MOSCOW CITY COUNCIL HOUSING WORKSHOP -- 2026-05-26
======================================================================

[0:00] Speaker 1:
  Welcome everybody to our second Council Workshop of the year. This is one out of four, maybe five to come through 2026. For those that aren't familiar with this process, it's a tool that we have to discuss items that don't call for a vote or anything of that nature, just to discuss topics that we feel are pertinent to the community.
  So today's topic is on housing in general. A couple items I'd like to address going into this is, this is a workshop between Council, so we appreciate members of the public that are here with us, but we're not here to engage with them, that's not what this is for, simply to listen to how we deliberate about certain issues and the topic this evening.
  So with that, I'm going to turn time over to our staff.
  I'm Bill Belman.
  I'm going to turn it over to Matt and Nicole to present, and then we'll have a discussion to talk about that, and we'll go to that point.
  That's Scott smiling, because I, this is hot.
  So I want to provide, so as Drew mentioned, this is a Council Workshop.
  I thought it'd be helpful to start a conversation with some background on housing.
  So I've got a presentation that's going to take probably about 40 minutes to get through, so I'm going to run through it as quickly as I can.
  And then kind of hand over the conversation to the Council.
  I thought it'd be helpful to have some kind of background information to kind of start the conversation, because housing is a really broad, all-encompassing topic.
  And I'm just going to be touching on the surface on some of it, but if you wanted to give the Council some of that background.
  So as has sort of been noted, this is a workshop.
  They are informal meetings.
  They're not being for the Council to get together and talk about a particular topic.
  There are no actions to be taken during a workshop.
  So it is, again, there's that opportunity for us to have that conversation.
  And generally, there really isn't public participation in that workshop.
  So today I'm going to cover a few things.
  The topic certainly is housing, but we want to provide some background on that topic.
  So we're going to talk a little bit about housing market overview, recent housing studies that have been conducted within Moscow and the region,
  affordable housing programs and providers that exist, some of the city's history of our efforts towards affordable housing,
  and then an overview of housing affairs.
  And then just kind of recap of recent legislative changes related to housing.
  There were a number of bills introduced in this last section related to housing because it is a statewide challenge, a statewide issue.
  And the legislature was trying to do something to try to help address housing affordability and availability in the state.
  So there were a number of bills that were introduced related to housing, three that passed, three that did not.
  But we'll talk about those and some of the implications of that recent legislation.
  And then at that point, we'll turn it over to the Council for discussion and conversation.
  Thank you.
  So obviously housing is responsive to and housing availability is related to population growth.
  For the most part, the city's population growth has been just about under 1%, slightly over 1% for the last 50 or 60 years.
  The most recent estimate for 2025 was 26,721, kind of falling maybe just slightly behind the projection in the city's comp plan of what we anticipated population to be.
  By 2030, but really pretty consistent with their historical population trends.
  I would say for those who have been here a long time, Moscow does have a history of having a pretty tight housing market.
  I mean, as somebody who graduated from high school in 1990, people would line up outside of Ottawa Hill's office.
  If you're trying to get the paper, you'd be hoping to get it right at 3 o'clock when the paper got dropped.
  You'd hope you were the first person to call to get access to an apartment because housing was very, very tight and has historically been tight in Moscow.
  I think it's kind of a combination of factors of a valuable farmland that surrounds the community that's been held generally by a few larger landowners.
  We have kind of a limited market absorption, so it kind of impacts the economies of scale.
  So you don't get large housing production because we only permit 30 to 40 homes per year.
  So it's hard to get those larger economies of scale for housing development to work.
  We're a university town.
  That has a significant impact on the mix-up.
  You have a mix-up of housing types that we have.
  You have multi-family developers that are closely watching university enrollment and how the cycle may impact whether they're going to build it, whether they think they should be building more housing coming forward.
  And then you also have competition from students.
  And so you have both roommates as well as parents.
  And so I think you have non-students, you know, people who are not students looking for housing that are competing against some of the buying power that students have when they come in force together as roommates or with funding coming from parents.
  So that also creates some competition and drives some of those prices.
  Those forces, historically, the city's had very low vacancy rates.
  I don't know that we've had anything, you know, above 2% in recent history, to my knowledge.
  It generally runs much tighter than that.
  And so that, you know, in turn, with limited supply and a lot of demand, drives costs fairly high.
  And the same has typically been higher than the historical wage growth.
  We also have the impacts of the Great Recession.
  So that had a significant impact.
  It had a significant impact on single-family housing development.
  I'll show you a couple slides on housing starts and see the impact of that.
  And then also the recent interest rates hikes have had a significant impact on the stagnation of the housing market and the somewhat stagnation of the labor market.
  As people don't want to surrender their 3% mortgage to get into a 6.5% or 7% mortgage to make that move.
  And I think that has also stagnated movement in the housing market where people maybe would be looking to trade up and creating that opportunity at that lower price point
  are kind of holding steady because of those rates.
  If they can.
  And you can kind of see that, you know, historical mortgage rates and a lot of people have a short-term memory and think, you know, 3% is something that we should expect in the future.
  Going back from 75 to 2025, you can see that period of those relatively very low interest rates right around that time period of 2020 into 2023.
  But we're kind of back up to more historical norms of interest rates, about that 6 to 7 right now.
  The housing mix in Moscow.
  As I mentioned, it's strongly influenced by the university community.
  Actually, more than half of our housing units in town are multifamily.
  So we have about 10,000, just under 11,000 total housing units in the housing stock.
  About 560-ish of those are mobile manufactured homes.
  We've got about 5,300 that are multifamily dwellings and about just under 5,000 that are single-family dwellings.
  So a large mix, a very heavy concentration of multifamily dwellings in the community.
  Looking at our housing starts.
  This is from 1972 to 2025 for single-family dwellings.
  You can kind of see that there really we had kind of two periods of production,
  72 to about that 2002 range.
  We had a pretty positive upward direction in single-family housing construction.
  And then we kind of fell off the cliff there in 2009 with the Great Recession, dropping down to 20 housing units permitted.
  And we've just been slowly climbing back up.
  And just in the last year or two, we've reached kind of our historical average,
  which has been that low to mid 50 homes per year.
  Highest production in this time period is 1977.
  We were at 83 homes permitted for construction during that same year.
  Because there was a housing boom across the nation in 1977,
  as a lot of the baby boomers tripped into the 30-year-old home buying demographic.
  And we had also 277 multi-family units permitted in that one year.
  But our pattern was not different than what happened in the nation with the recession.
  So single-family housing starts for the U.S. saw that same precipitous drop off from 2009 into 2010.
  So very similar pattern to the nation and then slowly rebuilding there.
  So what's happening here is just reflected what's really happened in the national economy and national housing starts.
  For our multi-family, it tends to be noisier because of kind of larger package projects.
  And so you can see our production varies dramatically.
  Again, 1977, we had the highest of 277 units permitted.
  That one year.
  So we had about 355 housing units permitted in 1977 when this town was about 16,000 population.
  So almost half.
  So that would have been a very active, very busy year in the construction industry here.
  You'll see variations and some peaks.
  But there was a period of time between 2000 and around that 2010 when the university was in the growth phase.
  And there was a lot of interest in developing off-campus student housing.
  The university actually housed them.
  We had a meeting here with the university leadership and housing developers saying that there was this need.
  And that is probably when we saw West A kind of develop in multi-family during that time period.
  And then it tends to kind of slow down at a few large projects that popped in there.
  But since 2019, multi-county has been relatively low.
  But has been since 2022 kind of climbing upward steadily.
  Again, single-family just a little bit closer from 2020 to 2025.
  Again, just showing that large drop.
  From 2006 down to 79 units.
  Down to 20 units in 2009.
  And then that kind of slow pace of growing starts from there.
  Multi-family again, same time period.
  Looking at that little bit reduced reduction from 2019 through 2022.
  And then picking up here in 2023 and beyond.
  But really if you look at our total housing units permitted from 2000 to 2025.
  You can see kind of an overall downward trend over that time period.
  And then just recently here beginning in 2022.
  You see that trend kind of picking upward as we head forward.
  So there's been just an overall decline in housing production.
  Both in single-family and multi-family.
  That I think has also had obviously to the scarcity in housing in the community.
  A summary just found on a website from Austin Realty.
  The end of 2025.
  Showed average home value is about 467.
  Reflecting a 2.4% increase over the year.
  A median sales price.
  Was at 456.
  Up about 4.9% compared to last year.
  Days on market were a little bit longer.
  They were trending at 64.
  Rather than sort of 33 from the prior year.
  I think that's kind of continued.
  There's been I think relatively low inventory.
  So you have more information on this than I would.
  But I think it's been.
  The market definitely has cooled.
  And I think it's reflecting the interest rates.
  That are having a large impact on that right now.
  On the rental side.
  It reported the average rent was about 1400.
  Which was below that national average.
  About $1,988 a month.
  From Redfin.
  Just kind of looking at home prices.
  Median sales price from 2022 to 26.
  It has looked like it's been relatively flat over the time period.
  Kind of bouncing between that four to 500.
  For the median sales price.
  But not really growing dramatically.
  Over that time period.
  But obviously housing prices is.
  Household income is a large component.
  Of how affordable housing is.
  So the dashed line on this map.
  Shows the estimated median household income.
  For Lakeside County.
  And then the blue line shows the home price index.
  For Lakeside County.
  And they move kind of in concert.
  Really early from 1998.
  Until you get to about 2016.
  At that point.
  Wage growth actually started to kind of increase.
  Which is a good thing.
  Beyond.
  So about this point here.
  2018 or 16 starts to pull away.
  Wage growth is kind of going faster than.
  The home price index.
  But you see a crossing point here in about 2022.
  Where home price index is growing more rapidly.
  Than median household incomes.
  So I know affordable housing is really one of the primary topics.
  I think it's always good to have a conversation about what is affordable housing.
  Because that means a lot of things to a lot of different people.
  Affordability is generally where.
  Housing costs and utility costs don't exceed.
  More than 30% of the household gross income.
  This is the more kind of the universal.
  Affordability standard.
  It can take a number of forms.
  It can be rental housing.
  It could be home ownership opportunities.
  And there are people that work in both.
  Aspects of affordable housing in the community.
  But it does involve both of those.
  Elements.
  Generally.
  Rental housing provides the opportunity to meet the lowest income.
  Household needs.
  So generally targeted for those in the community.
  That's under 80% of the area.
  Median household income.
  Where.
  Affordable home ownership.
  Programs tend to target those households.
  That may be between that 80%.
  120% of the area.
  Median household income.
  And that AMI number.
  Does vary based on household size.
  So there's a chart that kind of shows based on.
