CITY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION AGENDA ITEM 7A

SUBJECT: ORDINANCE 1809, SERIES 2021 – AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 17 OF THE LOUISVILLE MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADD A NEW CHAPTER 17.76 REGARDING INCLUSIONARY HOUSING – 2nd READING, PUBLIC HEARING (advertised Daily Camera 5/23/21)

DATE: JUNE 15, 2021

PRESENTED BY: ROB ZUCCARO, AICP, PLANNING AND BUILDING SAFETY DIRECTOR MEGAN DAVIS, DEPUTY CITY MANAGER LISA RITCHIE, PRINCIPAL PLANNER KATHLEEN KELLY, CITY ATTORNEY

CHANGES FOLLOWING FIRST READING: Following publication of the ordinance for first reading, staff updated the fee in lieu amount, which is one of several options provided to satisfy the affordable housing requirement other than building on site. The version provided for first reading included the fees recently set by the City of Longmont for their inclusionary housing ordinance. Using the same methodology as Longmont, staff utilized the most current available data for Louisville to obtain the proposed fees for second reading.

1st Reading 2nd Reading For Sale Fee: $7.90/sq. ft. $9.24/sq. ft. For Rent Fee: $1.90/sq. ft. $4.72/sq. ft.

The fee calculation is included as Attachment 2, followed by the Longmont fee calculation methodology as Attachment 3. The methodology, known as the Market- Affordability Gap approach, is based on the gap between the value of a market rate unit and what would be considered affordable using a guideline of 33% of income spent on housing. The fees are intended to provide the revenue needed for the City to purchase the equivalent number of market rate units in place of what would be required to be built on-site and resell at an affordable price. The City could utilize the fees directly, or with a partner such as the Boulder County Housing Authority (BCHA), to provide affordable housing.

The following is an example of what the proposed fee in lieu would total if a developer chose to pay the fee rather than build on site:  For a 40-unit for-rent apartment development with the median unit size of 878 sq. ft. the fee would be $149,962.40; and  For a 40-unit for-sale development with a median unit size of 2,215 sq. ft. the fee would be $818,664.00.

CITY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION

SUBJECT: ORDINANCE 1809, SERIES 2021

DATE: JUNE 15, 2021 PAGE 2 OF 8 PAGE 2 OF 8 3338 The recitals in the proposed ordinance have also been revised to reflect that, since first reading of this ordinance, the Governor has signed House Bill 21-117, which will become effective on September 7, 2021 if no referendum is filed. A recital has also been added to refer to the additional inclusionary measures required by the bill in the form signed by the Governor. As noted later in this Council Communication, discussion of these additional measures is on the City Council’s work plan for later in 2021.

At first reading Council also asked staff why the minimum amount of affordable housing was set at 12% and what other communities have adopted. The draft ordinance sets the requirement at 12% to align with the County-wide goal. Currently, approximately 3.1% of the city’s current housing is restricted to being permanently affordable. Since the overall goal is to achieve 12% affordable housing County-wide, staff recognizes that additional programs and initiatives other than inclusionary housing regulations are needed to achieve a total affordable housing stock of 12%. Staff set the rate at 12% as a starting point for discussion and based on other local municipalities that have minimum rates between 12% and 25%. The ordinances of Superior, Lafayette, Longmont and Boulder are attached and discussed further in the discussion below.

SUMMARY: Staff is presenting amendments to the City’s zoning ordinance to create a new requirement for Inclusionary Housing. The proposal would require a minimum contribution to permanently affordable housing within the city with new residential development proposals. The main elements of the proposal include the following:  Require that a minimum of 12% of all new housing in the City be deed restricted as affordable for either rental or owner occupancy based on income qualification. A minimum of half the affordable housing would be affordable to households with incomes at or below 60% of the area median income (AMI), with the remainder affordable to households with income between 60% and 80% of AMI.  The affordability requirement would be applicable as part of a final plat or final Planned Unit Development (PUD) that proposes new residential units. For an amended PUD that increases housing units, only the increased number of units included in the amendment would be subject to the affordability requirement. If a PUD “expires” after three years, the full number of units proposed would be subject to the requirement. A PUD is required once a proposal includes six or more dwelling units.  A developer may meet the requirements for affordable housing through rental units, for sale units, or live/work units.  In addition to providing affordable housing within a specific development, the following alternative options could be used to contribute to affordable housing: o Pay a fee in lieu of providing on-site housing. The City would use the fee or collaborate with another agency to use the fee to acquire affordable housing. o Build or acquire an equivalent number of affordable units at a different off- site location.

CITY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION

SUBJECT: ORDINANCE 1809, SERIES 2021

DATE: JUNE 15, 2021 PAGE 3 OF 8 PAGE 3 OF 8 3338 o Dedicate land to the city in lieu of providing the affordable housing. A developer could combine a land dedication with fee in lieu and the total commitment must be of equivalent or greater value to the total fee in lieu contribution requirement. o Enter into an alternative agreement that provides an equivalent or greater contribution to affordable housing if necessary to prevent an unlawful taking of property without just compensation.  The City would be responsible for managing the program, including income qualifications and appropriate deed restrictions, but could enter into agreements with other local governments or a housing authority to manage the program.

DISCUSSION:

Background: The 2021 City Council work plan includes consideration of the adoption of an Inclusionary Housing ordinance as a first phase of reviewing affordable housing policies in 2021, with the second phase being a broader discussion of other affordable housing tools or policies the City could consider.

Housing affordability is a growing issue in Boulder County. According to the Boulder County Community Foundation TRENDS Report 2019-2021 (see pp. 49-59, Attachment 4), employment has outpaced new housing development with 3.5 jobs added for each new housing unit between 2007 and 2017 resulting in a housing shortage that contributes to increase housing costs. Home sales price continues to increase in all parts of the County.

In 2018, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 58, Series 2017 (Attachment 5), endorsing the Boulder County Regional Housing Partnership Regional Housing Strategy (Attachment 6), which recommends a goal of ensuring twelve percent (12%) of the

CITY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION

SUBJECT: ORDINANCE 1809, SERIES 2021

DATE: JUNE 15, 2021 PAGE 4 OF 8 PAGE 4 OF 8 3338 housing inventory will be permanently affordable to low-, moderate-, and middle-income households by 2035. The Strategy recommends a regional approach to providing affordable housing and suggests each local jurisdiction explore regulations and incentives appropriate for their community. The Strategy also recognizes that pushing affordable housing outside the County has environmental impacts and increases transportation costs for those commuting in and out of our region adding to the overall cost of living.

The City’s Comprehensive Plan also includes several policies that support development of affordable housing regulations such as Inclusionary Housing:

PRINCIPLE NH-5. There should be a mix of housing types and pricing to meet changing economic, social, and multigenerational needs of those who reside, and would like to reside, in Louisville.

Policy NH-5.1: Housing should meet the needs of seniors, empty- nesters, disabled, renters, first time home-buyers and all others by ensuring a variety of housing types, prices, and styles are created and maintained.

Policy NH-5.2: The City should continue to work with Boulder County Housing Authority and others to ensure an adequate supply of affordable housing is available in Louisville.

Policy NH-5.7: The City should define standards for low-income and affordable housing units, and consider reducing or waiving building permit and impact fees for all qualifying projects.

PRINCIPLE NH-6. The City should define City-wide goals for affordable and low-income housing through a public process.

Policy NH-6.1: The City should determine to what extent it would like to allow, encourage, or incentivize affordable and low-income housing.

Policy NH-6.2: The City should develop specific and achievable actions to meet the defined goals.

Census data from 2019 indicates that there are 8,682 dwelling units in Louisville. The County Housing Authority manages 273 units within the City, representing 3.1% of the total housing stock. Louisville would need 769 more affordable units to meet the 12% goal based on current housing stock. When evaluating available undeveloped property with residential zoning, staff estimates that applying the 12% inclusionary housing

CITY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION

SUBJECT: ORDINANCE 1809, SERIES 2021

DATE: JUNE 15, 2021 PAGE 5 OF 8 PAGE 5 OF 8 3338 requirement would result in approximately 46 additional affordable units, increasing the percentage of affordable housing in the city to 3.5% (see table below). Staff notes that to reach the overall goal of 12%, the City would need to consider additional tools for funding and/or development of affordable units. The 2021 Council Work Plan includes discussion later this year to consider some additional tools and options.

Potential Property Comments Development The Foundry 59 units 32 already approved, remainder under active GDP Amendment application Coal Creek Village 185 units Active preliminary plat and PUD application East Street 46 units Based on existing RM zoning, no active Properties applications North End Market 38 units Based on previously approved PUD, now expired Delo Lofts 41 units Based on previously approved PUD, now expired Kestrel 14 units Based on potential development remaining per GDP Total 383 units 12% affordable 46 units

The adoption of this ordinance provides one tool to promote a variety of housing types and prices and is an achievable tool that other jurisdictions in our region have utilized. Each of the following jurisdictions have an adopted Inclusionary Housing ordinance: - Longmont – requires 12% affordable units (see Attachment 7 for ordinance) - Boulder – requires 25% affordable units; 20% for low-moderate income households and 5% for middle income households (see Attachment 8 for ordinance) - Superior – requires 15% affordable units (see Attachment 9 for ordinance) - Lafayette – does not have a percent required, but requires a fee in lieu (see Attachment 10 for ordinance)

Each jurisdiction has varying definitions and ranges of what is considered affordable housing and alternative options outside of on-site development, such as allowance for off-site development and cash in lieu options similar to the proposed ordinance for Louisville. The larger communities of Longmont and Boulder have more established affordable housing programs and housing authorities that assist in administration. Other incentives are sometimes included in Inclusionary ordinances, such as density bonuses or fee waivers for providing affordable housing.

Regarding the current proposal to have a minimum of 12% of new housing development being affordable, the economics of housing development could be one consideration for where to set the minimum requirement. At some rate higher than 12%, the inclusionary

CITY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION

SUBJECT: ORDINANCE 1809, SERIES 2021

DATE: JUNE 15, 2021 PAGE 6 OF 8 PAGE 6 OF 8 3338 requirement could become a disincentive for additional residential development in the City resulting in additional supply constraints. For a more in depth background on the economics and policy implications of Inclusionary Housing staff has attached a publication from the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy titled: Inclusionary Housing, Creating and Maintaining Equitable Communities (see Attachment 11).

For additional background regarding a broader range of affordable housing policies and issues staff is providing the following links from the American Planning Association (APA). The City Council will be discussing additional policies and options around affordable housing in the near future, currently scheduled for its August 24 meeting. In addition to these links the Boulder County Regional Housing Partnership Affordable Housing Strategy (attached) also includes some policy options for increasing affordable housing.  APA Housing Initiative www.planning.org/home/  APA Housing Action Agenda (See links for Six Principles at bottom of page) www.planning.org/home/action/  APA Housing Policy Guide www.planning.org/publications/document/9178529/

The following is a brief summary of potential “Pros and Cons” of an Inclusionary Housing ordinance for Louisville:

Pros: - Provides for a mix of income types and economic diversity with neighborhoods, promoting an integrated and inclusive community. - In a strong housing market, it can provide for new affordable units without causing cost increases to market-rate units. Cost is typically absorbed in moderate decreases in land costs or developer profits. - Ensures that the affordable units are the same quality has market-rate units. - Provides affordability when free-market mechanisms do not allow for affordability. - Provides needed workforce and middle-income housing for the community.

Cons: - Additional regulatory requirements and costs could discourage additional housing development, further restricting supply. - Financial and zoning incentives may be more effective in achieving affordable housing. - The City has little undeveloped land that is residentially zoned; thus, there is limited ability to provide a significant amount of new affordable housing. - Would require additional staff capacity and expertise to manage or the City would need to collaborate with other cities to manage the program.

PUBLIC COMMENTS:

CITY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION

SUBJECT: ORDINANCE 1809, SERIES 2021

DATE: JUNE 15, 2021 PAGE 7 OF 8 PAGE 7 OF 8 3338 Public comments received to date are provided as Attachment 12.

FISCAL IMPACT: Administering the program would take additional staff and city resources that would have a fiscal impact on the City. The extent of the fiscal impact is unknown at this time. The city has been exploring having a third party administer the program under an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) or contract, such as another local jurisdiction with experience in administering similar programs, a non-profit, or the County Housing authority.

PROGRAM/SUB-PROGRAM IMPACT: The proposal meets the Community Design, Development Review sub-program objective to: “Review development applications and enforce the building, zoning and subdivision laws of the city to promote public health, safety, comfort, convenience, prosperity, general welfare and consumer protection.”

PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission reviewed the proposal at their May 13, 2021 meeting and voted 4-2 to recommend approval. The minutes from the meeting are provided as Attachment 13.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Ordinance 1809, Series 2021, amending Title 17 of the Louisville Municipal Code to add a new Chapter 17.76 regarding Inclusionary Housing.

ATTACHMENTS: 1. Ordinance 1809, Series 2021 2. Louisville Fee Calculation 3. Longmont Fee in Lieu Methodology and Calculation 4. Boulder County Community Foundation TRENDS Report 2019-2021 5. City Council Resolution No. 58, Series 2017 6. Boulder County Regional Housing Partnership Regional Housing Strategy 7. Longmont Inclusionary Housing Ordinance 8. Boulder Inclusionary Housing Ordinance 9. Superior Inclusionary Housing Ordinance 10. Lafayette Inclusionary Housing Ordinance 11. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy Report: Inclusionary Housing, Creating and Maintaining Equitable Communities 12. Public Comments 13. Planning Commission minutes, May 10, 2021 14. House Bill 21-1117

CITY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION

SUBJECT: ORDINANCE 1809, SERIES 2021

DATE: JUNE 15, 2021 PAGE 8 OF 8 PAGE 8 OF 8 3338 STRATEGIC PLAN IMPACT:

Financial Stewardship & ☐ ☐ Reliable Core Services Asset Management

☒ Vibrant Economic ☐ Quality Programs & Climate Amenities

☒ Engaged Community ☐ Healthy Workforce

☐ Supportive Technology ☒ Collaborative Regional Partner

CITY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Second Reading Amendments

Ordinance No. 1809, Series 2021 is revised to read as follows (amendments are shown in bold underline and bold strikeout):

ORDINANCE NO. 1809 SERIES 2021

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 17 OF THE LOUISVILLE MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADD A NEW CHAPTER 17.76 REGARDING INCLUSIONARY HOUSING

WHEREAS, the City of Louisville (the “City”), is a Colorado home rule municipal corporation duly organized and existing under laws of the State of Colorado and the City of Louisville Home Rule Charter (the “City Charter”); and

WHEREAS, the Colorado Supreme Court has recognized that both the State of Colorado and municipal governments have a significant interest in maintaining the quality and quantity of affordable housing throughout the state; and

WHEREAS, Colorado statutes require municipalities to include within their comprehensive plans provisions that will promote affordable housing; and

WHEREAS, the City Council finds the provisions of this ordinance address the following housing principles of the City’s Comprehensive Plan:

PRINCIPLE NH-5. There should be a mix of housing types and pricing to meet changing economic, social, and multigenerational needs of those who reside, and would like to reside, in Louisville.

Policy NH-5.1: Housing should meet the needs of seniors, empty-nesters, disabled, renters, first time home-buyers and all others by ensuring a variety of housing types, prices, and styles are created and maintained.

Policy NH-5.2: The City should continue to work with Boulder County Housing Authority and others to ensure an adequate supply of affordable housing is available in Louisville.

Policy NH-5.7: The City should define standards for low-income and affordable housing units, and consider reducing or waiving building permit and impact fees for all qualifying projects.

PRINCIPLE NH-6. The City should define City-wide goals for affordable and low-income housing through a public process.

Policy NH-6.1: The City should determine to what extent it would like to allow, encourage, or incentivize affordable and low-income housing.

Policy NH-6.2: The City should develop specific and achievable actions to meet the defined goals.

Ordinance No. 1809, Series 2021 Page 1 of 15

WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 58, Series 2017, adopted on November 6, 2018, the City endorsed the Boulder County Regional Housing Partnership, which recommends a goal of ensuring twelve percent (12%) of the housing inventory will be permanently affordable to low-, moderate-, and middle-income households by 2035; and

WHEREAS, the City Council finds a diverse housing stock within the City is necessary to serve people of all income levels; and

WHEREAS, based upon the review and consideration of recent housing studies, reports and analysis, the City Council finds the provisions set forth herein are necessary to preserve a diversity of housing opportunities for the City’s residents and working people; and

WHEREAS, according to the Boulder County Community Foundation TRENDS Report 2019-2021 (the “TRENDS Report”), between 2007 and 2017, employment in Boulder County grew by 39,719 positions, a seventeen percent (17%) increase; and

WHEREAS, housing has not kept pace with employment, with only one new housing unit added for every 3.5 new jobs that came to Boulder County in that period; and

WHEREAS, this extreme imbalance in supply and demand of housing has forced tens of thousands of people and vehicles into Boulder County each day just to work and has contributed to a rise in homelessness and driven up housing prices; and

WHEREAS the regional trend toward increased housing prices will, without intervention, further exacerbate the inadequate supplies of affordable housing for low-, moderate-, and middle- income households, which will in turn have a negative impact on the ability of local employers to maintain an adequate local work force; and

WHEREAS, the general lack of affordable housing for households of low- and moderate- income, along with the large number of existing middle-income households that are “housing cost burdened” cause many adverse social and economic impacts within the City, particularly impacts associated with the fact that many persons employed within the City are increasingly unable to afford to live in the City near their place of employment; and

WHEREAS, Colorado statutes, particularly C.R.S. § 29-20-104(1)(g), enable all municipalities to regulate the use of land on the basis of the impact thereof on the community; and

WHEREAS, House Bill 21-1117, adopted by the Colorado General Assembly and signed into law by the Governor on May 28, 2021 ______, clarified that the existing authority for cities to plan for and regulate the use of land includes the authority to regulate development or redevelopment in order to promote the construction of new affordable housing units; and

WHEREAS, it is the express intention of the City Council to provide a choice of options to the property owner or land developer and create one or more alternatives to the construction of new affordable housing units on the building site, as set forth in House Bill 21-1117; and Ordinance No. 1809, Series 2021 Page 2 of 15

WHEREAS, the City Council is also committed to examining its zoning and land use policies and to adopting appropriate amendments to is ordinances that it finds will increase the overall density and availability of housing, also as set forth in House Bill 21-1117, but that imposing the requirements set forth herein while such examination is underway is essential to preserving the limited opportunities for affordable housing within the City; and

WHEREAS, the provisions set forth herein are necessary to provide continuing housing opportunities for very low-, low- and moderate-income households and to help maintain a diverse housing stock that allows people to have better access to jobs and upgrade their economic status; and

WHEREAS, because remaining land appropriate for residential development within the City is limited, it is essential that a reasonable proportion of such land be developed into housing units affordable to low-, moderate-, and middle-income residents and working people, particularly since new housing, in the absence of interventions, tends to be large and expensive, which both reduces opportunities for more affordable housing and contributes to a general rise in prices for all housing in the community, thus exacerbating the scarcity of affordable housing within the City; and

WHEREAS, based on the foregoing findings, and in furtherance of the public health, safety, and welfare of the community, the City Council desires to adopt the inclusionary housing requirements set forth herein.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LOUISVILLE, COLORADO:

Section 1. Title 17 of the Louisville Municipal Code is hereby amended by the addition of a new Chapter 17.76 to read as follows:

TITLE 17 -- ZONING

Chapter 17.76

Inclusionary Housing

Sec. 17.76.010 Findings, purpose, and authority.

A. The regional trend toward increasing housing prices will, without intervention, result in inadequate supplies of affordable housing in Louisville for low, moderate, and middle income households. This trend has a negative effect on the ability of local employers to maintain an adequate workforce, adversely impacting the economy of the City.

B. The primary objective of this Chapter is to increase the number of permanently affordable units available within the City. Consistent with state law, Ordinance No. 1809, Series 2021 Page 3 of 15 provisions of this Chapter provide for various approaches to creating additional affordable housing units. Those provisions recognize the fact that individual site, legal, and economic factors have an impact on which alternatives will work for different developments.

C. The inclusionary housing requirements in this Chapter are based on the City’s power to enact zoning regulations that promote the health, safety, and welfare of the community, and promotion and maintenance of a diverse housing stock within the City is an important component of the City’s zoning regulations.

Sec. 17.76.020 Inclusionary housing requirements.

Because land appropriate for residential development within the City is limited, it is essential that a reasonable proportion of such land be developed into housing units that are affordable to low, moderate and middle income households. All development of market-rate housing should therefore include affordable housing, and the City Council finds that 12 percent (12%) is the reasonable proportion at this time, given economic indicators and community need. For purposes of this Chapter, “affordable” shall mean dwelling units that are restricted to ownership or rental by those persons meeting the income qualifications as set forth in Section 17.76.070. A minimum of half of the affordable housing shall be limited to those households at or below sixty percent (60%) of the area median income (“AMI”), with the remainder limited to those persons between sixty percent (60%) and eighty percent (80%) AMI, as calculated by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”).

Sec. 17.76.030 Applicability, administration, and violations.

A. This section shall apply only to any development receiving approval of a final plat, final Planned Unit Development (PUD), or other similar planning approval after the enactment of this Chapter, or, when an amendment to such approvals is requested after the enactment of this Chapter, this Chapter shall apply to the increase in residential units approved with such amendment. This Chapter shall not apply to a development for which a complete application for a site-specific development plan, as defined in section 17.54.020, has been submitted prior to the effective date of this Chapter, provided the development approved by such site-specific development plan is commenced within the timeframe provided by this Code for issuance of a building permit for such plan. Developments for which an affordable housing restrictive covenant agreement has been entered into with the City prior to the effective date of this chapter may develop in compliance with the affordable housing conditions contained in those agreements.

B. The provisions of this Chapter apply to any dwelling unit that is removed and rebuilt, except as follows:

Ordinance No. 1809, Series 2021 Page 4 of 15 1. Calamity: The provisions of this subsection shall not apply to non- affordable dwellings that may have been removed or caused to be removed by fire, flood, wind, act of nature or another calamity. Such dwelling units may be replaced without meeting the inclusionary housing requirements of this chapter at the time preferred by the property owner. Deed restricted affordable dwelling that may have been removed or caused to be removed by fire, flood, wind, act of nature or other calamity must be replaced and include the deed restriction.

2. Safe and Habitable: The provisions of this subsection shall not apply to dwellings to be removed, if, at the time of removal, such unit is considered to be an unsafe structure, a structure unfit for human occupancy, or a dangerous structure under the building codes adopted by the City.

C. Provisions of this Chapter to be implemented by the City Manager, and authority conferred on the City Manager by this Chapter, may be performed by the City Manager’s designee, which designee may include a housing authority or other local government pursuant to intergovernmental agreement with the City.

D. All revenues received by the City under this Chapter shall be deposited and kept in a separate account established by the City’s finance department for such purpose. Monies received into such account will be utilized solely for the construction, purchase, and maintenance of affordable housing, and for the costs of administering programs consistent with the purposes of this Chapter.

E. It shall be unlawful for any person to violate any provision of this Chapter, any rule or regulation adopted by the City Manager pursuant to this Chapter, any agreement executed as described in this Chapter, or any deed restriction recorded as described in this Chapter.

Sec. 17.76.040 Satisfaction of requirements by unit type.

A. For sale. Developments of units for sale may satisfy the requirements of this Chapter using any of the options listed in Section 17.76.050, below.

B. For rent. Developments of units for rental may satisfy the requirements of this Chapter using any of the options listed in Section 17.76.050, below, except the on-site or off-site location options described in subsections A and C of such Section, but including the alternative agreement option in subsection F of such Section.

C. Live/work. Live/work units shall be considered residential development for the purposes of this Chapter. Ordinance No. 1809, Series 2021 Page 5 of 15

Sec. 17.76.050 Options to satisfy requirements.

A. On-site location. The developer or builder may satisfy its obligations under this Chapter by providing affordable housing at the same location as market-rate units.

1. Quantity and design. At least 12 percent (12%) of the dwelling units in the development shall be affordable. The design and materials used for construction of affordable units shall be equivalent in quality to the market rate units.

2. Phasing. Phasing of construction of affordable units and securities for each phase shall be detailed in an affordable housing agreement approved by the City Council or may be included in a subdivision or other agreement executed by the City and developer at the time of land use approval.

3. Affordable units shall have equal access as market-rate units to all amenities within the development, including but not limited to, common areas, indoor and outdoor facilities for convenience or recreation, and parking facilities.

4. Homeowner associations. Affordable units must be placed on a fair and equal footing as market-rate units within the governing documents of any homeowner association or similar entity.

B. Fee in lieu. A developer may pay a fee in lieu of providing affordable units.

1. Amount. The City Council finds that studies performed by municipalities within the vicinity of the City reasonably calculates the impact to the City, including the City's finances and the welfare of the City's residents, of market-rate dwelling units being developed in the City. Accordingly, the fee in lieu is set initially at $7.90 $9.24 per square foot of finished market-rate for-sale housing, and $1.90 $4.72 per square foot of finished market-rate rental housing. The fee in lieu of providing any required fraction of a unit shall be pro-rated based on its proportional share (fractional quantity divided by total number of units required) of the amount of fee in lieu that would be required for the whole development. The City Manager shall periodically recalculate the fee in lieu and present the recalculation to the City Council.

2. Timing of payment. A developer or builder shall pay the fee in lieu for each market-rate unit as a prerequisite for receiving the building Ordinance No. 1809, Series 2021 Page 6 of 15 permit for that unit. The fee paid shall be the fee in effect at the time of the submittal of a complete building permit application for the development, whichever is later.

C. Off-site location. A developer or builder may seek to provide affordable units within the City in a different location than the development of the market-rate units.

1. Quantity required. The developer or builder shall provide no less quantity of affordable housing than would have been required on- site.

2. Location restrictions. The affordable units may not be located in a low to moderate income area as designated by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, unless an exception is granted by the City Council pursuant to subsection H of this Section.

3. Existing housing. Existing homes may be acquired and deed restricted as affordable if they are in good repair in the determination of the City Manager based on an inspection paid for by the developer but commissioned by the City, carry a warranty of sufficient scope and duration to protect the resident from significant preexisting deficiencies, and are not already burdened by restrictions requiring them to be kept affordable or restrictions similar in effect.

4. Timing of off-site construction. No final plat or site plan shall be executed for the location of the market-rate units until a final plat sufficient to facilitate the development of the affordable units, and final PUD if necessary, have been recorded. Phasing and security shall be governed in the same manner as on-site locations as described in subsection A.2 of this Section. The affordable housing agreement shall run with the land and shall be recorded against the off-site location.

5. Approval of the use of this option does not guarantee approval of any land use application or building permit for the off-site location. The developer risks forfeiture of security if unable to build the off- site units as proposed.

D. Land dedication. A developer may seek to provide land to the City in lieu of the development of affordable units. Dedicated land must meet the following standards:

1. All off-site infrastructure necessary or proper for the development of the land as affordable housing either: (i) must already be in place, and any outstanding obligations paid to neighboring landowners for Ordinance No. 1809, Series 2021 Page 7 of 15 public infrastructure they installed, (ii) the developer must agree to build the infrastructure within a time frame that will not delay the development of the affordable housing and the developer may be required to post securities for the infrastructure via a public improvement agreement, or (iii) the land donation must be accompanied with additional compensation to the City sufficient to construct such infrastructure.

2. The land must be able to support at least the quantity of affordable housing as would be required on-site, without the need for a variance, modification, rezoning, or reliance on any incentive for affordable housing found in this Code, such as a density or height bonus. The developer shall submit a concept plan illustrating how it complies.

3. The land must not be encumbered in any manner including, but not limited to, any lien, outstanding tax or fee accrued, or floodplain, which in any way jeopardizes the City's ability to develop that quantity of housing.

4. The land may not be located in a low to moderate income area as designated by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, unless an exception is granted by the City Council pursuant to subsection H of this Section.

5. The land must be dedicated to the City at the time of execution of the plat or plan allowing the development of the market-rate units.

6. The developer and the owner of the land shall comply with all environmental site assessment provisions of the Louisville Municipal Code applicable to dedications via plats or site plans, and associated development.

7. The land dedication must be in fee simple and by general warranty deed. At the time of conveyance, the developer shall provide title insurance in the full value of the land conveyed to the City.

8. The land dedication plus any fee in lieu contributed musts be of equivalent or greater value to the total fee in lieu contribution amount. The value of the land to be dedicated will be determined, at the cost of the developer, by an independent appraiser, who will be selected from a list of Colorado Certified General Appraisers provided by the City, or by such alternative means of valuation to which a developer and the City may agree. If the land does not equal the full amount of the fee in lieu owed, the developer shall contribute

Ordinance No. 1809, Series 2021 Page 8 of 15 fees in lieu to make up any gap between the value of the dedicated land and the total fee in lieu contribution amount.

E. Redemption of credits. A developer may acquire, and redeem with the City, credits generated as described in Section 17.76.090, from the prior development of affordable housing, to offset an equivalent quantity of required affordable housing.

F. Voluntary alternative agreement. A developer may propose an alternative manner in which the development will satisfy its obligations under this Chapter. Such an agreement need not meet the otherwise applicable substantive requirements of this Chapter, but must be approved by the City Council. The applicant for an alternative agreement shall provide all documentation and any other material requested by the City that demonstrates the proposed method of compliance:

1. Will result in additional affordable housing benefits for the City consistent with the purposes of this Chapter; or

2. Will result in additional affordable housing benefits that are equivalent to or greater than the fee in lieu contribution set forth in subsection B of this Section; or

3. Is necessary to prevent an unlawful taking of property without just compensation.

G. Combination. A developer or builder may pursue any combination of the allowable options in this Section.

H. City Council approval required.

1. Developments seeking to use options other than on-site location of affordable housing must seek approval of their proposed use of such options from the City Council. The City Council's decision on such proposals is discretionary and legislative. The City Council will consider whether the proposal will result in more affordable housing, providing more of a benefit to the City, than would the provision of the affordable units on-site under subsection A of this Section, whether practical difficulties prevent the inclusion of the affordable units on-site under subsection A of this Section, whether the proposal would better benefit the inhabitants of the City than requiring the provision of affordable housing on-site, or any other factors that may be relevant to these considerations.

2. Exception to restrictions on placement of affordable housing in low to moderate income areas. The City Council may, in its Ordinance No. 1809, Series 2021 Page 9 of 15 discretion and as a legislative act, grant an exception to the restrictions of subsections C and D of this Section on provision of off-site affordable housing and land dedication within low to moderate income areas. The City Council will generally consider whether the placement of the required affordable housing in such areas would result in clustering of low-income housing in a way that would negatively impact the inhabitants of the area, the surrounding community, or the City as a whole, and whether positive elements of redevelopment or investment in the area outweigh any potential negative impacts.

3. The City Manager shall recommend approval or denial of each proposal before the City Council based on compliance with the applicable provisions of this Chapter and adopted City policy.

Sec. 17.76.060 Deed restrictions.

All required affordable housing shall carry deed restrictions and covenants in a form as directed by the City Manager.

1. When required.

a. Ownership covenant. Deed restrictions shall be required for each affordable for-sale unit at the time the unit passes to a qualifying owner.

b. Rental covenant. Deed restrictions for affordable rental units shall be required prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for any rental unit in the development.

2. Content. The deed restrictions shall contain all terms determined by the City Manager to be appropriate to ensure the affordability of the unit and compliance with this Chapter.

3. Deed of trust. The deed restrictions shall be secured by a deed of trust on the property, which may be subrogated to other deeds of trust on the property.

4. Term. All ownership and rental covenants shall be perpetual or virtually so; they shall require affordability of the affected unit for the greatest duration allowed by law.

5. Sale.

a. Ownership covenants. Ownership covenants shall allow sale to another homeowner qualifying under Section Ordinance No. 1809, Series 2021 Page 10 of 15 17.76.070. These covenants shall allow for appreciation of the home at a rate determined based on changes in the area median income, plus an allowance for the value of capital improvements to the home installed by the owner. The rate may be capped so as to ensure the continued affordability of a unit to a new purchaser, to ensure that unit price does not fall unreasonably below the level at which a unit would be considered affordable, and to facilitate the economically practical sale of a unit once its owner's income increases sufficiently for the owner to afford a market-rate unit. The seller of the home shall charge to the buyer no other special or unusual fees, including any finder's fee. The City Council may consider allowing an owner of an affordable unit to sell to a buyer who does not meet the qualifications of Section 17.76.070, below, in exceptional circumstances involving significant disruption to the local economy or individual financial hardship. In exchange, the owner would transfer equity to the City at that time. The City Manager may specify in the deed restriction the amount of such equity. The amount shall be based on the difference between the initial sale price and the estimated market price of the unit at the time of initial sale.

b. Rental covenants. The City Manager may release and discharge a rental covenant after thirty years' duration, allowing sale or rental of the property to people who do not qualify under Section 17.76.070, so long as the owner of the units seeking the removal of the deed restriction pays to the City at that time, for each deed-restricted affordable rental unit, the amount of the difference between the value of the unit with and without the deed restriction, as calculated by the City Manager based on reasonable market data collection or projections. If an arm's-length sale of the property accompanies the termination, the units shall be valued proportionally to the value at which the property is priced in the sale, so long as the director determines that valuation to be a reasonable market price.

Sec. 17.76.070 Income qualification and local live/work preference.

Affordable units may be sold or rented only to a person selected by the City Manager who meets the City’s qualifications. Such qualifications shall be based on the person's income and assets, and shall be intended to ensure that only those who require affordable housing shall be eligible. In selecting particular qualified applicants for particular affordable units, the City Manager shall consider applicants' household size compared to the size of available affordable units. If Ordinance No. 1809, Series 2021 Page 11 of 15 more qualified applicants of the appropriate household size request housing in an affordable unit than there are affordable units available, the City Manager shall give priority to applicants who prove their residency or employment within Louisville to the satisfaction of the City Manager. If applicants are equally so prioritized, the City Manager may select among the applicants by lottery.

Sec. 17.76.080 Restriction on rental of for-sale units.

No owner of a for-sale affordable unit may fail to continuously occupy the unit as a primary residence, or lease or rent out the unit to any person. The City Manager may grant an exception to this restriction if the owner proves to the satisfaction of the City Manager that the lease or rental is directly necessitated by a bona fide hardship, the property has no outstanding down payment assistance loan from the City, and the lessee or renter will be a person approved by the City Manager as meeting the qualifications of a purchaser of an affordable unit under Section 17.76.070. The owner must notify the City Manager at least 90 days prior to leasing or renting out the unit, to give the City Manager adequate time to consider the proposed exception.

Sec. 17.76.090 Credits for excess affordable housing.

A. Award of credit.

1. By agreement. At the time of final plat or final PUD, a developer may enter into an agreement with the City to memorialize that the developer shall develop more affordable housing than would otherwise be required under this Chapter.

2. Certificate of credit. Provided that such housing is actually developed and a certificate of occupancy issued, the City shall award the developer a credit for the excess number of units provided.

3. Exceptions. No credit shall be available for any affordable housing built on land donated or sold at a significant discount, for the purpose of developing affordable housing, in satisfaction of this Chapter or any prior affordable housing requirements of the City; or for any affordable housing receiving any City-funded or City- administered assistance whether financial subsidy, tax relief or other credits or incentives from the City. However, a development’s use of a loan from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development shall not disqualify its affordable housing from generating a credit.

B. Redemption of credit. The credit may be redeemed to offset an equivalent number of affordable housing units that would otherwise be required Ordinance No. 1809, Series 2021 Page 12 of 15 under this Chapter. Such credit shall be freely transferable to any other developer, but shall be transferred in a manner acceptable to the City Manager so as to ensure accurate tracking of the transfer of credits by the City. A credit shall expire five years after it is awarded unless, within that time, the City executes an agreement with the holder of the credit to apply the credit to a specified development. Before the credit expires, the City Manager may, upon request, in writing, and for good cause, extend the term of the credit by one additional term of two years.

Sec. 17.76.100 Marketing and sale of units.

Rules and regulations under Section 17.76.110, below, may address marketing and sale of units to ensure that the community has sufficient notice of available affordable housing.

Sec. 17.76.110 Rules and regulations.

The City Manager may adopt such reasonable rules and regulations as may be necessary for the purpose of administering, interpreting, or enforcing the provisions of this Chapter.

Sec. 17.76.120 Objections and appeals.

A. It is the intention of the City that the application of this Chapter shall comply with all statutory and constitutional requirements, including not resulting in an unlawful taking of private property without the payment of just compensation.

B. Any applicant for the development of a housing project who believes that the application of this Chapter would affect such an unlawful taking may apply to the City Manager for an adjustment of the requirements imposed by this Chapter. Such application must state with specificity the adjustment requested and the legal basis therefor.

C. If the City Manager determines that the application of the requirements of this Chapter would result in an unlawful taking of private property without just compensation, the City Manager may alter, lessen or adjust permanently affordable dwelling unit requirements as applied to the particular development under consideration such that there is no unlawful uncompensated taking.

D. If, after reviewing such application, the City Manager denies the relief sought by an applicant, the applicant may request an administrative hearing to seek relief from the provisions of this Chapter. Any such hearing shall be conducted by a hearing officer retained by the City. At such hearing, the burden of proof will be upon the applicant to establish that the fulfillment of the requirements of this chapter would affect an unconstitutional taking without just compensation pursuant to applicable law of the United States and the state of Colorado. If it is Ordinance No. 1809, Series 2021 Page 13 of 15 determined at such administrative hearing that the application of the requirements of this chapter would effect an illegal taking without just compensation, the City Manager will alter, lessen or adjust permanently affordable dwelling unit requirements as applied to the particular development under consideration such that no illegal uncompensated taking takes place.

Section 2. If any portion of this ordinance is held to be invalid for any reason, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council hereby declares it would have passed and approved this ordinance and each part hereof irrespective of the fact that any one part be declared invalid.

Section 3. The repeal or modification of any provision of the Municipal Code of the City of Louisville by this ordinance shall not release, extinguish, alter, modify, or change in whole or in part any penalty, forfeiture, or liability, either civil or criminal, which shall have been incurred under such provision, and each provision shall be treated and held as still remaining in force for the purpose of sustaining any and all proper actions, suits, proceedings, and prosecutions for the enforcement of the penalty, forfeiture, or liability, as well as for the purpose of sustaining any judgment, decree, or order which can or may be rendered, entered, or made in such actions, suits, proceedings, or prosecutions.

Section 4. All other ordinances or portions thereof inconsistent or conflicting with this ordinance or any portion hereof are hereby repealed to the extent of such inconsistency or conflict.

Section 5. Any person convicted of violating this ordinance may be punished as set forth in 1.28.010 of the Louisville Municipal Code, as may be amended but which currently provides violations shall be punished by a fine of not more than $2,650.00, as shall be adjusted for inflation on January 1, 2014 and on January 1 of each year thereafter, or by imprisonment not to exceed 364 days, or by both such fine and imprisonment.

INTRODUCED, READ, PASSED ON FIRST READING, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this 18th day of May, 2021.

______Ashley Stolzmann, Mayor

ATTEST:

______Meredyth Muth, City Clerk

Ordinance No. 1809, Series 2021 Page 14 of 15 APPROVED AS TO FORM:

______Kelly PC City Attorney

PASSED AND ADOPTED ON SECOND AND FINAL READING, this 15th day of June, 2021.

______Ashley Stolzmann, Mayor ATTEST:

______Meredyth Muth, City Clerk

Ordinance No. 1809, Series 2021 Page 15 of 15 For Sale Fee-In-Lieu Data and Assumptions Louisville Sales Data – Jan 1, 2020 through May 18, 2021 for homes built 2006 or newer Single Family Condo Weighted Average Median Home Price* $550,000 $490,000 $535,882 Number of sales 65 20 85 Average finished sf 2,508 sf 1,778 sf 2,336 sf Price per sf $219.30 $275.59 $229.40

Affordability Assumptions Area Median Income – 3 person household** $82,880 – 80% AMI $63,180 – 60% AMI Affordable Price Affordable Monthly Payment (33%) $2,279.20 $1,737.45 Affordable principal and interest (80% of payment) $1,823.36 $1,389.96 HOA dues, property taxes, insurance (20% of $455.84 $347.49 payment) Mortgage interest rate 3.75% 3.75% Maximum mortgage $3,93,775 $300,200 Maximum affordable price (5% down) $414,500 $316,000

Fee Development Gap: $535,882 - $365,250 (50% at 80% AMI & 50% at $170,632 60% AMI) Median Home Size (sf) 2,215 sf Cost per sf $77.03 12% for Affordable Housing Requirement $9.24

For Rent Fee-In-Lieu Data and Assumptions Louisville Rental Data – Multi-family properties 2 bedroom unit Market Rental Rate 80% AMI 60% AMI Monthly rent amount $1,949*** $2,106 $1,579 X Months/Year 12 12 12 Annual Rent Amount $23,388 $25,272 $18,948 X Gross Rental Multiplier 14.06**** 14.06 14.06 Rental Unit Value $328,835.28 $355,324.32 $266,408.88

Fee Development Gap: $328,835 - $297,622 (50% at 80% AMI & 50% at $31,213.25 60% AMI Median Unit Size 878 Cost per sf $35.55 12% for Affordable Housing Requirement $4.27 *Sales data from Boulder County Assessor records **AMI from US Dept of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) ***Market Rental Rate from CoStar data ****Gross Rental Multiplier from Dataspot Analytics LLC MEMORANDUM

TO: Karen Roney, Director of Community Services Department

FROM: Kathy L. Fedler, Housing and Community Investment Manager

DATE: December 5, 2018

RE: Inclusionary Housing Program Payment-in-Lieu methodology and Calculation

The Inclusionary Housing Program requires that new residential developments provide 12% of total residential for-sale units as affordable for purchase by households with incomes at or below 80% of the Area Median Income (AMI). This quantity may be achieved either by providing the units directly, by provision of land to support such quantity, or by payment of a fee in lieu of constructing the units. This memorandum explains the quantification of the fee in lieu.

For-Sale Product Methodology and Fee in Lieu:

The methodology for this fee, known as the Market-Affordability Gap approach, is based on the difference between the market price of for sale housing in Longmont and the price that would be affordable with an income level of 80% AMI, as defined in the Sales Price methodology used in Housing and Community Investment, and using a guideline of 33% of income being spent on housing. This approach is a comparable substitute for the provision of affordable units because it would provide the means necessary for the City to purchase a market priced unit and resell the unit at an affordable price. The “gap” in those two prices is distilled, based on property records from the Boulder County Assessor’s Office, into a proportionate amount per square foot of housing. Because it is applied on this square footage basis, this fundamental methodology applies equally well to single- and multi-family units, as well as to for-sale and rental units.

The market price for for-sale housing in Longmont is defined as the median price of homes built in the last 15 years and sold in the last eighteen months. These parameters were chosen because homes built in the last 15 years are likely not to require capital investment that would add significantly to the cost of home ownership, and because an 18-month time period would allow at least two active buying seasons to be considered in the data set. This set of home sales provides Median Home Price (line 1 below), Number of Units (line 2), and the Median Home Size (line 5). These home sales are divided into two categories: single-family homes (both detached and townhomes), and condominiums. These were the most common datapoints in the available record and the least likely to allow anomalies to skew the results.

For the eighteen months from January 1, 2017 through July 31, 2018, 285 single-family homes built in 2003 or later were sold in Longmont. The median price for which these homes sold was $458,000, and the median size was 2,043 square feet. In the same time period, 121 condominiums were sold, with a median price of $310,000, and a median size of 1,276 square feet.

The 2018 Affordable Sales Price (line 3) used by Housing and Community Investment is $315,320 for single-family homes, and $238,101 for condominiums. Subtracting the Affordable Sales Price from the Median Home Price yields the Gap (line 4), which is $142,680 for single-family homes and $71,899 for condominiums. Dividing the Gap by the Median Home Size (line 5) yields the Cost per Square Foot (line 6). This amount, which is $69.84 for single-family homes and $56.35 for condominiums, represents the additional cost per square foot over the Affordable Sales Price.

As mentioned above, the requirement of the Inclusionary Housing Program is that 12% of the units be provided as affordable housing. This fee, provided in lieu of that housing, only needs to cover 12% of the total units. However, for ease of calculation, the fee has been calculated so that it applies to the total finished square footage, based on the median finished square feet of units in the dataset. This is accomplished through application of the associative property of multiplication, wherein the cost per square foot multiplied by 12% of the total finished square feet is equivalent to 12% of the cost per square foot multiplied by the total finished square feet. For this reason, line 7 below is calculated as 12% of the cost per square foot in line 6. This yields $8.38 for single-family homes and $6.76 for condominiums. These costs are combined by use of a weighted average to establish a single fee that is applicable to both housing types, to be applied to the total finished square footage for the unit or development.

For further background on the Market-Affordability Gap approach, please see the attached Affordable Housing Fee Methodology of the City of Aspen/Pitkin County/APCHA of December 2012. TABLE 1 (Fee Calculation for for-sale units):

18 month rolling Sales Period: Jan 1, 2017 – July 31, 2018

Homes sold that were built in 2003 and newer

Single Condos Family 1 Median Home Price $458,000 $310,000 2 Number of Units 285 121 3 Affordable Home Sale Price 80% AMI $315,320 $238,101

4 Gap $142,680 $ 71,899 5 Median Home Size (sq. ft.) 2,043 1,276 6 Cost per sq ft $ 69.84 $ 56.35 7 12% for Affordable Housing Unit Requirement $ 8.38 $ 6.76 8 Payment-in-Lieu per total finished square foot $ 7.90

Rental Product Methodology and Fee-in-Lieu:

The fee-in-lieu applicable to rental units is calculated using the same Market-Affordability Gap approach, but based on rental market data. Specifically, a current average rental rate and unit size in square feet for market-rate 2-bedroom units is collected using the Apartment Insights database. Because Apartment Insights provides separate data for 2 bedroom units with one bathroom and 2 bedroom units with more than one bathroom, a weighted average is used to determine the average rental rate for all 2-bedroom units. Currently, this amount is $1,576 per month for an average 985 square-foot unit.

The “Affordable Unit” is represented by converting the CHFA rent limit for a 2-bedroom unit at 60% AMI, which is the affordability target for rental units. For 2018, this rental limit is $1,467.

These rental rates are converted to rental unit values using the Gross Rental Multiplier valuation method, where annualized rent is multiplied by a regionally specific Gross Rental Multiplier (GRM) to arrive at a value. The GRM is observed from recent applicable sales of multi-unit property where the average rental rate for the property is known. Per data received from Apartment Insights, Inc., the current derived GRM is 11.9. Because the costs of ownership, such as major system replacement, are not borne by the residents in rental units, the construction date of the property is not relevant in this data set. As shown in Table 2 below, both the rental rates (line 1) are multiplied by 12 (line 2) to determine the annual rent (line 3). The annual rents are multiplied by the GRM (line 4) to determine the value (line 5) of a unit rented at the market rental rate, and at the CHFA Rent limit for households at 60% AMI.

TABLE 2 (Rental Unit valuation):

2-bedroom for-rent units / All property construction dates Market Rental CHFA Rent Limit @ Rate 60% AMI 1 Monthly Rent Amount $1,576 $1,467 2 x Months/Year 12 12 3 Annual Rent Amount $18,912 $17,604 4 x Gross Rental Multiplier 11.9 11.9 5 Rental Unit Value $225,053 $209,488

Once these values are determined, the methodology is the same as for for-sale units, as shown in Table 1. The Affordable Unit Value of $209,488 (line 2 in Table 3) is subtracted from the Market Unit Value of $225,053 (line 1) to determine that there is a gap of $15,565 (line 3). This is then divided by the median size of a market unit, 985 square feet (line 4). The resulting cost per square foot is $15.80 (line 5). Multiplying this amount by 12% results in a fee of $1.90 (line 6), which is applicable to all units in a development of rental housing.

TABLE 3 (Fee Calculation for rental units):

1 Market Unit Value $225,053 2 Affordable Unit Value $209,488 3 Gap $15,565

4 Median Home Size 985 5 Cost per sq ft $ 15.80 6 12% for Affordable Housing Requirement $ 1.90 7 Payment-in-Lieu per total finished square foot $ 1.90 Boulder County

TRENDSThe Community Foundation’s Report on Key Indicators

I am the 21st century representation of the strength, determination, and greatness of my people.”

– Emily Sánchez

DISCOVER. CONNECT. ENGAGE. ěɁǼljɽȃljɨӗʥljƺƃȶˎȶǁɁʍɨʥƃʰ. CONTENTS BOULDER COUNTY AT-A-GLANCE

3 Executive Summary POPULATION*: 322,698 Our chief findings and recommendations Total ACREAGE in Boulder County: 474,347 10 Who Are We? PUBLIC or PROTECTED ACREAGE in Boulder Housing prices influence who lives here County**: About 315,000 Number of HOUSEHOLDS: 128,497 20 Our Education FAMILY Households: 76,113 Equity efforts, full-day kindergarten bring hope NON-FAMILY Households: 52,384 34 Our Health & Human Services MEDIAN AGE: 36.5 Vaping, mental health loom large RACIAL/ETHNIC Makeup: 48 Our Economy & Housing 78% Anglo (Non-Hispanic White) County’s economy booming, but not for all 14% Latino (any race) 5% Asian 60 Our Environment Preservation efforts challenged by growth 0.8% Black or African American and climate change 0.3% American Indian and Alaska Native Some other race 70 Our Arts & Culture 0.3% Working toward a more inclusive future 2.4% Two or more races Percent of People Who SPEAK A LANGUAGE Other 80 Civic Participation & Giving than English at Home: 16% Goal of connected, inclusive communities Attainment: still elusive EDUCATIONAL 95% High school graduates 94 Community Foundation 63% Bachelor’s degree or higher Boulder County We’re a community catalyst, helping you 28% Graduate or professional degree make an impact 2017 MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME: $108,380 2017 POVERTY LEVEL for a family of four: ON THE COVER: Emily Sánchez’s parents endured $24,600 violence, poverty, and homelessness before building a family together in Longmont. “Regardless of the INDIVIDUALS BELOW poverty: 13% challenges I face, I know my veins are filled with the Families with KIDS BELOW poverty: 9% blood of resilient people,” Emily wrote in a college CHILDREN BELOW poverty: 12% essay. The standout Longmont High graduate is *2017 population data from Colorado State Demography Office attending Harvard University, determined to help find **Compiled from federal, state, county and municipal public land equity for her people. Read her story on page 24. management agencies All other data from the 2017 American Community Survey, 1-year data Photo by Julia Vandenoever Your Community Foundation Boulder County’s Board of Trustees and Staff, August 2019 (left to right): Becky Chavez, Brooke Kahl, Daniel Hassan, Caroline Landry, Lynda Ricketson, Katie Volkmar, Josh Forman, Dee Andrews, Kimberly Barr Rutt, Chester Kurtz, Alden Sherman, Cathy Devaney, Jeremy Wilson, Matt Zwiebel, Sue Anderson, James F. Williams II, Amy Howard, Alexis Miles, Lisa Moreno, Christina Sims, Sarah Mikkelsen, Chris Barge, Jeff Hirota, Leslie Allen, TK Smith, Gretchen Minekime, and Peggy Driscoll. Not pictured: Stanley Garnett, Cindy Lindsay, Jane Paddison, and Deborah Simmons.

Photo by Julia Vandenoever

Welcome to your Community Foundation

Since 1991, Community Foundation Boulder County has been a community catalyst, responding to immediate needs and anticipating future challenges. We’re here to help you make a difference in the community you love.

INFORMED DECISIONS

Through informed decision-making, we inspire ideas, make this community a great place to live, work, and play. ignite action, and mobilize resources to improve the TRENDS drives smart grantmaking for maximum impact, quality of life for all. informs smart leadership on key community issues, inspires smart philanthropy that solves community challenges, and Key to informed decision-making, we listen. We listen ignites smart action among community members who want to our nonprofit partners, community leaders, business to make a difference. leaders, philanthropists, professional advisors, and residents countywide. And we always welcome your insights We compile TRENDS as a community resource for you, and and contributions toward a shared knowledgebase and a for everyone who calls Boulder County home. We invite you stronger community. to plug into local data, share what you’ve learned, and get engaged for a better Boulder County. Additionally, our biennial TRENDS Report shines a light on our community’s most challenging concerns and most Learn more about the work of your Community Foundation promising potentials – as well as the unique strengths that on page 94, and visit us online at commfound.org/TRENDS.

TRENDS Report 2019–2021 | Welcome 1 A Letter from the CEO

Connection and purpose. A religious institution is a place for such things. So is a community foundation.

Photo by Barbara Colombo Building equity with connection and purpose

How would you rate your community? We asked that question in only the “What” in our community, but asks “What Next” and nearly sixty conversations and invariably folks answered with a “To What End?” Your foundation’s “To What End” is a place of question: “What do you mean by community?” equity — a community where all can thrive, especially those of us who must overcome tremendous odds just to get to a level One group of faith leaders sat silent with the question for a playing field. while then voiced a different question to themselves: “Is anyone experiencing a deep loneliness in the people you serve?” TRENDS is also now expanding from a biennial community indicators resource to a year-round initiative reporting on issues Just as we published the last edition of TRENDS, Boulder was of inequity. You’ll be able to listen to the TRENDS podcast, on named the happiest city in the United States. More questions: KGNU and elsewhere, and help identify and tell the stories of “Who is happy?” and “What do they mean by happy?” Apparently, the most important issues in our community. the study was talking about people who had the means and agency to live healthy, fun, and secure lives. But even the happy Please support the work of your Community Foundation. Most people weren’t as satisfied with the purpose of their lives. important, please be part of the ongoing striving to build an equitable Boulder County. On the way to answering the question of what we mean by community, many people said the same thing. It is good to be Yours in community, in a setting where we can truly connect about what is most important to us without beating each other up. Connection and purpose. A religious institution is a place for such things. So is a community foundation.

Your Community Foundation Boulder County presents TRENDS Jeff Hirota — a resource by and about our community. TRENDS reports not CEO, Community Foundation Boulder County

2 Community Foundation Boulder County | commfound.org/TRENDS Executive Summary minority and low-income students and their peers. High school graduation rates are improving, especially for The success of a community turns on its residents’ our county’s Latino and low-income students. Front Range connectedness with one another. For Emily Sánchez, the Community College, the University of Colorado Boulder and Longmont High School graduate featured on our cover, it comes Naropa University are diversifying their student populations. This down to representation and access. is welcome news. However, students from diverse backgrounds Emily describes herself as “a warrior for social justice” in the still struggle to find teachers and mentors who understand story about her on page 24. Her future is beyond bright, and her where they’re coming from. focus is on others. She is determined to help find equity for her The quality of an education depends as much on the people and for the community that raised her. connections forged between students and their teachers, In this edition of TRENDS, we invite you to discover neighbors parents and other mentors, as it does on other factors. We such as Emily, who you may have not yet met. We connected must continue to seek culturally and linguistically responsive with them after carefully analyzing more than 150 indicators connections to ensure all students thrive. of our community’s social, economic and environmental health, interviewing experts, and then seeking out the people in the Our Health & Human Services middle of these new and persistent trends. You can find all of their stories, plus far more charts tracking and discussing these Boulder County’s uninsured rate remains low, thanks to the community indicators, at www.commfound.org/TRENDS. Affordable Care Act and local efforts to enroll low-income residents in publicly funded health programs. However, at this Following is a summary of our findings and recommendations. writing, enrollment in Medicaid and Colorado’s Child Health Plan Plus was off about 10% from its highest point in 2017. This

Who Are We? Photo by Julia Vandenoever

Who lives in Boulder County depends somewhat on who can afford to live here. The county is aging rapidly, in part because families struggle to find adequate housing. More and more wealthy people are moving in.

Those with stable, affordable housing are able to enjoy all the advantages of staying in place. Those without move more frequently. More than half of Boulder County renters spent more than a third of their income on rent in 2017, according to census data.

Boulder’s Arts and Human Relations commissions, the Boulder Chamber of Commerce, disability advocates and other groups not traditionally involved in housing are calling for solutions. How a community approaches housing is really the question of who it wants to live there.

Our Education

Full-day, free kindergarten will be available consistently across the state for the first time in 2019, providing a stronger start for students and economic relief for parents.

St. Vrain Valley Schools has partnered with community colleges “Community makes a big difference, and communalizing and more than 100 companies to ensure more students trauma helps everyone get out of their safety zones graduate with the hard skills necessary to compete in rapidly toward better understanding and healing,” said Vietnam changing, technology-driven industries. Boulder Valley Schools’ veteran Ray Meyers, one of nearly 14,000 veterans living new superintendent says the community is ready to implement in Boulder County. plans to narrow the wide disparities that persist between

TRENDS Report 2017–2019 | Executive Summary 3 Executive Summary

of residents don’t earn enough to buy a house here. These financial worries are compounded for families with young children needing child care.

We must work to ensure everyone who lives here is able to thrive. Even in a small county, seeing and beginning to understand one another’s struggles is an important first step.

Our Environment

Boulder County is an environmental leader on Open Space and Rosemary Martinak (left) and Hannah Behrens of Scaled an innovator on mass transit incentives and bike paths. Yet, Agile, Inc. plant seeds while volunteering at Growing challenges persist related to population growth and a rapidly Gardens. Their company belongs to Pledge 1% , a changing climate. network of 252 local entrepreneurs — and counting — who share a common commitment to make a difference Auto and fracking emissions have kept air quality less than in Boulder County and beyond. optimal and ozone high. Denver Water and Boulder County are quarreling over the expansion of Gross Reservoir. The Emerald Photo by Kira Vos Ash Borer threatens our urban forest. Neonic pesticides, is likely the combined result of a slight increase in residents declining water quality and loss of habitat have reduced the receiving insurance through employers alongside the impacts of population of pollinating insects. And soil quality on Open Space national rhetoric and policy proposals discouraging participation. agricultural land has suffered from overgrazing and an exploding prairie dog population. Marijuana use among teenagers has not increased since legalization. However, vaping has accelerated. Teen opioid use The city of Boulder is responding by establishing baselines remains a concern. More than twice as many students are for pollinators, aquatic insects and soil quality with an eye to hospitalized for self-harm or attempted suicide as with injuries improvement, and working to keep tree cover constant. Statewide, from auto accidents. LGBQ students remain much more likely Gov. Jared Polis has prioritized improving air quality, allowing to abuse substances, harm themselves or attempt suicide than more local control over oil and gas operations, enhancing transit heterosexual teens. and encouraging an increase in electric vehicles.

Local jails continue to house prisoners who need mental We must think globally but act locally to conserve our vital health treatment. Boulder County voters approved a ballot resources in balance with our region’s water, energy and issue recently to help address these needs. Across the county, transportation needs. awareness seems to be increasing — and stigma decreasing — about the importance of mental health care. We must continue to connect with each other about our needs, both visible and Our Arts & Culture harder to see. Boulder County arts organizations are working to diversify our vibrant arts community. Public arts festivals have grown in Our Economy & Housing recent years in Boulder, Longmont, Louisville and Lafayette. The county has also encouraged public art. Boulder County has enjoyed some of the lowest unemployment in the nation in recent years. The Area Median Income is among The Scientific and Cultural Facilities District has enacted the highest in Colorado. Nearly 40,000 new jobs have been changes in its own operations to increase diversity, added locally in the past decade. inclusiveness and equity, and to serve as a model for the arts organizations it funds. Still, a tenth of residents are below the poverty line, and more than a quarter of the population doesn’t earn enough to Boulder County is fortunate to have one of the most thriving cover their basic needs. Those who bought houses early are arts scenes anywhere in the United States. We must all work to enjoying millions of dollars in appreciation. But more than 60% ensure it’s accessible and relevant to all audiences.

4 Community Foundation Boulder County | commfound.org/TRENDS Our Civic Participation & Giving

We are least open to minorities, immigrants and refugees, and we are not very accepting of senior citizens, either, according to The Community Foundation’s civic participation and giving survey. It’s one of many data points leading institutions across our county, including this Community Foundation, to prioritize equity in their work.

Is this intention leading to a more inclusive community with more equitable outcomes for the most vulnerable and marginalized among us? On one measure, the answer is no. Our charitable giving rates are well below the national average. This is driven, in part, by residents not seeing the needs around them, and not knowing enough about what local nonprofits are doing to address those needs, our survey finds.

More and more, the Community Foundation is hearing a common theme emerge as it listens to members of our community. People feel disconnected. Lonely. They are yearning for the sorts of relationships with one another that might increase awareness of our community’s needs. More than half of Boulder County residents move The 2020 Census offers us an opportunity to get to know here from out of state. Malik Salsberry, above, only each other a little better. So much depends on a complete and plans to stay for a few years, in part because the Iowa accurate count, including this report, which relies on the Census native spends more than two-thirds of his salary on rent for a majority of its data. and food.

We live in a community that prides itself on being inclusive and Photo by Julia Vandenoever welcoming to all. We must do more to help our community’s actions match its words. Our Call to Action

Who deserves to live here? What’s holding some of our students back, while others succeed? How can we best steward a healthy environment? Who’s not participating in our vibrant arts scene? How can we ensure that everyone feels seen, feels safe and feels valued?

We can all take steps to help answer these wicked questions. At another level, however, our community’s most pressing needs are far too big for anyone to meet alone. The Community Foundation invites you to join in this larger conversation by reading this report and listening to our new TRENDS podcast on KGNU and elsewhere.

When your imagination is stirred to action, join the march Anjelica Medina Vigil paints faces for the Longmont toward a more equitable Boulder County. Stand with your Museum’s 2018 Día de los Muertos events, believed to vulnerable and marginalized neighbors. Engage with them and be the largest such celebration in the state, attracting others to build a more connected and inclusive community. roughly 6,000 people. Discover. Connect. Engage. Together, we can find our way. Photo courtesy Daily Camera

TRENDS Report 2017–2019 | Executive Summary 5 Carta del CEO

Conexión y propósito. Una institución religiosa es un lugar para este tipo de cosas. Igual que lo es una fundación para la comunidad.

Foto por Barbara Colombo

presenta TRENDS – un recurso hecho por nuestra comunidad Creando equidad con y acerca de ésta. TRENDS reporta no solamente sobre el “Qué” conexiones y propósito con respecto a nuestra comunidad, sino también pregunta “¿Qué sigue?” y “¿Con cuál propósito?” Como respuesta a la ¿Cómo clasificaría a su comunidad? Hicimos esta pregunta pregunta “¿Con cuál propósito?” su fundación se refiere a durante casi sesenta conversaciones e invariablemente la un lugar equitativo – una comunidad donde todos pueden gente respondió con una pregunta: “¿Qué quieren decir con prosperar, especialmente los que tenemos que superar la palabra comunidad?” obstáculos tremendos simplemente para llegar a una igualdad de condiciones. Un grupo de líderes religiosos consideró la pregunta en silencio por un tiempo y luego se hicieron una pregunta diferente: Además, TRENDS se está expandiendo más allá de ser “¿Hay alguna persona entre aquellos que servimos que esté únicamente un recurso bienal de indicadores comunitarios. experimentando una soledad profunda?” Se está convirtiendo en una iniciativa que a lo largo del año produce reportajes sobre problemas de desigualdad. Podrá Al tiempo que publicamos la última edición de Trends, Boulder escuchar el podcast de TRENDS, en KGNU y en otros medios, y fue nombrada la ciudad más feliz de los Estados Unidos. Más ayudar a identificar y contar las historias relacionadas con los preguntas: “¿Quién es feliz?” y “¿A qué se refieren con la asuntos más importantes de nuestra comunidad. felicidad?” Aparentemente, el estudio hablaba de personas que tenían los recursos y la voluntad para vivir vidas saludables, Por favor apoye el trabajo de la Fundación para la Comunidad. divertidas, y seguras. Pero hasta las personas felices no Lo más importante es que por favor sea parte de la lucha para estaban tan satisfechas con el propósito de sus vidas. crear un Condado de Boulder equitativo.

Al responder la pregunta ¿Qué es lo que queremos decir con la Atentamente en comunidad con ustedes, palabra comunidad?, varios dijeron lo mismo. Es bueno estar en un ambiente donde podemos verdaderamente forjar conexiones que tienen que ver con las cosas que son más importantes para nosotros, sin pelearnos. Conexión y propósito. Una institución religiosa es un lugar para este tipo de cosas. Igual que lo es Jeff Hirota una fundación para la comunidad. Director Ejecutivo (CEO) de la Fundación para la Comunidad del Su Fundación para la Comunidad del Condado de Boulder les Condado de Boulder

6 Community Foundation Boulder County | commfound.org/TRENDS las grandes disparidades que persisten Resumen Ejecutivo entre minorías y estudiantes de bajos El éxito de una comunidad depende del nivel de conexión entre sus residentes. recursos, y sus compañeros. Según Emily Sánchez, una reciente graduada de Longmont High School, que asistirá a Se están mejorando las cifras Harvard, y que aparece en nuestra portada, la representación y accesibilidad son de graduación de secundaria, lo esencial. especialmente con respecto a los Emily se describe a sí misma como “una luchadora por la justicia social” en la historia estudiantes latinxs y económicamente acerca de ella en la página 24. Su futuro es más que brillante, y su enfoque es en las menos favorecidos de nuestro demás personas. Está empeñada en ayudar a obtener equidad para su gente y para la condado. La Front Range Community comunidad que la vio crecer. College, la Universidad de Colorado Boulder, y la Universidad de Naropa En esta edición de TRENDS, lo invitamos descubrir vecinos como Emily, a quienes están diversificando sus poblaciones quizás aún no ha conocido. Nos conectamos con ellos después de cuidadosamente estudiantiles. Éstas son noticias bien analizar más de 150 indicadores sociales, económicos y de salud ambiental de recibidas. Sin embargo, todavía es difícil nuestra comunidad, entrevistar a expertos, y buscar a personas que forman parte de para los estudiantes de procedencia estas tendencias nuevas y persistentes. Puede encontrar todas las historias de estas diversa encontrar profesores y mentores personas, además de muchas gráficas más que discuten y exponen el seguimiento de que los comprendan. estos indicadores comunitarios, en www.commfound.org/TRENDS. La calidad de una educación depende A continuación, el resumen de nuestras conclusiones y recomendaciones. tanto de las conexiones creadas entre los estudiantes y sus profesores, padres ¿Quiénes Somos? y otros mentores, como de otros factores. Debemos continuar buscando conexiones La demografía del Condado de Boulder depende en parte de tener suficiente dinero que son cultural y lingüísticamente para vivir aquí. El condado se está envejeciendo rápidamente, en parte porque para las receptivas para asegurar el éxito de todos familias es difícil encontrar viviendas adecuadas. Más y más personas ricas se están los estudiantes. mudando aquí. Foto por Julia Vandenoever Los que tienen viviendas estables y económicas pueden disfrutar de todas las ventajas de quedarse donde están. Los que no disponen de éstas se mudan con más frecuencia. Según datos del censo, en el 2017 más de la mitad de los arrendatarios en el Condado de Boulder gastaron más de un tercio de sus ingresos en arriendo.

