure where everyone is with this, but she hopes 23 opinions are taken into consideration 24 25 Moore Mr Moore stated the primary purpose of this session was to gather 26 input and of course the majority of Mayor and City Council is present, which 27 helps a great deal He thanked everyone for being there in that regard 28 29 Colleen Boyd Ms Boyd is with ASA Architects There office is located in 30 the downtown area They have a great interest in the success of the 31 revitalization of the downtown and support this project completely They just 32 think that housing is a critical piece of any puzzle when it comes to the 33 redevelopment of any downtown area She also commented that she likes what 34 Michael Burkett and his team have put together 35 36 Monte Sarvo Mr Sarvo had a few points that he wanted to ask questions 37 on He's always wary of anything that is timeline argued because that usually 38 equates in badly planned results That's one of his first arguments is they did 39 have a long time that they knew the Governor was considering these credits 40 Long before they knew this, why weren't they presenting these ideas to the public 41 anticipating the possibility of that and bringing a broader scope of people into the 42 process? 43 44 His other point was that they had a plan in place where they had spent millions 45 of dollars and years and years in producing for downtown which clearly dictates 46 that that property is supposed to be mixed use, retail at the bottom, some 7 r 1 residential and parking, with the area across the street as residential That 2 specific site was very clearly earmarked for exactly that (mixed-use) in the plan 3 that was finally approved in 2005 He does not see that in this plan 4 5 While he thinks this plan is awesome and supports affordable housing, his last 6 question is why are they putting it on pretty much the most expensive piece of 7 real estate the City owns downtown Why don't they sell that lot and use that 8 money for the $500,000 to tear down the old city office complex that is in 9 argument against using, then they would have twice the property and could build 10 a parking lot on that and give that property for this project. 11 12 His last comment was that he was just up in Chicago for two weeks and one of 13 the biggest problems people have in Chicago is parking Are we talking about 14 having something that's people oriented and not car-oriented, so are we going to 15 become Chicago, is that what we're saying? 16 17 Moore Mr Moore advised Mr Sarvo, absolutely not. 18 19 Sarvo Mr Sarvo commented on one last thing They are removing how 20 many everyday used parking spots on that parking lot right now without replacing 21 them, plus adding people and leaving only 50 parking spots He doesn't see an 22 explanation of what is being planned with the fact that that is being used for 23 parking and crowded everyday 24 25 Moore Mr Moore stated that Mr Dollahon would have an opportunity to 26 respond by talking a bit about the application process and the evolution, because 27 many of his questions have to do a lot with that. Then Mark Allison would 28 respond regarding the market conditions associated with the property identified 29 to really specifically answer the question 30 31 Dollahon Mr Dollahon talked about the application process and when the 32 request came to the City; Mark hit on it in his presentation The State application 33 process essentially begins in early November when the Governor signs off on the 34 allocation plan Its complex and a points-based system program and the state 35 gives a priority area to certain counties throughout New Mexico each and every 36 year There have been numerous years where Dona Ana County has been 37 included and there's been years when Dona Ana County has not been included 38 It just so happens that this year, Dona Ana County is included in the application 39 process as one of the priority areas As Mark alluded too, the application 40 process is highly competitive They generally receive 15-20 applications They 41 award, on a good year, eight, but generally its somewhere around three to five 42 (3-5) for the financing They do allow a very short time window for the application 43 process to start. Essentially it's the first week of November to the last week of 44 January 45 8 1 Mr Dollahon stated that he and his staff who manage the City's federal HOME 2 dollars, which can be contributed to these projects, and they are usually 3 scrambling because they also have tax credit requests where they are looking to 4 use HOME funds to supplement or fill in the gap Staff usually starts the 5 application process in December and go through January But because of tax 6 credits, staff has to run an abbreviated schedule because they have to have 7 decisions made ultimately by the City Council to meet the state's January 31St 8 deadline 9 10 Mr Dollahon did reiterate that this was the resolution for the full Council's 11 consideration Another option that is available is the Council has a right to vote 12 down that option and say no, which would forego their application So that is an 13 option for the Council, which is not listed on the option screen But the Council 14 could vote it down and not support the project this year That doesn't mean they 15 couldn't request it next year and the like 16 17 One of the other questions that Mr Sarvo discussed was about the loss of 18 parking on this everyday used lot in substituting it for housing One of the 19 concerns identified early on in the presentation is that based on the Master Plan 20 and the build out of available lots, there is a demand need for 714 units That 21 takes into account the loss of this lot and other lots it would be built on, 22 potentially based on what was identified in the Master Plan Staff did identify, 23 based on the new City Hall parking construction and the opening of Main Street 24 and it's on-street parking, there would be 200 surplus lots going to the overall 25 downtown That could be substituted for the 100 loss lots now The issue is the 26 matter of timing as to when Main Street is going to open and if this project is 27 funded and approved by City Council, when those actual lots would be lost. It 28 would generally not be before November because of their timeline with the state 29 So as an immediate offset, the opening of the new City Hall and the parking 30 structure and ultimately downtown Main Street, both the north and south end, 31 would offset those Would the timing be perfect, probably not. But those 100 32 stalls that are on that lot everyday would be offset with the City Hall parking 33 garage and the opening of Main Street with its on-street parking However, he 34 did reiterate it is a matter of timing and so forth 35 36 That still leaves 514 estimated surplus that the City ultimately is going to have to 37 address, especially as we go forward with other redevelopment or new 38 development issues Identified within the Master Plan was the need for parking 39 downtown, so it is a matter of timing and the ability to finance it. 40 41 Allison Mr Allison stated he was not sure what to say about the timing 42 The cycle is once annually and certainly they do know when that date is every 43 year He thinks the variable this year is they're very busy doing developments in 44 other places, which is not an excuse, but the plan was not finalized by the 45 Governor until November 3`d of this year That's when it became formal and they 46 knew for sure what the geographic priority was going to be They did start 9 1 conversations with Tom Hassell before then They serve on boards together and 2 Mr Hassell has a very excellent reputation within the state They've talked in the 3 past about doing developments