Affordable Housing Task Force - Regular Meeting

Okay. Good morning. We'll call the affordable housing task force meeting to order at 10AM on September 17. We have let's see. Let's see. I guess protocols for public comment.

Public Roll call for.

Oh, okay.

Oh, that's the protocol for public comment.

Okay. We'll just alright. We'll do a roll call.

Yep.

Yes.

Here. Okay. So do we have an adoption of the agenda and approval of the consent calendar?

Move to approve.

All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Oh, alright.

Yes.

Aye. Aye. Okay. So we'll go to open forum. Open forum is opportunity for the members of the public to address the task force on subject matter that is not on their meeting agenda and within their jurisdiction. Public comments during open forum are limited to three minutes per person. The task force chair may limit public comment during open forum. Do we have any comments in the room? Okay. Anything online?

Alright. Now taking public comment from the room? No. No? Alright. Now taking public comment from online? There's no further public comment.

Alright. We'll move right into agenda item 25 dash one six zero eight. Staff recommending the task force review the revised affordable housing options table and make a motion to approve and present the recommendations to the board along with the resolution of intent at a future board meeting.

Thank you. Rob Peters with planning for affordable housing unit. So I intend to maybe first start with the resolution of intent just to give you guys an idea. This is a attachment b to the draft resolution and or, excuse me, to the item. And from what you saw last time, the only changes are sort of at the bottom of page one and at the top of page two, which are a little bit filling out some of the components of the table that we discussed last time, which we'll be discussing in further as well.

And and so I just wanted to articulate that this final version that we would bring forward to the board of supervisors would ultimately be reviewed by our county council. And what we've done is in those modifications that you see there is really highlighted the sort of sections of the table and then the subsequent sort of rows within it. And so it's not very detailed. It'll it's likely to have a little more detail, but we wanted to make sure we got the final product of the table before we sort of fill in maybe some of the detail underneath a through c. So just so you know, that gives you the high level sort of programmatic approach that comes from the table that we'll be discussing today. But just to give you an idea, those are the changes from the last time you saw.

I do I have one question. On the second page, it talks about, be it further resolved that the planning commission and board will hold public hearings. So does this ordinance also have to go to the planning commission and the board?

That's correct. Since it will land within the zoning ordinance procedurally, once we get the resolution of intent from the board of supervisors, it'll be, you know, sort of crafted in here, but we will have to pursue it through the planning commission, and the planning commission would make a recommendation and would be provided the recommendation of the task force, and that that whole package would go to

the board of supervisors. Okay.

So there's kind of two steps to getting the ordinance approved then?

Correct. Yeah. Our our title one thirty requires a resolution of intent to initiate Right. And then it requires a path through the planning commission recommending to the board. Okay. Does

any of the task force members have any questions about attachment b, the resolution?

I guess I have one question in regard to item d, incorporate existing county affordable housing programs. Pretty vague statement across the board. And then just so what exactly are we saying is being included?

Yeah. So maybe this would be a I mean, I can jump to the table, but the the on page three zero three on attachment a of our package, if you'd like, I could pull it up. But that is the let me just do that because we're gonna go into that next anyways. And so they sort of work hand in hand with one another.

And, Rob, you also mentioned that, like, that those a, c, and d's will actually probably be expanded by the time it goes. So it that that's what he's saying.

So the table is gonna support that expansion of just those. That's just a higher level for this meeting as a draft.

I guess more more what I meant more specifically was just simply, I know we have existing programs are on here. I just wanted to make sure these are all technically included. When you say affordable housing programs, these are technically affordable housing programs. They're not just some of these are technically in the program. Some of them are outside of it that support affordable housing.

I understand what you're saying. Yeah. So I think you know?

Yeah, let's give me two seconds here. I'm gonna that's

a very good question. And see if we can okay. So the what we were trying to capture in that statement was these existing programs and and trying to solidify those in the ordinance because they're here and there, but trying to sort of make connections to those. Okay. And so some of these are sort of the fee deferral, and some exist, and some may be expanded and all of that. The TIFF offset is already an existing program that it has its own procedure, but sort of trying to connect this new ordinance with those. So maybe it would be better served to not have affordable housing programs and just say incorporate existing account, like, support programs or some other term.

Well, the table kinda list is just says existing programs. So Yeah. Existing county program. So is this table gonna be attached to the ROI then?

Correct. We're gonna I intend to solidify and finalize this.

Then this, like, heading where it says existing programs could be kinda incorporated, like, d and then incorporate have that language where it says existing Yeah.

We could strike through county affordable housing and just have incorporate existing programs. I mean, we were just trying to

make sure we referenced the table, it kinda matches a, b, c, and d Sure. So that it's easier to to follow, I guess

Okay.

For anybody that's looking at this.

Yeah. And so that's why sort of one of the pieces where I was saying there might be minor tweaks that you see before the board because whatever this final table says and does, we're gonna make sure that it is consistent. But that's a good con Yeah. It isn't some other we don't have another affordable housing program, to be clear. Right? And so these are supportive programs that are, you know, connected with or sort of affordable housing, but they're

not technically affordable housing programs. So that's a good con

So then yeah. So maybe we can just start by we're gonna go up to the top of again, this is attachment a for anyone that might be listening on the LEGISTR item. And so I'm gonna I thought I could just go through quickly a summation of some of the high level changes that we made based on the comments that you all provided last time, and then then we can get into any discussions that need to be had on those. I think for, you know, the the first section, which is the program structure, one of the big changes is that we you know, we've we've described this voluntary program, and I can just say, you know, for the sake of a discussion, and I'll probably save it for the next page, but there's been a lot of questions to me about how this works particularly with the affordable housing fee. And and and, you know, so we'll we'll get into that discussion, but nothing changed here except for under development type.

We added supportive housing because that was a comment that was so we, you know, address ownership, rental development, and supportive housing, and so it was sort of just that statement that was added to that description. Under the next section, policy considerations, we added project types and and sort of expanded that. I think and and mister McDermott isn't here today, but I think he wanted to make sure that we were exploring what kind of housing types and alternative types and and making sure that's part of our policy consideration. So we've added that section. And then at the bottom, we have combined development and design standards.

I think there was a comment related to how sort of design standards are different than some of the development standards and and how we wanna, you know, explore both of those in there. So we've we've combined those two within those policy considerations, and I think one of them sort of came from the previous incentives category. So he said, hey. That doesn't really make sense there. It's more of a policy consideration, and so we've moved that into there.

So just a quick question here. Yeah. I thought we are pushing the design standards to the incentives, though. Well, my notes showed the last one.

And and we will so design standards are still in the incentives, but I think, you know, as I understood it, we were trying to and sort of the policy considerations was that we're we're considering whether to include the flexibility in some of the things and whether or not it's appropriate to make distinctions between development and design standards for certain affordability versus market rate. So I think it was trying to capture that discussion more than the incentives piece, which actually has kind of both there as well. So if it's not capturing something clearly, let's, yeah, let's make sure we're clear on it now. So I think, know, we were allows for so as a policy consideration that it allows for these types of deviation from standards, and then in these incentive sections, we would articulate what those deviations are specifically and how they sort of align with certain asks or certain you know, if it's a if it's a incentive based program as I understand it, you know, depending on how much you were willing to build is how much of those incentives, and that's where we would determine, you know, which of those design standards and flexibilities would be, you know, included.

