HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - COMPLETE AGENDA - 10/30/2018 - COMPLETE AGENDACity of Fort Collins Page 1
Wade Troxell, Mayor City Council Chambers
Gerry Horak, District 6, Mayor Pro Tem City Hall West
Bob Overbeck, District 1 300 LaPorte Avenue
Ray Martinez, District 2 Fort Collins, Colorado
Ken Summers, District 3
Kristin Stephens, District 4 Cablecast on FCTV Channel 14
Ross Cunniff, District 5 and Channel 881 on the Comcast cable system
Carrie Daggett Darin Atteberry Delynn Coldiron
City Attorney City Manager City Clerk
The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities
and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (V/TDD: Dial
711 for Relay Colorado) for assistance.
City Council Work Session
October 30, 2018
6:00 PM
• CALL TO ORDER.
1. Community Park Refresh. (staff: Kurt Friesen; Jennifer Torrey; 15 minute staff presentation: 45
minute discussion)
The purpose of this work session is to review the definition and scope of Park Refresh projects and
what defines the character of community parks. Outreach efforts for the ballot approved City Park
improvement project were paused, in order to provide further definition of a park refresh.
2. Keep Fort Collins Great Sunset. (staff: Ginny Sawyer; 15 minute staff presentation; 45 minute
discussion)
The purpose of this work session is to update Council on outreach related to the Keep Fort Collins
Great (KFCG) tax sunset and to seek direction on desired steps moving.
KFCG is a .85-cent voter approved dedicated tax that will sunset December 31, 2020. April 2019 is
the anticipated election for a potential ballot related question to address funding needs.
3. Affordable Housing Incentives. (staff: Sue Beck-Ferkiss; Dean Klingner; 15 minute staff
presentation; 45 minute discussion)
The purpose of this item is to report out on the work of the City’s Internal Housing Task Force and
obtain direction from Council on which potential affordable housing incentives staff should continue
to explore to further progress on the Cities’ stated affordable housing production goals.
• OTHER BUSINESS.
• ADJOURNMENT.
DATE:
STAFF:
October 30, 2018
Kurt Friesen, Director of Park Planning & Development
Jennifer Torrey, Senior Landscape Architect
WORK SESSION ITEM
City Council
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Community Park Refresh.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this work session is to review the definition and scope of Park Refresh projects and what defines
the character of community parks. Outreach efforts for the ballot approved City Park improvement project were
paused, in order to provide further definition of a park refresh.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. What feedback and direction does Council have regarding park refresh and park character?
2. What direction does Council have as staff seek to resume the City Park improvement project?
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Overview
Efforts to seek clarification on policy questions related to park refresh have intersected with the improvement
project for City Park. Both efforts have their own distinct objectives. The first effort is the City Park improvement
project. This effort is driven by approval of two ballot commitments, including Building-on-basics (BOB) and the
Community Capital Improvements Program (CCIP). The second effort is providing greater definition of a park
refresh. The policy questions and framework for park refresh are to be further explored and addressed in an
update to the Parks and Recreation Policy Plan. As part of early discussions with Council on park refresh, City
Park was identified as a pilot project. This is where the intersection of the efforts occurs.
City Park Refresh History
In 2015, with Council’s expressed interest in the concept of park refresh, policy level discussions began about the
need to update aging community parks. There are seven existing community parks in Fort Collins. The City’s
community parks are on average 30 years-old. The concept of park refresh was introduced at a Parks and
Recreation Board meeting (March 2016) and Council Work Session (April 2016). Please refer to Attachment 1
for the presentation from the 2016 Council Work Session. Park Refresh was defined by five guiding principles
and a six-step process.
Guiding Principles:
▪ Keep pace with changing trends in recreation
▪ Adapt to changing community needs
▪ Provide equitable park experiences City wide
▪ Connect people with nature
▪ Replace and improve antiquated infrastructure
Six-Step Process for Updating Parks:
▪ Project Goals
▪ Initial Concepts
▪ Community Input
1.1
Packet Pg. 2
October 30, 2018 Page 2
▪ Park Master Plan
▪ Phase I Project Identification
▪ Phased Construction
In addition, candidates for refresh (City Park, Rolland Moore Park, Lee Martinez Park, and Edora Park) were
identified. The potential cost to refresh each park candidate was estimated. City Park was selected to become the
pilot for park refresh, partially due to available funding. The upcoming Parks and Recreation Policy Plan update
will provide a comprehensive approach for park refresh efforts in the future.
City Park Improvement Project History
The funding supporting a portion of the City Park improvement project comes from two separate ballot
commitments. The first is the Building-on-Basics capital tax (BOB), approved by voters in 2005 for park upgrades
and enhancements for older parks. These BOB funds ($1,703,000) were approved to, “add improvements such
as new playground equipment, picnic shelters, restrooms, landscaping and sidewalks needed to keep our parks
useful, enjoyable and attractive.” A portion of these funds were spent for other older community parks, leaving the
balance of funds available for City Park improvements ($1,465,000). The projects completed to date with BOB
funds include Rolland Moore Park community garden, Rolland Moore Park quick start tennis courts, City Park
pickleball court conversion (pilot project), and Lee Martinez playground upgrade.
In 2015, a second capital improvement tax was passed, known as the Community Capital Improvement Program
(CCIP). The CCIP funds ($350,000) were approved to, “bring back City Park train in a new, expanded location in
City Park.” Utilizing these available funds, the City Park improvement project (pilot refresh project) began in
earnest in 2016.
City Park improvement project efforts in 2016 included identifying project goals, compiling historical research,
analyzing existing park use, creating four distinct concepts, and conducting traffic analysis for each concept.
Project goals:
▪ Respect history and character of City Park
▪ Improve pedestrian safety near the City Park pool
▪ Improve the sense of place
▪ Incorporate new City Park train
▪ Improve playground
▪ Additional and/or improved restroom
▪ Improved entry to Club Tico
▪ Safe convenient parking
▪ Enhance pedestrian connections and bike facilities
▪ Additional and/or enhanced shelters
After completing these tasks, community feedback was sought. Outreach efforts included a Parks and Recreation
Board presentation, two public meetings, concepts shared at multiple city events, comment cards, online surveys,
social media, and a work session with Council.
Summary of 2016 Outreach: Yes No # Votes
Support for Project Goals 82% 18% 71
Preferred Concept:
▪ City Park Trolley Garden 43% - 25/58
▪ Existing Improved 29% - 17/58
▪ Lakeshore 19% - 11/58
▪ Park Center 9% - 5/58
Themes from Open Responses:
▪ Maintain and improve accessibility for pedestrians and bikes
▪ Maintain open space and pastoral character
▪ Improve safety for pedestrians
1.1
Packet Pg. 3
October 30, 2018 Page 3
Work on the City Park improvement project did not resume again until 2017 due to other council recommended
priorities, including the Avery Park improvement project and Streets Park improvements.
Efforts in 2017-2018 included:
▪ Review of citizen feedback
▪ Site topographic survey
▪ Tree inventory/mapping
▪ Historic element inventory
▪ Master plan development
▪ Field verification of master plan ideas
▪ Review of the master plan by a technical advisory group
▪ Revisions to master plan based on field assessments / advisory comments
▪ Phasing strategy and cost estimates developed with a general contractor
▪ Two community meetings (Facebook live and cable 14 video/comment cards/survey polling)
▪ Additional public outreach (online survey / online comment card / social media)
Summary of 2018 Outreach: Yes Neutral No # Votes
Support for Overall Vision 60% - 40% 366
▪ Community Meeting 69% 121
▪ Neighborhood Meeting 53% 103
▪ Online Responses 58% 142
Support for Program Elements
▪ Trolley garden 48% 22% 30% 284
▪ Pavilion 49% 19% 32% 283
▪ Promenade 61% 17% 22% 280
▪ Boardwalk 61% 15% 24% 279
▪ Tennis/pickleball relocation 57% 21% 22% 274
Improved Area Preference 277
▪ Putt-putt 12%
▪ Informal picnic area 34%
▪ Slackline/hammock 09%
▪ Unprogrammed / passive 45%
Phase II Priority 268
▪ Tennis/ pickleball 31%
▪ Pavilion 17%
▪ Playground / picnic shelters 26%
▪ Restroom 26%
In late June, after hearing concerns regarding proposed plans from several residents who live near City Park, the
City Park improvement project was put on pause with Council direction to take a step back and look at the
definition of park refresh and park character as well as the scope and scale of park refresh. Additional outreach
planned for the City Park improvement plans over the course of the summer was cancelled. Please refer to
Attachments 2 and 3 for meeting summaries from the two outreach meetings.
Community Park Refresh Outreach Summary
Staff from Community Services and the City Manager’s office developed a survey to obtain citizen feedback on
the concept of park refresh. The survey contents included demographics, scope and scale of refresh, refresh
guiding principles, and definition of park character. Please refer to Attachment 4 for a copy of the Community
Park Refresh survey. Outreach efforts involved conducting on-site surveys at each community park and city
recreational facility, providing the survey online, advertising the online survey by distributing posters and cards at
1.1
Packet Pg. 4
October 30, 2018 Page 4
recreational facilities and libraries and utilizing Nextdoor, social media, and Twitter. Surveys were collected from
mid-August through mid-September. A total of 1,381 people participated in the survey. There was broad
demographic representation by those who participated in the survey in terms of gender, age, zip code and
community park visitation.
Summary of Park Refresh survey results:
▪ Most important guiding principles: connect people with nature; replace/improve antiquated infrastructure, and
meet current safety standards
▪ Majority support for all 8 scope and scale descriptions for park refresh
▪ Most important elements in defining park character: unique features/qualities and location/context
Primary themes identified from open response question - What Should a Park Refresh Include:
▪ Update playground equipment/surfacing (107 responses)
▪ Reduce water use / introduce adaptive plants/wildlife habitat (105 responses)
▪ Add shade throughout the park (95 responses)
▪ Provide more / update existing dog parks (77 responses)
▪ Provide additional walks/trails and connections for pedestrians and bicyclists (74 responses)
▪ Include maintenance/upkeep (70 responses)
▪ Address safety concerns (52 responses)
▪ Provide year-round/clean restrooms (44 responses)
Primary themes identified from open response question - What Should a Park Refresh NOT Include:
▪ Invest in short-lived trends (23 responses)
▪ Change existing character (22 responses)
▪ Total reconstruction (22 responses)
▪ Remove natural beauty or large open spaces (21 responses)
▪ Overlook safety concerns (17 responses)
Primary theme identified from open response question - What else is Important about Park Character:
▪ Park Character should remain unique from park to park (37 responses)
Community Park Refresh and Park Character Defined
The following working definitions for Park Refresh and Park Character reflect input received in the community
park refresh outreach effort.
Park Refresh - “To update or make changes to a park to solve existing concerns, address community needs or
recreational trends through repair, alterations, and/or additions while upholding park character.”
Park Character - “Attributes that make-up and distinguish a park and influence the experience within the park,
including programmatic and experiential elements.”
Park Use Studies
In partnership with Larimer County Department of Health and Environment and the Colorado School of Public
Health (including faculty and students from both CSU and UNC), two tools were selected to study park use,
visitation and activity levels. SOPARC (System for Observing Play and Recreation in Communities) is an
observation tool to record how specific areas are used. SOPARC was conducted within City Park by students in
September. The second tool selected is an intercept interview survey. Students will be conducting interviews at
various locations around town in mid to late October to find out why people do or do not use City Park, why they
do or do not use other community parks, and how physically active they are. Results from these studies will be
available in December 2018.
Park Refresh Next Steps
Further investigation of funding and implementation strategies for park refresh to be included in the Parks and
Recreation Policy Plan update.
1.1
Packet Pg. 5
October 30, 2018 Page 5
City Park Improvement Project Next Steps
Staff recommends moving forward with the City Park improvement project. Staff proposes to hold a design
workshop for the City Park improvement project, where several stakeholder groups are identified and invited to
review and comment on the current master plan and develop their own options. The current master plan and
alternative options developed by stakeholders will be reviewed by the community in an open house format. We
estimate this effort to take a minimum of six months. Master plan refinements and identification of a funded phase
I project would follow. Funding for additional outreach efforts will come from the phase I project budget and could
possibly delay or impact the ability to complete a phase I project. The City Park train (locomotive, gondola car and
caboose) is currently under construction and scheduled for completion in late 2019.
ATTACHMENTS
1. 2016 Council Work Session Refreshing Fort Collins Parks (PDF)
2. 2018 City Park Neighborhood Meeting Summary (PDF)
3. 2018 City Park Community Meeting Summary (PDF)
4. 2018 Community Park Refresh Survey (PDF)
5. PowerPoint Presentation (PDF)
1.1
Packet Pg. 6
1
Refreshing Fort Collins Parks
Kurt Friesen, Park Planning & Development Director
6-26-16
ATTACHMENT 1
1.1.1
Packet Pg. 7
Attachment: 2016 Council Work Session Refreshing Fort Collins Parks (7272 : Community Park Refresh)
Questions for Council
2
• What feedback does Council have regarding the park refresh
concept?
• What direction does Council have regarding funding options for
refreshing parks?
• What feedback does Council have regarding park build out and life
cycle programs?
1.1.1
Packet Pg. 8
Attachment: 2016 Council Work Session Refreshing Fort Collins Parks (7272 : Community Park Refresh)
3
1.1.1
Packet Pg. 9
Attachment: 2016 Council Work Session Refreshing Fort Collins Parks (7272 : Community Park Refresh)
4
1.1.1
Packet Pg. 10
Attachment: 2016 Council Work Session Refreshing Fort Collins Parks (7272 : Community Park Refresh)
5
1.1.1
Packet Pg. 11
Attachment: 2016 Council Work Session Refreshing Fort Collins Parks (7272 : Community Park Refresh)
6
1.1.1
Packet Pg. 12
Attachment: 2016 Council Work Session Refreshing Fort Collins Parks (7272 : Community Park Refresh)
7
1.1.1
Packet Pg. 13
Attachment: 2016 Council Work Session Refreshing Fort Collins Parks (7272 : Community Park Refresh)
8
1.1.1
Packet Pg. 14
Attachment: 2016 Council Work Session Refreshing Fort Collins Parks (7272 : Community Park Refresh)
9
1.1.1
Packet Pg. 15
Attachment: 2016 Council Work Session Refreshing Fort Collins Parks (7272 : Community Park Refresh)
Fort Collins Parks are Valued
10
1.1.1
Packet Pg. 16
Attachment: 2016 Council Work Session Refreshing Fort Collins Parks (7272 : Community Park Refresh)
Three Part Approach
1. Park Build Out – Completing the Park System
2. Park Life Cycle Program – Maintaining What We Have
11
3. Park Refresh – Adapting to Changing Needs
1.1.1
Packet Pg. 17
Attachment: 2016 Council Work Session Refreshing Fort Collins Parks (7272 : Community Park Refresh)
Existing Process
12
1.1.1
Packet Pg. 18
Attachment: 2016 Council Work Session Refreshing Fort Collins Parks (7272 : Community Park Refresh)
Proposed Process
13
1.1.1
Packet Pg. 19
Attachment: 2016 Council Work Session Refreshing Fort Collins Parks (7272 : Community Park Refresh)
Park Build Out
• Maple Hill
• Trailhead
• Bucking Horse
• Eastridge
• Interstate
• Richards Lake
• Bacon Elementary
• Iron Horse
•Lind
• Fossil Lake
• Lake Canal
• Airport
• Huidekooper
14
2 Community Parks
• East Community Park
• Northeast Community Park
13 Neighborhood Parks
Based on 2008 Parks & Recreation Policy Plan
1.1.1
Packet Pg. 20
Attachment: 2016 Council Work Session Refreshing Fort Collins Parks (7272 : Community Park Refresh)
Current Park Projects
Southeast Community Park
15
1.1.1
Packet Pg. 21
Attachment: 2016 Council Work Session Refreshing Fort Collins Parks (7272 : Community Park Refresh)
16
Current Park Projects
Southeast Community Park
1.1.1
Packet Pg. 22
Attachment: 2016 Council Work Session Refreshing Fort Collins Parks (7272 : Community Park Refresh)
17
Current Park Projects
Southeast Community Park
1.1.1
Packet Pg. 23
Attachment: 2016 Council Work Session Refreshing Fort Collins Parks (7272 : Community Park Refresh)
18
Current Park Projects
Southeast Community Park
1.1.1
Packet Pg. 24
Attachment: 2016 Council Work Session Refreshing Fort Collins Parks (7272 : Community Park Refresh)
19
Current Park Projects
Southeast Community Park
1.1.1
Packet Pg. 25
Attachment: 2016 Council Work Session Refreshing Fort Collins Parks (7272 : Community Park Refresh)
20
Current Park Projects
Southeast Community Park
1.1.1
Packet Pg. 26
Attachment: 2016 Council Work Session Refreshing Fort Collins Parks (7272 : Community Park Refresh)
Current Park Projects
21
Maple Hill Neighborhood Park
1.1.1
Packet Pg. 27
Attachment: 2016 Council Work Session Refreshing Fort Collins Parks (7272 : Community Park Refresh)
Neighborhood Park 10 Year Projection
22
$-
$500,000
$1,000,000
$1,500,000
$2,000,000
$2,500,000
$3,000,000
$3,500,000
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
Administration Park Projects Impact Fee Collections
1.1.1
Packet Pg. 28
Attachment: 2016 Council Work Session Refreshing Fort Collins Parks (7272 : Community Park Refresh)
Community Park 10 Year Projection
23
$0
$1,000,000
$2,000,000
$3,000,000
$4,000,000
$5,000,000
$6,000,000
$7,000,000
$8,000,000
$9,000,000
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
East Park Community Projects Park Impact Impact Fee Fee Collections Collections
1.1.1
Packet Pg. 29
Attachment: 2016 Council Work Session Refreshing Fort Collins Parks (7272 : Community Park Refresh)
Park Build Out
Suggested Solution:
• Increase park impact fees. Fee increase evaluation is currently
underway.
24
1.1.1
Packet Pg. 30
Attachment: 2016 Council Work Session Refreshing Fort Collins Parks (7272 : Community Park Refresh)
Parks Life Cycle Program
25
Playground before
Playground after
Replacement or Restoration
of Existing Park Elements
Recent Projects
• Greenbriar Playground
• Edora Ballfield Lights
• English Ranch Walkway repairs
• Golden Meadows Tennis Court
• Spring Canyon Bike Park
Renovation Phase 1
1.1.1
Packet Pg. 31
Attachment: 2016 Council Work Session Refreshing Fort Collins Parks (7272 : Community Park Refresh)
Parks Life Cycle Program
1,000+ Acres
• 6 Community Parks
• 42 Neighborhood &
Pocket Parks
• Archery Range
26
Asphalt/
Concrete
Buildings Fields
Courts
Irrigation
Playgrounds
Structures
Water
Life Cycle Components
1.1.1
Packet Pg. 32
Attachment: 2016 Council Work Session Refreshing Fort Collins Parks (7272 : Community Park Refresh)
Average Park Age
27
Note: The three oldest parks in the city, Washington Park, Library Park and City Park are
over 100 years old and not included in the average.
1.1.1
Packet Pg. 33
Attachment: 2016 Council Work Session Refreshing Fort Collins Parks (7272 : Community Park Refresh)
Parks Life Cycle Funding
28
0
200
400
600
800
1000
$-
$200,000
$400,000
$600,000
$800,000
$1,000,000
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
Total Acres Actual Life Cycle Funding
Acres
1.1.1
Packet Pg. 34
Attachment: 2016 Council Work Session Refreshing Fort Collins Parks (7272 : Community Park Refresh)
Life Cycle – 10 Year Projection
29
$‐
$500,000
$1,000,000
$1,500,000
$2,000,000
$2,500,000
$3,000,000
$3,500,000
$4,000,000
$4,500,000
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
Community Park needs Neighborhood/Pocket Parks KFCG Contribution
Includes only current park acreage – no proposed parks included
1.1.1
Packet Pg. 35
Attachment: 2016 Council Work Session Refreshing Fort Collins Parks (7272 : Community Park Refresh)
Park Life Cycle
Suggested Solution:
• BFO Offer for Additional Life Cycle Funding
30
1.1.1
Packet Pg. 36
Attachment: 2016 Council Work Session Refreshing Fort Collins Parks (7272 : Community Park Refresh)
Park Refresh
Reasons to Update Parks
• Keep Pace with Changing Trends in Recreation
• Adapt to Changing Community Needs
• Provide Equitable Park Experiences City Wide
• Connect People With Nature
• Replace and Improve Antiquated Infrastructure
31
1.1.1
Packet Pg. 37
Attachment: 2016 Council Work Session Refreshing Fort Collins Parks (7272 : Community Park Refresh)
Reasons to Update Parks
Keep Pace with Changing Trends in Recreation
Pickleball 32
1.1.1
Packet Pg. 38
Attachment: 2016 Council Work Session Refreshing Fort Collins Parks (7272 : Community Park Refresh)
Reasons to Update Parks
Adapt to Changing Community Needs
33
Community Gardens Nature Play
1.1.1
Packet Pg. 39
Attachment: 2016 Council Work Session Refreshing Fort Collins Parks (7272 : Community Park Refresh)
Reasons to Update Parks
Provide Equitable Park Experiences City Wide
34
Fossil Creek Park Playground Lee Martinez Park Playground
1.1.1
Packet Pg. 40
Attachment: 2016 Council Work Session Refreshing Fort Collins Parks (7272 : Community Park Refresh)
Reasons to Update Parks
Connect People with Nature
35
1.1.1
Packet Pg. 41
Attachment: 2016 Council Work Session Refreshing Fort Collins Parks (7272 : Community Park Refresh)
Reasons to Update Parks
Replace and Improve Antiquated infrastructure
36
Accessibility Irrigation Pavements
1.1.1
Packet Pg. 42
Attachment: 2016 Council Work Session Refreshing Fort Collins Parks (7272 : Community Park Refresh)
Park Refresh Process
37
1.1.1
Packet Pg. 43
Attachment: 2016 Council Work Session Refreshing Fort Collins Parks (7272 : Community Park Refresh)
Park Refresh Example
38
March 3 & 7 Community Meetings
1.1.1
Packet Pg. 44
Attachment: 2016 Council Work Session Refreshing Fort Collins Parks (7272 : Community Park Refresh)
Park Refresh Example
39
“Trolley Garden” Concept
1.1.1
Packet Pg. 45
Attachment: 2016 Council Work Session Refreshing Fort Collins Parks (7272 : Community Park Refresh)
40
Park Refresh Estimate by Park
Approximately 50 Million Dollars Total
$0
$2,000,000
$4,000,000
$6,000,000
$8,000,000
$10,000,000
$12,000,000
$14,000,000
$16,000,000
$18,000,000
City Park Rolland Moore Park Lee Martinez Park Edora Community Park
1.1.1
Packet Pg. 46
Attachment: 2016 Council Work Session Refreshing Fort Collins Parks (7272 : Community Park Refresh)
Park Refresh Funding Options
• Development of a Park Improvement Fee
• Funding through Typical BFO Cycles
• 10 year Capital Improvements Tax
41
1.1.1
Packet Pg. 47
Attachment: 2016 Council Work Session Refreshing Fort Collins Parks (7272 : Community Park Refresh)
Parks are a Good Investment
• Increase in property value
• Increase in tourism spending
• Direct use value
• Health benefits
• Community cohesion
• Improved air & water quality
42
140 billion in economic
activity that resulted in nearly
1 million US jobs in 2013.
1 - 2015 The Economic Impacts of Local Parks: An Examination of the Operations and Capital Spending on the United States Economy
2 - 2003 Measuring the Economic Value of a City Park System – Trust for Public Land
1.1.1
Packet Pg. 48
Attachment: 2016 Council Work Session Refreshing Fort Collins Parks (7272 : Community Park Refresh)
Questions for Council
43
• What feedback does Council have regarding the park refresh
concept?
• What direction does Council have regarding funding options for
refreshing parks?
• What feedback does Council have regarding park build out and life
cycle programs?