  30% to 80% of AMI.
  And the household size.
  Going from one person to eight persons in that household.
  Kind of showing what are.
  The definition of the annual median income.
  For those different family sizes.
  At those different income levels.
  There have been.
  At least two recent studies.
  Completed regarding housing.
  So the partnership.
  Sponsored a housing study.
  In 2019.
  Regional housing assessment.
  Some conclusions from that.
  Study.
  More that many households.
  In the region.
  More than that 30%.
  Towards their housing cost.
  They estimated about 37%.
  And that affected households.
  Other than just students.
  It is always something in our community.
  Because of being a college town.
  It's hard to parse out.
  Between what impact students have.
  On the demographic numbers.
  Versus other individuals.
  In lower income households.
  But the study did identify.
  That certainly this is not just.
  An issue of what we can just say.
  Students writing the numbers down.
  It's not just about the number.
  There was a significant increase.
  That they assessed.
  Of occupied dwellings.
  Number of adults that are renting housing.
  Had increased six fold.
  The number of adults that own homes.
  So just a general trend.
  Of more adults renting.
  Than they were purchasing homes.
  And that multi-family construction.
  While that had increased.
  Single family had dropped significantly.
  We saw the trend that happened.
  And the recommendations of that study.
  And the recommendation to form.
  A housing leadership team.
  To look at some of these items.
  That came out of that study.
  CEDA also conducted.
  A more central Idaho housing assessment.
  In 2022.
  And looked at their service area.
  And housing issues.
  And affordability issues.
  This chart shows the ratio.
  Of the median home value.
  To median household income.
  The highest there within the area.
  We were right there at second.
  Where housing was the 5.7 times.
  The median household income.
  In that area.
  For the region as a whole.
  In the CEDA district.
  That averaged 5.3.
  So we were slightly above that number.
  That kind of shows.
  And then compared to the nation.
  U.S. reports it at 3.6.
  So certainly substantially higher.
  Than that national average.
  Or the state average.
  They also looked at median gross rent.
  They thought county was.
  Almost the highest.
  I guess the highest in their service area.
  29.8%.
  Again that was about.
  Matched higher than the state by.
  About a percent and a half.
  And then matched really the U.S.
  Average for median gross rent.
  As percent household income.
  And not surprisingly.
  That cost burden really affects those.
  That are in that extremely low income category.
  So those that are there.
  At the lowest end of that spectrum.
  There are a number of.
  Portable housing programs.
  So the federal government operates.
  A number of different programs.
  The one that we see most commonly in town.
  Is the low income housing tax credit program.
  Created by the 1986 tax reform act.
  It provides an incentive for developers.
  To provide affordable housing.
  Essentially provides tax credits.
  That developers can sell.
  That effectively subsidize about 70%.
  Of the new construction costs.
  For new projects.
  And about 30% for a rehab project.
  It's one of the only few tools.
  To provide housing and rents.
  Based on that household income.
  And so if you're looking for a project.
  That can serve the lowest of the income bands.
  It tends to provide the best opportunity.
  To serve that need.
  And so generally.
  There are three potential affordability.
  Obligations of those developments.
  That can be 20% of units.
  Are reserved for 50%.
  And below PMI households.
  Or 40% of units are reserved for 60%.
  Or below PMI households.
  Or they can have a 40%.
  Reserved for a mix.
  Of anywhere from 20% to 80% PMI.
  Essentially at 10% increments.
  And those projects come along.
  Generally with a 30 year performance period.
  That has to be.
  Those rents have to be retained.
  At that affordable level for 30 years.
  I believe they get reassessed at 15 years.
  So we have a number of projects.
  We have about 255 units.
  In tax credit housing.
  So we've got Creekside.
  Creekside Senior.
  And Independence Hill.
  We also have others.
  That have some income based rents.
  Including the Eatmore apartments.
  And the Hawthorn Village.
  There's also federal rental.
  Assistance programs.
  The housing choice vouchers.
  Is one of the largest programs.
  Historically referred to as section 8 vouchers.
  Where participants generally pay.
  Up to 30% of their adjusted monthly income.
  For rents and utilities.
  And then the state.
  Or the Idaho state.
  The Idaho public housing authority.
  Then pays a remainder to the landlord.
  Using HUD funding.
  This program generally where there is high demand.
  Often there are interest parties.
  That are wait listed.
  And not all property owners.
  Are willing to accept housing choice vouchers.
  And it's not a requirement in Idaho.
  There specifically was a bill passed.
  In 2024.
  In the Idaho legislature.
  That would prohibit cities from regulating rents.
  Which rent control had been prohibited in the city.
  Or in the state.
  For a long period of time.
  I think it was Boise.
  That was looking at trying to control.
  Application fees and deposits.
  And so that bill passed in 2024.
  Prohibits cities from regulating rents.
  Fees and deposits.
  Or requiring property owners.
  To participate in any federal assistance.
  Rental assistance programs.
  That is a limitation that is in existence.
  Within district region 2.
  This is kind of the mix of.
  Affordable units by program.
  So about 56% of the units that are available.
  Are in the tax credit program.
  That is originated from.
  The other 42% are in HUD subsidized.
  Section 8 housing.
  And then you have 2% from the home program.
  There are some proposed amendments.
  To the HUD budget.
  Coming up for FY27.
  So the budget as the agency has presented it.
  Includes about a 13% reduction.
  In total funding.
  So it's about 10.7 billion.
  Compared to FY26.
  About 285 million.
  Which is a slight reduction.
  In rental assistance.
  And public housing programs.
  About 0.4% reduction.
  It does include some provisions.
  More stringent provisions.
  Related to work requirements.
  For those receiving rental assistance.
  And then I think there's maybe a five year limit.
  For duration of those benefits.
  Can be received.
  There are some prohibitions.
  Of varying public agency.
  Housing agency commissioning.
  Any new vouchers.
  There's a $922 million.
  Reduction in homeless assistance programs.
  And it also includes the proposal.
  To eliminate the Community Development Block Grant.
  And the home programs.
  In their entirety.
  I think there will be certainly some.
  Conversations in Congress about that.
  Those tend to be somewhat.
  Popular programs.
  In districts.
  We pursue block grants often.
  We've used them to purchase fire trucks.
  To install bathrooms in parks.
  So for us.
  Because we're a non-entitlement community.
  We have to apply for competitive grants.
  To the Department of Commerce.
  That administers the block grant funds.
  For the non-entitlement communities.
  Entitlement communities are cities.
  Over 50,000 population.
  That get a direct allocation of funding.
  From HUD.
  And then they can choose.
  How to use their block grant funds.
  I think city of Boise's allocation.
  Is about 1.4 million per year.
  Block grant funds.
  Is about 100,000 per year.
  In direct funding.
  But since we are under 50,000 population.
  And not MSA.
  We don't meet that requirement.
  There are a number of other.
  Entities and organizations.
  Involved in providing affordable housing.
  In the community.
  So you obviously have Habitat for Humanity.
  That's really focused on that home ownership opportunity.
  And they also do ADA.
  For people in need of access.
  To their existing home.
  So they can age in place.
  To support their home.
  A community land trust.
  The federal housing commission.
  In 2009.
  As I recall.
  If I can correct me.
  They had two rehab projects.
  And eight new builds.
  And they recently rebranded.
  To expand their service area.
  To include Woodman County.
  So predominantly they're a laid-out county base, and they just recently expanded and changed their name to be able to expand their service area.
  There are also transitional housing providers programs.
  So Sojourners Alliance provides transitional housing, homeless prevention aid, and rapid rehousing funding.
  And then Family Promise of the Palouse also provides homeless prevention and rotating emergency shelter and resource delivery to try to help people
  and keep them housed.
  Fair and Affordable Housing Commission, it was originally created back in 1976 as the Fair Housing Commission.
  That was shortly after
  the Fair Housing laws were adopted and a lot of the enforcement and
  investigation responsibilities were pushed down to the local entities, local cities, and those who received any type of HUD funding.
  The Commission's charge was modified in 1999 to add the affordable component for the Commission to review.
  In that
  1999 to 2004 time period, the Commission remained kind of focused on that fair housing charge.
  They were working on what was called the Announcements of Impediments to Fair Housing, which was an obligation.
  It really was an obligation to the entitlement communities,
  but we always like to go above and beyond, and so we were going to conduct and complete our own Announcements of Impediments study.
  And so that was kind of the focus of the Commission over that time period.
  Beginning in about that 2005-2006, the Commission started turning its attention towards housing affordability.
  In
  2006,
  the Commission hosted a
  affordable housing resource fair event, and a lot of the effort was trying to test the waters in the public opinion on the community land trust.
  That had been something that the Commission had discussed as a potential tool toward
  developing home ownership opportunities that had perpetual affordability because of the land trust model that I'll talk about here briefly, and
  a lot of the outreach to the public was really trying to explore whether that was something that would deter them from an interest in the home.
  They didn't own the underlying land, but just owned the improvement upon it, and so that was part of that outreach in 2006.
