March 4, 2025 — Planning Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

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

[0:00] I'm going to call this city of Boulder Planning board meeting for March 4, th 2025, to order. All members of the Planning board are present. Mark Mcintyre is not here, but he's joining us shortly, so we're going to go ahead and get started with public participation, and I'll pass it over to Vivian to read our rules. Thanks, Vivian. Thank you. Thanks, Thomas, for pulling them up. Good evening. everybody, including members of the public. My name is Vivian Castro Wooldridge, and I'll just be helping with facilitation of open comment tonight. We don't have any public hearings, and I'll just read these rules. The city is engaged with community members to co-create a vision for productive, meaningful, and inclusive civic conversations. And this vision supports physical and emotional safety for community members, staff and board commission members as well as democracy. For people of all ages, identities, lived experiences and political perspectives. And we have more information about the vision on our website next slide, please.

[1:05] And I'll just read some examples of rules of decorum that are in the Boulder revised Code and other guidelines that support the productive atmosphere's vision, and these will be upheld during the meeting. All remarks and testimony shall be limited to matters related to city business. No participant shall make threats or use other forms of intimidation against any person. Obscenity, racial epithets, and other speech and behavior that disrupts or otherwise impedes the ability to conduct the meeting are prohibited, and we ask that participants, wishing to speak, identify themselves by 1st and last name, next slide, please. And, as I mentioned, there's no public hearing later in the meeting, but we do have open comment, and if you would, you're joining us online, you can raise your virtual hand by clicking on the raised hand. Icon, if you're joining by phone, you can do that by Pressing Star 9. And Thomas is in the room in case there's anybody who wants to speak in person.

[2:05] So those are the rules. And I'll just take a look at online participants and ask that if people do wish to share some comments, go ahead and raise your hand. Thomas. Anybody in the room. We don't have anybody signed up to speak in the room. Thank you. Okay, then we'll just go ahead, and each person will have 3 min, and we'll start with Lynn Siegel. Please go ahead, Lynn. I'm confused. It says public hearing items number 4. But you say there is no public hearing, so I can talk about the demolition impact fees. Apologies if somebody can just clarify that. I looked at the agenda and did not see a public hearing. But I could be wrong. It just says it on the on the packet. Number 4. Is no public hearing. But it says there, it doesn't describe the item. So. No public hearing. So go ahead. You're. Gotcha. Okay. Okay? Sorry. Okay. It looks like

[3:04] what you're going to discuss tonight. 1st of all, I don't want this impact fee for Demos to be a distraction from Ih. because we've got 25% impact fees in boulder for standard building, for development. And it it's been so little for so long. We need by now we need at least 140% impact fee to really be a true impact fee for that. But that, said I, do certainly approve of of an impact fee. I mean, I can tell you. I you know my favorite other board is landmarks board. and the reason I love landmarks board is that then I have backing about planning board and the council. When I see these places being destroyed, I can quote to you. I can remember their names. 1015, juniper.

[4:06] a nice little cottage, a bungalow. My brother and I were there 25 years ago for some like party of some band in boulder and music in the back, and all these little extra houses places to stay in the back, and this beautiful place, and it's on the confluence zone. So the developer argued that they couldn't move it. You know, appropriately or remediate anything. It had a huge, full basement that you could live in also. So it was over 1,500 square feet and was an affordable place. And they got their demo because of the flood zone. And basically, you know, and it's going to be a 10 or 12 million dollars place. And that just doesn't work in Boulder. You know, we've already got the homelessness way out of control. You know the same thing with 22 0, 6 pearl, you know. It's a commercial space being developed, given subsidies to develop into these little tiny compartments.

[5:14] I mean what we're now doing now up at Cu, and the students moving into town are 5 bedroom apartments up at what was going to be the homeless shelter at 777, Broadway, 5 bedrooms! Well, they're effectively making it quote unquote, affordable. But the developer's laughing all the way to the bank, aren't they? Because they have the same common facilities for that apartment? Maybe a little bit more. but basically the same than for a 3 bedroom or 2 bedroom apartment, and they're getting they're renting by the bedroom. This is obscene. What's happening in Boulder? We've got to do everything to stop it. We've got to have inclusionary zoning way up and definitely have this impact fee a much bigger impact fee than even this person that did. The study is

[6:01] implying, got to stop, done. Thank you for joining us. There's anyone else would like to speak for open comment. Please go ahead and raise your hand. Okay, I don't see any other hands. Turn it back over to you, George. Great thanks, Vivian, and thank you, Lynn, for your participation. We don't have any dispositions or planning board call ups. There are no public hearings this evening. So we're going to go straight to matters from the planning board and the city. And the matter that we're going to be discussing tonight is a discussion of findings of a completed nexus study on the impact of demolitions of smaller houses and replacement by larger houses, and the impact of significant additions to existing single family homes. The nexus study is necessary for the city to pursue affordable housing linkage fees tied to the impact of these types of redevelopments. And with that I'm going to pass it over to city staff for their presentation.

[7:12] Okay, good evening. Thanks for the introduction. So, as you said, The item tonight is a discussion of findings of a recently completed nexus study on the impacts of demolitions, of smaller homes and replacement by larger houses and the impacts of significant additions to existing single family homes. The nexus study is necessary for the city to pursue an affordable housing linkage fee tied to the impact of these types of redevelopment. And the intent tonight is just to present the study and sort of open it up for discussion before we embark on implementation. So just for an agenda, I'll be talking about some of the background on the project.

[8:00] A little bit of background on the inclusionary housing methodology and other affordable housing tools. We all have a couple examples. We can talk about trends, and then we have Andrew Ratchford here from Gruen, Gruen and associates. He's going to do a little presentation on the study as well. And then we're open for any questions. So the need to examine these types of projects was initially identified as part of the update to the inclusionary housing program in 2023, and at that time it was identified that the removal of smaller, more relatively affordable homes and replacement with large, expensive homes was a gap in the inclusionary housing regulations. similarly substantial additions, also effectively replaced more affordable homes with larger, more expensive homes. And this type of development is not.

[9:01] it's not subject to inclusionary housing, and it's not required to contribute to affordable housing in the community. So an impact fee could potentially address these gaps and also ensure some equity in how residential developments contribute to affordable housing in the community. It would be a charge or a fee per square foot basis similar to how we calculate cash in lieu for inclusionary housing and in terms of legal requirements. The city does need a nexus study to quantify the impacts of new development on affordable housing and also to justify the fee levels so based on the direction we received from the Ih Update. We selected Gruen Gruen and Associates in October of last year to do the research and analysis services. And that's where we are. So just to give a little background. The city does have several tools that generate affordable housing in the city, including annexation, inclusionary housing.

[10:08] short-term rental taxes and other local funding sources. The city does have an impact fee on non-residential development that was adopted in 2015. Those fees are assessed, based on defined rate categories, also on a square foot basis and shown in this graphic. Here you can see the city received over 102 million dollars since 2015. This hasn't been updated for last year, but can add a couple more 1 million to that. So the funds from these sources are directed into the city's affordable housing fund, which provides an ongoing, dedicated revenue source to support public investment in affordable housing. It also plays a crucial role in drawing Federal and State dollars, because those can be leveraged with the local dollars and provide additional affordable units.

[11:05] And if there was a potential impact fee, the funds would be directed into this affordable housing fund, similar to cash in lieu. So just to provide some more background on inclusionary housing, this is a requirement that all new developments contribute 25% of new housing as permanently affordable. They have 4 options to meet that requirement. It can be on-site integrated into the development, it can be provided off-site as part of a separate development. They can dedicate land that is suitable for affordable housing development, or the most common option would be to pay a cash in lieu contribution. the caveat is, if you have a development under 5 units, you would always be paying a cash in the contribution, because it would be very difficult to meet these other options.

[12:05] So in terms of how that's calculated as part of the last update. There was a change to the methodology to calculate it based on a per square foot basis. It is a sliding scale in terms of the rate and how it's applied. The benefits of this is, it does scale with the unit size. It results in a more fair burden across unit sizes and it and it removed, and a previous incentive for larger market rate units, because there was a cap on the unit size, and how we would calculate it. So all that said. There is a waiver in the inclusionary housing regulations that if you remove a unit and replace within 3 years, you are not responsible for meeting inclusionary housing. So, as a result, almost all newly constructed single family homes in the city are exempt from inclusionary housing.