1.1.1
Packet Pg. 49
Attachment: 2016 Council Work Session Refreshing Fort Collins Parks (7272 : Community Park Refresh)
Page 1 of 4
Park Planning &
Development Department
215 N Mason St
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970-221-6618
fcgov.com/parkplanning
Meeting Summary
Subject: City Park Tomorrow – Neighborhood Meeting
Date: June 4, 2018
Location: Lincoln Center – Columbine Room
Attendees: Approximately 80 City Park neighborhood residents
MEETING FORMAT
A meeting was held specifically with neighborhood residents to present current plans and ideas for future
improvements to the core area of City Park and to receive feedback on the proposed ideas and phasing
from the neighbors.
The 30-minute presentation included: history of City Park; core area limits; project goals; 4 initial concepts;
2016 public outreach; summary of 2016 citizen feedback; current refined concept; design ideas for specific
project elements; proposed phasing; and estimated cost for each phase.
Following the presentation, a question and answer session was conducted. After the question and answer
session, electronic polling was done to obtain information on the level of support for various park elements
and to determine which elements / proposed phases were seen as higher priorities.
Below is a summary of the question and answer session:
2016 CITIZEN FEEDBACK PROCESS
When presenting the 2016 design concepts, how many people voted?
x Staff Response:
There were approximately 75 to 100 people who attend the public meetings and gave input on the 2016
concepts. In addition to those who attended the public meetings, there were others who provided input
through comment cards and at summer events hosted within City Park.
EXISTING TREES
A large percent of trees in City Park are Ash Trees and will be affected by the Emerald Ash Borer. Have
you considered how you are going to work around that?
x Staff Response:
The City Forestry Department has identified which Ash trees in the park will be treated and which
trees are in poor health or condition and that will not be treated for Emerald Ash Borer. Locations
of proposed park elements have taken into consideration trees that will likely need to be removed in
the next year or so due to poor health or safety concerns. Existing, healthy trees are being
preserved and protected.
EXISTING CITY PARK TRAIN AREA
Would a dog park work in the area with the old city park train tracks and shed?
x Staff Response:
ATTACHMENT 2
1.1.2
Packet Pg. 50
Attachment: 2018 City Park Neighborhood Meeting Summary (7272 : Community Park Refresh)
Page 2 of 4
A dog park would create compaction to tree root zones and stress to
existing trees in this area, so it is not as suitable as passive types of uses would be.
PLAYGROUND / SHELTERS / RESTROOM
Is the footprint of the proposed playground smaller than what is in City Park now?
x Staff Response:
The footprint of the proposed playground is smaller; however, the proposed playground offers more
vertical play experience than the existing playground and has less unused space within the
playground surfacing area.
Why are you moving the playground and shelters?
x Staff Response:
The existing playgrounds are in the sun and have sand surfacing that absorbs and holds heat,
making the play environment very hot on warm days. The existing shelters, which provide overhead
sun protection, are in the shade of the existing tree canopy. The proposed plan switches these
locations to provide a shaded play environment and picnic shelters that can be surrounded by
irrigated turf space or planting beds.
Are the frogs going to be moved?
x Staff Response:
The proposed improvements do not impact the location of the frogs.
Why not fix the shelters and restroom, and not replace them?
x Staff Response:
The existing restroom was retrofitted from a building with a different use / purpose. As such, it’s
layout is not ideal and the layout makes maintenance access to utility pipes more challenging.
Renovating the structure is a consideration that can be explored more closely. The proposed, new
restroom provides a men’s restroom, women’s restroom and a family restroom with an adult size
changing table.
The existing shelters are in poor condition. Replacing them in a new location, rather than
continuing to repair them in place, is preferred.
PARKING / CIRCULATION
How are you going to accommodate parking if you close City Park Drive?
x Staff Response:
Off-street parking is proposed near the relocated tennis/pickleball courts. In addition, formalizing
the existing on-street parking on South Bryan Avenue west of the lake is proposed, and additional
on-street parking areas are proposed along other portions of South Bryan Avenue, Sheldon Drive
and City Park Drive.
How are bikes going to be accommodated?
x Staff Response:
A north-south multi-purpose path is proposed along the west side of Sheldon Drive from West Oak
Street to Mulberry. In addition, the proposed promenade will provide a safe east-west circulation
for both bikes and pedestrians across the park. Additional bike racks are proposed near the
relocated tennis-pickleball courts, entry to Club Tico, City Park Pool entry, picnic areas, playground,
pavilion and north lake shore.
ATTACHMENT 2
1.1.2
Packet Pg. 51
Attachment: 2018 City Park Neighborhood Meeting Summary (7272 : Community Park Refresh)
Page 3 of 4
Has a traffic study been done to look at impacts with closing a portion of City
Park Drive?
x Staff Response:
Yes, a traffic analysis was completed by the City traffic department. Most of the traffic runs north-
south on South Bryan Avenue. Closure of the stretch of City Park Drive between South Bryan and
Sheldon will not negatively impact traffic patterns.
OPEN SPACE
How much open space is being taken away with the proposed design?
x Staff Response: For the park as a whole, the amount of open space will be roughly the same. With
the removal of tennis/pickleball courts, removal of a portion of City Park Drive, and removal of
unnecessary pavement near Club Tico, the amount of open space in the Core Area would increase
by approximately 46,000 square feet. West of the ditch, with the addition of off-street parking and
relocation of the tennis/pickleball courts, open space would be reduced by approximately 44,000
square feet. Open space is defined as planted or turf areas.
TRAIN AND TROLLEY
Do the train and trolley have the same season for operation?
x Staff Response:
Both the train and trolley run generally from Memorial Day to Labor Day.
SECURITY
Will there be additional security for the park with the addition of night lighting of the boardwalk and other
park areas?
x Staff Response:
The park hours will remain the same, with the park closing at 11pm. Proposed lighting will create a
safer environment within the park during operating hours. Rangers would still patrol the park as
they currently do.
Can you see into the treehouse towers, because that could be a safety issue?
x Staff Response:
There will be clear visibility into the play structures.
PHASING / COSTS
Why is the train the first phase of the project, and how long will it be until tennis courts are relocated?
x Staff response:
The train was voter approved and has approved funding in place. Construction of phase I is planned
in 2019.
The timing of the relocation of the tennis courts is dependent on approval of additional funding for
phase II. If phase II funding is approved, reconstruction of the tennis courts could happen in 2019
or 2020.
Will the existing restroom stay in phase one?
x Staff response:
Yes, the existing restroom will stay with phase I construction. It will be inside of the train tracks.
An accessible sidewalk connection will be provided across the tracks to the restroom.
How much will the cost of maintenance increase?
x Staff Response:
ATTACHMENT 2
1.1.2
Packet Pg. 52
Attachment: 2018 City Park Neighborhood Meeting Summary (7272 : Community Park Refresh)
Page 4 of 4
The Parks Department is currently providing maintenance for existing
elements within the park. Most of the proposed features replace old or worn out features. Overall,
the amount of maintenance would not change or could possibly be reduced with newer features.
The only feature that would result in additional maintenance, is the trolley garden. The trolley
gardens are included in phase III. Staff is working on determining the additional funds needed to
maintain the trolley gardens.
GENERAL COMMENTS PROVIDED
x City Park improvements should focus on what younger generations want and like.
x Design ideas presented are nice, but prefer they don’t happen at City Park.
x Concerned about preserving the character of the park.
x Concerned about preserving open space in the park.
x Suggest interviewing picnic shelter uses in the park to see what their needs are.
x New tennis/pickleball courts should be constructed before existing are removed.
x Suggest increasing the area for the playground and providing more places for parents to sit.
x Water quality of lake should be improved.
x Concerned about how the proposed architectural style of the pavilion, picnic shelters and new
restroom fit with the park’s sense-of-place.
x Safety should be a higher priority in the phasing of improvements.
x Glad to hear the existing trees are being protected as they are one of the best parts of the park.
SUMMARY
There was excellent attendance, lots of questions were asked about specific components, a divergence of
viewpoints were expressed, and significant support for maintaining the “character” of the Park was
articulated (although “character” appears to mean different things to different people). Support for the
overall vision was evenly divided, while each of the specific elements received majority support.
Please note that this document has been prepared as a meeting summary and is therefore not intended as
detailed meeting minutes.
ATTACHMENT 2
1.1.2
Packet Pg. 53
Attachment: 2018 City Park Neighborhood Meeting Summary (7272 : Community Park Refresh)
Page 1 of 4
Park Planning &
Development Department
215 N Mason St
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970-221-6618
fcgov.com/parkplanning
Meeting Summary
Subject: City Park Tomorrow – Community Meeting
Date: June 7, 2018
Location: Lincoln Center – Columbine Room
Attendees: Approximately 100 Community and Neighborhood Residents
MEETING FORMAT
A meeting was held with community residents to present current plans and ideas for future improvements
to the core area of City Park and to receive feedback on the proposed ideas and phasing.
The 30-minute presentation included: history of City Park; a description of the core area limits; project
goals; 4 initial concepts; 2016 public outreach; summary of 2016 citizen feedback; current refined concept;
design ideas for specific project elements; proposed phasing; and estimated cost for each phase.
Following the presentation, a question and answer session was conducted. After the question and answer
session, electronic polling was done to obtain information on the level of support for various park elements
and to determine which elements / proposed phases are considered higher priorities.
Below is a summary of the question and answer session:
PLAYGROUND / SHELTERS / RESTROOM
Is the footprint of the proposed playground smaller than what is in City Park now?
• Staff Response:
The footprint of the proposed playground is smaller; however, the proposed playground offers more
vertical play experience than the existing playground and has less unused space within the
playground surfacing area. The design team will look at ways to increase the footprint size of the
playground to be able to accommodate additional play equipment.
Why are you moving the playground and shelters?
• Staff Response:
The existing playgrounds are in the sun and have sand surfacing that absorbs and holds heat,
making the play environment very hot on warm days. The existing shelters, which provide overhead
sun protection, are in the shade of the existing tree canopy. The proposed plan switches these
locations to provide a shaded play environment and picnic shelters that can be surrounded by
irrigated turf space or planting beds.
How much further away is the proposed playground from the City Park Pool than existing playgrounds?
• Staff Response:
The center of the existing main playground is 303 feet from the entry into the pool; the center of the
existing tot lot is 437 feet from the entry into the pool and the center of the proposed playground
area is 435 feet from the entry into the pool.
ATTACHMENT 3
1.1.3
Packet Pg. 54
Attachment: 2018 City Park Community Meeting Summary (7272 : Community Park Refresh)
Page 2 of 4
PARKING / CIRCULATION
How are you going to accommodate parking if you close City Park Drive?
• Staff Response:
Off-street parking is proposed near the relocated tennis/pickleball courts. In addition, formalizing
the existing on-street parking on South Bryan Avenue west of the lake is proposed, and additional
on-street parking areas are proposed along other portions of South Bryan Avenue, Sheldon Drive
and City Park Drive.
Will there be increases in traffic with the proposed plan?
• Staff Response:
A completed traffic analysis indicates closure of the segment of City Park Drive between South
Bryan Avenue and Sheldon Drive will not significantly impact traffic volumes on surrounding
streets. The proposed elements currently exist in the park or have been in the park in the past (i.e.
City Park Train and historic trolley), so no additional traffic is anticipated for replacing existing
elements. The gardens are a new proposed element. It is not expected that this amenity will result
in a substantial change in numbers of park users such that traffic patterns would be negatively
impacted.
Could there be softer surfaced walking paths provided (around the lake) as well as a concrete path?
• Staff Response:
While the limits of this project don’t reach the south end of the lake, the design team can explore
where crusher fine pathways may be added.
OPEN SPACE / EXISTING TREES
How much open space is being taken away with the proposed design?
• Staff Response: For the park as a whole, the amount of open space will be roughly the same. With
the removal of tennis/pickleball courts, removal of a portion of City Park Drive, and removal of
unnecessary pavement near Club Tico, the amount of open space in the Core Area would increase
by approximately 46,000 square feet. West of the ditch, with the addition of off-street parking and
relocation of the tennis/pickleball courts, open space would be reduced by approximately 44,000
square feet. Open space is defined as planted or turf areas.
How many trees will be removed in this process?
• Staff Response:
The proposed plan has been carefully planned to save all the existing trees. Saving the cherished
trees has informed the placement and design of every element of the proposed plan.
TENNIS / PICKLEBALL COURTS
Do you have suggestions for where we can get more pickleball courts in town; and if during the gap
between removal of the existing courts and construction of the new courts, can the pickleball nets be
moved to Greenbriar park?
• Staff Response:
If all or a portion of the funding of Phase II is approved by City Council, it is possible the new tennis
/ pickleball courts could be constructed concurrently with Phase I. Phase II improvements can be
grouped into 4-5 smaller sub-phases so that if a portion of the Phase II budget is approved, several
of the sub-phases could be completed.
In addition, there is another budget offer to add 4 pickleball courts at Spring Canyon Park.
ATTACHMENT 3
1.1.3
Packet Pg. 55
Attachment: 2018 City Park Community Meeting Summary (7272 : Community Park Refresh)
Page 3 of 4
TRAIN / TROLLEY / PAVILION (STATION)
Do the train and trolley have the same season for operation?
• Staff Response:
Both the train and trolley run generally from Memorial Day to Labor Day.
Is the use in the Pavilion limited to 3 months out of the year?
• Staff Response:
While the train and trolley operate from Memorial Day to Labor Day, the Pavilion is programed to
have year-round use. In addition to displaying the trolley and train for viewing year-round, there is a
shelter component to the open area section of the structure that would also be used year-round.
The pavilion has been designed as a multi-purpose structure.
PHASING / COSTS / CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE
Why is the train the first phase of the project, and how long will it be until tennis courts are relocated?
• Staff response:
The train was voter approved and has approved funding in place. Construction of phase I is planned
in 2019.
The timing of the relocation of the tennis courts is dependent on approval of additional funding for
phase II. If phase II funding is approved, reconstruction of the tennis courts could happen in 2019
(possibly concurrently with phase I) or 2020.
Will the existing restroom stay in phase one?
• Staff response:
Yes, the existing restroom will stay with phase I construction. It will be inside of the train tracks.
An accessible sidewalk connection will be provided across the tracks to the restroom.
How long will the park be closed during construction?
• Staff Response:
Construction sequencing will be planned to impact as small of a park area at a time as possible.
The length and timing of construction will depend on how many and which components / elements
are included in each phase.
If City Council chooses not to fully fund or partially fund this project, where does the money come from, or
do some of the phases not happen?
• Staff Response:
Staff will explore grant opportunities, donations as well other options. Phasing will occur as
funding allows.
GENERAL COMMENTS PROVIDED
• Concern for preservation of open space within the park.
• Concern about preserving the historical character of the park.
• Suggest adjusting phasing to address safety and lighting concerns sooner.
• Suggestion to construct new tennis/pickleball courts before existing are removed.
• Suggest a bandstand / small platform for music at the lake.
• Suggest the Trolley Pavilion be called the “Trolley Station” (Club Tico was historically called the
Pavilion).
• Concern for the small footprint area for the proposed playground, suggestion to increase the size.
ATTACHMENT 3
1.1.3
Packet Pg. 56
Attachment: 2018 City Park Community Meeting Summary (7272 : Community Park Refresh)
Page 4 of 4
• Suggest providing more, but smaller playgrounds throughout the park.
• Like how the proposed playground promotes exposure to nature for kids which is essential for
healthy childhood development (physical, emotional and spiritual); like the playground design
leading to more imaginative and physically challenging play.
• Suggest the open area of the Pavilion (Station) be allowed to be reserved for dancing or other small
group activities (surfacing material to be appropriate for dancing).
• Suggest temporarily moving the pickleball nets to Greenbriar.
• Suggest providing shade and wind breaks for relocated tennis / pickleball courts.
• Suggestions were given on which elements should be higher priority. While opinions varied,
security / lighting and reconstruction of tennis / pickleball courts were mentioned the most.
• Suggestion to consider children’s needs for improvements in the park before adults.
• Suggestion to reduce the size of the Trolley Pavilion (Station).
• Suggestion to look at amount of use each element / facility type within the park receives.
• Proposed improvements to the park should consider all ages and types of park users.
SUMMARY
There was excellent attendance, lots of questions were asked about specific components. A divergence of
viewpoints were expressed, and significant support for maintaining the “character” of the Park was
articulated (although “character” appears to mean different things to different people). Comments were
given on what the most used or most important elements are in the park, although what these were varied
greatly from person to person. Majority support for the overall vision and the specific elements was
received.
Please note that this document has been prepared as a meeting summary and is therefore not intended as
detailed meeting minutes.
ATTACHMENT 3
1.1.3
Packet Pg. 57
Attachment: 2018 City Park Community Meeting Summary (7272 : Community Park Refresh)
COMMUNITY PARK - COMMUNITY SURVEY
Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey, your feedback is very important to us!
The information obtained from this survey will be used to shape future efforts in updating existing
community parks.
Demographic Questions
1 What is your gender?
Female
Male
Prefer to self-identify: ______________________________
Decline to specify
2 What is your age?
15-19 years
20-29 years
30-39 years
40-49 years
50-59 years
60-69 years
70 years or older
Decline to specify
3 Do you have children who use the community parks?
Yes
No
4 If so, what are their ages? (check all that apply)
0-4 years old
5-12 years old
13 years & up
5 What zip code do you live in?
____________________________
ATTACHMENT 4
1.1.4
Packet Pg. 58
Attachment: 2018 Community Park Refresh Survey (7272 : Community Park Refresh)
Community Park Improvement Survey Questions
6 Which Community Parks do you visit and how often do you visit
them? (please select one response for each park)
¾ City Park
¾ Edora Park
¾ Fossil Creek Park
¾ Lee Martinez Park
¾ Rolland Moore Park
¾ Spring Canyon Park
¾ Twin Silo Park
Never
Occasionally
Frequently
7 As parks age, it makes sense to update parks to reflect changes in user needs
and to solve any existing use or infrastructure concerns. The process of
updating parks is referred to as Park Refresh.
The City is seeking community input to define what Park Refresh means.
In your opinion, should Park Refresh include: (circle one response for each item)
¾ Minor changes
For example: replacing old picnic shelters with new shelters.
¾ Major changes
For example: shifting multiple park uses to new locations to either make room for
a new or relocated use or to solve major concerns or conflicts within the park.
¾ Address current or future recreation trends
For example: add new or adapt existing facilities to accommodate sports such
as pickleball.
¾ Solve existing concerns
For example: changing vehicular and pedestrian circulation patterns due to safety
concerns; altering the design of park destinations to provide better accessibility.
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
ATTACHMENT 4
1.1.4
¾ Maintain park character
For example: maintain tree canopy or iconic / identifying elements.
¾ Increase activity levels in the park
For example: replacing standard off-the-shelf style play equipment with a unique,
destination playground.
¾ Alter types of uses in the park
For example: conversion of underused paved areas into pickleball courts or
conversion of horseshoe pits into slack-lining or hammock use areas.
¾ Adapt to changing community needs
For example: providing a large gathering space that can be reserved for
celebrations or events.
¾ Other: __________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
8 Do you have thoughts on what else should be included in a Park Refresh?
9 Are there things that you feel should not be part of a Park Refresh?
ATTACHMENT 4
1.1.4
Packet Pg. 60
Attachment: 2018 Community Park Refresh Survey (7272 : Community Park Refresh)
10 Which of the following guiding principles for Park Refresh are most important to you?
(please choose your top 3 choices, and rank them “1”, “2”, and “3”)
_____ Keep pace with changing trends in recreation
_____ Adapt to changing community needs
_____ Provide equitable park experiences city wide
_____ Provide educational experiences
_____ Meet current safety standards
_____ Enhance accessibility
_____ Connect people with nature
_____ Integrate culture
_____ Replace / improve antiquated infrastructure
_____ Enhance / uphold park character
11 Identifying Park Character is an important part of the Park Refresh process. Park Character is shaped
by the unique features that make-up a park as well as the experiences that take place within it.
The City is seeking community input on what defines Park Character.
Please rank the following Park Character Elements in order of importance?
(please chose your top 3 choices, and rank them “1”, “2”, and “3”)
_____ Location / context
_____ Existing elements
_____ Park traditions / events
_____ Unique features / qualities
12 Please provide any additional comments you have on Park Character.
Thank-you for completing this survey!
ATTACHMENT 4
1.1.4
Packet Pg. 61
Attachment: 2018 Community Park Refresh Survey (7272 : Community Park Refresh)
Community Park Refresh 1
10-30-18
ATTACHMENT 5
1.1.5
Packet Pg. 62
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7272 : Community Park Refresh)
Questions for Council
What feedback and direction does Council have regarding park refresh
and park character?
What direction does Council have as staff seeks to resume the City Park
Improvement Project?
2
ATTACHMENT 5
1.1.5
Packet Pg. 63
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7272 : Community Park Refresh)
Overview
BALLOT
COMMITMENTS
Park
Improvement
Projects
City Park Train
POLICY
QUESTION
How can we refresh
aging parks?
