The Town of Nederland has contracted civil engineering professionals Bohannan Huston to assist with a Housing Needs Assessment which is required, in addition to making changes to municipal code that promote affordable or alternative housing initiatives, for the Town to be eligible for the Housing Development Incentive Grant Program.

On April 6, 2023, Bohannan Huston and the town hosted two workshops at Nederland Community Center. An interactive housing map (https://bhi.mysocialpinpoint.com/nederland- housing-needs-assessment/map) and a public survey (https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/NederlandHNASurvey) were also released prior to the workshop.

However, on May 2, 2023, during the Nederland Board of Trustees (BOT) meeting it was revealed in an update from town staff that public engagement on the housing needs assessment was “surprisingly” low, with only a reported 27 residents attending the April 6 workshops, and a reported 29 people who had completed the survey.

This update caused the BOT to have to gauge their own public outreach efforts on the subject. Community Planner Britt DeMinck noted during the May 2, 2023, meeting that it was discouraging that, as of that date, only a few Trustees had filled out the survey.

Typically big issues like the Keeping Animals Ordinance and the Annexation Ordinance are championed by Planning Commissioners or Trustees. With both those issues public surveys were released which yielded more than 100 responses from residents for each survey. Town Administrator Dr. Miranda Fisher noted at that same meeting that such low numbers of engagement, referring to the 29 people who completed the housing needs survey, is typical and expected from the community.

Nederland’s elections show an incredibly low amount of voter turnout and BOT meetings and most public government functions are not often well-attended. However, all of the issues discussed at those meetings, from housing needs to annexation matters, from parking lots to road and sidewalk repair, are more heavily addressed by the public on social media than in person.

Particular narrow-focused Nedheads posts will see more people comment on average than people who participate through submitting or making public comments during BOT discussion items, which covers the same range of topics that are deemed important to residents.

Social media posts concerning the loss of the Nederland Police Department garnered upwards of 40 reactions and 95 comments, while posts about mountain lions average over 125 reactions with upwards of 195 comments.

Comparatively, posts about the need for, and any proposed plans for, housing in Nederland have received as high as 60 reactions and 45 comments. Though any social media post about housing that pertains to known property owners, such as Ron Mitchell, typically garners more than 125 comments. Posts pertaining to hot-button homeowner issues, such as short-term rentals, earn up to 184 comments.

Matters that are controversial, in that they affect property owners directly and personally, such as annexation, keeping animals, and the Big Springs egress route, are spearheaded by government officials whose representation urges organization of the impacted communities to have a seat at the table and have their voices be heard.

Trustees are elected to represent the communities of their district, but the case of the housing needs assessment has exposed a fundamental gap in the BOT’s range of representation. The current board has Trustees who represent property owners, business owners, and families, but no one to represent the voice of renters, of the workforce, and those truly affected by the issue at hand.

The unfortunate truth of the current outreach concerning Nederland’s housing needs is that the majority of those being reached already own property or properties. Results from public opinion given during the workshops held on April 6 pointed to various recommendations, all in the spirit of “not in my backyard,” creating the impossibility of any compromise.

To the question of “Which strategies do you feel the Town should consider pursuing to support affordable housing development in the community,” of the 11 possible strategies to choose from seven votes went to using vacant public-owned property for affordable housing development, four votes went to dedicating a funding source to subsidize affordable housing infrastructure costs and fees, and four votes went to allowing for smaller square footage residential unit sizes.

The least popular strategies were to allow planned unit developments (PUDs) with integrated affordable housing units, to promote submetering utility charges for affordable housing, to institute a density bonus program, and to allow multi-family duplexes and triplexes use-by-right in single family residential zoning districts.

Written suggestions from attendees included proposing to landowners to leave their assets to the town, promoting rezoning efforts, and building affordable housing in “wealthy” neighborhoods to “diversify the town.”

Despite some suggestions being more helpful than others, the majority of the public engagement from those workshops were the echoing opinions of those who already own property and whose interests are not aligned with those suffering from Nederland’s housing issue. With just the voices of property owners being heard the discourse becomes only about why each neighborhood believes housing should be provided in the other neighborhood.