and partnering, but this seemed like the 4 opportunity to do it. 5 6 They did approach the City as quickly as they could They started a feasibility 7 analysis immediately They talked to City Councilors, the Mayor and met with the 8 partnership, so they've had a design charrette to the extent that they bear some 9 burden for not doing a better job of notification, which he will accept. However, 10 Mr Allison felt like there may be some double standard here because if they 11 were opening up a pizza place or something like that, he doesn't think there 12 would be expectations to knock on everybody's door within 1,000 feet of the site 13 He understands this is a City-owned parking lot and so he feels they bear more 14 responsibility for that. They did do a design charrette and tried to invite as many 15 people as they could He apologizes if that wasn't as inclusive as possible 16 17 As far as the retail and market rate, they haven't integrated those types of mixed- 18 uses into their projects in other communities before They are not opposed to 19 that at all and think it is a great model But with the reality of the economic 20 climate right now and the investment community, the available equity, is that the 21 investors are telling them not do market rate units, do not do commercial retail 22 They stated before that there's a figure of 145,000 sq feet of vacant or under- 23 utilized commercial space in the downtown core right now He can't sell the idea 24 of putting a new store front into an investor right now But he can sell the idea of 25 affordable housing 26 27 As far as parking, they've made a commitment to self-park their project. 28 However, they can't commit to addressing all of the City's parking needs for this 29 one site Whether they agree to go with the project or not, the community really 30 has to come to terms with the parking issue because right now what he's hearing 31 is, until that parking issue gets addressed, downtown might not be open for 32 business and might not be able to accept an infusion of capital for fear of a 33 reduction in that parking He cannot come in and build a parking garage That's 34 not what they do That's not how they get their financing They want to partner 35 with the City to the extent they can But this is one little piece of a big plan for 36 revitalization Part of his slide show was talking about all the different plans this 37 community has invested their time and energy in over the years One would see 38 sprinkled throughout there, affordable housing, revitalization, downtown 39 development. They think that is the catalyst project and they want to be a part of 40 it, but they cannot solve the community's parking issue 41 42 Carl Jensen Mr Jensen commented that what they are creating 43 downtown is low-income and encouraging the younger people, whom he 44 suspects would be the bulk of the people, to not try to improve themselves For 45 the long term, these people will have a relatively descent place to live He feels 46 they are doing the people more harm because if they can't get a descent paying 10 1 job downtown, they'll then have to move some place else, or the merchants will 2 have to raise their salaries for them or do the job themselves He has seen low- 3 income housing in Washington CD and cannot support this 4 5 Moore Mr Moore assured Mr Jensen that this would not be reminiscent of 6 any of the communities that he speaks of elsewhere 7 8 Valerie Fernandez. Ms Fernandez stated she is a relatively new resident of 9 Las Cruces and has been here about three years and moved here from New 10 Orleans, which she can assure had more than it's share of low-income 11 "affordable housing " She's not sure what the purpose of a zero bedroom unit is, 12 other than, perhaps, transient residents However, she does understand the 13 concept of a studio apartment. She has investigated buying some rental property 14 down in the Alameda Depot area and looked at a four-plex of one-bedroom units 15 The average rent there was $450 and they were very nice units So the fact that 16 they think they're going to get a studio at $450 is beyond her comprehension 17 She came here with 25 years of real estate experience in New Orleans and is 18 prepared to do work here as an agent, as she has just recertified her license, so 19 she is not talking like she doesn't follow real estate 20 21 As far as the parking problem on this unit and the fact that they are already five 22 spaces short, is assuming that these people will not have any friends or family for 23 them to park and visit. She does not feel that parking is being addressed 24 properly The concerns expressed by the public are legitimate and valid 25 26 Greg Gendall Mr Gendall stated he is a member of the Downtown Las 27 Cruces Board, however, he is not speaking for the board He is speaking as a 28 real estate investor in both the Mesquite Neighborhood and the Alameda 29 Neighborhood He feels that this is a great project and architecturally, it is 30 wonderful He has no issues with the project, but thinks it's a horrible choice of 31 site, which is not Mark's burden to bear He feels that burden lies firmly at the 32 feet of the City He thinks the fact that there was no foresight involved on the 33 City's part in thinking outside the easy fixes of parking lots in the downtown is 34 inexcusable 35 36 He takes great pride in the notion that Councilor Connor and himself both had a 37 light bulb moment on the same day and brought up the notion that the former 38 hospital site would have been an excellent possibility, despite the demolition and 39 remediation problems He is still at a loss to figure out why this is not a doable 40 site His understanding is that all the Coalition needs is to have the site locked 41 up It does not necessarily need to know that the hospital has been demolished 42 or that the City has facilitated remediation and demolition of that site The site 43 dust needs to be locked up and that can be done with the office still standing and 44 the problems still in place 45 11 1 The second issue is that Mark in a previous meeting had stated that this lot they 2 had assumed was 25-30-50% larger than what it actually was and in fact caused 3 some redesign problems The issue here is that the hospital site is easily double 4 the site that this is and so in that sense is a better fit. 5 6 Finally, it is a good outcome in all situations because it is still in the downtown 7 corridor It is closer to Pros Ranch Market so there is the ability for these folks to 8 access even more of the tansgental businesses to the downtown 9 10 He feels that the notion that they are facing the parking issue and the City is 11 coming up and saying, well we have whatever $5 million or $5 4 million in 12 bonding capacity, with all due respect to those who have said that, that is almost 13 laughable because in this economic cycle we're in now, the fact that you are 14 going to use bonding capacity to build a parking structure when we don't even 15 have a cohesive parking plan in place, it sounds like hanging a carrot out there to 16 quiet the masses who are saying this is the right project on the wrong site 17 18 Mr Gendall finally told the public there in support of this project on that site, to 19 not muddy the water There are two distinct issues The first issue is the project, 20 which he feels that many genuinely believe this is a good project and a good 21 project at the right site in downtown Las Cruces The second issue is this is not 22 the right project in this site He has heard inferences that anybody who objects 23 to this project, is objecting to public housing, per se, and he resents that, 24 personally 25 26 Win Jacobs Ms Jacobs stated that of all the