 Thank you. Well, good evening, Housing and Human Services advisory board members. It's nice to see your faces, albeit on tiny little screens, tiny little windows up above my window. So it is 7.08, and I will call this meeting to order. We are going to start with the public invited to be heard section. Anyone wishing to speak during public invited to be heard will need to call into this meeting. Instructions are being displayed on the screen. Comments are limited to three minutes per person, and each speaker will be asked to state their name and their address for the record prior to proceeding with their comments. The dial in number is 1-669-900-6833. And when prompted, enter the meeting ID 861-1502-3460. So with that, we're going to take four minutes, allowing people to call in. And at that point, we will enter people who have called in to make comments, and then we will proceed with the rest of the meeting. OK, that is four minutes. That is an excellent demonstration of just how relative time actually is. It seemed like a long time. Do we have any public who has called in to be heard? We did not have anybody call in to be heard. OK, all right. Nobody's in the queue. Well, I hope everybody had a chance to relax a little bit for those four minutes. Let's go ahead and move on to our next agenda item, which is approving the minutes. Is there a motion to approve the minutes from the May 14, 2020 meeting? I'll move to approve the minutes. Thank you. And a second? I'll second. Thank you. Nicole, were you able to capture both of those? I apologize. Was that Deanna and Jake? OK, got you guys. Thank you. Thank you. OK, any discussion, any corrections or amendments to the minutes? Then all in favor for approving the March 14 minutes, please say aye. Sorry, May 14 minutes, please say aye. Aye. Or raise your hand. I got it. Chair, we're good. Thank you. Thank you. I forgot we were doing the hand thing. All right. Thanks, Nicole. Next agenda item, the affordable housing application presentation. We do have a guest from Habitat for Humanity who will walk us through that. So Sandra's, sorry, go ahead, Karen. Kathy? Kathy. Yes, I was just going to lead off and give you some background on everything. And I think that Susan also has a map that we're going to put on to get everybody scheduled around this so that you know where the location of the project is. So this is the Mountain Brook subdivision. It is a new one that just is coming in and is going through all of the development approvals through the city. Nelson Road is up here. Home Depot and Target are over here. If you can see, can you see my pointer? Yes, we can. OK, good. And then Roger, I'm sorry, this is Rogers Road. Nelson is down here. Sorry, Rogers is up here. So this is a new development. This is primarily in this area is single family homes. And then over here would be town homes, I believe, primarily, and then town homes here. No, these are single family homes as well. Single family, single family, town homes. And then this section is one block because it's scheduled to be condominiums, and they go on stay on one block. So it's kind of hard to tell, but all of this would be condos. So this development came in under the new inclusionary housing process. And so as part of their inclusionary housing component, what they did is go to council and talk through. So what they're doing is down in this section down here, they are donating land to have it out. Cassie, we can't see your pointer anymore. I don't know where it went. Just step by eye. OK, down in the bottom left corner that is highlighted in yellow is the habitat units. And then over right next to it to the right in the little triangle shape is what would be the veterans village component. And that's going to be, thank you, whoever's doing that. That is going to be tiny homes for veterans who are formerly homeless or experiencing homelessness to help get them into housing and back into permanent housing as quickly as possible. So that is a total of 26 tiny homes and the eight habitat homes, which is a total of 34, which is a little bit less than the 12% by actually quite a bit. But we also have a provision in our inclusionary housing program that allows for if you are providing rental housing that is below 40% AMI and for sale housing that is affordable below 60% AMI that you can reduce your inclusionary housing to 9%. This development got really close. I think they're at 8.4% actually, the 34 units. And council gave them a pass on that because in addition to donating the land that the Mountain Brook development is also going to not only do the offsite infrastructure but also do onsite infrastructure. So usually when a developer donates land to a nonprofit under inclusionary housing, they only have to make sure they get the infrastructure to the site. They don't have to do all of the taps and all of the water lines onsite. But the developer is going to be doing that. So they're providing more than what they ordinarily would. So council agreed to accept that as well as because of the tiny home village that is getting to extremely low income, formerly persons experiencing homelessness that they agreed to allow an 8.4% I think, total inclusionary housing development. So the units we're here to talk about are the eight here in this lower left corner highlighted in yellow. So that just gives you a little bit of a grounding in that. And then I also wanted to just point out that this is our presentation from the developer. And there'll be time for them to walk through their presentation and then there'll be questions and answers. And if you remember the last time we discussed the process for considering affordable housing projects. We wanted to change things up a little bit and give the housing advisory board more information and an ability to understand and be more involved with the application process so that you didn't feel like you were rubber stamping recommendations and that you had a better understanding of the project. So that's why we're holding the presentation in a joint meeting with the TRG. And there are, I think almost all members of the TRG are also in attendance at this meeting. So both groups will be able to ask questions when we get to the question and answer period. And then I also, let's make there was something else. Oh, no decisions will be made tonight. So this is just the presentation. Then the TRG is gonna meet, I believe it's next Wednesday evening to discuss this project and make a recommendation that we'll come back to the housing advisory board at your next regular meeting in July. And then we'll move forward from there and then we'll debrief and see how this process went and move forward. So with that, I think you can go ahead and start the habitat presentation. And I don't know if John or David is gonna start first, but go ahead. Okay, thank you, Kathy. No, I will start and defer to John if I have some things I'd like him to speak into, but first and foremost, thank you so much for taking time and considering this application. We're really, really excited. We started, while this application is for our side of things, we started looking at the veterans village concept and ending veterans homelessness in January, 2018. So it's been a great project to be a part of. We're real excited. There is a relationship back in Kansas City with Habitat and Veterans Community Project. So it's really, we're excited to get that going. And then the other thing we wanted to mention is this is the first application we put forward as a CHOTO as a certified housing development organization, several Habitat affiliates have a CHOTO as an arm, allows them to do a few other things. Kathy encouraged us to look at that and consider that several years ago. We have had that in place, the infrastructure in place and the approval, but this is the first application and project that we'd be working towards. Excuse me, can you go to the next slide or am I able to advance that? So before I get into the specifics of this project, I did wanna just take a step back and it's focused on what Habitat has been able to do over the last 31 years. It's just really been incredible to see the growth decade by decade with the community support, not only in the type of products, new construction, but also in repairs, but geographically. But the reason I put this up here is just simply to say that the city of Longmont has been a part of that from the very beginning. I really cannot think of a project that we've been involved with in Longmont that has not had support from the city. So I wanna thank you for that. And what we've seen over the last decade is really almost a doubling, if not more of our impact and capacity to serve. So like I said, we're doing other projects, but we're also, we have expanded out into areas outside of Longmont. And at first blush, that may not seem to benefit on Longmont directly, but I did wanna make a comment that what we're finding is a lot of the folks we're serving in these other areas are tied to Longmont. And then perhaps more importantly, one of the things we're able to do by being in these other areas is we're adding capacity that impacts Longmont. And that's kind of a complicated thing, but I'll just give