HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-26-1998
l
1
1
f`.
M '
City Council Agenda Packet
May 26,199
i
Y
t
t N
,r 25 32X
I
r ~
V
i
EMS
AGENDA %genda Item
CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL J_
May 26, 1998 e___
After determining that a quorum is present and convening in an open meeting, the City Council
wiil convene ir, a closed meeting of the City of Denton City Council on Tuesday, May 26, 1998
at 5:15 p.m. in the Council Work Session Room at City Hall, 215 E. McKinney, Denton, Texas
at which the following 'Items will be considered:
I. Closed Meeting:
A. Consultation with Attomey-Under TEX. GOVT. CODE Sea. 551.071
` 1, Meet with City Attorney to consider strategy, discuss state appointment
of a representative for possible mediation, and Poo- settlement
authority in litigation styled Denton County Historical rm, Inc. v.
Denton C'ounly, Texas and 00, of Denton. Texas, el at., , No. GC-
98-00098-C filed in the Probate Court of Denton County. : '!ding, but
not limited to issues related to allegations of breach of tract and
ownership of artifacts.
B. Conference with Employees - Under TEX. GOVT: CODE Sec: 55 75. The
Council may receive information from employees during a stall' conference t iriefing,
but may not deliberate during the conference.
ANY FINAL ACTION, DECISION. OR VOTE ON A MATTER DELIBERATED IN A
CLOSED MEETING OR ON 1NFOR.M AI ION RECEIVED IN A CONFERENCE WITH
t:MPLOYEES WILL ONLY BE TAKEN IN AN OPEN MEETING THAT IS HELD IN
COMPLIANCE WITH TEX. GOV'T'. CODE CH. 551. THE CITY COUNCIL RESERVES
THE RIGIiT TO ADJOURN INTO A CLOSED MEETING OR EXECUTIVE SESSION AS
AUTHORIZED BY TEX. GOVT: CODE SEC. 551.001, ET SLQ. (TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS
ACT) ON ANY ITEM ON I"T5 OPEN MEETING AGENDA OR TO RECONVENE IN A
CONTINUATION OF THE CLOSED MEETING ON TIIE CLOSED MEETING ITEMS
NOTED ABOVE. IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT,
INCLUDING. WITItOLT LIMITATION SECTIONS 551.071.551.085 OF THE OPEN
MEETINGS ACT.
Special Called Meeting of the City of Denton City Council on Tuesday, May 26. 1998 at 6:00
p:m, in the Council Work Session Room at City [fall, 213 E. McKinney, Denton, Texas at which
the following items will be considered:
1. I told a public hearing to cnnsider proposed changes to cable television rates charged by
Marcus Cable.
l< 2. Consider a motion to authorize the holding of a City Council meeting outside of City
Ilall.
•J Following the completion of the Slxcial Called Session, the Council will convene Into a Work tD •
Session at which the following items will be considered:
NOT E: A Work Session is used to explore matters, of interest to one or more City Council
Members or the City Manager for the purpose of giving staff direction into whether or not such
matters should be placed on a future regular or special meeting of the Council for citizen input,
City Council deliberation and formal City action. At a Work Session, the City Council generally
k~ .
10 zx
10
25
3
o ,
I
City of Dentoo C:ty Council Agenda
May 26, 1998
Page 2
receives it formal and preliminary reports and information from City staff, officials, members of
City Corr,itittees, and the individual or organization proposing council action, if invited by City
Council ar City Manager to participate -r, the session Participation by individuals and members
of organiza+ions invited to spa±k ceases when the Mayor announces the session is being closed to
public input, Although Work Sessions are public meetings, and citizens have a 'egal right to
attend, they are not public heartnnr, so citizens art: n,)t allowed to participate in the session
unless invited to do so by t:-.e Mayor. Any citizen may supply to the City Council, prior to the
beginning of the session, a written report regarding the citizen's opinion on the matter being
explorvd. Should the Council direct the matter be placed on a regular meeting agenda, the staff
will generally prepare a final report defining the proposed actiot, which will be made available
to all citizens prior to the regular meeting at which citizen inpt : is sought. The purpose of this
procedure is to allow citizens attending the regular meeting the opportunity to hear the views of
their fellow citizens without having to attend two meetings.
L Receive a report and give staff direction regarding the 1998.99 City Council
Supplemental Budget Priority Questionnaire.
2. Receive a report, hold a discussion, and provide instructions to staff regarding annexation
and public service extension policies to areas currently outside the City of Denton
municipal limits.
3. Receive a report, hold a discussion, and give staff instruction regarding proposed changes
to the public notification process for development-related public hearings.
4. Receive a report, hold a discussion, and provide staff direction regarding incentives for
"Aflbrdable Housing".
CERTIFICATE
certify that the above notice of meeting was posted on the bulletin board at the City Hall of the
City of Denton, Texas, on the _ day of 1998 at o'clock
(a.m,) (p.m.)
.n
S '
r '
CITY SECRETARY
NOIE: THE CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION ROOM IS
ACCESSIBLE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE AMERICANS WITII
DISABIL1TIFS ACT. THE CITY WILL PROVIDE SIGN LANGUAGE'
INTERPRETERS FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED IF REQUESTED AY a
LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF THE SCHEDULED MEETING.
k PLEASE CALL THE CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE AT 349.8309 OR USE
R" TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEVICES FOR THE DEAF (1DD) BY CALLING
1.800-RELAY-TX SO THAT A SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETER CAN BE
SCHEDULED THROUGH THE CITY SECRE3 ARY'S OFFICE.
5 x 32X10
, rl r
i
r
r
.........r'...h M"•x/f u.. r+.r ....i~.r, nnri~4LrM}{f1/fwr'.HrWM W4m.\q~+w u. •ya .vl n r ,
r +
Ajenda No i
Agenda Item 55'
AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET Data__
AGENDA DATE: May 26,1998
DEPARTMENT: General Government
CM: Ted Beoavldes
tl. SUBJECT:
Hold a public hearing to consider proposed changes to cable television rates charged by Marcus Cable.
~~;KGROUND:
i' FCC' guidelines provide an opportunity for cable operators to adjust their rates annually. The city has
resci% the applicable FCC Forms from Marcus for a rate adjustment to be made effective
June 1, 1998.
The city is certified to regulate rates for basic cable service (FCC Form 1240) and associated equipment
(FCC Form 1205).
This item will come to the City Council at their Work Session on June 9. Section 8.136 of the city's
code of ordinances requires that a public hearing be held within 90 days of our receipt of the rate filing.
FISCAL INFORNIAIIO
City receives 5510 of gross revenues from Marcus Cable as a requirement of the cable television
franchise.
EXHIBITS:
I. Table; Denton Cable Television Rates
2. C2 Consulting evaluation of FCC From 1240 (May 8, 1999).
3. C2 Consulting amended evaluation of FCC Form 1240 (May 15, 1998)
4. C2 Consulting evaluation of FCC Form 1205 (May 15, 1998).
„ f - rIm Respectfully submitted;
1 Betly Wil erns \ ' f
Assistant to the City Managcr
• Prepared bye • •
I
iJ
1 C~1 Q
Richard Foster ar
Public Information Officer
k ,.I
PewhbleTV/Arendnedughm doe
1 4 E f v,~r ~
iu'
F n ? .
J(~ o~ ~25 x r /32 X
10
L
s..aeaa
0
DENTON CABLE TELEVISION RATES
A $ C D
Retommtaded'
Maximum Maximum
Permitted Rate' Permitted Rate
Exlsllng' (Marcus) Proposed' (C2)
effeclive 6/119 (effective 61119a effective6/1198 effective 611
Basic Rate S 9.88/mo. $9.45 $ 9.45/nso. S 9.44/mo.
Basic Remote Control S .131mo, N/A NIA N/A
Addressable Remote Control S .la'mo. $ .18 S .181mo. S A8lmo.
Non•addressablp. converter $ .95/mo. ! 1.43 S JAYnno. SS 1_19lmo.
Addressable Converter $ 2,57/mo. $3.80 S 3.25/ma. S 3.221mo.
Advanced Analog ConverteP' N/A $4.01 S 7.95lmo. S 3.43/mo.
hourly Service Charge $19,03/hr. $27.49 $27.49/hr. S26.811hr,
Changing Tiers S2.00 $ 2.00 S 2.00 S2,00
f
Cable Showcase"* S14141mo. $16,39 '
➢ Column A consists of actual cable rates from tune 1, 1997, to May 31, 1998
A Column A consists of the maximum permitted rates as calculated by Marcus for the period June 1, 1998, to
Slay 31, 1999
D Column C consists of Marcus' proposed rates for the period June 1, 1998, to May 3 I, 1999
D Column D consists of the maximum permitted rates as calculated by C2 Consulting for the period
June 1, 1998, to May 31, 1999,
Council sets the maximum permitted rate (within FCC guidelines), The two columns detailing maximum permitted
rates are Column B (Marcus' caiwlations) and Column D (C2 Consulting'e calculations),
~1 I
{
i
a Exclusive of 3% franchise fee.
4. Turner Broadcasting System (Channel 18) will move from Basic to Cable Showcase
" Denton systenn currently not capable of using this piece of equipment. r
Expanded tier; rates regulated by FCC ;
.
pICVCWcTVC$bkrVReks4M 2
10 32 10
u
WNSULTING SERVICES, INC.
7801 Pencross (972) 726-7216
Dnllns. Texas 75248 (972) 726-7216 (teat)
May 8, 1998
Mr Richard Foster
Administrative Assistant
City of Denton
213 East McKinney
Benton, Texas 76201
Dear Mr Foster
C2 Consulting Services, Inc. ("C2" 1 has completed its revie v of the FCC Form 1240
submitted to the City of Benton, Texas (the "City") by Marcus Caule ("Marcus" or the
"Company") on or about February 27, 1998 The following report provides a brief
discussion of the, issues noted during the review, and C2's recommendations regarding
potential City Council actions for establishing the maximum permitted monthly basic
service rate.
This study does not constitute an examination of the financial condition of Marcus or its
• parent company Therefore, C2 cannot and does not express any position with regard to
the accuracy or validity of the financial information provided by Marcus during the
course of the analyses,
OVERVIEW OF THE FILING
According to the information provided by Marcus, services received via the Denton
headend total twenty-five basic service channels.' According to the filing, Marcus
• currently charges 59.88 for basic service and proposes to decrease the basic service rate
by S0 43 to $9.45 for the period June, 1998 through May, 1999,
i here are three major factors which explain Marcus's proposed changes in the basic
service rate for the Denton headend: `
I hese eaunts hre as of January, 1998 Marcus is propcsing to move one channel (WT85) from the basic
sm ice tier to Tier . m of June I, 1998
I
3
25 10 32X 0
I
xnmu "
0
I
i
Mr. Richard Fostcr I
May 8. 1998
Page 2
1 Marcus' proposed computation of external costs for the true-up period results
in a three percent reduction to the external costs included in the 1997
projected computations (decrease impact).
2. The impact of removing WTBS from the basic service tier during the
projected period reduces the residual costs and the external costs included in
projected rate components (decrease impact).
3. The net true-up calculation proposed by Marcus shows that the actual rates
charged during the true-up period (June, 1997 through February, 1998) were
in excess of the rates as trued-up in this filing (decrease impact).
ANALYSES OF THE FILINGS
Project Objective, and Activities
The proj(xt objectives are three fold
1, Assessment of the completeness of the filings with regard to he information
and documentation that must be filed with the City.
2 Assessment of the reasonableness of the proposed computations in light of the
City's,prior rate decisions. FCC regulation and recent FCC rulings.
3. Assessment of the reasonableness of the proposed computations in light of the
system specific costs and subscriber data.
Given these objectives, C2 conducted the following project activities:
• Review of the riling to assess the completeness based on the FCC Fonn
instructions
i
• Review of the filing to identify any issues with respect to the data and/or
" methodologies employed by Marcus
• Submission of follow-up data requests and subsequent review of Marcus's i
responses
• Review of recent FCC decisions that may have an impact on Marcus's
proposed methodologies or the City's alternative actions
• • Development of potential alternatives available to the City in establishing
♦ maximun permitted basic service rate
i
I 4
r 2',1) KI~ 32x!0.
i
Mr. Richard Foster
May 8, 1998
Page 3
Summary of Findings
C2 identified three main issues with respect to Marcus's proposed computations of the
basic service rate These are.
I Marcus' proposed computation of programming costs for both the tNe-up and
projected periods do not appear to reflect the costs for the particular period in
question.
2. The supporting documentation provided by Marcus does not support the
Company's proposed copyright fee increase for the projected period.
3. Marcus has incorrectly computed the basic service rate reduction related to the
movemer of WTBS from the basic service ties
1. Computation of Programming Costs
t As you are aware, a major component of the basic service rate is the cost of providing
certain programming services. Based on the Form 1249 formulae, thew costs are
included as external costs; the level of which is projected in a given rate year. In the rate
year following these projections, the estimated external costs are trued-up based on actual
expense
The true-up computations of programming costs provided by Marcus includes the
averaging of both known and estimated programming costs for the last two months of the
true-up period (i.e , January , 1998 throu3h February, 1998). In C2 > opinion, any true-
up computations should not include estimated increases,'decreases in programming costs;
such calculations are contrary to the Form 1240 concept of "true-up". As provided in
FCC Order 93-397, paragraph 79:
as pan of the annual rate change, a 'true-up' mechanism is available to
correct projected cost changes with actual cost changes." (emphasis added]
Therefore, C2 adjusted Mlucus's proposed computation of "true-up" programming costs
! 0 to reflect only costs that ate known. The impact of this adjustment reduces the basic ,
service rate by approximate y %031 ~
i
• ° The "known" costs provided by Mucus wei a based on ,he total costs per subscriber ror the basic service •
tier C2 requested programming costs on a"per channel" basis from Marcus, bn the Company responded
Art that such information was confidential a nd propr elary C2 notes that other cable operators have provided
the" per channel" information which allows for abetter understanding of whether the proposed changes it,,
programming costs are reasontbla
3
:i
26 10 32X I D
0
1
l
1
memo"
Mr. Richard Foster
May 8, 1998
page 4
r! i
2. Computation of Copyright Fees
Copyright fees are also a componen'. of the external costs included in the basic service
rate As with programming costs, actual copyright fees are used for the true-up period,
and the projected period includes an estimated level of expense. Marcus estimated the
projected peond copyright fees based on a five percent (5%) increase over the actual "per
subscriber" true-up period costs.
Based on a review of the anticipated revenge on which the copyright fees are based, a
five percent increase in the amount per subsenber for the projected period does not
appear to bejustifrable,' Because the basic service rata is proposed to decrease by S0 43,
it follows that basic service revenue (on which copyright fees are computed) will also
decline.' Therefore, it is Us opinion that the five percent increase .n the per subscriber
copyright fee should not be allowed. The adjustment reduces the bas;; service rate by
,i approximately 50.003.
3. Residual Cost Impact of Channel Movement
i
Pursuant to the Form 1240 formulae, channel movement from one tier to the other must
be reflected by a transfer of the "residual cost" for that channel. If a , el is being
moved from a particular tier of service, the transfer is calculated based vn the residual
cost shown on Worksheet 4 for the tier in question. Conversely, the tier to which the
channel is being moved reflects the residual of the tier from which the channel is being
moved adjusted for the difference in the number of subscribers between the two tiers.
For example, assume that a channel on the basic service tier is being transferred to Tier 2
service Also assume that the basic service "residual" on Worksheet 4 is S0 50. Finally,
the number of subscribers are 1,000 for basic and 900 for Tier 2, Worksheet 5 should
reflect the following computations.
Basic Service Worksheet 5 Adjustment (S,50) `
Tier 2 Worksheet 5 Adjustment S.50 r "
x 1.000
500 I
+ 900
SO 625
' q
Copyright fees are baud essentially on rbe amount of ro enue received for tim of service that wry
broadcast channels and distant satellite chunets
' C2 is not recommending a "downward" adjustment to the level of copyright fees, because such decline
assumes that the number of subxribers in the true-up period will remain the same during the projected
period Mucus has Included a projected subscriber cNni that reflects a five gaunt increeae over actual
Decemb !0997 997 counts Therefore, any increase in revenue due to the number of subscriben is alrady
taken into account
~r 2x I02YI0 1
i
Wasm.. ,
O
r
Mr Richard Foster
'vlay B, i998
Page 5
C2 noted two errors in Marcus' proposed computation on Worksheet 5 for the movement
of WTBS from basic senice to Tier 2 service as of June I, 1998. First, the Company
computed a residual component (Worksheet 4) that did not take into account the removal
of the channel as of the first day of the projected period. More specifically, the
Company computed the projected per channel residual cost for basic service as if WTBS
will remain on the basic service tier for six months of the projected period. This is
clearly incorrect
Second, the Company computed the adjustment for the basic service tier on Worksheet S
using the computation that should be employed for the Tier 2 adjustment. (See example
above ) The results of correcting for each of these errors essentially offset one another,
with a de minrmat impact on the rate,`
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the above findings, C2 recommends the following adjustments be considered
b r the City in determining the maximum permitted monthly basic service rate!
1. The City should consider adjusting the true-up of programming costs to reflect
only known costs.
2. 'rho City should consider disallowing the proposed increase in per subscriber
copynght fees for the projected period.
J. The CJty should consider correcting the adjustment on Worksheet S to reflect
the date of movement of WTBS and computation of residual impa^t based on
the Form 1240 formulae.
4. The City should consider ordering a maximum permitted basic service rate of
59.42 as compared to the Company's proposed $9.43.
Additional Issues and Recommendations
C2 notes that Marcus has not included any information related to the Tier 2 service.`' As
you recall, these rates are regulated by the FCC, but only in the event that a complaint is
tiled by the franchising authority. Pursuant to FCC regulations, a complaint can be filed
by the franchising authority upon receipt of multiple (more t'ian one) complaints by
subscribers within ninety (90) days ofthe date the rate increase becomes effective.
C2 strongly recommends that the City file the appropriate complaint this year upon
receipt of the required subscriber complaints. As regulation of the Tier 2 rates is
scheduled to "sunset" in March, 1999, a final review by the FCC should be conducted.
The adjustment to Worksheet 4 residual component has a downward impact on the rate, and the
adjustment for Marcus' computation of Worksheet S as if it were for the Tier 2 computation hu an
offsetting increase to the basic service rate
C2 submitted requests for information related to Tier 2 services to which the Compemy responded that
such information was not required by the local franchising authority for purposes of regulation
7
1
0
! t
r
Mr. Richard Foster
May 8, 1998
Page 6
C2 greatly appre dates having this opportunity to work with the City of Denton. If you
have any questions regarding this report, the project activities, or any of the
recommendations, please contact Ms. Connie Cannady at (972) 726.7216.
I ,
Very truly yours,
C Crns .5~ w, "-Ac ,
.AL
1
C2 Consulting Services, Inc
r~
f
r
%
f 1
~ /M d I 'j, r
f l
I ~•~J~ j r Jim a •
'~t+ f r r I , ,
u
t
I t
1 17
r.. R1 9 1 n
A
5♦~ -n;Fk~rr.~ 'aJ x .~32 x 0
C
I
WNSULTING SERVICES, INC.
7901 Penrrass (972) 726-7216
Dallas, Taxes 75249 (972) 726-7216 (tax)
May 13, 1998
Mr. Richard Foster
Administrative Assistant
City of Denton
213 East McKinney
Denton, Texas 76201
Dear Mr, Foster.
C2 Consulting Services, Inc C2•') provides the following amended recommendation
conceming the Form 1240 filing submitted to the City of Denton ("City") by Marcus
Cable ("Marcus" or the "Company") on or about February 27, 1998. As discussed in
Us original reP9r1 dated May 8, 1998, C2 recommended that tht City consider a
max morn permitted basic service rate of 59.42 as compared to Marcus' proposed rate of
59.45. This recommendation was based on the information provided by Marcus on April
7, 1998.
• On May 12, 1998, Marcus provided additional information stating that it had "left-out" a
channel in its basic service channel count f.,r both the true-up period and the projected
period (K)NZ IND). Based on conversations with a Marcus representative, this was an
oversight in the preparation of the channel line-ups originally requested by C2 on March
23, 1998.
Because C2 adjusted the projected period residual costs based on the originally repotted
chanr~:! aunt of 24 (instead of 25 channels as noted in the updated information), the
• adjustment for the residual cast impact of the movement of WTDS must be changed.'
The original adjustments recommended to Worksheet 4 (residual costs) and Worksheet 5
offset one another, with a de mrnimav impact on the rate. However, by changing the
average channel count during the projected period from 24 to 25 channels, the impact on
the rata is an increase of approximately $0016.
• Due to rounding, the computation of the maximum permitted bas c service rate is now p •
59.44: a SO.0I reduction to the Company's proposed rate of 59.45 The discussion
See U report dated May a, 1996 pp 0
9
z
h1
ii~ , i 4 . 1 I [`t
t j t } ,r '
6
' Mr. Richard Foster
f h'lay 15, 1998 '
Page 2 •
provided in the May Ba report still applies. Only the number of channels used in the
adjustment to Worksheet 4 has changed, with the noted dit:erence, in results. ;
If you have any questions regarding the change in C•1's recommendations, please feel free
to contact Ms. Connie C annady at (972) 726-7216.
Very trily yours,
C2 Consulting 5enices, Inc. t'
0
•M1 ,i
~ S
r
Jl
" y Md
} z/i
I t
r
to
'rn a rt'
ra.u~a
0
4 ,
WNSULTING SERVICES, INC. f
7801 Pencross (972) 726-7216
Dallas, Texas 75248 (972) 726-7216 (tax)
May 15, 1998
Mr. Richard Foster
Administrative Assistant
City of Nnlon
215 East McKinney
Denton, Texas 76201
pear Mr. Foster:
C2 Consulting Services, Inc ('U-) has completed the evaluation of the FCC Form 1205
fled by Marcus Cable ("Marcus" or t'r "Company") with the City of Doi on, Texas
("City") on or about February 27, 1998. This is Marcus' first year to file an 'aggregated"
filing regarding its proposed increases in equipment monthly lease rates and installation
and maintenance charges. Because it is, theoretically, an aggregation of costs of all `
Marcus cable system operations, franchising authorities that regulate Marcus' operations
receiw identical rate f,!ings.l As you recall, the Form 1205 is filed once each year, is
based on the most recent fiscal year costs data and is filed simultaneously with the Form
1240. 1he City his original Jurisdiction with respect to the review and regulation of
charges resulting from the Form 1205 computations,
This study does not constitute an examination of the ft.tancial condition of Marcus or its
parent company. As such, C2 cannot and does not express any position with regard to the
accuracy or validity of the ftnauial information provided by Marcus during the course of
the analyses.
BACKGROUND
i In its 1998 Form 1205 filing, Marcus proposes significant inemases in its maximum
permitted lfourly Service Charge (14SC") for installation and maintenance activities, and
in its monthly lease rates for the y:ar June, 1998 through May, 1999. Although Marcus
• has committed to "operator selected rates" for certain monthly equipment lease that • •
' Prior to this year. Marcus filed Form 1205s hosed on the costs'equipment for Mucus Cable Associates, I
LP In its 1998 filing, Manus included Matrus Cable Penners, 11, Marcus Cable of Delaware and
Maryland, LK Marcus Cable of Alabema, LP, and Varcue Cable Associates, LP
i
!1
10 31 x i ❑
e ,
r ,
o
i
x1r. Richud Foslcr
Vac 15. 1998
Page 2
are loner than its proposed maximum permitted rates. in most instances, these operator
selected rates still reflect an average increase over actual 1997 rates of approximately
forty-four percent `
The fulloAing table provides a comparison of Marcus' 1997 rates and the proposed 1998
rates
COMPARISON OF RATES FOR 1991 AND 1998
Marcus MPR' Marcus OSR'•
1991 Rates 1995 Rates 11198 Rates
Hourly Service Charge $1903 $2149 $27.49
Monthly Lease Rates
Basic Remote $0 13 MA NIA
Addressable Remote $0.16 5016 5o in
Non-Addressable Converter $095 51 43 5103
Addressable Conyerter $257 $360 $325
Add Cony With Guide NIA $4.01 5395
'Maximum Permitted Rate
"Operator Selected Rate S
ANALN SES OP THE FILINGS
Project Objectives and Activities
The project objectives are three-fold:
1. Assessment of the completeness of the filings imth regard to thu information and
documentation that must be tiled with the City.
2. Assessment of the reasonableness of the proposed computations in light of FCC
regulation and recent FCC rulings
A 3. Assessment of the reasonableness of the proposed computations in light of Marcus'
• proposed method of aggregation
Given these objectives, C2 conducted the folto%ing project activities:
a Review of the filing to assess the complocness based on the FCC Form
+ instructions
e Reviely of the filing to identify any issues with respect to the data an&or
methodologies employed by Marcus 0 •
• Submission of follow-up data requests and subsequent review of Marcus'
responses
7 Fur all remotes, basic anJ eddressabte
ih
12
2 6 1 32 X d
C
\Ir. Richard Foster
\lav 15. 1998
Page 3
• Conduct of folIow.up telephone conv ersations with Marcus' representatives to
discu:,s identified issues
• Review of recent FCC deccions that may have an impact on Marcus'
proposed methodologies or the..)ty's alternative actions
e Development of potential altematives available to the City in establishing
maximum permitted equipment and installation rates
Summary of Findings
C2 identified four main issues whh re3peci w Marcus' proposed computations of
maximum permitted equipment and i1stallation rates, The issues are,
e Marcus inappropriately included costs in the computation of "Tools" on
Schedule A that results in a "double recovery "
e Marcus inappropriately included an approximate twenty percent inventory in
conveners,
a Marcus inappropriately included one-time terminal placement cost in the
depreciation expense for conveners.
a Marcus inappropriately included depreciation expense without an offsetting
entry to the accumulated r6ccme for deprceiation. '
A. Inappropriate Costs Included in "Tools"
In its computation of the Schedule A cost components, Marcu, has included in the
"Tools" category, costs related to what is termed as "Customer Billing Equipmerit
Hased on Marcus' response to a request for information, there costs are
"The costs of purchasing billing related equipment and software
Marcus has allocated the total balance in this account based on the number of equipment
` basket related service calls during the year 130,3940)
1 C2 takes issue with the inclusion of these costs for the following reasons:
1. It appears that Mt,xus did t,,%t -w.bundle" such costs into the equipment
basket during the "unbundling' 1:u:ess and therefore, inclusion now would
result in a double recovery.
2. Marcus has not employed a reasonable cost allocation methodology.
As you recall, Sammons Lommunications, Inc. was the cable operator at the time when
the FCC Form 1200iform I i. i was riled with the City. Through the process of ,
''unbundling" the costs for the equitrnem basket from the monthly programming services
rates, the installation and equipment costs were permanently separated as a "stand-alone"
See Lener deed May 11. 1998 Rom Marcus Cable to C2
f
13
2~ K
10
:2Xx
1 0
s
• o
1 ,
W Richard Foster
%lay 15. 1998
Pape 4
' computation each subsequent year. Due to the formulae by which the "unbundling" was
calculated, any costs that were already incurred (or continually incurred each year) that
were not included in the equipment basket computation, were, by default, included in the '
computation of the monthly programming rates. And, because the monthly programming
rates "roll forward" with each new filing, these costs are permanently included in these
monthly rates, plus have inflation added with each filing,
Based on the analyses and data provided by Marcus during a review of its 1995 Form
1205 (shortly after the purchase of the system from Sammons Communications, Inc) it
appears that Sammons did not "unbundle" the costs for customer billing equipment, nor
did Marcus include these costs in its 1995 computation of Schedule A, However, this
year, Marcus has included approximately S442,000 in the calculation of the HSC (impact
ot'approximately 5069)
The data reveals that these capital costs are not new, do not appear to have been
"unbundled" wring the Form 1200, Form 1205 process, and were not even included by
Marcus in its "first" Form 1205 for the system To allow the Company to recovery these
costs now in its Form 1205 would provide for a "double recovery" of these expenses
from subscribers,
In its decision DA 96.1753, the FCC fiuno .h respect to the issue of double recovery"Because,TCI did not include these cost> i its prey pus Form 1205 used for the
Form 1200 unbundling, including the cost, i result in a double recovery
of the costs, once in the monthly programming service rates and again in the
convener charges themselves. Allowing these costs permits an operator to
identify 'overhead' costs for the equipment basket it had not unbundled when the
initial rates for monthly programming services were established."'
"I he FCC went further in a 1997 decision
"When TCI-SL files Form 1205, in 1994 and 1995,'fCl-SL did not include these
insurance costs in its calculation of equipment basket costs. "T"hese costs,
therefore, were recovered in program service rates. In assigning these costs now
to its equipment basket, TCI-SL should have deducted them from its program !
service rates, otherwise TCI-ST, would be recovenng thes costs Twice."s
Even if Marcus could demonstrate that these costs were, in fact, "unbundled" from the
monthly programming services rates, and would not result in a "double recovery," the
Company clearly has not used an appropriate allocation factor to assign such costs to the
equipment basket Service calls conducted during the fiscal year do not appear to have
i any relationship to the billing activities other than particular service calls are billed to the d •
: '01 Cable ~ i firmi uJ Vewda, /m, i'rHrad Aided Order DA 96.1133, reWed October 30, 1996, paragraph
16
l0 Cable-rlMon r,JSr. loves Order DA91.2009, released September 29, 1991, paragraph 20
14
SKI 32 X
Ia
0
\Ir Richard Foster
\lay 15. 1998
Page 5
subscribers. However, most other sex ices received by the subscribers are also billed;
regulated programming, premium chance) programming, pay-per-view programming,
potentially digital programming, etc. A more appropriate allocation fRtor would be
based on the transactions that are actually billed, including any adjustments that occur
due to billing inquiries.
Based on Us review, Marcus has not supported the reasonableness of including the
costs for customer billing equipment, Therefore, C2 recommends that such capital costs
be excluded from the computations made en Schedule A in the "Tools" category.
I
B. Excessive Inventory
Pursuant to a request for information, the Company rsponded that the capital costs
shown on Schedule C represented a twenty percent (20%) inventory of converters' As
stated in the response:
1
" Approximately 10% of this inventory represents new converters purchased at
the end of 1997 to be implemented in rebuild areas in the first quarter of 1998."
emphasis added} 1
Based on the form 1205 instructions, the gross book value of equipment included on
Schedule C can include:
the cost of a reasonable number of spare customer equipment units that the
operator keeps on-hand as replacements for broken equipment
i
Pursuant to the formulae, the operator would include the capital costs of such "spare
units" without reflecting these units as "in service" on Line C of Schedule C. The result
is a higher per converter cost in order to compensate the operator for the requirement of
ha%ing "spare units" to easily replace damaged or non-functioning units.
I lowevcr, a twenty percent inventory of equipment, of which most is scheduled for active
deployment within the calendar quarter following the test year end, does not appear to
satisfy the classification of "spare units," but rather appears to be the acquisition for
immediate use. Therefore, if Marcus is going to include the capital costs, then there
should be some portion of the units that are considered "in-service" since not strictly
acquired as spares,
The FCC has taken the position that it is the burden of proof of the cable operator to
support any level of equipment inventory. As noted in FCC Consolidated Order DA 95-
720 ji ° See Lever detr,l Msy 11, 1996 from blucue Cebtc e C2
Form 1205(Revi5ed August 19%) Instructions for Schedule C Capital Costs of Leased Equipment, Line
D
i
15
a.;
- .a ?5 K 32XI❑
I I
c
6
%tr Richard Foster
Stay 15. 1996
Page b
'9n rate regulation proceedings, the cable operator, not the franchising authority,
bears the burden of proof. The determination of whether a cable operator should
be allowed to recover the costs of allegedly excess inventory in its rates is an
issue to be left to the discretion of the local franchising authority, and we will not
disturb the findings of local franchising authorities if there is a reasonable basis
for its decision.""
In the above matter, the local frao%;hising authonty adjusted the gross book and related
capital accounts to eliminate "exccs5 in:antory" as not being appropriately paid for by
current equipment users. In the instant filing, however, the circumstances are sLch that
the capital accounts should not be reduced, but rather, the "in-service" counts should be
increased to reflect the immediate planned deployment of the units. Although the
computation is different in the two cases, the result is essentially the same the inventory
(the costs of units not included as "in-service') is reduced to a more reasonable level.
C2 adjusted the inventory to reflect a ten, xrcent (10°0) level rather than Marcus'
propo,,d twenty percent (20%) inventory. based on Marcus' response, C2 computed
seventy percent of the inventory as new addressable converters with the remaining
inventory comprised of non addressable units Assuming that one-half of these units are
necessary as "spare" under the FCC definition of reasonable inventory, the remaining
half has been included as part of the in-service counts for the respective converter types.
Because the adjusted converter lease rate computation now includes these estimated
additional units as "in-service", a reduction to the gross book and related capital accounts
for such excessive inventory is not required 9
C. Installation Es pence inappropriately Treated as Capital Costs
According to information provided by the Company, Marcus had included what it has
termed as "One time cost incurred for terminal placements in rebuild areas."10 Marcus
stated that these installation related costs have been included as depreciation expense for
the addressable converters because
. it is 100°'o related to the addressable converters and, due to forth limitation,
there is not a separate line item far these costs." I i
The FCC Form 1205 instructions provide the following description of costs that are to be
included as depreciation expense on Schedule C
"tYawn tfrdur. Ine J h u tiarao table, Consolidated Order DA95.720, released April 5, 1995
40 had determined that the twenty percent Insenion was strictly related to "spare units," the
adjustment would be to reduce the capital accounts for ecressive inventory rather than to increasethe
number ofunits in-service Because these units appear to lase been purchased for Immediaiedeployment,
the adjustment to the in-service unit counts seems morn reasonable
See Lener dated May I t, 1995 horn Marcus Cable in C2
See Marcus response to request for infotmation, item 024, dated April 7, 1999
IG I
7WIM
211) 10 32XIO
,,axr.xa.
A
a~
l
xtr Richard Foster
s
%1ay 15. 1998
Page 7
"Enter here your current provision for depreciation based on the year-end balance j
for the equipment included on this Schedule
Clearly, this definition does not provide for installation activity costs to be included as a
capital component By doing so, the computation proposed by Marcus results in a !
recovery of converter asset costs that is greater than the actual total cost of the asset. In
C2's opinion, this is not the intent of capital recovery on Schedule C. In fact, the entire
premise of the Form 1205 is to recover "actual costs" related to customer premises
equipment
the FCC has ruled on a number of occasions concerning cable operators' attempts to
include additional costs as depreciation expense For example, in FCC Order DA 96-
2105, the FCC found:
''Our rules do not provide for the amortization that TCI included in its
depreciation expenses on FCC Form 1205. Because TCI's methodology was l
improper, we find that the Cities were correct in disallowing that amount in TCI's
equipment rates. "12 !
