the recording. >> All right, we already called the meeting to order, those listening on the recording. Um, and we'll start with staff updates. >> All right, I um don't have that many things to update on. We didn't meet just
three weeks ago, so a lot of it is just continuing to move things forward. Um, next month I will be going to council um to propose some changes or I guess joint need. Um,
thank you. Hey, Mike is gonna let you in. I think she's at the Oh, never mind. There she is. Crap. the um the supplemental rental assistance program that CRA administers.
We're going to be doing a program evaluation of that on the first half of next calendar year. Um and we have made some slight changes for the program this coming program year that will be um in the newest amendment. We have to amend
the agreement every year to continue it for another year. So that's what going forward is the eighth amendment. Is the percentage of FMR chang but I think it went down. >> Um I don't think that it has changed at
all for that's not one of the items we have marked for change and I um but I know John would know off head what it is or what it has been and the entire history of it but >> uh I don't know. Okay. Um, our CAF grant
program is open right now. I had a workshop with applicants last week. Um, we usually don't get as many applications for these projects as we do for the HOPs CA grant program. Um, because there's not as many large construction projects and rehabilitation
projects that go on versus all of the different organizations that need financial support for running their housing programs. >> So, yes, thank you. And that is the gist of it. We have a lot of uh
development projects that are underway for affordable housing. So that's also been keeping me busy because people are spending money. So now they're needing a lot of reimbursements from the city. But that's great. We want to see the projects going underway. So for um KDwood phase two, I've been receiving um
for uh Sixth Street phase one and South First Street phase two. Uh these are all underway. Those those two are CRA projects. >> Okay. >> Um all redevelopment. So there's a lot of construction going on in addition to the large um student the verb and then
there's another one on JPA that >> How many total units do you know? >> Not off the top of my head, but I will show you one pretty cool thing that I don't know that a lot of people seem to know about. So, our um neighborhood
development services website, we go over to development review and look at the development map. >> Oh, this will show anything >> that is under what? >> Neighborhood development.
>> Neighborhood development. Oops. >> Yes. Neighborhood development services and then um planning or no development review. I'm sorry. >> All right. think the development map. Um, and so then you can see what's going on
all over the city. Um, >> that's really cool. >> So, approved, under construction, under review. So, under construction, that's a total of 1,98 units under construction. is so big compared to years past.
>> Yeah. So that's a lot right now. Um and then if you just click that so it will show you all the different Oops. >> Do you know how much of that would be affordable? >> Um mostly just these. So Friendship Court phase two and the South First Street phase two and
Sixth Street phase one. Always trying to keep the phases straight in my head. Um there is also right outside of uh the city limits which so it's not on here but it is a project the city's supporting is um Vista 29 I think is the
name now. So that's permanent supportive housing that is through support works. This was a organization and project that changed names. That's why I'm sitting here trying to make sure I'm saying the right names. But um >> and they currently operate the crossings
so >> same organization. >> Yes. Yeah, >> it used to be called >> Virginia Supportive Housing. >> Yeah. >> Um and it was Premier Circle and now you have Vista 29. But that one is that >> the hotel. >> Yes. >> Yep. >> Yeah. And you can if you drive by now,
you can actually see. It's exciting. You can see it drove by today and I was like, "What's that?" >> Yeah. >> I know for a long time. >> I hadn't seen the Anyway. >> Yeah. So, it I mean it's definitely I
notice it when I'm driving around town right now that there's a lot going on. So, it's certainly keeping us busy. And I'll leave that with for the staff updates. Uh if anyone has any questions, please. Yeah. >> Did city council approve that John Sales or his representative could start
>> is on Kathleen is on her way. >> Okay. >> She dropped me on. >> But you said last meeting that city council needed to >> they do and it's not that is not going before city council right now. it's not on the calendar to go before city council. Um, right now Kathleen still attends the meetings and she's able to
um she cannot vote. Uh, so that would be the only difference. Um, but to be honest, that takes it's not like I'm we can just simply it's not really a simple process to bring anything before city council. So given the number of things
we do have in the next six months that we're going to need to go before council, I'm not sure how big of a priority that one is. Um, but if it's something that this group really recommends should be a priority that, you know, we can talk about that
and move forward. Um, it's just one thing on a list. >> Doesn't seem like it will require a lot of discussion. If it were on the agenda, does it? >> No. Go on. I >> No, it just has to I still have to do a
lot of prep work to get it on the agenda and everything requires at least one month of advance for that, too. And preparing a staff report. It's not like it's an entirely huge amount of work. It's just there's >> one of you. >> There's just me and there's a lot of other things that I think are more impactful that also need to have those
things develop. >> Yeah, I'm just missing that voice. I think it's really important. But I guess my point is Kathleen has been attending and she is speaking. So I'm not sure like this is not preventing Kathleen from attending meetings in any way. >> Well,
good afternoon. Um, the Home to Hope I'm I'm not the contact for House. >> Yeah, I know. I'm not even in that building though. And the Home to Hope is located, I think, below where you're probably standing. So, you may want to try just going >> the door downstairs, but I'm I'm sorry.
I'm in the middle of a meeting right now, so I'm going to have to go. No problem. Okay. That's when your number is posted on a door that the meeting assistance for the hack meeting. Um, So the only the only the only um
>> the only um um drone that I still need to continue to be um is um the affordability um of some of those housing and it
seemed like um you know it's only a few agency or two agency is focusing on be affordable and that's habitat eat my house and alliances and and that and I I I do think that
there has to be some mind shift around that affordability um when you say affordability deeply affordable sends a different message to me and my
residents and my clients then just affordable because most of the time affordability not even with a section if voucher you can't get in and you know um just being in the room with all these development deals go if
you don't have other monies that's going into it people say it doesn't work and it doesn't seem like we have anybody who wants to make it work other than the three agencies and I think that is something that um we have to it has to
be a mind shift because um you know with with with with all of it like right now anybody with a section 8 voucher not a project based voucher but I'm looking for them to mess with that too but if a
if if anybody with a HCV voucher if they lose that they're just going to be homeless they're just going to be homeless because they're not putting any more money into the section 8 voucher and then not reissuing them to other people
on the waiting list. And so, um, that's always on my my frame of mind is about, um, if you think you see homelessness now, just wait. What's what's going to happen? And then the the
other thing is that um even my son is um who works all the time and whatever it seem like every year places that you may be able to find rent is going up.
Um they every year they're just increasing the rent, increasing the rent. And I don't think that we're focusing on I don't know what we can do about it, but I just feel like there needs to be some push. And this is why I keep um this is why I I'm personally
pushing back at LB collective because I know even those units, >> right? They're only required to be they're affordable 60% BMI >> and most of our folks don't make that kind of money. And so when are we going to um really talk about that and address
that? >> They actually can't do on-site affordable housing. Right. >> Right. >> Well, they call it affordable housing, but maybe they shouldn't be calling it affordable housing because it's not affordable housing. >> They're not allowed to do onsite. >> Well, I mean, they can do whatever they want, but they would still have to pay.
They have to pay a fee for I mean, if they want to make units affordable, no one's going to stop them from doing that, but they're not going to likely do that. But >> yeah, I don't believe they're planning on building any affordable units because they're not they're required to pay. >> But the market said they were going to
do it. They promised the neighborhood that they were going to do it. And then when people showed up with their vouchers excited about, oh, this is a new unit or whatever. They didn't qualify. >> Wrong.
>> And so that's a concern for me. It's a concern for FAR. It's a concern for the the neighborhood. Um, you know, even the thing on the corner, the university say
vouchers. People are not going to get in there with vouchers. >> What's the one on the corner? >> You mean the tenth of >> tens of Oh, >> boy. Can you say give me a little bit more insight about why they people didn't qualify when they showed up with vouchers? What were what were they told? the the the you I guess it's the the the
the the price for the for the unit, the market rate for the unit and how much the voucher is. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Can we offset that the city? >> I would love for the program to do that.
>> Not a bad idea. >> That's like you could take the new fees and apply them in the neighborhood where the project is and >> Yes. >> I like that. Wait, so the voucher is supposed Remind me how the formula works. The voucher is supposed to cover our voucher supposed to cover like 110%
of fair market value or something. What are you saying that they're that the units are priced so far above fair market value? >> Going back to Nicole's question, I have the FMRs that came out in August. Do you want >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Um, so this is Charlottesville uh
area. Uh, one bedroomedroom uh, $1,600, twobedroom $1,800, threebedroom 2,200. >> More than that. >> Yeah, it is. So, so I I'm I'm just saying um I it's
something that um I mean I'm always, you know, I'm like >> I mean, can I can I suggest it's a good segue into one of the topics, which is the sort of planning of the hack for the next year, like what are the topics we're going to cover? What are the
things we're going to push for and talk about? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Um, but I would just wanted her to know that even though I see those numbers, I'm not excited. >> Yeah. No, they're they're not they're not deeply affordable. >> I'm not jumping up.
