Affordable Housing Task Force - Regular Meeting

Good morning. We're called, meeting affordable house housing task force meeting to order at 10:22 on March 18. Can we have a call to a roll call?

Adrian, roll call. Member King?

Here.

Member Roby?

Here.

Member Westlake?

Here.

Member Short? Alright. We have a quorum.

Okay. Thank you. So adoption of the agenda and approval of consent calendar. Consent calendar number 126DashO342. Staff recommending the task force approve the how affordable housing task force meeting minutes from 11/19/2025. Do I have a motion?

If I may, I do have a request for the agenda just because, mister Short is, not here yet, but we anticipate having him. I would like to request that we put the task force selection of the vice chair to after the presentation so that he's able to participate in that. Okay.

Do we have a motion?

Uh-oh. Alright.

Second. Aye.

So how do you vote? Member King? Yes. Aye. Member Roby?

Aye.

Member Wesley? Aye. Motion passes.

Alright. So consent calendar has passed. Folks informed. So we're gonna, move agenda item two towards the end. Start with agenda item three, twenty six dash o three four four. Staff recommending the task force receive an update from staff on current activities.

We wanna take the open forum

public comment. Oh, I'm sorry. I skipped that. Alright. So we'll have open forum, opportunity for the members of the public to address task force on subject matter that is not on their meeting agenda within their jurisdiction. Public comments during open forum are limited to three minutes per person. Task force chair may limit public comment during open forum. Do we have any open for any comments in the public here? Is there anybody online?

If anybody online wishes to speak, please use the raise hand button. Alright. We have no public comment for open forum.

Alright. So that will go to item three, the update from the staff.

Thank you very much. Just give me one second here. I'm getting if you could allow me to share, Tricia. Okay. Alright. Thank you very much, mister chair. Screen? Okay. Yeah. Thank you very much, mister chair, task force members, Rob Peters, deputy director of planning.

Have a few staff members here that we wanted to introduce last time, but, weren't able to do the lack of quorum. So we have Anna Kwan, with us who is helping participate and do a lot of the legwork on our upcoming activities and, senior planner in our office. And so, because she's sort of new to participation in the task force, I wanted to go ahead and introduce her to you all. And it's great to see everyone. So next slide here.

A quick overview of, what we're planning to discuss today. First, we're gonna talk about the task force member recruitment, followed by a brief announcement on the housing element progress report and a refresher on some of the '21 through 2024 numbers and associated projects. And then we'll give a overview of some of the work that staff has been doing since the last time we all saw you and then, discussing some next steps. So we anticipate that, mister Short will be here, very soon, but we wanna welcome our new member, Jeff Short from the Northstate BIA. Again, as most of you know, task force member Vance Gerard had stepped down from the task force and also his position, as I understand it, with the North State BIA.

And so, he respectfully, you know, stepped down from his task force responsibilities, and staff would like to wish him all the best of luck in the future and also just thank him for his time and efforts, related to the task force. And there's mister Short now.

Thank you.

So with that said, we are welcoming the new number. Jeff currently is with the North State BIA and has been involved in other affordable housing activities within the region. I'll leave it to him, but maybe after the presentation today, he could give us a little bit of background if you all would like, on his experience and and background. And, we still have one outstanding recruitment, and we do have some applications that are being considered. And so, we do intend to, you know, try to appoint, another member. And so, hopefully, I'll have an update maybe the next time we all meet. So welcome. Thank you. Do we need to do anything to formally I mean, he's now in the meeting. Right?

I would also recommend just that, you know,

you gotta hit your little

button to turn green if you'd like to comment on anything.

Got it. Appreciate it. Thank you.

Alright. So, just a quick announcement on the housing element annual progress update report. It will be heard at next Tuesday's board of supervisors hearing, on 03/24/2026, and it will be presented by our, the planning division's long range planning unit. The item includes a summary of the RENa progress for 2025. So I won't be discussing that necessarily today, but I'll give the task force kind of an update of, you know, what's happened since our adoption of our 2021 through 2020, nine housing element and kind of some of the activities over the last couple years, so through 2024.

Has the board set a time for that?

Yes. I can get you the time as we as we go through. It's I believe it's in the afternoon, but I can get you a time certain for sure. Maybe, Jen, you can look that up while we're doing okay. And then let's see.

I thought I might take a couple slides, to discuss, you know, some of the, numbers from '21 to 2024 and highlight highlight sort of the most impactful projects and some of the key, demographics from the 2022, BAE report that most of you have all seen, but I just thought I'd bring it back up again kind of why we're why we're doing this. So this is the progress report numbers from '21 to 2024. So we have, again, the the income categories on the left. We have a subsection in each, row of the deed restricted versus nondeed restricted. You don't see my cursor when I'm okay.

And and so as you can see, you know, not much progress in those areas in 2021 and in 2022. In 2023, you start to see some of the very low and low deed restriction, you know, affordable housing, prod, numbers to sort of increase, and you see, again, some more in in 2024. Certainly, we will identify and acknowledge that, to the right of the slide is our outstanding RINA numbers, and we have a lot of, you know, ground to gain there. And and so in all categories, you can see our total RINA that's still outstanding. And, again, we're basically halfway through our housing element now sitting here in 2026.

And so, you know, a lot of work to be done, and that's, you know, just again part of the reason why we're all here. Those those 2023 and 2024 numbers, I just wanna go over kind of the projects that those numbers are coming out of. So we have Diamond Village Apartments phase one. This is a project in Diamond Springs. It includes 81 deed restricted units.

And, actually, it might be 82 because I don't know if we counted the manager unit appropriately. But needless to say, 48 of the units are very low income, and 32 are in the low income category. So those you know, most of the numbers in 2023 that you saw on that slide were related to this project. The financing, you can see there, and Jen will do a much better job of telling you if you don't know which those acronyms are. But, you know, I I guess the the key here was that it took a lot of different financing, pieces to make that project come together. So Just so

you know, it didn't it did not have LITEQ, though. Oh. He It had accelerator and MHP. I I put the funding together.

I thought he had tax credits. Do you have tax credits?

There's no tax credits on it.

Well, they substituted.

Or oh. So looks like your comments.

So it wouldn't have been normally. Right. He got this special pot of money that isn't always available. Okay.

Okay. So strike that from the slide. Thank you for correcting us on that one again. And then for 2024, you know, this is the Eldorado Haven project. Again, this is another project in the Diamond Springs, Eldorado community region.

It has 65 deed restricted units. It is currently, you know, 43 very low, 21 low, and, again, a manager unit. They have attempted to reserve some of the units for, folks that are veterans and those that have been formerly homeless. And, again, just some of the financing just showing, you know, all of the different components that need to come together for one of these projects to, come to fruition. So these are another couple approved projects that are kind of going forward, that would be, you know, issuing building permits and probably will go into the 2025, you know, numbers.

But we have the Diamond and and, again, we kind of have a concentration of these in the Diamond Springs and, El Dorado area. That's been a major point of discussion with our board of supervisors and with others. But we have the Diamond Village Phase 2, which is immediately adjacent to the project that I described from 2023. It has 30 deed restricted units, and, the permits have been submitted for that. And so that is, you know, underway.

Eldorado Senior Village Phase 1, which is 72 deed restricted units, and it's currently under construction, and that's also off Pleasant Valley Road there. And, then again, on Racket Way, we have, which is Racket Way and Black Rice Road, 24 deed restricted units, 12 restricted for seniors, and, that is in, sort of a second phase of a project that had already built 12 units, and so it's just expanding. And there are, there's considerations of adding additional units to that location. Money many of the

projects in Diamond Springs too?

Yes. Bracket. Right? Yes. And, several of these are, s p 35 projects. So that's also, you know, part of the reason why the county has, initiated community design standards and other things so that we have some objective design standards to apply to our, s p 35 projects. But, you know, we're on that list of allowance for s p 35 because of our inability to meet our arena numbers and, you know, so there's a lot around that topic. But, basically, a lot of the progress, if you wanna call it that, that we're seeing in the affordable housing lane has been a result of those policies.

So you said the board had questions why there's somebody going, like, in El Dorado or Diamond Springs. Are they wanting to see more diversity throughout the county then with that?

