. >> I WOULD LIKE TO CALL TO ORDER THE TUESDAY APRIL 8TH HRA BOARD MEETING. FIRST ITEM IS THE APPROVAL
OF THE AGENDA AND THE SECOND MOTION MADE BY WOOTEN AND SECONDED BY DUBLINER.
ANY DISCUSSION ALL IN FAVOR I OPPOSED. NO I'M ACTUALLY NOT VOTING ON THIS ONE BECAUSE I WAS NOT HERE.
SO IT PASSES 5 TO 0 NEXT IS THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE LAST MEETING. ARE THERE ANY EDITS OR CHANGES ?
OKAY. OKAY SO WE MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE SECOND AND SECOND BY WHO CAME ANY DISCUSSION?
ALL IN FAVOR? I ALL RIGHT. PASSES 520. ALL RIGHT. NEXT ITEM ORGANIZATIONAL
BUSINESS . GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS EMILY HORSEBACK. I'M A PLANNER. I HAVE BEEN HERE ONCE BEFORE
IN DECEMBER AND I'M HERE TO TALK ABOUT CO-LIVING ORDINANCE WHICH AGAIN NICK JOHNSON AND I WERE HERE IN DECEMBER TO KIND
OF GET YOUR THOUGHTS AND IDEAS ON A DRAFT ORDINANCE AND NOW WE HAVE A FINAL ORDINANCE. SO JUST AN OVERVIEW OF THE PROJECT TIMELINE.
THIS HAS BEEN IN THE WORKS FOR ALMOST A YEAR NOW SO WE WENT TO PLANNING COMMISSION A FEW TIMES AND NICK I THINK CAME TO
THE HRA BOARD LAST SUMMER AND THEN NICK AND I CAME IN DECEMBER AND YOUR JOINT MEETING WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION. WE'VE BEEN TO COUNCIL FOR STUDY SESSIONS AND THEN WHERE
WE'RE HEADED IS A FINAL PUBLIC HEARING AT COUNCIL AT THE END OF APRIL.
LOOK, I KNOW YOU COULD I NEVER KNOW IF IT'S JUST LIKE LAGGING AND I'M GOING TO SKIP LIKE FOR SCIENCE OR IF IT'S A
OKAY. THANK YOU. SO THIS IS THE WHY WHY CO-LIVING. SO FIRST THE CONNECTION TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. WE HAVE A COUPLE OF GOALS
IN THE HOUSING ELEMENT WHICH RELATE TO CO-LIVING AND THAT'S TO PROVIDE A RANGE OF HOUSING CHOICES. SO THIS IS PROVIDING HOUSING CHOICES THAT COULD HAVE
FLEXIBLE LEASES WITH A 30 DAY MINIMUM GOOD FOR STUDENTS SENIORS MOBILE PROFESSIONALS AND ALSO CO-LIVING COULD SUPPORT PROVIDING AFFORDABLE
HOUSING AND WE REALLY THINK THAT THIS COULD MEET 30% AMI LEVELS WHICH IS DEEPLY AFFORDABLE AND WHICH IS THE SECTION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING
THAT BLOOMINGTON HAS STRUGGLED WITH A LITTLE BIT. SO OVERALL IT'S JUST ADDING TO THE SPECTRUM OF HOUSING POSSIBILITIES WHICH IS A POSITIVE THING
. I'M JUST GOING TO BRIEFLY GO OVER THE ALL OF WHAT'S IN THE ORDINANCE AND IF YOU HAVE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS ABOUT A SECTION WE CAN GO THROUGH
THAT. BUT MOSTLY I'M JUST GOING TO KIND OF TALK ABOUT WHAT'S DIFFERENT THAN THE LAST TIME I WAS HERE. MAYBE THANK YOU.
SO DEFINITIONS WISE WE ARE CHANGING THE DEFINITION OF FAMILY AND I THINK LAST TIME WE HADN'T DECIDED ON A DEFINITION NOW WE DECIDED TO
TRY TO BE VERY INCLUSIVE WHERE WE ARE ALLOWING SIX OR FEWER ADULTS OR ANY NUMBER OF ADULTS WHO ARE ALL RELATED TO EACH OTHER ALONG WITH ANY MINOR CHILDREN IN THEIR CARE.
THIS ALLOWS FOR NOT ONLY MORE ROOMMATE SITUATIONS WHERE IT CAN BE SIX ADULTS WHO AREN'T RELATED BUT ALSO MORE FLEXIBILITY FOR MULTIGENERATIONAL FAMILIES.
ONE CHANGE THAT WE MADE TO THE CO-LIVING DEVELOPMENT DEFINITION IS THAT THE DEFINITION IS NOW CALLING OUT THAT IN ORDER TO BE A CO-LIVING DEVELOPMENT IT NEEDS TO HAVE FIVE OR MORE CO-LIVING UNITS. THIS IS TO DIFFERENTIATE
BETWEEN MULTIFAMILY HOUSING AND THEN ADDITIONALLY THE DEFINITION OF CO-LIVING UNIT CHANGE TO SPECIFY THAT THE KITCHEN WILL BE SHARED AND COOKING FACILITIES SUCH AS LIKE A STOVE WILL NOT BE
INCLUDED AND EACH LIKE UNIT OR BEDROOM AS FAR AS YOUTH STANDARDS GO NOT MUCH HAS CHANGED THERE OTHER THAN WE
DID DECIDE TO PUT THE REQUIREMENT THAT EACH UNIT WILL BE AT LEAST 70FT AS A MINIMUM AND ADDITIONALLY WE MADE THE REQUIREMENT THAT A KITCHEN MUST BE ON THE SAME
FLOOR AS A UNIT FOR ACCESSIBILITY PURPOSES. AS FAR AS LIKE USE TABLES AND WHERE THINGS ARE PERMITTED OR NOT CO-LIVING DEVELOPMENTS ARE
ALLOWED WITH THE SAME PERMISSIONS IN THE SAME DISTRICTS THAT MULTIFAMILY BUILDINGS ARE ALLOWED IN RENTAL CODE AMENDMENTS ARE JUST MATCHING THE ZONING CODE. SO KIND OF ADDING SOME
DEFINITIONS IN THERE AND THEN OPPORTUNITY HOUSING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS ARE JUST ALLOWING FOR SOME POTENTIAL FLEXIBILITY
WHERE CO-LIVING MAY MEET THE REQUIREMENTS AND THEN DELETIONS ARE JUST DELETING SOME OLD DEFINITIONS AND KIND OF MOVING THE CO-LIVING UNIT
INTO A NEW SECTION. WE'LL. SO HOW IS THIS ORDINANCE REMOVING BARRIERS TO HOUSING? I HAVE TOUCHED ON SOME OF THESE THINGS BUT AGAIN
CHANGING THE FAMILY DEFINITION AND ALLOWS FOR MORE FLEXIBLE LIVING SITUATIONS FOR FAMILIES OR FOR PEOPLE THAT ARE NOT RELATED CREATING A CO-LIVING
USE WITH STANDARD THAT ARE RESPONSIVE TO UNIQUE CARE CHARACTERISTICS OF HOUSING TYPES ARE RECOGNIZING THAT CO-LIVING IS DIFFERENT THAN OTHER HOUSING TYPES.
