Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMemo - Mail Packet - 11/19/2024 - Memorandum from Sue Beck-Ferkiss re Community Housing Summit Community Engagement ReportSocial Sustainability Department 222 LaPorte Avenue PO Box 580, Fort Collins, CO 80522 970-221=6753 sbeckferkiss@fcgov.com CC: [list any additional recipients] MEMORANDUM Date: November 7, 2024 To: Mayor and City Councilmembers Through: Kelly DiMartino, City Manager Jacob Castillo, Chief Sustainability Officer Beth Yonce, Social Sustainability Director From: Sue Beck-Ferkiss, Interim Housing Manager Subject: Community Housing Summit Community Engagement Report BOTTOM LINE The City hosted a Community Housing Summit with the goal of providing an opportunity for the community to provide feedback on the implementation of the City’s Housing Strategic Plan. The event included a Resource Fair with 24 agencies and City departments represented, a City presentation, and conversations facilitated by the Center for Public Deliberations. Over 100 people attended the event with 73 people participating in the community conversation. Providing childcare, refreshments and language assistance worked to get a broad representation of people assembled for the event. See attached CPD’s Community Engagement Report. BACKGROUND In 2021 the City adopted the Housing Strategic Plan (HSP) which uses a systems-based approach to the entire housing spectrum and is centered in equity for all Fort Collins residents. More than 600 residents contributed to the HSP, and assessment was built into the planning lifecycle. As directed by the HSP, the City hosted a Community Housing Summit on September 26, 2024 to co-create work plans, to test priorities, and discuss metrics with community partners, stakeholders, and City staff. KEY FINDINGS • Participants were asked to provide a grade from A through F on the 6 challenges from the HSP for where the issue was in 2020 and in 2024. The community’s perception is Docusign Envelope ID: CC54A014-5B73-4D11-837C-8350942692C6 that the 6 challenges identified in the HSP have not improved much. Those challenges are: 1. Price escalation impacts everyone and disproportionately impacts BIPOC and low-income households. Average grade was a D for both 2020 and 2024. 2. There aren’t enough affordable places for people to rent or purchase or what is available isn’t the kind of housing people need. Average grade was D for both 2020 and 2024. 3. The City does have some tools to encourage affordable housing, but the current amount of funding and incentives are not enough to meet our goals. Average grade was D for both 2020 and 2024. 4. Job growth continues to outpace housing growth. Average grade was D for both 2020 and 2024. 5. Housing is expensive to build, and the cost of building new housing will likely continue to increase over time. Average grade was D for both 2020 and 2024. 6. Housing policies have not consistently addressed housing stability and health housing, especially for people who rent. Average grade was D for 2020 and C for 2024. • Participants recognize that the City does not have total control over housing policy or building costs but wants the City to work to find solutions where possible. • Participants were satisfied with the event and want more opportunities to learn together. NEXT STEPS • Explore additional opportunities to engage and educate the community about housing issues. • Partner with the Affordable Housing Board to promote smaller community conversations including at affordable housing locations. • Consider partnering with the City’s Planning Academy and Poudre School District for housing related education. Docusign Envelope ID: CC54A014-5B73-4D11-837C-8350942692C6 Docusign Envelope ID: CC54A014-5B73-4D11-837C-8350942692C6 Docusign Envelope ID: CC54A014-5B73-4D11-837C-8350942692C6 Conversation Design In the summer and fall of 2024, the City of Fort Collins and the Center for Public Deliberation (CPD) worked together to design the Community Housing Summit. Partners designed this event to fulfill a commitment made in the 2021 Housing Strategic Plan to check in with the local community about progress on housing and related policies addressed in the plan. The goal was to provide community members with the opportunity to access information about housing resources, learn from the City about their progress on challenges identified in the Housing Strategic Plan, and have conversations with one another about their perceptions of the City’s progress on these challenges. During the City presentation, progress on six key challenges from the Housing Strategic Plan was addressed: 1. Price escalation impacts everyone and disproportionately impacts BIPOC and low- income households 2. There aren’t enough affordable places for people to rent or purchase or what is available isn’t the kind of housing people need 3. The City does have some tools to encourage affordable housing, but the current amount of funding and incentives are not enough to meet our goals 4. Job growth continues to outpace housing growth 5. Housing is expensive to build, and the cost of building new housing will likely continue to increase over time 6. Housing policies have not consistently addressed housing stability and health housing, especially for people who rent. During