[13:07] and that means that someone who purchases a property with an existing home, regardless of size or condition. would not pay a cash, only contribution, whereas someone who purchases a vacant lot and builds a home would be responsible to meet the Ih rate regulations, and so that would mean at a rate of $15 and 34 cents per square foot, which is the current rate. That would be about $53,000 for a 3,500 square foot home. So there's a substantial difference in what the requirements are. So just to sort of give an example of that. This is in North Boulder you can see the partial shown in blue and orange were previously developed as a single property, with a single family home built in the 50 s.

[14:02] The home was demoed, and the property was split into 2 lots. and this was developed with single family homes. So the lot in Orange received a waiver to Ih. Paid no cash in lieu. The parcel in blue was required to pay the contribution. So you can see just some of the inequity and how residential development on a smaller scale meets the requirements. This is another more extreme example of a large lot redevelopment. So it was. You can see in the upper left hand corner. It was an approximately 3,000 square foot home. built in the fifties as well demolished. The replacement home is approximately 8,500 square feet, and they pay. They would have paid $130,000 to cash in lieu, but they received a waiver.

[15:00] Just to address additions. Here's another example of an addition that was not required to pay towards affordable housing. It's about this was about 1,100 square foot addition to add a second story. In terms of trends. There is a relatively steady amount of these projects annually. As you can see here, the majority of homes are exempt from inclusionary housing, but it's not a huge number of projects that would be impacted by an impact fee. So not to go into the details, but just want to summarize that the consultants. Findings show that there is a rational nexus between larger, more expensive homes and the need for affordable housing in the community based on the findings. The consultant recommends establishing a no more than a $15 per square foot fee for additional floor area.

[16:02] just to sort of cover the project schedule and the community engagement approach. We're looking at initial engagement and policy alternative analysis until July and we would come back with code changes in the fall. We're also taking this to city Council on April or yeah, April 3.rd And at that point I'm going to kick it over to Andrew and let me give me a second to pull up his presentation. Doesn't want to stop sharing. Good evening. Thank you for the introduction. I'm Andy Ratchford with Gruen Gruen, Plus associates. City hired us to complete this technical nexus analysis of a

[17:04] unique situation, I'd say that doesn't apply in many other communities. So if you want to get to the 1st slide, we'll get right into it. I'm going to try and boil down what's a very long. a long read into hopefully 10 min or so, hitting some of the key highlights. And then, as Sloan mentioned, we can get to some questions and answers. The gist is that the study is examining and quantifying a relationship or nexus between significant single family home expansions and affordable housing needs in boulder. So there's 2 types of possible connections or linkages. One is the demand nexus, and the other is a supply nexus. We we considered both of them. and I'll tell you I don't think a supply nexus results in a direct loss of affordable housing in boulder. You consider that most teardown lots

[18:04] which someone's purchasing for just the land value usually sell for around 800,000, and some of them a lot higher up to 2 or 3 million dollars. So while certainly this activity is removing less expensive housing from your housing stock it would. It doesn't equate to a direct loss of affordable housing, as the city and many other affordable housing funding sources define it. So most of the study is really focusing on the so-called demand nexus. which kind of works through a chain of economic events that eventually leads to increased demand for affordable workforce housing in the city. So as higher income households occupy expanded or new homes, they spend a portion of their income on goods and services boulder. These expenditures stimulate demand for additional jobs, and then, as additional employment opportunities become available.

[19:09] you experience an increase in workforce and demand for housing to serve those workers. The study looked at 3 scenarios. They were each characterizing what we found to be somewhat typical teardown or expansion. Projects won't get into all the details about floor area, ratios and whatnot. But the gist is that we've got 3 scenarios that add anywhere from 600 square feet to an existing home up to 2,500 additional square feet, which would be a larger lot. Teardown. The new or expanded homes are estimated to increase in value by about 900,000 up to 3.5 million. and I'd reiterate that that is indeed the increase in value. So let's take the 1st column or scenario, a

[20:05] just kind of a smaller teardown and replacement. Someone purchases a 1,200 square foot home for a little over a million dollars again. This is the land value or the lot value. The home is demolished, replaced with a new, larger, 2,800 square foot home. for which we've estimated and documented a typical value about $1,100 a square foot, which is normal in boulder or a little over 3 million. So when I say the increase in home value. It is 2 million, the 3 million dollars new home relative to the 1 million paid for the lot. Essentially. Next, the nexus analysis is estimating the average annual incomes required to purchase these homes, which are about 200,000 to $650,000, higher than the income that would have been required to purchase the homes they're replacing.

[21:00] So if you're following me so far, we've basically estimated and established 2 connections, one being that newer expanded homes do, in fact, sell for considerably higher prices than the homes are typically replacing. And 2, that these new homes are more likely to be occupied by higher income households. So if you get to the 3rd or 4th row up in this table. we're now getting into how you quantify how these higher income households. Contribute to additional spending jobs and workforce in boulder based on an economic impact analysis of these prototypical projects. We're estimating that anywhere from a little less than one job to a little more than 2 jobs is likely to be created in boulder for each one of these typical expansion scenarios. The last step in this long math equation is basically to translate additional jobs and workforce.

[22:05] There's resulting from these projects into affordable housing units needed to house these workers. This calculation, calculation factors in things like household sizes, community assumptions as well as income levels. The bottom bottom line. Result is that we estimate anywhere from about point 1 5 to point 4 5 units of affordable housing. It's not all housing. It's just affordable housing at less than 120% of area Median income would be generated from these 3 prototypical projects. The estimates that I just reviewed, meaning point 1 4 to point 4 7 units needed. Reflect an assumption that 2 thirds of the workforce generated from these higher income households and the expanded homes they're occupying, that 2 thirds of the workers would live in boulder, and 1 3rd would commute in. That's a much higher

[23:07] share of resident workers than you have today. But we're being conservative and factoring in the reality that some workers, whether it's for lifestyle preferences or other economic reasons. aren't going to live in boulder next slide. So we've quantified how many units of what type are needed. The next step is to quantify what it would cost to basically provide those affordable housing units. That's where a gap analysis becomes relevant. And this analysis is quantifying the difference between a typical market rate unit in boulder and a affordable unit at different income levels. So essentially for purposes of quantifying an impact fee. What I mean is, we're basically estimating the one time subsidy or capital amount

[24:04] that would be required to house workers. And I'm talking about modest, smaller, existing housing units. These are one and 2 bedroom townhomes, rental units, not detached single family homes. So let's consider an example of a affordable ownership unit that would be affordable to a household at 80% of the area Median income we're estimating there's a typical gap of about $220,000 for each one of those affordable units relative to the market price for an existing unit in Boulder. The consider that the average resale price of one and 2 bedroom townhomes or condos over the last year has been about 500 and $40,000, while an affordable purchase at 80% of area Median income would only be roughly 320.

[25:00] So that's where we get this gap of around $220,000 overall. Considering the full spectrum of affordable units needed at different income levels and so forth. The overall gap is estimated to be about a hundred $1,000 per affordable unit. And this is because gap amounts tend to be lower for rental units as well as ownership units that would be attainable to a higher income level next slide. So the last step is basically multiplying the estimated needs by the gap amounts. I just reviewed for a smaller lot, tear down a replacement. which again, is scenario a up here. The maximum fee amount is about $25,000 per expanded home. which would equate to about $15 per square foot of added living area.

[26:02] The maximum fee for a larger project, which is scenario B is estimated to be $44,000, or, roughly, $18 per square foot. and the maximum fee for scenario C, which is just a smaller home addition, is $14,000, or a little more than $20 a square foot. and I would say that the reason the fees per square foot differ slightly. isn't because we're trying to get into the weeds or recommend that you have different fees that apply to different size projects. It's just because we're being consistent with the secondary data. We're referencing in the report, so we can credibly defend it. And there's minor differences and assumptions such as household income to home value, ratios and stuff like that. But the gist is for each one of these projects the maximum fee. Again, you could have a lower fee, but the maximum fee is roughly 15 to 20 bucks a square foot.

