February 22, 2023 — Housing Advisory Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

[MM:SS] timestamps correspond to the YouTube recording.

[0:00] Because everyone everything. Okay. Okay, great. Well welcome to the temporary meeting of the Housing Advisory Board. I'm: slightly disappointed that we're not being in person today, but we can blame that of the weather and nothing else. We'll start the call this meeting t0 0rder and start with a row. Call among the board members. So Phillip over here. Julian Ramsey here. Terry Parmos. Danny Theodore. I don't think Danny is here yet, but we have 4, and is that that's definitely a quorum, right? Yeah. 4 0r 7. So we are good to go. We also have

[1:01] planning board very much enjoyed a joint meeting with planning board recently. So i'm going to review the agenda and mentioned something. Oh, gosh, I got unstable Internet going to this If anyone hear me. Okay. Yeah. Good One item that's not on the agenda is that there's a community working group forming around the airport Boulder airport. It's not specifically tasked with a housing outcome in any way. It's just really to look at the future of the airport, and it uses. But there has been a request to have a liaison from had to that community working group. So if that's official we can talk about who might want to do that, I don't know if we have to wait for a formal request. J. Do you know you? You have the formal request? So, yes. Who Who requested we? We you requested, or they requested they requested.

[2:00] and it so it's in the memo that Tiffany sent out should have covered everything you need to know about it right now. I can. I can mention that planning Board also received a request, and has appointed a a member to participate there. Take it pretty seriously, because one of the options that they're looking into is whether airport area would be converted to housing as an alternative use of that area. and that's one of the largest plots of land that the city has available to it. So planning board takes it pretty seriously. Okay. Okay. Tiffany, is it possible for you to activate the the captions? Some reason people are breaking up, and i'm not catching every word. So i'm not clear whether Jay said, we're gonna point out liaison tonight or not.

[3:13] Apologies. I thought I had done the captions. Okay. it says it's enabled. But I don't. I'm not saying them on my screen. I don't see him, either. But okay. go to Tiffany. Give me a second. Let me play around with it because they are showing on my screen. I actually can see them interesting. Yeah. So, Michael, you know, all you're doing is adding this agenda item to the agenda. Okay. right now, I will go into more detail and and yes, this. The city department transportation is asking for

[4:03] member to join. Should we put that in matters from the staff? Then sure we can do that. Yeah. Great. Okay. So i'm going to review the agenda. We've already done that in one cold water and roll call we're reviewing the agenda. That's item 2. We'll be approving the minutes, next, and we'll have public 3 min each on that. Then matters from the board is item 5. We'll be covering it's like 4 items. We have a Guest, Speaker Holly, Hendrickson from housing and human Services. It'll be discussing the a middle income down Payment pilot discussing again a Governor Poll. This is housing and agenda, which was a matter before Council. I think it was just last week it a week before, and we did discuss that briefly at our last meeting. zoning for affordable housing discussion continues and then listening session topics. None of those items, as far as I know, are items that we'll be voting on first one for input and the others are for feedback.

[5:15] 6 is matters from staff. We'll discuss that liaison to the community working group to the airport. Then i'm 7. We'll have a meeting debrief and a calendar check on our next meeting, and we'll try to adjourn by at 9 0'clock, so with that I will move on to the approval of the minutes, and ask for a motion to approve the January 20, fifth, 20 actually that should be 2023. I think there's a type of invite in my agenda January twentieth 2523 min do I have a motion to approve. So moved Okay. all in favor of proving the January 25 min. I so passed for 0.

[6:01] Okay, do we have members of the public who would like to comment now with the item 4 on the agenda. Tiffany. We? Yep, we do. We have 3 individuals here from the public to have their hands up. So if you guys want to g0 0ver the rules, and then I will display the timer. Great. Oh, thank you. Tiffany. Can you enable my screen sharing? Okay, Hi, guys, hey, Danny, Welcome. Thank you. That was that was Let's note that our rice chair, Danny Taylor, is now present. We have a a full full attendance to this meeting. 5 0ut of our 5 members

[7:00] Great, All right. Well, I'm just going to give a very quick overview of the rules of Where is that? There we go? So, in terms of for public engagement. So they, the Cds engage with community members to go, create a vision for productive, meaningful. and inclusive civic conversations. So it's designed to support the physical and emotional safety for community members, staff and boarding commission members as well There, for more information about this vision and the community engagement. There's a link to a website. The following are basic rules of decor that you'll find in both the revised code and that support this vision. So we request that anyone testifying that all those remarks she'll be limited to matters related to city business.

[8:02] No participants shall make threats, or use other forms of intimidation against any person. Obscenity, racial epithets, and other speech and behavior that disrupts and otherwise impedes the ability to conduct the meeting are prohibited. and participants are required to sign up speaking, so to speak, using the name the are commonly known by. and individuals must display their whole name before being allowed to speak online currently. Only audio testimony is permitted online. and that's it. Thank you. J: And okay, before we go to public comment, I just want to mention that we do it. 2 0penings. and the they sent out one a copy of the applications. I can't believe that there are 8 0r 10, but I was pleased to see such high interest in and have.

[9:06] And very my understanding is that Tara Weiner, of Councilwoman, is doing interviews, and the the selection will be made on March sixteenth, so we'll have a full board of Seventh before our next meeting. I believe they're in panel right away, Aren't. They. J. Yup, if we can get them signed in this morning. Yes. right. Okay. Thank you. With that, I believe we have 2 guests who would like to make public comment, and we'll start with Lynn Siegel. All right. Give me 1 s and let me get the timer up. Is it backwards for you guys, or just for me? That looks right. Okay, perfect.

[10:01] All right, Lynn. Here you go. I'd like to bring up the latest thing with the planning board on middle income housing at 22 pearl. and some of the issues with it 300 square feet units Many, you know. micro el use basically and no parking $1,700 t0 $2600, and you know it for 80 t0 100 and 20%, am I? And something? I I think there needs to be a workshop for the community, because when I I keep on spewing things that might not be true. But I don't have any way to talk to people to get them correct. But my feeling was, If you go for Ami, 80 t0 120,

[11:02] that that's what those the 1,700 t0 2600 represents. Then are you held to that after the the things projects been approved? Do you have to maintain? That is that essentially a form of rent control that wouldn't that be against the State that's trying to get rent control. But my impression is that they basically go to market rate app. Once the projects approved. and across the street from this project 22 pearl is woody, which for 3 years now we still don't know why it burned down, and those were 1,595 square feet for 404 450 score feet, and a parking space, which is considerably. you know, cheaper to me. It seems like the more that you're

[12:06] pushing and and last night there was a a very big development at 56, 75 0r something like that commercial life sciences, or something with with the development of all these jobs what you get is more high-end demand for housing and the missing middle becomes the the higher and higher, and you just get more split between the super rich and the homeless. and an increase. The demand for middle income housing, and it's kind of a spurious appearance of this 80 t0 1 20% of am I? Because the ami keeps on going up, and it seems like it's not indexed

[13:00] to to rent. So housing costs and land value keeps on going up and up, and then we have the millennium with 947 bedrooms in it, and we're all the eventually it's an issue of if you want to have display. 0 0kay, I'm looking at Tiffany's screen. It's not displayed on mine. Let me try getting off. The chat was on there. No, it's still not displayed on my screen. It's in Tiffany's box. I got.

[14:10] It's hard between one board and another, and I follow 10 0f them now. S0 0kay, Well. being in person now, and looking at a clock. So this is a a new new adjustment. But thank you. window tonight. It says some reason I don't have all the members of the public display that I believe there was another person, Hannah George, and was there anyone else? Tiffany? Hannah is the only one with her hand up. Okay, Hannah George, please

[15:03] take it away. Great Hi! Everybody! My name's Hannah. I'm a young professional here in Boulder. and i'm just really excited for this missing middle conversation. I think we all know how things an issue. That's why we're here. and we're all here to get solution. Yeah, I just want to lead my support to creative ideas that emphasize density and sustainable transit options and sharing I'm a independent co-OP resident as well, but looking long term and building my life here, you know. I want to know that I have a future here in Boulder when meeting home values on solo skyrocketing. So I don't I'll be closely following this excited for the presentation from Poly. But I just want to. Really I' that yeah, I am in support of density. I think it can be really

[16:01] beautiful, and and sharing is caring. So that's really there Discovery of what i'm here to say. I'll be tuning in, and thank you all so much for your service to the community. So thank you. Well, thank you, and we hope you'll come to more of our meetings and listen and comment, and you know you hit the nail on the head. Those are the issues that we are charged with the grappling, and least to the balance of 2023. One last call for public comment. Is there anyone else? There are n0 0ther hands? Okay, thank you. With that we'll move to item 5 in the agenda matters from the board, and we have Holly Henderson here to give a presentation for our input on middle income Down Payment Pilot project. Probably good to see you again. We look forward to your presentation. Hello! Thank you for having me.

[17:01] I will share my screen. Let's see. I was really looking forward to being being in person. as this is going to be like the first in person presentation since Covid. But weather ruin that for me. So I hope it says, engaging here on zoom. Alright, so so like you all know. So i'm here to talk about the middle income downstream and pilot don't pay an assistance pilot program. We're set to take this presentation and submit a memo to City Council for the April twentieth meetings. So the meeting in one of the meetings in April, so I like to consider this the kind of the official launch of our middle income down Payment Assistance Road show kind of this is the first presentation that we're giving to the community, and one of our goals and sharing this is to really get feedback, to try to make sure that there are no gaps and kind of how we're conceptualizing this moving forward. So we welcome feedback critiques and any questions along the way.

[18:13] So i'll jump in here. So just a reminder to all. This was part of one of city council's priorities back in 2,022 that they established was figuring out how to launch this middle and come down payment assistance pilot program. Kind of get it from the concept that it has been to implementation. So that's what we're trying. That's our charge here to kind of move this forward. So the purpose and kind of what we're doing. What we're doing here today is we want to. This thing has been a in a long time in the making. So we want to kind of review. Just briefly review the history of where this pilot program came from, and where we are today. We want to review some of the unique components. Kind of help. Help us kind of conceptualize and and get our feed on the ground. If what the intention of this program is.

