Speaker 7: Yes, Mr. President, I move that council bill 625 625 Series 2014 be.
Speaker 0: Ordered.
Speaker 7: By Microsoft on final construe.
Speaker 4: By.
Speaker 7: Consideration and.
Speaker 2: Do pass. Yes, it has been moved and seconded. Councilman Brooks, your motion to amend?
Speaker 0: Yes, I moved to amend council with 625 in the following particulars on page seven 931 under section 27, one of three definitions sub paragraph Z, Special Revenue Fund. Add the following language to the definition. Not withstanding the foregoing, the director shall adopt as part of the rules and regulations a reservation for a portion of alternative contribution payments paid by applicants from high need downtown areas as as defined in the rules and regulations. This reservation shall be held for payments for MPD use created in the same or approximate neighborhood. The reservation shall take priority over all other purposes of the Special Revenue Fund for a reasonable time as defined by the rules and regulation.
Speaker 2: Okay. Thank you, Councilman. Books for the amendment in those particulars is now time for comments from members of Council on the amendments. Councilman Brooks.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. President. I'm going to I'm going to read. The purpose of this amendment first, and then I'm going to some other comments and also some questions. First, I want to start off by saying Councilwoman Canete has just been very gracious. And after all of the comments last week, we had a great conversation. And I just said, you know, there's still some issues that that I would love to work out. And it's about ensuring that we have these downtown units in downtown. So I'm going to read some some some particularly, but she's been great in helping me get to this point. The purpose of this amendment is to direct the Office of Economic Development to adopt the rules that define a high need downtown area, that require a portion of the payments made in lieu of building affordable units from the area. To be set aside, it directs that fund. Those funds will be set up for a reasonable period of time for the purpose of preserving or creating new affordable housing and paying incentive payments for projects that build affordable units in the defined area, downtown area, or proximate to the don't define downtown area. This this amendment is based on historical data that we receive from OED, as they reported in their annual report for the council record, demonstrating that more than 50 to 52% of its units that were lost in the cash in lieu payments came from the downtown area. Developers in all areas are treated exactly the same under this ordinance. They receive the same incentive payments. If they build, they pay the same buyout amount if they pay in cash instead of building. The only thing this amendment does is to prioritize how the city spends the dollars after they have received. After they are received, we have lost more units to buyouts from downtown than any other high area. So the amendment prioritizes dollars from the downtown for the use of the vicinity when we can in the hopes of making making up for that loss. I also want to point out that in the high zone, if you look at all of the High Zone as proposed in councilman, can each the downtown area is disproportionately affected by that high zone, meaning it's 1800 acres and it's larger than any other high zone in the city. And so for those reasons and many others, I put this amendment forward in working in partnership with Councilwoman Canete, and I hope that my colleagues will support it. I will also say in the particulars that will be in in the rules and regulations, what we're looking at is that this fund, we cannot tap into the existing FHL fund, but this is going forward any, any new projects that buy out in cash in lieu, 50% will be set aside just for this area. It would be set aside for two years, 24 months, and seeing if there's any projects that are in the pipeline, if they're not there, be distributed just as obviously economic development will do any other project. So with that, I'll take questions or comments. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilmember Councilwoman McHugh, Councilman Councilmember Councilwoman Canete.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. President. And I want to share, as the sponsor of this of this ordinance, that I support this amendment. I do appreciate Councilman Brooks working with me. And I think the spirit of allowing some of these particulars, the number of months, the percentage to be again in regulation, just like the other metrics in this ordinance , is a good way to keep consistency that we are allowing us to be more responsive. So I want to thank him for his effort. And as a sponsor, I will be supporting this amendment and urge my colleagues to do the same.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilwoman Lemon.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 7: I will be supporting this amendment as well, because my goal is affordable housing is to get affordable housing near jobs. And this amendment does just that. However, I will be voting against the ordinance because I don't think that it is structured to make a significant difference.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman Lemon. Councilwoman.
Speaker 1: Thank you. I'd like to ask the sponsor just to clarify crystal clear what proximate means. So does that means it's like the statistically. Just explain for us what that means. Yeah.
Speaker 0: So the approximate neighborhoods would be Union Station would be Arapahoe Square, it would be civic center as as defined in the bill. You know, this is you know, we can have a larger conversation. And I think this is why we wanted to not specify it and make it too prescriptive, but we wanted to make it reflective of the downtown area plan.
