BOULDER HOUSING PARTNERS REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OCTOBER 8, 2012 2:30 PM BHP OFFICE 4800 N. BROADWAY, BOULDER COLORADO Our primary mission is to provide quality affordable housing that is developed and managed with respect for the dignity of all involved. We also seek to create a sense of community strength and spirit that supports resident efforts to realize success in their lives. REGULAR AGENDA I. Call to order II. Determination of Quorum III. Partnership Awards IV. Public Participation** V. Committee Reports 1. Governance 2. Finance/Audit 3. Resident Representative Council 4. Boulder Housing Partners Foundation 5. Development VI. Approval of the Agenda VII. Consent Agenda 1. Minutes from September 10, 2012 VIII. Action and Discussion Agenda Director’s Report 1. 2013 MTW Plan 2. Resolution #26: Approval of 2013 MTW Plan Management Report 1. August 2012 Financial Summary Development Report 1. Lee Hill Housing 2. Public Housing Conversion 3. WestView 4. High Mar 5. Red Oak Park X. Closing Matters and Wrap-Up XI. Adjourn ** Any member of the public is invited to address the Board on any topic that is on, or not on, the agenda during Public Participation. Anyone wishing to speak will have the floor for a maximum of 3 minutes. 1
38
Embed
BOULDER HOUSING PARTNERS REGULAR MEETING … 2012 Board...BOULDER HOUSING PARTNERS ANNUAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SEPTEMBER 10, 2012 2:30 PM BHP OFFICE, 4800 N. BROADWAY,
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
BOULDER HOUSING PARTNERS
REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
OCTOBER 8, 2012 2:30 PM
BHP OFFICE 4800 N. BROADWAY, BOULDER COLORADO
Our primary mission is to provide quality affordable housing that is developed and managed
with respect for the dignity of all involved. We also seek to create a sense of community strength
and spirit that supports resident efforts to realize success in their lives.
REGULAR AGENDA
I. Call to order
II. Determination of Quorum
III. Partnership Awards
IV. Public Participation**
V. Committee Reports
1. Governance
2. Finance/Audit
3. Resident Representative Council
4. Boulder Housing Partners Foundation
5. Development
VI. Approval of the Agenda
VII. Consent Agenda
1. Minutes from September 10, 2012
VIII. Action and Discussion Agenda
Director’s Report
1. 2013 MTW Plan
2. Resolution #26: Approval of 2013 MTW Plan
Management Report
1. August 2012 Financial Summary
Development Report
1. Lee Hill Housing
2. Public Housing Conversion
3. WestView
4. High Mar
5. Red Oak Park
X. Closing Matters and Wrap-Up
XI. Adjourn
** Any member of the public is invited to address the Board on any topic that is on, or not on, the
agenda during Public Participation. Anyone wishing to speak will have the floor for a maximum of 3
funds and Section 8 administrative fee formulas. As the mainstream media has reported,
both the House and the Senate have agreed on a continuing resolution through March 30,
2013. There are a number of problems for housing authorities related to the continuing
resolution decision. The Board might remember that last year HUD used a budgeting
approach of requesting $1 billion less than necessary in operating subsidy in order to
require PHAs to draw down their operating reserves to levels that HUD considers more
appropriate.
That strategy, fiercely opposed by PHAs and NAHRO, and many others, has created two
unintended consequences. One, it means that in a continuing resolution environment, we’re
short by $1 billion, and two, it has caused several hundred PHAs to join in litigation against
HUD challenging the legality of taking operating reserves.
In addition to the continuing resolution challenges, HUD has released its interpretation of
sequestration impact. HUD has advised PHAs to plan for an 8.2% across the board
reduction.
In good news, NAHRO was successful in introducing a first-ever piece of sponsored
legislation into the Senate. Last month Senators Johanns and Tester, on behalf of NAHRO,
introduced a small housing agency deregulation bill. There is no expectation that it will be
considered this year, but it is monumental to have the legislation introduced and ready for
discussion in the next congress.
City Issues affecting Affordable Housing
Summary: There were several issues that staff identified for Board review that are
currently under consideration by the City of Boulder; a summary is included in the
attachments.
10
5
Comments on 2013 MTW Annual Plan
Date How From Comment Response
9/5/2012 email Service Provider
It looks wonderful (and ambitious). I love seeing the practical and common sense ideas that have been floated around for years finally applied to benefit our vulnerable families.
9/10/2012 phone call
Public Housing Resident
Wanted to know what postcard was all about, thought it meant she was going to get Section 8.
9/10/2012 letter Section 8 Participant
I can't go to the meeting, as I am completely disabled. I don't have comments at this time.
9/13/2012 phone call Section 8 Participant
Concern about the "moving to work" part, am disabled and as much as I would like to work, I am unable to. Can you please send me a copy of the plan so I can read it and let you know of any other comments I may have?
It was explained that elderly persons and people with disabilities were not going to be required to work, it is the name the program was given by HUD when created. Plan was sent on 9/14/12
9/19/2012 phone call Section 8 Participant Are the meetings mandatory?
