HomeMy WebLinkAboutAffordable Housing Board - Minutes - 06/02/1994AFFORDABLE HOUSING BOARD
MEETING MINUTES
June 2, 1994
The meeting of the Affordable Housing Board began at 6:20 p.m. in the
Community Planning Conference Room, 281 North College Avenue, Fort Collins,
Colorado. AHB members present were Chairperson Mary Cosgrove, Tom
Sibbald, and Robert Browning. Staff member present was Mike Ludwig. Other
attendees were Louise Stitzel and Betty Maloney.
Ms. Cosgrove announced that quorum was not achieved but that the Board
members present would hear any comments and questions from the attendees in
the room. The following comments were made in response to questions and from
ensuing discussion.
The Board is using a hybrid model taken from materials from the City of Boulder,
the Division of Housing, and the Board's and Staffs input. Proven feasibility of a
project will be a necessary component before the project is approved. The
requirements are those that are required for tax credit application and for good
business planning.
Council has given the Board direction to investigate the potential of establishing a
housing trust fund. A trust fund could be set up so that it would be funded until it
has enough mass and loan repayment revenue to be self-perpetuating. These
funds would be last funds into a project and would therefore stand a reasonably
good chance of being repaid.
Length of affordability of the housing will differ depending on the type of funds
supplied. For grants, the Board will look at longer periods of affordability, with a
maximum of 30 years. For loans, affordability will be for the term of the loan.
Longer -term loans will have priority over shorter -term loans. Other favorable
factors would include: lowest income targeted; economic feasibility; probability of
repayment. The Board wants to set monitored minimum standards along these
lines in order for a project to receive funding. Funding for a project is only limited
by the amount of overall funds available.
It was noted that Rusty Collins of Neighbor to Neighbor supports Alternative 1.
The Board is trying to limit risk to the taxpayer. Fee reimbursement is seen as
advantageous in the small project area.
If all four proposed alternatives were available, one advantage would be for the
applicant to be able to pick and choose. Prohibitive disadvantages are the
problems of administration and funding allocation.
The time line of the proposal was discussed, with August as a possibility for
approval.
AHB Minutes
June 2, 1994
Page 2
The mechanics were discussed of funding for six -unit buildings. Mr. Sibbald
recommended that Ms. Stitzel apply for funding per building permit. Each house
would be a separate project on a separate platted lot. Clarifying language may be
added in order to ensure that projects such as Ms. Stitzel's are applied for
properly and are appropriately considered. Favorable comments were made
concerning projects of two- to ten -unit buildings.
The funding for affordable housing may not remain constant as other political
issues come to the forefront. Funding levels will be decided upon on a project -by -
project basis, using several categories of criteria. Around $250,000 is presently
available. One of the advantages to Alternative 1 is that money would be
available for items other than fee reimbursement.
Mr. Sibbald wished to make the following observations as a private developer, not
in his capacity as Board member:
Alternative Nos. 2 and 3: The construction period of 270 days is too short
for projects of greater than 24 units;
Alternative Nos. 2 and 3: They reduce eligible basis. This is a negative
factor for a low-income tax credit project rental.
Alternative Nos. 2 and 3: Rent determination by fair market rents is
inappropriate, not being locally based information.
Alternative No. 2: No assurance that a project will stay in the low income
inventory after the builder receives the reimbursement.
Alternative No. 3: No assurance that funds will exist for fee reimbursement
after the project has already been substantially completed. Clarifying language
was discussed to balance this concern with the goals that funds not be paid to a
project which has not complied with requirements and that money not be
reserved needlessly.
Mr. Ludwig presented background for the staff presentation of the various
alternatives. Discussion was held concerning fair market versus imputed rents
and mechanisms of setting rent levels. Further discussion was held concerning
Alternatives 2 and 3 and the possibility of a developer attempting to acquire early
funding in ways that would not meet the goals of the Board.
Ms. Stitzel spoke approvingly of Alternative 1, Parts 1 and 2, and began
discussion on the future of profit and not -for -profit tandem operations. She
complimented the Board on the openness of the meeting and Mr. Ludwig for his
availability and cooperation.
The meeting concluded at 7:45 p.m