[bouldercouncilhotline] Hotline: RE: 3303 Broadway pegging and LIHTC (Low income housing tax credits)

[cmosupport at bouldercolorado.gov]

Sender: Firnhaber, Kurt

Dear Mary,

This particular project was looking at either doing offsite affordable housing at a different location or cash-in-lieu.  As a result, the first paragraph below doesn't make much sense as it would be market rate housing and they would simply charge market rents.  If they were doing on site units the rents would be much lower than indicated.

To your second point, we will be addressing changes to the Low Income Tax Credit environment that has resulted from the national elections, at our January 10th study session.

Thanks,

Kurt

From: Young, Mary
Sent: Tuesday, January 3, 2017 9:44 AM
To: Carr, Thomas <CarrT at bouldercolorado.gov>; Firnhaber, Kurt <FirnhaberK at bouldercolorado.gov>
Cc: HOTLINE <HOTLINE at bouldercolorado.gov>; Brautigam, Jane <BrautigamJ at bouldercolorado.gov>
Subject: 3303 Broadway pegging and LIHTC (Low income housing tax credits)

Tom, Kurt

>From an email we received:

-in item 1 below, is the "pegging" referred to an actual possibility in rental projects?

-in item 2, can we make sure that CHFA (Colorado housing and finance Authority) representatives at 1/10 study session address this restructuring and potential impacts?

Mary Dolores Young
Boulder City Council
303-501-2439

Begin forwarded message:

Dear Council Members:

I oppose the 3303 Broadway project for the following reasons and ask that you do not call up this project.

1. There are no restrictions on the rent structure and this project could end up as 29 North did (on 28th at Walnut) and sell for an astronomical amount of money; even though there are small units in the mix. Please recall that 29 North was also built as "workforce housing" and sold for upwards of $92 million.  The 3303 Broadway developer can voluntarily peg the rent to a workforce AMI to work around the Telluride case and the state's prohibition on rent control.  The developer could voluntarily restrict at least 50% of the units for work force housing in perpetuity.

2. There should no longer be a "cash in lieu" option within the city.   With the LIHTC bank/investment community currently re-pricing its financing commitments to current projects within the city due to the pending decrease in the corporate tax rate (and a diminishing need for a tax credit), the cash-in-lieu monies may not be so easily spent if the debt side disappears or becomes thinner and affordable housing projects are no longer viable.  Developers should be building the affordable units in every project going forward.   As stated above in #1, the developer could elect to build the affordable units on site.

3. What prevents this project from being sold as "pied a terre" condos 7 years after construction when the potential for defect litigation ends, and the units are sold to VRBO investors or part time residents who desire a micro unit?   Where is the rental opportunity then?

4. I think this is a bad location for any type of commercial uses at this site.  Lucky's Market is 1 mile north, Ideal market is .6 miles south with coffee locations at both of these commercial centers.   The commercial uses proposed by the developer serve no community benefit and would further congest an already congested neighborhood entry. That and the requested parking reduction equals bad car issues at this site.

5. Many of the current council members selected the very planning board members that turned this project down; and I would guess that Council chose carefully and picked strong candidates for the planning board that exhibited strong skills and experience in land use.   Staff and the planning board did a good job and analyzed the project against both Comp plan policies and zoning rules and found the project deficient.   Please let the planning board and professional staff do their job.

thank you for your time.