January 31, 2023 — Planning Board Joint Session

Transcript

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

[0:00] Community members. and there are no public hearings on today's agenda. So we'll start by just letting our participants know that the city is really striving into a vision co-created by the city staff and community for productive, meaningful, and inclusive civic conversations. And this mission is really designed to promote free conversation and dialogue, while also recognizing that we want to make sure everyone is participating. feel space, and we want to ensure that we make space for different viewpoints in our meetings. and we also have a lot of information on our website about what we call our productive atmospheres vision. If you. if you're interested in learning more. There are a number of rules of decorum that are crowned in the boulder revised code, and we have some general guidelines. their advisory and nature to share with all of our meeting participants. We ask that all remarks and testimony raised tonight be related to city business.

[1:00] and we will not allow any participant to make threats, or use any other forms of intimidation against any person in this session. Obscenities, racial epithets, and other speech and behavior that disrupts the meeting or otherwise, makes it impossible for us to continue in the moment is prohibited. and we also ask the participants identify themselves by the name. They are commonly known by into display their first and last name before speaking. So we we know who would like to provide input we're in the Zoom Webinar format which allows for participants from the public to speak at designated times. But we will not be training on video for community members because of security concerns. and we ask that you raise your hand. If you wish to share comments tonight. and on your screen you'll see a couple of different ways to do this at the very bottom of your screen you'll see a horizontal menu with 3 clickable items, and you can click on the hand, icon, and it'll let us know that you'd like to see.

[2:01] and if you have an expanded menu you can also get to the raise hand, Icon, by clicking on on reactions. So that is everything I wanted to cover. Thank you again. If there are any numbers from the public with us tonight and over to you. Chair. Thank you. Okay, so we'll move ahead with a little bit of an unusual meeting tonight. We have no hearings going on this evening, but we do have a very important informational. the session in front of us. And so. in order to do that, I just can let you know that this is a joint meeting with the Housing Advisory Board and and some the the technical review group that the city has assembled to deal with these issues. But before we move ahead with that

[3:00] we also have the opportunity for public participation. And so. because there's no hearing tonight. all topics are open, and so I invite any member of the public who wants to address planning board on any topic to do so now. and I think Vivian will run that public participation session for us now. So thank you, John. And as John mentioned, this would be the the time for you to let us know that you would like to speak. and then share your any comments. and I do not see any raised hands. Okay? Oh. we just had one mark here here. and you have 3 min. I'm not sure I can pull up the slide quick enough, but i'm keeping my i'm i'm timing it, and I

[4:00] I might interrupt you with the 3 min mark. Please go ahead. Oh, can you hear me now? Yes. okay. I won't be taking 3 min. I wasn't planning on speaking. I'm just here to learn more about the ins and outs of inclusionary zoning. But the only thing I would do is. yeah, it's not clear to me if to increase the amount of affordable housing in terms of what's required of developers from 25% above that it's not clear to me if it's a planning board who would make that recommendation to city council, or if it's a city council as a policy issue, they would decide on their own to do that. But that's my only common is, I would really like to encourage the city to have a higher. a threshold of affordable housing in. You know future developments. That's it.

[5:00] Thanks a lot, mark. Thanks for coming and sharing your views. Anybody else. I'd like to speak at this time. No other hands are raised. John. Okay, thank you. And Mark, I think, just to respond to your question. I think, on that issue. Probably planning boards likely would make a recommendation to the Council, but it would be a decision to be made by the Council dealing with the with the number that you're inquiring about. So all right. Let's move ahead with our study session, and i'll turn it over to Jay, and I think Jay was likely to invite everybody attending to introduce themselves. But they take it away. This is your night.

[6:01] Thank you, John. Appreciate it. Hello, everybody. I'm. Jason, that i'm with housing and human services. I am the senior manager for the housing side of housing and human services. I oversee the home ownership program as well as the Po planning and policy group so joined with me tonight. You'll see Michelle Allen, who is the inclusionary housing manager as well as Loan Wahlberg. who recently joined us from planning involvement services, so she should be familiar to a lot of you. So they are really the front line for inclusionary housing at the city. They are the ones that interact with developers early on in the project, and a project. help them to understand what their inclusion or housing requirement is going to look like and what the process is. So i'm just going to give a very high level overview. It's not if you could pull up the agenda or the Powerpoint. and then i'm going to turn it over to Michelle and Sloan because they're they're the experts and can really take you through it.

[7:08] Yes. Jay, you might ask everyone attending just to introduce themselves, and before we get into introductions, but I promise we will do it. Okay, very good. So I didn't. As John mentioned, this is really a study session. Think of this as the sort of one to one, a learning opportunity. It's really not a discussion about policy at this point. If you would like to have a policy debate. i'd be more than happy to go out for a beer with you at some point. But really, this is the opportunity for you to ask questions. How does the program work. We're going to get into some really the really nitty, gritty details and hopefully stimulate a a pretty interesting conversation tonight. So we're going to give you an overview of what the existing regulations are.

[8:02] We're going to talk a little bit about what the upcoming effort looks like, and most importantly give you the opportunity to ask those questions. So what we're looking for is this group to really help us to make the best recommendation to Council possible? So again. This is setting the foundation a lot more to come in terms of policy, alternatives, and analysis. So next line. So the agenda, we're going to do some quick introductions. As I mentioned little bit of background. I'm going to talk about the high level of affordable housing history of the program. Sloane and Michelle are going to get into the nitty gritty. And as I mentioned the next steps, we are going to ask you to pull, do questions to the end. Otherwise we're a little bit concerned. We might not get through it. But if there's a burning question, or if John and Sarah, if you feel like, there's a an appropriate place to stop and ask questions.

[9:00] We are open to that. Just felt. It might be a a little bit easier. and that a lot of questions might get answered if we just continue with the conversation. So a little bit of before we introduce everybody. So there, I think everybody's familiar with planning board. It's a quasi judicial board. You guys make decisions. You also make recommendations to Council Housing Advisory Board recently forms. Well, relatively recently, about 5 or 6 years ago. They're purely advisory, and meant to help Council address or give them advice on how to address our housing challenges. The group that you might not be familiar with is the affordable housing Technical Review group. So that's a a 7 member group they're appointed by the city manager and their primary role is to provide recommendations to the city manager on how we award affordable housing funds. so they're a little bit different as well. So they. They. There is a requirement for professional experience related to the affordable housing industry. There's one commercial lender with experience, financing residential projects.

[10:10] a realtor or the real estate professional, and then to as well at large. So I good. Now is the time for introduction. So i'm going to ask everybody to this very briefly give their name, which board they're with, and just what your profession is sort of what the expertise do you bring to the conversation? So, John, you want to start. You're at the top left for me. Okay, I do. I'm John Bristol planning board, chair. and I have a professional background as an environmental and water resources. Engineer. Thanks, Sarah. Sarah Silver Planning Board, and I'm. The executive director of a of a private family foundation that focuses on social inclusion and cohesion.

[11:03] Philip I'm. Full of Poker and I'm. On the Housing Advisory Board. I'm: a computer scientist. I work in a machine Learning Research lab Angela. I'm Angela Mccormick. I'm with the Trg. and I am 36 years as a real estate, professional in commercial finance, construction, development, and brokerage Laura. I am Laura Kaplan. This is my first year on the Planning Board appointed last April. My professional background is, I am a public policy facilitator, working mostly in California, actually water flood, habitat, restoration, forestry, those kinds of issues. Right. Mr. Yeah. George Boone Planning Board. My professional background is in real Estate Development Hospitality entitlements, and I'm. A a private developer as well. Commercial property.

[12:06] Michael Hi, Michael Easey, I'm. Chair of the Housing Advisory Board. I have a background in journalism, and spent the last 16 years. This executive director of urban land to Colorado. I retired last year, and I still do some consulting good to see everybody. Ml. Good evening. Thank you, Jay. My name is Ml. Robles and I'm. On the planning board. Also a Newbie been on here less than a year. My profession is, I'm. An architect here in Boulder. I specialize in small houses and a to use, and I am also a researcher. Mark Hi, Mark Mcintyre. I'm along with Laura and Ml. I, a freshman planning board member I had owned a technical engineering sales company for

[13:08] 32 years. I I also own some commercial real estate. And i'm consider myself an amateur at most everything. Danny, are you well enough to speak? I am Hi all Dante doro. I'm a real estate and land use Development Attorney. Have been on the housing board for. Wow! It's about 5 years now, so almost 5 years so nice to see everybody. You don't want to see me. Well, thanks, everybody. I think I got everybody I didn't miss anyone, did I? No. all right, so we'll keep going next slide. So there are 2 council priorities related to affordable housing that came out of the 2,022 session.

[14:06] First, one is what we're talking about tonight. And really the the direction from council was to revise the Ih code just to focus specifically on increasing middle income units, and we'll talk more about that. The other priorities, specifically for our housing and services was to launch the middle income down. Payment assistance pilot. I'm not going to talk about that. But if you're interested it is going to go to Council on March second. So just some background. That's super obvious to this group. So you can see the bottom line is area meeting income. That's really been relatively flat since 2,010 you could see sales prices for attached to the orange line Blue line. We finally broke the 1 million dollar sales price barrier for single family homes back in 2,020. I'm hoping that didn't quite. I won't. Get that flattened out a little bit this year. I'll i'll have a data in a couple of weeks.

[15:04] But I think you all know what the problem is in next lot. and it's something that the city of bolivars recognize that, you know. basically housing prices have been outpacing income growth, and as early as 1,966, we form the our or we formulated, or the housing authority. And then all through the years there have been different improvements. So i'm not going to go through this whole thing. There is a great. This graphic is on the website, and there's detail about each of these that I would. If you're interested. I would encourage you to take a look. The main thing I wanted to point out was that inclusionary housing was adopted in 2,000, and there have been 2 major updates over the years. So just like any program, it requires refinement adjustments over time as market conditions change. or, as you know, policy priorities change. So we're gonna do that again this year. But it's important to keep in mind next slide

[16:10] that you know the the City of Boulders program is extremely mature, and I would say highly so you can see that we have 3,815 units that are permanently. You restricted homes. So we're at about 8 point. One those numbers, I think, if we're going to get up to 8.3, maybe even 8. Point 4 with the new 2,022 numbers. So we're we're well, more than halfway to achieving our 15% goal. And it's also important to note that you know a lot of communities particularly immediately adjacent. So Lafay at Longmont, Lewisville. They used to provide our affordable housing, and now they're finding the same challenges we do, and are starting to adopt inclusionary housing programs, and they're really looking to Boulder in terms of

[17:03] providing guidance on how to address their problems as well. This graphic with the House in the middle, I think, is worth explaining the so this basically is a time period between 2,015, and i'm sorry. 2,016 and 2,020. So it shows out of every 100 units that were built new. This is new construction. 81 of those were market rate, and 19 were permanently affordable. So it's new construction. and that's largely through. I. H. And we'll talk about that more. But the the orange line is what's really important for. And the only way that we're going to be able to achieve our we're not going to be able to build our way out of it is that those 17 units we're also able to preserve, so basically acquire existing housing that was market rate and deed, restricting it and making it permanently affordable in perpetuity. So next slide

[18:05] another piece that I wanted to talk about just as as context. There was this pretty significant shift in this. It shows pretty dramatically. The the the system, as we set it up back in 2,000, served as well. At that time we were getting quite a bit of ownership I was. There was fairly decent mix of ownership and rental, and we were getting on site, ownership rentals, or ownership units. but that shifted around 2,012 is probably the most for now change. and that there was a a number of different factors. There was the great recession. Of course the housing bubble burst. There is changes in and financing as a result of that. There's also a construction defects, laws that were passed, so it's a variety of different factors. But what we're seeing is that today we're seeing primarily rentals and very few ownership. And and when we want we're we're talking about middle income and the need for middle income. It's really about ownership.

[19:11] right? Because middle income households they can typically afford to rent in boulder. It's when they make that transition from rental to ownership that becomes challenging. And it's also really the thing to keep in mind is, there is no State or Federal funding for ownership particularly. But when we get about that 60%, so we have to rely on those local funding sources to achieve those policy outcomes. All right. Next load. almost in just 2 more slides to to some, some context. So we're going to talk a lot about funding and how important that local funding is. So it's really crucial for us to achieve our affordable housing goals. So those local housing funds we get the the cash in Loo. the commercial linkage fees, the local excise taxes, property taxes that we that you all pay

[20:06] all of that gets leveraged with outside sources, 2, 3, sometimes $4 in State and Federal funding. so that allows us to produce more housing. so that that cash actually produces more housing than if we were to require those sites to be built, those units to be built on site. So that's really important piece to keep in mind. It also has lots of other benefits, so we can create a range of household types of serving different incomes So, primarily through our housing authority folder housing partners. we can serve people of much lower ami. So 50 30% ami really providing housing for people at different great. It also helps us to get preservation like I mentioned those extra 17 units, and we can use that to purchase that existing housing deed restricted.

[21:09] And we're not, you know, really disrupting the the natural balance of things. We don't get a lot of opposition to acquisition, like we do with the construction of new affordable housing in the community. But most importantly, this this map to the right. you know, one of the main benefits is that we get creator distribution of housing, so that we are able to preserve units. Otherwise this map would look very different. I think there would be fewer dots, and those dos would be concentrated in parts of the city where we're seeing the most growth so you can, we. So to me. The one of the main benefits is that it provides a a more diverse. geographically diverse, affordable housing. Next slide the last one I promise. So

[22:01] just by all our successes, I mean, there are still challenges. So the market emphasis on rentals that talked about the challenges of trying to get middle income home ownership units. You know the the fact that the housing market has been slow to recover. So you know, it used to be just boulder and mountains in the and the coast that with housing challenges now it's a national conversation. Every community is being challenged with affordability. and then, on top of that we have high inflation, as well as how your interest rates that are making Jones even more difficult. So we have lots of challenges ahead, and with that I turn it over to some. Okay, thanks, Jay. So i'm going to just sort of cover some high level. The affordable housing tools used by the city, and then some of the specific I. H requirements, and then i'll hand it to Michelle to sort of get into the nitty gritty.

[23:07] So just to sort of set the stage. Most people probably know this, but some of the commonly used terms and acronyms specific to inclusionary housing. first one being, when you typically hear the term affordable housing. It's actually referring to it what we would call attainable housing, which is housing that's affordable to individuals and families, earning close to the area meeting income and costing no more than 30% of their income. The City doesn't track this type of market rate housing in the city. So in terms of the program permanently affordable. Housing is deed restricted, and it's a portable in perpetuity. then area meeting income also known as Ami. It's a federal calculation based on census data for Boulder. So, because it's a median. Half of households make less than that. 100 am I, and half like more.

[24:05] So the income limits for both rental and home ownership are established at different percentages of that ami. and to qualify for the rentals or homes the household income needs to be at or below that designated. Am I? So in terms of how we define that low income households range from 0 to 60% of area Median income moderate would be 61% to 80. And then what we call middle income is 81% to 120, and then on the screen it kind of shows you to what that exact calculation would be for this year. It'd be $81,000 for a household to 3, 63,000 for a household of one. Okay.

[25:00] So it's important to note that inclusionary housing is just one of the programs like Jay was describing that the city uses to provide affordable housing the 3 regulatory tools that generate affordable housing our annexation, the Ih program, and then funding so planning Board is probably pretty familiar with it. But in terms of annexation. Yeah, a proposed annexation needs to demonstrate community benefit consistent with the Boulder Valley comprehensive plan. and that's intended to offset potential impacts of development. So for residential development, the emphasis is given to the provision of permanently affordable housing. That's typically 40 to 50% of new housing must be affordable. So historically annexations have provided sort of the greatest opportunity to create affordable ownership opportunities. But as the city sort of infills, when we come up against the growth boundary. That sort of appears to be decreasing.

