HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 04211992 - IO.5 I .O.-5
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra
1 it •F
FROM: INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE
Costa
nl s
County
cOs'y-�-----
DATE: April 13, 1992 q cBaN-
SUBJECT: STATUS REPORT ON THE WORK OF THE HOUSING TRUST FUND TASK FORCE
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1 . Accept the attached status report from the Housing Trust Fund
Task Force.
2 . Concur with the need to further explore the three potential
revenue sources which are outlined in the Task Force' s Report.
3 . Direct staff to forward the final report of the Housing Trust
Fund Task Force to the Board of Supervisors through the
Internal Operations Committee in time for the Internal
Operations Committee to hear the report on either June 22,
1992 or July 27, 1992 and report the matter back to the full
Board of Supervisors as soon as possible thereafter.
BACKGROUND:
As is noted in the attached staff report, the Housing Trust Fund
Task Force was created by the Board of Supervisors to do the
following:
1 . Identify and evaluate alternative revenue sources for the
initial capitalization and ongoing support of a Contra Costa
County Housing Trust Fund.
2 . Identify and evaluate alternative institutional and
operational structures for the Trust Fund.
3 . Provide recommendations to the Board of Supervisors regarding
these issues .
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF CO Y A R RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE O ,,f,
q{�
SIGNATURE(S): ODE SUNNE WRIGHT McPEAK -
ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
UNANIMOUS(ABSENT ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
CC: County Administrator ATTESTED
Community Development Director
Deputy Redevelopment Director PHIL BATCHEL ,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
County Counsel SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
BY DEPUTY
M382 (10/88)
I .O.-5
The work of the Task Force is proceeding on schedule. As the
report notes, the Task Force has established criteria for
evaluating each potential source of revenue and has eliminated all
but three. The Task Force is continuing to explore each of these
three potential revenue sources and expects to complete their final
report in June for presentation to the Board of Supervisors in
July. We are asking that the final report be reviewed by our
Committee before coming to the Board of Supervisors . We will
report this matter back to the Board of Supervisors as soon as we
have had an opportunity to review and comment on the report.
2
revenue sources to the Board of Supervisors for a Contra Costa County Housing
Trust Fund: .
1.. Inclusionary housing program with an in lieu fee component. Program directly
increases supply: of affordable housing' . and can be implemented - in
unincorporated area by action of the Board of Supervisors. Revenue potential
depends on level of housing construction,.affordable price requirements, and
size of in.lieu fee option
2 General obligation bond. Countywide.revenue source providing potentially
substantial revenues ($56 million). Implementation requires two-thirds voter
approval.
3'. Franchise fee. on solid waste.. Countywide revenue source with potentially
substantial revenues($800,000 per year). Although somewhat regressive, fee
would have a relatively small impact on the individual household (estimated at
$5 per year) -It is likely.that this revenue source.would be considered a special
tax,. therefore requiring two-thirds voter approval.
A summary of the Task Force evaluation process, including a list of the potential
revenue sources considered, evaluation criteria; and rationale for the Task Force
recommendations is included in Attachment-A to this memorandum.
Institutional and Administrative Structure
The Task Force is currently evaluating alternative institutional and operational
structures for. the Housing Trust Fund. Issues includes
1: composition and size of the governing Board;
2. decisionmaking responsibilities;
3. relationship between the governing Board and the Board of Supervisors;
4. . the role of the Cities in the Trust Fund structure.
With regard.to the latter, it is the general consensus of. the Task Force that Cities
will want and should have representation on the Housing Trust Fund Board if Trust
Fund revenues include City as well as County resources (e.g. , general obligation
bond, franchise fee on solid waste). In addition, for those revenue sources
requiring�a vote of the.electorate, City support is likely to be critical in achieving
the required voter approval. Similarly, if revenues are from County resources only,
then final decisionmaking authority should rest with the Board of Supervisors or
their appointees
Task Force Schedule and Final Report
The Task. Force will develop recommendations concerning institutional and
operational issues at the April meeting. A final report summarizing the results of the
analysis of alternative revenue sources and institutional structures, and presenting
the Task Force recommendations and-supportingrationale will be completed in June
for presentation to the Board of Supervisors in July.of 1992.
