Housing and Human Services Advisory Board Meeting – March 11, 2021
Read the transcription below, or follow along directly here: https://otter.ai/u/Q5ecR7HzGfDiZ23N1fF_mIQtmXg
Unknown Speaker 0:00
So we’ll go ahead and call the meeting to order.
Unknown Speaker 0:03
The first item on our agenda is public invited to be heard. I don’t think we have anyone but just confirming. We have no public. Okay. Just us. Justice.
Unknown Speaker 0:18
The next item is approving the minutes from our last meeting on February 11. Are there any questions or discussion or a motion to approve?
Unknown Speaker 0:29
I move we approve the meetings from the meeting minutes from January 11. Second, okay. My apologies. Okay. Motion from Brian Graham. seconded. All in favor?
Unknown Speaker 0:44
Unknown Speaker 0:47
Okay, was unanimous with Madeline’s Aye. All right.
Unknown Speaker 0:54
The next item on our agenda is an update on engagement strategies to gain deeper understanding from the community about human service needs. And this item is really a continuation of conversations we’ve had over the last few meetings around community engagement.
Unknown Speaker 1:12
At liberto, or Karen, do you want to you want to start or should we start with some discussion? First, I have a PowerPoint that I was going to take us through and then we can get into discussion. Okay, perfect. Well, I have it up. So I’ll be driving that. So let me
Unknown Speaker 1:29
let me do that.
Unknown Speaker 1:33
Can you all see the PowerPoint?
Unknown Speaker 1:37
Unknown Speaker 1:39
So um, we, we’ve been talking about this for some time. And Karen, I have been talking quite a bit about it the last several weeks. And
Unknown Speaker 1:53
we wanted to bring this conversation to the board ready to get input on on how to move forward. Part of the challenge, and we’ll get to it was just trying to figure out what is what is what we’re asking the board for. And that took some time. But I feel that we reached some conclusions of where what we’re actually asking for. And so we’ll get to those in a second. So this is a quick PowerPoint that provides some context and background on why we’re having this conversation.
Unknown Speaker 2:27
Matrix goes, here we go.
Unknown Speaker 2:31
Unknown Speaker 2:33
you know, our 2021 funding funding matrix, just as a background, and for kimbra is is kind of new information for you. it the way that it worked was it was based on a typewriter like the word tripartite sorry, that comes from CSBG.
Unknown Speaker 2:48
Three, I was impressed. Yeah, well, that’s CSBG stuff. It’s not quite, it’s not CDBG, you don’t get to use it very much. Don’t get to use it very much. I thought I would throw it in there.
Unknown Speaker 3:04
It’s really, it’s three parts. It’s thirds. So so the matrix, the scoring process is a third, the board, our average score a third, the stat, I mean, your average score, third us staff. And then a third the way did metrics. In 2021. We, we removed weights from the scores. So in previous rounds, questions were weighted not not just the weighted activities, actual questions were weighted, and in 2021, we removed weights from that, and so we had straight whatever your score was, that’s what it was.
Unknown Speaker 3:41
We also removed
Unknown Speaker 3:44
in in the actual weighted activity matrix, we removed the target population between 27 2018 and 2021.
Unknown Speaker 3:53
People, agencies and programs got weighted points for specific target populations that have been identified in the 2016 2017.
Unknown Speaker 4:07
Human Service needs assessment. And so we removed that. And then and in discussions with the board, we we kind of bifurcated the isn’t a big word, bifurcating The, the way to score between whether the program was addressing one of our priority areas. And if they were doing one of the activities that we had identified via the new human services needs assessment, so that that’s kind of the way it was and
Unknown Speaker 4:38
what it did in looking at the data. It did not have a large overall impact on funding. Only one agency who was previously funded did not get funded.
Unknown Speaker 4:53
And there were two agencies who had not been funded but had implanted but had applied in 2020 this time around there.
Unknown Speaker 5:00
In 2021, and part of that was because of
Unknown Speaker 5:05
the change in our priority areas.
Unknown Speaker 5:09
So there was that that change in Priority Ranking did make a difference.
Unknown Speaker 5:15
And the other big change was, had nothing to do with the matrix itself. It was at the Board’s decision to fully fund housing stability. That was the other. But again, that was less about the matrix and more of a board decision.
Unknown Speaker 5:31
So why are we having this conversation? Well, I, I don’t know if you remember, but I definitely remember that there was there was some
Unknown Speaker 5:40
anx. That guess is the word I want to use, with the with how this funding process went. And part of that anx, at least on Karen and mice part was that the 2716 2017 human service needs assessment was presented very differently. It was very outcome focused and program focused. What programs should we fund? What target population should we, we make sure that are prioritized in this new one is very different. It it talks about activities, some activities, some very specific activities, and I’ll remember remind you like things like car repair, that’s not necessarily a program unless it is a program, but not many people have that. And then also, it also talks in a lot of principles and big philosophies like No Wrong Door type of soap, or more wraparound case management type of situations. So it was very different than the 2016 2017 needs assessment. So the challenge has been the care and I had, and I borrowed this from a friend who always when I was doing programs would ask me, what’s the what what what is it that we are asking? And so it took me a while to figure this out. But here is what we need the board’s help for and can please jump in at any bone. One question number one is this needs assessment highlighted areas that city The city has not traditionally funded, for example, employment, yet the needs assessment says support or it hasn’t actually said proactively support employment. And, Brian, we’re not gonna talk about this tonight, because I think it’s different. But Brian has done a great job of looking at that and looking at linguistics and making some really regular recommendations that we’ll get to an article gets tonight. But they’re not what we’ve funded. So how should we address these areas? Also, it provided principles and best practices, no, no wrong door approach, wraparound case management, what’s the other one?
Unknown Speaker 7:51
I think other principles,
Unknown Speaker 7:54
Unknown Speaker 7:56
reducing racial tension or the importance of all of these. And so the question is, how do we address these and I have some options? Do they become part of the you know, if we think that they’re really important? Do they belong in the application? And how we evaluate the application? Do they become another weighted matrix? Or do we add them to the way that measures we have now that people get extra points? If they describe how they do these things? Well, or do we want to fund these areas, they become another area. So that’s the conversation that we want to have with the board. And then once we do that, then we have there’s more to this PowerPoint, but I’m gonna stop sharing for now. So we can have the unless you need the question, but if not, I’ll just stop sharing, and we’ll have the conversation. And then I can continue with the PowerPoint.
Unknown Speaker 8:46
Does anyone have any questions about what liberto just shared or any reactions? to that?
Unknown Speaker 9:00
Unknown Speaker 9:03
Thank you, Caitlin. I, you know, having gone through a little bit, some of that language, it’s a, it’s remarkably different. The 2017 Human Services assessment versus the 2020. And I really myself struggled with,
Unknown Speaker 9:23
you know, these, there’s like the, what, on one hand, which is really kind of outcome related. And then there’s, as liberto as you mentioned, there’s these how
Unknown Speaker 9:36
so the what could be
Unknown Speaker 9:40
you know, increase housing stability, right, and that could be rent support, and then the how ends up becoming something like
Unknown Speaker 9:51
no wrong door.
Unknown Speaker 9:53
Unknown Speaker 9:57
I guess one of the questions I have is to wait
Unknown Speaker 10:00
extent is that how an agency
Unknown Speaker 10:05
thing to address? Or is it more of a systemic city level thing to address? Like, if the agency provides a program that is rent relief? Is that then kind of Is there a network so to speak, where the city says, okay, no matter where somebody walks in, they’re going to learn about this program. Because the agency can’t control where that’s going to happen.
Unknown Speaker 10:31
So that to me, I just struggled with that a little bit.
Unknown Speaker 10:38
Unknown Speaker 10:39
I mean, I would say
Unknown Speaker 10:42
that question of whether it’s on the agency, or if it’s systemic is really, to me, that particular example, is really systemic. And it requires the leadership of the city. So like, I read through the executive summary that was included in the packet. And one of the things that struck me is that some of the things that are identified here are very much things that like we can fund, but that we also like bridging the digital divide, and having a clear, like, strategy for that. Rather than like putting that in the hands of a nonprofit or an agency, that how question becomes of like, how does the city actually like?
Unknown Speaker 11:24
corral, essentially, the agencies that we’re working with, toward a strategy, so they’re not just all throwing, you know, spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks, but that it’s actually like, done in coordination. And there’s only so much we can do through funding agencies to achieve that.
Unknown Speaker 11:42
Because Phil needs like that. Similar to with a No Wrong Door approach, like, that has to be something that is like, emphasized throughout all of the agencies, it can’t be on one agency to do that.
Unknown Speaker 11:57
Unknown Speaker 12:00
like some of the how criteria or the weightiness of the How might unnecessarily narrow the
Unknown Speaker 12:10
the ability for some organizations that really warrant funding from being eligible, it seems like the impact the what, in this situation, I think, in general, would be the priority in my mind, and not the how, because I just don’t think capacity is present in most small organizations to take on those how components.
Unknown Speaker 12:42
Unknown Speaker 12:45
I agree, it does seem like a call to the city to help resource the organizations
Unknown Speaker 12:51
you know, to enter Connect services, or if somebody enters the door for a service in our community they have, they’re instantly resourced with any other relevant services.
Unknown Speaker 13:04
But if we were going to work it into the context of a grant grant application or review, I think, you know, we ask, I think one of the assessments is, you know, does this organization
Unknown Speaker 13:15
you know, what, are their partner organizations? are they connected with other organizations are the sort of siloed and I think you could rephrase that question or add a question into that evaluative assessment to to, you know, see if there are at least working on, on that, you know, providing those resources, whether they’re city brochures, or links to the websites, or whatever it is. Similarly, with the unemployment issue, you know, I think that maybe that’s a call to the city, I may see how it’s, it’s on us on this group, to a large extent, and, you know, one of the buckets would be security and education.
Unknown Speaker 13:55
You know, I think there’s a couple of buckets, you could make arguments for were relevant for unemployment. But I don’t know, I would ask the city council, I guess, if there’s some other mechanism to support employment.
Unknown Speaker 14:10
Yeah, I mean, I think about for employment, you know, things that attract companies to bring, you know, to come here to, you know, and having a lot of the services that we have, you know, I’ve talked to folks who have small businesses here, and the fact that there are resources for folks to get, you know, English as a second language training, or
Unknown Speaker 14:33
the one agency that we heard from actually did like, sort of not just like introductory, ESL, but a second, you know, essentially like more business oriented language. Those types of resources are the types of things that essentially create a population that they want, the companies then want to hire. And so all of those types of things contribute to employment, even if it’s not like the city’s employing or the city is
Unknown Speaker 15:00
Specifically providing unemployment benefits, but rather providing the necessary resources to draw talent and families or, you know, people who work there
Unknown Speaker 15:12
can make a big difference.
Unknown Speaker 15:23
Other questions or parts of this conversation before we continue?
Unknown Speaker 15:29
I’m curious what folks think about.
Unknown Speaker 15:32
Yeah, Brian, go ahead. Sorry. I was just gonna say on the employment questions, question.