[26:00] and then, in terms of funding, as J. Described, we do receive funds for property taxes and those commercial linkage fees. This graphic just shows that since 2,015 the city is received over 85 million dollars. and that includes Federal funds like Cdbg funds, and then that amount of funding for cash and Loo and I. H. Kind of varies year to year, based on development activity in the city. And this graphic finishes the outcome of the 3 tools since 2,000, and it also sort of reflects that decrease in ownership projects sort of starting and 13. You can see that big, different there. all right. So just to get into inclusionary housing. Generally speaking, inclusory housing, it's also referred to as inclusionary zoning. It's really a policy or set of policy that requires developers to set aside a percentage of new units to lower moderate income households at the low market prices

[27:04] for the city. These are codified in the land use code, and there's also a set of administrative regulations on how these are actually implemented. It's a mandatory requirement, and the int intent is really to increase the supply of affordable homes, and also, where possible, integrate into neighborhoods racially, socioeconomically. really taps into the economic gains from rising real estate values to create those affordable housing opportunities. So the I. Each program requires that all developments, regardless of size, contribute a percentage of new housing is permanently affordable So for developments with more than 5 units, the I each program requires 25% to be of new units to be permanently affordable. Smaller developments. including single family homes, have that 20% requirements.

[28:04] This requirement can be satisfied by one or more of the the options shown on the screen. They can provide the affordable units on site integrated into the development. That's what was originally intended through the program. They can provide the affordable units offsite on a different parcel of land. They can make a cash and loop contribution or dedicate vacant land for feature affordable housing development. I also just want to point out. There's some differences between the requirements for home ownership and rental projects. Michelle is going to get into so the details on that in a minute. And it's also just important to know, because the inclusionary housing requirements only occur in new residential development. The location, type, size, and other details are really dictated by developers. We can't influence the tenure of the development, whether it's ownership or rental, the location or any of the other characteristics

[29:04] that through the development process. Basically also just important to note that affordable housing has to be comparable and quality, design and just general appearance as the market units that are creating the I. H. Obligation. There's some specific liability standards to ensure that permanently affordable housing is functional, meets the needs of a range of types and sizes of households, meets code standards, and also has high quality, building, design and construction. and that's typically a refute review through the discretionary planning review process, but can also be done through sort of an off site review to make sure that it meets the requirements also just want to note that the required affordable units for development are of the same types and bedrooms in the same proportion as the market rate dwelling units. So that would be the same 10 year. Ownership versus rental.

[30:07] And then, just for your reference, the unit size requirements for each bedroom type are shown on the screen. and then the average unit size is used to determine what what's generated through the Ih requirements, and then the cash and loo amount is also based on the size Michelle is going to get into detail how that is calculated in a minute. So in terms of outcomes as she described for the first 10 years of the program, many developments provided those units on sites. But since the markets changed, and there's additional complications. Most projects now contribute cash and loo, and you can see here that's

[31:01] as of the end of last year that 63.8 million dollars. It's also important to note that the ability of a developer to provide it onsite is really related to the size of the project. That's because if you have a larger project, you may be able to use light tech funds to help some Federal funding that helps you from the project. So there has been a couple onsite affordable projects in the last couple of years, which is sort of a new new development. I think Michelle is going to talk a little bit. The change. Well, but really we talk about Cash and Lou as the workforce of the program. It's important to note that a developer can always opt for cash and loo, even when they're pulling a building permit. So sometimes

[32:00] they really can't give us an answer on how they're going to meet the inclusionary housing requirements until they are in the building. Permit process. But as Jay described by H is really a key tool in generating the necessary funding to produce that broader range of home ownership, opportunities and rental opportunities. And really the reason for that is because cash and loo contributions can be leveraged against other State and Federal funding to provide additional units and then so for 2022 that amounted to about 10 million dollars and cash, and if you saw in that earlier graphic is about half of all the housing funding sources for the city. So really the bottom line is that we're seeing very few affordable units produced directly through the age program.

[33:05] But as for all the reasons Jay described, it's cash, and Lou is still a really good option to satisfy the Ih. All the options that are given can still provide very. very much needed affordable housing in the community. So i'm going to hand it over to Michelle now, and she can jump into some of the details. Yeah, hello. So actually, can we go back one slide. I I just wanted to point out that up until recently, and i'll I'll go into more detail about it. Rental Projects really couldn't do affordable units on site without going into a public private partnership, which they were very reluctant. Well, none of them chose to do. and most development was rental. and so that kind of skewed the whole program over to new development, paying cash in loo

[34:02] the few for sale projects we had by and large also paid cash and loop. But since most projects were rental. the outcome was sort of a foregone conclusion. So we can move forward. That's changed, and i'll talk about that in a minute. So I wanted to talk about to 2 major issues that I think are frustrating for for planning board and for council, and that is the timing, and why we? Why the program was set up to allow developers to choose their option later in the process than most people would like, and the other thing is about why we allow cash in blue as an option at all. Actually. so the first one timing the program, as you, as I think most of you know allows a developer to change their option or decide on their option up until the time of building permits of middle. And this is Basically, because the way the process works is that developers get get get entitlements. So that's their site review approval.

[35:07] and then they go out and they get all of their partners, their banking partners, their equity partners, their insurance partners, and all those folks who all have opinions about this about whether they should put affordable. It can put affordable units in the project. And so they don't know until after they have the entitlements, and they're actually in the in the construction environment. They understand better understand the cost of the project. what the project is going to look like. And you know, there's a lot of a lot of costs that can come up through a site review review. Their density can change their road. Configuration can change. They could have flood mitigation issues. costs big costs and construction costs aren't yet what they're the environment that they're going to be working in.

[36:02] so they need to get the entitlements first, and then they go out, and they determine what they they now they know what their project looks like. They get all their partners in their equity, partners and everybody else, and then they can make an informed decision as to whether they really can put affordable units on the project. So a a Essentially, if if they were to try to commit to something at concept, plan and site review. They may have all the best intentions of the world, but but they may not be able to do it. They they really don't know until they got their entitlements, and they've basically got a project that they're working with So bottom line is that the decision-makers need to be comfortable with the proposed development, with or without affordable units on site. Compliance with inclusionary housing is guaranteed. They're going to comply. They will not get a building permit without complying. But we do. But but we do need to give them options, so that if on site affordable units aren't, viable, they, their project can move forward with a a a cash option.

[37:07] So someone asked me at 1 point. what if they do promise something at concept, plan or site Review. Well, you know, they should be questioned, because they probably are saying they might be able to do it. They'll try to do it. They may be able to do it, but it's unlikely that they can guarantee that they'll do it so next slide, so related to that is is the whole cache and loo option. Why do we allow it? Number One is because it's a great option. It's a great. The community benefit for the for the community. It provides significant benefit. As we've talked about both J. And Sloan talked about. We can leverage that cash and lew to get more affordable units, and we leverage it with funds that come outside the city State and Federal funds. That's money coming into boulder. That's a great benefit to the community.

[38:00] We can get a wider variety of housing and respond to whatever the council priorities are at a given time, whether it's transitional, currently supportive senior middle income. So we can be very responsive, and that the that money is critical for maintaining the existing affordable housing stock. and it ensures that option ensures that a development can move forward when affordable units, simply aren't viable. and they cannot be viable, because, as I mentioned, the the partners that they get after entitlements may, you know. First of all, they may not have a a viable project from a. From the standpoint of a return on investment they they they need a return on investment in order to attract an equity partner without return on investment. They have no financing. and another big complication is that there is a State rent Control statute. It was amended a couple of years ago.

[39:00] and it's making it easier for private developers to construct own and operate a formal rentals and a rental project. However, that State statute requires that the city offer a developer options other than just deed, restricted rentals. And so the most typical option is cash and loo. So hopefully that answers a few questions probably brings up a whole lot more. I could talk about it later. so next slide. So I wanted to just put this in, so people can see sort of the stack of how the city's affordable. Strategies. Serve everything from 0 income all the way up to middle income. so we call 0 to 40. Am I very low income? It's also a head term. and those affordable units are They're either rental units or their beds, or their permanently supportive units. Those come about because of local funding, which is primarily casual. And then these other leverage funds from outside the city, and generally most of them are done by Bhp. But we have other partners that do do do that type of housing as well.

[40:12] Then you kind of get into the the low income, which is 50 to 60, am I? And again, that those come about because of a funded projects, and are primarily constructed, owned, and operated by the city's housing authority, folder housing partners. They're going to. All of these are going to be rentals. and then you get to the inclusionary housing level. There's overlap. So a lot of funding for Bhp rental projects is at the 60% ami level, and most ih rental units are also going to be at the 60% rental level. So we're sort of a little heavy on 60% rental units in our requirements right now. It's something we're going to be looking at. I each. The rental

[41:02] am I is 60, and then there's a small amount that's 80, but most developers rental developers can't use that 80%, because low income housing tax credits Don't allow those it's got to be 60% or below. Then, in the Ih world we move into the for sale product. The most I H. For sale units are going to be priced at the HUD low income limit which is determined annually by a HUD, and right now it's at 71. So you can kind of see we're going 40, 50, 60, 70, and so that's 80% of I. Each units are at that had low income limit, only 5% of the or, you know, 20% depending how you do the math. But of the 25%, 20% are low income, price and 5% are this range of middle income pricing. which is between 80 and a 100%. And so the the low MoD and the middle income ih units would be for sale units.

[42:06] So next slide. So we're gonna run through really quickly. What does this mean? So 60 ami, which I said, we're a little heavy on that's sort of our rental metric. It's always been in the program, and in our funding world. That's sort of a go to. Am. I considered, sort of a a a, a workforce income, and the one person household. We're in 52,680, a 3 person household with earned 60, no more than 67 7, 40, and that's. Then the red rents are set to be affordable to those incomes. Next slide. Low MoD income is the is what most I h for sale units would be priced at. It's 71% ami, and that's a one person household earning 63,000 and a 3 person household earning 81,000. They can earn a little bit more because we want to have a range of buyers. These are for sale product.

[43:06] So there is a range around those incomes where people can qualify to buy these units next slide. and then we have our 5 middle income here in Ih program. Those prices are going to be set to be affordable to people earning between 80 and a 100 for 20. Am I? Again? It's a for sale product. It's a range. There are actually 3 tiers in there, but I didn't want to get into that detail. So one person household can earn between 70 and a 105,000, so that's the 80 and the 1 20. The 2 book ends and a 3. How person, household between 90 and 135. Again, the 2 book ebbs and people in between can qualify to buy those units. But we j we right now that th this is the the golden goose that we're chasing after. We would really like to get more of these middle income for sale homes. We by we I mean Council, and so that's the the goal of the update is to look at how we can get more middle income for sale

[44:12] units affordable units. Okay, next. So there's also been raised a question. That kind of comes and goes, which is but this doesn't make sense to do affordable home ownership when it's a limited appreciation product. People don't understand that product very well for many. It's the only opportunity to own a home in the city of Boulder. They might be able to own something out in Frederick, but they're probably not going to afford to own. Something in boulder. Limited appreciation ensures the home will remain affordable over time. But but some appreciation is allowed every year, and it's averages about 2% and over the time of of a, you know, reasonable amount of time for owning a affordable home. The affordable house, the household that owns the home will build enough equity, possibly for down payment for a market home.

[45:11] And and there are there are big benefits to affordable home ownership for lower income people, and the probably the biggest one is stability. It stabilizes families. It gives them a fixed housing cost that they can rely on. There's no and it rent e increases, and they can't. They, at least can't be canceled it, you know. at the most inconvenient time for them, and that means the kids have a lot of stability. So it's great for children, and the kids stay in the same school over the course of of the years that they own the home. So that's really beneficial to the community. There is a this sort of. you know. Pride of ownership is huge. It's huge to helping a lower income household. Really understand that there there are. There's help out there. There's people out there that will help them move up through, you know, through the income ladder and through the housing ladder.

[46:07] and you know there's been studies that have shown that people participate where they live, not where they work, but where they live. And so, When people own homes in boulder lower income people, they are much more likely to participate in the public discourse. so there are a lot of benefits to home ownership. But it's up to council and and planning Board's advice to to decide whether that they they outweigh the you know they the challenge in getting ownership units next. So these are some metrics around the program. So for sale units come from for sale projects if somebody has a for sale project, Ih says 25% of those units have to be permanently affordable. Again, they do have options, but if they would like to put those units on site, they do need to be for sale as well.

[47:07] And so, if they are going to put any or all of them on site, 80% will be priced at that low, moderate income level. And you guys have the print out from this presentation to study. So when we come back, you know, with our option, suggestions and recommendations, You know you can. This will be a good, a good thing to keep in your back pocket with all of these income levels, and what what do they mean? But 80% price for low, moderate income, which is currently around 70% of the ami and 20% priced for middle income, which is between 80 and 120, is the range. These products, of course, are going to be condos. They're for sale. They're occasionally single family homes or town homes, but by and large they're going to be condos. They're sold to individual owners, which means that they are just scattered. You know the the Ih Cod says they have to be scattered throughout a project. It's not a problem because they're just sold off.

[48:07] so they're in a integrated throughout the project. They have the same quality construction, because they're all constructed the for sale in the market at the same time They're mixed in a building. And as for the same reason, all the amenities are shared. The whole project will be turned over to an Hoa once it's all sold, and the amenities are shared. You know. The biggest problem we have with for sale affordable units is that the ho fee? Ho! A fees can can be high. That's a challenge, not for only for our program, but for I. H programs all throughout the country next slide. So this is a big piece of what we're gonna be looking at in the in the update. because the Council direction was to look at how we incentivize on site for sale and particularly middle income units.

[49:02] And so we have these 3 incentives. I just talked about this pricing split just as a reminder. So you can refer to that as i'm talking about this. So right when we, when we updated the program in 2,018, that's when we added the middle income tier, we went from a 20% requirement to 25, and that additional 5 was middle income units, affordable units. We knew at the time. It will be challenging for developers to provide those units on site. And so from the get-go at in that update we built in incentives to try to encourage and use a carrot to get some onsite for sale units. So the 3 that we have are small developments of less than 20 units, all permanently affordable units can have middle income prices. You don't have that 80 20 split. If they put half of the requirement on site, they get a reduction in cash in Loo on the other half that they owe. So when somebody does some onsite.

[50:06] usually the other. What what they don't do on site they pay cash and loo for that. and so there is a reduction in cash and loop. If they put half on site. then if they will put 75% or more onsite, then the pricing overall can go to a 50 50 mix of low modern middle income. So when pricing is is shifted to middle income, pricing, of course, that's more revenues for the project should make it look more attractive to put those units on site. So we're going to be looking at these because they haven't been yeah. They haven't been very effective, actually. for encouraging developers to put middle income units on site. So this is a big piece of what we of what Council wants us to look at, and where we'll bring back options the next slide, please.

[51:02] So I want to talk about rent control because i'm so sorry, Michelle, just that that that's last slide was actually fairly a little confusing. Yeah, sure. Go back. Are these incentives what we're discussing, or these the incentives that exist? I'm: Sorry they exist. We built them in in 2,018. Okay, and they I I would, I would say they were not robust enough to really make things happen which is a bit disappointing. But we, you know we continue so now i'm going to go to the rental side of the program, and so Many people are familiar with the fact that there is a State statute that for a long time prohibited rent control in Colorado. and the we could still implement inclusionary housing on rental projects, but they had to do it through a public private partnership. and that wasn't attractive and wasn't of interest really to anybody for a lot of a lot of reasons, and it didn't result in any onsite rental units

[52:06] which was not honestly very surprising. And so all rental development up to a couple of years ago, paid cash in loo in 2,021. The State law was amended. So that we didn't need a pro public private partnership anymore, and a private developer could own and the construct own and operate affordable rentals in their project. Since then we've had 2 large projects that have done that weather vein and Spine Road. Both weather games under construction and Spine Road is at the end of its entitlement project process. So. But the State law was amended with requirements, and we, of course, are subject to the State law that at least one other option has to be available to a rental development in it, you know, and another option besides providing rent controlled units.

