Housing Advisory Committee Meeting   11/12/2025

All right, I don't have that many things to update on.

We didn't meet just three weeks ago, so a lot of it is just continuing to move things forward.

Next month, I will be going to council to propose some changes or

Thank you.

Hey, Mike is gonna, I'll let you in.

I think she's at the, oh never mind, there she is.

CSRAP, the supplemental rental assistance program that CRHA administers.

We're going to be doing a program evaluation of that in the first half of next calendar year.

And we have made some slight changes for the program, this coming program year that will be in the newest amendment.

We have to amend the agreement every year to continue it for another year.

That's what we're going for.

It's the percentage of FMR changes.

I remember it was like 100% of FMR.

I don't think that it has changed at all.

That's not one of the items we have marked for change.

But I know John would know October.

Our CAST grant program is open right now.

I have a workshop with applicants last week.

We usually don't get as many applications for these projects as we do for the HOPS grant program because there's not as many large

construction projects and rehabilitation projects that go on versus all of the different organizations that need financial support for running their housing programs.

And that is the gist of it.

We have a lot of development projects that are underway for affordable housing.

So that's also been keeping me busy because people are spending money.

So now they're needing a lot of reimbursements from the city.

But that's great.

We want to see

The project's going underway.

So for Kittlewood phase two, I've been receiving for Sixth Street phase one and South First Street phase two.

These are all underway.

Those two are CRHA projects.

All redevelopment.

So there's a lot of construction going on in addition to the large student suburb and then another one at GPA.

How many total units do you know?

Not off the top of my head, but I will show you one.

Pretty cool thing that I don't know that a lot of people seem to know about.

So our neighborhood development services website, we go over to development review and look at the development map.

Oh.

This will show anything.

That is under what?

Neighborhood Development Services and then Planning, or no, Development Review, I'm sorry.

And then the Development Map.

And so then you can see

what's going on all over the city.

That's really cool.

So approved under construction, under review.

So big compared to all the years past.

Mostly just these, so Friendship Court Phase 2 and the South First Street Phase 2 and Sixth Street Phase 1.

I'm always trying to keep the phases straight in my head.

There is also, right outside of the city limits, which, so it's not on here, but it is a project the city's supporting, is VISTA 29, I think is the name now.

So that's Permanent Supportive Housing.

That is through Support Works.

This was an organization and project that changed names.

Virginia Supportive Housing.

Yeah.

And it was Premiere Circle.

And now we have Vista 29.

But that one is... Is that the hotel?

Yes.

Yep.

And you can, if you drive by now, you can actually see it's exciting.

We're flying today.

Yeah.

That's awesome.

Yeah.

So I mean, it's definitely, I notice that when I'm driving around town right now that there's a lot going on.

So it's certainly keeping us busy and I'll leave that with, for the staff updates.

Yeah.

This is not.

Kathleen is on her way.

Okay.

What you said last meeting that city council needed.

They do.

And it's not, that is not going before city council right now.

It's not on the calendar to go before city council.

Right now, Kathleen still attends the meetings and she's able to, she cannot vote.

So that would be the only difference.

But to be honest, that takes, it's not like we can just simply, it's not really a simple process to bring anything before city council.

I'm not sure how big of a priority that one is.

But if it's something that this group really recommends, should be a priority that, you know, we can talk about that as we move forward.

Does it seem like it will require a lot of discussion if we're on the agenda?

No, it just has to.

I still have to do a lot of prep work to get it on the agenda.

And everything requires at least one month of advance for that too and preparing a staff report.

It's not like it's an entirely huge amount of work.

I'm just missing that voice.

I guess my point is Kathleen has been attending and she is speaking so I'm not sure, like this is not preventing Kathleen from attending meetings in any way.

The home to hope, I'm not the contact for hope.

I know I'm not even in that building, though, and the Home to Hope is located, I think, below where you're probably standing.

So you may want to try just going the door downstairs.

But I'm sorry.

I'm in the middle of a meeting right now, so I may not have to go.

No problem.

OK. That's when your number is posted on a door.

The only

John that I still need to continue to lead is the deeply affordability of some of those housing and it seems like, you know, it's only a few agency or two agency is focusing on deeply affordable.

And that's how I got in my housing lines at CRJ.

And I do think that there has to be some mind shift around that.

Affordability, when you say affordability, deeply affordable sends a different message to me and my residents and my clients than just affordable.

Because most of the time, affordability, not even with a section 8 voucher, you can't get in.

and, you know, just being in the room with all these development deals going on.

If you don't have other monies that's going into it, people say it doesn't work.

And it doesn't seem like we have anybody who wants to make it work other than the three agencies.

And I think that is something that we have to, it has to be a match because

You know, with all of it, like right now, anybody with a Section 8 voucher, not a project-based voucher, but I'm looking for them to mess with that, too.

But if anybody with a HCV voucher, if they lose that, they're just going to be homeless.

They're just going to be homeless because they're not putting any more money into the Section 8 voucher

and then not reissuing them to other people on the way to this.

And so that's always on my frame of mind is about if you think you see homelessness, just wait.

What's gonna happen?

And then the other thing is that even my son who works

all the time and whatever.

It seems like every year, places that you may get to the right, rent is going up.

Every year, they're just increasing the rent, increasing the rent.

And I don't think that we're focusing on, I don't know what we can do about it, but I just feel like there needs to be some push.

And this is why I keep, this is why I am personally pushing back at LV Collective

And most of our folks don't make that kind of money.

Right.

Well, I mean, they can do whatever they want, but they would still have to pay.

They have to pay a fee for it.

I mean, if they want to make units affordable, no one's going to stop them from doing that, but they're not going to do that.

But the New York market said they were going to do it.

They promised the neighborhood that they were going to do it.

And then when people showed up with their voucher,

Excited about, oh, this is a new unit or whatever.

They didn't qualify.

And so that's a concern for me.

It's a concern for Farr.

It's a concern for the neighborhood.

You know, even the thing on the corner, the university thing, people not going to get a new voucher.

Oh, oh.

Roy, can you give me a little bit more insight about why the people didn't qualify when they showed up with vouchers?

Too big of a gas.

Too much of a gas.

Can we offset that, the city?

So the voucher is supposed to, remind me how the formula works, the voucher is supposed to cover, our voucher is supposed to cover like 110% of fair market value or something.

Going back to Nicole's question, I have the FMRs that came out in August.

Do you want to go?

Yeah, sure.

So this is Charlottesville,

How are you more than that?

It is.

I mean, can I can I suggest it's a good segue into one of the topics, which is the sort of planning of the hack for the next year?

