Housing Advisory Committee Meeting   4/16/2025

Smoldering volcano of your old man.

and Antoine Williams, Office of Community Solutions.

Madeline Metzler, Office of Community Solutions.

Charlottesville DSA.

I'm a Land-East Planner with William Pollan.

Jada Howell from PMAC Nancy Land Trust.

Okay, thank you.

Welcome, everybody.

Mr. Antoine?

Within that, the direct housing investment makes up about $48.1 million today.

$100 million goal?

Yeah, $100 million.

OK.

No worries.

35% of the SAUs supported affordable units.

Like I'm looking, for example, at, you know, one of the things included is the Carleton mobile home park acquisition, where the city is going to be spending money over time.

Where are you looking at that information?

Bottom of page 2.

Now you're something, now you're something.

And it lists Arch Reports, 0J, on the next page.

within the HAC, but also that council is clear that, correct me if I'm wrong, that the 48 million is the committed funds, not necessarily the actual of spent funds at this moment, or am I wrong?

I just wanted to make sure, like what I heard you say as you were presenting initially is that they've spent $48 million, but that's not actually technically true.

They just committed $48 million.

So I guess that is so.

I just wanted to clarify that.

I think that's important.

And 40 million divided by 1000 units.

That is confusing though because it says from FY22 to FY25 the city invested.

In the past tense, and then I'm looking ahead, it says with $12.7 million scheduled for allocation in FY26, and additional anticipated requests are possibly $40 million for FY27 and 30.

So that's why it's.

So invested in that year means it's allocated to an account, but it doesn't mean it's in the hands of sunshine or something.

So once it's in there.

Is that actual funds sitting in an account?

Once they issue the bond,

So it makes it slightly more concrete, but until most of the time, until the thing is built, we're not really going to be handing over a lot of money.

So we have 348, we get a little bit too in the weeds on this, but 348 units for that 30% AMI below and about 427 units.

Not yet.

We have a better picture of where we stand on that.

So even if we don't have the data now, do we know if whether, I don't know which city agency oversees the tax relief programs, but do we know if they actually collect that data?

But we have not gotten any aggregate report from them yet.

OK. And who does administer that tax and follows the tax relief?

So shoot me an email on those points if you see it early.

And I guess I could do the math myself, but.

And then the slide following that also kind of gets into it a bit as well.

I've tried to look it up in your beta.

It's a beta.

Yeah, sorry.

What data set are you using?

and basically, what is the cost per year?

We haven't broken out what the Union County is for that specific year.

It'd be hard to do that.

I don't.

I'm just curious what the dollar per unit amount is for us.

The pipeline is to be accounted for as a result.

It might be like a more helpful to just if you have a couple of specific projects like you can more easily calculate them and that honestly would probably be more accurate because otherwise we're taking like the total units and all of the project money I don't I'm sure there's variation from projects although we actually don't know because we don't have the data at this time.

And that might not even be reflective to the performer that that developer might end up with when they actually go to close and put it all together.

And so what we have projected historically may not actually bear out in the future.

Are there audits that happen regularly or at the end of a project or

It's very, very onerous and intense, but not necessarily, other than saying here it is, it's been built financially at the city level.

The Ten Year Plan in light of major changes in funding.

Let's kick start it from there.

the city's making investments as well in these projects what the information about the process he has to go through no no like the final documents yeah or how these funds were used like if there's any points in which you can find you know we have access essentially to

It is, I'm not entirely sure, to be honest, if that particular piece is or not.

I have one question.

Is that Carlton?

Not all are like, yeah.

It's spread across the city, not just like in one location.

All of the cities.

Okay, okay, gotcha.

It's a portfolio owned by Woodard.

but it was a transition from Eugene Williams, and so it was affordable, Woodard maintained affordability, but as that permanent loan came up and it was gonna be refinanced, the affordability was gonna get lost without that investment.

Virginia Supportive Housing, Vista 29.

in the county on 29, that was premier circle, that site.

What was the hotel name again?

It's joint.

There will be more.

Last five, seven, you're making no time for questions or anything?

This is a lot.

What's the VCF housing line?

Just city money?

It goes for housing programs and support, so not for construction of new housing.

It's hops, okay.

Okay.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

I'm so proud of you, my best.

You should have a copy of the draft ordinance in that packet.

I think that's, on its surface, incredibly dumb and limiting.

Yeah, that's just, I guess, different than

So it's a draft.

Go ahead.

Maybe there's some legal piece we're missing, so it would be

Why changes work.