[53:03] and the local government has to enact laws to increase density and availability of housing. There's a whole list of things that local government could do to meet that second requirement, and and Boulder has done a number of them next slide so rental, and this is set up a little bit like that for sale. Prud slide. So if a rental project comes in and we assess it for ih? And they say we want to put some units on site. They can be rental units. They could also be home ownership. It doesn't go the other way around home. Home ownership projects cannot do rental units unless they want to do something like a lot more of them, which they don't like a 2 to one or something. It's a a less desirable product. But rentals could go to a more desirable product, a rental project that wanted to do to do home ownership, and we did have one that did that ken.

[54:00] So So a rental project comes in. They want to put units on site. Let's say a a weather vein type project. 80% of the unit of the required affordable units, which is 25% are going to be have rents affordable to households, earning no more than 60% of the Ami 20 for 80, although neither of those projects he utilized the 80% here because they did utilize low income housing tax credits to build those rental units, and those don't allow Well, one of them utilized tax credits. The other one did not but tax credits. Don't allow 80% rents to be utilized. So there's a mismatch here. We'll be looking at that in in the update. There are no incentives, because when we did this honestly, the state statue kind of controlled everything and made it virtually not possible for rental developers to put rentals on site

[55:06] again. That landscape has changed. We're excited about it, and we do expect more rentals to be provided on site in the future. So the rentals are, of course, going to be a apartments which are different. They're not condoed out individually. They're not individual legal things at the get go, so they can be provided in 2 different ways, according to the code right now, because we weren't sure which way would be the most utilized, the the best approach. So we kind of left the code in 2,018, where they could do the the rental units either integrated with the market units similar to Condos. or they could subdivide off a part of their project and do create separate lots. And then there is essentially a separate project under different ownership, because it's going to be a lie tech partnership ownership. It's a a different entity.

[56:02] So in the integrated scenario, of course, the share a minute shared. Amenities are sort of a given, because the units are in or interspersed with, market units in the buildings, and everybody shares the amenities of sort of just a given. They they're under the construction quality will be the same as the market unit, because they're going to use all the same subs, and they're going to use all the same materials. And do. The construction is the same for the market and the affordable units, and it'll be under the same owner management typically, although they could have a different management company that manage their affordable rental units. In this scenario. In the in the separate scenario shared amenities are complicated, but they are required by the code, and we do enforce that they've got to share the amenities. It's not as easy when you essentially have 2 different projects that are funded differently. But and Again, we have only one example of each of these so far, so it's not like. We've got a deep experience in this.

[57:07] The quality is not ensure insured, because it's a separate project, so it's not the same subs. It's not the same building materials it's, you know, so we do have to keep a close eye on the quality of the construction and the materials. and they're going to be separately owned and managed. Then the market project. So move on, please. so to give you an idea of what rents look like. So the blue portion of this table has 50, 60 and 80% rent. The 60 and 80% rents are what the code we requires. Now. if somebody comes in, they want to do onsite affordable rentals. These are the rent for this year. They're adjusted annually. They are adjusted based on HUD data. and

[58:02] you know everybody uses the same numbers. Essentially. We don't set these reps there, but they do reflect the what a household at 60 or 80% am. I can afford. But notice they go by bedroom. They do not go by size. That's sort of an industry standard. and then I put the 50 in, because we are thinking that it might be good to create a a broader to in increase the range of who Ca: of the rent of the rental side can be created to inclusionary housing because we do expect more onsite rentals in the future because of the change to the State statute. And perhaps we want to consider adding a 50% tier. 80% will keep, although they're not going to be able to be used by most people. and then I went out, and this was very. very off the cuff. I looked at 3 recent developments. So this is new construction.

[59:03] And I basically just went on their websites and look at what they're what they're marketing says that they're charging these days. and these were the the rents that they had. So it's a a bit, you know. It's quite interesting. especially the 0 bedroom, which tend to be very small, of 450 to 500 square feet, and they are by and large, charging $2,200 for this. and then the one bedrooms again. There's a range for all of these, because they've got some it, you know. So I kind of. I kind of did an averaging things sort of the average rent, so they they have units that are higher, and some that are lower. But, as you can see, they they're getting up there, 2827. That's almost 29. The 2 bedrooms are 3,000 to 5,000 a month. So kind of crazy. the rams that are being charged these days, so affordable rentals are still needed, much needed in boulder.

[60:00] So next slide, please. So I actually did this as an exercise internal to staff, and everybody thought it was so interesting. We all thought that you might find it interesting as well. So there's a lot of confusion around. Why, things play out slightly differently in different projects, and so I wanted to sort of go. You share this with you. You'll again have this in your back pocket for further conversations. but it it kind of follows that other chart that I just showed that with the you know the for sale and the rental onsite. So there's I have one chart for onsite and one char for offsite. And so again for sale projects that do units on site, They're going to be dispersed because their condos they're going to be constructed at the same time as the market, because they're in the market buildings. They're going to have amenities shared through an H. A. And their design and finishes will be the same as the market rentals. On the other hand, we have the 2 models dispersed or aggregated.

[61:04] The construction timing is required because it's on site to be concurrent to the market that can be challenging. Amenities are typically they have to be shared for either whether they're dispersed or aggregated. and then the design finishes are either going to be equal to the market or separate project, which is one that we have to keep an eye on the the, on the quality and the design and the finishes. and then the land is a different animal. A land dedication is the other option. We've only ever done 2 in the program since 2,000 so 23 years. But again this might be something that we see more of in the future. This would be a piece of land that is within a project like diagonal process. It it. It is a piece of land on the site of of a project, and i'll talk in a minute about a piece of land that is elsewhere.

[62:01] It that's used to satisfy I. H. The result of that land that is dedicated to the city. We don't keep it. It's basically land banked, and our our lay, the the the the housing authority holds on to these pieces of land that we're going to build projects in the future. The city doesn't keep the land. We we turn it over to our designee, according to the code, and that will always be the housing authority. And then they're gonna do a project on it. It will be a 100% just like any other funded project that you see, like rally sport or some of these other ones, you're gonna see a project that is aggregated in a 100% affordable buildings. The concurrency is not required according to the code. Right now it's land banking, so the land is going to be used to build affordable housing at some point in the future, so it does not have to be built at the same time as the market project that gave us the land. Amenities are not shared because it is essentially a separate project.

[63:02] and the design and finishes we have confidence, and because it will be the housing authority, and they do very nice work. and then I kind of left annexation in here because annexation could be whatever is in that annexation agreement. We have certain things that we negotiate for currently, but annexation agreements are negotiated, and then they can sit up on the shelf for years, and so they pop up, and they've got all kinds of you know they can be an annexation agreement from 2025 years ago. and they can have all kinds of things in them. So they are. It annexation is a little bit of a of a you know, loose cannon. So now for offsite same thing. If somebody says i'm, I've got a for sale project, and I want to give you units offsite somewhere else. They can be dispersed or aggregated. Dispersed means probably they're going to buy a single family home and dedicate it to the program.

[64:00] They could buy a condo. Nobody's ever done that yet. But again, the future who knows what the future holds. or it could be aggregated into a whole nother project. True Corners is a is a project up in North Boulder, that is all for sale, and that was an offsite project provided for by 2 9 North. That big rental project, 2, 9 north. So that was a 100% affordable. It's lovely project. I think people are really happy. Happy there. But and it's a for sale project. The construction again needs to be concurrent to the market. That's challenging. Actually, I I I that that's not correct. The construction can be within one year from when the market development gets at CEO the amenities. If there again, this is off site, it's nowhere near the market project. Probably we don't typically put amenities into affordable projects, and so we don't require them for offsite projects. We want housing.

[65:03] and when. And you know again, if you put in amenities, you have an hoa, you have the hoa fees it. It's not necessarily a great thing for the for the owners. They want nice housing. They don't want a bunch of H. A. Fees to to support a bunch of amenities that that's definitely what the HP. Has found, or what we found. And then again, the design and finishes depend on what the the the they're doing. The single family homes that we've gotten through inclusionary housing. We got the last one, probably 16 years ago, like single-family. Homes are not very attractive anymore, because it's hard to find one that you know that works. That is, that that the cost makes it worthwhile to buy a single family home, and indeed restrict it for rentals if they do them off site again. They're going to be they they! They propose a site for these projects.

[66:02] We do have a review process to determine whether the site's acceptable to the cities. So there's a whole process around that there's criteria for the site. You know. What kind of zoning does it have? Is it compatible with the adjacent community, etc. But the site is proposed that that again, is going to be a 100% rental project. The this is the the concurrency for both of these actually one year from the market project, they do have to put up a financial guarantee to ensure that the project will come online and come online relatively soon. There are no amenities required for offsite projects, and it's the design and finishes are something we have to keep an eye on. and then land when it's provided on elsewhere. Offsite that would be Mount Cavalry gonna end up with a, because we've only ever done the 2 an aggregated project. In other words, a 100% affordable project to concur. Concurrency is not required with land. It's land banked, and a project is is developed when there. There are funds, and

[67:09] you know, capacity to develop it. So it's it. What the land dedication option is really a land banking option. There are no amenities typically required in a funded project, and then the design and finishes are determined by Bhp. So so those are just 2 charts for you guys to have and to think about as we move forward with the the update. and so let's move forward with the next slide. So now we're going to talk about cash and loop. and how we do cash in Lou. So right now we have 2 categories for cash and loo developments, with 5 or more units and developments with 4 or fewer units. They're kind of separate tables. larger developments with 5 or more units. I have a higher cash in loo

[68:00] just across the board, then developments with 4 or fewer units. The reason that that division was done. and it was done back in 2,009, I think, update to the to the program was because there was a desire to sort of keep. I H. A more modest for single family homes, and and these, you know, for a fewer unit developments that that was the desire of council at that time. single family, which is the highest amount of cash in Loo town homes, and then, like a duplex to an aplex, there's a middle amount of cash in Loo, and then large attached, which is primarily large apartment buildings, has the smaller, smallest amount, but they're They're actually not that much different from each other. But there is a slight difference in the casualty between these 3 products. The cash and loo is determined, based on the gap between a market and affordable prices.

[69:00] But it doesn't differentiate this. This gap analysis does not differentiate between for sale and rental units. That is not what we're seeing in other programs. So best practices is something that our consultants are looking at, and we might want to divide it out for a calculation that's that separates out of for Sale Gap and a rental gap, and it can be done. The amounts are based on the average floor area of all units in the project that's very typical, and it's applied on the sliding scale for you to. If the average size of units is 500 square feet, it'll be lower. It's a square foot. It it results the whole. The whole methodology results in a square foot. cash and loo amount. and so a 500 square foot unit. We'd take that square foot of mountain multiply times 501,200. You would do the same, and everything in between. There's a a big table. You can pull it up on our our website, which will give you the link for

[70:00] but it it it's capped at 1,200 square feet. So if the average size of units in the development is, say, 2,000 square feet. The cash and loo would be the same amount as if the average size of unit was 1,200. This was again built into the program when the program was adopted, because there was a desire not to not to to require a higher cash and loop for bigger units. That probably has changed. We'll find out, because it's certainly one of the options that we're going to talk to you guys and Council about. But so one thought we have is that this 1,200 square foot caps probably should be either eliminated or moved. Quite. You know, back when the program was adopted in 2,000 units were an average of 1,200 square feet. That's not the case anymore. Okay, so move on to the next slide. So again, what do we do with the money? People always want to know?

[71:03] They're combined with other funding sources. They're competitively distributed. That's what our Trg is for to help us determine what the the funding applications, who should get what amount of money funding requests exceed available funds pretty much across the board always. So. There are fund rounds where people who want to build affordable housing come in, and they they petition the city to get funds to do their projects. And again, as we've sort of driven home, these look, our local dollars are leveraged with dollars outside of the city. so the money is used for construction of new affordable housing, preservation, which is the acquisition and rehabilitation of existing housing and land banking for you future projects and other minor things. But those are the big 3, the next slide, please. So I did want to talk about our policy around Demos and rebuild, because it's something that we are probably going to propose a a, an update for

[72:06] right now the way the code is written, and this has been in again since the code was adopted in 2,000. If you demo 4 or fewer units, I. H. Is waved for the new replacement homes. This a primarily applies to single family homes. That's where we see it play out day in, day out. People are demoing single family homes that are modest and fairly affordable, and rebuilding much larger and more expensive homes. However, a new home on an empty lot. Should you be lucky enough to find one not replacing a demo at home, can't qualify for a waiver. So this isn't really equitable. A new home on an empty lot is going to be assessed for ih. But if you tear down a house and build a new home. You're not so. There's a that that you know it's not not really equitable policy. A. And it's becoming more and more of an issue where smaller homes are replaced with much more

[73:00] what much larger, more expensive homes. And so we're right. Now, Staff is thinking that probably keeping it at at this for so if you, if you demo more than 4 units, let's say you demo 10 units, you don't qualify for a waiver. It's capped at 4, so keeping that for. But if somebody demos a for a fewer units, and particularly a single family home, that they, we would assess them, for I h for the additional square feet over what they've demoed essentially. So the this is so let's see. Let's move on to the next slide. So our Ih Webpage is very robust, because there's a lot of good stuff on there. There's a handy unit and caching new calculator for developers, so they can put in the numbers for their project, and it will tell them how much the cash and Lu is, how many affordable units are required, and what affordability level they would be, would be priced, or the reps would be set at.

[74:09] There's link to the Ih code and the administrative regs. There is a cashingly worksheet as a Pdf. That you can print out. It's that scale that I I was talking about that you guys might be interested in. There are 2 cache, 2 affordable price sheets, one for low MoD, and one for middle income, and then there's a a rent table that for the rent that applied. I. It's like the table I showed you. and other different forms and things are on there. So we're again. We've already started the ih update. We've hired a consultant, Kaiser Marston, and associates also known as Km. A. They're looking at best practices for these types of you know, updates like onsite middle income, and how we determine cash in Loo. Then they're all gonna. They will help us to to test the feasibility of any options that we bring to you. So we make sure that they are actually feasible.

[75:07] and they're gonna. They will have recommendations on updates based on their experience with what we hire them for next slide. So the Council of Direction again was to explore strategies, to increase middle income housing. This is our strategy right now is to primarily acquire middle income housing through increased funding, not so much directly through Ih. Because in order for I to produce middle income housing, we need more for sale housing to be built in the city. I. H. Is a function of what is being built. So to that end we would like to look at the incentives and strengthen them or look at things that are maybe going to be more effective. We also want it again. To increase funding. One of the strategies is to have cash and move for larger homes, and then have this cash and loo requirement for for single family homes that are demoed and replaced

[76:11] next slide. And of course, since we're coming in with the whole program for updates, we will be looking at some other more minor program updates that we think are important, and that are responding to sort of current conditions. One is to modify those adjusting our cash, and lo! Not not so much of the account. Sorry my missing some. but the methodology for how we determine cash in Lou. And there are a bunch of other minor tweaks that that the code needs to be kept up to date. So next slide, please. So I have a few different projects. Schedule slides for you. This one talks about the project, schedule and and community engagement.

