Housing Advisory Committee Meeting   12/15/2021

And so I think since we're three minutes past the hour and a couple of us are already pressed for time, we will call this meeting to order.

So I'm going to do that.

Ladies, gentlemen, this is the City of Charlottesville Housing Advisory Committee regular December meeting, the last meeting of 2021.

Welcome.

The chair notes by eye that we have a quorum of voting members here, a majority of voting members, so we'll declare a quorum unless there's an objection.

Ms. Kelly, I did receive news from LD that he was not gonna be able to scope in today.

So, and then,

I'm not sure who's driving on the Zoom side of the thing, but Sunshine just poked and said he doesn't think he's a panelist.

Could somebody please promote him?

I think I see Ms.

Parks there.

Ah, there.

Yes, I do see Ms.

Parks.

And now I see Sunshine, so I think that's been resolved.

Excellent news.

OK, we are live.

We are going.

This is going to be something of a truncated agenda today, perhaps approaching something like an annual review, but I don't think there's too much depth on that at the moment.

I will call your attention to our last meeting, which I believe was a couple of months back, and the minutes in the portal.

And if you want to review those, that would be hopeful.

And Ms.

Parks, I believe a couple of people are missing their invites.

I just got a poke from Gary Palmer saying that he did not receive one.

Gary Palmer, developer.

Greetings, Dan.

All right.

Hearing none, minutes approved.

So

I'm gonna change up the order on the agenda just slightly today and sort of, and move a UVA update to the front of the line.

This is because Alice has indicated that she is on a relatively tight timeline today.

So I thought I'd give her the upfront slot and then we'll move on to updates from the city counting subcommittees and CIP, not necessarily in that exact order.

Thanks, Phil.

Good afternoon, everyone.

Just wanted to bring your attention to the news release, if you hadn't seen it yesterday, that the university has published the three sites that will be up for consideration for potential affordable housing developments.

As you can imagine, it's not something we do every day.

So getting to this point where we identified sites, working with the community and our advisory group was pretty engaged, pretty robust discussion.

Yep.

Well, our next steps will be to publish an RFQ, a request for qualifications for developers or teams that have proven track records of developing affordable housing.

and from that we will issue a short list and then ask for proposals for, I'm certain it's financial plans and we were a little bit down the road for that for the proposals but because I believe the actual physical plan will be part of a community engagement process.

So the first step will be to issue, publish the request for qualifications to find developers or development teams.

So a little,

It's unclear, although it may be the reporting or the press release, but there seem to be a couple of suggestions that none of the land that's utilized is available for ultimate disposition, that it will all be subject to a long-term ground lease.

In relationship to, I know that there was a lot of push for homeownership among the stakeholders.

That seems to limit it to only one kind of homeownership, which is split land improvements homeownership.

Am I reading that wrong?

Or is that true?

Yeah, well, so, Dan, I don't think I'd go as far as to say there's no possibility, but I would say that the proposal is for ground lease at the moment.

And whether it's ground lease for rental units or whether it's a land trust model for homeownership on, you know, long term ground lease, I don't know that we've gotten that far yet.

Just from a practical standpoint, it's a lot easier to offer foundation land for sale than state land for sale.

Yeah, well, so Piedmont is all state.

The university owns all of Piedmont.

The foundation owns all of North Fork and then the Wirtland in 10th, because there's a little wonky dividing line between what the university owns and what the foundation owns, there's a portion of each on that one.

So, but I would say that the direction that we've received, you know, from our leadership at the moment is long-term ground leasing, you know, but we have, you know,

We have clearly heard the community feedback and we understand it, but we probably are just not there yet.

Gotcha.

Well, if I can do anything to help in that matter, to help educate people, I'm happy to, such as projecting out the amount of equity gain, the ability to repurchase, et cetera, for families and sort of track that over time.

I'm happy to do some,

Research, obviously, I know this comes across as greasing our own skids, because we're a home ownership organization, but it's more than that.

I've heard from people as well, and that the inability to earn equity off land is one of sort of the original sins in Charlottesville, but I know that the president and the university are really serious about combating, and my own personal opinion,

which is stoked by what we've heard when we've had lots of listening conversations with people is restoring people's ability to gain equity from land is a critical component of essentially the kind of housing-based societal reparations that the community was excited about this initiative for.

Well, I would say, thank you.

I appreciate that.

We appreciate that.

I would say two things.

One is that this is not the last time, obviously, we're going to have community engagement.

We're going to have community engagement all the way through.

So the more we understand the community needs, it may change direction.

I can't answer that at the moment.

But the other thing is, hopefully, we're not the only institution that is involved in this effort, which I know is not the case.

So that if we provide one type of

you know, of housing other institutions and the city and the county can certainly, you know, provide others.

We, you know, to be honest, Frank, we haven't gotten that far.

Again, I have to stress that this is not something we do every day.

I know many of you it is something that you do every day.

So we've been taking baby steps and to some maybe a long time to get here, but it's still positive progress.

But I have heard long-term ground lease.

I would like to just simply echo Dan's statements about the importance of making homeowners whole, including the land, especially as African Americans in their history in the city of Charlottesville.

I think it's vital that that is a part of the homeownership, full homeownership conversation.

Thank you, Phil.

Good afternoon, everybody.

Alice, thank you for the updates.

I read that in the newspaper and then I get a prior

Privilege notification before his purpose.