>> True. I think um to Mike's point >> because even you know even with our residents at South First Street and and Crescent Halls they're they're when they came some of them were public housing resident and
when they came back they weren't public housing resident they voucher and that's their payment process was a lot different from the public housing and higher so Even with that,
within the housing authority, we are having issues of um units being a little bit higher than what they came out of and what they're returning to. >> So that's just
>> Yeah. No, it's it's on my mind, too. And I noticed that last year when we evaluated all of the calf grant applications um that just the number of units proposed at 30% or below was almost non-existent. So we have the
directive that we should be prioritizing our funding to support those. But if you get five projects submitted and only one project has any units that are going to be less than 30% AMI, >> do you the Dylan m. I don't know much
about that Dylan thing, but >> well, if I can, I'd like I'll share I'll share um a conversation I've been having with Sam Sanders off and on for the last two years, but in more recently in the last six months or so.
So I'll use an example of 501 Cherry, the development that we're doing along Cherry Avenue. Um the proforma and the the depth of affordability profile has 30% units, 50 and 60% units in it. The
number of 30% units is about 10% of the property because that's what the typical litech capital stack can support before you know it doesn't become vile anymore. But last year in the cash cycle, we applied for as a sort of a test case, a
pilot for three units for the city to buy down some of the 60% units to turn them into 30s. And the challenge is that by the time we come to the table with that request, all other sources of funding have
already been leveraged. So it's just on the the request was just for the city to pay for the difference between going from a 60 to 30. And what they were doing is essentially paying down debt. So we don't have to carry debt payments on those units because 30% units can't don't have any capacity for paying any
debt. They can just help pay for operations. So there's no debt capacity. So we asked for $125,000 per unit um in terms of buying it down from a 60 to a 30 to enable that to be the case. Um, and I put it out there just because
it's a it's a reality that we have to con contend with, which is, and we've already we've talked about this many times, like the the deep more deeply affordable, the more expensive is, the more subsidy you have to put in there. >> Was it denied? >> We got two of the three. Um, so we asked for three units at 375 and we got two at
250. We're submitting a similar request uh this cash cycle um not on 501 but on a different project on our MAC development. But in my conversations with Sam um he wanted to know what what would it cost for each of
the projects we have in our pipeline right now. How much would it cost to go from a 60 to a 50 or a 50 to a 40 or a 60 to a 30? So we have a spectrum and a spread and it depends a it's not a uniform number. It depends a little bit it's a onebedroom is it a threebedroom?
What's the capital stack? So in some properties it's more or less expensive depending on the on all that but we did a spreadsheet and we you know handed it off to Sam and so it ranges every anything from like 60,000 to 130,000 probably I don't have the numbers in front of me right now but in that
ballpark per unit and it's because we have already leveraged LITC we've already leveraged federal home loan bank we've already leveraged all the other sources that normally when the city contributes we're using that to build other other capital stacks on top of it so I'm just putting it out there as like we're having those conversations where
we put it in front of the calf. Sam asked me to do it that way so that it would then go it would spur a conversation with city council around this question of you know you're not that that the city wants to prioritizely affordable >> but the projects are not necessarily
coming that way. So this is a this is one tool to enable that. >> Um but it does have cost that we have to contend. >> That's expensive. I mean that's a lot >> per unit. Is that one time or or >> That's one time. >> Yeah.
>> Um and I know that that information I I believe that's part of what Sam is planning to talk with council about in his affordable housing work session next month as well. Um >> yeah, >> I believe >> that should be something that's all on
our collective calendar. >> Okay. Oh, it's not here. >> Is it the C city council that tells us what we want they want us to work on? We come up with things ourselves. >> Okay. >> Either way,
um, who want you want to review this or you want? Yeah. Yeah. Sorry, we haven't done that yet. and Jos out. I'm sorry. I forgot to print them out. I can pull them up. >> And Joy asked me to continue running the meeting for the moment. So, I'll just
keep in that vein. Um, and actually, Maline, I didn't we didn't really close off. Are there any other staff updates you wanted to do? >> No, no, just try to keep on >> keep going. Thank you. >> Um, so yeah, the meeting minutes
>> really briefed question. Yeah. Any update on like timeline with getting the consultant to find more staff to Yes. in the housing department? >> There is um yeah, we've been they were we were reviewing the proposals that we
received. We received proposals from I think four different consultants and Kelly is taking the lead on that. So, I'm not sure what the timeline is exactly, but I know Oh, yeah. You reviewed them. Um yeah, so the um Kelly sent it out to a subgroup of folks to
external reviewers. I was one of those uh three consultants at least at this point. >> One got Yeah, she only sent three along. There was one that we had already agreed was not >> well their pricing was I think three times the amount of everyone else said. Okay. >> Um Kelly w asked for comments from the
reviewers by the end of this week I think it was. Um so and then the goal that there is a pretty clear timeline that in the in the uh RFP which has their the ideas that they would have their work done within I don't know it's like eight weeks or eight you know it's
a short period. So >> my interpretation is that like by mid uh mid first quarter like maybe Februaryish um maybe to Marchish depending on when they would come on board would that work to be complete?
Yeah. And there is um in our uh the budget cycle going on now too um we are trying to increase the staff by an additional person and so if we get that in the budget then we could potentially have
>> So when are you looking to have the fur have them in APC? There is not a time frame for them to be in place because at this point they're just trying to figure the timeline for when they would hire which sounds like yeah in first quarter next year.
>> Yeah, there's not really a a date for hiring at this point. >> So the scope is how many more people to hire and what they should about how many people but also like what you know we have all of these different things we're on the table for us to be working on.
And so some of it is also just trying to understand what what are other housing departments for similarsized cities doing too like what what does a normal housing department look like? What is the staffing capacity of a typical housing department look like? And what activities are they doing? Um we spend a
lot of time on grant administration in our department for housing and that takes up quite a bit of of activity and for the our funding agreements that we have for various projects. um that's kind of our primary housing activity
that we do. But then there's also we have the sea program that you know maybe that should be expanded maybe there should be a city voucher you know a larger city voucher program or should the city be exploring more project based vouchers for other projects which is
something that is also on the table not to mention the land bank all the other things that we have been talking about. So I think um >> does this interact at all? >> I have the out here. Can we just read it quickly? Yeah. Thanks. >> Uh review organizational charts, job descriptions and staffing budgets.
Analyze workload distribution and service volume. Conduct confidential interviews with housing program staff and leadership. Gather feedback from external stakeholders. Benchmark staffing models against peer cities. Access uh sorry, assess training, onboarding and professional development
practices. Identify gaps, inefficiencies, and opportunities for restructuring or expansion. Deliver actionable recommendations for staffing improvements. Um, and then the duration of the project would be 10 weeks from contract execution.
Uh, yeah. >> Does this interact at all with the Newton city manager's office? >> Um, and OCS. No, not necessarily. I mean, as far as like in some of those interviews, I'm sure there may be some
folks in the city manager's office that would be included, but it isn't uh it's really has just stemmed from the fact that this department got move or division moved from one department into another department. Um, and neither Kelly nor I have a whole ton of
background about how we got here or what we're doing. We're both have been trying to catch up on things. So, um, less related to the city manager, but >> Ellen, can I follow up on something you said? So, you said you spend a lot of time on the next administration. How much of that is reviewing quarterly reports?
>> Um, reviewing the quarterly reports is not too time consuming at this point. And I find too that with the grants administration, it's kind of cyclical. So, like from like half a year, there's not kind of that much to do with the grants. But then between the time that
we are trying to get all the new grants out there and then opening up the application period and then scoring all those grants like that six-month period gets pretty busy and then once then there's like another six months where things are kind of just going. Um so it's a little cyclical with the grant work.
>> Gotcha. Well, so maybe put this in the parking lot for our conversation around work plan. But I mean, I know from a um from a grant's perspective, those quarterly reports, I'm glad to hear they don't take up much time. Nothing changes every quarter. So, I mean, I'm just wondering I'm not wanting to address
that specifically, but I'm wondering if we could be of help as a hack to review um the some of the administrative burdens that are on staff and what actually come with a public what actually produce public benefit and what don't
>> and make re make some efficiency recommendations because like that's reporting is important. It's critical. reporting. Quarterly reporting is useless because nothing changes on housing, >> right, for your like cap the projects. I know the hops ones we want quarterly because we make quarterly payments. So,
that's more of a just, you know, >> but it' be really interesting to put everything on the table and say what what's the origin? Let's let's let's figure out whether is this statutory, is this something council passed? Would this require a council resolution? And if we can help you not to have to do
stuff that that doesn't move the needle. >> Yeah. Um >> I think that's in I mean the way I interpreted that's in the scope of the consultant that's coming on board. >> Okay. >> And the I didn't read that part of the scope but one of the deliverables is when they have a draft report is coming
to the hack. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> So there'll be an opportunity for sort of poking at that and and seeing what their assessment is. >> Okay. Um, and I'll note, sorry, I'll note too, we are we'll be working with a an attorney that is not in the city
attorney's office, but it's more of a consultant that specializes in agreements for housing, the affordable housing development. Um, because that's another thing. There's there's three more housing uh funding agreements that need to be developed in the next six
months. and the staff person who used to do that no longer is a housing staff member and can't spend their time doing that. So, that's uh something new Kelly and I will have to be managing, but we um our city attorney said to you know, some of these agreements are pretty outside of my wheelhouse, especially
some of the more um complex ones that are involving funding sources from the state as well. And there's other requirements. So, um, that also could result in some changes to some of those requirements that are in there, too. So,
I think a lot of the agreements that we have for some of our grants are just they've been copy just keep using the same one um whether or not it really works. >> Whatever to help >> I was going to say I'm kind of interested in when it does come back
maybe going back to the land bank if it's not dead forever. I don't know. It's not dead for us. >> Michael, I don't want to put you on the spot, but I definitely noticed you did not say land bank, you said CEDA a few times last Monday about purchasing properties. Um, it just makes me think
about what staff we have that has those the skill set and expertise and where they live. Does the heck have anything to say about >> TBD when it comes back to us? >> More more TB >> so much.
