Affordable Housing Task Force - Regular Meeting

Here.

Here. Here.

Here. Be kind of too. That's why you'll see two agenda items here related to in lieu and inclusionary specifically. Obviously, we've talked about particularly the in lieu the inclusionary quite extensively, but we still have to kinda circle back to that per that board discussion at the workshop. So we'll kick it off here with the in lieu.

And, really, what I hope to accomplish today is just to get an even tighter framework around what we might wanna present as an actual set of options to the board on an in lieu. The one I kept referencing for those that were watching on the eighth was Placer County. Placer County is a very common comparator county for El Dorado. But in the interim, I've been kinda combing through all kinds of jurisdictions all over Northern California, and I'm working my way further south as we go trying to find what other options exist out there. But, really, we've present we staff have presented a lot of different content to the task force.

We've asked for you to opine and provide feedback on various documents, including the one that's attached to this item. And, of course, that ROI that we talked about a couple months ago that ultimately didn't move to the board just yet. So what I think would be really beneficial for today's meeting is to dig in a little bit deeper specifically on an in lieu and the inclusionary piece so that I can come back in May and have an actual tight framework for us to just hammer away at so we can have it ready for June when we start heading back to the board in July. That's my intent. I wanna use the brain trust here.

I've we've obviously talked a lot about these topics, but these were the two that the board kinda narrowed down and in on at the workshop. So just wanted to frame it that way. I we reattached that matrix that you all enjoyed so much looking through as a homework assignment a few months ago just as partially as a memory jogger because it had some information in there, but also to kinda just, again, spur thought on this topic. So,

really,

I understanding kinda where we're at, I think we can quickly in fact, I even have a draft ordinance at my desk waiting to plug stuff in. So I'm eager to get there. I know you guys are eager to get there as well. Right.

And I

think the

takeaway from the board meeting too was that we'd have something back to them in about a hundred and twenty days.

And twenty days, which for us means in practice, we're gonna try to get back to the board by July 29. So we

have board go dark in August?

No. No. They have at least two meetings in

August. Okay.

Yeah. Yeah. So if we had to, we can push it into August if we're just not there yet. But we got this meeting regularly scheduled May and June meetings, and those all would fit in the timeline we need to get back administratively, get an item back to the board in time for the twenty ninth. If need be, we can also throw special meetings in there.

Just depends on what kind of progress we can make. And, obviously, it's gonna it's gonna require some tough decisions. Right? Because I I fully understand the position about on inclusionary and what that means, but and the inland piece as well because I've obviously heard the feedback that an inland fee that's of a certain size is gonna be a nonstarter for projects. So we really wanna zoom in on what does that look like. What is that threshold that we can adequately go to the board and say, here is the drop off point. Right. Yeah. Period. And I think that's where we need to kinda drive to if we can get there.

And I know that makes kinda all of us puts all of us kind of in an uncomfortable position. Right? Because Right. You know, staff are trying to carry

I think it by focusing it down into the in lieu fee and inclusionary side of it, I think will keep us focused on not going on any other tangents and keep That's the goal. The document ready to go to the board. Correct. Because several of the board members seem to be in concurrence with an in lieu fee. They recognized the $500 wasn't enough to refund anything. So it's that variable. What is what is that what's that number? And I wish Sean was here too to I know I know Vance is here too, but, I mean, just to have some other

I always wish Sean was here.

To have some other aspects. So when we start talking about it and Luffy, I know Vance represents everyone, but it just gets a little bit more feedback. Because I know it seemed like a lot the board members were kinda listening to when you discussed about the Placer County's model. I think it was, like, two nineteen or two sixty nine a square foot habitable square feet, and they were kinda doing some rough numbers what that would be for an average home in El Dorado County coming online, and and they were kind of running their own little numbers figuring that, I think, from the some of that discussion we had during that two hour meeting. And

Right. Yeah. And

Exactly. I I think, also, you mentioned Platzburg County is also looking at re adopting something or doing some changes to their in loop fees. So I don't know if it's going up or going down or or anybody knows anything. I don't know. Maybe Placer County? Yeah. Yeah.

I don't

know the details, but I know not just Placer County, Folsom, Elk Grove. I wanna say Lincoln. A lot of jurisdictions right now are in the process of updating their in lieu fees, and I think that's just the natural five year process that everyone goes through. And so I know Elk Grove, they started theirs mid last year, and we still don't have a draft of what that's gonna look like. So if Placer's just starting that process, I don't know how long it'll take them to get to an updated number.

Yeah. I timeline wise, I'm not sure how that jives with what we're trying to do.

But Have you talked to anybody at Placer County to see what theirs is generated over their term that I I actually

don't know exactly how much is generated over the term. I can find out and bring that back to you guys.

That'd be interesting to kinda see. You know, we all talk about numbers of, you know, x dollars per square foot or x dollars per unit, but it's actually even generating anything yet to make an impact too.

Yeah. We I can certainly find that out for the for the task force. I mean, then I I was just using the example when we were at the board of you know, if it was a saint assuming it was $2.69 per habitable square foot, assuming you have a 2,000 square foot average home, which might be on the small side for most of the developments we're talking about in the Eldorado Hills area anyway, that's about $5,380 per home. Say it's something like, you know, East Ridge, which is about $5,700 units, something like that. It was 500 units.

You know, that's $2,690,000 Right. Just on that development, and it's $5,300 on the home. So as you guys well know and we've established here, we have we have $2,500 in lose that are in our housing trust fund right now from two separate development agreements. The one off development agreement model is not the most predictable thing, a, for the county and certainly not for developers either. And I think everyone benefits from knowing what the playing field looks like on both sides of the ball.

So And it doesn't

help that they're negotiable as well.

Right. Right.

So It's like there's an option. It's not mandatory that they pay in, so that kinda hurts us too.

In in in looking through the materials with other jurisdictions, some of the jurisdictions are highly prescriptive, as you guys know, about every single little detail on an in lieu and inclusionary side. Others just say, hey. We got an if you're below 10 units, we're gonna do an in lieu. You know? So we can tinker and pull levers on this, you know, that would, you know, lessen that still achieves what the county is seeking to achieve, but lessens kind of the impact on the market rate side of things too. And that's what I'm hoping we can kind of drive to at this point.

We're talking about the in lieu fee first. Yes. I don't really wanna talk about the inclusionary, but but it seemed like the feedback from people that spoke at the workshop was kind of, you know, the in the inclusionary doesn't really work. And it seemed like some of the board members are picking that up from the past report and what you talked about, Vance. I don't know. We'll we'll talk about that in the next section. But

Yeah. So, yeah, we can talk about the next item. But, I mean, I think the goal there would be if it doesn't work, let's show examples of how it doesn't work. Right? I mean, I think

we need

the board looking for that because Yeah. Basically, even though they've been dealing with budget issues and budget cuts all day and then had to get into this type of discussion, they kind of pushed it back to the task force. What is our recommendations for an in lieu or a inclusionary requirement? Right. Instead of them they didn't say one or the other, but they just said to have us come back with our recommendations back then.

So which is why you know, that's hence, why I'm kinda coming back to you guys saying, hey. I know we talked about this, but let's see if we can get something more task force based

Right.

As opinion. And, of course, staff can always weigh in and say, hey. We think this is

In Luffy, what what are your guys' input on that then, I guess?

Well, I'm I'm sort of curious what the county's true motivation is. Is it to collect fees, like the $500, put it in your account, and then just wait for something to grow and then build housing, or is there a real desire to lead and use this as a tool to help leverage more housing?

I I mean, I think we certainly wanna leverage it to get more housing. I almost

said the latter. I mean, we yeah. We're trying to build up our trust fund, not just constantly go over the grant funding from the state. Wanna build our own mechanism of revenues to help create more affordable housing in the county to and, you know, so I think the second part of the ordinance then would be to establish what the fund usage is going to be with the board's input.

Yeah. Right.

So, yeah, so it's meant to help the county. Like, we could partner with the developer on our own with our own funds, or we could loan it to somebody trying to make a purchase. You know?

Right. And I think that's what we're supposed to do first is our first goal was to figure out the inclusionary or the in lieu fee to to generate. And then Mhmm. After we get this ROI through the board process, then start developing the trust fund or whatever mechanism would go trust fund. Yeah. Benefit to a developer with whatever fees or land or whatever's coming into it.

Yeah. I mean, I think the biggest challenge, of course, is the fee is never enough. Whatever it is, never gonna be enough to fill it out. I hear you. That's just calling it what it is. Right? Because even even plaster even some of these other jurisdictions, you know, with with these fees, part of the driver of those fees is because the house values are so high. Right? They're close to the Bay Area Bay Area. They you know, it's it's there's a higher rate of return on their investment. I think out here, it's a little lower. So then these fees, just from a, you know, economic standpoint, eat into the bottom line. Right? Especially when you're looking at interest rates right now. Right?