No. Changes were explained, response was currently pays own rent and utilities, so would not affect them
9/24/2012 phone call Section 8 Participant
The plan looks wonderful and so kind. Well thought out, but it does bring up some questions. Is BHP really a landlord, or are they social services? What is the fear that as more services are provided, the people receiving them will become more dependent on them? Most people can become self-sufficient without help, why offer services to all? Why not only to those who are really elderly?
We had a conversation about PHAs being both landlords and service coordinators, where we provide the link from the resident/participant to the service provider in the community in order to allow that person to stay successfully housed and/or transition out.
11
ATTACHMENT
Summary of Current City, State, and National Issues Affecting Affordable Housing
City Issues
Clarification on the Metro Denver Homelessness Point-in-Time Survey
Several months ago, Boulder Councilmember KC Becker asked some clarifying questions of
City staff in regards to a Daily Camera article about the Metro Denver Point-in-Time
Homelessness Survey. Karen Rahn from the City of Boulder Housing and Human Services
responded to her questions. One of Councilmember Becker’s question specifically addressed
changes within the data gathered as part of the Point-in-Time survey and Karen Rahn provided a
thorough explanation. Both are included here due to its interest and pertinence when discussing
homelessness in Boulder.
Question: It seems like reliable data is hard to come by. How can Boulder work to assure
more consistent and reliable data?
Response: In [July 24, 2012] Daily Camera was an article titled, “Homeless Numbers Up in
Longmont.” I thought I would provide some context and clarification regarding the data
provided. Each year in January the Metro Denver Homeless Initiative completes a Point in Time
Survey (PIT) of the homeless population across the state. The data is reported county-wide, with
city-specific data provided for some local areas upon request. The cities of Longmont and
Boulder requested MDHI do a break out. In the article, the reference to Boulder was: “Boulder's
homeless population dropped 18 percent, falling from 914 last year to 750 this year. It's the first
time since 2006 that Boulder's homeless numbers have dropped, and the first year since 2009
that Longmont's numbers have surpassed Boulder's.”
The PIT provides a snapshot of the community, however assuming trends from one year to
another is problematic for the following reasons:
1. The PIT survey methodology has changed year to year, making it difficult to draw any
conclusions regarding trends. In 2012, fewer agencies participated in conducting the survey, and
many fewer surveys were collected in the city of Boulder in 2012 than in 2011. Additionally,
there were disproportionately fewer surveys collected in Boulder than in Longmont. Four major
city of Boulder agencies that provided 131 surveys in 2011 did not participate in 2012. In total,
there were 27% fewer agencies participating in the city of Boulder than in 2012. As a result,
17% fewer surveys were collected from city of Boulder agencies than in 2011. While 23% fewer
agencies participated in Longmont than participated in 2011, only 4% fewer surveys were
collected than in 2011. Also, in 2012, few surveys were collected from those on the street. Most
12
surveys were collected at agencies or locations where people access services, which changes the
demographics of the total population.
2. Boulder is the county seat home to a disproportionately greater number of service providers
who focus on serving homeless individuals (Boulder Shelter, ARC, Mental Health Partners). It’s
likely that Boulder serves a disproportionately greater population of single homeless, and
Longmont serves a disproportionately greater number of families. From the 2012 PIT survey, the
total number of homeless people in households with children in Longmont was 544, whereas the
total number of homeless in households with children in Boulder was 391. In 2011, this was the
opposite: Boulder had 553 homeless in households with children and Longmont had 386. This
can largely be attributed to survey methodology changes.
State Issues
Energy Conservation Measures a Significant Part of Colorado’s Energy Future
In his June 7 blogpost, Denver Post writer Mark Jaffe describes how “energy efficiency is the
quiet champion of the New Energy Economy” in Colorado and affirming BHP’s commitment to
energy use reduction in its portfolio for the benefit of residents, the organization, and the
environment. The article is below.
Colorado energy efficiency law: a kilowatt saved, a kilowatt earned
By Mark Jaffe, the Denver Post
June 7, 2012
There is, by Xcel Energy’s estimate, one less new power plant in Colorado – or
the equivalent – thanks to compact fluorescent light bulbs and energy efficient
refrigerators.
Colorado’s push for energy efficiency began five years ago this month with the
passage of a law directing the Public Utilities Commission to create energy
efficiency plans for the state’s two investor-owned utilities Xcel and Black Hills
Energy.
The law – HB 1037 – gave the utilities commission the power to set efficiency
goals, place a charge on electricity bills to raise funds for efficiency programs and
set incentives for the utilities to cut consumption of the very product they sell to
make money.
The utilities get quick recovery for energy-efficiency program costs and a
percentage of the energy savings as a bonus. In 2010, for example, Xcel spent
$54.7 million on programs and saved $225 million — for which it was in line for
13
a $17.5 million bonus.
Colorado isn’t alone its push for energy efficiency — about half the states have
adopted energy-efficiency standards and utilities across the country are
implementing programs.
