HAC Meeting   5/26/2020

I'll happily call this meeting to order.

Calling the meeting to order.

This is the housing advisory May meeting, technically the quote regular May meeting rescheduled for time.

Welcome all.

Again, I see 17 or 18 members of the HAC as panelists and about 16 others.

So welcome all.

Since we don't have them, I'm going to dispense with the review of the minutes.

And also, frankly, although this is a regular meeting, I think we're all very interested in focusing on the present circumstances and the COVID response.

So I expect to spend the preponderance, the vast preponderance of the time on that.

So without further ado there, everyone able to hear?

If you can't, wave, bang your head.

I don't know.

OK, good.

Let's see.

All right.

I think we should just jump in.

And John and I really haven't had much of an opportunity to discuss this ahead of time as to how to,

how to sort of manage this.

Okay.

Well, I think I'm gonna hand it over to Aaron Attack

the grants coordinator.

A lot of, I've heard a lot of discussion about the CBG, CV funds.

So since those applications have come in, she's gonna talk about that a little bit, just give everyone a clear view of what we're actually looking at.

Cause I saw in some of you all's, the document that was sent around the proposal, well, that document used CBG and CV funds.

Hi, everyone.

So like John mentioned, I'm going to cover what the CDBG CV program is and the applications we received.

So just to remind everyone, the HUD priorities for the CDBG CV grant is different than the normal CDBG allocation that we get every year.

The main motto that HUD has been pushing out

is to fund activities that will prevent, prepare for and respond to the coronavirus.

So in other words, we should be funding activities that support coronavirus and other infectious disease responses.

The national objectives haven't changed for the CDBG program.

That's to benefit low and moderate income people, aid in the prevention or elimination of some blight neighborhoods and meeting an urgent need within the community.

So all applicants for the CDBG CV grants

fall under that third category for the national objective of meeting an urgent need due to the pandemic.

Additionally, all applicants do have to make sure their activity aligns with council priorities, which are updated yearly for the CDBG program and the 10 goals outlined in the 2018-2023 consolidated plan that outlines what the CDBG program and home program should accomplish in the city.

The council priorities just to refresh everyone for the CDBG program is funding affordable housing activities, including but not limited to low income housing redevelopment priority for households at zero to 50 percent AMI, supporting the homeless and those at risk of homelessness, workforce development, including but not limited to efforts to bolster Section three training opportunities and partnerships with the city's GO program, supporting for programs that aid in self-sufficiency, including but not limited to child care.

supporting micro enterprise assistance and supporting mental health and substance abuse services.

As for the CDBG CV submissions, so the city received a entitlement award of $246,699.

And that was broken out into three umbrellas.

The first umbrella is public services.

And this includes all housing related activities as well.

I know that's been a big question.

but for the public service umbrella there's a funding cap of $98,679.60 and then the second umbrella is the econ development economic development umbrella that's again capped off at $98,679.60 and then the third category or third umbrella is the administration in planning portion and that covers all the city's grant related expenses so

administering the grant program paying for community engagement, environmental reviews, and other federal requirements.

Applicants were not able to apply for this set of funding and this umbrella is capped off at $49,339.80.

So I met with a total of 11 applicants who were interested with the CDBG CV program and ended up receiving five applications.

One came in late, so I guess six in total.

For the public service umbrella, we received five applications.

Almost all of them were requesting for the full amount.

And if you put all that together, the total amount requested from all five applicants end up being $304,324, which is above the entitlement award that we did get at the $246,000.

And then for the econ umbrella, we received one applicant and they're requesting for $98,640.

So pretty much the entire entitled umbrella amount.

That's pretty much what's going on right now with the CDBG CV world.

The CDBG task force did get all the applications and they're starting the review process now.

Go ahead.

Can I ask a question?

Far away, sir.

Hi Aaron, I'm Dan Rosensweig.

I don't think we've met in person, but welcome.

So at a recent meeting of the Regional Housing Partnership Strategies subcommittee, there was a question, we were meeting with the consultant who is doing the regional housing studies.

and or we were meeting together and talking about the consultation.

There's no money left in TJPDC to do a COVID addendum.

But there was some consensus among the group that that would be worth funding if we could as long as we've got the outside consultant doing the regional work.

but there was no money left in the TJPDC's budget to do it.

That would probably go for the public services.

The admin and planning portion is really meant for the city to administer the CDBG program and pay for all the federal

Okay, so I sent out this morning another updated proposal for housing response for COVID-19.

And then that updated when I added one column was the reentry program.

So I wanna give you an opportunity to ask me any questions like since you all have had it,

I guess for a week for the other programs and only a day for the re-entry.

But the re-entry is the exact same as some of the other programs.

Right.

Yeah, so this is a sort of refresh

on the chart.

And I think it's probably best to sort of have an integrated conversation about the proposal sections here in conjunction with the response.

But you're giving a number of 1.15 million for available calf.

That includes what, the 800 and some odd thousand that we had on

Yes, we have the 670 from

All right.

That's $1.37 million.

The proposals that I have are calling for $1.15 million, which will leave that remainder balance that you see under there is like a reserve of $235 million maybe.

Gotcha.

Gotcha.

All right, thanks.

So to an extent, we've got a charge from city council, which was to provide some sort of feedback on housing programs in response.

We've also got something of a wider request on the coordination of efforts

private, public and in between in the response.

So I was hoping to try to integrate that into a conversation.

I'm not really sure the best way to eat this elephant other than one bite at a time, but I think that's sort of where we're at.

And as a prelude to that, John, do you have any,

Well so I spoke with Holly Lee in the econ department and she works a lot with the re-entry program through the home to hope that program so she is

Working directly with Reentry so she knows the individuals that are coming back in the community.

So I got some information from her about that program.

But then I've also have had some communication with like landlords who are owning some affordable units and they're having, I think one landlord reached out, I think he has 12 units and only two occupants actually paid rent last month.

So he was reaching out after he received the proposal that I sent around wondering if the program was up yet and whether his organization could apply for it because they're actively looking.

I've spoken with Dan and he, this was before I even sent out any proposals, he was talking about doing a mortgage forbearance program as well.

And I was in the process of writing what one would look like from the city side.

So we bounced ideas from around each other.

And I've also spoken with Anthony about the homeless population and how we could do something there and what he was currently doing with the hotels and motel stays and organizations he was working with on that side.

So I've spoken to some community members, both landlords and nonprofit activists that are working on housing.

And I've also spoken with some

Lenders who are working on the mortgage side as well to see what product will be a good product to fit them without like doing a big balloon payment that's due once the pandemic goes away and lenders feel like they can collect some of that money.

Gotcha.

Okay, fair enough.

And then

I guess the other sort of general question I have is parsing the buckets of money and how you divided it up.

Can you give me like a 50 cent tour of the methodology on that?

You'd be muted.

Yeah, thanks, John.

I think I'm struggling a little bit with getting into the details of this before we kind of pull back a little bit.

There have been a few folks who came together over the last couple of weeks to try to figure out how to wrap our heads around the myriad of potential resources, the timing of those potential resources,

and the rest of the panelists.

I want to talk about some of the constraints on those potential resources, wanting to ideally talk about a holistic strategy that tries to cover as much as we possibly can.