WE HAVE IN KIND OF BEEN FLEXIBLE WITH THAT AGAIN ADDING INCENTIVES FOR CO-LIVING WHERE AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENTS ARE MET. AND THEN LASTLY AGAIN ALLOWING
DIVERSITY AND VARIETY OF HOUSING POSSIBILITIES FOR RESIDENTS. >> SO WHAT I'M LOOKING FOR TONIGHT IS APPROVAL OF THE
LETTER OF SUPPORT THAT SHOULD BE IN FRONT OF YOU AND ALSO WAS INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKET. SO THIS IS A LETTER TO GIVE TO COUNCIL FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING SHOWING THAT THE HRA BOARD IS
IN SUPPORT OF THE CO-LIVING ORDINANCE. AND YEAH LET ME KNOW IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS COMMENTS
? SARA COHEN THANK YOU CHAIR SO I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUICK QUESTIONS. SO YOU MENTIONED THE REQUIREMENT TO HAVE THE
KITCHEN ON THE SAME FLOOR AS THE LIVING UNITS. SO THEN BASICALLY WE WOULD BE SAYING THAT THIS COULDN'T BE LIKE A MULTI STOREY UNLESS THERE WAS A KITCHEN ON BOTH
FLOORS. CHAIR COMMISSIONER CARTER THAT IS CORRECT. SO I MEAN IT COULD BE HOWEVER MANY STORIES BUT THERE WOULD NEED TO BE A KITCHEN ON EACH FLOOR. OKAY. OKAY. I THINK THAT WOULD BE ONE
THING I WOULD WANT US TO JUST KIND OF MONITOR LIKE DOES THAT PROHIBIT LIKE PREVENT UNITS FROM BEING DEVELOPED BECAUSE IT'S MORE EXPENSIVE TO PUT ANOTHER KITCHEN IN WHEN I MEAN
I'M JUST IMAGINING LIKE, YOU KNOW A HOUSE THAT COULD BE TURNED INTO A I GUESS IT NEEDS TO BE FIVE OR MORE RIGHT BUT A PLACE FOR FIVE INDIVIDUALS AND
IF THERE WAS A KITCHEN ON THE BOTTOM AND THEN TWO LIVING AND THEN THREE ON TOP, YOU KNOW, LIKE WOULD IT PREVENT SOMETHING LIKE THAT FROM HAPPENING? SO THAT WOULD BE MY ONLY CONCERN. AND THEN FOR THE PARKING WE
HAVE THE RECOMMENDATION IS A HALF A SPACE PER ONE CO-LIVING UNIT AND THEN IT'S MENTIONED THAT IT IS MORE RESTRICTIVE
IN THE NOTES IS THAT CHAIR COMMISSIONER CARTER DO YOU MORE RESTRICTIVE COMPARED TO I GUESS LIKE OTHER CITIES WE WERE COMPARED TO LIKE HALF A
SPACE PER QUALITY? YEAH. THE MORE RESTRICTIVE SIDE OF THE RANGE OF COMMUNITIES RESEARCH YES. YEAH. SO WE TRIED TO TAKE THE RESEARCH THAT WE GOT AND THEN KIND OF PUT IT IN A
BLOOMINGTON CONTEXT AND ALSO WHEN WE WENT BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION THERE WAS A LITTLE BIT OF CONCERN ABOUT
THAT NUMBER THE .050.5 I THINK TOO RESTRICTIVE OR NOT BEING HIGH ENOUGH. OH YES. OKAY. THAT'S KIND OF A COMPROMISE, RIGHT?
A LITTLE BIT. AND ALSO A LITTLE BIT OF KIND OF A WAIT AND SEE LIKE KIND OF SEEING HOW IT ACTUALLY PLAYS OUT. OKAY.
OH GOSH. SORRY. THAT'S FROM A DO NOT STORE RUN POTENTIAL SPAM IS CALLING ME AGAIN SO YEAH I GUESS MY
PERSPECTIVE WOULD BE I MEAN I KNOW PARKING IS THE COST OF PARKING IS VERY EXPENSIVE AND SO YOU KNOW IF WE CAN REDUCE LIKE MAKE IT NOT AS RESTRICTIVE I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF THAT.
BUT I ALSO UNDERSTAND YOU'RE GETTING FEEDBACK FROM A LOT OF PLACES RIGHT NOW SO I GUESS FOR NOW I WOULD BE COMFORTABLE FOR A WAIT WITH A WAIT AND SEE APPROACH BUT I ANTICIPATE
WE'LL PROBABLY HAVE TO REVISIT IT IN THE FUTURE AND REDUCE THAT RESTRICTION. SO THANK YOU. I'M SORRY. WERE YOU DONE OKAY.
MY QUESTION HAS TO MY QUESTION HAS TO DO WITH THE LIVING ENVIRONMENT. THE MAX IS SIX PER FACILITY, RIGHT? SIX PER HOUSEHOLD CHAIR
COMMISSIONER AND THAT'S FOR LIKE SINGLE AND TWO FAMILY DWELLINGS. SO YEAH, CHANGING THE DEFINITION OF FAMILY WOULD ALLOW FOR YOUR CORRECT A
MAXIMUM OF SIX UNRELATED PEOPLE. SO MY MY QUESTION HAS TO DO WITH LIVABILITY AND SPACE SO IF THE COOKING OR OR EATING
AREA IS GOING TO BE ON THE SAME FLOOR AS IS, HOW IS THE LIVING AREAS? HOW MANY BEDROOMS, HOW MANY BATHROOMS WITH THAT MANY PEOPLE?
MAX A CHAIR COMMISSIONER WOOTEN SO THE REQUIREMENT FOR A KITCHEN ON EVERY LEVEL IS FOR A CO-LIVING DEVELOPMENT SO WE WOULDN'T HAVE THAT REQUIREMENT FOR A SINGLE OR
TWO FAMILY HOUSE IF THERE'S LIKE SIX PEOPLE LIVING THERE WE WOULD CONSIDER THAT LIKE A ROOMMATE SITUATION. IS THAT KIND OF ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? NOT QUITE. OKAY AND MAYBE I DIDN'T ASK IT
CORRECTLY SO LET ME CLARIFY THIS WAY HOW MANY BEDROOMS WOULD YOU ANTICIPATE BEING IN A SINGLE FAMILY SITUATION WHERE THERE'S SIX PEOPLE IS A
MAX GOTCHA CHAIR COMMISSIONER WU AND I THINK THAT HAS TO DO MORE WITH LIKE OUR BUILDING CODE STANDARDS AND PERHAPS ALSO OUR RENTAL HOUSING STANDARDS.
SO I DON'T KNOW THE EXACT ANSWER TO THAT BUT I MEAN THERE ARE STANDARDS IN PLACE THAT AREN'T NECESSARILY IN THE ZONING CODE BUT THAT HAVE TO
DO WITH OCCUPANCY AND YEAH SO FOR CLARIFICATION MY UNDERSTANDING IS USUALLY AS TO TWO PERSONS PER ROOM IF IT'S NOT AS OUR SCENARIO WE ARE A
COUPLE BUT EVEN WITH THAT THREE BEDROOMS MINIMUM HOW MANY BATHROOMS 12I MEAN THE THING I'M CONCERNED ABOUT IS THE ENVIRONMENT NOT BE SO
RESTRICTIVE THAT YOU HAVE ONE AREA WHERE THERE'S A SPACE FOR COOKING. YOU HAVE SIX PEOPLE TOTAL AND THERE'S NO UP OR DOWN LEVELS FOR A LIVING.
SO IT CREATES A IT CREATES A LITTLE BIT MORE DENSITY IN THAT ENVIRONMENT THAN THAN WOULD BE NORMALLY COMFORTABLE FOR A FAMILY.
MHM. SO THAT'S JUST MY PERSPECTIVE . YEAH. CHAIR COMMISSIONER WOOTEN THANK YOU FOR THAT COMMENT. THAT'S A FAIR POINT. I WILL SAY THAT WE DID WORK
WITH OUR ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION THROUGH THIS SO THEY WERE KIND OF COMFORTABLE WITH THIS NUMBER AND THEY'RE THE ONES THAT DO RENTAL INSPECTIONS NOT SAYING IT'S PERFECT BUT I KNOW THAT I FEEL
BETTER FOR HEARING FROM THE PEOPLE WHO ARE ACTUALLY OUT IN THE FIELD AND KNOWING THAT SOMETIMES THEY DO SEE SITUATIONS LIKE THIS AND THEY
WOULD, YOU KNOW, WANT US TO KIND OF ALLOW THAT. I'LL RESERVE THE THIRD COMMENT. I'M I HAVE IF I'VE READ
CORRECTLY WHEN IT'S A DEVELOPMENT WILL EACH BEDROOM HAVE ITS OWN BATHROOM IN THE COMMON SPACE WILL BE THE KITCHEN AND LIVING AREA OR IS THAT JUST DEPEND ON CHAIR
THINK YEAH IT DEPENDS SO IT MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE ITS OWN BATHROOM BUT THE COMMON SPACE WILL BE LIKE THE KITCHEN AND IF THERE'S ANY TYPE OF LOUNGE SPACE SURE.
OKAY. YES PLEASE. SO I'M GOING TO GO ON RECORD SAYING THAT IF THERE'S SIX PEOPLE IN A HOUSEHOLD IF IF OP OPPORTUNITY PRESENTS
THEMSELVES TWO BATHROOMS AT LEAST AND THE LIVABILITY SPACE AND THE SPACE WHERE WE'RE FOOD
PREPARED IS THERE'S ENOUGH ROOM WITH A SEPARATION SO THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?
FEEDBACK, COMMENTS. OKAY. HEARING NONE. MAY I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE LETTER OF SUPPORT FOR THE
CO-LIVING ORDINANCE SO MOVED MOVED BY DOUBLING HER SECOND AND SECOND BY WHO CAME ALL
IN FAVOR? I I OPPOSED MOTION PASSES 620 . DID YOU VOTE?
