[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.

Affordable Housing Commission Meeting - August 4, 2026

Transcript