March 18, 2025 • 50 mins
This month Christi sits down with community leaders to get a builder, realtor, and Chamber of Commerce perspective on the proposed Impact Fees for the City of Grand Junction. Hear from the following guests:
- Candace Carnahan - Grand Junction Area Chamber of Commerce - President/CEO
- Dave Hancock - Porter Homes - Owner/Operator
- Kevin Bray - Bray Real Estate Development - Director of Development
- Ron Abeloe - Chaparral West, Inc - President
The next public hearing for the Impact Fees is April 2, 2025.
If you prefer to watch your podcasts, head to our YouTube page to see this and all our episodes!
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Speaker 2 (00:06):
The Full Circle podcast, compelling interviews
and incredible tales fromColorado's Western Slope, from
the mountains to the desert.
Christy Reese and her team herefrom the Movers Shakers, and
characters of the Grand Valleyand surrounding mountain towns
that make the Western slope theplace we all love. You'll
learn, you'll laugh, you'lllove with the full circle.
Hello everyone, and welcomeback to the Full Circle
(00:27):
Podcast. I'm your host, ChristyReese, and today we have four
guests with us, and I'm gonnaintroduce everybody, and we're
gonna talk about impact fees inthe city of Grand Junction. So
with us today, Candace Carnahanfrom the Grand Junctionary
Chamber of Commerce, presidentand CEO. Hi, Candace. We've got
Dave Hancock, owner andoperator of Porter Homes, and a
(00:47):
member of the H-B-O-H-B-A , uh,board with the Home Builders
Association here , uh, Ron Alo, uh, president of Chaparral
West Construction Company, andalso on the board of the HBA.
Welcome. I'm Kevin Bray fromBray Real Estate Development,
the Director of Development andExecutive board president at
the HBA. Thanks. Thanks forjoining us. Everyone. Don't
(01:10):
forget to use your microphoneif you wanna , uh, chat. So ,
um, I wanna start off by kindof explaining to our , uh,
listeners and viewers what thepurpose of an impact fee is. An
impact fee is a one-timepayment charged to new
development to help ensure thatthe city can maintain the
current levels of service ourcommunity expects as growth
(01:30):
occurs. Impact fees offset thecost of new capital
construction necessary toaccommodate new development and
growth. Impact fees can be usedto offset costs for
transportation infrastructure,municipal facilities, parks,
public safety, like fire andpolice and affordable housing.
So I think that's a, a citydefinition of the impact fees .
(01:53):
Um, so the city council , um,voted last week to institute
the impact fees, but that was afirst reading. Right. And , uh,
they are going to vote again onApril 2nd. Candace, do you
wanna explain a little bitabout how that went?
Speaker 3 (02:11):
Uh, yes. Thank you, Christie . So , uh, this , uh,
most recent meeting with citycouncil was actually the second
time that had come before them,but because of the fairly large
adjustments following publiccomment and feedback from many
of the stakeholders they seearound this table and within
the stakeholder group that theyconvened , uh, they chose to go
(02:32):
back and , and issue it as afirst reading so that there was
more opportunity to finalizethe decision. And so , um,
there were staffrecommendations that came from
the original conversation thathappened on February 19th , um,
that were then , um, utilizedin that final vote , uh, this
past week , um, based on thefeedback from the community
(02:55):
mm-hmm
Speaker 2 (02:56):
. And
so , uh, with the next vote on
April 2nd City council meeting,there is an opportunity for
community members to getinvolved, learn more about this
topic, and give some input,correct?
Speaker 3 (03:08):
Absolutely. And I think the thing to keep in mind
is you don't have to wait untilApril 2nd to give feedback. And
in fact, I think it's moreimportant to be engaging now
during the process , uh,because that evening it's,
it's, everyone's trying toprocess information in the
moment, but to have meaningmeaningful conversations with
our elected officials and staff, uh, prior to that is really
(03:31):
how , um, I think productivesolutions come, come forward.
And so I know all of uscontinue to be at the table
because we have , um, beencommitted to a collaborative ,
uh, process from the beginning,which started back in August.
So this has been a lengthy prouh , process. Uh, but it's
really important that we getthis right because it does have
(03:53):
impact on our communities. Uh ,and we, we have to make sure
that we're being verythoughtful and thinking through
, um, not just how thisbenefits needs of the city, but
potential pitfalls and sideeffects that , um, we, we could
prevent. Uh , and we wanna makesure that we we're very aware
(04:13):
of that.
Speaker 2 (04:14):
Thank you. Um, uh, Kevin, from your perspective as
the president of the HBA, Imean, obviously we all want
great roads, great , uh, safetyservices, all of those things,
and we know that cost continueto rise. So how does the HBA
view the potential increases inimpact fees? And what's, what's
(04:36):
your stance on that?
Speaker 4 (04:37):
So our stance on the impact fees, so, you know, and
you'd mentioned that like theimpact fees, they're , it's
created by state statute andallows communities to use
impact fees to , um, pay forsome of the effects of growth.
And I think part of that isdifferent communities are
funded in different ways. Sosome communities have
(04:59):
challenges , um, in fundinginfrastructure, police and fire
that maybe other communitiesdon't. So this is an allowance
that's made by the statestatute. Uh, when they conduct
the study, the study , um, youknow, they, they have to choose
sort of a method of study. Inthis case, they're using what's
called the incremental method.
And basically what it , whatthey're going for is , uh, the
(05:20):
study even requires, like you,you sort of ignore all the
other funding sources that youhave , um, that are general,
that aren't specific to thosetypes of things. Mm-hmm
. And the studythen produces what the maximum
legally defensible amount is.
Um, so that's kind of like, howmuch can we charge,
Speaker 2 (05:40):
Right? And, and what data do we have? Which they
hired a firm to produce somedata to say, this is how we got
to these maximum allowablefees.
Speaker 4 (05:50):
Yeah. So that's, so I think that's one, that's one,
and that's an important pieceof what has to happen.
Statutorily free impact feesfrom an HBA standpoint,
obviously we're very focused onhousing affordability. Um, and
these fees are, you know,they're choosing to use like
new housing as, as a way to ,um, pay for the fees. So we
wanna make sure that they're ,that the , the actual fees
(06:12):
match what the needs are. Sowe've been like very assertive
and concerned with, you know,we know the maximum legal
amount. Is it being, is it , isthe study being done correctly?
And do we actually have thatneed in the community because
it will, the cost will be puton new housing or new business
expansion. And then that , thatis a cost that , uh, basically
(06:34):
the community bears mm-hmm
Speaker 2 (06:35):
. So
the , um, the TCP fees were
instituted in 2003, and beforethat , uh, infrastructure was
funded with basically sales taxand property tax. But as the
community grows and there'smore need , um, finding other
sources for funding and hencethe impact fees. Um, Ron, from
(06:56):
your perspective, how does, howdo these fees impact your
ability to deliver housing toour community? And, and talk
about the difference betweenthe maximum allowable fee and a
smaller increase in the impactfees?
Speaker 5 (07:12):
Yeah. Well, it's , uh, the, the impact fees are
direct cost , um, toconstruction. And I think one
of the things that people failto realize is we are currently
paying significant impact feesand have been mm-hmm
. For some years.
And I think sometimes peoplethink, well, you know, costs
have gone up. It's like thesefees have all been indexed to,
(07:35):
well, for instance, the trafficimpact fees are indexed to the
CDOT road construction index ofinflation. So they've been
going up significantly everyyear. Uh , same with fa the
facilities fees, like forpolice and fire. So our fees
have been increasing all along,and it was actually represented
to us they were gonna indexthem, so we wouldn't come back
(07:56):
to where we are today, havingto raise fees even higher.
Mm-hmm. So thefees that we're paying right
now are the fees that we shouldbe paying based on the previous
index. I mean, the previous ,uh, nexus study that was done,
and the frustrating part for usis they didn't take that into
consideration. What they did isthey did a new Nexus study to
see how much they could legallydefend mm-hmm .
(08:18):
And that just adds , uh, anunfair burden on housing. So
this will add thousands ofdollars in additional costs
over what we're already paying.
That will directly impact , um,the price at which we can
deliver housing. Mm-hmm . Which is pretty
amazing already. It's prettyhigh.
Speaker 2 (08:36):
How has the increase in the average housing price
being brought to market and newconstruction, how has that
affected the impact fees? Didthat raise the impact fees
also? 'cause uh , many of them,based on the value of the
house,
Speaker 5 (08:52):
No, they're not based on the value of a home.
They're actually based on , uh,the Nexus study that was done
five years ago. And , uh, andthat was that one incremental
as well.
Speaker 6 (09:03):
It's, it on , uh, on the square footage, it's
Speaker 5 (09:06):
Incremental. Yeah.
They , yeah. So, so they've,they've , uh, tied them to the
size of a home, not, not thecost or the price , um, that
they're delivered at,
Speaker 2 (09:18):
But the increase in building costs has added
significantly to housing pricesas well. So in addition to
those costs , uh, with theimpact fees, it's getting
harder and harder to bringaffordable housing to our
community.
Speaker 5 (09:33):
Oh yeah. In inflation and , uh, building
materials , um, more materialsthan labor, but al also in
labor, 'cause of the cost ofliving has gone up so much, you
have to pay people more inorder for them to be able to
afford to live here. So that'shad a significant impact as
well. And the city doesn't haveany control over that, and we
understand that. Um, um, youknow, at the same time, the
(09:56):
state of Colorado has addedsignificant costs through , uh,
mandating , um, certain methodsand that we have to employ in
certain materials we have toemploy into the construction of
every home through the energycode and updating the IRC , um,
they, they added in just thelast three years, probably
(10:16):
$15,000 to the price of , um,of your average, say, 1600
square foot home. Mm-hmm
Speaker 3 (10:22):
.
Christie , I think it'simportant to just note that,
you know, we surveyed our localworkforce this last summer
about housing and challengesand the down payment , uh, and
qualifying for the loan was ,uh, resoundingly the most
difficult part of the processfor those who responded to the
survey. And we've spoken tolocal lenders who say that a
(10:44):
$5,000 addition to a mortgageprice can greatly impact the
ability for new homeowners or ,or homeowners in general to
qualify for their loans. And soI think what we're hearing is
when we hear maximumsupportable amounts, it's what
can we do versus what should wedo knowing that we are in a
(11:07):
housing crisis? And we cannot,as a community, as partners, as
every, there are so many peopleholding pieces to this puzzle
for attainable housing, we allare going to have to move into
the uncomfortable space ofgiving because every dollar
counts. And unfortunately, we ,I think we hear partners
across, across the board , uh,there's no single group that's
(11:30):
that's solely responsible forthis saying, well, it's just a
dollar. It's just a dollar. Andit really continues to add up.
