My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN061615
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
2010-2019
>
2015
>
CCMIN061615
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/29/2015 3:09:47 PM
Creation date
7/29/2015 3:09:43 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
6/16/2015
DESTRUCT DATE
PERMANENT
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
18
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
The project developer, MidPen Housing, is now poised to submit its 9% Low Income Housing tax Credit <br /> (LIHTC) application which is a critical source of funding to the project at this time. This process is very <br /> competitive with an anticipated application to approvals ratio of 3 to 1. Both MidPen and city staff, after <br /> careful evaluation, have determined that additional public funds will be necessary to remain competitive <br /> in this current round of applications. Mr. Bocian presented a slide on the project budget, noting that it is <br /> somewhat misleading in that in order to obtain the tax credit proceeds more money will have to be put <br /> towards the project. <br /> Staff has prepared the following options for the Council's consideration: <br /> • Option 1 —Approve the additional appropriation of$3.7 million from the Lower Income Housing <br /> Fund. <br /> • Option 2 — Provide some level of fee waiver, augmented with an additional loan amount from <br /> the Lower Income Housing Fund to achieve a combined subsidy of $3.75 million. Staff notes <br /> that when the city has authorized fee waivers in the past, those revenues have essentially been <br /> backfilled by the Lower Income Housing Fund. <br /> • Option 3 —Authorize no additional appropriations or waivers. MidPen would proceed with filing <br /> the application in July 2015. If the project were not awarded the tax credit the application would <br /> be submitted again next year. Staff and the developer believe that based on the current <br /> development environment, this process will remain competitive for some time. <br /> Staff recommends that the Council approve Option 1, approving the resolution authorizing a $3.7 <br /> million appropriation from the Lower Income Housing Fund and approving an amendment to the DDA <br /> as outlined in the staff report. <br /> Mayor Thome asked and Mr. Bocian confirmed that any loan amount authorized under Option 2 would <br /> also come from the Lower Income Housing Fund. <br /> Councilmember Narum expressed concern that net impact of Option 1 and the $10 million already <br /> appropriated to the project would leave the Lower Income Housing Fund with a rather low balance. She <br /> asked whether there is any development on the horizon that would help to replenish the fund balance. <br /> Mr. Bocian estimated that the development expected to come in over the next 2 years would yield a fair <br /> amount of activity for the fund. He also advised that the best use of monies within the fund is on a city- <br /> funded project, rather than something in the private sector, and thought this was a strong opportunity to <br /> use those in an effective way. <br /> Councilmember Narum asked and Mr. Bocian confirmed that the Council has the flexibility to borrow <br /> from another internal fund to meet the needs of developments like Sunflower Hill, should the Lower <br /> Income Housing Fund lack a sufficient balance. <br /> Vice Mayor Brown asked and Mr. Bocian confirmed that the stated balance of $16 million in the Lower <br /> Income Housing Fund does not reflect the $10 million appropriation. She requested clarification on the <br /> term "conventional permanent loan." <br /> Mr. Bocian explained that the city will enter into a permanent agreement with an affiliate of MidPen, <br /> who will be the owner of the property improvements, regarding a permanent conventional loan. While <br /> the loan terms will stipulate an interest rate of 3%, typically these are repaid through residual receipts of <br /> the property. Most often the loan is not repaid until something significant, such as resyndication at the <br /> end of the ground lease term, occurs. He highlighted several similar projects, some of which the city <br /> currently receives payments on and some it does not. He cautioned that the Council should enter into <br /> this with the understanding that the loan may not be repaid for many years, particularly in light of the <br /> level of affordability in this project. <br /> City Council Minutes Page 15 of 18 June 16,2015 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.