Are You Kidding Me? 72,000 more housing units in Lafayette?
House Bill 24-1313. What you should know
(If you have questions after reading this I wrote a follow-up post that digs deeper into the details)
While I try to keep an eye on all things Lafayette there are actions at the capitol that can cause all kinds of issues to arise. Exhibit A: House Bill 24-1313. It’s focused on increasing housing density around transit areas. But yikes, this is not good for the city. My apologies for not bringing this to your attention earlier.
A staff presentation at the March 5th City Council meeting brought it all into focus. I spoke about this to the council during public input because if approved in its current form the effect on Lafayette is scary. Luckily the council saw the problem and at their March 19th meeting they will be voting on a resolution that states their opposition to the bill, and in no uncertain terms.
The bill requires a variety of actions from any city or town it defines as a transit-oriented community. Lafayette falls into that category. This means we have to increase our housing density near transit stations and corridors. Corridors mean where the bus routes are. (You know, the bus routes that change whenever RTD feels like it.)
Staff estimates that 30% of Lafayette falls within 1/4 mile of a transit area. Here’s what this means for Lafayette.
12,718 IS THE NUMBER OF HOUSING UNITS WE HAVE RIGHT NOW
Our Community Profile can be found here. Here’s a screenshot.
ADDITIONAL UNITS UNDER THE NEW ZONING REQUIREMENTS OF THIS BILL? 72,000
The bill requires a change in zoning within the transit areas. Staff did the math and that zoning would allow for an additional 72,000 housing units in Lafayette. 72,000! Add in areas that are eligible for annexation to Lafayette and it’s another 55,000.
THE STRAIN ON CITY RESOURCES
If you’ve been reading some of my recent posts you might see an interconnection here that screams major problems. That clear liquid called water, has been the focus for the last couple of years, and we are seeing a rise in our rates to pay for an array of water-related needs.
What about those posts I wrote about our finances and how everything fits together in a delicate balance?
Add in these crazy numbers and blam, we are in trouble, big time. And it doesn’t take a genius to figure that out.
THE PUNISHMENT
This bill says if we don’t submit to these requirements we won’t get any more highway funding. And some legal action could be taken. I mean, really? What is this?
Here’s a slide from the March 5th meeting showing some recent funding.
SOME THOUGHTS
Since I am behind on bringing this to you dear readers, I am going to cheat and share what I said to the council at their last meeting. There are a few more points in it that might be of interest.
Good Evening,
I’m here to talk about House Bill 24-1313 tonight and the continued actions from the state government which are diluting our home rule status. What I’m hoping to see from you tonight is a plan to push back.
We’re the good kid here and it feels like the bully is coming for us. We need to say stop, and loudly.
I have watched Lafayette work for decades to address affordable housing. We are looking at a contribution from our small city of over 11 million dollars to help build the largest net-zero affordable development in the state and possibly the country, Willoughby Corner. We just gave half a million dollars to the La Luna Collective to help them buy their mobile home park. We are walking the walk and we need to tell those at the statehouse so and in no uncertain terms.
We just spent thousands of dollars to write our community’s vision document our comprehensive plan, which will guide us over the next 20 years. These continued demands from the state will overrule that.
It’s a delicate balance to provide services to the community with a large portion of the funding coming from sales taxes, not property taxes. Rooftops don’t pay for themselves, the more of them you add the more services you need, more police and fire, more city staff, a larger library and rec center, more wear and tear on everything, and let’s not forget water. There is more to water than just having a supply, we must store it, clean it, and dispose of the waste, this all comes with a cost to the city and of course the residents. You heard our CFO mention this balance during your retreat.
We have to prevent getting to the point where the balance tips and the only solution to funding the needs of the community becomes property tax increases which puts more of a burden on the residents and pushes more people on the lower end of the economic scale out of town, displacement as the bill calls it. But I doubt the bill’s authors are thinking about it in those terms.
I checked out the bios and background of the sponsors of this bill and they all seem like decent people with the best of intentions. But except for one I don’t see any experience in local government and I think they need to be schooled in that.
They are not looking at the big picture but focusing on one part when everything is connected. And they are threatening to take our milk money if we don’t comply. So let’s take action and show them our big picture.
Back in the day, our local representatives would come to council on an annual basis to talk about what’s happening at the state level and to give council a chance to discuss the effect on the city. We need to reinstate that immediately. Don’t forget our local representatives voted to take away our managed growth amendment and we have done nothing about that. That growth amendment was in place and Willoughby Corner still happened. Let’s also invite the sponsors of this bill. I am confident our staff can put together an excellent presentation of who we are and what we have accomplished.
We should be touting ourselves as an example of what can be done. We shouldn’t be sitting back and letting the state tell us how to develop our city and threatening to withhold highway funding while claiming low transit ridership is because there isn’t enough adjacent housing. They are comparing ridership to Minneapolis, Portland, and Seattle. We are nothing like those cities.
