HomeMy WebLinkAboutAffordable Housing Board - Minutes - 02/06/1997CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AFFORDABLE HOUSING BOARD
Meeting Minutes
February 6, 1997
Bob Browning, Chair
Gina Janett, Council Liaison
The meeting of the Affordable Housing Board began at 4:05 p.m. at 281 North
College Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Board Members present included: Robert
Browning, Bruce Croissant, Sylvie Glass, Susan Nabors, Sue Wagner, and Terry
Wahl. Staff members present: Ken Waido and Dickson Robin.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION
Rusty Collins, representing the Affordable Housing Task Force, stated that a
candidate forum would be held for City Council candidates at the March meeting.
There were packets handed out to all candidates advising them of this forum.
Several written questions will be asked ahead of time, to be answered at this
meeting. Mr. Collins reviewed the prepared questions for the Board. The meeting
will be from at 11:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon; lunch may be included. Three candidates
have taken packets, but no responses have been returned.
Changes suggested to the December minutes: Bruce Croissant was not present.
Changes suggested to the January minutes: To reflect Mr. Browning's comment to
bring available housing to the 30 percent AMI level. Moved by Mr. Croissant,
seconded by Ms. Nabors: To approve the minutes as amended. Motion
passed unanimously.
Human Relations Commission. Questions were addressed by Greg Temple,
Assistant City Attorney. His purposes are to help draft the ordinance, answer legal
questions about it, and make it understandable. His role is not to say whether the
ordinance is good or bad. The draft ordinance is in a state of flux as the
Commission receives input from the various City Boards, Commissions, and public
groups. The most recent version has been seen by the Board. City Council is
expecting the draft ordinance to be presented at the May meeting.
Mr. Temple cited several questions and the answers thereto from the Commission:
Would the restriction on inquiries about marital status cause problems on
credit checks because of the legal relevance of income, debt, and credit of the
spouse; and is an exception needed similar to the one concerning source of
income? One cannot inquire about marital status, but can inquire about
responsibilities for debts incurred by any other person, i.e., spouse, former spouse,
or co-signing a note. Board members stated that the process would be much
simpler and understandable by applicants by simply inquiring about marital status.
Affordable Housing Board
Meeting of 2/6/97
Page 2
When nonreligious/nonprofit groups, such as Project Self -Sufficiency or
CARE, offer housing to single parents or specifically to low-income families, are
their actions in violation of the draft ordinance for possible discrimination? That
situation is not clearly addressed in the ordinance; the Commission may wish to
review that possibility for further clarification.
Since a separated spouse can show up and potentially claim a share in
assets, would it not be easier to inquire about marital status? That question cannot
be asked under the present language of the proposed ordinance.
Board members noted that inquiry into marital status would not be intended as
discriminatory but in furtherance of positive goals, and protection of both the
agency and the applicant. Mr. Temple noted that these were valid concerns that
needed to be addressed. The Commission will make the ultimate decision on the
language of the proposed ordinance.
Endorsement from the Affordable Housing Board would not be forthcoming unless
some of the questions and concerns are answered. Mr. Temple noted that the
ordinance is still evolving, and concerns among the various Boards and
Commissions are still ripe for discussion. Some of the Federal language may be
as restrictive as the ultimate City language.
The Board suggested that Mr. Temple speak with John Reid at Habitat and Mary
Cosgrove at Self -Sufficiency. Mr. Temple will advise the Board as to any changes
to the draft.
Development Fee Impact Rebate Program. The Board approved, in principle, the
idea of changing from the flat dollar rebate to a concept reflecting a percentage of
impact fees paid on a given affordable housing rental or ownership project. One
goal is to keep the rebate as close as possible to the current flat dollar amount.
Packets were distributed showing the breakdowns. Street oversizing and
neighborhood parks are eligible within this program. The rebate will be based on
actual fees paid. The schedule shows the rebate overall increasing approximately
$100 to $200. There are sufficient funds in the Affordable Housing Fund to cover
rebates under the new schedule.
Moved by Mr. Croissant, seconded by Ms. Glass: To adopt, Mr. Robin's
recommendation to amend the rebate program schedule from a flat dollar
rebate to one based on a percentage basis. Motion approved unanimously.
Discussion was held on the concept of ensuring that the rebated fees are cycled
into affordable housing in Fort Collins. The following items were mentioned in the
discussion:
Affordable Housing Board
Meeting of 2/6/97
Page 3
• Developers currently cannot be guaranteed that sufficient money will exist for
their rebates. Therefore, the program's leverage is diminished.
• Council can be asked to dedicate a certain budget amount to the rebate
program. Staff can inform a developer whether their rebate is guaranteed or not,
depending on the developers contribution to affordable housing.
• The rebate could be applied to building fees up -front. Mr. Robin realizes the
extra administrative burden, but this would help ensure that the rebate is used
in Fort Collins.
• Three things currently done: 1) Delay payment of fees, which reduces interest
paid by the developer, 2) Rebate of fees; 3) Expedited processing of affordable
housing plans.
• If rebates are to be used in a project, they must be factored into the overall
development budget, rather than being an extra income realized at the end of
the build -out. Discussion was held on how accountable developers are in
explaining where the rebates are applied.
• Regardless of where the rebate may be tracked to, the City has received its
benefit in the form of the resulting affordable housing.
• Developers can be asked for different pro formas, explaining the differences if
the rebate is received, along with any other incentives, and how those
incentives would be applied.
• The City needs assurances that developers will build in the lower end of the
promised range, as well as the higher; e.g., that a proposal to target the 30 to
50 percent sector does not concentrate on the 50 percent end.
• Taxpayers will want accountability to ensure that the program is effective.
• The Board could use the availability of rebates as a means of ensuring its goals.
• Rebates are not enough funding to have a big impact on developers' costs.
Accounting for rebates can easily be assumed into a number of items.
• A number of different goals are applicable in affordable housing. How the Board
could demand specific goals consistently from developers is problematic.
• No one is building for 30 percent AM[ right now. Very few are building for 40
percent.
• The existing Affordable Housing Fund has not yet been exhausted. Exhaustion
of the fund would mean that it is being used, and Council would probably finds
additional means to renew the fund.
The Board consensus was for the Board and staff to seek input from affordable
housing developers to find ways to meet the Board's goals. This item will be placed
on the next agenda for further discussion.
JFK Parkway SID. Mr. Krcmarik noted that the City is a property owner and real
estate agent of four SID parcels obtained through foreclosure. Proposals have
been received from Kaufman & Broad and TRAC for one of the parcels. This is
being presented to the Board because of affordable housing components of the
proposals.