CCIP
2015
Preliminary
Definition
CITY PARK
IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT
2016-2018
PAUSE
…
CITY PARK
DESIGN
WORKSHOP AND
OPEN HOUSE
2019
2016
Work
Session
PARKS AND
RECREATION
POLICY PLAN
UPDATE
2018
PARK
REFRESH
DEFINED
CITY PARK
PHASE 1
PROJECT
Pilot
Project Pilot
Project
2018
Work
Session
BOB
2005
3
ATTACHMENT 5
1.1.5
Packet Pg. 64
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7272 : Community Park Refresh)
Project History
4
Building-on-Basics: park improvements / $1.4M for City Park
Park Refresh discussion began
CCIP: City Park train / $350K
Park Refresh process & approach reviewed by P & R Board
Park Refresh discussed at Council Work Session:
guiding principles, 6-step process, park refresh candidates, estimated refresh
costs, City Park as pilot refresh project
City Park Community Outreach:
project goals, park history, and 4 design concepts;
comment cards (meetings & online) indicated 82% support for project goals
2005
2015
2016
March
April
June
ATTACHMENT 5
1.1.5
Packet Pg. 65
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7272 : Community Park Refresh)
Project History
5
City Park Master Plan Developed
- Coordination with Experts
- Field Assessments of Design Ideas
Refined City Park Master Plan
Community Outreach
- public meetings, polling / comment cards,
facebook, cable 14 video, social media
- polling / comment cards (meetings & online)
indicated 60% support for overall vision
Project on Pause
2017
2018
June
ATTACHMENT 5
1.1.5
Packet Pg. 66
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7272 : Community Park Refresh)
Project on Pause
Goals During Pause:
• Further define the scope and
scale of park refresh
• Define park character
6
ATTACHMENT 5
1.1.5
Packet Pg. 67
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7272 : Community Park Refresh)
Park Refresh Outreach
7
• Survey Prepared by Community Engagement Professionals
• Online Outreach Advertised at 10 Locations throughout the City
• In Person Survey Conducted at 15 Locations and Events
ATTACHMENT 5
1.1.5
Packet Pg. 68
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7272 : Community Park Refresh)
In Person Survey Locations & Events
8
Date Location / Event Date Location / Event
8/14 City Park Pool 8/28 Senior Center Lobby
Rolland Moore Park 8/30 Twin Silo Park
8/15 Northside Aztlan Center Fossil Creek Food Truck Rally
8/21 Gardens on Spring Creek 9/4 Foothills Activity Center
City Park Food Truck Rally 9/6 Edora Park
8/23 Lee Martinez Park The Farm 9/11 Old Town Library
Spring Canyon Park EPIC
8/26 City Park Pool Pooch Plunge
ATTACHMENT 5
1.1.5
Packet Pg. 69
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7272 : Community Park Refresh)
Online Survey
9
Online Survey Link Shared:
• 25 Boards and Commissions >200 people
• 86 Community Park User Groups
• Nextdoor neighborhoods city wide; viewed by 11,458 people
• Shared by Twitter reached 3,744 people
• Social Media 6,008 people reached via Facebook
ATTACHMENT 5
1.1.5
Packet Pg. 70
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7272 : Community Park Refresh)
Survey Content
10
Questions Included:
• Demographics
• Park refresh guiding principles
• Park refresh scope and scale
• Park character defining elements
• Open ended questions
Total Responses: 1,381
• 90% Completion Rate
ATTACHMENT 5
1.1.5
Packet Pg. 71
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7272 : Community Park Refresh)
Survey Results
11
Gender
Female
Male
Decline to Identify
Prefer to Self-Identify
Total
Female
64%
Male
34%
Decline to
Specify
2%
Prefer to Self-Identify
0%
# Responses
871
461
25
3
1,360
ATTACHMENT 5
1.1.5
Packet Pg. 72
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7272 : Community Park Refresh)
Survey Results
12
Age
15-19 years
20-29 years
30-39 years
40-49 years
50-59 years
60-69 years
70 or older
Decline to Specify
Total
# Responses
27
144
382
310
214
187
72
23
1,359
15-19
2% 20-29
11%
30-39
29%
40-49
23%
50-59
16%
60-69
14%
70 and older
5%
ATTACHMENT 5
1.1.5
Packet Pg. 73
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7272 : Community Park Refresh)
Yes
59%
No
41%
Survey Results
13
Respondents with children
who use community parks
Yes 804
No 552
Total 1,356
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
0-4 years 5-12 years 13 years & up
Ages of respondent’s children
0-4 years 30%
5-12 years 45%
13 years & up 25%
ATTACHMENT 5
1.1.5
Packet Pg. 74
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7272 : Community Park Refresh)
Survey Results
14
Zip Code
Northwest 80521
Northeast 80524
East Central 80525
Southwest 80526
Southeast 80528
Other
Total
# Responses
215
207
407
295
117
85
1,326
East Central
31%
Southwest
22%
Northwest
16%
Northeast
16%
Southeast
9%
Other
6%
ATTACHMENT 5
1.1.5
Packet Pg. 75
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7272 : Community Park Refresh)
Survey Results
15
Community Parks
Visited and How Often
ATTACHMENT 5
1.1.5
Packet Pg. 76
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7272 : Community Park Refresh)
Survey Results
16
Most Important Guiding Principles
Total Votes
59
69
118
242
271
289
293
301
380
461
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Integrate culture
Provide educational experiences
Enhance accessibility
Keep pace with changing trends in recreation
Meet current safety standards
Adapt to changing community needs
Provide equitable park experiences city wide
Enhance / uphold park character
Connect people with nature
Replace / improve antiquated infrastructure
ATTACHMENT 5
1.1.5
Packet Pg. 77
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7272 : Community Park Refresh)
Survey Results
17
Scope and Scale
of Park Refresh
63%
72%
73%
80%
82%
83%
88%
93%
37%
28%
27%
20%
18%
18%
12%
7%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Major Change
Alter Types of Uses
Increase Activity Levels
Address Current or Future Recreation Trends
Adapt to Changing Community Needs
Minor Change
Solve Existing Concerns
Maintain Park Character
No Yes
1,181
1,195
1,183
1,202
1,203
1,168
1,196
1,193
Total Votes
ATTACHMENT 5
1.1.5
Packet Pg. 78
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7272 : Community Park Refresh)
Survey Results
18
Most Important Park Character Attribute
760
706
566
403
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Unique Features /
Qualities
Location / Context Existing Elements Park Traditions /
Events
Ranking: #1 #2 #3 Overall
Unique Features / Qualities 349 276 135 760
Location / Context 333 218 155 706
Existing Elements 93 196 277 566
Park Traditions / Events 56 127 220 403
ATTACHMENT 5
1.1.5
Packet Pg. 79
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7272 : Community Park Refresh)
Open Ended Questions – Primary Themes
19
Park Refresh Should: # Responses
• Update playground equipment / surfacing and provide shade 107
• Reduce water use / provide adaptive plants and wildlife habitat 105
• Add shade throughout the park 95
• Provide more / update existing dog parks 77
• Provide additional walks / trails / connections to parks 74
• Include maintenance / upkeep of parks 70
• Address safety concerns 52
• Provide more / cleaner restrooms open year-round 44
ATTACHMENT 5
1.1.5
Packet Pg. 80
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7272 : Community Park Refresh)
Open Ended Questions – Primary Themes
20
Park Refresh Should Not: # Responses
• Invest in short lived trends 23
• Change existing character 22
• Include total reconstruction 22
• Remove natural beauty or large open spaces 21
• Overlook safety concerns 17
Park Character Should: # Responses
• Remain unique from park to park 37
ATTACHMENT 5
1.1.5
Packet Pg. 81
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7272 : Community Park Refresh)
21
To update or make changes to a park to solve existing concerns,
address community needs or recreational trends through repair,
alterations, and/or additions while upholding park character.
Working Definition of Park Refresh
ATTACHMENT 5
1.1.5
Packet Pg. 82
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7272 : Community Park Refresh)
22
Working Definition of Park Character
Attributes that make-up and distinguish a park and influence the
experience within the park, including programmatic and experiential
elements.
ATTACHMENT 5
1.1.5
Packet Pg. 83
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7272 : Community Park Refresh)
Ongoing Research
23
SOPARC (System for Observing Play & Recreation in Communities)
• Observational Park Use Analysis Tool
• Conducted in September at City Park
Intercept Interview Survey
• Interactive Park Visitation Analysis
• Collects Qualitative Data
• To be Conducted throughout the City in late October
Partners:
Department of Health and
Environment
Colorado School of Public Health
ATTACHMENT 5
1.1.5
Packet Pg. 84
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7272 : Community Park Refresh)
Next Steps
Park Refresh
• Further investigation of funding and implementation strategies for park refresh
to be explored in the Parks and Recreation Policy Plan update in 2019
24
ATTACHMENT 5
1.1.5
Packet Pg. 85
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7272 : Community Park Refresh)
Next Steps
City Park Improvement Project
• Additional community outreach to include a design
workshop in 2019
• Anticipate 6-12 months for additional outreach
and design followed by a Council Work Session
• Funding for additional outreach and design to
come from phase I project budget
• City Park train is currently under construction and
scheduled for completion in late 2019
25
ATTACHMENT 5
1.1.5
Packet Pg. 86
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7272 : Community Park Refresh)
Questions for Council
What feedback and direction does Council have regarding park refresh
and park character?
What direction does Council have as staff seeks to resume the City Park
Improvement Project?
26
ATTACHMENT 5
1.1.5
Packet Pg. 87
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7272 : Community Park Refresh)
DATE:
STAFF:
October 30, 2018
Ginny Sawyer, Policy and Project Manager
WORK SESSION ITEM
City Council
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Keep Fort Collins Great Sunset.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this work session is to update Council on outreach related to the Keep Fort Collins Great (KFCG)
tax sunset and to seek direction on desired steps moving.
KFCG is a .85-cent voter approved dedicated tax that will sunset December 31, 2020. April 2019 is the
anticipated election for a potential ballot related question to address funding needs.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. What additional information does Council need moving forward?
2. What questions does Council have at this time?
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Since 2011, KFCG has funded basic operations and enabled the City to both maintain a desired level of service
and respond to community desires in an environment of population growth and annual inflation.
The revenues from this tax are, by ballot, distributed to the following areas:
33% Street Maintenance and Repair
17% Other Transportation Needs
17% Police Services
11% Parks and Recreation
11% Other Community Priorities
11% Poudre Fire Authority
Prior to the 2020 sunset of KFCG, and before building the 2021-22 budget, the City would like to fully engage the
community in the decision of how to fund current service levels or make alternative plans for a lower service level
at a lower cost. If the desire is to replace KFCG funds in full this can be achieved through a dedicated tax, an
increase to the on-going base rate, or a combination of these.
If City Council or the community decide NOT to replace KFCG revenue in full, reduced levels of service from the
general fund will need to be identified during the 2020 budget process for 2021-22 budgets.
Outreach
Since the last work session, staff has begun in-depth public engagement on KFCG with events continuing into
November. Audiences include business organizations (Downtown Business Association, Visitor’s Board, North
Fort Collins Business Association, Chamber of Commerce Legislative group, UniverCity Connections); Boards
and Commissions, open community meetings in each Council district, CityWorks alumni groups, and an event
with the Center for Public Deliberation.
1.2
Packet Pg. 88
October 30, 2018 Page 2
All of these events have included a background information and varying data related to KFCG and City financial
information over time. (Attachment 1)
The general questions put to these groups focused on do residents like the current level of service they
experience, and do they feel the service is provided at the right price. Discussions also focus on the functions and
specifics of base rate and dedicated taxes.
In general, feedback highlights include:
▪ Overall support for replacing most if not all revenue.
▪ Overall support for an increase to the base rate (particularly to cover police, streets, and fire.)
▪ Thoughts of aligning all dedicated taxes (i.e., if a dedicated tax is pursued starting in 2020 make it a 5-
year or 15-year term.)
▪ City revenue and expense is a challenging conversation for the public to be able to provide specific
revenue options.
▪ Majority like level of service with limited suggestions for where to reduce.
The following chart shows the existing state and an example of including police, streets and fire in the base rate.
Current Option A
Base Rate
Sales Tax 2.25% 2.77%
Dedicated
Natural Areas 0.25% 0.25%
Community Capital Improvement 0.25% 0.25%
Street Maintenance 0.25% 0.25%
Dedicated Renewable Taxes 0.75% 0.75%
KFCG - .85%
Street Maintenance - 33% 0.28% in base
Other Transportation - 17% 0.145% 0.145%
Police - 17% 0.145% in base
Fire - 11% 0.094% in base
Parks & Recreation - 11% 0.094% 0.094%
Other Community Priorities - 11% 0.094% 0.094%
KFCG Renewable 0.85% 0.33%
Total Sales Tax 3.85% 3.85%
If a current state scenario is desired, the distributions could be reconfigured.
Next Steps
▪ Outreach will continue into November.
▪ Council work sessions scheduled:
o November 13
o December 11
o January 22
1.2
Packet Pg. 89
October 30, 2018 Page 3
▪ Council regular meeting
o February 5 - last day to refer language for April 2019 election
ATTACHMENTS
1. Background Information on KFCG (PDF)
2. Power Point Presentation (PDF)
1.2
Packet Pg. 90
October 30, 2018
Council Work Session
Attachment/KFCG
2001-2017 Average Annual Growth
2001 2017 Annual Average %
Population 125,473 167,492 1.71%
CPI 181.3 255.0 2.03%
General Fund $94.4M $139.1M 2.31%
Full-Time Employee (FTE) Growth and Growth/Population
FTE TOTAL FTE/1,000
POPULATION
2008 2018 2008 2018
TOTAL CLASS/UNCLASS 1,184.10 1,466.45 8.46 8.57
Poudre Fire Authority 169.5 212.00 1.02 1.01
ATTACHMENT 1
1.2.1
Packet Pg. 91
Attachment: Background Information on KFCG (7290 : Keep Fort Collins Great Sunset)
6.6 6.5 6.4
6.3 6.3
6.6
6.2
6.0
5.6
5.3 5.3
5.7 5.8
5.6 5.6
5.4 5.4 5.5 5.5
‐
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015201620172018
Cents
Fiscal Years
Price of Government for the City of Fort Collins
(cents of every dollar earned going to pay for City services, including utilities and golf)
2017‐2018 Estimated
Current Taxes and Comparisons
City Combined
Total
City
Base
City
Dedicated State County Other
Boulder 8.85% 2.68% 1.18% 2.90% 0.985% 1.10%
Co Springs 8.25% 2.50% 0.62% 2.90% 1.23% 1.00%
Denver 7.65% 3.65% 0.00% 2.90% 1.10%
Fort Collins 7.30% 2.25% 1.60% 2.90% 0.55% 0.00%
Loveland 6.45% 3.00% 0.00% 2.90% 0.55% 0.00%
Other is primarily RTD & Pikes Peak Rural Transportation plus .1% Cultural
.24% of Fort Collins 2.25% base rate funds Transit
ATTACHMENT 1
1.2.1
Packet Pg. 92
Attachment: Background Information on KFCG (7290 : Keep Fort Collins Great Sunset)
Collections to Date
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Sales Tax $16.8 $17.7 $18.5 $20.2 $21.1 $21.9 $22.5
Use Tax $3.0 $4.0 $4.3 $5.7 $5.5 $5.6 $4.9
TOTAL $19.8 $21.8 $22.8 $25.9 $26.6 $27.4 $27.4
91.00%
90.45%
92.13% 91.61%
96.01%
93.86%
90.12%
85%
87%
89%
91%
93%
95%
97%
99%
$‐
$5,000,000
$10,000,000
$15,000,000
$20,000,000
$25,000,000
$30,000,000
$35,000,000
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
KFCG Expenses
Total Operations Supported by KFCG % Ongoing Operations Supported by KFCG
ATTACHMENT 1
1.2.1
Packet Pg. 93
Attachment: Background Information on KFCG (7290 : Keep Fort Collins Great Sunset)
1
City Council Work Session
October 30, 2018
Keep Fort Collins Great-2020 Sunset
ATTACHMENT 2
1.2.2
Packet Pg. 94
Attachment: Power Point Presentation (7290 : Keep Fort Collins Great Sunset)
Direction Sought
1. What additional information does Council need moving forward?
2. What questions does Council have at this time?
2
ATTACHMENT 2
1.2.2
Packet Pg. 95
Attachment: Power Point Presentation (7290 : Keep Fort Collins Great Sunset)
Background
Since 1982, on-going sales tax
rate = 2.25%
3 dedicated ¼-cent taxes:
Street Maintenance
Capital Improvement
Open Space
Keep Fort Collins Great
.85%
10-year sunset (2011-2020)
Local Total: 3.85%
3
ATTACHMENT 2
1.2.2
Packet Pg. 96
Attachment: Power Point Presentation (7290 : Keep Fort Collins Great Sunset)
4
ATTACHMENT 2
1.2.2
Packet Pg. 97
Attachment: Power Point Presentation (7290 : Keep Fort Collins Great Sunset)
Keep Fort Collins Great
Breakdown/Total 2011-18:
• 33% Street Maintenance and Repair- $65M
• 17% Other Transportation Needs- $32M
• 17% Police Services- $32M
• 11% Parks and Recreation- $22M
• 11% Poudre Fire Authority- $21M
• 11% Other Community Priorities- $22M
• Annual spending and Efficiency reports: fcgov.com/kfcg
5
ATTACHMENT 2
1.2.2
Packet Pg. 98
Attachment: Power Point Presentation (7290 : Keep Fort Collins Great Sunset)
KFCG Sunset Key Elements
KFCG revenue can be replaced in full or at another amount.
Base rate can be increased
Dedicated tax can be created
If the desire is to NOT replace KFCG revenue in full reduced levels of
service from the general fund will need to be identified.
Council direction to date:
No additional tax on groceries
Don’t increase total tax burden
6
ATTACHMENT 2
1.2.2
Packet Pg. 99
Attachment: Power Point Presentation (7290 : Keep Fort Collins Great Sunset)
Outreach
Boards & Commissions
Business Groups
Open Meetings
Community Issue Forum
CityWork Alums
Do you like the current level of
service you experience as a
resident?
Is the price right?
7
ATTACHMENT 2
1.2.2
Packet Pg. 100
Attachment: Power Point Presentation (7290 : Keep Fort Collins Great Sunset)
General Feedback
Overall support for replacing most if not all revenue.
Overall support for an increase to the base rate (particularly to cover police, streets,
and fire.)
Thoughts of aligning all dedicated taxes (i.e. if a dedicated tax is pursued starting in
2020 make it a 5-year or 15-year term.)
City revenue and expense is a challenging conversation for the public to be able to
provide specific revenue options.
Majority like level of service with limited suggestions for where to reduce.
8
ATTACHMENT 2
1.2.2
Packet Pg. 101
Attachment: Power Point Presentation (7290 : Keep Fort Collins Great Sunset)
9
Current Option A
Base Rate
Sales Tax 2.25% 2.77%
Dedicated
Natural Areas/Streets/Capital 0.75% 0.75%
KFCG - .85%
Street Maintenance - 33% 0.28% in base
Other Transportation - 17% 0.145% 0.145%
Police - 17% 0.145% in base
Fire - 11% 0.094% in base
Parks & Recreation - 11% 0.094% 0.094%
Other Community Priorities - 11% 0.094% 0.094%
KFCG Renewable Total 0.85% 0.33%
Total Tax 3.85% 3.85%
ATTACHMENT 2
1.2.2
Packet Pg. 102
Attachment: Power Point Presentation (7290 : Keep Fort Collins Great Sunset)
Timeline
On-going outreach
November 13 Work Session
December 11 Work Session
January 22 Work Session
Last Day to Refer Ballot language- February 5, 2019
Election-April 2, 2019
10
ATTACHMENT 2
1.2.2
Packet Pg. 103
Attachment: Power Point Presentation (7290 : Keep Fort Collins Great Sunset)
Direction Sought
1. What additional information does Council need moving forward?
2. What questions does Council have at this time?
11
ATTACHMENT 2
1.2.2
Packet Pg. 104
Attachment: Power Point Presentation (7290 : Keep Fort Collins Great Sunset)
DATE:
STAFF:
October 30, 2018
Sue Beck-Ferkiss, Social Policy and Housing Programs
Dean Klingner, Transfort and Parking Interim General
Manager
WORK SESSION ITEM
City Council
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Affordable Housing Incentives.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to report out on the work of the City’s Internal Housing Task Force and obtain direction
from Council on which potential affordable housing incentives staff should continue to explore to further progress
on the Cities’ stated affordable housing production goals.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. Does Council support the task force’s recommended initiatives?
2. Which options would Council like staff to further explore?
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
This Work Session on Affordable Housing Incentives will update Council on staff’s efforts to find new incentives
and refine efforts in progress to assist the City in meeting the production goals set forth in the 2015-2019
Affordable Housing Strategic Plan (AHSP). The role of the City in housing policy will be discussed, and Council
direction will be sought to help guide staff efforts moving forward.
Recognizing the complexity of the issues involved in developing affordable housing, this work will be on-going into
the future. The goal of this Work Session is to provide direction to staff on what to focus on in the short term.
The City’s strategic affordable housing goals:
Housing policy must evolve to be effective. In Fort Collins, our intentional iterative five-year strategic efforts
provide a good framework for evaluation and innovation. The five-year cadence works well with development
timelines too. The current Affordable Housing Strategic Plan (AHSP) is for 2015-2019.
The AHSP establishes an overarching goal of restricting as affordable 10% of the City’s housing inventory at
buildout which is anticipated to be around 2040. The City recognized in setting this goal that it is ambiguous and
still possible. It would require the City to increase its historic production of affordable housing. The 10% goal is
shared by many Colorado cities and can be reviewed and possibly recalibrated in future strategic plans.
The current plan’s goal is to achieve 6% affordable housing units over a five-year period ending in 2019. That
translates to 188 units a year for this plan period. So far, our community partners have constructed 272 units in
the past three years and we have at least 276 more in the development review pipeline for a total of 548
anticipated units for this strategic planning term. Absent some new large projects, the City will not achieve the
current plan’s 940-unit goal. This is true even though many of the units constructed benefited from Community
Development Block Grant Disaster Relief funding totaling more than $4 million. That funding source was one-time
money. While the City is making progress toward its affordable housing goals, to date, adopted housing policies,
programs and practices have not been enough to incentivize the number of units sought.
To continue to increase the ratio of affordable housing to overall housing inventory, we estimate that the
production goal for the 2020-2024 AHSP goes up to 228 units a year. The amount we need to produce goes up
as our available developable land supply goes down. This is one example of the increasing head-winds the City
1.3
Packet Pg. 105
October 30, 2018 Page 2
will face as it increases production goals. The need for City intervention through policy and incentives is important
for the City’s chances of achieving the stated overarching goals.
It is important to understand that this housing analysis work is complimentary and parallel to many ongoing city
initiatives, such as City Plan Update and discussions between the City’s Water Department and the water districts
that serve parts of the City. Many recommendations will be small improvements to existing programs or initiatives.
However, if more substantial intervention is chosen to reach the City’s strategic goal of restricting 10% of the
City’s housing units as affordable at buildout, then policy direction from Council will be important in guiding staff.
City’s role in housing policy and economic conditions:
Historically, the City’s role in incentivizing affordable housing production has been defined as housing targeting
households making no more than 80% Area Median Income (AMI) as reported by the Department of Housing and
Urban development as adjusted by family size. Most of the City’s subsidized rental housing serves households
making no more than 60% AMI. For 2018, this means no more than the following amounts based on family size:
Household Members
Income 1 2 3 4
30% AMI $17,900 $20,450 $23,00 $25,550
50% AMI $29,800 $34,050 $38,300 $42,550
60% AMI $35,760 $40,860 $45,960 $51,060
80% AMI $47,700 $54,500 $61,300 $68,100
100% AMI $59,600 $68,100 $76,600 $85,100
For example, the maximum rent, mortgage payment and purchase price for a family of four under current
conditions might look like this:
Family of Four - 3 Bedroom
Rental Purchase
Percent of
AMI
Income Max Monthly
Payment
Max Monthly Payment Max Price
Supported
30% $25,550 $630 $800 $82,800
50% $42,550 $1,060 $1,340 $177,500
60% $51,060 $1,270 $1,610 $224,900
80% $68,100 $1,700 $2,150 $319,900
100% $85,100 $2,120 $ 2,690 $414,600
Median Market Price $1,550 $421,000
Looking at these maximum purchase prices shows how it is difficult for the real estate market to provide housing
for low-wage earners without public support and/or subsidy. Note that these examples are for a family of four
making the maximum income permitted and having no credit obstacles and little other debt to manage. While the
family of four example is most often used, the average household size in Fort Collins is about 2.4 persons. This
example follows the City Code guidelines and assumes 30% of gross income is available for rent and utilities and
38% of gross income is available for principle, interest, taxes, insurance, utilities, and home owners association
dues for mortgage payments. (Assumptions about down payment amounts, interest rates, insurance, taxes, and
utilities were made and kept consistent). In examining these numbers, people need to make more than 60% of the
AMI to afford market-rate rentals. This is consistent with the fact that most of our subsidized rental units serve
those making 60% AMI and less. And in terms of home ownership, even households making 100% of the AMI
would need assistance to purchase the median-priced home. Finding homes to buy under the 80% AMI limit with
a purchase price, not more than $319,900 is difficult at best. It also leaves little available income to handle the
financial flare-ups that can come with homeownership, such as needing to replace a furnace or a roof.
Today, middle-income earners, such as those making between 80% and 120% AMI are struggling to find housing
affordable to them in the real estate market. This income category is looking for attainable housing. While the City
1.3
Packet Pg. 106
October 30, 2018 Page 3
has a less defined role in this income bracket and less influence to affect market rate housing, the City may need
to consider middle-income earners as a target demographic for the next Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
(AHSP) or alternatively the City may consider drafting a separate Middle-Income Housing Strategic Plan.
The Internal Housing Task Force:
The City created an Internal Housing Task Force (task force) in February 2017, midway through the term of the
AHSP. Work completed by this task force will influence the City Plan update work currently in progress and can
be incorporated into the City’s next Affordable Housing Strategic Plan.
The task force was created in response to Council’s recognition of the impact of the rising costs of development,
including but not limited to City fees, on the City’s ability to achieve its affordable housing goals. Representatives
from more than ten departments participate in the task force which is co-led by the Social Sustainability
Department and Planning, Development and Transportation Department (originally the Finance Department was
the co-lead). Attachment 1, Taskforce Participants.
This Work Session serves as a report out of this phase of the task force which is scheduled to wrap up at this
year’s end. A next phase, or a 2.0 task force, will be convened to shepherd continued interdepartmental dialogue
and implementation of chosen strategies and incentives.
The first deliverable of the task force was an enterprise-wide understanding of housing conditions and the City’s
strategic housing goals. This common foundation underlies the task force’s work to look internally for City
controlled areas of influence that can influence the housing system, which is essentially a market- driven
commodity. Four subcommittees were formed to organize this work:
• Land Use Policy
• Financial Tools
• Water and Utilities
• Affordable Housing Programs and Education.
Options:
These subcommittees considered many options before choosing recommended options to bring forward for
council consideration. Many of these options are viable and could promote the production of needed housing.