Las comisiones de las Artes y las Relaciones Humanas de Boulder, la Cámara de Comercio de Boulder, los defensores de personas discapacitadas y otros grupos que no están tradicionalmente involucrados en asuntos de vivienda están pidiendo soluciones. Cómo una comunidad aborda la vivienda tiene que ver en realidad con qué tipo de población se desea en aquella comunidad.

Nuestra Educación

Kindergarten gratis y de día completo estará disponible de forma consistente en todo el estado en el 2019 por primera vez, proporcionando un comienzo más sólido para estudiantes, y un alivio económico para padres de familia.

Las escuelas de St. Vrain Valley se han asociado con universidades comunitarias y más de 100 empresas para asegurar que más estudiantes se gradúen con las habilidades Veterano de Vietnam Ray Meyers, técnicas necesarias para competir en industrias que están cambiando rápidamente uno de casi 14,000 veteranos que y que están basadas en la tecnología. El nuevo superintendente de las Escuelas de viven en el Condado de Boulder. Boulder Valley dice que la comunidad está lista para implementar planes para reducir

TRENDS Report 2017–2019 | Resumen Ejecutivo 7 Resumen Ejecutivo

importancia de asistencia para la salud mental. Debemos continuar conectándonos entre nosotros y comunicar nuestras necesidades; tanto las visibles como las que son más difíciles de ver.

Nuestra Economía y Vivienda

En años recientes el Condado de Boulder ha gozado de uno de los niveles de desempleo más bajos de la nación. La Media de Ingresos del Área está entre las más altas de Colorado. Se han aumentado casi 40,000 nuevos trabajos a nivel local en la última década. Rosemary Martinak (izquierda) y Hannah Behrens, de Scaled Agile, Inc., siembran semillas como voluntarias en Aun así, la décima parte de los residentes están por debajo Growing Gardens. de la línea de pobreza, y más de un cuarto de la población no gana suficiente para cubrir necesidades básicas. Los que Foto por Kira Vos compraron casas temprano disfrutan de millones de dólares de valorización. Pero más de un 60% de residentes no ganan lo Nuestra Salud y Nuestros suficiente para comprar una casa aquí. Estas preocupaciones Servicios Humanos financieras son más graves para familias que tienen niños y necesitan cuidado infantil. Las cifras de personas sin seguro de salud en el Condado de Boulder siguen siendo bajas, gracias a la Ley de Cuidados de Debemos trabajar para asegurar que todos los que viven Salud Asequibles y esfuerzos locales para registrar a residentes aquí sean capaces de prosperar. El poder ver y empezar a de bajos recursos en programas de salud públicamente comprender las dificultades de los demás es un primer paso financiados. Sin embargo, mientras se escribe este resumen, importante, hasta en condados pequeños. la inscripción en Medicaid y en el Plan Plus de Salud para Niños de Colorado fue 10% menor a la cifra más alta en 2017. Nuestro Medioambiente Este resultado es probablemente producto de un incremento pequeño en el número de residentes que reciben seguro a El Condado de Boulder es un líder ambiental en cuanto al través de sus empleadores además de los impactos de la Espacio Abierto e innovador con respecto a incentivos de narrativa nacional y propuestas de políticas que desincentivan transporte masivo y vías de bicicleta. Sin embargo, persisten la participación. desafíos relacionados al crecimiento de la población y al rápido cambio climático. El uso de marihuana por parte de los adolescentes no ha incrementado a partir de la legalización. Sin embargo, sí ha Emisiones de autos y fracking han perjudicado la calidad aumentado el uso de cigarrillos electrónicos (vaping). El uso del aire y causado niveles altos de ozono. Denver Water y el de opioides por parte de los adolescentes sigue siendo un Condado de Boulder mantienen una disputa sobre la expansión problema. Hay más del doble de estudiantes hospitalizados por del Reservorio Gross. El Taladro de Emerald Ash amenaza a autolesiones e intentos de suicidio que por lesiones padecidas nuestro bosque urbano. Los pesticidas neónicos, reducciones en accidentes de tránsito. Los estudiantes LGBQ siguen siendo en la calidad de agua, y la pérdida de hábitat han reducido la más propensos al abuso de sustancias, a herirse a sí mismos o población de insectos polinizadores. Y la calidad de la tierra a intentar suicidio que los adolescentes heterosexuales. destinada a la agricultura en Espacio Abierto ha sufrido por pastoreo excesivo y un extraordinario aumento en la población Las prisiones locales continúan alojando prisioneros que de perros de las praderas (prairie dogs). necesitan tratamiento mental. Los votantes del Condado de Boulder recientemente aprobaron un propuesta electoral La respuesta de la ciudad de Boulder ha sido establecer para ayudar a abordar estas necesidades. Al parecer, en estándares de cantidades básicas de insectos polinizadores todo el Condado se está aumentado la concientización, a la y acuáticos, calidad de tierra con potencial de mejoramiento, vez que se están reduciendo los estigmas con respecto a la y esfuerzos para mantener un constante nivel de cubierta

8 Community Foundation Boulder County | commfound.org/TRENDS arbórea. A nivel estatal, el gobernador Jared Polis ha priorizado Foto del por cortesía Daily Camera el mejoramiento de la calidad del aire, posibilitando más control local sobre las operaciones de petróleo y gas, mejorando el transporte, e incentivando aumentos en vehículos eléctricos.

Debemos pensar a nivel global pero actuar a nivel local para conservar nuestros recursos vitales en atención a las necesidades de agua, energía, y transporte de nuestra región. Anjélica Medina Vigil pinta caras en los eventos del Día Nuestro Arte y Cultura de los Muertos en el Museo de Longmont.

Las organizaciones de las artes del Condado de Boulder están intentando diversificar nuestra vibrante comunidad artística. En años recientes, los festivales públicos de las artes han crecido concientización de las necesidades de nuestra comunidad. en Boulder, Longmont, Louisville, y Laffayette. Además, el El Censo del 2020 nos ofrece una oportunidad para conocernos condado ha incentivado el arte público. un poco mejor. Mucho depende de una suma completa y El Distrito de Instalaciones Científicas y Culturales ha precisa, incluyendo este reportaje, el cual depende del Censo establecido cambios en sus propias operaciones para aumentar para la mayoría de sus datos. diversidad, inclusión y equidad, y servir como modelo para las Vivimos en una comunidad que se enorgullece de ser inclusiva organizaciones de arte que financia. y acogedora. Debemos hacer más para que las acciones de El Condado de Boulder tiene la suerte de tener una de las nuestra comunidad correspondan a sus palabras. escenas artísticas más prósperas de los Estados Unidos. Todos debemos trabajar para asegurar que sea accesible y vigente Nuestro Llamado a la Acción para todo tipo de audiencias. ¿Quién merece vivir aquí? ¿Qué es lo que está limitando a nuestros estudiantes, mientras otros son exitosos? ¿Cuál es Nuestra Participación y Aporte Cívico la mejor manera de establecer un medioambiente saludable? Según la encuesta de participación cívica y aporte ¿Quién no participa en nuestro escenario artístico dinámico? de la Fundación para la Comunidad no estamos muy abiertos ¿Cómo podemos asegurar que todos se sientan comprendidos, a las minorías, inmigrantes y refugiados, y tampoco somos muy seguros y apreciados? tolerantes de los ciudadanos mayores. El priorizar la equidad Todos podemos tomar pasos que ayudan a resolver estas en su trabajo es uno de varios puntos de referencia que guían complejas preguntas. Sin embargo, las necesidades más a todo tipo de instituciones, incluyendo a la Fundación para urgentes de nuestra comunidad son demasiado grandes para la Comunidad. una sola persona. La Fundación para la Comunidad le invita ¿Esta intención realmente nos está guiando hacia una a ser parte de esta gran conversación y leer este reportaje comunidad más inclusiva con resultados más equitativos para y escuchar nuestro nuevo podcast TRENDS en KGNU y en los más vulnerables y marginalizados? Según una medida, la otros medios. respuesta es; no. Nuestros aportes caritativos son mucho más Cuando su imaginación haya sido movida para tomar acción, bajos que el promedio nacional. Según nuestra encuesta, esto júntese a la manifestación dirigida hacia un Condado de está determinado, parcialmente, por el hecho de que residentes Boulder más equitativo. Únase a sus vecinos vulnerables y no están conscientes de las necesidades que los rodean, y marginalizados. Involúcrese con ellos y otros para crear una tampoco sobre los esfuerzos que hacen las organizaciones sin comunidad más conectada e inclusiva. fines de lucro para abordar estas necesidades. Descubra. Conéctese. Involúcrese. Juntos, podemos encontrar Más y más, la Fundación para la Comunidad está identificando el camino. un tema común emergente cuando escucha a miembros de nuestra comunidad. La gente se siente desconectada. Aislada. Con el deseo de tener relaciones que posiblemente aumenten la

TRENDS Report 2017–2019 | Resumen Ejecutivo 9

Who Are We? Housing prices drive demographics

Nikki Larsen made a good life for herself during the decade she lived in Boulder. She and her husband were active and engaged citizens. They stumped for city council candidates, served on boards and commissions, donated time and money to local nonprofits and helped with the cleanup efforts after the 2013 floods.

The pair are the type of involved residents who make a community a better place. Boulder’s loss: They had to move because of housing costs. Thanks to a stable long- term rental, Larsen and her husband had been able to stay in Boulder even as friend after friend moved to the L towns in search of more affordable living situations. The two-salary couple considered buying in Boulder. With two salaries and modest needs, it didn’t seem impossible.

“All we wanted was, like, 1,000 square feet and a one-car garage” for outdoor gear, Larsen said.

They put in a couple of offers on homes, to no avail. Then came the news that many Boulder renters fear: Their landlords were selling the house the couple was renting, Photo by Julia Vandenoever Stories by Shay Castle drawn to the promise of massive returns in a super- heated housing market. They had to move. Nikki and Noah Larsen play with their dog, Lola, at their home in Wheat Ridge. The Their story illustrates how much housing prices determine couple loved living in Boulder, but had to move because of housing costs. who lives in Boulder County. Who Are We?

Boulder and Louisville, home of Boulder County’s highest housing stable, affordable housing, especially those who bought homes costs, actually lost residents in 2018, while the rest of the Front before the astronomical rise in prices, are able to enjoy all the Range continued to boom. advantages that staying in place entails. Those without, struggle. More than half of Boulder County renters spent more than a third Yet the story of housing and demographics can’t be reduced to of their income on housing in 2017, according to census data. a narrative of the rich moving in and the poor moving out. Most income groups haven’t changed their share of the population Groups not traditionally involved in housing are calling for in recent years, according to census data, except for the very solutions. Boulder’s Arts Commission has prioritized affordable wealthy. Those earning $150,000 or more have gained ground housing for artists. Business owners say the crisis keeps since 2013, while the proportion of lower income groups have them from being able to hire and retain employees. Disability remained more or less the same. advocates are fighting for their share of the limited available, affordable units. The city’s Human Relations Commission warns “It takes capital to move,” said Julie Van Domelen, executive that housing pressures affect diversity and inclusivity. director of Emergency Family Assistance Association. How a community approaches housing is really the question of Those of more means are more likely to remain in the same “who it wants to live there,” Larsen said. In the end, it came down house year-over-year, while lower-income residents move about to a question of wealth rather than what she could contribute. “I more frequently within the county and state. (The presence of feel like we were model citizens.” highly transient university students skews the data somewhat.) She and her husband moved to Denver. A 20-year-old from The county’s housing crisis creates a system of haves and have- Brooklyn bought the house they had been renting. nots, in which the have is housing, more than income. Those with

BOULDER COUNTY CITIES AT-A-GLANCE, 2017 Boulder Longmont Lafayette Colorado U.S. Population 107,128 94,145 27,440 5,607,154 325,719,178 Median Age 27 38 39 37 38 Latino 10% 24% 15% 22% 18% Speaks a language other than English at home 14% 23% 17% 17% 22% Median home value, owner-occupied homes $919,525 $440,000 $598,500 $286,100 $193,500 Lived in the same house one year ago 61% 81% 85% 79% 8% Lived in another county one year ago 8% 4% 9% 5% 3% Foreign Born 11% 12% 10% 10% 13% Births per 1,000 women aged 15-50 past 12 mo. 21 54 54 53 52 Population with a disability 6% 9% 10% 11% 13% Population under 18 with a disability 4% 7% 8% 6% 6% Population 65 and over with a disability 69% 57% 63% 71% 74% Population over the age of 3 enrolled in school 45% 28% 25% 26% 26% High School Graduate (25+) 98% 91% 95% 92% 88% Bachelor's Degree or Higher (25+) 78% 44% 56% 41% 32% Living Below Poverty •Families 7% 9% 5% 7% 10% •Families with related kids under 18 7% 17% 9% 10% 15% •Individuals* 23% 13% 8% 10% 13% •Children 9% 22% 12% 12% 18% •65 + 7% 10% 5% 8% 9% *Includes students Source: American Community Survey 2017 1-year data, with 5-year data for Lafayette; Median home value is for all owner-occupied homes based on data from the Boulder Area Realtors Association.

12 Community Foundation Boulder County | commfound.org/TRENDS Malik Salsberry works in the garden at the Ingram Co-Op in Boulder. Renting a space for $800 a month allows him to stay in Boulder — for now.

Photo by Julia Vandenoever If you’re from another state, you might be a Coloradan

Despite the frequency with which “Native” T-shirts and bumper PLACE OF BIRTH, BOULDER COUNTY, 2017 stickers can be spotted around town — and passing over the fact that the real natives of this land are indigenous peoples — fewer than half of Boulder County residents are from anywhere near here.

A full 55% of the population in 2017 was born in another state. Less than a third were born in Colorado — numbers not much changed from a decade ago.

The truth is, transplants make up much of our fair towns, transplants like Malik Salsberry, who moved here in November 2018 as part of the Americorps program. Salsberry works at Boulder Food Rescue, helping to tackle the area’s food insecurity. Source: American Community Survey, 2017 5-year data As with many recent arrivals, how long Salsberry plans to remain in Boulder will be determined by his housing situation. Right now, he’s a resident of Ingram Co-Op, which affords him Such turnover is common. In any given year over the past rent, food and other common household items (bought in bulk) decade, 11-13% of Boulder County’s population moved from for $800 a month, roughly two-thirds of his monthly salary another county, state or country. The same proportion move through Americorps. within Boulder County, according to Census data.

It’s not a sustainable solution, long-term, if Salsberry wants to “Co-housing is one of the few reasons I can live here,” Salsberry have a family or pursue his dream of a small farm. He plans to said. “If you want people who really want to do good, you have “stay for a few years” and then return to his native Iowa. to recognize that the good work goes unpaid or underpaid.”

TRENDS Report 2019–2021 | Who Are We? 13 Who Are We?

Ray Meyers holds a thank you letter from a Casey Middle School student who heard him speak about his time in Vietnam. The talk motivated her to talk to her grandfather about his experiences in the Korean War, which the student said brought them closer. “... Thank you Mr. Meyers for coming to our classroom and changing my life,” she wrote.

Photo by Julia Vandenoever

Community makes a big difference for county’s veterans

It took Ray Meyers 35 years to talk about it. the communities we live in,” Meyers said. “Community makes a big difference, and communalizing trauma helps everyone get out The Vietnam War veteran narrowly survived the Battle of Khe of their safety zones toward better understanding and healing.” Sanh while serving as a radio operator with Delta Company, 1st Battalion, 26th Marines. Meyers is one of nearly 14,000 veterans living in Boulder County. Put another way, about one in 23 of our neighbors Decorated twice for heroism, Meyers came home to suffer served in the military. through problems with the law, alcoholism and drugs. When ordered into treatment by Boulder County Judge David Karen Townsend has spent her entire career supporting many Archuleta in 2001, he went to the Veterans Center where he of them as a Veterans Service Officer. After 37 years — and learned about PTSD. counting — working with veterans, she has formed a deep bond, working to serve them as they served their country. A few years later, he spoke to a group of 8th graders at Casey Often, in the middle of the night, she wakes, wondering if Middle School. One of the students was so inspired by his she’s asked them the right questions to connect them with the story that it moved her to speak more openly and directly with benefits they deserve. her grandfather, who had served in Korea. “I just want to do them justice,” she said. “They are a unique That meant a lot to Meyers. population and deserve everything they can get, so I don’t want to miss anything.” “Allowing vets to tell their stories is restorative for both vets and

14 Community Foundation Boulder County | commfound.org/TRENDS 13,734 Many of them, like Meyers, served in Vietnam. Some are in Number of veterans living in Boulder County need of home care and assisted living. Others are moving out of the county due to high housing prices. The younger vets have always been difficult to reach. They tend not to seek help $34 million until they get old enough to feel the things that affect them, Amount paid in compensation and pensions Townsend said. to Boulder County veterans

In 2007, Meyers and others started Veterans Helping Veterans Now. Today, the work continues through Community $22 million Foundation Boulder County’s Veterans Fund. amount spent on medical care for Boulder County veterans

“Once you’ve been through the combat experience, you think that nothing can hurt you,” Meyers said. “But you’ve been hurt 2,509 badly. It’s OK to admit that.” unique Boulder County patients receiving treatment at a VA health care facility.

Source: U.S. Dept. of Veteran’s Affairs, 2018 Report

YOUR COMMUNITY FOUNDATION – MAKING A DIFFERENCE Leadership Fellows keep an eye on equity

Anticipating and responding to shifting demographics and together some 35 participants from across sectors every year, increasing cultural diversity in our community, Leadership Fellows building networks and advancing inclusivity countywide. To date, Boulder County – a joint leadership development and networking within six months of graduation, 81 percent of Leadership Fellows program of the Community Foundation and the Boulder Chamber alumni reported joining a nonprofit board; 26 percent reported — offers emerging leaders a broad-based overview of Boulder joining a government board or commission; and 13 percent County’s economic, civic, and cultural drivers. reported working on a local campaign for a candidate or issue. Another 32 percent of participants reported career promotions “I really appreciate how Leadership Fellows pushes us to consider within a year of completing the program. issues around inclusion, diversity and equity when we talk about leadership in Boulder County,” said Magnolia Landa-Posas, Learn more at commfound.org/our-impact/programs-initiatives/ among the program’s most recent alumni. leadershipfellows

Added alumna Lisa White, “One of the topics we explored was the — Sabine Kortals Stein

idea of privilege, and how we can better use our privilege to make Photo courtesy Magnolia Landa-Posas a positive impact. In part, that means closing the gap between the business and nonprofit communities, and helping lift people out of poverty by connecting them to job opportunities.”

Monthly curriculum topics include, among others, Boulder County economics, Local Government 101, inclusive leadership, planning and development, critical human needs, health, education, the arts and culture, and selling your vision. Roundtable discussions explore a range of timely issues, from affordable housing to immigration and criminal justice.

Representing the foundation’s long-standing commitment to Magnolia Landa-Posas, Leadership Fellows Class of 2019 leadership development right here at home, the program brings

TRENDS Report 2019–2021 | Who Are We? 15 Who Are We?

The friendship between Bernard and Doyle is not unusual. Rather, close connections are a common outcome of the class, said Jack Williamson, who created the course.

“I have story after story of wonderful things that have happened” between community members and college students, Williamson said. “We get twice as many applicants as we can accept.”

As Boulder County’s population ages, social isolation is a growing concern, said Deb Skovron, an advocate for seniors. In the 2018 survey by the Boulder County Area Agency on Aging, 31% of older adults reported feeling lonely or isolated.

“Just because we put older people in congregate settings, it doesn’t mean people are connecting and really feeling fulfilled socially,” Skovron said. “We make an assumption that people find other people, but that doesn’t necessarily happen.”

Skovron is founder of Circle Talk, a program that fosters Mary Doyle, right, and Carleigh Bernard hit it off immediately meaningful conversations among seniors to combat loneliness. when they met in an intergenerational writing class at the The groups focus on thought-provoking and personal questions University of Colorado. They talked for seven hours then and are (Who are you most grateful for in your life? Who would be now good friends. grateful to you, and for what?) that, like the CU writing course, bring people closer. Photo by Julia Vandenoever

“What we’re about is getting people to engage with themselves and with each other in a deeper way,” Skovron said. “Our sole Fostering connection for those goal is connection.”

who feel alone CU’s intergenerational writing class is one of many efforts the university is making to help students adjust to college. Sixty- When it was time for Mary Doyle to downsize, she had to leave four percent of college students reported feeling very lonely the Boulder neighborhood she’d called home for 30 years, in the past year, according to a 2017 survey by the American friends she’d known for decades, stores she’d shopped at. College Health Association. The scope of the problem at The move to Longmont left her lonelier than she expected, so CU isn’t clear; in a campus survey, 84 percent of students back to Boulder she went: Not to live, but to participate in an reported making friends. Still, the university maintains a intergenerational writing course at the University of Colorado. webpage directing lonely students to services. And the college The class pairs college students with older community has dedicated more resources to mental health, doubling fees members (62 and up) to explore a variety of topics; the most dedicated to providing care as demand rose 40% between recent being a rumination on the American Dream. 2013 and 2018.

The class is designed for two groups who are at risk for social “College can be such an isolating place, such an isolating time,” isolation: older people who have lost loved ones or moved said Bernard, who works with underclassmen to help them from their homes, and college students who sometimes have stay connected. trouble connecting with other students. Being able to give Bernard advice on dating, relationships When Doyle met her writing partner, Carleigh Bernard, for the and other life experiences helped Doyle transition to living first time, the two women talked for seven hours. Today, they in Longmont. It eased the fear she and other seniors report: consider themselves good friends. being a burden on society.

“This is so much more than a class,” Bernard said. “This “I just totally adore this young lady,” Doyle said. “Right now, I relationship has been so powerful for me.” feel about 30 years old.”

16 Community Foundation Boulder County | commfound.org/TRENDS Disabled seniors may feel Photo by Michelle Maloy Dillon overlooked in fitness-obsessed Boulder County

Boulder County has a reputation as a great place to age well, with people in their 70s, even 80s, crossing the finish line at the BolderBoulder, cycling local trails or walking the track at rec centers across the county. Circle of Care works to end social isolation in Boulder County through the arts, culture and intergenerational Less visible are the 60% of the 65-plus population with a mental community engagement. or physical disability, according to U.S. Census figures. That compares with 7.8% in the county’s population as a whole.

“They lose their vision or hearing, they lose their mobility,” said That’s particularly important, said Chris Dirosa, a program Chris O’Brien, director of development and communications for manager with CPWD, because embarrassment keeps people the Center for People With Disabilities in Boulder. from seeking support and services that they are entitled to.

Yet, they may be slow to claim their disability, he said. “There’s sometimes this mentality that not all disabilities are viewed equally,” Dirosa said. “Obviously there are varying needs, “In our ever-young culture, they don’t necessarily want to identify but disabilities are disabilities. We work hard to make sure people as people with disabilities. Part of our job and mission is to dispel receive the same amount of support.” the stigma.”

BOULDER COUNTY POPULATION FORECAST BY AGE 0 to 5 6 to 14 15 to 24 25 to 44 45 to 64 65 to 90+

120,000

110,000

100,000

90,000

80,000

70,000

60,000

50,000

40,000

30,000

20,000

10,000

0 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 Source: Colorado State Demographer’s Office Population Forecast

TRENDS Report 2019–2021 | Who Are We? 17 WhoOur Economy Are We? & Housing

The lowrider car show is a perennial hit at Cinco de Mayo in Longmont.

Photo by Julia Vandenoever

County’s diversity increasing

“Boulder County’s so white.” It’s a common narrative, often uttered Boulder County is home to many pockets of diversity, from its in criticizing the lack of diversity in the area. It has a ring of truth well-known Nepalese community, to thriving contingents of to it: 78% of Boulder County residents are non-Hispanic white, Brazilians, West Africans, and Hmong people. more than Colorado (69%) and the U.S. (62%). While it’s fair to criticize Boulder County for being a less diverse But diversity has been increasing over time in Boulder County. place overall, clinging to the refrain of “Boulder County’s so white” The Latinx population has doubled as a percentage of total renders the people of color invisible, said Guillermo Estrada- population since 1990, from 7% then to 14% in 2017, while the Rivera, Cultural Brokers Resilience Program Coordinator for the Anglo majority shrunk from 90% to 78% over that time. The Asian Boulder County Office of Resilience and Recovery. population has grown, too, from 2% to 5% in those 17 years. “We need to break that narrative,” he said.

BOULDER COUNTY POPULATION BY RACE/ETHNICITY Boulder County Colorado U.S. 1990 2000 2017 2017 2017 White Non-Hispanic 90% 84% 78% 68% 61% Latino — Any race 7% 11% 14% 22% 18% Asian 2%3%5%4%6% Two or more races 3% 2% 3% 3% 3% Some other race 5% 2% 0.2% 0% Black or African American 1% 1% 1% 5% 13% American Indian and Alaska Native 0.6% 0.6% 0.3% 2% 1% Source: American Community Survey, 2017 1-year data

18 Community Foundation Boulder County | commfound.org/TRENDS 55% Colorado residents born in Colorado 80% Latinx Coloradans born in Colorado Source: Latino Leadership Institute

They lived on the east side of town “where the Latinos were allowed,” said Mares, a third generation Longmont resident. The homes of her grandmother and uncle still stand.

Such stories are typical for Latinx residents, whose Colorado and Boulder County roots go deep. Eighty percent of Latinx JL Mares stands on the railroad tracks dividing west Coloradans were born in the state, according to the Latino and east Longmont. His family has lived in Longmont for Leadership Institute, versus 55% for the population as a whole. five generations. Originally, they lived on the east side Though the role of Hispanic, Chicano, Mestizo and Latinx people of town, “where Latinos were allowed,” said his mother, in the area’s history has become more acknowledged in recent Josie Mares. years, a great deal of hate continues to be directed at people of

Photo by Julia Vandenoever non-Anglo heritage.

“You hear a lot of, ‘Go back where you came from,’” Mares’son, Latinx roots reach back J.L. Mares, said. centuries in Colorado As the population booms, some residents express a longing for the “good old days,” J.L. Mares said. Latinx people are often left Josie Mares’ family has lived in Longmont for five generations. out of the narrative of what such a place would look like, he feels.

Her father, Cayetano Martinez, was run out of town — twice — by “Despite the fact that my family has been here for multiple the Ku Klux Klan, which in the early 1900s had a stronghold in generations, it seemingly has little significance to those who Boulder County. But he came back both times, and today his control the narrative. We have a voice and are capable of family is still going strong in Longmont. representing and communicating our own narrative.”

WHAT CAN I DO? If you’ve got extra room in your house or own multiple properties, consider renting the space out at an affordable Educate yourself about the history of native and Hispanic rate. You can partner with organizations such as Bridge House peoples in the Boulder County area. The Boulder County or the Center for People With Disabilities to provide housing Latino History Project is a great place to start, as is the to the formerly homeless or young adults with developmental interactive exhibit on native peoples at the Boulder Museum. disabilities. Nonprofits and small businesses are similarly in need of affordable housing for their workforces. Get to know your neighbors by hosting or participating in community events or simply knocking on their door and Consider donating to Emergency Family Assistance introducing yourself. Residents, young and old, are feeling Association. Their programs help keep families with kids in the effects of social isolation. A little friendly interaction can their homes, and helps connect families with resources and go a long way toward reminding them they are not alone. parents with training programs and better jobs.

TRENDS Report 2019–2021 | Who Are We? 19

Our Education Student outcomes improving amidst equity efforts

Boulder County residents are highly educated overall. But the pursuit of strong education outcomes for all students has for decades been met with mixed results, with students from white, non-Hispanic and more educated households consistently faring better than their peers.

Much of the struggle comes from forces outside the schoolyard. Not every child gets the same start in life. About one in four children in Boulder County come from low-income families. And Latino and single, female- headed families with children are about four times more likely to live in poverty than white, non-Hispanic families with children.

Lately, however, there seems reason for hope as public education leans into its role as society’s best shot at leveling the playing field. A raft of systems-level efforts in St. Vrain Valley Schools over the past decade has started to translate into better outcomes. A renewed focus on

Photo by Julia Vandenoever educational equity by a new superintendent in Boulder

Stories by Chris Barge Valley has some advocates expressing cautious optimism. And a new commitment by the state to fund full-day This Nederland preschooler is looking kindergarten has early learning advocates cheering and forward to full-day kindergarten across Colorado, starting fall 2019. hoping it leads to improved quality and access to preschool. Our Education

The move to full-day, free kindergarten READING PROFICIENCY ACROSS GRADES 3-10, 2018 ushered in big changes in Boulder Valley The children represent the percentage of students in each group reading proficiently.* School District, where only eight of the district’s 35 elementary schools had Free and Reduced Non-Free and Reduced offered full-day kindergarten. In St. Vrain Lunch Students Lunch Students Valley, which for a decade has funded full-day kindergarten on a sliding scale, kindergarten became free for all families.

The extra kindergarten support will Boulder Valley have a positive cascading effect on | |||||||||| |||||||||| |||||||||| |||||||||| |||||||||| |||||||||| ||||||||| | |||||||||| |||||||||| |||||||||| Schools state and district budgets, making more 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 funding available for preschool. And Gov. Jared Polis has stated that with kindergarten fully funded, his sights are now focused on improving the quality of preschool opportunities for the state’s St. Vrain Valley youngest residents. | |||||||||| |||||||||| |||||||||| |||||||||| |||||||||| |||||||||| |||||||||| |||||||||| |||||||||| |||||||||| Schools 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Higher grade levels are also seeing changes that include minority outreach.

St. Vrain Valley Schools has partnered with community colleges and more than

100 companies to ensure more students Colorado | |||||||||| |||||||||| |||||||||| |||||||||| |||||||||| ||||||||| | |||||||||| |||||||||| |||||||||| |||||||||| graduate with the hard skills necessary Schools to compete in our rapidly changing, 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 technology-driven industries. The efforts are starting to result in higher graduation *SVVSD conducts all assessments in English. BVSD assesses some native Spanish speakers in Spanish. Not all students are represented due to less than full participation in standardized tests. rates, higher college completion rates Source: Colorado Department of Education after high school, higher enrollment in Advanced Placement classes and more been a part of in other districts where he’s worked. concurrent enrollment of students in college coursework while in high school. Despite the improvements, concerns persist. Hundreds of Latino St. Vrain Valley students have left the district in recent years, many of them moving with their families In Boulder Valley Schools, high school back to Mexico. And a recent dip in third-grade reading scores has caused the district graduation rates and college completion to add new summer programming targeting struggling second- and third-graders. rates have also increased significantly in recent years, especially for Latino In higher education. community college leaders are developing a plan to reduce equity students. Still, much work remains. gaps. Front Range Community College in Longmont is making facility improvements, pursuing a new “guided pathways” initiative and is working closely with St. Vrain Boulder Valley Schools’ new Valley Schools to offer more and more concurrent enrollment opportunities for high superintendent says the community school students. Student diversity at The University of Colorado Boulder has increased is ready to narrow the wide disparities significantly over the past decade thanks to multiple efforts to personalize and that still exist between minority and customize the learning experience for students from under-represented backgrounds. low-income students and their peers. The district has restructured to support The county’s local teachers continue to be mostly white females, making it harder for schools in three geographic regions — a students with different backgrounds to find mentors who understand their struggles structure adopted a decade ago by St. and experiences. The quality of an education depends as much on the connections Vrain and an approach that Boulder forged between students and their teachers, parents and other mentors, as it does on Valley Superintendent Rob Anderson has other factors.

22 Community Foundation Boulder County | commfound.org/TRENDS To me, kindergarten is not an optional item.” – Gov. Jared Polis

Gov. Jared Polis is congratulated by Gina Nocera, former Executive Director of the Jared Polis Foundation, at an event celebrating passage of full-day kindergarten funding, at the St. Julien Hotel in Boulder.

Photo by Julia Vandenoever

Polis funds full-day kindergarten, aims for improved outcomes

Colorado’s governor, Jared Polis, made free, full-day “It’s good for every kid — not just kids in the gap,” said Robbyn kindergarten for all a top priority when he was elected in 2018. Fernandez, BVSD Assistant Superintendent of School Leadership. It was funded by the end of his first legislative session. “But it’s a social justice thing for kids in the gap, because there are kids at every school who are below grade level.” Colorado’s governor, Jared Polis, made free, full-day kindergarten for all a top priority when he was elected in 2018. The move brings Colorado in line with 30 other states that “We built it into our budget from the start. To me, kindergarten offer full-day kindergarten. Educators believe the extra time is not an optional item.” in the classroom will help students, especially those who currently enter first grade already behind. The free tuition will Starting in the 2019-2020 school year, Colorado school save parents who had paid up to $400 a month for schools to districts had the funding should they choose to provide full-day care for their kids beyond the half-day. kindergarten. The Boulder Valley and St. Vrain school districts did so, along with just about every other school district in The extra kindergarten support will have a positive cascading the state. effect on state and district budgets, making more funding available for preschool. Next on Gov. Polis’ agenda is helping St. Vrain Valley schools have been stretching their budget to to ensure universal, high-quality preschool across the state. fund full-day kindergarten, on a sliding scale, at each of their elementary schools for more than a decade. The state support “All roads to quality early childhood education start with full-day provides the district with approximately $1.7 million in funding kindergarten,” Polis said. the district would not otherwise see. St. Vrain is using the funding to hire more paraprofessionals, keep class sizes small and increase preschool slots, in addition to making kindergarten Percentage of Kindergarteners in a Full-Day Program free for all families, said Superintendent Don Haddad. 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 Boulder Valley parents and students saw the most visible BVSD 16% 23% 28% 28% 34% changes in the county, since full-day kindergarten previously SVVSD 62% 62% 67% 72% 74% was available only at the district’s eight Title 1 schools. Now Colorado 64% 70% 74% 77% 79% the full-day program is found at all 35 elementaries. Source: Annie E. Casey Foundation, Kids Count Data Center

TRENDS Report 2019–2021 | Our Education 23 Our Education

Emily Sánchez graduated at age 17 from Longmont High School and was headed to Harvard University on multiple prestigious scholarships.

Photo by Julia Vandenoever

Standout student’s goal: more representation and access

Every summer growing up, Emily Sánchez crammed into for the community that raised her. a car with her parents and three siblings to visit their beloved Southwest desert. On their long road trips from ‘I came to understand there’s systematic faults and inequities Longmont, her dad vividly described living with his Native that exist in the education system that don’t support students Apache great-grandparents while his mother was in jail or as much as they could,” she said. when he was homeless. Emily’s insight into the needs of her community began when, Her mother spoke of walking across the hot desert sand, as a 12-year-old eighth-grader, she was enrolled in an 11th- escaping violence and poverty in her rural Mexican hometown grade math class. Suddenly, everyone was white, in contrast to after her father was brutally murdered. the very diverse, working-class neighborhood elementary and middle schools she attended. The whole school felt segregated. “But besides the disenfranchisement, poverty and premature deaths in my family, my parents always share the history of She sees a need for more family engagement nights with resilience and bravery,” Emily wrote in an essay for a college interpreters, so schools can reach out to Latino families scholarship. “The experiences of those that have walked before “It’s basically representation and access,” she said. me propels me forward. Regardless of the challenges I face, I know my veins are filled with the blood of resilient people that Emily allows that she’s more assimilated than other Latino have withstood throughout time.” students. Her parents exposed her to wonderful, enriching experiences. Even though they didn’t have much money, they Emily graduated from Longmont High School in 2019 at age 17 took their kids to the free family days at the museum and the and was headed to Harvard in the fall on multiple prestigious zoo. They toured Hindu and Buddhist temples in Houston. They scholarships. Her future is beyond bright, and her focus is on took a road trip to a Jazz Festival in Atlanta. They tried the food others. She is determined to help find equity for her people and in East St. Louis and New Orleans.

24 Community Foundation Boulder County | commfound.org/TRENDS “I always try to have my kids be proud of their cultural identity,” said her father, Israel Sánchez. “So they can embrace other people, so they can understand the personal value in that YOUR COMMUNITY FOUNDATION – self-discovery. Because it’s all about differences. It’s about us MAKING A DIFFERENCE accepting and understanding our differences.”

Emily has participated in prestigious summer programs at Partnering for Stanford, the University of Chicago and the University of Colorado Boulder. She has met children of the rich and famous, who walk educational equity around with four bodyguards. She’s met students from China. Two Boulder County children enter kindergarten. One has well- She had a roommate from Brazil. Another roommate was Muslim. educated parents and a family with an income that is middle She wrote a poem during a summer program at CU that class or higher. The other has parents with less schooling and a reflected her unfolding understanding of her cultural identity lower income. Odds are, their futures look different. and her observations as “the only brown kid in a sea of white.” It What does the Community Foundation mean by educational ended this way: equity? We strive for the day when it’s no longer possible to I yearn for Chipe Totec predict students’ success by where they live, their family’s Transformation. income or their race or ethnicity. To hire more teachers that look like me Your Community Foundation has catalyzed partnerships Because you can’t teach what you don’t know to support educational equity with dozens of nonprofits, And white man, now I want you to see government agencies, and business and faith leaders. Together, It’s the system that’s broken not the people we mobilize resources and ignite action to ensure a better One of her undocumented friends was frustrated that her Anglo future for all Boulder County kids. high school counselor had no experience with immigration The foundation’s School Readiness Initiative (SRI) has developed, issues. She needed more specialized help than her counselor launched, incubated and spun off ELPASO – Engaged Latino could give her. The political climate scared her. She went to one Parents Advancing Student Outcomes – a movement designed of very few teachers with a Latino background. He understood to build the Latino parent voice for improved early learning her and was able to give helpful advice. outcomes. Additionally, SRI has helped double preschool and We need teachers with more cultural awareness, Emily said. full-day kindergarten in Boulder County and secure more than One of her mentors, Marjorie McIntosh, has developed a $37 million in annual public funding to our schools. SRI has also curriculum that helps teachers incorporate Latino history into facilitated collaborative efforts to improve educational outcomes, their lessons. “It helps with empathy and understanding all such as BVSD’s Success Effect, Dream Big and The Raising of the way around,” said Emily, who added she’d also love to see America Partnership in Boulder County. Chicano studies, ethnic studies and sociology offered in Consistent with its longstanding commitment to education, your high school. Community Foundation actively endorsed legislation to fund She was a little scared but mostly excited to enroll at Harvard, full-day kindergarten and ban the practice of public schools where she planned to pursue a pre-med course of study and charging tuition. The Colorado General Assembly passed the also a major in government and policy with a focus on education, bipartisan measure in 2019. global health care and immigration. To date, the Community Foundation has supported eight ballot “As the product of a mix of Mexico, the United States and pre- initiatives related to protecting or increasing funding for public Columbian America, I am proud to say that I am Emily Sánchez, education. We will continue to work toward a day in which all an inquisitive intellectual, a passionate activist, a warrior for children starting kindergarten have a real chance of success. social justice, a revolutionary storyteller,” she wrote in her Learn more at commfound.org/our-impact/programs-initiatives/ essay’s conclusion. “I am the 21st Century representation of the school-readiness strength, determination, and greatness of my people.” — Sabine Kortals Stein

TRENDS Report 2019–2021 | Our Education 25 Our Education

Marta Loachamin greets Boulder Community Health Foundation President Grant Besser (left) and Intercambio Executive Director Lee Shainis at an event reporting the findings of a Community Foundation project she helped lead on the importance of Latino bilingual cultural brokers.

Photo by Julia Vandenoever

Leadership struggling to match county’s growing diversity

Marta Loachamin’s curiosity was sparked by her own county’s population identifies as a person of color. experience as a mother from Ecuador raising kids to speak Spanish at home. When they entered school, she experienced a “When we see people that look like us in positions of authority, system that wasn’t well equipped to teach them English or offer who are part of systems, who are part of leadership, there’s a them a bilingual education. higher possibility that we are going to see ourselves there,” said Loachamin, who was running for Boulder County Commissioner Though she is fully fluent in English, her experience gave her at the time of this writing, in part to address this need. compassion for families who speak only Spanish and whose language and culture are not well-represented in Boulder Being able to culturally identify with the people you’re serving is County’s schools or other government institutions. also important.

The teaching populations in the county and across Colorado are After 2017, national cries grew stronger for banning Muslims, far more white than student populations. This ethnic and racial for dismantling the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals mismatch between a general population that is growing more program, for stepping up raids on families by Immigration diverse by the day and our leaders extends through just about and Customs Enforcement and for cracking down on families all our halls of power. Nine of 106 elected officials — or 8% — seeking sanctuary. were people of color in 2019. Meanwhile, about 25% of the “Teachers didn’t know how to support kids who were in tears

26 Community Foundation Boulder County | commfound.org/TRENDS about whether they’d be separated from their families,” of the PTeach program are bilingual Latinas. Loachamin said. The superintendents of Boulder County’s two school districts The language matters too. acknowledged that, regardless of what the actual ratios are, they are no doubt too low. They said their systems are working Loachamin worked with families at an elementary school in to increase diversity as well as cultural competency for all staff. Longmont that was attended predominantly by Latino students, many of whose parents spoke only Spanish. She brought “All kids deserve to have teachers in the building that can relate teachers and parents together to talk, through a translator. with their culture,” Boulder Valley School District Superintendent Rob Anderson said. “Kids who succeed oftentimes have Teachers were crying afterwards. Some said it was the someone who really helps them, who serves as that guide.” first time they’d ever been able to communicate with their students’ parents.

“It was an eye-opening experience,” she said. Diversity of Municipal Elected Officials Before he retired from working in the Boulder County Total Number Number of People of Color commissioners’ office in 2018, Pete Salas for many years Boulder 9 1 tracked the racial diversity of elected officials and more than Erie 7 0 800 volunteer members of the boards and commissions those Jamestown 6 0 officials appoint in the county and in 10 Boulder County cities and towns. It was a painstaking project that relied on his Lafayette 7 1 relationships with his counterparts in municipal governments Longmont 7 1 across the county. Louisville 7 1 Lyons 7 0 Aside from Boulder County, no other local government formally Nederland 7 0 tracks whether its appointed officials are people of color. Superior 7 1 “For me it’s about accountability,” Salas said. “Here’s a group of Ward 6 0 people that pays taxes, that needs to have a voice at the table. TOTAL 70 5 There needs to be accountability for how services are delivered Source: Community Foundation Boulder County analysis, in consultation with to this community.” local officials, summer 2019

While the school districts are required to report to the Colorado Diversity of Boulder County Elected Officials Department of Education the percentage of teachers and Total Number Number of People of Color students who are people of color, those teacher numbers Commissioners 3 0 in St. Vrain Valley School District are the human resources department’s best guess, because the district doesn’t require Clerk & Recorder 1 0 its employees to divulge their race or ethnicity. Dist. Attorney 1 0 Treasurer 1 0 At the administrative level, St. Vrain has hired significantly Assessor 1 0 higher numbers of people from diverse populations of late, Coroner 1 0 said Superintendent Don Haddad. “I do think it’s important to have strong representation from diverse populations,” he said, Surveyor 1 0 adding that such hiring provides role models for students and Sheriff 1 0 demonstrates an inclusive system. TOTAL 10 0 Source: Community Foundation Boulder County analysis, in consultation with St. Vrain is expanding its recruitment efforts to diversify its local officials, summer 2019 workforce, and has created a new Pathways to Teaching program designed in part to grow their own next generation of diverse teachers. In the 2018-2019 school year, the district also created a new position called Equity and Community Engagement Coordinator. That coordinator and the coordinator

TRENDS Report 2019–2021 | Our Education 27 Our Education

Student outcomes improve as St. Vrain reimagines public education

Leaders in St. Vrain Valley Schools have reimagined public education during the past 12 The district beefed up its co-curricular years, leading to promising student outcomes, prominent awards and national attention. programming and increased concurrent enrollment for high schoolers interested Today, in some ways, the district is almost unrecognizable compared with St. Vrain in college level coursework at Front in 2008, when Don Haddad became superintendent, and he and others set out to Range Community College. Recently, create, scale and sustain a system to meet all children’s needs. A basic premise drove the district developed a new Pathways the improvements: All children can learn and succeed, and will demonstrate that in a to Teaching (P-TEACH) program, which variety of ways. helps students explore careers in the teaching profession. The hard work is paying off in the form of student outcomes: District leaders also took time to Graduation rates are up across the board, including large gains for Latino students. reflect on the “supernova” happening Advanced Placement enrollment, especially among Latino students, has in technology. Twitter, Facebook, increased dramatically. smart phones, artificial intelligence, e-readers, and “the cloud” — all of these Expulsion rates are near zero. technologies and the new companies they enabled were taking off as the What accounts for the progress of the past 12 years? Haddad points to about a dozen power and speed of microchips exploded. key factors. Among them: hiring great teachers, making high-quality preschool and full- day kindergarten available and financially accessible for all, creating feeder systems “Everything was changing exponentially,” and aligning all curriculum, instructional practices and assessments to common Haddad said. standards. He highlights efforts to restructure the curriculum, moving students into higher-level coursework. The district seized the opportunity to focus on technology, wiring every building with high-speed internet and supplying each classroom with iPads and Chromebooks.

The district in 2015 launched the first PTECH program west of the Mississippi. Short for Pathways in Technology Early College High School, the program challenges students to simultaneously pursue a two-year associate’s degree in addition to their high school diploma. Although enrollment was open to all students at Skyline High School, the program targeted Latinos, females and low-income students. Its focus remains computer information systems. A second PTECH program will open at Frederick High School in fall 2019, focused on biomedicine.

“To break the cycle of poverty, we’re really High school students in St. Vrain Valley’s PTECH program are exposed to focused on career development and how on-the-job training during their internship at IBM. to get those kids ready for a middle- income career,” said Patty Quinones, Photo courtesy St. Vrain Valley Schools Assistant Superintendent of Innovation.

28 Community Foundation Boulder County | commfound.org/TRENDS “This is a great way to allow kids to get two years of college “St. Vrain and Apple and the Innovation Center are really education, free to them.” inclusive,” she said. “Providing this as a district will help get more women in the tech field, which will create more diversity.” Quinones helped launch the “Falcon Tech” program as principal of Skyline High School. Today she oversees programming at the Salvador “Sal” Quiroz graduated from Skyline High School in St. Vrain Innovation Center — a gleaming building of glass and the spring of 2019 with a job already lined up as a technician steel that opened in fall 2018 and quickly became the envy of at the Apple Store in Boulder. His technology-oriented education public education. “showed me the design process of thinking. It really changed the way I thought about school in a way. I really started seeing most “This is just an amazing building. It’s so useful as an educator school assignments as just problem solving.” to have these resources here,” said Chris Schmitz, a computer science teacher at Soaring Heights PK-8 in Erie who teaches a Sal plans to take classes for two years at Front Range class helping students become certified Apple technicians. Community College and then transfer to the University of Colorado Boulder. “I definitely grew as a person here and found Today, more than 100 students are employed by St. Vrain out what I wanted to do with the rest of my life,” he said. as student designers, specializing in robotics, creating presentations, building drones for aerial photography and data Plenty of work lies ahead as the district continues to scale its collection; and building apps and websites for companies. At the innovative practices. And while the overall trajectory for student Innovation Center, students host a KGNU radio program called outcomes has been very good, the district has identified various “Tech Talk,” run blogs, study business model development and potential areas they could address. One such area is third-grade take four-hour workshops to learn how to pitch their business reading proficiency, which slipped in 2019 after many years of ideas to investors. consistent, strong growth. In response, the district implemented “Project Launch,” a summer learning program targeting first- and “It’s really great real-world skills that look amazing on a college second-graders who are below grade-level. application and also tell companies, ‘Hey, I’ve done this before,’ and that makes them much stronger candidates in our work force,” Schmitz said. 2017-2018 ADVANCED PLACEMENT COURSE ENROLLMENT* Total Courses % by Latinos % by Anglos Schmitz’s daughter, Lex Schmitz, was helping her dad teach his BVSD 6925 9% (628 courses) 74% (5156 courses) class as one of the district’s 26 certified Apple technicians. “I’m pretty excited,” she said, adding that before her experiences SVVSD 3690 16% (600 courses) 77% (2826 courses) at the Innovation Center, she didn’t really want to go into Sources: SVVSD via Colorado Department of Education; BVSD *Use added caution in making comparisons as district provided data and state technology. Now she does. provided data use different inclusion criteria In addition to AP classes, SVVSD students are enrolled in approximately 1,500 other classes for college credit, according to Supt. Don Haddad.

PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS GRADUATING WITHIN FOUR YEARS OF STARTING HIGH SCHOOL

BVSD 2018 BVSD 2010SVVSD 2018 SVVSD 2010 Colorado 2018 Colorado 2010

100%

92% 93% 90% 90% 86% 86% 85% 80% 81% 81% 81% 78% 79% 79%

70% 73% 71% 67% 60%

50%

40% Total Graduation Latino Students Anglo Students Limited English Economically Disadvantaged Rates Proficiency Students Source: Colorado Department of Education Graduation requirements are set locally. Standards vary from district to district.

TRENDS Report 2019–2021 | Our Education 29 Our Education

Enihs Medrano speaks, with her parents looking on, at her high school graduation party. Enihs credits her success to support she received from outside the school system. Supt. Rob Anderson wants BVSD to more effectively engage and support all students to succeed.

Photo courtesy Enihs Medrano

BVSD restructures to focus on equity

The Boulder Valley School District, largely attended by white, attention, she said. She felt peer pressure not to do well in non-Hispanic students from middle- and upper-class families, school or take advanced classes with the white students. has long struggled to support low-income and minority students. Her turning point came during her sophomore year in high A new superintendent hired in 2018 intends to disrupt this school on a trip to meet her extended family in Mexico. Her older status quo, and has already taken steps to restructure the cousins were mostly well-educated professionals. Their family school system to provide more equitable opportunities. was proud of who they were becoming and of how dedicated they were to their work. “We just have to have the will to do this,” said Superintendent Rob Anderson. “We have to have that collective will as a That experience, along with the positive influence of a mentor community to push forward and do this.” outside the classroom, helped her push through the weight she felt all around her. Enihs started expecting more of herself and Enihs Medrano is a good example of the kind of student began pulling some of her Latino friends up with her. Anderson wants the system to more effectively engage and support. Enihs graduated from Centaurus High School in the She credits McKensie Heald, a leader with Young Life, for spring of 2019 and was heading to the University of Colorado affirming her talents and her strengths. Heald made her feel Boulder in the fall. She’s on a great trajectory now, thanks to known and cared for. She helped her understand what she was support she received from outside the system. capable of.

Enihs was smart, but had acted up and skipped class to get “In Enihs, I have observed astounding hope,” Heald said.

30 Community Foundation Boulder County | commfound.org/TRENDS Enihs holds fast to hope for personal growth, for her family’s This isn’t the first time BVSD has talked about improving well being, for increased opportunities for her classmates, for equitable outcomes for students. Anderson said the difference systemic change and for justice, Heald said. is that he’s an action-oriented person.

Once she decided to focus intently on her own academic “I’ve said it once, I’ll say it a thousand times: I’m students first,” success, Enihs started working to ensure more of her Latino Anderson said. “This school district will be students first and friends enrolled in advanced placement courses with her. it will be all students. And if there’s a subpopulation we’re not serving, then we’re not doing our job. Simple as that.” “I think changing the system is an outcome of building relationships with people,” she said. 2018 PERCENTAGE OF THIRD GRADERS MEETING Supt. Anderson agreed. He said that growing up poor himself OR EXCEEDING READING EXPECTATIONS* has helped him understand some of the issues students St. Vrain Valley School District face. He looks for teachers who know how to connect with Free and Reduced Lunch (FRL) their students. 21% Non-FRL 54% “We could go to any building today, and I could tell you by talking Latino to a few kids, who has that gift of relatability,” Anderson said. 20% “You could tell. They’re the ones the kids love. And they’re the Anglo 52% ones that can be tougher on the kids and hold them to a higher Total 42% standard than anyone else.” Boulder Valley School District Anderson spent much of his first year on the job visiting schools FRL 32% and listening to the community, keeping a close ear out to the Non-FRL 64% Latino community. “I hear issues. We have failed in many ways in earning their trust,” he said. “Not intentionally. It’s just the Latino 31% fact. And because of that, when outcomes occur — something Anglo 64% bad happens — it comes to me in a way where it’s just obvious Total 58% to me we have work to do. More work to do. And it’s important to me, to have our parents trust us with our kids, and trust we’re Colorado doing the right things.” FRL 24%

The right things include adopting a strategic plan, with metrics, Non-FRL 54% that holds the system accountable for outcomes, Anderson said. Latino 24% He wants to increase minority and low-income enrollment in AP Anglo 51% and other advanced classes, and in concurrent enrollment, so more high schoolers receive college credits. He wants to hire Total 40% more teachers of color. Source: Colorado Department of Education *SVVSD conducts all assessments in English. BVSD assesses some native Already, he has restructured the administration by carving Spanish speakers in Spanish. the district into three regions so that resources can be better tailored to the unique needs of individual schools. He says a series of equity summits hosted by the district in recent years “weren’t just for show,” and will inform the strategic plan.

Boulder County School Districts At-A-Glance 2018-2019 Percentage Fall 2018 2018 Pupil/ 2018-2019 2018-2019 Fall 2018 % Fall 2018 Fall 2018 % Number of Increase Full Time Teacher Free and English Language Students % Latino Teachers Students 2008-2018 Teachers Ratio Reduced Lunch Learners of Color Students of Color St. Vrain Valley 32,639 27% 1,818 18.1 27% 13% 37% 30% 6% Boulder Valley 31,169 8% 1,722 17.95 21% 9% 32% 19% 12% Source: Colorado Department of Education

TRENDS Report 2019–2021 | Our Education 31 Our Education

Former St. Vrain student’s higher ed advice: Take the first step, break the barriers, seek support if you need it

When Giovani Hernandez first saw Skyline High School shortly of Colorado Boulder to study civil engineering, with minors in after moving to Longmont from Chihuahua, Mexico, he thought construction management and applied mathematics. he’d arrived at a university. He wants to make good on his parents’ dreams for him. The middle school where he’d come from had broken windows and no air conditioning. Skyline was gleaming by comparison. “My Dad said, ‘I don’t want you to work like me — shoveling and moving bricks around,’” he said. But it was also tricky to navigate for Hernandez, whose only English vocabulary when he arrived there was asking for Front Range Community College works to close gaps directions to the bathroom or the cafeteria. Elena Sandoval-Lucero, president of the FRCC Boulder County Hernandez learned English quickly and soon was doing well in campus in Longmont, admires the example set by Hernandez, school, as he had in Mexico. He graduated high school with nine and said her school is working hard to ensure more students college credits, then went on to earn associate degrees from find success as Hernandez has. School leaders want to increase Front Range Community College in science and science with graduation rates, transfer rates, developmental education mathematics designation, before transferring to the University completion rates and retention rates. They want to close gaps between white students and students of color across the board.

A newly assembled Equity, Diversity and Inclusion Council will work to develop a plan across the state’s community college system to reduce equity gaps between white, non-Hispanic students and students of color. The campus in Longmont is making facility improvements that leaders say will make it feel more inviting, increasing chances students hang around before and after class. Studies show increased involvement on campus leads to improved student success.

The college is pursuing a new “guided pathways” initiative focused on improving the student orientation program, making college advising more effective and offering supplemental instruction. The college will also soon offer a new student success course.

Front Range was recently approved to offer its first four-year bachelor’s degree in applied science, focusing on geospatial science. Students with the degree could enter a range of careers in industries such as health care, criminal justice, forestry or climate science.

The college is also working closely with St. Vrain Valley Schools to offer more concurrent enrollment opportunities for high school students. In 2019, the partners planned to open an advanced manufacturing academy, providing students an overview of the jobs they could pursue in manufacturing.

Giovani Hernandez creates a magnet in Front Range The academy will dovetail with the new Center for Integrated Community College’s Engineering Club. Manufacturing, opening at the same time, that features classes in optics, electronics and automation engineering. Photo courtesy Giovani Hernandez

32 Community Foundation Boulder County | commfound.org/TRENDS CU Boulder diversifies with more personalized, PERCENTAGE OF 2017 BOULDER COUNTY HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATES customized approaches PURSUING HIGHER EDUCATION (ACROSS BOTH SCHOOL DISTRICTS) 90% David Aragon, Vice Chancellor for Diversity and Student Success at the University of Colorado Boulder, met Hernandez as a guest 80% instructor at Front Range Community College. “It’s amazing 70% how enterprising some of our first generation students are,” 60% he said. He went on to become a mentor to Hernandez when Hernandez enrolled in CU’s Latinx Leadership, Achievement and 50% Development Scholars program. The two have stayed in touch. 40%

Establishing personal connections with students before they 30% enroll is one way the Boulder campus has diversified its student 20% body. Students with diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds made up 27% of the Boulder Campus in the 2018-19 school 10% year, compared with 15% ten years earlier. 0% 68% 46% 46% 71% Non-Free and Free and Latino Anglo The campus now boasts 14 academic learning communities Reduced Lunch Reduced Lunch* that ensure more personal and customized connections to Source: Colorado Department of Higher Education campus for diverse students. The university increased its *Free and Reduced Lunch data is for BVSD only financial aid commitment so that students from low-income families can have their tuition, fees and supplies covered by a Post-Secondary Degree in 4 years, High School Class of 2014 combination of Pell grants and supplemental assistance. Anglo Latino Male Female A pre-collegiate program brings about 35 diverse local high BVSD 40% 26% 34% 40% school students to campus to live for two weeks each summer, SVVSD 41% 36% 34% 44% to expose them to the college experience. And the Colorado Colorado 40% 28% 31% 41% Opportunity Scholarship Initiative allows the university to award Data for CO grads enrolled in CO institutions financial aid to students whose families earn up to 250% of the Source: Colorado Department of Higher Education poverty threshold defined by the Pell grant program.

The progress is necessary to keep pace with the rapid diversification of not just Boulder County, but the United States as a whole. It also comes at a time when a high school diploma WHAT CAN I DO? is no longer sufficient to ensure middle class wages. Support ballot measures that help to fund schools Resources exist for enterprising students

Volunteer at your local public school Hernandez said the final challenge is convincing students they have the ability to take advantage of the new opportunities. He Donate to organizations that promote educational understands their lack of confidence. It took a lot of courage for equity, such as Engaged Latino Parents Advancing him to join the robotics club and move into higher level courses Student Outcomes (ELPASO), the “I Have a Dream” in high school, in which fewer Latinos were enrolled. At Front Foundation of Boulder County, The Family Learning Range he also learned a valuable lesson outside his coursework. Center and the Hispanic Education Foundation of the He could receive free academic support if he tapped into the St. Vrain Valley. resources available to him. Read with your child 20 minutes every day His advice for other students: First, take the next step, then Mentor a student break through the barriers, as he has. Offer an internship to a minority student at your place “Don’t be afraid to start your college career, because resources of business are available for you. You just need to find them,” he said.

TRENDS Report 2019–2021 | Our Education 33

Our Health & Human Services Insurance coverage tapers down as mental health issues, vaping loom large Boulder County’s uninsured rate remains low, thanks to the Affordable Care Act and local efforts to enroll low-income residents in publicly funded health programs.

Enrollment in Medicaid and Colorado’s Child Health Plan Plus was off about 10% at this writing from its highest point in 2017. Still, a large net gain of enrollees over the past decade gives officials hope our county has basically reached a saturation point in terms of people who are eligible.

Boulder County remains a magnet for cyclists and a good home for runners, hikers, walkers and others who love the ready access to the outdoors and hiking trails.

Yet there are worrying trends, as well.

Vaping among Boulder Valley high school students has accelerated quickly with many students apparently believing vaping is less hazardous than smoking. The fact Photo by Julia Vandenoever

Stories by Cindy Sutter that e-cigarettes are easy to conceal and aggressively advertised has contributed to increased use. Nearly half of

Boulder County’s many advantages high school students reported having vaped at least once, in health continue. Yet there are worrying trends. according to the Healthy Kids Colorado Survey. Our Health & Human Services

Opioid use remains a worry, with more than 5 percent of high school students having taken an opioid pill that was not prescribed to them. On the positive side, marijuana use among teenagers has not increased among teenagers since legalization.

Colorado has the seventh highest suicide rate in the nation, a figure that has more or less remained unchanged. Access to mental health care in Boulder County is better than in many parts of the states, but it still falls short of the need in the community.

The percentage of students hospitalized for self-harm or attempted suicide was twice those who were hospitalized with injuries from auto accidents. LGBQ students made little or no progress with mental health, remaining much more likely to abuse substances, harm themselves or attempt suicide than heterosexual teens.

Decades after the de-institution of many mental health facilities, local jails continue to house prisoners who need mental health treatment. In response, Boulder County voters approved a ballot issue to expand the jail to allow for the diversion of non-violent Liz Blackwell, a nurse at Fairview High, shows a collection offenders to a part of the jail that will allow them to participate in of vaping paraphernalia that was confiscated from work release or other programs that better serve their needs. students at the school.

Photo courtesy Daily Camera

WHAT CAN I DO?

Get prenatal care if you’re pregnant and encourage Talk to your kids about vaping and ask if their friends are others to do so. vaping. Watch for vaping devices.

Vaccinate your children. Discard unused perscriptions at a sanctioned drop-off place. Do not flush down the toilet. Talk to your children Pay attention to your family’s mental health. Watch for about opioid addiction and watch for changes in signs of self-harm, mood swings and sadness. Seek help, behavioral changes. if necessary. Get plenty of exercise and eat nutritionally dense food. Teach your children about diversity and re-examine your own views about race, sexuality and economic class. Be an ally and teach your children to stand up for others.

36 Community Foundation Boulder County | commfound.org/TRENDS Teen vaping rises at alarming rate BVSD, county collaborate to fight trend

Call it stealth nicotine. Like the U.S. Air Force’s Stealth bomber, Nicotine is highly addictive, as any current or former smoker can a vaping device can hit its target without being detected. tell you.

Vaping’s target with the highest profit potential: young people’s “Nicotine is a stimulant and sedative at the same time,”Dilger said. brains, where it creates dependence. “That’s the most addictive combination you can give a brain.”

The stealth aspect? Vaping devices, also known as electronic According to the CDC report, e-cigarettes are not subject to cigarettes or e-cigarettes, are easily concealed. The e-cigarette marketing regulations that limit cigarette advertising such as from Juul, the largest e-cigarette company, is the size of a bans on television ads, promotions for music and sporting computer flash drive and similar in appearance, for example. events, in-store displays and outside store displays eye-level Unlike cigarettes, vaping can evade the keen nose of a parent or with children. teacher and is easy to use in a school restroom or hallways. The frequency at which teens can vape likely makes dependence Many ads offer vaping as a harm-reducing alternative to happen more quickly. cigarettes. Vaping opponents compare the campaign to Big Tobacco’s introduction of low tar and nicotine cigarettes, which, Colorado has the highest vaping rate of any state in the nation, they say, made some consumers believe they were safer than and Boulder County has one of the highest rates in the state. traditional cigarettes. In late 2018, Altria Group, the parent company of cigarette maker Phllip Morris USA, acquired a 35% In the Boulder Valley School District, 33% of high school stake in Juul. students said they had vaped in the past 30 days, while 46% of students said they had vaped at least once, according to Anyone 18 or over can buy e-cigarettes. Critics say enforcement the Healthy Kids Colorado Survey. (The St. Vrain Valley School is spotty. As of this writing, the City of Boulder had raised the district does not participate in the survey.) age to 21 alongside a handful of Colorado municipalities. States such as California are considering regulating the sale of fruit- And vaping’s popularity is growing and spreading to pre-teens. flavored liquids in e-cigarettes; Boulder and Aspen have banned flavored e-cigarette liquids, and Boulder voters in 2019 were “We have actually heard about instances in elementary school,” set to consider a new 40% sales tax on vaping products that said Brittany Carpenter, program coordinator for the Tobacco remained legal. Dilger, of Natural Highs, said some students Education and Prevention Partnership at Boulder County start with fruit flavored e-cigarettes in the belief that they don’t Public Health. “It’s trending younger and younger, which is of contain nicotine. great concern.” As lawmakers and regulators play catch up, Carpenter said it’s “Part of the problem may be perception of risk,” Carpenter said. up to teachers and educators to sound the alarm. While 88% of youth perceive cigarettes to be risky, only 51% of Dilger has found that teens respond to information about the young people say the same about vaping, she said, citing the motivations of vaping companies. Colorado Healthy Kids Survey. “We tell them, ‘It’s all about an industry creating a product so That perception is not a matter of happenstance, said Avani highly addictive to make a profit. You are basically the target.’” Dilger, founder and executive director of Natural Highs, a substance abuse prevention peer mentor program housed in New Vista High School in Boulder.

Dilger said surveys show young people say they have seen lots Have ever vaped 46% of vaping ads, whereas adults report they have not. A weekly report for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Have vaped in last 30 days 33% published in March 2018 found that 4 in 5 middle and high school students had seen e-cigarette advertisements in 2016. The report added that exposure to ads was associated with Definitely or probably 38% higher use among youth. will vape within next year

Source: Health Kids Colorado Survey 2017 – BVSD High Schools

TRENDS Report 2019–2021 | Our Health & Human Services 37 Our Health & Human Services

For public health officials, the U.S. measles outbreaks are frustrating.

“I just think there’s so much misinformation,” said Teresa Luker, immunization coordinator for Boulder County Public Health. “People don’t want to infringe on parents’ rights, but (their decisions) impact others in the population.”

Some private schools and preschools have immunization rates at about 50%, meaning that half of students could be vulnerable to a measles exposure. Measles, which are extremely contagious, also have a relatively high rate of complications, said Kaylan Stimson, epidemiologist for Boulder County Public Health.