[19:10] there's also been some changes, some iterations from the first concept to where it is now. And so we want to talk through some of those big changes. And then finally, we want to figure out just to identify some ways to figure out how to move this forward. There's some kind of decision points, some questions that still need to be answered. And so we we want to figure out how to move this forward as as best as you can. So like, I said. This thing has been a long time in the making, so I wanted to just quickly provide kind of an overview of the evolution of this program from its conception to where we are today. So this started way back in 2,016. Well, before I was with the city the city established the middle income housing strategy.

[20:01] and in response to that strategy former mayor, Sam Weaver and current City Council member. Bob Yates created this pilot concept in a white paper. The White Paper is attached to the the memo that was sent out to you all. So you can have some context there if you want to dive a little bit deeper into it. That concept, this kind of initial concept of this pilot program was put out in 2,017, and by 2,019 the wheels really hit the ground with it. Council provided direction on kind of some of the mechanics to get this thing moving to get about the door. And then, in November of 2,019, the city city voters passed a ballot initiative to fund this program. S0 2019 was a huge year. But of course, just like everything, Kovat kind of put put the brakes on and put the pilot on hold. So in 2,020 it was officially put on hold. and then at 2,022. Just last year we we started gearing up again to figure out how to

[21:03] how to implement this pilot program. given the history and the original concept, and also given the kind of these broader changes and the housing market, and the economy that Covid brought on to figure out how to how to make it all work all of these big changes. So that's where we are today. The other thing I wanted to do is in the memo, and for this presentation. There's just a lot of terms that we need. I just wanted to kind of pre briefly defined. So we're on the same page just to make sure kind of conversation like we're we're on the same ground here. So the first one is affordable or attainable housing. So this is kind of what we conceptualize as our 30% rule in housing. So it's a general rule that households shouldn't be paying more than about 30% of their income on housing. So in the memo that was sent that this, like 30% rule, is kind of the backbone of a lot of the models that we use to

[22:09] identify what affordability looks like now and over time the concept of of per permanently affordable housing in the city. It's just these deed restrictions on a property to make sure that the property is affordable over time in perpetuity so forever. And then the last one, and probably the most important one for the this presentation. and certainly in the memo is the concept of area meeting income. And probably you all know this. But i'll just have to put it out there to make sure we're kind of all on the same page here. So the concept of area meeting income is determined by head. It's it's it's a Federal. It's federally determined. It's not determined by us. Does that use the Boulder metropolitan statistical area? So it's specific. The numbers that are created

[23:00] that from the for the area and median income are specific t0 0ur area. And this just means that at 100 0f the area median income. half of the households in the area make less than that. and has to make more. It seems pretty simple, but it feels important to kind of always make sure that we we all know what we're talking about here. So in 2,020 to that area median income for a household of 3 was $125,000. So so that's kind of. you know, just to make sure we're on the same page like I said, this area median income concept. Alright. So another. Another thing I wanted to make sure to emphasize in terms of like basic the back to the basics. Here is just the uniqueness of this program. So the middle income down payment assistance pilot program is conceptualized here and has ever, as we're trying to implement.

[24:03] combines 2 very common elements and program offerings that you know the city currently offers, and that are common all over the United States. The first element is this: down payment, assistance to a middle income household. and the second is this permanent deed restriction. So, like I said, the city currently has a down payment assistance program and a permanently affordable home ownership program that creates permanently deed restricted homes. But this program essentially is a new program that combines these 2 elements to create a whole, new, a whole new program. One of the things that kind of that has kind of created these different iterations of this pilot program is like. This is a true, truly innovative program it. We haven't found anything like it across the Us. And so to figure out how to kind of create this in a way that

[25:02] has appropriate guard rails that we think it's going to be effective over time. We can't lean on another municipality or jurisdiction. We're kind of making Sure, we're doing this in real time here. all right, so we can get into some of the specifics here. So so like as I discuss there's been a few iterations to this program over time. So the first. So i'll just lay out some of the parameters of the program as it exists today. So in terms of down payment assistance, the down payment assistance, component houses earning up t0 120 0f that area Median income are eligible for the down payment assistance. The maximum assistance for per household is up t0 $200000, or 15 0f the value of the home, but a maximum of $200,000.

[26:04] So in this new iteration. One of the grammar is is that the repayment of this down payment assistance is due at 15 years, or when the home is sold. So this is one of the components that has changed between the initial concept to today. We can get into the those details, but we'll just leave it at that, for now one of the big, the big items that has changed between 2,019, and today is that the down payment assistance is offered to the first home buyer at a 0% interest loan. This is not conceptualized in the first iteration, but for various reasons, kind of this was required to have this 0% interest. And who covers that those interest payments in this, in our new program parameters the city will be recovering those interest payments. we that we've calculated, try to like model over time what the maximum costs could be for the city per household.

[27:09] and given various interest rates, and at that maximum of 15 year of a load. Those costs could be anywhere between $40,000 t0 $112000 per per unit per household the other side of this coin. There's always these 2 components that we have to look at the down payment, assistance, and the deed restriction in terms of the deed restriction. So the homeowner, this first homeowner who gets this down payment and assistance, also agrees to make the home that they're purchasing permanently affordable through a deed research, and that limits appreciation over time. One of the big decision points is that the setting this appreciation rate to make sure it's appropriate over time, and we'll. We'll kind of get into that conversation in a bit.

[28:02] What we have proposed proposed a concept to set that appreciation kind of pegging it to the current of permanently affordable home ownership program, plus 2 to to lean on some kind of current methodology. So we don't have to recreate the wheel. and then another big change. and this new iteration of the program, the parameters of the program here is that there's no income qualification requirement for the second household and all all subsequent home buyers of this property. So this is the big one there that the house is deed restriction. We're deed restricted to create this appreciation limit. But it's not deed restricted to any kind of qualify over time. So this is kind of where you know we're trying to, because there's been so many changes. This is kind of like we, wanna you know, feel this out. This is kind of one of the decision points kind of given that these changes are pretty big.

[29:07] The changes to the parameters in the terms of the of the program I've got like various ways. We want to make sure that there's agreement from Council and from everyone else that we should be. This is like something we should be moving forward. On considering these changes. I don't know if you all prefer to just wait till the end for questions, or if we want to start, i'll, i'll leave it up to you, but sometimes it can get a little needy, so I don't want to kind of like blow through everything and be like Wait, we lost you in like for. So let me know how you want me to proceed. I'm: okay with waiting, holding on questions. How does everyone else feel about it? I guess you can jump in if you have one. I think it's good to wait and then try to discuss it in full. Okay, I'll try to keep you hooked the whole time.

[30:03] Alright. So now we can really dive into the details of the specifics here. So in the memo, and what we'll we'll kind of just quickly review. Today we're trying to weigh the the risks and rewards for participation into this program for these 3 entities involved the first home buyer. So what are the risks and rewards for them? Any subsequent home buyers, risks and rewards, and then, of course, for the city of Boulder, because these parameters have changed slightly. So the first is. you know, for the first home buyer what are the risks and rewards here? So I actually think, for the first home buyer. It feels a bit more straightforward. There's this one of the huge rewards of participating in this program or benefits. It's just being able to you get $200,000 of interest free borrowing. which essentially increases your purchasing power. And you know you're gaining equity appreciation on that $200,000. So there's a wealth generation component

[31:10] with this interest, re borrowing essentially so in terms of the increase of purchasing power. So this is not a statistical or by any means kind of a a rigorous analyses. But I went into red then to see what that actual increase of purchasing power would mean for a household of 3, earning 120 0f the ami. So I just did this last week. and found for a household of 3 earning 120 0f the Ami without interest, without the additional down payment assistance. There were 8 homes in the city that were afford affordable to these, to to this theoretical household. With this $200,000 down payment, assistance, boost that number increase t0 13, so not quite doubling, but kind of increasing. There's an increase of options, and definitely an increase of purchasing power

[32:06] for households participating in this program, but especially this first household. And in terms of this wealth generation like I said, the actual appreciation rate certainly needs to be discussed and identified before moving forward. But in the this graph here I just provided interest, rate appreciation rates at 3 different 3 different amounts from kind of a lower appreciation Rate peg to a higher peg. and there is still at 15 years. There's still a quite a bit of equity that a household participating this household earning 120% kind of maxing out this borrowing. There is there is a a a significant net Equity gain over time over that 15 year period. So the first household it kind of feels a little bit more straightforward for the risks, you know, when thinking about the risks. I think there's

[33:08] similar risks to real estate transactions. We can't remove all risks. But these are above and beyond. as we've kind of seen it beyond what would exist in the real estate Transaction City. So, moving on to the subsequent home buyers. So for subsequent home buyers, just as a reminder that there's no down payment assistance available for second home buyers. There's also no income qualification for a buyer of one of these steed restricted properties. So. as a result, kind of an important decision point, here is establishing an appreciation rate that that kind of service, 2 functions. One thing it needs to serve is, it needs to be the appreciation rate on a home brought into the program needs to be high enough to the first household to repay

[34:09] this 200,000 after 15 years. But the whole goal of the program is to make sure that there is a level of affordability. and this deed restricted house in the long term. So this establishing an an an appreciation rate, that kind of make sure that, ensuring that it sells this kind of middle income affordability gap. That doesn't currently exist is one of the important components are kind of establishing what this appreciation rate should look like. So in the in the memo. We've kind of outlined a a few different numbers and kind of reasoning. but so i'll just sh shorten it for the purpose of this presentation, we think the pegging the appreciation rate to at 4.2% are essentially

[35:04] 2% percentage points more than the affordable home ownership program creates. This fills this gap, or creates more of a spectrum of home ownership opportunities within the city. It's above the current option in terms of the deed. Restricted homes that exist in the city right now. But it's well below market rate, kind of preserving this like little slice of affordability now and in the future. down here this where this yellow square is, it's just to show if the appreciation rate is pegged at 4.2%. I, a household brought into this program. A house brought into this program. The property brought into this program at 15 years would be affordable to a household earning a 164% of the area Indian income. and it 30 years. It would be affordable to

