I will call this March 16th meeting of the Assembly Lands Housing and Economic Development Committee to order.

Mr.

Steiniger, would you please give us a land acknowledgement?

We would like to acknowledge that the city and borough of Juneau is on Clinkett Land and wish to honor the indigenous people of this land.

For more than 10,000 years, Alaska Native people have been and continue to be integral to the well-being of our community.

We're grateful to be in this place, a part of this community and to honor the culture, traditions, and resilience of the Klinka people.

Ms.

Hendricks, would you please note the role?

The role is noted.

And so you're aware your preclone is online.

Great.

Moving on to the approval of agenda.

Any requested changes to the agenda.

Seeing none, that is approved.

Approval of minutes.

We have our February 23rd minutes in the packet.

Any requested changes or corrections?

Seeing none, those are accepted as presented.

Which brings us to our agenda topics.

Mr.

Blydorn, it was unavailable to be with us this evening.

So we are staffed by our manager Custer, and we have some special guests in Mr.

Chamber and um attorney with us tonight.

So affordable housing fund annual report.

And a manager.

Thank you, Chair.

I will hand it over to Acting CD Director Shamborough, who will give you an update on the program.

Great.

Thank you.

So through the chair.

In your packet tonight, you have the affordable housing fund report.

It's an annual report.

We've given this to the lands committee.

This is the fifth year.

So congratulations to everybody who's been involved in the program.

You now have five years of this program running continuously with a lot of lessons learned and now some data that's also in your packet.

Just to kind of give you some guidance, what's in the memo, uh, you have the updated budget.

Uh you have small program reports for the competitive affordable housing fund program.

Uh the budget also includes the accessory dwelling unit grant program that's run through CDD.

So you have information on the progress of that program.

And then the manufactured home uh down payment assistance program is also in the affordable housing fund in your budget.

And so you have some uh updates uh on that program as well.

Uh again, uh the key difference in this year's annual report is you have five rounds of data, and so you have three spreadsheets.

Uh, one that gives you all of the grants uh and loans that have been applied for uh with their status, which has been approved, uh, and kind of some key details about each of them.

And then we actually broke them out into uh affordable housing grants and the workforce housing loans because there's really two components to the overall competitive program.

Uh and you kind of see some numbers there in the packet.

Uh again, 29 total applications received, uh, 15 uh workforce housing loans and 14 grants, so uh split evenly over the five years.

Uh the lands committee also talked about uh potential modifications to the program, specifically looking at uh adding some uh preference points for you know teacher or healthcare uh uh kind of uh professional uh uh personnel uh type of projects.

Uh there's some some uh information and and analysis uh in your packet on that concept uh for the the committee to consider.

Uh and then like I say, uh at in the the actual program guidelines are there for you so you know that what is being promoted.

Uh and at this time of year, uh we take direction from the from the assembly and the committee uh to make any modifications as we prepare for round six, uh, which would be after the fiscal year and the budget is approved.

So uh with that I can take questions uh on this program.

Thank you for that.

Lots of good information in our memo here tonight.

What questions do we have for Mr.

Chambur?

Mr.

Steiniger.

Um thank you, Mr.

Shambur.

Uh on the accessory dwelling unit grant program, just looking at the total numbers.

Um looks like there's 28 denials and 35 grants.

It seems like a pretty high rate of denials.

Can you speak to kind of why an application might get denied?

Sure, thank you.

Through the chair.

So uh one of the components uh of the program is that uh certificate of occupancy has to be received within 18 months.

Uh so some of those projects don't get built uh in time, or uh they don't come back for uh the grant.

So that's the primary reason for those denials.

Um however, there were periods uh, especially during the COVID years where we extended uh you know the grant period from 18 months to two years based on project by project.

Uh everybody understands there's contractor delays or some extenuating circumstances.

So there's a lot of approvals that we've had extensions on as well.

So we try to work with uh applicants, uh, but the primary reason for the denials was uh not completing it or getting the CEO in time.

Great as well.

Thank you, ma'am chair.

I'll ask a question on that same table there on the ADO grant program.

Um to preface my question, I guess just making sure I understand this table right when it says total number of ADUs, um, does that mean how many were built in that year unrelated unrelated to the program, just total in our community based on permitting data?