Unknown Speaker 15:40
You know, the only thing I would be interested in understanding better on that is to what extent is
Unknown Speaker 15:50
there there are other programs that are already doing this? So is it really the best use of city funds to duplicate those efforts or try to go down a different paths with agencies. And I’m I’m not even when I think through the agencies that we typically work with, I’m not even really familiar with any that that focus in that area, outside of potentially something like bridge house, so that were to come to Longmont, but we’re just more about homeless solutions. I say scrap it.
Unknown Speaker 16:26
Unknown Speaker 16:35
so I think that employment is really critical. But
Unknown Speaker 16:44
right now, it’s private size to employment agencies. And the county does it through workforce. And the city actually has outsourced their
Unknown Speaker 17:00
economic development to another
Unknown Speaker 17:03
entity called Longmont, economic development partnerships, who are the ones who get people to come in. So
Unknown Speaker 17:15
that’s one of my frustrations is that we really have nothing to do with employment. And what we it seems what we could do is Bill, you know, if we want to be involved with it at all,
Unknown Speaker 17:27
which I do, but build up things like the
Unknown Speaker 17:32
the new bill that just passed has an A, I don’t know, there’s something called the apprenticeship gap that will provide apprenticeships for people all over the country, that’s national program, that’s a good very good program. And tying that in with
Unknown Speaker 17:54
programs to the st. Green School System and to Front Range Community College. Now, City Council also has no ability to have any control over the st frame Valley School District. So
Unknown Speaker 18:09
this is, to me very problematic in terms of if we’re just talking about employment. So to me, we shouldn’t be
Unknown Speaker 18:17
Unknown Speaker 18:20
trying to undermine or
Unknown Speaker 18:23
develop our own kind of economic,
Unknown Speaker 18:27
our own kind of workforce development programs, and fund them, because
Unknown Speaker 18:32
as Brian says, they’ve already been done by other people, and they are better funded than we are. And
Unknown Speaker 18:43
I’m just giving you a little feedback on
Unknown Speaker 18:46
how although workforce stuff goes on, and don’t appreciate that, Brian, one opportunity that occurred to me is if again, if we’re looking at the matrix of like the one on one axis, and then the house, there are programs that we fund that actually result in hiring more staff and potentially directing that hiring in a certain way. So for instance, though, that hiring might be directed towards more equity, kind of based hiring rather than, you know, the the standard process. So that I suppose we could consider if that’s efficient to add that as a as a bonus if a program contributes to this, but I feel like it’s going to have such a nominal impact on the issue of employment that it may be more of a red herring than something that’s actually adding value.
Unknown Speaker 19:49
Yeah, um, I
Unknown Speaker 19:54
think I like your idea. I like this idea of like, the what and the how being, you know, kind of
Unknown Speaker 20:00
framing those as two different axes that we’re thinking about, because I think about, like asthma, for example, folks who go through there, have access to a caseworker who helps like reinforce this, like no wrong door policy. And so like, what they do is, you know, not necessarily around that, but they do it in a way that reinforces like the how, and so thinking about how we might map programs and agencies on the like, both the what and the how, as two separate measures, to, you know, to think about, that gets really complex in terms of like scoring agencies and that sort of thing. And so we have to think about how you know, what matters
Unknown Speaker 20:46
in that, in terms of that, and how to weight those things. But thinking about them as separate questions, instead of all being the same question, I think is helpful, because we have some agencies that are doing the what and the how some that are doing the what, but they’re maybe not re emphasizing the house, some that are providing that caseworker services, even if they’re not providing, you know, one of our top priority funding areas, maybe they’re providing caseworker services that end up getting folks connected to other agencies that do that. And so thinking about those things, both being important.
Unknown Speaker 21:21
And, Caitlin, if I may add, I think that that’s right. And perhaps then what the hell really needs to be redefined? Because, for instance, there, it’s really an access issue, right? It’s, it’s increasing access to these programs by not having people have to knock on four doors to get the answer they’re looking for. But there may be some programs that really are so accessible, even though they don’t, they don’t have a structure around it.
Unknown Speaker 21:50
But it doesn’t really apply to them. I can’t think of an example. But we would just have to be clear that we don’t we’re not driving unintended consequences by penalizing programs, because they’re not doing something that doesn’t need to be done in the context of what they do. Yeah, that’s a good point. Elberta,
Unknown Speaker 22:13
getting that is a good point, I was I was envisioning, you know,
Unknown Speaker 22:18
again, it around the weighted side. Right. So right now we have
Unknown Speaker 22:24
the matrix that looks at priority areas and activities, we have the board and staff, could we add a
Unknown Speaker 22:31
can make a quarter right quarters instead of thirds. And that fourth quarter could be the How could be the philosophy or the
Unknown Speaker 22:41
get the the needs assessment has identified as important for long lived, right. And I but I get what Brian’s saying. So for example, if you are
Unknown Speaker 22:55
I think, you know,
Unknown Speaker 22:58
of our funding agencies like
Unknown Speaker 23:06
Unknown Speaker 23:07
write intercom yo provides English, English language learning.
Unknown Speaker 23:15
Now, they do connect folks to other resources. I know they’ve been helpful during this pandemic, but that’s not their
Unknown Speaker 23:24
that’s not their thing. Right. Their their thing is teaching folks English. So would they be penalized? Because they don’t have a formal how, right? We could put that into the application? Right. So these are our values. Explain how you, you know, user, no door, no, no wrong door or whatever other things you want to add?
Unknown Speaker 23:50
We could add question about that. And we could and we could, and we could rate board? I mean, programs on that. But will it unintentionally impact agencies? So that’s, that’s my question.
Unknown Speaker 24:03
Yeah, um, one thing I think might be interesting to think about there, too, is maybe the that how, particularly around the like, No Wrong Door approach. Maybe it’s less of a criteria, and more of something that we emphasize, that we expect agencies to,
Unknown Speaker 24:24
to do to some extent, or to help us understand why it’s hard for them to do it. Because I think some agencies obviously have a lot of resources and they have caseworkers and so forth, and some agencies don’t. And maybe, you know, maybe one of it, one of the things is less about, like requiring agencies to show us that they do that and rather looking to them for feedback on how they can do it better and have a supportive system within the community to do it. The second thought I had was it. Maybe it’s also something we do based
Unknown Speaker 24:54
on how much funding an agency is asking for, you know, an agency that’s asking for
Unknown Speaker 25:00
Unknown Speaker 25:03
versus an agency that’s asking for $2,000. Like, those are very different requests, and very different, like ways that they could put that money to use. And I think that like, you know, an agency that’s only asking for $2,000 is, presumably a much smaller agency probably doesn’t have as many resources, that sort of thing, whereas one that’s asking for a lot, I think we might have higher expectations of what they’re going to do. Because that’s a fairly significant investment by the city, into their agency. And so we want to make sure that they’re, you know, the top of the top if they’re going to be getting that much funding, whereas, you know, there’s less risk when we’re giving smaller dollar amounts to two agencies.
Unknown Speaker 25:51
Unknown Speaker 25:57
like we’ve been observing this over the last seven and a half years, we’re getting more and more and more complicated. And, you know, originally, we decided we had these
Unknown Speaker 26:11
five or six pillars are things that we would the city would fund, because these are what the city needs for the people who live here. And we made housing a priority. We made safety, we made self sufficiency. And now we’re adding more and more and more layers to things and
Unknown Speaker 26:35
I get and we are expecting the agencies to know what we’re doing. And
Unknown Speaker 26:43
to put this in their description every year when they apply without knowing that, Oh, we’ve changed the
Unknown Speaker 26:50
we’ve changed what we’re looking for it gets.
Unknown Speaker 26:55
To me, this is just very complicated. I would
Unknown Speaker 27:00
I don’t know why we’re making it so much more complicated. To me, the concept of No Wrong Door just sort of opens it up as to
Unknown Speaker 27:09
why we just found everything, but we can’t find everything, we have to really be selective to these, these priorities, we’ve decided are really essential to the people in Longmont. And that’s just my opinion, I’m a simpleton.
Unknown Speaker 27:27
Unknown Speaker 27:31
Unknown Speaker 27:34
Thank you Is the No Wrong Door
Unknown Speaker 27:37
issue brought up because in surveys or in focus groups, people’s people express frustration about going to an organization being turned away because their needs weren’t being being able to be met there and then not be routed. I mean that. And then if that’s really what that problem is, like, what is the magnitude of that problem? Like? Is it big enough for us to kill our brain cells over? Or is it just like something, you know, that we bring up at site visits and sort of like, you know, hey,
Unknown Speaker 28:09
based on the fact that it shows up as like one of the top things from this human service needs assessment? I would say that it sounds like it’s one of the bigger priorities. And the suggestion was that it’s hard for residents as well as stakeholders, which says to be our agencies as well, and folks who are supporting them to find them from you know, the executive summary says it’s hard for residents and many stakeholders to find information about programs or services available in Longmont difficulty finding information is amplified for residents who lack access to the internet, internet capable devices or have limited digital literacy, language access is also a barrier.
Unknown Speaker 28:46
So that sounds like a marketing issue, not an agency.
Unknown Speaker 28:53
issue, we need to publish and distribute information about the agencies that we find in are available for services.
Unknown Speaker 29:00
That’s my view.
Unknown Speaker 29:03
And how, because that would be accessible to many agencies as well, right, like they they don’t have necessarily know what all the agencies are that are around them. So
Unknown Speaker 29:14
Brian, and then Councilwoman Christiansen
Unknown Speaker 29:17
Unknown Speaker 29:19
Ignore the cat in the background.
Unknown Speaker 29:22
So I agree with Councilmember Christiansen that you know the outcomes are primary. That’s the direct benefit that residents are getting these these questions of how efficiently are they getting them is
Unknown Speaker 29:42
more a matter of you know, there’s frustration in the system, right? I mean, it’s a big system. There’s a lot of agencies and it is frustrating. So there may be things that can be done in order to facilitate facilitate the cross flow of information. I think of for instance,
Unknown Speaker 30:00
At the markets, we have people there who are also can direct people to other programs, but they can’t sign them up for those programs, all they can do is say go over here. And that’s not what people are necessarily wanting. So I would just I would advocate that
Unknown Speaker 30:19
to council member Christian since point we focus on outcomes, and then keep an eye on these kinds of efficiency issues. The one issue that is not efficiency and is critical is equity, which we are working to include. And I think that’s one of those clear, like, kinds of
Unknown Speaker 30:42
cross matrix things. But other than that, maybe it’s just something we can be aware of, and see how it fits into these opportunities.
Unknown Speaker 30:52
Unknown Speaker 30:58
I think I was misunderstanding what we were talking about with no wrong door. But um, you know, when we set up the
Unknown Speaker 31:09
coordinated entry system that was supposed to solve this, they were supposed to be people were supposed to go be able to go to the our center, or hope, or the hub, or any of these agencies, and register with them and get the same thing everywhere. I don’t think that’s working so well, perhaps because that’s what we’re hearing it is working very well. And so that is something we need to fix. And you know that
Unknown Speaker 31:38
Austin, Texas created a program called Ask scamp bertha.com, about 10 years ago,
Unknown Speaker 31:45
anybody can use this, but our city has refused to purchase or purchase it, which would make it much more effective for Lima. Anybody can take their cell phone, go to this go to ask Aunt Bertha calm, they can type in housing, they can get it in five different languages. They can look up food, they can look up anything, and they can find out where the agency is, what are the hours? What do you need to have, how to get there.