While the impact of each idea was much harder to predict, the group did assign low, medium or high impact labels
to each option identified. See Attachment 2, Subcommittees tracking work templates. While some of these
are standalone ideas that would need to be implemented, many are already in progress. Some of the ideas the
task force considered are also being discussed as part of the City Plan Update project.
Development Standards:
In analyzing these options, the task force noticed that many of the ideas generated could be organized across
subcommittees into a few categories. In fact, some of the ideas fell into multiple categories. Many of the ideas
relate to development standards. These include:
• Increase opportunities for density bonus’s for affordable housing
• Relax Parking standards
• Promote Accessory Dwelling Units
• Relax certain design standards
• Reduce minimum lot sizes
• Amending Affordable Housing definition in Land Use Code regarding the percentage of units that must be
affordable
• Consolidation of Development Escrows
• Erosion Control Design Assistance (direct or indirect)
• Erosion Control and Low Impact Development Best Management Practices grants
• Grants for installation of Solar Photo Voltaic on affordable housing
Instead of codifying specific standards that may or may not be an issue for any one project,
1.3
Packet Pg. 107
October 30, 2018 Page 4
it seemed logical to design a format for reviewing these on a project by project basis. The idea is to provide
flexibility in meeting the intent of certain development standards that are helpful in delivering affordable housing.
This process would only be available to affordable housing projects. Staff envisions a process similar to a
Planned Unit Development.
Programs:
Ideas for new programs emerged such as:
• Direct Capital Assistance, which was formerly known as Direct Subsidy. Pursuant to Council direction
from the January Work Session on the Community Capital Improvement Program Affordable Housing
Capital Fund (AHCF), this program has been implemented and is available as a funding source for
projects that are near ready to proceed and can move forward with additional funding. Attachment 3,
January Work Session Summary.
• Income Qualified Utility rates, which has been approved by Council. This program helps the end user
more than the developer and is indirectly an affordable housing support.
• Homebuyers Assistance for Middle Income earners. This program would be funding dependent.
Policy:
Another category the potential options fell into was policy. Some of the ideas analyzed that fit into this category
were:
• Changes to the Occupancy rules that currently allow only three unrelated persons to cohabitate
• Including Affordable Housing as a public benefit in Metropolitan Districts and Urban Renewal Authority
projects
• Inclusionary Housing Ordinances
• Creating a waiver program for Utilities that could include development review fees, Payment in Lieu of
Taxes rebates, and the reduction/elimination of Project Investment Fees and/or raw Water Requirements
for Accessory Dwelling Units
• Increasing Land Use Restrictions for affordability on rental projects.
Partnerships:
The task force also noted the value of maximizing partnerships. Potential partners identified were:
• Community Land Trusts
• Small and Large Employers
• Mobile Home Park residents and owners
• Metropolitan Districts
• Urban Renewal Authorities
• Larimer County on taxing issues
• Water Districts serving the City.
Financial Tools:
Lastly, many of the ideas fit into the financial tool’s category. These include:
• An affordable housing impact fee - this could be structured as a Residential Linkage Fee, a Commercial
Linkage Fee or a straight Affordable Housing Impact Fee.
• Dedicated Sales or Excise Tax increase - This could be part of any Keep Fort Collins Great renewal or
could be a separate effort.
• Lodging Tax increase, or
• Revolving Loan Fund
Any tax increase would need to be voter approved. New fees need to be supported by a nexus study showing that
the fee is tied to the service to be delivered. An impact fee could take on many forms, such as a linkage fee. Staff
felt that an impact fee or an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (IHO) should be considered, but not both. An initial
analysis convinced staff that an impact fee is preferable to an IHO because of the administrative burden of an
IHO, the difficulty of accurately setting payment in lieu amounts and because this type of policy can negatively
impact overall housing attainability by shifting costs to market-rate housing to keep prices low for affordable units.
1.3
Packet Pg. 108
October 30, 2018 Page 5
Task Force Recommendations:
The recommendations of the task force work toward the goals of the current Affordable Housing Strategic Plan,
focusing on low wage households making no more than 80% AMI. The task force believes these strategies will
help the City close the gap between the City’s stated affordable housing goals and what is actually being
developed in the City. These recommendations are organized as follows:
• Increase revenue
• Decrease cost / development incentives
• Maximize partnerships
Top recommendations summary:
Increase Revenue Decrease Costs Maximize
Partnerships
In Progress Direct capital
Assistance
City Plan Update Water District
Collaboration
Metropolitan Districts Employers
Direction needed Impact Fee Study Flexible Development
Standards Program
Community Land
Trusts
Increase Revenue:
By increasing revenue, the City has more funding to invest. This can be done either through the Competitive
Process or the Direct Capital Assistance Program. The change to allow Metropolitan Districts for residential
development is a strategy to increase revenue for developments that include public benefits. Affordable housing is
one of those public benefits.
Staff recommends exploring an Affordable Housing Impact Fee of some type to fund affordable housing
incentive programs. A legal nexus between the fee and affordable housing would need to be studied as a first
step in choosing and creating a new impact fee. Often these fees do not apply to affordable developments. This
fee could take several forms including a residential linkage fee, a commercial linkage fee or an affordable housing
impact fee. Any effort on this strategy would include both the Finance Department as well as Social Sustainability.
Decrease costs:
Cutting costs or increasing development incentives means more than waiving fees or making sure fees are right-
sized for all developments. Code provisions can tack on many hidden development costs. Recognizing the
importance of and yet mitigating the cost of community high standards is a laudable goal. All regulations and fees
have a purpose. Some regulatory burden can be relieved with minimal or no impact on the quality of the housing
produced.
While the City has a few Affordable Housing specific incentives, staff was informed by the development
community during outreach that they are not enough to stimulate development alone. They are helpful for
affordable housing projects but do not entice market-rate developers to include affordable units in their
communities. For instance, we offer fee waivers for 30% AMI units, fee delays, priority processing, and a density
bonus in the Low-Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood zone. The Land Bank Program is the City’s only long-term
affordable housing incentive.
City Plan is a great vehicle for looking at market solutions to attainable housing and to creating more housing
options. Additionally, the City needs to look for beneficial code modifications that protect safety and quality but
would also incentivize the production of more affordable units. This might look differently for each project with
some benefiting from parking reductions, or others needing a density or height variance, or another seeking
alternatives to Low Impact Development standards. Staff recommends exploring a program for providing
flexibility to affordable housing developments. This would be like the Planned Unit Development concept but
for much smaller, affordable housing developments. A benefit of this approach is that it looks at the development
holistically and allows many different departments at the City to creatively incentivize affordable units.
1.3
Packet Pg. 109
October 30, 2018 Page 6
Maximize Partnerships:
Maximizing partnerships includes continuing to invest directly in affordable housing development and work with
our development partners. It could also include pursuing new partners such as Community Land Trusts.
Community Land Trusts can keep units affordable into the future by separating the value and appreciation of the
land from the housing unit. More employers in Fort Collins are realizing that housing plays a role in talent
attraction and retention. Colorado State University has three step housing solutions plan that includes providing
rental assistance to low wage staff and faculty, offers home buyers assistance to employees and is planning on
developing housing units too. The City is in a good position to leverage that interest and facilitate relationships
that result in more housing units.
New partnerships are being cultivated across city departments and with community agencies. Ongoing
discussions with the City Water Department and the various water districts might be productive in providing
affordable housing options. Collaboration efforts with other local water districts are focused on the land use
planning and water supply nexus. The local water providers are discovering new tools for demand-based planning
and charges which may benefit multi-family and other affordable housing types. This is an example of how the
entire City organization recognizes that housing affordability is an issue for residents.
The City was recently awarded two technical assistance grants to bring a public health and equity lens to housing,
economic development, and City planning. The timing could not be better for these grants to influence the next
iteration of housing policy at the City. Pairing health issues with housing solutions will likely lead to new and
productive partnerships for developing and operating affordable housing. This type of partnership could also open
new funding streams to help develop more affordable housing.
Measuring success will be based primarily on how many units are being added to our affordable housing
inventory. Beyond that, adding a variety of housing types for both affordable rental and homeownership at various
price points along the income spectrum is what progress will look like.
Preliminary outreach conducted on the project and some early incentive ideas included:
What Who directed to
Coffee Chats (2) Development Community and Non-profit partners
Neighborhood Connections City Residents
City Works 101 Engaged Residents
Stakeholders Open House All Interested Parties
Community Issues Forum All City Residents
Focus Group Developers and Lenders
Presentation - Board of Realtors Real Estate Community
Our City web page All interested parties
Affordable Housing Board - October Meeting Affordable Housing Board
See Attachment 4 - outreach packet including summaries and posters from Open House.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Task Force Participants (PDF)
2. Taskforce Tracking Template (PDF)
3. January Work Session Summary (PDF)
4. Public Engagement Summaries Packet (PDF)
5. PowerPoint Presentation (PDF)
1.3
Packet Pg. 110
• Social Sustainability
• Finance
• Transfort
• Engineering
• Planning
• Sustainability Service Area
• Economic Health
• Environmental Services
• City Manager’s Office
• Utilities Department
• Communications and Public Information Office
ATTACHMENT 1
1.3.1
Packet Pg. 111
Attachment: Task Force Participants (7277 : Affordable Housing Incentives)
Subcommittee Name:
Initiatives: Affordable Housing Impact Fee Commercial Linkage Fee Residential Linkage Fee Sales or Excise tax increase Lodging Tax Revolving Loan Fund Community Land Trust County Property
Tax Freeze Metro Distrcts URA
Description
Impact fee dedicated specifically
to affordable housing
Development impact fee
associated with commercial
development
Development Impact fee
associated with new residential
development
Dedicated sales tax for affordable
housing
Increase in Lodging tax dedicated
to affordable housing
Money made available to
developers to help pay for
infrastructure costs that are
barriers to affordable
development. Repaid with interest
over time. Intended to be short
term bridge financing.
Alternative to covenant
restrictions which allows
land ownership (and
growth in value) to be
shared by a trust.
Freezing property tax levels for
seniors who rent out
bedroom(s) to others
Permitting
Metro District
formation in
exchange for
affordable
housing
outcomes
Prioritize affordable
housing outcomes as
part of URA
investment
Next Steps
‐ new fees have to be approved by
Council
‐ Extensive outreach needed
‐Assess economic impacts on
business
‐ new fees have to be approved by
Council
‐ Extensive outreach needed
‐Assess economic impacts on
business
‐ new fees have to be approved by
Council
‐ Extensive outreach needed
‐Assess economic impacts on
middle‐class home buyers, and on
the market generally.
‐would need to couple with KFCG
Subcommittee Name:
Initiatives: relax occupancy rules Longer URA AH Definition Middle Income Strategies
Direct Capital Assistance/Incentive
(Direct subsidy) Employer Partnerships Manufactured Housing
Description
Expand U + 2 Extend affordability restriction period
housing project to require 20% of the
units to be affordable for up to 80% Middle Income HBA
Direct Capital Assistance/Incentive (f/k/a
Direct subsidy)
Promote Employer Sponsored HBA
and/or development mobile home preservation
Next Steps monitor CMO study, consider
expanding zones SSD researching how loveland doing Land Use Code Committee? BFO pending
explain process at Work Session, finalize
Score Card
meet with employers, see if Funding
Partners want to cohost event
seek partners, work with ROC,
possibly funding
Timeframe fall survey, winter council (?)
research other City's LURAs, early
2019 Align with Code updates manager's budget Work Session on‐going on‐going
Risks or Barriers safety concerns, nusiance Lender push back small pilot owners don't want to sell
Resources Needed not at this time not at this time not at this time yes
tax revenue, may need to wait to build
up fund balance May need sponsor event maybe for LURA, not for ROC
Link to other city efforts? yes ‐ CMO no budget, HR‐attraction and retention possibly HR or HBA
Support needed from task force? no planning establishing need? Business contacts if event no
Metrics
Affordable Housing Score
Housing Affordability Impact low medium/ preservation medium medium medium low/medium medium
Co‐benefits uses existing housing stock If HR, less commuters speed delivery of affordable units employee attraction and retention
de facto affordable, vulnerable
populations, existing inventory
Priority Level low high high low/medium high medium medium
Affordable Housing Task Force Team Template
Programs & Education
Project Management
Analysis/Evaluation
ATTACHMENT 2
1.3.2
Packet Pg. 113
Attachment: Taskforce Tracking Template (7277 : Affordable Housing Incentives)
Subcommittee Name:
Initiatives: relax occupancy rules Longer URA AH Definition Middle Income Strategies
Direct Capital Assistance/Incentive
(Direct subsidy) Employer Partnerships Manufactured Housing
Description
Expand U + 2 Extend affordability restriction period
housing project to require 20% of the
units to be affordable for up to 80% Middle Income HBA
Direct Capital Assistance/Incentive (f/k/a
Direct subsidy)
Promote Employer Sponsored HBA
and/or development mobile home preservation
Next Steps monitor CMO study, consider
expanding zones SSD researching how loveland doing Land Use Code Committee? BFO pending
explain process at Work Session, finalize
Score Card
meet with employers, see if Funding
Partners want to cohost event
seek partners, work with ROC,
possibly funding
Timeframe fall survey, winter council (?)
research other City's LURAs, early
2019 Align with Code updates manager's budget Work Session on‐going on‐going
Risks or Barriers safety concerns, nusiance Lender push back small pilot owners don't want to sell
Resources Needed not at this time not at this time not at this time yes
tax revenue, may need to wait to build
up fund balance May need sponsor event maybe for LURA, not for ROC
Link to other city efforts? yes ‐ CMO no budget, HR‐attraction and retention possibly HR or HBA
Support needed from task force? no planning establishing need? Business contacts if event no
Metrics
Affordable Housing Score
Housing Affordability Impact low medium/ preservation medium medium medium low/medium medium
Co‐benefits uses existing housing stock If HR, less commuters speed delivery of affordable units employee attraction and retention
de facto affordable, vulnerable
populations, existing inventory
Priority Level low high high low/medium high medium medium
Affordable Housing Task Force Team Template
Programs & Education
Project Management
Analysis/Evaluation
ATTACHMENT 2
1.3.2
Packet Pg. 114
Attachment: Taskforce Tracking Template (7277 : Affordable Housing Incentives)
Affordable Housing Task Force Team Template
Subcommittee Name: Utilities
Initiatives: Consolidation of Development Escrows Erosion Control Design Assistance Erosion Control & LID BMP grants Design Assistance‐ Indirect
Project Management
Description Several City Departments require escrows. These
are separate requirements now, but they could
feasilby be consolidated for greater efficiency of the
overal escrow requirement for the development
while meeting dept level needs. If escrow amounts
reduced, then cost saving. If not, still efficiency
value.
Developers often overestimate their escrow req'ts.
Also, they select vegetation designs that take a long
time to stabilize which requires that the City hold
the escrow longer. Staff could assist in providing
expertise to estimate escrows and vegetation
design.
Erosion control measures that stabilize quickly are
more expensive than traditional measures. Also,
Low Impact Development is typically more
expensive than traditional water quality features.
The City or Utilities could potentially provide grants
to fund the difference between these measures
and tradional stormwater Best Management
Practices.
Development design firms don't often understand
stormwater requirements, however contractors
often do. A design team approach (with designer,
contractor, developer, and City Staff) early in the
process could reduce costs for developer and
produce a better design.
Next Steps This effort has already been initiated. Chad Craiger
& Tom Leeson are leads.
Not initiated. Would need to determine staff level
of effort and if additional resources are needed.
Investigate Utility purpose nexus for providing
grants. Determine potential costs of such a
program.
Combine with Intergrated Design Assistance ‐
Outreach to see if this is feasible.
Timeframe Unknown. Barriers noted below. TBD TBD TBD
Risks or Barriers If the overall escrow is reduced, each dept may be
at risk of not recovering adequate funds from the
escrow. Also, Accela is a barrier to consolidation.
Providing assistance to developers may assign some
risk to the City that should be on the developer.
Staff time is also a barrier.
If such a grant program does not benefit the
Utilities, Utilities funds could not be used. General
Fund may have difficulty funding
Early communications to Developers ‐ May be a
higher cost to developer in short run (paying
designer and contractor to engage early), but could
result in long term savings. Would require
additional staff time.
Resources Needed Effort started. May need additional staff, BFO offer/additional
funding
Funds and a process for reviewing/issuing grant $$. Partnerships and potentially grant funding. Would
need to get information pushed out early in process
and distributed widely.
Affordable Housing Task Force Team Template
Subcommittee Name: Utilities
Initiatives: Waive Development Review Fees PILOT Waiver for Low Income Customers Income Qualified Assistance Program (IQAP) Design Assistance‐ Direct
Description The Utility charges fees for reviewing development
plans. These could be waived or reduced for AH
developments. The Utilities currently only charges
these fees at 50% anyway.
Utilities customers are charged 6% on their bill for
the PILOT (Payment in Lieu of Taxes) to the general
fund. This could be waived for low‐income
customers.
Leverage IQAP as a platform to deliver housing
affordability solutions that reduce resource use
through efficiency or renewables and increase
overall project quality. Possible to focus programs
and incentives on the end user, property
manager/landlord or during the development
phase. Current approach focuses on end user with
some property mgr/landlord focus.
City staff provide design assistance for new
construction of multifamily/affordable housing
projects in town, with incremental additional
incentives beyond traditional IDAP program.
Next Steps Research feasibility and financial impact. Vet the idea with ELT Determine which stakeholder to focus on, then
determine program type that suites those
stakeholders
Determine resource needs and if they could be fit
into existing offer.
Timeframe TBD TBD Q4 2018 TBD
Risks or Barriers $$ not recovered through fees would be absorbed
by the ratepayer. This already happens for 50% of
the fees.
This reduces revenue to the general fund by
~$100K, annually. This may already be refunded
annually to Housing Catalyst.
High cost of some tech. Low, additional staff time. Engagement of building
construction community ahead of schematic design
will still remain a barrier.
Resources Needed TBD ‐ but I think minimal TBD Dependent on programatic foci and speed of
implimentation, ranges from existing to very high
low
Link to other city efforts? Utilities Affordability Portfolio Utilities Affordability Portfolio; Energy Policy; CAP Direct Capital Assistance; Integrated Design
Assistance‐indirect; Energy Policy; CAP
Support needed from task force? Determine what level of benefit this would be for
AH developers
Support/messaging Determine what level of benefit this would be for
AH developers
Determine what level of benefit this would be for
AH developers
Metrics $$ amount of fees waived. $ amount refunded, number of units benefitting number of partiticapants and or homes units assisted
Affordable Housing Score
Housing Affordability Impact Low low low medium
Co‐benefits These fees are low ‐ small cost savings for AH Cost savings to end user but may not help
developer
Cost saving mostly to end user, nit developer Staff could connect AH developers to other rebate
programs and resources
Priority Level low low low medium
ATTACHMENT 2
1.3.2
Packet Pg. 116
Affordable Housing Task Force Team Template
Subcommittee Name: Utilities
Initiatives: Solar PV on Affordable Housing Developments Waive or Reduce PIFs and/or RWR for ADUs
Description Provide grant program to install Solar Photo Voltaic
on Affordable Housing projects the projects
become cost effective and help the City reach its
carbon neutrality goals.
Allow ADUs to connect to existing water and sewer
services with no additional PIFs or Raw Water costs.
Possibly allow for a fixed period of time. Possibly
offer this only for restricted affordable product.
Next Steps Research feasibility and financial impact. Step 1: Council approval
Step 2: Determine if additional water is used and
Identify Funding Source
Timeframe TBD TBD
Risks or Barriers additional funding or costs absorbed by existing
programing.
May need BFO Offer and/or additional funding
Resources Needed extensive analysis and staff time, possibly funding
Link to other city efforts? Direct Capital Assistance; Energy Policy; CAP City Plan
Support needed from task force? Determine what level of benefit this would be for
AH developers
align with other ADU recommendations
Metrics ADU's added
Affordable Housing Score
Housing Affordability Impact low medium
Co‐benefits Helps CAP goals but may be more expensive up
front.
better use of lots and water conservation
Priority Level low medium
ATTACHMENT 2
1.3.2
Packet Pg. 117
Attachment: Taskforce Tracking Template (7277 : Affordable Housing Incentives)
ATTACHMENT 3
1.3.3
Packet Pg. 118
Attachment: January Work Session Summary (7277 : Affordable Housing Incentives)
ATTACHMENT 3
1.3.3
Packet Pg. 119
Attachment: January Work Session Summary (7277 : Affordable Housing Incentives)
PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT SUMMARIES
TABLE OF CONTENTS
COFFEE TALKS NOTES 1
CITY WORKS 101 NOTES 2
STAKEHOLDERS OPEN HOUSE NOTES 4
STAKEHOLDER OPEN HOUSE SLIDES 6
DEVELOPERS AND LENDERS FOCUS GROUP NOTES 11
COMMUNITY ISSUES FORUM REPORT 13
ATTACHMENT 4
1.3.4
Packet Pg. 120
Attachment: Public Engagement Summaries Packet (7277 : Affordable Housing Incentives)
Notes from Coffee Talks April 11 and 20, 2018
Can we look at changing LUC utility requirements to allow for off grid homes and/or combining different
utility lines (looking at current separation requirements) as was mentioned? Also minimum front lot
size?
Let’s be sure to keep annexation and mobile park on our radar
Has task force discussed U+2?
Do we have a document that outlines the overlaps of affordable housing and TOd/green building?
Are we exploring Density bonuses?
Have we ever lobbied on the Living wage state law?
Have we ever explored working with employers to provide housing stipend? SeonAh could provide
perspective there.
Have we worked with Tyler and Ginny to make sure we are lobbying for Federal reinvestment in public
housing? Does CML or NLC work on that?
Do we have a Map showing distribution of affordable housing?
Can we do anything about tax abatement for Non-profit partners?
Be careful with impact fees – could aggravate attainability issues.
1
ATTACHMENT 4
1.3.4
Packet Pg. 121
Attachment: Public Engagement Summaries Packet (7277 : Affordable Housing Incentives)
City Works 101 – Sustainability Service Area
April 25, 2018
Gardens on Spring Creek
SSA-
How are we implementing TBL? Does everybody look at it?
How is the CAP inventory calculated?
How does our CAP inventory compare to other Colorado cites?
Does every service area have a sustainability rep?
EHO-
Why is foothills mall so cool and so sad?
How do we impact affordability?
What is a BID?
How do we incentivize businesses?
How do we determine who works with a business who wants to move here? County vs. DBA vs. city?
Median vs. Avg. Household vs. per capita wages.
How are we different than the DBA?
Did we explore buying the king soopers property?
What are we doing about parking?
SSD-
What are you doing to attract more diverse populations?
What is the range that we consider affordable?
Why did we move from 60% to 80% AMI?
What are we doing for income growth?
Any policies/guidance for developers to have certain % affordable in a project?
Is there a county housing trust fund?
What is AMI?
Trend on land use (trends and forces report)- why is such a small portion dedicated to medium and high
density? Is that standard?
How does federal funding turn into CDGB funds?
How do you balance land bank with NIMBY?
How many affordable housing units do you have vs. how many are needed?
Do you work with Habitat?
Is ratio of available: needed units changing?
Why doesn’t the city have a comedy show? -
Are there any plans to carry on look for funding to implement artspace projects?
What is city doing to help the unemployed or people that can’t take care of themselves?
Have we always partnered or do we only do that due to limited resources?
Role of city vs. county?
Is there an efficiency component to building affordable housing so that it’s more affordable to live
there?
Do we have to change our approach since police expects homeless/transient population to grow?
ESD-
What impact has hydraulic fracking had?
What is city doing to reduce VOC pollution?
2
ATTACHMENT 4
1.3.4
Packet Pg. 122
Attachment: Public Engagement Summaries Packet (7277 : Affordable Housing Incentives)
Is radon part of building code?
Do we get to void ozone value if the pollutant came from another area/state?
If you test for radon once, do you ever need to test again?
Can you recycle lightbulbs in single stream?
Can you bag recyclables in paper bags?
Can you recycle any plastic utensils?
What about compostable single use packaging?
Is there any hope to get rid of Styrofoam?
Is fort Collins exploring composting?