Is that correct?

Through the chair, yes, that's correct.

Okay, so um, you know, it's there's you know, we're we're making just a small dent in terms of how many we are granting relative to how many are being built.

Do you know why people um are not applying for funds?

Are there our funds too restrictive?

Um, do people not know about the program?

Are we hitting our I don't think we're hitting our limits?

Sure, yes.

Uh through the chair.

So uh in general, I think uh the the grant program is popular.

We get inquiries all the time.

Uh it's become more popular in the last year, year and a half since uh two things happened.

The the grant amount uh has increased to 13500, as well as the change in the ordinance allowing uh for more uh opportunity for people to quit create ADUs on their property.

Um in the past, uh we've heard kind of concerns that you know some people just don't want to you know engage with local government grant programs uh or they're of means and they don't need the grants, so or they don't think it applies to them.

So uh we could probably do a little bit better uh marketing.

However, uh, like I say, now that spring's arriving, I've got a list of people to contact with who are concerned or not concerned who are interested in the program and want to get on the list.

Um and so that yeah, that's probably the best I can then offer on that on that question.

Mr.

Kelly.

Thank you.

I had a question on uh the budget and revenue sources.

I was noticing that the the general fund appears to have numbers uh going that and they're not this always the same numbers.

It looks like it's you know 700 to 1 million for FY27, 750,000 uh for um for 28, and then it goes 28 and 29, and then it goes up to uh over a million for for FY30.

I was just kind of wondering where those numbers might have come from.

Yes, Chamber.

Great.

Uh thank you.

Uh so through the chair, so for that item on the sales tax, uh, so uh when the 1% sales tax uh was voted on, those were the uh amounts uh that that came along with that that vote uh and that the finance department had slotted uh projecting out once revenue was collected.

So for that line, uh that comes from the 1% sales tax conversation that the assembly has had.

Yeah, go ahead.

And given the additional exemptions, are we still uh budgeting about the same amount in general fund?

Manager Caster.

Yeah, thank you for that question.

So for um this year, the direction was uh not to reduce all of our um sales tax capital projects across the board, but to reduce certain projects.

So for fiscal year 27, the CIP that was introduced at Public Works and Facilities Committee today uh does include that, and that the manager's budget does include um that full scheduled funding amount in future years the assembly may want to tackle that uh revenue reduction differently, but that's the direction that we're working in as well.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Umufactured home down payment assistance program.

Um we've seen, you know, obviously rising sale prices.

We increased um the amount that people can borrow.

working in as well thank you madam chair um curious about the manufactured home down payment assistance program um we've seen you know obviously rising sale prices we increased um the amount that people can borrow what are we in terms of the interest we're seeing in the program are we seeing steady dropping increase as some of those things have changed so thank you uh so miss wall I want to uh uh add one more thought to my your last question so another uh reason for uh people maybe not participating in the ADU grant program is the the funding isn't enough so uh I think there was a proposal a couple years ago to bump it up to 50,000 and so we hear a lot of people who are like that's more in line with what it would take to get me to do it because of the overall cost is so there's a little bit of that in there.

So back to your your question on the manufactured home down payment assistance program.

Uh yes so in 2024 we worked with true north to update the program because just like housing costs everywhere uh manufactured homes uh saw a rise in in cost that the original terms of the program weren't really working to attract people so we bust boot bumped it up to 20,000 or 50% of the required down payment based on what they're seeing with their clients um and it seems to be working well because we are getting uh more applicants than we've had the previous you know three or four years so there is definitely interest at that level I did reach out to true north last week to say hey let's reconvene uh because I did hear from other manufactured home uh owners uh that they are thinking there might be a need to uh boost it a little bit more uh because the prices are still going up for that type of a unit so I've reached out to true north to converse on what that might look like in the future and if if they're seeing the same thing yep question keep rolling thank you for allowing me to join for this meeting it's my annual uh affordable housing fund join join the L head committee meeting um hopefully last question on the affordable housing fund and our award program there um this may be just some confusion about the program that you can help clarify my brain you know I remember when it was originally set up it was you know intended to target both affordable housing being less than 80% AMI as well as workforce housing which up to 130 or something like that um and uh my understanding at some point I think we made it a requirement for all funded projects to have some less than 80% AMI portion.