So I've completed my own survey, comments, feedback on your website.

So I appreciate that update.

Oh.

Go right ahead, Alex.

All right.

Thank you, Alex.

Appreciate your help.

Okay, last night, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the 2023 to 2027 Capital Improvement Plan.

There were several amendments, proposed amendment by the Planning Commission, reduction, increases, and what have you.

So that recommendation is being worked out right now by a budget office in readiness for city council consideration.

So that's going up to the city council and then the council will decide whether to reduce certain line items and increase certain line item as recommended by the planning commission.

So that is a big

A big update from the city.

Get a couple of updates from the city.

The city has hired, I don't have detailed information here, perhaps some of you may have read it through the lists provided by the city and then in the newspaper.

The city hired a new director of parks and recreation department and also a new director of public works department.

So those two positions have been filled.

Sure, fire away.

Alex, it's been a long time.

I don't know, maybe you can tell us how many months since we've had a housing coordinator in the position.

That's part of the discussion right now.

between the deputy city manager and the city council.

If you guys logged in at the last discussion with council during the 4 p.m. meeting, so that is being discussed.

And the position may be revamped a little bit, so we'll be able to get what we need in terms of implementation of the forever housing plan.

I heard some of that discussion at the work session, which was last week in reference to the restructuring of the hack, which was, let's just say it was a

compelling conversation and fascinating in a lot of ways.

But that was in part and Mr. Sanders made the point that part of this had to do with expanding the role of that person and also seeing what sort of human capital the new housing

you know, personal infrastructure inside the city needs to have in terms of staff, what needs to be added and in what order.

And he is in part making the argument that the housing coordinator position be one that is sort of farther up the management chain than it is presently structured and such.

So that's

That was sort of the thrust of his conversation.

I did not get any sense from anybody in that meeting about a timeline for either the proposed changes to the hack or exactly on the hiring.

It's just he wanted direction and then was going to start moving.

Yeah, the hiring right now, that will take some time.

in other words, through the budget session.

But I think the HAC recomposition and the CAF review committee and things like that, that may happen perhaps much quicker.

But there wasn't,

There was not some kind of immediate timeline direction from the city council.

I think the deputy city manager is looking for clear directions so she can start moving from point A to point B.

Great.

Okay, well, I'm sure that if we're asked the current membership of the HAC would be happy to provide whatever insight we think to the operating of the organization.

So, hopefully, some sort of inquiry will be forthcoming at some point about that.

Just as a personal editorial, I'm not sure that when we are scrambling to get basic staff in place to do a one hundred and fifty million dollar lift that the idea right now is to try to redesign the airplane in flight.

But, you know, that's just me.

Chair, can I ask a question also?

I'm offering the same observation, Phil.

I think we've been without a year in that position and it seems like unfortunately the team is understaffed.

Sorry.

I would just make the observation to fill on the response that we've been, I think the position has been unfilled for more than a year.

And the team seems to be understaffed and for the asks that we're asking them to do, you know, and I would hope that positions

Filling the position is being prioritized.

Yeah, as you folks may know, we have a consultant looking at the performance review and the program design.

They're scheduled to provide a city council an update

on the 20th of December.

And subsequent after that, they complete task two of the contract.

And that task two will include taking a look at the instruments like agreements, the NOFA, Notice of Funding Availability,

structured reporting requirements and other associated policies.

And then making recommendation or providing a template that we can use for those activities.

So once they complete those, we are hoping that by tail end of January, that they'll be able to at least substantially complete

that.

And then early February, we are looking at issuing the notice of funding availability at that point.

So Alex, I think, I guess my question to follow up on Chris on this is that we've known for months that we have 800

$30,000, $50,000 sitting in the CAF now, we do have a process that is equitable for processing these things and moving forward with it.

The sense that some have, you know, this sort of vague notion that some people have said that

Some people are upset about transparency.

I mean, great, glad to work on that piece of it.

But it seems to me that what you said was we're going to wait for the consultants to tell us how we've done.

And then we're going to have the consultants design a program for future for this allocation.

And meanwhile, we're not going to really be able to do anything with this money until after that.

And I would suggest, and I don't know to whom I suggest that besides you, that we ought to push this money out now and that waiting to start thinking about pushing the money out to start issuing things in February and March means money doesn't really get decided until June, July, which means, which means, which means.

and I'm sure there are people standing around with their shovels right now who'd like to get their hands on that.

So anything we can do to move that process along and at least segregate the money that we have got sitting there

Now, and that has been sitting there now, moving it forward I think would be helpful.

But I mean, I don't know if there's anybody else here who's with me on that particularly, but I think we've got it.

It's 800 grand.

Let's not wait till the end of spring to do something with it.

That's my suggestion, but I'm perfectly happy to be, well, I'm not happy, but someone's gonna slap me down on that.

Go right ahead.

Just a warning, just in case I get cut off, I'm getting a warning from IT, city department, that my laptop could restart itself.

So just in case, I just want to warn you guys.

I didn't want you to hang up on me, I was just asking.

No, you can, and I'm just, I'm getting the flag, you know.

Yeah, you can follow up with Sam Sanders on that.

But your point is taken.

And this is not the first time I got such feedback in terms of putting the previous allocation on the street.

But the deputy city manager has discussed this issue with the city council.

Chair, this is Chris.

Hold on, I think I thought I saw somebody else in the hand up.

I'm sorry.

