And that boy just tested. Dismiss. Okay. and walk it right on. >> Yeah, right. That's that your head out. >> Well, more I meant good timing for her
and the baby and just old baby, you know, four weeks. So, she had been, you know, blah baby for the first three weeks, but we just entered like the fussy stage and all that. So, I
was able to do that. >> Yep. >> Oh. How is the family? >> That was good. >> Tell everybody I said hi. >> I did. >> Okay. >> Jenny doing >> Jamie is doing Oh, I have to talk to you
after J. >> Thank you for asking. >> Yes. >> I don't know. Not one of those try to read between the lines and all the code.
>> It's been more than 10 months. >> No, no, >> just to highlight. >> Oh, okay. I figured that's what it was. >> Yeah. >> Awesome. >> Go to Europe last summer.
Germany. Yeah, >> we got we can start. I was looking for >> Did everyone receive the email with Phil's comments on the draft? Okay, cool. Um I didn't print that. I thought it was attached to this. My apologies. Um I can print it up now. Um got this
printer. We all need it. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Okay, cool. Then you can start, sir. Okay. call to order meeting of the hack policy subcommittee. Welcome everybody here. Um
um we typically um work fairly informally and so we're happy to make it an open conversation with people on the committee, people on the committee and on hack and other people who want to participate. So Kathleen for example,
>> you're welcome to participate. Um uh the caveat being that we do reserve the right to limit it to committee members. If the there's something time investing for the situation or in but generally speaking we like to make this an open conversation the more voices the better.
Is there anybody at home? Anybody on Zoom? >> Like one us around. I purposely sit this way so I'm not facing the camera. Facing the camera. You tricked me.
>> I can't. >> It's fine. >> No, I'm checking. >> I don't know that we published a formal agenda. Although there was a narrative description of the agenda and I believe the only thing on our agenda today is to
review the draft ordinance for the land. essentially that with this attached um I guess put out for comment at the last half meeting and we did receive some comments from Phil which I intend to I
tried to categorize them and I intend to go through those but don't let that be the only thing on the agenda >> or the actual idea was I was going to make comments and then people were going to run our mouths after I made the comments. >> Is that what Okay. Bill made comments
and now we're running our mouth >> question before you like get into it. There is something I want to um to say to the group here please. So um I just want to say to the group that staff speaking on behalf of staff we really do appreciate your time, your expertise and your background and respectful
organizations you represent. Uh to my knowledge in terms of how staff conducts itself, I am not aware of any staff member ever making any open disparaging comments about anyone of this committee in name or in organization. Yet there are
acknowledgements and complaints circulating internally about disparaging comments uh profanity, name calling towards staff, city staff and hack in general. >> From the hack, >> not from the hack. Oh, >> but just in general, I'm speaking very
generally because I don't want to point fingers at >> any members of the hack making discouraging comments about staff members. >> We are. >> No, I'm speaking very general. >> Okay. >> But you're saying >> I'm saying I'm saying that it's been brought to attention that staff does not appreciate when there are
directed disparaging comments. In fact, >> it was kind of aired today without getting into the details. But just for the record, like let's just be cognizant of that. If we can maintain a >> form of respect, that would be
appreciated. >> That is really >> embarrassing. >> Right. Yeah. >> So we are, you know, we this this work is very nuanced, complex on our behalf and we have internal and external pressures that we are navigating through and trust me when I tell you
particularly for the housing team and O OCS in general, I'll say everyone's doing the best with what they have. >> Well, I'll follow up with a little bit of an editorial. I think we have the best staff, the most responsive staff we've ever had. And >> agree.
>> Um I would suggest that um that you bring this up in close session with the chair and the vice chair and if there's an opportunity for people to be addressed directly but but um discreetly >> um I think that would be a good thing.
>> Okay. because we all represent each other in this >> exactly >> in this um board. >> Sunshine and Joy, you okay with that meeting with session? >> Please schedule the meeting. >> We'll do. Thank you. Um so on to the the work for the day looking at the land
bank ordinance. Just a little bit of a recap. Um this is a been a multi-year process to get something like a draft ordinance. Um um a lot of it was shortcircuited by COVID. Um so there had been a lot of interest and momentum around it. Then co
happened and obviously as a city we were um we were reduced down to doing the sort of bare essentials to move forward. So things like this couldn't afford also the city undertook a a really revolutionary and hugely high r highly
ranging uh update to the zoning ordinance and so this got put a little bit on the back burner. It's now back on the front burner. My understanding is that hack um hack agreed on we we came back together as a group uh as this body
was reconstituted um agreed on a um on a proposal or a draft ordinance to go forward um and then um independent council that was and if I'm getting into this wrong let me know independent council um who looked at it on behalf of
the city um uh rewrote it um I think with the intent of keeping it predominantly the same but also making sure that it's in compliance with an specialization. >> What did I miss about that? Uh nothing
missed. Just uh to frame it more correctly for context that the reviewing attorney didn't assemble the ordinance that was done a collection of them sending us pieces of ordinance from Chesapeake for example
us the city attorneys also directing us to language that's in the develop land bank authorities act that we had to include. But in terms of assembling the draft that went to the city attorney who reviewed it in whole, uh staff put we
put it all together. >> Okay. >> Um and things that are included in here are responsive to all of those communications, meetings, directions that staff receive. That's good. that actually I think will help with this
conversation because if there's something that is um um different than what had been in the ordinance recommendation that we put forward before um it sounds like you can speak on behalf of the of the city for for why that change was made as much as I
possibly can and just so it could be a considerable amount of the ordinance that you may find in that light because essentially as pointed out what was mostly carried over is board structure and governance for in terms of your hack
draft of the U ordinance. Okay. So maybe the the way to start Antoine rather than us taking it and kind of picking it apart. >> Sure. >> Would you like the floor for a little bit to talk about the evolution and so I don't mean every single word but some of
the bigger concepts that have that have evolved and why. >> Okay. I'll go over it in high level just addressing each section and then you all if you have a question you want to delve into a little deeper we can do that. So the first section you see out out the
gate was definitions. Um we were flacked by that in terms of intention for staff to make sure we incorporated because it was apparent in a few uh draft ordinances from other localities but also uh attorneys had question about
things that weren't uh defined that we should define. So that list grew. Um so >> that was important I thought. >> Okay. >> Yeah. So maybe I can pause. Is there anybody who has any questions about the
uh either the list of definitions what's included or or how the the terms are defined or can we just move on from that? >> Not at first glance and we would expect that in a final draft anyway to define what you're going to talk about. >> Okay. So, we can kind of bank that and say we're not going to let's take that off the table is something we need to
talk about. >> Yeah. >> Sorry. Are there any additional paper copies? Oh yes. >> So sorry to interrupt. >> No trying to pause. Um so very few words were taken out. I think sometimes one there was one
instance where another definition explained something else and it kind of got merged under one term. I think I can't remember which one it was. So we have to go back and look at then the next section you all have and they're currently unnumbered because it's not the chapter or article is not numbered until adoption. So to follow
along with me is authority. Um as much as possible this language is pretty much carbon copy out of the landbased entities act. Um not much more to add there. um formation
and purpose. This was something also that was uh common. We saw that section in the Chesapeake model. Um only section that you all don't see that was not that was present in their formation document but
not in their ordinance was like a vision mission core values and affordable housing priority tiers. Now, where that I've moved on to the next section, by the way. I'm sorry. So, where this is being responsive to is communication and
meetings about well, where do we where do we guide or set a starting point for this stuff? Whether it be in the ordinance as a regulation um or policy preference or whether we
leave it up to uh postcreation and then the board creates it. But then there was a viewpoint of well if this is I got to back up one important step. One of the primary reasons discussed for switching to uh land bank authority as it was
noted to here in some pre- discussion was that essentially to keep it um to have a little bit more oversight and direct involvement and then also since staff was going to be involved to some point anyway that it felt like well we should be guiding this discussion at the
onset versus afterwards so that council can be presented with are at least conceptually what vision, mission, values and what have you uh of this entity is. It is meant to be responsive to the affordable housing plan.