I'm getting ahead nod so good I'm following so far have you seen a you know obviously we need affordable housing we also need workforce housing are we seeing applicants that are interested in work for housing that are not interested in our program because of that requirement or you know is that preventing our anyone from coming into our pipeline that you know might help us meet those goals I I like that requirement but if but I don't like it if it's you know keeping um applicants who are going to make a workforce housing project work show up so great question uh so through the chair um so a little background on affordable housing fund program so that's maybe uh it gets a little bit clear uh how unique our fund program is uh so back in 2010 when we created this program you know it was considered uh uh a housing trust fund program and so uh in your memo there's a link to the housing trust fund project uh which gives the guidance on on the 350 you know state and national uh local housing trust funds that there are across the country and so those housing trust funds are basically all 80% AMI and below and so when ours was created it was originally intended just to be kind of a nonprofit regional housing authority grant program however over time in between you know basically 2012 and 18 with the affordable housing commission uh there was a lot of debate that hey multifamily workforce housing loans is also a huge problem in our community and so why can't we create a program that does both and so we've fused both the goals together through this one program which is extremely efficient um and the caveat when you want to use private developer using public funds is you have to get something in return for it.

And so that's where 20% of the units at 80% AMI came in too.

Since AMI since 2018, the AMI rates have really increased.

So it's really not a high barrier for private developers to meet.

In some cases to be competitive, they aren't going to charge 80% AMI.

They might even go lower based on the numbers that come out annually.

So in uh long story short, uh unique program meeting both of the community's goals, and it's not really a deterrent to uh developers who want to engage and use it because the threshold to participate isn't very high.

But what you will see, and what I'm so happy about the spreadsheet being in your packet is you can see the five-year trend.

So year rounds one and two, affordable housing developers were on it.

They were ready, they had projects, they knew how to work with local government.

Workforce housing loans, that's a different relationship.

Fair market government funding sources, two different languages, like different countries.

So it's taken a couple uh of times through to get them to engage.

And now you're starting to see in rounds three, four, and five, we've got a model, we've made some modifications, and private developers who want to do projects that want to use this funds for this little bit of incentive, it's pretty pretty pretty tight right now.

You can see how to participate.

So uh I look at it as we have kind of hit our stride with the program uh to hit both goals, uh, which again I say is unique amongst housing trust funds across the country.

Mr.

Kelly.

Thank you.

And I appreciate the effort that staff put into looking.

So, you know, last August I came to the lands committee with an idea, and I um and then the lands committee agreed with me, and we uh asked staff to kind of look into this idea.

Um I feel like a some of the feedback to this is useful, especially the stuff talking about how it might be difficult to monitor, and maybe that's something that needs to be worked out, uh, but it also feels like some of the feedback that is provided um it indicates that maybe I didn't I wasn't very clear in what I was asking for because it's suggesting that it would be narrowing the amount of available units where I I was thinking this would be additional units that could be available for uh for teachers or healthcore professionals or or other professionals.

Um so if they're if I'd like to work and refine this idea a little bit more, such as maybe figuring out the monitoring thing or maybe an alternative to that.

Would I still have some time to uh to come back to the lands committee with the to study this, come back to the landscammitte with the additional changes to this.

Sure.

Through the chair, I think um timeline-wise, uh realistically the next budget doesn't a next round doesn't go in place until you pass the budget, right?

So, you know, from admin staffing, we want to the day after you pass the budget, we want our new application up with the new terms so we can go out and promote it.

So I'd say, you know, if we stay on schedule, you got a window uh to to make changes uh uh through through the assembly.

That's all thank you, and thank you.

Mr.

Shambur, um, with Southeast Endeavors uh project, the fourplex, I believe he provided public comment at one of our recent meetings about how the price per or the amount awarded per unit is fixed that he said, you know, when you're building, say uh three or four bedroom or you know, he he was advocating for more per bedroom to encourage more family housing.

So can you speak to that request?

Sure.

Uh so through the chair.

So, you know, the $50,000 uh the safeguard for the assembly is you know, $50,000 uh cap, right?