The economics are on the side of efficiency – with the cost of saving a kilowatt-
hour estimated a 3 cents and the cost of generating a kilowatt-hour from a new
plant at 8 cents.
So how has Colorado fared?
In the last five years Xcel, the largest electricity utility in the state with 1.4
million customers, spent $162 million on energy efficiency programs and Black
Hills, serving 93,000 customers in southeast Colorado, spent $3.9 million – based
on data from the Boulder-based Southwest Energy Efficiency Program or
SWEEP.
Those programs led households and businesses to reduce their electricity use in
2011 by more than 800 million kilowatt-hours – equal to the electricity use of
100,000 typical households, according to SWEEP.
Last year, the state utilities commission boosted the efficiency target for Xcel by
30 percent, asking the utility to cut energy sales by 1.4 percent by 2016. SWEEP
estimates that if Xcel achieves the goals set through 2020 Xcel will have cut
consumption by about 4 billion kilowatt-hours a year —equivalent to 14% of the
total electricity consumption by Xcel’s customers today.
As it is Xcel is projecting very small growth in electricity demand through 2018
having cut its estimate late last year to 292 megawatts from 1,000 megawatts.
There are a number of factors in that reduction, but energy efficiency was one of
them.
“Energy efficiency is the quiet champion of the New Energy Economy,” said
Howard Geller, SWEEP executive director. “People tend to picture wind turbines
and fields of solar panels, but the simple actions of hundreds of thousands of
homeowners and businesses changing out lights bulbs, upgrading appliances and
air conditioning equipment and the like has yielded the cleanest, most cost-
effective supply of energy today.”
14
1
MEMORANDUM
To: Board of Commissioners
From: Management Staff
Subject: Report of Activity
Date: 10/3/2012
This month’s Management report includes:
Consent: None at this time
Action: August 2012 Financial Summary
Updates: Occupancy Status and Net Rental Income
Attachments: August 2012 Financials
CONSENT ITEMS:
None at this time
ACTION ITEMS:
August 2012 Financial Summary
Boulder Housing Partners year to date revenues of $12,256,456 and expenses of
$12,671,817 and a gain on sale of a BHP vehicle of $800 results in a net loss of ($414,561)
versus budgeted net loss of ($103,007). The negative variance of ($311,554) is explained
below.
Statement of Activities
Total Operations Revenue of $4,051,206 (A) is favorable with the year to date budget by
$85,570 as a result of fewer rental concessions required at Bridgewalk to lease-up
remodeled units. (Rental concessions are netted against rent revenue.) Bridgewalk is now
fully leased and operating at new increased rents in line with our proforma refinance plan.
Resident Services revenue of $230,588 (B1) is favorable to budget by $75,448. This
amount is directly offset by the negative variance in Service Grant Expense of ($71,810)
(B2) due to a difference in accounting procedure vs. the budget to allow for ease of HUD
reporting at year end. The amounts will be eliminated in consolidation.
15
2
Housing Choice Voucher – HAP revenue of $4,761,817 (C1) is favorable to budget by
$238,991. We are still waiting to get a final decision from HUD on how they will be
funding the MTW and Non-MTW vouchers in 2012 and 2013. HUD has indicated they
will short our total funding for 2012 HAP by ($452,000) from our budget. We made a
request for set-aside funds from HUD to mitigate this funding shortfall and expected to hear
before the end of the Federal fiscal year. Given the environment at HUD, we may well find
they are unwilling to provide any additional funds. The impact of this funding shortage is
that we will be required to spend 100% of our HAP reserves to keep the Section 8 tenants
housed in 2012. Not having reserves is not fiscally prudent but we cannot short our
landlord payments. If we are unsuccessful, HUD will likely stop our funding before year
end so that the current favorable variance will turn negative. HAP expense of $4,469,294
(C2) is unfavorable to budget by ($63,134). We have been managing this expense down to
budget from our previous over leased situation to prepare for a potential funding shortfall
from HUD.
Federal Capital Grants of $121,422 (D) is unfavorable to budget by ($1,087,743). This is a
timing difference between our budget and the planned start of the rehabilitation project at
our workforce properties, Dakota Ridge, Midtown, Twin Pines and Whittier. The City of
Boulder has awarded BHP $1,600,000 for this project. As reported last month,
management has determined that it is best for our tenants, staff and the project to delay this
work into 2013. This will therefore create a revenue shortfall at year end 2012.
There are three primary reasons for the project delay. First, we learned from our
experience at Sanitas Place project last year that we should avoid disruption to our tenants
over the holidays. Second, we have a capacity issue with project management staff to get
this project started while completing work on the wetlands at Bridgewalk, subdividing and
rehabbing 101 Pearl and starting interior renovations at Woodlands. Finally, our original
request to the City for funding of this project, made in July of 2011, was based on a basic
needs analysis and estimated pricing. We have now completed a design for each site and
received pricing quotes from our general contractor that are significantly more than we had
requested from the City. We are expecting to have some funds left over from the loan
proceeds that are funding the 101 Pearl and Woodlands projects that we could bring to help
close the gap. Until we can get these two projects fully priced out and underway, we will
not know how much of the loan funding will be available for this project.