On the other hand, the FCC has ruled that certain additional costs can be included as
depreciation expense on the Form 1205 (that are not specifically identifed in the
instructions). However, these additional costs are directly related to depreciation
expense. For example, in FCC Order DA 96.1236, the FCC found
"However, where there is an unusual number of lost items which are not provided
for in depreciation rates, a reasonable adjustment may be made to recover the
costs The Commission also recognized that local franchising authorities would
need to be able to assess the reasonableness of such adjustments. Thus, where the
recovery over the next year would not cause an unusual rate spike, the
Commission required operators to make an adjustment to its current deprm arion
by including any unusual losses in the depreciation expense reported" 1'
The issue in this case was whether the cable operator should be allowed to include an
amortization of substantial write-offs of converters and remotes Clearly, the FCC's
• position with regard to allowing these costs was that the operator was requesting recovery
of the "actual costs" of the equipment that was no longer going to be available for use
l he terminal placement activity costs cannot even remotely be classified as related to the
"actual cost" of the comerters. The costs have not been capitalized into the converter
accounts, but rather are being proposed as a one-time recovery through the depreciation
• 2 lt'/ MR of Houmorr, Inc. Consolidated Mernoruldurn and Order. DA 96-2 105. released Deeember 13, O
1996, paragraph I The hgue here was TCes inclusion of alleged' unf6nda' deferred income tax in the
fry current provision of depreciation on both Schedule A and Schedute C, The Cities argued, in pert that the
instructions for the Form 1205 did not ptuOdt for such inclusion in depreciation
! Am Cuhlew.von, Memorandum Opinion end Order, DA 96.1236, released August 14, 19%
17
75K.~~ 32JO
c
i
'r. Richard Foster
%Iav 1!. 1998
Page B
expense, Even if Marcus could justify these expenses as asset related pursuant to the
definitions provided by the FCC regulations, the costs should be amortized over the life
of such asset. 1{owever, in C2's opinion, the Company has not justified the treatment of
these costs as a depreciation expense and, therefore, such costs should be disallowed in
the computation of the comerici lease rates
D. Inappropriate Balance of Accumulated Reserve forbepreciailon
Pursuant to the Form 1205 formulae, cable operators are authorized a return on the net
book value of remotes and converters as a component of the monthly lease rates. As you
are aware, net book value is computed by subtracting the accumuldted reserve for
depreciation from the gross book costs for the assets. This reserve includes all amounts
previously recovered through depreciation expense,
Based on C2's initial review of the asset account balances and the depreciation expense
being requested on remotes and conveners, it appeared that a portion of the current
provision fordepreciation was not reflected in the accumulated reserve. The result of this
is that the Company not only receives the depreciation expense, but alio receives a return
on that portion not included in the accumulated reserve balance.
Marcus reviewed the computations and determined that, in fact, there was an error, On
May 14, 1998, Marcus provided a revised computation of the accumulated reserve
balances for remotes and each type of converter. C2 accepted these corrected
computations and has incorporated them into the overall calculations on Schedule C.
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
• 3ased on the above findings and conclusions, the City should consider taking the ,
following actions,
1. Establish a maximum permitted Hourly Service Charge of $26.81_
2. Accept Marcus' proposed $2.00 rate for the changing of tiers of service.
A
3. Accept Marcus' proposed maximum permitted monthly lease rate for
remotes of $0.18
4. Adopt a maximum pem ined monthly lease rate for non-addressable
com erters of S 1.19,
S Adopt a maximum permitted monthly lease rate for addressable converter +
• of $3.22
jV-1 6 Adopt a maximum permitted monthly lease rate for addressable converter
with the Navigational Guide of 5343.
18
10 32X
r Sal i i; ~ (
~ s
a0\ ~
f
S ~
i
Mr. Richard Fouer
Slay 15, 1995
Page 9
C2 appreciates having this opportunity to work with the City of Denton in review of the
Form 1205 rates. If you have any questions regarding this report or need clarifications as
to the recommendations, please contact Ms. Connie Cannady at (972) 726-7216.
1
Very truly yours,
l C2 Consulting Services, Inc.
F
1
S r-
r
,
t ;
i
,
~ r r
t.
z
19
A IT
T X, 10 32X 1 11
i ,
1,. e
,ate.
0
A9ehda Nu,~ L r_
Agenda Item_ SJ #
Date~„1~ „
AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET
Y '
AGENDA DATE: May 2b, 1999
DEPARTMENT: City Manager's Office
CM: Ted Benavides, City Manager
c.
SUBJECT
i
Consider a motion to authorize the holding of a City Council meeting outside of City Hall.
BACKGROUND
On August 5, 1997 the Council adopted Ordinance No, 97-220 which allows the holding of Council
meetings outside of City Hall under certain circumstances. This was in accordance with section 2,05 of
the City Charter and section 4.1 of the Rules and Procedure of the City Council. The orainance indicates
that the Council may hold meetings in places away from City Hall so long as the Mayor announces the
location of ghat meeting at the City Council meeting immediately preceeding the meeting to be changed,
and a motion or s:,nple resolution is approved by at least four members of the Council. Cn Friday, May
29`h through Sunday, May 31", the Council will be holding its annual planning session at the Marriott
Solana in Westlake. Approval of this motion will allow compliance with Ordinance No. 97.220.
Ordinance No. 97-220, section 2.05 of the Charter and section 41 of the Rules and Procedure are attached
for your information.
Respectfully sub fitted:
e nifer Iters 1
ty Secr ary
1 ,
~ a 32XIO
I,
r
V ,
i n
O
l
4
and"
I
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CITY COUNCIL, UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES 4
SET FORTH HEREIN, TO HOLD MEETINGS OUTSIDE OF CITY HALL; VALIDATING
PREVIOUS MEETINGS AND ACTIONS; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City Hall or the Denton Municipal Building Is In the process of being
i renovated and is not available for City Council meetings during the period of renovation due to
lack of appropriate space to accommodate ell members of the public, lack of proper access to
persons with disabilities and due to potential dangers and inconvenience to the members of the
general public during construction; end
WHEREAS, the City Council from time to tine may need to hold meetings away from
City 1 fall to serve the public Interest; NOW, THEREFORE,
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS:
$EQ11Q A. The City Council, for the period from July I, 1997 until the Council
('lumbers In the City hall at 215 East McKinney Street, are completely renovated and ready for
public use shall hold all its meetings in hie Police Department Conference Room, the Central
Jury Room ai d other areas of the Denton Municipal Complex at 601 East Hickory Street,
Denton, Texas, unless it direcls the taeelings be held in another location by ordinance or
resolution.
I '
jECtiQN li That the City Council shall hold meetings on the budget beginning at 9;00
a in on August 8 and August 15, 1997 in the Golden Eagle Suite in Ih: University of North
Texas Union Building it Prairie at Avenue A, Denlon, Tex+s.
KUQii H In accordance with section 2.05 of the City Charter and section 4. i of the
Rules and Procedure of the City Council, the City Council aisy Rom lime to time hold joint
• meetings with the Denton Independent School District, workshop meetings, retreat and budget
meetings and regular and special meetings in places away from City hall that are readily
accessible to all members of the public so long as the Mayor announces the location of that
meeting it the meeting of the city council immediately proceeding the meeting and, a motion or
simple resolution is spf,oved by at least four members of the Council, approving ,he meeting
site All such meetings shall be held In accordance with Chapter $51 of the Government Code
• O •
_$L_MQN IV, All previe,us meetings and all actions taken at those meetings held at a
location other than the City Hall at 215 East McKinney Street, Including, without limilation, any
joint meetings with the Denton Independent School District and the Denton Planning
Commission, any workshops or relreals, are hereby affirmed, ratified and approved.
2
r
3 2 x I C]
A
tVii1Z1
0
i
~ t
i
, .c ,...:,u.xw•.u~r ..~.mr.su rAarrel..~~rAh.1'INMtWtav.rkWt»a.ww. w.vw .w~,...
SECTION V. That this ordinance shall become effective Immedialely upon Its passage
and approval
i
PASSED AND APPROVED this the ,2--~- day of
1997,
)AC ILLER, MAYOR
ATTEST:
JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY ,
19 Y:
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY
1 I
BY: I
1
'i
y
1
1 ~1
5
I
3
%
32X
10 a'h
s
.aawesa
• o
i
saws
i
CIURTER 11 2,06
law, bat shall not interrere with the menagerie) duties and responsibilities of the city man-
nger. The mayor shall have all the same powers and privileges as any other eouncilmember, '
Including entitlement to vote upon all matters considered by the council, but shall have no
veto power. The aoincil shall, as soon as possible after the annual election, elect from its
memberehip a mayor pro tem. The mayor pro tem shall act as mayor durirg the absence or
disability of the mayor and If a vacancy occurs shall became mayor for the completion of the
unexrired term,
10rd. No. 79.88, 12, 12.11.79, ratified 1.19.80)
Sec, 2.04: Vacancies in council.
Where a vacancy in any place on the council shall occur, the vacant place shall be filled
by a special election, and, where necessary, by a runoff election, In the same manner as
provided in this charter for the regular election or the councdpenon. Such special election
shall be held on a Saturday within ixty 160) days following the creation of the vacancy, and
ilia runoff election, where necessary, shell be held an the fourteenth day alter the preceding
election; provided, however, that where a vacancy shall occur within one hundred and twenty
11201 days or a regular election, no special election to fill the vacant/ shalt be called, unless
more than one vacancy occurs,
(Ord. No. 70.12, Amend. No. 2, 4.6.761
Sec. 2.06. Meetings of the council.
(e) On the second (2nd) Tuesday In April, or as soon thereafter as practicable, the council
shall meet at the city hall and the newly-elected members shall quallry and assume the duties
oroffice. Thereafter, (he council shall meet regularly st such limes as may be prescribed by its
rulps but not ices frequently than once each calendar month. All meetings ortho council shall
C be held at the city hall unless the council shall by ordinance or resolution designate another
place.
Ib) Special meetings shall be called by the city secretary upon request of the mayor, city
mannger, or a majority or the members of the council,
(0 The city manager shall attend all meetings of the council and may take part In the
di.ncuselon of all matters coming before the council but shalt have no We.
(Ord. No. 79-86, 12, 12.11.70, ratined 1.19.80)
Sec. 2.06. Quorum, voting.
(a) A majority of the members of the council shalt conAltute a quorum for the transaction
or buelneer, and the of*irmelive vote or a majority or the nmncll shall be necessary to repeal
nny ordinance or lake any official action In the name of the city, except as otherwise provided
0 in this Charter or by the general laws orthe State of Texas. 0
ib) The ayes and noes shall be taken upon the passage of all ordinances of resolutions and
ilia vote or each member shall be recorded In the minutes.
10rd. No, 76-12, Amend. No. 3,1.6.76; Ord. No, 70-50, 12, 12.11.711, ratified 1.1980)
4
r
32 X
0
I
i
(o) No staff member, other than a staff member having the
floor, shall enter Into any discussion either directly or indirect-
ly without permission of the presiding officer.
3.7 Citizensi
(a) Citizens are welcome and invited to attend all meetings
of the Council, and will be admitted to the council chamber up to
the fire safety capacity of the room.
(b) ' All citizens will refrain from private conversations in
the chamber while the council is In session.
(c) Citizens attending Council meetings shall observe the
same rules of propriety, decorum, and good conduct applicable to
the administrative staff. Any person making personal, impertinent,
or slanderous remarks or who becomes boisterous while addressing
the council or while attending the Council meeting shall be removed
from the room if the sergeant-at-Arms Is so directed by the presi-
ding officer, and such person shall be barred from further audience
before the Council during that session of the council.
(d) Unauthorized remarks from the audience, stamping of
feet, applauding, whistles, yells, and similar demonstrations shall
not be permitted by the presiding officer, who shall direct the
Sergeant-at-Arms to remove such offenders from the room. In case
the presiding officer shall fall to act, any member of the Council
may move to require him or her to act to enforce the rules, and the
affirmative vote of four (4) members of the Council shall require
the presiding officer to act.
(e) No placards, banners or signs of any kind will be
permitted in the Council chamber except exhibits, displays and
visual aids used in connection with presentations to the Council,
provided that such exhibits, displays and visual aids do not
disrupt the meeting.
7.4 Enforcomenti The City Manager, in the absence of a
• designated law enforcement officer, shall sot as sergeant-at-Arms
for the Council, and shall furnish whatever assistance is needed to
enforce the rules of decorum herein established.
1.5 Beating rrangem n i The City Secretary, city Manager
and Clty Attorney shall occupy the respective seats In the council
chamber asslggnod to them by the Mayor, but any two or more members p
of the Counoil may exchange seats.
4. TYpaA Of MEETINdg
4.1 Regular Meg ng41 The council shall meet at seven
/J o'clock p.m, on the first and third Tuesday of each month or at any
5
r
M
o
I
VAWA:M
i
I
i v
other times set by the Council, unless postponed or canceled for
valid reasons. All regular meetings of the Council will be held in
the Municipal Building at 215 East McKinney Street, ur such loca-
tion as the city council may by motion, resolution or ordinance
l designate.
4.2 Special Meatineai Special meetings may be called by the
Mayor, the City Manager, or by any three members of the Council.
The call for a special meeting shall be filed with the city Secre-
tary in written form, and he or she shall post notice thereof as
provided by law.
4.3 WorkshopNjg}ingai Workshop meetings or work sessions
may be called using the same procedure required for special meet-
ings. (Ste Soo, 4.2) The purpose of the vorkshop meeting is to
discuss or explore matters of interest to the City, to meet with a
City Board, Commission or Committee Members, City staff or
officers of civic organizations, governing bodies or individuals
specifically invited to the session by the Mayor, Council or city
Manager. These meetings are informational and normally, no final
action shall be taken unless the posted agenda indicates otherwise.
Citizens or other interested persons attending the work session
will not be allowed to participate in the session unless invited to
do so by the Mayor. Citizens should be advised of the nature of
the work session and that tneir input may be received and consid-
ered at a regularly scheduled council meeting where the agenda pro-
vides for final action to be taken on the matter. The purpose of
this procedure is to allow the citizens attending the regular
meeting the opportunity of hearing the views of their follow
citizens in a more formal setting. Any citizen may supply the City i
council a written statement or report regarding the citizen's
opinion on a matter being discussed in a work session. If the
mayor invites citiesno, to participate in a work session, their
particippation will cease at the point the Mayor closes the session
to publlo Input to allow the Council to give City staff direction
as to needed information for the possible future meeting without
distracting Comment from the audience.
4,4 EZQL_Q tinsel in case of emergency or urgent
public necess ty, wh Ch she11 be expressed in the notice of the
meeting, an emergency meeting may be called by the Mayor, the City
Manager or by three members of the Council, and it shell be ouC-
ficlent if the notice is posted two hours before the meeting is
crnvened.
4.5 Closed set =I The Council may most in a closed
meeting pursuant to the requirements of the Texas Open Meetings
Acts Chapter ►,S1s TEX. GOVOT CODE ANN. (Vernon 1934), as amended.
6
32 X I II
e
rNSr~w '
' r dS vY-.,l.I~r..•. rv HYi'i,PM .a. ....n n. ~
,
o/J
Agenda No._7V Q
AGENDA 1NFORSIATION SHEET Agenda Item
Bate
AGENDA DATE: Slay 26, 1998
DEPARTMENT: Finance '
CMlDC'M/ACM: Kathy DuBosc, Assistant City Slanager of Finance
S MUC
REC'IAVE A REPORT AND GIVE STAFF DIREC11ON REGARDING 'FHE 1998.99 0 rY
C'OUNCI1. StTPLEMENTAL BUDGET PRIORITY QUE.SIIONNAIRE
BAC'KGROUN'D
Attached is the 1998.99 Supplemental Budget Priority Questiom sire. This questionnaire was
completed after the Slay elections to provide the new City Council members an opportunity to
provide input into the City's annual operating and capita) improvements budgets for the next
year. Please indicate your preference for the City's efforts in the 199R-99 budget year by
completing both sections of the supplemental priority questionnaire.
Section A allows you to circle the number in each rov that corresponds to the level of effort you
feel is necessary for each service area. (c g.. A response of 5 in regards to recycling efforts p
would indi...tc that a Council member would like to increase the Uly's current efforts toward ;
recycling programs.)
Section 11 allows you to attach a priority to each response in Section A by indicating a priority
rank or I through 7 ( I =low; 7=high) for each service area, For axample, suppose the response in
Section A for litter programs was to continue the current effort (4). and the priority response in
Section 11 was a high t71. This combination would indicate that this particular Council member
was satisfied with the City's current c1lort in litter programs although litter programs are a high
priority sea ice area for this Council member.
[Tease note that the 1997-91! Annual Program of Scrsiccs includes both workload and
prodUL6%it) measures for each City division. 7 his information is uscral in determining how well
each division is doing in relation to their stated Coals and Objectives. 1 his information may be
useful while completing the supplcnuntal budget priority questionnaire. Each Council member
0 should have a copy of the 1997.98 Annual Program of Services. If you need another ropy,
please advise
Pica~c complete and MUrn the attached questionnaire to the Budget office by Tuesday. June 2,
1998. Discussion of the questionnaire is scheduled for Tuesday. June 9, 1998, If I can provide
d you with any assistance, please call me at 349-8535, 1
y, . PRIOR A(IffLN
Not applicable.
1
7~ X ICI 32 XIC~
7 CAM
"A M ` -
f 4. b r 1 • A r '.t Y r
;,IO~IQrY i
.r'e ! t :1 L b T~
,
l
FISCAL INFORMATION
G;~ t
Not applicable,
XI)i IBIIS (If applicable)
I `,L e
Supplemental Budget Priority Questionna're.
4 Respectful su mined:
fi
~i J n Fortun ~
Director of Management and Budget
j
1 ~Y
I F
I
?i
i v
r.
1
l
r
I yr i ~
i
K ~ ,l
r t
2
F
32 X I O
I
, s.
',.4 1 Y ! N 1 9 lA % ~ i
s
t~ 5•
0
1
4
t.l J
I , r_ •.-r wsurb++v.rn. _ _ .+w w.... F..1a>s~ ..•v. Yr..++r.YfH1Y~M skxWYlw.. JYnylr. ~ ,
.p
1 M.:
1.
1r ~
INSTRUCTIONS '
QUESTIONNAIRE
GET PRIORITti
BC D
' SUPPLEMENTAL
1999- 99 BUDGET
s
Please indicate your preference for the City's efforts In the upcoming 1996.99 budget year by
3 completing both sections to the priority questionnaire.
Section A allows you to circle the number In each row that corresponds to the I:vc I of effoR you
feel necessary for each service area (e.g., a response of S In regards to recycling efforts would
' Indicate that a Council member would like to Increase the City's current efforts towed recycling
Programs)
~s
Section B allows you to attach a priority to each response In section A by indicating a priority
rank of I through 7 (1-low; 7-high) for each service area. For example, suppose the response in
section A for litter programs was to continue the current effort (4), and the priority response in
section B was a 7 (high). This combination would indicate that this particular Council member
wss satisfied with tho City's current effort In litter programs although lira programs are a high
priority senice area for this Council member
I
,
I
! J
3
~ y
~ataau
q
iiliT? f y4'3i'~t~+r`~y~Ri~fu$~~'~•f~1Fw~1~~1Ser"~SRWI~C*f~,NlAhff'!i'LSD/MrM'~FWOOMetl~a'ecM~a.'~tiw.pmM+.
CITY COUNCIL SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET PRIORITIES QUESTIONNAIRE
1998.99 BUDGET
Please cotleee bo(h Seetlons A and A according to the Instructions on 16e cover a e n a.y .rn.e r Mwt PI LIA' st P?QV 9VI2N6
r r . j i t. 'r' frt lYyry~4 ~ y i +~y rr ~ r Fa?~ 1 tj w :!.✓~~/~~J
sErrl~NA 11 M1fy, 1 rr, y~y ~:i rlc ~ ~ ~11« ° Y 7n1. V ,a, ?l~~.' ~ n, k ~ ~ ' } a 7
' . > 1}}`~.F v~~~~~1'ff-,T~' rGjv :~"~7~ y~'~.,,vN ^f ~~~y~~~ fr ~+$Fy~~y~~ ~ ~ ~ r: . ~K7n f /r . , rf'~14 ,A~~~;+"~i,Saalf'~ y y1, r
~W° i ~jv,',S ~1~ 4r rfltt•6 ryp ~n• i .~,4L{t Aga ,J'>,'~. kr ~y,~ i 1 KRI le~tR . y.
~.i'~3d~i'''~. r r i ltkb~ ~K ~t l~~xt° .),h ~~~w y'•.ft;.~. k ~fc 4
V E.
IN II AM
Public Surety T) Senlces
A) Police Palrol 0 1 2 3 4 S 6 7
El) Crime Tnvcstit_ flan _ 0 1 2 3 4 3 6 7
C) Drug Abuse'Errorcement Programs 0 1 2 3 4 S 6 7
D) Cummunity Oriented Pulieing (COP54 0 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 f
11 Parkin)y"rraflicEnforcement 0 1 2 3 4 S 6 7
r) fire Prevention 0 1 2 3 4 3 6 7
(j) ['.mer enc Medical (Ambulance) _ 0 1 2 3 4 3 6 7
11) [ire Su Messior - 0 1 2 3 4 3 6 7
r 1) I:mcr cnc Prc_arcdncss Mara ement) 0 1 2 3 4 S 6 L-
1) 1nsironmental}lealth(Inspections,NcL_ 0 1 2 3 4 S 6 1
K) _Anlmal Control 0 1 2 3 4 S 6 7
1) Slwdci alC'oun 0 1 2 3 4 3 61
M) Jusenile Justice 5)stem 0 1 2 3 4 3 6 7
• N) Auto 1 hell Prevention Programs 0 t 2 3 4 S 6 7
O) Children Oriented Sarely Programs 0 1 2 3 4 S 6 7
Public Works Type Services
A) Street Slainrenanee Repair 0 1 2 3 4 3 6 7
11) StrectConstruction'Rebuildi_ ny-- 0 1 2 3u 4~ 3 6 7
• C). S(rc,:t5tsecpi~j 0 1 2 3 4 _s 6 7
D1 1'rafric Si tgalirerionnjinecrin6 0 1 2 3 4 3 6 7
{ Lf.1 Airport rhvel(jment 0 1 2 3 4 3 6 7
1'.) Airport Slarketln~ ~0 1 2 3 4 S 6 1
Community Derela mentT)T)pv Semites
A) Public Transportation (SPAN, etc 0 1 2 3~ 4 S 6 7
N) Neighborhood Servlces(NICE,etcJ 0 t 2 3 _ 4 s 6 7
`7tsc1. ^i
,eras
o
1
I
pit
t. +?yr":5;ti.'~?~"tb'dC'G.fy.'K1!#e'inib*'f~i'g4i~P,`?;`?:!^~9A'~!'4sr4rdkalw~RMeGda'aw'sreslwerrsror~aKrr.*artrsew~rcrnrtra►wrasnann,waw~+«ra+arw.w..r,•.c,~asv+m,,.m....,...,.~...
CITY COUNCIL SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET PRIORITIES QUESTIONNAIRE
1998.9 BUDGET
Please complete booth Se, dons A and B according to she lnstrucrlons on the cover page. La e.; ~n a.af q tvrrryt cs w1Tr reucr s M0A51~7 96
4 6,+e 7`'w ~5 ~7~%TIr`'¢''i7 r i j~} 4 Mj* {a I~1ll f~ N@4 kPn ' fI.SW I,~V(\,!
SECTION/ At, '
p d! 4 .Jl~yF , j r py.. 4 > ~I ~a ,.1 1xY~S: .4 dam{ er'~ G a a ,,rw J
} ~ ro 7 ~~~`~xn 1 N L &~t' y~ 4 S o 1 A~^Y ~;9~~rr q~'•i~~ `j~~ r~~~ , ~~r~ i ~)~y }M!1' 0{ '
' ~7 4°i an: Y, er^ F' ! r't•(', h~ ~~.i+}~
7'i {,»~,'.'l Ys r~ N (UBu <Ottl. 6ft `I ~.,.~Gllftl
Service Area
CI DwAnlu%n Redeselopmant (Main St., etc.) 0 1 2 _3 4 S _ 6 7
D) Low R Nlodera!e Income Housing _ 0 1 _ 2 3-~- 4 S _ 6 7
1!1 l one Etan Comprehensive f IannM~ 0 1 2 3 4 _S 6 7
F)- Deselu rnent Rniew Process 0 1 2 3 4 3 6 7
G) Cit eautit cadnu (Parks, racili.les,Meditsm) _ 0 1 2 3 4 3 6 7
H) Code UnForcemcni • Demolitlon or Substandard Bldg. 0 I 2 3 4 3 6 7
t) Code Gnrorcemcni • Sign Violations 0 I 2 3 4 S 6^ 7
J) C'odde E'nforecement - I ligh W'ceds'Dchris Violations 0 1 2 3 4 S _6 7
K) Huildin Inss7ccUun 0 I 2 3 4 3 6 7
to
L) Ilisluric District Presersalion 0 1 2 3 4 S 6 7
Parks and Leis urell.1brar T)pv Sersices
A) Ncw Parks'I'ark I',npanslon (in Nrleborhood. Communi7)) 0 1 2 _ 3 4 1 5 1
li) -Park Slamlenance (Athletic F'ieldt, Medians, Nlueing) 0 I 2 3 4 S 6 7
C) Neo Athletic Fields 0 1 2 3 4 1 6 7 _
D) Bigcle'llikivj1tvilDevelu mew 0 1 2 3 4 S 6 7
L) Greenbelt Systcrn Planning'Dcselo nient 0 1 2 3 4 1 6 7
I) Recreation Censer Pro rR arns uy~~ _0_ 1 2 3 4 S 6 7
(j) SeniorCilitcnPrgrams 0 1 2 3 _ 4 3 _6 7
11) Youth Recrexicn Pro~ram,_ 0 1 2 3 4 S 6 7
1) Neu Athletic Progtams~_,~ 0 1 3 4 S 6 ~7
1)_ Civic cewer Maintenance-` -u 0 _ 1 2 4 S 6 7
K) Libra1 Prutrams (in General) 0 1 2 3 4 S 6 1
L) Library Espanslon 0 1 2 3 4 S 6 7
M) Library Youth'C'hildren's Programs 0 l 2 3 4 S 6 7
N) Library Reference Serslces 0 1 2 3 i 4 S 6 7
G) Library Audio ;Visual Scnices 0 1 _ 2 3 4 _1 6 7
I>
2hx❑ 32x~~
I'1 v ~ 4 i 1
1
1
eaor~at s
i
:IN:41;'AGr{~iyl~It~69Y.thee"ldtl;lf,5~'.~:~d'~~eA'RM!!da~+mtxta:.canl+ewaearmswrwr;vnvsAna~naaew,~^e,erawcrren.n~..wn 't
CITY COUNCIL SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET PRIORITIES QUESTIONNAIRE
1998-99 BUDGET
please complete loth Sectlons A and d according to the Mstracdons on the cover page. H VA.0, MWVgVU eryt cc.r.JAMt rv~a l2/98 j
sSCTIONA r. r., rr ' ' t ~ ~yyY c ye• ~ t r M " qy~~ ~ N k
[ '•4 ~t t S I ~ ~~2 ~-YU t ~ 1.T h/tT 'tPT. ~ ~ ~~~d..l IY Y 1~
Serv to Ara r x • 1)* d?. '
Inlert.al T) pe Servkes
A) Legal Services 0 1 2 3 4 S_ b 7
R) Infa'Uuta Processing Services 0 1_ 2 3 4 S _ 6 7 _
C) Risk Management 0 1 2 3 4 S 6 7
D) Internal Audit Services 0 1 2 3 4 S - 6 7
F) Personnel Recruitment 0 1 2 1 4 S 6 7
F) Fm la ee Train 'Development 0 1 2 _ 3 4 S 6 7
G) Workforce Diversity 0 1 2 3 4 3 6 7
UIilit) T)pe Senices
A) Landfill 1 2 _ 3 4 S 6 7
11) Solid Waste Collection 0 1 2 3 4 _3 6 7
C) Sturm Dralnege Improvements 0 1 2- 3 4 3 6 7
D) Wasteoater Treatment Plant+ i_0 _1 2 3 4 S 6 7 ,
M
L) Water 5lorage'Resenes~ 0 1 3 4 S 6 7 I
F) Litter programs _ 0 1 2 3 4 S 6 7
(3) Recycling Worts 0 1 2 3 4 S 6 7
11) 1 tcctric Scrvice _ 0 1 2 3 4 S 6 7
1) Telecom murnical!om5 stem _ 0 1 2 3 _4 S 6 7
1) Infill Pulic U:vclu mcn( 0 1 2 3 4 S v 1
o!herSerrlcesrlssues
A) Co. notions to llurnanSeri let Ageneles= 0 1 2 3 4 S 6 _T
B) Current Hotel Motel lae Contributions' 0 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 1
C) LmPlo)ce Pn) Plan Adgustmenlslknelits 0 J 1 2 3 4 3 6
D.) Fconomic Dev_Incentive% ror Dev. (Tex Abatement, ale.) 0 1 2 3 4 S 6 .1
11-1 Tf 0mlc Development • Utility Incentive Rates 0 1 2 3 4 S 6 7
i~ 1 P) 1
32 x I c
Y
, i
i
1
,
I
t r ~
t
r
` i.
y
,
y.
t
1fItlSW6+Rfk'~AMFri?K^cs2,YMM.'*tl9b~A"1tMadYik. t,~'?`.'4tAN`"1106'k,Yl~bkllt ~'"w•saw,awo+v+inwww.-w~.+na•era.«.v.~w.rww......r..«....w.o.«
.1
CITY COUNCIL SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET PRIORITI.SQUESTIONNAIRE
Mill-" BUDGET
lMeusecomplete bothSectlonsAandBarcordln torheln31racalonsonrheevrer e, na.gmra.yrlvrrrpces.,.r,crruv OMISNI
E~CTNA".;y,~lr ~~?s~~~~4z~tV~SwrJtit .~~tht4:,M, y~~r f.t' `4' ~ •'".1*
rJ ~~,sr ~ ~ y
Servlf4Afe4 r :r x."x.,~ ~{~a . t~ ~ ~ r; ~F.) Economic Development • Utiliq'Incentive lines 0 1 2 3 4 3 6 7
G.) Economic Development • Lkvelop Workforce and Training
Partncrshl With Universities, NCTC, and DISD 0 1~ 2 _ 3 4 S 6 7
H) Economic Development . Develop DISD Relations In
Regards to Cohesivt Policies for the Community 0 1 2 3 4 3 6 7
1.) Economic Ucvelo went - City Marketing Efforts
(Brand image, Commercial, InItmallonaq 0 1 2 3 4 3 6 7
J) Econ(,micUevalo mp ent-ChamberorCotnmerce T _
Marketing Program (Industrial) 0 1 2 J 4 S 6 7
KI Economic Dcvelopment-Business Rcten6on 0 1 2 J 4 S 6 7
v L) Economic Development - Small Business Assistance 0 I 2 3 4 S 6 7
M) Economic Ihvelo ment • International Relations and Trade 0 1 2 3 4 S 6 7
N.) Economic Do • Black and Hispanic Chamber Partnerships 0 1 2 3 4 S 6 7
U j_Economic Develnpment • Development Facilitation 0 1 2 3 4 S 6 7
-44 P._) Ucvclop Uohttsiq Relations In Regards
to Cohesive Policies for the Community 0 1 2 3 4 S 6 7
q) Dcvelop C'on,puterixd Community Calendar, Inlernel
enhanccment,r_move up C'IP Calendar, U atcd Dally 0 1 2 3 4 S 6 _7
i
F
r
r
5k10 32X 10
a,
e+'Mwn.•urwv.v+rfMM~NYMYWU11tWgrWY1RYY1VIY111YtY:~'NRawMwUV~Wlwrw..,rr.._,._-«.._ .,~._._.._..,._,..~-__.,-.,.-.~~~.........w... +..+~ww„+...~.«.~..~.,«..«
Uudget Policy Issues; -
in addition to Indicating your program funding preferences, please Indicate below any spccif c actions or direction that you desire Staff
to take in preparing the 1991-99 annual budget (the first item listed being your highest priority)
_
2 - -
is------ - - -
12 - - - _
RBI I
2 15 0. 30'
10
t' '
,.Few Ma
Aarnda No _.~7f/ :SL_f gg~..
0a a item W-~?
t-~
AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET
I
AGENDA DATE: May 26',1998
DEPARTMENT: Planning & Development
CM/DCMJACM: Rlck SvehlaV5
Receive a report, hold a discussion, and provide instructions to staff regarding annexation and
public service extension policies to areas currently outside the City of Denton municipal limits.
BACKGROUND
On April 28', 8, City Council members di,cussed several topics related to growth
management. Two aspects of growth that will soon require separate attention are TIMING and
LOCATION in selected areas. The forecasts provided by RUST Environment and Infrastructure,
Inc. (city consultants) Indicate that a majority of population growth and development will occur
in south Denton. City staff is a'.ready seeing evidence of this trend; most of the 6,000 single
family lots platted in the last 18 months are located to the south. Staff has also been approached `
by owners of tracts located in the south Denton extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ) who are
interested in public services to support development of currently vacant land, and are also
interested in the City's intent regarding use of its annexation authority.
The surge of development appears to be moving northward from Corinth, Argyle, and along the
I-35W corridor from the Alliance area. Land within the Denton ET), located at the southernmost
edge of our utility services district (called our "CCN", which stands for Certificate o;
Convenience and Necessity, a designation assigned by TNRCC for the provision of public
utilities) will likely become more desirable for development than land within the city,
Development pressure in the southern ETJ will require consideration of utility service extensions
within the Denton CCN. The provision of utilities to ET) land does not automatically trigger
annexation. Annexation provides a higher degree of zoning and land use control, and taxation
authority, but carries with it certain service obligations. Annexation requires (by stale law) the
t preparation of a service plan that indicates how the full extent of pLblic services, comparable to
those available in other areas of the city, will be provided to the newly annexed area.
Annexation does not trigger mandatory provision of utilities, Current city policies indicate that
the private developer is required to pay the cost of utility extensions for most types of
development.
0 Staff has prepared a map of the southwest portion of the City of Denton and its ETJ to illustrate O
some of the issues that will likely arise in the near future. The map will be shown at the May
20 work session to represent more clearly future annexation and service extension issues.
t
32 10
i
Q
Several issues will arise that will require City Council attention:
1. Annexation Options
a. Service Plan Fiscal Impacts
b. Municipal Zoning and Land Use Authority "
c. Taxation Authority
2. Appearance and Character of New Development
3. Water Service Extension Costs
4. Wastevv ater Service Extension Costs f -
5. City Participation in Development Costs Ek
6. Creative Financing Techniques (i.e. Public Improvements Districts, Tax Increment Financing)
7. Relationships with Neighboring Municipalities & Overlapping Jurisdictions
S. Potential Impact of ETJ Development on City Plans
The "Western Front" of the City of Denton is a potential high-growth area with complex
annexation and ETJ issues. A traditional approach used to evaluate annexation issues, and one
that cannot be ignored, is fiscal impact. The costs of providing services to annexed areas must
be carefully identified and evaluated. Annexation also extends the boundaries of the City's ETJ,
which can also have significant implications. Staff is particularly interested in the fact that the
Hickory Creek watershed extends throughout a large portion of existing undeveloped ETJ land to
the west and northwest. The Denton Plan Policies contain several references relevant to
potential development within the Hickory Creek watershed:
From toe Gwth grow ge
1n nd's L'ton s i ability to grow an, expanG shou1d be identified in the City's annexation strategy. City !
limits and extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ) boundaries should be clearly established, and
relationships with other jurisdictions should be determined through interlocel a eements. The
annexation strategy should also reflect the costs of service provision and externsl environmental 1
impacts essmiated with land located in the ET]. J
Areas of the city susceptible to envitordner,ta) damage, or where infrastructure systems are
sucssed, or where development would contnkict city planning objectives should be identified
and protected.