About 1 in 10 are at risk for ear infections, some of which can cause permanent hearing loss. Much rarer and much more Itzel Batrez holders her daughter, Rosaleen, as she receives dangerous at 1 in 1,000 is swelling in the brain, which can a shot at Boulder County Public Health’s Immunization Clinic cause neurological complications, even death. in Longmont. The effectiveness rate of the current MMR vaccine is

Photo by Julia Vandenoever 97%. Those who were born before 1989 should check their vaccination records, because they may have received a vaccine that provides lower immunity at about 93% effectiveness. If a person is exposed to measles, they can get an MMR shot Low vaccination rates increase within up to 72 hours to prevent the disease. Those unable to be vaccinated, such as infants, have a six-day window to receive risk of measles, pertussis immunoglobulin, Stimson said.

Measles, a disease that in 2000 was declared eradicated in the While measles is the largest worry currently, Boulder County’s United States, has made a frightening, if still limited, comeback. comparatively low vaccination rates also mean that some children may get pertussis, also known as whooping cough. The The reasons are complex, with one of the most common disease, which is still endemic in the population, typically peaks relating to a fraudulent study in Britain that appeared to show a in cycles of three to five years, Stimson said. correlation between the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine and the rising incidence of autism in children. Such unfounded doubts about the safety of the MMR vaccine helped to fuel the so-called anti-vaxx movement, people who question the KINDERGARTEN STUDENT VACCINATION RATES, BVSD AND SVVSD, necessity and safety of vaccines in general. 2017/2018 SCHOOL YEAR BVSD SVVSD Boulder County has not seen any cases of measles, but because the county has a lower, although improving, school 100% vaccination rate than many places and pockets of very low 80% vaccination rates, it is at greater danger for a measles cluster, as health professionals call an outbreak. 60% 40% For the 2018-2019 school year, the vaccination rate for the MMR in Boulder Valley schools was 92%, on the low end of 20% what’s called herd immunity, the percentage of the population 0% 86% 83% 84% 79% 82% 79% that needs to be vaccinated to prevent a disease from becoming DTaP MMR Varicella endemic. The St. Vrain schools average of 89% was below herd immunity. Source: The Status of Children in Boulder County, 2018

38 Community Foundation Boulder County | commfound.org/TRENDS Tens of thousands more Boulder County residents have Medicaid coverage since implementation of the Affordable Care Act. This has led to a very low uninsured rate.

Photo by Julia Vandenoever

permanent citizens worry that accessing health care for their Medicaid enrollment off children might jeopardize their status. slightly after sharp run-up Sehlke added that it’s important for everyone who is eligible to Enrollment in Medicaid and Colorado’s Childrens Health receive care. Program Plus has tapered down after a sharp run-up as the “Families who have young children (should be able) to access Affordable Care Act was implemented. well baby appointments and primary care opportunities for Enrollment in these two key public health supports was off their children,” she said. “Research shows (health care) builds about 10% from its highest point in 2017. This is likely the healthy families in the long term.” combined result of a slight increase in residents receiving Despite these exceptions, Sehlke said the county has made insurance through employers alongside the impacts of national great progress implementing the Affordable Care Act. rhetoric and policy proposals discouraging participation, according to county health officials. “Tens of thousands more can have access to care,” she said. “We’re proud to have such a low uninsurance rate in “We’re seeing our very low uninsured rate level off,” said Boulder County.” Mackenzie Sehlke, public affairs specialist for Boulder County Health and Human Services. “We think we are reaching a saturation point in terms of people who are eligible.” BOULDER COUNTY ENROLLMENT IN MEDICAID AND CHP+ Although informational advertising about Medicaid expansion has declined at the federal level, Sehlke said the county, June 2019 54,799 covered June 2017 60,446 covered in partnership with the state, has made special efforts to 60,000 communicate with the public about the benefits for which they are eligible. 45,000 “It has been a priority to do our best to make sure people know Start of Health Coverage Expansions 28,706 covered about it,” Sehlke said, including those who worry that the 30,000 immigration status of some family members may make others in the family ineligible. 15,000 Only U.S. citizens are eligible to receive Medicaid benefits, meaning that there may be confusion in so-called mixed status families. For example, in some families, the children who were 0 born in the United States are eligible, but a parent or other ‘11 ‘12 ‘13 ‘14 ‘15 ‘16 ‘17* ‘18 ‘19 family member may not be. In addition, she said, some people Source: Boulder County Housing and Human Services who are here legally on a work visa in hopes of becoming

TRENDS Report 2019–2021 | Our Health & Human Services 39 Our Health & Human Services

Boulder County, state work to Improve prenatal care for Latinas

When Boulder County Public Health looks at health outcomes it wants to change for the better, it casts a wide net to understand the causes and remedy the barriers it finds.

When it comes to improving the number of Latina women who get prenatal care, that means partnering with state agencies and local nonprofits. In 2016, 71.5 percent of Hispanic women accessed prenatal care during the first trimester of pregnancy, compared to 84.3% of their white peers, and 81% of all pregnant women in Boulder County.

Early prenatal care helps prevent pregnancy complications and improve birth outcomes. Public Health is one of many agencies in the county and across the state working to improve utilization of prenatal care for all pregnant individuals, with an emphasis on improving access for populations experiencing inequities.

Public Health recently participated in the BUILD Health Challenge, a national grant awarded to Sister Carmen Community Center. Clinica Family Health, Centura Health, and ELPASO (Engaged Latino Parents Advancing Student Outcomes) were key members of the partnership. The grant focused on capacity building with the Latinx community in Lafayette. The Giselle Cardona holds her 10-month-old, Efrain Mosquedo. stakeholders worked towards shifting existing power structures Efrain was born at a healthy weight of 8 pounds. to positively impact health and education systems to better support families with young children. Activities included Photo by Julia Vandenoever engaging local businesses on the importance of paid leave and other family friendly policies like flexible scheduling, infants-at- second birthday. The program also monitors the young women work, and breastfeeding friendly environments. for postpartum depression. “It can be difficult for pregnant women earning hourly wages to “I heard it was important for my baby,” Cardona said of prenatal request time off, especially if that time off is unpaid,” Pruett care. Her son, Efrain Mosqueda, now 10 months old, weighed a said. The current recommended American College of Obstetrics healthy 8 lbs. at birth. and Gynecology prenatal visit schedule for pregnancies consists of a visit every 4 weeks until 28 weeks, every 2 weeks until 36 After he was born, Efrain proved to be a baby who cried and weeks, and weekly until delivery. This schedule of care can be needed a lot of loving attention. difficult for many women to complete given our professional work norms, making it imperative for our policies to support “I was alone most of the time. I didn’t get any help except for individuals and families during the prenatal period and GENESIS,” Cardona said. “He was a very hands-on baby. I would throughout the child’s early development, Pruett said. hold him even for his nap. That comforted him a lot. That’s the only way I knew to help him.” Care after birth for mother and child also are key, Pruett said, and efforts are ongoing to encourage postpartum care for the Cardona, who lives in Longmont, plans to complete her high mother in addition to regular well visits for baby. school education after Efrain is weaned. “He’s a breast-fed baby and only wants the breast. He doesn’t take the bottle,” Giselle Cardona, 19, received prenatal support services Cardona said. through Boulder County’s GENESIS program, which provides young women who become pregnant before age 19 with home GENESIS clients are twice as likely as other teens to breastfeed visitation services during the prenatal period through the child’s and also twice as likely to breastfeed for at least six months.

40 Community Foundation Boulder County | commfound.org/TRENDS Boulder County Jail: mental health provider of last resort

Boulder County Sheriff Joe Pelle has seen a lot of changes in his 17 years on the job. One of the biggest is the increase in prisoners suffering from mental health issues.

When he started as sheriff, the jail population diagnosed with mental illness was 13 to 15%, he said. “Today, on some days, it’s as high as 50%.”

The sheriff has worked hard with county, state and federal Boulder County Jail Mental Health Clinician Sloane Costello governments to put programs in place to help deal with interviews an inmate who was placed on suicide watch at the the problem. jail in Boulder. Some have required new staff and facilities. The jail has some Photo courtesy Daily Camera additional mental health professionals, who are running ongoing therapy groups and working with individuals. In addition, the jail has become a site for a pilot program to create a diversion of being able to understand and assist in their defense. program for minor offenders. Pelle has also changed procedures for handling prisoners “We have a person we call a navigator who does screening considered at risk for suicide or self-harm. in cases that don’t involve victims,” Pelle said, using as an example an offender who steals a sandwich. Rather than using “It’s really a difficult proposition,” Pelle said. “We have 20 jail space, the navigator connects the offender with a mental deputies to handle 500 inmates.” health provider in the community. Studies show that prisoners are at the highest risk in the first “The biggest problem is finding a provider to work at Medicaid 72 hours after they are detained. rates,” he said. “A lot are detoxing. A lot are coming off a very emotional In addition, the county jail has opened an 18-bed unit for experience — domestic violence, violent arrest,” Pelle said. “They competency restoration to make up for a shortage of options are feeling hopeless, cast aside, with no contact with family.” at the state mental hospital in Pueblo. Competency restoration The jail gives the inmates a red jumpsuit to wear, so they can be deals with inmates who have been declared incompetent to identified immediately as more at risk and houses them in a unit stand trial, but are capable, with medication and other treatment, where they can receive more frequent monitoring.

The biggest change is the construction of a 46,000-square-foot facility with 250 beds, approved in a ballot measure by a 75% of Boulder County voters.

A good number of the inmates in diversion will likely be transients, who Pelle said have been in and out of jail over the years.

“We call them ‘frequent fliers.’ The idea is that anyone in jail who … is not a risk to the community can go in this less restrictive environment,” Pelle said. “They can perhaps participate in a Anti-suicide smocks sit in a closet at the Boulder County work release program or raise vegetables in the jail garden.” Jail, next to red jumpsuits used to more immediately identify inmates at higher risk for suicide.

Photo Courtesy Daily Camera

TRENDS Report 2019–2021 | Our Health & Human Services 41 Our Health & Human Services

In Boulder County and in Colorado, LGBTQ progress and a long road ahead

The 2018 election of Jared Polis, a gay man, as governor would The second survey, conducted by Out Boulder County, looked at appear to affirm the belief that Colorado is a friendly place for 453 LGBTQ respondents. The two cannot be directly compared lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer people to live. with the statewide survey, because it used different sampling methods and different questions. The Boulder County economic That impression is strong in Boulder County, where 76% of data showed less dire, but still concerning, responses. respondents to a Community Foundation survey said the county is open to lesbian and gay people. However, two surveys of The survey found unemployment among most LGBTQ people the LGBTQ community, one covering the state of Colorado and hovering at 3-4%. However, those who identify as genderqueer the other covering Boulder County, paint a somewhat less rosy or as a trans man reported an 8% unemployment rate — more picture. than twice as high as other LGBTQ Boulder County residents.

The statewide survey of 1,800 Coloradans, conducted by the “For people breaking out of the boxes we were given, their Colorado Health Foundation in partnership with the Kaiser chances of employment decrease,” said Mardi Moore, executive Family Foundation, shows that LGBTQ Coloradans experience director of Out Boulder County. greater economic hardships than do other state residents. For example, only 42% say the economy is getting better, in contrast Perhaps most alarmingly, almost a third of respondents said with 60% of non-LGBTQ people. More LGBTQ people say it’s they lacked human connection in the prior month, with a quarter harder to afford their rent or mortgage, and they are twice as reporting feeling sad or hopeless. Thirteen percent had made a likely to worry they might lose their homes. In addition, more suicide plan, and 4% had attempted suicide. than a quarter of LGBTQ respondents reported poor mental “That’s why we do a lot of advocacy. Visibility matters,” Moore health, three times as many as their non-LGBTQ counterparts. said. “As people become more visible in their identities, things begin to shift.”

Gov. Jared Polis talks with State Rep. Brianna Titone. In 2018, Polis became the first openly gay person to be elected governor in the United States, and Titone became the first openly Jenna Howerton, youth program coordinator at transgender state legislator elected in Colorado and the fourth Out Boulder County, endured gay conversion therapy elected in the United States. as a teen.

Photo by Julia Vandenoever Photo by Julia Vandenoever

42 Community Foundation Boulder County | commfound.org/TRENDS The pain of gay conversion therapy: ‘I didn’t have the words to name it’

Jenna Howerton remembers almost nothing about her third ses- “I suppressed it,” she said. “I was lonely.” sion of conversion therapy. At around age 20, Howerton began to accept herself. “I’m guessing I said ‘OK’ and left,” she said. “At that moment, I felt so vulnerable. I wanted to get out of there. I didn’t have the She remained involved in her church and planned to go on a words to name it as conversion therapy until later in life.” mission trip. As part of the process, she filled out an application that asked if she had ever had non-heterosexual relationships. Howerton, now 26, works as youth program coordinator at Out She opted to tell the truth. Boulder. She said the teens she works with are way ahead of where she was at the same point in her life. “I got a call from the pastor asking to meet with me,” she said.

“They’re so mature, so smart. They’re activists already,” she said, The first session emphasized that God loves sinners and that many of them in gay-straight alliance clubs. being gay was a choice, Howerton said. In the next session, the counselor picked out specific reasons that it was wrong to While gay relationships are more out in the open, that doesn’t be gay. In the third, the counselor brought testimonials and make bullying less intense, or prevalent. brochures from the ex-gay movement, in which people said that through Christ they were able to stop being gay. Howerton was “I feel extremely lucky that in high school we didn’t have Snap- told she could choose. chat, didn’t have Instagram,” Howerton said. “There are so many avenues for bullying.” Then the hammer dropped. If she wanted to go on the mission trip, she would have to break off her relationship. Statistics from the Healthy Kids Colorado Survey bear out the pain of not being accepted. Half of gay, lesbian or bisexual “The third session was when they gave the ultimatum. That’s when students reported feeling sad and hopeless, more than twice I felt it was not OK, it should not be happening,” Howerton said. the percentage of their non-LGB counterparts. Similarly, 40% reported they had hurt themselves without wanting to die and Gov. Jared Polis has signed into law a ban on gay conversion 34% had considered attempting suicide; that was roughly three therapy, although it only applies to licensed counselors, which a times the percentage of non-LGB students. church counselor may or may not be.

“The numbers never seem to get better,” said Mardi Moore, After therapy, Howerton left the church and went on to finish col- executive director of Out Boulder. “The reality is that the LGBT lege and get a master’s degree with an aim toward working with community continues to be stigmatized. We get calls from the youth. She was later hired at Out Boulder. schools where kids get kicked out of the house by their parents.” Howerton said “it made all the difference” when gay marriage She added that lack of family support along with harassment by was legalized when she was in college. Living in a state with a peers can make the world seem bleak indeed. gay governor also helps mainstream gay relationships. But for gay adolescents who feel isolated and ostracized, support closer “It sets the stage (to think) you’re not good enough, that some- to home is crucial. thing’s wrong with you,” she said. “What do you do with that when you’re a kid? You try to stay in the closet as long as you can.” “It has to come from the top,” she said. “They need to hear the principal, their teachers say, ‘This is a safe place right now.’” That’s what Howerton did.

“I performed hetero-normative very well,” she said. “Part of me knew it wasn’t safe. I didn’t know anyone who was queer.” Gov. Jared Polis has signed

After high school, she was still trying to come to terms with who into law a ban on gay she was. conversion therapy

TRENDS Report 2019–2021 | Our Health & Human Services 43 Our Health & Human Services

‘So easy to get into, so difficult to get out of’ How pain meds pointed one young woman toward heroin

If you want to understand heroin addiction, think about this: days, compared with 7.8% in 2015. Even though the trendline When addicts seek more heroin to stave off the terrifying symp- is falling, the data continue to be significant, because opioids toms of withdrawal, they say “I need to get well.” are highly addictive. Teens who become addicted to heroin often start with prescription pain medicine. Even in Boulder, where the term wellness is both a quasi- religion and a business opportunity, heroin hijacks the brain Mila was one. so completely that a high school senior who grew up in a loving family can reach a point where the word “well” means sticking a If you meet her, you will encounter a poised and attractive syringe full of heroin into her arm. young woman, with a straightforward manner accompanied by a watchful intelligence. The 2017 Healthy Kids Colorado Survey administered to high school students in the Boulder Valley School District found a Here are some other things to know about her: slight decline in the percentage of BVSD students who have She was a good student, a stellar athlete and hung with the taken prescription opioids without having a doctor’s prescription. popular crowd in high school. In 2017, 5.4% of BVSD teens had taken the drugs in the last 30 By age 22, she had known 24 people who died. Photo by Julia Vandenoever When not working, Mila spends most of her time with her mom, Trina Faatz, whom she considers her best friend.

When Mila was using, her mother kept Naloxone in the house in case they needed to revive her from an overdose. Trina attended Narcotics Anonymous meetings, partly to learn to accept — to the extent any mother can — that she might not be there to revive her daughter from an overdose.

Mila is making fast progress toward certification as an addiction counselor. “I see people who judge,” she said. “I don’t give up on anyone.”

It began with inadequately treated Lyme Disease at age 9. It flared around the start of middle school, but by then, no one connected Mila’s chronic stomach aches, headaches and other symptoms to the Lyme exposure.

Her doctor prescribed opioid medication for pain. She began high school still in athletics and doing her schoolwork. However, the meds began to take on a greater importance.

“They were prescribed for my pain, and then I realized they could help with my emotions, too,” she said.

She began smoking heroin in her senior year.“I was getting high and feeling good,” she said.

Then she went on a family trip to New York and for the first time Mila Long holds her puppy, Nala, in her backyard in Boulder. experienced withdrawal.

“After that trip, for the next several years (everything) was about

44 Community Foundation Boulder County | commfound.org/TRENDS never having to be sick,” she said. She began injecting heroin. Recognizing and working During a stint in rehab, she found out her best friend had died of an overdose. Her friend’s mother pleaded with Mila to stay in on teen mental health issues rehab. Grief stricken, Mila sought the remedy she knew best. You might call it the Boulder County paradox — our metrics for income and education are off the charts, our schools are highly “My use really took off at that point,” she said. rated and we have a culture that embraces fitness. She began injecting cocaine along with heroin. Yet a subset of teenagers are suffering. According to the Healthy “I couldn’t remember living another way,” she said. Kids Colorado Survey, teens who attend Boulder Valley schools are twice as likely to be hospitalized for self harm or attempted One day, she overdosed, but there was no Naloxone to suicide than for injuries from auto accidents. The rate is double, revive her. in some instances triple for esbian, gay or bisexual youth.

Then a surprising thing happened. “Boulder has an image of perfection: Everybody’s family is perfect. Kids are high achievers,” said Trina Faatz, a member of “I came back. All my friends had left me there,” she said. “I don’t the Substance Use Advisory Group, which includes community know why I woke up.” members and professionals working to stem substance abuse Life is not a cliched novel that ties up all the loose ends. But problems among Boulder County teens. Her own daughter, Mila that week, for the first time, Mila told her mother that she Long, is in recovery from heroin addiction (See story on facing wanted to get help. page). But addiction is not the only mental health problem teens in Boulder County deal with. Now on medication-assisted treatment, Mila works as a peer counselor with others on the same journey. “There is a huge amount of cutting in BVSD,” she said, “a huge amount of eating disorders. It’s having control over part of your “I think I felt all those years of life were a total waste,” she said. life. How much (your life) hurts is how much you do it.” “There’s no better feeling than working with someone when you’ve been in their shoes, seeing them be successful. Nobody Avani Dilger, who has worked with teens for 15 years as a founder wants to be an addict, nobody.” of Natural Highs, said many are hurting.

“Anxiety and depression are so much worse,” she said.

Mardi Moore, executive director of Out Boulder, said that protections passed at the state level are heartening for members

USED PRESCRIPTION DRUG WITHOUT DOCTOR’S PRESCRIPTION of the LGBQ community, but the picture remains dark at the federal level, leading to a climate that is bound to impact young BVSD 2017 people. Once or more in lifetime 13 In last 30 days 5 “It sets the stage (for thinking) you’re not good enough, Source: Healthy Kids Colorado Survey something’s wrong with you,” she said. “What do you do with that when you’re a kid?”

EMOTIONAL WELLNESS IN BVSD Anglo Latino Straight* LGBQ Total Feeling sad/hopeless for two weeks 26 29 23 58 27% Seriously considered suicide 15 12 11 43 15% Attempted Suicide 4 5 3 14 5% *The survey uses the term “heterosexual” instead of straight. Source: Healthy Kids Colorado Survey, Boulder Valley School District 2017

TRENDS Report 2019–2021 | Our Health & Human Services 45 Our Health & Human Services

Sam Shew hikes on a trail above Chautauqua Park in Boulder.

Photo by Julia Vandenoever

What’s it like to have a mental crisis? Here’s just the person to tell you

Sam Shew wants to be an activist — crusader might be a more to Humans, and went to his hotel room, filled with love and accurate term — for the human rights of mentally ill people. resolve, to start registering website domains. A graduate of Georgia Tech with a degree in industrial systems, Shew began His passion is not a legal or political battle, but more the drawing complex diagrams of the ways in which love could promotion of a radical empathy in the care of a person in the open the world complete with numerical notations of the order grip of an acute mental crisis. Shew came to the realization of in which he drew the lines that made up the schematic. The his purpose in life during his first manic episode at age 30. drawings, which he later shredded, had dried wrinkled from tears of elation at his vision of hope. Although he now says matter of factly, “I fundamentally believe every person on the planet is on their own mental wellness He returned to Boulder and went for a hike with his fiancee near journey,” his trip from there to here was considerably more the National Center for Atmospheric Research. As they reached dramatic than most. the NCAR parking lot, his mental state became so intense that he began crying uncontrollably. His fiancee called a mutual It began at a sales conference in San Diego where his mental friend and the two gently convinced him that he needed to go to state became elevated as he worked the crowd of 4,000. He the hospital. felt an intense connection with every person he talked to — and he talked to many — and they reciprocated, making him feel After a quick assessment, he was given scrubs to wear and, as powerful in a way he had never before experienced. a precaution, put into a room where he could not hurt himself. Shew began to think about how he was being treated by staff, He imagined creating a company, Humans Connecting Humans not at all unkindly or against protocol, but in a way that still

46 Community Foundation Boulder County | commfound.org/TRENDS made him feel anonymous and powerless.

When medical personnel came in, he would make suggestions about how he should be treated to give him a greater sense of YOUR COMMUNITY FOUNDATION – dignity and autonomy. MAKING A DIFFERENCE “Why not let me choose from a rack of clothes, rather than telling Health Collaborative me what to wear?” connects vulnerable adults “Why not take me skiing and get to know me to evaluate me?” to specialty care While the specifics of his suggestions may not have been workable, he sees them now as having the right spirit The Boulder County Health Improvement Collaborative (BCHIC), behind them. an initiative of your Community Foundation, is working to improve access to specialty care for Medicaid and uninsured He was hospitalized for 11 days, is now on medication and patients countywide – from recruiting medical specialists willing works with the Sutherland Bipolar Center in Boulder, which to treat Medicaid and uninsured patients, to streamlining a provides services specifically for those with bipolar disorder. referral system for providers and care coordinators.

The center is not an emergency facility, but rather provides “The response we’ve seen from the community of local providers outpatient services to help its clients manage bipolar disorder, stepping up to provide care has been inspiring,” says Morgan said R. Rachel Cruz, executive director. Clients sign a six-month Rogers McMillan, BCHIC Project Manager through June 2019. contract with the center, which helps them create a routine so “We hope to enable 500 community members to access they can more easily monitor their moods. Good nutrition and medically necessary care in 2019.” Indeed, the spectrum of exercise are also emphasized. Sutherland typically has about a specialty care currently offered by BCHIC includes allergy and six-week wait for new clients. asthma, dermatology, endocrinology, gastroenterology, oncology, orthopedics, physical therapy, podiatry, and urology. Cruz agrees with Shew’s assessment of mental crisis care in which emergency rooms serve as a costly waystation to other Orthopedics, endocrinology, and dermatology have been the care. While Boulder County has more mental health options highest demand specialties by participating primary care than most places in the state, care is still not sufficient to cover providers. BCHIC each month currently offers 16 orthopedic all those who need it when they need it. patient slots and 28 dermatology slots.

“A 57-year-old patient of ours needed to be seen by a dermatologist for a lip lesion,” says Jeff Raikes, Clinic Boulder Community Health Operations Director, Clinica Family Health. “While dermatology specialists are challenging to refer to, we were able to get this opens state-of-the-art mental patient seen by Boulder Valley Center for Dermatology – a BCHIC participant – within a week of being seen by her primary health pavilion care physician. Without the BCHIC referral hub, this patient had Colorado’s suicide rate remains stubbornly high at seventh in no other options.” the nation. While the causes are not known, lack of access to Additionally, BCHIC’s community-owned, scalable, online mental health care is often cited as a possible contributor. platform to expand access to care for adults covered by In an effort to show its support for expanded and improved Medicaid and for those who remain uninsured is “nationally services for those with mental illness, Boulder Community innovative and incredibly simple,” says McMillan. health in 2019 cut the ribbon on one of the most modern BCHIC was selected by Kaiser Colorado to participate in mental health care facilities in Colorado. a statewide cohort working to expand access to specialty The $45 million, 70,000 square-foot Della Cava Family Medical care. Adds McMillan, “Together, we’re exploring the potential Pavilion is part of BCH’s strategic commitment to make Boulder of adding eConsults – or remote access to care – to further the healthiest community in the country. It includes an 18- increase the ability of low-income patients to connect with care.” bed inpatient behavioral health unit on the top floor, plus a Learn more at commfound.org/our-impact/programs-initiatives/ counseling center, an outpaient behavioral health clinic, and a health-collaborative Center for Mind Body Medicine. — Sabine Kortals Stein

TRENDS Report 2019–2021 | Our Health & Human Services 47

Our Economy & Housing County’s rising economic tide not lifting all boats

Business is booming in the tiny town of Nederland, population 1,536.

Sales tax revenue rose nearly 10% between 2016 and 2017, helped along by a popular new pizzeria, coffee shop and bike-ski retailer, and hordes of weekend tourists. Ned even added a shoe repair shop: The owners of Perry’s, one of Boulder’s oldest businesses, migrated up the canyon in search of cheaper rent and a nice live-work situation above the store. They were in good company: Nederland’s population has grown 10% since 2000.

It’s a story being repeated all over Boulder County: the economy growing quickly and the population right along with it. But, in Nederland and elsewhere, the rising tide has not lifted all boats. The influx of high-paying jobs has led to ripple effects that are sinking many residents.

A majority of clients at Nederland’s food pantry are

Photo by Julia Vandenoever spending 80% of their income on rent, according to Chris Stories by Shay Castle Current, executive director. The town is getting its first

Nederland’s economy and population are affordable housing development courtesy of Boulder growing, but with housing as the top spend- County, but low-income provider Kristi Venditti worries the ing priority for most families, everything else gets pinched. 26 units won’t be nearly enough to serve the need. Our Economy & Housing

Venditti is the mountain resource liaison for Emergency Family Assistance Association. Her part-time position was created in 2016 but has morphed into a full-time job has her caseload has grown 35% since she started.

Her clients struggle to find affordable rentals, or any rentals at all. The town is now in a fight over vacation rentals: Buyers across the Front Range have snapped up Nederland properties for second and third homes and rent to tourists rather than residents.

With housing as the top spending priority for most families, everything else gets pinched: physical and mental health care, Food staples at the Nederland Food Pantry help groceries, transportation. “The need is so great,” Venditti said. relieve hunger.

On paper, things don’t look so dire. Boulder County has enjoyed Photo by Julia Vandenoever some of the lowest unemployment in the nation in recent years, dipping below 2% at times. The area median income is among reasonably priced” — $150,000 for a condo or townhome, the highest in Colorado, which is higher than the national $250,000 for a single-family dwelling — “will soon be obsolete.” median. Nearly 40,000 new jobs have been added to the local Those who bought early are doing well, enjoying millions of economy in the past decade. dollars in appreciation. But the vast majority of residents, more But a tenth of residents are still below the poverty line, including than 60%, don’t earn enough to buy a house here. 12% of children. More than a quarter of the population doesn’t It’s the kind of inequality that is plaguing the nation. Income earn enough to cover their basic needs. inequality in Boulder County is about on par with the U.S. as a For most, the struggle can be traced to one thing: “In Boulder whole. According to the Economic Policy Institute, the top 1% County, it’s housing,” said Claire Levy, executive director of the of Boulder County earners make 26.5 times more than the Colorado Center on Law and Policy. remaining 99% combined. Nationally, the ratio is 26.3.

The price of a single-family home has more than doubled in the But Boulder County is in the bottom 4% for equality among past 15 years. There’s not a community left in Boulder County the nation’s metro areas (No. 44 of 916) and counties (132 of with a median home price below $400,000. 3,061). It’s more unequal than Colorado as a whole, which has a ratio of 20.6 and ranks twentieth of 50 states. Costs have risen so high that, in 2017, experts declared a complete end to affordable housing. “There are no entry level Venditti sees the split clearly in Nederland’s elementary schools, housing options,” wrote the authors of the Longmont Housing where she works part-time. “There are the families with a lot of Affordability Review, real estate industry insiders Kyle Snyder needs who can’t really afford to be here,” she said, “and then and Amy Aschenbrenner. “The lines we drew in the sand as families who can buy the million-dollar houses.”

POVERTY RATES 2018 SINGLE FAMILY HOME SALES* Boulder County United States Number Sold for Under $360K Total Units Sold 2000 2017 2000 2017 Boulder 3* 628 Individuals 10% 10% 12% 13% Superior 0 96 Families with children 7% 9% 14% 15% Louisville 0 193 Older adults (65+) 6% 6% 10% 9% Lafayette 9 276 Children 8% 12% 17% 18% Erie 15 445 Latino children 23% 8% 28% 10% Longmont 279 1129 Children under 5 10% 16% 18% 20% *All in the affordable program Source: 2018 Longmont Housing Affordability Review Source: American Community Survey, 1-year data

50 Community Foundation Boulder County | commfound.org/TRENDS Child care costs rival housing

If families can find a home big and affordable enough, they still may be facing an expense that can rival rent or, in many cases, exceed it: Someone to watch their kids during the workday or after school.

Child care costs have risen 76% in Colorado since the start of the millennium, according to Claire Levy, executive director of the Colorado Center for Law and Policy.

It costs Cherlyn Seruto $975 a month to send her 3-year-old daughter to the “cheapest day care in Boulder,” she said, and another $1,650 for her son to attend a preschool where he can expend a bit more energy. The $2,625 per month total is steep, but it’s worth it so that she and her husband can both keep their full-time jobs.

Colorado’s newly passed law that funds full-day kindergarten should help out when her son starts school next year. But even three hours of after care at the YMCA, Seruto’s current plan, will run $600 a month. And she’s not sure if her rambunctious Teachers and students enjoy a summer day at Aspen Grove son will do well in a classroom all day and then an after-school Community Preschool in Nederland. Childcare costs across program; she is considering cutting back her hours to give him Colorado have increased 76% since 2000. some flexibility. Photo by Julia Vandenoever Whatever she does, it will only get cheaper from here on out. When both kids were at their youngest and in need of day care, Seruto was shelling out $2,900 a month. THE COST OF CHILDCARE: There are cheaper alternatives that some families choose or are forced into, beyond staying at home with the kids. Seruto knows families who employ live-in au pairs they pay $600-$900 a month. “But that only works if you have a house with extra $26,796 room,” she said.

Family, friends and neighbors remain the go-to for parents of The annual cost of childcare more modest means, said Julie Van Domelen, executive director for two adults with one child in school of Emergency Family Assistance Association. But beyond relying on loved ones, resources remain scarce. and one preschooler in Boulder County

“You talk to all our case managers,” said Van Domelen, “the one thing (their clients) can’t find a solution for is child care.” $15,060 Costs have risen so high that, Annual childcare cost for the same in 2017, experts declared a complete family in Pueblo County

end to affordable housing Source: Colorado Center on Law and Policy, 2018 Report in Boulder County.

TRENDS Report 2019–2021 | Our Economy & Housing 51 Our Economy & Housing

Plenty of jobs, few places to live

With the University of Colorado and its many federal labs, Boulder County has long been an employment hub.

The local economy has been on a tear for several years, growing at a fast clip. Between 2007 and 2017, employment grew by 39,719 positions — a 17% increase.

Housing, however, has not kept pace. For every 3.5 new jobs that came to Boulder County in the last decade, just one housing unit was added: 11,262 in all.

This extreme imbalance in supply and demand forces tens of thousands of people (and their cars) into the county each day just to work. The imbalance also has contributed to a rise in homelessness, according to experts, and pushed up housing prices.

The median cost of a single-family home more than doubled from 2003 to 2019 in Boulder, Louisville, Lafayette and Superior. In Longmont and Erie, both cities that straddle Weld County and have built (slightly) more homes, prices rose 72% and 75%, respectively.

Rents are harder to track, with multiple sources and most datasets skewing toward higher-end units. But where the pricing data might be indistinct, certain numbers are clear. More than half (58%) of renters in Boulder County spend more than a third of their income on housing costs, according to Census data, compared to 46% of renters nationally.

Only one housing unit was added for every 3.5 new jobs that came to Boulder County in the last decade.

Photo by Barbara Colombo Total jobs added in Boulder County, 2007-2017:

NEW HOUSING UNITS AUTHORIZED 39,719 IN BOULDER COUNTY 2017 1,828 2016 1,354 Total new housing units authorized 2015 1,249 in Boulder County, 2007-2017: 2014 1,371 2013 1,391 2012 749 11,262 2011 661 2010 657 2009 345 Average number of jobs added for every new housing 2008 1,022 unit authorized in Boulder County, 2007-2017: 2007 635 2008 1,022 2007 635 3.5 Source: United States Census Bureau Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Census Bureau

52 Community Foundation Boulder County | commfound.org/TRENDS SELF-SUFFICIENCY STANDARD: $85,836 The per year self-sufficiency standard household income for two adults with one child in school and one The new Google Headquarters on Pearl Street in Boulder. preschooler in Boulder County

Photo courtesy Daily Camera Tech boom raises incomes, $53,571 but not for everyone Household income amount the same

Boulder County in the past few years has undergone another tech family would need in Pueblo County renaissance, adding thousands of local jobs. Google, Amazon, Source: Colorado Center on Law and Policy, 2018 Report Apple and Twitter all have a major presence, with hundreds of smaller firms in nearly every community in the county. BOULDER COUNTY TOP FULL- AND PART-TIME JOBS BY SECTOR The influx of high-paying positions helped boost the Housing Employment by place of work 2007 2017 Change (number of jobs) and Urban Development-decreed area median income for an individual from $68,800 in 2017 to $76,100 in 2018 — Professional, Scientific, 35,043 42,623 22% and Technical Services a 10.6% increase. Government** 29,805 35,674 20% But not everyone has cashed in on the wealth tech has brought Health Care 20,977 27,246 30% to town. More than a quarter of Boulder County residents (27%) and Social Assistance don’t earn enough to cover their basic needs, according to the Retail Trade 20,455 21,354 4% Colorado Center for Law and Policy, which every few years puts Manufacturing 17,858 20,532 15% out a report on self-sufficiency. Accommodation 15,467 19,242 24% and Food Services A self-sufficiency wage is what a person would need to earn to Real Estate and Leasing 13,043 16,583 27% cover the bare minimum: housing, transportation, food, health care, taxes, child care if applicable, and miscellaneous costs such Other Services, 11,921 13,015 9% Except Public Administration as toiletries, clothing, etc. In Boulder County in 2018, the self- sufficiency wage for a single person was $30,639. Finance and Insurance 9,699 11,770 21% Information 10,750 9,789 -9% “You can, in theory, survive in Boulder County for $30,000 a year Construction 9,635 9,478 -2% if you’re single, have no children, no responsibilities and Administrative and 9,663 9,119 -6% can find a place to rent for $1,100,” said Claire Levy, CCLP Waste Management Services executive director. Arts, Entertainment, 6,829 8,514 25% and Recreation But, as Levy points out, that’s getting harder to do. The basic Wholesale Trade 6,562 7,424 13% costs of living used to compute the self-sufficiency standard have increased 78% between 2000 and 2017. Earnings have grown Educational Services* 4,514 6,810 51% only 43%. Total employment*** 228,952 268,671 17% *Private education services “Folks are working,” Levy said. “They’re working hard. But they’re **Includes federal, state, local and military ***Total includes all sectors, including smaller ones not listed here. not earning enough money.” Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis

TRENDS Report 2019–2021 | Our Economy & Housing 53 Our Economy & Housing

To buy a house in Boulder: Bring money, creativity, tolerance for city regulations

HollyAnne Giffin’s dream was always to build her own house. They debated bringing in another friend to purchase something But when Giffin, a transplant from the Deep South, ended up in slightly bigger. But that idea ran up against another Boulder Boulder County, reality hit her hard. obstacle: the city’s occupancy rules, which prevent more than three or four unrelated persons living together. If, in the future, Boulder is the sixth most expensive metro for home prices in the one of the three owners wants a romantic partner to move in, United States, according to the National Association of Realtors. the two would have to marry to make occupancy legal. Building here would take deeper pockets than Giffin’s career in social work provided. Giffin and Piggot intend to rent out one of the extra rooms to help with costs, and keep things flexible for the future. So she set her sights a little lower: buying a house. But even that was out of her reach in Boulder, where the average home The friends also hope to use their home for social good. price has more than doubled during the past 15 years, settling The extra room could provide cheap, safe housing for an just south of $1 million. undocumented immigrant or low-income resident. Giffin has always wanted to be a foster parent; the house could help that Enter Fiona Pigott, with a tech job and healthy salary. She and dream come true, too. Giffin met on Craigslist and became roommates. After living together for two years, they’ve decided to buy a house together. Both acknowledge their arrangement won’t work for every pair of platonic would-be-homeowners. “It really only still feels possible “Owning a house is a lot of work; work that I have no desire to because I work for Twitter, because my parents paid my college take on on my own,” Pigott said. “Having two people to share tuition,” Pigott said. “That’s what makes it possible. It’s not like (the upkeep) and the expense” just made sense. we scraped together.”

She and Giffin plan to split the home’s equity in proportion to “If it were me and a co-worker, then we wouldn’t be able to do it,” what each is able to contribute. Even with two people buying, added Giffin. the plan is difficult since small homes are in short supply in Boulder. In Boulder, said Pigott, the reality is “you need two incomes and you need at least one that’s higher than average.”

MEDIAN SINGLE-FAMILY HOME SALES PRICE BoulderSuperior Louisville Lafayette Erie Longmont

$1,000,000

$900,000

$800,000

$700,000

$600,000

$500,000

$400,000

$300,000

$200,000

$100,000

$0 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Source: Boulder Area Realtor Association

54 Community Foundation Boulder County | commfound.org/TRENDS Boulder County’s gender pay gap worse than state’s and nation’s

It was at the company Christmas party when Sharon Procopio first began to think about the gender pay gap at the engineering firm where she worked. All the workers who had been promoted took the stage, and they all had something in common: Each and every one was a man.

The women of JVA, Inc., banded together and approached the Mark Rocheleau and Sharon Procopio (right) cheer on the top brass to request an analysis of inequity in hiring, promoting JVA team at an employee appreciation day relay race on and pay. To Procopio’s surprise and delight, management took the Boulder County Courthouse lawn. Women at JVA are them seriously. A consultant was hired and the numbers run. slightly out-earning men for the first time after the company Sure enough, there was a pattern of hiring more experienced prioritized closing the gender wage gap. women for junior roles and of those women staying in those Photo by Julia Vandenoever roles for longer, and earning less than their male counterparts.

“It was tough,” Procopio said. It took a lot of “uncomfortable” Where Procopio and Juday agree on a solution is more training conversations, but “our management team dove right into it. We and mentorship for female workers. The AAUW conducts two did the right thing.” training courses, Start Smart and Work Smart, to teach women JVA went to work immediately to correct the imbalance and, how to negotiate salary and promotions. today, women at the company are slightly out-earning men for Boulder County’s extremely low unemployment presents the the first time. perfect opportunity to introduce some equity to the economy. The rest of Boulder County has yet to catch up. The county Companies are desperate to hang onto workers, Procopio said. has the largest gender-based wage gap of any of its closest “This is the perfect time for us to narrow the gap.” neighbors and lags Colorado and the U.S. as a whole in gender pay equity. Women working full-time earn, on average, 74 cents for every $1 a full-time working man does in Boulder County. WOMEN’S MEDIAN EARNINGS BY EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT 2017 The gap increases with education: The average Boulder County Boulder County U.S. male with a graduate or professional degree earned $96,199 in Less than high school graduate $24,063 $17,391 2017. A woman with the same education was paid $55,585. High school graduate $26,548 $24,159 Some college or $29,109 $30,512 “Women straight out of college are offered lower salaries, so associate's degree immediately you’re starting with a lower pay scale,” said Darcy Bachelor's degree $42,422 $45,233 Juday with the local chapter of the American Association of University Women (AAUW), a nonprofit advocating for gender Graduate or professional degree $55,585 $60,691 equality. “You’re starting with lower wages, so bonuses are Source: American Community Survey, 1-year data lower, accumulated wages are lower, Social Security (payouts) are lower. “If you get a smaller raise every year than the guy you started out against, wages diverge quite a lot over the course of MEN'S MEDIAN EARNINGS BY EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT 2017 a career.” Boulder County U.S. Other factors may be contributing to Boulder County’s large gap. Less than high school graduate $30,699 $27,219 Because the population has so many residents with advanced High school graduate $35,451 $36,134 degrees, the wage gap may just be more evident. Women, even Some college or $41,613 $43,685 highly educated ones in high-paying fields, are still more likely associate's degree to cut back hours or stay at home to raise children, which could Bachelor's degree $76,407 $65,700 explain why the local wage gap persists even though more women Graduate or professional degree $96,199 $85,708 are working more hours than in past years in Boulder County. Source: American Community Survey, 1-year data

TRENDS Report 2019–2021 | Our Economy & Housing 55 Our Economy & Housing

End child poverty in Boulder? Yes, it can be done

What if we could eliminate child poverty? Erase it completely, lifting hundreds of families up to better economic conditions and improving health and wellness outcomes for children in the process? What if all this could be done for only a fraction of the city budget?

It can. At least according to Julie Van Domelen, executive director of the Emergency Family Assistance Association.

There are just under 600 families with children living under the federal poverty line ($20,780 for a family of three) in Boulder, according to 2017 Census data. The average gap in income for these families and the poverty line is $9,000. So for $5.4 million, according to EFFA, which put out a white paper on the Almost 600 families with children live in poverty in Boulder. topic, Boulder could effectively end child poverty. The city could end child poverty for $5.4 million per year, according to Julie Van Domelen, executive director of the Van Domelen has seen the effects of giving families even Emergency Family Assistance Association. an extra $1,500 a year to use for whatever they like — rent, groceries, paying back friends and family — through a program Photo courtesy EFAA. that is tied to kids’ care (going to the doctor or dentist, or early childhood developmental screenings). FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN UNDER THE POVERTY LEVEL, 2017 She describes the effects of the program after two years: “Families were far less rent-burdened, they tended to have less debt to other family members. Food security increased Longmont tremendously. We saw all kinds of improvements in income and 15% employment. It reduced a lot of stress in the home,” she said. Lafayette Boulder’s general fund in 2019 was more than $158 million. 9% To tackle child poverty in the way Van Domelen describes would cost less than 3.5% of the city’s general fund — less Boulder 8% than it spends on efforts to fight climate change.

“We forget how much money we have,” Van Domelen said. Louisville 4% “Boulder is going to spend (6%) of our budget to meet our climate goals, and nothing that Boulder does is actually going to change the planet. All you’re saying is we’re going to do Erie 2% our part. We could also do our part to end child poverty in this community, because we can afford it, because it’s a good investment, because it’s sympathetic. It’s not a radical Superior 1% proposition. It’s the simplest, most obvious scenario.” Source, American Community Survey, 5-year data

It’s not a radical proposition. It’s the simplest, most obvious scenario.” – Julie Van Domelen

56 Community Foundation Boulder County | commfound.org/TRENDS A customer pays for marijuana after shopping at the Terrapin Care Station in Boulder.

Photo courtesy Daily Camera

Boulder budgeters look to MEDICAL MARIJUANA CENTERS AS OF MARCH 1, 2019 Licensed medical centers Licensed retail stores recreational marijuana taxes Boulder 13 26 Longmont 4 10 Boulder saw an opportunity to stabilize its budget as Colorado Lafayette 2 3 became among the first of now 10 states plus Washington, D.C., to permit some form of recreational marijuana use. Louisville 1 3 Lyons 2 3 Medical marijuana has been legal in Colorado since 2001, and Nederland 1 3 recreational since 2014. But because the drug remains illegal Source: Colorado Department of Revenue enforcement division at the federal level, the city has been reluctant to count on tax revenue from recreational sales.

Each year in the past, the money non-medical marijuana It’s not a panacea for Boulder’s budget woes: sales tax has brings in has been categorized as one-time revenue, explained been growing at a rate slower than inflation, causing a shortfall Kady Doelling, executive budget officer. Because of the way — a trend that is expected to continue as the population ages. Boulder does its budgets, one-time dollars can only be used Marijuana brings in about $3.7 million each year. Much of that for one-time expenses, not ongoing costs such as funding the goes to enforcement of and education around the industry fire department or police. itself, leaving a small amount for other city needs.

City officials decided to maintain the revenue as one-time Although the revenue has grown by double-digits in past years because of uncertainty at the national level. — last year brought a 30% increase — the growth is slowing. Doelling is projecting 5% annual increases in the future. That “Last year we were pretty close to moving this to ongoing, also has to be balanced against the decline in taxes from the but during budget time, there was a lot of rhetoric” from the shrinking medical marijuana sector; that revenue has been federal administration about going after states with legalized counted among ongoing dollars for several years. marijuana,” Doelling said. Still, Doelling noted, every dollar helps. During the 2020 budget discussion, which started in early 2019, Boulder decided to pull the trigger. Moving forward, “It doesn’t bring in a whole lot,” Doelling said, “but it does help marijuana revenue would be incorporated as ongoing funding. a little bit.”

TRENDS Report 2019–2021 | Our Economy & Housing 57 Our Economy & Housing

But “it really is at the core an affordable housing crisis issue. If there was a chair available for them, they wouldn’t get left out.”

Boulder County’s focus is now on getting those without housing into housing. In the first full year of coordinated entry — so-called because clients are funneled through one screening system and then connected with services — 188 people were placed in permanent supportive housing, 7.7% of those who accessed services. The county hopes to place a large percentage of the estimated 200 long-term local unhoused residents with an extra $1 million in local funds, plus some matching state and federal grants. The 31 fully-furnished one-bedroom apartments at 1175 Lee Hill Road in Boulder house chronically homeless residents with Not only does the approach address the issue at the heart of a “housing-first” approach. homelessness, but the housing-first focus saves money.

Photo by Julia Vandenoever It costs about $43,000 a year to let someone remain unhoused, Bless said. “They’re often using emergency medical response, interacting with police and the justice system, in addition to sheltering services.” Permanently supportive To help the homeless, housing, meanwhile, which includes the cost of subsidizing rent plus connections to services, costs $20,000 a year for try housing first each person.

In October 2017, with winter fast approaching, Boulder At the end of the day, focusing on housing is a cheaper, more County finally tried a new tactic to battle the area’s worsening effective way to help our neighbors who have fallen on hard homelessness crisis. times. More than half of those who sought services in the first year of coordinated entry have lived in Boulder County for more Governments, groups and officials from across the county than two years. “We’re providing community members with got together behind a coordinated effort with an underlying that foundation of a place to call home,” Bless said. philosophy: Homeless people have one critical need — housing.

And so that became the priority.

It’s a simple solution, but it took years to get there. That’s “HOUSING FIRST” SAVES MONEY partly because of the tradeoffs. With limited dollars, choices sometimes have to be made between sheltering services and investment in housing. Those difficult decisions have led to $43,000 criticisms of the current approach, but officials are standing firm.

Homelessness as we know it today didn’t really emerge Annual cost of homelessness until the 1980s, when federal housing dollars dried up, said on public services, per resident Jennifer Bless, homeless services system manager for Boulder County. Study after study has revealed that when housing costs go up, so does homelessness. “Basically what we’re doing is playing a game of musical chairs,” $20,000 Bless said. “There are too few affordable housing units for too many people who need them, so somebody is going to get left Annual cost of permanently out of that market. Who gets left out is going to be someone who has more challenges” like mental illness or addiction. That’s why supportive housing, per resident those issues often get blamed for homelessness, she said. Source: Colorado Center on Law and Policy, 2018 Report

58 Community Foundation Boulder County | commfound.org/TRENDS Businesses band together Photo by Julia Vandenoever to tackle Boulder’s tough problems

Politicians, nonprofits, advocates and activists aren’t the only ones raising the alarm about housing and transportation. Boulder’s business community is getting in on the action, too.

The Boulder Chamber has launched Boulder Together to tackle the root causes of the biggest challenges for companies in the city: hiring. More than 123,000 jobs were available in Boulder County in 2017 and 2018, according to the Chamber. Just 20,000 people applied for them.

“The number one thing businesses say is freaking them out is they can’t hire the employees they need to fill the jobs,” said John Tayer, president and CEO of the Boulder Chamber. “That’s hurting them to keep the doors open or grow the business.”

Boulder’s high cost of housing forces workers into long commutes: 50,000 people travel into the city each day. Boulder Together has set an ambitious goal of doubling the number of rental units and homes for sale for low- and Residents of Ingram Co-op in Boulder pool their middle-income workers. The initiative will also advocate resources to make rent and meals more affordable. for increased funding for transportation infrastructure and options, with a specific focus on improvements to the Arapahoe and Diagonal corridors. WHAT CAN I DO? “We say these are business issues, but they are entirely community issues,” Tayer said. “Everything we are trying to Support government policies that create and preserve achieve here is in balance with what our community says housing for all socioeconomic demographics, from its values are: more diversity ethnically and socially and working families to seniors. financially, and environmentally. We just can’t wait around for the city government to figure out what the solution is to this If you own a business, pay your employees a living issue we have right now.” wage. Check in regularly to make sure you’re not paying women less. If you are, make adjustments. Be flexible The third prong of Boulder Together is workforce development. with your hours, if you can, to accommodate working There are plenty of potential employees in the area, Tayer said parents. Consider providing or compensating for child — they just need some training, an apprenticeship or a shift care, which is prohibitively expensive for most families. in perspective. If you own property or have extra room in your home, “What does a music major have? Great math, great discipline. consider renting it out at an affordable rate to aging Skills that would make (them) a perfect candidate for a job,” seniors, people with disabilities, formerly un-housed Tayer said. “Veterans, disabled folks, the whole group of aging residents, families with children or lower-wage workers. class folks: A little upskill, and they’ll be awesome to work in our community. “You can get a job in Boulder.” Consider investing in Goose Creek Community Land Trust, an organization attempting to leverage resident money to provide housing for people across the socioeconomic spectrum.

TRENDS Report 2019–2021 | Our Economy & Housing 59

Our Environment Substantial problems, but hope and action on environment

Boulder County residents have long viewed their community as an environmental leader on Open Space and an innovator on mass transit incentives and bike paths.

They aren’t wrong. Yet, challenges persist and some problems are getting worse as the county joins the state in dealing with population growth and a rapidly changing climate.

Commuters in and out of Boulder County continue to hop into their cars to get to work. While the county managed to effectively prohibit fracking for oil and natural gas within its borders, emissions from surrounding areas — Weld County in particular — have not respected county boundaries. The one-two punch of auto and fracking emissions has kept air quality less than optimal and ozone levels high and rising.

Even amid gains on water conservation, the growing and thirsty Front Range population has led to a dispute between Denver Water and Boulder County on the expansion of Gross Reservoir.

The arrival of the Emerald Ash Borer poses a serious threat to an urban forest in which ash trees had served as a key species, and the growth of neonic pesticides has had a deleterious impact on pollinating insects. In addition, soil quality on Open Space agricultural land has suffered from overgrazing and an exploding population of prairie dogs.

Photo by Julia Vandenoever The hopeful part? Boulder County and the state are responding. The city of Boulder is establishing baselines for pollinators, Stories by Cindy Sutter aquatic insects and soil quality with an eye to improvement, and working to keep tree cover constant. Statewide, Gov. Jared Polis So much degraded soil accumulated next has brought an aggressive approach to improving air quality, to McCauley Farm near Longmont that the allowing more local control over oil and gas operations, enhancing sheep were able to walk over the fence. transit and encouraging an increase in electric vehicles. Our Environment

budged since the early 2000s. Likewise, workers commuting into Boulder make a huge impact. Former Boulder City Council member, County Commissioner and Boulder Mayor Will Toor said the daytime weekday population of Boulder is roughly 150,000, which falls to about 100,000 people at night.

Toor, who now heads the Colorado Energy Office in the administration of Gov. Jared Polis, said the lack of affordable housing in Boulder is a big problem.

Toor said that a survey conducted a few years ago found that about half of workers commuting into Boulder would live in multi- Steve Clouthier gets in his car for a 30-minute drive home family housing if more were available and affordable. He said the from Boulder to Arvada. state is also working on transit, improving or adding arterial bus Photo by Julia Vandenoever lines on routes such as Highway 119, Arapahoe Road and South Boulder Road.

BOULDER COUNTY TRANSPORTATION TO WORK, 2017 “That would support a lot of east-west commuting,” he said.

The Polis administration also has extended tax incentives on electric vehicles and is working to bring more EVs to Colorado.

Clouthier and his wife have four children, and she stays at home with them. He said Boulder’s housing costs were a deterrent to living there, although they also weighed distance from family in Highlands Ranch and Littleton.

Clouthier has free parking and an electric vehicle charging station at work. He also gets a free bus pass. When the family lived in Source: American Community Survey, 1-year data Golden, Clouthier commuted by bus frequently on Highway 93.

“I could walk to the bus stop from my house. If I was running If we build it, will they come? late, I could jump in the car to get to the bus,” he said. “I could open my laptop going to and from work and read my emails. More mass transit, affordable It was awesome.” housing, electric vehicles seen A need for more space prompted the family’s move to Arvada where housing was cheaper. Now, Clouthier mostly drives to work, as best commuter solutions a 30-minute commute. The bus stop is a 10-minute drive away from home. Steve Clouthier lives in Arvada and drives to work in downtown Boulder. “I’m already a third of the way to Boulder. The bus is usually reliable, but occasionally I stand there waiting. (Then I think) ‘Why “I’ve been commuting into Boulder for about 12 years, (from) am I doing this?’ “ Golden the first six and Arvada the last six,” he said. He said his free bus pass offers an incentive. “But there’s a flip Clouthier exemplifies one of the toughest problems Boulder side. If I were paying for it, (I might be) a little more motivated to County faces in reducing carbon emissions. Many Boulder make sure I used it to get my money’s worth.” workers live in nearby towns; many others commute out of the county. As for an electric vehicle, Clouthier said he might look at one in the future. About 65% of commuters from Boulder drive by themselves to work, according to Census figures — a number that has not “It would be easy to go back and forth from Arvada,” he said.

62 Community Foundation Boulder County | commfound.org/TRENDS Urban land cover: Boulder’s Urban Forester Kathleen Alexander calls the discovery of the Emerald Ash Borer in Boulder “a day I’ll never forget.“

“The scale of everything we do is different now,” she said. “We used to plant 300 trees a year. Now, it’s 500. We used to remove 400 trees. Last year, it was 1,300.”

That is only on city-owned land. About 75 percent of trees are on private property. The urban tree canopy currently covers about 16 percent of Boulder. The city’s goal is to maintain that percentage — an ambitious objective, given the high percentage of ash trees, all of which are susceptible to the borer.

Pollinators and aquatic insects: Rella Abernathy, integrated pest management coordinator for the city of Boulder, said the city does not use neonicotinoids, or neonics, a class of insecticides that is taken up through the plant’s root system and continues to expose pollinators through nectar and pollen.

“It kills insects over time. With pollinators, it can affect This garden at Chautauqua, designed to attract reproduction, make them more susceptible to disease, impact pollinators, is part of a city of Boulder effort to provide how they feed and their navigation ability,” Abernathy said. food and habitat to pollinating insects. “They may not die immediately, but they are more likely to be eaten by a predator, because they are not behaving normally. Photo by Julia Vandenoever It has cascading impacts throughout the entire food web and ecosystem.”

Boulder seeks to restore and That includes fish and other aquatic creatures, since many preserve trees, bees and soil insects spend their larval stage in water. “Aquatic insects are important as more than food,” she said. Boulder’s commitment to ecological preservation by using local “They clean and filter water, feed on sediment and algae … and taxes to purchase and set aside public land has frequently been get rid of decomposing plants.” characterized as groundbreaking. Abernathy added that homeowners often use a higher However, climate change, development of formerly vacant land concentration of pesticides than most farms do. The runoff and the use of systemic pesticides by farmers and homeowners washes into storm sewers and, eventually, creeks. have had impacts that require urgent action. That means environmental practices need to move beyond the preservation The city is establishing pollinator havens on public property of land: In some cases, they need to fix the land. and encouraging homeowners to carve out space for pollinator gardens. “We need to develop a more integrated approach to monitoring ecosystem change,” said Brett KenCairn, senior policy advisor Soil health: One of the biggest concerns for the city is the for Climate, Sustainability & Resilience for the city of Boulder. degradation of some parcels of Open Space agricultural land caused by overgrazing and a burgeoning prairie dog population. To that end, Boulder will measure environmental degradation The situation is so dire that some parcels of Open Space land and simultaneously sustain or restore ecological health in three can no longer be leased, because they are considered fallow. areas: land cover including the urban tree canopy, soil health and populations of pollinating and aquatic insects. Baseline In addition to working on a way to measure soil health such measures in these areas will be in place when the 2021 as looking at microbe populations, the city is working on soil TRENDS report is released and will be subsequently tracked by restoration with an eye to finding the best practices for the Community Foundation as indicators. repairing land.

TRENDS Report 2019–2021 | Our Environment 63 Our Environment

grooves in the land that allow him to “harvest water.” Water from rainfall and irrigation accumulates in the grooves and soaks deeply into the land rather than running off.

He also applies compost, adding nutrients to the soil, while the water helps grass seeds to grow, their roots penetrating the hard ground, trapping carbon and releasing nutrients to microbes in the soil. These methods have greatly improved his own land, on which he also has planted strips of trees with small berries on his pastures to attract birds.

McCauley couldn’t help but become interested in the Open Space parcel next to his farm after an intense windstorm a couple of years ago blew large amounts of its topsoil onto his farm, depositing about ¼ inch over his fields. So much soil accumulated along the fence that his sheep could walk over it. Those acquainted with environmental science or farming understand the loss of topsoil is considered an ecological disaster.

“It took millennia to build (the soil) up,” McCauley said. “The taxpayers have owned that land for a very short period of time, and the topsoil is gone.”

When the person leasing the land left, McCauley inquired about the land, wondering what was going to happen to it. He was told it was unleasable, meaning that it could not support farming or ranching. Over-grazing and a proliferation of prairie dogs, which could not be killed in Boulder as of this writing, were the main causes. The city was re-examining its prairie dog policies after complaints by farmers and a recommendation by its open space board.

McCauley got permission to lease the land from the city under Marcus McCauley is working with the city of Boulder to restore a carbon farming program. The deep-groove plowing helps with the soil on a neighboring Open Space parcel degraded by the prairie dogs, because the soil stays wetter after rain. overgrazing and an exploding prairie dog population. “It discourages them from maintaining a permanent spot,” Photo by Julia Vandenoever McCauley said.

A dry fall meant spotty germination after seeding, but subsequent moisture should help the cover crop he planted in Longmont farmer works late spring. Bindweed remains a problem, as do prairie dogs, to revive soil but he is hopeful that he will be able to bring the land back to the point where grazing is possible. Marcus McCauley is working on a soil improvement project on Open Space land adjoining his McCauley Family Farm “It’s incredibly rewarding to have the opportunity to regenerate near Longmont. land,” he said. “You can’t take a broken system and put it on the shelf and say, ‘We’re going to preserve this,’ unless you really The work is similar to what he’s done on his own land, improving manage the ecology of it.” soil health by using practices such as keyline design to follow contours of the land and using a subsoil plow to cut deep

64 Community Foundation Boulder County | commfound.org/TRENDS This land is your land, this land is my land?

What makes Boulder County special? There are many possible answers to that question. One of the most apparent would be the pioneering actions by the city of Boulder and Boulder County in preserving Open Space for future generations. About two-thirds of Boulder County’s 740 square miles are Now those future generations are the current generation, and publicly owned or protected. Yet, there can be a clash of cultures officials are striving to inculcate a love of and respect for nature on how to use it. in today’s children who will eventually assume the mantle of Photo by Julia Vandenoever stewardship. To many, the issue would appear solved. Go to any trailhead on most days, and you’ll see parents and children heading off on a hike. reservations months in advance, and many websites are in English only. But one thing has changed since Open Space was a new concept. Boulder County is more diverse than it was then, There can be a clash of cultures on how to use Open Space. with Latinos the largest minority group at about 14% of the “Hiking is allowed, mountain biking is allowed, but (some) don’t population, according to Census figures. want people picnicking there,” said Mara Mintzer, program “In the late 1960s, early 1970s, the Latino population was director of Growing Up Boulder. “There’s no one right way of maybe 2%,” said Richard Garcia, development director for the using it.” Latino school readiness nonprofit ELPASO. “I can almost say Growing Up Boulder works with children to gather their input into with a great degree of certainty that (many Latinos) don’t know government decisions on the design of public spaces, as well as what Open Space is. They may not know there’s so much out other issues. The organization recently released a bilingual map there for kids.” of things children can do in the city of Boulder. Even if families are aware, they may not know how to access the Mintzer in early 2019 wrote an op-ed for the Daily Camera space or may not feel welcome. in which she discussed a clash over public land bordering Rafael Salgado, executive director of Cal-Wood Education Wonderland Lake. After surveying hundreds of nearby Center, said cultural differences can make Latino families residents, both English and Spanish speakers, as well as uncomfortable. For example, Latinos often have large, extended nearly 100 children and teens, ages 3-18, Growing Up Boulder families who like to get together. recommended the city of Boulder add a fishing pier, boardwalk and shade structure for the site. “I have heard that sometimes Latino families will move picnic tables and put them together,” Salgado said. “The park ranger More than 100 neighbors showed up at a public meeting to talk will say (the tables) belong where they belong. If you want to about the planned changes. Most were against the proposal, attract Latino families, leave some tables together. It looks even angry about it, fearing it would lead to congestion that welcoming to them.” would change the serene character of the area.

Latinos may not know some rules, such as the fact that people Exposing young people to public land becomes even more over 16 need a fishing license, he added. Bilingual signs would important as more land is developed in Boulder County, make such rules clear, as well as demonstrate that Latinos preventing the kind of natural exploring that many kids engaged belong there as much as others do. in during the 1980s, Mintzer said.

“All Latinos want to be really respectful of everything they do in The good thing is that there is agreement on the basic goals, this country,” he said. she said. “What’s funny underneath it all, most of us have the same values: caring about Open Space, wildlife, caring about Public parks also have a way to go in encouraging Latinos our children.” to access their amenities. Picnic shelters often require

TRENDS Report 2019–2021 | Our Environment 65 Our Environment

Denver Water seeks to raise Gross Reservoir by 131 feet, doubling water capacity and destroying hundreds of thousands of trees. Opponents urge water conservation instead.

Photo courtesy Jennie Curtis

Jennie Curtis, executive director of the Garfield Foundation, an Water dispute: Proposed Gross environmental nonprofit.

Reservoir expansion pits That footprint would be substantial. The proposal to raise the Boulder County Commissioners, dam by 131 feet would more than double reservoir capacity, also more than doubling the amount of concrete in the complete others against Denver Water dam to nearly 1.5 million cubic yards.

It’s hard to imagine a local issue much more contentious than Curtis also pointed out that the data used in Denver Water’s the proposed expansion of Gross Reservoir, one that was not environmental impact statement dates to 2002, predating resolved as of this writing. concerns about climate change.

The largest construction project ever in Boulder County would Denver Water said it needs to bolster water supplies for its destroy between 200,000 and 650,000 trees. Opponents urge customers north of Denver. With the exception of several a greater focus on water conservation instead. thousand acre feet to increase the flow of Boulder Creek when it runs low, very few Boulder County residents would receive water “(The dam expansion) is going to be ... happening in a county from the project. that cares deeply about its environmental footprint,” said Boulder resident Dan Johnson, who has done engineering work PER CAPITA DAILY RESIDENTIAL WATER USE, 2018 for Denver Water, said the impact is lower than if the project (INCLUDES SINGLE- AND MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENCES, IN GALLONS) were started on a new site. He added that Denver Water plans to mitigate the impact on local residents as much as possible, Pine Brook 55 having workers park offsite, for example. Boulder 72 “The problem is that nature didn’t put water where people want Superior 81 to live,” he said, adding that when the current dam was built in 1954, planning included expansion for future needs. Longmont 82 Municipalities in Boulder County currently use less than half Lafayette 82 the gallons per capita they used in 2000, and other Boulder Louisville 82 County municipalities have also made significant improvements in water conservation. Erie 93 Source: Municipal water utilities Among the communities of Boulder County, Pinebrook had

66 Community Foundation Boulder County | commfound.org/TRENDS the lowest daily residential per capita use at 55 gallons, while Erie had the highest at 93 gallons. Boulder residents used 72 gallons per capita in 2018 compared with 165 gallons in 2000.

Overall use among Denver Water customers has continued to fall even as the population continues to rise significantly, just as it has in Boulder County.

Curtis and other environmental advocates say more conservation should be implemented before considering expansion. Denver Water argues it must increase water storage now to assure future supply.

In addition to several environmental groups that oppose the dam expansion, Denver Water tangled with the Boulder County Xcel crews work on Sixth Street in Boulder. The company Board of Commissioners, which unanimously voted to uphold and the city have been going through a messy divorce the land use director’s ruling to require review by the county. as Boulder seeks to run its own, more environmentally Denver Water sued the county, while still taking initial steps in responsible utility. the review process.

Save the Colorado, an environmental group that seeks to Photo courtesy Daily Camera preserve the Colorado River, from which some of Denver’s water flows, also was allowed to join the county’s suit in Boulder’s efforts to separate Boulder District Court against Denver Water. It and five other environmental advocacy groups had originally filed suit against from Xcel make slow progress Denver Water in December 2018. It hasn’t been amicable, and the process has been arduous, but as Denver Water planned to begin expanding Gross Reservoir in of this writing it looks as though the city of Boulder and Xcel Energy 2019. It was unclear whether a compromise was possible. could be inching toward a divorce settlement.