In response to Board questions, Mr. Krcmarik stated the following:
Affordable Housing Board
Meeting of 216197
Page 4
The City has a policy to get the market value or best offer for property. The market
value is $390,000. The City has costs of $330,000. Other properties have sold at
a loss. The property is slightly less than three acres, and the appraiser stated that
current zoning would support either of the two uses mentioned. The City has a
responsibility to pay the bond holders, which will be accomplished by the sale. The
City is not necessarily required to sell to the highest bidder. Some SID developers
have taken the risks up front and made a cash payment and then have gone
through P&Z review; others have made the sale contingent on financing. Ten
percent is the required down payment. The City's interest is to liquidate' this
property and complete the City's role as owner/realtor.
Kaufman & Broad. Kip Shepard, with Kaufman & Broad, presented his proposal
to the Board for purchase of the property from the City.They are proposing a 72-unit
senior affordable housing project. Kaufman & Broad has a project on Shields and
Harmony, consisting of 116 apartments, targeted at the 50-60 percent of AMI
market, to be completed by May 30th. The company has extensive affordable
senior housing experience, with approximately 1300 units presently in some phase
of development.
Tom Erickson, Kaufman & Broad, discussed the proposed 72-unit 100 percent
affordable senior housing, consisting of 80 percent one -bedroom and 20 percent
two -bedroom. 15 percent are targeted to the 40 percent AMI market; the remainder
to the 50 percent population. The project will include a clubhouse, manager -in -
residence, pool and spa, sundeck area, large party/game assembly room, laundry
facilities, a full kitchen, and bingo center. All living units include flooring, carpeting
or vinyl, refrigerator, range, garbage disposer, blinds or drapes on the windows and
patios or balconies. Kaufman & Broad has offered the full appraised price for the
SID land and is willing to discuss any possible changes to the project with the City.
Kaufman & Broad will retain a national management company, Insignia, for property
management. Kaufman & Broad is able to purchase materials at better rates, thus
enabling higher -quality product and mitigation of the stereotypical image of
affordable housing being poor quality.
In response to questions by the Board, Mr. Shepard stated that the Low Income
Housing Tax Credits were underwritten at 65 cents in order to be conservative in
the face of market volatility. The AMI quoted is the 1997 AMI. Second -story units
for seniors has not been a problem in other projects. Some of the residents
consider it safer. There will not be in-house medical services, but those and other
services can be provided on -site on a scheduled basis as demand dictates.
If the project does not qualify in the first round for tax credit financing, it will try in
the second. If tax credits are not awarded, Kaufman & Broad will proceed using
non-competetive tax credits at a four percent basis. The single -bedroom apartments
skew the building costs higher. Costs are about $125/square foot. Kaufman & Broad
will research options about
Affordable Housing Board
Meeting of 2/6/97
Page 5
ownership/affordability of the property after 30 years, and working with a logical
nonprofit group. Ownership could be given to the City or the nonprofit group after
a certain amount of time has passed.
Board members inquired as to why senior affordable housing was chosen. Mr.
Shepard stated that according to the Coloradoan and the County, there seemed to
be a need for senior citizens for affordable housing in the Fort Collins area.
Amenities for seniors are available within short distances. Section 8 certificates
would also be accepted for people wishing to rent units. There would be no renting
to households under the age of 55. Pets are also allowed, with weight restrictions.
The company is highly committed to working with the Board and addressing the
Board's concerns and suggestions.
TRAC. Lou Stitzel presented her proposal pertaining to townhomes. The 36 units
would be across the street from already existing units. One- and two -bedroom units
would be the norm. These would be geared toward the working poor in the
community, not seniors. The area would be close to Wal-Mart, Kmart, Builders
Square and various grocery stores that could employ the above -mentioned people.
Ms. Stitzel noted a need for housing for the 40-60 year old age group. 36
homeowner units are being proposed so that a larger square footage may be
obtained forfamilies. The Community Land Trust concept creates only affordable
housing, with a 99-year renewable leases on home ownership.
This proposal came in under the appraisal price; however, more money up -front
helps the City to pay off its debt sooner. $50,000 will be coming from CDBG as
immediate down payment; a City HOME program loan will be applied for; and
possibly $100,000 will be available from Federal Home Loan Bank. The project is
at a minus $87,000; however, that will be requested from CDBG from the
reprogrammed remaining Pioneer funds. These funds could be available in
October 1997. The City will only have to pay interest on approximately $80,000.
In response to questions by the Board, Ms. Stitzel estimated development costs
between three and four million dollars. Earned income on development fees is
about five percent. Mortgage gap financing is being used to allow people to enter
into home ownership on a sliding -scale basis.
The Board discussed the number of units coming on-line in Fort Collins. Mr.
Krcmarik stated that while a City team was reviewing the proposals, the team had
not yet made a recommendation.
Moved by Ms. Glass, seconded by Mr. Wahl: To recommend the TRAC
proposal to City Council. Discussion for the motion involved: The advantages of
home ownership; the reduced fees TRAC was taking; and the financial ability of
Kaufman & Broad to find other parcels. Discussion against the motion involved: The
Affordable Housing Board
Meeting of 2/6/97
Page 6
lower price the City was receiving through the TRAC proposal; and the increased
number of units offered in the Kaufman & Broad proposal. Motion passed with one
member abstaining (Joanne Greer).
City Plan. The Board discussed City Plan. Packets were not provided for review,
so Mr. Browning recommended that the Board defer to Council; that the decision
had effectively been made for adoption. Mr. Waido addressed the Board on the
current draft of the zoning code. No packet was available due to its being rewritten
and finalized.
Tom Vosburg and Joe Frank reviewed elements of City Plan with the Board. The
feedback that they have received from other committees is that the Code is coming
together and has been developed rather rapidly. A lot of content and loose ends
remain to be resolved, but the whole system is coming together as a land use
package. No recommendation is necessarily expected from the Board.
There will be guidelines set for affordable housing, based on density, rate of
growth, cost benefits of new developments, opportunities for nonprofits to work with
other developers. Public participation will continue through March and the Council
hearings. Mr. Browning asked if it would be better for City. Plan to be finished and
then discussed. Mr. Vosburg requested input from the Board to incorporate in any
further revisions. Some misinformation needs to be cleared up so the Board has
a better understanding of the City Plan and the issues still to be finalized.
The City limits map and the UGA map will be adapted as a regulatory tool for land
use. The Land Use Code is a consolidation of the existing use -by -right zoning and
the LDGS Planned Unit Development. Those two systems are being merged into
one, keeping the best of both and trying to fix the problems of both. The new Code
is organized within five articles. Article 1 is boilerplate to establish zoning. Article
2 defines Type 1 and Type 2 processes. Article 3 is general development
standards that apply for all developments city-wide. Article 4 is zoning standards
that relate specifically to the map; Articles 3 and 4 work together to define how the
land use code works and implements the City Plan vision. Article 5 is definitions.