the community conversation, participants were provided with a community scorecard which allowed them to grade the City’s progress on the six challenges listed above. While participants provided their grades, student associates from the Center for Public Deliberation facilitated a discussion to allow each participant to share the grades they gave as well as reasoning behind those grades. There was also a note-taker at each table tasked with recording all comments, questions, and information shared by participants. Student facilitators guided the conversation in a 1-hour session. The conversation focused on the following questions, but many tables expanded their conversations to discuss other issues tied to housing in the City of Fort Collins: 1. Which challenges, if any, did you rate poorly? Why? 2. Which challenges just need a little nudge to do better? What might that nudge look like? 3. Which challenges do you think are most important to continue focusing on? Why? 4. Which challenges offer the most opportunities for change? What changes can you envision? 2 Docusign Envelope ID: CC54A014-5B73-4D11-837C-8350942692C6 After their conversations, participants were also invited to write their grades and reasoning on post it notes to place on posterboards across the room so everyone could see what conversations at other tables looked like. We have collated the responses on these posterboards in the appendix. After the event was complete, a small CPD team worked to compile notes from the table conversations and the posterboards. Once this was complete, each comment in the notes was thematically coded in two rounds. In the sections below, we share demographic breakdowns for attendance, as well as major themes we identified throughout the notes While participants were asked distinct sets of questions, we noticed that all conversations seemed to focus holistically on housing issues throughout the City. Our analysis here works to tie these conversations to specific challenges while also identifying key themes throughout the discussions. 3 Docusign Envelope ID: CC54A014-5B73-4D11-837C-8350942692C6 4%2% 15% 79% RACEAsian/Asian American( 4%)Black/African American (2%)Hispanic/Latinx (15%)White (79%) 61% 34% 5% GENDERFemale (61%)Male (34%)Non-Binary (5%) 81% 19% HOUSING STATUSOwn (81%)Rent Participant Demographics 76 registered attendees checked in at the beginning of the summit as well as 26 walkup attendees. Of those, 73 opted to stay for the Community Conversation. The demographics shared below were matched with responses in the registration form for the Community Housing Summit. As all demographic questions were optional, the numbers below represent only those of registered attendees who opted to answer. Walk-up attendees or those who declined to answer demographic questions are not included in these totals. 4 Docusign Envelope ID: CC54A014-5B73-4D11-837C-8350942692C6 Household Income 2% 2% 2% 8% 6% 19% 17% 21% 15% 8% 1-5 years 6-10 years 11-15 years 16-20 years 20 years + 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70+ Participant Demographics 5 Docusign Envelope ID: CC54A014-5B73-4D11-837C-8350942692C6 Grades and Conversation Summary The following section will be organized based on the six challenges participants discussed and graded on their provided scorecards. A sample of this scorecard is available in the appendix. Some participants opted not to fill out a scorecard or left certain grades blank as they did not feel they had enough information to appropriately grade, or in the case of grades from 2020 participants did not live in Fort Collins at that time. Challenge 1: Price escalation impacts everyone and disproportionately impacts BIPOC and low-income households. Grade 2020 (totals) 2024 (totals) B 1 4 C 13 14 D 17 25 F 8 9 Average: D D General Themes: • Numerous participants felt the City had gone backward in progress on this challenge, especially in mobile home parks. Residents in those communities noted feeling that they receive inequitable treatment from mobile home park managers and owners. • Across several discussions, participants noted that it felt as though progress that specifically benefits BIPOC and low- income households had moved backwards post-Covid. • Participants also noted that the price of housing throughout Fort Collins continues to rise faster than incomes, which has impacts across income brackets. Many noted that even lifelong residents of Fort Collins struggle to retain their housing as costs continue to rise. • Some participants expressed concern with the growing population also driving up the price of housing. Many felt the City was focusing too many resources on future residents rather than people who currently reside in Fort Collins and are struggling to afford their housing. • Many participants acknowledged that the price increases, while drastic and troubling, were not fully in the City’s control and were willing to note areas where they felt the City was making small steps to improve. • Overall, participants across tables hoped to see more specific progress from the City in addressing this challenge. 