Loading...
Minutes - Housing - 12/19/2011 BOULDER HOUSING PARTNERS REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS DECEMBER 19,2011,2:30 PM 4800 BROADWAY, BOULDER COLORADO Commissioner Topping Betsey Martens Kathy Haddock CAO Commissioner Eckert Jim Koczela Michelle Allen HHS Commissioner McCormick Tim Beal Public: Commissioner Ageton Willa Johnson Todd Bryan Commissioner Holton Stuart Grogan Commissioner Klerman Karen Kreutzberg Robin Chavez (for Kevin Knapp Commissioner Hempel) Shannon Cox-Baker Commissioner Lawrence Penny Hannegan Commissioner '14itchell 1. Call to order Commissioner McCormick called the regular meeting of the Board of Commissioners to order at 2:33 pm. II. Determination of Quorum A quorum was declared. III. Public Participation Todd Bryan, 4580 Broadway, read a statement to the Board about his concerns about the 1175 Lee Hill development. Mr. Bryan's statement is included at the end of the minutes, fV. Board Announcements COMMISSIONER TOPPING MADE A MOTION TO RECESS INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION AT THE CLOSE OF THE MEETING AS PER COLORADO STATUTE CRS-24-6-402 4(a) (f) TO DISCUSS TWO REAL ESTATE ACQUISITION MATTERS AND ONE CUSTOMER LIABILITY ISSUE. COMMISSIONER KLERMAN SECONDED THE MOTION. The motion passed unanimously. 1 I Commissioner Klerman presented a $5,000 donation from the US Bancorp Foundation to the BHP Foundation. The funds are designated to be used for family self-sufficiency programming. V. Board Development Kevin Knapp presented the basics of New Markets Tax Credit financing. VI. Board Committee Reports Governance Commissioner Lawrence, reporting for the Governance Committee, stated that the committee has been working to identify potential Board candidates with the skills identified in the board matrix as essential to the Board's composition. The committee encourages those interested in serving as a Commissioner to attend a Board meeting prior to applying. Finance The Finance Committee met and reviewed the 2412 proposed budget and the five year capital budget. RRC Robin Chavez, an RRC member reported for the Resident Representative Council. The RRC will be meeting in January to discuss changes to its by- laws and the possibility of changing its meeting time to encourage more participation from interested working residents at the family sites. Foundation Commissioner Holton, reporting for the Foundation Board, stated that the Board has begun its planning for its 2412 fundraiser. Development Commissioner Klerman, reporting for the Development Committee, stated that the committee met to discuss several potential acquisitions and to debrief the December 13th City Council study session focused on Housing First and the 1175 Lee Hill development. 2 21 VII. Approval of the Agenda Consent agenda items: 1. Minutes from November 14, 2011 2. 2012 BHP Employee Handbook Changes COMMISSIONER KLERMAN MOVED TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. COMMISSIONER MITCHELL SECONDED THE MOTION. The motion passed unanimously. VIII. Action and Discussion Agenda Director's Report 2012 Board Goals for City Council The Board discussed their recommended goals for City Council for 2012 and agreed to the following: 1. Continued request for support with developing High Mar and Lee Hill; 2. Request to keep the recommendations of the Affordable Housing Task Force alive in their discussions, particularly the recommendation about the creation of a Community Benefit Ordinance; 3. Continued request for support in reducing regulatory costs and speeding the development review process. Proposed 2012 Meeting Dates The Board approved the proposed 2012 meeting dates. Management Report Resolution #16: Approval of the Combined Operation and Capital Budget 3 3 Jim K. presented and answered questions about the final draft of the budget and focused on a detailed explanation of the MTW and five year capital budget. COMMISSIONER TOPPING MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION #16: APPROVAL OF THE COMBINED OPERATION AND CAPITAL BUDGET AS AMENDED. COMMISSIONER AGETON SECONDED THE MOTION. The motion passed unanimously. October 2011 Financial Summary Jim K. presented the October financials and answered questions from the Board. Jim K. asked for authorization from the Board to pursue paying off the debt on the existing loan for 4800 Broadway. After discussion the Board approved the following motion: COMMISSIONER TOPPING MOVED TO AUTHORIZE STAFF TO PURSUE THE OPTION OF PAYING OFF THE EXISTING LOAN FOR 4800 BROADWAY. COMMISSIONER KLERMAN SECONDED THE MOTION. The motion passed unanimously. Midtown Willa presented an update on Midtown and staff's recommendations for future plans for this property. The Board concurred with the staff's analysis to hold onto the property for the near term. Development Report 1175 Lee Hill The Board discussed the December 13 City Council study session and amended staff's recommended next steps as follows: 1. Stay up to date with the Shelter's efforts to address neighborhood concerns about homeless individuals in north Boulder; 2. Work with the City Manager's office to schedule a tour of Housing First communities in Denver in early 2012 3. Encourage a meeting between members of City Council and the neighbors to discuss the future of north Boulder's redevelopment; and 4 4. Encourage a meeting with HHS staff and neighbors to discuss the impact of the City's Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (IHO) policies on the area. High Mar Shannon and Stuart discussed the options available for financing High Mar and the timing for the March Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) application. Shannon