We want to build on that then then look at the >> if we can approve the minutes. >> All right. All right. >> Yes. He was on track. >> Motion to approve. >> Second. >> All those in favor? >> Any opposed? Approved.
>> Great. Okay. I'll have at it. >> Um I have to be I'll be candid. I have not had a chance to review this prior to the meeting. Would you mind walking us through what was not? >> No, you're not. >> I read it, but I couldn't I couldn't understand what was I understand.
>> All right. So, let's Yeah. Do you mind walking us through my >> Yeah. So, we can start. I got it up here, too. So well the first one was determining the priorities. So that's kind of self-explanatory. I think it was
developing this calendar was the piece of that. Then determine next steps as it relates to the land bank ordinance. I think that was >> so this is what we have done. >> This was something that was put together to guide what would have been done for fiscal year.
need to go and check off what we have done, >> right? What is what was done, what wasn't. Um I know that was that was the request was to go over what had been put together and what actually like what is the status of of these items. >> Um
this number three, so this is one that is really more hack guided. Develop and deploy orientation and recruitment strategy to fill two vacant seats. We did fill one of those seats. Um, but not really because of a recruitment strategy, just because somebody applied.
>> Well, to be fair though, pardon me, even though I think it sourced out of the hack, I think our concept was that it would apply not just to the hack, but other committees and boards for the city as well. >> That's true. Yes. Um, that was when we
had that as a topic of the meeting, that is where that conversation. Again, once again, it's an area I'm very interested in would be able to help with not be in charge of, but with other city departments help with. >> Michael, with Eden's departure, Eden
Ratliff, the deputy manager, he was supposed to do a review of all boards and recommendations of some kind, I guess. Where does that stand? the the new city attorney um given us a couple weeks ago at this point memo
about his legal interpretation of what's possible in terms of payments for boards and commissions and what we've been told is that it's part of a process of continuing that work had done but we have not been given a timeline at this point so there's no update on timeline
>> and no additional correct me if I'm wrong no additional actions were taken other than the identification of this topic. No other steps either the city or the hack have been taken since then, right? >> Uh not on the city and I know at some point there was I believe like three
members of the hack were going to try to schedule a meeting but it was with Eden who is no longer with the city. So that >> that got time. >> Yes. >> But that's good to hear that the city >> does the hack committee have a um orientation? I I never went through an
orientation. there is not an orientation that has been developed. Um I think yeah if there is anyone who would like to try to come up with what an orientation should look like for a hack member that would be
>> really excellent. at least the acronyms. >> I know we've both been working on our our glossery. Um >> Okay. And then this uh pilot discussion to formulate a hack memo or recommendations
um for so for UVA to come to some sort of an agreement to pay make a payment in taxes to the city >> and we didn't have any further conversations about the pilot at all. Right. >> Yeah. It's just sort of a we identified
it as a >> Yes. So that's why it wasn't done. >> Yeah. Okay. um ADU program ordinance language cleanup. So, we did go through the ADU development manual and we all agreed on
changes that should be made to it. Those changes have not gone before city council to be adopted. Um now we're working on another round of changes to that manual essentially to look at the fee structure. So, whenever I've still saved all of those, I still have those
changes. Um, and when we do go to city council next year for presumably some kind of an update to the fee structure or whatever results from the study we do, those will all go together updated. >> So, I do notice it's kind of confusing
when you're on the website what the latest ADU manual is. Um, or and also like >> there's a broken there's a one or two a broken link I know for it. Yeah. >> Um, yeah. And um just to have like a red
line to show the changes >> for when the changes get made. >> Yeah. Yeah. Because I think you made some like just HUD updates. >> Yeah. I I once a year we are required to just update the tables that are based off of PUT. So that is what was changing.
>> Just noting that because you know, my god it was up in October 3rd. What was updated? >> Yes, I'm aware I got multiple emails about it with questions about what was changed. though I noted for the future. Um, but yes, that is pretty much the
only thing that can be changed without going to city council. So, if it hasn't gone before council and there's been a change, that's the only thing that can change. Um, which is also why we haven't made any of those those other changes that we had identified back in last fall. You
know, it was somewhere in this time frame of October through December. That >> can I ask a question about >> Yeah. So, there's two different things. There's the ADU program and the ordinance language cleanup which are two related but separate separate things. I
know that the ordinance is going through a process that Mary Affle is leading >> and I I understand from Kelly that it's a sort of three tier process. Um um that expressed a little frustration that hack hasn't been part of this. there's a
there's an ordinance change going in front of council that impacts affordable housing and the hack has not been part of it. Now I have to want to admit I've I've participated in this and staff has been great like when I've said have some
comments I've had a meeting with that act. So the staff has been excellent about it but formally this is something the ordinance itself is something that that really needs to go through hack. Um the the reality is is that that the ordinance is not helping affordable
housing. It's it's just not can't do it. the the zoning ordinance itself allows you to do it, but then you tack on engineering requirements and all the other things. And um I've vetted 15 projects now. And um and that's I think
well well way way more important than a lot of the other work we have on this. This is what the hack was created for, to bring practitioners to the table, real estate professionals, developers, builders who work in the affordable housing space to to look at city policy
and say whether this works for affordable housing and suggest changes. And so, I don't know if we're still just kind of going through this or if we're now on the recommendation stage, but can we please, please, please, please have this prioritized as a hack?
It may not be in time for this first round of updates, right, which I know are >> they're well underway. That's okay. And I I don't want to stand in the way of those going in front of council because it's it sounds like both on the tier one, which is hypos, and tier two, which
is some of the technical requirements. Everything I've seen so far is good, but it's not sufficient. Mhm. >> And so I really really want Hack to be able to focus way more than the land bank, way more than a lot of the stuff that we're spinning our wheels on on the
single most fundamentally important change that the city has made over the last 30 years in terms of trying to create the conditions by which you can do affordable housing. It's not working. It could, but it needs technical tweaks. And we're the we were put together as an
organization to do this work. Okay. >> So, this is a course to say this is a strong plea for this. >> I will get together with Matt and see what can we do to for those next two rounds of changes that will be more than typo corrections and things how we can
make sure that there's more. >> Right. >> You talked about doing a planning commission work session together with hack. I think this is like six months of making that number up, but this is a this is a time period of intense work by
us. I think Nicole exactly right with the planning commission looking this and really getting down to brass tax because what's happening now is what has historically happened in the city not because it's anyone's fault but people it's applica it's it's it's application related. So someone brings an
application or idea forward and it's one applicant, it's it's planners, it's engineers and again I want to be really clear the city has been extremely responsive to individual applicants but we need to be looking holistically at this and I don't match doing that
>> but the hack is the only the hack is the unique body to look at this from the lens of affordability and um and so honestly if I was going to say one thing today Can we prioritize this and make this our work product for some period of
time? A lot of the other stuff is is insignificant relative to what we could do in refining the zoning ordinance and the other uh related policies such as standards and design, such as who makes decisions
about fire access, >> uh who makes decisions about the the the width of utility easements, etc. All of that stuff has to be looked at together. Not just zoning, not just engineering. It has to be looked at holistically from the perspective of practitioners who are
trying to do what the city wants us to do. And it's it's not working. It could work, but um but I think we can add a lot of value to the conversation. >> Yes, I've you're heard um and I will definitely get together with Matt. He's
leading that whole project. So, we'll need to find a way to incorporate hack into his plan because I think that probably was an oversight in the work plan when they were putting that together is especially because like you said, they're have their minds set on some really specific things. Um, and
it's not necessarily affordable housing. Um, so that's that's your role and noted and heard. We'll find a way to make that happen. >> So, maybe that's something that we can move on since we're looking at the work plan and updating it. we can move that
up to a high priority. >> I'll just second that. >> Yeah, I agree. It's high priority. Um I think as far as the timing goes, that's where the coordination has to happen with the team that's that's leading all those changes because I can't dictate what timeline. Um I don't even I don't
know what his plan is for the tier 2 um amendments. >> Well, we need to know. >> Exactly. That's Well, that's tier one, right? >> So, I think tier one and tier two are moving forward >> together. Okay. So then the tier three one more >> just so the people bring everyone into the conversation tier one they're
looking the city's doing compens so Kelly inter Kelly Kelly inherited this zoning ordinance and was given the direction you know fix it make it make it better it's a lot to put on somebody she's come up with a process by which there's a three- tiered approach the first tier is to look through the
ordinance and there are some things that are just typos misstatements and um and and it's mostly staff I think going through that and that's great tier two is there's a clear intent in each section of the ordinance and then there are some things some requirements such
as um um certain ways that height is defined for example that's that's in the way of that's sort of getting in the way of of of that intent being fulfilled and then there's a tier three which they have and those two things are moving forward to council I think by the end of
this year >> then there's a tier three where >> there are some things like I think like the thing on West Maine where it's do we want to revisit some of the things that we decided as a city or the council voted on >> we need to revisit that
>> right but I think just to just to categorize it I think that's sort of being considered tier three the things that would require >> shouldn't even be in tier three probably should be part of >> tier two