6 Docusign Envelope ID: CC54A014-5B73-4D11-837C-8350942692C6 Challenge 2: There aren’t enough affordable places for people to rent or purchase, or what is available isn’t the kind of housing people need. Grade 2020 (totals) 2024 (totals) B 1 7 C 15 17 D 22 20 F 3 12 Average: D D General Themes: • Participants in these discussions noted that inventory is low across all housing types throughout Fort Collins but that this issue is especially troublesome when it comes to affordable housing units. • Across various tables, participants discussed a city-wide need for more diverse types of housing across all income levels. Some examples were: tiny houses, more mobile home communities, high density housing and multi-family units near transit corridors, and increased housing growth around CSU in general. • Some participants expressed concern about the continued building of larger houses throughout Fort Collins explaining that many people who currently live here do want smaller houses and do not necessarily need yards. • Discussions also focused on how long it often takes to even get into available affordable housing, with some participants noting they had been in discussion with residents who had been on years-long waitlists to get into affordable housing or transition out of homelessness. • Overall, participants across tables felt as though the availability of affordable housing throughout Fort Collins was still low and that, indeed, the types of housing available is not the type of housing many people need. They expressed hopes for increased building of affordable housing and for the City to continue examining the barriers to building these types of housing. 7 Docusign Envelope ID: CC54A014-5B73-4D11-837C-8350942692C6 Challenge 3: The City does have some tools to encourage affordable housing, but the current amount of funding and incentives aren’t enough to meet our goals. Grade 2020 (totals) 2024 (totals) A 0 1 B 4 10 C 18 19 D 18 18 F 0 5 Average: D D • Participants also recognized that the State of Colorado has access to institutional levers the City does not, and they appreciate the work the State has done but also hope the City can make sure to focus its policies on the needs of residents and not cater to the needs of outside actors. • Some participants expressed concern that even if incentives could be increased for developers, they may still prioritize profits so those incentives would not necessarily translate to more affordable housing throughout Fort Collins. • Overall, participants across tables noted a need for a more holistic approach to affordable housing issues throughout the City while acknowledging there are certain things out of the City’s control. General Themes: • Short-term rentals throughout Fort Collins were a big topic of conversation across several tables. Participants hoped the City would work to cap the total number of short-term rentals available and ensure the vast majority of rentals would be long-term and affordable. • Participants also discussed the need for the City to look at reducing the cost of building fees for smaller houses and affordable housing in general. • Many participants shared their hopes that the City would become more proactive and decisive in their actions tied to housing and create clearer strategies for increasing affordable 8 Docusign Envelope ID: CC54A014-5B73-4D11-837C-8350942692C6 Grade 2020 (totals) 2024 (totals) B 6 9 C 14 22 D 14 14 F 4 7 Average: D D General Themes: • Participants at several tables noted that job growth in higher paying sectors may be rising, but lower paying jobs are not keeping pace which puts a strain on budgets for residents trying to afford housing. • Participants also discussed the impacts of a commuter workforce, noting that many of the people who are currently working in Fort Collins can’t afford to live here which increases traffic on roads. • Other participants spent time discussing how there are limited jobs for residents in more marginalized communities who are already struggling to afford their housing. • Some participants also acknowledged that job growth is a systemic issue that the City doesn’t have much control over. • Overall, participants seemed to share the sentiment that there hadn’t been considerable improvement on this challenge over the last four years and hoped that the cost of housing would come down and/or that wages would begin increasing. Challenge 4: Job growth continues to outpace housing growth. 9 Docusign Envelope ID: CC54A014-5B73-4D11-837C-8350942692C6 Challenge 5: Housing is expensive to build, and the cost of building new housing will likely continue to increase over time. Grade 2020 (totals) 2024 (totals) A 0 1 B 2 5 C 19 16 D 18 17 F 1 15 Average: D D General Themes: • Participants in these conversations noted that the cost of everything is rising and housing is no exception. • Numerous participants also shared concerns about the cost of repairs and maintenance in mobile home parks as an expense often overlooked in discussions about building costs. • Participants acknowledged that while the City doesn’t have full control over the cost of building, some local policies can have an impact. • Others noted that the City could be more responsive to these rising costs by increasing the flexibility in the types of housing allowed throughout Fort Collins. • Numerous conversations also seemed to note that building costs have only increased post-Covid which is why grades between 2020 and 2024 did not