[77:02] It's pretty high level at this point. We're still working on our community engagement approach. We've already hired the consultant and started our initial initial analysis. They will be working through May, giving us some interim sort of reports and feedback, and the final report, though they're not really expected to give us until June. so we will. Still, they'll be moving forward on alternative development and testing while they're doing their work as well. Then we will go into our stakeholder feedback phase in May and June, and then into the code Development phase after that. And one thing I do want to say about this is that you know I I want to add a quick note about the community engagement approach It's expected that increasing affordable housing and opportunities will advance racial equity in the city. But we're also taking into account the intended and unintended impacts of housing policy on racial inequities in the country.

[78:08] and we've completed the racial equity instrument for the Ih update, and that's included in your memo. so that that will just be ongoing, as it says at the bottom. Racial equity assessment is ongoing, and we will develop monitor and revise strategies to identify and address impacts on racial equity as the project moves forward and we are looking at options. So the next slide. So these are some of our initial Somebody ask you a question or okay. Sorry I saw our our. This is sort of our initial plan for levels of engagement. As you can see. January, we're kicking off with this 101 for planning board

[79:01] and the cabin and trg. In the spring the city is going to do sort of a world cafe kind of format to form the public of housing priority work related to housing. There's a number of initiatives that the city is doing related to housing. So we will be included in that outreach. and that includes the occupancy work. The updates to inclusionary housing the middle income down payment assistance zoning for affordable housing things like Boulder Junction phase 2 which will have a bunch of affordable housing. So there is a number of things that will be folded folded into that in June and July is when we will probably have some pretty mature options to put on the table, and we will be going to, of course, boulder housing partners, who is our main partner in developing and creating affordable housing. The Trg. The housing, Advisory Board Planning Board, and of course, the public. and then in August is when we expect to get to after we get feedback on the options from everybody. In June and July we will go to City Council for the code updates. So first reading and then the public hearing.

[80:13] and then after that, in September and October. We have to update the Regs before the code updates can go into effect, because we need the Regs in place to implement the code next slide. So again, this is sort of an overview of the approval schedule. Third quarter will be coming to planning board first. then code updates to council, and then fourth quarter we will be updating the Admin State administrative regulations, and the new code will go into effect. So that is the end of our presentation questions. So I know I went fast. I didn't want to take up the whole meeting time with with this, because I know there are a lot of questions that people have, and

[81:06] you can always refer back to it, too. to the presentation. Thank you. You're welcome. Let's let's hear the questions. I see Philip has this hand up right away? Well, I have more of a comment than a question, but I can rephrase it as a question. I I have been thinking about a to use lately, and about occupancy lately. and I wonder if you've thought about ways to have have some synergy with occupancy and a to use like it. The one of the things I've been thinking about is there's a lot of vacant rooms in Boulder, by my estimate, probably about 30,000. I'd love to have someone give me better data if they have it. But I could. I could give you my detailed analysis of of the data I used.

[82:07] I think it'd be super cool to think about ways to use inclusionary housing policy to incentivize people to let out rooms at affordable rates. or to incentivize building a to use that would would be permanently affordable. Maybe there'd be a possibility for small grants or small incentives to homeowners that would that would take on an affordable renter. So anyways, I, just because because all this stuff is swirling about occupancy and and a to use, it seems a little strange to to just have this completely separate over here, where where we just focus on new housing and buying off existing housing. So i'll just do one comment at a time. So I Won't be too long-winded. Okay.

[83:02] So Jay or we can move ahead if you we yeah, I'm: not sure. I have a a great response. I I understand what you're saying, Philip, in terms of the Android connections. but I mean the incentive for it to use. For example, with I is that it doesn't apply to an idea. Yeah, it only applies to the principal 20 same thing with occupancy. But I get what you're saying. Is there a way to incentivize both of those things through? Ih and I don't. We have to think about that and get back to you. George. Yeah, okay, thanks on the topic of the presentation you had mentioned at the front of it. The idea of the middle income housing

[84:02] being 28 to 30% of someone's income. and I I would like to understand, is sort of the breakdown to understand what that means, because there's lots of ways to slice. That meaning. Does it include the interest and principle on a mortgage? Is the mortgage assumed that a 30 year am. Or a 15 year am. Does it include the property taxes include the insurance doesn't include the utilities just. It would be helpful, because there's so many be helpful for clarity, I think, for us, and and just to just to understand what goes into that calculation. So you know, we can understand sort of the parameters of what that 28 to 30% really means sure I can. I can address that. So it's a reverse mortgage calculation. It is principal interest in taxes. It also has a multiplier in it for for mortgage insurance.

[85:00] It is based on a 30 year mortgage with 5 down. and that is what most affordable buyers are. That's the product that they're probably going to get. We don't have our homeowners. We ship people here, Jamie. You might know that. But you know that the affordable units aren't necessarily. They don't people don't get, use all the mortgage products to buy them. They They're gonna typically use a 30 year fixed mortgage because that just makes their payments affordable, because that's how the calculation works partially, but that that's the way it works does not include utilities. Rent, rent does include some utilities. It's sort of a utility credit. You know it's not. It's not obviously the exact utilities that everybody has. But there's a utility credit figured in to the rents. so that we so the rentals we do at 20% of income

[86:00] and the the for sale are at 30% of income. Thank you. And the that that was that was super helpful. I was just trying to then, and and just along that line current boulder am. I remember last time we got a presentation it was somewhere around $103,000. What is that? Yep, and that I think that's a family of 3. So it it's actually divided out by number of people in the family. So the ami is this range, and I think 103 is is, and is, the am I for a family of 3, meaning half of the families make more and half make less. Alright, thanks a lot. Sure. Michael. Thank you. Like my colleague, fellow from Heb. I think i'm going to be more commenting than questioning. But just give you an idea of what the discussion it's been like

[87:01] in our last several meetings. We've really been talking about zoning quite a bit, and if there's any utility toward affordable housing by some incremental intensive, splitting them single family lots. For example. we had a a presentation on that from a national expert. It December, which is very interesting because it suggested you Don't, really get a lot of affordability just from that simple resoning for a greater lighter density. And we see that in Boulder there's a lot of town home development going on in boulder now, and it's a very hi price point. So I appreciate Michelle's comment about the challenges with single family homes, and some of that is because the homes are very large, but even in these more a compact town home development we're seeing really high price points. So I think what we have been musing about, and not anywhere near make a recommendation. But it's just a conversation. Is.

[88:03] Can we be looking at some incremental zoning reforms combined with Ih? And so, if a developer were to do, for example. for luxury town homes. There is an affordable home ownership. Opportunity included about that. Some of these newer development have are more than 5 there. I don't. I don't know a number, but it seems like they're 1520, so it doesn't get at that issue of a broad scale affordability, but it does provide more affordable, has potential with some more social mixing potential to slightly reverse the the trend in public school registration which is so much. and my final comment is, you know, there are potentially a couple of large larger tracts of land worth. In that way. You could get more bang for your buck with such an approach not to endorse this but there's certainly been discussion about the airport recently.

[89:03] it's 138 acres planning area reserve, too, and even commercial areas that are under performing that have large parking lot. So I I see some potential there. It's conversation, and we've been having it have, and i'm hoping we can come up with some good recommendations, might recommend the the city housing staff for the really great job they've been doing in a difficult environment in this presentation tonight was extremely informative. So thank you for that. You know, Michael, I I would say that we we meet weekly with the planning staff working on the the zoning incentives. So we're all definitely talking to each other on the same page, because we have to make sure all these tools work together that can be really tricky. They can do something that really really interferes with. I. H. And I. Age can do something that really interferes with some kind of zoning tool that they're looking at. So we're definitely coordinating on those efforts.

[90:03] Yeah, and I it wasn't, suggesting that you weren't we we had Karl Giler come to our last meeting. Some of this. Some of the information he gave it was almost like a teaser in that regard, and I thought, Well, there's some good thought heading in the right direction. We'd love to hear more of that mark. so I want to second all the praise for the presentation. I've been waiting for years to kind of have something like this. I've only been a playing board for a year, but but in in other circles to understand the breadth and depth of our inclusionary housing ordinance, so that that was really great. So i'm going to make a statement, and then to 2 questions the statement is, I. It seems like we can all agree that affordable housing is good

[91:00] and more affordable. Housing is even better. and the quote. The first question is. if I understood the slide correctly. Our current regs seem to incentivize fewer units and larger units. At the at the lower end of those number of units. and I I I don't understand why we would do that so can you. you know. Give me your best guess as to why we have. if I'm understand it correctly, incentivize fewer units and larger mark. Can you? Can you clarify for me? Why, Why, you think that's the case, like what tool is, is. go back to the slide that well, for instance. we don't, we cap

[92:01] the inclusionary housing fund requirements or requirements at 12 or 1,300 feet. So if I build a 6,000 square foot. single family home, it's treated the same as a what? I I forget what the number was, but a a smaller unit. and and we and we treat so a smaller number of units in a gentle or easier fashion than a than the 5 or more units. So you know. So what so it it's kind of like we're being deferential to larger units, larger, fewer units. Then a developer says, hey, I want to build 20 units and small compact, and so forth, and by using a unit designation, and then by having

[93:07] the cap of the adjustment be in the low tens of hundreds. We're we're, we're giving people building 3 and 4 and 5,000 square foot units a bit of a free ride right? So much so. So those are 2 updates that we're addressing historically. Why, why that was done. It's sort of interesting, I mean, I wasn't around. I was probably maybe not a teenager, but I wasn't around when the program was adopted. There are concessions made from the city to the Development community, so they wouldn't oppose the adoption of the program. One of them was, we will not penalize larger units, and that's how that 1,200 th. This is the the urban myth that was told to me. I I I can't confirm that it's true or not, but this is the explanation that I've always understood it to be

[94:06] that you know it was a it was a concession. There was a number of concessions made to get the program adopted originally, and one of them was to not penalize larger units. Well, that's probably L. Run. It's course that lived its course, and that, of course, back then in the year 2,000 huge, huge homes. You know that this the home sizes are smaller, so it made more, you know. There was a little bit more logic to it. So one of the things we're definitely looking at in the update, as I explained in the slides, is is actually removing that cap and saying, You know that that that isn't serving us anymore. And now we need to rethink that the other one is that. And and I don't know that we're going to. So the other one is that there's a 20% requirement on one to 4 units, including single family homes. It's a lighter requirement. and that was a desire of the Council, and I I was there. I did. I've done all the major updates that so I did the 22,009 to 2, 2,018, and

[95:08] and the the discussion that Council had at that time was, we we want to keep I. H. On a single family home, but we really want it to be a lower amount. We we we want to make sure we're not, you know. impacting the development of single family home. So so there was. It was just a different time and a different desire for what they wanted for the outcome. So so we've split up that table. We put a a smaller amount of cash on the one to 4 units, and you know that's that's what was adopted, and there was a there was a you know, rationale behind it, but it's probably again served its purpose, and maybe we need to rethink it. So can I just add on to that a little bit. So just to expand on Michelle I mean I I I know where you go and mark I mean I don't, but my opinion is, I don't think inclusionary housing is what's driving larger units and fewer of them.

[96:02] I think it's the zoning code a developer doesn't show up at the you know they they're not that devious. They're not looking at the the cash. A new table to figure out Why, it pays slightly less cash, and little. If I do larger, fewer, and larger units. I would say it's our open space requirements. It's everything else is driving that I h is just iing on the cake, I would say, and and we are working to adjust that. But don't think that simply by changing our age, we're going to change what developers build right? Great I that both of those answers are really helpful. I I will say yes, it is, if it's icing on the cake. But you know you add icing in the middle layer. And so, you know, if if you anyway, it can all add up to potentially a different result. The the the next question is, and I think this is more pertinent to today. If I, if I read this Council correctly and community activists and so forth

[97:09] we still hold out on-site units, as being so far superior to off-site or cash in loo that we not only have great incentives now, for onsite units. We're talking about increasing those which. if you, if you do, the math. would actually result in fewer affordable units. And so the question is. are are we? What is the in in a city like Boulder, where we don't have large expanses of lighted areas, or really areas that are highly undesirable that someone could do an offsite or cash and blue development

[98:01] when we, if you take just looking at Boulder, and not Chicago, or something like that. why do we hold onsite units to such a level of superiority that it results in substantially fewer affordable units being built. Yeah. it's great question. I mean, I think you framed it. Well, Mark, I mean it. It's a policy question. And I think in the past that there has been a strong community sentiment that cash and those that offsite. Is that that true integration is what the program was intended intended for, and that was the case. But we were getting ownership at the time with with the shift to rental. with everything else that we talked about in the presentation. I think it's a valid question for council, and for

[99:01] these will be for you guys, is what is the greater benefit. more units or onsite. Okay. Okay, I think that that is an an excellent topic for further discussion among the Board as well. So I I hope that we can have a coherent discussion on those issues. Alright, Great? Well, thanks thanks for indulging me and and answering as best you could. Yeah. And then I would add, mark that you know the program because of the way it's legally positioned, and it was adopted. The legal, you know. foundation of the program there there always has to be a unit alternative. We have to. We have to offer that to a developer. We have to say you can provide units or you can provide money. We can't go to a pure scheme where it's just like, yeah. So you know we we. We want that to work as as well as it can.

[100:01] right what it in. In fact. if one could make the case and it works so well that we get 3 or 4 units in the market that are affordable for every one unit that would be located on site. So if I I I just I I I hope that when that when this is presented to planning board and Council, and we make our our recommendations and council votes on it that is really weighed, as is an onsite unit 4 times the value of an off-site unit still located within the city. because that to me. That is what what's being shown as we get 3 to 4 offsite offsite units. using cash and loo for every unit that that would, if we

[101:00] adhere to the goal of integrated onsite units. Anyway, it's a valid topic for discussion, I think. Let's move on. Yeah. thank you. I want to also support the thanks to Staff for really informative and great presentation. I'm. Sure I will go back and watch it and refer to it and pull up the slides so much information. So thank you, Michelle. Thank you, Jay. Thank you, Sloane, for an excellent presentation. I have so many questions, so i'm really glad we're having this discussion. I will limit myself to just a couple, for now, like Philip did, and maybe we'll come back around just following up on what Mark is saying, I I think i'm hearing that. you know you showed a slide saying Council gave you a goal, and that goal was to increase middle income opportunities. and part of the way that that has translated is into this inclusionary housing program, which does provide middle income affordable opportunities.

[102:04] But it's translated into middle income on-site ownership. 3 components, and and it's not clear to me from looking at the Council meeting in November. where Bob was questioning it. Nicole was questioning it. Matt? Benjamin was questioning it. There was a lot of discussion about like, is this the right tool? Is this what we really want to focus on is this: Should this be the focus of our efforts? And I know that we want to kind of narrow down in this conversation to just talking about the inclusionary housing program, because that's other things are on the table, too like occupancy a. To use zoning reforms, all of that will get talked about. But even in just this conversation around inclusionary housing. You know, I was really intrigued by something that Michelle mentioned that. you know, in the inclusionary housing can be used to support priorities like transitional housing, permanently supportive housing, senior housing. And it's not clear to me that Council Mit.

[103:08] like I am all 100% in favor. I think your ideas are fabulous for increasing the pie right, increasing the pot of money through increasing the inclusionary housing fees on tear downs and rebuilds that are much larger, and and that kind of thing you had like a list of things that you can changes that you're considering. I think these are wonderful ways to get more money into this program. My question is just about whether I hope that this body and have and council will have a robust conversation around what really is the number one and number 2 priority for how we use that increased pot of funds because it's not a 0 sum game exactly, but it really is. If if we're really going to focus our efforts on increasing middle income ownership opportunities. lot of resources are going to go towards that above and beyond what some of our other priorities might be. So so that's kind of a comment. But it the question, I guess, in that is. Am I missing something like? Was there a conversation at City Council where they said.

