[0:00] Well, let's call this uh meeting of the
[0:04] Affordable Housing Commission to order.
[0:06] Can we get a roll call?
[0:10] » Megan Markle
[0:12] >> here.
[0:13] >> Samantha Culie
[0:16] >> here.
[0:17] >> Randy Rickert
[0:18] >> here.
[0:20] >> Casey Banks
[0:21] >> here.
[0:23] >> Judy Brown here.
[0:26] >> And that's that.
[0:30] Thank you. Do we have any registered
[0:32] public comments or anyone in the waiting
[0:35] room?
[0:36] >> We do not.
[0:39] >> Okay.
[0:40] >> Or both of them.
[0:43] >> Still waiting for the day.
[0:47] » Um, are we ready to approve minutes?
[0:55] Does anyone have any items that they saw
[0:58] that needed correction?
[1:11] » I don't think so.
[1:15] >> So, I move that we approve the minutes
[1:17] of the
[1:20] >> 28th
[1:22] >> 26 meeting. Is it 28th? Did I get it?
[1:25] I mean, as a judge here, I think it's
[1:28] >> second
[1:29] >> to be perfectly honest with what I saw.
[1:32] I don't want to get
[1:32] >> I'll second that.
[1:33] >> Thanks, Samantha.
[1:35] >> Uh, raise your hand if you're in favor
[1:37] of approving the meeting minutes.
[1:43] » I'm raising I'm raising my hand.
[1:46] >> Sorry, I'm still recovering from
[1:47] surgery. I am not willing to put myself
[1:49] on camera.
[1:50] >> That's fine. We'll just visual or audio
[1:54] will work for voting. Um okay. Well,
[1:57] that passes.
[1:59] So, we are ready to hear a presentation
[2:02] about the uh
[2:04] um housing trust resolution and uh NOA
[2:09] memorandum.
[2:10] >> Yeah.
[2:12] Um, so hopefully everyone had a minute
[2:16] to look at their packet materials and
[2:19] um, kind of digest
[2:22] what was in there. Um, so I put together
[2:25] the memorandum kind of just to go over
[2:29] uh, our previous thoughts and discussion
[2:32] around proposing a new NOA. and the
[2:36] group, myself included, wanted to make
[2:38] sure that we all had a good
[2:40] understanding of following all the rules
[2:43] and regs that had been established and
[2:46] making sure that we were um following
[2:49] procedure. Um, so I was able to find the
[2:53] archive of um, previous resolutions that
[2:56] took place over a series of years. Um,
[3:00] pretty much I think it was 2012 to 2019
[3:04] if I remember correctly.
[3:07] Um, or 2021.
[3:10] I think that was the latest one. And
[3:13] they they basically built off of one
[3:16] another. So that last one encompassed
[3:20] kind of everything and each new
[3:23] resolution uh replaced the previous. So
[3:29] the most recent one um has everything in
[3:32] there. And you'll notice that a lot of
[3:35] the language I think especially from
[3:37] section 8 in there um that looks like
[3:40] it's where that previous group and the
[3:44] previous staff worked to come up with
[3:47] the NOA scoring rubric criteria.
[3:51] So those two things seemed to work in
[3:54] concert with one another. So I I felt
[3:57] pretty good about that and that we have
[4:00] an understanding now of where that came
[4:03] from and you know what its intention
[4:05] was. So, um it seems like the only
[4:10] departure really was and there is some
[4:13] language in there that allows for um
[4:16] kind of the realities of any given year,
[4:19] but I think what was typical previously
[4:22] was that there was a yearly NOA.
[4:25] So um and then the difference also
[4:30] previously and this group has worked
[4:32] within the parameters of like the
[4:35] breakdown of each there's like half a
[4:37] dozen different types of allocations
[4:40] both grant and loan uh programs. So,
[4:47] uh, depending on how much was in the
[4:50] account and it was it looked like it
[4:52] there was math involved based on a
[4:55] percentage for each type of program.
[4:58] So, after finding that um, you know, the
[5:02] documentation, I was looking for is
[5:05] there language in there that would allow
[5:07] us to do um, a larger allocation perhaps
[5:11] all of it. And uh after looking at that
[5:14] with the director, I believe the answer
[5:16] is yes. So um that's what the uh
[5:21] memorandum was um aiming to convey. So
[5:25] to kind of recap, our finance director
[5:29] um gave us that total that's in the
[5:33] account currently, which is a little
[5:35] over $72,000.
[5:38] Uh what I found in the research um of
[5:41] those resolutions that we withhold a 5%
[5:44] administration fee from that um bringing
[5:49] a potential award to uh 68,568.15
[5:57] um I believe I believe there's some
[6:00] interest acrewing on that. So, it might
[6:02] be a tiny bit more, but um that's pretty
[6:07] current. And then
[6:11] what we could do, the language in the
[6:13] resolution supports a competitive award.
[6:16] So, that was what I was talking about.
[6:19] And I guess historically that could have
[6:21] been a grant award or a loan award. And
[6:26] I did find documentation in previous
[6:28] years that that was a loan award.
[6:32] Um
[6:34] but uh also per our previous discussions
[6:38] um just with the staffing that we have
[6:41] um currently it would be easier um to
[6:44] administrate a grant award but of course
[6:47] we can discuss that um per the desires
[6:50] of the commission.
[6:52] Um
[6:54] so yeah I think that's it in inside the
[6:57] memorandum I included some some key
[7:00] sections
[7:02] um that kind of outline that com the
[7:04] competitive grant award program section
[7:07] seven and then section 8. Um and again
[7:12] that section 8's uh really mirroring
[7:15] what's in our scoring rubric on our nos
[7:20] um that we post.
[7:23] So with that um you know we can open it
[7:28] up to discussion amongst the group uh
[7:31] questions discussion
[7:34] about that.
[7:36] Yeah, I'd like to talk about the
[7:39] resolutions themselves before we move on
[7:41] to the next round NOAS.
[7:45] Um,
[7:50] » I want to make sure I understand which
[7:51] one was the most recent resolution. I'm
[7:53] looking at
[7:55] the one that starts on page 11 of the
[7:58] packet.
[8:00] Uh, 2021 3730.
[8:04] Um, was that the most recent one or is
[8:07] there one further down?
[8:09] >> That's the most recent one.
[8:12] >> And so
[8:14] section 8 is where the scoring rubric
[8:17] essentially is spelled out in the
[8:19] resolution. Right.
[8:20] >> Correct.
[8:26] So, is it true then
[8:29] that these guidelines were like binding
[8:33] by resolution when the rubric was kind
[8:35] of set aside before because we didn't
[8:38] realize that they were in the
[8:40] resolution?
[8:45] » Um, what do you mean set aside?
[8:49] When we were talking about the Spark
[8:51] program's eligibility, we were looking
[8:52] at the scoring rubric and there was
[8:55] debate on whether or not the scoring
[8:57] rubric could be kind of set aside and not be binding. Um, but if if what
[9:06] was in the scoring rubric was
[9:07] essentially in the resolution, I'm just
[9:09] trying to understand was
[9:12] were those requirements actually binding
[9:14] because they were in the resolution
[9:16] itself?
[9:19] Yeah, I believe council still has the
[9:22] ability to make a departure from that if
[9:26] I understand the nature of the
[9:27] resolution and counselor uh the
[9:30] council's
[9:32] um
[9:36] » say one more time
[9:36] >> the latitude that they have
[9:39] >> um we can double check that for you. Um,
[9:43] >> are they able to make a departure
[9:47] by revising a rapid solution or the
[9:49] resolution just isn't binding from the
[9:51] beginning?
[9:53] >> Yeah, that's the question that I would
[9:55] uh need to ask about that. Um,
[10:00] I'm trying to remember if there's some
[10:02] language in there around that
[10:06] >> about their deliberations.
[10:08] If you get it, but if you don't get it,
[10:10] you're good at
[10:10] >> I don't want to undo what's been done. I
[10:12] just want to understand like if we do
[10:14] another NOA around
[10:17] >> what what are we really working with? Um
[10:21] what is subjective and what's binding?
[10:26] >> Absolutely.