Hence the development, at least in part, of that Excel spreadsheet that talks about immediate, short-term, medium-term and long-term actions.

And so part of the discussion around the use of CAF funds feels like it needs to be part of a conversation where we look at all available funds in sort of one big picture and what can be used for what and then allocate the resources as strategically as makes the most sense.

And my understanding, at least according to Emily Dreyfus, she texted, she wasn't able to join for this call, but she texted right before to suggest that she recently heard that CARES funding from the state is being allocated to the city of the tune of $4.1 million.

I don't know any details about that, but it feels like that is a bucket of money, CAF is a bucket of money, CDBG, CDBG-CV, all those things need to be one largely mapped structure of funding so that we can be as strategic as possible and have the most impact as possible.

So it's a little hard for me to talk about the specifics of the individual programs, although I think they all have merit, John.

of what you proposed.

That's my only.

Yeah, thanks.

So I was actually just sort of looking for the provenance and the numbers that we had.

But that's fine.

I mean, jumping ahead to sort of the larger bucket makes sense to me as well.

So back to our eating the elephant one bite at a time.

Yeah.

I have not heard anything about the $4.1 million.

This is the first thing I'm hearing about it.

Great.

Well, if we're gonna circle back to Sunshine's idea about the, we're still back to the buckets of money and what we actually have then.

So is there a sensible way to sort of, to sort of list them out?

I think we've covered the basic of the calf.

Phil, if any other monies come from the state, from the Fed, CDBG or whatever, would those monies affect the amount we would have in the CAF?

I don't absent an action by city council to do something and who knows what strings those, I imagine that money is coming with all sorts of strings and programmatic restrictions.

So large.

So to Sunshine's point, that may be a bucket too large, that the bucket we have in front of us is the calf money.

And if we at least know what we're gonna do with that, I assume that nothing would be taken away from it.

What I worry about is us banking on money we do not have yet.

So the CARES money, everyone is looking at, well, there's $246,000 out to do something for housing.

No, there's only $98,000 out to do something with public service.

And public service isn't just housing.

So how can we guarantee that money will go to housing?

It's an equal playing field as the health, childcare, individuals who are essential employees who have kids who can't go to school, they need childcare.

So what if an applicant applied to provide free childcare to essential workers?

Then that could qualify.

So we can't bank on all of this money going to housing.

So if we have money there, we need to try to do something.

And how long, how much longer can we wait?

I mean, we're already three months in.

How much longer are you all willing to wait?

So just.

Right.

So.

Well, I think I was just stepping on Sunshine, but I was about to ask him anyway.

So

This coordinated response document that has been circulating, which has the city programs in it, does it make sense to look at this, as you say, pulled back, take the money we have, although I don't still think I have a clear answer as to what the money that's actually available is, and sort of figure out the need and deployment from there, but do we need an overview of

The sort of chopping it up into emergency crash action, short, medium, and long.

And do we allocate funds proportionately there knowing, as John says, we can't count on money, but we can't count on it not showing up either.

but I'm not sure what sort of the next step is, is to address this comprehensively other than to start looking at immediate actions, what we can need to deploy on that short term, what we can deploy on that and then the coordination effort.

But I'm trying to get a sense, does it make sense to talk about the coordination effort first?

Does it make sense to start talking about money allocation first?

Do we in fact have 1.15 million?

We have 1.3.

1.3.

In exchange.

And that is calf money alone or is that calf or something else?

Correct.

So the question I think that John was alluding to earlier was, do we assign all of the funds now or do we parcel them?

And what I mean by do we, I mean the city collectively.

And do we say, well, if we're anticipating the possibility of future funding for X, Y, or Z, do we hedge against that showing up or not?

Maybe as a way to structure the conversation, because this is I think a decent place for us to jump into the conversation.

Maybe if Sunshine could share his screen, if he's got the updated document that that is the comprehensive plan.

My recollection is that with the exception of the reentry assistance program, because that's new, that recommendation had all three of the other programs in it as key components.

And so that may, by panning the lens out a little bit more, by elevating to a slightly higher level, we may be able to back into something like an incremental funding strategy or ultimately the funding strategy might be just as John proposed, utilize all of the CAF or almost all of the CAF to fund these programs.

So Sunshine, can you sort of explain where this came from and walk us through it a little bit?

So can everyone see my screen at the moment?

Yes.

OK.

So this document began out of an advocacy coordination conversation.

and it's based on a document, a nationally focused document on homelessness specifically that came out a couple of weeks ago that seemed like it had a solid framework for conceiving of how to address things moving forward.

We expanded the overall document to include not just homelessness but to include unhoused people, low income renters,

— oh, this should say, sorry, let me make this little figure so you can see it — low-income homebuyers and homeowners, and then other related key activities.

And we ended up, based on their template — and this is a jointly developed document amongst multiple entities and advocates — breaking it out into immediate actions, short-term actions, so zero to three months immediate actions, short-term actions, three to six months,

medium term six to 12 and long term one to two years.

And that seemed to us to have a solid framework for how to begin to triage expending of money.

And to address John's point earlier, you're absolutely right, John, we don't wanna wait on the issuance of spending money.

We wanna get funds deployed as is the most strategic.

And the reason that I have my screen blown up right now to focus on immediate and short-term actions is because that's the frame that we're currently in.

We're not beyond six months yet.

So if you look in general under action priorities, under immediate actions, and we're probably, depending on how you slice it, we're probably somewhere in the threshold between immediate and short-term actions.

So action priorities under immediate actions route people to appropriate options based on need, focus on housing the homeless, and keeping vulnerable people housed.

As we move into short term actions, action parties include support vulnerable low-income people across the housing continuum, shore up existing initiatives, and begin to invest in future activities.

And as I mentioned, this is a jointly developed set of priorities.

And the question is, in my mind, is as we look at our resources, which we absolutely want to deploy in the short term,

while we can't lose sight of the medium and long term ultimately.

And so, you know, for the moment, let's set aside the 4.1 million CARES Act as a possible source of funds because that's still an unknown.

None of us have any details.

So let's set that aside.

But I do want to add that the CDBG money

has already been allocated.

So the only money that is available through CDBG is the CDBG CV.

And that will be $98,000.

And $98,000 is some change.

Thanks, John.

Can you clarify what was allocated for under the CDBG dollars?

Aaron, can you take care of that?

We did have, so we funded the priority neighborhood, which is Ridge Street for the upcoming year.

And then there was under public services, Thomas Jefferson Area Coalition for the Homelessness.

They got the funding amount for the full funding request that they had in their application.

Under housing services, we had AHIP who received their funding request to the full

amount they requested.

And then for economic development projects, we had one applicant get their funding.

And that was the Community Investment Collaborative.

Under home funds, we had two applicants get funding.

And we this is Anthony from TDEC, by the way, we received funding for the coordinated entry system.

So it's some of the staffing that helps us to

engage people who are reaching out for help for homeless prevention or for homeless assistance and be able to talk to them properly and do a formal intake and then get them to the services they need.

Thanks.

So it seems like then based on what I'm hearing, and correct me if I'm wrong, John and Aaron,

I would say that is correct, but we also have to worry about what if that 98,000 does not go towards housing and it goes to something else.

And then, but they also have a task force that goes within it.