Do you have access to needle exchange/disposal?
How do you convince people to recycle that don’t believe it’s beneficial?
Where do the materials disposed of in the separate yard trimming carts go?
Do you want the tops that come on glass bottles in recycling?
Does anybody recycle textiles?
If thrift stores get content they cannot sell, do they recycle it?
Can you recycle plastic containers that prewashed salad comes in?
Is grocer composting part of the city efforts?
What has research shown is the most effective way to get people to properly recycle?
What about pet waste?
3
ATTACHMENT 4
1.3.4
Packet Pg. 123
Attachment: Public Engagement Summaries Packet (7277 : Affordable Housing Incentives)
April 26, 2018 Incentives Open House – Northside Aztlan Center
Affordable Housing and Education-
Opportunities:
x Inclusionary Housing ordinances
x Consumer Outreach / homebuyers
x Employer participation
o In France they must contribute 1% of their payroll toward EE housing – provide
or contribute to fund
o Have focus groups with employers – hear pain and what willing to do to help
See what they think the role of the City should be.
Challenges:
x Reaching and educating Homebuyers
x Fee waivers too narrow – should be more generous
Land Use Policy-
Opportunities:
x Greater mix of housing types
x Affordable housing outside City, but provide Fort Collins workers with free bus system
x Neighborhood level planning
o Small scale commercial in each neighborhood
o Connectivity between neighborhoods and within neighborhoods
x Better access to transit – ie: In California, transit funding and affordable housing funding
linked
Challenges:
x Greater mix of housing types
x U + 2
x Rent by the bedroom in LMN – prohibit?
Financial Tools-
Opportunities:
x More collaboration
x Tell affordability story using entry level professions – teachers, plumbers
x Impact fees
x Commercial linkage
x MAX parking study – where are folks coming from,
o East /west connectors to where folks are driving from
x Remove rent by the bed from LMN
x No more business improvement districts
x Mobile home preservation
Challenges:
x Stagnant incomes
x Escalating housing prices
Water & Utilities-
Opportunities
x Combine very strong energy efficiency construction standards with affordable housing
goals and sustainability incentives
4
ATTACHMENT 4
1.3.4
Packet Pg. 124
Attachment: Public Engagement Summaries Packet (7277 : Affordable Housing Incentives)
x Attached and detached ADUs and related fees
x Lock in raw water supply cost at development review
x Change utility purpose to include affordable housing as a unique purpose.
Challenges
x Allow off the grid homes, including tiny homes.
5
ATTACHMENT 4
1.3.4
Packet Pg. 125
Attachment: Public Engagement Summaries Packet (7277 : Affordable Housing Incentives)
fcgov.com/SocialSustainability
Affordable Housing Programs and Education
Development incentives:
Existing programs:
• Fee Waivers
• Impact Fee Delays
• Priority Processing
• Density Bonus
• Competitive Process Funding
Affordable Housing Programs:
Existing programs:
• Homebuyers Assistance
• Land Bank Program
• Provincetowne Condominiuums
• Partnerships -
• Division of Housing
• HUD
• Homeward 2020
• Regional – No Co Housing Now
• Regional – Balance of State Continuum of Care
6
ATTACHMENT 4
1.3.4
Packet Pg. 126
Attachment: Public Engagement Summaries Packet (7277 : Affordable Housing Incentives)
fcgov.com/SocialSustainability
UTILITIES
OPPORTUNITIES AND IDEAS FOR DISCUSSION
•Develop Income Qualified Assistance Program
•Develop Income Qualified Rebates
• Waive Payment In Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) for income-
qualified customers
•Provide design assistance City staff services to
Affordable Housing developers
•Provide design assistance consultant services to
Affordable Housing developers
• Waive stormwater escrow requirements for
Affordable Housing development
•Offer lower amp services for smaller dwellings
•Reduce or remove tap or capacity fees for Accessory
Dwelling Units (ADU’s)
7
ATTACHMENT 4
1.3.4
Packet Pg. 127
Attachment: Public Engagement Summaries Packet (7277 : Affordable Housing Incentives)
fcgov.com/SocialSustainability
Affordable Housing Programs and Education
OPPORTUNITES AND IDEAS FOR DISCUSSION
• Relax the 3-Unrelated Rule
• Expand length of time for restrictive covenants
• Rental only?
• Home Ownership?
• Community Land Trusts
• Expand Homebuyers Assistance to Middle Earners
• Address Manufactured Housing
• Promote Employer Sponsored Housing Solutions
• Alternative Funding Sources
• Inclusionary Housing Ordinance
• Cost Reduction options
8
ATTACHMENT 4
1.3.4
Packet Pg. 128
Attachment: Public Engagement Summaries Packet (7277 : Affordable Housing Incentives)
fcgov.com/SocialSustainability
Financial Tools
OPPORTUNITES AND IDEAS FOR DISCUSSION
• Impact fees?
• Commercial Linkage Fee
• Residential Linkage Fee
• Affordable Housing Impact fee
• New Funding Programs?
• Social Impact Bonds
• Sales or Excise Tax Increase – KFCG renewal?
• Increase in Lodging Tax
• Infrastructure Loan – revolving loan fund
• Partner opportunities?
• Community Land Trust
• County – Property Tax
• IE: Freeze property taxes to seniors who
rent out extra bedrooms
• Metro Districts
• Urban Renewal Areas
9
ATTACHMENT 4
1.3.4
Packet Pg. 129
Attachment: Public Engagement Summaries Packet (7277 : Affordable Housing Incentives)
fcgov.com/SocialSustainability
Land Use
OPPORTUNITIES AND IDEAS FOR
DISCUSSION
• ADU requirements
• Density bonuses
• Height bonuses
• Relax parking requirements
• Relax design standards
• Minimum and maximum lot size
10
ATTACHMENT 4
1.3.4
Packet Pg. 130
Attachment: Public Engagement Summaries Packet (7277 : Affordable Housing Incentives)
Developers and lenders Focus Group Re: Affordable Housing Incentives
May 21,2018 222 Laporte Ave
Desired Outcomes:
x More predictable development
x More public support for infrastructure and offsite improvements
x More public support with funding (some suggest an impact fee but others resist)
x More flexibility in design standards
o Density – more units help economics
o Height
o Parking relief
o Bike parking for seniors?
o Process improvements
Reduced time for review, both Building dept. and Planning dept.
Streamline process
Allow payment of fees at CO instead of at permit issuance
x Expansion of fee waivers – full waiver of all fees for affordable housing (30% units not enough)
x Zoning change or flexibility
x Recover just the cost for service versus a competitive rate for service (ie: Water)
o Water can add $20K to price of new home
o This can add $4,000 or more to mortgage making it harder for people to qualify and
purchase.
x More flexibility in the use of metro districts for residential development
o Perhaps only allow in exchange for affordable units?
o Concerns about allowing both metro districts and impact fees – is that double dipping?
o Metro districts fee are tax deductible – advantage
o Sophisticated enough to operate things like non-potable irrigation systems, big cost
saver
x Defer infrastructure costs
x Provide lending solutions to support innovative ideas
x Sell Land Bank properties at a deep discount – or provide for free
x Use Land Bank Program to hold land while developer gets funding lined up
o Ie: Foundry Project – City took 10 years to assemble the parcels and clean up
(deconstruction and environmental cleanup)
o Development partner got clean parcel
x Use Land Bank for Church land or while assembling parcels for master development
o Can help with NIMBY for City to hold
x Revolving loans can be helpful for bridges to permanent financing
x Partner with Churches where they remain an equity owner
x Use Urban Renewal Authority to promote affordable housing
x Remember that affordable housing stabilizes households, especially those coming out of
homelessness
x PUD – good tool requiring dramatic changes in service agreements, but the challenge can be on
and off-site infrastructure
x Opportunity Zones – rules finalized this year and can be used to leverage private capital gains
11
ATTACHMENT 4
1.3.4
Packet Pg. 131
Attachment: Public Engagement Summaries Packet (7277 : Affordable Housing Incentives)
o Geographically identified areas
o Time limited -10 years once identified
o Preservation needed – how about soft loans to reinvest in existing AH stock
x Could lottery funds buy land for AH in addition to open space?
x Leadership – City Officials need to champion the cause
x Education – about the problem and the solutions
Barriers
x Continue to monitor the Construction Defect legislation to bring more achievable priced sale
product
x Reduce fees and code costs
o Utility fees too high, especially for infill
x Don’t allow payment in lieu of units
x Don’t like deed restrictions – too small a pie, won’t impact needs
o Denver problems – folks bought without being certified or knowing AH program
x North east quadrant of the City final developable area
o Metro districts should be used to offset infrastructure costs
o City should be working with development community to solve challenges
o Water huge issue – ELCO = Bring you own water (compete with municipalities)
x Land that hasn’t been developed often has challenges – so trying to build affordably even more
difficult.
x Big subsidies required to build for 80% AMI income targets
o Small cuts helpful but might not be enough
o Even 100% AMI having trouble - how about City funding for over 80%?
o Building to affordable price points virtually impossible with labor, land and materials
costs
x We need to compete with neighboring Cities – look at cost of units, insurance costs for attached
product, efficiencies they have accomplished
x Cost of land huge barrier
Review of Staff ideas:
Generally supportive, but concerned about adding additional fees.
12
ATTACHMENT 4
1.3.4
Packet Pg. 132
Attachment: Public Engagement Summaries Packet (7277 : Affordable Housing Incentives)
+RXVLQJDIIRUGDELOLW\GLVFXVVLRQUHSRUW
SPRING 2018 COMMUNITY
ISSUES FORUM
3UHOLPLQDU\5HSRUWRQ+RXVLQJ$IIRUGDELOLW\
'LVFXVVLRQ
6HSWHPEHU
.H\6XPPDU\RI)LQGLQJV
%\0DUWLQ&DUFDVVRQ3K'
'LUHFWRU&68&HQWHUIRU3XEOLF'HOLEHUDWLRQ
13
ATTACHMENT 4
1.3.4
Packet Pg. 133
Attachment: Public Engagement Summaries Packet (7277 : Affordable Housing Incentives)
+RXVLQJDIIRUGDELOLW\GLVFXVVLRQUHSRUW
$ERXWWKH&HQWHU
7KH&RORUDGR6WDWH8QLYHUVLW\&HQWHUIRU3XEOLF'HOLEHUDWLRQ &3'
+RXVLQJDIIRUGDELOLW\GLVFXVVLRQUHSRUW
TABLE OF CONTENTS
([HFXWLYH6XPPDU\
%DFNJURXQG
0HWKRGV
:KDWZHUHWKHJRDOVRIWKHHYHQW"
:KRZDVLQWKHURRP"
:KDWGLGWKHHYHQWORRNOLNH"
+RZZDVLQIRUPDWLRQFROOHFWHG"
.H\)LQGLQJV
&RQFHUQVDERXWKRXVLQJDIIRUGDELOLW\
:KDWFDQZHGRDVDFRPPXQLW\"
$GGLWLRQDOWKHPHV
1H[W6WHSV
$SSHQGLFHV
3DUWLFLSDQWZRUNVKHHW
$QVZHUVWR³ZKDWGR\RXPRVWZDQWFLW\FRXQFLOWRNQRZDERXW\RXU
RSLQLRQRQWKLVLVVXH"´
15
ATTACHMENT 4
1.3.4
Packet Pg. 135
Attachment: Public Engagement Summaries Packet (7277 : Affordable Housing Incentives)
+RXVLQJDIIRUGDELOLW\GLVFXVVLRQUHSRUW
([HFXWLYH6XPPDU\
2Q0D\WKH&68&HQWHUIRU3XEOLF'HOLEHUDWLRQ &3'
+RXVLQJDIIRUGDELOLW\GLVFXVVLRQUHSRUW
%DFNJURXQG
-XVWVR\RXNQRZKRZWKLVDOOJRWVWDUWHG
7KHLVVXHRIKRXVLQJDIIRUGDELOLW\LVRIWHQUDWHGDVRQHRIWKHPRVWLPSRUWDQWLVVXHVLQ)RUW
&ROOLQVLQDQQXDOVXUYH\V,WLVDQLVVXHRIJURZLQJLPSRUWDQFHDFURVVWKHZRUOGLQSUDFWLFDOO\
HYHU\FLW\WKDWLVWKULYLQJDQGJURZLQJ,WLVDFRPSOH[LVVXHWKDWLQYROYHVPDQ\DFWRUVDQG
LPSDFWVDWWKHORFDOUHJLRQDODQGQDWLRQDOOHYHO,Q)RUW&ROOLQVWKHLVVXHLVRISDUWLFXODU
JURZLQJLPSRUWDQFHGXHWRWKHIDVWULVLQJFRVWRIKRXVLQJHYLGHQFHGE\WKHLQFUHDVHLQWKHFRVW
RIWKHPHGLDQKRPH GXULQJWKHLQLWLDOSUHVHQWDWLRQWKHIROORZLQJIDFWVGUDZQIURPWKH
7UHQGVDQG)RUFHV5HSRUWRIWKH)RUW&ROOLQV&LW\3ODQ DYDLODEOHRQOLQHDW
KWWSV RXUFLW\IFJRYFRPGRFXPHQWV
+RXVLQJDIIRUGDELOLW\GLVFXVVLRQUHSRUW
W\SLFDOO\H[SORUHVPRUHWKDQRQHLVVXHHDFKVHPHVWHUZHUHFRJQL]HGZHZRXOGOLNHO\QRWKDYH
HQRXJKWLPHWRERWKLQWURGXFHWHQVLRQVDQGZRUNWKURXJKWKHPVLJQLILFDQWO\DWWKHWDEOHV7KH
SURFHVVZDVWKHUHIRUHGHVLJQHGWREULQJRXWWKHLQKHUHQWWHQVLRQVDQGFODULI\WKHPWKRXJKSHUKDSV
QRWWRH[SOLFLWO\ZRUNWKURXJKWKHPDWWKHWDEOHV+RSHIXOO\WKLVUHSRUWRQWKHHYHQWZLOOSURYLGH
PRUHFODULW\RQNH\WHQVLRQVWKHUHIRUHVHWWLQJXSIXWXUHFRQYHUVDWLRQVDQGDQDO\VLVWKDWZLOODOORZ
GHHSHUH[SORUDWLRQRIWKHP
:KRZDVLQWKHURRP"
)LIW\ILYHUHVLGHQWVSDUWLFLSDWHGLQWKHHYHQWZRUNLQJDWWHQVHSDUDWHWDEOHV
18
ATTACHMENT 4
1.3.4
Packet Pg. 138
Attachment: Public Engagement Summaries Packet (7277 : Affordable Housing Incentives)
+RXVLQJDIIRUGDELOLW\GLVFXVVLRQUHSRUW
:KDWGLGWKHHYHQWORRNOLNH"
7KHSDUWLFLSDQWVZHUHDOOVHDWHGDWVHSDUDWHWDEOHVW\SLFDOO\ZLWKSDUWLFLSDQWVSHUWDEOHZLWKD
&3'VWXGHQWIDFLOLWDWRUDQGD&3'VWXGHQWQRWHWDNHU&3''LUHFWRU0DUWLQ&DUFDVVRQVWDUWHGWKH
VHVVLRQRIIZLWKDTXLFNUHYLHZRIWKHWRSLFDQGDQH[SODQDWLRQRIWKHZRUNVKHHWWKHSDUWLFLSDQWV
ZHUHSURYLGHGWRKHOSVWUXFWXUHWKHFRQYHUVDWLRQ7KHZRUNVKHHW DGGHGWRWKHHQGRIWKLVUHSRUW
+RXVLQJDIIRUGDELOLW\GLVFXVVLRQUHSRUW
KEY FINDINGS.
6HVVLRQ±&RQFHUQVDERXWDIIRUGDEOHKRXVLQJ
Session 1 asked participants to read over a list of viewpoint that summarized concerns about the
lack of affordable housing, and then respond to four questions:
Which viewpoint most closely matches your own?
Which viewpoint has you thinking differently?
Which viewpoint raises particular concerns?
What viewpoints are missing?
The questions were not necessarily asked one by one, but rather were all presented at the
beginning and the facilitator had the option of returning them to them over the 30 minute
session. The analysis presented here provides the explanation of the viewpoint from the
worksheet (the text in the boxes is directly from the worksheet), and then summarizes insights
drawn from the table notes and written comments that responded to those viewpoints.
9LHZSRLQW$ ,DPFRQFHUQHGZLWKWKHJURZLQJLQDELOLW\IRULQGLYLGXDOVZLWKORZHULQFRPHVWR
DIIRUGWROLYHZLWKLQWKHFLW\0DQ\RIWKHPDUHFULWLFDOHPSOR\HHVWKDWVHUYHRXUFRPPXQLW\±
RXUWHDFKHUVVHUYLFHZRUNHUVQXUVHVILUVWUHVSRQGHUV\RXQJSURIHVVLRQDOVHWF±DQGWKH\
VKRXOGEHDEOHWROLYHZRUNSOD\DQGHQJDJHFLYLFDOO\KHUH7KHJURZLQJQHHGWRFRPPXWH
FRVWVWKHPWLPHDQGPRQH\DQGKDVQHJDWLYHHQYLURQPHQWDODQGWUDIILFFRQJHVWLRQLPSDFWVRQ
RXUFRPPXQLW\
x 7KHYLHZSRLQWFOHDUO\GUHZWKHPRVWFRQYHUVDWLRQZLWKRYHUDOOEURDGVXSSRUWIRUWKH
VHQWLPHQW
x 0DQ\SDUWLFLSDQWVH[SUHVVHGWKHQHHGRUSUHIHUHQFHIRUOLYLQJLQDQHFRQRPLFDOO\GLYHUVH
FRPPXQLW\DQGWKHLPSRUWDQFHRIDEURDGUDQJHRIZRUNHUVEHLQJDEOHWRDIIRUGWROLYH
QRWMXVWZRUNLQWKHFRPPXQLW\)RUVRPHWKLVZDVH[SUHVVHGVSHFLILFDOO\LQWHUPVRI
FRQFHUQVRIJURZLQJLQHTXDOLW\
x 6HYHUDOSDUWLFLSDQWVDJUHHGZLWKWKHDGGLWLRQDOQHJDWLYHFRQVHTXHQFHVWRPRUHZRUNHUV
KDYLQJWROLYHRXWRIFLW\ERXQGDULHVSDUWLFXODUO\WUDIILFDQGHQYLURQPHQWDOLPSDFWV
x $NH\DVSHFWRIWKLVYLHZSRLQWIRUVRPHLVWKDWZKHQSHRSOHERWKOLYHDQGZRUNLQWKH
FRPPXQLW\WKH\DUHPRUHOLNHO\WREHLQYROYHGLQWKHFRPPXQLW\
20
ATTACHMENT 4
1.3.4
Packet Pg. 140
Attachment: Public Engagement Summaries Packet (7277 : Affordable Housing Incentives)
+RXVLQJDIIRUGDELOLW\GLVFXVVLRQUHSRUW
9LHZSRLQW% ,DPFRQFHUQHGZLWKDVVLVWLQJRXUPRVWYXOQHUDEOHUHVLGHQWVVXFKDVWKH
KRPHOHVVSDUWLFXODUO\ORFDOIDPLOLHVDQGRXUYHWHUDQVDVZHOODVRXUUHVLGHQWVZLWKGLVDELOLWLHV
DQGORZLQFRPHVHQLRUV+DYLQJVWDEOHKRXVLQJLVDFULWLFDOILUVWVWHSWRDGGUHVVLQJRWKHULVVXHV
UHODWHGWRWKHLUVLWXDWLRQV
x This viewpoint received less overall engagement. Several tables discussed it briefly, but
typically with only a comment or two.
x Some residents saw some of these topics as somewhat separate from housing
affordability, while others specifically did support the importance of housing as a first step
to provide stability to vulnerable residents.
9LHZSRLQW& ,DPFRQFHUQHGZLWKWKHQHHGVRI\RXQJIDPLOLHVLQRXUFRPPXQLW\7KH\DUH
LPSRUWDQWWRWKHFKDUDFWHURIRXUQHLJKERUKRRGVDQGWKHVWUHQJWKRIRXUVFKRROV:LWKRXWVWDEOH
KRXVLQJ\RXQJFKLOGUHQPD\EHIRUFHGWRPRYHRIWHQFDXVLQJWKHPWRWUDQVLWLRQWRQHZVFKRROV
DQGQHLJKERUKRRGVZKLFKFDQEHVLJQLILFDQWO\GHWULPHQWDOWRWKHLUHGXFDWLRQDOH[SHULHQFH
x This viewpoint received the least engagement, with only 2 of the tables explicitly
addressing it.
x In the limited comments, concerns were expressed about families having to move out of
Fort Collins, as well as the impacts on schools.
9LHZSRLQW' ,DPFRQFHUQHGZLWKKRZWKHULVLQJFRVWVLPSDFWVRXUH[LVWLQJQDWXUDOO\RFFXUULQJ
DIIRUGDEOHKRXVLQJ7KLVZRXOGLQFOXGHRXUROGHUKLVWRULFQHLJKERUKRRGVPRELOHKRPHSDUNV
DQGKRPHVRZQHGE\UHWLUHHV7KHVHFDQEHFULWLFDOVRXUFHVRIDIIRUGDEOHKRXVLQJWKDWQHHGWR
EHSURWHFWHG5LVLQJFRVWVFDQSDUWLFXODUO\LPSDFWSHRSOHRQIL[HGLQFRPHVDQGOHDGWRWKHLU
GLVSODFHPHQWIURPRXUFRPPXQLW\
x The viewpoint received an interesting variety of comments. The concept of “naturally
occurring affordable housing” wasn’t familiar to some of the participants, and had to be
explained at times at several of the tables. (Naturally occurring affordable housing
includes housing that is affordable but is not officially connected to city programs or
funding). Older homes can often be affordable if owned long term, and mobile homes also
often serve as affordable housing. Several participants did mention, however, that many
of the older historic neighborhoods are often the most expensive now in Fort Collins.
x Many of the tables had discussions of mobile homes. Several participants expressed
concerns about the loss of mobile homes over the last several years. Adding and
protecting mobile homes was discussed as important, while other residents expressed
concern (or more generally passed on concerns they have heard from others) about
safety issues related to mobile home parks. The role of the city is adding or protecting
mobile homes was unclear.
21
ATTACHMENT 4
1.3.4
Packet Pg. 141
Attachment: Public Engagement Summaries Packet (7277 : Affordable Housing Incentives)
+RXVLQJDIIRUGDELOLW\GLVFXVVLRQUHSRUW
9LHZSRLQW(,DPFRQFHUQHGZLWKWKHULVLQJGLIILFXOWLHVIDFHGP\PLGGOHHDUQHUV7KH\PDNH
WRRPXFKWREHQHILWIURPDIIRUGDEOHKRXVLQJSURJUDPVEXWVWLOOVWUXJJOHWRILQGKRXVLQJWKDWLV
DIIRUGDEOHWRWKHPDQGDUHRIWHQDOVRIRUFHGWRFRPPXWH7KLVFDQDOVRKDYHVLJQLILFDQW
ZRUNIRUFHLPSDFWVDVZHOOLQWHUPVRIDWWUDFWLQJTXDOLW\WDOHQWWR)RUW&ROOLQV
x This viewpoint was not engaged significantly. Discussions mainly involved participants
sharing examples of people no longer able to afford Fort Collins and having to move.
x The discussion of the role of employers (viewpoint I) often connected to this viewpoint
inherently. Participants expressed concern that employers will have concerns about
locating in Fort Collins if they don’t feel their employees will be able to live in the area.
9LHZSRLQW) ,DPFRQFHUQHGZLWK)RUW&ROOLQVVLPSO\JURZLQJWRRTXLFNO\DQGWKDWHIIRUWVWR
DGGUHVVWKLVLVVXHZLOOOHDGWRHYHQIDVWHUJURZWKDQGYDULRXVDGGLWLRQDOSUREOHPV
x The viewpoint drew controversy in some ways. Some explicitly pushed back on the
wording. While generally many participants agreed that Fort Collins was growing quickly,
they often also recognized it is difficult to control such growth, and the impacts are both
positive and negative. Numerous comments focused on the notion that we must work to
address the growth rather than simply push back on it.
x Participants generally did not engage the tension between efforts to increase affordability
and how they may facilitate growth.
x A few participants singled out this viewpoint as the only one they disagreed with from the
initial list.
x The discussion on growth often acknowledged that Fort Collins is essentially “land
locked” now, therefore shifted to a discussion for the need for more density, often by
building higher.
x Some participants shared that as Fort Collins increases in density, new problems will arise
that will impact the quality of life and likely slow growth.