one example. In both the Kono and Estes Park, we're able to leverage a US Department of Agriculture product that is not available to us in Longmont. So in addition to that helping us serve families there, it allows us to invest in professional staff that end up working in Longmont. So just really wanna thank you for being involved in our growth and we really do believe we're gonna be able to significantly increase our capacity and serve more families and build a lot faster in Longmont going forward with the support that you've shown us over the last many years. We can advance the next slide. So as Kathy said, this project is at the end of Anderson Road just north of Nelson between Airport and Hover. It's a joint effort between the St. Brain Habitat and the developer who's been helping us in other ways. The land and infrastructure was donated. It is the first inclusionary housing project that we've been a part of. And as Kathy said, these homes will be permanently affordable at 60% AMI. The other thing I'd mention is these homes will be all electric. Actually, the homes we're building now in Longmont are all electric and really what we're looking at is a couple of things is really overall that will decrease our costs because we're not paying to bring in gas. We're also able to use a different type of HVs for the HVAC system that is less expensive but is easier to install so our volunteers can do it. So from a timing standpoint, in terms of getting these houses built, we reduce the amount of time we need to get the houses built and we're spending less money. And this product that we're using for the HVAC that is electric will allow us to bring in cooling. So there's a lot of winds all around and we're really excited about that. We can go to the next slide. So this is just a street rendering, a very pretty accurate street rendering of the eight homes that we'll be building. So there are four duplexes. One of the things that we have looked at over the years and just reflected back on is our product offerings. And while the site plan and the neighborhood that we're building in doesn't always allow us to get some product diversity, in a situation like this, we've been tried to be intentional about not just building one type of product from the standpoint of accessibility, visitability, things of that nature. So with these duplexes, the end two units will actually be one story, two bedroom. The middle two units will be one of the duplexes will three bedroom, another duplex will be four bedroom. Because when we look back at the families and individuals we were selecting, a great many of them actually could have been okay with a two bedroom and that accounts for growth and family and things like that. Really a three bedroom was going a little bit above and beyond what we needed to do. So in this project, well, we do not have not selected the families yet. We really wanted to create some product diversity. So people weren't self-selecting out. We really don't have any data to suggest that people were self-selecting out. But we do know sometimes when you're dealing with a two story product that may be, there may be folks who are not as excited about that and may not be looking at our product. So that's the way we're going with these eight homes. If you can go to the next slide. There's just a rear view of that and not very exciting except to say these are two car garages. We really thought through making sure parking is not an issue. So there's a decent amount of room off that auto court there and on Anderson actually has parking in front. But we've accounted for a lot of parking there. Advance to the next slide. So just to give a little bit more detail, spend some time on the two bedrooms, which are the four homes of single story construction. All four of those homes will be handicapped and visitable. We can easily modify that feature supporting those in wheelchairs. So at that point later on as we get closer with the construction of those homes, obviously we're working with the family specifically. We have a lot of experience, whether it's lower countertops or shower features, bathroom features that allow for those in wheelchairs. And so one bathroom with shower, two car garage and we're pricing those at 200,000 at 0% interest. So the two ways that Habitat really is able to hit that 60% or lower AMI is the price point at 200,000. Well, what's often overlooked is that 0% or seldom quantified. So if we looked at the payment for a $200,000 home, ignoring escrow, things like that, that's about $555, exactly a month for a 30 year loan. If we were to look at a 4% loan in the market, which is about where the market is, the price point would have to be 116,000 for a 30 year loan to equal 555. So it's really that financing aspect of what we do that makes the home affordable almost more so than the price point. We can go to the next slide. And then the three and four bedroom, the only thing I'd highlight there is a little bit higher when we deal with going up a little bit higher, costs 215,000 and 225,000 at 0% interest for the three and four bedroom respectively. If we can go to the last slide. So when we look at financial support, when we look at our costs overall, we know going in, we have some things that we can count on, but a lot of stuff we are certainly relying on the community to support what we're doing. So let me start with mortgage sales. So we originate all our mortgages, but since 2009, 2010, we have really developed a lot of our banking and financial partners in such a way that we, St. Brain Habitat, ends up selling the majority of its mortgages to banks that we have partnerships with without getting too complicated. What that means is if I sell a 200,000 0% interest loan to one of our banking partners, they'll equalize that and that becomes alone at 130,000 at 3%. The payment to the family is the same and the terms are the same except it has interest but the monthly cost is the same to the homeowner, but that allows Habitat to take that amount and put it right into the next project or in this case to pay off a construction loan. We have in-kind land and infrastructure. That number was taken directly from an appraisal that the developer did and shared with us in terms of the land and the infrastructure. And as Kathy alluded to, the infrastructure is really a major deal. We have done on-site infrastructure, coordinated that if you will, but it's really such an advantage to have a developer hand us what we would call builder-ready lots where we're putting in the foundation and then going off. That's really our wheelhouse there. And then other in-kind subcontractors. These are not written documented contracts but we have enjoyed great success with our great blessings, if you will, with folks in the community who own businesses and at national level that either greatly discount or donate things to us. So Nixcavating is a great example of that. They have probably dug the foundation for every Habitat St. Brain home that we've ever built for nothing. And that's quite a donation there. So that's about $201,000. We will be asking for city-of-the-wavers. This is an estimate, obviously that gets finalized when we submit our application. We do have a commitment, excuse me, with the Colorado Division of Housing for $62,000. That's an estimate based on about, that's a contract that goes through Habitat Colorado, I should say, and that's spread out over the Habitat affiliates throughout the state of Colorado. But that's a conservative estimate of the number of homes that will be with that, will have that grant. And then the remainder is that CHOTO funding request that we've put before you for $120,000. So really that's what we have to present to you tonight and we'd be happy to answer any questions, John. Is there anything I missed that you wanted to reiterate? No, not really. I think just a clarification on that three, four bedroom. The fourth bedroom will actually, there'll be a three bedroom house next to a four bedroom house, the fourth bedroom goes over the garage. So we do have a way to expand that and add an additional bathroom in the process. So that's the only clarification I could give you. Thank you both for that presentation. So let's open it up for questions. And I think the easiest way to be recognized is just to blurt it out. Cause unless Nicole, unless you can see everybody at once, I can't. Chair, you should be able to change your view. Top where it says gallery. Gotcha. I got the gallery view now. Okay. I have a question. Here it says Rogers on your slides, it said Rogers Road entitlement work is underway. What does that mean? What is Roger Roes and Roger Road, Rogers Road entitlement work? Well, I'm not sure which slide you're looking at. I think at one point we wanted to give an update on there's a couple of Rogers Road, but Rogers Road on the east side of Longmont, the city had helped us last year. So we had acquired a property and we were, I think John and I were looking to give an update and maybe we sent a slide inadvertently, but yeah, we acquired a property with an affordable housing loan, the city donated land and we're getting the final architecture as we speak. We've met with the city about what we can