Affordable Housing Task Force - Regular Meeting

Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to the affordable housing task force. Let's see. We'll get started here Just a few minutes after 01:00 on the thirteenth. Called to order or roll call.

Perfect. Member King? Here. Member Roby?

Here.

Member Wesley?

Here.

Member Short?

Here.

Member Priest?

Here.

Alright. We have a quorum.

Alright. So adoption of the agenda and approval of a consent calendar. We have the item number 126DashO857, a consent counter. Do we have a motion to accept the minutes from the March 18 meeting?

Sure. I'll move to accept. Second? I yep. You do what?

Right. Do we need to call several from the river?

Yeah. Yeah. K. So we're gonna do roll call vote. Member Kane? Aye. Member Roby?

Aye.

Member Westlake?

Aye.

Member Short? Aye. Member Priest?

Aye.

Or abstain?

No. It's abstaining.

Alright. So looks like the motion passes.

Gen item two twenty six dash o 85 eight. Staff recommended the task force receive updates on the following items. One, new member introduction. Two, mobile home report back. Three, traffic impact fee TIF offset program. And four, the NEXUS study in the timeline of scope of work.

Take this time to do a quick introduction. So Rob Peters, deputy director of planning. Thank you all for being with us, today. I thought, maybe before we get started on the presentation, I would do a quick introduction because we have some, new folks which will be part of our presentation and some recently new folks. And so I'll just introduce maybe the staff that is here, supporting the affordable housing task force. So we have Patricia Soda, an administrative technician who's clerking the meeting. We have Jen Morris, who's our senior analyst who supports our housing related activities within the department. Anna Kwan, a senior planner within our current planning division, and so and then myself. So, currently,

you know, this is the team supporting this effort and, working together on those items. Let me see if I can pull

up the there we go. Okay. So, as you can see, we have a new member with us. I'd like to welcome Alan Priest to the affordable housing task force. So among many other things, mister Priest is currently on the board of directors for the Eldorado Community Foundation, and, maybe either now or at the end of you could give a few minutes, introduction for the rest of the parties.

So Sure. Happy to do that now.

Just very briefly, I have been a resident of oh, thank you. Been a resident of El Dorado County for about twenty six years now. I raised a couple great kids in El Dorado Hills. We were there for a couple decades. Just moved to the unincorporated area of Placerville about five years ago.

Had a career for a couple decades in environmental consulting, regulatory compliance type support to fill military installations for the most part worldwide, so I was traveling quite a bit with that. We sold our company, our engineering company, back in 2009, 2010, and then started building custom homes with a business partner of mine in El Dorado Hills doing major remodels and custom custom home building. He bought me out about three years ago. I've been a real estate broker here in the county for better better part of thirty years now. So I do have investment properties, mostly multifamily and single family residences throughout the county, South Lake Tahoe, Stateline, all the way down to Eldorado Hills.

So my wife and I manage those and, have been on about five different nonprofit boards in Eldorado County for the last fifteen plus years or so, including the Community Foundation, worked with Bill Roby very closely, for a number of years. I've been on that board for about seven years. I've been working with Frank, Porter with Housing El Dorado here for the last couple years, trying to understand, understand, from an affordable housing perspective, some of the infill properties and land opportunities that might exist within Eldorado County. And it's have learned a lot last couple of years on that front, and continue to pursue a project in Eldorado Hills, an infill project in Eldorado Hills that'll be a multifamily affordable housing project, and, we've got a team put together with that. We have land secured, so we'll be hearing more about that with the county.

Look forward to working with Rob and his team on that. So, anyway, I don't profess to be an affordable housing expert by any means, but I am a problem solver, and I I really, really look forward to learning a lot more and and contributing where I can here to the task force. So thanks for having me.

Thank you very much. So, yeah, the next couple I'll just do a quick overview of what the rest of this presentation looks like. So we're gonna report back on, request for some data related to mobile home, within the the county, mobile home parks, and and the numbers and those sort of things. So Jen will be providing that to you. And then we will also be going over some direction from the board of supervisors, which is sort of hot off the press as of yesterday, which is that the task force staff would work with the task force to review and provide recommendations for our county traffic impact fee offset, policy and program guidelines.

And so Jen's gonna go over some of those materials, and we provided those in the packets with the board asking for us to, get some, you know, recommendations and have a review by the task force of that policy and guideline. And then lastly, Anna is gonna go, into providing an overview of our efforts related to the developing a draft feed nexus study, including a a potential timeline and draft scope with the intent of obtaining feedback from the task force to inform our approach and final versions that would be utilized moving forward. And so with that with that, I'll pass it off to Jen.

Alright. So at the last meeting, it was requested, just to kind of have a generalized idea of mobile home parks in the county. I will start off by saying that we don't have this county does not have jurisdictional rights over those. They are still controlled by HCD. But just general, the area in the land of the property has to have at least two mobile homes, manufactured homes, recreational vehicles, or lots that are held out for rent or lease, and that's what qualifies it as a mobile home park.

So in our county, we have a total of 57 mobile home parks, and 38 of those are in the unincorporated area, and 19 are within our city limits of Placerville and South Lake Tahoe. Total spaces is almost close to 3,000, with more than 70% of those in the unincorporated area. So about 2,100 lie within our unincorporated area. HCD, those tools actually and I know mister Roby has asked us before if they provide us, like, know, if they're leased or owned. And, unfortunately, with the data and anything that HCD produces, they don't tell us if they're leased or owned.

We'd have to contact every mobile home park to find that out per space. But there is also attachment b. It is a more detailed report out to you guys with some more in-depth detail just for your reference, and there's also the website where we were able to pull that data from. So I'm gonna leave it with that for the mobile home parks. Just stuff to consider. Because like I said, we we don't have much control over those at the moment in this county. I know that there is a mobile home task force that is separate from this task force. And if you want information on that, I can provide it after the meeting. So you can reach out to them if you have any other further questions on what they're developing or working on. So alright. And then

Just a a quick question.

Uh-huh.

Has the county, accessed the mobile home survey that was done with the Eldorado Community Foundation.

We did not.

There is one.

Okay.

So it might provide some additional information for you.

Okay. Alright. Thank you. You're welcome. Okay.

Excuse me, Jen. Yes. Do you know if any of these parks are in violation of HCD, or are they all in good standing?

When we pulled the report, it actually does say if they're in compliance or if it's pending, like, review, and that's all we saw. So we did not see any that said that they were noncompliant.

Okay. That's good.

And I pulled it, I believe, mid March, April.

Okay.

So as of that date, I did not see anything that said out of compliance or red flag.

Alright.

Alright.

One one more comment. Yes. Just because just because we all have an opinion. You know, I was just curious if there's any data. So, like, I've done work up in Tahoe, and there's a lot of mobile home parks there. Mhmm. What you do find is, like, multiple households are living in one mobile home. I was just curious if there's ever an overcrowding study or anything like that.

The county has not performed one so that I could say. I don't know if the city has, but the I would say the majority of these mobile home parks that are in Tahoe are more in the city limits because they're closer to resources than they are outside. Most of the ones that we did eliminate from this study were more campground based. They did have a few mobile homes on those properties, but those ones are mostly for the people running the mobile home park. So we didn't include those in this data report out. And we also eliminated the campgrounds because those are temporary. So

Okay. Just curious. Alright.

So moving on to the next slide, if you don't mind. Okay. So this is new and upcoming, decided by the board yesterday. We did take a traffic impact fee, to the board yesterday for one of our housing projects, and it was, Diamond Village Phase 2. They are going to be constructing 31 units, and of those 31, 30 will be deed restricted, and they were awarded.

And part of that board item, it was also discussed to have the task force help the county, us specifically, specifically, review review our our one and only offset incentive policy that we do have for affordable housing developers. So there is, attachment c, which is our board policy, which kind of outlines what the incentive is meant for. And I will let you all know that as of right now, it does discuss ADUs. But right now, ADUs are also exempt from TIF fees. DOT has made them exempt, so this policy is extremely outdated.

It was written in 2013. And I believe sometime between 2013 or 2017, ADUs became exempt from paying TIF offsets. So right now, this policy is only applying to developers within the county. They can come and apply to our housing unit, and they can get those fees offset, so they can pencil their project a little bit better. It's it's an incentive for them because there are currently no building fee reductions in any of that for these developers.

So this is all the county is currently offering. So we do have the board policy that we would like you guys to go and review. So and then we also have, attachment d, which is the guidelines that we've written up based off this board policy, and this is what we do once we get the application in. So it's kind of how we underwrite the developer to determine if they qualify for the set offset. So, basically, this all came about back in 2007 when we took our housing element and we started to implement it, and we put in that the TIFF offset program would be a great incentive for developers.

