Special Housing and Homelessness Committee Meeting

It is Wednesday, April 29th at 1:00 PM. We'll start just going around and having introductions around the table here.

George Martinez.

Oh, I'm sorry. Uh, Cameron Perez, Radia Assembly. Jared Gerker. Bob Dole, Director of Community Economic Development. John Musa, Deputy Municipal Attorney.

Thank you. I don't see any other members online. Is that correct, Travis? Great. Um, So we are here to discuss AO 2026-45.

Before I hand it over to Mr. Dool, I want to just, for those that maybe aren't following it, I had to ask a whole bunch of questions just to make sure I'm following it. I want to give a little bit of context. And for the record, we've been joined by Ms. Baldwin-Day.

So last night there was an item, this item was before us to discuss the Raspberry Townhome status. And I think what, from my perspective, two issues got conflated, right? The conversation about the Raspberry Townhomes and the conversation about South Park Estates. And so the item was postponed. It was asked to be referred to this committee, so we held a special meeting to have this conversation today.

And Bob Dole will have some comments about that, But just a clarity about that, the residents that came forward and voiced a concern related to the South Park Estates, not the Raspberry Townhomes, those are two separate issues. Am I correct about this? Yes, sir. Okay, and so I just want to make sure that we're really clear about that. And so the item will come back before the assembly regarding the Raspberry Townhome Estates, and I know you're going to talk about this.

So this meeting, you'll address that in a small way, but mostly today what we're going to talk about is some ideas that are, that are being presented around how to address some of the concerns that have been voiced around the South Park Estates, correct? Correct. Okay, everybody clear as mud as what we're doing here today? Okay, all right, if there are no other questions, I'm going to hand it over to you, Mr. Dolk. Thank you.

Hi, Bob Dolk, Director for Community and Economic Development. With me here is Joe Biusa. If you ask a legal question, he'll jump in and answer it. Otherwise, I'll try to stick with the non-legal stuff. Side, not the illegal side, but the non-legal side.

So we're here today kicking off talking about, uh, next slide, please. Uh, Raspberry Townhomes. This came to the body in the form of AO 2026-45. Whenever the Heritage Land Bank or Real Estate Office sell a municipal real estate asset, it comes with a reversionary clause, typically 5 years, although that may vary depending on the particular project. The reason we do that is we're not selling it for somebody to speculate.

We're selling it for something to get built. And usually that is enough time. Sometimes it isn't. Uh, and this is what— in the case before you, uh, 2026-25 for Raspberry Townhomes, the actual reversionary clause would expire next year. However, in order to get financing so they can start building this year, they needed the extension.

Now, the owner came to us, um, Mr. Devenham, on behalf of Town Northwest LLC, which is the actual owner and is a distinct owner's group that will have other people in for the project then than just Mr. Devin. And looking at these, you can see that they have moved along in the process of trying to get this property ready to build. They went through a rezoning process, dealt with the wetland requirements, some significant challenges with the soil conditions there, spending about $1 million removing peat that you can't build on going forward. And they— sure, they made significant progress. They couldn't make the timeline, though, to get the entire project done.

Last 5 years. This isn't that unusual in the big context of things. 2 Of the— actually, 3 of the projects I worked at, my last employer, major housing projects, also took 6 to 7 years to actually get done, to go through that whole process. So they have spent— they put— this property was purchased at a market rate of $150,000. That is below the appraised amount.

However, market rate is what a buying willer seller will sell something to a, a willing buyer. So market rate, what two people come together, agree that they'll pay for it. He was bought for $150,000, they put about a million dollars into it, and they come before us today— they came before us with a revertor clause. And that is what 202645 is about. It would add— give them 4 more years to complete this project.

We have never, as a municipality, that we could find We have provided a revert clause for somebody moving forward with the project. The last project we did revert clause on is the Chugiak Senior Center Housing, where we actually provided 3 revert clause extensions going forward. So, they're not that unusual, and they're— you might say they're appropriate when you have somebody who's going forward within the intent of what the original item was there for. If there's questions about those other reverter clauses, real estate manager Tiffany is in the back row and we can call her up if you want. Right.

And for the record, Ms. Silvers and Mr. Johnson joined us at 1:05-ish. Are there questions about this item?

Because you're going to move on to the next part of it, right? Okay. No, no questions about this at all from members. Okay. All right.

Go ahead. Thank you. So, distinct from that, what came up, and I think it raised a lot of important issues, uh, 2 Tuesdays ago was the South Park Estates status. South Park Estates is a, um, mobile home park in, uh, Midtown Anchorage, and, um, it's owned by a different owner group, Greenland LLC and Bering LLC. And the challenge we have here that we see with many mobile home parks across Anchorage is the infrastructure is aging out and then what do you do with, with the park itself?

So in 2021, this matter came before the PCC and the Assembly on that very issue. What do you do when you have an aging out mobile home park? It's not cost-effective or feasible to replace the plumbing with it in its current state. When that came before the bodies, they approved a rezoning for an upzone. That upzone allows for higher density, which creates the economic feasibility to redevelop it.