[27:10] Yes, sorry before I get into what we're recommending. Thought it'd be helpful perspective to go through a couple examples. We spent some time time trying to find other communities similar to Boulder's economic makeup and size that do have impact fees for the kind of projects we're talking about. And the short answer is that the list is pretty small. There's no uniform methodology to have this kind of impact fee to give you some perspective. Evanston, Illinois, on the north shore of Chicago has a demolition tax that applies to any home that's 50% or more demolished. And it's just a fixed rate of $16,000 per project, whether it's a

[28:00] 2,000 square foot home or 8,000 square foot home. Denver has linkage fees. It's not a direct analogy to, but to what we're talking about, but it applies to any project with less than 9 units, which does include teardown and replacement of a home. They exempt home additions that are smaller than 400 square feet in size, and the current fees are about 5 to $8 per square foot. Not going to review Los Angeles. It's in the report, aspen has mitigation fees that apply to these kind of projects. There's a somewhat nuanced formula that applies to different types of projects depending on how much space is demolished. But the gist is that the fees are high, roughly 40 to $45 a square foot for expanded or new homes. So if Bowler decides to impose a fee, we recommend establishing one per square foot fee for all projects, and based on the technical nexus study. I just tried to breeze through in several minutes.

[29:10] We're recommending the fee. Shouldn't be more than $15 a square foot of added living space. So, for example, a new home, replacing a demolished home that's expanding it by 2,000 square feet. would pay a fee of $30,000 a second story addition to an existing home that's adding a thousand square feet would be subject to a fee of about $15,000. We think consideration could be given to phasing the fee in. and it should be periodically periodically updated to account for changing conditions in the local housing, market or economy. We suggest limiting the fee to new construction or alteration permits that are resulting in no more than 500 square feet of added living area.

[30:05] In addition, we suggest that a nexus or impact fee policy should exempt accessory, accessory dwelling units. and we would encourage the city to make some exceptions for replacement of homes that are lost or partially destroyed, to disasters, wild wildfires, floods, and so forth. Let's go to the last slide here. based on the number of home replacement or expansion projects that at least historically, have occurred in Boulder in a typical year the imposition of the recommended $15 square foot fee is likely to provide around 1.2 million dollars in annual funding for affordable housing. I won't go into the comparisons, but again, for for some perspective.

[31:02] this is the fee in boulder if adopted at $15 a square foot. fairly comparable to Denver, Denver. Higher than fees apply in some other communities on the West Coast. but still significantly below, somewhere like Aspen. So that's my formal presentation. Think we're happy to try and answer any questions. You have want to start us off with questions. I've got a bunch, but defer to someone else. If they want to start. sure, I'll start sort of high level. which is just a question around. Is it the city's position that we are required to whatever impact fee we we decide to layer on? We required to do this with inclusionary housing.

[32:02] We talk a lot as a planning board and as a city around middle income housing. And what's interesting about what's happening here is this isn't taking out affordable housing. This is taking out maybe middle income, higher middle income housing out of reach of any middle income. More likely. So the question is, has anyone thought about that? And granted, we may not have a program to put it into yet, but this might be the opportunity to actually use this money for a program that we've been dying to do something about. Yeah, I feel like there's 2 questions there. So the 1st point you had just to make it clear. Inclusionary housing is. does not need a nexus study because it is based on the city's ability to enact zoning. So this is a little bit different, and I think in terms of how the money is utilized would be a policy decision. so that

[33:02] I'm sorry, and I didn't introduce myself when I presented. I'm so sorry I'm Sloane Walber. I'm the inclusionary housing program manager. So yeah, in terms of how we utilize the money. I think that's a policy discussion that we'll have to have. I'll try to be brief with a few more questions, because I'm sure there are others that have a lot more. Again, more of city question around. I think the study's really interesting. Do we have related studies to the other developments that we're doing? Is that is that planned like apartment buildings, commercial buildings. These impact fees are very interesting on how you've tied them and how you've put them together. Does the city have a plan beyond this study to try to look at what else we have going on in the city. So no. And the reason for that is because they fall in under inclusionary housing. And when we did the update a couple of years ago, we did have a feasibility analysis. That sort of looked at pro formas of each different type of project to make sure that it was feasible. So we have information on the feasibility, but not based on like a impact fee. Well, I guess my question is, do we know? Because I thought it was really interesting in this, whether it's

[34:25] directionally correct, at least of As things get redeveloped. we're we're creating more demand in our system and the need for more workers, the need for more people. And the question that I always have is, are we? Are we put like on our commercial impact fee? Are we? Do we? Is our commercial impact fee actually satisfy or achieve that incremental worker impact that we're creating by developing these projects. And do we have information like that like this study?

[35:04] Well, so for the non-residential impact fee. It is based on a nexus study. It is, you know, it's I don't know how many, ever 8 years old. So I mean that we could update that to kind of see the impacts. I don't know, Kurt. If you have anything to add. good evening, Kurt Fernhaber, director of housing and human services. So there is a a citywide project that will be rolling out over this next year, which will look at all fees. Throughout the city not just related to development. It's part of the financial strategy of the city. So that will. It's anticipated that all of those things could fall under that the umbrella of that work. But but Sloan is correct that we we do go back occasionally, you know, after a few years, typically you'll do a

[36:03] another nexus study for these types of fees. I have 2 more specific questions, and I'll let someone else. The 1st is I saw that the fee that was proposed. I know that other fees in the city also have, like some kind of escalator for Cpi, etc. annually. Is that what's also being proposed here, because I didn't see that. So we we don't have a proposal yet on that. That would be another policy decision. But that would. That is our sort of typical in both the commercial linkage and the other one. We have it already. Right? We have some kind of escalator. We have an escalator. It's trying to remember what the metric is. But essentially it. Yeah, it's a measure of inflation that increases annually. And then my other question was, my understanding is. This is for net, new square footage. Right? That's the way it's so. Why exclude

[37:01] disaster housing? Because if someone has a 3,000 square foot house that's burned down, and they build a 4,000 square foot house. Why wouldn't why are we not proposing there be a net new impact fee there? It was our consultant recommendation. I'm not sure that we've gotten into the level of detail. figuring out how many projects would have been exempted if you make it this way, and then the home is rebuilt substantially larger. I mean, one of the suggestions we've made is that if a home is only increasing. marginally incised by a couple 100 square feet that that wouldn't apply to these projects given. It's harder to substantiate this nexus, the smaller and smaller you get. and there's also the consideration of administrating the the fee to

[38:04] every small project. So right? But you have that built in, because that's a 500 square feet or less right? And so in the scenario that I'm talking about it would be, you know, and that happens, too. Right. The houses burn down 2,000 square foot house burns down. 4,000 square foot house goes up. The same kind of demographic shifts would happen most likely, in that scenario. I would imagine, if you extrapolate from your presentation. So just curious, why exclude that? It's a good question. I have to get back to you mathematically. You're right. It would be identical. I think the idea is to provide some lenience for a household that had their house burned down legitimately and not insurance. Shenanigans. See? My yeah. thank you. So George hit a number of my questions. So I will be brief.