I was wrong, nevermind.

I'll just say, can we maybe, I'd like to have a further discussion and hear other inputs from the housing advisory committee on this so that we can provide maybe some timely advice.

I personally think Leip's position would be very much aligned with yours and I'm wondering where others might sit on this.

And if we have time at the end of the meeting to discuss it a little bit, I would like to hear other people's opinion.

I similarly am concerned that we have a chunk of money that's sitting there and not being utilized to assist people now who can be assisted now.

Thanks.

No, that's okay.

No.

Yeah, just throwing my two cents in, speaking individually.

Obviously, if you're talking about a timeframe from 20th when we're getting that initial report, if you're talking about a timeframe of between now into mid-January, that to me is acceptable.

But pushing it out much farther from there, I think has a lot of

Downsize is not the timeline I think we need to be pursuing.

Last I had this conversation, my memory was that the timeline was between mid-January, sorry, mid-December to mid-January following getting that report from the consultants in terms of that money going out.

All right, sir, thank you.

I would just second Chris's request and appreciate Councilor Payne keeping pressure on moving this forward.

I know that there are others, but we've made numerous requests over the last year or so.

We have a project sitting out there that needs this funding to then leverage.

We haven't been able to apply for federal and state funding that needs a city local match for it.

So there are multiple units that are sitting out there that can't get money because this has stopped up.

And so it's at first it was an inconvenience.

Then it got to be something that was a matter of urgency.

I think we're entering emergency mode.

And if that's true for my agency, it's likely true for other agencies as well, especially with LIHTC applications coming up.

Anything further on this point?

Sorry, Ridge, to speak over you.

I just echo what's already been said and just highlight from the LIHTC perspective.

I think folks probably know this, but just to put it on the record.

We have two projects in the wings right now on the pipeline for LIHTC funding and LIHTC applications.

One of them we have strategically decided to push until the March 2023 timeframe, which is the Park Street Christian Church.

And there are numerous reasons why that all make strategic sense.

But we are still pursuing the MACA redevelopment sites for March 2022.

And I have said this to folks around the board, but if the funding is not there, the project is dead.

It cannot move forward for two reasons.

One is the funding gap itself.

And two is that the funding similar in some ways to what Dan referenced, it's not considered matching funds, but it's considered subsidy.

And without those subsidy points in the LIHTC application process, it is fundamentally non-competitive.

or Uncompetitive.

Yes.

I think.

Yes.

Is that correct?

Update is due on Monday to council.

So I just want to be clear if we're about to take a vote on this, because I definitely would be interested in their feedback and their update to hearing that and how much anticipated additional time that's going to be required.

I mean, there's no financial gain for me in my decision.

So I want to present that other particular perspective

The general question, not to Alex, but to the providers as well.

I mean, what is, is there a downside

to issuing and getting going with some general parameters so we can get some people to work.

I mean, it seems to me that this deep dive into the efficacy of these various programs is about the results over time.

And that information can be available by the time we've got the proposals in.

So there isn't,

And that may change the decision making on submitted proposals, but I don't see why we should push out a timeline to even get started on getting ideas, proposals and money and money requests in through the front door, even

even if we're not 100% certain that all of the criteria are all of the criteria.

I mean, that's the danger.

But on the other hand, if we wanna get some better intel on performance in the past stuff, I mean, we do that anyway under whatever circumstance we could find.

So to Alex and the other providers, what's the downside to pulling the trigger on calling for proposals for this 830,000 bucks tomorrow?

Can I ask something?

Would we be setting or implying that because we're accepting those that you're almost implying that you're going to get funding?

No, I'm saying that we say we've got $830,000 to send us proposals for how to spend this money.

I'm not even sure what the exact number is.

It's somewhere between 8 and 850.

I'm sorry, Alex.

So you're, you're suggesting that if there's a motion that it specifically references what's in the fund now and, and, and maybe even references that we, that before

New money is put forward, then you take the results of the consultant's report into consideration.

No, I'm clarifying one thing.

I just want to, because I had the chair say 850.

So I just, I don't know exactly what the balance is.

But if you want to make a motion,

You guys can make a motion about existing allocation.

Just put existing allocation.

I'm not telling you to make a motion.

All right, so that makes sense.

I just have a question about a point of clarity.

The proposal is to start receiving the applications

and we are not going to start having conversations about allocations, is that correct?

Yes, ma'am.

What I'm suggesting is that when we start, when the city starts making these decisions, even if Alex

when his computer reboots goes immediately to updating RFP document templates and starts publishing shit today, stuff, excuse me, today, that even so, no decisions are gonna be made on that money until March.

And we're gonna have all sorts of data coming in between now and then, but if we wait on the data until February where we digest it, we think about it, we talk about it, okay, now let's go looking for money.

that then now we're talking about pushing out the requests then and not making decisions on who's doing what until the middle of the summer or later.

And it seems to me we might as well say we got 800 and some odd thousand dollars today, start making suggestions and then the city will gather its intelligence on productivity and make decisions about the best way to spend it once we have the data.

Let's start receiving the suggestions.

No decisions about allocations.

Not until whatever that period closes.

Okay.

I just don't want to create an environment where individuals who are submitting their information

to be considered for funding, assuming that we are already looking at and making considerations and just waiting for the report, because I think that would be prejudicial if we do that, not knowing before the report what the update is going to entail on Monday.