6HVVLRQ±:KDWFDQZHGRDVDFRPPXQLW\DWWKH
ORFDOOHYHO"
Session 2 followed a similar process as session one, except with a list of viewpoints that captured
various actors and actions to address the issue. Participants were again provided with four
questions to consider as they explored the statements:
Which viewpoint most closely matches your own?
Which viewpoint has you thinking differently?
Which viewpoint raises particular concerns?
What viewpoints are missing?
The viewpoints are provided below with insights derived from the discussion notes and written
comments.
22
ATTACHMENT 4
1.3.4
Packet Pg. 142
Attachment: Public Engagement Summaries Packet (7277 : Affordable Housing Incentives)
+RXVLQJDIIRUGDELOLW\GLVFXVVLRQUHSRUW
9LHZSRLQW* ,EHOLHYHWKH&LW\RI)RUW&ROOLQVJRYHUQPHQWVKRXOGFRQWLQXHDQGLGHDOO\H[SDQGWKHLU
FXUUHQWHIIRUWVIRFXVHGRQFUHDWLQJQHZDQGPDLQWDLQLQJH[LVWLQJDIIRUGDEOHKRXVLQJVSHFLILFDOO\IRUORZ
LQFRPHUHVLGHQWV7KH\VKRXOGFRQWLQXHWRXWLOL]HGHYHORSPHQWLQFHQWLYHVILQDQFLDOUHVRXUFHVSURJUDPV
DQGSROLFLHVDVZHOODVH[SORUHDGGLWLRQDORSWLRQV7KLVZRUNLVFULWLFDOWREULGJLQJWKHJDSEHWZHHQ
FRPPXQLW\QHHGVDQGZKDWWKHPDUNHWQDWXUDOO\SURYLGHVDQGSURYLGLQJPRUHRIDYDULHW\RIRSWLRQV
WKURXJKRXWWKHFLW\
x *HQHUDOO\PRVWSDUWLFLSDQWVVXSSRUWHGWKHFLW\¶VFXUUHQWDIIRUGDEOHKRXVLQJHIIRUWVZLWKPDQ\
VLJQDOLQJVXSSRUWIRUH[SDQGHGHIIRUWV
x $IHZSDUWLFLSDQWVH[SUHVVHGFRQFHUQWKDWWKHFLW\¶VVWDWHGJRDOVZHUHPRGHVWDQGQRWVXIILFLHQW
IRUWKHQHHGVLQWKHFRPPXQLW\2WKHUVUHFRJQL]HGWKDWWKHVHHIIRUWVUHTXLUHVLJQLILFDQWIXQGLQJ
DQGWKDWWKHFLW\FDQQRWEHH[SHFWHGWRDGGUHVVWKLVSUREOHPRQWKHLURZQ
x 6HYHUDOWDEOHVKDGGLVFXVVLRQVDERXWWKHDSSURSULDWHOHYHORIUHJXODWLRQVIURPWKHFLW\WKDWLV
SODFHGRQQHZGHYHORSPHQWV7KLVGLVFXVVLRQFRQQHFWHGWKLVYLHZSRLQWDQGYLHZSRLQW+EHORZ
$ZLGHYDULHW\RIRSLQLRQVZHUHH[SUHVVHGZLWKVRPHSDUWLFLSDQWVIHHOLQJWKHFLW\UHJXODWHG
GHYHORSHUVWRRPXFKDQGZHUHWRRUHVWULFWLYHZLWK]RQLQJDQGUXOHVZKLFKWKH\EHOLHYHGDGGHG
VLJQLILFDQWO\WRWKHFRVWRIKRXVLQJ2WKHUVDFFXVHGWKHFLW\RIEHLQJWRRVXSSRUWLYHRIGHYHORSHUV
DQGQRWEHLQJDVVHUWLYHHQRXJKFRQFHUQLQJWKHW\SHDQGTXDOLW\RIKRXVLQJ
x 7KHGLVFRQQHFWEHWZHHQZKDWWKHPDUNHWVXSSRUWVLQKHUHQWO\DQGWKHQHHGVRIWKHFLW\ZDV
UHFRJQL]HGDWDIHZGLIIHUHQWWDEOHVOHDGLQJWRVXSSRUWIRUYDULRXVPHDVXUHVE\WKHFLW\WRFORVH
WKDWJDSZLWKLQFHQWLYHVWRPDNHLWPRUHOLNHO\IRUGHYHORSHUVWRVXSSRUWDIIRUGDEOHKRXVLQJDQG
ILOOVSHFLILFKRXVLQJQHHGVLGHQWLILHGE\WKHFLW\EXWSHUKDSVQRWQDWXUDOO\ILOOHGE\WKHPDUNHW
9LHZSRLQW+,EHOLHYHZHVKRXOGGRDOOZHFDQDVDFRPPXQLW\WRZRUNZLWKGHYHORSHUVWRDGG
XQLWVPRUHTXLFNO\ZKLFKOLNHO\PHDQVUHGXFLQJEDUULHUVDQGFRVWVWRGHYHORSPHQW
LQFHQWLYL]LQJEXLOGHUVLQFUHDVLQJGHQVLW\DQGSRWHQWLDOO\UHWKLQNLQJKHLJKWOLPLWV7KHODFNRI
DIIRUGDEOHKRXVLQJLVSULPDULO\DIDFWRURIHPSOR\PHQWDQGSRSXODWLRQLQFUHDVLQJIDVWHUWKDQ
KRXVLQJ7KLVLVSDUWLFXODUO\GXHWRWKHEXLOGLQJVORZGRZQDIWHUWKHUHFHQWUHFHVVLRQ$GGLQJ
XQLWVDFURVVWKHKRXVLQJVSHFWUXPFRXOGKHOSDGGUHVVPDQ\RIWKHFRQFHUQVDFURVVDOOLQFRPH
OHYHOV
x 6HYHUDOSDUWLFLSDQWVSXVKHGEDFNRQWKLVYLHZSRLQWSULPDULO\EDVHGRQWKHDUJXPHQWWKDWZKLOH
DGGLWLRQDOVXSSO\PD\KDYHDSRVLWLYHLPSDFWRQSULFHVLQVRPHZD\VLWZRXOGEHGLIILFXOWWR
RXWSDFHJURZWKLQWKHORQJUXQ)RUWKHPUHO\LQJVROHO\RQEXLOGLQJZRXOGEHLQVXIILFLHQW
SDUWLFXODUO\LIWKDWEXLOGLQJZDVQ¶WSODQQHGZHOOWRPHHWSDUWLFXODUQHHGV
x 6HYHUDOFRPPHQWVZHUHPDGHWKDWVXJJHVWHGWKHQHHGIRUWKHFLW\WRZRUNZLWKGHYHORSHUVRQWKH
LVVXH0DQ\VHHPHGWRLPSO\VXFKGLVFXVVLRQVZHUHQRWWDNLQJSODFH\HWEXWWKHFLW\¶V6RFLDO
6XVWDLQDELOLW\RIILFHDOUHDG\ZRUNVZLWKPDQ\GHYHORSHUVWRPDNHVXUHWKH\DUHDZDUHRIWKH
YDULRXVSURJUDPVWKDWLQFHQWLYL]HDIIRUGDEOHKRXVLQJSURMHFWV
x 6LPLODUWRWKHYLHZSRLQWRQWKHUROHRIWKHFLW\DZLGHYDULHW\RISHUVSHFWLYHVZHUHVKDUHG
FRQFHUQLQJWKHUROHRIGHYHORSHUV2YHUDOOSHRSOHVXSSRUWHGWKHQHHGIRUWKHFLW\DQGGHYHORSHUV
WRZRUNWRJHWKHUEXWPDQ\KLJKOLJKWHGWKHGLIILFXOW\RIWKDWSDUWQHUVKLS
x 7KLVYLHZSRLQWDOVRFRQQHFWHGZLWKFRQFHUQVDERXWJURZWKDQGLWVLPSDFWRQWKHRYHUDOOTXDOLW\
RIOLIHLQ)RUW&ROOLQV YLHZSRLQW)
+RXVLQJDIIRUGDELOLW\GLVFXVVLRQUHSRUW
9LHZSRLQW, ,EHOLHYHORFDOHPSOR\HUVSDUWLFXODUO\RXUODUJHVWHPSOR\HUVVKRXOGWDNHPRUH
UHVSRQVLELOLW\IRUWKHKRXVLQJRIWKHLUHPSOR\HHV DQGZLWK&68ERWKIRUWKHLUHPSOR\HHVDQG
VWXGHQWV
+RXVLQJDIIRUGDELOLW\GLVFXVVLRQUHSRUW
$GGLWLRQDO7KHPHV
$FURVVWKHYLHZSRLQWVGLVFXVVLRQVDIHZDGGLWLRQDOWKHPHVDURVHWKDWZDUUDQWH[DPLQDWLRQ
x 7KHUROHRIZDJHV±6HYHUDOSDUWLFLSDQWVEURXJKWXSWKHUROHRIZDJHVSXVKLQJEDFNRQWKHIRFXV
RQKRXVLQJDIIRUGDELOLW\DVWRROLPLWHG)RUWKHPWKHLVVXHLVVWDJQDQWZDJHVRUJURZLQJ
LQHTXDOLW\PRUHWKDQKRXVLQJDIIRUGDELOLW\VSHFLILFDOO\7KLVZDVOLQNHGWRFDOOVWRLQFUHDVHWKH
PLQLPXPZDJHRUZRUNWRZDUGVDOLYLQJZDJH
x 4XDOLW\RIKRXVLQJ±6RPHSDUWLFLSDQWVLQWHUMHFWHGWKHQHHGWRIRFXVERWKRQWKHTXDOLW\RI
KRXVLQJEXLOWQRWMXVWLWVDIIRUGDELOLW\7KHUHZDVFRQFHUQZLWKWKHWHQVLRQEHWZHHQDIIRUGDELOLW\
DQGTXDOLW\DQGWKDWDUXVKWREXLOWTXDQWLW\ZLOOVDFULILFHTXDOLW\$VNLQJGHYHORSHUVWKDWDUH
VNLOOHGLQDFHUWDLQVW\OHRIEXLOGLQJWRDOVREXLOGOHVVH[SHQVLYHORZHUTXDOLW\KRXVLQJUDLVHG
FRQFHUQVDVZHOO$QRWKHUDVSHFWRIWKHVHFRQYHUVDWLRQVFRQQHFWHGWRDFDOOIRUPRUHLQVSHFWLRQV
x (DVLQJRI1,0%<FRQFHUQV±,QWHUHVWLQJO\DW\SLFDO³1RWLQP\EDFN\DUG´SHUVSHFWLYHZDVQRW
KHDUGYHU\RIWHQLQWKHGLVFXVVLRQV3DUWLFLSDQWVUHIHUUHGWRLWIURPWLPHWRWLPHEXWPRUHLQWHUPV
RIUHFRJQL]LQJWKDWVRPHSHRSOHZLOOPDNHVXFKDQDUJXPHQWQRWPDNLQJWKHDUJXPHQW
WKHPVHOYHV7KHUHZDVVRPHGLVFXVVLRQRIWKHSURVDQGFRQVRIKDYLQJDIIRUGDEOHKRXVLQJVSUHDG
DFURVVWKHFLW\RUPRUHFRQFHQWUDWHGEXWWKH1,0%<DQJOHZDVQ¶WGRPLQDQWLQWKRVHGLVFXVVLRQV
HLWKHU,QJHQHUDOWKHUHVHHPHGWREHPXFKPRUHUHFRJQLWLRQRIWKHQHHGIRUKRXVLQJRSWLRQVIRUD
EURDGHFRQRPLFVSHFWUXPWKDQWUDGLWLRQDOFRQFHUQVDERXWSRWHQWLDOQHJDWLYHLPSDFWVRIORZHU
LQFRPHKRXVLQJ7KDWPD\KDYHEHHQDIXQFWLRQRIWKHDXGLHQFHEXWQRQHWKHOHVVQRWDEOH
x 5HQWLQJYHUVXVRZQLQJ±6HYHUDOGLVFXVVLRQVRIWKHLPSRUWDQFHRIRZQLQJDKRPHDURVHDFURVV
WKHFRQYHUVDWLRQV6RPHSDUWLFLSDQWVKLJKOLJKWHGWKDWRZQLQJDKRPHVWLOOVHHPVWREHD
SDUWLFXODUO\LPSRUWDQWJRDORUPLOHVWRQHLQOLIHDQGWKH\ZHUHFRQFHUQHGWKDWIXWXUHJHQHUDWLRQV
PD\QRWKDYHDFFHVVWRWKDW7KH\YLHZHGPRVWDIIRUGDEOHKRXVLQJRSWLRQVDVWLHGPRUHWR
UHQWLQJZKLFKSRWHQWLDOO\OHDGVWROHVVVWDELOLW\GXHWRPRYLQJPRUHRIWHQDQGRIWHQUHGXFHGWKH
FKDQFHRIDVWURQJORFDOFRPPXQLW\FRQQHFWLRQ5HQWLQJUDWKHUWKDQRZQLQJDOVRPHDQVSHRSOH
DUHXQDEOHWRWDNHDGYDQWDJHRIWKHSRVLWLYHFRQVHTXHQFHVRIULVLQJKRXVLQJUDWHVE\EXLOGLQJ
HTXLW\
x 8±7KH8RUGLQDQFHZDVGLVFXVVHGDWDOPRVWHYHU\WDEOHGHVSLWHQRWEHLQJVSHFLILFDOO\
PHQWLRQHGLQWKHPDWHULDO7KHGLVFXVVLRQVUHYHDOHGVLJQLILFDQWGLIIHUHQFHVRIRSLQLRQ6RPH
DUJXHGWKDWWKHRUGLQDQFHKDVDQHJDWLYHLPSDFWRQKRXVLQJFRVWVDQGVKRXOGEHUHPRYHGWRDOORZ
PRUHFUHDWLYHXVHRIKRXVLQJZKLOHRWKHUVH[SUHVVHGVWURQJVXSSRUWIRU8GXHWRKRZLW
SURWHFWVQHLJKERUKRRGVDQGVHUYHVDVDGLVLQFHQWLYHWRLQYHVWRUVEX\LQJSURSHUWLHVUDWKHUWKDQ
IDPLOLHV6HYHUDOSDUWLFLSDQWVVSHFLILFDOO\GLVFXVVHG8LQWKHLUILQDOZULWWHQFRPPHQWWKDWDVNHG
IRUWKHPRVWLPSRUWDQWWKLQJWKH\ZDQWHGFRXQFLOWRNQRZDERXWWKHLVVXH2YHUDOODEURDGHU8
GLVFXVVLRQLVZDUUDQWHGFRQVLGHULQJPDQ\RIWKHLQQRYDWLRQVWKDWDUHGHYHORSLQJWRDGGUHVV
KRXVLQJDIIRUGDELOLW\PD\SXVKXSDJDLQVWWKHRUGLQDQFH
25
ATTACHMENT 4
1.3.4
Packet Pg. 145
Attachment: Public Engagement Summaries Packet (7277 : Affordable Housing Incentives)
+RXVLQJDIIRUGDELOLW\GLVFXVVLRQUHSRUW
NEXT STEPS.
$VPHQWLRQHGDWWKHEHJLQQLQJRIWKLVUHSRUWWKH&3'WHQGVWRORRNDWLVVXHVWKURXJKWKHOHQVRIZLFNHG
SUREOHPVZKLFKPHDQVZHSDUWLFXODUO\ZRUNWRLGHQWLI\NH\XQGHUO\LQJYDOXHVDQGWKHLQKHUHQWWHQVLRQV
WKDWDULVHEHWZHHQWKHP:HEHOLHYHWKDWZKHQ\RXUHFRJQL]HDQGKLJKOLJKWWKRVHWHQVLRQVDQGSXWWKHP
RQWKHWDEOHIRUWKHFRPPXQLW\DQGFLW\OHDGHUVWRZRUNWKURXJKPRUHSURGXFWLYHDQGVXVWDLQDEOHDFWLRQV
FDQEHLGHQWLILHGDQGLPSOHPHQWHG6XFKDIUDPHZRUNWHQGVWRVSDUNFROODERUDWLYHHIIRUWVUDWKHUWKDQ
XQSURGXFWLYHDGYHUVDULDO³XVYWKHP´GLVSXWHV:RUNLQJWKURXJKWHQVLRQVWRJHWKHUIDFLOLWDWHVSDUWLFLSDQWV
EHLQJPRUHZLOOLQJWRDFFHSWWKHWUDGHRIIVUHODWHGWRWKHLULQLWLDOSRVLWLRQVDVZHOODVWKHEHQHILWVRI
RSSRVLQJSRVLWLRQVOHDGLQJWRPRUHFROODERUDWLYHVXVWDLQDEOHLGHDVDQGDYRLGLQJWKHQHJDWLYHLPSDFWVRI
SRODUL]DWLRQ
$VWKHLQLWLDOH[SORUDWLRQRIWKLVLVVXHE\WKH&3'ZLWKDOLPLWHGWLPHIUDPHWKLVVHVVLRQZDVQRW
H[SOLFLWO\IRFXVHGRQKDYLQJWKHSDUWLFLSDQWVZRUNWKURXJKWKHWHQVLRQVEXWWKHDQDO\VLVRIWKHGLVFXVVLRQV
GRHVKHOSXVEHWWHUXQGHUVWDQGWKHWHQVLRQVLQRUGHUWRVHWXSGHHSHUIXWXUHFRQYHUVDWLRQV7KLVFORVLQJ
VHFWLRQIRFXVHVRQGLVFXVVLQJWKRVHWHQVLRQV7KLVDQDO\VLVLVGHULYHGIURPERWKWKH&3'VWXG\RIWKH
LVVXHRIDIIRUGDEOHKRXVLQJEURDGO\DVZHOODVWKHLQVLJKWVIURPWKHGLVFXVVLRQVDWWKHIRUXP
2YHUDOODSULPDU\WHQVLRQUHODWHGWRWKHLVVXHFRPHVIURPWKHUHDOLW\RIKRXVLQJEHLQJWLHGWREDVLFVXSSO\
DQGGHPDQGDQGWKDWWKHVXSSO\LVEHFRPLQJPRUHOLPLWHGDV)RUW&ROOLQVQHDUVEXLOGRXW$VWKHFLW\
ZRUNVWRDGGUHVVWKHFRQFHUQVKLJKOLJKWHGRQWKHILUVWSDJHRIWKHKDQGRXWSDUWLFXODUO\9LHZSRLQWV$
WKURXJK(WHQVLRQVDULVHEHFDXVHZKLOHWKHVHJURXSVDUHFHUWDLQO\QRWGLUHFWO\SLWWHGDJDLQVWHDFKRWKHU
SURJUDPVGHVLJQHGWRDVVLVWDQ\RQHJURXSLQKHUHQWO\XWLOL]HUHVRXUFHVDQGH[SHQGKRXVLQJVWRFN
WKDWWKHQLVQRWDYDLODEOHWRWKHRWKHUV,QDGGLWLRQLIKRXVLQJVWRFNLVXVHGWRDVVLVWRQHJURXSLWFRXOG
KDYHWKHLPSDFWRIUDLVLQJFRVWVIRUUHPDLQLQJKRXVLQJVWRFNIRUDOOJURXSVGXHWRVXSSO\DQGGHPDQG
7DNLQJWKLVV\VWHPLFYLHZZLOOEHFULWLFDOEHFDXVHLWGRHVVHHPGLIILFXOWWRIRFXVRQDVVLVWLQJDQ\RQH
JURXSZLWKRXWLQKHUHQWO\KDYLQJLPSDFWVWRRWKHUV2IILFLDOFLW\HIIRUWVRQDIIRUGDEOHKRXVLQJIRFXVRQ
ORZLQFRPHUHVLGHQWVXQGHURI$UHD0HGLDQ,QFRPH SULPDULO\FRQQHFWHGWRYLHZSRLQW$
+RXVLQJDIIRUGDELOLW\GLVFXVVLRQUHSRUW
3HUKDSVWKHPRVWWDQJLEOHWHQVLRQLQWKHLVVXHUHYROYHVDURXQGWKHTXHVWLRQRIFLW\UHJXODWLRQVDQG
LQFHQWLYHVSDUWLFXODUO\KRZWKHFLW\JRYHUQPHQWZRUNVZLWKERWKSULYDWHDQGQRQSURILWGHYHORSHUV
7KHUHZDVDUDQJHRIRSLQLRQVH[SUHVVHGKHUHDQGFOHDUO\DNH\TXHVWLRQZLWKWKLVLVVXHLVKRZWKHFLW\
EHVWXWLOL]HVUHJXODWLRQVDQGLQFHQWLYHVWRVXSSRUWWKHVRUWRIKRXVLQJPL[WKDWLVEHVWIRUWKHFLW\6RPH
DUJXHGWKHFLW\QHHGVWREDFNRIIDQGDOORZWKHPDUNHWWRZRUNZKLOHRWKHUVDUJXHGWKHFLW\ZDVWRR
VXSSRUWLYHRIGHYHORSHUVDQGQHHGHGVWURQJHUUHJXODWLRQV)RFXVLQJPRUHVSHFLILFDOO\RQWKLVLVVXH
PRYLQJIRUZDUGZLOOOLNHO\EHLPSRUWDQW6XFKGLVFXVVLRQVOLNHO\QHHGWREHJLQZLWKDFOHDUHUVHQVHRIWKH
FLW\¶VFXUUHQWHIIRUWVDQGDFOHDUXQGHUVWDQGLQJRIWKHPXOWLSOHXQGHUO\LQJYDOXHVDWVWDNH LQFOXGLQJEXW
QRWOLPLWHGWRVDIHW\IDLUQHVVHTXLW\WKHHQYLURQPHQWSURSHUW\ULJKWVVXVWDLQDELOLW\QHLJKERUKRRG
FKDUDFWHUHFRQRPLFYLWDOLW\HWF
+RXVLQJDIIRUGDELOLW\GLVFXVVLRQUHSRUW
3RWHQWLDOYLHZSRLQWVWRFRQVLGHUUHJDUGLQJWKH$IIRUGDELOLW\RI+RXVLQJ
5HDGRYHUWKHYLHZSRLQWVEHORZFRQVLGHULQJWKHVHTXHVWLRQV
Which viewpoint most closely matches your own? Which viewpoint has you thinking
differently? Which viewpoint raises particular concerns? What viewpoints are missing?