[39:04] So one question I had is, these scenarios that you worked on scenarios A, B and C. How was the 10,000 foot lot, size threshold chosen? That's separating those scenarios? A and B. And what in particular is happening at that threshold in the data. So the way we came up with the scenarios is, we basically looked at waiver cases from the what do you call it affordable housing review? Yeah, just the data on how many waivers we process on an annual basis. We went back and looked at the homes that have been completed, using the county assessor data which includes lot size above ground, living area and so forth. And then to determine the homes are replacing. We looked at currently approved, pending, proposed cases

[40:00] that involve demolition of homes. but they haven't yet been completed. We looked at what characteristics exist for the homes that they'd be replacing if they're approved. So there seemed to be kind of a natural split within this sample, if you will. You have roughly, half your projects are on large lots, you know 12 to 30,000. These tend to be more in North Boulder, and you have a set of demolished homes replaced homes that are basically within 6 to 10,000 square feet. So there's not really any real magic for this demising lines. Just okay, yeah. I was curious. If you were finding like actual clusters of data, or if it if it even had something to do with the underlying zoning right? Like we have. We have different standard lot sizes and different zoning in the city. Is it something that correlates to that? We didn't look at that? But I think you could probably make an assumption that the larger lots are more of the re type of lots. The smaller lots are more. I'm just curious, like, how robust that categorization is like, could it be used

[41:13] to support a fee differential? Right like you came up with different projected impacts of each of those 2 types of projects. Scenario. A scenario B is that, you know. Are you drawing those categories in a way that could actually support a tiered fee structure? You could try and do that. That was part of the reason for going through the exercise. Okay, but I'm not sure there'd be. Yeah, no, I understand. That's not the recommendation. I'm just curious how robust those categories are. And then one more question about the the data and the model here and the analysis. There's an assumption. If I understand correctly, there's an assumption in the analysis that basically the the demand inducing impacts of demolitions and rebuilds are somehow linear right. That is that each additional square foot

[42:07] of of house size, that, you add. generates a set amount of employment induced demand? Is that an assumption of convenience or convention? Or does that actually reflect reality? Or are there somehow, like thresholds at which even higher levels of induced employment demand sets in? I think I understand the question, so I'll try to answer it. it is of necessity, and it's standard for any nexus analysis, whether it's for commercial fees or residential, which is. yes, that household income, spending and employment is more or less linear, as in a household with a hundred 1,000 spends 3, rd of a household with 300,000. Certainly. In reality, there's a lot of nuance to that. But we haven't

[43:01] surveyed households in boulder were relying on secondary data to do this calculation. Just continuing with that thinking. So Boulder has this phenomenon that happens in certain neighborhoods where houses are demolished, big houses are built and they're purchased, but they're not lived in. They're investor properties and for example, in the neighborhood I live in there are a significant number of those, so that would, I would think, would impact this assumption of jobs being generated. And and whatnot did you take into account the the actual houses that are inhabited after the process versus the vacant houses that are new big houses.

[44:04] No, it's assuming that all of these projects are built, purchased, and occupied by a household living here. Certainly there wouldn't be a nexus if there's nobody living in the house spending money in boulder and so forth. But I've I guess my response to that is, eventually someone's going to occupy the house. So if you want to collect an impact fee, I'm not sure it matters whether it happens 3 years from now or tomorrow. That's my short answer, I would suppose. Thank you. Hi, thank you both for the work that you've done, and for the presentations just a few questions, so I think I understand the logic, for there could have been a supply nexus. But you didn't find that because those homes were never affordable. To begin with, those single family homes. This idea of the demand nexus has this kind of analysis been proven in other communities? I know that our nexus study has to withstand legal challenge. And so I'm assuming that this has been done before and maybe withstood legal challenge.

[45:14] Yes, it's not typical for single family demolitions, as I reviewed, I mean, other communities have done it, but the methodology is very similar to what the city had to do to have commercial linkage fees. So any any city in Colorado, California that has housing impact fees has done a a nexus study like this. And it's pretty standard methodology to do the demand. Nexus. Yes, yes, okay, thank you. So the policy recommendation to have one fee of $15 per square foot and no more. And that's that the very low end of what you calculated the impact fees could be. Why did you choose that low end? What was the logic there.

[46:06] So most communities that do have this, they won't set the fee at the so-called maximum again for purposes of maybe avoided avoiding it, getting challenged. So we had these 3 scenarios to kind of bracket this range, and we're recommending the low end of the range. meaning that the nexus and the fee could differ slightly, you know, plus or minus 10%. Given the circumstances of a particular project or home. So again, I think it's just to be conservative and sure it could be $18 a square foot. But our analysis shows that that would be more than supported for some projects. So we're pick. We're suggesting the low end of the range. Okay, so sort of the least common denominator. Kind of approach. Correct? Okay. I was just curious, because I think the comparison to the square footage charge, for the inclusionary housing is like $15 and 34 cents, and that's on all square footage versus this, which is $15, but only on the additional net, new square footage. So somebody who demolishes an old home and builds a new one would pay significantly less than someone building the same size

[47:23] without demolishing a home. It depends on the size of the home you're demolishing. But typically the homes that are demolished are on the smaller size. So yes, you would still get a credit. But if you're tying it to this nexus of the additional affordable housing, there would be a difference between a vacant lot with no housing. There's a rational nexus between that difference. If that makes sense, I think so. Thank you. And then the 500 net, new square foot exemption, you know, an exemption for smaller projects with less than 500 net new square feet. How was how was that size chosen the 500

[48:09] like you, said Denver. It's 400, right? Sure. It was our best educated guess and suggestion. It's some communities have no exemption. Los Angeles doesn't charge linkage fees for projects that add less than 1,500 square feet. So there's a wide range. My part of our simple minded way of thinking of this is, if new housing in Boulder is selling for a thousand dollars a square foot, which it is frequently higher. 500 square feet is roughly a half 1 million dollar change in home value. Could it be 400 600? Yes, it wouldn't change the results of our study. That's just a recommendation. Okay, I was just wondering if it had any correlation to like the size of additions that you're seeing like, for example, in the memo it mentioned garage conversions. We measured our garage. It's like 19 by 19 feet. So just like under 400 square feet.

[49:08] But so like, I was curious. If there's any linkage to the size of projects that you've seen. No, there's a wide range in terms of additions. Do you know about how many projects have an addition? That's less than 500 square feet. Does that happen very often? It does happen we didn't look at the exact number, but I could get back to you on that if I think that would be interesting data. Yeah, that's a comment. I'm sorry. I'll stick to questions. A similar question. You'd looked at you, estimated with your range of replacement or expansion, projects a low of a 600 square foot home addition to a high of a 4,500 square foot. a new home. And I'm curious how many replacement homes in Boulder are more than 4,500 square feet. because it seems like we get a lot that's more in that, like 6,000 to 8,000 or more square foot range.

[50:04] I couldn't tell you off the top of my head. But I'd be happy to share the data we compiled to come up with these scenarios. Yeah, that'd be great. Thank you. Yeah. My! My hunch is that less than a quarter. Most most of them are within this 25 to 4,000 square foot home size. But again, we're happy to get back to you on that one. I think there may be some extreme outliers. That's it. Thank you. Hi, thank you. I have a couple of questions. Most of the questions got answered by my colleagues or, yeah got asked by my colleagues. The 1st question is on the gap analysis. So you were looking at both rental units in that case, and for sale units. And so you calculated a capitalized

[51:03] cost for the rental units, and I'm just wondering what discount rate you used for that. Sure. So the example I reviewed earlier was for ownership was a little more straightforward for the rental. We compared market rents to affordable rents and capitalize the difference in monthly and annual rent at a 5% capitalization at 5%. Okay. great. Thank you. The next question is sort of a follow up to what Laura was asking. Are you aware? And maybe this is more of a Christy question. Are you aware of any legal challenges to any of these comparable fees that you've looked at. I am not aware of any legal challenges to the ones that the city or the contractor has looked at. There was recently a case at the United States Supreme Court regarding impact fees, but it had to do with impact fees that weren't

[52:10] tied down to a specific building. So the way that they're doing these with square footage is is generally held to be okay under the law because it does reach the size of the unit and is proportional to their impact. Yep, sounds good. And then I guess my only other question is about cases where you're going, either from a multi-unit dwelling to a single unit dwelling, or vice versa, which certainly in the past we've seen a lot of conversions of apartment buildings, either through demolitions or just internal changes to single unit. And potentially, if we're starting to allow more missing middle housing, we might have some conversions the other way, or situations where you know I take my house, I add, on a 700 foot square foot addition, and but and make it into a duplex, you know. And so I'm just trying to figure out, how would those things work

[53:20] with regards to this? So in terms of if you're adding a dwelling unit to a property, you would fall under inclusionary housing, and you would be required to pay the cash only contribution for that additional unit. just the additional unit. Yes, okay. So I think it would depend on the project and how you're utilizing the addition. But if the addition is just to add a unit. then you would be fall under inclusionary housing. You would pay cash only for that unit. If you're doing an addition to an existing unit. It would be an impact fee and then addition for an additional dwelling that would be cash in loose. So there are some nuance that would need to figure out on how that would apply. So if I'm if I just take my existing house, and I demise it into 2 units and call it a duplex.