Interest rates are now, you know, 7%. You know, it pretty much blows up financing scenarios. So then the question is, do we wanna continue? Does accounting wanna continue to add burden on top of impact fees and fees and fees and fees and fees and fees so then nothing's feasible just to make it look good on paper that there's an affordable housing ordinance. I mean, I'm just saying what it is. Right? Or you know? And I guess I'm a little distraught because I've been I've been, you know, floating the idea around this. You know? Can you find other ways to make this work?

I e, if you're doing, you know, CFD or any kind of infrastructure financing or Mello Roos financing, now that idea I brought up, you know, I've I've daylighted it with a couple of people who are very smart in this field, and they thought it was brilliant. Right? So, like, can you tap into something else that you can deliver, that you can create revenue from that isn't coming from the guy who's trying to make the deal pencil right now? That's my only question because we all know if you are going to add more cost and burden to a big developer who's building delivering 500 homes, the cost of each home will be higher to offset the cost of what they're having to lose in building, whether it's in lieu or whether they're doing dedicated or, you know, inclusionary. So just I just want that to be on the record, that that is what the circumstance is.

So if the goal is just to make it look like we've got this sort of fair and balanced approach to development, okay. You know, we've seen it work. I mean, it's it's in other places, and we've seen it work here where it actually hasn't moved the needle very much. Right? You guys haven't been producing a lot of deed restricted affordable housing, inclusionary housing, or any or even fee generation in whatever existing programs. So to do more of the same may end up in the same result. That's the goal? Okay. If that's what you want us to say. But if you truly wanna actually get at building more housing, I just hope that there's a different approach.

You know? And maybe it's more of, you know, the county taking you know, what what frustrates me a little bit is, oh, just let whoever developer out of the blue take all build all the affordable housing, and we just wash our hands a bit or give us enough money. You know? And I guess I'm just trying to suggest that maybe the county needs to be a little bit more proactive if you actually wanna do it and then find a way to deliberately, you know, find these kind of checks and balances to incentivize the housing to create the revenue streams that then help you build affordable housing. If that's not the goal, if the goal is just we just need a hammer, and we're just gonna hammer away at what we want and then let the chips fall where they are, so be it.

But I'm guaranteeing it's not gonna be a warm and friendly reception likely, you know, big developers to say, oh, by the way, your fees have now just gone up. So that deal you've been working on for ten years, you thought was one way, is now gonna be here because we just passed a new one. So in my opinion, that's probably not gonna get it off the drawing board. So then maybe is there a way to kinda look at both? You know? How can you incentivize some of the action you wanna see? At the same time, in different bring in, you know, maybe new revenue streams to kinda get that. But if it's the same old, same old, just think you're gonna have very similar results.

And I know you've mentioned, like, going out to, like, other jurisdiction like, districts and stuff and asking for fee discounts and, you know, that kind of stuff. And then new in our board policy, we do have a building fee waiver that if people apply, and it even is offered to nonprofits with the projects that they come in with a project to apply for low income. They can get building fee deferrals. So it's not due, and it is deed restricted until resale or refinance of the home or something. We haven't done it on a larger project, but that's something we could open up to maybe make some changes on as well.

And it wouldn't be a deferral of, obviously, of all the building fees, But I know we've offered them to homeowners for rehabilitation loans where we defer it until they resell or refinance, and so it is that's another option of cutting down the cost for the affordable developers as well of looking at, you know, like, even a 25% discount with fire districts or something. I don't know. You know? Working with them in the county too. All of that helps.

Yeah. Every

little Yeah. So, I mean, as it could be a deferral on the property of some sort. But, yeah, then I mean because mostly school fire CSD fees are sometimes more than our fees

Mhmm.

Alone. So Do you

guys have a big transport fee, transportation fee?

We're working on that one. K. Megan. Right? Yeah. Yes. Doesn't

matter where you are, the

county. Yeah.

Well, unless you're in the city.

Oh, Placerville?

Yeah. Placerville or something like that.

Yeah. In the city limits, you don't pay that fee.

Yeah. But maybe there's a way you can do the in maybe there's a reduction on the in lieu fee if there's a way we could do the CFD.

Well, I

mean I know we've talked about that, a percentage of whatever that that total CFD to go into, like, a we talked before, like, a community benefit type program so that it's a broader base on it.

Mhmm. Because, essentially, it's financing. They're basically they're financing the fees, but it's not coming directly out of their pockets.

And we do have a traffic impact fee deferral program for the bigger developers and for homeowners if they come in and ask for it. So we are running that program right now too where it is offset by DOT's grant funding Okay. That they get in.

But isn't there a limit, though? It's I thought there was only so much he had available each year that you could offset, though.

Right now, there's enough I mean, we just gave an offset June '24 for a million dollars to a developer, and there's still 11,000,000 in the fund.

Okay. So it can

be guys are It's an application, period.

You're talking offsets and deferrals, and I think that's where the confusion is. A limited amount for offsets. Deferrals, they can give as many deferrals as they want Okay. As long as eventually the money comes in.

Yeah. But, like, you're talking about financing, though, there is for the TIF fees, that's a little different. They don't pay that back unless they're not in compliance with our program guidelines, basically. So the bigger developers are definitely going after those for their projects, luckily, and the money is there right now. And a million dollars goes in every year. It's just depending on how what the cost of the TIF fee is and how many units they have. It depends on how much we give them.

It's also mostly for commercial projects at this time. It's not primarily for residential.

A resident I yeah. Like, ADUs, we used to charge TIFFees on accessory dwelling units, and we used to provide the offset to those people as long as they could prove that they were housing low people in those homes, and we deed restricted them. But ADUs are now exempt from the TIF off or the TIF program in general.

So so most of the larger projects, what do you think the size is where they actually do a CFD, though? Because you're gonna have some projects that maybe, I don't know, thirty, forty units that may not be doing a CFD, so you wouldn't be able to Mhmm. Collect no. I don't wanna say collect, but you have that fee be able to generate from a CFD bond. So then they would you'd have to have your end load be able to have some return onto that then.

Yeah. I mean, I

guess Unless the bigger ones, they get a reduction on their in lieu if they have a CFD. Maybe some structure

Something like that. I mean I mean, I don't know what it is exactly, but I just think it's another tool that's just as an option to raise money.

The more tools, the better. Right. I I don't think I mean, from a staff perspective, from a board perspective, no one's gonna complain about having a bunch of tools. I mean, I think that if we can kinda tease that out and show, you know, what that looks like, we have an example of what a CFD might look like. Because, conceptually, I understand what you're saying. But until we get something on paper that looks like Vance,

do you think that's something that your members and the and the and the bigger developers would be considered if they had a a reduction of if you're if you're doing a CFD for, like, a 200 unit project Mhmm. Then your in loop fee is down here. But if you're not doing a CFD, it'd be higher. So they would know their numbers where they're at. Mhmm. And that CFD would not really be coming out of their bottom line side of it.

Yeah. I think it's something they'd very much be interested in, you know, anytime they have the opportunity to, you know, incorporate some type of of CFD or infrastructure bonding, whatever, you know, they they capitalize on that as much as they can. So if if in lieu fee is gonna be created, if there's a way to work it into some type of financing structure that prevents them from having to increase the cost of a home. Right.

So it's a reduced maybe it's a reduced in lieu fee if they had the CFD. And and I don't know what the size of most of the projects that have to do with CFD are currently right now in El Dorado County. I don't know if it's what what's kind of that triggering.

Is anyone proposing anything right now, like a Mello Roos? Is is it is there any development right now that you can kind of spotlight that we might be able to look at there?

I have to confer with their planning team. If they were doing that, it's in the context of a development agreement conversation of which we wouldn't really necessarily be able to daylight at this point anyways. So but we can certainly go back and, again, at least query and see if if something exists to that extent.

But then you wouldn't be able to tack it on to an existing CFD if they're if they already had their phases going up.

I think the projects that are this far along in the process probably wouldn't be really relevant to this discussion anyway. Right? We're we're talking about future stuff. Right. Yeah. I do wanna say I I'm curious if this is a conversation that's happened at the staff level, which is if we're gonna do an in lieu fee, is the kind prepared to do a nexus study? Because I'm fairly certain that's a legal requirement for establishing an in lieu fee.

I'm pretty sure we'd have to.

And so if we're gonna do a nexus study talking about the value or the the level or amount, whatever, of that in lieu fee here kind of irrelevant. Right? We we can't really tell you it should be $500. It should be a dollar a square foot. We can't come up with that. That's gonna have to be the product of a very thorough study.