But in doing that, the Assembly recognized that they were doing this because it couldn't be maintained as a mobile home park. It needed a new use, and this was the way to bring money to do it going forward. But they had set the conditions for that— actually, I think 2022 had passed— that they did not— or 2021, this one— they did not actually specify any— they acknowledged that these mobile homes are going to be removed. They did not acknowledge what was going to happen to the people who owned the interest in those mobile homes. It was known that they would have to move on, but no provisions were put in for where they're going to move to or what they could do from that point.

Let me pause you for a second. Uh, Miss Brawley joined us at 1:07 PM. Thanks. So that happened back in 2021. At that point, uh, well, let's move forward then to, uh, just what we— how we look at conditions itself today.

This is not atypical. You pause you for a second, Miss Brawley. Yeah, sorry, and I apologize for being late. Can I ask, um, as a follow-up, could we get a copy of The— can someone circulate the 2021 action? The reason, just so we could see the language.

Okay, thank you.

Chair Brawley, as you heard, Graham will be forwarding that to this body. Okay, thank you. Yeah, so, so looking at South Park Estates today, we have a property that DEC recognized the fuel contamination and other contamination back 5. Yes, ongoing boil notices for the tenants mean— or the residents mean they have to boil their water before they can, uh, drink it. Unfortunately, this is not unique to this, uh, South Park Estates.

Um, this body dealt with these same challenging issues with Forest Park up in Chugiak, and, uh, starting about 2020, and I think still goes on some level to this day, unfortunately. Uh, just in talking with others. Um, there are other parts in the same condition. It is a condition when you put galvan— when you put galvanized steel pipes underground, they rust. They rust out.

At some point, that leads to foreign contaminants coming into the drinking water, um, including whatever is contaminating that soil, such as fuels, and also, uh, some of the, uh, biological matter from the sewer lines have also, uh, rusted out. So it is not an acceptable situation long term. Something has to be done going forward. The challenge you have with that is you can't prepare— make repair to the lines without moving the actual mobile homes themselves off them, and they can't be moved and salvaged and put back. So you're kind of in this catch-22 of the, the home residents need a better water source, but in order to get that to them, you have to move their house off, which is why it is not feasible to do a repair the mobile home park with— or repair the water line infrastructure with the structures in place.

We looked at this extensively with Forest Park, trying to find a way forward, seeing what FEMA money we could find for it, and ultimately we're unsuccessful. So we've done this before. Uh, and many, because our, um, because the Municipality of Anchorage has frowned upon mobile home parks for an extended period, most of the— there's been no new developments of mobile homes and very, you know, fewer units brought up. So you end up with parks with very old mobile homes in them, uh, due to just, uh, nature taking its course. Many cannot be moved, uh, structurally.

Others, other mobile home parks, because of their age, refuse to have them and/or transporters refuse to move them as well. So there's some serious barriers that build up. Take on top of that the economic stressors that have been happening. We know for across Anchorage in the last, uh, from '21 to '25, general rents went up 30%. Mobile home parks seem to go up even more.

You're seeing paying for that aging infrastructure, I believe. The owner of South Park City is spending $60,000 a year now for repairs, and fuel prices go up. And when you have to move snow out of an area that usually hasn't planned for snow storage, that's expensive— that snow removal cost and those other maintenance costs going forward. So you see faster growth there. And as I mentioned, this isn't— unfortunately, this isn't unique to one park.

This is part of a broader picture going forward. We go to the next— uh, we're here. So if you look through the, um, the, uh, residents' rights of South Park or any other, um, trailer park, the state legislature struggled with this about 20 years ago, trying to find the balance of what they thought was reasonable for apartments closing. All the state requires is 270 days notice and the provision that the final quit date has to be in the summer. They recognize it'd be hard to move a anything here on the icy roads in January.

That's it. There, there's no requirements of the landlord for relocation or anything else. By his own promises, the owner of South Park Estates is offering, uh, $9,000 to those, uh, who will relocate those, uh, those, um, homes in South Park to other, uh, parks on their own, and that's in addition to whatever that other park may pay as an incentive for them to come. That's kind of— that I would— that's a— that is not required by law, but rather something the owner here is offering to incentivize movement going forward. If you look in the back of your packet, there will also be Exhibit D to the, uh, to the lease since 2021.

And that is, uh, for me, it's slide 19. It's simply a notice that tenants are hereby notified South Park Estates Manufacturing Park will be closing 1 to 5 years. Upon notice of closure, tenants will be responsible for the cost of moving their own manufactured homes. That is the notice that has been provided since 2021 by the owner of South Park Estates to the, uh, residents there going forward. He was only required to do 270, but plus, uh, and in the summer, yeah, he was trying to mitigate that, allow for more planning, because that's really a short time when there's very limited options where you can move one to.

Mr. Dole, I have a quick question. Mr. Gekker? Yeah, actually, I just wanted to put a finer point on that, is that the owners are under no legal obligation to do anything more than what they've already done. Like, they're already going above and beyond with offering this relocation assistance and offering the $9,000. That is above and beyond what is legally required, correct?

It's a finer point, correct? Okay. Thank you. Thank you. So, so going back to, um, I'd like to put South Park into a broader context on slide 6, Anchorage's comprehensive plan.

Thank you. So, our plan has, uh, Anchorage planned the factory mobile home park, uh, communities. Um, it hasn't been desired and has been viewed as something that's a temporary placeholder for a higher use. At one level, it makes sense given the non-permanent nature of the infrastructure going in there. To—.

