[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.

Regional Housing Committee Meeting 2026-08-25

Transcript