[36:07] a household earning 209 0f the area meeting income. So this kind of spectrum that we're trying to create these like affordability levels are much, much higher than what we would consider affordable for programs now that the city administers. but also much less than the market. So it's kind of the gap we're we're looking to sell all right. So again one of these big decision points, and we can. We can talk about this more later. It's just identifying this appropriate rate of appreciation for houses in this pilot program that 4.2 is not 7 stone. and certainly discussion can be had around those those numbers and concepts. All right. So, finally, the last entity here that we wanted to to assess the risks and rewards? Is that it

[37:04] the city of Boulder? So what's in it for the city? What are the risks. And what are the rewards? So the big, the big risk in this most recent iteration of the pilot program is this cost to the city? It was not contemplated in previous versions of this pilot program. So this is an this would be a new cost going forward as so we in this table kind of the middle and compiler program. We kind of identify the cost and the impact on the affordability. And, as you can see, the cost of each unit brought into the pilot program. Aren't, outrageous looking at the units brought into the city into the current home ownership affordable program. Certainly. Well with him. Well with him norms, but because it's kind of a new concept. That's one of the risks and things that needs to be discussed

[38:00] moving forward and in terms of rewards. I think what this program this pilot program would allow. Would it creates a each. Each of these pilot, each of these houses brought into the pilot program through a deed restriction creates this unique housing product that doesn't exist today. and it would potentially be available to these middle income income, earning households in the future. So that's a reward. It feels like it, you know it's just a concept now, but that's kind of the reward that we're looking. We're looking to when we're conceptualizing what rewards would look like for the city. And in terms of that conversation I think one of the things that we we. We've talked to a few people. It's just this this concept of creating these, all these market alternatives to create this greater spectrum. So this this kind of feels like a very overwhelming graph when i'm looking at it right now. But the idea here is.

[39:10] you know, there's a kind of a more of a ladder that's created within the within the housing market that wouldn't necessarily exist in like any kind of naturally occurring way. So this graph, so we can see, the the percentages indicate. The top line indicates area median income affordability for each of the programs at 15 years The bottom indicates that affordability level. The ami affordability at 30 years. So houses brought into the permanently affordable home ownership program now in the 15 years, and it's 30 years. This they will be forever affordable to this like maximum, 120. Am I household? Then you have the market affordability on the other end, which is just kind of like skyrockets outside of affordability in any kind of like realistic way for a middle income household.

[40:11] Another current offering is our the current down payment assistance program, which there's details in the the mem0 0n this one. That program is intended to help individuals get into the market, but not do anything to preserve affordability for the homes. and so there is no real affordability cap for the homes brought into that program, although it does help people purchase homes in the city. So that's where we come with the middle income down payment assistance program over time at the 15 year mark. and at the 30 year mark it. Kind of fills this gap creates more of a spectrum for people looking to enter into the market with middle income earning power. So that's all the the meeting details. I promise no more percentages I won't discuss. Am I anymore

[41:03] unless you want me to. I just wanted to make a quick note about the next step. So I think one of the challenging things here is to concept it's kind of figure out how to conceptualize what success looks like and how we're going to be measuring this program over time. So say we, we're. We get the go ahead to move full speed ahead towards implementation, and like the very, very short term the now in the next year, maybe 2 years, Our goal, in terms of measuring success, is just to evaluate participation. Are there people households interested in this? Is it competitive to the other down payment assistance products, indeed, restricted products that are being offered currently. So that's kind of a a measure of success. But that's kind of pretty basic on on on measuring participation, and maybe trying to tweak things here and there to get more participation. But I think it's important to note that this long term like this is this: this is like a long term

[42:07] in terms of figuring out how to measure success. because there's a 0% interest for that. First, the first household for this down payment assistance. and the term is up t0 15 years. It's possible that we won't be able to measure the outcomes for the first household; how that, how the deep restricted property looks in terms of market affordability and the cost impacts to the city until 15 years after the first down payment assistance is taken out. So we would just want to be clear as day. That kind of that what we look at success may not? We might not really be able to evaluate that for for quite a long time. and I think with that that's all I had.

[43:03] I bless these questions here, but can certainly end the slideshow if we want to just chat, you guys, just let me know how you want to proceed. Great, excellent presentation. Thank you so much. I have a number of questions, but I let others on the board fire away first. Yeah, we have to stop sharing unless you bring up the slide. Okay? Easy for me. Questions from board members I've got. I've got questions and comments. Did I go first. Oh, absolutely, Philip.

[44:04] Things that I was curious about is just what's the scale of this program likely to be? What's the what's the budget? How much tax that is being raised for this program. So J: you might have to help me out with the the total numbers here. Oh, but I the ballot initiative, I think. Allowed what was it like? It was 1010000000dollars alright, so that's that's maybe 5000 200000dollar loans or a 100 $1000 loan something in that ballpark for a year. No, that's total. But I think the the intent is really just to get something out there and gauge interest at this point. I think that's what the the sponsors want. So former mayor, weaver, and Council Member Yates.

[45:11] just to to kind of test the waters and see what what? What could work? S0 0ne question, or maybe it's just a comment. I I think a program like this would be really cool or appropriate, for. like a boulder housing, coalition, or for a Community Land Trust. or some other group, thistle, or something like that that wanted to buy a property is that is that something that's being considered, or is that is this really strictly only for family units? Yeah, I mean, David, I did explore that with David Adamson specifically about the Goose Creek Blind Trust. It's just it's super challenging because the idea is all we're doing is offering an additional loan product

[46:03] in addition to what they would normally get on the market. So they would get their first mortgage right through a a market lender, and then that lender would actually contact our Cdf on our Community Development Finance Institution. And so so the city is not really not even involved, but it's there. So from my discussions with them it seems better position to help individuals purchase their homes. So. But if there is the case with those other types of If someone's purchasing home say in the the in David's project, it could work. But in terms of providing construction, loans and financing that that part

[47:03] folder housing coalition to to set up a co-OP in this house that's already set up for group living, and you know it seems like if if there was a down payment assistance program that could help that kind of scenario. Then that would be a good fit. But it's so, anyways, I just thought i'd raise that as a as a possibility scenario cool. And so, then the last question I have on my my little list here is. It seems like the there's kind of. Maybe this is just theoretical, but it seems like for that second buyer who is not income, you know, restricted. You could find yourself in a situation where a a house is on the market for less than what it would be normally, and so that would attract a lot of buyers.

[48:02] And then you'd have a situation where you have to choose from a a large number of buyers is which which seems like it feels it feels that feels a little weird to me like I mean one of the nice things about a a market system is that you don't have to. you know, evaluate Who's who's the best fit for the community. For example, you just you just it's just you know. Whoever shows up at the highest bid gets it, you know. I know that's sorry. I wasn't very new in in in qualifying that. But i'm just curious if you anticipated what you would do if you had 10 buyers that were all qualified and ready to pull the trigger. So I don't so. So we haven't I mean, I haven't anticipated that I think one thing that we assume that's kind of going to be not attracted to many people who are just out there on the like that can buy a market rate. Home is because of there's this limited appreciation. And so I think the concept here is

[49:06] we're assuming that it's not a super competitive products in the rest of the market, and so maybe it wouldn't. But I mean we have a current. The current affordable home ownership program kind of has systems in place to sort to sort these questions out, and J. I can't speak to that program as much as I. I don't administer it, but there are systems in place, you know, one of the things for this pilot program. It would be administered by current staff that administer the permanently affordable home ownership program. So those kind of decisions within how it's actually administered in the community, and how those decisions would be made. I would assume, would come down to like some policies and procedures when we get down to the nitty gritty, and how how kind, how that's like actually dealt with

[50:00] Yup, I think that's a great answer. I mean, I it'd be a great problem. Now, if there's that much competition for it, I just we don't this type of any sort of down payment assistance, is not? It's not for everybody. So I don't think there's going to be, You know dozens of people lined up. If there are, that's great, then we can figure out how to how to deal with that at the time. That's that's all my comments and questions. Thank you. Thank you, Philip. Those are great questions. Any other hands up from board members. Yes, Danny. can you hear me? I I was okay. Holly. Thank you. Presentation was wonderful, very detailed, and I like all the little graphs I do have. I do have a handful of questions just trying to wrap my head around it, and stuff I mean, I I think what i'd say is the way I the way I look at it. And Philip, based on the point you just made. But the way I look at it is what we're trying to do here is build up affordable housing stock, and so, in in other words, whomever it goes into these units as second, third, home or etc. It's got the deed restriction in place, which means that it's going to

[51:13] control those housing prices moving forward. So my first question is just to clarify when we say home we're talking about multi-family to because I saw those prices invariably. That's that's kind of what we're wrestling with right and The the thing that jumped out to me is a lot of those multi-family, especially when you deal with that Delta with the $200,000 really high association dues, and I know, and the reason why I'm bringing it up, because I know that a lot of people have come on here and gross about that before it's. It's always a challenge. It's certainly always a challenge, especially when you have somebody a unit that's cost controlled, and other people that they're you. It's not cost controlled, and you get special assessments, etc., etc. So I was just wondering how that might play out the other thing that

[52:08] it was interesting to me. I just wanted to see how the primary lender goes about, you know, figuring out how much the the buyer has to bring to closing, because if you g0 0n the typical expectation, I know there's things like which can get very sticky, too. But if you're looking at like 20% of closing. Are they looking at this 200,000 as part of that? Or how are they calculating that? So what's the challenge to the buyer in terms of what they come forward on that. So i'll start with those 2. Oh, so the the Association one I mean, I I think, that I need, so that the the the the participant, the first buyer in this program. gets to choose the house that they're liking right, so it's what it's not. It wouldn't be up to us to be able to kind of control any of those.

