Remarks by Jason Voiss
247 remarks on the record, newest first · Page 4 of 10
- Play at 1:17:29
“Yeah, no, I appreciate that, because again, like you said, if we're going to do this pioneer program, let's see what all the incentives, everything happens together and see if there's any movement. And to Commissioner Adair's point, you know, it is a tough building environment right now, especially in our state. And that's everything. That's commercial, that's residential, that's everything.”
Planning Commission · Aug 20, 2026
- Play at 1:18:44
“Yeah, the only thing I would counterpoint is, again, this is capped at two projects. I understand. Yeah, so that was the pioneer program. Again, the city has always had that problem. It's not a new problem. And again, I agree, it's not something we want to lose sight of at all. Any other comments as far as the first piece, the affordable housing requirement?”
Planning Commission · Aug 20, 2026
- Play at 1:19:21
“Right, but my recommendation is strip that requirement.”
Planning Commission · Aug 20, 2026
- Play at 1:19:28
“That's my recommendation. But again, there's one. And I don't want to forget also. That's what they did last time and then they bumped and all of a sudden it didn't go anywhere. That's what I'm saying. I'm trying to see if we can spur it. Again, they've already put in the good ingredient, which was the parking. So let's see what happens. Again, there's only two projects. That's my thinking. And you're right. You're not going to solve the affordability problems we hear in two projects regardless. Anybody else would like to add? Vice Chair Patterson.”
Planning Commission · Aug 20, 2026
- Play at 1:21:46
“I took my finger gun out first. So again, yeah. I think also the other thing too is looking through the presentation, you know, those lower 60% and below, I mean, they really do, I mean, depending on the percentage of the units, they do sink the feasibility. And if you want to go to 80%, that's more feasible, but you are getting closer to market rate. It's really just, again, and that's why I think it's so helpful to have Arch and Kristen and these guys continue to explain it to us, but that also seems to be a big drag. You know, these lower units, and I forget the housing targets. These 30%…”
Planning Commission · Aug 20, 2026
- Play at 1:22:50
“Okay. All in favor of moving the Pioneer Program, it's currently at eight-year MFTE is what our pioneer program's at, without any affordability requirements, please raise your hand.”
Planning Commission · Aug 20, 2026
- Play at 1:24:32
“Yeah, hesitancy is good. So again, there's nothing wrong with hesitancy. That's kind of the reason I like the Pioneer project. It's not something we're going to write into code. It's just a recommendation to council. We already have this thing set up. Let's see what two projects can do. But having said that, I want to give everyone else an opportunity that rose their hand or did not raise their hand if they want to speak on that. OK. Well, did you get what you wanted?”
Planning Commission · Aug 20, 2026
- Play at 1:25:07
“Yeah, right. Well, I thought we just did the first one. I thought we were going to actually now talk about NFTE incentives.”
Planning Commission · Aug 20, 2026
- Play at 1:25:31
“Yeah, yeah. So like I said, nice segue. We're now moving into MFTE incentive. Again, you can see the different options laid out before you. We can maintain the eight-year MFTE in return for affordable housing. I think as far as currently only project-based MFTE incentives, only eight-year MFTE. Yeah. Anyone would like to go first?”
Planning Commission · Aug 20, 2026
- Play at 1:26:39
“Matt, I have a question for you. That 12 year MFT program that required 20% affordable, that was at the 80% AMI, correct?”
Planning Commission · Aug 20, 2026
- Play at 1:26:54
“Okay. Maybe we do something, you know, Consider a 12-year because that seems to get the most bang for your buck, but maybe drop that. Not the affordability. Everyone's like, no, you're not. No, drop the AMI. So maybe instead of 80, we try to get down to a 65 or a 70 because that one gets them. The 12-year MFTE, that seemed to move the needle the most. And then again, you got the parking that helps move that needle. But maybe there we can squeeze and get a little bit more of our AMI down. This is the dials, John. This is the fun stuff, right? This is where we're trying to do this and this.…”
Planning Commission · Aug 20, 2026
- Play at 1:28:23
“And again, that's great, and I don't disagree with you at all. I was thinking in my head, kind of Kristen's comment about this can be something with a set time limit for two years to see what type of action we get. So again, I don't know how that would work with code or how we'd write that as an amendment, but I was thinking more of something that actually did have a time constraint.”
Planning Commission · Aug 20, 2026
- Play at 1:28:50
“So this would be the Pioneer Program again?”
Planning Commission · Aug 20, 2026
- Play at 1:29:01
“Can we just leave the Pioneer program alone? The eight year MFTE, the no parking, just in the urban core, and then see what happens with the 12 year MFTE.”
Planning Commission · Aug 20, 2026
- Play at 1:29:14
“No, in the urban core, but again, the Pioneer program was just for two buildings. They actually weren't even a time, I don't even think there was a time, it was just the first two developments.”
Planning Commission · Aug 20, 2026
- Play at 1:29:38
“I'm just, like I said, well, we definitely will. I'm just like, I'm just trying, like I said, I, that one seemed to have the biggest impact to me and it, I mean, we don't have to do anything. Right. But like I said, you're in the urban core where the PDE has already recommended getting rid of parking. So that's a big hurdle. The urban core is where we want to build. It's the only place in the city we don't build, ironically enough.”
Planning Commission · Aug 20, 2026
- Play at 1:30:09
“Right. I'm just saying PDE recommended it. So it hasn't gone to the whole council. But I'm just, like I said, if this is what we're trying to do as per development in the UC. Sorry, Commissioner Day.”
Planning Commission · Aug 20, 2026
- Play at 1:31:15
“Yeah, no, and I think that's even something I brought up last time is, again, you're going to be those resources as the city, as the population increases, we have shortages, whether it's the IPD, other things. So, again, it's something to think about for sure. That's why I like time constraints. Is that Commissioner Matthews?”
Planning Commission · Aug 20, 2026
- Play at 1:32:04
“So eight years without any affordability requirements in the UC for the two first developed buildings. They come through the pipe, that one's not time limited, it's just the first two. No affordability requirements, eight year MFTE or they can opt for the 12 year MFTE program that does require 20% affordability and then we can set that at what? 80% is pretty close to market rate as Matt mentioned. this might be a time where you might be able to get a little bit more or less AMI. I mean, I don't want to go down to 30. I think closer to like 65. 65 or 70. Yeah. But I think that's a great point,…”
Planning Commission · Aug 20, 2026
- Play at 1:33:05
“Okay. As far as you can make me say it again. Yeah. So as far as giving them an option for a 12-year MFTE for, again, the Pioneer Program with those first two developments, eight years without affordability requirements, no inclusionary zoning. or they can choose from a 12 year MFTE program, which state requires 20% affordability, and we'll set that affordability at 65%.”
Planning Commission · Aug 20, 2026
- Play at 1:36:37
“Begs the question, how is our infrastructure in the urban core? In our regional growth center?”
Planning Commission · Aug 20, 2026
- Play at 1:38:03
“I think it was our storm system plan that was like 20 years.”
Planning Commission · Aug 20, 2026
- Play at 1:38:09
“I know we did, but I want to say the last time I saw that header, it was like 2003.”
Planning Commission · Aug 20, 2026
- Play at 1:39:05
“Any thoughts as far as the density bonus program? If I understand it correctly, it's quite a lot of hoops for people to jump through in order to get it. What if we just took that away and let them build to the max and they still have the affordability requirements? Any thoughts on that?”
Planning Commission · Aug 20, 2026
- Play at 1:39:35
“So what are the things that trigger them to allow them to build the max, the max bar?”
Planning Commission · Aug 20, 2026