The new hybrid process begins with the pulling of a building permit review, where
a decision is made whether the use is either Type 1 or Type 2. Type 1 is submitted
to the Planning staff and then reviewed by the Planning Director. Type 2 is
reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Board. When reviews are finished, the
director will schedule meetings. Neighborhoods will be notified of upcoming
meetings. One advantage is that with the new process, a neighborhood cannot
disagree about the purpose of a nearby project, as the criteria will already be
established. A basis must exist for complaints; the process cannot be used as part
of a delay tactic.
LDGS density has a minimum density of units per acre. Five to eight is the
guideline. However, it is really five to 12 units, according to the ODP basis. Five
units per acre density allows for mixed housing. Affordable housing could profit by
Affordable Housing Board
Meeting of 2/6/97
Page 7
the streetscape image that people responded to, for garage location in alleys.
Design do not allow same model houses to be built next to each other.
The new standards include public facilities, water, streets, sewer. New levels of
standards for alternative modes of transportation are incorporated. The new
standards require more up -front costs for off-street improvements. Wide streets
were discussed, with a preference for providing detached sidewalks and narrower
streets, with opportunities for alleys. Smaller lots may be the future; a 20-year plan
is being discussed with CPAC.
Particular goals were discussed, such as traffic and air quality controls, reduction
of traffic. There will be peaks and valleys in production, but housing will continue
to be built steadily over the next 20 years. In previous years, the housing was
allowed to be built on whatever was popular at the time, with opportunities given up
for other types of housing and mixed land uses. That will no longer be an option.
If a neighborhood doesn't like a rezoning that takes place, planning staff will have
a hearing.
Misconceptions of the new City Plan were discussed. No porches, picket fences.
Alleys aren't mandated. Mobile home parks would be a permitted use. The new
Code does not distinguished between a stick -built house or a manufactured house
on a permanent foundation. Mixed uses and higher densities will allow for more
affordable housing; however, the multiple designs may drive some costs higher.
The final effect is yet undetermined.
Off -site improvements for transit connection is being enhanced. Growth outward
should occur in a sequential fashion rather than in pockets. No exemption is being
allowed for affordable housing. Detached sidewalks and alleys are being
encouraged, and no impact on affordability costs is anticipated. The new City Plan
is based on a 60-40 single/multifamily split, which is the split that the City has now
and has had for some time. The density being proposed helps the City to meet its
traffic and air quality goals. Opportunities for land use should not be lost because
a developer is trying to meet the market vagaries of the moment.
The Plan is evolving, and modifications will undoubtedly be made in ensuing years.
Rezoning can still be accomplished through hearings. Zoning will not solve the
problem of housing availability for the under 50 percent AMI market. This type of
housing will continue to need subsidies. The scenario that people will live and work
in close proximity is somewhat problematic. A goal of the City Plan is to provide
services close to homes in order to reduce vehicle miles and encourage pedestrian
traffic.
Affordable Housing Board
Meeting of 2/6/97
Page 8
Staff suggested the Board discuss the possibility of a joint worksession with the
CDBG Commission. Such a meeting would discuss targets of affordable housing
programs, increasing housing stock, and incentives to build affordable housing. A
possible date for this meeting is March 6 at 6:00 p.m. The CDBG Commission will
be approached regarding their willingness and availability for such a meeting.
Mr. Browning announced that Mike Nicely had been appointed to replace Mary
Cosgrove on the Board.
The meeting adjourned at 6:40 p.m.
and EnvironmentServices
Advance Planning Department
MEMORANDUM
DATE: February 25, 1997
TO: Jim O'Neill, Director of Purchasing & Risk Management
FROM: Dickson Robin, City Planner a
THRU: Joe Frank, Director, Advance PI g
RE: Proposals to Purchase City Land at arkway and Troutman
ISSUE: Comparison of Affordable Housing Projects Proposed on the Land
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF ISSUE:
Attached for your information is a Table that provides an evaluation of the two affordable
housing projects proposed on the City owned land located at JFK Parkway and Troutman Drive.
Outlined in the attachment are the pros and cons of both projects from an affordable housing
perspective. The comparison was undertaken by the City's Affordable Housing Team and
considers all factors, including need, amount of subsidization by the City, target populations,
type of housing, length of affordability and the developers capacity. Staff is familiar with both
developers, The Resource Assistance Center (TRAC) and Kaufman & Broad, as both have
previously completed affordable housing projects in the City. If you have any questions, please
call me at 6342.
281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 380 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6376
FAX (970) 224-6111 TDD (970) 224-6002
°
N >
o�
U
•
•�+
W
W O
Vl °
cd
•d
w �
to:,
W
3
°
c
Fon
ci
4.
U
CDw
N
•�
Z U
Y
U
N
•Y�•, 0.
U °� O
U
C U
cn O
�e
40.
00
to
p
13
y¢
a
¢Cl)
>, a
a x
b x
,.o x
° c
fj
F
oa
a
z"R
m
b�:=
a.w
a° A
ZOw
HAO
da°
o
00
w s
rA
¢
y
O
Ir •N S
w
•5 00
°
'd
Y
o
bz
U\
o
y
a0i V]
p
"a°i °
0 o
a.
O
o
o
A
O
a
m
o
w
V]
>
yY
a�i
>1��-'
r.
� y
o
y>,�
d O
o
O
d
�U
f��^
00 0
.
0-4
° .G
o b y
C e'�
U Y
A O
o
N'
ta
y'm
The Economic Setting of Fort Collins and the Hyundai Proposal
I. The Overall Economy of Fort Collins (1993)
+Consumption
1,304.4
+Fixed Invest.
474.9
+Inventory Invest.
16.0
+Government
320.1
+Exports
2,710.2
-Imports
(1,631.4)
=Total output (Bill. $) 3,194.3
Total Employment: 49,419 persons
Total Capital Stock: $8.118 Billion
II. The Hyundai Proposal
-Investment = $1.2 Billion
(See following pages for Ft. Collins
"relevant " investment)
-Exports: $700 Million (Estimated)
-New Employment = 950 Direct
To produce realistic results of the impact that Hyundai's initial investment would have on
the Fort Collins economy we devised three levels of initial investment. Of the $1.2 - $1.5
Billion proposed investment for the entire project only a portion will result in demand to
local producers. The clean room ventilation and climate control equipment will be
imported as well as the majority of assembly and manufacturing equipment. Our
maximum demand to local producers for the first two years is broken down as follows:
Demand to Local Producers Total H=dai Investment
$10 M Land $10 M Land
$290 M Const, Plant & Equip $ 1,040 M Const, Plant & Equip
$100 M Other $ 150 M Other
$400 M $1.2 B
In addition to the investment directly related to the new manufacturing facility, it is
estimated that an additional investment of $30 Million will result from indirect demand.