Yeah. From taking these studies to the board, it's just helpful to at least see what like, even you were talking about, like, what's splatters. You know? Taking something to them to show what other jurisdictions are charging for their in LUFI, if it's based on a square foot versus just a flat amount. I don't know. Like, some are a little different. And then, I mean, our board is very big on seeing it on paper and charts. So even if you guys are saying some pros and cons like you are, it'd be super helpful for us to even give that information when we're showing and reporting out. Like, we can do an in LUFI if you wish to do one and put it in the ordinance. You know? But, obviously, if you guys have some pros and cons about it, I think they'd like to hear that and see it.

So Nexus study would also kinda determine what that value would be, though, wouldn't it?

Exactly. It would just it would tell

we may say $2.69. The Nexus study may come at $2.55.

Yeah. And we're going this county higher.

Right. Yeah. And, obviously, that would go before them at the board too. We'd establish it in probably our own fee ordinance instead of putting it in the affordable housing ordinance that we're creating now. It would just be that the department will establish an in lieu fee.

So the conversation we're having today on an inLUFI is really best focused on the pros of an inLUFI, the cons of an inLUFI, and all of the other tools that would have to come along with an inLUFI if that's the route we were gonna go. Right?

I think that's what Chris is saying is, like, maybe not no. Sorry. Chris Perry. Your guidance too is, you know, saying, yeah, we need to pull this together to say, you know, what are your comments? We'll write them all down. This is something that we can report back then to the board because when we were at the board and with their questions, you can tell that they're looking for concrete evidence.

Mhmm.

And that really helps in the discussions for sure.

And so I'll just then continue on the general string of pros and cons and all of that. I just wanted to clarify that, you know, we weren't gonna come up with a number today. You know, when when we're talking about That's next

month. Yeah. Next month. For May.

We are the nexus. So, I mean, me already touched on it a lot. Right? The fee burden in the county is excessively high compared to neighboring jurisdictions. May be going down, thanks to reworking of the transportation impact fee, but even still, extremely high.

So, you know, if we're talking about a total impact fee, if we look back at the BIA study that I shared a couple meetings ago, the fee study showed that the county was somewhere in the 80 to $90,000 range per unit in impact fees. We're updating that study now. We know that number is gonna be higher than it was last time we did it, so we're probably in the ballpark of around a $100,000 per household. Any in lieu fee that adds, you know, $5,000 to a project, $2,000, anything, it's gonna be significant, and that's really gonna be felt at the home buyer level. And so I'll just reiterate Mia's point of we need to get creative.

We really need to not so much look at the tables in charge of the other jurisdictions and really see, can we push the board to do something that no one else has really tried before? And I I think this financing option is really worth considering.

And they're already doing it. I think it's Dublin that's doing something similar to that.

Yeah. That was the one I think we

were looking for. I've heard about that that has, like, a community benefit. A certain percentage of that CFD goes into the community benefit fund, which then funnels back into doing affordable housing. Mhmm.

I actually did a quick Internet search. She was sort of curious out of I was wondering if, you know, you gave us all these lists. Right? Has has anyone ever acknowledged or disclosed how many units of affordable housing they created from these ordinances? Is there any, like, is there any, like, summary at the end? Like, these things have created x.

So if you look at, another document that I shared a couple meetings ago, which is the study that the city of Sacramento had used when they were considering readopting inclusionary. They didn't. They included, the affordable units produced for all the jurisdictions, not necessarily all the ones in here, but the jurisdictions they looked at, I and happen to have here in front of me. And so, you know, we can see that San Jose, 6,000 units. Denver, 5,579. Portland, about 7,800. Davis, seven fifty two. Folsom, eight eighty four. Roseville, 4,645. And so it's it's really interesting to me. Oh, I'm so sorry. Those were just moderate. Next time I do this, I'll wear my glasses the

whole time.

But total units

I know. Was like, damn.

Something's working working over there.

But yeah. So total units still across the board. I mean And we're

talking a 120% and below. Is that that

That would be median. Right? 80 to a 120. 80? 80 to a 120 is

Well, so this is what what they categorize as total affordable units produced from a result of their in lieu fees and and such. And so if you look at their low, very low, that's, you know, Roseville, 3 80. Sacramento, 4133. So the numbers are out there for most of the jurisdictions. None of them particularly earth shattering. Right? No one's beating the arena numbers just by creating an in lieu fee. It's just something.

It sound like the administration, but in all of the above all of the above kinda strategy. Right? I mean, because we're we're slowly chipping away at RIA numbers anyways just based on what the state has given us. Right? Right.

But we need additional inputs to actually get there just to meet Rina. But to your point, Bia, and this is something I mentioned to the board is, you know, is meeting Rina, which is very important for us, obviously, because the consequences. But there's the wider question of how are we solving affordability? Because most of us understand unless you're gonna deed restrict, you you your ADU in the backyard that someone spends, you know, 150, 200,000. They don't wanna rent it for $500.

Right? I mean so, you know, we may be doing things that the state is telling us we need to be doing, and folks are eagerly building these units. But are we actually solving affordability? To your point. So it is gonna be kind of all of this. And we haven't even gotten into we're still scrubbing, you know, our surplus land capabilities and what that might mean. And we haven't touched the topic of, you know, manufactured homes or tiny homes or we haven't gotten into any of that. We're just still trying to kinda skin the cat on these Yeah. These tools that other jurisdictions, many of them have in place. But to your point, are they working or are they not working?

And that's, I think, where we have to make an educated opinion to our board about the merits. Well, I think

we kinda you know, the best example would probably be the plaster accounting one to see what they're doing Right. How long ago they implemented it, what they've been done since then. I mean, the market's down a little bit for production probably, but seeing what that's actually generating because I think the board's gonna the board seemed to really pick up on that model from the people that spoke at the workshop, both virtually and in person there, that they seem to grab onto that. And since it's a sister's county, they could use a like for like type of model, I think, that we were looking at on that. Right.

Not saying that pricing is the right range, but but It's just an example.

That's what they understood. Right.

But if we go down that route of trying to mimic the overall structure of Placer County, then we also need to take a look at the affordable housing trust fund and housing trust Placer and the way Placer County leverages that model to really get the most bang for their buck out of their admin fees.

Right.

So that's that's the other flip side of it is a potential restructuring of how they manage that money.

Right. And that gets the question of, you know, if we have an opportunity on surplus lands, we could provide, you know, highly affordable land for you know, then we can help subsidize the stress

on have once we get to the in lieu and the Exactly. The I mean, even what Vance was talking about about do we form a separate entity? I have pros and cons on that because I think there's a lot of also benefit of just because I see it in housing authorities that are developers, and they don't really play fair with everybody else. Mhmm. Mhmm. Kinda control they have that control. Not saying it's a bad or good thing, but that it doesn't work in a lot of areas I've worked around the state.

In in my opinion also, you need, like you need a body that's gonna cut through the incredible amount of red tape. Right? Because it isn't just your building department. You know? It's engineering. It's land. It's you're touching the dirt. If it's over an acre, you then kick in storm water. You know? There's just so many factors that hit at making housing so expensive.

And so then, you know, like, if you're really gonna take an approach that's radical, then I think you need a department or a czar or someone like that who could who is empowered to some degree to find ways to get more housing production. So what we're seeing across the state, no matter what, in Eldorado and everywhere, ADUs are exploding. Right? Why? Because people have their land, and they're frustrated, and they need a place for their son to come back who just graduated from college, can't find apartments. Right? Period. Or, you know, elderly or childcare or whatever. Right? Or that unit. And it's also because there's no impact fees. Right? It's a by right. You must. Right?

So we're gonna see more of that. We're we're moving I I just testified this morning in the assembly housing for assembly member wards bill a b six, which is trying to look at doing 10 units under the residential building code, which is gonna then lessen burdens and things like that. So it's almost that, you know and and what I've been telling certain jurisdictions who don't have any of the tools because they're too small, maybe they're rural or this and that, I said, you know what? You can make up whatever the state's doing for your own jurisdiction. You know? Like, you can create these laws and say, wanna streamline this. This is a by right. We're gonna let this happen here because we care, because we want this. This is a priority. This is our elected's priority.

And it isn't just on the you know, we're gonna create housing on the backs of all these, frankly, sprawled developers who are really far away from goods and services and jobs. Right? Because it's land that someone owns that's on a hillside that can be 5,000 housing units. Granted, that's great. Nothing wrong with that. But it's not necessarily your workforce housing, you know, that people are working in Placerville can afford. So if you're looking at the whole picture, then you're like, what other what other things can we do to stimulate the private sector to get to build us the housing, whether it's modular in their backyard so they can do four units? You know? Whether it's this, whether it's that. I mean, there's so many different things you could be doing rather than, oh, we've solved it because we're making the big developers pay fees.