Does that make sense?

Yeah. Okay. But,

yeah, if there's anything we need to clarify, I mean, this is yeah. That's why we're kinda going back through it to make sure that you guys are comfortable with the language and it it makes sense to you in this move forward to the board.

Well, I just have one comment maybe on project

site. Yeah.

Seems like you have parental and then single family. Assuming those are. Okay. Single family dwellings could be both rental and wholesale. So, you know, for sale condos. It's, you know, whatever sell. Okay. So then so should we do you

think it should be a separate bullet point where we take that down in for sale, single family dwellings, mobile homes, ADUs, etcetera? Would that make more sense, or do you think it's just putting for sale, single family dwellings?

Say rental and for sale.

Okay. Get rid of that.

Really, what what you're missing out is apartments. Yeah.

We didn't capture every type. We were just I think we

were in single family. So it's so maybe a rental for sale. Instead of single family, Darling, it's maybe it's rental for sale mobile homes ADUs.

Sure. And we're following the

Yeah. And and we you know, etcetera. It might be but, yeah, we're there might be others that are out there, but, sure, we're trying to capture sort of that we're not just looking at apartments, and we're not just looking at, you know, this. Right. We're Trying to look at the the range or the spectrum of housing types. Okay? So we'll do rental, comma, for sale, mobile homes, ADUs, etcetera. Because we do you know, as I understand some of the a than for sale.

Would market rate be better than Instead of for sale?

Not necessarily because, I mean, you know, you can sell market rate, but you can also sell affordable. I know. So no?

What if what if we put in the first bullet rental and for sale, and then we created another example types and we listed some of those types in that way? Would that separate it out for you

guys in a better way? Okay.

Yeah. So I think the product can almost be either. Right? Rental or for sale.

Right. Right. But we're looking at both, and then we're looking at product types underneath that. Is that Yep.

So then do do you wanna see condos on?

Yeah. We could add that. I mean, that's yeah. There after free

use. You wanna go on that thing too.

Sorry. What was the last

after free use.

Okay. Yeah. I mean, quite frankly, this is you know, we're trying to capture the task force's recommendations. So what we wanna work with you guys to put the right language in that you guys are, you know, comfortable with. So

Well, and it's also a larger thing that the state's been focusing on is the adaptive reuse on commercial buildings and other types of structures out there for either.

So then it would it would speak to sort of determine the allowable types, and then we'd have a rental and for sale, and then we'd have a mobile home, ADU, condominium, adaptive reuse, etcetera. Yeah.

Okay. Yeah. That's not we can do that.

The next two sort of stayed stayed the same. Are we comfortable with the first page? Mhmm. Any other questions on that one? Okay. So let's scroll to the second page. Now this is where for folks that have been interested and have reached out to me that most of the discussions that I've had sort of have been surrounded on that. We've we've renamed it to the affordable housing fee, you know, and I think there was a lot of good reason for that. And and a lot of just to be honest, the conversations that I've had are surrounding, okay. If we're not we're having a voluntary, you know, and not an inclusionary in that sense housing policy.

Do would this and I wanna make sure that I understand fully the recommendation. And I know that Sean had some strong feelings or So I wanna make sure and acknowledge that he really, in in these discussions, was talking about a that this be also sort of in the voluntary lane. But a lot of conversations that I had were if it's if it's not voluntary or if it's not mandated and it's voluntary and it's units or some fee that is supposed to be like a gap funding fee that you might never get to a unit. And so that's kind of some of the concerns or considerations that I've been hearing from people talking and, like, how does that work? So I wanted to make sure that I understood in this affordable housing fee, we're not talking about an in lieu fee of in lieu of building and that this also is intended to be voluntary or mandated, or I just wanna make sure that I understand the the the task force thoughts on those.

So we we changed the name of it. Again, we've identified that it's would be based on a feasibility component. Right? It wouldn't be and then that it would be you know, the intent of it would be to for it to, you know, help support some gap funding mechanisms and also as we expand the uses of our trust fund for loans and single family loans and things like that, that it could be used in a broader sense whenever it's compiled.

Well, the way I think I've understood this, each member may have a different thing, is that the voluntary was, like, we're not mandating each project coming in. They gotta do 10%, and that's why we've got got away from the inclusionary side of it that they had to produce 10% of the units or 20% of the units, whatever their numbers are coming in. I think the as we're calling it now, the affordable housing fee, though, was a fee that's gonna be on every project coming.

The way I remember the conversation going last month was really around keeping it as a voluntary component that then activates incentives for the builders. And so if they agree to pay this fee, it's gonna not only not only are affordable projects gonna have all these different, you know, things that they can tap into, but then market rate builders are gonna get get access to different incentives to make their project a little more accessible overall as well. That's the way I remember the conversation going last month.

And similarly, I think I was sort of thinking about this. The goal really is if you're not building the housing, you've gotta. That's still, I think, conceptually the trade offs. And so I think this whole Then you know? So instead of, you know, originally having billed 10 or 15%, they then then tap into this, okay, Get this maybe facilities district.

Then you're subject to not only, you know, this fee, but also this ongoing fee that can be baked into the baked into the. And then that revenue stream places then the onset. But I you have to drive them to that. Like so then you have to get into the CFD in order to unlock that. So I guess So

are you saying there's two potentials, either the the fee or the CFD? Because because we've we've had discussions about CFD. It could be, like, a onetime fee when they actually do it, like, a percentage of it. I know you've talked about an ongoing as they pay the fee as they pay management fee, I think they call it, or servicing fee or something.

Any kind of

Some type of percentage of that. But but it's still there's a way that there's they're paying some type of fee or the CFD type of fee, not both. Right?

Right. But I think the CFD fee is really what you want. You wanna hear everyone in that direction. So developer the most Right.

Flexibility. But I think that kinda goes into later as I think we talked about designing how we get to the funding these programs and stuff. That's kinda like our step two. But

so we I can imagine small projects that are not doing CFT.

How do

they get into this pro because, you know, say say you're doing something in whatever outside of Placerville. Right. You know, the county land.

20 units or something.

Yeah. And it's really small. How do they you know, what's their fee relative to a guy who's gonna build 2,000 units? Right? So I don't I don't know what that equivalency or how you can describe that.

Well, I hate that also goes back to when we talk about percentage of units and development to be portable, we kinda left some of that blank yet to fill in.

Well, I think, you know, one of the so our the board with these ROIs, you know, they don't like them to be too open at it because the idea is they're giving us some guidance. Right. And so my goal is to bring forward to them the concepts that this task force is considering including in that and getting a sense of if they're supportive of those concepts. I haven't, as an example, run the CFD concept to the ground. Right?

I haven't but that work before I go spending a lot of time exploring that, I wanna make sure that the board's supportive of that and that we can articulate it to them to where they understand it. And the same is true sort of on the affordable housing fee. I know that, you know, we've had there's been a lot of discussions about whether or not inclusionary housing works and whether incentive base is better and all of those types of things. And so, you know, I think the report back to the board will be, you know, that type of information. Right? But we're saying, hey. We've considered it. You guys have looked at it, and this is where you're approach you know, proposing to go. And so, you know, I think, I I guess, any of these, the board could wanna discuss further. Right.

