Agenda - 12-13-2016 - 6-a - Minutes

Browse Search

11 1 2 I agree with all of the comments below. Speaking on behalf of Habitat, I would agree that some 3 degree of flexibility is necessary, and that the 60% of AMI cut off makes more sense than the 4 50% of AMI, both to accommodate LIHTC projects, and also because Habitat serves 30-60% of 5 AMI, and we wouldn't want to have to limit all of our projects to 30-50% of AMI in order to 6 qualify for funding. On average, we serve folks at the 45% of AMI, so maybe approaching the 7 incomes served for a particular project based on the average of incomes served, rather than 8 having a cutoff that would eliminate serving those at 50-60% of AMI, would make more sense. 9 10 11 12 Maggie West, CEF 13 I agree with Robert's point/ $ breakdown for placing an emphasis in the resource limits on 14 projects that serve the lower-income AMI categories, and functionally prioritizing the bond 15 resources towards those categories. 16 17 In terms of the potential double-counting issue, I don't see that becoming a real issue so long 18 as the special populations served also are designated as populations earning below 80% AMI. 19 would imagine that designating specific funds to go towards projects serving special 20 populations would allow the commissioners some discretion as they approve projects in 21 determining which category to "count" a project towards, based on what they know about 22 additional projects coming down the pipeline and other resources that they will hopefully 23 continue to create to make this small pie (as Dan aptly called it) bigger in order to meet the 24 county's broader needs! 25 26 Dan Levine, Self-Help Real Estate 27 All good points below. One specific thing I'd add is that it would be wise to have 60% AMI as cut 28 off rather than 50%, given that it'd align with LIHTC project income limits. More broadly 29 speaking, my instinct is that it certainly makes sense to emphasize priority groups... but we 30 want to maintain flexibility so that we don't run short of dollars for projects based on whatever 31 opportunities emerge, since we're dividing a fairly small pie into multiple slivers. Seems like 32 dividing this pie by too much risks leaving money on the table that could be effectively 33 deployed. I'm curious to hear others thoughts on this. 34 35 Allan Rosen, IFC 36 I agree with Robert in the basics. As for the proportions amongst the four categories that can 37 be further discussed out, as well as how to handle possible double counting of special needs 38 projects that also meet AMI goals. 39 Also, there is a near precedent for this. I don't remember all the details, but when one of the 40 latter RFPs for the earlier bonds was released the county's affordable housing advisory board 41 recommended a $ set aside, perhaps $1 million, for general population affordable rentals since 42 those projects were consistently scoring lower than projects that earned points with special 43 needs attributes. 44 45 Robert Dowling, Community Home Trust 46 I think Travis is correct. If 100 apartments affordable below 50% AMI each require $50,000 of 47 bond funds, the $5MM is gone. 48 The BOCC talked about limiting the amount spent in each category when they last talked about 49 this. If they go in that direction, I think more funds should be allocated at the lower income 50 categories.