So we could get a proposal on our end and say, hey, city council, this is what we propose you do with the CDBG CV money in case the task force decides to go another route.

That can happen.

I guess we can't directly say that money needs to go there, or we could just give our opinion on it.

And we have another task force that could give a separate opinion on that.

Sorry, go ahead.

Have you all selected a low-income person?

for what?

I think the council is going through those nominations now.

Okay.

I think they have a few more to go.

I think Chris, Chris Meyer, are you a part of that as well?

Yes.

I applied, I guess, because LEAP's office is on Rich Street and I'm one of the business representatives.

but they're still working on those nominations.

There have been no meetings yet, right?

And that is true.

They're still trying to get members on the task force.

Okay.

I don't know why it happened.

Can I ask and then you can boot me back to the public since Joy's here.

On John's proposal of those, how many of those are eligible for CDBG CV funding?

And are there any applications?

I know there's one that fits one of the categories, but

You know, is rental assistance the only thing that fits in there from CDBG CV?

And then my other thought was, the CRF funds, you know, you got to get a handle on what that is.

There's a lot you can do with it.

And can we just convince whoever to pump that CRF fund from the state right into the CAF?

or most of it and then allocate instead of just draining the calf right this second, allocate three to six months worth of funding for these various programs.

I think that's a good way to go but my main question is, is rental assistance the only thing under CDBG and John's proposal that can be covered

I'll take a stab at it first, I think.

So all of the programs under my proposal could qualify for CDBG funding, except I believe the reentry, because that will have the criminal background.

HUD deals a lot with that.

So they might not qualify under that.

So that might be one of the harder programs.

But all of that funding is for three months and some of my requests are for up to six months worth of funding.

Plus the funding amount is only $98,000.

So it's not going to go very far.

CRHA, they received the grant that was for three months assistance, but that was for far more than $90,000.

So we could not have given you the assistance that grant gave CRHA to give relief to their residents and public housing.

So I think that's all something that we need to take in mind that, yes, we can say that funding should go there, but we have to also put some other funding there.

It's just what funding are you proposing to do?

Lanny.

Yeah, I'll just say that we're not able to prioritize one activity over the other.

We do have a wide range of goals for that reason.

So do keep that in mind that this funding is specific for medical response.

Erin, can I ask a quick question?

You said there were five applicants for the $98,000 for the public services.

Thank you.

So I'll just take a moment and then I'll shut up.

The question I still have, I guess, is, again, I want to acknowledge that what John put together, I think all of those programs have merit, and none of us, I doubt, will see any problem with any one of those.

I think the question for me remains, let's be a little bit more conservative and just say we have the CAF dollars for the moment, and that's what we are going to be working with.

How do we go through a process of prioritizing where to spend that money?

And are those four programs that John is listing, are those the four places we want to strategically insert dollars?

Yeah, I think that's a good way to frame it at least for now particularly since Council is asking for some sort of sort of solid nuts and bolts way to proceed.

And this is as good a place to start as anything.

and just sort of attack that.

But I think there's also this larger issue of coordination amongst the various folks and how the two interrelate, which I think is bigger than this meeting.

But we've got to come to grips with that to be as effective as we can.

Having said that,

if we sort of divide this into specific immediate recommendations based on the proposals presented and then larger strategic conversation, does it make sense to jump into, okay, here's sort of our first or second read at this and how to put it forward and for period of time.

And I think that means in part evaluating on each one of these, what the immediate need is and what the 90 day need is

potential for 120 to 180 day need is.

I think that's a good way to start.

I could be wrong about that.

Does that make sense to sort of look at each one of these at this point?

Do we need to sort of, and then have a second conversation about how to coordinate based around these?

May I ask a question?

Yes, ma'am.

Okay.

All right.

Where is the public process in this?

It just seems like there's no, maybe y'all talked about it before I got on, but it doesn't seem like there's any kind of

I'm not talking about the regular CBDG dollars because I understand how it is supposed to work.

It's supposed to work because I served on the CBDG task force before.

But I'm talking about the stimulus money, the money that's coming down now.

Why is it there is not some kind of public policy?

If you get on the National Low Income Coalition calls, you can hear how innovative those states are.

doing different things and I just want to know where is the public process and are we moving from public process because that's an issue and I have the same questions that everybody else have

also.

But I just, you know, in this COVID academic pandemic, there are things that we could create, what we couldn't do before, that we could do.

I know it's not a lot of money to go, but we could also attempt.

And so I'm just wondering, where's the process?

Nothing against you, John, because you know I love you.

But that's going to be very uncomfortable for me because

Yeah.

I know we haven't.

That's what I was asking.

Yes, it is.

So we do have the task force meeting the week of June 15.

I don't have any specifics on which day yet because I'm waiting to hear back from everyone on what days they prefer.

But the week of June 15, we'll have the regular CDBG task force committee meet to discuss the applications.

And then there is a five day public comment period that's been changed for this COVID funding.

So we do have the five-day public comment period.

Thanks.

I think it speaks to Joy's point in a couple of, I think we can sort of integrate Joy's point in a couple of ways.

One of which is if this process, not so much for the COVID money,

you know, the sort of public participation pieces is an argument for what's the immediate stop the bleeding items that we can recommend to council that are for relatively short-term things that we see as an immediate problem and then take a breath to see what those things will need beyond a 60-day fund or a 90-day funding and then sort of broaden the conversation there.

I think it divides into a couple of different

There's sort of the emergency response, crisis reaction, and then the slightly larger and broader policy response, right?

I think there's some consensus emerging among the whole group.

There seems to be, and maybe by shaking the head, there seems to be pretty positive acceptance of John's proposals.

I have some questions, some detailed questions.

The short-term re-entry housing program, I don't know how that's different than Home to Hope.

and the Mortgage Assistance Program have some specific questions.

But leaving the details aside, this is kind of going back to Sunshine's point.

And I think the point you were trying to make is, I'm wondering if one of the ideas, I did participate in generating at an earlier iteration of that plan.

And one of the things that compelled me to, that this was a good idea was the idea

that the scenario where we house all of our homeless brothers and sisters for a short period of time, and then when the emergency money runs out, they're right back on the street.

And that seems to me like a sort of a dereliction of our responsibility as housers.

And so some of the best practices when this list was being generated

from across the country, one of the ones that sort of caught my attention was a situation where a homeless organization housed people temporarily by renting hotel rooms, and then gradually decided, they decided, hey, let's buy that hotel.

And so they needed, and then let's renovate the hotel, so they needed capital funds to do that.

And so I'm in general, I'm supportive of John's

across the spectrum proposal here.

I think it's sort of a question of tactics.

My preference would be to hold on as long as possible to capital funds so that we see what happens with some of the funds like future COVID CV funds which can only be used for short-term relief.

because otherwise I'm a little worried about us blowing all of our powder when other opportunities come that are able to keep people housed on a slightly longer term.

So I'm wondering if there's a both and scenario here, and maybe this is what you were proposing, Phil, is that we could recommend a more short term, sort of a pilot short term launch of these programs potentially with some refinement, potentially as is,

Yeah, that was sort of what I was framing.