Of course the timeline isn't quite that tight.

I mean, realistically, the request would probably go out if we did a full court press to get started.

How do you submit application where, I mean, you don't know what the city's priority is, or what the city will put in the NOFA.

whether the city is looking at a strategic approach to investing its money, you know, so that we minimize people spending a huge amount of time to submit application that nobody will review.

So how do you, I'm trying to see how

So one, I'm kind of making this up as I go along.

Two, my suggestion would be that the NOFA be, I mean, the NOFA is fuzzy anyway.

We have prior year priorities.

I don't see for this amount of money that we're going to take a radical departure for this 800 and some odd as to what our priorities might be.

And let's do the best we can.

and not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

And producing NOFA that's based on our ongoing priorities is our best guess.

And it's not a whole lot of money, but there are people who need to start to move on it.

And then with our next round, we should have it all together.

But right now, essentially what we're saying is we're not gonna spend money on housing

not because we're out of money, not because we're not going to have more money coming in, but because we've sort of constipated ourselves with some data.

And I just don't, I'm just not sure that that's considering that the building's on fire, that that's the smartest thing we could possibly be doing.

I'm perfectly prepared to be smacked down on this.

But we haven't been properly allocating and we're not funding initiatives that have been producing the results that we say we want.

I agree, but it's not as if we don't have any data.

We have a great deal of data.

We do not have a data that's, we do not have a deep dive fully integrated sliced and diced to the beginning of time.

evaluation, but we have some, I mean, we produce, you know, the HAC or the Housing Program Coordinator produces an annual report every year, number of units generated, money spent, money in, money out.

We've got a sense, we haven't been in the dark here, it's just that if we're applying what is presumably going to be a better methodology, that doesn't mean the methodology we've got isn't, is worthless or isn't even good.

but that to wait for us to develop a new set of priorities and procedures and policies for this money which has been sitting there and sitting there and sitting there doesn't seem to me to be productive.

I think that we should move forward as best we can knowing that it's going to be imperfect.

That's my thought.

I got so many hands going up and down and popping in and out here.

Yes, sir.

A couple of things.

One, I do think we can, we should move the process forward.

And to Lisa's point, I don't think we should be judging on any proposals, but we should be receiving proposals and starting that process.

We have an affordable housing plan, right?

Which I think we should utilize.

And to Alex point is that should be probably guiding how the allocations should work.

I assume of a set of activities that the city wants to see done.

I will just say in general, and I'm not saying this was being insinuated or anything like that, but LEAP is not going to propose for general support, for example.

It would make a proposal for low-income energy efficiency retrofits, which are listed as a priority in the affordable housing plan.

Whether you give it to LEAP or you give it to somebody else to get done, I don't care.

I just want to see if you think these get done because I know there are households and

and other folks who need assistance with housing.

But we're sitting on a chunk of money again that is not being utilized while people need to be assisted.

So waiting for the perfect is, I think we're, again, unfortunately, negatively impacting people by delaying further.

So I would suggest, again, at least how, Sherry, you framed it, we don't need to

pre-judge any proposals, but we should start the process of getting the proposals so that we can move a little bit quicker when we do have the final report.

And those who will be reviewing those proposals who are independent from any of us who will be submitting a proposal can have that information and utilize all the other information they need to make their decisions.

Lyle, I think you were up next.

May I state it?

I move that we recommend that the city solicit proposals for the existing CAT funds as quickly as possible.

Any discussion of that?

There's a motion on the floor.

Is there any discussion or second of it as stated?

I would like to add something.

So to Alex's point, when we start to receive those applications, those requests coming in, is anybody going to be looking at them for errors in the application?

I would think that this would proceed as a normal RFP would.

It comes in, you have somebody review the RFP and say, you know, we don't have your

your sophomore transcript or whatever in the file, please send that along.

Okay, it's ready.

And then at the time when there's either the city or Sam Sanders or council so directs or whatever instrument says, let's start considering them.

We now have enough, let's start pushing it out.

I would never want to assume anything.

Can we have verification on that?

I can speak on the process.

The way the process has been in the past was the NOFA was written up with a timeframe for applications and submittals and review and city council approval.

It had some criteria about what the application should contain and what the application should be for.

And that was pretty,

Pretty much it from what I remember.

Again, just a reminder, I'm sure you all remember that a separate subcommittee with members that weren't able to receive funds was put together to evaluate the proposals and the proposals were submitted to that subcommittee for a public meeting to evaluate.

Right.

And I guess what you're asking, S. Lisa, I think is, is there going to be an administrative process to make sure somebody hasn't put in something that just isn't complete and we've wasted everybody's time because it's just sitting there?

And I don't think that's unreasonable to have somebody flip through it and say, yeah, we don't have Page 4, finish Page 4.

Sorry, but I'm sorry.

I'm not trying to be rude.

I cut you off.

I'm sorry.

Well, I mean, like you, I can keep going forever.

So step on in.

Merry Christmas.

Happy New Year.

Yes, that is correct.

That's part of the normal administrative process.

Mr.

Chair, point of order.

We don't have a second on the table yet.

I seconded it.

I seconded it.

You did?

I didn't hear you.

Okay.

I would suggest the recommending city council cath funds, city solicit proposals for existing cath funds as quickly as possible

Okay.

So let me, so

Motion to amend, I'm just gonna stick this out there so we can see it.

No, Lyle, you beat me to it.

