City Council - Regular Meeting

Caleb tonight? Is Caleb? Okay. He may also be...

There he is.

All right.

All right.

He is that, isn't he? He is that. All right.

Recording in progress.

Good evening. It is the 15th of September. It's the City Council meeting. The City Council of Louisville, Colorado. Can we get a roll call, please?

Council Member Cooperman.

Here.

Council Member Fahey. Here. Council Member Kern. Here. Mayor Pro Tem Hamilton. Here. Council Member Huffner.

Here.

Council Member Dickinson.

Here.

Mayor Lay. Here.

Here, would you say the Pledge of Allegiance with me?

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you. Our first item on the agenda is an executive session for real property acquisitions and dispositions under Louisville Charter Section 52C and CRS Section 2464024A. The city manager is requesting the city council to convene an executive session for the purpose of discussing real property acquisitions and dispositions concerning property in Louisville, but only as to appraisals and other Value estimates and strategy. City Clerk will be reading a statement.

It is the policy of the city to conduct public business and meetings open to the public. While in executive session, it is inappropriate to take straw votes, keep minutes, or to make any final decisions. It is the duty of each member to ensure that executive sessions are conducted in strict compliance with this ordinance, state and federal law, and any applicable provisions of the state and federal constitutions. If at any time the scope, nature, or parameter of this executive session goes beyond the publicly stated topic, it is the responsibility of the Council to terminate and cease any further deliberation within the executive session and return to the public meeting. Only those topics described in city ordinance may be discussed in an executive session. Those topics are summarized as follows. One, where federal or state law requires that the information being discussed remain confidential. Two, certain personnel matters involving only employees directly appointed by the council and other personnel matters upon request of the city manager or mayor. Three, consideration of water rights and rail property acquisitions and dispositions, but only as to appraisals, value estimates, and strategy. Four, legal consultation with an attorney representing the city with respect to pending litigation.

Regarding the authority for the executive session, Section 5-2C of the Home Rule Charter authorizes an executive session for the purpose of discussing real property acquisitions and dispositions, but only as to appraisals and other estimates of value and strategy. An executive session for this purpose is also authorized by the Open Meetings Law, Section 2464024A of the Colorado Revised Statutes. The request involves potential acquisition and disposition of real property. With that, Mayor, you may entertain a motion to go into executive session for consideration of real property acquisitions and dispositions.

I move to go into executive session for the purpose of real property acquisitions and dispositions and that the executive session includes City Manager Diana Langley, Deputy City Manager Sima Fox, Community Development Director Rob Zaccaro, Planning Manager Jeff Hurt, City Attorney Kathleen Kelley, Danica Power and Nicole Mansour with Dressel Strategy, and Dalton Kelly with Butler Snow. Can we get a roll call? Can I get a second?

Second.

Then can we get a roll call?

Council Member Dickinson?

Yes.

Council Member Hefner?

Yes.

Council Member Kern? Yes. Mayor Pro Tem Hamilton? Yes. Council Member Cooperman?

Yes.

Mayor Lay?

Yes.

Council Member Fahey?

Yes. Great, we have two thirds of the seven votes necessary. In fact, we've got all of the votes of the city council. We will now adjourn to executive session. There'll be a note up on our screen there if you're watching or will be watching. We will reconvene here no earlier than 6 p.m. Thank you.

Online we are back after our executive session and the city Attorney's report on that executive session is next Thank You mayor mayor and council is noted on the meeting agenda The executive session was for the purpose of discussing real property acquisitions and dispositions and the City Council had such discussion There's no follow-up required at this time Thank you

All right, do we have a motion to approve tonight's agenda? So moved. Second?

Second.

Any discussion?

All in favor? Aye. Aye. Any opposed?

All right. The next item on the agenda is public comments on items not on the agenda and items on the consent agenda. Do we have anybody in the queue for public comment? No, not tonight. All right. So next is the consent agenda. Do we have a motion concerning consent agenda?

So moved. Second.

Any discussion? All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? All right. Moving right along. Next is council informational comments and committee reports. Do council members have any such reports or comments? Okay. Next up is the City Manager's Report.

No updates.

Regular Business. We have a presentation tonight on the Housing Strategic Framework from Dressel Strategy Group. Just to be clear, presentations are informational only. while council members may ask some questions and have some discussion among us. No action will be taken by council and there won't be any public comment. Excuse me, there will be one round of public comment. So with that, please introduce yourself and begin the show.

Good evening. My name is Danica Powell. I'm with Trussell Strategy Group and I'm joined by Nicole Mansour who is helping with some of the work and research we did, especially related to affordable housing finance and funding. So I do have a presentation. Do I need to do something? I'm sorry.

It's not working down here.

I'm going to try to click share if we have to.

Yeah, let me cross it.

OK. Looks like the click shows. Where's that playing from? What's that? Where's that playing from? That's the cameras up here.

Sorry about that. Oops.

Okay, let's start over here.

All right, you guys can hear me, you can see my presentation. Yes, okay. Sorry about that. Good evening, my name's Danica Powell. I'm here to present about the Housing Funding Strategic Framework. My firm is Trestle Strategy Group. I'm based in Boulder, Colorado. I work on many complex entitlements, affordable housing, real estate strategy analysis, community and stakeholder engagement, and affordable housing. I'm joined tonight by Nicole Mansour, who I introduced earlier, who's helping provide support on this project about affordable housing finance and funding, specifically related to LIHTC projects and affordable housing finance. So I was hired a little over a year ago to help provide guidance for the city of Louisville to evaluate and prioritize its housing funding strategies in order to maximize impact and align with community goals to provide critical housing for the community. As background, many of you know that in 2024, the city of Louisville created a housing plan or hired a consultant to do a housing plan that identified the supply of affordable and attainable housing as a critical community priority and then dedicated $2 million in dedicated housing funds for making investments to catalyze long-term solutions to meet the housing crisis in this community. And our scope of work included engaging directly with developers, funding partners, regulatory agencies, financial institutions, and many other experts to lay the groundwork and understand the landscape for future implementation. And through these conversations, we were able to inform investment strategy options to present to Council to ensure that recommended projects are grounded in practical, achievable outcomes. The goals of my work were to build awareness and transparency in the community, not just here in the city council chambers, but in the broader community around Louisville's housing goals and priorities, to highlight best practices on building affordable and attainable housing from neighbor communities and across the region, identify viable projects to surface real-world development opportunities that could be supported by the $2 million fund, explore additional funding sources, what other funding is out there, creating relationships with those funders to identify gap funding and leverage opportunities. Every affordable housing project needs probably eight to 10 different funding sources to become viable. to establish strategic relationships to support long-term housing development and future public-private collaborations. After I'm done with my work, I hope that you have new relationships in the community to continue to build on this work and to provide case studies and document successful projects that have been... out there. So as many of you remember in December, I came forward with step one of my scope of work. I will go through that quickly just to kind of ground us in where we are in step two. So that was to identify different investment strategies for affordable and attainable housing and develop an evaluation and ranking framework. So during step 1A, I did a lot of research, a lot of outreach to the community, talking to developers, property owners. for-profit and non-profit housing developers, adjacent housing authorities, including Boulder County Housing Authority, and landowners, brokers, developers, as many people as I could reach in my network to try and understand kind of the landscape and understand housing strategies and deliver a well-defined set of options to form this evaluation framework. which is step B, which was to develop an evaluation and ranking framework. So really trying to come up with some guardrails and guidelines on how to prioritize affordable housing projects. There's a lot of different ways to look at them and bringing in your community priorities as well as how to kind of establish a framework for Louisville around different criteria so that we can evaluate projects when they come forward in more of a qualitative fashion There's also quantitative evaluation as well. So the criteria that we identified during that first phase were cost efficiency, the estimated cost per unit that that subsidy or a contribution from the City of Louisville would cost per unit, how deep of an affordability are you able to get with that investment that you're making in a project, a development and feasibility and timeline, what is the likelihood the project can move forward successfully in the expected timeframe, delivering the housing incomes, what's the risk profile, the scale of impact, how many units are you able to deliver with that funding allocation, sustainability, and that's not environmental sustainability, but more how the ability of this to have a lasting impact on the community without additional city funding or additional city resources, so it's kind of sustainability with respect to city staff and future funding sources, and leverage. How does your dollars in leverage additional funding sources in the community? How can we best unpack the funding that does still exist in a community from a regional and state and federal standpoint? So the key takeaways in that research and outreach during that phase one, there's many barriers to affordable housing in Louisville, not unique to Louisville, but this is what I heard in your community. Impact fees are high, the funding uncertainty, how the affordable AAHT, which is the county funding, the sales tax funding, how that will be allocated in the future. land prices are very high and not alignment with the risk. So land prices are very high, the zoning risk is high, and so those two, when they're both high, people are unwilling to take on that additional risk. Lengthy and complicated entitlements. I know that the city's working very hard on kind of trying to reduce that entitlement risk and process timeframe, but that's still the perception in the community. A lot of low density zoning that requires PUD and rezoning. And so I think, again, cities working through that with their comp plan update and some code changes, but that's still the current state of affairs. Louisville is not a housing authority, so they will need a partner to develop and manage housing. That is very unique, not unique to Louisville, but very important to Louisville. You don't have a staff of 10 to 15 people that can administer a housing program and actually decide how to finance and fund projects. Certain funding sources out in the community need the city to be the lead, so there has to be skin in the game and some sort of public-private partnership or relationship to a project in order to unpack some of these funding sources, including Prop 123 and the local AAHT funding. And ballot measures, you know, there's risk of, you know, referendum and, you know, community opposition is always, this community is also very high. And so how do you kind of de-risk the project from a community standpoint so you're not going through a five-year process and then having it overturned at the end, which happens with affordable housing and many other types of projects. So in terms of the opportunities in Louisville, there's lots of opportunity to leverage funding with other sources. Like I mentioned, there's many funding sources still available at the many levels in our community. Louisville can remove barriers and demonstrate support and lead by example. So showing, again, that skin in the game and taking leadership on a housing project will show that to other developers and housing leaders that that the city wants to do this. And you've already done that through calm plan update, regulation changes, and demonstrated support for higher density in certain parts of your community. Clearly outline goals for new development. If the city is a funding partner, trying to de-risk the project as much as possible to attract a good development partner. Property tax exemption is a key funding strategy. So partnership with Boulder County Housing Authority is the way to get property tax exemption. That is a big... Influencing factor in affordable housing development is being able to reduce the property taxes and BCHA does partner with housing developers to do that. Louisville would be competitive for tax credits given its history of not receiving tax credits in a while and having a really demonstrated need, a very high need for affordable housing. And it is attractive to affordable housing developers because your high market rents that show, and this is in your housing needs assessment that we went over in more detail, that the lower rent, there's a really strong demand in those lower AMIs, 60% and below. So we talked about four strategies in December last year, public-private partnership with developer for land acquisition, buying down existing or newly developed units, pre-development of a site to de-risk the project and find a developer, and administrative review and fee waivers for affordable housing projects. In our discussion with council, I tried to recap what I heard. I went back and watched our discussion. So these were kind of the key things that I want to lead into step two. What role can the county play to assist Louisville with housing, staffing, and resources? They are the Boulder County Housing Authority. And so trying to explore that. What specific examples of developers saying that impact fees are high when they just say impact fees are high? What does that actually mean? How does property exemption work with Boulder County? Is funding at the federal level going away? How do developers get interested in building affordable housing? Why does affordable housing cost more to build sometimes than market housing? How can we de-risk and speed up the process? What can Louisville do? Can we find an opportunity to build housing within the scope of my project? Is there an actionable project or development that we can kind of uncover in this process? And how can we increase and add diversity to the affordable housing options available? So not just one type of housing, but looking at all the spectrum of housing. So here we are in step two. Since December I have been working on this, and this was looking specifically for properties, feasibility analysis, and continuing that outreach to try and work more towards an implementation strategy. So I took the feedback that I was provided by staff and council to explore real estate investment opportunities and potential projects that are strong candidates for investment with the $2 million housing fund, and then evaluate how each opportunity aligns with city council priorities and the criteria that we established in step one. So the key activities that I did in step two were looking at site identification, so identify specific parcels that are both for sale on the market and maybe not on the market but are vacant or have development potential and really try and talk to as many people as I could to see what interest there might be, what the value proposition might be to affordable housing development. feasibility assessment, look at key opportunities and constraints in alignment with this framework, including zoning, land use, infrastructure, acquisition costs, and viability. I would say this is, you know, I did this very closely with Rob and his team to really kind of look as many parcels as we could think of that we could identify under the maps as we drove around. and could really try and uncover something within the community that was viable. And partnership exploration, continue to engage with local developers who have a proven track record in the community, housing providers like Thistle, nonprofit partners, Habitat, and others to understand pipelines and explore collaboration opportunities. So again, I continued to talk to the developers and started bringing those introductions into the city staff so that we could continue those discussions if there seemed like a two-way interest, created more awareness, explored the parcels, continued to follow up with developers, reached out to the Regional Housing Partnership to discuss programs available to Louisville, and talked to financial experts and funders. So I have three example projects that I want to go through using kind of our evaluation framework and kind of looking at them as kind of, they're very different and they achieve different goals, but these are kind of three that surfaced up as viable opportunities for the city of Louisville to deploy the capital they have put aside for the investment fund. So public-private partnership with a development partner. So this is an example project, which would be a 50-unit LIHTC, which is low-income housing tax credits. It's a federal tax credit project on a vacant land in a transit-oriented community. Example would be 55... Plus, age-restricted community, which is considered senior, almost there, which was always going to happen. Here I am. Under 60% AMI. So for Louisville, a 50% AMI for one person means about $50,000 annual income. 60% AMI for one person is about $50,000. 60,000 a year, for example. That would be the qualifying AMIs for this type of housing. So the city would partner on land acquisition to unlock additional funding, including Prop 123 funding, which is through the state for land banking, and other funding, CDBG and county funding, the affordable housing tax funding, also including 9% tax credits, which is a significant, and I'll go over in a slide, is about $50 The tax credits make up about 55% of the capital stack. So it's an incredible way to drive down deeper affordability through CHAFA, the Colorado Housing Finance Authority. The county would partner as a 0.01% limited liability partner to provide tax exemptions. So the county would have a very small limited partnership in this deal in exchange for their participation and tax exemption. We'd structure this public-private partnership to maximize long-term affordability and create as long of a deed restriction as we possibly can, including a permanent deed restriction. So here's the capital stock on this example project. So as you can see, the LIHTC, the tax credits coming from CHAFA, 55% of the capital stock. Permanent debt, which would be debt that the developer would take on themselves and pay back through the rental income would be 13%. State housing tax credit, 8%. And the rest, state transit-oriented communities. So there's a TOC fund of money through the state. This particular project is within that TOC zone, so it would be eligible to apply for these funds. About 4%. City of Louisville soft funds, so an equity contribution from this $2 million fund, about 5%. The Boulder Affordable Housing Tax Fund, about 5%. Colorado Division of Housing Fund, 5%, and Deferred Developer Fee, 5%. And the Deferred Developer Fee is the developer fee that the developer could then put back into the project as equity. So this is an example capital stack for this project. You can ask me questions. This is a lot of information. Please feel to interrupt me.