They could say, hey. We don't like that idea. We do like that idea. And so I just wanna make sure that I fully understand. So I'm, you know, bringing forward the materials to the board that it really represents your guys', you know, conversation. Going back to

what you said, Vance, is Mhmm. If a developer does pay that fee and stuff, they do get an that we talked about, like, design standards or other types of offsets

Mhmm.

That, you know, it's not just you're doing the same status quo, and you're just paying the fee, and you can't get a density bonus or some type of other thing. I think that's still the process Mhmm. That we've talked about even on the mark for the market rate side is there's other there's incentives for doing that.

Yeah.

But I don't think but I don't think the the affordable housing fee was a voluntary thing. I think the voluntary part we were talking about was you set aside x percentage of units in your in your project for a

Well, that's the inclusionary version.

Right. Right. Yeah. Right.

But we've gotten away from from that. We keep kinda

talking about it. Where we're talking about incentives to develop affordable housing and development projects Mhmm. In the very beginning of it. We're talking about that voluntary side of it.

Yeah.

I guess I, in general, I felt like we had moved away from any type of unit requirement in general, alternative or otherwise. And so the voluntary component is, yes, you volunteered to pay the fee or you volunteered to

do the

CFD or, I guess, in this case, also land dedication as well. But I thought we had moved away from any version that involved a unit alternative.

I was understanding that If if there's gonna be unit alternative, we can

change it back to an inclusionary fee because Right. That's what it is. But I thought we had moved away from that.

So you were thinking no matter if a, say, a 500 unit project came in

Mhmm.

They would not pay any fee to an affordable for an affordable fee or anything.

No. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying it's voluntary in the sense of they do the fee. They do or the CFD or a land dedication, but units doesn't need to be a part of the conversation. Right.

Yeah. I'm agreeing the units Okay. Are not part of the conversation. But Yeah.

But does

that set the fee does. Yeah. Well, the fee is set up by the total number of the project. So if it's a 500 unit project, the fee is based on 500. Yeah. I'm just using that example.

Yeah. And depending on what the study deems study. Yeah.

Because right now, I think, initially, we started at, what, 500 or something?

Yeah. That's $500 with the CPI.

Long time ago. Yeah.

But so based on development agreement. Right? Right.

Only, yeah, only if it's agreed to.

Couple years ago. So whatever that fee is, that affordable housing fee would still be there for 100 unit project, 500 unit project. Yeah.

Right. Or a CFDE.

Right. Yeah.

Okay. I think I think we're saying the same thing.

So maybe maybe I could

ask because I wanna make sure I understand. So I

was gonna ask for a question.

So in this in this voluntary scenario, as and maybe for certainly, I understood it to be we're not going to mandate you must build 10% of units. Mhmm. You know, we're we're gonna say that if you want to build 10% of units, you are going to be able to utilize this incentive to to, you know, to provide that. You're getting incentives, which is flexibility and all those types of things. And then I understood it to be sort of yeah.

Then, you know, there's a that we're establishing a fee or other financing mechanism and that you guys you know, that and it's not in lieu of those units because those are voluntary, but it's kind of in this program of you can choose one of these three ways to get some funding to the, you know, the the program, if you will, to build more affordable housing or to, really, to gap fund because we're not if we're doing this gap funding mechanism, we're not doing it to where it's commensurate to building an actual unit. Right? So it's not in lieu of, and it was sort of separate and apart from but built in. Is that am I understanding it correctly or no? Think so.

Okay. And it gets a little tricky because it you know, the you know? Right. And and this is but I think so I'll give an example. If you were a let's just use 50 units.

A 50 unit project that wanted to bring 10%, you would get the access to all these incentives. Alternatively, if you that if you wanted to not build any of those, you would be subject to a fee, but you might get some other incentives that are lesser as, you know, as still an option because we wanna or is it just you pay the fee? I guess that's what I'm trying to get a sense of you know, in that 50 unit, if you were trying to bring no affordable housing to the table, right, and not trying to use any incentives for flexible standards or something like that, that you would still be subject to a fee or providing some sort of mechanism of funding that would be commensurate to that fee. Is that because it is sort of more mandated. I guess, is it a mandated fee or with some alternatives, but not a mandated requirement to build units?

Is it separated in that way?

That's how I kinda saw it.

Yes. But it's a mandated fee. Right.

Like, you pay the fee or you get all this?

Well, no. No. And and I would imagine that it would have to come out to say, like, if you're actually providing affordable housing

Mhmm.

I wouldn't I mean, I wouldn't speak for you all, but you probably wouldn't have to pay the fee on top of that.

No. No. Right.

Yeah. Right. So Exactly. So if you're coming with that, you're not getting subject to this. But if you're not bringing that, you know, it's because it and it's voluntary.

The x number of units Yeah. Affordable units into your development, then the fee Yeah.

But the fee would be not commensurate to building those units all the way.

It would be Yeah.

Some amount that we determine is appropriate to help offset Right. Project costs in other air in other ways.

Whatever comes out of that feasibility study, we kinda call them Nexus Bay in those Yeah. That you've seen in other counties. Mhmm. Or even, like, Placer County, for example, has done their studies. I'm figuring out what the fee is. Mhmm. Obviously, it'd be more than $500, but we're not saying it's $50,000 or whatever. Yeah. Yeah. Whatever that

Usually, it breaks down to some square footage calculation or or something like that.

Right. Right.

Okay.

So I

I That muddy

Yeah. I just wanted to make sure I understood because people were asking me, and I go, you know, I I could you know, I just wanna make sure I'm entirely clear. So in my mind, yeah, we say when we're expressing this to the board of supervisor, we're saying this is not an inclusionary housing policy. Actual building of units is gonna be voluntary, but it's the carrot is the incentives that are being given. We think that there is a fee that would be required on all, you know, houses, but

If you don't build

this we're gonna provide market rate. We're gonna we're gonna provide some also some flexibility there if you can find some creative financing or something, and we may even have some incentives associated with all you know? But I don't know. That's where the incentive it's hard to attach the incentive to an an Also required fee.

You know, we talked about flexibility for the builder, but I think it's also important to build in flexibility for the county too. Yeah. Right. And and whatever mechanism the builder goes forward with, fee, financing, land dedication Right. Allow it to still be something that gets negotiated between the builder and the county. But either way But

it has a contribution.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So it's not just a zero. House affordable housing gets supported in that way. Right. And but everyone knows what's on the table, and you're gonna work it out amongst yourself.

Yeah. I I imagine we would have to create, and that's where I when we're talking about creating thresholds for numbers of units and Right. You know, we're gonna say, yeah. You know, for the fee, it's maybe this, and then if you're trying to get some incentives, it's you're in this arena, and Mhmm. That's where I can't tell them exactly where we're gonna land, but I wanna make sure that they understand sort of

there. Yeah. Mhmm.

Okay. Until the study gets done, and then Then and then

we really are the numbers. Right? But well, and I also spending the amount of spending staff time and and counting money on doing the feasibility. I wanna make sure that they're comfortable with the approach before Okay. And that's what the ROI kinda does. It gives them the sense of here's what we're thinking, and then they can get the

choose guidelines Yeah. That gonna go forward with that study then.