OH, THIS EVENING I'M SORRY YOUR VOTING I THINK YOU THINK YOU JUST ALL RIGHT SO THERE'S
NO NEW BUSINESS SO THE NEXT IS DISCUSSION ITEM IS DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE RENTAL HOMES FOR FUTURE HOME
BUYERS PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND ADMISSION POLICIES. MAY WE HAVE THE STAFF REPORT? GOOD EVENING, CHAIR COMMISSIONERS IN A SALVADOR ASSISTANT TEACHER ADMINISTRATOR WE ARE RETURNING
TONIGHT WITH A CONVERSATION THAT INITIATED EARLIER THIS YEAR REGARDING THE RENTAL HOMES FOR FUTURE HOMEBUYERS PROGRAM. WE'VE COMPLETED A REVIEW OF THE MANAGEMENT AND ADMISSION POLICIES FOR THE
PROGRAM AND ARE HERE THIS EVENING TO DISCUSS OUR PROPOSED CHANGES AND ALSO SEEK FEEDBACK FROM YOU AS WE WORK TO FINALIZE THESE UPDATES.
I DO WANT TO QUICKLY REVISIT THE GOALS OF THE PROGRAM SO THE RENTAL HOMES PROGRAM SUPPORTS A PATHWAY TO HOMEOWNERSHIP. IT DOES THIS THROUGH AFFORDABLE RENT AND
PARTICIPANTS IN THE PROGRAM ALSO GET ACCESS TO COACHING AND EDUCATION AND A CORE COMPONENT OF THE PROGRAM IS THIS SAVINGS TOWARDS A DOWN
PAYMENT THAT IS FACILITATED THROUGH AN ESCROW ACCOUNT FOR EACH HOUSEHOLD. WE CURRENTLY HAVE 21 ACTIVE RENTAL HOMES AND BASED ON THE
BOARD'S DECISION EARLIER THIS YEAR THE CURRENT INCOME LIMIT FOR ELIGIBILITY IS BETWEEN 60 AND 80% OF AREA MEDIAN INCOME AND RENTS ARE SET AT AFFORDABLE RATE AT 50% OF AREA
MEDIAN INCOME HOUSEHOLD RENT AND ESCROW CONTRIBUTIONS ARE RECALCULATED ANNUALLY AT RECERTIFICATION AND LEASE RENEWAL. ALSO I JUST WANT TO PROVIDE
SOME FUN UPDATES ALREADY IN 2025 WE'VE HAD ONE HOME PURCHASE FROM THE PROGRAM AND TWO OTHER HOUSEHOLDS ARE ACTIVELY EITHER BEEN PRE-APPROVED FOR A MORTGAGE AND LOOKING FOR A HOME ARE
REALLY CLOSE TO CLOSING ON A HOME SO WE WANTED TO SHARE THAT UPDATE EVEN THOUGH WE'RE ONLY IN APRIL AND WE ALSO TAKEN FEEDBACK FROM THE BOARD ARE GOING TO BE OFFERING
ADDITIONAL ONE ON ONE COUNSELING FOR ALL CURRENT PARTICIPANTS OF THE PROGRAM THROUGH OUR PARTNERSHIPS WITH CAPPY AND PEOPLE. ANOTHER THING I DID WANT TO JUST FOLLOW UP ON TO AND OUR
PREVIOUS CONVERSATION WE DID RECEIVE FEEDBACK ABOUT WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT AS PART OF PROGRAM PARTICIPATION AND WE HAVE INITIATED DISCUSSIONS WITH THE PORT BECAUSE THEY'RE
ACTUALLY IN THE PROCESS OF DEVELOPING A BROADER WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY FOR THE FOR THE CITY WIDE AND SO WE WANTED TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THAT WORK THAT'S ALREADY BEGUN AND POTENTIALLY CONNECT
OUR PARTNERS OR OUR PARTICIPANTS WITH THAT WORK. THAT'S ALL AND IT'S VERY EARLY STAGES SO WE DON'T ANTICIPATE THAT THAT WOULD IMPACT OUR PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS AT LEAST FOR THE NEXT YEAR OR SO.
BUT IT IS UNDER DISCUSSION IN TERMS OF THE ADMISSION AND MANAGEMENT POLICIES THEMSELVES. THERE'S FIVE AREAS WHERE STAFF IS PROPOSING CHANGES AND I'LL
WALK THROUGH EACH OF THEM NOW ALL FIVE OF THE CHANGES ARE ATTEMPTS TO BALANCE THE FACT THAT THIS IS ENTIRELY A LOCAL PROGRAM WHICH MEANS WE HAVE A LOT MORE FLEXIBILITY THAN WE DO FOR OTHER PROGRAMS THAT ARE
ADMINISTERED BY THE HRA BUT ALSO A LOT MAKING SURE THAT THIS PROGRAM IS MEETING THE HIGH LEVEL GOALS THAT ARE SET FOR IT. HISTORICALLY WE'VE RELIED ON HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHER PROGRAM
REQUIREMENTS TO KIND OF SET A FOUNDATION AND INFORM THIS PROGRAM. BUT WE RECOGNIZE THAT WE HAVE THAT FLEXIBILITY AND SO WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THAT LOCAL FLEXIBILITY FOR THIS LOCAL
PROGRAM WHEREVER POSSIBLE. THE FIRST ONE I'LL GO INTO IS THE APPLICATION PROCESS. SO WE ARE CURRENTLY PROPOSING TO MOVE TO A MORE TRADITIONAL LISA MODEL RATHER THAN RELYING
ON A WAITING LIST PRIMARILY BECAUSE THE SUCCESS RATE WITH OUR WAITING LIST IS INCREDIBLY LOW FOR A FEW REASONS BUT MORE RECENTLY WE'VE BEEN SEEING THAT WE ARE JUST NOT GETTING
RESPONSES WHEN WE REACH OUT TO PEOPLE WHO ARE ON THE WAITING LIST THEY'RE ALSO THEIR INCOMES ARE TOO LOW TO BE TO QUALIFY FOR THE PROGRAM OR THEY'RE NOT CURRENTLY IN A
POSITION WHERE THEY CAN MOVE FROM THEIR EXISTING LIKE THEIR CURRENT HOUSING SITUATION WHICH MEANS WE'RE CONTACTING A LOT MORE HOUSEHOLDS TO FILL A SINGLE UNIT WHICH JUST ADDS
TIME FOR THE LEASE UP PROCESS MOVING TO A MORE TRADITIONAL LISA MODEL MEANS THAT WE'RE WORKING WITH HOUSEHOLDS WHO ARE IN A LIKE IN A PLACE WHERE THEY'RE READY TO MOVE.
THEY'RE ACTIVELY ENGAGED WITH THE PROGRAMMATIC COMPONENTS OF THE PROGRAM AND INTERESTED IN THE HOME OWNERSHIP AND HOMEBUYING PROCESS AND THE THE
WE'RE INCORPORATING A MORE EQUITABLE PROCESS BY USING A LOTTERY TO RANDOMLY SELECT FROM ELIGIBLE APPLICATIONS SO THAT WOULD BE A CHANGE WITH THE NEW PROCESS AND WE'RE
HOPING THIS STREAMLINE ENDS THE LEASE UP SIGNIFICANTLY SIGNIFICANTLY FOR STAFF WHILE ALSO ALLOWING US TO BE MORE FLEXIBLE IN HOW WE'RE MARKETING ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS FOR EACH OF OUR
PROPERTIES WHEREVER WE CAN. >> ALSO WE ARE PROPOSING TO ALIGN OUR DEFINITION OF FAMILY THAT'S USED FOR THIS PROGRAM TO THE CITY'S DEFINITION
OF FAMILY THAT'S CURRENTLY AS YOU JUST HEARD BEING UPDATED THROUGH THE CO-LIVING ORDINANCE. PREVIOUSLY WE WERE USING THE HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHER DEFINITION OF FAMILY WHICH
CONSIDERS A LOT OF DIFFERENT SCENARIOS THAT JUST ARE NOT RELEVANT TO THE HOUSEHOLDS THAT ARE SERVED THROUGH THIS PROGRAM AND KIND OF HAD A LOT OF ADDITIONAL DETAIL THAT WASN'T NECESSARILY RELEVANT
FOR THE RENTAL HOMES PROGRAM. SO WE SAW THIS AS AN OPPORTUNITY TO ALIGN THIS PROGRAM WITH THE CITIES WHERE THE CITY IS HEADED WITH THEIR DEFINITION OF FAMILY.