do. We're looking at a site plan of 10 units that will be starting the application process very shortly on that lot. Okay, because this is what, this is Rogers Road too. Right, right. Yeah. All right. Thank you. I'm sorry about that. That's okay. Thank you. And I think Jake, you had a... Sorry, I see. Whoop, you just went silent Jake, there you go. Mr. Chair, those acts, thank you Mr. Chair, so it was actually gonna be my question was about the previous Rogers Roads projects that Habitat has come in on. No real questions, I just, I'm very impressed. I think it's a very, it's a much needed project. I appreciate any opportunity to create permanently affordable four-cell housing at 60% and below, which you all do a great job of. So I'm the only thing I would say to administrators, I see a couple of our tiered G folks don't have their cameras on or don't have questions. So if anybody else from that group has questions, I'm impressed. So thank you all for being here. Sure. Yeah, do we have any tier G members who would like to ask a question? Oh, yes, Diane. Hi, yeah, a question for Habitat and that is in your other properties, what is the highest number of neighbors that you have had? My phone is ringing. Highest number of neighbors. You mean density? Yeah, Habitat, Habitat. Yeah, I was just curious. So I'll try to answer that and make sure I understand it, but we just finished Poplar Grove, which was 21 units within a hundred unit condominium association, but that's got commercial to one side and a vacant land to the other. I don't know if your question is in relation to having 25 units next to us with Veterans Village. No, okay. So I mean, I think our most dense project would certainly be that 21 units, which we felt comfortable with being 20% of an existing condominium association. One of the things I should point out is the back alleyway is one of the things we did not wanna do that we found just is a struggle is our small homeowner association. So when we can create, this is a town home ownership model. So people own, there'll be a third party wall agreement. That back alley actually will be part of Veterans Village with an easement and access easement. And we're working with an attorney and a Veterans Community Project. They're in great position to be able to do snow removal and things like that and then have our homeowners pay a small amount for that because they have a, I don't know if one of the visuals, maybe Kathy's map shows it, but there's a decent parking lot to the south of Veterans Village. And then it's kind of a private drive that comes off of Anderson to that parking lot. And then our homeowners would curb up onto that auto court. And so there is a need for routine maintenance and an eight unit, eight member HOA can be a little bit hard to govern, but if there's an agreement to have Veterans Community Project do it and defer some of the costs for doing it, it's more efficient. So we're looking at that, but that's the way it's being proposed and as platted. Thank you. Any other TRG members that have questions for our guests? Okay, how about HHSAB board members? It looks like Karen has a question. It is muted, hang on. There you go. Go ahead, Karen. Do you pick the people and then build a house or how does that work? Yeah, so we're in a little bit of a transition and I'll try not to make this too complicated, but I think one of the things we were concerned about is we were selecting families quite a bit ahead of the houses being built and individuals were waiting quite a while. So we are, and then the other thing is at times it got into this weird dynamic that construction might be delaying because the homeowner wasn't ready. And so we are selecting now for this project, but until we get to a certain point where the homeowner has done their educational component and a certain percentage of their sweat equity, they will not be tied to a house. So it'll come a little bit later, but not in a way where we can't make adjustments on the finishing touches. So homeowners do pick cabinet colors, countertops, flooring. We have a lot of folks who need hard surface flooring rather than carpet because of allergies. So we won't jeopardize that customization, but we're not gonna delay construction. I know one of the things that we have wanted to make sure we're doing, and we are going very, very fast right now with our blitz buildings. We started two of them on Marshall Place at the end of March. They are completely dried in. The exterior is almost 100% done. It's just being painted and the subs are in. We don't want to delay the construction of those houses given the need to wait for all the pieces to be ready for a specific homeowner. So it will happen really in conjunction. And as I say this, I'm sure this is confusing, but we are selecting hopefully well enough in advance so that we can make sure that if there are specific needs, it's ready, but not so far in advance that people are waiting for many, many, many months. And or it's creating an issue with the construction schedule. Does that make sense somewhat? Yeah, thank you, David. Karen needs to unmute again. Karen, can you unmute yourself or there you go? Somebody did. I just, you know, this might seem real piddly, but I have a handicap sun and I'm hoping when you do your handicap bathrooms that you do a roll-in shower. Right. Yeah. The other things, the hand bar, that doesn't work, but if someone's in a wheelchair, they need a roll-in shower and it's really a hassle if you do it after. Yeah, for sure. And I hope I didn't imply that that was jeopardized. We, I mean, we just finished one in DeCono that had significant handicap considerations for the sun. So we'll make sure that that remains accounted for. I think in the long run, what we'd like to see as a pool of qualified buyers, because it does take, we wanna see people moving towards home ownership. And frankly, whether that's in our product or other products, Elevation's Community Land Trust has products available. There may be other home ownership products online. In some cases, people may move if we're involved in helping prepare people for home ownership. There may be market rate opportunities there, but we would like to see a pool of people getting ready and qualified so that if something does come off, they're ready. So on occasion, we have had homeowners who have not met their obligations, whether it's education or sweat equity, or there's been a material change to their financial situation. And as a mortgage lender, we legally cannot put someone in a mortgage that is inappropriate for them. So a house does come, if you will, available at the last minute. So that's really, I guess what I'm saying is we'd like to see a pool of folks that are ready, but we absolutely, I mean, I don't know what the number is, but we've had several families and individuals that have needed considerations and doing it well, the handicap ADA. And so we won't jeopardize that. Let me jump in here, Karen, just to answer the rest of your question. So the thing we're really excited about, especially with these two bedroom units right now that we're building, is it'll have a zero entryway. All the doorways will be built wide enough for a wheelchair from the beginning. And there'll be enough turn radius within the bathroom that's there into the shower that we've really kind of changed our approach and thinking on that. So while we don't necessarily put lower shelves in unless there's a wheelchair family need for that, we have made a very conscious decision for designing those to be handicapped, accessible if necessary, and that the family can age in place there. I mean, that's the other new consideration we're trying to get on board with from our design aspect. That's wonderful, thanks. Thank you. Okay, David, I just have one quick question and this might be for John as well. You mentioned selling the mortgage and how it works in terms of reducing the principal, basically in the bank reduces principal increases interest. Does that have any impact on equity in the home and potentially how the owners would be affected by that? It's a habit to mute myself in these meetings but no, it doesn't impact their equity at all. In these case, and we are still working on what that final legal instrument will look like but the sales price will be dictated by a formula. So really, there's a couple of advantages. One, one of the things that in addition to financial, we're not individually as big enough to report to credit agencies. So the majority of our families are very good. 90 something percent are paying on time. They're not getting any credit for that with the credit agencies, which, if you study that many of you are familiar, that just has such an impact on other things that you don't even think about. So in addition to not impacting any of your equity potential, it also gives those who are performing on their mortgage credit with the agencies that we can't, we can't provide because of our size. Yeah, that's an excellent point. Thank you. Just one follow-up point on that. In a time like this when so many people, particularly those at the lower income levels are really hurting because they may be unemployed at this point, there's a little