I just wanna speak on that for a second, just in terms of proper order of things, not meeting order of things, but the money was allocated under a regime, flawed as it may have been.

It was allocated under regime with a set of rules and a procedure that were in place and the county, the city is every bit within its right to review that regime, the procedures, and make adjustments and make it better if they, we can.

And I think we're all in support of that.

I certainly support that.

The money was allocated a year ago with rules and regimes and procedures.

And so I guess what I'm saying is I support, in particular, I support the amendment to the motion because there is a process and a set of procedures in place.

When the consultants come back with updates or shattering or not, that's additional information and data for staff and, or

Review Committee to keep in mind, but it's not as if there isn't a process.

And it's not as if the money was allocated, absent of a process or the money was allocated.

And there was something in the motion, the resolution of council that said, we're going to allocate this, but we're going to wait to push it out there until we have new till we have data and new plants in place.

and so this makes a ton of sense to me.

Thank you, Dan.

Further discussion?

Yes, ma'am.

Okay, no more questions, all right.

We've got the motion in the chat.

No further discussion, all in favor indicate by aye.

Aye.

I don't see, is there any dissent?

I hear no dissent whatsoever.

Motion passes.

All right.

Watching the clock ticking away here.

I do not.

Stacey informed me that she had a county supervisor's meeting so she wouldn't be able to attend.

Right.

Right.

Gotcha.

She's got her whipping her chair up.

Got it.

All right.

So let's see.

I believe that

I think there are only two that can I just say something, because I don't know if Alice is going to be on here for the whole duration.

But I do want to echo what Dan and Lisa said about home ownership.

And I have echoed that on the committee that I sit on with UVA.

And I still feel that there is a lot more that needs to be done with the community.

The low income community doesn't really know much about what is going on.

because there is a lot of homeowners in the 10th and Page who are losing their home because of taxes or whatever, I do echo what Dan and Lisa says about home ownership.

Thank you, Joy.

I hear you.

Happy holidays.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Yeah, thank you again.

As far as subcommittee reports go, I think I can summarize them pretty quickly.

There are two items that the public policy subcommittee was addressing.

Item number one was a tax abatement program revision.

We can speak to that a little more, but the short version of that is, is that the policy subcommittee did meet on that a couple of times.

We sent off the recommendations to the city, city's attorney and staff are working on that.

And I believe Ridge and I have a meeting scheduled for the first week of January to sort of discuss how many laws we broke and I mean, trying to clean up the,

The details of that for a sort of polished presentation.

And then the other piece of that was that Deputy City Manager Sanders asked us to provide an order of battle for implementation.

of the Affordable Housing Program, sort of what we need to do right now, what we need to do in the spring and what we need to do after that.

Based on our two meetings, I provided a summary of that at the, I guess we met last September 29th.

That weekend, I shot out a rough cut to Sam and said, let me know if this is the structure you're actually looking for and get back to me.

That was

by Mr. Sanders' own admission, was designed to talk about resources with Mr. Boyles.

And at approximately the time I was going to follow up with Sam, we got news that Mr. Boyles was leaving, so I figured things were a little sideways there.

So I've not yet had feedback on that.

So I think that's what's going on with subcommittees.

Ridge, you've got your hand up, is did I miss anything critical?

I did have something else.

You covered the policy subcommittee work, just waiting for feedback on what we've sketched out.

I just wanted to just again echo the comments about home ownership.

And first of all, I want to say to Alice and UVA, it's an incredible thing that you all have done moving this thing forward.

And I know

that it has been very difficult to get to this point and just know that all of the suggestions that we have for you are just ways that we can think of of taking that incredible gesture and making the most out of it.

So thank you for what you all are doing.

I would note just, you know, Dan was worried about greasing his own skids.

I would just note that 78% of our job seekers, and we've now served over 1200 of them, 78% of our job seekers have said they are interested in home ownership.

So it is a very universal American dream, and it is reflected in our job seekers who are seeking home ownership.

And lastly, I would say that I'm a co-chair of another working group alongside affordable housing, and I'm hoping that as this housing is developed by whomever develops it, that there will be an opportunity and an insistence that there is a local hiring

I do have to jump off at one, but thank you for those comments.

And Ridge, I think that's an excellent point that we'll continue to drive home.

Sorry, the screen keeps moving around.

And then I also just want to remind everybody that there is a commitment for the support of 1000 to 1500 units over 10 years.

This is our first step with these three sites.

So I would just ask that you be a little patient with us and say that we haven't failed if we haven't sorted out every issue at this first round.

Thank you, thank you, thank you, Rich.

And thanks for being able to hang for the first hour.

I agree with everything Rich says, but please put affordable, truly affordable,

because what's being built now is not truly affordable to our folks.

So I also want to put that on the table because since I've been here, I've been asking y'all to please define affordability.

I haven't been done.

UVA got to do that.

City got to do that.

And I saw Mr.

Sales hands up, but it went down.

I don't know if it touched base.

I'm supporting what you said, Ridge.

Mr.

Chair?

All right.

Thank you, sir.

You know, it was up late last night.

I had a public meeting, a capital improvement plan last night.

There were many, many motions made, and I've got a rough draft that Missy Creasy was kind enough to share with me.

I can't swear to them, but this is our best guess.

Currently, the one that most relevant to this group, allocate any surplus funding to any unfunded affordable housing requests to include Charlottesville Affordable Housing Fund.

