in

Technical Review Group of the Housing and Human Services Advisory Board June 17,2020

For a transcript of the meeting, please read below:

Meeting Transcription Disclaimer:

Note: The following is the output of transcribing from a video recording. Although the transcription, which was done with software, is largely accurate, in some cases it is incomplete or inaccurate due to inaudible passages or [software] transcription errors. It is posted as an aid to understanding the proceedings at the meeting, but should not be treated as an authoritative record.

To listen to the meeting alongside a transcript, please visit:

https://otter.ai/s/flbtVXFeQweL9qfcbChcHg

0:05
Looks like we’re live. You may begin. Thanks. Hi, everyone. Welcome back. Um, so we’re going to talk about the habitat application. Kathy is with us. She’s traveling so she’s here on the phone. And so earlier today I did send out just a quick little overview of the mountain Brook project. So I didn’t know if anyone had any questions or if you just wanted to jump into your your thoughts about the the application in the presentation that we heard last week.

0:43
Diane

0:47
Good evening. Hi. Um, thank you Molly, for putting the PDF together and sending that out. On the pie chart the funding sources as presented development costs. That’s in that’s habitats. funding sources, correct. Right. Yes, that

1:06
exactly. That is just for Habitat project.

1:08
Right. So then, um, some of the categories, we’re still waiting, like while the color division of housing

1:18
is a piece that

1:22
hasn’t been awarded yet correct.

1:25
So according to habitat, they’ve been awarded 15,000 of it. And the way that it works is that the state provides that money to the state habitat, who then provides it to the affiliates so they’ve been awarded 15,000. They believe they will get the rest of the money or be awarded for the rest of it in September from from the state habitat. So the money is there from the state of Colorado. But however, that funding side works so well here back in September.

2:03
The reason I was asking is I was looking at the original application and comparing so. Okay,

2:10
thank you.

2:14
I’m finished for now. Okay.

2:18
Jeff?

2:24
Sorry, was that 15 of the 62? Total? Yes. Not 15 per unit, right?

2:30
Correct. 15,000 of the total 62,000 that they’ve put in from

2:37
the state.

2:39
Another quick question on these funds, are these typically grants or can we structure them as alone? I can’t recall.

2:52
So, I believe they can be as they are. They can be a grants. I suppose. Kathy, I’m not 100 percent sure, I think they could also be alone if we wanted them to be.

3:09
I think that’s true.

3:12
So usually, I mean Usually, the city of Boulder usually grants their home funds. I know we have done it both ways we’ve loaned it sometimes, particularly if they were serving the upper, upper affordable am eyes. But we’ve also granted as well.

3:37
against having it as alone in this case with for sale product with might be kind of difficult, potentially right. Or I guess a piece of it might get paid off at each sale, if we structured it that way, potentially.

3:59
Just thinking out loud

4:01
Yeah.

4:03
Yeah, I don’t know how what it would do to their if, if the loan was paid back with each sale, how that would affect their pro forma

4:19
cuz what they are doing is is selling those mortgages as soon as they sell a home to an affordable buyer to be able to use that money to quickly move into continuing the construction. So if a chunk of that was coming back, I don’t know how that would affect

4:39
those sales proceeds, billing for and continuing with the construction.

4:47
Yeah, that might be difficult.

5:00
there any other questions or thoughts on the on the project and the request?

5:12
Do you have an idea of which way you may be leaning?

5:20
Question? Oh, wait ahead.

5:25
Just like the conversation that was going on the other, like last week that the question that Kathy asked and, and more he followed up on is just because I don’t, you know, I don’t live and breathe all these acronyms, but basically kind of in relationship to the inclusionary. I’m just trying to encapsulate it in a in a sentence or two so that I understand it because I feel like that might still be kind of an outstanding issue is, let me let me say what kind of what I under That was they’re already getting the fee waivers. The land is being donated by the by the developer is my is my recollection, but that the pieces that are coming from the city of Longmont would be the 200. And what was their they’re asked to 40 to 70, something like that. Plus the the fee waivers, which I think we’re all in is about 350. And I think the the, and they’re in their whole they’re kind of their, their, their ratio of the number of units that they’re doing in relationship to the inclusionary requirement is below the threshold is that and so there’s kind of some some tension between that are potentially some tension and trying to understand what council Council’s thinking on that was.