[104:04] we really need to focus on not just middle income and use this tool for it but middle income ownership on-site opportunities. Can you point me to that? I? I can give you a little bit more context. Maybe that might help. No, I think you you're spot on with your sort of your perceptions and analysis. So this has been the biggest nut to crack, and you know. Every jurisdiction across the country is struggling with this, I would argue. and it started back in 2,017 when city council adopted the middle income, housing, strategy. and what the big outcome from community surveys and whatnot is that when people want me who are renting and boulder want them to make that transition to ownership. felt that they had to leave Boulder to find something that was affordable. and so trying to retain sort of that

[105:01] more of that middle. because the Barbells were growing. We're doing really well with low and moderate income. The the wealthy we're doing just fine with housing and in boulder. It was that middle that was getting squeezed out has all sorts of implications for school district, for you know the diversity of our socioeconomic diversity of our city. So I think that's where the fixation came from, and the desire to try to address this problem and stuff we've been trying to be responsive. So, like we talked about. We adopted those tools in 2,018 created more incentives. I think Part of what we want to go back to council with is. these are still the huge challenges. That's why we we have that slide. We still have all these big challenges. We we Haven't figured out exactly how to do it. And we're not entirely confident that we're gonna. But by simply increasing the incentives that we're gonna somehow magically get more ownership

[106:02] doesn't. Mean we shouldn't Still keep trying. Does that help at all? That is helpful? Thank you. I think we're all struggling with it it Clearly how, having people leave Boulder because they want to buy a house is not the ideal outcome. and and so that is, that is helpful to see where that thinking has come from, and why Staff are trying to be responsive to that? I I still have questions about whether it would be our number one priority, for how we spend the additional inclusionary housing money that we might be able to increase the pie by. I think we should still have a conversation about that, but it's really helpful to have that that piece of information. Thank you. I'll stop there and let others take a turn. Okay. Sara. Thank you. Thanks, guys, for a great presentation. I I have 3 questions. I will put them out there, and you can answer them at at your leisure. The first is, is there any discussion of increasing the annual percentage of appreciation that's allowed in the for for

[107:07] future for sale options. I have heard from a couple of people not a lot that the very small appreciation that's allowed is it sort of a disincentive to home ownership in these, in the few but hopefully more affordable. Ih for sale units. So that's question number one. My second question has to do with. Is there value in an updated housing choice survey? Our last one was 2,014. That was, I think, for in commuters in 2,015 was missing middle, or maybe it's turned around the other way. But it's 10 years, almost 10 years later, and a lot has changed, and i'm just wondering if.

[108:03] as we think, through the incentives related to the specific slice of the inclusionary housing program. whether having updated housing, choice information might be valuable. And then my third question. And this I think this is a secondary question to this particular conversation. Is, how would new Ih Regs apply to the East Boulder sub-community plan. So since that has a lot of units that could come online in the in the near-ish future. I'm. Just sort of curious what the implications or impacts might be. Those were my 3 questions answer them at your leisure. Oh, okay, I can do that. So the first one, the annual appreciation. So the the reason why we have limited the appreciation for permanently affordable home ownership homes is so that

[109:03] because the idea is that home is supposed to be affordable in perpetuity, right? So future residents and 51 years have to be able to afford that. So it's tied to income that, and that's what ensures that it remains affordable over time. So if we had a higher appreciation, right, we wouldn't be serving the same income levels as we currently do. Would that be true, even if it was just a 1% increase in the I'm just sort of I I don't. I'm. Sure you guys have done the then run the numbers. But yeah, I mean so 1% doesn't seem like much. But if you do, one compounded every single year in 50 years, that that home is not going to be affordable to anybody so. But there are other options. As Michelle talked about in a, and I know exactly who you've been talking to, because they're not happy, being in the program.

[110:02] But it's really not intended to be a a lifetime and solution to everybody. So the average tenure for our homes is is 7 years. A lot of people take that opportunity to purchase the home, to build equity, to get that down payment, to be able to purchase in the market. that doesn't work for everybody. But and we do have people that stay longer as well. but they still. you know there lots of folks that if you we did a survey the list last every we did. 9 out of 10 people said they would purchase a home again in the in the program. and you know, the similar percentage said that their financial stability how it dramatically increased as a result of purchasing their home. So there are lots of benefits but the the appreciation rate, and we're going to talk about this as part of the down payment assistance pilot on March second with Council. Yeah. In the outside. One other thing I want to mention, so there are also allowances for capital improvements.

[111:05] So it's it's not limited to just the cap you You can make improvements, so I say you swap out your carpets to hardwood floors. There are allowances for that, so that would increase your your future sales price and your over all appreciation over time. Does that answer your question, Sarah. The first one. Okay sort of a news news survey. We i'm sorry just for clarification for you. You mentioned trying to keep parity at wage growth. my understanding of the nominal growth per year nationwide, and I know what it is for boulder it's around 5%. So I guess that's my question. What you said, and and also we fit cpi and inflation all those things. So I I guess, to Sarah's point. whether or not

[112:00] 2 the right number. I I think it may be worthwhile just to understand that a little bit better. because things are changing rapidly both through inflationary things and cpi as well as wage growth. And so if we're trying to tie it to wage growth. I I don't know that 2% is tied to wage growth. So, anyway, just just to just a point to of clarity. Yep. Now I appreciate that. And yeah, and I was overly simplistic. So it's a combination of of every meeting income as well as the consumer price index. So there there is a formula that we use it doesn't mean that it can't be reviewed. I guess My only point was that it has served as well. But your point is, we'll take it with. particularly with the significantly high interest rates for the last couple of years. I I think it is worthwhile, and we are just now building capacity and the home ownership team.

[113:03] But I think that is something that we could undertake in the next year or 2. And yeah, we we have heard from others. But I just wanted to give you the background. Why. we that that why we have it, and but how we we pop it out is is certainly up for debate. So, in terms of doing a new housing choice survey. We we haven't budgeted for that, and don't have any immediate intentions. My guess is, we would hear a lot of the same things that we hear now, or that we heard back in 2,016, and so not to say that we might not learn something new. But we're still trying to sort of implement the the policies that we have. And we're we're still trying to climb out of that resource. Constrained environment. Surveys are really nice folders, really good at studying issues and doing surveys so.

[114:02] But at this point we don't have any plans to do that I don't know, but that could change. And then the new Rex for the East Boulder area. So basically, once they and Sloan can probably talk better. And you guys know more about one that would apply. So once those regular regs are effective, Michelle said, for a quarter of this year. That's when they that's when new application comes in. That's what applies at that time. Does that answer your question, Sarah? Yes, and I guess I've asked Sloane what I i'm. I'm kind of asking you to do this on the fly. But would that mean 25 of the whatever is developed? Whatever units are developed in East Boulder would be in the permanently affordable pot. Yeah. So I know there's a lot of language in the area plan about sort of maximizing affordable housing, especially in certain areas. But at this point, in the planning process that Hasn't actually been

[115:14] codified in the land use code. I I know they're looking at possibly like creating a new zoning district. So it's that Hasn't happened yet. So if something were to develop in the next year or 2, the standard Ih. Requirements would apply. But I think the vision is to sort of increase opportunities for affordable housing. So hypothetically, it would be higher than that. 25. If it's on site, or you know the cash of new payment. Okay. let's see, Angela. I wanted to make a comment regarding the fourth quarter end of year for 2,022, because the statistics look a little different than they were in 21, even though 21 on a sales side, was very robust because of Covid.

[116:10] So in the city of Boulder, at the end of this past year 24% of the homes that sold were 2 million, and above and 59% of the homes that sold were between one and 2 million. So that's 83% of our home sales exceeded a 1 million dollars. So the pie is rapidly shrinking for folks who are just trying to stay and trying to buy into town at or under a 1 million dollars. So I think revisions to the Ih program are really welcomed, and we really need them. So that was just comment Number one. And then I had kind of a question, for I guess Jay and and well, and so on. And, Michelle, when you're looking at formulating changes to the Ih policy, I'm: just curious.

[117:01] Does demographic data in terms of the generations at play? You know the homeownership groups coming in now with are the millennials. They're roughly 28 to 42. They're in their home buying years does that play into how you look at You know what of opportunities you're trying to create and and what kind of product types you're trying to create. I'm just curious and just asking. I I can attempt to to answer that. So, Angela, the way I h has been developed and put in place, and it's true of all the programs around the country. The the program produces a subset of whatever the market produces, and the market takes all that into account with their market studies right, and then they decide what product they think is going to be. You know most well, first of all, what what is it they want to build, and what a what can they then sell or rent? So I it doesn't really drop isn't really driven in that way. If if if if their market studies

[118:05] to compel them to build micro units. I. H get some micro units, right? So it's really the Development community that decides what the product should be based on their market studies that make sense. Yeah. Totally. Okay, thanks. And then Carla Cardin does that? Does that include Bhp: When Bhp. Develops its own product or fistle or habitat for humanity like? Are they doing market studies, or what are they relying on when they do their products? They are definitely doing market studies. Matter of fact, they're required by their banks because they all have loans. and so market studies are pretty much required, and you have to just show that there's an adequate mark market for whatever. So Bhp is different. They're doing a hybrid. They're trying to do Meet what the market study says is a a desirable product in the community, and meet city goals and build things that you know They they confer with us

[119:02] for what what we we're interpreting as city goals, and what Council wants, and what the call plan is looking for, and that that type of thing. So so Bhp is straddling in the middle as far as the product, you know, and that's more like they're trying to be me City goals for who they serve, and the product is what their market study, says the product should be. you know, I mean so. So they're a different animal. They're they're definitely a different animal. Thank you. I'm sorry for interrupting Angela. Oh, no, that's fine, and I just had one more comment. I just know this because I sold property in town for a long time. when Markel and coast to coast. I think Markel brought the annexation in out in Northfield Common, so that's northeast Boulder. The folks know where Northfield Common Common is. So. And, Michelle, you can jump in here at any time. 36 town homes were built for the middle income, you know, ownership program.

[120:07] I can't remember. There's 3 streets. You're a it's one of them. And then there's 2 other streets. and the product type was brilliant, because people never move. Those units hardly ever come on the market. And some of those units, or many of those units have original owners, and they're probably 20 years old now. So it it. It's just an example of building a neighborhood and the right product, and the product is flexible to town home 3, you know, 2 beds, 2 baths up a basement that was able to be built out with another bathroom and a garage, and people love them. So yeah, so I would just clarify Angela. That's a good good observation. They're beautiful homes out there. and that was annexation. So when the annexation is negotiated, it's not. I age it's it's staff trying to interpret what we think Council is looking for in annexation and looking for in a house and community benefit.

[121:10] So it's a little bit different, because we have a lot of control in a in an annexation. We don't have. you know, like I, I said with with I H. It's a subset of whatever the market is producing and an annexation. We can go in and say you might want to do single family homes, but we want duplexes because we think because that controls something for affordability, you know, for whatever reasons we might say, we want this other product type. We can do that in an organization we can't do it in. I H. We can't say you're oh, you're gonna build apartments. Well, you know. Now you're going to build some duplexes. We can't do that in a in Nih, but an annexation we do, and we do it all the time. And and actually our current sort of rules of thumb for negotiating exam annexation is the affordable for it. Not be a single family.

[122:02] because we don't think Council is looking for a bunch of single family homes At this point through annexation. They want to get more housing and more affordable housing. So often we will say, whatever you build. An annexation has to be some kind of attached product. See? I'm trying to give everyone a chance here before repeating Lisa. Yeah, I think this got touched on and I apologize. I was having some Internet connectivity issues. I don't want to jump the gun, so i'll just say. but i'm very curious to hear what a little bit, perhaps about what might be going to Council in terms of down payment assistance program, because when I think about missing middle. I think about preserving. you know, existing middle income housing as opposed to building new, because that's a lot more affordable. And then I also think about how do we subsidize people to actually be able to purchase homes who might be more than affording the mortgage payment already depending on what they're paying in rent, but who cannot scrape together? You know that much for down payment.

[123:07] Yeah, it may have been touched on what while I was on having some issues, so I just want to acknowledge that we may already touch on that, but I would appreciate it. A quick recap of that or covering of that if we didn't get to get into it too much. Yeah, yeah, Happy to you. Thanks, Lisa. So yeah, and I didn't really cover all the different tools that we have for it, only requiring middle income. So there's the pilot that's coming up March. Second Council will discuss it more detail, and we'll go into the the different tools that we have currently in more detail, just for context for council at that meeting. But primarily we have a down payment assistance program. Currently it's called Home Ownership. where we provide up to a $100,000 down payment for we. We do not require a deed restriction. but we, when they go to sell, or they basically have to provide us

[124:02] a share of the appreciation. So it's an evergreen fund. So we get that money back, and what You' about to a new household that's been relatively successful. We've probably had, you know. couple of dozen people participate. The other is, we started purchasing units on the open market. buying them down. This is sometimes we have to do a little bit of rehab and then reselling them to middle and come home home owners. And that subsidy is anywhere between, you know, $100,000 and closer to $200,000. Those we do need to restrict because we buy them down. and that home remains affordable in perpetuity. So those are 2 different tools. And then the pilot that's going to be discussed by council is kind of a an interesting hybrid of the 2 where we're going to provide a down payment assistance. The home owner is going to pay that back, but in exchange they're also going to accept a deed restriction. So it's a it's definitely a different animal. It's a little more complex. And so that's what we need to check in with council on what are the right parameters, and appreciation is one of those big questions. What is the appropriate appreciation? Right?

[125:12] So yeah, so there are other tools out there, and that's part of this whole discussion. But again, it's not. I. Age is one of those many tools, and that's sort of our approach for affordable housing. How many different tools can we have in the toolbox? And let me ask just one other follow up question. How is that program communicated or advertised like? How do people learn that they could take advantage of it. I mean, I I know that if I go and I like Google down payment assistance folder, right that it will come up. But how? How else do people learn that? That's even something they could take advantage of? Yeah, we we've been working on that a lot. Actually, this just the past few months that we change some of the parameters. So the H 0 program, the shared appreciation. If you made it to page 17 on your annual letter from the city from the city. It it was there. It was a full page app trying to entice people

[126:08] so, and and we have gotten one person since then. So it it worked. We got one. but it it. It is kind of challenging, and we so we've tried to work with local realtors. But if anyone has suggestions on how to get that word out, we have a nice handy flyer. We do. You know we we've done social media. You might have seen it. Probably not. But it's competing with a lot of other things that are out there. Thank you. Okay, I I think i'll jump in with the question here, too. I think we've made a full round now. I was wondering if you could embroider a little bit on the on the pro on the land banking program that I think Michelle mentioned as one of the options for that that developers have available to them just to provide some sort of equivalent value of land.

[127:05] That, then either is automatically goes to older housing partners, or could be retained by the city for other purposes, too, I suppose, if they decided to. Can you describe a little bit more how that works, and how? Yeah. So the land does need to be used to produce affordable housing. It can't be used for the because it's part of the Ih code. and it says the land to be to to be dedicated for the production of affordable housing that it conforms to the Ih kind of code parameters so essentially the way it works, and we've only ever had 2. So we don't have a lot of experience, but they we, we, basically They propose a piece of land. We have some criteria for the land. It's got to be a clean title. It's got to be free of environmental.

