The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About08/07/2025 - AFFORDABLE HOUSING BOARD - AGENDA - Regular Meeting Social Sustainability 222 Laporte Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.221.6753 MEMORANDUM TO: Members of the Affordable Housing Board FM: Sue Beck-Ferkiss, Social Policy and Housing Programs Manager RE: Hybrid Board Meeting The next Affordable Housing Board meeting will be held: Thursday, August 7, 2025 at 4:00 In person at 222 Laporte Ave or Online via Microsoft Teams at 4:00 BOARD MEMBERS: If you cannot attend the meeting, please contact Sue Beck - Ferkiss either by email (sbeckferkiss@fcgov.com) or by phone (221-6753). If you issues day of the meeting call Sue at 970.556.5609. BUSINESS 1. Public Participation 2. Approval of Minutes: Copies of the draft minutes of the Regular June meeting is attached for the Board’s approval. Approval of minutes requires a formal motion and vote by the Board . 3. Hybrid meetings: 2025 meetings will be hybrid. PRESENTATION/DISCUSSION: 1. COMPETITIVE PROCESS DEBRIEF, ADAM MOLZER, SSD AND BOARD (60 MINUTES) Adam will provide some background on the City’s Competitive Grant Process, including changes to the Competitive Process this year. Adam will debrief this year’s process and recommendations with the board. If time allows, Adam can also present on the Human Services and Homelessness Priority Platform the Human Services and Housing Board is using as a guiding document. • Board Action – Discussion 2. OUTREACH VISITS, CLAIRE, JORJA & STEFANIE (15 MINUTES) Board members have begun visiting other Boards and Commissions as assigned. Let’s hear about these initial visits. • Board Action – Discussion 3. BOARD PRIORITY COMMITTEE REPORTS (30 MINUTES) 2 • Knowledge Repository; • Outreach, Education and Partnerships • Council and Local Legislative Support; and • Equity and Justice in Affordable Housing. o Board Action – Discussion 4. BOARD LIAISON ASSIGNMENTS AND REPORTS, FYI (AS TIME ALLOWS) For 2025, the Board has chosen the following outreach assignments: Jorja Youth Advisory Board Housing Catalyst (work with Kristin Fritz) Liaison to ASCSU Planning & Zoning Commission (tag team with Claire) Stefanie Disability Advisory Board Urban Renewal Authority Josh Parks & Recreation Board Liz Transportation Board Bob Human Services and Housing Funding Board Claire Downtown Development Board Planning & Zoning Commission (tag team with Jorja) John Economic Advisory Board Poudre Library District Board • Board Action: Report on any activity 5. BOARD MEMBER IDEAS – SPACE FOR NEW ITEMS (15 MINUTES) BOARD BUSINESS: • Meeting Logistics – ▪ September Meeting at Neighbor to Neighbor ▪ October Meeting at Heartside Hill • Member terms update – o Each board member’s term is decided by City Council when they appointed you. They are of different lengths to stagger board membership. Still, all board members can serve up to 8 years upon 3 application and reappointment by City Council. o All regular terms expire in June. Here are the current term expiration dates: ▪ Stefanie June 30, 2027 ▪ John June 30, 2029 ▪ Bob June 30, 2026 ▪ Josh June 30, 2026 ▪ Claire June 30, 2028 ▪ Liz June 30, 2026 ▪ Jorja June 30, 2026 ▪ Kristin - Ex Officio Role starting January 2024 • Contact with Council Liaison – o CM Potyondy is our City Council liaison and would like to be invited to specific meetings and will attend if available. She will have quarterly meetings with the Board Chair. The next one is August 15. • Project Certification – n/a • Ideas for future meetings: Housing Agency panel of providers – one for rental housing and one for home ownership; Land Bank deep dive (Sue); Incentives deep dive; Data Gaps Analysis – What do we have and what do we want (Tyler); Water Issues in Colorado (Mayor Arndt); Eviction and Foreclosure Prevention (Kelly Evans); Murphy Center update and plans for the future (Homeward Alliance); Grant Opportunities; How to Support Mobile Home Park conversions; How to keep locals in housing; and Volunteer needs for housing providers. ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft Minutes of the June meeting 2. FYI - City Council 6 Month Planning Calendar 3. Updated 2025 Housing Application Ranking 4. Mayor’s Response to the AHB memo regarding 2025 Ballot Measures for Affordable Housing Funding 5. Mayor’s Response to the AHB memo regarding 2025 Housing Funding Allocation Process 6. Adam’s Memo providing Context for Affordable Housing Funding Recomendations 7. FYI – Colorado Housing Crisis Report 8. FYI - Landlord Grants Flyer THIS DOCUMENT INCLUDES ALL ITEMS PLANNED FOR COUNCIL MEETINGS AND WORK SESSIONS. Date Service Area Type Agenda Item Strategic Outcome CANCELLED August 12,2025 Special Meeting Motion Executive Session: Federal Grants Staff Report PDT-Transfort & Parking Discussion Services Reading priority human service issues like poverty and mental health, and to make homelessness rare, Reading safety services and the municipal justice system through innovative service delivery models. Services Reading Neighborhood Centers to accelerate progress toward our goal for everyone to have the daily goods and services they need and want available within a 15-minute walk or bike ride from their Employee Reading Appropriation: Water Fund reserves for Lemay Waterline Replacement Safe Community Environmental Health Environmental Health Reading have no serious injury or fatal crashes for people walking, biking, rolling or driving in Fort Collins. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA PLANNING - PUBLIC 6-MONTH CALENDAR Agenda items containing action on current Council priorities as adopted by Resolution 2024-013 through 2024-024 are shaded light orange. : This document is posted every Monday and Thursday. Changes made between postings will not be reflected until the next posting. August 5, 2025 Council Meeting August 12, 2025 Work Session Council Meeting 8/4/2025 6-Month Planning Page 1 THIS DOCUMENT INCLUDES ALL ITEMS PLANNED FOR COUNCIL MEETINGS AND WORK SESSIONS. Community Services Reading Appropriation of 2050 Tax Reserves for the replacement and renovation of EPIC Chillers equipment that will revitalize parks and recreational facilities, as the planned buildout of the Reading Authorizing lease of real property to Platte River Power Authority for Battery Energy opportunities and targeted reliability and resiliency levels, and make significant investments in utility infrastructure while communicating and mitigating cost impacts to the community where Reading Duff Drive Project have no serious injury or fatal crashes for people walking, biking, rolling or driving in Fort Collins. 2025 Sales Tax Code Updates Office Reading From Halligan Project watersheds while delivering a resilient, economically responsible and high-quality water supply Office Office community and increase the City’s effectiveness by simplifying processes and delivering modern Office developing and retaining diverse talent and fostering a culture of employee safety, belonging and Report community and increase the City’s effectiveness by simplifying processes and delivering modern Office community and increase the City’s effectiveness by simplifying processes and delivering modern Tree Preservation and Proposed Mitigation Policies Update Employee meaningful engagement and by providing timely access to accurate information. August 26, 2025 Work Session Council Meeting 8/4/2025 6-Month Planning Page 2 THIS DOCUMENT INCLUDES ALL ITEMS PLANNED FOR COUNCIL MEETINGS AND WORK SESSIONS. Financial Services Ordinance-1st Reading Appropriation for Unanticipated Philanthropic Revenue Utility Services Resolution Adopting the Fort Collins Utilities Water Efficiency Plan 2025 Environmental Health ENV 2 – Sustain the health of the Cache la Poudre River and regional watersheds while delivering a resilient, economically responsible and high-quality water supply Office Related Waiver of Claims High Performing Government Discussion greenhouse gas, energy and waste goals; reduce air pollution; and improve community resilience. Office Constitution Week Office Office Office Discussion Mobile Home Park Enforcement & Livability equity so that persons of all identities, including race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, age, mental and physical abilities, and socioeconomic levels can access programs and services with ease and experience equitable outcomes. Discussion have no serious injury or fatal crashes for people walking, biking, rolling or driving in Fort Collins. September 30, 2025 Fifth Tuesday City Manager's October 7, 2025 Council Meeting Work Session Council Meeting Work Session 8/4/2025 6-Month Planning Page 3 THIS DOCUMENT INCLUDES ALL ITEMS PLANNED FOR COUNCIL MEETINGS AND WORK SESSIONS. Motion Minutes Approval Ord-2nd Rdg Financial Services Ord-1st Rdg Impact Fee Studies Adoption Economic Health Sustainability Services Ord-1st Rdg Radon Disclosure Requirements between Home sellers and Homebuyers Environmental Health Resolution Financial Services Work Session Discussion 2026 Budget Revisions / Work Session #2 (if needed) / Discuss the overall budget and final direction to staff. High Performing Government PDT Services Work Session Discussion Sustainability Discussion Pursue an Integrated Approach to Economic Health Update Economic Health ECON 1 – Foster diverse and attractive employment opportunities, remove barriers to local businesses and bolster economic mobility by facilitating workforce development Sustainability Discussion Environmental Health ENV 1 – Implement the Our Climate Future Plan to advance the City's Discussion Environmental Health ENV 1 – Implement the Our Climate Future Plan to advance the City's October 14, 2025 Work Session Council Meeting October 28, 2025 Work Session Council Meeting (moved to Monday due to Election Day) 8/4/2025 6-Month Planning Page 4 THIS DOCUMENT INCLUDES ALL ITEMS PLANNED FOR COUNCIL MEETINGS AND WORK SESSIONS. Financial Services Ord-1st Rdg 2026 Budget / appropriate funds for the 2026 fiscal year based on the adopted 2025-26 Biennial Budget and associated revisions to the 2026 Budget. High Performing