And, you know, speaking tolocal insurance experts here in
our community, the average ,uh, home insurance policy went
up 30% in January, and that wasbefore the wildfires started to
impact our market. And we knowthat it will, because we are
(11:52):
considered at higher risk for,for wildfires. So it's impact
fees, it's building costs, it'sinsurance, it's all of the
things, right? And so
Speaker 2 (12:03):
We all adding to the cost of home ownership.
Speaker 3 (12:04):
Exactly. So we have to really look at this and say,
okay, what is absolutelycritical that we pay for or
make sure is covered with notjust impact fees, but other
sources of revenue , um, as acommunity and what is the
responsible way to move forwardto make sure that we aren't
just compounding an alreadyvery deep hole that we are
(12:27):
currently trying to climb outof , um, from a housing
standpoint.
Speaker 2 (12:30):
Thank you, Candace.
Dave, from your perspective ,um, one of the things that Abe
Herman talked about in hisrebuttal to Diane Swinney's
article in the paper was thatdevelopers need to pay their
fair share developers andbuilders. How do you all in the
HBA and you as a , a builderpersonally feel that , um, that
(12:52):
fair share quote plays out?
Speaker 7 (12:56):
Well, currently, I feel that builders and
developers are already payingtheir fair share in , in
development costs. You know,we, we look at permitting a new
development project, or evensimply building a new custom
home for somebody. And thosefees are, are allocated for a
reason. And I think theargument of everybody paying
their fair share is notated alittle too lightly. That that
(13:19):
product is based back to theend user of the development. It
gets tacked onto the cost ofthe land, the cost of the
build. And, you know, it's not,it's not , um, it's not a group
of greedy people who are tryingto get to a different bracket
of building or a communitydevelopment. And quite frankly,
(13:41):
I think that's overlooked fartoo much.
Speaker 2 (13:45):
Yeah. And I, having , um, been involved in a couple
of developments myself , um, it, it is really difficult and
it, it takes a lot of , um,takes a lot of money and time,
and you have to be financiallysecure in order to do these
projects. And so I think , um,just adding more cost to the,
(14:06):
the buyer side of thoseprojects , um, is gonna give
developers pause. Would you saylike, do I wanna go forward
with this project, invest mytime and money in this , uh, if
I don't know that the , um, thebuyers can build or can buy
these homes with increasedcosts?
Speaker 7 (14:25):
Oh , absolutely. One thing to kind of think about
too is it's , again, it's notjust impact fees increasing,
it's the building material.
It's the labor involved, it'sthe insurance involved. We all
want to, whether we're in a ,um, a full custom build type of
community, high-end customhomes, or we're trying to
produce a product that isattainable in , in what we
(14:47):
would consider a first timehome buyer bracket. And I, I
think that the, the morecreative, I'm sorry, lemme
digress. The more fees that areinstituted towards building or
developing, that's gonnarequire the developers and the
builders to be more creativewith each client and how to get
(15:08):
there. And currently, you know,we're, we're doing that
already. Mm-hmm .
It's, it's a very difficultconversation just last month
actually, or January, talkingabout micro pile type of
foundations. For instance, ifsomebody doesn't know and they
have a fixed budget forvertical construction that
they're assuming, you know , Ihave to get pretty creative on
(15:29):
how we get to that point ofthem actually being able to
build it mm-hmm .
And we're only, we're onlyexacerbating the issue by
increasing further fees. Yeah.
Speaker 2 (15:38):
Yeah. Um, I'd like to hear from all of you on how
you feel , um, increasingimpact fees in the city of
Grand Junction will affectmigration of business because
this is a commercial issue too,right? They're , they're going
to increase , uh, impact feeson commercial structures , um,
how that will affect people'smigration to other areas of the
(16:01):
county. Uh, maybe trying toavoid the impact fees that the
city of Grand Junction ishoping to increase.
Speaker 3 (16:09):
Yes. Thanks Christie . And you're right, this does
impact non-residentialdevelopment as well. And I, and
I do want to acknowledge thatwe've worked really closely
with the city of GrandJunction, and the majority of
categories are actually goingto see a decrease in fees. But
there are a couple that arestill seeing substantial
increases, 25%, 47%. And Ithink it's also really
(16:32):
important to just call out thatwe say new development, but
let's reclassify that becausean existing business that wants
to add on square footage willbe assessed these fees. Mm-hmm
. A business thatwants to occupy a building, but
change the use will have to paythe difference in these impact
fees. And, and that can bereally difficult, especially
(16:53):
for small businesses that maybefind a great industrial
warehouse space and wannachange it to a light retail
space. They're going from thelowest use fee for
transportation to the highest,and we're talking tens of
thousands of dollars simply tojust change how the building is
going to be used. Nothing elsehas changed. And so it is very
(17:14):
important that we're mindful ofwatching this, and we actually
worked with partners to take alook at our competitiveness for
surrounding communities likeMontrose, like St . George
Pueblo, Greeley, all thesedifferent areas. And I think
what was fascinating is one,communities like Pueblo have
moved away from impact fees.
They're finding other ways tocover this, knowing that it can
(17:36):
dampen economic development.
Montrose is also exploring waysto minimize slash get rid of
impact fees altogether. And inthe other areas that we
compared, we were pushing theboundaries and if not leading
the way in most of these impactfees and businesses have a
choice of where they want tolocate mm-hmm .
(17:57):
And where they wanna stay. Soit's, it's a concern to make
sure not only are we remainingattractive for new industry,
but we have to keep theindustry that is here. And as
things continue to climb, againby a per 1000 square foot
basis, it can really add up.
And again, it will be thedifference between opening
(18:18):
their doors or choosing to gosomewhere else. Which there are
a lot of other communities thatare very aggressively saying,
come do business here. And wehave to make sure that we're
continuing to positionourselves. So one, I applaud
the city's work over the lasttwo weeks to really look at
bringing those back to an , acompetitive , um, range with
(18:41):
the fees. But it's somethingthat we still wanna be very
mindful of because we do notwant to say that it is not
friendly to do business here.
If you have a retail shop,you're, you know, we, we wanna
make sure that we're, we'rebeing very competitive in that
arena.
Speaker 2 (18:57):
So Yeah. Same question to you, Kevin.
Speaker 4 (18:59):
Yeah. Just , uh, and , um, just kind a , a little
bit different perspective, Ithink on that. Um, one is the,
like our area is veryattractive area to be. I mean,
we, we all sitting around thetable, we all know that , uh,
there's a lot of things tolove, but when you think about,
you know, from my, from mystandpoint, you think about
what is really attractive about, uh, our area. You know, you
(19:22):
have things that are reallymajor attractors , like jobs,
like jobs being available issomething that attracts people
to a region. Um, housing , um,you know, for a long time we
were very competitive on, onbeing a place where you can get
really affordable housing. Ithink we're still relatively
attractive to a lot of areaswhere they have higher housing,
Speaker 2 (19:41):
Especially in the state of Colorado. Yeah .
Speaker 4 (19:44):
Overall, yeah . So like housing is still like
that, that is one of thoseattract . And I think you have
other things too, likehealthcare , um, the higher
education, like CMU, likehaving a university, like we
have some really big attractnow. We also have some great
parks. Um, that's, that's nice.
Those are really nice amenitiesto have. But to the level that,
(20:05):
that is the attractor, I wouldsay like a rec center, the rec
center that's being built, thatis going to be an , an
attractor as well. Roads , um,police and fire, those are very
important for your community.
But those are, we have anexpectation that those are,
that those are well maintained, um, et cetera . So those are
, those are important as well.
But those aren't necessarily, Ithink the , what's attract
(20:26):
attracting people. So it'skinda a long answer to the
question, but we also have sortof an agreement, and this is
just structurally how the , itworks with the city and the
county, and it's called the 2 01 boundary and the urban growth
boundary. And so most of thedevelopment is going to occur
within that urban growthboundary because of that,
(20:46):
because there is not muchdensity that's allowed in the
county other than areas like inunincorporated Clifton and like
Whitewater. There's a fewplaces where we can have
density mm-hmm .
But we, we not , don't reallyhave that option. So it's,
we're somewhat captive by the 20 1 boundary in the city. So we
will continue to have people tomove here. Uh, what I, my
(21:08):
concern is more just the peoplethat are here are gonna
continually be priced out. Andyou hear a lot of times people
say, well, it's only, it's only$6,000, or it's only $8,000 on
a $400,000, $500,000 house. Igo, yeah. And that is not, that
is not grossly affecting theprice if you're looking at a
percentage standpoint. But itabsolutely will remove people
(21:31):
from being able to make that,
Speaker 2 (21:32):
Well, it either has to be absorbed by the builder
and developer, or passed on tothe homeowner. And as we
mentioned earlier, likebuilding and developing the
numbers really matter. You know, um, if you're gonna commit
your time and energy and moneyto a project, you have a
certain expectation of , um,return or you're not going in.
(21:57):
And so it really has to bepassed on to the homeowner. And
it's , uh, it's, yeah. That'sproblematic.
Speaker 4 (22:05):
Yeah . And it also makes me think a little about
kind of what Dave was saying.
You know , Dave, you weremention , you were mentioning
that you bill for , uh, peoplefrom sort of the attainable
price point all the way to likethe multimillion dollar home.
And, you know, I would, Iwould, I would just kind of
expect, I imagine even whenyou're building for somebody
with that multimillion dollarhome, they're still making
(22:27):
choices. Like they have a lotof wants, but they don't
necessarily get everything theywant. They, they, like all your
buyers probably have to make achoice. And in some ways they ,
the impact fee is, it's takingthe choice away from the buyer,
and it's saying, you're goingto pay this amount for these
things that , you know, it's ,in a way, it's a form of like
(22:48):
social engineering to just, todo it that way instead of the
way we have done it in the pastwas asking voters to approve
infrastructure, et cetera . Butyeah, like I'm the choice.
Speaker 7 (22:59):
I, I couldn't agree more. And quite frankly, I
would argue the point of mostpeople who are building a
multimillion dollar home, thoseare business owners. Those are,
are people who are bringing adifferent level of investments
to Mesa County. And they'revery aware of how that money is
being spent, not just on theirresidential home build, but
(23:21):
also in, in giving them an ideaof how to invest their money in
Grand Junction. And so I wouldmake the argument that while we
have a couple differentcategories of attainable versus
a full, you know, multimilliondollar custom home , the people
who are able to afford thelarger home, they're just as
aware of their budget for thatconstruction, and they're even
(23:42):
more involved.
Speaker 2 (23:44):
We don't, it's very rare that you get , uh, uh,
someone coming in and buyingand saying, my budget is
unlimited.
Speaker 7 (23:50):
Oh yeah. I've, I've yet to see that. I would love
it. But, what's,what's, what's , uh, what are
the odds of that happening,
Speaker 2 (23:57):
Ron, what about the question that the, the weight
of , um, expansion of servicesto accommodate the growth of
our communities should be bornmostly by new construction and
not the residents that alreadyown homes. So that's the
argument for not raisingproperty taxes. Right. And
nobody wants their taxes to goup, but how do you weigh those
(24:19):
two?