Speaker 1: So I just want to be clear, are are you using a broad definition of proximate are you actually trying to target a few specific neighborhoods but that you're not? We're using them within the context of the amendment. May I as as the ordinance sponsor. Mr. President, to clarify. Go ahead. Yeah. So, Councilwoman Shepard, I'm chiming in because this word proximate wasn't created for this amendment. It actually exists in the other portions of the ordinance that I worked on. So and the intent really was to allow for logic, really. And so the idea is that it's not strictly defined because what happened before is it used to say the same or adjoining statistical neighborhoods. So for example, Union Station is part of the downtown vicinity, but it doesn't touch Civic Center. And so you couldn't take a unit from Union Station and build it in Civic Center. You wouldn't you would be prohibited because it wasn't close enough. It didn't touch. So the idea was to kind of eliminate the requirement that the statistical neighborhoods have to touch and instead allow the department to make a determination. And so like many things in law, you know, it gets defined either in rules and regulations or through policies of the department. And it's specifically intended to allow for the vicinity of downtown. As as Councilman Brooks said, the downtown area plan, you know, it encompasses a area and it encompasses Arapahoe Square. So if it kind of looks and smells like it's in the area, then there's no reason for us to prohibit units from going from one part of that area to another part of the area. Thank you for the clarification.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman Sheppard. And Councilman, can each. Councilwoman Sussman.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. President. I like Councilwoman Lehman. I'm going to support this amendment, though. I'm not going to be supporting the I. So I do see this amendment as addressing one of the more serious weaknesses of the I show. And I'm happy that Councilman Brooks brought this forward. But still, I think there are other weaknesses that make me feel like I cannot support the whole I echo.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman Sussman, do we have any other comments on the amendments seen on voting on the amendments? Councilman Brooks. Move forward, ma'am. Secretary Roll call.
Speaker 1: Brooks I round.
Speaker 0: Five.
Speaker 1: Fights no carnage i liman i Lopez II Montero I nevett i Ortega I Rob I. Shepherd i. Susman, i. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 2: Couple of thoughts. Madam Secretary, please close the line. And then after a lot.
Speaker 1: Of advice, one day.
Speaker 2: 12 hours, one day, the 65 has passed as amended. Now, Councilwoman Lehman, we need to put 65 on floor to do pass as amended.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. I move the council. The council. It's 625. A series of 14 be placed on the floor for final consideration and do pass as amended.
Speaker 2: So it has been moved and seconded. Do we have any comments from members of Council?
Speaker 6: Councilwoman Ortega It's a question for the city attorney. Do we need to republish this? Is this enough of a substantive change that it requires that?
Speaker 4: David Broadwell, Assistant City Attorney. Since this floor amendment changes neither the title nor the description, the charter and rules do not require republication of the bill. You are free to adopt it tonight.
Speaker 6: Great. I'd like to just make a brief comment.
Speaker 2: Go right ahead.
Speaker 6: First of all, I want to thank Councilwoman Kimmich, the members of the committee that worked with her folks from our Office of Economic Development, Larry Hagman from the city attorney's office for all your work in bringing forward these changes. Councilman Brooks and I had a conversation earlier today about the amendment. The language, I think, reads that gives enough flexibility that if there is a project close enough to downtown, that will benefit workers who work downtown. I think there's that flexibility that our staff will have to ensure that we're not letting projects go by the wayside and have funds in a pot where we can't get these projects done. Again, it does not tap into the existing funds that sit in the pot of money. I think these changes are good. I know we had testimony from people who were here when we had our public hearing expressing concerns. Again, without the ordinance, we wouldn't have seen the Affordable For Sale units created that exist in the city today, many of which were. Offset, if you will. And there are units that are at some of our larger residential development at Lowry, I mean, at Stapleton and out at Gateway. But, you know, we have families that are living in those units now that have benefited from the funds that were created that help offset the cost that got families into those units. Sorry, that's my family. So I just hope that all of my colleagues will allow this to move forward. And the changes that are made, I think, will be good in terms of giving greater flexibility to our city staff to assist in the creation of units, which is really the bottom line of why this ordinance was created in the first place. It was not to encourage more people buying out. It was to encourage units to be built in this city. As we were starting to see high density development and we were starting to see units high density happen all all across the city. So thank you again, Councilwoman Canete and I will be voting yes for this.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega, Councilwoman Canete.