[0:15] Yeah. Yeah.
Kind of like
[0:31] » you know.
>> Yeah.
[0:36] We haven't found
[0:40] you any
[0:49] part of the
>> we had to go to lawsuit because
[0:53] sued
[1:03] sit up here.
>> It is like solved by
[1:10] the first time.
>> Yeah.
[1:14] » Little you know I love to sit up front.
I spent my entire college right in the
[1:17] front row. All right. By the way, I saw
my
[1:21] » We did see this like a little bit of a
psychology experiment.
[1:32] » Yeah.
[1:46] Uh you guys have seen we've seen each
other on screen, but I'm Pat
[1:51] chair committee.
Before we even kick off today, we got a
[1:56] lot of stuff to cover. Um, I would just
like to offer up a moment of silence for
[2:03] the loss of a friend and colleague Marco
Gonzalez who left this much too soon and
[2:09] um offering peace and comfort to his
wife and his family as they do. So his
[2:16] fire has come
[2:28] Um, so we don't often get together.
There's a lot of faces, new faces that
[2:35] we have every month as well. So, why
don't we take a minute and just
[2:39] introduce ourselves? Don't let me forget
the people on the side.
[2:44] » We'll start over here.
>> Hardy with Hope Partnership.
[2:48] » Eric Nath Ladies, coordinator, title
Vine, Daniel Smith, Deep River,
[2:53] » Howard Margulace, Planning Commission,
Old Vines, and chair of the real
[2:59] twinflame
housing strategic planning steering
[3:03] committee.
>> We won't make you say it again.
[3:07] » George Frampton, also an old line and
also co-chairman of this steering.
[3:14] » Bar Kazakoski, director of land use for
the city of Middletown.
[3:22] Brett
>> Benton, old line portable housing
[3:24] position.
Brand regional clinic
[3:29] council of government here to learn
staff
[3:32] and chair west
[3:44] I'm west CEO
vent
[3:50] for town
Mary Westbrook program
[3:57] official for town of Essics
building
[4:04] consult.
[4:21] » Hi, I'm Eliza Lei. Um,
I director and Harley communications.
[4:30] » So nice to see everybody. It I know it's
convenient to be virtual, but it's it is
[4:36] very nice to get together. So, um, we
who's who we have on set up like a
[4:43] webinar, so we won't see them because
it's just us. Um, but
[4:52] speak English.
>> Um, Nick, Rissa, and Thomas, if you
[4:58] cannot hear us, can you throw that in
the one of the chats?
[5:01] » If you can hear us, also.
[5:08] » All right. First order of business
though before we dive into this, uh,
[5:11] approval of the June 23rd, 2026 meeting
minutes. They were distributed with this
[5:18] me this month's meeting agenda. Uh can I
get a motion to approve?
[5:26] » Motion to approve.
>> Second.
[5:29] » Second.
>> Any discussion? Comments on the meeting
[5:32] minutes?
Hearing none. All in favor?
[5:37] I. Any oppose? Any abstensions?
[5:46] I know. I can't. My mouse isn't like
going back and forth.
[5:49] » All right, ladies. Back in your carts.
[5:57] » I can start it.
>> All right. Um, welcome everybody. We're
[6:03] really excited to see you all here.
Obviously, we had a bigger turnout than
[6:07] anticipated, which is a good problem to
have. Um, so we're very happy to see you
[6:12] all here. We hope this reflects some
enthusiasm for the project and we're
[6:15] excited to get into it. So today is our
first housing needs assessment
[6:19] workshops. It's going to data input for
determining regional housing needs and
[6:24] our focus isn't going to be to produce a
single number especially not today um
[6:29] but really to understand the policy
decisions that go into coming up with
[6:33] that number and try and get on the same
page about what we want those decisions
[6:37] to be.
By the end of today's workshop, we hope
[6:41] you'll have a clearer picture of how
housing needs is calculated, as well as
[6:45] an agreed upon policy direction for data
inputs. You'll begin to understand the
[6:50] major components that go into
determining housing need, see how
[6:54] different factors influence the results,
and explore how data assumptions affect
[6:58] the outcomes, and hopefully gain
familiarity with the overall calculation
[7:02] process. We'll start with a brief
refresher on the material from your
[7:06] homework presentation before diving into
the interactive exercise.
[7:12] But first, a pop quiz. So,
so I hope everybody did their homework.
[7:20] What is the primary purpose of a housing
needs assessment? Take a minute to look
[7:25] at the four choices and choose the
answer that seems most accurate. Is it
[7:29] A. understand the major components of
housing need. B see how different
[7:34] factors influence results. C explore how
assumptions affect outcomes. Or D gain
[7:39] familiarity with population process.
Remember this is of the housing needs
[7:45] assessment not of this presentation.
[7:54] » Final answer.
>> A.
[7:59] Correct answer is a
this is uh understanding is the
[8:03] foundation of everything else. So
without defining the problem we can't
[8:06] develop a solution.
[8:10] Next question. Why is a housing needs
assessment important?
[8:15] Because it guarantees immediate housing
construction. It supports evidence-based
[8:20] policy growth planning and investment.
It replaces local housing policies or it
[8:26] focuses only on existing homeowners.
[8:32] » Is it B? Yay. The correct answer is B.
It supports evidence-based policy,
[8:38] growth planning, and investment. Think
about what an assessment can
[8:42] realistically accomplish. It can't
guarantee construction. It can't replace
[8:47] local policy. And it doesn't focus only
on one segment of the population. And so
[8:51] instead, a needs assessment gives
decision makers a shared factual
[8:56] foundation. It helps communities
identify priorities, evaluate possible
[9:00] strategies, and direct attention and
resources towards the housing challenges
[9:05] that are demonstrated by the data.
Next question, why might housing needs
[9:11] be evaluated regionally?
Is it because every municipality has an
[9:17] independent housing market? Because
regional assessments require fewer data,
[9:22] because housing markets and challenges
extend across municipal boundaries, or
[9:26] because regional planning eliminates
local priorities.
[9:32] » All right,
the best answer is C.
[9:38] Housing markets and challenges extend
across municipal boundaries. Residents
[9:42] may live in one municipality, work in
another, and use services uh or visit
[9:47] family elsewhere. A regional assessment
recognizes these connections while still
[9:52] allowing communities to retain their
individual identities.
[9:56] Looking regionally can reveal shared
pressures, opportunities, and trends
[10:00] that may be difficult to see when each
municipality only examines uh data
[10:04] that's within its borders.
Our
[10:09] fourth question asks, which sequence
represents the three main components of
[10:14] a housing needs assessment? Is it
construction, inspection, and taxation,
[10:20] determination, allocation, and
accommodation, population, employment,
[10:24] and transportation, or funding, zoning,
and enforcement?
[10:30] » Can't be too predictable.
C.
[10:36] » It is B.
>> The correct answer is B. Determination,
[10:42] allocation, and accommodation.
Determination establishes how much
[10:46] housing is needed. Allocation considers
how that need is distributed across the
[10:50] region. And accommodation considers
policies, plans, and actions that can
[10:54] help meet it. They were concentrated
primarily on the first component, which
[10:59] is determination of need.
[11:04] And our final review question
maybe.
[11:10] » Sorry, I don't know why my mouse only
wants to come down here when I do this.
[11:28] » Sorry guys. I don't know why this is
happening. Can you use your
[11:32] » No, no, I cannot.
[11:39] » This was working before it was like
coming down here.
[11:43] » Oh,
>> this table was missing a leg.
[11:47] » God damn it.
>> I'm told it already had a crack in it
[11:50] before we started moving things.
>> All right, here we go.
[11:53] Okay, our final review question focuses
on the state statutory requirements for
[11:59] the regional housing needs assessment.
Which statement best describes those
[12:02] requirements? A regional methodology
must exactly duplicate the state
[12:07] methodology. Only population growth may
be considered. Regional methodology
[12:12] should be based on state targets but may
include regional nuance or municipal
[12:16] feedback is not required.
[12:20] » All right.
The best answer is C. Regional
[12:25] methodology should be based on state
targets but may include regional nuance.
[12:29] This gives the region a common starting
point while allowing the methodology to
[12:33] reflect its own housing market and
community conditions. Municipal feedback
[12:37] remains an important part of developing
a credible regional approach. Why we
[12:42] appreciate you all being
[12:47] » All right, I'm going to pass it over to
Eliza to get us going. Okay. So, um,
[12:52] housing need is typically measured
through three components. Current and
[12:56] future need and target vacancy rate.