Speaker 5 (24:20):
Well, and , and I've looked at this quite a bit, and
the impact fee argument isbased on what I call a fiction,
a fiction. That new developmentdoes not pay its own way. But ,
but if you'll notice, the citydid not ask for a study on
that. They asked for a studythat, that measures this to
(24:43):
acquire a result of how muchcan they legally defend, not,
it's not needs based . And ifyou look at new development,
new development, more than paysits own way. And , um, I was
just pulling up some numbers.
These are from a study that theNAHB did, the National
Association of Home Builders.
But , uh, you know, the, the,the first first year annual
(25:07):
revenues generated by a hundrednew homes is , uh, over $28
million. And , uh, and itcreates 394 jobs. And then the,
the recurring, so the revenuestream that's re that's
recurring every year is over $4million. Now, this is an
average, it's gonna vary fromstate to state or, or local to
, uh, regional area to regionalarea. But , um, uh, you know,
(25:30):
again, 6 69 more jobs, you ,you build a a hundred houses
and it generates servicerequirements for 69 new jobs.
So , um, nobody wants to talkabout the fact that, that we
already are paying more thanour fair share. Our new
development covers the costs ofservices that are required by
the city. What it does though,with what impact fees do is
(25:50):
they bring revenue to the city,and they move it in their
budget from non-real, which isthey have to build roads now
for any part of the roadconstruction. And those type of
services that we're expandingmoves the equal amount of money
into discretionary spending,where the city can spend it on
things that they're outside ofcore services. This is a point
(26:12):
that Kevin brought up some timeago, is what is the city doing
that's outside of core servicesthat they need more money for?
And I think, again, a study onwhat the city is spending its
money on outside of coreservices and a study on how
much revenue and how muchpositive impact that new
(26:32):
development brings to an areaare, are those are studies that
would have to be done in orderto really make an informed
decision on this.
Speaker 3 (26:41):
I think Ron brings up a really great point that
we've all discussed and havequestions about and continue to
just need to dive a little bitdeeper on, you know, making
sure that, again, when we're ina time, and I keep saying we're
, we are in a housing crisis,we're not getting to it, we're
there now , um, that's reallywhen you have to get down to
(27:04):
basics and make sure prioritiesare the main focus, right? You
, your businesses do this everyday . Um, make sure that your,
your core , uh, mission, yourcore services , um, your
priorities are taken care offirst. And that's really
important when you're lookingat , um, adding costs in any
(27:24):
sort of way to a community,whether it's a tax increase, a
fee increase, it's reallyimportant to have the basics
covered in a healthy,sustainable way. And so we
wanna make sure through allthese conversations that, that,
that is the case. Um, because,and that's why we had questions
about the way, for instance,the transportation fee was, was
(27:45):
being looked at originally, isjust making sure that we, we
are doing the basics first,foremost and at a high level.
And if there are additionalfunds that can be moved to a
discretionary purpose, that weknow that we've done all we can
to impact our workforce gettinginto houses. When I hear that
(28:08):
40% of our workforce is using30% of their household income
and 7% is using 50% of theirhousehold income, that's not
something our community shouldbe okay with. And so if we have
a card in our back pocket toplay, that can positively
impact that. We should at thispoint , there's, there's no
(28:30):
more hands to hold it on. Like,this is the time to be all in ,
um, as a community, as electedofficials, as stakeholders
saying all cards are on thetable, and what can we do?
Speaker 2 (28:43):
I, I do want to give kudos to the city council for
convening the stakeholdergroup. I think that was a
really great part of theprocess. How well do you think
, um, that group was set up forsuccess, and how well do you
think that group was able todeliver information to the city
council that the , and did thecity council listen to their
(29:05):
recommendations? And how hasthat process gone in your eyes?
Speaker 8 (29:11):
I wasn't on it,
Speaker 4 (29:14):
So yeah, I wasn't on the stakeholder committee, but
I did fill in for two of thefour meetings for people that
couldn't be on it. So I got, I,I got a piece of it. Uh , I
think , uh, one thing is thatthe, the scope of the committee
was really, it's like lookingat the methodology mm-hmm
. Um, but theyhired a consultant for, you
(29:35):
know, it was $170,000 to hirethe consultant to do the study.
And this was , it's verytechnical sort of granular type
thing . So there wasn't muchthat the stakeholder committee
was really like, capable of, ofweighing in on, I would say ,
um, from sort of pastexperiences , uh, they did ,
(29:56):
um, I think at city , uh,manager Mike Bennett had
suggested, but they did do astakeholder meeting with the
city council. I think that wasvery effective, very
transparent, and I thought thatwas a, I thought that was a
great part of the process. AndI do think that they did look
at some things and they madesome revisions based on that.
Um, the other thing that Iwould say about the, the
(30:17):
stakeholder group, I think theykind of threw , they put every,
like, everything in thekitchen, in the , in the
original study. So itoriginally started as linkage
fees, as municipal fees, andeven like just using the city's
own like survey that they hadput out, like linkage fee
ranked one out of a hundred ona priority basis , um, that
(30:40):
they had put out tostakeholders even before the
process. Mm-hmm .
So I thought that was a littlebit of a distraction , um, that
those, that that was included,a municipal fee that's to , uh,
from the HBA standpoint, wethought clearly that's
something they should be askingvoters for. Um, so had those
not been included, therewould've been sort of less,
there would've been a lot lesspages mm-hmm .
(31:02):
Um, and I think people would'vebeen , been able to sort of
focus in on what we're, where ,where we're at today in terms
of what we're talking about. Soit made a little bit difficult.
It was a lot, a lot of , um,information and hard for the
group to digest mm-hmm
Speaker 3 (31:16):
.
Yeah. You know, as a member ofthe stakeholder group, I , I
would agree, it's very denseinformation and data, and you
always run into challengeswhen, you know, the
consultant's job is to , topresent the data that they're
collecting. And oftentimes itcomes down to the policy side
of things to really know what,okay, what are you going to do
(31:37):
with all these numbers andfigures and things that have
been collected? And, and weknow that data can look
different from the perspectivethat you're looking from. And
so , um, while I think we didget off to a slower start , uh,
I would agree that the meetingwith city Council was something
that we had not seen in recentmemory and was so impactful
(32:01):
and, and really valuable. Iknow we were all very grateful
for that opportunity because itwasn't , um, just to sit and
listen. It was a true dialoguewith council . And I think that
everyone at that table was ableto express questions, concerns,
statements of support thathelped us start to really pick
(32:23):
up the pace on the movement of,of where this was headed. Um,
you could see the speed ofwhich, you know, how responses
were being handled at thatpoint. And I think that's a
great thing to hopefully see inthe future as well, because ,
um, we have so much expertisein this community, and that's
(32:46):
why they bring together thesestakeholder groups because you
have so many , um, amazingpeople within the community.
And so leaning on thatexpertise is critical. Uh, and
I will say feedback since thenseems to , um, really be
getting received and discussed.
And again, we are not acrossthe finish line yet, but I am
(33:09):
hopeful that we continue tohave that collaborative nature
that we saw from that firstjoint meeting and, and get this
across the finish line in a waythat our community is able to
move forward in a healthymanner , um, but in a
sustainable manner. Because noone around this table or in the
stakeholder group is advocatingfor , um, less maintenance of
(33:32):
roads or less focus on publicsafety. That is absolutely not
the conversation here. It'ssaying, are we using all of our
resources
Speaker 2 (33:41):
Are using our resources and what is actually
necessary? Yeah .
Speaker 3 (33:44):
Yep . Exactly.
Speaker 2 (33:44):
Yeah . Yeah. What are we in need of , um, the
common sense institute, whichwas , uh, there at the , um,
housing summit, which was agreat event. Thank you for
helping with that, Kevin. Um,uh, they spoke about all kinds
of things that day, but I wasreading their findings on the
(34:05):
proposed impact fees, and theysaid their three biggest
findings will are that it willreduce housing supply, it will
raise home prices, and it willreduce home ownership rates. Do
you all agree with that and youwanna comment on that?
Speaker 4 (34:23):
Um, so I , I think to me, it's just a practical
thing. You know, if the pricesof oranges goes up, fewer
oranges will get purchased. AndI think that's the same with
housing. People are trying toafford housing, and I think, I
mean, you would know this morethan me working with people
every day , but they're get ,they're trying to get approved
(34:44):
for a house they can't affordmm-hmm . And when
you, when that price goes up,it's, it's, there's gonna take
a certain number of people outof the equation. So yeah, I
could see that could affecthome ownership. I think the
counter argument that to thatthough is it's always a , well,
it's only 1% of the total or2%. I think that removes the ,
(35:05):
the individual from theexperience, you know, it's,
it's going to remove somepeople from the market. And ,
and what I see is we do have alot of migration and we're
pretty flat on natural growthin the community. So in
essence, to me, it's not okaythat only people coming from
outside the community who aretypically coming from a higher
(35:28):
housing market and they'reusing equity to purchase here,
that's not a reason for us tosay it's okay to raise fees. We
really should be consideringwho lives here , um, those our
kids that we want to be able tolive here. And it's, it's also
never, it's not just this fee,but it's also this fee and, and
(35:50):
the , you know, the code changethat we had last week and the
Teds thing and the , and thatit , it all adds up. And, and
so the argument is always,well, this isn't going to
affect, this isn't gonna affectit as much as you say,
Speaker 3 (36:03):
It's not the only fee that's going
Speaker 4 (36:05):
Up, but that is constantly a good reason to not
do something that's gonna makehousing cost more just because
it's not a , it's not thebiggest reason. Um , we should
still be, I think, assertiveabout costs and, and we want
people to experience theAmerican dream of home
ownership. Um , it comes withit a lot of benefits to the
(36:27):
individual, and that'ssomething that we should be
protective of as a community.
Speaker 3 (36:31):
Absolutely. Kevin, I just think it's important too,
when you mentioned migration isI talk to employers regularly
who have workforce that havemigrated here to use your term,
have been here for a year, 18months, have not been able to
get into a home, and are nowhaving to resign their
positions and leave thecommunity. And these are highly
skilled jobs. We know that it'simpacting skillable up and down
(36:52):
the board. But to your point,even those who come into the
area are finding it challengingto find housing and, and, you
know, our workforce isdependent on that. It's so
intertwined, and that's why weat the Chamber, while the
commercial impact fees aremoving in the right direction,
are still gravely concernedabout the impact fees on
(37:15):
residential because , um,creating jobs is wonderful, but
if we can't have housing forthose filling the jobs, it ,
it's a moot point at that, thattime. And , um, you know, it's
something that we have to keep,keep an eye on. And we don't
want , uh, residents that havehad generations here in the
(37:35):
valley to know that their kidscannot stay in the valley. And
we hear those, I know you allhear those stories, but we hear
those stories as well. Andagain, that is a big part of
our workforce of , uh, folksgrown up here, whether they
went to college or not, ormaybe just dove dove right into
their careers. We want them tobe able to plant their roots
and stay here. And right nowthat's not possible. Yeah.