>> THE NEXT ONE IS ONGOING INCOME LIMIT. SO CURRENTLY THE PROGRAM HAS A REQUIREMENT THAT IF THE HOUSEHOLDS INCOME GOES ABOVE
OUR INCOME LIMITS THEY WOULD BE REQUIRED TO MOVE. AS STEPH WAS REVIEWING THIS WE THOUGHT THAT THIS WAS IN DIRECT CONFLICT WITH SOME OF THE UNDERLYING GOALS OF THE PROGRAM WHICH IS FINANCIAL
SELF-SUFFICIENCY AND HOMEOWNERSHIP READINESS. WE RECOGNIZE THAT AN INCREASED INCOME IS REALLY HELPFUL FOR BUYING A HOME BUT IT'S ONLY ONE OF A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT FACTORS THAT GO INTO THAT
CONSIDERATION. SO WHILE THEIR INCOME GO UP THEY MAY STILL NEED TIME TO DO WORK ON THEIR CREDIT OR COMPLETE THOSE EDUCATION REQUIREMENTS. AND SO WE'RE PROPOSING AT THIS
TIME TO JUST REMOVE THAT LANGUAGE ENTIRELY. WE ALSO SEE IT AS A BENEFIT IF THEIR INCOME GOES UP THAT JUST MEANS THEY'RE ABLE TO SAVE MORE FOR THEIR DOWN PAYMENT ULTIMATELY. SO THAT'S THE THE THINKING
BEHIND THAT ONE. AND THEN WE ALSO ARE TAKING SOME LANGUAGE FROM HOUSING FIRST OUT TO YOU AGAIN BUT JUST TO KIND OF DEFINE SOME TEMPORARY THE DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN A TEMPORARY AND PERMANENTLY ABSENT FAMILY MEMBER AND THIS IS MORE JUST TO PROVIDE CLARITY FOR STAFF IS AS TO WHAT INCOME WE WOULD COUNT IN CERTAIN SITUATIONS
AND WHAT INCOME WE WOULD NOT COUNT DEPENDING ON THE CIRCUMSTANCE. AND THEN THE LAST PROPOSED CHANGES AROUND FINANCIAL HARDSHIP AND WE KIND OF SEE
THE GOAL OF THIS AS A HOUSING STABILITY MECHANISM WITHIN THE PROGRAM. SO IT CREATES AN AVENUE FOR A HOUSEHOLD TO REMAIN IN THE UNIT AND PAY THEIR RENT AS
THEY NAVIGATE A CHALLENGING FINANCIAL SITUATION FOR THEIR FAMILY. THE ULTIMATELY WOULD BE THAT WHEN THE HOUSEHOLD ULTIMATELY LEAVES THE PROGRAM THEY'RE NOT STARTING OFF IN THE NEGATIVE
WITH A SIGNIFICANT BALANCE OF UNPAID RENT WHEN THEY LEAVE OUR PROGRAM AND TO QUALIFY FOR THIS EXEMPTION THE HOUSEHOLD WOULD HAVE TO BE THE HARDSHIP
WOULD HAVE TO BE CONSIDERED LONG TERM WHICH MEANS IT'S LASTING OVER 90 DAYS AND OTHERWISE THE HOUSEHOLD WOULD NEED TO BE ON TRACK FOR MEETING PROGRAM GOALS AND
THEY'VE DEMONSTRATED THAT THEY'VE EXHAUSTED ALL OTHER FORMS OF EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE IF THEY MEET THOSE THREE CRITERIA THEY WOULD THEN BE ABLE TO ACCESS ANY ESCROW
SAVINGS THAT THEY HAVE ACCUMULATED TO THAT DATE TO COVER ANY BACK RENT POTENTIALLY OR FUTURE RENT FUTURE MONTH'S RENT SO THAT THEY'RE ABLE TO STAY ON TRACK
WITH THEIR RENT PAYMENTS. WE ALSO INCORPORATED SOME OTHER KIND OF CLARIFYING LANGUAGE MOSTLY DOCUMENTING OUR EXAMINATION APPOINTMENT
PROCESS BECAUSE THAT WAS NOT PREVIOUSLY INCLUDED IN THE MANUAL AND THEN ADDING A DEFINITION OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY ACTIVITY WHICH IS
HELPS AGAIN PROVIDE ADMINISTRATIVE CLARITY AND THEN WE ALIGNED OUR RENT COLLECTION POLICIES WITH CURRENT STATE LAW WE'RE NOW GOING TO TRANSITION INTO THE
DISCUSSION PORTION. THERE'S A FEW QUESTIONS ON THE SCREEN AND THOSE ARE JUST MORE MEANT TO GUIDE THE DISCUSSION BUT REALLY WE'RE SEEKING FEEDBACK ON THOSE PROPOSED CHANGES OR IF THERE'S OTHER
ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION THAT YOU'D LIKE US TO INCORPORATE. COMMISSIONER WOOTEN I HOPE HE'S THE FIRST COMMISSIONER WE SAY OH THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE IT.
YEAH I JUST HAD A FEW COMMENTS SO FIRSTLY I AM IN SUPPORT OF AND I COMMEND THE IDEA OF CHANGING KIND OF THE INCOME LIMIT ASPECT OF THIS BECAUSE
YOU KNOW YOU DEFINITELY WANT TO INCENTIVIZE GOOD GOOD DECISIONS, RIGHT? AND PEOPLE HAVING THE ABILITY TO MAKE THOSE GOOD DECISIONS AND HAVING A SURPLUS, I COMMEND THAT. I THINK THAT'S A GREAT IDEA BUT I AM JUST A LITTLE BIT
CONCERNED ABOUT THE LOTTERY ASPECT. I UNDERSTAND WHY YOU GUYS WOULD KIND OF WANT TO DO THAT BECAUSE IT WOULD JUST HELP SAVE LIKE TIME ADMINISTRATIVE TIME BUT IT IS A LITTLE BIT CONCERNING BECAUSE YOU KNOW IF
SOMEONE KIND OF WENT IN EARLY ON AND WENT THROUGH THE WHOLE PROCESS AND DID THE STEPS, I THINK THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO KIND OF GET IN FIRST. I UNDERSTAND IT'S DIFFICULT
BUT IF THERE'S ANOTHER ALTERNATIVE TO THAT I WOULD BE INTERESTED IN THAT. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER CAN I ACTUALLY HELPS OH YEAH.
CHAIR COMMISSIONERS I JUST IF I COULD JUST QUICKLY CLARIFY SO PREVIOUSLY WE HAD HAD A WAITLIST WHERE SOMEBODY WOULD FORMALLY APPLY AND THEN BE ON A VERY LONG TERM WAITLIST. PART OF THE REASON WE HAVE HAD SUCCESS IS BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T
HAD THAT WAITLIST OPEN SINCE 2018 AND SO THIS PROPOSED CHANGE WOULD BE IT'S IT WOULD BE A LIMITED OPENING OF APPLICATIONS. SO LIKE TEN DAYS, TWO WEEKS, A
SHORTER PERIOD OF TIME BUT INSTEAD OF HAVING THE VERY FIRST PERSON WHO COMES IN THE DOOR IT WOULD BE LIKE WITHIN THAT LIMITED APPLICATION PERIOD SO YOU'D STILL BE ALLOWING FOLKS WHO ARE YOU
KNOW, MORE READY BASED ON WE WOULD HAVE LIKE AN INTEREST LIST AS OPPOSED TO A WAITLIST. SO YOU STILL HAVE FOLKS WHO ARE MORE READY AND WHO ARE INVESTED AND RESPONDING QUICKLY TO AN OPEN APPLICATION WOULD BE ABLE TO RESPOND TO
THAT OPENING BUT THEN WITHIN THAT IT WOULD JUST WOULDN'T BE THE VERY FIRST PERSON TO BE READY. SO IT DOES ALLOW A LITTLE BIT OF SPACE FOR FOLKS TO BASICALLY COLLECT THEIR DOCUMENTS IN AND SUBMIT A
FORMAL APPLICATION AND THAT'S WHEN THE LOTTERY WOULD BE APPLIED. SO IT'S A LITTLE BIT KIND OF A MIX BETWEEN THE TWO DIFFERENT OPTIONS WE HAVE. AND SO THAT'S WHY WE'RE RECOMMENDING THIS IS BECAUSE IT'S KIND OF IN BETWEEN.