All they've done all all that's done is brought in a little bit of money and dampened the appetite for developer to come to El Dorado County. So it's kind of, you know, a negative to some degree. So then how do you turn that around to say, we want you guys here, you know, whether you're sprawl, whether you're infill, or whether this, because all this housing helps us, right, to some degree. And, anyway, so that that's just my I'm just I'm worried that you go into this very narrow mindset of we must do this because everyone else is doing it. This is like the popular kids are all, you know, eating at the popular table with their in lieu lunch and their inclusionary, you know, menu, and that's all there is.

And I just feel like, you know, especially in El Dorado County, there's certain factors you don't have here. Reason why inclusionary works again is because you can sell $2,000,000 homes. So if you're not selling $2,000,000 homes, it's hard to absorb all those costs.

So I think, like, Chris and Vance were I mean, what we need to do then is list the pros and cons of B and LUFI's, show the board, hey. If we have one just like Placer, we could even use their dollar amount and hope it's semisimilar and do a mock here's what a billing permit would then cost a developer if we were to go down this road. And then I've we've done examples like that when we've done fee updates because they wanted to see what is it today and what's what is it gonna be. And so, I mean, those are options that we can bring to them in July. And But then tell them, like, you're saying, so instead of abstract.

Yeah. But and and saying unless it's you know, like you're saying, there's many other options that we can go down this road. So, I mean, if we're feeling like in lieu is not the best route, then we need to be able to

express that the

right way.

Of the routes.

Right. It's not the only route. Yeah. And and

that's why going back to me

is show them what it's gonna do.

I think if there's a way we could tie the two together

Mhmm. Mhmm.

So that it's not a larger impact for the master developers. If they're doing 500 homes, they're not paying 5,000 a unit, but maybe they're paying 2,000 a unit. But there's also a CFD, I don't wanna say surcharge, but some type of percentage that's coming in. So it's not as bad of an impact to the master developer, but it's still meeting production goal for the county to generate funds to go into whatever program we decide later this year, but to generate some type of revenue producing.

So, really, an ordinance could essentially say, homebuilder will pay, you know, x dollar affordable housing unit fee, which, by the I'm gonna start calling it an affordable housing unit fee instead of include or instead of in lieu because that means in lieu of inclusionary. Right. And I'm just gonna get a jump on that now. So you can pay an affordable housing fee. We'll pay an affordable housing fee per unit. Right. And then the ordinance will go on to say, this fee can instead be financed through the establishment of a CFD, yada yada yada. Right. And that's It's still where

we're have supply it. Right?

And then to be massaged. Because the other thing too that I think is really important is that it maybe it's not just a onetime capital expense. It's thirty years of revenue that comes in. I see a beat. With the CPI index. Sure. Yeah.

Yeah. And and furthermore, I mean, if that money comes in, we have other options. We can do acquisitions and rehabilitations and all, I mean, all kinds of

Yeah.

Yeah. Or maybe it's not even that. Maybe there's a piece of land that wasn't going to be used, and instead of doing a third park, it's being set aside for you know?

But but, Vance, any of the master developers are doing CFDs if they're doing a couple 100 units, aren't they, basically?

Or It really depends on the jurisdiction. For example, I have a jurisdiction where they cap how much you can finance through a through a CFD. Right. And so they're they're breaking it up into smaller projects.

I'm talking about Elvira County. I don't see anybody just paying out of pocket doing all their off sites for 200 unit project.

Upfront.

Upfront. No. Right. So it would kinda cover all the larger master scale developments. The other ones, I don't wanna call them mom and pop, but the thirty, forty unit projects are very gonna fund that themselves. And so that they would pay the affordable housing fee. But they could do a CFD still if they want. Right?

Right.

They could still do that.

And I

would say it should go on commercial CFDs as well as residential. So if you're doing a big strip mall or office park or something like that and you're doing Industrial. Industrial just like, you know, you have affordable housing fees, You absolutely so it's basically anytime residential. Exactly. Anytime the county acts as the financing agent to pay for, quote, unquote, infrastructure, in many ways, affordable housing is classified as infrastructure. You did that. Remember? The early prop

one bonds? Prop one c.

Yeah. That was all because it was in infrastructure. So you I think you can make the argument that anytime the county does a Mello Roos or CFD or any kind of financing, there's, like, a built in affordable housing fee whether you know, that that then could be financed into all these things. I guarantee it's gonna make a difference. It's subtle, but it would make a difference.

So just in a preliminary search, you said so Dublin is one jurisdiction that's Mhmm.

Usually That's the one I know of. Yeah.

Yeah. I don't know anyone using this tool. I made it up as I was driving here.

No. It's brilliant. Dublin's doing this, though. They they got a similar type fee into their CFDs.

Okay. Good. Good. Good. Good. Okay. Perfect. So then let's let's let's dial into Dublin.

If because I I mean, we like I said, we wanna kinda model this.

Yeah. And Someone else

able to explain how that actually works. Right. Particularly, you know, we gotta the CFD is gonna run through, you know, multiple departments here, not just the board. You know, our auditors get a look at it as well. So we just wanna be able to explain this really well. So

I it would help me to understand what a CFD is.

It's essentially financing. It's it's tax exempt financing that in a way the county acts as like the lender, like the intermediary lender because these are all paid for out of additional property tax. So when you buy a home in a subdivision that has a mellow ruse and it has a swimming pool and it has all the street lights and And what that is is that little extra piece is paying off the infrastructure bonds.

To do all the streets, roads, lighting, and everything else in there.

It's a community Facilities District. Acronym stand for it. Yeah.

Community Facilities District.

Okay. So it's a CSD? No.

It's a little bit different than that. Community you're you mentioned Miller Roos earlier. It's very common in Placer. Like, most of the development in the last fifteen, twenty years has been Miller Roos development down there, which is a CFD. You know you know what a landscape lighting district is? You ever heard of that before? Similar. Similar, but, like, same type of idea where you're paying through this entity. You're in

a certain subdivision, you get your streets and your sewer and water that came in. Instead of that developer paying $10,000,000 for it, he has spread it out over those thousand homes, and it comes on their property taxes each

each not paying for it. It's the guy who buys a house. Right.

Who's paying the initial cash out there?

No. It's the they borrow it.

Yeah. So the developer finances the

borrow it. Yes. Right.

So instead of, like, getting a bank loan just to build the house and then they pay off the construction loan after the house is built, essentially, this is a giant construction loan for all the infrastructure that the developer is not on the hook for. It's all the future, the 500 new home loan.

And that way, it's not on the sticker price of the house.

It's not on purchase price.

And it just shows up on your tax bill.

Yeah. Yeah.

And you can write it off if you're under. By

the way, quick little chat GPT search. East Garrison and Monterey County, San Francisco, and City Of Woodland have allowed, affordable housing fees to be paid through, CFD.

How interesting.

What was the first one you said? East. East Garrison. Garrison.

Know that one.

Yeah. Woodland as well.

It's very. It's pretty woodland.

I love trashy food.

I said I

don't do the flat.

Okay.

It's at least you know? And I think it's it's germane here because it's how you guys it's it's how much of your housing is built.

Yeah. Well, and I think it's also a benefit to the master developers that are coming in doing these projects so then now they don't have to raise the price. If we have a if the county has a 5,000 fee or whatever, they don't have to add this 5,000 to the purchase price.

Yes.

That would be on new developments going forward.

Single family houses.

Single family. The CFD would be on, like me was saying, not just a residential master plan, but also if they're doing industrial parks or commercial centers, they will do those CFDs on those as well, and we'd still be able to pull a affordable housing fee percentage out

of that. So once this ordinance passes, it would become effective as of that moment. Right. So the county knows what's in the pipeline for development. So you can extrapolate out that that revenue based upon

that. Anticipate. Well, I mean, it's

We don't exactly know how much each of the units is gonna be yet, but we an idea of the number of units that would be coming for. We could make assumptions.

Let me make a hypothetical assumption.

We just Based

on one of the

based on

surrounding neighborhoods, but it's not gonna be we'll give you a picture.

It'll give a ballpark.

Yeah. It'll be a ballpark only because you could see what the last couple c s CFDs have done, you know, how much is that per per lot, and then extrapolate that to what you got in your pipeline.

And that'll give an estimate on on what the gating number is going to be. I come from the nonprofit world, and I don't know of a nonprofit that doesn't use blended funding for everything they do. And I think this is one leg on the stool that needs two more. Sure.