increase on the community scorecard. • Overall, participants did recognize that the City does not have total control over building costs but wanted to see more creative solutions to this problem through new building types, different codes, etc. 10 Docusign Envelope ID: CC54A014-5B73-4D11-837C-8350942692C6 Challenge 6: Housing policies have not consistently addressed housing stability and stable housing, especially for people who rent. Grade 2020 (totals) 2024 (totals) A 1 2 B 1 13 C 18 20 D 19 12 F 2 4 Average: D C Community Engagement Needs Another key theme tied to community engagement was clear throughout the notes, which doesn’t fit neatly into the six challenge areas. Participants shared a need for community engagement around housing issues to be more inclusive, especially for those in more marginalized communities. Many were hopeful that all meetings about housing issues could be offered in English and Spanish so that a wider variety of the community could be informed. In addition to this, many participants expressed a desire for clearer communication from the City about housing-related policies. There was a sense that a lack of accessible information could lead to confusion and participants hoped more information could help clear up confusion and equip the community with more tools to have respectful discussions about housing policy. General Themes: • Many of the conversations about this challenge tended to focus more specifically on the changes made at the State level which repealed occupancy ordinances and impacted parking minimums. • In these discussions, participants were more likely to grade the City higher, mentioning the creation of the rental housing department new rental registration program. • Participants who lived in mobile home parks mentioned many of these protections don’t yet seem to be having an impact on their situations. • While some participants applauded the State’s work in repealing occupancy ordinances and addressing parking minimums, others expressed concern about the City losing control over some of these policies and losing ability to focus on residents’ needs. • Overall, participants discussing this challenge were much more likely to state the City had improved its efforts and felt optimistic about continued progress. 11 Docusign Envelope ID: CC54A014-5B73-4D11-837C-8350942692C6 Post-Event Survey Results Participants were invited to fill out a post-event survey to assess their experiences with the presentation material and their facilitated conversation with others. 58 participants filled out a post-event survey. The results are compiled below. The first set of questions asked participants to assess the overall presentation and forum. These were assessed on using a Likert-type scale with rankings from 1-5 1. How would you rate your overall satisfaction with the Community Conversation? a. Average: 4, demonstrating that most participants were satisfied with their experience. 2. Do you believe that you learned enough at this forum to have an informed opinion about the issue? a. Average: 4.1, demonstrating that most participants felt the presentation and discussion provided them with enough information to have an informed opinion. 3. How well did the forum perform in encouraging you to weigh the most important arguments and evidence concerning the issue discussed today? a. Average: 3.8, demonstrating that a slightly above average portion of participants felt the forum encouraged them to weigh the most important arguments and evidence for this issue. 4. How well did this forum perform in encouraging you to consider the values and deeper concerns related to this issue? a. Average: 3.8 demonstrating that a slightly above average portion of participants felt the forum encouraged them to consider the values and deeper concerns related to this issue. 5. Did your opinion change as a result of the discussion, or are your views mostly the same? a. Average: 2.2, demonstrating that most participants did not note a drastic change in their opinions as a result of the forum. The second set of questions asked participants to assess their experiences in small group conversations. These are also assessed on a Likert-type scale with rankings from 1-5. 1. When others expressed views different from your own today, how often did you consider carefully what they had to say? a. Average: 4.3, demonstrating that most participants took time to carefully consider the opinions of others during their conversations. 12 Docusign Envelope ID: CC54A014-5B73-4D11-837C-8350942692C6 2. How often do you feel that other participants treated you with respect today? a. Average: 4.7, demonstrating that the majority of participants felt others treated them with respect during table conversations. 3. How often did you have trouble understanding or following the discussion today? a. Average: 2.2, demonstrating that fewer than half of participants struggled to follow or understand the discussion. 4. How often today did you feel pressure to agree with something that you weren’t sure about? a. Average: 1.5, demonstrating that a majority of participants did not feel pressure to agree with something they weren’t sure about during the conversation. 5. I felt like part of the group at my table. a. Average: 4.5, demonstrating that a majority of participants felt included in their table conversations. 