|
-a
<br />1
<br />rn
<br />0
<br />2
<br />0
<br />0
<br />a
<br />in
<br />E
<br />L
<br />a
<br />0
<br />V
<br />0
<br />■
<br />■
<br />■
<br />■
<br />The following table shows estimated total development costs
<br />per unit and per square foot for recent price restricted housing
<br />units, some of which include permanent supportive housing
<br />units. The average per unit development costs of recent price
<br />restricted rental housing in Boulder County is $285,436 per
<br />unit, or $307 per square foot. The Suites in Longmont has
<br />lower costs per unit and square foot as a redevelopment project.
<br />Communities planning to build, or acquire and rehabilitate
<br />properties to create new permanent supportive housing units
<br />in Boulder County should anticipate raising this average cost
<br />per units in order to pay for construction and land.
<br />Property
<br />Price/
<br />Unit
<br />Type of Property
<br />Kestrell
<br />$389,377
<br />Affordable rentals with a
<br />20% set aside of PSH
<br />Palo Park
<br />$368,872
<br />Newly constructed
<br />affordable rentals
<br />Suites Longmont
<br />$157,839
<br />acquisition and
<br />rehabilitation of a hotel
<br />Lee Hill (2013)
<br />$225,656
<br />Newly constructed 100%
<br />PSH - three years old
<br />ource: Longmont ousing Authority, Boulder l:ounty ousing Authority
<br />CHFA, Colorado Division of Housing, Attention Home
<br />Governmental Regulations, Policies and Constraints
<br />Federal Level
<br />The housing production system in the U.S. is arguably, one of
<br />the more complex sectors of our economy. Government at all
<br />levels, impacts the cost and availability of suitable housing for
<br />the wide range of households and incomes in our communities.
<br />Federal monetary policy, Civil Rights laws, environmental
<br />regulations, tax laws and trade policies all impact the private
<br />sector's ability to produce housing products that match the
<br />needs and incomes of our population. There is at least a tacit
<br />agreement that federal policies place burdens on the ability of
<br />private businesses to respond to the demand for housing that
<br />a growing population requires.
<br />At least on one level, the various federal housing programs and
<br />tax rules are designed to mitigate some of the disruptions the
<br />complex regulatory approach creates in the housing market.
<br />The federal mortgage interest deduction is the single largest
<br />investment the federal government makes in lessening the cost
<br />burden that regulations create for housing consumers. Federal
<br />housing assistance programs, administered by HUD and the
<br />IRS, are designed to provide incentives to builders and benefits
<br />to households that cannot be served by the private market.
<br />Federal assistance programs are designed to provide monetary
<br />resources to "buy down" the cost of housing for those whose
<br />incomes are not sufficient to afford the housing produced under
<br />a costly regulatory system. Because of the composite impact
<br />of federal regulation, producers have to add the cost of regula-
<br />tion to the sale price of apartments and for -sale homes. This
<br />cost burden represents a substantial constraint in the private
<br />market's ability to produce housing products for the lowest
<br />price possible.
<br />Federal wage policies are also a constraint on the production
<br />system because more and more households are not able to afford
<br />the available housing. Various economic studies have validated
<br />that for many working families in the U. S. and in Boulder
<br />County, wages have not grown in real dollars since the 1990s.
<br />This stagnant wage environment is more acute for those house-
<br />holds which earn the minimum wage. Federally, the minimum
<br />wage sits at just over $7.00 per hour. Studies completed in
<br />Colorado by the Colorado Fiscal Policy Institute, have estimat-
<br />ed that a livable hourly wage in Colorado needs to be $18.00
<br />per hour for a household to cover its shelter and other basic
<br />expenses. Because Boulder County reports some of the highest
<br />housing costs in the Denver Metro Area, that livable wage rate
<br />is probably too low for Boulder County residents. Low wages
<br />constrain housing consumers from attaining decent housing in
<br />the marketplace.
<br />Since the passage of the first federal housing acts in the 1930s,
<br />the federal government made a commitment to provide housing
<br />assistance to those poor households which could not afford the
<br />housing produced by the private market. Historically, federal
<br />housing policies were focused on providing capital to public
<br />housing authorities so that they could construct and operate
<br />decent housing for low income households. This approach
<br />eventually evolved into the Section 8 Voucher Rental Assistance
<br />Program that provided subsidies to low income households that
<br />could be used to procure housing in the private market. The
<br />Section 8 Voucher program was designed to create greater
<br />freedom of choice for low income households in choosing a
<br />dwelling. Like all federal programs, the Section 8 Voucher
<br />program is subject to Congressional appropriations. During
<br />the 1990s Congress regularly increased appropriations in order
<br />to serve more households. During this period, the number of
<br />households in need, still exceeded the number of vouchers
<br />appropriated by Congress. In recent decades, however, Congress
<br />has reacted to federal budgetary and deficit challenges by freez-
<br />ing Section 8 appropriations which has had the effect of lim-
<br />iting the number of vouchers available. Because rents have
<br />continued to increase, static appropriations have had the effect
<br />of actually decreasing the number of vouchers available because
<br />subsidy amounts per voucher have had to increase thereby
<br />lessening the number of vouchers that housing agencies could
<br />make available to eligible populations.