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
COMMUUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
DATE: April 8, 1992 -
TO: Internal Operations Committee
- Supervis obe I. Schroder
Super sor Sunne Wright McPeak
FROM: Jim Ke edy
Depu Di - R development
SUBJECT: ogress Re t on Housing Trust Fund=
The Housing Tru t FTask Force -was created by the Board of Supervisors to:
1. Identify and evaluate alternative revenue sources . for the initial
capitalization and ongoing support of a Contra Costa County Housing Trust
Fund;
2. Identify and evaluate alternative,institutional and operational structures
for the Trust Fund;.and
3. Provide recommendations.to the Board regarding these issues
The work of the Housing Trust Fund Task.Force is proceeding on schedule. The
Task Force has identified potential revenue sources, and is in the process of
evaluating alternative institutional and operational structures for a Contra Costa
County.Housing Trust Fund. The Task Force anticipates completion of this process,
including presentation of a final report containing Task Force recommendations and
supporting rationale to the Board of Supervisors in July of 1992.
A summary of Task Force progress and actions to date is provided in the following..
Priorities for -the Use of Housing Trust Fund Revenues
The following priorities for the Housing Trust Fund were provided to the Task Force
by the Board of Supervisors
o First priority - Homeownership program in the form of a shallow.subsidy to be
provided to low/moderate income households.
o Second priority - Programs and projects to assist very-low income households
in obtaining affordable rental housing.
Housing Trust Fund Revenue Sources
The Task Force by majority vote has agreed to recommend the following potential
ATTACHMENT A
RECOMMENDED REVENUE SOURCES FOR A
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY HOUSING TRUST FUND
The first�'objective of the Housing Trust Fund Task Force was to identify and
evaluate alternative:revenue sources for the initial capitalization and ongoing -
support of a Contra Costa County Trust Fund. The Task Force has accomplished
this objective. Based on consultant analyses, the Task Force evaluated fifteen
potential revenue sources-for the Housing Trust Fund. Criteria applied by the Task
Force in its first-round evaluation included the following:--
o Housing Trust.Fund revenues must. represent a new source of funding. for
affordable housing development in Contra Costa County.
o Housing Trust Fund revenues must be legally feasible.
o The mechanism' selected must generate.`'sufficient revenues: to support a*
reasonable level of affordable housing development, f
o The tax or fee burden resulting from the collection of revenues should be as
equitable as possible, and should not unfairly burden specific economic sectors
or segments,of the population.
Applying these criteria, the Task Force agreed to eliminate the. following from
further consideration as potential revenue sources for the Housing Trust Fund for
the reasons indicated:
1. Sales tax - County collects maximum permitted under state legislation.
2. Existing County "housing funds (e.g. , Community Development Block
-Grant, HOME, Redevelopment Area housing set-aside) - not a new source
of.revenues for affordable housing development.
3.' Excess ,bond reserves recent IRS, rulings_ have eliminated this as a
potential source of revenue.
4. Sale of County land assets asset •base limited, proceeds currently
committed to,General Fund.
5 Special property tax levy - feasibility of achieving required voter approval
highly.unlikely.:.
6. Housing preservation, condominium conversion fees limited revenue
potential.
7. -Voluntary contribution of interest'on.mortgage.impound, sale escrow, and
tenant security deposit accounts - legal limitations and conviction that
interest.on these funds should accrue to the depositors.
8. Business license tax - limited revenue potential combined with potentially
significant impacts on small business.
9: Transient occupancy tax limited-revenue potential.
Elimination of the above left,the Task,Force with the following six potential revenue
sources .which-were .analyzed- in- greater detail "in a second round evaluation
documentary, transfer tax;,housing.linkage fees;-inclusionary housing program with
an- in lieu:fee_`component;� utility user tax;. franchise tax; and,general:obligation
bond Of thesesources,--linkage fees and inclusionary housing programs are the
only two options-which clearly do not require a vote of the electorate.. In addition,,
general obligation bonds and franchise fees on solid waste.are the only two revenue"
sources under the County's jurisdiction which can be imposed on a countywide basis „
Table 1 (attached).summarizes additional relevant characteristics-for each revenue
source
In'developing their.final recommendations,-the Task Force recognized that there are
no easy or painless mechanisms through which to obtain additional`revenues for the.,:.
rHousing Trust Fund. .Each of '.the remaining:revenue sources 'represents, a cost
burden on.one or more segments"of the County's current and/or future population:'.'
