Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutEconomic Advisory Commission - Minutes - 05/21/2014Minutes City of Fort Collins Economic Advisory Commission May 21, 2014 CIC, City Hall 11:00am–1:30pm For Reference Blue Hovatter, Chair 493-3673 Karen Weitkunat, Mayor & Council Liaison 416-2154 SeonAh Kendall, Staff Liaison 416-2164 Dianne Tjalkens, Minutes 221-6734 Commission Members Present Commission Members Absent Blue Hovatter, Chair Jim Clark Denny Otsuga Linda Stanley Sam Solt Michael Kulisheck (Mike) Glen Colton Ann Hutchison Michael Rechnitz Guests Dale Adamy, citizen Staff Present Staff Absent Dianne Tjalkens, minutes SeonAh Kendall, Business Retention Strategist Tom Leeson, Redevelopment Program Manager Seth Lorson, City Planner Sue Beck-Ferkiss, Social Sustainability Specialist Meeting called to order at 11:08am. Logistics Approval of minutes Denny moved to approve the April 17, 2014 and April 28, 2014 minutes. Glen seconded. Motion passed unanimously, 5-0-0. Public Comments—None Board Member Updates Sam said he would like to try to initiate a project regarding how the commission would like to look at economic advice to Council. He and Glen have discussed creating a set of metrics with a focus on sustainability. Glen added that there would be economic health metrics including sales tax growth, housing starts, etc. They would like to develop metrics that show a healthy economy, not just growth. They will look at the City’s Triple Bottom Line tools. Sam added that the purpose is to measure sustainability. Blue would like for the entire commission to be educated on the Triple Bottom Line, then work toward improving the metrics. • Denny said he is on board with this idea. Sustainability means different things to different people, but it may be important to pick one thing and fundamentally change how the EAC is conducting business. We have discussions about the role and mission of boards and commissions, and it is always “chicken and egg” regarding Council direction. It is important to take the lead rather than expecting Council to tell the commission what to do. He would like to set a goal of submitting a written product to Council by the end of the year. • Tom Leeson added that the commission would most likely get support from staff to create metrics for sustainability. • Sam would like staff to present a metric package. Josh, SeonAh, or Tom could lead a discussion of the dashboard and current metric at the June meeting. • Sam sees now the growth is rampant and wonders if that is the direction Fort Collins wants to go. This is a project that could grow and be refined throughout the year. Next Month’s Agenda Discussion Blue said June and July work sessions include Long Term Financial Planning and renewal of the ¼ cent sales tax (Bob2). He would like a discussion of the ¼ cent sales tax to be included in next month’s agenda as well. Staff Updates Blue said there is a request from Lucinda Smith, via Darin Atteberry, to have a commission member participate on the Climate Action Plan citizen advisory committee. • Glen Colton volunteered to be the committee member. • Michael Rechnitz volunteered to be the alternate. Denny nominated Glen as the CAC member and Michael Rechnitz as the alternate. Sam seconded. Motion passed unanimously, 5-0-0. Agenda Item 1: Transit-Oriented Development Study—Seth Lorson, AICP, City Planner Seth explained that there has been concern about spill over-parking into single family residential areas from multi-family developments. The Mason corridor, College Avenue, downtown and CSU campus are included in the TOD Overlay Zone. A goal is to incentivize mixed use residential and infill and redevelopment. They removed minimum parking requirements in this zone for mixed use that is close to services, employment and entertainment; the expectation is to use transit. They allowed developers to decide how much parking is needed. After Summit was completed, it became clear they did not put in enough parking, so Council passed an ordinance, and now staff is conducting a study. Staff and consultants have reviewed City policies, collected data, performed community outreach, done a TBL analysis, and have formed alternatives and recommendations. Planning & Zoning and Parking Advisory Board recommendations include minimum parking requirements for residential and commercial, options for alternative compliance, on-street paid parking, and parking structures (public/private partnerships). Criteria need to be developed for City investment in parking structures. Seth showed a chart of proposed minimum parking requirements by dwelling type including rent-by-the-room, senior multifamily, and multifamily. There would also be a maximum number of parking spaces, unless in a structure. Council does not want to over-park the TOD area. The City wants to incentivize walking, biking and using the Max. Seth explained that it is recommended to put about 50% of our maximums as minimums. That would exclude existing and change-of-use; for example, in downtown if a business changes from a spice shop to a coffee shop, they don’t have to provide onsite parking. He discussed on- street paid parking. This would include an app for finding and paying for parking. People are upset about 2-hour parking and getting tickets. Where, when, how much, and how it is