bit more, well, banks could be relatively unforgiving if you're unable to pay your mortgage. Whereas I'm thinking if you're holding the mortgage, you may have more flexibility in being able to address that. Have you seen any issues with that? Yeah, that's a great point. And so one of the things that we do is we put an irrevocable limited power of attorney because we wanna track that. And our board actually states that I can't be uninformed about how these programs are going. In other words, our board and staff, we don't wanna find out a year later that the mortgages we've sold are doing disproportionately worse than the others. So we do track that that's reported to the board. Right now we actually see performance problems all in the ones that we hold. But to your point, if there's a depression or recession, certainly people will have issues there. That's why all of the relationships with these banking partners are relationships. So Chaffa is one and actually we have to swap out a more we would do the foreclosure if it came to that. One of the local banks has a statewide program that they've told us over and over, they would not wanna be the ones to foreclose on a habitat home. So likely what would happen is we would swap that out with the pool of mortgages that we have. But it's not an obligation in all cases. Some cases we still are, we encourage our families to work through the banks, you know, our banking partners because we have those relationships. The third one is the United States Department of Agriculture, not in Longmont, but they haven't, frankly, a forbearance program or procedure that's far more progressive than ours would be in terms of workout. So we're very careful about who we're working with. But we also don't want the public or homeowners to think that there won't be consequences for defaults. There will be, luckily, in our experience, a couple of things I'll just mention. We have not had a foreclosure yet. And I say yet because over the years, it probably will happen, in fact, but it's come close. In this pandemic we're seeing now, it's a great testament to our homeowners. We have one workout, we have three that have talked to us, but our families have really worked hard to stay on top of their mortgage. So right now, knock on wood, we're not seeing a huge impact. And I believe some of that has to do, it's not a lot of how we priced those mortgages. Our front end ratio, we keep between 27 and 30%. Now it's 27% meaning we're gonna look at HOA, Property Taxes Insurance and Principle. We're gonna make sure that payment is 27% of the homeowner's payment. And now that they're permanently affordable, that property tax is moderated in such a way that that won't, even though, because we don't increase the, we don't stick to that ratio, but at least in the beginning, it's set to be affordable, and which is quite low compared to what a lot of other lending options will allow people to incur based on their income. Brian, I'd just add one other point about what's going on. There are definitely benefits for us being part of a larger organization. Habitat Colorado recently got a grant from the Realtors Association, Color Realtors Association, to help with mortgage payments. So if any of our families did run into a real bind, we have access to grant money that can at least get them through a couple of months. So that's kind of the benefit of being part of the greater habitat. Yeah, that's great to know. Thank you, John. Any other questions from board members, TRG members? Okay, well, thank you both for... I do. I was... I'll let everyone have their say. So my question is to me, I guess somewhat the elephant in the room. Under the Inclusionary Housing Program, developers are supposed to be providing the affordable housing, either on site through partnerships or by making the payment in lieu. So under this agreement, why should the city invest more than the fee waivers that we would give to anyone who provided units on site? When it's really... People could argue that it's the developer's responsibility to ensure that the affordable housing is fully provided. So is it double dipping to do, get the land and the fee waivers? I'm sorry? Sorry, I'm trying to understand the question. Is that me or a question to the committee? No, it's a question to you all. Why should the city invest more funding besides the fee waivers that everyone can get? I mean, a regular developer that's providing their units on site at the 12% could ask for the fee waivers and they would get them. So why should the city invest more money in this particular development? Yeah, I mean, I guess... My opinion is that I don't see, you know, anyone hitting 60% AMI. And I mean, the average of our homes have been more 40 to 50% AMI for home ownership, which is permanently at least from what we see and there are exceptions, but eliminating a subsidy for a family and we've seen cross-generational impact. So I think without that support, just the reality is that one will drift closer to right to the edge of that 60% or it will take more fundraising to get those homes filled. But I guess what I'm not sure I understand is if someone at 12% is getting fee waivers, and doing the affordable, we would be getting fee waivers. They're doing 9%, but we're hitting... The reason we're at 9% is because we're hitting a population that is more vulnerable. Not only is that first family at 60%, but it's permanently affordable at 60% going forward, whereas most programs with home ownership are 80%. Well, and the developer provides less housing already because of the partnership in getting to the lower AMI. So I just think it's an interesting question where under regular development that the developer was providing the units on site there not be additional city investment beyond the fee waivers. Well, I mean, honestly, Kathy, that's one of the reasons that this request is coming in under the Community Housing Development Organization. The home funding requires funding for Trotos. And this is our first attempt to marry habitats work with our Trotos work. And I think that it's important to keep that in mind that that's something HUD encourages. So it's the federal money that's driving the Trotos side of things. The city fee waivers are because the city wants to encourage, I think, home ownership and home ownership at a level that developers would not provide. Is that a fair explanation? Yeah, and I'm not arguing the fee waivers at all. That I have no problem with that. It's the additional investment that I was concerned about. I think Lori's got a question. Hi, it's Lori Walker and I'm on the TRG. And Kathy, I hadn't thought of your question and that does bring up a good point. I think that that may be a question that either the TRG or the H, I'm sorry, I don't know the abbreviation of that group and or the council has to direct us because I think that not only Habitat but all the other applications that we're gonna get are gonna have the same issue. Because I think most of the, unless they're coming in for rehab, for an apartment or something, most of these are probably gonna be for, because the developer gave them the land for new developments. So I think for any of the new properties, we're gonna have the same issue. Yeah, and I wish, so I may have misunderstood your question, Kathy, because I focused on the fee waivers. Question was more additional subsidy of the 120. And I don't have the figures in front of me, but I am routinely shocked at what subsidies the city of Boulder has to provide, if you will, to that affiliate. To me, the developer bringing what they are, the fee waivers that have been in place and 15,000 a house to get permanently affordable home ownership at 50 to 60% AMI is a fairly small investment from what I have seen. I can give you an example. I was with the Flatirons Habitat and the eight unit development, that one of the eight unit developments we did while I was there, city of Boulder was subsidizing $320,000 for that particular project. And that was also donated land and the city was also providing fee waivers. So I think that, yeah, the incremental investment we're asking for from this organization, again, driven by our community housing and development organization, begets a lot of additional investment from other places. I would argue, I don't think you can totally compare us to Boulder with the housing costs and the land costs. So fair statements. I wanted to throw it out. I thought it's an interesting question and the more feedback we get from the Housing Advisory Board or the TRG just to start thinking about it. Because as Lori said, we are gonna get a number of these probably. So I think we have to kind of think through that. Kathy, I think that is a really important question. And I guess ultimately the answer, sorry, not the answer, that the question to me is, what does the city of Longmont need to invest in order to ensure that we have low income housing and home ownership in that segment or rather affordable housing? So I'd love to learn more about your viewpoint, Kathy, on that, our staff viewpoint. But I think for the purposes of this presentation, we are, I think David and John answered that question. Karen? Well, yeah, and I think