Current need asks whether today's supply
[13:01] is sufficient for the households that we
currently have. Uh, future need
[13:05] estimates additional units to
accommodate future growth and target
[13:09] vacancy
recognizes that a healthy market needs
[13:13] some available housing to support
mobility and choice. Together, these
[13:16] components form the total housing need
estimate.
[13:20] Um so if you looked at the presentation
this diagram should look familiar to
[13:25] you. The um the one that Megan recorded
um it shows how different data inputs
[13:31] connect to the calculation of total
housing need. The key takeaway here is
[13:35] that in assessing need we're simply
comparing people to units supply and
[13:40] demand for current and future
population. But these are not simple
[13:44] numbers. So, we're using a collection of
data points that either increase or
[13:48] decrease the number of people or the
number of units that we compare until we
[13:53] feel we have a good approximation of the
need. Each data choice is a policy
[13:58] decision. Some are required by statute
and some we do have flexibility to
[14:01] choose. So, what we will choose is part
of today's conversation.
[14:08] Um, for the bulk of the workshop, we're
going to conduct an exercise using a
[14:12] visual simulation that we've created
called the housing need calculator. The
[14:16] calculator begins with the total of
population and allows us to toggle
[14:19] different data inputs to see how they
affect the estimated housing need. We'll
[14:24] review each input factor, test each one,
and then observe how the total need
[14:28] changes or sometimes doesn't. Um, our
goal is to understand the relationship
[14:32] of the different factors into the
calculation and to decide which
[14:36] non-mandatory factors are important for
us to include in our initial needs
[14:40] assessment. Uh, remember that this is
just a first pass. Once this formula is
[14:44] created, we're going to provide an
opportunity for you to get feedback from
[14:47] your um, town's working groups and
discuss adjustments from there.
[14:53] So to keep this exercise conceptual and
focused on policy, we are not working
[14:58] with our real regional numbers, although
the scale and direction of the changes
[15:02] that um we put in the calculator are
proportional. Um so welcome to fictional
[15:08] any region. It's home to any town for
those of you who have looked or done our
[15:12] shared foundations lessons. Um any
region is a collection of 12 communities
[15:17] in the Silver Pine River Valley with a
population of 10,000. It includes rural
[15:22] communities, villages, and employment
centers. Although each community has its
[15:26] own identity, residents regularly move
across municipal boundaries to live,
[15:30] work, shop, and recreate.
Disclaimer: Any resemblance to actual
[15:35] communities is purely coincidental.
Um, so here's what the calculator looks
[15:41] like that we're going to use. It's
organized to match the formula graphic
[15:44] from a few slides back with the current
population and housing on the left and
[15:48] future population and housing on the
right. And as we change the inputs, the
[15:51] center display helps us visualize how
housing units and total need change.
[15:58] Watch me pull up the calculator. Let's
see how we can do this.
[16:02] » For those who last year, we upgraded
from budget paper.
[16:08] » Yes. Was that last year?
[16:25] Where are you? Sorry, guys. I'm like the
worst person on staff to be doing this.
[16:34] Well,
>> yeah. Was
[16:43] so it should be here.
Yeah.
[16:47] » Is it because I just had it minimized?
[16:52] » Oh my god. Why?
[17:02] » I don't know if I can. Can I do that?
[17:06] » No.
>> Okay, we'll just be scrolling. Cool.
[17:10] Cool. Cool. All right.
[17:30] Okay.
>> All right. So, I'm going to walk us
[17:34] through this. Are we good?
>> Yep.
[17:37] » Okay.
So, any region has a population of
[17:42] 10,000. We can see the population at the
top. And if you scroll down, Eliza, you
[17:47] can see that number for housing need for
the region is blank right now. The first
[17:53] thing we need to do is understand that
we're not planning for individual
[17:57] people. We're planning for households.
So, the first thing we have to do is
[18:02] click on household size. Right? We're
grouping our population into households.
[18:07] So, any region has 4,651
households. We're not going to make
[18:12] anybody do math if that's not your thing
here. The program is going to do it for
[18:17] us. Um, all right. And then the next
thing we want to do, anyone want to
[18:22] guess what we have to toggle next if
they're trying to figure out if we have
[18:26] enough housing units on the current
housing side?
[18:30] » Beautiful.
>> There you go.
[18:34] So, we have 4,847
available units as compared to 4,651
[18:42] households.
So, it looks like
[18:49] our housing need for the region is zero.
Any questions so far?
[18:59] » Okay,
[19:03] » we're good. It looks like it, but not
quite. So, looking at population, maybe
[19:10] we just want to start going down the
population side first.
[19:16] What do you want us to click? We've got
renters and owners. We've got income.
[19:21] We've got cost burdening. We've got
homelessness. We've got group quarters.
[19:25] And these are all
um these are all data inputs that can be
[19:30] used to influence the current
population.
[19:36] What are group quarters?
>> What are group quarters if anybody
[19:40] missed the question? So, group quarters
are things like dorms, nursing homes,
[19:46] prisons, military barracks. They're
groups of people that don't necessarily
[19:51] live in a housing to live in.
>> Communal.
[19:55] » Yeah, communal living. Exactly. Right.
So if we click group quarters,
[20:02] our number of households goes down
and we have more available units because
[20:08] the people that are living in group
quarters don't need those housing units.
[20:17] » You can't
the housing needs.
[20:22] » No, I don't zero
[20:26] up. Yeah.
Right. So it's green. If we get need,
[20:31] it's going to turn red.
>> Oh, I see. Thank you. So what is the
[20:34] actual operator? Click on group
quarters. Is it a factor or
[20:39] » So if you if you click on group
quarters, what it does is it subtracts
[20:43] from the number of households that need
housing units.
[20:50] » Relative portion.
[20:54] It's it's a count of people that are
living in group quarters. So in an
[21:00] actual this is really conceptual. We're
trying to show proportional change. What
[21:05] we want uh everyone that's here to walk
away with is an understanding of how
[21:10] these factors influence the overall
need. When we put together an actual
[21:15] formula, what would happen with group
quarters is because they are
[21:18] individuals, that number would be
subtracted from the total population
[21:22] before we grouped households.
>> Okay. So ultimately there would be an
[21:27] input which is a numerical value.
>> Yes, correct.
[21:31] » That's what
exactly right.
[21:34] » And where do the numbers that you're
using for this uh exercise come from?
[21:39] Are they averages across a number of
that? They're based on some reasonable
[21:43] estimate of what some of the towns in
Riverco actually have, right?
[21:48] » But they're not equal to any of those.
>> Again, it's a conceptual exercise to see
[21:54] what the difference is. So, we're they
should be proportional in scale and
[21:59] direction for the the regional numbers.
We started with regional numbers and we
[22:06] nicified them to make them nice and
round and smaller and easier to
[22:10] conceptualize with this calculator. But
the data comes from and will ultimately
[22:15] in the calculation come from uh mostly
census data, some CHAZ data which is
[22:21] what's used by HUD. Um and was there
another one? I think it's CHAZ and ACS.
[22:28] » Uh yeah, for now overall the percentages
you used are close to what you think the
[22:34] total river cod numbers are for things
like group housing or size of building.
[22:40] » Yeah, we did proportional. So we we just
I mean obviously the region is not
[22:45] 10,000 people but we we use that as the
base and then
[22:49] » Yeah.
>> roughly
[22:54] all of
>> Yeah.
[22:56] » Yeah.
>> Yep.
[22:58] » seasonal nets.
>> All right. So seasonal interestingly
[23:02] affects units as
>> as opposed to households. Seasonal is
[23:09] really classified in the census as units
that are vacant for seasonal,
[23:15] recreational, or other. So, not on the
market. Um, and that detracts from the
[23:22] number of housing units that are
available for year-round residents. So,
[23:25] as you see now, our need has turned red.
We've subtracted a pretty substantial
[23:30] supply of units out of the units that
are available and now our need is 145
[23:36] units for current households. So you see
how those toggles really uh can take us
[23:42] from needing zero units and looking like
we have a surplus to having a need.
[23:48] » How about uninhabitable?
>> All right thing, right?
[23:51] » Yep. Same thing. So units that are
uninhabitable are those that are lacking
[23:55] plumbing or kitchen facilities. Um that
subtracts from the available housing
[24:02] units as well.
[24:06] » What else?
>> Yeah. What else? Give us more.
[24:12] » Interesting choice. So renters and
owners, you'll notice, does not change
[24:17] the number of households that we have,
but what it does is it categorizes them.
[24:22] So this tells us something interesting
about who needs housing, but it doesn't
[24:27] increase or decrease the number of
people that need a unit.