Do you have questions on that example?

No? Go ahead.

Nope. Okay. So then bringing this back to the framework that we discussed in step one, again, I will make a disclaimer that these green, it's kind of red, yellow, green, red meaning higher risk, yellow, medium risk, green, lower risk, or I guess, sorry about impact. I'm sorry, it's not risk, about the impact. This is my own kind of subjective viewpoint these can be debated but for conversation purposes I wanted to give them some colors so that we could kind of look at them and then at the end look at them side by side. They aren't apples to apples examples but just for the purposes of trying to unpack all of this. So in terms of cost efficiency we talked about estimated cost per unit. for the city's contribution and cost per unit. So about $26,000 a unit would kind of be what the city's investment would be, which is on the lower end of a local contribution in our region. So I said that's a pretty good high cost efficiency for this investment. The depth of affordability, this particular project would be 30% to 60% AMI, so you're getting the almost the deepest levels of affordability. Below that, you're looking at permanently supportive housing, which is a totally different type of housing that needs an incredible amount of services to go along with it. So we're talking about kind of the lowest housing AMIs for people who are independently living in the community. Risk feasibility and timeline, I gave this a medium. Tax credits are not as risky as it's just getting the award from the state and from CHAFA. So it could take two to three rounds. Sometimes you'll get it in your first round. It happens once a year in the spring. So I gave this a medium risk feasibility and timeline. It adds time to the process for sure. with that 55%, again, it's 55% of the capital stack. So the scale of impact, high impact, these would be permanently deed-restricted units that would, for seniors in the community already living in the community. Sustainability, again, this is related to the lasting impact and not putting pressure on city staff involvement and ongoing funding or management or... you know, services of that sort. So this is high impact with this investment, funding leverage. This really does, getting state tax credits really unpacks a lot of other funding. Once you can demonstrate that, and especially getting the city of Louisville's investment, once you demonstrate, you know, the first in, then you're able to unpack more and more investment because everyone wants to see that this has, you know, multiple investment from multiple parties. So having the city of Louisville at the table has a high level of impact on these other funding sources. Okay, so this is example number two, which would be fee waivers. Totally different animal. This would be, because one of the things we heard is that the impact fees are high, and I think in particular, the water and tap fees are very high. It's $53,000 per residence, and that's, I believe, the same, is that about the same for multifamily as... reduction for multifamily but I don't know what it is but it is less it's a little less but it's still very high and if you you know the more units you build the more times you pay this fee I think it's you know so this would be you know I think that the city has done this using the enterprise fund which is a different funding source than this but it is a way to help projects get through again help with their funding sources so just for example From a cost efficiency, the estimated cost per unit, I think if you were paying, I think the example would be about half of that. So let's say 30,000 a unit. Is that about right, per unit? So it's about the same cost as what we talked about in example number one, coming out of a different fund, but demonstrating the commitment to housing and reducing affordable housing costs. So you're reducing the cost to build that housing, which does help affordable housing get built. The depth of affordability, you know, I said low because I don't necessarily know if this investment drives down AMIs. Typically these projects are already driving towards a certain AMI through other reasons, whether it's their own, they're doing their own inclusionary housing, you know, development, so they have to meet certain standards because of that, or they're already, they're a housing authority, but it does, so it might not drive down the affordability, but it might help the project get financed. Um, risk feasibility timeline. This is high. It's, it's an easy, I think investment and it's funded through, uh, the enterprise fund, the scale of impact. Um, you know, I, this is medium because I don't know if it's necessarily generating more units, but it's demonstrated Lewisville has skin in the game and wants to, has a commitment to helping affordable housing projects get built. And those are a priority for the community on these fee waivers, you know, probably aren't be giving to market rate development projects, um, sustainability. I think it has a lasting impact. It supports already committed affordable, again, medium. I think you could argue that this is medium high. It supports already committed affordable housing and doesn't require a lot of city staffing or oversight or continue. It's kind of a one-time cost rebate that probably doesn't need additional monitoring or resources. Funding leverage. I don't think this might help the overall project budget, but it doesn't necessarily unlock other funding sources from these big funders in the community. So example project number three, I'm going to take some time with this one because this is really interesting. I learned more about it as I dug deeper into this. As you all know, you're part of the Regional Housing Partnership, which is the, I think it's in seven county. I worked for the Regional Housing Partnership a few years ago. So it's all the counties around you in Boulder County that have committed to a 12% affordable housing goal. And so there is an IGA that you signed and demonstrated in your commitment. And so one of the tools that is being administered through the city of Boulder is this resource program to buy down existing units, you know, buy them out of the market from market rate and use multiple funding sources that the regional housing partnership has secured to buy those down from, you know, 100% AMI or whatever, you know, they're selling it. Let's say, I'm going to use an example of $450,000, which is, I know, a low housing price, but we're talking, you know, 20-year-old, maybe... three-bedroom condo or attached townhome or house. And Boulder has replicated this. They have over 820 units in Boulder using this methodology. So they have these resources that they can do this in the city of Louisville with the additional commitment of an IGA to work on this program. It's bottled, again, on Boulder's own program. It's scalable and replicable. So the city of Boulder, acting on behalf of the Regional Housing Partnership, because they, again, they have the staff. They have a 15, I don't know how many staff are at Boulder, but maybe 15, 20 person affordable housing staff. their housing division they negotiate a home purchase in your community they make the upgrades they list and sell the home and then they would qualify and do the compliance for an affordable housing buyer who would be in your community that lives in Louisville and again these are 100 to 120 percent AMI so this is medium income for sale products. We're driving at a totally different market, but I was trying to bring some diversity to the discussion. And then there's a county funded risk pool program that If one of these home buyers who is a homeowner in the affordable housing program is going to foreclosure, there's a protection program to make sure that that house is not sold out and the bank to the bank doesn't take it. So it stays in this deed restriction forever. So these are the funding sources the end potential is not correct because well the it is potential But many of these are existing so again the home is purchased for 400 to 500 K Minor energy upgrades improvements are made To so we're not looking at a total fixer-upper We're looking at something that might need 50,000 to get new HVAC and some make it you know nicer, but we're not renovating houses here. So the DOLA has a grant to the Regional Housing Partnership of $2.3 million dedicated for acquisition purchases. So that is a funding pool that exists that can be used to purchase these homes. There's also an existing grant for that rehab and energy at $70,000 a unit. The county, here's this risk pool support existing 600,000. So that's this risk pool in case something goes in foreclosure, they can pick it up and keep it from going back to the bank or sold on the market. So the city of Louisville's skin in the game on participating in this, which would be through an additional intergovernmental agreement, would be about $12,000 per unit plus a $70,000 annual fee for the administration. So that's paid for city staff and over the regional housing partnership to administer this program. And then they would provide critical gap funding to bring that AMI down. So typically, for this example, it's about $75,000 to $80,000 a unit. Does anybody have questions? I feel like this is a lot to explain, but I'm trying to simplify it. So from a cost efficiency, I think this is really interesting. It's about half as much a unit to buy down an existing unit using this program as it would be to subsidize a newly built unit. And we talked about this at length, I think, at the last meeting. If you were to try and subsidize a newly built unit that might cost $900,000 to build and you wanted to bring that down to $400,000 or $300,000, the subsidy is quite large. It doesn't work, actually. And there's no funding sources. There's no tax credits or other funding sources. And this is why the middle income for sale market is so hard to tackle in our community. So this is half as much. you know, about 250 total, but the Lewisville's commitment is about 100,000. The depth of affordability. This is really interesting. It's middle income for sale homeowners, but it can actually serve a lower income than their actual AMI. So if your annual income is 150% AMI, you can be eligible for a home that's 120%. So it means you're paying less than 30% of your annual income in housing costs, and you're eligible to, so I thought that was really interesting. I don't understand exactly how this works, but this was explained to me by Jay Sugnet at the City of Boulder. same, you know, 100%, 120% income earners can earn up to 100%. So they can qualify to 100. So that means that house, they can afford more house versus, you know, burdening with them additional costs. So that's a high, I think that has a high impact on the depth of affordability. The risk and feasibility of timeline, I said high, there's very limited homes for sale. I did a search myself and I could find one that might qualify. So these are going to be few and far between, but it's a big impact. And once the house is purchased, this kind of rules on its own and doesn't have a lot of, there's no zoning requirements or any entitlement risk. The scale of impact is medium, maybe low to medium. It depends on what your goals are for housing in your community. one to two homes a year at $80,000 to $100,000 using your fund. You know, I think why I made, you know, that's kind of a low impact from a numbers unit, but these, again, are AMIs that are really hard to reach in the community. You don't want the AMI to be too high because those folks aren't going to, you know, want to be in a deed-restricted unit, so it's a delicate balance of finding that right market. But the homeowner does not have to requalify Once they are different than affordable rental housing, there's a qualification that has to continually happen. Once that homeowner owns a deed-restricted unit, they can stay there for the rest of their lives when they sell that unit. However, it is sold with a limitation on its escalation in value. I believe it's somewhere around 3%. And so that is... you know, they don't get to recognize the market's growth, but they have home ownership during that time period. And there's a lot of opinions on that. So I'm just put medium on that one. Sustainability in terms of long-term ongoing resources and staffing, I said hi, because this wouldn't require signing an IGA and some funding decisions. You know, you don't have to go looking for the buyer. You don't have to go looking for the house. You don't have to do the improvements It and why it's also high in funding leverage and I'm surprised that you know There's a lot of funding that is it's not it's leveraging many other sources from doula and the state and the regional that the regional housing partnership is able to access So this is the kind of summary of the three options. They're very different with each other. They're not apples to apples, but I wanted to kind of show that there are three, I think, very viable options for the city of Louisville to continue to generate affordable housing and attainable housing in your community. And then I just wanted to kind of talk about Boulder's Technical Review Group because in terms of case studies and best practices, this is how they fund projects. It's been, I think, a 20-year... Over probably 20 years that they've you know created this process so very different than Louisville We don't have the staff to do this But I wanted to talk about and I brought and Nicole's actually on this TRG So I thought she could talk a little bit about that Just you know what all of the this is demonstrating a couple things one It takes an incredible amount of staff resources to decide how to fund projects at the scale and that a community like Boulder does, and we don't have that here. And I think the second part is just using these are their criteria, impact and affordability, feasibility and capacity, and value and alignment. So I think there's a lot that we have through the first phase of this project that, you know, this is how they evaluate projects with their matrix. And so I think there's a lot of similarities and how we kind of tried to build a framework for you through our public process.

