 I think Erica for building this but this is really kind of showing you what's happening in terms of land use. We anchored on 2002. So you can see 2002 come in, 95 come in and then you can see 2014 and you can see kind of some land supply. I wanted to show you all this for a couple of points. One, when you, and we're going to ask some questions on this, well when you see this, what you see is actually there were areas in the community that were slated for development that are no longer able to be developed. If you look at just to the left of the numbers and when it turns green you can see that that's an open space of the county acquired but you also see something similar occurring near Terry Lake and what that did and so it really just shows you that when we talked about the growth in the community it has been really pretty much set early on but you can see where actually we've had reductions in land use in terms of what that looks like in the future. So this is just a loop if you want to look at the individual slide so we can go in there. Joni, I don't know if you have anything to add to this one. You know I think it's a good representation of what's happening in area over time and I think that is both based on community values and council choices and around open space which has been a very important community value for a long time and those choices from the 21 years I've been hearing planning I know have not been made likely by council but they certainly when we talk about land supply and they do have some specific land supply numbers on our current comp plan you know those things change how much land is available in our planning area for future growth and development and I know that we haven't spent a lot of time on this probably in the last five years so just thought it would be kind of a good snapshot of remembering back in the day when the planning area went all the way to Terry Lake which is pretty far north and has subsequently been changed a lot and there's a number of reasons for that that aren't just open space there's a lot of difficult to develop parcels based on storm drainage issues but again thought it might be just worth showing you guys to kind of see that change over time so council had envisioned long months so you all uh some of the council and this adopted in 2016 at that time city council adopted some forward thinking coach or kept code changes in place both to support envision and housing for everyone in our community in that you really like a density high mixed use corridors and infill and things we put together um obviously this is something that we've been focusing on as a city in terms of when you kind of look at what's in play right now and I will just say this as an employer one of the things that we're looking at which is what we brought to you all in terms of some of our positions where we had to move the hourly wage structure and we had to move the wage structure up because we knew that was an element too um and then you also have cost of living moving so I think part of that is you can't look at the cost of housing without looking at wage structures either and what we have in place and I know we're going to see some pretty significant changes within what we're going to have to pay our staff members based on our budget it seems to imply that income is falling but that's not really true it's just the pressure on it and sometimes income is not keeping pace with the cost of housing either so that's another component too and so in terms of our staffing positions and you'll see something that Molly put together in terms of where people fit based on what they make in terms of what some of the numbers are working at and actually this was the group that came in and really talked about is what is affordable housing I think we often get caught in a trap of looking at affordable housing and saying well it's really that area of housing that's below 80 percent AMI and that's true but that's really what it's related to in terms of state and federal funding and really the HUD piece and that they typically the funds that are available from the state federal government are on for 80 percent AMI below what we started seeing was there are people that make more than 80 percent AMI but they also need housing as well and so at the end of the day what we kind of landed on last week is affordable housing is really about creating housing availability at every income level within your community because that's what you have to work on and I think we we lose sight of that at times somebody that's 82 percent AMI 85 percent AMI there they can't afford housing either and so it's how do you look at that go ahead bring that to bear so Molly just looked at some of the numbers and I'm going to have to do some switching based on the way the technology is working today so this is really updated numbers in terms of AMI and housing over here so now we're showing this and so Molly do you want to go over the spreadsheet sure so what we're showing here is the affordable in terms of income levels in the blue columns and then what we're calling attainable in the orange column so what we're showing is if you're using the updated 2022 household income numbers that HUD recently published and looking at our affordable and this is really geared towards fore sale sales prices the breakdown is 51 to 60 percent AMI 61 to 70 and 71 to 80 that equates to the annual incomes that you see here and we put in some sample occupations from some generally available information city positions UC health positions same brain value school district positions just to illustrate what kind of folks are in these affordable ranges or the household ranges so our inclusionary housing ordinance sets a maximum sales price for affordable levels at using 33 percent of your household income HUD likes to say that you should not spend more than 30 percent of your monthly household income on a housing payment this council approved up to 33 percent kind of reflecting some of the real conditions on the ground here in this area so what the current affordable maximum sales price is based on 2018 household incomes but here's an updated number if we were to update it to 2022 outcomes so a maximum affordable sales price for a single family detached home using 33 percent of your income is 401 thousand dollars um i should say that this is a maximum so some lenders allow more than that to be purchased some less that dependent on the amount of debt that you have etc so we have them also break broken down for attached product as well once you move into the attainable range we're using that same 33 percent of a household income but we also added a 35 percent range to better reflect what we're hearing that you could lenders could approve up to 40 percent of your household income not that HUD says you should do that to really be affordable afford the rest of life but we've got those two numbers here to kind of show our range of what should be considered an attainable sales price for a single family detached and a town home yes well isn't an across-the-board percentage because obviously if i make 100 000 dollars a year and i pay a third of that income on housing i have a lot more left over for other stuff than a person who makes 50 000 dollars a year and has to eat on two thirds of that you know it's not really a very effective measure so it's really it's used in the inclusionary housing code to not set the maximum sales price for this demonstration we're just kind of showing what that income level what it shows across the whole spectrum it's just for demonstration once you're past 80 percent AMI um the the last thing we wanted to show on here is for a single family detached home the medium sales price from january to april 2022 so the most up to date is 626 000 and so when you're looking at 33 percent of your income that is showing that's falling somewhere in the 130 percent AMI range but recall that that's the the actual sales price this is a maximum and so it may or may not be exactly 130 percent AMI folks being able to afford that same when you're in the attached section at 445 is the median sales price in 2022 that is showing that a 100 percent AMI family can afford that but again these are assuming no debt assuming the max possible approval rate so as a point we are we are working on another project right now that is um attainable in nature um and associated with some property that we own and in the meeting last week our numbers were coming in fairly close when we would get this at 35 percent AMI and what the folks that we're talking about potentially partnering with our numbers look pretty similar in terms of the the 111 to 120 percent AMI yeah and I don't think that that's quite a question I mean I know what cun says and I suspect also that lenders are using this as a rule of thumb and yet a high income person spending 40 percent of their income like housing isn't as good as a low income person spending 40 percent of housing and it just seems like not just the city but everybody from hug on down should be acknowledging that yeah I think it's interesting and you know I was having a conversation with some folks earlier and they were talking about how sometimes the more you make before you spend and so yeah but that's a personal choice right but anyway those things but I think that's in this too and that's why we were showing you this breakdown of who tends to fall into these categories and you know for example what we would say most and these are a lot of city categories so we we have some depth on this one in terms of what we know most of them are coming in most of them a lot of them have debt that they're bringing in whether it's student loan debt or other things because we're having these very conversations with them as we're seeing some things and so that's another piece to the puzzle but this is just to kind of show you where the price points are keep that in mind and what do we want to do the other thing and I need to show you the other thing that we did so kind of stop this and share something else so part of the next thing that you're going to see so