Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Housing topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Miramar adopts three‑year Local Housing Assistance Plan amid questions about recommended incentives

2869974 · April 2, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Miramar approved a three‑year Local Housing Assistance Plan required for State Housing Initiatives Partnership (SHIP) funding, but commissioners and residents raised concerns about recommended incentives such as impact‑fee waivers and permitting changes that are advisory, not mandatory under state rules.

The Miramar City Commission voted April 2 to adopt the Local Housing Assistance Plan (LHAP) required for State Housing Initiatives Partnership (SHIP) funding for the next three years, covering fiscal years 2026–2028. The plan outlines housing strategies including owner‑occupied rehabilitation, purchase assistance, emergency repair, foreclosure prevention and disaster mitigation.

Kathryn Bridal, chief housing administrator, said the LHAP is a state requirement and the city’s public notice and 15‑day comment period produced no written comments. Andrew Azebokai, the city’s consultant from Community Revitalization Affiliates, told the commission that many elements in the document are mandated by state statute and administrative rule; other suggested measures come from the city’s Affordable Housing Incentive Committee (AIHAC) and are discretionary recommendations for promoting affordable housing.

Commissioner Sherazard pressed staff on the scope of the LHAP, noting the plan package included recommendations outside the core SHIP programs — such as suggested permit streamlining, fee waivers and other incentives — and asked whether those are mandatory or advisory. Azebokai and staff said two items are mandatory for the state (permit expediting and prior review of policies that may adversely affect affordable housing). The remaining incentive suggestions are discretionary, part of an AIHAC report that the city may implement but is not required by the state.

Several commissioners asked for clarity on how the recommendations will be considered and whether the commission can adjust or remove recommended incentives. Staff said the AIHAC recommendations will be discussed in subsequent committee meetings and that the commission can review, modify or reject them before final implementation. The measure passed on a 4‑1 vote; Commissioner Sherazard voted no.