  In 2007, we continued to work on that effort, focusing on that land trust model and
  to touch briefly on community land trust, for anybody who's not familiar,
  it is a
  generally affordable home ownership. It requires a subsidy of some type and
  that subsidy can be retained in the property or they can be recaptured at the sale, so
  it could be that there's a repayment of the subsidy that was provided to that individual
  when they bought the home the home just goes to open market rates and then essentially they have
  a repayment the subsidies recaptured and can be redeployed in some way the challenge with that
  is that subsidy the buying power of the subsidy tends to get diminished over time with just
  inflation subsidy retention tends to be the preferred method where it stays in the home
  and either the home is tied to a resale value in the future that's tied to a lower inflationary
  index or you can take some component of the cost of the housing kind of out of that equation which
  is what the land trust model does the land trust model creates that permanent affordability by
  owning the land and only selling the improvement the home and then essentially the owner provided
  a long-term ground lease the trust retains there's a resale formula when that home is sold in the
  future so it can all be sold to again a qualifying lower income household and
  only at a certain amount and then with the the value of land not being included in that
  transaction that helps keep that as an affordable affordable home in 2008 commission presented an
  affordable housing program proposal to the council and in august of 2008 the council approved
  the that fy 09 budget with 40 000 in funding for affordable housing with specific plans to
  be developed those plans were presented to the council in december of 2000
  2008 and there was 15 000 dedicated to working with community frameworks which was a housing
  non-profit out of spokane to assist with setting up a the land trust as a 501c3 as a community
  housing development organization would allow it to receive operating funds from the state through
  the home program the trust filed articles of corporation and as a 501c3 in august 2009 about
  half of the then moscow
  housing commission board by commission moved and became the founding board of the moscow
  affordable housing trust and was officially recognized in 2010 as a 501c3 and in other
  programs in 2021 the city established an affordable ownership grant program
  by resolution it provided up to 10 000 per housing unit that was temporarily increased to 20 000 while
  we had some ARPA funds for perpetual affordable housing construction i think we issued six
  grants into that program one one was at the enhanced arbor rate of twenty thousand i think
  we had five others at the ten thousand dollar amount uh to support the construction of six
  affordable housing units those were all homes constructed by the at that time moscow housing
  trust and that program has not been funded over the last two years due to lack of financial
  resources on the city side
  one of the city's primary roles related to housing is regulatory so we regulate land use
  development and construction standards during the housing economic pressures late 2000s we did
  we did what we could to look at different zoning and development regulations to promote
  more affordable housing developments those included amending our planning and development
  code to add bonus densities for the inclusion of affordable housing in 2008
  we were also considered NOT single village owners in 2010 one of the
  features of the housing crunch kind of leading up to the great
  recession was we were seeing the condoization of a lot of duplexes um and when financing got
  difficult during the recession you know condo financing got a little bit difficult so we were
  trying to provide a tool for people to to use conventional financing where they could have a
  twin home which is effectively a duplex with the you know to our firewall between the two and they
  could divide a lot and actually own the property own land underneath them rather than holding the
  lot in a common ownership as common area for the condo so we amended our code in 2010 to
  allow twin homes and townhouses to provide more opportunities for housing developments
  we also you know there was a shift to a lot of smaller lot sizes and new subdivisions so we
  went through in 2011 we modified our building heights and reduced side setbacks to create
  more development opportunity on these smaller lots we also did amendment in 2014 to allow
  residential uses in commercial zones so primarily in most all of our commercial zones residential
  uses are allowed by right above or behind a commercial use and then a lot of them require
  a condition permit if you want to have residential uses on the ground for a primary frontage of that
  commercially zone property so we made that amendments and then 2015 we amended the city
  code to allow accessory dwelling units and
  then we identified that amendment in 2015 required a lot to meet the minimum lot size and we had a lot
  of what we considered non-performing lots of record that were in the older parts of town that
  were you know alleys or probably good candidates for eu construction but they didn't meet the
  minimum lot sizes that existed today so we amended the code in 2019 to remove that minimum lot size
  requirement for the allowance of accessory dwelling units and then there's also kind of an
  odd provision in our code to remove the minimum lot size requirement for the allowance of accessory dwelling units and then there's also kind of an odd provision in our code to
  remove the minimum lot size requirement for the allowance of accessory dwelling units and then there's also kind of an odd provision in our code to
  if covered parking that required the ability for parking to be covered
  so that created another kind of impediment to affordable housing so we
  amended the code in 2019 to remove that requirement of the r1 the r2 zoning
  district um so that kind of fast forward to the
  spring of 2024 um county began conversations about the
  establishment of a housing authority uh and
  i think we had the county came and visited the council on may 20th of that
  year providing a presentation on the proposed length of county housing
  authority the council expressed its support um for
  the county's efforts and the county's proposal in the spring
  of 2025 it appeared that focus was kind of shifting away from the county
  establishing housing authority and cities and counties can both establish
  housing authorities that creates the jurisdiction within which the housing
  authority will operate but both sections of state law related
  to housing authorities for cities and counties are virtually identical so we
  both have the same authority
  um but the focus kind of shifted to the city uh in may of 25 council vice
  president council vice president similar to the advocates that were really
  pushing for the housing authority expressing concerns
  of how it functioned and primarily how it would be financed and staffed
  because the city as i mentioned was struggling
  somewhat financially and certainly on the staff side and
  didn't feel that we had the capabilities to
  launch an organization like that at that time in 2023 it kind of followed a
  lawsuit down a little bit but we were able to get a lot of funding from the
  city council so we're looking at a closer look at some of our allocation
  models i mean we lost 10 about almost two million dollars from your general
  fund operations in 2023 moving forward we still have eight positions that
  vacant that we could not be able to fill that includes three police officer
  positions so we are incurring substantial overtime expenses
  especially with the closure of lakeside county jail so that has put a lot of
  financial stress on the city in september
  24th to 25 the fair and formal house commission said later to the city council urging the city council was urging the city council to say that the city council was
  the city council to pursue the establishment of the housing authority
  and the council leadership which we met at the beginning of 2026
  wanted us to start the conversation so that's really the workshop today
  so a little bit of overview on housing authority what is a housing authority
  it is a independent public body essentially it operates as a municipal
  corporation it has a lot of the same obligations and roles
  has a lot of the same powers as a municipal corporation in the state of
  idaho members of the housing authority board
  are appointed by the empowering governing body to a five-year term so if it was a
  county you'd be the county commissioners it was the city housing authority via
  appointment by the mayor confirmed by the council so i think i mean a good
  analogy for us would be the urban real agency is a very similar entity also
  operates as a municipal corporation has a lot of similar powers and efforts has a
  lot of the same legal obligations and duties
  but and it becomes kind of a component unit of the city
  uh they're legal public corporations empowered to conduct housing
  projects um and i will kind of review those include demolition and clearing
  moving buildings slum areas such work to undertaking the embrace
  adoption such areas public purposes parks and recreational community
  purposes provide decent safe and sanitary urban
  and rural dwellings apartments and other living accommodations for persons
  of low income again such work should include may
  include buildings land equipment facilities and other real personal
  property for necessary community or cycle or purposes
  and to accomplish you know to accomplish accountants
  of the foregoing what are the powers of the housing
  authority well they have the ability to sue and be
  sued as a legal entity they can execute contracts and instruments they can make
  and amend bylaws rules and regulations they can repair carry out required
  leases and operate housing projects they can provide for the construction
  reconstruction improvement alteration repair of any housing project or required
  thereof they can let contracts or services works or facilities in
  association with the housing project they can lease or rent any dwellings
  houses accommodations lands building structures facilities
  and housing project they can hold and improve real or personal property they
  can acquire purchase lease sell exchange any real personal property
  they can acquire property through the exercise of authority of eminent domain
  they can acquire insurance or guarantees from federal government
  incurred debt issue bonds they can invest any funds held in
  reserve they can investigate living dwelling housing conditions
  they can hear testimony take proof at public or private
  hearings or any matter of material to this information
  and they can make purchase participate invest in and take assignments or
  otherwise acquire loans to persons low income to allow them or the
  authority to apart construct reconstruct rehabilitate improve lease or refinance
  their dwellings our housing housing authority is
  created so the governing body whether that was a city or a county has to adopt
  a resolution declaring that there's a need for a housing authority in the city
  or county if it shall find that unsanitary or unsafe inhabited dwelling
  accommodations exist in such city or that there's a shortage of safe or
  sanitary dwelling accommodations in such city available to persons of low
  income or rentals they can afford
  housing authorities may be terminated by the city council or by the county
  commissioners if it was a county authority at any time the council
  declares there's no longer a need for a housing authority to function within the
  city and much like for rental agencies
  housing authorities are required to comply with all legal obligations of
  public entities open meetings public records respond to requests
  maintain and retain public records in accordance with public record laws file
  meetings of all minutes with the city clerk
  approve annual budgets maintain financial records of all financial
  activity conduct annual financial audits
  file annual financial reports with the
  authorizing body
  file annual reports with the governing
  body of its activities for the
  preceding year
  and if created they would become a
  component unit of whatever the governing
  authority is whether it's a county or a
  city
  okay
  i'm gonna take a breather i'm almost
  done
  and then i'll go uh so just so now we
  kind of shift to
  uh the most recent legislative session
  and the bills that were passed so the
  first one
  we'll talk about is house bill 800 that
  addressed manufactured homes
  so for a long time cities and counties
  have been required to allow
  manufactured homes in all areas where
  single-family villas are
  permitted there were requirements for
  them to be at least a thousand square
  feet to be multi-sectional to be on a
  permanent foundation to be
  have a minimum 312 pitch proof and to
  have materials that are consistent with
  um what you consider more sick built
  construction so that was modified this
  year to increase the allowance of
  manufactured homes for multi-family
  buildings so that's something that we
  we have not seen here
  it eliminates the requirement that
  multi that manufactured homes have to
  be multi-sectional to be allowed in all
  residential zones
  so it reduced the minimum size of the
  manufactured home from the
  1 000 square feet to 400 square feet
  and then 800 square feet as a
  multi-sectional home
  all the other requirements the prior
  requirements of the permit foundation the
  roof pitch the materials the
  materials all are retained but it
  really just reduced that does not have
  to be multi-sectional it can be
  single-sectional can be down to
  forest working size
  house bill 583 is housing adjacent
  it's more of an issue for communities
  that have more short-term rental use
  correlating standpoint some more of the
  resort communities
  but there was a bill that modified
  short-term rentals
  essentially requires all jurisdictions
  to treat them no different than a
  single-family dwelling and has kind of a
  long list of what we cannot do
  so we cannot require owner occupancy
  for any time cannot require professional
  property management cannot require
  additional insurance can require
  reporting or use of other statistics
  cannot require additional life safety
  or fire swingers cannot require
  improved means of ingress or additional
  parking or modifications of vehicle
  structure or inspections or internal
  external signage or
  limit on the days that can be rented or
  notices to neighboring properties or
  any increase to or other utility uh
  capacity
  fees
  or requiring issues from it so
  there'll be a few code updates we have
  not been we don't heavily regulate
  um short-term rentals
  under city code we don't we don't
  regulate the duration of a rental of a
  unit so whether it's a month a six
  month lease a year lease or by the day
  we don't regulate it we do define a
  couple terms there's a bed and breakfast
  ends kind of an old
  term that we do regulate that we do
  require cp so we'll have to then go
  through that requirement
  um so there'll be some work for pnc to
  do to
  modify that data i am going to chime in