[53:07] any of those details right like it's just they get to do. They get to make that decision, and then that houses that property is like in the program in terms of like that. Just appreciation, Cap. So I guess I don't I haven't thought of how that. like the implications of that in terms of like the hos over time and kind of like the comparable t0 0ther properties. But again, I think I mean, I think, thinking about it now in real time I think we would just kind of lean on how that's administered for current permanently affordable home ownership program. because they deal with these kind of issues and figuring out how to navigate those waters all the time. So I don't know if this would be specific, that I don't think this would be different in terms of how they negotiate, or like. They know how they look forward

[54:02] already for for that program, and in some circumstances, and I guess s0 0ne of my suggestions would be that there is some sort of criteria, some sort of like check off that the city can do and say, okay. you know, there are a lot of standard things you can take a look at with the H. A. And say. Yeah, we feel this association is kind of curtailed, etc., that the the variation from association to association is really remarkable, and there's a lot of of objective things that you can take a look at and see what's there. So that's just my thought on that first issue. So, Dan Dan, I might be able to jump in a little bit. So when what? Every time we have a a new potential home buyer in our portalizing program. There's always there's an H. A checklist, and we always encourage them to research the H. A. That they're buying into to understand.

[55:01] What are the dues. How many increases have happened over the past 10 years, and to really encourage them to get involved in the yeah. So we have. Education is really our best bet. and we've like we've talked about before we we do have a special assessment program. but but we're not going to be able to solve the H. OA issue with this pilot. but it's stuff we're we're definitely cognizant of it if i'm representing a buyer, and there's a lot of an incredibly expensive multi family units now, right if i'm representing a buyer, there's a whole bunch of things that if i'm talking to the buyer, and they they they want me to console them on on ho! A things in i'm. In terms of their due diligence with the purchase. There's a bunch of things that I would check off to say, okay. what special sessions are common, etc., etc. How old the roof, whatever it may be. And I just think maybe the city doing that, because this is a big investment for the city. And if we're talking about the the notion that maybe 50 0r 100,

[56:11] you know, buyers can do this, having that could be a good way to preserve the well being of the program which i'm very supportive of. That's that's just my suggestion. There, you know it. It it it's worth the I mean. I could do that stuff in about an hour hour and a half. Right? It's worth doing that just to make sure that you know you don't get caught in the buzz off That's that's my that's a comment. Not a question. I guess it's like. So in terms of your second question about the the primary lender, and how they would look all at all of this, I think the the number we chose of Max 200,000. It's really the the Max would be like 15, about 15.

[57:01] The down payment assistance would be 15 0f the total loan. and then the in our models. We assumed that the buyer would bring a 5 down payment to meet that 20% at closing. And so that was the idea. There. mortgage, insurance, and all these other things. And s0 0bviously, to say this, these these numbers, and all those details, would be dealt with by those administering the program. But those kind of are the the guard rails that we established. Were to try to create that 20 situation at closing. and I guess my question so are the lenders that you kind of consulted with them as are they comfortable with that? Because so like I represent a couple of businesses, and we're trying to buy affordable housing units for our employees and and and they've run into this several times in the past year where the the bank said, Well.

[58:04] you know we're we're not looking at that at at that assistance as part of the down payment. We want you to have 20 0f the overall. the overall nut, and then and then we go from there. And so i'm just asking that, because, you know, I I know lenders can be very, very quirky. Yeah, 1 0ne thing that you know, like, I said, this is kind of like this is the beginning of our road show. And one of one thing that we are. We are going to a handful of different lenders to make sure that this is like that, that this is of interest, and actually feasible when when we, when it's brought forward. So we're we're trying to d0 0ur due diligence on that in to make sure we talk to enough people. Okay. Cool. I'm: just that just quickly. I mean part part of the reason it took us this long is we had to figure out. How do we create the the structure that actually works for wonders. and all the rules that that came up came down the pike in the in the housing recession. So

[59:04] I think we're. I think we feel pretty good about it. But, like I said, we are going to explore it. But that 5% of the the purchase price as a down payment. So the the 200,000 doesn't count towards that for sure. So they have to have some skin in the game, and that was definitely something that we we heard loud and clear from all the different lenders. Okay? And then and then the the last question I know this is last question, for now at least, I know this is a NASA that even suggests in Boulder. But if we were to look at a flat or down housing market at some point in time. How how do we wrestle with that in terms of the fact that we we might get kind of behind the April, especially for those buyers. cause they all of the $200,000 and the the interest, you know, the interests. Forgiveness is is wonderful. but you know that, could there, there's always the possibility for a net loss. I know you're not supposed to say that in Boulder. But I've been doing real stay a lot for 25 years. So

[60:09] just just roll up the hypothetical. Yeah, no. I I thought about this, too, because i'm like this is certainly optimistic, and how we view our for time forever. I think I so. I did talk to to a banker last week, and was kind of shopping this idea around. And you know he brought up the this concept that you can't like. You can't remove all risk from this like it is a real estate transaction. You can try to create guard reels to make it. you know. not super risky, and like dragging people down over time. But I mean, I think there's just an inherent risk of somebody coming into the real estate market and purchasing a home, and we like we can't do anything to update all risk right? So I don't know I don't. I know that's not a very satisfying answer.

[61:16] You know the the city makes a decision whether or not that individual could be personally liable, or, if they're going to, you know, consider it a loss, or something like that which is, which is the way it is, is second lean holder. Typically, so. I guess that's kind of the concept. Now, I I which makes sense to me right. It's just one of those risks that's out there. Anything else, Danny? No good for now. Thanks. Thank you very much. I saw a Terry promos with her hand up. I'll let you go first, Michael. See if you cover my questions.

[62:01] 0 0kay, Well, I have a lot of maybe I can verification, and then i'll have some questions and comments. I'm sorry, Terry. go ahead. Go ahead, sir, Nor do you want me to go. Yeah. So this this can be used to buy any kind of home, a cond0 0r co-OP a town home, a single family detached home. Is that correct guidelines that you mentioned? Could Could you use it to buy a home or affordable home that's already into the restricted program. No. no. So the this is intended partly to increase the stock of homes that are in that program of which you've identified 21 that are current are currently listed under 675,000. Is that right?

[63:08] Or is that the whole universe that we're up home, for? We're talking about it. It was the whole, you know. This was not a very rigorous statistical, so I don't know if i'd lean on that number too heavily. But yeah. it seems plausible because we had a a realtor attend our joint management planning board and gave the numbers on home sales and boulder in the last quarter, and you know almost all them are over a 1 million bucks, so i'm I wouldn't be surprised if there's a very limited stock of homes for 6 75, another, and then, in terms of how this works the the city has 10 million, and and when that's gone the program is either gotta be renewed or it's it's done. Is that right? So? No, there's not. And and one thing i'll, I'll just say just to clarify is for that this pilot program. We're not

[64:07] the ballot initiative established like a a a bond essentially. And what we we? We're not tapping into this for the pilot program. It would just be we we wouldn't be going down to for this, for this pilot phase of this to kind of that full line, that full 10 million dollars this, which is which we're kind of just testing it out on a few things here in there first. If that makes sense correct. Nope, it's not revolving, because once they said the re re. if expand the program or extend it, we would have to go back to the voters.

[65:21] Yeah. Okay, Great again. These are all points of clarification. So one of the things you're looking for feedback on is the amount of appreciation, I think, in the memo we got it said that Staff was recommending an appreciation. It'd be greater than what's currently in the affordable housing deed, restricted program. What's the reasoning behind that? Yeah. So the reasoning. So that rate is in the past 10 years. It's average at at 2.2. And we're recommending pegging this pilot program to

[66:00] that that rate of the current program using that same methodology plus 2. And there's a handful of reasons. One. We need to figure out how to make this program somewhat competitive, instead of being being kind of pegged to that affordable ownership. model, and appreciation that exists. Now we kind of have to differentiate it. and then the big one is that we need to make sure that the household that borrows that $200,000 can get enough appreciation on their house to be able to repay that $200,000 at 15 years. Got it right? Okay, that makes sense. So as a pilot program, this could potentially affect 21 home buyers, which is not going to solve the missing middle problem. But it's a step in the right direction. So what's what's the vision for expanding it beyond the pilot? If it succeeds.

[67:03] I think if it succeeds as it as it exists today. I mean, I I would imagine that we'd have to, you know, tweak some parameters here and there before we expand it. I but I imagine to take it fully live we just I haven't. I haven't thought that for a as participation requires, and as it just requires, lend out that that down payment assistance. Okay, thank you. And then one more classification question about those 21 homes. Those are all single family homes, or that's also condos and 10 homes. Oh, that's! That's the all all Condos town. So it it was anything

[68:01] a 2 bedroom, home or more under the $675,000 mark. I see I see. So it's a pretty limited stock under the current pricing in in boulder. Okay, thank you, Terry. You had some. I didn't cover. I'm: sure this plan. This program's been around since it was voted on last time, right or no? Has it been some version of it? Has been in the existence. No. no. no, this is the the pilot that it has not been implemented yet. Okay, Got it? So the city goes out and floats 10 million dollars worth of bonds. People buy them at a interest rate of what's the assumption of the interest rate that the bonds are being borrowed at that? The city's borrowing the money from bondholders? Do we have an assumption? We have an expectation there, because those are changing like by the minute right now.

[69:04] not not 2,022, whatever the assumption. very different interest rate. So we assume 4.5% right. All which is what finance told us is the current rate to borrow by the city, but we also modeled 2 2 points lower and 2 ports higher. That's why we have that range the 40,000 t0 112000 over the life of a loan of $200,000. Yeah. if you have a $200,000 loan that the city you're borrowing from the city and and it's a 4% not come. Is is the is the person so it's interest-free. So does the interest accrue. or it just doesn't exist for the borrower. It doesn't exist for the borrow. It's it's what the city pays to borrow money.

