What did the council do about HB24-1313?
A report on the meeting
Finally, here is my update on the March 4th city council meeting regarding HB 24-1313! Thank you for your patience!
Be warned, it’s lengthy. I attended the meeting and later watched parts of it many times to ensure I captured the issues raised. ( By the end I had piles of chocolate wrappers at my feet!)
You can also watch the meeting yourself, but based on the number of views my last report received, I know this is a major topic of interest, and I want you to be informed.
I wrote about the latest information from our city staff on March 1, “The state pushes Lafayette's 30,600 population to 101,000? Yell no, loudly.” and suggested this would be a good time to express your opinion to the city council.
Dear readers, you did exactly that and wow, it was amazing. If you recall, I was touched and preparing to go tissue shopping when I wrote “You are so bringing it.” This is one of the meetings I was talking about.
100 MESSAGES!
Before the meeting, I learned the city received about 100 messages through the website. Is that a lot you ask? Yes! That is a huge number. Huge! Many council meeting packets contain no public comments. You can read them in the packet online.
Remember I told you there was an extra police officer at the council meeting? Due to the number of messages received, the city was prepared for high attendance. Fire regulations must be upheld as only a limited number of people can be in the room at once, and the police department handles crowd control.
ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK UP
Because of all your messages, something else happened before the meeting. Mayor Pro Tem Wong headed to the lobby with a stack of slips of paper. He handed me one and told me he wanted to be sure people knew the council passed a resolution against this bill. I’ll share the resolution later in this report.
During the meeting, the mayor mentioned a few times that council passed this resolution against HB 24-1313. Council passed the resolution in 2024 before the final vote on the bill at the state level. It’s worth noting that although some changes were made, the bill still passed, and the city is now facing the outcome.
Here’s the handout from Mayor Pro Tem Wong.
YOUR NEXT STEP? KEEP GOING!
On March 19, 2024, I first wrote about HB24-1313 “Are You Kidding Me? 72,000 more housing units in Lafayette?” In that report I gave you contact information for the city council, State Representative Kyle Brown and State Senator Sonya Jaquez Lewis. I wrote to them, as I know some of you did.
I received a reply from Representative Brown but not from Senator Jaquez Lewis. As you may know, she stepped down and for the moment Lafayette does not have a state senator. That makes it even more important to speak up. And when her replacement is determined, speak up again. Loudly!
Raise your voices NOW on HB 24-1313 by contacting Representative Brown. kyle.brown.house@coleg.gov, keep the momentum going!
Now let’s jump back into the last council meeting.
A PACKED ROOM AND EXTENSIVE PUBLIC INPUT
The room was packed and many of you signed up to speak passionately about your community during the public input section of the meeting, which lasted about an hour. You can watch public input here.
THE STAFF PRESENTATION
It covered five bills passed by the state in 2024. You can learn more about them by watching the presentation. I’m going to focus on HB 24-1313, Transit-Oriented Communities.
The other bills discussed were:
Accessory Dwelling Units (HB 24-1152)
Minimum Parking (HB 24-1304)
Transit-Oriented Communities (HB 24-1313)
Sustainable Affordable Housing Assistance (SB 24-174)
Prohibit Landscaping Practices for Water Conservation (SB 24-005)
I’m using slides from the presentation to explain staff’s assessment of HB 24-1313.
Displacement Mitigation
I find plenty in this bill disturbing, but I want to point out something that makes my blood boil, displacement mitigation. The state wants us to plan to mitigate displacement. They expect people will be displaced so more building can occur. On June 30th, the Department of Local Affairs (DOLA) will publish guidance for this. The bill defines displacement as: involuntary relocation of residents, (especially low-income), or locally owned businesses, due to increased land prices, development, redevelopment, property neglect, or other economic factors.
Denial of Applications
The bill says staff may deny applications based on transportation, utilities, and public works standards.
Less oversight by the Planning Commission and City Council
Multi-family site plan applications (< 5 acres) can be reviewed at the staff level. They won’t have to go through the usual public hearing process.