Yeah. So do you need more discussion on this set, or do you because I'm also looking at interest of time. What do we have? Two hours on this?

We do. Okay.

We're going till 06:30 again.

Oh. No. No. No. We all have to Oh.

I didn't bring enough to eat.

Pizza coming.

That's that's and I think what I would so we can do some research on the CFD concept and see what we can dream up. Does

that give you guys kind of some steps forward then for

the I think it would also be I mean, obviously, this is all recorded, and I'm we're all taking notes. But, know, if you wanna provide us feedback in the interim and just say, hey. This is great. This is great. Pros and cons on whatever, you know, in lieu fee, we can integrate that as well into our next slide deck that we're gonna present to the board. So we're not I mean, because there's some finite points that you guys make that only you make. Right? Right. That you're gonna make better than any of us. So we can capture that. That would be fantastic. And in the meantime, if you have any, we'll like I said, we'll try to we'll look at the CFD option, see who we can dream up. If there's anything else you guys find in the interim, please send it over. Okay.

And The one comment that Mia made that I think is really critically important, you can start a process, but if you don't have a driver, it's not gonna be successful. And there needs to be a driver to this process. The the county staff is already under a lot of pressure in doing what they do. To add something additional on is could derail the whole effort, and just get bogged down. So there needs to be some sort of czar. There needs to be some sort of oversight, and there might be that it lives outside of the county

in a nonprofit or a community group. You mean upon implementation of the order? Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I I think that's we certainly that's a discussion we're going to have. How okay. We have an ordinance now. How's that gonna happen? Who's gonna

be responsible for it? Because we can create something. Mhmm. But if there's not somebody to drive it, it's just we've created something that's gonna sit on a bookshelf.

And we should obviously have a semblance of what that might look like going into the ordinance, but we don't necessarily need have it immediately in place. That would be our step two or phase two.

Yeah. That's in the

But, yeah, to be able to describe to the board, hey. This is what for now, this is conceptually what we're picturing, assuming all this goes well and you start getting some money flowing. Here's what we envision, but we'll come back to you with a with a structure here in the next few months type of thing.

Right. Yeah. Yeah. It's to keep the ball moving forward. It's gonna be important for the board to see what that structure is gonna look like and to buy into that structure at the very beginning.

Right. Well, I think we'll be able to give them some semblance of that. We just want again, one of those things they also need to opine. Right? Right. We might bring an idea, and they're gonna say, no. No. No. No. We just wanna keep our housing trust fund internal, and we'll make a seat. Who knows? That's that is not a discussion we've had at this point in time. But we certainly need to float an idea of what this looks like on the backside for implementation and then work our way into that in phase two of this project. So

Yeah. Given the current budget restrictions for the county, I think that it's wise to them to look outside.

Oh, yeah. At this point, nothing is off the table sort of us having to fund the to stand up something out of the gate really.

You know?

I know. Like, I'm currently, like, working the affordable housing unit right now with a consultant with just what we have. So there we have not expanded it, and we are looking to, you know, propose, you know, to the director. Here's what we think the department and unit needs and all that too. So, yeah, it is yeah. We're already actually kinda working on some discussions of if we keep it internal or not, and yeah. And that was part of the purpose of bringing our consultant on board was to evaluate our housing program. That's why the, you know, the task force was established as well. And yeah.

So you have questions? You have

any thoughts or questions? I I would hope the board the board has some historical knowledge about the usefulness of going outside. A lot of times, things can get bogged down internally within a county government.

Yeah.

And that's some of the stuff we've talked about before is, like, times on getting for agendas, resolutions, because a lot of the funding sources have to have the county as a co applicant or or the lead applicant in in getting that process. But that's some of the stuff I think we're gonna talk about in our second phase of this once we get a resolution passed.

Yeah. And that's something we can propose to the board too to streamline these process as well just for affordable housing development. Like, they already kind of have, obviously, through the state with SB 35 applications. So we can propose, you know, hey. When we're doing these, let we get an opportunity to take these things to the board a lot quicker, or we can maybe the board's willing to skip it upon county council and, you know, other people's approvals or something instead with the applications.

Yep. From what I've heard from the individuals that I work with in the philanthropy world, especially community foundations, there has been conflict between the foundations and the county around housing. Know, Placer County housing. Problem. Placer Community Foundation with frustration with the county.

And by working together rather than separately Mhmm. I think there's a lot more that can get done. I mean, housing, we're talking about in lieu fees. Every time I've gone to a League of California Community Foundations meeting, the topic is about housing, and that's been going on for over fifteen years. So it's not being solved in any jurisdiction that I know of. There's some big heavyweights. There's the biggest foundations in the world are part of that, and they're all struggling with the same problem. And nobody's come up with a solution yet.

I think along Bill's point too, I'd like to say that I think that if there if the county was to adopt an approach like this around financing affordable housing fees and then CFDs or any of these other instruments, what you end up then setting up is a dynamic where the county wants the partnership with developers because everyone's rowing in the same direction. We want the housing because the housing's gonna give us, you know, more tax base, but at the same time, more, you know, more affordable housing revenues, right, over the long term. And so you end up instead of being adversarial, which, let me tell you, many jurisdictions are to developers, you come in knocking on the door. Here's my project. And then, like, they lick their chops as to, well, we want this.

We want this. We need this. We need this. We need this. Right?

So maybe instead of that, it becomes more like, let's look at this together. And that and what you're what you're doing, not only are you providing the service of, you know, entitling and, of course, proving these things, you're also setting the stage for future cooperation and future partnerships, which enables then for everyone to kind of win at the end. But what's so critical that Eldorado would be doing for mister developer x who owns listen. Not mister. Let's just say developer x could be whomever, right, not non nongender, is that you are enabling people to, you know, get housing built, but at the same time, establishing sort of a a a better way of doing business.

Right? Instead of, you know, we demand, we're gonna hit you with $52,000 in fees. You gotta do this, and you gotta pay all this, and you gotta do this because it's all, like, you give us because you want something from us. But the big thing that you can provide these developers is the financing because no developer can do a CFD on their own. You absolutely have to have the local government be the intermediary for the tax base.

And that to me, that critical linkage is where Eldorado County can really flex and do something that could pivot and and maybe begin to change the dynamics in terms of how you guys bring in new partners, how partners begin to work together, and how then you'll have additional funds to kinda deliver on the housing. But outside of that, it's business as normal. Right? You come to town. You're mister your developer x who comes into town, and you're like, oh, I wanna build this. And then it's just the same old red flags, red flags, red flags, red flags. So maybe instead of red, it's green. And let's bring you in, and let's work together to make this happen. Because at the end of the day, we all win if your big development passes.

Another component to that is where is the developers buy in into community. Right. What are they putting in? I don't know of a developer that does not have a private foundation that can make a donation Mhmm. To affordable housing.

That way, a lot of times these foundations are created as a way to minimize capital gain. Mhmm. So they're just taking something that they would have given to the federal government and given to the laws of jurisdiction as a gift to build affordable housing. Mhmm. Everybody wins.

Yeah. So then you're setting up a win win for the county. You know, win win in terms of new partnerships, new opportunities, new money, and then maybe creative solutions. As Bill was saying, okay. Create a fund. May maybe they create the fund that then is first time homebuyers for the people who are buying into that development. Or that fund goes to pay for seniors who are inbound, who need transportation, and they hire a shuttle service. You know? I'm just making it up. But, I mean, you have the opportunity then to sort of identify what the needs are and identify what different funding could be met because you actually now are enabling the housing rather than road blocking it and extorting all kinds of things until everyone's done.

And it changes the conversation on developers because they're no longer the boogeyman.

Right.

They're part of the solution. Right.

So what else do you need from us on item two? Just to interest trying to keep because I know we got a presentation too. So

I thought we were done.

Thanks. Think we're done with two. Right? Do we need a

post digest on for now?

Oh, no. We need to open

We need do public comment,

though. Sorry. Is there any public comment?

Right. Now taking public comment from Zoom. If you wish to speak, please use the raise hand button. Right. Looks like we have no participants. Okay.

Okay. I agenda item 325 dash 082 oh, 0627.

We can skip it.

0827. Put my glasses on. Staff recommending the task force hold an inclusionary housing component design roundtable.

I think Vance wants to table this one.

Be more than happy to table or any other parliamentary word that means don't do it.

Yeah. So I we've already introduced this entire concept an hour ago. So I know. I think so I I to the extent that there's, you know, anything left to be said about it, I mean, I I guess my challenge would be it notwithstanding that entire conversation we just had about CFD and being creative and whatnot, I think we're in a similar position where we have to be able to pro and con inclusionary piece to the board. Right?