And I thought in sort of a practical matter, in terms of getting advice to counsel, that it might make sense to look at what John has proposed, go through each one, see where the numbers are and the timing is, and sort of refine whatever recommendation we have on that.

Yeah, we could take it that way and start from the granular and work up or we can start as Sunshine suggested from looking at the plan and sort of work down to see what are some of the other, I can't say that the plan itself has had a lot of participation but not much public vetting.

And I don't think that our staff housing experts have weighed in on it either.

I'd love to hear their perspective but it'd be nice to see what are the tools

that we have available in the toolbox and the things that we feel like we're going to need, not just right now, but four months from now, five months from now, maybe a year from now, and then sort of work backward from there.

I don't think there's any reason why we can't assume that the proposals that John has put forward won't be part of it.

They seem really common sense.

They're pretty well thought out.

They're based.

They already have enabling legislation.

So I think we should probably assume that

Well, I guess I would love

to start from a higher altitude.

And I think we may have two planes in flight here.

Number one is we have these four items.

What are their direct applicability today and now?

What can council do with the funding we have today and now?

that is designed to meet the immediate need, right?

And simultaneously we start looking at the larger conceptual things and how they fit in.

And I don't think there's a neat way to do that.

I don't think that there's a convenient or unmessy way of having that conversation.

But I think it's important that we get back to council with

Understanding that every dollar we spend out of the cap is a CIP type dollar that we may not get back.

And that it is, it may or may not be supplanting a COVID specific dollar later, that we'd be very sort of targeted about what we think is the immediate funding need for each one of them.

Phil, do you mind if I jump in?

Jump in.

So I think for the, so to maybe move forward on your suggestion and also hit upon Dan's suggestion for big picture, I think the homeless portion in particular is,

is a good example of why we have to be conscious of some long-term goal because the only way a short-term rental assistance program is gonna work for homeless populations would be economy the way we expect it to be over the next, I mean, there's just so much unknown, right?

That we, TJAC and many other communities of care across the country, we are planning out for the next two years expecting to need to support people almost in total with rental assistance because we don't,

feel that it's a likely outcome that most of those people will be able to gain gainful employment in that time frame.

So we are planning for that.

If they do, that's great.

We can always use that funding to help other folks out.

So that's one thing where it's like the short term.

And I know when we spoke before, John, I mean, I first of all just appreciate that this is a part of the plan because it absolutely has to be

homeless folks are some of the most vulnerable, especially now.

And it's a community health issue for everybody that everybody has their own safe place to go right now.

But it was just hard to know how much, you know, how far out should we plan for?

And I think now we really understand that we need to be planning for this for the next year or two years.

And so in light of that, you know, six months is great, but I I'm not confident people are going to have gainful employment in six months to support themselves in housing.

And so I think we need to plan for that.

And I think to be able to do that, the ideal solution would be to purchase something.

And of course, that's longer term, and we need to have the capital prepared to be able to do that.

But short of something like that, where we purchase a hotel, let's say, people have the short-term needs met because they can stay in the rooms, then they can transition into permanent housing.

That's the ideal.

But outside of that, really, I think what we need is something similar to the CSRAP.

We just need to grow that where we have the opportunity for people to continue in rental assistance long-term.

I think cutting it at six months personally would not be meeting what we need.

And I know that there's language in there, John, that you said that could be re-upped, but I don't know what the clarity is with we expect money to come in so that we can re-up folks after six months.

I feel like it might be something better to frame it

maybe similar to the CSRAP program would be my suggestion.

Yeah, I- Where do we come from to make it a more open-ended program?

I mean, the- What was that?

Where would the money come to make it a more open-ended program?

Yeah, you're right.

So I think, I mean, it's a good question.

The needs for the homeless population right now are, because of COVID, are extremely large.

We are paying about $70,000 per month just to house high-risk folks in hotels right now.

It's not sustainable and yet no one has tested positive in the homeless population.

And I think it's largely due to the fact that we are properly supporting people who need to be supported.

So the costs are just large and I don't have a solution for how to make them less other than investing big now and purchasing something so that long-term we don't have such high costs.

I will say that I think we should keep in mind CDBG for next round.

And I'm not sure, Aaron, when that comes up,

CDBG monies both in the county and in the city can be used for purchasing and renovating structures and can also be used for tenant-based rental assistance.

So I know, and I'm not talking with the CV CDBG, but just the regular CDBG allocation.

Home money can be used for that as well.

Anthony, you chopped up a little bit.

What's your monthly whack on these housing and hotels?

So we have 30 high-risk folks from CDC's guidelines.

They're complicated health issues or over 65.

So there's 30 people.

We're paying $70,000 per month for staffing.

Can I ask a question?

And I just want to just say, Anthony, part of what I'm learning, due to the fact that I did have a family member who died of COVID, trying to understand and learn more about it, people can test.

Just remember now, people can test.

negative and still have it.

Sometimes it takes three testing from what we're learning to see if you really have it.

So you have to prepare for even that.

Because you know everybody right now is negative, but it could be that somewhere down the road people start testing positive.

I'm agreeing with you.

That's true.

And I mean, we, you know, our shelters have done a great job of implementing as many safety precautions as they can.

I think it has I think it's directly related to the fact that we haven't had an outbreak to our knowledge.

But I think it's inevitable that there will be COVID

You know, there will be COVID in our shelter system.

So, you know, that's the thing we need to be prepared for, like Joy said, and having private rooms is the best is the only way to do that.

John and Aaron, could I ask a question?

I would say no.

That's not a concern.

That wouldn't be a concern at all.

Because other localities operate programs like their own rental rehab, not rental rehab, but rehab programs.

And whenever their CDBG money or home money becomes available, they could operate those programs using that money.

And it wouldn't be a problem at all.

And actually it's a lot easier when the organization itself, the city, the locality, is actually operating these programs.

because you have less of the going out to apply.

You don't have to apply for a program you're operating yourself.

If we funded these programs and operate them, we wouldn't have to compete against any nonprofit from getting the funding.

It sounds like that's yet another reason for us to stand these things up pronto at some level and that way we're much more efficient as a community in pulling in and utilizing future funding that likely will come, although you never can completely bet on Washington, but

All indications are that the current Republican Senate is posturing a little bit to get some what they want, but that there will be a larger stimulus that hits the streets sometime at the end of August.

But so I guess I

I would think we'd want to move on and say, look, we're going to support these programs and then maybe tweak them a little bit, but we want to put them within the context of a bigger plan.

So I guess my thought would be let's fund them in the short term with some extensions.

Let's backstop some of the future funding with CAF money, but not allocate it.

In other words, if we get to August or September and there's no money coming in from outside sources that can be utilized to sustain these things and there's still a demonstrable need, let's then unlock that money.

I like that idea, Dan.

How would that work, John?

Is that possible to do?

Let me sort of jump in with just a suggestion there that, and I don't know if the logistics of this makes sense, but we say we have X dollars in the CAF right now.

Here are what we think the immediate needs are for these four.

And we recommend to council that this is the wise and wherefores for each one for the immediate needs and have a specific revisit and a specific, as Dan put it, backstop for additional funds that can be dropped in if something else doesn't

if something else doesn't happen.

And we're sort of, I mean, it's hedging in both directions.

And I don't know if there's an elegant way to do that, but I think council's looking for some concrete recommendations on what do we need to do in the next 60 days right now.