I I think so, and I think that there's, you know, some considerations related to things like fire evacuation and other things in that area that are there's some complexities there that where, you know, there's just a lot of discussion. Not so much, you know, it just kind of it it is an urbanized area. It has a multifamily zoning, you know, so it meets a lot of the it has, transit in close proximity. So it meets a lot of the criteria for those programs. And so, I think it's just, yeah. There's some concern that it's kind of a lot of those projects are happening in that close proximity.

A lot of those projects also designated on your, housing element as sites that were, and so on that list of sites that you have are a lot do you have other ones within outside the Diamond Springs area and stuff to kinda meet what the supervisors are looking for then?

Yeah. There are other locations, and and, again, that'll be part of the exercise as we move into the next one. But our vacant lands inventory includes areas outside of there. I just that area in particular seems to be where a lot of the projects are being proposed.

And when you guys look at the your vacant land, do you also look at the census tracks mapping that UC Berkeley does with TCAC and CDLAC designating high and highest opportunity areas? Because from the developer side, they look at those areas because they get perfect scoring on tax credits. They get bonus points with through HCD. And so that's why you also see a lot of focus into those specific census tracks because of that mapping tool that that out there.

Agreed. Yeah. And the the opportunity zones and even some of the s p 35 projects now mandate that you bring a public hearing in advance of those projects to the board of supervisors where in those opportunity areas. You know? So Okay. So there's actually a pre public meeting because they're ministerial projects, and they don't necessarily have public hearings for approval. So this

is a, hey. Here's what's coming type of opportunity on those. So you're having a public hearing for a ministerial approval. So isn't that counterproductive?

Well, I I don't wanna get too deep into the state policies related to those, but there are some in the new, you know, revised, affordable housing scenario, there are some, wants. It's basically to get community feedback on the project, but it's not a approve or deny type of a here. It's just a public meeting

The informational correct. Okay. Yep.

Specifically on affordable housing, projects located in low and moderate opportunity areas, or I think there's a I think there's a race and segregation one, which does not apply to El Dorado County. But you need to, basically, these projects need to go to the board of supervisors for an informational public meeting to share with the public that this affordable housing project is going into property that is low or moderate opportunity area designated. Okay.

So some of the, you know, demographics we just wanted to bring up, and, again, many of you have seen these reports, but it's just a, you know, a reminder of some of the challenges here within the county. So from that and we've discussed, over time that BAE report before. But just again, you know, one out of five, folks are 65 and older. 81% of the housing stock is owner occupied and and 19% renter occupied. 30% West Slope, and are lower income.

And, again, for lower income, what we're speaking about here is, that it includes, low, very low, and extremely low. Correct? So, you know, that's in the all three of those income categories. And then 40% of, those folks on the West Slope are housing cost burdened by twenty twenty forty one. And so, again, housing cost burden being defined as spending more than 30% of your income on your housing.

You know? So that's, it's showing those sort of cost challenges for folks within the county. And then some numbers there on the Tahoe Basin as well that, 56% lower in those lower income categories. And then 2021, you know, 39% cost burn with an expectation in 2041 to not have much of a change, but maybe a slight decrease.

Of the 81% owner occupied and 19 owner occupied,

How is mobile homes factored in to those numbers? Are those considered owner occupied? Is that

You know, I'd I've to be honest, off the top of my head, I don't know, and we could probably extrapolate that out and get back to you with that information. But, I don't know the mobile home count and where that lands. But good good question. Okay. So, again, just, and and particularly since we, have some, new members, just kind of an overview of, you know, how we got here and and what we're up to.

So the board of supervisors had the release resolution of intention, and it identified, you know, kind of the work that we're working on here in in embarking upon right now. So, resolution one three oh, one six three twenty twenty five was approved on in November 2025. It includes two components. One is a mandatory affordable housing fee, and so this is sort of our direction now move forward from the board of supervisors. And then, the component two, which, is basically to establish some incentives and alternatives to that fee.

And and so, you know, for the purposes of this meeting, we're gonna focus kind of on component one and the work we've been doing there. We understand that, you know, our work on component two is also sort of, happening, at the same time, but, you know, maybe, just a little bit behind because, you know, as we start to look at the fee and try we wanna get things like the nexus fee study and other things initiated, and we can continue to work on other items concurrently. And then the, you know, that component too is those, alternatives and how we are going to define those and and establish, you know, what what are the appropriate alternatives and incentives that we have available to us to, to add to the to the mix. Okay. So component one a, you know, one of the the key, moves forward is sort of to to define the program structure and and, you know, our purpose.

And we didn't we didn't necessarily create this list, you know, working from what other jurisdictions that are doing, but I think that, you know, it's relevant to to, our work here, you know, the production of new affordable housing for both rental and ownership, preservation or rehabilitation of existing affordable housing, site acquisition, subsidies, and and gap funding to help projects, you know, where there's those missing, funding sources, homebuyer programs and down pay meant assistance and, recovering you know, of course, this is the structure would generally or typically include, some administrative costs. I think at the board of supervisors, you our district five Board of Supervisory member read into a sort of a goal statement as she saw the program, which was, I'll just read it again for, the folks that might be listening, to grow the affordable housing trust fund in order to provide funding to incentivize building and or sustaining affordable housing for low, very low, and moderate incomes. Right? So, that's a broad goal. This is sort of the program structure and the the pieces we think that, you know, are going to get us to that opportunity.

For component one b here, is, you know, some of the key key components of that work include calculating affordable housing demand generated by new residential and nonresidential development, analyzing applicable nonresidential development prototypes should we choose to go that route, you know, sort sort of, and Anna will speak to some of these pieces in a little bit, but, you know, linkage type fees, for commercial. Analyzing residential development prototypes, single family, detached townhomes, condominiums, apartments, and this kinda got to a discussion that, we've been having about, you know, looking at some projects and analyzing how they pencil and and that sort of thing. So, of course, that's gonna be we're gonna have to determine the the types and sizes of projects that we wanna have considered as we're looking at establishing the fee and then understanding, you know, sort of the maximum justifiable fees and supportable fees per per development prototype. So, you know, we're gonna have to, part of our work will be, you know, defining what those prototypes are, how big and and what, those projects should be so that we can start looking at what an appropriate fee might be for each of those types.

And then so some of the recent staff activities. Staff has been and and I'll say staff, but I honestly, Anna and Jen and others are are doing the heavy legwork. But we're including, sort of data gathering and lesson lessons learned mode. This includes reviewing the work of other jurisdictions, particularly those that are, have or recently or are under undergoing nexus fee studies, currently. And we have focused sort of on the jurisdictions within the SACOG region to kind of, you know, look as best we can apples to apples against what other folks are doing.

We've also reached out to those jurisdictions and essentially interviewed them, about their nexus fee studies efforts and their affordable housing policies in general just to get a flavor of I mean, you can read an ordinance, but kind of what their challenges are, what they're what they're going through, and all of that. And then we've also been inquiring about the use of special financing districts because we've had a lot of conversations about that, you know, and and and how that might, you know, get in into the mix. And so I think Anna's gonna take a couple minutes here to provide sort of an overview of those efforts and give you kind of a flavor of what she's been up to.

Thanks, everyone. So for people who don't know who I am, I'm, Anna Kwan, senior planner at the county. So just wanted to share some of the things that we've been learning from different jurisdictions. I know that there was a lot of work in the past for the affordable housing task force, where staff gathered a lot of information from different jurisdictions. So a lot of the data is already known, but I wanted to reach out to other jurisdictions to learn more about the narrative, like what's working, what's not, what can't be shared necessarily by just reading an ordinance or reading the fee amount.

And so just wanted to kind of go through some of these. These might be already known knowledge by some of the members of the task force, but just wanted us to be on the same page. So first of all, there are different types of fees. Right? There's inclusionary there are local jurisdictions that have inclusionary housing requirements.

And part of that includes the inclusionary in LUFI, right? So one such jurisdiction is Folsom, where they have the inclusionary housing ordinance for only for sale development. I believe that 10 or more units are required to provide 10% affordable housing. And their inclusionary in lieu fee, I think was based on calculating a fee based on specific subdivisions. And so their update was actually due to the administrative inefficiencies inefficiencies of that previous methodology.