this is really a different slide that we're going to show you that's next in here and this is actually something that we took from many of the projects that we're working on in terms of public private partnerships and obviously this is a dumbed down version of a more detailed pro forma that we have in place in terms of as we're working with different partners and what comes in to cost the reason why I wanted to show you this is because a couple of things we have reached out to some developers that have built some affordable projects they've actually agreed to talk to us and they've agreed to share their performance with us they don't want to do that and I get it because it's proprietary and a problem setting so we're actually going to engage with them have some meetings and then create model for performance often off of what they have so that we can have something to work with but we've got those meetings set up and we were looking at it but whether it's work that we're doing associated with Costco whether it's some of the projects that we have in terms of Christmas too or whatever there are different components that just come into the price of the house so obviously you start with land and depending on whether you own the land and you've had it for a while and you don't have you know if you've owned land here for 30 years your basis is going to be much different than if somebody comes in and tries to buy it now and so obviously we saw that and some of the projects that council voted on with Costco and if you look at the price that we paid for the nine acres of affordable housing that was much different than what the market showing and I also said who controls it this is where I'm trying to figure things out so obviously land owner and market really kind of sits though prices we get into land use processes and I would say there's two there's two groups that control this it would be obviously the city via codes and fees and I'll say consultants too in terms of the quality design how they bring it in and what they send in I mean again some of the private groups that we have partnerships on and what we're doing we had to really come in and be pretty aggressive in terms of quality design that we were seeing and what people were trying to submit so we've seen that now on the development process side and development prep costs again you kind of see the city codes fees impacting that consultants then you get into a version of fees and securities so you have permit fees uh storm drain this is just an example of electric community investment fee transportation community investment fee and securities then you get into the development construction costs which is what we're really talking about is the horizontal construction and at the end of the at the end of that you could take the total cost coming in and total cost per home so this is what we've done when we built our proformism on various projects what we don't know is depending on whether you're the developer that's doing the horizontal and working and selling to a builder if you're all in here is there's a piece where we're blind on this and what we realize is we don't know what the markups are when they sell from one person to the other what we can say is the projects where we've had economic development agreements in we actually see it as part of the financial agreements and so we're able to move through as we're trying to solve different components christmas is a private example of this so we had a one and a half million dollar hickey but because we were all seeing everything clearly and we knew it's open book deal we all were able to come in and collectively solve for that issue versus um just trying to hit points based on what we're seeing um you get total cost you get total cost per home then you go into the and again this is simplified whole prep everything it costs to build a house you take the total cost at that point and then you can get a total cost per home if you know the density and these are going to be important questions because this is going to get at some of the issues we need to have some policy guides again blind to what the market is um the individuals that we're going to talk to said they would open book with us and show us what that looks like so it's we can build a model yes it's proprietary and we have to be working gene to make sure that what we have because if they're willing to share with us proprietary information we owe that because it's giving us a look at something that uh we normally wouldn't see very similar to what we did at other economic development projects uh we owe what we're in disclosure yeah i'm not in disclosure agreement i can't and so um you kind of get to that point there's a markup and then you get into lenders fees and real estate commissions and then that's the total cost per home for an individual i just wanted to highlight this because there's rows and rows and rows of information that's backing up this pro forma in terms of how we brought in landscape fees you know the amount of storm water work that we have to do this is an overly simplified view of a pretty complicated pro forma that we used to do this i hate to ask this but i had a question about the previous slide about the difference between a town home and a simple family home because they were in the same attainable columns but the town home cost less and so and i know why they cost it cost less but doesn't the attainability shift because it's a townhouse and so there's different people i just didn't understand the way the spreadsheet was organized so when you look at the price points and we historically have this difference we actually have this conversation Friday is sorry no at what point do we stop going here's the affordable here's a price for an attainable unit here's what it is for duplexes town homes and single family because the reality is at a certain point it's what does it cost to get an attainable house and it should all be in this in the set of four hundred dollars because also and you'll see some of our questions it'll take you there there are ways to have attainable products and literally we're in a meeting Friday on this but you need the density which is it is inclusive of single family detached attached single family both duplex and uh what do you would say is the um condo style sure if you're answering the different questions that i meant to ask and i realize i didn't do a very good job of asking for the question but you've got a column it's all about what a person at a certain income level can attain uh whether it's affordable right they can attain the same size mortgage whether it's a town home or a single family home but you've got more expensive single family home than the town home and that doesn't make sense to me apart of those inflationary costs they're included because you have to pay a condo fee with for a town house i can't answer that for you not the methodology that i used for it is for single family i use 80 percent am i yeah and then for the town home i used 70 percent am i as the base because the assumptions had makes is that somebody who is going to be seeing a town home which will be less expensive would make slightly less so for for the sake of this discussion that's how i kind of did it just just give them a picture of someone who is seeking out a town home makes slightly less and the fees and the fees are higher and uh typically looks at that max am i that max percentage of your income that you pay towards housing should include all of that mm-hmm yeah and i'm fine with that i just without knowing the assumption yeah that's the assumption and this is just that we're going to come back to you all with a more detailed look at this it was really just showing you here's what the numbers are now and what we're seeing so you go out of that spreadsheet and go what are the cost drivers and what can the city directly impact but we can't impact land cost construction lending policies insurance quality of designs we can't impact those we can't impact time development requirements land use and land use processes code design standards fees taxes and securities that's what we control as the city so then we start i started thinking about this and going so how did i look at some of these projects that we are either participating in considering in the future that we're going to build and so it really is this matrix and so whether it's a benefit at the bottom low to high whether i'm looking at certainty risk or cost low to high a lot of times i put the variables in this and so what i'm trying to figure out mentally is what i want is high certainty um because now it depends on what it is so you can have high certainty and high benefit you can have high certainty and low benefit because of the way the questions are answered for example and these are questions i'm going to ask you all in a little bit do you want growth do you want density do you want height the reality is is if you say no no no then you've created high certainty in that you don't want it but it's very low benefit because you're not going to have the space to build what you need to to hit the housing bill if you go yes yes yes that tends to be high certainty but potentially high benefit so i use this to think through it and um we've got a slide that we can use as we're going to work through some questions for you all as we move forward to where we can plot this real time based on how you're seeing it here's a question for you to think about and this question actually came out of some of the conversations on an attainable housing project that we're working on don't want you to answer it now but i want you to think about it for the future is if you create more options to facilitate attainable and affordable housing should we approach this via development agreement that is open book i don't know what so think about our economic development agreements so when we came in i'll use the cosco project since that's public we had an economic development agreement that was really a contractually outlined document that said here's what you're going to do here's what the