SO I DON'T KNOW IF THAT HELPS TO ADDRESS SOME OF YOUR YEAH, THANK YOU. I JUST WANT TO ALSO ADD TO IS BECAUSE WE WOULD BE DOING THIS FOR EACH VACANCY THERE'S POTENTIAL FOR THAT SAME
HOUSEHOLD TO APPLY MULTIPLE TIMES IN THE SAME YEAR DEPENDING ON HOW MANY VACANCIES WE HAVE. SO JUST BECAUSE THEY APPLIED IN ONE LOTTERY DOESN'T EXCLUDE THEM FROM APPLYING FOR OTHER OPPORTUNITIES IN THAT SAME
POTENTIAL TIME PERIOD. SO THAT YES SO I'M ACTUALLY GOING TO TAG ON COMMISSIONER HE SAID HIS CONCERN THERE ARE
PEOPLE WHO SIT ON LOTTERY LISTS FOR A WHILE AND FOR WHATEVER REASON RULES GET CHANGED AND THEY GET PURGED OFF AND GET FRUSTRATED AND SO
THEY MAY NOT APPLY BECAUSE THEY'VE BEEN ON FOR SO LONG. THAT COUPLED WITH THE FACT OF HOW WE'RE GOING ABOUT DOING THIS MARKETING A WE'RE GOING TO THIS MARKETING THAT'S A
CONCERN I HAVE FOR THE APPLICATION PROCESS. I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS BUT THOSE ARE TWO FOR THE APPLICATION PROCESS THAT THAT KIND OF CONCERN ME. THANK YOU CHAIR COMMISSIONER WOODEN I THINK THAT WAS KIND
OF OUR THOUGHT PROCESS FOR MOVING AWAY FROM THE WAITING LIST PROCESS IS THAT IT WAS A NUMBER OF YEARS THAT THEY WOULD THEY HAVE BEEN WAITING ON THE LIST BY THE TIME THEY WERE SELECTED.
THEIR CIRCUMSTANCES HAVE CHANGED AND THEY'RE EITHER NO LONGER INTERESTED OR WE CAN'T GET A HOLD OF THEM. AND SO THAT WAS KIND OF THE THOUGHT PROCESS BEHIND MOVING TOWARDS LIKE AN APPLICATION
FOR EACH HOUSE WHEN IT BECOMES VACANT SO THAT IT'S A MORE ACTIVE LIST. AND THEN YEAH, I HAD ANOTHER THOUGHT BUT I LOST IT SO GO AHEAD AND ASK YOUR QUESTIONS
AND I CAN SO ALONG THAT LINE ALL I SEE THIS IS IS AN UPGRADED VERSION OF THE WAITING LIST. WE BASICALLY ARE PUTTING THE WORD OUT WHEN THERE'S A SPACE AVAILABLE PEOPLE BUY A
LOTTERY. THEY DON'T GET ON IT. SO THEN AT THAT POINT IN TIME THEY'RE KIND OF LIKE YOU OUT OF OUT OF THE GAME UNTIL THEY GO TO ANOTHER OPENING.
SO IT'S NOT NECESSARILY ALL THAT DIFFERENT THAN THE ORIGINALLY WAITING LIST ONLY THAT IT'S A SHORTER PERIOD OF TIME. SO I GUESS I CAN'T SIT HERE AND AVOID THAT ANY MORE DIRECT
THAN I HAVE AND AS MY OPINION MAY NOT BE ANYBODY ELSE'S BUT THAT'S MINE AND I'VE WORKED IN THIS FIELD AND I'VE SEEN HOW WE LIST DISILLUSIONED FOLKS FROM BEING ACTIVELY ABLE
TO GET INVOLVED WITH THINGS SO SO YOU MAY NOT BE ABLE TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION BUT THAT'S THAT'S WHAT MY OPINION WOULD BE ON THAT COMMISSION.
I ALSO WANTED TO ADDRESS YOUR QUESTION ABOUT MARKETING. THAT WAS THE OTHER COMPONENT OF YOUR COMMENT. >> SO WITH EACH WITH EACH OPENING WE WOULD IMPLORE AN
AFFORDABLE AFFIRMATIVE MARKETING PLAN IS WHAT IT'S CALLED AND GENERALLY HOW THAT WORKS IS WE DO AN ANALYSIS OF WHO WE ARE CURRENTLY SERVING WHO HAS APPLIED IN THE PAST AND WHO ARE LIKE COMPARE
THAT TO THE POPULATION OF THE CITY TO MAKE SURE THAT THE DEMOGRAPHICS OF THE CITY ARE REPRESENTED WITH THE APPLICATIONS THAT WE'RE RECEIVING AND THEN DO TARGETED MARKETING AS NECESSARY TO MAKE
SURE THAT THAT'S REFLECTED IN IN SUBSEQUENT OPENINGS WHETHER IT'S MARKETING BE CULTURALLY SENSITIVE. YES, BECAUSE THAT'S THAT'S ONE OF OUR PRIORITIES IS TO MAKE SURE THAT FOLKS WHO ARE NOT
REPRESENTATIVE IN HOMEOWNERSHIP HAVE A CHANCE TO TRULY BE INVOLVED AND THAT'S ANOTHER CONCERN OF THIS ,YOU KNOW, NEW UPGRADED TYPE OF MARKETING BUT PROBABLY A
LITTLE BIT MORE EMOTIONAL THAN THAT TO MOST PEOPLE WOULD BE. YOU MENTIONED A POINT ABOUT SOMETHING THAT WAS WASTED AND CONSIDERED TO BE RELEVANT AND I COULD ME OVER THE SLIDE YOU PUT OUT THERE BUT YOU REMEMBER
THAT POINT I BELIEVE IT WAS THE THE INCOME LIMITS, THE ONGOING INCOME LIMITS AND I DIDN'T MAKE IT I DIDN'T MAKE ANY GOOD NOTE OF THAT.
OKAY. SO UNDER FINANCIAL HARDSHIP WHAT SUPPORTS FINANCIALLY ARE YOU LOOKING AT PROVIDING FOR FAMILIES THAT ARE IN THAT HARDSHIP PERIOD SO THE FINANCIAL HARDSHIP PROVISION
WOULD ALLOW THEM TO ACCESS THEIR ESCROW ACCOUNT SO ANY SAVINGS IN THEIR ESCROW ACCOUNT TO COVER RENTAL COSTS TO STAY IN THE UNIT GOOD THAT'S GOOD.
>> I RELINQUISH OKAY I HAVE ACTUALLY A QUESTION ALONG THAT LINE HOW LONG CAN THEY ACCESS THEIR ESCROW FOR HARDSHIP? I MEAN AT WHAT POINT DOES IT
BECOME THEIR MONEY'S GONE? IS IT A CASE BY CASE BASIS IS A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF MONTHS? YEAH. THANK YOU CHAIR FOR THAT QUESTION. SO THE WAY IT'S OUTLINED CURRENTLY IN THE HARDSHIP
PROVISION DRAFT IS THAT UNTIL THEY HAVE THEY CAN HAVE ACCESS TO THAT ESCROW ACCOUNT UNTIL EITHER IT'S EXHAUSTED OR THE HARDSHIP IS OVER. SO AND THAT OBVIOUSLY WILL
VARY FROM SITUATION TO SITUATION AND BECAUSE ESCROW ACCOUNTS ARE GOING TO RANGE IN THE AMOUNT THAT'S LEFT, IT WOULD BE I THINK THAT WOULD BE
MORE OF A CONTROL OF WHEN WHEN THEY WOULD THE HARDSHIP WOULD BE OVER. >> OKAY. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER. I THINK WHO CAME WAS NEXT.
THANK YOU CHAIR WITH THE ABSENT FAMILY MEMBERS AND THE POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO HOUSEHOLD INCOME, CAN YOU EXPAND A LITTLE BIT MORE ON THAT? I JUST WANT TO KIND OF GET A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF WHERE YOU'RE COMING FROM WITH THAT BECAUSE I CAN SEE SOME
CONFUSION AND SOME I HAVE SOME CONCERNS WITH THAT MAKING SURE WE'RE DOING YEAH. >> THANK YOU CHAIR COMMISSIONER WHO HIM KIND OF WHAT THIS IS STRUCTURED MORE IS IT'S BREAKING DOWN THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A
TEMPORARILY ABSENT FAMILY MEMBER AND A PERMANENTLY ABSENT FAMILY MEMBER. SO A COUPLE EXAMPLES THAT COME UP I THINK WITH THIS PROGRAM WOULD BE LIKE A STUDENT.
SO A COLLEGE STUDENT WHO ISN'T IN THE UNIT FOR MOST OF THE YEAR BUT DOES STILL CONSIDER THIS THEIR PRIMARY RESIDENCE OR WOULD BE IN THE UNIT FOR A CERTAIN NUMBER OF MONTHS
OF THE YEAR? WHAT WHAT THIS POLICY OUTLINES ESSENTIALLY IS THAT THEY WOULD STILL BE CONSIDERED A FAMILY MEMBER FOR THAT FIRST YEAR WHEN THEY'RE GONE. BUT THEN AFTER THAT IF THEY'RE STILL OUT OF THE UNIT FOR MOST
OF THE YEAR AFTER THAT FIRST YEAR THEY WOULDN'T BE CONSIDERED A FAMILY MEMBER AND THEN WE WOULDN'T COUNT THEIR INCOME. SO BUT IF THEY'RE IF FOR THAT FIRST YEAR WHILE THEY'RE GONE THEY WOULD WE WOULD COUNT
THEIR INCOME FOR EXAMPLE. SO THAT'S ONE OF THE SITUATIONS THAT WE'VE ENCOUNTERED WITH THE PROGRAM. OKAY. AND IS IT OKAY IF I PIGGYBACK OFF OF THAT? YES. OKAY. THANK YOU.