  here on this one specifically this bill
  was not the draft language that the
  airbnb
  lobbyist proposed this is a much more
  restrictive bill that was passed the
  airbnb
  carried bill was not this number did get
  shot down and i want to clarify
  the realtors association was in full
  support of this as was
  airbnb despite having a less
  restrictive one on the table for the
  as well thanks bill um you know those cities that have more um restrictions on short-term rentals
  certainly have more of an impact than we will uh the other bill is senate bill 1354 regarding
  accessory dwelling units it prohibits the prohibition of adus in any residential zone
  area again not a huge issue for us we already allow them all residential properties um it does
  require the allowance of one internal or one detached adu per log that i mean we only require
  or only allow one per lot um it does have a prohibition requiring any additional off-street
  parking or guest parking for these accessory dwelling units unless the principal dwelling
  unit does not have off-street parking or the street is not paved and designed or constructed
  for on-street parking or unless the principal dwelling is within one quarter mile of transit
  employment area or commercial services we do require one additional parking space so we'll
  have to amend the code to address this and then it also prohibits imposing impact these utility
  connection fees on accessory dwelling units
  that are greater than those impact imposed on other single-family dwellings
  prohibits limit on size the accessory dwelling unit to less than 1 000 square feet or 75 percent
  of the size of the primary dwelling so that will impact us our site limitation is 600 square feet
  or 60 percent of the size of the primary going so it'll be so slight an ms will have to make to
  reflect that it also prohibits any owner occupancy requirements we do have an owner occupancy
  requirement the owner has to either reside in the principal home or the accessory dwelling unit so
  that will have to be removed from the code it also prohibits imposing any limit on building height
  that's less than the height of an existing single family primary dwelling on the lot
  so that would be kind of interesting because we do have height limitations for structures that are
  like located within the rear yard area and so we'll have to look at how that will impact our
  standards for that as well um and it prohibits uh restrictions for any restrictive than the single
  family dwelling unit in the same zoning district where any setback slot size coverage or building
  frontage are all pretty typical to the principal uh destruction uh the other bill senate bill 1352
  is a starter home subdivision um so this one's going to take a little bit more work to try to
  get what we need to do to comply um so by but we have some time so by february 1st of 2027
  each city each city's governing board shall amend its companies of planning and land circulations
  to allow starter homes of divisions and land circulations to allow starter homes of divisions
  to allow starter homes of divisions and residential in residential zoning districts
  a starter home subdivision is defined as a residential subdivision on at least four acres
  of land that is designed to provide attainable home ownership opportunities with single family
  detached dwellings on smaller lots that are no greater than one one thousand five hundred square
  feet per lot have compact home sizes and have efficient site design reduced development costs
  when we take out of the surrounding neighborhoods and to clarify attainable none of these phrases
  are um clearly defined in the bill as written so there's there's pieces of it that have been
  defined the long runways appreciated because there's a lot of caps in terms of what that
  is asking for versus what implementation will look like so we've had projects like this um but
  they've been done through the plan unit development process so we you think about tempo um was tempo
  commons on white avenue and then we had green sides where i mean they were plotting lots
  um that the lot line was two and a half feet or five feet from the building wall so relatively
  very very small lots uh with more common area for circulation and drive so it'd be this would be
  kind of the temple commons concept would be probably pretty consistent with i think what's
  envisioned as part of the for the starter home subdivisions um so we have to amend
  three acres three acres yeah so that was all crystal again on off white avenue we've had a
  really compact pvds where we have very small lots i think um i mean i live in one canada court was
  one that was done that's five feet from the building wall um so we have some very small
  locks it's not i mean we've had i don't know we've had a small 15 and they may be 1600 feet
  size so it's pretty pretty similar uh in style but uh so by that time we have to amend our codes to
  prohibit requirement of loss sizes exceeding 1500 square feet in size for lots located in starter
  we'll have to make a special special classification for what those are
  um unless there are infrastructure limitations so the bill does provide you the ability to say hey
  this is an area where you know we don't have sewer capacity we don't have the ability to provide
  enough water for that dense of housing that you would have defense against denying uh development
  because of those infrastructure limitations where it's unfeasible um sorry they would still if they
  have sewer water they would be required to make those improvements offset improvements right to
  accommodate their subdivisions
  generally unless there are some other system limitations so yeah our position typically would
  be if you have to upsize us to remain downstream in order to provide that capacity that is your
  burden that you would have to do um if there was some other limitation that couldn't be corrected
  then essentially you could say no we can't we can't service that level of density in that
  location and i think you would have a defense of denying it because of that case but you'd have to
  clearly articulate what were those limitations um you're also are behaving required front rear setback
  exceeding 15 feet or side setbacks and exceeding five feet for the primary residential structure on
  a lot um you can all but you can have some larger perimeter setbacks to abutting zoning districts
  um there's premise requiring a lot of widths exceeding 30 feet in width and lot depths
  exceeding 70 feet um and preventing imposing permit fees though impact fees or utility
  connection fees for starter homes that exceed those who close right at the secret kind of home
  so a local government may provide incentives builders through fee reductions or waivers for
  compliance with smaller lawn setback options so there's it's not obligatory it's not a requirement
  it's just saying that we certainly could uh in the city to make an issue or deny approval of
  a starter home subdivision where the city determines that existing or planned hip structures
  and sports subdivision to the same extent under the same standards the city applies
  um so there were a couple there were three other bills that uh of interest to housing that were not
  passed this session, so there were two bills, Senate bill 1280, I think it was, and 1353.
  It was titled the Twin Homes slash Duplex bill that required the allowance of twin homes
  and duplexes in all residential zoning districts.
  I, you know, philosophically, so any, you know, we do have R1, R2, or specifically single
  family only.
  On a philosophical level, I don't think we really have that much of a concern to allow
  twin homes, which we consider to be single family homes anyhow, or duplexes within those
  zones.
  The one area of concern to us was it also included a limitation of no more than one
  parking space per unit.
  And again, if it's, if you're establishing that standard for a duplex or a twin home
  per half, that would end up having to be your standard for any residential use.
  And we are a college town.
  We do have six or eight bedroom duplexes for both, eight bedroom per side per post.
  And so one parking space, that would be very challenging for us.
  So that would, that would have been our primary area of concern with this bill.
  Is that limitation on parking, like philosophically allowing two family, I mean, there are a number
  of communities that are moving away from single family only zoning districts and providing
  more opportunities.
  And I don't think we necessarily have a concern with that, but, you know, de facto creating
  a parking center that we'd have to treat every use the same.
  And so, you know, I think that would be the more challenging aspect of that bill.
  It barely, I think this was a tight open committee, so it did not make it out of committee.
  And so I suspect that will make it out of committee.
  So, again, I think the City's position would be, we don't have a concern with the use,
  but let us regulate our own parking because every community's, retirement communities
  are different than tourist communities, different than college towns.
  You know, let's, at least let us manage that aspect of it.
  There was House Bill 705 and 802, which was related to residential development and commercial
  zones.
  Again, we amended our code to already allow that, except where we have kind of our provision
  of protecting that primary frontage for that commercial use.
  We do allow the CU for that to be there.
  I don't think we would have a concern for that.
  But above the commercial use or behind, it's by right.
  So again, this one wasn't exceptionally concerning, but for it also included a parking limitation
  of no more than one parking space per dwelling unit.
  And again, that is a challenge for us in a university or college community to not have
  significant impacts if that were to be imposed.
  There was also House Bill 801 and 937 related to religious land developments, require cities
  to allow multifamily and mixed use developments.
  On religious lands, prohibit restrictions of building heights below 40 feet or three stories,
  prohibit parking in apartments, prohibit building setbacks beyond 15 to the front,
  10 to the rear, and five to the side.
  Again, this is probably one of those philosophical...
  Wouldn't have really a concern.
  But for getting into some of the regulatory details of the parking or setbacks, that I
  think we would prefer to have the local community be able to establish those standards.
  But that bill did not pass as well.
  Okay.
  Sorry, that was 48 minutes, but I wanted to kind of get an overall background and context, and I'll stop talking and hand it over to Pastor President.
  Thank you, Bill, for the background.
  And so where I find where we'd like to go is like to have a discussion.
  One, I just want to start out to say, I think everyone here, we recognize that trusteeing is a priority and it's important.
  And that there are different means and methods to accomplish this.
  Right. So I think we want to continue the discussion, ask questions ourselves.
  But I'll go around the table, but we're not going to interrupt each other.
  We're going to do it civilly because we're civilized people.
  So we'll start with that. And so for you guys, Bill, question about presentation.
  Yeah.
  So really the whole idea is to spark the conversation here while we're doing this.
  So with that, Bryce will start.
  Yeah. Thank you, Drew.
  And Bill, thank you for the presentation.
  I do appreciate all of the background at rapid fire speed, but also to have all of that now in the mix to keep the conversation going.
  And clearly, I think for all of us, we're running for council and we're out talking with the community.
  Housing is usually one of the top three conversations that we're approached by.
  Right. And I think we all in our various capacities and our various professional capacities and personal capacities have an awareness of some housing issues and housing potential solutions as well.
  But I think that collectively being able to work through more of the possibilities and working more of what might be out there and kind of other conversations to have.
  I'm excited to hear what Sage has to say with regards to this topic.
  Just because that is your professional world that you have existed in much longer and much greater than I have any sort of familiarity with.
  Right.
  But one thing that I think is interesting about affordable housing and you have this somewhere tucked into your slide is is is the working definition.
  Right. And thinking about affordable housing so far as affordable and clearly like my philosopher brain goes off as it relates to definitions and constructs and how we define terms and how we're working with working definitions, etc.
  Right.
  But the idea of affordability being different than attainability.
  Right. And there was that word, I think, in one of the pieces of legislation that you had mentioned as they have the word attainability and affordability.
  And the idea that, you know, if if if if one owns a home, you want to see that property value go up.
  But if you don't have a home, you want to be able to afford getting into one.
  Right. And so I think working within those sides of the spectrum just presents the challenge like presents the presents more challenges.
  Right.
  And that's the overall conversation.
  I mean, I clearly don't have solutions, so I'm happy to have the discussion continue.
  But those are just some of my immediate reflections.
  I'm still stewing on things that I had written as Bill was working through those 48 minutes.
  But yeah, I guess I have one one clarifying question.
  And correct me if my memory is is is a little faulty here.
  But as it relates to discussing and working on, like, a potential house.
  We have received some of the correspondence with folks that were interested in pursuing that.
  I know that Council President Parker at the time did respond to the letter asking for further clarification and information to what that would look like, what that would need of which, to my knowledge, that request was not specifically met.
  I don't know that it was met in the level of detail that the council was looking for at that time.
  I do know.
  Casey came to give a presentation on potential funding mechanisms.
  There was a vacancy tax and a few other things that were identified as potential funding mechanisms.
  But it wasn't.
  I don't think that there was a very clear picture of how it would be staffed, how it would be funded.
  It was just kind of a list of potential funding sources.
  And I don't know that it was a specific projects identified or types of projects, but just general provision of force.
  So I think there was there was an effort to to respond to that request.
  And there's never to provide some additional detail.
  But I don't know that it met what the council is hoping to see to have a better understanding of how this piece of how it would be staffed, how it would be funded.
  I think there's just some general what we needed grants and there could be donations.
  Maybe the city could look at the vacancy tax.
  There were some options that were presented, but maybe not to the level of detail that the council was hoping to see.
  And then one thing to just kind of add.
  And then I'll yield time another direction.
  But, you know, that was with the last iteration of council.