developer is going to do here's what the city's going to do we outline all of our responsibilities and it was completely open book where we knew what the costs were as we were moving through it and so as things hit we structured it with okay we can pick up x amount if you have cost overruns that do this just a question of do we want to look at it from that before you go back to that matrix go forward to those questions uh my response would be well it all depends on what our goal is right until you can tell me what we're trying to accomplish i would change the matrix based on if i move the goal as i change that matrix to risk uncertainty is the axes right and if the goal was to achieve a certain outcome in terms of uh units then i if i'm a developer in this room i'd like high certainty if i'm going to assume risk and then identify the policy options in that in that quadrant that i can count on from the city and that and that's actually what i'm just saying as you go through this and i'm sitting here going it's all depends on what the goal is what we're trying to accomplish right because the the attributes that you listed like do you want density do you want time those are attributes they are not goals our goals are uh equity economic growth those are goals um but it doesn't you know if we if we can achieve that through density which is you know height is a way to achieve density and other stuff is a way to achieve density too but but it's it seems like we're graphing the wrong things which is the same thing as tim just said you need to know what the top level objectives are i think it's economic growth and equity at the same time at a minimum but i don't know what everybody else thinks well and that's kind of leading to this question and this is this is a hard one to answer and i know it is but if you sit generally what percentage of homes do you want to be do you want to be attainable as we're adding homes every year we've got to start somewhere and and the challenges if you remember when we were looking at the map and the land use the reality that we have to face is how much land do we actually have available for the development of housing um and joni has something on that one joni yeah so we have about overall in our planning area not just residential we have about a little over 12 percent of vacant ground on the total plan of 12 percent development yeah right and there was a news statistic that just came out recently and i can't remember the reference but it was five percent actually within the existing city limits of developable land in long lines the highest on the front range and i'll find it's something that certainly challenges the island so to uh both marcia and to this point let me say what is the goal i want to go back to how large of a city are we capable of handling resource wise etc and what i have heard is it would be 120,000 to 130,000 people um ever since i went to long that's what i've heard we're at 100,000 so reach going into this percentage wise how many units do we need before we reach our maximum when we say we can't build it anymore because of resources water land um whatever else is in that mix and before for me that's the first goal we have to decide upon and how do we get there and still keep the community that we have so are we going to look at what our growth is and during what time period or does the time period make any difference that's really important to me when we look at everybody's looking at water and uh all all the other resources so so it's interesting respect what do we have on the population for water so 130 and uh or maybe David in the water studies 130,000 is give or take i think part of that changes you too because as you look at a more dense product and you look at condos and you look at town homes you don't necessarily have the your no granted what do we know from our data and work that Becky did your water usage in homes is actually dictated primarily by the number of people but if you don't have the yards you do lose a portion of that based on the style of development and how many people that are there and we also know that our usage per capita has been going down consistently so i think it looks a little bit different in terms of the product that you're doing you know a dense product with less yard and others uses less water so i think you've understanding the product that we're going in with just as the water board the water board put the challenge before the staff to put together a bunch of scenarios going up to about 200,000 people and what would it take because if you go to an urban planner in the water constraint we have enough land for 200,000 people depending on how we build and we have enough energy potential so really the constraint is wide and i just wanted to put that out there that we need to look at everything as we're doing this that's not just uh and and also we have to be looking at traffic and transportation in exactly the same time as we build in even less parking so i don't i personally don't want people to just think we'll just build a house all these people but how do we manage the city once we're doing this and i think that's really important so so when we adopted the vision on not 2016 it was estimated we were going to grow by another 24,000 people in that time horizon of admission one month i believe the units added number was 9,000 what is what we were looking at to add to house that population growth again that's our horizon of the count plan so i think there are some data points that we could certainly look and do some projections to bring back some data on yeah what if we change the parameters if you think about the city currently if you look at just residential areas in the city i think that the density is about 6.8 units per acre if you looked at all the land in the lp it's closer to that's under two units per acre so we're not very dense which is you know the nature of suburban growing community in Colorado front range so i think shifting how we look at infill and redevelopment and density i think like rosevelt park apartments is something like 60 units to the acre so the context in which we also talk about density needs to be helped out with some visual aids of what that can look like and what living options we might have but that's kind of the snapshot from envision mayor but i do think we could do some extrapolation and i know molly and erin had put out an rfp with our dollar grant to get the data unfortunately since we got no takers on that we're going to try to revise that and see how we might get some help but in the meantime we've got you know some pretty good technical expertise in planning that i think we can do some of that data work envision long month when it was adopted was it wasn't the forecast at the density that was incorporated in the great growth of 116,000 that sounds about right because it because if we just earn it 99 600 now we're going to add 24 yeah i think 90,000 units to get to 116 so the ratio i could calculate if i had a moment here if given what we've already done with some options in terms of greater density and what we might want to do the number of 130,000 is what we keep hearing right in terms of water reserves and water so just 90,000 units house 116,000 people how many more units to get to 130 right right and then i'm going to talk about what i think the percentage of that those new houses and that's this question right of the housing units to be constructed to build out to 130 just assuming we might want to argue that's the wrong number we ought to have that argued for that discussion but at least we have an idea it's this many more units to 130 and we ought to and with equity you know the concerns i i'm not undervaluing but for me it's like i got to start with what's the top line i agree right is it is it another 9,000 units not another 9,000 units another 4,000 units on top of the whatever that is then we can talk about how many of those need to be attainable and then talk about the policy options and increase the likelihood that we're going to see that now we can start market progress and what tweaks we have to make along the way i don't think it's locked in science but we have to start with some pretty good numbers here in terms of what we want to see is build up how serious are we about housing people and attainable homes exactly did you get the number so just make sure we're to number work out the way that's just how many how many housing units to get to 130,000 if we got 9,000 to get to 160 with how many more to get to 130 it's approximately doubled because that's 9,000 for 17,000 from 99 to 116 plus another 16 ish that was a better so of 5,250 homes what percentage of those should we do whatever it takes to increase the likelihood that we're going to see those in the attainable range right or attainable and affordable whatever that makes is good because part of what i mean and this is an opening question intentionally because i want to see what commitment and where we want to be what is it that you all want to see so i agree that if we had 130,000 as a maximum that that would be what we would do but i don't agree with the idea that the number should be arbitrary or even that the number should be necessarily constrained by the water supply because we have goals that what we really have is is a multivariate analysis at least a linear program because what we need to know is how how much recruiting do we need to do of knowledge workers in order to keep the economy how many people in order to keep our economy equitable do we need to be to to enable to move from green to long walk where their job is so that they aren't being double charged on how much it costs them to live and so what we really need to do is start with all right this is the proportions of long-long employment economy now what housing capability do we need to have to make that an equitable self-contained city and then we need to solve for the size we need to be to be balanced before we even start i think that's what this is all about these percentages i feel like we're starting in advance of that so there's work that we