[10:27] And I think that's a perfectly
[10:31] logical question um given
[10:35] kind of how things have gone in the
[10:37] recent past with the commission's
[10:39] recommendations and the departure um
[10:43] from that with the council decisions.
[10:48] Um,
[10:53] let me let me comb back through that and
[10:56] then I will add that as a discussion
[10:59] question for the director
[11:02] about how binding um the resolution is.
[11:12] » Have questions on the resolution itself?
[11:17] No, not really. I mean, my my
[11:19] understanding was that um they can
[11:23] override anything regardless whether
[11:26] there's a resolution or not. It's the
[11:28] guidelines that we have to operate
[11:30] within, but not necessarily the
[11:33] guidelines that they have to operate
[11:34] within. Now, I don't understand why. I'd
[11:37] love to understand why. Um, I'm a what
[11:40] and why kind of person, but um, yeah,
[11:43] just making sure that that we have a a
[11:46] better understanding of what we're
[11:47] working with.
[11:50] be hard and tight, but it's not on. So,
[11:53] it's not
[11:54] >> And I guess along those lines, I would
[11:57] reiterate that um
[12:01] >> the commission decided to move forward
[12:03] with a recommendation for
[12:06] the entirety of uh what could be
[12:09] allocated towards an award that's 68 and
[12:11] change. They would need to approve that
[12:15] request. Um, so you know, this would
[12:20] have that process. Um, just like the
[12:23] previous NOA, we would take it to
[12:25] council to approve that and then, um, if
[12:29] they voted to do that, then we would go
[12:33] through that NOA process and, um, we
[12:36] would bring it back to the commission
[12:39] and we would have that same deliberation
[12:42] on um, the scoring rubric, etc. uh in
[12:45] terms of scoring applications etc.
[12:54] » Is this resolution part of the like
[12:58] promotional materials when we announce
[13:00] that it's available? Do we give this
[13:02] actual resolution language to the
[13:05] applicants so they can read through it
[13:06] as well? I feel like I saw some details
[13:08] in here that I I wasn't previously aware
[13:11] of and had gone through several noer
[13:13] rounds at this point.
[13:16] Yeah, and we certainly can. So, my
[13:18] intention is to update a new uh landing
[13:23] page for any upcoming NOAS. I know that
[13:26] we've we've done excerpts from these
[13:30] resolutions, but um I wasn't privy to
[13:34] where all of these lived previously. So,
[13:37] now I know. And I've made a a specific
[13:40] folder for all of these and I have them.
[13:42] So, um, I can do all of that and the
[13:46] above. I can put excerpts in and then I
[13:49] can add a link for folks to go through
[13:52] this the latest and greatest resolution
[13:54] so that everybody has the same
[13:57] documentation to work from.
[14:01] >> Sounds great.
[14:07] One other place in here I had a question
[14:09] was um not so much a question it was
[14:12] clarity around the timesensitive loan or
[14:14] grant program. I always thought it was
[14:16] weird that people could only apply for a
[14:18] time-sensitive grant once a year when we
[14:20] do the NAS and um the way the
[14:22] resolution's written that's that was not
[14:24] the intention um that we could receive
[14:26] an application at any time in the year.
[14:29] Um, I don't know if we just haven't had
[14:33] any applications like that or if we just
[14:35] didn't
[14:37] communicate that that was available at
[14:39] any time of year. So, um, if you're
[14:41] working on that landing page, that might
[14:43] be something to
[14:45] think through as well. Do we put
[14:48] information on there about the
[14:50] time-sensitive loan? Are we even trying
[14:53] to continue that option or just do the
[14:55] once a year options?
[14:58] Yeah, I think that's something that I
[15:00] was turning over as well and is a really
[15:03] relevant question because
[15:06] um previously
[15:10] the way it was structured and I was kind
[15:12] of instructed to do it was to post all
[15:14] of them and see who wanted to apply for
[15:18] what. But going back to the resolution
[15:22] um that was something that I became
[15:25] aware of as well um during the research
[15:28] and
[15:29] um we I mean since I've been here there
[15:33] hasn't been that I'm aware of there
[15:36] hasn't been a request for a
[15:37] timesensitive loan um just someone
[15:42] coming to us requesting to apply for one
[15:45] outside of a NOA process. So, um,
[15:50] whether that is just kind of lack of and
[15:54] some of that I would say, you know,
[15:56] we've had, uh, new software for, you
[15:59] know, our city web pages and everything
[16:02] installed, um, during this time frame
[16:04] since I arrived. So, that may be some of
[16:07] it, um, but
[16:09] not all of it. So I don't know how much
[16:11] education was done prior to my arrival
[16:14] around that but we can certainly um
[16:18] discuss that. I think
[16:21] part of it as well something for the
[16:24] commission to consider is you know we
[16:27] have this sum in there and it would make
[16:31] you know a nicer a slightly larger award
[16:34] than what we've been able to do
[16:35] previously. But um there was some
[16:40] language in the resolution that I was
[16:42] reflecting on about sources of revenue
[16:45] for that fund and you know where it
[16:49] could potentially come from and um you
[16:54] know does the commission have an
[16:56] interest in pursuing other types of
[16:58] grants to start to replenish that fund
[17:01] as well. Um, so there could be, you
[17:05] know, funds available for anytime
[17:08] timesensitive grant award. You know what
[17:10] I mean? Like if we deplete the funds
[17:14] with this um, NOA posting that we've
[17:18] been talking about um, then what happens
[17:21] to that time-sensitive grant if there's
[17:23] no funds available any longer? So I
[17:27] think that's also part of that
[17:29] discussion.
[17:38] I'm certainly open to the idea of um
[17:41] talking about how that gets replenished
[17:44] um and would also be interested in a
[17:48] like a true time-sensitive option grant
[17:52] or loan or either um that folks could
[17:54] apply for at any time. I do remember
[17:57] before you came, Leanne,
[17:59] one or two organizations who checked the
[18:02] box time-sensitive loan or grant,
[18:06] but it wasn't truly time-sensitive.
[18:09] Um, it it occurred during the like once
[18:12] a year application.
[18:14] Um, so the box was checked for
[18:16] timesensitive, but it didn't feel
[18:18] timesensitive and we didn't handle it in
[18:20] that way.
[18:21] >> Okay.
[18:25] Yeah. And I just looking at the numbers
[18:30] for the breakdowns per each program
[18:33] type, it did seem like that was the
[18:35] avenue for the largest kind of one-time
[18:38] award. And the most straight, you know,
[18:41] in terms of a grant allocation, I think
[18:45] the way all of those splits worked, it
[18:47] was potentially the avenue for the the
[18:50] highest award amount. So um I could
[18:55] understand perhaps the motivation there.
[18:58] So
[19:06] » other questions, comments about the
[19:08] resolution?
[19:13] Is this open I know we had discussed
[19:15] this before. open to landlords that want
[19:19] to do upgrades or things in which that
[19:22] they can still provide affordable
[19:24] housing without increasing the rent of
[19:26] their properties.
[19:29] >> Yeah. So,
[19:32] let's see.
[19:37] I think that language is in there. Um,
[19:41] >> there is some some language about
[19:43] landlords and upgrades. I just wanted to
[19:45] make sure that that we're not talking
[19:47] about two separate things.
[19:49] >> Yeah. So, the project provides new
[19:52] affordable housing or new affordability
[19:55] through retention or rehabilitating
[19:57] rehabilitation of existing housing
[19:59] within the city. Um
[20:02] the greater number of units provided the
[20:05] higher the ranking the project shall be
[20:07] given. So to me that speaks to like
[20:10] multif family residential
[20:13] um
[20:18] you know whether existing or proposed.
[20:22] I believe am I incorrect in remembering
[20:25] that that we had something previously
[20:28] submitted by a landlord and one of the
[20:30] disqualifying pieces ended up being not
[20:33] being able to prove 40 years of
[20:36] affordable housing. You know what I
[20:38] mean? Like I think there
[20:41] I feel like that was a catch on
[20:43] something, right? like
[20:44] >> like an individual landlord that happens
[20:47] to be doing, you know, maybe affordable
[20:49] rent or something um but is not
[20:51] necessarily licensed by the state or
[20:55] becomes the the hold up on that. Am I
[20:58] wrong?