things she would like to say, she 27 would limit herself to only one that seems to be totally overlooked, but was in 28 Mark and Tom's presentation For those that think this might be a good project, 29 but mind the inattention to mixed-use and commercial, she would issue a 30 challenge This 57-unit project cannot be the whole downtown revitalization by 31 itself There exists the possibility that if one believes in the downtown and wants 32 mixed-use and commercial, go get the financing and partner with them 33 Everyone has been waiting 25 years, according to Steve Newby, and dreaming 34 of revitalizing wonderful downtown and it can be that. This is one piece where 35 the financing, unlike many things out there in today's economy, is not assured, 36 but it's coming close, so partner and work together 37 38 Laura Szalan Ms Szalan is a local native and real estate agent and she 39 also owns property downtown She feels it's a beautiful project and a great 40 facility, but is concerned about the location She was trying to understand how 41 having something like that, even though they say that it won't detract the quality 42 of people there, will be monitored She has seen in larger cities as well what 43 happens to these environments Her concern is that it may hamper bringing 44 business people to the downtown mall who want to operate because there's a 45 stigma attached to it, no matter how you look at it. It's a great project, but the 12 1 location may not be great. She does have real concerns about her property 2 values 3 4 Moore Mr Moore stated that part of the presentation on Tuesday, January 5 19th, will be clarification regarding marketing Part of the direction where they are 6 hoping to go is the affordable housing moniker, which he thinks is a little bit 7 disruptive and they are talking about ways to communicate how the market 8 actually does fit in terms of the types of development being considered So a 9 great deal of clarification and update will be provided to that effect. 10 11 Allison Mr Allison wanted to comment that the zero bedroom thing is 12 efficiencies and studios It is not permanent in a sense that they are forcing 13 people to live there, it is an opportunity and they are welcome to leave 14 15 As far as the property values go, everyone is welcomed to talk to the 16 Neighborhood Associations and the business folks in communities that they've 17 worked in This project would substantially increase the property values in this 18 neighborhood, it is a surface parking lot right now, and they can back that up 19 20 As far as the stigma, these folks are our citizens, our neighbors, folks who watch 21 our children, they teach our kids, they help with nurses in hospitals, they serve 22 our food, they clean our buildings These are not alien folks If they can do that 23 for us, certainly we can welcome them into our neighborhood 24 25 Mr Allison stated that their strong preference is for the original site and they do 26 that for a number of reasons, walk ability and being part of the downtown 27 revitalization That being said, they are appreciative of the concerns that folks 28 have expressed about parking and about the appropriateness of the site for 29 various reasons They would commit to Council to investigating the old hospital 30 site for this round He is very concerned, to be frank, about obtaining the site 31 control necessary with conditions that would be acceptable to their financers, 32 including the fact that the building is not vacated and would have to be raised, 33 environmental clean-ups, so on and so forth Those are a lot of unknowns for 34 someone to commit money too But between now and the next Council meeting, 35 he will do whatever they can to investigate that. They don't think it is as 36 desirable a site, it's a busy street and not nearly as pedestrian friendly and is 37 actually a little too large and not part of the downtown corridor But if it's between 38 that and not doing anything, they would commit to investigating that further 39 40 Kerry Bulsterbaum Mr Bulsterbaum is a commercial realtor with Steinborn's 41 commercial division He also works with Grady Oxford and they both represent 42 their fair share of square footage in the downtown area He would just like to say 43 that he hopes all the Councilors would take into consideration some of the 44 concerns raised by Councilor Connor at the City Council meeting on December 45 21 st, as well as the concerns raised by the business folks here today, i e parking 46 13 1 A key point that everybody is missing here is that that lot represents at minimum 2 almost 34,000 square feet of immediate real estate across the street. He feels 3 they can make a case that there's over 50,000 square feet of available 4 absorption of real estate in that area and that lot serves as a primary parking 5 structure He is not against housing, but thinks that with that many business 6 owners, for which that is the closest parking structure in proximity to their 7 businesses, to not have parking be the primary focus on that lot is very sad If 8 nothing else, all the Councilors should take into consideration how that will 9 absolutely kill the parking availability and a lot of future absorption of space in 10 that particular lot. 11 12 Klaus Wittern Mr Wittern stated he could not fault the architecture The 13 problem he has is that they've gone away from the mixed-use concept. If there 14 had been commercial on the ground floor, the parking could have been dual 15 used It could have been in the daytime for commercial and the evening for 16 residential, a concept of mixed-use The other part, architecturally, that he has a 17 problem with is the parking is separate from the building In the downtown 18 environment, that may cause real problems In his judgment, it needed to be 19 incorporated inside the building The cost of doing so is approximately $18,000 a 20 stall That may become a requirement incorporated into the cost of the building, 21 but it will give long-term structural integrity to the security of the building And in 22 his opinion, that needs to be addressed in any part of the downtown area 23 24 Grady Oxford Mr Oxford stated the reason a lot of these uses and 25 everything is allowed is because of the parking that exists there Those parking 26 lots have been there a while and a lot of the reason that they are there, is to 27 satisfy the parking for all the units inside the area They're going to satisfy a 50 28 plus unit of low-income housing, which is great. We know we are way behind 29 and it needs to be satisfied in Las Cruces somewhere But in the meantime, 30 every business in that area is going to suffer again Right now one of the options 31 is right next door to the property that they purchased where the City was actually 32 leasing recently He is wondering if that goes away, who is going to rent any of 33 those buildings on that end of the mall 34 35 This is a great project. The way it has been described is wonderful Mr Allison 36 did mention one thing correct, he is not responsible for solving the City's parking 37 problems, but he will certainly put a dent in this by doing this He understands it 38 is a different project, but it is going to make a major impact down there 39 40 Mr Oxford needs to know if this is going to happen, does he need to tell 41 everybody that looks at property that the parking lots that are there now, that 42 pretty much you can count on the City getting rid of everyone of them by the time 43 it's over This appears to be the case because just about every one of them 44 came up on the block here 45 14 1 Councilor Connor- Councilor Connor stated that the Master Plan does remove 2 all surface parking for City property (Inaudible) 3 4 