So that's that's fixed for uh both uh affordable housing developers and uh fair market housing developers, and it's kind of the way to to be equitable amongst projects.

Uh and uh was kind of uh done some research through the housing action plan and and some other economic sources that that would kind of bridge the gap.

Um you do have information.

Um I guess it was the second crossing study by Dow, AgNU Beck did a study that said that um, you know, it multifamily per unit gap is around 120 at this point.

Uh we work with them on that report and said, hey, can you put tax abatement?

Can you put our housing fund uh metric in there?

So if you do that, it's about 75,000 reduction.

So there's still a significant financial financial gap depending on the project.

Uh and some developers are able to handle it and some maybe aren't.

Uh so I think you know, in the future, uh the assembly will have to determine uh what that financial analysis is for perhaps going up.

Uh or is this going to be, you know, kind of your you know, donation to the housing game uh and keep it well it is uh as people continue to come and utilize it.

So it's it's it's further analysis that the assembly will have to do.

I'm gonna jump in there.

Um, Mr.

Chomboy, a second ago, you were mentioning the with the numbers that come out uh for 8120, that makes it not that challenging to do.

And in fact, you might go lower than 80% just to meet the realities of our market.

Have it's helpful to know.

I know this is unique and that it does both workforce and affordable, but have other with those numbers going up, have other states or have other housing trust funds um refined the percentage, if for instance they are focused on affordable housing, um to lower that percentage down to kind of capture as those numbers go up.

I know in the past sometimes we've been surprised by how much you could charge for you know a studio or something, just Juno is an expensive place.

Um, but more importantly, we have people who do have money and that you know changes our numbers.

So is there any kind of trend with that?

Or is that could you speak to that at all?

Yes, thank you.

I think you know, strategy-wise in our market, given the fluctuating costs and the absolute need to develop units, it's hard to play the game of like, are we getting enough with our our participation?

Uh do we need to require more?

That's always going to be uh uh a difficult uh thing to point down because it changes.

Uh so you do see housing trust funds all around the country that are 30% AMI and below.

So basically there's like you know, uh very low income populations need public money, and so they're only going towards projects like that.

So uh based on 2018, the assembly wanted to get multifamily units on board, uh, and so left it at that kind of threshold.

Uh, like I say, has changed because of the annual numbers, uh, but that can be revisited uh and you could make it a lower target if you wanted.

Um I sense having gotten Chill Cat Vistas online this round and giving their feedback, uh, there's still some trepidation to use the program as it is, uh, given the risk involved.

So I wouldn't monkey around with it too much.

Uh the other key component uh for these programs is for affordable housing and fair market uh developers to know exactly what the terms are from year to year so that they can make the rest of the budget fit.

So if you're gonna change the AMI every year, that's a moving target.

People be like, I'm not messing with that because that's risk.

Uh so the more you can stay consistent, uh the better.

That's great.

Thank you.

One more question.

Um how is the data collected to know where the need is?

You know, is it workforce housing?

Um, you know, what how how are we collecting that data?

Great.

Thank you.

So through the chair, so a lot of the uh data collection to create this version of the program was done in 2018.

So it was uh housing needs assessment from JEDC, their annual economic data uh updates, uh the um housing action plan, uh, and then the regional housing authority has done needs assessments uh in multiple years.

So that kind of went into this kind of uh format.

Um yeah, the need uh, you know, there's state data as well.

AHFC has a rental market survey that they do every year uh that you can consult.

Uh but um there hasn't been like a specific uh needs assessment done uh for housing that I know of in the recent years that um Dowell AgNew Beck study uh from two years ago is really pretty phenomenal for um understanding our market.

And then also if if you read the executive summary of our CBJ's pro housing grant on the CDD website, uh that was uh uh elaboration of all the most recent data at that time, about a year and a half ago.

So not seeing any more.

I'm just gonna ask one more quick one.

Uh a lot of time I feel like we focus our attention on the fund and specifically what you just said about keeping it consistent helps it be successful because then people know what they're expecting.

Just it sounds like yes, but are the ADU program and the mobile or not mobile manufactured home.

Do from the staff side, do those feel as easily defined or easy to administer or at least hopefully comparable to the fund.

Yes, from the the staff daily administration side, all three programs, uh no significant changes.