Nicole, do you want to speak to that anymore? I don't think that Boulder's TRG would be right. I mean, like, Louisville's dealing with $2 million here, right? But I do think it would be appropriate to have some sort of framework, and I think, you know, some of that comes up of, you know, price per unit, just so it can be equitable in your basically funding projects equally and fairly. So I don't know if there's any questions about what that looks like, but it, you know, obviously the city of Boulder looks and feels very different than Louisville, so...

Yeah, I just think it's kind of like, but the criteria and the funding process is robust, but it is kind of using the same level of evaluation. Like how much bang for the buck are we going to get? What are the depths of affordability? you know, what is the development team capacity of the affordable housing developer to be able to perform and to be able to deliver the project before funding allocations are made, readiness proceed, which means is there site control? What are their cost estimates? Are there other secured funding in place? What is the track record management capacity? This is really, really important in affordable housing because it's an ongoing management. There has to be compliance every year. A lot of record keeping, a lot of you know, management paperwork. It actually, the cost to manage affordable housing are almost twice as much as just a regular housing development because of the compliance factor. Affordable housing developers and developments tend to also have higher level of property management services, which kind of brings up, they call it the PUPA, which is a per unit per annum cost, which is kind of like the HOA fee. So that's, what? Oh, it's expenses, and those tend to be higher in affordable housing projects for a variety of reasons. So looking at what that developer's management capacity is and their ability to manage a portfolio of affordable housing, they often don't just have one project. In fact, it doesn't work for them to just have one project. They need a portfolio of projects. And then value and alignment so I just I thought that was interesting and I think that's it for my presentation I'm open to questions and discussion Yes Thank you very much

I want to go back, one question about your first example in terms of the property tax exemption. Would the city have any involvement in that process or decision or is that simply something between the developer and the county?

So, yeah, I'm like, okay, yeah. The answer is I think they would have the limited, they would be part of the partnership, so there's a lot of partnership documents created in, these projects, so it would be really between the developer and the county, their partnership. I think given this example, the city, because of their investment, would be a partner to it, whether it's through a leasehold or something, but that tax exemption is discussed, and I think it's a tool that, because the Boulder County Housing Authority isn't bringing a lot of funding to projects now, this seems to be one of the tools that they can bring to projects.

Okay, that's fine. And then on the example number two.

Did you want to add to that? I was just going to say, yeah, they're part of the partnership, and that's how they can bring in the property tax exemption, but it wouldn't be the city. It has to be the county.

Yeah, the city cannot provide property tax exemption for reasons that were explained to me that I don't totally understand, but even if you own the land, you don't have that ability to do that. Okay.

Good. So then in example number two, you talked about sort of funding these rebates through the enterprise fund. So I'm a little confused. So if we take like a water tap fee as an example, you know, Our staff basically sort of has modeled how much we should charge for those fees, and they go into our water utility fund. And so if we rebated them, we'd have a hole in our model, right? And so then we'd have to think about, okay, how do we make up that hole? And so we could take money from our $2 million fund to make up that hole, or there are other things we could do. So are you just suggesting that because of the enterprise fund nature, it's... maybe easier to do that kind of rebate or I was a little confused.

Yeah, I think, you know, again, this is like mixing something and I think you could use the affordable housing fund. I mean, that was something we discussed is I think you have done this before using your enterprise fund. I don't know at what point, you know, I'll defer to Rob on like, you know, how much funding there is and where there's a gap in

Yeah, and I think as we discuss this, you know, rebating building permit fees or even use tax or development impact fees, since they're not enterprise funds, we could enter into agreements where we could agree to, you know, waive half or some portion or all of those. But because the utility fee is an enterprise fund, I think we would have to approach that with using the affordable housing fees to pay for that subsidy rather than actually waiving them. Right. Thank you. Okay.

That helps a lot. And then on the third example, I have a few questions. So I hadn't realized that Boulder had so many properties under this program. I felt like they've only been doing it for a few years. But in any case, you know, one thing that occurred to me, like, so... The city, could we have negotiated an IGA to have started such a program in Louisville some number of years ago?

No, this is new.

This is new, okay.

Yeah, so this is a newer program that I don't know the exact date. The city has been doing this as a model for 20 plus years, buying units and bringing down the cost through there because they've been collecting affordable housing funds forever. you know, a project there pays $10 to $18 million. And so they have a huge funding source. So they also, a while ago, it hasn't happened in a long time because of the cost to build new housing, but they were also getting dedicated on-site housing. Like Holiday, for example, had about 40% for sale units that were Deed restricted so but this is really the model is Find something on the market that needs a little bit of work and love and then bring it down through all these subsidies So this is a new program. I don't think you've missed out. I think I just wanted to highlight it because it's You I think the only other communities that have signed this to my knowledge are Lafayette and Longmont has a housing authority so it would be I think it's just maybe Erie sign this the only communities that have done any units I believe are Lafayette and I think they're got have two or three units that they've been able to use this program for I believe two of those were houses sold by the county at market on the market for market value but they were able to use this program so even you know if I know you don't own housing, but I think it's just a great tool that I wanted to highlight as a way, because through this process, I heard we want to have a diversity of housing and we would like to get for sale. And when I first came here, I'm like, that's really hard to do. You need like three, four times the subsidy that you do for rental. So this might be a way to get a few homes. And then I really made sure that those would be prioritized for Louisville residents. There's a really long waiting list in Boulder. Those people don't get to jump off their waiting list and come to Louisville. This is a program for your community. And I'm happy to put whoever in touch. I think it's an IGA that you would sign. And then if you wanted to do this administration, I think there's like a third IGA. Yeah.

Right. Okay. And on the slide in particular, so I think you said 7,000 or something instead of 700. Is 700 the correct number for the?

Which one?

For the annual fee.

I said $700. Okay. What did I say?

I think you said something else.

It's fine. I'm sorry. I was trying to, yeah. So the administrations, you would pay like a one-time cost of $12,000. There's a unit. We're going to go do this. That's covering the city staff over at Boulder. And then there's a $700 annual fee just, I think, to make sure everything is kosher and nothing's falling to arrears or into foreclosure. Okay.

And then just to clarify, on the last number, the $75,000 or so, is that money that would come from Louisville? Yes. Okay.

So that would be using your affordable housing fund.

Okay.

So that would be, you know, I kind of threw out one to two projects a year, about $200,000. Yeah. Okay. You know, it's, again, though, but that's instead of, you know, $400,000 a unit that you would have to buy down in the new construction.

And then just one last question. Would it be, I don't know if it's been contemplated, for this kind of program to not necessarily buy a home, but sort of have an agreement with someone to be renting a home as a deed-restricted affordable rental? So you... I don't know, they're interested in renting their home and somehow you arrange for it to enter into this kind of program.

Not to my knowledge. It's all for sale. I think it's premised on a for sale product that then has the deed restriction gets placed on the title and it's permanent.

Okay. Thank you very much. Sure. Other questions?

Kevin.

That was all super helpful. I think just building on that last, that third one is very interesting, and your table at the end is illustrative of, like, but also maybe 20 properties in the next 10 years. So it doesn't maybe have a huge scale effect, but it's a really, really cool program that we can use in moments. So I don't know that it gets us to our numerical goal, but it does get us to, you know, I think they're big wins. It's something you can point to that, ooh, that one house, this cool thing happened. So I think those, in some ways, I don't know. I'm not trying to equate them whether they matter more or less, but I think that could be super interesting. So the $75,000 to $80,000, I'm guessing, is absolutely dependent on the sale price of the home, right? So this is going off of like a $450,000 might cost $75,000 to $80,000. But if it's a million-dollar home, it would cost twice that much. This isn't like a flat fee.

No, it is not a flat fee. It's an estimate based on an example of a product that I think is few and far between in this community.

Yeah, because that's, I mean, that's, I guess I was just trying to get clarification on that because, you know, if it's a $700,000 home, I'm just trying to get them like,

is it twice as much or is it i just don't think you would do it yeah it just wouldn't be part of the i don't think it would meet i i don't know all the details but i'm sure i'm this so dola grant has 2.3 dedicated acquisition i'm sure there's a lot of rules right with dola around what kind of home you can buy the example was given to me is like a two or three bedroom 30 20 year old home that you know isn't falling into disrepair but There are still those homes in Boulder. It might be attached. I know you have probably less of that here. The condo market is super soft. So I think, you know, it's just kind of finding these opportunities. I think it's worth just engaging and finding out more. These all three work with each other. They're not competing with each other. That was not my goal, was to actually find kind of a portfolio of... Products that you guys could use that wouldn't drain your staff resources and and drain that two million dollars.

That's interesting.

Thank you Yes Actually, just a quick question that the technicalities is it just that we have to Let staff know that we're interested and then they engage with the city of Boulder to for us to be able to participate in this program I think so.

Yeah That's great. I know, right? That's what I understand. You don't have to sign an IGA. I don't think that first IGA commits you to spending any money. It just says, I want to work on this. It's pretty remarkable. Again, this is... The regional housing partnership has ebbed and waned over the years, and I think they're trying to find tools and resources to be able to use this partnership that was everybody agreed to, not just a commitment, but how do we actually help people achieve their goal?

Would I would expect and again we haven't gone to the details But we would also need City Council to determine the amount of funding that they wanted to commit So do you want to commit two hundred thousand four hundred thousand because then their staff would know I? Assume what they're working with so if they do find one or two properties They know that we're committed to the funding so we would have to take that into account with our two million dollar fund I

Yeah, and I didn't dig into those details. They do have somebody on the city staff who has their broker's license, so they're the ones kind of going out, because I was like, how do we find these homes? Does Louisville have to go hunt them down? So there's a lot, doubles in the details, but I think it's a program that is worth exploring.