  Right. And that, you know, since that conversation had three new members elected to council.
  And so I think that having this conversation now, I think this is a timely, timely space and time to have that.
  So just to kind of put that in context, too.
  May I speak next on this?
  So thanks, Bill, for that.
  Thank you for the context and presentation.
  And I think, you know, an understanding of market data and the construction history and housing starts is generally good starting places for understanding where we are now and where we want to go.
  Right. And I think one challenge surrounding affordable housing is so many of these things.
  There either is a restriction on what we as a city entity can do.
  Or and where there are market forces working, you know, against those things.
  Right. Like we can't necessarily say, OK, we want housing starts on, you know, in general to jump from, you know, 50s to 80s.
  And because we institute this on council, this initiative that's going to happen.
  Right. However, I think one, just to bring up a past example of something that has worked is the community land trust model, the CLTs that Bill,
  touched on.
  So that is a tool that the Moscow Portable Housing Trust in Outhills and Rivers has implemented to pretty much all their housing projects.
  And just to touch on that, it not only provides affordability at the time of purchase by subsidizing the value of the land in the form of a very affordable land lease.
  Last I recall, $80 a month for a 99 year lease term.
  That renews with the next owner.
  So it's essentially perpetual.
  The affordability model that not only on purchase and resale is great, but also in terms of the taxation and the principal interest taxes and insurance payment,
  mortgage payment for that new owner.
  The taxes are essentially based on assessed value.
  And because you're not assessing the value of that land because it's being held with the trust.
  Right.
  You're also not paying taxes on that as a property owner.
  Yet you get to use the land.
  So that's to me a very effective example of subsidy.
  And that's just one tool I think of, you know, potentially more to explore.
  If I were to ask city staff to explore anything more of this or encourage council to come to some resolution on this.
  That would be what my hope would be is more tools like CLTs to create subsidy.
  Now, the infill for that subsidy for the case of the hills and rivers projects.
  And please, if I'm mistaken on this, someone please correct me at a future time.
  But the subsidy has largely been provided through item housing and finance association.
  And it's also been provided through sponsorship through various entities, credit unions, banks, et cetera.
  So, you know, in terms of what the city can provide in its budget, I know it's very limited.
  But if we can advocate through similar entities, you know, perhaps through the work of housing authority.
  And the housing authority can work through a similar sort of grant funding.
  And the housing authority can work through a similar sort of grant funding mechanism through a tool like a CLT to provide affordable housing model.
  You know, that's kind of the creative vision that I foresee to solve this problem long term and create some permanence.
  To touch on...
  Can you say that one more time?
  That was a lot.
  In a more simple order of context.
  Yeah.
  I mean.
  So for Lousing Trust and their use of the CLT model has been successful and created long term affordability, right?
  But that is one entity providing one example of a tool that works.
  I think I would like to implore an entity to explore more tools that work in a similar fashion knowing that our city government is limited in terms of its direct funding.
  Or tools that it can provide.
  Does that...
  Yeah.
  Just to clarify.
  Yeah.
  You're not saying...
  There's nothing in the way of city government stopping another entity from doing that.
  Another entity could do that on their own free will.
  If so, the city should just embark on that.
  I mean, yeah.
  I think that's...
  Yeah.
  That's probably true.
  Yeah.
  Yep.
  I agree with that.
  Yeah.
  Something I'll touch on with the Fair and Affordable Housing Commission.
  Because Bryce, you had a question about the...
  Yeah.
  ...the kind of back and forth with...
  For the...
  Julie Parker.
  Yeah.
  ...in between council and the proposal of housing authority.
  So, I was on Fair and Affordable Housing Commission in 2025 and virtually 80% of our meeting material was on the topic of a housing authority.
  Now, we had a lot of conversation about housing authority and whether in that recommendation
  before city council.
  So, I think that's part of why there was a question for clarity coming from council and
  from Parker in addressing the Fair and Affordable Housing Commission and how and what direction
  the commission thinks it should go.
  I think, ultimately, on the commission, we had decided to...
  Yeah.
  ...kind of offer it broadly with respect to all the powers aforementioned in the bill
  presented as to what a housing authority can do.
  You can tell that it's fairly broad.
  It basically has the same powers as an individual, you know, the added perk of eminent domain,
  right?
  So, it's fairly powerful in its scope of authority.
  And we figured...
  Yeah.
  ...should a...
  ...a housing authority be authorized by the city of Costco that that housing authority
  body, very similarly to how URA operates, as Bill aforementioned, it would sort of make
  decisions with immediate goals in mind and transform its focus over time within the scope
  of what was initially recommended and authorized.
  So, I think that was...
  I hope I'm not speaking out of turn on it.
  That's okay.
  ...you know, the Federal Affordable Housing Commission and kind of how we discussed the
  topic.
  But I think our general idea was let's keep the recommendation broad so that we're not
  sort of presenting the need to tackle this issue in a specific matter that may or may
  not change in two or three years and then suddenly we're kind of reauthorizing before,
  you know, the city or another government entity how it can operate, right?
  So, I hope that provides some context and just kind of where my mind is on this.
  I've been working with local homebuyers and sellers for 10 years and, you know, just speaking
  personally to the issue of affordable housing, you know, I recall a time where my first clients
  were, you know, family household, single earner in that household and they could afford
  an average home, which at the time, 2016, roughly, you could buy a house, three bed,
  two bath, kind of average house, you know, 1,400, 1,500 square feet for about $230.
  Now that's doubled, right?
  And the need for earners has doubled, too.
  Oftentimes, you know, you have two people working full-time and working 50-plus hours
  a week in order to afford an average home in Moscow.
  So, you know, and that impacts quality of life, right?
  And it is a harsh reality as to this conversation and that's why we need to have it.
  So, yeah.
  That's it.
  Drew?
  Bryce?
  Or would you like to?
  I don't know.
  I'm just getting people's thoughts right now.
  So, talking to Scott.
  Awesome.
  I'll lean forward.
  So, yeah.
  I don't know if many people know this, like, I'm a civil engineer.
  I do development.
  I would very, I mean, I've lived housing for the last 10 years.
  My goal or the things that I would like to discuss is the things that we can actually
  do as a city or things that we have opportunities to do that could either make some of these
  things more affordable and be a partner in them.
  The thing that I think is one of the challenges or one of the things that I think the city
  could really be helpful in is that I hear all the time is time.
  Time for developers is really, is funny.
  And so, the time it takes, if you think about PED processes, by the time you submit it and
  it goes through review, if you get any comments, review it again, you have a neighborhood meeting,
  you have a planning and zoning, you have, it is a long, long process.
  And I'm not saying that this city needs to work faster.
  That's not what I'm saying, or that we need to cut those things out.
  But if you think about a developer and whether people are borrowing money or doing things
  like that is one of the aspects that is really challenging, Moscow, Latah County, their clay
  soils are great.
  They limit, they limit our construction window very short.
  And if you miss those construction windows, it costs a significant amount of money.
  And we see that on multiple developments.
  We see that on city projects.
  We see it all around.
  So, one of the things, I'm not saying solutions or anything, time, if there's any way to speed
  up the time for people submitting to getting approvals and construction, I'm not saying
  that the city of Moscow is better than most, I will say that in terms of this process.
  Can we fine tune it or take out some of those things?
  That's one thing that I hear a lot of.
  Parking.
  I think that parking, if you think about the things that the city can do, zoning is
  the biggest because it's a restriction.
  We just said no zoning and, you know, then people could do things cheaper.
  But zoning, parking are two restrictions that come up and it's what do we want to live with?
  Right.
  What I'm saying is it comes down to, okay, there's no restrictions, free for all.
  But what do we want to live with as a city?
  Do we want to have no parking?
  I mean, it depends.
  I mean, with no parking requirements, you make people walk more, right?
  There'd be more public transportation.
  So but it will swing one way to the point where, you know, neighbors are coming in and
  the Fort Russell neighborhood, you know, there are things that we have to think about
  as a public entity about what kind of community as we loosen restrictions to maybe increase
  some of the housing.
  What impact is that going to have in the long term?
  Because those are, once you undo that, it's going to be very challenging to reign that
  back in.
  So along with parking, I just want to mention stormwater, the more parking lots, the more
  treatment you have to do, the more attention you have to do.
  And because we have clay soil, the water doesn't go anywhere.
  You have larger stormwater pumps that eat up developable area, they cost money.
  So those are just some of the things that as I'm developing and working with developers
  and private entities and help.
  Okay.
  Some of their frustrations, and I don't think that Moscow is any worse or better, or I mean,
  actually they're simply easier to work with, but I think there are some areas that we don't
  just fully go and say no parking, but I think there may be opportunities where we can make
  some adjustments.
  Stormwater is definitely like DEQ, there's not a lot we can do with state regulations.
  So we have to fit those, but parking lots, let me ask a question.
  I do have a question.
  So going back to something that Bill had said at some point in the presentation, with the
  developers that you worked with or are working with to the extent you're willing to share,
  do any of them seem to desire to take advantage of some of the developer tax credits that
  Bill mentioned, such as the low income housing tax credits?
  Is there any, pardon me, I'm not asking this question as effectively as I'd like.
  Do you have conversations with developers that are actively taking advantage of that?
  Are they taking advantage of those incentives?
  Or are they developing these, they know that they are not interested in those tax credits?
  I would say most of those conversations are had without me in the room on the building
  side and they're performa and have those penciled out, but.
  And I would say that's a pretty specialized developer that does the tax credit housing
  developments.
  So there aren't going to be really local developers that do that.
  They're going to have to do those.
  You know, we had one just recently proposed in Warbonnet, I think they're out of the Midwest.
  The housing company out of Boise does them.
  Whitewater out of Hayden does them.
  But there are kind of specialized developers that know how to work the program because
  there's a lot of rules.
  And they've got markets to sell those tax credits to recoup that cost.
  But it's a very specialized product.
  So it's going to be developers that are specialized in doing those.
  And to clarify, that's in the application of available CBTG funds?
  Right?
  So does that work?
  It's so IHFA, Idaho Housing Finance Association manages the tax credit program within the
  state.
  So they have a certain allocation and people apply.
  They had like, I think last round that the project at the end of Warbonnet applied on
  there were like 16 or 18 projects applied for in the state.
  I think there were 10 or 11 funded.
  Okay.
  I think they were number 16 on that list.
  We had tried to, the council had authorized us to apply for a block grant.
  Okay.
  That's the connection.
  So we could apply for the block grant to help fund the public infrastructure, the utility
  extensions, the public street construction, to help support it because any other funding
  that comes in, the developer gets like a point for every 1% of project funding that's
  from a contributed source outside.