“It could be months. It could be years,” Curtis said. Engineers from both sides have been working on separation, and although the process has been and continues to be contentious, it appears to be moving forward after years of legal battles and public Estimates on the number of trees filings. More of the same is likely before the process is complete. that would need to be removed The separation got under way after the city of Boulder set a goal of using 100% clean energy by 2030 and reducing carbon emissions for the Gross Reservoir expansion by 80% by 2050. The city did not renew its contract with Xcel in range from a high of 2010, and voters in 2011 approved funds for an evaluation of the takeover. After the evaluation found that separation and city control was financially and legally feasible, Boulder created a transition 650,000 plan in 2014. to a low of In mid-2019, Boulder filed in court to condemn Xcel’s assets, the last step in acquiring them, after the two sides could not reach an 200,000 agreement on the list of facilities to be acquired or a price for them.

Xcel Energy's Colorado Energy Supply 2005 2012 2014 2015 2017 2026*

Coal 65% 58% 53% 53% 44% 24% Renewables 5% 19% 22% 23% 28% 53% Natural gas 30% 23% 25% 24% 28% 28% *Projected | Source: Xcel Energy, Colorado Energy Plan Fall 2018 Update

TRENDS Report 2019–2021 | Our Environment 67 Our Environment

Although a bike path and express buses have been added along U.S. 36 between Boulder and Denver, an increasing number of residents and cars continue to add to ozone pollution.

Photo by Julia Vandenoever

Polis administration tackles Front Range’s chronic ozone problem

Once again, the American Lung Association has given Boulder compounds (VOCs) into the atmosphere and motor vehicles all County an F on ozone pollution. over the metro area, which release nitrogen oxide (NOx),” said Will Toor, who heads the Colorado Energy Office under Polis. Ozone is a big problem along the Front Range, at least partially because of the very qualities that most attract people to Colorado: New regulations will look at the whole cycle of oil and gas proximity to the mountains and copious amounts of sunlight. drilling with the goal of reducing emissions, Toor said. In Ozone is created when various pollutants mix with sunlight. Then, addition, the administration is working to get more people out of ozone-laden air becomes trapped against the mountains. their cars and move the state to 100% renewable energy in the next few decades. In another irony, outdoor exercise — another favorite Front Range pastime — can make the health effects of ozone worse, Wildfires also contribute to ozone, said Boulder County’s according to the American Lung Association. Young children, Copeland, making it even more important for the state to reduce people who are older than 65 and those with asthma and other the emissions it can more easily control. chronic lung conditions are also at greater risk. On the positive side, power plant emissions have dropped as Boulder County is not alone in the state in not meeting federal less coal is being burned, and autos have also gotten cleaner standards for ozone. in the last decades. Those gains have largely been erased by the increase in new residents and more cars along the Front “The non-attainment area (for ozone) now expands from Denver Range, along with the ramping up of oil and gas production. The to Fort Collins,” said Cindy Copeland, air quality specialist for area was compliant in the late 1990s, Copeland said, but the Boulder County Public Health. standard was tightened in both 2008 and 2015, pushing the Front Range back into non-compliance. In 2018, Colorado requested and was granted an extension to meet the Environmental Protection Agency’s 2008 standard for The Polis administration believes its more aggressive approach, ozone. Gov. Jared Polis is taking a more aggressive approach to which will look at all the contributors to ozone, will pay off. Such meeting ozone standards, withdrawing the extension request to things as lowering VOCs in paint and adhesives and working to spur faster compliance and setting a goal for Colorado to meet reduce VOCs from various other sources — including from the federal standards by mid-2021. state’s largest breweries — will make a difference, along with the larger actions, Toor said. “Little pieces add up to something Where do ozone-creating pollutants come from? more significant moving forward,” he said. “The two biggest contributors are oil and gas development, largely in Weld County, that (releases) volatile organic

68 Community Foundation Boulder County | commfound.org/TRENDS Photo Daily Camera courtesy

YOUR COMMUNITY FOUNDATION – MAKING A DIFFERENCE Environmental Affinity Group provides inspiration, information, and connection among action-oriented donors

For donors of the Community Foundation whose philanthropy is focused on Bike commuters leave Alfalfa’s bike protecting and promoting our shared environment, the Environmental Affinity station during Boulder’s Bike to Work Group (EAG) is a springboard for action. Day in 2018. The group “convenes and inspires Boulder County environmental donors, building a connected and engaged community around environmental issues, connecting donors with environmental organizations, and providing opportunities for effective WHAT CAN I DO? grantmaking,” according to its statement of purpose. Drive less. If your job is suited, ask With some 65 participants and counting, EAG hosts educational events – if you can work at home a day or two including legislative briefings on pending environmental bills, relevant film a week. If public transit adds less screenings, discussions with expert ecologists and conservationists, and more. than a half hour to your commute, Additionally, “EAG provides opportunities for donors to connect with various take it more often. If riding your bike organizations, and learn more about local and global environmental issues and to work is an option, add it to your effective solutions,” says Ning Mosberger-Tang, a passionate environmental commuting menu. advocate, activist, and donor. “Building connections and staying informed are Use less paper. prerequisites for making collective impact on urgent issues we face, including the crisis of climate change. Don’t waste food. Stock your pantry and plan meals. “EAG is not only building a supportive community, it also helps direct resources in a more effective manner … and helps solve problems that each of us can’t solve on Eat less meat and buy our own.” sustainable fish.

Among EAG participants, survey results show 67% are interested in climate Use green cleaning products and change, 61% in energy, and 56% in population growth; other top areas of interest natural cosmetics. include environmental education, water, and pollination. Don’t flush leftover prescriptions; Since 2014, local philanthropists have granted more than $5 million through look for drop-off sites. Donor-Advised Funds at the Community Foundation to organizations supporting environmental and animal causes. Additionally, more than $196,000 in grants Get and pay bills online. via the foundation’s Community Trust grant cycle have been directed to Boulder Welcome pollinators with flowering County nonprofits that advance these causes. In 2019, the EAG aims to increase native and water-wise plants. Avoid the foundation’s Environmental Trust endowment from $32,000 to $132,000. neonics and pesticides. To learn more, contact Peggy Driscoll at [email protected] or 303.442.0436. Consider an electric or plug-in — Sabine Kortals Stein hybrid vehicle.

Pay attention to local, state and national government. Call your lawmakers and vote your values.

TRENDS Report 2019–2021 | Our Environment 69

Our Arts & Culture Boulder County arts work toward a more inclusive future

Boulder County’s arts scene is vibrant. The local community embraces the arts; artists continue to cluster here; support is strong from city and county governments, schools, audience members and volunteers, as well as the Scientific and Cultural Facilities District.

This embarrassment of riches gives the community room to reflect on who the arts serve now — and who they will serve going forward. As Boulder County becomes more diverse, arts organizations in the community are working to broaden their understanding of the ways in which inclusion can be woven into the fabric of the arts community.

Open Studios, which in 2019 marked its 25th year, was an early player in demystifying art by connecting artists with members of the public through its studio tour. Now, with its Plein Air Festival, members of the public can see professional and amateur artists at work without paying. Open Studios also works with art students and teachers in schools and has a mobile art lab that makes appearances at local festivals.

The number of such festivals has grown in recent years,

Photo Daily Camera courtesy Stories by Cindy Sutter with Boulder, Longmont, Louisville and Lafayette offering opportunities for appreciating music, dance, art and food Liliana Ravenzaha, of Fiesta Colorado Dance Company, dances to traditional Mexican from local vendors. The county has also encouraged music at the 2018 Longmont Museum’s public art, which puts art into people’s daily lives as they annual Día de los Muertos celebration, which drew about 6,000 people. encounter it walking, biking and driving. Our Arts & Culture

“I firmly believe public arts in a city sets the stage,” said Charlotte LaSasso, CONTRIBUTION SOURCES FOR BOULDER COUNTY ARTS, 2017 executive director of the Boulder County Arts Alliance. “Whether you notice or not, you’re taking it in on a subconscious level.”

Boulder County still has a long way to go in including everyone. County demographics have trended toward more ethnic and racial diversity, leading many arts organizations to do some thinking — and acting — on making their groups more responsive to a changing audience. About two years ago, the Scientific and Cultural Facilities District began a big push toward DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion) modeling changes in its own operations to serve as a model for the arts organizations it serves and partially funds.

Several Boulder County arts organizations are following suit. The Boulder Phil, for example, is using collaborations with dance groups and others to bring new interpretations to some of its musical programming.

Other arts organizations, such as the Longmont Museum, have long reflected the diversity of the town in which they are located. An event that particularly attracts Source: SCFD wide community support is its annual Day of the Dead remembrance and celebration, which will mark its 20th year in 2020. A moving exhibit includes “altars” made by artists and community members to honor the lives of people who have died. The Boulder County Ticket Sales celebratory part, with a planned move to downtown Longmont in 2019, has been 2011 2017 embraced by the wider community. Full price 297,202 435.132 After starting in Longmont in 2016 and moving to Boulder the following year, the Latino Reduced price 70,367 96,273 Festival has brought thousands of people to learn about and celebrate a wide variety of Free 381,238 227,220 Latin cultures. In 2019, the event had to be rescheduled due to cold weather, but also Total 748,807 758,625 because of threatened mass immigration raids by the Trump administration. Source: SCFD

BOULDER COUNTY ARTS INCOME

Total Earned Total Contributed $25 mil EARNED INCOME FOR BOULDER COUNTY ARTS ORGANIZATIONS, 2017 $20 mil

$15 mil

$10 mil

$5 mil

$0 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 Source: SCFD Source: SCFD

72 Community Foundation Boulder County | commfound.org/TRENDS Maya Sol Dansie offers her thoughts during a workshop for local artists on the subject of cultural appropriation and appreciation, as participants Elena Aranda, left, and Elicia Goodsoldier listen.

Photo by Sue Postema Scheeres Cultural appreciation or appropriation? Arts workshop designed to inspire dialogue

When it comes to dealing with touchy and difficult subjects, Those whose culture is referenced may see things differently. Ashmi Desai is the person to call. A postdoctoral associate in the University of Colorado’s School of Education, Desai is “(They think) ‘We have our own culture, which we have expressed. certified in dialogue facilitation on divisive issues. Why don’t you express your culture?’” Desai said. “These are conversations we need to be having.” Boulder County Arts Alliance hired her to conduct two workshops for local artists on the subject of cultural A person in a minority culture may feel that a member of the appropriation. The workshops were well-attended, said Charlotte dominant culture is free to try on and discard others’ cultural LaSasso, executive director. practices in a way that they are not. It’s important to talk about the differences in perceptions among cultures and between “It generated a lot of strong emotions,”she said. “People were individuals, Desai said. eager to follow up.” “It’s very contextual. Our identities are complex. Nobody is The issue is tricky, said Desai, who grew up in South India and necessarily just a black person, an Indian person or a white has been in Boulder since 2011. Some artists admire cultural person these days,” Desai said. “I think Boulder is just ripe for traditions that are not their own and incorporate them into their these conversations. When we did these workshops, there was art, seeing the practice as showing admiration or respect. a heightened awareness. Everyone wanted to listen and know. Everyone was open.”

TRENDS Report 2019–2021 | Our Arts & Culture 73 Our Arts & Culture

The key is access, Jordy said. Examples she cites are bilingual Enhancing the arts by programs and websites, as well as websites that are more welcoming all accessible for those with disabilities. More diverse leadership can help bring about these and other changes. Who are the arts for? Most people in Boulder County would likely say the arts are for everyone. But for people of color, those She added that changing demographics mean a change in in lower income brackets, those who do not speak English, those who access the arts. and those with disabilities, the arts may not feel particularly “The audiences are changing,” she said. “It’s not going to be the welcoming. same in a few years.” “We all approach art from the perspective of, ‘Is there something here for me,’” said Charlotte LaSasso, executive director of the Boulder County Groups Boulder County Arts Alliance. “I don’t worry walking through the doors of a museum anywhere. ” Receiving SCFD Funding in 2017

However, LaSasso added, the experience can be very different for many people. 70 Source: SCFD “If you’re disabled, you might not be able to figure out how to get in,” she said. “If you don’t see people who look like you or speak your language, it becomes pretty daunting.”

Arts organizations in Boulder County — which is 78% white — and the city of Boulder — 88% white— are reflecting and taking action on these issues in response to demographic and other changes, as are many communities nationwide. Locally, the Scientific and Cultural Facilities District (SCFD), which contributed funds to 70 arts organizations in Boulder County in 2017, is nudging its beneficiaries toward clear commitments to diversity, equity and inclusion.

“I think it is a long process,” LaSasso said. “You don’t just decide to do a program and call it equity work. You can’t just translate a poster into Spanish. It has to be in everything you do.”

Deborah Jordy, executive director of the SCFD, said the district began working in earnest on DEI more than two years ago. In 2017, SCFD diversified its staff, making one-third of its workers people of color. It followed a similar trajectory on its 11-member board by including five members from diverse backgrounds. Univision news anchor Jorge Ramos reads Cristian Solano- SCFD also offers a Diversity in the Arts internship. Córdova’s personal story during a taping of a new podcast series called UndocuAmerica, focused on the experience “How can we model behavior and how can we reflect the of undocumented people. The platform pairs DREAMers community?” Jordy said. “You need to start from within with (young people with Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) staff and board.” with national voices to share deeply moving stories from the undocumented community. The podcast is part of a She added that SCFD would like to see greater board diversity project by Boulder-based MOTUS Theater, which works with and more people of color, more people with disabilities and undocumented leaders to help them write powerful stories under-represented populations in staff leadership positions. about their lives and then uses media to reach a wider audience. The great cellist Yo-Yo Ma recorded a song just “We can’t mandate that organizations do this,” Jordy said, “but for this podcast episode, available at Shoeboxstories.org. we believe it is the right thing to do.”

Photo courtesy MOTUS Theater

74 Community Foundation Boulder County | commfound.org/TRENDS Boulder Phil works to balance outreach with tradition

“Diversity” and “symphony orchestra” might not be an obvious pairing, but many symphony orchestras have recognized the need to attract a younger and more diverse audience — including the Boulder Philharmonic.

“We’re in an industry that’s very hidebound and traditional,” said Katie Lehman, executive director of the Boulder Phil. “We always say we love Tchaikovsky and Beethoven; we stand on the shoulders of giants. At the same time, we recognize (their music was created at a time) in the history of culture that excluded so many people.” Martez McKinzy and Theresa Berger-Moore of Cleo Thus, the mission of the Phil and other orchestras is to bring Parker Robinson Dance Ensemble from Denver rehearse the richness and complexity of master composers of the past with musicians of the Boulder Phil for a collaborative to a new audience while building on that tradition in a way that performance of “The Lark Ascending.” incorporates diversity.

Photo courtesy Boulder Philharmonic Orchestra The effort involves both organization and programming. An important step is attracting a more diverse board, an effort currently under way at the Boulder Phil. the New World” symphony, which captures the composer’s vision of America that includes Native American and African Then there’s hiring. About 10 years ago, orchestras began American sounds. Peter Boyer’s “Dream of America,” based conducting blind auditions for musicians, Lehman said. That on the Ellis Island Oral History Project, was part of the means making musicians heard, not seen, when they audition performance as well for a job, removing the potential of implicit bias toward white male musicians. The Boulder Phil also worked with local immigration organizations and the Motus Theater to bring to life the stories As for programming, creating a dynamic season requires of newer immigrants with “UndocuMonologues.” The program combining traditional pieces, what Lehman calls an particularly resonated with many of the orchestra’s musicians, orchestra’s “war horses,” with more innovative performances. who are immigrants. Some of the latter can be accomplished through collaboration with other arts groups. “It was a very meaningful experience for us,” Lehman said.

Lehman cited a collaboration, fostered by Boulder Phil The Phil is reaching out to young people in an innovative way in Conductor Michael Butterman, that featured the Cleo Parker addition to its concerto competition, which involves classically Robinson Dance Ensemble from Denver, which choreographed trained young people. and performed a piece to accompany “The Lark Ascending” by Vaughan Williams. Robinson interpreted the piece by “We’re talking about having a different kind of concert,” portraying an imprisoned black man being offered hope by his Lehman said, explaining that it would involve asking kids to mother, sister and a woman carrying his child. submit their own musical material. “They can record it on their phones. They can be singing or tapping on the bottom of a Audience members had different reactions, Lehman said. gallon bucket.”

“A lot of people were moved to tears. They said it gave the Professionals would choose the material and work with the piece new meaning,” she said. “Others found it jarring. (They young person who submitted it to make it performance-worthy. said) they never saw the music that way.” “The hope is to find ways to open as many doors as possible to The Phil also pushed the envelope with the last concert in kids who have passion, talents and interests,” she said. its 2018-19 season. The concert included Dvorak’s “From

TRENDS Report 2019–2021 | Our Arts & Culture 75 Our Arts & Culture

Aavana Rios, left, and her father, Paver, look at a family altar the Longmont Museum as part of its 2018 Día de los Muertos celebration, the largest Day of the Dead celebration in Colorado.

Photo courtesy Daily Camera

Longmont Museum’s Day of the Dead events mourn, celebrate loved ones who have died

Longmont Museum’s Day of the Dead events started small 19 bigger,” said Manajek. “It’s about sharing culture and bringing years ago. It began as a grassroots effort by members of the a lot of things for everyone to celebrate.” community to bring meaningful programming to the museum for Latino residents. A community committee continues to do Children can participate by making the holiday’s traditional much of the planning. sugar skulls and getting their face painted like skeletons. Family day brings dancing and procession of the Gigantes: “We really try to keep it grounded in the grassroots where it traditional giant puppets. Family day was scheduled to move started,” said Kim Manajek, the museum’s director. to Main Street in 2019, with food and dancing. Joining the Gigantes will be Catrinas, dancing skeletons whose fancy Keeping the events true to the heart of a community had clothes derive from political satire dating to the Mexican some unexpected benefits. The Day of the Dead programming Revolution that began in 1910. — with its combination of heartfelt commemoration of loved ones and a boisterous celebration of their continued impact Longmont Museum honors the remembrance part of Day on the living — also struck a chord with non-Latinx residents. of the Dead with a poignant exhibition of altars, necessary Longmont Museum’s Day of the Dead events are believed to viewing for a full understanding of El Dia de los Muertos, as be the largest such celebration in the state, attracting roughly the holiday is known in Spanish. Profound in their simplicity, 6,000 people. many of the altars — created by community members after an application process — convey their loss with pictures and From a relatively modest start, “it has become something a lot everyday objects that belonged to those who have died.

76 Community Foundation Boulder County | commfound.org/TRENDS Gian Franco, left, performs with others during the 2018 Colorado Latino Festival at Central Park in Boulder.

Photo courtesy Daily Camera

Latinx Festival 2019 brings together cultures through music, dance, food

For most residents of Boulder County, the Latinx Festival Since then, it has more than tripled: 2019’s festival drew 2019 offered a fun day of music, dance and great food from roughly 15,000-20,000 attendees. Mexico, Central America, South America and the Caribbean. For local Latinos and those from surrounding areas, the joyful The festival in 2018 moved from Longmont to Boulder — a city expression of culture promised much the same. But national that is 88 percent non-Hispanic white, according to the U.S. politics marred the scene. Census. The move came about in an interesting way: Several entities asked the festival to come, including the Boulder The threat of nationwide immigration raids by the Trump City Council, the Boulder Human Rights Commission and administration caused festival organizers to push back the the Boulder County Arts Alliance, Maldonado said. The fact event. The raids were retracted just a day before the event that Boulder chose to designate itself a sanctuary city also was scheduled, but the festival was still pushed back by influenced the decision. several weeks. Latinx 2019 and similar efforts are a way to begin to educate Tamil Maldonado and her husband, Jose Beteta, started the the public on the differences among the cultures and arts that Latinx Festival on Main Street in Longmont in 2016. The fall under the Latino umbrella, Maldonado said. couple, who also founded the theater company Barrio E, chose the location for a particular reason. “People don’t say ‘I’m Latino.’ They say ‘I’m Mexican, I’m Venezuelan, I’m Colombian, I’m Peruvian,’ ” she said. “In the city of Longmont, Latinos are there,” Maldonado said. “Diversity … it has so many colors and flavors in our culture.” “One-third of the population is Latino. Still, (people) didn’t feel welcome in downtown. (We were saying) ‘This belongs to us, as Yet, as 2019 showed, there is common ground. well.’ We want to share and celebrate who we are in the world.“ “We are all going through the same discrimination,” Maldonado Police estimated the 2016 crowd at 5,000, Maldonado said. said. “We have values of family, values of friendship, and solidarity is (also) one of the qualities we have.”

TRENDS Report 2019–2021 | Our Arts & Culture 77 Our Arts & Culture

“Everybody gets to encounter art without the pressure to understand it or respond in a certain way,” she said. “It’s very much a freer experience.”

She added that public art also encourages viewers to create their own art: by taking a photograph, for example. Clack once saw someone spontaneously This mural by Chris Warren at Broadway and Violet Avenue in Boulder is an create a dance in front of a mural. abstract version of a topographic map of the location of the mural. Chris Warren, an artist who lives in North

Photo by Julia Vandenoever Boulder, created a mural for the NoBo Art District on a building on Broadway Reaching out through public art and Violet. After that commission, public murals have become a significant part of Leah Brenner Clack was working at a gallery in Boulder when she began to notice what his work. she considered a dearth of public art in the community. The NoBo mural, like many of his murals, “I felt like the arts weren’t represented in public art,” she said. “There were a lot of is his interpretation of a topographic sculptures, but not much new in the mural direction.” map of the location of the building and its surrounding area, including a You Are Clack, who founded her company, Art Space, in 2015, decided to change that. She Here point. started by finding walls appropriate for murals, reaching out to the building owners and connecting them to artists. Now her work also includes looking for grants and working “It’s celebrating the land around the with nonprofits to facilitate the creation of more public art. mural at the same time as the mural,” he said, although some people unfamiliar Public art serves an important function in a community, Clack believes, making art with topographic maps may not realize available to anyone who walks or drives by. what it is. “It’s kind of an abstraction of the maps they are used to seeing. When BOULDER COUNTY ARTS EMPLOYMENT they find out, it’s an added layer.” 20112013 2015 2017

1200

1100 WHAT CAN I DO?

1000 Visit museums and galleries, support 900 local musicians and go to concerts 800 and plays.

700 Donate time or money to arts 600 organizations. 500 Teach your children to appreciate the 400 arts by taking them to cultural events. 300

200 Buy art from local artists.

100 Take a class at a local arts 106 114 178 138 346 356 486 339 561 807 831 1201 0 organization. Full-time Part-time Contract Source: SCFD

78 Community Foundation Boulder County | commfound.org/TRENDS With plein air painting, the work gets done rain or shine

With 300 days of sunshine, Boulder County can be a perfect place for a plein air painting festival. But not always.

Colorado’s weather is also remarkably unpredictable, as Boulder-based Open Studios has sometimes discovered with its annual Boulder Plein Air Festival.

Even when spring should have sprung, rain and snow don’t show deference to the best-laid plans of arts organizations. Good thing artists are an ingenious lot. That includes Colorado natives, artists who moved to Boulder County — which was named an arts cluster in 2016 — and artists who traveled to the Front Range for the Plein Air Festival.

Painting outdoors, also known as plein air painting, became particularly popular during the 19th century heyday of impressionist artists, who particularly valued natural light. In recent years, it has enjoyed a resurgence as a way to bring the arts to the community. Amid cold, rain, snow and sleet, Kathleen Reilly arrived early and Local artist Kathleen Reilly used a door in a barn at Blue set up in a barn at Blue Cloud Farm to complete her painting at Cloud Farm to frame her view. The choice also had the obvious the Boulder Plein Air Festival. advantage of placing her inside as she put oil to canvas.

“That was a miserable day,” she said of the cold, rain, snow and Photo by Julia Vandenoever sleet, but not the painting experience. “I saw the barn. It was a really good place to paint.” when a scheduled painting day in Niwot brought heavy, wet Reilly, who worked as a technical illustrator, said plein air snow. Undaunted, many artists found a way. painting is valuable for the artist. “(One artist) titled her piece situationally: ‘From the Back of “It’s almost like meditation. You’re really focused on it,” she said. My Subaru,’ ” said Mary Horrocks, executive director of Open “It’s really a challenge to start and finish a picture in a two-hour Studios and organizer of the Plein Air Festival. window before the sun moves or the weather changes.” Sanderson worked from the cab of his truck. He and several In addition, the outdoors magnifies the experience. other artists did their work close to home, rather than making “You not only get to see it, you hear it, smell it, feel it. It’s just a the slippery trek to Niwot. Sanderson set up with a view of a lot more intense,” she said. playground in North Boulder.

George Sanderson, who has been painting in oil and other media Snow falling on an unused slide made a nice focal point. for 45 years, has devised an all-weather plein air kit of sorts. “I was unable to set up for oil painting,” he said, “but I did a nice “I made it myself from a table-top easel, a heavy duty surveyor’s pen and ink and watercolor.” tripod, a (hanging) bag to put rocks in to weigh it down if it gets On other festival days, such as an event at Coot Lake, and a windy and a cup holder (for) tea or coffee or beer,” he said. “I two-hour paintout on Pearl Street, the weather cooperated. prefer to paint outside, and I bring an umbrella.” “Everyone ultimately had a great time,” Sanderson said. “We But even such Boy-Scout level preparation was not enough could share horror stories about painting in the snow.”

TRENDS Report 2019–2021 | Our Arts & Culture 79

Our Civic Participation & Giving Much work yet to do in achieving connected, inclusive communities

The date is seared in Naropa President Chuck Lief’s memory: March 1, 2019. The day one of his students, Zayd Atkinson, an African American, was detained on his front doorstep for picking up trash.

“That response, to me, it was completely mindless,” Lief said. “It was almost primal, that eight cops with three weapons was a result of a kid picking up garbage.”

The confrontation ended when a white Naropa employee, well known to the officers, rushed to the scene and waved them off, assuring them Atkinson was a Naropa student who lived there.

How well do we know our neighbors? Does everyone feel safe, seen and valued? Do we identify with or understand the struggles others in our cities and towns experience, but Stories by Chris Barge that most of us are fortunate enough not to endure? The data suggests we have a lot of work to do, across Boulder Photo Daily Camera courtesy Zayd Atkinson speaks before Boulder City County, in this regard. Council on March 18, 2019. The inci- dent in which police officers confronted Atkinson while he picked up trash was the Boulder Police are twice as likely to arrest black people catalyst for the creation of a task force than white, non-Hispanic people after stopping them, a to explore forming a community police oversight board. recent study shows. Our Civic Participation & GIving

The Community Foundation’s civic participation and giving survey shows our county’s residents feel we are least open to minorities, immigrants and refugees compared with any other subgroup, and we are not very accepting of senior citizens either. For people of color – or for people Institutions across our county, including this Community Foundation, are increasingly prioritizing equity in their work. who look or act different Is this intention leading to a more inclusive community – going into public places, with more equitable outcomes for the most vulnerable and restaurants, shopping, marginalized among us? there is a reality that you might be Everywhere we look, there’s work to do. Our charitable treated differently.” giving rates are well below the national average. This is driven, in part, by residents not seeing the needs around – Anonymous Boulder resident them and not knowing enough about what local nonprofits are doing to address those needs, our survey finds.

PERCENTAGE OF BOULDER COUNTY RESIDENTS WHO SAY WE’RE More and more, the Community Foundation is hearing a VERY OPEN OR OPEN TO THE FOLLOWING GROUPS theme emerge as it listens to members of our community. Gay and lesbian people 76% People feel disconnected. Lonely. They are yearning for the sorts of relationships with one another that might increase Families with young children 69% awareness of our community’s needs. Young adults without children 65% The 2020 Census provides communities across the country with an opportunity to get to know each other a little better. So much Recent college grads 63% depends on a complete and accurate count, including this very report, which relies on the census for a majority of its data. Senior citizens 50% The good news is that communities are strengthened every day, one new relationship at a time. Atkinson had only lived in Racial and ethnic minorities 47% Boulder for nine months before his run-in with police. But he says he plans to stay, because of the great relationships he’s Immigrants from other countries already made, and the support he feels by many who are calling 46% for change. Source: CFBC Survey 2019

“I just feel grateful to be a part of some sort of possible reform,” he said. “It’s good to be in a situation where we’re able to do some good.”

82 Community Foundation Boulder County | commfound.org/TRENDS Carmen Ramirez speaks about the importance of Latino bilingual cultural brokers at a Community Foundation gathering of community leaders.

Photo by Julia Vandenoever

Riding the roller coaster of diversity, equity and inclusion

Many people of color report not feeling included in Boulder One Boulder resident, quoted anonymously in the assessment, County, despite the area’s reputation as a progressive put it this way: “The reality for people that are here: it’s stronghold. Several large institutions have recognized this is not as welcoming a community. For people of color — or for an issue, to the point where many are prioritizing efforts to people who look or act different — going into public places, become more diverse, inclusive and equitable. restaurants, shopping, there is a reality that you might be treated differently.” Boulder County government has several initiatives focused on this topic. The Boulder Valley School District is making equity a The City of Boulder has focused on diversity efforts for more chief focus area of its next strategic plan, still stumped by the than 10 years. They’ve done diversity training for all staff in vast disparities in academic outcomes between its students of the past. But it hasn’t seemed to make much difference, said color and their peers. Aimee Kane, the city’s Program and Project Manager.

Carmen Ramirez has seen this cycle of awareness and focus These days Boulder is trying to be more intentional in how it ramp up across our county before, only to fizzle out. talks about and engages with the community, Kane said. It’s working with Government Advancing Racial Equity to help city “It’s kind of like a roller coaster,” said Ramirez, manager of staff understand the impacts of structural racism and implicit Community and Neighborhood Resources for the City of bias, in three areas: the procurement process, workforce Longmont. “We go all the way up, we invest, and then it’s lost. equity and community engagement. If we don’t have a steady commitment to sustain, we won’t build capacity.” Ultimately, the city will create a racial equity plan and then ask the community if they think it will work. The city is also Some minorities in the City of Boulder experience a persistent working with partner organizations to help them learn what lack of inclusion, due to the majority population’s overall lack the city is learning. of exposure to diversity, their microaggressions and the city’s unaffordability, according to a 2017 Community Assessment of “The hope is that we’re all rowing in the same direction and Boulder as a Safe and Inclusive Community. Leaders therefore we’re not doing separate things,” she said. “There’s a lot of struggle to make Boulder the welcoming, inclusive community good work going on in this space, but there’s a lot of three it wants to be. steps forward, two steps back.”

TRENDS Report 2019–2021 | Our Civic Participation & Giving 83 Our Civic Participation & GIving

Zayd Atkinson received national attention including here, on a taping with Good Morning America, after a Boulder police officer detained him on suspicion of trespassing while picking up trash outside his apartment.

Photo courtesy Siddhartha Rathod

Police confrontation sparks firestorm over racial bias

The most visible recent step backward for Boulder’s racial With humility, Lief acknowledged Naropa has a lot of work to do equity efforts came in March 2019, when a Boulder Police in this area. However, Naropa has made great strides in recent officer tried to arrest Zayd Atkinson, an African American years to diversify campus, by recruiting staff and students of Naropa student, on suspicion of trespassing while picking up color and by offering larger financial aid packages. trash outside his apartment. Atkinson disputed the officer’s right to arrest him, and he was eventually confronted by nine Boulder’s mayor and city manager invited Naropa to collaborate officers, with guns drawn. The incident sparked a community in creating anti-bias training. firestorm and led to a police oversight task force to look at “One result of the issue with Zayd was that all of a sudden racial bias. The arresting officer resigned. Naropa became relevant to the city,” Lief said. The real work is “It taught me there are some old patterns of oppression and going to require a lot more commitment, starting with leadership, systemic racism that hadn’t ever been addressed until my he said. “Is the city willing to model this in a deep way?” incident,” said Atkinson, 27. “For some reason, the incident that For the time being, Atkinson plans to stay in Boulder, happened with me seemed to wake up the city.” enrolled at Naropa, majoring in Yoga Studies, and feeling Naropa President Charles Lief rushed to support Atkinson. the support of many fellow students and faculty, friends He also said he sensed a moment and an opportunity for and community members. Naropa to show leadership on its core values of mindfulness “I haven’t been part of the community long, but I definitely plan and compassion. on staying and becoming more and more involved,” he said. “The gap between the Boulder we think we are and what showed up in Boulder that morning is immense,” Lief said. “The bigger work is how do things like white privilege show up in a community that doesn’t believe white privilege is an issue?”

84 Community Foundation Boulder County | commfound.org/TRENDS focused on lessening suffering in Boulder County, particularly by ensuring equity around gender and sexual orientation.

“We want to be the best church for the county, not just in the county,” she said.

Jen Jepson, a church founder along with Aaron Bailey, had reached out to Williams after the 2014 shooting of a black man by a white police officer in Ferguson, Mo. The shooting began awakening her to her privilege and to white supremacy, she said. It was a tipping point. Ten years earlier, her youngest brother had come out as gay, and she realized she didn’t have a framework from her evangelical upbringing to process that. She became disillusioned with the megachurch she was attending in Longmont.

“I realized we weren’t talking about anything regarding power differentials, women and leadership,” Jepson said. “It was eye Paula Stone Williams gave this TEDX Mile High talk opening. Really, we were navel gazing and looking at our own on what she’s learned living as a man and a woman in sinfulness. On a larger systems level, I didn’t see the church December 2017. It’s been viewed online more than doing that work. I realized I maybe needed to start something.” 2 million times. Williams closed her TED talk with a call to action for men: Photo courtesy Paula Stone Williams “What can you do?” she asked. “You can believe us when we tell you we might have equality, but we do not have equity. It is not a level playing field. It never has been. You can be a part of Seeing white male privilege the solution by elevating us to equal footing. You uniquely have as a transgender woman that power.”

Paula Stone Wiliams was the CEO of a large religious nonprofit. She hosted a national television show. She preached in megachurches. “I was a successful, well-educated, white American … male,” she Paula Stone Williams’ said at the opening of a TEDX Mile High talk she gave that has now been viewed more than 2 million times. advice for white men:

Williams, who was born in 1951, knew she was transgender Make sure women are in the meeting. since the age of 3 or 4. After she came out as transgender in 2012, she lost all her jobs. Don’t interrupt women.

Since then the Lyons resident has been speaking across the Give women credit for their work. country and internationally, almost exclusively on the topic of Hire mothers and be aware of your implicit bias gender equity. She talks about being mistreated by men on against them. airplanes since she transitioned, about being subjected to “mansplaining,” but also about the support she has felt from Be aware of implicit racial bias. Studies show that people those willing to honor and empower women. with stereotypically black or Hispanic names on their resumes are significantly less likely to get a call back from She was one of the founders of a new church in Longmont a potential employer, even when their qualifications are the called Lefthand Church, which began worship services in same as those with white, non-Hispanic names. 2018. The congregation of 120 members — and growing — is

TRENDS Report 2019–2021 | Our Civic Participation & Giving 85 Our Civic Participation & GIving

High Plains Bank in Longmont offers Citizenship Loans to help new Americans pay for the cost of citizenship applications. Pictured here (L-R) are recipients Yavared Zavala Rivera (left) and daughter, and Manuel Herrera Casillas; John Creighton, High Plains Bank President and CEO; Marta Moreno, Lead Case Manager at El Comité de Longmont; and Rose Hopman, Community Support Services representative at High Plains Bank.

Photo courtesy High Plains Bank

Longmont immigrants face racist comments, but also feel support

Donna Lovato is a 7th-generation U.S. citizen with no Mexico or another country. discernable Spanish accent. Yet, she’s had to put up with people saying they can’t understand her accent, and others Lovato looked out the window of her small office. “I don’t want who’ve told her, “Go back where you came from.” to be all Donkey Downer, though,” she said. She pulled out a newspaper ad from nearby High Plains Bank, advertising its Latino residents say racist comments are on the rise in citizenship loans. Longmont over the past few years, said Lovato, executive director of El Comite. Two years earlier, Lovato and her colleague, Marta Moreno, had approached the bank’s president, John Creighton, to see if he “It was all in the closet before,” she said. “Now they’re out about it.” could offer small loans to clients who wanted to apply for US citizenship but couldn’t afford the $725 fee. The bank worked El Comite advocates for Longmont’s immigrant population. Its out a 24-month, unsecured loan where it paid the application case workers in 2018 assisted 2,771 clients from 24 countries, fees directly and borrowers paid the bank back over two years, speaking a total of 15 different languages. Most were Spanish at $32.54 per month. speaking, and 73% were from Mexico. It pains Lovato that her clients deal with comments like “Go back to your country,” “One of the conversations we have here on an ongoing basis in addition to trying to scratch a life out for their families on is, ‘What are things we can do to support people in our extremely limited incomes. community?’” Creighton said, adding that the decision to develop the Citizenship Loan was easy. Hundreds of families have left Longmont since 2017, and officials suspect they are pulling their children out of the local High Plains issued about 15 of the loans during the first two schools to relocate to their countries of origin. Evidence of this years it was offered. Everyone paid as agreed. Only one borrower trend is showing up as an increased drop-out rate amongst was late on one payment, and he was extremely apologetic. Latino students in St. Vrain Valley Schools. That’s because “There’s lots of small gestures that business owners can make students who are not re-enrolled in another school district in the that have a profound impact on peoples’ lives,” Creighton said. US are counted as drop-outs, though they may be re-enrolling in

86 Community Foundation Boulder County | commfound.org/TRENDS YOUR COMMUNITY FOUNDATION – MAKING A DIFFERENCE Cultural brokers advance equity, create change

As one of four national participants in the Knight Foundation’s nurture transformation from the inside out, both as individuals Community Information Lab, your Community Foundation had and as institutions,”explained Chris Barge, Vice President of the unique opportunity to explore what it means to create the Strategic Initiatives and team lead. conditions for Latino Bilingual Cultural Brokers (LBCBs) to help Taking an experimental approach inspired by cultural brokers drive decisions locally. working within our school districts, and building on the work of Specifically, the Knight Community Information Lab (KCIL) – the Boulder County Office of Resilience and Recovery Cultural an 18-month program that empowers foundations to better Brokers Resilience Program, the foundation’s new Equity integrate information needs into their work through a human- Reporting Initiative is funding a Latino bilingual journalist centered design approach – comprises data compilation, focus to report for KGNU Community Radio, and to anchor a new groups, listening events, and interviews to identify and develop TRENDS podcast. a design challenge that addresses local information needs. “Equity journalism is directly rooted in listening to Spanish “The first question we asked was, ‘How can we create the speakers and their stories in tandem with collaborative action,” conditions for cultural brokers to support the Community Barge said. Foundation’s equity vision?’” said Marta Loachamin, consultant According to Barge, “Consistent with the foundation’s and facilitator on the project. “The second piece was North Star of equity, we’ve opened the door for ongoing understanding the value of authentic storytelling by keeping experimentation that involves our community in identifying intact the voices of the owners of the stories we share.” the best ways for stories to be told and widely incorporated in According to semantic scholar Mary Ann Jezewski, cultural organizations and institutions across Boulder County.” brokering is the act of bridging, linking or mediating among To learn more, contact Chris Barge at [email protected] groups or persons of different cultural backgrounds for the or 303.442.0436. purpose of reducing conflict or producing change. — Sabine Kortals Stein “Following the principle ‘do nothing about us without us’ by working with – not for – our community, the challenge is to

A participant takes a turn in the Listening Together sound booth at the Longmont Museum’s Cinco de Mayo festival in 2018. The sound booth was a collaboration between KGNU and the Community Foundation to better understand the area’s Latino culture.

Photo by Chris Barge

TRENDS Report 2019–2021 | Our Civic Participation & Giving 87 Our Civic Participation & GIving

An address canvasser works to improve and refine the U.S. Census Bureau’s address list in advance of the 2020 Census.

Photo courtesy U.S. Census Bureau

Locals mobilize for complete census count

The decennial census of population and housing in the United promote a complete and accurate Census in Colorado since States is the basis for how federal funds are distributed to 1990. “This is my fourth census and every time it’s been an such programs as WIC, Head Start, education, transportation act of trying to get to know people and trying to connect and and public transit. It’s the starting point for how major public trying to help them understand how important it is.” policy decisions are made. It determines how many people a state’s voters can send to Congress. This very TRENDS Report Boulder County’s hardest to count populations have relies on the Census for a majority of its data. traditionally been minorities and immigrants, seniors, children under 5, rural residents and college students. The Census also holds a mirror to our community, showing us how well we know one another. The cities of Longmont and Boulder organized Complete Count Committees, and other small towns and interest groups in the “An indicator of our changing society is we oftentimes don’t county were also organizing to get out the count as of this writing. either have or create an opportunity to connect with the people around us,” said Rosemary Rodriguez, Executive “If we don’t know who’s in our community, how can we know all Director of Together We Count, a nonprofit she organized to the true needs and all the true assets?” said Carmen Ramirez, help ensure a fair and accurate 2020 Census. “The Census Manager of Community and Neighborhood Resources for the and this work is providing us an opportunity to know our City of Longmont. “What does it mean to our community to not neighbors a little better.” count everybody? Are these things that we value? I think so.”

Rodriguez, a former Denver City Councilwoman, has worked to

88 Community Foundation Boulder County | commfound.org/TRENDS “Perfect storm” gathers over Trump wakes up County voters 2020 census The 2016 election of Donald Trump has apparently shocked Boulder County’s Democratic and unaffiliated voters into action. Bill O’Hare calls it a perfect storm. About 89% of the county’s active voters cast a ballot in the As the United States prepared for the 2020 decennial count of 2016 election, when Hillary Clinton faced Donald Trump at the all its residents, several factors converged to make it the most top of the ticket. This was a less enthusiastic turnout from the high-stakes exercise in memory. near-universal 96% who voted in 2012, when Barack Obama won re-election. “This will be the hardest census of my lifetime,” said O’Hare, a national expert who specializes in demographics. Local voters made up for their 2016 performance with a stronger turnout in 2018 than in 2014 or 2010 — the previous Here are his top five reasons why: two non-presidential congressional elections. The census has been underfunded for a decade, thanks Statewide, Colorado voters were also fired up in 2018, turning to Republican congressional efforts to rein in government out at the second-highest rate in the country, according to spending, especially on hard-to-count populations that tend to the Florida-based United States Election Project. As a result, vote for Democrats, he said. Democrats swept the governor’s seat, both houses of the Because of budget cuts, the Census Bureau is trying new, legislature and every statewide constitutional office. untested methodologies to help ensure an accurate and Will liberal voter enthusiasm here and across the country carry complete count, including moving much of its outreach efforts into 2020? online. “That’s not a good recipe,” he said.

The Trump administration’s well-publicized push to add a citizenship question, which was stopped by the U.S. Supreme Court, “no doubt will reduce cooperation with Hispanic households and with minorities and immigrants.” O’Hare added.

Americans are less willing than ever to respond to any survey, citing privacy and confidentiality concerns.

In response to increased privacy concerns, the Census Bureau is likely to release less information once it collects the data than ever before.

On the positive side, advocates for a complete count outside the census have mobilized far more than in the past and are much more on top of the issue.

Will the positives outweigh the negatives?

“Hindsight will make it easier to sort out,” O’Hare said.

WHAT’S AT STAKE: $2,300 Gina Nocera casts her ballot in 2018, when voters average amount of federal funding across the state turned out at the second-highest rate allocated per Colorado resident, in the country. per year. Photo courtesy Daily Camera

TRENDS Report 2019–2021 | Our Civic Participation & Giving 89 Our Civic Participation & GIving

Caroline Colvin Photography

Distribution Specialist Jim Martinez rolls fresh veggies onto the floor at Community Food Share in Louisville. “Fewer people would go hungry if we had more food to give,” said Executive Director Michelle Orge.

Photo courtesy Community Food Share Boulder County’s $68 million giving opportunity

Boulder County residents gave $292 million to charitable community at large. causes in 2015, according to the most recent data crunched by The Chronicle of Philanthropy. In sheer dollars, we gave more “When our gear turns, every other gear in the community turns,” than 95% of counties across the country. Orge said.

As a percentage of income, however, we gave less than 80% of The agency operates on a $3 million budget. Additional funding counties. If we brought our giving rate up to the national average, would allow it to supply more food, build more partnerships, an extra $68 million would go to charitable causes. make more connections, distribute more information and raise greater awareness. What could local nonprofits do with their share of that extra cash? So what’s holding us back? “Fewer people would go hungry if we had more food to give,” said Michelle Orge, Executive Director of Community Food Share. “This community does seem to have a bit of a tougher time recognizing there is a need in their community; or at least The Louisville-based food pantry supplies 7 million meals recognizing the need in their community is something for which annually to Boulder County’s 35,000 food-insecure residents, they can be part of the solution,” Orge said. both directly and through a vast network of partner agencies. Most Boulder County residents recognize there’s a need, The organization functions like a big gear, supplying food to other according to Community Foundation Boulder County’s 2019 human service agencies that address housing, homelessness, survey. They say they give to organizations they trust, that they health, childcare, education, families, neighborhoods and our believe in and that provide them a clear understanding of the

90 Community Foundation Boulder County | commfound.org/TRENDS WHAT CAN I DO? YOUR COMMUNITY FOUNDATION – If you’re an employer, recruit, hire, promote and MAKING A DIFFERENCE retain people of color in your business or organization,

and make sure your white employees are culturally Pledge 1% Colorado inspires competent and receive cultural competency training. startup giving Elect people of color to represent you in government. Focused on early-stage corporate philanthropy, Pledge 1% Do your own personal work developing your cultural Colorado is a network of 252 local entrepreneurs – and competency and understanding white privilege. counting – who share a common commitment to make a difference in Boulder County and beyond. Make sure you’re giving financially at least at the national rate of 3.2% of your income, and tell your Launched by your Community Foundation more than 11 years friends and family what you’re doing and why. ago, the movement connects young companies’ future success to philanthropy by allowing them to easily pledge 1% of equity, 1% of employee time to volunteerism, 1% of product and 1% of BOULDER COUNTY’S CHARITABLE GIVING profit to local communities. By disrupting traditional models of philanthropy, Pledge 1% Colorado continually catalyzes local Giving ratio 2.56% entrepreneurs to push the status quo. Since its first member exit in 2008, Pledge 1% Colorado has Total contributions $292 million contributed more than $10 million to Front Range nonprofits and hundreds of hours of volunteer service. Based on its local Average giving per itemizer success, the Community Foundation partnered with Salesforce, $50,000 to $75,000 income $1,814 (2.9%) Atlassian, and Rally for Impact to establish a global version of the program – Pledge 1%. It was named Most Innovative Not- Average giving per itemizer For-Profit by Fast Company in 2017. $75,000 to $100,000 income $2,235 (2.6%) More recently, the Pledge 1% Colorado Nonprofit Pitch Average giving per itemizer Contest – organized by Pledge 1% Colorado and the Community $100,000 to $200,000 income $3,247 (2.3%) Foundation – recognizes and supports entrepreneurial and innovative nonprofit ideas to solve pressing problems and critical Average giving per itemizer issues facing Boulder County. During Boulder Startup Week, the $200,000 + income $13,931 (2.7%) annual contest seeks proposals that lift up under-resourced communities and advance inclusion, diversity, and equity. Source: The Chronicle of Philanthropy, updated October 2017 “The Pitch Contest was the perfect opportunity to connect with services and programs their money will support. They want to the startup community, and talk about health equity issues in help their community, and they feel giving is morally the right Boulder County,” said Jorge De Santiago, Executive Director of thing to do. El Centro Amistad, a contest winner. “We used this platform to present our innovative way to address health equity in Why don’t Boulder County residents give more? Most our community using our Promotoras de Salud model – a respondents say they can’t afford it. And they generally think grassroots effort that educates and empowers Latino families administrative costs at charities are too high. to live a healthy lifestyle.” However, there’s evidence that greater awareness and accurate Learn more at commfound.org/our-impact/programs- information could yield better results: a slight majority admit initiatives/pledge-1-colorado they just don’t know enough about charities, and they say they’re not sure charities are effective. — Sabine Kortals Stein

TRENDS Report 2019–2021 | Our Civic Participation & Giving 91 Our Civic Participation & GIving

We are actually a force – an economic force,” – Joanne Kelly

KEY HIGHLIGHTS OF NONPROFIT IMPACT STUDY: Children set up traffic cones at New Explorers Learning Center (formerly Aspen Grove Community Preschool). Nonprofit Employment (Direct) 13,207 The center expanded and was renamed with the help of TEENS, Inc., in response to another preschool in town Nonprofit Spending (Direct) closing in 2019. $1,345,653,231

Photo by Julia Vandenoever % of All Jobs 4.97%

% of All Spending $5.05% Nonprofits create jobs, boost the economy

Little Bear Preschool in Nederland closed its doors for good in The report found that more than 13,000 Boulder County 2019, after 29 years. The closure left families in the remote residents work for nonprofits — accounting for 1 in 20 jobs. It mountain town with only two preschool options — one of which also found that our county’s nonprofits spend more than $1.3 had no summer hours nor extended care during the school year. billion annually, which amounts to more than 5% of all spending.

The board of TEENS, Inc., realized it had the capacity and vision The vast majority of Boulder County nonprofits provide important to fill the gap. Over the summer, the nonprofit organization services with annual budgets of less than $500,000. For every struck a deal to help Aspen Grove Community Preschool expand $1 million spent, nonprofits create 10 jobs, compared to 7 jobs under a new name: The New Explorers Learning Center. created by the private sector, the report found.

The move aligned with the mission of TEENS, Inc., “To support, What TEENS, Inc. is doing in Nederland to preserve and create educate and empower youth and their families to make healthy jobs and help families keep their own jobs is a great example choices and thrive.” of what nonprofits do across the state, Kelly said. The new report is helping the nonprofit industry prove its economic “We’re able to provide a meaningful opportunity for people to value to lawmakers. work right in their own community,” said Stephen LeFaivre, Executive Director of TEENS, Inc. “In the 10 years I’ve been doing this, I’ve definitely noticed that people don’t think of the nonprofit sector as a jobs creator. They It’s a shining example of how our nonprofit sector impacts our think of the good work we’re doing,” Kelly said. “I think it really local economy. A first-ever Colorado Nonprofit Economic Impact resonates to have economic data that’s so similar to the way Study shows the many ways nonprofits do this. other sectors report their impact.” “We are actually a force — an economic force,” said Joanne Kelly, CEO of the Colorado Association of Funders. Her organization partnered with five other statewide organizations to produce the report.

92 Community Foundation Boulder County | commfound.org/TRENDS Reaching out to see what’s needed

Cindy LIndsay’s evolution from startup entrepreneur to philanthropist happened over time.

The east Texas native was working for technology companies in Cupertino, Calif., while also busy raising a family with her husband.

“I was buried under the stuff that was all about me,” she said. Community Foundation Boulder County Trustees Cindy But she also made time to volunteer as a tutor for low-income Lindsay (left) and Chester Kurtz Latino youth who lived in a barrio across town. She built Photos by Barbara Colombo relationships and began to understand that many people were struggling in Cupertino, despite its tech wealth. The importance of connecting “They’re just people, she said. “They’re struggling with different things, but they’re no different from you and me.” with those outside your orbit

Eventually, she and her husband decided to relocate to Boulder, Chester Kurtz credits his parents and his upbringing in a where they went on to found two technology startups in the area. hardscrabble Montana town for motivating him to give to and volunteer for nonprofit organizations. “At that point, our involvement with philanthropy was to write a check,” she said. “We didn’t participate much in the community.” His parents were teachers and civic leaders in the town of Forsyth, which has shrunk from about 3,000 to 1,700 residents Then, she got involved with BoldeReach — an all-female nonprofit in the generation since the nearby coal mine went bust. grantmaking organization that raised $1 million between 2014 and 2018 and gave it to local nonprofits that work with women Now Kurtz helps run a public accounting firm he co-founded in and children with limited opportunities. Boulder. He’s watched some of his clients become millionaires overnight. He has also been astonished sometimes by how As in Cupertino, Lindsay realized that poverty and near-poverty little of their newfound wealth they give away. So he was not is here in Boulder County if people open their eyes. surprised to learn Boulder County residents donate to nonprofits at lower rates than the national average. “The thing I see here is the people in Boulder County who are marginalized or educationally or economically disadvantaged — “People are just working hard and busy and haven’t thought they are invisible,” she said. “It’s really hard to convince people about it or made the time for it,” he said. that the need is there.” The son of a kindergarten teacher and elementary school Her work with BoldeReach and as a volunteer trustee principal who was also the town mayor, Kurtz saw his Montana of Community Foundation Boulder County has helped her classmates struggle, and saw how hard his parents worked to see the great need in Boulder County. She thinks many of support them and their families. Boulder County’s would-be donors are in the same headspace she was: caught up in their busy lives and not noticing the Now he’s married to a municipal court judge and former need around them. prosecutor who serves on nonprofit boards, and he serves on the board of Community Foundation Boulder County. He and his However, she has seen firsthand that it’s possible to raise wife give generously, and his company, Kurtz Fargo LLP, has an money for the nonprofits supported by both BoldeReach and the employee-directed giving program. Community Foundation. Raising kids to be aware of the world while growing up in a place “That’s the pull for people,” she said. “If they can clearly see their largely insulated from those who struggle is a challenge. He and money will make a difference, they will be very generous.” his wife do their best to teach by example.

“There’s a lot of things we’re doing that they see,” he said.

TRENDS Report 2019–2021 | Our Civic Participation & Giving 93

Your Community Foundation

TOGETHER, WE INSPIRE IDEAS

Subscribe to our blog (commfound.org/blog) and follow us on social media to discover who our community is today and who we are becoming. We regularly feature news, announcements, and the innovations and impact of grantees dedicated to aid and empower the most vulnerable among us – as well as stories of inspired giving from donors and partners. Together, we inspire an improved and more equitable quality of life.

TOGETHER, WE IGNITE ACTION

Since the first TRENDS Report was published in 1998, we’ve been refining the indicators we track to more effectively guide and rally our community around our shared values. Because the better we understand our home – the gaps and gifts that set Boulder County apart – the better we work together to identify solutions, and build on our strengths. Together, we ignite community change.

TOGETHER, WE ACCOMPLISH MORE THAN WE DO ALONE

Community Foundation Boulder County, since 1991, has granted more than $90 million to nonprofits focused on health and human services, education, civic engagement, arts and culture, and animals and the environment.

Through competitive grant cycles, we provide funding and create connections between community-minded nonprofits and the resources they need to address local issues. We know that when informed and committed community members come

Photo by Julia Vandenoever Future cultural broker Lyla Fuchs Camden together, inspiration strikes and transformation happens. checks out the 2017 TRENDS Report as she is held by her mother, Rachel Fuchs, Your Community Foundation catalyzes community by Intercambio’s Director of Programs, at a facilitating collaboration and partnerships, connecting Community Foundation event reporting to emerging leaders across sectors, and building networks Boulder County leaders on the importance that advance inclusivity countywide. We convene health of Latino bilingual cultural brokers. organizations working together to improve quality and access Your Community Foundation

to care countywide. And we support and enhance the lives of DEFINITIONS TO HELP INTERPRET our LGBTQ population, as well as the quality of life for local THE DATA: Latinos. Additionally, we promote community engagement and leadership among local youth and drive early-stage This report uses a great deal of data from the American philanthropy among local entrepreneurs. Together, we create Community Survey (ACS), a nationwide survey to provide opportunities for a stronger, more equitable community. communities updated information in between decennial censuses. The most recent data available through the ACS WHAT CAN YOU DO TO MAKE as of mid-2019 was 2017: thus, unless otherwise noted, A DIFFERENCE? A LOT. data reported reflects 2017 numbers. Slight differences between the Census and the ACS methodology Your donation makes a local impact you can see – whether may make for imperfect comparisons. The ACS collects data your passion is helping students get ahead, keeping the for all 12 months of the year, not for just a single point in time. arts vibrant, protecting our environment, ensuring access Further, while the Census works to count every single person, the to healthcare, tackling mental health concerns, advancing ACS is distributed to a population sample and produces estimates women, preventing violence and poverty, advocating for more at risk for statistical error. The bulk of the ACS data used LGBTQ rights, or working to overcome walls of division. here is derived from one-year estimates. Learn more about our programs and initiatives countywide: commfound.org/our-impact/programs-initiatives The terms “Latino,” “Latinx,” “Anglo” and “of color” In this report we use the term “Latino” or “Latinx” to encompass We invite you to make a gift to your Community Foundation, people identified as “Hispanic” or “Latin” by the ACS, or other or establish a donor-advised fund with a variety of assets – from similar data collecting organizations. People who identify their cash, check or credit card to tangible personal property, real origin as Spanish, Hispanic, Latino or Latinx may be of any race. estate, business interests, planned gifts, and more. Learn more We use the term “Non-Hispanic white” or “Anglo” to refer to about ways to give at commfound.org/giving, or send us an people who self-identify as white and do not claim Latino heritage. email to get started: [email protected] We use the term “people of color” to refer to individuals who Bookmark the full, digital version of TRENDS as your identify as something other than Anglo. searchable, go-to community guide: commfound.org/TRENDS. Students Since 2006, the ACS has included group quarters like dormitories THE HISTORY OF THE TRENDS REPORT: or sororities and assisted-living facilities in certain data tables. Students living on campus are NOT counted in poverty estimates. The TRENDS Report grew out of the Boulder County Civic Forum, In contrast, students living off-campus have been counted in which was launched in 1995 as the Boulder County Healthy the data as individuals, including in information on poverty, Communities Initiative. More than 400 residents identified four household income, health care access, etc., since the start of visions for a healthy community, including: for the people; for the the ACS program. Such students have also been included in environment; for the economy; and for culture and society. Many decennial Census numbers. of those 50 indicators are included in this expanded TRENDS Report, more than 24 years later. Income vs. Wages “Income” includes wages, salary, bonuses, self-employment The TRENDS Report has been a production of Community income, gifts, tips, investment income, transfer payments Foundation Boulder County since 1999. This report relies on such as social security or food stamps, pensions, rents, and more than 150 indicators of our community’s social, economic interest income. and environmental health, plus in-depth community reporting. Together, they form the stories, findings and recommendations “Wages” include only payments received from an employer in an you see here. All this, plus a searchable indicators database, employment relationship that is reported to the State of Colorado is available at commfound.org/TRENDS. New this year, our for purposes of unemployment insurance. Wages do not include TRENDS podcast, produced in partnership with KGNU self-employment income. Community Radio, 88.5 FM, brings you regular stories about our community’s most pressing needs. “Per capita income” is calculated by taking all the income earned in the county and dividing this number by the population.

96 Community Foundation Boulder County | commfound.org/TRENDS TRENDS CONTRIBUTORS:

TRENDS is published by Community Foundation Boulder County, with help from the following contributors:

Chris Barge – The Community Foundation’s Vice Julia Vandenoever – A freelance photographer President of Strategic Initiatives, Chris provided and former photo editor at Skiing, Backpacker and editorial and management oversight of this report, Outside magazines, Julia shot many of the photos wrote the “Executive Summary,” and reported and for this edition. wrote the chapters on “Our Education” and “Our Civic Participation & Giving.” 6162 Productions – Created a video summarizing top highlights of this 2019 TRENDS Report. Martín Better Longo – An Ecuadorian who immigrated with his family to the United States Daily Camera – Our thanks to the Daily Camera at age 8, Martín is in the process of becoming a for contributing many of the photos in this report, certified court interpreter. He translated the CEO pro bono. Letter and Executive Summary into Spanish. Davis Research – Conducted Community Shay Castle – A Boulder-based journalist who has Foundation Boulder County’s survey on civic written and designed for newspapers and magazines, participation and giving. Shay reported and wrote the chapters “Who Are We?” and “Our Economy & Housing.” She covers Boulder Sweet Design – Mary Sweet and Nicole Bizzarro City Council, at boulderbeat.news. were the lead designers for this report.

Jeff Hirota – CEO of the Community Foundation as well as a former documentary filmmaker, Jeff provided editorial guidance and wrote the Letter from the CEO. THE COMMUNITY FOUNDATION 2019 BOARD OF TRUSTEES: Sabine Kortals Stein – A member of the Community Foundation’s communications team, Leslie Allen, Chair Cindy Lindsay Sabine wrote the stories on the Community Sue Anderson, Vice Chair Alexis Miles Foundation’s impact in this edition. Alden Sherman, Treasurer Jane Caddell Paddison Rebecca Chávez, Secretary Kimberly Barr Rutt Gretchen Minekime – The Community Foundation’s Jeff Hirota, CEO Deborah Simmons Vice President of Communications, Gretchen wrote Dee Andrews Christina Pacheco Sims pieces on the Community Foundation and managed Joshua Forman TK Smith various aspects of the project, including the public Stanley Garnett Katie Volkmar roll-out of the magazine and an accompanying video. Daniel Hassan Jim Williams Amy Howard Jeremy Wilson Chester Kurtz Cindy Sutter – A freelance writer who worked as an editor, reporter, writer, wire service aggregator and copy editor during a newspaper career spanning 26 years, Cindy reported and wrote the chapters “Our ON THE BACK COVER: Public art encourages viewers Health & Human Services,” “Our Environment” and to create their own art, as our photographer did here, “Our Arts & Culture.” on South Boulder Road in Lafayette, with her daughter, Madeleine Vandenoever, left, and Maddie’s good friend, Maegan Vallejo – A former Community Foundation Lyla Lanning. Read more about public art on page 78. staff member, Maegan wrote the captions for all the Photo by Julia Vandenoever. indicators found at TRENDS online.

TRENDS Report 2019–2021 | Your Community Foundation 97 SPONSORS OF BOULDER COUNTY TRENDS The Community Foundation’s Report on Key Indicators

Chris Barge, Vice President of Strategic Initiatives Community Foundation Boulder County 1123 Spruce Street | Boulder, CO 80302 | [email protected]

The Community Foundation is a community catalyst that inspires ideas and ignites action to improve the quality of life in Boulder County. We make informed decisions to respond to immediate needs and anticipate future challenges. Join us to make a difference. We can accomplish more together than alone. commfound.org gHqE RESOLUTION NO. 58 SERIES 2017

A RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF THE BOULDER COUNTY REGIONAL HOUSING STRATEGY EXPANDING ACCESS TO DIVERSE HOUSING FOR THE COMMUNITY

WHEREAS, Boulder County is experiencing a housing imbalance pressured by restrained supply and built up demand resulting in home prices and rents that are unaffordable to many residents, and,

WHEREAS, the City of Louisville values families and individuals, and accommodates the needs of all individuals in all stages of life through our parks, trails, roadway design, our City services, and City regulations to ensure they provide an environment which addresses individual mobility needs, quality of life goals, and housing options, and,

WHEREAS, the City of Louisville recognizes that changing demographics and economic influences have impacted the availability of the full range of housing options within our community; and,

WHEREAS, the City of Louisville through its Comprehensive Plan has demonstrated support for a diversity of housing types that are available to residents of varying income levels; and,

WHEREAS, the City of Louisville has been a strong partner in the preservation and development of affordable housing through projects such as Kestrel, and,

WHEREAS, the housing affordability challenge is regional and is shared by many jurisdictions within the County, and,

WHEREAS, the City of Louisville supports a collaborative, countywide effort to produce additional affordable housing where affected populations live and work, and,

WHEREAS, Countywide affordable housing efforts will require significant financial investments, and therefore a regional funding source is necessary; and,

WHEREAS, the City of Louisville is committed to working with Boulder County and with its neighboring cities and towns to collectively create and implement a regional affordable housing plan utilizing a range of tools and policies to address the housing needs of the community.

Resolution No 58, Senes 2017 Page 1 of 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LOUISVILLE, COLORADO:

The City Council of Louisville hereby supports the Boulder County Regional Housing Partnership' s Prionties and Strategies for Expanding Access to Diverse Housing for the Community, including the recommended countywide goals for twelve percent ( 12%) of affordable housing stock by 2035, the implementation of a countywide funding source to help meet the affordable housing goal, and voluntary solutions that will build upon the City of Louisville' s current efforts to advance the affordable housing goal while respecting individual community character

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 6TH day of November, 2017.

ATTEST

Meredyth Muth, City Cle

Resolution No 58, Series 2017 Page 2 of 2 Expanding Access

The Boulder County to Diverse Housing Regional Housing Partnership for Our Community Regional Housing Strategy | December, 2017 Executive Summary

Across Boulder County and beyond, the rising cost of renting and buying a home has placed tremendous burdens on our neighbors in communities throughout the region. This regional plan has been created through a collaboration across the region, seeking a unified vision, goals, and set of strategies to rise to this challenge. The regional plan represents a regional, coordinated effort to adopt the following five strategies:

Establish a Regional Goal The Boulder County Regional Housing Partnership recommends a goal of ensuring 12% of the housing inventory will be permanently affordable to low, moderate, and middle-income households by 2035. This goal requires securing 800 homes per year for 15 years, which would be achieved through a combination of acquisition, redevelopment, and new construction.

Bolster Financial Resources Increase local funding sources by $20 million per year to invest in community housing and attract additional funding from sources including the private sector and state and federal resources. A diverse set of approaches will be required to meet this ambitious goal.

Secure Land and Development/Redevelopment Opportunities Land for housing is increasingly scarce in the communities within Boulder County. Securing land and prioritizing its use for community housing are key requirements to meeting the regional housing goal. A variety of partnerships can help support this strategy.

Preserve Affordability Price escalation is pushing homes out of reach for low- and middle-income owners and renters. This plan recommends several strategies for preserving affordability of existing homes, including acquiring and deed restricting existing housing inventory, adopting one to one replacement and right of first refusal ordinances. Consider Regulatory Processes Each community has recognized housing as a core value in its comprehensive plan. Community are encouraged to act on these core values by reviewing and aligning their regulatory processes to create a more favorable environment for diverse housing types and income. Regulatory alignment includes increasing incentives, reducing barriers, and creating requirements through annexation and inclusionary housing policies.

Adopting these strategies will strengthen our regional housing response. Establishing local community specific goals is also encouraged. The plan has been widely vetted and has been presented to nearly 40 audiences, including business leaders, elected and appointed officials, community groups and non-profit organizations. A range of goals from 10% to 15% of the housing inventory were discussed. The general consensus based on feedback the Partnership has received was that 10% is insufficient, and that 15% would be difficult to achieve. This plan incorporates the extensive feedback received from those meetings and includes the Partnership’s recommended 12% goal.