Specifically, we were being asked by uh executive leadership and team about well how how how does this authority uh prioritize uh projects or prioritize the AMIs? And
if you read it aligned with the affordable housing plan, the high priority really aligns with where we are spending most of our money and effort and focus and policy attention. >> Moderate priority sort of that middle range and then standard priority is 51
to 80%. Now there was some conversation about why the range from 31 to 50 and internally just based on reports that we've gotten back from projects we have found that development isn't happening
like specific amount of 30% AMI specific amount of 50%. Really portfolios uh performers have a range because they have to make that performer work. So that's why it's not expressly written like it is in the affordable housing plan. We're trying to capture a range
where folks are already kind of operating within and it might not do it justice here. So there's room for recommendation but that's why it's it looks like affordable housing plan but not exactly copied verbatim. >> Can I suggest that maybe we take a pause
and talk about those four sections over now so that your words are fresh in our mind? >> Absolutely. So, um, I think there's probably going to be some discussion about some of these things. One is the, um, the change from it being a nonprofit, non-stock corporation to an authority. Phil, you
spoke, you wrote about that. Do you want to introduce or talk about that? We'll open up back. >> Right. >> Right. So, I mean, and when this was first presented to the hack back last October, there wasn't unimity. I mean, this was a decision made by city
management. there wasn't unonymity of agreement in that amongst the hack that this was the right way to go. Um the explanation given to that that left out first was that the city wanted more oversight in general because it would
involve first tax revenue and second whatever funding that the city directly provided to it. Um, and I personally don't find that a sufficient reason in and of itself, but not to get
bogged down in that. Subsequent hack discussions, if you'll recall, is all right. If we're going to do this as an authority, and we've used the word pilot program, then we need to sunset the authority and have the actual and have in parallel
formed at the same time, which will cost us $100. a Virginia non-stock corporation that will have exactly the same board that is sort of like a shadow cabinet. It'll be the same people. It's not even a shadow cabinet. It's exactly the same boards
for both. So that when and if the time comes to make the switch, we can make the switch. And in the meantime that the nonprofit can serve as a much simpler money conduit because you can take you can take direct donations from
it. It's a lot easier for smaller banks to get into the CRA space with a straightup nonprofit than trying to than trying to uh hit inside city government. >> Tax writeoffs, >> tax write off issues, the ability for it to and so that its functionality may
gradually come into place as we see it. So that was the that was the thinking of authority versus uh non-stock corporation and sort of where the hack and other people correct me on this. That was sort of where the hack said, "Okay, well, if we're going
to go with an authority, let's have this parallel structure so that we've got it pointed to being an independent agency." >> Comments comments about that or >> I have a question. Is there a time frame in which you want to make the switch or is it just
>> I think we pick it I think we pick say three that that's I mean the way I would envision this is that the ordinance would be written is that at any time during the first three years the city council can certainly say okay we're done with the authority transfer but they've at least got to make a vote at
year three let's say and every x of whether or not they're going to keep it that way or not so that we're not sort of stagnant that there's a that it will force person evaluation of what it's doing and its level of independence and behavior and we've got a a tenative
sunset debt whatever that is three years five years seven years city council can certainly extend it but that would be my thinking as to how to do that >> is there objective on the staff of creating that dual structure or is that um >> so I don't have any comments about
creating that dual structure I do have a comment about if that's the recommendation or if intent to have that >> didn't we include it before when we sent it to the city manager >> I think when it went before it was it was when we sent I'll read it directly
>> no that was that was not in there at all >> well it said it yeah >> yeah the Charlottesville city council hereby authorizes the creation of a nonprofit non-stock corporation >> so what I'm getting at is if you're going to suggest that um this can turn
into another form land bank entity. >> Yeah, >> that should be somewhere in the formation section of how to, when, where, how, what to guide that taking place without it having to be more of an act of Congress or council with
additional labor across points. >> Yeah. That we got to build that into the ordinance and that's part of the thing. It's like, oh, this is a pilot, blah, blah, blah. I don't continue as long as city council says. So, but at year three or year five, they got to do something. >> I don't I it being a pilot might be more
of a policy thing and I don't think that's going to be a >> yeah regulatory language but if it to transition formation or have anything you can put that in that section >> what I'm trying to wrap my head around is um I think what I heard you say
before around the staff perspective that the fact that there's property tax revenue and potentially general revenue in the mix that um the cities wants to take the position that they should have that that there should have more control
more more effective oversight of that. Um, and I think the part that I'm struggling with, and this gets at what Phil has brought up and others have brought up previously, was like what are the trade-offs of that? And the tradeoffs right now, as I see it, I agree with Phil, like CRA, leveraging
private investment, donations, those essentially disappear. Um, and then depending on how it's structured, the ability >> here, if it's a >> if it's a if it's a city entity, >> if it's a corporation, >> if it's a nonprofit,
it can leverage nonprofit uh sorry, CRA investments from banks, it can leverage uh it can sneak private donations, >> that sort of thing. I think there is >> independently borrow more easily. So I think there's there's tension and in and
a reduced ability to use to leverage those tools if it's operated by the city and is perceived as a city entity. So those were those th those points had been discussed I think in terms of um comfort level. Um leadership began to
express more comfort once they saw that like Chesapeake Sand Bank Authority is still working with nonprofits and foundations albeit it requires a little bit more nuance than saying having a a CDC like entity that can directly
transact and do things itself. um the points around tax abatement or excuse me the the taxes and the bonding and considerations of that with regards to planning and um having that more aligned or more oversight by executive leadership and leader elected leadership
being more directly informed by that those all did come up as well which is why ultimately the land authority James isn't here so I think I'm framing it right um was >> selected as the alter >> selected as the alternative Yes.
>> So the when I look at the tax revenue side, I I'm having a lot of difficulty f finding true virtue in that argument. And the way I'd look at it is this way. If the land bank conveys half a million
dollars in a year and it gets 50% of the revenue, that's a little less than $2,500 in revenue. That is not, not to be blunt, it's not really worth city council's attention as to what happens with that $2,500. It pays for stationary. Okay. If in the
furtherance of affordable housing, on the other hand, the land bank is moving $20 million in a year of assessed values. First, by that transfer, it is increasing the assessed value of that property anyway. By
definition, if it's being built from dirt, it's coming up and being improved. If it's a rehab, it's being improved, whatever, that's that at the at the newly adopted tax rate, if it's $20 million with assessment, is $980,000 a year. But at that point, what you could
legitimately turn back to the city management and city manager and a city council is already on the on the board and say, "Okay, this is a million dollars that you that the city revenue would probably not otherwise get. They're already getting a million dollars for the other
half. Number one. And number two, if this 900, do you follow what I'm saying by that? Because if it it the $20 million in assessed value that it moves wasn't worth $20 million before they started. Okay. All right. You're making value. If you if you if you're at $20
million, that's 2 million. It's $2 million in tax revenue a year. million of which goes to land bank which that the city otherwise probably would have getting much less money toward anyway gets and frankly for a million dollars in tax revenue for
$20 million worth of movement every year that's a 200 to1 leverage ratio city council can't do better in deploying that money for affordable housing purposes it's impossible question for the chair than this body can hear what um sunshine did you finish
what you were Um, mostly I'll just recap it and just say that I think >> No, it's okay. >> I think the the question of balancing the trade-offs of what you know, what get gained and lost on one side of the equation versus what gets gained and lost on the other. You know, we went
through as a body a pretty extensive process of evaluating what we our assessment. Admittedly, it's obviously perfectly appropriate for the city to have its own assessment. >> Um, and I think the fundamental question is like how do we find the middle ground
between those two assessments? And that and that undergurs like a lot of the, you know, changes >> like appropriations. >> So, so that points to a question I was going to ask, right? So what I'm hearing is first off you all present you went through your deliberations had a business case for why you went and choke
why you all made the case for uh non-stop standalone uh keep calling CDC for meoration >> uh process happened internally externally some meetings another business case arose about why should be a landbank
authority that had a prevailing uh influence on how we got here. So my question is is it the position you all would wish to say hey city um we hear you but we really think the best
business case is stand along the CDC and if that's the case then you the discussion here is very different versus okay we've heard this land bank authority what do we need to make uh this work >> right is it a tweak or is it a
>> we that's a different meeting and I what I'm Yeah, I really kind of want to understand the purpose of this conversation. >> It's such a good question. I would like to understand that as well. I mean, I think just a little a little bit of history is that
I think we work a lot better hack than staff than historically we have. And in the past, um what has happened is something nobody wants, which is hack has come forward with a recommendation. stat has their own and then council is given these two side by side competing
>> recommendations and are asked to make on the dis this choice and you have pack members and staff members privately lobbying council members I think we'd kind of like to avoid that >> but I don't know it may be possible um
to put forward something that says here's what is recommended by staff and and or here are two alternatives here are the pluses and minuses But I'm not I'm not sure we want to go that direction. I'd like to >> am I but I'm not understanding it that
this is something that I'm just gonna say I don't know the city managers has looked at and and and has come up with. I don't I I I'm not hearing the staff. >> Yeah, you're right. When Sam, excuse me, the city manager and deputy city manager
came to you all um more or less the takeaway was this. We we purge a business uh business case for standalone entity. We're going to take it, consider it, >> but note that some of it may get adopted. All of it may get adopted. None
of it may get adopted. And that's what happened. Like, let me finish. >> Yeah. >> Um the board compon component is what carried over. >> Yeah. >> Um between meetings that and I'm not privy to every meeting that Sam and the deputy manager had, excuse me. Uh but
they came back to staff with the business case of here's why we need to consider a landbank authority. Have you all looked at other landbank authorities and and what what's the differences here? What's the trade-offs? Pretty much what such is laid out. We presented that and still the directive and
understanding and consensus among staff even among some in OCS myself included. I saw the value in why they wanted to pursue the lamp. >> So what is that case? So, Mike, >> and I would just um add I think part of the conversations between city council
and city manager and staff um about going the authority route was that part of that costbenefit analysis and maybe some of the legal analysises are wrong and I I don't know where this would come down in terms of which is better, but part of the costbenefit analysis for the city in terms of authority was it seemed
like that was far more likely that it would have bonding authority and for the city that weighed heavily. in terms of, you know, with the Carlton mobile home park example, if that was bondable by the city, it still would have been, you know, a challenge to figure out, but it would have been way easier than having
to fund it with cash. And so part of the discussion was realistically for the first five years or so with that the additional fiscal room the city has with being able to bond does that have give more flexibility to the land bank than the amount of money it
could get through community reinvestment act or private sources or um size of its portfolio. Um and genuinely I I don't know which is the right direction but that was I think one of the arguments as well. In addition there was definitely a concern from the city
manager in terms of wanting um some level of more direct oversight just because of the city's involvement. But yeah, unfortunately this kind of gets to something that we've been stuck on for a while and I think we'd all like to get past that and that's or chart. You know
that it comes up it comes to a question is who does the hack who does the hack make recommendations to? Does the hack a recommendation body of city council or of the city manager? And again I think everybody here wants to all be on the same team. Um but what happens when we
come up with this sort of fundamental what at least I think one member of the hack feels like is a is a is a is a maybe a fatal flaw or something close to a fatal flaw. It's different and I don't I don't have any >> you know back in the beginning we did have this process that we were going to
have a working group to do this intermediary body and it seems to me that should have been pulled in during some of these discussions before we sort of got back a product so radically different that that just sort of vanished >> sometimes.