and Stuart agreed to bring their analysis and recommendation for High Mar with a 4% LIHTC option to the February Board meeting. The Commissioners gave their n.od of approval supporting the possibility of a 4% LIHTC option. Boulder Transit Village Stuart and Kevin and members of the Development Committee recommended that BHP withdraw from the Boulder Transit Village project per the recommendation in the Board packet. The Board agreed with this recommendation. Resolution #17: Additional Private Activity Bond Authority Stuart explained BHP's request for an additional allocation of Private Activity Bond Authority from the State. COMMISSIONER KLERMAN MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE RESOLUTION #17: ADDITIONAL PRIVATE ACTIVITY BOND AUTHORITY. COMMISSIONER TOPPING SECONDED THE MOTION. The motion passed unanimously. IX. Executive Session The Board of Commissioners returned to regular session at 6:1 Opm and made the following motion: COMMISSIONER TOPPING MADE A MOTION TO MOVE FORWARD WITH NEGOTIATIONS FOR AND SIGNING OF A PURCHASE OPTION AGREEMENT FOR 2625 VALMONT. COMMISSIONER KLERMAN SECONDED THE MOTION. The motion passed unanimously. 5 X. Adjourn COMMISSIONER ECKERT MADE A MOTION TO ADJOURN THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS. COMMISSIONER LAWRENCE SECONDED THE MOTION. The motion passed unanimously. The regular session of the Board of Commissioners adjourned at 6:13 pm SEAL DATE: 12/19/11. A XTGET A X 41-OnD X iT(`l( Cu A TV L 11V LC1 1Y1~~V11Y11V ll/ 111\ Boulder Housing Partners BETSEY MARTENS Executive Director PENNY HANNEGAN Recording Secretary 6 BHP Board Meeting December 19, 2011 My name Todd Bryan and I live at 4580 Broadway in North Boulder. I am here to speak about the Housing First proposal. The last time I addressed the board I left you with the following quote: "It's not necessarily the decisions we make, it's how we make those decisions." What that means is that while people obviously care about the decisions that are made, they know and accept that those decisions don't always go their way. What is of equal importance, and often more important, is the way they are treated in the r •y tt n .t t decision making process and their ability to meaningtuiiy influence the decisions. Most people assume that conflicts are about peoples' substantive needs when they are more often about their procedural and psychological needs. For the residents of North Boulder the substantive dimensions of the Housing First project are: 1) its effects on the quality of life of residents and businesses and 2) the potential risks to clients of placing them next to the existing shelter. Before going further, let me say that the residents of North Boulder are supportive of the Housing First model and want to see it work. They are not irrational bigoted people. So why are they so opposed to the project? I think it has something to do with violations of their procedural and psychological needs. For the residents of North Boulder, the procedural dimensions of the project have to do with: 1) the way in which residents learned of the project and 2) the process for engaging residents once the project was made public. First, residents learned of the project at a cocktail party in North Boulder in late summer at which a BHP board member essentially spilled the beans. By this time, however, the property had already been purchased, transferred, and designed. BHP quickly followed up with the public meeting on September 29. And while BHP told the community that it was in the beginning stages of the outreach process, with plenty of opportunity to influence decisions, almost all of the important decisions had already been made. Since the meeting on the 29t`, several residents have discussed the project with BHP affiliates. I am one of the residents who met with them. However, none of 7 My comments are included in BHP's report to the City Council. Neither are many of the comments of my neighbors. Finally, a BHP affiliate told us that BHP very much wants neighborhood support for the project. Yet BHP is now engaged in a power-based political process with the City Council that will most likely result in winners and losers. BHP has fallen far short of satisfying the community's procedural needs and has violated their sense of procedural justice. So a ag in, it's not necessarily about the decisions we make it's about how we make those decisions. With regard to their psychological needs, residents are focused on: 1) the BSH 1 t - shelter, 2) the absence of a mechanism for Planning Board oversight, and 3) the fairness of placing another supportive housing facility here. Many residents were involved in siting the BSH shelter on Broadway and recall the promises that were made and subsequently broken by BS . Many of them feel betrayed and are much less trusting this time around. In addition, city planning officials lament that the city has no authori , to intervene. BHP was given a pass, they tell us, when the City Council changed the code in 2003 to avoid NIMBY battles. Unfortunately, the Council did not put a mechanism in place to give neighbors a meaningful voice. Finally, residents are exceedingly aware that they have more than fulfilled their civic duty regarding the homeless. It is not a NIMBY argument, in their minds, to ask that other Boulder neighborhoods share this responsibility. It is entirely a matter of fairness. Arguments to the contrary seem totally disingenuous. So once again, it's not necessarily about the decisions we make, it's about how we make those decisions. Fortunately, BHP can change this. It is in everyone's best interest that it does. Thank you.