  So we could get a block grant for half a million dollars to do the utility extensions, the
  road construction, that could count and give them points.
  And that's how they essentially are awarded is based on how many points they scored.
  Department of Commerce refused to allow us to apply for an infrastructure grant in association
  with that project because of the Bill of America requirements that would then apply
  to the entirety of the project.
  So you'd have to have US manufacturing product standards that would be applied to the project.
  Okay.
  And the Department of Commerce statement was, well, no developer would want to do that,
  even though the developer we were working with has been working on those same requirements
  and other projects across the country.
  And I don't know, we've asked questions, but it seems like Congress does not want to
  entertain that through a competitive, because we were forced to go through the competitive
  block grant application where we're competing with all the other small cities, non-entitlement
  communities, where the larger entitlement communities can just allocate their existing
  block grant funds, help support projects.
  And so we're kind of stuck in this place where we can't avail ourselves of using those
  funds to help support a project like that, to get enough points for it to get scored,
  to get funded.
  But other communities can because they've got direct allocations.
  So it's an ongoing conversation.
  We've had with Congress and with our rep on the Advisory Council.
  But that isn't very specialized development tax credits.
  It is those folks that work in that arena.
  Because of all of the regulations surrounding it.
  Yeah.
  So it's just not a one-off.
  And I guess I have a question that Scott's points sparked for me.
  Is there, I think in past discussions when I've sat in these council chambers and heard
  discussions surrounding development, density bonuses have been raised.
  They've been discussed in some fashion.
  Can you just refresh me on that?
  Yeah.
  So density bonuses generally relate to planning and development applications.
  So planning and development allows you to kind of set the zoning standards aside and
  have a similar project-specific zoning for a kind of unique development.
  And so we've had a number of those, like I said, Greenacres, Greenside Hills, Tampo
  Commons, Canyon Gorge.
  We've probably had six or seven of these PEs.
  They take a large lot.
  Oftentimes they're kind of larger tracts, but they're not large enough to fly the city
  streets through.
  And so they're looking for ways to maximize the housing they can achieve on that lot.
  And so there are like nine different categories of activities that a developer can include
  in the project and can get some increased density on that development.
  Those things include like sustainable development practices, preservation of natural resources,
  natural areas, provision of affordable housing in the project.
  But there are a number of different elements that if they include in the project, there's
  a formula that they can get some bonus density out of those by including those elements.
  Okay.
  But it only applies to PEDs.
  And a PED is somewhat difficult because it's kind of a burden up front for a lot of design
  work, because not only are you planning the lots and the utilities, but you're actually
  developing building floor plans and building elevations.
  And landscape plans, because it is a complete development proposal, rather than it's just
  a subdivision plot that then you're going to sell lots to individuals to construct upon.
  So there's more of an upfront investment.
  PNZ has been looking at some opportunities to provide more flexible development forms
  without the burden of going through a PED.
  So if it's, for example, cluster development to protect sensitive areas or steeply sloped
  areas where lot sizes could be reduced.
  By right, without having to go through PED and actually having floor plans and elevations.
  Or if we'd like to support traditional housing, which is rear-valley loaded, and they tend
  to be longer, skinnier lots, because of the fact that they don't have to accommodate
  for a garage and a driveway in the front of the home, then you could do that.
  And that's a desirable development form.
  So we're going to give you a higher density than if you were to do just a traditional
  subdivision.
  So I know PNZ has been working on updates to our subdivision.
  To try to provide some of these opportunities to increase lot yield by providing development
  forms that the city would like to see, such as traditional rear-loaded, cluster to protect
  floodplains and other sensitive areas.
  So I know PNZ has been working on those for some time, and I think they're working their
  way forward to the council here in the near future.
  So it provides some of that flexibility that you would have in a PED.
  But not have to go through all of the design work up front, like you would have to do with
  the PED.
  That was kind of the .
  If this is something we'd like to see, we want to see innovative use of the land, we
  want to see productive use of land, then why don't we make that path a by-right development
  option?
  And I think we'll have starter subdivision, starter home subdivisions will be in that
  mix as well.
  Maybe a permitted development form in those areas.
  So I think that's something that PNZ's already working on.
  I think we could probably plug that starter subdivision home into that updated code to
  provide great flexibility.
  The timeline is kind of an interesting one, because some of that's governed by statutory
  notice periods.
  There's maybe 15 notice periods for zone changes or comp plan changes for annexations.
  There was a period of time where the mayor at the time required us to go through every
  set individually.
  Because you could, at one night at a council previously, have annexation, comp plan designations,
  zoning, and a subdivision.
  And so essentially everything in one night, and there was a request to separate those
  actions.
  So annexation would be considered separately, and then the next month you might do the comp
  plan designation, and the next month you might do the zoning, and the next month you
  might do the subdivision plat.
  The problem is everyone wants to get to the plat.
  What are you going to do with the property?
  And so we can't talk about that because we're only dealing with this tonight.
  And so ultimately we brought all those applications back together after about a year of separating
  them.
  And now it's taking you a year to get through the entire process.
  And one of the things we brought into that is the neighborhood meeting to provide that
  opportunity.
  Because you get into the public hearing process, it's a very restricted environment.
  It's a presentation before or against or general testimony.
  And so we want to provide that opportunity for a dialogue outside before it comes to
  the city for the developer in the neighborhood to talk about it, to answer questions that
  neighbors might have without having to come through and sit for public hearing.
  And I think that has been beneficial.
  It does add a step to it, but then we were able to collapse all the applications kind
  of back together concurrently so then you could see the full picture.
  There are some pieces that could be teased out.
  Subdivisions aren't technically required to have a public hearing.
  Technically, underneath state law, you could get through zoning and then the subdivision
  would not have to have that public process.
  That is kind of one of the things that provides the greatest level of detail about how the
  property is going to be developed, how the street network is going to work, how the district
  routes are going to be.
  And so I think that's a difficult one.
  But some communities do not require public hearings for that subdivision flat phase.
  Still can be reviewed by council, but if you take the hearing process out of it, then
  you kind of take out some of that notice period.
  But again, plats are kind of where the rubber meets the road in the actual developments
  you can see.
  And so that's certainly something we could explore.
  But a lot of those notice periods are statutorily defined, but it does take on.
  I found the neighborhood meetings to be very helpful.
  In other communities when we haven't had them, the first time somebody's ever seen
  it is at a public hearing, and they don't have really a dialogue.
  And you can't change anything at that point.
  So it's really been beneficial to get that feedback before you get your final submittal
  so you can make changes or adjustments.
  And we've done that.
  Okay.
  I will wrap up my section.
  Things that I think us as a group will need to answer.
  Is this something the city can, should, or has the ability to address?
  I don't know.
  Housing as a whole.
  Is that something I think we need to, it's probably not enough time in this conversation,
  but I think that's something that we as a whole need to determine.
  If it is, yes.
  Or do we have the existing entities or just that we already fund or support now?
  Or do we need something new?
  And the housing authority is something like that.
  Is it something that we actually need that these other entities?
  That are already doing some of these parts?
  Or do we need something new?
  Or do we just need to better support the entities that we have?
  I think that's one of the questions that we'll need to answer if we keep checking and
  going down this.
  My worry is with creating another entity, it's usually the same group of people who
  are doing the same amount of work and we're just spreading it four ways instead of three
  or four.
  We start just spreading out either funding, people, time, energy, money, and that's my
  worry.
  I don't worry about it.
  But if we're not meeting the needs and it is something that we think is important, then
  we'll have to find some way to make that happen.
  Questions kind of for Bill or maybe kind of open ones.
  Thinking about the URA and the cost of the URA and the cost of the land trust through
  Moscow in general.
  Have we gotten the bang for our buck out of those?
  We have to think about that.
  Have we gotten that?
  And if we are getting the bang for our buck out of those,
  maybe there's more funding or other entities that we need as a group or community need
  to support better so that we get our long-term funding and backing out of those agencies.
  Or if they're not, if we're not getting the things out of URA or the land trust or other
  entities that we fund, then maybe our resources need to be allocated differently.
  So those are things I think we need to look at in terms of should we, what's out there
  now, and what are our existing needs.
  And then we'll see how we can get those funds out or energy, time and energy money that
  the city is putting into and how they can be best used.
  The one thing I think that the council should consider is here in about two months we're
  going to start the update to the strategic plan.
  I think this is a really important topic that should be kind of compared against the,
  I guess what the council identifies as also the other most pressing needs of the community.
  And this probably is one of those things that needs to be added in there.
  But I think we need to look at the role that, will this come down in the fall, or when
  does this happen, what will the next area be, what are the projects that we're going
  to do, and what are we thinking about in terms of how we're going to make some of
  these, or how it stacks up to everything else that we're currently challenged with.
  Yeah.
  And, we, we do this, we have the industry plan every four years, right?
  To, to quit a term of a new plan year or anywhere that we can go in.
  So, we don't want this to fall.
  Thank you.
  Thank you, Scott.
  Evan, I know you like to pontificate.
  Let's, I'll turn the mic over to you, but let's.
  It was rude.
  Thank you so much, guys.
  were starting me off in a rude way.
  It's really kind of a surprise, I think.
  I want to mention that in some of the legislation
  that you had mentioned, it seemed like,
  and I don't know in the final form going through,
  that there was exceptions made for historic districts
  that are recognized by the state.
  I think it's important that we establish
  our historic districts on the state registry of that
  so that we can do something that's very important to me,
  that our solutions don't create new issues.
  Because what we want to do zoning-wise
  or implementation-wise on a bare plot of land
  is different than what we want to see happen
  in our historic districts.
  So it's almost adjacent to this,
  but to me very important that we do start that process
  of getting three or four areas in town
  known and recognized as historic districts.
  I'll leave that at that.
  Once again, solutions shouldn't cause new issues.
  I think we need to prioritize our efforts.
  We can do things, but as Scott alluded to,
  we have a big and diverse population
  that all come to us with their needs.
  And we need to decide who we're going to serve
  or who we're going to serve first
  and how we're going.
  And to do that so that we can segment this
  into something that we can do.
  We need to quiet the noise
  that comes and works against us
  that regulatory fees are a significant part of the problem.
  And that's just a matter of demonstrating with numbers
  what percentage of the cost of, say,
  a starter home being built is actually a regulatory fee
  as opposed...