Like, what are the topics we're going to cover?

Yeah.

Yeah.

I'm not jumping off.

It's certainly true.

I think to Mike's point, even with our residents at South First Street and Crescent Halls, some of them were public housing residents.

And when they came back, they weren't public housing residents.

They were voucher holders.

And their payment process was a

a lot different from the public housing and higher.

So that's just,

Yeah, no, it's on my mind too and I noticed that last year when we evaluated all of the CAP grant applications that just the number of units proposed at 30% or below was almost non-existent.

I'll share a conversation I've been having with Sam Sanders off and on for the last two years, but more recently in the last six months or so.

So I'll use an example of 501 Cherry, the development that we're doing along Cherry Avenue, the proforma and the

The depth of affordability profile has 30% units, 50 and 60% units in it.

The number of 30% units is about 10% of the property because that's what the typical YTEC capital stack can support before it doesn't become viable anymore.

But last year in the cash cycle, we applied for, as a sort of a test case, a pilot,

So three units for the city to buy down some of the 60% units to turn in the 30s.

And the challenge is that by the time we come to the table with that request, all other sources of funding have already been leveraged.

So the request was just for the city to pay for the difference between going from a 60 to a 30.

And what they're doing is essentially paying down debt so we don't have to carry debt

of Debt Capacity.

So we asked for $125,000 per unit in terms of buying it down from a 60 to a 30 to enable that to be the case.

We got two of the three.

So we asked for three units at 375 and we got two at 250.

We're submitting a similar request this cash cycle, not on 501, but on a different project on our MACA development.

But in my conversations with Sam, he wanted to know what would it cost for each of the projects we have in our pipeline right now

How much would it cost to go from a 60 to a 50 or a 50 to a 40 or a 60 to a 30?

So you have a spectrum and a spread and it depends on it.

It's not a uniform number because it depends a little bit.

It's a one bedroom into the three bedroom.

What's the capital stack?

So in some properties it's more or less expensive depending on the, on all of that.

But we did a spreadsheet and we handed it off to Sam.

And so it ranges every day, anything from like 60,000 to 130,000 probably.

I don't have the numbers in front of me right now, but in that ballpark per unit,

and it's because we have already leveraged LIHTC, we've already leveraged Federal Home Loan Bank, we've already leveraged all the other sources that normally when the city contributes, we're using that to build other capital stacks on top of it.

So I'm just putting it out there as like, we're having those conversations, we put it in front of the CAF, Sam asked me to do it that way so that it would then go, it would spur a conversation with city council around this question of, you know, you're not, the city wants to prioritize deeply affordable

but the projects are not necessarily coming that way, so this is one tool to enable that.

But it does have costs that we have to contend with.

It's expensive, I mean, that's a lot.

Is that one time or?

Yeah, that's a question, I believe.

Here we go.

OK. Is it the city council that tells us what they want us to work on?

Either way.

And Joy asked me to continue running the meeting for the moment, so I'll just keep in that vein.

And actually, Madeline, we didn't really close off.

No, just try to keep on

Gotcha, thank you.

So yeah, meeting minutes.

Really brief added question.

Yep.

Yes, there is.

Yeah, they were reviewing the proposals that we received.

We received proposals from, I think, four different consultants.

Kelly asked for comments from the reviewers by the end of this week, I think it was.

And then the goal, there is a pretty clear timeline that in the RFP, which has the ideas that they would have their work done within, I don't know, it's like eight weeks or eight days.

It's a short period.

There is not a time frame for them to be in place because at this point they're just trying to get the timeline for when they would hire which sounds like yeah in

first quarter next year.

I think it's about how many people, but also like what, you know, we have all of these different things were on the table for us to be working on.

What are other housing departments for similar sized cities doing too?

Like what does a normal housing department look like?

We spend a lot of time on grant administration in our department for housing and that takes up quite a bit of activity and for our funding agreements that we have for various projects.

That's kind of our primary

Review organizational charts, job descriptions, and staffing budgets.

Analyze workload, distribution, and service volume.

Conduct confidential interviews with housing program staff and leadership.

Gather feedback from external stakeholders.

Benchmark staffing models against peer cities.

Access, sorry, assess training on boarding and professional development practices.

Identify gaps, inefficiencies, and opportunities for restructuring or expansion.

Deliver actionable recommendations for staffing improvements.

and then the duration of the project would be 10 weeks from contract execution.

No, not necessarily.

I mean, as far as like, in some of those interviews, I'm sure there may be some folks in the City Manager's Office that would be included, but isn't

Reviewing the quarterly reports is not too time consuming at this point and I find too that with the grants administration it's kind of cyclical so like from like half a year there's not kind of that much to do with the grants but then between the time that we are trying to get all the new grants out there and then opening up the application period and then scoring all those grants like that six month period gets pretty busy and then once then there's like another six months where things are kind of just going

Gotcha.

So maybe put this in the parking lot for our conversation around work plan, but I know from a grantee's perspective, those quarterly reports, I'm glad to hear they don't take up much time.

Nothing changes every quarter.

So I'm just wondering, I'm not wanting to address that specifically, but I'm wondering if we could be of help as the HAC to review some of the administrative burdens that are on staff and what

actually come with a public, what actually produced public benefit and what don't and make some efficiency recommendations because like that, reporting is important.

Right, for your CAT, the projects.

I know the HOPS ones we want quarterly because we make quarterly payments.

But it'd be really interesting to put everything on the table and say, what's the origin?

Let's figure out whether is this statutory?

Is this something council passed?

Would this require a council resolution?

And if we can help you not to have to do stuff that doesn't move the needle.

I think that's in the, I mean, the way I interpreted that's in the scope of the consultant that's coming on board.

Okay.

And the, I didn't read that part of the scope, but one of the deliverables is when they have a draft report is coming to the hack.

Yes.

Okay.

And I'll note, sorry, I'll note too, we are,

We'll be working with an attorney that is not in the city attorney's office, but it's more of a consultant that specializes in agreements for housing, affordable housing development, because that's another thing.

There's three more housing funding agreements that need to be developed in the next six months.

And the staff person who used to do that no longer is a housing staff member and can't spend their time doing that.

So that's something new.

Kelly and I will have to be managing.

But our city attorney said to me, some of these agreements are pretty outside of my wheelhouse, especially some of the more complex ones that are involving funding sources from the state as well.

And there's other requirements.

So that also could result in some changes to some of those requirements that are in there too.

So I think

I thought I wanted to put you on the spot, but I definitely noticed you did not say land bank.