Miscellaneous Revenue of $114,608 (E) is favorable to budget by $88,138. This includes
pet charges of $17,850 primarily for new pets at Bridgewalk and an unexpected refund of
$33,600 from Xcel for infrastructure at Red Oak Park. This amount was paid by BHP so
the refund is credited to BHP rather than ROP.
Miscellaneous Expense of $93,216 (F) includes $76,642 of predevelopment expenses
related to the application for the disposition of our Public Housing Assets.
16
3
Balance Sheet
Reserved Cash for Replacements increased by $245,098 (G). This includes $188,000
funded by the City of Boulder as part of the rehabilitation projects completed in May.
Accounts receivable of $187,631 (H) has declined due to the receipt of funds from grants
that were accrued at year end 2011. Accounts Receivable –Tax Credits of $931,221 (I)
declined from the receipt of developer fees of $209,000 from Red Oak Park in February,
$148,000 from Red Oak Park in April and $27,000 from Broadway West in May. We are
expecting to receive the remaining Red Oak Park developer fee of $850,000 by the end of
September.
Restricted Cash – Other increased by $2,083,407 (J). This includes $2,094,000 of funds
borrowed as part of the refinance project which are restricted for capital projects and
targeted for 101 Pearl and Woodlands. To the extent we may have excess funds after we
complete these projects the money will be used to assist with other capital projects in the
BHP portfolio, specifically the workforce renovation as mentioned above.
Construction in Progress decreased by $2,858,210 (K1) reflecting the capitalization of the
rehabilitation work at Bridgewalk which moved from Construction in Progress to Real
Estate Assets-Land and Buildings causing an increase of $6,412,230 to $65,426,628 (K2).
It is important to recognize that as each of these projects is completed they provide our
tenants with a substantially improved quality of living space, however, we begin to incur
depreciation expense that will continue for the 10 year depreciable life of the project. The
$6 million in work at Bridgewalk will alone result in an additional $600,000 in expense in
2013 that will be a challenge for future budgets.
Accounts Payable declined by $660,608 to $126,946 (L) as invoices accrued in 2011 were
paid. Mortgages Payable increased by ($5,744,664) (M) reflecting continued draws to the
Bridgewalk construction loan and the additional $2,094,000 borrowed for 101 Pearl and
Woodlands offset by normal amortization.
Statement of Cash Flows
The Statement of Cash Flows provides detail on the overall year-to-date increase in Cash
and Cash Equivalents of $920,564 (N). For the month of August Cash and Cash
Equivalents declined by ($267,473). The only significant item which affected our cash
position in August was the reduction in Accounts Payable and Accrued Expenses of
$221,721. This is a combination of payments of $111,000 on normal vendor accounts, a
reduction in accrued payroll and benefits of $85,950 and recognition of deferred revenue
from HUD for Section 8 administration fees of $47,350.
Portfolio Analysis Report
The portfolio Analysis for July shows overall debt service coverage of 1.45
This includes Bridgewalk numbers starting in July when we reached full occupancy.
Income and expenses for 101 Pearl reflect only Jan-Apr when the property was fully
occupied. The NOI is compared to the current debt payment The two combined loans are
performing well at 1.54 and 1.46. These loans were modified in April and July
respectively, reducing the interest rate and improving the debt service. The Tax credit
properties are all performing well with an average ratio of 1.48.
17
4
UPDATES:
Occupancy Status and Net Rental Income
The combined net rental income for all of BHP properties for August was $4,051,205
compared to a budgeted net rental income of $3,965,635 which is a positive variance to
budget of $85,570 (+2.16%).The combined net rental income for all of the Tax Credit
Properties for July was $1,969,580 compared to a budgeted net rental income of $1,896,132
which is a positive variance to budget of $73,448. (+3.87%)
The Public Housing portfolio, which is a sub category of the BHP portfolio, is running a
negative variance of $39,474 (-2.92%). This variance is partially due to a decrease in tenant
rental income across properties, a reduction in the rental rate charged to CPWD for their
master leased units at Arapahoe Court and a timing issue on the allocation of funding from
HUD.
The BHP portfolio occupancy for August was 95.26%, compared to a budgeted annual
occupancy rate of 95%. The combined physical occupancy rate for the Tax Credit portfolio
year-to-date through august was 99.12%, compared to a budgeted annual occupancy of
We appreciate the Board’s conversation at the retreat about the work we’ve done to develop
a matrix of outcomes for our residents. We also heard the Board’s interest in bringing more
attention to the resident services’ part of our mission. We’re considering how best to satisfy
that interest and will bring you thoughts in November.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Commissioners FROM: Betsey Martens, Executive Director Stuart Grogan, Director of Development Shannon Cox Baker, Project Manager Kevin Knapp, Project Manager Betsy Wagner, Assistant Project Manager Liz Wolfert, Planning Assistant SUBJECT: Development Report DATE: October 3, 2012
This month’s development report includes:
Consent: None at this time Action/Discussion: 1175 Lee Hill Road
Public Housing Conversion WestView Apartments High Mar Red Oak Park
Attachments: Development Tracking Sheet
CONSENT ITEMS None at this time
26
ACTION/ DISCUSSION ITEMS
1175 LEE HILL ROAD
Previous Board Meeting: At the last meeting, we provided the following information:
· Update on 1175 Lee Hill community engagement process that was approved in August; and
· Request to keep the focus group survey form open for one more week to allow for additional participants to sign up.