Very vague, very broad, but I hope of some use.

There was some concern about feasibility on that.

There was a lot of thought about moving money from bondable projects.

The CAF is not bondable.

So is this even real?

Do we need

some resources that are not bondable to actually do this.

That's not clear at this time and staff is busily working a way to figure that out.

The proposed land bank ordinance provides for the bonding and raising of funds that can be used in very versatile ways.

That would be good.

Yes, I'm sorry.

Go on.

Thoughts on this topic?

Sources of revenue.

Did we do good?

I'm sorry to say that I've given you the entire thing.

Those documents are, let's see.

Here we are.

Well, can I jump in?

I need to jump off for a second, but I need to watch.

I watched the session last night.

I'm sorry.

Clarification from the conversation at the end when the motion was made about reallocation of funding for affordable housing.

What the commissioner said and what their motion was I think may be in conflict with each other.

Basically, what the commissioner said was that they didn't want to specify which projects that they sort of wanted money dumped into the calf.

And so that it became a competitive process to get the best projects.

What the motion said was take money,

fun things that were in the unfunded list.

And I don't read the CAF as unfunded.

That is why I requested the exact language because it was unclear to me.

Yeah, so I think it was late at night, and I really appreciate all the work that you all put into it, but I do think that if you look at the tape,

What they said and what the motion was were two opposite things.

I think the intent was dump money into the CAF and get the best projects.

And again, what the motion was was pull from the unfunded list.

And the problem with that is that there was never any request put out there in the community so that things could be unfunded to start with.

You know what I mean?

So there was never any process or transfer.

So you don't know what's unfunded because there was never any question put out there.

And so I'm hoping that as chair, you'll go back and kind of clarify.

And I know that there's a note that's written to council as it moves forward to them sort of clarifying the intent.

And I'm just hoping that you'll sort of be on top of that.

And at least if I'm misunderstanding it, that's fine.

Thank you.

I can look at it.

I haven't seen it.

So I have to go look at it.

Lyle, Joy, if you're done, I'll

Cone, looks like you are.

Great.

Well, you know, I obviously would like to see money in the CIP for affordable housing in order to implement the portable housing plan.

I think that's important.

I did make some observations around revenue and where we get revenue to pay for the CIP and then I guess, you know, indirectly or directly then affordable housing.

I do think, and this is something I maybe, Chair, I might suggest the sub-policy committee tackle is to review if we're gonna adequately fund the CIP and investing on affordable housing, we're likely to need to raise revenue, which the levers we have to raise revenue for the city, sales taxes, fees, property taxes being the biggest one, et cetera, and obviously property tax

Raising also has impacts on housing affordability and other things.

So I was wondering, and maybe this would be, and bounce this off you, Lyle, and I don't know if the Planning Commission has thought much about this, but, and has observations around, you know, where should revenue come from and how, and how, what are the potential unintended consequences of different sources of revenue in relation to,

Right.

If we raise a lot of money from property taxes, for example, which I personally think is the way to go versus let's say a sales tax.

However, what are the implications on affordable housing and other housing in general for our city?

So I would like to, because that was likely to be part of the conversation, I think obviously for council also, if they're going to adequately fund the CIP, you know,

Chris, your audio is sort of getting quieter and quieter there.

I need to get straight into the camera like you do, Phil.

Well, I was actually responding to a couple of folks saying, what's he saying in the chat, but that's all right.

All right.

So to summarize, I do think it's in my understanding of what's coming out of the CIP, we have a lot of things in there that we're on affordable housing and need to be funded.

We need to raise revenue to do that.

How we raise revenue could also impact the actual housing situation in the community.

And it would be good to maybe have the sub-policy committee on the HAC take a look at, you know, what does actually raising the property tax

I'm trying to understand the point.

Typically, I guess, to be clear, within the context of if that's a lever we're going to pull and start doing something with property taxes, we need to know the second order consequences.

So that's an enormous if, of course, even in this environment.

But point taken.

And of course, that's also an IAT thing, too.

But yes, sir.

All right.

Any other thoughts, Lyle, on your... No, just based on what Chris was just asking.

Michael Payne has his hands up.

I was going to say, why don't we ask Councillor Payne?

And the other new Councillor is on here too.

Yeah, you know, as I discussed last night and have before, I think the elephant in the room is just that our current CIP is not affordable.

Just to summarize, as is our current CIP with a 10 cent property tax increase, a real estate tax increase,

locks out any new CIP projects for five plus years and also freezes up our general fund separate from the CIP.

So again, that is with a 10 cent tax increase, not without it.

And it also means that our funding for affordable housing and other priorities drops off a cliff in a couple years.

So it goes to zero.

again, with a 10 cents tax increase.

So I think the real decision point is one, we either get a sales tax from the General Assembly that solves that issue, or two, we make substantial cuts to the CIP and prioritize affordable housing and other things we want to make a priority.

But there is no solution for how to make this affordable

without one of those two options.

And I think that just continues to be the situation we face.

I would also just mention that the other challenges with the 10 cent tax increase, that can be partially offset in terms of tax relief, but there's a strict limit from the General Assembly on the value of your home that can qualify.

So even though we've been expanding that program, fewer and fewer people qualify each year because the assessments rise and people are kicked out of the program.

And will the General Assembly change that?

Maybe, but point being,

It's not as easy to get to a progressive tax that way as some may assume.