It just makes me think about what staff we have that has the skill set and expertise and where they live.

Does that have anything to say about it?

TBD.

We want to build on that then look at the... We can approve the results.

Oh, right.

Yes.

Motion to approve.

Paul Verghe.

Any opposed?

Approved.

I'll have at it.

I'll be candid.

I have not had a chance to review this prior to the meeting.

Would you mind walking us through?

I didn't read it, but I couldn't understand what was.

I don't understand.

All right.

So let's see.

No, that's OK.

Yeah, so we can start.

I've got it up here, too.

So, well, the first one was determining the priorities, so that's kind of self explanatory.

I think it was developed with this calendar was the piece of that.

then determine next steps as it relates to the land bank ordinance.

This was something that was put together to guide what would have been done for fiscal year 2020.

What was done, what wasn't, I know that was the request was to go over what had been put together and what actually, what is the status of these items.

This number three, so this is one that is really more HAC guided, develop and deploy orientation and recruitment strategy to fill two vacant seats.

Well, to be fair, though, even though I think it's sourced out of the HAC, I think our concept

That's true, yes.

The new city attorney given us a couple weeks ago at this point memo about his legal interpretation of what's possible in terms of payments for boards and commissions.

And what we've been told is that it's part of a process of continuing that work we had done, but we have not been given a timeline at this point.

And no additional, correct me if I'm wrong, no additional actions were taken other than the identification of this topic.

Not in the city.

And I know at some point there was, I believe like three members of the HAC were going to try to schedule a meeting, but it was with Eden who is no longer with the city.

Gotcha.

So that... That got stymied?

Yes.

Okay.

orientation.

I never went through an orientation.

There is not an orientation that has been developed.

I think, yeah, if there is anyone who would like to try to come up with what an orientation should look like for a HAP member, that would be really excellent.

At least the acronyms.

I know we've both been working on our glossary.

And we didn't have any further conversations about the pilot at all, right?

ADU program ordinance language cleanup.

So we did go through the ADU development manual and we all agreed on changes that should be made to it.

Those changes have not gone before city council to be adopted.

Now we're working on another round of changes to that manual essentially to look at the fee structure.

So whenever I've still saved all those, I still have those changes.

Or also like there's a broken there's a one or two or broken link.

is to have like a red line to show the changes.

For when the changes get made.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Yeah.

I, once a year we are required to just update the tables that are based off of HUD.

Just noting that cause.

Hang on, it was as clean as October 3rd.

What was updated?

I got multiple emails about what was changed.

So I noted for the future.

But yes, that is pretty much the only thing that can be changed without going to city council.

So if it hasn't gone before council and there's been a change, that's the only thing that can change.

Which is also why we haven't made any of those other changes that we identified back in

So there's two different things.

There's the ADU program and the ordinance language cleanup, which are two related but separate things.

I know that the ordinance is going through a process that Matt Affley is leading.

And I understand from Kelly that it's a sort of three-tier process.

That expressed a little frustration that the HAC hasn't been part of this.

There's an ordinance change going in front of council that impacts affordable housing and the HAC has not been part of it.

Now I have to admit, I've participated in this and staff has been great.

Like when I've said, have some comments, I've had a meeting with, so the staff has been excellent about it.

The reality is that the ordinance is not helping affordable housing.

It's just not.

You can't do it.

The zoning ordinance itself allows you to do it.

But then you tack on engineering requirements and all the other things.

And I've vetted 15 projects now.

And that's, I think,

Well, way, way more important than a lot of the other work we have on this.

This is what the hack was created for, to bring practitioners to the table, real estate professionals, developers, builders who work in the affordable housing space to look at city policy and say whether this works for affordable housing and suggest changes.

And so I don't know if we're still just kind of going through this or if we're now on the recommendation stage, but can we please, please, please, please have this prioritized as a hack

It may not be in time for this first round of updates, which I know are well underway.

That's okay.

I don't want to stand in the way of those going in front of council because it sounds like both on the tier one, which is typos, and tier two, which is some of the technical requirements.

Everything I've seen so far is good, but it's not sufficient.

And so I really, really want PAC to be able to focus

on the single most fundamentally important change that the city has made over the last 30 years in terms of trying to create the conditions by which you can go affordable housing.

It's not working.

It could, but it needs technical tweaks.

I think this is like six months of making that number up, but this is a time period of intense work by us, I think Nicole would that be right, with the Planning Commission looking this and really getting down to brass tacks because what's happening now is what has historically happened in the city, not because it's anyone's fault, but it's application related.

So someone brings an application or idea forward and it's one applicant

It's planners, it's engineers.

And again, I want to be really clear, the city has been extremely responsive to individual applicants, but we need to be looking holistically at this.

And so

Honestly, if I'm just going to say one thing today, it's can we prioritize this and make this our work product for some period of time?

A lot of the other stuff is insignificant relative to what we could do in refining the zoning ordinance and the other related policies, such as standards and design, such as who makes decisions about fire access,

who makes decisions about the with ability easements, et cetera.

All of that stuff has to be looked at together.

Not just phoning, not just engineering.

It has to be looked at holistically from the perspective of practitioners who are trying to do what the city wants us to do.

And it's not working.

It could work.

Yes.

You're heard, and I will definitely

get together with Matt because he's leading that whole project so we'll need to find a way to incorporate PAC into his plan because I think that probably was an oversight in the work plan when they were putting that together especially because like you said they have their minds set on some really specific things and it's not necessarily affordable housing.

So that's your role and noted and heard.

So maybe that's something that we can move on

Since we're looking at planning, we can move that up to a high priority.

Yeah, I agree.

It's high priority.

I think as far as the timing goes, that's where the coordination has to happen with the team that's leaving all those changes, because I can't dictate what timeline.

I don't know what his plan is for the Tier 2.

Well, we need to know, yeah.

Exactly.

So I think tier one and tier two are moving forward.

Together, okay.

So then the tier three ones are more... Just so that people bring everyone into the conversation.

Tier one, they're looking, the city's doing comprehensive...

So Kelly inherited this zoning ordinance and was given the direction, you know, fix it, make it better.

It's a lot to put on somebody.

She's come up with a process by which

There's a three-tiered approach.

The first tier is to look through the ordinance, and there are some things that are just typos and misstatements.

And it's mostly staff, I think, going through that.

That's great.

Tier two is

There's a clear intent in each section of the ordinance, and then there are some things, some requirements, such as certain ways that height is defined, for example, that's in the way of, that's sort of getting in the way of that intent being fulfilled.