[128:00] But you know contamination, that kind of thing. So there's some parameters in the code of what the land could look like. It's up to the city manager to decide whether the land is acceptable or not. It gets appraised, and then that value is, we take a look at that value as compared to the cash and loo that the project widow, if the land is not equal to the cache, a new amount they pay the difference. If it exceeds, we'll still take your land. The land we won't give you anything back. It's never going to be exactly right. So typically you're gonna see a piece of land being donated. That's going to be less than the cash a new amount required, and then they'll make up the difference in cash and loop, and then it's land is banked again. The city does not hold onto it. We dedicate it to Bhp, and that's again. That's part of the land dedication part of the code. So it's a. Dedicated to our, you know, a a developer of our choice, but the the market developer does not get to decide who who the land goes to. That's up to the city, but they dedicate it to us, and we just bet, dedicate it right on to Bhp, and then they will develop it when they have the capacity

[129:14] it will probably. So there's some things about that land dedication that we're going to propose some updates to the code. because right now there's a little bit of a disconnect, because we probably would have to put money into that project. The the delta of that casually will probably not be enough to to develop a project on that land. So we need to sort of. Look at that and decide what that should really look like. And yeah, so then eventually be Bhp. Holds it. They're holding a number of P parcels of land right now for future development and and sort of feeding them into the development queue as they have capacity or it makes sense. They develop a project on it. so so does it have to be a piece of land that Bhp. Is actually

[130:02] eventually interested in developing, or could they just own it and and flip it to, you know. and use the funds for for some other purpose that they want to do. I I don't think it would be in the the you know the the code is written that it it needs to be developed according to you know, in conformance with I. H. So no. I don't think that it would be okay to just flip that land. But that's something. The whole land piece needs to be tightened up a little bit, and again, we've only ever done 2. Mount Calvary. What's the land dedication from Fraser Meadows, and then we have diagonal plaza. That is doing a land dedication. So we've learned a lot from those 2 land dedications and have ideas on. But there's it's not a policy change at all. It's just sort of some tightening up of that land dedication code language. No, they they can't take it and flip it. Matter of fact, they sign. So when when the land is dedicated it. It. We don't even it doesn't even pass through us. It goes directly from the developer to Bhp. But we have, but then we execute a Land dedication agreement with Bhp. Because we're not just giving them land right

[131:15] There's an agreement, and it says you must use this land for X Y. And Z. We have the opportunity them to reject the piece of land that they think is unsuitable for developing. Yeah. So it's the HP's decision. It's no Well, I mean we would definitely talk, you know. So again, we've had 2 in 2023 years, but in in both cases you know we talked to Bhp is, is a is it? You know it's it's a piece of land that is, you know, that is attractive, and that you can do a project on. And again it was Mount Cavalry, which is going to be a beautiful project, a senior housing project. and then Diagonal plaza.

[132:00] So that'll be rental. So yeah, we definitely we we confer with them, and we probably the city would reject the land If Bhp. Said, You listen. Housing and human services is not a good piece of land they're kind of they. They would kind of advise us on that. Yeah, for sure. Alright. Okay, Michael. Excuse me, I'll see to one of the dance. Because I've already, it's commented, although I would like to comment again after they're done. Oh, all right. all right. Oh, I think Dan Rotner was in in line before me. Oh, go ahead, then I I I didn't have up there. Okay, Thank you, everybody. I just those of you who don't know me. I I have been a member of the Trg. Since. If it was 2,013 when I first started, so it's been a little bit. I think i'm wrapping up my tenure on that

[133:06] on the on the group. But a couple of comments here, because I I just first of all I want to say it's it the staff at housing division I mean the challenges of assessing these funding applications. They're extraordinarily complex. They're often delivered under tremendous time pressure. and and I I found just what my take away over the time on the board is that and this also ties to some of the commentary. I think Laura made commentary earlier on how the funding that goes into the into the pot for the catch blue, how it's allocated the assessing. The relative merits of these different applications is extraordinarily difficult, because they tend to be very diverse. I mean you have. You'll have a habitat for Humanity Project next to permanently supportive housing. Next to Rehab, funding and understanding just in terms of the scoring of these different applications relative to overall policy objectives in the city of boulder. I think that's very difficult, and and I think Staff is. Does an admirable job at sorting through all this information and providing recommendations. They do. I mean, I think they provide great information. But.

[134:17] as I said to say, all right, we're trying to promote middle income housing. making sure that the cash and move funding is allocated according to those overall policy objectives. I think you really need to try and have some sort of a scoring system to allow that more objective assessment of the relative merits of the different applications. You've got some very, I think, very worthy nonprofits and working in boulder, and their ability to present these applications is, you know they're organized. To do. This is what they do. They apply for Grant funding. and and sometimes it's, I think, going to be a matter of one of the challenges for staff and for policy standpoint. How do you say? No, to really worthy

[135:06] and needy nonprofit who's dealing with one issue when the targets of the overall policy shape by by the City Council are going in a different direction. So that's just my brief comment, and I just had one quick follow up question from very early on in this. In this discussion. the on the a. To use, there are incentives for a permanently affordable AD. And i'm curious how what the uptake has been in terms of how many ads have been delivered under that incentive program Is that something that's worked, or you know the desire to get more e to use. Maybe that's that could be potentially low hanging fruit to change the shape of that program in a way that would increase the appeal. Because I I think a lot of the I don't think people give up a lot in terms of rent necessarily when they create an AD that meets the the AI guidelines. But I think there's some complications in the in the program that make it less desirable than it might otherwise be. Anyway, that's all I've got for now.

[136:14] Thank you. Thanks, Dan. Great question. So, counsel. Just last Thursday I had a study session on it, and the latest the do updates. So and so, if you really want to know more, they did a great job of explaining how the program works. but just very quickly, so the the affordable ads are not permanently affordable or not deed restricted. What a home under does is they sign a declaration of use, agreeing that they will not with the for the unit for more than 80% in my. So they basically agreed to charging a certain red level. So they do that in exchange typically for not having to provide an onsite parking space for the edu to get a slightly larger size.

[137:08] And there. So it's basically built in, and we wanted to provide more flexibility for the construction of an AD. But in exchange we wanted to make sure those routes are affordable in the long term. I would say it's been fairly successful. I don't have the exact number, but I was surprised. I want to say it's close to half, or I can't remember which way are of the new units have been built since the regulations have been adopted. or consider the portal. but keep in mind. It doesn't mean that they have to rent it. So it just means that they have to agree that if they do rent it. That will be at that affordable rate. So I think Council will be interested in continuing that as well. But yeah, so that's a little bit more of it. If you want more of the last Thursday study session, it's a great resource.

[138:01] See you, Michael. Thank you. I don't have questions, because again the steps. It's such a great job to answered all of my questions during their presentation. So more comments, i'm afraid discuss back to what Mark Mcintyre was talking about a little bit in 2 respects. you know. I think you could summarize a lot of this conversation by saying we're getting a lot of housing that we don't necessarily want not enough of what we don't want. and it and i'm really encouraged to see discussion of the the very large home issue. because, as an effect on neighborhood character as well as affordability. So again, if there are zoning amendments that can be considered, that would allow some lots to be split in a way that also incorporated. Ih: I think that's worth further discussion also really appreciated

[139:02] Angela bringing up Northfield Commons and demonstrating the benefits of looking at larger parcels of. So you can call plan that if we can be creative, maybe we can find more of those in the future to create more middle income housing, so I don't think the onsite and affordable, and the offsite cash and loo housing are mutually exclusive that you know we should be pursuing all the all the tools we have to create diversity and housing types in various locations. So those are my comments. Thank you. Morning. Thanks, John. Is it okay, to be more on the comment end of things rather than the question end. Or do you want me to save comments for later? Maybe after the ring.

[140:01] Okay, I will lower my hand then. Thank you. Sara. I also have comments, so i'll lower my hand. How? Later? Okay. man? Okay, let's take a 5 min break, and come back with being ready to share your wisdom here. so we'll start again at the 827.

[145:35] I guess i'm the first one back, but i'm not kind of soap boxing anymore. Well, now, it's your chance. But I was just thinking, with respect to to Daniel's questions. It was a a pity he wasn't at the HIV meeting last week. where a lot of those numbers were presented. Also.

[146:25] John, if I may. i'd like to ask Staff. There's a visual that may help me with some of my comments if you are able to pull it up. It was not in the presentation tonight, but it was in the presentation that you gave to city council. Back in it was October 20 fourth, or something like that. There was a slide that talked about how much it costs the city to produce middle income housing by various methods like how much injection of city cash you have to do to do a to buy a unit, and then resell it at a lower price. Or there were like 3 different options

[147:01] with different price points for the city. I don't know if you're able to find that, for when we start back up I could try to find it, too. I'm pulling up the presentation. So. Okay, Thank you so much. You know where it is, though, if you don't let me know. Well, I've got the deck, so I can imagine it's in there, Jay. Do you know which slide I'm talking about? I know exactly which one. Okay, that's very impressive. If you can bring that up so quickly it's not okay. I'm trying to figure out. Are we all back here? I think we are. No. Do we have Lisa. Yeah, Lisa. Well, Lisa Isn't in her picture. Daniel Ml. Are still not showing their faces. So if they're here.

[148:03] please let us know. All right. We'll give him another minute, and then we get going again. Okay, you're here at least somebody. Okay. Okay. All right. So, Laura, your hand was up first, or do you want to wait for that to slide, to appear before you talk, or are you ready? I can wait, Sarah. Do you want to go first? All right, thanks. So a couple of comments. I I i'm a little concerned that there's a slight misunderstanding of what it is that's what city Council has asked Staff to do. They haven't? Asked staff to rejigger the entire Ih program. So it's about minute middle income housing.

[149:03] They're asking them to review and revise the slice of the Ih program That's for for sale affordable middle income housing. I I I just feel like there's been a slight piece of just a little bit of I don't it's not misinformation it's just in in, and it's inaccurate description of what it is that I think staff is working on so. And to that point I really like Daniel Rotner's suggestion of some very clear correct, as I use the term scoring system that would give the folks who are on the Technical Advisory Board

[150:01] some some very clear, common criteria that will allow them to effectively balance all of these competing projects. And maybe so. I think if Staff can think about something that will a lot give them that a tool that will help them, so that they can find the right balance of very low income rentals low to moderate rentals, and this slice that is for sale. that I think would be a very valuable addition to the toolkit for the city. and I personally think that this is a very important slice of that. I. What we're talking about tonight is a very important slice of the Ih program. We've talked for many years now about the sort of dumbbell effect of we have housing at the low end. We have housing at the high end, and we don't have a ton in the middle, and this is one of those

[151:04] efforts to get more of that. So I really appreciate that we are having this conversation, and that Council has has focused on this. Those were my comments. Okay. Nora. You ready? Yes, thank you. And I have a few, and I might forget some. So, hopefully, i'll cover what I want to. So I apologize if I've misunderstood the focus of what this update is. My understanding was that Staff is looking at the inclusionary housing program for its third update, and that a major focus of this update is trying to increase the production of for sale, middle income housing as opposed to anything else that you could be focusing on with this update. So if I have misunderstood that, I apologize, but I do understand that you're not going to take the whole pie and shift it. It's just it is looking at that slice, and how you can increase it is that's what I thought I understood from the staff Memo.

[152:04] So I like Sarah. I do agree with the suggestion for clear scoring criteria for the Trg to help with how to understand when they have all of these different competing needs. In front of them, like transitional housing, supportive housing, halfway housing, senior housing, low income housing, middle income housing kinds of projects. how they would weigh those against each other for the available funding. and that's for that funding piece, although I think staff are also looking at some developer incentives for what's required. When we do a site review project, for example. I I do want to caution. So I did read the memo about the use of the racial equity instruments. and it looks like the racial equity instrument. kind of slightly, maybe punted on the question of whether increasing the share of funding that goes to middle income Housing might have a disproportionate racial in impact as compared to taking that funding and using it for low income low to moderate income housing.

[153:08] I you know I I don't have the demographic figures in front of me, and income by by racial breakdown. But My basic understanding is that racial and ethnic minorities tend to be disproportionately represented. The lower that you go in the income slices or tranches. and so I do have some concern that if we are shifting resources or taking our expanded pie of resources and dedicating it towards middle income housing. I I think we need to acknowledge that that that is perhaps not the most. The best way to use those funds to boost up racial equity in boulder. middle income. Home buyers are probably disproportionately white. So that's not to say we shouldn't do it. That's not to say it's not an important goal. But if we're going to be honest with ourselves, and how we are using our funding. And what is the racial impact we should talk about that. So I I I don't want us to sort of glide over that, and just say, Well, any increase in affordable housing is a is a good thing for racial equity.

[154:09] because I guarantee you not? Everybody is looking at it that way. mostly with these comments I want to think about or talk about some of the things I have heard that staff could be considering in this update specifically about inclusionary housing, that I think are really good ideas, and I haven't yet heard them a a signal boost for these particular ideas, and so I want to signal boost them. One is one thing that Lauren Ful Kurtz mentioned at the City Council meeting back in October was the idea of not just when you scrape and rebuild a house larger. But if you're just adding a a big addition onto your house, if you're taking a single family home and making it larger. it's perhaps significantly larger. That is not currently subject to inclusionary housing fees, as I understand it, and it perhaps could be so. I think that's something that she suggested taking a look at, and I think it's worth taking a look at.

[155:01] Aaron talked about another of Lauren's ideas. That one thing that the city could do to encourage the onsite inclusionary housing is that if a small project is meeting the inclusionary housing on site that it could be done by rights and not have to come through site Review. which, I think is another idea worth taking a look at like, how do we give people a break on the site review process? If they are meeting what we really want in our goals for inclusionary housing. So that's another idea. I wanted to boost. And then something else somewhat related to this discussion, hopefully related. You know. Nicole brought up that Nicole spear in the City Council meeting brought up that one of the reasons why people want home ownership opportunities. It's because that is one of the major equity building tools. It's generational wealth building. It's in addition to the stability and the freedom to be creative with your own home, and what that that means in terms of your embeddedness in the community and your pride in your community.

[156:06] But one major reason why people want home ownership is to build wealth. and I don't know if if the city has considered or looked at. you know. Are there things that we can do for people that are in our inclusionary housing or affordable rental programs to help them build wealth. And there have been some experiments around building equity for renters and financial literacy for renters in affordable housing programs in places like St. Louis and Cincinnati, I could forward some articles. I don't know how successful those have been. I don't know how widespread those things are used. I think it's worth taking a look at, because I do think that the ship has kind of sailed on market rates affordable middle income housing. The market is just not going to produce like we were talking about middle income housing. It's not going to produce single family homes, or even duplexes or town homes for the most part that are less than a 1 million dollars. Right? So how can we, as a city, help people who are renters to to build their financial literacy and build equity and build wealth.

[157:10] And I think there are tools to do that that we could maybe explore, and it could maybe some day become part of the inclusionary housing. What we do with our money from inclusionary housing, and this is where I wanted to pull up that slide, J. And slow. I don't. I don't know if you have that slide from the presentation to city council that talks about. How much are we injecting into these various products. Right? Thank you. I think this is just so instructive, right? So for new rental construction it looks like. Tell me if I've got this wrong. It costs the city 80,000 to $110,000 per unit as a subsidy to get that done. Basically ownership acquisition, 100,000 210,000and new ownership construction 500,000 to $600,000. Am I reading that right, J. And Sloane? Is there more you want to say about this like it?