And under most of our trailer parks, our older ones— treat them as temporary. Conversely though, these are really strong communities typically, and there needs to be a way to go forward so that the residents in a park can have that same sense of community they have now. And they are very tightly knit across several different lines. And it was only in the last couple years with the discussions of how we're going to allow relocatable dwelling units and other options that we really kind of turn that around going forward. I'd say if you look at the plan side, the 2040 Land Use Plan called for the municipality to mitigate the loss of these, uh, this housing, uh, through deliberate adoption of public policies, actions, mitigation strategies.

And you can read the rest there. And I think a key part of that too is that it would— should be collaborative going forward. And what are we going to do to preserve this key level of these communities, and also at a very affordable housing— a very affordable housing cost going forward. Member Baldwin-Day talked about these are some of our most affordable properties in the municipality for housing, and we can't lose that level of the market spectrum going forward. Circling back to this particular South Park in particular, would note that both the 2020 and 2040 plans recognized that— or called for this particular place to redevelop.

Going forward. If we go to municipal resources, these are examples of the things that are already in place today that have been done to try to mitigate the challenges for preserving this type of housing. Uh, Development Services in the last 2 years has made some policy changes in terms of how mobile homes are classified under the International Residential Code that facilitate getting necessary repairs for a roof that doesn't leak or life safety things so that these can be more safer to live in. We have, as I mentioned before, this value with AM2025-112 allowed for the use of all forms of just the relocatable dwelling units and mobile home parks. We have the mobile home repair program of up to $20,000 per home that is available.

This is done with the Community Development Block Grant of HUD money and administered by Rural Cap. Probably the key area this is used for is weatherproofing. Unfortunately, these mobile homes are— many are some of the least energy-efficient buildings or homes in our infrastructure. This is a means to increase affordability on those going forward. However, We have a lot of flexibility in how we choose to deploy these funds going forward, with the exception, I believe, only the income caps are the only part that we're really hemmed in by.

There's also with this body AR-2026-74 proposing a housing rehab fund of $692,000. This would— it is also income restricted. However, additional funding to expand the scope to look at what we can do for displacements even above the income I've got a couple of folks in the queue for you. Let's start with Ms. Baldwin-Day. Yeah, thank you.

I'm curious what the income cap is for this particular tranche of CDBG funds. Is it in that like 30 to 50% AMI range, or do we know what that number really is? This is where I'm gonna fall.

[FOREIGN LANGUAGE] Generally, 80% AMI is the requirement for CPG. We, in the application that Rural Cap has on their website that they use for intake for the Voluntary Repair Program, they have a table that lists what those actual dollar values are that's updated each year by HUD. Of what the income limit is by household size. It's different by household size. So, one-person household, 80% AMI for that type of household, two-person, etc.

So, it's a whole table there, and it's updated each year.

Got it. Thank you. Ms. Sprawley. Yeah, I had a question about the comp plan, but also I will say, obviously speculative at this point, there's a massive federal bill being considered around housing. And so I think that's something we should keep an eye on because it would potentially change things from 80 to 120 AMI.

There's a lot of— so hopefully maybe in the future HUD money gets a lot easier to use, but in the meantime, I understand the constraints. But if you can go back to the previous slide just very briefly, this is another follow-up I wanted to ask because this is another can of worms, but with our comp plan, I know there is a targeted housing update going through. If you could forward that to members in the context of looking at this, because I think it'd be helpful to see what, if anything, under mobile or manufactured housing is being proposed to change for policies, because I think when that project started, this was much less urgent. But I think what you're, you're right, that our plans as a systematic policy have basically said, too bad, these are going to go away over time. I mean, that's just, that's the reality of what has been written in our plans for 25 years.

And I think We clearly wanna change that policy. And so I think another follow-up to this, beyond the scope of just this one issue, is, you know, what policy changes should we be proposing? And then one last thing I would say is I would hope that in that plan, we could also start to really distinguish between manufactured housing and mobile homes, 'cause there's the, in some sense, mobile homes is the term for the older units that have been phased out that are a different policy problem than how do you allow new manufactured housing which looks different, is constructed different, and the technologies have significantly changed. Um, and that's even different than modular housing. So, um, anyway, so I know those are bigger things, but I want to put them on the table as things we need to connect, um, beyond the scope of this project.

But they relate to how, as a policy, we deal with these projects.

Through the Chair, Member Brawley, Melissa Bath, Planning Director, um, for the record, um, as usual, that identified a very wide range of issues that we're addressing that are all very related to this specific issue. But we are here for today. Um, but I can tell you that, um, we at the Planning Department had already started looking at this variety of issues that you just identified. Um, just to start at the end of your list, um, the definition of manufactured home versus modular housing versus tiny housing versus mobile home. That is something that we were addressing in the recent code change, which where we landed with relocatable dwelling units and the building department being able to permit any of those uses as relocatable.

So that is one step that we've already taken to help address some of that. A particular piece of the puzzle. Um, we also have the mobile— the Manufactured Housing Community Study that was completed recently, and we used that as the basis to inform our code update, also to initiate another study, another plan that we are working on currently. It was barely even in draft form, but we started a plan in order on what to do with these communities after when they reach the end of life, you know, what to address the things that we're talking about here today. So this is a national problem that we're looking at.