That approved. Yeah. That'll be part of that conversation is when we get that recommendation to move forward in in this what or whatever approach.

Tied in with ROI when you take that to the board.

Yeah. I'll be letting them know it's on this, you know, this table that there will be a feasibility component of establishing this fee. You know, we're not gonna just do it off the top of our heads. Right. K. You guys good with that one? I knew that one. I wanted to ask because I was getting a

lot of questions important players. Yeah.

Yeah. I I wanted because I was getting a lot of questions just how that works, and I wanted to make sure that everyone was at the same understanding, and I wasn't misrepresented. So okay. And then we did we did rename the next section, which was we called it alternative financing mechanisms, and that's where the CFD language is in there and also that kind of scrolling here. The upfront fee. So some of those options related to how a CFD might work, whether it's upfront, whether it's over time, whether it's, you know, that type of piece. And that's where, you know, I haven't spent the time. You know, there's a lot of folks that are involved with CFDs. There's a whole CFD committee. I'm sure there's some legwork related to how that would incorporate and how that would work, you know, internally within the county.

So you know? But, again, that's not something that I'm going down the path of unless the board is saying, yeah. You know? Right. We'll do that. And then I think for the density bonus, I just wanted to be clear. Like, we are not trying to circle back into incentives now. Sorry. Yes. Incentives section. Oh. Unless are you guys good with the green section?

Yeah. The only thing I'm just gonna kinda come back to is I think it's really important that you establish some level of this ongoing fee because that's gonna give you the biggest bang for the buck. And if, like The

CFD scenario.

Yes. And if the supervisors are just like, oh, no. We don't wanna do it, then you've just struck then you're just back to these, you know, $500 in unit fee, which is Yeah. Anemic.

And if development stops, they don't get any of that fee. Whereas once the CFD is established, that's running for thirty to sixty years, and the money keeps coming regardless of new development.

So would the language make sense instead of saying then over years by owner to say ongoing fee? Is that

No. No? Yeah. And I wanna say tax increment in here somewhere too or, like, enhanced infrastructure districts or, you know, tax, you know, tax increment financing.

Yeah.

So you could say explore use of CFD fees, comma, tax increment, and other financing mechanisms.

But I think they just have to underscore that this is a really critical piece, and part of it is that every developer is gonna need the county's help.

Mhmm.

Right? Starting from raw land. They need you guys to help them establish the infrastructure and do all these things. So there's a natural them coming to the county to ask for financial support.

And and then our development agreements, they generally have, you know, some statements about the county will help the developer, you know, get the CFD put together and all that sort

of stuff.

So that that that is then the fee. So then I think upfront, everyone has to know there is gonna be a fee that you can finance, but this fee is gonna be, frankly, robust enough, right, that it's gonna be worth everyone's effort. But that is, in in my opinion, a very critical tenant to the county's program to get dollars because you're gonna be able to get more dollars from this vehicle than a fee based, you know, guy coming in with 20 units who doesn't wanna build a.

Well, my hope is when we take this item to the board of supervisors, it's gonna have sort of three components to it. One is it's gonna be an update on what the housing task force has been doing. You know, we can talk about all that sort of thing. And then the second part is sort of the looking at the ROI and the third part being the table. And so, you know, I certainly would hope that I can you know, I want to be able to have you all and and whoever might be able to willing to attend articulate some of those because you probably could do it better than I can and and, you know but especially if there's questions on some particular spot that you're you're most comfortable with.

But I think, yeah, we're happy to sort of so in that in that box or that frame, are are you thinking that we need to just be a little more detailed and because I I haven't put, like, this is more important than that or any of that in here. It's just kind of all the Right. The consideration.

Well, affordable housing fee is establishing, and then alternative financing is exploring. To me, those are really different. You know?

Okay.

Yeah. So Yeah. If they're the same.

And now are you seeing other jurisdictions using the CFD in this way? Is it proven? Because that's where I think

I said explore. Very new. Well, this is all brand new territory. We're pioneering.

Well, that's why I said explore because I wasn't sure it was entirely possible.

But I happened to have coffee the other day with the with one of the the the head director over in Sack County, and I happen to throw out this idea of the CFD. And he, at one point in his career, was an employee of El Dorado County and Placer County, so he was very familiar.

I think I know who you're talking.

I think you do too, and we love him.

Yes. He was like, the BIA is after me on this. I'm like, well, then you should change it. But I happened to mention to this gentleman this concept, and light bulbs went off. He just thought, oh my god. That's a great idea. Because what they always feel like is they don't have power you know, they don't have the ordinances to do that. Right? The county doesn't. But when you're when you're sending it up, it's really like, what are you financing? You know? What's in the bucket of what to finance? And, really, it's just adding another fee level, you know, just like, you know, what are, you know, issuer fee or monitoring fee. Anyway, explained it like that, and he thought it was really a good idea and worth you know, and he was very curious to see how Eldorado County and the board was gonna take this. But I I think that you guys could be precedent setting.

Mhmm.

So okay.

But we we have found small examples. Right? I think I remember other jurisdictions, but I don't if it was Dublin or some San Diego. Like a

public benefit, which they've tacked onto the CFDs, which doesn't say affordable housing.

But Yeah. But it's a similar, I assume, idea that you Okay.

Okay. Good. So there is some

I couldn't recall, yeah, if there was an exact okay. Okay. So then maybe there's some is there some language changes we need to make in that that row related to making sure that we're articulating this concept in the appropriate way?

When you say establish?

We can. Yeah.

TBD details.

Oh, on which one?

On I don't know. Instead of explore, how about establish, you know

The use of the CFD fund. I mean Mhmm.

Yeah. However you wanna phrase it, but it just sounds better than explore.

And I guess I probably used that language because everybody you know, I just wasn't sure exactly how that all would go. But, yeah, we could establishes use of CFD fees is I mean, that's what we're we're trying to get to where we're

No. They're financing, make them. So at least it brought enough that

If it's a new program and a new piece, we are sort of the intent is to establish. So I don't think it's that much, at least from my perspective, the language change doesn't

you

know, because we're we're trying to get there anyways. Right. It'll be whether it can be done or not is talk about

it being an alternate financing mechanism. And

maybe it's to support new affordable housing construction, something like that. Yeah. You know? So it's not like, oh, just another slush fund to balance the budget. Yeah.

To support new affordable housing. And then what about the on the is the example still making sense in this context? I mean, we could get rid of example and just say, you know, a portion of the CFD paid to the housing fund, which we have below.

I I may change then over years by owner, but because if it's a You're selling servicing fee or something or servicing or monitoring fee, that's gonna be over years.

So it's really it it runs with the bond.

I think it'd be there upfront or a monitoring type fee.

Right. You need a CPI index increase.

Right. So would it be would it I guess because you were talking ongoing fee. Is that a better better

way to sort of That front fee is really not paid by the developer on that side side. Of

It's well, if you're selling homes, it's paid by the property owners. Right? The people who buy the homes are paying your supplemental Mello Roos tax,

for example.

So the idea would be it's built into that supplemental tax.

Well, I'm just saying not calling an upfront fee paid by the developer because it's not an upfront fee. So maybe

just both.

We did talk previously about splitting it where the developer would pay a smaller portion when they build the house, and then the rest would be borne on the person living in it through the taxes.