3DUW &RQFHUQVUHODWHGWRWKHLQFUHDVLQJFRVWRIKRXVLQJ
$ ,DPFRQFHUQHGZLWKWKHJURZLQJLQDELOLW\IRULQGLYLGXDOVZLWKORZHULQFRPHVWRDIIRUGWR
OLYHZLWKLQWKHFLW\0DQ\RIWKHPDUHFULWLFDOHPSOR\HHVWKDWVHUYHRXUFRPPXQLW\±RXU
WHDFKHUVVHUYLFHZRUNHUVQXUVHVILUVWUHVSRQGHUV\RXQJSURIHVVLRQDOVHWF±DQGWKH\
VKRXOGEHDEOHWROLYHZRUNSOD\DQGHQJDJHFLYLFDOO\KHUH7KHJURZLQJQHHGWRFRPPXWH
FRVWVWKHPWLPHDQGPRQH\DQGKDVQHJDWLYHHQYLURQPHQWDODQGWUDIILFFRQJHVWLRQLPSDFWV
RQRXUFRPPXQLW\
% ,DPFRQFHUQHGZLWKDVVLVWLQJRXUPRVWYXOQHUDEOHUHVLGHQWVVXFKDVWKHKRPHOHVV
SDUWLFXODUO\ORFDOIDPLOLHVDQGRXUYHWHUDQVDVZHOODVRXUUHVLGHQWVZLWKGLVDELOLWLHVDQGORZ
LQFRPHVHQLRUV+DYLQJVWDEOHKRXVLQJLVDFULWLFDOILUVWVWHSWRDGGUHVVLQJRWKHULVVXHVUHODWHG
WRWKHLUVLWXDWLRQV
& ,DPFRQFHUQHGZLWKWKHQHHGVRI\RXQJIDPLOLHVLQRXUFRPPXQLW\7KH\DUHLPSRUWDQWWR
WKHFKDUDFWHURIRXUQHLJKERUKRRGVDQGWKHVWUHQJWKRIRXUVFKRROV:LWKRXWVWDEOHKRXVLQJ
\RXQJFKLOGUHQPD\EHIRUFHGWRPRYHRIWHQFDXVLQJWKHPWRWUDQVLWLRQWRQHZVFKRROVDQG
QHLJKERUKRRGVZKLFKFDQEHVLJQLILFDQWO\GHWULPHQWDOWRWKHLUHGXFDWLRQDOH[SHULHQFH
' ,DPFRQFHUQHGZLWKKRZWKHULVLQJFRVWVLPSDFWVRXUH[LVWLQJQDWXUDOO\RFFXUULQJDIIRUGDEOH
KRXVLQJ7KLVZRXOGLQFOXGHRXUROGHUKLVWRULFQHLJKERUKRRGVPRELOHKRPHSDUNVDQG
KRPHVRZQHGE\UHWLUHHV7KHVHFDQEHFULWLFDOVRXUFHVRIDIIRUGDEOHKRXVLQJWKDWQHHGWREH
SURWHFWHG5LVLQJFRVWVFDQSDUWLFXODUO\LPSDFWSHRSOHRQIL[HGLQFRPHVDQGOHDGWRWKHLU
GLVSODFHPHQWIURPRXUFRPPXQLW\
( ,DPFRQFHUQHGZLWKWKHULVLQJGLIILFXOWLHVIDFHGP\PLGGOHHDUQHUV7KH\PDNHWRRPXFKWR
EHQHILWIURPDIIRUGDEOHKRXVLQJSURJUDPVEXWVWLOOVWUXJJOHWRILQGKRXVLQJWKDWLVDIIRUGDEOH
WRWKHPDQGDUHRIWHQDOVRIRUFHGWRFRPPXWH7KLVFDQDOVRKDYHVLJQLILFDQWZRUNIRUFH
LPSDFWVDVZHOOLQWHUPVRIDWWUDFWLQJTXDOLW\WDOHQWWR)RUW&ROOLQV
) ,DPFRQFHUQHGZLWK)RUW&ROOLQVVLPSO\JURZLQJWRRTXLFNO\DQGWKDWHIIRUWVWRDGGUHVVWKLV
LVVXHZLOOOHDGWRHYHQIDVWHUJURZWKDQGYDULRXVDGGLWLRQDOSUREOHPV
28
ATTACHMENT 4
1.3.4
Packet Pg. 148
Attachment: Public Engagement Summaries Packet (7277 : Affordable Housing Incentives)
+RXVLQJDIIRUGDELOLW\GLVFXVVLRQUHSRUW
5HDGRYHUWKHYLHZSRLQWVEHORZFRQVLGHULQJWKHVHTXHVWLRQV
Which viewpoint most closely matches your own? Which viewpoint has you thinking
differently? Which viewpoint raises particular concerns? What viewpoints are missing?
3DUW :KDWFDQZHGRDVDFRPPXQLW\DWWKHORFDOOHYHO"
* ,EHOLHYHWKH&LW\RI)RUW&ROOLQVJRYHUQPHQWVKRXOGFRQWLQXHDQGLGHDOO\H[SDQGWKHLU
FXUUHQWHIIRUWVIRFXVHGRQFUHDWLQJQHZDQGPDLQWDLQLQJH[LVWLQJDIIRUGDEOHKRXVLQJ
VSHFLILFDOO\IRUORZLQFRPHUHVLGHQWV7KH\VKRXOGFRQWLQXHWRXWLOL]HGHYHORSPHQW
LQFHQWLYHVILQDQFLDOUHVRXUFHVSURJUDPVDQGSROLFLHVDVZHOODVH[SORUHDGGLWLRQDORSWLRQV
7KLVZRUNLVFULWLFDOWREULGJLQJWKHJDSEHWZHHQFRPPXQLW\QHHGVDQGZKDWWKHPDUNHW
QDWXUDOO\SURYLGHVDQGSURYLGLQJPRUHRIDYDULHW\RIRSWLRQVWKURXJKRXWWKHFLW\
+ ,EHOLHYHZHVKRXOGGRDOOZHFDQDVDFRPPXQLW\WRZRUNZLWKGHYHORSHUVWRDGGXQLWV
PRUHTXLFNO\ZKLFKOLNHO\PHDQVUHGXFLQJEDUULHUVDQGFRVWVWRGHYHORSPHQWLQFHQWLYL]LQJ
EXLOGHUVLQFUHDVLQJGHQVLW\DQGSRWHQWLDOO\UHWKLQNLQJKHLJKWOLPLWV7KHODFNRIDIIRUGDEOH
KRXVLQJLVSULPDULO\DIDFWRURIHPSOR\PHQWDQGSRSXODWLRQLQFUHDVLQJIDVWHUWKDQKRXVLQJ
7KLVLVSDUWLFXODUO\GXHWRWKHEXLOGLQJVORZGRZQDIWHUWKHUHFHQWUHFHVVLRQ$GGLQJXQLWV
DFURVVWKHKRXVLQJVSHFWUXPFRXOGKHOSDGGUHVVPDQ\RIWKHFRQFHUQVDFURVVDOOLQFRPH
OHYHOV
, ,EHOLHYHORFDOHPSOR\HUVSDUWLFXODUO\RXUODUJHVWHPSOR\HUVVKRXOGWDNHPRUHUHVSRQVLELOLW\
IRUWKHKRXVLQJRIWKHLUHPSOR\HHV DQGZLWK&68ERWKIRUWKHLUHPSOR\HHVDQGVWXGHQWV
+RXVLQJDIIRUGDELOLW\GLVFXVVLRQUHSRUW
%DVHGRQWRGD\
VGLVFXVVLRQZKDWGR\RXPRVWZDQWFLW\FRXQFLOWRXQGHUVWDQGDERXW\RXU
RSLQLRQRQWKLVLVVXH"
7KHUHLVQRWKLQJZHFDQGR'RQ
WWU\WRRKDUG:DLWIRUWKHQH[WFUDVK""" MRNH
October 30, 2018
Affordable Housing Incentives
Sue Beck-Ferkiss and Dean Klingner
ATTACHMENT 5
1.3.5
Packet Pg. 151
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7277 : Affordable Housing Incentives)
Questions for Consideration
2
1. Does Council support the Task Force’s recommended
initiatives?
2. Which options would Council like staff to further explore?
ATTACHMENT 5
1.3.5
Packet Pg. 152
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7277 : Affordable Housing Incentives)
Housing Attainability Fundamentals
3
Median Home Price
Median Income of a Family of 4
Median Income of All Households
ATTACHMENT 5
1.3.5
Packet Pg. 153
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7277 : Affordable Housing Incentives)
Strategic Plan Alignment
Neighborhood Livability and Social Health
1.1 Improve access to quality housing that is
affordable to a broad range of income levels
1.2 Collaborate with other agencies to address poverty
issues and other identified high priority human service
needs, and to make homelessness rare, short-lived and
non-recurring
1.3 Co-create a more inclusive and equitable community
that promotes unity and honors diversity
4
ATTACHMENT 5
1.3.5
Packet Pg. 154
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7277 : Affordable Housing Incentives)
5
Housing Affordability Along
the Income Spectrum
AMI 0%
Below 80% AMI is City’s
Definition of Affordable Housing
80%
$68K/yr
100% 200%
$85K/yr
120%
$102K/yr
$415K
Market Housing
Purchase Price $320K
Goal is defined by AHSP
(188-228 units/year)
Fewer attainable options are
available to the “Missing Middle”
Goal is harder to define & City influence
may be outweighed by market forces
ATTACHMENT 5
1.3.5
Packet Pg. 155
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7277 : Affordable Housing Incentives)
Consumers of Affordable Housing
6
Preschool and Kindergarten
Teachers
Employment in Fort Collins 455
Average Annual Wages $34,300
Nursing, Psychiatric, and Home
Health Aides
Employment in Fort Collins 1,378
Average Annual Wages $29,100
Administrative Assistants
Employment in Fort Collins 3,017
Average Annual Wages $38,800
Food and Beverage Serving Workers
Employment in Fort Collins 5,857
Average Annual Wages $25,000
ATTACHMENT 5
1.3.5
Packet Pg. 156
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7277 : Affordable Housing Incentives)
Affordable Housing Goals
Goal 5,155
Inventory 3,443
Projection 4,330
7
Expected Gap 825
Current Plan Goal of 188 per year
Next Plan Estimated Goal of 228 per year
ATTACHMENT 5
1.3.5
Packet Pg. 157
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7277 : Affordable Housing Incentives)
City Areas of Influence
8
Development
Standards
Policy Funding
Land Use
Regulations Utilities Programs
Possible Approaches Education
ATTACHMENT 5
1.3.5
Packet Pg. 158
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7277 : Affordable Housing Incentives)
Top Recommendations
9
INCREASE REVENUE DECREASE COSTS MAXIMIZE PARTNERSHIPS
1. City Plan Update
2. Flexible
Development
Standards
1. Water District
Collaboration
2. Employers
3. Community Land
Trusts
1. Direct Capital
Assistance
2. Metro Districts
3. Impact Fee Study
ATTACHMENT 5
1.3.5
Packet Pg. 159
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7277 : Affordable Housing Incentives)
Early Public Outreach
10
April 25
City Works 101
April 11 & 20
Coffee Chats
May 2
Community
Issues Forum
Stakeholders
Open House
April 26
Neighborhood
Connections
April 12
July 10
Board of
Realtors
Developers & Lenders
Focus Group
May 21
Affordable
Housing Board
October 11
ATTACHMENT 5
1.3.5
Packet Pg. 160
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7277 : Affordable Housing Incentives)
Next Steps
• Implement Council Direction
• Create Task Force 2.0
• Continue Public Outreach
• Plan, Do, Check, Act
11
ATTACHMENT 5
1.3.5
Packet Pg. 161
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7277 : Affordable Housing Incentives)
Questions for Consideration
12
1. Does Council support the Task Force’s recommended
initiatives?
2. Which options would Council like staff to further explore?
ATTACHMENT 5
1.3.5
Packet Pg. 162
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (7277 : Affordable Housing Incentives)
'RQ
WRYHUSRSXODWHWHKFLW\EXWGRQ
WEH%RXOGHU
.HHSXSWKHRQJRLQJGLDORJXHDQGWU\WRLQFUHDVHSDUWLFLSDWLRQRIDFWXDOKRPHOHVVDQGORZLQFRPH
FLWL]HQV
FRQVLGHUFRXQFLODGGUHVVLVVXHRIRZQHUVKLSPDQDJHPHQWRIDIIRUGDEOHKRXVLQJSURSHUWLHVE\RXWRI
VWDWHFRUSRUDWLRQ
&RQVLGHUH[SDQGHGHIIRUWE\&68WRSURPRWHLQWHUJHQHUDWLRQDOKRPHVKDUH
5HTXLUHDVSHFLILFSHUFHQWDJHRIQHZSURSHUW\GHYHORSPHQWVWRLQFOXGHDIIRUGDEOHKRXVLQJ
8LVDPDMRUSDUWRIWKHSUREOHPRIDIIRUGDEOHUHQWDOVZLWKLQWKHFLW\$OORZLQJWKHIUHHPDUNHWWRUXQ
DQGUHJXODWHLWVHOIZLOOIUHHXSPRUHKRXVLQJLQYHQWRU\'RQ
WLPSHGHRQSURSHUW\RZQHU
VULJKWVDQG
DOORZWKHPWRPDNHGHFLVLRQVEDVHGRQWKHIUHHPDUNHWDQGQRWEDVHGXSRQXQQHFHVVDU\UHJXODWLRQV
,JRWQRWKLQJ,W
VDQLQFUHGLEO\FRPSOH[LVVXHZLWKRXWDQHDV\IL[,XUJHWKHPWRWKLQNRXWVLGHWKHER[
DQGEHZLOOLQJWRIDLO
:HPXVWPDNHDIIRUGDEOHKRXVLQJDQXPEHUFRPPXQLW\SULRULW\,WLVDNH\LQGLFDWRUIRUVXVWDLQDELOW\
HQIRUFLQJ8LVNH\WRPDLQWDLQLQJDYLEUDQWDQGKHDOWK\QHLJKERUKRRG
'RQRWFRQIXVH8ZLWKKRXVLQJDIIRUGDELOLW\
5HVWULFWLRQVRQKRPHRZQHUVKLSLVWULFN\OHVVFRXOGPHDQPRUHLQYHVWRUVWDNLQJKRPHVEXWPRUH
SURKLELWVLQJOHIDPLOLHV\RXQJKRPHRZQHUVORZLQFRPHHWFIURPPDNLQJLWZRUN+DYHPRUH
UHVWULFWLRQVIRULQYHVWRUVDQGFDVKEX\HUV
'RQ
WFDYHLQWRWKHGHYHORSHUV
=RQLQJRIEXLOGLQJDIIRUGDEOHKRXVLQJQRWE\EXVLQHVVPDNLQJVXUHWUDQVSRUWDWLRQLVQHDUE\WRDFFHVV
/LYLQJZDJHV1RWPHUHO\DPLQLPXPZDJH,QFUHDVHGHQVLW\=RQLQJFKDQJHVPRUHRQHXQLWSHUORWJR
WR8DQGUHPRYH8
$WKURXJK(DUHDOOLPSRUWDQWIRUWKHFLW\WRDGGUHVVHVSHFLDOO\QHHGIRUKRPHRZQHUVKLSIRU\RXQJ
IDPLOLHVRUPLGGOHLQFRPHIDPLOLHV:HFDQ
WEXLOGRXUVHOYHVRXWRIDKRXVLQJVKRUWDJH:HQHHGWR
SHUVHUYHQHLJKERUKRRGV&KDQJLQJ8ZLOOGHJUHDGHQHLJKERUKRRGVDQGQRWDVVLVW
+RXVLQJDIIRUGDELOLW\DQGVSHFLILFDOO\DIIRUGDEOHKRXVLQJLVDQLVVXHWKDWPXVWEHYLHZHGDVDSDUWRID
ODUJHUV\VWHP:KDWDUHWKHIDFWRUVWKDWFDXVHSHRSOHWRQRWEHDEOHWRRIIHUKRXVLQJ"$QGZKDWDUHWKH
XQGHUO\LQJIRUFHVWKDWGULYHWKHVHIDFWRUV")RUH[DPSOHDIDPLO\RIERWKSDUHQWVZRUNPLQLPXPZDJH
MREVZLWKORQJDQGYDU\LQJKRXUV7KH\VSHQGRIWKHLUFRPELQHGSD\FKHFNVRQDEHGURRP
DSDUWPHQW7KH\DOVRVSHQGRIWKHLUFRPELQHGSD\FKHFNVRQFKLOGFDUHOHDYLQJIRUIRRG
WUDQVSRUWDWLRQRWKHUELOODQGUHFUHDWLRQDODFWLYLWLHV:KDWGULYHVWKHKLJKFRVWRIFKLOGFDUH"
$OORIWKHVHLVVXHVDUHLPSRUWDQW6WDUWLQJZLWKWKHPRVWYXOQHUDEOHSRRUHVWZRXOGEHWKHPRVWEHQHILFLDO
WRWKHFRPPXQLW\DWODUJH
WKDWWKHQHHGLVYHU\JUHDWFRQWLQXH\RXUEHVWHIIRUWVJRLQJIRUZDUG
7KDWWKHFLW\QHHGVWRZRUNZLWKWKHVWDWHJRYHUQPHQWWRPDNHVXUHWKHPLQLPXPZDJHLVDOLYHDEOH
ZDJH
30
ATTACHMENT 4
1.3.4
Packet Pg. 150
Attachment: Public Engagement Summaries Packet (7277 : Affordable Housing Incentives)
7KH\FDQGHYHORSWKHLURZQSURJUDPVWKDWDVVLVWZLWKKRXVLQJDIIRUGDELOLW\HQFRXUDJH
KRPHRZQHUVKLSRUVXSSRUWFLW\RUQRQSURILWSURJUDPV
- ,EHOLHYHZHVKRXOGZRUNWRVWUHQJWKHQDQGJURZWKHUROHRXUQRQSURILWRUJDQL]DWLRQV
SKLODQWKURSLFRUJDQL]DWLRQVDQGIDLWKLQVWLWXWLRQVSOD\LQWKLVDUHD6XFKSURJUDPVKDYH
PRUHIOH[LELOLW\DQGDUHRIWHQOHVVFRQWURYHUVLDOWKDQJRYHUQPHQWSURJUDPV7KURXJKWKHVH
RUJDQL]DWLRQVWKHFRPPXQLW\FRXOGFRPHWRJHWKHUWRVXSSRUWFROODERUDWLYHHIIRUWVDQGPDNH
KRXVLQJDIIRUGDELOLW\DSULRULW\
. ,EHOLHYHZHQHHGWRJHWFUHDWLYHDQGLQQRYDWLYHDQGUHWKLQNWUDGLWLRQDOFRQVWUDLQLQJ
QRWLRQVRIKRXVLQJ:HVKRXOGH[SORUHYDULRXVFRKRXVLQJPRGHOVDQGFRQFHSWVOLNH
$FFHVVRU\'ZHOOLQJ8QLWVXS]RQLQJDQGPLFURKRXVLQJUHFRJQL]LQJWKDWVRPHRIWKHVH
LGHDVPD\UHTXLUHFKDQJHVWRFLW\UHJXODWLRQV)RUH[DPSOHDVWKHQXPEHURIROGHUUHVLGHQWV
LQFUHDVHWKDWSUHIHUWRDJHLQSODFHKHOSLQJSDLUWKHPZLWK\RXQJHUUHVLGHQWVFDQSURYLGH
DVVLVWDQFHZLWKKRXVHKROGFKRUHVDQGILQDQFLDOUHOLHIIRUERWK
29
ATTACHMENT 4
1.3.4
Packet Pg. 149
Attachment: Public Engagement Summaries Packet (7277 : Affordable Housing Incentives)
/DVWO\WKHVWURQJVXSSRUWIRUYLHZSRLQW.OHDGVWRWKHWHQVLRQEHWZHHQFUHDWLYLW\LQQRYDWLRQIOH[LELOLW\
DQGFRQVLVWHQF\3DUWLFLSDQWVRIWHQVXSSRUWLQQRYDWLRQDQGFUHDWLYLW\ZLWKRXWIXOO\FRQVLGHULQJWKH
WUDGHRIIVLQYROYHG:LWKPRUHIOH[LELOLW\GHFLVLRQVEHFRPHPRUHVXEMHFWLYHUDWKHUWKDQDFOHDU
DSSOLFDWLRQRIVSHFLILFUXOHVOHDGLQJWRFRQFHUQVDERXWIDLUQHVVDFURVVGHFLVLRQV:LWKPXOWLSOH
H[SHULPHQWVEHLQJWULHGDWWKHVDPHWLPHLWLVDOVRPRUHGLIILFXOWWRGUDZUHOLDEOHGDWDDERXWLPSDFWV7KH
GLVFXVVLRQVKHUHUHYHDOHGFOHDUVXSSRUWIRUFUHDWLYLW\EXWIXWXUHGLVFXVVLRQVVKRXOGZRUNWKURXJKVRPHRI
WKHVHWHQVLRQVPRUHGHHSO\
APPENDICES
Appendix A – Participant Worksheet
Appendix B – Written participant answers to the final question of “Based on today's discussion,
what do you most want city council to understand about your opinion on this issue?”