it really, it's about our inclusionary housing program and how that is set up. And so certainly the, I think what Kathy is questioning is that the, in how we would envision that, that certainly that Habitat would be able to build the homes, get the fee waivers, but there wouldn't be an additional subsidy that would be required by the city through the Affordable Housing Fund to help the developer meet its obligation, is really, I think. And that's probably not necessarily for Habitat to answer, but it does raise a question. So sorry. So that's probably not for Habitat per se, unless Kathy has thought about that, but that 120,000, if that's the gap that needs to be filled. Yeah, and if I- How would that come from the Affordable Housing Fund? Maybe I'm out of line, but if you're, the answer to the question is to go back to the development community, I'd pull the application right now. We'll work harder to work with general fundraising, corporations, individuals and so forth, but you can't build houses without land. So I would just be very, very careful that how you solve the issue. And I'm not saying it's not a very fair question, but the last thing I would wanna see to having done this for a long time is for the development community to bear a larger role than if this is not the way you wanna fund projects. I think we need to go back to the community first. So if I may ask Kathy and Karen, I think mostly to Kathy, is this request for this project, I'll not, what's the word, has this kind of request not been made for before from Habitat for Humanity? No, because they have not partnered under Inclusionary Housing before. Okay. So all their other requests were for standalone projects. Okay. Well, we also have not been a choteau. So I think we'd have to understand what the value of having a housing development organization is because we have been led to believe that that opens up different parts of, different money that can support these projects that are not available to us. And in Longmont, there was not, at the time there was three or two choteaus, now there are none. It's my understanding. So again, we may be misinformed, but I wanna make sure it's not just new because it's Inclusionary Housing. It's also new because we are leveraging what we were led to believe was a way to access federal money into Longmont. Absolutely. And it's not a automatic, it's still competitive with throughout the consortium. So I think Caitlin's had it for a while. I think it's late enough in the week and in the day that I'm trying to do a little bit of math in my head. And I think this is kind of, maybe rehashing a little bit of what Cathy has brought up, but I wanna sort of step back. The Inclusionary Housing Program, I just wanna make sure that I'm clear on this, Mr. Chair, is that a developer has to provide a certain percentage of units or pay a fee in lieu. Typically that percentage is 12%. It gets dropped to 9% if we're targeting sort of that 40 to 60 AMI range instead of the 60 to 80. And then in this case, we're at 8.4%. So we're still also below that. So we've sort of lost 3.5% of the units that they would normally have to pay. They're also not having to pay a fee for that 3.5%. And then we're also being asked to provide 120,000 from the Affordable Housing Fund to do this. So to me, it sounds like it feels like we're seeing either like a gap in what our Inclusionary Housing requires that if developers can't meet those requirements because it's just financially unsustainable. I don't know if that's the message we're getting here or there just seems to be a gap here, right? Like if consistently developers can't meet those requirements either to pay the fee or to do a fee combo with the percentage, that seems like it may be something, like are we seeing a lot of requests this way? This is my first year on the board, so I don't know. I don't think that we've seen other requests like this coming through so far this year, but is it something that we're seeing across developers where we're getting additional requests for subsidies or relaxed requirements under the Inclusionary Housing? Hey, Linus, is that a question? That is a question, I mean, I don't, so one is my understanding correct of like sort of what's happening here. I think that's what Kathy is talking about. And two, is this something that suggests that like what we're requiring from Inclusionary Housing is not something that developers are gonna be able to meet? Like are we gonna continue to see requests like this because they can't meet it financially speaking? So I think my answer to that would be, I don't think we're far enough along to know that for sure, whether or not this is gonna be something that happens consistently, everything we've seen so far that's related to Inclusionary Housing that we have seen for funding. So I'm thinking like of Longmont Family Apartments that came in and we funded them, but we got lower income units as a result of our funding for them than what they had originally penciled in. So, and they are the developer of the entire development and providing 100% affordable. So it's a little bit different in that respect. So this is really the first one that we've seen that's come in for assistance that is really helping to the developer meet their Inclusionary Housing requirements. And we are likely to see it again. So I think we do kind of need to think through. Kathy, I think that's fine. Let me ask you, I think you also said at the beginning that they were meeting, the developer is meeting his Inclusionary Housing requirement not just with the habitat units, but also with the veteran's village units, correct? And now those are serving people that will be under potentially non-income people. So I mean, you can't look at- So far they're not coming in for funding. That's true, but somebody's got to be first and I guess that's us. Yeah, and it was really just to ask the question and start thinking about it. I don't think we have to solve it tonight if you have opinions about it or thoughts about it. That's really more what I was trying to get through. I just think it's something that either the TRG needs to have a policy around or a proposal for a policy or we don't care. If we're getting units and we're getting them at very low incomes and it meets our investment per unit kind of thing, that's fine. And that's fine. It's really, I was just throwing the question out there because I think we really do need to think about it a little bit. I wasn't really saying just for this project, it was more broad kind of thing. But I was interested in hearing what your opinion of that was and you did give that. And you did generate conversation. Right, it did. Sorry, I asked it at the very end. Okay, well let's go ahead and close this conversation. And thank you, David and John for your presentation as well as all the work you do. It's Habitat for Humanity is really a critical partner in the affordable housing area. So thank you guys, Brian. Yep, thank you all. Thank you and thank you to our TRG members who are being patient through this process of this combined meeting, particularly in a Zoom format. It's all new to me certainly. But I feel like this has been really helpful for myself and hopefully the rest of the Housing and Human Services Advisory Board so we can feel better informed when we're evaluating your recommendations. So thank you for participating and letting this format happen. Kathy, I'm guessing anybody who is TRG can feel free to go about the rest of their probably much more boring activities than this exciting one, but... Yeah, if they can peel themselves away, they're free to go. Yeah, okay. So I have a quick question for Kathy and that is, do you want us to generate our thoughts, concerns, questions about this percentage and send it to you ahead of time before next Wednesday? If you have time to do that, yeah, send them to Molly. Molly, okay, great. And she'll gather all those together and if there's anything we can feed to Habitat then so to try and get them thinking about the answers that's helpful then for the meeting on Wednesday. Well, I guess what my question is is more about that percentage of the fee waivers and the IZO and all of that. That's fine, yeah. Do you want that? Just anything that you've got, feed them to us and we'll, if we need to follow up, we will. If we don't, we'll discuss it on at our meeting. Great, thank you. All right, thank you. All right, thanks, TRG. And now we will move on to reviewing the draft of the 2021 Human Service Agency Application and Timeline. Karen, is that something you're gonna take the lead on or is that Eliberto? I believe Eliberto Mendoza is going to start us off really, and I think more talking about versus the timeline for the application. Terrific, take it away Eliberto. All right, so I will try and talk into the camera but I can't see you all now. So I'm gonna pull up the timeline. We'll start there and then we do have some questions about the application. So as you know, we've been working on, and I can give a brief, in the timeline, there is a brief update on the Cube Services Needs Assessment. Karen and I have been working very closely with Root Policy on moving that needs assessment forward. We