gotta do to bring this back to you but it really is a frame setting in terms of of the remaining houses do you want to go big and say 50 percent of those should be attainable do you want to go but to Molly's point so you've got 9,000 which is 50 200 is that what you came up with in addition to get the 130 so so you got 14 to that we need are the 14 to what percentage do we know of that number 12 percent affordable that's an arbitrary number two i remember saying it wasn't enough in 2018 but so the question for you all is a 14,000 homes that we could build we think we could build what percentage do you want to be attainable so what is 12 percent of all those homes we can build to start off with whether we whether we stick with that or not do we have to another population that are under 80 percent ham on it right there but then does it be over that's the work that we couldn't i don't know we do we have some census but not anything really so i hate to keep harping on it but we don't know that that's the work that for example does not include the assumption that we're going to allow people who are our frontline workers to move those to the state well that's a different but we should but we must but that's kind of a different you know when we talk to them about um a percentage of the homes are the units being built have to go to people working in the city per their so that's that's kind of what you get for it well so you can you also have some limiting factors so right now some limiting factors are land supply the height and that's not a limiting factor but right now there's a limiting factor to that that says you can only go one additional floor over if you have the affordable housing so there are factors yeah but then over a code that's present and you know we've had conversations about well depending on how how high the land is you really want to be able to tell more stories than you used by right and honestly i think it backs up to well county a lot of people that have a skyscraper so that's just me it seems to me that there's enough complexity that we don't suggest to add levels of complexes which is i think i've run over here not that that's not important considerations i'd rather i'd rather set some numbers and then talk about the predictable outcomes some intended and to speak with the unintended outcomes might be in terms of equity issues or whatever we could spend the rest of our lives trying to figure out some of how to socially engineer this but that we're coming to a number in terms of what it's going to take to get more attainable houses in London well i can't agree with that because we're going to have to it's going to cost us a lot of money to restructure the city from a suburb to an urban design now i want to have to do that again in 10 years i'd like to have a long-term plan for well i would as well i guess the question is how do you get there and how many variables or how many layers of complexity you want to try and factor in on the front end of this so many okay i'm going to come back to this one go ahead i know i i know to put all this in perspective i don't know how we can get to these percentages until we decide where we want the growth to be and how far um but do we want the growth that's exactly do we want the growth and 400 you know so there we go right so so what i was doing is trying to stimulate the conversation because i think that the first to the point that was just made the first question the first three questions for me um does affordable and attainable housing take precedence over other topics slash policy items i mean and my questions to you all to help us frame this out as we bring something more tangible back is council willing to support affordable and attainable housing within the framework of our land use plan knowing that we will grow as a community are you willing to adjust the land use designations going forward to ensure that we have the densities necessary to to support this type of housing stock are we willing to support height to ensure that we have the densities necessary and then a question is where i think but i think globally i need counsel to answer those questions because to me the answers to those questions will tell us pretty quick whether or not we're going to make a dip in this report so should we go around and have everybody answer the first one so that we're not and then take them both point by point and everybody gets a chance to have their opinion so um if you have more questions after this i've got a lot of questions i think this is a point where i need to it's about and they are they build on each other so i i would say we can have this general question answered it would help for me can you go over number number two a little bit more for me uh is council going to adjust land use designations what is what exactly does that look like what do you mean adjust land use designations so so when you heard joanie say that right now our densities are like at what per acre we're saying when we need to look at our density and some some things we're seeing it's 20 40 per acre okay so shakita do you want to start off answering the first bullet point just go around and help for all that sure uh read it is council willing to support this type of housing within them time within the framework of our land use plan knowing that it will grow our community and um i'm willing to support it great me too but when you say knowing that it will grow our community that was my first uh comment about how big um army and can we grow our community so i would say yes knowing right now that 130,000 is long and that can always be looked at as we go along but right now her uh book only told us about how much i say yes to number one i i think currently what's happening is we're not growing fast enough so all it's doing is creating a greater equity gap between the haves and the have nots and causing the people who cannot afford to live in the community they work in having to drive from further cheaper areas which in turn you know it depletes their their quality of life i mean i say it all the time with our teachers so yes absolutely and i would like to add um as has the sibling of teachers many siblings it's not only hard on the teachers it's hard on the students your teacher should be at worst across town and um so yes in fact i give you my answer at all but yes on this one i think that we need to at least be flexible in our in our scenarios and not set an upper limit to growth until we know more about what the parameters are so yes so i'm actually going to grab something so what i heard mayor peck say something similar and that we could revisit that upper limits over time but we need to understand it so you're kind of saying yes but that's not artificially said until we understand it so it's okay not worth arguing over tonight right okay yes it's all three okay um well i mean i'm all for it because we are grown and we will grow so i'm looking forward to the growth i do want to make sure that we are responsible with the growth um so that means that we will have to adjust the land use even if we have to look at different options even what about land trust we were talking about on one of the other slides about um making sure that land is something that we is very impactful and so we have to maybe look at some other possibilities like land trust um we'll need to support the height absolutely um for sure that to uh counselor uh hidago fairing what she was saying the the gap in equities we are i appreciate the city putting this together but we should have been doing this a long time ago um but here we are and i think that we need to to make sure we do it responsibly and um because it's inevitable we are wrong and so let's make sure that we um be able to revisit and uh don't need to get on it yes and i want to make a comment for the maybe the beginning is that erin rubry just couldn't be personal matter so i track because i know his comments yeah i know so yes okay so i'm hearing everyone say yes all three of us with oh that depends on where it depends on where yes yeah yeah it depends on where and in number two because i thought we were going around one more time i'm sorry i broke the but on number two what we need to do is not just look at land use like the last time around we made the street facing lot narrower okay and that that was that was a good first step but it was in the single family home paradigm yeah and so what we need to look at is not just lots and height you know but we need to look at patterns like you know if you go to blue vistas this old or i'm sorry this is blue vista it's one of the most beautiful neighborhoods in the city nobody owns if you land and the commons are very carefully laid out so that everybody has the ability to take a forest bath right in their own neighborhood and we need to be sure that our um development standards kind of include that kind of patterning so that we don't suck the soul out of the city and end up with housing developments we don't want that and yes i am absolutely willing to support any kind of height in certain places but not downtown on the other periphery where we aren't messing up anybody's views no height down to oh we can have the height we have now but we have two historic neighborhoods flanking it i don't want to go through that fuss that we went through in 2018 about um you know height variances and buff results and everything else i think we're saying we have a historic downtown you know we want to be like paris paris has a historic downtown and there's no skyscrapers there and if you get up on a church tower and you look around the edge the skyscrapers are on the edge i think we want to be like long run i don't want to be like paris i think we need to figure out what we want as a city in what our community i don't mean we want to be like paris and we want to be like paris in that way what put our height on the periphery so council water do you agree with operating as well yeah i would uh at some point in time um giving definition of what responsible means is going to be helpful that's a word that they have different meaning