Okay. Um so I was going to recommend a path forward. Okay. uh not with detail but with sort of process meaning staff city manager have put forth this clearly they made uh ample changes and
didn't probably didn't do so lightly you know there was you know thought that went into that the likelihood of us saying nope we're going back to this other one and you know is probably not viable as an alternative what if we go
through the process of identifying where we see those flaws, whether they're fatal or otherwise, where we where we have questions around the tradeoffs and whether this is actually worth it. And we pose those as our concerns with the hope that they influence a second draft.
>> And I thought that I mean from staff with that I agree with that. I thought that was the purpose of this meeting. >> Okay. So these are recommendations to to the city manager's office. andor questions like some of these are like you know how would you like how would Jessup for example you engage a CRA or other like
>> and I just want to speak to my interpretation of more communication of what I believe is the expectation of executive leadership I leadership at OCS it's my understanding that yes you all uh in terms of your advis you're an
advisor group to the city i.e the council leadership, right? But that in terms of the that funnel and how that funnels up, it comes through the city manager's office. In fact, office of community solutions is within city manager portfolio. So if you all have like a recommendation
formal, you all take a motion and it becomes like a hack not the opinion of one or two, but it's this is hacks statement. We all, you know, whether majority or not, we're putting this forth as hacks opinion >> that goes straight to uh the city
manager obviously through James because he's he's the deputy over OCS and that gets communicated to council. it doesn't die on the vine with me like in I know I just want to state that like that's how I've been told that the community that that that process happened
>> and and I do just want to confirm as well that you know in this instance when the hack made a recommendation it was not just in public meetings but private meetings with council um the city manager presented hack's recommendation for and discussed it so I do just want to confirm like it's not as if that
process is being used to try to like shuttle information away from council for those who aren't watching or attending these meetings which in the past I know has been a concern. >> I have one question. If we take the
route of working with the city, the city and doing the authoritative side of it, wouldn't it expedite this land bank because you already have people in place or you can create you have staff members that could help expedite this rather
than if we were to go with a standalone nonprofit, we would have to do all the elections. I mean, to start a nonprofit is not easy. Yeah, there's some steps that that involve creating a nonprofit that doesn't invol like that that aren't uh indicative of creating the authority.
However, I think the time it takes is still the same time it takes because >> they for example, if this was it, the document they say let's adopt it. We still have to have the public hearing. We still have to go through the statuto requirements and then the attorney has to incorporate it. >> Okay. So, it's not really much.
>> It doesn't say much time. What does it I think what it where it does reduce some time and is that it should lessen conversation about who's doing what in terms of staffing. um we've already kind of del identified uh OCS and some
members of our team and wherever there might be crossover with NDS who might need to provide support long range planning what there's things that already been discussed about internally that or whatifs that >> would not be relevant if we were doing
the CD corporation okay >> thank you so I'm going to wrap it with a side conversation try to get to what I think is the question on the floor which is in terms of process. Um, do the other people here feel comfortable with us
reviewing this and making a list of notes or recommendations to send back to the city manager to say we'd like you to do this or we reconsider this rather than this being a something else a standalone recommendation council.
>> No, I mean I think that's that's that's a productive I think we need to make clear where we still have these differences. for example, the shadow. Okay, if we're going to do it that way, let's do this shadow. I think we need to go through this almost line by line and say either this is why we felt this way
about this, why are we doing it this way, this seems to be better, you know, and make those edits as we go. Um, I think that that's the the way to go because if we just push back and say, "No, we don't want to." To Sunshine's point, it's not going to get us anywhere. They're going to say, "Okay, fine." So what we're trying to do is go through this, come up with a
list of comments to send back to the city manager with the hope that right >> that there'll be additional thought into a a next draft or thought go thought goes into it but the draft might >> I hear that answer >> actually could I ask Nicole a specific
question? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I really want to hear from Nicole. I do too, but about the this idea has popped up about naming the um the sort of the the backs stop of this nonprofit as a as Phil called a shadow
entity that could be stood up stood up concurrently with this. How do you feel about that being in an ordinance? Is that that make sense? >> I know. I was thinking about that. I don't know honestly. Um, I think that I think I would like that as far as this
isn't a legal answer, but like as far as transparency goes, >> like I I think you know shadow is like inherently >> British in the British parliamentarian view where shadow means to follow around, not to be in the shadows.
>> I know some shadowing at work, right? >> Yes. Um, and I just I think that putting it in the ordinance perhaps is an opportunity to highlight like why and the purpose. >> We won't use the word shadow.
>> I'm not using the word shadow. Um, as far as like whether it has to be there or not, I don't think so. I think that can be something that the um land bank can decide once it's operational. like the
land bank can say we want to have this organization act >> alongside us. So followups, couldn't the organization, couldn't the land bank entity just as well create it if they wanted it? >> That's what I'm saying. >> And then so versus them create you all
naming that it has to exist at the onset and then dissolving it seems a little bit >> what's the downside to doing that? >> What's the upside? >> Easy to establish and easy to dissolve. >> Well, I'm curious as to
if if it's I'm just curious to fragment. To me, it's like having all your tools. >> But I'm also curious as to why you called for a shadow organization when you had it as a standalone entity. There was no recommendation to have a shadow entity created. So is this really
>> sorry? >> So is it really about a lack of of is there concern about the effectuation of how it's set up now where you think that this shadow entity will create some more
effectiveness or credibility or something that did not exist because now it sounds like well if the city's going to do it we need to watch the city. That's what I'm concerned about. So it wasn't it wasn't I said well I was the author of that well go ahead finish your >> I just want to clarify because that's
important I I think I mean my understanding is the reason why people want to do this other entity is >> correlating entity >> correlating entity >> parallel entities >> is for the purpose of um you know private donations can now be taxed
written off and I guess CRA money that's the only purpose of why this correlating >> entity do authorities. Like I said, there are additional steps. >> It's not as do that. >> The found uh the CR CRA, for example, is
doing it already. They they work with >> That's a great That's a great idea. >> But yeah, so the other piece of that was one, the functional utility going out the front door is easier if it's a standalone right then and there because there aren't the steps and all it can do is be a funnel. Number two,
>> is that city management has presented this as a as a pilot >> and they want to do this for a few years and do something else and maybe cut it loose. It seems to me that to make that to facilitate that and give a basic
framework for that. It's very low cost just to say yes all of you directors of the authority are also on this board of directors. will f you know it I mean I've started a nonprofit I've run two nonprofits started one starting a nonprofit on paper
>> is simple >> you know running a nonprofit with substance that's the pro that's difficult but the paper of it >> and then that gives just let me finish my thought and then that gives us a a guidepost we said this was going to be a pilot program now we have a guide po you
know we've got a marker >> what if it isn't a pilot program >> well and we say it isn't then >> that's what I was saying That's a presumption that >> the city is going to cut it loose. A pilot program is meant to test if it's going to stay or not.
>> You're saying that it's going to be five it's going to be five years. This and then turn to that is what you want to have. I'm hearing you right memorialized. What I want memorialized is that it was presented to us in this room by James that this was initially we
want to do this as authority. Initially, we want to do this as a pilot. And if that's the case, and that's still the idea, then then what we memorialize in there is that you to to make sure this doesn't slip or go sideways and stays
focused is to have a date where city council has to circle back and say, "We're going to cut this loose or we're going to defer another year of cutting this loose." And I think it's not in there because I believe and I James and the attorneys can speak to this themselves, but that it will be the
council decision at that time whenever that conversation comes up whether to keep it as is or change it to something else. So you this is also why I believe you won't find the word or language around pilot in any form of
>> right. Well again if then I would like to I guess my idea is that If they're not presenting it as a pilot and there isn't a transitional idea, then let's say so. But it seems to me that if it's being structured as a pilot, having that thing there and ready
to go makes it a lot easier than let's make a decision of changing what this is. >> So that sounds like a question. Yeah. >> That you want to say to the executive team, is this a pilot? >> I don't want it to be a pilot. Do you want? >> I don't either. >> Let's just do it. >> What? I don't I I still have some
concerns. Um at the end of the day, um you know, I have some concerns about who the Lamb Bank is.
Most of the times, um most of the organization, there's not enough representative from the lowincome community who are on those And so that is where I'm stuck. But if
it is a corporation and the city is look, you know, shadowing it or whatever word you want to use for the next five years, at least there is a chance that there is some participation
from the low income community on that cooperation. >> I think the way it's in there, but I think um >> I got to look at tests again. Yeah, but why still? Yeah, I'm going to look at it. But
still, I just feel like we're wasting not wasting time, but we're dragging on about whether it's a cooperation or whether it's a um where what I'm hearing from what you're looking at the the the other counties, you can start it and you can still do some of the basic things
that you're saying that a nonprofit can do. So why not just do that and let's move on to the >> also >> to other things. So that's kind of where I'm at. >> Chesapeake also >> Chesapeake I mean >> yeah they not exactly the same concern
as yours but it was generally it seemed like that's what they were trying to do. But they also have an advisory board that they wrote into their ordinance um with >> so those are the things that I was just um um stuck on. It's like okay I would I
would prefer even though I you know council change but I would prefer um that there is a um for the next five years there's someone that is really like you're saying shattering it to make sure that it is serving every
>> Joy does Siri J have a foundation that can take in private fundraising and >> that's a question for Kathleen >> we're working in partner partership with redevelopment with um we're um you know with a separate nonprofit but we are in
the process of setting up our own nonprofit because it has become a challenge for us um accessing certain funding. >> Yes. I mean, I'm wondering if that's sort of the rub here, and I don't know that we have the exact language, but that could go forward with the recommendation that we include in the
language that some entity that can can do the things that a nonprofit can do, such as um provide tax write offs for private donations, help banks get CRA credits. Um um >> can we follow their model
>> that they're rolling out? So Dana, as to answer your question, I don't think you need to put it in the ordinance. I don't think it's a requirement, but I think it is a good discussion here to talk about whether we want to put it actually in the ordinance or just as like a memo.