[54:17] I would still pay one an inclusionary housing fee for one unit. Yes, yeah, okay. And if I take an existing building, that's a triplex, and I tear it down. And I build a single unit building. There's no impact fee for that. Is that correct? So under our current regulations, you would have essentially 3 credits or waivers, so you would use one of those for your single family home, and you would not contribute cash in lieu. And under this scenario. Assuming that you're not increasing the square footage, you wouldn't pay an impact fee, either.

[55:03] but if it were but if it were increasing the square footage. then this would apply, even though it's starting, not as a single unit. Yes, because it's on a square foot basis, not on a credit for a dwelling unit basis, if that makes sense. Yep, yep, okay. Can I just ask a quick follow up on that? Yeah, I'm done so in the scenario you just described, of a 3 unit building converted to a single family residence under the current regulations there is no impact fee or inclusionary housing. Okay? Well, that's seems like an obvious loophole, anyway. And there, even under this new regulation, the way it's proposed, because it would, there would be. Let's say it was a a 3,000 square, 3 1,000 square foot units.

[56:02] and I built a 3,200 square foot house. I would have to build a 3,600 square foot house for the net new of 600 to be included in this fee structure under this scenario. Yes, under this scenario, but I think that this sort of discussion is what we should think about as we start sort of writing. The code language is, if there are certain circumstances that you want to make sure still apply. Can I follow up on that? Because I thought that was really interesting? So sorry, because I misinterpreted what you were saying so. The the in Mark's example kind of clarified it. So I thought the way it was presented was up to a 500 foot addition. But if it was a tear down you could you could build additional 500 square feet and still not

[57:03] have a have an impact fee, and, and as proposed. Is that correct? Yes, that's the way we've calculated, the fee amounts helpful. And then around that. So the other thing is, it's really interesting, right, because, as these bigger homes are developed. a lot of them are developing adus, those adus may or may not be rental. They're probably just for that house, and so the question would be. Are we exempting the adu, plus an additional 500 square feet in in the scenario where, I let's say, if I tore down because I think math helps. If I tore down a 3,000 square foot house. and I built a 3,500 square foot house plus a quote unquote. 700 square foot. Adu. Would there be any fee under what's proposed? Hypothetically? No, but again, I don't think we've gotten into the details on how you would exempt adus and how you would. Is it a cumulative total? Or, yeah. So a question around that, which is

[58:11] why and maybe this is a policy discussion. But I'll just put out there as a question if we don't have an answer. Why exempt an adu and 500 square feet. because a lot of adus are not used as adus. They're just used as parts of a house. right? So what what was the rationale behind exempting an adu. That was our suggestion, and it was simple-minded, I guess, being that you're going to impose new housing impact fees. Not sure it'd be a good policy policy to discourage possible sources of additional lower price. Housing we didn't get into nuance of is the adu occupied by somebody that's not the owner of the primary residence, and so forth.

[59:02] It was more just our take on the policy. It would not discourage possible sources for discussion. That's fine. Yeah, if it's helpful, I can tell you. for inclusionary housing purposes, that we sort of examine this as part of calculating cash in lieu on a square foot basis, and it's difficult because they come and go. And so do you calculate it when the house is 1st built? Or how does that work? And so essentially for inclusionary housing. If it's part of the principal structure and attached. Adu, you do pay cash in lieu for that area. If it's a detached cash and or detached. Adu, you would. You don't pay cash in lieu for that additional area so there it could be a way that you handle it through this as well, but a detached adu as I've seen in a number of my friends, right like friends. Houses like it's just kind of like a pool house with a with a guest bedroom and a kitchen, a little kitchenette, right? So it could actually incur. Yeah, anyway, I don't want to get into comments. Sorry. Go ahead.

[60:05] Mason. I didn't get to you yet. Do you have any additional. So I'm really curious about the the public use micro data samples from the 2023 America community survey. This was used to determine the percentage of workers that are in the less than 80% ami, and the in between 80 and 120%. Ami. Right? And my understanding is that the data that you used is from the survey from 2023 looking at just boulder. And this is purely a summarization of the data. Is that correct? It's for the geographic areas that are similar to Boulder's labor shed. So it's not just the city of Boulder. It's Broomfield County, Boulder County parts of Jefferson County.

[61:00] And yes, it's summation of the Survey data. Designed to come up with estimates of workers by household income level. Because, I do know other nexus studies have been challenged, as they just assume a worker in one sector lives in a household with another worker in the same sector, and they're multiplying, you know. construction wage times 2. It's a little more nuanced than that. So this is just an attempt to try and reflect that great, and that those areas that were selected was that meant to reflect the expected areas that folks are commuting commuting from correct. Okay, And then I believe that this distribution of one sec. Let me ask one more before that question, how are the

[62:02] the industry selected for that summarization? Because I think there's quite a few I don't. I don't understand how these are rolled up, and which which industries were types of jobs were selected for the summary. It's just summarizing the data by standard 2, just 2 digit economic sectors. So we didn't pick and choose. This is just the standard, just everybody. Yeah. So when you think about the types of jobs created by that additional income in the community, you assumed an even spread across all sectors that currently exist within. No, there's I refer to an economic impact model. They're called multipliers. And they express, for example in this case. for every 1 million dollars of new household income or earnings. How those expenditures ripple through the local economy.

[63:01] So the estimates of workers generated for those sectors is from that analysis, the multipliers. That's not us assuming it's uniforms. So certainly most of the jobs created are in retail trade construction, leisure and hospitality. Was that distribution in the report? I might have missed it. I believe it is. I'm going to pull it up, and I'll be able to tell you. Okay. that makes a lot of sense. I appreciate the explanation. Yeah, it is in there. It's It's way back on page 28 estimated employment impacts by industry. Okay, great. That makes a lot of sense. And then so

[64:02] based on that distribution in the area selected. The assumption is that the increase in jobs will be of that same distribution. So you will equally as likely to get a worker under 80% ami as someone over 120%. Ami. Correct? I'm not sure I totally understand the question, but it's a two-step process. So, as I mentioned, whereas in. Some sectors are definitely. more frequently members of lower income households. So you have more jobs created in retail trade. Yes, you end up with more lower income workforce households. If that. not sure. I'm answering your question. Yeah, no, no, I think you are. You're just assuming that, like for every construction job that's created.

[65:04] It'll not mess with the distribution of workers within the distributions of ami or change. That, I guess, is a better way to say than mess with, yeah, we're just making estimate of income today and applying it to an estimate of workers generated in the future. So no, we're not getting that nuanced about how the local economy and so forth is going to change over time. Yeah, no, that makes sense. I appreciate the explanations. This is really cool. I've never seen an analysis like this. So I appreciate, appreciate all that you did here. The only other question that I had was that hasn't already been asked is. is there a reason that a sliding scale fee was not part of the recommendations?

[66:05] Why, you went with, like the flat rate versus a sliding scale? Your mic. You just turned your mic off. Sorry going on and off here. I'll just keep it on our suggestion for simplicity, and again, as being able to defend this nexus, and the calculations was that it? Sure in theory you could have a sliding fee. But as we've kind of showed, it's not going to slide very much, and the directionality might get confused about. Do smaller projects pay more per square foot, less per square foot? I'm not sure it would be. We just didn't recommend it. But yeah, it doesn't mean you couldn't do it. Understood? All right. Yeah, I appreciate your time. I had a question related to what Mason was talking about. Could you? Could you bring that slide up with the

[67:01] the different house scenarios, A, B and C, or with the 1,600 square foot. you know which one I'm talking about. Yes, all right. So oh, no. There was one with salaries, there was a different 1. 0, yeah, okay? So that's the difference. Okay? So in scenario, let's just take scenario A, so I can understand it. So the different scenario, a, you get a 1,600 square foot house. It's being demoed. You're adding certain amount of square footage, and then you're adding 1,600 on top of that, and you've got, and that is a difference in annual income for that particular property, or 360. What's the base income assumed for that property? Then?