>> because tier three is just like what we're fussing about right? Only chance you have is not ongoing. I just think that we just need to to to really look at that for me
um and for we didn't realize the implication of what it would do if things are being built on the edge of community and how it impact that and so we just need to own it and go back and fix it. >> Right. Right. and um agree whether it's
tier two or tier three I'm not sure I can >> I think two and three I mean because that's a long discussion >> kind of a separate >> it's a it's a >> well it's come up as an issue after they already had they had started identifying some of these things over a year ago and
obviously as the year has progressed there have been a lot of things that have come >> well other people's bracket that for a second so um I I want to make sure that when when the work comes back to the the hack, it's not just to review
tier three. >> Yes, ma'am. >> It's actually to review one, tier two >> because again, I I've seen what's moving forward and I think a lot of it's great, but it's not comprehensive. >> Yeah. and it it hasn't necessarily gotten sort of a wholesome review by the
affordable housing providers and others who maybe don't necessarily historically do affordable housing but would like to. There are a lot of technical details that aren't going to get passed in tier one or tier two now that really are tier 2 issues. And so I want to make sure
when this comes back to hack it's not just us looking at tier three. >> That's right. that we're looking that we're looking at that we're we're looking at tier two with the idea that look, we're not gonna we're not going to make this ordinance perfect overnight. Incremental improvements are fine, but
but let's let's not settle for what goes forward to council this time. Um, >> and for me it would be that we admit that okay, we missed this, we overlook this, and here's how we can work to
correct it. even if we don't correct it 100% but we move to correct some of it. Um >> yeah. >> So the one thing I would push back a little bit on that I I I think we should I I absolutely think that should be part of the conversation. Again, the way it's
categorized, tier three, I think um it's not clear the intent of of what zoning code I think you could look at it and say the intent was to put tall stuff up on West Main, but we may not have have gotten that right. Like we may not
have expressed the intent in consistent with what the community wants us to do, which is I think what NDS is saying. That's a kind of tier three thing. Whereas tier 2 is like the intent of of RA is to get up to six units, but there's but because of a
couple of technical requirements, there's not a lot in the city where you can actually get six units on it, whether it's because you have to have 20 ft of fire clearance or you have to whatever there's technical requirements. And so Joy, I and I probably would end
up supporting what you're suggesting, but I think this is something that probably has to go back to the to people, right, as for a and I'm I'm pretty sure that the that the motion of that >> the community people, >> the motion of that ocean, I think, is
going to, >> you know, even you know, even the the um the seven and a half um street project. I think it just break my heart the fact that one I grew up with people that live in that neighborhood and then also see
the change. But it just breaks my heart when um cuz I don't pay attention to every single thing that's happening in the city. I'm just so focused on some things and I got to figure out a way where we have partners that can help us
focus on that. But somebody made a um statement at the last B meeting. Um and as someone who grew up in a third world country, I know how much hearing
church hymns on Sunday morning, even if you can't go, how much it impacts you and how much it keeps you whole. And when I heard that person said in Sunday mornings, I can hear them
singing. I can hear them praising. But when that building didn't get built, seven and a half, seven or eight or nine, whatever it is, it's going to block that. It is important, but this is a part of a community.
Those are the myths I'm talking about. >> No, I I I agree. My sense from what I've read and what I've heard is that public sentiment is kind of on your side there that that that's going to be a battle that's won. It may not be won at time, but >> may not be, but I just think that we need to, you know, if we're talking
about um communities and what makes up communities and that is a central part. Who would have thought that people were listening? I know in in in in my country
that's something we listen to. Right. Right. It's a part of the community. The church is a part of the community. Even if they don't do what they're supposed to do, it still is a part of the the community. And and that is important. >> I hear you.
>> You know, and I just think that we miss those little things. My grandma used to say, "It's not the big things that people do that is important. It's the little thing." And to me that that just I was just I couldn't get to the bar meeting. I was just so and to have
someone say that that's oh that's not you know that is not important and it's all about the money and all. Yeah. No, it is important. It is important to that community. Again I don't pay attention to
everything. This is a thought process now about figuring out I'm going to look at your start looking at your map where things are going up and and following up because we're not paying attention to some of these things so we can can have a a dollar and then and then the last
thing I would say is I don't think it's I'm glad you said the whole community because I don't think it should be just livable sea bill that can speak about what needs to change and not the rest of the So I would leave it at that.
>> So >> So just to keep on track a little bit, I think what this the ADU program piece that you raised up and you're echoing >> clearly that needs to be a high priority as we look at the work plan for the next year. I I do think it'd be good to stay
on track to make sure we get through everything to identify other high priority pieces. We know that some of that conversation is going to highly depend on the intersection with staff and time and their timing. So, we can't really say exactly when that's going to happen in our sequence, at least not
yet. Um, but I think it'd be good for us to go through the whole thing because I I inevitably we're going to have to prioritize what it is we want to focus on. >> But I think it'd be good to get the whole picture before we jump into that discussion. agreed. And just to be clear, it's not the ADU, it's the other,
it's the ordinance, >> not >> well, the zoning ordinance is different from the um affordable dwelling unit or uh policy, >> which is the policy is is not the zoning.
>> And so the to me the focus really needs to be on the the zoning ordinance. >> Got it. Can I just say I I agree with you and I I would love to I'm sure we have very similar thoughts on what could make I don't know construction under the current zoning
ordinance possible especially with the guys on affordability. I just like I think that one of the reasons why I think of the land bake and spending time on the land bake is important is because I don't I mean I think you agree with me
but I don't think zoning is going to really push the needle forward as far as affordability. Like I think having the way that the zoning ordinance is going to be successful or the way that we're going to have address the housing crisis is going to if we look at zoning in
tandem with kind of the same level of private but with like community oriented development and I feel like I don't know if I've said this before I thought the lane bank was a way to do that. I thought maybe CRA was a way to do that. Um, and I I don't know if this is right,
but I think having that entity existing right now would be helpful in addressing West H the West Main Street, West Haven, LD Collective, and Fightville. Like I think those would be prime sites where
if there were a land bank or a community oriented development entity, those would be properties that I would think they would aggressively try to purchase or >> and so assigning an entity or accountability or
responsibility to something or someone to do that work I think is really important. >> Yeah, I don't disagree. I think they go hand in hand. I mean, if we could tie if we could tie up lots of lots that would provide time to get the ordinance right. So, I'm going to put a pause again because I want to make sure we get
through the whole S and then even the funding land. We don't have millions of dollars for purchases. >> So, pause. >> I hear you Nicole. I think but I would like to we we'll get through this list
and then once we see the things that we have not achieved yet >> then we can debate what we're going to prioritize. >> I agree. >> So the next one on the list was landlord risk reduction discussion. That was a topic we did cover. Um you all spent time on that and we do have a a
potential program that could be proposed to move forward. Um that is something that is still on the table. just as we've all known for the last few months, it's not been a time for starting new initiatives. Um, but hopefully we'll be in a much better position to do that
next year. Um, tax abatement for performance discussion that was really similar. It's a lot of work has been spent on that. Um, I think it was well worth the time. It was a great suggestion and hopefully we'll we'll see I guess where where that goes because
that um some of those presentations and the the final recommendations are being wrapped up on that. >> So that just to be clear so unlike landlord risk reduction where that still largely resides with us. It hasn't been put correct me if I'm
wrong. it. Well, no, please. I mean, had it been put forth to staff for the purpose of bringing to council at this point? Did we finalize our recommendations? I thought that's what >> we're waiting for a study to come back or something. >> Yeah, I mean, you guys did have a I think that we were in a pretty good
spot. It was more of a decision of it. Is that what we want to do with our limited resources? Is that the new thing we want to take on? Um because just any any new program >> got >> takes takes resources to start. So I think like to me I have my list of of
all these things that are on the what can we do when we have staff again which is the land bank the landlord risk reduction fund the tax abatement um those three especially and thinking about too like what could get us the best return on our investment of
time and money. So it's accurate to say that really the work in the hack has largely been done as a question of staff capacity to be able to move them forward if we want to prioritize those. >> Yeah. Yeah. I think that those ones especially for the tax non landlord risk reduction. >> Okay.
>> Has certainly done their part. Um I think that after those is kind of where we fell off the um the plan. So geographic placebased incentives I don't believe we ever had a meeting where that was the topic of discussion. Um now part
of this is I will say the staff is still aware of this and this is kind of um yeah something that is on our radar as well. not as much of a tiff program, but more a city city- funded project based vouchures that could help particular
neighborhoods or particular projects is something that has been discussed but again it's not obviously we haven't started that. Um, >> so I'm sorry. So the idea that rather than a tiff, it's a spec the it's
essentially a tiff where the where the expenditure of the funding goes into lo hyper local project based vouchers or is it >> I think that the tiff is that's something I don't know that we've really explored. I think that, you know, that might be something worth continuing to
explore because I would say the project based vouchers that the city has more on their radar is not it's a different way of geographic placebased help. >> Not funded by the in by the increased tax increment of development in a neighborhood that's been zone. >> Yeah.