Government - HPG 1 Financial Services Ord-1st Rdg 2026 Utility Rates High Performing Government - HPG 1 Community Services RES Poudre Library IGA for Southeast Community Center Culture & Recreation C&R 1 – Make City arts, cultural and recreational programming more inclusive to reflect the diversity of our community. Proclamation Small Business Season City Manager's Employee City Manager's Discussion End of Term Report High Performing Government CANCELLED Cancelled Council Meeting November 11, 2025 Work Session Council Meeting November 25, 2025 Adjourned Meeting Council Meeting December 9, 2025 Work Session 8/4/2025 6-Month Planning Page 5 Date Service Area Item Type Agenda Item Strategic Outcome No Date Community Services Ord-1st Rdg Appropriation: DOLA Grant for Construction of the Southeast Community Center Culture & Recreation 2.1 No Date Development Partners on Magpie Meander Natural Area and Soft Gold No date (fall 2025) Date Agenda Item Strategic Outcome No Date REGULAR MEETING ITEMS UNSCHEDULED/UPCOMING ITEMS WORK SESSION ITEMS AFFORDABLE HOUSING BOARD August 7, 2025, REGULAR MEETING Participation for this Affordable Housing Board Meeting will be in person at 222 Laporte Avenue, Colorado River Room – 1st floor conference room. You may also join online via Teams, using this link: AHB Teams Meeting Meeting ID: 273 629 013 506 Passcode: sJKVjM Online Public Participation: The meeting will be available to join beginning at 3:45 pm, August 7, 2025. Participants should try to sign in prior to the 4:00 pm meeting start time, if possible. For public comments, the Chair will ask participants to click the “Raise Hand” button to indicate you would like to speak at that time. Staff will moderate the Zoom session to ensure all participants have an opportunity to address the Board or Commission. To participate: • Use a laptop, computer, or internet-enabled smartphone. (Using earphones with a microphone will greatly improve your audio). • You need to have access to the internet. • Keep yourself on muted status. Masks Strongly Recommended in Indoor Public Spaces While there are currently no public health orders in place, Larimer County Public Health officials strongly recommend that well-fitting, high-quality masks are worn in crowded indoor spaces. For more information, please visit fcgov.com/covid 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. AGENDA REVIEW 4. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES • June Regular Meeting 6. Competitive Process Debrief (60 minutes), Adam Molzer, Social Sustainability Department • Board Action: Discussion and possible recommendation 7. Outreach Visits – (15 minutes) Claire & Jorja, Stefanie, others? • Board Action: Discussion 8. BOARD PRIORITY COMMITTEE REPORTS (30 minutes) • Knowledge Repository – Bob and John • Outreach, Education and Partnerships – Claire and Josh AFFORDABLE HOUSING BOARD August 7, 2025, REGULAR MEETING • Council and Local Legislative Support – John and Stefanie • Equity & Justice in Affordable Housing – Jorja and Liz • Board Action: Discussion 9. NEW BUSINESS 10. UNFINISHED BUSINESS (as time allows) • Review AHB Tile – Review & recommend content, review featured agency 11. OLD BUSINESS NOT COMPLETED AT PREVIOUS MEETING – n/a 12. LIST OF TOPICS BEING ADDRESSED AT MEETING – See Above 13. BOARD MEMBER REPORTS • Meeting Logistics – Hybrid • Liaison Reports (10 minutes) 14. OTHER BUSINESS • City Council 6-month Planning Calendar review (5 minutes) • Council Comments – Who, what? (5 minutes) • Review 2025 Work Plan (5 minutes) • Update on Affordable Housing Projects (5 minutes) • Future AHB Meeting Agenda (5 minutes) 15. BOARD MEMBER CONCERNS, ANNOUNCEMENTS • As needed 16. ADJOURNMENT Save the Dates! Did you know that the City has a Housing Newsletter? It is a great place to send people looking to learn more about what is going on in Fort Collins around Housing. Sign up for it at: fcgov.com/housing August 11 – Super Issues Meeting on Ranked Choice Voting (Lincoln Center) August 12 – City Council Work Session on Parking Optimization Study Update September 9 - City Council Work Session on Impact Fee Study Update September 23 – City Council Work Session on Mobile Home Park Enforcement & Livability Affordable Housing Board REGULAR MEETING DRAFT Thursday, June 5, 2025 – 4:00 PM Lory Student Center at CSU and online via Teams 1. CALL TO ORDER: 4:00 PM 2. ROLL CALL a. Board Members Present – • Stefanie Berganini, Chair • Bob Pawlikowski, Vice Chair • Liz Young-Winne • Claire Bouchard • Jorja Whyte • Josh Beard • John Singleton b. Board Members Absent • Kristin Fritz, Ex Officio c. Staff Members Present – • Sue Beck-Ferkiss, Staff Liaison • Jessi Kauffmann, Minutes d. Guest(s) – • Marilyn Heller • Lisa Cunningham • Nina Clark • Adrienne Wong 3. AGENDA REVIEW – No changes. 4. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION – None. 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – May 1st Regular Meeting Minutes Claire Bouchard motioned to approve the May 1st Regular Meeting Minutes. John Singleton seconded. Approved 7-0. 6. City Council Work Session Viewing a. The Board took an informal vote to tune in and watch the live City Council Work Session regarding the Remington/Oak Parking Lot Update for 30 minutes and then continue with the planned agenda. b. The Board discussed past support for this project and general encouragement to stay tuned in on the conversation. 7. NEW BUSINESS – a. BOB 25 Proposal • This proposal was discussed at the May 1st meeting. Stefanie shared that the Board can now decide on a formal opinion on this proposal. • City Council had a discussion on the topic previously and will discuss this issue in July and is seeking public input before it has the potential to be officially added to the ballot. • CCIP is possibly to be on ballot for renewal – if passed the BOB would advocate a larger amount of the funds to go toward housing. • The Board discussed John drafting a memo to Council supporting CCIP renewal to be on the ballot and supporting committing as much as possible to affordable housing. Liz Young Winne motioned that the Board write a memo to City Council supporting the effort to put the CCIP renewal on the ballot as well as supporting City staff’s recommendation for $10 million dollars, with the amendment to raise the recommended amount to $25 million. Bob Pawlikowski seconded. Approved 7-0. b. Competitive Process Debrief • The Board discussed a proposal to draft a memo to City Council regarding the 2025 Affordable Housing Funding Allocation Process. • Sue shared apologies from Adam who was unable to attend this meeting on behalf of the HSHF Board but will attend a future meeting. She also discussed attending the HSHF debrief meeting and the HSHF Board had thoughtful discussion related to the discrepancies in the final funding recommendations. • Funding process suggestions were sent in to Sue which were forwarded to Adam for review. Stefanie went through a few of the proposed suggestions including: A formal way to include AHB’s rankings into the final funding decisions, invitations for HSHF members to attend AHB meetings, more collaboration between the Boards in general, clearer communication and conversation around inclusion of AHB’s ranking considerations. Claire Bouchard motioned that Stefanie Berganini and John Singleton draft memo to Council including suggested funding process improvements. John Singleton seconded. Approved 7-0. c. Outreach Visits • Jorja and Claire went to the Planning and Zoning Board’s work session last month – they shared their focus on affordable housing when asked about the Remington lot, and that the Board talked about short-term rentals both non-primary and primary properties, and revisions to the short-term rental vouchers. She asked if the AHB has a stance on short-term rentals. • Sue shared that short-term rentals were not regulated until recently, and City Council is currently considering rule changes specifically related to short-term rentals in Old Town. • Liz and Stefanie met with Councilmember Potyondy – Stefanie shared that she followed-up on the camping memo sent from the Board, and they are currently working on hypothetically putting together a framework. Two programs are being vetted, one related to churches and one related to CSU. • Bob went to HSHF meetings and shared that the rubric they use for funding recommendations require the Board to go one-by-one through each application. • John shared that the Economic Advisor Council talked at last meeting on room-rent amounts, looking at progression on getting into housing, affordable housing. John will reach out about this as a potential engagement opportunity. 8. BOARD PRIORITY COMMITTEE REPORTS – None. 9. UNFINISHED BUSINESS – None. 10. BOARD MEMBER REPORTS a. July 10th Meeting Logistics • Stefanie opened up an informal vote to hold the July 10th meeting as scheduled, or take July off and resume in August. Sue will not be at the July meeting, but Vanessa would attend in her stead. The Board agreed to cancel the July meeting. 