From the Stor water Drolasep Systetn Policies:
Floodplains shall be dedicated to the City in accordance with the City's watershed management
` plans and the Parks and R.-creation Strategic Plan. Floodplains should perform multiple functions
for flood conveyance, tra isportation (trails), recreation and open space, habitat protection, and
environmental ptescrvation.
Drainage infrastructwe for new development shall conform to City Council approved watershed
management plans that address both water quality and quantity issues, including giving guidance
on where natural versus improved channels and rural versus urban drainage systems should be
located.
f t From the Parks & Recrealkii Po9cim
Parks and open spaces s:tould be located in or sdjr'ent 1) floodplains, where possible, to aid in
Iloodplain conservation efforts vid to cnhance recreation opportunities. Such areas may be 0
i developed with recreation facilities or set aside as o, : i space !o preserve sensitive areas,
2
? t10 32x~~
r
:
p
r
+as+amra '
.r:+mash:~.117n,W9::A"w'Ri1n.x'.•e.:ru,:ri~xv ~.ha~.....e..w..«.....'q.a...-..u......... ...-',...,..i..«.....-. -.r.~n... e~wr+i.:.w>w....a..,,,.~
t ,
i
E
The Hickory Creek watershed should be acknowledged as a prominent environmental resource
that can be used for a variety of community benefits. As the annexation strategy for western
i
Denton is developed, staff recommends that the City's "sphere of influence", through annexation
and extension of ETJ boundaries, be expanded to include as much of the Hickory Creek
watershed as possible. Proper stormwater master-planning, environmental protection,
i application of subdivision regulations, floodplain dedication, and other objectives can be met if I
the City of Denton extends its municipal jurisdiction as suggested. Staff will continue to pursue
this strategy within the context of the Comprehensive Plan if so instructed by the Council.
a,
The discussion scheduled for this agenda item is introductory, and is not intended to reach
closure on the items being discussed. As investment and development interests become more
clearly understood by city staff, further detail regarding specific issues and situations will be
brought to Council's attention.
ESTIMATED SCHEDULE OF PROJECT
'
This agenda item has no particular schedule. Many growth management issues must be
J addressed before the City's comprehensive plan can be completed. Growth issues raised during ;
recent work sessions will be discussed in greater detail for the next l'/a years. Individual project
decisions regarding these issues will probably have to be made before the comprehensive plan is
completed.
PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW i
The issues raised during this agenda item ar: relevant to the Denton Plan Process, and will
continue to be significant as work on the Comprehensive Plan
FISCAL INFORMATION
Project specific information is not available at this time. Estimated costs for service extensions,
L
relative to the location of potential sites to be served and proximity to existing services, will be
developed on an individual basis.
EXHIBITS
None - Large-scale maps will be exhibited at the May 2e work session. ;
i
Respectfully Submitted:
D M. Hill 0
j hector of Planning and Development
t
R tCS~r+ 17h k~ 32X
~1 - -
1
• O '
I
ap rida Item ~s -
AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET
AGENDA DATE: May 26'h.1998
DEPARTMENT: Planning & Development
CM/DCM/ACM: Rick SvehlaI49
M ,SUBJECT
Receive a report, hold a discussion, and give staff instruction regarding proposed changes to the public
notification process for development-related public hearings,
BACKGROUND
Planning staff was asked by City Council members to explore new methods to provide better
information to more citizens regarding development-related issues. When rezoning requests,
annexation petitions, planned development ordinances, specific use permits, subdivision replats, and
variances are considered by City Council and other appointed boards and commissions, public hearings
are required by law to allow public access and input during governmental decision-making processes.
Comments received by staff during the last year indicate a strong Council commitment to encourage
public participation during the formation of the Denton Plan, to encourage staff facilitation of
neighborhood meetings before public hearings are held, and to improve the public hearing notification
process.
The latter objective, the public hearing notification process, is the subject of discussion for the May
26'h work session. Attachment 1 provides a brief summary of methods used by other cities to address
this objective.
The ,public Hearing Notification Process
Currently, State law requires a notice in the local newspaper to advertise that a public hearing will be
held for rezonings, planned developments, specific use permits, and zoning variances as per the
following section from the Texas Local Govcmment Code (TLGC);
Section at 1.006is) of the TLGC:
• The governing body of a municipality wishing to exercise the authority relating to Zoning
regulations and zoning district boundaries shall establish procedures for adopting and enforcing
the regulations and boundaries. A regulation or boundary is not effective until after a public
hearing on the Pinner at which parries in interest and citizens have an opportunity to be heard.
Before the 15i° day before the date of the hearing, notice of time andplace of the hearing must be
published in an official newspaper or a newspaper of general circulation in the municipality.
• In addition to newspaper publication, State law also requires public hearing notification of all property Q •
owners within 200 hundred feet for rezoning (including planned developments and specific use
permits) and variances requests. Section 112.015 requires notice to be given for residential replats that
have been zoned or deed restricted for properties with a density that does not exceed two family I
development within the last five years.
1
1.
Odom 32X10
0
Section 211.007(c~ ) of the L states:
Before the 10' day before the hearing date, written notice of each public hearing before the
zoning commission on a proposed change in a zoning classification shall he sent to each owner,
as indicated by the most recently approved municipal tax roll, of real p°operkv within 200 feet of ,
the propegy on which the change in classification is proposed. The notice mzy be served by its
deposit in the municipality, properly addressed with postage paid, in the United States mail If the i
property within 200 feet of the property on which the change is proposed is located in territory
annexed to the municipality and is not included on the most recently approved municipal tax roll,
the notice shall be given in the manner provided by Section 211.006(a).
i
Once a notice is received in opposition, it is attached to other notices in opposition and is used in
calculating the total percentage of property within 200 feet. State law requires a three fourths vote (6
of 7 City Council members) of the governing body if the property owner(s) of twenty percent (201/o) of
the property located within 200 feet are opposed to the proposed reclassification. This has been
referenced as the "20% rule' by staff.
Revisions are proposed to improve the public hearing not fication process on two fronts:
1. Newspaper Publicallop of Notices
0 Current Process
A notice of public hearing is published in the Denton Record Chronicle twice, ore notice
for the P&Z hearing no less than 10 days in advance, and one notice for the City Council
hearing no less than 15 days in advance.
♦ Proposed Process
No changes are proposed by staff.
2. Properly 0-Ancir Notices
• Current Process
The current process involves legal notification of property owners located within 200 feet
of the subject site. The "Legal Notice" form used currently is shown in Attachment N2.
Planning staff develops a mailing list for each public hearing from the "most recently
approved municipal tax roll" manually, prepares the notice, and mails the notices via
regular first class postage. The cost of mailing is $0.32 per notice.
0 Proswsed process
The current legal notification process for owners of property located within 200 feel of the
subject site should be retained with one revision. The notices should be sent to property
. off ncrs via certified mail. In order to send one notice certifiedlreturn receipt, there is a
30.32 postage charge, $1.35 certified mail charge, and a 51.10 charge for return receipt, for
a total of 52,77, This process certifies delivery and provides positive ptoof through a
signed receipt. Many cities use certified mail to avoid claims of delivery failure. The
drawbacks include the expense of postal processing, and could cause inconvenience to
those property owners not available to sign for the receipt of the notice.
In addition, property owners located from 200+ to $00 feet of the subject site will
• receive a "Courtesy Notice" (see Attachment 3) that is a different format and paper color , O
y. than the Legal Notice. The Courtesy Notice would be sent via regular first class postage,
y costing $0.32 per notice. As with the Legal Notice, staff would prepare the mailing list
from the most recently approved municipal tax roll, prepare the proper notice format, and
mail the notices.
The cost of certified marl for the Legal Notice and first class postage for the Courtesy
Notice should be charged directly to the applicant, above and beyond any application fees. I1
2. I
32 x I ❑
0 ,
c
i
NOTE: Until Planning staff has acquired the proper software to allow computer
generation of the mailing lists, this system should not be implemented. Please note that the
proposed implementation date is October 1', 1998. In addition, please be aware that
addressing system is not fail-safe; by state law, the "most recently approved municipal tax
roll" must be used to generate property owner mailing lists. Some ploWly owners will not
receive the notices if they have moved recently or if their addr j5 is listed incorrectly on the
tax roll. and oc cupantswil not receive notices if they are not orooertv owners. Property
owners in the ET) are not eolitlO to receive legal notices, nor does state hw allow their
opposition to affect the 20% Rule. S;gns are typically used by municipalities to provide an
alternative to those who do not receive mailed notices.
3. Site Si¢naee
♦ Current Process
Small cardboard signs approximately 28"(W) X 22"(L) in size were posted on the subject
site by Planning staff using 3-feet tall wooden stakes. The signs were not readily visible,
highly vulnerable to weather damage and vandalism, and ineffective. The posting of these
signs has been temporarily discontinued because of constant replacement and
ineffectiveness. Ordinance 79-62 (Attachment #4) was adopted in 1979 to authorize staff to
post zoning change signs on private property.
a rQp2sed Process
Reusable 3' X 3' metal signs, fabricated with standard highway sign materials, including
reflective backing and vinyl transfer lettering are available through the Traffic Division. A
work order prepared by Planning staff can specif i exact sign content, number of signs ;
needed, and location of signs. With the creation r, new staff position, the Traffic Division
can fabricate, maintain, install, and remove signs as needed. Dedicated resources must be
identified to allow the signage system to function properly. Attachment #5 is a sample of
the sign proposed by staff. An actual sign fabricated by Streets Division staff will be
displayed at the work session.
E51DIATED SCHEDULE OF PROJECT
Implementation of the revised public hearing notification procedures is proposed to begin on October
1", 1998, the beginning of the City's fiscal year. Amendments to the fee schedule and Ordinance 79-
62 would be required prior to implementation.
PRIOR ACIiONI FVIE
This is the first work session scheduled to discuss specific public notification procedures. The Denton t
Plan Policies, adopted by City Council on April 7`', 1998 encourage extensive public participation and
input in all local governmental processes.
FISCAL INFORMATION
k '
♦ NOTICE MAILINGS j O •
The cost of mailing the Legal Notices would increase from 5032 to $2.77 each. Courtesy notices f
would costs S11.32 each. Staff proposes that these costs be directly assigned to the applica-it
specifically by amending the fee schedule. The fee should be collected before the notices are mailed.
If the applicant withdraws the application after the notices we mailed, no refund would be made.
i
I
3.
5 x 10 32 x10
1
/ .1
I
1
• SIGNAG£
I
The signage system costs require detailed information. The actual costs of materials and labor
(fabrication, installation, and maintenance) should be home by the applicant.
• SIGNAGE SYSTEM ASSUMPTIONS
L Stock o110 reusable signs will be needed to cover Overlap between meetings
2. 2 signs will be needed, on average, per site
3. Projected 3-year useful sign life due to vandalism, damage, theft, weathering
4. Minimum 100 public hearings per year (1997: 68 rezoning hearings, I I variances)
5. Typical sign life: 30 - 40 days on site I~
*ANNUAL SIGNAGE SYSTEM COSTS 1
Base Sign Materials: (50 signs X $150.00 per sign) / 3-yr. life = $ 2,500 fI
Interchangeable Placard Materials: [75 Placards X $10.001placard] / 3-yr. life m 250
Replacement & Maintenance Materials: [15 signs X $150.00 per sign) / 3-yr. life = 750
Full-Time Traffic Division position ($30,000 - $5,000 transit shelter maintenance) 25,000
Truck 6,840
Tools 1,000
Fuel / Oil 1,500
Overhead: 2,000
TOTAL $39,840
• ANTICIPATED REVENUE
The fee assessed to applicants for development projects that require public hearings would be
$200.00 per installed sign to allow full cost recovery. Planning staff will make a determination
of the number of signs requir d on an individual basis, street frontage and site size would be
important factors in determining a reasonable number of signs. If created, the new Traffic
Division position would be supplemented by $5,000 in transit funding (annually) to provide
-naintenarrce needed for transit shelters throughout the city.
$200.0 Sign Fee per requited sign X 200 sign installations - $40,000
CONCLUSION
Staff is prepared to refine this draft proposal pending further instructions from City Council members.
` ~ t~ tilBli $
Attachment HI: APA Zoning News - "Nobody Told B!e They Changed The Zontngl'
Attachment 02. Sample Legal Notice c f Public Hearing
Attachment H3: Sample Courtesy Notice
Attachment N4: Ordinance 79-62
Attachment q5: Proposal Sign Design
Respectfully Submitted;
i
D M. Hill
Director of Planning &0 Development
4.
I,
75 K 32XI❑
0 ,
aoaaxw ,
' o
1
-ate
ATTACHMENT 1 MASON 1990
AMtalc `
FUNNtNO NO
ASSOCIATION
"Nobody Told Me They
Changed the Zoningl" The most effective hearings
happen when residents are
By fay Dolrick inforgied well in advance of the
A communities grow, zoning ordinances should remain hearing's dote, time, and j`
flexible enough to meet changing land-use needs. As location. The identification of the 4
stored in the Standard Stare Enabling Act of 19:6, "provision affected property and the
must be made for changing the regulations as conditions change
or new conditions prise, otherwise toning mould be et'strait- proposed land-use change are ,
i jackei and a detriment to a community instead often asset." important and relevant facts to
Neighborhood rezoning and other land-use changes can have a
signifi"nt.even adserse,impact on thelivesandproperties ofarea report to the public,
resident- To lessen the probability of such impacts, public hearings t -
on proposed zoning changes are normally required by stare statute. • '
a
Although irate statutes typically require public hearing notices, F
NOTICE OF PROPOSED, they leave the details to the municipal ordinance.
SNUftI-'J 1{VY. Municipalities invariably use one or more of the follawing
LAND USE ACTION methods to notify the public of a prcposed land use change:
1 a advertisements in a general eirculuion newspaper,
I ■ mailings to property owners matt likely affected by the change
■ posting a sign on the property site with the proposed change. 11
Charles Reed, editor and publisher of TheZonind Rrpart, has
~~y h pointed out that based Cis the number of people who appear
and testify at hearings, newspaper notices are the least effective
City of ShorollnoI?matt.NbAv,.N,Srwnu,awo9w:an.ra meth odofnodScatio1. E
n„v 4„ t,,n n nb.uu, set aria t s nr tan 0761 a The time allowed for notification ofa forthcoming hearing s
can range from seven to 30 days before the hearing takes place.
However, mote notifications occur 10 to 15 days before the }
hearing. The specified radius of an affected property, about
Sbarthne. Witshington, soei boll farming ro Catch the tetr0rion of which a property owner must be notified, ranges from 100 feet
parsenij and rxielicit derai6 for tbore 04 rakt a rlo;er look art to 700 feet, with a median of 300 feet,
praposrd land-wr a, Lion. Mailings of a notification ate usually tent via post using
either fine clam orcertilied mail. Administrativtcosts associated
n with moiling lists and postage are assumed either by the
The purpose of these hearingst.to obtain additional information municipality or by the applicanr for the rezoning. 1
0 regarding the proposed change tot she decision makers and to V`ben the number of persons to be nor ied becomes
enable citiunt to exprea concern or uk questions. txcessist, communities employ more practical and cost-effective t 3
The most effective hearings happen when residents are methods ofpublie nodAcadon. For example, santse Cruz, }
informed well in advance of the hearing's dare, time, and California, opts for a newspaper advertisement rather than a
location. The identification of the affected ptoperty and the mass mailing when nodAcotion numbers exceed 1,000. s
proposed land-use change are important and eelevant facts to Ftgulatiom for the onsite sign can rangt from a simple
report to the public, insmction that it be placed prominently on the affected site to
• This issue of ZoningrV'nrudiscusses the various methods very detailed requirements on the site, lettering sgie, textual
communities can employ to communicate news of an information, and placement of the sign in relation to the street 0
impending zoning change to the public and examines avariery and the adjoining properties. Some ordinances provide detailed
of procedures used in ordinances, drawings oflign requirements,
Ndsnugh the municipal planning and development department
Overview mayprovidethesign.theOppliantusually beta theraponsibilry
The Standard State Enabling Act recommends a 15-day advance and costs for placing it Some municipalises uk the oppliaat to
notice ors public hearing throu6h a general circulation supply a sig$ned affidavit stating that the sign has been posted and
newspaper, but also note that this an vary to auit local needs, that it eonfomu to the municipal standards.
5.
32XIO I
0
Ordinanea Sampler friendly nature and simplicity of the zoning text as well.
The following are examples of provisions for public notification Complicated languageis largely avoided in the Scottsdale codc
of proposed r zonings, ZoninpNrus chose them for their Atria, Arizona. Mesa requires the applicant to post the
concise language and simple form. Despite this simplicity, the notification of & land-use change at his or her own cost, 14 days
ability to pprovide sufficient information is notcompromised. before the planning and toning board meeting. Local standards
Srorrrdalr, Arizona. Adtono's state statute requires that require that the sign measure four feet by four feet when the - -
municipalities notify the public of a land-use change through land-use change involves parcels of 10 acres or more. The color
standard" chary cls, which ryp;cally include a notice in the scheme must be white with one to four-inch black letters and
local newspaper, an onsite sign posting, and a first class mailing prominent enough to be risible t passing motorists.
to all property owners within 300 feet of the site. Although providing the sign is voluntary for the developer, I
To ensure that notice of the proposed land•use change o widely DSesa planner Gordon Sheffield says that cooperation is never a
circulated, ScottsA^Ws standards exceed shat is often found in io"_ ere blem. The doc;opet is also responsible for removing the
ordinances. Tuo kvd notices are published in the local newspaper sigt swan days after the city council meeting. To discourage
30 and 15 drys prior to the hcarinf, Propem owners within 300 vvastsrulness, the planning department recommends that the
Feet of the proposed reeoning site are notified at least 30 days prior signs be recycled to other applicants whenever possible,
to the hearing, and agendas for '.he hearings are posted in four Mesa applicants are responsible for drafting a letter to all
public locations prior to its commencement. property owners within 300 squat feet oFthe site. The fitst
To guarantee public awareness of these changes, Scottsdale class mailing should include an B-by-I 1 inch photograph of the
made effective in February 1997 the requirement chat an site plan. The planning and community des'elopment
appllation sign be a four-foot•by-four-foot "cardinal" red department provides a sample letter and sign placement map as
pll+,ood sign containing all pertinent information in language well as detailed design guidelines for the sign. These
understandable to the public, The laminated sign mill be erected requirements are not established by ordinance but are a matter
at least 15 days prior to the hearing Scottsdale applicants are of policy set by the local legislative body-, and to deviate from
these requirements is grounds for continuation of the cat until
they are met.
Seattle, 1Y'asbin on Seattle's notification procedures differ
NOTICE F AOPOSEO LAND USE ACTION dr
viii ,v" . nt a4s- slightly from usual practices. Notice of s proposed land-use
BmUrrot.
osu c at n, action g h in the city s not in gene+raa circulation. it is l
,ti a DF , brEV in a +,Gpp'~]aU
To RUCT a~ b t ^ Ahhouh the publication is not in general rcuuit s
s~ tJ f
0. HUiLD1 P~FytlrlG dely distributed to community groups and to land-use lawyer. -
rt
F a ES a D£RG uD in the Seattle region. The information is Also posted on aw'eb I ,
activist groups, and individuals
P0. E. pPppdJECTINCLUDES sl site visited by businesses,
DE OF iSTt6+Ot9r1GCE
F AND APPROZ 1250 LI inmrestcd in Seattle's land-use issues.
E ~J ,
i u. V OF GR0.C NO To contain costs, a random mailing ofnonces is conducted
n rr,..rat krw+ + for property owncn within W feet of the site. Each notice is
:euiw r.h+iIs.ie Lxsx Yea+iMwa w"IM ~iiwi+Y+ wf-s~ sent out by th e planning department, but the applicant pays for r
the cost of pos-age through application fees. Applicants are also
responsible for the costs oFthe onsite sigr, which must be eight
feet by four feet in site, made of white plastic, and inscribed
t ,1'ot'Pation is rho reel ifrl r sigrs is notp,mprn'ly imiuraiurd as w4fh with black vinyl lettering. The sign contains a drawing of the I
INY norirr oft prnpo~rd lauA-usea,riors in Sesame. site map, the site's address, the name aria phone number of the
applicant and a description and project number of the pro-
provided with specifications as to its design. Including the six- posed development. A municipal taleph-ne number is also
inch sire of the kneeing, textual requirements such at the date, provided for interested persons to call with questions.
•4 pLice, and time of the hearing, and the name and phone Seattle requi,es that the signs draw the attention of both
number oFthe applicant. local motorists and individuals from outside the neighborhood
'the applicant is responsible for the cost of the sign and for who may not be familiarwith the area. Tht city eonuscis with+
. Jrtangemenu to have it installed. He or she is also obliged to local sign company to produce the signs and charges the
s,glt an affidavit verifying that the sign has been posted. The applicant a nominal fee of $295.
.sfhdavlt is returned to the community des elopmerit deportment drllrsvrr, Meribinrtass. Bellevut's notification is posted in a
w lth a photograph of the sign and , copy of the signed contract general circulation nesvspapct 14 days before a hearing. Propert
ss ith a sign vendor approved by the city, owners within 200 feet of project situ are sent the notification,
Scottsdale'%larger red signs replaced those thatuere which contains a complete description ofthe project and its
considcrahly smaller and lest wrath<rresistanr. lmprosad visibility location. Neighborhood groups, community clubs, or other +
i„ p: sting mnmrkis is instrumental in reaching a wider public, a cititen groups with a sty :c in local land-use actions also receive
. tandard that appears to be paying dividends. The signs hive notice of the impending change.
resulted in increased ancndance at Scottsdale's public hearings. Onsite signs are the responsibility of the developer and must Q
Scottsdie's cnmmunlry deselopment department gas one step also be in place 14 days before a hearing. Subsequent removal e
lunher to keep the public abrraq of local issues by offering I'lite the signs is required within seven days after a decision is rache
posting hot line.' T hl cbjcctlre of this telephone sm~ice is to keep over the land-use change, Bellevue s regulations specify a four- -
rc,ldents informed arbour zoning changes, The success of Foot•byfour-foot sign that is double-sided and visible from the
ti,crtldale's hotline and other methods of eff«cvely reporting land- street. The applicant must also file a'eeri&ate of installation' ;
t,~ chan,rs lies not only in service creativity, but in the user- with the city as proof chat the sign has been correctly installed.
6.
a+wasu
1
I
f ,
The only information required on Bellevue's signs is a description of the proposed new land use, and the telephone
five- or ties-word description of the proposal, the date of the number of the city department where additional information `
application, and a municipal phone number to call for can be obtained. The planning department supplies the Signs,
further information. Letters and numbers must be two to which the applicants may install themselves or have he
four inches in height, The city provides a detailed drawing of maintenance department do for a fee oF350.
there uir d eSign. Notices are mailed to all property owners vii bin 300 feet of
Redmonl d, Washington. Like Seattle, Redmond requires the property and to citizen groups upon request. Shoreline's
onsite signs for land-use actions to be relatively large (usually local newspaper ppublishes the notices; on Mercer Island, they
eight feet by four feet), a requirement of the statute in the ling appear in a weekly bulletin with a smaller circulation.
County land-use code. The signs must provide a site map or
written description of the site boundaries, the type offending Conclusion
land-use app!;ratbsn. ;!.i date of the public hearing, and the Community residents have a right to hear the information
about a pending land-use change accurately and in a clear,
timely, and informative fashion. Inaccurate information;
Getting Notified vagueness of time, due, and place oFthe public hearing; or
inadequate identification of the affected property can lead to
• • • • f • All, • • • • t
I COarly court cases. i
• i Gfi.fK,ruutls t'uurtr 1111611 maintain+a rqi to o' User-friendly regulations should be written in ordinxry
n.igldrorfio.Kr orh mu.uiun n,ich an Wool in land vw language usher than legal jargon, and requirements are most
J,Jniwt. all of"lnsh are n11611CI! ahc„ nmh change, M. Ur' effective when listed consecutively rather than burying them in
phcant m mill ter, hWn o ile
_o different sections of the ordinance. Including neighborhood
d71„,.s i, county require. ngto em 11+1no
o itt. idn to idtgoirr f for s she In co [.,wi ,es hhcr, ero mor4n• than ?up u„ ntn requre associations, local businesses, condominium and apartment
tro6headom, all ahen,atnr mcthuJ tray bt tmpluyed to building managers, and local property owner on the list of ,
tetot villnl'adn in;,vati,t burdmn. notiSarion recipients is the most comprehensive wry to
disseminate information.
• S,,,u C'rur. (uliG,rnia. zits, ut1'cn an almrnatisr pion to ons! a signs should be weatherproof and large enough for
m•nf, the pul•1;, e f ao impending land use
n efi.v,ga
f't n,Jure. , d, it en,,, munit, ehs„ge s, hrn neat thin the information to be visible to posing motorists. They are
I n 10 prr'4 a'1 in nerd oi n~nlfiratRm. l h, alrcrnne most effective when able to cotney all the deuils regarding the
I'l r, p;, W, i did", rr,,,p.q,er ad,tnl,mern of oar- location of the site and the proposed rezoning. The municipal
e;O h fa,,, miir nl- , regulations should state the precise location of the sign to avoid
• t ,n trh ,r. tl, I iF o m• ut.,.er .erred bnant.,te and confusion. Vague instructions, such as requiring that the sign be
nu5 4erb „ d g ,rq..60, a.u4r in hnJ u.e actwn. placed "prominently" on the site. are not adequate information.
111!r1„1y„ an.l ill pwp,rn o,,n;r, a itN;a 100 I:;t of To ensure that tequiremenu and standards have been met,
alt tn. ,t, n., r ! , f .~J, ,age, oat, though some communities ask the applicant to provide proofof
>hehl an et,r; t 1 s r„ ,•r;. owl, d,at utfihv .tnJ railroad compliance. Others require that the applicant be responsible for
i
l an,"d,,,.e n, rt,; pr I n ht nodfl;d Ann ~rhor the ongoing maintenance of the sign, i
pl. non sa, tl,.i, a s, iJer d,.,, hat inn nrinlonnarion i, the The ordinances chosen bybmirnjhtua representthe qualities
n,,.t ayyn,q da,a r,J Gr,.r proou"I that make public notice regulations easy to comprehend and
effective in appliation.Ordinanceswere consulted from
communities around the county, but Arizona and Washington
name and telephone numbe, of Redmond's deyattmentof. • municipalitiesspppared to hate adispproportionately high
planning and community development, concentration of good examples. Such a pattern supports the thtory
Like other communities in the sample, the applicant is that ideas are often borrowed from ri-tAbon.
responsible for the cost and administration of the ai[n
(including installation) at lean 10 days prior to the hewing and
for its removal immediately pendings decision. The city of
Redmond provides detailed instructions and a drawing of the Chicago Win• f
e information required on the sign. The planning department Landmarks Salo
'
all }•ropereY mvnets within 300 fee of the site of the
notifies
k al by fi„o-dass mail and then charges the developer an In what may seem like a reversal of ry ppacal roles, the my of
application fee. A local newspaper also carries a notice of the Chicago has won a case before the U.S. Supreme Court by
land-use change it least 10 days before the hearing. arguing in favor of federal judicial intervention in a local
Shoreline an/rllrrrrrldand, Wmhinjran. Shoreline and administrnive decision concerning historic properties. The care.
Mcictt Island hire foregone the eight-foo .by--four-foot sign Ciry•fChimp r. Internarlonal Cv1Zege•fSurjroor, No. 96.910
seen in ocher king County municipalities in favor of signs with (U.S., Dec i 5, 1997), involve two buildings owned by the
beater aesthetics and lower costs. Neither community feels that Intern:eional College of Surgeons (ICS). 0 •
vislbiFry or availabiliry of information have been compromised In 1988, acting under the eiryi landmarks ordinance, the
in she process Chicago Landmarks Commission designated a landmark district
Shoreline's and !slercer island's wither-resistant signs are ofseven lakefront properties, including two buildings owned by
two feet by four feet in dimension, made of white plasticized ICS. Before the city council passed in ordinance approving the
material, and inscribed with blue lettering. An 81/a•by1 I-inch designation, ICS contracted to sell its property to a developer
f astic pocket placed on the sign contains flyers that identify the shat intended to demolish the structures, saving only their
cariun of the property, the name of the applicant, a facades, and build a high-rise condominium building.
7.
- - Ali 11
2!~x 32xft]
0
li
-
'r
0
,varasw
l
I
The commission denied ICS's request for a demolition permit foundations in federal law. This is reinforced by a statute (28
and its reapplication baud on an economic hardship exception in US.C- 11367) which provides that if a cue ha federal and stare j
the landmarks ordinance. ICS sought judicial review, in Cook claims, and the state claims are "so related to claims in the
County circuit court under the llhnou Administrative Review Law, action within rich original jurisdiction that they form part of
claiming the landmarks ordu.ance and the landmark district the same case or controversy," then the federal trial court can
ordinance effected a taking without just compensation, and that the hear the entire case,
commission's proceeding violated due process under both the As to ICS's contention that a deferential, on-the-record
Illinois and U.S. constitutions, revic,v is not a civil action at all and is thus outside the district
The city then removed the case to federal court on the grounds court's jurisdiction, O'Connor stated that that court's
that ICS's challenges are based at least partlyon the federal jurisdiction stems from the federal claims under the
eons6rution, giving the federal courts jurisdiction, When the Constitution. not the deferential state review claims. According
_ district court granted summary iudgment for the city on grounds to the opinion, the fact that r'•c federal constitutional claims are
that the ordinances and the landmark commission proceedings did not bound b^ the record of u c edminirrative proceeding makes
not violate the federal orsnu constitutions. ICS appealed them civil anions. The state law claims are supplementary to
The Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded the case to the the federal claims, and, because 'the whole point of
t state court on grounds that the federal courts had no supplementar vjurisdiction is to allow the district courts to
jurisdiction. Looking to previous Supreme Court and federal exercise pendent jurisdiction over claims as towhich original
appeals court cases, it found that when a party to an action to jurisdiction is lacking," whether stateelaims are civil actions is
review a local administrative decision moves to remove the case irrelevant as long as the federal claims have proper jurisdiction,
to federal court, if the standard of review is de novo, the The dissent by Justice Ginsburg, with justice Stevens
e' removal is proper. But if the standard is deferential, the joining, admits that the literal words of the federal law
proceeding is not an original civil case but an appeal and thus jurisdiction and supplemental jurisdiction starures (28 U.S C.
outside a U.S. District Court's original jurisdiction to hear civil $51331 and 1367) tend to support the majority interpretation.
actions. It found the standard in the Illinois law deferential But they oppose federal court jurisdiction over on-the-record
because the court must accept the findings from the reviews of local and state administrative decisions, arguing that
administrative proceeding and cannot hear new evidence, there is no statutory language explicitly authorizing it, and that
r The city then petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for it will open the federal courts to frequent reviews of
certiorari, which a as granted on the question of whether a administrative decisions.
complaint for re,ie,v of a state or local administrative The dissent also cited a series of federal appeals eases finding
proceeding on the basis of both federal and state claims, in that district courts either did not have jurisdiction, or should
which the reviem must be based on the record, is within the not exercise it, over on-the-record reviews of state and local
= jurisdiction of the U.S. district courts. The Supreme Court's administrative actions. Most of these regard such is cause of
' 7.2 opinion, written by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, pointed action as an appeal rather than an original civil action, and thus
out that the Cc, it had Faced the issue of when cases arising in beyond what federal district courts should be handling.
+ state court can be remmed to a federal court. The clear rule is Joker Brrdin
thin. If the federal court had jurisdiction so that the cave could
have been filed there originally, the case may be removed to the
federal court from the irate court. O'Connor reiterated that the
ICS complaint included challenge to the city ordinances and zommG V f lpfiof Ietc
commission proceedings on the basis of the e U.S. Constitution,, 1 '
t
e even if those challenges were made in a proceeding understate
law, and that if the irate law issues in the case require resolution Fortress Anieriras
of the federal issue, the existence of stare law issues does not Outed Communities
negate the federal issues. Ill the United states
The Court found chit because the sate and federal EdunrdJ Blalkrl! andAfary Gail sitAr. Brookinlr
challenges raised the come issues of takings and due process, the
state claims did not supersede the fact that the rase had IC'It( n+r'rn binrr Pero, ara, 775 Mdodchwetta 003 1003 1 D.C. . 6. 1997. 1997.209p 209 p tee, N. W.
i P. ,
Gated communities are not exclusive to the super
rich anymore. Middle and upper-middle class
L+na ,Tn+u, men Ml rnlow r,blrhrda r, Amrdnn Pvnn~na A,vwW n. 3
Sb„npr nnurr r•,4Yr(.,IN(L tr end ki h(bnlanl. In^Y S So. Frruri.rDlrmor 1Odlvlduals represent the majority of today's gated
r-nrrt a PIr4n, D,nrnr of a~,h population. Although these enclaves are roost popular in
Z p R'nn p ,,l red n Ar i ).m 5 h band hl W D,,4,, 14,.e. W. List Fir Los Angeles, Phoenix, Chicago, Houston, Nev+York,
b1n. lCl a] W S.,n J,x {ntt i. V., Rlur'u SO, anlaRaL coupe,
1 n r',vA.,j a p r, c nrh.Ch u. AN un,Ed, ter, a tan ti'p irrn ind and Miami, the trend is growing in smaller cities and
rv,d . n. suburbs around the countrye . 'stir It In . b Amer:,, rr n p b„attar n w s sn.h l A„ s. r, tine.
cheap, IL 6060J The Iris n I716 Authors Blakelyand Snyder study the three main
. N 4 r'. , ,n M,nn n bur ,r'o budquu•rn sRrm ,
sl„suarn + ta. r.,h'ntnot sooso. types of gated communities: !farylr for the tetireer,
Y All, ahn eeu:nrd N. pt d ,h p bl ,tlrn ma b, n du„d n tai tied ie Set 6,m n It pmtijr for the wealthy, and rarariry saran for those
,ray me m d r a rrahm c I ded'ms ph,xeprrup. mo dln3. n br rnr in6rm,non
m ,tee ,tad eeri e A n nrrn, ,r A e p miNon ie .tar q Rom the Arne,.., P6nnI^a fearful of crime. They examine the social, political, and
r; tared nn rota led p pre'n r e p to acv eepd.d IMr governance implications associated with this type of .
,tad Inv p,rea.. ea, . r, /Q residential living and consider whether that
0 developments actually meet their intended purpose.