And so what they ended up doing recently was adopting a $3 per square foot fee for units greater than 1,500 square foot and $2.5 per square foot for units 1,500 square foot or less. And that staff, I think, shared in their public presentation that it was the rough equivalent of the previous fee. So it was actually just to help staff implement this fee. Of course. Sure.

Of course. Of course. It was $3 per square foot for four sale units greater than 1,500 square feet, and then $2.5 per square foot for units that are 1,500 square feet or less. Yeah. And so other jurisdictions that also have an inclusionary housing ordinance and have this inclusionary housing in lieu fee requirement is Placer County.

So their fee update is currently in progress. And what's interesting about Placer County, our neighbor, is that they have an inclusionary housing requirement of 10% for projects greater than 100 units, both rental and for sale. And then they have an in lieu fee of $2.73 per square foot for projects with eight to 100 units where you can't charge basically, it's only they can only require said fee for the units that are in this category. Of course, they have certain projects exempt in their ordinance. And what's interesting is that they have just like Eldorado County, they have a western area.

They call it sub area. We call it West Slope. And then they have an Eastern sub area, and then we call for ours, it's East Slope. But for their eastern sub area, they have a commercial linkage fee of $2.73 per commercial square foot. In terms of they do allow for alternative methods of compliance.

They've allowed ADUs and land donation if people wanted to if developers wanted to elect for an alternative route in terms of providing instead of providing units. So currently, I think the status is that they have the draft nexus study available to the public. And one lesson I've learned in talking with the staff there is that what they're doing is not just realizing what's justifiable and supportable according to the fee nexus study, but also setting it at a rate that makes the policy effective, like helping affordable housing projects become competitive and getting the funding that's necessary. So that was just really good for us, kind of having the end in mind, like what do we want to accomplish here, and then kind of working backwards as well. And then let's see.

So Rockland has an inclusionary ordinance, but they do not have an inclusionary in lieu fee component yet. I think recently staff went to city council to see if city council would approve a preliminary fee of, I believe, 10 per square foot. City council did not approve that preliminary fee because they wanted to see what the actual study would actually yield and kind of analyze it from the study that they could actually see instead of having a preliminary number in place. So now there are other jurisdictions in the nearby area that do not have any inclusionary housing requirements, and those include Elk Grove. Their update is currently in progress.

Currently, they charge residential and nonresidential impact fees, which is not likely to change in the update. I think they'll continue to charge residential and nonresidential impact fees. They have alternative methods of compliance, which includes land donation and providing deed restricted affordable units with value equal to or greater than the fee payment as calculated and determined by the city. It would be a discretionary process if developers elect to not pay the fee or pay a portion of that fee and then do something alternatively. So one thing that's really interesting about Elk Grove is that they are prioritizing their affordable housing fund to focus on affordable housing development on city land, which includes RFPs to affordable housing developers.

And so what's interesting, I saw from their website but also through conversations with staff that that's really their priority right now. They wanted to have more local control and to develop a project that the community would support. So Sacramento County also has a development impact fee, no inclusionary housing requirements here. They have an economic feasibility analysis analyzing the effectiveness of their existing affordable housing ordinance, and that's currently in progress. They also have both a residential impact fee and a commercial linkage fee.

And they also have alternative methods of compliance. But because Sacramento County is much larger than, I guess, the jurisdictions that have mentioned, those alternative methods of compliance need to meet specific Sacramento housing redevelopment agency guidelines. And then I believe just to cite a number,

right now

I think their fee for residential, I'm guessing it's single family residential, it's $3.79 per square foot. And so that's just a summary of the research that that we've done. And they were all very generous with their time and have provided materials that we can take a look at when we develop the scope for the Phenexus study. And I just wanted to kind of I know that there's been a lot of interest in special financing districts, and so that was also a question on my mind, having gone back on older affordable housing task force meetings and understanding what maybe the financing districts could provide to affordable housing development. And so I was actually able to speak to Dublin.

I know that that was a name that was kind of shared during the task force. And I just asked them if they have any CFDs. They do, but it's only maintenance, no infrastructure CFDs, and they currently do not use enhanced infrastructure finance districts towards affordable housing development. And then I was able to also have a conversation with Placer County. They do utilize both I think it's maintenance CFDs, but they also have the Sunset Area Enhanced Infrastructure Finance District, which uses tax increment financing.

And they did have some comments. I talked with the folks who were well versed in special tax district financing, and they did share that they do not use CFDs towards affordable housing development. If we're interested, that we should consult attorneys and experts in the field because it's very complicated in order to understand the Melarus nuances and how to use it towards financing affordable housing that would be kind of attractive to developers. Now in terms of the EIFD, the Enhanced Infrastructure Finance District, where they currently implement it for the Sunset area, they chose an area with an above average rate of return. They conducted a fiscal impact analysis to make sure that the service areas would not be impacted by the implementation of the EIFD.

And in terms of just how they publicized it and made sure the community backed such a mechanism, they had materials that shared that the EIFD would not draw, would not remove any fees from school district revenues. Nothing school district revenues would not be touched. Also no new property taxes or fees would be levied on the residents. It's just whatever they are currently paying would be allocated in a different way. So the EIFD length of existence for this EIFD is forty five years.

And they needed to create a special board, which consists of three board supervisors. I think there was one developer who develops in the area, and then there was one representative from Goodwin Consulting with public infrastructure and finance experience. And then I think when I asked them how the county would support a mechanism like this, they shared that it would just be allocation or diversion of funds that the county would already invest in this area. But then this way, this EIFD mechanism would allow locally generated dollars to go towards infrastructure, including affordable housing. They said that in the formation of the EAFD, they had to identify affordable housing as a potential use, but they did not need to call out specific projects.

They also shared with me that the EIFD formation process is a lengthy public process that includes a lot of community outreach as well. And so that's just a little bit that I learned about EIFD. And then I guess the last thing I wanted to share, since I heard so many great things about Dublin, I just wanted to ask them what's working there, not even in terms of just the affordable housing nexus fee or their use of special tax financing districts. But what are some things that they're doing that makes it easier to develop for market rate and affordable housing? And so just some background.

They do have an inclusionary zoning ordinance policy for for sale and rental projects. It's 15% for for sale and then 10% for rental based on what was feasible, based on their studies that they conducted. They do allow for alternative compliance, which is, I think, a theme across the board, right, to make it easier for developers. And they allow for land banking. What I thought was really interesting, it's not just even land donation, but it's this idea of land banking and creating a pad ready site for affordable housing development.

They also allow for the development of ADUs as well. One thing that was really interesting that they were very proud of and that I was yeah, I really liked seeing was that their first time homebuyer loan program, they actually increased it. I don't know what the original amount was, but they significantly increased it to $100,000 per application. So it'd be a thirty year loan term with deferred payments at 3% simple interest. And they said that after they increased it to $100,000 per application, they saw an exponential increase in interest for this program.

So other things that they do is they clear hurdles for developers by having a clean and predictable entitlement process in terms of CEQA, California Environmental Quality Act, environmental analysis. They also have the practice of relying on previously conducted or existing CEQUA documents for, like, a larger plan area so that projects don't have to do CEQUA on a project by project basis. Also, they've considered zoning changes, like scaling back parking requirements and then also allowing mixed use residential along commercial corridors. And I've seen this tool used in other jurisdictions as well, such as Folsom, allowing for residential and commercial corridors or even Rose Ville as well. I think the challenges that they mentioned are kind of no different than what we're experiencing in Eldorado County and other jurisdictions in the area.

They mentioned that hindrances to development of housing in general include high cost of impact fees, like we all know that, right? And then also funding for affordable housing projects, which we have affordable housing developers on our task force. They said that they've seen projects that even with city financial support from multiple funding sources, the projects are already entitled. They're shovel ready, but there's just not adequate funding to actually move forward. And so they've also stated that, which points to a larger issue than what we're doing locally.