[24:33] » Was it housing unit?
>> No,
[24:38] » before you clicked on it, it was still
in your list.
[24:41] » It was still in there. Yes. So we've
subtracted that.
[24:44] » So why was it included in the first?
>> Yeah,
[24:47] » we So we started with the unit totals.
These are the units that exist and then
[24:52] we're subtracting.
>> Why is it counted? Why is it counted as
[24:55] a
>> as in in the census data? Does the
[24:57] census data include uninhabitable units?
>> So census data includes units that are
[25:03] inhabited.
[25:06] So it could be a unit that is inhabited
but that should not be.
[25:11] Those
[25:20] would be the units that need to be
replaced or
[25:23] » replaced or upgraded.
>> They still exist and the cost to change
[25:28] them might be significantly less
depending on the state. Correct.
[25:38] Okay.
What else?
[25:43] We're staying on the current side for
now.
[25:45] » Um, also I'd like to add the ones with
the asterisks are the factors that we um
[25:51] are required by statute to consider in
the housing needs assessment. Just
[25:55] » that must be considered in order for us
to make an assessment like a like house
[26:00] size.
>> So when cost burden,
[26:04] » right? So you want to start with income
before we get to go to premium.
[26:08] » Do I need to click this one though?
>> Yes.
[26:10] » Yeah.
>> So we'll start with income again. So
[26:14] this is something that is required to be
considered and it's not changing the
[26:18] number of households that we have. It's
grouping them by their the area median
[26:24] income which percentage bracket of area
median income households fall into in
[26:29] any region. Um so you can see the
breakdown from 30% 50% 80% and then over
[26:36] 80%. And that breakdown is CHAZ data um
which comes from HUD which is a special
[26:43] HUD tabulation of census data.
And then if we go cost burdening, that
[26:51] tells you within those income bands, how
many households are spending more than
[26:57] 30% of their income on their housing
costs?
[27:03] What
[27:09] » where do we have that enthusiasm?
>> I don't know.
[27:13] » All right, I'm going to click those off
so we can keep going. Um, and if we look
[27:18] at homelessness,
here's what happens.
[27:22] » So, homelessness is adding households
that need
[27:27] a unit,
>> but not very big number.
[27:32] » It's not.
>> We I Yeah, I think we have the the least
[27:36] amount of homelessness in the state in
our region or that's what I've heard.
[27:39] It's very small. Yeah.
>> Yeah. It's very low and honestly, it's
[27:43] notoriously underounted and true. Yeah,
>> we're struck by the fact that really
[27:50] really low numbers.
>> Yeah. And especially when we took the
[27:53] regional numbers and shrunk them to the
>> only more.
[27:58] » Yeah.
>> So with cost burdening considering in
[28:02] some of our area the region a lot fixed
income,
[28:05] » how is the cost burden health
calculated?
[28:09] Is it based on like a mortgage or or a
rent or tax? that I might have to get
[28:15] back to you on how cost threatening is
calculated. Um there is background data
[28:20] on how it's calculated from CHAZ that I
would be happy to pull and provide but I
[28:24] don't know that
>> I'd be happy to learn because in Deep
[28:28] River we have people on fixed income
that are in fact homeowners.
[28:33] » You it kind of muddies it up right a
little bit.
[28:35] » Yeah.
>> As opposed to people that are working
[28:37] two jobs and trying to you know afford
their rent. Are you asking about like
[28:41] the the rather than the data behind it,
the definition of cost burdening is
[28:48] » Yeah,
>> it's if you're spending 30% or more of
[28:54] your income,
>> what
[28:55] » on housing
>> and housing related
[28:57] » and housing related costs. Yeah. So,
>> right.
[29:04] » Yep.
[29:07] » Plus your tax.
>> Yeah. Thanks Joe.
[29:10] » And then very is it very cost burden?
Extremely cost burden. That's if you're
[29:17] spending 50% or more of your income on
those same things.
[29:30] » Affordability is the last one we have to
click. All
[29:33] » right. So this is kind of the counter
analyze if you want to put income back
[29:37] on again.
So this is an interesting comparison and
[29:42] an exercise that we are going to have to
do as part of the housing needs
[29:46] assessment. It's not changing the total
number of units here, but it is telling
[29:51] you about the income of households
versus the affordability of the units.
[29:59] Which cost bracket each of those units
would be affordable to?
[30:06] There are two there or sorry three there
that are blank colored not 30%.
[30:14] » Yes there is
[30:20] » wondering is that or is that just a
nature of the accel?
[30:25] » I think it is intent because it's over
um those units are over
[30:30] right. No, I I think it's um I think it
is if Kevin So Kevin
[30:40] » vacation
[30:44] » I think you might have taken it
literally from the Chad data. There were
[30:47] some that did not have a category and
that might be
[30:52] » yes
did an amazing job. Let the record
[30:57] reflect.
>> We're very very happy with
[31:01] Kevin's work. Um, and on this side, we
didn't yet talk about tenure.
[31:06] We got to
[31:12] » Hello.
>> All right. So again, and if you want to
[31:16] click on renters, and this would match
because the way they're calculated right
[31:21] now in the census is even um but these
are the units that are for purchase
[31:30] versus for rent or have been purchased
and have been rented, I think, would be
[31:35] a more accurate way to say that.
[31:40] So again, it's not changing your
numbers, but it is telling you the
[31:43] comparison of what might be missing for
the people who are here.
[31:50] » I'm just going to click overcrowding.
>> Let's just do it. So overcrowding is
[31:54] interesting and we had to simplify it um
for the purposes of this exercise
[31:58] because overcrowding is adding to the
need. It is more than one person in a
[32:04] room in a unit not in a bedroom in a
room or a unit. So that's where
[32:09] households are doubled up for example.
Those are currently households living
[32:14] together in one unit but should really
be living in more than one unit. So that
[32:19] increases your need supply.
That's why we technically it impacts
[32:25] people but we put it on the units.
>> It's not quite whole but it's the
[32:29] nearest thing to homelessness.
>> Yeah. Exactly. Exactly right.
[32:35] And then vacancy.
Um, as mentioned in the presentation
[32:40] earlier, you know, you don't just want
one unit for each household. Um, because
[32:46] then there would be no room for people
to move around. That's where you get a
[32:49] really tight housing market. Someone has
to leave in order for someone else to
[32:54] move in. That drives up cost because it
drives up competition for each unit. So,
[33:00] we put some choices here that you could
see. All of these would be an acceptable
[33:05] range for vacancy. Um, 5% could still be
a little tight depending on the market,
[33:11] but you have choices of five, seven, and
10. Name your poison. What would you
[33:15] prefer?
>> Five.
[33:17] » Five.
>> Five. All right.
[33:20] So now based on current needs any region
needs 276
[33:26] units if all of these factors are
included
[33:32] and that's just for people who currently
are here. That's what we would consider
[33:37] our under production.
[33:42] All right.
Now we're moving into the future. We're
[33:47] not required to look at future housing
needs. However, this is a 10-year plan.
[33:52] So, if people move in and you're only
planning for current under production,
[33:56] then in 10 years time, you'll probably
find yourself right back here again. So,
[34:02] good to look into the future to see who
we might expect to move here.
[34:08] » So, kind
of how does affordability
[34:13] affect housing need?
>> Right. All right. So, can we go back?
[34:18] Affordability is telling us when we say
affordability in this context, we're
[34:23] talking about how affordable our
existing housing supply is for the
[34:28] households that are here. Right? So,
when we're looking at household income,
[34:34] we're looking at the breakdown of area
median income that our households are
[34:38] falling into. Right? When we're looking
at housing unit affordability, we're
[34:43] looking at how many units could be
affordable in each of those income
[34:47] brackets. And there is a discrepancy
between the units in each bracket and
[34:53] the people or the households in each
bracket.
[34:58] the
that difference doesn't necessarily
[35:03] change the number of units that are
needed, but it does change the
[35:08] configuration of units that are needed,
right? And that's going to be an
[35:12] exercise that we're going to have to
look into once we've decided what this
[35:16] final number is.
>> Affordability really does not affect
[35:20] that one. It affects need, but it
doesn't necess but need in this case
[35:25] doesn't necessarily equal a new unit.
Does that make sense?
[35:31] » Well, it also affects what you would
need to build to satisfy that because
[35:36] putting 100 units at the top end isn't
going to be helpful to people at the
[35:40] lower.