Be
W !71
10 32XIO
aac~oi I' ~ ,
,
:VON" t
ATTACHMENT 02
LEGAL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Z-98-019
The Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Denton will hold a public hearing on Wednesday,
M.*y 13, 1998, to consider rezoning a 4.998 acre tract located on the east side of FM 2181 (Teasley
lane) across Boon Bent Oaks Street, commonly, known as 3311 Teasley Lane, from an Agricultural
(A) zoning district to an Office (0) zoning district (sea map on backside). The 4.998 acre property is
legally described as Tract 7 of the J. Fisher Survey (Abstract 421), Denton County, Texas. The
purpose of the zoning change is to develop offices. The public hearing will start at 5:30 p.m. in the
City Council Ctiamt are of City Hall located a1215 E M00nne 1. Denton, Texas. 93cause1~
Y Street
own property within two hundred {200) feet of the subject property, the Planning and Zoning
Commission would like to hear how you leel about this zoning change request and Invites you to
attend the public hearing. Please, in order for public opinion to be taken into account, return this form
with your comments by mail, fax or in person to:
Planning and Deveioptrwnt Department f
221 N. Elm ST f
Denton,Texas 78201
Attn: Wayne Reed, Planner I f
A zoning petition follows a two step process designed to provide opportunities for citizen Involvement
and comment. The first step, following the submission of an application for a zoning change, Is to
schedule a public hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission. Landowners within two
hundred (200) feet of the subject property ari notified of the Planning and Zoning Commission public
hearing by way of this notice. The Commission Is Informed of the percent of responses in support and
In opposition. Second, the zoning petition is fxwarded to the City Council for final action providing the
Commission recommends approval. Should the Commission recommend denlal, the petitioner may
then appeal the request to the City Council. If inners of mwe than twenty (20) percent of the Sand
area within two hundred (200) feet of the site subnA written opposition, then six out of seven votes of
the City Council are required to approve the zoning change. These forms are used to calculate the
percentage of landowner opposition.
Please circle one:
r In favor of request Neutral to request Opposed to request
d r Comments:
4•
I
1 Signature:
Printed Name: _
Mailing Address:
City, Stale Zip:
Telephone Number.
Physical Address of Property within 200 feet:
Y= c'
9.
rr
l+a+ Z x 32X 10
w
X-0 ~~W
c
ATTACHMENT N3
t COURTESY NOTICE
Z-98-019
The Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Denton will hold a public hearing on Wednesday,
May 13, 1998, to consider rezon'ng a 4.998 acre tract located on the east side of FM 2181 (Teasley
Lane) across fr. n bent Oaks Street, commonly known as 3311 Teasley Lane, from an Agricultural
(A) zoning district to an Office (O) zoning district (see map below). The 4.998 acre property is legally
described as Tract 7 of the J. Fisher Survey (Abstract 421), Denton County, Texas. The purpose of
` the zoning change Is to develop offices. The public hearing will starl at 5,30 p.m. In the Ci!y Council
I Chambers of City Hall located at 215 E. McKinney Street, Denton, Texas, Because vc i own orooerty
within five hundred (500) feel of the subject Prope& the Comm3Sioners encourege you to express
Your views about th:1 zoning change roguesf and Invite you to attend the pub!?c hearing.
Neighboring property owners localad whhln 200 feet of the subject site may have received a different
type of notice, giving them an opportunity to sibmlt written support or opposition for this proposal 1
In accordance with stab law. You are stlil encouraged to offer written co~.menls or verbal
comments at the public hearing. Please call the City Planning 6 Development Department at
9401349-11350 If you have any questions.
i
A ,
~ I
I •
o '1 i ~ to e
LJ
LOCATION MAP j
10.
r ~ rH« fin 71- 11
zsa.rau
o
+4rv1r•as.
112
ORDINUCS 190. 7 4
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OP D3..N, TEXASI PPOVIDIIIO FOR T4E POSTIRG OP
SIGNS SY THE DIkECTOR Of PLAITNI40 UPON THE APPLICATION MR A EONINO
CRA.YGS OR A SPDCCAL PERMIT) PROVIDING FOR REOpIRE!~EI.!S FOR THE RI'E,
LOCATION AND CONTENTS OF Silo 51GNS) PROVIDING A PErIALTY FOR RV,IrmL OR
DEFACING OF SAID SIGNSr PROVIDING FOR SEVERASILITY) A!iD PROVIDING AM
w'.
EFFECTIVE DATE.
T9E CITY COMICI4 OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS F.ERESY ORnAIPgr
¢ECTION I. i
ITO later than ter !lnl days before the Planning AM. loving
Commission public hearing on nn apPpleeatlon for a tuning ehanga or
spacial permit. the applicant shall allow the Director of Plannlnq os
his designated cepr!sentatlvo to place a sign or Awns nn t7!e Dsoperty
site under application for the purpose of asvertising proposed zoning
changes and apoctal permits. Signs Placed an t?,s prooetty site
involved shall be in the best location pafsible, for genalal puhltc vies?
as determined by Director of Planning. Signs placed nn the proeerty
site involved Shall be no smollet than efgltaen 11011mches by
twenty-five t2511nches and shall at minimum Include the worar, 'toning
Change Requested' and the current city t0ephone 11-Inhat of the planninq
dapartsent, All signs shall remain 0n the vsooerty site until fins!
dispaaltlon of the coning or sPeelel permit request is
Cetlrmin!?.
upon such a final disposition , It Shill he the ll ;n!Itar.t'/
responsibility to remove the raid signs from the property Mitt lwolvld,
SECTION II.
It shall bo unlawful for any person prior to a sln!I eilpomition
of an application cequ!st to knowingly clnove, 4 flce nr in;u:e In any
manner a s!qn or pact ther!ef oUeed upow psco!tty unMe ehg auth0e!e?
of this ordinance. Anv person vba yim!atli any prmvW cw n' thl)
WIr,anct .e !**n,0 guilty X a m!a'r!vnt, lnA, w.1 corr;~t!or,
.roil ;e punia%nd by a fini r1t to e<ete? .•s" :r?^':a? "ot_'ar7 II:CO.Qn1.
~E ION III.
If any section, subsection, nsrtgraphr sentMr.n'/, clsasn, phrase o-
+ocd !n this orClnanCM, Cr application thlrlof to env a!!snn 'ne
circumrtonels is :old lnvalte by any court of eomp!tont turiE?{ettor,
r uch hcldl.nq rhali not /f flCt thl vslfalty of tM renAirinfi 74rtiOrs n!
this ordinance, It being the intent rrr the Clt'! :olW! of tso I! If
01ntan, 'liras to a4r.pt!nm thtl arAirsnes rt r.yt% ! 1[
1!7n :r fequ lat!)r ^nta: ,F! ♦'•.:I :1 )%•'r rT • L["'1 r-
. !:n^ r1 one Drat' l.lon]' I l•
14•ot I1r ail nr)vtcl:'s ace ars'' ro •s :1•Mr '..I tr :hat o'r•»I•.
SECTIQ0 IV.
i r
".!1 mt^!ra.•.Ce 0311 w!CR'e 11!1ctlv-1 •nq:tw!! A-$ d!nR. 11t1 I,
10 '7! •~C :age, and t'1 :1 t'! 11 Ir ~r[... ~1 .s ,~1 .,'w {{I 'i.
1-3
'it ! Ilt1 ml SSi par)a$e.
Ia
e r
• r r~~,r. Ma.,rrinrv¢Yr., MU. K.wAM1Ym: r M,+M.bYn.M urw~.r. n, r
113
PAS$'D AND APPAOVEJ, "'S tAt 213t''00 Ot AU9USt, A.D. 1177.
, r
r'
J it, TO
CITY OF OVMR, Tans
ATTEST
Blow 0 CITY ZC zr Y
CITY OP DENTON, TEXAS
(1,f APPAOVED AS TO LEGAL POPv
rJ!' I
VAT R. 3OLOM00 , IMO CITY '
' Q AI`IORNEY, CIiY OF DENTON, ITEMS
n
i
L ~
j
,
r'
F
' r 1 I.
1 ~ Af •
I ,
12.
•
0
i
i
J
e
. .........we.n.www•aawr:/tikMckwda~•'w'~eN~'NwAro-vwww. ~
1
I ,
I
}
ATTACHMENT MS
r
CITY OF DENTON
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
PROPOSAL; ZONING CHANGE'
CASE 0 Z•98-015
SITE SIZE 0.482 ACRES
CITY COUNCIL
PUBLIC 7:00 pm MAY 12, 1998
HEARING COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CITY HALL
215 E. McKINNEY STREET
FOR MORE INFO: CITY PLANNING i DEVELOPMENT DEPT.
221 N. ELM STREET 1140) 3194350 ~
• " or SIGN VARIANCE, ZONING VARIANCE, OR TRAFFIC VARIANCE I {
M ~
t
d 1, A
t C .
h~
) yl
13. .
_q( ;I!
M-//~ 4
s
a
i
I
Agenda No,_L~ i
AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET Ayertda Ite n 5 #
Date _
AGENDA DATE: May 26, 1998
DEPARTMENT: Planning Department
DCM: Rick Sveh!a, 349.7715
SUBJECT- Incentives for Affordable Housing
Receive a report, hold a discussion and provide staff direction regarding incentives for
"Affordable Housing".
BACKGROUND
Concurrent with the first discussion about the imposition of impact and other development fees
in Denton was a concern about the effect of these costs on the price of housing, particularly at
the waiving of impact
the lower end of the housing market. City council asked staff to explore
fees for "affordable housing" developments. Council has also approved a schedule for additional
housing research and housing quality surveys.
This work session kicks off a discussion about affordable housing. Any discussion about the
waiver of fees for affordable housing should be broadened to include all incentives to encourage
affordable housing and should be done within a context of an over-all strategy to encourage the
development of housing that is attainable by all members of the community. In the attached
report staff has provided background information regarding housing characteristics in Denton
(from the, 1990 census), examples of other programs in oth:•r communities, an example of an
o cr-all housing strategy for another city, and a draft lane, conveyance program for Denton.
Each of these could become elements of an affordable housing strategy.
Staff seeks direction from Councii concerning:
o the definitions important in discussing affordable housing;
u the type of costs cligil:le for consideration;
u the form ofincentive;
v any other issue related to affordable housing.
Staff needs to complete further research regarding the legal authority to waive development-
related fees that is not available to the community as a whole,
PRIOR ACTION 1 REVIEW (Council. Boars+a Commisjon1)
F There has been no action of other City boards or commissions, Minh of this information has
been presented to the (lousing First group.
f
FISCAL INFORMATION
Waiver of fees for affordable housing, unless reimbursed from other sources, will result in fewer
resources for designated funds - such as water i nd was:ewater improvement funds in the event
impact fees are waived, or the general fund in tht event permit and platting fees are waived.
I.
kai r;~: 7.K1❑ 32x1❑
I
p,
' " I r I tel.
r 1'
i
1 I
e r 1
•w*sw.ij.4'+....vr.., r r 1'^7F.1;r"x;4iTALtl-07ktYri.'4rcR'C,WhtIIwJ•hril^M,WInRfdatwMdr ~ n.+...«..
I
I
I
i
i
ATTACHNIFNTS
1 r Report on Affordable Housing with following appendices:
a. Report on Housing Characteristics in Denton
b. Sample Programs from other Cities
t c. Community Housing Attainability Stralegy - Glenwood Springs, CO.
{ d. Draft Land Conveyance Program
e. Letters from Housing First members
i
Respectfully submitted:
j David Hill
Director of Planning and Development
Prepared b
y: 4 4i
n'' S
d/ I +L lc'/vim
Mark Donaldson
Assistant Director, Planning and Development (y
t I .
y.
I ii
I { I i
i I
d 0
I
1 e Y h'.
~ I ~ I t~ f7'r11 I
i
i a 1
h IVn ni, ml r (R. /.nyr,Y Ut•{Ihip 1jh: duMr J r,hig d~a' Y `r I "F
2 t.
t ~`r~,t, • 26 ~a~~ 32 x.
7
i
I
F t, ,
_.v.. , ,c+Y r~:..abvn4.>J1', , ,:.s r.,,.rtf9..w'ol;:ee~A:iLP:fBr.''wn`;'d'Mka'7~FSa".SF6=M'a'u,.`:+./"S"Tfit14WM~+~Ya'328MSt7'~f Y&a,rtH r '.w.n... ~ g.
f
E
J II
1
fF 1 1
Report
on
r~
Affordable Housing
f~V'(
i
I
City Council
Work Session
May 26, 1998
i j+ o
11 'e 'i
Dep
artment of Planning and Development 221 N, Elm Street Denton, Texas 78201 11 (940)349-8350
t J ;r~
jw~;"
~ a
3.
26'x M I`r4 32X
°'Jk~~~jtN~~Yl+a4 J 1
0
• I
,
,
I
w ^1 'Y .,'WI ' S t @W '~,;1171tf+t. 'f(d6Afa\{~Y~L, 6T :a6Klaw.'IxY{l ua'n w .
• r ,
I
Contents
u Problem Statement
o Expectations for this meeting
o Definitions
D Affordable Housir. j
Qualified Developer
D Target Area
Qualified Development
o Summary of Housing Characteristics in Denton ;
i
o Typical Housing Costs Controlled by the City of Denton
o Typical Housing Costs Influenced by City Requirements
u Appendices
Housing Characteristics In Denton
i
➢ Sample Programs from other Cities I
4 Glenwood Springs, CO
4 San Antonin, TX
S• Austin, TX
Community Housing Affordability Strategy - Glenwood Springs, CO, '
> Draft Land Conveyance Program i
Letters from Housing First members
t
1~ !
P,
4i
1 I .
1
1
I A
44
5 ?,.5 x 10
32X~~
0
' o
_ r
I ,
Problem Statement
The affordability of housing, even in Denton, Texas, where housing compared to the balance
of the metropolitan area and the nation Is still relatively Inexpensive, Is an issue of great
concern to many people. At the same time, local governments are doing a better job, through
the imposition of fees and other required development regulations of passing on the true cost
of development and balancing the need for public improvements with the development of new
housing. Caught In this crunch between rapidly rising housing costs and slowly Increasing
household Income are those households in the bottom half of the income range.
For housing at the low end of the value spectrum, the imposition of impact and other fees is
more strident than on those at the upper end of the ladder. An impact fee of $3,000 per unit
represents 4% of the value of a $75,000 house, but only 1.3% of the value of a $225,000
house. Because the pool of potential home buyers or renters is shaped like a pyramid,
reducing costs at the low end of the spectrum opens housing opportunities to many more
people than the same dollar reduction at the upper end of the spectrum.
Home ownership is perhaps the single biggest factor In creating a sense of 'place" In a
community. With ownership comes equity, with equity comes responsibility, and with
responsibility for one's home and surroundings comes a sense of pride In the community.
Denton Is a difficult place for lower income families to become home-owners. Incomes in the
city are relatively low while housing Is moderately priced. The ratio of median house value to E
median family income in Denton (en Indicator of unaffordable housing) from the 1990 census
data is highest among 10 cities selected for comparison, Among the same ten cities, the rate
of home ownership among the City's households Is the lowest • only 39% of all households in
Denton live in a home that they own. The national home ownership rate Is close to 66%.
Many local governments waive some or all of the development-related fees associated with
building affordable housing, City Council has asked that staff look at some of the possible
ways that this can be done.
The issue of fairness must be addressed up front. As Council contemplates what is perceived
as a subsidy of low income housing, members of the community will probably express that the
subsidization of this type of housing is unfair, that waiving development-related fees for the low
Income will shift this tax burden to the rest of community. They may be right! Council must
decide if it Is worth it. Keep in mind that home owners with a mortgage receive the biggest
subsidy in the history of the naWn - the income tax mortgage interest deduction.
The quid pro quo for affordable housing program participation often Is found in the
requirements that must he achieved to qualify for the program. Often, these affordable
housing units are restricted as to the income of the households who benefit, the rent or cost of
the housing unit, the resale price of owned homes, and the length of time under these
restrictions. Some communities have even restricted the resale price of any subsequent sale
0 of owner-occupied housing and tt.e employment locAtion of program participants. Some O ,
communities have required new commercial development to provide some amount of
employee housing. Tho opportunit es and methods are countless. The hard part is agreeing
on the direction to purs-je.
5.
M.
0
ZOO"" '
-
O
own"
: ~ .•.i .,~r... ft s.~ 4r„^•'Y^P+ii•.nD`:"i JbY'@1'dk.. 7•irv:Y. .n 'A,:d ~ w-w..~
E
EXPECTATIONS FOR THIS MEETING
r
o Provide direction on definitions of.
1, affordable housing;
2, qualified developer;
3. target area;
4. qualified development.
4 Provide direction on the type of costs eligible for consideration,
including but not limited to:
I. park land dedication or fee in lieu;
2. park land development fees;
3. other impact fees;
4. zoning and platting fees; or
5. building permit fees.
Provide direction on the form of incentive:
1. Waiver of fees up front without reimbursement from another
portion of the city budget; 3
2. Waiver of fees up front with reimbursement from mother
portion of the city budget; or
3. rebate based on performance. i
Provide direction on an/ other issue related to affordable housing.
,
ti.
6 . .f
25x O
3ix 10
,
o
• o ,
wpm]"
1
i
sfinitions
Affgrdable Housing means:
For renter-occupied housing, this typically means housing that costs less than 30% of
household Income. Low Income households typically mean hcv,,holds that heve
Incomes less than 60% of the area's median household income.
For most state and federal funded projects, qualified affordable housing for low-income
households Is housing that costs less than 30% of 60% of median household income.
In 1991-98, for example, the median annual household income for a family of four in
Denton was $52,300, so monthly income was $4,360.
30% of 60% of $4,360 is $784.80
For a family of four in Denton In 1997.98, affordable rental housing for low-Income
households would cost less than $785 pet month. Housing costs include rent plus utility
costs. Household Income can vary from area to area and household sizes.
For the City's CDBG programs, the household and family incomes for the Dallas-Fort
Worth metro area are commonly used.
For owner-occ upled housing, this also typically means housing that costs less than
30% of income. Typically, median family incomes are used, because it more closely
matches the demand for owner-occupied housing.
For most owner-occupied housing programs, qualified affordable housing Is housing
that low income families can qualify for a mortgage. Q;ialifications are typically pegged
to commonly used mortgage ratios in the area. A ratio of income to housing cost of, for
example, 32% could be used.
In 1997-98, for example, the median annual income for a family of four in Denton was
$52,300, so monthly Income was $4,360. Low income families are those below 60% of
median household Income.
0 32% of 60% of $4,360 is $837.12
For a family of four in Denton in 1997-98, affordable owner-occupied housing for low
income families would cost less than $837 per month. Housing oosts Include principal,
interest, Insurance, taxes and utilities, A rule of thumb is that each dollar of monthly
PITI supports a house value of $100, so that a mortgage payment of $837 would
support a mortgage of about $84,000. Adjusting this figure for utility cost allowance and
• down payment, a reasonable cap on house value for an affordable housing program p
could be $84,000.
Affordable housing, then, is a rr,flection of local Income, household oompisition, and housing
type compared to a housing cost threshold.
•1
7.
32X
r
s
e
.
9
I • ..r. , •r.C, l'a.♦ VS.rIY4Yy^3A A 4L¢v!!k46AhfRA+'F/V9nfiY.YfY:'t4t{kM!rf4l'(li':A*w1.4'N r,.rwwu vu.J... ,
I1 ~ .
Qualified Developer means: j
Often, qualified developers are those ihat participate In a state or federal affordable E
housing program.
or r
The definition could be expanded to include any developer who meets the standards
f established in any City affordable housing program.
or
r
A qualified developer could be defined as any non-profit entity certified by the City to
qualify for assistance.
f
Target Area means
Any area eligible for public Improvement funded In whole or In part with funds from the
City's Community Development Block Grant.
or
Any area within the boundaries of the city.
or, for example,
Any area within the boundaries on a map. f
Qualified Development means:
i a
Affordable housing developed by a qualified developer within a tar,tet area.
w
8
r 5 I:"t a A 1
A r
r
IS
~ r.
1 S
_ w.+yn~ Pyl!T t 6A`9
32X ~D.
~J X IO i~• fig. s.!
Q
Summary
D The housing and demographic characteristics of the City of Denton are different
from any other place in the Dallas-Fort Worth region.
> Less aingledamily housing. The City of Denton had a significantly smaller percentage of '
single-family housing types than the balance of Denton County, the North Central Texas
Council of Governments (NCTCOG) area or the State of Texas.
> More multl-family housing. The City had in 1990 a significantly greater percentage of
multi-family housing types than the balance of Denton County, the North Central Texas
Council of Governments (NCTCOG) area or the State of Texas.
> Fex c r mobile homes. The City had in 1990 a smaller percentage of mobile homes than the
balance of Denton County and the State of Texas.
> More low valued houses. Compares to the balance of the County, the City had In 1990 a
greater share of houses valued at less than $50,000.
> Greater value to income ratio. In spite of the larger number 1 lower valued houses, the
City had In 1990 a greater Value to inoome (both household an3 family) ratio than the
balance of Denton County, the NCTCOG region and the State of Texas.
> Fewer families. The City had in 1990 a lower percentage of family households than any
other of the comparison cities.
> Fewer owner-occupant households. The City had in 1990 the lowest percentage of
owner-occupant households among the com;:erison cities, and second lowest (behind Irving)
in the Metroplex.
> Smaller average household slno The City had In 1990 the lowest average household size,
the largest percentage on one and two-member households and the lowest percentage of
three and four pius member households among comparison cities.
r More twenty-somethings and seniors. The City had in 1990 a greater than average share
of County population among two age groups: 18 to 29, and 65 and ovar,
> More persons In poverty. Compared to the balance of Denton County, the City had in 1990
more than four times the number of persons and three times the number of families living
below the poverty threshold.
> Lower family Income. The median family Income in the City in 1990 *as 33% less than the
balance of Denton County.
> Moderate lousing values. The median owner-occupled house value in the City in 1990
was 19% less than the balance of Denton County.
> More cost burdened renter households. More than half the renter-households In the City
in 1990 spent more than 30% of household Income for housing, nearly twice the percentage
of the balance of Denton County,
9,
,
25 x I~ 32XI❑
.rig • .
t
r O r
i
: i . ~^.end,:.N!..vnr,:',cv'f,^a'w•.,. i, , ..:.w+. ~
Typical Housing Costs Controlled by the City
Current Fees
Zoning application
Platting application
Building Permit application
Water line tap costs
Wastewater line tap costs
(Potential) Impact Fees or Dedications
Park land fees
Water improvement fees
Wastewater Improvement fees
Transportatic:i Improvement fees
Drainage system Improvement fees
Typical Public Improvements j
Right-of-Way dedication
Perimeter street improvements
•
Drainage Improvements: on- and off-site
Water line extensions and fire hydrants
Wastewater line extensions
Electrical facilities
I
10. ,t
25 x-1 0 32 x I Q'
Y ~r I^~ r
r < I, ° I f , y 1•
J J , 1
1
~I® 1 '
T
t1r r _ 1 ~ ! ..,5
I
1 O
.
,
;
1
! •I
,t l
, ...,..,...ryw.rlroww..aA.'..n.:-:~..,'ww•:a",.,:~.;wrlJi:HHW.C.S:;~a'b•M:,^!Y.~NRNBMP~'. e-~y,~MtMi/rgl+•kFLav uMSkwawn'.vavw ~
Typical Housing Costs Influenced by City^uirements I "
Fy} I) cal Required Priyat0 Imorovementj
Density:
Single-Family: minimum lot size, required yards, lot coverage ration
Multi-Family: number of units per acre
t
Off-street parking:
1 Landscaping: required trees and planting area
Irrigation: mult14emily and common areas within single-family
subdivisions
Interior and perimeter streets, sidewalks and curb and gutter
Building requirements: manufactured versus stick-built housing
Utility extensions: water and wastewater lines
r:
{
E r ~ 1 x
11,
1. f
i
-44
t
•r
, C
J 'r
'r r t r ,
~ l
2I. I
°I
1,1 y r r ai ~ x~ yi,• ~;r'.
Ynl S ar n l n r yl 1. s r ,
M
1~~75 32X
I
,
1VVA•A~V -04i Y.81±54:d:~1'r'h 'lJill~is F.tl9!4".ON'IKM1GY:+POw'iRIXbF. d+•~+w~#w r.M..,. '
!
I
pry F 1 ,
Affordable Housing Program
Y
5 11 51. city
3;r
77af
F i
g'°I I
r;
IA of
Glenwood Springs,
,I
Cwo0
f;
I
I
1 A~ 1
l L ~ ,
f -
r'r
II Ir I
ZZ J df L~ A ,~'r,, r
fit' r F , a,..
M~~ F 25 I0 tlh,~ ~2 XIg1
~ UUO SPGS., 90319770:e 4
918 ;1U'55.1.1d ;CITY. GLENN„
Commenced within the City after said data. Any ordinance amending this Title
shall became applicable tan days after second publication unless otherwise
specified In sold ordinance and Shall be applicable to all developments,
subdivisions or other uses of '-and eoemenced within the City after said date.
e. Any developments, subdivisions or uses of land for which an application
has been filed and application tree have been paid prior to the effective date of
this title or the effective date of an amending ordinance may follow this title as
of the date such action was commented or, at the option of the applicant, may follow
this title as amended.
C. Any land which has been subdivided prior to the effective date of this
title and for which there has been no development review or other revive
substantially similar to the development review provided for In Article 070.020
Shalt be subject to those provisions of this title applicable, to development.
However, said land shall not be required to empty with the subdivision provisions
of this Title unless the owner wishes to resubdivide the land in which case the
resubdlvlslon and all other use of the land shall comply with all provisions of this
title.
070.010.061 Teeen!•ivee for A[ferdahla Ranging krbiacts.
A. maflnltlens. As used in this section, certain terms are defined as
follows:
1. -Affordable housLAp: means residential dwlli. units for which the
annual rental or annual purchase expense does not exceed thirty percent
(30t) of the gross annual Lncome for slow Incomes families in Garfield
county, as published Lit the latest edition of the V.S. Department of
Mousing and Urban Development, ccm unlty Development •lecle Grant Program
Guidelines.
2. •ouallfLa dm.etooe.• means any person who is constructing new
residential housing within the City and who is contractually bound,
through financing arrangemonta or otherwise, by a governmental or non-
profit agency other than the City to provide all or a portion of the
residences as affordable housing for a period of at least twenty years.
(Ads 12-51, 611
N. rmro nn rrom Fees. Qualified developers of affordable housing shall be ,
eligible for exemption from partial or total waiver of the following fees to the
extent these fees would otherwise be applied to the developments (A. 5-94, f11
1. Any development review fse required under Section 070.010.040.
* 2. Any construction permitting fee required under Title 060.
3. Any water or sewer tap fee required under Subsections 040.040.010(e) or 1
060.030.010(c) respectively.
4. Any water or sewer system improvement its required under Article
y Od0.060.
4
(supp. No. 11) 7-14
1 y
13.
I al"
-a' 7.5 x ❑ 32 x
%JL
ramsiami
0
9-96 , I w S5.v CITY, GLENAwD SPGS. W3497707:# at 4 '
I
S. off-site tcanoportatlon impact fee for residential strueturee required
under Section 070.030.110.
(Ad. 12-91, S11 A. S-94, SSp Ad. 16-940 S2)
C. Aenlication for Lampti ft■nt:act IIamt red. ,
`
1. A qualified developer may request exemption from any or all of the fees
set forth In Subsection 0 by sukeittLeg written application to the City
in conjunction with development as subdivision review for the grojoot.
Tito developer shall submit written proof of eligibility demonstrating
to the satisfaction of the City that the developer and the development
meet the requirements of this section. The Dove Lapar shall submit
written documentation disclosing its ownership structure, a project
financial statainent which Includes disclosure on its profit margin far
the project, and any and all other documentation requested. ?allure to
provide sueh documentation shall disqualify a davelapor from the
exemption from fees. (A. S-940 91)
2. final determination of eligibility shall be "do by the City Council.
it City council authorises a partial as total fee waiver, the qualified
developer and the City shall enter into a contract with a term et at
least twenty (20) years guaranteeing that the development shall remain
as affordable housing in consideration for the exemption granted by the
City. City Council shall have the discretion to deny an application to
fee waiver if it le dissatisfied in any way with the content of the
written, documentation. (A. 5.94, S2)
3. In the easo of developmonts in which some, but not all, of the
residences ate proposed as affordable housing, the City shall prorate
the exemption provided herein based upon the proportion of the
development devoted to affordable housing.
(Ad. 12-91, S11 A. S-94, S21
D. Camolianco with Cthmr Code ReaulromonLe. Any mx&%ption granted by the
city pursuant to this section shall not be construed to excuse the developer from
the performance of any other duty or obligation am required by this Code. Except 1
as specifically provided in this Sectlon, affordable housing projects shall comply
with all provisions of this Code.
(Ad. 12-91, Si)
010.010.070. Conflicts with Code and Charter. ,
If any provlalan of this Title conflicts with other provisions of the 1
Municipal code, the provisions of this Title shall control and take precedence. If
any provisions of this Title conflict with the Municipal Charter, the Charter shall
control and take precedence.
070.010.090. ya y of yrovialans. sewnDllliY• '
It is hereby declared to be the Intention of City Council that the provisions
of this title are severable of provided in section 4.7 of the Chaster and subsection
• 020.020.020.3.
(9upp. No. 31) 7-14.1 l , ;
14.
,1 ti 1 ~ y4 S .
n
1 1 ' `
4
1
1 r ,r' ~ 1 r~ I
,...A.wuswealms~Nkrv.MC _:a,u ~e0CuY:t..N^,K'IK73pC~T~.NKKfffit"~tMA4w~M1g1eMrllf•M~tliN~`JNYOMYrkMIMnIMArJrM+warr•~ ,k,i.:.~
i
It Affordable Housing Program
City
I
~S 1
x'' I
of
San Antonio,
k,
TX
1
r r ,
r
1 n 4
r •'f'
~ R I I Y A
G
1 f,ti
e V w
15• t ~ I
f(L }
18 ' Ila i PO r 2 5'x
01 t$'Z {X
i
/11iaR1'1 I
O
110CMM
i
Coy
EV:
MOM
(641 r
AN ORDINANCE 81974 '0lii
APPROVING AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING INCENTIVE 000
PROGRAM USING WATER AND SEWER IMPACT FEES
AND AU11HORIZING THE SAN ANTONIO WATER
SYSTEM (SAWS) TO PROVIDE REBATES AND/OR
WAIVERS OF WATER AND SEWER IMPACT FEES FOR
ELIGIBLE DEVELOPMENTS.
WHEREAS, there eadsts within the City of Sin Antonio an area in need of affordable housing to
assist in meeting the requirements of the community, such area being located within interstate f
Highway Loop 410 (the "Targeted Area"); and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 35.3042 of the City of San Antonio's Uaified
Development Code, an Affordable Housing Policy for the City of San Antonio has this day been
officially adopted by ordinance, defining "affordable housing" and establishing criteria which a
development must meet to qualify under such definition; and j
' WHEREAS, it order to promote the City's recognized treed for affordable housing by `
encouraging the development of affordable housing in the Targeted Area, it has been determined
that an Affordable Housing Incentive Program be established, allowing for a reduction in the form
of a waiver or refund of required payments of water and sewer impact fees for eligible
developments, NOW THEREFORE:
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO:
A
1 ~
Section 1, An Affordable Housing Incentive Program for the development of affordahle housing
in the area located within Interstate Highway Loop 410 is hereby approved. Said Program is
aff ced hereto and incorporated herein by reference for all purposes as Attachment I
Additionally, should any federal funds be rpended in conrtecdon with the promotion of the
Affordable Housing Incentive Program, all applicable laws, rules, rt&sdoes and other mandates
shall be followed f
• 0
' Section 2. The San Antonio Wur• System (SAWS) is hereby autbotized to provide rebates ~
and/or waiver of water and sewer impact fees for those developmemi meeting the Criteria f
established for qualification 1) under the defiMion of "affordable bouting" as adopted this due by f
16.
❑ 32 x I ❑
'S o s I r '
,
r i
ti!
i
7
0
1
OW=
,
ordinance; and 2) in accordance with the procedure or qualifying for the incentive program is
delineated in Attachment I
PASSED AND APPROVED this ~11 day of ~ 1995.
'i
"6 w~
MAYO R r
A ST:.
City erk ~ X ,
APPROVED AS 70 FORM: _
J ecity tomey
95 -14'
I:
t
-44
r
0 t
~ r
1 6%
I
I
i. i
17.
1 i r r.~ d m bier .p n,J. G , ty,</ ~`V
32
C
t
M
ArtACMi I
MAfPordable Houalaa ecentive Program of the City of San Antonio
Siogle-Family:
• Goal - To increase the number of affordable houses available in the targeted
price range and targeted area
• Targeted sales price - $75,000.00 and below.
• Targeted area • inside loop 410
• Incentive - 100% rebate of paid water and sewer impact fees to homebudders
for qualifying housing units and Mls waiver to non profit organizations and
Public Housing providers of assessed water and sewer impact fees for
qu6Wg housing units In the c&w of non profit organizations buying
property from a private developer, a rebate of paid impact fees would be issued
to the non profit organization
• Procedure of qualifyia• for incentive program: Participant submits application
to the Housing and Community Development Office for foul approval by City
Council Housing Task Force The application must document sales price and
location, Developments with speculative single-family developments must
consult with community based organizations and neighborhood associations in
addition to the aforementioned requirements Community based organizations j
can initiate targeting areas for the Affordable Housing Incentive Program City
notifies SAWS that the applicant qualifies
Nfulti-Family:
• Goal. To increase the number of multi-family rental units for targeted income
levels and targeted area
• Targeted income level • Rents typically track Me of gross family income, An
"=ple of rent for a family of four is approximately $560,
• Targeted area - inside Loop 410
• Targeted Developments - Developments using Federal, State and local funding
in whole or in pan and privately financed developments (with 25% of units set I
aide for low income)
• Incentive - 100% waiver to qualifying developments
• Qualifications for waiver -
I. Projects using Federal, State and local funding
2 Privately financed projects required to set aide 25% of units with
restrictive rents for a minimum of five years. p
31 Private and public developments will be monitored.
4. Non compliance results 6 penalties equal to the original impact fee plus
interest.
f
18.
32 X CIA
M
c
I
AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT
IMPACT FEE WAIVER APPLICATION
for
S1ngk-Fam4, 0*aer•0ccapkd Derdopmeat
PROCESS AND KEQUMEMENCS
As per City Council Ordirunee Number S I V4, dated April 3, 1995, water and sewer
impact fees may be refunded or waived for the purpose of escoungiag developmem of
affordable housing in the area located within Highway Loop 410.
Applications for water/sewer impact fee waver or refund coasideration must be submitted
to
The City of San Antonio
Department of Housing and Community Development
419 S. Maim Suite 200
San Antonio, Texas 78204
Phony (210) 220-3630
Applications affil first be approved by the Department of Housing and Commurnry
Development, then be presented to the City Council Housing Task Force for final
approval Upon a favorable derision by the Housing Task Fora, the City will notify San
Antonio Water Systems (SAWS) that the applicant qu21i5a.
Non-profit organizations will be granted a 1001/6 waher of weer and sewer impact fees
for qualifying units, Private, for-profit developers wfil receive a 100% rebate of paid
impact fees for qualifying units. (tn the case of a oon-profit organizidon buying property
from a private developer, a rebate of paid impact fees would be issued to the ao"rofit.)
DEFINITION OF TERMS
Affordabk lowing hat been defined, m City Council Ordinance Number 31973, dated
O March 30, 1995, as a unit of housing which does not exceed in cost thirty percem (30'/6)
of gross household income, including uttUes and aWme Lace, for Emilia which meet
the very low, low and moderate income guidelines as established and modified by the
Department of Housing sad Urban Development (HUD). For the purposes of this
applict6o4 a single-farnily bome *U be corWdered affordable if it is {anted within the
boundaries of Loop 410 and can be purchased for tens than $75,000.00.