Recognizing;this, .the Task :Force attempted to select those sources which would
distribute the revenue burden inan equitable- and politically"
olitically acceptable- manner,
while providing the County with the level of resources required to. operate..'an,
effective .affordable housing, program - Following Task Force discussion, .the
'following revenue sources were eliminated from further consideration:-
1. Documentary transfer tax - County currently collecting maximum feasible .
under existing legislation.`An increase in revenues from this source would
require permissive state legislation. In addition, Proposition 62, which
provides that no local government can impose a transaction or'sales tax on
real property, would have to bedeclared unconstitutional.
.2. Utility user tax Eliminated.due toregressive-impact and limited political.
acceptability.
3 Housing linkage fees Eliminated due to limited,revenue potential(,$300 000
to $400,000 per year), competitive issues related to*'a linkage fee program
".. . in-the unincorporated area .only, and the substantial and costly_ effort
`needed to establish the required,nexus argument..
Following:elimination of these. revenue sources, the Task Force by majority vote
agreed to recommend Ahe following potential,revenue sources to the Board of'
Supervisors for support of a Contra Costa County'Housing Trust Fund:
1. Inclusionary housing program-,with.-an in; lieu fee component Can be
implemented by Board of Supervisors in unincorporated area.. Revenue
potential depends on level of housing construction, affordable price
requirements, and size of in lieu.fee-.component. Directly increases the
supply of affordable housing by requiring developers to include affordable
units in new developments or:pay fees which are. then .used to, support _
affordable housing development in the community.
2. Franchise fee on solid waste,.- Fee can be implemented on a countywide
.'basis, producing potentially substantial revenues (estimated at $800,000
per year). Although somewhat regressive,< fee would have.a relatively
minor.-impact on individual households (estimated at $5 per year) Given
the difficulties in establishing the nexus argument required for such a fee,
it is likely that this revenue source would be considered a special tax
requiring two-thirds voter approval.
' 3. General obligation bond - Can be implemented on a countywide basis with
two-thirds voter approval. Althoughpassage of a bond issue may be
politically difficult to achieve, the potentially substantial revenues
(estimated at $56 million) which would result from a successful effort make
this.a desirable option.
k3/kh/htfioc3
cc: file D1.14
W
m
0 ca
_ y y E
W ° c H c E G v rw
° E o a
T aCO O o � N }
@ m O C d w _ y E m m c .- a3.1
O O ClEO m E- O.-U W _O) ° fp 7 m p
m 10'
C
a:W �. �:w+ c) -m a " N L C: G N N
E E .. _� > E O. m WO: n m T
p m. p m �• ,.(0 m M,ami m N O C W@
C > > C y - C > -C m N UO N
O- - . . .U X O -
. �..07•O. O 4•O C9 a U' 'O 'U V d. m -� N U .z CD -
CA
v T n - ,N
5 c c mcr
3 m o'L 3 -
v' m `o o �
£ v c v �., m m mt .. o
O v 7 m .+-X m W y
C p m OCL ca
- m C X -'C�z O
' a._
m a o m c o
Z. c o c m mm .ai c 6 E ' m m ° ° an d
c
CO 0
v C Q. L °-, •,C-o � •y -
d m m Cp N 'D p - m N - y ].Y y •O s. �C 7 E
IM
C m .. .
CL
_.
in
y 7 — 7 _ 7 _ 7 -
O C ° C O C O. O ° C
LL m m m m m
m -
• c c m c.m c m c m c m E m
o o 0 0 o p o 0
E o> > cm > o> j o> j rn m a
W.. O N O .m O y O y O y
fq O In H m
00 v, c n
`m W c
.., p .
W «y v � ' �'o' N - 0 aN.
�W/ aci a `m O'
p.
� `o
m
uj
I" cc c o ° �: m. c aci
z Q' LO o N. .
f- >-LU a 2 > .c
a 0 Z
coN
U b Q
LL L� w N m y
co to,
N ip
CL LL m
O Q y ti y m O c T
0.
e— ZO �
COOZZ
Q0ZO