Speaker 4 (37:57):
And , and you know, I, I don't know the data on
this, but it , I do wondersometimes if that has something
to do with our decliningenrollment here, is that the
young people that are, youknow, graduating or, or going
on to learn a , a trade orwhatever, as they look at
they're growing their family,they, they actually have to
move somewhere else. Mm-hmm . Uh , because
(38:19):
they're just not able to forthe housing. And I look back at
when I bought my first house,and I know that is not
attainable like that, thatratio of what I was making as a
very beginning wage to thehome, that ratio no longer
exists. And I think it's reallysad for , um, our ability to,
you know, I even think my ,it's gonna be a while before my
(38:41):
kids are at a home buying age,but I'm still worried about,
you know, what that's gonnalook like for them. My
Speaker 2 (38:48):
Kids are worried about it. They're 20 and 17 and
we talk about it a lot. I'm notthe one that puts the fear into
them, but they read the newsand they, they are worried
about it.
Speaker 5 (38:58):
Yeah. I think the discussion , uh, seems to get
centered on new homes becausethe fee is tied to new homes.
One of the things that , um,doesn't make it into the
discussion is the fact that newhomes are what determines the
price for existing housingstock. And as the price in new
homes, it's like, 'cause a homethat was built 30 years ago
(39:18):
didn't cost what it sells fortoday. How did it get to where
it's at? If, if it's all tiedto that, it's like, because as
the price of a new home goesup, it drags all of the other
values up with it. And it'sjust the same as rents. As, as
new homes go up, people buyhomes as investments. Those
rents are based on a cap ratetied to the value of that home.
(39:41):
So rents go up. So this, whenwe drive the cost of new homes
up, we, we , we drive the costof all the existing , the most
affordable housing stock wehave will increase mm-hmm
. At even at thelowest levels. And rents will
do the same thing all the waydown to the lowest rents we
have. So it's, it's anaffordability rate in housing
across the board, not just newhomes. And, and that's not
(40:05):
something that I hear discussedmuch in this. And as a matter
of fact, the council has justsimply ignored that fact
because I have brought it up tothem more than once. And I, I
really think it needs to bepart of the discussion, because
unlike oranges, housing isessential if I'm, if if
oranges, if it freezes inFlorida and oranges go up, I
can switch to something else.
(40:25):
You should be talking aboutpeaches though. I mean, we're ,
we are in Grand Junction,right? , well , not
eggs well , yeah . Yeah. Well,I quit eating eggs, so Yeah.
So, so you know, you have somechoices there, but housing is
not one you have a choice in.
You may have a choice of whattype of housing, but you are
going to have to livesomewhere.
Speaker 2 (40:42):
Good point.
Speaker 7 (40:43):
Yeah. And I can vouch for that. Being 33 years
old, my wife and I arecurrently experiencing that
type of issue. You know, we, wecould tap into the equity in
our home currently and, andmake a play. But if we're to
move in a , a certain directionto meet the goals and the
parameters that we've settogether as a family, you know,
that that goal set is very,very tight. The option set is
(41:06):
very, very tight. And so thenwe kind of have to go back to
the , the drawing board andfigure out what takes priority
overall. Yeah. Actually, Iwanted to digress a little bit
further back to the argumentthey made regarding builders
and developers paying their ownway . I also heard at that
council meeting, we want thepeople coming from out of town,
whether it's in-state, comingout from Denver, Colorado
(41:29):
Springs, you name it, or fromoutta state entirely. They want
them to pay their fair share. Iwould love to see the data that
would compare how many peoplecoming in from out of town
there are, versus how manypeople locally that have been
here for a decade or more thatare still feeling the same, the
same problems. Mm-hmm .
Speaker 4 (41:52):
So I , so I , if you guys will allow, I wanted to
just tell a little story.
Absolutely . Um, just recentlyin the last couple weeks, I had
a young man that his family ,family friend , um, he's , uh,
graduated from high school nowand, and looking at college and
trade school. And he came , hewanted to come into my office
(42:14):
and talk about an idea that hehad , um, which is a roommate
situation where they werelooking at maybe getting on the
mortgage together and buying ahouse. And , um, my wife knew
that he was coming in andsomebody else had put a bug on
her ear. I hope Kevin talks himout of that. Um, because
traditionally, you know, youthink about like owning a house
(42:37):
with a roommate and , uh, youknow, as, as a parent, as a
mentor, you think, well, thisis, this is kind of a recipe
for conflict and like, you know, owning a house together. Um,
but it really made me think, itreally made me challenge that
idea because I thoughtotherwise, his other option is
wait for five or six or sevenyears while he's paying rent,
(42:59):
which is gonna continue to goup and then hopefully be able
to afford his own house. Andthis gives, this would give him
a shot at a piece of the homeownership high to, to build
equity like that we all knowis, is important for people.
And so I didn't give the advicethat my wife was hoping that I
would give, because I see like,this is what, this is maybe the
(43:21):
new reality for kids that are,they want that American dream
and they have to be realisticas well. So I just thought that
was, it was interesting 'causeit's not what I would hope to
have, like, be recommendingsomething like that. Mm-hmm
.
Speaker 7 (43:37):
Well, that's a prime example of how we have to be
creative in other ways wherewe're trying to, we're kind of
held, held ho hostage to adegree by a municipal level and
builders and developers, wehave to be , uh, malleable to
those , um, uh, parameters thatare set. And we have, we have
to be the ones that arecreative on behalf of our
(43:58):
client and building 'em a newhome, or whether or not that's
a 1600 square foot, $400,000house, or, or a 10,000 square
foot, $4 million house. And sothat's a prime example of how
we need to start having someconver conversations with the
younger generations andfiguring out how we can get
creative to make something likethat possible for them during
Speaker 2 (44:17):
The housing summit.
I think, you know, the biggesttakeaway that we all felt when
we left there was , uh, there'sno, there's no simple , uh,
solution to the housing crisisthat we're facing here in our
community or across the country, uh, whatever community you're
in. Um, but I think all of usat this table agree that
(44:38):
increasing fees for buildingnew construction is not going
to make the situation better.
It's going to hurt that. And,and it's a topic on everyone's
mind and agenda, right? It isall over the country , um,
trying to keep the cost ofhousing down, and yet we're
looking at increasing the fees.
(45:00):
So , um, as we wrap up , um,you're welcome to add any other
comments, but , um, talk abouthow people can get involved in
the conversation. Uh, what canthey do to educate themselves
on the topic more, to make surethey're fully informed and ,
(45:20):
um, how can they have theirvoices heard?
Speaker 3 (45:26):
You know, I'm, if you know me, I always say start
with a question. I think it'simportant for our businesses,
our community members to askquestions. It , you can come to
your own conclusion, that'sfine. But it's important that
you, those conclusions arebased on data and information
and hearing a , a number ofperspectives in, in the
(45:49):
conversation. So I would sayreach out to HBA, reach out to
the chamber, reach out to thecity and, and get information.
Um, all of the proposed fees ,um, are part of their council
member packets. Um, and sothey're printed online and easy
to, to, to get your hands on.
(46:09):
But I think reach out and askquestions , um, and then turn
around and ask questions backto your elected officials to
make sure that they understand.
Um, maybe you don't have a, astrong feeling either way, but
at least let them know thatthere are question marks still
surrounding this topic. And forthose of us that have been
living and breathing this for,you know, the better part of
(46:32):
almost a year, it's, it'simportant for us to continue to
ask those questions until thevery end, because there are
still a number of unansweredloose ends that we , I don't
think can move forward in aninformed way that we know
exactly what those outcomes aregoing to look like, nor can we
truly , um, say the juice isworth the squeeze, quite
(46:53):
frankly. And so , uh, I thinkthat for all of us, we have to
just continue to move forward ,um, through curiosity on this
topic and making sure that we,we've really explored all of
the nooks and crannies becauseit is very complex.
Speaker 4 (47:11):
Um, yeah, I would say , um, and just sort of
emphasizing on the , on thepart of what Candace is saying
, um, I , I have a , I have aclass that I teach at
development and, and myfavorite part of that class is
bringing them to city counciland them realizing that it
isn't, they, a lot of people,you know, they, they get a ,
(47:34):
they talk online amongst eachother and they say they are
doing this, they're doing this.
But city council are realpeople and they are responsive
and they, they do care aboutthe community. And that's what
I would say to people is if youwould email a city council
person, you should expect, Iwould expect they all will all
(47:55):
reply to emails mm-hmm . And you, you
don't need to know the exact ,um, application of the study or
the methodology to let a citycouncil person know that you
think h like housingaffordability is important. And
they do, it does make adifference. And they do listen
and they, and they do respond.
(48:17):
And that's what I think is, isa , um, hugely underutilized ,
um, aspect of this city councilis that they , they are real
human beings and they dorespond and they are available.
Speaker 2 (48:29):
Thank you for pointing that out. Yeah , yeah,
Speaker 7 (48:33):
Yeah. I couldn't agree more with that statement.
And I'll speak for myself here.
If anybody's listening and theyhave questions, comments,
concerns, feel free to reachout to me. Feel free to reach
out to your , uh, local HBA,start talking to your real
estate agents. Talk , starttalking to your builders, talk
to the developers. 'cause weall live this day in and day
out. The more educated that wecan become as a community, the
(48:56):
better off we are in , infinding real solutions to the
broken arm rather than puttinga bandaid on it.
Speaker 5 (49:03):
Yeah. I think , uh, the city has , uh, dj
speaks.com as well, right?
Mm-hmm . Uh ,that you can , um, go on and uh
, make comments. And , uh, Ithink the question , uh, you
brought up asking a questionand the question is how does
this help the housingaffordability issue? And , and
, um, I would be interested tohear an answer from someone how
(49:25):
that that helps, because Idon't think it does. And I
think that's just a greatquestion. Um, if that is a
priority, which they all sayit's a priority mm-hmm
. But the actionsdon't match up with what
they're saying. And , um, Ithink other things get
prioritized over it. 'causethey do have a certain amount
of discretionary spending theyhave. And would this not be a
(49:46):
great place to use thatdiscretion instead of
increasing the fees forhousing?
Speaker 2 (49:50):
Absolutely.
Absolutely. Um, well, the April2nd , uh, city council meeting
ought to be very well attended.
Um, and we encourage everybodyto get involved and make your
voices heard. So thank you toall of you today for
participating in thisdiscussion. And , um, wanna
encourage , uh, everybody againto , um, speak out, educate
(50:11):
yourselves on this issue, andmake sure you understand how it
can affect housingaffordability in our community.
Speaker 7 (50:18):
Thank you.
Speaker 4 (50:19):
Thank you, Christy .
Yep .