managed will be implemented by Parking Services. They have a BFO offer on the table now to do a pilot. Parking structures would be public/private partnerships. The policy would be economic development oriented. Economic Health will move forward with this recommendation. Comments/Discussion: • Sam asked how the number of spaces per unit/bedroom was determined. Seth said there is a spreadsheet included in the meeting packet and explained the numbers in the chart. We are slightly above what the market was providing, slightly below outside the TOD zone, and slightly below the temporary ordinance. The parking spillover from rent-by-the-room student housing was the main issue. The consultant and staff came up with these numbers based on their study. • Glen added that CSU is adding students, but we have limited capacity on many city streets that cannot be widened. Our roads will become more congested if more students bring vehicles. If we don’t start forcing students to use busses, zip cars, and Max, we will have congestion issues. Seth said this is the central topic being discussed. We are in transition from a small town to a city. Most people own cars. 80% of people surveyed by the Board of Realtors said it was important to have a car. There is a widespread belief that you can use multimodal transit, but still own a car, so there must be car storage. He showed a chart of alternative compliance methods that are demand mitigation strategies. The strategies allow implementation of parking requirement reductions. The spillover of student parking into neighborhoods is the main issue at hand. • Blue said this is the issue that needs to be addresses. CSU can continue to build surface lots and not worry about parking issues. Seth said they do not know how much parking is spillover from campus. It is hard to determine where the demand is being generated. This area is a major commercial spine. We need a comprehensive approach. This includes the residential parking permit program. Coupled with right-sized parking this would reduce that demand and get people away from bringing cars for school. We are just beginning this process. • Glen asked if staff has considered putting in student parking by Hughes Stadium for those who need storage for occasional use. Seth said that is what staff is talking about in storage. We need to determine safety and access of offsite parking locations. The study encourages providing offsite parking. There is an attempt at cooperation through CSU and private student housing developers. Seth added that using cars less, and having the amenities close enough to not need a car is the goal of the area, but the City is not there yet. Building affordable housing, providing transit passes, providing a car share, or being within 1000 feet of the Max all allow reduced parking to new developments. Also, if a consultant does a parking impact study, the development could make a proposal for number of parking spaces provided. • Sam said he is not a benchmarking fan, but wonders if staff has benchmarked any other communities that are in this transitional phase. Fort Collins parking and litter around campus are the worst he has seen. Seth said the study compares Fort Collins to other cities. • Glen believes the Board of Realtors study may be biased toward growth. He would like an objective study. • Blue said this community is on the edge of how things were and how they are going to be. We will have to pay for some changes. How do you determine the next vision and make it an economic success? When you look at some of the other topics coming down the line, they are related to cars and transportation, such as street maintenance and the Climate Action Plan. • Denny asked about the recommended number of minimum parking spaces based on dwelling types. What is the current usage by type, and how are these numbers different? They seem really low. Seth said these numbers are pretty low and we want to encourage less parking in the TOD zone. Exact demand is almost impossible to pinpoint. Denny said using plate number tracking devices and surveying over a period of weeks would give good data. Seth said the counts were done by hand. We have a growth management area around our community, so we must grow in. The best way to be sustainable is to limit our footprint and keep goods and services as close as possible to housing. Parking lots take up a lot of space. We want to encourage providing less parking, unless it is in a structure. • Sam said this is a really big problem in this community. When you look at traffic on Lemay, it is staggering. Glen said this is for the area where we don’t want cars, not for all of town. He added that as the community becomes more urban and dense we give up the privilege of having cars. CSU should change the model for allowing students to bring vehicles. • Sam said he lived in downtown Chicago for many years and the transit model there worked. How do we get there? Seth said staff is discovering that a principle driver is convenience and constraints. In Chicago there is very limited parking and it is expensive. In northern Colorado we have plenty of parking and no one wants to pay for it. • Michael said enforcement is an issue. In large urban areas parking becomes more expensive and people’s desire to have a car decreases. This is a good way to