And are there pros? I mean, I know I certainly understand what the cons are, but is it just that all these other jurisdictions have just done it because everyone else did it? Mhmm. Or was there some benefit to it?

It happened so much of it happened after redevelopment. When redevelopment died, everyone flocked to inclusionary, period, because it was the only tool in the tool chest that local governments had to slay the dragon, which was coming to the table with for developers because there's always been a perception that developers are greedy and are making too much money. Therefore, we must find a way to reduce their profit. I mean, that just seems to be this kind of colloquial kind of, you know, mantra that goes on rather than people not understanding that it costs millions and millions of dollars to do the infrastructure, to pay the fees, to get the housing built. And when you see millions and millions of dollars, it's not going to someone's pocket.

It's actually going to the development. I think, you know, I would like people to I I would like you guys to, kinda go behind the wizard of Oz curtain and expose the fact that inclusionary housing doesn't produce as many housing units as people might think it does. And I think that you need to go case in point, and Vince is So close. Is gonna find, you know, data on that. And I think you need to kinda go excuse me, ma'am.

You think you need to go through the whole, like, what is the unit you know, what does this mean, and and is it gonna slow things down? Because I think you also have to take a point in time. We have interest rates right now that are unprecedented. We have tariffs. We have so many things that are incredibly challenging for anyone to say, I wanna make the development happen right now.

Right? So let's just say that we are not in the best economic times right now. So to some degree, the county then has an opportunity to say, let's evaluate our tools and see if we can do something different. You know? And let's let's see if we can find a way to incentivize the kind of housing development that we want without being the extortionist kind of government that says the only way that you're gonna get to yes is if you do a 101 things for us because that just we know will make the deal infeasible.

But we know that that's the common practice. You go to San Francisco, that's the common practice. You go to Santa Clara, that's the common practice. Extort everything you want out of the development in order to get to yes. So if that is the motto and if that's what everyone wants, then that's business as usual, and you probably will not see a lot of housing come up the ground. But if people are saying, maybe now is an opportunity to think about things a little differently. Maybe it's even relaxing certain codes or looking at different things. Like, it's a myriad of things that you could do that are low cost for some to some degree to encourage people to come in, right, to maybe reduce some upfront fees on these developers to bring them in so that you could partner together to kind of produce this housing. It's a different it's a trust approach. Right?

It's a relationship building approach. It isn't a, you know you know, only if you pay me will I give you you know, it's not transactional, so to speak. And, you know, if that is an approach that, you know, the county might take on or at least pilot, may even try. Maybe we don't know if it's all gonna work, but maybe you try. Maybe you pilot something. It may come up with different results.

Well, the other thing is if we're doing an affordable housing fee, why are we doing it in in inclusionary housing? Because it's, like, double hit that

Well, I mean

in one point. I mean, it's I don't know if you could have both because then

So if if we had reversed items three and two, the conversation probably would have made a little more sense because California requires, if I understand correctly, if you have an inclusionary component, you must have an alternative way of complying. Right. And for most jurisdictions, that's an in loop fee. So I I think that's why a lot of people think they have to have both, and I think the way our conversation is structured here today with item two coming first, you know, seasons like, yeah, maybe we do have to discuss number three, but we really don't. If if we just want an affordable housing fee, that's fine. You don't have to have inclusionary

Well, seeing that, that's what I got from the board meeting.

Yeah.

And from the discussions because they brought up the the study that BBE, I think it was, that did VAE? VA did that said that inclusionary would not work here. The board kinda understood that. They were more of the idea for the task force to be really looking at what an inclusionary fee would be. Not inclusionary. I'm sorry. In lieu fee. Yeah.

And not inclusionary. So one or the other is what you're saying.

Well, they didn't flat out just say one or the other, but they said they want the port they want that's why they put together the housing task force, to bring them the suggestions back to them. And they already had the study done, the county did, They basically said that the inclusionary is not gonna work. And so we've been talking about the in lieu fee. I don't I don't know how far we wanna go down that rabbit hole to keep talking about inclusionary when it's like we're just beating our head against the wall.

I mean, do you feel like you have to have it on the menu at the restaurant?

It's because To this point well, so, again, notwithstanding that BAE study, I mean, the board very clearly gave us direction in 2022 to look at an inclusionary housing option, inclusionary fee option. Right. Occlusionary housing option. And that wasn't necessarily put to bed on April 8 because they're still looking for more information. Right? So They were looking for a

recommendation from the task force, I think.

That, but they but to understand even the recommendation, you need more information. Right? Right. So I I think it's you have to at least tease it out and explain why it doesn't work. Right? So I I think if we have examples of where it's just failing Yeah. And how it that think that's

what Mia was talking about. If you got 2,000,000 home subdivisions, then those types of things work.

Sure. Inclusionary. And I obviously did a little explanation to this to them. It's like, well, you know, depending on your level of affordability, if you're talking median, you know, the delta is not gonna be as great. If you're trying to get the low and very low, I mean, the subsidy that comes from those market rate homes to make low and very low feasible is very high. And now your market rate housing has become unaffordable, and you you're just not gonna sell it.

Right.

So I I in concept, it's not terribly hard to understand, but it's easier when you list out, here's why. Here's why I didn't work in this jurisdiction, you know, and just kinda get to the meat and potatoes. I don't feel a staff and I know it comes off as we're we staff keep pushing this inclusionary thing, but it's only because we need to this is a previous board, and we need to definitively be able to say Why? Why and why no, and then move on. But we haven't necessarily done that because this is our first chance to talk to this new board about this, and they just are seeking more information on it. So that's why I know we're kinda beating a dead horse on this, but we just need to be able to you know?

So a couple of points. One, at this point, would you be comfortable going to the board with these are the recommendations of the task force, which includes this fee structure with this financing option and these incentives, and then, like, a little slide that says they don't like inclusionary. And then, of course, you'll have we'll we'll give you more information that you need to explain why we don't. But, yeah, you would feel comfortable doing that. Yeah? Yes.

As long as we have a list of options that

are Not why we don't like it, but why it wouldn't work for County.

Well yeah. And they have that. Right? They have why it wouldn't work for El Dorado County in their own study.

Right.

I've I've shared, and we can share again the study from the city of Sacramento that found inclusionary wouldn't work in their jurisdiction. But it's really hard to point to a jurisdiction that has an inclusionary component and say their inclusionary doesn't work because the flip side of it is all of them have some type of in lieu fee or some type of alternative, and that's what everybody's using. That's what's producing some type of affordable housing. You have

to go to each

of those individual jurisdictions and say, were these affordable units the product of the alternative to inclusionary, or are they the product of inclusionary? And all of them are gonna tell you they're part of the alternative.

Well, it's not published in part of the Right. Because I think that's

just rather just pay the fee and walk away, get out of the garden.

Here's some land. Right.

Here's But maybe that's what we somehow provide for staff be able to put in there. Say, look. We talked to 10 jurisdictions that have an inclusionary housing, and they're only producing five units, but 200 units are produced in their in the

It's a good angle.

Yeah. That kind of scenario the

data that would really help.

Yeah. You know? And, also, how

many are frozen deals? How many deals are dead right now? Because now the interest rate's too high, and the inclusionary is too high, and nothing pencils.

Yeah.

So you're frozen.

I had one very specific project that I am aware of in a local jurisdiction where they agreed to the inclusionary component in 2020 or 2021. All the numbers were right because of COVID, and it was gonna work out just fine. And then COVID ended, and everything started coming back to normal. All of a sudden, you cannot build those inclusionary units anymore, and they had to go back to the city and restructure the deal. Otherwise, the entire project was dead.

Yep. Placer County has several of those as well. And to the point, like, up in Mardis Camp, they did, required inclusionary. Mardis people know Mardis. Right? Mhmm. $23,000,000 homes. Lots of bears come with that. Yes. No. Big exclusive. And then those you know? So all that inclusionary, I mean, years and years and years because it doesn't pencil. And the other piece of it, no one can finance it. The challenge is you cannot structure these sort of deed restricted for sale units and get a buyer.

So then you go through the brain damage of producing these units at an affordable price point, but people who can afford it actually don't want those homes because they don't want the deed restriction. So it kinda becomes a mounting negative, which makes it then really a deterrent from getting it built. And I just think you need to highlight some of those stories.

So what do you need from us, I guess, to help you guys get that? So

I would say if we We

we can I was I'm, you spitballing here? But we we, again, certainly have the ability to make these phone calls and whatnot. But in each of these situations, same thing. Same thing. Same a couple months ago.

I'll give you guys matrix.