Dollahon Mr Dollahon added that there was the discussion of compensating 5 for the loss of that parking The Master Plan was not silent on parking 6 Councilor Connor is correct, but there has to be a parking solution as part of 7 using those lots for other uses than what they currently are now The Master 8 Plan did talk about offsetting parking elsewhere, generally through mixed-use as 9 part of a commercial structure or a stand-alone parking structure or with 10 commercial and housing and parking together It didn't say your parking is going 11 away Its how you're going to park that would have to change 12 13 Jim Oliver- Mr Oliver stated that in listening to all the comments, the one that 14 keeps coming up is parking and the reason it comes up so much is because it's 15 real This is before they even have the federal building open and the new City 16 Hall open and then an increase in population in town As he understood it in the 17 beginning, the idea of the revitalization downtown was to revitalize the downtown 18 area to become a magnet to draw people from the whole area, which means if 19 they do that, then they need the parking He thinks the project is beautiful and 20 he loves it, but it does not add to the magnet of drawing people to the downtown 21 corridor 22 23 Tom Whatley- Mr Whatley stated he is with Steinborn Real Estate and 24 represents First Community Bank, as well as Leo Romero who has the Grindell 25 Romero Building He advised that parking is a problem with the new federal 26 courthouse While the construction was going, they had most of the federal 27 employees' park at the First Community Bank building It has gotten so bad, 28 even with the building opening up, that the First Community Bank building is 29 looking how to actually enclose that parking lot and do something to prevent that. 30 They've had conversations with the head judge at the federal courthouse It is a 31 problem and the feds don't even have enough parking for their own building The 32 understanding is that the old courthouse is going to be refurbished and they're 33 going to try to put a lot of federal agencies in that building 34 35 As a commercial broker, he gets RFP's from all kinds of companies all over the 36 country that work specifically with federal agencies for site selection In the last 37 60 days, he's actually done 6 tours and they are not looking at opening a 1,000 38 sq foot office They are looking for 10,000 and 15,000 sq feet. One of the 39 requirements is enough parking and so far some of the stuff in the downtown has 40 failed the test because of the parking So in his mind he would prefer and would 41 rather have those federal agencies with those jobs that are paying $65-75,000 a 42 year down on the downtown mall supporting what goes on and that is in the 43 commercial He just can't grab the concept of making that into affordable 44 housing 45 15 1 Gil Jones Mr Jones reiterated a point that many of the people mentioned 2 before and that's the parking matter Mr Jones stated he is a Real Estate Broker 3 also and in the real estate business they talk about access Parking is the key 4 component of access Without proper parking, downtown revitalization is 5 doomed to fail You have to have adequate parking Businesses cannot operate 6 unless there is access and access means parking 7 8 He appreciates Mr Dollahon pointing out a key point of the goal is not to 9 eliminate parking but to alter the way we park cars in downtown He wishes to 10 elaborate what that means Mr Wittern uses the number of $18,000, Mr Jones 11 thinks the number is closer to $24,000 for parking stall and stack parking With 12 the deficit number of 514 parking spots and in using a number between Mr 13 Wittern's and his, one is talking about the commitment of$10-12 million dollars to 14 address those 514 parking spaces If the City or some other entity is not willing 15 to commit resources to providing parking, there is a fatal flaw in the direction of 16 the downtown revitalization The parking issue needs to be addressed, perhaps 17 not all at once, one would argue, but there needs to be a "serious" capital 18 commitment. If that capital commitment is simply to put a string of projects on 19 some wish list sent to Santa Fe in hopes for money that will get back here one 20 day for parking, then that's not a serious commitment. There needs to be an 21 immediate, a nearby commitment to fund a parking structure that will address 22 many of the parking needs in downtown or we're doing a great disservice to the 23 property owners down there today 24 25 Bruce Begin Mr Begin stated he lives in District 4 He wanted to talk 26 about the magnitude of this decision From his and his wife's perception of the 27 downtown, which they love, it hangs in a very delicate balance right now, which 28 they could all agree on It has been looking for change for sometime There are 29 too many store fronts He counted 20 empty ones So this decision is a very 30 important decision and the staff of the City and the City Council and Mayor had 31 better know, better be sure, do research and get some information regarding the 32 type of income distribution we currently have downtown and match that up 33 against a template of what is wanted Mr Begin stated to be pretty sure cause 34 this might be the tipping point that can make a positive difference and also be 35 sure on the negative side that it could tip it the other way Because this project, 36 this housing will be there for a long time 37 38 Michael LeBlanc Mr LeBlanc stated that he relocated here from New England 39 in August 2009 It took 2 weeks to find out where the downtown was His family 40 is not caught up with all of the promises that people made in the past to try to 41 revitalize downtown It took them a couple more weeks to realize that there were 42 some things missing, at which time they entertained the thought of opening a 43 restaurant. In their study, they looked at all the lots and parking, along with all 44 the restaurants in the area Parking is everything He thinks this is a fantastic 45 project. Parking spaces can't go away without the City not having a plan of 46 where other parking is going to go for the future 16 1 2 Mr LeBlanc feels his restaurant will be so successful that he will need 100 3 parking spaces all the time He believes in it so much, he bought a house in the 4 Alameda District. As far as low-income housing, he feels the people need to look 5 around the community because he thinks there are a lot of people that don't 6 make as much that they're going to need to get inside this place If the City will 7 address the parking, he is behind it 100% He reiterated they "need parking " 8 9 Dave Blanchard Mr Blanchard had a question for Mark concerning what level 10 of experience his firm has in Dona Ana County 11 12 Allison Mr Allison advised they don't have any experience in this County 13 so that is why they are partnering with the Housing Authority They like to 14 partner with local groups who know the community and have ties They think this 15 partnership adds a lot of value They would take the lead on the development 16 side, packaging the financing, getting the allocation The Housing Authority, who 17 has an excellent reputation around the State, would take the lead on the 18 operations side, working with a third party property management company and 19 providing any support of services through contracted agencies They think it's 20 the best of both worlds He encouraged everyone to ask around, as he had 21 stated before, to the communities in which they are in right now Talk to the 22 neighborhood associations, business leaders, City Councils, and tour their 23 properties He takes a lot of pride in their ties with the communities in which they 24 work with 25 26 Mr Allison did state his web address is housingcoalition org in which there are 27 some pictures His cell number is 505-239-0906, if anyone would like to call him 28 to address questions that haven't been addressed tonight. 