>> Tax increment financing. So if um if for example a development happens, it increases the tax base over what was there, some percentage of it stays either with that developer or what we were proposing was that some percentage of that increment stays with the that
local community so they can make decisions about >> how they want to direct that funding. >> You have some kind of a community- based development entity, right? >> Okay. >> You have money going into >> potentially waiver programs.
I don't know if we've talked about this. this did not get a meeting for discussion. >> I mean this is this essentially I mean I think I've been pushing that for quite a while which essentially just to get fe wavers cart blanch for affordable housing projects just to
relieve one additional pressure point on the cost side. Um, also I can say from the staffing side there are huge improvements we can make to that process too because right now there is a possibility to get reduced fees for tap tap fee reduction. Um, but I am just
starting to explore that process for the first time and it is uh not a quick or easy load for anyone involved. So yeah, I think there is potential there. Um, >> from a business perspective, it's a great program. you like it. So,
>> the Yeah. No, I don't think getting rid of it. I think but but like to Sunshine's point, if there's anything that could be done to make it a less cumbersome process, um easier. Okay, you meet these qualifications, then you can do this. And I don't know, guess you
probably if it was just a fee waiver, that's also different than right now having a promisory note. And creating promisory notes is part of the larger process that takes time and expertise. >> Um, and that is connecting the water to
the city water, right? >> And it's quite a this what is it 15,000 or something >> but they discount it down to 1500 or something like that. It's a huge it's it's one of the best things the city does. >> Yep. >> That's great. But even uh more than just
tap fees, it's also like right, you know, when you're doing a large project now, the building permit fees are a couple hundred thousand, you know, 200 two to 300,000, which >> or like it's basically taking money from the city that we kept on an allocation and putting it back in the city, which
is just silly. >> Well, I know you noted too that you gotten feedback from Virginia Housing that the fees coming out of this area, >> it's not just fees. Um it's develop Right. >> Development costs. Okay. >> Yeah. There was a
>> uh we have quarterly meetings of the rental advisory um council for Virginia housing and Charlottesville was called out as uh arguably the most expensive jurisdiction in the Commonwealth to develop
>> from a developer. Interesting. Yes. from what they see on the LITC side >> and they were calling it out as a a problem. >> Simple. >> And that really I think kind of wraps it up because the rest of the items on here
were reviewing what we did or didn't do. Um, >> so what I would suggest as a as a step, and this is like a straw poll type step before we get into any sort of meaningful debate, just to kind of see where we the lay of the land is. I'm
going to propose the idea that we can really only tackle three of these things next year. that may be may be able to do more. But let's just like on a conservative on a conservative side and you look back at the work we did last year, it was three or four things I think that we really sunk our teeth
into. So I would propose that let's just say three for the moment. If you had to pick your top three, what would they be? And this is not this is not a vote. Is it just like a broad assessment, straw pole assessment of
where um where you currently think we should and then we can discuss and see what emerges? >> Well, what Dan said ordinance language. >> Well, can I make a suggestion? Each of you write down like your thought and then we'll just share around the table
and just see what emerges. >> Do you disagree? >> No. >> All right. Let's just give it a couple of minutes and just pick your free and they don't have to be in order. This is just a This is the interesting.
Next. All right. Um, so let's just what maybe the way to do this is just like top of the thing who voted for what as we go down the list and and you'll just track. >> Sure. >> Okay. >> Um, so the one the first one that's on
the list here is land ordinance. >> Yeah. Just order if you vote if you if land ordinance is on your list, put your hand up. >> Can we change it to just community oriented development? >> Say more. I I don't I don't care if it's a land bank or not.
>> It's a land land bank or some other similar funding mechanism for acquiring land. >> Land acquisition >> land acquisition holding. So >> Okay. >> Yeah. Without having to be like a little broader then. So land acquisition and holding. >> Sure. >> So if so raise your hand.
>> Someone just tell me the number please. >> One two three four five six >> seven. was waving this. >> I feel you know >> I don't know if my vote is
there not 7.3 >> to that point but I think um you know the unofficial stand for John should also be voting. >> Yeah. >> Oh okay. You you you're welcome to. >> All right.
>> Um development, deploy, orientation, recruitment strategy. >> So So if she's included, are you with >> or you and No. >> Um >> you how about this? You look at the list and then we'll come back to you afterwards and you can add it. you
haven't >> and the zoning the zoning the >> zoning. >> So before we get there uh the >> orientation >> orientation improvement strategy for uh people of live experience.
How many put that as a priority? One. Okay. One. Uh this is no judgment. This is just a just to straw poll here. pilot discussion to formulate H the pilot discussion who rose that up
zero ADUzoning ordinance. Well, I can I that's me but um I think recruitment is important too. I I think it's such it's
a comprehensive issue for the whole city and I think that's the way to necessarily be a >> take care of that >> take down another one >> priority because it's a bigger issue. >> Yeah, that's why I have a feeling that's why no one put this at the top of their
list either because it's like what is our sphere of influence here. >> Okay. So, but sorry hands up again for the zoning ADU. >> So, can I suggest that it be ordinance not ADU? I think the ordinance zone zoning ordinance. We'll just put that up there then. >> Oh, I like that.
>> But I would say zoning ordinance and other and other related policies without looking at standards and design without looking at fire >> etc. >> Comprehensive review. >> One, two, sorry, one, two, three, four,
five, six, seven, eight, nine. >> Nine. >> Yeah. And if you don't mind putting on there like standards and design and other and other related policies and then the ADU >> oh that >> it's already on its way. Is that fair to
say actually >> I mean I think that should check mark beside that. I thought we were >> because it's it's it's already moving in some way. Um and certainly when like part of the scope of work for the consultants who will be working on the fees will involve hack is included in in their engagement strategy.
>> Great. Uh landlord risk reduction >> one tax abatements >> and again if I can just comment I think we're going to get the study on that once we get the study. We're going to get the study really soon and so >> for taxment >> yeah for tax abatement. So I don't see
the issue then I think we comment on the study and either support it or not support it. Can I add one to the list >> at the end but and that's why I don't see I see it being a >> I don't see it to be a priority. I see
going to get the study soon and we'll say >> well on our way it's not feasible. It's not physical. I mean, >> no. And I think it's fair to say that without the hacks work on that in the last year that that wouldn't necessarily be on the radar and you couldn't be
saying check. Yeah, we've made good progress on that. So, >> okay. Geographic and placebased incentives. >> Five, six, seven. >> Oh, I almost run seven.
I saw Mike Blake fee waver programs. >> You raised your hand more than three times. >> That's why >> Sure. I I was gonna add uh like budget advocacy like if you listen to the
budget work session that council had very simply it's like all about how we have no money we can't do anything and like very constrained um and I think that's trickling into like why staff feels
constrained about you know what they can do and and so um I'm not necessar I don't necessarily agree with a lot of the assumptions that the budget office was making and I think like saying to them, you know, affordable
housing needs to be a priority and this needs to be >> keep paying it forward. >> I mean, the budget is where policy gets implemented. So, focusing on >> budget advocacy, I think,
>> you raise your hand three times. No, >> that's what I did because I think it should be budget advocacy. >> Budget advocacy. >> So, I don't have another hand to raise to that. So, so I was really >> great >> by what Maline said a couple of times in
this conversation is that we we we just don't know what to prioritize given the limited resources. I think this is part c partial that conversation. One of the things that I think we have to bring back whether it's our priority or not is we proposed what like seven years ago now a singular tool the intervention
analysis tool that helps make these decisions and helps this prioritization not happen in a vacuum. And that's setting it that's based on the city's own stated need from 2016 that we need 4,000 units by 2040. Now we're 10 years
in and we don't have a comprehensive strategy to do this. So every funding decision, whether it's 125 to buy down the cost of a LITC unit or investing money for affordable housing or putting money into a landlord risk reduction fund, there's no framework for making
this decision because we don't know what that investment does relative to our overall goal, which is to close supply and demand. And so I don't know whether that's woven in can be woven into this idea of budget advocacy, but we don't know where we're headed and we don't
have that framework and I would like to bring that back up again whether >> I do think the I was encouraged by 3TV ventures um their >> yeah their model seem to be able to be used beyond tax payment like you can
input certain subsidies and certain interventions and get outputs from that um and so I don't know I'm sure that it that presentation and the scope of that model can be brought in to include all
of what you mean but that that I'm not sure what you're even referring to. >> Okay. >> Yeah. So all the oldtimes in the room >> give a little history. In 2016 the city commissioned a study to figure out what was the scope of the affordable housing shortage.
>> Yes. That part I I've got that I've seen that. And the the primary conclusion was by 2040 we need to have I think that the original language was was build 4,000 additional affordable housing units which is a big ask in a city that only
has 19,000 total residential units to start with. Um but we as a hack said look it's not if if if you help somebody get into an existing house it's not building a house but that's an intervention that takes care of the biggest problem which is
poverty alleviation and lack of housing >> and so we said let's look at all the interventions that are possible from building homes but let's separate that qualitatively as well so there's building and replacing CRA units there's new litech units there's affordable home
ownership. There's there's building new units is not one category, >> right? That's se separated into multiple categories. And then those of us who are practitioners said, well, what's the subsidy needed per unit or per intervention from the city to make one
of these interventions possible? And the the the the number that we wanted to hold to was that 4,000 at the end. It doesn't matter whether the intervention is X or Y. It's getting us closer to that goal. And that provides a framework
so that we can make a decision about well maybe it's not quantity but maybe what we want to do is go deeper recognizing that that that amount of and we put a dollar figure. That's how we came up with that $10 million a year >> contribution because we said it's going to >> take at least that.