>> Got your right. I would ask your legal opinion here. I know that you're not on here as a lawyer, but um is it does it muddy up the ordinance if it's in there? Is there a downside of putting language in the ordinance? Yeah, because then
then it becomes limiting and restricting and you have to go to council to change it. Um, so it's more prescriptive. >> CRA has to come to council to create that foundation whenever they decide to do it because they've come to us and
create us city entities create entities here. I agree with Nicole that it kind of it complicates things, but um it would be the city creating that entity at the onset if you're saying that when this
goes live, this other entity should also be alive because this isn't formed. Like if this entity was formed and wanted to create that, they would have to come back to council anyway to create it. There's enabling the same enabling legislation that allows CRA to create
entities but with the permission of council would be the same enabling legislation that would allow this entity to create that same entity but it still will have to come back to council >> that's in the land bank ordinance. >> It's not need. Okay. So I think we may be circling around consensus on this one. So let me
let me put this out there as a consensus statement and see by a kind of straw poll whether people are I think there seems to be general consensus that we think some sort of attached entity um would be a good thing that enables the land bank to do some of the things
that it can't do with an authority any >> yes >> problems with that >> yeah I don't have a problem with it but I think underlying that supposition is that we want it to be as effective as possible of leveraging all the tools. If there's a way to do it, if the Chesake
Land Bank has demonstrated a mechanism for doing it that we don't fully understand, it's fine for the land bank to be on its own if it if it can actually take advantage of all those tools. >> So, it's the more the for me it's not about setting up a separate entity, it's about just ensuring that we're tapping
into all the tools. So whether that's a new entity, a sidebyside entity, or a structure that mirrors an already effective land bank, that's fine too. That's for me that's the issue. >> Can you highlight some of those tools like like if I heard for example, how
does Chesapeake do XYZ with nonprofit? You know, what what's the type of activity do we need to make sure do we need to follow up on? Like I'm hoping to get from this questions to take to executive team to discuss to say
>> all of the things that Phils was saying that if you >> No, let's enumerate those. So, >> okay. So, okay. >> Rich people get tax payoffs, tax write offs, >> tax write offs. >> Tax right off the CRA >> CR >> community reinvestment.
>> Independent borrowings. >> What did you just say? >> Independent borrowing. >> What do you mean by that? So you go to the bank and get a loan >> to the se the land bank authority or this new entity >> either one
>> we wanted to have the tool >> the the construct that is that is taking in land and disposing of it for authority can borrow money though >> the ability to form partnerships >> but let me go back to a second just to
clarify borrowing money yes the if it's an authority it bond, but we're talking about something different, which is going to University Federal Credit Union and getting a CRA fueled 3% loan
that instead of having to go to the bond bond market, get a 5 and a half% loan because that's the best you can get. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Thanks. Thanks for clar Yeah. I don't >> All right. Then uh then there's the formation of partnersh third party partnerships. >> What do you mean by that?
uh Sunshine comes to the land bank whatever it is and say let's do X Y and Z and the most efficient way to do that is to form an LLC or a subsidiary entity for that purpose >> formation of LLC's that the
>> third sort of >> can particip that >> participatory yeah >> that's going to be Virginia code that boxes that in all entities that get created whether in dies is going to have to come back to council court permission. So it can
happen. You just need to understand it's an independent independent >> it's required to come and be a council perition like >> can an author can an authority um participate as a member in an LLC. I have not. >> Yeah, me neither. >> Or in a joint venture or a joint venture
of some sort, some instrument >> if it's vested like if it's listed as it would be the same thing as like this what call me if I'm wrong but like CRA has a certain percentage in the LLC but it's not 100% right. >> Yes. >> Like so even that even as little as 0.1
or 1% whatever it is they had to come back to the city for permission >> to form an LLC >> to be a part of that part. But but that's because that's because it's an authority. >> That's because the code says it to my >> But if it's if there's a parallel entity
that is not an authority that is instead a standalone nonprofit, I'm not sure that it would have to. >> But if that authority is signatory or part of that entity, >> I guess you're saying I see what you're saying. >> Were you gonna say something, Kathleen? >> Um well, I was just going to talk about
really quickly. um just might help to get out of the weeds talking about nonprofit formation just under the section um financing and operations just to insert something saying you know revenue stream could be a partnership or creation of a nonprofit
um we've got it covered there because that's a whole separate thing to establish and it would hold up this whole process. So what's what se I know the sections aren't numbered but what's >> financial operation oversight the pages
so on the second to last page >> I mean that makes sense because if I'm hearing right this would be the purpose for having that kind of relationship right >> financing >> that'd be a partnership or um creation of a nonprofit you could have some language about you know with city
council approval but then it would hold this whole other document. >> So that could be like four whatever you hit it and then describe. >> So that's okay. >> Did you have any
>> wherever we put it? So yeah, if you go there um I don't know this. So are charitable contributions made to the city or not? You can't break those off. >> Yeah. And But how about the authority?
Can the authority itself the housing authority take private donations? >> They can accept but they can't they won't get the letter. So we usually partner with someone like sometimes we'll partner like during COVID there was a lot of mask donated for our residents. So we partnered with FAR so that you know FAR could help with that
and um you know we do a lot of that with redevelopment as well to get um green funds but it's just we we cannot we're quasi government. maybe for like partnerships and you >> I don't know that we want to necessarily word smith here but put this forward
again this going back to sunshine put this forward as a significant concern that we have that in making this change from our nonprofits and authority um we are potentially foregoing some of these really critical tools like
providing tax write offs for donations like leveraging CRA credits etc. >> Yeah. And just to clarify one thing like in here under financing of operations A3 it says philanthropic contributions and
private investments meaning the authority may receive funding through that. What it doesn't clarify in that statement is that unfortunately the um those philanthropic contributions if they came in would not benefit from the the write off the tax write off. >> So they're not going to get them. So
they're not going to get them which means it's going to minimize that's is that's our current understanding. There may be a deeper level of understanding that through chess speaking maybe they have some way around it. I don't know >> but that's the concern. >> So maybe what we can do to summarize this because we do have some other issues that we need to talk about and we
are an hour in already is summarize that we have concerns about this movement. We're not against it, but what we want to do is is formalize in a structure or notes to the entity the intent that um
that this entity needs to be created in a way such that it can receive provide a tax write offs u >> CRA >> leverage CRA credits um and other
elements of a nonprofit that aren't available. >> So, I have to find out how um how they're doing it the other ones because I don't know if it's like something in their ordinance because this language I don't I mean if they're doing it through
like through a partnership where they got they worked with a nonprofit or they created a foundation or friends of or something like I wouldn't see that in this in their thing. I would see I have to find that um article that created that
kind of figure out if that's the mechanism they use or I didn't see that in their language that they have a separate foundation or anything like that. I just know that looking at their case uh case studies and testimonies how they are working with foundations
>> that's is kind of hard to do on a flow basis though meaning that the money comes in and the money goes out. It's like if you're doing it with a third party involved, it's it comes with the strings attached to what that third party is doing and what the engagement on that particular point is instead of
in general getting an input revenue stream that is an inputed revenue stream. So I can say Sam James here concerns tax write off CRA borrowing private from you not right
and here's potential solution or frameworks used by others right XYZ here you go it's kind of just giving you a sketch of what my internal workflow would be yes >> and then I wait >> and then you know just so you all sense that that's how it goes so yep
>> and I I would express this as a significant concern of hack, >> not just a, you know, >> not a minor one because we think it limits the we're not we have no problem with becoming an authority. We have a problem with some of the things that that entails and so we'd really like to see that solved.
>> Yes. >> I just want to say there are some also some inherent advantages of being an authority that we do work with foundations and um also there's you know funds you can access that aren't traditionally available to nonprofits. you know, there could be tax revenue, there could be different things, you
know, business rates and things that could be tied in. So, give an opportunity to cover a lot of these. >> Appreciate we could go forward with that guidance. Mike, >> yeah, I was just going to say I think that would be useful for council to just outline the powers everyone would like
it to have and then for each one if it's an authority versus nonprofit, like is hack absolutely certain it can't do that? Is that a problem or is it we don't know so it needs further investigation to get a final answer and then to that point on the other side of
the ledger too um is there anything the authority can do that hack feels provides any benefit and I think we're beyond kind of setting up this binary authority versus um versus nonprofit. I think we're all, you know, we're let's
move forward as an authority provided we can find ways to also leverage these other >> tools. Um, >> so the Chester Peak, >> can you find out? >> Yeah, I can. >> These things how they're doing it
because it seems like they're doing it. >> I can I can >> and Okay. >> Um, small scale and if it >> But they're still doing it though. >> They're still doing it. even small >> suppose that they're doing it through that that that third party mechanism
right um you can make that part of the recommendation or work plan that as this is being considered for adoption if it's the position of executive leadership to treat that as well to that that's a requirement for this solution to mitigate the loss of that benefit that
this has created >> yeah I mean yeah I think yeah I think this parallel organization or whatever could that that that was my original intent with it that it would be sitting there so you could just turn to it and say, "Hey, go get the money." Okay, >> we did and I >> Thank you. kind of coming full circle.