[21:00] >> That sounds right. Um
[21:01] >> we definitely had a conversation about
[21:03] how do we how do we guarantee it's
[21:06] affordable for x number of years. We
[21:08] also had the question of how do we know
[21:10] the family renting it was low income
[21:12] without requiring the landlord to reveal
[21:14] sensitive information.
[21:16] And I don't think we ever came to an
[21:18] answer about that. Um
[21:22] I would assume that our only way to like
[21:25] guarantee that is to take whatever the
[21:29] um the median area income is and
[21:33] >> and you know 80% of that for um
[21:36] calculating the rent and whatever that
[21:38] rental unit is charging has to be that
[21:41] or less. um cuz we didn't want to
[21:45] require that landlords reveal, you know,
[21:48] people's
[21:49] tax returns or or things like that or
[21:51] their pay stubs,
[21:55] » right?
[21:58] >> But this resolution definitely says uh
[22:01] forprofit
[22:03] small landlords are welcome.
[22:06] um
[22:11] » how you actually work that out have been
[22:14] a little more challenging,
[22:16] >> right? And I think that was my bigger question, you know, how do how do
[22:20] we potentially
[22:24] market to them and and how how do how do
[22:28] we actually meet meet their needs?
[22:34] Naturally,
[22:36] my dog started barking. So, sorry.
[22:41] » Well, I certainly have preference,
[22:43] >> but my preference would be that uh for
[22:47] profits are only eligible for the loans.
[22:50] Um the loan terms are way more favorable
[22:53] than, you know, any other kind of loan
[22:55] that they could get and they're repaid
[22:58] in relatively a short amount of time.
[23:02] And I don't know that you would need to
[23:03] worry about the long-term affordability
[23:05] of it so long as it's affordable in the
[23:08] immediate and they're paying back with a
[23:10] little bit of interest, not a lot. Um,
[23:12] to me that's a better option. But that
[23:15] would changing the resolution itself,
[23:20] >> right? Yeah. And and I think that that
[23:24] marketing for that and and putting that
[23:26] information out, changing the resolution
[23:28] to where it matches that could benefit
[23:32] long-term other projects
[23:36] potentially.
[23:39] And I'll I'll offer that that is
[23:42] something that we did discuss internally
[23:45] that during deliberations with the
[23:48] commission if y'all did come to a
[23:51] consensus around a desire to update the
[23:55] resolution that we could look at
[24:10] would an update need to happen before
[24:14] the next NOA or these are two separate
[24:16] concepts.
[24:19] » Uh that would I guess be up to the
[24:22] desire of the commission. Um so as it
[24:25] stands as it's written currently we
[24:28] could post a NOA if council you know
[24:32] agrees to that um and just move forward
[24:36] with that. So you could decouple it from
[24:40] that and um if you did desire the
[24:44] commission did desire to update you know
[24:47] uh the resolution that could have its
[24:51] own process as well. Um, if however the
[24:55] commission desires to
[24:58] incorporate the new terms into
[25:01] a potential NOA, you would need to, you
[25:04] know, start that resolution amendment
[25:07] process and, you know, we'd need to get
[25:10] schedule, you know, the scheduling going
[25:12] and all of that. Um and well I guess
[25:16] first we would need to you know staff
[25:19] would need to draft um amendments per
[25:22] recommendations from the affordable
[25:24] housing commission. Um
[25:27] >> and we may need to meet again to make
[25:30] sure everyone approves the language and
[25:32] then bring that to council
[25:35] um for approval. And maybe
[25:39] I mean we might be able to work on both
[25:41] things concurrently where we're
[25:44] recommending uh amendments to the
[25:47] resolution and a NOA that uh reflects
[25:51] that and take them both to council at
[25:54] the same time perhaps. Um
[25:58] >> yeah.
[26:00] >> Oh my god.
[26:01] >> And then get all that scheduled.
[26:04] >> That would be great.
[26:07] Yeah,
[26:09] I think if we could present maybe both
[26:12] simultaneously
[26:13] um if that would allow
[26:17] potentially desirable changes and also
[26:20] you know
[26:22] not waiting another 6 months before the
[26:25] funds are available. I'd be interested
[26:27] in that. I' This is just my personal but
[26:30] I'd be curious what you all would think
[26:32] on the funding application request.
[26:35] What would you all think about
[26:36] recommending to council that it say um
[26:40] for so where it has organization name
[26:42] and then to the side they check a box if
[26:44] they're for profofit or nonprofit
[26:47] um if we suggested putting um forprofit
[26:52] seeking loan nonprofit seeking grant
[26:55] um and just kind of distinguish that
[26:57] those are two the two tracks available.
[27:03] council would have to approve that. The
[27:05] resolution might need to change to
[27:07] reflect that, but um that might solve
[27:10] one of the issues that we ran into a few
[27:12] years ago.
[27:14] >> Yeah, I I think that would be ideal if
[27:16] we could present that.
[27:23] » I'm in favor of that as well.
[27:30] » Any thoughts on that, Randy or Judith?
[27:34] I'd be in favor of it
[27:38] >> and I'm open too.
[27:43] » Can staff ask a clarifying question?
[27:46] >> Um, would this be for a competitive
[27:50] award, a a competitive grant or loan
[27:53] award or would it be towards a different
[27:56] funding program allocation?
[28:03] Right now, all we have is the
[28:04] competitive awards program NOA in front
[28:07] of us. But would the same distinction
[28:10] make sense for a time-sensitive one to
[28:14] let a nonprofit
[28:16] make a time-sensitive request for a
[28:18] grant? Or maybe that doesn't make sense.
[28:20] I could certainly see a small landlord
[28:24] um needing a time-sensitive loan in the
[28:26] middle of the year.
[28:29] I don't know that a nonprofit would need
[28:33] a time-sensitive grant as urgently,
[28:43] » right? I would agree with that.
[28:50] I'd love to see some of our
[28:54] small mom and pop landlords know about
[28:57] this and and have a meaningful way to
[28:59] use it.
[29:02] How how would they have a meaningful
[29:04] That's a great question in the respect
[29:06] of how would they even need that versus
[29:09] just going to a bank and getting a quick
[29:11] loan if they needed that to make updates
[29:14] on their property versus coming to the
[29:18] asking it.
[29:21] >> A lot of those loans are higher
[29:23] interest, higher fees, so it would cost
[29:25] them a significant amount. So oftent
[29:28] times that requires them to increase
[29:30] their rent substantially. So it takes
[29:33] them out of the affordable housing
[29:35] potentially. I mean, at least that's my track. Um, looking at some of those
[29:40] loans and even talking to some other
[29:43] people who own rental properties,
[29:46] oftentimes when they have to do those
[29:49] repairs, um, they then have to increase
[29:52] their rent
[29:56] because those loans are
[29:58] >> So, are we talking
[30:00] >> Oh, I'm so sorry. Please, Judy.
[30:02] >> Yeah. Are we talking five groups or one
[30:05] group or a hundred
[30:08] nonprofits or or for profits? Is it
[30:12] worth the time for the city to be in
[30:15] that business of quick loans for
[30:21] forprofit small businesses?
[30:26] » Yeah, I think that's a great question.
[30:29] Um, so I'll direct
[30:32] books. It looks like in section 7.2C
[30:37] of the attachment of that latest
[30:40] resolution, it it does speak to what um,
[30:44] Commissioner Kulie is is referencing in
[30:46] terms of more favorable
[30:48] loan terms. Um to Commissioners Brown's
[30:52] point, I
[30:56] was, you know, we would have to have an
[30:58] internal discussion, I think, amongst
[30:59] staff how we would be administering a
[31:01] loan and how often we would have the
[31:03] capacity to do that. Um and it does look
[31:07] like just looking back at that
[31:09] timesensitive loan, it is a loan or a
[31:11] grant. So, um I think the commission
[31:15] would need to come to a consensus about
[31:19] which uh if you if the commission
[31:21] desired to have a potential NOFO whether um it's
[31:26] now or later. um with kind of this idea
[31:30] that we're talking about um which avenue
[31:32] and how often um timesensitive speaks to
[31:36] that the intention or the spirit of the
[31:38] resolution speaks to you know
[31:43] more than once a year. So
[31:46] I think we need to be realistic about
[31:49] how often staff could administer that.