Water Supply Analysis
A section of the bill allows for a water supply analysis for the Housing Opportunity Goal (HOG). If there isn’t sufficient water, the city would work with the state to decrease the HOG number or defer it for three years. Staff said issues with our water supply could take decades, so three years probably won’t cut it.
THE TRANSIT AREAS
The transit area, marked in dark red, is determined to be a 1/4 mile from a transit corridor, that being the Dash RTD route which will eventually go to Willoughby Corner at 120th and Emma. The state requires rezoning to allow 40 dwelling units per acre within that area. City staff went parcel by parcel in the red area tagging potential exemptions. The remaining parcels were multiplied by 40, which gives us the HOG.
Although some parcels within the transit area are exempt, the map does not reflect that. For instance, schools and mobile homes are exempt.
Under certain conditions, staff can count the zoning density in the lighter area to relieve the pressure off S. Boulder Rd.
A reminder. Boiling this down, an intent of this bill is to get more riders on the Dash route going through Lafayette. It’s not about getting more affordable housing, because these new units could be high-end apartments. If you’re a developer, aren’t you looking to make the most profit you can, and high-end brings you more profit than affordable units.
STAFF’S MATH
The bill requires rezoning the transit areas to allow for 40 dwelling units per acre. After analysis of the transit areas and subtracting potential exemptions, here’s what staff’s graphic below tells us.
Currently the estimated number of dwelling units citywide is 13,135. The Comprehensive Plan shows 18,000 by 2040, an additional 4865. Staff says that was linear growth based on growth management. The state took away our ability to use growth management in 2024. Our growth management allowed for the issuance of 1200 building permits in a 6-year period.
The HOG, within the transit area only, could add an additional 20,040. Adding that to today’s number of 13,135 it takes us to 46,310 dwelling units.
Doing the same math but for the population, it’s currently 30,605. The Comprehensive Plan shows 44,500 by 2040.
The HOG, within the transit area only, could add an additional 46,551. Adding that to today’s number that takes us to a population of 77,156.
Mobile Home Exemption
Staff says the HOG without exemptions won’t happen because we have a number of exempt properties including mobile homes.
ZONING CAPACITY
Maximum amount of development allowed.
Here we see what happens to the parcels included in the transit area. Currently there are 2971 existing dwelling units in the transit area. Our current zoning code allows for a maximum of 4,473 units.
That number can go as high as 20,040 if zoned under HB 24-1313 requirements of 40 dwelling units per acre within the transit area. Staff says while they don’t know how much would be built, city staff would still need to plan to serve that number in the future. That means adding infrastructure for the city for an unknown final buildout. Guess who pays for that? That’s right, current residents.
TOC is Transit Oriented Community. The state has determined Lafayette is a TOC.
DENSITY
Regarding these density examples, our Comprehensive Plan highlights a step-down method for future planning. What that means is gradually lowering building stories to prevent a 3-story building next to a 1-story home. You can imagine the issues residents and staff would face if a 4-story building like Traditions, shown below, could be constructed adjacent to a single family neighborhood.
COUNCIL COMMENTS
Before the presentation was complete, Mayor Pro Tem Wong said he would like to have an executive session about all five bills to determine if council should follow them. Executive sessions are held out of the public eye to allow council to receive legal advice, discuss personnel issues, potential real estate transactions or economic development incentives. They are not allowed to vote during these sessions. Their agenda must spell out the topic of the session and they cannot discuss topics beyond it.
Mayor Pro Tem Wong represents Lafayette at the Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG) meetings.
The DRCOG website tells us “Through DRCOG, the Denver region's cities, counties and towns establish guidelines, set policy and allocate funding for transportation and personal mobility, growth and development, and aging and disability resources.”
He said “quiet conversations” “not public” were happening at DRCOG.
Councilor Barnes asked for clarification of the displacement mitigation language.
Councilor Fridland asked for clarification of the numbers in the HOG.
City Manager Doelling said this was an informational presentation only to show council where staff is in the process. If council wants to change course or direction, it would be wise to have an executive session.
