Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Town Board Study Session 2013-08-27 Tuesday, August 27, 2013 TOWN BOARD 5:00 p.m. – 6:30 p.m. STUDY SESSION Town Hall Rooms 202/203 Dinner Available Prior to Meeting for Board and Staff. OFFICIAL MEETING 5:00 p.m. Trustee Comments & Questions. 5:05 p.m. Future Study Session Agenda Items. (Board Discussion) 5:15 p.m. Affordable Housing Needs & Possible Code Amendments. (Estes Park Housing Authority Director Kurelja) 5:45 p.m. Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan Modernization Update. (Director Chilcott) 6:20 p.m. Staff Support to the Board. (Town Clerk Williamson) 6:30 p.m. Meeting Adjourn. AGENDA To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Lancaster From: Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk Date: August 27, 2013 RE: Future Town Board Study Session Items September 10, 2013  Infrastructure and Capital Improvements Financing Discussion  Review of Capital Investment Plan Future Items  Town’s Role in Events  Neighborhood Subdivision Issues  Review of Town Property Inventory  Sign Code Revisions  Community Survey  Capital Plan for 2014  Presentation on Demographic and Economic Data in Comprehensive Plan Modernization  Acceptance of Art, Gifts, Naming of Parks, etc.  Strategic Planning Issues and Plans  Senior Center/Museum Master Plan  Revise Stanley Historic District Agreement Town Clerk’s Office Memo ESTES PARK HOUSING AUTHORITY PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT CODE CHANGE Town Board August 27, 2013 Current Code Provisions  Section 11.4 C of the Estes Valley Development Code Attainable Housing Density Bonus Current code allows for up to a 50% increased density if attainable housing is incorporated into the development  “Attainable” Defined  Renter Occupied: Housing units that are attainable to households earning sixty percent (60%) of the Larimer County Area Median Income or below  Owner Occupied: Housing units that are attainable to households earning eighty percent (80%) of the Area Median Income Attainable Units Rentals: Housing Costs (Rent & Utilities) should not exceed 30% of Household income  Homeowners: Housing Costs (Rent & Utilities) should not exceed 40% of Household income  We are NOT asking to change this What are we Proposing to Change  Change in the definition of ‘Attainable’ to include income limits in both Rental and Homeownership to be one hundred twenty five (125%) of the Larimer County Area Median Income or below adjusted for household size ’ Area Median Income Household size Income Levels-AMI 1 Person 2 Person 3 Person 4 Person RENTAL PROPERTIES Current 60% $31,860 $36,420 $40,980 $45,480 80% $42,500 $48,550 $54,600 $60,650 100% $53,100 $60,700 $68,300 $75,800 Proposed 125% $66,375 $75,875 $85,375 $94,750 HOME OWNERSHIP Current 80% $42,500 $48,550 $54,600 $60,650 100% $53,100 $60,700 $68,300 $75,800 Proposed 125% $66,375 $75,875 $85,375 $94,750 Current Proposed How things have changed 1981 2012 % Change Avg Cost Single Family home $73,364 $352,843 380% Car Payment $100 month $375 month 275% Student Loan $65 month $250 month 285% Mortgage Payment $707 month $1843 month 160% Household Income $20,001 year $68,704 year 243% Sales Prices to Income $274,500 $317,500 $352,843 $200,000 $284,000 $272,647 $51,800 $55,400 $62,200 $0 $50,000 $100,000 $150,000 $200,000 $250,000 $300,000 $350,000 $400,000 2003 2007 2012 29% Change Single Family Sales 36% Change Condo Sales 20% Change AMI (2 person HH) Hypothetical Household  2 Wage Earner family: 1. Police Officer 1 earning $52,000 per year 2. Spouse works for the School District: Para professional earns $23,000 3. A combined household income of $75,000 Hypothetical Household  Household Income $75,000  Debt: 1 Car Payment: $ 350.00 Student Loan: $ 250.00 Misc. Credit Cards $ 100.00 Hypothetical Household  HH income: $75,000  Monthly Debt: $700.00  Using these numbers this household could afford a home costing between $285,000 and $305,000  This assumes a down payment of $35,284. What is the Problem?  Rise in Home prices has created and will continue to create an affordability gap Housing Value of Owner-Occupied Units (Estes Park) 2000 2011 % Change Less than $50,000 -- 2.2% null $50,000 to $99,999 3.1% 0.0% -100.0% $100,000 to $149,999 10.0% 2.9% -71.0% $150,000 to $199,999 25.2% 7.7% -69.4% $200,000 to $299,999 40.1% 26.1% -34.9% $300,000 to $499,999 19.2% 38.4% 100.0% $500,000 to $999,999 2.2% 21.4% 872.7% $1,000,000 or more -- 1.3% null U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census. U.S. Census Bureau, 2007-2011 American Community Survey What is the Problem?  Lack of Housing options that are affordable to Moderate Income households  Both Rentals and Homeownership Units  We get daily, multiple inquiries from people who are a. Looking for places to rent and b. Are over income What is the Problem?  Increase in # of Vacation Rentals has created a lack of long term rentals  VRBO currently has 353 Vacation Rentals in Estes Park  Between 2000 and 2010 there has been an 11% decrease in the number of Occupied Housing Units*  Vacancy rates on long term rentals are at historically low levels * U.S. Census Bureau, 2007-2011 American Community Survey Our Own Estes Park Police Force  Out of 19 sworn officers, 12 live out of Town in Valley communities or 63%  Excellent candidates for Police positions have been lost due to high cost housing Effects of commuting Nationally  People who commute more than 1 hour per day to work are most likely to leave their employment after 1 year or less.  Spend more on transportation costs For every dollar saved on housing by commuting, 77 cents is spent on transportation costs.  People who commute 1 or more hours per day spend between $4000-$7500 in commuting costs 16 Interviews  I love my job, I don’t like commuting  What is stopping you from living in Estes? : Cost of Housing  Cost of commuting: between $ 4000-$6500 per year  Lack of connection with the community  Less time with family  Dangerous  They question ‘How much is my time worth’?  