2 Executive Summary and Acknowledgments 3 Community Collaboration and Business Collaboration. and Business Collaboration. Collaboration Community https://www.HousingOurCommunity.org/

utilize some of the plan’s recommended strategies to help reach it, and help reach to strategies recommended the plan’s some of utilize Housing Summit participants possible a draft supporting plan for resolution also reviewed the regional of the jurisdictions the Housing Summit, most Since boards. their city and town adoption by councils this resolution. adopted have Boulder County throughout on alongside updates A summary and it is available report the housing summit has been produced, from plan efforts at: the regional • shorten we the timeline of the 12% goal? Is the goal ambitious enough? Could • numbers and wages. workforce to to be tied homes needs of affordable A percentage stigmas. compatability neighborhood and remove • help create “types” home Varied • opportunities areas. retail as dated locations such redevelopment in non-traditional Consider • vision. the community’s towards move to codes land use and development Align • language while supporting and use a common community goals and Create values. common • private-sector additional is a need for There engagement. • Boulder as a partner Include of Colorado University in seeking housing solutions. • they work. near the community where live be able to won’t sad that the next group It’s Sample comments include: Sample comments Following the Housing Summit, a public comment period was held for the drat regional plan, which regional the drat period was held for the Housing Summit, a public comment Following topics Common the summit. from alongside the input that was considered feedback additional provided and Housing Preservation Funding, Housing Goals, themes including around revolved that emerged Regulations, OfDiversity Land, Housing Options, The study session was also designed around discussion of this draft plan and consideration of how this this draft discussion of of how around and consideration plan designed study session was also The Nearly 60 electedcommunity officials individual goals and aspirations. each municipality’s plan can fit into of towns the and Louisville; Lafayette, Boulder, the cities of Longmont, the summit, representing attended board these city of and town Many council County. and Boulder and Jamestown; Lyons, Superior, Nederland, table discussions, for the study session’s staff and administrative their planning joined by members were report-outs conversations. and full group • going forward. plan work the regional help resource to • plan work, all jurisdictions in the regional engaged ensure are to • to housing goal and affordable regional recommended support the plan’s for obtain each jurisdiction’s to On Friday, September 29, 2017, the Boulder County Regional Housing Partnership hosted a study session a study session hosted Housing Partnership Regional County the Boulder 29, 2017, September On Friday, planning staff, their elected plan amongst the draft on officials, regional Summit) focused (the Housing and human services health, housing, staff and area workgroup and supporting regional the members from were: session of the study The goals crisis. affordability the housing plan addressing this draftaround regional Summit SummarySummit Housing Tools and Strategies by Jurisdiction Many tools are available to municipalities within Boulder County to create, preserve, and to enhance the region’s stock of affordable housing. To date, these strategies have been utilized by the municipalities in varying degrees, each having an important impact on housing affordability in the region.

ilitation P ab rog eh ra R m

t for Hum 40 ita a zation Pr b ni eri og Homes a ty h ra H t m a e

W

150

440 Homes Homes

tric e V Res ted hoic ouc d Ho C he ee m g rs D e in o s (S u e w c o n t H i e o

AFFORDABLE r s n 850

HOUSING h

2,300

8 i

Homes p Households ) ric Rest ted abilizat d Re St ion ee n g P D ta in ro l s g u r o a

m H 340 5,140 Homes Households upportiv S e H tly o n u e s n in a g

m r e 280 P Homes

Boulder Boulder County Erie Jamestown Lafayette Longmont Louisville Lyons Nederland Niwot Superior

Note: These numbers were provided by municipal administration and rounded up to the closest 10th.. Total affordable housing numbers includes habitat for humanity, deed restricted homeownership, deed restricted rental and permanently supportive housing data.

4 5 Introduction

The social determinants of health – the economic and social conditions that affect health outcomes and are the underlying contributing factors of health inequities – have at their foundation access to safe, quality housing. Housing holds a strong connection to public health, educational equity, economic justice, inclusive communities, and other social justice issues. These associations provide the framework and foundation for the collaborative and community-wide support of this regional housing plan. Affordable housing is a prevailing public health intervention that data clearly demonstrate has tremendous positive impacts on the health of entire communities and ensures we are raising the bar for everyone. Increasingly, safe and stable housing is a top consideration in planning for the health and sustainability of our community in the years ahead.

Aspinwall at Josephine Commons: Lafayette

Lydia Morgan: Louisville

The Hearthstone at Hover Crossing: Longmont

6 Josephine Commons: Lafayette

For all of us, a safe and warm home is key to our families’ health and well-being. We should all have the opportunity to make the choices that allow us to live a long, healthy life, regardless of our income, education, or ethnic background. Boulder County is a community where neighbors help take care of each other, and the plan that follows represents an opportunity to extend this spirit to those whose circumstances have made them vulnerable to inadequate housing and, in turn, poor health. All of us – parents, employers, neighbors, co-workers – can get behind this plan to boost a foundational piece of our community’s health and help us reach our full potential.

Housing is a core infrastructure in our community. In addition to its deep roots within the social determinants of health, affordable housing is capable of transforming the built environment and improving social and economic integration into the community, increasing public safety, expanding social service, and reducing environmental impacts. The regional housing plan put forward in this document is a critical road map for creating a regional approach to housing affordability that will boost the overall health and well-being of our entire community.

Across Boulder County, communities have made strong investments in affordable and attainable housing for many decades. Individually, towns and cities have accomplished groundbreaking work. At the same time, in part because of land use policies and a strong economic climate, it is widely acknowledged that the region is falling far short of meeting the need for affordable, attainable homes for working people and their families throughout Boulder County.

Beginning in 2016, a cross-jurisdictional working group – the Boulder County Regional Housing Partnership – convened to bring forward a suite of regional strategies at the direction of the Consortium of Cities. The work of the Partnership is presented in this plan, which looks at Boulder County as a region and seeks to provide leadership and guidance to further housing affordability in the long-term. All of us working together – each in our own way – can achieve these goals.

7 What is an Affordable Home?

In this plan, homes are considered affordable when rent and utilities $58,920 in an apartment or monthly mortgage payment and housing 60% AMI with four expenses for a homeowner total less than 30% of a household’s person household gross monthly income. Additionally, deed restrictions must be in place to maintain long-term affordability. Source : Zillow Data 2017 When costs of other necessities such as transportation, food, health care, and child care are included alongside the rising costs of housing, it’s easy to see how families are forced out of Boulder County. $98,200 The relationship linking the cost of housing to income is fundamental to the definition of living affordably. Across Boulder County and its 2017 Boulder County AMI municipalities, median home prices have risen exponentially over for a family of four the past several years. In 2016, median home prices for the county Source : CHFA 2017 as a whole rose 13.7% to end the year at $529,000.

A home is considered ‘affordable’ if a household spends no more than 30% 5% of income on rent or mortgage of all existing housing in Boulder County is considered Affordable Food

Housing

Clothing

The 30% rent burden benchmark applies Child Care to anyone living and working Transportation in the county, from a CEO to a food service employee. Health Future regional housing goals should focus on households with earnings 1 out of 20 Homes in Boulder County hold a long-term deed within the range of restriction of affordability 30% to 120% of the Area Median Income (AMI).

Source: Center for Neighborhood Technology 2017

8 8 What is an Affordable Home? 9 Paralegal Paralegal $65,000/year 4% 12% 13% Spending on housing Spending on housing Spending on housing Family of 4 Family $500,000 should not exceed Mortgage payment Earning 120% AMI $2,300/month $2,900/month Teacher Rent should not exceed Rent should not exceed $55,000/year Can afford a home valued up tovalued up a home afford Can

33% 89% $ $ $ Nurse Source: US Census Bureau, ACS Household Income ACS Bureau, US Census Source: 85% 50% 63% 21% 2010 2015 $68,000/year Family of 3 Family $300,000 should not exceed Mortgage payment Earning 80% AMI $1,730/month $1,100/month Rent should not exceed Rent should not exceed Can afford a home valued up to valued up a home afford Can Household income $50,000 - $74,999 Household income Household $20,000 - $34,999 Household income $35,000 - $49,999

/month Family of 2 Family $215,000 Plumber should not exceed Mortgage payment Earning 60% AMI $1,045 $1,190/month $45,000/year Rent should not exceed Rent should not exceed Since 2010, Since the number than 30% of paying more more paying of households of households their income on their income Can afford a home valued up tovalued up a home afford Can housing costs has housing costs steadily increased. steadily Whose Housing is Not Affordable in Boulder County? in Boulder Not Affordable is Housing Whose Sources: seniorjobbank.org and Zillow Mortgage seniorjobbank.org and Zillow Sources: Calculator What Can We Afford? We Can What Mortgage examples are based on a 30 year fixed mortgage, with a 20% down payment. mortgage, with a 20% down Mortgage fixed based on a 30 year examples are Trends in the Region and Beyond 2017 City of Boulder » Increases in home prices have outpaced growth in wages for nearly two decades. » Results of recent resident surveys in Boulder, Boulder Valley, and $1,821 Longmont stated that lack of access to affordable housing is one of Average Monthly Rent their top concerns. » Across Boulder County, price inflation has pushed over 30,000 homes out of reach for low-to middle-income households since 2000. 52% » Vacancy rates are below historic averages and below what is Renter Occupied Housing considered a balanced market (5%). » Loss of residential homes due to the 2013 Flood put additional Source : Zillow Data 2017 pressure on the housing market; further strain for low and moderate income households. » The evolution of major employment centers in the cities of Boulder and Longmont has fueled housing costs by increasing the area’s population, and this in turn has deepened transportation challenges as larger numbers of employees seek less expensive housing and are forced to commute longer distances. » As cities and towns within Boulder County become increasingly land 2017 City of Longmont constrained, the proportion of affordable housing compared to total new homes built continues to decline, making it more difficult to house the local workforce and meet housing goals. $1,362 » The percentage of older, wealthier households is increasing, while Average Monthly Rent the number of households of younger individuals, middle incomes, and families is decreasing. This is seen in the surge of rent-burdened households over the past several years. 3.1% » There has been a significant decrease in the federal resources that support housing. Local resources are becoming critical to the financial Vacancy Rate

feasibility of community housing. Source : Zillow Data 2017 Sources: US Census ACS Boulder Housing Partners (2014) City of Boulder Middle Income Housing Strategy (2016) BoulderHousing.org Households Earning Between $50,000 to $75,000 per Year with Unaffordable Rent 2500 By 2349 2035 Households 2161 Households 2000 1771 1625 Households >50% Households 1500 1427 1374 population Households Households

1000 Represents +65

Households paying 30% or more on rent 30% or more Households paying the number 500 of households paying more and older than 30% of their 0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 income on rent. Source: US Census ACS Rent Burdened Households (2010-2015)

10 The Cost of Buying a Home in Boulder County is Increasing Rapidly

Annual Home Value Increases (2008 -2017)

39% Lyons 58% Longmont Jamestown

58% Ward 48% Erie

71% Lafayette 63% 46% Nederland Boulder 70% Louisville

46% Superior

Source : Zillow Data 2017

Boulder County is Aging 100000

Age 65 to 90+

80000 Age 45 to 65 80,000 Age 15 to 24 73,000

60000 63,000

51,000 40000 Boulder County’s 40,000 population is growing older due 20000 to the large and aging baby boomer group that continues 2015 2020 2025 2030 2030 2035 to outlive prior generations. Sources : Colorado Department Of Local Affairs 2017, Colorado State Demographer office 2017

11 Goals and Strategies

Holiday Neighborhood: Boulder

Lydia Morgan: Louisville

Red Oak Park: Boulder 12 Regional Approach The Boulder County Regional Housing Partnership identified the priorities in this plan as essential to strengthening our response to the rising need for housing affordability in our community. Each jurisdiction is encouraged to pursue multiple strategies. Some jurisdictions have already implemented numerous strategies, and may provide technical assistance to peer communities.

There is no single owner of this plan, nor is this plan presecriptive. In addition to helping advance a region-wide goal, every city and town has the opportunity to help inform the solutions advanced by this plan and then use them to meet their own goals. Addressing Boulder County’s housing needs has required and will continue to require numerous community collaborations and partnerships. Funding solutions will need to be developed jointly by all participating partners and will need to meet the needs of the range of communities across our region.

Plan Focus The regional housing plan’s primary focus is on increasing the availability of affordable housing across the region. The Boulder County Regional Housing Partnership also recognizes that many interconnected issues and opportunities are important elements of the discussion around solutions to housing affordability crisis we face.

Ways to Move Forward: » Strengthen the business community’s contributions to this effort. » Embed transportation-based solutions and collaborations. » Incentivize private developers’ roles in supporting the production of affordable housing. » Ensure flexibility for each community’s unique needs and character. » Balance the desire for affordable homeownership alongside rental options. » Incorporate the best methods of communicating the need and the plan to all communities.

13 Presentations The regional housing plan is an appeal to all of our community partners to help bolster home affordability for renters and buyers at all income levels. In order to communicate this message and gather feedback, over the course of several months the working group presented the regional housing plan to a variety of organizations, including non-profit agencies and government entities, ultimately connecting with most municipal jurisdictions.

January Boulder County Consortium of Cities February 10 Year Plan to End Homelessness 2017

March Democratic Women of Boulder County Northwest Chamber Alliance 2017 Boulder Housing Partners Longmont Housing Authority Open Boulder Family Resource Network Governance Committee

Area Agency on Aging Council Mountain Alliance and Peak to Peak Task Force April Longmont Economic Development Partnership Town Managers/Planning Directors Meeting 2017 Boulder County Land Use Department Affordable Housing Network

Lafayette City Council Louisville City Council Boulder Area Realtor Association Attention Homes Board May PLAN Boulder County Boulder County Planning Commission 2017 Workforce Boulder County Broomfield Housing Coalition Longmont Housing Opportunities Team City and County of Broomfield Optimists Club

Longmont City Council Longmont Neighborhood Group Leaders Association Boulder County Housing Pipeline Group Boulder City Council June Local Coordinating Council Inter Mountain Alliance, Town of Nederland 2017 Superior Town Board Better Boulder Longmont Association of Realtors

July St. Vrain Community Council August Human Services Alliance of Boulder County 2017 Longmont Senior Advisory Board

September Longmont Housing Development Corporation 2017 Community Foundation Serving Boulder County

October 2017 Boulder Chamber of Commerce

Additional presentations are anticipated. To schedule one for your group, please send an inquiry to [email protected]

14 Feedback Presentations and Feedback Outreach efforts captured an enormous amount of feedback. Comments ranged from a recognition of the housing affordability crisis we face to suggestions on how to fund current and future development projects. New strategies and concepts from this feedback have been incorporated in this regional housing plan.

“Housing is part of our “Each municipality “County communities infrastructure; prioritize must take ownership have expressed it just like sewer, water of this plan for it to concerns about the and roads.” find success.” affordable housing “Communities shortage.” see affordable housing as a top Renter priority.” Housing Options Collaborative Funding Option Regional Rental Community Engagement “Strong

Jobs Housing Subsidy Tell the Story support for “What makes Transportation Land Costs regional plan.” it hard to Financing Tools Land Underdeveloped Income Levels build units?” Policy Issues Funding Ballot Initiative Zoning Data

Employees Ownership Corporations Housing Crisis Support

Regulatory Changes Developers “What kind of Communication units will be Business Community Regional Effort Housing Initiatives built? Workforce Workforce? Tax Increases

Permitting Process Feedback Revenue Sources Homes “Should All low-income?” Parcels Underutilized Development corporations provide Employers Rentals more support to Community Benefits Agreements Connectivity solve the housing crisis?” “ Broader vision of “ Would Transportation Hubs Transportation

housing plan needs “Can there be Home Ownership community to be meshed with collaborative funding support a ballot broader vision of options between Resources Funding initiative?” transportation plans.” municipalities? What about revenue?” “Expensive, long and unpredictable development process makes construction “What preventive expensive.” “Will the county transportation ever get ahead of the “Creative solutions exist? housing crunch?” financing is Which are connected needed.” to housing?”

15 Overview

Under the plan, local jurisdictions and essential partners in the private sector, housing authorities, and non- profit organizations will collaborate to develop and preserve diverse and affordable housing options by focusing on these priority areas:

Establish a Regional Goal

Bolster Financial Resources

Secure Land and Development/ Redevelopment Options

Preserve Affordability

Consider Regulatory Processes

Plan Time Line

The Partnership proposes that the plan goals and strategies be adopted with a three-year planning and ramp- up period to fulfill the policy, staffing, land banking, and capacity building commitments necessary to achieve the goal. The plan includes a 15-year implementation phase:

2017 2018 2019 2020 2022 2024 2026 2030 2035

Set Goals

Build Staff Capacity Bolster Financial Resources

Consider Regulatory Processes

Secure Land

Implement

+250-300 +300-350 +350-400 600 900 900 900 800 800 Homes Homes Homes Homes Homes Homes Homes Homes Homes

16 Strategies

Within each of the priority areas identified, the Boulder County Regional Housing Partnership is seeking adoption of the following strategy recommendations. The regional housing plan recognizes that multiple collaborative strategies and funding sources will be required to gain ground in preserving affordability and price diversity in the regional inventory.

Current Distribution of Affordable Housing 2015 Affordable Homes 0 50 200 Lyons Longmont Housing Inventory 2017 Allenspark Mountains Nederland Allenspark 80 homes Jamestown Jamestown & Niwot Lyons Boulder Gunbarrel Ward Northeast 1,990 homes Longmont Erie Central Lafayette Boulder, 3,540 homes Nederland Gunbarrel, & Niwot Southeast N Superior Louisville Lafayette, 810 homes Louisville , Superior & Erie Sources: Boulder County Accessors Data Source: Municipal Administrative Staff Esri, HERE, DeLorme, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community

Possible Distribution of Affordable Housing In 2035 Affordable Homes 0 50 200 Lyons Longmont Allenspark Housing Inventory 2035 Mountains Nederland Allenspark 120 homes Jamestown Jamestown & Niwot Lyons Ward Boulder Gunbarrel Northeast 6,000 homes Longmont Erie Central Lafayette Boulder, 8,300 homes Nederland Gunbarrel, & Niwot N Southeast Superior Louisville Lafayette, 3,600 homes Louisville , Superior & Erie

17 Woodlands: Boulder

18 Establish a Regional Goal

The Boulder County Regional Housing Partnership established a regional goal of 18,000 homes affordable to a diverse mix of low and middle income households by 2035. This goal is based on the Our Goal: population and land use projections from each community, and acknowledges that more than 6,000 homes are already affordable for 12% the long term. of housing inventory The need for affordable homes exists for people of all ages, life stages, and family sizes across generations. The 12% regional goal balances is affordable the demand for more homes with the need to increase staffing and other resources in step development and acquisition opportunities across the county.

Diverse Housing Goals

12% Goal 12,000 6,000 Additional Affordable 18,000 Affordable Homes Supported by Total Affordable Homes Regional Housing Homes Currently + Partnership = by 2035

Goals for Acquisition and New Construction Existing resources can create or acquire about 300 new affordable homes per year in Boulder County. Over the past five years, production and acquisition of affordable homes has ranged from about 200 to 500 homes per year in the region. New affordable homes built have represented 20% to 30% of all residential permits.

A core component of achieving the 12% goal will be significant investment in acquiring existing properties that would otherwise 12,000 be lost to market escalation. Holding new 300 Additional Affordable 500 Homes construction constant at 300 affordable Homes/Year Homes/Year homes per year, the acquisition of 500 existing New Construction Acquired homes each year is needed. 4500 7500

19 For Sale and For Rent

This regional housing plan recommends that the 12% goal be comprised of about 30% ownership housing and about 70% rental housing. This approach responds to recent needs assessments demonstrating significantly greater need for rental housing as well as evaluation of existing organizational and funding capacity to preserve and build affordable homes. The following guidelines are recommended:

• Homes acquired or built for ownership will serve households with incomes from about 150% AMI. • Homes acquired and built for rent will serve households with incomes from 0 to 80% AMI. • About 200 homes will designated as Permanent Supportive Housing and will be included within the rental housing goal. • The anticipated income ranges may be updated as local market conditions and housing policies evolve.

Some jurisdictions have already adopted specific local housing goals. Jurisdictions that have not adopted specific local goals are encouraged to do so. Sources: Longmont Housing And Community Investment- Workforce Housing Task Force (2015) Boulder County Permanently Supportive Housing Study (2016),US Census ACS

Village Place: Longmont Villa West Community Building: Lafayette Kestrel 55-and-Over Building: Louisville

Josephine Commons: Lafayette Hearthstone at Hover Crossing: Longmont Aspen Meadows Senior Apartments: Longmont

Lydia Morgan: Louisville Kestrel: Louisville Eagle Place: Niwot 20 20 Bolster Financial Resources

The goals of this plan will require an increased investment of local resources. With current funding sources and other local support, about 300 homes per year can be built or acquired. Across the region, there is a spectrum of approaches focusing local funds, land, staff capacity, and other resources toward creating affordable housing. Local investment amounts range from as low as $5,000 per home to over $100,000 per $50,000 home. Current local funding sources produce about $15 million per year Average Local Subsidy to support the creation of affordable housing. Flood recovery resources per Home averaged $23,000 per home, and our average local investment regionally has been about $50,000 per home over the past five years. The Boulder County Regional Housing Partnership recommends the implementation of a suite of both regionwide and local tools to increase local housing funds.

Goals for New Local Funding Sources

Homes per Year Homes To Be Created And to Acquire and/ Homes to be Created by Additional Funding Needed or Construct Current Local Funding To Meet 12% Goal for 15 Years Homes 800 300 500 Funding $15,000,000 $25,000,000

Under the Financial Resources priority, some focal point strategies include:

• Establish a county-wide affordable housing trust fund that could be capitalized by a number of sources, including ballot initiatives and other mechanisms. • Pursue allocation of a portion of sales and property taxes to support affordable housing goals. • Re-evaluate other funding tools in Appendix B. • Implement local commercial linkage fees. • Adopt predictable development fee reductions and waivers. • Prioritize use of unanticipated revenue for housing.

21 Funding Opportunities Comparing different kinds of funding tools side-by-side can help communities make the best strategy choices in supporting housing affordability in their neighborhoods. There is usually a choice of tools to use in several combinations to realize any specific housing goal. Likewise, when combined, many of the tools can achieve multiple purposes. The tools represented here allow for-profit developers, non-profit developers and government entities to invest themselves in the current housing market to create new affordable homes, acquire and rehabilitate current market rate housing, as well as increase the necessary funding for future development. There is no precise formula for choosing a housing funding strategy. Each “tool” brings pros and cons that will require periodic evaluation as development conditions change over time, requiring flexibility and a renewed effort to fill funding gaps in innovative and creative ways. Deed-Restricted Partnership Opportunities for Businesses

LINKAGE FEE

Strong nexus between new jobs and need for additional workforce housing

TIF / EXCISE TAX / BUSINESS OCCUPATION TAX

Generates smaller pools of Stable and predictable funding and applicable only revenue source in some jurisdictions

INCLUSIONARY HOUSING

Successful tool already in use in the region

Kestrel: Louisville

22 Deed-Restricted Partnership Opportunities for Residents

PROPERTY TAX

A predictable and stable tool whose burden is distributed broadly (seniors and veterans are exempt)

RESIDENTS REAL ESTATE LUXURY HOUSING TAX ASSESSMENT Strong link between real estate asset values and A progressive option for asset reinvestment in rich households that support affordable housing affordable housing

GENERAL SALES AND USE TAX

A predictable and stable revenue source

Deed-Restricted Partnership Opportunities for Public, Faith Communities and Non-Profit Organizations

LAND

Tapping public land improves financial feasibility for affordable housing development

CHARITABLE GIFTS PUBLIC, FEE WAIVERS AND FAITH COMMUNITIES IN-KIND DONATIONS AND NON-PROFITS Tax relief to donors Direct financial support provides public benefit that is a successful tool to the community used in Boulder County and many other regions

GENERAL FUND MONIES

Generated tax dollars earmarked for affordable housing development

See Appendix B for further discussion of these funding tools.

23 Secure Land and Development/ Redevelopment Options

Land suitable for residential building is increasingly scarce across Boulder County and this drives up the cost. To maximize the potential for diverse housing opportunities, the following strategies are essential: » Identify publicly-owned vacant and underutilized parcels and designate them for affordable housing development. » Engage other public landowners in prioritizing the disposition of land in their ownership to serve the development of diverse housing options. » Secure new land through acquisitions and donations. » Identify sites designated as Business, Commercial, Industrial or Public and re-zone to Residential. » Prioritize deed-restricted housing in annexation agreements. Transportation and Housing

Transportation costs vary between municipalities and within Boulder County depending on the proximity of a neighborhood to its transit options. The traditional measure of affordability requires that housing cost be no more than 30% of household income, however this target fails to take into account additional costs, including transportation.

Prioritizing and re-zoning land adjacent to location-efficient parcels can be an effective strategy for creating improved transportation access to future home development county wide. Transportation Routes and Potentially Developable Land in Longmont

Longmont

N

Vacant Parcels Bus Routes Residential Zone Underutilized Parcels Regional Bus Lines Non-Residential Zone Local Bus Lines

24 Financial Cost of the Transportation and Housing Nexus

Boulder County has expansive open spaces, rural mountain communities, and thriving and bustling urban centers. Emphasizing transportation costs (typically the second-largest expense) within the affordable housing conversation highlights the benefit of ”location-efficient” places as more livable and affordable for county residents. Denver Longmont Nederland

+ + + $11,755 $13,576 $14,740 Annual Transportation Costs Annual Transportation Costs Annual Transportation Costs 1.6 1.8 2 Autos per Household Autos per Household Autos per Household =VMT =VMT =VMT Average Household Vehicle Miles Traveled Average Household Vehicle Miles Traveled Average Household Vehicle Miles Traveled Source: Center for Neighborhood Technology H+T Index

Transportation Routes and Potentially Developable Land in Nederland

Nederland

N

N Sources: Boulder County Accessors Data Vacant Parcels Bus Routes Esri, HERE, DeLorme, Intermap, increment P Corp., Residential Zone Regional Bus Lines GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Non-Residential Zone Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community 25 25 Preserve Affordability

As price appreciation continues for homes both owned and rented throughout Boulder County, homes that were previously affordable to the local workforce are no longer attainable. The regional housing plan recommends that market affordability be preserved with the following strategies:

» Acquire and deed restrict existing housing ate Hou t R si e n k g r inventory. I

a n v

M

e

t

» Adopt One-for-One Replacement ordinances n

n

t

o

e

r

r r

y

allowing developments currently featuring more u C lac homes than allowed by current zoning to be Rep em e en n t O rebuilt to include up to the existing unit count - First o f Re t t o fu - s e with a requirement for included or increased h a

ig l n

R O

permanently-affordable housing.

» Adopt Right of First Refusal ordinances for privately-owned multifamily housing, allowing jurisdictions to be first offered the right to acquire e Afford rv ab the property by matching the market-based price e i s li e t negotiated by the owner and a third party. r y P » Pay to extend existing periods of affordability that might otherwise convert to market. » Recognize mobile home parks as a market affordable asset and seek preservation opportunities.

Spring Creek Senior Apartments: Longmont

26 Consider Regulatory Processes

The comprehensive plans adopted in each jurisdiction highlight housing diversity and affordability as key community values (Appendix A). Aligning land use regulations to reflect those values and promote creation of diverse housing choices is an essential next step to supporting the proposed housing goals. The following strategies are identified by the Boulder County Regional Housing Partnership to best create regulatory alignment:

» Require annexations to include affordable housing. » Expedite entitlements for developments providing affordable homes. » Adopt staff-level approvals, fee reductions and waivers, and design flexibility for new developments with affordable housing. » Pair opportunities for density increases with desired locations for low and middle income housing opportunities. » Codify local entitlement processes to provide predictable, non-discretionary development rights for the creation of affordable homes. » Adopt local Affordable Housing Benefits ordinances to enhance the financial feasibility for developing diverse housing options. » Modify regulations to encourage the development of moderate-sized and moderately-priced market rate ownership homes. » Evaluate and modify local land use regulations to eliminate barriers to and facilitate the creation and preservation of affordable housing. » Adopt Inclusionary Housing (requiring the inclusion of affordable housing in new developments) in each jurisdiction.

Fin ter anc ls ia o l B R e

s

o

u

r

c

e s

gion Re al rve Aff a G se o h o re rd s i a P a l l b

b i

l

a

i

t t

y s E

d Deve an lop d m n a e L n t e / r R egul

e R a u r to c d e ry

e e id

v

S s P

e n r

l o

o o p c

m C e

e

n s t

s

e s

27 Regional Housing Partnership Working Group

This plan is the result of the hard work and dedication of the working group. Working Group Members

Frank Alexander Boulder County Housing & Human Services

Robin Bohannan Boulder County Community Services

Norrie Boyd Boulder County Housing & Human Services

Leslie Durgin Boulder Chamber of Commerce

Jeremy Durham Boulder Housing Partners

Krystal Winship Erazo Longmont Housing Authority

Kathy Fedler Longmont Housing and Community Investment Division

Kurt Firnhaber Boulder Division of Housing

Kristin Hyser Boulder Community Investment Program The Betsey Martens Boulder County Boulder Housing Partners Regional Housing Michael Reis Longmont Housing Authority Partnership Project Staff Implementation

Willa Williford Following community input, revision and adoption of these Williford LLC. goals and strategies, the Boulder County Regional Housing Jim Williams Partnership will meet quarterly to review progress and Boulder County Housing & Human Services prioritize new opportunities and funding resources. The Boulder County Regional Housing Partnership will report Elizabeth Fuselier to the Consortium of Cities annually. Boulder County Housing & Human Services

Aimee Bruhn Boulder County Housing & Human Services

Vrushali Lele Boulder County Housing & Human Services

28 Aspinwall at Josephine Commons

29 Appendices

Woodlands: Boulder

30 Appendix A Appendix A - Acronyms and Definitions Acronyms and Definitions Accessible Housing: Housing that is designed to allow easier access for people who have a physical disability, are visually impaired, or deaf.

Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU): A separate and complete housekeeping unit within a single family detached home.

Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: The promotion of non-discrimination to ensure fair and equal housing opportunities for all current and future residents in order to promote diversity and inclusivity within the community.

Affordable Housing: Any housing that is subsidized by the federal, state and local government, or any housing where units are subject to long-term covenants or deed restrictions which require that the units be sold or rented at levels that preserve them as affordable housing for a specific period of time.

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA): A civil rights law that prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities in all areas of public life, including jobs, schools, transportation, and all areas of public and private places that are open to the general public.

Area Median Income (AMI): A midpoint in the income distribution by household size in a defined geographic area. The AMI is used to determine eligibility of applicants for housing programs. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) adopts and publishes AMI limits annually.

Boulder County Housing Authority (BCHA): The housing authority for areas of Boulder County outside the city limits of Boulder and Longmont.

Colorado Division of Housing (CDOH): Provides state and federal funding to private developers, housing authorities, and local governments to increase the inventory of affordable housing.

Colorado Housing and Finance Authority (CHFA): Offers financial resources (low-income tax credits and mortgage programs) as an investment in affordable housing and community development.

Community Development Block Grant (CDBG): An annual appropriation of federal funds (HUD) allocated between states and local jurisdictions that are distributed to ensure decent affordable housing, provide services to the most vulnerable members of a community, and to create jobs through the expansion and retention of businesses.

Home Investment Partnerships Program (HOME): A federal (HUD) block grant to fund the creation or preservation of affordable housing.

Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (IHO): Municipal and county planning ordinance requiring a given share of new construction be affordable by people with low t o moderate incomes.

Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC): A federal program administered locally through CHFA; an indirect federal subsidy used to finance the development of affordable rental housing for low-income households.

Market Rate Housing: Housing with rent levels, or sales prices, that are consistent with the housing market of the surrounding area; this includes all housing that is not income deed-restricted.

Single Room Occupancy (SRO): A form of housing in which one or two people live in an individual room. Typically includes a half-bath and shared kitchen facilities within a multi-tenant building. Also known as “single resident occupancy”.

Sustainable Development: Development that balances housing development, transportation investment, water infrastructure, economic development, land use planning, environmental planning, environmental conservation, open space, and other infrastructure priorities for the region.

Transit-Oriented Development (TOD): A type of community development that includes a mixture of housing, office, retail and/or other amenities, integrated into a walkable neighborhood and is located within a half-mile of quality public transportation.

Housing and Urban Development (HUD): The federal housing and development agency that collaborates with states and local municipalities to create, maintain and improve a variety of housing options for residents of different incomes and needs.

Workforce Housing: Affordable housing for households with earned income that is insufficient to secure quality housing in reasonable proximity to the workplace.

31 Appendix B Existing Affordable Housing Inventory

Percentage Current Ratio Of Total Housing Of Existing Location Affordable People To Units Affordable Homes Housing Units Housing Longmont* (Part) 36,285 1,991 5% 2.6 Superior 4,723 2 0% 3 Boulder 45,823 3,532 8% 2.4 Jamestown 130 13 10% 2.5 Lafayette 10,882 431 4% 2.5 Louisville 8,397 368 4% 2.6 Lyons 827 37 4% 2.1 Nederland 754 26 3% 2.1 Ward 102 0 0% 0.7 Erie* 1,692 13 1% - Niwot 6,823 12 0% 1.2 Allenspark 879 0 0% 2.4 Unincorp. Area 21,416 0 0% 2.4 Total 133,775 6,425 5%

Source American Community Survey U.S Census 2016 5-year estimate ; Municipal Administrative staff Note : Total affordable housing numbers includes Habitat for Humanity, deed restricted homeownership, deed restricted rental and permanently supportive housing data.

32 Appendix B - Existing Affordable Housing Inventory 33 Appendix C Local Jurisdictions’ Comprehensive Plans: Housing Diversity Goals Boulder County Comprehensive Plan (Updated 2015) The Boulder County Housing Authority (BCHA) encourages and supports housing of good quality, and of adequate size, for all families within the entire county. BCHA secures housing through federal, state and local government and/or a combination of public/private sector cooperative projects. The county prioritizes development through three residential goals: diversity of housing types, quality of residential areas with a mix of uses, and rehabilitating existing homes.

Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (Updated 2010) The Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan holds as its core values, a welcoming and inclusive community with a diversity of housing types and price ranges. The city recognizes that affordable housing provides a significant community benefit and will continually monitor and evaluate its policies, programs and regulations to further the city’s affordable housing goals. This will increase the proportion of permanently affordable homes to an overall goal of at least 10 percent of the total housing stock through regulations, financial subsidies and other means.

Erie Comprehensive Plan (Updated 2015) A continuing goal of Erie is to maintain the high quality and established character of existing neighborhoods throughout the community, while promoting the development of new neighborhoods containing a variety of household income levels. Infill and redevelopment, compatible with existing urban fabric, will be promoted in Old Town neighborhoods.

Lafayette Comprehensive Plan (Updated 2013) Economic stability remains an important goal for the city, including a range of housing types and prices that supports future growth and employees coming into the city as an economic development strategy. The city of Lafayette is committed to providing a range of housing options supporting the growing and changing needs of residents.

Longmont Comprehensive Plan (Updated 2016) Housing opportunities, increased density, and investment in existing housing inventory and neighborhoods are featured throughout the “centers and corridors” framework of the plan. A primary goal is to ensure there are affordable and accessible housing options that meet the needs of residents of all ages, abilities and income levels. Strategies to meet this goal include encouraging the development of affordable housing; review and modify the City’s Land Development Code and other policies/processes that hinder the creation or development of affordable housing or limit housing options; review provisions for centers, corridors, and mixed-use employment areas to ensure they align with Envision Longmont policies; work with area partners to monitor housing trends to identify gaps in types of housing, affordable housing and housing for target demographic groups; and revise the affordable housing development incentive program to provide a range of incentives to affordable housing developers to reduce barriers to increasing the stock of affordable housing.

34 Appendix C- Local Jurisdictions’ Comprehensive Plans: Housing Diversity Goals 35 Superior Comprehensive Plan (Updated 2012) Plan (Updated Superior Comprehensive the Superior community of existing include balancing the needs Challenges for Supporting the mix of housing options for residents. broader a as future as well Town apartments, patio homes and senior housing, community – townhomes, lofts and apartmentsCenter to an opportunityresidents - offers for current new residents in the community as their needs change while providing remain homes. single family opportunities affordable consider to Nederland Comprehensive Plan (Updated 2013) (Updated Plan Nederland Comprehensive continue as a partnership housing will with of affordable development The organizations. and other local and regional Housing Authority Boulder County diversifying housing options include affordable increasing solutions for Viable development housing types of mixed-use and exploring the expansion homes within walking more allow and higher density to zoning downtown core. of the town distance Lyons Comprehensive Plan (Updated 2010) Plan (Updated Comprehensive Lyons and the development of land for amount a limited constraints, Topographical a supply of maintain challenges to market create estate of the real realities should Lyons that consensus a general is There Lyons. in housing affordable Without expanding in the area. development housing affordable encourage housing supply through Lyons’ diversify to prefer residents boundaries, town Opportunities housing types increasing near downtown. building diverse for annexation, include: incentives, Lyons homes in the number of affordable and improvements town multi-family homes throughout accessory dwellings, residents. mobility for improve infrastructure to to Louisville Comprehensive Plan (Updated 2013) (Updated Plan Comprehensive Louisville housing in existing and investment opportunities,Housing density, increased framework. in the plans Established featured are and neighborhoods inventory of paramount but are often overlooked neighborhoods are residential City residential The aging has an in them. importance residing those citizens to providing assist in to fails Zoning issues abound. housing stock, so rehabilitation and industrial land Commercial and strategies. neighborhood plans coherent criteria. the establishment design uses impact requiring neighborhoods, Recommendations residents. and future current speak to Housing goals must policy. and initiating a housing on each neighborhood focus Appendix D - Funding Possibilities for Affordable Housing Affordable Housing Funding Possibilities – Adopted from City of Boulder Affordable Housing Task Force 2012

Category RESIDENTS Impacted

Revenue PROPERTY TAX INCLUSIONARY HOUSING Source

Tax based on property value. A regulatory tool that requires a given For 2015-16, residential property was assessed at share of new construction to be affordable Description 7.96% of fair value; commercial and other non- by people with low to moderate incomes. residential property assessed at 29% of assessed Long term affordability is ensured by value. Total property tax varies, based on location. deed restriction.

City of Boulder requires 20% of all newly- In Boulder County, The Human Services constructed dwelling units are to be Safety Net funds Housing Stabilization and permanently affordable. Can be fulfilled Current Use in Housing Counseling. on-site, off-site, or cash-in-lieu. City of the Region In the City of Boulder, property taxes support Longmont and City of Lafayette adopted Community Housing Assistance Program fund. and repealed IH. City of Louisville studied IH in 2003, but did not adopt it.

Montgomery County, MD - 2.5% of property tax to fund the Housing Initiative Fund.

Seattle, WA-Seattle Housing Levy authorizes an estimated $290 million over a 7-year Denver, CO - Developments with 30 or period to provide, produce, and/or preserve Examples more units provide 10% as affordable to affordable housing. households earning up to 95% AMI. Denver, CO Dedicated Affordable Housing Fund is estimated to raise $150 million over 10 years through property tax and developer fees to create and preserve 6,000 homes. Between 10% and 20% of units in Typical 2015 - Boulder County 22.624 mills; developments. Or a Cash-in-lieu Assessment contribution for 10% to 20%

Required 1.45 mill levy would be about $10M per year Local jurisdiction sets the percentage of Assessment based on 2015 assessed values in Boulder county. affordable units required.

Predictable, stable. Burden distributed broadly. Strengths Successful tool already in use in the region. Exemptions in place for seniors and veterans.

Requires a nexus study. Issues and Requires a vote; unless reallocating current Prerequisites mill levy. Only effective where new development is occurring.

36 Appendix D - Funding Possibilities for Affordable Housing

GENERAL SALES & USE TAX REAL ESTATE TRANSFER TAX/FEE/ASSESSMENT

A RETT is a tax on transfer of property. A document fee is typically based on the property value. A recording fee A tax on goods sold. is typically a flat fee per document or page recorded. An assessment is negotiated on a case by case basis with a developer.

Jurisdictions have used general fund monies to Boulder County has recording fees that vary based on the support affordable housing. The Worthy Cause Tax documents filed. The current State documentary fee for is a .05% Sales tax county wide, which generates $2- real estate is 0.0001% ($30 on a $300,000 transfer). $3M annually; affordable housing is an eligible use.

State of Colorado - Any document that transfers title with consideration exceeding $500 is assessed at one Summit County, CO - sales tax for affordable housing cent per $100. Used in at least 37 states – often linked to increased from .125% to .725% by voters in 2016. affordable housing and/or open space. Aspen, CO - 0.45% for the affordable Aspen uses 1% after the first $100,000 of value for housing/day care fund. dedicated Housing Fund. Crested Butte uses 1% of total value for open space. Both were enacted before TABOR.

Locally, sales tax ranges from Ward – 6.985% to Lyons A percentage of the value of property transferred, 8.735%. Most BC municipalities are around 8.5%. for example .001%

A county transfer tax on residential, commercial and An increase of about .2% would generate $10/M/Year. multifamily transfers would require .0025 to generate about $10M/year. Strong link between real estate asset values and Predictable, stable revenue source. reinvestment in affordable housing.

Requires a vote. Currently disallowed in CO constitution; efforts to overcome the prohibition have been explored and Regressive, imposed equally regardless of income. could continue.

37 Appendix D - Funding Possibilities for Affordable Housing, Continued Affordable Housing Funding Possibilities – Adopted from City of Boulder Affordable Housing Task Force 2012

BUSINESSES

Revenue LINKAGE FEE/ OCCUPATION “HEAD” TAX Source REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX

Linkage & excise tax strategies create revenue for affordable housing by A monthly or annual fee paid by businesses and/or Description requiring developers of new commercial employees for the privilege of working in a specific properties to pay fees; usually assessed municipality/region. per sq. ft. of development.

City of Boulder has a Housing Excise Tax (HET) of approximately $1.28 per sq ft for residential and $1.50 per sq ft for Boulder County does not have an occupation tax. Current Use in commercial, and commercial linkage City of Boulder voters defeated a proposal for an the Region fee ranging from $8-12/sq ft. City of occupation tax ($9) for transportation in 1994. Lafayette has a $.30/sq ft linkage fee for affordable housing.

Boston, MA (adopted 1987) Examples: Berkeley, CA (1993) Denver CO – taxes $4.00 on businesses and $5.75 Revenue for Cambridge, MA (1988) for employees. Housing Sacramento, CA (1989)

Typical Excise taxes on new development Flat fee per employee. Assessment $.30 - $12.00/s.f.

Required Assessment Dependent upon the volume of $56 annually ($4.72 per month) per job generates (to generate residential and commercial development $10 million about $10 million per year per year, unless in the region. otherwise noted)

Has a strong nexus between Strengths new jobs and need for additional Stable and predictable revenue source. workforce housing.

Issues and Requires a nexus study. Requires a vote. prerequisites

38 UPPER INCOME HOUSEHOLDS

OTHER POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES LUXURY HOUSING TAX Likely to generate smaller pools of funding, and/or be applicable only in some jurisdictions.

An annual property tax on luxury homes, defined by a price point such as $1 or $2 million.

None

x Lodging Tax

x Tax Increment Finance, with a portion of proceeds reserved for affordable housing

New York City x Excise tax on alcohol and/or marijuana New Jersey

British Columbia

London

A percentage annually.

Assuming 6,000 homes valued over $1million. In Boulder County, an annual assessment of .111% would generate $10 million per year

Progressive: Asset rich households support affordable housing

Uneven allocation of property taxes disallowed in Colorado state constitution; if allowed, would require a local vote.

39 Appendix E - Strategic Tools For Housing Diversity Across County Municipalities These tools are used by several municipalities throughout Boulder County. The Partnership encourages all municipalities to consider some or all of these policies in meeting future affordable housing goals. Strategic Tools for Housing Diversity Boulder City of Erie Jamestown Lafayette County Boulder Ongoing Programs Habitat for Humanity Active Sites Yes Yes Deed Restricted Homeownership Yes Yes Yes Deed Restricted Rental Housing Yes Yes Permanently Supportive Housing Units Yes Yes Housing Stabilization Program Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Housing Choice Vouchers (Section 8) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Weatherization Program Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Rehab Program Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Local Affordable Housing Goals Adopted Yes Financial Resources Dedicated Local Funding Source Yes Yes Inclusionary Housing (cash in lieu) Yes Yes HET/Commercial Linkage Fees Yes Yes Reduced Development Fees Under Discretionary Discussion Waived Development Fees Under Discretionary Discussion Down Payment Assistance Yes Land Inventory Public Land for Housing Sites Yes Active Land Bank Program Yes Yes Donation of Land/Homes Program Yes Preservation Right of First Refusal for MF Property Mobile/Manufactured Home Zoning Yes Yes Regulatory Alignment Inclusionary Housing (on site) Yes Community Benefit Ordinance Under Discussion Annexation Ordinance Yes Expedited Development Review Density Bonus Some Yes Zones Height Bonus “By Right” Variances Rental License Program Yes

40 Appendix E - Tools by Jurisdiction

Louisville Longmont Lyons Nederland Niwot Superior Ward

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes

Discretionary Yes

Discretionary Yes

Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes

Discretionary Yes Discretionary Yes

Yes Yes

41 Appendix F - Area Median Income by Household in Boulder county (2017) Household Size AMI% 1 Person 2 Persons 3 Persons 4 Persons 5 Persons 6 Persons

30% $20,640 $23,580 $26,520 $29,460 $31,830 $34,200 60% $41,280 $47,160 $53,040 $58,920 $63,660 $68,400 80% $55,040 $62,880 $70,720 $78,560 $84,880 $91,200 100% $68,800 $78,600 $88,400 $98,200 $106,100 $114,000 120% $82,560 $94,320 $106,080 $117,840 $127,320 $136,800 2017 AMI: $98,200 Family Median Income Source: 2017 CHFA

High Mar: Boulder

42 Appendix G -Sources and Resources Appendix G - Sources and Resources Appendix F - Area Median Income by Household in Boulder County

» Apartment Vacancy and Rent Report, Apartment Association Metro Denver (First Quarter 2017) » Boulder Comprehensive Plan Survey Report (2016) » Boulder County Permanently Supportive Housing Study (Community Strategies Institute, June 2016) » Boulder Housing Partners, czb Notes (March 2014) » City of Boulder Affordable Housing Task Force (2012) » City of Boulder Middle Income Housing Strategy (October 2016) » Colorado Housing and Finance Authority-Income Limits (2017) » Fast-Rising Home Prices Plus Slower Wage Growth Could Equal a Problem (Trapasso, Clare in Realtor.com March 2016) » Guide to Housing and Community Development Policy (National Low Income Housing Coalition 2010) » Longmont Housing and Community Investment/Housing Advisory Board/Workforce Housing Task Force (July 2015) » National Housing Conference, The Impacts of Affordable Housing on Health: A Research Summary, J. , N. Maqbool and M. Ault. (April 2015) » The Center for Neighborhood Technology/Housing + Transportation Index (Accessed September 2017) » The National Citizen Survey Community Livability Report (Boulder, Colorado 2016) » United States Census Bureau/American FactFinder. 2010-2012/ 2010-2015 estimates American Community Survey (Commuter Data, Household Housing Costs, Rent Burdened Households) » Zillow, Mortgage Calculator and Market Overview (accessed September 2017)

43 The Boulder County Regional Housing Partnership

15.05.220. Inclusionary Housing.

A. Findings. 1. The regional trend toward increasing housing prices will, without intervention, result in inadequate supplies of affordable housing in Longmont for low, moderate, and middle income households. This trend has a negative effect on the ability of local employers to maintain an adequate workforce, adversely impacting the economy of the city. 2. Because land appropriate for residential development within the city is limited, it is essential that a reasonable proportion of such land be developed into housing units that are affordable to low and moderate income residents and working people. All development of market-rate housing should therefore include affordable housing, and the council finds that 12 percent is the reasonable proportion at this time, given economic indicators and community need. 3. Less expensive market-rate housing (middle-tier housing) generally has less of an impact than larger market-rate housing, provides housing for an additional segment of the population that is critical to the city's workforce and economy, and would be less likely to be developed were it to be required to include an affordable housing component. The requirements of this section should therefore apply to market-rate housing in a graduated manner. 4. The development of accessory dwelling units has only a de minimis impact on land supply and the overall social, economic, and environmental health of the city, and need not be included within the requirements of this section. 5. The market for rental housing is distinct from the market for for-sale housing and attracts different consumers. The construction of higher-density rental units will increase the overall quantity of rental units across all price ranges. The construction of a greater number of rental units across all price ranges will alleviate existing demand pressures, not apparent in the for-sale market, forcing some individuals to rent in price ranges below what their incomes will allow. In turn, higher-density rental developments will improve the availability of affordable rental housing. City housing data suggests that rental densities exceeding 20 units per acre are not likely to be developed absent a significant incentive. Accordingly, marginal units in a rental development that exceed a density threshold of 20 units per acre should not be subject to the requirements of this section. B. Applicability. This section applies to all developments except accessory dwelling units. C. Transitional provision—applicability by date. This section shall apply only to any development receiving approval of a final plat, site plan, PUD plan, overall development plan, or other similar planning approval after the enactment of this section. For development of one single-family detached dwelling unit on a single lot platted prior to the adoption of this section, this development code does not require a subdivision plat, because no subdivision will occur, nor a site plan. See § 15.02.070.C.2. D. Requirements by unit type. 1. For sale. Developments of units for sale may satisfy the requirements of this section using any of the options listed in subsection E, below. 2. For rent. Developments of units for rental may satisfy the requirements of this section using any of the options listed in subsection E, below, except the on-site or off-site location options described in paragraphs E.1 and 3, but including the alternative agreement option in paragraph E.6. 3. Live/work. Live/work units shall be considered residential development for the purposes of this section. However, for market-rate live/work units, only 80 percent of the unit shall be considered market-rate housing.

Created: 2021-03-04 20:52:24 [EST] (Supp. No. 24, Update 1)

Page 1 of 8

E. Options to satisfy requirements. 1. On-site location. The developer or builder may satisfy its obligations under this section by providing affordable housing at the same location as market-rate units. a. Quantity and design. At least 12 percent of the dwelling units in the development shall be affordable. b. Phasing. Phasing of construction of affordable units and securities for each phase shall be detailed in an affordable housing agreement approved by the community services director under the same standards and procedures as a public improvement agreement. c. Affordable units shall have equal access as market-rate units to all amenities within the development, including but not limited to, common areas, indoor and outdoor facilities for convenience or recreation, and parking facilities. d. Homeowner associations. Affordable units must be placed on a fair and equal footing as market- rate units within the governing documents of any homeowner association or similar entity. 2. Fee in lieu. A developer may pay a fee in lieu of providing affordable units. a. Amount. The council finds that Inclusionary Housing Fee in Lieu Methodology for the City of Longmont, dated November 30, 2018, reasonably calculates the impact to the city, including the city's finances and the welfare of the city's residents, of market-rate dwelling units being developed in the city. Accordingly, the fee in lieu is set initially at $7.90 per square foot of finished market-rate for-sale housing, and $1.90 per square foot of finished market-rate rental housing. The fee in lieu of providing any required fraction of a unit shall be based on its proportional share (fractional quantity divided by total number of units required) of the amount of fee in lieu that would be required for the whole development. The community services director shall recalculate the fee in lieu every three years and present the recalculation to the council. b. Timing of payment. A developer or builder shall pay the fee in lieu for each market-rate unit as a prerequisite for receiving the certificate of occupancy for that unit. The fee paid shall be the fee in effect at the time of the final plat or site plan for the development, whichever is later. c. Calculation with density cap. Rental units excluded from the requirements of this section due to the density cap in subsection Q shall be excluded from the calculation of the fee in lieu in the following manner: the square footage of the development for the purposes of the fee in lieu shall be calculated as the average actual square footage of the units in the development multiplied by the number of units not excluded. 3. Off-site location. A developer or builder may seek to provide affordable units within the city in a different location than the development of the market-rate units. a. Quantity required. The developer or builder shall provide no less quantity of affordable housing than would have been required on-site. b. Location restrictions. The affordable units may not be located in a low to moderate income area as designated by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, unless an exception is granted under subsection K.3. c. New or existing housing. Existing homes may be acquired and deed restricted as affordable if they are in good repair in the determination of the community services director based on an inspection paid for by the developer but commissioned by the city, carry a warranty of sufficient scope and duration to protect the resident from significant preexisting deficiencies, and are not

Created: 2021-03-04 20:52:24 [EST] (Supp. No. 24, Update 1)

Page 2 of 8

already burdened by restrictions requiring them to be kept affordable or restrictions similar in effect. d. Timing of off-site construction. No final plat or site plan shall be executed for the location of the market-rate units until a final plat sufficient to facilitate the development of the affordable units, and site plan if necessary, have been recorded. Phasing and security shall be governed in the same manner as on-site locations as described in paragraph E.1.b. The affordable housing agreement shall run with the land and shall be recorded against the off-site location. e. Approval of the use of this option does not guarantee approval of any land use application or building permit for the off-site location. The developer risks forfeiture of security if unable to build the off-site units as proposed. 4. Land dedication. A developer may seek to provide land to the city in lieu of the development of affordable units. Dedicated land must meet the following standards: a. All off-site infrastructure necessary or proper for the development of the land as affordable housing either: (i) must already be in place, and any outstanding obligations paid to neighboring landowners for public infrastructure they installed, (ii) the developer must agree to build the infrastructure within a time frame that will not delay the development of the affordable housing and the developer may be required to post securities for the infrastructure via a public improvement agreement, or (iii) the land donation must be accompanied with additional compensation to the city sufficient to construct such infrastructure. b. The land must be able to support at least the quantity of affordable housing as would be required on-site, without the need for a variance, modification, rezoning, or reliance on any incentive for affordable housing found in this Code, such as a density or height bonus. The developer shall submit a concept plan illustrating how it complies. c. The land must not be encumbered in any manner including, but not limited to, any lien, outstanding tax or fee accrued, or floodplain, which in any way jeopardizes the city's ability to develop that quantity of housing. d. The land may not be located in a low to moderate income area as designated by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, unless an exception is granted under subsection K.3. e. The land must be dedicated to the city at the time of execution of the plat or plan allowing the development of the market-rate units. f. The developer and the owner of the land shall comply with all environmental site assessment provisions of section 15.02.140 applicable to dedications via plats or site plans, and associated development. g. The land dedication must be in fee simple and by general warranty deed. 5. Redemption of credits. A developer may acquire, and redeem with the city, credits generated as described in subsection L below, from the prior development of affordable housing, to offset an equivalent quantity of required affordable housing. 6. Voluntary alternative agreement. A developer may propose an alternative manner in which the development will satisfy its obligations under this section. Such an agreement need not meet the otherwise applicable substantive requirements of this section, but must be approved by the city council under the provisions of subsection K(2). Specifically, developers of rental housing may voluntarily agree to limit rent on a property or unit and accept deed restrictions to that effect in order to designate the units as affordable, rather than pay the fee in lieu or dedicate land. Also, the agreement may facilitate the construction of lower-priced affordable homes as follows:

Created: 2021-03-04 20:52:24 [EST] (Supp. No. 24, Update 1)

Page 3 of 8

a. The agreement may provide that the home price of a for-sale unit would be affordable at or below 60.0 percent of the area median income. b. For rental housing, the agreement may provide that the monthly rental price would be affordable at or below 40.0 percent of the area median income. c. Under subsections E.6.a and b above, the obligations otherwise applicable under this section may be reduced up to 25 percent. d. Subsections E.6.a—c above, may apply to on-site and off-site affordable housing as well as land donations. 7. Combination. A developer or builder may pursue any combination of the allowable options in this subsection. F. Middle-tier housing. Prior to issuance of building permits, a developer or builder may enter an agreement with the city, acting by and through its community services director, where the form of such agreement is approved by the community services director, providing that the development may include less affordable housing than this section would otherwise require, due to the developer's commitment to provide middle- tier housing. The agreement shall provide as follows: 1. No obligation shall arise under this section to satisfy any affordable housing requirement for any unit sold for occupancy at a price affordable between 80.1 percent and 100.0 percent of the area median income. 2. The requirements for any units sold for occupancy at a price affordable between 100.1 percent and 110.0 percent of the area median income shall be reduced to forty percent of the otherwise applicable requirement. 3. The requirements for any units sold for occupancy at a price affordable between 110.1 percent and 120.0 percent of the area median income shall be reduced to eighty percent of the otherwise applicable requirement. 4. The developer or builder shall state the price tiers for which the homes will qualify. 5. The developer or builder shall use best efforts to ensure that the initial owner or owners of each such individual home shall have a bona fide intent to occupy the premises, and shall provide documentation thereof. 6. In order to receive building permits for such middle-tier homes, the developer or builder shall confirm in writing to the community services director, in the form provided by the community services director, that each home will sell for a price within the applicable range described in the agreement. In order to receive a certificate of occupancy for such a middle-tier home, the developer or builder shall produce proof, to the satisfaction of the community services director, that the home will actually sell for a price within that applicable range. Promptly upon sale of the home, the developer or builder shall provide proof, to the satisfaction of the community services director, that the home did actually sell for a price within the applicable range. 7. Middle-tier true-up. Where a developer or builder sells some of such middle-tier homes for more than the designated tier, and the development's obligations under this section increase as a result, the developer or builder may still receive approvals for such homes, including certificates of occupancy, by paying to the city the amount of the fee in lieu for the difference. G. Deed restrictions. All required affordable housing shall carry deed restrictions and covenants in the form set by the community services director. 1. When required.

Created: 2021-03-04 20:52:24 [EST] (Supp. No. 24, Update 1)

Page 4 of 8

a. Ownership covenant. Deed restrictions shall be required for each affordable for-sale unit at the time the unit passes to a qualifying owner. b. Rental covenant. Deed restrictions for affordable rental units shall be required prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for any rental unit in the development. 2. Content. The deed restrictions shall contain all terms determined by the community services director to be appropriate to ensure the affordability of the unit and compliance with this section. 3. Deed of trust. The deed restrictions shall be secured by a deed of trust on the property, which may be subrogated to other deeds of trust on the property. 4. Term. All ownership and rental covenants shall be perpetual or virtually so; they shall require affordability of the affected unit for the greatest duration allowed by law. 5. Sale. a. Ownership covenants. Ownership covenants shall allow sale to another homeowner qualifying under subsection H. These covenants shall allow for appreciation of the home at a rate determined based on changes in the area median income, plus an allowance for the value of capital improvements to the home installed by the owner. The rate may be capped so as to ensure the continued affordability of a unit to a new purchaser, to ensure that unit price does not fall unreasonably below the level at which a unit would be considered affordable, and to facilitate the economically practical sale of a unit once its owner's income increases sufficiently for the owner to afford a market-rate unit. The seller of the home shall charge to the buyer no other special or unusual fees, including any finder's fee. The council may consider allowing an owner of an affordable unit to sell to a buyer who does not meet the qualifications of subsection H, below, in exceptional circumstances involving significant disruption to the local economy or individual financial hardship. In exchange, the owner would transfer equity to the city at that time. The community services director may specify in the deed restriction the amount of such equity. The amount shall be based on the difference between the initial sale price and the estimated market price of the unit at the time of initial sale. b. Rental covenants. The community services director may release and discharge a rental covenant after thirty years' duration, allowing sale or rental of the property to people who do not qualify under subsection H, so long as the owner of the units seeking the removal of the deed restriction pays to the city at that time, for each deed-restricted affordable rental unit, the amount of the difference between the value of the unit with and without the deed restriction, as calculated by the community services director based on reasonable market data collection or projections. If an arm's-length sale of the property accompanies the termination, the units shall be valued proportionally to the value at which the property is priced in the sale, so long as the director determines that valuation to be a reasonable market price. H. Income qualification and local live/work preference. Affordable units may be sold or rented only to a person selected by the community services director who meets the city's qualifications. Such qualifications shall be based on the person's income and assets, and shall be intended to ensure that only those who require affordable housing shall be eligible. In selecting particular qualified applicants for particular affordable units, the community services director shall consider applicants' household size compared to the size of available affordable units. If more qualified applicants of the appropriate household size request housing in an affordable unit than there are affordable units available, the community services director shall give priority to applicants who prove their residency or employment within Longmont to the satisfaction of the community services director. If applicants are equally so prioritized, the community services director may select among the applicants by lottery.

Created: 2021-03-04 20:52:24 [EST] (Supp. No. 24, Update 1)

Page 5 of 8

I. Restriction on rental of for-sale units. No owner of a for-sale affordable unit may fail to continuously occupy the unit as a primary residence, or lease or rent out the unit to any person. The community services director may grant an exception to this restriction if the owner proves to the satisfaction of the community services director that the lease or rental is directly necessitated by a bona fide hardship, the property has no outstanding down payment assistance loan from the city, and the lessee or renter will be a person approved by the community services director as meeting the qualifications of a purchaser of an affordable unit under subsection H, above. The owner must notify the community services director at least 90 days prior to leasing or renting out the unit, to give the community services director adequate time to consider the proposed exception. J. All revenues accruing to the city under this section shall be placed in the affordable housing fund established in chapter 4.99. K. Approval process. 1. Administrative approval. a. For-sale on-site. For-sale developments which opt to satisfy this section by producing all required affordable for-sale units on-site under subsection E.1, may memorialize their commitments on the plat or site plan without requiring council approval. b. Fee in lieu. Developments which opt to satisfy this section by paying the fee in lieu, as described in subsection E.2, may do so without requiring council approval. 2. Other options - approval by city council. Developments seeking to use other options in subsection E must seek approval of their proposed use of such options from the city council. The council's decision on such proposals is discretionary and legislative. The council will consider whether the proposal will result in more affordable housing, providing more of a benefit to the city, than would the provision of the affordable units on-site under subsection E.1, whether practical difficulties prevent the inclusion of the affordable units on-site under subsection E.1, whether the proposal would better benefit the inhabitants of the city than requiring the provision of affordable housing on-site, or any other factors that may be relevant to these considerations. 3. Exception to restrictions on placement of affordable housing in low to moderate income areas. The council may, in its discretion and as a legislative act, grant an exception to the restrictions of subsections E.3 and E.4 on provision of off-site affordable housing and land dedication within low to moderate income areas. The council will generally consider whether the placement of the required affordable housing in such areas would result in clustering of low-income housing in a way that would negatively impact the inhabitants of the area, the surrounding community, or the city as a whole, and whether positive elements of redevelopment or investment in the area outweigh any potential negative impacts. 4. The community services director shall recommend approval or denial of each proposal before the council. L. Credits for excess affordable housing. 1. Award of credit. a. By agreement. At the time of plat or site plan, a developer may enter into an agreement with the city, acting by and through the community services director, and in a form acceptable to the community services director, to memorialize that the developer shall develop more affordable housing than would otherwise be required under this section. b. Certificate of credit. Provided that such housing is actually developed and a certificate of occupancy issued, the city shall award the developer a credit for the excess number of units provided.

Created: 2021-03-04 20:52:24 [EST] (Supp. No. 24, Update 1)

Page 6 of 8

c. Exceptions. No credit shall be available for any affordable housing built on land donated or sold at a significant discount, for the purpose of developing affordable housing, in satisfaction of this section or any prior affordable housing requirements of the city; or for any affordable housing receiving any city-funded or city-administered assistance whether financial subsidy, tax relief or other credits or incentives from the city under chapter 4.79 of this Code. However, a development's use of a loan from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development shall not disqualify its affordable housing from generating a credit. d. Applicable regardless of nonmonetary development code incentives. Affordable housing receiving land use incentives under this development code shall not thereby be rendered ineligible for a credit. As an exception to any otherwise applicable provision of this development code, such excess affordable housing shall not be excluded from such land use incentives by virtue of a developer's determination to seek a credit rather than to enter an agreement with the city for monetary incentives under chapter 4.79. 2. Redemption of credit. The credit may be redeemed to offset an equivalent number of affordable housing units that would otherwise be required under this section. Such credit shall be freely transferable to any other developer, but shall be transferred in a manner acceptable to the community services director so as to ensure accurate tracking of the transfer of credits by the city. A credit shall expire five years after it is awarded unless, within that time, the city executes an agreement with the holder of the credit to apply the credit to a specified development. Before the credit expires, the community services director may, upon request, in writing, and for good cause, extend the term of the credit by one additional term of two years. M. Marketing and sale of units. Rules and regulations under subsection O, below, may address marketing and sale of units to ensure that the community has sufficient notice of available affordable housing. N. It shall be unlawful and a violation of this development code for any person to violate any provision of this section, any rule or regulation adopted by the community services director under this section, any agreement executed as described in this section, or any deed restriction recorded as described in this section. O. Rules and regulations. The community services director may propose such reasonable rules and regulations as may be necessary for the purpose of administering, interpreting, or enforcing the provisions of this section. The rules and regulations shall be reviewed by the city attorney's office and then adopted by the city manager. Notice of adopted rules shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the city. P. Appeal. The general appeal provisions of subsection 15.02.040.K, shall not apply to this section, except as noted below, and no variances, modifications, or other deviations from the requirements of this section shall proceed under this development code. Appeals shall instead be permitted as follows: 1. Appeal of decisions of the community services director. a. To the city manager. A developer or builder may appeal to the city manager, under the procedures listed in chapter 2.98, any action, decision, refusal, denial, or order by the community services director that finally disposes of a request or application under this section. The city manager shall reverse the decision of the community services director upon finding that the decision misapplied or misinterpreted this section. b. To the city council. A developer or builder who receives an unfavorable written decision from the city manager on appeal may then appeal the matter to the city council by filing a notice of appeal as described in subsection 15.02.040.K.6 within seven days from the date of the city manager's decision. The council shall hear and decide on the appeal generally under the procedures detailed in subsections 15.02.040.K.10., 11.a—c, and 12. The council shall reverse the decision of the city manager upon finding that the decision misapplied or misinterpreted this section.