11. STAFF REPORTS 12. OTHER BUSINESS – None. 13. BOARD MEMBER CONCERNS, ANNOUNCEMENTS 14. ADJOURNMENT a. Meeting adjourned at 6:08 PM Minutes approved by the Chair and a vote of the Board/Commission on XX/XX/XX Affordable Housing Board Ranking – project updates highlighted 1. HO 7 VOA – Switchgrass, Received 9% tax Credit Award, Partial Funding recommended by HS & HF Board – requested $1,250,000 2. HO 3 Housing Catalyst – Remington Parking Lot – Not moving forward at this time 3. HO 5 Loveland Housing Development Corp – Larimer Home Improvement Program (LHIP) Funding recommended by HS & HF Board 4. HO 2 Fort Collins Habitat for Humanity – Harmony Cottages Partial Funding recommended by HS & HF Board (Housing funded in full but not amenities) 5. HO 1 CARE Housing –Windtrail Rehab Funding recommended by HS & HF Board 6. HO 4 L’Arche Fort Collins – L’Arche Homes at Heartside Hill Not recommended for funding by the HS & HF Board 7. HO 6 VOA Handyperson Program Funding recommended by HS & HF Board The City has received notification from HUD. The following reflects final funding numbers. HS & H Board - Projects supported for funding: Rank: Funding Recommendations HO -2 (A): FC Habitat – Harmony Cottages – 4 homes (only) 1 $200,000 HO-1: CARE Housing – Windtrail Rehab 2 $1,000,000 HO-5: Larimer Home Improvement Program 3 $150,000 HO-6: VOA – Handyperson program 4 $25,000 HO-7: VOA Switchgrass Crossing 5 $1,215,574 HO-2(B): FC Habitat Harmony Cottages – Community Amenities 6 $0 HO-3: Housing Catalyst Remington Parking Lot 7 $0 Projects NOT supported for funding: HO -4: L’Arche – Heartside Hill Mayor City Hall Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.416.2154 970.224.6107 - fax fcgov.com June 12, 2025 Affordable Housing Board c/o Sue Beck-Ferkiss, Staff Liaison PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 Dear Chair Stefanie Berganini and Board Members: On behalf of City Council, thank you for providing us with the memorandum dated June 9, 2025 regarding 2025 Ballot Measures for Affordable Housing Funding. We understand that the Board supports Council’s efforts to place measures related to affordable housing funding on the ballot in 2025. We acknowledge that the Board supports CCIP and understand your perspective that $25M be specified instead of $10M. Thank you for elaborating on your reasoning for this recommendation. On Tuesday, June 17, City Council is scheduled to act on agenda item “Approving the items Council wishes to place on the upcoming November 2025 ballot and item order.” We encourage you to watch the City Council meeting that night via fcgov.com/fctv or in person at City Hall at 300 Laporte Avenue, Building A, starting at 6:00 p.m. Thank you for the expertise and perspectives that you bring to the Board and share with City Council. Best Regards, Jeni Arndt Mayor /sek cc: City Council Members Kelly DiMartino, City Manager Rupa Venkatesh, Assistant City Manager June 9, 2025 From: Affordable Housing Board Chair Stefanie Berganini To: City Council, via Sarah Kane Re: 2025 Ballot Measures for Affordable Housing Funding Per the Affordable Housing Board’s mission of advising the City Council on matters pertaining to affordable housing issues of concern to the City, we support Council’s efforts to place measures related to affordable housing funding on the ballot in 2025. First, we strongly suppor t placing the renewal of the Community Capital Improvement Program (CCIP) on November’s ballot. This is a critical funding stream for much-needed programs and ser vices, and we hope that voters will support it. Second, we applaud City staff ’s recommendation for the inclusion of $10M in affordable housing funding in this renewal, but strongly encourage Council to increase that amount as much as possible in the final ballot language. Though we don’t have enough information to comment on the nuances of specific funding logistics or the preferred project list, we are highly appreciative and generally supportive of the Fort Collins Chamber of Commerce’s Building On Basics 2025 proposal for $25M of affordable housing funding (attached). We strongly advocate that Council include this $25M figure for affordable housing funding instead of the proposed $10M when finalizing measures to refer to the November ballot. Though we know there are many important and worthy projects vying for funding through this renewal measure, we also know that funding for affordable housing must be prioritized. If we are to meet the City’s goal of 10% deed-restricted affordable housing by 2040, we need bold and urgent action to secure more funding. Below are a few points of data to highlight the urgency of this need: ● When the Affordable Housing Board and Human Services and Housing Fund Board review applications for affordable housing funding during the City’s competitive process each year, we are routinely faced with a much larger need for funding than the City is able to provide. During this year’s funding cycle, for example , we received applications for $4.36M in funding, but had only about half that amount to award. ● To meet its affordable housing goals, the city needs to build 282 affordable units every year between 2020 and 2040. We are currently drastically behind this goal, and failing to meet the goal in one year only compounds the construction pressures in future years when construction costs are likely to be even higher. ● It currently costs about $500k per unit to build affordable housing. Construction costs have risen and local construction economies have become unpredictable due to federal tariffs and broader market instability. Local funding streams must be planned not only to create as much inventory as possible, but to fill the gaps created by ongoing volatility at the federal level. ● There continues to be a growing disparity between incomes and housing costs for both renters and homeowners in Fort Collins. This places an increasing burden on the City’s already-insufficient affordable housing supply, and may lead to even more pressure for affordable units than we are currently predicting. As you make plans for this year’s Council-referred ballot measures, we urge you not only to place the CCIP renewal on the ballot, but to do so with the most funding possible for affordable housing in Fort Collins. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully, Stefanie Berganini Chair, Affordable Housing Board April 7, 2025 BOB25 Housing Investment Fund This November, voters of Fort Collins will be asked to consider the renewal of Community Capital Improvement Program. This 10-year ¼-cent sales tax is intended to fund public projects that might not otherwise be possible through the general fund budget. Building on Basics 2025, or BOB25 for short, is expected to generate $11M per year (in 2025 dollars), or approximately $110M over the life of the tax. As diminishing housing affordability is one of, if not the, primary issue consistently identified by residents, the BOB25 Housing Investment Fund (the “Fund”) is offered as a meaningful response. Key elements include: • Allocate $5M annually (2026-2031) for a total investment of $25M • The Fund will support two programs: o $5M deposited into a revolving loan fund o $20M invested directly into qualified projects • Revolving loan fund to be administered by a community development financial institution capable of attracting additional capital from outside sources • Direct investments are primarily in the form of grant capital with affordability/occupancy requirements extended in perpetuity • Qualified projects include: o Owner-occupied housing serving households up to 120% AMI o Rental housing serving households up to 100% AMI o New construction, preservation of naturally occurring affordable housing, and land for future development • Promote smaller format and niche housing types not readily available within the market • Incentivize infill and redevelopment within commercial corridors and centers • Empower City staff and developers to identify process improvements, code revisions, and align departments in the common purpose of removing barriers to all residential development • Reduced impact fees for housing that advances the 15-minute city concept • Reduced water supply requirements for housing that demonstrates a reduced long-term consumption pattern • Cumulative capacity/height bonuses for housing that meets affordability targets and/or 15-minute city objectives April 7, 2025 BOB25 Preferred Project List The current roster and brief description of community projects under consideration for inclusion within the renewed sales tax can be found HERE. With a total estimated value of $160M, the list will require adjustments to reach the anticipated 10-year tax revenue of $110M. The Fort Collins Area Chamber of Commerce proposes the following projects for Council consideration. • Housing Investment Fund $25M • Bicycle Infrastructure & Overpass/Underpass Program $20M • Arterial Street Improvements $18M • Pedestrian Sidewalk Program $16M • Mulberry Pool $10M • Downtown Parks Shop $7.9M • Downtown Trolley Building Renovation $6.8M • Inflation Contingency $6.3M Total Project List $110M Mayor City Hall Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.416.2154 970.224.6107 - fax fcgov.com June 12, 2025 Affordable Housing Board c/o Sue Beck-Ferkiss, Staff Liaison PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 Dear Chair Stefanie Berganini and Board Members: On behalf of City Council, thank you for providing us with the memorandum dated June 9, 2025 regarding 2025 Affordable Housing Funding Allocation Process. We understand that the Board recommends the process for allocating funds be updated to ensure that funding prioritization conforms with Council’s objectives as stated in the Housing Strategic Plan. In particular, we note how you’ve suggested changes that would allow the AHB and the HSHFB to collaborate more fully, thus capturing the expertise of both boards. Thank you for the knowledge and perspectives that you bring to the Board and share with City Council. Best Regards, Jeni Arndt Mayor /sek cc: City Council Members Kelly DiMartino, City Manager Rupa Venkatesh, Assistant City Manager June 9, 2025 From: Affordable Housing Board Chair Stefanie Berganini To: City Council, via Sarah Kane Re: 2025 Affordable Housing Funding Allocation Process Per the Affordable Housing Board’s mission of advising Council on matters pertaining to affordable housing issues of concern to the City, we believe it is essential that the process for allocating funds to affordable housing projects be updated to ensure that funding prioritization conforms with Council’s stated objectives outlined in the Housing Strategic Plan (HSP). Though the Affordable Housing Board (AHB) and Human Services and Housing Funding Board (HSHFB) often have a high degree of overlap in our ranking of affordable housing applicants, this year we did not; this has given us the opportunity to reflect and provide suggestions about how this process could be changed going forward to better capture the expertise of both boards. We recommend the following changes be made to future cycles of the housing portion of the City’s competitive funding process: ● Staff facilitate the development and adoption of a rubric aligned with the HSP and/or HUD Consolidated Plan that is utilized by both boards as the basis for ranking funding applications. ● Formalize more collaboration between the AHB and the HSHFB: ● Determine a weighting formula that formally includes both the AHB’s ranking of applicants and the HSHFB’s rankings in determining the priority order of applications. This would allow the AHB’s subject-matter expertise to be officially included in the ranking of applicants while still preserving the HSHFB’s pur view of assigning specific funding amounts. ● Allow the AHB and the HSHFB the option to conduct a second joint meeting - in addition to our joint Q&A with funding applicants - to openly share and discuss our thoughts on rankings, overall project evaluations, alignment with City strategic objectives, and similar. ● When submitting their final funding recommendations to Council, the HSHFB also provides detailed feedback as to how their ranking and funding allotments align with the stated priorities in the HSP and/or HUD Consolidated Plan. This information should also be made available to applicants upon request. ● Staff create a process whereby the AHB’s application rankings and summary comments are included in Council’s agenda packet for the meeting relevant to the funding decision. We have also attached the AHB’s rankings and summary comments of this year’s applicants for your reference. These were provided to the HSHFB on April 7th, 2025. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully, Stefanie Berganini Chair, Affordable Housing Board April 7, 2025 From: Affordable Housing Board, Chair – Stefanie Berganini To: Human Service and Housing Funding Board Re: Ranking of Housing Applications in the 2025 Competitive Process The Affordable Housing Board met on April 3, 2025, and discussed the 7 Housing applications and ranked then in the following priority order: 1. HO 7 VOA - Switchgrass 2. HO 3 Housing Catalyst – Remington Parking Lot 3. HO 5 Loveland Housing Development Corp – Larimer Home Improvement Program (LHIP) 4. HO 2 Fort Collins Habitat for Humanity – Harmony Cottages 5. HO 1 CARE Housing –Windtrail Rehab 6. HO 4 L’Arche Fort Collins – L’Arche Homes at Heartside Hill 7. HO 6 VOA Handyperson Program Comments on ranking exercise: • This was a very difficult round understanding that all applications were for valuable projects and that the amount of funding available was not sufficient to fund all applications. • The Board prioritized projects bringing new housing units. • The Board considered readiness to proceed as a factor. • The Board noted that the Habitat application was the only home ownership application this funding cycle. • The Board prioritized LHIP as a response to emergency circumstances that put housing at risk. • The Board appreciates the L’Arche model because it serves a target population (people experiencing disabilities) that is generally lacking in services and housing options. Note: Members of the Human Services and Housing Funding Board are always invited to attend the Affordable Housing Board’s hybrid meetings (in-person or on Zoom) that occur the first Thursday of each month at 4:00. Social Sustainability Department 222 Laporte Ave. PO Box 580, Fort Collins, CO 80522 970-221-6757 amolzer@fcgov.com MEMORANDUM Date: June 17, 2025 To: Mayor and City Councilmembers Through: Kelly DiMartino, City Manager Tyler Marr, Deputy City Manager Jacob Castillo, Chief Sustainability Officer From: Adam Molzer, Human Services Program Manager Subject: Context for Affordable Housing Funding Recommendations BOTTOM LINE The purpose of this memo is to provide additional context related to the 2025 funding recommendations for affordable housing projects and programs that have been submitted by the Human Services and Housing Funding Board (HSHFB), including specific interest in the disparities in ranked order of the proposals between HSHFB and the Affordable Housing Board (AHB), as well as HSHFB’s ranking of the Remington Parking Lot proposal from Housing Catalyst. SUMMARY The seven affordable housing funding proposals received in the 2025 process were all provided with equal opportunity to compete for funding. The ranking efforts conducted by HSHFB and AHB in April were done independently, with the final recommendations submitted to Council by HSHFB, as directed by City Code. The boards also met jointly on March 26. HSHFB received the AHB rankings/comments in early April and discussed the AHB ranked list on April 9. Funding deliberations occurred April 29. The rankings presented to Council should not be viewed as a lack of support for a project; rather, they are the recommended order of projects to award the available funds cascading down until expended. It is often that the lower ranked projects are not funded as a result of: • inadequate funding to meet all requests ($4.3M requested, $2.5M available), and/or • timing and readiness of the project to proceed HSHFB members commented during the 2025 process that all projects submitted were good projects, but there just wasn’t enough funding available. Docusign Envelope ID: 2180EE88-DBE6-48AA-AA8B-02F9EC226F80 2 The table below outlines the respective factors influencing each boards’ rankings, recognizing that each board is aware that City Council Priority 1 is to: Operationalize City resources to build and preserve affordable housing. AHB HSHFB Materials & Interaction with Applicants • Full Application Materials • Presentations from Applicants • Q&A Session with Applicants • Presentations from Applicants • Q&A Session with Applicants Exchanges with Other Board • Dialogue at March 26 Joint Meeting • AHB Ranking and Comments Sent to HSHFB for Non-Binding • Discussed AHB Rankings at April 9 Regular Meeting Guiding Factors • HUD Consolidated Plan • Vulnerable Populations: seniors, disability, etc. • Individual Assessment of Proposal Merits • HUD Consolidated Plan • Maximizing Funds • Leverage Provided from City Funds • Vulnerable Populations: seniors, mobile home parks, etc. • Individual Assessment of Proposal Prioritization Staff Guidance Not Given • New Units • Preservation of Units The boards’ rankings were more aligned with one another between 2022-2024 (following the same processes), however; it can be reasonably inferred that in some years the two boards may have different opinions of how they rank the affordable housing proposals. Specific to Housing Catalyst’s proposal requesting $1.25M for development costs of the Remington Parking Lot, AHB ranked the proposal #2 and HSHFB ranked the proposal #7. The HSHFB discussions largely were focused on the timing of the project, since it had not yet completed a conceptual review and its readiness to proceed was uncertain. One member Docusign Envelope ID: 2180EE88-DBE6-48AA-AA8B-02F9EC226F80 3 brought up parking displacement concerns, and staff advised that those concerns should not be a factor in this ranking. The HSHFB took a strategic approach to optimizing the funds. After ranking their top 2 projects, the board recognized that the remaining funds could first benefit the smaller dollar request applications, with the final balance of funds cascading down to one new construction project. The board chose the VOA Switchgrass new construction project to support with the remaining funding balance, given its anticipated readiness to utilize the funds in 2026 and focus on senior residents. NEXT STEPS • Process improvements for 2026 are currently being gathered and will be assessed further in Q3-Q4. Examples may include: o Additional joint meetings between HSHFB and AHB to prompt richer dialogue. o Modifying the HSHFB ranking process to include more metric scoring. o Standardizing the guiding factors influencing each board’s ranking process. • Sustainability Service Area staff met with Housing Catalyst’s leadership in early June to answer questions about the 2025 process, and will consider suggestions they offered for process improvements. • The staff liaison for HSHFB will meet with AHB at their August regular meeting to answer questions, solicit feedback and clarify misunderstandings. CC: Beth Yonce, Social Sustainability Director Beth Rosen, HUD Compliance Manager Vanessa Fenley, Housing Manager Sue Beck-Ferkiss, Housing Policy Manager Ted Hewitt, Assistant City Attorney Docusign Envelope ID: 2180EE88-DBE6-48AA-AA8B-02F9EC226F80 Colorado’s A Mile High United Way Report in Partnership with BuildStrong Foundation and McKinsey & Company Housing Affordability Crisis 2025 Colorado’s affordable housing crisis is real — but progress is possible This report was co-authored by the BuildStrong Foundation. It is based on analyses conducted by McKinsey & Company with the support of Gary Community Ventures and Housing Colorado, as well as input from multiple community stakeholders across Colorado’s housing continuum. Multiple recent reports have highlighted the growing challenge of housing affordability in Colorado — a state-wide issue impacting individuals of all incomes. In 2023, Colorado was ranked 41st out of all 50 states in affordability by US News & World Report1, lower than neighboring states Wyoming (19th), Utah (27th), and Arizona (36th). In October 2024, Pew Research’s ‘A look at the state of affordable housing in the U.S.’ indicated that Colorado was one of only 12 states where more than 50% of renters were considered “cost burdened” (i.e., the household spends more than 30% of its income on rent)2, and according to Zillow’s Home Values Index, as of February 2025, Colorado had the 6th highest median single-family home price ($558,600) of all 50 states3. In recent years, Colorado has introduced several pieces of legislation and voter initiatives in an effort to address these housing challenges. Just a few examples include the following: • Proposition 22-123, which allocates a portion of income tax revenue to fund local affordable housing efforts • House Bill 24-1152, which aims to make it easier for Coloradans to build accessory dwelling units (ADUs) • Senate Bill 25-006, which allows the State Treasurer to invest $50 million in state-backed