And then there's a tier three, which they have, and those two things are moving forward to council, I think, by the end of this year.

And there's a tier three where

There are some things like, I think, like the thing on West Main where it's, do we want to revisit some of the things that we decided as a city or the council voted on?

Right.

Tier 3 is just like what we're fussing about, right?

That won't be the chance you have.

It's not ongoing.

I just think that we just need to really look at that.

For me, and for, we didn't realize the implication of what we do if things are being built on the edge of community and how it impacts that.

Right.

And Gray, whether it's tier two or tier three, I'm not sure I can...

Kind of a separate... Well, it's come up as an issue after they already had...

They had started identifying some of these things over a year ago.

Let me bracket that for a second.

I wanna make sure that when the work comes back, the hack is not just to review tier three.

It's actually to review tier one, tier two.

Because again, I've seen what's moving forward.

I think a lot of it's great, but it's not comprehensive.

And it hasn't necessarily gotten sort of a fulsome review by the portable housing providers.

and others who maybe don't necessarily historically do affordable housing but would like to.

There are a lot of technical details that aren't going to get passed in Tier 1 or Tier 2 now that really are Tier 2 issues.

And so I want to make sure when this comes back to HAC, it's not just us looking at Tier 3.

That we're looking at Tier 2 with the idea that we're not going to make this ordinance perfect overnight.

Incremental improvements are fine.

And for me, it would be that we admit that, OK, we missed this.

We overlooked this.

So the one thing I would push back a little bit on that, I absolutely think that should be part of the conversation.

Again, the way it's categorized, tier three, I think it's not clear the intent of what zoning code, I think you could look at it and say the intent was to put tall stuff up on West Main, but we may not have gotten that right.

Like we may not have expressed the intent.

and consistent with what the community wants us to do, which is I think what MDS is saying, that's a kind of tier three thing, whereas tier two is like the intent of RA is to get up to six units, but because of a couple of technical requirements, there's not a lot in the city where you can actually get six units on it, whether it's because you have to have 20 feet of fire clearance or you have to, whatever, there's technical requirements.

And so, Joy, and I would probably would end up

supporting what you're suggesting, but I think this is something that probably has to go back to the people, right?

The motion of that ocean I think is gonna- Yeah, because you know, even the seven and a half street project, I think it just break my heart.

The fact that one, I grew up with people,

that live in that neighborhood, and then also see it change.

But it just breaks my heart when, because I don't pay attention to every single thing that's happening in the city.

I'm just so focused on some things and got to figure out a way where we have partners that can help us focus on that.

But somebody made a statement at the last VAR meeting

and as someone who grew up in a third world country, I know how much hearing church hymns on Sunday morning, even if you can't go, how much it impacts you and how much it keeps you whole.

And when I heard that person said, and Sunday mornings, I can hear them singing.

I can hear them praising.

When that bill didn't get billed, seven and a half, seven or eight or nine, whatever it is, it's going to block that.

It is important, but that's just a part of a community.

No, I agree.

My sense from what I've read, what I've heard is that public sentiment is kind of on your side there, that that's going to be a battle that's won.

May not be, but I just think that we need to, you know, if we're talking about communities and what makes up communities, and that is a central part.

Who would have thought that people were listening?

I know in my country, that's something we listen to, right?

Right?

It's a part of the community.

The church is a part of the community.

Even if they don't do what they're supposed to do, it still is a part of the

The community.

You know, and I just think that we miss those little things.

My grandma used to say that the big thing that people do that is important is the little thing.

And to me, that just, I was just, I couldn't get to the B.A.

Army.

I was just so, and to have someone say that that's, oh that's not, you know, that is not important.

It's all about the money and all that.

No, it is important.

It is important to that community.

Again, I don't pay attention to everything.

This is a thought process now about figuring out.

I'm going to look at your, start looking at your map where things are going up and following up because we're not paying attention to some of these things so we can have a dollar.

And then the last thing I will say is

I don't think it's, I'm glad you said the whole community, because I don't think it should be just livable sea bill that can speak about what needs to change and not the rest of the community.

So just to keep on track a little bit, I think what this, the ADU program piece that you raised up, Dan, you're echoing

Clearly that needs to be a high priority as we look at the work plan for the next year.

I do think it would be good to stay on track to make sure we get through everything to identify other high priority pieces.

We know that some of that conversation is going to highly depend on the intersection with staff and their timing.

So we can't really say exactly when that's going to happen in our sequence, at least not yet.

But I think it would be good for us to go through the whole thing because inevitably we're going to have to

I think it would be good to get the whole picture before we jump into that discussion.

Well, the zoning ordinance is different from the affordable dwelling unit or policy, which is the policy is not the zoning.

Can I just say, I agree with you and I would love to, I'm sure we have very similar thoughts on what could make, I don't know, construction under the current zoning ordinance possible, especially with the guys on affordability.

But I just think, I think that one of the reasons why I

Think of the land bank and spending time on land bank is important is because I don't, I mean, I can't think you agree with me, but I don't think zoning is going to really push the needle forward as far as affordability.

Like I think having the way that the zoning ordinance is going to be successful or the way that we're going to have address the housing crisis is going to, if we look at zoning in tandem with, I don't have the same level of priority, but I put like community oriented development.

And I feel like

I don't know, I've said this before.

I thought the Link Bank was a way to do that.

I thought maybe CRHA was a way to do that.

And I don't know if this is right, but I think having that entity existing right now would be helpful in addressing the West Main Street, West Haven, LV Collective, and Fidoville.

I think those would be prime sites where if there were a land bank or community oriented development,

entity, those would be properties that I would think they would aggressively try to purchase.

I don't disagree.

I think they go hand in hand.

So, pause, pause, pause, pause.

I agree.

So the next one on the list was landlord risk reduction discussion.

That was a topic we did cover.

You all spend time on that and we do have a potential program that could be proposed to move forward that

is something that is still on the table.

Just as we've all known for the last few months, it's not been a time for starting new initiatives, but hopefully we'll be in a much better position to do that next year.

Tax abatement for performance discussion, that was really similar.

A lot of work has been spent on that.

I think it was well worth the time.

It was a great suggestion and hopefully we'll see, I guess, where that goes because some of those presentations

So that is to be clear.

So unlike Landlord Risk Reduction, where that still largely resides with us, it hasn't been put, correct me if I'm wrong.

Well, no, please.

It had been put forth to staff for the purpose of bringing to council at this point.

Did we finalize our recommendations?

Yeah, I mean, you guys did have, I think that we were in a pretty good spot.

It was more of a decision of, is that what we want to do with our limited resources?