Speaker 2 (50:21):
Alright everybody, we'll see you next time on the
Full Circle podcast again. Um ,reach out to any of our
panelists here today. Uh,Candace Carnahan, Dave Hancock,
Ron Avalo , and Kevin Bray. Uh,they all be willing to, and ,
and myself as well. We're allwilling to speak on this topic
and how it affects ourcommunity. So reach out and ,
uh, we'll see you on the nextepisode. Thank you. Thanks for
(50:42):
listening. This is ChristyReese signing out from the Full
Circle Podcast .
Speaker 2 (00:06):
The Full Circle podcast, compelling interviews
and incredible tales fromColorado's Western Slope, from
the mountains to the desert.
Christy Reese and her team herefrom the Movers Shakers, and
characters of the Grand Valleyand surrounding mountain towns
that make the Western slope theplace we all love. You'll
learn, you'll laugh, you'lllove with the full circle.
Hello everyone, and welcomeback to the Full Circle
(00:27):
Podcast. I'm your host, ChristyReese, and today we have four
guests with us, and I'm gonnaintroduce everybody, and we're
gonna talk about impact fees inthe city of Grand Junction. So
with us today, Candace Carnahanfrom the Grand Junctionary
Chamber of Commerce, presidentand CEO. Hi, Candace. We've got
Dave Hancock, owner andoperator of Porter Homes, and a
(00:47):
member of the H-B-O-H-B-A , uh,board with the Home Builders
Association here , uh, Ron Alo, uh, president of Chaparral
West Construction Company, andalso on the board of the HBA.
Welcome. I'm Kevin Bray fromBray Real Estate Development,
the Director of Development andExecutive board president at
the HBA. Thanks. Thanks forjoining us. Everyone. Don't
(01:10):
forget to use your microphoneif you wanna , uh, chat. So ,
um, I wanna start off by kindof explaining to our , uh,
listeners and viewers what thepurpose of an impact fee is. An
impact fee is a one-timepayment charged to new
development to help ensure thatthe city can maintain the
current levels of service ourcommunity expects as growth
(01:30):
occurs. Impact fees offset thecost of new capital
construction necessary toaccommodate new development and
growth. Impact fees can be usedto offset costs for
transportation infrastructure,municipal facilities, parks,
public safety, like fire andpolice and affordable housing.
So I think that's a, a citydefinition of the impact fees .
(01:53):
Um, so the city council , um,voted last week to institute
the impact fees, but that was afirst reading. Right. And , uh,
they are going to vote again onApril 2nd. Candace, do you
wanna explain a little bitabout how that went?
Speaker 3 (02:11):
Uh, yes. Thank you, Christie . So , uh, this , uh,
most recent meeting with citycouncil was actually the second
time that had come before them,but because of the fairly large
adjustments following publiccomment and feedback from many
of the stakeholders they seearound this table and within
the stakeholder group that theyconvened , uh, they chose to go
(02:32):
back and , and issue it as afirst reading so that there was
more opportunity to finalizethe decision. And so , um,
there were staffrecommendations that came from
the original conversation thathappened on February 19th , um,
that were then , um, utilizedin that final vote , uh, this
past week , um, based on thefeedback from the community
(02:55):
mm-hmm
Speaker 2 (02:56):
April 2nd City council meeting,there is an opportunity for
community members to getinvolved, learn more about this
topic, and give some input,correct?
Speaker 3 (03:08):
Absolutely. And I think the thing to keep in mind
is you don't have to wait untilApril 2nd to give feedback. And
in fact, I think it's moreimportant to be engaging now
during the process , uh,because that evening it's,
it's, everyone's trying toprocess information in the
moment, but to have meaningmeaningful conversations with
our elected officials and staff, uh, prior to that is really
(03:31):
how , um, I think productivesolutions come, come forward.
And so I know all of uscontinue to be at the table
because we have , um, beencommitted to a collaborative ,
uh, process from the beginning,which started back in August.
So this has been a lengthy prouh , process. Uh, but it's
really important that we getthis right because it does have
(03:53):
impact on our communities. Uh ,and we, we have to make sure
that we're being verythoughtful and thinking through
, um, not just how thisbenefits needs of the city, but
potential pitfalls and sideeffects that , um, we, we could
prevent. Uh , and we wanna makesure that we we're very aware
(04:13):
of that.
Speaker 2 (04:14):
Thank you. Um, uh, Kevin, from your perspective as
the president of the HBA, Imean, obviously we all want
great roads, great , uh, safetyservices, all of those things,
and we know that cost continueto rise. So how does the HBA
view the potential increases inimpact fees? And what's, what's
(04:36):
your stance on that?
Speaker 4 (04:37):
So our stance on the impact fees, so, you know, and
you'd mentioned that like theimpact fees, they're , it's
created by state statute andallows communities to use
impact fees to , um, pay forsome of the effects of growth.
And I think part of that isdifferent communities are
funded in different ways. Sosome communities have
(04:59):
challenges , um, in fundinginfrastructure, police and fire
that maybe other communitiesdon't. So this is an allowance
that's made by the statestatute. Uh, when they conduct
the study, the study , um, youknow, they, they have to choose
sort of a method of study. Inthis case, they're using what's
called the incremental method.
And basically what it , whatthey're going for is , uh, the
(05:20):
study even requires, like you,you sort of ignore all the
other funding sources that youhave , um, that are general,
that aren't specific to thosetypes of things. Mm-hmm
legally defensible amount is.
Um, so that's kind of like, howmuch can we charge,
Speaker 2 (05:40):
Right? And, and what data do we have? Which they
hired a firm to produce somedata to say, this is how we got
to these maximum allowablefees.
Speaker 4 (05:50):
Yeah. So that's, so I think that's one, that's one,
and that's an important pieceof what has to happen.
Statutorily free impact feesfrom an HBA standpoint,
obviously we're very focused onhousing affordability. Um, and
these fees are, you know,they're choosing to use like
new housing as, as a way to ,um, pay for the fees. So we
wanna make sure that they're ,that the , the actual fees
(06:12):
match what the needs are. Sowe've been like very assertive
and concerned with, you know,we know the maximum legal
amount. Is it being, is it , isthe study being done correctly?
And do we actually have thatneed in the community because
it will, the cost will be puton new housing or new business
expansion. And then that , thatis a cost that , uh, basically
(06:34):
the community bears mm-hmm
Speaker 2 (06:35):
instituted in 2003, and beforethat , uh, infrastructure was
funded with basically sales taxand property tax. But as the
community grows and there'smore need , um, finding other
sources for funding and hencethe impact fees. Um, Ron, from
(06:56):
your perspective, how does, howdo these fees impact your
ability to deliver housing toour community? And, and talk
about the difference betweenthe maximum allowable fee and a
smaller increase in the impactfees?
Speaker 5 (07:12):
Yeah. Well, it's , uh, the, the impact fees are
direct cost , um, toconstruction. And I think one
of the things that people failto realize is we are currently
paying significant impact feesand have been mm-hmm
And I think sometimes peoplethink, well, you know, costs
have gone up. It's like thesefees have all been indexed to,
(07:35):
well, for instance, the trafficimpact fees are indexed to the
CDOT road construction index ofinflation. So they've been
going up significantly everyyear. Uh , same with fa the
facilities fees, like forpolice and fire. So our fees
have been increasing all along,and it was actually represented
to us they were gonna indexthem, so we wouldn't come back
(07:56):
to where we are today, havingto raise fees even higher.
Mm-hmm
now are the fees that we shouldbe paying based on the previous
index. I mean, the previous ,uh, nexus study that was done,
and the frustrating part for usis they didn't take that into
consideration. What they did isthey did a new Nexus study to
see how much they could legallydefend mm-hmm
(08:18):
And that just adds , uh, anunfair burden on housing. So
this will add thousands ofdollars in additional costs
over what we're already paying.
That will directly impact , um,the price at which we can
deliver housing. Mm-hmm
amazing already. It's prettyhigh.
Speaker 2 (08:36):
How has the increase in the average housing price
being brought to market and newconstruction, how has that
affected the impact fees? Didthat raise the impact fees
also? 'cause uh , many of them,based on the value of the
house,
Speaker 5 (08:52):
No, they're not based on the value of a home.
They're actually based on , uh,the Nexus study that was done
five years ago. And , uh, andthat was that one incremental
as well.
Speaker 6 (09:03):
It's, it on , uh, on the square footage, it's
Speaker 5 (09:06):
Incremental. Yeah.
They , yeah. So, so they've,they've , uh, tied them to the
size of a home, not, not thecost or the price , um, that
they're delivered at,
Speaker 2 (09:18):
But the increase in building costs has added
significantly to housing pricesas well. So in addition to
those costs , uh, with theimpact fees, it's getting
harder and harder to bringaffordable housing to our
community.
Speaker 5 (09:33):
Oh yeah. In inflation and , uh, building
materials , um, more materialsthan labor, but al also in
labor, 'cause of the cost ofliving has gone up so much, you
have to pay people more inorder for them to be able to
afford to live here. So that'shad a significant impact as
well. And the city doesn't haveany control over that, and we
understand that. Um, um, youknow, at the same time, the
(09:56):
state of Colorado has addedsignificant costs through , uh,
mandating , um, certain methodsand that we have to employ in
certain materials we have toemploy into the construction of
every home through the energycode and updating the IRC , um,
they, they added in just thelast three years, probably
(10:16):
$15,000 to the price of , um,of your average, say, 1600
square foot home. Mm-hmm
Speaker 3 (10:22):
Christie , I think it'simportant to just note that,
you know, we surveyed our localworkforce this last summer
about housing and challengesand the down payment , uh, and
qualifying for the loan was ,uh, resoundingly the most
difficult part of the processfor those who responded to the
survey. And we've spoken tolocal lenders who say that a
(10:44):
$5,000 addition to a mortgageprice can greatly impact the
ability for new homeowners or ,or homeowners in general to
qualify for their loans. And soI think what we're hearing is
when we hear maximumsupportable amounts, it's what
can we do versus what should wedo knowing that we are in a
(11:07):
housing crisis? And we cannot,as a community, as partners, as
every, there are so many peopleholding pieces to this puzzle
for attainable housing, we allare going to have to move into
the uncomfortable space ofgiving because every dollar
counts. And unfortunately, we ,I think we hear partners
across, across the board , uh,there's no single group that's
(11:30):
that's solely responsible forthis saying, well, it's just a
dollar. It's just a dollar. Andit really continues to add up.
And, you know, speaking tolocal insurance experts here in
our community, the average ,uh, home insurance policy went
up 30% in January, and that wasbefore the wildfires started to
impact our market. And we knowthat it will, because we are
(11:52):
considered at higher risk for,for wildfires. So it's impact
fees, it's building costs, it'sinsurance, it's all of the
things, right? And so
Speaker 2 (12:03):
We all adding to the cost of home ownership.