focus our investment. The combination of the strategies presented work best, providing multiple options for each location. Our traffic situation is getting worse all the time and is terrible now. Determining how to monitor and mediate is a challenge. A lot of student recreation is based on enjoying the outdoors, which requires transportation. CSU needs to go vertical or underground for parking. Public/private partnerships take the care of the structures out of the hands of the City, which is great. In our overlay zone, have you gone as far as to propose places for the structures? Tom said staff has looked at locations and talked to property owners, so the process has begun. • Denny said today’s current demand, or need, may exceed the rule we are trying to implement. Its fine to incentivize, but is this the leading edge to move the bar? Implementing rules may not do anything if people continue to bring cars. What else can lead incentivizing changing behavior? Seth answered that we don’t want to continually provide for the overuse of the automobile. We want to provide alternative modes. Denny said providing the solution should come first, then enforcement. Seth said the solution must happen at the same time as the impact. Developers are looking for a predictable path to get approval to go vertical. This is an attempt at balancing perspectives. Tom added that this is less about incentive to change behavior as it is to incentivize development inside this district, rather than outside of it. With reduced cost and access to transit, it can be more attractive to developers. • Blue added that the failure of the Summit was that the Max and other pieces were not in play at the time. Had we had more solutions in place when they developed, it may have had a different outcome. • Glen said we spent $80 million on Max and it will take money to pay for its operation. It will be a failure if we don’t change how we use vehicles. We need to provide places for people to live who don’t want cars. The Summit should advertise as being less expensive because they don’t provide parking spaces. • Denny said if the real issue is incentivizing development in the district, then you can create an economic model, such as buying down parking spaces or paying more for additional parking spaces. This revenue stream could be used to pay for parking structures. This is the kind of economic issue the commission should be discussing. • Seth added that next steps include a work session with Council to get direction. As policy statements are moved forward, the commission will have the opportunity to review them. • Glen said there are transportation impact fees for new development. At one time we were charging these fees for bus infrastructure, parking, etc. Do these fees cover this? They were called oversizing fees. Seth said we have transportation impact fees that are significant. A parking impact fee would be a new model. We have not gone down that path with this study. Agenda Item 2: Housing Affordability Policy Study—Sue Beck-Ferkiss Sue gave a presentation on the status of the Housing Affordability Policy Study. She will be getting direction from Council on options to study further at the next work session. A key question is what is the City’s role in interfering with the economics of the housing market? Social Sustainability has recently completed a Gaps Analysis, and it defines a sustainable housing market as diverse and equitable. Common market failures are affordability, accessibility and meeting special needs. The Gaps Analysis pointed out gaps in housing for low-earners. Also, the Foothills Mall agreement says if any policy is in place by December 1, the developers will adhere to it. Affordability means paying no more than 30% of income for housing. Sue explained the process that the study has taken, including stakeholder workshops, public open houses and board involvement. Stakeholder workshops identified best practices, what the need is, and recommendations. Some topic areas include ownership housing, commuting patterns, rental and student housing, housing cost components and distressed populations. According to the study, Fort Collins became less affordable to median income earners between 2000 and 2012. In-commuting has increased over the last 10 years. Nearly 60% of new jobs are in-commuting. Rents have increased 3.2% annually since 2000. Vacancy rates continue to be low. Students live in the community, but the market is providing housing for them. The most significant housing gap is for households earning less than $25,000 per year. Some trends are increasing average sales prices, City fees and taxes, and land costs. Distressed populations include households paying more than 30% of income for housing. People with disabilities, seniors, in-poverty, homeless, first time homebuyers and mobile home park residents are vulnerable populations. What is needed is housing for 30% AMI and under, ADA accessible units, supportive services, etc. Some options include lobbying state legislature regarding the construction defects law, the low income tax credit program, and a state-wide funding measure. Cost reduction strategy options include fee waiver changes, streamlining the process for affordable housing, adjusting marginal cost structures, and reducing minimum sizes for new homes. Other