Uh like I say, they've been pretty fine-tuned, and there's good relationships with TrueNet True North uh to make changes if needed, and we can bring back to you uh ADU grant.

Uh let's see how 13.5 works for a couple of years and can maybe bring that $50,000 per unit back.

Uh and then uh you have a budget uh for the housing fund, the competitive, you know, keep that intact or keep a version of it going uh so that we can continue to build this relationship with the affordable and fair market developers.

That's great.

Thank you.

Good note to end on there if people don't have any other questions.

Thank you so much for this report.

Lots of good data in here and lots for us to think about.

That brings us to agenda topic two, which is short-term rentals, one per person limits.

Um, and we have Madam Attorney in the room with us here making her way.

So we have a memo from the attorney, and we have some of our uh resource materials from you'll recall last meeting that we had the whole starter kit and everything else, just so we could do our homework.

Um manager customer, I'll take it to you, and then you can decide whether you just want to punt it to the attorney.

I will punt it to attorney.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

Um so the question came up uh from the lands committee.

Um kind of the parameters for what you could do for short-term rentals after the task force.

There were several several um you know possibilities, one of which was the limitation on one per person.

And I did a little bit of research just so you know it's in the memo.

The state did try and do this back in 2023.

Um it didn't go anywhere, it didn't get any committee meetings.

Um, but one of the interesting things was the response from the Juno Chamber, which I included in the packet.

It gives you a little bit of a insight into what they would be looking for and what their concerns would be.

Uh specifically seasonal housing, workforce housing, the ability to um utilize short-term rentals for um traveling nurses and certain programs such as that.

So that's what they focused on.

But the larger question of whether you can implement limits such as this, absolutely.

Um you can limit to one per person.

You could look at something like owner occupied, you could do a lot of things.

So the real question is, what would you like to do?

And we can we can do that for you.

Great.

Thank you for that overview and for the memo.

So we had our recommendations from the task force, uh, also in this packet.

And one of the open-ended things was I'm trying to find the wording.

Well, one of the two takeaways from that was to consider limits, but limits was left always on that task force.

So a lot of conversation about leaving that open to the assembly rather than saying a number, saying one or saying two.

Um and then of course, as attorney right mentions there's a balance um in whatever public good we see for these existing so questions from the committee for the attorney or for the manager, otherwise we can start to discuss.

Uh Mr.

Steiniger.

Um so one of the you know things that we've implemented is the um requirement that short-term rental operators you know register with the city.

Do we have you know is that public information?

Is that something that can be provided to the committee in terms of like how many short-term rental operators have more than one, you know, that kind of information to kind of help us get an idea of if we did implement limits, how many people it would impact currently.

I believe we could uh provide you that data.

I would just want to check with finance if we needed to um provide it, you know, more aggregate so you didn't know like the the individual details.

And I'll jump in here to say the whole materials weren't linked again within that um tool kit that the task force received.

I don't know if the city continuously has uh access to uh air DNA, I think it's called.

Um, but at that time the task force was able to get a lot of good data, and I'm sure we can again, there's already like existing just from the work that's been done on this, really nicely broken out to we have this many owners who have five or more and and down it goes.

Um just off the top of no, not at all.

I just want you to know there's a lot of rich resources.

So this is a at the very outset.

I mean, it's a simple idea mechanically, but we can think about what would go into that if we were interested.

But I have so much more homework for you to do.

And I'm sure you did your homework is all.

Um yes, and I'm not sure if this is a question for task force folks or staff, but um, do have we had many complaints, uh, you know, like party houses in neighborhoods, or you know, I realize we're not a beachfront um summer or or spring break vacation destination, but is that any anything we're tracking?

Manager.

Yes.

I did I don't know of any complaints.

Um I'd certainly I that being said, I haven't um specifically asked that question.

It just hasn't percolated up to my office as those type of complaints have a tendency to do.

And then I'll just continue to be in this weird position to say when the task force looked at this, uh generally when you're trying to tear into the problem.

Some communities have more of a party house problem, lots of complaints in the neighborhood versus overall numbers.

For Juno that there certainly have been some, but that is was not the problem we were trying to solve because that is generally not a problem.

We so much experience.