Speaker 3 (12:04):
Exactly. So we have to really look at this and say,
okay, what is absolutelycritical that we pay for or
make sure is covered with notjust impact fees, but other
sources of revenue , um, as acommunity and what is the
responsible way to move forwardto make sure that we aren't
just compounding an alreadyvery deep hole that we are
(12:27):
currently trying to climb outof , um, from a housing
standpoint.
Speaker 2 (12:30):
Thank you, Candace.
Dave, from your perspective ,um, one of the things that Abe
Herman talked about in hisrebuttal to Diane Swinney's
article in the paper was thatdevelopers need to pay their
fair share developers andbuilders. How do you all in the
HBA and you as a , a builderpersonally feel that , um, that
(12:52):
fair share quote plays out?
Speaker 7 (12:56):
Well, currently, I feel that builders and
developers are already payingtheir fair share in , in
development costs. You know,we, we look at permitting a new
development project, or evensimply building a new custom
home for somebody. And thosefees are, are allocated for a
reason. And I think theargument of everybody paying
their fair share is notated alittle too lightly. That that
(13:19):
product is based back to theend user of the development. It
gets tacked onto the cost ofthe land, the cost of the
build. And, you know, it's not,it's not , um, it's not a group
of greedy people who are tryingto get to a different bracket
of building or a communitydevelopment. And quite frankly,
(13:41):
I think that's overlooked fartoo much.
Speaker 2 (13:45):
Yeah. And I, having , um, been involved in a couple
of developments myself , um, it, it is really difficult and
it, it takes a lot of , um,takes a lot of money and time,
and you have to be financiallysecure in order to do these
projects. And so I think , um,just adding more cost to the,
(14:06):
the buyer side of thoseprojects , um, is gonna give
developers pause. Would you saylike, do I wanna go forward
with this project, invest mytime and money in this , uh, if
I don't know that the , um, thebuyers can build or can buy
these homes with increasedcosts?
Speaker 7 (14:25):
Oh , absolutely. One thing to kind of think about
too is it's , again, it's notjust impact fees increasing,
it's the building material.
It's the labor involved, it'sthe insurance involved. We all
want to, whether we're in a ,um, a full custom build type of
community, high-end customhomes, or we're trying to
produce a product that isattainable in , in what we
(14:47):
would consider a first timehome buyer bracket. And I, I
think that the, the morecreative, I'm sorry, lemme
digress. The more fees that areinstituted towards building or
developing, that's gonnarequire the developers and the
builders to be more creativewith each client and how to get
(15:08):
there. And currently, you know,we're, we're doing that
already. Mm-hmm
It's, it's a very difficultconversation just last month
actually, or January, talkingabout micro pile type of
foundations. For instance, ifsomebody doesn't know and they
have a fixed budget forvertical construction that
they're assuming, you know , Ihave to get pretty creative on
(15:29):
how we get to that point ofthem actually being able to
build it mm-hmm
And we're only, we're onlyexacerbating the issue by
increasing further fees. Yeah.
Speaker 2 (15:38):
Yeah. Um, I'd like to hear from all of you on how
you feel , um, increasingimpact fees in the city of
Grand Junction will affectmigration of business because
this is a commercial issue too,right? They're , they're going
to increase , uh, impact feeson commercial structures , um,
how that will affect people'smigration to other areas of the
(16:01):
county. Uh, maybe trying toavoid the impact fees that the
city of Grand Junction ishoping to increase.
Speaker 3 (16:09):
Yes. Thanks Christie . And you're right, this does
impact non-residentialdevelopment as well. And I, and
I do want to acknowledge thatwe've worked really closely
with the city of GrandJunction, and the majority of
categories are actually goingto see a decrease in fees. But
there are a couple that arestill seeing substantial
increases, 25%, 47%. And Ithink it's also really
(16:32):
important to just call out thatwe say new development, but
let's reclassify that becausean existing business that wants
to add on square footage willbe assessed these fees. Mm-hmm
change the use will have to paythe difference in these impact
fees. And, and that can bereally difficult, especially
(16:53):
for small businesses that maybefind a great industrial
warehouse space and wannachange it to a light retail
space. They're going from thelowest use fee for
transportation to the highest,and we're talking tens of
thousands of dollars simply tojust change how the building is
going to be used. Nothing elsehas changed. And so it is very
(17:14):
important that we're mindful ofwatching this, and we actually
worked with partners to take alook at our competitiveness for
surrounding communities likeMontrose, like St . George
Pueblo, Greeley, all thesedifferent areas. And I think
what was fascinating is one,communities like Pueblo have
moved away from impact fees.
They're finding other ways tocover this, knowing that it can
(17:36):
dampen economic development.
Montrose is also exploring waysto minimize slash get rid of
impact fees altogether. And inthe other areas that we
compared, we were pushing theboundaries and if not leading
the way in most of these impactfees and businesses have a
choice of where they want tolocate mm-hmm
(17:57):
And where they wanna stay. Soit's, it's a concern to make
sure not only are we remainingattractive for new industry,
but we have to keep theindustry that is here. And as
things continue to climb, againby a per 1000 square foot
basis, it can really add up.
And again, it will be thedifference between opening
(18:18):
their doors or choosing to gosomewhere else. Which there are
a lot of other communities thatare very aggressively saying,
come do business here. And wehave to make sure that we're
continuing to positionourselves. So one, I applaud
the city's work over the lasttwo weeks to really look at
bringing those back to an , acompetitive , um, range with
(18:41):
the fees. But it's somethingthat we still wanna be very
mindful of because we do notwant to say that it is not
friendly to do business here.
If you have a retail shop,you're, you know, we, we wanna
make sure that we're, we'rebeing very competitive in that
arena.
Speaker 2 (18:57):
So Yeah. Same question to you, Kevin.
Speaker 4 (18:59):
Yeah. Just , uh, and , um, just kind a , a little
bit different perspective, Ithink on that. Um, one is the,
like our area is veryattractive area to be. I mean,
we, we all sitting around thetable, we all know that , uh,
there's a lot of things tolove, but when you think about,
you know, from my, from mystandpoint, you think about
what is really attractive about, uh, our area. You know, you
(19:22):
have things that are reallymajor attractors , like jobs,
like jobs being available issomething that attracts people
to a region. Um, housing , um,you know, for a long time we
were very competitive on, onbeing a place where you can get
really affordable housing. Ithink we're still relatively
attractive to a lot of areaswhere they have higher housing,
Speaker 2 (19:41):
Especially in the state of Colorado. Yeah .
Speaker 4 (19:44):
Overall, yeah . So like housing is still like
that, that is one of thoseattract . And I think you have
other things too, likehealthcare , um, the higher
education, like CMU, likehaving a university, like we
have some really big attractnow. We also have some great
parks. Um, that's, that's nice.
Those are really nice amenitiesto have. But to the level that,
(20:05):
that is the attractor, I wouldsay like a rec center, the rec
center that's being built, thatis going to be an , an
attractor as well. Roads , um,police and fire, those are very
important for your community.
But those are, we have anexpectation that those are,
that those are well maintained, um, et cetera . So those are
, those are important as well.
But those aren't necessarily, Ithink the , what's attract
(20:26):
attracting people. So it'skinda a long answer to the
question, but we also have sortof an agreement, and this is
just structurally how the , itworks with the city and the
county, and it's called the 2 01 boundary and the urban growth
boundary. And so most of thedevelopment is going to occur
within that urban growthboundary because of that,
(20:46):
because there is not muchdensity that's allowed in the
county other than areas like inunincorporated Clifton and like
Whitewater. There's a fewplaces where we can have
density mm-hmm
But we, we not , don't reallyhave that option. So it's,
we're somewhat captive by the 20 1 boundary in the city. So we
will continue to have people tomove here. Uh, what I, my
(21:08):
concern is more just the peoplethat are here are gonna
continually be priced out. Andyou hear a lot of times people
say, well, it's only, it's only$6,000, or it's only $8,000 on
a $400,000, $500,000 house. Igo, yeah. And that is not, that
is not grossly affecting theprice if you're looking at a
percentage standpoint. But itabsolutely will remove people
(21:31):
from being able to make that,
Speaker 2 (21:32):
Well, it either has to be absorbed by the builder
and developer, or passed on tothe homeowner. And as we
mentioned earlier, likebuilding and developing the
numbers really matter. You know, um, if you're gonna commit
your time and energy and moneyto a project, you have a
certain expectation of , um,return or you're not going in.
(21:57):
And so it really has to bepassed on to the homeowner. And
it's , uh, it's, yeah. That'sproblematic.
Speaker 4 (22:05):
Yeah . And it also makes me think a little about
kind of what Dave was saying.
You know , Dave, you weremention , you were mentioning
that you bill for , uh, peoplefrom sort of the attainable
price point all the way to likethe multimillion dollar home.
And, you know, I would, Iwould, I would just kind of
expect, I imagine even whenyou're building for somebody
with that multimillion dollarhome, they're still making
(22:27):
choices. Like they have a lotof wants, but they don't
necessarily get everything theywant. They, they, like all your
buyers probably have to make achoice. And in some ways they ,
the impact fee is, it's takingthe choice away from the buyer,
and it's saying, you're goingto pay this amount for these
things that , you know, it's ,in a way, it's a form of like
(22:48):
social engineering to just, todo it that way instead of the
way we have done it in the pastwas asking voters to approve
infrastructure, et cetera . Butyeah, like I'm the choice.
Speaker 7 (22:59):
I, I couldn't agree more. And quite frankly, I
would argue the point of mostpeople who are building a
multimillion dollar home, thoseare business owners. Those are,
are people who are bringing adifferent level of investments
to Mesa County. And they'revery aware of how that money is
being spent, not just on theirresidential home build, but
(23:21):
also in, in giving them an ideaof how to invest their money in
Grand Junction. And so I wouldmake the argument that while we
have a couple differentcategories of attainable versus
a full, you know, multimilliondollar custom home , the people
who are able to afford thelarger home, they're just as
aware of their budget for thatconstruction, and they're even
(23:42):
more involved.
Speaker 2 (23:44):
We don't, it's very rare that you get , uh, uh,
someone coming in and buyingand saying, my budget is
unlimited.
Speaker 7 (23:50):
Oh yeah. I've, I've yet to see that. I would love
it. But
the odds of that happening,
Speaker 2 (23:57):
Ron, what about the question that the, the weight
of , um, expansion of servicesto accommodate the growth of
our communities should be bornmostly by new construction and
not the residents that alreadyown homes. So that's the
argument for not raisingproperty taxes. Right. And
nobody wants their taxes to goup, but how do you weigh those
(24:19):
two?
Speaker 5 (24:20):
Well, and , and I've looked at this quite a bit, and
the impact fee argument isbased on what I call a fiction,
a fiction. That new developmentdoes not pay its own way. But ,
but if you'll notice, the citydid not ask for a study on
that. They asked for a studythat, that measures this to
(24:43):
acquire a result of how muchcan they legally defend, not,
it's not needs based . And ifyou look at new development,
new development, more than paysits own way. And , um, I was
just pulling up some numbers.