Speculative development is defined, for this purpose, as a development in which any
homes will be constsucW priQeto having a committed qualified buyer.
13,
wrl
s
o
AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT
IMPACT FEE WAIVER APPLICA'T'ION
for
Multi-PamOy Development ,
PROCESS AND REQUIREMENTS
As Per City Council Ordinance Number 61974, dated April 3, 1995, water and sewer
impact foes may be refunded or waived for the purpm of eocoumging development of
affordable housing in the area located within Interstate Highway Loop 410,
Applications for water/sewer impact fee waiver or refund consideration must be wbmitted
to•
The City of San Antonio
Deparumt of Housing and Community Development
419 S Main. Suite 200
San Antonio, Texas 78204
Phone. (210) 220-3630
Applications wit fuss be approved by the Department of Housing and Community
Development, then be presented to the Ci: ^ouncil Housing Task Fora for final
approval. Upon a favorable decision by the Housing Task Fora, the City will notify San
Antonio Water Systems (SAWS) that the applicart quaMes.
Upon favorable retiiew, the City will notify San Antonio Water Systems (SAWS) that the
applJcant qualifies. Non-pro6t organizations will be granted a 1000% waiver of water and
sewer impact fees for qualifying uuts. Private, for-profit developen win receive a 100%
rebate orpaid impact fees for qualifying units
DEFINMON OF TERMS
Affordable housing has been defined, for this purpose, in City Council Ordinance
• Number 81973, dated Much 30, 1995, as a unit of housing which does not exceed in cost
thing percent (30'/.) of grou household ircome, hchi q utiMes and nWhienance, fnr
families which meet the very low, low and moderate iocorm guidelines as esublisked and
modi6ed by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
01 0 •
20.
- ~~xln 32x113
i
MOMM
,.n n;.r::a>u +n N .+.~,bw4..fi9Eae+lYP.'{ert~,'Hkk'9'SK'wtOC'GtdYAY~C+'86v.+10Yi.1h4~Ykh+RMEOw~w<wnr ~
lk
Et .
Affordable Housing Program
city
~r
V'
of
r f i
Austin,
TX
,
i
f~
21.
rr
r 4.
7 j, ~ 'J IN 0 3 2 X ~
e)
V
ORDINANCE NO. 970305-8
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 13-3A-10 OF THE CITY CODE TO
PROVIDE A CONDITIONAL EXEMPTION FROM THE REQUIREMENT FOR
PAYMENT OF THE WATER AND WASTEWATER CAPITAL RECOVERY FEE
FOR NOT MORE THAN 500 SERVICE UNITS OV AFFORDABLE HOUSING
EACH FISCAL YEAR; FURTHER PROVIDING A CONDITIONAL EXEMPTION
FROM THE REQUIREMENT FOR PAYMENT OF THE WATER AND
WASTEWATER CAPITAL RECOVERY FEE FOR CERTAIN AFFORDABLE
HOUSING PROJECTS; REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 960822•J AND
ORDINANCE NO 960118-E AND PROVIDING A CONDITIONAL EXEMPTION
FROM THE REQUIREMENT FOR PAYMENT OF THE CAPITAL RECOVERY
FEE FOR UP TO 290 SERVICE UNITS OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS
CONSTRUCTED IN THE FIRST TWO PHASES OF FAIRWAY RIDGE
SUBDIVISION.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN:
PART 1. The City Council makes the following findings:
(A) The City Council acknowledges the current shortage of affordable housing in the
city and the need for local government to encourage construction of additional affordable
housing units.
(B) The City's Department of Neighborhood Housing and Community Development
currently receives funding for affordable housing assistance under the federal Community
Development Block Grant Proffam and the federal HOME Affordable Housing Program.
(C) The City also provides affordable housing assistance under programs of the
Austin Housing Finance Corporation, a non-profit corporation administered by the City.
a
(D) The City Council has deter mrrd that providing an incentive for construction of
• additional affordable housing units in Austin wfil serve the public interest by expanding
opportunities for home ownership and by encottraginll limber employment, increasing sales
tax revenues, expanding economic development, and enhancing the City's property tax base.
(E) The City Council desires to set forth teams and conditions for a conditional
exemption from the requirement for payment of water and wastewater capital recovery fees
for not more than 500 service units of affordable housing constructed within the corporate
limits each fiscal year, if the housing amts comply with criteria for habitability, affordabtb'ty,
accessibility, water conservation, energy efficiency, and other procedures and requirements.
r8 22.
Ej
. .r'
7r1 Y. ~ri 32X*
• o '
.r
(F) The City Council also desires to provide an exemption from the requirement for
payment of the water and wastewater capital recovery fee for subsequent phases of certain
affordable housing projects located in the corporate limits if the housing units comply with
criteria for habitab-Ity, affordability, accessibility, water conservation, and energy efficiency.
(G) The City Council declares this exemption to constitute a program for economic `
development within the meaning of Chapter 380, Texas Local Government Code.
PART 2. Section 13.3A•10 of the City Code is amended to add a new Subsection (o) to read
as follows:
(o) An exemption from the requirement for payment of the water and wastewater
capital rec jvery fee applies to a total of not more than 500 service units of affordable housing
constructed each fiscal year, subject to the following condifions and limitations:
(1) Selection of the service units of affordable housing to receive this exemption in
each fiscal year must be based on a written application and competitive selection procedures
and criteria established by the Officer of Neighborhood Housing snd Community
Development to include the conditions and limitations set forth in this ;dbsection.
(2) Each affordable housing unit for which the exemption is sought must be:
(A) approved for assistance under an affordable housing program funded with
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) or federal HOME program assistance funds
administered by the City's Office of Neighborhood Housing and Community Development;
or
(B) approved for assistance under a program for affordable housing construction
funding or down payment autstaoce adwaiste ed by the Amstin Horning Fmence Corporation;
1 or
0 3 (C) approved under selection criteria for non-assisted affordable housing units
established by the Officer of Neighborhood Housing and Community Development that mat
the requirements of this subsection.
(3) The affordable housing unit must be a newly constructed single W* home or
multifamily housing unit located within the corporate limits of the city. o
(4) The applicant must deliver to the Officer of Neighborhood Housing and
Community Develo meat a restrictive coveuuM deed of
p tstrat, promissory note and outer ~
documentation deemed necessary by the City Attorney to establish an enforceable obligation
i
23.
10 32XIO
o
c
i
nauxnr '
by the applicant to repay to the City an amount equal to the capital recovery fee otherwise
applicable to the housing unit if the applicant does not sell the affordable housing unit, within
15 months of the execution of the documents, to a person with a gross household income not
exceeding 80 per cent of the Median Family Income for the Austin Standard Metropolitan
Statistical Area, or rent the affordable housing unit, within 15 months of the execution of the
documents, to a person with a gross household income not exceeding 80 per cent of the "
Median Family Income for the Austin Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area, as determined
by the Officer of Neighborhood Housing and Community Development at the time of the sale
or rental of the affordable housing unit.
(5) The design and construction of the affordable housing unit must meet the criteria
established by the Officer of Neighborhood Housing and Community Development for
habitability, affordability, accessibility, water conservation, and energy efficiency,
(6) The affordable housing unit must be served by existing City infrastructure and
services.
(7) During each fiscal year, the Officer of Neighborhood Housing and Community
Development must provide written certification to the Director of the Water and Wastewater
Utility identifying the sertiice addresses of the affordable housing units selected to receive this
exemption. The written notification from the Officer of Neighborhood Housing and
Community Development must be made before the issuance of a tap permit authorizing
connection to the City water and wastewater system.
(8) If the applicant fails to finish the construction of the approved affordable housing
unit within 15 months after certification, the Officer of Neighborhood Housing and
Community Development may revoke the certification and certify another affordable housing
unit that meets the requirements of this subsection
(9) If the applicant constructs the affordable housing unit but defaults with respect
to its obligations under paragraph (4) of this subsection or any other obligation of the
documents delivered to secure the obboons of the applicant, or fans to perform in
accordance with the coalitions for receipt of this exemption, the Officer of Neighborhood
Housing and Community Development and City Attorney may Wtiate legal proceedings to
recover the capital recovery fees that would have applied to the housing unit. Any fimds
recovered shall be deposited to the Capital Recovery Fee Account of the Water and
Wastewater Utility.
la ~
(10) M subsection does not require a refund by the Water and Wastewater Utility
of capital recovery fees previously paid,
i
24.
~5 K 10 32XID
NALMINAL
•
(11) The exemption provided for by this subsection may not be assigned or barnferred
by the applicant to any other property,
PART 3. In addition to the conditional exemption for up to 500 service units each fiscal year
provided in subsection (o) of Sec, 13-3A-10, City Code, a conditional exemption from the
requirement for payment of the water and wastewater capital recovery fee applies to the
following affordable housing projects as follows,
SubdrvlsloniProject; Maximum Exempt Service Units:
(1) Fairway Ridge: Up to 175 service units (beyond the initial
290 service units encompassed by
Ordinance No. 960118-E and Ordinance
No. 960822-n.
(2) Meadows at Walnut Creek Up to 1,000 service units.
(3) Springfield Up to 217 service units.
(4) SCIP H Up to 200 service units.
(5) Vision Village Up to 150 service units.
(6) Carino Up to 20 service units.
To receive the exemption provided, the developer shall make written application to the
Officer Neighborhood Housing and Community Development for approval of the
of exemption and comply with all requirements applicable to the conditional exemption in
subsection (o), except that the limitWm to $00 service units in the introductory clause of
subsection (o) and the competidvt selection procedures descnW in subsection (ox l) do not
apply
PART 4. Subsection 0) of Section 13.3A•10 of the City Code is amended to read as `
Wows:
0) CDBG Projects. No fee sbe11 be collected with respect to nongesidentij
construction Wed, wholly or paWy, by the City of Austin Cornmxutity Development Block
Grant Program.
PART S. Ordinance No. 960822-J and Ordinance No. 960118-E providing terms for
conditional reimbursement of capital recovery fees or an amount equivalent to the capital
25.
a Et !a. x 32x10
t
o
n
recovery fees for up to 100 and 190 affordable housing units, respectively, in the Fairway j
Ridge Subdivision are repealed,
PART 6. In addition to the 500 service units provided a conditional exemption from the
requirement for payment of the water and wastewater capital recovery fee in subsection (o)
of Section 13.3A-10, City Code, a conditional exemption from the requirement for payment
of the water and wastewater capital recovery fee applies for up to 290 affordable housing units
constructed in the first two phases of Fairway Ridge Subdivision if the housing units comply
with all requirements for approval of the conditional exemption set forth in subsection (o) of
Sec. 13-3A-10, City Code, except that the competitive selection procedures described in
subsection (oxl) do not apply. The number of service units for which reimbursement was
made under Ordinance No. 960822.1 and Ordinance No. 960118-E before the effective date
of this Ordinance shall be subtracted from 290 to obtain the total number of affordable
housing units in Fairway Ridge Subdivision to receive conditional exemption under this
ordinance.
PART 7. The Council waives the requirements of Sections 2.2.3 and 2.2-7 of the City Code
for this ordinance.
PART 8. This ordinance takes effect on March 16, 1997. ,i
i
PASSED AND APPROVED
March S
.1997.
Bruce Todd
Mayor
APPROVED:
A1TES
Andrew Marti lames E. Aldrid
City AltmAy City Clair
I ,
26.
? .x ❑ 32X
i
&swum
RESOLUTION
f
The City Council makes the following findings regarding the waiver of
fees of City departments:
WHEREAS, each budget y.ar, :he City receives numerous requests for
waiver of fees and charges of City departments, and the number and monetary
impact of such fee waiver requests has increased in recent years, with consequent
i mpacts to Austin ratepayers and taxpayers and the programs funded by such fees
and charges; and
WHEREAS, for previous budget years, no written policy or approved
budgetary limit has existed to guide the assessment and approval ofsuch requests
for fee waivers; and
WHEREAS, the State Constitution generally prohibits Texas
municipalities from making grants or donations of public funds or lending their
credit to persons or political subdivisions and also prohibits Texas municipalities
from forgiving indebtedness or obligations owed to the municipality except
where a municipal public purpose is served and other criteria are met; and
WHEREAS,in addition to the basic constitutional requirements described
above that apply to all fee waiver transactions, particular laws or rules may apply
to different types of fee waivers, including for example, impact fees which are
subject to the conditions and limitations of the State Impact Fee Law (Chapter
395, Local Government Code), and fees waived for economic development i
i projects subject to Chapter 380, Local Government Code; and
•
j WHEREAS, the City Council desires to establish a policy to provide
guidance, appropriate budgetary limitations and uniform criteria for the
processing and approval of requests for the waiver of fees of City departments;
NOW9 THEREFORE,
' Il
X34 I
27.
h, 2.5 K ~7 32XI❑
o
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
AUSTIN:
The City Council approves the following policy with regard to the
processing and approval of applications for waivers of fees and charges of City
departments:
(1) Establishment of Annual Budgerfor Fee Waivers: For each budget
year, the City Council will establish in the budget ordinance a
maximum amount of fees of City departments that may be waived
within the budget year; and
(2) Establishment of Special Fund for Payment ojFees Waived: With
the adoption of the annual budget for each budget year, the City
Council will establish and budget funds to a special fund to be
administered by the Director of Financial and Administrative
Services that will be employed to pay the fees of the various
departments whose fees are waived by the City Council within the
budget year. The amount budgeted to the special fund shall not
exceed the annual budgetary limitation on waiver of fees and
+ charges of departments established in each budget year in
accordance with Paragraph i above; and
I
(3) Payment ojFees to Departments on Approval of Fee Waiver by city
Council: For each waiver of fees of a City department that is i
approved by the City Council within the budget year, the amount f
waived will be paid from the special fund described above to the
department(s) whose fees have been waived by the City Council.
No general fund monies shall be used to repay enterprise fund
departments. Council may, however, waive the requirement to pay
departments affected by a fee waiver; and i
(4) Application for Fee Waiver, and Waiver by Ordinance; Any person
or organization may request a waiver of fees by submitting to the
City Manager or his designee an application providing at least the
0 information set out in the attached Exhibit A. If the City Council
finds that the requested fee waiver serves a bona fide public purpose-
of the City and meets all other requirements, and if the City Council
28.
+e':i 25 x ~Q 32 x~~.
0
{
wishes to waive fees for that purpose, the City Council may by
ordinance approve a waiver of the fees owed to one or more City
departments by an applicant, and authorize payment to the
department(s) whose fees are waived from the special fund
described above. In each budget year, the City Council may
prioritize the municipal purposes for which waiver of fees of
Departments may be approved; and
(5) Satisfaction of State Law Requirement for Incorporation of
Adequate Controls to Assure Achievement of the Municipal Purpose
for Which the Fee Waiver is Authorized: [n order to assure the
1' presence of the legal controls required by state law to assure the
accomplishment of the municipal purpose for any waiver of fees
approved by the City Council
(a) each ordinance waiving the fees of a department shall
incorporate such terms or conditions that the City Attomey or
his designee determine will reasonably assure the
achievement of the identified municipal purpose forming the
basis for the transaction; or,
(b) Shall require that the applicant enter into an agreement with I
the City setting forth terms and conditions that the City
Attomey or his designee determine will reasonably assure the
accomplishment of the municipal purpose for which fees are
waived; and
(6) The adoption of this policy does not create any right in any party
K y to a waiver of any fees, and the grant of a waiver under this policy
• does not create any obligation on the part of the City to grant I ,
additional waivers to any party. ; F
i ~
• ADOPTED: dune 12 , 1997 ATTEST: s:Ua Ct. `.(ktEca ,
/ James E. Aldridge ' " J
City Clerk " 1
1 w'
' 29.
a'~':
„•C x_ K
z5 i❑~ as I~.
X
j
*V'P N"tu ^1 I T:IJ }Yr:l.F4u ~ rrni
1
Housing Characteristics
Of the
City of Denton
and
i
Comparative Areas
I
} City of Denton
• Planning and Development Department ` t
221 N. Elm Street I
Denton, Texas 78201
(940) 349-8350
1 March, 1998
{
30.
~
L.~.•_ _ 25 10 32 x 10
n
. A n , [ SC
e
o ,
• 1 1
f
Glossary of Terms
Family. A family consists of a householder and one or more other persons living In the some
household who are related to the householder by birth, marriage, or adoption. All persons In a
household who are related to the householder are regarded as member of his or her famly. Not
all households contain families since a household may comprise a group of unrelated persons or
one person living alone.
Household, A household Includes all the persons who occupy a housing unit.
Housing Unii. A housing unit is a hose, an apartment, a mobile home, a group of rooms, or a
single room that is occupied (or if vacant, is intended to be occupied) as separate living quarters.
Householder. One person is each household Is designated as the householder. In most cases,
this Is the person, or one of the persons, in whose name the home is owned, being bought, or
rented and who is listed in column t of the census questionalre.
Owner-Occupied. A housing unit Is owner-occupied if the owner or co-owner lives in the unit
even if it is mortgaged or not fully paid for. The owner or co-owner must live in the unit.
Value. House value is the respondent's estimate of how much the property would sell for If it
were for sale.
Median. This measure represents the middle value In a distribution. The median divides the
total frequency into two equal parts: one-half of the cases fall below the dedian and one-half of
the cases exceed the median.
0 Selected Cjftjgs. Ten cities were selected for comparison purposes. They represent a range of I
cities from large suburbs to smaller, free-standing towns. Collectively, the average size of the
j ten selected cities Is very close to the City of Denton.
I `
31.
I'i
32 X 10
25
s
• e
I`
Summary
Y The housing and demographic characteristics of the City of Denton are different
from any other place in the Dallas-Fort Worth region.
Y Less single-family housing. The City of Denton had a significantly smaller percentage of
single-family housing types than the balance of Denton County, the North Central Texas
Council of Governments (NCTCOG) area or the State of Texas.
Y More multi-family housing. The City had In 1990 a significantly greater percentage of
multi-family housing types than the balance of Denton County, the North Central Texas
Council of Governments (NCTCOG) area or the State of Texas.
Y Fewer mobile homes. The City had in 1990 a smaller percentage of mobile homes than the
balance of Denton County and the State of Texas.
Y More low valued houses. Compared to the balance of the County, the City had in 1990 a
greater share of houses valued at less than $50,000.
Y (treater value to income ratio. In spite of the larger number of lower valued houses, the
City had in 1990 a greater Value to Income (both household and family) ratio than the J
balance of Denton County, the NCTCOG region and the State of Texas.
Y Fewer families. The City had In 1990 a lower percentage of family households than a, ,
other of the comparison cities.
ii
Y Fewer owner-occupant households. The City had in 1990 the lowest percentage of
owner-occupant households among the comparison cities, and second lowest (behind Irving)
In the Metroplex.
> Smaller average household size. The City had in 1990 the lowest average household size,
the largest percentage on one and two-member households and the lowest percentage of j
three and four plus member households among comparison cities.
r More twenty-somethings and seniors. The City h&d in 1990 a greater than average share
of County population among two age groups: 18 to 29, and 65 and over.
Y More persons In poverty. Compared to the balance of Denton County, the City had in 1530
more than four times the number of persons and three times the number of families living
below the poverty threshold.
> Lower family Income. The median family Income In the City in 1990 was 33% less than the
balance of Denton County.
r Moderate housing values. The median owner-occupied house value In the City in 1990
was 19% less than the balance of Denton County.
r More cost burdened renter households. More than half the renter-households in the City
in 1990 spent more than 30% of household Income for houeing, nearly twice the percentage
~lr of the balance of Denton County,
32.
4 I W
Y• t i t`. f; 1
0
I
. .i::. YT v. p 1•~•. a .aM1 n`f y.ef,.i_ Yni I:YWWiJ•I~XRp4•A`YYK.Vt64fM..YV ♦.11FYSti'YMC v•.tf:M:. ~ ..yew.:"n III •
I •
i
Housing Characteristics
In Denton, Denton County and the NCTCOG Region
from the 1990 Census, SrF-3
Housing Type by Percentage
SF Housing MF Housing Manf. Housing Other
City of Denton 43.9% 46.4% 7.7%
(17,207) (13,759) (2,215)
Denton County 60.7% 30.4% 819%
Balance of Denton Co. 85.8% 24.9% 9.3%
: I
NCT000 Region 61.8% 32.4% 5.8%
State of Texas 65.7% 25.4% 8.9°'0
Value ($000) of Owner-Occupled Houses by Percentage
514 ? 4 Median
City of Denton 18.6% 74.7% 8.6% $76.4
Denton County 8,6% 80.1% 11.3% $88.8
Balance of Denton Co, 6.9% 81.2% 11,9% $90.8
NCTCOO Region 21,0% 88.3% 121% $76.3
State of Texas 32,3% 61.8% 5.9% $58.9
Family Income to House Value Relationship ($000)
* Median Median
l0 Wme House Vatue B>iUl2
City of Denton 33.4 76.4 2,18
i• Denton County 44.9 88.8 1,98
0 Balance of Denton Co. 48.9 90.8 1.94 0
NCTCOG Region 47,5 76.3 1.61
State of Texas 31.6 58.9 1.88
33• j
r
5 x ❑ 32
=in ~m am
C
T
r
r O . r
1uMrr
N '
.
. . rv..rots.,•• .r. `.:r.,' -~•.~r: Y' i s.,tir r:.rKiWa'LT10.JM+~<NM'f,fYyWMP,1W r'F"M.,x r..P Ya,.e. u.r ~
o-. n 1~ r
Housing Type by Percentage
For selected Cities
From the 1990 Census, STF-3
Single Family Muld-family Manf. Housing/
UY Houslno Houslng Other ?Ql81
Flower Mound 90.5% 3.5% 6.0%
4,857 167 322 5,368
Gainesville 80.4% 14.3% 6.4%
5,160 916 345 9,421
McKinney 67.3% 27.2% 5.6°'°
5,744 2,322 473 6,539
Grapevine 613.9% 28.2% 4.9%
1,965 3,362 582 11,909
Sherman 611.13% 28.2% 4.0%
9,652 4,013 563 14,228
Lewisville 62.7% 37.7% 9.6%
10,384 7,440 1,889 19,713
Denton 45,9% 46.4% 7,7%
13,207 13,369 21915 26,79+
Carrollton 66.2% 32.0% 1.8%
21,846 10,551 695 32,992
Plano 77.1% 21.4% 1.6%
36,554 10,130 702 47,388
Arlington 67.1% 40.2% 2.8%
64,338 45,264 3,114 112,736
,
Average 62.3% 33,9% 3.7%
~S
17,971 9,757 1,080 26,808
Low 45.9% 3.6% 1.6%
Denton Flower Mound Plano i +
i
Median 67,1% 28,2% 6.2%
i
Hlgh 90.6% 46.1% 9.6%
'+r Flower Mound Denton Lewifvihe
34,
1
c f 2,5 >t 10 32 x 1 0
MOWN
r , r j; ~ o ;q 1
r 0 .1 f, r
y,
'.1~
, .
. ..,,,.-rsmi8uriuN-0a-.+.,•'ay ~t,;•vr.%-Jti.H.b^#JQ~Id'4R.kiKi'x~13'MrFA t!'.Y'PKtl7~lNAt iACtNYIIIiNWtuM~d".0tw oMnq+ilr," ..w...
House Value to Household Income Relationship '
($000)
For selected Gilles
From the 1990 Census, STF-3
Median Median
Household House
lIIS&ms Y~llls fi~ ~1 .
Flower Mound 63.7 98.5 1.83
Sherman 24.8 48,8 1.97
I7,
Gainesville 20.4 4043 1.98
Plano 63.9 113.6 2.11
' Carrollton 45.8 99.3 2.17
Lewisville 36.0 81,6 2.26
Grapevlne 48.9 110.8 2.26
Arlington 35.0 81.9 2.34
McKinney 27.2 68.6 2.52
Demon 23.2 78.4 3.29 E
r
Average 361 82.0 2.22
Low 20.4 40.3 1,83
Gainesville Gainesville Flower Mound
}
Median 35.5 81.7 2.22
High 63,9 113.6 3.29 r.'.
Plano Plano Denton r
f ~ J
35,
G ? {
yy,,
r
4i ~,Y Jn`a ,~pF~~{ 1t~.x In ~'...,~2„ Lam/
'
^A
I
I t Iv
0
.
1
House Value to Family Income Relationship
($000)
For selected COW
From the 1990 census, srF-9
R
Median Median
FOMO House
4ilJt Income Y" Bag
Gainesville 26.3 40.3 1.69
Sherman 29.6 48.8 1.65
i;-
Flower Mound 55.1 98.5 1.79
Plano 59.5 113.6 1.91
Carrollton 51.2 99.3 1.94
Lewisville 41,4 81.6 1.97
Arlington 41.6 81.9 1,97
Grapevine 64.7 110.8 2.02
McKinney 323 68.6 2,12
Denton 33.4 76.4 2.16
Y
Average 42.6 82.0 1.92
Low 25.3 40.3 1.69 l
GeinesVllle Gainesville Galnreavllle
Median 41.5 81,7 1.98
1~ # rt
High 69.6 113.6 2.16 3
Plano Plano Denton
I
I
x y.
a,
~tf~ it
I.
- - u:a r ICI 32x25 x 10
Q
Arm"
t•-,e ,rr.a r°lita r.'fid`, f:n,F';x}iFte b`➢Yr~a'rn~p}• v 1a3"•rn r..~.s, ~
Household Type by Percentage
For Selected Cities
From the 1990 Census, S1F-3
Married Married
Couple Couple Single
w/children W~outchildren Wchlldren In" QIhQL
Arlington 30.8% 25.5% 7.6% 24.6% 11.5%
31,124 25,763 7,677 24,837 11,664 101,065
,
Plano 42.3% 28,9% 6,2% 15.6% 7.1%
18,814 12,853 2,150 6,968 3,145 44,528
Carrollton 36.6% 26.7% 6.8% 18,9% 10.9%
11,134 8131 2,082 5,752 3,333 30,462 {
Denton 20,9% 22.1% 5.7% 32.2% 19,1%
5,363 5,690 1,470 8,265 41908 25,702 '
Lewisville 33.8% 26.9% 6.3% 23,2% 10.7%
5,959 087 1,116 4,083 1,886 11,611
Sherman 22.7% 29.2% 9.6% 28,4% 10.1°k
2,809 3,617 1,178 3,515 1,254 12,371
Grapevine 37.4% 29.2% 6.2% 19,6% 7,7%
4,109 3,207 680 2,144 648 10988
McKinney 27,2% 280% 9.3% 25,6% 9.0%
2,051 21109 701 1,925 746 7,632
Gainesville 25.3% 29.0% 7.6% 29,8% 8.3%
1,451 1,659 435 1,701 416 6,728
Flower Mound 60.8% 29,2% 5.4% 10.7% 3.9%
2,546 1,483 270 537 107 5,013
Average 32.7% 26.5% 7,0% 22.9% 10.9%
8,590 6,908 1,836 6,973 2,846 28,100
Low 20.9% 22.1% 5.4% 10.7% 3.9% [
Denton Denton Flwr Mnd Ftwr Mnd Flwr Mnd
j R I
Median 32.3% 28.5% 6.6% v3.9% 10,0%
4~{ High 50.6% 29.2% 9.6% 32,2% 19.1%
• Flwr Mod Flwr Mnd Sherman Denton Denton
, O ~
u
37,
i'
,
rtes
2 xCl 32x1CI
r.
1
r
r tV
ETA
a,. «F:'.ti"~. ;.y.x,.,y.rn !wt.rywr. v~w,W1a't(0 a!71%s'n'^.wr+u,:.,.~ ...r
Persons by Household Type by Percentage
For Selected Cities
From the 1990 Census, STF-3
Non- Group
Famillas Families Quarters IQW
Arlington 83.2% 15.5% 0.6%
219,241 40,616 2,006 261,763
Plano 91.6% 8.1% 0.3%
117,619 10,414 446 128.679
Carrollton 87,8% 11,9% 0.2%
72,172 9,602 195 82,168
Denton 64,5% 24,9% 10.656
42,759 16,6117 61994 0,270
Lewlsville 85.1% 14.2% 0.7%
72,172 6,611 319 46,418
Sherman 80.7% 14.6% 4.7%
25,490 4,606 1,600 311596
Grapevlne 87.9% 11.2% 0.89'0
25,879 3,278 246 29.203
• I
McKinney 82.8% 11.3% 5.9%
17,624 2,400 1,269 21,283 ,
Flower Mound 94.9% 4.9% 0.21,',
14,741 766 30 16,627
Gainesville 82.8% 14.6% 2,7%
11,804 2,064 386 14,266
1 I
! Average 84.2% 13.9% 1.9%
58,682 9,696 1,338 69,164
Low 64.6% 8.19 0.2%
Donlon Plano Flower Mound
i Median 84.6% 13.1% 0.8%
1 ,s'.
i Hlgh 94.9% 24.9% 10.6%
01 Flower Mound Denton Donlon • 0
I
38,
wa°%e`
25 x ICJ 32x10
1 h'
i
i
I
I
Housing Tenure by Percentage
For Selected Cities
From the 1990 Census S7F•3 I
Owner Renter Total
Occupied Occupl Occupied
Flower Mound 86.3% 13.7%
4,333 886 5,019
Plano 70.1% 29.9%
31,095 13,268 44,383
Gainesville 62,7% 37.3%
3,573 2,123 5,898
Grapevine 62.6% 37.4%
6,871 4,100 10,971
Carrollton 60.7% 39,3%
18,474 11,978 30,452
Sherman 57.8% 42.2%
7,194 5,258 12,452
McKinney 65.0% 45,0%
4,178 3,418 71598
Arlington 51.9% 42.1%
52,188 48,436 100,822
Lewisville 51.8% 42.2%
91165 8,513 17,67e
Denton 3911% 60,9%
1010!6 15,881 28,719
• Average 6
14,7 6,6% 43.3 % 28,051
i
Low 39.1% 13.7%
Denton Flwr MM
Median 59.3% 41.7%
•
High 86.3% 60.9% • ~
' Flwr Mnd Denton
3
39.
a ;tr~hat.~ 1~
r
AMC"
..n, a.',+a •nwk.,.r Y. WIJ.i.V;"nkCq R'?;.Yi:DRl~'S4'Yi4RY/NYO:/".NNI Mtf4lYk erSM1NheNrY»+e.:r¢.. ~ .,a.n it
III I
Housing Tenure by Percentage
For Selected Cities & Counties In the DFW Metro Area
From the 1990 Census, CPH 1-46 ll
Owner Renter
4 Occuoled Occupled
Collin County 66.6 33.4
Allen 74.8 25.2
Frisco 64.6 35.4
McKinney 55.0 45.0
Plano 70.1 29.9
Dallas County 51.7 48.3
Coppell 76.4 23.6
Dallas 44.1 55.9
DeSoto 69.4 30.6
Duncanville 67.7 32.3
Farmers Branch 69.6 010.4
Garland 64.2 35.8
Grand Prairie 60.9 39.1
Highland Park 70.2 29.8
Irving 37,1 e2.9
Mesquite 63.6 36.6
Richardson 70.3 29.7
University Park 61.2 38.8
Donlon County 57.4 42.6
Carrollton 60.7 39.3 ;
Corinth 68.7 11,3
Donlon 39,1 solo
Flower Mound 86.3 13.7
Highland Village 95.7 4.3
Lewisville 51.9 48.1
The Colony 77.2 22.8
ilk
Tarrant County 68.1 41.9 F'
E • Arlington 61.8 48.2
Bedford 55.0 45.0
l Euless 45.3 64.7
' Fort Worth 64.5 45.5
Grapevine 62,6 37.4
Hurst 62.7 37.3 a'
~ S N, Richland Hills 62,8 37.2 ° r
Y.
yr:
10.
f
25 x 32 x III
J
"r '1 pYt, ,1 e ` j, 'O
t, 1 iC .
:..c..l rr..n:1N+PKe aS*~a MA O'> a11~!.11:N:tr:+'YAY~fYR'wW.llN':aSS.'A..%M~7R'ylA'.":•e•Jit"l{T~)YllMrllh~kY'Nr4:t nC.li.4b'~#'AimM ~ r l'
Y
Housing Type by Percentage
For Selected Citles & Countles In the DFW Metro Area .
From the 1994 Census, CPH 1.45
Single- Multill
~~y
I`I Other
'E Faft Fac
Collin County 71.3 23.4 6.3
Allen 92.7 6.9 0.4 y
Frisco 75.4 13.5 11.1
McKinney 67.3 27.3 6.4
k,
Plano 77.0 21.6 1,4
Dallas County 68.6 40.7 2.7
Coppell 79.9 14.9 6.2
Dallas 48.1 49.7 2.2
DeSoto 73.1 22.7 4.2
Duncanville 78.2 21.4 0.4
Farmers Branch 80.7 18.7 0.6
Garland 74.2 26.2 0.6
Grand Prairie 65.8 28.2 6.0
Highland Park 74.4 26.1 0.5
Irving 41.0 56.3 2.7
Mesquite 71.6 27,9 0.6
Richardson 78.8 20.9 0.3
I
University Park 67.6 31,4 1.0
Denton County 60.8 30.2 9.0
Carrollton 66.7 31.7 2.7 1
Corinth 92.6 0.0 7,3
Denton 43.8 48.1 6.1 1
Flower Mound 90.3 3.6 6.1
Highland Village 99.4 0.0 0,8
Lewlsvllle 62.8 37.2 10.0
The Colony 98.8 0.4 0.8
( Tarrant County 64,7 31.9 3.4
Arlington 68.5 40.9 2.8
Bedford 58.9 40.8 0.3 ;
} Euless 60,4 48.4 1.2
Foil Worth 63.8 33.6 2.8 ! ` I
Grapevine 66.3 28.9 4.8
Hurst 138,7 32.1 1.2 x ; t
0 N. Richland Hills 09.6 28.3 2.2
t,
c 9r.
41
i
10 13
2 2X
.
eeonwr
4)
"
1
e, v, . r.:, 7 .b.'6:Y5:." vr.±,<.`sWG41MtW,ul tdarysx.^•wM,a.,s.irorn U, wwn•..,w
Household Size by Percentage
For Selected Cities
From the 1990 Census, STF•3
One Two Three Four+ ,
Member Member Membe Mamboj
Flower Mound 10.7% 27.5% 21.8% 40.0% 3.1
537 1,380 1,091 2,005
Plano 15.6% 28,9% 21.9% 33.5% 2.9
8,966 12,875 9,711 14,918
Carrollton 18.9% 32.6% 21.3% 27.3% 2.7
6,762 9,922 8,481 8,307
McKinney 26,6% 30.6% 17.1% 26.8% 2.7
1,925 2,305 1,265 2,017
Arlington 24.6% 30.8% 19,0% 25.61,1 2.6
24,837 31,147 19,231 25,850
Lewisville 23.2% 30.6% 20,3% 26,0% 2.6
4,083 6,383 3,669 4,576
Grapevine 19.5% 32,2% 20,7% 27.6% 2.8
2,144 3,538 2,278 3,028
Sherman 28.4% 33.1% 16,9% 21.5% 2.4
3,515 4,098 2,096 2,882
Gainesville 29.8% 32.6% 15,3% 22.3% 2.4
1,707 1,866 879 1,276
Denton 32.2% 33.9% 16.3% 18.7% 2.3
8,265 8,703 3,920 4,814
f
Average 22.9% 31.1% 19,4% 26,6% 2.63
6,973 8,122 5,060 6,945
Low 10,7% 27,6% 15.3% 18,7% 2.3 E
Flwr Mnd Flwr Mnd Denton Donlon Denton
Median 23.9% 31.5% 19.7% 26.4% 2.8 j
High 32.2% 33,9% 21.9% 40.0% 31
j•1 Denton Denton Plano Flwr Mnd Flwr Mnd
V 42.