Yes. And this might, you might not be able to answer this. This is more about the detail of the program. Is it something that if a community member like could be incentivized in some way to do this, like maybe if they agreed to it, there was a discount on the tax that they pay or a capital gains tax so that they can contribute and help to the program if they wanted to participate?

That's a really good question.

They just sell the home at a lower price, right? So you do see some individuals that, you know, or somebody in their will is like, I want to, and I think Boulder has had some properties that have, they're like, I want my home to go into this program and be permanently deed restricted. So what I think is so cool about this is just leveraging what's already established. in place in Boulder, right? They have this huge network of, you know, they're running these, there's 800 properties, so people are buying and selling. And so why not take advantage of that and kind of bring some of that housing? I don't think it's by any means the answer, but it's just another tool in the toolkit. And I think that for sale housing is much harder to develop and the costs are astronomically higher. So it's just, you know, it would be something for the city to consider.

Thank you.

Yeah, and this kind of came out. I wasn't looking for it. It was that I was talking to Kurt Fernhaber, who runs Housing and Human Services, talking about Boulder Mods, because they have the factory, which I believe Habitat is using to build, I think, a duplex or fourplex here. So that's another great asset in the community. I just didn't bring it forward. It's not an asset that you guys are going to use. You're not going to go buy modular homes. You're not going to go buy land and put modular homes on them. But Um, and then it was, you know, learning about other things. I talked to, reached out to other housing authorities in the, in the neighboring communities just to see like, okay, this is where Louisville is at. You know, they don't have a huge staff, but this is, you know, their goals and what, you know, what kind of tools and resources could they use?

Any other questions? Why don't we take public comment if there is any public comment.

First up is Andy Johnson.

Good evening. Andy Johnson. I'm speaking as a Louisville resident tonight. I want to thank city staff. Trestle. for this really great, excellent, very data-driven presentation and framework. I strongly support the proactive deployment of the city's $2 million housing fund. The Trussell findings highlight exactly how we can maximize the impact of every public dollar spent. I would love to hear council talk more about example project one. I think that there's scale there, but with that, I particularly want to invoice my enthusiastic support for example project three. Trestle's analysis confirms what I have advocated for in letters and prior public comment, buying down existing market rate inventory and placing permanent deed restrictions on those homes as a fast, highly cost-effective way to deliver front doors to middle-income workers. 80% to 120%, which is what I had advocated for, as opposed to 100% to 120%. Doesn't really matter. It's all very similar. It delivers immediate housing, integrates affordable housing units seamlessly across existing neighborhoods, and requires minimal ongoing city administration, the administrative burden. Crucially, for a Louisville-centric approach, We have a unique opportunity in Old Town to couple city housing funds with local historic preservation grant funding. By stacking preservation grants onto market to affordable buy-downs for historically designated or eligible properties, we can achieve dual community value, preserving Louisville's historic architectural fabric while leveraging external preservation dollars to stretch our public housing dollars much further. I strongly endorse Trestle's findings on project de-risking and adopting a structured technical review group, whether we participate or actually create one, to ensure transparent evaluation of future housing fund expenditures. Thank you, Trestle, for the great work. Thank you, staff. Thank you, Council, for prioritizing strategic investment. Thank you, Eddie.

Next up is Susan Liu.

Yes, this is Susan Lou, Louisville resident. My comment is, well, the first comment I have is I agree with Andy. It's the same idea that I was going to bring up, but he brought it up first, is to use historic preservation funds to leverage your money. However, on example project three, it's my understanding you have an IGA with the county to build a certain number of or acquire a certain number of affordable units. And you're looking at hundreds, not like two or three individual homes a year. And you haven't got a big enough fund to do two or three individual homes a year. What you need to do if you're going to use this project example three is to try and find a multi-use facility, a multi-family residential, and maybe over 25 to 50 units, and maybe that example three would work. but you know you focusing solely on example three would be a big mistake if you're trying to meet the county's um iga so thanks for listening appreciate your time thank you sue next up is mike

Hi, Mike Kranzdorf, not a resident. Great presentation and nice to see Nicole out of retirement so early. Looking back at the original presentation from Trestle, I thought the de-risking program made a lot of sense, and I'm curious why that's not in the current presentation. It seemed like a good value. Thanks.

All right, any other public comment? All right, let's take it back to council. And since Mr. Kranzdorf had just asked a question, can you?

Yeah, I think that's a good question. Yeah, it still is. I think an example of project one is showing that the city has skin in the game. I do, after the first round, the feedback I heard was that, yes, that's a good thing to do, but it takes an incredible amount of time. staff resources and additional money not just buying the land but entitling the land hiring the consultants and so it was an option that i presented and used the whetstone example up in um gunnison county but but given kind of the limited what i heard from council and the limited resources and staff there's not a city staff to be able to manage a project like that so i tried to kind of come back and come with a hybrid where we're looking example project one is where the city is involved from the beginning to try and help the project, you know, be funded, entitled, and working through the project. But, you know, buying a property and then taking two years to get it entitled and brought out to the developer community, from what I remember, is that that would be something that is... You don't have the staff resources to do. And it expends more money. So you're not just buying the land, you're spending... $400,000 to $500,000 on consultants and entitlements. So we're trying to kind of scale that back a little bit to something that was a more bite size for this community. Does that make sense?

Can you put up the, one of the difficulties of this is that we don't have the project one.

Which one?

Just to remind ourselves. Thank you.

I think, you know, by the public-private partnership is a, shows that the city is, you know, I would say de-risking, but they have skin in the game and they're involved in the project. So they're not just leaving it up to the development world to show up. They're, you know, trying to ensure a successful outcome.

Mike, I think this example does de-risk, right? Like you're bringing in Louisville to partner, right? And so you're essentially de-risking that that would be this example, so.

Yeah, one of the things that I've certainly heard from a couple of those who are private developers who are interested in these is that one of the advantages it's taking taking all the administrative, or a lot of administrative work off the table of city staff, that's my understanding, do all that kind of stuff. You know, just going back and focusing on that for a second, is that your general, you know, I mean, is that something that really is, you know, as advertised? I mean, that's one of their big pitches,

So I would say that there is a lot of housing authorities around the state that are choosing because they don't have the staffing, whether they don't have the expertise or the funding to work with private developers and kind of take that off. I think there's a lot of ways that you can negotiate these projects, and some of them are providing guarantees and sharing in the developer fee. So it's very complex, but I would say based on what I've seen that would be an accurate statement and I do think that you know you shift the risk when you that's why you're hiring a private developer so. But it's very complex in terms of different ways that the city can participate in these projects and you know kind of take on different different risks if they want to usually there's a reward with that but it just kind of depends.

Yeah, and I think, you know, when you look at the cost of land for, you know, a project, let's say example project one, if it's, you know, $1.5 million and then you need to pay consultants, your whole fund just went into that one project. So I believe what I heard was, like, we want to be able to use it on multiple projects and not... use it all in one. So I think this was trying to bring something forward that kind of de-risked it, but also didn't use up all of the equity and put more work on city staff. Because this example doesn't require, you know, the city is a reviewing body and is a funder, but they're not the developer.

There are some private developers that do this without, right? They don't necessarily have city involvement. And I think by bringing in the city or bringing in other nonprofits, they can untap a lot of resources. So in my opinion, it's the best way to proceed, right? Because you're kind of bringing in the best of both worlds. They have a lot of expertise. They're typically more efficient in their developing of the project, but also ongoing management and expenses because they have skin in the game. So...

Other comments?

Yes, Councilmember Cooperman. One other question following up on the public comment. For example, number three, 2.3 million is not a whole lot of money overall from DOLA, but can that money be used towards multifamily housing in any sense?

I don't, I think this direct, again, I haven't read this grant, but my understanding is it's directly for housing acquisition and this program. So yes, certainly there's other DOLA grants for rental housing and transit oriented communities. I think that's another, I don't know if it's OEDIT or DOLA, but I think that TOC kind of line item that I used in example one was coming kind of from a similar funding source aimed at rental affordable housing and transit oriented communities. So But I don't believe this grant can be used for rental. I just want to point out there's very few. I was surprised to even see there were these funding sources for home acquisition and home ownership. There's not many out there. And that's, again, why this is such a hard thing to untap. There is a huge amount of funding for rental and very low AMIs. That is funded very well, even though it's competitive. But there's a very advanced state, you know, federal program with tax credits that people still want to buy. And, you know, it's still really... high functioning program. I think that there's a middle income housing tax credit that is recent, but I haven't been able to get a project to work. It's really hard to do middle income rental because your rents are actually really close to middle income. Whereas your housing prices are like twice of what, you know, if you're building something at 100% AMI for rental, you're above market probably for rental. So it's just so that my tech program isn't really working here. It might work in a mountain community where rents are really high, but it doesn't work in Boulder County.

Council Member Kern.

So I was actually, because you talk about the rental piece and where all the tax dollars are, and I think helping us and the public who's paying attention understand, is this where the big gap is with federal funding? Is it doesn't exist for developers to help us develop for purchase properties, even if it is multifamily or townhouses? Is that...

I mean, I'm not an expert on, but yes, I mean, I've spoken on like middle, I was on like a TEDx panel for middle income housing with, you know, other experts in the community and there is no funding sources. You have, I think what works is Habitat. So that, but again, very, you get a few units a year, but that's a program that does work. That's why the city built a modular factory, honestly, is to try and, you know, work around this solution so that they could control construction costs and Build indoors, again, that is using Habitat volunteers in a factory setting. So no, there's no funding source. And there's lots of funding for rental. And paired with construction defects, which I'm sure you're all aware of. People don't want to build condos or attached units because of liability. So then you kind of eliminate that from the market, which 20 years ago, lots of people were building and was a great starter for for sale product that didn't have, you know, have to be a single family home.

Right. And so it's interesting. The Habitat project you're talking about where they're building the modular homes, the city of Louisville actually did donate that land to them to build on. And it is still remarkably expensive per unit, shockingly enough, when I went there and toured. And I could not believe the finished price still has to be subsidies for most people. It's still like $400,000 per townhouse. It's absolutely remarkable. Yeah. The question I had, though, also was about the maintenance piece. And I know Boulder County Housing Authority does a lot of maintenance on units, specifically to Louisville. And it's part of that cost, that ongoing cost we have to invest in is maintaining, whether it's new siding or new windows or what have you. Where does that come in? Is it because we're kind of a partner in this with, like, let's say example one, with a developer that we can guarantee that, say, 25 or 30 years from now, they're repairing the roofs properly and the windows and they're maintaining those energy levels. With the county housing authority doing that, we know that that's part of it. But how do we know that that's going to continue to happen with these types of projects?

Yeah, I think that, go ahead, Nicole. So the tax credit program, there's an incredible amount of work that goes into, like, first of all, building them very, very sustainably. And then also, you know, it's just choosing the right partner, right? Whoever's going to manage it. So the reason why it's Boulder County Housing Authority is that they're managing that property. You do have to keep expenses in control. And so that's why it's really important that they're building it right from the beginning to manage those costs. And then typically these are recapitalized. So, you know, the tax credit period is for... 15 years, and then they're able to go and recapitalize it. So when an investor looks to buy these tax credits, they're really looking to make sure that this project has a 15-year lifespan. And if they're renovating it or they're building it, that all of those things are taken care of for 15 years. And then typically what happens is the project is then recapitalized, renovated for another 15-year period. So that's kind of the model, I guess I would say.