[31:53] But also back to that piece about
[31:55] replenishing the funds. So that may be a
[32:00] longer term project perhaps. Um
[32:04] but I think a worthwhile
[32:07] um investigation, you know, and
[32:11] something potentially look forward to um
[32:14] when the longevity of the affordable
[32:16] housing commission.
[32:19] >> And I have another question. Are there
[32:21] other cities that are doing something
[32:23] similar to what we're doing to see how
[32:26] to mimic that? If that's a good practice
[32:28] or not to either way, one way, a good
[32:32] way, whatever, if it's so with the same
[32:38] pot of money, how are other cities doing
[32:41] that? And how are they using that? How
[32:44] are they using their funds?
[32:47] Yes, certainly we can do some some
[32:49] reaching out to our neighbors and um see
[32:53] how they're we have good relations with
[32:56] McMinnville. Um we could ask those
[33:00] relevant questions.
[33:04] » I know Hillsboro has a a program as as
[33:09] well.
[33:11] Um, and and that's kind of where I was
[33:15] thinking about that, but I don't have
[33:17] all of the details what that looks like.
[33:19] And and Judy brings up a fantastic
[33:20] point. This isn't something where that
[33:22] we can suddenly become lenders. Um, so
[33:24] there there certainly has to be some
[33:26] very limited and tight parameters if
[33:28] it's something that we did.
[33:31] >> Yeah. So, for instance, and I I think
[33:34] this is um probably obvious, but uh
[33:38] planning staff would have to be working
[33:39] in coordination with our finance
[33:41] department um to make sure that
[33:45] everything runs as smoothly as possible
[33:47] and um yeah, that staff can handle um
[33:54] the workflow. I don't potentially see it
[33:58] being an obstacle as so long as it's um
[34:03] you know first I think the funds would
[34:06] need to be replenished and as long as
[34:07] it's not multiple times a year.
[34:14] » No,
[34:14] >> I have a related but but different
[34:18] thought. everything that I um was kind
[34:20] of imagining, small landlords, uh
[34:24] smaller loans,
[34:26] um
[34:27] coming from the time-sensitive process,
[34:30] I think could actually be accomplished
[34:31] in the rehabilitation loan program.
[34:34] Um, are we
[34:38] in any way bound to say like all four of
[34:41] these types kind of need to be available
[34:44] all the time or are we able to kind of
[34:47] selectively choose? We're going to do
[34:49] the competitive grant program
[34:52] and the rehabil rehabilitation loan
[34:55] program. Um because what we've been
[34:57] describing with the small landlords,
[35:00] it kind of seems like that could be
[35:02] accomplished with the rehabilitation
[35:03] one, which is only loans. And it
[35:06] explicitly says um the applicant has to
[35:10] demonstrate that the rehabilitation
[35:12] could not be accomplished using
[35:14] conventional loan programs.
[35:18] Preference given to anyone who owns 10
[35:20] or fewer units. And it's about existing
[35:24] units being made safer. They're not
[35:26] building new stuff. There's that's not
[35:29] what's going on. But existing units to
[35:31] be safe and decent, whatever decent
[35:34] means.
[35:40] » Um
[35:41] I can weigh in a little bit there. I
[35:43] think yes. Um
[35:46] >> let's see. There's are you speaking to
[35:49] the manufactured home rehabilitation
[35:52] program
[35:53] >> on page 20
[35:56] 7.3
[35:58] it just the title is just rehabilitation
[36:00] loan program
[36:13] » and then it just uses the phrase
[36:14] dwelling. It doesn't specifically say
[36:17] manufactured.
[36:24] » Yeah, that's interesting. So, yes, and
[36:28] we've had
[36:30] >> Okay.
[36:30] >> more inquiries about the manufactured
[36:33] home rehabilitation program. Um,
[36:37] >> that one's a grant, right?
[36:39] >> Yeah. And that we worked with Yamh Hill
[36:42] County. um
[36:44] we've had conversations with them about
[36:46] that type of program, but
[36:50] >> um
[36:55] » I wonder if the loan the rehab loan one
[36:57] would be useful because the the only
[37:00] applicant we've had since I've been on
[37:02] here and I'm in year five
[37:05] >> um that was a forprofit was a home
[37:09] trying to repair the driveway. It was
[37:13] uneven and it wasn't ADA wheelchair
[37:15] safe. And so that probably would have
[37:18] fallen under this rehabilitation loan
[37:21] program.
[37:30] » Yeah. So,
[37:34] sounds like there's language in here. Uh
[37:38] the city manager would designate a loan
[37:40] officer
[37:42] Um so we would need to get some
[37:45] information internally um coordination
[37:48] with the city manager or finance
[37:50] department and and planning staff
[37:57] » and if they don't have internal capacity
[37:59] to do that could our advice just be to
[38:03] update the resolution so that we're only
[38:05] offering the programs we genuinely have
[38:07] capacity to do?
[38:10] I think that's a valid question. um and
[38:14] something. So, it's my understanding um
[38:17] just kind of what I've been told uh
[38:20] after my arrival is that we did have um
[38:23] prior a designated a designated housing
[38:28] planner and that is what she did
[38:31] full-time. And so, I think there was
[38:33] just more staff capacity. Um and then I
[38:38] guess simultaneously the funds have been
[38:40] dwindling, right? um through previous
[38:42] awards and then the suns setting of the
[38:46] CCT.
[38:48] So um yeah, I think these are all
[38:52] relevant
[38:54] uh timely questions for where the
[38:56] commission is now and where that fund is
[38:58] now and uh
[39:01] ways to move forward in in a in a way
[39:04] that makes sense uh for staff and uh
[39:08] with the funds that we have. And then
[39:10] again kind of that longer term project
[39:11] about uh how do we envision uh procuring
[39:16] more
[39:18] uh in the way of funding pathways to to
[39:21] replenish that fund.
[39:44] So, it's sounding like council's going
[39:46] to have a lot of conversation
[39:49] topics.
[39:54] Um, and just to, you know, state the
[39:55] obvious, I'm happy to to work up
[39:58] whatever the the commission um, you
[40:01] know, desires and and um, votes to do.
[40:07] I'm happy to do that.
[40:13] So, are we deciding on if we want that
[40:15] resolution to be modified and then what
[40:18] questions we want the the council to be
[40:23] going over with the staff city
[40:27] as the question is it is it time do the
[40:32] sta staff have time to do a loan program
[40:35] like that
[40:37] how much Is it worth it? You know,
[40:41] balance of that.
[40:43] >> I mean, that again, that's one of my
[40:45] questions.
[40:49] » I don't know where we're moving forward
[40:50] as a commission.
[40:56] » Would we be recommending
[41:00] like multiple things at once for them to
[41:03] consider or like consider this then consider this? How
[41:07] does council prefer to have that
[41:10] content?
[41:11] >> Yeah, I would recommend that the
[41:15] commission establish um some agreed upon
[41:20] goals. Um and some of that can be some
[41:22] of the homework that y'all have
[41:24] questions around. So, um, we can have
[41:28] internal conversations about staff
[41:31] capacity,
[41:32] um, administering grants versus loans.
[41:37] Uh, I would like to know which type of
[41:39] program the commission is interested in,
[41:43] uh, posting a NOA for and the monetary
[41:48] amounts. Uh do we want to continue
[41:52] thinking about the total award um you
[41:56] know that 68 and change mark or are we
[41:59] thinking of smaller awards um kind of in
[42:04] line with some of the other you know
[42:06] rehabilitation
[42:08] uh grant loan avenue um
[42:12] >> kind of how would you like to to direct
[42:15] my efforts to bring you the answers you
[42:17] need to make a proposal for council to
[42:20] consider.
[42:27] » Okay.