This includes housing, personal property, etc. Therefore, the total new investment
demand in the Fort Collins Economy will be $430 Million for the first two years.
To simulate the impact of this investment we divided the $430 Million investment evenly
into two years worth of investment, thus, for each of the first two years $215 Million of
investment demand will result. Furthermore, we chose to inject this investment into the
economy in three increments: $55 Million, $135 Million and $ 215 Million. Simulating
investment incrementally provides information about how different levels of investment
are absorbed in the economy.
The following table summarizes these assumptions:
Type of Investment
Total Investment
year 1 year 2
Investment
Level 1
Investment
Level 2
Investment
Level 3
Land
$10 M
$10 M
$10 M
$10 M
Construction
$145 M
$145 M
$30 M
$75 M
$125 M
Other
$ 45 M
$55 M
$10 M
$ 42.5 M
$65 M
Indirect
$15 M
$15 M
$5 M
$7.5 M
$15 M
Total
$215 M
$215M
$55 M
1 $135 M
1 $215 M
s
0 •
Hyundai Investment Scenario #1
Impacts of an Investment Increase of S55 Million by Hyundai
on Labor Use, Total Output, Wages and Labor Income, 1993
-----------------------------------------------------------
Total Labor (Persons)
Sector Output (SMill.)
% Base/
% Base
Sector
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Base
Simulation
Simulation
Base
Simulation
of Simulation
Const
2,758.9
2,932.3
106.3
395.02
422.28
106.9
Manuf
8,543.0
8,162.6
95.5
1,213.81
1,159.68
95.5
Trnsutil
1,218.0
1,233.9
101.3
177.40
180.07
101.5
Whole
1,136.0
1,247.6
109.8
86.68
95.30
109.9
Retail
10,838.0
10, 863.9
100.2
542.51
544.26
100.3
Fininsre
1,805.0
1,831.2
101.5
644.69
657.55
102.0
Utilgov
115.0
117.0
101.7
73.46
74.99
102.1
Cityfc
1,093.9
1,092.2
99.8
52.76
52.74
100.0
Service
9,BB6.9
9,996.2
101.1
876.26
886.78
101.2
CSU
8,254.0
8,253.7
100.0
310.08
310.12
100.0
Poudre
2,939.0
2,938.0
100.0
55.74
55.74
100.0
Agric
831.2
850.4
102.3
29.75
30.44
102.3
--------------------------------------------------------------------....._...._.
Total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
49,419
49,519
100.2
4,458
4,470
100.3
Annual Wages
(S)
Labor Income (Emit(.)
.........................
______________________________
% Base/
% Base
Sector
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Base
Simulation
Simulation
Base
Simulation of Simulation
Const
58,818.4
59,876.2
101.80
162.3
175.58
108.2
Manuf
75,964.0
75,971.0
100.01
649.0
620.12
95.6
Trnsutil
67,060.8
67,067.3
100.01
81.7
82.75
101.3
Whole
50,915.5
50,920.4
100.01
57.8
63.53
109.8
Retail
33,190.6
33,193.9
100.01
359.7
360.62
100.2
Fininsre
58,698.1
58,703.8
100.01
106.0
107.50
101.5
Utilgov
183,652.3
183,670.0
100.01
21.1
21.49
101.7
Cityfc
37,065.8
37,069.4
100.01
40.5
40.49
99.9
Service
60,548.2
60,554.1
100.01
598.6
605.31
101.1
CSU
29,269.5
29,272.3
100.01
241.6
241.60
100.0
Poudre
11,371.2
11,372.3
100.01
33.4
33.41
100.0
Agric
18,339.4
18,341.1
100.01
15.2
15.60
102.3
-----------------------------------------------------------------------'-'------
TotaL
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
684,894
686,012
100.2
2,367
2,368
100.0
Hyundai Investment Scenario #2
Impacts of an Investment Increase of S115 Million by Hyundai
on Labor Use, Total Output, Wages and Labor Income, 1993
-----------------------------------------------------------
Total Labor (Persons)
Sector Output CSMitt.)
.........................
______________________________
% Base/
% Base
Sector
................................................................................
Base
Simulation
Simulation
Base
Simulation
of Simulation
Const
2,758.9
3,326.2
120.6
395.02
476.8
120.7
Manuf
8,543.0
7,780.6
91.1
1,213.81
1,106.9
91.2
Trnsutil
1,218.0
1,241.1
101.9
177.40
181.3
102.2
Whole
1,136.0
1,242.7
109.4
B6.68
95.0
109.6
Retail
10,838.0
10,875.0
100.3
542.51
545.0
100.5
Fininsre
1,805.0
1,852.7
102.6
644.69
666.9
103.4
utilgov
115.0
116.5
101.3
73.46
74.8
101.9
Cityfc
1,093.9
1,092.699.9
52.76
52.8
100.1
Service
9,886.9
10,090.5
102.1
876.26
895.6
102.2
CSU
8,254.0
8,244.1
99.9
310.08
309.8
99.9
Poudre
2,939.0
2,937.5
99.9
55.74
55.7
100.0
Agric
831.2
849.6
102.2
29.75
30.4
102.2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
49,419
49,649
100.5
4,458
4,491
100.7
Annual Wages
(S)
Labor
Income Mill.)
% Base/
% Base
Sector
________________________________________________________________________________
Base
Si mutation
Simulation
Base
Simulation
of Simulation
Const
58,818.4
58,938.5
100.20
162.3
196.0
120.8
Manuf
75,964.0
76,120.9
100.21
649.0
592.3
91.3
Trnsutil
67,060.8
67,199.6
100.21
81.7
83.4
102.1
Whole
50,915.5
51,020.9
100.21
57.8
63.4
109.6
Retail
33,190.6
33,259.4
100.21
359.7
361.7
100.5
Fininsre
58,698.1
58,819.6
100.21
106.0
109.0
102.9
utilgov
183,652.3
194,032.5
100.21
21.1
21.4
101.6
Cityfc
37,065.8
37,142.6
100.21
40.5
40.6
100.1
Service
60,548.2
60,673.6
100.21
598.6
612.2
102.3
CSU
29,269.5
29,330.1
100.21
241.6
241.8
100.1
Poudre
11,371.2
11,394.8
100.21
33.4
33.5
100.2
Agric
18,339.4
18,377.3
100.21
15.2
15.6
102.4
________________________________________________________________________________
Total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
684,894
686,310
100.2
2,367
2,370.9
100.2
Hyundai Investment Scenario #3
Impacts of an Investment Increase of S175 Million by Hyundai
on Labor Use, Total Output, Wages and Labor Income, 1993
-----------------------------------------------------------
Total Labor (Persons)
Sector Output (SMiIL.)