in every for every person in the room so what i'd prefer to do is clarify when we use that kind of language what that means because responsible growth meaning something quite different to me than it does to you well do you want me to respond to that sure responsible growth to me means not just making decisions without understanding the effects of it that's what responsible means so like making sure if we say that i'm 130 000 uh is the maximum how are we being responsible making the correct decisions for that 130 000 maximum um because what comes with that 130 000 maximum of population um are they over the 80 percent am i or are they under the eight uh what's the percentage of those of that population that with that increase are under the 80 so that means that's that affordability how many of those residents can afford the housing with that growth what comes with it do we have enough shocks do we have enough amenities in this city to provide we would talk about the library district i mean there's so much to think about so we have to be careful with the growth and be responsible in our decision making that comes with that 130 000 that's what i was talking about when i was talking about patterns because if you don't if you if you just do division without looking at where the amenities lie and how to incorporate them into uh blockable neighborhoods for example um then you're not being responsible with your land use my belief is that by setting up a maximum you're not being responsible with land use either because we have to be able to figure out we're trying to balance this land that we have into a functional city that is attractive to everyone and we'll stay that way for a long time like a balanced aquarium and if we if it takes more than 14 000 more units to balance the city then we better figure out how to fit them in without destroying our home well i think that's part of what we're trying to do right now is um keep you up though around 30 000 feet because i think those are questions that it's a granular that it's hard to say and that's and that's honestly where policy components will start competing against each other and it's a different question that's that's sort of rooted in this at the end of the day uh you know the example i would give you is so the uh affordable housing that builds one about the new pace so that was done with um flood recovery funds and tax credits and um we went through the process i think there's 14 units it's four units per floor three floors at that time you didn't have the exception for four so the developer went into that project had one neighborhood meeting said that i'm out and this is going to be a question we're going to ask later he goes i'm out because i don't want to have to go through the bearings process in order to get another floor so they ended up holding with the three floors that's in that project and so when you do the math we've lost about 50-ish fours one housing units because of the process of like a survey and so we see that routinely on that just because of what folks have to battle with but you've answered the first questions now as i listened to your response really question about what you mean by response i'm sitting here thinking about a decision the council made very recently um that wouldn't fit your criteria for responsibility in my opinion if we made it i didn't i voted against it five was a five to one vote we voted to increase the cost of water right the fee and loo for water uh that went in effect the day after that vote it increased the cost of resident any residential development that would occur on land to be developed for residential purposes um with with with no options no consideration except by a vote on a tuesday night we increased the cost of housing now we could have said don't implement that until we have an ordinance that allows us to make exceptions for proposals for attainable housing i was trying to make that point that night but we went ahead and the council went ahead and made a decision for me if we're gonna if we're gonna use that language we ought to we ought to hold ourselves accountable for the decisions we make and that Tuesday night we made a decision that by your criteria is irresponsible in my opinion and i think we ought to we ought to be candid about that and make certain as we go forward would we take the time to reflect on what the implications are right and sometimes it's going to take more than five minutes in a discussion to do well i was willing to vote yes on the promise of the ordinance but i also think that it is reckless to not go through the complex analysis that i was talking about without vote and and set policy first i think we need to understand that that a new urban city is a complicated thing with walking parts and you better understand it first well and to be clear you're you're sitting sideboards tonight that we know what to bring back this is not a policy because we're gonna have to be bringing more details back to you based on the answer of these questions fair enough but we all said yes all yeah he said all the s and three so you've got all the reports um we talked about the cost of land we actually saw what we were able to do with the cosco project in terms of buying the nine acres of land in that deal this council want to consider a fund to purchase a system purchasing land for attainable housing to lower the cost and so similar to what we did with our affordable housing fund where we're putting in a million dollars a year in general fund dollars is this something that council wants to consider for the attainable housing let's go around to give them everybody has a chance to give their opinion i'll go ahead i'll consider um of course with all the information that i would need to review and look at um what council considered a fund to purchase a system and purchasing land for attainable housing to lower the cost of course i would consider it so what i would uh along with your idea Harold of the open book that if we're going to be assisting development by providing land or a percentage of the purchasing land for a developer then it has to be total transparency with that developer no major costs so would that look like um i think i'm gonna say yes i'm just curious and what it was like in reality is that us purchasing land and then leasing it to a developer for a hundred years for five bucks a year or something like that it could be that where it could be just enter into a public private partnership and you split the cost for we say we're putting the land but at no cost to the homeowner and so you could do that a lot of different ways and similar to what you see in affordable housing we'll provide land to build those units so we maybe at the next level of analysis would would look at some possible patterns versus having a free for all correct second point to this question is um are you is there any interesting combining it with the affordable housing fund and putting some parameter in where you can say no more than 30 percent of the affordable housing fund could be used on attainable just because your seed money in it's going to be there before you take time and there's not a right or wrong answer to this this is just are you open to some combination of the attain affordable housing fund for me that sounds like um i don't know what that looked like i don't know what that looked like so i will have to see a demonstration of what that would look like just looking at that question i will probably say no i don't know if i will want to consider that but um i would need to i would need to see it exactly i agree with you makes me nervous because i don't know what the federal sources of funding are going to think about where you know they've set some pretty hard lines uh and and they affect our ability to get light tax and all that and uh and so if if there's any risk to our ability to get federal funding for affordable then i would rather set up two separate funds we and that actually calls into question or existing isio because it has the incentive for attainable in it so finally that's last piece are you open to oh yeah honestly i'd be inclined to say yes with the understanding that what i wouldn't want to do that to do this it would seem to me there may be opportunities to move on a project to to to create housing stock that would be attainable that we would be able potentially to do that we wouldn't otherwise be able to pursue without the fund and i would i would much rather uh if someone if you said we can wait and get affordable housing in a decade from or however long that's going to take or we could get some attainable housing out here in the next 24 months or 36 months i'd be inclined to move more aggressively to get the kind of housing stock you know we need because we know we're going to need both attainable and affordable that's it i'd want i'd want some guardrails certainly we're so depleting your affordable housing so i'm hearing from you all initially yes they're probably not the depends on what the project is yeah that's it's it's really understanding the regulatory distinctions because i if you know if we have we have two funds and we say there are two funds but we fund them in a ratio for example i will understand the difference they're all local funds so when you look at our affordable housing and our attainable loser local funds they're not mixed with the federal funds that's in a separate way yeah so you don't have to say all right yes this feels a little bit to me that question a little bit like um the the decision making process or the implications of what we did with credits for developers or builders giving us more than 12 percent right the tension around that discussion was concerned about what does the developer do with credits it's like why do i care if we get to 8 percent more or 10 percent more housing today or in the next two years we'd have to wait for for 10 years let them do whatever they want to with the credits and do whatever we we need to do to get the housing stock now this feels a little bit like that potential decision it's similar yeah i mean it's like