And that's part of the cost that you're talking about. Like, it's so much more expensive for these because unlike a limited income project, like a traditional 30-year-old apartment complex could not have been repainted or maintained in 20-plus years, and there's just no accountability. So this has to be meeting those standards. So hence, that cost is there. Thank you. Appreciate it.

Yeah, and I think there's a very robust reserves built into these budgets by CHAFA. And so they want to make sure that there's a really healthy reserves and a maintenance budget. The one project I did a 4% tax credit many years ago with Nicole in 2012. And I, you know, again, I mentioned this per unit per annum, like it was... three times what a just regular rental project would cost. And they can't pass those costs on to anybody living there. They can't raise rent. So it's not, it has to be very, and I think that's, I mean, I think that's an important thing for us to ensure if that were to move forward, that you have a good partner. that is doing that. I think many of these affordable housing developers, to my understanding, they're for-profit affordable housing developers that we're talking about. They keep these units for a very long time as well. They're not selling them. I think if they try and get them out of the affordable market, they have to pay down debt in a way that doesn't work. It's all meant to keep these moving and recapitalized as well as the deed restriction that you would be placing. And with that covenant and agreements, I think you can probably create some more surety of long-term viability.

I saw that Director Zaccaro had his hand up.

Well, that was part of a previous discussion. I don't have anything to add anymore. Thank you.

Well, you can bring up a previous discussion if you'd like. It's okay. We're good. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Mayor Bertone.

Thank you. As we bring this phenomenal presentation and I think productive discussion to the finish line here tonight, just a few comments from me as it relates to the presentation. You know, I very much appreciate, as what Andy highlighted earlier, very data-driven, outcome-focused product that you brought to us today and the way that I see the three different examples that are presented in front of us is not happening One or the other in isolation, but I could see them happening happening kind of in parallel Some might ramp up faster than others like one compared to three But I could see three chugging away over time and really just starting to help diversify Our housing stock as it relates to these these goals that we've set as a city so I very much appreciate what you have here tonight, and I think staff, you know, could take this as a guide as they continue to find opportunities and talk with the brokers and the landowners and the developers, etc., to continue to bring to council these opportunities that we can discuss and figure out where to spend our funds, you know, the 1.7 or so that we have left of the 2 million and then the funds that we will continue to collect as other developments build up in our community and pay into that pot of money. So thank you very much and I look forward to the opportunities staff continues to bring to us.

Are there any other questions for either Danica or Nicole or, all right. Are there, I guess one question is kind of in, to follow up what the Mayor Pro Tem said, I mean, this is a presentation, so we're not necessarily taking any action, but I think we've had our minds expanded by the work that you've done, and we can keep an eye on I think you're sort of equipping us to be able to evaluate the sorts of projects that come across our desk and the dais. So it's going to be really helpful. Thank you for all the work.

All right.

Thank you.

Thanks again. All right. We are with that going to move on because we've got a number of other things on our plate, including more housing on our inclusionary housing ordinance. So our next item is ordinance number 1936, series 2026, an ordinance amending title 17 of the Louisville Municipal Code regarding inclusionary housing public hearing. This has been continued from August 18th, 2026 and advertised on our website on July 31st, 2026. This is an ordinance, so there will be two rounds of public comment. We've worked on this ordinance for a lengthy period of time and really appreciate the work that staff has put in. We've had great participation by folks like Andy and others in the community. would imagine that that's going to continue. And I think we've provided pretty significant direction. There may be additional direction we're going to deal with. But I think before we do anything else, I'm going to open the public hearing. Do we have any disclosures about this for any reason? All right.

Jeff?

yes thank you mayor and council so jeff hurt with community development um i'm gonna have just very little context here and kind of skip straight to the amendments and go through those but happy to circle back more on context if you want to get back into that but again this is a targeted and tend to be a targeted update to the inclusionary housing ordinance with the overall goal of improving the likelihood of getting affordable units built Did want to remind you all of kind of their trajectory of where this fits in and that we are currently working on developing a scope and bringing a contract to council for a development code update very soon. As part of that will be a deep dive on all things housing, including the inclusionary ordinance. This is intended to be an interim update in advance of that. Recent council discussions, as a reminder, last, the second reading on August 18th, their council directed staff to make specific amendments. So I'm just going to dive right into those. So the amendments to the previous ordinance presented are hard to read here, I realize, but we've organized them in kind of in four different buckets. I'm not going to go through each one of them in detail because most of them are pretty straightforward from a drafting and sort of direction standpoint. I am going to drill a little deeper on the like-for-like requirements and some options there. And so there's a couple council options actually we have for you. But I'll just quickly go through them here. We'll get into the like-for-like. That's the first one. The second one was council direction that the threshold for when inclusionary housing applies is now 10 units or more. So the threshold is raised. That amendment was made in your packet. Third, regarding the fee in lieu and the timing of basically what amount that fee is, is now tied to final PUD as opposed to a building permit. That fee could theoretically change between PUD approval and building permit approval. That's happening to East Street Village. So this amendment would say basically the fee is locked in as to what it was at time of final PUD at council's direction. And then the last set of amendments is just generally in the bucket of incentives. Council directed staff to have the residential density and lot coverage bonuses for projects that provide on-site affordable housing as a by-right requirement. So a shall instead of a may, that ordinance or that amendment was made in the packet. The second 4B under this bucket of incentives was to keep the building height incentive as discretionary. So city council has the discretion to decide if there's a one story or 15 foot in building height increase for these projects as an incentive. So by right is density and lot coverage. Discretionary is building height. Third incentive is to automatically allow these projects to be eligible for expedited PUD. That essentially means instead of four public hearings, there's two public hearings, put really simply, so the timeline is expedited. And then the last direction from council was to SORT OF BROADEN, BE MORE FLEXIBLE WITH THE ENHANCED DENSITY BONUS. THAT'S THE 30% DENSITY BONUS FOR THESE PROJECTS THAT WOULD MORE BROADLY APPLY TO ANY PROJECTS THAT ESSENTIALLY EXCEED THE ON-SITE REQUIREMENT, AND 20% WAS THE THRESHOLD THAT COUNCIL DIRECTED STAFF TO LOOK AT. SO THAT IS IN THE ORDINANCE AS WELL. SO NOT GOING TO GO THROUGH NUMBERS TWO THROUGH FOUR, BUT HAPPY TO IN MORE DETAIL. I'M GOING TO FOCUS ON THE LIKE-FOR-LIKE REQUIREMENTS. So in terms of the direction Council gave staff, there's kind of broken down into two main components under this like for like bucket. The first relates to design and materials. That's where the current ordinance says that the affordable units have to have the same design and materials as the market rate units. We'll get into that. And then the second was the idea of the unit mix of the affordable units compared to the market rate units. That has some nuance as well that we'll get into. The sub-bullets there are whether it's considered average or proportionate. We'll get into that a little bit. Council's direction was to look at average, but proportionate, we wanted to kind of surface some nuance there and get council direction there. So like for like, so regarding the design of materials, council's direction was to revise the language that instead of saying design materials, but to broaden it to be that the affordable units just have to be equivalent in sort of exterior appearance, put simply, but the equivalent language is on the screen here, but essentially functionally equivalent is the new terminology in construction and appearance. Council did direct staff to explicitly exclude interior finishes from that comparison. So that is in the ordinance as well. This one is a little bit more straightforward in terms of the actual ordinance. The unit mix is where there's a little bit more nuance we wanted to discuss with council. So council's direction was that essentially the affordable units have to have the same average number of bedroom types as the market rate units. And so that is reflected in the ordinance. That in itself is pretty straightforward. We also did add rounding language. That wasn't an explicit council direction, but Councilman Cooperman pointed that out. So there is rounding language in the ordinance more broadly for how that applies, but there's also rounding language for the average provision as well that's baked into the ordinance. So an example, just getting the difference between average and proportionate. So an example, if we had an average provision, which is what is before you tonight. So if we had a hundred unit project where there's a 12% onsite affordable requirement, so that would mean 88 market rate units. So of those 88 units, half were one bedroom and half were three bedroom. So the average provision would be more flexible in the sense that it would allow a developer to say, We can make them all two bedroom, for example, to meet that requirement. Proportionate is a little bit different. So I'll get into that. So proportionate, from our research, we found is a little bit more common of a terminology in these ordinances. Denver and Boulder use a proportionate approach, for example. So that really will get us a more sort of closer alignment with the actual unit mix if we apply that strictly and have that language in here. Essentially what it'll do, and this example will shed light on it, is it would likely support more larger bedroom units, which leads itself more to sort of family-friendly housing as a requirement. If you look at, there's a lot of different scenarios, but in general that would do a better job of supporting larger bedroom units. And so the language on the screen here is alternate language if council decides that they want to go there, that alternate language could be considered. So under the proportionate example as compared to average take the same example project 100 units 88 market rate units if half the units one bedroom half the units three bedroom That would essentially mean that of the affordable units half of them would have to be one bedroom and half of it would have to Be three bedrooms, so you would get a different outcome Based on how the ordinance is written And so staff is seeking council direction or clarity on the average versus proportionate approach. Average, again, was the direction council provided. That is what is in the ordinance. But again, the average is more flexibility, but the bedroom count may not necessarily as closely align with the market rate units. Proportionate is less flexible, but you get potentially more alignment and more sort of family-friendly housing opportunities from our perspective. So that concludes the presentation. The options for council are to adopt the ordinance as is, adopt the ordinance with amendments, or certainly we hadn't been discussing this, but deference to the broader development code update is also an option as well here. So staff is recommending approval of the ordinance, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

I guess I just wanted to ask a sort of pointed question. We asked for average. You brought back average, but you took the time to add proportionate. Do you guys feel like that's the better route? I mean, it feels so similar to me. I get it. that yes, I could build all two bedroom. It seems easier, it seems more flexible. It actually seems easier to administer like, yeah, just the average, like you get a one, one, one, three, a bunch of two, but it just seems easier, but you brought back the proportion. Is it just because it's more common and it's easier to align and someone who's developing in multiple jurisdictions is used to it and it feels better for them or is it better for city? Like what, they seem so similar. Why are we being asked which one we want?

Yeah, I think, I mean, I'll take a first stab at it and then Rob chime in certainly. But I think from our perspective, there were a lot of things that we discussed on August 18th and we went to a lot of depth on a lot of different sort of lanes. And we didn't necessarily feel like this was one that got the sort of deep consideration. And I don't think in the moment we really fully, at least as staff and maybe me individually, like framed, like these are the actual two options because we didn't really have that teed up. So that was one. Second is just looking more broadly at other communities do it that have more sort of depth of expertise and staff Denver and Boulder for example both do the proportionate approach And then we started thinking about why? And so and that led us to just wanting to at least present The option a little more cleanly for council to have a full consideration of it. So but I'll let Rob Yeah, you know

There's a discussion I had with the Boulder Valley School District planner a while ago. I was asking them about, you know, bringing multi-family housing in and, like, how many students would you expect? And one of the things that he mentioned was, you know, with one-bedroom units or even two-bedroom units, you know, you have a much lower proportion of children. So, you know, we're trying to get a diversity of housing and family housing and knowing that a lot of affordable housing are multi-family with lower numbers of bedrooms. So if you actually had another example of 100 units and 75% were one bedroom and 25% were two bedroom, I don't know what your average would be, right? But you might have no two bedroom units. You'd have very few family friendly units. So I think... It could help get more diversity of housing types where it wouldn't just be, you know, it could cater more to family type units, which we could lose out on with the average. Okay.

Yes, Council Member Cooperman.

I have a question about the other part of the like for like amendments. So last time we talked about things like, you know, do we have the same garage spaces for units? Do we have, are we letting people put all of the affordable units in one place on the site and so forth? So I'm just, with this language that is currently in the proposal, where would we stand on those kinds of questions?