I think that's years. Needs to be part of the flexibility we're talking about. Right. Maybe it's a a mechanism.

Like, if the developer chooses not to pay the full, like, affordable housing fee, you

know, upfront just for building and just calling it

a day, I think that was the incentive on this fee. That way we did get a little money in the pot as they were being built

Mhmm.

Into the fund, and then, yeah, the rest would be

Well, the CFB would be even before they even been built, though. I mean, it would be from day one Yes. Infrastructure side of it. Mhmm.

Yeah. When they were doing bonds and everything.

Yeah. We did that.

But having that flexibility to pay maybe a a portion of it upfront by the builder and build the rest of the CFD Right. That may relieve some pressure on their CFD and the tax bill going forward, or or maybe they can calculate that it that works for the actual owners going forward. And so that's how they build their CFD, and they don't pay anything else.

So it's a financing mechanism, really.

It is. Yeah. That's what call

it. Mhmm.

Yeah. Yeah. Financing I just wanted to make sure it was capturing, you know, in these notes. These these notes are optional. It was just our way of trying to clarify what we're talking about, and it'll probably make its way Well,

you say examples. So, I mean, it doesn't say that this is exactly how we're doing it.

So Yeah. You know, these will be

the type of We could probably leave it then.

Yeah. I think it but I think that by owner does is confusing if you're, you know Mhmm. A big builder and you're selling all the homes.

So So what do you wanna say?

Just ongoing. I don't think you need to say.

Or how about upfront fee paid by developer and or Financed. And or Bond financed. Time or or it's because because we're talking about it could be an alternative source where it could be ongoing by the homeowners.

Well, we'll let you guys wordsmith.

Yeah. K. So maybe, yeah, maybe it's maybe because I don't I think that's the only time we use example even though we're giving examples. Maybe I would strike through example and just say portion of CFD fund, and then I would because I think bullets might help here where I put upfront fee paid by developer or or, you know, or And fees

financed over.

Initial fee in the CFD or then ongoing, and maybe those are the three categories sort of Yeah. That might be cleaner.

Okay. Did you still want the tax increment financing, or is that kinda what now that we've

Well, the you know, the thing is you're very community facilities just is one.

I just did common tax increment financing and other financing mechanisms. Yeah.

Oh, because that would be kinda captured in the other financing mechanisms. Right. Yep.

Alright. Any other questions on section b, the Now this considering

stuff. I mean, this is what we're starting to whittle down to, you

know I know.

Some some clear sort of and that's what I need to prepare the staff report for the board, you know, so I know kinda what you gotta think. So this is helpful. Land dedication, again, was another alternative in that scenario. Right? And then when we have the housing trust fund, that is, you know, that is a existing fund, but, again, we're trying to expand the uses. Right. Because when that money starts coming in, we wanna be able to use it not only to support gap funding, but there's a lot of other programs. And then what are those programs that we wanna include and sort of solidifying that?

Like new or preservation. So Mhmm. Okay. I think we're good on that then.

And then as far as the okay. So we're good on that one. So in the incentives section, again, the density bonus piece, we're not we're not trying to I guess the idea here was to the the state already has its density bonus laws, and there are some thresholds there. Do we want to look at other thresholds that don't put them through, you know, the the streamlining state density bonus program, but that we're incentivizing affordable housing at maybe different levels? So say, for instance, if if there's a threshold that says to meet the state density bonus law, it's gotta be 50%.

Maybe we could put something together that's 10% or some other thing. That's how I understood it. This is one where, you know, it is sort of I think the idea was to try to provide more flexibility. There was some comments. Well, the state's pretty flexible in that housing density.

So it was really looking at, are there alternative thresholds sort of to to determine that in a county program that are different and apart from that would help promote? And so, you know, I don't know if you guys still if that concept's still something that you wanna move forward, but that was sort of the and it wasn't wasn't entirely clear what those thresholds would be at this point. But as we're looking at, you know, the state law and updating, you know, this program that we would look for opportunity to maybe reduce thresholds that would motivate developers to to work within that, you know, and to get some of those additional incentives without having to go to the full level of affordability that the state requires.

So the question is, when we talk about this, are we talking market rate project or affordable project?

Well, I think the state rules

Very clear on affordable project. Correct.

I think we but they have some thresholds. Right? My understanding was this would be looking at if there's a way to maybe lessen thresholds where they're and still provide affordable project is how I understood it. But, again, this is one where, you know, it was a concept, and we kinda talked through it, but wanna make sure that everybody is comfortable with it, understands it, and it it makes sense to you all.

Well, how would you see the county be able to increase the density or the lower the threshold versus the state that are out there. Because I don't do you see that in any other jurisdiction?

Not that I'm aware of.

I haven't seen that working around the state. So I'm just trying to figure out, are we complicating the issue here by tapping that in there? I mean, we're That's kinda

what I'm getting at. Yeah.

I mean We already have the limits that we have from the state side that as a developer knows going in. Yeah. I can get these if I do this, I can get that. Right.

And it's funny because, Chris, you said, oh, is this for affordable or market rate? So, you know, a lot of affordable housing developers use density bonus to to Right. Twist and turn to fit into the, you know, into the box it has to fit into. So that makes sense here where you're, like, trying to encourage developers to build a 100% affordable, and then you're gonna do everything. You know? And some jurisdictions make it really hard to get the waivers. There are waivers that come with it.

So is that what we're really talking about is making the county understand the state level side of it more? Because

And accept already have it. Right. But, again, I I know personally some jurisdictions don't wanna use it. Right? Like, there there's a resistance because it over, you know it's it's state control versus local control. But then you know? And I think for market rate developers, if you're doing inclusionary, you know, density bonus, you can do 10% and get, like, one waiver. If you do, like, you know, a 100% or more than 50, you get all the waivers. To me, it's the waivers are also very important. You get Right. Both the density plus the waiving of standards kind of thing.

And a lot of times, it's the waivers just what you're trying to get.

Yeah.

Parking, setbacks, height.

Which in some ways is being built into the next one. Right.

You know? Right. Right. Well, that's why we're going back through it. You know, we had this first table with the first look, and so, yeah, I'm trying to make sure I I mean, my

And and we kinda got back to the beginning too where we're saying, you know, the developer the market rate developers coming in and doing, like, building some of the affordable or doing, I think, what sales incentives for them. I just wanna make sure that we're very clear on because we're in the incentive side now. So it's figuring out make sure it's not just talking affordable. It's also the marker rate.

So I'm just wondering if maybe the first bullet is just the establishment that the county is gonna, you know, basically abide by state law, and all all of its iterations of density bonus, period. And then the next one is reduction in development and design standards, which kinda gets at some of

those ways. I would guess, and and I haven't gotten to this part of the our conversation yet, but maybe now is a good time to kinda put this out there. We were anticipating trying to go October 21 to the board of supervisors. We have in my planning division, we have a long range planning unit, and they have in our housing element other things outside of this affordable housing ordinance that they are trying to do. And so we thought it best to bring those two items collectively together.