[70:01] Okay, so so just so, I understand. not accumulating, not occurring yet. If you're at 4 0n a 200,000 loan, that's $8,000 a year times 15, that's a $120,000 of interest over 15 years not compounding. So I don't know where the 40,000 and you know what i'm saying. That's 40, Yeah, the 40,000. So we wanted to. These These interest rates are, you know, that potentially variable. So they might go below that 4 and a half percent. so that range in compasses at the lower end of what that interest would be, and at the higher end. So we asked our finance people, and they gave us the range of 40000 0ver a 15 year period 40,000 t0 112000. Yeah, I don't it's als0 200000 is the maximum loan. It could be. It could be a lot less.

[71:01] But there, there's there's not anything for sale in the city for 600,000 bucks. I mean, if the goal, if the goal is to try to get a 2 0r 3 bedroom place, whatever it is, town home. condo. whatever there there are there are. I mean I'm just looking right now on my screen 2 bedroom, one and a half bath up t0 1.2 million, including Gun burrow. You got about 20 0ptions. and that's up t0 1.2 million. So you know, in my mind the best case scenario for this is. Somebody wants to come by a 3 bedroom to Bath house in, but not house you living unit in Boulder. and and it's a 1 million bucks for big round numbers, and you in the city runs in 200,000. I agree with Danny the Fh. A. Fanny Freddy. All that stuff is gonna complicated. But there's ways to make that work enough. Lenders have lent for affordable housing in boulder that that works itself out. It's not the best interest rate.

[72:02] but you can still do it. It's doable. So back to my hypothetical. You have a 1 million dollar living unit. You borrow 200,000 from the city. You have a little bit of 5 0f your own money. so you get 200, and whatever $10,000, or whatever the number is. and in that, and then you put the deed restriction on that living unit. So you add to the affordable housing stock. It's. It's ownership program. It's it's more of the missing middle, at least in my mind. What missing middle is okay, great. So that's that's the plan that that happens 1015 20 times, maybe. But I I don't. I don't see how that costs the city 40 grand. They cost the city hundreds of thousands of dollars per for living unit over 15 years at least $100,000, even at 5. It's a 100. You know what I mean. So, anyway. I I I just want to be transparent because I don't buy this $40,000 cost in the city for a $200,000 loan. That's not. That's not accurate.

[73:02] I mean, I can do. Math. Yeah, I mean, we can double check, but keep in mind. It's it's not like the city is taking out a mortgage. We are going and issue that. and that could be a lot of credit. It could be issuing bonds, and s0 0ur so that as to making from our finance folks, but we we'll go back and double check. Well, the yeah, no, I what I'm. What I think is what we're doing is we're issuing bonds. If we got to make payments on those bones. And we're just basically making those payments. And then passing that money through to this plan, this program and the people borrowing the money to buy that. You know the the middle. This restricted unit just doesn't have to pay for that that money, but the city pays for it. So again, 200, which is, I understand, that that makes sense. But if you have a 200,000 loan. even at 4%, I mean, that's 8,000 a year, not compounding 15 years.

[74:03] That's a 8,000 times 15 years. It's a $120,000 over 15 years, not compounding. If I compound it, it's going to be double that. So I don't see how we get $60,000 for this irrespective. I just. I just want to put that out there that I don't know how that maths being calculated, and and I do mortgages and loans all day, every day. Point 1.2. I I think that, given our affordable housing big picture as we've talked about at Nauseum. we do a great job of building for rent, smaller apartments, 50 0r 100 at a time. all over town and different places, and that seems to be working really well, and it's continuing to work, and there's more of the pipeline and all that stuff. and that that that piece of the market is is there, and it's flourishing. I I. What I do like is is finding a way to get people int0 3 bedroom or 2 bedroom, 2 bath.

[75:03] larger units. preferably single family homes, or at least townhouses. And I think this program can do that. I I think that's kind of what it's intended to do in least the way I see it. which I think is good. That's really good. but I don't see it happening in any major major numbers to 10 units, 15 units, 20 units, maybe you know what I mean. which is still better than no units. It's still better than no units. It's still better to have 20, you know. Middle income deed restricted living units in in in bolder than we had before by the fact that this program exists. All good, I guess. Seems like a lot of work for like 20 units, though. Seems like a lot of effort and energy and work and focus and staff time and floating bonds and qualifying people to get 15 t0 20 units of middle income date restricted housing that we don't have

[76:02] just a big picture. So so we're piloting a program that has potential to expand, and it's only pointed out as innovative. So there's risk. We're going to be lessons learned, you know. I'm a believer in, You know there's no sweeping solution to affordable housing. You have to do about a 100 different things that get t0 1% of the problem each. So that's where I find this really encouraging. You. Just need 99. More programs like this. Someone will be in great shape. You know it's it's good that we're doing it and it's all. It's a lot of work, but we don't. We don't have a choice. The staff has to do the work and and and and pilot the program right? Yeah. One thing else is I'll just add it. It does seem like a lot of work, but you know there is this innovative aspect which kind of is, there's probably a lot of front end work that's happening here that if it does show success, we can just lean on in the future.

[77:00] And then the other thing is it. It was passed by the voters in 2,019, and it is a is a priority of city council. So you know we we we're we're going for it. I'm all for it. I'm all for it. I'm not saying i'm not supportive of it. It's just it. It's a lot to do, and I think, to end up with not as many units as as is, I don't know. Maybe we will get a lot of units. Maybe i'm wrong. and then I and then I think the cost of the citizens to the taxpayers is is more than than what is being said. But that maybe is going to, you know that's maybe that's fine, too. Hmm. I I think Terry is offering t0 0, if you get overwhelmed. Yes, maybe not. John. You got your hand up. Oh, you me to John. still muted.

[78:01] Okay, Can you hear right now? Okay, Thank you. So just a couple of questions. One of these is is following up from your presentation previously to planning board. and I think the Board made it a few suggestions, and I I see that there's been some changes since then. but one of the ones. One of the suggestions was that you contact some of the real estate appraisers and and real estate professionals to see how this my actually affect the market itself by spreading additional money into the You know the low end portion of the real estate market and boulder. you know. So the concern is, or are we listing? Are we having a negative impact on pricing merely by by putting 10 million dollars additional into the demand for for the low cost housing. So have you been able to talk to to a real estate appraisers or realtors to get their sense of what impact this might have.

[79:12] So we're we're scheduled to later in March to talk to a group of of realtors. So we are going to try to cover that cover our basis on that, and to get their feedback on kind of both. An interesting point about the impact on the larger market dynamics, but als0 0n it to gauge. If this is a that would be a competitive like the downside down payment assistance to to see if it would be a competitive products that for households. So we are we we we we have it on the schedule to to get in front of them later in March. Okay, I I suggest that would be worth doing before taking it to Council, because I'm. Sure Council will have some similar questions, and then the the other.

[80:03] that I had was what what you're proposing here is basically to subsidize to a greater extent the middle income folks. Then the income restricted. Folks who get into the fully deed restricted housing now by by giving them that 2% additional appreciation over the years. And I was wondering how how we can justify that. What? Why we're Why, we're giving a better deal to the people with more money. Then we are to say the people with with less resources. So that that's a concern to me that I I don't fully think, has been addressed. I think that's a fantastic question, and I think part of the one of the questions the big questions to council. Considering these the changes to the program over time

[81:02] it it it does contemplate this priority. You know how how you just articulated it. And so it's one of the questions that we're asking. The Council. Given these changes to the program should be. Should we continue an implementation? So question that needs to be considered for sure. and it's very well made. I think you need to be as explicit as possible, and and raising that, and demonstrating how you how you've evaluated it. No. let me. Thanks. John, to your to your point, John. I think that's baked into missing middle programs. It's a subsidy for people that make a decent amount of money, because we feel they have a value to be included in our community rather than moving out to Erie, or left yet so it may seem a little and fair, but that's the nature of the beast.

[82:01] Well, I I think it's good to be explicit about it, and so that everybody understands the relative subsidies that we're applying to different 5 so proper programs and 2 different levels of of income. Okay. Holly, I don't know if we have any other questions, but I have a question for you. If not anyone else care to comment or ask a question. Holy. If you could put your 3 questions back on the screen, maybe we could give you additional feedback on those. Thank you. Okay. I think. Question one. We may have given a qualified yes to. But if any Ben disagrees with that characterization as another comment.

[83:03] or we'd like to directly answer that question. Now it's a good time to do that. My answer that would be yes. for the reasons I said. It's an innovative program, and we're required to do it, and we should try to do a good job and and get good results from it. Can I? Can I give it a different answer? I I like that. It's a pilot, and that it's innovative. And so I I want to support it and see what happens. I have all kinds of skepticisms that I haven't raised because it's sort of like, you know. It's in front of us, and that City Council wants to try it. I don't. I don't feel like I need to like, you know, give give all my reasons. But I i'm super skeptical of this approach, and for for a variety of reasons. But i'm curious to see what happens, and I hope I hope it succeeds.

[84:11] I I share some of your skepticism, Philip, that I I think we are required to pilot the program, so so I can do a good job with it. Michael, can I just clarify so when you say we're required to do it? Do you mean because the voters passed it, or Council directed the staff to do it. It seems like the latter. J: Okay, right. So go ahead and clarify. Maybe i'm wrong. Maybe i'm not thinking about this the wrong way. Well, the so the the ballot it just enables the city to issue that it doesn't that doesn't require the city to take out the debt. But you are correct. This is the council prior to the directed staff to to implement this. So but that's why we're going back is, and that's why the number One question is, should we pursue this pilot

[85:03] and it's current iteration? Does that make sense? Yep. It does so. In theory we could take a vote and recommend the Council that we not pursue it theoretically. Yes, I was. I didn't want you to limit to yourself. Okay. Because i'd be missed not to say this with some of the questions the concerns that I brought up to you before Holly. But I think Well, I love the fact that we're moving forward with the pilot program. I love the fact that we're taking the initiative and taking the chance, because really nothing ventured, nothing gained. And we can sit here and theorize about things for time and memorial. But the best way to see what works, particularly in this field where there's so many challenges that that we face. for how, whatever approach we take is trial on there. And so i'm, very supportive and very pleased to see both council and staff.

