Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Community Land Trust topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee presses options for community land trust after consultant outlines large subsidy gaps
Summary
At a Feb. 27 Health, Education & Welfare Committee meeting, consultant Michael Brown told members that donated land alone would not be sufficient to make homes affordable in Skagway; the committee discussed tiered targeting, occupancy rules and next steps to draft home-buyer selection criteria.
Michael Brown, a presenter with experience standing up community land trusts, told the Skagway Health, Education & Welfare Committee on Feb. 27 that the feasibility of a community land trust (CLT) for Skagway hinges on two things: assembling enough upfront subsidy to create initial affordability, and securing the long-term capacity to operate the CLT. "The feasibility of the community land trust really comes down to kind of two primary driving issues," Brown said.
Brown walked the committee through the spreadsheet included in the meeting packet, using local assumptions such as an improved-lot value of about $115,000 and modeled development costs. He told the committee that in a high-cost market the subsidy gap can be large: "if you wanted to serve a household for a family of 4 at exactly 80% of median income, you need to bring $245,500 for the subsidy to bear"; his examples showed lower subsidy needs for higher-income target bands (about $183,200 for 100% of area median income and around $106,000 for 120%).
Those numbers framed most of the committee's questions. Assemblyperson Hillis asked whether the CLT would need an explicit income target; Hillis suggested that gifted municipal lots could reduce the land component and broaden eligibility. Brown cautioned that available subsidy ultimately determines who can be served: "you back into who can afford these homes by what's the available level of available subsidy," he said, urging members to match target clientele to plausible subsidy sources.
Committee members discussed alternatives to a strict income cap. Michael Brown described tools used in Bozeman: capping eligibility at 120% of median income for his project there, requiring year-round residency, setting an asset limit, and giving preference to households with local employment. He also described mixed-income development as a way to cross-subsidize lower-priced units by selling some units at market rate.
Members signaled willingness to pursue a tiered or phased approach and agreed on at least one candidate criterion—year-round residency—as part of any eventual home-buyer selection policy. Several members said they want staff and the consultant to draft a concrete home-buyer selection outline and threshold eligibility criteria to discuss at a future meeting rather than finalize targets immediately.
What’s next: the committee did not adopt a final income target at the Feb. 27 meeting. Members asked Brown and staff to return with a proposed home-buyer selection policy and threshold eligibility criteria for the next monthly meeting so the committee can narrow options based on likely subsidy availability and donated lots.