>> Very true. And we will talk about how
[35:43] we're going to handle the grouping. Um,
we have some slides about that when when
[35:48] we're back. What a preview of what we're
thinking initially is we would look at
[35:54] the total number of units needed and we
would look at that discrepancy between
[35:58] the units we have and the people that we
have and we would use that to determine
[36:03] how that number at the bottom is going
to be kind of sliced and diced
[36:08] » there. There is a a state mandate for
certain level of affordability. Is that
[36:14] » you mean are you talking about 830G?
Yes. and the 10%.
[36:18] » No, no, no.
>> Okay.
[36:23] » Is there a state mandate other than
level
[36:29] units?
>> Not a number of affordable units. No
[36:32] » percentage.
>> Percentage is only the 830G 10%. Now, we
[36:37] are required as part of this housing
needs assessment to understand and come
[36:42] up with a number of affordable and
deeply affordable units that we will
[36:47] plan for as a but there isn't a set
number of how much that has to be.
[36:52] » So, why are we why are we looking
establish a number of affordable if that
[36:58] does not figure into the need? It will
figure into the knee
[37:03] » but not on this.
They've asked the cogs to do this. We
[37:08] can talk about that a little bit why I
suppose the exercise did last year which
[37:12] was just for us
>> right
[37:13] » this number will or could possibly have
bearing because
[37:18] » so we're looking Okay.
Do you want to start Daniel for where
[37:23] you want to go with this or
>> Well well the legislation wants a number
[37:27] of allocations.
>> Yes. Correct. Yet the state through DOB,
[37:32] they don't want to come up with that
number. Good for them. And they've cast
[37:36] it back onto the COGS to ideally work
with the communities to come up with
[37:40] that number. So as opposed to last year,
which was a working number for us to
[37:43] have an understanding, this could be a
number that if they decide to go with
[37:48] it, which there's no certainty that they
even will after we present these
[37:51] numbers, that we will be I don't want to
use the word obligated, but
[37:56] » but that that's going to be the number.
So if uh just like in our exercise if
[38:00] Deep Rivers asks to allocate 46 units
again we will be responsible for coming
[38:05] up with the plan to have 46 new units
right
[38:09] » somewhere like one big tower you know
>> you're supposed to plan for the units
[38:14] they don't have to be
>> right plan and zone
[38:17] » we have to show that we plan for those
police that's correct
[38:20] » yeah no that's correct so all right does
I see a shaking head so that doesn't
[38:25] answer the question
you're supposed to establish a need, but
[38:30] affordability
doesn't affect the number of needed
[38:34] units.
>> So, affordability will impact how these
[38:39] needed units are allocated into income
brackets. There will also be an
[38:44] understanding of any gap that isn't
accounted for in new units. We're going
[38:50] to have to come up with strategies for
how to make existing units more
[38:54] affordable. Or you could say, "We want
them all to be new units." And you could
[38:59] choose to plan for all new units that
way as well. That would be a local
[39:04] choice.
But you you're asking a word to me
[39:09] affordable.
The state somewhat backed off, right?
[39:13] It's like any any housing is good
housing now. It doesn't necessarily have
[39:18] to be affordable.
No, the state is very specifically
[39:23] looking for a number of deed restricted
affordable units at you know at these
[39:31] different AMI
>> that's the key restricted our region
[39:34] » we have doesn't have a great deal
>> yeah we don't have
[39:38] good
>> most state mandate
[39:41] » yes
>> yeah it's not expressed in percentage of
[39:45] » correct
>> based on what you assess the need for or
[39:50] for
is that is how you is that outside
[39:55] today'sation?
>> No, it's definitely part of today's
[39:59] presentation. So, that's kind of what
you're looking at here. We're
[40:02] establishing
the number of households that we have
[40:07] and the number of units that we have and
the difference between that and that is
[40:10] a very concrete number of new units that
need to be built. Correct. So from those
[40:16] new units that need to be built, we
would take this gap analysis and apply
[40:21] that breakdown of AMI percentage to the
new units. That would give us
[40:27] affordability brackets.
>> That's
[40:30] » Yes. Yeah.
And then in addition to that, that might
[40:35] not cover all of the discrepancy between
households and units. So anything on top
[40:41] of that, we would be looking at
different strategies. That might not be
[40:44] a new unit or it might be, but that
would be kind of town dependent.
[40:52] Oh,
>> if you remember the spatial mismatch,
[40:59] structural mismatch conversation, if you
remember the paint bucket graphic that
[41:05] was made by Marcos,
um
[41:09] that was kind of that was an issue that
we took as a committee with Eco
[41:15] Northwest's analysis
last year, which was they were saying
[41:21] every person. Every household that can't
afford a housing unit should have a new
[41:26] housing unit. And that's the need. And
we're saying if you say you need, you
[41:33] know, 200,000 new units for the
population that already exists, who's
[41:38] going to live in the existing units?
That was an over supply of new units. So
[41:44] this is our answer to that to say you
need a balance of people in units with
[41:49] enough flex for people to be able to
move around and you need to target those
[41:53] units into specific income brackets.
There might be additional need on top of
[41:59] that but that does not necessarily mean
it's a need for a new unit. It might be
[42:05] a different kind of need for a different
kind of program to make existing units
[42:10] more affordable.
[42:22] Does anyone have more questions about
that?
[42:25] » A mic.
>> I mean to be very clear what what we're
[42:30] doing now is we are talking about how
we're creating the methodology to come
[42:35] up with this is going to be the plan for
the formula.
[42:39] So what we're trying to get on board
with is what to understand. We're
[42:44] looking at people, we're looking at
houses. We want sort of that balanced
[42:48] mix, but number of people or number of
households and number of units are not
[42:53] just a straight I'm pulling this number,
I'm pulling that number and we compare
[42:57] them and that's the end. There are a
bunch of data points that go into both
[43:00] of those. Should we move on to the
future?
[43:09] straining to understand
>> of questions I think is at least for me
[43:14] is because I wouldn't know how to ask
the question yet.
[43:18] » That's fair. That's totally fair.
>> Just learning and
[43:23] » I have a ton of them kind of mixed up
here. But there's a realization that
[43:26] this is solely for planning because even
if we through regulation permit every
[43:32] unit in town to have a duplex and then
we double our units, if none of them are
[43:36] deed restricted, we still haven't met
the mandate yet,
[43:40] » right? But you might be in a better
place in general.
[43:46] » Yeah, in general.
>> That's the goal. Better place. And the
[43:52] other part of the whole affordability
aspect that
[43:57] even if you don't create those steep
restrictive problems if you are creating
[44:00] more of a house of supply then
all the factors which impact that
[44:08] uh cost burn would be impacted as well.
If you have a broader tax base, your
[44:13] taxes per year are not going to be as
the cost to purchase a new home is
[44:20] you're not going to be competing as
much. So that's not going to increase as
[44:24] much. Um obviously there are other
factors on the other side, but
[44:31] this is a good start, but we have to put
in mind that it's a starting point, not
[44:37] the end result. And there are going to
be other factors that impact ranks.
[44:41] » Yeah, absolutely.
>> If hurricane comes through and wipes out
[44:44] new like people are
>> I I usually use Florida flooding as an
[44:50] example, but I'll I'll use more local
example this time. So
[44:56] » since it is hurricane season,
>> everybody
[45:07] will downsize and increase demand for a
less expensive increase their more
[45:11] expensive plan.
So it is a repeat that
[45:16] » yeah model for people the community or
downsize and increase demand for a less
[45:22] expensive home and place their more
expensive home on the market.
[45:26] » It's I think the short answer and Eliza
you can jump in but it's not
[45:30] » yeah it's a snapshot in time. So if
you're projecting people to leave that's
[45:36] going to be part of the future
population that we're looking into um
[45:40] but it's not going to impact your
current need because you are taking a
[45:43] snapshot of what is happening the date
the data is that
[45:47] » you know that's why I asked about how
the cost burden is defined because we
[45:50] have a large number of units um that
have seniors that would like to age in
[45:56] place and they'd like to get out of
those homes but there are no you know
[45:59] that's why we're here we'd like housing
for them to be able to stay in face that
[46:03] I I I don't see how this model
accommodates for that.
[46:06] » Yeah. And I mean that could be something
that we're thinking about when we're
[46:09] looking at, you know, how we're grouping
the new units. We can put that into
[46:15] those considerations. We can think about
what that means for the overflow. You
[46:19] know, anything that's not accommodated
in new units, is that going to be
[46:23] influenced by these changes? It's more
of a policy conversation. We can't model
[46:28] that.
the thing that doesn't get factored in
[46:32] and I'm not sure there's an easy way to
do it. We have a lot of very old housing
[46:37] that is deteriorating and some of that's
going to just become uninhabitable over
[46:42] time as well and that's not really being
modeled in here anyway that we're going
[46:46] to lose housing off the back end as it
gets old and deterior.