29 30 Moore Mr Moore asked Mr Dollahon and his staff to compile a written 31 summary, based upon the input that had been provided, to be available by this 32 weekend for review by the Mayor and City Council for preparation of the January 33 19th, City Council meeting Mr Moore thanked everybody for their time, interest, 34 and commitment to the City of Las Cruces 35 36 37 Meeting adjourned at 7 30 p m 17 �US I O j J � J L( Cnu v-e�r L575)�,3 JL'Q dv P5111- v0 try\-P, (-o i�-\, --- b2 5 �S' oC' C1�r,2cC-�au�sZ CC � t^Z —Te- Sc�-Cc-- (S-OS7 ) ,a3� 73T9 +kct-c,� hot�S�r�n�ti� ✓ y -75) 32—C-1 14zL'c c4,-sL,��KS cd �J _ , � c 7 z � �r 1,4 Q L-L , W t 'D27 S1zZ s Tv w e q,,AoL,C envt T �� f l�j y I- a �� -Toy ccn/-, M; s"(Vaco Wit r4 5 - -3�,)0cJ,L VY Szz - 2-W ` 03 7 A/ ��Mli ✓�� � y q 7 0 7 ,�y�/t�% c� SN IoM C- '3 PS @ 17ES�R��XPoru2�s• EoNt b►�IJ AI_., S�r�-11 5 5�11� !►�� a(��C�i Ic �- �VZW4 BUrkd - 505 76 `1700 tmlc( a��b@ � F5dtsi D ,Or � M + 1tS0� ZSS -3�43 �v��ai1 >or=� ►10 ��, "4-\A � �t � ��lC.�,l.o� 5'�1� �'— ,30(9� ��l�.�� las-C vc4 e.•^s �v- � `, DOWNTOWN HOUSING PUBLIC HEARING JANUARY 12, 2010 CITY OF LAS CRUCES AGENDA INTRODUCTIONS OVERVIEW PARKING INFORMATION HOUSING REQUEST OPTIONS PUBLIC COMMENT OVERVIEW BRIEF HISTORY DOWNTOWN MASTER PLAN —Water Street-Mixed Use and/or Housing —Main Street—Commercial Corridor, Theater/Entertainment Area at the north —Church Street—Government& Service area DOWNTOWN PARKING PARKING STUDIES — 2002 Geo Marine—To evaluate parking for Downtown Planning — 2004 GSA—To evaluate impacts from the federal courthouse — 2008 Walker Parking Study—build on the previous 2 studies and include impacts from UmDev proposals :3 FOCUS — Study impacts of protects on Downtown Parking — Evaluate locations for possible parking structures — Process to convert to paid parking — Total Inventory—3.246(as of December 2008) 7 On-street,privatepublic.gatedand vacant CONCLUSION — 46%average occupancy(2008—with ranges of 14%to 651/,) — 714 parking spaces will need to be added for build out of all housing lots(from the Master Plan) 2009 UPDATES BY CLC - DOWNTOWN PARKING CITY HALL IMPACTS: — 280 spaces=calculated demand a 175 employees/occupants a 55 fleet vehicles 2 50 daily visitors(now have 35 total shared use) — 395 spaces provided including garage — Result 115 spaces added to Downtown Inventory MAIN STREET IMPACTS: — On-street parking will be added(north&south blocks) — Adds 85 to 104 spaces to inventory depending on striping EFFECT: OVER 200 SPACES ADDED BY CITY PROJECTS New Projected Parking Need:514(714—200) Timing for Remaining Need: ???/TBD .��. ,.� X91 i4�A. �r 5r•!E a-0 net \ •; _r �.. s 47 City of Las Cruces . Downtown Property Downtown Master Plan HOUSING REQUEST REQUEST MADE FOR THE PARCEL AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF WATER STREET &GRIGGS AVENUE (EP ELECTRIC LOT) — Requested by the Supportive Housing Coalition of NM&the Housing Authority of the City of Las Cruces — Lot is owned by the City of Las Cruces — Made in November 2009,though prior meetings had occurred since September —City Council considered lease request at December 21,2009 regular meeting Resolution was tabled until January 19`,2010 AERIAL MAP �c��9 SUPPORTIVE HOUSING PROPOSAL 60-UNIT COMPLEX, FUNDING BY THE FEDERAL LOW INCOME HOUSING TAX CREDIT (PROPOSED) — Studio and One-bedroom Units ALL UNITS WOULD RESTRICTED TO THOSE MAKING LESS THAN 60% OF AREA MEDIAN INCOME RENT RATES WOULD EQUAL FAIR MARKET RENTS ■ ■ ■ �tf ■ ■ ■ ■ i ■ ■ ■ ■ i i ■ry ■ ■ rA, i ■ ■ ~ ■ : Existing Tax Credit Developments in Las Cruces • Alta Tierra Apartments • Mesquite Village • Mira Vista Apartments • Four Hills Apartments • Desert Palms Apartments • Vista Montana Apartments • Los Altos Apartments • Stone Mountain Place Apartments • Montana Senior Vista Apartments Assume $5,000,000 per development = $45,000,000 investment in Las Cruces Occupancy Concerns • Criminal background check Previous rental history check • Verification of income and family composition • On-site management/support services Economic Concerns • Property tax • Gross receipts tax • Jobs (short term and long term ) • Disposable income of residents Microsoft Excel Worksheet 60% of Area Median Income Per Hour 0 Bedroom = $18,540 $8.91 1 Bedroom = $21,180 $10.18 Monthly Housing Expense at 30% of income 0 Bedroom = $464 1 Bedroom = $530 State MSA Occupation Total Employees Hourly Annual NM Las Cruces, NM Food preparation and serving related occupations 6280 8 22 17100 NM Las Cruces, NM Personal care and service occupations 2750 909 18910 NM Las Cruces, NM Building and grounds cleaning and maintenance occupations 2690 934 19430 NM Las Cruces, NM Retail salespersons 2190 1020 21220 NM Las Cruces, NM Cashiers 1520 799 16610 NM Las Cruces, NM Personal and home care aides 1440 892 18550 NM Las Cruces, NM Waiters and waitresses 1400 736 15310 NM Las Cruces, NM Janitors and cleaners, except maids and housekeeping cleaners 1310 9 19 19120 NM Las Cruces, NM Combined food preparation and serving workers, including fast food 1200 767 15950ii NM Las Cruces, NM Farming, fishing, and forestry occupations 1100 7 92 164801 NM Las Cruces, NM Farmworkers and laborers, crop, nursery, and greenhouse 1030 7 50 15600 NM Las Cruces, NM Office clerks, general 1000 909 18900 NM Las Cruces, NM Laborers and freight. stock, and material movers, hand 870 9 35 19460 NM Las Cruces, NM Nursing aides, orderlies, and attendants 840 9 69 20160 NM Las Cruces, NM Stock clerks and order fillers 820 9 36 19460 NM Las Cruces. NM Receptionists and information clerks 670 941 19580 NM Las Cruces, NM Landscaping and groundskeeping workers 660 8 81 18330 NM Las Cruces. NM Cooks, restaurant 650 8 53 17730 NM Las Cruces, NM Child care workers 510 766 15930 NM Las Cruces, NM Maids and housekeeping cleaners 470 7 77 16170 NM Las Cruces, NM Dishwashers 350 7 68 15980 NM Las Cruces, NM Cooks, fast food 330 746 15530 NM Las Cruces, NM Food preparation workers 310 893 18580 NM Las Cruces, NM Bartenders 280 7 58 15770 NM Las Cruces, NM Tellers 280 1000 20810 NM Las Cruces, NM Cooks, institution and cafeteria 250 9 36 19470 NM Las Cruces, NM Hosts and hostesses, restaurant, lounge, and coffee shop 230 7 30 15170 NM Las Cruces, NM Counter and rental clerks 220 10 05 20900 NM Las Cruces, NM Dining room and cafeteria attendants and bartender helpers 210 743 15460 NM Las Cruces, NM Telemarketers 190 7 16 14900 NM Las Cruces, NM Nonfarm animal caretakers 150 997 20730 NM Las Cruces, NM Hotel, motel, and resort desk clerks 140 769 15980 NM Las Cruces, NM Data entry ke ers 140 963 20020 NM Las Cruces, NM Helpers--installation, maintenance, and repair workers 130 948 19710 NM Las Cruces, NM Amusement and recreation attendants 120 9 55 19860 NM Las Cruces, NM Hairdressers, hairstylists, and cosmetologists 110 9 30 19340 NM Las Cruces, NM Home health aides 90 9 78 20340 NM Las Cruces, NM Veterinary assistants and laboratory animal caretakers 80 8 13 16910 NM Las Cruces, NM Production workers, all other 80 9 72 20220 NM Las Cruces, NM Industrial truck and tractor operators 80 9 83 20450 NM Las Cruces, NM Ushers, lobby attendants, and ticket takers 70 847 17610 NM Las Cruces, NM Helpers--production workers 70 936 19480 NM Las Cruces, NM Cooks, short order 60 922 19170 NM Las Cruces, NM Molding. coremaking, and casting machine setters, operators, and tenders, 60 8 82 18350 NM Las Cruces, NM Helpers—painters, paperhangers, plasterers, and stucco masons 60 10 00 20790 NM Las Cruces, NM