6. Regardless of whether or not my fellow group members agreed with me, they still respected what I had to say. a. Average: 4.5, demonstrating a majority of participants felt respected by their group members even if they weren’t always in agreement. 7. I felt connected to other participants at my table. a. Average: 4.3, demonstrating that a majority of participants felt connected to others at their table. 8. My facilitator provided me with the support I needed to engage in the forum. a. Average: 4.5, demonstrating that most participants felt their facilitator supported their ability to engage in the forum. 9. My perspective was respected by my facilitator. a. Average: 4.6, demonstrating that most participants felt respected by their facilitator. 13 Docusign Envelope ID: CC54A014-5B73-4D11-837C-8350942692C6 Appendix Collated Responses from Poster Boards Challenge 1: 1. This is a national problem going back to redlining, we need to find ways to address it. No movement on affordable housing for BIPOC community 2. F- because there is nothing in place, especially for mobile parks 3. F-backwards movement especially in mobile home parks inequity of treatment from mobile home park managers 4. C-There was a surge of awareness of the disparity in our communities. The City reacted and set up programs. Now we are moving. 5. F- without question the factors at play may be bigger than the city can address 6. F-as housing affordability continues to decline it will affect BIPOC populations to an increasing degree 7. F- low income households are especially impacted and mobile home residents are at the mercy of park owners on rent increases 8. D-price escalation is insane, especially for BIPOC 9. The city is not specifically addressing racial equity in its approach to housing. ALL city council and P&Z meetings should have live spanish interpretation 10. Housing/rent is high because minimum wage has not risen with housing/rent costs 11. C-Fed rates/interest 12. C- the intent is there. The action needs to live up to the intent 13. D-Our BIPOC and low-income are the most disproportionately impacted and the strategic plan might help but I wonder if ownership and stability has improved in the past 5 years? 14. Houses built from scratch is very inefficient and costly. Should be factory built for efficiency/cost 14 Docusign Envelope ID: CC54A014-5B73-4D11-837C-8350942692C6 15. D-Hope for improvement as the City seems to be becoming more aware that it has a big role to play. So far too many “maximum” expense developments approved. Not enough smaller homes. 16. I think the city does not have much control on price escalation. City increased funding for affordable housing is a positive 17. Covid didn’t help, but homeowners got boosted. Rich get richer! 18. D-no real progress has been made on truly affordable housing for those most in need 19. Build more housing, keep prices low, people of all types and skill sets come 20. D-we need more focus on equity-based programs 21. F-seems to still be disproportionately impacts 22. While I’ve seen some affordable housing through Housing Catalyst as I work with unhoused populations, there is definitely room for improvement as it has taken sometimes years for my clients to actually get into housing 23. D- BIPOC communities are disproportionately impacted at a higher rate post-COVID 24. C- need listening sessions for BIPOC and make sure low income people get into low income housing 25. F-prices have continued to increase faster than incomes. Need federal vouchers to come/be provided in the actual amount needed, just not enough—price escalation is primarily out of the City’s control. 26. Perhaps work with real estate agents/landlords to come up with creative ways to stabilize housing costs & rents Challenge 2: 1. D. Aren’t enough affordable places 2. D- people are getting priced out of the City, especially low-income. FC isn’t very diverse 3. We need more choices and types of housing for people of all income levels 4. F-FACT! 15 Docusign Envelope ID: CC54A014-5B73-4D11-837C-8350942692C6 5. D- There is no affordable housing available in Fort Collins 6. We need all solutions! Market rate housing, affordable housing, housing incentives, renter protections, upzoning, etc 7. F-Knocking down affordable housing to build new developments. Where did they go? 8. There’s a mismatch between the types of housing and the folks who want to live here. A young couple with no kids doesn’t need a 2500 sq ft home 9. C-the housing crisis is a supply issue 10. D-too many big houses 11. The people want density. We want duplexes/triplexes/quadplexes 12. C- Housing growth needs to be expanded around CSU w/ higher density and infill prioritized 13. F- need smaller homes that are affordable. Many people DO want smaller homes with no yards 14. F-not enough units being delivered 15. D-increase density 16. C-Changes in attitudes toward mobile homes and zoning improvement 17. B-there has been a lot of increase in focus by the city but housing prices have escalated SO quickly 18. F- I don’t see the progress. Affordable and available for who? Not for those who make the least 19. Can federal government subsidize or regulate for housing to be more affordable? 