Created: 2021-03-04 20:52:24 [EST] (Supp. No. 24, Update 1)

Page 7 of 8

2. Appeal of adoption of rules and regulations. Any rule or regulation promulgated under subsection O may be appealed to the city council within 28 days of publication of adoption, by filing a notice of appeal as described in subsection 15.02.040.K.6. The council shall hear and decide on the appeal generally under the procedures detailed in subsections 15.02.040.K.10, 11.a—c, and 12. The council shall reverse any rule or any part of any rule upon finding that the decision misapplied or misinterpreted this section, and may then remand any matters to the city staff for further rulemaking. Any rules or parts of rules not specifically reversed shall be final. Q. Density cap for rental units. Where a rental development exceeds a density of 20 units per acre, no obligation shall arise under this section to satisfy any affordable housing requirement for any marginal rental units provided exceeding that density. (Ord. No. O-2018-51 , § 2, 12-11-2018; Ord. No. O-2019-17 , § 3, 3-19-2019)

Created: 2021-03-04 20:52:24 [EST] (Supp. No. 24, Update 1)

Page 8 of 8 TITLE 9 - LAND USE CODE Chapter 13 Inclusionary Housing

Chapter 13 Inclusionary Housing7 1

9-13-1. Findings.

(a) A diverse housing stock is necessary in this community to serve people of all income levels. Based upon the review and consideration of recent housing studies, reports and analysis, it has become clear that the provisions of this chapter are necessary to preserve a diversity of housing opportunities for the city's residents and working people. (b) The program defined by this chapter is necessary to provide continuing housing opportunities for very low-, low-, moderate-, and middle-income households. It is necessary to help maintain a diverse housing stock and to allow people to have better access to jobs and upgrade their economic status. It is necessary to provide housing to persons of all needs and abilities to have a place in the community. The strong employment base in this region, combined with the special attractiveness of Boulder, its University-related population and its environmentally sensitive urban service boundaries, all combine to make the continued provision of decent housing options for very low-, low-, moderate and middle-income and working people in Boulder a difficult but vital objective. The regional trend toward increasing housing prices will, without intervention, result in inadequate supplies of affordable housing here for very low-, low-, moderate and middle-income households. This in turn will have a negative effect upon the ability of local employers to maintain an adequate local work force. (c) It is essential that appropriate housing options exist for university students, faculty and staff so that the housing needs of university-related populations do not preclude non-university community members from finding affordable housing. (d) A housing shortage for persons of very low-, low-, moderate and middle-income is detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. The inability of such persons to reside within the city negatively affects the community's jobs/housing balance and has serious and detrimental transportation and environmental consequences. (e) Because remaining land appropriate for residential development within the city is limited, it is essential that a reasonable proportion of such land be developed into housing units affordable to very low-, low-, moderate and middle-income residents and working people. This is particularly true because of the tendency, in the absence of interventions, for large expensive housing to be developed within the city, which both reduces opportunities for more affordable housing and contributes to a general rise in prices for all of the housing in the community, thus exacerbating the scarcity of affordable housing within the city. (f) The primary objective of this chapter is to obtain a significant amount of permanently affordable dwelling units. Provisions of this chapter provide for various approaches to creating additional affordable housing units. Those provisions recognize the fact that individual site, legal and economic factors have an impact on which alternatives will work for different developments.

1Editor's note—Ord. No. 8201 , § 1, adopted October 3, 2017 and effective November 2, 2017, repealed the former Ch. 13, §§ 9-13-1—9-13-11, and enacted a new Ch. 13 as set out herein. The former Ch. 13 pertained to similar subject matter and derived from Ord. 7701 (2010), 7718 (2010), 7762 (2010), 7895 (2013).

Boulder, Colorado, Municipal Code Created: 2021-04-10 18:21:45 [EST] (Supp. No. 147, Update 1)

Page 1 of 13

(g) The intent of this chapter is that any resulting affordable housing units and developments will be distributed either within each development when provided on-site or at a building/neighborhood level when provided off-site and will be found throughout the community and not concentrated in certain areas of the city. (h) As land for new residential development becomes scarcer, redevelopment of existing housing will increase. The newly built housing that results will likely be more expensive than the housing it replaces. This is especially true of larger redevelopments. Smaller scale developments are less able to absorb development costs than are larger developments that can benefit from economies of scale. This chapter recognizes the differences between developments of different sizes and the inherent inefficiencies in smaller developments and seeks to not disproportionally affect smaller redevelopments within the City. (i) This inclusionary housing requirement is based upon the city's power to enact zoning regulations that promote the health, safety and welfare of the community. For the reasons cited above, the promotion and maintenance of a diverse housing stock is an important component of the city's zoning regulations. Ordinance No. 8201 (2017)

9-13-2. Purpose.

The purposes of this chapter are to: (a) Implement the housing goals of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan; (b) Promote the construction of housing that is affordable to the community's workforce; (c) Retain opportunities for people that work in the city to also live in the city; (d) Maintain a balanced community that provides housing for people of all income levels; and (e) Ensure that housing options continue to be available for very low-income, low-income, moderate, and middle-income residents, for special needs populations and for a significant proportion of those who work or live in the city. Ordinance No. 8201 (2017)

9-13-3. General Inclusionary Housing Requirements.

(a) Inclusionary Housing Requirements. (1) Developments Containing Five or More Dwelling Units: (A) Any development containing five or more dwelling units is required to include at least twenty- five percent of the total number of dwelling units as permanently affordable dwelling units. (B) Twenty percent of the required affordable units shall be affordable to low/moderate income households. Five percent of the required affordable units shall be affordable to middle income households. i. The city manager is authorized to use rule-making authority to annually adjust the percentages in A and B to incentivize on-site affordable units. (C) In for sale developments a minimum of fifty percent of the units shall be built on the site of the development, unless such units are provided for in another manner consistent with the provisions of this chapter.

Created: 2021-04-10 18:21:44 [EST] (Supp. No. 147, Update 1)

Page 2 of 13

(D) Rental developments do not have a minimum on-site requirement and may provide the permanently affordable units through any combination of the alternative means of compliance set forth in Section 9-13-10, "Options for Satisfaction of Inclusionary Housing Requirement," B.R.C. 1981. (2) Developments with One to Four Dwelling Units: Any development containing one to four dwelling units must include at least twenty percent of the total number of dwelling units as permanently affordable dwelling units. Developments of this size may comply with this obligation either by including one permanently affordable dwelling unit within the development or through any combination of the alternative means of compliance set forth in Section 9-13-10, "Options for Satisfaction of Inclusionary Housing Requirement," B.R.C. 1981(b) Rounding Rule: In determining the number of affordable units required on or off-site, any inclusionary housing obligation resulting in a fractional value with a decimal point that is 0.5 or greater will be rounded up to the next whole number. Any remaining fraction may be met through other options as allowed in Section 9-13-10 Options for Satisfaction of Inclusionary Housing Requirement. (b) Scope of Chapter: No person shall fail to conform to the provisions of this chapter for any new development which applies for a development approval or building permit for a dwelling unit after the effective date of this chapter. (c) Income Eligibility Required: No person shall sell, rent, purchase or lease a permanently affordable dwelling unit created pursuant to this chapter except to a program eligible household. A private owner of a single affordable unit may rent the unit in accordance with the provisions of this chapter as set forth in Section 9- 13-6 "Program Requirements for For Sale Units." All sales, rentals, purchases and leases shall comply with the provisions of this chapter. (d) Deed Restriction Required: No person offering a permanently affordable dwelling unit for rent or sale shall fail to lawfully reference in the grant deed conveying title of any such unit, and record with the county recorder, a covenant or declaration of restrictions in a form approved by the city. Such covenant or declaration of restrictions shall reference applicable contractual arrangements, restrictive covenants and resale restrictions as are necessary to carry out the purposes of this chapter. (e) Good Faith Marketing Required: All sellers or owners of permanently affordable dwelling units shall engage in good faith marketing and public advertising efforts each time a permanently affordable dwelling unit is rented or sold such that members of the public who are qualified to rent or purchase such units have a fair chance to become informed of the availability of such units. (f) Reference Information: Whenever this chapter refers to information generated by HUD but no such information is generated by or available from that agency, the city manager is authorized to adopt or create any necessary equivalent information, which can be utilized in the enforcement of the provisions of this chapter. (g) Required Agreements: Those applicants creating residential developments shall enter into a permanently affordable housing agreement with the city manager and shall execute such restrictive covenants and additional agreements, in a form acceptable to the city, as necessary to carry out the purposes of this chapter. Such agreements shall be on a form provided by the city manager and shall document how the applicant will meet the requirements of this chapter. The applicant shall provide all documentation and any other material requested by the city manager. An applicant shall not be eligible to submit for a building permit until the affordable housing agreement and any required restrictive covenants are approved by the city manager. (h) Residency Requirement: No owner of a permanently affordable dwelling unit shall fail to occupy the purchased dwelling unit as a primary residence, except as otherwise agreed by the city manager. Ordinance No. 8201 (2017)

Created: 2021-04-10 18:21:45 [EST] (Supp. No. 147, Update 1)

Page 3 of 13

9-13-4. Affordable Housing Design Review.

(a) Purpose: The Affordable Housing Design Review is established to provide a uniform and consistent method for evaluating proposals for meeting inclusionary housing obligation where site review is not required. (b) Affordable Housing Design Review Required: All developments with more than five units providing affordable units on-site to meet an inclusionary housing obligation and all off-site developments in excess of five units providing affordable units shall be subject to the Affordable Housing Design Review unless the development is approved pursuant to a site review Ordinance No. 8201 (2017)

9-13-5. Livability Standards.

The city manager is authorized to establish minimum livability standards which will address size, distribution within a project, design and materials of all affordable units to ensure that the affordable housing is comparable to the market rate units which created the obligation. No person shall fail to comply with the adopted livability standards. Ordinance No. 8201 (2017)

9-13-6. Quality, Size, and Amenities of Affordable Units.

(a) Quality of Units. Affordable units shall be of comparable quality, design and materials to the market units creating the inclusionary housing obligation and constructed with durable materials that promote sustainable, energy efficient and attractive affordable housing. If provided off-site, the affordable units shall also be comparable to the surrounding market housing in quality, design, and general appearance. (b) Size of Permanently Affordable Dwelling Units: The city manager is authorized to establish minimum and maximum sizes for permanently affordable units annually to reflect the type of units that are being constructed in the previous year and are sized to meet unmet community needs. (c) Affordable Owner and Renter Access to Amenities: When affordable units are provided on-site in any location or configuration, the affordable owners and renters shall have access equal to that of the owners and renters of the market units. Such amenities shall include but not be limited to; parks, outdoor play areas, pools, exercise facilities and equipment, dog washing rooms, bicycle repair facilities, internet cafes, and similar on-site amenities. Ordinance No. 8201 (2017)

9-13-7. Relationship of Affordable Units to Market Units.

(a) Purpose: Affordable housing shall be comparable in quality, design and general appearance to the market units creating the inclusionary housing obligation. (b) Detached Dwelling Units: When a development contains single-family detached dwelling units, a proportional number of the required permanently affordable dwelling units shall also be single-family detached dwelling units. (c) Mixed Dwelling Unit Types: In developments with a mixture of dwelling unit types, including, without limitation, single family detached dwelling units, townhomes, duplex, triplex, four-plex, eight-plex, stacked flats, the required permanently affordable dwelling units shall be comprised of the different dwelling unit

Created: 2021-04-10 18:21:45 [EST] (Supp. No. 147, Update 1)

Page 4 of 13

types in the same proportion as the dwelling units that are not permanently affordable within the development. (d) Number of Bedrooms and Bathrooms: Affordable units shall have the same proportion of zero bedroom/studio, one-, two-, three- and four-bedroom dwelling units as in its market rate dwelling units. The city manager will determine the minimum numbers of bathrooms required for affordable units with these numbers of bedrooms. Middle income affordable units shall have at least one bedroom. (e) Ownership Type: Permanently affordable dwelling units shall be for sale in the same proportion as the dwelling units intended for sale that are not permanently affordable within the development; for example, if fifty percent of the units in the original development are for sale units, then at least fifty percent of the affordable units must be for sale units. Rental developments may provide either rental or for-sale units. Ordinance No. 8201 (2017)

9-13-8. Location and Timing.

Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, permanently affordable dwelling units shall be provided as follows: (a) Location of For Sale Permanently Affordable Units: For sale permanently affordable units shall be distributed evenly throughout the development to achieve integration and avoid concentration or segregation of the affordable households unless otherwise approved by the city manager. (b) Location of Rental Permanently Affordable Units: Rental permanently affordable units do not have a requirement for distribution throughout the development. (c) Timing of Construction: The construction of on-site permanently affordable dwelling units in any development shall be timed such that the units shall be constructed and pass final inspection concurrently or prior to the market-rate dwelling units in that development. (d) Timing of Marketing: On-site permanently affordable dwelling units shall be marketed concurrently with or prior to the market-rate dwelling units in that development. Ordinance No. 8201 (2017)

9-13-9. Developments Containing a Single Dwelling Unit.

A single lot owner that intends to construct one single dwelling unit on one buildable site that will be the primary residence of the owner for not less than three years immediately following the issuance of a certificate of occupancy shall meet the standards set forth in Subsection 9-13-3(a), "Inclusionary Housing Requirements" B.R.C. 1981, or meet the following standards: (a) Designation of Home as a Permanently Affordable Dwelling Unit: The owner shall make the dwelling unit a permanently affordable dwelling unit, except that such initial owner does not have to meet income or asset qualifications imposed by this chapter. The income and asset limitations shall apply to subsequent owners of the affordable dwelling unit. (b) In-Lieu Contribution: If the owner of a dwelling unit described in this subsection chooses to comply with inclusionary housing requirement by making a cash-in-lieu contribution, the owner shall have the option of deferring payment of that contribution until the property is conveyed to a subsequent owner or ten years from the date of execution of an agreement to that effect whichever is sooner, subject to the following: (1) Amount: The amount of the cash-in-lieu contribution shall be based on the in-lieu amount for a similar single-family home that is in place at the time the contribution is made, no later than at the time of

Created: 2021-04-10 18:21:45 [EST] (Supp. No. 147, Update 1)

Page 5 of 13

transfer of title to a subsequent owner or ten years from the date of execution of an agreement to that effect whichever is sooner. (2) Legal Documents: The owner executes legal documents, the form and content of which are approved by the city manager, to secure the city's interest in receipt of the deferred in-lieu contribution. Ordinance No. 8201 (2017)

9-13-10. Options for Satisfaction of Inclusionary Housing Requirement.

(a) Purpose: To obtain a significant amount of permanently affordable dwelling units. To the extent permitted by this chapter, developers may satisfy the inclusionary housing requirement through any combination of the following alternate means: (b) Cash-in-Lieu Contribution: Developers may satisfy permanently affordable housing requirements by making cash contributions to the city's affordable housing fund. The cash-in-lieu contribution will be calculated by the city manager annually. The city manager may consider the number of units in the development, the size and type of units which created the obligation (including small attached units and townhomes), the amount that would incentivize on-site construction of affordable units, and the affordability gap between market and affordable home prices when determining the cash-in-lieu calculation. (1) Annual Escalator for Developments with Five or More Dwelling Units: The city manager is authorized to increase the cash-in-lieu contribution annually on July 1 of each year up to a maximum of ten percent, compounded each year until seventy-five percent of the affordability gap in a given year is reached. (2) Annual Escalator for Developments with One to Four Dwelling Units: The city manager is authorized to increase the cash-in-lieu contribution for developments with one to four dwelling units annually on July 1 of each year by up to a maximum of ten percent compounded each year until fifty percent of the affordability gap in any given year is reached. (3) Affordable Housing Fund Established: The city manager will establish an affordable housing fund for the receipt and management of permanently affordable dwelling unit cash-in-lieu contributions. Monies received into that fund will be utilized solely for the construction, purchase and maintenance of affordable housing and for the costs of administering programs consistent with the purposes of this chapter. (c) Provision of Affordable Units Off-site: (1) The intent of this option is that the off-site unit mix of building type (attached, townhome, detached) and number of units with specific number of bedrooms will be proportionate to the mix of market units on the sending site. Recognizing that an off-site location is unique and may have different zoning and other planning considerations than the sending site, the city manager may meet the intent of this chapter by modifying the requirements in Chapters 9-13-6 and 9-13-7 to accommodate receiving site constraints. (2) To the extent permitted by this chapter, inclusionary housing requirements may be satisfied by restricting existing or newly constructed rental or for sale off-site dwelling units which are approved by the city as suitable affordable housing dwelling units through covenants, contractual arrangements or resale restrictions, the form and content of which are acceptable to the city manager. Off-site affordable dwelling units shall be located within the City of Boulder. (3) Off-site Agreement: Any development meeting the requirements of this chapter by providing affordable units off-site shall be subject to the provisions of an off-site Agreement as approved by the city manager. The off-site Agreement must be executed prior to any residential building permit submittal for the sending site.

Created: 2021-04-10 18:21:45 [EST] (Supp. No. 147, Update 1)

Page 6 of 13

(4) Financial Guarantee: The city manager may require a financial guarantee to secure the off-site units prior to issuing a building permit for the sending site, the development generating the need for the affordable units. (5) Timing of Construction for Off-site Units: The intent of this section is to provide concurrency of construction and marketing between affordable units and market rate units. (A) If a newly constructed dwelling unit is used to satisfy the requirements of this chapter, the units shall pass final inspection no later than one year after the first market-rate dwelling unit in the site that generated the requirement passes final inspection. (B) If an existing dwelling unit is used to satisfy the requirements of this chapter, the applicant shall provide a letter of completion for any rehabilitation or remodeling, subject to city manager review and approval, that establishes that the unit is habitable no later than one year after the first market rate dwelling unit in the site that generated the requirement passes final inspection. (6) Timing of Marketing: The marketing of the permanently affordable dwelling units should start within two months of when the units can be occupied. Marketing shall occur no later than ten months after the first residential building permit for the site that generated the requirement is issued. (7) Off-Site Location Subject to Inclusionary Requirement: All newly constructed dwelling units on the receiving site are subject to the requirements of this chapter. (8) Off-Site Location Review and Approval: Any proposed off-site location is required to be approved by the city manager. (d) Land Dedication: (1) Purpose: The inclusionary housing requirement may be fully or partially satisfied by the dedication of land to the City of Boulder or an entity designated by the City of Boulder for permanently affordable dwelling units in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. (2) General Requirements: A land dedication shall meet all of the following criteria to the satisfaction of the city manager: (A) Any proposed off-site location is required to be approved by the city manager. (B) The land is in the City of Boulder and has either a medium or high density residential land use and zoning classification or the city manager determines that such classification may be pursued; (C) The land is in an environmentally acceptable condition as supported by a Phase I Environmental Assessment as approved by the city manager. The city manager may require other studies or assessments to make this determination; (D) No greater than ten percent of the land may be within the high hazard, or conveyance floodplain. No greater than twenty-five percent of the land may be within the one-hundred-year floodplain. If any portion of the land is in the high hazard, conveyance or one-hundred-year flood plain the city manager will have the sole discretion to determine if the land is appropriate for affordable housing development. (E) Satisfactory proof of fee title is provided to the city manager within thirty days of the effective date of dedication to the city. The land will be free of all liens and encumbrances and all property taxes and special taxes will be current before the title for the dedicated land is conveyed. The land will be conveyed by general warranty deed before issuance of a building permit for the originating residential development. (F) Dedicated land plus any cash-in-lieu contributed must be of equivalent or greater value to the total cash-in-lieu contribution amount. The land must equal no less than seventy-five percent of

Created: 2021-04-10 18:21:45 [EST] (Supp. No. 147, Update 1)

Page 7 of 13

the cash-in-lieu contribution amount, including any in-lieu requirements of Subsection 9-13-3(d), B.R.C. 1981, for providing less than one-half of the required affordable dwelling units on-site that would have been required of the originating residential development. The value of land to be dedicated will be determined, at the cost of the developer, by an independent appraiser, who will be selected from a list of Colorado Certified General Appraiser provided by the city, or by such alternative means of valuation to which a developer and the city may agree. (G) If the land does not equal the full amount of the cash-in-lieu owed, the applicant shall contribute cash-in-lieu to make up any gap between the value of the donated land and the total cash-in-lieu contribution amount. (e) Alternative methods of compliance. The city manager is authorized to enter into agreements to allow alternative methods of compliance for the inclusionary housing requirements contained within this chapter. The applicant shall provide all documentation and any other material requested by the city manager. An applicant for an alternative method of compliance will demonstrate that the proposed method of compliance: (1) Will result in additional affordable housing benefits for the city consistent with the purposes of this chapter; or (2) Will result in additional affordable housing benefits that are equivalent to or greater than the cash-in- lieu contribution as set forth in Subsection 9-13-9(a), including any additional cash-in-lieu that is contributed if less than fifty percent of any for-sale permanently affordable units are not provided on- site; or (3) Is necessary to prevent an unlawful taking of property without just compensation in accordance with Section 9-13-10, "No Taking of Property Without Just Compensation," B.R.C. 1981. Ordinance No. 8201 (2017)

9-13-11. Rebuilt Dwelling Units.

The provisions of this chapter apply to any dwelling unit that is removed and rebuilt, except as provided in this subsection. (1) Developments with Four or Fewer Dwelling Units: An applicant may request an exemption from the inclusionary housing requirements of this section for each dwelling unit removed and replaced by a dwelling unit in a development that has four or fewer units proposed for construction. The exemption shall be valid for three years after the issuance of any permit that results in the removal of a unit if the applicant applies for a building permit for a dwelling unit, uses due diligence to commence and complete the construction of such building and meets all deadlines set by city building codes or that otherwise may be set by the city manager. Any removal of a dwelling unit undertaken without the issuance of a permit will not qualify for the above exemption regardless of the number of units removed. (2) Developments with Five or More Dwelling Units: When the total number of redeveloped or newly constructed dwelling units in a development equals five or more dwelling units, the requirements of this chapter shall apply regardless of the date of issuance of any permit resulting in the removal of a unit. (3) Calamity: The provisions of this subsection shall not apply to non-affordable dwellings that may have been removed or caused to be removed by fire, flood, wind, act of nature or another calamity. Such dwelling units may be replaced without meeting the inclusionary housing requirements of this chapter at the time preferred by the property owner. Deed restricted affordable dwelling that may have been

Created: 2021-04-10 18:21:45 [EST] (Supp. No. 147, Update 1)

Page 8 of 13

removed or caused to be removed by fire, flood, wind, act of nature or other calamity must be replaced and include the deed restriction. (4) Safe and Habitable: The provisions of this subsection shall not apply to dwellings to be removed, if, at the time of removal, such unit is considered to be an unsafe structure, a structure unfit for human occupancy, or a dangerous structure under the 1997 Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, Section 302 adopted by the city by Section 10-5-3, B.R.C., unless otherwise excepted by the Boulder Revised Code. Ordinance No. 8201 (2017)

9-13-12. Program Requirements for For-Sale Units.

(a) Affordable Unit Price: The city manager will set the maximum allowable sales price for affordable dwelling units required by this chapter based upon the unit type, total floor area, number of bedrooms and bathrooms. (1) The prices charged for permanently affordable low/moderate priced dwelling units shall not exceed a price that is affordable to a household earning the HUD low-income limit for the Boulder PMSA. (2) Middle Income priced dwelling units shall not exceed a price that is affordable to one hundred and twenty percent of the area median income as determined by HUD for the Boulder PMSA. The city manager is authorized to adopt or create pricing categories within this income range to be utilized in the enforcement of the provisions of this chapter. (b) Maximum Sales Price for Permanently Affordable Dwelling Units: The maximum sale price for an affordable ownership unit shall be set by the city on at least a quarterly basis. (c) Real Estate Commissions: A real estate commission shall be paid by any seller of an affordable unit to a real estate agent representing the buyer. This amount shall be established by the city manager and specified in the inclusionary housing administrative regulation. (d) Approved Purchasers for Permanently Affordable Dwelling Units: A developer or owner shall sell to a qualified purchaser after completing a good faith marketing and selection process approved by the city manager. (e) Asset Limitations for Program-eligible Households: Program-eligible households that wish to purchase affordable dwelling units shall be subject to reasonable asset limitations set by the city manager. The city manager will establish maximum asset limitation requirements for purchasers of affordable dwelling units in order to accomplish the purposes of this chapter. The standard that the city manager will use to set the asset limitation is that the housing be available to people who, without assistance, would have difficulty marshaling the financial resources to obtain appropriate housing within the city. (f) Sale Restriction: No person shall sell a permanently affordable dwelling unit except to a person that meets the income, asset and other eligibility requirements of this chapter or any asset and income eligibility requirement that is included in any contract, covenant or any other agreement to which the city is a party or beneficiary. (g) Rental Restrictions for For-Sale Permanently Affordable Units: (1) Rental Restrictions Pursuant to Sale: Newly constructed or existing units that are deed restricted are initially owned by a developer. Prior to the first sale of such units to a program eligible buyer and after receipt of a temporary or final certificate of occupancy a developer who initially owns an affordable unit is required to actively market the affordable unit for a minimum of one hundred twenty days to facilitate a sale. Subsequent program-eligible owners must also market the affordable unit for a

Created: 2021-04-10 18:21:45 [EST] (Supp. No. 147, Update 1)

Page 9 of 13

minimum of one hundred twenty days to facilitate a sale. If, after this period, the affordable home has not sold, the unit may be rented for a one-time period not to exceed eighteen months. The developer or owner is required to continue to market the unit while it is being rented but may defer the sale to the end of the lease period. A written lease or rental agreement is required. The lease or agreement must be provided to the city division of housing. (2) An owner may rent one bedroom in an affordable unit for any period of time subject to city requirements concerning the renting of residential property. (3) The provisions below apply to rental of the entirety of the affordable units. The provisions of this section do not apply to any affordable housing developer who owns the affordable unit initially prior to the first sale to a program-eligible owner. (A) No owner shall fail to occupy an affordable unit for a minimum of five years before renting the entirety of the unit. (B) No owner shall fail to provide thirty days' notice to the city manager of intent to rent an affordable unit. (C) No owner shall allow an affordable unit to be rented for more than one year out of seven years. The one-year period may be continuous or an aggregation of shorter time periods. (D) No owner shall fail to provide a written lease or rental agreement to the city division of housing when renting the entirety of an affordable unit. The city manager may require additional documents the city finds reasonably necessary to comply with this section. (E) No owner shall allow an affordable unit to be rented for a period of less than thirty days. (h) Resale Restrictions: All permanently affordable ownership dwelling units developed under this chapter shall be subject to the following resale restrictions: (1) Approved Purchasers: A seller of a permanently affordable dwelling unit must select an income-eligible purchaser by a method that complies with the good faith marketing and selection process approved by the city manager. All purchasers of permanently affordable dwelling units shall be part of program eligible households. (2) Resale Price: The resale price of any permanently affordable dwelling unit shall not exceed the purchase price paid by the owner of that unit with the following exceptions: (A) Closing Costs: Customary closing costs and costs of sale as reviewed and approved by the city manager. (B) Permanent Capital Improvements: Consideration of eligible permanent capital improvements installed by the seller that have been approved in advance by the city manager in accordance with rules or administrative guidance established by the city manager. (C) Resale Price: The resale price may include an inflationary factor or shared appreciation factor as applied to the original sale price pursuant to rules as may be established by the city manager to provide for such consideration. In developing rules, the city manager may consider the purposes of this chapter, common private, nonprofit and governmental lending practices, as well as any applicable rules or guidelines issued by federal or state agencies affecting the provision or management of affordable housing. In the event that the city has not adopted rules that contemplate a particular arrangement for the use of an inflationary factor or shared appreciation factor, the city manager is authorized to approve a resale price formula that is consistent with the purposes of this chapter, common private, nonprofit and governmental lending practices, as well as any applicable rules or guidelines issued by federal or state agencies affecting the provision or management of affordable housing.

Created: 2021-04-10 18:21:45 [EST] (Supp. No. 147, Update 1)

Page 10 of 13

(3) Special Fees: The seller of a permanently affordable dwelling unit shall neither levy nor charge any additional fees or any finder's fee nor demand any other monetary consideration other than provided in this chapter. (i) Ownership Associations: When accepting a for sale unit as meeting the inclusionary housing obligation, the city manager will review the condominium association declarations to assess the impact on buyers of affordable units. The city manager is authorized to establish rules regarding allowable terms in condominium declarations in order to ensure that the purposes of this chapter are accomplished. Ordinance No. 8201 (2017)

9-13-13. Program Requirements for Rental Units.

(a) Maximum Rent: Rents charged for permanently affordable units in any one development must be affordable to households earning no more than sixty percent of the AMI for low/moderate permanently affordable rental units and eighty percent of the AMI for middle income permanently affordable rental units. (b) Conversion of Rental Developments to Ownership Dwelling Units. (1) A rental development may be converted to a for sale development. If the inclusionary housing requirement for a rental development was met with a cash-in-lieu contribution and the rental development is converted to a for sale development within five years of the issuance of a final Certificate of Occupancy, the property owner shall pay the city the difference between the cash-in-lieu amount paid and the amount that would have been due at the time of building permit issuance for a for sale development. (2) An owner of a rental development shall enter into an agreement with the city to agree to pay the difference if the rental development is converted to for sale units in the five-year period. (3) An agreement shall be executed in a form acceptable to the city manager and shall indicate the difference between the cash-in-lieu amount owed if the development were a for sale development instead of a rental development at issuance of the initial residential building permit. The term of the agreement shall be for five years starting from the date of the issuance of a residential building permit. After this period, no additional cash-in-lieu is required if such a conversion occurs. The agreement shall provide for the appropriate adjustment to the inclusionary housing requirements of this chapter. Ordinance No. 8201 (2017)

9-13-14. Residential Developments with Prior Affordable Housing Agreements.

Developments of the type described in this subsection will be permitted to develop utilizing the following provisions: (a) Prior Development Approvals and Applications: The inclusionary housing requirements of Sections 9-13- 3(a)(1)(A) and (C), 9-13-4(a) and (b) in place prior to the adoption of this chapter will apply to the following developments: (1) A development for which a site review application was filed prior to July 1, 2018; (2) A development subject to an affordable housing agreement and requirements imposed by prior inclusionary housing agreements; or (3) A dwelling unit for which a building permit has been submitted prior to July 1, 2018.

Created: 2021-04-10 18:21:45 [EST] (Supp. No. 147, Update 1)

Page 11 of 13

After July 1, 2018 any development subject to this subsection for which the site review, affordable housing agreement or building permit is expired, denied, revoked, or otherwise is not diligently pursued must conform to the rule in effect at the time of application. (b) City Subsidized Developments: Developments subject to agreements with the city executed prior to the effective date of this chapter in order to receive Affordable Housing Funds, Community Housing Assistance Program, HOME or Community Development Block Grant funds may either: (1) Develop in compliance with affordable housing and restricted housing agreements executed prior to the effective date of this chapter and provide restricted units as required pursuant to ordinances in effect at the time such developments were approved; (2) Enter into a new agreement with the city manager to allow the development to retain funding pursuant to the earlier agreements, provide permanently affordable units as required pursuant to the earlier agreements and law, be relieved of all obligations to provide restricted units and provide ten percent additional permanently affordable units as such units are defined by this title; or (3) Refund all monies received pursuant to such agreements and agree that contracts providing for the provision of such funding shall be void. The development shall then develop in compliance with the provisions of this chapter. (c) Developments Subject to Annexation Agreements: Developments subject to affordable housing requirements imposed by annexation contracts may develop in conformity with those contract provisions. (d) Moderate Income Housing Program: Any development subject to Ordinance No. 4638, "Moderate Income Housing," as amended, and which has not entered into a separate agreement with the city manager to fulfill those requirements prior to the effective date of this chapter shall be relieved of its obligations under Ordinance 4638, as amended, and shall be subject to the requirements of this chapter. Ordinance No. 8201 (2017)

9-13-15. No Taking of Property Without Just Compensation.

(a) Purpose: It is the intention of the city that the application of this chapter not result in an unlawful taking of private property without the payment of just compensation. (b) Request for Review: Any applicant for the development of a housing project who feels that the application of this chapter would effect such an unlawful taking may apply to the city manager for an adjustment of the requirements imposed by this chapter. (c) City Manager Review: If the city manager determines that the application of the requirements of this chapter would result in an unlawful taking of private property without just compensation, the city manager may alter, lessen or adjust permanently affordable dwelling unit requirements as applied to the particular development under consideration such that there is no unlawful uncompensated taking. (d) Administrative Hearing: If, after reviewing such application, the city manager denies the relief sought by an applicant, the applicant may request an administrative hearing within which to seek relief from the provisions of this chapter. Any such hearing shall be conducted pursuant to the procedures prescribed by Chapter 1-3, "Quasi-Judicial Hearings," B.R.C. 1981. At such hearing, the burden of proof will be upon the applicant to establish that the fulfillment of the requirements of this chapter would effect an unconstitutional taking without just compensation pursuant to applicable law of the United States and the state of Colorado. If it is determined at such administrative hearing that the application of the requirements of this chapter would effect an illegal taking without just compensation, the city manager will alter, lessen or adjust permanently affordable dwelling unit requirements as applied to the particular development under consideration such that no illegal uncompensated taking takes place.

Created: 2021-04-10 18:21:45 [EST] (Supp. No. 147, Update 1)

Page 12 of 13

Ordinance No. 8201 (2017)

9-13-16. Administrative Regulations.

To the extent the city manager deems necessary, rules and regulations pertaining to this chapter will be developed, maintained and enforced in order to assure that the purposes of this chapter are accomplished. No person shall violate any rule or regulation issued by the city manager under this chapter. Ordinance No. 8201 (2017)

9-13-17. Monitoring.

Periodically, the city manager will present sufficient information to the city council so that it can effectively review the operation of this chapter and determine whether any of the provisions of this chapter should be amended, adjusted or eliminated. Such information should be sufficient to allow the city council to evaluate the following: (a) Effectiveness: The effectiveness of this chapter in contributing to the purposes of this chapter; (b) Trends: Any demographic trends affecting housing affordability indicating the need for amendments or alterations to the provisions of this chapter; (c) Integration: The level of integration of the provisions of this chapter with other tools being utilized by the city as part of a comprehensive approach toward obtaining the goals of this chapter. Ordinance No. 8201 (2017)

Created: 2021-04-10 18:21:45 [EST] (Supp. No. 147, Update 1)

Page 13 of 13

- CODE OF ORDINANCES Chapter 28 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ARTICLE II. AFFORDABLE HOUSING

ARTICLE II. AFFORDABLE HOUSING1

Sec. 28-5. Legislative findings.

The city council hereby finds, based in part upon the City of Lafayette Housing Study, dated July 10, 2001, that a significant housing problem exists within Lafayette with respect to the supply of affordable priced dwelling units. Specifically, the city council finds that: (a) High levels of unmet demands for housing allows for housing to be highly priced, discourages developers from offering a more diversified price range for housing, and contributes to the unwillingness of developers to create housing that is affordable to lower income households; (b) Regional growth has contributed to make land and construction costs higher, causing a rise in the price of housing and causing the supply of housing that is affordable to moderate income households to be located in limited areas, if at all; (c) Increases in income have not kept pace with the rapid and significant increases in the cost of housing in Lafayette; (d) Housing problems have escalated due to population increase, a limited supply of developable land and as a result of the lack of residential building permits available due to the adoption of Lafayette Charter section 6.10; (e) Developers of new housing are not meeting the need for housing to serve households earning lower income levels; (f) The lack of an adequate supply of housing that is affordable to a significant percentage of the wage earners employed in jobs within Lafayette will make it difficult for those individuals to find housing within Lafayette and negatively impacts employers within Lafayette due to the resulting impacts on employee productivity, labor costs and the availability of a labor force; (g) A lack of dwelling units that are affordable to lower income households threatens to negatively impact the prospects for economic development within Lafayette, which economic development is necessary to sustain and improve upon the level of municipal services provided by Lafayette to its citizens; (h) Without a program encouraging the construction of dwelling units that are affordable to lower income households, it is unlikely, based upon current trends, that developers will provide such housing on their own initiative, leaving Lafayette citizens without sufficient affordable priced housing; and (i) Section 6.10 of the Charter of the City of Lafayette, providing a limited exception to the number of residential building permits that may be issued in Lafayette, contemplates that city council may establish a program to encourage the provision of affordable housing within the city. (Ord. No. 2011-47, § 1, 1-3-12)

1Editor's note(s)—Section 1 of Ord. No. 2011-47, adopted Jan. 3, 2012, repealed and reenacted Art. II to read as herein set out. Former Art. II pertained to the same subject matter, was comprised of §§ 28-5Editor's note(s)——28-12, and derived from Ord. No. 2010-05, adopted Feb. 2, 2010.

Lafayette, Colorado, Code of Ordinances Created: 2021-03-13 14:25:02 [EST] (Supp. No. 3)

Page 1 of 7

Sec. 28-6. Purpose.

The purposes of this article are to: (a) Provide standards and a process to carry out those provisions of section 6.10 of the Charter of the City of Lafayette pertaining to affordable dwelling units under the residential growth management program. (b) Maintain a balanced community that provides housing for households of lower income levels. (c) Retain and expand opportunities for people that work in the city to also live in the city and, thereby, to promote the economic well-being of the city. (Ord. No. 2011-47, § 1, 1-3-12)

Sec. 28-7. Definitions.

Words and phrases that are used but not defined in this article shall have the meanings given to them in the community housing guidelines. The following words and phrases, as used in this article, have the following meanings: Affordable housing units means dwelling units for which the anticipated rent or purchase price is structured so that the targeted tenant or purchaser population pays no more than thirty (30) percent of their gross household income for rent, or mortgage payments, and utilities. The targeted population referenced in this definition includes households earning not more than one hundred twenty (120) percent of the HUD area median income for the Boulder/Longmont Area, and shall include "Permanently Affordable Dwelling Units" as that is term is defined in section 6.10 of the City of Lafayette Home Rule Charter. Charter affordable housing units means dwelling units that are constructed under building permits that are available from time to time under section 6.10 of the Charter of the City of Lafayette for "permanently affordable dwelling unit[s]," and that are sold, resold and/or rented only in accordance with the standards and under the procedures set forth in the community housing guidelines, and which dwelling units are permanently deed restricted or encumbered in perpetuity by a real covenant or other legal restriction to ensure that the units shall be priced and sold and/or rented to be affordable at the time of the initial and each subsequent sale or rental to a household earning not more than the eighty (80) percent HUD area median income, except that, at each sale after the initial sale, the units may be sold for a price that is the lesser of (a) the purchase price paid by the then owner, plus an allowance for eligible rehabilitation/expansion expenses as provided in the community housing guidelines, plus three (3) percent per annum simple interest on that sales price and eligible rehabilitation/expansion expenses, and (b) the purchase price paid by the then owner, plus an allowance for eligible rehabilitation/eligible expansion expenses as provided in the community housing guidelines, plus a percentage per annum of simple interest on that price and eligible rehabilitation/expansion expenses that is equal, on an annual basis, to the percentage increase in the CPI for each year in which the determination is made. Community housing guidelines means that certain document titled "City of Lafayette Community Housing Guidelines," initially dated June 3, 2003, and as subsequently amended, which document has been approved and adopted by the city council, and which document may be further amended from time to time by the city council or by the city administrator in accordance with its terms and the terms of this article. CPI or consumer price index means the Consumer Price Index, U.S. City Average and Regions, Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W), All Items, as published from time to time by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the United States Department of Labor. Dwelling unit means a structure, or portion of a structure designed for occupancy as a residence for a single- family or a single housekeeping unit.

Created: 2021-03-13 14:25:02 [EST] (Supp. No. 3)

Page 2 of 7

Eligible household means a household: (a) That has complied with the procedures set forth in the community housing guidelines for a determination of eligibility for purchase of a charter affordable housing unit and that has received a certificate of eligibility pursuant to said guidelines; and (b) The income of which qualifies the household to purchase a charter affordable housing unit according to the standards set forth in the community housing guidelines; and (c) Whose financial assets qualify the household to purchase a charter affordable housing unit according to the standards set forth in the community housing guidelines. Household means one (1) or more persons who intend to live together in the premises of a dwelling unit as a single housekeeping unit, but does not mean a group of four (4) or more persons unrelated by blood, adoption or marriage. HUD means the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. HUD AMI or HUD area median income means the median annual income for the Boulder/Longmont Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area, as adjusted for household size, and is calculated and published annually by HUD. Non-residential development means the construction or provision of a facility or structure containing any industrial, manufacturing, commercial or agricultural uses as such terms are used in chapter 26 of the Lafayette Development and Zoning Code. Program administrator means the administrator of the City of Lafayette or his designee. Residential development means the construction or provision of one (1) or more structures containing one (1) or more new dwelling units. Set-aside inclusionary zoning developments means those residential developments that actually contributed to the inventory of affordable housing units in Lafayette by reason of the requirement to set aside, develop, construct and make available for sale to third parties either "permanently affordable housing units" or "market rate affordable housing units," pursuant to City of Lafayette Ordinance No. 14, Series 2003, as amended, prior to the repeal of such requirement by the enactment of Ordinance No. 47, Series 2011, on January 3, 2012. (Ord. No. 2011-47, § 1, 1-3-12; Ord. No. 2015-41, § 2, 12-1-15; Ord. No. 2019-18, § 1, 7-2-19)

Sec. 28-8. Charter affordable housing standards.

Charter affordable housing units shall: (a) Be permanently deed restricted or encumbered in perpetuity by a real covenant or other legal restriction that ensures that the units shall be sold, at the time of the initial and each subsequent sale, and/or rented, if a rental property, to a household earning not more than eighty (80) percent of the HUD area median income for the Boulder/Longmont area, provided, however, that at each sale after the initial sale of a permanently affordable housing unit, the unit may be sold for a price that is the lesser of (i) the purchase price paid by the then owner, plus an allowance for eligible rehabilitation/expansion expenses, as provided in the community housing guidelines, plus three (3) percent per annum simple interest on that price and eligible rehabilitation/expansion expenses, and (ii) the purchase price paid by the then owner, plus an allowance for eligible rehabilitation/expansion expenses, as provided in the community housing guidelines, plus a percentage per annum of simple interest on that price and eligible rehabilitation/expansion expenses that is equal, on an annual basis, to the percentage increase in the CPI for each year in which the determination is made. (b) Except as provided in subsection (a) above, be created, sold and resold, or rented, only to eligible households and only in accordance with the standards and procedures, and at or below the maximum

Created: 2021-03-13 14:25:02 [EST] (Supp. No. 3)

Page 3 of 7

sales prices for charter affordable housing units, that are set forth from time to time in the community housing guidelines. (c) In accordance with requirements and subject to the exceptions set forth in the community housing guidelines, and be occupied as the primary residence of the households to which such units are sold and resold, or rented. (Ord. No. 2011-47, § 1, 1-3-12)

Sec. 28-9. Community housing guidelines.

The city council hereby adopts the community housing guidelines and authorizes the city administrator to amend said guidelines in the manner and to the extent provided therein and to recommend to the city council, from time to time, other amendments to said guidelines to ensure that they include such standards and/or procedures as may be necessary or convenient to effectuate the purposes and requirements of this article, including, but not limited to, standards and/or procedures for: (a) The determination of eligible households, including, but not limited to, the establishment of maximum income and asset levels that will allow a household to purchase a charter affordable housing unit; (b) The establishment of a fair and equitable preference system, which may but need not include a lottery system, to establish preferences for the purchasers of charter affordable housing units based upon the existence and/or duration of a household's residency within the City of Lafayette, and/or the existence and/or duration of a household's employment within the City of Lafayette, and/or the intention of the household with respect to residency within a charter affordable housing unit, and/or the graduation of a member of the household from a high school located within the City of Lafayette; (c) The placement of permanent deed restrictions or perpetual real covenants or other legal restrictions that ensure that dwelling units shall remain as charter affordable housing units, as the case may be, including, but not limited to, the preparation of standard forms of deed restrictions, real covenants or other legal restrictions to be used; (d) The determination, and amendment from time to time, of pricing levels to be established as the maximum initial sale prices of charter affordable housing units, which pricing levels shall be based, among other considerations, upon area median income levels set forth by HUD, the conclusion that when the aggregate cost of mortgage loan principal and interest, property taxes, homeowners insurance and homeowners association fees exceed thirty (30) percent of a household's gross income that the housing is not affordable, the household income, household size, dwelling unit type, number of bedrooms and all other matters addressed in the community housing guidelines under the heading "Sales Price Methodology;" (e) The minimum square footage of charter affordable housing units to assure the reasonable livability of such units; (f) The review and approval of a community housing plan that shall be submitted by an applicant to demonstrate how it intends to comply with the requirements of this article and the community housing guidelines. The submission of a community housing plan shall include payment of a review fee in an amount set by resolution of the city council; (g) An incentive program that may, upon a determination made by the city council pursuant to certain criteria, provide incentives for the development of charter affordable housing that is above and beyond the nature or extent of charter affordable housing that is to be created pursuant to the requirements of this article and/or the community housing guidelines;

Created: 2021-03-13 14:25:02 [EST] (Supp. No. 3)

Page 4 of 7

(h) The payment to the city and/or its designated program administrator, of fees in an amount set by resolution of city council to cover costs incurred by the city and/or its program administrator, in the administration and enforcement of the provisions of this article and the community housing guidelines; (i) The limitation of homeowners' association dues and assessments that may be applied to a charter affordable housing unit; (j) The marketing and sale of charter affordable housing units. (Ord. No. 2011-47, § 1, 1-3-12)

Sec. 28-10. Affordable housing development fee.

(a) No person engaged in residential development in the city shall fail to pay an affordable housing development fee as provided herein. Such fee shall be assessed and collected before the issuance of a building permit for any new structure that includes one (1) or more dwelling units or for any addition to an existing structure containing one (1) or more dwelling units that increases the gross floor area of the existing structure by one hundred twenty (120) or more square feet. The affordable housing development fee shall be assessed at the rate of one dollar ($1.00) per square foot of interior floor area of the structure, including unfinished areas, garages, accessory structures, and interior common areas in multi-unit structures. In mixed use structures, the required fee shall be based upon an apportionment of the gross floor area in the structure attributable to each of the proposed uses, with common areas that are used for both commercial and residential uses being assessed such fee in the same proportion as the ratio of residential use to commercial use for the entire structure. (b) No person engaged in non-residential development in the city shall fail to pay an affordable housing development fee as provided herein. Such fee shall be assessed and collected before the issuance of a building permit for any new structure or for any addition to an existing structure that increases the gross floor area of the existing structure by four hundred (400) or more square feet. The affordable housing development fee shall be assessed at the rate of one dollar ($1.00) per square foot of gross floor area of the structure, including garages and accessory structures. In mixed use structures, the required fee shall be based upon an apportionment of the gross floor area in the structure attributable to each of the proposed uses, with common areas that are used for both commercial and residential uses being assessed such fee in the same proportion as the ratio of residential use to commercial use for the entire structure. (c) The following are excluded from the requirement to pay the affordable housing development fee pursuant to this section: (1) Set-aside inclusionary zoning developments, as defined in this article. (2) Those portions of new residential development structures that meet the definition of "permanently affordable dwelling units," as that term is defined in section 6.10 of the City of Lafayette Home Rule Charter. (3) Dwelling units that replace a dwelling unit that is in existence as of January 1, 2016, and, therefore, does not increase the total number of dwelling units within the City of Lafayette, provided that such new dwelling unit is located on the same lot as the existing dwelling unit. A replacement dwelling unit shall not be exempted from payment of such fee to the extent that the interior gross floor area of the replacement dwelling unit exceeds the interior gross floor area of the original dwelling unit. (4) Residential dwelling units that are built by any tax-exempt charitable organization under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code and deed-restricted to ensure affordability of the dwelling unit to low and moderate income households.

Created: 2021-03-13 14:25:02 [EST] (Supp. No. 3)

Page 5 of 7

(5) Non-residential projects that are built by any tax-exempt charitable organization under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code and that are primarily used to provide shelter, housing, housing assistance or related services to low income households or persons experiencing homelessness. (6) Construction by or on behalf of the federal, state or local governments or any department or agency thereof, to the extent any and all of the gross floor area in the structure will be used solely for a governmental or educational purpose. (d) The fees collected pursuant to this article are to be used to fund the purchase, development of, or otherwise provide for new affordable housing units in the City of Lafayette in accordance with section 28-11 below. The fee is not intended to, nor may it be used for the general costs of government. (e) The affordable housing development fee assessed by this article applies regardless of the value of the property developed. (f) The city council intends and specifically finds that the affordable housing development fee assessed by this section is generally applicable to broad classes of residential and non-residential property; the above fees reflect the reasonable impacts of proposed residential and non-residential development on the availability of affordable housing; and these charges are set a level no greater than necessary to defray the impacts directly related to new development. (Ord. No. 2015-41, § 3, 12-1-15; Ord. No. 2018-08, § 1, 2-20-18; Ord. No. 2019-16, § 1, 5-21-19; Ord. No. 2019-18, § 2, 7-2-19)

Sec. 28-11. Affordable housing trust fund.

(a) There is hereby created an interest bearing housing trust fund within the city's budget for the purpose of receiving affordable housing development fees from residential developers. All affordable housing development fees paid pursuant to this article shall be deposited in this fund. No money shall be expended from the affordable housing trust fund unless the expenditure conforms to a spending plan approved by city council. (b) Money deposited in a housing trust fund may be used for any activity approved by the city council to defray the cost of affordable housing programs in Lafayette that will increase or perpetuate the stock of for- purchase or rental housing available to lower and moderate income households. Such activities may include, but are not necessarily limited to, housing rehabilitation; new construction; regional contribution agreements; the purchase of land for affordable housing projects; assistance designed to render units to be more affordable to low and moderate income people; and administrative costs necessary to administer such affordable housing program. (Ord. No. 2015-41, § 4, 12-1-15)

Sec. 28-12. No taking of property without just compensation.

It is the intention of the city in adopting this article that the application of this article and/or the community housing guidelines not result in an unlawful taking of property without just compensation. Any applicant subject to the requirements of this article who believes that the application of this article and/or the community housing guidelines to his property would affect such an unlawful taking may request a hearing before the city council within which to seek relief from the provisions of this article and/or the community housing guidelines. At such hearing, the burden of proof shall be on the applicant to establish that compliance with one (1) or more provisions of this article and/or the community housing guidelines would affect an unconstitutional taking of his property without just compensation pursuant to the applicable law of the United States or the State of Colorado. If it is determined by the city council at the conclusion of said hearing that compliance with one (1) or more provisions of

Created: 2021-03-13 14:25:02 [EST] (Supp. No. 3)

Page 6 of 7

this article and/or community housing guidelines would affect such an unconstitutional taking, then the city council shall adjust, alter, lessen or waive such provision or provisions, as applied to the particular project, to such extent as may be necessary to avoid such unconstitutional taking. (Ord. No. 2015-41, § 4, 12-1-15)

Secs. 28-13—28-19. Reserved.

Created: 2021-03-13 14:25:02 [EST] (Supp. No. 3)

Page 7 of 7 Inclusionary Housing Creating and Maintaining Equitable Communities

RICK JACOBUS POLICY FOCUS REPORT

NATIONAL COMMUNITY LAND TRUST NETWORK CORNERSTONE PARTNERSHIP LINCOLN INSTITUTE OF LAND POLICY POLICY FOCUS REPORT SERIES

The Policy Focus Report series is published by the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy to address timely public policy issues relating to land use, land markets, and property taxation. Each report is designed to bridge the gap between theory and practice by combining research findings, case studies, and contributions from scholars in a variety of academic disciplines, and from professional practitioners, local officials, and citizens in diverse communities.

ABOUT THIS REPORT

After decades of disinvestment, American cities are rebounding, but new development is driving up housing costs and displacing lower-income res- idents. Roughly 500 communities in the United States have developed in- clusionary housing policies, which require developers of new market-rate real estate to provide affordable housing. For cities struggling to maintain economic integration, inclusionary housing is one of the most promising strategies to ensure that the benefits of development are shared widely. But policies must be designed with care to suit local conditions and guar- antee that requirements do not overburden development. Through a review of the literature and case studies, this report details how local govern- ments are realizing the potential of inclusionary housing by building public support, using data to inform program design, establishing reasonable expectations for developers, and ensuring long-term program quality.

Front Cover (clockwise from top left): Inclusionary housing developments in Chapel Hill, NC; San Francisco, CA; 113 Brattle Street, Cambridge, MA Chapel Hill, NC; and Carrboro, NC. 02138-3400, USA San Francisco photo is courtesy of P (617) 661-3016 or (800) 526-3873 Tenderloin Neighborhood Development F (617) 661-7235 or (800) 526-3944 Corporation; all North Carolina photos are [email protected] courtesy of Community Home Trust. lincolninst.edu

Back Cover: Pacifica Cohousing Community, Carrboro, NC. Courtesy of Community Home Trust.

ISBN 978-1-55844-330-3 Copyright © 2015 Lincoln Institute of Land Policy Policy Focus Report/Code PF044 All rights reserved. Contents

3 Executive Summary

5 Chapter 1 An Introduction to Inclusionary Housing

7 Inclusion Is Possible 7 A Definition 8 Prevalence of Programs 10 Untapped Potential

3 11 Chapter 2 Understanding the Economics

12 Fairness 14 Absorbing the Costs 14 Impacts on New Development 16 Offsetting Opportunity Costs 16 Suiting the Market 17 Conclusion

18 Chapter 3 Building Support for Policy Adoption 5

19 Understanding Housing Needs and Tools 19 Appealing to the Public 20 Researching Market Feasibility 21 Engaging Private Developers 22 Conclusion

23 Chapter 4 Designing a Policy

24 Program Structure: Mandatory or Voluntary 25 Identifying Beneficiaries 11 26 Geographic Targeting 27 The Set-Aside Requirement 28 In-Lieu Fees 30 Off-Site Development 32 Incentives 33 Design Standards 34 Affordability Preservation 35 Conclusion

18 36 Chapter 5 The Challenges of Economic Integration

37 Mixed Income, Mixed Results 40 Ensuring Access to Opportunity

42 Chapter 6 Addressing Legal Concerns

43 Takings Standards 44 On-Site Performance Requirements 45 Linkage and Impact Fees 36 45 In-Lieu Fees 46 Variations Among State Laws 46 Conclusion

47 Chapter 7 Planning for Successful Implementation

48 Roles for Program Staff and Contractors 50 Funding Administrative Costs 51 Measuring Impact 53 Conclusion 42

54 Chapter 8 Conclusions and Recommendations

55 What Can Local Governments Do to Maximize the Impact of Inclusionary Housing? 56 What Can States Do to Support Local Inclusionary Housing Policies? 57 What Can the Federal Government Do to Support Inclusionary Housing Policies?

58 References 47 61 Acknowledgments 62 About the Author 62 About the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy 63 About Cornerstone Partnership 63 About the National Community Land Trust Network 65 Ordering Information

54 Executive Summary

After decades of disinvestment, American cities are rebound- ing, but new development is often driving housing costs higher Redevelopment of the former Mueller Airport in Austin, Texas, and displacing lower-income residents. For cities struggling will include more than 4,600 new to maintain economic integration, inclusionary housing is one homes and apartments, 25 percent of which will be affordable to of the most promising strategies available to ensure that the lower-income families. benefits of development are shared widely. More than 500 com- Credit: Garreth Wilcock munities have developed inclusionary housing policies, which require developers of new market-rate real estate to provide affordable units as well. Economically diverse communities not only benefit low-income households; they enhance the lives of neighbors in market-rate housing as well. To realize the full benefit of this approach, however, policies must be designed with care.

JACOBUS | INCLUSIONARY HOUSING | 3 Inclusionary housing is not a new idea. Successful and preservation of affordable homes in asset-rich programs have evolved over the years as policy makers neighborhoods is one of the few successful strategies and housing officials learned hard lessons about what for overcoming economic segregation. It also demon- works and what doesn’t. This report draws from these strates that integration within each new market-rate lessons to highlight major challenges that inclusionary development does not always make sense. Successful programs face and to outline the ways that communi- economic integration requires careful attention to a ties address those problems. number of policy design choices.

Empirical research on the scale, scope, and structure Every community must consider key legal concerns as of inclusionary programs and their impacts is limited. well. While cities must take care to develop policies The valuable research that does exist is often inacces- that fit within standards outlined by the federal or sible or lost in dense academic journals or consultant state judiciary, courts have generally supported a com- reports. This report captures and digests the lessons munity’s right to require affordable housing. Ultimately, from these sources and makes them readily available there is almost always a path to a legally defensible to local policy makers. It also draws heavily on an inclusionary policy. empirical project conducted in 2014 by the National Housing Conference’s Center for Housing Policy (CHP) Inclusionary housing programs also require significant and the National Community Land Trust Network, staffing to oversee the development process and to which resulted in the Lincoln Institute working paper steward units after they are built, to ensure long-term “Achieving Lasting Affordability through Inclusionary affordability. This report highlights essential roles for Housing” (Hickey, Sturtevant, and Thaden 2014). staff or third-party contractors, describes common mechanisms for funding this work, and explains ways Policy makers are understandably concerned that that local stakeholders can monitor a program to en- affordable housing requirements will stand in the sure that it is having the intended impact. way of development. But a review of the literature on the economics of inclusionary housing suggests Recommendations address the following questions: that well-designed programs can generate significant affordable housing resources without overburdening Ĕ

What can local governments do to maximize developers or landowners or negatively impacting the the impact of inclusionary housing? pace of development. Ĕ

What can states do to support local inclusionary housing policies? Nevertheless, inclusionary housing policies can be Ĕ

What can the federal government do to support controversial and thus require broad local support. inclusionary housing policies? Several case studies describe the process through which communities have reached out to key stakehold- In most cities, the need for affordable housing has ers, including partners in the real estate community, to never been more urgent. For many jurisdictions across build endorsement for these programs. the country, now is the time to consider adopting robust inclusionary housing policies that build Research into the very real benefits and limitations of permanently affordable housing stock and create mixed-income development suggests that the creation inclusive communities.

4 | POLICY FOCUS REPORT | LINCOLN INSTITUTE OF LAND POLICY CHAPTER 1 An Introduction to Inclusionary Housing

Brooklyn in the 1970s was a rough place. It would have been hard to imagine that one day it would be one of the In Williamsburg, Brooklyn, the developer of this luxury tower called the Edge most expensive communities in the country. Over the past (background), where condos sell for 40 years, hundreds of thousands of people have worked $400,000 to $3 million, also built the Edge community apartments (foreground) very hard to make Brooklyn a better place: artists have where units rent for as little as $886 per painted murals, parents have volunteered at local schools, month. Credit: NYC Department of City neighbors have patrolled streets to combat crime, and Planning the City of New York has invested billions of dollars in housing and infrastructure projects to improve struggling neighborhoods. It has worked. As a result, however, many of those people who labored so hard to change Brooklyn could not afford to stay there. The cost of making Brooklyn what it is today was borne by the community at large and the City itself, but the economic benefit of this investment accrued primarily to a small number of property owners.

JACOBUS | INCLUSIONARY HOUSING | 5 When people work to make our cities better places, extreme commute times, overcrowding, substandard they indirectly contribute to higher housing costs. housing, or rents or mortgages that are so high they Public investment, in particular, makes a big differ- deplete resources for other essentials. Displaced fam- ence. When we build new infrastructure or transit ilies are not the only ones who suffer—everyone loses systems, we see dramatic and immediate increases when economic diversity deteriorates. Unequal access in the price of surrounding properties because these to housing drives sprawling development patterns; areas become more attractive places to live. Ideally, worsens traffic congestion; pollutes air quality; in- everyone would benefit from improved cities, but in creases taxpayer dollars spent on basic infrastructure; reality the costs and benefits of improvement are not and decreases racial, cultural, and economic diversity shared equally. (Ewing, Pendall, and Chen 2003).

Lower-income residents looking for a new home soon Recognizing that this basic dynamic will not change face a choice among several undesirable options: naturally, more and more communities have been consciously seeking to promote mixed-income de- velopment. Instead of accepting the assumption that

The Chicago Community Land Trust maintains a reserve of economic growth must automatically lead to economic permanently affordable homeownership options for working exclusion, they have been developing local policies families. Credit: Chicago Community Land Trust that seek to increase economic inclusion.

6 | POLICY FOCUS REPORT | LINCOLN INSTITUTE OF LAND POLICY Inclusion Is Possible creation of homes for low- or moderate-income house- holds to the construction of market-rate residential The Washington, DC, area is home to some of the most or commercial development. In its simplest form, an prosperous and fastest-growing suburban communi- inclusionary housing program might require develop- ties in the country. In Fairfax County, Virginia, the ers to sell or rent 10 to 30 percent of new residential expansion of the DC Metro created a once-in-a-life- units to lower-income residents. Inclusionary housing time opportunity to build a new transit-oriented policies are sometimes referred to as “inclusionary community in Tysons Corner. In a suburban area that zoning” because this type of requirement might be housed fewer than 20,000 people in 2010, the county implemented through an area’s zoning code; however, has planned a 24-hour urban center that will be home many programs impose similar requirements outside to more than 100,000 people and 200,000 jobs. Fairfax the zoning code. County will work with developers to ensure that 20 percent of all residential units in Tysons Corner are affordable for people who earn between 50 and 120 percent of the area’s median income. In addition, new Inclusionary housing refers to a range of commercial development projects will pay a fee to local policies that tap the economic gains fund affordable housing units (Fairfax County Board of Supervisors 2010). from rising real estate values to create affordable housing—tying the creation Across the Potomac River, Montgomery County, Mary- of homes for low- or moderate-income land, has had a similar program in place since households to the construction of market- the early 1970s. It has created more than 14,000 homes for lower-income families that are integrated into rate residential or commercial development. some of the area’s most expensive neighborhoods. A 2005 study found that this strategy had succeeded in promoting racial integration throughout the county (Or- Many programs partially offset the cost of providing field 2005). A later study found that the children living affordable units by offering developers one or more in affordable housing produced by the program were incentives, such as tax abatements, parking reduc- not only able to attend higher-quality schools than tions, or the right to build at higher densities. Most other children in lower-income families, but they also programs recognize that inclusion of affordable units performed higher in school (Schwartz 2010). on-site within market-rate projects may not always be feasible, so they allow developers to choose among These programs—and hundreds of others like them— alternatives, such as payment of an in-lieu fee or pro- show that, with concerted effort, it is possible for vision of affordable units off-site in another project. communities to grow in ways that create and maintain meaningful economic diversity. While early inclusionary housing policies imposed mandatory requirements applicable to all new resi- dential development in a city or county, more recent A Definition programs have developed a wider variety of structures in response to differing local conditions and needs. Inclusionary housing refers to a range of local Some programs have taken a voluntary approach, policies that tap the economic gains from rising real requiring affordable units only when developers estate values to create affordable housing—tying the choose to utilize incentives. Other programs have been

JACOBUS | INCLUSIONARY HOUSING | 7 Because most inclusionary programs are at least partly motivated by a desire to create or preserve mixed-income communities, preservation of afford- ability is essential. Early inclusionary housing pro- grams frequently imposed very short-term afford- ability requirements. As communities saw these units revert to the market rate, most have moved to require affordability periods of 30 years or longer. Inclusionary housing programs tend to create relatively small num- bers of affordable units each year because they rely on new development. If these units remain affordable for long periods of time, however, a community can expect to gradually build a large enough stock of affordable homes to make a difference.

Prevalence of Programs

The 2014 Network-CHP Project identified 512 inclu- sionary housing programs in 487 local jurisdictions in 27 states and the District of Columbia. Concentrations The City of Santa Fe, New Mexico, requires that 20 percent of all in New Jersey and California account for 65 percent new developments be affordable to buyers earning 80 percent or of all programs. Inclusionary housing programs were less of the area median income. Credit: John Baker Photography found in most parts of the country; Massachusetts, New York, Colorado, Rhode Island, and North Carolina have 10 or more local programs each (figure 1). designed to apply only to targeted neighborhoods, where zoning has been changed to encourage There is no national data on the rate at which inclu- higher-density development. sionary housing programs are producing new afford- able units. A 2006 study found that California’s inclu- Another trend has been to apply inclusionary poli- sionary programs produced 30,000 affordable units cies to commercial real estate as well. Often called over a six-year period (Non-Profit Housing Association “commercial linkage” programs, “jobs housing” linkage of Northern California 2007). The Innovative Housing programs, or affordable housing “impact fees,” these Institute later surveyed 50 inclusionary programs programs generally collect a fee per square foot from distributed across the country and reported that they all new commercial development to fund new afford- had produced more than 80,000 units since adoption able housing production. Some jurisdictions have (Innovative Housing Institute 2010). While these num- responded to legal obstacles by adopting linkage or bers are significant, inclusionary housing programs impact fees that apply to new residential development alone are not producing a sizable share of the national as well. Whereas a traditional inclusionary zoning pro- affordable housing stock. The Low Income Housing Tax gram would require on-site affordable units or allow Credit (LIHTC) program, by comparison, has produced payment of an in-lieu fee as an alternative to on-site two million units since 1987 (U.S. Department of Hous- development, these newer programs require every ing and Urban Development 2015). project to pay a fee, and some offer on-site develop- ment as an alternative to payment of the fee.

8 | POLICY FOCUS REPORT | LINCOLN INSTITUTE OF LAND POLICY In most cities, inclusionary housing is just one tool programs differed from one city to the next, every city in a suite of local policies intended to address the employed multiple strategies (OTAK and Penninger affordable housing challenge. A study of 13 large cities Consulting 2014). showed that nearly all those with inclusionary pro- grams also manage the investment of federal housing In communities that have long-established and funds and issue tax-exempt bonds to finance afford- well-designed programs, however, inclusionary hous- able housing. Most also used local tax resources to ing can be an important source of affordable units. finance a housing trust fund, and many had supported Brown (2001) found that inclusionary housing ac- land banks and community land trusts as well. About counted for half of the affordable housing production half those cities took advantage of tax increment in Montgomery County, Maryland. And Mukhija and financing, and a growing minority established tax colleagues (2010) found that inclusionary programs abatement programs that exempt affordable housing in Southern California were producing about as many projects from property taxes. While the exact mix of units annually as the LIHTC program was creating.

Figure 1 Concentration of Inclusionary Programs Throughout the United States

None

1 to 3

4 to 19

20 to 99

100 or more

Source: Hickey, Sturtevant, and Thaden (2014). An online directory of these programs is available at http://cltnetwork.org/topics/deed-restricted-or-inclusionary-housing-programs.