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. President. I will keep my substantive comments brief, but I do at the end of this process, need to thank some of the folks who really are here tonight and some of whom are not. But it involved many people getting to tonight, all of whom are critical, all of whom worked hard. Regretfully, more than one of whom missed a piece of their vacations to hit key deadlines or to be at key meetings. Please don't raise your hands. But I need to thank my staff, Laura brzezinski and Fabian. That's on it. The Office of Economic Development. Many of them were here till midnight last Monday, but they pulled data. They educated us on their internal processes and gave feedback along the way. Economic and Planning Systems. David Schwartz was here last week, our legal team, Laurie Heideman and Adam Hernandez, very integral partners every step of the way, not just in drafting, but in every step community planning and development. And we had, you know, industry groups as well as foundations that funded the economic study because we as the city didn't have the funds to fund the studies. So we fundraised for that. I appreciate all the stakeholders, many of whom voted on both sides or commented on both sides, but all of whom I appreciated being at the table from the beginning. And also the constituents. They came to meetings, they sent emails, they made calls, they engaged, they got educated, added a degree I haven't experienced previously. In my three years on council, I heard from a lot of individuals and to my colleagues who voted yes last week and to whom I hope will also be voting this week. You know, it is it is not easy to make policy without unanimity, but it is an important obligation of government. And it's one that I appreciate my colleagues joining me in. We make this policy tonight and I'll just you know, the two summaries from last week were one simply stated, without this ordinance, homes would not be built at this income level. They just wouldn't. So we know that zero homes we built at this income level, without it, we can debate how many, whether there could be more. But period, no homes would get built at this income level without these this ordinance, the complex part, this ordinance does balance a bunch of interests and it lowers production requirements in ways that benefit developers. And that balance is a hard one to achieve. And this is the best balance that we could do in this city. We could create a lot more units if we gave up some of those pieces that impact developers less. But we've chosen not to intentionally, out of respect for the role that private development plays in our economy and the importance of them being able to produce the market rate units. So it's a tough balance, but this ordinance does achieve it. The last thing that I think it requires underlining is the phenomenal thing that occurred in this chambers a week ago, which is that out of 23 speakers, almost every single one of them was unified in the importance of this city. Taking a bigger next step for resources. We have heard from our residents. We every year survey thousands of residents about the city and county of Denver, and we asked them what they like about the city and what their least favorite characteristics are. And last year, the least favorite characteristic our residents noted was the affordability of housing in this city. This is not just about poverty, it is about poverty, but it's not just about that. That issue resonated with all of our constituents. Thousands, thousands of residents were surveyed. The mayor's housing advisor. There have been many mayors and there have been many advisory committees, and each and every one of them has said we need to focus on a revenue source as long ago as 2006. That has been a priority from advisory experts. This council has spoken twice in our annual priorities, stating that revenue is really important. We have a moment, can't create a moment, but sometimes you find yourself in a moment. And, you know, I think that I really have to call on the mayor. We're going to debate in a few minutes his first investment, $3 million into a new fund. And that's really important. But I call upon the mayor to hear the moment that's been created, to hear the unanimity among diverse voices, and to help lead us. We have many ideas. There are many paths we can take, but we do need him to lead us that next step. And I think that we'll have plenty of others that have, at least in the debate last week, said, I'd love to serve on that issue committee or work on that topic. So we have new leaders emerging to join you and that but we need you and I implore you this week that that be something we don't wait on. There are many things the city is always working on, but you don't get moments like this very often. And so I hope that we take it this ordinance tonight. This is about school teachers. It's about security guards, and it's about some of the folks who make our city run. And it's about homeownership. And I am proud of that. It's one piece of the puzzle. And for that one piece of the puzzle, I ask for your votes and support tonight. And I thank all of you who work to help us bring it. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilwoman Kennedy. Councilman Brooks.