So, when I heard parallel organization, initially I was thinking kind of like in the >> because we were talking about oversight at one point and so I was hearing like we're going to have an oversight oversight kind of thing that's crazy. >> Same. When I meant same board, I meant same human beings on both boards. Okay?
because it really is parallel. >> We've beaten those two sections. Section authority and section formation purpose and death. I think we have you have comfortable having now we're going to move on to section vision, mission and values which is
quite different. I think Bill suggested that important there. Um uh my quick gloss on this is that there were really only two guiding priorities in the initial one was prioritize affordable housing and then um make sure that
there's fairness and avoidance of self-deing. Instead, this is a little bit more um directive. Phil, was that what you were getting? I couldn't tell from your note, but I think that >> Yeah. Well, yeah, because I didn't realize that it was going just to the top of the page. So under the core values piece, we need to be clear that transparency and accountability. Yeah,
that's that's nice for an organization, but this thing is going to be doing real estate deals. Therefore, transparency and public forward decision- making, it can't be that forward looking in decision- making. You can't be discussing transaction by transaction if
you're trying to occupy a position in the market. Can does the CRA go into close session when you're talking about um when you're talking about land deals and things like that? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> So if they can go into close session, it seems like that's
>> Yeah. I just think that under the core values to make clear that that sort of be direct like as long as that's clear as long as we're not setting ourselves up. Do you want to suggest adding a sentence that says something like in recognition that this is a that they're in the competitive real estate market to the extent
possible in the market? >> Yeah, I don't agree that >> that's a given >> and that could change >> ensuring decision making processes are open and accessible to the is a pretty broad to the extent possible when engaging in the real estate business.
>> I mean >> I don't think you need to add that. I I think that's a given. If you're on a any board and you know that you there are legal stuff that you're going to be be discussing, you can't discuss it openly. >> Right. We're not going to stay forever on this one. Phil's suggestion adding
language up or down, thumbs up. Anyone? >> I don't know if it matters, but effective. >> I'm good. >> How about thumbs down? >> Indifferent. >> Yeah. I mean, it occurs to me this is a these are core values.
Yeah. >> Well, that's true, but in the next paragraph, they go way down into the weeds on the operation in a way. So, I think they're it's trying to be somewhat detailed. >> So, um Okay. So, why don't it seems like
the by a narrow majority people are okay adding some sort of qualifying language to that that says within >> we're just asking for clarification >> within the bounds of of successful real estate. Yeah, >> business. >> Yeah, >> perfect.
>> Um, and then, um, I I did have a question I wanted to throw out there. We we did spend quite a bit of time, it was a core value from 2017 when we first started looking at this all the way now to um to not put multiple uses or
dispositions of land on equal footing because typically land banks do that. They're they're created to provide room for affordable housing or do economic development or clean up a watershed or something like that. And and all along we were very very clear that we wanted
strong language that prioritized first affordable housing. And I think we even had language that said any and all uses for affordable housing have to be looked at first before it's given over to another >> right >> to another youth. This one um doesn't it
does talk about being a priority but then there's another place where it simply says disposition can be for these three things where these are the disposition priorities and it doesn't actually create a hierarchy of priorities. Let me see if I can find that. Hey, it's a it's a section chapter
2 section three disposition of property part B property disposition disposition shall prioritize and I think in I don't know if this would be welcome or not but there might be a simple change there which is property disposition sh prioritize in order of or in order of
preference and then it lists out one two three >> well I think this taring the whole taring process in and of itself I think is a is I'm I I have heartburn on that itself. If I really think that the land
bank authority, corporation or whatever needs to further the city's policies, if the city's policies shift, it shifts. >> Are we separating the two? >> Can we bracket that conversation? >> Okay. First talk about the prioritization of affordable housing
over other uses first. >> Okay. >> Um so we do have language. This is from page six. >> It is page six, but that doesn't help. >> But um but from the original from what we had sent forward originally, if the language
um for the pol for the prioritization policy reads as such and if you'll are you going to read it? >> I'll read it out. The board shall first prioritize the creation and preservation of affordable housing in alignment with the Charlottesville affordable housing plan and other local planning documents.
If use and/or disposition of property owned by the land bank entails other uses such as market rate housing and/or commercial retail, the land bank shall document the justifications for such other uses in publicly available materials and shall only act upon approval of twothirds of the
available voting members of the board of the land bank at a duly authorized meeting of the board. >> And I hear a recommendation on how to include that to this. I think you were getting to that. Well, you you could simply simp there are lots of different ways, but you could simply substitute
that for um uh for chapter 2 number 3B >> or some pathier version of it. >> Can I ask why it wasn't included? without looking at the there's like a
couple of documents that got track changes and changed without seeing the comment for that section on your on your version. I I don't know. >> My guess is that and I was speaking for Sam. I wish Sam were here is that the city manager probably wants a little bit more freedom to identify priorities um
in the city and um and that's that's an important edict. Maybe there's language that is right when he has that freedom. >> And our our our concern was I mean and the reason why the hack was the one who
who inaugurated conversations on the land bank was that we wanted to prioritize underutilized land for housing given the the priority of housing >> in the comprehensive plan in the community. And so we were pretty
intentional and deliberate about this because most land banks and most disposition of land in most cities goes to urban light or creating parks or things other than affordable housing. And we wanted we were very very strong about this.
>> That's a primary focus. >> So I can elevate it back to their attention his attention to consider that specific section over B2. >> Yeah. or it can be rewritten. But um but yeah, that's that's the intent is that
it's for house. This is created for affordable housing period. But there may be some circumstances where it's better used for something else. That's rather than saying let's look at each one of these parcels and let's put affordable housing up there with commercial and park and all that. Ultimately, it'll be
their decision. But with Sam is the city manager has a part of the governance, right? the city manager has appoint. >> So I think there's some there's a middle ground for that for sure. I think we if
I just copy that and send that to >> people well that's my opinion but I want to make sure I'm not speaking for >> we want to incorporate that language. I think that and yeah make an argument for that language in lie of the language that's being used and I think that's >> and I think that may then satisfy your
your second concern which was was was naming some of the priorities where instead what we said is that priorities for affordable housing are going to change >> correct >> via the housing policing policy which is a living document and so it may be that
um that that 15% or below becomes you know 10 years from now what we're focusing on or >> well and also to not to to again get back to this idea of it being a facilitator not a provider and
facilitating housing may involve it putting in you know if it's working with a habitat or an AIP or a PHA that the authorities actions or the land bank's actions are designed to help them do
better at the deeply affordable. So maybe it's yeah well the the it may be 60 to 80 housing but it makes the 30 and below that it's connected with work and let's not get confused by saying you know let's facilitate that
instead of having the land the land bank itself have to make these priorities because then it gets muddy as to what the priority is. we're gonna further the plan if you know and it's gonna act with its partners in that way. I think I think
they're trying to split it up into this is is >> it's handcuffing. >> Frame this in the clear enumeration for me. So when I go back to your minutes and see if Antoine carried forward everything I was supposed to. >> Well, I think I think there are two issues. I think the the one issue is I I
think I'm hearing unimity on the part of this committee that um uh that section the chapter 2 section 3B um in some way shape or form we'd like
to see that replaced with the original 3A from the original ordinance which prioritized full staff affordable housing. Um and then tell me when you're ready. I'm ready. And then I think the
second issue is um I think people Phil had this issue and I I join with them in having this issue the the creating the the tears. I'm a I I want to support 30% below. We're finding the the policy. We have families who come into our program
at 26%. We help them um we help them improve their income and they're at 32% and we no longer can pull down that that money. >> Can I interrupt for one second? Sorry. I What I'm missing is it lays out the priorities, but it
doesn't it's not um specifying which priorities take precedent over other priorities. It's just saying these are priorities. >> Sure. High priority moderate priority. That's that's creating hierarchy that language. >> Oh, sorry that you're right. That's sorry totally missed that.
>> Which is why is it in there at all? I mean in that sense tears in there. I know. >> No, I know the I know why the tears are in there because that's what the city through its current housing we want to prioritize. But I think what you're saying is that it already those are already prioritized
in the housing strategy as well as a whole bunch of other stuff like creating opportunities in uh in high opportunity parts of the city. Right. >> So maybe the chairs I mean I don't I don't have a problem with the chairs
being in this. Maybe it's just a way of just reminding you. >> Yeah. Um, >> I don't have a problem with that tears being in there. >> So, Joy, that I'll I'll push back on that just a little bit. >> Sure, you can. >> Those tears are already in the housing
policy. >> I got you. >> But there's a lot of other stuff that's really good in the housing policy as well. And by naming this as the priority, >> it kind of negates the other stuff in the housing policy stuff in the policy. and the and I'm
glad we're having the conversation because um for me um even though there's a housing policy and we talk about you know 30% and below a lot of 30% and below is not being met.