On May 2, 2023, during the BOT meeting when they discussed their problem with public engagement there was public comment from resident, and a leading member of the independently formed Nederland Public Engagement Group, May Jarril that stated her belief that the BOT has a public engagement issue in general, not just in the issue of the housing needs assessment, and that there is a contingent of the public who believe their voices are not being heard.

“I read with interest that only 28 people have responded so far to the housing survey. Not sure if this includes the input at the meeting, which I attended both sessions, which boasted no more than two members of the public at any time I was there.”

“When I asked the representative from the group hosting the meeting whether or not staff were allowed to vote she somewhat sheepishly nodded yes. My takeaway was that almost all the input gathered at that meeting was taken from staff, many of whom were present, or current representatives of the town, ie BOT.”

“Nederland is at a crisis of community engagement. Many people feel, with justification, that their comments go unheard, that agendas are set and decisions are made without ever discussing the comments and valuable feedback that members of the public have spent time preparing. Many times public comment is rolled over, especially if the issue is under the radar of the average person and there is not a large group present or commenting.”

“People feel like whatever they say, and even whatever studies are done (like the last housing needs survey), the direction of the town and its policies are indifferent to their opinion. Hence, lack of public engagement.” Jarril said.

In a conversation with The Mountain-Ear Jarril reiterated the difference between public and community engagement, referring to public engagement as an individual’s chosen interaction with public matters, and describing community engagement as intentional citizen-lead participation on civic concerns.

Jarril included in her letter that she felt the Town’s plan of a mailer to bring attention to the online-only community survey was subject to failure considering many Nederland residents don’t have access to a computer or internet, the questions on the survey may not allow for an adequate response, and people don’t feel that their input truly matters.

Over Mother’s Day weekend The Mountain-Ear conducted person-to-person interviews with members of the Nederland public and asked 23 different renters, employees, and employers throughout town, about their thoughts on town government and on the importance of providing affordable housing, not just more housing.

The majority of those interviewed indicated that they had not heard of the housing needs assessment. Though the majority also stated that they rarely attend or view Nederland government meetings, most stated that they were active on Nedheads and other social media platforms that highlight Nederland issues.

When asked to specify a BOT decision that directly affected them the number one answer from those interviewed was the decision to contract law enforcement with Boulder County Sheriff’s Office as opposed to rebuilding the Nederland Police Department (NPD). This decision was also noted by more than three individuals as a reason for believing that the BOT does not take into consideration public opinion, as a majority of residents preferred to keep community policing.

Of the 23 people interviewed, four are unhoused and 19 are renters. The renters were asked about their biggest housing concerns living in Nederland, to which their answers indicated a worry that any new housing projects will not be affordable for anyone who works in Nederland. There was also a fear that the reliance on the goodwill of property owners to continue to provide rental spaces was unstable in the face of rampant capitalism.

Renters confessed to being constantly anxious about their landlords selling their homes, in which they rent a room or basement, or raising their rent to an unsustainable monthly cost. Landlords who rent multiple rooms or apartments are being incentivized, by the allure of a luxury market and passive income, to turn their homes or apartments into short-term rentals.

Of the 19 renters interviewed, more than half have lived in town for over a decade and provide to their communities a variety of expertise and services. These skilled artisans, mechanics, and teachers admitted to relying heavily on social equity and on “making themselves more useful” to landlords in order to remain in their favor. This involves tenants who may already be working multiple jobs working an additional illegitimate job for their landlord in order to continue paying an affordable rent, as well as results in tenants being unwilling to report illegal or unsafe conditions due to the fear of retaliation from their landlord.

To the question of “Do you believe that the Nederland Board of Trustees represents your best interests”, all 23 interviewed answered that they did not.

“We never have a complete BOT, and the handling of the police matter made it obvious that they aren’t listening to the people,” one person commented.

“We don’t want to answer your survey because we know you represent those who just want to price us out of here. It’s obvious that the town doesn’t want renters and workers living here; they hate the poor,” another person said.