The way we left it is that I was going to write a general draft of discussion that was then going to be edited and chewed on by either the HAC Policy Committee or the whole HAC, depending on what.

Well, we don't know that.

So the draft of this is put together from

Okay.

So when we come to the meeting, we'll have, yeah, we don't have like two hours of

And we have new folks here.

that, you know, may not have been a part of this, that I do want to make sure they have some.

Yeah, this group has talked about it.

So I can't compare it to more discussions than I have.

Okay.

Joy's seen it like four times.

Yeah.

And I said, the first time Joy and I saw this was in 2017.

And so I just want to remind

Yeah.

Yeah.

So what we have now is what they reviewed together.

But it's not like you're going to go back to your original version.

If we have substantive changes.

I see.

So this is a, this is an update effectively.

Gotcha.

That's fine.

Yeah, we just don't want to be in a situation where like this goes in front of council for them to prepare to vote and then we have a counter memo and then all things fall apart and that's no good.

Understand that what's before you is not likely to be the final form once we have this as an action item.

What's the story here?

If it's not, they're just wanting an update and you're just giving them an update?

With recognition that once this thing is thrown into its own entity or quasi-entity of the city, that there should be, there might be further change.

not by the end of this year.

created it should do something.

Just because we've been working on it all year.

In order to form a non-stock corporation, you need two directors to form it.

It's because it's a Virginia non-stock corporation.

Yes.

There may be a private opportunity, et cetera, but on the public side, it wouldn't happen.

It's possible, unless some of the funding becomes more available sooner.

There is some CAF money that's floating around, for example.

The funding temperature in the world right now, I think it is probably best for us to assume the worst case that it wouldn't show up until FY 27.

In terms of it being active.

In terms of there being dollars to actually utilize until FY 27.

They may not wish to keep their banks may not wish to continue, but the banks don't understand that yet.

I won't worry about the funding yet until we get to that point.

But again, putting on my pretend council hat for a moment, there might be value in you also including a projected timeline, like what you think might be realistic given the processes that have to be taken between now and then.

Fair point.

But I do like that idea of just saying our goal, what we would like to see, but I know that.

You can say the Hatch goal is.

It's documented if you do it.

The Hatch goal is done in 2024.

About six to eight months, you know.

That's impressive.

We haven't even done incorporation.

So the potential next steps are these four things?

If that takes six to eight months, then yeah, we are going to do it next year.

I thought that there had already been a legal review.

So it's not the final stamp.

Do we have a lawyer yet or are we still sub-confined?

Oh, wow.

Yes.

I will send the announcement.

Okay.

So this is why additional legal review is going to happen anyway.

No wonder you can't get anything done.

OK, so.

Not the focus of this meeting, but I just wanted you to say that this is added into the timeline.

So if I'm understanding, then we potentially could be working on two, three, and four.

And three bullets.

Call one, we have to wait for that attorney to start in May.

So we still have a legal support team.

Based on how Monday goes, there could be steps added to this at the reproductive council.

How would you all like to play?

I guess Phil's going to get back to us with some comments.

Based on when that comes in and what we can do.

I'm sorry?

You're going to write your email, just make sure I'm on it.

And CC him?

Either way, that worked.

Just by email?

We will have to set a meeting.

It depends on what's going to come.

Whenever he comes up, we have to meet and talk about it.

Then there's no rationale for a meeting.

Could we preemptively set a meeting and then if we decide to cancel it, so be it?

I recommend that and then set a deadline to get your comments and so that you all can have time to review each other because I can send it all to you and I don't want you trying to read it all at the day of that meeting.

You can send send us, right?

Yeah.

It's OK.

So can we look at calendars now and do that?

Are you going to respond to Phil's comments to me for that meeting or are you going to respond to him at that meeting?

What do you want?

I won't.

It's up to you.

Yeah, I think we're better off just doing it transparently.

30th.

Allen, can you see if City Space is available?

Our space in S&P building is free anytime after 10.30.

I would prefer the... Because I imagine you're not just going to do this, you're probably going to talk about the other two items too.

The 30th, you had name one, you said one.

Yes, I'm not offering myself for a three hour meeting.

Can we estimate one to two thirty?

and invite will go out.

So that's something that we're sorting through.

Antoine, do you remember about 10 years ago they did a tax abatement program for folks in the city that renovated older homes?

Yes.

Do you not, is there any kind of data that shows the success of that program?

And that was

Yeah.

It's we had a fairly I'll put Jason on it because I'm sure I may have some information when I did it.