So it's silent on the location, for example. So it could be concentrated into one area of the development. It's really focused on the exterior appearance. Like if you go into development, will you know these are the affordable units? And I know that's hard to put into language, but that's the intent. of functionally equivalent. And so, yeah, I think that was the direction we took from council, is to be more sort of simply looking at it from that perspective, as opposed to all the other factors, garages, location, things like that. So I think there's a little bit of flexibility with this language, but it's intended to be looks and feels the same. Yeah, yeah.

Thank you. Yeah, Council Member Heffner. To follow up on the BVSD comment, is it one of our policies that we want to have for affordable housing families with children?

So no, but our policies say that we are trying to provide a range of unit types that would include families, but also include other accommodations. So I think when you start having multifamily affordable housing development and the likelihood is the majority are going to be smaller units, potentially with very few or less bedrooms, then we're just missing that segment. And so, yeah, we don't have a special focus on that, but I do think our policies call for providing that as a part of what we're providing in the whole.

Would we also miss that segment with a 55-plus development?

Yes, so certainly as we're bringing in affordable housing development, we don't want to have all of it be, you know, that's one of the segments, right? So that isn't something that we want to bring for all of our affordable housing or the majority of our affordable housing developments, right? We have to, each project needs to provide probably a different type of housing for a different segment of the community that we're trying to accommodate.

Thank you. Other comments? Questions? Actually, questions, not comments. Right now? Yep. Councilmember.

So I just have one question, and it's about Section 4, which deals with the building height. Since the allowance for the height is just part of our regular, like our regular... not zoning code, but like it's part of the process anyway. Is it necessary to specifically call this out since it is not going to be part of an incentive program for meeting the 12% or more?

It's probably not essential, but I think from our perspective, it's good to be more explicit and have a sort of clear indication that that's one of the options available. Because, I mean, to your point, you can ask for a waiver to a lot of things, building height being one of them. To explicitly call it out as an incentive, we think is valuable.

But we're explicitly saying it's not an incentive, and that's part of the point. It's not going to be. We're saying it's not an incentive of this. It's not something that we're specifically... You can ask for it, but it's not by right. It's not necessarily part of the incentive process. And that's why I'm just curious if it's already something that we allow the developer could ask for if they needed... Maybe they only needed six feet to meet the goals of whatever they're trying to achieve. My thought was... If it's not explicitly an incentive for the housing, the inclusionary housing, which it is not, should that be housed here? Should it be housed here? Should it be in this document?

Yeah, I should clarify. So it's in May at city council's discretion. So it's calling attention that that tool is available to council. And there's a whole host of incentives that we could put in there, but we thought that was one that was important to explicitly call out. So it's really just about explicitly calling out that it's in May.

I think to Councilmember Cooperman's point, would there be an opportunity to add the may for the reduction of number of parking spaces or garage units?

I'm not sure I understand the question.

So if we allowed for a one-car garage unit as well as two-car garage units, and we allowed that differential, like you could put a less expensive home and to make it more affordable, maybe it would only be able to accommodate a one-car instead of a two-car. That's not explicitly called out in here as a potential option that you could ask for. And that could be like a real deal breaker for a developer because that's so expensive, such expensive real estate. Yeah.

Yeah, I think, you know, there's probably a lot of examples we could come up with of things that may be incentives. I think the building height, you know, it goes back to our housing plan and a lot of our foundational work that calls out, like, that's one of the most powerful tools. And so that's really just about calling attention to that as it may. But if there are other incentives that you would like to call attention to, I think we'd be open to that, certainly.

Reduced parking is an incentive. It's in there.

It doesn't mention garage spaces, though, and that's very specific to cost of construction.

Are you suggesting we need that?

This is not the comment phase. This is just a question I have.

Thank you. I just want to clarify the question. Good for you.

Thank you. All right. Any other questions at this point? All right.

Okay, why don't we take a first round of public comment.

First up is Andy Johnson.

Evening again. Still Andy. I'm still talking from a Louisville perspective. I want to start by sincerely thanking both Council and staff for your responsiveness through the process. You've taken the public feedback seriously in the revisions before you tonight reflect a genuine collaborative effort to listen to the community and tailor this ordinance specifically to Louisville. Shifting 20% density in lot coverage bonuses to predictable buy right entitlements is a major win for project certainty. Locking in fee in lieu rates at final PUD approval, establishing 10 unit applicability threshold also demonstrates real progress towards more framework or more workable framework. I was very happy to see the incorporation of the concept of functional equivalence directly into the ordinance, and I apologize. I was not able to be here tonight when you discussed this the last time. I think that the Decision between average and proportionate bedroom requirement is something to further discuss. From a development perspective, average and proportionate are essentially the same thing. They are only nuanced variations of one another. We could debate that all night, but in my opinion, both are just a more complex, restrictive representation of the old like-for-like rule and neither promote true unit diversity. It feels like we are favoring what is easy to codify rather than creating space for creative, diverse developments. True functional equivalence should be about subsidy, efficiency, and unit diversity. If a developer, and I apologize for this very tired analogy, builds a 2,500 square foot, pick your number, luxury townhouse, forcing them to build a 2,500 square foot affordable townhome, waste, precious subsidy on excess space. We should allow unit flexibility, permitting a developer to deliver two high-quality 800-square-foot condos or accessory dwelling units onsite instead, prioritizing the number of units of residents housed over a rigid floor plan math. I realize I'm running out of time. I think that there's a lot of reason to distrust the development community around delivering a good product. We have a lot of reason to know that. I think that our zoning code is well known for being a huge part of that problem, which we will fix. I do believe that this Functional equivalence needs to have ultimate flexibility also in closing. Please consider 10 to 12 units also The Mac the make the height incentives by right not discretionary.

Thank you Thank you, Andy any other public comment right now, all right counsel questions and comments First round yes

Yeah, I appreciate those comments and all this. I think this is a huge step forward. I really like this ordinance. I think the building height piece for me, I think it absolutely 100% is an incentive. And I think the question is, is it a by right incentive or a may? And I think to your point, it's like, if it's by right, you know it's an incentive. If it's may, you don't know. But I think the point is, We are definitely signaling that we're open to a height variance. It just has to come to council due to what I was convinced in our last meeting is if it's by right, you might not be happy with the result you get. And so you want one last ability for council like, oh, hold on. Well, not right there, but that puts in uncertainty. And now you don't know, will I get the three stories or four stories, whatever it is, will I get the extra story or not? I don't really know. There's some uncertainty. But council has signaled through policy that we are up for that. We are interested in that. And that is one of the possible incentives. And all of them were may. And we switched a couple to buy right. And I was one of the people that kind of wanted hype buy right as well. And I was, at least in the last meeting, convinced that we might want to be able to look at height, but density not so much, and lot coverage not so much. But height might be one where we don't want to do it by right. So I'd be curious if other people feel like you want to go to buy right, or you're OK with only in May, or I don't want to put words in your mouth, like just strike it entirely from the language of possible incentives. I don't agree with that, but I could go either way with Bayreuth or May, but I'm leaning towards May, and that will leave my comments there for now.

Any other comment for that? Okay. Second round of public comment, if anybody would like to make a public comment, including those who have, he who has spoken before. I didn't mean to encourage you overly, but go ahead.

I didn't mean to encourage you.

Yeah. And we're lucky we did. Andy Johnson, Louisville. Yes, you encouraged it. I make my comments out of full respect for staff. I'm not calling anybody out. I just want to make that clear. This is hard. This is a hard topic. I've spent a very long time looking at it as well as these folks and staff and as well as you. So out of full respect, I want that to be known. Look, this is an amendment to an already approved ordinance, right? We're making a change. We're making changes where we don't really have a lot of development happening right now. What is the risk to kind of go out on a limb and try something? We're going to be doing development and zoning updates. We are going to be making changes to this again. We will have to do that. We are going to learn. And so I encourage council and staff to look at this liberally. I think that we have this ability to learn. And we are not going to learn if we don't try. And unfortunately, we're not trying. But I think this gives us a chance to get a little bit closer. It may not look perfect. It may not look exactly aspirationally that we want affordable housing to look like. But if we're going to have an inclusionary housing ordinance, let's make it less bad and let's really try to make it do as much as it possibly can. So thank you. Thank you, Andy.

All right, any more public comment? Going once, going twice. All right, back to council. Yes, Councilmember Heffner, Mayor Pro Tem, and then Councilmember Kern.

I was just going to agree with the last sentiment that I do think directionally this is taking a bad ordinance and making it better. I think we've been told we underproduce housing in Louisville. This ordinance in its original form and in this form are both attacks on new housing. And when you tax something, you get less of it. We will get less housing overall by increasing the fee for developing housing. One of the things we just heard is our fees on new housing are already very high. This is another increased fee. I hope we'll actually get some affordable units out of it and the trade-off will be worthwhile. I think all the bonuses are directionally a really big improvement over what we have now. And I was going to make a motion, but I don't want to cut off anybody else's comments. I won't.

Thank you. Because I want to close the public hearing before you do that if I can. Yes.

Thank you. I'll echo the comments about this headed in the right direction as far as improvements go. I'm fine with two through five as they're currently proposed by staff as amendments as far as number one, the like for like requirements and the ask for direction from council.

Can we put those up? I think that's helpful to have that.

And the ask from staff to get direction from council. Based on what I'm hearing tonight from the public comments and also from staff, I'm leaning more favorably towards the proportionate approach for a variety of reasons, but one of which is that we've heard frequently from developers and other communities that when we differ from the surrounding communities, it makes it challenging for them to do their work in our community so if there's not a big difference between average and proportional then i say let's go to proportionate for now and as andy suggested maybe in the future when we look at further updates and amendments there might be some other novel strategies or creativities that we can implement but let's just get this over the finish line now so that we can improve on what we have that's all okay

Thanks. I agree. I'm really happy that we're making the changes. The plan, the way that it was before, was 100% guaranteeing that nobody was going to build anything, and I'm hoping that this does something to help the developers want to move projects forward. I would. And maybe the garage piece should be in the like for like. Maybe there just should be one more item listed just to specifically call it out so that if somebody's building three-bedroom townhouses, they can make them smaller three-bedroom townhouses. They don't have to be identical. They just have to be functionally similar. And so you could have a one-car garage instead of a two-car garage with that. And that, I don't see anywhere in here that would let a developer know, because the parking just says that there's no minimum vehicle parking. But I think if a development came to the staff, And it was all two-car garages. And then they're like, oh, well, these, we want to put one car. You'd be like, that's probably not functionally the same. And you wouldn't allow it. I'd like for that to be something that we would consider. Because a lot of times, a single-car garage is sufficient. And I mean, I see it in other developments and other communities that have been built in the last four years. Nobody would do it. They wouldn't reduce the size if it didn't make a difference in cost somewhere to make it more affordable. And that's the whole point, right, is to be able to find a way to make it less expensive for developers to add good, affordable housing in to an already market-based system. So that's, if everyone would be on board with that, I would love to see that be added in maybe for the like for like as an exception so the staff knows they could approve it if somebody brought it forward to them.

Other comments? Yes, Councilmember Cooperman.

Yeah. I would favor the proportionate over the average language. On the height incentives. Sorry. I am interested in by right, but I feel like that would be a longer conversation where we would have to look at the map, essentially, and maybe pick locations. So I think for the moment, I think I would agree with Councilmember Dickinson, just keep it as a may instead of a shall on the height. And then I just want to make one other comment at the moment. No, we have two places, I feel like, where you can be creative about what kind of affordable units you might try to offer. They are discretionary though, right? I mean, in a concept plan review, someone could say, we're interested in trying this creative solution, and then they can try to formalize that in the alternative agreements that are allowed under our ordinance. So it's discretionary, but it is a possibility.

others. Council Member Fahey.