And again, I think that's the reality of the decision we make.

And either we get the sales tax increase or make substantial cuts to other areas if we wanna maintain our affordable housing commitments, which I think we absolutely must do.

Thank you.

Yes.

I stepped away and I just got back, what am I agreeing to or disagreeing with?

We don't know, but broadly we're talking about the capital improvement program.

It's big, it's expensive.

We have a commitment for $10 million a year in housing funds.

The CIP doesn't do that.

It drops off at Cliff in FY 27.

Oh God, what do we do?

Yeah.

I know I've learned one thing and that's not to make any commitments until I really know what's in the cupboard.

I can tell you that, you know, we have a commitment for the schools and that's something we definitely, because I know I've been on the school board 16 years and so many times I've been in that position, we're saying, okay, we appreciate your support.

We know that that project is very important.

So we're staying in line.

I think that we've gotten to the point that this project has gone from 50, 55 million to about 70 million because we've kept waiting in line.

So we, I will commit that I understand housing is important and we need to do what we can.

We need to also get, see what Albemarle counties, if we're doing seven to 10 million, what are they doing?

What are the other localities doing?

Because we need to make sure that

The money that we're doing, the commitment that we're doing towards affordable housing will be sure, certainly addressing the needs for Charlottesville residents.

We're not, since the only one doing it, that are everywhere attracting advocates, people seeking affordable housing from other localities as well.

So we just need to make sure it's a regional approach and we're not the only one that's doing it, but schools, we've made a commitment to them and

They have been waiting patiently, but I think that they're going to be getting a lot more vocal just as the housing groups are.

So it's a big pot.

We need to make sure everyone gets some.

And I'm going to come in, and I've heard from a lot of the last 30 days, a lot of the departments knocking at the door, not as loud, but they have a lot of commitments as well.

So Michael, I don't know how you've done it for the last two years.

People have been waiting too.

They go to our public school.

And I agree.

Those are the people that I am also fighting for, the shelter for the kids.

When I talk about poor people, I'm talking about the kids.

The reason why moms have low income housing is because they have children.

But we ain't gonna argue about this one.

I don't think there's anything to argue about.

But what I do want to say to you is that even with the city program, with the vouchers, that the city has committed to put money in for the vouchers, Albemarle County pushed back on those.

So good luck.

They're having folks with vouchers in Albemarle County is having the hardest time.

finding place or getting places to rent in Albemarle County.

They're pushing back on them.

And so I'm glad that you say you wanna see what other localities are doing, but we need help in that also because, you know, the city's investing money, they can't find anything in the city, they go to the county and they get pushed back.

No, I'm good.

That was helpful.

Yeah, just one last thought for me to add on to what I said.

You know, as people consider

How to fund our housing commitments.

Another point that I think is important that is not reflected in the CIP and budget documents is that we know over the next couple years, there will be an additional $10 million plus bill

that is going to come from our fire department, our schools having paid for permanent recurring expenditures with one time stimulus money from the federal government that the city will have to pick up, combined with the fact that the city is going to need to do a wage and compensation study, which could very possibly result in wage increases for every employee across the city.

And so those bills together are easily $10 million plus.

That is not currently reflected and has to be incorporated.

So again, I would just say to fund housing, which to me is the top priority and we must do.

We've got to face some difficult realities and recognize that there are real trade offs that we have to evaluate and make decisions on to make that happen.

A win-win short-term solution I see is, again, that sales tax increase authorized by the General Assembly, which would be, I believe, over $10 million a year directly to school buildings.

I believe that would pay for not only the proposed school reconfiguration, but also additional school infrastructure needs and would completely alleviate a big part of the pressure we're seeing.

So I would encourage everyone to try to do everything they can this General Assembly session.

to advocate for that.

And to the extent that we can try to build coalition partners, because I know there are a lot of schools in Southwest Virginia, too, that are in desperate need of renovation.

And it's a long shot.

But, you know, maybe there are some legislators in Southwest Virginia and throughout the state who are going to want to see a sales tax increase also being allowed in their localities.

But.

Thank you.

Yeah, sure.

I don't think and I hope we're never, I don't think where people are going on, we're putting, you know, affordable housing versus education and necessarily making them compete against each other.

So, as Juan said, you know, and Joy said, low income people need housing and they need education.

And the city should be delivering a, I think, equal opportunities for them around that.

and so to me it is we need to find sources of revenue to make sure we need to pay for those things and looking at out that dive as the CIP has it for affordable housing out in 2027, I would like to suggest and Chair Lisle or over at the Planning Commission, maybe it'd be interesting for the Housing Advisory Committee and the Planning Commission to have, I want to call it an informal conversation, but others who'd want to discuss taxing and potential sources of revenue and

model out some what do we need to have and how are we actually taxing ourselves compared to others also to understand you know because my understanding is our property tax rate is about 20% below the median for other cities and municipalities in the state so you know are we even taxing ourselves properly you know like other cities are to provide the minimum amount of services

Just very quickly, I do think that a joint PC hack work session is long overdue.

I have hesitated to put that forward considering the wild-eyed desperation in the eyes of the planning commissioners over the past several months.

But I think that we should probably encourage the chair of the hack and the chair of the planning commission to sort of figure out

They can schedule up a joint work session sometime in relatively early 2022.

Very good.