Unknown Speaker 32:15
Unknown Speaker 32:17
you know, this stuff is out there to do these things to make it more accessible to people. We just
Unknown Speaker 32:25
I do think that’s a problem, because but it’s also it’s a it’s a problem of complexity, we’re offering many, many services, people are very confused. They’re so intimidated, that they don’t even start because, you know, if you go to the hub, for instance, to get some help, you first have to fill out a 20 page forum. Well, that kind of stops a lot of people because they have to go home to get the information they need for that. Plus, some of the people at the front desk are really quite rude. So you know, these are,
Unknown Speaker 33:01
but that isn’t a problem with our funding. But that is a that’s, you know, if you are poor, and you’re troubled, and somebody is rude to you, and then they hand you a 20 page letter or 20 page form and tell you, they won’t even talk to you until you fill that out and have all the proper stuff with it. That’s a problem. And that, but that doesn’t have to do with our funding. But it is something we need to think about because it really does affect people and they don’t go back. Because why?
Unknown Speaker 33:33
Yeah. Chiquita, did you want to add something?
Unknown Speaker 33:38
Yes, I just want to make sure that
Unknown Speaker 33:42
I agree. Definitely with Ellie Berto, and
Unknown Speaker 33:47
Councilwoman Christiansen. Brian, I agree with everyone. I do want to this, this scenario just reminds me of the schools, when we are asking teachers to now become counselors than to now become security officers to now become, you know, all of these different things that they were taught to be teachers, right. They learned to be teachers. And so when there are disparities in education system, who are we blaming, right? So we have to be very mindful of what the agency position and what their duties are. And the more we put on them, the less capacity they have. And then if they focus on pleasing us for that 2000 or 5000, or 30, whatever how much that is, then what happens is there become gaps in their services.
Unknown Speaker 34:42
So let’s be mindful of what these organizations are there to do, and let them do their job at 100%. And let’s fill in if this the digital divide so people can do their own research. Then let’s work on the digital divide. You know,
Unknown Speaker 34:59
Unknown Speaker 35:00
Don’t want to put more on these agencies than what they can bear, just so that they can get funding. Whenever they just need funding to repair bathrooms or something, you know, we do have to be mindful of that sometime funding is for repairs. I’m not for their services, or hire more people. So I just wanted to throw that out there. Karen Phillips,
Unknown Speaker 35:29
it’s the problem of how people can find out what a you know, like, what you’re talking about Polly about the trying to go somewhere and find out what available. It’s just like, you know, with my son being handicapped, there, there’s so many agencies and so many different directions that you have to go in that you’re just getting mind boggled of which where to go, who can help you, what agency does this, what agency does that. It’s just I don’t know how we can help people resolve that situation of, you know, sitting down and trying to figure out how to get through it, let alone the funding part of it. But to get people to know what’s available and what direction they need to go and who they need to talk to. I just wanted to add that to. Yeah, I mean, I can totally like my mom was sick and couldn’t work and came out of a hospital and had to go into a rehab center. And when she came out, we were told, okay, you can contact these like, eight agencies for various needs, you have to contact this one for food, this one for housing information, this one for medical, and every single one had different paperwork. And a lot of it was very similar, but a lot of it was different. And it was just like,
Unknown Speaker 36:39
and I was I think at the time, I had like a one year old and a five year old. And I was like, I’m sorry, who, who actually even has, like, I was like, she’s not in a position to do this, I don’t have the time to spend four hours filling out forms for each and every single one of these agencies. And so it’s easy. And I was like, and we have access to a whole lot of stuff that many folks in this community may not have access to. And so
Unknown Speaker 37:08
yeah, I really appreciate the like, you know, what kita and Karen and Councilwoman Christiansen and Brian are thing also about like, simplifying, rather than making more complex.
Unknown Speaker 37:21
Yeah, I’ve been thinking about this, like, we did a whole bunch of like adjustments around which priority areas got, what percentage and stuff like that. And it got really complex really fast in the last funding cycle, and I’m wondering if they’re like, how we might trim that to simplify toward those outcomes
Unknown Speaker 37:41
in some way. I also think about the fact that like, we’re holding agencies that are asking for a whole lot of money to the same standards as agencies that are asking for a couple of $1,000 to pilot a program, or to do something. And so and that just doesn’t feel like it. It helps us It ends up favoring the agencies that already have a lot of money, or already have a lot of services, who may or may not be filling a gap. That’s there. So
Unknown Speaker 38:13
I think liberto, you had your little digital hand raised first, and then Karen Roni.
Unknown Speaker 38:24
So just just a couple days when I’m I want to pay attention to the times. I know Kathy has stuff as well. And we and this is a great discussion. And we could take it for a long time. But I want to make sure that Kathy gets to her stuff as well.
Unknown Speaker 38:36
But just a couple of context points to the board. One is the conversation about No Wrong Door is much bigger than the city. It’s been I’ve been a part of that conversation for years with the county and other nonprofits. It’s a big challenge.
Unknown Speaker 38:53
And part of the challenge is that there are things that no one agency can control, for example, HIPAA laws or, you know, federal requirements on documentation and all sorts of stuff. So I just don’t want the board to be aware that that
Unknown Speaker 39:10
are funded, they just can’t always control what they ask for, you know, your CBD or CDBG. Folks, right? rental assistance was much more complicated than our COVID relief, rental assistance, because federal rules so just want to make sure that we that we keep that in mind. And also watch the time you got Oh, Kathy has testings that we need to get to as well.
Unknown Speaker 39:39
Unknown Speaker 39:42
Well, I took my hand down, I was really going to the same place of La Berto is that, you know, we’ve been at this discussion for about 45 minutes and I know we have some things that Kathy needs to talk with us about so so I’m just wondering. So Alberto, do you have any other
Unknown Speaker 40:00
We have a lot of input, maybe we just
Unknown Speaker 40:03
try to synthesize that. I’m hearing try to you know, don’t overthink it don’t make it over complicated.
Unknown Speaker 40:12
You know, keep our keep our focus on the primary outcomes,
Unknown Speaker 40:18
yet how to consider some of these other.
Unknown Speaker 40:22
You know, how’s if you so I think we have a, I took a lot of notes. And so you know, unless someone else has a summary, let us just kind of go back and
Unknown Speaker 40:32
put this together. And
Unknown Speaker 40:35
I think we I think we have some ideas.
Unknown Speaker 40:39
Unknown Speaker 40:42
Thank you, Karen. I would just say For my part, I’m I think the question is, if they should be considered not so much how. So? Just move that dial over a little bit more? Yeah.
Unknown Speaker 40:56
Okay. Does anyone have any parting
Unknown Speaker 41:01
items before we move on to the next item in the agenda? Want to make sure folks feel like they’ve been heard here?
Unknown Speaker 41:09
Unknown Speaker 41:12
liberto, I think, are you going to pick up the rest of your PowerPoint, later in the meeting or anything else you wanted to cover before we move on? You know, if we have time, but I feel that what like Tara said, what we got, I think I’m okay, we can come back in April. The good thing is, we’re doing this early in the year. So we can come back in April with further conversation, depending on how heavy the April agenda is.
Unknown Speaker 41:38
And if if if need be, we’ve done this in the past, if need be, we will call a special session to suss this out more. So
Unknown Speaker 41:49
you kidding about that and see where we are. Okay, thanks so much, I appreciate that we were having this conversation from the start of the year, because even if it feels like we’re spending a lot of time on it, now, it also feels like we’re gonna get to that funding cycle, and all be have shared a bunch and thought about it a lot together as a group so that when we get to that funding cycle, we’re not having to like, wrap our heads around all the questions and how we’re going to do something, and that sort of thing. So I want to thank everybody for time and energy put into this over a period of time. I often think about how it takes many of us, you know, advertisers talk about it takes seven to 11 times seeing something before people will actually buy it.
Unknown Speaker 42:31
So I think about that when like thinking about processes that sometimes people need a little bit of time to like wrap their heads around it.
Unknown Speaker 42:40
So our next item is training on affordable housing investment strategies. And I believe that is Kathy.
Unknown Speaker 42:50
Yeah, so we are bringing this back and I have revamped it somewhat. The last time we took a look at this. Some of you were new, some of you had been through maybe one or two cycles of housing funding. And so and we have a new a new board member as well. So kind of wanted to throw this out there again,
Unknown Speaker 43:18
for thoughts around it and and just as a training around housing as we get ready to release another fun round here probably now in April, I thought we’d hit March, but we’re probably not going to make March. So um, see if I can share.
Unknown Speaker 43:44
Let’s see, is it this one? Yes.
Unknown Speaker 43:48
Unknown Speaker 43:53
All right. So um,
Unknown Speaker 43:59
so, as you may know, the Housing and Community Investment. division of the city is the one that
Unknown Speaker 44:07
manages the affordable housing fund the CDBG program, and home funds when we get those in the inclusionary housing program. But what we’re about is making thoughtful and responsible investment in Longmont connecting residents with safe and affordable housing options, supporting small businesses with opportunities for growth, although we haven’t done that for a number of years, because our focus has been on affordable housing, and then partnering to make and keep neighborhoods vibrant. So again, that’s something we did have done in the past as well.
Unknown Speaker 44:44
Our regional and
Unknown Speaker 44:48
second here, our regional and long months goal is to have 12% of our housing stock be permanently affordable by the year 2035 and permanently.
Unknown Speaker 45:00
Affordable means that it the housing is deed restricted to be permanently or very long term affordable
Unknown Speaker 45:10
to get to 12% in 2035, we need 5400
Unknown Speaker 45:15
affordable homes. And we are currently in 2020 at 2432 affordable homes, which is about 6.07 of our total housing units in Longmont.
Unknown Speaker 45:32
So some of the strategies and goals that we have created around that, too, to help meet the goal. One is creating new affordable housing.
Unknown Speaker 45:43
And that is broken out by to reach that goal to try and get to about 200 new homes each year. That could be through the new construction of homes part of the inclusionary housing program. partnerships to finance and deed restrict housing, acquisition of existing market priced housing. Converting city owned housing to affordable rentals, and even accessory dwelling units might be something for affordable rentals. So in the new construction of homes under the inclusionary housing program, we have completed 66 rental homes in 2020 and 14 for sale homes. And that’s with partnerships with Habitat. And the blue VISTA development is constructing for sale affordable homes. And then the 66 rental homes was the Fall River apartments and the mica homes that actually received their CE certificate of occupancy in 2020.