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. President. Councilwoman McKinney, I feel bad that I didn't mean to get the last word. I wanted to say something before you did, but those are beautiful words. I'll just say this. You know, I met with a lot of folks around this bill, those who were in favor and those who were in opposition. And unfortunate thing. I met with them all in the last week and a half. And I would love I would love to have this be a serious conversation going forward, because the leading thinkers on cities, the the the the urban, the urban ideologists all talk about affordable housing being the number one component to sustainability of the city . And if we don't figure this out in Denver, we're going to be in trouble. And so I want to just put a public service announcement out to all those folks that I met with, many who emailed me, let's figure this out and let's do this together. And I know some folks feel like they want some folks feel like they lost in this debate. But there's a bigger there's a bigger call coming up. This this housing trust is is the big one for the city of Denver. And we've got to figure it out. And so, you know, I just I really call on those folks and then, you know, I echo Councilwoman Canisius call to to the mayor for such a time as this. Now now's the time. We need you. We need the mayoral administration to be on board. This is going to be a big deal. And we need to come to the table. And and I thank you for all those individuals who who came last week who said that they want to be at the table and you will be called on. So thank you for that. And I will say that the mayor has brought a small group of individuals to start looking at the sustainable funding, looking at sources to to get this trust fund going. And and so he has done that. But I think that conversation needs to be brought out into the community. I think there needs to be key stakeholders at the table to make this a reality as well. And lastly, I just want to just highlight comes from can each you know, and this is leadership. You don't always agree in leadership. And and Councilwoman Canete has taken some serious arrows. And as a leader, I just appreciate the way that she's she's kind of walked in the midst of this. And so I want to thank you for your leadership. And we are up here at the dais will not always agree, but we we certainly have to respect leadership and we certainly have to respect those who move from a deep place. And she's certainly done that with this bill. And so I think all of my colleagues as well the conversation although we. Beat this council. Bill, what is it? 625. Like a horse to midnight. The the the debate was rich, and it made me proud of my colleagues up here. So thank you all for for really taking this serious.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilmember. Councilman Brown. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 4: Just as a reminder to my colleagues. Affordable homes are being sold every day in our city. Every day. According to the MLS, what is known as the metropolis. Who keeps tabs of this last year in terms of attached and detached residential properties in Denver only not metro Denver and Denver only. There were 13,724 sales, 13,724 attached, and these detached residential property sold in Denver. Of that number, 7861 were below $300,000. That's 57% year to date. There have been 9039 attached and detached properties sold in Denver. Of the 9039 sold so far this year, 4993 were under $300,000. That's 55% affordable. Homes are being sold every day in our city, to be sure, these are not brand new homes with huge H-2A fees, I might add. Many of these are being sold as fix ups. People buy an ugly duckling and turn it into a swan is called sweat equity. And that's how many of us, including me, got into initially buying homes. I've never lived in a new home and everyone I bought, I fixed up. I saved and fixed up. Saved and fixed up. But that term sweat equity, you don't hear. And that's part of what made our country great. And it's missing. And that's why I'm not going to support this bill. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman Brown. Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. I really appreciate the comments of the folks who went before me. And I really appreciate Councilman Brown's comments as well, too. I would just reply with a challenge, and that would be another question. Affordable for whom? $300,000 is still a lot of money for a home, and there's a lot of people who in Denver cannot even afford that. There's a lot of folks in the recession. In oh eight, oh nine and 2010 that lost their homes. After all that sweat equity, they lost their homes, everything they had. They lost those folks when we saw those names. And I met regularly with Stephanie O'Malley, who was our Kirkland recorder at the time. I saw the list. A lot of people of color and in neighborhoods that were hit the hardest. And it was to neighborhoods to tell to the neighborhoods that really, really got hit hard. Two areas of town below Green Valley Ranch in Westwood and Barnum Little Park. And these are neighborhoods that we think had affordable housing. Well, in some of those neighborhoods during the recession, it was $90,000 for a home, 100 and 110, I think I remember buying my first home on that home now is over $200,000. And do you think those folks who lost their homes in foreclosures can come back and buy that house that they bought for 110 or 90 or 120? I'll come back and throw down 200 grand on a home. I don't even think they'd be able to walk in and get a loan. As a matter of fact, there's a lot of discrimination and a lot of a lot of unethical practices at the bank. When you walk up and you look like somebody from the West Side or from East End and try getting a loan. There's still a lot of uphill battles. There's still a lot of issues that this bill does not address. We scratched the surface with this bill, but let's be real. There is a huge lack of affordable housing for a lot of people. And these are folks who originally have called Denver home for decades and no longer can call Denver home because it's unaffordable. I'm sure I absolutely believe in sweat equity. You folks the opportunity to make things happen, to build the American dream and their home, and they will do it. But unfortunately, a lot of those old homes that you're seeing that are being bought up, folks