[68:00] Yeah, I can tell you this is all laid out in a series of tables. Let's see what was the original square footage. The original square footage is a 1,200 square foot home. It's adding 600 1,600 square feet. So we're now 2,800 1.1 million is the sales price for the existing home. If it weren't demolished, 3.1 million is the price for the new bigger home and the question about income, the base household income would be 260,000, 260. And so that's the 360 is on top of the 260. So we're talking about someone who owned $620,000 of annual income. So scenario B, it'd be about a million dollars of annual income. Okay? So super interesting? What happens in your study?

[69:04] What happens to the person that left this house? Where do they go, and where? Where are they captured in the study like, where do they like? They're assuming they move within boulder like, where is their? Where do they? Where's their demand? And where do they exist? We moved in Johnstown. We aren't quantifying what happens to the household. We we haven't quantified that. Okay, so, but we're all we're talking about is the incremental difference right? Right? But that person conceptually still exists. So this incremental is potentially on top of that person that exists in boulder. If they stay in boulder. they have to go somewhere right? I mean that their demand doesn't go away. And then. plus whoever moves in here and the incremental assuming they're not moving, I mean, they're moving. I know it's hard because they might be moving in town, too. Right? Okay, so just you're correct. That's not accounted for. But

[70:03] my got it. Economic sprain got it by that logic. You could charge everybody who already lives in Boulder an impact fee to keep living here. Kind of thing. So we're really trying to quantify that net. New income expenditure, workforce generation. Because, unlike inclusionary housing. we're not adding any additional units. Right? You already have one housing unit and replacing it with either a new, larger home or you're expanding it. So there's not the same it's all incremental. There isn't any new households. They're just higher income. I was just trying to think through your question, George, and I wonder if what you're asking is actually something that would be captured by establishing a supply nexus, which we're not doing rather than a demand nexus. So somebody is. Somebody is displaced from one of these houses

[71:04] that because that house is somehow removed from a more affordable housing supply. Yeah, yeah, but that's that seems to be a supply nexus rather than a demand. I did. I'm sorry I did have one more. So in in that data. My understanding is, it's a survey. There's there's margin of error included in the in the numbers. How do you all treat margin of error in the assessments? I'm sorry. Which survey are you referring to? So the the I'm gonna have to find it because I forgot the name. The American community Survey that data. My understanding is that, like the income, for instance, is estimated for the community because it's a survey. It doesn't. It's not gathering everybody. So they they provide like a plus or minus sort of range on those incomes. How do you all treat those margins of error.

[72:08] Everything that we're using here is our assumptions, or. for example, home price to income ratios taken from a different data set for boulder. We haven't calculated what the margin of error is, because in theory this is data for the entire city over a certain year it's not a sample as far as the the pums data. That's the census data we've used. We've applied the weights that they produce alongside these. So it's not just a raw survey. It's households at this income level or that income level are assigned different weights. So these are already weighted estimates. So off the top of my head. I couldn't tell you what the margin there is, but it's how the

[73:00] census literally comes up with its own estimates. So yes, there is a margin of error, but we're comfortable using it. So my question goes to. there's an inclusionary housing waiver for developments with 4 or fewer units that are demolished and replaced. How does this impact fee play into the scenario where there are existing 4 units and they're demolished, and a 20 unit project comes in there. Those original 4 houses. My understanding is they're subtracted out of inclusionary housing. Currently does this impact fee account for them? So good question. So the waiver only applies if your development is 5 or fewer, the entire development. So if you're building 20 units, you don't receive any waivers to inclusionary housing.

[74:05] and this impact fee for the removed 4 houses. so it becomes the inclusionary housing fee. No, so that is a good clarification. So, although the vast majority of these types of projects are single family, it would apply to a triplex or a duplex as well. So you, if you fall outside of inclusionary housing because of this waiver process the impact fee would apply based on the square footage. got it. The standard square footage would be applied to the units that were demolished. and then, if they are above the the threshold, if it yeah, if it was a regionary housing, they would fall into that. So somehow or another, that kind of gap that currently exists.

[75:01] which one of the 1st projects we saw was on Arapahoe, on West Arapahoe. and they were removing houses, and it just perplexed me. It's just like, why aren't we capturing any fees for these? Because they were being replaced within the allotted time? So this fixes that great. Thank you so much? I almost all my questions have been answered, and but I have a couple. the $50,000 and 500 square feet that that is, that's an and statement correct that that the project has to exceed 500 square feet addition and $50,000 of expense. Is that right? So we didn't have a recommendation for valuing to accounting for value. It would just be a square foot amount. Okay, yeah, I'll have to. I don't have my Pdf. Here, but somewhere in there was so that might have been for the purposes of

[76:11] determining the nexus. But in terms of actually implementing it would just be on a square foot basis. We wouldn't be evaluating. Thank you. I think I got confused. There is the 500 square feet. If I'm if I have a 2,000 square foot house, and I'm adding a thousand is the 1st 500 that I'm adding exempted, or is that a threshold? That if I'm adding a thousand, I am, I pay the fee on the whole 1,000. The 1st 500 is not excluded. Yeah, the way that other impact fees are. It's a threshold, so you'd be paying for either you meet the threshold and you pay for the entire square footage. or you don't meet the thresholds, and you're not subject to it. So you would pay for the 1,000 square feet.

[77:02] Okay? All right, And the fact that we kind of decided against. And again, I'm I'm this is, this is tough going for me here. The supply nexus does the fact that we're really not doing much with the supply nexus. Did that take into account recently adopted city code, where I know you've exempted adus, but we have made far, and building envelope to be the determining factor, setbacks, etc, versus versus number of units. So whether it's a duplex or a triplex. anyway, did did the supply nexus take into account new regulations that are more lenient on building a duplex or a triplex.

[78:02] So for the next purposes of the nexus study, I don't think the supply analysis takes into account zoning regulations in terms of implementation. I think that I think it actually just helps with that equity issue. Because if you're building more square footage hypothetically, you're creating the need for affordable housing. So I think that they sort of go hand in hand. Actually. if that makes sense, that's it for me. Everything else is comment. So just a quick follow on to that. And I'm sorry my brain's a little slow tonight, and maybe always the idea for the supply nexus of taking the example that Kurt raised of. You're taking a 2 or 3 unit dwelling unit building and turning it into a single unit that's removing units from the supply. Right?

[79:09] Did the supply nexus think about that at all? Do we see that scenario very much that seems like that would be pretty uncommon given that we don't have a lot of duplexes or triplexes, but there will be more in the future. Yeah, I think that's why, as we see very little of them. I think it was like 4 projects that received a credit of removing over 2 dwelling units. So it's it's very rare that we see that for over a period of how many years. trying to remember what I sent you? About 10 years. Thank you. Yeah. I would just elaborate that when we say we didn't dive into a supply nexus, we're referring to single family homes today that become a larger single family home tomorrow.

[80:01] not when units are merged or split. and under the city's definition of affordable housing. I think, for example, an affordable price at 120% of Ami is. I'm going to speak from memory. 400, something $1,000. We didn't find a single example of a tear down that sold for $400,000 so directly. No, you're not losing affordable housing indirectly. Sure, there's all sorts of effects on the housing market, but we're not smart enough to quantify that in the form of a fee. should we go to comments? Suggestions, Sloane, what do you need from us? Do you want us to each give you some comments. You want to have a discussion. What? What? What would be helpful? Whatever works for you, I mean. There is some questions in the memo. But really, just if you have feedback for us moving into implementation certain scenarios we should be looking at. Do you have the key questions that we can just pop up on the screen just to help guide our conversation.