Councilor Samson asked why they would need an executive session. “What are we hiding from the public?” “This is state law we should be talking about it publicly”.
Mayor Mangat said there was potential for litigation, other communities are seeking that as well. They need to know what’s in their toolkit, if they are interested in not following parts of the law, it gets them into legal issues.
Councilor Samson is Lafayette’s representative to the Colorado Municipal League (CML). She said she has been waiting for CML to start the legal process.
City Attorney Macsalka said she is not aware of any legal action on the horizon. She said an executive session would be appropriate to discuss potential legal avenues and risks. In terms of policy, there is no reason council can’t continue to discuss the bills in public.
Councilor Samson spoke about all the bills covered in the presentation. She said there was one she adamantly opposed, and didn’t want staff to work toward something and then have council pull the rug out from under them. She said they should give staff some sort of information that says “we’re ok with this one moving forward.”
Councilor Fridland asked what state funding they would lose if not in compliance. Staff told him originally it was highway funding but that was taken out of the bill due to widespread pushback. Now it is loss of affordable housing tax credits, and infrastructure grants within the transit areas, and potential litigation.
Councilor Samson said last year CML came out strongly against 24-1313.
It was hard to hear but I think Mayor Mangat said as did the Metro Mayors Caucus, and Mayor Pro Tem Wong said as did DRCOG.
Mayor Pro Tem Wong said the reason he wants to discuss all the bills is due to his attendance at DRCOG where he has heard that various communities are looking at litigation over the concept of Home Rule and their ability to dictate what goes on in their community.
Councilor Samson said they can propose a bill to CML and have that organization “run it for us”.
Councilor Fridland said “let’s hear our community” and what can we do politically to work with the state.
Councilor Samson said she would be fine letting the ADU and landscaping language move forward as the city is already doing similar work. Mayor Mangat agreed. As did Councilor Barnes who also indicated he was ok with the affordable housing bill.
Councilor Samson would like to hear from the Code Update Working Group regarding the minimum parking law.
Councilor Gallegos said she would like an executive session regarding 24-1313 she wondered what happens if we say we don’t have the water.
Councilor Tapa Vega said the only one he wanted to discuss was 24-1313, but he could do one or five if other councilors wanted to discuss them all.
Mayor Mangat said they should focus on the transit and the parking bills during executive session. He raised the issue of these items being state law and asked if the city wanted to comply with them or is the city interested in a home rule argument.
City Attorney Macsalka advised the council that if they do want to have an executive session they include language regarding home rule authority and land use authority. They can talk about risks and options.
Expect to see an executive session on a future agenda.
COUNCIL ACTION IN MARCH 2024
Here is the resolution the council passed before this bill became law. You can see it mentions highway funding, which was removed from the bill before final passage.
STAFF MEMO AND CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
MEETING DATE: March 19, 2024
AGENDA TITLE: Resolution No. 2024-11 / In Opposition to Preemptions and Burdens in House Bill 24-1313 Regarding Housing in Transit-Oriented Communities
PREPARED BY: Megan Davis, Acting City Administrator
Jeff Brasel, Planning and Building Director
Executive Summary
House Bill 24-1313, known as Housing in Transit-Oriented Communities, was introduced in the current 2024 session of the Colorado General Assembly. City Council received a briefing on the bill and its potential effects on March 5, 2024. At that time, City Council directed staff to prepare a resolution opposing the bill. The purpose of this meeting is to consider Resolution No. 2024-11, which formally expresses the City’s opposition to the bill and offers suggested amendments.
City Council Strategic Outcome (most applicable): Bold, Authentic Leadership
Background Information
House Bill 24-1313 has been introduced in the current legislative session. This bill, if enacted, would likely designate Lafayette as a “Transit Oriented Community.” Transit Oriented Communities would be subject to state oversight to ensure that the City adopts specific zoning standards and administrative approval processes for certain developments. The legislation also requires communities to adopt affordable housing and displacement strategies and submit multiple reports to the Department of Local Affairs, in perpetuity, to confirm the City’s compliance.