I'll just add in one more thing that I do appreciate the ability to use the short-term rental assistance on hotels because that is where we would need to support many people in the next, you know, 60 to 90 days.

Do you feel somewhat comfortable that this 1.155 million

No, not all the programs could get supported for six months.

I have some of them being supported for three months.

And I think the homeless, the homeless rental assistance, and I believe the homeowner were the only ones that were proposed for six months.

I believe all the three were proposed for three months.

Gotcha.

And I think if we're going to hotel, right, we're going to have, we're pushing

at that three months, I believe, for the homeless.

I don't think we're gonna get six months.

And we are doing our best with that now.

We always have been, but just

You know, knowing what I know about the housing market right now and COVID, it's slow going.

So we are doing our best with that, though, and we would absolutely move everybody.

We're moving everybody as quickly as we can to housing.

And that rental assistance would obviously help with that, too.

And so along with that, I was also ensuring that was

The goal was to not have the restriction of having the individuals have to find a place in Charlottesville.

So we will remove that restriction that we have on SISRAP.

So that will kind of sort of open it up a little bit more because you'll have Albemarle and some of the other localities around that you could also find a unit in.

That is helpful.

Just a quick thing.

We're talking about 30 people here.

University of Virginia has a lot more than 30 units open right now because the students are gone.

Well, I have not reached out to UVA, but I have reached out to some landlords that have student housing.

And they were interested in the program, but it all depends on what the university did, of course.

Whoops.

John, when you were explaining, you kept saying, we as the city to run the programs?

Well, yes, the city.

So we're looking at the Economic Development Department to operate the programs.

They have Bank One.

They have the Job Center.

They'll be working with Holly Lee.

They can operate but I think you need to be able to I would like to see you reach back out to

the Human Services piece because you know I love Holly but you know I think Human Services would do much better with a program especially in our communities and around our community so I would definitely want you to reach out because our program says sex

And economic development wouldn't be doing it by themselves.

So I've reached out to Anthony about how we could work together on doing the homeless piece.

And I would do the same thing for the other programs.

Gotcha.

Yeah.

So I don't know how other people feel about it, but I strongly feel that we should reach out again to human services.

And I mean, that aren't made.

So John, sorry, this is Chris.

I don't mean to cut you off, Joy.

Are you finished?

All right.

One, I think for the reporter that might be on the call, it's really interesting that UVA declined to use some of its spare housing to,

not help out the community in this time of need when there's I don't know how many units just sitting there unoccupied and even for a cost.

Maybe that's something that Councillor Payne can discuss with his colleagues in the communication to UVA.

They talk about being a good neighbor and this would, I would think, fall under that good neighbor definition.

Well, they're going to look to, they have my proposals, you all have my proposals,

If there's something in addition that you all would like to provide, that will be provided and then they will make a decision on what they would like to do.

If that's appropriating money or if that's changing policies or programs, that's something they're gonna answer that.

So I just want to hop in here briefly and say we are once again always confronted with the needs that extend well beyond the resources we have to meet those needs.

John, I think you've done an excellent job at pointing out the populations that are under the most immediate threat.

The folks trying to return from jail to safe housing, that was an unmet or unspoken need that the community has said we really need to have some place for people who are being released to go.

So I'm very happy that that was included.

And I wish we had more money, I wish we had the funds that we could build a permanent shelters for people.

And we need to be planning for that.

And it would be great if we'd already had it.

But there's never enough money to go around.

But I think you've done a good job of laying out the most immediate needs.

I think we've got to make sure that we don't, in the effort to look long-term, sacrifice the people who have desperate short-term needs, like people who have lost their jobs, their landlords are banging on their door, and they have no money to pay back rent.

They are going to be evicted if we don't do something.

So I like what you've laid out.

This is very difficult stuff and it's just painful to have to make choices, but I see these immediate needs and I think we ought to act on them.

Lastly, just on UVA, I know that University of Virginia and the city and the county have been working every single day through the Emergency Operations Center to figure out how to address these immediate needs and bring all the resources that are to bear.

I think University of Virginia, you know, they're in a bind like everybody else and they are desperate to make sure that they're back up and running in the fall.

And if they're not, if students do not come back in the fall, we are in a world of hurt economically.

The people who aren't working now will not be working in the future.

There'll be more people who can't pay their rent.

So it is in all of our interests to make sure the University of Virginia is back up and running with their students

And if that means that they have to empty out dorms of personal belongings that were left over when they closed the school and if that means that the university has to rehab dorms and make them safe for returning students, I think we need to be aware of that and I don't think they're just turning a deaf ear to the community and ignoring the needs.

I think they're funding the efforts that Anthony is under and I think it is an

in the whole community's interest to work with the University of Virginia to make sure that they can welcome students back or else we are gonna be in a world of economic hurt like we've not seen before.

So difficult stuff.

Well, so to that end on the immediate needs,

Would it be productive to run through each one of these programs?

And I think it makes sense if we're going to do that to go from right to left and sort of take a blink of the assessment of the need and what we think the immediate needs are for each one.

and what sort of critique questions or expansion we might have for that in preparation for a response to council.

Does that make sense to do?

Yes, I guess it does.

All right.

Could I make a suggestion please?

Sure.

John, there seems to be a lot, I don't mean this disparagingly, but there seems to be some boilerplate with all of them.

Right, so

And I think it's sort of the first page that gives the distinction.

The second page is largely boilerplate on how it gets stood up and the administrative costs and that sort of thing.

That's more or less, you know, and in some ways of secondary importance.

The question is, is the direction of each one, do they make sense?

Some of them have got quite a bit of detail, as stated.

Some of them, I know John was flying by the seat of his pants a little bit on how to fill in the details on some of them.

But

Yeah, I think that the sort of who administers is more or less identical.

The who would benefits I think is self-explanatory.

And then there's the repayment pieces and the details there.

But in terms of the general target, that's I think where the distinctions are and are we pointing to the right need?

And I think,

to Anthony's earlier point, the homeless piece, and how the short to medium to long term really is the most tightly focused.

Because some of these have sunsets on them, right?

Because the mortgage program has a sunset on it, really, in that we get through the worst of this, and then we recover, and then the mortgage assistance resides.

The landlord assistance, that resolves itself over time.

with some degree of assistance or not.

But the farther we get to the left side of that page, those are the ones that we really have to build in sort of the second level thinking more so.

So that's why I thought if we started moving from right to left, we get from sort of straightforward to stickier in some respects.

And so the question I've got on the mortgage one is,

is this addressing a need and to what extent do we need the immediate supplement to the programs already in place, right?

And this is sort of to John for your thinking on this.

So roughly 75% of the mortgages out there are sort of subject to the CARES Act forbearance rules up to 12 months right now.

So the question is,

if we can avail our, and then the, and I don't even know how that breaks out in the city.

My impression is, is that the greatest needs for a mortgage relief program would be for folks who have FHA mortgages, USDA mortgages, right?

And not USDA, VHDA.

USDA we don't care about, they're irrelevant to the city.

So the question I've got there is, is how does this

We know we've got a 12 month forbearance policy.

We know that that forbearance money has to be paid back in some fashion.

