<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"> <head> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"> <meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"> <style></style> </head> <body lang="EN-US" link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72" style="word-wrap:break-word"> <div class="WordSection1"> Dear Mark,<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> I am replying to your question on if the developer can, in the future, substitute on-site affordable units with cash-in-lieu (CIL)? As per the annexation agreement, the units must be provided on-site. The Planning Board (PB) discussed their concerned that the clause in the annexation agreement that allows the city manager to approve an alternative outcome as long as it provides equivalent community benefit, would allow the city manager to approve CIL. While CIL is not considered an equivalent, the PB made an amendment to the agreement language specifying that the city manager could modify the affordable housing benefit with the exception of allowing CIL.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> I hope that this answers your concern,<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Kurt<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Kurt Firnhaber Director of Housing and Human Services <o:p></o:p> <img width="340" height="63" style="width:3.5416in;height:.6597in" id="Picture_x0020_1" src="cid:image001.png@01D88539.2D18CDE0" alt="https://bouldercolorado.gov/links/fetch/41501"><o:p></o:p> O: # 303-441-4424 C: # 303-917-0914 <a href="mailto:FirnhaberK@bouldercolorado.gov">FirnhaberK@bouldercolorado.gov</a> <o:p></o:p> Department of Housing & Human Services 1300 Canyon Blvd  Boulder, CO 80302<o:p></o:p> <a href="https://www.bouldercolorado.gov/">Bouldercolorado.gov</a> <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <div> <div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in"> From: Wallach, Mark <wallachm@bouldercolorado.gov> Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2022 12:49 PM To: HOTLINE <HOTLINE@bouldercolorado.gov> Cc: Council <council@bouldercolorado.gov> Subject: Annexation of 302,334 Arapahoe<o:p></o:p> </div> </div> <o:p> </o:p> In the staff memo (p.3), it is stated that the developer wishes to retain the option of requesting cash-in-lieu to fulfill his community benefit obligations, yet on p. 32 of the annexation agreement the developer acknowledges, without qualification, that cash-in-lieu is not an available option and that the 5 affordable units will be built to the specifications provided in that document. Please be prepared to explain the discrepancy, as the annexation agreement has already been executed, and the Planning Board unanimously  suggested that there be a clear obligation to provide the on-site, deed restricted housing. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> BTW, what would be the cash-in-lieu payment required for these 5 units? I inquire, because it is likely that 5 additional market rate units of 3,300 square feet are likely to sell at anywhere from $2.5-3.5MM, for total additional revenue to the developer of $12.5MM-17.0MM. That is a lot of additional revenue and profit, and if the option exists, it is more than possible that the cash-in-lieu option will be exercised. It seems to me that the executed annexation agreement should control. What is the argument for giving the developer the cash-in-lieu option and not following the suggestion of the Planning Board?<o:p></o:p> </div> </body> </html>