As you guys come upon this stuff and there are examples, just send it to me. Right. And then we can just

But, mean, it's just like one more column on this matrix. It's like, how many units are being produced by the inclusionary and how many is with the in lieu? I don't know if they're gonna give them to you or if they even have those. Or even if they just tell you 5%, I mean, that gives a number when we talk back to the board back in July that, you know, you talk to these jurisdictions that had an inclusionary requirement Mhmm. With an in lieu.

And of all the projects produced for affordable, 5% of them were 10%. Whatever that percentage is, you can antidote that to each of these, and that kind of then tells the story what's working. I mean, it's hard to compare, like, a San Diego County to El Dorado County. Mhmm. Because your median prices are so far apart.

And so, you know, if you compare like to like on that, I think it would tell a better story to that. And then that kinda gets you past that issue where the prior board brought that subject in, and we had that discussion. I mean, we've had this discussion every meeting of the task force, but the way then that you could articulate that to the board or even one of us or all of us articulate that to them to move past that point.

But no. That sounds good. And to your last point, yes, please do articulate as well. I mean, I think in the next next time we go back to the board, we'll have a little bit more of a formal structure for one or each of you to opine upon each of the topics that we're bringing up so that it's more as Vance was saying, it's kinda like, here's the task force's recommendation. Recommendation. Right. You're not just

Even if you had a table, like, there for us to all set the talk when they bring up the questions, and then we could just walk through them quickly and get that through that process. I think you almost gotta start off with the inclusionary.

Yes.

Put that to bed, and then start talking about the affordable housing fee slash in lieu, whatever you wanna call this, to get past to get the ROI through, and then then we can work from that, whatever they decide with. Yeah.

Sorry, Jen. You were gonna Oh,

I was say just I mean, in going to the board, really, what we need to do is if you guys are a 100% not recommending inclusionary or you're saying we'll do it in Luffy or there's an option of inclusionary or, you know, what a combination of it, then we that's we need to take that hard solid evidence to them and just say the task force

that's what the task force is saying. I know Sean saw it.

I'm sure he's not gonna

We just need

And then we'll just need so, like, if you're saying what do you need from us, we just need a little backup of why you four or five when Sean comes back. You know, what are your main points on why this is not feasible in the county? And then we'll just tell them, and it's they'll, you know, they'll hear it, and then they'll make the decision at the end.

Okay.

From that theme too, Chris, I just emailed you a study also from 2015 that shows that jurisdictions with an inclusionary component all found that they had a 20% increase in overall home prices and a 7% reduction in new home construction.

Yeah. And other things we can put up too.

So Yeah. I mean, you know, again, I think it just comes back to you you're you're this is a fresh look, right, as to what's worked. And and you've had inclusionary also, right, in El Dorado County now. Right? You've had some level of inclusionary with what we talked about earlier. Right? Isn't there some you have your your $500 fee

in your We had not really one else. Though.

Oh, you don't have so right now, there's no include, quote, unquote, formal inclusionary policy. No.

There is no.

It's a deal by deal.

Got it. Got it. Okay.

No. And that's why the previous board said explore this because, you know, keep hearing about this inclusionary housing policy. What is what is this?

Why So on the deal by deal basis, is there an example of one that actually is successful with inclusionary?

I I think all your deals have just done the 500 RP, isn't it? Yeah.

So not not one has built on-site inclusionary affordable housing. Maybe you can start with that.

Well, but I don't but I'm not sure of

Because you do deal by deal. Right? So if they're deal by deal, and they're like, oh, yeah. You know? Like, you have a choice. Should you build an on-site or not or just fee out? Okay. Here, $500.

What I don't know, though, is in the course of those DA conversations, was it no way, no how are we not gonna do inclusionary so we'll do it in lieu, or do we only ask? That I don't know.

Know how.

Yeah.

There's no way no how.

But I I I don't know. Because one of them was 2015, so I don't 2016. I So don't even know.

They probably never presented with an inclusionary threat. Probably. They probably sell the $500 and said, okay.

Yeah. 500 with the baby. Yeah.

Yeah. We're

literally, we signed the check.

I think we finally just went above $600 on one of them from

Okay. Sorry.

I can't believe more people didn't sign up for those good deals. But, anyway, I just think it you know?

Out there sending an email right now.

It's on sale. But, yeah, I I I mean, I think the proof is already here. Right. Know? Like and and it's not you know, sadly, I think what inclusionary has become is a bit of a scapegoat. You know? Like, government's done its job. We're making inclusionary housing policy. Yet the reverse is what's actually happening.

Well, it might also be partly because and I don't know because who knows? I haven't watched all the debates of when each of these jurisdictions put us into place, but perhaps they were thinking if you do inclusionary, it says you're gonna do this. You know, you go build, you're gonna do 10%. We're gonna get the units Mhmm. As opposed to plusing up a housing trust fund, and then either it's, you know, an outside entity or the board that's making decisions on where we're gonna build affordable housing, which sometimes can be fraught with political questions. Right? So I think there's that mixed into it as well. Mhmm. The inclusionary just brings you right there. Right?

The idea is, well, it's 10%, and you're gonna do 7%, you know, odd. You're gonna do 3% low, and we're done with it. It's gonna get built. And I'm not saying that's actually what happens, but that might be the mindset behind the inclusionary and why so many jurisdictions have adopted it in that way. But, again, the data is what proves all that out. So

And I think you gotta share with folks too at the board if they are not already familiar that to get at those deed restricted fifty five year covenants, you know, your subsidy from the county is, like, $200,000 a unit Mhmm. To make that happen. So, you know, to get those deeply affordable units, which is what your arena is calling for, which is where a lot of the community is calling for. Right? These are people who are falling, you know, you know, right above the poverty line, sort of to speak. You know? And they can't afford the rents that these new buildings are being built at. So, anyway, I just you know? So I think you have to also highlight the fact that, you know, inclusionary isn't the silver bullet that's gonna get at those very, you know, necessary units. Those units take leadership.

Those units, as you said, Chris, you're looking at surplus sites. You're looking at let's go after some home key money. Let's go after some of this other money and be very proactive about getting those housing dollars to your community, which is a different attitude because your average big sprawl developer is not gonna go after those types of funds. So you're never gonna build. If you expect the big developers to build your low income housing stock, they will never do it. They'll just fee out.

Mhmm. Yeah.

Okay. Any more comment on item two? Any public comment online? Is there anybody still online? Okay.

Now I'm taking public comment from Zoom participants. If you wish to speak, please use the raise hand button. Right. We have no public comment.

Okay. So item number oh, Item number 425 Dash0825, staff recommended the task force receive a presentation from member Ruby Robby on a charitable contribution model for affordable housing.

I guess I'll take it away from here. This is a model that we developed at the request of the Tahoe Conservancy. This is back when Patrick was the director of the conservancy and was very concerned about affordable housing and its impact on the Lake Tahoe region. In doing this, we looked at two different jurisdictions that had similarities to El Dorado County. One was Fort Collins, Colorado.

The other one was Aspen, Colorado. And both were using a combination of land bank and land trust, which is a little unusual for jurisdictions to have both. Usually, you'll see a a land trust, but not a separate land bank. And in in looking at how we developed the model, we looked at the land trust as more of the acquisition and the maintenance, and the land bank is the fiscal agent. And this is how this all developed out.

On the land bank, it's the homebuyers, a charitable donation. This is something we spend a lot of time on. This has happens to do with capital gain. There are individuals that do have capital gain on either the sell or the purchase of our property or capital gain somewhere in their life that year that they could make a charitable contribution. We put this before all the board of realtors.

They enthusiastically supported it, and we ran into a roadblock with the title companies. They said this could not be a document that would be included at closing. It would have to be a separate conversation with the individual and not inclusive of the closing process. So they said it was a legal matter. I know that that Amy at the foundation is still looking into that to see if it can be included in the closing document.

There's the document transfer fee, which we've talked about, that can go towards the land bank and then federal and state funding that may be available. I was looking at briefly the the White Rock Village development down El Dorado Hills to see how many components were added into that to build that that apartment structure. And there were 12 different funding streams that came in. Somebody's gotta manage all of this, and a physical agent would be able to do that. Where the land trust is actually in the execution of defining the project, building out the project, and then managing the project.

For the land trust, we really were looking at Saint Joseph Land Trust and South Lake Tahoe and how, as a foundation, we would need to beef them up organizationally, internally, and that we were able to partner with the Tahoe Conservancy to find the funding to make all that happen. And then the a b c d is just your it's basically organizational responsible. It's responsible is that particular segment of not only the acquisition, but the ongoing maintenance. So I really wanted to think this through from purchase to how you're gonna maintain the buildings. Who's managing?