It provides and these are offsets, not waivers. We don't actually physically give the developer money back, but it does have some eligibility requirements in the program guidelines that they have to meet. And the fees that would have been paid by this project developer, they're actually backfilled by grants that DOT seeks. Year after year. They go after grant money.

So, basically, there is grant money throughout the county, and so they're kinda compensating, like, giving us an allocation of a million dollars a year of grant funds to help. And so, currently, that million dollars does roll over year over year. And so there is a nice pot of that money for the developers when they do apply, but it also depends on how many developers are coming and knocking on our door for this these funds. So at the next meeting, what we're gonna do is kind of since we're Anna's gonna move on to the next slide, which well, not yet, but, she's gonna talk more about the nexus. So once we kinda table the nexus again, we kinda wanna focus a little bit on this traffic impact offset offset program because the board is really looking for some input from you guys on, how you think this is written, what do you think do you think these incentives actually do help?

We'll bring you some more questions. I'm gonna work with DOT. They will be present at the next meeting, to really just get into the nitty gritty of this program and provide us some input because they're wanting to revamp it.

So what is the TIF amount per unit for an apartment?

It depends on the zone they are in and the AMI that they're offering.

So lower the AMI than the greater the TIF amount that they you charge for

it then? Yep. Can you go to the next slide real quick?

So I'm sorry.

Oh, it's okay. No. No. I don't have that, but I do have so this this is actually just a summary of how many projects we have awarded since 2007, and it's not very many. We have had a ton of developers come through this program, but it's not all because they were rejected from our program. We have, like, a 99% rate of approving every single TIFF applicant that comes through this program with the developers. But depending on if they move forward and they build, these are the people that have been awarded. This is the amount of money that we've, you know, reduced their TIF offset by. And

Is it a 100% of what they would have been charged?

No. It depends on if they're gonna restrict the manager's unit. So sometimes the manager's units are not included. So the Diamond Village one

is

they have they have to pay for one unit of that TIF offset. So there is a difference in fees. So they pay a little portion of it.

But for the affordable units, a 100%, though, of that tip amount would be

It's prorated. So so I'll bring the chart next time. And it's

I think it's is it

in here? Table b, which is page five of Yeah.

Thank you.

I was like, oh, there it is. Yes. Thank you.

Kind of outlines the Oh, attachment d. The affordability, and the percent of

Page five of attachment d has the tables. Sorry.

Just to give you a sense of, you know, very low versus low versus moderate.

Be the very, very bottom length of affordability where it says not less than twenty years. But the afford well and oh oh, and the rent affordability level on the rental units, the one above that as well.

So, basically, the only for apartments like the ones you're showing here would be that middle column where you got a twenty year, affordability covenant or regulatory agreement, whatever you're calling it.

And we reduced the TIF.

Percent of the TIF fee would be offset for the very low.

Yes.

And that's okay.

Yeah. How does that work? My mic on. How does that work on an ADU? We don't

As affordable. We don't five

units or more the way this this thing is. Right?

These are five units or more. Yeah. So 80 like I said in the beginning, ADUs are now exempt. So this this original guideline was written when ADUs were included in in this to allow them not to have to pay TIF. Okay. And then sometime between 13 and '17, I can't remember when they yeah.

Yeah. So they one of the key updates will be to probably, address the fact that this, talks about accessory dwelling units, and we no longer, take in those, fees. So they're they're exempt from the policy. I think

it's Yeah.

We just haven't updated the guidelines. Yeah. User except from

TIF Correct. Flat off. Yes. Okay.

But but the program at the time when it was developed, we were doing TIF offsets for ADUs. Since that time, it's been exempted, it needs to be updated. That's a key Okay. Piece, but

you know?

Yeah. Yeah.

Is the ADU exception for any ADU regardless of size?

I believe so. Yeah. I believe so.

At the income level?

Yeah. Yeah. We don't get into the income level on the ADU necessarily. Provider. But Right. Yeah.

But other than that, the rest of table b is still how we're operating? Correct. Correct. Yes.

Thanks for the clarification.

So so like I said, well, at the next meeting, this is just, like, if you guys don't mind, just slight homework to just read through these two, and then we will come to you and let you know kind of this is the murmurs we're hearing about things they want us to specifically look at, and we'll have, like, an open discussion during that meeting.

And I was just gonna add, it kinda ties into we you know, we've been talking about component one a, which is the affordable housing fee and those pieces, one b being strategies and incentives and all that.

Yeah.

So it kinda ties into that other effort as far as looking at the program we do have, taking a a fresh look at that, and then, you know, of course, it'll integrate with the It might

be nice if if you could send out to the task force, like, that breakdown, what what you charge on the stiff fees by zones and stuff.

We have it in the application. It's very, very clear in the application, so I'll send you guys a copy of the actual application guidelines.

We had

to take it down off our website because we offer it twice a year. Right. But now with streamlined processes, we're gonna have to just offer it as the projects come in. So we're changing that and updating that as well so that we can run these more. But yeah.

We're Is there a commercial impact? Do they pay a fee?

No. They they pay full TIF.

Yeah. So there's there is a commercial, that traffic impact mitigation fee for commercial. It's complex, and and probably Jeff could answer it better I do.

Nope. We don't do commercial as long as they're paying, and and it's not all

on residential. Includes both. And so this is, in the total program, this is sort of this offset pot of money that's intended to utilize this program. I think it was in not this most recent, housing element, the '21 through '29, but the previous one, you know, we started implementing it. So it's been around for a bit. We've got about twenty years on the books. As you can see from the slide Jen had, you know, we've done a handful of projects and approximately 4 and a half million in offsets. It happens at the point of, you know, the building permit issuance. So when they go to pay their fees to issue the permit, that's the point at which that TIFF offset is, has to be, have already been awarded, but then, you know, not they don't have to pay those fees to move the permit forward.

Okay. Because, like, on affordable projects, you don't have to pay the the your impact fees now until you get the certificate of occupancy.

Yeah. That's, yeah, that's the benefit. Yeah.

We're we're kinda handling it at issuance currently. Okay. Yeah. Alright.

So there's there have

been five that have actually been

awarded Mhmm. Amounts. How many applications have there been since 2007 against that? Just out of curiosity. Or or is this It everybody that applied

So they

posted on that chart.

It's yeah. Basically. I think, one or two have fallen off. They never went through. So what what happens is is people do come and apply to this program.

People come and apply to the program while they're in the, project approval phase. But once they get awarded TIF, they have two years to pull a building permit once they've been awarded the TIF offset. So there's a little bit of a delay between project approval and pulling your building permit to and but there are three one year extensions as well. So, technically, you almost have up to five years to pull your building permit. So that's why some people end up, even in the planning phase, dropping out. So they applied for this, and they didn't actually get their project approved or they just stopped developing in this county. You know? They're just not gonna move forward. Their money actually goes back in the pot for future developers. But most of these people will come in and apply.

And then if they don't get the project, what is the word I'm looking for? If they didn't meet the two years, they come in and ask for an extension. Sorry.

So probably

the last

The last two projects on the list have not well, I don't know senior ones going forward. But

And so, yeah, so, like, two has been awarded an extension. And so that's so they kinda just keep trailing in our list. But, yeah, we have not had very many affordable projects come in and apply in the last, obviously, you can tell, fifteen years. What happens is they keep re their money will go back in the pot, and they'll end up having to reapply because they forget to ask for an extension. Or or there if there's a change in the project scope of work, we have to have them reapply. They fall off, and they've gotta resubmit for a new award These things changes.

Scope of work. What do you mean a budget scope of work or just

Project, like number of units or any other

portable projects as we all know here could take four or five years from the time we start planning to actually get awarded.

Well, I think Final money. Think when we dive in, so those are some of the considerations we'd love feedback is the timeline work.

Right.

You know, all those types of things.

And does a million dollars is it million dollars every year, and if you don't spend it, you can bank it?

Currently, that's how it's

Well, it it The program is a twenty year program, and so it anticipates this total amount of money. We're dealing

million is set aside.

Right? It's not necessarily in a set aside, so it's pretty complex, and that's why we're bringing DOT who deals with the finance side of this next time. But, it, it anticipates a total amount, but it's not necessarily a, what's the word I'm looking for, Jen, a, account that's set aside where Yeah.

You know? Because I think where it may go, and maybe I could be wrong, is you got several years in between a lot of these awards, like, or five years. So does that 4 or $5,000,000, does it kinda bank up later on if you get multiple projects coming in? Could they take advantage of that even though you got a $1,000,000 cap?