Unknown Speaker 46:47
Through the acquisition of existing market priced housing, if you remember we gave funding to the in between and they went shopping so to speak. And they acquired a market property of 10 rental units. And they will be converting that to affordable as people who are currently in the unit’s
Unknown Speaker 47:09
move on and don’t renew their leases. So we’re not displacing anybody at it. They’re waiting for it to be their choice. And then we have we received approval to convert
Unknown Speaker 47:22
10 or 11 city owned homes to affordable rentals. We have one home that is leased right now. And we’re working on again moving the others as their leases come up. And we did get a little behind with COVID. Last year. I have to say
Unknown Speaker 47:42
the other strategies and goals is preserving our existing affordable housing because if we lose that, then we’re just keep spinning our wheels and we’re behind the eight ball. So we are
Unknown Speaker 47:55
hoping to preserve some housing I did take a look in about 360 existing and they’re primarily rental units have deed restrictions, which could expire in the next five years. That is back when we didn’t put long term deed restrictions on properties. And some of them are related to HUD and so they are annually renewing like stonehedge is a property that’s annually renewing with HUD so they’re probably not going to convert but theoretically they could.
Unknown Speaker 48:33
We look at the rehab of existing rental housing as part of that preservation. And in 2020, we provided again the in between for another one of their properties with funding to rehab 12 of their homes. Rehab of owner occupied housing. I see I did not fill this in I’m sorry.
Unknown Speaker 48:54
Again, because of COVID. We kind of shut this program down and only worked on
Unknown Speaker 49:00
emergency situations. About March April 8, probably April, I think is when we did that we did get one general rehab done which is a homeowner rehab where we go in and we do a fairly extensive rehab. And then I’ll I’ll get you these figures on how many accessibility improvements we made and how many emergency grants in 2020.
Unknown Speaker 49:26
And then we tax crediting or refinancing existing affordable homes. We in 2020 provided funding and worked with the Longmont housing authority on to preserve 50 rental homes at Aspen meadows, apartments of that 21st and
Unknown Speaker 49:47
Meadow Alpine area up there. The address is actually 70/21 Avenue. So that project is ongoing the renovation part but we did
Unknown Speaker 50:00
The debris tax crediting of that property in 2020.
Unknown Speaker 50:06
land acquisition is another goal, the more land we can acquire and or have donated to us that we could preserve, save and eventually develop, the better because you can’t recreate land. So we did acquire about 10 acres in 2020, which gives us a total with the Housing Authority, pieces of land that they own as well. A total of 23 acres that we can start working on
Unknown Speaker 50:36
that those land donations could come from us or land acquisition from the inclusionary housing program, working with partnerships with others and just going out and purchasing land as well.
Unknown Speaker 50:49
And then another strategy is preserving mobile home communities trying to create more resident on communities like Longmont, mobile home park, that we did a couple years ago that we invested in,
Unknown Speaker 51:01
encourage and incentivize the current owners to invest in infrastructures for the long term preservation of existing mobile home communities, and investing in the mobile homes themselves. And we do operate a mobile home repair program. And we did do some this year, not against those figures as well.
Unknown Speaker 51:21
So some of the tools that we have to make these investments you’re aware of
Unknown Speaker 51:27
the CDBG program, which we get anywhere between 550 to 600,000 or so, directly from HUD to the city of Longmont. We generate about 25 to 50,000 in Program Income each year. For loans that we’ve made that are getting repaid. It has pretty flexible you uses it can be for housing infrastructure, neighborhood revitalization, like I talked about economic development, public services, kinds of activities. And we do have the ability that we can either grant the money or loan it, depending on what makes sense for us. The funds do have to benefit low and moderate income households are families.
Unknown Speaker 52:10
We also have access to the home funds to the home consortium partnership that we have with the city of Boulder, Boulder County and the city and county of Broomfield.
Unknown Speaker 52:19
We go on a rotating basis with each of the four communities receiving the funds. All of the funding basically every five years boltar gets two years of allocation because they contribute more to the to the home.
Unknown Speaker 52:39
Unknown Speaker 52:41
But it’s about 750,000 to a million dollars each time to each community.
Unknown Speaker 52:49
It’s not very flexible. It has long term commitments by the projects that we invest in, and the developers and owners that that received the funding or
Unknown Speaker 53:02
the project funds go into the project. It has to be used for affordable housing, it can be granted or loaned. But it is
Unknown Speaker 53:12
they’re really ratcheting down how you can use the funds. So they’re making it HUD is making it less and less flexible. Actually, Congress is doing that.
Unknown Speaker 53:21
And then we have our local Affordable Housing fund, where we get a million dollars a year that’s transferred from the city’s general fund, we get about 150,000 to 200,000 in loan payments that come back in revolve. We’ve been getting about 150,000 from the our share of the marijuana tax.
Unknown Speaker 53:43
And then we are starting to get some inclusionary housing fees and paid in lieu of providing affordable housing. I think we got 14,600 in 2020. And we’re estimating we might get about 800,000 in 2021. These funds are highly flexible because the city controls them. So we can
Unknown Speaker 54:08
go to Council and if there’s something really innovative and asked to do something a little different. They do have to be used for affordable housing. And they do have to be loaned. There’s a couple times that we have gone to Council and asked for them to be granted that those are very few and far between.
Unknown Speaker 54:27
And I should say if anyone has any questions, somebody call it out because I can’t see anybody. So
Unknown Speaker 54:34
um, so some of the tools again that we have talked about, we’ve got regulatory tools to help us meet our goals. One is the inclusionary housing program, which requires 12% of the homes in a residential development to be affordable either through
Unknown Speaker 54:53
on constructing them on site within the development or constructing them off site and
Unknown Speaker 55:00
Some other parcel making the fee and lieu payment that goes into the affordable housing fund, donating land, or other options that council might approve. And both of these pictures are prior for inclusionary housing when we had our, our first program, these structures were built and have affordable units within them from that program.
Unknown Speaker 55:25
So Kathy, Kimberly has a question. Okay.
Unknown Speaker 55:29
I have a question about the fee in lieu. And just wondering if maybe an unintended consequence of that was that it’s an actual barrier to affordable housing?
Unknown Speaker 55:41
Well, so there’s a couple opinions on that, I would say, and Councilmember Christiansen can correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m under the prior program that we had. Before it was repealed, we did get a lot of fee in lieu that went into the affordable housing Fund, which we then turned around and put back into the community and loaned it out for other projects. And we did a study and we actually ended up with more affordable housing units than we would have gotten if we would have just gotten the units instead of the fee in lieu. And that’s because
Unknown Speaker 56:19
most of the fee and lieu payments came from single family housing, for sale housing developments. And most of the funds were reinvested into rental, affordable rental projects. So we got a lot more units, and they actually serve lower income families by doing it that way. So when we started the program, again, this last time, that was at least to some Council, that was a real benefit, that they saw that we could better invest that money
Unknown Speaker 56:54
for more housing in the community.
Unknown Speaker 56:58
So I think it’s a, it just depends on what side you’re looking on added or how you how you perceive it, to a certain extent, if that makes sense. That’s
Unknown Speaker 57:10
Oh, sorry. Brian might have a question or comment.
Unknown Speaker 57:15
Thank you, Kathy. What I’m curious about because the fee in lieu efficiency makes some sense to me, because you can also, like if you’re contracting with the builder, for instance,
Unknown Speaker 57:29
you can have smaller units, that kind of thing. So when somebody is doing, excuse me on site construction, are they also potentially reducing the size of a unit to make it affordable? Or does it have to be affordable at the same scale as the others? It does not. So actually a for sale housing development could choose to do its on site affordable housing as a small rental project
Unknown Speaker 57:58
on site if they wanted to, or they could do townhomes as the affordable in instead of, you know, single family detached homes. So the
Unknown Speaker 58:09
there’s a lot of flexibility within the
Unknown Speaker 58:13
Unknown Speaker 58:15
Thank you. I have a question. Kathy. Have we seen a lot of I know, you know, when, obviously developers are coming forth, you know, development, large developments have to be approved. And that sort of thing. Have we seen a lot of pushback on if we’ve had developers that want to do essentially, like, multi? You know, so like, essentially, various income levels within the same neighborhood? Have we seen pushback against that? I, I’ve seen that in, for example, City of Boulder. There’s a lot of pushback when anyone wants to put anything that’s like, more
Unknown Speaker 58:51
mixed income or like, you know, multifamily units, that sort of thing. I wonder how long Mont has,
Unknown Speaker 59:02
how much we’ve seen that and what the results have been?
Unknown Speaker 59:07
So, yeah, I’d say there’s usually pushback, especially around density. So if there is a multifamily development that’s going in anywhere close to a single family neighborhood. There’s usually pushback on that.
Unknown Speaker 59:25
The developers themselves, there’s some
Unknown Speaker 59:29
and I think, you know, to a certain extent, it is
Unknown Speaker 59:35
giving them the benefit of the doubt that
Unknown Speaker 59:39
you know, you’re asking market rate developers to do something they’re not familiar with. If there is if it’s a rental property, that they now have to income, qualify for low income and manage those units differently, not differently, but how they choose people that go in there differently and make
Unknown Speaker 1:00:00
sure that they are complying and that there’s reports that they have to file etc. in a single family development is kind of the same thing they’re, they’re cautious about, well, is there are there people that even are going to qualify to purchase the homes, assuming we build them. So we are trying to
Unknown Speaker 1:00:18
plan out, we can’t get too far ahead. Because it’s not fair to the people who might want to purchase to get them all excited about something, and then no one ever builds it. So we’re trying to align our marketing and get a waitlist of people for when we know we’re going to have units coming up. So um, but I think that would help assuage some of that if we knew that we had, you know, 50 people, families that were waiting to purchase, you know, the 10 homes that they’re going to build or something like that. So there’s a lot of
Unknown Speaker 1:00:59
aligning processes and
Unknown Speaker 1:01:02
things to help them feel comfortable as well as you know, be fair to people who want to get into housing they can afford and purchase something.
Unknown Speaker 1:01:14
And am I correct? I think last year, we had one proposal where they basically because you had a market rate developer, they basically ended up partnering with Habitat for Humanity, I think, was to essentially do it as it essentially on site, but then they didn’t have to be the ones running all of the like, income qualification and, and the things that habitat was a little more versed in doing. Yeah, there’s two projects that are proposing that one is mountain Brook, which actually had
Unknown Speaker 1:01:49
eight habitat units. So there’ll be eight for sale homes, and then 26 Tiny Homes for the veterans village project.
Unknown Speaker 1:01:59
So that’s one and then habitat is also partnering on
Unknown Speaker 1:02:04
sugarmill development, which is kind of where the apartments are going up. Now, it’ll be kind of back behind those apartments. And that’ll be 12 duplex units. I believe they are when that gets going and approved. So yeah, having some partners like that is a is a great idea. And something that probably
Unknown Speaker 1:02:26
will be considered by other developers when they see how these go. Councilwoman Christiansen?
Unknown Speaker 1:02:34
I was wondering why you didn’t include shafa in funding sources?
Unknown Speaker 1:02:40
Well, because we don’t control chafa. And we don’t get a direct allocation. Okay. Okay.