low-interest bonds to support affordable homeownership • Senate Bill 25-002, which directs the State Housing Board to coordinate regional codes for modular and factory-built housing by July 2026 • House Bill 25-1272, which offers condo developers liability protections in an effort to increase middle-income housing in metro areas. While this legislation represents progress, factors such as the rising cost of construction continues to complicate efforts to expand affordable housing across the state. This report is divided into three sections. It first analyzes the current state of housing in Colorado, exploring housing cost burden across the state, the availability and affordability of 1 1 Source: US News (https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/colorado) 2 Source: Pew Research (https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/10/25/a-look-at-the-state-of-affordable-housing-in-the-us/) 3 Source: Zillow (https://www.zillow.com/home-values/102001/united-states/) 2 housing units for different income levels, and the projected housing supply and demand at current development rates. Second, we detail the key issues that restrict the state’s ability to build housing more efficiently, especially units for households that earn less than 50% of the area median income. Finally, we discuss a subset of potential solutions that could expedite and/or lower the cost of building affordable housing across the state, and how public-private collaboration could coordinate efforts and drive change. Colorado’s housing affordability challenge Housing cost burden driven by rental and mortgage payments affects over 760,000 households in Colorado, accounting for nearly 33% of all households in the state (see Exhibit 1). Notably, 51% of renters in Colorado are cost burdened. Furthermore, despite the perceived security of homeownership, 21% of all homeowners statewide are cost burdened, a figure that rises to 31% if we consider only homeowners with current mortgage payments. This financial strain is experienced among all demographic groups but disproportionately affects historically disadvantaged communities as 40–50% of American Indian or Alaskan Native and Black/African American households are cost burdened. Exhibit 1: Cost burdened4 households in Colorado, broken down by ownership type5,6 4 A household is moderately cost burdened if they spend more than 30% of their income on housing, and severely cost burdened if they spend more than 50% of their income on housing 5 Ownership cost-burden estimates includes units with a mortgage only; for purposes of this analysis, owner-occupied units without a mortgage are considered to be not cost burdened 6 Source: US Census Bureau American Community Survey 2023 1-year estimates. Custom data extract and analysis created using IPUMS USA, University of Minnesota, www.IPUMS.org 45% 55% 2.4 0.3 0.4 1.7 Owner-occupied Renter-occupied Severely burdened Moderately burdened Not burdened Colorado households, M The challenge of housing affordability in Colorado is not a new phenomenon. Since 2010, the percentage of cost burdened renter households has remained somewhat consistent each year at roughly 50%. In terms of homeownership, the state has seen some improvement with the percentage of cost burdened owner-occupied households falling from 37% in 2010 to 28% by 2019, coinciding with a prolonged period of low interest rates before the onset of higher interest rates following the COVID-19 pandemic. To further analyze housing cost burden, Colorado’s statewide housing shortage can be broken down into two segments: the burden experienced by renters, and the burden experienced by homeowners. Exhibit 2: Percent of cost burdened households by ownership type, US vs. Colorado 2010–237,8,9,10,11 An issue of supply — available rental units do not match household purchasing power The current distribution of rental options in Colorado does not provide enough affordable housing opportunities to households that are below 50% Area Median Income (AMI). Most extremely low- and very low-income renter households occupy units that are not affordable to them, with 75% and 68%, respectively, living in housing priced at levels more suitable for higher income brackets (see Exhibit 3). This situation can be attributed to the lack of rental units that are affordable and available12 at their income bands, leading them to rent more expensive options. For example, nearly 130,000 extremely low-income households pay rental costs that exceed 30% of their income (see Exhibit 4). These households would require monthly payments of less than $670 to not be considered cost burdened. 7 No data available for owner-occupied in 2018 and 2020; no data available for renter-occupied in 2020 8 Costs considered include: the contract rent plus the estimated average monthly cost of utilities and fuels, if these are paid by the renter 9 Ownership cost-burden estimates includes units with a mortgage only; for purposes of this analysis, owner-occupied units without a mortgage are excluded; costs considered include: the sum of payments for mortgages, deeds of trust, contracts to purchase, or similar debts on the property; real estate taxes; fire, hazard, and flood insurance; utilities (electric, gas, water, and sewer); and fuels (such as oil, coal, kerosene, or wood), and monthly condominium fees or mobile home costs 10 CAGR = Compounded Annual Growth Rate 11 Source: US Census Bureau ACS 2010-2023 1-Year Estimates 12 “Affordable and available” refers to units costing <30% of a household’s income and either vacant or not occupied by households of a higher income band, as defined by the National Low Income Housing Coalition United States Colorado CAGR 2010-23 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Re n t e r - o c c u p i e d Ow n e r - o c c u p i e d 55 50 45 40 35 30 0 +1.7% -0.7% -6.4% -9.3% 3 Exhibit 3: Occupation of rental categories by income group, % of households in 202213,14 Exhibit 4: Distribution of Colorado households by income bands and rental unit cost category, as of 202215 13 Per benchmarks by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development, “affordable” indicates that housing costs are 30% or less of gross household income 14 Source: US Census Bureau American Community Survey 2022 5-year estimates 15 Source: US Census Bureau American Community Survey 2022 5-year estimates <$670 350 300 250 200 150 50 0 Vacant Above median income (>100% AMI) Middle income (80-100% AMI) Low-income (50-80% AMI) Very low-income (30-50% AMI) Extremely low-income (0-30% AMI) Available rental units (thousands) Rental unit cost category 42 37 30 24 63 62 91 39 65 19 31 22 60 74 $670–$1,116 $1,116–$1,786 $1,786–$2,233 >$2,233 10 9 107 3 10 7 6 1816 9 12 1291713 ~130,000 ELI households in Colorado are paying rent well above 30% of their income What this means: While 42k extremely low income (ELI) households pay rent aligned with their AMI band, 29k units are held by households earning more than 30% AMI 81 114 340 155 138 171,203 126,780 171,541 83,775 217,128 Total HHs Extremely low-income (ELI) Very low-income (VLI) Low-income (LI) Middle income (MI) Above median income ELI housing (<$670) VLI housing (<$1,116) LI housing (<$1,786) MI housing (<$2,233) AMI housing (>$2,233) Affordable for the income band 25%21%37%10%7% 7%12%49%24%8% 5%14%53%18%10% 16%26%47%4%7% 3% 5%30%28%34% 4 Overall, the state is facing a housing shortfall of 162,000 rental units priced below $1,100 per month (see Exhibit 5). Although the shortfall is not as severe when considering all households earning up to the area median income, supply remains insufficient to meet demand. This can be attributed to the extremely low- and very low-income households who, priced out of units affordable to their income band, must occupy units that would have been affordable and available to income bands earning closer to median income if not for the existing shortfall. For households earning above the area median income, the supply of rental units exceeds demand, as evidenced by a surplus of 58,000 units. Exhibit 5: Affordable and available rental units by area median income (AMI), 202216,17,18 When examining individual counties across Colorado, the shortage of housing options that are affordable and available to households earning less than 50% AMI is particularly severe in the state’s metropolitan areas (see Exhibit 6). Douglas and Broomfield Counties are the most affected, with only 26% and 29% of households earning 0–50% AMI residing in affordable and available housing, respectively. Southwest urban counties known for their natural beauty and economic stability, such as La Plata and Montezuma Counties, also face significant challenges, with 43% of households earning 0–50% AMI not residing in affordable and available housing. In contrast, Park County and several rural communities in southern Colorado, such as Mineral, Alamosa, and Saguache, have more than 75% of their extremely low- and very low-income households residing in housing that is affordable to their income bands. 16 Household area median income thresholds determined by reported income for households from US Census Bureau ACS 2022 5-Yr Estimates 17 Per month rent where ‘’affordable‘’ payment is calculated as 30% of the monthly median household income for each income segment in Colorado 18 Source: National Low Income Housing Coalition GAP Report 2023, US Census Bureau American Community Survey 2022 5-year estimates <$670 <30% AMI <50% AMI <80% AMI <100% AMI >100% AMI $670–$1,116 $1,116–$1,786 $1,786–$2,233 >$2,233 <$670 <$1,116 <$1,786 <$2,233 >$2,233 Total renter households Affordable and available rental units Key income band experiencing severe shortage Affordable monthly rent in 2021 Total units affordable and available, Thousands Surplus/(Deﬁcit), ThousandsAMI band 171 52 298 136 470 403 553 547 770 828 (119) (162) (67) (6) 58 +(43k) +95k +61k 5 Exhibit 6: Percentage of households in the 0–50% AMI band that live in affordable and available units, % 19 An issue of supply — barriers to homeownership Regarding homeownership, Colorado faces a shortfall of 80,000 owner-occupied properties priced between $150,000 and $500,00020. While 56% of households are unable to afford a house priced above $500,000, only 40% of the housing stock is priced below $500,000 (see Exhibit 7). As a result, many households within this mortgage capacity are compelled to either seek homeownership assistance or rent. This situation exacerbates the burden on low- income renters, as aspiring homeowners unable to find properties within their mortgage capacity increase competition for the same rental properties, thereby worsening the rental unit shortfall. 