>> It's going to take that. Um but we haven't we we that IT never moved forward. We had like four city managers during the course of conversation about >> and a couple of housing program managers as well >> and some were receptive to it and some weren't. But >> we don't know if that was the perfect
tool, but we but like I would never build a development without a performer, >> right? >> Because you don't know where you're going. You don't know how to track your success. You don't know how to pivot in the middle if if the conditions on the ground change, which they always do. And so we said, let's let's let's create
that model. And so when city council is making a decision about how they're going to spend money, they can look and say, well, we can invest 10 million and we can invest 10 million this year or or it takes some of the pressure off CRA and and Kindlewood because there are
certain years where they need a big chunk of money to come in to keep that project moving. So it means that that year that some other things are not going to be as funded, >> but we all know that's that's that's in service of this bigger goal. >> And so until we have that kind of framework, and I think the tool that the
to our W tool is probably something that would be useful to help them build this out, but but that that fundamental framework helps guide decision-m >> and it was at the time when the consultants were hired to do the affordable housing plan that we presented that tool to them. So they
were cognizant of it but essentially and they said at the time I can't remember precisely but they said we'll provide something along those lines something along those you know was it wasn't just a PDF document of a plan it was supposed to be more my interpretation it was supposed to be more than that it was
supposed to be a tool additionally but I don't think we really got that in the end no >> and it sort of then we then but once we had a sort of commitment for 10 million a year >> that was reinforced by that affordable housing plan and their own analysis that was separate from ours, but we landed at
the same figure generally speaking. Uh they the city council has kind of moved forward with that, which understandably, but back to Dan's point, the it sets the affordable housing plan sets broad goals. It doesn't provide uh a way of tracking that over time and
estimate and I mean costs have also escalated significantly since we first developed that. Um anyway, >> but I think bottom line is I think we've set you staff council uh and senior leadership up for failures because we
haven't given you guys don't have that that framework for decision- making. So every decision is happening in a vacuum and building housing happens over a long period of time. And so I I don't know how that fits into our work plan, but I
think we have to reintroduce something like that or we're always going to be in the same spot where we're kind of spinning our wheels and we don't know how to make a decision. So for example, if the decision communitywide is that look, we're not going to meet our number of unit goals, but we want to meet depth
of affordability, we'll know. And if it's $120,000 to make all of the units that are coming online go from 60 to 20 on 60 to 30 and that's what we decide as as a as a community. Well, then let's do it and understand what the trade models are.
>> Um, so this a this a staff person or is this a I'm trying to conceptualize who who does this. Well, we did it we did it initially with Rory Rory Solzenberg, Phil like it was a bunch of us pulling together initially.
>> Then we brought in at the time it was Mike I think like as a city manager at that or maybe he was the assistant still assistant city manager at that point. Anyway, >> um regardless, >> yeah, >> it I think it is a back and forth but it
will absolutely require city staff participation. >> I think who does it? Sorry, my question should be who does it every year or every >> well so it it depends on what's ongoing one of the problem and again this is kind of bringing back old history but I think that there's a much better relationship between staff senior
leadership council and the hack than there was before there was a power struggle before and so I think this thing which was presented this is my perfectly biased opinion uh was presented by hack as a as a as a tool that would be useful for the city was
seen as a um something that was um that should have been the purview of of staff and not an appointed board and it it ended up being a kind of a power struggle and it also had to do with the makeup of council at the time. there was a particular council member who didn't
trust anybody on hack really and so any product from hack was kind of dismissed but but I think we're in a much different environment now I would think that there'd be more receptivity to hack and we don't mind doing this this is this is my life's work you know I don't
mind I I don't mind doing this I don't mind doing the the bulk of the work on this to present something but I just I'm sorry that's a long answer to a short question >> if I hear what you're then something like that is needed, right?
Because it wasn't until OJ and I sat down with Sunshine and then sat down with Jeff Meyers >> and then sat down um Sunshine. Jeff
Meyers is someone who is doing do the the what he what he does? >> He's with BCDC. >> He's been but he helps >> the syndicator investor side, >> right? I wasn't on the good breaking down,
>> but if it wasn't for him breaking it down just to basically showing how much it cost to do a unit >> and all, I don't think we quite would be where we are about um
um deeply affordable housing and affordable housing. He's like, "Son broke it down and showed it to us like you know if you don't have if if you just go for that tax credit." I don't know what he I don't know if he realized what he did that day at the far office
by putting it on the chart and and showing it to us. It was getting us to understand it so that we could convey it to our other residents. >> Simplify it. >> Right. Right. Simplify it so we can say, "Hey, you know, this is it's not going to work with just this. we have to do
something else. Um so what it costs to do from zero to um um um to 30 or from 30 to to 40 will I think will make some of our residents or even the community
understand it better, right? Um so something like that is actually needed um for the general public. But I know from Sunshine and you know even John Sea John is really good at you know this
stuff to making you see and why you need a project bid voucher and why you need to have phil and why you need to um you know bank and and and why you can't just you know like public housing is a sore
spot for Audrey and I because um we're not bringing back a lot of our public housing because the subsidy is so low it doesn't make the performer it doesn't work with the performer and so that's the best way for us to we don't like it
because we know it's putting a pressure on on our residents when they come back but I think something like if if that's what I'm hearing I do think it's needed >> so because then I think staff and city
council and all will see here's where the need is right. >> Yeah. I'd like to make a little So you threw out three as a straw man for the number of things we can work on, but I'm hearing some momentum around for something around what what Nicole
proposed and I added on to enjoy talking about that creating a a budget framework for solving the problem. We did four even if we can't do four in a year, we could we can expand with with we can expand the time horizon. We can say this is a 16 month 18month plan or something
like that and take on four but I would propose that we take on four rather than >> but is it hard to aggregate on an annual basis to say this year we increased affordable housing deeply affordable housing units by this number for this
amount of money. Yeah, we But that's not helping you understand what you >> No, no, but I'm just saying in terms of bigger picture moving forward, this group appreciating what we might have accomplished or supported.
>> Does that exist? Is that is it >> I I I I hear from some cynical people, oh, Charlottville is better than a lot of affordable housing. And so there's always this debate between them. is like affordable for whom?
>> Yeah. >> And so I think that's the advocacy way of seeing those numbers to be able to say, "Oh, okay. We we're not building these and this is what we should be building.
>> How can we partner to build?" That's one of the nice thing about having a live tool like that is that when you build something for somebody at 30% or you create an intervention for someone at 30% you fill it in and that performer your actual start to tell you it starts to be a live report card of how you've
done and um >> I think sorry >> I just think it's essential because um things change every year and what pencled when you put something together five years ago is no longer reality and when you're coming to the table trying
to explain the gaps. And you're also talking to people about how fair market rent hasn't adjusted to what their income is right now. And um 30%'s not always going to get there anymore. And I think having a tool like that can, you
know, um really help break down also why these gaps are here and what we're trying to focus in on. >> I want to say something, but Michael, you >> go ahead. >> Okay. Um, and I think it's a really important point, Kathleen, because
um, I some of you have heard me say this before, but the analysis I did of the change in the area income y >> from 2017 to 2023, we saw a 60 plus percentage increase in how HUD calculated AMI. So that means that the
rent for a 30% AMI household um the rent for a 32 household is now 63% more than it was back in 2017 and the cost of uh that's if you don't have a voucher you know that's just like you're
just paying a 30% AMI unit rent um and the costion has gone like all these things have varied and we have like uh very strong political winds where resources that have been there historically to support people are less
reliable and in the next couple of years with Medicaid and everything else will evaporate even further. All that to say that I think it's important for us to track what we have achieved and we also have to acknowledge what has changed in that time frame and recalibrate
accordingly. Yeah, I was and I know we have three other big topics to get into. Um, >> but I was just so one kind of outcome like the goal was the number of units of different AMI levels at that point. That
was the estimate for the number to accomplish that. But there's just a tool that could kind of prove to council that $10 million a year is irrelevant now to meet that goal. It's actually now 15 or 20. Is that kind of the the goal? And
maybe along with that getting in writing because this makes me nervous on budget advocacy that there's nowhere in writing that the inloo fees are not on top of that annual commitment. And I I do worry that at some point it'll become convenient to say, "Well, we got 10 million from these two projects, so
let's just the budget's tight, so let's just have that do the 10 million commitment." This >> I would posit this, Michael, that it's less of a goal than it is a byproduct. >> In other words, I mean, if we set out, I mean, all of us, I think all of us would, it's easy enough for us to say more money for affordable housing,
right? But but I think what this is is it's it shows what the constraints are and what the impacts of some of the decisions are for council. So that if 10 million only gets you, you know, in when we first started putting this tool together, it might have gotten you a 100
units, if it only gets you 50, now that 10 million is you either have to adjust that 10 million or you have to adjust your your goals. and and that puts it that just makes it really clear and it makes pol I think it makes policy decision making more transparent for
council. And so if someone wants to say well we're spending 10 million already um then you've got the data that says it's fine 10 million but 10 million let's 10 million is going to get you this >> right >> versus the gap that we know is the gap.