% Base/
% Base
Sector
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Base
Simulation Simulation
Base
Simulation of
simulation
Const
2,758.9
3,277.7
118.8
395.02
490.39
124.1
Manuf
8,543.0
7,099.6
83.1
1,213.81
1,000.23
82.4
Trnsutil
1,218.0
1,262.6
103.7
177.40
184.94
104.2
Whole
1,136.0
1,282.9
112.9
86.68
98.22
113.3
Retail
10,838.0
11,057.8
102.0
542.51
554.90
102.3
Fininsre
1,805.0
1,911.9
105.9
644.69
693.86
107.6
Utilgov
115.0
115.1
100.1
73.46
74.31
101.2
Cityfc
1,093.9
1,088.6
99.5
52.76
52.69
99.9
Service
9,886.9
10,396.5
105.2
876.26
924.05
105.5
CSU
8,254.0
8,278.4
100.3
310.08
311.15
100.3
Poudre
2,939.0
2,935.9
99.9
55.74
55.74
100.0
Agric
831.2
962.0
115.7
29.75
34.38
115.6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total
................................................................................
49,419
49,669.0
100.5
4,458
4,475
100.4
Annual Wages
(S)
------------------------------
% Base/
Sector
--------------------------------------------
Base
Simulation Simulation
Const
58,818.4
65,500.5
111.36
Manuf
75,964.0
75,466.8
99.35
Trnsutil
67,060.8
66,702.1
99.47
Whole
50,915.5
50,643.2
99.47
Retail
33,190.6
33,013.1
99.47
Fininsre
58,698.1
58,384.1
99.47
Utilgov
183,652.3
182,670.0
99.47
Cityfc
37,065.8
36,867.6
99.47
Service
60,548.2
60,224.4
99.47
CSU
29,269.5
29,112.9
99.47
Poudre
11,371.2
11,310.4
99.47
Agric
18,339.4
18,241.3
99.47
Labor Income (SMiIL.)
-------------------------
% Base
Base Simulation of Simulation
--------------------------------
162.3
214.7
132.3
649.0
535.8
82.6
81.7
84.2
103.1
57.8
65.0
112.3
359.7
365.1
101.5
106.0
111.6
105.4
21.1
21.0
99.6
40.5
40.1
99.0
598.6
626.1
104.6
241.6
241.0
99.8
33.4
33.2
99.4
15.2
17.5
115.1
Total 684,894 688,136 100.5 2,367 2,355.4 99.5
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hyundai Investment Scenario #1
Impacts of an Investment
Increase of
S55 Million by Hyundai
,
on Total Output, Exports
...........................................................
and Imports
of Fort Collins,
1993
Sector
Output Mill.)
Exports (SMill.)
% Simulation
%
Simulation
Sector
................................................................................
Base
Simulation
of Base
Base
Simulation
of Base
Const
395.02
422.28
106.9
92.7
98.4
106.1
Manuf
1,213.81
1,159.68
95.5
1,161.9
1,109.7
95.5
Trnsutil
177.40
180.07
101.5
102.7
104.4
101.6
Whole
86.68
95.30
109.9
51.0
56.2
110.1
Retail
542.51
544.26
100.3
247.1
248.2
100.4
Fininsre
644.69
657.55
102.0
342.8
351.8
102.6
Utilgov
73.46
74.99
102.1
21.3
21.8
102.2
Cityfc
52.76
52.74
100.0
20.4
20.4
100.0
Service
876.26
886.78
101.2
537.8
5".7
101.3
CSU
310.08
310.12
100.0
101.1
101.1
100.0
Poudre
55.74
55.74
100.0
4.5
4.5
100.0
Agric
29.75
30.44
102.3
26.8
27.5
102.3
................................................................................
Total
------------------------------....--------......-----..........---........----..
4,458
4,470
100.3
2,710.2
2,688.7
99.2
Imports (SMil L.)
Exports/Output (Percent)
__------...________..._._
_________________________
% Base/
% Base
Sector
................................................................................
Base
Simulation
Simulation
Base
Simulation of
Simulation
Const
Manuf
Trnsutil
Whole
Retail
Fininsre
Utilgov
Cityfc
Service
CSU
Poudre
Agric
286.7
389.5
140.0
94.5
74.7
288.6
8.2
1.6
319.8
21.5
0.2
6.3
312.9
377.3
141.5
103.3
74.8
290.6
8.3
1.6
322.6
21.5
0.2
6.5
109.1
23.5
96.9
95.7
101.1
57.9
109.3
58.8
100.2
45.5
100.7
53.2
102.0
29.0
100.0
38.7
100.9
61.4
100.0
32.6
100.0
8.1
103.0
90.2
Total 1,631.4 1,661.0 101.8
...........................................
23.3
99.3
95.7
100.0
58.0
100.1
58.9
100.2
45.6
100.1
53.5
100.6
29.0
100.1
38.7
100.0
61.4
100.1
32.6
100.0
8.1
100.0
90.2
100.0
..................
------------------
ERR
Hyundai Investment Scenario #2
Impacts of an Investment
increase of
$115 Million
by Hyundai
on Total Output, Exports
...........................................................
and Imports
of Fort Collins, 1993
Sector Output Mitt.)
Exports ($Milt.)
---------------
---------
% Simulation
.........................
%
Simulation
Sector
................................................................................
Base
Simulation
of Base
Base
Simulation
of Base
Const
395.0
476.8
120.7
92.7
111.8
120.6
Manuf
1,213.8
1,106.9
91.2
1,161.9
1,058.0
91.1
Trnsutil
177.4
181.3
102.2
102.7
105.0
102.2
Whole
86.7
95.0
109.6
51.0
55.8
109.4
Retail
542.5
545.0
100.5
247.1
247.9
100.3
Fininsre
644.7
666.9
103.4
342.8
357.5
104.3
Utilgov
73.5
74.8
101.9
21.3
21.7
101.9
Cityfc
52.8
52.8
100.1
20.4
20.4
100.0
Service
876.3
895.6
102.2
537.8
549.4
102.1
CSU
310.1
309.8
99.9
101.1
100.9
99.8
Poudre
55.7
55.7
100.0
4.5
4.5
100.0
Agric
29.7
30.4
102.2
26.8
27.3
101.8
................................................................................