[86:03] you know. Jump into the pool and take a swim, and so you know, thumbs up on that is is my take. If it was a permanent program I might have some other con comments, but it's a pilot let's fly, so that's all. Try all kinds of pilot programs. There's there's there's many things to try in the city that show a lot of promise. There are things I like about this one, too, and so I I don't mean to be a a a, you know, dumping dumping water onto a a blanket here. So thanks, Danny for your comments. Any other comments. Okay, item, 2. Holly gave a good explanation about the appropriate rate of appreciation, and I buy that. It makes

[87:05] numerical sense to me, although i'm not much of a numbers person. but other comments from the Board on Item 2. I have one comment that that just to sort of. you know, in contrast to what John said. I thought John's a point was was well taken and appropriate. but but also there's this all the also this issue of. if if it's not attractive to the kind of buyers that you're targeting. Then you may not have any participation at all. So I think those are kind of the 2 the 2 things causing tension about where the right spot is for this. So anyways that maybe that didn't need to be said, I don't know but good comment in my mind.

[88:00] If I were in the market for a 2 bedroom condo for 6 75, and I could get a 200,000 interest free down payment to be repaid later. I That would be pretty appealing that they would disagree with that. Okay? Well, we'll see. Can we move on to item 3. Are there additional parameters, terms or conditions in this pilot program that should be considered? I think. especially Danny and Terry, brought up some really important technical matters we have anything to add to those comments from anyone on the board is welcome in targeted also. So

[89:03] So if I understood the comment earlier. It's not specifically excluded. But we'd have to kind of feel our way through that if a group like that materialize to apply for the program. Is that right? Yeah, I think that that's That's how I I understand that. Yes. How? How you do. You have any other questions for our board? No, I I thanks for the feedback, and I I certainly appreciate the and understand that the skepticism. So you know you're not going to hurt my feelings here. If you have any other critiques or skepticism, you want to share part part of the process here is to make sure that when we do implement this, or when we do move forward to make sure that we're taking all these these these critiques

[90:01] to heart, you know we want to make sure that we have a strong, strong pilot program going forward. So so all of it's welcome. So thanks so much for your time. Thank you, and good luck. If there's n0 0ther comments, we'll move on to Item B under the fifth agenda. Item. This is the Jared Polish Governor Jerry Pearl's housing agenda. They 10, I'm, sorry Did you have a hands up, Terry? No, no, no. Okay. Sorry. Oh, that's my own hand. Sorry. Yeah. So City Council discuss this at length. Recently they passed a resolution on. It was a really interesting discussion, and I watched the whole thing. They kind of my understanding. If they came up with a general statement of support for what Polis is trying to do. But a lot of the discussion set it around a really big issue of local control versus state oversight of a of an issue like housing.

[91:09] and it'll people that folks that didn't that voted against the resolution seemed to think that it was, you know, an overbearing approach that could have unintended consequences in the long run, and folks in favor seem to generally think that Boulder could just go ahead and do some of these things. They didn't have it shouldn't wait for to require them. So anyway it was. That may be a good or a bad characterization, but that's why I heard it. I'd love to hear if anybody else watch that, and they get a comment on it. I'm not sure how much we need to discuss it further, because Council has taken some action, and it's Wait and see what State House does from here and out, as far as I understand. So, comments

[92:12] Danny Danny, you in the mountains. It looks like it's a blizzard out there. Oh, you're muted! You're muted. I'm in my son room in Boulder that is Blizzard. But yeah, I just wanted to say, I mean. I i'm, I I like the approach the council took, and and well, I understand the misgivings with kind of impinging upon, You know, a local economy with a lot of these things, and I think I've said it before at other meetings. It it's pretty clear to me what's going on there, which is that many, many, many local jurisdictions, have done absolutely nothing regarding this issue in a long period of time. and and it's pretty clear to me what the State Government is trying to do is really cajole

[93:03] those entities into doing something, saying, if you don't, you know we may step in from that perspective. I'm. Supportive of the strong talk. We'll see what gets put down in the paper State and Federal government. That's always a big question, but you know it's good to see it, and I like Council's approach to it. Yeah. don't you think it's kind of a bully, pull it, p it for polish to lame duck recently reelected. I claim he's really trying to get these local jurisdictions act on their own as much as anything else. That's that's exactly the way I see it, you know proclamations. Don't cost anything, so we'll we'll see when the rubber hits the vote. But I think that it's a good start, and it's pushing that issue to the 4 where it should be on a statewide basis. How that plays out from this point in time. Kind of anybody's guess. But you know better to have that conversation upfront rather than have it Just kind of language, you know.

[94:07] behind other issues moving forward so we'll see where it leads us. But I don't. I really don't think he was targeting the city of Boulder with a lot of the talk that he out there. Probably not. Thank you, Philip. You your hand up. Yeah. I just wanted to say that. I think it's. It's very difficult to be principled about local control versus, you know, State Level regional coordination. you know. I think we tend to g0 0n onto whatever is convenient for us in the moment that in the moment, if you're for rent control, you are for local control, because at the moment we can't we? You know the State. The State level says we can't have rent control at the local level, and so you know. And then and then zoning, we. you know we struggle to make the most minor incremental changes to

[95:09] our local codes, and we think, oh, well, maybe if the State stepped in, that would, you know, make things easier. So I I actually don't really know how to think about this carefully, in a way that's sort of like isn't, just you know, grabbing on to kind of what I want. Policy-wise. I don't know if that's profound or not. It's just this. Is something that is kind of you know, out there right now, because there's a there's a bill moving through the house right now about rent control, and then there's all this talk about zoning. So I I've been following this kinda loosely, but I could find some articles in distributed to board members. I think, in California there have been some high profile cases of the State Government overruling

[96:00] local desires on specific sites like That's high density. How you can say it's next to transit stations and saying, No, you're not gonna have a you know, 2 story height, limited, and and a 1010 to the Acre dwelling unit that you know we're gonna build more robustly there. I think that's happening in Santa Monica. And now, for example. so I don't know if I see Colorado going that direction. It's pretty heavy handed. But California is crisis is worse than ours, but it's also as it's pointed out. Now where we want to go. Okay, anything else you'd like to discuss about this. I think we'll move on to Item c. Zoning for affordable housing. Discussion, continued

[97:05] my goal, and we'll see if it happens if we can come up with a strong recommendation on this in the next few months. But I think we need a lot more input and information. I am seeking to get some of that one on one with folks that build town homes so divided lots. For example. just sit down and talk to him and say. You know, I think one of our lessons learned from the last 2 meetings is. you can subdivide a lot, and you can do higher density on a single family a lot. But you're not going to create affordability. So what what kind of scenario might exist that would would change that, you know. So let's say 5 Town Homes. You got one of them. It's permanently affordable. If anyone would like to join me, we could have another head member without violating a sunshine.

[98:00] Well, that i'm being with some folks tomorrow, also being with some Council people who just get their ideas. And i'm very unsettled on this issue I think that we do need reform on single-family housing. But i'm still mowing over our December presentation, and how relatively ineffective that's been in some other communities, and hoping we can avoid some of those pitfalls, Terry, do you have your hand up? Yeah, love to meet with you? But I just so. I'm clear this is zoning for affordable housing, not deed restricted, affordable housing, but zoning for more affordable than market the now current market. Right housing, I it's just the nomination. This is what we call it. I think that's in December right? Well, I think it could be potentially folded into the inclusionary housing discussion which would allow for both market rate and the restricted. But again, I that's that's notional. At this point I just would. I'd like to hear from people involved in

[99:04] creating these kinds of projects. What's actually practical in the work. Huh! I love to talk about it anytime you want. We talk about it now. Sure you're a developer. What do you think it. It boils down to having large lots, or just having a lot. A single family whole lot. That's picture number 50006000800010000 square feet, and they're all over town. And the zoning that applies to those, whatever it is. Rl: this are you whatever has usually one or 2 really restrictive aspects to that zoning, whether it's an fa or limitation, whether it's an open space, requirement, or whether it's a minimum lot. Size per dwelling unit requirement. Those are the 3 that I see the most.

[100:04] Those are very easy to change, and changing those well, they're not easy to change. It's easy to change on paper. It's hard to actually do. but removing some of those from the single family lot. The zoning for free single family lots would allow for all different kinds of things to happen. Does it make it more affordable? It it makes it more affordable than it would otherwise be. and that's just the reality of the situation, in in my opinion. So again going back t0 0ur our our hypothetical of you have a 1,000 square foot bungalow on a 7,000 square foot lot anywhere around town. Somebody buys that tears it down. Build a 3 million dollar house. That's option. Number one option. Number 2 is somebody buys that, but because we don't have a minimum lot requirement or an open space requirement, or the fars adjusted, they can build 2 0r 3 town homes. That would be a 1 million dollars each, or a 1 million and a half dollars each, which by no means is, you know, affordable in the real world. But in boulder. It is

[101:13] so. You would end up with 2 0r 3 town homes for a 1 million to a 1 million and a half versus 1 5000 square foot, single family for 3 0r 4 million. That's how that plays out. I don't know if that helps. I don't know if that's right or wrong. But that's what would happen if if we changed zoning to allow for more than one single family house on the single family watch all over town. Do you make that a sweeping change? Or would you look at some kind of incremental like one per block? Or what do you think I don't know? Tough call, and then you get into the neighborhood aspect right? Some neighborhoods lend themselves to that more than others because of parking right

[102:04] it. you know, going into the the Hill and Joshua in those areas, and doing this. would exacerbate the parking problem that they already have. and the student rental problem that they already have but doing it in Old North Bowler or or North Norse Bowler, or South Boulder Martin Acres places like that I don't know. I think you can. You can make some headway. But again. you know, you're just trading one large 4 million dollar new house for 2 0r 3 smaller 1 million and a half dollar, town homes or duplexes, or whatever that's kind of. Where that goes well. I absolutely agree with Terry, particularly on where the little lying fruit is in terms of the things that are obstacles. Any time you try to think about maximizing a lot, and it really comes down to a fundamental philosophical question, where bowl is pretty

[103:04] pretty interesting scenario in that, you know. The question is, are we a city? Yeah, we're a city that in a lot in a lot of areas in a lot of neighborhoods really kind of feels like a a a suburb or something right? I mean. So if you're a city and you and you're looking for more density. Then you have t0 0wn that and say, this is this is what city living really is, you know, as I said, up on a pretty large lot over here. And and you know, I I think that's that's really a a to struggle with. But I I do think. Yeah, when you look at that, and the whole notion that by modifying some of those things, you know, my suggestion is, you can go carrot and stick as far as that goes to, so I wouldn't have a blanket change, but i'd have something that says you have these opportunities, provided you agreed to certain restraints which you know could be. I mean, it could be 180 am. I could be a lot of different things, a lot of different approaches that you have. You know where you.

