 Looks like we're live you may begin. Thanks. So hi everyone. Welcome back So we're gonna 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 in to your your thoughts about the the application and the presentation that we heard last week Diane Good evening. Hi. Um, thank you. Molly for putting the PDF together and sending that out On the pie chart the funding sources as percent of development costs. That's in that's habitats Funding sources, correct. Correct. Yes, that exactly that is just for Habitat project, right? So then Some of the categories we're still waiting like while the Colorado Division of Housing That is a piece that Hasn't been awarded yet, correct 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 cycle works, we'll hear back in September The reason I was asking is I was looking at the original application and comparing so Okay Thank you I'm finished for now Jeff Sorry, was that 15 of the 62 total? Yes, that's not 15 per unit, right? Correct 15,000 of the total 62,000 that they've put in from The state another quick question on these funds are these Typically grants or can we structure them as a loan I can't recall So I believe they can be they are it can be a grants. I suppose Kathy, I'm not a hundred percent sure. I think they could also be a loan if we Wanted them to be I think that's true 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 or if they were serving the upper upper affordable AMIs but we've also granted it as well I guess having it as a loan in this case with for sale Product what might be kind of difficult? Potentially right or I guess a piece of it might get paid off At each sale if we structure it that way potentially Just thinking out loud there Yeah Yeah, I don't know how what it would do to their If if if the loan was paid back with each sale How that would affect their Proforma because 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 Those sales proceeds moving forward and continuing with the construction. Yeah, that might be difficult Any other questions or Thoughts on the on the project and the request. Do you have an idea of which way you may be leaning? Question I'll wait Just like the conversation that was going on the other like last week the the question that Kathy asked and and Mori 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 because I feel like that might still be kind of an outstanding issue is Let me let me say well kind of what I understood 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 there 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 and they're whole they're kind of they're they're in 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 or potentially some tension. I'm trying to understand what council Councils thinking on that was Yeah, so their request is a hundred and twenty thousand hundred twenty got the numbers turn around And then the fee waivers which would be separate which are available to any developer are they are estimating about 93 Yeah, 93 is my reflection. And so habitats is doing eight units, but it's them 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 Requirements or the minimum that's in the ordinance, right? So council basically gave them a pass on that They allowed them to have to provide a total of eight percent is what their inclusionary requirement is To be fulfilled by habitat and the veterans community 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 it or the point that she brought up which then Laurie kind of Responded to by email to the group So essentially the master developer got a lower inclusionary housing requirements the Florida, but they are 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 Oh, right. Okay. Got it developer was allowed yet Right, and if and if the developer were actually doing that Took on the building and the construction of those affordable units Presumably they would have been able to capitalize at least most of it Yes, and they probably would only be would be doing the unit that 80% right right of the lower 60% that habitat Okay Jeff 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 and in the four bedroom case almost 40% lower than 60 a.m. I Which is I guess in my mind a pretty compelling reason to look at the additional 15,000 a unit And 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 going to be For habitat, I don't 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? Yeah, so the 60% and 80% are the the prices that the city Sets and habitats generally even if they are at 60% The it all depends on how you do your formulas Or lower than than the cities and so Just a second Molly did you want me to display that chart? No, that's okay, I will just 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 Um Those figures so So the city's 60% prices the two bedroom is 237,000 600 Three bedroom is at 263,800 and the four bedroom is currently 306,600 So again, we're probably going to change those or potentially will change those but those would be the current the current Maximums right now and then habitats There are two bedrooms for 200,000 three bedroom was 215,000 and their four bedrooms 225 Sorry Diane One last point. I was going to make there in 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 in family I like that because I think It's not necessarily if we're giving them the other hundred and twenty thousand that doesn't necessarily mean that You know, they're putting less into it I see it as that's going straight to the family and In each of those units so Unless I'm looking at that incorrectly. Let me know but you know to get a reduction from 306 to 225 on that four bedroom for 15,000 I Think it's a great thing for the the end user the in family there Just a comment Thank you Diane. 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 I'm So I was Who at the original application from habitat and on page six there is the Area that you fill in in regards to housing units resident selection and it does list 30 to 60 percent of AMI for the four two bedroom to three bedroom to four bedroom and So what would you say is from the The amount then I haven't gotten that far with my math is the percentage going to be it's less than 60 It's more than 30 in terms of the household that they actually serve 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 and their application They're saying it'll be 30 to 60 percent on the The PDF sent out today. We see that 60 percent is quite a bit higher and habitat is lower I always I haven't gotten to the what what are we looking at for what they're hoping? So if you're comparing Habitats prices to the 60 percent set by the city Yeah, basically So habitat would be around That's the so there there would be between 50 and 60 We just break them down by 10% increments. So I don't know 47 I got Yeah, well Yeah, our 50% prices are at 179 224 So sound like they're about 55 or so. Oh, yeah 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 you 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 percent 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 they get into the homes, which is, you know, that's a really neat thing and a good thing And it 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 Are there any more thoughts or questions? Diane. Well, so following up on a comment that We discovered tonight and that is if there's the potential of looking at the formula for the 60% 80% AMI city of Longlatt standards I'm wondering if there's a need for a consideration of a more dynamic Application process too, 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 a developer can be To make affordable housing home ownership, especially be available is Necessary so Just like we were saying earlier too to get to reflect each developers Way of navigating With a one-size-fits-all application may be a real challenge And we'll have conversations like this again Yes, I will have more conversations