19 Source: US Census Bureau American Community Survey 2022 5-year estimates 20 There are 714,068 households that own or aspire to own a house, and 633,600 houses occupied by owners priced between $150,000-$500,000. It is assumed that the total housing stock should match the current number of homeowners among all households (66%) plus the number of aspiring homeowners among all households (13%) <$670 15–30% 30–45% 45–60% 60–75% 75–90% 6 Exhibit 7: % of Households that can afford a home by unit price point21 vs. housing stock available at the same unit price point22 Notably, the impact on key workers — defined as individuals in professions who provide essential societal services across healthcare, education, public welfare, or safety — is significant. This group includes PK–12 teachers, registered nurses, social workers, firefighters, and paramedics. Despite their vital contributions, these professions typically earn wages below the median for their area, yet high enough to make them ineligible for many units dedicated to lower-income individuals (see Exhibit 8). Due to the shortfall in affordable properties, many of these households earning 50–80% AMI are forced to allocate a larger portion of their income to housing or incur higher commuting costs — in terms of both time and money — by living farther from their workplaces. This situation often forces difficult tradeoffs between essential expenditures such as housing, food, healthcare, childcare, education, and savings. The repercussions extend beyond individual workers to society at large. For instance, Eagle County School District was struggling to hire a sufficient number of teachers due to high housing costs, so it began building housing units specifically for educators, like Miller Flats Apartments. As Eagle County School District (ECSD) Superintendent Phil Qualman stated, “We realized there is no way to recruit and retain enough teachers in our school district if we don’t solve affordable housing.” 21 Mortgage capacity is determined under the following parameters: a 30-year, 6.9% fixed-rate mortgage, households spend no more than 30% of their house hold income on payments, and households are buying as much house as they can afford under that 30% threshold. Capacity does not include down payments, home insurance and property taxes 22 Source: Common Sense Institute Colorado Report (Housing Mismatch: Mortgage Capacity vs Home Prices) 100k-149k 150k-199k 200k-299k 300k-499k 500k-999k 1M+ % of households that can afford to purchase home within price point 88%1% 2%82% 73%7% 30% 43% % of owner-occupied housing stock at price point 58% 44% 15%11% Price to purchase housing unit ($) 7 Exhibit 8: Colorado key worker employment and median wages23,24,25,26,27 What is needed to bridge the gap in Colorado’s housing supply and projected demand At the current rate of building, the gap between housing supply and demand will continue to grow as population growth — and consequently housing demand — is expected to increasingly outpace the rate of new affordable housing construction. This means the shortage of rental units priced below $1,100 per month could rise from the current 162,000- unit shortfall to a 257,000-unit shortfall by 2035 (see Exhibit 9). Similarly, homeownership is not expected to become more attainable at the current rate of development. Currently, Colorado builders are constructing fewer rental units for households earning less than 50% AMI, with the annual supply of affordable rental housing for this income band decreasing by nearly 3% each year. This decline is likely driven by several factors, including rising costs of construction materials, labor, land, and insurance. To bridge the entire housing gap by 2035, Colorado would need to increase the construction of affordable rental units at a compounded annual growth rate of 8% — a pace that would require the interventions of multiple interested parties to become attainable. 23 Includes top-10 occupations in Colorado and other occupations providing services such as education, healthcare, or first responders 24 Preschool teachers have a lower annual median wage (~$45k) than the rest of the teacher occupations ($60-65K) 25 Except Maids and Housekeeping Cleaners 26 Selected by Mile High United Way based on occupations that provide an essential services to the community 27 Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 50–80% AMI Employment supply Annual median wage, $k 000 FTESelected occupations Retail Salespersons and Cashiers Fast Food and Counter Workers, Waiters and Waitresses Stockers and Order Fillers Registered Nurses Customer Service Representatives Business Operations Specialists, All Other Software Developers General and Operations Managers Health and Personal Care Aides Elementary and Middle School Teachers, Except Special Education Janitors and Cleaners, Except Maids and Housekeeping Cleaners Police and Sheriff's Patrol Ofﬁcers Child, Family, School, and Healthcare Social Workers Fireﬁghters Paramedics 130 35 122 55 53 47 47 45 45 41 38 37 10 11 6 2 34 39 87 44 83 135 126 36 62 36 88 63 73 62 Median Key workers: education, healthcare, and ﬁrst responders To p t e n o c c u p a t i o n s i n C o l o r a d o Es s e n t i a l w o r k e r g r o u p s 8 Exhibit 9: Projected supply and demand for rental housing that is affordable to 0–50% AMI band through 2035, ‘000s housing units28,29,30 Challenges to building affordable housing Given the significant and increasing shortage of affordable housing, why isn’t the market addressing the challenges more rapidly? In collaboration with Housing Colorado, over 200 stakeholders across the public, private and social sectors who work in different parts of the Colorado affordable housing value chain were surveyed to understand the biggest barriers in the development of affordable housing. Respondents identified a multitude of challenges, with construction materials cost, adequate public funding and equity financing, and labor supply noted as the largest obstacles to being able to increase the supply of affordable housing across the state. 28 Demand is based on population growth projections from DOLA State Demography Office 29 GFC = Global Financial Crisis of 2007-2008. Pre-GFC growth rate assumed as the average annual housing starts growth rate in the five years (2002-2007) preceding the Global Financial Crisis 30 Source: Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, DOLA State Demography Office, National Low Income Housing Coalition, National Association of Home Builders, US Census Bureau American Community Survey 2016 & 2022 5-year estimates 2016 2022 Number of Units (thousands) Ow n e r - o c c u p i e d 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 -0.7%Demand, actual Demand, projected Supply, actual Supply, projected at current growth rate Supply, projected at pre-GFC growth rate Supply, projected at 8% CAGR per year 2035 137 162 257 9 Exhibit 10: Key challenges preventing improved supply of affordable housing, December 2024 survey results, N=21231,32 These results highlight the multi-faceted nature of the problem, with challenges that require action from multiple stakeholders to address. This suggests a clear need for coordination within the sector to ensure that issues are tackled in unison. Identifying priority solutions and their potential impact Increasing housing supply presents numerous challenges; however, identifying interventions that reduce construction costs and timelines could facilitate more efficient production of residential units statewide. Although additional public funding is frequently proposed as a solution to the housing shortage, these resources are often finite or limited and continued increases in cost will limit their long-term effectiveness. Sustainable solutions must therefore focus on reducing construction costs and identifying new and innovative ways to finance housing development. We analyzed over 40 potential affordable housing solutions, ultimately narrowing our focus to six solution categories that stood out across sectors. These included improved loan terms, increased labor supply, subsidies to support middle income housing and homeownership, regulatory and legislation reform, and more. While many other solutions can and should be considered, we prioritized areas where cross-sector collaboration could drive meaningful impact in closing the housing gap. 31 Percentage of survey respondents ranking each challenge in terms of difficulty 1st or 2nd (“Very challenging”) or 3rd through 6th (“Somewhat challenging”) 32 Source: MHUW & Housing Colorado, Colorado housing affordability survey (Dec 2024, N=212) 97 94 91 91 88 88 87 85 82 79 72 % of respondents that indicated as key challengeChallenge Construction materials cost Adequate public funding Adequate supply of equity ﬁnancing Labor supply and cost Land procurement Zoning and variance timelines Lack of public infrastructure Cost of debt ﬁnancing Permitting Local pushback on development Support for owners and renters Somewhat challenging Very challenging 68 29 21 73 49 42 73 18 56 32 60 28 46 41 58 27 56 26 55 24 38 34 97 94 91 91 88 88 87 85 82 79 72 10 Each solution was analyzed by engaging domain experts and collecting public data to better understand the problem it addresses, measure its impact on the housing landscape, determine potential initiatives, and outline the key next steps. The rest of this section outlines each of the solutions and their potential impact on Colorado. Solution 1: Improving plan review and permitting speeds Delays in construction plan approvals and permitting contribute to higher land holding costs, which ultimately increase overall project expenses. Streamlining these processes can significantly reduce pre-construction costs, making development more efficient and housing units more affordable. AI-driven automation and operational improvements in the plan review and permitting process as well as limiting the number of feedback rounds necessary for entitlement and permit approvals can help to improve overall speeds. An analysis of Denver County’s publicly available 2024 concept review, site development plan (SDP), and building permit data revealed significant delays in the review process — 180 days for concept review, 846 days for formal SDP, and 73 days for permit application. Discussions with AI and digital experts identified automation opportunities, particularly in the initial review phases, where AI-powered tools like application assistance could cut processing times by up to 80%. Additionally, limiting feedback rounds by reducing the number of non- regulatory comments — reducing concept review cycles to 2 (from 2.3) and formal SDP cycles to 4 (from 6.5) — could further streamline approvals. These initiatives together could reduce the total review and permitting timeline in Denver from 37 months to 12 months. In turn, this would save 5–6% in total project costs on average and 37% in pre-construction land holding costs for multi-family residential projects in Denver County 33. 