[42:27] Well, maybe let's review um some
[42:31] of the possibilities that we've talked
[42:33] about so far. Um so the competitive
[42:36] awards program
[42:38] as written is forprofit or nonprofit.
[42:42] Um, I heard clarify, but I heard
[42:46] consensus around suggesting this become
[42:53] » forprofit grant. No, sorry, nonprofit
[42:56] grants.
[42:59] Unsure about forprofit loan.
[43:04] Um, given the amount of money that we
[43:06] have, I I would have a hard time
[43:08] imagining there would be a for-profit
[43:10] loan in this category that didn't make
[43:12] sense in a different category. Um,
[43:17] but also for this sake of simplicity, it
[43:19] might
[43:21] I don't know if it would be okay, I'm
[43:24] going to stick with this.
[43:26] Do we like the idea of uh recommending
[43:29] that the competitive awards program rant
[43:32] be for only nonprofits?
[43:36] » Yes.
[43:43] » Okay. Randy, Judy, thumbs up or not or
[43:46] something?
[43:46] >> Yeah.
[43:47] >> Okay. So the first thing, Leanne, is
[43:49] that if there's going to be a grant in
[43:51] the competitive awards program, we
[43:54] suggest limiting that to nonprofits
[43:56] only.
[43:57] Okay.
[43:58] >> Do we want to recommend the competitive
[44:01] awards program still be open to
[44:03] forprofit but in a loan only capacity
[44:08] or recommend we funnel them to one of
[44:10] the other categories?
[44:17] I again
[44:19] the loan process of the
[44:23] >> city being in the business of giving out
[44:25] a $10,000 loan and then getting repaid
[44:28] in a couple years. How much time does
[44:31] that take versus just giving them the
[44:34] grant
[44:36] balance of that just seems either profit
[44:39] or nonprofit. a small amount of money.
[44:42] Is it the Is it not It's always a value
[44:47] to give money away. It's always fun to
[44:49] give money away or share money with the
[44:51] right organizations,
[44:53] but what's the best value we we can to
[44:58] use our staff wisely? I guess that's the
[45:01] big thing. Uh
[45:05] >> my assumption is that when you give
[45:07] money away with no repayment expectation
[45:10] is that sometimes then it has the
[45:12] long-term
[45:13] staff obligation of checking in with
[45:16] them 10 years down the road, 20 years
[45:19] down the road to see if they're still in
[45:21] compliance. And for the kinds of
[45:24] projects that our for-profit folks would
[45:26] apply for Yeah. that we have money to
[45:28] help that feels like a huge burden to
[45:31] me.
[45:33] Um whereas nonprofits typically have
[45:38] they are in their business longer their nonprofit work longer and they
[45:42] typically have internal
[45:45] ways of verifying eligibility long term
[45:48] anyway.
[45:50] >> Some organizations, some nonprofit
[45:52] >> Yeah. Yeah. It varies.
[45:58] So maybe we don't have a answer on that
[45:59] yet, but maybe that's a question for
[46:01] council is should the competitive awards
[46:04] program be available as a loan to for
[46:08] profits?
[46:15] » And then on um 7.2 2 timesensitive loan
[46:19] or grant.
[46:21] Should we even continue to have that?
[46:25] If we have it,
[46:28] does it make sense to have the loan or
[46:30] grant option both of them?
[46:35] And do the staff have
[46:37] capacity to even handle that on a
[46:40] rolling basis or
[46:46] would it make more sense at this time to
[46:47] retire that particular type?
[46:55] » Does anyone wanna
[46:58] >> Those are questions. Does anyone want to
[47:00] make a statement on those?
[47:03] I think it is would be valuable to
[47:06] really think about the viability of that
[47:09] program going forward. um you know just
[47:13] even thinking about
[47:15] the fairness of it right in terms of you
[47:19] know once someone knows about a program
[47:21] like that who's to say you can't which I
[47:24] mean obviously it exists now but you
[47:28] know like it just you could apply and
[47:30] apply again and like how do we
[47:33] >> how do we then say no to someone right
[47:37] that keeps asking
[47:39] >> but before we get off the squeak
[47:42] away
[47:42] >> because no one else, you know, no one
[47:44] else does a time sensitive. I don't know
[47:46] like that my mind goes to that. I do
[47:48] like our competitive sort of, you know,
[47:51] application process where there's a time
[47:54] frame and you can submit it,
[47:57] >> you know, and then be reviewed and where
[48:00] we review all of them and then make our
[48:02] recommendation to council. Um,
[48:05] >> I'm not sure that we should be in the
[48:07] time-sensitive
[48:09] >> loan or grant program
[48:11] >> going forward given staff capacity and
[48:14] just
[48:16] >> just limited funds.
[48:18] >> My thoughts.
[48:21] >> Does anyone else feel strongly about
[48:24] getting rid of the timesensitive option?
[48:30] I I don't think that the the long-term
[48:33] viability of of timesensitive for
[48:36] staffing purposes is reasonable.
[48:39] Um
[48:43] » yeah,
[48:44] >> I'm kind of kind of back in back and
[48:46] forth. I can I can see the the benefit
[48:49] of it, but um you know, Megan and and
[48:53] Judy have have both brought up some
[48:55] really really great points. Um overall
[49:00] the city doesn't have the staffing to to
[49:02] continuously manage these. So having
[49:06] those set times and parameters I I think
[49:09] is a more efficient way to to provide
[49:12] these these grants and or loans. See I'm still open to the loan potential
[49:18] portion of of things. Um but but I would
[49:21] agree those timesensitive I think we
[49:24] could probably do away with that. um
[49:26] just for staffing purposes.
[49:31] » We haven't used it in practice. I mean,
[49:34] it's been on paper, but we haven't used
[49:35] it in practice in at least 5 years. I
[49:38] don't know if it's ever been utilized.
[49:40] Um and again, there were some applicants
[49:42] who checked the box for timesensitive,
[49:45] but the way that the NOA happened, it
[49:48] happened all at once on a deadline. It
[49:50] wasn't rolling any time of the year.
[50:04] Randy and Judy, would you be open to
[50:06] recommending to council removing that
[50:09] particular program, the time-sensitive
[50:11] program?
[50:16] » Um,
[50:18] >> yeah, I don't I don't see an issue with
[50:21] recommending that. I think one of the
[50:23] things I'm flipping back and forth with
[50:25] is is the staffing. And Megan, you
[50:28] brought up a great point, but we also
[50:30] have that same staffing model with the
[50:33] rehab loan, too, I think, don't we? I
[50:35] mean, you still have to have staffing
[50:37] for for that that process as well. Um,
[50:41] I'm kind of flip-flopping back and forth
[50:43] here, guys. Sorry. I think
[50:46] if we haven't used it in five years,
[50:49] maybe we should really heavily consider
[50:51] not not having it any longer. I think
[50:54] that's where I'm I'm ending up at.
[51:05] » I would be in favor of recommending we
[51:09] remove that program. Um, if nothing
[51:11] else, it's one less NOA that the staff
[51:14] have to put out there.
[51:17] Um,
[51:22] » when was the last time somebody you said
[51:24] five years, Randy, or somebody said five
[51:27] years was the last time?
[51:28] >> We haven't used it in at least five
[51:29] years because that's how long I've been
[51:30] on this group and I don't know the
[51:32] history before that.
[51:35] >> Yeah,
[51:38] » speak a little bit to that. So, we did
[51:41] have an allocation um but it was at the
[51:46] same time that we posted all of the
[51:48] others. So, it's to my knowledge um and
[51:53] I didn't see anything in the files
[51:55] either where someone had come to the
[51:57] city and requested a timesensitive award
[52:03] outside of a NOA posting. Um,
[52:07] so
[52:09] that's my understanding.
[52:13] >> So it's been used, it just wasn't used
[52:15] the way it's truly written.
[52:17] >> The spirit of it, I think you're you're
[52:19] accurate. Yeah.
[52:21] >> Okay.
[52:25] » So take that recommendation to council
[52:28] that it doesn't seem to be a super
[52:30] useful
[52:32] piece of the overall program at this
[52:33] time.