20. D- getting rid of U+2 will help but we still need WAY more inventory 21. Desire: more mobile home communities. More focus on affordability for 20-30% AMI populations, small houses 22. F- the prices to rent are not affordable especially for mobile home, rent is up with no control by owners 16 Docusign Envelope ID: CC54A014-5B73-4D11-837C-8350942692C6 23. Housing prices have risen across the board. Undoubtedly low income households have been hit the hardest 24. C- Too many regulations for affordable accommodations–big improvements with ADUs, being promoted and better licensing for long term rentals v. AirB&Bs 25. D-Housing shot up drastically since COVID and with high interest rates people are priced out 26. Labor is having to commute to FC: police, teachers, service industry, we need to subsidize their housing or? 27. D-Some developments have occurred and some provide more/increased options but still need much more 28. C-encourage public groups of affordable landlords to motivate and share knowledge 29. This continues to be a work in progress but strides have been made, there is still so much to do Challenge 3: 1. D- obviously 2. Cap the number of AirBnb short term rentals auction off their permits to generate revenue 3. D- one thing to try to build lots of housing but then a lot is so expensive and everyone is stacked on top of each other 4. D several affordable housing budget items are currently unfunded in the city budget 5. F- the tools are for those who have access and no language barriers. The encouragement does not have follow through and the dominant culture is who benefits 6. We are among the most expensive non-coastal cities in the country 7. F- not seeing it in our life in mobile home park 8. D-communications failures, planning still, move into implementation 9. I’m not sure of the city’s affordable housing tools/incentives 17 Docusign Envelope ID: CC54A014-5B73-4D11-837C-8350942692C6 10. D- we need to work with developers to encourage smaller, more efficient homes, even if the City has to reduce fees 11. I have the impression that some progress has been made. How it compares to other small cities’ progress is unknown 12. D- we need more direct action from the City on this. 13. Stop needing public money, make it profitable, use private funds 14. We appreciate this summit and the City’s transparency on this issue. TAX us to fund affordable housing! 15. F- very scared about what happens when ARPA dollars run out 16. F- land use code does not do enough 17. C-keep assessing, adding, and adjusting goals 18. Develop a sales tax or raise property taxes to fund affordable housing 19. C-there needs to be more incentives/ways to reduce costs to build. Streamline development review process and remove public hearings 20. Council has been seriously considering this. Land use codes have been a big improvement 21. D- need to put more into prescriptive vs. incentives 22. Creating the dedicated revenue stream is important and overdue 23. C- The city does its best to keep up and address issues but runs into challenges from preserve fort collins 24. B- I see the City is finally recognizing its role and addressing issues other than business growth. Better priorities is encouraging 25. D- there will never be enough incentives, need some sticks to go with the carrots 26. D- need to find a way to restrict short-term rentals 27. B- I would like the city to continue reducing the cost for developments to build homes #3 especially apartments and townhomes 28. C- fee relief, some funds, rental assistance, but not enough to meet needs. 18 Docusign Envelope ID: CC54A014-5B73-4D11-837C-8350942692C6 29. C- federal tax of billionaires Challenge 4: 1. The attempts to adjust the LUC were good but they should have been more aggressive 2. I left blank because I don’t know enough! 3. F- we have perhaps higher-paying job growth but these folks usually want more expensive homes–folks in lower-paying jobs are being priced out. 4. F- jobs, or few of them pay enough to afford housing of any kind 5. F- job salaries are not matching the cost of living 6. It’s simple supply and demand. Less supply higher demand higher prices 7. C- job growth seems stagnant. Salaries are stagnant 8. D- systemic issue 9. C- it’s exciting there’s job growth, it’s too bad there’s no housing. CSU needs to be more responsible for student and workforce housing 10. C- I appreciate the city continues to promote job growth but housing production needs to keep pace 11. F- people who work here increasingly can’t afford to live here 12. Job growth is not a bad thing and the city should be encouraging job growth. Are these good paying jobs? 13. What can the city do about this? 14. C- make sure EHO is it the core of everything 15. F- no real movement in housing creation 16. B- job growth is increasing and more people are moving to fort collins 17. C- Too much promotion of business interests and development without regard to where new employees for these businesses will live and excessive impact on current residents or low income new employees 19 Docusign Envelope ID: CC54A014-5B73-4D11-837C-8350942692C6 18. C- I think this will continue to be true and is difficult to address 19. D- Not enough housing in FC that is affordable for all job types. Job growth is out of the City’s control 20. C- streamlining new building permits. Well done 21. D- there aren’t enough jobs *especially for Spanish speakers, immigrants, undocumented folks, etc. There is no stability or ability to negotiate or guarantee long term. This makes housing unstable. 