Unknown Speaker 1:02:48
But yeah, they’re a big partner, everybody, almost everything actually goes through them first, tell you the truth. And that’s the Colorado Housing Finance Authority. They issue the low income housing tax credits for projects, which is what keeps long term rental affordability. And then they also issue bonds, which is another
Unknown Speaker 1:03:12
funding mechanism that is,
Unknown Speaker 1:03:15
is needed in low income housing projects.
Unknown Speaker 1:03:21
I don’t see any other questions or comments. Thanks. All right, Kathy, of course. So some of the policies that we have to follow in use that in housing investments, they have to be permanently affordable, that’s a new council directive. They have to serve target populations, they have to go to eligible applicants and for eligible activities, and eligible use of funds depending on what funding source. And then there’s a lot of rules and regulations that have to be complied with, including federal regulations around accessibility for housing, historic preservation, environmental labor standards, to make sure that contractors are paid appropriately. Property standards, we’ve got our Longmont municipal code, which has the inclusionary housing, land use requirements and building codes that have to be complied with. And then there’s city funding policies.
Unknown Speaker 1:04:22
So our target populations for housing for rental properties, it’s now 50%, area median income or below, and we do prefer a mix of ami within a rental project. So some 30 some 40, some 50s, if possible, as opposed to having all of them at 50%. In for ownership housing, it’s 80% of the area median income or below. We do prefer not to go below 60% ami as a straight for sale project unless habitat is a partner.
Unknown Speaker 1:04:58
It’s very difficult to afford
Unknown Speaker 1:05:00
homeownership and to qualify, quite frankly, if you’re too much below 60%. Some people can do it. But in those cases, habitat is a good partner, because they provide a lot of support for their homeowners.
Unknown Speaker 1:05:19
Kathy, do you know what the current roughly what the current ami area median income is? Yes, I shouldn’t know that off the top of my head.
Unknown Speaker 1:05:31
But me once I stopped sharing, let me get back to you on that. I want to say 80% is I think it’s around 65,000.
Unknown Speaker 1:05:40
To sit Oh, wait, he might have a
Unknown Speaker 1:05:44
Unknown Speaker 1:05:46
Unknown Speaker 1:05:50
Unknown Speaker 1:05:52
a little bit small print.
Unknown Speaker 1:05:59
Yeah, I can I can share if you want me to. I’m looking at the Boulder County housing. Yeah, I think it’s just under 70. Okay, that that’s fine. That just to give us a sense of where those are, thanks.
Unknown Speaker 1:06:15
Okay, so some of the eligible applicants, you’ve got nonprofits, you’ve got housing authorities, you’ve got private developers, community housing development organizations is a special category that some nonprofits belong to habitat is a choto is what it’s called.
Unknown Speaker 1:06:31
And then the types of eligible activities we can acquire property or land. New construction is eligible redevelopment, rehabilitation, capital improvements, land banking, for multifamily single family, any kind of housing basically, other than shelters can be rental or ownership mixed income, mixed use, and can provide programs and services within it.
Unknown Speaker 1:06:59
Some additional CDBG and home requirements,
Unknown Speaker 1:07:03
the CDBG funds and home funds have to have a direct benefit to low moderate income persons. And at least 51% of the beneficiaries of any project refund have to be qualify as low moderate income. It’s about the same eligible applicants, we usually don’t find too many private developers that want CDBG or home, sometimes home but CDBG carries a bunch of other requirements they usually don’t want.
Unknown Speaker 1:07:33
And then it’s kind of the same eligible activities with the addition that neighborhood revitalization and economic development can be funded with CDBG. And infrastructure as well. And services and programs.
Unknown Speaker 1:07:51
We usually try and do funding rounds for housing in March, July, November is kind of what we were anticipating that’s going to be off a little bit. The city also gets private activity bonds
Unknown Speaker 1:08:03
that we can issue or we can give to a project to then take in, they’ll have somebody else issue the bonds. That usually is released in March through May and we get this year we’re gonna get $5.3 million in bond cap. And then the housing authority can issue another $10 million a year in bond cap. And it’s just a
Unknown Speaker 1:08:28
It’s like putting out issuing a bond people invest in it, use the investment to fund the project. And then you repay as you repay it, then those investors get paid back.
Unknown Speaker 1:08:41
And then CDBG. And home, we usually try and do a November funding round. So for the next calendar year coming up, but this year, because we only found out a little bit while ago what our CDBG funding is, it’ll probably be in that march april timeframe where we’re going to put those applications out. And then we hope to get back on a November funding round later on this year.
Unknown Speaker 1:09:08
So we’ve got our advisory groups, as you know, that are city council appointed. They recommend funding awards to city council and city council actually is the one that approves all funding awards. So on the housing application side, they’re reviewed by staff initially, and then go to the technical review group, and they make a recommendation to your board. And then you make a recommendation to city council and then kind of on a concurrent track at least once a year, community your economic development type applications. So like the Boulder County housing counseling program.
Unknown Speaker 1:09:47
Sometimes the our center comes in for money, just different organizations that are not housing related. Those come in again, they get reviewed by staff but they go directly to the housing and Human Services Advisory Board that makes them
Unknown Speaker 1:10:00
recommendation to city council.
Unknown Speaker 1:10:04
You kind of know your purpose, I think so I’m not going to go over this in the interest of time, but you really represent bought broad public interests. And that you review those commune development applications here the recommendations of the TRG on housing, and then make those recommendations to city council and provide direction advice on housing and human service matters. The TRG was set up to have the technical expertise and to represent specific public interests. They also review applications and seek more information and understanding. So really try and do an analysis of the housing projects, they recommend funding awards and loan terms to to you. And then you can consider those.
Unknown Speaker 1:10:55
They’re set up on a three year term with staggered, and there are no term limits for them.
Unknown Speaker 1:11:03
They have moved to being a considered to be a public body. So their meetings are now subject to
Unknown Speaker 1:11:14
being broadcast before they were able to review the applications in in private, so, so to speak, because they were just making a recommendation to your board and your board was the the public facing board. But
Unknown Speaker 1:11:29
the city attorneys have determined that they really should be more transparent in in their workings.
Unknown Speaker 1:11:39
So some of the things that we look at when we get applications is does the project meet city goals and priorities? does it provide a community benefit? Does? Is there a documented deed for what they’re proposing?
Unknown Speaker 1:11:53
Do they have a proven development and management capacity and experience to complete the project? Is everything lined up and ready to go? The last thing we want or need is to have a project set for years and years and not spend the money that we could have used for something else? Do they have committed leverage funds and collaboration with other agencies or
Unknown Speaker 1:12:20
projects? And is there a reasonable per unit subsidy?
Unknown Speaker 1:12:25
So one of the things that the TRG has really helped us with is
Unknown Speaker 1:12:31
coming up with some underwriting assumptions for housing projects, so that there’s a debt coverage ratio we examine for every project and compare them across with each other when we get multiple applications. Try and get a per unit, the cost per unit per annum for their expenses. How does that compare to other projects,
Unknown Speaker 1:12:57
we require replacements or reserve of around 300 $400 per unit so that they’re saving money and they aren’t continuing to come back to us as a project ages, and they need to rehab or renovate or do something like that, that they have operating reserves as well. So again, they’re not coming and saying we can’t continue to operate this project. Because we’ve run out of money. We look at the vacancy rate that they are using and what the annual increases in that, and then their developer development or administrative fee.
Unknown Speaker 1:13:35
And a lot of these are similar to what Jaffa uses or the Colorado division of housing. And then matching funds is important. But we haven’t set like any kind of minimum minimums. We do try and use a loan grant guidelines. So projects that are serving the lowest income at 30% or below would be eligible for a grant or forgivable or a deferred loan. If you’re kind of in that middle area 31 to 50% area median income, it might be a deferred payment or forgivable loan. And if you’re above 50% to 80%, that likely you could pay back a low interest loan.
Unknown Speaker 1:14:23
We are committed to try and have public engagement and transparency. So we do post funding availability on the city’s website. We provide direct notification of open fund rounds to all known housing developers. And so we get a list from planning and development services as well as folks that we’ve talked to over the
Unknown Speaker 1:14:43
Unknown Speaker 1:14:46
All of our funding related communications and documents are available for public review except personal financial information, and then the TRG and your meetings are public and noticed
Unknown Speaker 1:15:01
So are there any questions that you have or
Unknown Speaker 1:15:05
anything around? That and I can stop sharing here? Because you’ve got a copy of the presentation as well.
Unknown Speaker 1:15:16
It’s a lot. It’s a lot to take in, which is why we thought maybe a another go round of it
Unknown Speaker 1:15:24
might be good.
Unknown Speaker 1:15:26
At the I appreciate it, it’s it’s very complicated. And it really does help to go through it multiple times, at least for me.
Unknown Speaker 1:15:37
A cup of coffee questions. One is, of these projects that are getting done, do you have a sense of how much of that funding, how much of the total funding is coming from the city of Longmont versus other federal sources or investors or just the banks?
Unknown Speaker 1:15:58
Well, when we get to the inclusionary housing snapshot, I believe there is some information on that.
Unknown Speaker 1:16:07
And it does vary from year to year, we do have some averages. So we
Unknown Speaker 1:16:14
are going to be talking off the top of my head here. For the affordable housing fund, I think our
Unknown Speaker 1:16:21
average investment in a for sale, home has been around 30,000 per home.
Unknown Speaker 1:16:29
And for rental, it’s less than that, but not a whole lot less because costs are are really increasing, I want to say 20 or 25,000, maybe.
Unknown Speaker 1:16:41
And that does take into consideration fees that we waive,
Unknown Speaker 1:16:46
when we’ve made pay make a payment from the affordable housing fund to offset some of the fees as well as direct loans or grants to them, I can I I need to update that. So I can provide that information. When we are doing a lot of updating at the end of every year, you plug in a lot of numbers and do a lot of updating so
Unknown Speaker 1:17:09
and then that gives me the ballpark. That’s kind of what I was looking for. Thank you. And then also when I look at like the low interest loans at the 50 to 80% ami, I’m thinking about how interest rates are just so low anyway, how does how do those rates impact? Or do they just market rates versus what you’re doing?
Unknown Speaker 1:17:35
You know, like, do you see less demand at those 50 to 80? Because they can go to the bank and get really low interest rates anyway. Or any sense? Well, when what we usually see are the projects that are almost 100% affordable is usually the ones that are coming into the city for for additional funding market developers that are just doing to meet their inclusionary housing, maybe
Unknown Speaker 1:18:04
they just use normal financing, and then they get some of the fees waived and an offset sometimes. So there’s a little bit of investment but not the major, you know, $500,000 loan kind of things.
Unknown Speaker 1:18:19
You know, for construction loans. They are not I mean, relatively speaking, they’re cheap, but they’re they’re not cheap. They’re probably six to 8%.
Unknown Speaker 1:18:30
And so ours are usually, you know, less than that are less than 2%.
Unknown Speaker 1:18:38
So that’s a meaningful difference. I hadn’t realized that about construction loans. Thank you.