Of course, that could always come with growth into residential areas.

No, that's it.

For deepen thought, I will open it up then to you wanna start moving into discussion.

Mr.

Kelly, go ahead.

Um I I think maybe I guess we'll see where the the committee is more interested in doing some more studying in this first, but some interested some ideas I'm interested in exploring.

Um of the ideas that's listed in the memo on that's actually kind of hard to read the page numbers that kind of combine together.

Uh, but it is basically looking at the one that you has kind of a graph on it and some jagged lines and okay.

Um Ms.

Hall says it's 43.

Uh so so some of the ideas I I'm interested in looking for.

I I am interested in in looking at uh for instance as Mr.

Steininger suggested, you know, knowing how it would affect people to limit to just one unit per person or address.

Um, I'm interested in looking at fees per permits, and I'm interested in looking at using the revenue that we might get from these fees for to support additional housing.

Okay.

So interested conceptually in limits and interested in moving the funds from fee from permits uh into housing.

Got it.

So we could break it down into smaller things to comment on if you want, or are we looking at areas that we might want to study further or um I guess I'll give this context and maybe this will help elicit some discussion.

So we've spent a lot of time studying this.

So there's plenty of fertile ground, lots of data, lots of work has been done by previous assemblies and then a citizen task force with the some assembly members on studying the topic.

And so now we're really at the point where with going through that what we have, and I'm not expecting anything necessarily.

I mean, I I am expecting hopefully something to come out of this in terms of direction to staff, but I don't expect us to stick the landing uh on this meeting.

But now I think we're moving into that stage where conceptually we want to figure out for actually legislating what that mechanism looks like.

Is it based does it are fees part of it?

Is it a hard cap?

What are we doing with those fees?

Is there a phasing out period?

So those are some of those decisions now.

We maybe need to start making.

Um that you have questions on, we can certainly chase those down.

But there's probably a good stuff we can fall back on.

Yeah, I believe I read someplace that uh oh, finance department should weigh in on the mechanics of registration and enforcement as well as provide anticipated administrative costs.

So I guess it it seems like perhaps this may create more work than uh would justify implementing it.

And um, yeah, I I see that they uh it to follow uh you know a slightly different topic, they do provide uh a valuable resource for big events like um celebration and you know, to be able to bump up and meet the housing needs when when folks should come into town for big events.

So I'm it's not broke, don't fix it.

It's kind of my mindset a little bit, but um okay.

That's helpful on knowing where you are.

Mr.

Steiniger, do you want to weigh in?

Um yeah, yeah, sure.

I guess if I if I must, we're going down the down the row.

Um I'm not opposed to any of these concepts necessarily.

I'm just trying to think of, you know, I feel like we should probably define the angle that we're looking for, like on the fees side.

Is it generating revenue from this economic activity that's happening?

You know, we're we're starting to collect sales tax, that's a good.

Is it a permitting issue where you know charging a fee for the permit might help us with some of that management, or is this a bringing housing stock back into long-term rentals?

Is that specifically our goal?

Um, you know, or you know, as we kind of look at that um the the letter from the Juno or the yeah, the Juno chamber, you know, is there a need to and kind of do Ms.

Hall's comments, a need to supplement hotel inventory at certain times, you know, kind of what's what's our policy objective.

And I think that kind of leads you down different different avenues, I guess.

Um and so it's kind of hard for me to envision, you know, a if it's just about getting housing stock online, but keeping it affordable to buy a home in Juneau, sure, allow one per residence, and that helps you, you know, you know, work through your loan cost on buying a home.

But you know, if it's an issue of kind of in some areas where you've seen people create kind of off book hotels effectively that operate as hotels but are not under the same kind of regulatory regime that hotels have, it might be a different avenue that we'd want to go down.

Um and so not having been in the prior short-term rental task force and having not having the benefit of having intimately gone through all of the the data they went through.

I feel like maybe I need to do a little more look through that of some of that data, some of that information to get a better idea of the objective.

Um but like I said, I'm not I've heard enough of people trying to find housing in Juneau, trying to find rental, long-term rental units, frustrated by rental units switching over to short-term rental to believe that at least anecdotally, it it seems to be a problem.