Progress Since Previous Board Meeting:
Advisory Group: Nineteen (19) individuals applied for the Advisory Group. BHP staff did an initial sort of the applications for the Development Committee to create a general balance of interests and skills on the Advisory Group. The initial sort, after placing them in the categories approved by the Board at the last meeting, arranged applicants based on the following criteria:
· Interest in participating; · Contribution to process; · Neighborhood/geographic representation (e.g. Holiday, Dakota Ridge, etc…); and · Gender.
After reviewing and discussing all the applications for the Advisory Group at their regular meeting on October 1, 2012, the Development Committee selected eight members they will recommend that the Board consider for the Advisory Group and will discuss their selection at the October 8, 2012 Board meeting. The Development Committee tried to balance for project perspective, seeking a blend of people with reservations and people who are enthusiastic. Development Committee members were pleased with the caliber of the applicants and are very grateful to the community for volunteering it’s time for this effort. Focus Group Update
1: Since the Board meeting in September, we have hosted six focus group
sessions with approximately 44 participants. The two focus group topics were:
1. Resident eligibility and selection, resident support services, and resident accountability2; and
2. Property Management, property management accountability, and response to neighborhood concerns regarding 1175 Lee Hill.
1 Complete summaries of each of the focus group topics will be sent to the community and to the Board to review and provide additional comments. 2 Resident accountability was discussed in greater detail in focus group topic 2 sessions with the conversation about the lease and dealing with potential complaints from the neighborhood about residents.
27
Table 1. Summary of focus group session participation
Date Topic Number of
Participants
Monday, Sept. 17 6:30 – 8:30 PM
1
8
Tuesday, Sept. 18 10 AM – 12 PM
1
6
Monday, Sept. 24 6:30 – 8:30 PM
2 4
Tuesday, Sept. 25 6:30 – 8:30 PM
2
6
Wednesday, Sept 26 10 AM – 12 PM
2
8
Tuesday, October 2 6:30 – 8:30 PM
1
9
TOTAL 41
At the focus group meetings, we used the draft Statement of Operations framework as the foundation of the discussions with the community. The focus group discussions resulted in critical input and positive suggestions about the operation of 1175 Lee Hill to both BHP staff which will be passed on to the Advisory Group. Each participant had the opportunity to express their opinions and beliefs about the specific sections of the draft Statement of Operations framework. We had a range of individuals participate in the focus group sessions, including North Boulder residents, human service providers, and homeless individuals. At the beginning of each focus group session, we asked why individuals wanted to participate in the process. In general, they expressed the following reasons:
· To get more information / the facts; · To understand how this will impact the community (economic development and safety); · To understand how this will help address homelessness (“that we see”) in Boulder; and · To help humanize the homeless (social justice).
In all of the sessions, we discussed the project’s Governing Principles and the Housing First Program Principles prior to digging deeper into the specific topics as follows: Governing Principles: Most participants did not find the current governing principles to be comprehensive. Some wanted a preamble to set the context so that the connection between the building/residents and the housing first program is clearer. At least one individual in each focus group session questioned what it meant to “integrate the building and its residents into the surrounding neighborhood,” and how this would be accomplished, and we had several good discussions around this principle. A few participants pointed out that these governing principles were very building centric and did not focus enough on the resident or the relation of the project to the neighborhood, indicating that all stakeholders interests (e.g. asset manager/building, resident, and community) should be addressed so that the broader community context is understood upfront.
28
Housing First (HF) Program Principles. Several participants wanted clarification on the HF Goal and what it meant to “retain housing in perpetuity.” In addition, we heard questions in several focus group sessions related to what happens if a client does not continue to demonstrate the desired outcomes of the HF Program? How can a resident increase skills and income if they are disabled and what is their incentive to do so? Greg Harms, Executive Director of the Boulder Shelter for the Homeless, provided clarification that the program goal was not necessarily to create a path to, or to require treatment. These often emerge naturally once housing is stabilized and individuals are supported with case management. Whether or not there is “progress”, HF Programs have demonstrated community benefits and savings by removing residents from chronic use of the community’s services. Focus Group Topic 1 Summary.