Well, just to mention with White Rock, we are currently monitoring those with within the county. They have a loan with us, and we monitor it and comply with HDD regulations and report back to them. So I think we are part of that one of 12 It was. Financing. Yeah. The county.

But that's less

than one of the

You were saying who managed who shepherds kind of those 12 funding sources. The developers always do that on every deal. I mean, because they gotta structure these. I mean Yeah. Basically on these deals all the time, and it's like you got anywhere from a half a dozen to, like you said, a dozen different funding sources. Former director of HC used to call it the lasagna financing because there's just so many layers that you put into these projects.

Right.

And and you got different reporting requirements and different regulatory agreements and requirements on every funding of the state fund, federal funds, local funds that go into these things. It's just mind boggling. But the developer ultimately is the one that has to actually manage all that, and they do it on all the projects that that we work on around the state. But, yeah, it gets time consuming on that side of it, but it's that's the only way the deals actually happen is if you you got somebody that can structure all these together to to make them work.

And if you you take a a standard nonprofit in El Dorado County or in any county across The United States, and we look at any program that they're operate they're operating that program probably anywhere from 10 to 15 different funding streams. Mhmm. And they're having to allocate salary, overhead costs, lighting, everything to each of those grants.

Oh, yeah.

So it's it's a a land that I think nonprofits are very familiar with. Mhmm. It's cost of capital.

Mhmm.

We're just costing everything up.

Right.

So real brief description if that's

I mean, it's a model. It clearly has a place. It clearly has a niche because I don't think every site can fit like this, but I think when you have a willing landowner, when you have a partner and all of that, it could work. It's almost like this could become more of a possibility if there's funding. All of this needs funding. Yeah. All the state's local funding needs private funding.

State federal.

The county currently has a trust fund, And this also develops a mechanism to start to fund that up by communicating to donors and the document transfer. So that can happen.

Yeah. I mean, right now, you already got s p two that does the documentary transfer fee. I think it's $50 on transfers. Like, it funds state program, funds the state, which then they give it back to local jurisdictions in a formula allocation for the permanent local housing assistance program, PLHA. Those funds were the first year was really good.

It's gone down substantially because there's just been not enough transfers or sales on stuff, and they're getting ready to go into their six year pretty soon on that cycle of that program. But it's it's been very good for jurisdictions that do either it's it was designed for affordable housing and to provide a formula, and there was a competitive process too that's that's utilized by developers as well. But that was a long, hard sell with the realtors to get a documentary transfer fee onto that. Practice, they had to be only on new sales. It could not be on transfers or anything else.

That was the only way the realtors would back it when it went public on that for that side of it. I don't know how you do one just on a county level.

The. We had a conversation with their quarter's office, and it didn't seem like it was gonna be that

But it had to go to the voters. But, I mean, did the realtors push back on that? No. Surprising. And

and talking to realtors, I think you just have to understand the right

Yes. But then you got some other folks that running policy who really speak a different language of the realtors. The only thing I was gonna say about this, though, I think the one thing that I think needs to be carefully constructed is that whatever this land trust model is directly can benefit the county in regards to Reno, for example. So it does need to be that you know, probably gonna be a 120% below or eighty and one twenty. Yeah. And then it gets, monitored.

Oh,

yeah. So just that that

whole thing. Of part of the land trust job. That's what St. Joseph Okay. For all the needs. Yeah. That they're reporting back to the county. Is that correct?

What's St. Joseph? Is that quite right?

I'm St. Joseph Land Trust City

in town. South Lake Tahoe. Is

that Sugar Pine Village project?

Yeah. That's I love the village. Yeah.

Sugar Pine is so I mean, I It's a different It's totally true. It's tax credits.

It's

Yeah. Yeah. The only

thing that equates is the one that they did by the lake.

I personally have not seen anything on our records or books.

There's no

even doubt of St. Joseph's. I mean

I think they tend to there's a goal, at least the ones that, you know, that Jean did over they bought the land from the city of South Lake Tahoe. They put in a family. You know? I think South Lake Tahoe, because of the land, may have required some level of monitoring, but it's just the the typical when you have the deed restricted, the stuff Chris and I do, loan capacity, there is a very strict protocol as to what you monitor, who gets certified, how all that stuff gets done.

Where does that that oversight come from?

The state. State? Either tax credits, either TCAC or SEDLAC or HCD.

You're sending certified records,

so you're checking

They they they purchase into that process. So they're

They rent into the process. So they qualify to be a renter, and then you verify that The individual does. Yes.

What is the state's cash input into that process to ask for that? Money.

Money. So they're putting money. The tax credits, the money, the loans, they're all residual receipt loans or the tax credits. Yeah. And they monitor them for fifty five years.

Yeah. So we would incorporate that, the reporting. Yeah.

So that's I think that's just the key thing, I think, in in this model, if it was to work at least probably in this region that you wanna

make sure that you have

It's reporting.

Yeah. Mhmm.

Especially if you're trying to get any state money in, they're gonna have an ongoing monitoring on to that side of it.

Yeah. This this model is slightly different than the Fort Collins and the Aspen, but both of those have been very successful in developing, housing. Now the one in Aspen was strongly supported by the Aspen, Foundation because they were just running out of room for their employees.

Right.

Well, the only thing I'm gonna put out on the table is TOT tax. I've said that before. I'll say it again.

And the board just gave it all back to the general fund, so there's no grab at it.

That you

can make now just falling out to the general fund. So

because there's a direct nexus there between tourism and workforce.

Used to fund our housing consultant, it's gone it went from general fund to TOT funding it, and now it's back to just it's all considered general fund.

They needed it to be internal fund. Wasn't an option. There's a lot of programs that were cut. A lot of unhappy people.

Well, maybe there's a way to identify another source. But those kinds of sources and diversification of dollars, I think, is just And wherever you can tag a fee or think about some nexus someplace or something, you know, that's maybe nonconventional is is potentially something.

Right. And that's something we gotta be looking at for phase two when we get past this ROI side of it. Yeah. These are the sources and stuff. But

The one that's currently in action is the Bridge Meadows project, and that's Housing Eldorado. That's their big first foray into cross generational affordable housing. They have the developer. They're now raising the funds.

Is this

Is that a for sale or a rental? It is rental. Okay.

In Placerville. Is it

in the city limits, though, I think? Pardon? Is it in the city limits? Yes. Yeah. We really see much of it.

No. I

don't know of any in the county.

Yeah.

Yet. Yeah.

Yeah.

And then Chris and I last week no. Two weeks ago, just so you all are aware, we do have a list of surplus lands. There's 570 properties on it that I have to weed through to get rid of, you know, county offices on those lands or if it's owned by some other entity versus it's completely vacant and available, but it will take some time to read through the 570 parcels.

When you

say surplus land that's owned by another entity, you mean, like, EID or fire or something? Okay.

Like another district or something.

Yeah. Okay.

School, echo, that kind

of stuff.

I do have a map too, but it still isn't it it just shows the county owned land.

Yeah. It's we looked into that data at this point. It's a foundation we looked into that data as well. And there's some in there that is or seized for lack of paying taxes. Okay. So it's a combination.

Bacon Right.

Unpaid tax parcels.

Yeah. We'll have to unless I said Yeah. 570 parcels to weed through.

It's a

nice project.

So So let's open up item four. Any public comment from our online participants.

Alright. Now taking public comment from Zoom participants. If you wish to speak, please use the raise hand button. It looks like we have no public comment.

Okay. On the the vacant parcels, check with Amy at the foundation because we did pull that taffy apart Okay. And looked at all those different parcels and where they were located. I think it's still on the spreadsheet.

Okay. That'd be helpful. Thanks.

So do you have anything else, Chris? Or let's see. When's our next meeting? Let's just make sure everybody's got that.

Next meeting, we can should be able to drop back to our normal 10AM time. It would be Wednesday, May 21. It be the third Wednesday.

I'll be flying back from Paris on it. Wow. Alright. Sorry. I

hope that plane has good Wi Fi.

May 21. Okay.

Yeah. And if we need to shift time, that's

Yeah. I

You know? Yeah. Or even the day if we have to. I mean, it's just that's just our next regular schedule.

We land at 12:30 in San Francisco. Yeah. There's no way I can maybe hit her by two.

Today option is not on a Wednesday.

Yeah. We can

try and make it work a different way.

I think Wednesday is not working for Mia either.

Yeah. That's not a great time for me. I have another I have some conflicts with Mia. Yeah.

If we're gonna rework the day or time, I think we should probably just do it digitally somehow. That way we can get a shot all day, guys.

We get shot. We don't

to have discuss it right now. But suffice it to say, it's looking like twenty first is challenging. So we'll Okay.