project comes around and all of a sudden let's say you can build 400 units we don't have the money or the time to come to build the attainable housing fund but we could utilize money that's existing but to do that it's really sort of about leveraging that and then how do you pay it back somewhere to kind of what we did on the loan structure on so here's the last piece and cities are starting to do this are you open to creating a fund the private businesses can invest in to secure attainable housing for their employees and that could be through uh local non-profit um i know we're seeing that mountain communities are doing versions of this um and they get units so they're investing in units for their staff um absolutely absolutely uh i am open i am open to that uh private businesses they're part of the community and i think but those who care enough for their employees to want to invest and secure that absolutely i agree and let me see public thank you but so yes no i i feel like this is a creative approach i mean we're wanting to see creative projects that we haven't utilized in the past cities are doing this do you have any other projects there's a bill and um some of the bad communities with the hostile groups are dealing in so so yes because there are two groups primarily the benefit from this the primary employers and the employees of the primary employers so of course is this is this a fund that we would have to create this is a fund they can they can do it ledp could do it and manage it and they could invest as we have lost the long line yeah i mean there's there's a billion ways to do this so yeah what why is that a question for us would you want to in creating that in partner with the work the private fund brings in money and we bring in money so we would be we would contribute to fun or they would contribute to our fund so for example when we have the chance to buy nine acres property at a really good rate what if i can about 20 acres of property or they'll you know the interplay between so who creates the footage is as important as the concept of a public private partner track so here's a question just listening to you discuss when you're talking about a attainable housing fund could that be paired with this type of investor so we are adding to it as well as businesses are and it could be maybe well can you bring that back yeah yeah we can bring it these are just general questions that are going to guide some of the things we're going to bring okay and cost of fees for development yeah i know so here's what you said basically today and we may have to have another work session on this and that's fine um cost of fees for development so today if you're in a house that's over 80 that's in the spectrum of 80 percent AMI basically you pay full fees um in the cost of development if you're in a house that's below 80 percent AMI we have a 50 percent reduction that comes in on the affordable you can get up to 100 reduction with council approval the fees include impact fees legislative fees impact these are a little bit different because we have state statutes that regulate how much and why or how much and how you can do this we've got some legal work to do but the big piece in and i take you back to the first statement earlier where i said what's affordable housing and so basically if you're in a house that's 150 percent AMI depending on the fee you're either paying the same fee or some of them are based on square footage but essentially you're in the same fee structure so the question is is council willing to consider reduction in fees for homes built in the attainable housing categories for 80 to 120 percent AMI? understanding that to the point of transparency this could raise other rates and fees that exist too so while they're thinking about it um you and i had a conversation about this well back and i remember saying can the city afford to reduce these fees and yeah and and i believe at the time you said no so that'd be my question because of course you know and my other question is where the fee reductions because i would like to apply some fee reductions maybe not as big as you're suggesting but some fee reductions to people adding aid to use you know people switching from as we've already done in one little narrow case people putting a duplex where a single family home used to be used to be you know so the applicability of these fee reductions needs to be um more than just new development yeah i'm looking almost to put a fees just in any of this okay yeah so yeah definitely as much as we can afford we ought to we ought to make the fees yeah i mean i would need to know a little you know for me i would need to know a little bit more about what fees that are affecting potentially the rates for rates and um and the charges you know since i'm accused of not being responsible only me but i want to make sure still no matter what i'm not sure so i i mean i don't know for me myself i'll have to know a little bit more so let me reframe the question for you all if we can bring back fee reductions that make sense and can be supported financially within this structure would you all want to see those i would like to see those yeah to know what we're actually talking about yeah yeah and also what fees in rates that work can then make the rates so go ahead just so we all have a chance yeah no i thought you were going around to the others um so here's my question as i talked to you about several times um is that each development has its own specific development rates fees depending on what they want to do so it's really hard for me to look at it in a broad type of overall fee reduction and whatever and the developer is in essence hiring our staff to help them through this process a lot of that those dollars to say come from these rates fees charges etc part of our income um i don't mind reducing them but i think what what councillor martin had said about a year ago is that if there is a development that had been in the queue for over a year we need to see individually what is the problem with this why isn't it moving forward is it us is it our staff is it uh is it the developer is it federal or state regulations what is the problem and because it's really hard to address an issue if you don't know what it is so um i wouldn't mind saying that i wouldn't that i would consider a reduction in fees if it wasn't i would forget this i forgot the term but it's basically that we allow you and the staff to the second sector administrative yes administrative decision review i'm now against reducing it's just that i know that every development is so different i would also like to see too like what are some of the policies we have internally that as council we need to look at again that maybe is um causing the process to to go to expand too long you know i've heard you know just a lot of mixed messages but a lot of it's coming from policy that's been set by various councils with different priorities so what can we do to streamline that process i'd also like to see you know i have no problem with reducing the fees but i'd also like to see you know we've reduced you know this particular fee what is going to be the impact um somewhere else in one line but yeah i'd be open to you so one of the similar results about um quantitative quantitative urban density is the understanding that the city's cost of maintaining infrastructure is lower when it's dense than it is when it's sparse so you know the most expensive water and sewer on the planet are serving the rainbow ridge neighborhood and we should be considering that in our feeder reductions so we can we theoretically can afford more fee reductions for dense development than we can for sparse development so maybe that should be included in the formula rather than sensibly the cost of the unit okay so you know basically what what you're asking is what we did really what the payment and the fee for the affordable housing doesn't apply to a payable housing right 80% no fee and then it's scaled right from 100 to 120 i'm not that would be what you're talking about would be totally consistent with what we've already done in terms of the fee structure so what everybody else has said is looking at the the implications of that and then if you were to apply the same kind of criteria and then you know where do you make up revenue right and i and i'm word marching is you know i've seen the same you know i work on the cost of 50 year cost of infrastructure right it's like rainbow ridge or you know when we index at the outskirts of town that's why we've asked for a 50 year not a 30 year analysis of what the cost of maintaining infrastructure is going to be and i'm going to ask that question when that proposed comes back with the annexation of north 66 and then you know who's with that who's back there in my chairman council um so seeing some some some variations or some options here i think is a good bit okay part of this on the other side is we're even relooking at the 50% baselines of deteriorate we may have to take that 50% for affordable and push it to 75% just to give us on the afford because what we don't want is you don't want to disincentivize affordable by over incentivizing you know so you got to balance those two components as well can we anticipate as well let's just sort of move forward some for some fashion uh just part of the pushback is likely to be well now developing no longer pays its own way that's going to be the that'll be the narrative that goes along right but i think it goes back to what's the definition of affordable because what we're saying right now is and there's a lack of attainable housing and attainable housing in many ways is affordable housing for those that just don't need this number that the federal government put forward and it's still folks that don't make it i mean you saw the positions that were in this chart i mean it's a different world just saying there with the with the no growth or you know whatever the narrative is about stop growth not in this room i mean it but in the community um you know part of the rationale for that or part of the response is