I'll look back through my records for you.

Richmond said like that they did a similar program and it was really successful, which is why they decided we had we had notes and data and all sorts.

Yeah.

There's no requirement for affordability or anything.

No, but I'm just saying you could take the basic structure and rework it and then apply it to this.

but that will be the time to kind of sharpen those modeling, if you will, further.

So this modeling is also happening under reevaluating inclusionary zoning.

What do you mean?

Right, right, right.

And also, if you have, like, language recommendations that should go into that scope so that we don't misframe it, like, send that over.

know exactly what we want to respond to unless we see something to work with.

I'm now sending you everything on that program from the Hack Archives.

The Hack Archives just came out.

They sit on a section of my company's commercial Google Drive.

Unofficial hack archives.

All right.

Thank you.

Subject.

Like, are you just kind of updating us on what City Council is going to review on Tuesday?

But yeah, so it's going to be a full work session.

The City Council knows that HAC is in support of this moving forward and continuing to be explored.

Anything that you think warrants additional inspection or conversation, also elevate that and let Council know that you wish to discuss that further.

So I'll make a motion that the HAC, to state that the HAC is in support of the continued exploration of this acronym, the tax abatement structure, recognizing that, and the HAC is looking forward to being a partner in the dialogue and how it

I guess one question I have is at the end of this on Monday when council reviews this I know you've highlighted some of these questions like should we require a higher percentage of affordable dwelling units than the minimum 10% to be eligible and I mean those are those are very impactful answers to those questions and hack isn't what are you looking from council to say on Monday is it just like we want to explore these questions

Staff is evaluating it with the expertise of folks in NDS, some input from some folks from Planning Commission.

Maybe even the third party consulted us.

We're trying to outline all of that such that by this time, make sure, hopefully, we'll have a draft ready to be introduced and then ready to be vetted and then implemented.

Go ahead.

That's going to be part of the work stream that happens afterwards.

All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposition?

Because I'm looking at the transcript.

We need approval of that.

Mike, you did a good job.

We made a motion.

Without telling you, we'd move to re-elect you as chair.

Yeah, she was here.

But Phil made sure we understood that we need to wait and nominate on the floor.

Will you accept?

Okay, and now we have to do it for Vice Chair.

The motion was for all three.

OK, OK. All right.

OK, all right.

Oh, next.

So you might as well just take a look at it and see if it needs anything else added to it.

We have to take a look at the bylaws on our next agenda.

We did talk about John Sayles having like a representative come.

Okay, so now anything else on anybody's heart?

I'm sorry.

I did my best to aggregate what comments came into a list.

For the fund, the risk reduction fund, where does that come from?

Previously, it was going to be a set aside of some bucket of money from the city as a general evidence.

It's 50 grand, 60 grand.

We're talking about 20, 27?

Yes, probably more now.

And this will probably not take place until 2027 because the budget's already been?

And they can say yay or nay.

OK.

You don't think $75,000 is a good start?

It just feels like it needs to be higher than that now.

They spent $10,000 out of their 75 grand because it's really there as a real.

Was there a timeline discussed around sending the survey out and getting responses by when?

but I would say we need more feedback from human rights people, folks, social services probably.

Just like Misty provided her feedback on the city side because the jurisdictional boundary is blurry here.

Right now, the concentration has just been you guys and key city staff.

But the survey doesn't need to be perfect.

and I haven't talked to the broader community of practitioners as well like CATEC and those folks.

If you find five or six more questions to ask, throw them together as questions and send it out.

I just didn't want to move without you all.

But if everyone else here is OK with that.

Main consensus, move along.

Yeah, just love to deputize you to make decisions and go.

I mean, now let's move on.

I hope so.

I mean, solid response level so far.

okay next meeting is May 21st 2025 now we'll move to public comment

I don't actually have a comment.

Have a good day.

Right over the head, somewhere.

Thank you.

OK. A motion to adjourn?

So moved.

OK.

Thank you so much.

It's exciting that so many things are happening.

Do you want me to come on Monday?

Do you have any questions that you would want one of us to ask?

I made some very detailed notes.

Do you have anything?

If you think of anything.

No, I think, especially, this is kind of just a, hey, this is what we're doing, blessings

I want to show them that we have clarity on what we're talking about.

Yeah.

Uh, you mean, which funding are you referring to?

Or gave my, made a mistake.

No, I know the project, but which funding?

That's wonderful.

Yeah.

Yeah, we will need it for Park Street, but it's for less of a priority than the other two.