It's only certain organization who is trying to meet that by doing the things that they're doing. >> It's just a small amount of So that's what I'm that's what I'm looking at. I hear that >> is to he is to keep that there so that
people understand that yes um um we need to be doing something about that >> because you just gave an analogy about some people come in with 25 and you you increase their um you know their income
and they raise it but there's still a population where because of whatever they can't get their income increased. because of a lot of things. >> No, no, I'm not I'm absolutely not arguing against you on that one, but the spirit of this I I I want us to push as
much of our subsidy and our resources below 30%. Full stop. >> Just know anywhere I'm coming from I am coming from a advocacy part of that people from zero to 30 and 40% deserve
to have housing. the president. >> Yeah, >> Joy, I'm not disagreeing with you at all, but I'm agreeing with you wholeheartedly. >> Okay. All I'm saying is that this is already in the housing policy and there are other elements of the h the housing policy is a longer more nuanced um thing that has this in it as well as
some other things like looking to create opportunities in high income areas so that kids from from a lower in like a lower performing school may have an opportunity to go to a higher performing school and and I use that as one of like a
hundred different examples of things that are in And that's something that evolves and that changes every year. And so to me, just referring to that to the policy is saying that that this isn't operating independent of it doing whatever it
wants to do on its own. It's here to serve the the vision for affordable housing of the city. >> And I could say, you know, I like number one and take out number two and three, but I'm I'm because you're already doing it. But I'm
not because I believe everybody in all tears should have the opportunity to to to have housing and we should be looking at it. So I don't have a problem with it. >> I don't have a problem with this as a policy of the authority. I have a problem with it being in the ordinance
as being too restrictive and not being in sync with the rest of the city and what it if it pushes you it it increases siloing. >> Okay. you know, instead of the cooperative >> I was trying to so it was this section is really trying to do that. It's trying
to be more in sync with the city and it's also recognizing where the city was out of sync even with itself. Uh part of the 25 report I did a couple weeks ago and I granted I I did I did say highlight that this is pipeline oriented. So a lot of this 30% AMI unit
or units that address that market is is in the works. has not materialized yet but if you are associating this strictly with the affordable housing plan for example it says 30% PMI 50% and uh 80% in terms of the funding target
mechanisms if you're aligning it with the CDU program for example or the new development code this is going to cap it at 60%. So where does that leave the folks who are going up to 80% to make their their their land actions work or transactions work right so that's why it
goes 51 to 80 is trying to capture what's already happening and then here it speaks to 31 to 50 uh to say that it's >> I understand I think >> it could be bad thinking not the best design but that's what it was trying to
do if there's a better way to do it >> so this expands you feel like this expands it over and above >> an effort >> I The piece that is uh missing in the affordable housing plan I think is also sort of missing here is the recognition
that when you even though you know the the need assessment is very clear the highest priority is in that 30% and below it is also the most expensive to do. Um, and we if you put if you if you make
high priority the a if you make that um in the affordable housing plan here there's a trade-off like everything everything's a trade-off. If you make that a priority, it means there are less units that are getting built because you're putting more subsidy into those specific units as a as opposed to like a
different prior set of priorities where you are choosing to to put subsidy across. And that's the approach that we've taken. But like and if we would be willing and interested, for example, doing more 40 and 30% AMI units, but we need another $100,000 per unit from the
city or whatever the threshold is. So, uh, I don't want to get into the details here, but I my the point I want to make is that I think it's fine to I'm actually okay with it being in here, but I do think there needs to be some recognition that it comes with a trade-off, which is less units out of
this process than otherwise. >> I I think we were uh calling from the conversation there is alignment with recognizing that the 30% below is most expensive. Um, which is
why it also came up that then if any folks who are seeking to leverage should be seeking to leverage land activities, it should be folks that have any component of percentage of 30% in their portfolio. Like we don't want it to where
you're looking at four, three, four years in transa transaction activity and it's all 80% projects. >> Yeah, I agree with that. >> Yeah, I still don't think it belongs in the ordinance. I think this is a bylaws issue, a policy issue and that those because that changing the or well you
can always go and change the ordinance. Yeah, but you can but you don't and you know I think I I don't see that it serves a purpose in the ordinance I think as a guiding principle. It's absolutely right. I just I I I have heartburn with it being in the language of the ordinance itself. >> Okay.
>> Yeah. uh if it's if it's uh the existence of this team, this committee to to recommend taking it out or changing it that >> I I say keep it in. It sounds like just including some reference to the affordable housing plan without
completely taking them out would work because if I'm understanding some of the concern like an example would be let's say there's 30% AMI project but it's home ownership or it's in Greenbryer and that's advancing um you know wealth creation and we're desegregating the
income segregation Charlottesville. there's something the board could look to to say even though that was 35% technically not 29% you can say it's high priority my understanding >> I think that's the plan is more has this in it but it's more robust is but I think what I heard Antoine say is that
there's really not much in the plan for 51 to 8 or 60 to 80 >> and so this is this is trying to to go above and beyond the plan and say there are some circumstances is that is that did I hear you right >> yes sir >> so um so we have a few options here and
again we don't have a unlimited amount of time. Um Joy has suggested we keep this language in here. Um I think Phil has suggested we take it out. Um >> Michael, did you say take it out? >> Keep it in. But in but
>> I don't know if just including reference to the housing plan addresses. >> I think you you were arguing we're doing that in the prior paragraph which says this is our value and we're going to follow those documents. >> Yeah. some of this stuff becomes a little prescriptive like um like for 31
to 50 let's focus on LITC and home ownership. Um >> it it starts to me to be a little it start to >> it starts to be a little prescriptive in this ordinance. >> Um >> and again seems to be pointing towards a provider model rather than a facilitator
model. But I mean, I wouldn't mind saying something like pointing towards the affordable housing plan um with a with a a a while maintaining a focus on producing units for people below underserved
people below 30% and also inclusive of folks circumstances where people at 80% or something like that. So, it's kind of building on the it's emphasizing the most important part of the plan. I'm with Joy. I think under 30 is the most important part of the plan. Um, and I'm
also with Antoine that there are circumstances where the plan um, in its present form um, may be chilling for certain opportunities that that require a blend of of incomes. What if you the prescriptive language
that is in these one, two, and three sections really starts to take more shape when it after the authority shall and the authority shall first prioritize and the authority will if that becomes a matter of discussion for SOPs a later.
But in terms of just defining bridging really uh affordable housing plan is trying to like for example it talks about what the household category classifications are. That's HUD language. That's what I believe every to me anything everything before the
authority shall is a little more u less prescriptive and less technical. >> Yeah. So you just delete the last sentence of each one of these. >> But they're going to come into play. just >> you won't >> just relax maybe the prescriptive language. >> Yeah. So it's be the last the last
sentence of each. Yeah. >> It's like >> make good effort or something like that. >> Exactly. >> Okay. >> Yeah. The downgrade shall >> fun going forward with that. >> I still don't love it. I still think but
I think as a compliment. >> Yeah. But getting rid of the shall I mean because you can stub your toe pretty hard on a shall in the middle of something. >> You know I Antoine I would I would suggest that the introductory paragraph that the authority shall should refer to the housing strategy.
>> You know the the authority shall be guided by the housing strategy >> and in part and one one in particular um >> specifically prioritize this yeah income levels.
It's somewhat of an internal debate, but what is the housing strategy for the city? Some believe that it's now the affordable housing plan. >> I would say use the term affordable housing plan because that is the that is the only thing that we clearly say well
housing policy one says this and then the calf says this. >> It's okay. affordable housing >> and then most of the language can come out say
especially emphasizing the the tiers of affordability. >> Okay. >> All right. I have one thing that's going to be really controversial. I hate to even bring this up. >> Are you sure you want it? Um, no. I hate
to hear, but under core value C, you guys know that Doge has a um, and I probably shouldn't be saying this on TV, but you know that there are algorithms that are looking for specific words that are eliminating programs and specific grants to entities that have uh, DEI
language in their charter. And we may choose as a city to say >> sorry >> I think >> I think this is a question council can >> yeah much bigger than >> candle >> but I would flag that as a as a >> red line equity at least come up with a
different way of expressing >> call it something different >> so >> or the council can say you know what we're going to we may lose some grant funding but we're going to stand we're going to stand by our commitment >> I just don't think I don't think it's something hack if you don't you don't
need to wait into it, but you can if you want. >> We want to flag it as a potential um threat to funding >> for an entity that has that in its charter. >> I hate saying >> no and and we're aware we've seen the
literally algorithms to to cut >> like female. >> No, I know. Or like diversity of species. Yeah. discussions from >> so we have we covered those sections um >> really
>> well enough for for colleagues before we move on can I just before we move on just to flag um Antoine can you and I if we have time afterwards sit down and go through the affordable housing plan to talk about that 60 80% thing because I just was going through it and I'm not seeing the disconnect so we can but
that's irrelevant of document. >> It's in the funding target section. >> All right. So, um, we stopped. You had sort of described the reason for changes up until the section just went through. Now, we're on section property acquisition and
um, do we want to move on to >> just so Joy knows the board of directors is the same that we had recommended >> the board of directors, right? the makeup of the board of directors and governance and operations because we're skipping over that.