Thank you. Yes, I agree with most of what's been said. I have a question about the garages. And that's that part of the reason that we included that in our original discussion was so that from the exterior, the affordable units don't look different from full price units. And I can't imagine someone who needs a three bedroom unit only needing one garage. And so I would say to keep it consistent with, you know, if you're only doing half of your three-bedroom units with one-car garages, okay. But if you're doing all of your three bedrooms with two garages and then try and do some of them with one in the affordable, then you're going to know that's the affordable section.

Other comments? Oh, did somebody, staff, comment?

It wasn't that much to say other than just a reminder that, you know, these will be PUDs that have public hearings. And so there'll be an opportunity for council to look at how that language was applied and disagree and go a different direction.

Council Member.

Yeah, I'm going to add to the garage comment. I think if you're building a neighborhood of single-family homes, maybe you notice it, maybe you don't. I prefer not to have a garage in the front of my house. It could be aesthetically that that's not actually something I want on the front of my house. But I think we're talking a lot about apartment buildings, condos, where... each unit doesn't have a, you can't tell what garages go with what unit, right? There's garage space and they might provide some parking in some garages, but there's no, when we're looking at like, gosh, I'm walking up to my unit and everyone can tell mine's an affordable unit because the garage area over there, I don't think it's the same sort of substantial difference than this is brick and this is wood or this is, you know, I don't think we're going to run into that as much. And I think it is one of those examples of a two-car garage versus a one-car garage can really change the affordability of a unit. And that can be a good thing, right? Like bringing that cost down without it being substantially different. So I do, I think it's kind of like similar to square footage. You each get a garage. Yours is quite wide and yours is not. But you both get a garage. So I'm super comfortable with how it's written. I just wanted to weigh in on the garage conversation. I think there will be, I mean, maybe that's a clarification is to, you know, Council Member Kern's concern. Do you feel like A development could come with some two, some one, some zero garages for different units, and that could potentially be okay and qualify, and there is a path forward for different types of garages.

Yeah, I mean, I think there's so many scenarios you could think of, it's hard to predict, but I think knowing the level of interest in this provision, I think, you know, it would kind of be on us as staff to elevate that and say this is why we think this is functionally equivalent based on this. So I think we would expect to do that type of analysis, and it would be very case-by-case.

Does that address the concern?

Yeah, I think so, because to the comments that Andy was making, too, it's like if somebody, if they were allowing, like, let's say an ADU and it met the one bedroom requirement, but it wasn't going to have an attached garage or a nearby one, but other units did, instead it was just going to have parking, I wouldn't want that to be the deal breaker for a developer to bring us a good, like, the guarantee of a good project, right, versus some other things which could be questionable. It would just be nice for them to and know what they were going to say yes or no to, which I think is part of the point. So thank you. Appreciate it.

From my own perspective, I don't think I'm going to say much that's different. I'm comfortable with these changes. I really appreciate Andy Johnson's comment about experimenting and there's going to be some of these that might work and some of them may not. We're going to be evaluating it. We're doing this, you know, separate from the development code and, you know, we can come back to it separately at some point, look back at it in a year or two and see how we do. So I think we are taking a substantial step forward. I think I... I would not characterize this as making it less bad. I think it's really improving it substantially from what it was before. I think there's incentives here that I think will hopefully resonate with some developers to at least look at us and think about how to take advantage of these and, you know, hopefully make some of these projects a little bit less expensive and a little faster. I agree about the proportional piece. I'm kind of indifferent about that, but I'll add my voice to that. Definitely want a May on height And I think that if I'm hearing it correctly, it's sort of the general consensus. The reason for that, frankly, is we get complaints about that. And I think it is. helpful to have one safety on that or pressure release or something in case a project really presents a height, you know, a height that is gonna be problematic. And on the garage, I think we've resolved that without changing the ordinance I was going to say there are practical problems if we try to do one drafting from the dais and two to when we are trying to add something that's going to be more complicated, so I'm glad that works. Yes, Councilman, you can make a motion now.

I'd like to move that we approve ordinance number 1936, series 2026, with proportionate instead of average in the language, but otherwise as written.

Second. Any further discussion? Yes, Councilmember Cooperman.

I just want to say I'm going to support this ordinance. The only thing that I'm unhappy about is the AMI, which we have set the rental units 80. I would have preferred 60. The consultant we had here earlier once again emphasized that. You know, the greatest need is at those lower AMIs, and I feel like we have an opportunity at this moment in time to try to address that. But otherwise, I agree with my fellow councilmembers that this is making the ordinance a whole lot better, and I think that outweighs the consideration about that one particular point. Thank you. Okay.

Let's take a roll call.

Councilmember Fahey. Yes. Mayor Pro Tem Hamilton. Yes. Council Member Hefner. Yes. Mayor Lay. Yes. Council Member Cooperman. Yes. Council Member Kern. Yes. Council Member Dickinson.

Yes. Great. Passes. And thank you very much to staff, to the public, and to council for great discussions and much improved ordinance. All right. The next, let's see, we've got... Yeah, why don't we take a brief break. It is 8.21. Why don't we come back in about five minutes. Let's put it that way. All right, thanks.

Just get my screen shared for us quickly. Tonight I am here to present on the findings of the community survey that we launched around the Marshall Fire Five-Year Remembrance Project. I'm excited to share that we had 475 survey respondents, but also drew a lot of attention with 615 visitors. Looking at the survey responses, we see that 91% of the people who responded to the survey lived in Louisville at the time of the fire. 62% of those people reported that their homes were either lost or damaged. That does include homeowners and renters, just to give a full picture there. And then 31% of our respondents identified as... indirectly affected community members. We only had 4% of respondents self-identify as not impacted by the fire. Many of those, based on qualitative comments, are new to the community and moved into the community post-fire. When we were looking at moving forward with this project, one of the things that we wanted to gauge was how the community saw value in remembrance and in continuing to mark these year anniversaries. We can see from the responses that 66% rated that the project was very important or important, but 88% rated that it was at least somewhat important. So I think that this signifies that council is on the right track with dedicating funds for a remembrance as we continue to work together as a community with some strong form of overall support for a five-year remembrance. We asked the community what themes they were hoping to see And a remembrance, and I think one of the things that came through so clearly for us was that the community was really looking for something that reflected on what the aftermath felt like as a community. So that healing closeness and the support that was fostered directly after, there was a lot of hope around documenting history and continuing to find ways to to remember what happened in those days of the fire and write posts after the fire, but also finding ways to honor actions that were taken during the fire and a lot of comments about our first responders. One of the things that we presented to the community, in addition to the opportunity to join into the project that is based in Superior, is if we were to do a Louisville-specific space or concept, the ideas of things like peace gardens or a labyrinth, a walking labyrinth, and then locations. What was fascinating here Is that Peace Garden took the lead which was really exciting but in that other we heard ideas such as murals reflecting pools sculptures sending money to other communities that are currently being impacted by wildfires a community gathering space Benches in Davidson Mesa was one of the highest qualitative responses historic and interpretive markers whether that be neighborhood signage or signage and In key areas in the burn scar and then when it came to other spaces outside of what was listed in the survey Again Davidson Mesa ranked pretty high as did Harper Lake downtown was mentioned the third most frequently outside of the Recommended locations and the memory square got a few good mentions as well mostly because it feels the most Louisville to the respondents who who brought it forward and So I think one of the really important things from this survey and from the findings is that there's not one clear answer. And I think that that is probably unsurprising to most of us who interact with the community day to day. While 39% of our community supported directing all or part of the funds towards the Superior Project, 21% said that they wanted more information. And again, digging into some of the qualitative types to those respondents, there was a lot of conversation or communication around what can we do in addition to supporting this project? Can we have an event or something here and be a part of this larger community gathering space? Is there a way for us to ensure what the next steps look for if we do join along that? And so I think it's important for us to recognize and that there wasn't necessarily one clear finding, though our data does show the bulk of the community respondents support directing some or all of the funding to this project. We also see a lot of open-ended themes, things like scale and cost sensitivity, recognizing that the price tag for the current build-out brought some trepidation to our community members, wanting to make sure that Louisville didn't get lost in the overall build in the project. looking for art in a participatory design, whether that is a mural or a mosaic that they can contribute to, there was a lot of talk about living, healing spaces. So green spaces, gardens, water came up quite frequently in those survey responses. I think part of the key tensions is that While some people want something modest or nothing at all, other people want something that is as elaborate as what Superior is moving forward because they feel that is what best honors what the community went through at that time. And I think that as we move from the survey findings into the staff recommendations, I do want to spend just a moment talking about how we approached the feedback. We didn't look at this survey as though there was one question and one answer. Should we do this or shouldn't we do this? We know that in a community as diverse as ours, made up of longtime residents and new residents, that there wasn't going to be that clear of an answer. But instead we tried to really honor what we were hearing from the survey respondents, and that was that time and again we heard that the Marshall Fire didn't stop at a municipal boundary. Time and again we heard that the response didn't stop at a municipal boundary. And we wanted to make sure that we were developing a staff recommendation that represented uh... one way of carrying forward a regional story uh... looking at some of the comments from our community members themselves you know there's hope that they want to see everyone think there's also the idea of showing how people come together there was also some caution that not everyone wants a permanent reminder that another physical reminders actually a grief trigger for many people in our community and so looking At all of the responses, considering all of the data, the staff recommendation is to move forward with the $25,000 designation towards the Superior Project, again reflecting that 39% of total respondents felt that some or all funds could go, and then reserving that 10% for something that we can do here. Because one thing that came out very clear is while the community might support this broader project, which plans to be fundraised throughout unincorporated Boulder County, They also want to remember here at home. And the splitting of the designated funds allows us to make both happen. And rather than it being a splitting the difference, I think it really honors the voice we're hearing through the survey. And just lining up how that might work with the actual survey results. So again, 34.7% prefer a Louisville-only allocation. We're able to do something with that with the $10,000 in funding. That can be a combination of programmatic. That can be exploration of a smaller scale, maybe art piece or opportunity for the community to come together. They're looking for things that support healing and support documenting history. Programming can directly support reflection, history, gratitude and community healing. And the open comments show a sensitivity to scale, cost, and the permanent reminders. Being able to contribute to something that is larger and allows those who are looking for a permanent space to gather, to remember, to honor, to gather in. And programming allows us something more temporal and allows people to opt in. So being, again, unusually concise, as I promised I would be tonight, staff's recommendation is the $25,000, $10,000 split. We're looking for council's direction on if they support the staff's recommendation or alternatives if they would like to suggest those. Happy to answer whatever questions I can.

Questions for Brandi? Yep. Council Member Kern? And then Council Member Cooperman.

Thanks for the work. I mean, and a lot of time, I think, in evaluating it and showing us how, what people, I mean, I read every one of the additional comments, so thank you for getting it to me in advance so I could read it, or all of us in advance. Just, I was curious, with just the portion that were the people that were directly impacted by the fire that responded, were the percentages basically the same pullout?

the data thought that might be a question so of the 62% of the survey respondents who were directly impacted so again renters and homeowners alike 19% were looking for more info 17% were pro giving all the money towards the superior project 39% just Louisville and 25% some to superior some to Louisville which puts us at 39% for all Louisville and 42% either some or all. And so, again, it kind of mirrors that larger aggregate, but still very close, definitely a variety of opinions.

Thank you. Yeah, I expected there to be a variety of opinions.

Council Member Koop. Assuming that we took staff's recommendation, I'm first wondering about, you know, what could we reasonably achieve with that $10,000 in Louisville, either in terms of programming or in terms of a project or?