Total
....................................................""'.......................
4,458.2
4,491.0
100.7
2,710.2
2,660.4
98.2
Imports ($Milt_)
Exports/Output
-------------------------
(Percent)
.........................
% Base/
% Base
Sector
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Base
Simulation
Simulation
Base
Simulation of
Simulation
Const
286.7
346.6
120.90
23.5
23.5
99.9
Manuf
389.5
379.4
97.43
95.7
95.6
99.9
Trnsutil
140.0
142.7
101.97
57.9
57.9
100.1
Whole
94.5
104.1
110.13
58.8
58.8
99.9
Retail
74.7
75.1
100.63
45.5
45.5
99.9
Fininsre
288.6
293.5
101.68
53.2
53.6
100.8
Utilgov
8.2
8.3
101.78
29.0
29.0
100.1
CityfC
1.6
1.6
100.07
38.7
38.7
100.0
Service
319.8
327.5
102.40
61.4
61.3
99.9
CSU
21.5
21.5
100.18
32.6
32.6
99.8
Poudre
0.2
0.2
100.02
8.1
8.1
100.0
Agric
6.3
6.9
109.56
90.2
89.9
99.6
................................................................................
Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------......-.
1,.631.4
1,707.4
104.7
--
--
ERR
Ryumai Investment Scenario #3
Impacts of an investment Increase of S175 Million by Myurdai
on Total Output, Exports and Imports of Fort Collins, 1993
...........................................................
Sector Output (SMill.)
Exports (SMill.)
_------------------------
.........................
%
Simulation
%
Simulation
Sector
................................................................................
Base
Simulation
of Base
Base
Simulation
of Base
Const
395.0
490.4
124.1
92.7
110.8
119.6
Manuf
1,213.8
1,000.2
82.4
1,161.9
954.1
82.1
Trnsutil
177.4
184.9
104.2
102.7
107.8
105.0
Whole
86.7
98.2
113.3
51.0
58.5
114.7
Retail
542.5
554.9
102.3
247.1
255.9
103.6
Fininsre
644.7
693.9
107.6
342.8
377.9
110.2
Utilgov
73.5
74.3
101.2
21.3
21.6
101.6
Cityfc
52.8
52.7
99.9
20.4
20.4
99.9
Service
876.3
924.0
105.5
537.8
571.4
106.2
CSU
310.1
311.1
100.3
101.1
102.0
100.9
Poudre
55.7
55.7
100.0
4.5
4.5
100.0
Agric
29.7
34.4
115.6
26.8
31.1
115.9
---------------------------------------------------------------------_--...___-
Total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4,458.2
4,474.8
100.4
2,710.2
2,616.1
96.5
Imports ($Mill.)
Exports/Output
.........................
(Percent)
_________________
% Base/
% Base
Sector
---------------------
Base
Simulation Simulation
___________________________________________________________
Base
Simulation of
Simulation
Const
286.7
396.2
138.2
23.5
22.6
96.3
Manuf
389.5
374.1
96.1
95.7
95.4
99.6
Trnsutil
140.0
142.4
101.7
57.9
58.3
100.7
Whole
94.5
101.9
107.9
58.8
59.6
101.3
Retail
74.7
75.1
100.6
45.5
46.1
101.3
Fininsre
288.6
295.0
102.2
53.2
54.5
102.4
Utilgov
8.2
8.2
100.7
29.0
29.1
100.4
Cityfc
1.6
1.6
99.7
38.7
38.7
100.1
Service
319.8
327.4
102.4
61.4
61.8
100.7
CSU
21.5
21.4
99.4
32.6
32.8
100.5
Poudre
0.2
0.2
100.0
8.1
8.1
100.0
Agric
6.3
6.9
109.2
90.2
-........................
90.5
100.3
-------------------------------------------------------
Total
1,631.4
1,750.5
107.3
--
--
ERR
Hyundai Investment Scenario #1
Impacts of an Investment Increase of $55 Million by Hyundai
on Gross Fort Collins Product, Savings and Taxes, 1993
----------------------------------------------------
% Base/
:
% Base/
Sector
Base
Simulation Simulation: Base
Simulation
Simulation:
Nominal
Real
GFCP:
+Consumption
1,304.4
1,305.0
100.0
1,304.4
1,307.0
100.2
+Fixed Invest.
474.9
529.6
111.5
474.9
527.6
111.1
+Inventory Invest.
16.0
15.5
96.7
: 16.0
15.5
96.6
+Government
320.1
320.2
100.0
320.1
320.1
100.0
+Exports
2,710.2
2,688.7
99.2
2,710.2
2,688.7
99.2
-Imports
--------
(1,631.4)
--------
(1,661.0)
--------
101.8
--------
:(1,631.4)
---------
(1,661.0)
--------
101.8
-------- -
=GFCP
3,194.3
3,197.9
100.1
3,194.3
3,197.9
100.1
SAVINGS:
Households
90.0
90.1
100.0
.
Government
8.6
10.9
126.7
:
Enterprises
424.3
428.5
101.0
:
Foreign
(194.0)
(142.2)
73.3
:
TAXES:
-To Fort Collins
-
inlirect
27.2
27.7
101.7
:
Property
38.6
38.6
100.0
:
Enterprise
22.9
23.1
101.0
:
-Outside Fort Collins
Social Security
369.7
369.9
100.0
:
Other
----------------------------------------------------
772.6
774.1
100.2
:
---------------------------------
Hyundai investment Scenario #2
Impacts of an Investment Increase of $115 Nlll ion by Hyundai
on Gross Fort Collins Product, Savings and Taxes, 1993
----------------------------------------------------
%
Base/
:
% Base/
Sector
Base
Simulation Simulation: Base
---------------------------------
Simulation
Simulation:
----------------------------------------------------
Nominal
Real
GFCP:
+Consumption
1,304.4
1,306.5
100.2
1,304.4
1,307.4
100.2 ;
+Fixed Invest.
474.9
610.5
128.5
474.9
610.1
128.5 :
+Inventory Invest.
16.0
14.9
92.8
16.0
14.9
92.7 :
+Government
320.1
320.7
100.2
320.1
320.1
100.0 :
+Exports
2,710.2
2,660.4
98.2
2,710.2
2,660.4
98.2 :
-Imports
(1,631.4)
(1,707.4)
--------
104.7
:(1,631.4)
(1,707.4)
........
104.7 :
........ ;
........