Parking lot attendants 50 7 34 15270 NM Las Cruces, NM Taxi drivers and chauffeurs 40 8 80 18310 NM Las Cruces, NM Mail clerks and mail machine operators, except postal service 40 9 99 20780 NM Las Cruces, NM Couriers and messengers 30 8 14 16930 NM Las Cruces, NM Packers and packagers, hand 0 7 36 15320 NM Las Cruces, NM Counter attendants, cafeteria, food concession, and coffee shop 0 773 16080 NM Las Cruces, NM Cleaners of vehicles and equipment 0 8 58 17850 NM Las Cruces, NM Fitness trainers and aerobics instructors 0 866 18020 NM Las Cruces, NM Helpers--roofers 0 900 18720 NM Las Cruces, NM Pesticide handlers, sprayers, and applicators, vegetation 0 9 62 20000 NM Las Cruces, NM Helpers--carpenters 0 9 81 20400 NM Las Cruces, NM Meat, poultry, and fish cutters and trimmers 0 9 84 20480 NM Las Cruces, NM Food batchmakers 0 9 99 20780 Bureau of Labor Standard Consumer Expenditure Survey Mandatory Expense Percent of total income Food at home 130% Housing 300% Utilities 76% Transportation 135% Healthcare 12.7% 768% Discretionary Expense Food outside home 5.2% Clothing 35% Alcohol 09% Household goods 46% Entertainment 90% 23.2% 60%AMI Annual Income 0 Bedroom = $18,540 1 Bedroom= $21,180 0 Bedroom Discretionary $4,301 1 Bedroom Discretionary $4,914 15-0 Bedroom Units = $64,519 45- 1 Bedroom Units= $221,119 Annual Discretionary $285,638 45 year compliance term $12,853,728 Economic Impact of Affordable Housing Development Prepared by The Association of Oregon Community Development Organizations (AOCDO) Written by- Molly Rogers, M P A and John Blatt, Executive Director April 2003 Funding provided by the Oregon Housing and Community Services Department and the membership of AOCDO http //www aocdo org/docs/EcoDevoStudyFinal pdf The impact of nonprofit housing development has traditionally been described to private , philanthropic and public funders in terms of its social benefits to low-income households and communities : — stable communities; — the benefits to individuals quality of life by occupying safe , decent, and affordable housing , and ; — the benefits to other programs of affordable housing . Construction Phase Return Measure of Return Annually Since 1990 Jobs supported 11000 121212 Wages paid $31 million $393 million State income tax $1 8 million $23 million Leveraged funding $34 million $408 million State funding % of total 20% Private/federal % of total 80% Leverage ratio $1 to $4 33 Occupancy Phase Return Measure of Return Internal rate of return on state 255% investment Annual rent savings $24 million Aggregate rent savings $1 .06 billion (45 year affordability period) Jobs supported by rent savings 833 Downtown Las Cruces—Affordable Housing Proposal Supportive Housing Coalition -NM fy Downtown Las Cruces—Affordable Housing Proposal TIMELINE 9/17 Began conversations with potential investors on interest in Las Cruces project 9/24 M.Allison and T.Hassell agreed to partner 9/29-30 Las Cruces,site search 9/30 Feasibility analysis 10/27 Met with C.Fargo with representatives from NMMFA and Introduced proposal idea to Mayor and Councilor Silva 11/10 Had lunch with R.Garza and Councilor Silva to discuss project 11/20 Letter to R.Garza,cc'd to Mayor and Councilor Silva re Intent 4o Partner 11/25 Requested and received authorization from R.Garza re site due diligence access with cc to Mayor and Councilor Silva 11/28-12/4 Correspondence with City re Lease draft,cc'd R.Garza 1 Downtown Las Cruces—Affordable Housing Proposal TIMELINE 12/1 Submitted LOI for HOME funds to City 12/16 Downtown Las Cruces Partnership contingent tour of Albuquerque projects;luncheon at Downtown Action Team annual meeting;met with architects 12/17 Design Charrette in Las Cruces 12/21 Attended special board meeting of Downtown Las Cruces Partnership; City Council Meeting 1/6 Met with City Development Staff 1/7 Downtown Business and Property Owner's Breakfast 1/12 Community Meeting 1/19 City Council Meeting 2/1 Financing Deadline 1 Downtown Las Cruces—Affordable Housing Proposal THE HOMES ❑ 60 rental homes ❑ Mixed-income households--from 30%of the area median income and below up to households at 60%of area median income ❑ Income ranges reflect those making approximately$10.00 to$11.00 or less an hour ❑ 15 of the units will be set-aside for persons with disabilities and special needs ❑ The units will be"permanent"housing ❑ The property will be professionally managed and staffed 24/7 ❑The project will serve as a model for sustainable,green design-LEED Gold ❑ Investigate wrapping the street side ground floor with operations offices and possibly live/work units ❑ Open to discussing partnership opportunities for commercial or market rate residential if additional private equity can be committed by local interests. 1 Downtown Las Cruces—Affordable Housing Proposal DEVELOPMENT TIMELINE 11/3/2009 New Mexico Mortgage Finance Authority-Low Income Housing Tax Credit Qualified Allocation Plan Final signed by Governor Richardson 2/1/10 Deadline for submitting LIHTC application to NMMFA 5/10 Award notifications for Allocation Reservation 11/15/10 Carryover Allocation Application to NMMFA 3/11 Commence construction activities 3/12 Complete construction activities 4/12-6/12 Commence and complete lease-up i Downtown Las Cruces—Affordable Housing Proposal FINANCING REQUIREMENTS New Mexico Mortgage Finance Authority STATE OF NEW MEXICO HOUSING TAX CREDIT PROGRAM QUALIFIED ALLOCATION PLAN ❑ Site Control Site control for all of the land needed for the Project must be evidenced by a written governmental commitment to transfer the land to the Applicant,recorded deed or long term leasehold interest, or by a fully executed purchase contract or purchase option.If a contract or option is submitted,the agreement must provide for an initial term lasting at least until July 31st of the year in which the allocation is made This initial term must not be conditioned upon any extensions requiring seller consent,additional payments,financing approval,tax credit award or other such requirements Site control evidence and the Application materials must show exactly the same names,legal description/area and acquisition costs.All signatures,exhibits,and amendments should be included to be considered complete. ❑Projects located in Areas of Statistically Demonstrated Need Tier 1 Areas—New Construction-Eligible Projects are located in the counties of:Dona Ana,Lincoln, and Luna counties.In addition,all Projects on Native American Trust Lands or Native American owned lands within their geographic jurisdictional boundaries Tier 1=15 points 1 RESOLUTION & LEASE SPECIFICS SUPPORTS THE PROJECT AT THE NW CORNER OF GRIGGS AND WATER RESTRICTS THE USE TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF AFFORDABLE RENTAL HOUSING Specific to Supportive Housing Coalition, Housing Authority or their development partner DESIGNATES AUTHORITY TO NEGOTIATE& EXECUTE LEASE TO THE CITY MANAGER LEASE TERMS: — Must comply with the City's Affordable Housing General Oversight Ordinance, including a deed restriction limiting the use — Only after award of tax credits by the NMMFA — All financing must be secured by December 2010 — Period of lease not less than 45 years and not more than 99 years(most likely will be 99 years) — Yearly Rent:Minimum =$10,Maximum=$100 — Lease executed prior to construction financing close — City,at its discretion,may subordinate to other financing OPTIONS #1 (AS IS) - EP ELECTRIC LOT AT NW CORNER OF GRIGGS AVE. AND WATER ST. #2 - CHANGE OF CONFIGURATION AT EP ELECTRIC LOT #3 - PARKING DECK AS PART OF THE PROJECT (BY CITY AND/OR OTHERS) #4 - PARKING STRUCTURE BY CITY ON ANOTHER LOT #5 - OTHER CITY LOT AT THE SE CORNER OF WATER & GRIGGS OTHER ISSUES REMOVE/RESTRICT CITY-OWNED LOTS BEHIND BOTH COAS AND RIO GRANDE THEATER FROM ANY OTHER USE THAN PARKING PUBLIC COMMENTS REMINDERS: - INTRODUCE YOURSELF - BE POLITE, COURTEOUS & SUCCINCT - REALIZE THAT WE MAY NOT HAVE ANSWERS TO YOUR QUESTIONS IMMEDIATELY - CITY COUNCIL IS SCHEDULED TO CONSIDER THE RESOLUTION @ JAN. 19TH REGULAR MEETING - STARTS AT 9:00 AM _ y Pr"WV ills 5 ,I . . � 1 _ .