Unknown Speaker 1:18:47
Any other questions?
Unknown Speaker 1:18:51
Unknown Speaker 1:18:54
All right. Thanks, Kathy.
Unknown Speaker 1:18:59
Um, the next item we have is
Unknown Speaker 1:19:04
the future reviewing the 2020 discussion about the future of the technical review group writing direction going forward.
Unknown Speaker 1:19:12
liberto are Cheran you? I think one of you all maybe.
Unknown Speaker 1:19:18
That’s Cathy. Again, okay, me, Kathy is six, seven
Unknown Speaker 1:19:25
is five, six and seven. Okay.
Unknown Speaker 1:19:28
On to number six, on to number six then. All right. So I’m going to share my screen again. And I am going to
Unknown Speaker 1:19:40
where did it go? Here it is.
Unknown Speaker 1:19:48
You know, these are really little Oh, there it is. Okay.
Unknown Speaker 1:19:56
Okay, so some of this is going to be a repeat and I’ll go over really quickly.
Unknown Speaker 1:20:00
Because we just went through everything. But the bottom line is, you have seen through what we went through
Unknown Speaker 1:20:09
how complex things have gotten with the inclusionary housing with the loans, all the funding sources and all the restrictions or requirements that they that we have on those. So again, this is just I won’t go through this again, but all the different funding sources that we have available
Unknown Speaker 1:20:29
to us to make sure that are spent appropriately and and properly and meet all the requirements. So we don’t have to pay back funding,
Unknown Speaker 1:20:39
the policies and processes that we go through
Unknown Speaker 1:20:44
all the different requirements around eligibility, and target populations and who is eligible, etc.
Unknown Speaker 1:20:54
The evaluation criteria and the underwriting assumptions, we just went through all that. So this is just to let you know that that’s it’s complex, and it keeps getting more and more complex as we go along. So I think really, what we would like to consider and propose is that we combined the Housing and Community Development application review, and not split them out anymore, have a review by staff, and instead of the technical review group, reviewing housing applications, going right to the housing and Human Services Advisory Board, who makes the recommendation to city council. And there’s a number of reasons for this.
Unknown Speaker 1:21:35
We’ve had an increased staff capacity with the addition of the inclusionary housing position that we’ve added. She has a lot of experience in housing development and managing projects. And we’ve had additional staff training over the years in some pretty specific financial capacity management, and the low income housing tax credit programs etc. There’s more complex rules and regulations that are requiring staff decisions and direction regarding what funding source to use, what type of funding loans or grants, etc. to make sure we’re ensuring consistency. We were finding when the TRG was doing that trying to do that, that we weren’t getting, you know, it just wasn’t consistent. There’s more complex financing of affordable housing projects requiring more detailed review than a volunteer committee can provide, resulting in the really detailed staff review and analysis that we’ve been providing the past year, year and a half.
Unknown Speaker 1:22:43
And as I noted before, in the prior presentation, the TRG did help us set underwriting standards, and grant and loan guidelines. So that was really was really helpful to have that that input. However, we’re finding the work of the TRG is redundant with the detailed staff review and analysis that we now prepare for each project. It’s adding duplicative work for staff and gets to the same overall recommendation. We are finding,
Unknown Speaker 1:23:12
as I mentioned before, the TRG is now subject to Open Meetings requirements, which impact has impacted their participation. They’re much less inclined to ask
Unknown Speaker 1:23:23
probing questions, I guess, I would say.
Unknown Speaker 1:23:27
And even with expectations and direction to the TRG. As a result of the last time we talked about this and the direction that we got, we’re still not getting those deep diving questions and analysis of projects that were we get from staff.
Unknown Speaker 1:23:45
So one of the some of the benefits or options
Unknown Speaker 1:23:50
that we have here is we think eliminating the TRG at this point would allow the housing and Human Services Advisory Board to be more involved in the housing needs and housing projects. So you’d probably feel less like a rubber stamp than you kind of do now. I think.
Unknown Speaker 1:24:08
We think it would allow for better integration of housing with human service needs and goals we’ve been trying to, to become more integrated in in considering those and I think this might really help with that. It would provide quicker consideration and response time for applicants because it wiped out a month to six weeks of review time.
Unknown Speaker 1:24:31
And then some of the options we could explore using the the new Longmont Housing Authority advisory board maybe in a different capacity to provide some input on some of these. And or we’ve talked about maybe changing the makeup of the housing and Human Services Advisory Board itself to include more specific areas of interest and expertise kind of pulling in some of those elements that we that the TRG did provide.
Unknown Speaker 1:24:59
Unknown Speaker 1:25:00
That’s kind of our
Unknown Speaker 1:25:02
take on this. And so we’d like to open it up for discussion and what you think about it.
Unknown Speaker 1:25:10
If you have any questions around it, thanks, Kathy. Councilwoman Christiansen
Unknown Speaker 1:25:20
I can see how you think this is a good idea. I think it does. If staff is already doing this, and they have the expertise to do that, then I think that’s a good idea. I do not think that it is a good idea to try to make this
Unknown Speaker 1:25:38
this particular board, the whole purpose of these advisory boards is to have community members, be part of them, not community x, community experts, something’s not community,
Unknown Speaker 1:25:55
professional professionals necessarily, but people who have actual experience, for instance, with housing and human services from the grassroots level. And so I would like to not like to see us try to get real estate developers, developers and real estate people and whatnot on this board, because that would undermine human services to me.
Unknown Speaker 1:26:21
But I do think that there’s,
Unknown Speaker 1:26:24
I understand what you’re saying about how it really has gotten a lot more technical in terms of what kinds of
Unknown Speaker 1:26:33
federal, state and local rules and
Unknown Speaker 1:26:41
situations come up. And so I be very comfortable with staff reviewing it. But perhaps staff would want to add a few other people to be part of their review, like
Unknown Speaker 1:26:57
people who have those areas of expertise.
Unknown Speaker 1:27:02
You know, people who understand the real estate market a little more people understand development a little more.
Unknown Speaker 1:27:11
Thanks, Councilwoman, because she said, Graham.
Unknown Speaker 1:27:16
It sounds like it makes perfect sense Kathy to disband them. And let’s stop to that part of it.
Unknown Speaker 1:27:28
Other folks, Brian?
Unknown Speaker 1:27:33
Thank you, Kathy. Is my understanding was it’s removing one of two areas of review from TRG. is am I misunderstanding that that? Would it be TRG wouldn’t be necessary anymore? Right. That’s what we’re proposing. Okay. I am proposing and to what extent was the TRG?
Unknown Speaker 1:27:59
You liked helpful because there was expertise that maybe wasn’t in house, like you mentioned, a new hire. And versus the idea that it’s a citizen group that is, you know,
Unknown Speaker 1:28:18
making sure that government funds are being spent in accordance with citizen needs, that kind of thing. So more of a guardian role than an advisory role. Do you have a sense of that?
Unknown Speaker 1:28:33
was their concern about the city making these kinds of decisions without citizen oversight, so to speak?
Unknown Speaker 1:28:42
I mean, that wasn’t why they were
Unknown Speaker 1:28:47
convened. Yeah, sorry, was originally put together it was it was to provide the the analysis and expertise
Unknown Speaker 1:29:00
that the housing and Human Services Advisory Board didn’t think that they had
Unknown Speaker 1:29:05
they, I think to a certain extent, they felt a little over their heads around that and wanted that group to, to review it from those different perspectives, to make sure that the project was that we were recommending for funding was a good one. And I think at the beginning, it did serve that purpose. I just think that things have become more complex. And as we’ve added staff capacity and knowledge that it is, it just is redundant, to a certain extent, or duplicative
Unknown Speaker 1:29:38
work. So sorry, in this context, then our role would be more to
Unknown Speaker 1:29:48
provide feedback on how these projects are meeting the needs of the community based on something like the needs assessment or it wouldn’t be technical expertise. It would be
Unknown Speaker 1:30:00
more kinds of programmatic outcomes that we’d be looking to meet. So I think, yeah, I think it gives you a better understanding of what,
Unknown Speaker 1:30:10
what is in the community. Um, I think it would be something we’ve tried to do and haven’t gotten all the way to is looking at the housing needs the same way you look at that human service needs, and being more directive about what we should be funding with housing. So, you know, do we have enough senior housing right now we need to focus on family housing, or do we need to focus on permanent supportive housing versus, you know, 50%, ami housing kind of thing. So I think it would,
Unknown Speaker 1:30:48
might feel more ownership to y’all. And I don’t, I’m not trying to be condescending or anything. But that you might have more of an ownership about the housing like you do about the human service agencies, funding around, gathering the needs, understanding the needs, and then directing the funding.
Unknown Speaker 1:31:10
Unknown Speaker 1:31:13
You would still be hearing the presentations of the project, you’d be getting our review and analysis and our recommendation, just like you would from the TRG. Staff I’m talking about.
Unknown Speaker 1:31:25
So trying to I think I think it will feel that you will feel much more involved
Unknown Speaker 1:31:33
within the funding process. Thank you.
Unknown Speaker 1:31:38
Unknown Speaker 1:31:45
Yes. Yes. Thank you,
Unknown Speaker 1:31:49
Kathy, specific specifically do remember, at the time TRG was formed, and having to be one of those members that felt that it was
Unknown Speaker 1:32:02
the need for expertise in that specific area was was very present at the time. And in agreeing with everybody that now I think it is time for more involvement on our parts. Things have changed.
Unknown Speaker 1:32:23
Unknown Speaker 1:32:25
yeah, I think it’s something that now’s the time for us to kind of reassess.
Unknown Speaker 1:32:32
Unknown Speaker 1:32:34
Yeah, I specifically remember those meetings and the decisions and the presentations that they did. How involved you guys made sure the community was in the recommendation phases, and all of that. And I think it has served its purpose very well. And now is the time.
Unknown Speaker 1:32:54
Absolutely. And you’ve done a great job.
Unknown Speaker 1:32:58
Unknown Speaker 1:33:01
Unknown Speaker 1:33:06
Unknown Speaker 1:33:09
Hey, when you’re just not going to get rid of me tonight.
Unknown Speaker 1:33:14
Just one comment.
Unknown Speaker 1:33:18
I feel comfortable
Unknown Speaker 1:33:21
assessing you to the level that you need, I think in the scope of our role. But I would love to consider if there’s kind of a consistent framework for presenting these projects that for instance, may reference, you know, like, which fund is going to be drawn from what is the balance just sees kind of context pieces.
Unknown Speaker 1:33:46
Just so for somebody like me, it helps me understand like, is this going to, you know, deplete the funds that are available for the rest of the year? And and how are we measuring these things on a on an outcome basis? Hopefully, just something simple.
Unknown Speaker 1:34:05
Yeah, I think that’s great. Even as a newer member of the board, I think, you know, what I’ve seen and what I’ve heard about the role of TRG, it does seem like it’s duplicative and to the extent that like, we’re asking folks to volunteer to provide the expertise.