We're not isolated in case of the fatality of our comp plan treating these as temporary use and assuming that they will be. That useful and, and there will be development on those properties. Um, it's happening all over the US, but nobody really actually seems to have a plan in place for the residents when they have to leave. So we had started, um, looking at a place to help figure that all out before it started. Um, so we would be happy to share that as soon as we have anything pulled together.

Which would probably be in the next 3 or 4 months. And obviously this will help as well. And related to the targeted 10-year update for the Comp Plan, that update, as far as I remember, does not actually specifically address this issue now, but it is in draft form. We can absolutely make some changes. Thanks.

Hope I covered all of your—. Yeah, I appreciate that. And I think, and not to take away the urgency of this, but I think just to say parallel to this, what we do with this situation, that we need to connect it to these other pieces that are moving. So thank you for the update. Mr. Martinez.

Uh, thank you, uh, Chair. Question to Bob. Can you— you described municipality, I think in the second slide, that municipality has never refused to extend the reverter clause. That's what's in print, but what you said was for a project that reached certain measures of success. What are those— what are the indicators of the measures of success?

Presumably, the reverter clause, as it's described in the second bullet, says In the event the grantee does not fully develop the property within 5 years, the property will revert back to us. Can you square that up with me? How do we know a property is advancing? What are the reports that we get along the way that tells us that there's a property that's advancing? And why is 5 years— if it's not enough, why hasn't that changed?

It's arbitrary. Why can't we just make a change to it?

The chair may invite Tiffany up to augment my answer on this. Um, through the chair, Mr. Martinez, the 5 years is a number that balances risk to an investor who's going to build this, allowing what's usually a sufficient amount of time. We can shorten the amount of time. It increases the risk and will either decrease what they're willing to pay for the property because of the risk, or it will turn away those who are find the risk unacceptable based on their skill levels and may opt out of those. So that's how that 5-year number is kind of a start point we can adjust from.

There is no— we don't ask for reports before the reverter clause is coming due because it frankly doesn't matter. We don't have a legal right to revoke a— or take back a property until we get to the expiration date. This case would be June 27th if the project wasn't done. So the question is, what would we do with that information? We can't say, are you going to pay us more?

You're going to do something else? Either they're going to get it done on time or they're not. They identify that they're not, or we know that they're not. At that point, it's going to come down to looking at what they have done as they're approaching that point where we're going to turn to our real estate manager to say, does this project look like it's moving forward? Are there concrete steps?

And I would invite our real estate manager, Tiffany Briggs, to augment that as necessary.

Good afternoon. Tiffany Briggs, real estate director, for the record.

Mr. Doolin is correct. We haven't in the past asked for any type of reporting metrics as we go along. One of the things we did try and clarify Um, in our draft ordinance, because the language fully developed—. What does that mean, right? Probably shouldn't have been in there in the first place.

So we did, um, try to, um, also include that and have some draft language on what, um, a possible good metrics would be, would be, um, that the successful bidder shall fully develop the property in a manner consistent with the approved plans on file. Municipality of Anchorage Building Safety Office. So that's saying that the project is complete according to the plans they filed, um, as opposed to just fully developed. That's—. What does that mean?

So, so essentially there's a potential project to help clarify the definitions, which is a good thing. I, I do want to highlight, um, the question that I asked was around, why is it 5 years? The response was, well, we wouldn't make it shorter than that.

I think you misread the entirety of the direction of the question. Then if it's 5 years is a problem, why not make it longer? And the reason that I flag that is because we uncovered the financing problems through the housing incentives. Where the 10-year mark of the abatements just weren't enough. And so we uncovered that, and that's what I'm trying to get a sense of.

It seems like a person who has invested on a, on a property that could be reverted back to us, and they've invested time, sweat, and effort going through our municipal processes, it seems like there's the ability for the question of extensions to not necessarily be at a point in time for— that relies on the outcome of a public hearing, and maybe a little more relying on kind of the indicators of the progress that we want in the first place. I think that'll help decision makers, uh, have clarity of the issues, even in this case, from my vantage point. Through the chair, we would offer to circle back with the industry and get a feel on what those metrics may be or how they would work there. Frankly, a little of this too may be our attempt to move things along as quickly as we can, of course, but we'll certainly circle back with the industry and see what may be a better means of ensuring success. Thank you, Chair.

Just really good questions fleshed out, and I look forward to the work. Right. Yes. Okay. And now you're going to move into some potential solutions for—.

Can we touch briefly upon other resources? Sure. Go for it. Thank you. Credit for this slide and the prior slide and bringing order to chaos goes to Thea, who managed to catalog all of these, and it would— you did a great job capturing that there are other resources out there beyond what the muni offers.

Just very— you can see for yourselves. There's something that's not on this slide or the other slide before it, though, that I think is a root cause of some of the challenges of the residents of South Park. I could not find anywhere a source to educate a potential buyer of a mobile home. What are your rights or what are your challenges with it if you don't own the land under it? Correct.

And we have a lot of great— you can see the municipal programs, you can see there's other resources for funding out there, but in terms of that basic information for an informed decision, I think that's something we ought to circle back on, to be honest with you. Right. So the thing not on the slide I wanted to highlight before we talk about solutions. Sorry, Dave. No, I appreciate that.

