I'm here today to encourage the HR to not weaken this policy by increasing the minimum number of units. But I'm also here to speak in support of eliminating the payment in LW clause for accessible units... and in support of strengthening the Richfield policy to require affordable units to remain affordable for at least 20 years.

People with lower incomes and people with disabilities should be able to choose where they live just like anyone else. Which means they should have the option of being able to live in a five or 10 unit building and shouldn't be forced to only live in big apartment buildings because that's where the affordable accessible units are.

People with disabilities should not have to be shoved into an institution or preferred places of to live that the city deems appropriate for them. They should be able to have choices as the ADA states and the Scotas decision of 1999 also known as the Mstead decision which is that people with disabilities have the right to live, work, learn, and participate in the community of their choice.

The idea that we're bringing to your attention today is doesn't have to be uh by replacing us. It doesn't have to be by removing choice from people to live in accessible or affordable housing units. We believe that the city can find better and more creative ways to incentivize development...

I want and I feel that Richfield we could do the same thing if we advocate how keeping this inclusionary policy will benefit our community benefits the developers and we promote ourselves as an accessible city. People are going to want to move here. People are going to want to be our neighbors. Developers are going to want to develop here.

I am happy to subsidize affordable homes for my neighbors, even at a much higher per unit rate if that is what requ what is required for it to pencil out. I am uninterested in subsidizing a private equity firm's investment property where they profit off cost burdening my neighbors.

Habitat is asking the HA for funds to assist with rehabilitating and ensuring the long-term affordability of the home as they did not budget to repurchase or rehab the home this year. They are requesting $80,000 from the city's affordable housing trust fund and that the HA reinvest the $40,000 loan repayment into the home.

our biggest cost savings come in using our volunteer model for doing a lot of the work. So, we are able to be fairly nimble in um in making those adjustments. Habitat is um contributing to the cost of the rehab as well and we can, you know, make those adjustments in our budget as well.

So, 15 units continues to be staff's recommendation for a revised project size, but it is ultimately a policy choice um for you.

I'm trying to get my head around this idea of a five-unit multifamily rental building being built in Ridgefield or anywhere for that matter because construction costs are really high, interest rates are high, and to make to make it work, rents have to be much higher in order to pay the debt service. ... it's almost impossible.

The only situation in which this change, what's proposed by staff and what I support, would be a detriment to people who need accessible housing or affordable housing would be if either we were getting so many projects that we were running out of money... or if these projects were going to be built anyway and they're not doing the affordable units because of the policy change. And I don't think either of those is the case.

I am on the H because I support affordable housing. It's deeply personal to me. the comments that were made tonight deeply resonated with me. So, I appreciate people showing up and advocating for what matters to them. ... Even with those changes, Richfield remains a leader in this space.

I think 15 is still too high. Like I said, I originally was thinking to propose 10 because we have a lot of units that are buildings that are like 10 to 12 buildings and I think that we need to have that accessibility and that affordability there. ... I can't vote for 15.