Fannie Mae has said that if you request a forbearance, but then you get back on track after three months, we're not gonna penalize you in terms of refinancing or your ability to get a mortgage in the future.

So in terms of the immediacy of needs, can we get our head around

and I guess I'm sort of tipping my hand a little bit.

What is the immediate need for a relief program if most people can avail themselves to a forbearance and then at some later date presumably we could assist them with the forbearance repayment?

And I'm gonna sort of finish that by backing up to where I should have started, which is for, so a forbearance, it isn't skipping a payment, it's deferring it.

So that money has to be paid back at some point in a later date.

Various servicers are having ideas about how to do that.

John has a 60 month loan where you pay it out, parcel it out bit by bit.

And so my big concern with that was,

So if the families are living paycheck to paycheck before pandemic, let's say after the pandemic, they do the six to 12 month forbearance.

And you said three months, as long as all of it's paid back in three months, I think you said Fannie Mae.

Well, I'm sorry, let me clarify on that.

What I'm saying is that if you've gone into forbearance and then you get back to making regular scheduled payments,

Fannie Mae is not going to punish you if you're gonna go buy another house.

It's not like they're gonna treat it like a delinquent mortgage.

In other words, you only have to get back on your feet for three months of payments.

Okay, prices has passed.

I'm now able to meet my obligation.

Okay, but then the back payments is what I'm saying.

So are they pushing those payments to the end of the mortgage or are they saying,

Okay, we'll set up a payment plan for those after you get back on track, because that's what I would hate.

Some of the lenders I talked to said they were having Bloom payments was one option, and then spraying out the payments over a year, which would still be relatively high payments for someone that was already living on the brink.

So my program started off at 18 months, an 18 month loan,

and after I calculated the numbers, if they borrowed the max, it will be a $300 payment every month.

And that's just too much for some families who are living on the brink.

So I pushed it out to 36 months and I'll pursue the same thing.

So that's where my concern is.

Phil, can I jump in?

So as an originator of 200 or so mortgages that aren't FHA backed and that aren't subject to the forbearance rules, we've had a number of, we've had 14 families reach out to us already and say they can't make their payments.

We've in turn sold that paper, a lot of that paper.

And so there's an immediate need.

The one thing I would say about, I think John's on the right track in terms of the forbearance

the repayment programs that people get put on.

I haven't heard anything proposed in the industry that's something that a low income home buyer can afford.

So at the very minimum, you wanna push off repayment five years.

I would actually say, I don't think this is in the large sum of things, $363,000 is not that big of a chunk of cash if that's its whole exposure.

that I think that we'll have a lot more success in keeping family on their feet if automatically that note is just placed at the end of their mortgage term.

So in some cases that may be 25 years out, in some cases maybe five years out, in some cases it may be three years out, but presumably at the end of that mortgage term they just continue to pay the payments that they're paying right now that they can afford to pay.

So I see it as potentially a ticking time.

Right.

I think we're talking past each other a little bit.

I'm talking about the immediate funding need.

And from my point of view, I'm not sure that the immediate funding need for handling is that large for handling these forbearances because the forbearance happens

There's a balance that needs to be dealt with.

The homeowner doesn't need to start.

to deal with that for 12 months, for up to 12 months.

So if that's the case, what I'm saying is for the purposes of funding it, do we need to allocate a large chunk of money today, but just acknowledge that we need to reserve a certain amount of money to assist with those forbearance repayments six months or a year from now, and maybe the program is you deferred seven months of payments, great,

We'll make good on them or some portion of them immediately to the servicer and then we'll give you the note.

We the city will give you the note then as opposed to allocating the funds for disbursement now.

I'm saying that in terms of the crisis management, there's things in place to protect foreclosures, to protect the delinquency, to protect the homeowner now.

but that we need a program to deal with the consequences of that which is gonna happen six months, a year, 18 months from now and maybe our funding priority is one where that's a secondary issue because that's being handled.

We just need to be aware that we have a deferral problem that's six months out, a year out, 18 months out.

I hear you, but it's not being handled across the board.

Right.

I only reached out.

I mean, I only have the number of 25 families, so I'm not looking at a large amount of families.

I'm saying there are at least 25 people in our community where forbearance is not going to work for them.

Can we agree on that?

Because if we can agree on that, then I think the funding should probably stay the same.

And if we push this off and say, we'll deal with it down the road, another issue will come up where there's something else that is just as important, maybe the homeless run out of money.

Right.

And I guess what I'm saying is that, and I'm sorry you broke up a little bit, you've got 25 families right now.

and I guess I'm saying sure and I think we need to commit some funds to that but I guess my look at that is we have a certain amount of funding.

Is this going to be a great need a year from now or do we only need to provide assistance to a certain number or a certain percentage or do we pump this far, or the GSE is gonna pump this far enough down the road too.

Most of them are offering a 60 month repayment

I mean, it varies.

I mean, they haven't figured out what the hell they're going to do.

So I guess my caution to that is that compared to some other things in terms of immediate need, do we need to allocate every dime of this right now or just a portion of it making certain assumptions that we can always go back and supplement it?

That's just my suggestion.

I mean, it seems that there have been some aggressive steps taken in CARES and otherwise to handle this.

really the question is of the folks in the immediate need who are not backed by GSE.

So some of those are Dan's subordinate mortgages, I guess, and smaller banks who have things who are still doing their own forbearance programs are just not mandated to do it.

So John, the funding would only be used if needed, right?

We're not going to shovel $364,000 out the door if people aren't in need, or $363,000 if people don't actually need it.

And you noted at the end of your proposal that funds could be shifted based on demand.

I think the trouble here is that we don't know what the demand is.

And so the question is, do we say up to this amount and anticipate the demand

And if it doesn't come, we can either shift the money or hold the money back.

But if the demand does come, we ought to be ready to act and not have to come back to the hack for a reallocation to save a family from losing their home because we wanted to hold some money back because we didn't know at the outset what the demand would be.

And I believe that was some of the discussion the city council had was

Looking at it over a short term and saying, okay, this is what the need is now.

And then coming back and saying, hey, let's put more money there and being flexible with those accounts.

So if there's a larger need on one and there's a much smaller need on another saying, hey, let's transfer this over, or let's say we get some CV money or get some other funding that can be used for one initiative, but can't be used another, we'll take the money from that initiative and come back.

And if it is needed, then we'll take it there.

We'll just pay it back.

So it's just having the money there and up to amount.

Was there a note, was there a sense from council that that money could then be, let's say we do get another stimulus money, a stimulus tranche that can be used for rental relief or homeowner mortgage assistance relief.

Could that money then be transferred back into the CAF?

I think it could be transferred back into the CAF, but I don't think the city council in general, I don't think city councilors are banking on there being additional money.

They're focusing on what we have now because they can't bank on what's not there yet.

So we're going to be looking, the CDBG money, the COVID, the first round,

The announcement came out two or three weeks before the actual regulations came out.

So everyone knew about the money.

before we even knew what the money could be used for.

And then the restrictions came out and they're still constantly updating them.

I mean, Aaron's getting emails every week about some different regulations, some different things you could do with the money.

So let's say one did come out in August, we might not get the regulations for it until September.