only in the growth pages of land and this would be we would we got to anticipate in this case it doesn't but here are the reasons why by design right we don't intend for this kind of growth to pay itself when we're going to make that up with other places i don't think it's true that it doesn't pay itself away necessarily i mean you can discount it but but if if you're building something really dense and the fees are less it might stay quite still i think it depends we've got to run the numbers but i mean but at the end of the day if you're reducing the fees it's not paying for it so i mean that there is truth in holistic input is just to get ready for politics and that's why we're asking you all these questions because we're going to bring some stuff to you all that you're going to have to to look at but you know it's embedded in the individual developments and what you're looking at it's a sewer connection across the same one sewer connection unless it's actually physically bigger they all cost the same right the fees the same yes okay so but if if we have a denser area that we get more fees per acre so the city gets more revenue essentially for the same big sewer line you know that they're all connected to not necessarily because you have because it's by unit so if you look at like a part fee that's by door back you correct and so whether it's an 80% door or 120% whether you're in a 160% unit or an 80% unit the fees by door and so the reality is is if you reduce it you would lower that melt on that structure there are some by swear foot is what i said was true for sewers but not for doors not even sewers maybe depends on the design but that's how we're at recent density right so construction securities i'm just gonna this is one i'm gonna kind of try to move to pretty fast we've been evaluating this basically securities are there in place to ensure the work gets built and the construction's finished what we've looked at is you know a couple of times i think we've had to threaten to call securities a few times we're not sure whether we actually did call them once or twice i think we did so we're trying to work through that but it's not something that's really rampant that we have to deal with but what we were seeing is that this is something that adds a fair amount of cost to a project so when securities were originally created you pay by 20 to 30 percent of what you needed to secure as then you basically even gave you a letter of credit you were good and projects that we worked on is you all voted on things related to the christmas project where this was in play essentially now a letter of credit you have to collateral if that provided collateral for the full amount of securities so it's a pretty significant cost um what we're also seeing is that a lot of jurisdictions don't require securities for projects that are 100 affordable but at the end of the day we've really been evaluating this and we think that we can adjust how we look at construction securities for both affordable and attainable housing but we also think it may actually work for all our housing stock in the community um and what we realize it probably save us a lot of work with staff if we can do this and so really the question to you all on council is are you willing for us to re-examine and changing our security process so that it I think makes more sense we obviously will not compromise our system but there's ways that we think we can approach it that really allow us to maximize how we charge securities and how we bring them to bearers I have a question um as an example of how did this work that we changed it I just remember that the uh development on frances behind not beyond the two school had like three developers it the first developer I don't know the ground and county members in our land composite and they would bankrupt or left or whatever and do the finished development and another one came in saying type of issues isn't that what we collect securities for not for the construction of the units it's more for the infrastructure that's associated with it's over water the wastewater the streets the landscaping and those and so yes and what we're finding is that every project shows it's it has a little different perspective and you can look at them in different ways in terms of how you bring securities on when you bring securities on but I go to the question are you are you just counsel just counsel willing for us to look at this and change how we look at this process I personally would say I would even use so yes but I don't know how to work now because I that's all we have to make the decision yeah well at least we're gonna bring it back again high level questions and we knew this is a lot for you um and then so when you go back and you know you bring this back to us um would you give us some examples of what that looks like so you are really yeah careful with our decision making process this council is council um willing to consider allowing middle-tier housing and more zoning classifications so what I mean by that is in a single family residential are you all willing to consider duplexes quad flexes in single family neighborhoods and so the middle tier is more it's honest it's not the perfect it's more the town homes duplexes so middle tier think of attainable 80 to 120 percent AMI and those can be a single story they can be two-story but it's not like six stories or anything so that's why I don't think yeah so do you think about the missing middle kind of yeah I visual because that's what I'm visual yeah that's what I'm envisioning the development that's got different kinds of housing stock but very you know architecturally you know pleasing et cetera yes which we only have yeah we don't so I would say yes absolutely there should be no single family zoning that is absolute ever again but when we have um architectural protections on neighborhoods for other reasons like the historic areas that um you have to still be aligned with everything else which is really what's happened now with the brownstones right it's it's completely compatible with the historic west side but it's dense and uh so so yes okay what about reducing lot size so right now lot size you know 50 fits really current standard you can reduce it to 40 feet if you have the affordable component in really what we're starting to see a lot of cities do is actually look at much smaller lot sizes so what ends up happening here's 40 may become the larger lot size and you may go down to 25 feet where that's actually the realistic lot size and so um I'm trying to and then a lot aligns with you know climate we were looking at you know producing a water um you know that there's so many benefits to having and I'm visualizing like a patio so yeah let me show you let me show you what I'm looking at right now so this is something that is for sale in Longmont right now you kind of see the land use in terms of the single family house um I think so this is it's kind of what you're seeing in other communities where you're talking about reducing that lot size and um this is another really good example of what we're talking about is so a lot of times what you see in this type of development and I learned this from some of the folks that we're talking to is really where the wealth sits in a house and the wealth a lot of times is in the front of the garage and things like this they move that so it's very entry garages but these are real developments I think these are both in Austin where they come in and they actually have a million dollar houses adjacent towns that are attainable in terms of this development project where they really look that reducing lot size what it means for us is is really this is what we're talking about reducing lots as you can see that it doesn't aesthetically it looks great and actually I won't forget okay I'd go a step further and say I'd like to get rid of the longest term that's extended for developers and the people who decide what they want to do well that's things that's areas where I think we also have to bring our landscape code into the line but also with our sustainability goals which gives me because there's some tension there now that we have really good great let me keep moving you through this let me give some of these answers I know we have the housing authority next do we want to consider modifying our infrastructure requirements this is a pretty significant question and so if you look at how we're developing today the best way that I can describe this is that and don't even disagree you can jump in she and I talked about this as our code right now is very suburban in nature in terms of wide streets large areas in terms of easements and things like that so when you look at some of the pictures that I just showed you about some of these other developments in that density that's really more of what I call this is Harold's term and urban based code and so for me is are we willing to look at a more urban based approach which is in and vision and all the documents that we have so that we can look at creating more density in terms of creating more of those attainable units it has been a challenge in terms of things like sit backs and our utility easements maybe compressing them a lot more so Joanie yeah this is what staff has brought forward in many iterations of comp planning it's what we've seen in many of our PUDs across the community where we have some higher densities I think this is the standard of urban planning in most of America and I think that it would be a good move to for council to be able to consider how they could provide some certainty for the development community as they look at different development standards we've been asking for some design standard updates for some time and I think that is something that really needs some time and attention so that we can be successful I really want to modify but I want to staff report from the laying of my paper I've heard that it's really hard to service them when they have such a height in closure water lines that I'm so sorry to come back to us when you bring this back yeah I will tell you