Communities that are not in compliance with the legislation would not receive their annual allocation of Highway User's Tax funding (HUTF) and face possible legal action by the Department of Local Affairs to enforce the state’s mandate. On average, the City has received $889,000 in HUTF since 2021.
Next Steps
If passed into law, significant staff time would be needed to conduct the comprehensive planning and rezoning necessary to implement the bill. Some provisions could be addressed as part of the ongoing Land Use Code rewrite project, but most or all other planning projects could be placed on hold or delayed.
Recommendation
Staff recommend approval of Resolution No. 2024-11.
Proposed Motion Language
Council motion to approve Resolution No. 2024-11, opposing the preemptions and burdens in House Bill 24-1313 regarding housing in transit-oriented communities.
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:
Attachment A - Resolution No. 2024-11 Opposing HB 24-1313 Housing in Transit-Oriented Communities
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 arounds 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
unlimited and consider the impact of increased development on water usage.
Want to offer more support? Awesome!
Here are a few of my concerns after attending the March 4th meeting, just for the purposes of ongoing public opposition, especially at the state level.
1. They are asking us to plan to eject people from their homes, many of which would not be able to be relocated in our community based on drastic changes in the housing market since they moved here. We would essentially be driving people from our community, forcing them to leave their friends and families, maybe even their jobs to find other homes, likely nowhere near here. Some could even end up homeless (do not believe that their displacement mitigation plans would make these people whole. They definitely would not). Just to increase ridership on local bus routes? Absolutely immoral!
2. Note that councilor Samson speculated (based on her expertise) that there may be very little to no consequences of ignoring the legislation given that the affordable housing grants the state threatens to withhold may be minimal anyway based on a number of factors, not the least of which is impending budget cuts from the state and federal levels. It may not cost us much of anything, and as has been pointed out by many residents, whatever the cost would be it would pale in comparison to the astronomical costs to our city if we did comply.
3. They mentioned potential litigation as one of the risks, but it’s my understanding that the litigation threats in the original bill (along with the threat of withholding highway funding) were removed before it went to the floor as part of a compromise in response to significant opposition to the bill. I need to go back and reread the law that actually passed, but I don’t believe the state can sue cities who don’t comply.
4. I was a little concerned about councilor Fridland’s remarks about how we have plenty of time to see what we can do politically to work with the state on this. It sounds like he’s ready to go along with a fair amount of this legislation as a compromise, and even going through with part of it would be very detrimental to our city and its residents. I want them to fight to have the law overturned, both so that we can put this high density development issue to rest and to establish our Home Rule Authority as sacrosanct. I’m worried about how many of them danced around this issue, not sounding certain what the right thing to do might be. I appreciate reasoning through a logical response, but the right thing here seems pretty obvious to me, and after having watched the state in action pushing this bill through despite massive opposition, I can tell all involved that trying to get them to see reason is going to be like bringing a knife to a gun fight. These people literally do not care what this legislation might do to us. They are hell bent on this whole idea. We are going to have to do some roughing people up and knocking people down to get out of this alive (figuratively speaking of course, lol). That is the reality based on my recent experience trying to fight this thing. I’m not at all confident that city leadership knows what they are in for.
5. They’re including development based not only on existing transit, but on transit that is currently only being hoped for and/or thought about. This means they are mandating we put permanent scars on our community based on things that may never even happen.
Please contact Kyle Brown and also Governor Polis. Tell them exactly why this dictatorial legislation should be overturned. Tell Polis and Brown that they are trying to do the exact same thing to these small Colorado communities that President Trump is trying to do to bully the states, and they don’t like Trump’s dictatorial intrusion on Colorado any better than we like theirs on us. It is NO different. Beating down our home rule authority and doing irreparable damage to our communities in a massive overreach. Call AND write, and be prepared to do it again when we get a replacement for Jaquez Lewis.
Karen, FYI, I just wrote to Representative Kyle Brown. He really hepled out the people impacted by the Marshall Fire when he was on Louisville City Council. I know he has deep concern for his constituents. Hopefully, he can persuade his colleagues in the State Legislature to repeal this bill.