Well, that's where we would, yeah, we would assess the amount of money in the program, how much grant fees have come in, and what's that a lot. But the intent is to, provide that million, but it's not a set aside account where it's just building. So it's and that's part of the reason why we're looking at this is because there's questions

just I mean, like, for fifteen years here, you got on here, we've only awarded 4,500,000. So, technically, it'd be, like, 15,000,000 would be kind of

Correct. And we've had those conversations recently with the board, and because of the complexity of the program, that's why they're trying to seek more, you know, certainty or understanding of both the the financing side of this and the program guidelines side of this.

Because, clearly, I think some of these costs or the TIF offset I mean, I presume it was for infrastructure. Right? The the entire nexus reason to even charge the fee is related to some sort of transportation.

Yeah. Roadway improvements. By zoning too.

So, you know, in in many cases, like, say, you do some exotic ASIC deal, you know, and it has a transportation too. And, you know, you could use funding from this source to actually improve the bus stop or to do blah blah blah, right, as it relates to that.

So this is more their so and that's what next so Okay. So homework was to look at this piece. We're bringing DOT back, but at a high level, there's a this this the CIP program has a list of projects and an amount, and then they're taking in these impact fees to address those capacity. Let's call them increasing projects. So then this the pot of money that everyone pays and addresses those projects on that list.

There are many that are funded, and there's different districts and and or zones. And then there's an unfunded list too that as things move on, they get added on. But when those, transportation improvements are done, those pots of money are used. This is an offset of that pot of money that the the board was saying. As we take in these fees, you know, to, to accommodate affordable housing, we would, you know, have this use of the money within the program.

Well, it sounds like a lockbox might be a good idea. Well,

that's, you know, that's why we're we intend to kinda have those discussions and dive in a little deeper and have DOT here to talk about their part of it because we partner with them on this program. We're sort of the guideline part, and they're sort of the money part, if you will. But, you know, co collectively taking a look at the program and is it working and are there things we could do better and and, again, tying into all our incentive discussions.

And just to be clear, the grants that are used to fund this are not for low income housing to offset. They are for the prod the transportation project

Correct.

In the county. Okay.

Yeah. As I understand it, you know, they get grant funds, and they can use them for those projects. They can use it for this. But when they're anticipating and they're putting their twenty year program together, they're anticipating a certain amount of grant funding within that scenario, and this is one of those that often is used to backfill this amount that we spent.

Okay.

From a feedback perspective, has there been a feedback loop with the developers or the industry at all

Not yet.

In this program as far as how the policy I

think that's what we're doing right now. We're

we're yeah.

This is this is start the start of it. Yeah.

Well, there's there's a lot to that related to DOTs, their interactions with development community on paying fees and all of that. This is sort of our first review outs I guess, maybe outside of staff where we're looking at this policy specifically, at least in our role here. Yeah. Right? Right.

It's gonna be fun.

Is there a is there an optimum goal to complete this review or recommendations?

You know, there was not, like, a deadline of this. You know, we have some deadlines that we're gonna talk about for a feasibility study, and that will inform our ordinances, and we are trying to bring you know, while that's happening, bring our incentive discussion so that those would all align collectively. So I but I don't they didn't say, like, have this done, but I think they want to improve the program. And so that's why we're bringing it right away so we can you know, as there's time and as we, continue to work on it.

So is this something then we should kinda make on for each of our meetings as a standing item to kinda be addressing to figure out where we're going so we otherwise, I could see this getting sidetracked, and we

forget the four months. I think we'll know more when we come back the very like, the next meeting. So we can set, like, a kinda like maybe a timeline and a goals, like, discussion topic. So I'm gonna meet with DOT.

Have something that we're working towards other ways. I can see this kinda moving off to the side, and we're focused on the ordinance. And then Unbelievable. We forgot the TIF. And Yeah. Now we gotta circle back on that.

But it probably it probably will end up being some talking points.

I guess our our approach was I'll just be is was we were thinking, we'll give this because we've never spoken to you about it or given you the opportunity to review it. So we're we're teeing it up, and then next time we're gonna come back in with some topics to discuss Okay. And probably put together, okay, what does it look like to to you know, and some timing and all of that so that we can, then report back to the board. Hey. We've initiated this. This is what it looks like. So I think Yeah. We, since yesterday, we hadn't figured out all the details, but we know that it was coming in. We preemptively put it on this presentation, and I didn't know if I'd be coming here to say the board said no to that or the board said yes to that. So we kind of were sitting up

with of Yeah. Yeah. So so we'll be back at the next meeting. So this is, yeah, some reading homework that we've been starting to work on, so I appreciate it.

Okay.

Can't wait.

But, no, we wanna set a target. We wanna have an understanding of what the level of effort is and and work towards something for sure. Yeah. Okay.

And I'm just gonna add a side note, not to be very rude, but I will be exiting at about 02:30 today. So if I escape and you need anything from me, please reach out. And I'm gonna pass it off to Anna now for the fun stuff, really fun stuff.

Hey, everyone. Anna Kwan, senior planner for the county here. So I'm here to provide an outline of our affordable housing impact fee nexus study scope. We've been talking about this for a while, so here is the outline. So as discussed previously, the affordable housing task force recommended that the county consider an affordable housing impact fee instead of considering an inclusionary housing ordinance.

So I'll go ahead and share that. The purpose of the fee nexus study for this affordable housing impact fee is to provide a legally defensible and reasonable relationship between new residential and nonresidential development and affordable housing needs generated by the new development. The fee nexus study will determine maximum justifiable and supportable fees for residential and nonresidential development. Next. The task force had asked for timelines at the previous meeting, and so here is our best estimate as of right now.

So we will aim to finalize the scope this month. Contracting with a qualified economic consultant will take about three months from June to September. And then based on estimates from other local jurisdictions in the Sacramento region, these types of NEXUS studies can take from nine months to two years or more. We since we have the affordable housing task force here, we have a good group of folks on staff. We have an ambitious deadline of completing the NEXUS study in ten months by July 2027 in order to have Board approval at the end of the year.

Given that there may be factors outside of our control, we will keep you updated as we make progress with this estimated time line. Next. The county contains two distinct geographic planning areas, West Slope and East Slope. East Slope includes the unincorporated Tahoe Basin, and the West Slope includes the remainder of the unincorporated county. Within the West Slope, the Pheonexa study will consider affordable housing impact fees for residential and nonresidential development.

Another term for affordable housing impact fees for nonresidential development is commercial linkage fees. Within the East Slope, the Pheonexa study is anticipated to only consider an affordable housing impact fee for residential development because historical permit history does not show substantial nonresidential development in the unincorporated Tahoe Basin, which includes Myers, Follin Leaf and other areas outside of the city of South Lake Tahoe. Currently, the county's Tahoe area plan is underway, which once approved may stimulate nonresidential development. But at the current moment, staff would not like to consider additional fees for types of development that is that are not occurring. Next.

As is customary with these types of fee nexus studies, the county will review the inclusionary in lieu and affordable housing impact fees and commercial linkage fees that other jurisdictions in the Sacramento Metropolitan Area have established, and we have learned a lot from our neighboring and nearby jurisdictions. Next. So here's maybe a more detailed discussion on the prototypes. In the West Lope, four residential prototypes will be analyzed, single family detached, single family attached like townhomes, multifamily for sale condos, and multifamily apartment units. The county's housing stock consists mostly of single family detached units to no one's surprise, but there have been some development proposals for townhomes and market rate apartments and a few condo projects.

In terms of nonresidential, four nonresidential prototypes will be analyzed in the West Slope, which will align with the nonresidential categories of the county's traffic impact fees: general commercial, office medical, hotelmotel bed and breakfast, and industrial warehouse. In the East Slope, only single family detached units will be studied. We reviewed permit history. Other types of residential development do not occur. As for single family detached units, over the past ten years, approximately 30 are built each year due to TRPA caps.

We wanted to include this prototype in this analysis to be inclusive and consider development in Tahoe area, but in terms of all the prototypes, welcome task force input. Next. Now I'd like to provide a simple recap of the nexus analysis methodology that Rob had shared last meeting. For the residential nexus analysis, we would look at the number of new market rate households for each residential prototype and their spending patterns, which would generate new local jobs and corresponding new workers, some of whom would need affordable housing. Then we would calculate the number of units required for the different workers who need affordable housing and compare the workers' ability to pay for this housing to the cost to develop these units.

The remainder would be the affordable funding gap, from which the maximum justifiable impact fees would be derived. Then we would conduct financial feasibility analyses for each prototype to see what the market can bear for each prototype. And support, since not all of the maximum justifiable impact fees may be financially feasible. In fact, some of these prototypes may not be financially feasible even with market rate conditions without an affordable housing impact fee. The nonresidential nexus analysis is similar to the residential nexus analysis with the difference that employment density for new commercial and industrial development would be studied instead of new market rate households' spending patterns.