have reached out to many of our funded agencies and a few outside of those that have been funded that are within our priority areas to have focus groups and Root Policy taking the lead on that. In fact, so if you look at the timeline in your packet right now, this is when this is happening, I think, and I don't have this, they already sent us a schedule of focus groups and it's in the spreadsheet and I don't have it in front of me, but I think the first one is June 18th and then it moves on from there. And we were hoping, I'll come back to the application, as you can see at the time that it talks about the potential changes to the applicant, I'll come back to that because Karen and I talked and I think it's more of a conversation that we wanna have with the board. So we hope in July, there will be some other interviews and focus groups, but we hope to, the goal is to receive a draft of the report by the end of July, July 31st and that'll give Karen and I and other staff chance to review the report and also in our July meeting, hopefully we'll get to bring the application that we'll discuss tonight or that may or may not happen in July we'll see, but we will have by August, the plan is that you will have viewed the human service needs report and thus we can begin our work in the August meeting of setting our new priorities or shifting within priorities, whatever we decide to do as a board and start creating that funding matrix like we have in the past where we assign percentages and change, we can talk about changing how we score or grade the applications. The idea really is that we release our application in September or late August and to have it done, give them at least four to six weeks to do it, I think we've done eight and we've done six weeks depending on how simple part of the processes that we're gonna talk about tonight is what does simplification mean? That might also determine what is our timeframe and in that time in September, we finalize what our evaluation process is gonna be. For example, we set what our hearing schedule is gonna look like, what are those new hearings, what will they look like? And then in October, that will more than likely be when we get the applications and we do the hearing schedules, we finish them by November and we try and have our first deliberation at the November board meeting and we can take also the December board meeting if needed and then once we finalize our deliberations we can send notices to the agencies and bring the recommendation to city council in January of 2021 for final approval and then we start contracts in February of 2021. And that is not too off base from what we did this year. I did send out in, as Karen mentioned at our last meeting, usually what takes the most time is really hearing back, it's that scope of services or scope of work negotiation process. That usually takes the longest and I sent it in on December 29th and it really took, for some agencies it was quicker than others but it usually takes a couple of months to get through all the agencies to get those negotiations done. But hopefully if we can send those out in January, then we can still ensure that agencies receive their allocations in a timely manner. So I can't see all of you, now I can. So I'm not sure anybody has any questions on the timelines at this point. Any questions, Graham? So does that, Alberto, does that constitute a two-month delay or extension relative to last year? Am I reading that right? It really, yeah, actually it is. It's very much a two-month pushback which is if you think about it, last year we let out the applications, I think in mid June and or July and they were due at the end of August. We are shortening a little bit. We are shortening the time that we're giving at agencies to fill it out but at the end that's in part because we wanna have the conversation around what does certification mean. So if we have a more, a simpler quote unquote application, do folks need time to fill it out? And I guess probably the comments that you wanna have tonight with the board. You know, and what I would add is that but last year, you know, we took our recommendations to City Council in December, like mid-December and this year we would take those just one month later. So it's between one and two months. So I mean, think what we're shorting, what we'd be shorting up is the, you know, probably the time that the agencies have to apply and complete the application. And then we would also I think be shortening up the time for the advisory board to review the applications but it's really more close to month, month and a half maybe is the difference. Splitting hairs, but anyhow. Thank you, Eleberto and Karen. Any other questions for Eleberto? No, okay. Eleberto, do you need us to take an action on this or is this informational at this point? Well, it's informational but I think part, and I'll let Karen take, you know, I think the conversation we wanted to have tonight is really the question around, you know, what would the board expect to see in a more streamlined or simplified application? Yeah, so I think, so I think, you know, Brian, if the timeline was good, if there's questions about the timeline or we think that, you know, that's really, it's not gonna work for some reason and it would be great to hear additional input about that or whether you think this is, you know, it seems like this is a feasible timeline for us to embrace that would be good to know. And then, so the other direction that the advisory board gave us at the last meeting was and we want to simplify the process. So like, okay, so we started to look at the application over the years, we really have tried to, in our minds, just, you know, just to reduce the questions, to throw out things that really weren't, didn't add a lot of value as related to, you know, making decisions about funding. So we thought before we start whacking at the application that we would just try to get a better idea of what does simplify the process mean to you? Does that mean, you know, is there information that we ask for that you think just isn't valuable and those are some things that we would need to look at? And we can certainly bring this back in July for more specific discussion once we get some direction from you, because I realize that our new members probably, you know, don't know what that application looks like, except for if you applied for that funding. But so is it, the application itself is it the amount of time that it takes to review the individual applications? Is it the fact that we are asking advisory board members to review every application? And so that is 35 or 40 applications and that takes a long time. So we thought it would be helpful to understand a little better. What does a simplify and streamline mean? Okay, thank you for that clarification, Karen. So from the general lack of questions on the timeline and what I'm seeing on my screen, I would have to believe that the timeline is acceptable to everybody here. I also think that I think it's reasonable, we can manage it and it's probably a good time to make, you know, a change in that regard. So let's say that the timeline looks good. So let's open the question for feedback on the application process, specifically the application and to Karen's question, what do we mean when we say we would like a more simplified process? I've got my own thoughts, but I'd like to start with any other board members first. Deanna, yep. I was just gonna say, this is a difficult question for me to answer as was alluded to previously because maybe I should know, but I don't know what these applications look like and I'm not sure what information on the applications are, what information is particularly helpful or relevant, right? I feel like that's knowledge that we'll gain, maybe next year I'll have that knowledge, but this year I don't yet have it. So I feel a little bit, I don't know, unable to comment so much on that. I suppose I could ask if we could, probably the applications are in the packet we got at the beginning of the training. I mean, I could review them and make an effort at trying to figure out what may not be helpful, but I do feel like this is a question that new board members, we may just have to defer to you guys who've done this for longer, so. Sure, yeah, and that's I think very fair. Tate Lynn, did you have a comment? I did, so one of the things I was thinking about is that I know that Eliberto has been doing desk audits of many of the organizations that we already have relationships with and it seems like, and we've gotten more information provided from these organizations in order to do those audits to the extent that the application replicates that information, I think that one way we could streamline is to ask them to give us updated information since their last desk audit, or since the last time they provided us information, rather than us necessarily having to get all of that same information and them having to compile all of the same information again. I don't know if that puts too much burden on the staff side of things. I know one of the things we talked about at the last meeting was trying to look at the fact that many of these organizations are