Just again, I will metaphorically pound the table and make this point one last time that

Those numbers of assuming of our current CIP completely freezing out all new CIP projects, freezing out our general fund is with a 10 cent tax increase assumed, which does take us to the level of Northern Virginia in the highest levels in the state.

That is assuming we do that, we are still falling off a cliff

for affordable housing funding in the out years, completely freezing the CIP.

So there's no room for new housing projects.

There's no room if there's an emergency need that we can't delay such as we find a critical bridge repairs needed or like with Smith Aquatic Center that they were air quality issues that needed to be fixed.

And there's also no room in the general fund to pay for new staff.

deferred staff requests, and that is not incorporating the $10 million plus bill we know is coming from one time, permanent expenditures made with one times funding.

That is with a 10 cent sales tax, or not sales tax, 10 cent real estate tax increase.

And so I'll just pound the table again and say it one last time.

I appreciate that Michael because CRHA has, you know, some, we've started redeveloping.

We're moving, we're planning on Sixth Street now and we're starting to, you know, move towards

Planning for West Haven, which that's one of our biggest sites and it's a political site and it's going to take a lot of planning.

And so, yes, that is kind of concerning to me.

because CRHA is gonna need the help.

Tax Credit alone is not going to provide deeply affordable housing for folks and that's what's needed.

I would entertain a motion if anyone has anything on that.

Ha ha ha ha.

I've heard a couple thoughts.

One was that the policy subcommittee look at revenue.

One was that the housing advisory committee and planning commission talk about this stuff next year.

Those both seem reasonable to me.

We're always happy to look at issues.

It takes a long time, seems to land any of these planes.

You know, we'd be happy to add our voices into the mix about what we might be able to do.

I mean, I think Michael has laid out a pretty stark set of choices and, you know, absent moving to a, uh, away from local real estate taxes to an income tax system across the state.

I think we're really in a bind.

Um, you know, but I do think looking at, you know, bonding options and other options that might be out there would be worth exploring and we'd be happy to do it.

Okay.

Lyle, I mean, if we want to put, well, I think that we don't really need a formal motion, but I guess we can make one saying let's have the subcommittee look at that.

I'm taking the gavel back for a second.

Any further discussion on that?

Are we moving for, may I ask something when you talk about subcommittees, are we moving?

Your chair owes everyone a round of who's on what subcommittee and are we playing any musical chairs.

That has been on your chair's agenda frequently and is still on the agenda of his to-do list.

Yes, there is no limit to the time you serve on a given subcommittee in particular.

There is some movement around, but we need to refresh that.

I mean, like everything else, it's been sort of knocked sideways by Zoom world and Corona, but that's on my list.

It was something that I neglected to do, which was actually mentioned in the last meeting, so my fault.

But back to the motion on the table, in favor of having policy subcommittee taking a look at this,

Any further discussion of that?

Aye.

Aye.

No opposition?

Passes.

OK. Ridge, if you could look at scheduling something in January for that.

And then the second thought of the idea, oh, let me hand this back to Lyle.

Go ahead.

We're looking at the joint session and other things.

And Lyle, just being one of the persons that's helping push this, I'm willing to help.

Just let me know and we'll help engage.

So noted.

Thank you.

Second item was a follow up on a possible joint session.

Great.

D'Oronzio happy to speak with the vice chair of Soliade slash Cherry Soliades.

All right, done.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other business before I turn to potential public comment?

Chair, I do have an update.

So many of you might remember we were, the HAC did some analysis on short term rentals about two years ago, or maybe a year and a half ago, right before COVID or it landed kind of report.

I have noticed, and I'll put this in the chat, but there's a bill that's being going through the General Assembly that will modify code and make short-term rental companies like Airbnb report to and potentially collect all the lodging taxes that happen and on a monthly basis report that all, give the money and report

who's renting and where and for how long and for how much to the commission revenues, which would in theory again provide the information then for zoning and the commission revenue to basically better track what's happening and if zoning is being the short term rental rules are being followed.

So the Christian Revenue Divers is letting me know that potentially they're interested in the analysis that we did.

And again, there might be progress.

The bill is being sponsored and the patron is actually Republican Ware of Powahattan.

So it is likely to be bipartisan and no delegate Hudson's interested in co-sponsoring or supporting it.

I think it my read on it and I will again of the initial bill is that it will mandate the short-term rebel companies to report

Well, okay.

I look forward to that industry.

Also should help generate some revenue for us because all those people are not disagreeing.

Yeah, I'm not disagreeing with you at all, sir.

I'm sorry, I cannot hear what Chris is saying.

Maybe because he's leaned back, leaned back again.

But you were talking, I apologize.

Maybe I'm just getting old, Chris.

You were mentioning Airbnb and someone bringing a bill forward

about making sure that they reveal the information that they've collected.

Is that correct?

So you don't have to repeat it all.

I'm just looking for general consensus.

And do you have a bill number?

I delegate

Where?

I will post it in the chat, okay?

Sorry for not enunciating into my computer enough.

I need to get the headphones myself and speaker maybe.

That's going to be very interesting.

All right.

I'll post it here in a second.

Any further business before I turn to public comment?

All right.

Okay, anything else?

Motion to adjourn.

Second.

That's the one.

Third, fourth, fifth.

I need a fifth.

Happy Holidays to y'all and Merry Christmas.

All in favor.

Thank you very much.

Once again, we've managed to stumble through another trip around the sun.

Bye.

Thank you.