Um, I just want to understand a little bit better before I kind of commit to a course of action.

I think that makes good sense.

And I think defining the problem statement is key because that will take us very different paths.

Um Ms.

Wall, since you're sitting up here, you're welcome to say anything if you want to say something, but I'll jump in just for being on the committee, and then I'll come back to you if you have thoughts.

Um the sort of I guess problem statement.

Um my own interest in this would be in that last one, the bringing housing stock back into use as housing rather than being used uh maybe commercially.

Um and to help with some of those uh rental situations where knowing that you can't, you know, you can incentivize, you can disincentivize behaviors, but you can't force anyone to rent.

Uh, I think we heard loud and clear from people who had been um traditional had owned traditional rentals and been traditional landlords when they switched to short-term rentals, they like that quite a lot better, and they were you know very clear about I I don't want to go back.

So if you take away that option, maybe they won't go back, but also it's you know, the only way you know is by flipping some policy levers.

Um I agree anecdotal evidence is not the same thing as uh some things being borne out in the data.

My own uh experience on the looking at all the data on the task force.

It is a small the majority of our short-term rental operators are not operating five or fifteen, that is a minority of them.

Uming that there are some that are doing that, then personally I feel good about having an upper limit.

And whatever they do with those houses is up to them, but they will be they you know, I doubt that they will hold that many empty.

Um, and if they go back into use as um any number of uh things that the homes could be used for, I would feel like that it's probably a better uh public use to Juno.

I agree that there is always gonna be a need for them because we don't have much of a housing stock.

We have long-term travelers, we know this from the hospitals and um we know how they're used in Juno in a number of ways.

So I'm not trying to get rid of them.

Um, but I do think we could have some common sense limits on them and uh if we were looking at uh per entity unit uh or limit of something like one or two, or you know, I think something like that would be a good starting place.

Um fees are a different way we could go if we do, uh Mr.

Kelly, I agree with you.

I like the idea of having it be designated for housing.

Um, but I would be interested in just based on the length of time that I've uh seen it get worked on at the assembly level.

I would be interested in staff bringing us back uh an ordinance that um limited um per entity, and I would I think obviously this is something that's gonna have to go to the cow.

And I think it's we'll have uh we'll see public uh interest in it because the short-term rental operators were very engaged every time we've talked about the topic.

Um, but that is something that I would like to see happen.

And I know it's um the topic itself is something that the mayor asked us to take up as a committee.

So those are my thoughts.

Ms.

Wallace since you're sitting up here do you have anything you'd like to add?

Thank you ma'am chair I appreciate the opportunity but as a non-committee member I'll um leave you to your time and I have lots to say on this and I'll say it another time Madam Mayor would you like to add anything on this topic?

I certainly would thank you for the time um everything that everybody said has been good.

I want like my preference would be you guys keep it and give us something at the cow rather than I just was in danger.

You said moving to the cow I said don't move it to the cow now let's try to do some work out first.

Okay that's all just making sure the community did some work first.

Okay.

Perfect I'm done thank you mayor we won't we won't send our disorganized thoughts no we won't send that over the funds yet we'll get clarity amongst ourselves.

Would people have I won't make motions because I'm the chair but uh conceptually it sounds like Mr.

Kelly is loosely interested in some number uh as a limit um per entity I know I have said I am conceptually then I mean next step would be to get something working and then we would have something to poke at and um figure out things like phase out time um permitting that would be one idea I'm throwing out to you or you guys can throw other ideas out to me as motion.

So I'll stop talking.

Madam Chair um would it would it be helpful to maybe throw out one concept at a time or would you like something more comprehensive or whatever you want.

Okay I think I think just for the ease of digestion for the committee I'll I'll start with one idea at a time I would move that staff bring back an ordinance to the lands committee at the next meeting that would set an upper limit on the amount of units that someone could have for short term rentals yeah I think I think I'll I'll leave it there.

I think I'll um I think I'll want to leave that number open ended because there might be some discussion at the committee but um just dropped an ordinance that has some sort of um upper limit okay so we've heard a motion and then my second no one has any objection to that I'll ask the attorney if we're being sufficiently vague we might be too vague for her liking.

Yep go ahead Ms.

for purpose of a question for the maker would that be um upper limit per like applicant or upper limit in town or or what what would that be Mr.