JACOBUS | INCLUSIONARY HOUSING | 9 Untapped Potential Equitable development benefits not only The research summarized in this report clearly shows lower-income households; integrated, in- that inclusionary housing is a tried and tested strategy clusive, and diverse communities enhance that can make a real impact on the affordable housing crisis, but it also shows that inclusionary housing has the lives and outcomes of all residents. yet to reach its full potential. Most existing programs were adopted within the past 10 years, and many of the communities that could benefit from inclusionary stock. As importantly, inclusionary housing is one policies have yet to implement them. Where inclu- of the few proven strategies for locating affordable sionary policies are in place, details in the design and housing in asset-rich neighborhoods where residents implementation make a large difference in overall are likely to benefit from access to quality schools, effectiveness. However, the evidence presented below public services, and better jobs. Communities across suggests that inclusionary housing is likely to play a the country are increasingly investing in the creation more significant role in our national housing strategy of new transit-oriented urban neighborhoods, and in the coming decade. inclusionary housing policies are one of the only ways to ensure that these places develop in an equitable Faced with declining federal and state resources for manner. Equitable development benefits not only affordable housing and growing populations within lower-income households; integrated, inclusive, and cities and urban cores, communities need to take diverse communities enhance the lives and outcomes full advantage of every potential tool. Inclusionary of all residents. housing programs produce a modest yet steady supply of new affordable housing resources. Because

these programs generally preserve long-term afford- In San Mateo, California, six of the Amelia development’s ability, the pool of local inclusionary units can grow 63 town houses sell for below-market rates to lower-income steadily into a significant share of the local housing residents. Credit: Sandy Council

10 | POLICY FOCUS REPORT | LINCOLN INSTITUTE OF LAND POLICY CHAPTER 2 Understanding the Economics

The adoption of inclusionary housing has almost always been controversial. This type of intervention into the private mar- Two blocks from the MIT subway stop in Cambridge, Massachusetts, ket raises some real economic concerns that must be taken the Third Square apartment seriously and addressed with care. This chapter explains the complex offers 56 permanently affordable units. Credit: City of economics of inclusionary housing requirements by addressing Cambridge the most common questions about local inclusionary policies:

Ĕ
Is it fair to ask one group (developers) to solve a broad social problem? Ĕ
Will developers pass on the cost to tenants and homebuyers? Ĕ
Will inclusionary policies prevent new development and make the housing problem worse? Ĕ
Can inclusionary housing work in every type of housing market?

JACOBUS | INCLUSIONARY HOUSING | 11 Fairness effect tends to be upward pressure on housing costs because new homes are primarily built for higher- Inclusionary housing policies should not make income residents. A 2015 study commissioned by developers responsible for resolving all the affordable the Wall Street Journal found that 82 percent of new housing needs within a jurisdiction. What is fair is to rental housing in the United States was luxury housing ask them to compensate for the economic impacts (Kusisto 2015). Not only do the new units command of their developments and to share a portion of the higher rents, but also the new residents who can afford profits they make on the public’s investment in the them spend money in ways that create demand for places they develop. more lower-wage workers in the area. This, in turn, creates more demand for housing and ultimately raises It might stand to reason that development of housing— housing costs. Figure 2 illustrates this cycle. any kind of housing—would lead to lower housing prices. In most urban areas, however, the opposite Modest price increases in a region can translate occurs. Construction of new residential real estate into very acute increases in specific neighborhoods. impacts the price or rent of existing homes in two For example, new luxury housing may cause dramatic different ways simultaneously. As the basic notion of upswings in the price of residential real estate in supply and demand suggests, the addition of new units formerly distressed central neighborhoods, but the in a given market will inevitably put some downward lower costs resulting from increased supply may be pressure on the cost of existing units. But the larger apparent only at the suburban fringe of the region.

Figure 2 Market Development Increases Demand for Affordable Homes

New market-rate housing brings higher-income residents. $$$

$$$

12 | POLICY FOCUS REPORT | LINCOLN INSTITUTE OF LAND POLICY Seattle’s South Lake Union, Part One

In the mid-1990s, Microsoft cofounder Paul Allen New lower-wage workers made a $20 million loan to finance a proposed park in a warehouse district known as South Lake Union generate added demand for in Seattle, Washington. When voters rejected the pro- affordable housing. posal, Allen was stuck with 11 acres of unimpressive real estate. But he saw potential and quietly began purchasing more land until his Vulcan Real Estate had amassed a portfolio of over 60 acres—more than one-third of all property in the area. Allen lobbied the city to invest in a fixed-rail streetcar line, which opened in 2007, to connect South Lake Union to Downtown Seattle. When Amazon decided to relocate its headquarters to South Lake Union, Vulcan de- $ veloped the property and later sold it for $1.2 billion (Jones 2012).

In 2013, the Seattle City Council considered rezoning South Lake Union, but it faced a dilemma. At that $ point, Vulcan had developed fewer than half its prop- erties, and the company sought to change the zoning code to allow for construction of 40-story towers as part of a mixed-use urban development. However, the new towers would block views and strain public infrastructure citywide. The upzoning would create a massive financial windfall for one man, while its negative impacts would affect residents throughout the city.

One likely impact was particularly troubling to many Seattle residents: the project’s potential to worsen the already acute challenge of rising housing costs. New office and laboratory space would allow for many new jobs that would inevitably translate to higher housing demand and costs.

South Lake Union provides a somewhat exaggerated Increased spending generates example of the dynamic seen in most growing cities: private developers and landowners benefit dispro- new jobs in the area. portionately from public investments such as transit and other infrastructure. New development creates both costs and benefits, but both are unevenly distributed. Inclusionary housing programs recapture some share of the benefits to help the people who disproportionately bear the costs. While inclusionary housing won’t solve the housing challenge, it is both fair and appropriate to expect new development to contribute to the solution.

JACOBUS | INCLUSIONARY HOUSING | 13 These inclusionary homeowners in South Lawndale, Illinois, won prize money to redecorate their living room through the Chicago Community Land Trust’s Extreme Makeover contest. Credit: Chicago Community Land Trust

Absorbing the Costs Over time, builder profits will return to “normal” be- cause land prices will rise to capture the higher prices. Generally, developers do not pass on the costs of If builders can earn “extra” profits, landowners will inclusionary housing to tenants and homebuyers. The have a lot of builders competing for their land and will local real estate market sets the prices of market-rate be able to sell at higher prices to developers willing to units, and developers of one project can’t change settle for more modest profits. the overall market price or rent. Therefore, the costs associated with construction of inclusionary housing When a city imposes inclusionary housing require- are either absorbed by modest declines in land prices ments, it may increase a developer’s costs. But or reductions in developer profits, or some combina- developers can’t really pass those costs on to home- tion of the two. buyers or tenants, because new units must still be competitively priced in the overall market. Instead, To understand this process, we need to think about over time, land prices will fall to absorb the costs of housing prices in the market in general. There are the inclusionary housing requirements. Any incentives basically three elements to the price of any new house: offered by a community would reduce the degree of (1) the land; (2) the cost of building the house (includ- land price reductions. ing fees, permits, construction, and everything else); and (3) the developer’s profit. Impacts on New Development Because buyers can choose to purchase existing homes, builders of new units are basically stuck While we don’t need to worry that developers will pass with the market price or rent. When the market rises, the costs of inclusionary housing requirements on builders don’t sell for the same price that they had to residents, there is still a risk that these policies intended; rather, they charge the new market price and could lead to higher prices. If the costs are great earn extra profits. When the market falls, things happen enough, they could push land prices so low that some in reverse. In the short term, developer profits suffer. landowners would choose not to sell at all. If this But in the long term, land prices will drop because happened, less housing would be built and prices developers avoid projects that won’t earn profits. would rise.

14 | POLICY FOCUS REPORT | LINCOLN INSTITUTE OF LAND POLICY There seems to be agreement that inclusionary of inclusionary policies had no impact on the overall programs could theoretically diminish the supply of rate of production (Mukhija et al. 2010). housing and therefore increase prices, but there is no agreement about how often this happens or how The most rigorous study to date was conducted by significant the impact is. A study by the libertarian researchers at the Furman Center at New York Univer- Reason Foundation concluded that the production rate sity (Schuetz, Meltzer, and Been 2009), who studied of market-rate homes fell following the adoption of inclusionary programs in the Boston and San Francisco inclusionary housing policies (Powell and Stringham metropolitan areas. In the towns around Boston, in- 2004). Basolo and Calavita (2004) critiqued this study, clusionary requirements modestly decreased the rate pointing out that jurisdictions are most likely to adopt of housing production relative to the rates in nearby inclusionary housing policies toward the peak of the towns, slightly raising the market price of residential economic cycle, weakening the argument that inclu- real estate. But in the San Francisco area, inclusion- sionary housing causes production to fall. A follow-up ary programs had no impact on production or prices, study by researchers at the University of California, suggesting that it is possible to develop inclusionary Los Angeles, carefully compared the data for com- programs that don’t impact market prices. These same munities with and without inclusionary housing in programs were also able to create more affordable Southern California and concluded that the adoption units than their counterparts did in the Boston area.

Seattle’s South Lake Union, Part Two

The Seattle City Council faced a major dilemma when to evaluate technical economic claims. In fact, the it considered increasing the affordable housing re- two South Lake Union studies painted a very similar quirements for South Lake Union. While Paul Allen’s picture of the economics of the proposed policy. But Vulcan Real Estate claimed to support the goal of one failed to look at the value added by incentives for creating affordable housing, it also contended that developers and focused only on the cost of providing any increase in the city’s requirements would be affordable housing; the other considered both the financially infeasible (Tangen 2008). Supporting this cost and value that was being provided by increasing concern, a study by a local consultant concluded height limits. that more aggressive policies would likely depress land values by 8 to 17 percent (Fiori 2012). A different Seattle’s city council eventually commissioned local consultant performed a similar analysis and a new, detailed economic feasibility study, which concluded that—even with the more aggressive found, for example, that the increased density of affordable housing requirements—the upzoning a high-rise rental project in the city’s downtown would increase land values to 13 times their current added $4.5 million to the value of the land, while levels (Spectrum 2013). Unable to choose between the affordable housing requirement recaptured only dueling consultants, the city council enacted a very about $3.2 million of that increase (David Paul Rosen modest increase in the housing requirements even as & Associates 2014). Ultimately, the results of that they approved a dramatic increase in height limits. study helped the council commit to a stronger hous- ing requirement without concern that it would overly This case illustrates that, even in a very strong burden developers. market like Seattle, it is difficult for policy makers

JACOBUS | INCLUSIONARY HOUSING | 15 Inclusionary housing policies can create affordable is the right to build with increased density. When units without decreasing development or increasing developers can build more units, the extra income can prices. But programs must be strategically designed offset the costs of providing affordable units and the and carefully run, or local policy makers will find result will be a smaller (if any) reduction in land value. themselves caught in the middle of a highly technical debate over real estate economics. Land values don’t change overnight, and some communities have carefully phased in inclusionary requirements with the expectation that, when devel- Offsetting Opportunity Costs opers can see changes coming, they will be in a better position to negotiate appropriate concessions from When incentives are offered, it is meaningless to talk landowners before they commit to projects that will about the cost of providing affordable housing in iso- be impacted by the new requirements. Similarly, some lation. The whole economic picture must be taken into program designs are likely to have a clearer and more account. At the heart of this difference in approach predictable impact on land prices than others. More is a concept known as “residual land value,” which is universal, widespread, and stable rules may translate vital for designing policies that appropriately allow into land price reductions more directly than complex communities to share in the benefits of new construc- and fluctuating requirements with many alternatives. tion without stifling development.

“Residual land value” refers to the idea that landown- Suiting the Market ers end up capturing whatever is left over after the costs of development. When the cost of construction Inclusionary housing may not be suitable in every rises, it might impact developer profits in the short type of housing market, but it can work in more term, but higher costs will then cause all developers places than many people realize. Inclusionary pro- to bid less for development sites. As land prices fall, grams are tools for sharing the benefits of rising real developer profits tend to return to “normal” levels. estate values, and, as a result, they are generally found in communities where prices are actually rising. In When a city requires developers to provide affordable many parts of the United States, land prices are housing, developers are likely to earn less than they already very low, and rents and sales prices would would have if they had been able to sell or rent the often be too low to support affordable housing affected units at market value. This forgone revenue requirements even if the land were free. In these envi- represents the “opportunity cost” of complying with ronments, policies that impose net costs on develop- the affordable housing requirements (figure 3). It is ers are unlikely to succeed (though some communities fairly easy to calculate this “cost” for any given mix of nonetheless require affordable housing in exchange affordable housing units, and, if these requirements for public subsidies). are predictable in advance, they should roughly trans- late into corresponding reductions in land value over The types of communities where rising housing prices the longer term. are a real and growing problem are quite diverse, and many of them are not high-growth central cities like However, most inclusionary housing programs don’t Seattle. In California, one-third of inclusionary pro- simply impose costs; rather, they also attempt to off- grams are located in small towns or rural areas. Wiener set those costs (at least, in part) with various incen- and Bandy (2007) studied these smaller-town inclu- tives for the developers. The most common incentive sionary programs and found that many were motivated

16 | POLICY FOCUS REPORT | LINCOLN INSTITUTE OF LAND POLICY Figure 3 Market Development Increases Demand for Affordable Homes

= -

Net Cost to “Opportunity Cost” Value of Any Development of Providing Incentives (or Reduction in Affordable Units Land Value)

by the influx of commuters or second-home buyers Conclusion entering previously isolated housing markets. It is entirely reasonable to ask real estate developers While inclusionary policies are clearly relevant in to help address the pressing need for more affordable a wide range of communities, the appropriate re- housing, because developers and landowners benefit quirements can differ from one market to another. In financially from the conditions that give rise to the communities where higher-density development is not shortage of decent, well-located homes for lower- practical, higher affordable housing requirements may income residents. But inclusionary programs need to not always be feasible, but lower requirements may be designed with care to ensure that their require- still be effective. San Clemente, California, requires ments are economically feasible. While developers are only 4 percent of new units to be affordable. But not able to pass on the cost of compliance to tenants because the city was growing so rapidly, it produced and homebuyers, there is some risk that poorly de- more than 600 affordable homes between 1999 and signed inclusionary requirements could slow the rate 2006 (California Coalition for Rural Housing 2009). of building and ultimately lead to higher housing costs. Wiener and Bandy (2007) also found that many smaller Policy makers can avoid this unintended consequence jurisdictions relied heavily on in-lieu fees, and some by offering developers flexibility in how they comply set fees at very modest levels. and by calibrating requirements and incentives so that the net economic impact on projects is not too great. Smaller communities with inclusionary housing At some level, inclusionary housing can be implement- programs must address unique considerations, such ed in most housing markets, but the stronger the local as limited staff capacity and administration costs. real estate market, the greater the potential for inclu- Outsourcing and multi-jurisdiction collaborations can sionary housing to make a meaningful difference. make smaller programs easier to implement, but in some localities the benefits of an inclusionary housing policy will not adequately offset its costs.

JACOBUS | INCLUSIONARY HOUSING | 17 CHAPTER 3 Building Support for Policy Adoption

Winning broad public support for a new inclusionary A family gathers outside their inclusionary housing ordinance is essential to both the short-term home in the Old Las Vegas Highway development in Santa Fe, New Mexico. prospects of adopting a strong ordinance and the long- Credit: John Baker Photography term success of the program. Inclusionary housing raises complex and sometimes controversial issues, so it is important to explain to local stakeholders why inclusionary housing is an appropriate response to real local housing challenges. Carefully studying the economics and engag- ing private real estate developers seem to help minimize opposition and improve the quality of the policy being proposed.

18 | POLICY FOCUS REPORT | LINCOLN INSTITUTE OF LAND POLICY Understanding Housing Needs take action to preserve affordability. But it can be and Tools challenging for policy makers to connect the important technical details of any proposed inclusionary policy Many local inclusionary ordinances appear to have with broad public values. Many ordinances have been grown out of much broader efforts to document adopted without significant efforts to educate and en- housing needs and develop local affordable housing gage the public, but it is harder to pass a strong policy strategies. A broad-based community process that if leaders focus only on the details. Appealing directly builds support for the goal of increasing the supply to the public helps to garner political will for reaching of affordable housing and considers the limitations widely shared goals. of available tools often leads local stakeholders to conclude that inclusionary housing is one of the most When officials in Arlington County, Virginia, conducted promising options for addressing a growing problem. a poll of 1,700 local residents, they found that “requir- ing affordable housing units when developers build or That is what happened in Stamford, Connecticut. renovate housing” was one of the most popular among During the latter part of the 1990s, housing afford- several housing strategies. Seventy-two percent of ability became a growing concern for many residents. county residents supported this strategy, and only 24 A local nonprofit, the Housing Development Fund, percent opposed it (Frederick 2014). organized a conference on creating affordable housing in the summer of 2000. Stamford’s mayor, Dan Malloy, A nearly decade-long effort led by the Non-Profit later established an affordable housing task force of Housing Association of Northern California (NPH) leaders representing the community, businesses, and shows how broader public outreach can make a differ- government to explore new strategies. The city hired ence. NPH supported inclusionary housing campaigns Alan Mallach, the former housing director in Trenton, in 20 jurisdictions and published a 77-page Inclusion- New Jersey, to work with the task force and the city ary Housing Advocacy Toolkit designed to help local to create an affordable housing strategy. After many advocacy campaigns better communicate with the meetings, the group agreed on an ambitious strategy public (Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern that was presented to the community during an Af- California 2003). The toolkit helped local neighbor- fordable Housing Summit in May 2001 and in a report hood and faith-based organizations engage with this published the following September (Mallach 2001). complex issue and led to the successful adoption of The task force agreed on the need to create more 14 new inclusionary policies. These activities created mixed-income development, and consultants recom- a widespread sense that inclusionary housing is a mended a citywide inclusionary housing policy as a normal part of the development landscape throughout key strategy for achieving this goal. During the next the San Francisco Bay Area (Stivers 2014). year, the zoning board worked to design the inclusion- ary housing policy and program, and in 2003 Stamford In Denver, Colorado, City Councilwoman Robin Kniech established a mandatory policy. discovered the power of direct appeal when she led a yearlong process to update the city’s inclusionary housing ordinance (IHO). Kniech lost a key committee Appealing to the Public vote after developers convinced some of her col- leagues that the city should study the issue further. Wherever housing costs are rising, the public is likely After the loss, Kniech appealed directly to voters to be concerned and want to see local government through an op-ed in the Denver Post titled, “What Can

JACOBUS | INCLUSIONARY HOUSING | 19 Wherever housing costs are rising, the surprise when, in the early 2000s, rising housing prices public is likely to be concerned and want began displacing the town’s historic working class. Salinas had adopted a relatively weak inclusionary to see local government take action to housing ordinance in 1992, but by 2002 rapidly rising preserve affordability. But it can be chal- prices convinced some local policy makers that a high- lenging for policy makers to connect the er requirement might be appropriate. They wondered important technical details of any pro- how high they could reasonably go. posed inclusionary policy with broad Salinas hired Bay Area Economics (BAE) to evaluate public values. the economic feasibility of inclusionary requirements for 15 to 40 percent of new residential units. BAE built a complex financial model that enabled the city to Denver Do When a Hot Housing Market Hurts?” understand how changes in these requirements might (Kniech 2014a). In a subsequent interview, she said, impact the overall profitability of likely development “Very few of my constituents understood the technical projects. They modeled five different types of residen- issues involved, but they were almost universally sup- tial development, including single-family detached portive of our goals. . . . We won in the media coverage homes, town houses, and multifamily rentals. They because our city is changing in ways that most people chose prototypes that were similar to projects that are not comfortable with, and everyone liked the idea had recently been completed and interviewed local that the council was taking that seriously” (Kniech developers to verify their assumptions. 2014b). After publication of her op-ed, Kniech won strong support from Denver’s mayor, and the new ordi- BAE determined that a typical local project provided nance passed the city council by a safe margin. profit equal to roughly 10 percent of the total devel- opment cost. Then they evaluated the feasibility of various designs for the inclusionary housing re- Researching Market Feasibility quirements. Designs that yielded profits at or above 10 percent of development cost were considered In a number of communities, economic feasibility “feasible.” Some project types were feasible with a 35 analyses have been a useful technical tool to help percent affordable housing requirement, and others policy makers get the details right. They have also been could support only 20 percent. BAE concluded that an a vehicle for building public support for an inclusion- ordinance requiring 20 percent affordable units would ary policy. Typically, this kind of analysis involves staff be generally feasible for the vast majority of projects or consultants researching development economics (Bay Area Economics 2003). This analysis gave the city and demonstrating that local projects can safely sup- the confidence it wanted to pass an update to their port the costs associated with provision of affordable ordinance unanimously in 2005. housing without adversely affecting construction or housing values. It is important to keep in mind that when a study like this one shows below-normal development profits, Salinas, California, is a farming town in one of Ameri- that result could imply only a short-term problem. ca’s most productive agricultural regions. But the area Over time, developers should be able to negotiate is also located near the California coast, sandwiched lower prices from landowners. Therefore, some studies between vacation communities such as Monterey also evaluate the likely longer-term impact of pro- and bedroom communities in Silicon Valley. It was no posed requirements (and incentives) on land values.

20 | POLICY FOCUS REPORT | LINCOLN INSTITUTE OF LAND POLICY Any kind of feasibility study is necessarily somewhat to have accepted or become key advocates for more imperfect, but the goal is to give policy makers a effective programs. A concerted effort to engage and general sense of the likely impact of proposed housing listen to the real estate development community can requirements and incentives on land prices and devel- make a program stronger and more effective, and it opment profits. Ultimately, a detailed feasibility study can also win support or neutralize opposition from a is the only way to address legitimate concerns about powerful set of stakeholders. whether affordable housing requirements could do more harm than good. While it would be unrealistic to expect developers to champion policies that increase their costs or Engaging Private Developers

In some communities, private developers, home- In North Cambridge, Massachusetts, four units are priced below builders, and others in the real estate industry have market rate in the 7 Cameron Avenue development, connected been outspoken opponents of inclusionary housing by a greenway to bustling Davis Square in Somerville. Credit: City programs. In other areas, these same parties appear of Cambridge

JACOBUS | INCLUSIONARY HOUSING | 21 administrative burdens, developers can be supportive secure commitments for affordable housing when- of inclusionary housing for a number of reasons. First, ever projects requested zoning changes. The specific public opposition to development is a key risk faced requirements varied from project to project, how- by developers and providing affordable housing can ever, so reaching agreements became burdensome help win public support for development. Second, for the town and developers. Council member Sally inclusionary housing requirements can also garner Greene, who ran for office promising to enact inclu- support for higher-density development, which is often sionary housing, reported that throughout the process more profitable. Third, in communities that sometimes “opposition from the development community wasn’t demand affordable housing as a condition of approval substantial, and the chamber of commerce was for high-profile projects, a formal inclusionary ordi- supportive. Developers needed something that was nance can make requirements more predictable, thus standardized. They need to know what the rules are, reducing a developer’s risks. Inclusionary require- but they are willing to work with us. They’re willing to ments, when coupled with development-by-right rules build upon what was accomplished in the past and or expedited processing, can also reduce delays and give this a try” (Greene 2014). financial risk for developers.

In Chapel Hill, North Carolina, a college town of 60,000 Conclusion people in the state’s research triangle area, the town council passed a resolution in 2005 calling for formal Little has been written about the process through consideration of an inclusionary housing program. which local communities develop and adopt A council-appointed task force included a range of inclusionary housing policies. Nonetheless, many stakeholders, including advocates for lower-income communities have created their policies through a families and private real estate representatives, who similar process of (1) studying and understanding the helped develop the inclusionary ordinance and recom- housing need and the full spectrum of available tools; mended its adoption. It was passed in June of 2010. (2) educating and engaging the public; (3) researching the market economics; and (4) engaging with the real Prior to adoption of the mandatory policy, Chapel estate community. Hill began to negotiate routinely with developers to

The Veloce Apartments is a transit- oriented development with 64 affordable units in Redmond, Washington. Credit: City of Redmond

22 | POLICY FOCUS REPORT | LINCOLN INSTITUTE OF LAND POLICY CHAPTER 4 Designing a Policy

Given that no two communities are exactly alike, no two inclusionary housing policies should be identical either. Affordable homes for seasonal ski resort workers and others are made possible But, regardless of their location, policy makers must by the inclusionary housing ordinance consider a number of standard questions in order to create in Park City, Utah. Credit: ULI Terwilliger Center for Housing a program that suits local conditions. While every policy should address each of these considerations, the answers will differ considerably from place to place.

JACOBUS | INCLUSIONARY HOUSING | 23 Key questions include: times called “incentive zoning” programs), developers Ĕ

Should affordable housing units be required for receive certain valuable bonuses, such as the right all projects or only for projects that voluntarily to build at higher density, in exchange for providing elect to access certain benefits? affordable homes. Ĕ

What income group should the program serve? Ĕ

Should requirements apply across the whole Mandatory programs are more common: 83 percent of jurisdiction or only to targeted neighborhoods? the 512 programs identified by the 2014 Network-CHP Ĕ

What is the set-aside requirement (i.e., the share Project were mandatory (Hickey, Sturtevant, and of units that must be affordable)? Thaden 2014). The Non-Profit Housing Association Ĕ

Should builders be allowed to pay a fee in lieu of (2007) found that voluntary programs in California providing affordable units on-site, and, if so, how produced significantly fewer homes than mandatory much should it be? programs, in part because most California programs Ĕ

Should developers be allowed to provide the offered only fairly modest density bonuses. In commu- required affordable units at off-site locations? nities where development density was a hot-button Ĕ

Should developers receive any incentives or issue, elected officials were unwilling to increase cost offsets to reduce the economic impact of heights significantly. However, voluntary programs have providing affordable units? some notable political and legal advantages. In a few Ĕ

Do affordable units have to be comparable in states where mandatory affordable housing require- design to market-rate units? ments are prohibited by law, programs that offer bonus Ĕ

How long must regulated units remain density or other incentives in exchange for voluntary affordable? production of affordable housing may be allowed. Even where state law allows mandatory requirements, the Program Structure: idea of trading density for affordable housing may be more acceptable politically than outright requirements. Mandatory or Voluntary The more recent trend toward urban infill and tran- Traditionally, most inclusionary housing programs sit-oriented development has given rise to a new breed mandate the provision of on-site affordable units in of voluntary programs that appear promising. A num- market-rate developments. A small number of vol- ber of cities have adopted inclusionary requirements untary programs are structured to offer incentives in that apply only to targeted areas that benefit from sig- exchange for affordable units. nificant upzoning. However, there is no guarantee that a voluntary program will produce a significant volume Communities with a mandatory inclusionary housing of affordable housing, even when the incentives are program simply require that some percentage (usually potentially significant. 10 to 30 percent) of new units built be affordable for low- or moderate-income households. These com- A study of Seattle’s voluntary incentive zoning program munities may also offer developers incentives such found that, for many projects, lower-density alterna- as increased density to offset the cost of providing tives were more economically attractive than higher- the affordable units, but the developer has no choice density options, due to the high cost of steel frame about whether to provide them. construction. Thus, even without any affordable housing requirements, most developers were unlikely Other communities offer developers a choice. Under to take advantage of the density bonus that Seattle these voluntary inclusionary housing programs (some- offered (David Paul Rosen & Associates 2014). The les-

24 | POLICY FOCUS REPORT | LINCOLN INSTITUTE OF LAND POLICY son seems to be that, for a voluntary program to work demand for housing at different price points. Inclu- well, the incentives have to be very valuable. sionary housing programs tend to serve low- and mod- erate-income households (those that earn between 60 and 120 percent of the local median income). Many cit- Identifying Beneficiaries ies face more acute housing needs at lower incomes, and some choose to design their programs to gener- Because it is not possible for cities to meet all local ate at least some units affordable to very low- and housing needs, it is necessary to prioritize certain extremely low-income residents (earning less than 50 income groups or geographic areas. Some cities prefer or 30 percent of median income). Figure 4 documents to target one particular need that is not met by the how selected cities target different income groups. market or other publicly funded programs, and other jurisdictions prefer to address some of the need Cities that want to create units for lower-income across all incomes. residents have a number of options. Common strate- gies are to (1) allow developers to provide fewer units Income targets should be based on a clear analysis with deeper affordability; (2) pay developers or give of local needs and should consider both supply and them additional incentives to deepen the affordability

Figure 4 Income Targeting in Selected Programs

160%

120%

120%

100% Washington, DCWashington, MA Cambridge, NC Hill, Chapel Redmond, WA CA Davis, CA Mateo, San NC Davidson, Santa Fe, NM

80% Montgomery County, MD Fairfax County, VA Irvine, CA Boulder, CO Boulder, San Francisco, CA Francisco, San Park City, UT City, Park RENTAL INCOMERENTAL LIMIT Stamford, CT Stamford, 60%

40% Chicago, IL Chicago, Burlington, VTBurlington,

20% Santa Monica, CA Monica, Santa

0% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 110% 120% 130% 140% 150% 160%

OWNERSHIP INCOME LIMIT

Data Source: Hickey, Sturtevant, and Thaden (2014).

JACOBUS | INCLUSIONARY HOUSING | 25 Figure 5 level; (3) add additional subsidy to rent or sell units at Set-Aside Requirements in Selected Programs alternative affordability levels; and (4) accept in-lieu fees and partner with nonprofits to build housing with PERCENT OF UNITS REQUIRED deeper affordability. 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% For example, Arlington County, Virginia, conducted a careful study of local housing needs that compared Davis, CA U.S. Census Bureau data on the distribution of local Irvine, CA households by income with data on rents and home prices. Not surprisingly, the study found that the num- San Francisco, CA ber of households earning less than 30 percent of the median income was three times greater than the num- San Mateo, CA ber of affordable units available. It also found shortag- es of affordable housing for households earning up to Santa Monica, CA 80 percent of median income, and an adequate supply of affordable homes for households earning above 80 Boulder, CO percent of median income (Sturtevant and Chapman 2014). Based on this analysis, the county’s Affordable Stamford, CT Housing Working Group recommended targeting their inclusionary program to serve households earning 60 Washington, DC* percent of median income or less. Chicago, IL

Geographic Targeting Cambridge, MA Montgomery County, MD Some inclusionary housing programs apply the same requirements uniformly across an entire jurisdiction, Chapel Hill, NC some programs apply requirements only to targeted neighborhoods expected to experience significant Davidson, NC growth, and others vary requirements by neighborhood. Santa Fe, NM For instance, Burlington, Vermont, requires 15 percent Park City, UT affordable units citywide, but it requires 25 percent of units to be affordable in higher-cost waterfront areas. Fairfax County, VA On the other hand, a few cities such as Chapel Hill, North Carolina, have done the opposite and lowered Burlington, VT their requirements in the highest-density areas be- cause higher-density construction can be significantly Redmond, WA costlier. Using a different approach, Fairfax County, Virginia, varies requirements by construction type rather than by neighborhood. The requirements range * Washington requires the greater of 8 to 10 percent floor from 5 percent in developments with structured parking area or 50 to 75 percent of the bonus density.

Source: Hickey, Sturtevant, and Thaden (2014).

26 | POLICY FOCUS REPORT | LINCOLN INSTITUTE OF LAND POLICY to 12.5 percent in single-family and low-rise multifamily developers should be expected to meet. Typically, cit- developments with a sliding-scale density bonus. ies establish this basic requirement as a percentage of the units or square footage area of each development Geographically targeted programs such as these may that must be set aside to be rented or sold at afford- be more complex to design and administer, and they able prices on-site (figure 5). still may fail to capture all the important fine-grained differences among projects. It is also worth noting that Many cities then allow developers to choose among most citywide inclusionary requirements automati- one or more alternative methods of satisfying the cally compensate for some differences in neighbor- requirement, such as paying a fee or producing off-site hood market conditions. For instance, it may be more units. Some cities allow developers to build fewer units expensive to build in high-cost neighborhoods, but a if they serve a higher-need population. In any case, the density bonus is worth more where the home prices or baseline performance option sets the economic bar rents are higher. against which other alternatives are evaluated, so it must be appropriate for local market conditions. The Set-Aside Requirement

In a neighborhood of single-family homes, this duplex in Redmond, Every inclusionary housing program should also con- Washington, is affordable on the left side and market-rate on the sider how much of a city’s affordable housing needs right. Credit: City of Redmond

JACOBUS | INCLUSIONARY HOUSING | 27 Increasingly, cities commission economic feasibility market or other factors. Somerville, Massachusetts, studies to bring real market data to bear on this created its inclusionary program at a time when local essential question. Traditional inclusionary housing nonprofit developers did not have the capacity to build programs are designed around the assumption that large quantities of affordable housing. Consequently, units will be provided on-site even if the program the city set its fees very high. According to the city’s allows payment of fees as an alternative. These inclusionary administrator, “It was a very punitive programs generally evaluate the economic feasibil- formula aimed at discouraging developers from taking ity of their performance requirements and then set this option” (Center for Housing Policy 2009, p. 6). As in-lieu fees so they are economically comparable to the nonprofit development community matured and (or slightly more expensive than) the performance built capacity, the city decided that it preferred re- requirements. Alternatively, fee-first impact or linkage ceiving trust fund revenue and lowered its fees. By programs study the economic feasibility of the fee and adjusting its program approach in response to chang- then design a performance alternative requirement ing local conditions, Somerville was likely able to (i.e., on-site construction of affordable units) that is produce more units than would have been generated economically comparable. by either approach applied consistently.

Under the right circumstances, off-site production In-Lieu Fees with in-lieu fees can result in more affordable homes than on-site production, but increased production It’s a challenge to design requirements that work equally well for every potential real estate project, so most cities offer developers a menu of alternative ways to satisfy their affordable housing requirements. The most common alternative is to pay a fee in lieu of Figure 6 on-site production. In-lieu fees are generally paid into Approaches to Setting the In-Lieu Fee a housing trust fund and used (often along with other local funding sources) to finance affordable housing developed off-site. 1 The in-lieu fee is based on Jurisdictions use multiple formulas to set fee levels the typical difference in (figure 6). A key factor that often shapes those deci- Affordability price between market rate sions is whether a jurisdiction wants to encourage Gap and affordable units. on-site performance or collect the revenue to leverage other sources of funding to build affordable units off- site. All other things being equal, the higher the fee, the higher the chance that developers will choose to build units on-site. A number of communities have made the 2 The in-lieu fee is based on mistake of setting in-lieu fees far below the cost of on- the average amount that site performance, and this practice has resulted in poor the public has historically Production invested to actually overall performance of the affordable housing program. Cost produce each additional off-site affordable unit. Over time, a city’s preference for fees relative to on-site units may evolve according to changes in the

28 | POLICY FOCUS REPORT | LINCOLN INSTITUTE OF LAND POLICY Linkage Fee Programs

Linkage fees (sometimes called impact fees) are an to which new development projects contribute to the alternative to traditional inclusionary zoning programs. local need for affordable housing and estimates the Although the name is similar, linkage fees should not maximum level of fees that would offset this impact of be confused with in-lieu fees. In some states, commu- these projects. nities can charge developers a fee for each square foot of new market-rate construction and use the funds to There are a number of advantages to linkage fees. Like pay for affordable housing. These programs are actually in-lieu fees, they offer flexibility and can leverage other structured to require fees rather than units on-site. sources of funding. However, because land is likely Initially, commercial linkage fees were developed to to be more affordable and easier to obtain in lower- apply to commercial projects where an on-site housing income neighborhoods, a reliance on fees may further performance requirement would be impractical or even economic segregation. Another disadvantage is that undesirable. More recently, as state prohibitions on rent linkage fee programs may generate fewer resources for control have been interpreted to prohibit inclusionary affordable housing than traditional programs would. programs that require affordable rents, a number of communities have converted traditional programs to An informal analysis by the Non-Profit Housing Associ- those based on a housing linkage fee or impact fee. ation of Northern California found that among Bay Area jurisdictions that replaced traditional on-site perfor- A small number of “fee first” programs require payment mance-based programs with impact fees, all adopted of fees but offer as an alternative the provision of on- impact fees were less than the in-lieu fees of their prior site units “in lieu” of paying the required fees. In these programs. The reason was that, while the in-lieu fees cases, the programs are almost identical to traditional had been based on the cost of providing an affordable inclusionary housing programs, but they are designed housing unit, the impact fees were based on a nexus around a different legal rationale. study. Most cities chose to set their impact fees well below the maximum fee suggested by their nexus stud- To enact an affordable housing linkage fee on com- ies to avoid possible legal challenges. mercial or residential development, cities generally conduct a “nexus” study, which evaluates the extent

is not automatic. Effective use of fees relies on the Many cities have written these fees as specific dollar presence of a number of key resources, which are amounts in their ordinances. Over time, a fixed fee will not necessarily available in every community. These drop in relation to inflation and the cost of providing include the availability of other locally controlled affordable housing. Some communities keep fixed financing sources to leverage inclusionary housing fees current by enabling the city council to annually funds, the capacity of public agency staff, the avail- approve a change to the fee calculation, but these ability of local nonprofit or private partners with yearly approvals can be a challenging source of local affordable housing development experience, and controversy. In response, a number of communities the availability of land for development of affordable have begun to index their fees to allow for regular housing. Even when all these elements are present, increases (and potentially decreases) in response to successful off-site strategies require careful attention market conditions. Santa Monica, California, annually to where units are located if a program aims to achieve increases its in-lieu fee according to an index that some level of economic integration. takes into account annual changes in the cost of con- struction and local land values.

JACOBUS | INCLUSIONARY HOUSING | 29 This inclusionary home in the Sand River Cohousing community was developed through the Santa Fe Homes Program in New Mexico. Credit: Pauline Sargent

CAN FEES BE MORE EFFICIENT?

Through the incentive zoning program in Seattle, Washington, developers who provide on-site affordable units receive bonus density in certain targeted areas. In most zones, however, the program gives developers the option to pay an in-lieu fee instead. Between 2002 and 2013, in every case where developers had this choice, they chose to pay the fee because it was far less costly leverage would be expected. Even in Seattle, limited than producing on-site affordable units. land in central locations is likely to make it increasingly difficult over time to continue relying exclusively on Cornerstone Partnership analyzed data from Seattle’s fees to achieve meaningful economic integration. Office of Housing to better understand the outcomes of these trade-offs (Jacobus and Abrams 2014). Con- The “opportunity cost” of providing units on-site (i.e., sistent with earlier studies, Cornerstone found that what the developer gives up by selling or renting for the city took several years to spend the fees received. less than market value) is higher for higher-priced However, by investing this money in nonprofit proj- units, but the in-lieu fee is likely to be the same for all ects, the city was able to leverage these funds with projects. As a result, when a single fee is set accord- state and federal resources to produce significantly ing to expected average costs, there will be a natural more units than would have been provided in on-site tendency for higher-end projects to prefer paying the projects. Cornerstone found that the additional $27 fee and lower-end projects to prefer on-site produc- million of in-lieu fees enabled the city to finance 616 tion (figure 7). additional units that would not have been built without the inclusionary funds. In many communities, this tendency is not a prob- lem, but some communities have found that it leads Additionally, this local money enabled the city to bring to further concentration of affordable housing in in $97 million in federal and state funds that otherwise lower-income neighborhoods. Nevertheless, some ju- were unlikely to be invested in Seattle. Furthermore, risdictions have effectively designed programs so that Cornerstone’s analysis found that Seattle invested the fees advance economic integration, and others have fees primarily in projects located downtown and in found ways to create more affordable homes without other higher-cost central neighborhoods—the same increasing segregation. neighborhoods where the projects paying the fees were located (Jacobus and Abrams 2014). Off-Site Development Other cities may have a hard time matching Seattle’s performance in this regard. Seattle has relatively high Another common alternative to on-site housing perfor- capacity both within its Office of Housing and among mance is the right to build mandated affordable units its network of nonprofits, without which lower rates of on another site. Generally this is done by constructing

30 | POLICY FOCUS REPORT | LINCOLN INSTITUTE OF LAND POLICY a dedicated project where all the units are affordable. LEVERAGING OTHER AFFORDABLE A 2004 survey found that two-thirds of programs in HOUSING RESOURCES California allowed developers to do off-site construc- tion (California Coalition for Rural Housing 2004). When Many jurisdictions prohibit developers from using done well, off-site production can provide flexibility to scarce federal, state, and local affordable housing developers and increase production. However, cities funds on the same affordable units as those required need to develop guidelines to ensure that off-site by the inclusionary program. A city could end up with properties are located in appropriate neighborhoods, no increase in affordable housing units as a result of built to a high standard of quality, and well maintained such “double-dipping.” over the long term. In general, cities are more cautious about using Santa Monica, California, has one of California’s older funds that are highly limited. For example, many cities inclusionary housing programs. It allows developers will allow developers to utilize tax abatements but the option of providing units off-site, but only when prohibit the same projects from applying for hous- doing so will result in additional public benefit. Spe- ing grant funds. A second general guideline is that cifically, Santa Monica requires that builders provide access to external funding should be balanced against 25 percent more affordable units in off-site projects the burdens required or requested of a developer. In than would have been required on-site. To promote many communities, developers are allowed to access economic integration throughout the community, affordable housing subsidies only when doing so off-site projects must be located within a quarter mile enables them either to provide more affordable units of a market-rate project, though projects up to one or to serve more lower-income households than would mile away are allowed if they will not result in overly otherwise be required. concentrated affordable housing.

Figure 7 In-Lieu Fees and Economic Integration

Fees

Fee Level

Units

High Lower Demand Demand Areas Areas

JACOBUS | INCLUSIONARY HOUSING | 31 NONPROFIT PARTNERSHIPS AND LAND the seed funding to do predevelopment work or to DEDICATION purchase land. A number of cities have designed their While direct off-site development can be challenging off-site production rules to encourage these partner- for both cities and developers, a number of communi- ships. A few, including New York City, allow off-site ties have found that encouraging off-site production development only if there is a nonprofit partner that through partnerships with nonprofit housing develop- will own the off-site project. ers facilitates implementation and may produce more affordable housing. Nonprofit developers often have considerable expertise in both building and managing Incentives affordable housing. They are skilled at combining var- ious funding sources to get the most possible units. A The Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern well-run nonprofit is also likely to be a good steward of California (2007) and Hickey, Sturtevant, and Thaden the units, protecting the affordability in perpetuity and (2014) found that most communities offer significant potentially reducing the monitoring and enforcement incentives to developers to offset the cost of providing burden on city staff. affordable housing units. The most common incentive is the ability to build with increased density, but other However, there are limits to the benefits of such part- common incentives include parking or design waivers, nerships. For example, nonprofits often do not have zoning variances, tax abatements, fee waivers, and

Figure 8 Developer Incentives

Density Bonus

Design Flexibility

Fast Track Processing

Fee Deferral

Fee Reduction

Fee Waiver

Growth Control Exemption

Subsidies

Tax Abatement

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

PERCENTAGE OF JURISDICTIONS THAT OFFER INCENTIVE

Source: Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California (2007).

32 | POLICY FOCUS REPORT | LINCOLN INSTITUTE OF LAND POLICY expedited permitting (figure 8). While a small number Park City, Utah, utilized in-lieu fees from its inclusionary zoning of communities seek to offer incentives to fully offset program to build the Snow Creek Cottages, which are deed the cost of providing affordable units, incentives are restricted to maintain affordability. Credit: Rhoda Stauffer seen as a way to reduce but not eliminate the econom- ic impact on development in most programs. an inclusionary housing program. If the goal of an in- These incentives are sometimes criticized as “give- clusionary requirement is to enable developers to earn aways” to developers. Calavita and Mallach (2009) “normal” profits while capturing some share of “ex- point out that incentives generally come at a real cost cess profits” for public benefit, any incentive a city can to the public sector. If inclusionary housing require- offer to make development more profitable enables ments are modest enough to be absorbed by land the imposition of an inclusionary requirement higher prices, then any incentives merely move the cost from than would otherwise be feasible. However, communi- landowners back onto the public. Incentives such ties have to carefully weigh the costs and benefits of as tax abatements and fee waivers reduce revenues each incentive and evaluate them relative to the cost available to jurisdictions, just as cash subsidies would of meeting specific affordable housing requirements. to development projects. Even planning incentives such as density bonuses, which appear free, result in increased infrastructure and other public costs. Design Standards

When communities base inclusionary requirements It is difficult to design and implement inclusionary on detailed feasibility studies, it becomes clear how housing policies with appropriate standards to ensure incentives can play a role in maximizing the impact of quality affordable housing, given developers’ under-

JACOBUS | INCLUSIONARY HOUSING | 33 Figure 9 Affordability Terms for Selected Inclusionary Housing Programs Rental For Sale

40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0% 0 to 14 years 15 to 29 years 30 to 49 years 50 to 98 years 99 years or perpetual

Includes 330 inclusionary housing programs for which affordability term data is available. Source: Hickey, Sturtevant, and Thaden (2014).

standable desire to minimize costs. Some cities have regarding minimum unit size and amenities. So long as insisted that affordable units be identical in every affordable units meet these standards, they can be dif- respect to market-rate units, but it can be hard to ferent or less costly to build than market-rate homes. defend the public policy rationale behind requiring granite countertops and luxury ranges in affordable units. On the other hand, providing developers with no Affordability Preservation standards has its own risks. One California developer sold affordable units without any kitchen cabinets In booming housing markets, it would do little good (Jacobus 2007a). to require affordable homes or apartments without providing a mechanism to ensure that the units remain An additional concern is the location of affordable affordable over time. units in market-rate developments. There might not be a clear public benefit in requiring that a proportional Between 1973 and 2005, Montgomery County, Mary- share of units with waterfront views are affordable, land, created more than 12,000 affordable homes but some standard regarding where affordable units through its widely copied inclusionary program. Be- can be located is clearly appropriate. cause the affordability of those homes was regulated for only 10 years, however, by 2005 only 3,000 of those Many communities develop specific minimum stan- units were still affordable (Brunick and Maier 2010). dards. Some programs require that affordable homes If inclusionary programs are to create and preserve be externally identical to market-rate units, but others mixed-income communities, long-term restrictions are provide developers with a list of specific requirements vital for a program to have a lasting impact. After all,

34 | POLICY FOCUS REPORT | LINCOLN INSTITUTE OF LAND POLICY if homes expire out of a program and return to market Policy makers sometimes feel that they are forced to rate after a few decades, the program won’t actually choose between preserving affordability and offering increase the stock of affordable housing. wealth-building opportunities to homeowners. How- ever, research strongly suggests that well-designed inclusionary housing programs can achieve both goals.

Well-designed inclusionary housing A team from the Urban Institute studied economic outcomes for buyers in seven homeownership programs are able to offer homebuyers programs with long-term affordability restrictions and meaningful and safe asset-building op- found that sellers were able to experience significant portunities while concurrently preserving equity accumulation even when the resale prices were a sustainable stock of homes that remains restricted to preserve affordability (Temkin, Theodos, and Price 2010). For example, the typical owner of an affordable for future generations. inclusionary unit in San Francisco, California, received $70,000 when he sold the home. Even with the The overwhelming trend has been for inclusionary strict price restrictions on resale, the typical owner housing programs to adopt very long-term affordabil- earned an 11.3 percent annual return on the home ity periods (figure 9). In 2005, Montgomery County investment—far more than would have been earned amended its program to require 30 years of afford- through other investment options (Temkin, Theodos, ability for new projects, and to administrate a new and Price 2010). 30-year restriction each time a property is sold. A recent national study found that more than 80 percent Well-designed inclusionary housing programs are of inclusionary housing programs require units to able to offer homebuyers meaningful and safe asset- remain affordable for at least 30 years, and one-third building opportunities while concurrently preserving of those require 99-year or perpetual affordability a sustainable stock of homes that remains affordable (Hickey, Sturtevant, and Thaden 2014). Even programs for future generations. with 30-year affordability restrictions frequently aim to preserve affordability in perpetuity by “resetting the clock” on each transaction and by maintaining the Conclusion preemptive option to buy back the unit upon transfer. Communities that are developing inclusionary hous- It is not entirely clear who benefits from shorter-term ing programs must take the time to consider carefully restrictions. For homeownership projects, a developer each of the issues described above. Because real and forced to sell units with 15-year restrictions faces important political and market conditions differ from the same economic cost as selling units with 99-year place to place, there is no single best approach that restrictions. For rental properties, the economics are should be used everywhere. However, that does not a bit more complex. An investor might pay more for mean that each jurisdiction has to reinvent the wheel. a property with rent restrictions that expire after 15 Inclusionary housing is a well-tested local policy, and years than for one with 99-year restrictions, but the much has been learned about how to make it work in a difference might be slight. In other words, the length variety of contexts. of affordability makes a big difference to the long- term impact of the program but only a small difference on the front end.

JACOBUS | INCLUSIONARY HOUSING | 35 CHAPTER 5 The Challenges of Economic Integration

The desire to create and sustain more mixed-income In San Francisco, 1400 Mission is a communities has been a key motivation behind many 100 percent affordable apartment complex built by the nonprofit Tenderloin inclusionary housing programs. The evidence suggests Neighborhood Development Corporation. that most inclusionary programs are able to deliver Credit: Tenderloin Neighborhood Development Corporation affordable housing efficiently and at the same time integrate those units into areas of economic opportunity that other affordable housing programs have difficul- ty reaching. At the extremes, however, communities are sometimes forced to choose between housing the greatest number of households and integrating that housing into the greatest range of environments.

36 | POLICY FOCUS REPORT | LINCOLN INSTITUTE OF LAND POLICY Does support for this general goal of economic inte- Mixed Income, Mixed Results gration imply that we need to ensure integration into every project? To address the more extreme cases, it is Since the mid-1980s, a broad consensus among schol- important to look closely at the motivation for polices ars and urban planners has emerged in support of the that promote economic integration, the research on idea that housing policies should encourage the cre- the effectiveness of mixed-income housing, and the ation of more mixed-income communities. The work pros and cons of each approach (table 1). Recent of William J. Wilson (1987) highlighted the serious and experiences in San Francisco and New York City offer compounding challenges that result from overcon- insights into the challenges of meeting broad goals centration of urban poverty and suggested that social and expectations with a single policy. isolation of people in high-poverty neighborhoods

Table 1 Comparison of On-Site and Off-Site Production

ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES

• Ensures access to high-opportunity • Can be difficult to monitor scattered neighborhoods units • Is easier to enforce design quality • May produce fewer family-sized • Has low risk of ongoing units maintenance problems • May not be economically feasible for ON-SITE • Provides integration in the same all project types building, which can be symbolically • Is harder to incorporate very low- important and help build public income or special needs residents support

• Can be more cost-efficient (i.e., can • May concentrate affordable units in often produce more total units) lower-income areas • Can leverage other affordable • May produce lower-quality buildings housing subsidies to produce • May lead to lower-quality long-term additional units or serve lower- maintenance OFF-SITE income residents • Presents risks of “double-dipping,” • Can design and operate properties whereby developers reduce their to meet the needs of the local costs by relying on scarce affordable population (e.g. family units, housing subsidies amenities, social services, etc.)

JACOBUS | INCLUSIONARY HOUSING | 37 might lead to the creation of an “underclass” that is whether children moved up or down the income ladder very hard to escape. While the supposed “culture of relative to their parents. Surprisingly, the study found poverty” does not appear to explain the results, there that the poverty rate in the neighborhood where is clear evidence that even better-off residents suffer children grew up strongly predicted their economic significant social and economic disadvantages when mobility as adults, even more strongly than differenc- they live in neighborhoods with very high concentra- es in their parents’ education levels or occupations tions of poverty. (Sharkey 2009).

In one example, the Pew Charitable Trusts’ Economic It is easy to see that children who live in distressed Mobility Project followed 5,000 families to determine communities face tougher odds. But what we haven’t

Case Study: San Francisco

San Francisco’s Central Market neighborhood has project, all of the 190 apartments will be affordable been changing. One of the most high-profile changes to low- or moderate-income families. Where NEMA has been a new, 19-story luxury apartment building offers mostly studio and one-bedroom units, TNDC’s called NEMA, located directly across the street from project has mostly two-bedroom and even some Twitter’s new headquarters. NEMA is billed by its de- three-bedroom apartments. TNDC was able to build veloper as not simply upscale but “inspirational” liv- this project with financial support from the devel- ing because of the wide range of high-end amenities, oper of a nearby 650-unit luxury condo project that from 24/7 spa treatments to dog walking services. elected to take advantage of the off-site production Like other recent developments, NEMA was required option under San Francisco’s inclusionary program to rent 12 percent of its 750 units to low-income (Conrad 2014). This off-site partnership will produce residents at affordable prices. far more affordable units than the developer would have been required to provide on-site. To document this program, filmmaker Michael Epstein followed one of the lower-income families This kind of compromise has been controversial in that moved into NEMA. After falling on hard times, San Francisco, where many housing advocates are the Ramirez family had been living in a van under the understandably concerned that developers will see Golden Gate Bridge and then briefly in a homeless the off-site option as a loophole, allowing them to shelter before moving into the gleaming new NEMA provide substandard housing in undesirable loca- tower. And yet Yesenia Ramirez describes her family’s tions. On-site inclusion of affordable units within new living situation as “awkward.” The building has market-rate projects seems to work well most of the no other children, but it does have a “doggie spa” time, and it remains the city’s preferred outcome. (Epstein 2014). Most of the city’s inclusionary residents comfortably blend into market-rate projects where the cost of Next door to San Francisco’s NEMA apartment affordable and market-rate units are not quite so far tower, another residential tower is being built by the apart. Collecting fees or creating off-site projects nonprofit Tenderloin Neighborhood Development might be less efficient in many of these cases. But Corporation (TNDC). Like the affordable units at luxury projects like NEMA, where the benefits of NEMA, this project also resulted from San Francis- inclusion decline as the costs increase, make it clear co’s inclusionary housing program. But in the TNDC that on-site units may not always be the best option.

38 | POLICY FOCUS REPORT | LINCOLN INSTITUTE OF LAND POLICY been able to prove before is whether those under- privileged neighborhoods attract families who would Case Study: New York face challenges anywhere, or whether it is something about the places themselves that negatively affects In 2009, New York City made a set of the kids. changes to its zoning rules—including one that would allow developers of inclusionary A new study from Harvard University (Chetty and projects to concentrate their affordable units in separate buildings on the same lot. Hendren 2015) has added very strong new evidence Separating the affordable units in this way to support the conclusion that the places themselves was considered more economically efficient matter. Economists studied children who moved from and enabled these developers to access “worse” to “better” neighborhoods and found that kids additional tax benefits. While many cities who grew up in better neighborhoods earned more as prohibit this practice, New York’s inclusion- adults when compared to kids who didn’t move or who ary program is voluntary. After considering moved to a worse neighborhood. And the effect grew the alternative—developers opting out of over time. The younger kids were when they moved, the program—city leaders decided that the benefit of more voluntary units would out- the greater the gains. Similarly, the researchers found weigh any negative consequences. that younger siblings in families that moved expe- rienced better economic outcomes relative to their Five years later, this obscure change of pol- older brothers and sisters who spent less time in the icy made national headlines because of the better neighborhood before entering adulthood. This placement of a single door on one property. research suggests that housing policies encouraging Several developers had already taken ad- greater economic integration will lead to better eco- vantage of the new policy without apparent nomic outcomes for lower-income children. controversy. But an approved development on Riverside Boulevard came under intense public scrutiny because it featured two Concentrated poverty was clearly an outcome of the doors—one on Riverside Boulevard for housing policies of the mid-twentieth century. But buyers of the luxury condos selling for up to by the end of the century, many housing programs $25 million, and one on 62nd Street for the explicitly began seeking to create more mixed-income tenants paying as little as $850 a month. communities. A range of mixed-income housing pro- grams and policies has been studied widely, and while The New York Times referred to the second the results are sometimes contradictory, the evidence door as a “poor door” and called the practice “distasteful” (Bellafante 2014). A state as- paints a fairly consistent picture of both the potential semblywoman said, “It looks and smells like and the limitations of mixed-income housing. discrimination” (Navarro 2014). Somehow, in a city that had long allowed off-site devel- On the positive side, lower-income residents appear opment, the idea of separating affordable to benefit socially and economically from mixed- residents within a site had seemed like an income communities. In a series of carefully designed acceptable compromise. But the image of experiments, inner-city public housing residents were mixed-income buildings with two different offered housing vouchers that would enable them to doors touched a raw nerve with the public. rent market-rate apartments for no more than they had been paying in public housing. Families that moved to neighborhoods with low poverty levels saw

JACOBUS | INCLUSIONARY HOUSING | 39 physical and mental health improvements and in- Integration of lower-income residents into middle- and creased self-esteem and motivation. The studies also upper-income neighborhoods can be very valuable, showed that those who moved to higher-income areas but integration in the same building may offer few were more likely to be employed, although their wages additional benefits. were no higher than those of residents who relocat- ed in low-income neighborhoods (Levy, McDade, and Dumlao 2011). Ensuring Access to Opportunity

This research result does not mean that on-site per- formance is not a key way to achieve the real benefits Integration of lower-income residents that economic integration does offer. Inclusionary housing programs with on-site performance require- into middle- and upper-income neighbor- ments may be one of the very few successful strate- hoods can be very valuable, but integration gies available for integrating lower-income housing in the same building may offer few addi- into high-opportunity neighborhoods at all. tional benefits. Recent research has shown just how hard it is to achieve economic integration through traditional af- Many policy makers pursued mixed-income housing fordable housing strategies. A 2012 New York Univer- policies in the hope that social interactions between sity study found that the vast majority of subsidized lower-income and higher-income residents would affordable housing was located in neighborhoods lead to better access to jobs or other resources for with poor performing schools. The schools nearest to lower-income residents. The research clearly suggests public housing projects had a median state test score that these hopes are not realistic. Explaining her op- ranking in the 19th percentile (81 percent of schools position to “poor doors,” Manhattan Borough President performed better). Low Income Housing Tax Credit Gale Brewer described her aspirations for inclusionary projects did slightly better; their nearest schools housing to the Wall Street Journal: “I’m hoping that as ranked in the 30th percentile. But even families with time goes on, people will share play dates, and I hope portable housing choice vouchers ended up in loca- that they’ll do BBQs together” (Kusisto 2014). tions where the nearest school had a median rank in the 26th percentile. For a variety of reasons, these The Urban Institute reviewed dozens of studies of families who should have been able to rent anywhere housing programs that promoted mixed-income com- ended up in neighborhoods where 75 percent of kids munities and found little evidence of any meaningful qualified for free lunch at school (Ellen and Horn social interaction between lower-income and high- 2012). Decades after embracing “deconcentration of er-income neighbors in mixed-income developments. poverty” as a federal housing policy goal, most federal It also found no evidence that lower-income residents programs don’t appear to be achieving meaningful reliably benefitted from the employment connections economic integration. or other “social capital” of their higher-income neigh- bors (Levy, McDade, and Dumlao 2011). Even among By contrast, the results of another 2012 study suggest members of the same income and racial groups, this that inclusionary housing programs have been more kind of social interaction among neighbors appears to successful in achieving this goal. Heather Schwartz be rarer than is often imagined. and her colleagues at the RAND Corporation mapped the locations of affordable units created by inclusion-

40 | POLICY FOCUS REPORT | LINCOLN INSTITUTE OF LAND POLICY ary policies in 11 cities. They found that the typical households into higher-income neighborhoods. While inclusionary unit was in a neighborhood where only 7 we should be careful not to expect significant social percent of the population lived in poverty (half the na- mixing, the real economic and health benefits from tional average for all neighborhoods). Children in these living in higher-opportunity locations are sufficient inclusionary units were assigned to schools with state to justify policies that promote integration. But for a test scores ranking in the 40th to 60th percentile and variety of reasons it is very difficult to build affordable with lower-than-average numbers of students eligible housing in higher-opportunity neighborhoods. Inclu- for free lunches. Noting the stark contrast with other sionary housing is one of the only housing strategies affordable housing programs, the authors concluded that effectively integrates lower-income households that “while [inclusionary housing] programs serve rela- into higher-income, higher-opportunity locations. tively more-advantaged families than other subsidized housing programs, the degree of access [inclusionary housing] provides to low-poverty neighborhoods is still remarkable” (Schwartz et al. 2012, p. 15).

Frazer Court in Redmond, Washington, offers six affordable units Local policy makers have to struggle with how much to families making 80 percent of the area’s median income. importance to place on integrating lower-income Credit: City of Redmond

JACOBUS | INCLUSIONARY HOUSING | 41 CHAPTER 6 Addressing Legal Concerns by Ben Beach

State and Federal courts have repeatedly upheld inclu- A father and daughter anticipate sionary housing measures, which have been adopted by construction of their affordable home in the Old Las Vegas Highway development hundreds of jurisdictions across the country. While some in Santa Fe, New Mexico. Credit: John state laws have substantially limited the options available Baker Photography to local policy makers, in any jurisdiction there is almost always a path to an effective, legally defensible inclu- sionary policy. This chapter addresses four of the most important legal considerations for inclusionary housing programs: (1) takings standards; (2) on-site performance requirements; (3) linkage or impact fees; and (4) fees collected in lieu of providing required units on-site. It also looks at policy and priority differences among states.

42 | POLICY FOCUS REPORT | LINCOLN INSTITUTE OF LAND POLICY Takings Standards While a number of cases have established some clear guidelines, the exact treatment of various inclusionary The legal issue most commonly implicated by in- housing policies is still being considered by courts clusionary housing measures is known as “takings,” across the country, and it may be some time before all derived from the prohibition in the U.S. Constitution the relevant issues are resolved. Two important ques- against taking private property without just tions can help make sense of the confusion: (1) Is the compensation. Courts confronted with a takings measure in question imposed ad hoc or is it generally challenge to an inclusionary housing measure may applicable? and (2) Is the purpose of the measure to apply one of two quite different standards. One mitigate a project’s impact or instead to accomplish standard, set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in a legitimate regulatory goal under the jurisdiction’s the Penn Central case, should apply to generally police power? applicable land use controls, such as a simple man- datory inclusionary housing ordinance that merely It is clear that generally applicable on-site affordable requires on-site inclusion or off-site production of housing requirements can be structured as expres- affordable units. To be considered a taking under sions of a jurisdiction’s police power to regulate land the Penn Central precedent, a local ordinance would use. If so, they should be evaluated under the Penn have to be so drastic in its effect that it is functionally Central standard when subject to a federal takings equivalent to a “classic taking,” in which the govern- challenge. To date, no court has used the Nollan/Dolan ment directly appropriates private property. standard to review a generally applicable mandatory inclusionary zoning ordinance. In a pair of cases known as Nollan and Dolan, the Supreme Court outlined a stricter standard for exac- It is also clear that measures imposed ad hoc should tions—development conditions imposed ad hoc or be evaluated under Nollan/Dolan. And it is somewhat through negotiation as part of the land use approval likely that linkage fees or impact fees designed as process. These cases center on the “unconstitutional mitigations will be evaluated under Nollan/Dolan, conditions” doctrine, which limits the government’s or some other standard examining the relationship authority to condition the grant of a privilege or benefit between the cost of compliance and the impact of (such as a building permit) when a proposed condi- the project on the problem. What is less clear is how tion contains a mandate (such as a requirement to the courts should treat fees charged in lieu of on-site dedicate land to the public) to give up or refrain from performance, which seem to be quite different from exercising a constitutional right. Under the Nollan/ traditional land use regulations. Dolan standard, such a requirement must (1) have an “essential nexus” to the impact of the development Which of these standards a court chooses to apply that is being mitigated by the condition (i.e., there in evaluating a challenge to an inclusionary housing must be a clear relationship between the impact of measure has significant implications for policy mak- the development and the required mitigation); and ing. First, the Nollan/Dolan standard requires exten- (2) the condition must be “roughly proportional” to the sive documentation to establish the appropriateness impact that the development is likely to have on the of the measure in question. Second, the proportion- problem that the condition is intended to mitigate. The ality requirement places an upper limit on the level Court recently clarified that the Nollan/Dolan analysis of fees charged, which is almost certainly well below applies to conditions imposed in the development any upper limit imposed by the Penn Central standard. approval process that take the form of monetary fees Under Penn Central, a land use regulation can signifi- (Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District). cantly constrain the potential uses of a property

JACOBUS | INCLUSIONARY HOUSING | 43 regardless of whether or how much a given develop- Realty Company; Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas). The ment would contribute to a social problem—as long legitimate purposes of inclusionary housing ordi- as the regulation advances a legitimate government nances may include accommodating a community’s purpose and leaves the property owner with some projected needs for affordable housing, addressing the profitable use of the property. effects of prior exclusionary zoning, providing equal opportunity to all income levels, providing housing Recently, the California Supreme Court addressed for the workforce, addressing the dwindling supply several of these issues in a case involving a takings of land, and affirmatively advancing integration and challenge to the City of San Jose’s inclusionary hous- other fair housing goals (California Affordable Housing ing ordinance, Cal. Bldg. Indus. Assn. v. City of San Jose, Law Project/Public Interest Law Project 2010). Unlike a 61 Cal. 4th 435 (2015). The ordinance required that housing impact fee, for example, inclusionary housing developers of residential projects with 20 or more new, ordinances are not principally intended to mitigate the additional, or modified dwelling units set aside 15 impact of particular development projects and should percent of on-site for-sale units as affordable, or meet not be described as such. one of the alternative performance requirements, such as providing affordable housing off-site or paying an It is sometimes argued that inclusionary housing in-lieu fee. The court concluded that the ordinance requirements should be evaluated under the Nollan/ should be treated as a traditional land use control, Dolan standard instead. The California Supreme not as an exaction, and should be reviewed under the Court’s approach to the question of which standard to deferential standard reserved for such controls. The apply has been widely used in other states. Under that court observed that the city’s legitimate purposes in approach, generally applicable land use controls, even adopting the ordinance were to increase the supply of when applied to development through the mechanism affordable housing and to distribute affordable hous- of the land use approvals process, are considered po- ing across economically diverse neighborhoods. The lice power legislation. The more rigorous Nollan/Dolan court clarified that the “unconstitutional conditions” review is reserved for measures imposed on individual doctrine applies only in cases where the condition at development projects on an ad-hoc basis (Ehrlich issue, if imposed directly by the government, would v. City of Culver City). It is thus advisable for local amount to a taking because it required conveyance of jurisdictions to adopt citywide or neighborhood-wide a property interest. San Jose’s inclusionary housing inclusionary requirements that are generally applica- ordinance, the court determined, did not require the ble, rather than those imposed ad hoc during the land subject developer to convey property to the public, but use approval process. instead operated as a price control on housing review- able under Penn Central. A jurisdiction may want to undertake an economic feasibility study to support any contemplated inclu- On-Site Performance sionary housing requirement. Such a study should aim to satisfy the Penn Central test by showing that Requirements the proposed requirements do not completely disrupt economic returns from the project in question. A Citywide or neighborhood-wide inclusionary require- feasibility study should factor in any subsidy or other ments, where properly drafted, should be entitled economic value contributed by the local government to great judicial deference as generally applicable to the projects through upzoning or other regulatory exercises of the local government’s authority to regu- relief. Jurisdictions should not rely on a nexus study late land use under its police powers (Euclid v. Amber to support generally applicable on-site performance

44 | POLICY FOCUS REPORT | LINCOLN INSTITUTE OF LAND POLICY requirements, because doing so might imply that the a nexus study, which demonstrates the relationship inclusionary requirements were intended to mitigate between a contemplated fee and the impact of the project impacts rather than advance legitimate police development that the fee is intended to mitigate. power objectives. Commonly, these studies use well-established indus- try methodologies to calculate the contribution of a Local jurisdictions can take these additional steps set of projects (residential or commercial) to worker to help strengthen the legal defensibility of their in- in-migration and the ensuing need for new affordable clusionary housing requirements: (1) include a goal in housing. Such studies are designed to help localities the community’s comprehensive or general plan that meet the Nollan/Dolan test by establishing both the future growth of the community must include a spec- “essential nexus” and “rough proportionality” required ified percentage of affordable housing; (2) make clear by the court in those cases. that any on-site performance requirement is an exer- cise of the city’s police power, advances a legitimate government interest, and is not intended to mitigate In-Lieu Fees the impact of development; (3) make administrative waivers available; and (4) consider including a periodic Is an in-lieu fee the kind of fee imposed in the devel- review of the on-site performance affordable housing opment approval process that is subject to Nollan/ percentage in light of market conditions. Dolan? In development fee cases, courts have followed the California approach of distinguishing between legislative measures and those imposed on an ad Linkage and Impact Fees hoc basis. “With near uniformity, lower courts apply- ing Dolan . . . have expressly declined to use Dolan’s In general, federal and state courts have repeatedly heightened scrutiny in testing development or impact upheld impact fees (and other similar development fees imposed on broad classes of property pursuant fees) against challenges maintaining that they are to legislatively adopted fee schemes” (Rogers Mach. v. takings. However, courts are likely to apply the Nollan/ Wash. County). As long as the in-lieu fee requirement is Dolan standard in evaluating such fees. structured to allow for negligible discretion in calcu- lation and application, the fee should not be subject In Commercial Builders of Northern California v. City to Nollan/Dolan, because it is not ad hoc or negotiated of Sacramento, the ninth circuit court upheld Sacra- (San Remo Hotel v. City and County of San Francisco). mento’s commercial linkage fee ordinance against a takings challenge. The challengers argued that Sacra- However, California courts have further determined mento failed to show that the nonresidential develop- that even a generally applicable formulaic devel- ment on which the fee was imposed generated a need opment impact fee must still bear a “reasonable for affordable housing proportionate to the burden relationship” to the impacts the fee is intended to created by the fee. The court rejected this argument, mitigate (Ehrlich v. City of Culver City), a standard reasoning that the ordinance “was implemented only somewhere between Penn Central and Nollan/Dolan after a detailed study revealed a substantial con- in its deference to local authority. In the event that a nection between development and the problem to be court views an in-lieu fee as an impact fee (rather than addressed” (Id. at 875). as a land use control) and applies such a standard, the local government still has a strong defense available. Local jurisdictions contemplating adoption of linkage An inclusionary in-lieu fee is customarily structured or impact fees would be well-advised to commission to cover the cost of developing affordable units that

JACOBUS | INCLUSIONARY HOUSING | 45 would otherwise have been included on-site in the Local jurisdictions in all these states have, despite project. That “loss” of on-site units is precisely the these legal limitations, successfully implemented at impact the fee is intended to mitigate. Thus, where least one of the inclusionary housing strategies dis- they follow conventional design, such fees are likely to cussed in this report. be seen as meeting the California courts’ “reasonable relationship” standard. The National Association of Home Builders produced a summary of state laws that either support or impede In City of San Jose, the court quickly dismissed the local inclusionary housing ordinances. They found that challengers’ contention that the presence of an in-lieu 13 states (Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Louisiana, fee option meant that the ordinance as a whole should Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New be reviewed under a heightened standard appropriate Hampshire, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Vermont, and for measures designed to mitigate impact. The court Virginia) have statutes that either explicitly or implic- noted that no developer was required to pay the in-lieu itly authorize local inclusionary policies. Two states fee and that a developer could always opt to satisfy (Texas and Oregon) have explicit prohibitions against the ordinance by providing on-site affordable housing inclusionary housing. In many of the remaining states, units (61 Cal. 4th at 476). key state policy concerns shape the design of local inclusionary policies (Hollister, McKeen, and McGrath 2007).