6:50
Yeah, so their request is 120,000

6:53
word and when I got

6:53
the numbers show, and then the fee waivers, which would be separate which are available to any developer Are they are estimating about 93

7:02
weeks? Yeah, Monday through.

7:05
And so habitats is doing eight units, but it’s the the master developer actually got the lower requirements. So they’re the ones who came to Council and made the proposal to provide land donation that would be below, like the minimum requirement or the minimum that’s in the the ordinance. Right.

7:33
So council basically gave them a pass on that.

7:37
They a allowed them to have to provide a total of 8% is what their housing requirement is to be fulfilled by habitat and the veterans community. Right.

7:53
So, so then kind of filming it, so that’s a great reminder. So then fill me in on the piece that The what Kathy was talking about is or the point that she brought up, which then Maury kind of responded to by email to the group.

8:14
So essentially the master developer got a lower inclusionary housing requirements, but the Florida but they’re not actually providing the affordability, the affordability is being provided by habitat. Because the developer got a lower requirement. Now the city will have to provide or potentially will provide additional funding to meet that lower affordability.

8:44
All right, Okay, got it. Hello, upper was allowed. Get right. And if and if the developer were actually doing that took on the building and the construction of those affordable units. Presumably, they were would have been able to capitalize at least most of it.

9:03
Yes. And they probably they probably would only be wouldn’t be doing the unit at 80%. Right. Right. The lower 60% that habitat. Okay.

9:23
Jeff,

9:25
I just want to clarify something real quick. Going back to the tables that you sent out earlier today because you just you just mentioned that they’re at 60%. But truly looking at this table here of sales prices where they’re going to be at it looks like they’re 20 to 30.

9:49
In the four bedroom case, almost

9:53
40% lower than 60 ami, which is I guess, in my mind a pretty compelling reason to look at the additional 15,000 a unit. I think David alluded to that a little bit in the meeting, when Kathy asked, you know, why? Why should we be looking at this request? And I think he made a good point there that truly we’re gonna be for Habitat. I don’t know exactly what those numbers are, but it looks like they’re going to be 50 or below. Do you happen to know what those exact numbers are?

10:33
Yeah, so the 60% and 80% are the prices that the city sets in habitat, generally, even if they are at 60%?

10:45
The, it all depends on how you do your formulas

10:49
are lower than than the cities.

10:51
So

10:54
just a second, let me look at that out.

11:00
Molly, did you want me to display that chart?

11:06
No, that’s okay. I will just

11:12
so these are slightly old figures. We are also currently looking at the formula that we use to set the Affordable prices to potentially change that.

11:26
Those figures so

11:31
sorry.

12:01
Okay, so the city’s 60% prices. The two bedroom is 237,603 bedroom is at 263,800. And the four bedroom is currently 306,600. So again, we’re probably going to change those or potentially we’ll change those but those would be the current, the current maximums right now. And then habitats. There are two bedrooms were 200,003 bedroom was 215,000 and they’re four bedrooms 225

12:58
Good point.

13:01
Sorry, Diane. One last point I was going to make there in relation to all this in the additional grant, if you will, you know, to put the other 15,000 into a per unit and to see those reduction in the cost for the end family. I like that because I think it’s not necessarily for giving them the other hundred and 20,000 that doesn’t necessarily mean that you know, they’re putting less into it, I see it as that’s going straight to the families in in each of those units. So unless I’m looking at that incorrectly, let me know but you know, to get a reduction from 360 to 225 on that four bedroom for 15,000. I think the great thing for the end user they and family they’re just a comment

14:01
Thank you,

14:03
Diane.

14:04
Well, thank you, Jeff. That’s the direction that I was going in. You actually put some solid numbers behind it, I was just working on it. But um, so I was at the original application from habitat and on page six, there is the area that you fill in in regards to housing units residence selection, and it does list 30 to 60%. of ami for the for two bedroom, two, three bedroom, two, four bedroom. And so, what would you say is from the the amount Then I haven’t gotten that far with my map is the percentage going to be? It’s less than 60. It’s more than 30.