Next. The result of this affordable housing fee nexus study would be to have recommended fees paired with draft ordinances. A fee ordinance would establish the fee, while a zoning ordinance would establish the program for the fee, which may include fee exemptions for certain uses and alternatives to paying the fee, such as building units on-site or dedicating land for affordable housing. The fee nexus study would also provide recommendations for how to update the fees in respect to pertinent laws in a cost effective manner. Next.

So during the course of the fee nexus study process, we anticipate that the county's contracted economic consultant would conduct interviews with real estate development stakeholders regarding the financial feasibility analysis. We will regularly update the Affordable Housing Task Force, and the Task Force Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors would have the opportunity to comment on draft materials before the fee nexus study is finalized, and recommended fees and draft ordinances are presented to the board for approval. And then the last slide is basically we welcome hearing from the task force regarding your thoughts about our presentation.

So

my first thought on this was, back to your methodology, this chart here. I I don't know how we're doing a Nexus say that showed you you would have too high a fee to figure out a gap.

Thank you.

I mean, you could have a gap of a 150,000 a unit on a horrible project. And there's no way we're gonna be able to come up with a fee that's gonna get passed anywhere by BIA or any of builders the or the public on having a $10 per square foot. I'm just throwing that out as a number, but some number. So I I think we gotta be careful where we say it's the gap in there because that is a that could be an extremely large amount, especially I've seen on portable projects.

Can I piggyback off that real quick? Because because I actually think the next I agree with you a 100%, and I actually think the the genesis of that issue is actually in the column before that where you're calculating the the total cost to produce the units. I don't think there's any need for the for the county or any jurisdiction to determine what the total cost of building a unit is. That's not a cost that the county is gonna incur in the first place.

And it varies from South Lake Tahoe to Placerville to El Morale Hills. It's all gonna be a change in dynamics depending on if you got certain fees in certain areas and just goes on and on building areas and Mhmm.

The bill and the building sites. Yeah. So so what we've been encouraging as part of this these types of studies, what what the BIA has been encouraging cities and counties to look at is what is the subsidy gap that affordable housing builders are asking for? In my, you know, very unscientific research, it's roughly 50 to $60,000 per unit. So that gets to be a very big number when you look at an entire project, but it's a fairly small number by unit. And if you're dividing that by the number of market rate houses built in the jurisdiction plus the commercial component, it gets down to a much more reasonable number to try to aim for that target that actually is gonna come out of the jurisdictional coffers anyway.

So

But also, I think it's kinda looking at how many units are you anticipate coming on each on an annual basis. Because if we go back to, like, the tip-off-site, I I'm sure all your affordable projects haven't used tip, but probably the majority have the offset. So that would kind of give you how many units a year that you got. It's the county's been doing an unappropriated areas coming in, which then goes back to that whole thing. And, you know, if you're only doing a 100 units, well, then that amount per unit, you know, when you start dividing that up between your market rate, it goes down Yeah.

If that's if that's what you're trying to achieve. Now if you're trying to achieve more affordable depending on your updated housing element and everything else you're working for, I think they need to be kind of correlating those numbers, trying to figure out what is the county's goal on the housing element and arena numbers to meet that on a annual basis to back those numbers into that way.

Yeah. And then, of course, missing middle. You know, if you're gonna look at 80% and a 120, if that starts to pencil again someday, you know, that's a different calculus in terms of gap. And then sources are different, and then you gotta throw in labor. Like, if you're doing prevailing wage union, that's a really different animal than non prevailing wage, nonunion, you know, and what's the gap there.

So, I mean, I guess so it's it's the world I'm not as familiar with, the nexus world, but I think maybe setting up I don't I'm wondering if you you bring in different consultants and you kind of interview them with how they think they could come up with the next study rather than dictating how it should be. So I'm wondering if they have different methodologies in terms of, like, comparable jurisdictions and kind of because, you know, what I think what you really have are very distinct products of of, you know, buildings that are being built presently today, single family home, townhomes, remodels, you know you know, various types of residential as well as, you know, commercial. You're missing housing. Like, you should probably be thinking about more supportive housing, more senior housing, more, you know, aging in place and thinking about sort of that whole spectrum. Right?

And that's a different kind of beast, quite honestly, than your traditional LITEC deal, you know, where you're competing for really hard to get tax credits, you know, 9% tax credits or 4% tax credits. That affects your gap too. So I'm just wondering in instead of coming up with some perfect calculation for, like, the maximum flexibility in terms of how you finance it, is there another way to look at? I don't have the answer, but I just feel like there is. Because it's like a straight line, but it's not really it's like it's a straight line to calculate, but there's so many variables that that straight line doesn't give you really good data because it's too high you know, hypothetical, frankly.

It's not real.

Well, it's kinda like the tip where they were saying there's a million dollars on annual basis. If this fee's coming in, that should be, like, a bank type thing depending on the number of projects that you get coming in. Because if you look back through your five projects in the last fifteen years, there were so many units being produced. Well, that could increase if the county does have some type of fee, but I think you gotta set your goals and try to figure that out ahead, what you anticipate coming in to set so that they can work at these numbers. And I think that it has to be you know, if they have a lower fee, it could be banked, we carry those on to future developments and stuff.

And like Mia said, you know, there's the normal vanilla type portable deals, family deals, but then there's always senior deals, supportive housing deals. And some of those require a more of a larger subsidy than the family project paying on if they're going for tax credits or other types of funding from the state level side.

So what I can say is that this type of methodology is pretty standard. We looked at other jurisdictions like Placer County, Folsom. Folsom got theirs approved. So usually, I think because of laws that are in place, like Mitigation Fee Act, you need to provide the nexus. And a lot of times that maximum, there has to be a reasonable relationship between the fees that we charge and the market rate households that are benefiting from the services.

So there has to be a relationship. And so that number, the gap that we were talking about, usually it's to establish that legal reasonable relationship. But a lot of times what you see in the practice and implementation, you have BIA representatives, real estate developers. And then so economic consultants for the jurisdictions would work with all of these real estate developments. So it's like a step one, what's the legal nexus?

And that's kind of like this very it could potentially be some very large numbers. In terms of single family, it could be like I'm just throwing it out there, don't quote me even though it's recorded. It's like 50 per square foot or something like that. Very large number, but which jurisdictions even in the Bay Area have something as high as that? So that's really to establish the legal nexus, the legal relationship.

But really what often happens in this exercise of financial feasibility analysis, the consultants would go out, do interviews, work with, I think, BIA data and other real estate developers' data to basically see what is actually financially supportable by these different prototypes. And what they found in other places is some prototypes, non residential or residential, aren't even feasible at market rate. So it's like, what's the point in adding additional costs, right? So it's really they're off the table. Then they're the ones where, okay, these prototypes are feasible at market rate level.

And okay, so how much can you actually like, provide in terms of impact fee that would basically still allow them to remain,

you know, feasible. Think

the county also has to look at you're you're not gonna be providing a 100% of the gap funding.

Right.

That that because that's what you're kinda modeling here is a 100% of the gap funding and as a from the developer side. We don't see that from a jurisdiction as being a 100%. We'd never go to a jurisdiction to say, you gotta fill a 100% of our gap because we are always out there hunting for other funds for projects from state, federal sources, local sources. And so if if we know we can get 15,000 a unit or whatever, some arbitrary number that then we always try to fill out those gaps. But I think you need to when they look at these studies, they need to look at the projects that already been built and how those funding structures were done to figure out where I hate to say their gap, but where their soft money needs were to make those And the market has changed dramatically since 2009 to now on those projects.

Lumber's gone up. The the interest rates have changed so much, and availability and the length of time to get these projects to completion has has taking so much longer. So our construction interest balances are so much huge on these projects than they were ten years ago, fifteen years ago. So there's lots of other factors. I hate that they need to be looking at these as they develop it, but I don't think we wanna I'm speaking for ourselves and rest of you guys to speak up, but I don't think we anticipate this housing ordinance fee to be a 100% of the gap. Because if we try to do that

And it and it wouldn't be.

And every developer is gonna scream.

It wouldn't be.

And We're trying to find that happy medium to make the affordable work and the market rate work, and we all kinda coexist here to make this thing work for everybody and be successful for the county.