[104:03] you know, provide an incentive, and then you provide some sort of restraint. But you know I think it's something that certainly merits taking a look at It's gonna engender a lot of of heavy philosophical questions regarding what folder is and what it wants to be. But I. I think it can be done, and it will increase the supply, because the no matter how you slice it. been doing this 25 years. the the the the more density you have. It's gonna take some of the pressures off of pricing. It's just it's just the way of the world, right? If you have 3 town homes instead of one trophy home. You're gonna have something that's relatively speaking, at least more affordable. And and that's in California that's in boulder. That's wherever at some point in time we have to wrap our heads around that and stop dancing around that issue and say. what are we going to do. And again, are we a city, or we not a city? And and from that point.

[105:01] then we can start figuring out what the policy changes are that that can help implement that so? But I absolutely agree with everything Terry said. So, following up on what Terry said, and we've had this evolving conversation you so divide a lot. You get some town homes that are less than the big single family home. But you don't really have anything that's affordable by that, say 8 t0 120. Am I definition again? What if you could combine lots of dividing with an inclusory housing formula? You build 5 0ne's got to be deed restricted. the other 4 Equity price never you want. I mean, they're 2 and 3 million dollar town. Home is being built now, and they're selling down in West Pearl, for example. And in Folsom

[106:01] it seems like you'd be getting more if you had that, and I see that as a carrot. not a stick. you at least being that one home that's actually affordable to a middle income home buyer. And if it were a bigger a lot, and you could do more town homes. You'd be getting more out of that. Maybe that would have application in the East Rappho, for example. So any thoughts or comments on on that approach. I think it's a good idea. If if the lots big enough, or you can design it to do it. you just have to incentivize the developer. They're going to put it on a spreadsheet, and they're going to look at, You know. If I build 3 town homes instead of one big house. What does that mean? As far as profit goes? Versus If I built 5 Town Homes, and one of them is deep restricted. and they're smaller instead of one big house. What does that mean? Right? So

[107:00] it's just a it. I think it's of it to a certain extent just math. and in determining, you know. Can you design it on that lot? Will it work with the zoning allowed? Of course, what we're talking about? And then what does it mean at the end, you know. So I I think your idea it is good, Michael. by incentivizing more density and more town homes, and our little hypothetical here. and and and and restricting one or 2 0f them, and and maybe you get to a point where there's that. It makes sense to do that right. It makes sense. It makes economic sense to do that. And if it does, then let's do it. and I think carrying it forward with Danny was talking about his Boulder City, or is it a suburb? You know our our but we've done the last 1520 years by building density along transit corridors, on fulsome on Broadway, on 20 Eighth Street. Thirtieth Street. You know we we're densifying certain areas, and and we've done a good job of that, if that's what you like. But I think this is a little different. This is taking.

[108:01] This is not. This is taking what would otherwise be single family homes in a neighborhood, and turning them into 2 0r 3 0r 5 0r whatever town homes, or or condos, or whatever. And if I remember J. The large lot discussion that came up I don't know year ag0 2 years ago. you know no more big house was on big lots that didn't really gain the traction that I think a lot of people thought it was going to gain. I I personally think. Is that right, Jay? Am I saying that right? Yes. basically I mean it was. It was longer than just a few years ago. But yeah, but but we all thought, oh, these big lots and big houses, and no more of those. But that didn't really happen, because I think the pushback was So many people have invested so much money in these big houses on these large lots, and it's like Well. no, I don't want 3 town homes next to my pick. Your crazy number house, you know. 8 million dollar house, whatever the number is these days, which is nuts.

[109:06] But but I think that's where Danny, what you're talking about is, you know. Are we going to do this in the the suburbs of Boulder? Are we going to do it. You know, along Folsom and Broadway and 20 Eighth Street, and rap own thirtieth, and and all the places that are more transit based. And and I I don't see it happening. I don't know. Maybe it. Maybe it can happen on this almost quarter. I mean you drive down Broadway, and there's single family houses facing right away. You you drive down. I don't know there's just not. I think it's more in the neighborhood. It's more in the old North folders. It's more in the judging by how the large house large lot discussion went. I don't know how much traction you're going to get by all the sudden spot zoning or changing zoning in these neighborhoods, whether they adam right. I I I don't. I don't see that much opportunity or fodder, and and those corridors to do it, because even when you have those single family homes.

[110:02] they're pretty tight. That's more of a of an urban feel to it. So it's got to be some of those other areas which brings up that you know fundamental philosophical question what it what I would say. Michael, that's what we what you just brought up. That's exactly what i'm saying with carrot and stick is, you know. Here's the carrot, you know you can. You can build more units. Some of them have to have some sort of restriction, and it could be higher, it could be 160, am I whatever it may be? But but you know you have to. You have to account for that in some way shape or form as well, and that would be the the only way that it would work is that we have some sort of restriction on it. But that said, there, there, there's some potential there. It's just it's just pretty challenging, because there is, you know it's it's taken 2 core philosophies that boulder, and a lot of other communities in Colorado that that you know who's heading harder in the right place. They they, these don't run hand in hand necessarily, which is, we want to restrict density as much as we can. But then we also want to have

[111:07] as much affordable housing as we can, and and those 2 things. and a lot of this state in California, etc., has really start to run this course, because density restrictions lead to incredibly high spikes and housing prices. And that's what we're seeing in every single community that we're talking about. so is really difficult without a light. So the more density. There's other consequences to that. Steve Pomerance writes about it all the time. We talk about density, density to solve the housing problem affordable housing problem. But there's consequences to density. There's traffic. There's more people there's all kinds of stuff, so you know, trying to turn left on a Broadway or anywhere else is is, is harder than it's ever been since I've been a kid. says, says Terry, who drives a truck on a back tour.

[112:09] You shouldn't either you shouldn't what they never talk about is the impact of neighbor, unnecessary character of a 7,000 square foot home, replacing a 1,000 square foot home, which is essentially what happened both what i'm looking at actually, if it weren't so dark across my alley on Eleventh Street. you know why not get some other community benefit out of that building envelope. with also some impact on neighborhood character, but maybe not so negative. You know you get.

[113:01] You got to have different kinds of neighbors. I don't know if that conversation would go anywhere. But it's interesting to you. The people who are so protective of neighbor and character, and they don't really raise their voices about the impact of very large homes. except the adjacent neighbors. They they always protest. Yeah. like absolutely remarkable. So I mean, if we're if we're talking those things. That's another thing to talk about as well right it's it's it's not a it's not a a straight vector there. It So I I have a kind of a stack of things that I've I've built up. Were you trying to move on, Michael? Or is it okay? If I make a few comments. You know it's 7 55 we have time. Danny was saying. Whether we're deciding whether to be a suburb or a city. It reminds me of something that i'm. I'm frequently saying to people you know there, there's kind of a a fear that there's only one density that's higher than Boulder.

[114:19] and that's Manhattan. and that's it's just not true, right? We there's there's a lot of gradations between here in Manhattan, and we could we could double or triple in population, and still be nothing like Manhattan. We could be more like Copenhagen, and have an amazing cycling and transit and pedestrian infrastructure. So I. I want to live in a pedestrian district where I can have a light carbon footprint. I want to make those opportunities available to a lot more people people who are in the marketplace trying to make ethical decisions about how they can live lightly on the planet. And so

[115:00] I I I do want Bo, there to be a city in the sense that I want to have transit available. I want to have residential districts that are are dense and compact, so I can. and me and my neighbors can live lightly on the planet. I I do want to channel David Adamson and I was thinking about what I was gonna say before I noticed that he was actually on the call. Thank you for for attending David I. When so so much of what the the pilot that he's trying to promote really fits into a lot of the issues that we're discussing. having to do with parking, having to do with neighborhood character having to do with. You know. How do how do you, when when the land increases in value when you are allowed to put more stuff on it. Do we just give that value away, or is there a way to recapture that? Well, there's ways of recapturing that to Community land, trust, or through the kind of community benefit that that Michael was bringing up.

