City Council Regular Meeting Citizen Minutes – 1 November 2016

Regular City Council Meeting       1 November 2016         Citizen Minutes

Citizen Comments

Paul Bingham spoke in favor of the Riverside General Planned Development (PD) located at 5000 and a portion of 4900 S Prince Street. (Consent Agenda item (h)) Continue reading

Update on Tax Credits for Low Income Housing

After doing some research I have learned that the tax credits awarded to property owners partnering with a housing authority are documents (form 8609) that entitle the holder a dollar for dollar reduction in their tax liability.  I am sure my terminology is not as it should but the concept is as I have described.

The property owners, that are awarded the tax credits by Colorado Housing and Finance Authority (CHFA), sell the tax credits to what they call a “syndicate,” a bank, or an investment group.  The purchase of the tax credits funds the project reducing the cost of building the low income housing (LIH) which will enable the property owner to charge less for the units.

In the case of Littleton Crossing, the CHFA awarded an annual $1,2400,000 tax credit for ten years for a total of $12,400,000 over the life of the tax credits.  (Maximum annual award is $1,2500,000)  The property will have to remain LIH for 40 years as there is some sort of land use agreement that is part of the tax credit award.

On the sales use tax that was addressed in HB16-1006, since Littleton is a home rule municipality the tax status of the low income housing project is dependent on past practices.  1006 states that LIH projects partnered with a housing authority are exempt from the sales use tax (taxes on the materials used to build the project) during the construction phase.  Legislative counsel for the state of Colorado has informed me that if the housing authority has not been paying use tax they will continue to be exempt from paying them.  If they have been paying the sales use tax then they will be expected to pay them unless the policy makers create a policy stating their desire to adopt the language of 1006.

I will update as I learn more about the tax status of South Metro Housing Options as I learn.


Englewood has their own low income housing projects – City Manager called it “outrageous”

Last week I attended the Englewood city council meeting.  Monica Babbitt and Marcus Scott, from the Arapahoe County Assessor’s office, were there to address tax increment financing (TIF) in one of their dormant urban renewal areas.

Laurett Barrentine, an Englewood city councilwoman, attended the Community Conversations on urban renewal and became aware of the General Iron Works Urban Renewal (UR) Area in Englewood.  This UR area had bee long forgotten but a project was beginning to take shape. She was concerned about the increment being siphoned off from their General Fund in a time where every dollar is important to their budgeting process.  Surprisingly Barrentine had to convince her city staff and council that there was increment in jeopardy.  to make the long story short – she finally prevailed and their is now a recognition that the General Iron Works UR plan area still has 9 years on the TIF clock.  In other words, the city of Englewood stood to lose tax dollars for the next nine years to their UR authority in spite of the fact that there is no debt in this UR area.  (TIF is, by law, to be used to pay debt associated with the project.)

Last Monday, October 24, 2106 the Englewood City Council heard Ms. Babbitt explain to them that there would be no increment – the project known as The Foundry, was tax exempt.  She explained that the developer for The Foundry had partnered with the Englewood Housing Authority (EHA).  For the mere sum of $100 paid to the developer by the EHA the entire project was no longer subject to use tax (taxes paid to the city on the materials used in building the project – it is a lot of money) nor would they be paying property taxes.  To put salt in the wound, Babbitt told the council that not only had the EHA bought in to The Foundry project but they had also paid $100 for a partnership in The Broadway Lofts!

The council members were stunned.  The council members that were liaisons to the EHA were just as stunned as the others.  Barrentine called it outrageous and said that they had been “hood-winked” again.  The city manager, Eric Keck, said he had just found out and he too thought it was outrageous.

I am glad that I went and not even disappointed that I didn’t learn more about increment and UR.  What I heard made me go home and start doing research on Littleton Crossing – there had been some chatter about Section 8 housing in downtown Littleton.  I had to find out – was this the same sort of project that would add citizens but no tax revenues?  Short answer – yes and for up to ten years.

Attachements:  Awards from the CHFA to both Englewood projects:



Please see the post on Littleton Crossing to see the CHFA report on the award to them of $1,240,000 per year.

Littleton Crossing – Is it good or bad for downtown Littleton?

I guess this is the next controversy in Littleton – an apartment complex on Nevada St just north of downtown Littleton.  The project will provide workforce housing and the developer will be getting a tax credit of $1,200,000 per year for 10 years by partnering with South Metro Housing Options (formerly Littleton Housing Authority).  The partnership will make this property tax-exempt depriving Littleton of the use tax during construction and property taxes for the ten years of the tax credit.

Here are some documents that might be of interest.

Colorado Housing Finance Authority letter of agreement with SMHO and commitment for Section 8 housing in Littleton Crossing summit-hud-section-8-priority-commitment-letter-5-20-2016-5

Letter of support from Jocelyn Mills, Community Development Director of Littleton 07-letter-of-support-from-the-city-of-littleton-1

Kent Bagley and Norm Stucker write letter of support 22-letter-to-chfa-from-norman-stucker-and-kent-bagley

Colorado Housing Finance Authority award to Summit ltn-crossing-2016-round-2-award-report

Apparently the citizens that wrote letters of opposition did not get their letters included in the packet of material that went to the board prior to awarding Summit with their tax credit.  As this subject comes into focus I will add more info.