Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lafayette consultants outline inclusionary housing and impact‑fee options; council asks for calibrated fee and set‑aside ranges
Summary
Consultants presented inclusionary housing tools, incentives, and a preliminary impact‑fee nexus model that shows defensible maximum fees above typical peer levels. Council requested calibrated fee scenarios, AMI/set‑aside options, and explicit tradeoffs before drafting an ordinance.
Consultants from Root Policy Research and Economic & Planning Systems walked Lafayette’s City Council through policy options to produce affordable housing tied to new development.
Molly Fitzpatrick (Root Policy Research) summarized three policy tools: voluntary incentives (bonuses and regulatory relief), inclusionary housing (unit set‑asides or fee‑in‑lieu), and an affordable housing impact (linkage) fee tied to a legal nexus study. She stressed that these market‑driven tools apply only to new development and must be calibrated to local market conditions.
"An inclusionary policy typically asks a developer to set aside units at a defined AMI or pay a fee in lieu," Molly said, noting tradeoffs between depth of affordability (lower AMI targets) and breadth (percentage of units). She pointed to local examples — Longmont’s program (12% at 50% AMI) and other peer approaches — and warned that program design must balance feasibility and public goals.
Matt Prosser (EPS) presented the linkage methodology tying new development to job creation and housing demand. He reported preliminary model outputs that identify defensible maximum fees (the amount a nexus study could justify) that are often higher than what the market will tolerate; staff will use feasibility testing to find market‑tolerant fee levels. He noted the city’s current affordable‑housing charge is $1 per square foot and that revenue has averaged about $325,000 annually in recent years.
Council priorities and concerns: councilors asked for a clear needs assessment baseline (the city’s last needs assessment was completed in 2022), different AMI targets for rental vs. ownership, and options that balance unit production versus fee generation. Several members urged a mix of dispersed affordable units and some concentrated developments that include services and community amenities. Councilors also requested creative compliance options (land donation, partnerships with nonprofit builders, and ADU incentives) and earlier traffic/engineering checks for large redevelopment sites.
Next steps: staff and consultants will finish feasibility testing and return with a range of calibrated options (AMI targets, set‑aside percentages, fee per square foot for residential/nonresidential types, and incentive bundles) for council review prior to moving draft ordinance language to Planning Commission and public hearings.