These are from a study that theNAHB did, the National
Association of Home Builders.
But , uh, you know, the, the,the first first year annual
(25:07):
revenues generated by a hundrednew homes is , uh, over $28
million. And , uh, and itcreates 394 jobs. And then the,
the recurring, so the revenuestream that's re that's
recurring every year is over $4million. Now, this is an
average, it's gonna vary fromstate to state or, or local to
, uh, regional area to regionalarea. But , um, uh, you know,
(25:30):
again, 6 69 more jobs, you ,you build a a hundred houses
and it generates servicerequirements for 69 new jobs.
So , um, nobody wants to talkabout the fact that, that we
already are paying more thanour fair share. Our new
development covers the costs ofservices that are required by
the city. What it does though,with what impact fees do is
(25:50):
they bring revenue to the city,and they move it in their
budget from non-real, which isthey have to build roads now
for any part of the roadconstruction. And those type of
services that we're expandingmoves the equal amount of money
into discretionary spending,where the city can spend it on
things that they're outside ofcore services. This is a point
(26:12):
that Kevin brought up some timeago, is what is the city doing
that's outside of core servicesthat they need more money for?
And I think, again, a study onwhat the city is spending its
money on outside of coreservices and a study on how
much revenue and how muchpositive impact that new
(26:32):
development brings to an areaare, are those are studies that
would have to be done in orderto really make an informed
decision on this.
Speaker 3 (26:41):
I think Ron brings up a really great point that
we've all discussed and havequestions about and continue to
just need to dive a little bitdeeper on, you know, making
sure that, again, when we're ina time, and I keep saying we're
, we are in a housing crisis,we're not getting to it, we're
there now , um, that's reallywhen you have to get down to
(27:04):
basics and make sure prioritiesare the main focus, right? You
, your businesses do this everyday . Um, make sure that your,
your core , uh, mission, yourcore services , um, your
priorities are taken care offirst. And that's really
important when you're lookingat , um, adding costs in any
(27:24):
sort of way to a community,whether it's a tax increase, a
fee increase, it's reallyimportant to have the basics
covered in a healthy,sustainable way. And so we
wanna make sure through allthese conversations that, that,
that is the case. Um, because,and that's why we had questions
about the way, for instance,the transportation fee was, was
(27:45):
being looked at originally, isjust making sure that we, we
are doing the basics first,foremost and at a high level.
And if there are additionalfunds that can be moved to a
discretionary purpose, that weknow that we've done all we can
to impact our workforce gettinginto houses. When I hear that
(28:08):
40% of our workforce is using30% of their household income
and 7% is using 50% of theirhousehold income, that's not
something our community shouldbe okay with. And so if we have
a card in our back pocket toplay, that can positively
impact that. We should at thispoint , there's, there's no
(28:30):
more hands to hold it on. Like,this is the time to be all in ,
um, as a community, as electedofficials, as stakeholders
saying all cards are on thetable, and what can we do?
Speaker 2 (28:43):
I, I do want to give kudos to the city council for
convening the stakeholdergroup. I think that was a
really great part of theprocess. How well do you think
, um, that group was set up forsuccess, and how well do you
think that group was able todeliver information to the city
council that the , and did thecity council listen to their
(29:05):
recommendations? And how hasthat process gone in your eyes?
Speaker 8 (29:11):
I wasn't on it,
Speaker 4 (29:14):
So yeah, I wasn't on the stakeholder committee, but
I did fill in for two of thefour meetings for people that
couldn't be on it. So I got, I,I got a piece of it. Uh , I
think , uh, one thing is thatthe, the scope of the committee
was really, it's like lookingat the methodology mm-hmm
(29:35):
know, it was $170,000 to hirethe consultant to do the study.
And this was , it's verytechnical sort of granular type
thing . So there wasn't muchthat the stakeholder committee
was really like, capable of, ofweighing in on, I would say ,
um, from sort of pastexperiences , uh, they did ,
(29:56):
um, I think at city , uh,manager Mike Bennett had
suggested, but they did do astakeholder meeting with the
city council. I think that wasvery effective, very
transparent, and I thought thatwas a, I thought that was a
great part of the process. AndI do think that they did look
at some things and they madesome revisions based on that.
Um, the other thing that Iwould say about the, the
(30:17):
stakeholder group, I think theykind of threw , they put every,
like, everything in thekitchen, in the , in the
original study. So itoriginally started as linkage
fees, as municipal fees, andeven like just using the city's
own like survey that they hadput out, like linkage fee
ranked one out of a hundred ona priority basis , um, that
(30:40):
they had put out tostakeholders even before the
process. Mm-hmm
So I thought that was a littlebit of a distraction , um, that
those, that that was included,a municipal fee that's to , uh,
from the HBA standpoint, wethought clearly that's
something they should be askingvoters for. Um, so had those
not been included, therewould've been sort of less,
there would've been a lot lesspages mm-hmm
(31:02):
Um, and I think people would'vebeen , been able to sort of
focus in on what we're, where ,where we're at today in terms
of what we're talking about. Soit made a little bit difficult.
It was a lot, a lot of , um,information and hard for the
group to digest mm-hmm
Speaker 3 (31:16):
Yeah. You know, as a member ofthe stakeholder group, I , I
would agree, it's very denseinformation and data, and you
always run into challengeswhen, you know, the
consultant's job is to , topresent the data that they're
collecting. And oftentimes itcomes down to the policy side
of things to really know what,okay, what are you going to do
(31:37):
with all these numbers andfigures and things that have
been collected? And, and weknow that data can look
different from the perspectivethat you're looking from. And
so , um, while I think we didget off to a slower start , uh,
I would agree that the meetingwith city Council was something
that we had not seen in recentmemory and was so impactful
(32:01):
and, and really valuable. Iknow we were all very grateful
for that opportunity because itwasn't , um, just to sit and
listen. It was a true dialoguewith council . And I think that
everyone at that table was ableto express questions, concerns,
statements of support thathelped us start to really pick
(32:23):
up the pace on the movement of,of where this was headed. Um,
you could see the speed ofwhich, you know, how responses
were being handled at thatpoint. And I think that's a
great thing to hopefully see inthe future as well, because ,
um, we have so much expertisein this community, and that's
(32:46):
why they bring together thesestakeholder groups because you
have so many , um, amazingpeople within the community.
And so leaning on thatexpertise is critical. Uh, and
I will say feedback since thenseems to , um, really be
getting received and discussed.
And again, we are not acrossthe finish line yet, but I am
(33:09):
hopeful that we continue tohave that collaborative nature
that we saw from that firstjoint meeting and, and get this
across the finish line in a waythat our community is able to
move forward in a healthymanner , um, but in a
sustainable manner. Because noone around this table or in the
stakeholder group is advocatingfor , um, less maintenance of
(33:32):
roads or less focus on publicsafety. That is absolutely not
the conversation here. It'ssaying, are we using all of our
resources
Speaker 2 (33:41):
Are using our resources and what is actually
necessary? Yeah .
Speaker 3 (33:44):
Yep . Exactly.
Speaker 2 (33:44):
Yeah . Yeah. What are we in need of , um, the
common sense institute, whichwas , uh, there at the , um,
housing summit, which was agreat event. Thank you for
helping with that, Kevin. Um,uh, they spoke about all kinds
of things that day, but I wasreading their findings on the
(34:05):
proposed impact fees, and theysaid their three biggest
findings will are that it willreduce housing supply, it will
raise home prices, and it willreduce home ownership rates. Do
you all agree with that and youwanna comment on that?
Speaker 4 (34:23):
Um, so I , I think to me, it's just a practical
thing. You know, if the pricesof oranges goes up, fewer
oranges will get purchased. AndI think that's the same with
housing. People are trying toafford housing, and I think, I
mean, you would know this morethan me working with people
every day , but they're get ,they're trying to get approved
(34:44):
for a house they can't affordmm-hmm
you, when that price goes up,it's, it's, there's gonna take
a certain number of people outof the equation. So yeah, I
could see that could affecthome ownership. I think the
counter argument that to thatthough is it's always a , well,
it's only 1% of the total or2%. I think that removes the ,
(35:05):
the individual from theexperience, you know, it's,
it's going to remove somepeople from the market. And ,
and what I see is we do have alot of migration and we're
pretty flat on natural growthin the community. So in
essence, to me, it's not okaythat only people coming from
outside the community who aretypically coming from a higher
(35:28):
housing market and they'reusing equity to purchase here,
that's not a reason for us tosay it's okay to raise fees. We
really should be consideringwho lives here , um, those our
kids that we want to be able tolive here. And it's, it's also
never, it's not just this fee,but it's also this fee and, and
(35:50):
the , you know, the code changethat we had last week and the
Teds thing and the , and thatit , it all adds up. And, and
so the argument is always,well, this isn't going to
affect, this isn't gonna affectit as much as you say,
Speaker 3 (36:03):
It's not the only fee that's going
Speaker 4 (36:05):
Up, but that is constantly a good reason to not
do something that's gonna makehousing cost more just because
it's not a , it's not thebiggest reason. Um , we should
still be, I think, assertiveabout costs and, and we want
people to experience theAmerican dream of home
ownership. Um , it comes withit a lot of benefits to the
(36:27):
individual, and that'ssomething that we should be
protective of as a community.
Speaker 3 (36:31):
Absolutely. Kevin, I just think it's important too,
when you mentioned migration isI talk to employers regularly
who have workforce that havemigrated here to use your term,
have been here for a year, 18months, have not been able to
get into a home, and are nowhaving to resign their
positions and leave thecommunity. And these are highly
skilled jobs. We know that it'simpacting skillable up and down
(36:52):
the board. But to your point,even those who come into the
area are finding it challengingto find housing and, and, you
know, our workforce isdependent on that. It's so
intertwined, and that's why weat the Chamber, while the
commercial impact fees aremoving in the right direction,
are still gravely concernedabout the impact fees on
(37:15):
residential because , um,creating jobs is wonderful, but
if we can't have housing forthose filling the jobs, it ,
it's a moot point at that, thattime. And , um, you know, it's
something that we have to keep,keep an eye on. And we don't
want , uh, residents that havehad generations here in the
(37:35):
valley to know that their kidscannot stay in the valley. And
we hear those, I know you allhear those stories, but we hear
those stories as well. Andagain, that is a big part of
our workforce of , uh, folksgrown up here, whether they
went to college or not, ormaybe just dove dove right into
their careers. We want them tobe able to plant their roots
and stay here. And right nowthat's not possible. Yeah.