Like this Yeah, well, this is Kathy again, you know council definitely designed the inclusionary housing program to Try and be as creative 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 a 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 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 just somebody like that and then walking away and really not doing anything more than Donating land and off-site infrastructure So And and then in considering things like this like I said, this is one of the first ones has 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 I 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 of the opportunity to be creative and Offloading is not the right word but Transferring their requirement onto a non-profit who you know doesn't have the wherewithal 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 fund them other than just what would normally be required 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, but what available I was gonna ask the same question Which I ask every meeting Kathy do you have that easily available? I do. I just looked at it the other day. So we have $800,000 $800 in affordable housing funds for the rest of the year Habitat Yeah Kathy you're you're breaking up. We can't see you. We did not require home Chote opens the Chote offer Can you is this better? At all. Can you hear can you hear me now? Yes? Okay so the Chote 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 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 Chote funds in 2021 So that is available and it's around I think they estimated 150 to 160,000 They also still have Chote funding available from 2021 They're in the position the city of Boulder is in that their Chote 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 then the rest of it from the 2021 fund. So We're trying to be flexible consortium wide with the Chote funding And then cdbg funds aren't going to be available until fall to winter when we do and the Third or fourth quarter application round and those won't be available until 2021 who are who were the Organizations that were getting the Chote funds That no longer are in Longmont I think the Longmont housing authority at one point Had been at Chote I don't know of any others Yeah, it was that actually the housing development corporation The the nonprofit arm of the housing authority was at one time and they are no longer and This so was at one time. Um, I don't we never gave them any choto funding For a project in Longmont, but I don't know if they still are or not Thank you for encouraging Habits had to do so Bring in more federal dollars into Longmont that way I have a comment to make if we're hoping that Lori 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 on how inclusive it is and my intent if it's okay would be to share with my executive director and and We 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 Not only To accommodate a variety of needs is their statement But you know, they've included allergies and cognitive impairments and visual and auditory So very very comprehensive So if that's okay, I'd like to To to do on a comment or recognition of that comprehensive accommodations policy Kathy, do you have any thoughts on that one? 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 Cpdw Cpwd organization. I think that would be perfectly acceptable Um, I'm I'm perfectly fine doing it as Cpwd since it's always on our radar Um, and I can share I can CC it with TRG I think that would be fine unless the other TRG members are feel really strongly that they would like to To support that What do you guys think? I'm good with it So that's agreeing to have it go from the TRG That way is that what? Yeah, we're nodding about okay I I will draft something and share it with molly Thank you So lori did say to just start with her. She wasn't sure if or when she would be able to um join in so I don't know If if people have have are ready to make a decision we can we can move that way. Um Since I don't know if or when she may be coming on I'm ready Okay, I'm ready I'm ready Okay Well, we can just start with diane and go down my row What are your what's your recommendation diane? Um, I would like to Um, what we should start with jeff. He's the one that always puts it in good words there. Okay dollars and money Is that okay jeff? Yeah, actually I'd make it fairly simple. I've um in this case. I would recommend that we Fund the 120,000 as a grant to the project Okay, thank you. I do want to give full disclosure as Has been the case in the past. I 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 um, 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 um, so again, we're not under a commitment and um, I certainly have my TRG hat on right now and not my banker hat. So Thank you In support of the 120,000 as a grant Okay Michelle I support the 120,000 as a grant Jake do you have anything you would like to add or Well, I think the group came up with a good call here the project works for me and I I think that's Uh recommendation that hhsab 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 for them that I can carry back that I've got my notes and I think it's a good explanation So I I'm in support. Sure Great. Thank you Okay Well, I think that that is it Kathy, do you have anything you want to add? Um, 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 60,000 and 60,000 But to get to the full 120 at some point Okay Great. Um, well, thank you question. Yeah, sorry before we head out. Um Not to keep belaboring this point, but um, Kathy's question, you know going forward. Is that something that We're going to want to discuss further. Is that something city council will discuss or or do we just take a Case 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 there just I don't know Something to ponder for the group. Yeah, this is Kathy. I'm I'm of a couple of opinions. I guess. Um, I think council 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 um for them And um It's Not knowing what is going to be coming up. I I mean we could take a A look in the pipeline and kind of project 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 um type of a project to meet the 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. I want to get you guys together anyway and just talk about the process and Looking into the future You know if trg's 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 how can we strengthen? The review process and get you guys's input on that as well. So Maybe in gosh july is almost here. Maybe in august We could have something Pulled together and and have a meeting and have something for you guys to react to That sounds good Sorry, kathy Just curious what the next round when the next round of applications would be do I will tell you just a quick second So they the applications are due july 27th and actually the trg and advisory board joint meeting is scheduled for august 13th So we might want to push that back a little bit just given everything else we've got going on An update maybe do a september application Or something like that. I just yeah I can take a look at that. Well, and I I would appreciate um some what-if scenarios and um, also the the differential between developing affordable rental units versus home ownership and um and in in regards to Funding this project and habitat projects in general with home ownership 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 into motion with some of the conversations already with city council Moving the the needle down to eight percent And and you know, is that because of home ownership? As well from from that Initial level as well. So it'd be a good conversation to have Okay, great anything else Okay, well, thank you very much for your time and your all your input and um We will be back in touch Thank you. Thank you all great as always. Have a good night. Bye. Bye