15:11
In terms of the household that they actually serve,

15:14
no no of what they’re going to be putting the percentage of ami that’s going to be offered for the home ownership of the habitat homes. In their application. They’re saying it’ll be 30 to 60%. On the the PDF sent out today, we see that 60% is quite a bit higher and habitat is lower. I was I haven’t gotten to the what, what are we looking at for

15:43
what they’re hoping? So if you’re comparing habitats, prices to the 60% set by the city? Yeah, basically.

15:56
So habitat would be around. Let’s see.

16:22
So there there would be between 50 and 60 we just break them down by 10% increments. So I don’t know, like 47 I got Yeah, well, yeah, sorry 50% prices are at 179. Okay, looks to be that 220 or

16:54
so sound like they’re about 55 or so. Oh yeah.

16:59
I’m guessing Yeah, right around in there. The thing with Habitat sorry, this is Kathy and I didn’t mean to interrupt it. And I didn’t wave my hand because she can’t see it. The thing with Habitat so that they set their prices at a certain price point, and they can, they would be allowed to serve up to 60% ami income people or families. But if they got a 40% ami family, that they income qualified, they would just adjust the the payment that the household actually made, so that it fit within whatever they said 27% of their total income. Because they do their mortgages themselves. They have the ability to flex the term of the loan out to make it affordable for the whatever homeowner they get into the homes, which is you know, that’s a really neat thing and a good thing.

18:00
And it

18:02
doesn’t fit as neatly into our program as some others that are, you know, more strict around the 80% income and 80% sales price. So

18:35
any more thoughts or questions?

18:43
Diane? Well, so following up on a comment that

18:48
we’ve discovered tonight and that is if there’s the potential of look read looking at the formula for the

19:00
60% 80% ami city of Longmont standards,

19:05
I’m wondering if there’s a need for a consideration of a more dynamic application process to you know, the question that started this and it was it was great to have that is are we are we requiring too much from the developers to move this process through and and yet, in this day and age, it seems like the more creative developer can be to make affordable housing homeownership, especially be available is necessary. So

19:48
just like we were saying earlier to, to get to reflect each developers

19:58
way of now Navigating

20:02
with a one size fits all application may be a real challenge. And we’ll

20:08
have conversations like this again.

20:24
Yes, I will have more conversations

20:28
like this. Yeah. Well, this is Cathy again, I you know, council definitely designed the inclusionary housing program to try and be as creative as as possible while keeping to certain standards, but developers can come in and they can request exemptions. They can request combinations of how they’re going to provide the housing and council will consider That under the voluntary alternative agreement, so a developer has to put together proposal and bring it to Council. It’s vetted by staff as well, including our city attorneys in order to make sure it still complies with the code. But it is the paragraph that we sometimes call let’s make a deal because they do get quite creative sometimes in what they they propose. But you know, that was somewhat on purpose. That council wanted to see what they might come up with that might be more creative than just following a very structured and rigid inclusionary housing program. And as a result on the back end, then we have to write really creative agreements around how they’re going to provide the housing and to ensure that it actually gets built and they’re not just passing on their requirement to a habitat. Or to a housing authority or to somebody like that, and then walking away and really not doing anything more than donating land and offsite infrastructure.

22:13
So

22:15
and and then in, in considering things like this, like I said, this is one of the first ones is come in, that’s not a 100%, affordable project under inclusionary. Housing. So we’ve had a couple of those in the past. And to me, that’s less of a, it’s the actual developer that’s doing the housing and doing it at 100%, which is way over the 12%. So it makes more sense to me to, to consider it in this process for additional city subsidies. So it really my call was just to start thinking about that and trying to ensure that we’re being fair to every everybody and that, that a developer isn’t taking advantage.

23:02
have the opportunity to be creative. And

23:08
offloading sounds the right word but

23:11
transferring their requirement on to a nonprofit who, you know, doesn’t have the wherewithal as resources that a lot of developers have. So it was just really trying to think it through and be cautious about that. I have nothing against habitat at all. And I think it makes a lot of sense if they are getting to lower incomes than the 60%. That that might make all kinds of sense to to further sundown other than just what would normally be required.