Speaker 4 (37:57):
And , and you know, I, I don't know the data on
this, but it , I do wondersometimes if that has something
to do with our decliningenrollment here, is that the
young people that are, youknow, graduating or, or going
on to learn a , a trade orwhatever, as they look at
they're growing their family,they, they actually have to
move somewhere else. Mm-hmm
(38:19):
they're just not able to forthe housing. And I look back at
when I bought my first house,and I know that is not
attainable like that, thatratio of what I was making as a
very beginning wage to thehome, that ratio no longer
exists. And I think it's reallysad for , um, our ability to,
you know, I even think my ,it's gonna be a while before my
(38:41):
kids are at a home buying age,but I'm still worried about,
you know, what that's gonnalook like for them. My
Speaker 2 (38:48):
Kids are worried about it. They're 20 and 17 and
we talk about it a lot. I'm notthe one that puts the fear into
them, but they read the newsand they, they are worried
about it.
Speaker 5 (38:58):
Yeah. I think the discussion , uh, seems to get
centered on new homes becausethe fee is tied to new homes.
One of the things that , um,doesn't make it into the
discussion is the fact that newhomes are what determines the
price for existing housingstock. And as the price in new
homes, it's like, 'cause a homethat was built 30 years ago
(39:18):
didn't cost what it sells fortoday. How did it get to where
it's at? If, if it's all tiedto that, it's like, because as
the price of a new home goesup, it drags all of the other
values up with it. And it'sjust the same as rents. As, as
new homes go up, people buyhomes as investments. Those
rents are based on a cap ratetied to the value of that home.
(39:41):
So rents go up. So this, whenwe drive the cost of new homes
up, we, we , we drive the costof all the existing , the most
affordable housing stock wehave will increase mm-hmm
do the same thing all the waydown to the lowest rents we
have. So it's, it's anaffordability rate in housing
across the board, not just newhomes. And, and that's not
(40:05):
something that I hear discussedmuch in this. And as a matter
of fact, the council has justsimply ignored that fact
because I have brought it up tothem more than once. And I, I
really think it needs to bepart of the discussion, because
unlike oranges, housing isessential if I'm, if if
oranges, if it freezes inFlorida and oranges go up, I
can switch to something else.
(40:25):
You should be talking aboutpeaches though. I mean, we're ,
we are in Grand Junction,right?
eggs well , yeah . Yeah. Well,I quit eating eggs, so Yeah.
So, so you know, you have somechoices there, but housing is
not one you have a choice in.
You may have a choice of whattype of housing, but you are
going to have to livesomewhere.
Speaker 2 (40:42):
Good point.
Speaker 7 (40:43):
Yeah. And I can vouch for that. Being 33 years
old, my wife and I arecurrently experiencing that
type of issue. You know, we, wecould tap into the equity in
our home currently and, andmake a play. But if we're to
move in a , a certain directionto meet the goals and the
parameters that we've settogether as a family, you know,
that that goal set is very,very tight. The option set is
(41:06):
very, very tight. And so thenwe kind of have to go back to
the , the drawing board andfigure out what takes priority
overall. Yeah. Actually, Iwanted to digress a little bit
further back to the argumentthey made regarding builders
and developers paying their ownway . I also heard at that
council meeting, we want thepeople coming from out of town,
whether it's in-state, comingout from Denver, Colorado
(41:29):
Springs, you name it, or fromoutta state entirely. They want
them to pay their fair share. Iwould love to see the data that
would compare how many peoplecoming in from out of town
there are, versus how manypeople locally that have been
here for a decade or more thatare still feeling the same, the
same problems. Mm-hmm
Speaker 4 (41:52):
So I , so I , if you guys will allow, I wanted to
just tell a little story.
Absolutely . Um, just recentlyin the last couple weeks, I had
a young man that his family ,family friend , um, he's , uh,
graduated from high school nowand, and looking at college and
trade school. And he came , hewanted to come into my office
(42:14):
and talk about an idea that hehad , um, which is a roommate
situation where they werelooking at maybe getting on the
mortgage together and buying ahouse. And , um, my wife knew
that he was coming in andsomebody else had put a bug on
her ear. I hope Kevin talks himout of that. Um, because
traditionally, you know, youthink about like owning a house
(42:37):
with a roommate and , uh, youknow, as, as a parent, as a
mentor, you think, well, thisis, this is kind of a recipe
for conflict and like, you know, owning a house together. Um,
but it really made me think, itreally made me challenge that
idea because I thoughtotherwise, his other option is
wait for five or six or sevenyears while he's paying rent,
(42:59):
which is gonna continue to goup and then hopefully be able
to afford his own house. Andthis gives, this would give him
a shot at a piece of the homeownership high to, to build
equity like that we all knowis, is important for people.
And so I didn't give the advicethat my wife was hoping that I
would give, because I see like,this is what, this is maybe the
(43:21):
new reality for kids that are,they want that American dream
and they have to be realisticas well. So I just thought that
was, it was interesting 'causeit's not what I would hope to
have, like, be recommendingsomething like that. Mm-hmm
Speaker 7 (43:37):
Well, that's a prime example of how we have to be
creative in other ways wherewe're trying to, we're kind of
held, held ho hostage to adegree by a municipal level and
builders and developers, wehave to be , uh, malleable to
those , um, uh, parameters thatare set. And we have, we have
to be the ones that arecreative on behalf of our
(43:58):
client and building 'em a newhome, or whether or not that's
a 1600 square foot, $400,000house, or, or a 10,000 square
foot, $4 million house. And sothat's a prime example of how
we need to start having someconver conversations with the
younger generations andfiguring out how we can get
creative to make something likethat possible for them during
Speaker 2 (44:17):
The housing summit.
I think, you know, the biggesttakeaway that we all felt when
we left there was , uh, there'sno, there's no simple , uh,
solution to the housing crisisthat we're facing here in our
community or across the country, uh, whatever community you're
in. Um, but I think all of usat this table agree that
(44:38):
increasing fees for buildingnew construction is not going
to make the situation better.
It's going to hurt that. And,and it's a topic on everyone's
mind and agenda, right? It isall over the country , um,
trying to keep the cost ofhousing down, and yet we're
looking at increasing the fees.
(45:00):
So , um, as we wrap up , um,you're welcome to add any other
comments, but , um, talk abouthow people can get involved in
the conversation. Uh, what canthey do to educate themselves
on the topic more, to make surethey're fully informed and ,
(45:20):
um, how can they have theirvoices heard?
Speaker 3 (45:26):
You know, I'm, if you know me, I always say start
with a question. I think it'simportant for our businesses,
our community members to askquestions. It , you can come to
your own conclusion, that'sfine. But it's important that
you, those conclusions arebased on data and information
and hearing a , a number ofperspectives in, in the
(45:49):
conversation. So I would sayreach out to HBA, reach out to
the chamber, reach out to thecity and, and get information.
Um, all of the proposed fees ,um, are part of their council
member packets. Um, and sothey're printed online and easy
to, to, to get your hands on.
(46:09):
But I think reach out and askquestions , um, and then turn
around and ask questions backto your elected officials to
make sure that they understand.
Um, maybe you don't have a, astrong feeling either way, but
at least let them know thatthere are question marks still
surrounding this topic. And forthose of us that have been
living and breathing this for,you know, the better part of
(46:32):
almost a year, it's, it'simportant for us to continue to
ask those questions until thevery end, because there are
still a number of unansweredloose ends that we , I don't
think can move forward in aninformed way that we know
exactly what those outcomes aregoing to look like, nor can we
truly , um, say the juice isworth the squeeze, quite
(46:53):
frankly. And so , uh, I thinkthat for all of us, we have to
just continue to move forward ,um, through curiosity on this
topic and making sure that we,we've really explored all of
the nooks and crannies becauseit is very complex.
Speaker 4 (47:11):
Um, yeah, I would say , um, and just sort of
emphasizing on the , on thepart of what Candace is saying
, um, I , I have a , I have aclass that I teach at
development and, and myfavorite part of that class is
bringing them to city counciland them realizing that it
isn't, they, a lot of people,you know, they, they get a ,
(47:34):
they talk online amongst eachother and they say they are
doing this, they're doing this.
But city council are realpeople and they are responsive
and they, they do care aboutthe community. And that's what
I would say to people is if youwould email a city council
person, you should expect, Iwould expect they all will all
(47:55):
reply to emails mm-hmm
don't need to know the exact ,um, application of the study or
the methodology to let a citycouncil person know that you
think h like housingaffordability is important. And
they do, it does make adifference. And they do listen
and they, and they do respond.
(48:17):
And that's what I think is, isa , um, hugely underutilized ,
um, aspect of this city councilis that they , they are real
human beings and they dorespond and they are available.
Speaker 2 (48:29):
Thank you for pointing that out. Yeah , yeah,
Speaker 7 (48:33):
Yeah. I couldn't agree more with that statement.
And I'll speak for myself here.
If anybody's listening and theyhave questions, comments,
concerns, feel free to reachout to me. Feel free to reach
out to your , uh, local HBA,start talking to your real
estate agents. Talk , starttalking to your builders, talk
to the developers. 'cause weall live this day in and day
out. The more educated that wecan become as a community, the
(48:56):
better off we are in , infinding real solutions to the
broken arm rather than puttinga bandaid on it.
Speaker 5 (49:03):
Yeah. I think , uh, the city has , uh, dj
speaks.com as well, right?
Mm-hmm
, make comments. And , uh, Ithink the question , uh, you
brought up asking a questionand the question is how does
this help the housingaffordability issue? And , and
, um, I would be interested tohear an answer from someone how
(49:25):
that that helps, because Idon't think it does. And I
think that's just a greatquestion. Um, if that is a
priority, which they all sayit's a priority mm-hmm
they're saying. And , um, Ithink other things get
prioritized over it. 'causethey do have a certain amount
of discretionary spending theyhave. And would this not be a
(49:46):
great place to use thatdiscretion instead of
increasing the fees forhousing?
Speaker 2 (49:50):
Absolutely.
Absolutely. Um, well, the April2nd , uh, city council meeting
ought to be very well attended.
Um, and we encourage everybodyto get involved and make your
voices heard. So thank you toall of you today for
participating in thisdiscussion. And , um, wanna
encourage , uh, everybody againto , um, speak out, educate
(50:11):
yourselves on this issue, andmake sure you understand how it
can affect housingaffordability in our community.
Speaker 7 (50:18):
Thank you.
Speaker 4 (50:19):
Thank you, Christy .
Yep .
Speaker 2 (50:21):
Alright everybody, we'll see you next time on the
Full Circle podcast again. Um ,reach out to any of our
panelists here today. Uh,Candace Carnahan, Dave Hancock,
Ron Avalo , and Kevin Bray. Uh,they all be willing to, and ,
and myself as well. We're allwilling to speak on this topic
and how it affects ourcommunity. So reach out and ,
uh, we'll see you on the nextepisode. Thank you. Thanks for
(50:42):
listening. This is ChristyReese signing out from the Full
Circle Podcast .
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Therapy Gecko
An unlicensed lizard psychologist travels the universe talking to strangers about absolutely nothing. TO CALL THE GECKO: follow me on https://www.twitch.tv/lyleforever to get a notification for when I am taking calls. I am usually live Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays but lately a lot of other times too. I am a gecko.