�.•.��... u►���.. �f•w.�l �� nr.v.�.w. �..�.. �+�'� �t�.;',,� •.;�,� rte.-.+ire +wr... N x 44I�t . "ton.�fr .• •.taa4wi s 1 ...� ' ;. 3....wvwm. _. .�_+wwt s �n tr..-...�i�.�.�•. ,r.,;7. v�: .1• .t. ��i.. tea. ������ Pk- ILION; •aa;.:l 6 Ir Nis FIR WE I .. . PROJECT DATA SITE DATA LOCATION: LAS CRUCES,NM SITE AREA: 1.07 ACRES (46,946 SF) 3 DENSITY, 56 DUA LOT COVERAGE: 32 I 1I FLOOR AREA RATIO: 0.94 F.A.R. t I UNIT DATA UNIT TYPE 1 STUDIO 425.5 SF X 15 7 UNIT TYPE 2 1 BED 575 SF X 45 i TOTAL DWELLING UNITS 60 - „- BUILDING DATA Y S ` GROUND FLOOR: 15,213 GSF i Z SECOND FLOOR: 14,877 GSF THIRD FLOOR: 14,085 GSF lap J TOTAL BUILDING AREA 44,175 GSF 2 PARKING DATA t PARKING PROVIDED:52 SPACES I � I i GENERAL NOTES A. ALL PLANT MATERIAL TO BE LOW—WATER/ 4 _ LOW MAINTENANCE AND REGIONALLY N _ ADAPTED. KEYNOTES I6 5 I 7 5 t? 1PROPERTY LINE i j 1 LL 3. MAIN LOBBY PUBLLIC ENTRANCE 4. RESIDENT ENTRANCE T 5. RAINWATER HARVESTING CISTERN 4 6. CMU REFUSE ENCLOSURE WITH STUCCO H FINISH 7 TOT LOT WATER & GRIGGS W O R K F O R C E H O U S I N G SUPPORTIVE tHOUSING COALITION OF NEW MEXICO SITE ` Q. Uekkcr erlch/Sabatim i,,i i bnd-'. '1 e 1 p npnxi np I�������1�,�_� SII Ili I►��_'Il��i _,s Mom viii ��� iii ���� �� �� �.� ��� ;, �r ; 1�►� i� , ��� ' '�; iri , ; ia�iir� ■.�. _" as 1111'' oiiii Insr.•...�..�'S.., y7tNire+ - Fo � If11� :yr� �( 111'Iw�� til ►"fiQ fir/ �I,, � �I►''�'Li1�`Al/i� k� ��i'�i( SIN �.-; _ — � x� � 4 mom 77 7 ��, ' �� i -.'ili >*--'? ..,.�-.�'..�.. .. _ I ;5:,��•.r .�' rPr%I NO i:, z, • • BUILDING ELEVATION METAL AWNING,TYP 3 COAT STUCCO SYSTEM,TYP STEEL FRAMED BALCONY METAL ROOF SYSTEM WITH TUBE STEEL GUARDRAIL AT EXTERIOR PATIOS,TYP j b Lai IALJ o i� 0 b 1 I � 7 0 G it, I G G S $ o U T H tE L E v A 7 t a N ALUMINUM STOREFRONT AT ENTRIES,TYP METAL ROOF SYSTEM STEEL FRAMED BALCONY AT EXTERIOR PATIOS,TYP WITH TUBE STEEL GUARDRAIL N r� THERMALLY BROKEN ALUMINUM WINDOWS,TYP a R.. T 14 S V A ,�. 1 O N WATER & G R I G G S N W O R K F O R C E H O U S I N G SUPPORTIVE 777 . HOUSING COALITION OF NEW MEXICO BUILDING El,.. F\l ATIONS ff. llckkeriPcnch/Sahatuu January 14,2010 C=Ew Mr.Terrence Moore City Manager 200 N.Church St. Las Cruces,New Mexico 88001 —COWMA. Re:Downtown Workforce Housing Demonstration Project Dear Mr.Moore; Thank you once again for providing us with the opportunity to participate in the community meeting on January 12 regarding our proposed affordable housing development. We very much appreciate your willingness to host and facilitate that process. We were also gratified that several City Councilors were able to attend. While we were very encouraged that most of those in attendance expressed support for affordable housing and even our proposal in general as well as the draft architectural renderings, we also heard that people continue to be extremely concerned about the Water and Griggs site, particularly as it relates to a net reduction to available parking for nearby businesses. We also understand that the alternate sites we explored(02-06042 fronting Church between Hadley and Las Cruces and 02-05993 fronting Water between Griggs and Bowman)have been taken off the table by the City due to concerns about parking and inconsistency with the master plan, respectively. Based on a number of public comments at the meeting as well as the expressed preference of several City Councilors,we committed to investigate the possibility of whether the old hospital/City Office Center site(02-06033–Comer of Lohman and Alameda)would be feasible for the project for this year's deadline for submission of tax credit application of February 1, 2010. Our concern was that we might not meet technical threshold and be eligible to make application to the NM Mortgage Finance Authority because the site includes an existing structure. We requested technical guidance from NMMFA and are pleased to report to you that we have learned that they would,in fact,accept that site(see attached letter and MFA e-mail response). While we would be disappointed to not have the opportunity to directly contribute to revitalization efforts in the downtown core with'this project,we offer to change site locations at this time from Water and Griggs to the COC site. We hope that this will be viewed as a gesture of good will,particularly to the downtown business owners and theirconcerns about parking- We have already discussed this with our architects,and given that the COC site is actually significantly larger,they can essentially transplant the current design to the new site with very few changes. We can provide these revised site plans for you and Council prior to the Council meeting scheduled led for the 191b. The most obvious challenge to this alternate site is of course that it would need to be vacated (our understanding is that this may occur as soon as February)and that the building would need to be razed by the City prior to execution of the lease agreement and not later than November 15, 2010. While we understand that the City would need to raze the building at some point regardless,we do not know if the timeframe and resources to do so have already been identified. We respectfully request your assistance in amending the Resolution accordingly and/or taking whatever administrative steps necessary to enable Council to consider our proposal at this new location at their meeting on January 1 Oh. Furthermore,we'd very much appreciate your insight whether the building on the subject property could be vacated and razed.prior to November 15, 2010. Thanks again for your consideration. Sincerely, Mark Allison Thomas Hassell Executive Director Executive Director Supportive Housing Coalition of New Mexico Housing Authority of the City of Las Cruces Cc: Mr.Robert Garza,Assistant City Manager Mr.David Dollahon,Neighborhood Services Administrator Page 1 of 2 David Dollahon From Dan Foster[dfoster@housingnm.org] Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2010 12:49 PM To 'Mark Allison' Cc. 'Tom Hassel; Robert Garza, David Dollahon Subject: RE. LIHTC QAP Technical Question Attachments: Dan Foster(dfoster@housingnm.org).vcf Mark, In your letter you asked two primary questions: 1) Is a City resolution for the new proposed site with the existing improvements acceptable as site control for MFA?, and 2) Does the lease agreement have to be executed by Carryover? The answer to both of these questions is yes. Taking control of a site with an existing improvement which will be demolished is not prohibited by the QAP If the City, however, is willing to raze the site and ensure that it is clear of environmental hazards, those cost could be included as local contribution The risk here is if the city cannot clear the site and transfer it to SHC-NM by November 15th, 2010, the project would lose its credit reservation With all of the above said, I will give you the disclaimer that the site control document still needs to meet the criteria stated in the QAP to be valid and pass threshold. Please let me know if you have any additional questions. Thanks, Dan MFA Dan Foster New Mexico Mortgage Finance Authority Housing Tax Credit Program Manager dfoster@housingnm.org Direct Line:505.767.2273 www.housinonm.or From: Mark Allison [mailto:mallison@thehousingcoalition.org] Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 9.54 AM To: Dan Foster Cc: Tom Hassel, rgarza@las-cruces.org, ddollahon@las-cruces.org Subject: LIHTC QAP Technical Question Importance: High Good morning Dan Please see attached letter requesting response to technical question for LIHTC site control requirement. Let me know if you need additional information. Thanks much 1/14/2010 Page 2.of 2 Mark Mark Allison, Executive Director Supportive Housing Coalition of New Mexico P O Box 27459 Albuquerque, New Mexico 87125 (505) 255-3643 Ext 102 (505) 262-0997 (Fax) mallison@thehousingcoalition.orP Board of Directors National Low Income Housing Coalition Join now http://www.niihc.org MFA-Housing New Mexico's people since 1975. This transmission is intended only for the addressee shown.Review,dissemination or use of this transmission by persons or unauthorized employees of the intended organizations is strictly prohibited.The contents of this transmission do not necessarily represent the views or policies of the New Mexico Mortgage Finance Authority or its employees. New Mepco Mortgage Finance Authority 344 4th St SW Albuquerque,NM 87102 (505)843-6880(800)444-6880 Toll Free in New Mebco 1/14/2010 January 13,2010 i„�L,i,<; c0,1EE;�,� o �1nr M19uR:a� Mr. Dan Foster New Mexico Mortgage Finance Authority 341 Fourth Street,SW � ��� Albuquerque,New Mexico 87102 Re:LI14TC Dear M aster; I respectfully request your assistance answering a technical question related to site control for a proposed - Low Income]-lousing Tax Credit application Nve are planning to submit Ili is round(2/1/2010). We will be e ' . proposing new construction of 60 multi-family rental Monies. Weare investigating two possible sites in downtown Las Cruces,both owned by the City of Leas Cruces. Weare on the agenda for their January 19,,- 20 10 9,2010 City Council meeting. .F Weunderstand that in order to meet technical threshold for site control(and therefore be eligible to male application this year)we would need a Resolution approved by the Inas Cruces City Council consistent a '•s with the Qualified Allocation Plan(approved by Governor Richardson November 3,2009). We further understand tliat the Resolution must be site specific. �s`�., •, ��`� ,"' My question relates to one of the potential sites which presently includes an improvement,specifically an �r YM office building beim used by City staff, The City already Iias plans to vacate the building and move stat =°r to a newly constructed building at a different location within the neat several months. ' ' Would NMMFA view a"Council approved Resolution for this location as evidence of acceptable site controlwith the knowledge of this existing improvement? If not,would NMMFA:;accept, if the City further committed, within the Resolution or by separate concurrent action,to ratc'the building and ensure that any existing environmental concerns were addressed prior to execution of the lease agreement with the Supportive Housing Coalition of New Mexico? If so, would you require that this be completed prior to the Carryover Allocation application_ due on November 15,2010 or at sonic either date? Any information you can provide regarding possible complications or potential disqualification will be much appreciated. Thank you very much in advance for your assistance. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or require additional information. 1 pian to for-ward your written response to the Las Cruces City Council so that they may have the information necessary to take action on January 19. Sincerely, Mark Allison " Executive Director Page 1 of 1 David Dollahon From. Terrence R. Moore Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2010 3 36 PM To David Dollahon Cc. David Weir; Thomas Hassell Subject: FW- Downtown Housing Attachments Thomas Hassell (thassell@mvpha.org)vcf David Please be prepared to incorporate into Tuesday's discussion as noted Thanks. Terrence From: Thomas Hassell [mailto:thassell@mvpha.org] Sent: Thursday,January 14, 2010 12.22 PM To: Terrence R. Moore; Robert Garza Cc: Mark Allison, Robbie R. Levey Subject: Downtown Housing Terrence and Robert: As requested by Councilor Connor at the public hearing pertaining to our proposal to build affordable housing downtown, we have explored further the option of considering the City Office Center site in lieu of the Water/Griggs parking lot. NM Mortgage Finance Authority is willing to consider that site even though it is now occupied and would require future demolition and mitigation This would allow us to apply for tax credits this go-round which is our best chance at getting an allocation As you heard at the public hearing (Terrence) there seemed to be much support for moving our project to this new location Can we discuss this further? Obviously we would need to discuss this as soon as possible as we need to come to some conclusion to allow us time to prepare for the City Council meeting on January 19th Sincerely, Thomas G Hassell Executive Director Housing Authority of the City of Las Cruces and Dona Ana County,New Mexico 575-528-2005 Work 575-526-8452 Fax 575-650-2855 Cellular thassell(a)mvpha.ore The information contained in this email transmission is confidential and for the exclusive use of the intended recipient(s).If you are not the intended recipient,you are hereby notified that any use,disclosure,dissemination, distribution(other than to the recipient),copying or taking any action because of this information is strictly prohibited. 1/14/2010 W City of las Cruces Commuruty Development Memorandum To Mayor and City Council From David Dollahon, AICP, Neighborhood Services Administrator Through David Weir, AICP, Community Developme it c Terrence R. Moore, ICMA-CM, City Mana er Subject: Summary of Comments at the Downtown, Affordable Housing Project Public Hearing of Tuesday, January 12, 2010 Date January 14, 2010 File No M-10-017 Summary Minutes & Additional Information Attached to this memo are the summary minutes and print outs of Power Points presented to the general public at the public hearing of Tuesday, January 12, 2010, related to the Downtown, Affordable Housing Project. The City Council Chambers were full (including standing room only at the rear of the chambers and a few members of the public in the lobby) for the hearing that started just past 5 30 p m and ended at 7 30 p m Many comments (approximately 20 persons) were made both in support of the project and in opposition on the City-owned, EI Paso Electric Parking lot. The loss of parking as a potential result should the project be approved, was a concern to a great number of those present. City staff will be prepared to provide an updated Power Point, as will representatives from the Supportive Housing Coalition of NM, the Housing Authority of the City of Las Cruces, and their architectural firm of Decker, Perich, and Sabatini of Albuquerque when the City Council re-considers the Resolution supporting the project at the regular meeting of Tuesday, January 19, 2010, at 9 00 a.m Site Control Issue One item discussed at the public hearing was Councillor Connor's recommendation at pursuing placement of the project on the City Office Center property at the southwest corner of Alameda Blvd and Lohman Avenue Mark Allison agreed to look at this as an option Attached for your information are e-mails between Mr Allison and Mr Dan Foster of the New Mexico Mortgage Finance Authority (MFA) In summary, the ability to attain site control would be conditioned upon the City's ability to demolish the current structure on the Alameda site in order to provide enough space to create the project before November 2010 Attachments, as noted cc Robert Garza, Assistant City Manager Christine Logan, Economic Development Administrator William Slettom, Downtown Development Coordinator Vera Zamora, Housing Development Coordinator Jan Lauterbach, Affordable Housing Specialist Esther Martinez, City Clerk