So I think, if I may, I think the again, the phase one, which is basically establishing the legal relationship. But Chris, I think I acknowledge what you're saying in terms of like even with the cost to produce a unit versus what the affordable what the, I guess, somebody who has low income. Right? What they can afford even in that kind of that gap and that that equate

It's not even what they can afford. Developers are way past that. We don't look at what people can afford on. We know that the rents are set by HUD. We know what our hard money or I I don't say hard money, but our dedicated bank loan on a firm side. It's a very small percentage of that total development cost. The rest of it is is residual receipt type loans or grants that fund probably 90% of the deal. And the rest of it is because the rents are set. So we have a very finite number that we can service that debt with. And so I wouldn't look at that side of it.

I would look at where you're funding, what's available at state levels, because because there are a lot of programs that don't have funding now at the state level. So those amounts change on an annual basis, and I don't know what's gonna happen in the next few years. But it's not that great for a lot of portable deals that are looking to come online because unless they're doing a 100% tax credits, you know, as Mia said, you got prevailing wage that comes in all these projects, and that's another 25 to 30% out of our costs under these. So I think there's a lot of other factors that need to be considered as we're going forward with that on that.

You know what? You bring up some really great points. And to Mia's point, what we could always do is check-in with consultants because the thing is what we've seen in terms of how they've done their methodology, honestly, I'm not an economic consultant. I'm giving it very, very high level. But in terms of why our nexus studies usually maybe 30 to 40 pages, and then they've got 50 more pages of appendices, they definitely focus on these factors, right, that you're talking about, Chris, in terms of these nuances, in terms of how these projects are financed and actually developed for these different prototypes.

And maybe that's something also the task force or the county staff or somebody needs to kind of figure out, what is our goal to reach on an annual basis. Are we trained to achieve a million, 2,000,000, $5,000,000 a year coming in to fund to do to help provide for affordable housing projects? Because if it's just wide open, I mean, then you gotta have a larger fee. But if we know like, TIF thing has a twenty year life for a million dollar a year. I keep throwing back to that because that's all because you guys start talking about that today.

But that's kinda like the housing ordinance. If we know our goal was to have 2,000,000 or $3,000,000 annually coming in, then they can kinda backtrack. Okay. We're producing x number of market rate homes. So just a rough back of the napkin type calculation, you know, I gotta get $10,000 a unit or something. So that's kind of the fee type, and I think that's how we gotta kinda look at it is are we are we trying to establish an annual, or rough amount, or are we trying to just have an open ended, ordinance? Because I think there should be some goals and some expectations. Because if we if we don't, I think we're just kinda jumping all around trying to go to there.

So would it how would that relate to Rina numbers and what the eight year plan is for what was supposed

to be? Goes back to the whole thing. I mean Yeah. What you just showed me here, what you guys have produced in the unincorporated area in the last fifteen years was, you know, 339 units in fifteen years. Yeah. That that's not enough for your unit numbers. Agreed. So

And the date is why we're here.

The date is old too. Right. Like, you couldn't have your consultant go back to that 2009 project. Saying it. It costs extrapolate.

Well, we're not a community that has a bunch of projects that we can use to pull data from. Right? So that's why we're But

you gotta figure out years. You know what the numbers are. You get projects in Placerville. You get projects in South Lake Tahoe we've done. So we know what those development costs are and what those units how many units you're getting for the dollars. Right. Because I think we gotta kinda I hate to set a goal, but an expectation of what this fund is gonna try to do. Because, one, that makes a very good incentive to the developers because right now they know a tip fee. There's a million dollars a year. So they know, okay. Hey. I'm gonna apply for that. So if they know that the county has a gap funding of 2,000,000 every year, so so then they know how to judge their project to go forward for that.

I think different places have done it differently. I think, Jeff had even mentioned that, you know, your your standard, I guess, formula in in terms of other jurisdictions have thought about how they would like to make LIHTOC projects competitive. So it's like what local contribution could get it over the hump of sort of thinking in terms of that policy goal. Because I think what we're talking about here is just, again, legal nexus. But you're talking about policy making in terms of, like, you know, what should the goal of these fees be?

And that's what Yeah. As from a developer side, that's what we always look at is how we can score better on a four on a 9% deal with our tiebreakers. Right. Right? So but that varies from project to project. But what other funds is that

they got coming out? Matters a lot.

The foundation matters a 100 now.

You can't just be in hinterland with nothing around us.

You gotta basically be in a higher highest opportunity census track or forget it.

So and just you know, I I couple of thoughts. First, I I I will agree that of the

I was just gonna take that down so folks can see that.

Oh, that's okay. I do agree that of the nexus studies that I've seen at least around the capital region, this is definitely the standard nexus that everyone uses on affordable housing in lieu fees or whatever we're calling them. And so, you know, unfortunately, I I I my issue with it continues to be the the very outset that the assumption is made that new housing begets the need for new housing because people living in those houses need services from people that need to live in affordable housing. And and I have a couple of different issues with it. The first being that we're already in a housing shortage.

We already have a need for more housing at all levels, and so I don't think the creation of more housing creates the need for more housing that we just need to because otherwise, we'll never be able to catch our goal. Rina exists. We have a goal that we're trying to to reach. So, again, this is the standard that everybody uses. So this is an of, you know, Eldorado County, just of that kind of way of thinking writ large.

The other thought is that this type of analysis always seems to miss is many of the people that do provide the services for areas don't necessarily live in the same jurisdiction that they're working in or providing the services for. People in El Dorado County might occasionally drive to Folsom to shop. You know, it could happen. People who, work in Eldorado Hills may live in Folsom or Sacramento, and these types of, analyses never never take any of that into consideration. So some some other things that I've seen other jurisdictions do over and over that I

wanted to to flag as well.

I'm gonna second that. I was having a problem with the second red bullet where new local jobs and new wall new workers, some who need affordable housing being part of the the analysis. A lot of people that do work here live someplace else that where they found affordable housing.

Mhmm.

So having that part of of the analysis, I I think it's gonna throw it off a little bit.

I I dare dare say people that work in this building might live in the city of Placerville, and and that wouldn't be caught by this. So but but, yeah, for me, the bigger one comes back to the the the fact that we were assuming that new housing creates the need for for additional new housing, creates a system where you'll never be able to reach your goal. So if we're gonna do that, what is what is Rina for?

It really highlights what

you guys have been saying, the importance of that stakeholder engagement on the second step. Right? The first step is the legal here's the maths. Here's here's what the numbers say, and then it's the stakeholder engagement that really gets all of this input out on the table and refines the Mhmm. The numbers down to something that's real and basic. That's right. I guess the question I had, I wanna take you back maybe just a couple steps. I didn't understand, and part of it, can't hear real well. Yeah. The reason that detached only homes in Lake Tahoe are included in the basin as opposed to multifamily or anything else. I didn't catch that.

Yeah. Of course, Alan. So we basically looked at permit history. We looked at permit history and then really all that's being developed is mostly single family detached. We're not seeing other types of housing. So if it's not occurring to a significant level. Right. Understand. So Outside

the city. Yeah. Understand.

Yeah. That makes sense.

Yeah. Thank you. Yep. Well

and and, again, I will just add. This is exactly the type of conversation we wanna have. Right? We're we're we're we're embarking on this. We wanna get you guys' feedback. We wanna understand better so that we can create a scope, have those conversations, identify, you know, challenges, things to to note, things to make sure that we're bringing to the table. So this is no. Thank you very much because this is exactly the type of conversation here.

Yeah. I'm just worried if we get we select a consultant. We go down this same path, and then they come up with a very large number, and it scares the daylights out of everybody. And they and it's all in a document then that says, oh, we gotta charge $40 a square foot for

for an impact. Thank because thank you for bringing that up. I I because I I wanted to mention this too. One of the things that I think would really help, and it's pure semantics, but if this is the road that that the county goes down because it's the only road that everyone seems to go down, Calling it a maximum justifiable fee, just just those semantics can create a lot of headaches because we know that it's not gonna be justifiable. No one else has that I'm aware of in our in the Greater Capital Region has charged that maximum maximum fee because it's not feasible, and frankly, it's not justifiable.

So I think if you wanna call it, you know, the the total potential gap or or something more more along those lines based on this analysis, I think that might be a a more realistic name. But, yeah, if you call it the maximum justifiable fee, you know, there's there's gonna be people not understanding the economics behind it or or the you know, even this process that that you might go through to understand that that's not really what this is, that no one in this room or or hopefully anywhere would assume that a $40 a square foot fee is justified, you know, on on the on a house. So

You're right. It is semantics because a lot of times that justifiable fee is really what's legally justifiable. Right. And then, really, there's the second one that's right underneath it. It's always called supportable, and jurisdictions really look at that Right. In tandem with the public.

And people who do this for a living understand that difference, but people out in the public, you know

just take it to the supervisor, anybody into this discussion that could open up a whole can of worms on this, and then we'd spend months.