>> Isn't there one exception? >> What's the one exception? >> I think uh which is under referencing the city manager. >> Yeah, >> it says city manager or an employee. I think we had had language in there that said either like senior leadership or
some >> like some ensuring that it's not, you know, a clerk that doesn't have any power. look back at that and I don't think you're right. >> We we we may have said it but it's not in this graph. >> Yeah. Well, I remember that that there was a discussion where Alex was pushing
back against the hack pretty strong that the that he felt that the city manager really should have wider discretion in that and we generally disagreed but it didn't sort of make it and I'm not sure what the objection is. I think or an
employee is in here because it was meant that because in some instances city manager was able to appoint somebody not employed by this in some example we saw and I think that came up in some internal conversations not with you all but >> this language is exactly the same
language we forwarded to manager before then maybe it's just a comment >> comment we really >> like we would like that to be a senior level employee if there's a way to ensure that that >> if I'm remembering right >> I think there one memo
that's what I'm >> in the memo we were like yeah we we really think it needs to be a deputy city manager >> or and again >> the side which >> someone with authority >> yeah well and the idea behind that was
also on the independent side which is if the board needs to really act independently it needs to be somebody who can represent the city interests and speak to them uh and speak for them in a certain way
too that city councelor and the city manager they're saying well we can't that ain't going to work >> so so we're comfortable with this being a note >> a note >> is this also you know how we were talking about with uh John C for example
where it's written in the language that the executive director of CRA >> who are trying to your recommendation motion has was to allow for him to send a designate if he can't attend. Is it the interpretation that this is really a
seat for the city manager but if in the event he's not present or can >> that's not the way I'm reading it. Or is this is a person who's a part of the >> right so this is Sam or James or Eden or Ash you know I mean a deputy level
>> so that that's an appointee not a designate >> to serve as a representative >> yeah he can >> appointee designated by >> that's a good good catch
>> do they designate in the definition section because they put designate in quotes. >> You're putting doesn't mean quotes and mean something. Hold on. >> Well, I thought it was just because it refers Never mind. >> That that screams that it has a specific
meaning. >> Well, it's just because it refers to design again in the next sentence. So, instead of saying his or her representative, >> is it Yeah, >> that's what it is. It's like his representative. It defines it, right? >> It's who he Yeah. It's who he
>> It's who he's saying. >> I think >> it's still him. It's still his >> It's still his final. It's his seat, but he may not be at a meeting that he may designate >> this. No, but it says this member's term. It's not the city manager. It doesn't have to be the city manager. This
>> services represent this member's term. >> But what I hear you all saying is that you want it to be an appointee or the city manager. >> Yes. All right. >> I think your word clarify manager or >> it should be in the city manager and his
appointee >> or his appointee. >> Yes. >> Out of respect. >> All right. Um, anything else on that section before we let Anon tell us about um in financial operations and oversight?
Were there any changes to that incentive? >> The there's one catch. Uh I know we just made recommendation around reframing the mission vision values but under general powers
1E it defines moderate priority as 0 to 60% but I think that's >> so general powers uh under property acquisition disposition >> bottom of the page >> general powers >> that's not aligning with
>> yeah It's just mis misalignment. >> I I don't Does it really need to be there >> just affordable dwelling units and just >> say we carry over the same whatever language we come up with. >> Yeah. And I just think deleting the
particularly the critical need and priority earning you say units uh in uh in accordance with city council's endorsed housing priorities. You just take out that bit which muddies things unnecessarily. >> Does that make sense?
>> Say one more time. >> So you just prioritizing the acquisition development of affordable housing affordable dwelling units uh >> or housing earns >> uh in accordance with city houses endorsed housing priorities because we're already covering this. Yeah. You
don't have to rescy again particularly if you don't get it exactly right. It's something something to argue about later. Oh, it doesn't say the same thing. >> Oh yeah. Once again from committee members, anybody else want to talk about anything before we get to financial operations and oversight.
>> Uh yes. Okay. Uh so under acquisition of property, I just want to make sure that I understand this. This is more of a clarification question. So, a under acquisition property, how I read that paragraph to mean, and I just want to make sure we're all on the same page, that if the land bank is acquiring uh
any property inside the city's jurisdiction, then it does not require city council vote. But if it is acquiring property outside of of the city's jurisdiction, it does require city council vote. Is that >> that's hope that
>> you good with that? Uh yes, >> everybody in the back. >> Um I I don't think it's necessary. I am >> I I don't I think that having city council involved in any individual transaction is a bad idea just in terms of process
>> time. Yeah. Um anything else? I'll ask the question again. Um, anything else before session blank financial operations? >> What did you just say? >> Any say it again?
>> So, if you're in a transaction of buying it, part of the purpose of an authority is to be able to act, right? >> So, if you bring city council's vote into it, then you have to schedule the meeting. It's got to get on. It's got to get voted. It's got to get done. And
that's bringing a whole other layer of bureaucracy and process into a real estate transaction. >> Bureaucracy outside of anything outside of the city city limits, right? >> How quickly could city >> trying to buy a site in Sana? >> Yeah.
>> No, you can't move right away. You need to talk to the council. >> How quickly could council move on something like that? and I guess like >> if the council wants to, you could have a special meeting the next day if council wants to do that. Um, so if
council wants to make something you like a priority within the day, you could have like two votes of council to call the meeting or something like may or someone else and then have the clerk advertise it as a special. The process would be there's something land available in Savannah
>> bring it to to >> whatever the chair brings it to >> in my mind though this acquisition transaction or land banking activity that's not like you could be in negotiation without city council necessarily being there. >> Yeah. >> It's just the like the final
transactional piece that would require. So like all the negotiations can happen behind the scenes. >> Yeah. I I still I still have heartburn on it. Particularly if you've got the city manager and a city councelor sitting there and they say, "This is a stupid idea, board of directors. We don't want to do it." I mean, then you've got a revolt on your hands. >> I think
>> Yeah. >> Well, I think I think we can move on, but I think I mean, I think the tension doesn't apply for city limits and the tension is just the city wanting oversight. >> This is our money. Yeah. If there's a project in >> Yum. But to learn how to play regionally
might come back to us, we hope. >> All right. Any other questions or comments before we get to financial operations and oversight? >> You're none. Have fun. Take it away. >> Um, all right. We're going to start. So,
is your example? Do you have a Yes. Where are we now? >> Financial two more pages. >> So, um the general internal conversation if I remember right was that how closely
because cities are Virginia code that we have to follow with regards to property dispositions and acquisitions or what have you. And then also um we have the housing authority. So it was a an internal conversation about like hey let's have
this as nimble as possible but also not step on or violate any um things that this entity as an authority will be required to follow. So that's why we ended up with the u particularly as you get into
the last two sections of this really is where this comes into play. But the annual reporting came about with regards to conversations on compliance monitoring and what have you and then the exam for taxes. We've already touched on that. We didn't change anything. That's a straight line from to
code. Um I think where you all may really want to kind of elevate questions or ideas would be A and B for the financial operations. But to the point that our colleague here from the housing authorities has made regarding partnerships, I do feel like this would
be an appropriate section or inclusion um to offer some some general regulatory w frame for how we might but it doesn't need to be if you all don't feel it necessary. Um but this this was not
informed by your draft much of any really. Um, does an ordinance need to specify how it can receive its funding? >> I don't think so. >> I don't know. 185. Is there
>> Can we Can we slash up to >> up to 50% 50%. City council say they want to do it with less than 50%. You're taking us on a tangent for now. A good one, but um but one that I'd rather deal with when we get into the minutiae
of this, and that is the question of do we even need to have I mean, >> shouldn't authority shouldn't this be as broad as possible that the authority may receive funding through all >> means allowable under the statute, >> just be done with it. I was going to
suggest something like a not what you said which would be better but I was going to say like one a six and any other sources so you're what you're saying might be more efficient >> but I don't know >> because what I'd hate to do is there
would be something that you know >> we skipped >> inadvertently yeah >> we skip inadvertently or something else comes along there um >> keep it >> how's it contrast from your your previous section six of financial
operations right there. That's a good question. This adds language about philanthropic state and federal grants and city appropriations designated specifically for that. I think that's really getting at maybe some CIP planning. I'm not
really sure. But um yeah, 6A for I'll go ahead and read this. If you 6A in our in draft, we sent forward financing of operations 6A says the Charlottesville Land Bank Corporation may receive funding and may receive and retain payments in accordance with the
provisions of Virginia code 15- uh 152-7509. So basically points to the statute I guess that's the statute that creates the land. Is that right? >> Yep. So it basically says that it can I mean we got this kosher
it can do >> you just say so your argument is to swap >> swap all of it for R A and B and be done with it. >> Yeah. Well then at B for B it says 50% of real property taxes collected on real property conveyed from the land bank to a transfer shall be remitted by the
participant in the jurisdiction to the land. >> And your concern is that it says up to rather than locking. Well, I I what you're driving at is just take this financing of operations and drop it back in in to that, you know, can we revert
to this language? >> Is that your is that essentially what you're saying? >> That would be my recommendation to the >> that we already have this language in here. It captures all of this stuff. The only substantive change is the up versus 50%.
>> And I think that's a council. That's probably sounds like a flag for council. >> I think we just swap it. I think what what Dan's saying, swap R six for that financing in its entirety. >> Okay. >> General agreement around that. >> I think Yeah. Because >> you okay with that? >> Yeah.
>> Yeah. Yeah. >> Got that point? >> Yes. >> All right. Anything else in the um this section financial operations and oversight flag for conversation? I think maybe something under B about
standard best practices, but that's fine. >> What be financing of operations 1B? >> Oh, dedicated fund for all revenue expenditures.