SO LIKE MY MY CONCERN I UNDERSTAND THAT AND I TOTALLY GET THAT. BUT ARE WE ALSO THEN CONSIDERING WHEN THE APPLICATION PROCESS IS HAPPENING THAT THIS PERSON
COULD BE A TEMPORARY ABSOLUTE OR LIKE A TEMPORARY MEMBER IN THE FACT OF IF THAT'S KIND OF MAYBE WHAT PUSHES THEM OVER FOR THE QUALIFICATION BECAUSE IT COULD END UP BECOMING A
HARDSHIP IF THAT INCOME WAS BASED TO QUALIFY THEM AND THEN THAT INCOME'S NO LONGER AVAILABLE LET'S SAY. SO KIND OF MAKING SURE THAT WE'RE COVERING OUR BASIS OF GETTING THAT AT DURING THE
APPLICATION PROCESS AS WHO COULD BE A TEMPORARY MEMBER AND OR AN ABSENT MEMBER. YEAH. THANK YOU CHAIR AND COMMISSIONER WHO? HIM I WOULD SAY YEAH IT'S IT'S KIND OF HARD TO ANTICIPATE
THAT ALWAYS RIGHT BECAUSE CIRCUMSTANCES CAN CHANGE OVER A FIVE YEAR PERIOD PRETTY DRASTICALLY. BUT ONE THING WE DO TRY TO DO THROUGH THE APPLICATION PROCESS IS REALLY UNDERSTAND
WHO'S BRINGING INCOME IN THE HOUSEHOLD LIKE WHAT THAT INCOME LOOKS LIKE AND HOW THAT CAN IMPACT ONGOING ELIGIBILITY IN THE PROGRAM AS BEST AS WE CAN AT INITIAL APPLICATION.
SO THANK YOU. COMMISSION DOUBLING HER YEAH. CAN YOU MOVE TO THE SECOND TO LAST SLIDE. YES THIS 1I1 THERE DEFINITIONS
FOR CRIMINAL CRIMINAL ACTIVITY SEEMS PRETTY VAGUE AND WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS AND DEFINITIONS THAT WERE ADDED? >> YEAH THANK YOU CHAIR COMMISSIONER DELLINGER SO THE
DEFINITION THAT WE APPLIED TO THIS PROGRAM IS THE SAME ONE WE USED FOR THE HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHER PROGRAM AND SO IT'S IT'S PRETTY HIGH LEVEL I MEAN TO BE HONEST WITH YOU AND IT'S SOLELY CONSIDERING A VIOLENT
CRIME OR DRUG. WHAT'S THE CRIME? YEAH. DRUG OFFENSES SO THAT'S THAT'S GENERALLY IT'S YEAH IT'S A VERY HIGH LEVEL IT DOESN'T GO
INTO A LOT OF DETAIL IF THAT MAKES SENSE AS A VARIANCE. HOW LONG IS YOUR PERIOD INVOLVED? SORRY NO IT'S LIKE THE STATUTE
OF LIMITATIONS OF OTHERS SO THANK YOU. SO THAT IS CAPTURED MORE IN OUR SCREENING CRITERIA AND LESS IN THIS ACTUAL DOCUMENT. SO OUR SCREENING CRITERIA FOR THE PROGRAM GOES INTO A LOT
MORE DETAIL ABOUT LIKE HOW LONG AN OFFENSE CAN BE LIKE ON SOMEONE'S RECORD BEFORE WE ARE AND WHETHER WE WOULD CONSIDER THAT. AS FOR ELIGIBILITY OF THE PROGRAM, THAT'S NOT IT DOESN'T
WE DON'T GO INTO THAT LEVEL OF DETAIL IN THIS DOCUMENT IF THAT MAKES SENSE. THANK YOU. DO YOU HAVE A FOLLOW UP TO COMMISSIONER DOUBLING YOUR OKAY.
SO SO ARE THE ARE THE LAWS THAT ARE USED FOR THAT SET BY THE FED THEN OR IF LIKE IF SOMETHING CHANGED IN HUD,
WOULD THAT CHANGE THE DEFINITION OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY AND OUR IN THE DEFINITION ITSELF DOESN'T ACTUALLY CITE ANY ANY HUD REGULATIONS.
IT'S JUST IT'S JUST WE'VE ESSENTIALLY TAKEN THE LANGUAGE FROM THE HUD DEFINITION AND APPLIED IT TO THIS PROGRAM SO THERE WOULDN'T BE ANY LIKE TYING IN THE FUTURE. LIKE IF THAT DEFINITION WERE
TO CHANGE WE WOULDN'T NECESSARILY BE REQUIRED TO CHANGE IT HERE. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER CARTER THANK YOU CHAIR SO THIS IS IN REFERENCE TO PAGE 64 IN OUR
PACKET I THINK IN IT'S UNDER THE PROGRAM INFORMATION CORRECT? THAT'S THE WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT RIGHT SO IT JUST SAYS NOT ENGAGE IN DRUG RELATED CRIMINAL ACTIVITY OR VIOLENT CRIMINAL ACTIVITY INCLUDING CRIMINAL ACTIVITY BY ANY
FAMILY MEMBER INCLUDING POSSESSION OR USE OF ILLEGAL DRUGS BY RESIDENTS OR VISITORS. AND THEN THERE'S ANOTHER UNDERNEATH IS THE EDIT SAYS VIOLENT CRIMINAL ACTIVITY IS THAT WOULD YEAH AND WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT YEAH THAT'S CORRECT OKAY SO IT IS PRETTY HIGH LEVEL AND IT'S MORE ABOUT THE PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS. MM HMM. YES. THANK YOU CHAIR COMMISSIONER CARTER THIS IS MORE YES.
THE DEFINITION OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY AS IT'S INCLUDED IN THIS IS MORE REFERRING TO ONGOING RESIDENCY AND LESS ABOUT ELIGIBILITY FOR THE PROGRAM THAT IS THE CORRECT SECTION AND REALLY ALL WE'RE ADDING IS DEFINING VIOLENT
CRIMINAL ACTIVITY AND THE WAY IT'S DEFINED IS THE TWO THINGS I MENTIONED THERE'S NO OTHER QUESTION COMMENTS.
COMMISSIONER WOOTEN ONE LAST THING FOR ME THE CULTURAL PIECE WE HAD THIS DISCUSSION LAST YEAR AND WE TALKED ABOUT TARGET YOU KNOW WE TALKED ABOUT FOCUSING ON ENSURING WE
INCREASE THE HOMEOWNERSHIP FOR CERTAIN GROUPS HAVE NOT BEEN A PART OF THE PROCESS BEFORE AND I'VE NOT SEEN THAT LANGUAGE IN HERE.
I GUESS I WOULD JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT IS STILL PART OF OUR MISSION AND AND I ACTUALLY WOULD ASK IF THERE'S SOME WAY TO BE ABLE TO
ARTICULATE THAT ON PAPER SO THAT WE CAN SEE IT. THANK YOU, CHAIR. COMMISSIONER WOOTEN I WILL SAY
THAT THE THE SECTION OF THE DOCUMENT THAT TALKS ABOUT THE APPLICATION PROCESS PROVIDES SOME DETAIL ABOUT THE AFFIRMATIVE BARGAININ PROCESS
THAT I JUST MENTIONED. SO WE DO HAVE THAT LANGUAGE IN THE PLAN BUT I AM HEARING THAT WE COULD POTENTIALLY BUILD THAT OUT A LITTLE BIT MORE AND THAT'S WE CAN TAKE
THAT NOTE FOR FEEDBACK. APPRECIATE IT. I THINK COMMISSIONER CARTER I THINK YOU CAN WE GO TO THE SLIDE ABOUT THE APPLICATION PROCESS.
OKAY. SO CURRENTLY I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND CURRENTLY WE HAVE A WAITLIST AND NOBODY'S BEEN ADDED TO IT SINCE 2018
BECAUSE OF HOW LONG IT'S BEEN ACTUALLY. THANK YOU CHAIR THAT WE ACTUALLY CLOSED THIS WAITING LIST IN 2023 SO PRIOR TO THAT IT WAS OPEN ALL THE TIME.