I
,
- - ?5 x ~Q . .S2x~❑
t'n~yi,
rl.
e
o
"
. , ..~_+:+A a%'R-Yy V r r k"'..a IMP t}~:1~`.keP i":\ '..Ya^-PE'T' 4'FPPY~'1 W3.wiTbM2lkYX4 V". r `MM'wMY'Iv+ft/o,rtw,, - wnn.,,
Population Age Groups by Percentage
For Selected Areas
From the 1990 Census, STF-3
,
00-17 18.29 30.39 40 - 49 60 - 64
V
City of Denton 20.1% 37.6% 15.7% 1011% 8,4% 8.2% '
1$,329 24,913 10,398 0,66! 8,668 61411
Denton Co. Balance 29.1% 21,2% 22.9% 14.5% 8.4% 4.0%
60,325 43,843 41,457 29,980 17,367 8,283
Denton County 28.9% 25,1% 21.2% 13.4% 8,4% 6.0%
71,654 68,766 57,855 38,641 22,926 13,694
NCT000 27.2% 21.1% 18.9% 13.1% 11.2% 8,4%
State of Texas 28.5% 19.9% 17.4% 12.3% 11.9% 10.1%
City of Denton
as a percent of 18,1% 36.2% 18.0% 18.2% 24.2% 39.5%
Denton County
HYPOTHETICAL POPULATION
IF CITY OF DENTON WAS "NORMAL",
1.9. LIKE THE REST OF THE COUNTY
Number of people age 0 -17 13,329
(Lhe most normal segment or populallon)
01vlded by r
Percent of people age 0 -17 ,291
In balance of Denton County
1
Equals
y
i
HYPOTHETICAL POPULATION 45,604
l sf
,1 .
43,
25x10 32x10
Q
i
won"
mr -9.1 tJr.• +K...:. C+PM73M 3... .',i 1::f v',VMAWa4i rtiiM'.rohRflN3rt.<MU4..•e:vna ri., x.~....,.... .
Persons and Families in Poverty by Percentage
For Select.1 Wes
From the 1990 Census, STF-3
Persons Families
In in
Poverty Poverty ,
Gainesville 21.7% Gainesville 17.2%
Denton 20.7% Sherman 10.8°'°
McKinney 17.6% McKinney 10.6%
Sherman 15.6% Denton 919%
Arlington 8.2% Arlington 6.7%
Lewisville 5.7% Lewisville 3.9%
Carrollton 4.3% Carrollton 3.2%
Grapevine 4.2% Grapevine NA
Plano 3.3% Plano 2.2%
Flower Mound 1.1% Flower Mound 0.7%
Average 8.3% Average 6.4%
Low 1,1% Low 0,7%
Median 7.0% Median 6.7%
u High 21.7% High 17.2%
0 State of Texas 18.1% State of Texas 14.1°'0 j ,
Denton County 8.2% Denton County 4.6%
City of Denton 20.7% City of Denton 9.9% f'
Denton Co. 8atance 4.6% - Denton Co. Eatance 3.2% ;
r
32 x O
25Y,10
r i y I
0
• 1
i
i
. v a !I♦ ♦ r a.n 1..1' ? '.M'A!Mtf!Y1'~'SJti:.:}'Vl:ba(.Mj~Jlk:"9.'MPIM'CYSY.•!^'tfalS~.nY'P.UC :1FYNr•aJa': .Nlr
1
I
Percent of Families by Income
For City and County of Denton
From the 1990 Census, STF•3
Family Balance of
Income Coy ~jty County
t
$0 to $34,099 34.0% 49.1% 30.3%
23,922 8,772 17,152
28.3% share
C
$35,000 and more 66.0% 50.9% 69.7%
48,409 7,018 39,393
15.1% share
Median $44,945 $35,444 $46,940
Number of Families 70,331 13,786 56,545
A.
Percent of Owner-Occupied Houses by Value
For City and County of Denton
From N 1990 Census, STF•3
~•I ti
House Balance of
Value Se4UIIIY ScEtY ~l~tY
Less than $74,999 32.7% 48.6% 29.4% e
10,108 4,135 11,973
25.7% share
i Mnre than $75,000 67.3% $1.4% 70.6%
33,152 4,375 28,777
13.2% share ' t
{ Median $88,800 $76,400 $90,800
• p •
45,
' t
it
25 1 32 X I O
•i
0
a
I
. •..c..an n. « , law', .A S.N%'kVN:'L»Yn3.tr^t!c-:VjPYe•wankEMnz+azauhskiw.9Yr`v.>M:orawrn•a^.w..».,•..» ~ '
Percent of Households with
Housing Costs Greater than 30% of Household Income
for Specified Households
For City and County of Denton
From th6 1990 Census, STF•3 f
Owner Renter
Occupied Occupied
Households Households
Denton County 22.6% 39.2%
9 11,097 of 49,087 16,280 of 41,623
City of Denton 22.2% 54.6%
1,714 of 8,476 8,416 of 14,921
Balance of Denton County 23.1% 29.6%
9,383 of 40,611 7,864 of 26,602
V
r
h .ad
S
Y
46.
FM Y~1'
x10 32X10
,
, 1 { i y
.
i ,mrra~
O
I
r
III
t
ur:1C^.t7wr rtaM71 X146"s.:C'LLlldQtt71~4'?YYI~E'SW7$L"!.~Ya-•5+1~,tF.1':L+i!if2►9ML11f1'it?MWP~IFSA73t:TV1'~4WWF/'YM~yMrtkM!h'AMiu.MnvlMMMa r-+tl+rwnwrnaaw+..w.ww....,.,..w.....,.+.,.-•.-....
...
i
City of Denton - Community Development Office
Qualifying Income Limits for, Federally Assisted Programs
y ` FY 199'1-1998
Family Maximum Incomes
_ Size _ 80% - 66% AMI 65%0-51%o AMI_ 50%0_& Below AMI
1 $29,300 - $230791 $230790 - $18,301 $18,300 or Below
2 $330450 - $27,171 $279170 - $200901 $20,900 or Below
3 $37,650 - $30,616 $300615 - $230551 $23,550 or Below
r
4 $41,850 - $33,996 $33,995 - $26,151 $26,150 or Below
5 $45,200 - $36,726 $36,725 - $28,251 $28,250 or Below
6 $48,550 - $39,456 $39,455 - $302351 $30,350 or Below
7 $51,900 - $42,186 $42,185 - $32,451 $32,450 or Below
8 $55,250 - $44,851 $44,850 - $34,501 $34,500 or Below
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Lffective: Qctober_l,_19-97
I "
,h Ira 3 X 10
x
Af ~ ✓ 1 V ~~1 f ~ , 1
S Y r' t
r~ f ( t ~~r j
y ,1
r
1
1 r . r ' ' 1l
1
f i
.
1
IT I
. .♦n.., _ ..nrrm ww.rr-.wn..u,w_...+«y....r,...rapv......~....r.. t 1-.,l •
f
GLENWOOD SPRINGS
COMMUNITY HOUSING
ATTAINABILITY STRATEGY
r
AN ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
r' Adopted by Resolution 97.11
April 17,1997
_ r
City of Glenwood Springs
Community Development Department t
0 808 Cooper Avenue
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
(970) 945.2575
March, 1997
A
14
11' 4 1' t•.' C x l..l 32"X
W
•
.z. I
' O 1 1
t:
S
1 y
.h
kv~
4~ TABLE OF CONTENTS
Al Page
r ►
d
Executive Summary 61
,
introduction 02
Housing Goals 04
Housing Supply 05
rnto the Next Century 13
Housing Needs, Polices bnd Programs to Consider 20
Policies and Programs to Maintain Small Town Character 21
Policies and Frograms to Maintain Housing Quality 25
Policies and Programs I* Reduce the Cost of Housing 27
s
Policies and Programs to Encourage New Housing 33
Policies and Programs to Work with Other Levels of Government 37
Other Policies and Programs for Consideration 38
Policy to Promote Open Choice 39
Acknowledgments 40
i ,
3 49.
2X
I'
s ,
r ~
COMMUNITY HOUSING ATTAINABILITY STRATEGY
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO
EXECUTIVE SUMMA
The Community Housing Attainability Strategy documents the current housing supply
and market in Glenwood Springs, the goals of the Housing for Tomorrow Commission,
the housing needs of the community and a strategy of policies and programs to enable
the City government to take an active role in providing the type of housing needed to
meet the goals of the Commission and the citizens of Glenwood Springs,
The report documents these findings:
• Housing prices have sky-rocketed beyond the reach of most local workers. The
average price of a three bedroom, single family home sold in Glenwood Springs
in 1995 was $183,000. Average price per square foot for all houses sold in 1995
was $103.
• Local demographics are extraordinarily urban in nature - households are small,
more likely to live in multi-family housing, more likely to have less than two
vehicles, have less income, and work in the retail and service economies.
The local free-market housing being constructed today continues to produce
large single family detached units, but is shifting toward single family attached
units. In 1995, half the housing units sold in Glenwood Springs were
condominiums and townhouses:
• There is a need for additional rental housing that is affordable to households
which have incomes less than the median household income • half the
households of the City,
• There is a need for additional home ownership opportunities that are affordable
to households which have incomes between 1 to 1Y2 times the median
household income.
To meet these needs, the strategy suggests:
• The City should become a part of the solution to housing Issues.
, Local incentives to create housing for low, moderate, or middle income
households which rent or wish to own a homo of their own are as valid as state
and federal subsidies to high Income households who already own a home and
have a mortgage,
• Local housing needs can be satisfied by encouraging smaller housing units on
smaller building lots and by Increasing density where it makes sense - within the
core areas of the City, close to transit, jobs, and services.
O
• The City can play a role in encouraging more units, and reducing the cost of
housing by providing land at costs below the recently Inflated cost and creating
Incentives to keep prices low by reducing the hard and soft costs of construction.
Community Development Department March, 1991 .
City of Glenwood Springs, C0 e.kommdevftuslnpkhas
50. ,
Y » < ~C 32XlC]
o •
I
Via*" ,
COMMUNITY HOUSING ATTAINABILITY STRATEGY
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO
INTRODUCTION
The central focus of the Glenwood Springs Comprehensive Plan is the community's
desire to maintain its "small town character." One of the most important criteria in ,
measuring small town character is the opportunity for households to work, live, play
jn~d raise families within the community. Other elements described in the Vision E
Statement that is the basis of the Comprehensive Plan are: preserving the cultural and
environmental resources of the community, achieving balance and direction in the
community's development, achieving social and economic diversity and addressing the
transportation problems of the community.
The Housing for Tomorrow Commission was created to analyze the current housing
situation in Glenwood Springs, to assist the City Council of Glenwood Springs in
defining the nature and scope of housing opportunities in the City, to identify housing
priorities, to Identify housing resources, and to make recommendations to achieve its
housing goals and serve as a model to implement community housing strategies.
Compelling information regarding the cost of housing in Glenwood Springs relative to
the average or median household incomes in the City, and the number of jobs within
the community compared to the number of workers who are able to live in the
community indicates that aggressive action is necessary to help Glenwood Springs
achieve the goals of character, preservation and diversity documented within the
Comprehensive Plan. This Community Housing Attainability Strategy (CHAS) suggests
housing related policies and programs which create a framework for Glenwood Springs'
housing efforts,
Housing within the community is so important, not only in its own right as the foundation
of the American Dream, but also because it strongly influences the character of the
community and its residents, and overlap 3 into the social, cultural, economic and
transportation facets of community devel:pment.
Glenwood Springs' role as a regional retail, service and hospitality center has resulted
in Nrice the number of jobs in the community as there are local workers who fill them,
This disparity is a Lignificant contributor to the traffic congestion which residents Identify
as the City's leading problem, and is a major factor in the escalating price of housing in
Glenwood Springs. Below average wage levels and above average housing costs
I • create a significant barrier to home ownership for local employees. In addition, the
overall superior quality of life and the perceived shortage of vacant land within the City
further exacerbate the lack of housing which is attainable for those who wish to live In
Glenwood Springs.
Only through collaborative and coordinated action across a broad spectrum of fronts will
• the community develop in a direction which achieves the Vision outlined in the O •
Comprehensive Plan. fdar,y people who work and serve in Glenwood Springs cannot
afford to buy a horne near where they spend most of their time, forcing long commutes,
less time to devote to families and community, more stress in day-to-day living, and
Community Development Department March, 1497
City of Glenwood Springs, CO rkommdevlhousirQlchas
I 5].
- - ,yz'r~,u r r
32xIEl
w
l
,
s
q..ra. • I
o r'
I~
X11
I
I
COMMUNITY HOUSING ATTAINABILITY STRATEGY _
i
GLENWOOD SPRINGS. COLORADO
ultimately more demand for intervention by outside agencies such as child and health
care providers, schools, public safety and emergency services. This situation will get
r worse unless the City of Glenwood Springs and other cities and counties in the region
take corrective action, and even then, the very serious problem of job and home
4 dislocation will remain.
r, Housing Is a key element In creating a quality of life which reflects the
vision of Glenwood Sprlogs residents of their preferred community of the
qtr
future
The current housing market, operating without any local government direction or
assistance, is not meeting the needs of people who work in the local economy and wish
.k,
f s> to live in Glenwood Springs, Entry level housing in Glenwood Springs requires a
household income in excess of 1'/a times the current median household income. This
drives local workers away from the community and into their automobiles to balance the
requirements of home and work. It is this dislocation between where people work and
where they must live which is the root cause of most of the visible problems of <
" Glenwood Springs.
t
r~~ ■ If traffic,..traffic...traftic is the most pressing problem of our time, then creating
x i attainable housing for local workers is the easiest way to solve the problem,
■ If lack of a sense of place and community is a significant current problem, then
creating home ownership opportunities for local workers solves this problem as
well
■ If increasing environmental and social service costs are a current concern, then
creating local housing for local workers addresses this concern by reducing air
and water pollution and getting people out of their cars and with their families.
■ If increasing the pool of local volunteers to do ell of the things that are a part of
small town character is Important to the community, then creating housing
opportunities for more of the people who work here solves that problem also.
■ If retail sales is the preferred engine which drives the local economy, then
creating housing for the employees of the community helps fuel the engine. By
i
r
not creating attainable housing the City will continue to lose market share to
other housing producing communities.
I
h
t
,
Community Development Department March, 1997.
i
City of Glenwood gongs. CO rkommdevvwusnfthas
M:
r - 2,5L 10 32X 10
s ;
0
COMMUNITY HOUSING ATTAINABILITY STRATEGY
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO
HO INGMALS
What directions should housing in Glenwood Springs take to help maintain its
community character and resources, achieve balance and diversity, and address
transportation problems? Housing which helps the City achieve its community goals will
be referred to throughout this discussion as "Community or Attainable Housing."
• First, it is important to create ri community in which people can live, work, play
and raise a family. The supply of housing which is affordable and attainable to
people who work in the community but cannot now find or afford housing in
Glenwood Springs should be increased. To accommodate the number of
housing units within the community that are necessary to balance the existing
and projected employment while remaining cognizant of our traffic and
transportation problems will require an examination of housing densities and an
effort to direct those necessary densities to locations which are close to jobs and
close to transit hubs. To create a community which is whole, it is necessary to
meet the demands for housing.
e Second, it is important to foster community housing which is diverse and
dispersed, appropriate to the existing neighborhoods and affordable to those
who work in the community. Projects which are too large, too isolated, and too
one-dimensional have been proved to be ineffective, and in many cases counter-
productive. True "small town character" reflects a diversity of housing
opportunities within neighborhoods of the community. This means a variety of
housing types and sizes, a balance of ownership and rental housing, and a full
range of housing costs. This diversity of housing opportunities, available in an
atmosphere of open and free choice for all, wi l then accommodate the desired
population diversity - a variety of household sizes, especially families with
children; all age groups, and a wide range of income levels.
e Third, it is important to address the cost of housing in Glenwood Springs. The
inability of workers to live close to where they work is a root cause of our loss of
"sense of community." More and longer commuting, less time for family and
community and roore demands on others are the results of local housing costs
which are beyund the reach of most who now work in the community; and, in
fact, would be beyond the reach of most who now own homes in the community,
• if
they had to enter the
market
place today, The community has already utilized
tY y zed
most of the land upon which it was easy to build. To reduce the cost of housing,
the cost of land must be minimized. More creative use of vacant land and more
intensive use of some already developed land can result in the production of {
more housing units at costs which are less than currently experienced.
r e Fourth, it is important to assess on a continuing bases the housing needs, 0
opportunities and implementation strategies of the community,
i
Community Development Department March, 1997 i
City of Glenwood Springs, CO a lcommdevftuslrgkhas
t
Jh x C~ 32x1Li
1p
COMMUNITY HOUSING ATTAINABILITY STRATEGY
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO
HOUSING SUPPLY
In 1990, there were 2,882 housing units within the City of Glenwood Springs. Within
the zip code area there were 4,079 housing units. Housing units within the City
accounted for 71 percent of the housing units within the zip code area and 23 percent
of the housing units in Garfield County. Housing units within the zip code area
S' represent 33 percent of all housing units in Garfield County.
K~ Type of Housing In Glenwood Springs
Sixty-five percent of Glenwood Springs' units within the City are single-family homes,
,V but many are rented. Outside the City, but within the zip code area, 91 percent of
housing units are single family homes. In 1990, the percentage of all housing units
which were single family homes was 72 percent State-wide, 72 percent across the
Western Slope, and 74 percent in Garfield County. Thirty percent of all multi-family
housing in Garfield County Is in Glenwood Springs; while the City had in 1990 only 19
percent of all county single-family housing.
GLENWOOD SPRINGS HOUSING UNITS COMPARED TO OTHER PLACES
s 1990
t
Glenwood Rest of Garfield Western State of
Sorina zto Code County EM Colorado
Multi-Family 35% 9% 26% 28% 28%
Single-Family 65% 91°10 74% 72% 72%
Source. 1990 Census
Tenure of Housing In Glenwood Springs
Owner-occupied housing in Glenwood Springs represented only 54 percent of all
housing units in the City in 1990. Since 1990, most new housing has been owner-
occupied so the percentage has increased slightly. Elsewhere, the percentage of
owner-occupied housing in significantly greater. The national figure in 1990 was 84
percent. I
04
i
GLENWOOD SPRINGS TENANCY COMPARED TO OTHER PLACES
1990
Glenwood Restof Garfield Western State of
Sorinoi Zip Code c2unly 1= C0112ra
Owner-Occupied 54% 74% 58% 64% 62%
• Renter-Occupied 46%
r I iD •
Source: 1990 Census
Community Development Department March, 1997
City of Glenwood Spnngs, CO e.kortxnd@0ousin&has
54.
10 32 x1'0
0
o
I
COMMUNITY HOUSING ATTAINAVILITY STRATEGY
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO
Age of Housing in Glenwood Springs !
Glenwood Springs' housing is older, when compared to other places. Forty-one percent
of the City's housing was built before 1960. In the balance of the zip code area, only
13% of housing was built before 1960.
GLENWOOD SPRINGS AGE OF HOUSING COMPARED TO OTHER PLACES
1990
Glenwood Rest of Garfield Western State of
Sorinas Tn Code County Slooe CoioradQ
Built since 1960 59% 87% 75% 75% 69%
Built before 1960 41% 13% 25% 25% 31%
Source: 1990 Census
Housing Prices in Glenwood Springs
Housing prices in Glenwood Springs have increased dramatically since 1990 because
the housing supply is not being created to meet the demand for housing. Because the
Roaring Fork Valley is a desirable place to live, housing demand is driven by forces
outside the region. Many of the construction trades in the valley are located in
Glenwood Springs and much of their activity is up-valley, at much higher prices than
can be obtained focally. As a result, housing construction costs in Glenwood Springs
are comparable to housing construction costs up-valley.
In contrast, housing demand in Glenwood Springs, while partially generated from
outside the region, could be filled by people who work in the City, but are not able to five
in Glenwood Springs because housing in their price range in not available. Up-valley
costs are driven higher by housing demand from outside, yet these high housing costs
are translated down-valley because the construction industry which serves the up-valley
demand is located here. Higher costs down-valley, caused by up-valley demand, are
driving away the demand for local housing because housing prices have moved beyond
the local capability,
` In 1990, the average sales price of all housing units within the City of Glenwood Springs
was $95,800. In 1995, the average sales price of all units within the City was $169,200,
a 77 percent increase in five years, an average annual increase of 15% per year. In the
second quarter of 1995, the average sales price of a three bedroom, single family
house in the City was $204,900; while for all of 1995, the average sales price of a three
bedroom single family house within the City of Glenwood Springs was $18:1,000.
el GLENWOOD SPRINGS REPORTING AREA, AVERAGE SALES PRICE
ALL RESIDENTIAL HOUSING UNITS
~ ].999 191 19.9 139.4 39.9.5 ~ O ~
Sates Price S 96 $112 $107 $123 $143 $169
(000)
Source, Glenwood Springs Board of Realtors
Community Development Department March, 1997
City of Glenwood Springs, CO e:lcommdevlhcusin9lchas
55.
r,, 25 I❑ 32XIO
• p
mire
TTAINABILfTY STRATEGY If
COMMUNITY HOUSING A -
GLENWOOD SPRINGS. COLORADO
Since 1990 the average cost per square foot of housing has increased by 72 percent.
Cast per square foot for multi-family housing, condominiums and townhouses has
increased more rapidly than the cost of single-family housing. Costs have increased
more rapidly since 1993. In comparison, the national consumer price index increased
by 13.3 percent from 1990 to 1994.
GLENWOOD SPRINGS COST PER SQUARE FOOT
BY TYPE OF HOUSING SOLD
1990 - 1995
% CHANGE
M1'; 138.4 101 ].892 1383 1234 Sg2~ 8425 8
CONDOMINIUMS $56 $59 $56 $66 $81 $100 +82 +52
TOWNHOUSES $45 $49 552 S57 $82 $102 +127 +52
w5 SINGLL FAMILY HOMES $64 $65 S67 $75 $91 $105 +64 +40
ALL HOUSING UNITS 560 $63 564 $73 $88 $103 +72 +41
Source. Glenwood Springs Board of Realtors
13'
Because costs are rapidly increasing, buyers have shifted to multi-family housing
options. From 1990 to 1995 the percentage of condominium and townhouse units sold
per year has gone from 37 percent to 50 percent of all housing units sold. Single family
homes have accounted for a smaller percentage of all sales every year since 1991.
Detached single family residences accounted for half the units sold in 1995.
GLENWOOD SPRINGS HOUSING SALES
BY TYPE AND PERCENT OF SALES
1990.1995
1884 13.41 1892 1488 139.4 LW 1990-9
CONDOMINIUMS 24 15 23 21 20 21 21
TOWNHOUSES 13 9 7 13 16 29 15
SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES 63 76 70 66 64 50 84 ,
Source: Glenwood Springs Board of Realtors
1
. Size of Housing Units in Glenwood Springs
As sales have shifted toward multi-family units over the last six years, the average size
of housing units sold has decreased since 1990, from a high of 1,767 square feet In
1591 to 1,623 and 1,637 square feet in 1994 and 1995, respectively, a reduction of
about 8%, he reduction in size of unit sold partially offsets the increase in cost per
square foot in the overall price of housing.
,1997
Community Development Department March
City of Glenwood Springs, CO eacommdevtbousing0as
56.
i
h ? .5 ^ D 32 X I O
1'rr
I
Q
I ,NaIVV~of
Q
!!ii7MP}R1
COMMUNITY HOUSING ATTAINABILITY S TRA TEG Y
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO
GLENWOOD SPRINGS AVERAGE SIZE OF HOUSING UNIT SOLD
1990-1995
i
i5quare Feet)
ALL UNITS 1585 1767 1661 1574 1623 1637
3 BEDROOM, SINGLE FAMILY 1862 1766 1817 1768 1859 1636
Source: Glenwood Springs Board of Realtors
{
Rental Housing in Glenwood Springs
In 1990 renter-occupied housing made up 46% of all housing units within the Gity.
However, there have been few new rental units constructed in the last decade, The
Machebeuf project, sponsored by the Archdiocese of Denver, built in 1992, and
restricted to low income tinants, is th only significant rental housing constructed since
1990. High demand and curtailed supply results in relatively high rental rates.
Average rent fora two bedroom unit was $644 in Spring, 1994 survey completed by the
Garfield County Housing Authority. Median rent for all rental units in 1990 was $460,
according to the census. One third of all renters were "cost burdened," paying more
tha.i ?0 percent of household income for housing, compared to only 17 percent of
owner households who were cost burdened.
GLENWOOD SPRINGS MEDIAN RENT COMPARED TO OTHER PLACES
1990
Glenwood Garfield Western State of
S.9 .45 Co~ Sloce Cotofado U-S A.
Medan Rent $460 5407 $398 $418 $441
As a % of Income 26.1 24.5 25.1 24.9 NA
Source: 1990 Census
Housing Vacancies L1 Glenwood Springs
According to regular surveys conducted by the City's Community Development
Department, the vacancy rat) in Glenwood Springt•
has consistently registered loss than one percent of all
housing units since 1990. In August, 1995, the rate Publicly Assisted Housing
O was 0.82%. A community vacancy rate of about 5% Is In Glenwood Springs
considered "healthy", below 311/6 is "very problematic".
Development 1111"
Assisted Housing in Glenwood Springs Manor One 30
It is estimated that there are approximately ' 216 S rwr Two 46
I• Sur,~yslde 43
housing units in Glenwood Springs which were 23rd Street East 42
O developed with public assistance. None of these units TOTAL euf ~ ~ O !
are owned, operated or managed by the Garfield
County Public Housing Authority. In all of Garfield Source: GarSeM County Public
County there are estimated to be 1,000 units. Housing Authority, 1996
Community Development Department March, 1997
City of Glenwood Springs CO emommdev%housiri fthas I
57. t
t,7 32 x I n
0
c
I
COMMUNITY HOUSING ATTAINABILITY STRATEGY
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO
Typically, as a requirement of receiving public funds, these units are restricted in their
rents and tenant incomes.
,
The Housing Authority manages Section 8 rental housing assistance in the County.
Based on total 1995 expenditures of $419,655 in Glenwood Springs and average
monthly assistance per family of $328, it is estimated that 107 households in Glenwood
Springs received Section 8 rental assistance in 1995.
Rental Assistance After a decade of steady increases in the
In Glenwood Springs amount of rental assistance, total 1995
assistance in the County was 11 /o less
County City Percent Estmtd than 1994. In the City, it was 20% less.
y.€ar csoool G= of County UTIA:i Average assistance per household also
1994 1,624 $27 32,5 119 declined in 1995 by 11% from 1994
1995 1,441 420 29,1 107 levels.
Source. Gar.._ Id County PHA
Student Housing In Glenwood Springs
During the Spring semester, 1996, there were 1,660 students enrolled in courses at
Colorado Mountain College (CMC), 550 at its Spring Vallee campus and 1,110 at its
Slake Avenue facility. However, this "head count" translates to a full time equivalent
enrollment of 266. In 1996, the College plans to demolish is current student housing
and build a new dormitory to house 248 full-time students at Its Spring Valley campus.
Assuming that students residing In college-owned housing would be full-time, the
college is capable of accommodating a significant percentage of its resident full-time
students. The balance of students during any semester are likely to be part-time
students taking college courses for work or enjoyment.
The Cost of Housing in Glenwood Springs
Housing costs in Glenwood Springs are rising, in part, because of inflated land costs,
windfall profits, labor and materials costs and the imbalance between strong demand
and limited supply of land and houses. Strong demand results from the local quality of
life and large number of jobs in Glenwood Springs. In addition, the community Is
beginning to see the demolition or conversion of lower-cost housing for higher cost units
and the conversion of rental units to owner units.
High cost housing is a significant problem for large segments of the community;
♦ Middle and moderate income households, particularly those with children who
cannot afford to buy a home;
♦ Seniors on limited incomes which are not sufficient to keep up in a tight market; r
♦ Working households with multiple low-paying retail and service sector jobs who
cannot afford high rents or high houso costs;
♦ Students who have limited financial resources; and
♦ Young households without equity from previous home ownership.
Community Development Department March, 1997
City of Glenwood Springs, CO eicommdavNIMSinglchas
58.
k: rr ~ 5 ~ i 32X
r ,
0
>G
COMMUNITY HOUSING ATTAINABILITY STRATEGY
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO
A significant number of Glenwood Springs households would qualify as "low-income"
residents by federal standards. According to federal standards, a household with 50
percent of the median household income is classified as "very-low income" and
households with between 50 and 80 percent of median household income are classified
as "low income" households, Forty percent of City households In 1990 had
household Incomes less than 80% of the median household Income - 23 percent
had incomes less than 50 percent of median and 17 percent had incomes between 50
and 80 percent of median.
Many current home-owners could not afford to buy their own homes in today's housing
market. In 1990, the average value of an owned home in the City was $119,000,
according to the census. The purchase of such a home would have required an annual
household income of about $40,000. In 1990, only 33% of all households in the City
had annual household incomes of $40,000 or more.
If the City is successful in implementing its Vision through its Comprehensive Planning
efforts, the City will become a better place to live. As Glenwood Springs improves its
quality of life, the cost of housing will go upl Without City-initiated attainable housing
programs and policies, the supply of lower cost housing will continue to dwindle and low
and moderate income owners and renters will continue to be pushed out of the area,
New residents will be only those with high Incomes. b
THE COST QR 1BUYftjQ A HOUSE r
Mouse vague $100.000 3150,000 9200,000
Loon-lo-Value 95% 95R 95°A E ~I
Loan Amount S 95,000 5142 500 9190 000
Interest Rare 7% 8°G 9% 7% 8% 1% 7% 8% 9% ~
fdon!tny Cosh rpirr-RMII 5777 5641 5909 St 166 S1 253 51 364 $1,553 $1603 11 ,919
1
Required Monthly income $2,590 52103 $3,030 53,867 $4.210 $4,547 S5.177 $5.810 56,060
Required Annual Income $31,080 $33.640 531 $46,640 $50520 354160 $60.520 565160 $72,720
CaO Required $7,650 $7,850 $7,850 511,775 $11,775 111.775 $15,700 S1S.700 $15,700
The Costs of Construction
From 1990 to 1994 there was a 63% increase in the average price of a housing unit
sold in Glenwood Springs, an average increase of more than 13% per year. From 1990 I
through 1994, the latest yearly data available in the Producer Price Indexes as listed in
the 1995 Statistical Abstract of the United States, the average unweighted increase in
the cost of sixteen components of a typical housing unit went up by 4.2% per year.
Some components have increased rapidly, such as softwood lumber, which went up by
60% in four years. But lumber is actually a very small element of the total cost of
constructing housing, and other component costs have increased ve^y little, if at all.
The cost of floor coverings is up less than 2% In four years; and typical house costs
include as much for floor coverings as for softwood lumber, The cost of glass has
Commun,ty Development Department March, 1997
City of Glenwood Springs, CO eAcommdevftusingkhas
54. '
x
In 32 X
i
o
6
COMMUNITY HOUSING ATTAINABILITY STRATEGY
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO
remained about the same, and windows in a house typically cost more than softwood
lumber. The cost of roofing actually declined from 1990 to 1994.
The cost of construction labor in Garfield County increased only 1.3% from 1990
through 1994, the latest yearly data available in the Labor Market Information report on
Colorado Employment and Wages published by the Colorado Department of Labor &
Employment, an average of little more than 0.3% per year, C_~astnrction industry data
is made up of three components: general, heavy and special trades, Each plays a role
in the development of housing. General construction is typically the general contractor
and his crew, plus framers, roofers, drywallers, painters, siding installers and the like.
Heavy construction would be responsible for constructing the infrastructure which
supports a housing unit - such as water lines, wastewater lines, and streets, curbs,
gutters, driveways and sidewalks - plus the excavation for the basement or foundation.
Special trades construction is typically the plumbing, heating and ventilating trades.
The three subdivisions of construction have different wage patterns from 1990 through
1994: General construction is up 18.3%, or about 4.6% per year, heavy construction Is
down 13 6%, or about 3.4% per year, and special trades construction is up 8.5%, or
about 2.1 % per year. 1
From this data it can be concluded that neither the cost of materials nor the cost of
construction labor has been the fuel feeding the fire of rapidly increasing housing
'prices, particularly for new construction. Had the average price of housing units sold in
Glenwood Springs reflected the increased cost of materials and construction labor of
about 4% per year, the housing unit that sold in 1990 for $96,000 (the average price of
all units sold in 1990) would have sold for $117,000 in 1995. A 4% annual Increase
would result In the doubling of the average price of housing units in 17% years.
Instead, in 1995, the average price of all housing units sold in Glenwood Springs was
$169,000, or $52,000 (31% of the price) more than a baseline price which would reflect
a 4% inflation rate to account
for the cost of materials and
labor. Average Price of Housing Units
A household which purchased Glenwood Springs, 1190 -1995
the average home in 1990 for 200
1 $95,600, by investing $9,580 /4
as a down payment and 150
securing a mortgage for the g
balance, $86,220, at 10%
- j
interest rate over thirty years "100
and sold that average home for
$116,600 five years later In a
' 1995, reflecting a 4% annual so Baseline
. increase in house value, would Actual
have made a return of $33,337 0 O •
on that initial $9,580 invest- 1900 1991 1992 1993 1994 1996
ment, a 248% return in five Year
Community Development Department March, 1997
City of Glenwoa d springs, CO eacommdeAousingkhas
60•
lffid~
7~;k10 32XI❑
1
.i
'.71r1~ i Irv , y t ~ y
1 }
COMMUNITY HOUSING ATTAINABILITY STRATEGY i
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO
1 1i
years, or an average Increase in equity of 49.6% per year.
The increase in equity would include the equity earned by amortizing the household's
mortgage for five years in addition to the difference between sale and purchase prices.
Vi It does not Include fees paid to complete each transaction, the expenses of home
maintenance, or the tax reduction resulting from the deductibility of mortgage Interest
against federal income tax liability.
To reduce the cost of housing, it is necessary to focus on those components of housing "
cost other than materials and labor,•although there are ways to address these elements
on a project by project basis. The cost of regulations, land and windfall proMs for
property owners and construction company owners have been shown to be the most
significant elements of the rapidly rising cost of housing in Glenwood Springs. The City
can take an active role In managing the cost of regulations and land, and can provide
incentives to developers and property owners to encourage a more moderate return on
investment on housing, particularly if it Is available and affordable to low, moderate and
middle Income households who work in Glenwood Springs.
i
,jr
titr ' ^ k
M1 rit ~a
i
,c
Community Development Department March, 1997
city of Glenwood Sprtnps, CO e:konvndevvftsinplohas
61.
I
0
o ,
COMMUNITY HOUSING ATTAINABILITY STRATEGY r I
GLENWOOD SPRINGS. COLORADO
INTQ THE NEXT CENTURY
The Community Development Department projects by the year 2010 an estimated
population of approximately 9,300 within the City. This projection reflects a gradually
diminishing rate of growth from the 2.1% annual growth experienced from 1990 to 1994 "
to a 1.4% annual growth rate by the year 2010. Over the period 1990 to 2010, the total
increase in population is estimated at 42 percent. To accommodate the increase In
population at an average of 2.4 persons per household, an additional 1,156 housing
units will be required, From 1990 thrqugh 1994, a total of 252 units had been added.