>> Yeah. The only thing is I'm pushing as a dedicated fund to me. That sounds a little >> oddly prescriptive in a weird way. That's why just in accordance with best practices because maybe there are many funds and they're all subject to audit
fair there could be >> a dedicated fund circle. >> Yeah. I think this is an internal so you know we have a cap fund >> that fund is actually a >> it's an account right >> on in SAP and that fund is managed
>> supposedly managed differently or with unique parameters than other funds that are set up in that account. >> Yeah. But I think we're we're all driving at the same we get clarity on what a dedicated fund really means. >> So I'll find out. >> Yeah. >> Do you mean really adequate funds >> or you like
>> or only one bucket of money? >> Just let's be clear about what you're a I mean auditing it, oversight, >> all that. That's fine. But it's one way of looking at this. Hey, we got to put this all in one checking account. you know, it's I I really believe it's internal accounting because you don't
want it to be like a general fund of of a big bucket. You want a land authority on >> So that may be true. The one exception though is if we if after this exploration around whether a parallel entity needs to coexist with this or
not, it's possible that that entity would also control control funds outside of the city's coffers. Yeah. >> And the audit like so to Phil's point, we just want to say funds that are dedicated to the use of not just
specifically the ones that are in the city. >> So if if it's that case, this if this if it's the case that it's an internal mechanism that this is a fund that's set up like the cap fund and it's that dedicated fund yet this entity will require access and manipulation of its
own fund. Are you saying that it needs its own bank account separate from >> It might I'm not I don't know. We don't know yet. >> I'll give you an example. Um so we have multiple budgets internal because we have multiple portions of business. That's right. For example, when we bought Carlton Mobile Home Park, we
created an own its own budget that has its own universe sources and it uses of money. It has >> its own banking accounts >> and it rolls up into it rolls up into our 990, >> but it's its own separate thing. The way I read this is that you'd have to have
one fund that pays for overheads, whether it's Carlton overheads or Habitat itself with overheads, and I think that this is limited. >> So, it's more of a I think it's more of an internal thing, but if it's a case where this needs the agency needs a funding line is one thing because that
can be achieved in this same fund account. But if I'm from hearing that if it's something that where funds need to be external of the city, then that's something different. It's very likely likely maybe it's the wrong word possible that we we can't fully anticipate where funds are going to have
to sit. So for example, if we determine that this parallel entity needs to if it needs to exist because we want to enable donors to get write offs, those dollars are going to sit outside the city coffers. >> Okay. >> Yeah. I think I think it's the definite
article is the issue there. I mean let's make sure that >> all you do is remind Yeah. Yeah. That's what I'm saying. segregate funds. You should be able to segregate funds. So, for example, the the money that comes in like the rent that is paid by Carlton tenants,
>> I cannot touch that for >> for habitat operations. I can't build a house over there. That money is segregated. It's it's its own internal. >> But I think the simple thing is just replace a with any. >> But it required council. It took council action to create CP084
aka the cat fund. It requires a mechanism for us to be able to do things differently with city funds in an account >> versus like general fund dollars. So this might have to be in there. I don't know for sure, but I'm going to ask. >> Then it would need to be something else
in addition. >> Those any additional funds would also want to be audited, >> right? >> Yeah. I think I think it's the idea of what dig what fund means in the internal world as in funded in the general sense. And so maybe just clarify all that.
>> Yeah. Again, that's stubbing your toe when you don't need >> anything else in financing about operations. >> Hearing on dissolution of authorities. >> Is this where we want to put the pilot thing? Again, I'm not saying we should or not, but
we're um like >> maybe two under shall revert to the city or two such as designated two such entities designated by city council or something like that. What this means when if
you're going excuse me if you're going to close out the if you're going to end land bank authority right not turn it to something else >> it dissolves >> right but again if you're transferring it you'd be dissol you could dissolve they would involve a desolation process but also I'm thinking of shall revert to
the cities that if you have assets and properties city council may say you know what these are 19 mortgages we want to we don't want to revert them we want to take them let's let's flush that out so we're saying this is a desolution process then we would need a process to
basically reestablish the land bank as a standalone corporation. >> Yeah. Maybe maybe if we want to put something pilot we put it in the um annual reporting and oversight. >> But once you incorporate this as an
authority it's an authority. You have to dissolve it to create it as a standalone. What what I'm saying is perhaps just and again I'm not even saying we should do this but if we want to force council or force the authority
to check in on itself to say you know every three years a me you know a memo shall be written to city council to evaluate whether it should be >> remain an authority or not or convert to
a just and again I'm not saying qualitatively whether we should or shouldn't do that but >> well I think we do the parallel thing I mean there might be eight or nine different changes to make that work right inside here for example and including under the dissolution portion
where it would just be fleshed out but I think we get need to get the parallel question answered first before we start trying to flesh that out >> that section of annual reporting and oversight speaks to like if there were a case where after this is happening annually
a decision to be discussed about whether dissolution is warranted. If you're reporting annually and all these things are happening, shouldn't that ask the private council to make that determination at that point? >> It's just whether or not we want to memorize the intent of the pilot and
say, and again, >> maybe we shouldn't. I don't >> I'm just >> um Doesn't three cover that because you said if they're left with like 19 mortgages, but doesn't three take care
of that by saying all outstanding obligations debts. >> No, I mean I'm sorry. I had I meant that in the exact reverse. There are mortgages owed to the authority. >> Okay. >> That the city doesn't want to particularly collect. They just want to sell them. >> Gotcha. they don't revert to the city or or the city may decide to have some sort
of receiver that isn't the city that could be a part of that transition plan three. >> Yeah, it be like 3C. >> No, I mean being do you want to be prescriptive to say what that plan is because right now that transition plan can be anything. It could be selling the
debt. It could be forgiving the debt. Well, maybe I'm overemphasizing to the city. I mean, >> transferring to >> because it does kind of revert to the city. It may only revert to the city for 20 minutes because what does everybody think about putting language in the
ordinance um about the pilot idea? >> Can you give us pluses or minus? You sound like you're kind of neutral. Can you give us pluses, minuses? >> That's a good point. Um I guess the pros are that it reminds everybody about this discussion because
we can we notice how we you know you forget discussion. So reminds us to check in on having council evaluate the same sort of things we've been talking about whether the pros and cons with the authority versus the nonprofit and if the the parallel nonprofit thing is
working then maybe we don't do anything. So the pro is just to just memorialize the intent to check in on itself about whether this was the appropriate structure. Um the con is that it's an added I don't know thing that it has to
do. I I like the I like the idea of having some mechanism in there that's stronger than the annual reporting that sort of so that we don't get into a position where the authority gradually sort of becomes this um
neglected stepchild sort of thing that you know okay let's let's have an existential conversation periodically is this right? >> Well how long would be a pilot program though don't you have to define that? Well, >> that's what we're talking about.
>> Defining that in this section. Okay. >> 3C. >> From time to time, the city city council shall evaluate the the efficacy of this program and decide whether to continue. >> Can we just add that
sunshine? I was just going to ask Michael if has city council weighed in on whether like the idea of making it a pilot. Has city council weighed in on that with Sam or is that being driven by Sam? I'm curious if city council has a position one way
the other about it being a pilot or not? >> City council has a position. >> Okay. >> I mean part of the discussion was maybe this is a pilot. It's just kind of like um part of the discussion was is an
authority provide starting does that make it easier to start up and start building a portfolio versus a nonprofit? So the discussion of whether it may always be an authority I think is still ongoing. So maybe that is a pilot, but like pilot in the sense of like maybe we try this for three years and then just
decide like >> isn't >> I don't have a strong opinion. So maybe that should go in the language that we're sending to Sam to say, look, we um let's see if I can remember what we were talking about two hours ago, but um
that that we're very that we're very concerned that some of the elements of a nonprofit are not allowable um under the authority given to an authority. Um um and so uh it may be that we look at this thing as an authority for a period of
time but come back intentionally within two or three years or something like that to see if >> we're Anton is going to research though what um >> Chesapeake thank you is doing before we say that right
>> I I think what people I don't want to put words in your mouth I'm trying to sum up a little bit I think what people want to do is make sure that we memorialize the intent to go back and say is this is this working or is there a different structure and you want to go back? I think I will
feel much more comfortable hearing through the questions and all the things that feel brought up what Chester Peak is doing, how they're doing it to see and then um send our Senar, you know,
from that send something to Sam about still what our concerns are. >> He thinks this is something we can address when it comes back around. Is it going to come back around >> to hack again? >> Yeah, but this Well, like I said, I'm
going take what you all send it to Sam. Uh, imagine they're going to have some maybe input and come back about questions or ideas or clarification >> or some engagement or I can request that they come talk to you guys or however you want to manage it. Um,
there will be another process. They're asking me to set the work plan after this. So if you want to have another policy meeting planning around that really I don't know you think we made a lot of changes that they're going to >> we made some changes but I don't think it's going to be like or you made
recommendations >> I'm sorry yeah >> made some recommendations but um I I don't think it adds time >> to the process just a matter of hey when you all want to hear back from the city manager's office and city attorney on these if these are adopted or changed
incorporated I imagine you want that version to see what it looks like >> bring that back if it is or if they say no let's proceed as it is I'll send that back whatever the response is I'm going to share it back to you and then you'll have that to >> to your point Nicole under annual
reporting and oversight item number four community impact assessment evaluating the effectiveness of the authorities's activities and addressing housing needs it could be easy to just include in there specific language about like outlining that includes like analysis of the authorities legal structure
legal power that I don't know if that covers it, but um because I it could make sense to return to it. I mean, we did it with the police civilian oversight board in terms of them returning evaluating whether they need like an additional staff position for like an
auditor position, I think. So, it's a little weird and clunky, but it's not like unprecedented to do that kind of thing, if that makes sense. Oh, I think that would be a wise addition and also will support the powers that the city has through article
4 Virginia code which say at that time you all the council decides or the recommendation is that you know what this would really function better as a standalone corporation that's just a really an amendment process of the
ordinance just without having it go through a dissolution and doing a public hearing again to set a new one. And so that would be the time to have that um introdiction if you will if it's required. >> We're run out of time. I want to try to
adjourn us before 2 o'clock >> three o' um anything else in the um proposal that people want to talk about? There's all that's left miscellaneous provisions.
That's nothing to send it to everyone. >> Great. Kathleen, member of the public, anything else to add? >> Is there nobody on? No, >> I think our business is concluding. Do
we need a formal adjournment motion? >> Oh, yeah. They would. >> Yeah. I'm not sure how interesting that story is going to be for them, but >> I don't know. She actually stayed for kind of a while. Then at one point, we did kind of really start going back and forth about the income level. So, she
got some sort of a debate, I guess. But exactly the goal today. I heard >> I saw that. That was huge. Yeah. No, that we were looking at the news and I was like, "Wow, actually that >> okay >> rumor."
I know.