23:54
Quick question and I think I asked this every time but what do we have available? This year and looking at next year as well for what is available.

24:04
I was gonna ask the same question

24:07
which I asked every meeting.

24:11
I say do you have that easily available?

24:15
I do. I just looked at it the other day so we have $800,800 in affordable housing funds for the rest of the year. Habitat with this

24:31
lucky

24:36
Cathy, your your breaking up we can’t

24:39
be you. Lee did not request home toto buttons. The choco Farah, can you Is this better? at all? Can you hear? Can you hear me now? Yes. So the total funding comes to us from through the consortium and it is a little bit more sometimes more flexible and more available, other than just in the year that we get our allocation. So, like, as I indicated before we got our allocation was coming to us in 2021. We allocated it all to the Kauffman project, there is a set aside of total funds in 2021. So that is available, and it’s around. I think they estimated 150 to 160,000. They also still have total funding available from 2021. They’re in the position the city of Boulder is in that there. shoto has a project, but the timing keeps getting pushed off. So there’s an ability if we decide we do want to fund this, that we could get either all or partial funding from 2020. And then if it’s partial than the rest of it from the 2021 funds, so we’re trying to be flexible consortium wise With the total funding and then CDBG funds aren’t going to be available until fall to winter when we do the third or fourth quarter application round, and those won’t be available until 2021.

26:31
Who were who were the organizations that were getting the chotto funds

26:39
that no longer are in one month?

26:43
I think

26:44
Longmont Housing Authority at one point. I’ve been at shoto.

26:51
I don’t know of any others.

26:56
Yeah, it was actually the Housing Development Corporation. The The nonprofit arm of the Housing Authority was at one time and they are no longer and this was at one time. I don’t we never gave them any total funding for a project in Longmont. I don’t know if they still or not.

27:17
Yeah, we’re encouraging habitat to do so. bring in more federal dollars into one month that way.

27:35
I have a comment to make, if we’re hoping that Laura Laurie will join on and I can make a comment. And that is I and I wanted to say something last week with Dave and john from habitat on but I didn’t want to take up time. And that is, I was so impressed with their reasonable accommodations policy statement that they drafted and how All Inclusive it is and my intent if it’s okay would be to share with my executive director and, and, and write a letter of commendation and I could run it through TRG to them or, or whatever but for so I pulled it up here for

28:23
not only

28:26
to accommodate a variety of needs is their statement, but you know, they included allergies and cognitive impairments and visual and auditory. So very, very comprehensive. So if that’s okay, I’d like to, to do a comet RM recognition of that comprehensive accommodations policy.

28:56
Kathy, do you have any thoughts on that one

29:00
I think if you want to suggest that the TRG can consider it whether to do it or not, or if you wanted to do it as CPD, WC CP WD organization, I think that would be perfectly acceptable.

29:15
I’m perfectly fine doing it as CP WD since it’s always on our radar

29:21
and I can share I can see see it with TRG

29:27
think that would be fine unless the other TRG members are feel really strongly that they would like to support that.

29:38
What do you guys think?

29:45
Okay.

29:54
So that’s a greeting to have it go from the TRG

30:01
If that was, yeah, we’re not in about Okay.

30:07
I will draft something and share it with Molly. Thank you.

30:15
So Laurie did say to just start with her she wasn’t sure if or when she would be able to join in. So I don’t know. If people have have are ready to make a decision, we can we can move that way. Since I don’t know if or when she may be coming on.

30:39
I’m ready.

30:42
I’m ready.

30:43
I’m ready. Okay.

30:47
Well, we can just start with Diane and go down

30:49
my row.

30:51
What are your what’s your recommendation, Diane?

30:54
I would like to, um, we should start with Jeff. He’s the one It always puts it in good words there. Okay. dollars in money.

31:07
That Okay, Jeff?

31:10
Yeah, actually, I’d make it fairly simple I’ve, in this case, I would recommend that we fund the hundred and 20,000 as a grant to the project.

31:22
Okay, thank you.