3 Although the participants appreciated learning about the selection criteria, they all wanted to see more details about what criteria the HF Case Managers use to determine suitability, and if there were additional criteria BHP used to evaluate residents beyond the Section 8 regulations. Some participants were especially relieved to learn about the criminal background check and mandatory denial of registered sex offenders. Issues of drug and alcohol use came up in each session (even focus group 2 sessions). Staff noted that illegal drug use will not be tolerated and experts emphasized that the residents will be accountable for behavior resulting from alcohol or other substance abuse. They also noted that we will not monitor alcohol use by residents living in the apartment building. The primary question related to case management involved the frequency and type of support services the residents would receive. One individual in particular noted that given that the health of the residents was a criteria for their eligibility (e.g. dually diagnosed disability) that managing personal health should be a bigger emphasis in the project and Statement of Operations.
Focus Group Topic 2 Summary.4 Few participants provided comments directly related to how
BHP should manage the property. However, several individuals commented during the conversation about the security measures used to help manage the property. Some noted the need to be considerate when prescribing security measures so as to avoid marginalizing the building and its residents. Others noted the need to make this building feel like a home, and not an institution. The lease was another topic of discussion, especially the guest policy for residents and accountability for behavior offsite. Some ideas including limiting the number of overnight stays and how off site behavior could be included in the lease were suggested. Several individuals would like to see a long term strategy to keep the community informed and provide them the opportunity to comment on the building operation. Some of the proposed ideas for this included:
1) An annual report that provides information on certain metrics (e.g. number of complaints about property management versus residents and how they were handled), for example;
2) Online form to provide comment; and 3) A type of ombudsman who acts as a liaison between the community and the
property.
3 Focus group topic 1 discussion included: resident eligibility and selection, resident support services, and resident accountability. 4 Focus group topic 2 discussed: property Management, property management accountability, and response to neighborhood concerns regarding 1175 Lee Hill
29
At the end of each session, we asked the participants to provide feedback on the focus group. Nearly every participant had something positive to say about their experience in the focus group session. Although many participants noted the community’s frustration over not being engaged earlier in the planning, more acknowledged a need to continue to build relationships in the community and create communication channels that will provide a foundation for future conversation. In general, we heard the following:
· Appreciate being asked to participate; · Well facilitated; · Great information from experts / staff; · Learned a lot of facts (had previously heard only third party information); and · Continue to keep the community informed.
NSAG Update:
The following is a note from the Boulder Shelter for the Homeless’s board chair to the City Council regarding the progress and activities of the Neighborhood Shelter Advisory Group (NSAG):
From: Boulder Shelter for the Homeless Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2012 8:52 PM To: City Council Subject: Good Neighbor Update from the Boulder Shelter for the Homeless Dear Council Members: Each client who stays at the Shelter is asked to comply with a list of desired behaviors while in the Shelter; these are conveyed in a document entitled "Conditions of Stay." The Shelter is adding a condition which asks clients to conduct themselves in a responsible manner while in the neighborhood. This addition is a direct result of the work of the Neighborhood Shelter Action Group which, at its September meeting, initiated discussions about (1) ways to engage the clients in good neighbor efforts and (2) ways to increase neighborhood familiarity with Shelter operations. These activities are part of the Shelter's efforts to increase communications - with neighbors, with clients, with partners, with the community and with public officials - all especially important as we prepare for the Shelter's cold weather sheltering season which begins October 15. Best Regards, Ardie Sehulster, Shelter Board Chair
30
Next steps:
· Schedule first Advisory Group meeting (anticipated for Monday, October 15, 2012 at 6:00 PM);
· Complete summaries for the focus group sessions and allow for public comment; and · Host focus group session with homeless individuals and current Housing First clients.
PUBLIC HOUSING CONVERSION
Previous Board Meeting: At the last meeting, we provided the following information:
· An update on the status of the Capital Needs Assessment and the expanded analysis; and · A schedule for submitting our response to the Department of Housing and Urban
Development’s (HUD) third letter for additional information. Progress since Previous Board Meeting:
As of the writing of this memorandum, BHP is drafting the final language and analysis for the response to HUD for the conversion of our public housing units. The letter documents the need to address deferred maintenance costs, energy and sustainability improvements needed to meet the City of Boulder’s codes and policies, and exterior improvements to address market acceptance and neighborhood compatibility concerns. We would like to have a decision on our public housing conversion application before the end of the year, however some applicants have been in our review position for more than a year. It is entirely unpredictable. Next steps:
· Respond to the latest HUD letter with the clarifications they requested; and · Track and respond to any further requests for information.
WESTVIEW APARTMENTS
Previous Board Meeting: At the last meeting, we provided the following information:
· An update on the status of the purchase and sale agreement; · That the name of the project had been changed to WestView Apartments; · An update on marketing and preleasing activities; and
· A summary of the structure of the deal and a request for the adoption of four resolutions to enable issuance of the bonds and closing.