And so included in that action is the updating that section to comply with state law, and so it it is that supporting sort of part of and and complying with the state density bonus law. There's some other ones too, like we have to update our zoning from or or our general plan designation from 24 units to 30 units in our high density res so some things that we're not necessarily couching the task force to figure out because they're sort of already in our housing element. But the idea was that we might or that we're our intent is to sort of push it to November 4, and I know that's a delay, but we would yeah. We've sort of acquired the afternoon at the board, and we would be take is that a problem for you?

Oh, I just it's gonna be a busy day.

Oh. Yeah. I'll I'll make But I but but we can then bring so that we're not one week talking about this one and then one week talking about that other one, and the board says, wait. I thought we just went over this. We're kind of couching it in two separate items same afternoon, and we would go over the, you know, the other state mandates that we have to comply with as part of this long range planning exercise and then this affordable housing task force and affordable housing piece as well.

So I think we're sort of capturing what you guys, this support of or compliance with the state law in that other exercise. And so if we don't think this is a I mean, we can get rid of this item. I think as I understood it, and it wasn't maybe fully vetted, but was that we were looking for opportunities to come to give density bonus that maybe weren't included or were more localized than the state. And and maybe that doesn't make sense, you know, because they're that program is pretty much in place and already has its threshold and all that. So I guess, you know, that that's what I think the Yeah.

Was trying to how much is gonna exceed what the state already allowing us to do. I mean

Right. I just see it as if if a jurisdiction

making them comply with state

Yes.

Law. Yeah.

Okay. And and many rural communities don't like density bonus. So if you establish that you're gonna accept it, I to me, that's just clarity.

First statement says county supports the current state density bonus law.

Yeah. So may maybe okay. How I and I thought we were also gonna just sort of say all these sort of state incentives. Like, we've got the, you know, the new CEQUA infill, you know, bill and all these other things that, again, state law, but it's I don't know. Could it just be a A blanket. A blanket. We will you know, like, it's we're gonna embrace with open arms, you know, all the different tools in the tool chest that are now at the state level that essentially exempt local control. Right? So there's

sometimes And that'll be an interesting discussion at the board because that's an item that is discussed regularly on some of those things. So, you know, we know we have to have an ordinance that complies with, so that's separate, and that's sort of what my long range planning team has done. Whether we want to include this supportive statement can be an item, and maybe we couch it in that way instead of trying to explore different variables.

Yeah. Because technically speaking, it I guess it isn't necessarily an incentive because it's already law. Yeah. But it's really

just And and I think, you know, this and maybe it was not well founded, this explore opportunities to provide other flexibility in a local program that we felt like we had more control over, but maybe there's not a good way to get there because the state program's out there and it

is what it is. You know? Right. Okay. Mhmm. Mhmm.

So then collectively, do we wanna just sort of make this more about out of incentive and maybe make it a policy consideration. Or is that a does that make more sense or a program structure? Probably more of a policy consideration.

Yeah. So maybe then it's really just

We just move it up there, and it's like that we're gonna support and then and State.

Yeah. State tools, however you wanna describe it.

So state density bonus law and other applicable regulations or something or other regulations that support affordable housing? There's lots of streamlining provisions and other things, you know, that we're trying to capture in a local program for ways that aren't subject to that. You know? And so we're trying it's I think it was intended to be in that same vein, but, yeah, it may just not make sense.

That's why we should write.

Yeah. No. That makes sense to me.

Okay. And I have to take out under the notes, say, potential thresholds we determine. Yep.

And and we can just say, yeah, you know, a a broad maybe in that note, a broad statement that supports, you know, the initiatives or something like affordable housing initiatives from the state.

Perfect.

Yeah. So the reduction in development and design standards, I think we added development in there, if I remember correctly Yeah. Because it was more about design, and we were talking about other, you know, incentives there and and looking at that section. So that was a change there. I think we left the ex expedited processing in the

way that

it was. And then the financing alternatives, I think we clarified that or not.

We changed it from fee reductions, waiver deferrals.

Right. Yeah. We did financing alternatives and sort of ex creates new or expands upon existing sections because we have some in place, but looking at those opportunities to expand and and then, you know, to coordinate it with an important point was coordinating with other affected agencies to see if there's opportunities there to have a more holistic sort of approach and then, you know, and then assisting with project financing.

Should we clarify that that's a residual receipt one?

Sure. You wanna add that receipt? So

Oh, it's a residual receipt loan.

Oh, receipt loan. Sorry.

Any comments on that part? And then the last section again, moved the partnership piece. I think we moved it to here Mhmm. As part of that, those comments. And these yeah. And we will make sure that the titles and the and the language matches what's in the resolution. But, yeah, these are some existing programs that we already have, and and we're gonna sort of make sure that they're acknowledged within this, you know, ordinance as as opportunities within that. And then, again, based on the rest of the document, if they're expanded or they're addressed, you know, that we make those types of changes.

Maybe I have one comment on the partnership where it says the second bullet outline opportunities for partnerships with nonprofits that deliver on and off-site affordable units. It's really developers. You know? You're either for profit or nonprofit. It really you know?

Okay. So just get rid of that developer.

Yeah. Affordable developer. To deliver?

We could say affordable developers if you'd like. To deliver on or off-site. Affordable units.

So Okay. And I'm just wondering too, when we talk about existing programs, when we talked about earlier the I think it was the housing trust fund under policy considerations. Do we need to list the county's existing programs? Kinda like what you were talking about in the very beginning of this discussion. But programs. We don't really talk or maybe I'm missing a section here with Do

you mean in, like, home grants or CDBG or, like, the type the financing programs that we offer?

Yeah.

Or, like, the first time or do you mean, like, more like the first time home buyer or the owner occupied?

Program you guys already have.

We do. Yeah.

Okay. So maybe maybe we could add that to this existing program, and then that section that's up at in the policy considerations where we're talking about expanding that is is one of the

But do we so do we actually wanna list the exact programs in the ordinance? Or because those become program guidelines outside of it depending on what

type of funding you just a general discussion.

So another like

another line item because we talk about partnerships. Like, we just talked about working with we talked about the TIF fee. Okay. We talked about fee deferral. We talked about county collaborative, basically working with the developers on applications, but we don't talk about the existing county program.

Yeah. So because And and it's

maybe not list them all out, but we could see

stuck to always doing those if we don't if we don't have the financing for it, then we can't offer it. But it's stuck in the subordinate, so I don't wanna on the hook for offering something that the fundings run out for.

Should we list it there, though? Not the

exact program. Saying should we list it as an existing program?

On the table.

On the table? Yeah.

Not on the ROI.

Right. Yeah. I'm just saying in the table.

Like examples? More like

Like examples or something similar to

I I think it makes sense in the context where we're saying we wanna potentially expand the use of it. Right. We haven't necessarily defined the existing use of it. Right? And that's kind of what you're doing. Right.

Okay. But then also crediting that these programs exist.

That you already have programs. Yeah. I'm just saying because it said that the the section is called existing programs, but we're not saying that the county has any existing programs besides TIF and a fee deferral. Okay. In partnership with a developer.

Yeah. We can find a good balance to kind of

You know

what I'm saying?

Just so I don't I don't try to put you on the spot and have to list out a program that may or may not, like Jen said, have the funding available right now or may have the funding available later, but just that the county does have programs

Yeah.

And is willing to continue programs if funding is available type.