THE WAY THAT IT WAS MARKETED WAS THE SAME WAY THAT WE MARKETED OUR HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHER WAITING LIST. SO IT WHAT WE WERE ENCOUNTERING IS THAT WE WERE GETTING APPLICANTS THAT WERE JUST INTERESTED IN AFFORDABLE
HOUSING AND NOT NECESSARILY THE HOMEOWNERSHIP COMPONENT OF THE PROGRAM. I THINK THAT'S ALSO WHY WHAT WE'RE SEEING NOW WITH THE HOUSEHOLDS THAT WE'RE SELECTING IS THAT THERE TEND TO BE LOWER INCOME THAN WHAT
THIS PROGRAM IS TARGETING. SO ALL OF THAT KIND OF LED US TO CLOSE THIS WAITING LIST TO GIVE US TIME TO REASSESS THE PROGRAM IF THAT MAKES SENSE. OKAY. GOT IT.
OKAY. I GUESS NOW I MEAN LISTENING TO THE COMMENTS FROM FELLOW COMMISSIONERS, I'M MY INITIAL INSTINCT WAS THAT IT MADE SENSE TO DO IT KIND OF MORE
OF A ON A LOTTERY BASIS AND SOMETIMES IT'S ACTUALLY MORE EQUITABLE BECAUSE WE SEE THIS WITH THE CHILD THE THE CAMP PROGRAMS IS LIKE THE PERSON WHO CAN BE ONLINE AT 10 A.M.
AND GET THE FIRST SPOT OFTEN I MEAN LIKE IT JUST IF IF YOU ARE IN A POSITION WHERE YOU CAN'T DO THAT THEN YOU'RE AT THE BOTTOM OF THE LIST OR YOU GET ON THE WAITLIST RIGHT AND AND IT'S NOT FAIR AND SO
THAT'S WHY I LIKE THE LATTER APPROACH BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE IT KIND OF IT'S A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD LIKE IF YOU COULDN'T BE THE FIRST ONE TO GET ON THE LIST BECAUSE YOU KNOW MAYBE YOU HAVE A JOB
WHERE YOU DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO A COMPUTER AND YOU DON'T GET TO TAKE TIME TO SIT ON AND WAIT AND COMPUTER LITERATE. YES. YEP. EXACTLY. UM SO SO I GUESS THAT'S WHY I
WAS THINKING THAT I LIKED THE LOTTERY APPROACH BUT I DO TOTALLY AGREE WITH MARKETING AND MAKING SURE THAT WE HAVE MARKETING AND OUTREACH IN MULTIPLE LANGUAGES AND THAT
WE'RE WORKING WITH COMMUNITY BASED ORGANIZATIONS AND THAT WE'RE YOU KNOW, SHARING WITH THOSE WHO MIGHT BE ON THE VOUCHER PROGRAM IF THEY ARE ELIGIBLE JUST YOU KNOW, REALLY
MAKING SURE THAT WE'RE THOROUGH IN OUR OUR MARKETING APPROACH. SO IT'S REALLY AND THAT WE SHOULD BE ASSESSING THAT TOO IF WE'RE NOT GETTING A DIVERSE POOL OF APPLICANTS THEN WE
SHOULD BE RE REMAP VISIONING WHAT THIS LOOKS LIKE SO I THINK OTHERWISE I ALSO WANTED TO MENTION THAT I'M A HUGE FAN OF REMOVING THE INCOME LIMIT
PIECE. UM YEAH I THINK WE ALL AGREE ON THAT ONE. SO UM AND THEN ONE LAST QUESTION I HAD WAS FOR THE ESCROW ACCOUNT IF PEOPLE ARE
DOING A LITTLE BIT BETTER FINANCIALLY CAN THEY ADD MORE MONEY TO THAT? YES. THANK YOU CHAIR COMMISSIONERS YES. SO TECHNICALLY IT'S THEY'RE LIKE THEY CAN SAVE THEY CAN
PUT MORE IN THAN WHAT THE CALCULATION IS. I THINK GENERALLY THE THE THING WE TRY TO BALANCE TOO IS THEY ONLY GET 2% INTEREST ON
THE ESCROW ACCOUNT. SO IF THEY'RE ABLE TO PUT THAT MUCH IN IT MAY ACTUALLY BE MORE LUCRATIVE TO PUT IT IN. I YIELD SAVINGS ACCOUNT AND THINGS LIKE THAT. SO THOSE ARE CONVERSATIONS WE HAVE WITH HOUSEHOLDS WHEN THAT IS A CIRCUMSTANCE.
YEAH. GREAT. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER WHO CAME IN YOU ONE LAST QUESTION THAT I KIND OF GOT BROUGHT UP WHEN YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT THE APPLICATION PROCESS IS THERE GOING TO BE KIND OF LIKE
A TIME LIMIT FOR AN APPLICATION WINDOW AND WHAT KIND OF TIME FRAME ARE WE? ARE YOU KIND OF PICTURING AT THIS POINT? >> YEAH. THANK YOU CHAIR COMMISSIONER
WHO HIM GENERALLY OUR PRACTICE WOULD BE ABOUT A TEN BUSINESS DAY WINDOW SO TWO WEEKS FOR APPLICATION PERIOD. I'M GOING TO PIGGYBACK OFF OF THAT AND SUGGEST MAYBE A
LITTLE BIT LONGER. THE ONLY REASON IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU BROUGHT UP. IT MAY TAKE SOME PEOPLE A LITTLE BIT LONGER TO GET THE PROPER DOCUMENTATION AS WELL. I THINK WE'RE YOU KNOW I'M I'M
ASSUMING WE'RE ASKING FOR, YOU KNOW, PROPER DOCUMENTATIONS, FAIR DOCUMENTATIONS AND IT COULD BE A LOT OF DOCUMENTATIONS FOR SOME PEOPLE AND I ALSO THINK THAT GIVES THEM TIME TO REACH OUT TO STAFF IF THEY HAVE ANY CONCERNS AND MORE TIME TO DO
THAT. SO I WOULD LEAN MORE TOWARDS A 15 TO 20 DAY YOU KNOW, IN MY PERSONAL OPINION I KIND OF LOOK AT IT AS YEAH, I LIKE
THREE THREE WEEKS AT LEAST YOU KNOW AND INCLUDE THAT AS BUSINESS DAYS BECAUSE YEAH BECAUSE YOU DO I CAN SEE PEOPLE MIGHT HAVE QUESTIONS
AND THEY MIGHT JUST MIGHT TAKE LONGER I JUST THAT THAT WOULD BE MY RECOMMENDATION THANK YOU THAT I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER WHO CAME ON THAT ON THE TIMELINE EXPANDING IT COMMISSIONER DOUBLING HER I
JUST HAD A THOUGHT ABOUT THE LOTTERY. IF SOMEBODY IS LIKE READY TO GO AND MORE READY THAN OTHER PEOPLE IS IT POSSIBLE TO LIKE WAIT THEIR APPLICATION SO THEY'RE MORE LIKELY TO BE
CHOOSED BUT NOT 100%? IS THAT A I DON'T KNOW. YOU STILL PICK AND CHOOSE. THAT'S IT'S NOT FAIR. YEAH I THINK IT WOULD BE HARD BECAUSE YOU'D HAVE TO HAVE LIKE QUANTITATIVE WAYS
OF MEASURING AND THAT'S WHERE IT GETS REALLY CHALLENGING I THINK COMMISSIONER WOOTEN AND THEN CARTER I DON'T WANT TO BE A DEAD HORSE BUT I'M JUST
CONCERNED ABOUT THE MARKETING PIECE AND THE COMMUNICATION BECAUSE IT'S THIS IS THIS THIS IS IT FEELS TO ME A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT THAN WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT IN RELATIONSHIP TO HOW
WE'RE GOING TO APPROACH THIS LAST YEAR. SO AND I'VE LOOKED AT IN MY NOTES I'M SURE I'LL FIND IT ONCE I GO HOME TONIGHT BUT YEAH, THAT'S THAT'S THE PIECE THAT CONCERNS ME MOST. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER CARTER
SORRY, JUST CLARIFYING. SO WHEN PEOPLE APPLY THEY JUST KIND OF GENERALLY PUT THEIR NAME IN AND THEN IF THEY'RE CHOSEN THEN THEY WOULD GO THROUGH THE PROCESS OF THEIR APPLICATION PAPERWORK.
AND THEN I GUESS MY FOLLOW UP QUESTION TO THAT WOULD BE THAT IF THEY DO ALL OF THE APPLICATION MATERIALS AND IT DOESN'T WORK BUT THEY COULD COME BACK AT A LATER TIME IF THEY'RE CHOSEN AGAIN AND TO COME BACK AT A LATER DATE, CAN
THEY DO THEY HAVE TO START ALL OVER AGAIN OR CAN THEY KIND OF START WHERE THEY LEFT OFF? DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? YEAH. THANKS FOR THAT QUESTION. SO WE WOULD DO WHAT WE KIND OF CALL AN INITIAL
APPLICATIONS OF YOUR BASIC INFORMATION JUST TO DO AN INITIAL SCREENING FOR ELIGIBILITY BECAUSE WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE LOTTERY IS INCLUDES ONLY HOUSEHOLDS THAT ARE ELIGIBLE FOR THE PROGRAM.