[81:09] That might be helpful. There we go. Great. I'm pretty busy. Yeah, it's pretty basic. I don't usually go first, st but my thoughts are organized. So if you guys are okay with that based on what we talked about so overall, I agree with the the kinds of ideas that you have. I think we should absolutely have some type of impact fee

[82:02] in in the vein of what we're talking about. I think it can be refined quite a bit. I don't know if that's the right price per square foot to me it feels like it should be a little bit higher. That's an opinion, I do think, whatever fee we impose, it should have an escalator like our other fees. and it should be consistent with other escalators that we use in the city, whatever they are, as far as the the disaster component. I don't understand why we would exempt that because it's already a net new fee. And I think that's a great structure is the net new fee. So it in theory it shouldn't affect someone rebuilding their home in a disaster. I think that I think that some thought should be put against collapsing the adu and 500 square foot exemption into one. I think that there's whether it's 500 square feet, 700 square feet, 400 square feet that could be inclusive of an adu where someone wouldn't be paying an impact fee if they're choosing to build an adu. My concern there is that people that are building larger homes. The adus are

[83:12] more likely an extension of their home rather than an actual additional dwelling unit that's going to be occupied by a lower income person, which I think, is the purpose of why that's in here. So I would suggest the exemption might be a way to tackle both, that whether the square foot and I like the idea of some square footage. If someone needs to add on, you know, a bedroom to their house for an additional family member, etc. The adu kind of accomplishes the same thing in different ways, at least in my my view, and then, I think, a bigger picture for me. I welcome this as an opportunity to potentially take a different course in the city relative to the money and the fees that are generated. I know it's a drop in the bucket. We're talking a million 2, even if we increase the fees.

[84:00] 1,000,005. I mean, it's not a. It's not a huge amount of money. But I think that what we're talking about here potentially has some disproportionate effect into what is already sort of attainable, or, or. you know, attainable middle income housing that's getting replaced by completely unattainable, as we saw by that salary. Think so. So, I would suggest. And this is more of a policy discussion for council, and the rest of planning board is that we we consider trying to make a dent in middle income and using this money for something new to attack a problem that we have no tools in our quiver. Currently. So those are my comments. Go ahead. So I agree. I really appreciate the work that you've done, and I think that this is a great nexus study to for the city to have completely support the direction that you're going. I agree that I think that the $15 per square foot I appreciate the lowest common denominator logic.

[85:05] and if we could extend that logic into some kind of sliding scale, I think. Let's take a look at sort of the extreme outliers of what are these really big projects? And and maybe if that there needs to be a high tier for some of these really large single family homes. To kind of discourage that if we can, even in some small way. Similarly, the exemption for putting that number at 500 square feet, I'd really encourage more data gathering about how many projects and what type of projects are around 500 square feet or 400 square feet, and see if there's some kind of natural break in the data around the different kinds of projects rather than going with the 500 without looking at the data. So I would do that. I agree with George about the escalator. the disaster rebuilds. I do think that there is some logic to giving a break to people who have experienced one of the worst things a family can go through, and that are going to have excessive costs because of that right? And so maybe they get a little bit more of a square footage exemption than anybody else, but I don't know that I would completely exempt them. So maybe for them. If the normal exemption is 500 square feet, maybe they get an additional 1,000 square feet right? Because when you think about rebuilding your home.

[86:23] the cost of rebuilding are so high that even though that raises your resale value. You know you're you're kind of. It's kind of coming out in the wash for you. So I can see giving people a little bit more of an economic break if they're forced into that scenario where they have to to rebuild I agree with George about the adus, I think. having an exemption for adus, and an exemption for 500 square feet, or whatever that number is cumulatively, seems potentially open to abuse, and I think that might have been the direction you were going, Sloane, when you said we haven't really looked at the details of if that's cumulative or not. So so maybe it is.

[87:02] The the adu is not separate from that square footage exemption. And then, whether it's through this study or not. the idea of people removing units from the city seems like something that we should discourage, whether that's knocking down a small apartment building or a triplex, or a duplex to build one very large unit. It seems like we should think about how. How can we have some kind of impact fee that addresses that loss of housing for going from multiple small units to one big one. And maybe it's not this study. Maybe it's something different. But I think that we should be working to discourage that. Thank you so much. so I'm really glad to hear that we're we're thinking similarly on on this topic, and and I'll I usually am in favor of simplicity. And in this case I'm like requesting complexity, and it's complexity in terms of

[88:01] the whole thing needs to be more progressive. and it needs to be more thoughtfully progressive in the sense of. For example. you could have a rather than a 500 square, 500 square foot addition threshold. You could have a 250 square foot, or 300 square foot exemption that everybody gets 1st 300 square feet. no fee. the next 300 square feet, or 400 square feet, is at 10 bucks a square foot. the next 400 square feet. That's at 20 or 25. The next 1,000 after that 30, because when when I think about scenarios, I think about 2 possible scenarios, one is a family buys a 1,200 square foot house in Martin acres, and they want to add 520 square feet. We charge them 15 bucks a square foot.

[89:00] Another family older couple with a lot of money by a 1,600 square foot house up 2 blocks down from Chautauqua on Bluebell. and they build a 4,600 square foot house. We charge them 15 bucks a square foot. those 2 scenarios. We need to encourage one and discourage the other. And so I just feel like again. I know I'm talking about adding complexity, but a real progressive bent to this thing, I think, would benefit everyone, and I think a a small exemption. you know from the get go and a tiered pricing do that. And I and I agree also that multiple units we need to discourage. And I don't know that it happens, but I know in my neighborhood there are. There are multiple units that are at the end of their useful life

[90:03] that will go. And I wouldn't be surprised if they actually went into into single family homes. So whatever we do, I think and I, this is the time to do it to multiple units need to be strongly encouraged to stay multiple units. and I think that, you know, when I looked at those numbers, we're a lot. We're more like aspen than we are like. LA. We are. And you know Aspen is kind of unabashed, has become unabashed about what they're doing about about their housing needs. So those are my comments. My comments are really really short, George. I think you pretty much nailed it. I only have 2 additional things to really add, I think, on the Wildfire front disaster.

[91:02] I agree with exactly what you said, George. I think my main concern is what we've seen in these disaster situations that there are predatory buyers that go through and grab these lots. and they build bigger. And I think we should discourage that in any way that we can, and try to help the families get back into their homes. Laura, I understand what you're saying about the incremental, so I don't know if there can be a component tied to ownership staying with, or what have you to try to account for that? But I am supremely concerned about that. The only other thing I would say is, is, I appreciate the work that you've done on the study as someone who does economic type studies in healthcare. I understand all the assumptions and the issues with the types of data you have to work with to come up with an answer that that can stand up legally with something that's imperfect, like the data that we have. So I get that the only part of it there are really only 2 parts that I thought could be improved with the study and one Claudia you mentioned. And that's a linear relationship with spend and income which feels a little bit iffy to me. I don't have the experience to say one way or the other, but I'd love to see that further explored

[92:18] the other one is that income distribution across industry sectors. It doesn't quite pass the sniff test that 50% of the additional jobs would be above 120% of the median. I think just by definition of what Median means. That doesn't feel right to me. And assuming that every job that's included and created is a will preserve that distribution also feels like a strong assumption to me when I think about the the jobs that would be created by this increased spend

[93:02] to me. I feel like I would assume that many of them would be in that that more, 120% lower ami. And I understand the assumptions are made, or whatever. But I would like to see that just explored further, to see if that if there's reason that that actually holds, or maybe just more explanation, for for my personal sake. Yeah. Otherwise, good job. I appreciate this. I agree that we need this. I lean more towards the aspen example, too, mark, like you said. Hi, thank you again, really appreciate all the analysis. Thought it was yeah, fascinating. I didn't understand it as well as Mason did. But I did my best. Yeah, just a few comments regarding disaster. I agree with George that really, if if you're rebuilding your house, we should absolutely make sure that that is straightforward. But if you're adding on to it, then I think that that's a different ball of wax, and I think we should be charging for it because of exactly what Mason said, that in a lot of cases it's not the same owner. It's a it's a predatory buyer who comes in

[94:21] regarding the actual number that we came up with. Well, 1st of all, my heart definitely is with Mark. About doing a more progressive fee structure. However, it needs to be tied to a nexus analysis. Right? And so it's not clear to me that that sort of aggressively progressive structure, unfortunately, is, is justifiable. However, you did find in your your 2 rebuild examples. The smaller one came in at 15. The larger one came in at 18. And so it does seem like there is justification there for at least some amount of tearing

[95:04] of the structure, as I think Laura referred to, and so I would support looking into that, especially especially for the full demo and rebuild, which it just seems like a more It's a bigger impact it. To me it feels like than in terms of how the impact on the on the the city than these, you know. 500 foot addition, 800 foot edition. Whatever. I agree with Laura that we should look into that 500 foot threshold and and and find out may you know, maybe 300 is a better number, whatever. And yeah, definitely concern about the which is probably independent about the case of dwellings being removed.