Because even when local jurisdictions do all that they can, there are certain things outside of our control. And so, yeah, those are some things that we've taken a look at. I think just some themes that I've also seen, and I know that Rob touched upon it, like we're working kind of on developing the NEXUS study, but what I've also seen is that for the ROI, there's the development of the NEXUS fee study and also the development of alternative program components. What I've seen from nearby sized jurisdictions, they allow it to be more kind of open. I think Sacramento County makes it very prescribed, like you shall follow this formula to do this to engage in alternative methods of compliance.

But for other jurisdictions that are more like our size or a little bit larger or smaller, they allow discretion. They allow for a justification by the developer, and then at the very end of the day, it's discretion by the city council or the board of supervisors to decide whether it makes sense, and they would accept the alternative methods of compliance. So, yeah, happy to answer any questions. That was a lot. That was more than a few minutes.

Well, like I said, I just wanted to to get in. Sorry. It had been some time since we met and wanted to make sure that you all knew. You know, we're we're doing a lot of the legwork to try to bring, meaningful information to you all to to, consider and and respond to as opposed to, you know. So but I know, you know, when we don't see you for a month or two, it's kind of, okay.

Where are we at? And so we've got a lot of activities going on. And as Anna mentioned, the sort of the last bullet on this slide was developing a nexus scope. So one of the key points, right, is we're gonna be bringing and I'll just jump to the next steps here. You know, we're gonna be bringing back some of that, let's call it a framework of our nexus scope, for you all to take, you know, consider and and comment on and see if we're if there's things that, you know, you'd like to see different or focus or, you know, I know that we had discussions about that our nexus fee study shouldn't be sort of boilerplate or whatever.

And I don't you know, not having done quite frankly, honestly, a lot of those for affordable housing, you know, we wanna look to your expertise to kind of see where we're, you know, where we need to, make tweaks or where we're maybe missing something or need to focus on something that that sort of thing. So our intent is to, you know, bring back at the next meeting sort of, like I said, the framework of a Nexus scope. Then once we get that closer aligned, we'll I'll go figuring out how to, you know, pay for it and all of those pieces, you know, because I think we have some lots of monies that we're hoping to be able to utilize to pay for that, but we wanna get it have a good understanding so then when we go out to get, you know, to understand how much it's gonna cost, we're not going back and forth a lot. We we kinda have a a pretty sound plan on what we need. We'll continue to research and propose alternative program elements, so that's on a sort of that second component.

So we're not shelving that. We're working on that, continuously as well. But, again, our focus for this meeting was just kind of the update on what we've been doing on the on mandatory affordable housing fee part. And then, again, understanding challenges with affordable housing development and financing process just continuing to learn. As you can see just from our recent you know, we don't have a ton of these projects, and so we're learning from each one.

And and so, you know, we we wanna continue to expand our understanding. And, and I'll just maybe throw this out, which could include and up to if any of the members were available, maybe an overview of a project that you all have worked on where there was challenges, and you could discuss kind of what you went through, where the pieces were, where the, you know, the holes were, what the you know? Because I think we can learn from your expertise as well. And and you can read a lot about other projects and what they've done, but, you know, that, intimate experience is is something that we would, definitely value should any of you be willing to do that. And then lastly, kind of, you know, that received some feedback on what are we missing, you know, as you start to contemplate this and as we're moving forward, we wanna continually check-in if there's pieces of information that the task force need.

If there's you know, we're we're trying to get some more information certainly on the financing part. That's gonna be a big since we're talking mostly about fees, that's one of the key arenas that we're, hopefully getting some more expertise, you know, to to inform the task force or participate in that in that component because it's gonna be such an important component as we move forward. But, you know, anything that you guys see like, hey. It'd be great to have this or, hey. You know, take a look at that or, you know, we want more information on this. You know, we wanna hear those things so we could try to bring that information forward. And, so with that, that concludes our presentation, and we'd be happy to, accept any questions at this time. And maybe if mister Short is still willing, maybe just a brief overview of your background and experience.

Sure. If that's alright. So, Jeff Short, I am the government and public affairs director for the Building Industry Association. And in that role, I have had a hand in the creation of or the or the crafting of just about all of the local policies that you spoke about, not Dublin. I assume that's Dublin, California, not Dublin, Ireland, but still little outside my my jurisdiction either way.

So, you know, this is representing the housing industry at large. Most of our members are, of course, market rate builders, but we do have affordable builders. Most of our builders are single family builders, but we do have apartment builders as well. The biggest thing for the two biggest things for our organization is to make sure, as as you mentioned, that there are a variety of options available to meet whatever the affordable housing obligation that's imposed on us ends up being. And if there and and while we generally promote one of those options being some sort of fee, we need to make sure that that remains reasonable.

What we see over and over again with a lot of these Nexa studies is that the consultants justify the maximum and justifiable fee that market rate development can pay for using a circular argument around the generation of housing creating the need for services for those houses, and those services employ people who need affordable housing because they're not paid enough. And, therefore, the market rate housing needs to pay more to allow the affordable housing for the people who provide those services. We would object vociferously to that, to use an SAT word, and point out that the creation of all housing helps the supply side of the supply demand, you know, disruption that we find ourselves in right now. And so anything that puts especially an overmuch burden on market rate housing ultimately hurts the capacity for all housing, including affordable housing. And that's how we get to some of these studies.

For instance, the Folsom, as she said, that fee was just adopted in December. They settled on $3 a square foot. That is close to how what what they were getting on average from their prior model, which we also appreciated. But that study came back at something like $40 a square foot or something just astronomical that we know our market would not be able to bear or even come close to. And so we wanna be really careful about the language that's used in these studies.

Something on the order of $40 is is certainly not feasible. I'm I'm not aware of any market rate builder that would have $40 a square foot extra built into their pro form a, and we don't think it's justifiable, not only for the reasons that I just gave, but I also wanna be mindful of the fact, and and you guys talked about it too, that residential development should bear the only burden. This is a societal issue that we found ourselves in. And as an industry, my board has said we're willing to do our fair short our fair share, our point, our part in helping to solve the crisis, but we are also the only industry that's currently addressing it as far as building more housing and, again, increasing that supply. And so we do wanna see other sectors of the economy, whether it be commercial development, whether it be government, what can the nonprofit and and and, you know, religious sector do to help that we need to be looking broad based and not just at one particular industry to address this problem.

The other thing that I often see in these reports are that they they calculate what you know, the one of the ways they get supposedly at that 40 number per square foot or or sometimes higher or sometimes not that high. They use what what they estimate to be a profit analysis and figure that, well, they only need to make this much profit on particular sale. And if we fee we can feed them up to, you know, this amount, and they can still make that much profit, and that's fine. And and, fundamentally, we just see real you know, not to be hyperbolic. I I I don't throw this term around, willy nilly, but, that does seem like a socialist approach that we don't appreciate as an industry.

One, we find that their metrics are often very wrong on what construction costs are, what the rate of return is on building a new house. And two, you know, those types of numbers are very fluid. What we might see in this market here in March 2026 is very different from what we might see even six months later when the policy gets adopted. And so trying to, hit that target that works for, the long term, is something that I think we should really take a look at when we're developing that nexus and not try to use whatever profit, the consultant thinks it's okay for a company to make as a term. I mentioned before the the Folsom.

We were supportive of the the current Folsom policy as an organization. We preferred the old model where they actually took the sales price what ended up being the actual sales price of the home and said point 1% of that amount would be what your obligation was. And that way, it was very responsive to the market when times were good and and builders were making a lot of money, they could maybe afford for that to go up a little bit more. On the downside, when things weren't so good, they knew that at least that fee would take an extra chunk out of their pro form a, and they could always kinda count on what it would be. The city ultimately decided that that was too difficult to track.

I had my own concerns with that, but, ultimately, I think where they landed is probably the next best policy that I've seen developed differentiating between larger and smaller homes. I think we would prefer to see even further division amongst that amongst those those homes. And, and also pointing out that for rent product isn't, isn't charged the fee at all, that those types of projects are often already affordable. And even if they don't quite meet that level of affordability, the jurisdiction would need to count them as their Rina numbers. Again, going back to my first point, they are absolutely kind of first move up product that frees up more of those affordable housing components.