31:23
I do want to give full disclosure, as has been the case in the past, they have been talking with Dave about being the lender on this project. Although I, I was not aware that they were going to make this application prior to us actually giving terms on it. And, and we don’t have a commitment either at this point. So we’re one of a few partners that habitat has in the banking side. So again, we’re not under commitment, and I certainly have my TRG hat on Right now and not my banker hat, so

32:06
thank you.

32:11
I support the hundred and 20,000 as a grant. Okay.

32:23
Michelle,

32:24
I support the hundred and 20,000 is.

32:32
Jake, do you have anything you would like to

32:35
add for? thankful I

32:38
think the group came up with a good call here the project works for me. And I think that’s a recommendation that HSA B will largely agree with. I think there’ll be some questions about what was asked at the end of the last meeting regarding some of the conversations we’ve had here. So maybe an explanation for them that I can carry back but I’ve got my notes and I think it’s a good explanation. So I’m For sure.

33:01
Great, thank you.

33:07
Okay. Well, I think that that is it. Kathy, do you have anything you want to add?

33:15
Just that we’ll get with the city of Boulder on what year the funds would come from and figure all that out before we take it to the housing advisory board. So that would be the only possible change that we might make. It might be a split of 60,060 thousand but it to get to the full 120 at some point. Okay.

33:38
Great. Thank you. Question. Yeah. Sorry, before we head out.

33:45
Not to keep belaboring this point, but Kathy’s question, you know, going forward, is that something that we’re going to want to discuss further? That’s something city council discuss or, or do we just take a question? By case and or project by project approach and, and look at each one individually, rather than trying to come up with some type of parameters. They’re just, I don’t know,

34:14
something to ponder for the group.

34:18
Yeah, this is Kathy. I’m

34:22
I’m have a couple of opinions, I guess. I think counsel would appreciate if there was a philosophy or a thought process that we could articulate around this, that we could present to them that they could react to they that seems to work better for them.

34:46
And

34:51
it’s not knowing what is going to be coming up. I mean, we could take a look in the pipeline and kind of purchase Forward, I guess for some inclusionary housing projects what we might be receiving, so I am sure we’ll probably get another request from habitat for the sugar mill project, which they’re also doing a, it’s a more straight land donation

35:19
type of a project to meet the

35:22
developers requirements, but I think they’re also doing it at 12% and not at a lower percentage, so 12% of the total homes will still be affordable. So maybe we can look at what’s coming up and put together before we meet, do another funding round, what we might be likely to see and then get the group together and kind of talk through what we’re, what we’re thinking about. That might make the most sense at this point. Want to get you guys together anyway and just talk about the process and looking into the future. But you know if TRG is working if we’re getting what we need from from both groups, I know the housing Advisory Board has been feeling a little disconnected, which is why, again, why we did the presentations together. So really trying to figure out how can we strengthen the review process and get you guys’s input on that as well. So maybe in cash July is almost here. Maybe in August. We could have something pulled together and have a meeting and have something for you guys to react to.

36:50
So good.

36:51
And I’m

36:54
sorry, Kathy. Just curious what the next round when the next round of applications would be Do

37:04
I will tell you just a

37:06
quick second.

37:27
So they the applications are due July 27. And actually that TRG and advisory board joint meeting is scheduled for August 13.

37:42
So we might want to push that back a little bit just given everything else we’ve got going on. And update, maybe do a September application or something like that. I just yeah,

37:56
I can take a look at that.

38:00
Well and I would appreciate

38:05
some what if scenarios and also the, the differential between developing affordable rental units versus home ownership. And and then in regards to funding this project and habitat projects in general with homeownership, that would be a strong message that I would want shared as to why I’m in support of this and and that it I think the wheels were already put it into motion with some of the conversations already with City Council

38:44
moving the needle down to 8%.

38:51
And, and,

38:53
you know, is that because of homeownership, as well from from that initial level as well. So it’d be a good conversation to have.

39:09
Okay, great.

39:13
Anything else?

39:17
Okay, well thank you very much for your time and your all your input. And

39:24
we will be back in touch.

39:28
Thank you, girl.

39:29
Thank you all great as always,

39:31
have a good night. Bye bye

Transcribed by https://otter.ai