And if you could just give us a— for those that are listening that may not be able to be following this closely, what is the current status? So what is the current status of the residents? Are they still there? And what is the sort of the primary concern that is driving this conversation about new solutions? So the primary— what's driving new solutions, we look at South Fork which is part of our community.

It's an important one we need to deal with. We still have 30-something households there. We know the park is closing. Um, you know, whether anyone wants to or not, the infrastructure underground gets the final vote on when it no longer becomes used. And the question is, where do members of South Park or other, um, other parks move to?

There's, um, We haven't been seriously developing or buying opportunities to develop new mobile home parks in, in Anchorage, in the municipality. And that's what we go into potential solutions if we go up to slide 9. So, I mean, I just— there's currently a few options for them at this point, is what— is this what you're saying? Uh, Mr. Chair, I believe there's a few isolated options if you want to go as a community of 30 homes to another unit.

One, you— Banggood— that say your mobile homes are too old, and then you would not find 30 clustered anywhere, to my knowledge. And we would like to, uh, so you might find one here, one there, one, right? Well, that's, that's kind of where I'm going, is that— I mean, I'm, I'm— there's, there's an assumption here that you have 30 households that, that want to stay together, I'm, I'm understanding. And so your solutions are related to that, as opposed to there's nowhere for these individuals to, to go, and the $9,000 that is being offered is not sufficient to allow them to transition in and into something new. I just want to make sure we're saying that the context of, like, of, of the solutions you're providing are, are about moving the community to a whole new community.

Is that right? So, Chair, it is correct to provide an opportunity for community movement. It's also just a question of capacity or inventory or volumes. There aren't that many spots out there. Those onesie-twosies scattered across the municipality, and this isn't the only one.

Uh, I have something nice to change, uh, whatever it is about the section. Yeah, I knew that. I'm at the mayor's office. Um, so I've been part of the— some of the meetings that the owners have had with the residents, and then, um, we also met separately with some of the residents here. So I think it's a variety.

I mean, I think there are some folks who would love to be able to relocate and be neighbors somewhere else. I think there's always with Alaskans, we like to have our own places, especially where you have storage for your stuff at your house. I mean, that's a hard thing about living in apartments for a lot of us is, you know, you kind of have your stuff, right? So, there's that. The, the resources that are listed on those two slides are resources that are available.

The owner has given one block 2 years to move and the other block 3 years. So, even though for some of those things listed, like to get on the list for senior housing at Cook Inlet Housing, they have waitlists for that, but potentially, if you're willing to wait, and you have some time to wait, you could get on those lists. There are those lending opportunities too. So for example, HFC has one for purchasing mobile homes. There's also low-income household mortgages that are available.

Cooking Land Lending Center has financing products like that. So again, if people wanted to say move from their mobile home to a townhome or a small home that they can afford, those are, those are, those resources that are available. So I think the question is the degree to which people want to relocate together and have a similar housing product at a similar price. That's the challenge. Yeah.

Like, I think if people want to say, like, okay, in 2 years, I'm willing to move into a compliant housing, affordable housing rental, and I'm going to get subsidized rent in accordance with my income, you know, probably there's time for that, or I'm going to save up some money and get some down payment assistance and buy a townhome. There's— that's probably doable. For some people, but I think the challenge of, like, can they get a similar product? You know, at a similar price point, that's, that's, and that's really what we're talking about is like, how do we replace this segment of the housing market as we're redeveloping? Because it's a necessary evil, right?

Like, we were going to redevelop these properties. And so how do we replace that segment? That's the challenge. Thanks. Yeah.

Yeah, sure. Miss Ball-Winde. Thank you. Yeah, I think it's important that we consider the question of stability, right? A lot of these folks have had decades of stability where they are at what is likely the most permanently affordable housing rate that we have in Anchorage, and that's $710 per month for lot rent, and even that represents an increase since 2020.

So when you think about, say, the purchase of a condo or something like that, um, you know, condo sales, if you're looking for something that's been built in, you know, recently by Spinelli, um, you're looking at an investment of half a million dollars, which is functionally outside of the realm of $710 per month in terms of a mortgage. And so we, we have this this really yucky conundrum where we have people who own an asset, granted an asset that has depreciated considerably since they purchased it, and they're able to live independently at, you know, a rather, you know, on modest means, and we don't have an adequate replacement for that in our housing market. And a rental is not the same. A rental is not same same. And so while that is a stopgap measure, certainly, Certainly.

I would posit that even our rental market right now is significantly compressed, and it's not that easy to find a spot that, you know, an entire household can move into, at least not on short order, and that's— so there's the time pressure as well. So I think, you know, when you bring all of those things together, what we're looking at is sort of the disappearance of a certain segment of housing that has been available in our community for decades now and is going— we are going to watch that evaporate as all of these parks come to the end of their useful life. Riviera, which is one of the parks that has noted that they would be willing to receive new residents, has been on a perpetual boil water notice for as many years as I've been interacting with folks in that park. That park closure was contemplated, I think, for the first time in like 2007, and it's still open nearly 20 years later. So, you know, this idea that, you know, we can move the chess pieces around and, and get, you know, moving mobile homes into new spaces, if they're even movable to begin with, right, is a manner of kicking the can down the road because all of the parks in Anchorage are in significantly dilapidated or deteriorated condition.