[116:08] For For my part, I I love the notion of being able to have affordable housing in a in a well established neighborhood, and the notion of taking a a footprint that looks like a that looks like a a Mc mansion or a large, you know, 5,000 square foot house, and using that as a as something that you see from the street that looks like a looks like a mansion. But inside is built with micro condos and shared living space, and you have the the car share for to to, you know, deal with with parking. You know that I think there's you know, to make that happen. There's all kinds of incentives you could put in place to keep the parking from going out of control to keep. You know it looking for like like you're putting apartment buildings next to houses, you know main, you know. So maintaining, maintaining character, neighborhood integrity

[117:05] keep keeping, you know, like for me, I like, I always say that I would love to see more people in boulder and fewer cars. And so there's there is a parking problem, but the the one of the things about reducing, parking and reducing the ability to have cars is it? It reduces demand. There's not everyone wants to. Not everyone wants to live in in a place where they don't have access to their own car where they can park for free. and one of the things you know. And this is like a philosophical thing. We have all kinds of programs that increase demand where we subsidize, demand the market interest rate. Deduction this this new, this new pilot for down payment. If you think about it in terms of slide supply and demand, we're like actually increasing pressure on demand which goes to John Gerssel's question earlier about like, Well, what is what does it mean to inject 10 million more dollars into the into into buyer's pockets, you know, and

[118:15] I think there's there's important ways to think about increasing supply. There's important ways to think about reducing. Demand. One of those main things to me is just make it more expensive. T0 0wn cars in parking should be expensive. The cars should be expensive. We should reclaim a lot of the space that they in infrastructure that they take up. And so I know that wasn't i'm kind of way off topic in terms of like what tweaks should we make to zoning? But like, I guess that's kind of my whole point. It's not to me. It's not about making tweaks to zoning like we gotta. We got bigger, you know, pictures to. you know, to to incorporate here. So I I mean, I I want to see us like not whittle away at the edges, but really like grapple. With. What kind of city do we want to have and and propose some things that are like

[119:14] a bit more radical than you know, tweaking a minimum lot size. I don't. I don't want to diminish that as as not important. If that if that's if that's something that's really preventing people from doing useful things. Let's address that. But yeah, anyways, I I can hear myself rambling. But and i'm, i'm sure i'm gonna. As soon as I quit talking I'll think of 3 things. I wish I had said, but that's it. That's why you're on the board, Philip. I appreciate your comments. You know I've said it before. There are a lot of little things you can do the head up to the big picture and tweaking zoning in my mind is certainly one of them. My personal whole is to do more fact finding and talking to people essentially one on one on this issue

[120:07] to help incubate ideas, because I don't think anybody has the answers on this yet, and then, I hope, is that we can come to some kind of agreement on a recommendation in the spring, and maybe it's for a pilot program. I don't know if it's for sweeping to changes the zoning, or not there yet. but you know it's it's a it's a big part of it. Gentlemen. Fill whatever you want to call it so. I do think that that will support some of the goals that you just described. Philip. and it's worth pursuing, and it's. It's kind of a brave new world like the down payment assistance. We're gonna come up with some things that maybe Haven't been tried. Other places, I would hope.

[121:04] Just just wanted to add a little bit to to Phil's comments, which I think are are very well fought out and and expressed. and that is that in addition to zoning types of issues, I would think that taxation and other aspects of of of discouraging big houses are a an avenue that have not yet been explored in boulder, and there would be some potential there to diminish the incentives by by having taxes increased more for very large houses. and also houses that are standing empty for half or 3 quarters of the year. It seems to me that those are aspects that would might also play a role in what ultimately happens on on these properties

[122:04] or or houses that are 3, for it's empty. There's there's tens of thousands of empty bedrooms in our in our beloved city. I think it's been done on a limited basis, and although Philip says we don't want to become a that, I think Manhattan is where those things have been done. It's gonna have transferred taxes on homes that sell over a certain amount of money taxes on folks that don't occupy their homes for at least 6 months a year, and so forth. But maybe there are other examples and places that are more comparable to Boulder. I just. I think it's always better to incentivize than to penalize philosophically incentivize people to do what we want them to do, not penalize them for not doing what we want them to do.

[123:05] That's a philosophical discussion. Oh, it's a good point. Would it be enough t0 0ffer an alternative zoning where it's pulling a lot and providing some affordability, is more economically appealing than building one big house. Could you see it happen in turn? You broke up there. Say that again. I said. Could you see that happening? Did you hear my point before then. No, you're fuzzy. 0 0kay. What I said is, is there a scenario where a zoning incentive to split a lot. build town homes? Maybe provide some affordability is economically, equally appealing to building one big house. Oh, absolutely, I think it's it's very much, so very much so. I think it would happen all over the place, and it was allowed to have that.

[124:07] Okay. it's it's it's a from a market. Just okay, simple answer from a marketing perspective. It's a lot easier to sell 3 million and a half dollar town homes than it is 1 $6000000 house. right or whatever you know. You understand the concept A. You you diversify your risk. You have flexibility. I I think a lot of people would do it, and you see it being done right now, and in the in the transit quarters. What we're talking about, you know, Fulsome and Pearl and all those places. But anyway, that's that's again a whole big, big discussion about zoning and allowing for density. Okay? Well, I see just we keep this on the agenda for March meeting. Everyone Bring some other zoning ideas to that meeting. I'm gonna send an invitation to join me. Some of the meetings I have, and I think

[125:04] we'll be limited t0 0ne in our Svp: so we don't have more than 2 we have members present, and that folks want to come shoot the breeze about zoning initiatives, so it'd be great to see in person love it. Okay, Any other comments before we go to Item D listening session topics continued. I don't see that. So as I recall what? Where? We left the listening topic. Conversation last time. Yeah, Michael, I could do like an an old agenda. Remember, we discussed with the chairs to remove me that it. and revisiting it when we had more information about when the Board could

[126:03] resume in person Right? I'm looking at today's agenda. But listening sessions is listed as Item D: No. not anyone Else's sorry, Michael. Oh, maybe I don't have the latest agenda. It's a Okay. So there is no item. D. Is that what you're saying? Thank you. Thank you. Matters From Staff. We were going to talk about the the community working group with the airport and getting a have member involved as a liaison to that group.

[127:00] So I think there's a simple question here, is they? They want to do that. I do. There's not a lot of competition. We need to nominate Phillip, or is he just going to get it by a claim? I mean you could take formal action. You could just do a straw. That'd be fine. Okay, all in favor of Philip is the liaison to the community working group for the Boulder airport. Awesome. Other some other matters from the staff. Yup. So, Philip Monday at 3 Pm. They're gonna You'll get a meeting. Invite and Staff will give you an overview of what you expect on the advisory group for the airport.

[128:01] Okay, so that's a that's a meeting at 3, this coming Monday. Mark your calendar hopefully. You're available. If not, I'm sure they could figure something out. No, I can be there. Okay. Thank you for that. Yeah, thank you, Phil. I appreciate it. Do you volunteering. So I have a couple of things so that Michael covered the have interviews, Those the interviews actually already happened there last Friday and Tuesday yesterday. All of those interviews are online. You could look at them if you want to. But I think we do have some fantastic candidates. so I don't think we can really go wrong. And so March sixteenth is one. Council will make the actual decision to point t0 2 new members any questions about that. All good, all right. Michael has suggested that I give a

[129:02] just a sort of a summary or update of recent or upcoming development housing development in the city. and I was like Well, I could probably figure out how to do that, and I got a spreadsheet. I follow the development that's happening in Boulder. and it's pretty overwhelming, so I need to chat with Michael and Danny a little bit more about what would be most useful for the group There are, I mean it's it's interesting. There are some big projects coming up, you know. 100 200 300unit projects all over the city. If you are interested. I'm more than happy to, you know, share some of that information. but I don't want to take up a lot of time with it if it's not of great interest as well. So if you have thoughts on that, let us know, and we'll come back next time with something more in depth. What else. So yeah, you're talking about the zoning for affordable housing. So Carl Guys are

[130:05] return at a March meeting March 20 s. and he will basically share the study session by Mo, because the Council study session is on the twenty-third, the very next day. But you will share whatever feedback that you have on the 20 third with council. So keep that in mind also these of it. We'll be back talking about it. Use so there'll be a fairly detailed proposal for changes to the code that you guys will get to weigh in on as well. I think that's it. Any questions, any other thoughts, anything you want care more about from the city. One J. I think, when we had our cherished meeting you mentioned, we need to start thinking about a retreat in 2,023 to

[131:00] so truly to talk about that. I put it on the the work plan for April to start talking about. It Typically, it happens in June. but you know it's pretty flexible as to when you want to do it. So yeah, I would say it might be a little premature. But start thinking about what what kind of retreat do you want? You know, in the past we'll we'll be able to have an in person this time we've had facilitated retreats in the past. We do have money in the budget. I'm not sure you guys really need it. I think you all are function fairly well as a group, so i'm not. I would actually recommend not having a facilitator. But it's again, it's up to you guys. So just some things to think about, and then we'll talk about it more. In April we will have 2 new members. so it's definitely going to be useful whether we need to facilitate or not. There's a good question.

[132:03] Well, June sounds good to me in person. Sounds good. Hawaii sounds good. Any other thoughts. Okay, Thank you, Jay. We have a need to brief. We approved our minutes. We had 2 items of public participation. We covered a really good presentation. Oh, sorry, John. Yeah, i'm not to to interrupt. But I I just wanted to mention that i'm going off planning board on the same schedule that you're getting your new members. and so I just like to say thanks. I think this is my last meeting is a planning board list on, anyway. so just wanted to let you know and say, thanks for good and interesting meetings and conversations.

[133:01] John. Yeah. enduring us, and and all the insight and and support and that you've brought here. So thank you so much. I didn't miss you. Okay? Well, thank you, and it's good bye. I I second that, John, you've been really a a great voice as a liaison, and really appreciated the joint meeting with planning board earlier this month or last month. John, you but it's been great, and I I I always want to tell you this. You have a voice for radio. He does. You could be like an announcer. You know what I mean. You have this great radio voice. That is honestly the first. You're the first person who ever said anything like that. So

[134:10] it's Tatty Here. you know you. You look good on TV, too, but he's right about the radio voice. We had to rewind a little bit because I mentioned earlier. I'm attending a seminar next week on missing middle housing in Denver, and the presenter wrote a book on this topic Dan parallel. So it's a a private event. I can't invite everybody along, but i'll take notes and send those note t0 0ut next week. It's hosted by the to Denver College of Architecture and Planning and urban design back to the meeting debrief. Yeah, i'll bring back food. Yeah.

[135:10] We had a really good discussion about zoning for for for real housing, but I think it's going to lead to a some recommendations later in the spring. We did not talk about listening sessions. We had some updates from Jason, net and staff. and our next meeting is Wednesday, March 20 s. We hope in person at 6. Pm. I will just return from a 2 week vacation, so I hope I will be somewhat focused and present. I will do my best. Any other questions, or do I hear a motion to adjourn motion so made? Let me see a second

[136:00] second. Yeah, we did. Yeah, okay, that's a hand all in favor. See everybody soon. Thanks. Bye, bye. they stay warm. You have it.