  ... horse.
  to the cost of materials labor land acquisition and those things i think we we need to just stop
  that discussion so in order to go for what do you mean by that to show so that the percentage of
  getting a building permit getting inspections and the tie-in fees as a percentage of the overall cost
  of building we'll say either a duplex or a single family home is not the biggest barrier is not is
  not the thing that's causing the problem but there's a lot of murmuring out there not just
  in this community but state-wise that that's what really uh is the the hurdle that's the
  hardest to overcome i don't agree with that i haven't been in the industry for 30 years
  uh we one thing that we we have to grapple with is whether increasing the stock of rental
  housing bedrooms will bring down the cost of rents so that people can once again save money
  to make the initial payment on a house so our strategy when i say we prioritize are we going
  to prioritize that because in paper that works if we can drive the market or encourage a market
  that we have better options for renting so that people can save money
  then then that opens the door for meeting the principal interest tax and insurance we have to
  decide if that's going to be our initial focus or not so it's part of that prioritization
  i think that i can see and it's been tried places i'll mention one that's really interesting
  to me where uh with new development of a certain acreage we don't impose a zoning we tell
  the
  developer you can do what we want but we want to the edges protected the same as we would for
  adjacent properties we want to meet we want to know what the density proposed is so that we
  could meet the traffic flow and the sewer and the water and beyond that i'd be in favor of letting
  them go because they're going to undertake the responsibility of having to sell those properties
  or those lots uh in a way that they think is financially beneficial to them and they
  meet our minimum requirement of what comes out of this black box in terms of number of cars number of
  people that require services and try to sell them you know it's uh it that doesn't bother me the
  only thing i would like to bring in is i think Fort Collins tried this more than 20 years ago and
  some things and the counselors that approved that because people get nervous about they want zoning
  because it has that sense of predictability and predictable control of what happens when you get on that
  protects their investments, and so I think the council that started that in Fort Collins
  in the early 2000s all got defeated for re-election, so I wanted to bring that in there, it was
  a very innovative thought, and it got turned over by politics.
  By the people who didn't want it.
  Right, by the people who didn't want it, so there's a little caution in there in case
  anyone's thinking of running for re-election, if you want to talk about that.
  But I think it was mentioned that the comprehensive plan needs to be re-looked at, because in
  theory, it doesn't happen in practice, but in theory, planning drives zoning, not the
  other way around.
  So our planning is lacking in order to drive zoning the way we want, and so maybe once
  again, as we're establishing priorities, we should get quickly on.
  Investigating those parts of the comprehensive plan that we want to drive our zoning, although
  we see changes by the state last year, changing our area of impact and what we can do and
  things like that, so that leads me to my next point, is that we really have to coordinate
  better with Latah County, because they determine what happens to a lot of this blank land that
  we see at the borders.
  We have less say in what happens to that land than we ever had, so that means that
  our burden is to reach out to them more and try to establish what we want to have happen.
  I'll just mention that back in, and I'll share this with anyone who wants it, back
  in December, January, I created a list of data deficits we had.
  It runs to 21 to 30 items that really, for me.
  If I was emperor of Latah and was going to make decisions about this, these are the numbers
  I would want.
  These are the questions I'd like to have answered, and I'm not going to share any of those with
  you, but I can send this to anyone I'd like to have and say, if we know this, then we
  can better respond, so I have a whole bunch of those, and I'm happy to share them sometime
  in August.
  Do you share those to a couple of us, right?
  I sent them to Fair and Affordable Housing County.
  I sent them back to the commission maybe back in early January, or at least to AIA, perhaps.
  Can I add something there?
  We move as a body of six plus one, and so it worries me a little bit if you've got questions
  that you're directing to a commission that is led, it is guided by all six of you.
  I am curious to see the questions.
  I'm curious if it's a conversation, but a single member of council does not direct a
  single body of the commissions.
  I know it's early, and we're figuring it out.
  But while I appoint the people who sit on those commissions, it's important to remember
  that those commissions heed the full call of council, and I'm guessing those are valid
  questions that require follow-up.
  Yeah, I call them just things we have a data deficit in, you know, and so they're
  like I said, and then I'll just end with, I'm happy to engage in this conversation
  every day, and as long as it takes.
  And using a housing authority, if we can, to help it, to push this forward.
  But, you know, we're going to have to do more than an occasional meeting like this, and
  certainly collect some information to make decisions on.
  And that's it.
  Yeah.
  May I add some just brief follow-up points?
  Yeah.
  I think to echo, you know, some of the sentiment that, you know, we've been talking about,
  you know, evidence brought up, and, you know, just thinking about the council and the
  knowledge and professional resources and skills that we have as individuals.
  I mean, you know, contractor of 30 years, architect, developer.
  I think a lot.
  Real estate broker.
  You know, we've been in various spheres of housing and how it's, you know, you know,
  we've seen firsthand how it's impacted, you know, the Moscow community for much of our
  lives.
  And, you know, I think this is a good group to ideate and, you know, perhaps consider
  consultation of other entities or explore the history books to see what's been attempted
  in the past and maybe bring to light some of those ideas again.
  You know, that's kind of...
  So, I hold a lot of opposition.
  I think, you know, there's a lot of optimism in this council and the way we look to this
  problem to be solved.
  And again, as mentioned, as you mentioned, Bryce, it is the issue that comes up at candidate
  forums.
  It's the issue that comes before us in public comments.
  It is the central issue that has been knocking on our door for years, right?
  And I think part of why we're having this conversation, this discussion is, you know,
  not only to think of the rules we have now and the regulations that we have in place.
  When I think about regulation, I think about, you know, safety first and liability, right?
  And certainly city staff is thinking about that in the day-to-day work as they review
  plans for new development.
  You know, unfortunately, there is some conflict between safety and accessibility, which I
  think, in fairness, we could say we all want in housing options, and the density and affordability,
  which people have various perspective on, right?
  And that's the hard piece.
  Because we can somewhat have conversation about density, somewhat.
  The state says more.
  But we have some conversation.
  We have some say.
  But we have very little say about the affordability as a consequence of our judgment calls on
  safety, accessibility, and density, right?
  And so while we don't impact affordability directly, I do think conversations about
  these things and the tools that we can possibly implore is critical.
  I...
  It's hard.
  It's tough.
  And, you know, and ultimately a lot of this stuff comes down to money.
  And it's not like the city's got money bags, right?
  We're just trying to, as a group of individuals, come up with some good long-term ideas and
  solutions and tools.
  And, you know, maybe I'm a minority here.
  I'm not sure.
  Maybe this will be, you know, discovered in the future.
  But I do think a housing authority...
  ...is one potential tool as a quasi-traditional entity, much in the same way that the URA operates.
  It's not necessarily about, you know, penciling or money or the productivity.
  It's about having tools at our disposal, groups of other people to consult with, with
  different ideas, in order to tackle these huge, complex problems that we cannot individually
  or even collectively at this table solve.
  Right?
  So that's my...
  That's my two cents.
  I know I've chatted a lot.
  This was for...
  So I just...
  Mr. Chair, before...
  ...because we haven't heard from you yet.
  So what I am looking for on behalf of myself and staff, we have foundational knowledge.
  We have members in the audience who now have foundational knowledge and history.
  Yeah.
  I know it's not as easy as asking for a simple go, no-go, because we cannot make
  a formal decision.
  Correct.
  What I am looking for...
  ...is, you know...
  ...is...
  ...if I am allowed to ask for this from you as a body.
  Do you want staff time to go towards determining the feasibility of potential costs and associations
  with setting up another entity like the Housing Authority?
  Because I don't feel good knowing that we've had two years of letters with a handful of
  us who have been on this side of the governing body with community members in our council
  commissions asking us for action.
  So I don't want to keep the can down the road.
  We can't make a formal...
  We're clearly not asking for us to incorporate something.
  With all those verbs that come along and responsibilities that come along with the Housing Authority,
  at this point in time, I'm trying to understand how much time I and staff should be spending
  pursuing that as a tool.
  So I hear you on all the other ones.
  We also have the 2019 Housing Assessment that had a litany of suggestions, and it sounds
  like I didn't spend any time with the CETA one, but the CETA one also has some suggestions.
  So, like, there's a menu.
  I want to know on the menu what is appetizing for you because I want to be able to spend
  staff time if you as a body are not interested in us pursuing this conversation, or if you
  are directing us to talk about it, that's fine.
  But I want us to understand that if that is the answer that you give us, the answer that
  comes forward may not have you...
  ...it may not be what everyone in this room wants.
  ...or what everyone in this room is excited to hear.
  So if there's an easy answer, I don't know if you want to share his thoughts before or
  after that, but I'd like to understand if the Housing Authority is still something that
  you want us to be talking about.
  Yes, so there's a couple items.
  One, the two studies that were given that Bill mentioned that have been showed.
  My recommendation to each and every one of the councils, if you haven't read those, to
  at least comprehend overall what was being suggested in those.
  I am going to say my thoughts.
  And comments to other people.
  Madam Mayor, to that I think you made a point that we need to address, but my...the approach
  that I think is needed is for the individuals of the council to...you've talked about ideas
  where we're...the whole point of this is to share conversation, to bring up different
  talking points, to understand perspective and opinion, and hopefully come to moving
  in the same direction.
  And so what those items would be if you could...I don't want to call it itemize, but I'm not
  going to put limits on to what your comments are or potential ways to explore, but that
  could be sent to myself and Madam Mayor, and we can discuss those.
  And if that discussion wouldn't end, we wouldn't engage in another conversation.
  There'd probably be one-on-one conversations.
  And then talk about next steps for resolution.
  So that would be my thought.
  That would be my invitation.
  So to recap, that is to revisit those two studies, understand those and what they're implying,
  if you already haven't.
  The other one was summarize your thoughts.
  I'd say within...to get those back, there's clearly going to need to be some internal
  reflection and some review of what we discussed tonight.
  One thing I'd like to...not to add, but I guess to contribute to the conversation,
  I look in the crowd and there's lots of people that have not only put years of their life,
  but a lot of their energy, and they're here because they care, and I want that to be recognized.
  And that is important.
  And as we receive these emails, we've heard them, but it's a thing that, as we've talked
  about, we're trying to paddle in the right direction, has similar things that people
  said on council.
  Myself, yes, I've spent a large part of my career actually doing what I would consider
  affordable housing.
  And that's something that I'm very proud of.
  I will say that hasn't been done in the state of Idaho because it's very difficult.
  That's just a fact.
  And that's not shade in any way, but it is what it is.
  And there's nothing better than going to a ribbon cutting and talking to individuals
  where this is going to have a huge impact on their life.
  I have all the projects that I've worked on with consultants, the headaches that they
  bring through multiple pro formas to get it to where it needs to be.
  It's all worth it in the end.
  I'll say that.
  And I'll say that I know that everyone has been intent on council to make a problem,
  but the reality is it's a very difficult thing for us to do.
  All recognizing, this is Drew Davis's opinion, that it was encouraging to see housing topics
  talked about during the legislative session.