So, thanks. Thanks. I really appreciate setting the context for what you're going to share. So, thanks. Okay.

So, recent events accelerated our discussion. I'm sorry, Mr. Dole, I did have Ms. Brawley in the queue. Ms. Froehlich. Yeah, well, I appreciate it. So, because I know we're kind of talking about the very big issue, right, and then trying to drill down on what does this mean for this individual property.

So mine's in the big issue category, but I think it's also important to note that we basically have a type of housing where the structure and the land are legally distinct, right? So, I mean, and I think there's the issue of the asset and this asset that you have, but it's fundamentally not attached to the land unless you happen to also own the land. And so One thing that I think we should consider, and again, this is in the big picture policy space, not for this right now, should we stop allowing a legal situation in which you don't own the land on which your structure is located? Because that disconnect, and that is, I mean, that is the deep problem with mobile home parks and the fact that they're personal property and not real. So it's a legal problem, it's a practical problem, it's an infrastructure problem.

Because their private infrastructure systems are never going to get updated by AWU. They are not public infrastructure, um, unless they happen to be connected to it. So I think there's— what we're talking about is basically a form of neighborhood or a form of home occupation or ownership that is not financially or legally sustainable. Um, and so that, yeah, so I think that that is a fair question to raise is what happens with these 20 years from now? Do we still even legally allow them?

And I don't mean that we make them illegal immediately, but do we grandfather them in and say never again? I mean, I think those are the kinds of conversations we have to have. Um, but again, I think we also have to recognize that people have bought an asset. And so what the other thing we're talking about is, is what is the city or what is the public obligation for folks to be made whole with a private asset that to some degree does not have long-term value, right? Because of just because of this messed up structure that we have allowed in America.

Um, So I realize that's not solutions, but I think that, again, these are the big things that we're going to have to really talk about. And it's not just the tactical, where do folks go? It's really, is this type of way of living even legally or financially feasible for the big picture? Um, and that's something I struggle with because, because all of the things that you said, that it is a valid thing. People do live there and these are people's homes.

So, it's— this is a big problem we have to reckon with. Thanks. And, Chair, quickly, I'd observe land leases, I think, are a challenge at any level, but I think particularly at this level where you don't have the same resources as commercial building owners. Thank you. I'm jumping forward, though.

So, the municipal staff has been looking at what can we do try out now as a pilot project. First, what's the biggest thing we can bring to it? It's probably land. And we look at different ways to leverage that. And potential, uh, Solution 1 and Solution 2 are basically two different versions.

Solution 1 is what we call a resident-owned community. If you've ever been on the East Coast in a big city where they have co-op apartment buildings where there isn't a distinct condo unit, but everyone else is sharing the big building and has their own space. That's basically what a resident-owned community would look like, is something we could stand up and move along fairly quickly to create an alternative to preserve that sector of market, that place where you can move, where you can use a manufactured home, a modular home, or maybe even one of our off-the-shelf ADU designs in place there. And the, the, uh, in doing a resident-owned community, there would not be separate lots of ownership. Rather, there'd be one lot or parcel.

And when you, uh, bought in there, you would buy a— your share would be the equivalent of the space where you would put your structure going forward. Um, there's organization— we looked at organization, uh, resident-owned community-usa, probably, uh, who, uh, has done this multiple times very, very successfully across the nation. You can see they've done 350 times. They've up without a pending warrant. How that would work is the municipality would transfer the parcel to the entity setting up the resident-owned community.

They then would use that as collateral to get a loan to pay for putting in the infrastructure, the water, sewer lines, electrical lines, roads we're talking about. And then in terms of recovering that, that would come out of the rents of the the rent payment or monthly payment of residents living there. This is an opportunity to do something new and actually move the way forward and increase inventory and capacity in this area, as opposed to just trying to triage what's out there now. Next slide, please. [FOREIGN LANGUAGE] The key thing you need with a resident home community, well, first, the commitment going forward.

You need to get that mass support. Generally, you've got to be able to fill about 50% of the spaces in order for this to be viable going forward. And at that point, there may still be some payment we need to do to offset the infrastructure cost. We're in Alaska, but it is far— it provides the bulk of the funding as a part of that land transfer and utilizing that as collateral going forward. As its own entity, we could require a waiver of age limits on mobile homes to be moved to that so that if all of— to the extent current parks are currently saying that you can't move one older than X date, we could require that be waived, that they can prove it's structurally sound and safe to move there.

Looking rather at the functionality rather than just chronological age going forward. Is a kind of an exciting opportunity we see. It also addresses the issue of equity and wealth accumulation. Homeowners accumulate a lot more wealth in their lifetime, and a lot of that comes out of that homeownership. This creates that path to equity in that initial— in that initial property going forward.

They own the land under that building, which we identified as a flaw before. Better postures than if they, as they move up in income, or to have a starter base for the next level of housing should they decide to go there. I have a question for you, sir. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Doe. What, what kind of timeline, I mean, is realistic or feasible something like this?