33 Estimated holding costs for a half-acre, $11M multi-family residence (MFR) project in Denver County—with land costs of ~$1.7M—driven by 7.5% debt interest (50% financing), 18% equity cost, 27 Mill levy property taxes, and maintenance—total ~$25K/month. A 25-month reduction yields ~$625K savings (5.7% of project cost) 11 Exhibit 11: Operational and AI improvements could reduce the approval process in Denver County by 25 months The first step to drive this solution ahead is to identify local governments willing to pilot the use of AI tools and a limited number of feedback rounds in their permitting process. For example, the City and County of Denver recently committed to issuing construction permits within 180 days. The state government could facilitate the process by identifying and contracting software solutions that respond to the needs of the state and encouraging their adoptions with local municipalities. Austin prioritizes permitting transformation, zoning reform to decrease rent by over 20% in less than 3 years According to a report by Bloomberg, Austin, Texas saw a 25% increase in rents in 2021 — one of the biggest in the nation. Mayor Kirk Preston Watson sprang into action, focusing on permitting process speeds and zoning restrictions that prohibited the development of apartments throughout the city. This included scaling back height restrictions and ending parking mandates. In early 2023, the City of Austin commissioned an independent assessment of its site plan review process, to understand where delays in the process of ensuring development standards are met and approving a project to move forward and begin building. The assessment resulted in 45 initiatives to improve customer experience and efficiency — 28 of which have been completed to date. These initiatives include things like aligning reviewers on their primary mission for the customer, identify and streamline overlapping codes and regulations, rationalizing the fee schedule, and improving processing speeds. The results were staggering. In 2023 and 2024, developers added nearly 50,000 rental units to the city, a 14% increase in supply. This led to a 22% reduction in median rent in less than three years. Austin’s streamlined approval process has made it easier to develop much-needed housing units and create more naturally occurring affordable units, demonstrating how targeted regulatory reforms can help address affordability challenges, remove unnecessary delays, and increase housing supply in high-need areas. Approval Months Current approval time AI & operational improvements Limiting review cycles to essential regulations New approval time 37 7 18 12 12 Solution 2: Enabling innovative construction approaches High construction costs, lengthy timelines, and regulatory barriers continue to be significant obstacles for affordable housing development. Streamlining the approval process, including the use of pre-approved accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and modular home models, has the potential to substantially expedite development and reduce costs. Modular homes offer cost savings due to economies of scale and standardized assembly processes. Preliminary analysis indicates that the cost of constructing a single-family modular home could be reduced by 20–25%34 compared to traditional stick-built homes. Additionally, easing regulatory requirements for ADUs through pre-approved models could enable the creation of 16,000 to 20,00035 additional ADUs in Colorado over the next five years. To advance these initiatives, potential next steps include the following: 1) Collaboration between the State, municipalities, developers, and modular factories to implement SB25-006 by developing regional models for modular homes 2) Coordination with municipalities to adjust local zoning and impact fee requirements that could enable further development of offsite construction and ADUs 3) Development of partnerships to aggregate offsite construction demand, ensuring Colorado’s factories are able to recognize the potential marginal cost decreases 4) Expansion and upskilling of the construction workforce to assemble and inspect offsite construction projects 5) Promotion and education of offsite construction benefits and quality to encourage adoption among homeowners in Colorado. Solution 3: Optimizing funding and expanding financing Affordable housing developers can encounter delays due to misaligned public funding cycles, requiring them to navigate multiple application rounds across agencies like Colorado Housing and Finance Authority (CHFA), the Division of Housing (DOH), the Office of Economic Development and International Trade (OEDIT), and local housing agencies. This fragmented process not only prolongs project timelines but also adds administrative complexity and costs, slowing down much-needed housing development. Coordinating funding schedules and aligning award criteria across programs could streamline approvals, accelerate disbursement, and reduce project delays. A key initiative to drive this solution is synchronizing CHFA and DOH funding cycles within the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) application process. By evaluating and selecting projects jointly, these agencies could provide developers with a consolidated funding decision in a single cycle rather than across multiple rounds. This change could cut project timelines by 350 – 400 days, enabling construction to begin significantly earlier. 34 Based on the national average cost of a single-family home ($578K total, with $392K in construction costs), a 20% reduction in construction costs from mass production and standardized assembly, plus a 10% savings from faster turnaround, could result in overall cost reduction of around 23% 35 At California’s ADU adoption rate (3 per 1,000 existing SFHs annually), Colorado’s 1.7M SFHs could add 3,500-5,000 ADUs per year, totaling ~20,000 ADUs in five years 13 Exhibit 12: Illustrative current vs. accelerated funding timeline of an affordable housing project with coordinated funding schedules 36 However, aligning public funding processes alone will not be sufficient to close the gap in affordable housing development. Given the limited availability of public funds, developing innovative financing solutions — such as new capital structures, public-private partnerships, and alternative funding mechanisms — will be critical to expanding resources for housing projects. To implement this solution, the next steps include engaging key funding entities to align their cycles, redesigning the application and approval process, and developing an execution roadmap that addresses potential legislative and regulatory barriers. Establishing a structured framework for collaboration between funding agencies will be essential to ensuring smoother and faster access to capital for affordable housing projects. Solution 4: Reforming land use regulations At the local level, zoning regulations, including height limits and other density restrictions, often constrain the number of units that can be developed within a housing project. These constraints limit the efficiency of land use, restricting the supply of affordable housing despite high demand. Easing these regulations for affordable housing projects presents a significant opportunity to expand housing availability without requiring additional land acquisition. One such initiative is the relaxation of maximum height restrictions, which would allow for 36 Illustrative 2025-27 timeline based on application milestones from the 2024-25 funding cycle Current illustrative scenario: A housing project that sequentially applies for “LIHTC 9%" with CHFA, “DOH State HDG" with DOH, and “Prop 123 - Concessionary Debt (CD)” with OEDIT Application Date Decision Date Potential scenario with aligned funding: The project is awarded funds from all 3 programs during the initial LIHTC round LIHTC Round 1 2 / Dec / 25 DOH — State HDG 18 / Oct / 26 Prop 123 — CD 17 / Apr / 27 LIHTC Round 1 2 / Dec / 25 LIHTC Round 1 30 / May / 26 LIHTC Round 1 30 / May/ 26 DOH — State HDG 16 / Jan / 27 Prop 123 — CD 15 / Jun / 27 560 days to ﬁnal award announcement 179 days to ﬁnal award announcement Time Saved 14 greater housing density in areas where demand for affordable units is high. Initial estimates suggest that adjusting height regulations alone could result in a 9–10% increase in units per affordable housing project, translating to 800–850 additional units through CHFA-funded projects in the Front Range over the next five years37. Driving this solution or others forward requires a targeted approach, starting with identifying municipalities where demand for affordable housing is high, and developers are willing to engage in projects under revised zoning rules. Recognizing specific pieces of code that could be adjusted such as height restrictions, parking mandates, minimum lot sizes, and more will be key to tailoring regulatory changes to maximize impact. Additionally, building a compelling case for reform by showcasing successful implementations from other regions can help secure support from policymakers and local interested parties. Solution 5: Strengthening the construction workforce Colorado’s construction labor shortage remains a significant constraint on housing development, with an estimated 45,000-worker deficit projected by 202738. This shortage extends project timelines and increases development costs, making it more difficult to meet the state’s growing housing demand. While pre-apprenticeship training programs exist, a major gap persists in transitioning graduates into the workforce — for example, while 50% of BuildStrong Academy graduates secure employment within three months, the demand of the industry indicates that the outcomes of these types of high-quality training programs should be even higher. 