[158:01] No, I mean you. You. You read it correctly that there is a huge discrepancy between the that's why Mark started off, saying, You know how many additional rental units we could get for each new ownership. So we tried to make that super clear for council. and I think it is part of the the conversation. It has to be part of the the policy discussion. Thank you. And so so this is what i'm focusing on right now is like that half a 1 million dollars for each unit of new ownership construction that the city has to inject. And i'm guessing we don't get back. This isn't like shared equity, and we're going to get it back when the house is sold this is like a one-time infusion. We'll never see it again. How many people could be helped with some kind of equity building program for renters that we wouldn't have to do a 500 milliondollar dose per family right? But we could help more. People build wealth in more ways. I'm sorry. Could you clarify ownership acquisition? I'm not. I'm not clear on what that means, exactly

[159:02] sure. So that's the example I gave of of the city. My past couple of years started going out and buying basically condos on the market and doing a little bit of rehab, and then reselling them, buying down the price and reselling him to an eligible buyer in the affordable housing program. That estimate is actually a little low. It's it's really 100,000 up to closer to 180,000 depends on the number of bedrooms. So we've been trying to purchase more. 2 bedroom in 3 bedrooms, and of course those are at the upper end of that range. Does that help it it does would be, would be interesting to to Laura's point. So when you talk about the ownership, acquisition being, let's say, 100 to 180,000, and being 2 to 3 bedroom. What with the new rental construction, would that also be 2 to 3 bedroom? Or would that be closer to 0 to 2 bedroom.

[160:04] Michelle, do you remember? I think it's the same in terms of you know the range depending on the size of the construction. But oh, you think you think the 80 to 110,000 for rental units is 2 to 3 bedroom, and you think the ownership acquisition is also 2 to 300. Well, it it's it's a bit challenging to compare the ownership versus the rental, because the the this is city subsidy, right? So new rental construction. That's typically what we help Bhp: with the subsidy. So we're filling their gap. They're getting all sorts of other financing through, you know by tech State and Federal other State grants. So it's kind of like comparing apples and drop oranges. unfortunately, but it's just for comparison. What the subsidy is from this expected from the city. Got it but the but it might not be an apples to apples. It might be an apples and oranges.

[161:03] I think I made my point, which is that you know I I really appreciate the the data and the analysis and everything that staff are bringing forward, and I think it will help have planning board the city as we go forward and look at our options. Think about how do we want to use this pot of money, because I agree that i'm sure there is a subset of folks who are leaving the city in order to buy housing in other markets, because that middle income slice is just. It is a very like J. Said a very, very difficult nut to crack. and it looks very expensive for the city per family to help these families, and is that our priority, I think, is a conversation we need to take a good, honest look at and have that conversation. even though I really appreciate the work that Staff has done to to say, hey, the city set a goal. They set this middle income home ownership goal. What are some of the ways that we can reach it? And now I think that conversation is maturing to the point where we can say, okay.

[162:01] now that we know what it takes to reach it. Is that still our priority? Thank you. Hold on. Hi, Thank you. I have. My main comment is one, I think. I hope piggybacks on what Laura's been talking about, but I actually wanna pushed back on one and assumption that she was making, and that is. there's a famous quote. That friend of mine likes to likes to pull out that markets are a good servant, a poor master, and a worse religion. And Laura, You, You were saying that markets are never going to. you know, produce middle income housing, and I I that to me that's a kind of that's a kind of like poor Master Paradigm, where I mean, if if you want to do thought exercises about how markets could produce middle income housing, you could, you could say Well, what if we had allowed 8 plexes on any quarter acre lot

[163:09] I the markets with what would eagerly and and excitedly provide all kinds of products, and that that would allow. you know, and and lot of the different price points. But we don't allow that we just to sort of out out of hand. Say, Well, we don't want that kind of density. We favor single family homes, and we favor large lots, and so all that to say, like there are ways to think about markets and housing markets that would allow us to have the wind in our sales. An interesting chapter that I read a couple of years ago is a. Is is in the book Radical Markets, where it's a completely wild thought exercise, but it it does. It does open up possibilities for ways that you can, that you know, because we're this whole conversation is kind of constrained by

[164:02] the market, as as we know it now, when, in fact, we we've badly distorted the market in so many ways. By the way, we financed, you know, basically, socialized home mortgage financing, you know. And so it I I don't know if that's a productive debate To have or not. It's maybe requires more regional and and national kind of planning. What did I want to say? Though? The thing I wanted to say is a related yeah, it it's related to, I think, what Laura said about prioritizing home ownership. I I just. I just want to also challenge the whole notion that home ownership is better than renting that that that appeals to me. I I would prefer to be a homeowner than to be a renter. I i'm currently a renter right now. I've always kind of thought of myself as a future homeowner, and so I I don't

[165:08] affiliate this strongly with renters, as I as I ought to, because I've been a renter for a really long time i'll probably continue being a renter, and so like that. Just come out and identify as a renter and and get on board with printers rights, and I I know, Mark Fear, who commented earlier, has has. We've had some good conversations about that. But I I just want to point out that in other countries. I'm thinking of of Europe. The home ownership is not such a central value. Lots of people rent there's ways of thinking about community pride. And oh, you know, community ownership in in the context of rentals. and I think that if we, you know as a country we didn't finance, you know, make make it, so that, like the only way to have stable renting housing is to subsidize mortgages, so that you get the fixed payment, and then you pay it off, and you're done.

[166:12] You know. Homeowners are just subsidized in a way that renters aren't that allows for stabilized payments and costs. So. And there's a lot more to say about that. I I just if if the issue is like a discrepancy between whether it's better to rent or to own we could. We could actually just like, ask those questions about. Well, how can we make life more stable or improve civic engagement with renters? So i'll. I'll quit. Okay, Sarah. Okay? Well. that i'd like. I would like to request that when we come back to this conversation in planning board that that

[167:01] page from the presentation to city council that Laura called up. actually reflect all the other subsidies that go into building all those other types of housing units, because then we're actually going to be able to see what the subsidies are, and it'll help us to think through the question of the cash in loo the when cash and loos gonna stick around it's not going anywhere, but it would be helpful also, for our discussion about is cash and Lou worth it. because those subsidies would be reflected in the total cost of building subsidized. attached units or apartments, rental apartments, and I think that the document that one pager is not an it's a I I don't know whether it's an accurate or not accurate. It is not a complete set of data. and if we're going to use it, let's have a complete set of data about the

[168:00] various subsidies that lead to certain types of housing unit outcomes. That would be very helpful. Thank you. George. Thank you. As a as a father of 2 girls and a an uncle of of many nieces and nephews who live in boulder sort of experience, first hand in our school systems, etc., that you know the the middle classes is a is evaporating here. and so I I I appreciate what staff is brought forward, and the idea that the there is there is an appropriate place for a slice of rih program to focus on more middle class ownership. Yeah, I I think of the the teachers that my kids have had at foothills. Only one owns their home in the neighborhood.

[169:03] and she bought it 30 years ago. I I I went, attended the the the eight-week fireman, Citizens fireman, Academy here. and at the time which was a few years back. There were 102 firemen. and of the 102 firemen on staff. 101 lived outside of the city. Only one lived in the city. and so for a lot of people, and I appreciate Phillips comments around some of the some of the the thought, the the bigger thoughts, right that you know the structural thoughts that maybe maybe, you know, in in a in a different reality or a different. You know, if we were having, you know, if we were, if we were in a different country. Perhaps people wouldn't feel the need of pride, of ownership and stability. and and and to to to have ownership be a component of our Ih program. But I I I think

[170:06] you know a little bit more grounded in the reality of our of of the context of where we're at and where we're headed that these programs that we're talking about are really important. and I I think it doesn't negate all the other components of the Ih program. And so I you know, I think it's a a worthwhile presentation. I appreciate that focus on that, and also the focus on all the other h components. But I don't want to. I don't want to lose this entirely. The the discussion around this particular item versus you know other things that we can be doing simultaneously. So thank you. Lisa. Yeah, I'm: i'm gonna agree with pretty much everything, George. You just said i'm from Boulder. I was born here. I went to high school here. I graduated from Fairview. My friends are gone.

[171:01] They tried to buy here, they could not. They bought an Erie they bought on Lewisville. I know people who bought in Westminster originally because it's all they could afford, and then we're 2 teachers. one of them, who one of them works, for Bbsd has been commuting in from Westminster because they could not buy here. They barely made it over the line into Superior, because they were rapidly paying down a 15 year mortgage to try to build enough equity to try to get somewhere close to back in. Like. I think the Barbell analogy is the best example. It's great, and I do not want us to rob Peter to pipel. I'm very, very proud of our affordable housing. I'm proud of our rental program. I'm proud of what we offer to folks, and I think we are going to keep having incredibly expensive housing. I'm not worried about that you know it's a very desirable place to live. But not only are we losing the middle class and losing people who've been here who want to be here. I again. I I have friends wanted to buy and boulder. I will always be in boulder, but they they swore that up in that bottom off, yet could not find something to buy and boulder their girls go to school in Lafayette.

[172:04] That's why we're looking at elementary schools closing here while we're looking at opening new ones of East Boulder County. Some of this is due to the age of our housing stock, the type of our housing stock. All of that. The fact that we've got a lot of people aging in place I won't go off. But gold and West Man are losing the last Medicaid. you know, Place that anyone could go boulder. It's gone. But we we need to be looking at. How do we retain community? Because not only are we losing those families and losing again. When I worked for the city every year you could see fewer and fewer and fewer people who could actually live in the city Everyone was in commuting, and then we yell about how we don't like in commuters, and i'm like, Well, what are they supposed to do? Do you want firefighters or not. Snowdrivers sleeping on couches, and people's house so cloud drivers so that they could actually make their ships in the morning would have loved to live in. Boulder could not afford it, you know. So I again I i'm not saying that I don't want us to also continue to best, and I think we are in La. But we need to figure out, and I think we had some great comments, too, about You know. What about

[173:05] duplexes, triplexes forplexes. That's what we're talking about right now. But I think there are things that we can do around that. I'm really interested in the presentation. You guys had about it. It makes total sense to me. That lot division doesn't necessarily equal, you know, more middle income. But I I just want to so strongly push back an idea that we don't need to be focused on middle income. We have to like we. We are losing boulder as a community. We are losing families, and it's nice that there's all these older folks who are still going to be around. Sorry to anyone will do to me who's gonna take care of you. Who's going to drive in, and how much are we going to have to pay them to come in. you know. So I I just. I I think it's completely appropriate that we're looking at middle income. I don't think there's an easy fix. But this is the piece we've been missing, and that's why we called the missing middle, and and I just really want to push back. I'm not continuing to focus on that. And you know, I I think this is exactly what we should be doing. This is the the thing that I don't want to say, say boulder, but it's you know

[174:00] it's changed a lot in ways that I think Aren't just demographically trending. You know it's it's it's where we're getting these 2 extremes, and that's all that's left and it's going to keep going that way. If we don't make changes. Mark. Thanks. I really appreciate Lisa's impassion comments about Who Who will? Who will be our employees, our employers. Google. take care of our elderly. It's it's it's such pertinent questions in my personal life. At the moment I also want to say, as as our conversation. You have I. I I forget the exact number of people that are participating in this meeting, but it's a bunch, and we're all and passionate about housing, and and our conversation has broadened beyond

[175:08] Boulders inclusionary housing program. I think that points to that. No matter how well we do with our inclusionary housing program and push and stretch it. Unless we make some bigger moves we will continue to to lose ground. And and so the point I want to make is our Governor has focused recently on broad housing policies and without a lot of specific, so I can't say I support him 100%. But I support his efforts to focus on housing, and I hope Boulder uses Karl in the in the office of intergovernmental affairs

[176:00] to shape rather than fight. or try to retain some of our privilege and control of our single family zoning and neighborhoods. I hope that that the governor's efforts give us some courage as as counselor. Yates pointed out in the AD. You regulations that we didn't have the courage to go as far as we should have in 2,018. And now it seems like this Council does, and I think it's going to take some courage to rather than fight a statewide effort to increase housing opportunities to help shape it and broaden it and make it work for boulder. So I hope that we. our our planning staff and our housing staff continue to try to make make work with our statewide effort to increase housing opportunities.

[177:05] Thank you. Email. Thank you, John. I've been. I've been kind of overwhelmed. Thank you, Staff, for the amazing presentation lots and lots of really valuable information, and I really appreciate the changes that you're looking at at making to some of the I guess potential in the Ih program. So i'm gonna i'm gonna fly this little Abu Banner just because I think that one of the trends that we have seen with. Well, a couple of things around 80, so some of the 80 to use are coming in even smaller than the Ih basics on that little chart with the minimum size for this, that, and the other I don't know how they would continue to qualify for affordable a to use if they're not meeting those criteria, but

[178:15] just just a point. But the thing we have seen with a to use is that they're trending toward not being rented. you know people will deal you to affordable. and they do that because they're not going to rent them. They're going to use them. They're either going to move it to them themselves, the original owners. or they're going to have their children or people, you know. to use for family visiting, however. so the I think the peace here that comes and goes kind of very stealth, like on the table is

[179:03] what about selling a. B use? And i'm not talking. I I know Boulder County. Since we don't want to parcel. We don't want to break parcels up. sell a to use. They would definitely sell below what any single family house would sell for in the city there are hundreds of lots that could, and people homeowners would be able to afford to build the AD to, then sell it because they would get the money from the sale. These are regular people that own many of the single family houses where the original houses where the potential for a to use exist. One of the hurdles is how to finance them. It it 300 300 grand to build an 80, you starting so to open up

[180:01] the potential for still keep the requirements. Owners got to live on the property and all that. But to be able to sell it. and I think that that would bring all of Lisa's friends. Get an opportunity to buy houses in boulder. You know our children get to buy houses in boulder people who wouldn't afford the new developer-driven housing. I haven't have a an opportunity that was taken off the table when our Abu policy was written because it says you can't sell it. And I would suggest that maybe that gets revisited in light of. They would solve a lot of the problems for people who don't. Who could but don't build an a to you because of financing?

[181:01] If it's going to be for sale unit. you Don't have that her. You get to provide housing on your property, and people get to come and live in amenity rich neighborhoods that would. They would get to live in the amenity rich neighborhoods. So I I just gonna put that out there. I know. Well I appreciate what I H. Is considering to do around. you know, smaller houses, and maybe just incentivize people to to build the giant houses and remove a small house from a neighborhood that sort of thing. But I think that this potential to create a housing market for sale would start to capture that middle income that is so sorely missing out and getting to live in the city of Boulder. so I I I know that it's out of the scope of what we're talking about tonight

[182:03] directly, but I I think the overall conversation of how, Where? Where is that potential to? Not count on the developer? Because, you know, the profit margins tend to tend to mess up the desire for people to just okay, let's just make this housing meet these buyer, guide fire target. This is a whole different market selling out the 80 use. So that's that's my kind of input. I i'm i'm a big fan of you know. Let's try to get housing affordable housing into everything we build, so I don't think the

[183:03] creating the affordable option as a rental is working out really. Well, I don't think we're getting what we want. I don't think we're moving the needle. I think, if we, if we and maybe it's a pilot. have for sale option, I think we could start to see a housing product coming to the market. that I don't see how else it it? Nobody's going to build small houses in amenity Rich neighborhoods on single family lots for sale. It's just not going to have. Thank you. thank you. Well, i'll throw in my 2 bits worth. I don't see any other hands up right now I I would. I've had my hand up for a while. Oh, really kind of most of the evening, so I I don't know if it didn't pop up or something.