“Politics in this town just hasn’t changed at all. It’s a constant back and forth and nothing gets done, and it’s the way it’s always been,” said another.

Generally the consensus from the 23 interviewed felt that the BOT only serves their own interests, and that those interests align with the philosophy of profitability-for-some rather than prosperity-for-all.

A chasm that has grown between the haves and have nots, a lot of which stems from the lack of community engagement and the division that is sown on social media, has created an othering of those who have recently purchased homes here. These new residents are stereotyped as not being contributing members to the community, and as actively working to fundamentally change the perceived face and spirit of the town for the sake of profit.

“They’re actively taking away from the community rather than giving to the community,” said one person, referring to what they called the “gentrification” of Rollinsville.

As for suggestions for what the Nederland government could do better in terms of public outreach, most of those interviewed expressed a desire for more discourse in the form of Town Hall meetings, as opposed to the perceived rigidity and inconsistency of the three-minute public comment process on BOT meetings.

More than a quarter of the individuals interviewed noted that attending government meetings was an impossibility due their work schedule and obligations and desired for other avenues for sharing information apart from “friending” Nederland Town Hall on Facebook.

Six individuals wished for more “boots on the ground” effort for public engagement, especially when surveying the public on big issues. And 11 individuals suggested that renters and unhoused require their own proper representation to assure that they can have a seat at the table during matters that concern them.

The BOT, on May 2, heard suggestions from DeMinck, from Bohannan Huston, and from Nederland’s Public Engagement Manager Peter Cacek concerning more targeted outreach on the matter of the housing needs assessment. Trustees made commitments to attend public events like the Nederland Farmer’s Market, to post more direct advertising, and to create promotional videos on the subject.

DeMinck and Cacek spoke with The Mountain-Ear about how they are spearheading the public outreach efforts for the housing needs assessment, providing Bohannan Huston with data gathered from the public so that recommendations for municipal code change to promote affordable or alternative housing construction can be made. Both the housing needs assessment and changes to Nederland’s code are prerequisites for eligibility for the Housing Development Incentive Grant Program.

“Speaking from first-hand experience, I’ve never been able to move here,” DeMinck explained why the housing issue, and the voices of those affected by it, are so important to her. “I’m glad I’m working on this study; I definitely have that personal experience and that’s why my drive is often going to be for that portion of the community because I’m in the same boat; I also work here and I’m having a hard time paying my bills.”

“Unfortunately I think controversy is going to come either way,” DeMinck said, referring to the inevitable changes to be made to municipal code. “But maybe with a Trustee member or a Commissioner backing it people will see this as more than just data and will understand the whole point of the grant.”

“Town staff only holds so much value, but someone who is volunteering their time to be on the board, that really goes a long way.”

Town Administrator Dr. Miranda Fisher reiterated to The Mountain-Ear that Mayor Billy Giblin and Trustee Nichole Sterling both serve on the Housing Subcommittee and are the ones who requested to put the housing needs assessment issue onto the BOT for May 2, though Fisher, DeMinck, and Cacek were the authors of the prepared agenda information memorandum (AIM) for that meeting.

DeMinck wished to stress the importance of focusing more on alternative housing as opposed to affordable housing, which has previously been the focus when Nederland has discussed the issue of providing housing.

“Sustainability here is really the problem we’re facing right now. If more housing can come from code change, then that’s amazing; if more people can come into the community and the community benefits, that’s great. But I do think there needs to be more of a focus on how to keep the people that we have.”

“The conclusion I’ve come to is I don’t think there’s a way for there to be affordable housing in Nederland, or in Colorado in general,” DeMinck admitted. “But I think that there could be code changes to make the transition a little easier, like what if there was something in code that allowed for a year or two of temporary housing that still has to adhere to sanitary codes?”

“There are several property owners I’ve met that have said they would let someone stay in their home or on their property for a year or two,” DeMinck said, adding that the current code does not always easily allow for infill development concepts, like tiny homes or yurts, nor does it allow for recreational vehicles to be parked on private property for extended periods of time.