=GFCP
--------
3,194.3
--------
3,197.9
100.1
;--------
3,194.3
3,197.9
100.1
SAVINGS:
Households
90.0
90.2
100.2
Government
8.6
14.0
163.0
Enterprises
424.3
434.0
102.3
:153.2568
Foreign
(194.0)
(66.7)
34.4
:685.3769
TAXES:
-To Fort Collins
Indirect
27.2
28.0
102.9
:
Property
38.6
38.7
100.2
:
Enterprise
22.9
23.4
102.3
:
-Outside Fort Collins
Social Security
369.7
370.3
100.2
:
Other
----------------------------------------------------
772.6
776.5
100.5
:
---------------------------------
-
Hyundai Investment scenario 03
Impacts of an Investment Increase of 5175 Million by Hyundai
on Gross Fort Collins Product, Savings and Taxes, 1993
....................................................
% Base/
:
% Base/
Sector
Base
Simulation Simulation: Base
Simulation
Simulation:
----------------------------------------------------
Nominal
:................................
Real
GFCP:
+Cunsumpt i on
1,304.4
1,298.3
99.5
: 1,304.4
1,310.8
100.5
+Fixed Invest.
474.9
691.2
145.5
474.9
677.7
142.7
+Inventory Invest.
16.0
13.7
85.3
16.0
13.6
85.0
+Government
320.1
319.0
99.6
: 320.1
320.1
100.0
+Exports
2,710.2
2,616.1
96.5
2,710.2
2,616.1
96.5
-Imports
--------
(1,631.4)
........
(1,750.5)
........
107.3
........
:(1,631.4)
........
(1,750.5)
........
107.3
........ :
=GFCP
3,194.3
3,187.8
99.8
: 3,194.3
3,187.8
99.8
SAVINGS:
Households
90.0
89.6
99.5
.
Government
8.6
11.2
131.0
Enterprises
424.3
438.4
103.3
Foreign
(194.0)
21.3
-11.0
.
TAXES:
-To Fort CoLtins
Indirect
27.2
28.7
105.6
:
Property
38.6
38.4
99.5
:
Enterprise
22.9
23.7
103.3
:
-Outside Fort Collins
Social Security
369.7
367.9
99.5
:
Other
----------------------------------------------------
772.6
773.8
100.2
:
_................................_
-
Additional City Services
Requirement
Current Demand
New Investment
Required/Person
New Population
Resulting f/Growth
Additional Cost
Police
Fire
Water
Sewage
Electricity
Poudre R-1
Density of Population and Housing
Current Density/acre Additional Units New Density/acre
Housing
Population
H
ro
Sa
m
a
4
L
O
s4
C1
U
.N
0
00
U
W
W
O
m
y
m
V
ro
"w
s4
y
U
O
W
i
it
m
0 H
0
0)
r
m
L
O ro
ro N
r
w m
m H
ro
ro
�0
O
p+m
U
ud
l4b
y E
y
m
w
m m
7 y
w
0
C
> 0
m u
ro
rn�
0
y
m
m
4j
a
L
q
4J>1
ro°
O N
°E
-i
mm
AO
m
ro
.�
y y
m
o
"o
m 0
ma
ay
L
3
U
'a
❑
C
4
w
�-roi
E
N
a
uro
roc
�0
o
•'I
x
(� ro
+� .
O
s4
y :3
y
0
ro d
y U
m
m ro
0 0
m y
y E
E
w
p
0 G
_Q'
,C
E�
�u
p,m
m
s
tmi
c
sm+
c
o
L04 0
E F
y F
C
H
w U
ro •N
O
0
0
44
m
W
E
m
E Y4
O' H
m
E
E
E
y
y Pk
d H
A i
E
...
...
dr
EF
b
maH
ro
r
u
.1
m
D y
y
r
y W
it
ro
JJ
0
l�
b
N
+�
y -rA�
> v
y
W
tn.H41
(a0
y
p
d
m
m
m
O
m
COp
bi
ro
,roi
y
y
mm
m y
w
N
>.c
ro H
H m
R
m
-.01
E
•.Oi
E
M
E
p bi
cCd
m
m
b
N
m
m m
y
m
m 0
•'1 L
m X
.L' y
O L
'•I m
m
N
N
O
yb
O E
S 0
m C
H
i,
ai
'0
pm
S
y•�
mm
m W
,Em
y
}mi
4J
•.m1
O
3
O
m
O
m>1
mH
C1a)
b
y Ol
m
m
m
M:
�d
a0 �
x U
+a rt
ro
ro
E
o
v m
d 0
o
N
m
S
0m
o u
0 0
[0,0
s m
a
°°
m
.00
°�
x
x �4
0�
z
Hm>
0
0
0
o
m
— z
—
—. x
M
+.+
x
W
z
N m
m y
a y U
m
m
y
a
m
rn
.i
m
0
0
0
U
W
$
m m 0
r
C
b13 O
m
ro a
E
a ro
E
4 ro
C >4
41
0
y
M
m aJ
m
ro
U
U
> C m
ro
dv
m
C
�A
N i
u
0
LU E
A 41
m
14
O
CO
O
M W
•H m
U
W
O
'1 O41
7 U
0
a m m
O m�
y ro
F 3
0
cc
ro
N
m
—
o
E
14
a
m 4
w
a
H
0
m
0
,. y
0u
mL7
lu>v
y
O
� O
Cq U
A
ro
n
S
w
m
41
b••'U1
0
E u1
F E
m
...
o
y ,Evt
O
C
u
•H
.•�
.-i
C
O W 0 u
w ro... _.
W
mmo
U
�E
m m d
b
Rf
m
aD
x
C
a,
7
0
co
u
m
ti
m
3
N
C 0
y
L
G m
>
m
U
m00
•+m0ai
m
+' ro
EH
C E3
m m
vi
o
E m
a
m
H
U
rl
t!t
N
t?
N
ar
rl
44
N 0 N W
>.
O
EA
.Ci j .,
O W m
y d
m
M
uD,o0
N
�ro
it mU
b
oj >m
100om
m
z
O
ro
K
O
w
L
m >,N a
S y
U
Om
w3
OyyH95
�
H C
U 0
O
O
O
O
N L
C 7
u
7.
CC
x
M
U—
m •H
H •H E .0
E>
-i
ro ro
ami
u°
a°
w4
0
0
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AFFORDABLE HOUSING BOARD
Meeting Minutes
December 5, 1996
Bob Browning, Chair
Gina Janett, Council Liaison
The Meeting of the Affordable Housing Board
Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Quorum was
present included: Robert Browning, Stacy O%
Sylvia Glass, Susan Nabors, Sue Wagner, and
Waido and Alan Krcmarik.