feeling the squeeze from COVID-19 and what are ways that we can help sort of streamline it knowing that they may be having reduced staff, they may have increased requests for support and they're trying to focus on that direct support to our community. So to me, that's one way we can do that is to see, are we asking for duplicative information that we already have and how can we change the questions to not make them recompile information that they have given us, say, in the last 12 to 18 months, for example, just give us the updates, give us the latest information so that we can keep sort of that file. New organizations that may apply, I don't know how many that tends to be. Obviously we would want to get more information from them. So that's one thought I have around simplifying the streamlining. So I would say that the good news is that the desk out of information is that is information we ask for that we do not ask for in the application. So it gets more in depth, it's bylaws, it's operational procedures. We do not ask any for any of that kind of data in the application itself. So for what that's worth. So that's super helpful to know. Great, thank you. Anybody else? Yes, Graham? So I think, I second all of that. I think that simplifying the process as a two full benefit one is to the organizations to make it easier and let us burden some of them so that they can actually compete with reduced staff and time and all the rest, but that if we need to shrink the timeline that it's quicker and easier for this board to process that information. Because I think at the last meeting it was proposed that maybe we don't even do applications and we sort of just did a last year scores and that didn't seem stomachable to me at least. So if staff thinks that this timeline is realistic and keeping the questions as is, that would be an interesting thing to know, but I guess I assume that an abbreviated timeline would require some level of slashing the quantity and complexity of questions. And certainly on my side, I felt like reading and learning how to review those applications, not only reading and scoring, but writing them is a special skill in my estimation. It's not something you can meet at a coffee shop and Q and A override, but that's definitely not the structure in the form of these questions and definitely not the way that we as a boarder ask to assess them. So if we can make the questions and gather the information that is valuable, no doubt, but in a way that is just like real simple and the assessment questions that we have that used to score directly, clearly parallel the questions we're asking that staff, because I remember reading the assessment questions to give a score on how well that organization used information to better improve the process or how they're gathering that information. Well, the question I'm being asked is not the same question they're being asked. And so I have to really sort of dig in there and extrapolate. And so that's the sort of complexity I feel is unnecessary or undesirable in an abbreviated timeline. So that's what I mean. I think that's super helpful, Graham. So it sounds like that we just need to make the evaluation, we need to sync it up better. So it's much easier when you're evaluating the application. It is very easy to track. So that's what I'm hearing would be helpful and at least simplifying it on the reviewer end and so that you don't have to go fishing for how to evaluate that particular question or section, that correct? That sounds correct. And Jake, you have a comment on this. Yeah, I appreciate, thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate what Graham had to say because it really was my thought as well. And I think there are only three of us in the meeting tonight who've gone through this process before and Graham and I were new last year. So it's new to us too. But I agree completely. I found myself last year really going back to the same three or four questions over and over again. Like, okay, this is the question I'm having to answer. Here's the question that most directly correlates. So maybe I'm using all of it as important background and it's good context to have. So I wonder if there's a way that we can streamline that element of it. So we get some of that information maybe through, I know we've tossed out histories last year but maybe through looking at, you know, where would have just kind of a top line summary of what the agency does, what's happened in the past, where the problems have been. And then for the rest of the application really focused on here's what we're asked to score. Here's the question that correlates most directly with that so that I'm left and new folks and all of the whole board is left basically being able to streamline their review process as much as possible, you know. And also, and I think we talked about this a little bit last year is, and I know we'll do this later but also just a focus on not just the, in the logic model too, not just on kind of the outcome questions but also on community value questions and those kinds of conversations as well. But generally, yeah, I agree completely. I think here's the, you know, that's probably the way to streamline it is. Here's the question, here's the score. So I just wanna, what I'm hearing is that the streamlining piece, so correct me if I'm wrong but this is the way that I'm understanding what Jake and Graham have said is the streamlining piece really happens on the evaluation side, not that it can't happen on the application side but it's really how do we ensure that whatever we evaluate, whatever that we are evaluating what we're asking for in the application and thus that will make it a more streamlined process. Is that what I'm hearing? Yeah, can I, thanks Mr. Chair and thanks Alberto. Yeah, I think that's exactly it. And ideally it serves both sides like Graham said, ideally if we're simplifying, if we're really honed in on the questions that we need in order to score them properly, whatever staff or this board decides those are, if those are the questions that we're asking it should be a shorter, simpler application for us on the other side. So it should benefit both, I would think. Thank you. So my own little bit of feedback, so I tend to be in life more of a storyteller than an analyst and I find the application and the evaluation to be relatively technical. So often what I feel I'm missing is like the story behind here's who we are, here's what we do, here's how we do it and here's who benefits. So an example of that is I often don't really understand how to use the demographic data to help inform my decisions. And I'm guessing that there are other things that the demographic data is helpful for which may be related to like federal funding guidelines or even just city funding guidelines, things like that. But in terms of evaluating the value of an application, they have at times provoked a question, but not often. And of course a lot of the agencies don't even track it. So there's that as well. So I don't, what I basically just, my comment kind of puts what I would consider one of the more difficult burdens on staff which is to say, how do we have an application that provides the context for us to follow that chain of value? And so we can pretty easily understand that chain of value relative to another chain because I feel like the evaluations, they're really they have to be relative but they're kind of valuated in an absolute way. And so often by the time I get through 60 applications I think, I might have done that first one differently because now that I think we have this much money to spend in this area and there's 10 agencies and this one really just nailed it but that first one sounded like it nailed it until I read the last one and then I realized the first one didn't nail it at all. So yeah, I'm just gonna put that out there. I don't know what the solution is to that but I would suggest if there's a way to have it be less technical and more information, less data and more information because the staff really doesn't have much to do anyway so let's just make it really challenging and think about how would Hemingway write an application? And I don't think you've had to evaluate 60 applications. You're gonna scare the new members. It feels like 600, come on. You're gonna scare them, they're gonna run away. No, you're right. But it does, I understand. It does feel like more than what we're actually more than they ever were. It's just a lot of data, a lot of data, yeah. Council Member Christensen, do you have any feedback on this? You've been participating in the board for quite some time. Well, it seems we change everything every year so that makes it a little difficult but my participation though is different because I don't have a vote and I don't really get to evaluate the stuff like you do so I don't really have a lot of feedback because I look at it once, I participate in the interviews with people but I don't, because I don't have a voice, I mean, I don't have a vote. My opinion on this doesn't really matter that much. I don't think, because I'm not doing the work that you guys are doing. Yeah, okay, just wanna make sure you have the opportunity to weigh