  No matter where you stand on those topics, the fact that we're talking about housing
  on a statewide, that is being recognized that we need to solve the problem.
  And so, the things that were talked about, I'm mostly okay with, and where it came.
  And I think we keep on having conversations.
  In my personal life, I advocate, which is not personal, but it's personal but unprofessionally,
  I'm advocating for these things on a state level, on a federal level.
  And we'll continue to do so until I'm probably six feet under.
  And so...
  But my concerns that I have, and again, we're all assuming good intent, as I look at their
  city budget, as we prepare for the city budget, one thing to notice is, you know, I want you
  to consider the slides that we're behind on our police force.
  We don't have funding with, you know, what was cut out two years ago of our budget.
  That has really limited us and had to think differently.
  One, we have to think of staff and their time.
  And what they're doing.
  Our staff are great.
  I've always said, and I didn't coin this term.
  I stole it from somebody at some point on this journey.
  But we do a lot with a little.
  And that's only becoming more true the more that I do this.
  And we need to recognize that our staff are working incredibly hard, doing their jobs.
  And my worry is adding, and others may not say that this isn't, but what is that going to cause them to do
  or what is that going to limit in other varieties that we might not be meeting as we go on.
  The entity that I also have is with when Julia Parker was council president, as we discussed these items,
  I was hoping with that recommendation that we would receive more conversation from the individuals that were speaking
  to our house unit.
  They were actually the resident authority and it's still unclear how this is going to operate.
  I look at Blaine County and I look at recently their decisions that they've made.
  And that brings me worry to what their decisions that they've made.
  And if you're not aware of that, I invite you to go do so.
  I'm happy to talk about it afterwards.
  But moving this needle isn't going to come by the end of 26.
  The way that I look at this, and this isn't going to be a popular analogy.
  but going to Gritman saying we need to solve a disease
  that's global, for sure not in our nation,
  and expecting Gritman to solve that on a medical level
  is just not gonna happen, right?
  I mean, they could probably influence it.
  Having individuals say that we need to solve
  a national housing problem, sorry,
  but we can contribute and we can find ways
  within our community, but to solve this issue
  really needs to be focused on the federal government.
  The federal government hasn't contributed to this issue
  for a long, long, long, long time.
  And I have a one-inch podium to say that,
  so I'll say it on my own podium.
  But, I mean, that's just a reality.
  That doesn't mean I don't care about it.
  It doesn't mean that we are not gonna look
  and collaborate and work with partners within our community,
  but we are significantly limited to how we pivot.
  And
  the fact that when the housing authority conversation
  came about that Latak County wanted to do this,
  I was on board, and now it's been punted to the city
  because they don't, I kind of disagree with that.
  I truly do.
  Solving housing authority in our county
  should be a county issue.
  Moscow's the most, from what I've seen,
  stage my disagreeing, it's fine,
  but within the county, Moscow's the most
  expensive place probably to live.
  I haven't seen anything differently.
  I could be persuaded with some data.
  And so just focusing on Moscow leaves a lot of things out.
  And so I want us to be cautious,
  but also cautious but productive moving forward.
  And so based on what Madam Mayor suggested,
  and I think everyone has brought really great ideas
  to the table,
  I will say this isn't gonna go into a folder.
  It's not gonna be tucked away into a filing cabinet.
  This isn't gonna be talked about.
  For me, it's probably gonna have to be on conversations,
  on one-on-one for us to move this.
  And as we look towards the end of the year,
  and I invite, you know, next year,
  we keep on having these conversations,
  but Evan said he's gonna talk about it every day,
  and I believe it.
  And like you said, we should be talking about it
  to find a solution.
  But the fact that we're gonna crack this,
  as a council, it's,
  it's not a stretch,
  but we need to, we need to look with partners
  and other avenues.
  So, you know, except any other comments
  or anything anyone wanna say before we close the meeting?
  I'm sure we all have things that we'd like to say.
  But I'll kind of reiterate something you had said
  that I had written in my notes throughout the discussion,
  that, and I circled it,
  it was just like county slash city, right?
  Like I think that, and this goes back to the question
  that Scott had asked was like, you know,
  can, should, do the city,
  and how does the city address housing?
  And my immediate thought is just like, why stop here?
  Right?
  I mean, like, and that's kind of like what you're saying,
  where this, when this conversation,
  because I remember when this conversation came to us
  a couple of years ago,
  and Commissioner Cathy brought up four things, right?
  And I remember thinking the partnership
  between the county and the city was,
  was maybe the best scope to address some of these issues
  on a more broad level.
  And so I think for me,
  my caution of just kind of like really delineating it,
  into kind of the city must, or should, or does,
  like of course I'm always open to having more tools
  in the toolbox and seeing what can get fixed.
  But I also, I'm also, you know,
  sympathetic to the idea that solutions
  should cause more issues,
  and without really good planning,
  without really kind of, you know, bit by bit,
  this is how this will impact this,
  this is who will run it,
  this is kind of the line item budget here
  that we have step by step.
  Without having all that specificity,
  I think it's hard to say that just kind of throwing
  something out there to see if it'll work,
  that could potentially cause more issues.
  And so I definitely would like to see
  as these conversations progress,
  just like more specificity.
  And what that looks like and what that means
  to whoever is involved in those conversations is ongoing.
  And just as an aside, but Evan brought this up,
  you know, it's really hard for me not to think
  about the renters and all that stuff.
  You know, we're talking about all this conversation, right?
  Because I know that we're clearly talking about housing,
  and we're talking about renters for sure,
  but like, yeah, I, you know,
  that step that you brought up, though,
  the average rent is 1400 bucks a month,
  that was a gut punch to read, right?
  And knowing that developers and those that rent,
  especially the college students,
  I mean, it's easy to get away with that, right?
  Because it's like, students need somewhere to live.
  Just keep jacking up the rent, and they're gonna pay it.
  And it's unfortunate that the city doesn't have any mechanisms
  by which to be more mindful in those spaces.
  And so personally, I definitely am gonna be sitting
  with renting issues after this conversation as well, so.
  The Madam Mayor brought up just, you know,
  asking us, what is the time commitment?
  Say, I would like to know, like,
  roughly what the time commitment would be
  to come up with some of these numbers,
  cost, timelines, or some of those.
  I don't wanna say, yes, housing authority,
  and it's just an exorbitant amount of time,
  or if it's a minuscule amount of time, say,
  no, let's not look into this, and it's really,
  you know, a couple of-
  To explore or run it, both?
  I would say to explore it at this point.
  If we were to explore looking at it,
  what's like the time staff level commitment
  that we would be asking or looking for?
  And what I will also do.
  With that, to circle back, so.
  Since you brought up the proper role
  of government question.
  Yeah.
  Like, the undercurrent of that is,
  is that the role of us to direct city staff
  to explore this, or is it the entities who are asking us?
  So, that's, we don't have to answer that right now.
  I can get you the hard numbers, but.
  I heard this.
  Because I'm feeling like very much a bulldog
  about protecting staff time right now.
  Well, and that's what I'm trying to do too,
  but without knowing that rough number, I mean,
  it's nebulous.
  We're talking about-
  So, if we had, like, how much time,
  I mean, say the URA or some of these other entities,
  what was the level of staff time?
  Or was it just, it was a yes right away,
  so we just, just trying to get a grasp
  of what it would, what we're asking for.
  I mean, I think if you go back
  to the affordable housing program
  that we presented to council,
  because I was staff liaison to the Fair and Affordable
  as we worked through that process and launched the trust,
  we had a three-year business,
  that laid out the expense and operation.
  And so, I mean, certainly we could go through
  and try to replicate that.
  It's, you know, that effort and staffing,
  I mean, you look at some of the larger housing authorities
  and they've got 30 staff,
  because they've got maintenance manager,
  property managers, directors, finance director.
  I mean, it's, so it's hard to understand
  without knowing the scope of the projects
  that we would envision the housing authority to engage in,
  and to know what kind of staff support would be required.
  I mean, we can certainly estimate what it takes
  to provide the legal foundation, the legal framework,
  to authorize, to create, to set up, you know, the organization.
  But I mean, you're talking legal, financial staff support,
  and at a time where we've lost eight positions in the city,
  and we've just, you know, hit a half million dollar health insurance,
  28% health insurance increase.
  So our resources are really tapped.
  I guess what I would request is,
  as we head into the strategic plan update this late,
  later this summer into fall,
  is I think this needs to be laid up against
  how do we stabilize CMS service?
  How do we deal with the continued transport,
  you know, with the jail closure?
  How do we provide an affordable health insurance program
  that we're not spending $3 million a year in health insurance?
  I think,
  before we spend time sketching it out,
  I would like to understand where this priority ranks
  with all of our other needs.
  And I think the timing actually works really well,
  because we, like I said, within 60 days,
  I'll be sitting down and requesting,
  what are your three top issues of the community?
  And if we've got specific questions about,
  is it our mission?
  Is it our primary role?
  Does somebody else do this?
  You know, can we influence it?
  And we have a process to look at all of those issues,
  and to score them,
  and comparatively analyze what is our highest,
  what are our highest priorities?
  What does the council feel?
  What are the city's highest priorities?
  And if out of that comes,
  yes, we need housing and creating housing authority is it,
  then I would recommend that we invest the time.
  But I think using that process
  and having the ability to evaluate and compare that
  against all of the other competing needs,
  roads, parks, everything else,
  the council will have the opportunity to say,
  yes, this is it.
  And then,
  we want to invest that time.
  I think educators,
  all of us educating ourselves between now and then
  would be the best use of that time.
  And then,
  let's see what the council feels for our Asperger's
  for the next four years.
  My other kind of feel is,
  without the county being a part of it,
  I would have a hard time.
  I mean, if you look at even the Hills and Rivers,
  and they adjusted so they can incorporate
  one of the county and other areas outside of Moscow.
  I think housing,
  there's other communities,
  not just rural Latah County,
  but there's other communities that could utilize housing.
  And it just broadens the opportunities
  that we could accomplish.
  that's what it is.
  But,
  thank you.
  But we can only work within the county that we're in.
  Yes.
  No, yes, we can only work,
  yes, but I'm just saying,
  you know,
  Pawlatch and Troy,
  and other areas within our community,
  within our county,
  yes.
  I agree.
  Well, thank you for having everyone.
  we'll close this workshop.
  And again, just to reiterate,
  please send your thoughts,
  and I would say in a semi-organized fashion,
  at the next week or so,
  and then,
  through resources,
  we can get those to you.
  Thanks for coming,
  thank you to the public for stopping by,
  and we look forward to continuing.
  And,
  thank you.
  Okay, thanks, Jim.
  Very good.
  Thanks for everybody attending today.
  Yeah, good stuff.