[46:50] » Yeah. Um there might be a factor and in
fact at the end we have questions about
[46:56] factors that are missing and there might
be a factor for projected loss of
[47:01] properties that you know to
deterioration if they're not brought up.
[47:06] There might be a factor for that. I feel
like the state might have been
[47:10] considering one but I'm not positive.
>> Yeah. I don't know.
[47:14] » Just a push back. That's kind of just
push back.
[47:19] There are a number of older houses or
that can be maintained. It may that may
[47:26] be such a small factor that it's not
[47:32] kind of like how homelessness is
tracked. But I I'm I'm thinking of the
[47:38] number of old houses that we have that
are like 1600 1700s that are in good
[47:42] condition, but just a little bit more to
the fact that yeah, there are I I don't
[47:46] I'm not disagreeing. Just saying
>> my concern is even people who are
[47:52] already stressed about having housing to
do the upkeep housing viable maybe
[47:59] beyond the
[48:03] » could very well be a strategy when we
get into the actual housing growth plans
[48:07] is some sort of program to help maintain
units.
[48:12] » Yeah, I think that's
>> Yeah, especially in our state. I mean,
[48:16] we have old housing
[48:21] » people and buildings.
>> Yeah,
[48:24] » true. And so, keeping housing units
online and and functioning is part of a
[48:29] housing strategy. Absolutely.
just just to show how much I don't
[48:35] understand things. Um,
if you've got X number of housing units
[48:42] available and you got X number of
households and they equal, the answer is
[48:47] always zero. But like in any town, you
have X number of population living in X
[48:56] number of houses, assuming there's no
homelessness out there, um, it's equal.
[49:02] Mhm.
>> That's fair.
[49:04] » So, how did it all change with all these
other variables?
[49:07] » I'll take that. I'll use a personal
example. So, uh
[49:11] » if there are if there is a household,
but half of that household is looking
[49:17] for housing in the region, you're
lacking
[49:22] you you're lacking a unit or two units
depending on if the two people who are
[49:28] in their 30s want to move out of that
household. question for
[49:35] » but I'm just saying from the perspective
of uh population dynamics I think it's
[49:40] like 10% of
>> um people that are under the age of 40
[49:47] and of adult age are still remaining in
their household. So that is a
[49:56] that would probably fall under the not
really overcrowding but it's close to
[50:02] overcrowding.
>> Also the vacancy rate can help with that
[50:06] because by increasing the level of
supply you're providing more opportunity
[50:10] for people to move.
>> Yeah. And you you see now we just put
[50:14] current for vacancy rate but we're at
like a 2.4 four here
[50:19] » in no like in real life that's our
vacancy rate and you can feel that
[50:23] housing branch right like my parents
>> would love to downsize and go somewhere
[50:28] else there's literally nowhere
>> Yeah or it would cost twice as much as
[50:33] where they are now right if they could
find something and so a lot of our
[50:38] household formations are happening
because of like what Eric just said um
[50:43] you know you you you have adult children
that want to move out that used to be
[50:46] one household And now it needs to be
too. Um,
[50:52] » yeah, seniors want to move divorcing. I
mean, there's so many more one to two
[50:58] person households now than there used to
be. I mean, in the past 40 years, it's
[51:02] like doubled.
>> Most of our units,
[51:07] » threebedroom, two bathroom with with one
or two people, and more than half of
[51:10] those are one person.
>> Yeah, for sure.
[51:14] » There's some misfits.
>> Yeah.
[51:18] Misfit is not the probably not.
>> Yeah. No, it's not.
[51:22] » Yeah.
>> Mismatch of you know
[51:25] supplying.
>> Yeah.
[51:27] » Yeah. For sure.
>> Won't this study eventually I know
[51:31] you're not born in a future but if it's
going to get discussions into our entire
[51:37] societal situations.
I know.
[51:39] » You know, if you talk about kids, I I
have five that had moved out and I just
[51:45] live in this house now with my wife and
um so that's an example. They they're
[51:51] gone and
but they two of them are stored in
[52:00] the kids back which means starting
businesses which means that they aren't
[52:04] creating new jobs and of course we
already know the issue with existing
[52:08] jobs and and yeah it's it's a catalyst
>> getting
[52:13] blow up into a discussion of not just
housing etc but society
[52:19] why can't kids afford at home.
>> Yes.
[52:22] » Okay.
>> And and that could that alone could be a
[52:25] major debate and and a contentuous one
at that if I'm of the school or thought
[52:31] that you can afford them all.
>> So I think it's important to keep in
[52:36] mind, you know, these are all important
context points, but it's a housing plan.
[52:41] So there are some things that are not
within our control for this document,
[52:45] and there are some things that are. And
the thing that we're looking at is the
[52:48] housing portion of what's going on.
>> It's too early to start this
[52:52] conversation, but to say
we're focused on housing and making
[52:57] affordable housing and other housing
available almost takes it out of the
[53:02] market and forces states now,
>> right?
[53:05] » Uh which is not free enterprise and um
and not allowing people to solve their
[53:11] own problems, which I'm advocate of that
too. Uh
[53:17] and um it it's going to be a heavy duty
discussion.
[53:24] » Yes, that's what we do.
>> Sorry. It's not going to be housing.
[53:27] It's going to be
>> But this isn't just our region. This is
[53:31] statewide and it's nationwide.
>> Nationwide nationwide
[53:35] » and everyone.
>> Yeah. Everyone's patience. Sorry. Thank
[53:39] you for your patience.
Well, so we're looking at the region
[53:45] right now with this model
>> any region.
[53:50] » Uh
ultimately there are some who offers the
[53:55] calculations that are grounded in
operational realities, right? So you can
[54:02] have projections for population and and
housing, but
[54:08] ultimately
infrastructure is going to become a
[54:11] reality. Social services, fire, police,
etc., schools, those were all going to
[54:18] be linked ultimately and and actually
will probably counter efforts to grow.
[54:26] And so, you know, will that we
ultimately handle that as a region or
[54:32] will that be with the municipal growth
plans look at their realities their
[54:37] situations and what they're done.
>> So right now we're just focused on a
[54:43] number of units and then that additional
need that might or might not be units.
[54:50] Um, and then the next part once we have
that will be the allocation and that's
[54:56] where we're going to come back together
in this group and we will look at all of
[55:01] the different things that we are
required to consider and the things that
[55:04] we might additionally want to consider
from a policy perspective for how we're
[55:09] going to aortion out those units to each
municipality. And that's where capacity
[55:14] comes into play. Also things like jobs
and transportation, we'll talk about all
[55:18] of that. Then once we've allocated out
the units, we'll go into the housing
[55:24] growth plans. You'll have an opportunity
at that point to say, "Yes, we like
[55:29] this. Um, we're going to go with the
region." And at that point, we would
[55:33] help you, but it would be your municipal
plan to decide how and where you want to
[55:38] plan for those units and what your
strategies are going to be. Or you can
[55:41] say, "We don't like what Riverco did.
We're going to go our own way and you
[55:47] will still get to decide." you would
have to come up with your own allocation
[55:51] number if you don't like ours. Um, but
then you would still decide, you know,
[55:57] how and where and what strategies for
those units.
[56:03] » I think to both points also it is this
is just one part of the equation. That's
[56:09] the purpose of
>> because yes there are yes there are
[56:13] greater societal parts housing jobs
in the greater region not just river.
[56:22] This is one part of the equation that we
have some authority that we can
[56:27] influence policy to direct some growth
and create the conditions that allow for
[56:33] duplexes whatever we want to build
those. So it's a small piece of the
[56:39] puzzle but it is kind of compat
[56:44] and there been for what they're paid. So
>> I do think that as a as a region we have
[56:51] people want to where each of those
member community stands capacity. Okay.
[56:58] » Right. And it has to be part of the
calculation process because ultimately
[57:03] we don't want to say the rivercon number
is x and and then when we look at all
[57:08] the aggregate flers nowhere near
>> yeah
[57:14] are similar.
>> Oh yes yeah
[57:19] right.
>> Are we ready to look at future now?
[57:26] There are very few. Um so projected
households
[57:33] we there are a couple of
projections available that we will have
[57:40] some decisions about which one of those
we want to use for we picked a middle
[57:44] ground for sake of this conversation but
which projection is used will be a
[57:49] further conversation with this group. Um
we're not expected to grow much. Any
[57:55] region is not expecting a lot of people.