Unknown Speaker 1:34:25
It seems like that’s asking quite a bit when things are very technical and very complex, all of the different rules or requirements. So it’s heartening to hear that the city has staff that are doing that we’re we’re we’re we’re appropriately compensating folks for that expertise. And we’re getting consistency in how we’re treating that. It gives us more in some way. A little more accountability of like making sure that the folks we have have the right expertise and are applying it consistently and you know, have a manager who is doing that.
Unknown Speaker 1:35:00
And that sort of thing versus a volunteer board where we have no, necessarily, you know, I don’t want to say that we would fire somebody, but like, if someone is not showing up and not participating and not asking the types of questions that we need to be asked,
Unknown Speaker 1:35:15
we don’t really have any recourse there. And I think when we get into that those technical pieces, we really need that expertise. And we need to know that it’s, you know, that we have ways of making sure that that stays, you know, that we are complying with all of those rules and regulations. And that sort of thing. That doesn’t feel like something that we want to leave.
Unknown Speaker 1:35:40
You know, the we don’t want someone in the city sort of overseeing that, because it’s such an important piece of being able to continue getting those funds and using them in the community.
Unknown Speaker 1:35:52
Unknown Speaker 1:35:58
So I would say that,
Unknown Speaker 1:36:01
you know, that that staff, I think, to Brian’s point, I think, you know, we see a lot of that documentation when the recommendations come to you for the housing investments. And I think staff has put together a pretty consistent format in which to, I think, address and present the information that you you talked about, Brian, and so, you know, so I think it’s,
Unknown Speaker 1:36:29
if there’s it mean that when we are recruiting new members to serve on the housing and Human Services Advisory Board,
Unknown Speaker 1:36:38
that we might not reach out to and look for, again, folks that can bring some of the technical net technical expertise to the, you know, to this board. So it doesn’t, it doesn’t mean that we still might not have that on on this particular, this particular board, it’s just that we’re not going to have a, you know, an additional advisory group to advise the advisory board. And so I think, over time, you know, Kathy’s been with the city for she’s been working this on this skill base for, you know, a long time. And, and then we just really are looking for ways to, to streamline, really streamline the process. So
Unknown Speaker 1:37:25
it’s, and maybe the question is, so Kathy, is, if we are you looking for like a motion from the board? And then, and then what happens from here, then, do we take a recommendation to city council? What, what maybe are some of the next steps? Yeah, I think probably emotion, and then I think we should probably take it to counsel or at least advise them about that. I can’t remember. It is in the is it? It’s not in the code, the TRG? I don’t think it’s a formal advisory board. So I don’t know that there’s a I don’t know if it’s in the code, we will look.
Unknown Speaker 1:38:03
Because just went mute, you just muted yourself, I muted myself.
Unknown Speaker 1:38:09
So I think we did have we do have a provision in the ordinance that establishes this advisory board that indicates and it might be that it stays there. It indicates I think, from time to time, we can appoint
Unknown Speaker 1:38:23
you know, advisory groups or committees, but we certainly will look at what’s in the code and make sure it’s aligned.
Unknown Speaker 1:38:33
Alright, and if folks don’t have other questions or comments, do we have a motion to move forward with the recommendation
Unknown Speaker 1:38:43
for staff to look at removing the TRG from
Unknown Speaker 1:38:50
a, I guess, the review and approval of things before us?
Unknown Speaker 1:38:56
That’s the best way to put it.
Unknown Speaker 1:38:59
Oh, motion to recommend the city council the disbanding of TRG per staff’s recommendation. Thank you. We have a second.
Unknown Speaker 1:39:11
Unknown Speaker 1:39:15
All in favor, please raise your hand.
Unknown Speaker 1:39:20
We’ve got unanimous.
Unknown Speaker 1:39:24
Unknown Speaker 1:39:27
And then Kathy, I think we’re onto your last item.
Unknown Speaker 1:39:32
Housing Program metrics. Yeah. So this is I’m going to share the screen I did send it out to you. I don’t know if y’all had a chance to look at it. But really, I just want to share it and I get your feedback on how it looks or what kinds of information you think is good to put in here. We are further refining this and it will go to council I think on the 30th. So any feedback that you have would be appreciated and find it
Unknown Speaker 1:40:07
All right, where is it?
Unknown Speaker 1:40:18
I’ve got it right here.
Unknown Speaker 1:40:33
Right? Why is it not? Oh, there it is.
Unknown Speaker 1:40:40
Unknown Speaker 1:40:42
Alright, so I don’t know how small I can make this. But so what this is showing is on the inclusionary housing program,
Unknown Speaker 1:40:53
what the goal is that we’re trying to meet over here on the far right, and where we are so far 2018 2019 2020, we added 90 units to get to our 2432 and the 6.07% that I had talked about earlier, which is about 45% of the way to our goal. Um, those 2432 units are made up of 94% of them are in rental homes, and 6% of them are in purchased or for sale homes.
Unknown Speaker 1:41:31
This chart here is the leverage thing that I had talked about. So in 2019, it shows a really high leverage because Fall River and the Michael Holmes project were included in this, where we spent about 300,000 in federal funds and 1.2 million in our local funds. And then the 50 million was what was leveraged in 2020. Even though we show more homes, we had less money because Bob river and Michael Holmes had the investment in 2019. But the unit’s didn’t come on until 2020.
Unknown Speaker 1:42:11
So we spent about 745,000 in in federal funds, 230, some 1000 in our local funds, and 15 million is what was leveraged and that was primarily the Aspen meadows, we syndication and renovation project.
Unknown Speaker 1:42:29
The fee in lieu pipeline that we’re anticipating, we got $14,622 I think it’s what it says in the in lieu in 2022 or 2020. Sorry, we’re anticipating about 800,000 coming in and 2021 it’s a little hard to anticipate because the fee in lieu isn’t paid until the certificate of occupancy is pulled. And so that’s at the towards the very end of a project. So these are these estimates are going to probably pretty drastically change from year to year with only the the actual obtained funding being for certain but about 800,000 in 2021 up to 1.8 million estimate in 2022 and 1.9 and 2023.
Unknown Speaker 1:43:22
And then to give you
Unknown Speaker 1:43:25
a snapshot of the Longmont market in other areas not not affordable necessarily so median sales prices in Longmont. This chart shows from 2010 to 2020. The blue line is single family detached homes. And this is from real estate records are the MLS records.
Unknown Speaker 1:43:47
We are up to 478,951 is the median sales price of a single family detached home in Longmont at the end of 2020 and 347,700 for attached product for sale.
Unknown Speaker 1:44:04
This chart over here on the on, I guess every year right as well looking at this is new homes versus existing home sales. So we take assessors data and figure out by how old a home is the newer homes, so less than I think it’s 18 months
Unknown Speaker 1:44:27
is considered a new home, how many of those are compared to the existing home sales. So as you can see, the majority of all of the years are existing home sales versus the brand new newly constructed homes or first first sale homes in the first year.
Unknown Speaker 1:44:48
And the 2020 figure is so low because it’s only through October 31 of 2020. And there’s so there’s a lag in the assessor’s data. So we will hope to get this update
Unknown Speaker 1:45:00
Did one of our staff is working on that right now as well. So the income needed to purchase or rent a home in Longmont also continues to go up. So compared to that single family detached home price and the single family attached home price, the blue line here is the income needed to afford that single family detached home sales price. And the orange line. The next one down or reddish line is the income needed to afford the attached median home sales price.
Unknown Speaker 1:45:37
Unknown Speaker 1:45:39
orange line is kind of in the middle. He’s like I so one of the changes we’re going to make is to make these easier to tell what the colors are. The income needed to afford the average rents is the second line up here second full line, the gray line that’s kind of in the middle is the city’s median household income. And we don’t have it for 2020 yet because it’s based on census data. And then the dashed lines agree gray dash and the kind of orange just dash is just showing you where the 80% had median income figure is for three person household and the 50%, median income had median and comfort a two person household. So those are kind of the figures that are used for an average rental and an average sales per family.
Unknown Speaker 1:46:33
And then finally, the bottom chart is showing the current of the residential growth that we’ve had in Longmont, so all residential growth. So it’s showing in the dark blue and dark orange, the permits actual permits for each year 2018 2019 2020. And then the actual affordable homes provided in the orange. And then the lighter blue and lighter yellow are the estimated permit. So this is
Unknown Speaker 1:47:05
again, based on the the permits are based on planning and development services estimates. And then the affordable units are based on ours on the what we know is coming up in the pipeline.
Unknown Speaker 1:47:19
The other thing I guess I just didn’t point out that I do want to point out here, back at the first page is that we are projecting the units that are in the pipeline coming up for 2021 is about 73 units, we’re anticipating 2020 275 2023 243 the further out you get a little more nebulous The figures are. But that would bring us almost to 3000 by 2023. If we can reach those goals.
Unknown Speaker 1:47:49
And again, they’re going to change as projects come and go get approved and don’t get approved.
Unknown Speaker 1:47:55
So are there any questions on this? Or what do you think generally if the layout or is there information missing or pieces of information that are on here that you could care less about?
Unknown Speaker 1:48:07
Any kind of thoughts? Councilwoman Christianson
Unknown Speaker 1:48:13
Unknown Speaker 1:48:17
Kathy, we didn’t get this in the packet. Could you send it to all of us?
Unknown Speaker 1:48:22
I send it. It just got finished today. So I sent it in an email that went out at about Oh, okay, I must have missed it. All right, thank you. Um, you know, about 40% of the people now are living alone. And none of these include how much it would cost? How much of
Unknown Speaker 1:48:43
how much money you would need to for a rental of a studio apartment. If there were any or one bedroom apartment. That might be helpful. Okay.
Unknown Speaker 1:48:57
Yeah, I was thinking along the same lines of like being able to see
Unknown Speaker 1:49:04
what the income is needed for the various types, you know, so studio, one bedroom, two bedroom three bit like to actually break it out. By that to understand, you know, if you’ve got a family of four, you roughly, you know, you might need two bedrooms at a minimum, that sort of thing. So it’d be interesting to see the income or the, at least the rates for what those various rentals in particular cost.
Unknown Speaker 1:49:33
Unknown Speaker 1:49:37
Kathy, I think this is absolutely lovely. It’s informative. I like the graphics. It’s got a lot of really good information. So I applaud you on this.
Unknown Speaker 1:49:54
Yeah, I really like bringing the information into that graphical format for people to see and to see like
Unknown Speaker 1:50:00
Where the progress is?
Unknown Speaker 1:50:02
Unknown Speaker 1:50:05
Um, I also like it to Kathy, thank you. I think the only thing I might add if it’s possible if it’s there is,
Unknown Speaker 1:50:13
you know how,
Unknown Speaker 1:50:15
how the city measures up to national averages, you know, in terms of the delta between the affordability of homes and medium income. Right. So that seems to be the key gap, right, as people normally tend to make acts and houses in Longmont tend to cost why. And, you know, there’s a difference there, and how does that chart nationally or maybe even in the county? Because I think that’s 12% goal was a county wide initiative, right? Yep. So just a thought. Not necessarily, though.
