COM 0077.001 2022-2024 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

t I 3 I {£3 Example: Washington D.C. Selected by lottery, prioritized by length of time on list For the Washington, D.C. inclusionary zoning program (rent or for-sale),when a home becomes available,there is first a lottery selection of a minimum of 4 and maximum of 10 eligible households from a list of qualified renters or buyers. This selected pool of candidates is then ordered by length of time on the waiting list and offered the available unit one at a time until a household selects the unit. If the unit is not selected, a new lottery is held and the process is repeated. Example: Vail,CO-Applicants who have been residents for at least 5 years receive extra lottery tickets. In Vail,extra lottery tickets are given to residents who have either worked or lived in Vail for 5 years. All income eligible applicants receive 1 lottery ticket, but a person can receive a second lottery I ticket if they have lived in Vail for 5 years or more,and a third ticket if they have also worked in Vail for 5 years or more. In this way a person is more likely to be selected if they have lived or worked in Vail for 5 i or more years, but it is not exclusive and a newly arrived resident could also be chosen. E Analysis: In both of these examples there is priority given to residents who have been in a district or on a list for longer, but it is not a requirement. In comparing these two approaches the D.C.system would seem to be more fair and less arbitrary.The Vail approach is somewhat blunt and inconsistent since a five year resident could have three times the tickets as a four year resident,while a 15 year resident is I given the same weight as a 5 year resident. A large distinction is created only between the four and five year mark,with no further adjustment. In contrast the DC system by first selecting randomly and then ordering by years on the list is able to provide everyone an opportunity,while also giving a consistent preference to households on the list for longer. The same distinction is given between a household waiting 3 years verses 4 years,as a household waiting 14 years verses 15 years. The household waiting longer is given priority,whereas in the Vail system after 5 years there is no priority by length of time. Recommendation: If some preference is desired based on length of time,the D.C. approach of selecting randomly and then ordering by years on the list would seem more fair,while still allowing all eligible households the opportunity to participate. Fifth Distinction: Definition of"working" in a district. Requiring a certain percentage of income be earned within a district,to ensure that program is benefiting residents who are living on local wages and not wages earned elsewhere. Examples: Vail,and Aspen,CO; Key West,FL In both the Vail and Aspen programs an applicant is considered a full-time worker if at least 75%of their income is earned with the local county. In Key West, a household or person must earn 70%of their income from employment within the county. Analysis: As more remote workers come to Maui,where they are living in Maui but receiving an income based on wages from another state or location,a policy is needed to prioritize residents earning local wages. Implementation of this policy would make a distinction between a remote sole proprietor business where 75%of income is generated within the county verses a person working remotely for a company outside of the county. This ensures that a housing program is targeted to residents living on wages earned locally Another approach: Artist or cultural practitioner preferences for LIHTC projects.This is a preference which is allowable under federal law for housing projects which receive federal tax subsidies also known as Low Income Housing Tax Credit(LIHTC) projects. 148