Is that the new thing we want to take on?

Because just any new program,

takes resources to start.

Yeah, yeah, I think that those ones, especially for the tax statement on landlord risk reduction, CATEC has certainly done their part.

I think that after those is kind of where we fell off the plan.

So, geographic place-based incentives, I don't believe we ever had a meeting where that was the topic of discussion.

Now part of this is, I will say staff is still aware of this and this is kind of, yeah, something that is on our radar as well.

Not as much of a TIF program, but more a city funded project based vouchers that could help particular neighborhoods or particular projects.

I think that the TIF is, that's something I don't know that we really explored.

They're not funded by the increased tax increment of development in the neighborhood that's been outzoned.

A tax increment financing.

So if, for example, development happens, it increases the tax base over what was there, some percentage of it stays either with that developer or what we were proposing was that some percent of that increment stays with the local community so they can make decisions about

You have some kind of a community-based development entity, right?

Potentially.

I don't know if we've talked about this.

I mean, this is this essentially, I mean, I think I've been pushing that for quite a while, which essentially

Also, I can say from the staffing side, there are huge improvements we can make in that process, too.

Because right now, there is a possibility to get reduced fees for tap fee reduction.

But I'm just starting to explore that process for the first time.

And it is not a quick or easy load for anyone involved.

From a business perspective, it's a great program.

Yeah, no, I don't think getting rid of it, I think, but like to Sunshine's point, if there's anything that could be done to make it a less cumbersome process, easier, okay, you meet these qualifications, then you can do this.

And I don't know, I guess you probably, if it was just a fee waiver, that's also different than right now having a promissory note and creating promissory notes is

Part of the larger process that takes time and expertise.

But they just kind of down to

What I know you noted too, that you got feedback from

We have quarterly meetings with the Rental Advisory Council for Virginia Housing, and Charlottesville was called out as arguably the most expensive jurisdiction in the Commonwealth to develop.

From the developers?

I'm going to propose the idea that we can really only tackle three of these things next year.

That may be able to do more, but on a conservative side, when you look back at the work we did last year, it was three or four things I think that we really sunk our teeth into.

So I would propose that, let's just say three for the moment.

If you had to pick your top three, what would they be?

And this is not a vote.

Well, can I make a suggestion?

Each of you write down in your top three, and then we'll just share around the table and just see what it is.

Let's just give it a couple of minutes and just pick your victory.

All right.

So let's just, maybe the way to do this is just like top of the thing, who voted for what as we go down the list and you'll just track.

Sure.

Okay.

So the first one that's on the list here is Land Big Gardens.

Yeah, just in order.

Can we change it to just community-oriented development?

It's just a land bank or some other similar funding mechanism for acquiring land.

Land acquisition and holding.

So if so, raise your hand.

I don't know if my vote is valid.

It's not about perception.

You're welcome, June.

Or you are no?

How about this?

So before we get there, the orientation improvement strategy for people of lived experience.

How many put that as a priority?

One.

Okay, one.

This is no judgment.

This is just a straw poll here.

Pilot discussion to formulate the pilot discussion.

We rose that up.

Zero.

I think it's a comprehensive issue for the whole city.

So, but sorry, hands up again for the zoning slash ADU.

I think the ordinance is the zoning ordinance.

We'll just put that up there then.

But I would say zoning ordinance and other and other related policies without looking at standards and design without looking at

Comprehension review.

One, two, sorry.

And then the AU.

Oh, that ought to go.

It's already on its way.

I'm going to check Mark was said there.

And certainly when part of the scope of work for the consultants who will be working on the fees will involve, CAC is included in their engagement strategy.

Landlord risk reduction.

One.

And again, if I can just comment, I think we're going to get the study on that.

Once we get the study, we're going to get the study really soon.

So I don't see the issue.

Then I think we comment on the study and either support it or not support it.

And that's why I don't see, I see it being a, I don't see it to be a priority.

I see it.

I'm going to get some Sunday sales and we'll say well on our way.

It's not feasible.

It's fair to say that without the hats work on that in the last year that that wouldn't necessarily be on the radar and you couldn't be saying check.

So, okay.

I saw Mike Blake.

You raise your hand more than three times.

I was going to add, like, budget advocacy.

Like, if you listen to the budget work session that helpful, not very simply, it's like all about how we have no money.

We can't do anything.

And like, very constrained.

Um, and I think that's trickling into like why staff feels constrained about, you know, what they can do.

And so, um, I'm not necessarily, I don't necessarily agree with a lot of the assumptions that the budget office was making.

And I think like saying to them,

You know, affordable housing needs to be a priority and this needs to be, I mean, the budget is where policy gets implemented.

No.

Budget advocacy?

Two.

So I don't have another hand to raise.

So I was really moved by what Madeline said a couple of times in this conversation is that we don't know what to prioritize given the limited resources.

I think this is part and parcel of that conversation.

One of the things that I think we have to bring back, whether it's our priority or not, is

A singular tool, the intervention analysis tool that helps make these decisions and helps this prioritization not happen in a vacuum.

And that's based on the city's own stated need in 2016 that we need 4,000 units by 2040.

Now we're 10 years in and we don't have a comprehensive strategy to do this.

So every funding decision, whether it's 125 to buy down the cost of a LIHTC unit or

investing money for affordable housing or putting money into a landlord risk reduction fund.

There's no framework for making this decision because we don't know what that investment cost relative to our overall goal, which is to close supply and demand.

And so I don't know whether that's woven into this idea of budget advocacy, but we don't know where we're headed and we don't have that framework.

I do think that I was

Encouraged by 3TB Ventures, their models seem to be able to be used beyond tax payment.

You can input certain subsidies and certain interventions and get outputs from that.

I'm sure that presentation and the scope of that model can be brought in to include all of what you mean, but that

So the old-timers in the room.

Yes.

And the primary conclusion was by 2040, we need to have

I think that the original language was built 4,000 additional affordable housing units, which is a big ask in a city that only has 19,000 total residential units to start with.

But we as HACS said, look, if you help somebody get into an existing house,

It's not building a house, but that's an intervention that takes care of the biggest problem, which is poverty alleviation and lack of housing.

And so we said, let's look at all the interventions that are possible from building homes, but let's separate that

All of that is done qualitatively as well.

So there's building and replacing CRHA units.

There's new LIHTC units.

There's affordable home ownership.

Right.

Right.

That's separated into multiple categories.

And then those of us who are practitioners said, well, what's the subsidy needed per unit or per intervention from the city to make one of these interventions possible?