Yeah, that's a great question. And the answer is really large. So with $10,000, there's a variety of things we can achieve, especially from a programmatic element. I think that it allows us to host a program that is a bit more elevated than the programs we do typically. especially if we're doing something around the launching of the oral history project, which I think is a really important piece for us that we own here in Louisville. It also would allow us the flexibility to design an art project that is in scope with the budget. So that could be something similar to the paint-by-numbers mural we did for pride or a small-scale mosaic we could work with parks and our Outdoor teams to identify like what maybe some sort of garden element looks like or interpretive signage Those details aren't fully explored yet, but it does allow us multiple avenues for support.

Okay my other question So Superior spent $25,000 in total on the design that we've heard about. Is that correct? Correct. Okay. So, and do you know, do they, does the town of Superior have any intention to put more money towards the project?

No, so based on the community survey that Superior did in 2021, it was a really clear sentiment from their community that they didn't want this project to be fully tax funded. Instead, they wanted the design of the project or the founding of the project to be municipally supported and the rest to be community sourced. So right now, the $25,000 in my understanding, is all that Superior is looking to dedicate directly to the project. They do have programmatic funds set aside. So the programs that they are doing towards the end of the year will be funded by tax funding, part of their events.

So I guess what I'm wondering is, you know, let's say that Louisville took a similar perspective. You know, if 25,000 was the total for the design and so forth, would it make sense instead to, say, split that with Superior, you know, pay half of that essentially, and then be able to use the remaining half of the 25,000 for something else?

I think that that question would need further exploration between us and Superior. The staff's recommendation is based on both municipalities coming in on sort of a level field. So again, when we're talking about this space as a community space where that line became blurred. Neighbors were just neighbors. It wasn't that you lived in Louisville or you lived in Superior. The thought was coming to the table with an equal contribution allows us to maintain that sort of neighborly feel and equal footing.

I mean, that was my intention. I was just thinking like, you know, if the total amount spent was X, you know, and we just split it equally, then that was my thought.

Any others? Council Member Fahey?

I would just say that, first, what you've already done is amazing. And I would be in support of splitting the money and keeping $10,000 for us. And if we choose to do any kind of art installation with the money, I would like it to be located somewhere in the fire-damaged area. I've heard other people say it should be downtown or something. It should be where the fire occurred. So the comment that I made at the time when this was first brought up on council was that if you have a memorial for a coal mine incident, it's located at the coal mine where it happened. And that's what I would like for the fire.

Thank you for that feedback. We continue to work with our parks and open space team on trying to identify places that we are allowed installations, especially installations that might fall into our code as decorative and not functional. But there are plenty of other opportunities for us to look outside of open space as well.

Well, I was thinking even like next to the police station on McCaslin or at Harper Lake, anywhere on the Mesa would be fine with me, next to one of the benches that are up there. Thank you.

Any other questions? I just wanted to... on to that clarification when we did the pet memorial we found like oh it's really complicated to get in your open space to do it on open spaces is very difficult so I think it's a step we could take I think that's kind of like anywhere in the Mesa like well there's probably somewhere up near Davidson Mesa where something could be but we just have to be careful of yeah of open space but there's so many options and I would I would concur that that part of town, which of course could include, you know, the golf course area, or we all know where the burn happened. So there are so many options, but obviously something very accessible. And I think, you know, we're not to that point of like designing anything physical, but I think those pieces around, you know, it being something that people can experience, but maybe not necessarily something that everyone must experience without a choice. I drive by it every day. I can't avoid it sort of thing. So it's complicated for sure. But I like the 2510. I support that. And that 10 is very complicated. The 25 is a little simpler. But what we do with that 10 or how we do that is certainly quite complicated.

Why don't we take some public comment? Do we have anybody waiting for public comment? Okay, back to council. Yes, Council Member Kerr.

So I'm going to thank you again because I just, I mean, even reading it for me was I think in some ways like moving in itself just to hear from, you know, hundreds of people that were impacted and what their thoughts were. I think it took a lot even for them to do the survey, to be honest, and a lot to read it. What popped out for me, and I think I'm reading this correctly, was one of the questions about where the outdoor installation, and it was really substantial, like over 60% of the people thought the Arboretum would be an appropriate place. And I think to Councilmember Dickinson's point, being able to experience something by choice versus it's right on the path, like on Davidson Mesa, and you can't avoid it, so you take a different trail, I think is really respectful to that. And I appreciate your attention to bringing that up. And I agree. And thank you also for working with the superior staff. This really is a joint effort, I think, and I know that the group that is behind the new installation, the proposal in Superior, they're not the council, it's not the city staff, it's a whole different group, so the layers of complexity that are going to go into this, I'm just in advance, because I know you're going to have to do a lot for us, so thank you. But yeah, I like this split, and I think, you know, your judgment is going to be really good working with the community that's already indicated, figuring out how maybe to balance something that would be wonderful for the five-year, but a place where people can be. I liked the words you wrote. The words you said were like a living healing space, and that seems... effective, especially in the Arboretum, that might be something that our Parks Department is able to work with your department and come up with something really lovely and meaningful for Louisville for a long time. So thank you.

Thank you. Yes, Member Tillman.

Thank you. Director Cummings, as always, you show up with a very thorough and thoughtful presentation. I personally interpret the lack of public comments as satisfaction with your process and thoughtfulness. So I'm very pleased with what you presented tonight. And just a few comments. Personally, we'll just lean on the outcomes that you've gathered as far as location, et cetera, of what we're doing here in Louisville. I think my counterparts bring up some great points that can add some further clarity to that. I'm fine with the 25-10 split. My only question is... If we were to give that $25,000 to the project, is there any way to have insurance that if that project is not brought to completion, that taxpayer dollar can then come back to us? That's my only concern. Do you have any thoughts on that?

Yeah, that's a fantastic concern to raise. So in my last meeting with the Superior staff and where they are in this project, they are in the process of identifying a core fundraising partner to help fundraise this this portion and then working with that partner for that very same guarantee that should should we start to collect money from the community and for some reason does not come to fruition and How do we ensure that money comes back to the taxpayers? My understanding currently, and this is not yet dried ink, and so I want to be very clear, it's very much wet clay, is that our contribution would go towards solidifying the fundraising piece. And so that would be included in the what happens if this doesn't come through. And so we, again, those are details that we'd still need to talk through with our friends at Superior. We need to explore a little bit deeper. No contracts are signed yet until we have councils go ahead to even start to explore that piece. So I'm happy to report back with what those assurances could look like. Thank you very much.

Of course.

Any other questions? Do we have a motion?

May I ask a clarifying question?

Pardon me? Sam has a comment.

I just want to ask Director Cummings a clarifying question. So I heard you talk about the 10K for an event and potential art design. Can you explain a little bit more what that could look like? Yeah, absolutely.

So currently what the team has been working on is the idea based around the oral history project unveiling. So this is a project that has been going on for a few years here. in partnership with Marshall Together for the Coming Home series as well. So essentially turning the library into an immersive museum exhibit for an evening where people can self-guide and self-select through bearing witness to or rejoicing with some of the stories that were shared. But in addition to that, bringing out those artifacts around the idea of home and heart, which is sort of what we've been calling it colloquially inside of our department, The celebration of community, right? The celebration of who we all were the next day and how everyone rallied to take care of each other. Honoring the loss, but not letting that overshadow how this community has built together and moved forward. There could be, we have not specced out all the prices on that yet, but I imagine that there is opportunity to support other programmatic pieces, something that might be more casual like a gathering, at maybe a local brewery or a local restaurant to encourage people to come together and fellowship. And then also that art piece is sort of that third thing that we need to explore out, flesh out a little bit more. What's great about your arts and events team is they're really great at stretching a dollar. So we feel very confident in that $10,000 and our ability to execute something that is of the quality we would want for a five-year remembrance and allows the community multiple ways to select how they want to engage. Thank you, Deputy City Manager.

Are we comfortable with split?

All right.

Thank you again for terrific work. This is a very hard project. And thank the community for helping us. And thank council for comments too.

Are we still waiting on a motion? Did we take your question before motion? So we're still waiting on a motion on that. We took deputy city manager's question before we voted. Last I heard.

It's discussion direction.

Oh, never mind. There's no motion. Thank you. Have a great night.

Yeah, I figured it out with some help here. All right, thanks again. You get thumbs up, which is sometimes it's even better. Let's see, the next one is ordinance number 1937 series 2026, an ordinance extending and amending a contract for the lease purchase of real estate at 1155 Pine Street. This is a first reading to set the public hearing. Once the staff member, who is going to be our city manager, I think, delivers the presentation, there will be council questions. There's not going to be any opportunity for public comment tonight. And we'll do a set of public hearing, and there will be public comment at that later date. We'll have two rounds that night. So with that.

Thank you. Good evening council so in February you adopted an ordinance approving a purchase and sale and lease agreement contract for 1155 Pine Street as part of the we would be Purchasing the eastern portion that includes the two rail cars the purchase price was three hundred ninety six thousand dollars the agreement was structured such that we would do a one hundred fifty thousand dollar deposit and and then pay $10,000 per month as part of the lease payment. The expiration date for the agreement was July 31st, 2026. During that time, the city was to process a subdivision plat to subdivide the property. It took longer than expected to be able to get the plat from the surveyor. We now have received it, and it's in the process with Community Development for processing. We're requesting an extension of this agreement through February 26, 2027, to be able to complete that process. To date, we have paid the deposit of $150,000, as well as paid approximately $70,000 in lease payments. With the extension through February of 2027, the lease payments and the deposit would total $270,000. With that, I am happy to answer any questions.

Any questions from council?

Yes, council member Cooperman. Is the other party amenable to the provisions?

Yes, the Ramos family is amenable to the extension.

And what would be the consequence of not approving the amendments?

So if the amendment was not approved, basically the contract is terminated, our deposit would need to be repaid, the lease payments would not. And so the Ramos family would need to reimburse us the $150,000 deposit. They would not reimburse the lease payments.

Any other questions? Okay. Right. Seeing none, let's have a motion concerning.

I move that ordinance number 1937 series 2026 pass on first reading and the public hearing be set for Tuesday. Somebody's got to tell me the date. It just says date in here.

October 6th.

At 6 p.m. Thank you.

Second.

Any discussion? All in favor? Aye.

Any opposed?

Oh, we need a roll call on this, don't we? Go ahead. This is what one hour of sleep gets you. Go ahead. Take a roll call.

Councilwoman Kurt. Yes. Councilmember Cooperman.

Yes.

Councilmember Fahey.

Yes.

Mayor Pro Tem Hamilton. Yes. Mayor Lay.

Yes.

Councilmember Dickinson.

Yes.

Councilmember Hefner.

Yes. All right. We'll have a second reading in a couple weeks. All right. City Attorney's Report.

I have no report. Thank you.

All right. Upcoming agenda items on identification of future agenda items. Are there any? Yes. Council Member Cooper.

Yeah. Thank you. I would say following on the presentation from Trestle, I would be quite interested in looking into joining this program for purchasing existing homes and deed restricting them with this DOLA funding.

I would agree. I'm not sure what that takes out of staff. If it requires us to bring it up at a whole other meeting on housing or if it's just part of the policy that we're agreeing to with the suggestions from Trestle or not.

Thoughts? Yep. Thumbs up? I disagree. Okay. Can you say more?

I'd be happy to talk about it in our work plan discussion for 27, which I think is the appropriate place to consider it. Okay. Other thoughts?

Is it a thumbs up or is it not? Yes, go ahead.

I would agree with Councilmember Heffner.

I would too. Adding it to the 27 work plan, if we can, you know, we're going to be talking about housing, so.

I'm saying talk about it as part of that conversation. I wasn't agreeing to add it to the 27 work plan, just to be clear.

Like add it to the conversation for the 20, yeah.

Okay.

I think we're going to hold off. All right. Any other comments? Okay. Can we get a motion to adjourn?

So moved.

Second. Second. Discussion?

All in favor?

Aye.