37 An estimated 170 additional units could be added to CHFA-approved affordable housing in 2024, based on ~300 CHFA-funded family housing projects in the Front Range. The estimate models height increases of one story (zones <8 stories) or two stories (others), applied only to projects already at max height. Analysis based on data from the CHFA and DOH database 38 Source: Colorado Construction Education Foundation and BuildStrong Academy 15 Expanding apprenticeship programs can be a viable solution to this challenge by establishing a structured pipeline between training and employment. Strengthening job placement efforts would help increase labor supply, reduce unit build time, and ultimately improve housing affordability. Initial estimates suggest that increasing apprenticeship opportunities could add 3,000–4,000 additional residential construction workers annually, facilitating the construction of 10,000–13,000 additional new homes over the next five years. Implementing this solution requires a coordinated effort among government agencies, trade organizations, and educational institutions to promote and invest in apprenticeship expansion. Aligning workforce training with industry needs will involve identifying key construction roles that can be effectively filled through apprenticeships. Establishing a structured placement process will help streamline the transition from training to employment, reducing inefficiencies in labor utilization. Additionally, creating a formalized link between pre-apprenticeship programs and on-the-job apprenticeship opportunities will enhance workforce retention, ensuring a consistent pipeline of skilled labor to support Colorado’s housing development efforts. Solution 6: Expanding financing tools to increase homeownership For many low-income households, homeownership remains unattainable due to financial barriers, with saving for a down payment frequently cited as one of the most significant obstacles. Despite the existence of financial assistance programs designed to support prospective homebuyers, a large portion of eligible individuals remain unaware of these resources. By the end of Q4 2024, 95% of financial assistance programs in Colorado had unused funding39, underscoring a disconnect between available support and consumer awareness. Expanding the accessibility and utilization of these programs could enable more households to transition from renting to homeownership. Enhancing financing tools both on the front end for construction of affordable homeownership opportunities and to provide low-interest mortgages and down payment assistance presents a key opportunity to improve homeownership rates among low-income populations. Expanding these efforts could lead to an 8–9% increase in the owner-renter ratio over five years for households earning 0–50% of the AMI40, reducing long-term dependence on rental housing and fostering greater financial stability. 39 Source: Bankrate, Down Payment Resource, Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, Housing Wire, Urban Institute, US Census Bureau 40 Calculated based on increased mortgage approvals with availability of Down Payment Assistance (DPA and increased homebuyer consideration from greater DPA awareness 16 17 Driving this solution forward will require integrating mortgage rate supports and down payment assistance eligibility into mortgage application processes, ensuring that qualifying applicants are automatically considered for support. Strengthening advocacy efforts within public organizations will be critical in securing the necessary funding and ensuring it is effectively allocated. Additionally, partnerships with community organizations will be essential to expanding outreach efforts, launching homebuyer education workshops, and providing financial counseling services to connect eligible households with available assistance. Conclusion: From solutions to action Addressing Colorado’s affordable housing challenges requires more than identifying high- impact solutions — it demands coordinated execution across public agencies, the private sector, and community organizations. The initiatives outlined in this report demonstrate that targeted interventions can significantly reduce construction costs, expand housing supply, and increase homeownership opportunities. However, realizing these benefits at scale will require sustained collaboration and alignment across key interested parties. Moving forward, effective coordination between state and local governments, industry leaders, and nonprofit partners will be essential to driving meaningful progress. In our engagement with housing leaders across sectors — it was clear that all were willing and excited to work together to continue to improve how Colorado tackles the housing shortage. As a result, the Department of Local Affairs and the BuildStrong Foundation have begun to co-chair a Public-Private Affordable Housing Consortium, bringing together experts and key implementation partners across sectors. These organizations are well-positioned to lead the charge, leveraging existing resources and partnerships to scale these efforts and drive tangible outcomes. By working together, aligning priorities, and mobilizing resources effectively, Colorado can take a decisive step toward making affordable housing more accessible and sustainable for its residents. Acknowledgements Mile High United Way would like to acknowledge the numerous contributions made to this report by affordable housing stakeholders within Colorado and beyond. This includes the BuildStrong Foundation, McKinsey & Company for the sector analyses included in this report, and Housing Colorado for their partnership running the Colorado Affordable Housing survey referenced in this report. We would also like to thank Gary Community Ventures for their support with planning, reviewing, and editing. Finally, thank you to the individuals and organizations who agreed to participate in interviews in support of this effort. We would like to more specifically thank the following individuals for co-authoring this report, conducting the survey, and/or developing the fact base which this report was based on: • Mile High United Way: Jenn Beck, Nathan Davis and Roweena Naidoo • BuildStrong Foundation: Katie Colton and Jamie van Leeuwen • McKinsey & Company: Enrico Calvanese, Eleanor Gillett, Neil Graham, Ryan McCullough, Ruben Robles, Kashyap Sakalabhaktula, Bobbi Scott • Gary Community Ventures: Zach Martinez • Housing Colorado: Brian Rossbert • Colorado Department of Local Affairs Please contact Jenn Beck (jenn.beck@unitedwaydenver.org), Katie Colton (kcolton@ bsacolorado.org), and Ryan McCullough (ryan_mccullough@mckinsey.com) for questions and press inquiries. Addendum Individuals and organizations interviewed for or contributing to this article include: BDP Impact, BuildStrong Foundation, Civic Canopy, Colorado Department of Early Childhood Education, Colorado Department of Local Affairs, Colorado Division of Housing, Colorado Housing and Finance Authority, Colorado State Demography Office, Common Sense Institute, Community Economic Defense Project, Cornerstone Apartments, Denver Health, Eagle County School District, Elevation Community Land Trust, Gary Community Ventures, Housing Colorado, Office of the Colorado Governor – Housing, Maiker Housing Partners, Revesco Properties, Rural Homes Colorado, United Way of Salt Lake City, and more. 18 AFFORDABLE RENTAL HOUSING GRANTS Improve the comfort and efficiency of your rental property! What are these grants for? Funding is available to make repairs or improvements that enhance energy efficiency and improve comfort. Eligible projects include: • Insulation, air sealing, and weatherization • Energy efficient windows or doors • Furnaces or heat pumps • Indoor/outdoor lighting upgrades (for large properties only) • Any other projects that improve the efficiency of your property – be creative! How can I qualify for funding? To qualify, you must own or manage either a deed-restricted affordable unit or rent your unit to a tenant with a housing voucher. How much money will I receive? Deed-restricted affordable housing providers are guaranteed to receive funding for repair and maintenance of rental properties, up to $10 per unit. Private owners renting to voucher holders will be considered for up to $7000 of funds, based on a competitive scoring process. Other FAQ What do I need to know about my project before applying? • A general estimate of the cost and scope of your project, and how it would benefit your tenants and our community. The application only takes about 10 minutes to complete. Can I hire the contractor of my choice? • No, funds must be granted directly to a nonprofit or a City- approved contractor. Scan the QR Code or Visit our Website to Apply Online www.fcgov.com/rentalhousing 3 STEP PROCESS APPLY BY AUGUST 1 AWARD NOTIFICATION BY AUGUST 15 ALL WORK COMPLETE AND PAPERWORK SUBMITTED BY NOVEMBER 30