Page 30
— Multifamily Properties Quarterly — August 2016
less than the cost of satisfying the
IHO, which currently requires 10 per-
cent affordability in all projects of 30
or more units.
This is a modest approach to help
solve a significant challenge – an
approach that was created with input
over the past year from hundreds of
people, including housing advocates,
nonprofit and for-profit developers,
homeless service providers, commu-
nity representatives, a variety of busi-
ness and industry groups, and many,
many Denver residents.
Some will say our plan isn’t bold
enough; others say that it’s too expen-
sive and we can’t afford it. But one
thing is certain – the status quo just
isn’t an option anymore. This proposal
keeps Denver diverse and inclusive,
enhancing our vitality. Affordability
is essential to maintaining our strong
workforce and keeping our position as
a leading city for business. Investing in
more affordable housing will pay divi-
dends for families, seniors and work-
ers, as well as contribute to Denver’s
overall economy and quality of life.
The new housing fund would be
used to create and preserve hous-
ing for families across a wide income
spectrum, from people just emerging
from homelessness to those working
in our hotels, restaurants, schools and
retail shops.
Keeping Denver affordable is one
of our highest priorities.We know
it’s one of yours as well. This new
permanent fund will help us harness
resources, leverage federal, state and
private dollars, and make significant
progress.
We must seize this opportunity now
with a renewed sense of urgency and
with our entire community as part-
ners.
s
Hancock
add to this disproportionate alloca-
tion yet another layer of impact fees
is unjustified and certainly amounts
to an unfair piling-on.
We have seen a draft of the nexus
and feasibility studies used by the
city to “justify” the impact; however,
those studies are still not final and,
at best, miss the point of the under-
lying causes and effects. Not only
does that make it difficult to review
and understand both the methodol-
ogy and the details of the results,
but also it begs the question, “Why
are we developing a policy on a
study that isn’t even final yet?”
To approve funding without specifics
as to their use, governance and mea-
surements is irresponsible and likely
will not be acceptable to the public.
Moreover, the current political arena
will not, and should not, allow for the
“trust me” approach. More time and
attention needs to be spent on this
aspect of the fund before it moves for-
ward.
We deserve to see a specifically
defined purpose, a specific plan to
meet that purpose, and a specific gov-
ernance structure to direct and moni-
tor the plan, and one that includes
significant representation from those
groups providing the direct funding.
We support the mill levy increase as
a sustainable, secure source of funding.
We do not support the development
impact fee because of the unpredict-
ability of the development cycle and
the unfair burden that new develop-
ment, including residential, would
carry being subject to both the impact
fee and the higher property tax. More-
over, we support the investigation of
other funding sources such as the
occupational privilege tax, which cre-
ates equality with our employers.
This process is not ready to move to
the ordinance stage. It has only been
six weeks since a group of stakehold-
ers discussed draft results from the
nexus and feasibility studies.The city’s
schedule shows final adoption of a
40-page ordinance in less than three
months. Certainly, an issue as impor-
tant and impactful as this warrants
more time for thoughtful discussion,
review and analysis. Not to mention a
more defined plan for how these funds
would be used.
Expediency at the expense of sub-
stance can only lead to flawed public
policy.We honor the city’s desire to
address this critical issue and com-
mit to be engaged to find appro-
priate, sustainable and effective
solutions.
s
Kelley
There are currently shortages of
thousands of units, with below 2
percent vacancy in Summit County,
Vail, Steamboat and the Roaring Fork.
In addition, there is a flood of new-
comers moving to the mountains
to escape the bustling Front Range
metropolis, making the drive ever
worsening on the Interstate 70 cor-
ridor.
It has been classically hard to pro-
vide inventory to these areas because
of high land, development and con-
struction costs. Only through part-
nerships of state government, local
housing authorities and business has
worker housing come to fruition. It
takes developers and builders hard-
ened by the cold weather to endure
the regulation associated with tax-
credit programs and hardships of
mountain building to bring housing
to the masses in these mountain
towns and resorts. Cold-weather
builder knowledge and know-how
sets a new standard in the industry
at these high-level elevations.
n
Young at heart.
Approximately
10,000 baby boomers are turning 65
every day. A niche market for the
continuum of care is continuing to
grow. Age-restricted housings, inde-
pendent living, assisted living and
the remainder will continue to grow
in years to come and is on every-
body’s tongue. Developers and build-
ers who understand the regulations,
operations and associated costs will
flourish in this now-establishing
market.
In short, Colorado maintains its
appeal to folks of various ages and
lifestyles, from the young adventur-
ers to business professionals to grow-
ing families and retirees. The market
in Colorado is ever expansive and in
high demand. We know that in this
beautiful Rocky Mountain region, we
don’t need to build it first for them to
come –they’ve already arrived, in full
force, and we’re still trying to catch
up. A growing market like Colorado
with a diverse range of needs from
cold-weather builds to small-city
apartments, is what will continue to
set the highest standards of knowl-
edge and know-how in the construc-
tion industry.
s
Killian