Um so you look at future population that
[58:02] adds additional units. Projected rent or
own
[58:08] just classifies the new people into a
projection of what is expected. Most
[58:14] likely it would be a continuation of
what we're already seeing. We could also
[58:18] use the state average as a way to weight
that if we want to change what we're
[58:23] currently seeing. Another conversation
that we can have as we start plugging in
[58:28] real numbers. But the point is it
doesn't change your number of people.
[58:35] Same for the projected income. When
people are moving to the region, what
[58:40] are we expecting that income breakdown
to be? It's not changing the number of
[58:44] people, just the types of units that
we're planning for.
[58:51] for units.
This one maybe we start with vacancy
[58:56] maintenance. Let's start there. So,
we've added people.
[59:02] If we don't maintain if we don't add
enough units to maintain the vacancy
[59:08] rate, our vacancy rate will shrink. We
will go back to having a constrained
[59:11] market. So the vacancy maintenance
factor is really just saying if new
[59:16] people come, we want to add enough units
for them plus enough units to make sure
[59:22] that that vacancy rate stays at what we
said we want it for the current
[59:26] population.
[59:30] And then the seasonal unit factor is a
policy decision. I feel like I feel like
[59:37] nobody here is going to like this. So
if as a strategy
[59:44] you say we know that seasonal units are
important. We know that they contribute
[59:51] to the economy and we're always going to
have some and some portion of units that
[59:57] we build are always going to be
seasonal. You could add a seasonal unit
[1:00:03] buffer to say we're going to have there
are formulas for this. Again, a
[1:00:08] conversation we can have, but you could
say we will add based on this formula x
[1:00:13] percentage of units that we're expecting
will probably be seasonal. That way we
[1:00:18] accommodate our existing households.
Yes. That's all I'm gonna kill out.
[1:00:27] You put in a season does different trade
for the year round. So if you can put in
[1:00:32] a unit, nobody's going to build the
season and they're all done. They're
[1:00:37] they're just they're not they got to
build the same septic system for a
[1:00:41] single family home or seasonal. In the
case of East Cam
[1:00:46] because the health code's got you can
build a septic system.
[1:00:50] It's got that small
these lots that are not waterfront
[1:00:55] stepping away. That's our opportunity to
have them converge year round because
[1:01:00] they're, you know, they're better off
and they may be 600 square feet and
[1:01:05] maybe 800 square feet, but if they
opportunity exist to add to the
[1:01:11] yearround housing
and provide some even though it's not
[1:01:15] deep restriction because you can't force
somebody to be restricted by the
[1:01:19] property, but you won't see anybody
specifically building seasons. I think I
[1:01:24] should clarify and John you might be
>> I don't think we're talking about no the
[1:01:29] construction of a unit and type of
septic system. We're talking about the
[1:01:32] type of occupancy. So instead of
thinking about a musial unit I think we
[1:01:36] should basically consider them second.
>> Yeah. They're counted in census as
[1:01:40] someone that owns another home that is
not their primary place where they live.
[1:01:44] So it could be
>> so you're basic
[1:01:52] of them is probably going to become
someone's and we would make the policy
[1:01:57] choice that hey we're okay with that
because we know it's important and we're
[1:02:01] going to you know our strategy is not
necessarily to reduce the number of
[1:02:05] seasonal homes because we like them. We
want to have enough. It's a yes and we
[1:02:10] would like enough for our population and
we would like enough for this for our
[1:02:15] tourism industry or second home
>> that's going to drive demand in like the
[1:02:19] shoreline towns and
>> Yes.
[1:02:21] » Yeah. Okay.
>> Yep. And the lake towns
[1:02:32] » Yep.
>> Yeah. Homes.
[1:02:37] Not yet.
[1:02:41] » So maybe it's not dead. Maybe it's on
the table. We can think about it. We can
[1:02:46] make multiple models, one with one
without, so that we can see what that
[1:02:50] would look like.
>> Doesn't that also come
[1:02:56] seasonal?
There is always the potential and vice
[1:03:00] versa that those seasonal homes will
then become full occupancy limits which
[1:03:05] increases your house supply as you
mentioned it's already up to the total
[1:03:10] of a regular home. I say a regular home.
It is a regular home. It's just
[1:03:15] » new ones. New ones he said.
>> Oh that is true. Yes.
[1:03:19] » And I mean we all live by the shoreline
and we know just how packed the shorel
[1:03:24] is with bumps already. It could probably
increase the density. There's nobody
[1:03:28] from
[1:03:37] » Well, I was thinking of a subset of uh
[1:03:48] » you know there are opportunities for us
here as well. We could for example not
[1:03:55] make it part of the official published
need but we could make it a discussion
[1:04:00] in our regional assessment and then
those towns for which it is important
[1:04:05] could include it in their growth plans.
So that's also an option
[1:04:14] just more work for us. You know
>> where do accessory dwelling units fit
[1:04:20] into this equation?
>> They could they could very well. So they
[1:04:25] any unit that is occupied by a person is
a unit.
[1:04:32] » So I believe they would count.
>> Yeah.
[1:04:36] Um
>> unless they're illegal and hidden.
[1:04:39] » Yes.
[1:04:42] » Um and you know that could be a strategy
as well for accommodating your is more
[1:04:47] ads.
>> Yeah.
[1:04:49] » Okay. Did we go through all the points
here?
[1:04:51] » I think we did.
>> Okay.
[1:04:53] » All right. Any I see a lot of blank
phases, but we've had a really good
[1:04:59] discussion. So I'm feeling like there is
a greater level of comfort with what
[1:05:04] we're talking about. time table.
[1:05:10] So we have the allocation like the final
>> number we have
[1:05:15] » uh June 2020 that's
>> still
[1:05:22] » yeah still June
>> from them by
[1:05:28] » then they'll tell us we're available is
that that means
[1:05:31] » no so the way they're kind of looking at
different things our goal that we're
[1:05:36] required to post is different because
it's very targeted towards the speed
[1:05:42] restricted affordable units. We are
taking a broader look so that it's more
[1:05:47] comprehensive. Um but that's not
specifically what the state was charged
[1:05:52] with looking at. So they're looking at a
broad picture for the whole state. As
[1:05:57] far as we've seen so far with publicly
available information, it looks like
[1:06:02] we're looking at a lot of the same
things. Um so I think there will be a
[1:06:07] lot of general alignment and I think in
places where there is not necessarily we
[1:06:12] will have a good reason and we can
explain it.
[1:06:15] » Are we going to have opportunity to
access any newer source data and census
[1:06:19] is already
>> 2024 I don't know that we'll have
[1:06:22] anything new.
Yeah, I mean sometimes it comes out in
[1:06:27] December,
>> but yeah, so if we get new data, if it
[1:06:32] becomes available before we publish, we
can put in the new data, but what we'll
[1:06:36] have is a calculator like we did last
year where it's a formula and we will
[1:06:41] plug in the numbers and it will give us
totals.
[1:06:45] » Yeah.
>> Um, so I this is a very cool field.
[1:06:51] Um I had a kind of a question based on a
question about the data itself. Will we
[1:06:58] have the opportunity on this level to
based on the source data maybe make some
[1:07:04] adjustments or kind of mess around with
our estimates? I'm assuming that the
[1:07:08] background data tab is what is feeding
into the visuals?
[1:07:12] » Yes. So are we going to get a version of
this that we can kind of play with and
[1:07:16] say like you know this is what the
census data says but we you know from
[1:07:20] our own knowledge or from the fact that
we I signed off on this many
[1:07:27] » you know are there certain things that
we kind of play with just to work on
[1:07:31] getting maybe a little more accurate at
the level um based on the tools.
[1:07:37] » I think we plan to make it available for
towns to play with. However, for our
[1:07:42] regional analysis, we're planning to
stick with census data only because it's
[1:07:47] the best way to compare apples to apples
across towns and across data points.
[1:07:52] Um and then the other just general
this is like just a place of in the same
[1:08:03] policy which is what this
[1:08:11] » and we will relate to Kevin. We were we
were very impressed as well. Can I the
[1:08:17] first point Zoe made that was our
existing conditions report that you gave
[1:08:23] each of the communities correct?
>> Yes.
[1:08:26] » And we were tasked with going back
within our communities and having that
[1:08:30] discussion and letting you know that if
anything seems offkilter to let you know
[1:08:36] at that point. Am I correct?
>> Yes, that's correct. Yes.