“People automatically think ‘affordable housing’, but they aren’t understanding that we can’t sustain these people that have already lived here for years, this older generation that is now going on social security and can’t afford to pay these rental costs, or they’re losing a spouse and they won’t have that double income anymore.”

The median house price in greater Boulder County in February 2023 was $781,000, up 5.5% from 2022. However, according to an April 9 market update, of the 19 active listings in Nederland the average sales price for a home was $1,162,375. The average sales price in neighboring Gilpin County is $495,250.

It can cost upwards of $475 per square foot to build a home in Boulder County, with the average listing home price per square foot being $379. The average monthly rent for a one-bedroom apartment is anywhere between $1,400 to $1,800, with a two-bedroom apartment costing $1,900 to $2,800 a month.

“I think that sense of community here will be lost if we don’t figure out how to make it sustainable for people that are here. How much rotation have you seen of new faces around town, or on Town staff because we can’t afford to live here? How can you help the community flourish and benefit when it’s hard for anyone to stay here?”

“I would hate to see a whole community pushed out because we’re not thinking about them,” DeMinck said, adding that she hopes for those who feel neglected or disenfranchised to fill out the survey and turn out for future workshops and meetings to have their voices heard.

“We’ve seen a spike in the surveys, it’s gone from about 27 to 62 responses,” DeMinck noted. “The end goal of this grant is changing code and I think there will probably be another workshop to focus on the data we’ve seen so far and the suggestions for code changes. I think that’s when we’ll see more of these people show up.”

“I’m looking at it from the perspective of how can we get the best out of Bohannan Huston with the money we have. My hope is now that we’ve done some of this and we are getting more feedback I can give them this information and they can put it in a presentable way and be the voice of the outside opinion.”

“They have to come to the conclusion on their own and say ‘this is how we should change code’, so it’s not just coming from Town staff. They take their data from the community and from that information gathered tell us how we’re going to be able to sustain or provide housing at a better cost.”

Cacek acknowledged that the issue of housing in Nederland is somewhat of a taboo subject, specifically the matters of the lack of housing and lack of compromise on where, and what type of, housing should be built that would satisfy all residents as far as its placement and aesthetic.

“It’s not one of those divisive topics until it is; until it’s too big of a problem,” Cacek said. “We can push for fliers or social media posts but people need to see it to engage it and I think there needs to be more prevalent discussion going throughout the town about it.”

“With the Egress project there was more of a sense of urgency, but housing is always an uncomfortable subject. We have to explore parts of our town that people just don’t want to talk about, and those who need housing for various reasons may not be in the best parts of their life, so I think that’s why we’re seeing more hesitancy.”

“This isn’t a new conversation, this has been going on for years, and unfortunately it comes back to the same issues,” Cacek mentioned. “There’s a lot of NIMBYism and a lot of desire to keep the aesthetic of the town, which I totally understand, but Nederland is in transition and it has to decide what kind of town it’s going to become next. And if we don’t make that decision it will be made for us.”

Currently the loudest voices directing the wind of the discussion are those who are removed from the problem at hand, as they already own property. It’s for this reason that DeMinck and Cacek have been focusing their public outreach efforts to the unhoused and to renters, including creating videos featuring testimony from those who suffer the stress of trying to afford an apartment or the constant anxiety of being priced out of the town that they, and generations before them, may have grown up in.

“I do think that there isn’t a voice for renters and that’s one of the issues that we’re seeing, and that putting the voice of those who are being affected the most out there has been something we’ve been exploring a lot,” Cacek said.

“From working on these videos what has really come through to me are all these different viewpoints and issues that we may never have even explored before, and that’s vital.”

The Mountain-Ear will continue its coverage of the housing needs assessment as Bohannan Huston will be making their suggestions for what kind of housing Nederland actually needs, and what code changes are required to bring such housing projects to fruition. The matter of changing Nederland municipal code based on Bohannan Huston’s suggestions will come forward onto the BOT’s agenda in the near future and therefore will enter the public process of discussion before action can be taken.

To have your voice heard on this matter, or on other issues concerning the town of Nederland, please write to: ideas@themountainear.com.