Unknown Speaker 1:50:49
Even at the state level, it might also be interesting
Unknown Speaker 1:50:53
to compare, like, what, uh, what does it look like across the state in terms of the amount of affordable housing and that sort of thing? I don’t know if that needs to be here. But I like the idea of comparing. Were long months, that’s
Unknown Speaker 1:51:07
the other thing that struck me seeing is seeing, you know, from 2018 to 2020, how many affordable units have been added? And then the predictions for the future years? The first thing that comes to mind is,
Unknown Speaker 1:51:21
what are we doing to make sure we hit those target? Like, this is like the stats, but I’m looking at that I’m like, we don’t have any history of hitting those numbers of, you know, 125, or 175, and then 200 plus.
Unknown Speaker 1:51:39
And so like, the first thing that comes to mind is
Unknown Speaker 1:51:42
where how do we get those estimates? How reliable are they? How does it match up with like, what’s actually in the pipeline? And how much are we just sort of saying that this is what we want to do?
Unknown Speaker 1:51:54
So that those are all figures that are that are actual units in the pipeline, and I can I they’re tied to either inclusionary housing projects, or, I mean, everything falls under inclusionary. Housing now, because we’re pretty much past the cut off. But it includes things that that I know the Housing Authority is considering and has.
Unknown Speaker 1:52:19
Moving forward on, that isn’t in development process yet. As well, as you know, projecting forward what we know is in the development review process, right now. Now, that’s not to say some of these might, you know, they decide not to go ahead with it. But that’s not something we can really predict. We can only go with what we know, at a point in time.
Unknown Speaker 1:52:42
But I until you get out to 2023, I would say 2021 and 2022 are pretty realistic. The further out you go, obviously, the more kind of wishy washy it gets.
Unknown Speaker 1:52:54
So, but we’ve got, you know, like the 73, there’s 33 units at the farmhouse that’s that
Unknown Speaker 1:53:01
rental property off of
Unknown Speaker 1:53:04
we’re third comes into 119, those big apartment buildings that are going up by
Unknown Speaker 1:53:11
can’t remember the name of it’s not harvest junction, it’s east of harvest junction.
Unknown Speaker 1:53:16
So there’s going to be 33 affordable units in those and they should start leasing. Yet this year, at least some of them.
Unknown Speaker 1:53:26
We’ve got 10, probably 10 habitat homes, they’re going to be coming online.
Unknown Speaker 1:53:32
I forget what the 26 is. But anyway, it’s all tied to specific projects, at least for 2021 and 2022. That are pretty firm. So maybe on that first graph with the with like, the really nice cityscape on identifying the 2021 and 2022 are based on projects already under, you know, however you want to phrase it,
Unknown Speaker 1:53:57
that those are based on actual projects in the pipeline and not just and whereas 2023 is maybe not. It’s partially just to give a little bit of context there.
Unknown Speaker 1:54:10
I don’t think it would need much more than that. I think it’s just nice to see like, where estimates are coming from or the methodology behind it.
Unknown Speaker 1:54:25
I really like cityscape one. It’s like really nice timeline.
Unknown Speaker 1:54:34
Any other questions or feedback on on that?
Unknown Speaker 1:54:38
Unknown Speaker 1:54:45
Alrighty, then. Excellent. Thank you. I appreciate it.
Unknown Speaker 1:54:51
Thanks for putting that together. All right. Um,
Unknown Speaker 1:54:56
Number eight is a discussion around the digital
Unknown Speaker 1:55:00
Unknown Speaker 1:55:03
So Caitlin is Karen. So I realized that it’s, it’s nearly, you know, nine o’clock, we knew it’d be a pretty full agenda. So we can certainly have the digital divide discussion at a later time. You know, what we did want to include it was a, it was a suggestion when we talked about what did we want to put on our agendas for this year for 2021. So what what is in your packet is, again, if you read the summary of the needs assessment, there were a couple of references to the digital divide, and and certainly how we saw more of that issue, when we moved into COVID, particularly around older adults, and, and, and by not having access to technology,
Unknown Speaker 1:55:59
or internet, you know, how that continued to contribute to isolation, certainly, as, as we all isolated in, in this last year, during the the pandemic, as well as for, you know, lower income households whose whose children whose students were in, you know, had to rely on technology for learning and just some of the
Unknown Speaker 1:56:26
gaps that we saw around that. So, and then what I included was just as a summary of some of how we use the city used, its its initial allocation of cares Act funding, which was around $100,000, that we invested in trying to address some of the digital divide, we couldn’t give devices away, it was prohibited by the cares act,
Unknown Speaker 1:56:52
that we could, we could do an extended loan. And so that’s really what we we worked on in terms of the Chromebook loan process that’s coordinated through our public library, because we could not give the devices away, we had to, we had to loan them so so we can go into more detail about that. But I just wanted to let you know that is that is there Plus, you know, our next light service broadband service did
Unknown Speaker 1:57:20
has come up with some different options, some lower cost options, as well as they for their service as well as they partner with the school district and brought in a big grants. It’s a I don’t remember what the exact amount was, but
Unknown Speaker 1:57:37
but over a million dollars to to really help to address and bridge that digital divide among students in the in the school district. So we can spend more time with that later. I realize it’s not o’clock. So I just wanted to let you know what was in the packet.
Unknown Speaker 1:57:55
Unknown Speaker 1:57:58
I just wanted to add in terms of the digital divide, I was talking to Representative neguse. Yesterday, and there will be some funding in the
Unknown Speaker 1:58:09
COVID relief package for the digital divide, because
Unknown Speaker 1:58:14
we actually have quite a few
Unknown Speaker 1:58:17
members of Congress, you understand that? That’s a big problem. So that’s good news coming to us, I
Unknown Speaker 1:58:27
think it would be great to come back to this if folks are okay with that. I did have one question, Karen.
Unknown Speaker 1:58:35
I know that some of our agencies that applied for funding, and I can think of at least one off the top of my head, they were actually specifically providing cell phones to people who did not have them to ensure that they could access services, but also I think show up for court dates, maybe while things were being done digitally, because they couldn’t go in person. And then if you don’t have a cell phone or a computer, it’s a little hard to show up for something that’s being done virtually. I wonder if as we are looking at some of these grants, and so forth, if there’s an opportunity to partner with some of our agencies to actually do this as well, where they have connections in the community to provide devices, for example, but might need, you know, some programmatic or some financial support. So I would just suggest that we think about looking at that as well.
Unknown Speaker 1:59:33
Unknown Speaker 1:59:38
So just just real quickly,
Unknown Speaker 1:59:41
just the board knows, through HSBC, we were able to give out $27,500 in cell phones to people experiencing homelessness. So that’s one area where we were able to pass out phones.
Unknown Speaker 1:59:56
Unknown Speaker 1:59:59
Unknown Speaker 2:00:00
Because those were flip phones. So it had to do with the value of the device. So because they were flip phones and old technology, we were allowed to use cares funding to give away those devices versus
Unknown Speaker 2:00:17
Chromebooks that were of a higher value.
Unknown Speaker 2:00:20
Interesting. We’ll see what this new. And I’m assuming, you know, Polly, you’re talking about the American rescue, fund plan, whatever. So, yeah, well, we’ll see what, how those, those dollars, will kind of restrictions are on those particular dollars. But yeah, it’s, it’s, uh, we’ll we are continuing to look at that, because it is a it’s a significant need in the community.
Unknown Speaker 2:00:49
Um, are there any? And then the other one really is?
Unknown Speaker 2:00:55
Because it’s, it’s in the packet and Madeline’s been asking for this forever. So I did want to point out and get some direction.
Unknown Speaker 2:01:05
That, you know, what we, what I included in the email invitation that I sent out to you all was a couple of links to what the multicultural Action Committee what their pages look like, when we added photos and some information about the individual members. We used this questionnaire that I included in your packet. We modified it a bit, but we just basically asked members to provide some responses to a couple of these about, you know, you can see there, what’s your, what’s the best part of being on this board? Why did you join up, bla bla bla bla bla, and, and so when folks members responded to those questions, then we, you know, we had some of our marketing staff that that took those responses and, and place what you saw on the website for the multicultural Action Committee, if you got a chance to look at that. So I think we just really are wanting your feedback about a if you want to do this
Unknown Speaker 2:02:11
be would there be different questions that you would like to respond to? Or see anything else that you want to suggest?
Unknown Speaker 2:02:24
We say let’s do it. questionnaire looks great. You know, let’s go with what we have. And we can build from there.
Unknown Speaker 2:02:35
That’s my thought as well. My question is, do we have a way to get nice, consistent photographs of folks of individuals to put on there? What’s the option there?
Unknown Speaker 2:02:49
Do we do we send a resume of the board members?
Unknown Speaker 2:02:56
current state of affairs.
Unknown Speaker 2:02:59
So we will go into that a little further, we’ll consult some of our technical folks about what’s the best way to do that. Because, and, you know, and maybe one of these days that we will be in person, but yes, when we when we did this before with the multicultural Action Committee, we, we actually could be in person so so we will explore what technological options would be available to get your photos and not everyone wanted their photo, if you looked on the the world call to L Mac, you know, we had our pinwheel, we had a logo, some people like Nananana don’t want my photo and they have a nice pinwheel in their place. So so we want to honor what your preferences are, as well, that we will figure out that those that technology option, if it helps, I just went through this with the Community Foundation.
Unknown Speaker 2:03:56
Having to submit a photo and the bio now, you know that little bit. And Eric kept it real simple for me. I just took an old photo, they backed it up so that I wasn’t directly in you know, close. And with minor
Unknown Speaker 2:04:16
adjustments, were able to make it make it fit the rest of the boards. It’s been there for a while, of course they were able to get all the meals or whatever. COVID wouldn’t allow that. But it was really simple. So and one other statement, I just like to, to say as a volunteer of many
Unknown Speaker 2:04:39
is all very levels. Well, we’re not paid. I don’t really want this not what I do what I do. I do it because I want to make a difference in the lives of our community, the citizens in terms of knowing who we are and
Unknown Speaker 2:05:00
What we’re doing for generations to come when I’m no longer here, I’d like my
Unknown Speaker 2:05:08
grandson’s grandchildren to know what grandma Madeline did back in 2020 in the 2000s. Because, you know, we won’t be present and the same for each of you, you know, so that that’s the only thing. You know, we can do. We do the work. So let’s just
Unknown Speaker 2:05:30
I just want to be known at some point down in the future years. Yeah. She made a difference might have been there, let’s but it was a difference. So that that’s really the why behind it. And thank you. Thank you, Karen, for following through on it. Well, so I take it what a year, year and a half.
Unknown Speaker 2:05:55
Oh, it’s been longer than that, Karen. Okay.
Unknown Speaker 2:06:03
Unknown Speaker 2:06:07
Unknown Speaker 2:06:09
Any other business that we Yes. And if not, I will entertain a motion to adjourn.
Unknown Speaker 2:06:17
So moved. Okay. Seconded. Anyone.
Unknown Speaker 2:06:24
Seconded by Chiquita. See you all in about a month. Thank you so much.
Unknown Speaker 2:06:34