are renovating, they're not staying there. They're turning around and selling it, making a lot more, and they're not selling it. The folks I'm talking about. And it's become increasingly hard. And it is a problem in Denver when you cannot afford a house in Westwood, Farnham or Globeville. Oh, that is a problem in Denver. And we have a problem. That's just the for sale market when it comes to rentals. Somebody's got to pay for all that granite countertop they put in there and those new homes. Someone's got to pay for that. And that goes on the backs of the renters. It is impossible to find a one bedroom apartment or a two bedroom home or even a three bedroom home. It's impossible to find a three bedroom home for a thousand bucks. And some of these neighborhoods. This is a family. And that's why we need these units built. That's why this is important. I did not like the bill at first because it lets people opt out and lets themselves buy their way out of this. And I don't like that idea. But as my colleague, Councilwoman Kenney, said, this is a mixture of values. This is a reflection of everybody at the table. This is sausage being made. And I as much as I am unhappy with some components of the bill because I don't think they address the problem even one bit. I think this is better than the current. I show that we have that everybody loves to complain about. Everybody takes their kick. This I might as well be happy, not the hanging for everybody to hit with no treats in it. So we might as well if there's something in front of us. And it's not perfect, but it's a fix. This is better than the status quo. This isn't a vote to reauthorize the H0. This is to improve it. You like it the way it is, which I don't know anybody that does. Then vote no. If you want to improve it, if you want a little bit better than what it is and vote yes. The status quo is unacceptable. Thank you, Mr. President. I am in full support of this bill.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Councilwoman Commissioner.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. President. And I want to thank my colleague, Councilman Brown, for raising what's a really fair question about the number of market rate homes. We actually did ask the economists this question and you know the results. BBC research has clearly documented the drop in housing below 300,000 each year that's occurring so that the trend is a downward trend. A number of the new homes being built, infill homes. And you all have seen this in neighborhoods. Right. Are replacing those homes. So the duplex that used to be 180 is now gone. And instead there is a large, you know, 600,000 duplex in its place. So that is a documented trend. And then lastly, sweat equity doesn't buy you a new furnace and it doesn't buy you a new sewer, which as an old homeowner, I'm living my life today. You know, I can do some things yourself. But old homes and and our Denver Urban Renewal Authority knows this very well because they administer the program where moderate income families who have major failures on old homes go and they have ten times more demand than they can serve. Moderate income families may be able to get into a fixer upper, but they can't repair their way out of it. And so so I appreciate the concern and and the point about the older home stock. Lastly, I will just say that, you know, the you I just want to give everyone a really specific amount. This ordinance builds homes beginning at $140,000 for a studio. All right. And, you know, 150 for a one bedroom, 190 for a two bedroom. So that's a world of distance between those numbers and 300,000. So if you were to look specifically at those price points, which are economists did do the age of the housing stock is extraordinarily old and the repair costs are pretty astronomical for moderate income families in this price range. So it's about the trend, it's about the actual price and it's about what you can really afford to maintain. So we did look at those questions because I do think they're fair and they're important. And so this is this ordinance reverses the trend of new production because eventually new production will be where the market is. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilwoman Candace Romney and the comments from members of council CNN that we are voting on the motion to pass 625 as amended. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 1: Can each by layman. Lopez. Monteiro Hi Nevitt. Hi, Ortega Hi Rob no. Shepherd I Susman no Brooks Brown no. Fats, no. Mr. President.
Speaker 2: Kim No. And I think Councilwoman Laney wants to vote again.
Speaker 1: I do. I'm sorry.
Speaker 7: I meant to vote no.
Speaker 2: Go right ahead. All right, Madam Secretary, please call the vote. And now the results.
Speaker 1: Seven, eight, six, nine.
Speaker 2: Seven, nine, six. Nays Councilors 4.5 does pass on final consideration as amended. All right. Our next one, Madam Secretary, I believe, is 596 count out, called out by Councilman Lopez on bills for introduction. Councilman Lopez, what would you like to do with this?
Speaker 4: I just wanted to make some comments. Go ahead. I thank you, Mr. President. 596 as you recall, colleagues was called out last last session so that the parties around the table can meet and confirm, make sure that small details are ironed out. They are in the process of ironing out those details. I just wanted to let you all know that this is okay for moving forward because of its honor. It's on a tight schedule. Any deviation in the process of this bill will kill.
Proposed amendments to Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (IHO) (SAFETY & WELLBEING) Presentation will be followed by 15-minute public comment period The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 8-5-14.