31
Progress since the Previous Board Meeting:
Purchase and Sales Contract: We have received letters approving an allocation of 4% low income housing tax credits and adoption of a recommendation for full funding from the State Housing Board. Further, we have received a recommendation for full funding as a grant from the City of Boulder’s staff and the Technical Review Group that has been approved by he City Manager. Based on that information, we have waived the financing contingency as of September 12, 2012 and our earnest money is not refundable. As part of that waiver, we extended the closing date in the contract to October 10, 2012, in anticipation of the completion of the HUD environmental review process. Financing: As noted above, financing commitments are mostly in place. The last month has been spent primarily in document review and coordination between First Bank and their attorneys, the bond attorney, the City and State, and us. There are a large number of documents circulating in addition to the basic due diligence matters such as survey, environmental review, and appraisal updates. Fortunately, everything seems to be moving ahead on schedule for the proposed closing on October 10, 2012.
Next steps:
· Prepare for closing; and
· Continue pre-leasing and marketing activities.
HIGH MAR REDEVELOPMENT
Previous Board Meeting: At the last meeting, we provided the following information:
· That the procurement process for our financing partners at High Mar had begun; · The planning process for a pre-construction project to clear the property was underway; · That a proposal was submitted to the City’s Affordable Housing Fund for a $1,900,000
grant to fill the financing gap in the project’s budget; and
· That preparation of the low income housing tax credit (LIHTC) and state funding applications had begun.
Progress Since the Previous Board meeting: Financing: In the last month, we have completed High Mar’s 4% (non-competitive) LIHTC application and submitted it to the Colorado Housing Finance Authority (CHFA). In the coming weeks, there will be a series of questions and clarifications requested by CHFA as they complete their review of the underwriting of the project. A decision regarding the award of LIHTCs is expected in the next 4-6 weeks.
32
We also prepared and submitted an application to the Colorado Department of Housing (CDoH) for grant funding in the amount of $590,000, approximately $10,000/unit. The State will complete a similar underwriting process as CHFA and we will be working with them to make sure they have the necessary information to make a funding determination. We followed up our application to the City of Boulder with a presentation to the City of Boulder’s affordable housing Technical Review Group (TRG) in support of our request for around $1,900,000. This amount was requested to fill the gap at High Mar which was created when the financing strategy switched to 4% LIHTCs instead of 9%’s. We expect to hear soon on the TRG’s decision but the funds won’t be confirmed until the City Council approves the City staff’s recommendation in December. We completed the procurement process for financing partners for High Mar during the past month. On the debt side, we will be working with Wells Fargo who offered the best terms that included a 4.11% interest rate on the permanent mortgage over 30 years. Boston Capital will be our tax credit investor. While we have not worked with them before, they had good recommendations and provided the best tax credit pricing. Their proposal was aggressive, in part, because they did not win the process for the WestView Apartment project. Their terms included purchasing the LIHTCs at $0.98 as well also purchasing any solar energy tax credits at $1.00. Preconstruction: We have begun working with Deneuve on a preconstruction phase of work that needs to be completed at High Mar before full construction begins next year. This small “pre-project” work will entail allowing Xcel to complete the re-routing of their gas and electric lines that will be necessary for construction. Also included will be the demolition of the current building, tennis courts and pool on the property to provide a clean site for when full construction will begin after the project is capitalized. The work will begin in October and be complete before the end of the year. Next steps:
· Begin work with our new financing partners on the due diligence process leading up to
the financial closing; · Work with our potential grant funders at the City and State to make sure that High Mar
will receive the grant funds needed to construct the project; and · Implement pre-construction work at the site.
RED OAK PARK
Previous Board Meeting: At the last meeting, we provided the following information:
· That staff was working with our tax credit investor to finalize the compliance issues that have delayed the final capital installments owed to BHP; and
· Staff reported that Red Oak Park was awarded a National Award of Excellence in Community Development by NAHRO.
33
Progress since Previous Board Meeting: Compliance: CHFA recently reviewed a sample of initial tenant files and provided their determination that the initial tenants complied with the income restrictions and other requirements of the program. In addition to additional information provided by BHP, WNC, the tax credit investor, agreed to accept the files based on CHFA’s judgment. Shortly after the CHFA visit, we submitted our 2011 tax returns. With the return filed, we have now received the final equity payment which included the majority of our developer fee, an upward adjuster on the solar tax credits and the release of some reserves. Wireless: A new amenity was installed at Red Oak Park which is a community-wide and free wi-fi system. We are particularly excited about this news because we have been looking for years for a way to bridge the “digital divide”5 at our sites. The system has been installed and is operational. It was paid for out of the remainder of the construction budget and will be a pilot project within our portfolio for use of this technology.
Next steps:
· None. This item will transition to management and will no longer appear in the
Development Report.
DEVELOPMENT PROJECT TRACKING MATRIX
The following Development Division tracking tool, which is updated monthly, is attached to this memo:
· Development Tracking Sheet
5 “Digital divide” is a term used to describe the gap between low income household’s access to, use of, and skill with internet and web based applications, information and services when compared to more affluent households.