Kelly thank you I think I was imagining per applicant I I think there's that would be my motion what we could start with and then if at a future meeting you wanted to uh to to adjust that language um it might we could still talk about it then great are there any objections to that to that motion okay I'm not seeing any objections madam attorney is that enough to go on or do you that is very vague direction?

Thank you.

It is very vague direction but I can provide that to you and you can fill in the details.

Great that's perfect.

That gives us a starting place okay um Mr.

Kelly you had more I would move that staff bring back to the Land Housing and Economic Development Committee an ordinance that would charge a fee for applications for short-term rentals and direct those fees to be put towards the affordable housing fund and ask for unanimous consent.

Since we're gonna get to work in committee I will just note I like conceptually moving designating some money to keep the housing fund going the other piece of this is in charging uh a fee is that we if you need approval from the city to have a short term rental then the city's gotta and and we're charging a fee for that um then the city's gonna have some administrative overhead to do some kind of enforcement and I'm sure that's the piece that you are starting to get on a little bit Ms.

Um then the city's gotta have some administrative overhead to do some kind of enforcement, and I'm sure that's the piece that you are starting to get on a little bit, Ms.

Hall, but right now so we would that's just something for us to be thinking about is we can designate that, but we also want to care for admin.

So I'll remove my objection.

And looks like Madam Attorney is got that one captured as well.

Other thoughts, questions, motions.

Otherwise, we will have we'll do a lot of homework before our next one, and we'll come in with more ideas.

Okay, I'm not seeing anything else.

So part one of short term rentals, stay tuned, and we'll get some work done before we move it along.

Uh committee member liaison comments and questions, Ms.

Hendricks, who said we had the PRAC liaison online.

Yes, I'm here.

Great.

Our meeting was actually canceled so that individuals of PRAC could go and look at Diamond Park maintenance requirements.

Unfortunately, I was able unable to attend as I was out of the state at the time.

So I will hear from them at the next meeting and report back.

Okay.

Thank you for that.

Is there anyone from Docs or Docs Harbors?

If you have a liaison online, feel free to unmute yourself.

No.

If we have time in the meeting, that's how it works.

Schrdinger's cat.

Then they're not here.

Um that brings us to what we had to work on today, manager Custer, is there anything else?

Thank you.

Um not to bring us back to the beginning of the meeting, but as I would love to have, since we just have a couple of minutes, can we get a little uh bit more direction from assembly member Kelly on the program changes he'd like to see to the affordable housing fund?

Because I believe I am the person who maybe misinterpreted that direction.

And um, since we want to make sure that we're responsive and and make those changes or or give you the information you need to discuss those changes, uh, any direction um from this body would be helpful.

Thank you for that, manager Custer.

So we are in that timeline of window, so Mr.

Kelly, do you want to clarify that?

Sure.

Um I think a part of it is also um on me.

Communication is a is a two-way road.

So I don't think I've been the most clear either in in what I've been asking for.

So what I am looking at getting is an incentive for developers to make available additional units in addition to the units that are already available that anybody could apply for, but these units would would be specifically for licensed individuals.

So it wouldn't be that we would be cutting into the the the 20% that are their ADMI, we would have an additional number.

The incentive could be in the amount of points that the developer is weighed in their application, or I was even thinking for people who have already been approved that there could be an incentive added into their the terms of their loan if they were to make additional units affordable for these professionals.

And I think maybe I can think about and just we could discuss maybe offline the the issues having to do with with monitoring.

Yeah, thank you for that opportunity.

So just to clarify, this would be uh an additional potential term um or desired criteria for the existing program.

I'm not sure if I understand the question.

Um it's hard for me to see how we're not the it would not be creating if it's not creating a new program, then we would be creating a additional requirement that could be you know voluntary or not, depending on you guys could give that direction for the existing program.

Correct.

It would be an additional term.

And it would be my thoughts that it wouldn't be mandatory, but it would there would be it would give incentive.

Thank you for allowing.

I know we're we're bumping up against time, so thank you for allowing that uh clarification.

Great.

Thank you.

All right, thank you for that.

With that, our next meeting date will be April 13th, and we are adjourned.