[bouldercouncilhotline] Hotline: DRCOG MetroVision Issues Committee Report - November 2, 2011

[kohls at bouldercolorado.gov]

Sender: Cowles, Macon

So sorry for this late report. The meeting occurred Nov. 2, and I thought I had already sent this out.

Motion to recommend to the DRCOG Board of Directors the revised Metro Vision 2035 Growth and Development Supplement urban centers element
(Attachment B) 

This Motion passed. Cindy Domenico asserted that the evaluation criteria for accepting new urban centers should include a significantly weighted criterion that evaluates the regional connections of a proposed urban center. Douglas County, Thornton, Adams County objected strenuously to inclusion of such a criterion, arguing that the local jurisdiction that would be sponsoring the urban center has no control over regional transportation connections. I was prepared to support Cindy, but those of us on the Boulder side of this argument realized that would be lucky if we could just get the criteria as drafted by the working group. 

Motion to provide a recommendation to the Board of Directors regarding investment in a Regional TOD Fund.

A lot of debate followed the introduction of this topic. Arapahoe County said that creating a TOD fund was nothing by a social program. The market should provide affordable housing. Denver said, “the need for affordable housing is a market failure.” Lone Tree and Adams County said that there were little enough of federal funds, we should not be spending them on housing rather than transportation. City of Boulder then went into the relationship between housing and transportation, that they are inextricably intertwined. The way the “market” provides affordable housing is by putting housing at the periphery further and further out, and that serving the population at the periphery by getting them to hospitals, rehab centers, grocery stores and transit is very expensive. Boulder talked about the gentrification of TOD sites in cities with mature transit and TOD like Washington, DC and San Francisco shows that people who need affordable housing are displaced by gentrification and the TOD fund, which is a revolving loan fund, would create permanently affordable housing without the need for the transportation spending that would be required to serve people at the edge. 

Melinda Pollack, an affordable housing advocate who works with the current Denver TOD fund, pointed out that a $5MM contribution from DRCOG to a TOD fund would attract another $10MM of other investment, and with that $15MM total, it would enable the fund and private partners to create close to 2,000 units. Boulder then made the point that 2,000 units for $15MM is only $7,500 a unit to create affordable housing; that the program is not a subsidy, it is an incentive to the private developers and non-profits that then create the permanently affordable housing. I pointed out that average difference in price between a market rate unit and a permanently affordable unit in Boulder is on the order of $130,000, and that there is a large gap between market price and permanently affordable price for units across the region, that if we an get 2,000 units at a cost of only making a loan for ten years, that that is a good deal for the region. Arvada, Denver, Boulder County, Littleton, Louisville, Erie and two other jurisdictions supported this. And the Motion for Option 2, to use TIP funds to create a TOD fund passed on a vote of 9-8.

Motion to provide direction to staff and/or a recommendation to the Board of Directors on programming of additional FY 2011 funds

Wow! CDOT has found another $27MM in funds to program this year, and in the subsequent three years. MVIC approved the staff’s recommendations, which included fully funding three Boulder projects that took a $2.5MM hit last Spring in order to free up funds for a grade separated interchange at Peoria and Smith Road, so as to prevent traffic from backing up onto I-7 0 when trains traversing the East Line to DIA are up and running.

After funding to the Boulder project and the RACQ projects and a Denver project were restored, there was an additional $10MM to fund other projects. MVIC voted to recommend to the Board that this money can be used for “new projects” submitted on or before December 12. The driver for this is the fact that the Governor has been sponsoring talks between Golden, Arvada, JeffCo and some others about mitigation projects that would remove Golden’s objection to the Jefferson Parkway. The price of the mitigation projects is in the neighborhood of $40MM, and so MVIC voted to consider new projects, including the mitigation proposals (which have not yet been revealed) for consideration for funding. This motion passed as well, after substantial discussion.





Macon Cowles
Boulder City Councilor