I I mean, look. I have a job for a reason, and a lot of it comes down to this issue. So

I have a question. Is it possible if this was a for sale say the fee like, I'm I keep thinking again the fact that, you know, there's this algorithm that determines the nexus, then there's a fee, and then the fee gets charged, and it's an upfront cost. So developer a has to go finance it with all their money, and you're just it's just this endless cycle of cost because of this fee. And it's an impact, so it's a presumed impact. So I'm wondering, you know and I don't know the answer to this question, but I keep thinking, is it possible because you're the county and the county charges, you know, is the county assessor, could you could a developer who's building for sale be able to maybe elect or do a supplemental tax on the on the sale of the home, and then the future homeowner then pay pay some nominal percentage, blah blah blah, on whatever $100, and that then goes into a bond.

Because I'll tell you from a county perspective, that's a vastly better source of funding for the county to be able to capture, to bond against versus, alright. Stick them up. You know? Empty your pockets. What do you got? You know? Give us money now. Because you would have so much more money on a back end and be able to finance that as a possibility. Just So question BIA. Is that something?

Yeah. And and I think my concern would come from the fact that infrastructure costs are so high right now, or we already kind of bumping up against that 1.8%, you know, bond taxable bond limit that that we hit, especially in this county. That would be my biggest concern on that.

Is that a statutory limit?

I believe the statutory limit is two, but in our 2%. But in our market, as far as I know, everyone tries to keep it at 1.8. It would be notable to go beyond.

I'm just saying with everything on the table

I agree. It's worth looking into.

Okay. We have agreed. So I was just gonna find

out what the statutory limit is.

And do people track what we're talking about? Does that make sense?

Yeah. I believe so. I I I you know, we've talked about some of the financing districts and mechanisms outside of just a fee, so and this Yeah.

This would actually just be a fee. So this would be wouldn't even be the district. This would just be an option. So developer a comes with this 10 acre piece of land, and they could build 10 homes on it. Let's just say. You know? And then instead of paying upfront, I'm just making it up. Nexus fee of whatever $50,000 a house, there's some mechanism that then they pay a lesser fee, but the balance then comes from future the future homeowner where, frankly, that's where the impacts are anyway.

You know? So It's gonna be on supplemental taxes? This but would that require voter approval?

I don't know.

I that I We'll have to do some homework on this topic because I don't have all the answers on

this topic. Bake something in, like, into your mosquito district debate then or something like that.

So the the CFD has a limit? Yes. Okay. But this proposal would not.

There there's gotta be some requirement of somebody that needs to do something to make it legal.

Yeah.

So I was just gonna chime in real quick because I know, like, the whole point of this nexus was to look at what a fee might look like. And like what Anna was saying was, it we may not want, obviously, that $40. We wouldn't I mean, that's absurd. But and I think another I don't I think Folsom's came out to be super high, and they decided to go way lower. But and I know Chris has been a consultant on a few projects in this county, and we've worked with him on applying for HCD funds through the county for projects.

And I this nexus fee or anything we develop or any incentives we're doing is more of, a gap financing, and and it's not gonna be like we're gonna give a developer 2,000,000, and that's the whole bank pot that we've made. But it would be on, like, an application basis kinda thing, and they would tell us why they want the money and what it's for. And and, obviously, the ordinance is gonna set up what we can use the funds for. Because I know when we've applied for grants, I mean, even for first time homebuyer right now, I applied in December '24, and I just got the standard agreement this year in April '26. It can take two years for HCV to just give us money for first time homebuyer, and that's only $500,000.

And with the average price in this county at 600,000, we can only loan about and this is just average. I'm throwing numbers out, but we can only loan 300,000 per house. Right? So we can only do two loans with this money. So whatever we can do on the development side as well, and and maybe we work in a program that it's still assisting first time homebuyers as well, not just, you know, developers, but just all of it cumulatively, you know, but at least the pot is filling, and we're getting some gap financing in there for homebuilders, developers, home purchases, and just making this work in the county to keep people living here. So

I would just add that, you know, one of the, let's say, the goals of the establishment of this task force was to evaluate, you know, and make recommendations to the board on other strategies. And so this is, again, right in line with that. You know, these are may not be, fit neatly within the fee discussion that we're having, but, certainly, what other opportunities are there, and how do we make recommendations for the board to consider those other strategies? And then, you know, what does that look like when we go to implement them? So, you know, again, we gotta, based on this discussion, certainly, some homework to do because I don't know all of the supplemental tax, and we've we've been sort of, I think Anna presented last time looking at CFDs and the enhanced financing districts and other things.

But we're you know, nothing's off the table, like you said, and we're willing to go do some legwork and try to have those discussions. And, again, you know, there's the fee part of this, and then there's the component, let's call it one b, right, which is the strategies and incentives and other things. And then there's, you know, just, generally speaking to strategies on housing in general to inform the board, to inform the housing element, to inform all the things that we've got to do, and and this is continuous. It never ends. Right? So, yeah, absolutely happy to look into some of these pieces and and try to come back with some more details on what that looks like and what the, you know, the maximums and things are because I just don't wanna speak, incorrectly because I I don't know the data.

Oh, and, Rob, correct me if I'm wrong. It was board direction to look at a possible fee. So I think we have to explore that path no matter how much we may or may not like it or may even if we use it or don't use it. So yeah. It's just yeah. So sorry.

And I think just to make sure that I've kinda captured people's concerns because the thing is, we this county, we're we're kind of following what other jurisdictions have done in this area. And so I think what I'm hearing, I think, from Chris is basically, I think, I mean, was very simplistic what I put on the slide, but basically cost, the value, the cost to develop versus I guess what folks can actually afford looking into that. Because I think that could be one question that we ask our potential, like, consultants and just ask them, you know, how do you think through this and make sure that the yeah. That the that this basically

As long as they understand that what they're trying to get to an amount is not the 100% of the gap.

Understood. Because there's always other funding. Yeah.

That is a fluctuating number, and it could be very large on some projects and smaller on other projects.

Sure.

But I think the county should never be thinking that they're gonna provide a 100% of a gap on a project.

I don't think that was our intent.

Okay. I just wanna make sure of that because because it was kinda reading that way as as you were looking at going to this board. And

Sure.

You guys are just a gap funder just like the state is and the feds and anybody else that as a developer, we're always looking for that. It's It's just another pot of money to better our tiebreaker scores or to get us over that finish line to get the projects.

I think I have a pretty good capture on, I guess, your comment. And if, you know, when we start engaging with consultants, I can certainly, ask them just to make sure that it reflects, like, what's currently going on. And then I I think, Jeff, this is the standard nexus kind of, you know, methodology. So I will check-in regarding some of your concerns and see, you know, have they answer do they have they thought about this? I'm sure they have, but, like, what are their responses so that we can better understand this issue? Don't be surprised if we end up taking this approach is, I guess, the disclaimer here.

I won't be. Okay.

Well, also

when you talk about I do appreciate that. Also, when you talk about other surrounding areas, I think you also got to get an impact. Other surrounding areas do a lot more affordable projects in the last few years than if you look at the county. And it has certain circumstances, either availability of land or other funding sources to it, but it's hard to compare a Folsom or Placer County or or SAC to El Dorado because you're only doing one or two projects maybe a year. So I think that they you can't just compare straight off the board on that.

I think from what I've seen, I don't think there's anything fundamentally different in terms of the nexus. I mean, Jeff has his concerns about this nexus, but the doesn't matter how much housing I think a county produces. It's really just a standard nexus. But

But it goes back to, like I was saying before, what is our goal? Are we trying

to The second part.

2,000,000 a year to have a funding source to health projects? Because that kinda dictates how fast you're trained to either make a a larger impact per unit or spread that over time and have a lesser impact per unit on the marketing side.

The policymaking side of things. Yeah. That determination would be basically, I think, developed in conjunction with the task force because I think that I think after this NEXUS study, after the financial feasibility, that's when the local jurisdictions work with their advisory committees and, you know, their boards to think about what kind of goals they wanna set, like, how do they wanna help projects.

That goal is that sets then it allows the developers to do their planning when they're when doing applications to the state or the feds, and they're they're looking at figuring out, okay. Yeah. In '28 2028, I know that the county is gonna have 2,000,000 available each year, so I'm gonna try to hit it my project in '28 or '29. You know? So they have some expectations. It's kinda like from from our side on HCD. Mhmm. In the past, we always knew, you know, MHP program had so much coming out twice a year or once a year. And so then they could plan their projects accordingly, take advantage of those funding rounds.

So wanting certainty and predictability. And what I can say, which is very interesting, is that every jurisdiction does things a little bit differently.