[96:02] There's was an example just within the last couple years. Near me, near Ml. On grape. The 800 block of grape where there was a very affordable duplex that got torn down. And it's a very fancy house, you know. I don't know 4 million dollar house, or something that was built there. My sister lived in a house up on Mesa Drive many years ago. There was a triplex, not a house, an apartment in a triplex, and that got torn down and turned into a super fancy house, one of those one of those mesa drive houses. So it does happen, and it feels like when it happens, it's a really significant delta in value and and affordability to utter lack of affordability. and I think those are all my comments. So thank you.

[97:09] So I may repeat some of my colleagues and apologies in advance for that. The comments that I have are based on 2 goals, or hopes that I do have for this project. And just to be clear about what those are. The 1st is to maximize the impact for our inclusionary Housing Fund over time. And to me. That means finding a sweet spot that generates significant revenue while avoiding legal challenge. and also that we avoid disincentivizing the construction of desired housing types or incentivizing the destruction of desired housing types. So my specific comments, then. are as follows, like many of my colleagues, I think that the proposed single fee that $15 fee seems to underprice a lot of the scenarios in play here. and that really does not feel like a good approach. Given the scale of our housing need here in Boulder, and given the fact that we're not able to use that supply nexus to address any of these impacts. So as you work toward an ordinance. I would really encourage Staff to look for ways to bring up the floor, incorporate differential pricing and or capture more building activity as we try to settle in on a price or a tier of prices

[98:28] regarding the exemption for disaster rebuilds. Like several of my colleagues, I think this only makes sense. If we are talking about an existing owner doing a substantially equivalent replacement. Construction. Disasters, unfortunately, are often followed by ownership changes and speculative activity, and I would not want us to set up a system that rewards up building by providing exemptions. In those cases. I do agree with the analysis that some kind of exemption, for adus makes sense, adding, a small dwelling unit does raise somebody's property values and generate some profit, but it does also often directly contribute to our housing need. And the city has decided in other areas of policy that this is a form of construction that we want to incentivize. So I think it does make sense to have adu exemptions.

[99:22] I was also going to recommend having a close look at impacts on potential duplex and triplex developments. I do understand that some of those would fall under existing inclusionary housing cash in lieu requirements. So for now I would just say that as you go about in this next phase of engagement with technical experts. Let's please make sure that we're considering how small multi unit projects might be affected in either direction. Right? So most of what we're talking about here is single unit to single unit. But the impact fee that we're talking about might ultimately apply to everything under that 5 unit threshold that we currently have.

[100:02] And since we have a stated goal of adding more of those small multi-unit dwellings in the city, let's make sure we are really clear about what's happening with them. And then one last comment. something that has not come up yet, but was listed in the recommendations. The study recommended phasing in these fees over time. and I have no idea what kind of timeline that would be. I have no idea if that is just standard language that gets put into these kinds of reports to give communities political cover. But I do want to go on the record as saying, I think phasing seems pretty unnecessary. Given the size of these fees relative to the cost of the projects that we're looking at, and the scale of profits being made on them. So if we are ready to impose an impact fee, let's just do it. I like that. I like that conclusion. Let's just do it. You've gotten some brilliant information and input from my colleagues, and I am not going to get into any details I support what's been said.

[101:10] I would encourage as this gets developed into the ordinance and into the details that the point that Mark and Kurt brought up, which is, what are we encouraging and what are we not encouraging? I think that should become a filter for what we end up doing? It's just like, what's the result going to be when this actually hits the ground in our neighborhoods. And so I think that that's an important important thing. When this is a very real thing that happens that that is going to be impacting the neighborhoods, and how the neighborhoods are or aren't developing. And I think it's a great, it's a great tool to try to kind of shift the course of what's been happening. So please keep that. Keep your eye on the end game there, and I would. I agree with. I think our fees proposed. Fees might be too low. I do agree that we are more like aspen than we are like Denver or any of the other cities in that we're contained right. Our our city is pretty contained with its green belt.

[102:20] and you know that makes any building that happens in our city so much more valuable because we can't keep spreading out and and have kind of the benefits of some of the other geographies. So those are my 2 inputs. And thank you for your hard work. Is that good? Yeah, go ahead, Kurt. First, st I want to thank you all for your input. It was actually extremely helpful, I think, as we develop this towards an ordinance, I did want to make one comment, George. You had at the beginning, which was

[103:03] sort of the nexus of the people who move out. And what happens to those resources? We actually do have a program that we've been running for about 5 years. Now it's called the preservation program. where we go out and buy market condominiums mostly fix them up as needed to meet energy standards or whatever, and sell them for 100 to 150,000 less than we bought them, for they become permanently affordable homeownership units. We just sold 3 of those last week. We added 7 units to our Middle income ownership program this month. And so there are ways for us to do this. And I'm really hopeful that this resource we'll actually double the amount that we're currently spending on that program. Kurt, good question on that. So that program. I mean, it's really interesting. So what?

[104:04] Who? What ami are you talking? What are you targeting for that particular program? It depends actually on the units a bit. we're typically in the 90 to 100% ami, I think we've gone as high as 110% ami. If you go higher than than that. As an Ami. People actually start looking elsewhere outside of the city. So there's sort of a sweet spot there for a permanently affordable unit. If you start going too high in that, Emi, it actually doesn't work as well, either. Thanks. Yep. if if we're good on that topic, and you have everything you're you need. We will go to any other matters for the board.

[105:05] Not that many people here. maybe just a calendar check. Yeah, I'm not sure if Charles has anything else online. But I did just want to raise that. Our next meeting is March 18, th and we do have the rehearing of the 2555, 30th Street Site Review, which we are hoping to have a full board to review that. So please let me know if you have any calendaring conflicts with that. I'm sorry. The date on that meeting, March 18, th March 18, th and and I'm sorry. Did I hear that that's going to be a full rehearing. I thought it was a continuation. What? What's going to happen on March 18th with regard to 2, 5, 5 30th street. It's a mystery. No, I'm kidding according to your by or your rules of procedure. If there is a vote of 3 3, the applicant is allowed to request a rehearing, since there was a vote of 3. 3, there is going to be a rehearing which is a complete rehearing of the case. So presentations, deliberation, applicant presentation. So that's what will be taking place on the 18.th

[106:14] Thank you. And Charles mentioned just a point of information. The 1855, Flatiron Court is going to council for review. So it'll go for call up consideration on. I'm sorry, so they have not yet called it up. They'll consider it on the they'll they'll consider it on the 20.th Because it's considered a denial at this point. Is that right? That's correct, even though. But the denial findings were tied. They weren't. They weren't adopted. But it's technically a denial. Okay. Anything less than 4 positive is great.

[107:01] Okay? Even though the denial findings were not were not adopted. Okay. Good. How does that work? I thought the city needed denial findings in order to not approve a project. I guess I'm just trying to understand the process. Yeah. So the findings of the planning board and, Charles, you can correct me if I'm wrong. I know you've been talking to Laurel more about this so specifically, your rules say that it is a denial. The findings, the rules, don't require a written finding from the board, so the findings of the denial are going to be based on what you all have discussed in in the deliberations on that case. as far as the record for that denial. Okay, thank you. Yeah, Charles, I still see up on the screen anything, any thoughts, comments. No, nothing else from staff tonight. Great mark you. Still your microphone. You're interested all right. If no one has anything else, we'll adjourn this meeting quick question, just to check in on our retreat agenda. That's coming up in a few like

[108:09] few weeks. April 8, th right? So like in about a month. So about a month. What's the process for deciding the retreat? Agenda? Mark and Kurt are the this was a topic of Mark Mark and Kurt a little while ago. But I think we heard last time that correction on the date. We're Brad and Charles were right. We're going to make a proposal. So I think we're waiting on that. And then Kurt and Mark may weigh in. So Brad and Charles are meeting tomorrow to actually discuss. Okay. So we'll. Okay, thank you. And we'll be in touch correction. Very important to refer to ourselves. Alright. Well, thank you for that, and with nothing else we'll adjourn the meeting.

[109:04] Have a great night. Good night.