<html 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=us-ascii"> <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"> The proposed annexation of 1422 55th Street has come back to us in somewhat better form, but it continues to raise a couple of issues which I would like to see addressed. Those issues are as follows:<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> 1) I am pleased that there is now a tie-in between this Annexation Agreement and the closing of 2691 30th Street. However, the language is not entirely clear. What happens if the seller refuses to close by August 19? Does the 55th Street project simply lie fallow until the developer does close? Do we have a right of specific performance to compel closure?  And what happens if, for any unforeseen reason, the City fails to close? What are the ramifications of that?<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> 2) On page 6 of the staff memo it is stated that this issue may arise again with respect to small annexations. In moving forward with this transaction have we set a precedent that will be controlling in the future? By entering into this transaction have we effectively negated existing annexation provisions for these types of small properties in the future?<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> 3) The units that would have been constructed at 80% or 100% of AMI under the original agreement would have been substantially cheaper than any recent new construction that I am aware of, such as the Park Mosaic or the Reve. I still do not understand why 2-BR units at $2,106/month for 80% of AMI renters or $2,632 for renters at 100% of AMI are not a superior benefit to Boulder than a very few 7-figure single family units and a very highly discounted cash-in-lieu payment based on 1999 standards. And if anyone believes that the market rate units will be remotely affordable to any purchasers other than high-end buyers, I suggest that you are in for disappointment. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> The only true benefit that Boulder receives from this transaction is the closing of the 30th Street parcel, and it is only on that basis that I am prepared to reluctantly support it. Staff attempts to suggest that there is a benefit to Boulder in adding to our stock of high-end housing, but this is simply not the case. Our housing problems have nothing to do with a shortage of luxury units; you can find them everywhere. And the discounted cash-in-lieu payments we have agreed to accept will provide much less affordable housing than if current levels of contribution were required. If this were a stand-alone transaction in which an applicant requested relief from every obligation of the previously agreed terms of an Annexation Agreement, but wanted to retain 23 year- old cash-in-lieu payment levels, I would have found the request to be preposterous. But in order to secure the closing of the 30th Street property, I will act accordingly.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> </div> </body> </html>