There is every reason to believe that In some cases, changes or clarifications to state law can help promote local adoption of inclusionary courts will continue to uphold the basic housing policies. Florida housing advocates right of local governments to promote the managed a decade-long campaign that resulted in welfare of their residents by ensuring the the passage of more than a dozen inclusionary ordi- availability of housing that is affordable nances. This campaign succeeded in large part due to a sustained legislative effort to pass two laws: one to lower-income households. to ensure that price and rent control provisions in mandatory inclusionary programs were legal under Variations Among State Laws state law, and one to support the creation of local community land trusts to manage inclusionary and It is no coincidence that inclusionary housing pro- other housing units (Ross 2014). grams are heavily concentrated in a few states. California, New Jersey, and Massachusetts all have (or had) state laws that strongly encourage or even Conclusion require local inclusionary housing policies. Adopting inclusionary policies in other states often requires sig- It is important for jurisdictions adopting inclusionary nificant research into any special state constitutional housing programs to pay close attention to the evolv- provisions or statutes that might limit local authority. ing case law on this issue. But there is every reason to believe that courts will continue to uphold the basic In California, Colorado, and Wisconsin, state courts right of local governments to promote the welfare of have interpreted laws relating to rent control to bar their residents by ensuring the availability of housing localities from using inclusionary housing measures that is affordable to lower-income households. to regulate rents, but not the price of ownership units.

46 | POLICY FOCUS REPORT | LINCOLN INSTITUTE OF LAND POLICY CHAPTER 7 Planning for Successful Implementation

The success of an inclusionary housing ordinance rests on the jurisdiction’s ability to appropriately staff and fund Affordable homes at Mueller Austin are interspersed throughout various ongoing program administration. Staff must have spe- neighborhoods built by different cialized skills to engage successfully with developers of developers. Credit: Catellus Development complex real estate projects. Once inclusionary units are completed, monitoring and stewardship of rental units and especially homeownership units require dedicated staffing on an ongoing basis to ensure that units remain affordable and that the program is meeting its stated goals. The cost of this staffing is small relative to the value of the afford- able housing being managed, but jurisdictions have to plan for this ongoing expense.

JACOBUS | INCLUSIONARY HOUSING | 47 Case Study: Denver, Colorado Roles for Program Staff and Contractors The case of Denver, Colorado, illustrates how staffing differences in two types of inclusionary housing programs made a big difference in pre- Successful implementation of an inclusionary venting foreclosures. housing program requires staff with specialized skills necessary to coordinate and oversee complex real In 2012, the city’s 10-year-old inclusionary estate developments, screen buyers and tenants, housing ordinance (IHO) faced an unprecedented challenge. Staff reported to the city council that and then monitor units over time. Table 2 summarizes the IHO had created 1,155 affordable homeowner- some of the functions that staff or contractors ship units, but that 185 of those homes had been typically perform. lost to foreclosures (Denver Office of Economic Development 2012). This news created enormous SUPPORTING THE PRODUCTION OF political pressure to reform or even repeal the program. Some were tempted to conclude that AFFORDABLE UNITS inclusionary housing could not work in Denver. No matter how detailed and well-conceived an in-

At the same time that Denver was developing a clusionary housing ordinance is, some situations will citywide inclusionary program in the early 2000s, call for human judgment to implement the program the commission overseeing the reuse of Denver’s fairly and act in the best interest of the community. Lowry Air Force Base established its own inclu- It is not sufficient to simply publish rules and expect sionary housing policy. Developers at Lowry were developers to implement them successfully. City staff, required to make roughly 900 homes affordable or staff of some partner agency, must help develop- to lower-income families (Webster 2005). Over the ers interpret and apply the inclusionary policies. In same period of time that 185 of the city’s inclu- many communities, staff has some discretion to waive sionary units went into foreclosure, there were zero foreclosures at Lowry. What caused certain requirements, approve alternatives, or bring this difference? additional resources such as fee waivers or housing funds to the table for projects to achieve high levels of Lowry had created a community land trust (CLT) public benefit. to monitor and manage its affordable homes. While the city had a single staff person managing However, achieving flexibility is no simple task. Staff more than 1,000 affordable units, Lowry’s CLT had has to work closely with developers to evaluate the two to three people working closely with only 186 impact of inclusionary requirements on a project’s homeowners. The CLT pushed for more affordable prices, prevented buyers from taking out adjust- financial performance and to develop alternative pro- able-rate mortgages, and stepped in when home- posals that benefit the developer and the community. owners got into trouble (Harrington 2013). This requires some level of technical skill, and cities In 2013, Denver established emergency mea- sometimes struggle to find staff with the necessary sures that helped avoid further foreclosures. In experience. Occasionally, cities turn to outside consul- 2014, the city council passed a comprehensive tants or other partners to perform these tasks. redesign of the program that included provisions to increase the staffing for administration and to Mammoth Lakes, California, is a ski resort town with outsource some capacities. very high housing costs. The town adopted affordable housing mitigation regulations that require developers of new housing, hotels, resorts, or commercial real

48 | POLICY FOCUS REPORT | LINCOLN INSTITUTE OF LAND POLICY Table 2 Key Functions to Be Performed by Staff or Contractors

1 | Supporting the Production of Affordable Units

Ĕ

Communicating program requirements to developers and property managers Ĕ

Reviewing development proposals for compliance with rules Ĕ

Negotiating certain requirements to maximize production (in some communities) Ĕ

Ensuring that affordable units meet appropriate design and location standards Ĕ

Ensuring timely payment of fees (if any) Ĕ

Planning and implementing reinvestment of fee revenue to produce affordable units

2 | Monitoring and Stewarding Rental Units

Ĕ

Setting affordable rents Ĕ

Working with property managers to ensure fair marketing of units Ĕ

Monitoring eligibility screening for new tenants Ĕ

Recertifying annual incomes of tenants Ĕ

Enforcing requirements (as necessary)

3 | Monitoring and Stewarding Homeownership Units

Ĕ

Setting initial prices at an affordable level Ĕ

Marketing homes to eligible buyers Ĕ

Ensuring that potential buyers receive homebuyer education Ĕ

Verifying that applicants understand program requirements and resale restrictions Ĕ

Screening applicants against eligibility requirements Ĕ

Working with lenders to ensure access to appropriate financing Ĕ

Monitoring homes for owner occupancy over time Ĕ

Managing resales to future income-eligible buyers at formula price Ĕ

Enforcing program requirements when necessary

estate to develop new affordable housing units as part MONITORING AND STEWARDING of these projects. However, town leaders recognized RENTAL UNITS that the community lacked the capacity to manage detailed negotiations with developers. They turned to The majority of inclusionary programs rely heavily a local nonprofit, Mammoth Lakes Housing (MLH), for on property management companies to ensure assistance. The town contracts with MLH to provide ongoing compliance of inclusionary rental units, but a number of services, such as monitoring their entire many administrators report significant challenges portfolio of resale-restricted housing, collecting data resulting from this approach (Hickey, Sturtevant, and on housing needs, working with private developers to Thaden 2014). ensure compliance with the housing mitigation ordi- nance, and assisting the town to address its housing Programs frequently expect managers of rental goals (Hennarty 2013). properties with inclusionary units to market available

JACOBUS | INCLUSIONARY HOUSING | 49 units, screen applicants for program eligibility, docu- affordability as well as resources such as sample ment and annually recertify tenant incomes, and take documents and templates to facilitate the adoption of action to address noncompliance. Many cities provide best practices (Cornerstone Partnership 2014a). ongoing training for property managers to help them understand the rules they are charged with enforcing, Ownership units require more active involvement, and and most undertake some level of monitoring to en- property management companies do not offer the sure that managers are applying the rules appropriate- needed expertise for these activities. As a result, most ly and equitably. However, problems are still common. cities with portfolios of inclusionary homeownership units have significant staffing dedicated to managing and monitoring those units.

Programs must plan ahead to cover NeighborWorks America and NCB Capital Impact reviewed the staffing levels among a wide range of administrative costs adequately in both affordable homeownership programs with long-term high-growth and low-growth periods. restrictions, including many inclusionary housing programs. They found that staffing levels varied sig- nificantly, with small programs managing fewer than Most property management companies have no expe- 100 units per employee and some larger programs rience with affordable housing programs, and it can be overseeing 500 or more units per employee. Their challenging to rely on them to enforce potentially com- report said, “It seems prudent to plan on staffing at plex public agency rules. As a result, a growing number the level of one full-time staff person (or equivalent) of programs are centralizing some of these responsi- focused exclusively on post-purchase monitoring and bilities, often in-house. Hickey, Sturtevant, and Thaden resale administration for every 150 to 300 affordable (2014) describe how the City of San Mateo, California, homeownership units” (Jacobus 2007b). centralized waiting lists and screening due to the high turnover of property managers. Now the city manages Many cities have turned to third-party administrators a single applicant pool and sends prescreened tenants to assist with the tasks of monitoring and enforcing to property managers to fill vacancies. deed restrictions on homeownership units. These third-party partners are most often nonprofit organi- MONITORING AND STEWARDING zations, but a number of private firms provide admin- HOMEOWNERSHIP UNITS istrative services to dozens of local jurisdictions in New Jersey. One type of partnership showing particu- Ensuring long-term affordability for homeownership lar promise is when jurisdictions work with community units is more challenging than it is for rentals and land trusts (CLTs) to implement inclusionary programs. requires attention to a wider range of issues. Corner- For example, Community Home Trust, a CLT in Chapel stone Partnership and the National Community Land Hill, North Carolina, plays a key role in the administra- Trust Network led a yearlong process that engaged tion of the city’s inclusionary housing program. dozens of practitioners and several national home- ownership organizations to create a set of “Steward- Funding Administrative Costs ship Standards” to preserve long-term affordability. The standards include more than 41 independent pro- Programs must plan ahead to cover administrative gram elements and policies that participants believed costs adequately in both high-growth and low-growth were essential for successfully preserving long-term periods. PolicyLink documented the many sources

50 | POLICY FOCUS REPORT | LINCOLN INSTITUTE OF LAND POLICY that inclusionary housing programs rely on to fund The Arbor Rose development in San Mateo, California, offers ongoing administration (Jacobus 2007a). The most seven affordable town houses with either one or two bedrooms. common sources were local government general funds Credit: Sandy Council and federal housing block grant funds. However, many communities use a portion of inclusionary housing fee revenue to pay for program administration. A number Measuring Impact of communities have developed fee structures that grow over time as administrative demands grow. A few Too often, a lack of external compliance requirements charge tenants or homebuyers application fees, and a results in literally no system for tracking outcomes growing number charge significant fees when inclu- of inclusionary housing programs. Schwartz and her sionary homeowners resell or refinance their homes. In colleagues at the RAND Corporation evaluated wheth- cases where the inclusionary program staff manages er inclusionary programs were achieving significant significant aspects of the resale, fees as high as 3 economic inclusion. She reported that “no jurisdiction percent of the resale price may be appropriate. had all the information we requested, and . . . no juris- diction regularly tracked demographic information and Community land trusts typically charge homeowners a sales prices or rents across successive occupants of monthly ground lease fee to help defray administration units” (Schwartz et al. 2012). costs, and a small number of cities including Chicago have included similar administration fees in deed cove- While it is not uncommon for academic researchers nants. Salinas, California, charges owners of inclusion- to conclude that more data is necessary to answer ary rental units an annual monitoring fee as well. important questions, the question that Schwartz was

JACOBUS | INCLUSIONARY HOUSING | 51 HomeKeeper Tracking System

Recognizing the need for better outcome tracking, of a program’s buyers to a pool of income-eligible Cornerstone Partnership brought together prac- households in the local area. This particular pro- titioners from multiple communities to develop gram is reaching African American and Asian fami- a data system called HomeKeeper, which several lies but underserving Hispanic households. Without inclusionary programs are using to monitor program this benchmarking data, these trends would be outcomes. The City of Cambridge, Massachusetts, hard to track. recently adopted HomeKeeper, and housing manag- er Anna Dolmatch reported that “it has eliminated multiple spreadsheets, and we no longer have to search through paper files for information” (Eng Figure 10 2014, p. 1). Sample Metrics from a HomeKeeper Social HomeKeeper captures demographic and income Impact Report data from households at the time they are applying, enables management of waiting lists and lotteries, and automates screening for eligibility. Once units are occupied, HomeKeeper helps staff monitor ongoing activities. For homeownership units, Home- Keeper tracks all the financial data related to the sale and financing of a home, helps staff manage resales, and ensures ongoing affordability. As a by-product of automating these administrative sys- tems, HomeKeeper captures the key data necessary to understand a program’s impact.

HomeKeeper users receive an annual “Social Impact Report” that summarizes program perfor- mance and includes an overview of the type and location of units produced and the demographic and income characteristics of residents. The report also shows trends over time, such as how resident income compares with program income limits, the ongoing affordability of units, the difference be- tween below-market-rate prices and market prices, the amount of equity earned by home buyers, and their annualized rate of return. Because more than 60 programs participate in the HomeKeeper project, these reports can not only present each program’s outcomes, but they can also benchmark those out- comes against the performance of a national peer group (Cornerstone Partnership 2014b). Source: Cornerstone Partnership Figure 10 presents an example of the kind of infor- mation available from a HomeKeeper report. The chart compares the racial demographics

52 | POLICY FOCUS REPORT | LINCOLN INSTITUTE OF LAND POLICY researching was the very issue that most likely moti- The Sand River Cohousing development in Santa Fe, New Mexico, vated the creation of many of these programs. In fact, provides homes at below-market rates for senior citizens. Credit: the data she needed was exactly the same kind of data Angela Werneke that the staff routinely provide for federally funded housing projects. units produced and households served, the amount Some communities have begun to require annual of in-lieu fees collected and how those fees are reporting on program activities. Sacramento County, used, and recommendations for policy revisions. This California, for example, includes inclusionary reporting report is presented for public comment. Ultimately, as part of a broader biennial report. It must include the all inclusionary housing programs—both individually number of units produced, the amount of land dedi- and collectively—would benefit from significantly cated and purchased, the amount of funds collected, improving and standardizing data collection and and the levels of affordability among the units created. performance metrics.

These annual reports are not as common as they should be, but those that exist do not seem to Conclusion address policy makers’ need for analysis of program performance. One exception is Monterey County, Inclusionary housing programs cannot be successful California, where the inclusionary zoning policy unless they are well run and adequately staffed, and requires both an annual report and a more in-depth they must secure sufficient funding for ongoing ad- five-year report. The annual report is a brief summary ministrative costs. Communities also need to be able of the program’s accomplishments over the previous to track program data in order to evaluate outcomes years. The five-year report includes the number of and make needed changes over time.

JACOBUS | INCLUSIONARY HOUSING | 53 CHAPTER 8 Conclusions and Recommendations

The evidence summarized in this report strongly supports The Pacifica Cohousing Community the idea that local inclusionary housing policies can fairly maintains seven energy-efficient, permanently affordable units on its and effectively tie production of affordable housing to the eight-acre property in Carrboro, North construction of new market-rate real estate development. Carolina. Credit: Community Home Trust

Inclusionary housing offers a way to expand and preserve a supply of housing that is affordable to lower-income people. The responsibility for affordable housing is in- creasingly being devolved to states and localities as federal resources become scarce, and inclusionary hous- ing programs offer an effective way for private-public partnerships to address this ongoing need.

54 | POLICY FOCUS REPORT | LINCOLN INSTITUTE OF LAND POLICY Growing communities can implement inclusionary What Can Local Governments policies to generate significant amounts of affordable Do to Maximize the Impact of housing without negatively affecting market-rate development. Ultimately, inclusionary programs can Inclusionary Housing? impose meaningful costs on developers, but when they are coupled with incentives, the net impact on devel- Research supports the premise that inclusionary opment is typically modest, neutral, or even occasion- housing programs must be designed with care. In order ally positive. The affordable housing requirements that to maximize the impact of inclusionary programs, local can be supported without overburdening development, sponsoring agencies should: however, differ from one community to another. Hence, effective policy design and program implementation BUILD PUBLIC SUPPORT are crucial for successful results. 1. Build consensus around the need for greater Most importantly, inclusionary housing offers one of investment in affordable housing and the de- the only effective strategies for overcoming economic sirability of a housing strategy that emphasizes segregation and building sustainable mixed-income mixed-income communities. communities. The evidence suggests that economic integration is an important way to combat the negative 2. Engage community stakeholders, including real effects of generational poverty. It also suggests that estate developers, in the process of designing an residents across all income levels benefit from (1) inclusionary program. reducing sprawl (and the associated costs for tax- payers); (2) living in more sustainable cities; and (3) 3. Share program results with the public on a regular experiencing cultural, racial, and economic diversity. basis to build ongoing support.

While building-by-building integration is not always USE DATA TO INFORM PROGRAM DESIGN necessary, traditional publicly subsidized affordable housing programs have struggled and largely failed to 4. Conduct an economic feasibility study prior to achieve neighborhood-level economic integration. Ul- implementation to ensure that proposed perfor- timately, tying provisions of affordable housing directly mance requirements or fees can be reasonably to market-rate development removes the biggest absorbed by development profits and land values. obstacle to creating inclusive communities: access to desirable land for development. 5. For programs that rely on linkage or impact fees, conduct a nexus study prior to implementation to ensure that required fees are roughly proportional to the impact of new development on the need for affordable housing.

6. Track program activity to enable policy makers to understand the program’s impact and make incremental improvements.

JACOBUS | INCLUSIONARY HOUSING | 55 ESTABLISH FAIR, REASONABLE What Can States Do to EXPECTATIONS FOR DEVELOPERS Support Local Inclusionary

7. Provide flexibility to developers to improve the Housing Policies? rate of production. State legislative leadership has been essential to the 8. Ensure that alternatives to on-site production are growth of inclusionary housing. New Jersey effec- economically comparable. tively mandates local inclusionary housing policies, and Massachusetts and California have developed 9. Require developers to provide increased public statewide policy frameworks that grant real powers to benefits when they build off-site units. overcome exclusionary zoning policies and encourage local cities and towns to adopt inclusionary housing 10. Regularly adjust incentives and requirements to ordinances. ensure that the number and types of units pro- duced align more closely with local housing needs. States that want to encourage but not require local inclusionary housing policies could adopt legislation ENSURE PROGRAM QUALITY that makes the legality of local inclusionary housing explicit. Just as important, states can establish clear 11. Pay close attention to the geographic location of statewide planning frameworks that (1) explicitly allow units to ensure economic integration. local governments to implement inclusionary housing policies, just as they have the authority to regulate 12. Develop design standards to ensure that the af- other land uses; (2) prohibit local exclusionary housing fordable units are of appropriate size and quality. practices; and (3) require local communities to proac- tively plan for and build affordable housing. 13. Plan and budget for stewardship and monitoring to protect long-term affordability.

Affordable housing puts minds and hearts at ease. Credit: John Baker Photography

56 | POLICY FOCUS REPORT | LINCOLN INSTITUTE OF LAND POLICY Without specifically mandating the strategy each com- The federal government could take the following munity will use, policies like these create an expecta- steps to encourage and support local inclusionary tion that each community will manage its growth in a housing: way that ensures that some portion of new housing is affordable to lower-income residents. 1. Remove barriers for accessing FHA-insured mortgages and the secondary mortgage market for buyers of inclusionary homes.

In most cities, the need for affordable 2. Provide incentives or preferences for the alloca- tion of federal transportation funding to commu- housing has never been more urgent. For nities that develop affordable housing in concert many jurisdictions across the country, now with new transit infrastructure. is the time to consider adopting robust inclusionary housing policies that build 3. Educate state and local housing agencies on why inclusionary housing can be an effective tool for affordable housing stock and create inclu- their comprehensive affordable housing strategies. sive communities. 4. Develop a platform for tracking and monitoring the location of affordable units created through What Can the Federal local policies (including but not limited to Government Do to Support inclusionary policies) and combining that information with public data on the locations Inclusionary Housing Policies? of federally subsidized housing to enable comparison of the performance of various Inclusionary housing is not and should not be a central programs. part of the federal government’s affordable housing strategy. Local inclusionary housing programs are not 5. Allow local jurisdictions to use HOME and CDBG a substitute for a robust federal role in the production funds to support stewardship of affordable units and preservation of affordable housing. In order to with long-term affordability controls. make a dent in the national housing problem, federal investment in public housing, block grant programs In most cities, the need for affordable housing has like HOME Investment Partnerships Program and never been more urgent. For many jurisdictions across Community Development Block Grants (CDBG), and the country, now is the time to consider adopting the Low Income Housing Tax Credit program must robust inclusionary housing policies that build afford- continue and expand. Local inclusionary programs can able housing stock and create inclusive communities. offer a way to supplement and leverage the impact of that federal investment, particularly in areas that are experiencing growth.

JACOBUS | INCLUSIONARY HOUSING | 57 References

Basolo, Victoria, and Nico Calavita. 2004. “Policy Claims with David Paul Rosen & Associates. 2014. “Seattle Affordable Housing Weak Evidence: A Critique of the Reason Foundation Study on Incentive Program Economic Analysis.” David Paul Rosen & Inclusionary Housing Policy in the San Francisco Bay Area.” Associates.

Bay Area Economics. 2003. City of Salinas inclusionary housing Denver Office of Economic Development. 2014. 2014 Inclusionary program feasibility study. City of Salinas. Housing Report to City Council. Denver, CO: City of Denver, Office of Economic Development. ——. 2005. Update of Salinas inclusionary housing feasibility study. City of Salinas. Ellen, Ingrid Gould, and Keren Mertens Horn. 2012. “Do Federally Assisted Households Have Access to High Performing Public Bellafante, Ginia. 2014. “On the Upper West Side, a House Divided Schools? Civil Rights Research.” Poverty & Race Research Action by Income.” The New York Times, July 25. Council (NJ1).

Brown, Karen Destorel. 2001. Expanding Affordable Housing Eng, Tiffany. 2014. “Member Profile: How the City of Cambridge Is through Inclusionary Zoning: Lessons from the Washington Simplifying Operations and Managing Waitlists with HomeKeeper.” Metropolitan Area. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, Center (September 18). on Urban and Metropolitan Policy. Epstein, Michael. 2014. Walking Cinema, Museum of the Hidden Brunick, Nicholas J., and Patrick Maier. 2010. “Renewing the City. Land of Opportunity.” Journal of Affordable Housing & Community Development Law, 161–90. Ewing, Reid, Rolf Pendall, and Don Chen. 2003. “Measuring Sprawl and Its Transportation Impacts.” Transportation Research Record: The California Affordable Housing Law Project/Public Interest Law Journal of the Transportation Research Board 1831 (1): 175–83. Project. 2010. Inclusionary Zoning After Palmer & Patterson. May. Fairfax County Board of Supervisors. 2010. “Tysons Corner Urban California Coalition for Rural Housing. 2004. Inclusionary Housing Center Workforce Dwelling Unit Administrative Policy Guidelines.” in California: 30 Years of Innovation. California Coalition for Fairfax County, VA. Rural Housing and Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California. Fiori, Chris. 2012. “South Lake Union Alternative Incentive Zoning Analysis, Memorandum to Brennon Staley, Seattle Department of ——. 2009. Inclusionary housing database: San Clemente. Planning and Development Sara Nelson, Legislative Assistant for Inclusionary Housing Database. (June 1). Councilmember Richard Conlin.” Heartland, LLC.

Calavita, Nico, and Alan Mallach. 2009. “Inclusionary Housing, Frederick, Keith. 2014. “Arlington County Affordable Housing Incentives, and Land Value Recapture.” Land Lines, January 7. Study: Arlington Resident Pool Results.” Arlington County, VA.

Center for Housing Policy. 2009. Best Practices for Inclusionary Harrington, Jane. 2013. Personal Communication with Rick Zoning Administration: Resource Manual. Washington, DC. Jacobus.

Conrad, Michael. 2014. “Checking in on Three Mid-rise Towers on Hennarty, Pam. 2013. Personal Communication with Rick Jacobus. Mission Street.” Curbed SF. March 18. Hickey, Robert, Lisa Sturtevant, and Emily Thaden. 2014. Cornerstone Partnership. 2014a. Stewardship Standards for “Achieving Lasting Affordability through Inclusionary Housing.” Homeownership Programs, Version 1.0 Draft #1. Oakland, CA: Working Paper. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. Cornerstone Partnership. Hollister, Timothy S., Allison M. McKeen, and Danielle G. McGrath. ——. 2014b. HomeKeeper Social Impact Report Version 1.9. 2007. “National Survey of Statutory Authority and Practical Oakland, CA: Cornerstone Partnership. Considerations for the Implementation of Inclusionary Zoning Ordinances.” Report Prepared for the National Association of Home Builders.

58 | POLICY FOCUS REPORT | LINCOLN INSTITUTE OF LAND POLICY HUD Picture of Subsidized Households. 2015. Washington, DC: U.S. Mukhija, Vinit, Lara Regus, Sara Slovin, and Ashok Das. 2010. “Can Department of Housing and Urban Development. Inclusionary Zoning Be an Effective and Efficient Housing Policy? Evidence from Los Angeles and Orange Counties.” Journal of Urban Innovative Housing Institute. 2010. “Inclusionary Housing Survey: Affairs 32 (2): 229–52. Measures of Effectiveness.” Washington, DC. National Housing Conference’s Center for Housing Policy and Jacobus, Rick. 2007a. Delivering on the Promise of Inclusionary National Community Land Trust Network. 2014. 2014 Network-CHP Housing: Best Practices in Administration and Monitoring. Oakland, Project (unpublished data). Washington, DC, and Portland, CA: PolicyLink. OR: Authors.

——. 2007b. Stewardship for Lasting Affordability: Administration Navarro, Mireya. 2014. “‘Poor Door’ in a New York Tower Opens a and Monitoring of Shared Equity Homeownership. NCB Capital Fight Over Affordable Housing.” The New York Times, August 26. Impact and NeighborWorks America. Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California, California Jacobus, Rick, and Joshua Abrams. 2014. Policy Options for Coalition for Rural Housing, San Diego Housing Federation and the Refining Seattle’s Incentive Zoning Program. Oakland, CA: Sacramento Housing Alliance. 2007. “Affordable by Choice: Trends Cornerstone Partnership. in California Inclusionary Housing Programs.” San Francisco, CA: Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California. Jones, Jeanne Lang. 2012. “Amazon Paying $1.16B for Its 11-Building Seattle Campus.” Puget Sound Business Journal. October 5. Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California. 2003. “Inclusionary Housing Advocacy Toolkit.” San Francisco, CA: Non- Kniech, Robin. 2014a. “What Can Denver Do When a Hot Housing Profit Housing Association of Northern California. Home Builders Market Hurts?” Denver Post, August 7, sec. Opinion. Association and Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California. ——. 2014b. Interview with Rick Jacobus. Orfield, Myron. 2005. “Land Use and Housing Policies to Reduce Kusisto, Laura. 2014. “A ‘Poor Door’ on a Planned New York Concentrated Poverty and Racial Segregation.” Fordham Urban Apartment Tower with Affordable Housing Gets a Makeover.” Wall Law Journal 33: 877. Street Journal, August 29, sec. New York. OTAK and Penninger Consulting. 2014. “Seattle Workforce Housing Kusisto, Laura. 2015. “New Luxury Rental Projects Add to Rent Programs and Policies Related to Meeting Workforce Housing Squeeze.” Wall Street Journal, May 20, sec. Real Estate. http:// Needs in Seattle: A Survey and Analysis of Best Practices in www.wsj.com/articles/new-luxury-rental-projects-add-to-rent- Comparative Jurisdictions.” Seattle, WA. squeeze-1432114203 Powell, Benjamin, and Edward Stringham. 2004. “Housing Supply Lee, Olson. 2014. “San Francisco Inclusionary Housing Program.” and Affordability: Do Affordable Housing Mandates Work?” Reason Presented at the San Francisco Mayor’s Office of Housing, San Public Policy Institute Policy Study 318. Francisco, CA. (April 10). Ross, Jamie. 2014. Interview conducted by Emily Thaden. Levy, Diane K., Zach McDade, and Kassie Dumlao. 2011. Effects from Living in Mixed-Income Communities for Low-Income Schuetz, Jenny, Rachel Meltzer, and Vicki Been. 2009. “31 Flavors Families: A Review of the Literature. Metropolitan Housing and of Inclusionary Zoning: Comparing Policies From San Francisco, Communities Center. Washington, DC: Urban Institute. Washington, DC, and Suburban Boston.” Journal of the American Planning Association 75 (4): 441–56. Mallach, Alan. 2001. “An Affordable Housing Strategy for Stamford, CT.” Stamford, CT: Stamford Affordable Housing Task Force and the Schwartz, Heather. 2010. Housing Policy Is School Policy: City of Stamford. Economically Integrative Housing Promotes Academic Success in Montgomery County, Maryland. Century Foundation.

JACOBUS | INCLUSIONARY HOUSING | 59 Schwartz, Heather L., Liisa Ecola, Kristin J. Leuschner, and Aaron Kofner. 2012. “Is Inclusionary Zoning Inclusionary? A Guide for Practitioners. Technical Report.” RAND Corporation.

Seifel Consulting. 2012. Inclusionary Housing Financial Analysis. San Francisco, CA: San Francisco Mayor’s Office of Housing.

Sharkey, Patrick. 2009. Neighborhoods and the Black-White Mobility Gap. Economic Mobility Project: An Initiative of the Pew Charitable Trust.

Spectrum. 2013. “South Lake Union Affordable Housing Bonus Program Review. Seattle, WA: Spectrum Development Solutions LLC.

Stivers, Evvy. 2014. Interview Conducted by Emily Thaden.

Sturtevant, Lisa, and Jeannette Chapman. 2014. “Housing a Diverse and Inclusive Community in Arlington County: An Analysis of Current and Future Housing Needs.” Arlington County, VA.

Tangen, Lyn. 2008. “Seattle’s Proposal to Boost Affordable Housing Would in Fact Discourage It.” Seattle Times, December 15, sec. Editorials.

Temkin, Ken, Brett Theodos, and David Price. 2010. Balancing Affordability and Opportunity: An Evaluation of Affordable Homeownership Programs with Long-Term Affordability Controls. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.

Webster, Jessica L. 2005. Success in Affordable Housing: The Metro Denver Experience. Chicago, IL: Business and Professional People for the Public Interest.

Wiener, Robert J., and Dewey K. Bandy. 2007. “Inclusionary Housing in Small Towns and Rural Places: The California Experience.” ACE: Arquitectura, Ciudad Y Entorno, Any II, Núm. 5, Octubre 2007.

Wilson, William Julius. 2012. The Truly Disadvantaged: The Inner City, the Underclass, and Public Policy. University of Chicago Press.

60 | POLICY FOCUS REPORT | LINCOLN INSTITUTE OF LAND POLICY Acknowledgments

The idea for this report was conceived by Emily Thaden at the National Community Land Trust (CLT) Network, and it relies heavily on work she did with Robert Hickey and Lisa Sturtevant at the National Housing Conference’s Center for Housing Policy. This new document benefited immensely from review and feedback from Emily Thaden, Rachel Silver, Sasha Hauswald, Alan Mallach, and Nico Calavita. Ben Beach, legal director of the Partnership for Working Families, wrote chapter 6, “Addressing Legal Concerns.” Mike Rawson of the Public Interest Law Project reviewed that chapter and provided helpful comments. Mark Perlman of the National CLT Network provided key production support in preparing the final report.

A number of people were interviewed or provided background material that helped in the creation of this report. Michael Lane and Danielle Mazzella of the Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California offered key insights and some follow-up research. Jamie Ross of the Florida Housing Coalition and 1000 Friends of Florida shared detailed lessons from her successful long-term effort to support adoption of inclusionary housing throughout Florida. Norman Cole of the City of Stamford, Connecticut, and Councilmember Sally Greene from Chapel Hill, North Carolina, shared lessons from the policy adoption process in their respective communities. Councilmember Robin Kniech of Denver, Colorado, shared her experience communicating with the public and media, and Evelyn Stivers shared lessons from regional campaigns to pass inclusionary ordinances in Northern California.

I have collaborated with many researchers to conduct interviews or draft profiles of inclusionary housing programs for a number of closely related projects over the years, and their work helped provide essential context for this report. I thank the following people for these contributions: Maureen Hickey, Raphael Kasen, Ryan Sherriff, Maya Brennan, Jeffrey Lubell, Robert Hickey, Ken Rich, Lisa Feldstein, and Eric Brewer-Garcia.

Thanks to Armando Carbonell and Maureen Clarke of the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy for their thoughtful comments and to Sarah Rainwater for her fabulous design.

Last, but not least, I would like to acknowledge all the inclusionary housing practitioners who contributed to research on this topic and who work hard each day to improve their communities.

JACOBUS | INCLUSIONARY HOUSING | 61 ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Rick Jacobus, a national expert in inclusionary housing and affordable homeownership, is the principal of Street Level Urban Impact Advisors (StreetLevelAdvisors.com). He was the founder of Cornerstone Partner- ship, and he currently serves as a strategic advisor to Cornerstone. He was previously a partner in Burlington Associates in Community Development and a visiting fellow at the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. He has also served as a lecturer in the Department of City and Regional Planning at the University of California at Berkeley and as a senior program officer for the Local Initiatives Support Corporation. His publications include A Path to Homeownership (2010), published by the Center for American Progress; Affordable by Choice, Trends in California Inclusionary Housing Programs (2007), published by the Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California; Retail Trade as a Route to Neighborhood Revitalization (2009), published by the Brookings Institution; and The City-CLT Partnership (2008), published by the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. He has a bache- lor’s degree from Oberlin College and a master of city planning degree from the University of California at Berkeley.

ABOUT THE LINCOLN INSTITUTE OF LAND POLICY

www.lincolninst.edu The Lincoln Institute of Land Policy is the leading resource for key issues concerning the use, regulation, and taxation of land. Providing high- quality education and research, the Institute strives to improve public dialogue and decisions about land policy. As a private operating foundation whose origins date to 1946, the Institute seeks to inform decision making through education, research, policy evaluation, demonstration projects, and the dissemination of information, policy analysis, and data through our publications, website, and other media. By bringing together scholars, practitioners, public officials, policy makers, journalists, and involved citizens, the Lincoln Institute integrates theory and practice, and provides a nonpartisan forum for multidisciplinary perspectives on public policy concerning land, both in the United States and internationally.

62 | POLICY FOCUS REPORT | LINCOLN INSTITUTE OF LAND POLICY ABOUT CORNERSTONE PARTNERSHIP www.affordableownership.org Cornerstone Partnership (Cornerstone) promotes strong, inclusive communities where all people can afford a decent place to live and thrive. Cornerstone is a national peer network for homeownership and inclusionary housing programs that preserve long-term affordability and community stability. Cornerstone provides expertise on policy and practice, offers technical assistance, tools, and resources to help its members build capacity and strengthen impact, and builds connections that help programs learn from each other and share what works. Cornerstone’s work supports practitioners, advocates, elected officials, consultants, and other housing professionals dedicated to helping individuals and families access equity and opportunity.

ABOUT THE NATIONAL COMMUNITY LAND TRUST NETWORK www.cltnetwork.org The Network is a national nonprofit membership organization of com- munity land trusts (CLT) and other organizations that promote strategic community development and permanently affordable housing to benefit lower income families throughout the United States. The Network supports our members by:

1. Raising public awareness of CLTs and permanently affordable housing, 2. Providing training, conferences, technical assistance, and capacity building resources for nonprofits and government organizations, 3. Researching best practices, innovations, and outcomes of membership organizations, 4. Promoting public policies and partnerships that enable growth and expansion, and 5. Developing the industry to advance its impact on families and communities.

JACOBUS | INCLUSIONARY HOUSING | 63 64 | POLICY FOCUS REPORT | LINCOLN INSTITUTE OF LAND POLICY Ordering Information To download a free copy of this report or to order copies, visit www.lincolninst.edu and search by author or title. For additional information on discounted prices for bookstores, multiple-copy orders, and shipping and handling costs, send your inquiry to [email protected].

PROJECT MANAGER & EDITOR Maureen Clarke

DESIGN & PRODUCTION Sarah Rainwater Design

PRINTING Recycled Paper Printing

Text stock is 100 percent PCW. Printed using soy-based inks. Cover stock is 30 percent PCW.

92%

Cert no. SCS-COC-001366

113 Brattle Street, Cambridge, MA 02138-3400, USA Front cover: P (617) 661-3016 or (800) 526-3873 Corona Arch, Utah (top). Courtesy of the F (617) 661-7235 or (800) 526-3944 Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands [email protected] Administration. lincolninst.edu Catalina State Park, Arizona (bottom). Courtesy of Sonoran Institute.

Back Cover: Stockade Block rangelands in Oregon. Courtesy of Oregon Department of State Lands.

Inclusionary Housing Creating and Maintaining Equitable Communities

Roughly 500 communities in the United States have developed inclusionary housing policies, which require developers of new market-rate real estate to provide some units that are affordable to low- and moderate- income residents. For cities struggling to maintain economic integration, inclusionary housing is one of the most promising strategies available to ensure that the benefits of development are shared widely. However, policies must be designed with care to suit local conditions and guarantee that requirements do not overburden development. Through a review of the literature and case studies, this report details how local governments are realizing the potential of inclusionary housing by building public support, using data to inform program design, establishing reasonable expectations for developers, and ensuring long-term program quality.

Inclusionary housing is likely to play a more significant role in our national housing strategy in the coming decade. Faced with declining federal and state resources for affordable housing and growing populations, communities need to take full advantage of every potential tool. The evidence summarized here suggests that inclusionary housing programs produce a modest yet steady supply of new affordable housing resources. Because programs generally preserve long-term affordability, the pool of local inclusionary units can grow steadily into a significant share of an area’s housing stock.

As importantly, the data suggests that inclusionary housing is one of the few proven strategies for locating affordable housing in asset-rich neighborhoods where residents are likely to benefit from access to quality schools, public services, and better jobs. Increasingly, communities across the country are investing in the creation of new transit-oriented urban neighborhoods, and inclusionary housing policies are one of the only ways to ensure that these places develop in an equitable manner. Ultimately, equitable development benefits not only lower-income households; integrated, inclusive, and diverse communities enhance the lives and outcomes of all residents.

ISBN 978-1-55844-330-3

ISBN 978-1-55844-330-3 Policy Focus Report/Code PF044 Lisa Ritchie

From: PAT SCHOLES Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2021 7:29 PM To: Planning Commission Subject: Inclusionary Housing Ordinance

Hi, My name is Pat Scholes, 794 Club Circle, and I have lived in Louisville for 30years. I am affiliated with the East County Housing Opportunity Coalition, and I have learned through them that you are considering an inclusionary housing ordinance. I want to express my support to the city for creating this ordinance. However, I encourage you to make the requirement of the ordinance higher than 12% because the CIty has a goal to achieve 12% affordable housing by 2035, and with all that is already built, we will not be able to achieve the 12% goal without a higher requirement. I also encourage you to look particularly at how the City can create housing for those most in need, such as the disabled or those on lower fixed incomes like seniors. Many people cannot afford housing that is affordable to folks at 60% of the area median income. ($52,400) I think we can do better than that.

I applaud that the goal is to create permanently affordable housing within the City, therefore on page 11, b. Rental Covenants, I encourage you to remove the language that allows for the City Manager to waive the covenant in some cases. We should start from a presumption that these homes are permanently affordable, and not put in our ordinance a way to get around that.

thanks for your attention, and I appreciate what the commission and staff are doing to create permanently affordable housing.

1 Lisa Ritchie

Subject: FW: LMCA-0358-2021 – Inclusionary Housing Code Amendment

From: Jesse Truman Date: May 12, 2021 at 9:53:41 AM MDT To: [email protected], [email protected] Subject: LMCA-0358-2021 – Inclusionary Housing Code Amendment

Hello Planning and Council members,

I wanted to voice my opinion on this code amendment that is being brought up on May 13th. I would agree that affordable housing is an issue, but I implore you to NOT Pass this amendment. This is not the way to fix the problem….you are only exacerbating the problem by increasing the costs to build. There are already enough permit fees, park and trails fees, library fees, transportation fees, sewer and tap fees, that makes building anything cost $100,000 extra before you even start construction. Now lumber costs and copper are going through the roof. If we add another significant fee on top of all these other impact fees, it will only do 2 things…

1. It will discourage new development which will only make the problem worse 2. It will force builders and developers that DO choose to build, increase the prices that charge on the “market rate” products, which will also make the problem worse

In my opinion, this is backwards thinking and am shocked no city has come up with a better solution. I urge you to NOT pass this. I would encourage you to think about alternative solutions. Its my opinion, if you TRULY care about affordable housing, we need to incentive builders and developers to build them. This can be done by an increase in density for new developments. It costs the city NOTHING to do that. And it also increases the tax revenue basis by having more units. You could even do a sliding scale, where if a developer wants to dedicate 12% to affordable housing, then they get “X” amount of more units, 16% gets this amount, 20% gets this amount and so forth.

Thank you for considering these thoughts…..

Sincerely,

-- Jesse Truman

9557 Paradise Lane

m: 303.915.7203

1 Rob Zuccaro

From: Meredyth Muth on behalf of Open Records Sent: Tuesday, June 8, 2021 2:05 PM To: Rob Zuccaro Subject: FW: Support More Affordable Housing

From: Leo Waters [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, June 8, 2021 1:43 PM To: City Council Subject: Support More Affordable Housing

Greetings Council,

I am writing to urge you to adopt a more ambitious target of 20% affordable housing for all new construction. I am a Boulder County resident and frequently visit & shop in Louisville. In addition, several of my neighbors work in your city. Boulder County as a whole has a shortfall of affordable housing due to decades of discriminatory, wasteful land use policies like downzoning. Thus, to meet your goal of 12% affordable housing by 2035, Louisville & every other city will need to play catch-up for those decades of housing neglect. Doing so will keep our very intertwined communities more equitable & economically diverse, so please set the 20% target.

Thank you, Leo Waters (he/him)

1 Meredyth Muth

From: Rich Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2021 5:25 PM To: City Council Subject: Affordable Housing

Hello,

I am Rich Zimmerman and I have lived in Louisville for 16 years. I want to commend the city for its stated goal of achieving 12% affordable housing by 2035. I am writing to thank the staff, council, and you for the proposed draft inclusionary housing ordinance. This ordinance will go far towards helping us achieve our goal. However, if we want to achieve 12% by 2035, we will need a higher inclusionary housing requirement. Because so much of our city is already built, we won't achieve our target, without a higher inclusionary affordable housing requirement. I encourage you to consider a 20% requirement as happens in many other high-cost areas around the country. Lastly, I also encourage you to consider creating affordable housing for those most in need - those folks who make between 30% - 50% of the area median income. Seniors, persons with disabilities, and others on limited fixed incomes will have a hard time finding housing they can afford when their incomes are far below the rate of $52,400 (which is currently 60% of Area Median Income, targeted in the ordinance). Teachers and service workers will also fall outside of those limits.

With these two adjustments, I believe the ordinance can be a thoughtful approach to providing affordable housing, and I want you to hear from residents who support affordable housing, and think our community will be a richer, more vibrant community with a variety of folks from all income levels who can afford to live here. Thank you for your service to our community.

Rich Zimmerman

1

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes May 13 th , 2021 Electronic Meeting 6:30 PM

Chair Brauneis called the meeting to order at 6:30 PM.

Roll Call was taken and the following members were present:

Commission Members Present: Steve Brauneis, Chair Tom Rice, Vice Chair Ben Diehl Jeff Moline Keaton Howe Dietrich Hoefner

Commission Members Absent: Debra Williams

Staff Members Present: Rob Zuccaro, Dir. of Planning & Building Lisa Ritchie, Senior Planner Amelia Brackett Hogstad, Planning Clerk

APPROVAL OF AGENDA Howe moved and Moline seconded a motion to approve the May 13, 2021 agenda. Motion passed unanimously by voice vote.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES Moline moved and Diehl seconded a motion to approve the April 8, 2021 minutes. Motion passed unanimously by voice vote. Commissioner Howe abstained.

PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None.

NEW BUSINESS – DISCUSSION LMC Amendment – Inclusionary Housing: Request for approval of a draft ordinance amending the Louisville Municipal Code Title 17, Zoning, to adopt inclusionary housing requirements (Resolution 5, Series 2021). o Applicant: City of Louisville o Case Manager: Rob Zuccaro, Director of Planning and Building Safety

All required public notifications were met and Chair Brauneis described the public hearing process. No conflicts of interests were disclosed.

City of Louisville Department of Planning and Building Safety 749 Main Street Louisville CO 80027 303.335.4592 (phone) 303.335.4550 (fax) www.LouisvilleCO.gov Planning Commission Meeting Minutes May 13, 2021 Page 2 of 10

Zuccaro stated that City Attorney Kathleen Kelly was in attendance for any legal questions. He described the proposed inclusionary ordinance and its background, sharing that the City recently endorsed the Boulder County Regional Housing Partnership Regional Housing Strategy to work toward 12% permanently affordable housing by 2035. Zuccaro shared the factors influencing affordable housing, including a low inventory, an increase of jobs without an increase in housing stock, and the cost of transportation in addition to the cost of housing for workers who live far away from where they work. He described the provisions in the proposed ordinance and the requirements for developers to meet the housing stock goals, including options for developers to use fee-in-lieu, offsite building, and land dedication options instead of building inclusionary units. Zuccaro explained that the City would likely partner with other jurisdictions or the Housing Authority to administer in the ordinance and described the pros and cons of the inclusionary housing approach.

Staff recommended approval of Resolution 5, Series 2021.

Hoefner asked about the mechanism for deciding who gets these houses, since he imagined that there were more people who would want them than units that would ever be available.

Zuccaro replied that the question could not be answered before establishing concrete partners but with a recent affordable housing project there had been higher demand than availability. He thought a lottery might be an option.

Hoefner asked what percentage of the applicable population would be able to have units.

Zuccaro replied that there were several affordable housing units in the City, which represented somewhere around 4% of the units in the City. At maximum future development with this proposal there would probably be a few hundred additional units in the City and 12% of those units would be affordable housing under this ordinance.

Diehl asked if the fee-in-lieu money would be set aside for affordable housing.

Zuccaro confirmed. The City could use it directly or use it in partnership with an entity like the Housing Authority.

Moline asked if there had been any public comment, especially from the development community.

Zuccaro replied that the staff packet addenda included written comments and at least one of them was from a developer who had concerns about the ordinance.

Howe asked about studies that addressed consequences in weak housing markets.

Zuccaro responded that generally inclusionary development didn’t tend to lead to inflated housing prices, especially in a strong housing market, and he noted that he had not looked deeper into the data with that in mind. He estimated that in a really weak housing market it could have an impact, but that was far from the case in Boulder County.

Brauneis opened public comment.

Annmarie Jensen stated that she was the director of the East County Housing Opportunity Coalition, which dealt with affordable housing issues in East Boulder County, and that there had been written comments submitted from her coalition. She thanked the City for working on affordable housing and noted that the plan tried to meet the issue but also would not be able to Planning Commission Meeting Minutes May 13, 2021 Page 3 of 10 address it nearly enough. She explained that the Louisville proposal was on the lower end of affordable housing stock proposals in the area and noted that the big challenge was to reach the lowest income folks in the area. Jensen advocated for fewer landscaping requirements and a fast-tracked permit process to encourage developers and for lowering the 60% threshold to 50%, since even teachers and service workers could not afford housing at the higher level. She offered the Coalition’s help with the project.

Lara Weiss, 421 East Street, stated that she had sold her property to developers and suggested grandfathering projects currently under contract. Otherwise, property owners would get stuck with the increased tax amount as the original estimate would need to be raised, which is what had happened to her.

Debbie Haseman, 247 South Lark Avenue, noted that she and her husband found a home 30 years ago that was entry-level and that they could afford, which was no longer the case for new homebuyers. She believed that Louisville was what it was today because people used to be able to afford to buy here. She noted that she was affiliated with the East County Housing Opportunity Coalition.

Stephanie Mclaughlin, 1075 Falcon Court, asked to see something in the proposal that made it clear that affordable housing was doable in Louisville, and noted that housing wasn’t keeping pace with jobs while at the same time Louisville was moving ahead with commercial developments.

Kevin Byrne stated that he was a real estate agent whose recent project had increased by about $600,000 to add affordable units, which they had to negotiate out of the owner’s side. He thought it was hard for a family to move to Louisville and it was also hard to get developers to build, as well, which would mean that builders would pay the fee-in-lieu, which made him wonder if this was really a solution or if people would just pay the cash. He advocated for a grandfather clause as Ms. Weiss suggested and requested full transparency for people building in the future.

David Sinkey, 712 Main Street, of Boulder Creek Neighborhoods, stated that inclusionary zoning was not effective in getting affordable housing. He suggested a “carrot” methodology that supported larger projects with 100% affordable units, which were very different projects than market-rate ones. He thought that inclusionary zoning created more of an impediment for smaller projects where affordable wouldn’t work, and the City should instead support larger affordable programs. He offered his company’s expertise for the proposal development.

Jennifer Samuels, 1388 Kennedy Avenue, supported affordable housing, and noted that she was a nurse and a mother and that her local school was worried that enrollment was dropping because people could not afford to live here. She asked if Louisville wanted to be the kind of community that only the wealthy could afford. She noted that the 12% requirement was too low to meet the overall 12% goal for the region because the housing stock was limited and offered 20% as a more realistic number. She noted that the income measurements were not enough for service workers and other lower income groups.

Cathern Smith, 608 West Street, began her remarks before being informed by Chair Brauneis that the Redtail Ridge item was next on the agenda.

Josh Cooperman, 216 Griffith Street, stated he supported inclusionary housing and offered the following observations and recommendations: 12% was too low, especially because there was very little land that could be developed for housing so 12% would not go very far; $7.90/square foot for fee-in-lieu was too low, as that the number was based on Longmont which had lower Planning Commission Meeting Minutes May 13, 2021 Page 4 of 10 housing prices; and preference should be given to applicants who had been historically been subject to discrimination in housing based on the clear evidence that African Americans, Hispanics, and Indigenous peoples have been discriminated against all across country, which could be coordinated with the new EDI task force.

RJ Harrington, 457 Raintree Court, agreed with the need for affordable housing but asked whether this was feasible in ordinance form given that there was not much more buildable space, and a project would need to be quite large to take advantage of economies of scale. He also noted that the next item on the agenda was commercial development asked where the new housing would be for all the new jobs.

Brauneis clarified that the emailed public comments had been received had been distributed and were posted online. Moline moved and Howe seconded a motion to enter those into the record.

Moline asked who the ordinance applied to.

Zuccaro replied that anyone who had a current PDU or Plat approved would not be subject to the ordinance.

Moline noted that the program would require a fair amount of City staff and analysis time, and asked how quickly it would become operational after approval.

Zuccaro replied that it would go into effect about a month after the second Council reading. He noted that there were probably opportunities to enter into regional partnerships with how to do this. Staff right now could not do it based on time and expertise.

Howe asked about the disadvantages to raising the 12% figure.

Zuccaro replied there could be more costs associated with a new development and could theoretically deter those project but he didn’t want to say if 20% would or wouldn’t do that.

Howe agreed that it was a tricky balance but he was interested in raising the threshold to an extent and he asked if they had looked into Longmont’s plan.

Zuccaro replied that in Phase II they hoped to look more into those other options such as fee waivers, density bonuses, and process exceptions that could supplement the 12% requirement.

Howe asked about the Phase II timeline.

Zuccaro replied that staff hoped to have discussions with Council later this year.

Diehl asked about Superior’s 15% threshold.

Zuccaro replied that it was a new ordinance that would not apply to their new downtown development and he did not know the threshold for when it applied.

Moline asked about reaching the lower income residents.

Zuccaro replied that he would want to research more on that threshold and how to include those residents.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes May 13, 2021 Page 5 of 10

Zuccaro noted that the Longmont fee-in-lieu was in the ordinance and before Council’s second reading they planned to do a calculation based on Louisville data.

Howe stated that he hoped to prove to the county that Louisville affordable housing was not an oxymoron. He wanted to address affordability but he noted that developments under this ordinance would be limited. He wondered if the proposal went far enough, and asked if the City should aim for higher than 12%, if the City should focus on incentivizing developments, and how the City could avoid increasing housing costs overall.

Hoefner stated that it was important to make Louisville affordable to people who worked here or wanted to work here. He thought this policy would affect a relatively small number of middle- and low-income residents while denying many more who would qualify. He addressed the Lincoln Institute study, which neglected the limitations of housing stock. He noted that in the examples from that study the prices of housing overall increased. He might support it if the proposal looked at policies to allow more density, but as drafted it was well-intentioned but maybe not the right fit.

Diehl stated that this was a band-aid on the issue given the lack of housing, and acknowledge that the community had spoken about the importance of following the Comprehensive Plan and providing more open space previously, which constrained what they could do, but he was generally in support of the fee-in-lieu clause and of supporting affordability in future projects.

Moline stated that this was a first foray into inclusionary housing that they could forward to Council. He questioned how much impact it would have and was interested in looking at lots of other methods, but supported it as the beginning measure for that process.

Rice stated that philosophically he did not believe in regulating the housing market in this way because it always led to unintended consequences and did not meet the intended result.

Brauneis stated that it didn’t seem like it would have a major impact, providing only a couple dozen units. He thought it was a start and one that acknowledges that this is a regional issue and recognizes what others have done in the area. He was more excited to see what Phase II held to achieve affordable housing.

Howe asked if Phase II would be additive or would make changes to the proposal.

Brauneis replied that that was unknown.

Diehl made a motion to approve Resolution 5, Series 2021. Moline seconded. Motion passed 4- 2, with Commissioners Rice and Hoefner voting nay.

Redtail Ridge General Development Plan Amendment: A request for an Amendment to the ConocoPhillips Campus General Development Plan (Redtail Ridge Master Plan) to allow a mixed industrial, office and commercial development with up to 3,115,000 gross square feet of building area on a 389.10 acre property (Resolution 6, Series 2021). o Applicant: Bruce Baukol o Case Manager: Rob Zuccaro, Director of Planning and Building Safety

Hoefner recused himself due to conflict of interest and Commissioner Moline stated that he was an employee of Boulder County Parks and Open Space and Boulder County had provided referral comments for the proposal but he had not been involved in making those comments and was not unduly motivated by them. HOUSE BILL 21-1117

BY REPRESENTATIVE(S) Lontine and Gonzales-Gutierrez, Kipp, Weissman, Bacon, Benavidez, Bernett, Bird, Caraveo, Cutter, Duran, Esgar, Exum, Froelich, Herod, Hooton, Jackson, Jodeh, Kennedy, McCluskie, McLachlan, Michaelson Jenet, Ortiz, Roberts, Sirota, Tipper, Titone, Valdez A., Valdez D., Woodrow, Young, Garnett; also SENATOR(S) Gonzales and Rodriguez, Buckner, Danielson, Fields, Jaquez Lewis, Kolker, Lee, Moreno, Pettersen, Story, Winter.

CONCERNING THE ABILITY OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO PROMOTE THE DEVELOPMENT OF NEW AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS PURSUANT TO THEIR EXISTING AUTHORITY TO REGULATE LAND USE WITHIN THEIR TERRITORIAL BOUNDARIES.

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Colorado:

SECTION 1. Legislative declaration. (1) The general assembly finds, determines, and declares that:

(a) In 2000, in Town of Telluride, Colorado v. Lot Thirty-Four Venture LLC, 3 P.3d 30 (Colo. 2000), the Colorado supreme court held that a local land use ordinance enacted by the town of Telluride to promote affordable housing in new developments violated a state statute that

Capital letters or bold & italic numbers indicate new material added to existing law; dashes through words or numbers indicate deletions from existing law and such material is not part of the act. prohibited counties and municipalities from enacting any ordinance or resolution that would control rent on private residential property or private residential housing units; except that, in that decision, the supreme court made clear that, although the Telluride ordinance constitutes rent control, the general assembly is not prevented from amending the rent control statute to permit local ordinances such as the ordinance at issue in that case.

(b) Nothing in this act is intended to affect voluntary agreements to promote affordable housing stock entered into pursuant to section 38-12,301 (2), or any land use regulation adopted prior to the effective date of this act that meets the requirements of this act.

SECTION 2. In Colorado Revised Statutes, 29-20-104, add (1)(e.5), (1)(e.7), and (1)(e.9) as follows:

29-20-104. Powers of local governments - definition. (1) Except as expressly provided in section 29-20-104.5, the power and authority granted by this section does not limit any power or authority presently exercised or previously granted. Each local government within its respective jurisdiction has the authority to plan for and regulate the use of land by:

(e.5) REGULATING DEVELOPMENT OR REDEVELOPMENT IN ORDER TO PROMOTE THE CONSTRUCTION OF NEW AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 38-12-301 SHALL NOT APPLY TO ANY LAND USE REGULATION ADOPTED PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION THAT RESTRICTS RENTS ON NEWLY CONSTRUCTED OR REDEVELOPED HOUSING UNITS AS LONG AS THE REGULATION PROVIDES A CHOICE OF OPTIONS TO THE PROPERTY OWNER OR LAND DEVELOPER AND CREATES ONE OR MORE ALTERNATIVES TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF NEW AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS ON THE BUILDING SITE. NOTHING IN THIS SUBSECTION (1)(e.5) IS CONSTRUED TO AUTHORIZE A LOCAL GOVERNMENT TO ADOPT OR ENFORCE ANY ORDINANCE OR REGULATION THAT WOULD HAVE THE EFFECT OF CONTROLLING RENT ON ANY EXISTING PRIVATE RESIDENTIAL HOUSING UNIT IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 38-12-301.

(e.7) NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER PROVISION OF THIS SECTION, A LOCAL GOVERNMENT SHALL NOT EXERCISE THE AUTHORITY GRANTED BY SUBSECTION (1)(e.5) OF THIS SECTION UNLESS THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT DEMONSTRATES, AT THE TIME IT ENACTS A LAND USE REGULATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXERCISING SUCH AUTHORITY, IT HAS TAKEN ONE OR MORE OF

PAGE 2-HOUSE BILL 21-1117 THE FOLLOWING ACTIONS TO INCREASE THE OVERALL NUMBER AND DENSITY OF HOUSING UNITS WITHIN ITS JURISDICTIONAL BOUNDARIES OR TO PROMOTE OR CREATE INCENTIVES TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS:

(I) ADOPT CHANGES TO ITS ZONING AND LAND USE POLICIES THAT ARE INTENDED TO INCREASE THE OVERALL DENSITY AND AVAILABILITY OF HOUSING, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO:

(A) CHANGING ITS ZONING REGULATIONS TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF HOUSING UNITS ALLOWED ON A PARTICULAR SITE;

(B) PROMOTING MIXED-USE ZONING THAT PERMITS HOUSING UNITS TO BE INCORPORATED IN A WIDER RANGE OF DEVELOPMENTS;

(C) PERMITTING MORE THAN ONE DWELLING UNIT PER LOT IN TRADITIONAL SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS;

(D) INCREASING THE PERMITTED HOUSEHOLD SIZE IN SINGLE FAMILY HOMES;

(E) PROMOTING DENSER HOUSING DEVELOPMENT NEAR TRANSIT STATIONS AND PLACES OF EMPLOYMENT;

(F) GRANTING REDUCED PARKING REQUIREMENTS TO RESIDENTIAL OR MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENTS THAT INCLUDE HOUSING NEAR TRANSIT STATIONS OR AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS;

(G) GRANTING DENSITY BONUSES TO DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS THAT INCORPORATE AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS; OR

(H) ADOPTING POLICIES TO PROMOTE THE DIVERSITY OF THE HOUSING STOCK WITHIN THE LOCAL COMMUNITY INCLUDING A MIX OF BOTH FOR-SALE AND RENTAL HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES;

(II) MATERIALLY REDUCE OR ELIMINATE UTILITY CHARGES, REGULATORY FEES, OR TAXES IMPOSED BY THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT APPLICABLE TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS;

(III) GRANT AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS MATERIAL

PAGE 3-HOUSE BILL 21-1117 REGULATORY RELIEF FROM ANY TYPE OF ZONING OR OTHER LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS THAT WOULD ORDINARILY RESTRICT THE DENSITY OF NEW DEVELOPMENT OR REDEVELOPMENT;

(IV) ADOPT POLICIES TO MATERIALLY MAKE SURPLUS PROPERTY OWNED BY THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT AVAILABLE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF HOUSING; OR

(V) ADOPT ANY OTHER REGULATORY MEASURE THAT IS EXPRESSLY DESIGNED AND INTENDED TO INCREASE THE SUPPLY OF HOUSING WITHIN THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT'S JURISDICTIONAL BOUNDARIES.

(e.9) THE DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT SHALL OFFER GUIDANCE TO ASSIST LOCAL GOVERNMENTS IN CONNECTION WITH THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS SECTION.

SECTION 3. Act subject to petition - effective date. This act takes effect at 12:01 a.m. on the day following the expiration of the ninety-day period after final adjournment of the general assembly; except that, if a referendum petition is filed pursuant to section 1 (3) of article V of the state constitution against this act or an item, section, or part of this act within the ninety-day period after final adjournment of the general assembly, then the act, item, section, or part will not take effect unless

PAGE 4-HOUSE BILL 21-1117 approved by the people at the general election to be held in November 2020 and, in such case, will take effect on the date of the official declaration of the vote thereon by the governor.

aA, ....'""".... Alec Garnett Leroy M. Garcia SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE PRESIDENT OF OF REPRESENTATIVES THE SENATE

L_ 1 ) ) eti)de- - -Cie Thattecaa obin Jones Cindi L. Markwell CHIEF CLERK ' THE HOUSE SECRETARY OF OF REPRESENTATIVES THE SENATE

APPROVED 1, 2_07.1 ,O d 0--03 W (Date and Ti

Jared i \ GO OR OF STATE OF COLORADO

PAGE 5-HOUSE BILL 21-1117