And so especially in a county like Eldorado where you do have plenty of sites zoned and and we're not worried about necessarily hitting arena issues anytime soon, I think focusing more on, you know, lowercase a, lowercase h affordable housing, making housing affordable should be would be a better goal than necessarily just shooting for that arena gets all the time. And that's one this is one way to do it. Couple of things that I really appreciated about, which, by the way, that is about the the most well done and comprehensive report I've seen on on this topic. And like I said, I've been doing this, you know, for a while and and a lot of jurisdictions. So kudos to you for the amount of research and effort you clearly put into that.

I think the only jurisdiction that you missed, and I'll forgive you for doing it because there's very little, I think, that Eldorado County would wanna copy from the city of Sacramento, but they also have a fee, and it's probably too high. I think it's similar to what SAT Counties is. But the one thing that they do that we do appreciate is they do carve out specific areas within the city that they identify as housing opportunity zones where this fee and others are actually cut in half because they want to specifically promote housing in those areas. So that is one some that is one thing that we might consider taking from them and, you know, ignoring almost everything else. But another thing that you mentioned that I appreciated is your talks with Placer County, and and it's it's been a long slog over there.

But they I think they've come around, and it sounds like they communicated to you that we really should have the end in mind. What is the purpose? What does Eldorado County wanna do with whatever fee is collected? Because that is, I think, what should determine how any nexus study is determined. Our position at the BIA is that, again, shouldn't be all borne by one industry, and therefore, the most efficient and generally affordable way for affordable housing to get built are the exactly the projects that you were showing us that use well, while I was talking to you guys, you know, they use a variety of different funding sources to to be able to to cobble their or and financing to to be able to cobble their the financing together.

And so the part that the jurisdiction should be most focused on is the public subsidy that when they say, okay. We've got a project ready to go, and all we need is, you know, x amount of dollars for gap financing, and we can produce 40 units, 150 units, whatever the size of the project is. In my research and I and, you know, maybe offline, I'd love to get more information if anyone has it. But in my research, generally speaking, in that, say, COG area that we talked about, the average public subsidy asked for is about 50 to $60,000 per door. Now I'm aware of projects much higher than that, but I'm also aware of a number of projects lower than that.

So I think, you know, 50 to 60,000 is a fair estimate. So that is sort of what we look at as what public agencies should be aiming for. That also tends to be how we get to that roughly $3 a square foot number that a lot of jurisdictions are kinda circling because on an average sized home of about 2,200 square feet, $3 per square foot, you get to you know, if your if your goal is 10%, you get to about that number. So that's how we get there. That being said, you know, I I don't know that even a a reasonable fee like that is the best way to move forward in all or even most cases.

Again, the goal here is affordable housing. The national association that I'm affiliated with, the National Association of Home Builders, does a study every year where they look at every metro area in the country, and they determine what the additional cost that government imposes on homes, what that prices out current residents of the area. And so for the

what

is it? Sacramento Roseville Folsom MSA, I think, is what we're in, every $1,000 added to the cost of a home prices out 575 current households, current families, essentially, who will no longer be able to afford that house because of that cost increase. And so even at a reasonable number like $3 we have to realize that $6,000 on a house, give or take, that is I lost my math already, but 1,500 families, I think, that could have and no longer would be able to afford that house for the sake of affordable housing. So I think we need to be cognizant of that on any fee that we impose, not just the one that we're talking about here today. So creative measures like CFDs, I would encourage the staff to continue to pursue, understanding that there might be new legal ground that we have to break.

That's not a you know, I don't I don't think that's a reason not to continue to explore it. Certainly, the EIFD model that Placer County has started, I think, is is smart, treating affordable housing like infrastructure essentially because we do need it just as much as we need other things that public jurisdictions, you know, put forth, roads and sewers and that kind of thing. The last thing that I had, and this might be more of a component two item, but I just wanted to leave it here while essentially have the floor, is keeping in mind that flexibility. I I can't remember off the top of my head what the county's housing element calls for, but allowing for ADUs and JADUs to help meet that obligation, not only is that a real way, again, especially if we're not super focused on Rina, but just focused on making housing affordable, this is a great way for, you know, elderly parents and, you know, recent college graduates or even people going to college or trade school to be able to live in what is an affordable house for them when, you know, they would not have stayed, with their parents or or whatever or maybe wouldn't have had the space to, but but are now having now have a place to live, that they can afford.

And so, so I I think it's good. I think it absolutely can be used to make Rina, especially for housing element already says it can. But even if it can't, I think that's something to explore. And a lot of single family developers also find that it adds value to their project because the buyer sees value in it regardless of how they may end up using it. So it it really can be a win win. And I don't think it's the silver bullet. It can fix every problem by any means, but in the spirit of being as flexible as we can on on addressing this challenge, I think it's a it is a key point. Okay. I've rambled rambled on way too long, but, I have spent a lot of time on this issue. So I appreciate you giving me the chance to kinda download everything.

Thank you. Well, thanks, Jeff.

And I think in prior meetings, we've had discussions about the ADU, and I think the county does count those into your arena numbers. Yeah.

Anna's probably gonna correct what I I'm about to say, but in that in that table that you saw, a lot of the nondeed restricted in those categories are ADUs. And I think under some new reporting requirements for 2025, and we'll have more discussion, you know, it's there's some new requirements to include those, and so we're going through that exercise, and we might have to sort of retroactively you know, you have to do a local study that sort of thing. But, yes, we, ADUs is one of our key sort of components to the housing, scenario. Fantastic.

Yeah. And I just wanna echo what Jeff said too. Anna, that was a great presentation, compiling that information. Did you, by chance, ask them, like, what the what is that size of that pool money that comes in from, like, their in loop fees, and how do they address it back out to projects kinda like what Jeff's talking about, what he what they the BIA says 50 to 60,000, how the jurisdictions size their loans, basically, they were like a residual receipts loan back to the developers similar to what the state does.

That's a great question. I think I can definitely get back to

the I know Elk jurisdictions. Yeah.

And ask them

that several projects in Elk Grove for other developers, and the city has to kinda pool their money till they get a a substantial amount to make it worthwhile. Because as as Jeff was saying, as as we know too on the development side, you know, couple 100,000 ain't gonna turn the dime on on a project. But if it's a couple million dollars, then that makes that gap close out or get very closer and help us also on leveraging other funds into it. So just curious to see, is it, like, every couple years they roll out, like, a a notice of funding availability after they get 3,000,000 or 4,000,000 to the pool and how long that kinda because that kinda goes into your component too that we're talking about too is how the city or I'm sorry, how the county better utilizes those funds because you don't wanna be just doing it every year rolling out, oh, we got 500,000 of account now. Let's put it out where we should wait a year or two even though that does impact your arena because you're not getting your projects out for her.

But it actually has a meaningful impact to the deal. So I I was just curious to how the other jurisdiction is looking at. It seems like in your discussion too, they're almost all revisiting their studies now, and they all seem to be in that 2 to $3 a square foot range. So that seems to be kind of the the standard, I guess, you wanna say for the for the SACOG area here.

I would say and, Jeff, you might know more than this. I know that, like, for Elk Grove and for Placer, I think they're still in the process of developing their fees, so we don't really know what that looks like. Like for instance, I think Placer County is $2.73 We don't know what they're going to go to because they're still in process. And then I think Elk Grove, similarly, it's at $3.79 But who knows if they'll go up. But to your question, I think every jurisdiction treats it a little bit differently.

I think there are some where the developers request funds. I know that specifically for Elk Grove, they would kind of go through that process, right? Like they have an RFP in mind, and then they would go through that specific process. But I think that each jurisdiction deals with it a little bit differently. I think some developers request that the city provides them. They request a certain amount, and then there's a negotiation that happens with it.

Think we we could certainly follow-up with an RFP or note notes of funding availability out because it's all public process, and they gotta be able to compete actively within that process and that side of it.

Yeah. We can certainly get some more more information too to

just kinda curate variability. How they size it and, you know, is it every two years, three years? Of course, that depends on market what need to. You know, if there's lots of housing being produced, then the fund grows quicker. Obviously, then when the downtime, we get farther periods of time where you gotta build those pools together.