Can’t vote here  No cell service in canyons  Would have to live in a condo to live in Estes  Would have to spend over $400,000 for a home vs. $275,000 in valley communities  Miss children’s events  Rely on spouses to ‘pick up the slack’  All said they would not be doing this if not for the support of their supervisors The Story  Young adult, works for the Town, loves his/her job Commutes 2 + hours per day  Feel a disconnect with the community  Dangerous driving the canyons  Wishes they could spend more time with their family  Often have to miss ‘events’  A lot more pressure on spouse The Story  Young married adult, one child  Doesn’t want to know how much they spend commuting  Spends $1200-$1500 per year on tires  Would live here if they could afford it  Feels a disconnect with the community in which they live The Story  Has been commuting for 1 year  Cannot afford housing in Estes Park  Equitable rent in Estes Park would be $1500 per month  Would absolutely live here if they could afford it  Dangerous to drive canyon  Does all shopping, socializing in Valley Young Families  Between 2000 and 2010 the number of Estes Park residents over the age of 65 increased by 32%  The median age is 51.1  The 51-64 age group makes up 31% of the Estes Valley population Median Age  Estes Park: 51.5 Years  Breckenridge 32.5  Glenwood Springs 34.7  Frisco 39.8  Salida 40.4  Montrose 39  Colorado 36.1  Tuscon AZ 37  Miami FL 37.28  Scottsdale AZ 45.4 Problems/Issues  Retention of young families Offer more housing options  Short supply of housing for the $60,000-$85,000 income level  Of the 212 single family homes for sale in Estes Park, 20 of them are between $275,000 and $325,000  In 2012 out of the 251 Single Family homes sold, 37 were between $275,000 and $325,000 Young Families: Why they are important  Diversity in our community  Employment Base  Economic Development  Vibrant School system  Increased sales tax revenues Problems/Issues/Solutions  A Proactive approach  As property values increase, the ‘affordability gap’ does also  Enforcement: The EPHA has successful experience in Deed Restrictions both in the development and enforcement  Vista Ridge: Originally sold 30 Deed Restricted units 9 have resold Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan Chapter 6, Section 5.0  5.1 Encourage a variety of housing types and price ranges  5.2 Encourage housing for permanent residents of all sectors of the community that is integrated into and dispersed throughout existing neighborhoods  5.3 Establish a balanced program of incentives, and public and private actions, to provide affordable housing Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan Chapter 6, Section 5.0 5.7 Identify affordable housing opportunities on an ongoing basis 5.8 Regularly evaluate regulations and eliminate unnecessary requirements 5.9 Support the creation of public and private funding sources for affordable housing Effect on the Community  Town resources pay the Salary of police officer ‘Bob’  At the end of his shift, ‘Bob’ drives to Longmont where he * Buys his groceries * Buys his gasoline * Pays his taxes * Gets his car repaired * Purchases ‘services’ * Volunteers his time The Problem  Will this code change fix this whole problem?  Absolutely Not  Is it a start?  It absolutely is! Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan ModernizationTonight’s Objective:1. Update the Town Board on the status of staff and the PlanningCommission’s work to modernize the Comprehensive Plan; and,2. Obtain big picture feedback from Trustees on the work completed.Overview:Background: How did we get here?Present SituationLevel of Public InterestNext Steps: Where are we going?Is there anything else about the modernization I should address? Background: How did we get here?At a joint study session in November 2012, the Town Board and Planning Commission unanimously supported modernizing the plan. Six options were considered ranging from no update in 2013 to a full update.Trustees and Commissioners selected Option 2.Option 2Review and update facts, remove obsolete references, remove information that is no longer relevant.Options that involved revising/validating the vision or policies were not selected. No policies are changing. Present SituationStaff and Planning Commission are implementing Option 2.Planning Commission reviews and comments on drafts monthly.Staff give monthly updates to the Community Development/ Community Services Committee and the Larimer County Commission. The goal is to complete the update by the end of 2013.The modernized plan will better articulate the Valley’s vision and policies by:Using clear and concise language.Incorporating pictures to illustrate key issues and policies.Containing current data/information.The modernized plan will be designed for ease of access via the internet. www.estes.org/ComprehensivePlan Level of Public InterestTo date, the level of public interest has been low.To stay informed and provide input, the public can:Review drafts of the modernized plan at www.estes.org/ComprehensivePlan.Attend and comment at the Estes Valley Planning Commission meetings (3rdTuesday of the month at 1:30).Watch Planning Commission meetings and read minutes online.Meet with Community Development staff to discuss any questions or concerns.In August, Public Information Officer Rusch published a press release encouraging public input. Next Steps: Where are we going?Staff’s goal is to have a final draft of the entire plan for Planning Commission review in November, with adoption in December. Staff can schedule a work session with the Town Board, County Commission and Planning Commission for joint review of the final draft.The final step will be for Planning Commission to forward the adopted plan to the Town Board and County Commission for certification. Questions?