The number that we wanted to hold to was that 4,000 at the end.

It doesn't matter whether the intervention is X or Y.

It's getting us closer to that goal.

And that provides a framework so that we can make a decision about, well, maybe it's not quantity, but maybe what we want to do is go deeper, recognizing that that amount of, and we put a dollar figure.

That's how we came up with that $10 million a year contribution, because we said it's going to take that.

But we haven't, that IAT never moved forward.

And some were receptive to it, some weren't.

But we don't know if that was the perfect tool, but like I would never build a development without a performer.

Right.

Because you don't know where you're going.

You don't know how to track your success.

You don't know how to pivot in the middle if the conditions on the ground change, which they always do.

And so we said, let's

Let's create that model.

And so when city council is making a decision about how they're going to spend money, they can look and say, well, we can invest 10 million.

We can invest 10 million this year.

Or it takes some of the pressure off CRHA and Kindlewood because there are certain years where they need a big chunk of money to come in to keep that project moving.

So it means that that year that some other things are not going to be as funded.

But we all know that's in service of this bigger goal.

And it was at the time when the consultants were hired to do the affordable housing plan that we presented that tool to them.

So they were cognizant of it, but essentially, and they said at the time, I can't remember precisely, but they said,

will provide something along those lines, something along those, you know, it wasn't just a PDF document of a plan.

It was supposed to be more, in my interpretation, it was supposed to be more than that.

It was supposed to be a tool additionally, but I don't think we really got that in the end.

And it sort of then, but once we had a sort of commitment for 10 million a year that was reinforced by that affordable housing plan and their own analysis that was separate from ours, but we landed at the same figure, generally speaking,

the city council has kind of moved forward with that, which understandably, but back to Dan's point, the affordable housing plan sets broad goals.

Anyway.

Bottom line is I think we've said you, staff, council,

and senior leadership up for failures because we haven't given, you guys don't have that framework for decision-making.

So every decision is happening in a vacuum and building housing happens over a long period of time.

And so I don't know how that fits into our work plan, but I think we have to reintroduce something like that or we're always gonna be at the same spot where we're kind of spinning our wheels and we don't know how to make a decision.

So for example, if the decision community-wide

is that we're not going to meet our number of unit goals, but we want to meet depth of affordability.

Is this a staff person or is this a

I'm trying to conceptualize who does this.

We did it initially with Rory Soltzenberg, Phil, like it was a bunch of us pulling together initially.

Then we brought in at the time it was Mike, I think, like as a city manager at that, or maybe he was the assistant city manager at that point.

Anyway, regardless.

But I think who does it?

Well, so it depends on what's ongoing is one of the problems.

And again, this is kind of bringing back old history.

And so I think this thing which was presented

This is my perfectly biased opinion.

It was presented by HAC as a tool that would be useful for the city.

It was seen as something that should have been a purview of staff and not an appointed board.

And it ended up being kind of a power struggle.

And it also had to do with the makeup of council at the time.

There was a particular council member who didn't trust anybody on HAC, really.

And so any product from HAC was kind of dismissed.

But I think we're in a much different environment now.

I would think that there'd be more receptivity to act.

And we don't mind doing this.

This is my life's work.

I don't mind doing this.

I don't mind doing the bulk of the work on this to present something.

If I hear what you're saying, then something like that is needed, right?

It wasn't until O.J.

He's been BCDC, but he helps to.

That wasn't on the check.

It wasn't on the check.

But if it wasn't for him breaking it down just to basically show how much it costs to do a unit and all, I don't think we quite would be where we are about deeply affordable housing and affordable housing.

It's like Sunshine broke it down and showed it to us.

Like, you know, if you don't have if you just go in for this tax credit,

I don't know if you realize what he did that day at the fire office by putting it on the chart and showing it to us.

Right, right.

Simplify it so we can say, hey, it's not going to work with just this.

We have to do something else.

So what it costs to do.

from zero to 30 or from 32 to 40, well, I think would make some of our residents or even the community understand it better, right?

So something like that is actually needed for the general public.

But I know from Sunshine and even John Sales, John Sales is really good at this stuff, the making you see,

and why you need a project bid voucher, and why you need to have philanthropy, and why you need to, you know, bank, and why you can't just, you know, like public housing is a sore spot for Audrey and I, because we're not bringing back a lot of our public housing, because the subsidy is so low.

It doesn't make the performer, it doesn't work

And so that's the best way for us to understand it.

We don't like it because we know it's putting a pressure on our residents when they come back.

Yeah.

I'd like to make a proposal.

So you threw out three as a straw man

for the number of things we can work on, but I'm hearing some momentum around, or something around what Nicole proposed and I added on to enjoy us talking about creating a budget framework for solving the problem.

We did four, even if we can't do four in a year, we can expand the time horizon.

We can say this is a 16 month, 18 month plan or something like that and take up four.

I know what I'm just saying in terms of bigger picture moving forward, this group appreciating what we might have accomplished or supported.

I hear from some cynical people, oh, the shelter is better than a lot of affordable housing.

And so there's always this debate between them.

It's like, affordable for who?

And so I think that's the advocacy way of seeing those

numbers to be able to say, oh, OK, we're not building these, and this is what we should be building.

That's one of the nice things about having a live tool like that is that when you build something for somebody at 30% or you create an intervention for someone at 30%, you fill it in.

In that performa, your actual starts to be a live report card of how you've done.

I just think it's essential because things change every year and what pencils when you put something together five years ago is no longer reality and when you're coming to the table trying to explain the gaps and you're also talking to people about how fair market rent hasn't adjusted to what their income is right now and 30% is not always going to get there anymore and I think having a tool like that and you know

I want to say something in response to that, but Michael, you didn't.

Go ahead.

Okay.

I think it's a really important point, Kathleen, because I think some of you have heard me say this before, but the analysis I did of the change in the area of income from 2017 to 2023, we saw a 60 plus percentage increase in how HUD calculated AMI.

So that means that the rents for a 30% AMI household, the rent for an AMI household is now 63% more than it was back in 2017.

And the cost of, that's if you don't have a voucher,

you know, that's just like, you're just paying a 30% AMI and doing it right.

And the cost, the source has got like all these things have varied and we have like very strong political ends where resources that have been there historically to support people are less reliable and in the next couple of years with Medicaid and everything else will evaporate even further.

All that to say that I think it's important for us to track what we have achieved

Yeah, I know we have three other big topics to get into, but I was just gonna, so it's one kind of outcome, but the goal is the number of units of different AMI levels at that point, that was the estimate for the number to accomplish that, but there's just a tool that could kind of,

Prove to council that $10 million a year is irrelevant now to meet that goal.

