Denver staff: 60 EHA-eligible projects could yield thousands of units; council seeks clarity on fees, timing and prevailing wage

Department of Housing Stability staff provided an update to the Community Planning and Housing Committee on Denver's Expanding Housing Affordability (EHA) policy and its early outcomes.

Liah Mitchell and colleagues said the EHA policy (adopted in mid-2022) requires developments of 10 or more units to choose a compliance path that typically provides on-site income-restricted units, while other development types contribute through a linkage fee. Staff said there are about 60 EHA-eligible projects, of which 42 have signed agreements and 24 are recorded. Those projects are expected to produce roughly 6,400 units and about 570 income-restricted units (approximately 9% of the projected total), staff said.

The briefing separated 'standard' EHA agreements from negotiated 'high-impact' developments (generally 10+ acre sites or those using public financing). Staff said five of six high-impact projects shown in slides were signed and recorded; one project (a former telecommunications site) changed ownership and now requires revisiting its affordable-housing plan. Staff also said roughly $10 million in fee-in-lieu is expected from several projects that opted not to provide on-site units, while linkage-fee investments made to date total about $48.3 million and have supported more than 1,000 affordable units across the city.

CPD staff explained how signed agreements map to entitlement steps (site development plan, building permitting, construction) and noted that most signed agreements that have been recorded are near or in building-permit review; a subset of projects is already under construction or complete with income-restricted units in use. Staff said fee-in-lieu payments are expected at the time of building-permit issuance, and that only one project had actually paid by the time of the briefing.

Council members asked for more granular data and maps showing where EHA projects and investments are located, how much fee revenue comes from small residential projects versus high-impact developments, and whether incentives (such as height or parking changes) are achieving the intended outcomes. Council President Sandoval and others asked staff to produce unit-count and fee-source breakdowns and a map that separates fee-in-lieu projects, recorded agreements and projects in review.

A notable point of contention came when Council Member Amanda Sawyer asked whether the city's investments in affordable housing trigger the city's prevailing-wage requirements. Staff said they are in conversations with the city attorney and the auditor's office to clarify whether certain Host (DH) investments trigger prevailing-wage obligations and will follow up with council after those conversations.

Staff also explained that townhome-for-sale projects have, to date, been more likely to opt for the fee-in-lieu because the affordability-gap math makes the fee relatively more attractive for that product type; most rental apartment projects and most negotiated high-impact developments have produced on-site affordable units under their agreements. Council members requested additional breakdowns of fee sources, product types, and how many earlier, pre-EHA agreements are now being built under older commitments.

The committee asked staff to provide follow-up materials (maps, fee breakdowns, and lists of projects in each status category). Staff agreed to compile and share this data with council.