Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Community Land Trust topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Skagway committee to explore community land trust aimed at low‑income residents and seniors
Summary
The Health, Education and Welfare committee agreed Dec. 17 to pursue research on a community land trust that would prioritize low‑income residents and seniors, examine municipal land donation rules, and explore grant‑matching for startup costs; consultants and staff memos were requested before formal recommendations.
The Health, Education and Welfare committee of the Skagway Municipality met Dec. 17 in City Hall to begin drafting guidance for a proposed community land trust (CLT), agreeing to prioritize low‑income residents and seniors while asking staff to research legal, zoning and funding issues before making formal recommendations.
The committee chair, who led the meeting, said consultant Michael Brown could not attend but had submitted correspondence and that the group should develop questions for the feasibility study. Members discussed how to define “low income” for local eligibility and whether the CLT should include rental units as well as owner‑occupied homes.
Assembly person Hillis said the CLT should address residents who cannot afford current local housing prices and suggested focusing on low‑income households and seniors; Hillis noted municipal employee housing may be a separate issue. Public commenter Sherry Corrington urged the committee to review Alaska weatherization income thresholds and cautioned that gross income can mask seasonal or self‑employment shortfalls, noting the meeting discussion that qualifying limits in Skagway were around $83,200 for a single person and roughly $93,000 for a couple.
Permitting official Stacy Fairbanks advised the committee to consider municipal code constraints on land disposal. Fairbanks summarized the relevant code and told the group that “the sale, lease or other disposal of municipal land may be made to a private nonprofit corporation ... at less than market value provided the disposal is approved by the borough assembly by ordinance adopted after 14 days public notice,” making donated or discounted municipal land a possible option if the assembly determines the CLT will provide a public service.
Committee members agreed the municipality should not run the CLT. As the chair put it, “it would not be the municipality running this. It would be a nonprofit entity,” and members said an independent nonprofit or new entity would likely be the appropriate governance model, though existing local nonprofits could assist if they had capacity.
On funding, members endorsed exploring limited municipal startup support or grant‑matching programs to help a new CLT qualify for outside grants. The committee agreed to ask staff to research potential grant sources, match‑funding mechanisms, and whether municipal land contributions could serve as matching value.
The committee also asked permitting staff to prepare a short memo on zoning and building‑code implications for higher‑density units, noting that some building plans would require fire‑marshal review and sprinkler systems and that those requirements could affect cost and feasibility. Members cited the Sitka CLT model and a Denali Commission grant as examples to consider when examining financing and standardized building plans.
No formal recommendation or vote was reached; the committee said it had more questions than answers and requested memos for the assembly meeting the following day to summarize: (1) local income definitions and comparable program thresholds, (2) municipal land disposal options and code limits, (3) zoning and building‑code implications including life‑safety requirements, and (4) possible grant sources and match strategies. The committee adjourned with the expectation that consultant Michael Brown and staff memos will inform next steps.