options include relaxing the You+2 rule, incentives to developers for affordable housing contributions, evaluating and remediating land constraints, addressing manufactured housing/mobile home parks, various taxes, and changes to the current Land Bank Program. She showed a chart of how directly each strategy would impact the community. Comments/Discussion: • Sam asked how many people who cannot afford homes are those who have opted for a lifestyle that puts them in that statistic. Sue answered that that was not looked at; however, it is not fun being poor anywhere, and especially here. She discussed how the cliff affect occurs when people have momentum in income that inordinately disqualifies them from human services. • Glen asked how many senior are there that live together who aren’t married. Sue said several came to public open houses, but it is a small number that could be accommodated. The You+2 ordinance was not geared toward this population. • Denny asked if affordable housing was just for ownership, or included rental. Sue said the City would like opportunities for both that do not require more than 30% income to pay for it. Denny said in other areas people may rent for a lifetime, rather than own. Ownership is seen in this country as a life milestone. For the economically distressed, ownership may not be the right answer. It is less appropriate for most of the people in the distressed categories. The regulatory items are in regard to smaller lots and homes. If you took those off the plate, and focused on the rental category, that could be more impactful. Sue said 75% of those making $25,000 are renters, but there are a small number of people who have gotten into home ownership through Section 8. Out biggest need is in rental. • Blue asked about the 3-unrelated (You+2) rule. How much effect does adding one more person to each of these homes have? Michael said he thinks none at all. Those who want to put four into a home are doing it now. They sign a lease with three people and add more to split the rent. Sue said there is an estimate of 1000 violations annually, but only about 100 complaints. Seniors and non-student adults are the most fearful of the rule and most affected. Michael added that once residency is established, you cannot evict a person even if they are out of compliance with the lease. • Glen added that we are giving tax breaks to large corporations to come here, but they are bringing people to the area who need housing. We are giving away the tax income that could go toward affordable housing and transit. Even if we wanted to expand we cannot. We are going to have to learn to live in this area. San Francisco is having unrest because they continue to attract businesses for economic growth, but the housing is unaffordable and long term residents are being pushed out by new tech employees. • Blue said Woodward is near Tres Colinas, and what is going to happen to that neighborhood? How do you stop that progression? As a community, what is the solution? Sue said gentrification has both positive and negative impacts. Blue said that the people who add culture and heritage and diversity to our community are being pushed out. You cannot stop people from moving to Fort Collins. How do you protect these important neighborhoods? Housing has become unaffordable. We want the entrepreneurial spirit to thrive here. Sue said that is part of the equity that is being discussed in this study. The market has heated up and that trending is not changing. • Blue asked what options would be most impactful. Sue said she will work with Council and the consultants to determine high, medium and low impact. The most high impact strategies are the least likely to happen in the near future, such as taxes. Tax increment financing and waivers could be impactful as well. • Sam said we have counter-interacting policy. We need to develop metrics that surround these topics instead of looking at bits and pieces. How does this relate to the Midtown Corridor, or Woodward? Sue said we are looking at how to provide housing for mid-level employment. • Blue said the university puts an increased pressure on a point other communities might not have. You are working hard to keep rental prices down, but students will be jumping on those opportunities. Sue said the Grove and Summit are new and command top dollar now, but will not forever. • Glen said if we had a functioning transit system and people did not need cars they could go to 40% of income spent on housing. This comes back to the stable state economy; we are reaching a point of having to make difficult decisions in bringing in more jobs and people, while protecting the environment and keeping affordable housing. Boulder kept adding more businesses even though there was no more space for housing. At some time we have to say no to more jobs and growth. • Blue added that looking from a more holistic point of view is important. These topics are all interconnected. We cannot make one-off decisions. Sue said it would be a great topic for the commission to ask Council how to better integrate projects. Meeting Adjourned: 1:33pm Next Meeting: June 18, 2014 11:00am–1:30pm, City Hall, CIC Room Approved by the Board on June 18, 2013 Signed ______________________________________ 7/2/2014 Dianne Tjalkens, Administrative Clerk II Date