And as we discussed before, most of our affordable housing fees have come through our development agreement negotiations. They're one on ones. Yeah. And and so, you know, they're they're kind of and so it doesn't put a huge you know, because it's only in those circumstances, you know, we're trying to expand that and and to the degree we can consider that. But, yeah, we can we can ask some more questions because I don't know if in Anna and I's discussion that we asked that kind of specifically, but, yeah, like, what's your routine? You know, are you waiting a threshold? Are you waiting for a project to come in? Are you putting it out and seeing what's out there? You know, we can get some more specific.

And, also, I like the some of the jurisdictions you're talking about had also on the commercial linkage side of it as well, which I think is needed too because as Jeff and as we've also talked before, they all need to kinda contribute to that because, you know, they're they're creating the jobs that are needed for the, individuals here. So we should have that kind of linkage back

to And that's one of the things, yeah, that we wanna understand. Is is that something we wanna do and put forward to the board and we think it's important and study because when we go to do, you know, the nexus fee study, we're gonna have to that's where all those components, and we'll have to, you know, go through the exercise of getting support on what we're moving forward with. But, yeah, we wanna make sure we're getting your guys' feedback on is that an important component that we should be, you know, exploring? Because we were really high level at the board, you know, affordable housing fee types of projects, non res, you know. And so now we're trying to whittle it down to, okay, what are we exactly

talking about? When you're developing the scope, you're gonna bring back at the next meeting. Have you then kind of talked to these other jurisdictions that are going out with their scopes right now and kind of comp using some of that information to kind of build Colorado County's scope then from that.

Yeah. Certainly reviewing the scopes that were out there. Oh, go ahead. No. Please. Reviewing, you know, scopes that were out there and how and the the fee studies that have come from them

that What works? What doesn't kind of type

of thing? That's exactly what we're trying to get at. Know? And I know we had conversations, and I believe it was me who spoke about, like, yeah, you don't want the standard boilerplate one, and I think you were getting into some of that. Like, we want a creative one that's gonna get to where we need to be. And so we're trying to figure out, like, what are the pieces that are working? What are the pieces that What are the considerations where, you know, we might wanna do something different or, you know, be very specific about what we want as opposed to it being broader, those types of things.

On that note, let me

just quickly because you you talked about city of Sacramento. One of the things

that city of Sacramento has done is they've done affordable by design, which is essentially cottages, ADUs, something, you know, three plus. Right? So the building code says single family home is anything under three units. The third unit is the one that kicks into the commercial vault.

Or or nonres. Right?

Nonres. How would that work? So there's there's some, you know, there's some stuff the legislature kind of

possibly working with some other stuff.

But, realistically, the thing about Eldorado County is you have large lots even in your. Right? And so you've got a lot of state that unlock private sector. Sorry. Saying yes to housing that then encourages EIFDs to create fees, long going fees.

Like Mello Roos, you have a property tax that could be diverted. So for those 100 new homes, you know, El Dorado County might get some percentage of every new future property tax that then goes into their affordable housing fund, that goes into their infrastructure fund. And vastly, if you think about it from the big picture, that is what's gonna have a greater impact on your affordable housing fund than, say, the first developer who's gonna put up $750,000 which pretty much will tank this small little deal to pay this affordable housing fee.

And, actually, if I could build off that just a little

bit Go

for it. In addition Riff. In addition to the EIFD that Placer County is doing, there are also conversations about a less formal less formal tax increment, you know, set aside that maybe isn't a a specific district or anything, but just an acknowledgment that as they're getting some new commercial development built in getting built, that they can take a percentage, this is a policy of that, and use it for affordable housing sort of on a countywide or at least, Western side of the county basis. So that might be a a less formal, but

big picture same exactly.

Been talking about.

Yeah. It's that tax increment that has long

know? Yep. We just tack that on there where it's not having that larger

And just on the growth that you're seeing because of the new development. So you're

not taking away bond for rather than, oh, I only have $750,000 in our trust fund account. Right. But you have the potential to raise $75,000,000 if you bond for it.

I'll get that done right away.

You're gonna have to walk those next steps altogether to start that.

It ties into all your planning, and it ties into all your builders who have come in to talk to you about all their or call it what it is, sprawl developments, right, outside of wherever.

You don't use the s word.

Okay. Let's say opportunity areas that have maybe they don't have all the same infrastructure as an infill site. So in that same regard, if you throw that district in there, you could say yes to housing because the housing there is going to promote affordable housing, is going to promote more infrastructure if you cast it in the right light. Right? If you capture the increment and then strategically have a policy that's gonna fund affordable housing, that's gonna fund infrastructure, that then you can say yes to all the builders to say, you've been stuck waiting to to start. Now we're gonna say go because this is how we're seeing it now. It isn't punitive. Every project must do everything under the sun. It's gonna be we're now working together as a district.

I guess one question I have, and it's a concern, I think, of some local jurisdictions that have considered these ideas, is I think typically, like I mean, outside of the redevelopment era, but infrastructure has really been the responsibility of developers. And I know that jurisdictions and decision makers in those jurisdictions didn't want to kind of take away that responsibility and then put it on the backs of residents. And I think that's a common concern when it comes to something like that's not maybe a maintenance CFD or even something like that.

So that's why they created MeloRouze to begin with, way back then, way back when there was a mellow and a ruse. It's not just wine, it's the name of the legislator. Right? What was it, eighty something? I don't know. Seventy something? Sixty something?

No. Was after Prop 13. Probably early eighties.

There you go. Early eighties, which was using which was allowing for builders to borrow money to build the infrastructure that you need today in order to promote the houses that you're building tomorrow. So that Melarus then became a mechanism that builders could use to build public infrastructure that then goes to the public agencies. There is no equivalent in the infill world. So Placerville.

You can't come in and just say, oh, I'm gonna do a Melarus for my 30 unit housing project. No. Developer does have to figure out how to fix to go from a parking lot to 30 units, and it's ungodly expensive because no one's done anything in a hundred years. So everything that's in there is 65 years old. So you touch it, you've got to fix it.

And so to make that a burden and risk for every developer who doesn't know what the heck is in the soil and they have to pothole to figure out if the pipes are corroded or if you can use them, that's how old some of this stuff is. And it shouldn't have to be the responsibility of the builder to fix all this public infrastructure that hasn't been touched in sixty five years. So that's why we had redevelopment agencies. That's why we had enhanced infrastructure tack EIFDs because we need a mechanism to fund this infrastructure that everybody knows we need, and then they throw on climate change. Oh, now you gotta raise all the pipes because the waters are gonna flood

and da da da da da.

And, you know, that's all because someone's decided that these are now the new rules. Right? And developer has no choice. They just have to accept. If you want, yes, you have to you have to agree to fix this problem, and this problem is ungodly expensive. So again, yes, we can just put it all on the developer, but then you're going to get the results that you have now, which is not the production that you want in the areas that you want. So if you can figure out levers to get incentivize the areas you want, come up with solutions to infrastructure to help fix those problems, then you can start having a working mechanism and a platform for housing to grow.

Yeah. And I know we have unique challenges even with cost of infrastructure, with topography, and all the other things that we have in the county

Yes.

That add to expense.

So So lean into your strengths and weaknesses. Right? I mean, a lot of it has to do with wildfire. Right? So then you're gonna say, okay. We're not gonna prioritize wildfire where we have no fire stations nearby. Right? Like, really out in these you know? So we're gonna focus on, you know, making sure that we have the most resilient roofs and really innovative and encourage all your property owners who wanna harden their homes, to harden their homes. Right? So you're creating these clusters of reinforcement. Right? Like, kind of the way I built up in Tahoe and just learning about kind of all the safety stuff they're doing in Tahoe. I mean, people are doing things to manage forests to protect the enclaves that exist in housing. So maybe that is where you begin. Right? Because your infrastructure is there.

Well, and not only that, but if you look at since the 2011 fire code, I think, which is the one that mandated all the sprinklers in all the houses, there has been one home lost in the state of California to wildfire built in a master planned community. Now, obviously, there's been a lot of devastation, including right here in El Dorado, of older communities. But as far as new homes are concerned, there has been one home lost in the entire state built since 2011 in a master plan community. To your point, when you build thinking big picture and not project by project, you can do things like a wall around the master plan with with a fire break beyond that so that each individual house or even each individual project doesn't have to necessarily figure that out on their own. You're protecting the project itself at scale.