So the city automatic it automatically puts 10 million into the mile >> automatically. It's not automatic notes >> or it's it I don't mean automatic it's it's agreed upon the 10 million but the in
lie of money does not go to that pot too in addition to the 10 million >> it's kind of TBD >> I mean it would all go to the same pot I think it's Michael's point is more it should >> that should be an additional amount not part of that $10,000 >> that's the whole idea of the zoning is
to create affordability and I would be disappointed to hear otherwise. >> That's I think that sentiment is resonant around the table. >> Yeah. Because I think from the staffing perspective, it's like, okay, we have all of these different programs we're contemplating starting, that money could
go towards starting a new project and not having to reduce these other things that we're already doing. But if you're saying it's 10 million only, then yeah, you're really having to make a lot harder. >> At this point, the amount of money that's put out through the no for calf is dimminimous. It's like what? 700,000
>> 823,000 >> 800,00 of the 10 million there's only 800,000 looking for new projects right now >> and that's because it it's funding important stuff it's funding CRA project and I'm so I'm not advocating for the invert for something different it's
funding kindlewood it's funding CRA it's funding vouchers it's funding a number of things but when someone has a project that comes up. We're all of us are competing for a very small percentage of that. So in a new project, >> there's just not a lot of money to fund
anything new. >> Yeah. And even like there's $10 million for next year, but >> half of more than half of that has already been allotted to projects that are multi-year projects. So it's not like, okay, what are we going to do with this 10 million? It's okay, well $2 million left that hasn't already been
committed to projects. What are we going to do with that? And we've got a request in for supporting, you know, like $15 million more projects. But you don't Yeah, because we get um also submissions through the RFI process where people do
put in less formal requests, but it's more just providing information about larger projects and what would a commitment from the city look like? Here's what we would need to be able to build this many affordable units. That's like a less defined process. Um,
>> so and one thing that I was what I brought up the the um the HIA hit whatever >> IAT >> IAT the housing inter intervention analysis tool. So we took off the housing IT um and what I'm looking at is the list of just going back to what Dan
started with around the 4,000 unit of gap. It was it was um it was easy to interpret that as needing 4,000 new units when really what you know Dan was trying to make this point that it was an affordability gap some of which was
absolutely need for new units maybe even a majority but but other in other cases it was you know property property tax abatement so that folks could afford to stay where they were as an example. So if it's all right, I'm just going to quickly read through the list of things that we contemplated in the IAT just so
we have a sense of the comprehensive notes of it and there may be things we want to add in the future or whatever, but so CRA replacement rental units, that's the public housing redevelopment, French court replacement units, additional CRA units, additional units of friendship court, ces SRO and PSH
units, which is like the the Vista 29 that's going up, accessory dwelling units, additional litech rentals by whoever develops them, density bonus, profers, Plan unit development, special use permit, affordable home ownership, land trust vouchers, additional tax
relief, income boosting grants, down payment assistance, miscellaneous shared equity home ownership, emergency repairs, rehabs, rental housing counseling, home ownership counseling, and one-stop housing hub interventions. So, we did identify a whole host of interventions to address the
affordability challenges depending on where people are on the spectrum of need. So it's 1:37. >> Yeah, there is a meeting in here at 2, so we'll have to >> Okay. So the um >> Yeah. 4. So the the budget so the do we
want to >> I don't know what you want to call in >> what I would recommend >> well I so we have without the IAT being included at the moment we have three clear priorities >> at least in this straw poll
>> ordinance review land acquisition and holding uh placebased incentives and then budget advocacy which evolved into the IAT and that discussion was a you know sort of a close fourth which I think you're kind of suggesting the idea
that we contemplate four as our sort of work plan or work goal for the next year or so year plus depending on what it takes and how what kind of staff capacity there is for engaging on it because all of these things require staff capacity and engagement and
partnership in some way. Is that is that the outcome we were looking for is those four? We want to rank those four a little bit in terms of priority between them. >> Looks like it would be one for me. >> Well, some people had votes like we had
a discussion. I kind of wonder if like if we if we revoted right now, if you picked your top two out of those four, what would rise to the top after our discussion right now? Um >> because I do think we have to put some order to them in order for us to be able to to tackle them and
>> say where do you want to start? Yeah. >> Yeah. >> All right. So, I'm going to suggest another straw pull exercise. You get two of those four two votes. This is not saying you're going to only do those two. It's just like what do you want to prioritize first? >> Out of those four.
>> Out of those four. >> Okay. So, >> and if you could put IAT by budget accuracy. >> Okay. So, ordinance review. >> Ordinance review >> and other related policies and processes. >> Is that one of our two is what you're asking. >> This is Yeah. Is this one of your two?
>> One, two, three, four, five, six, seven. >> Could you call over the four again? >> I'm not sure if I go to all four. Yeah. Or I'm sorry, >> review. Yeah. >> Yeah. Or review, land acquisition and holding, placebased incentives, and then
budget advocacy and IAT. >> So, seven for ordinance review, >> eight, >> eight, >> land acquisition and holding. >> Oh, wow. >> Interesting.
>> Uh, placebased incentives. I know but like it's just about where we prioritize our energy initially. >> Sorry. >> Uh I know I hate my own voting structure. Uh and then budget advocacy and IAT
>> which is clearly the Yeah. >> So those are clearly the two priorities as far as how we move forward. >> The two top priorities. >> The two top priorities. Thank you. Sorry. >> So then can we go back to the next >> and so the other two are placebased incentives and land acquisition and
holding. >> So pick one of the two. >> No, I think it's okay. I think I mean in some ways my suggestion is that we focus on those two. We know the other two are going to come a little bit down the road. Or it could be like with the ordinance review
Matt come back comes back and says we're not going to be ready to engage for three months. So let's so our body then could then focus on the other priorities. So we may have to be a little flexible >> or he may not want us involved, right? >> Well, that
that's not an option. >> Okay. Okay. Okay. >> We'll find a way for Hack to be involved. >> Yes, >> I like it. And I think yeah, that's part of the nice part. I appreciate now being a part of NDS because I think some of
that is a little easier now that I'm also involved in those discussions which wasn't necessarily happening before. >> Okay. Um >> so so so um one and two and then three and four
would be land acquisition and >> yeah I think we should just put it on our work plan. >> Yeah >> like that. >> Yep. >> What is it? What's the first step for budget? I mean, I think if you're looking at this tool that was previously created,
it would be wanting maybe to revisit that and seeing what needs to be changed or updated. But that's also for you all to decide. >> Yeah. >> I mean, I do wonder a little bit on that front like >> we are putting that forth as something
we want to focus on. I think I do think beyond Meline, we would need buyin from city manager's office in one way or another. somewhere in that chain for them to be willing to engage in that with us like I don't think we can do it and then it
>> so first step is to talk to >> I think there's there's an element of of advocacy for that being something that we want to resurface >> and I know who could advocate for it >> I mean you know so so I I appreciate that ultimately it needs to be the city
manager needs to be front and center here >> three votes on >> but if it but but at some point council is the city manager's boss and so if this is important to council it's much better that this comes from council than it comes from hack um
>> yeah I mean ultimately creating that's our >> conflicts where conflicts don't exist maybe that'd be an easy conversation um but I don't know >> let's see Sam says
>> or you want to respond. >> Is there anything wrong with inviting Sam to this meeting than just saying here are the things that we want to work on and here's why. >> Yeah. I mean I would say >> I mean I don't see anything wrong with
it. I want to see his reaction in person. >> Yeah. I want to hear what he have to say. >> And I don't I don't think there's anything wrong with that. I mean, and it's kind of, you said it's a byproduct of this process, but you know, we have had conversations around that $10 million
figure not being reflecting reality anymore. Um, I mean, I would agree that >> mean something different. >> Yeah, it means something different than when we adopted it, the outcome of that 10 million. Um, >> I mean, if it comes from council, I
think it's that's always the best route. Um, I just think, you know, you've got to convince >> two other people >> and, um, I think you have, um,
a very strong belief in a narrative of non-subsidized market rate units collapsing rent to the point where um, you know, I don't know, >> waiting into
something absent conversations before to convince people, you know, look at the data, look at >> I don't know if that answer that question. >> Well, I guess I'll just put it to you more bluntly. How do you see advancing the conversation? Is it better if you're part of the group that talks to Sam? Do
you want to invite Sam to be part of this? Do you want this to go I >> I just I just wanted to get done. I don't want to step on anyone's toes or and I'm I guess I'm kind of trying to put myself in in council's when I talk about the AI IAT it's trying to give
council the tools so they can make decisions. >> Yeah. And I I honestly feel like we have we have hamstrung y'all's ability to make decisions >> and in that case with the rent the tool can communicate what is happening to rent. >> So so Michael what's your
>> in a geographic place >> what's your sense of politically and keeping feelings in mind and political reality what's the best way to kind of at least bring this up to uh bring this up as and hopefully move it forward.