[52:35] Um and then we have two rehabilitation
[52:38] programs. One is a loan,
[52:42] one is a grant specifically for
[52:44] manufactured homes.
[52:47] So the way this is written
[52:49] and the loans
[52:52] seem to be available for any kind of
[52:54] housing, not just manufactured homes.
[52:59] » I think that's accurate.
[53:02] Okay.
[53:12] But would this be
[53:19] would the grant one uh 7.4 would the
[53:23] grant one be available to forprofit or
[53:27] only nonprofit?
[53:37] Is that a question for staff?
[53:41] » How is it written now? And then what
[53:43] would we suggest?
[53:45] >> As it's written now in 7.4A,
[53:48] it says the money's to individuals or
[53:51] local nonprofit organizations.
[53:54] >> Oh, it could go to the homeowner.
[53:57] >> Okay.
[53:58] >> That's how it's currently written. It
[53:59] looks like
[54:05] » that's not forprofit or nonprofit,
[54:07] right?
[54:08] >> Correct. It says individuals. Yeah. I
[54:11] didn't realize that.
[54:14] >> Okay.
[54:18] Have we do we know if we've ever had an
[54:20] individual apply to repair their own
[54:22] mobile home?
[54:25] >> Um there was discussion around that. um
[54:29] not long after I arrived. So this was
[54:32] about 3 years ago. Um I don't think
[54:35] anything ever came from it. Um
[54:40] yeah, and then we did give an award to
[54:43] the Yamh Hill County Housing Authority
[54:45] and they were so they have that program
[54:48] where they're um
[54:51] administering repairs to, you know,
[54:54] various dwellings and they have that um
[54:58] structure in there where they're vetting
[54:59] everyone and um so they did receive an
[55:03] award for their program, but um it I
[55:06] don't think it was strictly under the
[55:09] manufactured
[55:10] housing umbrella.
[55:17] I do believe that some of the homes that
[55:19] they were repairing uh were
[55:24] well they received um
[55:28] trying to remember if they received CCT.
[55:31] I think the Newberg affordable house uh
[55:35] the Yhill County received CCT funds
[55:40] and then um h the Newberg area Habitat
[55:43] for Humanity uh I hope I don't have that
[55:47] backwards um received
[55:50] funds from the trust fund
[55:56] but they both have that internal vetting
[55:58] process were um and they were readily
[56:03] able to prove financials and and all of
[56:08] that.
[56:15] » So, a question that I have about these
[56:17] two um is about their funding sources.
[56:20] Um,
[56:21] you had said there's x number of dollars
[56:23] available for the competitive loan
[56:25] project program, but is that actually
[56:28] the amount that's available for all four
[56:29] of these programs or do they all have
[56:32] their own
[56:34] dollar amounts that could be available?
[56:38] >> Yes. So um
[56:42] that is so it's my understanding that
[56:45] it's only under the competitive award
[56:49] that we could um post a NOVA for that
[56:52] total amount. Um the other funding
[56:55] pathways
[56:56] it's a percentage of what is in that
[57:01] account. Um, and it's
[57:07] >> I believe it's explicitly stated um in a
[57:10] section of the resolution.
[57:15] » Loan terms are spelled out per C per
[57:18] area. And then
[57:21] let's see.
[57:26] » I don't see the P percentage right here.
[57:29] Just that loans could be between five
[57:32] and 15,000.
[57:34] Yeah, it it may be in for each uh
[57:37] pathway
[57:40] but for instance in section five under
[57:44] funded fund administration
[57:46] um
[57:48] 5.5 as a target in any given year up to
[57:51] 60% of the uh trust fund will be
[57:55] available for project loans and up to
[57:57] 25% will be available uh for project
[58:01] grants. The remaining 15% of the trust
[58:04] fund will be available for project
[58:06] contingencies through grants and or
[58:09] loans.
[58:13] » And then in any given year, at least 50%
[58:17] of the 5.6 50% of the available funds
[58:21] within the trust fund shall be available
[58:24] for use through the competitive awards
[58:26] program. And then that that key um it's
[58:30] just one sentence in there, but in any
[58:32] given year, the c the city council may
[58:34] make an exception to the standard to
[58:36] take advantage of affordable housing
[58:38] opportunities.
[58:41] >> So that's the way to to make a larger
[58:46] fund available. Would
[58:51] anyone else have interest in
[58:53] recommending that all three of these
[58:58] be made available um
[59:02] and have the different amounts available
[59:05] for each or
[59:07] staff time-wise is it better to do one
[59:10] at a time
[59:13] because I can imagine if someone's
[59:14] looking for information about affordable
[59:17] housing housing assistance. It might be
[59:19] helpful to see, oh, there's three
[59:21] different kinds. I need to pick which
[59:22] one makes most sense for my project and
[59:25] apply for that one,
[59:27] but still do it once a year rather than
[59:32] three different times a year.
[59:34] >> Yes. And so I think that's in line with
[59:38] previous practice is
[59:41] >> um having multiple and they choose which
[59:44] one makes the most sense. Um,
[59:47] now
[59:50] not
[59:52] >> making all of I guess the question I
[59:54] would have for the director would
[59:58] be as the resolution stands now, would
[1:00:01] we be obligated to make all of the
[1:00:04] funding pathways available within ANOA?
[1:00:07] Um,
[1:00:09] or do we have that leeway to pick and
[1:00:13] choose which ones?
[1:00:15] Um, and maybe we do. I mean, there is
[1:00:18] it's just in there a couple of times,
[1:00:20] but it there's
[1:00:22] >> like a sentence or two within the
[1:00:24] resolution that says
[1:00:27] >> those funds are available. Like
[1:00:30] basically intimating at any given time
[1:00:34] you may only have this much money and so
[1:00:36] it only may make sense to do this type
[1:00:39] of an award. So, um, and that's kind of
[1:00:44] I think where our discussion was last
[1:00:46] time when we were thinking about there's
[1:00:49] not a whole lot of money in that, uh,
[1:00:51] account. Do we want to try to do this
[1:00:55] NOA for that full amount and get
[1:00:58] somebody a little bit further down the
[1:00:59] road? Um, so
[1:01:03] yeah, there's that language in there
[1:01:05] about the competitive um, award. Um, and
[1:01:14] yeah,
[1:01:18] I can certainly ask.
[1:01:20] I'd be happy to see either option, just
[1:01:24] the competitive award or all three of
[1:01:26] them. I just don't want to do three
[1:01:29] rounds in one year.
[1:01:31] at different times that feels like
[1:01:33] spreading out the work.
[1:01:36] we'd kind of lose track of which one
[1:01:37] we're in at the moment. And
[1:01:41] but that's just
[1:01:43] >> so we're talking about um the three that we're sort of hovering on right now
[1:01:51] is the competitive,
[1:01:53] the rehabilitation loan,
[1:01:58] and the manufactured rehabilitation
[1:02:02] grant.
[1:02:04] Is that
[1:02:06] button.
[1:02:06] >> That was the three I had in mind that we
[1:02:08] were talking about if we're recommending
[1:02:10] getting rid of the timesensitive one.
[1:02:14] >> Okay.
[1:02:16] >> And we did give a large chunk recently
[1:02:19] to manufactured home rehabilitation. So,
[1:02:23] you know, there's
[1:02:24] I think a good argument to say like
[1:02:26] we've done some good work on that one
[1:02:28] and it wouldn't be
[1:02:31] terrible if we didn't offer that one
[1:02:32] right now. But um
[1:02:35] one or three but but not one right now,
[1:02:40] second one in 3 months, and the third
[1:02:42] one in six months.
[1:02:44] >> Casey, as I review the the
[1:02:47] qualifications, it looks like it in
[1:02:49] terms of the statute here or the
[1:02:51] resolution points that those other three
[1:02:54] programs outside of the competitive one
[1:02:57] do not require having an RFP. It does
[1:02:59] not even mention doing an RFP. Is that
[1:03:03] correct, Lean? There's nothing that
[1:03:05] actually goes out regarding those
[1:03:08] programs. It just sits on the website.