[184:02] I I guess just a few short things. First thing I'd say I I do appreciate Ml: those points on a to use. I think at the last tab meeting we did talk about the whole notion of how zoning policies fit into all this, and according to that comp plan, policies, and I do think that probably that's somewhere where where this conversation can carry out. There's a lot of pragmatic concerns regarding being able to sell a to use, but I think the notion of how you could develop property or redevelop property. So you have smaller lots that include affordable units. I know Michael was talking to that a little bit before. I think that's really relevant, and I think that's something that we all collectively should, you know, Keep that conversation going on I I I also just wanted to just state how much I appreciate it. Leases comments on middle income, and I I think it's it's absolutely important, and I think the other fact of it, too, and from a community perspective is the fact that there are so many different programs that are available on a state and national level, you know, lie tech Section 8, whatever it may be

[185:16] for the different, the different income levels. But middle income, something that you really need to take a look at as a community, because there's not a lot of programs that are out there on the State or Federal level that can help us with those concerns. So that's just another point that I wanted to make. And I think, speaking for what we've been working on and focusing on had for the past year, plus we. We have a lot of discussion on that, and I think we all recognize the extreme importance of the missing middle for for the City of Boulder right now, and I absolutely support those comments. And I've heard a lot of stories like that of people who actually grew up here and now. They can't live here, even though they grew up here and want to stay in the community and serve the community that they grew up in, especially if they want to serve the community in ways that might not be as

[186:04] fiscally rewarding as other as other endeavors. Right Your plow, driver, fireman, teacher, whatever it may be. The other thing I just wanted to state regarding the whole thing with the appreciation cap. Ownership housing, i'd point to Summit County, Ego County, Pick and county, and I think a few other jurisdictions where they actually had to, and i'm sorry if you can't hear me. I'm. My voice is pretty shop, but where they've actually had to lower that appreciation cap because they had it too high at first, and what they found was over time things were becoming less and less affordable for the market they were trying to serve, which is local employees. And you know, I think Jay mentioned the fact that there is a formula as long as we have a formula where we can keep revisiting that from point to point, to make sure that we stay on top of that, and that one thing's not outpacing the other, You know. I think the appreciation cap is absolutely important to maintain the housing that we're establishing, and to do so in a manner where we.

[187:08] you know, can can really keep the progress that we're making as we build on our inventory. So I just wanted to bring that point up to, because I think that's something that you know. There's a lot of good examples where it hasn't worked as well as we would have hoped, at a higher appreciation cap in other communities. And so that's something that I just flagged for a pragmatic reality of it. So if the appreciation cap is too high, then the the next generation is missing out on those, and you know, like Jay said. we're talking about housing that you know the whole notion. If the average is about 7 years, the whole notion is, it's a great way for somebody to get their start and to get a footing within the community if they want to stay where they are awesome. But if they want to move on, it gives them that opportunity to move on. Maybe not, you know, flatly financial, but the tax benefits that they get from a mortgage like Phil said. Whether or not that's good policy, and, Philip, I kind of agree with you on that. But it is what it is right now. So there's tax benefits, and there's a lot of other, you know, benefits both actual and intrinsic.

[188:14] involved in that that I think are really important. So you know, I just think it's. It's really good to make sure that we don't go too far. It's just looking at it from the fiscal gain, because then we lose sight of the other big, important policies that are behind that appreciation cap. So that's all I've got. Thank you all right. Well. i'll try and get my 2 bits with them. I I can hardly believe how many people I agree with here. It's. It's very unusual for me. but i'd like to make 2 2 particular points that I think are are very relevant. First of all. I I sympathize. Also, there's 4 personal kids growing who've grown up here, our kids and my brother's kids, and none of them are in boulder, even though they

[189:06] they'd like to be. And so so my family has has experienced similar similar situation to others who've mentioned it here. I I think that Philip made a very important and significant point in his comments with respect to how we accept the market as dominating our decision making process here. I think that we have the ability to have much greater influence on the real estate market than than has been discussed tonight. There's a variety of tax policies and other policies that the city could adopt to discourage large houses to encourage more folks in bedrooms.

[190:00] and I think that we have been notably lax on addressing those potential policies that would result both in perhaps diminished real estate values and increase ability for people with middle incomes to to live here. The other main point is that I think we we need better information. As, as Daniel pointed out, we need a a clearer decision manner in which to make decisions in which to compare apples to oranges in the options that we're dealing with. I I think that the what we've been presented with tonight is excellent, and it's opened our eyes a bit. But I don't think that we are really making going through a proper proper decision making process unless we can have these clear trade offs in front of us that we know

[191:04] what what we're trading off. And, for example, I just point out what what Mark was talking about earlier, the the pros and cons of Cash and Loo versus building on site. It, it may be, and he may be entirely right. That cash and Loo produces more housing. But does it result in the town that we ultimately want to live in? There are many, many objectives to our programs. In addition, just to providing housing, we want it to be attractive housing. We want it to to attract the people that we are seeking to attract. Hmm. So I I think there's a variety of trade offs that need to be made more clear in developing these decisions. But beyond that I I would like to thank Staff for this excellent presentation tonight, because we have learned a lot, and it will make our

[192:06] thinking better in the future. So thank you. and open it up to any other. There may be other comments that people want to make. I just want to say they use staff to. This is great and really helpful and much appreciated. and it was great to have this collective meeting as well. I think so, too. Okay, Laura. I think my last comment is just going to be, I I think, both the conversation and in this Forum, and also back at City Council. You know we're having a really hard time separating out all of the policy tools that are potential disposal to deal with middle income housing and increase the stock of middle income housing, and make it more possible for people like the Gstal kids and Lisa's friends and the kids in George's neighborhood to to own a house in Boulder, or to stay in Boulder in some fashion. We have a lot of policy tools that could help us do that.

[193:06] And the one that we've really been asked to focus on tonight is inclusionary housing, or at least that's how I've interpreted our charge tonight. So I just want to make sure that my comments about how we focus that particular pot of money and the the kinds of incentives that we offer through inclusionary housing. I'm not sure that inclusionary housing, in my opinion, is the right tool to focus on middle income. I'm. Fine with the current slice that's dedicated to that. My concerns are just around with the limited amount of opportunities and funding that we have in that particular program is expanding middle income. The priority, I definitely agree that we need more and better tools to enable middle income in Boulder the the kinds of things that were mentioned tonight. Ml's discussion of potentially selling a to use separately the concept of changing our zoning to allow something besides single family homes, very large single family homes. What John said about this incentivizing single family homes and and using our code to incentivize production of some smaller units.

[194:10] There's been discussion of cooperatives, and how that can be a tool that encourages and allows middle income folks to stay in boulder like. I think we have lots and lots of tools for that. And and I think this is a challenge for City Council as a challenge for us. It's it's a challenge for staff of you know each of these pieces our interdependence. And right now we're focusing on just this one. And so how do we adjust just this one without the broader context of what if we don't do it here? Where are we going to do it? Because we do need to do it. We absolutely like, Sarah said. This is a challenge that's important. We absolutely shouldn't fall off the table. We absolutely have to face it for me. The question is just how much of it needs to come down to what we do in inclusionary housing, and it's this: the focus for that part of money. So I don't. I don't want my comments to be misinterpreted because I tend to get very wonky and very focused. So I just wanted to provide that broader context, and and also second, the comments that i'm so glad we're having this joint conversation i'm so grateful to staff for seeing all of this up and and helping us wave through and make sense of this very, very complex landscape.

[195:12] And I look forward to continuing the conversation. Okay. any more comments. All right. Well. thank you, John. So Oh, yeah. yeah. So thank you. Everybody for staying this late. And for all your contributions it's extremely helpful. And i'm glad that you found this helpful as well. And Laura actually covered most of what I was going to say that there are lots of other tools there. There's lots of different avenues to address middle income, and they're coming before you and council in the coming months is voting for affordable housing. The planning, reserve occupancy. All these other tools in the toolbone are getting examined.

[196:05] and I just wanted to reiterate that that staff is coordinating on all those efforts and trying to figure out how they're all intertwined to make sure that we're not pulling a lever here and and having unintended consequences elsewhere. And, John just finally it I fully great. This was just laying the stage. We will definitely have more information for you as decision makers in terms of what are the policy trade offs. What does that mean? Provide as much data as we possibly can. So with that, Thank you so much. Everybody for your time, any questions. Let us know if you need anything. Reach out. Thank you. We'll be in touch. Thanks very much. We still have. We still have a matters component. Yes, Yes, let me just over

[197:01] go ahead by to everyone except planning board folks. Yeah. yeah. And thank you for joining us. Okay. So now we can move to matters from from that first. Right here on. Yes, Good evening planning Board members, and it sounds like you appreciated the information we learned about tonight as as much as I did, and and our staff does, too, so glad to get the thumbs up on that, and and appreciate the the discussion around, that it's important that we do have kind of good cross awareness about these nature land issues that that go across different departments. I have no real comments for this evening other than to thank you for making time for a a special additional meeting tonight.

[198:01] and i'm also happy to answer any questions that might be all right in your minds at this point. I will note if you hadn't been track. He had already. That Council has 2 major work program items for final consideration on Thursday. That's the updated use table and the Site plan criteria. So that has been, as you all have been very involved with, and know long time in the coming, so we'll look forward to those hopefully being finalized on Thursday. Okay, Lisa, do you have some thoughts here? Yeah. Something I'd love to hear on. But I don't know if it needs to be like a matters. I don't know if it could just be not even a white paper, but maybe just like forwarding us information that already exists. I'm curious about kind of ongoing metrics around some of the missing middle stuff. So i'm curious about like.

[199:03] I know that Pbsd convened. I don't know a citizen group or board, or something to look at school closures, you know, at the same time that we're looking at opening more and eerie, and I think that maybe i'd be curious to hear that I don't know that it needs to be again like a 10 min Powerpoint or anything. But if Pbsd has something on that, i'd be really curious to hear it. And then also I would love updated figures which may already exist on just how many city employees have to commute in, you know. And if if we could break that down. I don't know I Don't want to be too specific. People feel like their personal information is going to be. But like around, you know, certain departments, or hey rams or areas of responsibility. Those are things that just would be curious to look at. But again i'm not sure it' be something we spend a lot of time on. I just like to have a little more transparency on it. because it's good to think that. Sure. Yeah, if i'm hearing you correctly.

[200:03] Lisa, you're asking if we have this information, and could we pass it on so that any existing metrics that we have on middle income and then employee commuting Yeah, not anything that Bbsc. Has, I imagine BBC. Is playing their cards pretty close to the best, so they don't get a bunch of people screaming at them, which I totally appreciate it's coming, but trying to delay not any anything. They have it. They're ready to share it. It would just be interesting to kinda see what's going on. you know. You can go in and like, see the numbers which I've done. But sure. yeah, first, just a response to Lisa. I know back in 2,019. Dvsd. Put out a survey on the number of families with children that were moving into the

[201:03] Transit village, and it was extremely low it, I guess. And so I think i'm I'm assuming they must be keeping. I I shouldn't assume anything. But so there's that data. And maybe there's some updated data as well. And then, also. a couple of years ago, lions discovered that people who had built ads were illegally subdividing their lots. So So that's something to just bear in mind. Visa. The Ml's suggestion of selling second homes on single family lots. I don't know what I don't know how lions responded to that. I just know that it happened a couple of times, and it became an issue for the City council. Now the thing I actually wanted to ask, which has nothing to do with any of this conversation tonight? Is, can we? How far in advance can we get clarification on when the fourth

[202:08] third Tuesday of the week of the month is actually going to be used for a hearing. You know I am trying to schedule other things on the open evenings and a little concern that Okay, let me ask it this way. Can we ask for like 2 months in advance, knowing that this the Fourth Thursday. If I still think we meet on Thursdays. The fourth Tuesday of the month is going to either will be a hearing or not a hearing, so that we have that versus there may be a hearing. Yeah, I i'm happy to talk. you know, with Staff on that and some of the history on that I I will speculate a little bit, Sarah, then. that by the very fact that it's optional is essentially a safety valve, for when

[203:05] too many items are stacking up on to a particular agenda. and some of that we probably really don't know until the month prior. because there's that kind of even flow of weather. Napoleon actually got something in when we thought they would, and and some things like that. We try to map that out fairly far in advance. Amanda and and devin you. You all send the calendar in in advance to do either of you have any kind of insight into that. And and again we can have a conversation with Charles and others which is an off hand. Yeah, absolutely. You're You're totally correct there. So the fourth Tuesday of meetings really just a placeholder for overflow items, if need be. There's not really anything scheduled as to as of right now, for up until at least May for any of the Fourth Tuesdays. But again, that could change depending on if there are overflow items. I I just wanted to clarify Sara, would you? You were using the word hearing.

[204:02] Yeah. And was that synonymous with meeting? Or did you mean meeting at which there was a hearing? Okay. an event of some sort on that day. Yeah. So yeah, we'll go back and talk through that, you know. Ultimately, it could be a I, I suppose, more perspective decision when when you you the agenda scheduling the to better. which I think it's been you and John, Historically. if I remember I I don't know I don't attend those. So I. Yeah, that that's correct. So you know, that would be an option to just be. you know, for specific and saying, No, we're not going to do it. pushing it out couple of months. Of course we always push up against it. What is the

[205:00] criteria for Staff to determine what public is, what issues get put on the public agenda on the public meeting agenda like because I, you guys are the ones who know what the timing, the timeline of things are. So Do you mean public hearing, like where there's there must be some criteria that you have, for maybe it's, you know, a 30 day window that is required by law for something, something something like I'm just trying to understand. or it's going to Council and it. This is our kind of last devin, and Amanda can keep me honest, but i'm fairly sure it's here, like other places, which is. we're not obliged to get things on a calendar by a certain date, but when an applicant is done and ready, and they've checked all their boxes. we get immense pressure to get it on the earliest

[206:00] hearing we can. and you know at that point they still have to go through the noticing, and so, even as soon as possible. can be a good 30 or more days out because we have to do the legal posting in the newspaper wherever we do it. and those types of things so Oh. well, I I do recognize that we all signed up for the potential of 3 meetings a month. But I do think it would if there, if the things that are time-sensitive, or what are going to counsel, and I think we should prioritize what's going to counsel and things that are like concept plans and site reviews that can be a little more flexible. I understand you're getting pressure from applicants. and i'm just going to push back and give some pressure from us. And just so, because we do all have work, travel, and lives, and all that kind of stuff. And it is it's it's very challenging to not know.

[207:02] and to then have to scramble. You know I I personally track I i'm already scheduling made work travel. and i'm sure is also, you know we all have work, travel, so it would just i'm just i'm going to offer some counterpress to the applicant's pressure. Yeah, no, I I hear you. And you know it's somebody who's. among other things responsible for the health and well-being of staff. I keenly desiring to have them go to last night meetings than than necessary, anyway. So I'm. You know very much aligned with that goal as well. So yes, we'll. We'll find in any possibilities we can to do that which is something I've been kind of pushing, anyway. Okay. let's see. Email was your hand up or not anymore. Okay. All right matters.

[208:01] We don't have an attorney here tonight. Matters from the board. Everyone just wants to go home. And well, Laura. can I just ask a question of Brad if you're still here, if you happen to know i'm fair as i'm. Sure we all are. I'm sad that John is. Your tenure is is coming up in April, but I am excited about the thought of a new planning board member, as we probably all are, and wondering who applied. Do we know when the applications for city boards and commissions will be made public so that we can read them and ponder our next colleague. I don't know. If did you reapply, John? Are you? Did you apply to to stay on. This is my second time on. I I think that was enough. Probably. Okay, that's one question answered. I appreciate your kind comments. Yeah, I I do not know that Devin. Do you happen to know that

[209:00] I don't? I do know that we're gonna be get beginning interviews with specific candidates starting later next month. Other than that, I don't know at this time, like the actual names of specific applicants or any of their background information. Okay, I think the applications from having recently gone through this process. They are publicized on the city website. They are published so that we can read them. So when those are available. I'll I'll be looking for them. But if anybody happens to notice that they're up i'm i'm eager to read them. I can check on that for you. We're all interested. Okay. all right. Anything else? Well, thank you for an interesting meeting tonight and see you next week. Thank you all. I thanks for your work. Thank you.