that is it our guess is it impossible no and the ones that I've been wanting to hear from actually are operational firms that are going to be doing the work exactly and I think they've even found different ways to do this so we really like to hear that yeah I think well rich is pd but I live in that's almost there we probably have data if we kept it about how much work it is to serve us breaks in there um so yeah I think we have to and uh yeah I don't I don't see any question about it other than when we started buying this was short fire trucks well it's not only that I mean that's where we're going to have to bring staff and have a lot of conversations but I think the way we look at certain things like fire is very suburban based versus we're in a meeting the other day and I mean the comment I'm like well you know New York doesn't limit the heights of their buildings because the ladder trucks I mean they use things like standpipes and other development tools to deal with these issues and I think we have to look at that as we're looking at a more urban basis and when you look at some of these other neighborhoods the thing that they do really cool is they bring alleys into play and so coming from a city where we had a lot of alleys you can actually utilize the front of the street and the alley both is loading your fire equipment so you don't necessarily have to have the widths that you have in a normal situation so those are things we have to talk about it's going to be a challenge but it is going to be a challenge is when we narrow the street size when I look just on my street how many people have the edge of these that totally shrinks the size of the one you do so you know that's why I say we need to traffic at the same time so ADUs this isn't you know I don't kill me but I wanted to to let you all know this is that ADUs are continuing I know councils decided given of some direction on some of these but we're continuing to see other communities really look at ADUs and doing some different things so I'm just going to tell you about this these are things you all can look at in the future but things like ADUs becoming a form of ownership or condo conversions so you actually have an owner that's in an ADU some cities are allowing two ADUs on every lot some cities are removing the ADU occupancy requirement the reason why I brought this up for you all is because I didn't want you to say hey you didn't bring the ADU stuff up so I wanted you to see it obviously this is a different conversation and you've engaged in it so this is more something we'll come back around when we have the time and for you all to take the cover so we're not doing any more action on this one today if you want to we're just about 10 minutes over yeah I know I just wanted to say that I think that that some of the negative stuff that was done around ADUs was in the interest of protecting a few neighborhoods that either have not enough parking to go around which is a big problem in our historic neighborhoods because they were you know written for forces and designed for horse and buggy days and not for ADUs in general you know there is no way that ADUs are not a huge boom for Southmore Park you know a huge boom no matter which way you look at it so I would be for all of these things keep the protected neighborhood so time to answer the question from earlier so there are so many things that are potentially in play based on what you all have said yes to that it's a significant contribution in the city and so my question is if we bring all of these things to bear do you want us to bring something to you all it really looks like an economic development agreement or a development agreement for housing to really capture this as we're looking at all these incentives so we can have another one we've got enough to work on so I'd like we have another one I would like to mull over in the meantime as soon as you can come up with it an understanding a better understanding of what a development agreement is because I have no clue yeah yeah what we can do is we'll take an economic development agreement and just sort of put it in play actually someone that we're talking to in a project just the person that we own has used those that individual actually told us he would rather have that just because it's security and certainly for him but I'll see what he has and then I'll turn that out to everyone great we'd like to adjourn I would like to adjourn are you done here can I ask one more question of course um now six months ago on a motion are you able to give me a direction according to task force there is no task force yeah yeah I understand answering these questions we'll look forward to guessing the task force but the question is why do we need a task force that's actually for you all I think it is to go over some of these things but what we were looking at we needed some policy direction to give them we can take these people down go to the task force and then come to council or maybe come straight to council and some of these answers I mean do you think you have the expertise I mean the goal was of the task force was to really get the stakeholders that people with the experience to provide the input and recommendations so I think the heart Joanie you helped me on this the heart piece the heart piece is the people that you need digging in there's a reason why the developer said they were willing to talk to us as staff but not necessarily have the broader conversation because of the proprietary issues so I think it depends on what we're talking about there may be areas we're not going to see that we may have wide spots where you do need it there may be areas that are pretty straightforward like fee reduction security reductions that we can move on now and I think we can start bringing those forms so I think it's a hard question that means there may be some areas Joanie do you think there's benefit in the collective impact model in 15 with the advanced one which we know right and so you know I think many groups from pop prosperous city here tonight they've been working hard as some of these so I think one iteration of a study session might be hearing from their lending group I know that they're working hard on the other issues so I think if we could look at that roster and talk to that group too that we're not asking people to do things over and over and they're already working on and so how can we incorporate that so I scale one to ten ten being a high level how much smarter will we be how much quicker will we be if you appointed task force to get us to to the as close to the right answers on these and it just feels like we've been six months we haven't had this conversation in six months we've got to add it six months ago we haven't there are no task force if I remember a prosper it's a member of city council I'm sitting here wondering is why would we not want to put a date on the calendar get prosper members prosper let's do it next every morning or not next you know and get at this as opposed to another bureaucratic process that will be six months from now to hear from a task force and we don't have policies I'm looking at you but I'm speaking to us that wasn't right yesterday it just feels like we're treading water but we don't need person that is some of the feedback I got when I asked certain stakeholders to come forward and they felt like they were getting up spending a lot of time spinning wheels getting the you know we're just spinning in a process but not understanding what the outcome I can certainly understand so yeah you know that was their candid feedback not that they weren't willing to perhaps lean in at some point but they really wanted to know what could they need into what would be specific what would be most helpful so yeah so uh uh this is a city release question so through um we've talked about several things that we put up yeah that we put out to bid um and got no bid we've got LNG next yeah so right so yeah so we need a yeah so the question is how they have no bids through our standard procurement process is there a way that we can go out and recruit individuals directly and twist their arms and say we want you to do this we want you to find all the inconsistencies in our city code and simplify it we want you to uh I forgot what we talked about earlier but it's about what we're doing right now no we're not hiring anybody right now is that not what we're doing at looking at the inconsistencies in our code for attainable or the critical problem oh this is inconsistent this is unmade policy of I think it's an consistency this is a code I mean we either have to use a planner to do it or we have to hire somebody yeah maybe so the question is is what do these groups have in terms of staffing um this is not in college right now in this world to see people not to bid uh bids it's happening all of it right now so the answer is maybe in our process we can do your direct direct negotiations if we've had no bidder but Valerie needs to have that first technical we did we did reach out to those that opened up and then did not submit on this for the housing needs assessment um we talked to them if you find out why and most of them it was a time constraint because everybody's doing how they need assessments so we said what would make you bid they said time so we're about to re-release it and we've given some extra time to prepare the submittal and then also or prepare the proposal and then prepare the product too so we'll be a little bit behind where we thought we would start in time but we thought the quality would be worth that and since we have some policy stuff to do in the meantime if those running those two in parallel is not terrible damage no and honestly you've given me some policy questions as we're looking at other improvements that actually have the potential to bring in a mouse and attainable housing in play i'm going to use that as policy guidance in terms of how we look at these other projects so are we finished with this are there any more questions and i'm just here right now we're here yeah move to adjourn oh i in the audience