You spread the cost around, which is, I think, the point that we're getting at. But you're also, from a wildfire perspective, better able to defend or, I guess, more efficiently able to defend more people.

And bring in more resilient housing stock for the next generation

Yep.

Period. Because the older stuff that's here has a lifetime, and you're probably living on its seventh life in some of the homes out there from 1920 and 1930. So you do have to figure out a way to promote a more resilient housing stock without having to subsidize every one of those homes.

So to the point of of developed homes not being engulfed in major fire, I think that was disproved in Colorado in Colorado Springs where one major development was entirely erased. So with what's going on with the climate, we can't be assured that anything is gonna be a done deal. Hardening homes is is very expensive process for homeowners. I've been through it. It is not cheap, and I have a small home. So it's

feel better for it.

Yes.

Right? It's just a little extra protection just makes you sleep a little sounder

at night.

Well, that that, did any other questions of staff? Or I appreciated the conversation. It's great to hear all you guys' perspective and, you know, continue to learn from your experiences. But based on what we provided, that's kind of where we're at, and we've identified next steps, and we, you know, intend to bring back additional information and keep, you know, putting it in front of you guys and and getting comments, and, hopefully, we'll get something more definitive for you to respond to where we're talking about the components and things we're thinking and and and to react to for the next meeting. Okay.

That sounds good. And then for the I I'll just say, so we focus very much on the ROI for the affordable housing fee, but I always always wanna keep in the back of our minds, that we have another component of the housing task force role, which is to start, you know, strategic planning in in efforts to inform our next housing element and just kind of looking strategically. And so we're talking a lot of those big picture items right now. So those will not only inform this, but those will inform some of those, you know, strategic planning, goals that we have as well. And then, lastly, I wanted to just thank, Amy Pooley from the Community Foundation.

You know, we, at the last meeting, she had intended to provide a presentation of some outreach efforts that they're doing. And and and so I just wanted to thank her. You know, we were unable to have a quorum, and that's okay. And we're trying to get her back at a future meeting to to provide an overview. But just for the sake of since this is the next meeting, I just wanted to thank her for that effort. And, you know, we look forward to having that presentation formally to the task force.

The the one point I wanna make is we are having a lot of conversation about what developers need. I don't wanna lose sight of what community needs

Mhmm. Mhmm.

In the conversation.

Mhmm.

And and that is affordable housing. And how do we develop that in a way that's gonna be attractive to developers but also to community? And what does affordable housing mean? How do we look at it? If we're looking at it from the same way it's been looked at for the last twenty years, is that gonna work in El Dorado County, or do we take a look at it in a different manner of developing a land trust, something like Saint Joseph, where homes are being bought at market value, then deemed restricted for somebody to be able to move into or purchasing mobile home parks with available county funds that can then be affordable housing.

So I I just wanna make sure that we look at it a little differently than what's been looked at before.

Thank you, Bill. Can I just add on to that? Because I was sort of I had that theme in my mind too. And, you know, I spent eight years as a state commissioner for the California Commission on Aging. So what is it? Huge population in Elvorado County that are seniors. And a lot of these folks can't live in their homes anymore. They're disabled, they're having strokes, they're having health issues. And so I'm talking with reality because I'm experiencing this with my elderly parents right now, but it's the entire continuum. It's assisted living, it's skilled nursing, and that's a huge, huge burden.

And whether that's partnerships with hospitals, but if you're going to think about the whole person in Eldorado County, you need to be thinking about that longevity. And then what it does, by the way, is it frees up their homes, because they're out. They have that first fall, they're in assisted living, or they're in the hospital. They're never going back home ever again. But if you have those places, especially with family around I mean I know it's not it's not arena thing, but it's a life thing.

And it's a do you want all your folks to maintain their health within your community, or do they have to leave to go somewhere else like Sacramento where there's more services like that? So you've got a lot of localized areas. You've got hospitals, you've got parking lots, you've got abilities because even your insurance companies and your health care workers will say they absolutely need skilled nursing, 100% hands down. And that could be a converted school or that could be something something. These are the things that no one's going to just say, going I'm to build it because I'm going to make a whole bunch of money doing this.

It's one of those things that nonprofits do that more mission driven organizations understand these gaps, and that they are here to provide these services. And I will just say if you have huge amounts of money in the future, if we build this thing up, you have these priorities. Right? So the county can identify senior senior assisted living or senior, know, the full spectrum of care. I guarantee that's gonna echo very prominently within your community because that there is lacking of that support. Adult day health center, caregiver respite, you know, this type of stuff is all related to seniors and families. So, anyway, just putting a fine tune. And

and the way I say that is, you know, the the the trouble isn't that we have an affordable housing crisis. We do, but we have a housing affordability crisis where all types of housing, including the type of special need, you know, the housing that people are currently living in is too expensive. We need to address it holistically, not just one specific type of housing. That's needed too.

For the new projects that come out of the

look at things holistically. Completely agree. Community. Community. Yes. Community view.

Yay. So we get to sit here at least every month and talk about what's possible, and at least it inspires us for the future. There you go.

I think One of the questions I have is

when I was asked to join this advisory committee, I was told it would be a six month commitment. So exactly how long will this somebody asked me the other day, is this gonna be just a standard committee that's gonna sit here for a couple of years? I said, I don't know. I'll ask.

Well, we haven't completed the task yet.

Yeah. I know. I mean, I I It's

like we're over a year end.

Yeah. I wasn't necessarily involved at the at the beginning stages, but, I I do think that was, six months was a, you know, an unrealistic expectation. We are you know? So I I can discuss that internally. I mean, I don't know that we, you know strategic planning and all that stuff, that's not gonna happen in a short amount of time. And so I do think maybe the role or at least my understanding of this commission's role is maybe a little longer term. And so, you know, we have our and it sounds like a long way away, but it's not. Our housing element update's gotta be 2029, so we're already starting to think and having discussions. What does that look like? And what is strategic planning that we're gonna build into that?

I don't you know? So I can discuss that. I think, when I sat here, I don't know, it was maybe, six months ago now that I've been participating in this, but I said, I imagine it's gonna take eighteen months to get to the end of these things that, we're trying to do now because I don't think six months is, you know, is realistic. And so that was my expectation just in these sort of two components that the board has sort of authorized us to do and and some of the strategic planning that puts us in a position where we're a couple years in advance of and we're informing our next housing update.

So, basically, we're here for another four years. Okay. Got it.

Well, I think, you know, again, I we we appreciate each of your willingness to participate. If there's some need to discuss kind of in game and what we're thinking, I can try to put some some better information related to that. But I do think housing in my mind and and we're trying to build, quite frankly, our housing staff within our department. Right? Because we're and again, and and Jen and others are involved, but we're kind of, you know, we're trying to build our internal program so that we have, more support and and better and maybe not better, but more experience in the housing realm.

And so, you know, that's gonna but to me, this doesn't stop because we have to continue to work on it for for now until I stop working here. But, yeah, as far as the task force, I can get a better you know, maybe I can put together a plan that gives you an idea of what we're actually thinking and making sure that, you know, the commitment that you signed up for is what you're prepared to do in the future and that we are on this, you know, shared understanding.

Sitting put a lot of time into it. Just a simple question about, you know, do you think this is gonna go a couple of years? Simple as that.

Yes. I think so.

Yeah. Yeah.

Okay. So so given that, would it be alright if I asked, about maybe the start time? Despite Jen's best efforts, I did, autopilot to the board of supervisors, so that delayed me a few extra minutes. But I I don't realistically think that I can be here earlier than 10:20 on a regular basis. Talking about that. Okay.

About maybe they're changing the start time to 01:00 to kinda beat some of the traffic coming out of Mhmm. Because maybe it comes from Davis side, and and so maybe looking at they're gonna look at that, maybe switch it to the fourth. Did we talk about the fourth Wednesday of

the month? Said the second and the fourth Wednesdays available in this room.