SO THERE WOULD BE SOME SORT OF INITIAL APPLICATION FOR THE LOTTERY COMPONENT ONCE THEY'RE SELECTED FROM THE LOTTERY THEN WE WOULD DO THAT MUCH MORE IN DEPTH APPLICATION AND GET VERIFICATION DOCUMENTS FOR ALL
INCOME AND ASSETS AND THAT KIND OF A THING. SO IF GENERALLY IF LIKE ANOTHER APPLICATION IS WITHIN A CERTAIN TIME PERIOD SO OUR
OUR RULE OF THUMB IS 90 DAYS THAT WE CONSIDER THAT INCOME STILL ACCURATE AND RELEVANT FOR 90 DAYS. SO IT WOULD KIND OF DEPEND ON WHEN THE APPLICATION THE NEXT APPLICATIONS CYCLE IS WHETHER
OR NOT WE COULD USE THAT SAME INFORMATION THEY ALREADY SUBMITTED. COMMISSIONER WOULDN'T THAT YOU OPEN THAT DOOR IF WE'RE GOING
TO KIND OF DISPENSE WITH THE INCOME LEVEL OR AT LEAST BROADEN INCOME LEVEL THEN WHY WOULD ANYBODY WHO WAS ABLE TO APPLY NOT BE ELIGIBLE PER SAY SO?
SORRY. JUST TO CLARIFY YOUR QUESTION SO NOT HAVING A CEILING AT ALL FOR THE PROGRAM IN TERMS OF INCOME WELL IS IS A TOP CEILING MAYBE BUT NOT A LAW
THAT THE GREAT BIG ISSUE THAT I HEARD YOU SAY WAS THAT PEOPLE WEREN'T QUALIFIED FROM A STANDPOINT OF HAVING ENOUGH INCOME. SO IF WE'RE GOING TO YOU KNOW, BASICALLY KIND OF TAKE AWAY THAT THAT THAT FLOOR, WHY
WOULD NO ONE BE OTHER UPPER LEVEL? WHY WOULDN'T THEY BE ELIGIBLE IN SOME WAY, SHAPE OR FORM? I THINK THE CHALLENGE IS WE HAVE TO SET THE RENT AND A CERTAIN AMOUNT AND SO WE WANT
TO MAKE SURE THAT WHEREVER WE'RE SETTING THE RENT IS TIED TO THE INCOMES OF THE HOUSEHOLDS WE'RE SERVING IN THE PROGRAM BECAUSE A HOUSEHOLD WITH A LOWER INCOME IT WOULD THEY WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO ACHIEVE SOME OF THAT. THE GOALS OF THE PROGRAM
INCLUDING PAYING INTO AN ESCROW ACCOUNT. SO BECAUSE THEY WOULD ESSENTIALLY BE REQUIRED TO PAY BASE RENT AND POTENTIALLY BE COST BURDENED SIGNIFICANTLY WITH THAT BASE RENT IF THEIR
INCOME IS IS REALLY LOW IF THAT MAKES SENSE. WELL CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS TO JUST TO JUST TO CLARIFY SO THE INITIAL SCREENING WOULD STILL HAVE THAT RANGE OF THE 60 TO 80% AMI AND THEN THE
CHANGE PROPOSED HERE IS THAT THERE BASICALLY WOULDN'T BE AN ANNUAL RECERTIFICATION THAT THEY'RE STILL WITHIN THAT RANGE SO THEN THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO INCREASE THEIR INCOME AT A LATER LATER DATE. BUT THE INITIAL SCREENING WOULD STILL INCLUDE MAKING
SURE THAT THEY'RE WITHIN THAT THAT RANGE. YEAH, I UNDERSTAND THAT BUT IF THE LOWER RATE YOU JUST SET IT UP A LITTLE BIT RATE SO IT'S A
WAY TO KEEP THEM I GUESS I HAVE A COMMENT ON THAT IS I MEAN YOU KNOW YOU HAVE TO HAVE A CERTAIN INCOME TO QUALIFY FOR A MORTGAGE AND SUCH SO WE
DON'T WANT SOMEONE PAYING INTO THIS PROGRAM FOR FIVE YEARS WHO'S NOT GOING TO QUALIFY FOR A MORTGAGE. I GET WHAT YOU'RE SAYING BUT
I'M JUST THAT'S MY PRACTICAL REALTOR BACKGROUND SAYING THAT ADMINISTRATOR YEAH. >> I MIGHT ALSO JUST NOTE THERE IS A LITTLE BIT OF FLEXIBILITY ALSO FOR AN
INCOME DECREASES BECAUSE OF THE WAY THE RENT IS SET AT THAT 50% AMI LEVEL BUT WE'RE ACCEPTING FOLKS AT THE 60 TO 80% SO SOME SMALL DECREASE
WOULD STILL TECHNICALLY FALL WITHIN THOSE AFFORDABILITY LEVELS. SO THERE IS A LITTLE BIT OF LEEWAY FOR INCOME DECREASES AS WELL.
SO THERE ARE QUESTIONS, COMMENTS OH WELL WE THINK YOU OH YEAH YEAH SORRY ONE LAST QUESTION CHAIR COMMISSIONERS JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THE
DISCUSSION ON THE LOTTERY SO IT SEEMS LIKE FOLKS ARE GENERALLY SUPPORTIVE OF THE STRUCTURE THAT WE'VE LAID OUT WITH THE RECOMMENDATION THAT WE KEEP THAT PERIOD OPEN FOR THREE WEEKS.
I KNOW THAT THE THE LANGUAGE IN THE MANUAL DOESN'T SPECIFY A PERIOD SO WE WILL TAKE NOTE THAT WHEN WE ADMINISTER WE'LL KEEP IT OPEN FOR THREE WEEKS AND THEN WE CAN KIND OF SEE HOW THE THE PROPOSED CHANGE
STILL GIVES US FLEXIBILITY IF THAT'S NOT ENOUGH TIME OR IF US TOO MUCH TIME WE CAN STILL BE FLEXIBLE WITHOUT NEEDING A MANUAL CHANGE. THANK YOU.
ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. SO THE NEXT ITEM IS ADMINISTRÉ UPDATES. >> OKAY CHAIR AND
COMMISSIONERS MY ONLY UPDATE IS THAT WE HAVE A MEETING NEXT WEEK INSTEAD OF IN TWO WEEKS AND THAT IS THE JOINT MEETING WITH THE PORT SO WE'LL BE DOING MOSTLY INFORMATIONAL ITEMS AT THAT MEETING.
IT'S THE ALL THINGS HOUSING REPORT AS WELL AS SOME OTHER MARKET INFORMATION AND THEN THERE WILL BE ONE VOTING ITEM ON IF YOU REMEMBER WHEN THE WHOLE WAS FIRST IMPLEMENTED IT
WAS FOLLOWING IN A STUDY AND SO THE THE PASSAGE OF THAT ORDINANCE REQUIRED THAT IN FIVE YEARS WE DO ANOTHER UPDATED STUDY. SO WE'LL BE DISCUSSING A SELECTING CONSULTANT FOR THAT
PROCESS. AND SO THOSE ARE THE TWO MAIN ITEMS AND THEN FOLLOWING THE JOINT MEETING THERE WILL BE A SHORT HRA MEETING TO GET THROUGH A COUPLE OF ITEMS. IT'LL BE MOSTLY ITEMS ON
CONSENT AND SO IT SHOULD BE A FAIRLY FAIRLY SHORT MEETING FOR THE HRA MEETING DIRECTLY FOLLOWING BUT MAKE SURE NOT TO LEAVE WHEN WE RECESSED WITH WITH THE PORT. THANK YOU.
I JUST DON'T HAVE THE MEETING ON THE 22ND CORRECT. NO MEETING ON THE 22ND. IS THAT 6:00 STILL? YEP. YEAH. JUST A QUICK NOTE THAT MAKING
SURE THAT EVERYBODY IS CHECKING THEIR EMAILS AS THE VOLUNTEER APPRECIATION IS COMING UP SO JUST KIND OF A NOTE TO YOU NEED TO RSVP FOR IT SO IT'S I THINK THE 29TH OR SOMETHING.
SO JUST KIND OF A REMINDER. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. WELL THAT IS THE END OF OUR AGENDA WE HAVE MAY I HAVE A
MOTION TO ADJOURN THIS TUESDAY, APRIL 8TH MEETING OF THE HRA BOARD? SOME MOVED MOVED BY WHO CAME SECOND AND SECOND BY SAY ALL
IN FAVOR. I ALL RIGHT OPPOSED PASSES 620. >> MEETING IS ADJOURNED