Well, the— through the chair, Mr. Gerker, these right now we can do this at R-5 or PLI zoning. So assuming we need no zoning changes, we would have to set up the structure and go forward. I would— I believe it's realistic we could break ground for the infrastructure next summer. Wow, that's it. If it's our land, I mean, we spend the time between that, um, working with the organization and all, which is tight, but, um, barring seismic events or other unfortunate acts of nature, give us time to work with the, um, individuals.

They still have to find a structure to put on it. Yeah, and you can all come some way. Right now. Go ahead and—. Yeah.

So, this is one opportunity we're looking at. We have also, though, been taking a hard look— next slide— across the administration at the options we have with using modular design and construction done here in Alaska. The great thing about that particular is it's in the MOA, we get an economic multiplier in terms of the effects on the economy. At the same time, there too, we have something that can be built high quality at generally a lower price. When you build inside a factory and then bring it to the site, you can control the conditions, so you don't have to deal with the challenges of that unexpected rainstorm before you've covered the road, which is great going forward.

And looking at that, ways to leverage it. Next slide, please. We have our second proposal, which would be doing a cottage development of modular homes where we could get sufficient quantity to generate the demand signals, get those built to meet our requirements, kind of jumpstart modular house production in Anchorage of a local entity producing those. And we've talked to two interests. At least two that are interested here in the MOA if there's enough demand.

And doing that also, it would be great that we could do this as a rental model for those displaced by mobile home park closures, as well as those displaced from elsewhere in Alaska. Again, it allows us to preserve that same sense of community and to be able to shape it to meet the needs of groups that want to stay together or, um, for various reasons. And there's different ways we can go about thinking of it as a condominium without— but there's different ownership models we could leverage there, but we would need to provide seed funding to get that modular production set up. And we definitely need to offer the property as before technical assistance and work with the design and construction team and development to make sure it was actually going to accomplish this. I have a question for you, um, this fall.

One day. Yeah, I actually have a question on the previous slide, and that is, um, are there any sort of— sorry, 2 slides prior— um, with respect to the residential community concept, uh, what are the limitations that exist in terms of the dwelling types that are allowable in a resident-owned community?

To the chair, this will be another phone friend question. Yeah, I'm Grant Downing, Deputy Director of Community Economic Development. Um, if the ROC would, in our code, probably be called a relocatable dwelling unit community, there are no limits on the types of housing that can be used in relocatable dwelling unit communities today, except that they need to be on impermanent foundation. So you could use a modular house, you could use a stick-built tiny house, you could have a shipping container conversion, you could have one of the modular units shown on the next slide, as long as it can be certified as safe.

And is there— does ROC-USA have any sort of stipulations on that, or do they follow the local guidelines? I'd imagine they follow the local guidelines. The link also there in the bottom takes to a ROC Northwest community in which they're, like, really excited about this model of using modular construction and factory-built homes. Okay, thank you. And just before we move on, I want to take a pause.

I'm realizing we're getting close to our time. Those in the audience, who—. Is there anyone who wants to participate in public comments? We have one. Okay, and we can check online.

Okay, great. So it sounds like we got at least one online. Okay, great. So we could try to wrap up fairly soon. We need to make sure we have time for that as well.

So, my name is Raina Fabric. I'm a resident. Hold on a second. Hold on a second. We're not, we're not there yet.

As soon as I get to public comment, we'll make sure to have you speak. Okay. I'm so sorry. I'm so sorry. No, it's okay.

You're right. I just wanted to briefly look at again at slide 12, which is potential solution to cottage development of modular homes and emphasize we have different. Options for ownership models here, either as a straight rental or condo model. I think we could probably do both in different places depending on what we saw as the level of permanency desired by those being there. As we talk about LNG construction workforces or storm evacuees, I think that rental model may make more sense to them, although we'd like them to stay permanently.

But again, it is a— we, we have the land and we can also look to the state for funding of land or other costs too in some of those programs. To go forward through it. And, um, barring any questions from the committee, I think that wraps us up. Yes, Miss Brawley. Yeah, um, so what I don't see on here is a proposal— well, not that it's realistic, but proposal of the Muni being the landlord, so being the permanent landowner, and/or discussing with AHFC that they be the— because they have— they, they are a public housing authority, they own scattered site housing throughout our community.

And I'm not saying that that's the most realistic, and I understand our challenges, but but I would at least like that to be in the conversation. I know the City of Boulder did that. They bought an old mobile home park and they've been replacing older mobile homes, keeping the same residents there with new manufactured housing. Their housing is also $1 million for a single-family home, and they have a lot more money than we do. And so I just want to also be realistic.

I'm not saying that that is the answer, but I would like that to be on the table for conversation in future. Thanks. Um, Miss Paul, good day. Yeah, I'm curious what potential solution to— would this require, um, or would this presuppose that the municipality would be moving municipally owned land into a land trust of some kind in order to make this a financially viable option?

Through the chair, uh, Member Baldwin-Day, we— that, um, for Solution 1, we know we would transfer it to, to the, the— for This one, I think with the condo option, you— it would look like a HOA. You would end up translating it to a homeowners association that would take over ownership of it, most likely. Otherwise, for that provider, I'm not sure we do it to a land trust per se, or as opposed to transferring it to an entity such as AHFC or CIHA or another entity that specializes in that. As opposed to an independent trust, we have drilled down to that level on that one yet. Okay.