[1:08:39] » Did you want us to send that to you like
separately?
[1:08:42] » Yeah. Yes. Yeah. And we know, we've
already heard from several towns that
[1:08:48] some of the numbers are wacky compared
to what you're seeing on the ground.
[1:08:54] » And we will take a look at that.
However,
[1:08:58] » this is still the best available data
source. So there will be more context
[1:09:04] than it will necessarily feed the
formula
[1:09:06] » anecdotal. Yeah.
>> But like you said earlier, this is also
[1:09:11] a snapshot.
You have to use a stem from a certain
[1:09:15] point to build it. So yeah, it's going
to be slightly off depending on what's
[1:09:20] happened since that snapshot was taken.
>> Exactly.
[1:09:23] » Yeah.
>> Exactly. And we are working on sort of a
[1:09:28] what would you say like an FAQ about the
data
[1:09:33] » based on questions that we've received.
It's kind of a deep dive into like
[1:09:38] methodology of ACS data and and how
that's calculated. Um, which I don't
[1:09:45] know that we really want to get into
now, but there's um
[1:09:50] you can't compare this to that. you
know, there's all these different like
[1:09:53] rules about how the ACS data works,
which is, you know, what what we're
[1:09:58] going with because it's topically
relevant and we can look at all your
[1:10:02] communities on the from the same level.
>> It's used also by, you know, HUD, it's
[1:10:09] used by other states, it's, you know,
standard practice in planning and this
[1:10:16] type of work as well. It's not I think
something that might not come across
[1:10:22] with an exercise like this is we're we
are talking generally about having a
[1:10:28] balance of households and units but
we're not saying that this is exactly
[1:10:34] the number of housing units and
households that you will have. We're
[1:10:39] saying based on the data trends and what
we have available, this is a reasonable
[1:10:45] target for you to plan for.
>> Yes.
[1:10:49] » So
we take this say from 2024 that's the
[1:10:53] latest ACS data and that's the number
that we make discrimination off of.
[1:10:57] » Yes.
>> Are are we getting credit for things we
[1:11:00] plan for from 2024 on?
>> Define credit.
[1:11:05] » We already plan to partly hit that
number. Yeah.
[1:11:09] » Okay. Good.
>> Yeah. So, anything from that time is a
[1:11:13] new unit that's come online. However,
the state is not necessarily, you know,
[1:11:19] per their guidance going to be tracking
exactly how many units you have put
[1:11:24] online. What they're looking for is what
did you say your strategies were to
[1:11:29] increase housing and have you done them?
Are you making progress towards doing
[1:11:36] the things you said you were going to do
in order to hit these numbers?
[1:11:41] » So, it's engine.
>> Yes.
[1:11:44] » Yeah.
>> That could be as simple as saying you
[1:11:46] adjust your regulations and actually
adjusting your regulations.
[1:11:49] » Yeah.
>> It's so novel.
[1:11:51] » Yeah.
>> But, you know, also there is an
[1:11:56] understanding that not everything, as we
were saying earlier, not everything is
[1:12:00] within the town's control to do. So,
we're looking at our piece of the
[1:12:05] puzzle. What is within our control? What
can we change? And are we making a good
[1:12:09] faith effort to make those changes? And
that's all we're being asked.
[1:12:17] » Good question. We'll talk about this
with the lies a little bit, but we're
[1:12:20] working on some um new innovative zoning
to increase housing stock. Should we
[1:12:29] hold off until this plan comes out so we
can get credit for it?
[1:12:34] think you need to honestly I think you
could say in your update this is an
[1:12:39] innovative strategy we've from you know
that from the time that data was
[1:12:43] collected we have implemented and we
expect it to change
[1:12:48] » I think that's
>> that's enough
[1:12:54] assuming
discussion assuming a town like hold on
[1:12:59] relaxes it ADU numbers we have more ADUs
is there a we can figure out what we
[1:13:05] anticipate that's going to do to the
bottom line. I mean right now obviously
[1:13:10] we have very restrictive ADU
regulations. We're looking at loosening
[1:13:14] but I don't know how much credit that
would give us if we did that.
[1:13:18] » I think we would look it would sort of
be a mini buildout I would think like we
[1:13:22] are allowing ADUs in all of these areas.
If everybody did it then this is how
[1:13:28] many new would come online. You could
add to that like a reality
[1:13:33] » talking about for points for that group.
>> Yeah.
[1:13:36] » I mean points credit
>> they were that didn't go through.
[1:13:41] » That's different though. Those are your
hue points, right? Is that what you're
[1:13:44] thinking?
>> Yes. Yeah.
[1:13:46] » So, um I can't speak to that. I'm not
positive. Maybe our friends in the back
[1:13:51] might know.
>> I don't think John's listening.
[1:13:56] for ADU there was extension of the brief
that go through
[1:14:03] » don't think this
I don't think any police well other than
[1:14:10] other
[1:14:16] something something right
>> yeah but yeah no no a
[1:14:20] » so so we don't direct or what is this
restrict
[1:14:26] So in the same place we were
up to a
[1:14:34] » No, we sure did. There was a question
over here trying to skip the whole line
[1:14:38] talking about what we did but we're
looking for advantage but as of right
[1:14:43] now you're saying unless it's deed
restricted we don't get a deck
[1:14:48] to each other. That's obviously
but we shouldn't really be you know
[1:14:54] worrying about like
>> yeah that that was Vegas point
[1:15:00] » what if uh this is done
the distribution of that distribution
[1:15:12] » and
make a plan do everything you say you're
[1:15:17] going to do
uh nobody
[1:15:21] no one builds.
>> I mean I think at that point the the
[1:15:26] state is not penalizing you for that but
I think if it is something that you are
[1:15:30] in good faith wanting to do you would
look at those strategies and you would
[1:15:33] say obviously this isn't working what
can we tweak what's going wrong and then
[1:15:39] revise your your strategies.
think no for affordable housing it's not
[1:15:46] just a tweak I mean affordable housing
it's very difficult to build
[1:15:54] » because of the you know the financial
underpinnings of doing it and you you
[1:15:59] may make this great plan of what you can
do but unless the town of state or
[1:16:03] someone's going to put millions and
millions of dollars you're not going to
[1:16:09] can make the plan but no one's going
going to want to do it.
[1:16:12] » I think it's very fair in your
strategies and this will come when we
[1:16:16] get into the housing growth plan part
which is 2027 to 2028 after all of this.
[1:16:22] Um when we get into the plan part and
we're talking strategies, we'll be
[1:16:26] talking about what the towns can do, but
I think it's perfectly fair to say this
[1:16:31] would go a lot better if we had X
funding or if we had X infrastructure or
[1:16:36] so on. and we think this is the entity
that should provide that and you know I
[1:16:42] think that's perfectly fair to put in
but I also think if there are
[1:16:45] opportunities for you to get funding
that are available now putting that in
[1:16:50] as well say we're going to pursue this
funding opportunity to assist with this
[1:16:55] thing is a strategy you would just have
to then pursue it
[1:16:59] » and a quick plug for the council on
housing development which is a state
[1:17:03] entity that was created by this bill
that also created the housing growth
[1:17:07] fund which has yet to actually be
funded.
[1:17:13] » Legislators uh to make sure that the
next several you know brown bond funds
[1:17:18] and things like that put a a bunch of
money into the housing growth fund which
[1:17:22] will then direct them to municipalities
and individual projects to extend sewer
[1:17:26] lines, extend water lines, some you know
provide provide um supplemental funds to
[1:17:31] housing development or whatever. But
that is in theory, you know, the state
[1:17:36] is putting housing growth funds to
assist those efforts
[1:17:39] » and it's incumbent upon us to think
about how we would use those efficiently
[1:17:44] and put in our applications. You know,
have a game plan ready so that when
[1:17:48] funds are available, you're ready to ask
for them.
[1:17:55] What we're doing, you know, we're we're
working in good faith to make a plan to
[1:17:59] make changes that we want to make,
right? So, think about it the way you
[1:18:03] would do any plan. You're you're baking
a cake. You look at the recipe. You
[1:18:08] follow the steps and then you bake your
cake, right? That's kind of what we're
[1:18:11] doing. We're thinking about the
ingredients that we need, the steps that
[1:18:14] we're going to take, and then we follow
the steps after we've gathered the
[1:18:17] ingredients. And we can only do what's
within our control.