At an avenge of 5 units per acre, an additional 231 acres of undeveloped or
underdeveloped land must be converted to housing within the City to accommodate the
estimated population increase. Such a scenario would not increase the average
density of developed land in the City.
The City has developed at less density than the current zoning allows. A recent study
completed in conjunction with a regional wastewater analysis estimated that current
zoning would allow nearly three times the number of housing units in residential zoning
districts than have been developed.
At current trends, only upper-interne households will be able to buy a house in
Glenwood Springs unless efforts are made to make some units available to low,
moderate and middle income households. There is a need for a community housing
strategy to increase the supply of housing that is affordable for low, moderate and
middle income households and to enhance ownership opportunities for moderate and
middle income households
As the housing stock ages, there is a need to invest in rehabilitation of existing housing
to keep it decent, safe, and sanitary.
i
The population of the City and Community is changing significantly. The City's I
population in 1990 was 6,8,03 1, 41.5% increase from the 1980 census. Since 1990, it
is estimated that the population , es increased by about 2.6% per year. The estimated
January, 1996 population was 7,500. The 1990 population in the zip code area was
9,581. In 1990 the City accounted for 68% of the population of the zip code area.
1 ~
The population of the City is different from the population of the balance of the zip code
• area. Compared to the balance of the zip code area, the City's population is older,
poorer, has smaller and less traditional households, is less likely to be self-employed,
more likely to work in retail trade, more likely to have only one or fewer vehicles
available, more likely to work outside the county, lives in older, less expensive housing
and is more likely to live in multi-family housing and to be cost burdened. The
demographics of the City are much more like the state of Colorado as a whole than
• they are like the balance of the zip code area, Garfield County, or the western slope. • •
;
Commurnty eevelopment Department 11997
Gry of Glenwood Springs CO e:lcommdevv>ousinglchas
62.
f er Y l nix
~ L+d
w..
s
0
• r'
COMMUNITY HOUSING ATTAINABILITY STRATEGY
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO k
Glenwood Springs Demographics
City compared to Balance of Zip Code Area
1990
Balance of
Slllt Zip Code Area
Population age 0 - 17 23% 30%
Population age 18.64 66% 65%
Population age 65 + 12% 5%
Mean Household Income $34,091 $43,154
Households in Poverty 10% 5%
NonFamity Households 39% 20%
Self-Employed Workers 11% 15%
Workers in Retail Trade 24% 19%
Households wAess than
two vehicles 40% 20%
Work outside County 16% 14%
Housing older than 1910 53% 25%
Value of owned Houses $119,044 $145,850
Live in Mult-Family Units 35% 9%
Housing Cos!-Burdened 30% 25%
Source, 1990 Census
Age. The 1990 census shows that Glenwood Springs population is rising in median
age. The 1990 median age of 34.9 years is dramatically higher than the median age of
31,0 in both 1980 and 1970, and is a
return to the median age of the 1950
and 1960 censuses. But it is not the City of Glenwood Springs
percentage of elderly population that Population by Age as a Percent of Total
is rising; rather, it is a declina in young 1980-1990
people and a large increase in the 6" 19 9 Im
age group 35 - 54 years that is 0' 4 6.3 6.5
reflected in the increase in median 20.24 10.0 14.7
5.19 19.1 age Com 1980 to 1990. From 1980 to 25.34 21.9 26.0
1990 the age group 0 - 24 declined 35.54 209 30.5
from 35.4% to 30.1 % of total 55.64 8.0 7.8
population, The age group 55 + years 76 ;74 8.0 8.4
declined from 21.8% to 19.4% of total S a 5.2
population. Source 1990 Census
Income, Families and NonFamilies
within the City had higher incomes in 1990 than their counterparts in Garfield County
and the Western Slope. Median Household income in the City Is less than the
surrounding area because of the higher percentage of Non Family Households In
Glenwood Springs. Median Family income in the City was higher than the state-wide
p
median family income in 1990•
Community Development Department March, 1997
City of Glenwood Springs, CO a lcomrrklevlhousingkhas
63.
i
o
COMMUNITY HOUSING ATTAINABILITY STRATEGY
GLENWOOD SPRINGS. COLORADO I
I
Household size. Household size in Glenwood City of Glenwood Springs
Springs was significantly smaller in 1990 than in Household Size
Garfield County as a whole, the Western Slope and 1960-1990
the State of Colorado. Household size continues to yea[ 8ss
decline in Glenwood Springs as throughout the 1950 3.1
country. 1960 29
1970 2.7
Household size within the City of Glenwood Springs 1980 24
in 1990 (2.3) was more like the average household 1990 2.3
size in the City of Denver (2.2) than m the balance Source census
of the Glenwood Springs zip ccde area (2.9) or the
balance of Garfield County (2.7). The City of
Glenwood Springs in 1990 was very urban in its demographic characteristics • not to
mention its traffic characteristics
Perhaps the most important parameter to be analyzed in predicting the future housing
needs of the City is the percentage of small households, those with three or fewer
persons. Four of every five households in the City has three or fewer persons. Two of j
every three households has two or fewer persons, Again, the City's population is more
like the City of Denver than the balance of the zip code area, the balance of the county,
the western slope, or the state of Colorado. In Denver in 1990, 83.9% of all households
had three or fewer persons.
Glenwood Springs Households Compared to Other Places
Percent of Households by Number In Household
4990
I
Glenwood Balance of Balance of Westem State of
I Sorinas Zt➢_G.4de County Sfooe Colorado ,
One Person 303 152 19.7 242 26.6
'
Two Persons 332(635) 311 (47.1) 34,5 (54.2) 35.8 (60.0) 33.2 (59,6)
Three Persons 17.0 (80.5) 190 (66.1) 17,9(721) 16.3 (76.3) 18.6 (76.4)
Four * Persons 195 34.0 27,8 23.7 216
Source 1990 Census
Changes in population characteristics are reflected in changing needs within the
housing inventory. The average household size will continue to decrease as families
mature and older children leave home, as young married couples have fewer children,
and as the proportion of one and two person households increases. i
Increasing Numbers of Households. The impact of decreasing size of households in l
Glenwood Springs Is the requirement of more housing units to accommodate the same ! p r
level of population, When the effects of declining household size are combined with
increasing population, the Impacts on housing Inventory and the ability of a City to t
Community Development Department March, 1997
City of Glenwood Springs, CO, flAcomrndevlhousinglchas
64.
;~x ILI 32x!d
o
COMMUNITY HOUSING ATTAINABILITY STRATEGY
" """OOD SPRINGS, COLORADO `
provide adequate housing for its residents and those who work within the community
are accentuated.
Changing Population and Households
7oa By Decade & By Percent Change {
u~ Population Households
237 237
M 200
C
rC 772
L
ISO
r
C
d .r r
2
100
n. '
sa a sal
30 N,3~42
26.6
' ISO
12.1 v 12.9
~I
1050.19e0 4060.ID70 1910.7960 196o•1D90 1930.1990
Decade
h
Subsidy or Incentive. It is legitimate public policy to encourage housing attainability
!
and wealth creation (home owners' equity) through incentives to build more attainable
rental housing and increase home ownership rates among the middle class. In an era
of government devolution, it will increasingly fall to local government to craft policy to
meet these goals. It is the expressed desire of the citizens of Glenwood Springs to
foster a heigh,ened sense of community. Incentives to house local workers within the
community and to increase home ownership opporturities will help the City reach this O
goal.
~ w
i
Community Development Department March, 1997
Citj of Glenwood Springs, CO eAcommdev47ousirI fthas I
65.
I
❑
32X
Mimi
s
i
k
%
w, a
y
rim
COMMUNITY HOUSING ATTAINABILITY STRATEGY
GLENWOOD SPRINGS. COLORADO I
Public perception with regard to housing assistance is muddied. Public assistance to I
low income households, who often cannot own a home and must rent, is called a
"subsidy". Public assistance to high income households, who own their home and have
a mortgage, is called an "incentive".
Among the critics of attainable housing, governmental assistance is called a subsidy of
low income households. Of course, these same critics are quick to claim their housing
subsidy every year at lax time when they deduct the interest paid on their home
mortgage from their taxable income to reduce their tax liability. The higher the
mortgage amount, the greater the home ownership subsidy each year. In addition, it is
often the interest paid each year which qualifies a household for all the other tax
deductions which result in lower tax liability for those fortunate enough to have a
mortgage. Wthout the interest deduction, many households would be forced to use the
standard deduction, and thus, household expenses such as charity and donations,
medical payments greater than allowable, and other eligible deductions would not be
claimed.
Among the households who do not quality for this home-ownership subsidy are the 46%
of households in Glenwood Springs which do not own their home. Renters typically
have less income and are "cost burdened" much more than home owners. In addition,
many families which have owned their home for a long period and have a fixed, usually
low, monthly payment, may not be able to meet the deductibility thresholds to receive
the subsidy.
The following table explores the arithmetic of thei mortgage interest deduction "subsidy".
It compares the state a;-,d federal income tax l .Ability of two identical households, except
that one household purchased a home and has a mc, tgage which corresponds to its
household income, while the other household rents dome. The only difference is the
allowable real estate tax and mortgage interest deduction available only to the home-
owner household,
I The Arithmetic of the Nome Ownership Subsidy
Household Mortgage Home Owner Renter Home Owner
Income Amount Ia2.I,iabI14 Tax Llability Subsjd
I
$40,000 $108,000 $ 4,6,4 $ 5,194 $ 580
• $50,000 $135,000 S 6,134 $ 7,194 $1,060 I E
$60,000 $162,000 S 7,661 $10,101 $2,434
$70,000 $189,000 $10,101 $13,401 $3,300 i
i
Source Glenwood Springs Community Development Department i
A Little Bit on Subsidies
A household which purchased a home with a mortgage about equal to the average sale
Oanment March,
ComofGlenwDevelopment
h C . n
} rAtr ~4~istr s~
2 x 10, 32X
+>.AW1,
c
COMMUNITY HOUSING ATTAINABILITY STRATEGY
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO
price of a three bedroom home in Glenwood Springs In 1995 received a subsidy of
approximately $3,300. This corresponds quite closely to the average annual public
assistance of $3,956 received by each of the 366 households receiving rental
assistance in Garfield County in 1995.
In aggregate, however, there are many more than 366 local households which receive r '
home ownership assistance from the state and federal governments. In 1990,
according to the census, there were 4,193 households in Garfield County which had
home mortgages. If each received the $580 home ownership incentive corresponding
to the $40,000 annual income level in the table above, the aggregate public assistance
for home owners in Garfield County would be $2.4 million. In 1995, there was a total of l
$1.4 million in public rental assistance.
i
I
Priorities For New Housing. The character of the City is determined more by the type 1
of people who live there than the quality of life, amenities and services that a City can
offer. Diverse housing options will attract diverse residents. Achieving a balanced I
housing inventory will strengthen the community.
To assure that housing opportunities are available to as broad a spectrum of
hou: eholds as possible, new multiple-family housing should result in significant
amounts of housing that households earning low, moderate and middle incomes can
afford, while maintaining those qualities which make life so attractive in the City.
Smaller homes on smaller individual lots balanced by community open spaces, parks
and greenways would accommodate more housing units, house more workers and their
families within the community and maintain the quality of life within the City.
Special attention should be given to housing for people who work in the Citv. The
closer homes are to jobs, the greater the savings to the individual households,
community and City. Instead of driving 30 minutes, workers can drive 10. 15 minutes.
More homes in the City will encourage more community involvement and volunteerism.
If homes and jobs are within walking distance in our neighborhoods, communities woul+
be safer, time and energy would be saved, and the sense of community would be
heightened.
' The private market currently provides housing for only those households which
earn nearly two times the median household Income.
!
Definition of attainable housing:
Housing which can be purchased by households whose incomes do not
exceed 150 percent of the median or rented by households whose Incomes do
not exceed 80 percent of the median, and who pay no more than 30 percent j
of their gross income for ihis housing. f O !
~Y
New housing should be located near transit centers (to make it easier to use transit)
Community Cevelopment Department March, 1997
City of Glenwood Springs, CO a lcommdevMovsinglohas
67.
y..
> 5 x 32 x I ❑
Now
1
0
y
i..
Y
>
.
COMMUNITY HOUSING ATTAINABILITY STRATEGY
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO
and near jobs (to help minimize traffic congestion). A mixed-use community designed
in accordance with sound urban design principles has the potential of a balance
between walkers, bicycle riders, transit users, and auto users. A significant reduction in
the number of single occupant vehicle trips generated by conventional suburban
development can be achieved when the core areas of the community have a balance of
housino to jobs, appropriate recreation facilities within walking distance or a short
bicycle ride, transit Is available and results in short walking distances from homes to
shopping.
r There is a continuing substantial need for affordable rental housing. Because of the
make-up of the local employment structure, dominated by low-paying retail and service
jobs, many workers will not ImmeAtely have the equity or income necessary for home
ownership and the demand for rental housing will remain strong. While the home
ownership percentage in Glenwood Springs is lower than desired and aggressive action
to provide Increased home ownership opportunities is necessary, the rental portion of
the housing inventory should not be neglected.
"
I
3 • {
1 +
+r i.
r "t • 41 •
~r
V
1
Community Development Department March, 7497
City of Glenwood Springs, CO e:kn-rvnda0ousinglchss
^ 5 + r.
69.
t
C) 32 x
i ,aorrra i ~ ,
i
COMMUNITY HOUSING ATTAINABILITY STRATEGY
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO
HS?' ).:~~UG NEED , POL,~E~~ AID PROG AMA
Maintaining Glenwood Springs' "small town character, Is a driving element of its
citizens' vlsion of One future. To accomplish this goal, there should be a balance
between reside, dial opportunities and employment opportunitlas. The existing
imbalance between the high number of relatively low-paying jobs and the small number
p of housing opportunities for households with less than 1'/: to 2 times the median
household Income points to a need for an aggressive City Involvement to increase the
number of housing opportunities available for those who work within the community.
Because the perceived quality of life 1-i Glenwood Springs is currently considered to be
good, many will argue that there is no reed for City Involvement In housing, But
sustaining a great community will requlle more involvement than letting unwanted
change occur on its own accord.
The following policies and programs have been developed to deal with thq need tr
provide more home ownership opportunities, Increase the housing supply, and n, r:mfze
the cost of housing within the City. Providing r is re new housing In a diverse range of
type, size, and cost will help the City achieve s more sustainable housing balance. By
not getting Involved in horsing, the City is endo,. ing the trend toward lower home
ownership rates, increasing the jobs to wcrkers ratio, increasing the amount of traffic
congestion in the City, reducing tho base cf committed volunteers avail..tle to create a
sense of community, increasing the demand for social services, and housing prices
which are beyond the capability of those who serve the community.
Policies are broad general statements which should guide local decision making.
Programs ere specif- actions which could be endorsed or adopted by the city to
implement its goals and policies.
Policies are meant to create a framework for evaluating more specific programs which
are designed to achieve the goals of the community, 4
. r
The following policies and p ograms should be considered by local decision makers as
tools to implement the broad goals of the Community Housing Attainability Strategy and
the City's Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Plan.
i I
Commu,~iry Development Oepartmenl March, 1997 a1 +
City of Glenwood Springs, CO e:lcommdeMousiri fthaa
69. I't
i
f
/o ,
251
0 32XIC1
•,w~ma .
0
COMMUNITY HOUSING ATTAINABILITY STRATEGY GLENWOOD SPRINGS. COLORADO _
Policies and Programs to Maintain Small Town Character:
Protecting attractive neighborhoods is an important element of Glenwood Springs
housing and land use policies because attractive neighborhoods must be retained to
maintain the City's small town character. Older houses tie the community to its past '
and provide diversity which sets the community apart from other places. One element
of small town character is the feeling that its edge and its core are clearly defined. To
prevent the kind of urban and suburban sprawl which destroys character, the City
should concentrate on developing within its existing urban area.
Policy., Maintain the genarallow-density charecterof neighborhoods
except In core areas designated to accommodate community or
regional uses.
The City's Land Use Plan establishes regional, community and neighborhood oriented
districts within an Urban Gevelopment Boundary. Regional and community oriented
districts are logical places to Increase development densities, while preserving the low
density development of the
neighborhood districts, the
remainder of the urban area
i
i
Program; In core areas, ellow „
higher density
famil
multiple-family w
housing mixed with
shops and offices,
an ar~srweea N4roe
%AM Y11 Rye .
Core areas whl^h have the potential orsnvers
. to become transit nodes, are ripe to
develop Into mixed-use districts 0
which contain housing, retail and
iM► office uses. Encouraging greater
Community Development Department March, 1997
City of Glenwood Springs, CO a 4ommdeyWusin&has
70.
- * , ,
2510 32XI [i
i
w
COMMUNITY HOUSING ATTAINABILITY STRATEGY G
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO j
densities within these cores, while preserving traditional single-family neighborhoods
elsewhere will help the community maintain its small town character.
Program: Allow housing density bonuses In community and
regional oriented districts.
Bonuses to allow additional housing within the core areas of the City should be
considered, as long as the additional units that are allowed are deed restricted in terms
of resale price. This would encourage additional housing which may remain affordable
and attainable for low, moderate and middle income resl6ents of the City.
Policy: Preserve older single-family homes and small apartment buildings
In the neighborhoods.
To reduce drastic changes in neighborhood character, the retention of older structures
is important as Chase neighborhoods become candidates for redevelopment.
Preservation of older, historic structures is an important tool in maintaining the City's
sma'.! town character and preserving our cultural heritage. Tools should be developed
to encourage preservation and adaptive reuse of significant older buildings and homes.
Program: Support a program such as "Christmas In April" to
rehabilitate and preserve older homes owned by
elderly and low Income families.
Christmas in April is a nation wide, volunteer program which is growing year-by-year.
Its purpose is to rehabilitate the homes of low income homeowners, particularly the
elderly and disabled. Typically, financial resources come from corporations and other
entities, while human resources are provided by volunteer members of the corporation
or community. In 1995, more than 4,000 homes were rehabilitated nation-wide through
the efforts of Christmas in April volunteers.
•
Program: Link efforts In historic preservation with the efforts to
produce attainable housing.
The goals of historic preservation efforts are compatible with the goals of attainable
0 housing efforts. Often, the economics of h!s!of!c preservation are prohibitive. However,
linking the attainable housing goai of smaller units in more densely designated areas of
the City, could provide the incentives necessary to mean the difference between tearing
Community Development Department March, 1997
City of Glenwood Springs, CO eacomWevthousingtchas
71,
R
O
w
COMMUNITY HOUSING ATTAINABILITY STRATEGY
GLENWOOD SPRINGS. COLORADO
down historic resources or rehabilitating them through the development of attainable
housing. While the state and federal resource* available for development of attainable
housing are dwindling, the state of Colorado is making more and more funds available
for historic preservation through its lini.age to gambling revenues produced in the state.
Thus, grants or low-interest loans for historic preservation could make the difference in
an attainable housing proposal.
Policy: Encourage In-fill development within the urban area,
The Land Use Plan has establibh%+d an Urban Development Boundary in conjunction
with a policy to encourage in-fill development within the urban area. There are many
opportunities to add additional housing units within the boundary without contributing to
the sprawl within the Roaring Fork River Valley.
Program: Continue using minimum lot-size standards for
single-family neighborhoods to analyze splitting of
larger lots where appropriate.
In some single-family areas, the splitting of large lots may have an adverse effect on
the neighborhood by gradually increasing density and traffic. However, there are many
areas of the city which were rural when first developed. As a re.oit, many large
residential lots which may be appropriate for lot splits have been incorporated into the
urban setting of the city. In addition, cottage units and accessory apart-rents are
already common In many older neighborhoods, such as the original townsite, and
adding them will not noticeably affect the overall density of the area. Both old and new
units should be retained under one ownership to provide much-needed rental housing
in a very low-impact manner.
Program: Provide a cottage-duplex zoos whk:h allows two
1 detached single-family houses on one lot In areas
. , where such development already exists or will fit in
a M with existing single-family properties.
Cottage units are additional Independent housing units added to existing single family
properties within single family neighborhoods. Many lots within the City are capable of
accommodating these units. They are often referred to as ECHO units, an acronym
standing for Elder Cottage Housing Opportunity, or "granny" flats.
~ o e
I
Community Development Department March, 1997
City of Glenwood Springs, CO e. tcornmdevurousingtchas
72.
'i X 10, 32X
10
r ~ ' I F
~ S I I r S i
a r Sr. SS 1
i
O f
1
r
1
t
. a. . 1TYSTRATEGY
COMMUNITY HOUSING ATTAINABIL +
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 4
Program: Allow accessory apartments in areas where such
development already exists or will rt in with existing
single-family properties.
s, Accessory units are additional secondary housing units within an existing single family
property within single family neighborhoods. They are a proven way of: f,
E
;v
• permitting older homeowners to stay In their homes with help to pay their
a expenses;
• stimulating additional, moderately-priced rental units;
` • , providing a mix of income groups within existing neighborhoods; and
preserving large, older homes, particularly in the original townsite.
i
,
I
I
1 y.
b.l
4
Community Oevelopment Department March, 1997 +
City of Glenwood Sp6igs, CO rbommdevlhousirv&hss
'i
73
I x, ,
2 6 32X
o
c
COMMUNITY HOUSING ATTAINABILITY STRATEGY I
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO
I
Policies and Programs to Maintain Housing Quality:
The quality of the housing inventory is of great importonce in determining the character
of the community and the quality of life of its residents. Housing in Glenwood Springs is
older than the surrounding areas, particularly within the original townsite. The age of '
housing, and the inability of some residents to perform routine maintenance, coupled
with a significant amount of absentee property ownership is a prescription for neglect.
The quality of this important area of the City could begin to turn downward unless
efforts are made to reverse the normal processes of deterioration.
Policy: Protect and enhance those qualities which make Glenwood
Springs' neighborhoods especially desirable.
i
Program: Use the Zoning Ordloance, other codes, and specific
plans to maintain high-quality neighborhoods.
The Zoning Ordinance and Map set broad standards for how individual structures and
areas of the City relate to each other, the street system and public facilities. Privacy,
lioli ventilation, outdoor space, public safety, off-street parking and contacts with traffic
are criteria for evaluating the desirability of individual housing units and neighborhoods.
The Lend Use Plan sets the guidelines for the Zoning regulations, Zoning should
encourage the location of higher density, multi-family housing within the community and
regional oriented districts and allow only low density, multifamily housing and single-
family housing in the neighborhood districts.
Program: Expand the present level of housing ccde
enforcement to include existing structures.
Enforcement of the Building Code ensures that structural quality remains high, which In
turn helps maintain the integrity of quality neighborhoods. Code enforcement applies
systematically to all new construction. Existing housing needs attention too, particularly
• older units. Enforcement of the Building Code is now voluntary or handled by complaint
for existing housing. The City should consider promoting code Inspection through
increased publicity as a service to residents and as a deterrent to neighborhood
deterioration,
• Policy: Support locally assisted housing rehabilitation with public and to •
private financing.
Community Development Department March, 1997
City of Uenwood Springs, CO e:lcommdeWiousinglchas
1 I
I
it :t m n m ma• r '.1.1'1..'.n l,lf.nG1YM. 14uJ. • r
COMMUNITY HOUSING ATTAINABILITY STRATEGY
GLGNWOOD SPRINGS. COLORADO t
I
Rehabilitation of existing substandard housing Is an effective way to improve the quality
of housing and maintain the character of neighborhoods by preventing the deterioration I
of the existing housing stock.
Program: Encourage housing rehabilitation In single-family
areas by providing City code fnspection.
The City should consider promoting code inspection through Increased publicity as a
service to residents and as a deterrent to neighborhood deterioration.
Program: Encourage rehabilitation assistance to low-income
homeowners and private rental owners In Glenwood
Springs.
There are many sources of housing related grants and awards which could be utilized
to rehabilitate housing for low Income residents in Glenwood Springs. The City should
be prepared to support efforts to secure these resources as they become available.
Sponsorship of grant applications, support of private non-profit efforts, date gathering
and other efforts not invoiving a direct City Interest are possible. The Uncle Bob
Foundation, Habitat for Hurmanity, and Christmas in April are examples of private, non-
profit, housing-related, community-based efforts which should be encouraged and
supported by the City.
The Garfield County Housing Authority could expand its programming to Include
housing rehabilitation efforts and tap Into State, Federal and banking resources
available for housing.
,
I I
s r t
1.
~0 S
' I
• i 0.
.
I
Community Development0epartment March 71W
City of Glenwood Springs, CO e.kommdevV MIngkhas
75. t
?
r"II'i>wa. 25 x
32 x
1~
N I '1 ,
„
I
' d
k.~nnao
COMMUNITY HOUSING ATTAINABILITY STRATEGY
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO
I ,
Policies and Programs to Reduce the Cost of Housing:
To bridge the gap between the ability of local residents and workers to pay for housing
and the cost of market-priced housing, it is in the best interests of the community to
aggressively attempt to reduce the cost of housing in the City. The costs of land, I
regulation, and inflation are all contributing to the rapid increase in housing costs in the
City,
Policy: Decrease the amount and cost of land required for housing.
Land is a large factor in Glenwood Springs' rapidly increasing house values. The larger
the lot required to build single or multi-family housing units, the higher the cost of the
housing will be. Smaller lots and more density allowed in multi-family developments will
provide the opportunity to reduce housing costs
Program: In the original townslfe, allow single family units on
2, 500 sq. ft. lots,
The City's original townsit3 was platted with 25'x 100' lots, and many homes were built
on single original townsite lots. There remain scattered pockets of vacant 25' lots
throughout the core of the City which are unavailable for building because of the current
minimum lot size requirements. With a smaller lot requirement, many of these lots
could be built upon with small houses at affordable costs.
Program: Encourage more residential density in the retail and
commercial core area of the City by.,
Increasing the maximum density permitted for
residential uses In commercial districts;
0 reducing parkland requirements for mixed
residential and commercial developments;
^ 1 allowing a percentage reduction of oft sfreet
• parking requirements for mixed-use l
developments;
Increasing maximum Vght limits in some
commercial areas for mixed-use development; ;
♦ allowing an Increase fn floor area ratio for k
mixed-use a9velopmenL
I ~
Mixing residential uses in commercial areas offers promise of increasing the housing
supply because it can be done with little effect on adjoining single-family residential ,
Community Development Department March, 1997
City of Glenwood Springs, Co e:lcommdevltrcusInAchas
76.
I d.:
2 5
46
C
1
air. ar
' i
COMMUNITY HOUSING ATTAINABILITY STRATEGY
GLEN 00 SPRINGS, COLORADO
neighborhoods. Residences can be built over stores and offices. This could reduce
commuting costs and Impacts, and help employers recruit employees to the area with i
attainable and affordable housing. Housing in the downtown cwe could also improve
the urban design quality by adding variety and visual enclosure to retail and office i
dominated streetscapes, Additional traffic generated could be minimized by housing
oriented toward employees and other users of the downtown area.
Program: Require variety of lot sizes and types In ma/or
subdivisions.
The community should offer housing in a range of prices. Since land is such a
significant factor in determining the price of housing, a variety of lot sizes should result
iri a variety of house prices. Rather than marketing to a single demographic category,
providing a range of housing sizes, types and prices creates market diversity and better
opportunities to capture a greater percentage of the total market. Diversity in the
housing stock will generate a more balanced community.
Program. Institute a Land Bank Program to provide land for
attainable housing development
A Land Bank Program would provida for City acquisition or utilization of bales for resale
to developers interested in providing attainable housing. The construction of housing of
this type is very unlikely without City involvement in land, Outright purchase of
desirable properties, land swaps, or utilization of underdeveloped City land would be
emphasized. The City would not own or operate housing as part of the program,
although long-term lease projects provide a successful model to create attainable
housing with ownership-like equity opportunities white maintaining City ownership of the
la
As nn example, the City has several platted rights-of-way within which ate no streets
or utilities. Many of these rights-of-way could be vacated and utilized to provide land for r
attainable housing, 1 he vacated rights-of-way could also be traded for other land more
suitable for attainable housing development or sold to provide revenues for a Land
Bank Program.
Another example, the City-owned property now utilized as the airport could produce
a significant number of attainable housing units in addition to other benefits to the City.
The sixty acre parcel could be utilized as follows, '
• • Ten acres at the northern end as park land to become part of a 20 to 25 0 !
acre park featuring active outdoor recreation facilities when leveraged with
the adjacent elementary school playground area and the park land f
l
Communily Deveopn ent oepa iment MarcA, 1997
City of Gfenwood Spdigs, CO e3commdevVtaustnglchas III
77.
3G x I
II~MSrerw+r+.--_.,
i
r O
1
r
r I
COMMUN17YHOUSING ATTAINABILITY STRATEGY j
GLENNOOD SPRINGS. COLORADO i
dedication required br the adjacent property owner when development
occurs.
Ten acres of attainable t r using adjacent to the park land at about 10 -15 I
units to the acre to create 100 to 150 new housing units in a desirable
setting attainable to households which work in Glenwood Springs,
♦ Twenty acres of new regionally oriented mixed-use commercial or light
industrial land located near the new bridge across the Roaring Fork River
to create business relocation opportunities for businesses now located
within the core of the community which would better serve their markets
with a perimeter location and which would create community oriented
housing and commercial opportunities at their previous locations.
♦ Twenty acres of open space along the river and connecting the
development to the river, plus reserves for required infrastructure, such as
street rights-of-way,
Acquisition of small lots within the Original Town Site to be used for the construction
of small attainable housing is another potential target of a Land Bank Program. By
controlling the land, the City could dictate the performance of the development upon the
land, thus controlling the size, cost and other characteristics of the housing.
Resources to be used for the Land Bank Program could come from local, state or
federal sources, A local commitment of funds could be leveraged through state and
federal affordable housing grants. The Federal Home Loan Bank is another possible
source o" funds for the program. Locally, the City could do.signate a portion of revenues
receivec each year In excess of the annual budget for this purpose. This would be
comparaLle to the commonly used Tax Increment Financing method of financing many
urban development projects, only it would apply to sales tax revenues
I
Program: Designate a po.-tion of all revenue received each year
In excess of the annual budget projections to the Lend
Benk Program.
I i
For each of the last several years, the revenues received by the City through local
taxes hp ve exceeded the projections made while establishing the annual budget.
Designating a portion of excess revenues received each year could contribute I
resources to be utilized in the Land Bank program. i
j
Program: Encourage energy efficiency and water conservation
to reduce long-term "operating" costs for low,
moderate and middle income households.
j~ 0 •
City supported programs to weatherize homes of low and moderate Income households
Community Development Oepedment March, 1997
City of Glenwood Springs, CO e:tcommdevftusinglchos.
78. i
i
M
c ,
,
' J
COMMUNITY HOUSING ATTAINABILITY STRATEGY
GLENWOOD SPRINGS. COLORADO
would reduce their housing cost burden b reducing i
lighting. Programs to replace inefficient electrical fixtures and appliances would alsond
reduce utility costs for households. These programs would also assist in cor munity
wide resource conservation efforts.
E
Policy: Encourage the development of smaller housing units.
I
Housing cost is directly related to the size of the housing unit.
Many of the efforts to reduce the land cost of housing could also
have an effect on housing size, but there are several other
incentives and disincentives the City can incorporate to
encourage the construction of smaller houses on smaller lots.
The free market over the last five years has demonstrated that
buyers will purchase smaller units. The City's demographics
demonstrate that smaller housing units will be supported. _ - j
Program: Create an lmpactand improvement fee system based
on size and characterist/cs of the housing unit, rather
than eimply by number of units under common
ownership as is currently the practice.
Currently, the impact and improvement fees charged by the City do not differentiate
between a single-family residence vAth 5,000 square feet of living space, six bedrooms,
six bathrooms, a four car garage and a swimming pool, and a single-family townhome,
with 1,200 square feet, two bedrooms, two bathrooms, a single-car garage and less
than 1,000 square feet of lawn. The system of fees can be modified to provide
incentives to create less impact on the City's infrastructure thus allowing a smaller fee.
Major subdivisions can be encouraged to utilize raw water for irrigation, water and j
wastewater improvement fees could be pegged to the number of plumbing fixtures,
transportation improvement fees could be a function of square footage, bedrooms or
off-street parking spaces provided, park land dedication could be linked to the number {
e of bedrooms, and a minimum threshold could be created for each feo with an
incremental addition according to each characteristic.
I
Policy: Discourage the rapidly Increasing rate of housing costs In the f
community,
As sh.,wn on the graph (page 12) showing 1990 to 1995 average sale price of housing t
1
community Development Department
Ciry orGtenwood Springs, Co March, 1997
a kommdevlhousinQlchas
has
79.
I
I
32 x I ❑ 1
0
COMMUNITY HOUSING ATTAINABILITY STRATEGY
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO
II
dedicatiin required by the adjacent property owner when development I
occurs.
♦ Ten acres of attainable housing adjacent to the park land at about 10 - 15
units to the acre to crra!e 100 to 150 new housing units in a desirable
setting attainable to households which work in Glenwood Springs.
♦ Twenty acres of new regionally oriented mixed-use commercial or light
Industrial land located near the new bridge across the Roaring Fork River
to create business relocation opportunities for businesses now located
within the core of the community which would better serve their markets
with a perimeter location and which would create community oriented
housing and commercial opportunities at their previous locations.
Twenty acres of open space along the river and connecting the
development to the river, plus reserves for required infrastructure, such as
street rights-of-way.
Acquisition of small lots within the Original Town Site to be used for the construction
of small attainable housing is another potential target of a Land Bank Program. By
controlling the land, the City could dictate the performance of the development upon the
land, thus controlling the size, cost and other characteristics of the housing.
Resources to be used for the Land Bank Program could come from local, state or
federal sources. A local commitment of funds could be leveraged through state and
federal affordable housing grants. The Federal Home Loan Bank is another possible
source of funds for tha program. Locally, the City could designate a portion of revenues
received each year in excess of the annual budget for this purpose. This would be
comparab'e to the commonly used Tax Increment Financing method of financing many
urban development projects, only it would apply to sales tax revenues
Program. Designate a portion of all revenue recolved each year
in excess of the annual budget profeetlons to the Land
Bank Program.
For each of the last several years, the revenues received by the City through local
taxes have exceeded the projections made while establishing the annual budget
Designating a portion of excess revenues received each year could contribute
resources to be utilized In the Land Bank program.
i
{ Program: Encourage energy efficlency end water conservation
to reduce long-term "operating" costs forlow,
moderate and middle income households.
City supported programs to weatherize homes of low and moderate Income households
Community Development Department March, 1941
City of Glenwood Spring, CO e:kommdevtihousirykhoa,
80.
32 x Ia
25
10
Mw
o ,
COMMUNITY HOUSING ATTAINABILITY STRATEGY
GLENMOD SPRINGS. COLORADO
would reduca their housing cost burden by reducing payments for heating, cooling and
lighting. Programs to replace inefficient electrical fixtures and appliances would also
reduce utility costs for households. These programs would also assist in community
wide resource conservation efforts.
Policy: Encourage the development of smaller housing units.
Housing cost is directly related to the size of the housing unit.