[1:03:12] >> Yeah. I mean, I'll go back and and tease
[1:03:15] through it. I I can speak to the
[1:03:19] what I observed as the tradition and
[1:03:23] that they are posted at the same time
[1:03:25] and folks can choose
[1:03:28] uh in any yearly NOA what makes sense
[1:03:32] for their project or program
[1:03:38] » but it's not like a time frame is put on
[1:03:40] those those programs in terms of an
[1:03:43] application deadline. Is that correct?
[1:03:46] >> No,
[1:03:47] >> practice there was
[1:03:49] >> Yeah,
[1:03:50] we we typically handled it in the same
[1:03:53] time frame.
[1:03:54] >> Okay.
[1:03:55] >> A posting uh is up for however long
[1:03:59] folks need to submit their complete
[1:04:02] application materials by this date. Um
[1:04:06] and then we close that and we start our
[1:04:10] review process.
[1:04:12] >> Right. And then I would I would
[1:04:14] recommend if we're going to change some
[1:04:17] of this resolution language or recommend
[1:04:19] that to the council, um I think the
[1:04:22] language should be identical across all whatever programs we're doing in
[1:04:27] terms of how the process works to be
[1:04:29] very clear.
[1:04:32] So that the RFP is for, you know, all of
[1:04:35] the programs that we're recommending and
[1:04:37] it's a time frame and you must apply
[1:04:39] sort of thing because that's not clear
[1:04:42] when in as each of the program
[1:04:44] breakdowns for the rehabilitation loan
[1:04:47] program as well as the manufactured
[1:04:50] um program
[1:04:52] and the other one
[1:04:55] timesensitive. Yeah.
[1:04:58] I mean obviously timesensitive would not
[1:05:00] have I guess an RFP per se.
[1:05:06] » Okay.
[1:05:08] Um so this is would fall under
[1:05:13] amendments to the resolution. Okay.
[1:05:16] >> Yes.
[1:05:30] It would basically be adding the 7.1
[1:05:34] um point. A language to any of the
[1:05:38] additional programs outside of the
[1:05:40] competitive awards program.
[1:05:47] I
[1:05:49] >> was just noticing that the manufactured
[1:05:53] home rehab grant
[1:05:56] um says they only have to guarantee that
[1:05:58] the home will be occupied by low-inccome
[1:06:02] family for five years. Um, did the
[1:06:08] loan have a similar timeline?
[1:06:11] The rehab loan.
[1:06:19] » Um, oh, it just says for the loan term,
[1:06:23] the applicant shall enter into an
[1:06:24] agreement guaranteeing the dwellings
[1:06:26] will only be occupied by families or
[1:06:27] individuals meeting the income
[1:06:28] guidelines for the loan term. And the
[1:06:31] loan term standard is 5 years. So that's
[1:06:34] just up to five years.
[1:06:38] Neither of those have the um ongoing
[1:06:41] affordability requirements that the
[1:06:43] competitive one has.
[1:06:46] >> Which that makes that makes more sense
[1:06:49] given that the difference in
[1:06:52] amounts that you're kind of talking
[1:06:54] about.
[1:07:02] Any
[1:07:13] other things we wanted to ask council or
[1:07:17] recommend council about this?
[1:07:22] I would like us to consider getting a
[1:07:24] little more specific about a nonprofit
[1:07:27] given our discussions over the last year
[1:07:30] of what defines a nonprofit and that
[1:07:33] it'd be a 501c3
[1:07:36] licensed nonprofit at time of
[1:07:39] application for the competitive program.
[1:07:43] >> Where would be the right spot in this
[1:07:45] resolution to
[1:07:47] >> That's a good question.
[1:07:48] >> Clarify that.
[1:07:56] Uh
[1:07:59] would it be in the competitive section
[1:08:02] in the sevens 7.1 section?
[1:08:06] >> I I would
[1:08:10] >> Yeah, that might be the best part.
[1:08:12] >> Or was it back in the fives where we had
[1:08:14] the rubric?
[1:08:17] No, five wasn't the rubric. Where was
[1:08:20] the rubric,
[1:08:20] >> Alian? Eight. Section eight.
[1:08:23] >> Eight.
[1:08:31] » Okay. And that and this rubric only
[1:08:33] applies to the competitive grant or
[1:08:35] loan.
[1:08:37] >> Doesn't apply to the other two.
[1:08:39] >> I think that's correct. Yes, that's
[1:08:41] correct.
[1:08:42] >> Okay.
[1:08:51] Well, if we're recommending that the
[1:08:53] council
[1:08:55] limits
[1:08:57] the competitive one to grants for
[1:09:01] nonprofits, then I guess with that is to
[1:09:03] clarify that nonprofits need to be
[1:09:07] >> the definition of a nonprofit.
[1:09:09] >> Yeah. To have a definition in there.
[1:09:11] >> We can add a definition. Okay.
[1:09:16] to avoid the problem that obviously
[1:09:18] happened earlier with Spark.
[1:09:27] Yeah,
[1:09:32] I think it would be a lot cleaner if we
[1:09:34] could get the resolution
[1:09:37] um revised and approved by council
[1:09:40] before we post a NOA. I don't quite
[1:09:42] understand how we would do it any other
[1:09:44] way, Lean. Um, is there
[1:09:49] a way or is that just going to be too
[1:09:51] messy?
[1:09:54] Um,
[1:09:56] you're asking for my recommendation. Um,
[1:09:59] >> I recommend that y'all all, you know,
[1:10:03] >> and I'll read this back out and I think
[1:10:05] y'all have to like, you know, agree or
[1:10:08] make a motion for these revisions. And
[1:10:10] then I'll come back with a draft for
[1:10:14] y'all to uh look at and approve and or
[1:10:17] make edits to. And then um you'll send
[1:10:21] me off with that uh either for another
[1:10:24] round or to council. And then um I think
[1:10:31] my experience is the more
[1:10:34] things to review and that uh sort of
[1:10:38] promotes talking points perhaps the the
[1:10:42] more deliberation can can happen and
[1:10:46] sometimes it's easier to move forward
[1:10:48] with something keeping it simpler
[1:10:51] initially.
[1:10:52] Um,
[1:10:54] so we can also after,
[1:10:57] you know, I bring back the revision
[1:10:59] revisit that and see if we would like to
[1:11:03] just go to council with an updated
[1:11:06] resolution that fits
[1:11:09] >> the current.
[1:11:10] >> So then they're not words smithing it in
[1:11:12] their own meetings.
[1:11:13] >> Yeah.
[1:11:14] >> Okay. and you know that way you know and
[1:11:17] I think I think it's a good time to look
[1:11:20] at it to look at it in terms of staffing
[1:11:22] and the funds that we have available and
[1:11:26] um that's the reason for the updates and
[1:11:31] overall I still think they're pretty
[1:11:34] minor. There's not we're not talking
[1:11:36] about a major overhaul really. Um just
[1:11:39] some tweaks to make things more
[1:11:40] practical. So, um,
[1:11:42] >> do you want us to give a major overhaul?
[1:11:46] » Uh, staff will do their best to
[1:11:49] facilitate that if that's the desire of
[1:11:51] the commission. Um, but yeah, I think I
[1:11:56] mean that's kind of my personal
[1:11:57] philosophy to try to keep things as
[1:11:59] clear and objective as possible and um,
[1:12:03] >> do what makes practical sense. That's
[1:12:07] >> so then we would review the changed
[1:12:10] draft the the revised version and then
[1:12:13] recommend that whole revision to
[1:12:15] council.
[1:12:16] >> Yeah.
[1:12:16] >> Okay.
[1:12:17] >> Um are we allowed to review that and
[1:12:21] give our feedback via email or could we
[1:12:24] schedule another meeting so that we're
[1:12:27] not waiting four months to review that?
[1:12:31] >> Yes. Um, we can schedule another meeting
[1:12:34] and I want FA to weigh in here about um
[1:12:36] process.
[1:12:42] » Sorry about that. Um, yes. So,
[1:12:46] if you give me a few um dates that
[1:12:51] everybody is available, then I just need
[1:12:53] to confirm that with our city recorder
[1:12:56] and then I can send everybody a uh
[1:12:59] confirmed invite for an additional
[1:13:01] meeting. So, um we we I just need to do
[1:13:06] that extra step. So, what dates works
[1:13:09] for everybody for the additional
[1:13:12] meeting? Like, do we want to do it
[1:13:13] within the next couple weeks or just the
[1:13:15] next month?