And let me throw out one that I don't see here then on the existing would be, like, housing authority. El Dorado County has a housing authority, and you guys have section eight.

But that's not our division. That's health and human services. So and it says specifically in this resolution that we're we cannot cover anything that has to do with homelessness or those programs.

Sure. The section a has to do with homelessness?

Yeah. Yeah. Like, homelessness that under the Yeah. Social services side.

Community services.

Community services.

Yeah. Does the vouchers and all that. And we coordinate with them when we have the developers come through the door and we have to work separately. And but we and we have collaborative meetings with them on financing programs and stuff too, and we work together. But, yeah, we cover more permanent housing solutions, and they cover more temporary and such. And so but they give the vouchers for those people in the rental units. So it's kind of

They also do that.

And I think what Jen's referencing is so in the in the resident

I mean, it's it's if you don't link them together I mean, that's the problem, just to be honest. Like, if you're your typical, you know, like, Chris what and I do, you know, affordable housing developers, yeah, you can try to build it, you know, a 100% at 60% or 30% of AMI, but you need that rentals subsidy to kind of really make it work. Yeah. And if you're, you know, and if you're struggling to to find that, then it's just again, it just really comes down to if it Coordination. Yeah. If it makes sense to coordinate, especially knowing that that's a critical piece to making it work.

And and we do coordinate. It's just not necessarily, I guess, in our ordinance.

Could we Understood. So

stand

here? I'm just yeah. Just it's maybe just

of other county agencies. Well, I was gonna

say under partnerships, we could expand that to make a highlight of those coordination pieces. Yeah. Because I was looking at the resolution.

Having that discussion because me is right. It's it's critical, and a lot of times that gets overlooked because you know?

And because they're different camps. Yeah. And the camps have different rules.

Right.

And, you know, and then going back to, you know, the homelessness. You know, I am seeing now people are integrating in you know, out of homeless dollars coming from the state into affordable housing. So it's already kind of being merged. So, again, just acknowledging those relationships and

Yeah. Acknowledging I I think we could do that. I wanna make sure, yeah, the guidance that we got from the board, and I'll just read this is from the exhibit a of the ordinance section two purpose. And then it says, although affordable housing is a broad topic, affordable housing a a h t f, affordable housing task force, shall focus on these specifics defined purposes. For the purposes of that is affordable housing is defined as housing for sale or rent offered within the affordability range by the California Department of Housing.

Says although there are other related and worthy topics such as homeless shelters and services, these topics are outside of the scope and jurisdiction. So we can acknowledge them. I think we don't wanna go down Right. Too far down that that lane. But, yes, I think we can Jen and I can put together she's very familiar with the existing programs, and we can put something together that maybe acknowledges our collaboration and coordination with the in the partnership section.

Uh-huh. And I was actually just gonna point out. I was just realizing this. If you scroll to the pink section on there so people online can see it too. But partnerships and county collaborative, I'm kinda reading those right now.

I'm kinda thinking they're almost the same because what we do is we have the county collaborative opportunity is developing the partnership with the developers for the financing, and, you know, either they go find the NOFA that they wanna apply for and we partner with them, or we have funding that they can apply for in the county. And so I actually think, in my mind, partnership and that bottom box county collaborative should almost be combined into one, but then we can talk about replacing one of those with the county collaboration with the jurisdictions within, you know Internal? Yeah. The internal collaboration.

Collaboration.

Yeah. Because I was just reading through these, and they seem a little they seem a little redundant now.

So you kinda know what we're talking about is to Maybe kinda wordsmith that around then. Does

that work? Yep. Okay.

As long as you all are comfortable with it. Yeah. Like, we wanna make sure that you understand what we're I know. We

I think it's good. I mean, we're just establishing that these, you know, that these are sort of strategies.

Yeah. These are the parameters we're working on, right, and that the that the board is comfortable with.

And then getting the board's feedback on Yes. This avenue we're gonna proceed down through.

Yeah. Because they could say, yeah, we like this, and we don't that or whatever, and that'll be our sort of move forward, quite frankly, because they kinda direct the work. But they're looking for your expertise to inform that those decisions and how we move forward. Right?

Mhmm.

Because I know and we have partnered with HHSA before on TBRA, tenant based rental assistance programs.

But I think we're talking more on, like, PBV, the project Right.

But there's but yeah. But then there's also that other. Yeah. So we we do coordinate with them a lot on Okay.

And VASH, for example. You know, if you do a veterans project, VASH is

really neat.

Right. So

especially and just so you're aware, like, when we have marketing plans with developers through our agreements, when we talk with HHSA, we get a list of agencies from them too that they want, you know, through the marketing plan. We'll reach out to those, you know, the veterans. And then I think we've reached out to Housing Eldorado on some of this, you know, who who needs a home now. So we work together in placing people in the homes too. Great. So

Yeah. So then it's just more coordination. Mhmm.

Well, any so we've kind of reached the end of this, but I'm happy to go back and make sure if there's anything as you guys are reflecting on these discussions we have that we need to go back over and make sure that there's clarity. I feel pretty comfortable with what we've heard, and we have it on the record so we can make sure to go back and listen to it and all that. And and then, again, I think, you know, the approach would be to bring this for the for the sake of the it being clear to the board of supervisors in a in a meeting that has also our other house related modifications.

I think that makes sense having a dual meeting even though.

And it'll actually have I know. I apologize. It'll actually have a separate ROI for those components that will be provided by my long range planning division for those pieces they're taken care of, and then we'll this will be very targeted. And then it's not like I said, it can get a little confusing. The board sees so many different things. We do one week this part and one week that part, then they go, wait. I thought we were already talking about that. I think it'll help them have it all in one sitting, if you will.

That's great.

Alright. Any other discussion from the task force members then, I guess, on the ROI or the table?

Just one item regarding the the TIF, offset. And I mentioned it last time, and I'll keep bringing it up. Just I think the notion of, housing TIF fees being used to offset commercial is something that should be visited so that instead maybe those offsets shift to offsetting more for affordable housing, as opposed to commercial.

Just I

don't wanna sorry. I'm not following that.

So as part of the TIF program, the board has decided at what level there's gonna be offsets, not just for affordable housing. That's its own stand alone TIF offset program. But they've also built in offsets for commercial developments, and that pool of money includes the pool of money that's paid by market rate housing development TIF fees. And so they use market rate development TIF fees to offset commercial TIF. Oh. And I think there's an issue with that. I think if we're gonna be paying a housing our housing's gonna be paying the TIF. If it's gonna offset anything, let's add more to the offset for affordable housing.

So

yeah. Mhmm. Mhmm. That makes sense for me.

We would yeah. We'd have to definitely partner pretty closely with our DOT side of the house on

those types of discussions. So

But I think you know? So would you in that sense, would you, under a policy consideration, although we're acknowledging the TIF fee in an existing program

Mhmm.

Would you want to, in those considerations, be talking about whether or not to modify that program?

Yeah. Okay. It's really an expansion of the existing affordable housing TIF offset by redirecting those funds that are being used for commercial.

Yeah. So I think in the same yeah. I think we could

So who does that program? Because you guys Jen, you guys do the one for the affordable. So who does the offset for the commercial side of it then?

I think it's all DOT. Yeah.