Right.

I believe, like, Placer County, maybe you would know this better than me. The the

the

the the routes as well. Like, I believe the Elk Grove, they're using that money for doing an RFP on city owned land. So every every jurisdiction does it a little bit differently in terms of their goals. So I'll so those are definitely questions to consider.

Yeah. Placer County chooses not to collect a fee when they're building within their specific plans, which is why their pot has grown so slowly. And and I agree with you for for the reasons stated that, you know, providing that amount of certainty can really help spurn development. I would wanna balance that goal setting, though, with not wanting to be so vociferous about chasing after the goal that we, you know, load up a big fee in order because we set an ambitious goal. So I just you know? Yes. I did not trying to get to this side. I know you're not.

It's it's kinda I keep bringing the tip. Yeah. If they if we a developer knows that there's x million available on on an annual basis Mhmm. You know, we they may not use it like they said, and you saw in several years. There's they go there's big gaps between projects. No. Again, I agree with you. With this program. But until you figure that out Yeah. And then kinda backtrack backside it back into the market rate to figure out, you know, is it 2,000,000? So what is that equivalent to the number of units and and back it that way?

No. I I think we're saying the same thing. I just don't wanna take that that one portion of what you're saying too far. Right. Because you're right. I think relating it back to the market rate and and what's the what is the goal needed, I guess, not what should should be a better way to phrase it maybe, but what should the goal be? Because if we know what the goal needed is, we're not chasing some big number and and causing problems farther down the equation. Yeah. Exactly.

And let me just add to everything. You know, I agree. And then I think also it's that magic number that doesn't then you know, that the that the market

rate project is still feasible. Yep. Exactly. So there's a stop projection.

Mhmm. So there really does need to be a balance. And so on that note, I wanna suggest that if if there is maybe the possibility of no there are no bad ideas. TOT tax, So Tahoe, lot of lot of tourism. Right?

There's an absolute nexus between low income housing need and low income, you know, workers working in the hospitality industry. So successfully, Placer County has set aside a certain percentage of their TOT dollars that go directly into funding affordable housing, infrastructure, you name it. Mammoth Lakes was the first one, I think, that did it way back when. But that's part of your appeal in, you know, in your Tahoe area. And that is also where you have a lot of interest and growth, whether it's Airbnb, whether it's whether it's, you know, take the old abandoned school and turn it into 20 really cute cottages or something.

Like, there's an economic development opportunity to say yes then to all these folks that maybe have these opportunity sites where they can bring in more density and want to do tourism because, frankly, that's where the market is. So then then if you're in you're capturing then x percentage, and then that also falls into affordable housing. And as a strategy, the next is isn't about, oh, is this fee from this the BIA developers the only thing that's gonna fund our gap? No. Because we have these other sources here too.

That's so true. To totally burst the bubble with the TOT, but the majority of our Tahoe's TOT lies within the city limits. So the only thing we really there's shops and other things up there.

But Isn't the whole isn't aren't you all planning in a what's is it Myers? Is it Myers?

I was

gonna So Myers is growing. I've

been talking with folks.

Well, when I when I was but

if we're talking casinos and strips in that whole area down to state line, that's all city limits on

your unincorporated county. You know?

Yeah. So I guess I'll I'll respond to that in this way. So my responsibility here within the county is is largely within the West Slope, and I have a counterpart in Tahoe, Brendan Ferry and his team, and we have our will and continue to coordinate with them. They're the ones working on the Myers, plan, and that's when when Anna said, hey. We we don't know what that exactly is gonna all look like. And and there's also a lot of discussions countywide related to TOT and the use and whether we should do it on campgrounds and whether we should use it here and there, and there's a lot of draws on that money. So big topic to to discuss, but we will certainly continue to, have those conversations with our counterparts up in the basin and and see what they think and all that. You know?

I mean, that's that's a

very common strategy. One that can be considered. Right? Yeah.

So just, you know, every tool in the tool chest. Right? I

think it's looking at different options, so it's a great idea. TOT funding from, the unincorporated county on the West Slope is the Hunger Games.

Okay. So, hey. You know?

Everybody's trying to get a piece of that pie.

Bites up in the White House now.

So Maybe another alternative than that one.

So so one just one follow-up for Mia's comment. So Plaster County, actually, they have a linkage fee for the for their eastern sub area. So it mirrors our East Slope, And I think theirs is a fixed fee per square footage. And I think they have like general commercial and then they also have like condos and like hotels. They have two categories. But when we looked at our own county, we just didn't see this type of development. And we were thinking about, like, if we're not seeing it, it's not really worth providing or imposing the fee right now. Maybe in the future, we can consider when it's booming, right, because of our planning efforts. But, yeah, open open to ideas.

That just have a quick question. Is anybody aware of a jurisdiction that part of a charge to stay at a hotel in a community that there is a additional charge for affordable housing? Aspen.

How's that?

I mean, the higher end resort areas do.

So just looking at, you know, what would that maybe look like?

Yeah. I'm not aware of one, but, yeah, we can we can and and all of these strategies we're we're looking at that, you know, again, we're willing to go out and do the homework and see who's got what and come back and do that.

The ski resorts implemented one where, part of your ticket price went to, keep Tahoe blue. So I think we can come up with some different options maybe.

One thing I wanted to remind, I'm gonna just say this now, is one that we need to take public comment on this item. And and secondly, we neglected to, on our agenda, include things that were not on the agenda, which we usually do. And so

I would like to earlier.

I would like to ask

the chair. Just jumped in and went Yeah.

I wanted to ask the chair if we may do that after this item so we can ensure that if someone was to speak to something.

Unless anybody's got any other question on the from the task force, let's open up public comment on nonagenda items for

I think we should end with this item first is what Rob's saying. Yeah. Like, let's take public comment on this.

Let's let's do public comment on agenda item number two twenty six dash o 858 items. So anybody in the room? Frank? Do think you're ready? Oh, okay. Oh, okay.

Oh, no. That was that was on the slides. That was on That's

on this.

This is on too, Frank. Alright. Yeah. You're good.

The mobile home report. Okay.

So you can comment on the new member, the mobile homes, the TIF impact fee, or the NexSys study at this moment.

Alright. Well, thank you. Nice. I'm I'm here mainly about the mobile home issue. But I appreciate the conversation, hearing the conversation about the NEXUS study.

Good thinking about all of it and great discussion. So I wanted to mention, did send, as Bill mentioned, the El Dorado Community Foundation and Housing El Dorado conducted a survey of mobile home residents back in 2324 for extensive survey of really well administered and covered the whole county. We had, for our county, a 185 respondents to this extensive survey, which is for our county doing a nice sample, geographically diverse. We actually have some data scientists, retired professors who did the analysis of the data, so so on and so on. So we came up with results.

We issued a report, which I've sent to Jennifer, and I I, you know, I know there's lots of reports out there and easy to get overwhelmed with that. So I've sent all the files to her. I would urge staff to think about and you to think about too, including mobile home parks and mobile homes in your report are your recommendations. Why? It's about 10% of our our affordable housing stock in the county.

A big part of having how affordable housing is preserving the housing you have. And the one of the really astounding results from the survey, and I don't have the exact year, but I think it was about 46 years old, was the average. I don't know if that was the number, but we had a very old aging stock of mobile homes in our county. Very old. And and you know what has they age out, and we have people in living them in them who aren't living hand to mouth and one repair away from being losing their housing to becoming uninhabitable.

So we recommended a a critical mobile home repair project, which we then launched a year and a half, two years ago, and we've been supporting with grants and donations and so on. And we've had some real success. Like, that Caleb has been our partner in the actual construction, some of the construction work. We also rely on volunteers and others. We have a partnership with Methodist Church has a in a relief ministry fund.

It's our our organization, and they come in and do repair work in the summer. In fact, we have a project starting Monday with two mobile homes that are gonna a very substantial upgrades. But if you invest somewhere between 2 and 20,000 in a mobile home, you can take a home that's about ready to be uninhabitable. And if you catch it at the right point, restore it, bring it back up to a level where you buy ten or fifteen years of life. That's a good investment in terms of preserving the housing we do have.

So I would urge you to look at the recommendations we included in that report. There's some key ones there. Actually, they also reference the housing element, currently has some strategies built into it that if I think if we're more robustly implemented, you could also preserve more of that housing. So I hope you'll include that in your study. Thank you for your recommendation. And,

Rob, just a quick follow-up on that. Not addressing that directly. But on the housing element, does that count in the arena numbers if but they don't they have to be did deep income restricted them, or do do they count on the arena numbers?

I don't recall with certainty. I I don't

think they're deep restricted. Talking about that.