PUBLIC
Lou Stitzel noted changes to the previo4 ON
paragraph should read "cannot theref - ra
not San Cristo families, range from,.`to 80
the Work Plan may need to be s#t?h how,#
Ms. Maloney expressed appro> it>`bf the
the Affordable Housing T,.. Force and
the vide4['ewing..,f"ion was
and outl`'s`t..as thin
Moved by SC
the previous
Bond
at
ft'41 p.m °'I tE fibers
d7?.J i
.. <�.. �;
Cosgrove, Brssant,
#aff members present: Ken
ms::Tfie middle of the second
A*efore." Parkway families,
his. Stitzel further stated that
City Plan.
ig video and wishes to work with
rhood groups to help promulgate
availability of the video on cable
r Stacy Overton: To approve the minutes of
noted. Motion approved unanimously.
Mr. K'�marik gave a reif Private Activity Bonds, a tax-exempt financing program for
qu tied affordable httitist ig projects. The City, in the past, has used these bonds to
inf��Ce economic deelopment. The program allows applicants to obtain low-cost
fir cing that wouldOhot be otherwise available. Country Ranch Limited Partnership
(borne) affpatble housing project was cited as an example for private and city
:ThfptafNlvate and city bonds, both cities and counties have the ability to issue
Id rfcing for either affordable housing or manufacturing projects. The City
catBCie bonds for non-profit corporations that is not subject to a cap.
Ms. Nabors noted that there is no carryover from the allocation; the allocation is provided
annually. Mr. Krcmarik stated that a way has been found to now carry over to 1997. In
response to questions of whether development can be postponed year by year to receive
even more funds, Mr. Dwyer stated that Country Ranch had three years to use the bond
money.
Country Ranch and Buffalo Run (Brisben) representatives announced they had reached
general agreement concerning city bond allocations, and requested recommendation by
the Board, in the following manner:
1) For Country Ranch to receive the 1997
construction to occur;
2) For Buffalo Run to apply for County and State
3) For the City to note that Buffalo Run is the prel
optimize Buffalo Run's ability to obtain the allocation
4) This approach would allow for construction.
the affordable housing picture in Fort Collins. 41111
Mr. Goldstein, of the Brisben Companies, stated
by the Board and Staff:
bond allocation, the[by allowing
bond allo.::E '%``.
erd choiGtsaiects, in order to
The County has not yet been consulted, a .4hfs'(
recently.
Brisben will be working with the State ini ij. The
decided upon until later in the year
'"
Both projects will approach the City,a ... i
concept. JKV%
in respon§*f � festions
ment was reached only
�s
" cation may not be ,
se y„r
`group to promote this
Mr. Krcmarik stated that he had be ct in coat with 1 6unty's finance office. There
WJ� $
seems to be some agreement the I c of thi4� pproach. The County, based on
past experiences, wants to be,uied of.;:; igh prggjibility of success.
It was also noted that a feasib appro �'ga. ,;.0 ibr the City to state that while Country
Ranch, bei;;the senior;tsFtig projegf closest to completion, was receiving the
gg
funding .y: ffalo t was al:y�f 'fily desirable. Country Ranch is asking for
addition lion di:of availableunding at the State level. In the past, other
. �:., cv.v o,<op:
projects fFtifjeen red for allocation have not produced housing. There
are no other it(€grojects ii'[eceived recommendation for city bond allocation.
�Z,:tl' G Ga..:
Moved bylY ny Ms. Wagner: To support the $2.5 million bond
allocati. r the Ft' . " ' :... project, with a strong recommendation for support of
the Baij on project.'' 3l , pproved unanimously.
)Idstein and MrMCFadden presented information on the Brisben company and
> Run project. The company is an apartment developer and has become involved
low income htitising tax credit program. Brisben works in 12 states, and began
ions in Cpkbi`ado with four projects currently under development. A project m
�<a„<,cu�tTy under review, and projects in Lakewood and Central City are
�+„'�;jR" Collins is viewed as an area undergoing economic expansion and
i�b`the project that Brisben wishes to build.
Affordable housing becomes a necessary element when such growth is underway. The
northeast sector of the City has not undergone the growth that the south sector has seen
and is in need of the type of affordable housing that has not been developed in the
south. The proposed Buffalo Run housing project is 170 units with one-, two-, and three -
bedroom units. A clubhouse/recreation center, and a community room is also planned.
Services will be available for credit and job counseling.
Discussion was had about who could rent and how tax-exempt bonds figure in. An
application must be done to receive low income housing tax credits for the project. The
tax credits are at four percent instead of the nine percent usually award., However,
since the rents are lower, it brings in some equity. The rent restriction:cMoliance with
,.
the tax credit is 20 years in Colorado.
Neighborhood reaction is positive. Board and StW,,,. ilnarkei n �" Bible areas
"1...:
concern. 80 percent of the units will be for the 60 pent of m,. ,: )flka, 20 perc
will be for the 50 percent of median income. Lo income f: sing' `t 's a¢
subject to the same cap as the bond allocati(,, In Cf�ado, thi<°<
IN
requirements by CHFA is 20 years for tax credits.
RETREAT AND WORK PROGRAM ``'''' '
The retreat was discussed and items for the f997 woil m�presented. Senior
housing was discussed, as well as a developm fanned fc r .. on Summitview and
R ...
Vine, and a housing project for people afflict..'.,:: <Alzheime; s "
49/$:0
Alp" .. r :;
OTHER BUSINESS
The Multicultural Commission is set}tcing volilteers'y die on its board. The human
relations commission policy to be, ; ,iewed#as table.; fo next meeting. Revisions to the
Development Impact Fee Rebaf +, f grat ill be di#bussed at the next meeting.
Ms. Cosgrove will be res' n(g rom ti Al sfe Housing Board due to her move to
Loveland,, he addre4 t i3 single;Q; a�� Issue on page 2 of the minutes, human
rights or�;t i . She ii ..90 pe '6 the single parents are not married and do
not wanttIllal treafCre priority is given to single parents. The regulations
might take°. rights`etations like the Housing Authority and other people
to give preferrtngle pltsa'
Mr. Brownft''exp' 143 '` 'tit he:'spoke with the City Attorney's office concerning the
maritatetus clause; ° y rdinance. The City Attorney believed that it was a non-
issua`fihe Board felt'' `,."representatives of the ordinance should be invited to the
Jarattry board meeting:
T3oard s recommFtdation on amending the Development Impact Fee Delay Program,
Cr +�*ard to rem,
iitig the requirement for a letter of credit and using the certificate of
O*JWcyJn ka went to the City Council and was adopted.
survey will be researched and reviewed for discussion for the Board.
Household selection for Habitat house #9 will begin in January.
Meeting adjourned at 5:10 p.m.