All the raw data from the worksheets and the table discussions is available online at:
https://col.st/R1JHv
27
ATTACHMENT 4
1.3.4
Packet Pg. 147
Attachment: Public Engagement Summaries Packet (7277 : Affordable Housing Incentives)
DQG
DOWHUDWLYHSURJUDPVFRYHUVRPHRIWKHNH\WDUJHWDXGLHQFHVRIWKHRWKHUYLHZSRLQWV VXFKDVUHVLGHQWVZLWK
GLVDELOLWLHVKRPHOHVVDQGVHQLRUV
7KLQNLQJWKURXJKKRZDOOWKHVHSURJUDPVLQWHUVHFWDQGFDQEHLGHDOO\
FRPSOLPHQWDU\ZLOOEHLPSRUWDQW
7ZRDGGLWLRQDORYHUDUFKLQJWHQVLRQVWRNHHSLQPLQGDUHVLPSOLFLW\FRPSOH[LW\DQGRSWLPLVP
SHVVLPLVP$IIRUGDEOHKRXVLQJLVDSDUWLFXODUO\FRPSOH[LVVXHWKDWFDQHDVLO\OHDGWRSHVVLPLVPDQGD
VHQVHRIRYHUZKHOPLQJFRPSOH[LW\0DQ\RIWKHNH\IDFWRUVWKDWLPSDFWKRXVLQJFRVWVDUHUHDOLVWLFDOO\
RXWVLGHRIWKHSRZHURIDORFDOFRPPXQLW\7KDWEHLQJVDLGWKHUHDUHLPSRUWDQWSRWHQWLDODFWLRQVDWWKH
ORFDOOHYHOWKDWFDQPDNHDGLIIHUHQFHSDUWLFXODUO\ZKHQFROODERUDWLYHHIIRUWVDFURVVSXEOLFSULYDWHDQG
QRQSURILWOLQHVDUHYLEUDQWDVZHOODVSURJUDPVWKDWFDQWDSLQWRVWDWHDQGIHGHUDOVRXUFHV$WWLPHVWKH
FRQYHUVDWLRQVOHDQHGVLJQLILFDQWO\WRZDUGSHVVLPLVPEXWWKHVWURQJHQJDJHPHQWZLWKYLHZSRLQW. ZKLFK
IRFXVHGRQFUHDWLYHVROXWLRQV
WHQGHGWRPRGHUDWHWKDWZHOO7KHRSSRVLWHGDQJHULVSHRSOHVXSSRUWLQJ
PRUHVLPSOLVWLF³PDJLFEXOOHW´VROXWLRQV±RIWHQEDVHGRQEODPLQJJRYHUQPHQWRUGHYHORSHUVDVWKH
SULPDU\FDXVHRIWKHSUREOHP2YHUDOOWKHSDUWLFLSDQWVLQWKLVSURFHVVPDQDJHGWKHVHWHQVLRQVZHOODQG
ZRUNHGWRILQGWKHULJKWEDODQFHEHWZHHQWKHVHSRODULWLHV
26
ATTACHMENT 4
1.3.4
Packet Pg. 146
Attachment: Public Engagement Summaries Packet (7277 : Affordable Housing Incentives)
7KH\FDQGHYHORSWKHLURZQSURJUDPVWKDWDVVLVWZLWKKRXVLQJDIIRUGDELOLW\HQFRXUDJH
KRPHRZQHUVKLSRUVXSSRUWFLW\RUQRQSURILWSURJUDPV
x 7KLVYLHZSRLQWZDVFOHDUO\DQHZLGHDWRPDQ\SDUWLFLSDQWV6HYHUDOZHUHZDU\QRWVXUHLILWLVDQ
HPSOR\HUUHVSRQVLELOLW\WRFRQVLGHUWKHLUHPSOR\HHV¶KRXVLQJQHHGV2WKHUVZHUHLQWULJXHGDERXW
WKHSRVVLELOLWLHVKHUHSDUWLFXODUO\IRUODUJHUHPSOR\HUV
x 7KHUHZDVVRPHUHFRJQLWLRQWKDWJURZLQJLQDIIRUGDELOLW\ZLOOEHDGHWHUUHQWIRUQHZHPSOR\HHVWR
PRYHKHUHZKLFKZRXOGQHJDWLYHO\LPSDFWHPSOR\HUVMXVWLI\LQJIURPWKHLURZQLQWHUHVWWKHQHHG
WREHLQYROYHGLQWKLVLVVXH
x 7KHUHZDVH[WHQGHGGLVFXVVLRQDWPDQ\WDEOHVRQ&68¶VUROHSDUWLFXODUO\UHJDUGLQJWKHLPSDFWRI
VWXGHQWVRQWKHKRXVLQJPDUNHW6HYHUDOH[SUHVVHGIUXVWUDWLRQVZLWK&68QRWGRLQJHQRXJKWR
KRXVHWKHLUVWXGHQWV2WKHUVVLPSO\VDZ&68DVDFULWLFDOSDUWQHULQDGGUHVVLQJWKLVLVVXH
9LHZSRLQW- ,EHOLHYHZHVKRXOGZRUNWRVWUHQJWKHQDQGJURZWKHUROHRXUQRQSURILW
RUJDQL]DWLRQVSKLODQWKURSLFRUJDQL]DWLRQVDQGIDLWKLQVWLWXWLRQVSOD\LQWKLVDUHD6XFK
SURJUDPVKDYHPRUHIOH[LELOLW\DQGDUHRIWHQOHVVFRQWURYHUVLDOWKDQJRYHUQPHQWSURJUDPV
7KURXJKWKHVHRUJDQL]DWLRQVWKHFRPPXQLW\FRXOGFRPHWRJHWKHUWRVXSSRUWFROODERUDWLYHHIIRUWV
DQGPDNHKRXVLQJDIIRUGDELOLW\DSULRULW\
x 2YHUDOOSDUWLFLSDQWVUHFRJQL]HGWKHLPSRUWDQFHRIQRQSURILWVZRUNLQJRQKRXVLQJLVVXHVEXWIHOW
LWZRXOGEHGLIILFXOWIRUWKHPWRH[SDQGWKHLUUROHZLWKRXWDGGLWLRQDOIXQGLQJ7KHIDFWWKDWPDQ\
RIWKHQRQSURILWVZRUNLQJRQKRXVLQJKDYHH[WHQVLYHZDLWLQJOLVWVFXUUHQWO\ZDVPHQWLRQHG
x 3DUWLFLSDQWVVXSSRUWHGWKHUROHRIQRQSURILWVDQGHQFRXUDJHGWKHFLW\WRFRQWLQXHWRZRUNWKURXJK
DQGIXQGSURMHFWVWLHGWRQRQSURILWV
9LHZSRLQW. ,EHOLHYHZHQHHGWRJHWFUHDWLYHDQGLQQRYDWLYHDQGUHWKLQNWUDGLWLRQDO
FRQVWUDLQLQJQRWLRQVRIKRXVLQJ:HVKRXOGH[SORUHYDULRXVFRKRXVLQJPRGHOVDQGFRQFHSWVOLNH
$FFHVVRU\'ZHOOLQJ8QLWVXS]RQLQJDQGPLFURKRXVLQJUHFRJQL]LQJWKDWVRPHRIWKHVHLGHDV
PD\UHTXLUHFKDQJHVWRFLW\UHJXODWLRQV)RUH[DPSOHDVWKHQXPEHURIROGHUUHVLGHQWVLQFUHDVH
WKDWSUHIHUWRDJHLQSODFHKHOSLQJSDLUWKHPZLWK\RXQJHUUHVLGHQWVFDQSURYLGHDVVLVWDQFHZLWK
KRXVHKROGFKRUHVDQGILQDQFLDOUHOLHIIRUERWK
x 7KLVYLHZSRLQWJDUQHUVWKHPRVWFRPPHQWVRIWKHPDOOEDVHGRQVSHFLILFFRPPHQWVFDSWXUHGE\
WKHQRWHWDNHUVDWWKHWDEOH
x 3DUWLFLSDQWVRYHUZKHOPLQJO\UHDFWHGSRVLWLYHO\WRWKLVYLHZSRLQWRIWHQPHQWLRQLQJLQQRYDWLRQ
DQGFUHDWLYLW\DVVRPHRI)RUW&ROOLQV¶NH\VWUHQJWKVDQGSHUKDSVRXUEHVWRSSRUWXQLW\WRPDNH
SURJUHVVRQWKLVLVVXH
x 7KHUHZDVVXSSRUWDWPDQ\WDEOHVIRUDOORZLQJPRUHIOH[LELOLW\ZLWK$FFHVVRU\'ZHOOLQJ8QLWV
DQGLQQRYDWLYHFRQFHSWVVXFKDVWKH9LOODJH&RQFHSWLQWHUJHQHUDWLRQDOKRPHVKDUHPLFUR
KRXVLQJHWF
x 7KHUHZDVFRQFHUQWKDWFLW\UHJXODWLRQVVHUYHDVDEDUULHUWRPDQ\RIWKHVHSRWHQWLDOLQQRYDWLRQV
24
ATTACHMENT 4
1.3.4
Packet Pg. 144
Attachment: Public Engagement Summaries Packet (7277 : Affordable Housing Incentives)
WKRXJKRYHUDOOLWZDVQ¶WDSULPDU\SRLQWRIWKHGLVFXVVLRQV
KHUH
23
ATTACHMENT 4
1.3.4
Packet Pg. 143
Attachment: Public Engagement Summaries Packet (7277 : Affordable Housing Incentives)
GHYHORSHGE\'U&DUFDVVRQDIWHUKLVDQDO\VLVRIWKHLVVXHIURPDEURDGUDQJHRIVRXUFHVDQGVHYHUDO
FRQYHUVDWLRQVZLWK6XH%HFN)HUNLVVWKH&LW\¶V6RFLDO3ROLF\DQG+RXVLQJ3URJUDPV'LUHFWRU
ZDV GHVLJQHG RII D W\SLFDO WDFWLF XWLOL]HG E\ (YHU\GD\ 'HPRFUDF\ IRUPHUO\ NQRZQ DV VWXG\
FLUFOHV
$VRQHSDUWRIDPXFKORQJHUSURFHVVVWXG\FLUFOHVDVNSDUWLFLSDQWVWRUHDFWWRDEURDG
UDQJHRIYLHZSRLQWV(DFKRIWKHVPDOOJURXSGLVFXVVLRQVUHDFWHGWRWKHKDQGRXWLQWZRVHVVLRQV
HDFKDURXQGPLQXWHVHDFK7KHILUVWUHDFWHGWRYLHZSRLQWVWKDWFDSWXUHGFRQFHUQVDERXWWKHODFN
RIDIIRUGDEOHKRXVLQJLQ)RUW&ROOLQVDQGWKHVHFRQGZDVIRFXVHGRQSRWHQWLDODFWLRQVIURPDEURDG
UDQJHRIVWDNHKROGHUV
:KDWLQIRUPDWLRQZDVFROOHFWHG"
7ZR IRUPV RI LQIRUPDWLRQ ZHUH FROOHFWHG DW WKH HYHQW IRFXVHG RQ WKLV WRSLF $W HDFK WDEOH
QRWHWDNHUVFDSWXUHGNH\DUJXPHQWVPDGHGXULQJWKHVPDOOJURXSGLVFXVVLRQVJHQHUDOO\ZRUNLQJ
WRFRQQHFWWKHPWRWKHYDULRXVYLHZSRLQWVIRURUJDQL]DWLRQDOSXUSRVHV3DUWLFLSDQWVDOVRKDGD
ZRUNVKHHWZHUHWKH\FRXOGSURYLGHZULWWHQVWDWHPHQWVLIWKH\SUHIHUUHG7KH\ZHUHQRWDVNHGWR
FRPSOHWHWKHVXUYH\IXOO\LWZDVSULPDULO\DQRSSRUWXQLW\IRUWKHPWRDGGVSHFLILFFRPPHQWVLI
WKH\SUHIHUUHGWRZULWHDQGRULIWKH\GLGQ¶WKDYHDFKDQFHWRH[SUHVVWKHPYHUEDOO\:HGLGDVNDOO
SDUWLFLSDQWVWRFRPSOHWHRQILQDOTXHVWLRQRQWKHZRUNVKHHWDWWKHHQGRIWKHGLVFXVVLRQWKDWDVNHG
WKHPZKDWWKH\PRVWZDQWHGFLW\FRXQFLOWRNQRZDERXWWKHLURSLQLRQRQWKHLVVXH$WWKHHQGRI
WKHHYHQWSDUWLFLSDQWVDOVRFRPSOHWHGVXUYH\VIRFXVHGRQWKHSURFHVVDQGWKHLUH[SHULHQFHDWWKH
WDEOH QRLVVXHIRFXVHGTXHVWLRQVZHUHRQWKHILQDOVXUYH\
19
ATTACHMENT 4
1.3.4
Packet Pg. 139
Attachment: Public Engagement Summaries Packet (7277 : Affordable Housing Incentives)
ZHUHVKDUHGZLWKWKHSDUWLFLSDQWV
x 7KHPHGLDQVDOHVSULFHRIDKRPHLQ)RUW&ROOLQVKDVLQFUHDVHGIURPLQWR
LQ
x 6LQFHWKHPHGLDQVDOHVSULFHJUHZDWDQDYHUDJHDQQXDOUDWHRIPXFKIDVWHU
WKDQWKHDYHUDJHDQQXDOUDWHRIJURZWKIRUKRXVHKROGPHGLDQLQFRPH
x 3ULFHVKDYHJURZQDWDQHYHQIDVWHUUDWHVLQFHLQFUHDVLQJE\RQDYHUDJHHDFK
\HDU
7KHIDFWWKDW)RUW&ROOLQVLVQHDULQJWKHSRLQWRIEHLQJODQGORFNHGDQGEXLOGRXWLVDOVRDIDFWRU
ERWKLQWHUPVRILPSDFWLQJFRVWVDQGOLPLWLQJSRWHQWLDODFWLRQVLQUHVSRQVH7KH&LW\RI)RUW
&ROOLQVDVNHGWKH&HQWHUIRU3XEOLF'HOLEHUDWLRQWRLQFOXGHKRXVLQJDIIRUGDELOLW\DVDQLVVXHLQ
WKH6SULQJ&RPPXQLW\,VVXHV)RUXPSULPDULO\WROHDUQPRUHDERXWKRZWKHSXEOLFHQJDJHV
WKLVLVVXHDQGWRJDLQDEHWWHUVHQVHRIZKDWDFWLRQVZRXOGEHVXSSRUWHGDVWKHFLW\FRQWLQXHVWR
LPSURYHLWVUHVSRQVHWRWKLVGLIILFXOWLVVXH
METHODS.
:KDWZHUHWKHJRDOVRIWKHHYHQW"
7KHSULPDU\IRFXVRIWKHSURFHVVGHVLJQHGIRUWKLVHYHQWZDVWRSUHVHQWWKHSDUWLFLSDQWVZLWKD
EURDG UDQJH RI FRQFHUQV DQG SRWHQWLDO DFWLRQV UHODWHG WR KRXVLQJ DIIRUGDELOLW\ DQG WKHQ GUDZ
LQVLJKWVIURPWKHLQWHUDFWLRQVDVWKHVPDOOJURXSVZRUNHGWKURXJKWKHLVVXHV:LWKWKHFRPSOH[LW\
RIWKLVLVVXHWKHSULPDU\JRDOZDVWRKHOSUHVLGHQWVEHWWHUXQGHUVWDQGWKHFRPSOH[LW\DQGVKLIW
IURPPRUHVLPSOLVWLF³PDJLFEXOOHW´SHUVSHFWLYHVWRPRUHQXDQFHGRQHV$WWKHVDPHWLPHZH
KRSHG WR DYRLG SXVKLQJ WKH LVVXH WRR IDU WR WKH RWKHU H[WUHPH ZKHUH LWV FRPSOH[LW\ ZRXOG
RYHUZKHOP7KLVVLPSOLFLW\FRPSOH[LW\WHQVLRQZDVMXVWRQHRIPDQ\ZHKRSHGWRH[SORUHDQG
XQGHUVWDQGEHWWHUGXULQJWKHSURFHVV,GHQWLI\LQJDQGH[SORULQJDGGLWLRQDOWHQVLRQVZLOOEHDIRFXV
WKURXJKRXWWKLVUHSRUW6XFKDIRFXVLVDW\SLFDORQHIRUWKH&3'ZKLFKRIWHQXWLOL]HVWKHFRQFHSW
RIZLFNHGSUREOHPVWREHWWHUXQGHUVWDQGGLIILFXOWLVVXHVDQGKRSHIXOO\VSDUNFUHDWLYHFROODERUDWLYH
DFWLRQV WR DGGUHVV WKHP YLVLW WKH &3' ZHEVLWH DW FSGFRORVWDWHHGX IRU PRUH LQIRUPDWLRQ RQ
ZLFNHGSUREOHPV
:LWKWKLVEHLQJWKHILUVWIRFXVHGH[SORUDWLRQRIWKLVLVVXHE\WKH&HQWHUIRU3XEOLF'HOLEHUDWLRQDV
ZHOO DV WKH IDFW WKDWZHRQO\ KDG D OLWWOH RYHU DQ KRXU IRU WKH FRQYHUVDWLRQ EHFDXVH WKH HYHQW
17
ATTACHMENT 4
1.3.4
Packet Pg. 137
Attachment: Public Engagement Summaries Packet (7277 : Affordable Housing Incentives)
DQGWKH&LW\RI)RUW&ROOLQVFR
VSRQVRUHGWKH6SULQJ&RPPXQLW\,VVXHV)RUXP7KLVLVDQHYHQWKHOGHYHU\VHPHVWHUDQG
LQYROYHVWKHFLW\PDQDJHU¶VRIILFHSLFNLQJRUWRSLFVFXUUHQWO\RILQWHUHVWWRWKHFLW\FRXQFLOWKDW
ZDUUDQWDGGLWLRQDOSXEOLFHQJDJHPHQW7KH&3'WKHQGHVLJQVDQHYHQWWKDWXWLOL]HVWKHVWXGHQW
IDFLOLWDWRUVDQGQRWHWDNHUVWRVSDUNVPDOOJURXSGLVFXVVLRQVDERXWWKHWRSLFV7KLVUHSRUWIRFXVHGRQ
WKHWRSLFRIKRXVLQJDIIRUGDELOLW\RQHRIWZRWRSLFVGXULQJWKH6SULQJHYHQW WKHRWKHUWRSLF
ZDVUHVLGHQWLDOZRRGEXUQLQJDQGKDVLWVRZQUHSRUW
7KHSURFHVVDQDO\]HGLQWKLVUHSRUWZDVEXLOWDURXQGDZRUNVKHHWGHYHORSHGE\WKH&3'VWDIIWKDWKDG
DEURDGFROOHFWLRQRIYLHZSRLQWVUHJDUGLQJKRXVLQJDIIRUGDELOLW\2QHVLGHRIWKHZRUNVKHHWIRFXVHG
RQFRQFHUQVDQGWKHRWKHURQSRWHQWLDODFWLRQVDQGDFWRUV$IWHUDEULHIRYHUYLHZRIWKHWRSLF
SURYLGHGE\&3'GLUHFWRU0DUWLQ&DUFDVVRQSDUWLFLSDQWVZHUHSURYLGHGWLPHDWWKHWDEOHVWRUHDFWWR
WKHGRFXPHQWVVKDULQJZKDWUHVRQDWHGZLWKWKHPZKDWWKH\GLVDJUHHGZLWKDQGZKDWWKH\ZRXOG
DGGWRWKHGRFXPHQW7KHIXOOZRUNVKHHWLVLQFOXGHGDWWKHHQGRIWKLVUHSRUW
$URXQGSDUWLFLSDQWVDWWHQGLIIHUHQWWDEOHVDWWHQGHGWKHHYHQW2YHUDOOWKHFRQYHUVDWLRQVZHUHULFK
DQGHQJDJHGWKHZRUNVKHHWZHOO7KHDQDO\VLVLQWKLVUHSRUWSURYLGHVVRPHNH\LQVLJKWVGHULYHGIURP
ERWKZULWWHQFRPPHQWVSDUWLFLSDQWVPDGHRQWKHZRUNVKHHWDQGQRWHVWDNHQGXULQJWKHFRQYHUVDWLRQV
7KHUHZDVJHQHUDOO\EURDGDJUHHPHQWRQWKHLPSRUWDQFHRIKDYLQJGLYHUVHKRXVLQJRSWLRQVDYDLODEOH
IRUUHVLGHQWVRIYDULHGHFRQRPLFPHDQVZKLFKDOVRWUDQVODWHGLQWRJHQHUDOVXSSRUWIRUWKHFLW\¶V
DIIRUGDEOHKRXVLQJSURJUDPVDQGFDOOVIURPVRPHIRUWKHLUH[SDQVLRQ7KHUHZDVDOVRVWURQJVXSSRUW
IRULQFUHDVHGFUHDWLYLW\DQGWRH[SORUHDQXPEHURIQHZLGHDVDURXQGKRXVLQJVXFKDVFRKRXVLQJ
DQGDFFHVVRU\GZHOOLQJXQLWV7KHUHZDVPRUHGLVDJUHHPHQWDQGEDFNDQGIRUWKRQLVVXHVUHODWHGWR
JURZWKWKH8RUGLQDQFHDQGWKHSURSHULQWHQVLW\RIFLW\UHJXODWLRQVDVWKH\ZRUNZLWKGHYHORSHUV
7KHFORVLQJDQDO\VLVRIWKLVUHSRUWLQWKH1H[W6WHSVHFWLRQZRUNVWRLGHQWLI\DIHZNH\WHQVLRQVRU
SRODULWLHVWKDWWKHDQDO\VLVLGHQWLILHGDVZDUUDQWLQJDGGLWLRQDOFRQVLGHUDWLRQLQIXWXUHFRQYHUVDWLRQV
7KLVVKRUWLQLWLDOFRQYHUVDWLRQZRUNHGPRUHWRSURYLGHGDWDWRLGHQWLI\DQGFODULI\WKHVHWHQVLRQVEXW
QRWTXLWHWRUHDOO\GLJLQWRWKHPDQGZRUNWKURXJKWKHPVXEVWDQWLDOO\$VZHFRQWLQXHWRZRUN
WKURXJKWKHGLIILFXOWLVVXHRIKRXVLQJDIIRUGDELOLW\WKHVHWHQVLRQVFRXOGVHUYHZHOODVSRLQWVRI
HPSKDVLVWREHWWHUXQGHUVWDQGWKHLVVXHDQGPRYHWRZDUGKLJKTXDOLW\FROODERUDWLYHDFWLRQV
16
ATTACHMENT 4
1.3.4
Packet Pg. 136
Attachment: Public Engagement Summaries Packet (7277 : Affordable Housing Incentives)
VHUYHVDVDQLPSDUWLDOUHVRXUFHWRWKH
QRUWKHUQ&RORUDGRFRPPXQLW\:RUNLQJZLWKVWXGHQWVWUDLQHGLQVPDOOJURXSIDFLOLWDWLRQWKH&3'DVVLVWV
ORFDOJRYHUQPHQWVFKRROVERDUGVDQGFRPPXQLW\RUJDQL]DWLRQVE\UHVHDUFKLQJLVVXHVDQGGHYHORSLQJ
XVHIXOEDFNJURXQGPDWHULDODQGWKHQGHVLJQVIDFLOLWDWHVDQGUHSRUWVRQLQQRYDWLYHSXEOLFHYHQWV7KH
LQWHUSUHWDWLRQVDQGFRQFOXVLRQVFRQWDLQHGLQWKLVSXEOLFDWLRQKDYHEHHQSURGXFHGE\&3'DVVRFLDWHV
ZLWKRXWWKHLQSXWRISDUWQHURUJDQL]DWLRQVWRPDLQWDLQLPSDUWLDOLW\
14
ATTACHMENT 4
1.3.4
Packet Pg. 134
Attachment: Public Engagement Summaries Packet (7277 : Affordable Housing Incentives)
Attachment: Taskforce Tracking Template (7277 : Affordable Housing Incentives)
Link to other city efforts? Development Review Process Improvements IDAP ‐ Gary Schroeder contact Could be incorporated int o flexible design program ‐
like PUD for AH
LID
Support needed from task force? not needed Determine what level of benefit this would be for
AH developers
May need assistance in determining Utility purpose
and in developing the program
Outreach to AH developers to see if this is feasible.
Analysis/Evaluation
Metrics TBD time to release escrow $$ $$ distributed in grant funds ($$ saved for
developer)
TBD
Affordable Housing Score
Housing Affordability Impact Low low medium low
Co‐benefits This benefits all development, Affordable not
targeted
This benefits all development, Affordable not
targeted
Potential cost savings Better design and possibly long term cost savings
Priority Level Low low low low
ATTACHMENT 2
1.3.2
Packet Pg. 115
Attachment: Taskforce Tracking Template (7277 : Affordable Housing Incentives)
efforts.
‐depending on council work
session in July, this could fall off
‐ probably not feasible in 19 or 20
given KFCG renewal and
prioritization of that effort
‐would need to identify funding
source
‐identify which needs would be
most critical for funding
‐initiate policy process for creation
and authorization
‐identify CLT operators
‐determine program
parameters and
potential funding source
‐evaluate opportunity
‐would require partnership
with County at staff and
leadership levels and with
Neighbor to Neighbor
‐determine possible impact on
the problem of affordable
housing
‐Update MD
policy (pending)
‐Explore various
options on how
MD devs could
provide AH
'‐Work with
interested
developers
‐Specify objectives
within individual
urban renewal plans
‐Work with
developer applicants
‐Look for new URPs
around affordable
housing
Timeframe 12+ month effort if pursued 12+ month effort if pursued
12+ months effort if pursued If part of KFCG, ballot measure in
April
2021 unclear, based on funding
availability
exploration underway TBD Depedent on
Council
approval of
individual IGAs
Opportunistic
Risks or Barriers
Community pushback, developer
pushback, impact on home prices,
etc.
Pushback from business
community, economic impact,
general sensitivity to expansion
fees
Unclear if community would
support such an effort. Pushback
from development community,
fee sensitivity
Tax level, other priorities, KFCG
expiring generally, could be added
to funds in the Affordable Housing
capital Fund
Competitive rates with
neighboring Cities could affect
conference bookings. Would add
to projects currently being funded
such as Fort Fund and Fort Collins
Convention and Visitors Bureau,
but they could see this as diluting
their funding source.
finding seed money, repayment
timeframe/default, only one
comparison within CO (Denver)
Trusts need to be
supported ,ong term.
Had a trust that failed in
past. Partnership with
esiting trust preferable.
Home Share just lauching in
larimer County ‐ might want to
wait for success to add
additional benefit/burden.
Might not be needed if rental
icome enough to support
agingin place.
Depedent on
interested
developers,
willing Council,
and good
implementation
strategies
Significantly lower
TIF derived from
residential;
additionaly, more
service impacts are
created ‐
necessitates greater
allocation to
underlying tax
districts
Resources Needed Nexus Study Voter approval Voter approval Funding Identifying Partner
County would need to be
willing to forgo revenue staff time ongoing
Link to other city efforts? Fee working group Fee working group Fee working group KFCG Renewal (Ginny), CCIP Possibly the Culteral Arts Plan Combine with Cluster programs? City Plan?
Home Share
EHO and City
Planning URA
Support needed from task force? Alignment with fee schedule Alignment with fee schedule Alignment with fee schedule EHO lead
Analysis/Evaluation
Metrics
Affordable Housing Score
Housing Affordability Impact High High High High High Medium TBD low (small #) medium/high Low
Co‐benefits engages employers
engages Could tie to other outcomes such
as CAP
Could bring additional
rev. Good model for
future projects. Supports
long term affordability.
Helps seniors age in place mixed income
development
mixed use and mixed
income
developments
Priority Level 123451 16 2 1
Affordable Housing Task Force Team Template
Financial Tools
Project Management
ATTACHMENT 2
1.3.2
Packet Pg. 112
Attachment: Taskforce Tracking Template (7277 : Affordable Housing Incentives)
Packet Pg. 59
Attachment: 2018 Community Park Refresh Survey (7272 : Community Park Refresh)