We we can wherever you're we do have to get a check-in.

Credit, or

they call it something, like, temporary so they don't

I think if you're I think it needs to be on a permanent foundation. Yeah. For Foundation. Then foundation for mobile homes. And then the jurisdiction would have to have a methodology because HCD is kind of tightening, I guess, even how we look at methodology. So we just can't count, like, a mobile home even though we know, like, mobile homes are affordable, but HCD is very, very strict about determinations.

So

Just something you might wanna be looking at because that could because I think you said, what was it, almost 3,000 units or or 2,100 spaces in the county. If there's a way to start counting those towards your Reno as you improve or do rehab on them, that might be something. For the Reno side, I'm just thinking because that's a big thing that you gotta try to track. Probably the majority of your I don't know what your report states, but did you look at the income levels within

Yeah. Vast majority are low income. Okay.

That's what that's what I figured. But Few And probably the vast majority were rental. Were were they rental or owned? Most of our owned rent

owned, but they have to rent lease space. Right.

At least the space. Okay. Yeah. Most of them are all owned.

And, again, these folks have very little money. So

Right. Know, roof goes out, and they're they're stopped. And the majority are not on a current foundation, probably. Don't I I don't mean to sidetrack from this decision.

It's okay. I just wanna make sure we're capturing for the folks that might be listening to

Yeah. But yeah. Okay. Alright. Go ahead, Caleb. Can I

alright? I'll I'll I'll speak on this one, then I'll wait for open forum. Okay. Okay. So with all the different fee structures you guys are trying to come up with for the nexus and affordable housing, that kind of aspect of it, you have a few different categories where you can actually impose some specific types of taxes on real estate transactions within your assessor's office and within planning and building.

You can also develop a different program to provide an incentive for developing housing in order to capture that fee. So Eldorado County have a lot of large parcels right between ten and twenty acres that are zoned single family. So you can only build one to two homes on One primary, one to ADU, unless you're running an agricultural ranch, and then you're allowed to do 12 units by right for agricultural production. When you decide, hey. We wanna get around the subdivision map back.

We want to allow homeowners to utilize properties, say they're 10 acres or more. We'll allow them to develop one to four units by right within that program, and those are the same guidelines that HUD and the FHA utilize. So that way, my kids or anyone's kids could actually access FHA financing to build a new unit on that property. And you work in partnership with, say, wildfire or a wall for wildfire clearance. They help set those mitigation standards so you have those large parcels that are fire hazards.

When you open up a program like that, you're clearing the property for fire, and then you're getting an alignment with HUD and the FHA on how many units are available per residence on those larger parcels. And then for participation of those individuals or families participating in that program, you would then capture your fee, to go towards affordable housing because then they get to develop four units. It augments having to subdivide your property, and you can develop four units there. And then your kids don't have to move out of the county, and we're developing more housing, and it's all privately financed rather than grant funded. That's it on that topic. Alright. Thank you.

You can ask me a question. So

I don't see anybody else in the public. Is there anybody online online that has that wants to discuss item number two, agenda item number two?

Alright. Now we are now taking online comment from Tita Bladen.

Hi. This is Tita Bladen. My career is spent in, high-tech technology. So I really love the discussion on the NEXUS study. I do believe any consultancy these these days that the county is considering to engage with should be able to take advantage of AI to do multiple scenario planning, to do multiple analysis on the factors that you were all talking about.

And if they can't be doing multiple scenario planning and doing sensitivity analysis, I'm thinking we're not talking to the right consultancies. I agreed that government is probably the last to invoke AI planning, scenario planning, and utilization of AI tools, but this is something that should be leveraged heavily because of all the factors you speak of, because of all the capabilities that can be done leveraging AI. And it would be amazing if Eldorado County were to take advantage of scenario planning utilizing AI features. Again, my background was in technology. I was in charge of strategic planning, financial planning, yada yada yada.

So I know manually back in the day, I did scenario planning with multi multiple factors. So great discussion. Can't wait to see you get this done in 2027. Thank you.

Thank you. Do you have any additional comments?

Alright. Do we have any additional participants online wishing to speak? Please use the raise hand button. We have no additional public comment online.

Okay. So, Rob, do we wanna close this discussion then on agenda item two? Or we do you have enough information now on this for that date?

Yeah. Mean, I I think we definitely yeah. We have some things to to to check into. We have some considerations there. We we understand, you know, where the the pieces that you guys are looking to for us to dig a little deeper on. Again, this was sort of here's a draft of kind of the conceptual way that folks are doing it, and so now we have some feedback. And so we'll have to confer and figure out how to do that. And and also, you know, we have some standard practices about how we engage consultants, and we'll have to make sure you know? And and that's one of the reasons we're trying to put a scope together so that we can get cost and engage those conversations. But we we definitely have some partners we might be able to, you know, ping and have some conversations outside of the formal process.

Okay. I don't know, Anna, if you had anything to add to that one.

Yeah. I think we will probably try to fine tune this approach given that this is the standard approach in this region. We'll probably use it if the consultant thinks it's a good idea. I think I like your idea of checking in with the consultants. It's like, what's the latest and greatest? Why don't you tell us? This is what we've seen in the current models. If there's better ones out there, like we're definitely open to it and ask them some of the questions that you have shared with us. We'll continue the work. And then in terms of the mobile homes, I think I might have spoken a little too quickly. If it's a new mobile home park, I I think we would have to check if, you know, it could count towards Rina. But as it is, I think the 3,000 that we were talking about, they're all existing stocks, so they wouldn't count towards Rina.

Yeah. Okay. All right. So then we'll close agenda item number two. We'll go back to open public comment for any item that is not on the agenda that we talked about today. So is there any public comment in the room?

Hi, Caleb Armstrong. Can I hand these out before I open? Hi. I'm Caleb Armstrong, the president and CEO of nonprofit community catalyst. That is our DBA of nonprofit construction corporation.

This is a new state level program that I've designed. I spent two years working on different concepts with lowering the cost of construction, different aspects of that for affordable housing. Now everything we're doing here is pretty much a byproduct of not having enough housing stock in our counties. The California Housing and Equity Accelerated Program is a program I personally developed. I worked on and spent a lot of time with it in learning how to subsidize the cost of construction back down to what you'll see on this flyer with our incentive cost at $50,000 for 520 square foot home.

That's substantively lower. This whole program focuses on focusing on private equity, private developments such as Allan Priest, and incentivizing the development of housing stock in general. It has nothing to do with grant funds or anything like that. There's a million different loan programs and financing mechanisms available to create housing stock, and this is being promoted as an incentive for people to to build housing, housing in our communities in general. It focuses on providing counties technical assistance.

We're working directly with manufacturing factories to expedite building processes. These are not costs that the general public can get. I even went over this with the executive director of Placer Housing Trust, and they are spending costs at market rate on homes they believe were market rate or not. This takes a high level of work with housing and community development, the occupational licensing department. But what I've been able to do is develop this to where we can help a community based organization such as Housing Eldorado and Eldorado County launch this incentive program for housing development housing stock.

And then you look at some of the other things that may have been mentioned today in other agenda items such as the TIF offset program and other avenues where the county can come up with different incentives. And due to the amount of equity that these projects produce, they could levy some type of small fee out of that program as well in order to help fund more affordable housing, but addressing affordable housing stock in general is the main concern. There's a ton of different ways to finance construction as long as you know how to generate the equity out of the projects. So this is a program we're offering to local governments. We're speaking with the CEO of Placer County, and it's a state level program.

So this is endorsed by assembly member Heather Hadwick right now currently. We're working on another democrat endorsement, a senator endorsement, and then waiting on doing a presentation to the assembly housing select committee. Thank you very much. Alright. Thank you. Yeah.

Alright. No other public comment in the room? Any public comment online on nonagenda items?

Please use the raise hand button if you wish to speak on items not on the agenda. Looks like we have no public comment online.

You say no comments? Okay. Alright. So close public comment. I guess, to the next meeting, or we're we've scheduled these now for the second Wednesday of the month. Correct?

Sorry about that. Yeah. We're shooting for the second Wednesdays of the month in the afternoon. 1PM. Okay. Yeah. And I don't have the calendar everybody here. Right? Okay. Yeah. And hopefully, one worked out better. I know that it he's in an off hour, so hopefully that helps with, you know, all of you who come out of the area to help us with this item.

Well, it's it's also nice to have a full board too.

We

haven't had those for a while. So, so it looks like our next meeting would be the tenth, and it's already on my calendar. So it should hopefully, it's on everybody's calendar. So, any other final comments before we adjourn? Hearing nothing else, we'll adjourn

the meeting then. Thank you. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Seth.