It's actually now 15 or 20.

Is that kind of the goal?

And maybe along with that getting in writing, because this makes me nervous on budget advocacy that there's nowhere in writing that the in lieu fees are not on top of that annual commitment.

And I do worry that at some point it will become convenient to say, well, we got 10

In other words, I mean, if we set out, I mean, all of us, I think all of us, it's easy enough for us to save more money for affordable housing, right?

But I think what this is, is it shows what the constraints are and what the impacts of some of the decisions are for council so that if $10 million only gets you

You know, when we first started putting this tool together, it might have gotten you 100 units because it only gets you 50 now that 10 million is.

You either have to adjust that 10 million or you have to adjust your goals.

And that puts it, that just makes it really clear and it makes, I think it makes policy decision making more transparent for counsel.

And so if someone wants to say, well, we're spending 10 million already,

I don't mean automatic.

It's agreed upon, the 10 million.

But the in lieu of

I mean, it would all go to the same pot.

Because that's the whole idea of the zoning is to create affordability.

Yeah, because I think from the staffing perspective, it's like, OK, we have all of these different programs we're contemplating starting.

That money could go towards starting a new project and not having to reduce these other things that we're already doing.

At this point, the amount of money that's put out through the NOFO for CAF is de minimis.

It's like 700,000.

823,000.

It might be 825,000.

And that's because it's funding important stuff.

It's funding CRHA project.

And so I'm not advocating for something different.

It's funding Kindle.

It is funding CRHA.

It's funding vouchers.

It's funding a number of things.

But when someone has a project that comes up, all of us are competing for a very small percentage of that.

Yeah.

And even like there's $10 million for next year,

More than half of that has already been allotted to projects that are multi-year projects.

So it's not like, okay, what are we going to do with this 10 million?

And so, okay, we'll have $2 million left that hasn't already been committed to projects.

What are we going to do with that?

And we've got a request in for supporting, you know, like $15 million more projects, but, you know,

Because we get also submissions through the RFI process where people do put in less formal requests, but it's more just providing information about larger projects and what would a commitment from the city look like.

Here's what we would need to be able to build this many affordable units.

So one thing that I was, what I brought up the HIA, HIT, whatever we say.

IAT, the Housing Intervention Analysis Tool.

So we took off the housing, IAT.

And what I'm looking at is the list of, just going back to what Dan started with around the 4,000 unit gap.

It was easy to interpret that as needing 4,000 new units when really what Dan was trying to make this point that it was an affordability gap, some of which was absolutely need for new units, maybe even a majority,

but in other cases it was, you know, property tax abatement so that folks could afford to stay where they were as an example.

So if it's all right, I'm just gonna quickly read through the list of things that we contemplated in the IAT just so we have a sense of the comprehensive notes of it and there may be things we wanna add in the future or whatever but so CRHA, rent replacement rental units, that's the public housing redevelopment, differential court replacement units, additional CRHA units, additional needs of friendship courts, SRO,

29 that's going up, accessory dwelling units, additional YTEC rentals by whoever develops them, density bonus, proffers, plan unit development, special use permit, affordable home ownership, land trust, vouchers, additional tax relief, income boosting grants, down payment assistance, miscellaneous shared equity home ownership, emergency repairs, rehabs, rental housing counseling, home ownership counseling, and one stop housing hub interventions.

So we did identify a whole host of interventions to address the affordability challenges, depending on where people are on the spectrum of need.

So it's 1 37.

Okay.

So the, um, so the, the budget, do we want to, I don't know what you want to call it.

And I would recommend, well, so

We have, without the IAT being included at the moment, we have three clear priorities, at least in this straw poll.

Ordinance review, land acquisition and holding, place-based incentives, and then budget advocacy, which evolved into the IAT, and that discussion was sort of a close fork, which I think you're kind of suggesting the idea that we

Contemplate for as our sort of work plan or work goal for the next year or so, year plus, depending on what it takes and what kind of staff capacity there is for engaging out of it.

All of these things require staff capacity and engagement and partnership in some way.

Is that the outcome we were looking for?

Is those four?

We want to rank those four a little bit in terms of priority between them.

Tony would be that one for me.

Well, some people had votes.

We had a discussion.

I thought if we re-voted right now, if you picked your top two out of those four, what would rise to the top after our discussion right now?

Where do you want to start?

All right.

So let's just another straw poll exercise.

You get two of those four, two votes.

This is not saying you're going to only do those two.

Out of those four.

OK.

So, ordinance review.

Ordinance review.

Is that one of our two is what you're asking?

Yeah, is this one of your two?

Could you call for the fourth overview again?

I'm not sure if I heard all four.

Of course.

Yeah, the four, I'm sorry.

On interview, yeah.

Yeah, on interview, land acquisition and holding, base-based incentives, and then budget advocacy and IAT.

So seven for award interview.

Mm-hmm, eight.

Eight, thank you.

Land, Acquisition, and Holding.

Oh, wow.

Interesting.

I know, I hate my own voting structure.

And then budget advocacy and IAT.

So those are clearly the two priorities as far as how we move forward.

The two top priorities.

Thank you, I'm sorry.

So then can we go back to the next?

And so the other two are place-based incentives and land acquisition and holding.

So pick one of the two?

No, I think it's okay.

I think, I mean, in some ways, my suggestion is that we focus on those two.

We know the other two are going to come a little bit down the road, or it could be

Like with the ordinance review, Matt comes back and says, we're not gonna be ready to engage for three months.

So our body then could then focus on the other priorities.

So we may have to be a little flexible.

Or he may not want us involved, right?

We'll find a way for HAC to be involved.

Yes.

I like it.

And I think that's part of

Okay.

I like that.

Yeah.

I do wonder a little bit on that front, like we are putting that forth as something we want to focus on

I do think beyond Madeline, we would need buy-in from city manager's office in one way or another, somewhere in that chain, for them to be willing to engage in that with us.

I think there's an element of advocacy for that being something that we want to resurface.

I appreciate that.

Ultimately, the city manager needs to be front and center here.

But at some point, council is the city manager's boss.

And so if this is important to council, it's much better that this comes from council than it comes from HAC.

Yeah, I mean, ultimately, whatever conflicts don't exist, maybe that'd be an easy conversation.

Is there anything wrong with inviting Sam to this meeting and just saying, here are the things that we want to work on and here's why?

I don't see anything wrong with it.

And I don't think there's anything wrong with that.

Yeah, it means something different than when we adopted it.