<br />The challenges low income populations face in securing decent
<br />housing have been exacerbated by the failure of Congress to
<br />follow through on its commitment to provide housing support
<br />for those who cannot successfully compete in the private market.
<br />Other federal housing assistance programs, including the
<br />HOME program, the CDBG program, and other more spe-
<br />cialized programs have all seen reductions in Congressional
<br />appropriations. On the positive side, there have been increas-
<br />es in appropriations to address homelessness and additionally
<br />to decrease the number of homeless veterans. The burden of
<br />federal regulation and appropriation shortfalls have resulted in
<br />constraints in the affordable housing support system's ability
<br />to provide housing for all who need it. These federal policies
<br />and actions create disequilibrium in the housing market because
<br />suppliers don't have the ability to produce housing products
<br />that match the affordability needed by many housing consum-
<br />ers.
<br />Some housing analysts posit that the increase in homelessness
<br />and the growing number of cost burdened households are at-
<br />tributable to the retrenchment of federal programs that were
<br />designed to offset the inefficiencies in the housing market that
<br />regulations cause. The deinstitutionalization of individuals with
<br />mental health and other behavioral challenges has also contrib-
<br />uted to increases in the number of people who are harder to
<br />house. The housing production system also has to contend with
<br />state and local polices and regulations which also impact the
<br />market's ability to supply decent, affordable housing products
<br />to the large number of households in need.
<br />State Level
<br />State housing policies are limited in scope and in Colorado,
<br />local governments have fairly broad authority in determining
<br />land use, construction standards, and public improvement pol-
<br />icies relating to housing development. There are some areas of
<br />State Statute that do impact local housing markets and the
<br />ability of private entities to address affordable housing needs.
<br />In recent years, the State Legislature and Executive Branch
<br />have acknowledged the affordability challenge that exists in
<br />many local housing markets in the state. State Government
<br />has made greater monetary resources available to support af-
<br />fordable housing programs. Through appropriations for Housing
<br />Development Grants and a state administered housing tax
<br />credit, local producers have greater access to capital that in some
<br />respects helps fill the gaps created by the federal reductions in
<br />resources.
<br />State Statutes do impact the ability of local communities to
<br />address the housing needs of special needs populations and
<br />chronically homeless populations through the use of group care
<br />homes. Two statutes, CRS31-23-303(municipal) and CRS30-
<br />28-115(county), set certain standards for group homes in mu-
<br />nicipalities and counties. These two statutes place occupancy
<br />limits on group homes of 8 persons per facility. They also es-
<br />tablish distance limits for spacing of group homes. The Statutes
<br />place a limit of 750 feet distance between group homes but
<br />provide the flexibility for local governments to establish shorter
<br />spacing requirements between facilities if the jurisdiction so
<br />desires.
<br />These statutes apply to state licensed group care facilities and
<br />are intended to apply to homes for developmentally disabled,
<br />mentally ill and elderly populations. The statutes are silent on
<br />requirements for group care facilities that would serve chron-
<br />ically homeless clients who may have a variety of other special
<br />needs than those listed in the statutes. This absence of regula-
<br />tion in State Statute creates both opportunities and challenges
<br />for local communities. The group care home model represents
<br />a viable option for serving chronically homeless individuals in
<br />communities in Boulder County which are facing pressures on
<br />the supply of land for building other types of structures for
<br />Permanent Supportive Housing. Typically, the group home
<br />approach involves purchasing an existing residential structure
<br />and placing clients in the home which provides a residential
<br />setting for those special needs populations. Later in this report,
<br />a more detailed discussion on the use of this model for Perma-
<br />nent Supportive Housing will be discussed.
<br />Absent statutory requirements at the state level, Boulder County
<br />communities could use the residential care home option as
<br />another housing form to address the need for more PSH options.
<br />Communities may wish to modify their land use and zoning
<br />codes to address the use of group homes for populations that
<br />are not referenced in state statutes. Communities may choose
<br />to impose limits similar to what is contained in their local codes
<br />for other types of group homes or they could choose to remain
<br />silent on the matter.
<br />-a
<br />rn
<br />0
<br />2
<br />w
<br />0
<br />0.
<br />a
<br />w
<br />w
<br />ra
<br />E
<br />L
<br />w
<br />a
<br />c
<br />0
<br />U
<br />m
<br />0
<br />■
<br />■
<br />■
<br />■
<br />23
<br />22 23
<br />
|