That's why I don't have as much Right. You know, in that lane. But, certainly, if if we're discussing that the existing programs and you guys wanna discuss potential flexibility or modifications to

the program side of it. So yeah.

Yeah. So I guess, yeah, once we get into more development of this, we would invite DOT. That.

We would be talking with DOT and and then getting

a sense for that. The board's willing to Well, I don't know how much that program's being used, the commercial side.

I don't have any Yeah. That's right.

Yeah. That's

do you have an idea on that?

It well, it's a hard question to answer because the level of offset depends on which TIF zone the development occurs in. Yeah.

It's a complex one, so I want yeah. I wanna be I'm I'm willing to sort of maybe have that discussion about whether they wanna look at a different offset for affordable housing at a high level and then how that might come together. Right. There would be a lot of coordination with Oh, yeah. DOT side of the house on how that might look. Yes.

Can I throw out another kind of concept around as we were talking, I kept thinking about commercial? So in the old days of redevelopment, you know, you used to you used to have kind of requirements on only 15% inclusionary, but also if you're building a big resort, like, say, in Tahoe. You have to do so much workforce housing, you know, because you're creating x number of jobs. Mhmm. And because there isn't housing, people are all driving, right, long distances to get to that job.

And if you had more affordable housing near that work, you would have fewer people in their cars driving, you know, an hour to get to work, etcetera, etcetera. I'm wondering, you know, again, because we're tea and we're just conceptually talking. I mean, is there perhaps if there you know, if not like a mom and pop, you're building a new coffee shop, but, like, if you're building a new plant up here, say, somewhere, you know, and you're and you're gonna have a 100 new people coming to work every day, You know? Is there a fee that should be associated with that business to offset, you know, the affordable housing or lack of workforce housing impacts? And I think when

we get to the nexus portion of this, we could develop a residential and a nonresidential fee because that makes sense that if you're bringing in a business to the county, you should be able to house.

I was gonna say that, yeah, the second component of our work is sort of a strategic plan, and maybe that fits in that conversation. It's good. But I don't know what you guys think. Yeah. Yeah.

I'm I'm fairly certain other jurisdictions in their fee affordable housing fee model. I'm pretty sure they have residential and nonresidential typically.

I've and I finally found the city of Dublin, and they they have both.

Okay. So I would maybe I don't know if that goes in now or however, but I do think that's important. And then to kind of further that to be maybe more progressive or, you know, thoughtful or, you know, creative, you know, then then it's really a zoning thing. Right? Like, maybe then if they have the land, let's just pretend a new casino wants to open up or some you know, or I don't know, what whatever. Right? Some big business, and they have, you know, 30 acres, and they were gonna build a parking lot, but they could also build apartments around the parking lot next to the big business. You know? That's something that then they can control, they can do, they can own, and then have a place for their employees. Like, you know, I've I've helped hospitals before where they're just like, we don't have any workforce housing for our doctors and nurses.

Yeah. You know, something like that, which then gives them flexibility. And So, again, it's really it's at least acknowledging that, yeah, we want the business, but we gotta also, you know, have some places for the people who are gonna be earning wages, you know, that can afford to live here.

Want that under, like, that affordable housing fee section for, like, residential and nonresidential?

It's like nonresidential or something

like that. And that it should be built into the nexus study. Yeah.

Mhmm.

K. Maybe we can add, yeah, considers, you know, potential for commercial

Right. Or nonresidential. Nonresidential. Nonresidential. Yeah.

I I will say, and I don't wanna get too far into it, but that topic was at our last planning commission meeting was a sort of a component of a project that was proposed. Mhmm. They had some, I'll call it, you know, employee housing that they were proposing alongside. So if anyone's interested, it was our last planning commission last Thursday.

Oh, great.

And you can a take look. I don't wanna get too far into talking about the project, but there were that was a component of what they were proposing, and it would be going to the board in late October. But it was not mandated.

It was more of a volunteer.

That's

great. Because the reality is true. You know? If you want your workforce, stable workforce, you gotta get housing nearby.

Any other thoughts, any other I know that we have to take public comment and all that sort of thing, but I wanted to make sure sort of we fleshed out We all and had all our conversations before that.

Alright. So then we'll open up for comments in in person here. I see none. Okay.

Now taking public comment from online. No further public comment.

Okay. So, Rob, do we need to take a vote on this then, or how do you or with this item forward, I guess?

Yeah. I think we'd wanna get, you know, the vote that we would be moving the recommendation in the ROI forward The the data the ROI. With the target date of November 4, and that we would you know, with the understanding that there might be some modifications to the resolution to include a little more detail and a little more meat on the bone, if you will, for the board to consider, and that we would you know, that this would be the recommendation of the task force for staff.

Okay. Do we have a motion for that then?

I move. Second.

At least, I guess, we'll do a roll call vote.

Member King? Yes. Aye.

Member Westlake?

Aye.

And member Girard?

Aye. A motion passed.

Maybe I could just ask one other question. And it's not about that. It's actually about just something outside of because of November 4 being the meeting, do we wanna have an October meeting? That's what I was just gonna ask.

Oh, okay. Because it it was next meeting's on our agenda. So Right. Do we really need to have a meeting in the October?

It'd be October 15, and then the board would so it'd be four weeks from now, we'd have another meeting. And then three weeks after that next meeting would be the actual board meeting. But we'd already have this item launched Mhmm. In the approval path to get to the board.

So They just skip October at this point.

Yeah. Works for me. Yeah.

Yeah. I just I don't, you know, I don't wanna have a meeting for the sake of a meeting. Right. And and this

is kinda what just meeting should be in November. So by then, we'll know what the board we can come back and figure out our next steps from the board.

Then, yeah, the next meeting would be November 19, which would be two weeks after the board. So then we could get started on the path forward from that.

That that makes sense to me from a staff perspective. Okay.

And that's what we'll do November 19 at 10AM. Next one.

And then what about the fourth the meeting on the fourth? What would be a sort of time block?

Yeah. So I can speak to that. Generally, the land use items are in the afternoon. So it would be after public comment is generally at 01:00. It usually goes between 01:30 and two, so it'll be after that.

And so both of those items and I can certainly we can make sure that all of the members of the task force are aware when we get an actual time frame of what that time but it would be likely, the other item, it would be something like two and three or one and, you know, 02:30, something like that. So that order of I I think we're still I wanted to get to this meeting. We're gonna determine which one makes sense to go first. Right? And then whether it's this body and then those other ones or if they tee it up, I think, you know, at least right now, I thought maybe this one could go first so we could hone in because I think the other one's a little more procedural. But we'll we'll we'll make sure that you guys all know that in in advance.

So just so I know clarifications, we talked about this. So the board say the board approves the ROI and the table that we talked about on the fourth. And then does this item then go to the planning commission, or do we then refine it to take to the planning commission?

Then start writing an ordinance Okay. And doing all that legwork.

So the actual ordinance goes to the Correct. Commission?

Yeah. So we would the ROI says, yes. Go do this ordinance. We start filling in the blanks, reestablishing the thresholds. Yeah. And then and then when we have that draft ordinance put together, let's say, that's what we take to the planning commission for their recommendation to board.

Okay. Just wanna make sure Yep.

Yeah.

How that goes.

Alright.

Sound good? Alright. Thank you so much. Alright. Bye.