City Council Minutes 2015 03 17 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

City Council Meeting Minutes March 17, 2015 Page 14 of 31 on the use of public funds for anything but affordable housing. He was satisfied the annexation agreement was solid and thanked the City and County staff. Mayor Muckle called for public comment and hearing none, closed the public hearing. COUNCIL COMMENT Council member Stolzmann requested clarification on what qualifies for a local match and what does not Nome Boyd, BCHA, explained the local match is important in order to access the state and low income housing tax credits. It is not proper to use the County's exemption as part of the local match: It is intended to show the local community's support before this investment of $27 Million in state and federal credits. On a project this size, it is usually $1 to $2 Million. The local match can be land, financial assistance, fee waivers or deferrals of fees. Frank Alexander explained the two offsite suggestions would not count as a local match in the project budget. Council member Stolzmann asked how the contribution on the traffic light count and the traffic light on Highway 42 cannot count as a local match. Frank Alexander explained it is the County's portion and the remainder is Balfour's. Planning and Building Safety Director Russ explained the way signal costs are distributed are for all four quadrants and Boulder County is only representing half of the intersection. Council member Loo was not against affordable housing, but wanted to know the costs for one -time and on -going capital costs.. It's more than property tax, it demands on police, fire department, schools and the library. She agreed the annexation and zoning meets the goals of the comprehensive plan, but noted the comp plan also has an economic component She noted the City Council is tasked with considering pros and cons, the advantages and disadvantages of every project and making a reasonable decision. She could not vote for this project at this time due to the ongoing cost and lack of economic information to make a reasonable decision. She stressed this project will require ongoing subsidizing and she felt the residents should be informed. City Manager Fleming addressed fiscal impact of this project from information in the City Council packet. The fiscal analysis supplied by the applicant based on the City fiscal model suggested the project could have an on -going net fiscal balance of a negative $134,000. Because of the nature of the revenues and costs association with the project of this nature, it actually generates a positive capital on -going revenue of $30,000. The revenue corning in would go into the capital projects fund. Today the County supplied an updated fiscal model where the net on -going revenue is $77,000 per year and the one -time capital cost is $670,000. Staff's recommendation is over and above those amounts. Based on the City's own model, the County's consultant analyzed the revenue and expenditures and concluded it will cost on -going $77,000 per year and a one -time capital expenditure of $700,000. The staff recommended support of this project so the County can secure loans.