So maybe the way to break this impasse is to vote to support this up to the funding levels proposed, but also recommend that if additional outside funding comes back, that that money gets transferred back into the CAF.

Because again, this is our capital money.

This is two years worth of capital money because the council did not allocate any money for the additional money for the CAF for the next fiscal year.

So we're talking about

falling farther in an area with a 4,000 unit shortage, falling behind on unit construction and other initiatives that would grow our already depleted housing stock.

Given council's predilection, and it's a wise one, I think, for pushing money for emergency assistance now to keep people housed,

So is there any value in making it even simpler to say these divisions of funding amounts, I guess, I mean, John, I guess that was sort of your idea of the proportionate need about which you could be absolutely right or absolutely wrong or somewhere in between that we generally, that we make it even more flexible.

We say these are four programs that we think need to move forward

We think that the immediate need is to vote X dollars to all four of them to be proportioned out as the need comes in because we know, no matter how careful or thoughtful John was about this, the likelihood that he's dead wrong about the needs for at least one of them is pretty good.

and of course, you might be wrong in all four directions that the need is much higher in all of them, but the needs that may be proportioning them is to be even more flexible and say, okay, well, we're gonna recommend funding X dollars for all four of these in a proportion to be determined as of their needs and we revisit it in 120 days.

Say, well, no, actually, you know,

So actually this is, that sort of keys to my question.

So the reason I left money in the reserve, the reason I left money in the reserve was because, so we had the SISRAP program, we have it funded at $900,000 for the upcoming year.

But,

Last month, CRHA made its largest rent payment to landlords at almost $75,000, which is much larger than the normal $23,000 to $30,000 that it pays out.

So with those calculations, they're not going to have enough money to house everyone if it stays on that track.

No, that money is reserved in case we have 100 families that are going to be homeless if we run out of SISRAP money, which could be the case if we stay on track the way it was last month.

If we do get money, some CARES money additional, that could be an option of bringing cash back.

Or if the overall financial issue or projection for

The city's general funds are not as bad as projected.

I believe there was still some money there from the non-cash funded.

They're there, but there's no funding there just in case there's funding needed to close the gap everywhere else, I believe.

But yes, those are options.

What I'm looking at is if we don't do anything, or we say we're gonna do half of what we think the need is,

The need is probably much larger than what I'm projecting.

So if we only do half of what we think the need is, or I think the need is, then we're going to lose even more units than what are brought online.

So my thing is stopping the bleeding now, and then we can look to build.

But we have to stop the bleeding somehow.

And well, Phil, I'm willing to make a motion just to get this on the table.

So I move that we recommend to council the proposal as drafted by city staff to fund these four programs up to the levels suggested

with the additional recommendation that should money come back in to the city from outside sources, federal, state, private, what have you, that could supplant this, that that money, that whatever balance is left from this allocation goes back into the capital program, back into the CAF.

Second.

Okay, so let me sort of make sure we've got this presented.

So any discussion on that?

Just a note, I think it would be a good idea if we run by either the grants folks or the city attorney's office, usually federal money comes with a requirement that you supplement but not supplant.

funding that was otherwise dedicated to a project.

And I just want to make sure that however we set this up does not box us in.

So when I hear the word supplant, it makes me nervous just because I know what federal requirements often are with grant funding.

So I definitely like the way we're headed.

Yeah, that's the question I asked John and Erin before, but I thought that was the question I asked.

So the world we're looking at is we're not gonna actually fund each project at a specific level.

We're gonna fund the actual emergency at a certain level.

And so once funding comes available, we can actually fund that program with those federal money, federal dollars,

because right now we're not actually funding the program, we're just funding the response.

So there's no money tied to each program is how we're looking at it.

And I'm happy to have my motion and also include a CODA that says that the actual language of the motion can be rewritten by the city attorney to make sure that the intent

is implementable.

So if I can just chime in for one second.

Local governments are allowed to be reimbursed through CDBG-CV funds for money that they have spent on programs and projects related to COVID-19.

response rates.

That's what the county will be doing with the money that we have provided to TJAC.

We will be applying for a reimbursement of those funds, which will go back into our housing fund for future housing projects.

I do.

Oh, there you are.

Well, my original things I was, so I think, you know, it's really important to get a very fast and immediate understanding of the CRF funds from the state

and basically we all gotta get our hands on that money as well and I think that's gonna help a lot.

What we've heard from around the country is the best way to handle any of this is to have these programs up and running with some flexibility to be able to receive additional funds.

So I think that's super important

What strikes me as being really hard, I think with the homeless stuff and the reentry stuff, you have a pretty good handle on the immediate need, you know, in terms of the number of people and maybe the dollar amounts associated with that.

What we've seen with rental relief, and I think mortgage relief is gonna see similar, is those funds get tapped out.

One community did rental relief and it was done in 90 minutes.

So, I think that's a hard thing to juggle when you really just don't know how fast that money's gonna run out.

So that's frustrating and annoying, but I think really does point to the need to figure out the CRF funds, which were from the original CARES Act to the states, just found out what Virginia wanted to do, and it sounds like Charlottesville gets some money, so that's awesome.

And then I really wish we could make a recommendation on CDGCV.

I think that will help.

and very interested in, so I've learned a lot about rent relief in particular and some about the homeless stuff, but there are, you know, there's another bill that will go through Congress that at some point something will happen.

And if the programs that we craft are compatible with that,

that would help a bunch I think in the long term.

So for example, on rent relief, the proposed act is saying at least 40% have to be of those funds have to be used for rent relief for 30% AMI and lower.

And then it goes to 70 for 50% and lower and then, you know,

can go up to 80% AMI or 120% AMI.

And there are some other stipulations on how that would be used in that bill.

So there's similar things that are gonna be in there that we wanna have compatible with that if at all possible.

All right, thank you, sir.

So any further discussion on Dan's now twice revised motion?

I want to make one more revision.

or the refinance of the property.

Yeah, we had one concern on that was the city having to track all of those over, let's say maybe 20, 25, 30 years.

Staff turnover, of course.

Could it be really high?

So multiple people having to make sure they track that information.

I think it was one of our concerns.

Open to kicking it out longer, but I think when you're kicking it out to possibly 30 years or 25 years, it gets kind of hard on us to track that information.

Can I interject on that to try to make an easier solution there?

which is that Piedmont Housing Alliance already tracks long-term loan forbearance or secondary loans including pass-through money from the city.

Okay.

All right.

Is there, all right, so we now have the Rosensweig resolution version 4.0.

Is there any further discussion on that at this time?

Whoever made the second has to agree to that.

Yes, okay, that was Lisa, yes.

All right, any further discussion beyond that?

All in favor of said resolution?

Aye.

All right.

Anyone opposed?

No movement.

All right.

Accomplished.

Great.

I wanted to have a conversation.

I think we're

And so I'm going to sort of swap this up to a proposal is that we've had a great deal of discussion about the need for coordination of this between the city and the various stakeholders and how to organize that.

And we really didn't have much of an opportunity to jump into that coordinating conversation today.

But I think it's an important one.

and I would suggest that we either continue this meeting or agree to hold one with a single topic which it would be essentially an emergency meeting in response to COVID to discuss that.

Well, that's a motion with a question.

So you said either we continue it now or we have another meeting.