22. D: People come from other towns to work here but can’t afford to live here 23. C- FTC will always have short inventory pressure because it’s desirable 24. The job market has cooled because of the extreme price of housing Challenge 5: 1. C- Cost of everything is rising and rent on mobile home lots keeps rising so it all compounds 2. F- City can do next to nothing to influence construction costs 3. D- mobile home park has more specific/expensive repairs 4. Reduce impact fees. Housing is still too expensive 5. Mobile home parks owned by the City 6. F- this has gone from bad to worse 7. D- This issue did not feel addressed well in the HSP 8. Housing material cost is not the problem 9. Perhaps create ordinances to reduce the size of houses and incentivize tiny houses 10. F- Rising land costs and impact feels/utility fees to contribute. The steep escalations we’ve seen since 2018 11. D- can we reduce fees for developers to encourage smaller houses? 20 Docusign Envelope ID: CC54A014-5B73-4D11-837C-8350942692C6 12. D- systemic/state issue 13. F- Unfortunately i don’t know if there’s much the City can do about costs 14. D- fix development review and consider housing cost in the making of any policy decision 15. C- City city can only do very little to address the cost of building 16. Difficult for the city to solve this problem. I think the City is sincere about their efforts but there are forces beyond their power 17. Create new ways to reduce infrastructure costs. 18. Construction materials have gone up in cost. City’s role can only be in being flexible in variety of house 19. Prices/cost to build AH has skyrocketed. Cost of building is out of City’s control 20. Housing expense of building and improvements are affected by City policy and I see them beginning to revamp building codes to accommodate affordable housing options 21. Repeal the parking minimum mandates/Allocate more affordable 22. Please legalize ADUs and duplexes 23. B- because of land use for development and incentives for landlords to maintain property 24. D- COVID has drastically increased cost and not enough incentives to build more 25. Gentrified apartments cheap/low quality. Housing and apartments being overcharged! Wealthy families/parents paying for their kids. More mixed commercial housing units? Good for students, younger individuals who don’t mind living in high-density units/areas 26. The city should use more levers to streamline projects and backfill appropriate projects 27. Is multi-family housing less expensive to build per unit? 28. F-Cost to build housing has only gone up 29. C- not much the city/state can do 21 Docusign Envelope ID: CC54A014-5B73-4D11-837C-8350942692C6 Challenge 6: 1. F- City does not seem to have the courage to stand up to economic interests in defense of affordable housing 2. I’m not familiar with the city’s housing policies in this context 3. B- the passing of law eliminating U+2 and the rental registration program give me hope in this area 4. B-getting better thanks to new rental dept at the city but still lots more to do! 5. You’re doing good, better than most, but miles behind good enough 6. B- U+2 abolished. Only area that seems to have made progress 7. Car camping. Camping communities w/in city limits 8. C- rental housing department can really make a difference here on education etc. However, though MHPs have protective zoning, things such as allowing a 250 men homeless shelter in the middle of 4 MHPs speaks volumes about how vulnerable populations are viewed 9. C. Do more of this type of community engagement. Keep talking to the people 10. B- I feel there are resources available to addressing housing insecurity (but not enough) 11. With rental registration-a step in the right direction to provide livable safe units 12. D- Things have improved (yay to the end of U+2) but policies could be friendlier to us 13. F- Dominant culture, city, developers benefit not the marginalized. 14. A- There has been such great progress on this. Very good unification and centralization on this 15. C-like rental inspections-very helpful 16. C- It’s getting better. Glad for rental protections. Glad for state legislation that will support local goals 17. C- the conversation at the city keeps doing turns and spirals in on itself. Lots of talk. There are new builds, but everyone is so close it creates problem (neighbor is drunk or has firearm–that impacts me and where I go). 22 Docusign Envelope ID: CC54A014-5B73-4D11-837C-8350942692C6 18. C- mobile home parks essentially keep raising prices because they have to do repairs 19. C- City seems to have neglected the problem for too long and now will have to scramble to catch up, but there is progress and that is hopeful 20. F- U+2 and transport density laws not thinking through consequences to the 20 Colorado university towns impacted. Home rule! 21. C- improvements have occurred with LUC but much more needed. 23 Docusign Envelope ID: CC54A014-5B73-4D11-837C-8350942692C6 Copy of Community Scorecard Handout 24 Docusign Envelope ID: CC54A014-5B73-4D11-837C-8350942692C6