[1:13:17] >> Well, how long does Lean need to get the
[1:13:19] draft prepped?
[1:13:23] >> Um, I'd say couple of weeks to make sure
[1:13:26] that all my other workflows stay um
[1:13:30] moving and we get internal review. We
[1:13:33] may need to, as Scott and I are, the
[1:13:36] director and I are looking at this, we
[1:13:38] may need to um check in with the city
[1:13:40] manager as well as finance staff and
[1:13:44] just um
[1:13:46] >> kind of go over the practicalities of
[1:13:48] what the commission is deliberating and
[1:13:51] proposing.
[1:13:54] >> So, exactly two weeks from today is
[1:13:57] August 18.
[1:13:59] Um, does anyone have a conflict in that
[1:14:03] 4:00 window August 18?
[1:14:07] >> Let me check.
[1:14:07] >> Unfortunately, I do.
[1:14:10] >> Samantha does. Okay. Um, I have a
[1:14:13] conflict on the 25th.
[1:14:15] >> We don't have to keep it on a Tuesday
[1:14:18] either.
[1:14:20] >> Okay.
[1:14:25] That might make it more complicated to
[1:14:27] schedule.
[1:14:28] >> Okay. I don't know, but
[1:14:30] >> we could do um
[1:14:37] » like the September 1st.
[1:14:40] >> Does anyone have a conflict? September
[1:14:41] 1st.
[1:14:45] » I'm available September 1st and
[1:14:48] September 8th.
[1:14:49] >> Okay.
[1:14:52] I will account, but I might be able to
[1:14:54] get I might be able to get internet
[1:14:58] >> for the first.
[1:14:59] >> Yeah, that's okay. Put it put it down if
[1:15:01] most people can be there.
[1:15:03] >> Okay.
[1:15:06] >> And is um we're just holding this right
[1:15:08] now, right? It's not confirmed yet.
[1:15:10] >> No, it's not confirmed. I have to I'll
[1:15:13] we'll hold it and then I have to confirm
[1:15:15] it with our uh city recorder.
[1:15:18] >> Okay.
[1:15:20] And then the second option, um, did
[1:15:22] anyone have a conflict with September
[1:15:24] 8th?
[1:15:30] » Okay. So, that's our second hold.
[1:15:34] » Okay. And then,
[1:15:36] >> did you need a third?
[1:15:38] >> Um,
[1:15:43] » yeah. How about we just do
[1:15:46] How about the September 15th? We'll just
[1:15:48] go through in a row. How's everybody
[1:15:49] looking for the 15th?
[1:15:52] >> I'm available.
[1:15:55] » Yep,
[1:15:57] >> I'm available.
[1:15:58] >> Samantha's good. Randy,
[1:16:03] » he's checking.
[1:16:07] » I'm ready to go out of town, so I might
[1:16:10] be uh not available, but I'm available
[1:16:14] right now.
[1:16:15] >> Okay.
[1:16:18] >> All right. So September 15 also a hold.
[1:16:21] >> All right. So I will go ahead and
[1:16:23] confirm a date with RC recorder and
[1:16:25] email everybody with an uh invite for
[1:16:29] the actual date.
[1:16:32] >> Sounds good.
[1:16:34] >> Great.
[1:16:42] » Okay. Are we ready for staff updates?
[1:16:46] >> Sure. Uh
[1:16:49] so um good news and this uh I wouldn't
[1:16:53] have been able to give the good news
[1:16:55] last Tuesday. So um we have the
[1:16:59] intergovernmental agreement draft for
[1:17:02] the housing capacity analysis work. So
[1:17:06] yay. Um so we're doing our internal
[1:17:09] review of that document. It looks pretty
[1:17:13] close to um that last kind of draft
[1:17:17] between us and our consultant partner,
[1:17:21] Cascadia partners um and DLCD. So, they
[1:17:27] just, you know, their legal team took it
[1:17:29] through the washer and did their
[1:17:32] structure for that legal document. So,
[1:17:35] um we're looking at that. It looks um
[1:17:37] like the contents all still there.
[1:17:39] they've added their legal stuff and then
[1:17:42] we will bring that to council for their
[1:17:45] approval and then we'll launch that
[1:17:48] work. Um
[1:17:50] so just kind of as a reminder the
[1:17:53] planning commission is going to sort of
[1:17:55] serve as that uh municipal review body
[1:18:01] and the affordable housing commission is
[1:18:04] welcome to attend those meetings. Not
[1:18:08] every meeting of the planning commission
[1:18:10] will be having content from that work,
[1:18:14] but we will make the commission aware of
[1:18:17] the meetings where we will be um using
[1:18:20] that body to discuss the housing
[1:18:22] capacity analysis work and y'all can
[1:18:26] join at your discretion. Um and we would
[1:18:30] you know love to have you and um yeah
[1:18:36] >> is that also by Zoom?
[1:18:38] >> Um we're going to try to make it
[1:18:40] available um as a hybrid. So um yeah, so
[1:18:45] folks can um attend in person or um
[1:18:50] online to those meetings. That's
[1:18:52] correct, right, FA? We're going to keep
[1:18:54] that a hybrid platform.
[1:18:57] >> Yes. All planning commission meetings
[1:18:59] are hybrid. So there's Zoom and in
[1:19:02] person.
[1:19:03] >> Great.
[1:19:09] » Yeah. So, um we're we're glad we've kind
[1:19:14] of been in this holding pattern for a
[1:19:15] few months uh while they're legal. And I
[1:19:18] know that the state had a lot of those
[1:19:20] grant agreements to administer. So,
[1:19:23] Newberg wasn't the only one um kind of
[1:19:26] hanging out and waiting for their uh
[1:19:29] final draft document to come through.
[1:19:30] So, that's good. That means, you know,
[1:19:34] we'll have more data um to look at and understand our our housing situation
[1:19:39] and all the facets uh therein and uh we
[1:19:44] can learn more about our community. So,
[1:19:48] happy
[1:19:50] >> good news. I like it.
[1:19:55] Is there a staff update on any other
[1:19:57] thing that we just had one on the
[1:19:58] agenda, right?
[1:20:00] >> Yeah, I think that's it for now. Um,
[1:20:04] >> yeah.
[1:20:05] >> Okay. Anything that any commissioners
[1:20:08] want to share?
[1:20:10] >> I was curious if you have an update,
[1:20:12] Leon, on where things stand with Spark
[1:20:14] in terms of um the money being released
[1:20:18] to them, if that has happened or not.
[1:20:22] Yeah, I do not. So, there was um I did
[1:20:26] see an email and this was a while back
[1:20:28] like
[1:20:30] maybe as much as two months ago. Um and
[1:20:34] it was an inquiry from the director to
[1:20:36] our legal team and uh as of that email,
[1:20:41] you know, they're not out of I guess the
[1:20:44] legal process and no monies have been
[1:20:47] dispersed.
[1:20:49] So,
[1:20:51] Okay, we appreci I appreciate you
[1:20:52] keeping us updated on where that stands
[1:20:55] since that's such a signific significant
[1:20:57] amount of money for affordable housing
[1:21:00] in our community.
[1:21:07] » Anything else from commissioners?
[1:21:13] » All righty. Does everyone have on their
[1:21:16] calendars our next meeting October 27?
[1:21:19] That's not actually our next meeting,
[1:21:20] but that is one of our next meetings.
[1:21:23] >> Yes.
[1:21:24] >> Okay.
[1:21:27] We still have those uh hold date
[1:21:29] meetings that we're squeezing in, but at
[1:21:31] least October 27th happening.
[1:21:34] Okay,
[1:21:37] y'all want to sign off? You ready for
[1:21:39] that?
[1:21:41] >> Have a great August.
[1:21:43] >> All right. 523, we're adjourned. Thank
[1:21:46] you.
[1:21:46] >> Thank you. See you. Thank
[1:21:48] >> you all.