It could or we might want to call this ad hoc and pull in the various stakeholders that may not be directly on point in the hack.

There might be members that we need to pull in.

I think we'd have to be, I think housing would have to be front and center, and the affordable housing issue would but of course they're all interconnected but our ability to meet, particularly, you know, we.

There are a couple of things that concern here one is is that.

We can meet in sort of a meeting express fashion if we are dealing specifically with matters that impact our border commission and the emergency that is present.

So sort of that single topic.

so there's there's that and that makes it a little easier we'd also perhaps need to look at using resources that are not the city's resources those of us who have commercial zoom accounts so as not to because I know that Brian

right now is running from spinning plate to spinning plate, trying to make sure that he can allocate the Zoom resources in the city properly.

And I don't want to burden them with our sort of jumping in, but assuming that we can do that, I would suggest that we should either set up an ad hoc subcommittee to do this and have it meet or

sort of continue this meeting for that purpose.

Probably an ad hoc subcommittee makes more sense.

This is Chris.

Was that a motion that you put on the floor?

Yeah, me too, thanks.

All right, let's make it a motion.

I move that we develop an ad hoc subcommittee- That is a motion, okay.

discussing emergency COVID response, its relationship to affordable housing in the city of Charlottesville, and that we use the resources we have available to meet for that purpose.

I guess I'll second that so that we can discuss it.

So I'll just say, Phil, in getting to Dan's point and I think the community generated document, that seems like a good starting place to me, kind of reviewing that and using that as the structure and adding to it, slash, discussing who's doing what.

makes the most sense to me, but maybe I don't have the broader picture, especially, I guess, Dan or Sunshine or others who've been working on this more.

I think that's right, Chris.

And I think, you know, working on it from before, I think what's what's helpful is that if we can kind of

you know, try to align on values, right?

And then also timeframes, then we can start structuring the response to those.

So I think that document sets that up.

What do we care about in the community as it relates to affordable housing, you know, due to COVID and the timeframe and where those fit.

And so I think it's the place to start.

And I think it's, you know, our role again is to advise council and council has been really clear that they want the housing

especially during the crisis is still really important to them.

They want a blueprint for figuring how to get through this.

I think John did a really great job spelling out the first tactical moves and not coincidentally, they were part of the short, medium and longer term

recommendations of the initial draft of this thing.

So there was great alignment there, but there are other things to do as well.

And I think it would be nice as the housing advisory committee with a broad array of expertise across the housing spectrum to have this body look at it, make it better, bring some daylight to it so that we have a public hearing so that the public can join in and comment.

And let's present that to Council that, you know, that's the second thing that the first thing we sent them is to staunch the bleeding.

The next thing is knowing that we're going to be in this COVID crisis for an indeterminate period of time and there are best practices out there.

Let's go ahead and adopt as a framework for decision making.

these best practices and then the decision making that happens from here on in whether it for additional money that come in or policies or the housing strategy, it can be placed within the framework of that document.

And I think that's really what we're trying to do is to provide a little bit of a framework and guidance and what I really want is for John and Erin to be part of that conversation

so that it's not something that comes.

The thing that bothered me about the last council meeting was they were talking about sort of side to side proposals going forward.

And I think that's just a really terrible way to do business.

It puts staff in a no-win situation, it wastes our time, it wastes council's time.

I'd like to come up with a document that's a kind of consensus where we've heard from the public, where staff and the hackers work together and we can say,

Great.

Great, thanks.

And I agree with that.

Just a quick question.

I know, maybe someone in the council or the staff can answer this, that a bunch of money that was being allocated to agencies slash nonprofits was

slash, I won't say taken away, but repurposed into a broader fund and it was going to have to reapply.

I think that's probably an overall city council question because I can't say that.

I'll say we're one of the organizations that I think it's the Vibrant Community Fund you're referring to.

Yeah.

So it wasn't that they took it away.

They basically asked organizations to provide an update about how their operations have changed in relation to COVID.

And then they're going to make

They're going to make a final recommendation for funding.

So there was a previous recommendation for funding before COVID.

And so city council has asked for basically an update about how you're responding to it.

And then they're going to make the, the allocations.

So, okay.

So that, so there's not like an extra application process.

It's just providing an update.

All right.

If this motion is voted for, you're going to call an ad hoc subcommittee meeting or another HAC meeting?

I don't care what we call it.

I guess it's a special meeting.

Yeah, okay.

Makes sense.

All right, we'll do that.

All in favor?

I'm just gonna say we ought to make sure that the intervention analysis tool and the housing strategy that all kind of was on its way when this whole thing hit are also considered because we're gonna see a, you know, yet another framework.

Absolutely.

Absolutely.

I would recommend that we invite the consultants to sit on the meeting as well.

This is a, this is an all hands on deck thing.

I'm just trying to say, we're, we're not going to be able to discuss that today.

No, we're going to call it a full HAC meeting.

The distinction isn't particularly important.

We're going to call a HAC meeting for the purposes of discussing the coordination and the larger strategy and the tool that we didn't have time to dive into.

And so with the coordination,

I definitely would like to see Human Services be a part of our conversation because what we're talking about is Human Services.

Economic can be a part of it, but what we're talking about is Human Services and I definitely would like to see CATEC at the table.

to be able to, so I'm just, I don't know if I should interject it in this discussion or just put it on John's plate to see to make it happen.

Well, the request is certainly appropriate.

I mean, that's what we'll do.

I mean, I'm trying to make it as broad as possible within the rules that we're allowed to operate for calling an emergency meeting for the specific purpose of discussing COVID and housing.

So we'll make it as broad as we can, but that's what we're shooting for.

All right, all in favor?

Aye.

Excellent.

Any opposed?

Great.

Okay, we are out of time.

So I'm gonna ask for public comment at this point, if there's just to make sure we don't jump over that.

If you could raise your hand if you've got hands to raise.

There you are.

Brandon, you're up.

If I can make your machine work.

There you go.

Can you hear me?

I can hear you.

Okay.

I'm really happy about what was just discussed.

All hands on deck.

I kind of hope that process we might get a handle on

to eliminate competition.

So, the point was raised about vibrant communities.

We've got CDBG CV.

This whole process of applying for these funds like that is not gonna help us quickly stop the bleeding or move forward.

And I just, I know we have to be fair about it, but I wonder how much the hack

can make recommendations to council for maybe tweaking some of those processes or make recommendations like, can the hack be a part of reviewing the vibrant communities applications?

Can the hack be a process of being involved in CDBG CV conversations?

And then

I just want to stress again, you know, the Corona relief funds from the state that were just announced, that could be a total game changer and really, you know, lubricate the whole process in the short term.

And so I really hope that more will be known about that and

The hack again should make recommendations to council or whoever's in charge of dispersing for how to get those.

All right.

Thank you, sir.

Further public comment?

Raise your hand if so.

Well, we have plenty of other business that should be coming before this committee, but we have run the clock out.

So I guess we defer most of that.

Yes, behind all the hair.

Any further, anything else?

I moved to close.

Did we set the date?

Did we set the date?

We did not, but we'll do that offline as soon as we can.

Oh, okay.

Is there a second?

Aye.

All right.

All right, all in favor?

All right, you can absolutely stay here because most of you are already at home.