[1:18:25] Um, I'm going to move on just in the
interest of time because I see we don't
[1:18:29] have a lot. Everybody's losing their
>> Everybody is losing. There's chocolate
[1:18:34] and cheese. Help yourself. Um, I think
I'm going to probably gloss over this
[1:18:39] one a little bit. So, we'll just talk
about um
[1:18:45] the impact of some of the inputs that we
already looked at. Um, so obviously
[1:18:49] there's nuance here, but this can be
useful for discussion. So, you'll see
[1:18:53] the data inputs. um such as seasonal
units, overcrowding, homelessness,
[1:18:58] projected population. Those can increase
your total need by either increasing the
[1:19:04] number of households or decreasing the
number of units. There's other inputs
[1:19:09] such such as group orders or a lower
vacancy rate that decrease the total
[1:19:14] need by decreasing the number of
households or increasing the number of
[1:19:18] units.
And then um the last category are the
[1:19:22] data inputs that don't change the number
of units needed. So that's simply um
[1:19:27] grouping the population or units into
categories. So this is a useful exercise
[1:19:32] that may demonstrate a need but it does
not translate into a needed number of
[1:19:37] units.
Um now here's an example of how we might
[1:19:42] use the categorical input like income um
that we already talked about which is a
[1:19:47] required input into the needs
assessment. So in this illustration um
[1:19:51] the total households are grouped into
AMI categories. The distribution is then
[1:19:56] applied to the new housing units helping
us understand how total housing need
[1:20:00] would be distributed. So you may have
heard um of the calculation of the
[1:20:04] structural mismatch or spatial mis
mismatch
[1:20:09] um which compares the number of existing
units in each income category with the
[1:20:13] number of households in each income
category and found the difference to be
[1:20:17] the number of needed units. Um Megan
already mentioned this was kind of a
[1:20:21] contentious element in the um Eco
Northwest housing needs assessment done
[1:20:26] for the state last year last year. Um so
however as illustrated income is
[1:20:32] categorical as is affordability and
therefore doesn't change the existing
[1:20:36] number of households or the existing
number of units. So it should not be
[1:20:40] assumed that the mismatch requires new
units for any additional households not
[1:20:44] covered by the new units. Additional
strategies may be required and this will
[1:20:48] be handled separately in the needs
assessment to avoid confusion.
[1:20:53] So our key takeaways um housing need
consists of multiple components and each
[1:20:59] measures a different condition or trend.
The resulting estimate is influenced by
[1:21:03] data inputs and policy choices.
Understanding the methodology allows us
[1:21:08] to ask better questions, interpret the
result more carefully and build a
[1:21:12] stronger foundation for productive
community discussions.
[1:21:15] Housing need is a policy decision that's
informed by data. This exercise was
[1:21:19] intended to support um a shared
understanding of the influence that
[1:21:23] different data inputs have on housing
need and guide us toward a preferred
[1:21:27] policy decision.
So moving forward, we're going to use
[1:21:32] today's discussion to draft an initial
housing needs formula, incorporate
[1:21:36] feedback into the local existing
conditions reports, and provide a
[1:21:40] discussion packet for you on the needs
assessment formula for local discussion
[1:21:45] and feedback. Your homework is to
establish your local working group if
[1:21:49] you haven't already done so and submit
existing conditions feedback before our
[1:21:53] next meeting um in September which is
the 22nd. I may have erroneously told
[1:21:58] some of you it was the 29th when we met
individually. Sorry. Um and your
[1:22:06] participation and feedback will help us
shape a methodology that's
[1:22:09] understandable, defensible and
responsive.
[1:22:13] the working group just be your planning
design.
[1:22:15] » It can be. Yeah, that's going to look
different for every town.
[1:22:22] » Does anyone have any questions?
[1:22:26] » Did you just repeat all of that?
>> Sure. Do you want us to just go back to
[1:22:30] the first slide?
[1:22:36] » It's a lot.
>> We can send this out as well,
[1:22:40] » please.
But we will
[1:22:42] » we will walk through like Eliza said,
we'll put a packet together that has
[1:22:46] this information that has some
discussion questions um for feedback.
[1:22:52] » And are we gonna have access to
government school spreadsheet?
[1:22:57] » He would be devastated if we did not
give it to
[1:23:03] » he does such a good job. He was very
excited actually when we were like can
[1:23:07] we do this and he was like yes we can.
[1:23:14] » What else?
>> Is there anything else? I feel like
[1:23:17] we've stunned everybody.
>> Yeah, we feel okay.
[1:23:23] » All right. So just
between like September, October,
[1:23:28] November, then what can you kind of
synthesize what this group what we'll be
[1:23:33] looking at and what we need to do?
>> Sure. So our next step when we're
[1:23:39] putting the packets together, we're
going to plug in real data when we give
[1:23:44] it to you using the formula that we
talked about. We're going to give you
[1:23:49] the background information on that data
so that you can kind of look at it and
[1:23:54] hopefully answer questions or ask
questions of us as far as what we're
[1:23:58] using and hopefully we'll all get on the
same page with a formula that will give
[1:24:02] us a total number of needed units. Once
we have that in hand, we'll have another
[1:24:07] group like this and we'll start putting
hopefully Kevin will make us another
[1:24:12] cool tool for any region and we can talk
about inputs for allocating the units to
[1:24:17] the different counts. Once we figure out
how we want to do the allocation of
[1:24:22] units, we'll do the same thing. We'll
plug in real numbers. We'll put a packet
[1:24:26] together. We'll give it to you for
feedback. I think that's as far as we
[1:24:30] will expect to be in the next couple of
months.
[1:24:35] Is it going better than last year
though? Something like that.
[1:24:38] » Definitely. Although I kind of miss the
sticky notes. I mean, it was very
[1:24:44] quaint.
>> You were there. You were there from the
[1:24:46] beginning.
>> Yeah. For those of you that are newer,
[1:24:50] we did do the regional housing needs
assessment process once already. um
[1:24:56] without the cool we literally had taped
like butcher paper onto the walls and
[1:25:01] we're putting up the factors and
debating them. Um
[1:25:05] » so I forgot to pick up my kids for
school.
[1:25:09] » It's not it's not great.
>> So those of you that are new to this
[1:25:13] process may
may feel like you we've somehow skipped
[1:25:19] a step because we kind of did
>> in this day.
[1:25:23] » Yeah. I think what we learned the last
go round for those of you who were here.
[1:25:28] We did all three at the same time. We
were trying to parse out, okay, which
[1:25:34] factor goes in need determination, which
factor goes in allocation of units,
[1:25:39] which factor is really more about local
accommodation. And that got really messy
[1:25:44] and confusing for people. And so now
between the statue and our established
[1:25:49] understanding, we're separating them out
and we're looking at certain factors at
[1:25:54] different times um to try and narrow the
universe that we all have to digest at
[1:25:59] once.
>> So other than a learning experience, we
[1:26:05] can't really use the work that
the prior two years should be the same.
[1:26:10] » It's close,
>> is it?
[1:26:12] » Yeah, it's close. It's really similar.
>> Yeah. Oh, good.
[1:26:16] » Yes.
>> Because I remember you wanted to wanting
[1:26:19] to do that was because they didn't tell
you what to do, so you want to get ahead
[1:26:25] of them.
>> Yes.
[1:26:25] » We spent three months figuring out the
formula this time. Now we have a
[1:26:29] formula.
>> Yeah. And one of the emails and I'm
[1:26:31] happy to resend that I sent out did
include um like the final report on the
[1:26:37] Reno that we've done in the past which
is also on site. So
[1:26:41] » yeah. So we're starting with an
understanding of what worked last time.
[1:26:47] Um which I think is a good a good basis
for what we did today. Um there are some
[1:26:53] things that we had to adjust because of
the statute and also I think just from
[1:26:57] some lessons learned. Um and we're
starting with a group where I would say
[1:27:03] a quarter of you at least have been
through this process before which helps
[1:27:09] tremendously.
Any
[1:27:13] more questions for Eliza?
[1:27:20] Uh, I'd like to make a motion to adjourn
that that I
[1:27:26] need to journ.
>> Thank you.
[1:27:28] » Thank you.
>> Good job.
[1:27:31] It's a lot of work but
[1:27:35] so
[1:27:40] you know
committee
[1:27:42] » with the idea that we already done the
assessment
[1:27:52] » I was supposed to present
[1:28:07] So I mean
excuse
[1:28:12] was doing
[1:28:26] each
[1:28:35] part
[1:28:38] said or
[1:28:44] We knew I guess
[1:29:06] talking to me.
[1:29:11] definitely
[1:29:32] say
[1:29:38] that
[1:29:53] Oh, yeah.
[1:30:07] » Yeah.