I mean, if it comes from council, I think that's always the best route.

I just think you've got to convince two other people.

And I think you have a very strong belief in a narrative of non-subsidized market rate units collapsing rent to the point where

I don't know.

I guess I'll just put it to you more bluntly.

How do you see advancing the conversation?

Is it better if you're part of the group that talks to Sam?

Do you want to invite Sam to be part of this?

Do you want this to go to

I just wanted to get done.

I don't want to step on anyone's toes or I guess I'm kind of trying to put myself in councils.

When I talk about the AIAT, it's trying to give council the tools so they can make decisions.

And I honestly feel like we have hamstrung the ability to make decisions.

And in that case, with the rent, the tool can communicate what is happening to rent.

So Michael, what's your sense of

I'm not 100% sure, but I would think if the HAC has the ability to update the IAT tool that existed, and that is something that can come from the HAC directly to city council, I think that's fine.

And I think that's the most likely avenue to start council saying, hey, this would be cool to formally incorporate into how we make a decision about a budget allocation, if I'm understanding what you want the outcome to look like.

Well, I think part of my concern is that, to be perfectly candid, hours and hours and hours went into this.

And I think, frankly, I think it would probably require hours and hours and hours to update it.

There may be another route is, you know, there's that upcoming

about affordable housing, communicating to council.

We're interested in just getting direction from council.

Do you want us to explore this and seeing if at that work session a majority says yes or no?

It's funny because I don't really, I think council isn't easy, so I want to talk to them and see his reactions.

I think so.

Yeah, I'm agnostic about the way forward.

I'm just positing this is an alternative.

I'd go with whatever you guys think is the best strategy.

I just wanted to, I think- And like the budget office.

Yeah, I think like, like we're, I just, it's just killing me.

I've been working on affordable housing in Charlottesville for 25 years and, and I would never ever do any project ever without a budgetary framework for solving a problem or getting a development done.

And I just feel like we've been flying blind

for a long time.

I just want this to move forward in some form.

Is there an agenda set or a structure set for that upcoming work session?

Yeah.

I mean, Sam had thrown out a few topics, but I don't think there's certainly nothing published.

I think it's still not like set in stone.

Yeah.

Yeah, I can't either.

I ended up having to, oh, land banks, Sistrap, and Kindlewood affordability.

I think it's December 1st.

Sorry, I came in late.

I apologize for that.

Well, I mean, Mike, could you bring forward to that work session a report from HAC that these are the priorities that HAC has come up with?

Yeah, I mean, I think that would say that's important to look at while it's interview and revocation of the of the IAT and maybe you can test out in a public environment.

But he don't like surprises.

Nobody on council knows what the IAT is other than you and potentially Lloyd.

Maybe an opportunity.

But, um, but it's just email and fear.

Yeah.

Oh, just a chance to for us to say, like, boldly, this is our work plan.

No, I mean, I think that's definitely going around.

Yeah, and I think one of your, like two of the top priorities that you all identified kind of line up with two of the topics that are already being planned to discuss that night about not exactly the TIF part of the place-based incentives but more location-based vouchers or subsidies and then the land bank and how we might move forward with the land acquisition and holding strategy.

Well, I think

Just for the other thing with the ordinance review, not the part you were talking about, but the part you were talking about, Joy, about the zoning districts and specifically student housing around 10th page Fyfeville, Rosehill.

At this point, that's planned to be discussed at a work session of city council in January.

Yeah, so they're getting to tier three in January, basically.

I think that's a specific topic.

They're going to develop it in one topic.

Yeah, and that's because we've been showing up.

And it was one byproduct of council indicating we were interested in not having tier three items take a year before we're getting just a study before we move into even recommending the study.

So we just flagged that and then we don't need to have a discussion about it tonight.

I know there's no windows here, but the hack may not need to weigh in on this, but just for everyone's awareness, leading up to that January conversation, we did get communication of, I guess, policy preference from Louisville Seaville about both for student housing, eliminating the 0.5 mile radius, and then also completely eliminating all

That has not been fully fleshed out yet.

Yeah.

I just know we got an email from from livable Seville as a formal statement saying that that's what they wanted city council to do.

Um, so there's no definition of who is and who isn't.

Okay, well, I think we are going to have to get this one wrapped up.

I want to tell you that the agenda as our next meeting is scheduled for August 20th, 2025.

And does anyone have any conflicts or are we good for that schedule?

Yeah, we're not going to be able to schedule it, but we'll see you in January.

Fair enough.

Public comment?

Hi, so I'm glad you've been talking about budget because I'm talking about something that is directly relevant to your budget and that is the half mile radius, the city planning team.

Sorry, yeah, my name is Paul Reeder, despite my accent and

One of the issues that has come up in connection with that development is that the city, specifically Jim Freese, specifically gave guidance to the developer that they were within half a mile radius of the edge of UVA grounds.

As if any of you are here, have been here a long time, you'll know that that's patently untrue.

However, the city

the Pocket Park where the General used to stand confronting the Indians or the Indians used to stand confronting the General on horseback opposite the Graduate Hotel, which is, as you all know, I hope, which is this side of the railroad tracks, which means that it violates several items

The ordinance or your guidelines specifically exclude the outlying university-owned parcels that are not considered part of the campus for the purposes of this ordinance.

So there is an immediate effect on the proposed seven and a half street student housing development to reduce payments that they would have to make in lieu

So it's reasonable expectation that it would reduce the contribution by a half or more.

And it would also set dangerous bad precedent for you, as it would include the old hospital.

So the half mile radius gets expanded beyond central grounds and north grounds that are referenced in your housing ordinance.

I believe it is against the spirit of the ordinance as it was written and it is against the letter of the ordinance as it is written.

The zoning administrator, whose man here called Reed Brodhead,

This Board of Money.

If they stick with that definition, I will be appealing that to the Board of Senate Appeals.

And I believe, given the inconsistencies in the city argument that I will win, I would not have to do that.

So if anybody wants to speak up or examine the paper that I've written, I would encourage

I need your email to send you an electronic version that I could send to you for distribution to the committee.

But this is something that you should all be concerned about and as far as I'm concerned if the bastards are going to put up this building then they should really want to pay for it.

Can I ask a follow-up?

I believe the developers calculated on their initial plans that they would have to pay the city about $2.6 million, but it's somewhere between $2 and $3 million.

So if it's

Now, you may say, oh, great, we get more money.

But this is a bad development in the wrong place in the first place.

So it shouldn't actually happen.

All the meeting didn't close.

It's two o'clock.

I know I have to get to a different beginning.

Good work.