I mean, I I'm not 100% sure, but I mean, I mean, I I think if the hack has the ability to update the the IT tool that existed, and that is something that can come from the hack directly to city council, I think that's fine. And I think that's the most likely avenue to
start council saying, hey, this would be cool to formally incorporate into how we make a decision about a bud budget allocation if I'm understanding what you want the outcome to look like. Um, but I I mean I wouldn't see an issue
with if the hack is able to update that tool and present it to council. >> Well, I think part of my concern is that uh to be perfectly candid, hours and hours and hours went into this. And I think frankly think it would probably require hours and hours and hours to update it. So I would be hesitant to put
in that time if it was going to either fall flat or or not be supported at the staff level. There may be another route is, you know, there's that upcoming work session um about affordable housing um
communicating to council. We're interested in just getting direction from council. Do you want us to explore this and seeing if at that work session a majority says yes or no? Um that may be a route to know. >> It's funny because I don't really I mean council isn't easy. So, I'm I want to
talk to Dan and see what he has, >> see his reactions. >> I think where we need to start. >> I do agree with Joy. >> Yeah, I'm agnostic about the way forward. I was just positing this as an alternative, but like go with whatever you guys think is the best strategy. I just wanted to I think
>> and like the budget office. >> Yeah. I think like like we're I just it's just killing me. I've been working on affordable housing in Charlesville for 25 years and and I would never ever do any project ever without a budgetary framework for solving a problem or
getting a development done and I just feel like we've been flying blind for a long time. I just want this to move forward in some form. >> Yeah. >> Um >> you would know. >> Is there an agenda set or a structure
set for that upcoming work session? It's up to Sam. >> Yeah, I mean Sam had thrown out a few topics, but I don't think there's certainly nothing published. I think it's still not like set in stone. >> Gotcha. >> Yeah. And the three topics were
>> basically bringing down AMI for LITC projects. Um, land acquisition and I can't >> Yeah, I can't either. I ended up having to oh land bank cystrap and um kindlewood affordability
>> I think also relating to the what you about subsidization and yeah >> when is this scheduled to occur? >> I think it's December 1st. I >> I'll tell you as soon as I know for sure. >> Sorry I came in late. I apologize for that. Was that is that a joint hack
council or is that a discussion? >> It's a work session that Sam is taking the lead on the work session with city council >> about Fort Wild. >> Yes. >> It's kind of city council budget session >> going into budget session. Here's things
to keep in mind regarding affordable housing and the many different ways we could choose to spend that money. Well, I mean, Mike, could you bring forward that work session report from hack that these are the priorities that hack has come up with?
>> Yeah, I mean, I think I would say review and and reification of the of the IAT and maybe out in a public environment, >> what the um I mean, nobody on council
knows what the IAT is other than you and potentially um uh Lloyd. Um that'd be an opportunity maybe Brian but um >> email >> and
Phil doesn't know that. >> Well, he's not council. >> Yeah, he was a part of >> right but he was saying who's on council though on council >> just a chance to for us to say like boldly this is our work plan. Are there any is there any feedback?
>> No, I mean I think that's definitely one that makes sense. >> Yeah. And I think one of your like two of the top priorities that you all identified kind of line up with two of the topics that are already being planned to discuss that night about >> not exactly the tiff part of the
placebased incentives but more location based um vouchers or subsidies and then the land bank and how we might move forward with the land acquisition and holding strategy. So and the ordinance review is obviously something we've all agreed is going to happen.
Well, and I think just just for the other thing with the ordinance review, not the part you were talking about, but the part you were talking about, Joy, about the zoning districts and specifically student housing around 10th page, Fightville, Rose Hill. At this point, that's planned to be discussed at
a work session of city council in January. So, that would be kind of the relevant timeline for everyone to think about that portion of not you were talking about though. >> Yeah. So they're getting to that's good to hear. So they're getting tier three in January basically. >> That specific topic
>> they're going to one piece of tier three like a hot button issue right and that's because we've been showing up. >> I got it. Yeah. >> I mean it was one byproduct of council indicating we were interested in not having tier three items take a year
before we're getting just a study before we move into even implementing the study. Um, so we just flagged that and then we don't need to have a discussion about tonight and or not tonight but right now. Um, >> it's always funny.
>> Um, I know there's no windows here. Um but I the hack may not need to weigh in on this but just for everyone's awareness leading up to that January conversation um you know we did get um um communication of I guess policy
preference from livable Seville about both for student housing eliminating the 0.5 mile radius and then also completely eliminating all um inclusionary zoning either payment in L or on-site affordability requirements for student housing.
>> That is not been fully flushed out yet. And there was a lot of discussion about whether that >> Yeah, I just know we got an email. >> No, you did >> from from Livable Seville as a formal statement saying that that's what they wanted city council to do. >> Um,
you live in Cville. >> Well, there's no definition of who is and who isn't. >> Big astro. >> Sure. But that that request of eliminating inclusionary zoning affordability payments is obviously an extremely important topic that maybe um
people should just be aware maybe that's something that will come out in January. >> Okay. Well, I think we are going to have to get this one wrapped up. I want to tell you that the agenda says our next meeting is scheduled for August 20th, 2025, which is incorrect. It is
scheduled for December 17th. And does everyone have any conflicts or are we good for that schedule? I'm still these two months are challenging, but >> I think I won't have any conflict at this point. >> Too bad. >> Yeah, we're not going to be a different schedule, but uh >> fair.
>> We'll see you in January. >> All right, fair enough. >> I'll be prepping my rain. >> Yeah. Yeah, we have. I decided we won't be able to give somebody if today some all of a sudden we wanted to reschedule it. That would be very challenging. >> Yeah.
>> Um public comment. Yep. Comment. >> Yes. >> Hi. Um, so I'm glad you've been talking about budget because I'm talking about something that is directly relevant to your budget and that is the half mile radius. >> The uh city planning team
introduction. >> Sorry. Yeah. My name is Paul Reer. Um, despite my accent and uh some of you here know I've lived in Charlottesville since 1994. I currently live at 211 Fth Street Southwest.
uh in Charlottesville and I back up onto the proposed student housing development that would be uh going up 15 ft off my back wall to a height of seven stories. Uh one of the issues that has come up in connection with that um uh development
is that the city specifically Jim F specifically gave guidance to the developer that they were within half mile radius of the edge of UVA grounds. um as uh if any of you are here have been here a long time, you'll know that
that's patently untrue. Um however, they um the city seek to justify that by a very expansive definition of what the half mile, the edge of the half mile is. Uh it includes both the
historic hospital and uh uh the uh pocket park the where the uh general used to stand um confronting the Indians or the Indians used to stand confronting the general on horseback opposite the graduate hotel which is uh as you all
know I hope uh which is uh this side of the uh uh railroad tracks which which means that it violates is several um uh items of the definition of uh central
grounds at the border of university area that are in your affordable uh housing unit guidelines specifically. Obviously, it's not contiguous because it's a railroad track. And secondly, the uh uh uh the uh ordinance or law guidelines
specifically exclude outlying university owned parcels that are not considered part of the campus for the purposes of this ordinance. So um there is an immediate effect um on the proposed seven and a half street student housing
development to reduce the payments that they would have to make in lie by um I think over half. It's difficult to calculate as you know that calculation is a tricky calculation to make but um the rates on table A as opposed to table
B are less than half. So um uh it's reasonable expectation that it would reduce the contribution by by a half um or more. Uh and uh it would also set dangerous bad precedent for you as it
would include the um the old hospital buildings um as well as this little pocket park for any future development. So the the halfmile radius gets expanded beyond central grounds and north grounds that are referenced in your housing
ordinance. I believe it is against the spirit of the ordinance as it was written and it is against the letter of the ordinance as it is written. The uh zoning administrator whose man here called Reed Broadhead is in the process
of making a final determination. Uh when that final determination is made if it sticks with the current definition that city is using which will deprive this board from money. Um, if they stick
with that definition, I will be appealing that to the board of certain appeals and I believe given the uh inconsistencies in the city argument that that I will win. I would prefer not have to do that. So if anybody wants to
speak up or examine the paper that I've written, um I I would encourage you the administrator of this group, encourage you to distribute it. I need your email to send you >> a an electronic version that I could
send to you for distribution to the committee. But um this is uh something that you should all be concerned about. Um uh and as far as I'm concerned, if the bastards are going to put up this building, then they should surely want
to pay for it. >> Thank you. Thank you. That's all. Appreciate that. Yep. >> Can I ask a followup? >> Sure. >> Do you know the order of magnitude of Paul? Do you know the order of magnitude of the difference between the half
payment and the full payment? >> Uh I believe the the developers calculated on their initial plans that they would we have to pay the city about 2. It's about 2.6 but it's somewhere between two. Two and three million. Uh
uh so if it if that amount is doubled that's another two and a half3 million dollars. >> Um now I I you know I you know you may say oh great we get more money. Um but you know this is a bad development in
the wrong place in the first place. So, it shouldn't actually happen. But like I said, if it is going to happen, I'll feel better if they pay five or six million as they're supposed to as opposed to two
and a half million or so. Thanks. >> Yes. >> All right. Well, I'm going to call the meeting to close. It's two o'clock. I know I have to get to a different meeting. Um, thank >> you for coming. >> Good work. and click.