Many of the efforts to reduce the land cost of housing could also
have an effect on housing size, but there are sev_rat other rr'
incentierv and disincentives the City can incorporate to r.
encourage the construction of smaller houses on smaller lots.
The free market over the last five years has demonstrated that
buyers will purchase smaller units. The City's demographics
demonstrate that smaller housing units will be supported.
Program: Create an Impact and improvement fee.Iysfem based
on size and characteristics of the housing unit, rather
than simply by number of units under common
ownership as Is currently the practice.
Currently, the impact and improvement fees charged by the City do not differentiate
between a single-family residence with 5,000 square fee; of living space, six bedrooms,
six bathrooms, a four car garage and a swimming pool, and a single-family townhome,
with 1,200 square feet, two bedrooms, two bathrooms, a single-car garage and less
than 1,000 square feet of lawn, The system of fees can be modified to provide
incentives to create less impact on the City's infrastructure thus allowing a smaller fee.
Major subdivisions can be encouraged to utilize raw water for irrigation, water and
wastewater improvement fees could be pegged to the number of plumbing fixtures,
transportation improvement fees could be a function of square footage, bedrooms or
off-street parking spaces provided, park land dedication could be linked to the number
• of bedrooms, and a minimum threshold could be created for each fee with an
incremental addition according to each characteristic.
Policy: Disco vrapd the rapidly increasing rate of housing costs In the
communlty,
• •
As shown on the graph (page 12) showing 1990 to 1995 average sale price of housing i
Community Development Department March, 1991
I
C+ty of Glenwood Sphr ps, CO cleomm4w0housing%chas
81. I
ry
/ S 0 32 X
s
O
MON"
COMMUNITY HOUSING ATTAINABILITY STRATEGY
_ GLENWOOD SPRINGS. COLORADO
in Glenwood Springs compared to a 4% annual increase, there has been a tremendous
windfall profit In housing in the last five years. An average annual i1 crease of 2% to 5%
has been experienced nationwide over the last several years. An annual increase of
5% would double the price of housing every 14 years; a 4% annual increase every 17'%
years, and a 7% annual increase every 10 years.
With the minimal down payments necessary in today's housing market, it is possible to
realize a 50% annual increase in equity over a five year period, even with onl+, a 4%
average annual increase in hone value,
Program; Require deed restrictions with regard to : t.sele price
In conjunction with receiving City housing assistance.
To encourage housing prices which are attainable by ordinary households which work
in the City, the rampant inflationary windfall profits must be removed from the housing
market. Deed restrictions on resale price of houses receiving City assistance will allow
substantial equity earnings for participants, while keeping within reach resale housing
prices for future potential buyers.
Program: Offer a waiver of Improvement and impact fees on
Infiil, home ownership opportunities in exchange for
deed restrictio 1s of resale price.
To encourage the development of housing within the existing service area of the City,
and to provide an incentive to deed restrict the resale pr;ce of housing units, the City
should expand its existing affordable housing policy with regard to deed restricted rental
housing to include owner occupied housing.
Program: Allow development projects which guarantee
"attainability" to be placed Orst on the agenda at
reviews and public hearings.
1
In the development business, time is money. By placing attainable housing projects I
first on review and public hearing meetings, the cost resulting from the time of
architects, attorneys, engineers and other staff will be minimized. This practice could i
result Is reduced housing cost,.
0 Policy: Help reduce the risk to developers associated with producing p
attainable housing.
Community Development Department March, 1991
City of Qlenwood Springs, CO a lcommdevlhousingtahae
1
Ire 32x10
i
r
,
t
A
Y
4RF1S017~ i.
Y
' COMMUNITY HOUSING ATTAINABILITY srRATEGY
GLENMOD SPRINGS, COLORADO
`
There is a direct relationship between a
developer's risk and uncertainty associated
with an investment In housing and the developer's expectations of profit:
y
The greater the risk, the greater the expectations In regard to prom.
It stands to reason, then, that when risk and uncertair t e are reduced or eliminated, the
< need for excessive profit is curtailed. A municipal gov a nment is in the position to
r reduce the potential risk to developers in a variety of ways. It could provide
infrastructure, it could guarantee loans, it could deliver home buyers, it could take a
position of first right of purchase on Unsold housing units in any housing development.
Of course, i reducing risk through Cr'
ty participation demands that the City have some
resources dedicated to achieving attainable housing. The greater the resources, the
greater the impact on reducing risk and ultimately reducing the cost of housing for
households in the City.
Program; Establish a "Buyers Bank" of current renters who
would qualify to bry attainable housing If It were
produced.
The easiest, and least cost, approach to reducing developers' risk would be to establish
a Buyers Bank of current renters who would be qualified to buy attainable housing
when it is produced, and who would be willing to do so. The data could be generated at
little cost through periodic surveys of the community. The data could then be provided
to developers of housing which achieves community goals.
i
+
%
ii
R
Community Development 0epanment March, 1997
E
City of Glenwood Springs, CO eAcommdevVhousingtchas
83.
41;` X
r
s
r
O
5
COMMUNITY HOUSING ATTAINABILITY STRATEGY
GLENW000 SPRINGS, COLORADO
i
Policies and Programs to Encourage New Housing:
Policy: Encourage the development of housing that low, moderate and
middle Income households, especially those with children, can
afford.
Unless steps are taken most new workers in Glenwood Springs will be unable to live
close to their jobs and employers may not be able to attract new employees, Providing
housing opportunities for middle income households (those with income from 4.8 to 1.5
percent of the median) should be a priority. Middle income households often have the
equity and the income necessary to achieve home ownership. Housing units affordable
for this group should be provided.
Program: Support the creation and activities of a local, non-
profit housing development corporation.
A local, non-profit corporation whose mission it was to develop attainable housing for
employees of Glenwood Springs could create a partnership among all the key players
in the community: employers, financial institutions, developers and local government.
The City could participate through many ways, Including funds to start the corporation,
staff time and office space, installation of infrastructure, waiver of Improvement and
other fees, fast-track permitting, and provision of parking in the core downtown. The
development of partnerships to develop attainable housing will enhance the ability of
the community to attract financial resources from state and federal agencies.
Policy: Encourage the development of additional assisted and free market
housing for the elderly. f
• The community's elderly (65 plus years of age) is the fastest growing segment of
population. As households move into retirement, they often have housing in which they
have raised families and which becomes oversized when the nest is empty. In addition,
aging households are typically faced with fixed Incomes and rising medical costs,
Assisted housing for many of these households Is the only option. For many others, it
is an attractive option, when compared to supporting a home which is too big, too old,
• and too costly to maintain. Developing additional housing for the elderly within the • S
community would not only assist the elderly, but it would open up housing opportunities
for other households to move Into housing previously occupied by the elderly.
Community Development Department March, 1997
City of Glenwood Springs, CO e.lcommdevlhousiM&has
81, '
f r''° hk10 32X 10
0
COMMUNITY HOUSING ATTAINABILITY STRATEGY
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO
Program. Support the Garfield County Public Housing Authority
to develop assisted housing In Glenwood Springs.
The Garfield County Publi,: Housing Authority currently operates no assisted housing in
Glenwood Springs. The PHA owns and operates 12 units in Parachute. There are no -
vacancies and long waiting lists for all of the assisted housing in Glenwood Springs,
Additional elderly and other assisted housing should be developed close to transit,
medical facilities, shopping and other'amenities. The PHA has existing capability and
management capacity In place. Rather than duplicate the PHA on a local basis, the
City should support and assist the PHA to create new assisted housing opportunities,
Program: Encourage development of free-market housing with
amenltlAS to entice retirement households.
Many retired households would choose to relocate to high quality housing, built with the
amenities desired by the elderly. Proximity to recreation facilities, transit, and civic
centers are factors which are important to active seniors. Development of this type of
housing would open up opportunities for other households.
Policy: Support the mixing of residential uses In commercial and
industrial areas.
Locating housing within core retail and commercial areas wail not only reduce the cost of
housing, as described above, it will Increase the supply of housing, particularly smaller
housing units. The City can provide incentives to encourage an Increase In the supple
of new housing which helps achieve community goals.
Program: Provide Incentives for Industrial, retail and offlce j
1 developments to provide all or some residential on
. the same site or on another non•resldentially zoned
sife.
Increase maximum density pormitted in commercial and
Industrial zones.
e Reduce parkland requirements for mixed residential and
commercialand Industrial do volopm ants.
e Allow a reduction of off-street parking requirement for
mired-use developments. fa ,
e Increase maximum height limits In some commerclel
ones for mixed use developments.
e Allow Increase Ir floor ore,, ratio roe mixed use
development.
Community Development Department March, 1997
City of Glenwood Springs, CO a commdevVhousingkhas
BS. i
r
3p %
S 10 32 X El
s
0
COMMUNITY HOUSING ATTAINABILITY STRATEGY ~
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO E
The City's Land Use Plan identifies four core areas which also could serve as future
transit hubs along Highways 6 and 82 within the urban development boundary: West
Glenwood near the 1.70 exit; Downtown, 27th Street and Highway 82, and the location
of a future bridge crossing the Roaring Fork River near Holy Cross Electric. These
areas can be developed in mixed-uses to combine residential opportunities with retail "
and other commercial land uses.
Program: Pursue development of residential melts on air space
over selected public and private parking lots in
commercial and industrial districts.
There are significant, large parking lots along the Highways 6 and 82 corridor and
downtown that offer opportunities to develop housing units "over" the ground level
parking surfaces. The parking lots at the Roaring Fork Marketplace, the Glenwood
Springs Mall, City Market and Safeway, and a number of properties in downtown
Glenwood Springs are potential sites for such development. In addition there are
numerous churches throughout the City that have large parking lots.
i
Program: Encourage use of uncnnventlonal housing financing
techniques to make more housing affordable for
persons employed in Glenwood Springs, such as:
♦ Colnvestmontprograms, wherein an employer helps
employees with mortgage assistance.
Equity sharing, wherein a home buyerand Investor form a
partnership that shares in down•paymsnt, monthly
payments and equity.
o Non-profit or limited equity cooperative ownership (dead
restrictlons).
Housing development corporation, wherein large entities i
In the City cooperate to aid In developing or financing
ottalnable housing.
i
i Innovative financing techniques have been developed in the private sector that reduce
t the costs of owning new and existing housing. Employers can take a lead rote in
making the alternatives to conventional mortgage financing available Individually or
through a housing development corporation. This could include a demonstration
project,
Program: The City of Glenwood Springs should lead by example '
and provide some attainable housing for its r 0 J employees.
Community Development Department March, 1997
City of Glenwood Springs, CO e: leommdevlhovsinglchas
86, i
i
K .t2x~❑
• o -
n
gl~lAll[A
COMMUNITY HOUSING ATTAINABILITY STRATEGY
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO I
The City of Glenwood Springs Is one of the leading employers in the community with
more than 1'5 employees. Many of its employees have job descriptions which either
mandate or encourage their rapid response to emergency situations. In addition, it is
good public policy to encourage its employees to actively participate in community
events. The City also has many jobs which pay below the ability to afford "entry-level"
housing in Glenwood Springs. The City also could utilize City-owned land to creatively
set an example for other major employers in the community to provide employee
housing.
Program: Work with local employers to encourage occupancy of I
housing by households In which at least one person
works In Glenwood Springs.
Primary objectives for new housing are (1) that low, moderate and middle income
households can afford it, and (2) that it be occupied by people employed in Glenwood
Springs. It would be difficult for the City to require that private housing be uccupled by
people who work in the City. However, the City can encourage local employers who
participate in housing development to give first priority to those who work nearby. This
will help employers recruit, reduce employee travel costs, and reduce commute traffic.
Program: Continue to assist developers In constructing low,
moderate and middle Income housing, especially for
families, through land banking and othermethods,
i
The City's only existing attainable housing program is the waiver of impact and
improvement fees for the provision of income and rent restricted rental housing. This
program was put in place to assist the completion of the Machebeuf project in West
Glenwood. This project was developed by the Archdiocese of Denver, resulting In 55
rental units restricted to low income households at rents which are affordable. In
addition to waiving fees, the City also secured a Community Development Block Grant
from the State of Colorado to support the development. These units are the only deed
restricted housing in the City. In addition to support through waiving of fees, the
I ' procurement of State grants and the provision of land, municipalities are often eligible
for other resources available only to non-pi, o, entities. The Federal Home Loan Bank I
offers an affordable housing program with a number of eligible activities. Various
private foundations often seek municipal participation in projects.
' Cottage unit and accessory apartment programs, described earlier, are additional
ways to reduce the cost of housing, ,
Community Development Department March, 1997
City or Glenwood Springs, CO s %eommdsvlhouslepkhas
87.
00
32
i
r I
'i wrens
O
i
.50"„
COMMUNITY HOUSING ATTAINABILITY STRATEGY
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO .
Policies and Programs to Work with Other Levels of Government
Policy. Encourage and participate In low and moderate Income housing
programs financed by other levels of government.
r
Working with other levels of government to create attainable housing in the region
works to everyone's benefit. In particular, the City should encourage and support the
creation of housing elsewhere within the Roaring Fork River valley. Virtually every
attainable housing unit created between Glenwood Springs and Aspen will result in less
4 traffic and its associated congestion impacts in our community. Working together to
achieve a "fair share" approach to housing delivery will demonstrate a good-faith effort
Y to meet the City's obligation within the region.
Program., Assist developers who want to use state and federal
housing programs.
I
M1,
z
By keeping abreast of state and federal housing assistance programs, the City can
provide information to developers interested in using housing programs. City support is
often valuable in obtaining state and federal approvals, The City should support
county, state and federal legislation which will promote more housing opportunities for
all segments of the community.
Program: Work to achieve a statewide policy to overturn
Amendment One to allow cities to Impose a real estate
transfer tax to provide revenue for attainable housing
programs.
Cities which had a real estate transfer tax in place prior to the enactment of Colorado's
Amendment One were allowed to keep it, while this logical resource for the 4
•i } development of attainable housing is denied all other communities as a result of
Amendment One. Overturning this portion of the amendment would allow local
0 residents to decide for themselves whether or not a real estate transfer tax is a viable t' r
and logical resource to meet the housing needs of the community. , t
I `sM►' a 1
3
Community Devetopment Department WCh, lifi7
City of Glenwood Springs, Co 4 \comrndevlhousingkhas ;
ea.
~,~r3 ? 5 x 10 I 32 X
a
C
' Inn
` I
COMMUNITY HOUSING ATTAINABILITY STRATEGY E
GLENWOOD SPRINGS. COLORADO
f
Other Local Policies and Programs for Consideration:
Policy. Foster the provision of some new and existing units, dispersed
throughout the Clty, for ownership and rental by households of '
low and moderate Income.
Local housing assistance programs in addition to those Pssociated with slate and
federal programs may be warranted to provide a full range of income levels which
Glenwood Springs wishes to house.
Program: In housing development of 10 or more units, a portion
of the units should be provided at below market rates
to low end moderate Income families.
A Balanced Housing Program could require developers to provide units affordable to
low, moderate, and middle income households, and deed restrict the units with regard
to subsequent resale prices. A payment in lieu of the housing units could be provided
and placed in the Land Bank Program.
Program; Explore the posslbiifty of encouraging developers to
provide more than a minimum number of below
market rate units.
Such a provision would emphasize the importance of affordable housing, especially
near employment centers, transportation corridors, and on larger sites. Incentives 1
could include density bonuses over the maximum density allowed by zoning if the
bonus ,snits are attainable
Frogram; Use tax-exempt revenue bonds and other Innovative
methods to finance low and moderate Income
A houshrg.
i The City could use these funds for many aspects of attainable housing development:
0 to provide construction financing to deveiopers of attainable housing;
to provide low-interest, long-term mortgages to buyers of attainable horsing;
♦ to provide infrastructure in support of private development of housing; or O '
♦ to construct attainable housing.
Community Oevelopment Department March, 1997
City of Glenwood Sp,ings, Co e:kommdeve,ousinpkhas
89.
Ftl 52
10: 32XIO
A ! f ~
Nila1 1(y ~'r ` ~
.
I
r; I
~ r
COMMUNITY HOUSING ATTAINABILITY STRATEGY
GLENWOOD SPRINGS. COLORADO
Policy to Promote Open Choice;
a
Policy: Work towards the elimination of discrimination based on race,
religion, nationsl origin, sex, sexual preference, marital status, or physical handicap, and other barriers that prevent free choke In
housing.
r f'±
3 ~rv I ,.l
A
(t' 1
t
II
r
0
I
1 ^i ^}I[} f 1 1f ~ 1 !
r
~ m
K•
Community Development Department arO, 7D97 i7
City of Gle iwood Springs, CO e:Itommdevlh0ueinplc~+'
90.
<4 ,
:t f ^a'C'F'"~"'~,F..~r1ti~.~~i•' y ~~y ~frJ ~ °+a°~~t 32
x
• J
7
1
t ♦ 4
.
i
t
...nr• wawarhx~.WYni,l.4tw.Inw+vy nyy,yyw.q r~Nww+Y++.v ~r~r. M
COMMUNITY HOUSING ATTAINABILITY STRATEGY
GLENWOOD SPRWGS, COLORADO
ACKNOWLEDGMENTC
CITY COUNCIL
Marc adter, Mayor
Greg Jeung
Shirley Scheisser (through 11195)
s; Sam Skramstad
}1 Lou Trapani
Jon Tripp
Don Vanderhoof (after 11/95)
Bob Zanella
'
HOUSING FOR TOMORROW COMMISSION '
Tom Beard, Chair
Craig Davis (through 10!95) '
j Richard Gates
Greg Jeunp
Sue LaGiglia
Jean Martensen
Jim McCann (after 2196)
Bonnie Reiff
Lou Trapani
Pat Tonnozzi (through 1196)
STAFF
y.
Mike Copp, City Manager
Mark Donaldson, Community Development Director
! 0'
,v
Community Deveh'pment 0ep8rtment MarcA, 1897
City of Glenwood Springs, CO
e:IcatwndwVwueingkl+aa '
91.
1 .a t _ it':'?A~ t`}°,tr{• 2
K 1 1J, d1..r. ~~~fi X
0
/I
o
n~awr~a
DRAFT
CITY OF DENTON
LAND CONVEYANCE PROGRAM
Criteria and Procedures for Sale of Tax Foreclosed and
Abandoned or Seized Properties to
Non-Profit Corporations
On June 7, 1994, the City Council approved the 1994 Combined_ Final Statement
of Community Development Oblectivos and Projected Use of Funds and the
HOME Program Statement. The approved document Includcd development of
an affordable housing program designed to construct new housing units on infill
lots in existing neighborhoods. The Land Conveyance program utilizes vacant,
abandoned properties acquired through the tax foreclosure process to support
neighborhood revitalization and the development of effordable housing by local
nonprofit organizations.
The following program design includes procedures for the sale of tax foreclosed
and/or seized properties, and qualifying criteria for participating organizations.
Purpose:
Ia allow for the private sale of tax foreclosed or seized properties by the City of
Denton to qualified non-profit organizations in support of local affordable housi ig
programs and in furtherarce of the public purpose of increasing the supply of
affordable housing In th3 city.
Property Negofiatforrs:
i City staff will notify the other taxing units that have claims for delinquent taxes
j peralties, interest and other amounts owed against a targeted property, that the .
p operty Is under consideration for use as an affordable housing property.
The City will initiate negotiations with the other taxing entities to determine
acceptable parameters for accepting a purchase amount from qualified nonprofit
organizations at a private sale that is less than the lesser of.
+ O 1. the market value of the property as stated In the judgement, or O •
u, 2. the judgement/tax warrant amount.
92,
r.
i 32x1
x
re
s
0
1
r
1
Land Conveyance
Guideline
Page 2 of 4
Tax foreclosed or seized properties eligible for private sale without further City
Council action must meet the following criteria;
• Accrual of a minimum of six (3) years of unpaid taxes
• Vacant or distressed for over one year
• Denton Central Appraisal District valuation set at $35,000 or less
All private sales of tax foreclosed or seized properties that do not meet the above
criteria will require City Council approval
partlclgants:
Participation In the private sale of tax foreclosed or seized properties for sale to
the public by sealed bid, shall be limited to certified Community Housing
Development Organizations (CHD09) and 6010(3) nonprofit organizations and
nonprofit organizations created by Texas law.
An organization must meet the following criteria to be certified as a partlcipating
nonprofit organization In the City of Denton's Land Conveyance Program.
• A community-based organization evidenced by at least fifty-one percent
(51 of community residents on the board of directors,
• An organlzatiun with articles of incorporation, charter or bylaws that
demonstrate a primary organizational goal of provision of affordable housing
for low and moderate Income persons,
• An organization recognized by the Internal Revenue Service as a tax-exempt
organization,
• An organization current on local tax obligations, as verified by the Tax
Division of the Finance Department.
E'rocedutps
1. Qualified nonprofits may submit a letter of Interest regarding the avellabllity
and opportunity to bid on tax-foreclosed or seized properties. Attechec to the
letter will be documentation that the organization meets the criteria for
• participation In the Land Conveyance Program, 0 0
2. Communty Development Division staff will certify that the organization meets
program criteria and maintain a roster of approved organizations. 1
I
93,
s.
77 32 X
o
eUww
o
Land Conveyance
Guidelines
Page 3 of 4
3. Certified organizations may to rget specific abandoned properties and request
that the City consider Instituti ig tax foreclosure proceedings on these.
4. Notifications of private sales and minimum bids will be sent to each certified
organization. Notifications will include information on the lowest acceptable
bid and the final bid submission date as determined by the City.
5, Bid proposals submitted by certified organizations will Include the following:
L A minimum bid that Is no less than the maintenance costs of the
project while In the City's trusteeship or $500,00 whichever is less.
It. A plan to develop th6 property as affordable housing.
Iii. A timeline showing the commencement of construction, completion
of construction and sale or rental of unit.
IV. Evidence of area residents' approval or a citizen participation plan.
V. Identification and source of necessary project financing.
6. On an annual basis, or more often If requested by the City, participating
organizations that have acquired one or more properties under the City's
Land Conveyance Program, must provide documentation that the units meet
the City's affordable housing requirements, Documentation will Include
information confirming that rehabilitated or constructed units have been sold
or rented to households whose Income is less than 80% of the area median
Income based on Department of Housing and Urban Development
requirements.
7. All projects must comply with the City's current land use policies. In the
absence of an approved timeline, the project must be completed within three
years.
7. In the event competing proposals are submitted by more than one qualified
nonprofit organization for the same property, the proposals will first be
evaluated based on the following:
I, completeness of the Information Included (see item 4 above),
• li, the goal of affordable housing production, and
hl. compatibility with the City's HOME and CDBO housing programs.
A lottery system may be used when necessary to convey a property.
9. After determination that an organization's proposal is In compliance with the li
• Council-approved program priorities, an agenda Item requesting approval of p •
the property conveyance will be submitled.
94,
10 32XIQ.
~v 1
5
i
Land Conveyance
Ouidellnes
Page 4of4
Deed Restrictlons:
Upon approval by the City Council, a Quit Claim deed will be prepared, The Quit
Claim deed will contain deed festrictions appropriate to ensure compliance with
1
State prescribed redemption periods, the proposed development timetable and
with the proposed end use, for a minimum of fire years following completion of
construction, as reviewed and approved In the proposal.
F
,
i
1
ik
1
95.
r F ,Mr: 25 x 32X{I
O
y-. g, -1L.; v_'.i " '.2': *a'+. , ~ ^;Yf}<a•1wFrp[iT,% " ^h'E ihes¢: !rt. xw,w. r. ~
w MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Barbara Ross, Community Development Administrator
THROUGH: Dave Hill, Director of Planning and Development
SUBJECT: Housing First
DATE: May 18,107
Housing First is a group of local housing providers who have combined efforts to
promote affordable housing development and retention in Denton. The
organization's first meeting was held July 18, 1996. The group met quarterly to
share Information about local housing needs, programs and funding
opportunities.
In a meeting la,t fall, Housing First listened to Gloria Rice of the Dallas
Affordable HousIrg Coalition discuss their accomplishments in the Dallas
community, Housing First members decided that they nould become more
effective by Implementing activities similar to the Coalition's, Members agreed to
begin researching community housing Issues and developing strategies for
Denton.
The following Is list of current Housing First participants:
Bank One - Denton
• Denton Affordable Housing Corporation
• Denton Housing Authority w
• Denton Independent School District
Fairhaven Retirement Center
• First State Bank of Texas
a Habitat for Humanity
a HOPE, Inc.
University of North Texas, School of Community Service
Housing First members have recently met with the Planning staff to discuss the
concept of fee waivers for developers of affordable housing. The following letters
are provided In support of development of a fee waiver program. Please contact
me if you need further Information,
9b.
10 32X10
o
0
11 H'i-21-90 THIr _05:14 FM DE11 n;+a. vv •::•s4a,.. ry.>,;.. d. :
TOH "•FFOPD"•PLE HOU5111 917 4e4 T032 P.02
1
HABITAT FOR HUMANITY
"
OF DENTON
hily 19, 1999
h1.n bm ri Derdun faty OxrxiI
do hts. lane P1ovo
(D-(iVir, Fk rtlll First
303 f J. CAII(ll 51sI a Me
Do tun, Te~.ss 76'201
RE: Rgxx1 on A(fo"e 1Whg dated h4.iy 26, 1998 • - i gm*mt orf MaWrrg rAd DEh& pt teed l"Rc+11oiC9.
hkrtd~rss:
This leitex is htelxkxl to express Or axxrmn Out K1lrtat to fknuMy of Dewo has rc*1nry1 i; the i toewing
slxrtageof aff(xk lAelotai,iginritemmlunityanddccffw11ktheinlrAlikncfinpx],deveigrmAarilc'dxf
foes wtll Kwe m ca and of a 6-A.I(p itsd d affol(Lble shloe farrily Ir;lck+x s aid l rx nxdti4.r,rly tym ing.
The ndssion.vxf ix mlivy t}ad ref F iiAtat far Kr mW of Nnf(n is to axl "pa arty haning" in arc a" by I rwiding
ckrn~,r#fudJ~IrI.~teN IolavhxvrieixxardxAcls.Inrfud,rlevelgyrnd+uxlUhrrftrswlxdelcuic+rcJyblclese
tine cv t of 1011 ng affa MAe bcusing"My fn narlrr/'rt l s*riz time such &s ar s, W fa doe 4a !vale forlait
scvor as well. 11 ds is of 0 Fst "v,r1 in rrxtliare caxn n to It, as it ran only wive to roll" die tool Japan adu+lly
slxrd a) aflvftWe Ixxring d all ty1tis.
ft yA.falldie effuts(J6*LepabtxxdofPixriiagaixlr-k-velgnmitoarHes%lie iureof "dfadalAelxxislrq"
~ d'^firx>; I arxi c, amiraEd ir1 dr_• alxh+e rtfaenral report. T1x'Te .v a d>vlorrly mY odxT ❑~licy related isairs flat
oxe4 be cortsl&tetl lxyayf air o" irnmroate crwmm, Ixt luv %the prim" (oIjtv6w L l Inneasingafforl-We
IWANlrlg in US oJrTni►iity, KlAit for I kvivild y rstkisixstically rewnlinxb, eaxbrso alxl slt;cxH a waiver of
hZI devcigvm t vd odw im intlanxtIf b (with or svitiyxt IelnixAsfsnnd from A xo u paella, d Ole city
IxAI~W. Frr ti a wTe Ir nrryobJrt]ive d irxTCUring affonfaLle 1xxe,h g in Ilx ciXm!Wily, sse x150 erxlgse and
s1,43Krt the mli dewy drah ce doe %xif Cunway^-P, Pn'> &tl" tosroiwuM ctxlxxAOLS,
Sill CAY, %kV 115() n%tnMsxt ovi ew and -.44polt a mein of Irtlpo % dydoPntrR vdoe r few log* lxit,te
k>rprtA'it secinr drt lailrk aflon6i11e 11atJng (tsral oaT pciwmince and kf~ed !o revlewl. Tlils nfvte 1"vVllld be
pp~~sell Qtly after recEhrecl lxYfanlnxe, la "r~ la ifis><1 dcvelgxys N d:velg2tlnd" dal pranks "affa~lide 11ouSJrp"
r dTe'hro ANNI" its all su h temrc nee rWlfxxl by dr_ Rrlxxt.
UTIxf>alf,ffWrl,IfalirnuTiryrfGynt,rttuxiOle
lowfrxurQCOrm~InirywlTbse~drrEv54VJlVedS We VPLKZe
vxl I,6V w yolr attest„as, dunk yw far mr fava.kae crxnkk+atiat d cKr eorlwleaAs, recammiLdi rrs rrxl
0 efviysm 12 lts. 1 MAll b11xlx)y to p Wdr adrbtlurul infrrmitia+ AS yvu nay skvm neOe wry to ek+tsxlet" oa r
conrnd to affurAlahle harSUig in ar UxTnxnity.
(SO
j
O. jr iyC Ud>IIk1,
. Baud Nl"#xl at-LvF0.•,
&>lyd rd p icdom / fawttlve Crvmrtttr I, 0 0
e. t♦,drlar fa /larwlily 11 Dmilm
LT~j
'A DEUnT HOUSE IN A DECENT COMMIINITT rule GLb'S PEOPLE IN NEEo."
BOX 418 0914TOrr, TEXAS • 76202
97.
,
o
0
I
DAHC * Dentton Afftardeble Houoing CorpQrstlon ~
Jane Burda Provo 303 N. Cerrotl - Suite 105
Exncutwe Director Denton, Texas 78201
(6401454.7048
(6401454•"+032 Fox
f
l
May is. 1998
City Council Members
City of Donlon
Denton City Hall
Denton, TX 78201
Re', Impact fees
Dear Council Members
The Denton Affordable Housing Corporation Is dedicated to Increasing the supply of affordable housing
for iovi !o moderate Income households in Denton. AMhougn our Affordable Homeownership Program
has beer, very successful in assisting first-time low-income families into a home they afford, it has
br,come Increasingly challenging to find modes( homes that we can acquire, rehabilitate, and still keep
a'fordable for our buyers, We have seen prices rise dramatically In the past six months due to the very
active real estate market. This, In turn, has affected the price of building supplies, which have also
increased substantially In the recent post. The Incomes of the populstlons ws serve cannot keep pace
with the rising prices.
Due In part to the shortage of existing affordable homes available, DAHC Is planning to build a number
of single-family on a site we have acquired on Mockingbird Lane, as well as on scattered sites throughout
the City. We are also attempting to build or acquire some rental properties, which we will lease at very
affordable rents to several populations with speclai needs, including homeless families with children.
The effect of adding the recently adopted impact fees to the Increased cost of producing affordable
housing would be devastating. Therefore, I urge you to consider walving development fees on housing
produced for Income-eligible households by nonprofit organizations.
The Planning Department has done on exemplary job of assembling information on how this Issue has
been handled in a number of differem communities I applaud their efforts am the sensitivity they have
shown toward this critical Issue. One model they reported on Involves a rebate approach which requires
the payment of all Impact and development fees up front but allows not-for-profit organizations to apply
for a refund of some or all of the fees once the project has been put Into service. This approach would
be peNculerfy burdensome on many of us In the nonprofit arena In that our 'cash flow' Is very limited
and the 'cost of money' very high. Any of these costs which we Incur throughout the process of
developing affordable housing must be passed along to our buyers or our tenants.
On behalf of our Board of Directors and the low-income populations we serve, thank you for your
consideration of the waiver of development and Impact fees for affordable housing being developed by
nonprofit organizations I would be happy to supply any data about the housing we produce or the
populations we serve If M would help in your consideration of this Important matter
Sincerely, nn ,
)t~riL 17i•1.t~A ~ ~ ~ ~
Jane Burda Provo
Executive Director
98.
_251-01 32x G
mmomm
~R
i
O
wr 5,.,.. '=°4"y t;uS4vyi M"i.•x:kmPax~. RV'.rl'.'+v:,;w.a . -u~•.•
hWY-18-1998 11fOO 9:HOOL OF CCHVA I TY SUC. 817 565 4663 P.02/02
University of North Texas
Center fur P011c Service
Texas lnNhufe far Ruearch and Education on Aaina
Members of City Council
City of Denton
p/A Jane Provo
Co-Chair, Housing First
303 N. Carroll. Suite 108
Denton, TX 76201
Y
May 18, 1998
Oendemen,
This letter is to express my support for the expansion of the stock of affordable bousing In
Denton, and for the adoption of related policies currently being considered by the Council.
1 would like in particular to support the proposal to waive impact/development fees for
developers who produce such housing.
The model I would like to support for these waivers la that adopted by the city of San
Antonio, waivers of Impact fees for non-profit organi:atioru, and rebates of pjrd Impact fees
for qualifying and performing units for for-profit develo4%ers. Based on the San Antonio
model, I would also like to suggest that Multi-Family Rental Housing be included In these
regulatiora. Denton needs this kind of housing to attract and develop this 4egment of the
workforce.
Thank you for your kind consideration of this matter.
r Sincerely,
A
R Martin Iseckel, Ph.D.
Associate Director, Healthy Neighborhoods
99.
$rtlirl
75 x 0 32X
101
1 M kf Y M} A
! F 3e
I ! I v S I 1 /t 1 ttil
H
I
1
Fonme 10mol Norco
2400 N, Ben Aw
Maws. TX 76301
Mow HW114-4441
{ ! ~
Fea 94W 11.2551
• f
May IS, 1998
To: [)union City Council Members
Thank you for your consideration of support for Affordable Housing in the City of Denton et your upcoming work
scsdon. I represent the moderate to low income elderly population lit our City who are In need of affordable rental
housing. While there are show 200 units of affordable rental housing for the elderly In Anton currently, there is
approximately a one year wait for eacb of these units At any given time. The number of cidcrly needing affordable
rental housing far exceeds the units available. These people in need are for the most part peopk who have workd
all their lives In our community or other communillei nearby and can no longer maintain or afford a single family
home on their modest fixed incomes (primarily Social Security), Rental housing designed for the elderly also
provides needed support scrvicns to this population that are not available In an owner occupied unit.
1 ask you to consider supporting the development of affordable rental housing for this special Deeds population In our
City by allowing a waiver of dcaclopment and Impact fees to qualifled developers. I would be glad to provide you
with aldidonal information on the noods of our elderly population at your request. l
' Sincerely,
ClierylIlarding. PhD ll
~ Adminiauator I
F
I ~ ~ ±I
I
i. ~ ,,I Al
t ~ is
,
{
Ya
u'
r
011
agar"
e
I
I
:':;t.en'~iy'=k,L%tF6'"•Mr,7"fq,^+Z+.+'ipia^w^rrtz+,i,ri. ,
DENTON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT
Soclal Work Office
1126 Davla
Denton, Texas 76201
1940) 38>2963 j
Fax (940) 383-2806
May 13, 1898
Mr, Dave Hill
Director of Planning and Development
221 North Elm Street
Denton, Taxes 76201
Dear Mr. Hill;
As the distrlcl social worker, I am involved with families that are having to
share small apartments because they cannot afford the rent on their own. I would
like to request that lho City Council give serious emslderation to wolving Impact
and developer's fees for multifamily and affordable rental housing. Unfortunately,
my clients are not likely to be homeowners In the foreseeable future. They need
to be able to have access to affordable and standard rental housing.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Rosemary Rod gues, l.M5W
JA
i
1
I '
t;
1011
r4 .
r ,