Yeah. So we have a standing so we were talking about maybe potentially looking for an afternoon slot to make it easier because it you know, we wanna make sure that it's, you know, that you guys are able to attend and that it's not an impact to you and your because then we know that you're doing this, you know, above and beyond all the things that you have outside of this room. And and so right now, we've kind of been on the third Wednesday, but we have a zoning administrator hearing that is standing at that time in the afternoon, and so we don't wanna put it too tight together. So we might look at a different Wednesday where we have an afternoon available, and maybe that works better for everybody. Does that work for you? Maybe less. Yeah.

How how about Jeff? Does that work better afternoons for you?

Rob, would it help if we sent out something that had some days and times kinda like a voting poll? We could send it to all of you, see what kinda comes back. And if you mark at least how many you are available for, then we can take whoever's available on those.

Look at the next few you know, and try to set a better scenario because, again, we appreciate your time, and we wanna make sure that it's not, you know, creating, you know, problems for you to get here.

I also wanted to mention next Tuesday at the board meeting on the twenty fourth for the Rina update to HDD is at 1PM time certain.

1PM.

Thank you. There is public comment at 1PM, so it will start no later.

Or no No earlier.

No earlier. Thank you. No earlier than 1PM, but it should be around then.

Okay.

Great. And then I also have just wanted to close the loop on a few questions that were voiced earlier to Bill's question about whether, you know, in the 100 owner occupied, 19% renter occupied, I I imagine that that was from census data, and it does say that mobile homes occupied by owners with installment loan balances are also included in that category. So so I would say yes based based on this definition.

That it's considered?

According to census data. Yes. And then to, I think Chris' question, Chris, Placer County's draft, nexus study, they have a table 12. I was thinking maybe we could just send it to you, where they have a list of projects that were awarded state and and or federal tax credits in El Dorado, Nevada, Placer, and Sacramento Counties from 2024, year to date 2025, and it shows kind of the the funding, the the list of projects, and then kind of the percentage of local funding sources. Because that because it just it's all it's all over the place.

And then do we wanna then move back to Jen and I too so they We

done with this

Don't we need to take public comment on item number three first?

Remove. How difficult would it be to find out how many mobile homes exist in Eldorado County?

Any mobile home parks or mobile home? Mobile homes.

I think we have that somewhere. We've done some research on it. So I can We could try

to look at that. We and and try to get a number for you if

you look at rental versus ownership. Because some people, right, they rent the homes or rent the

That might require a survey. I said we could probably find how many mobile homes there are, but in order to know if they're renting or owning, that would require probably some

kind of

outreach and survey. So, no. I mean, we wanna

bring meaningful information, but we also don't wanna go Yeah. Yeah.

We don't too tough. Curious. Yeah.

I think we need to close out item three, though, before we go back to third public comment.

Public comment on this item before we go to the next one.

Okay. Do we have any there's no public comment oh, do we do? Okay. We have some public comment in the room on agenda item three.

Good morning, all. My name is Lauren Hernandez, and I am resident in Shingle Springs, and I'm also the cofounder of a new community and economic development organization. We're a nonprofit here in El Dorado County called the AG. It stands for El Dorado Economic Generator and Germination. We're a bottom up solutions organization, so we believe that the best solutions come from those who are closest to the situation.

So, really trying to move away from top down. My background comes from public policy, so I love spending time in spaces like this. But as we can see, it's not really accessible or connecting with with many of people. So, many of those who need affordable housing or housing that is affordable to them are trying to work and make a living right now, and so their voices are are disconnected. So I know there's certainly going to be public outreach, but, we continue to see a disconnect from making sure that the processes and particularly at the beginning when a process is defined and when, the priorities are defined.

Defined. So a lot of times, the public outreach comes kinda afterwards and, after those are already set. And so we like to to continue to advocate that the robust outreach takes place on the front end so that the community can be part of defining what the process is and the priorities are. Couple questions I had, I I think, is really important, again, in process is timelines. So I don't see any lines within this update, and I think that's just really helpful for is this NEXUS study starting now? What are we looking at? Is this a two year process? Is this a six month process? Those kinds of things are really, really important. Again, making sure information is available accessible to people.

The housing element update, for example, I track this information professionally, but would not have known that that update is happening at Tuesday's board meeting unless I came to this meeting. So how can we make sure that people are really aware of what information and decisions that are being made at the county level, for to make sure it's accessible to them? So it would be really helpful to define and make sure that there's publicly available information of what the timeline is so people know how to track that. I also on the the RHNA progress, it would be really helpful. I know you highlighted a couple of those projects that went towards that progress there, but it would be helpful.

Is there a publicly available list to actually see every single allocation that was current that was tracked towards that progress, or is that something that would need to be requested through a public records request? Again, just having that publicly available for people would be very helpful, to understand where those numbers are coming from.

And

the last thing was, in terms of talking about the fees that have been currently collected. I did review, and it looks like in the last year's budget update, there was about 2,300,000.0 in the fund from those fees that have been collected in the affordable housing program funds, and about 1,000,000 on average is is going to offset staff costs internally. But, that would be helpful to know what is currently within that account and to provide those regularly in time updates at these meetings. So, again, there's touch points for, one, the board for the task force members to be informed of what those funds available are and also for the public.

Can I ask I'm sorry? I know she just finished, but can you repeat that about the the half the million dollars going towards what? Like, can you repeat that statement? I'm sorry. Just so I can

I I went back and and the budget updates last year, I think it was about 2,300,000.0 was in the affordable housing program funds collected from those in lieu fees, and that about 1,000,000 or so was used to general fund offset county staff, and it didn't look like any other extra

in our county? Because we don't have an in lieu fee in our county.

Looks like

But, okay. But I can maybe, get your email and follow-up with some of the information.

Sure. It's my understanding the county does. It's a 1% fee, that's been required, but maybe that's wrong. Okay.

I just

have an informal project by project basis negotiation. I don't think there's there's not a set a set in Luffy. That's kinda what we're trying to develop here with this ordinance.

Yeah. We'd be happy to follow-up and make sure that we're squaring the information. I think Yeah. We don't have a a

I Yeah. I think I actually know in the direction you're speaking of. I just wanna make sure. Yeah. Yeah. Thank you.

Thank you for repeating that, though.

I just wanted to

It's confusing and hard to track, I think, is the point of,

like, what

is the

or what the funds are. So the most public transparency.

Okay. Alright. Thank you. Alright.

Seeing no other public comment in the room. Is there any public comment online?

Alright. Now taking public comment from online participants. Please use the raise hand button if you wish to speak. Alright. We have no public comment online.

K. So we'll close agenda item three. Go back to agenda item two to 26 dash o three seven seven. Staff recommended the task force elected vice chair with the selection becoming effective at the next meeting. So we have a full task force now with one vacancy still looking to so who wants to be vice chair?

Alright.

I second that nomination. I

know. I know.

And, Jeff, you're I know.

Nope. I

Catching up on the short end here.

So I My eyes were down. I was examining my shoes very closely. Okay.

So do we need a do a roll call vote on this?

Yeah. We'll take a roll call vote. So, Mia King, how do you vote? Aye. Roby, how do you vote?

Aye.

K. Member Westlake, how do you vote? Aye. And member Short? Aye. Alright. Motion passes.

Alright. Congratulations, Vice Chit.

Good idea. Thanks. Yeah. Maybe I'll

I don't

have to come. Now we have a vice chair.

Alright. I won't follow Vance's role of I'll do the vice chair, and then two weeks later

You'll leave? Alright.

So next meeting, we we discussed that. Jennifer's gonna send out some information about some possible changes on dates and times for the next one so we can kind of maybe work better and get everybody here on time.

I could do this.

And and, yeah, I just wanted to add. I don't believe that the time and date of the meeting is in our, you know No. It's fine. Foundational documents. So it's just

I think it's

what somebody kinda wanna tap in the kind of the beginning of it. Yeah.

And I know we can cancel if we need or add more meetings, but it says at least one meeting per month minimum.

So Yeah. So if we can get that sent out, then we could and then that way, we can go over the Nexus study, the draft of that with the next one too. Great. Alright. We have a motion to adjourn.

Oh, do we need a motion to adjourn? Okay. I'll motion as your vice official vice chair, I'll motion to

I second. Alright. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Alright. We're adjourned.