Yeah, I'd be interested to understand if this could— if this particular solution could be couched inside of a land trust, at least for holding the real estate underneath, understanding that that might change the financial equation for folks who would participate in the cottage development. Something to explore. I'm being informed that the room is being used at 2:00 for another meeting, so we need to move a little quickly. Mr. Ger—. Yes, super fast.

Uh, if we do a resident-owned community where it's municipalities owns the land, we're not collecting property taxes on that land then, right? Um, so the chair, we would not pay— we would not collect it while we owned it. Once it transferred, it would be like a mobile home park. We would Okay, great. Okay, I'm going to try to get a few folks in who want to testify for public comment.

I did hear someone online. If you would unmute, you'll have 3 minutes. If you can share your name and where you live in town for the record, and I'll let you know when your 3 minutes is up.

Okay, hello, I'm Verena Fabrick from South Park Estate. I just wanted to let you guys know that there's a lot of interesting ideas here. They sound great, but they're extremely complicated and squishy. We're happy to the city and Mr. Devaham to work out how to make his projects pencil out. But what we're asking for is simple, fair compensation to allow us to relocate.

First, we were told that this Friday, this past Friday, we were going to get an updated relocation payment of $9,000.

And a pack of paperwork, and we were going to receive this Friday. None of us have yet. We're still waiting, and it's really stressing to us because we're trying to, you know, figure out what we need to do next. Secondly, we looked at the numbers of the— second, we've looked at a lot of the leases, several including from 2021 where they did not have the clause D, which was letting us know about the property being changed and whatnot. It raises concerns about whether we were given information at all when we were signed.

Here we want to clear up something about the programs that have been mentioned. It's not just about meeting federal income limits. Some of these programs have other requirements that make them hard to use. For example, the Health Department's Manufactured Housing Relocation Program home has to be moved to a new park before certain repairs can be paid for. That's a big barrier for a lot of people who would need that money to stabilize them and bring them up to code.

Also, the South Park Estates Homeowners Association is currently setting up negotiations with Mr. Dedeham, and we're hoping that this leads to a solution that works for all the residents. That's all I have to say. Thank you very much for your testimony. Would anybody else online like to testify at this time?

Okay, hearing none in the audience. Yes. [FOREIGN LANGUAGE] I think you can just stand up and I'll let you know when your time is up. Go ahead. Uh, homeless.

So, um, I typically like to lead with the caring at the end of it. Uh, so more or less there's discussion about stability and equity. The equity discussed is not the same as fairness. Uh, what I can tell you right now is code enforcement is being used to go up people all over this town, owners of properties, and it just happened right today, right now. Early at 6:16, right?

We're in Mountain View. Uh, there are 20 people out on the street right now, elderly, in their 60s, her two daughters, someone else from upstairs, and then there are any number of people that were in this building. And there were no social workers sitting out there at all to offer people housing at all. Uh, I showed up and I handed people drinks and other things. I was there at 12:30, hopped on a bus, came here.

And this is not the first time this has happened. And it is happening around town right now where we're talking about plans for people, uh, when they need to leave, uh, where are the places for people to go that are currently on the streets right now, or those that are currently being pushed onto the streets almost every single week. Uh, I'm seeing it again and again and again, and there are no plans. First time I was in this room was July 22nd, 2024. More or less there was a who's who, what's what, Midtown community leaders in this room.

And there was one guy in the room who got it. Basically, lots of people were very upset at what was going on on Fairbank Street. You had people in Nashville, Arkansas, that were displaced up there. So the gentleman who was in this room said, uh, basically, all these people on a lot, uh, they got displaced, they have nowhere to go, and then they just go and line Easton Parkway instead of a large lot down there. I'll comes to a street like Baltimore.

And it just was ridiculous. And the point was, where are these people supposed to go? And, you know, what's the plan? And so basically, most of the people in the room on that day, it was like, uh, Corona going for a fresh chunk. And 20 minutes into this meeting, I basically hit the exit button.

Uh, somebody was here along with me in the back of that room when somebody up here said it. I was like, this guy gets it. Well, anyways, they go down the street. I tell them, basically, they're not coming at you this week, they're coming at you next week. And sure enough, like, story like day 80 and on, right?

Next week, one day, press release from mayor's office to the assembly. Tuesday, the Post and Mail was trying to get out, but then what'd they go? Someone up 6 blocks over, right next to the news studios, because they had nowhere to go, and went over another place. And the point is, where are people supposed to go? And are you providing services in this facility?

And that notice that was for code enforcement on that property, it had the litany of stuff where you couldn't even tell what the heck means be fixed in order to maintain the building and have the notice go away. And so this lady is now on the street. I'm hoping some people in this room will help me, uh, to go over there to put these people in the shelter, because clearly there was only a police officer. He got out of his car and started getting very upset at me when I was saying, did anybody get off the shelter today? And he started yelling at me.

So I think I've said all I need to say. Sorry, that was not the topic of the meeting, but the people here should probably concerned, considering, you know, literally, you're wanting this work done right away. Thank you for your testimony. I think we're out of time. Is there anybody else in the audience that I missed?

Thank you. Thank you, everybody, for being here today. This meeting is adjourned.