34
D e v e l o p m e n t T r a c k i n g October 2012
Research, Evaluation, On Hold or Tracking
Wallace Acquisition Potential partnerships Valmont (ROP II) Transit Village Acquisitions Armory Redevelopment Hogan Pancost Palo Park Tax Exempt Partnerships
Pre Development
Public Housing Rehabilitation /
MtoW
1175 Lee Hill
High Mar
North Haven
Construction/Acquisition
WestView Apartments (4600 Broadway)
101 Pearl
Rehab Four Midtown
Dakota Ridge Twin Pines Whittier
Transition/ Lease-Up
Leased-Up/ Completed
Red Oak Park Bridgewalk
Infeasible
Orchard Grove 28th and Kalmia Landmark Lofts Junior Academy Depot Square at
(Boulder Transit Village/ RTD)
Board Action This Month 1175 Lee Hill: AG selection
Technical
Assistance
35
1
RESOLUTION # 26
SERIES OF 2012
A RESOLUTION FOR THE PURPOSE OF APPROVING THE ANNUAL MOVING TO
WORK PLAN AND CERTICIATIONS OF COMPLIANCE
Annual Moving to Work Plan
Certifications of Compliance
Certifications of Compliance with Regulations:
Board Resolution to Accompany the Annual Moving to Work Plan
Acting on behalf of the Board of Commissioners of the Public Housing Agency (PHA)
listed below, as its Chairman, I approve the submission of the Annual Moving to Work
Plan for the PHA fiscal year beginning January 1, 2013, hereinafter referred to as "the
Plan", of which this document is a part and make the following certifications and
agreements with the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in
connection with the submission of the Plan and implementation thereof:
1. The PHA published a notice that a hearing would be held, that the Plan and all
information relevant to the public hearing was available for public inspection for at
least 30 days, that there were no less than 15 days between the public hearing and the
approval of the Plan by the Board of Commissioners, and that the PHA conducted a
public hearing to discuss the Plan and invited public comment.
2. The Agency took into consideration public and resident comment before approval of
the Plan by the Board of Commissioners or Board of Directors in order to
incorporate any public comments into the Annual MTW Plan.
3. The PHA will carry out the Plan in conformity with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, the Fair Housing Act, section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and Title
II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.
4. The PHA will affirmatively further fair housing by examining its programs or
proposed programs, identify any impediments to fair housing choice within those
programs, address those impediments in a reasonable fashion in view of the
resources available and work with local jurisdictions to implement any of the
jurisdiction's initiatives to affirmatively further fair housing that require the PHA's
involvement and maintain records reflecting these analyses and actions.
5. The PHA will comply with the prohibitions against discrimination on the basis of
age pursuant to the Age Discrimination Act of 1975.
6. The PHA will comply with the Architectural Barriers Act of 1968 and 24 CFR Part 41,
36
2
Policies and Procedures for the Enforcement of Standards and Requirements for
Accessibility by the Physically Handicapped.
7. The PHA will comply with the requirements of Section 3 of the Housing and
Urban Development Act of 1968, Employment Opportunities for Low or Very Low-
Income Persons, and with its implementing regulation at 24 CFR Part 135.
8. The PHA will comply with requirements with regard to a drug free workplace as
required by 24 CFR Part 24, Subpart F.
9. The PHA will comply with requirements with regard to compliance with restrictions
on lobbying as required by 24 CFR Part 87, together with disclosure forms if
required by this Part, and with restrictions on payments to influence Federal
Transactions, in accordance with the Byrd Amendment and implementing
regulations at 49 CFR Part 24.
10. The PHA will comply with acquisition and relocation requirements of the Uniform
Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 and
implementing regulations at 49 CFR Part 24, as applicable.
11. The PHA will take appropriate affirmative action to award contracts to minority and
women's business enterprises under 24 CFR 5.105( a).
12. The PHA will provide HUD or the responsible entity any documentation that the
Department needs to carry out its review under the National Environmental Policy
Act and other related authorities in accordance with 24 CFR Part 58.
13. With respect to public housing the PHA will comply with Davis-Bacon or HUD
determined wage rate requirements under section 12 of the United States 1937 Act
and the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act.
14. The PHA will keep records in accordance with 24 CFR 85.20 and facilitate an effective
audit to determine compliance with program requirements.
15. The PHA will comply with the Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act and
24 CFR Part 35.
16. The PHA will comply with the policies, guidelines, and requirements of OMB
Circular No. A-87 (Cost Principles for State, Local and Indian Tribal Governments)
and 24 CFR Part 85 (Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative
Agreements to State, Local and Federally Recognized Indian Tribal Governments.).
37
3
17. The PHA will undertake only activities and programs covered by the Plan in a
manner consistent with its Plan and will utilize covered grant funds only for
activities that are approvable under the Moving to Work Agreement and Statement
of Authorizations and included in its Plan.
18. All attachments to the Plan have been and will continue to be available at all times
and all locations that the Plan is available for public inspection. All required
supporting documents have been made available for public inspection along with
the Plan and additional requirements at the primary business office of the PHA and
at all other times and locations identified by the PHA in its Plan and will continue
to be made available at least at the primary business office of the PHA.
Boulder Housing Partners
I hereby certify that all the information stated herein, as well as any information
provided in the accompaniment herewith, is true and accurate. Warning: HUD will
prosecute false claims and statements. Conviction may result in criminal and/or