Please do not sit meekly by and say yes to everything that will no doubt be coming down the pike. Fight for us to be the home rule city we are and show them what we have done without bending to their threats of penalties. This is not how this issue should be handled. They should be helping and praising us not coming for us.
I look forward to your discussion tonight and hope you agree you must take a stand on behalf of those you represent as a home rule city.
Thank you
HOME RULE?
Lafayette is a home rule city which gives us more control over how the city is run via a city charter written and approved by the residents. You might also hear the term local control used.
THE COUNCIL RESOLUTION IN OPPOSITION
CITY OF LAFAYETTE RESOLUTION NO. 2024-11
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAFAYETTE, COLORADO, IN OPPOSITION TO PREEMPTIONS AND BURDENS IN HOUSE BILL 24-1313 REGARDING HOUSING IN TRANSIT-ORIENTED COMMUNITIES
WHEREAS, for a century, the State of Colorado has committed both in statute and in the state constitution to the local control of land use planning and zoning because local governments are closest to the land and to the people that occupy it; and
WHEREAS, for nearly as long, the State of Colorado has dedicated various revenues collected with respect to the operation of motor vehicles and motor fuel “exclusively for the construction, maintenance, and supervision of the public highways of this state,” as provided in Section 18 of Article X of the Colorado Constitution, referred to as the “Highway Users Tax Fund” (HUTF) that is shared with local governments that have a responsibility to maintain safe roads; and
WHEREAS, House Bill 24-1313 would require the City of Lafayette to commit City funds and staff resources to rezone substantial areas near existing and planned rail and bus transit to accommodate a potential density set by the state, change local laws to meet state criteria, and establish programs to meet state goals relating to affordability and the mitigation of displacement, all subject to state approval; and
WHEREAS, House Bill 24-1313 will punish communities that do not satisfy the state’s demands by withholding and reallocating HUTF funds for other purposes and authorizing the Department of Local Affairs, a longtime partner of local governments, to sue municipalities to enforce the state’s mandate; and
WHEREAS, City staff estimates that House Bill 24-1313 would require the City of Lafayette to enact zoning to enable up to 72,000 housing units; and
WHEREAS, House Bill 24-1313 would undermine the work that the City of Lafayette and its residents have done to promote responsible development and affordable housing, despite limited support and a lack of sufficient transit opportunities.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lafayette, Colorado, as follows:
1. It is the position of the City of Lafayette that the state should partner with local governments and provide meaningful support to improve transit opportunities and to promote affordable housing development instead of threatening local governments with punishment; and
2. The City of Lafayette opposes House Bill 24-1313 and strongly urges its legislators to vote NO on this legislation unless it is amended to address:
Collaboration: The bill should focus on collaboration with local communities and offer incentives for achieving shared goals, as opposed to threats of litigation and the withholding of critical road maintenance funds.
Legislate for outcomes: The bill should set objective outcomes and provide local governments flexibility in how to achieve them.
Focus on fixed transit: The bill should focus on areas around fixed rail and bus rapid transit, not local bus routes that change based on factors beyond the city's control.
Funding: The bill should either remove or provide funding to implement mandates that impose financial burdens on local governments, like affordable housing and displacement strategies.
Context matters: The bill needs to consider local context. The one-size-fits-all approach is not appropriate for all communities.
Timing matters: The bill should tie requirements to the actual construction of new transit infrastructure like bus rapid transit or rail projects.
Complexity: The bill is overly complex and should be simplified.
Water limitations: The bill should acknowledge that water resources are not unimitated and consider the impact of increased development on water usage.
THE TEXT OF THE BILL
Want to learn more? Here you go.
WHO YOU CAN CONTACT
Just wrote to Rep Brown and Sen Lewis. Thank you for the contacts and for the heads up about this terrible bill.
I don't doubt your reporting for a second, but at first blush my thought is that something must be wrong with the numbers. I am surprised that Lafayette, which is only about 6000 acres total area, has 2100 acres of developable land. Or that any reasonable plan would suggest 73,000 new housing units in a town that has built less than 13,000 units since 1888. At 2.5 residents per HU, we would add nearly 200,000 residents...more than half of the total population of Boulder County today.
But a fundamental issue that I don't see raised is that the plan to withhold infrastructure dollars BEFORE the dense development is underway is a classic cart-before-the-horse problem faced by communities like Lafayette. Infrastructure must come first. 40 HU per acre along the cobblestone path that is Arapahoe road is not plausible. And I seriously doubt that the suggested but not yet funded improvements to HWY 7 take into account that level of density.
Withholding $1M in roadway maintenance is trivial in comparison to the increased costs to the City of providing services to that level of new development. It's not a plan that has even a chance to succeed.