in. Yeah, thank you, I appreciate it. Yeah. Any other comments or guidance for staff on this? Karen, do you feel like you got enough to kind of start chewing on it or? I think we do, Eliberto, what about you? And because then, you know, what we can do is do some work on this and bring back for discussion because obviously it's gonna be a little while before we are ready to release the application but it certainly will be here before you know it but I think this gives us some direction. I think the thing that we wanna also try to be mindful of on our end is that we really are gonna be the only entity out of the three that will be releasing an application. So again, we just wanna be mindful of how much we're gonna be asking the city of Boulder staff to do and actually revising the application itself. But so we'll just, we'll take some stabs at it and bring back for, you know, for your further input for sure. Okay, I think this was really helpful to me. And I think it was in my mind, it was certainly time to re-look at that evaluation as to Polly's point, the application has changed. And last year, we did change the evaluation a little bit. Maybe it's time to take another deeper look at it and see how do we better align it with what we're asking. Change it a lot, which I think is fine. All right, let's go Jake and then Graham. Thanks, Mr. Chair. I just wanna add briefly kind of to what you were saying that there is a very technical element to our review process. I forget if it's right brain or left brain that's more analytical, but I'm certainly not that, whatever it is. So I kind of agree that as staff approaches this, thinking about since we are changing the application again, just how we as a board can provide the best input for you might be more along the lines of some of those kind of different questions. As you look at the outcomes and on all the things that staff reviews through this process, I think the best value that we can add is in, what is this bringing to the community? Are they meeting their goals? Are they measuring things? Sure, but those value questions, I'd really like to see staff think about if possible. Thank you. Okay, Graham? I think I would just, the shortest way I think about it is I think we need to make sure these organizations are good at serving our communities, not good at applying for money. And to the extent we can make the application, just not be about can they get a grant writer and are they good at proving how good they are and that kind of stuff, but the story, so to speak, right? Are they good at what they do? And even if they can't communicate that to us, we need to be able to see through that, to see that they deserve to get money. So that's kind of my view. Yeah, that's a great point. And I'll just real quickly comment on that. In the years ago, somebody who taught me how to interview, which by the way, I'm still a horrible interviewer, but the advice was sound, which was, ask the question, are you a good organizer, for instance? And the answer typically is going to be yes. And then the next question is, give me some examples of how you're a good organizer. And I think there's something similar here that we're looking for specific benefits. We're looking for those groups that are effective, that are engaged. And then these kinds of follow on questions like, how would you explain your engagement to somebody? There's like some little nuance in there. So just kind of picking away at my brain, I'll think about it. But yeah, it sounds like there's enough guidance for staff to run with at this point. That's great. This is helpful. This is helpful. All right, good. And so we do have some, we have 16 minutes left, not 15, we have 16 site visit updates. Do we wanna go ahead and do some quick site visit updates for Longmont Meals on Wheels, Center for People with Disabilities and Boulder County Legal Services? I only ask that we reserve at least five minutes. I wanted to have some closing thoughts. So Madeline is not here for, I mean, I can do my part along Meals on Wheels. Madeline is the one that visited. Deanna is the one who did CWD and I did, on my own, I did Boulder County Legal Services. So those are the folks that did the site visits. I'm happy to do my pieces, yeah. So maybe for time, you know, Brian, maybe we carry four Meals on Wheels next month and hopefully Madeline is here and then do the other two. Do we have, okay, yes, let's go ahead and do the other two. That's great. So let's start with Center for People with Disabilities. Eliberto, do you, I can't, it's been so long since we've done one of these and frankly, it's been so long since I went and visited. I'm not sure, do I give my feel on it first or Eliberto, do you go first or? Either way is fine. Okay, I mean, I'll just do it and then you can augment whatever I missed. So basically I did this in February. So I barely remember it at this point in time. But, so basically Center for People with Disabilities, their mission is to provide resources and advocacy to help people, to assist people with disabilities to overcome barriers, to achieve independent living essentially, right? So it's hard to quantify their services in terms of number of people that they assist because the range of services that they provide is very diverse. So for example, they might answer a phone call that takes an hour or two to help somebody understand how to apply for social security disability, but they also do things like help people who are in nursing homes or assisted living gain sufficient resources and supportive services to transition into independent living. And so, if you're just counting numbers of services, each of those things is one person, right? But the amount of resources and services necessary to transition somebody out of a nursing home or an assisted living facility into their own independent living facility is obviously much more significant than that, than what it takes to answer a phone call about social security disability. So they did assist, I think about 2,000 people last year with that huge range of services that they provide. They have four locations, including obviously one in Longmont, over half of their board and their staff are people with disabilities. They also have, they do a lot of peer support programs and activities. They have a veterans program that they work with too. They have great materials too, I'm really, like I had to refresh my recollection, I'm looking at their annual report, which they gave me, which is great. And a nice handout with lots of different materials in them too with folders. They seem, you know, my take on it, obviously this was my first site visit, but my take on it was that they seem very well organized, they seem efficient and that they're providing obviously probably as is the case with most of the organizations we're visiting a very needed resource. Thank you, Dina, appreciate it. And as I look at their desk, I only had a couple of questions and they really responded well. One was, you know, agency that size, they have a pretty small board, but like many other agencies, diversity is an issue. However, they do, like they mandate that 51% of the board must have a disability. And to me that's an interesting point that they wanna make sure that, you know, part of their diversity is the people that they serve get represented on their board. And I think that's also important. Part of the challenge is that they don't really have term limits on the board. And so people can be on there for a long time. And they mentioned that at the site visit, you know, I had to leave that site visit early, but they are really working on continuing to diversify the board as much as possible. They just have some extra challenges because you also have to meet that disability criteria. The other question I had was around a strategic plan. It's also a big agency. And when they did the desk, they hadn't turned in their most updated strategic plan, but then they did. I think it's a strong strategic plan overall. And so, you know, as far as the desktop is concerned, I think that they are a pretty well-organized agency and have the things that they follow some of the best practices that are out there as far as nonprofits are concerned. Great. Thank you, Eleberto. And Eleberto, I think you're up on Boulder County Legal Services, so Eve Ho. What I'll say about them is, and it's not surprising, right? This is a legal organization. It was a, and I don't know how to say it, it was an interesting read of their bylaws. It was one of the most complicated bylaws I've ever read. And since attorneys wrote it, I can assume that that's part of why it was so complicated. But it was a really good set of bylaws. It was just a lot. But for the site visit, I mean, what they basically do is they provide legal services to low-and-bottom income folks. They do a lot of housing stuff, a lot of pre-decre work. One of their big challenges is staff turnover. And that's a challenge that they face too. They have offices throughout the state. Of course, their office is in Louisville, which we did talk about that being a challenge for Longmont folks to get down to Louisville. But they did, and of course, this was before COVID, they were trying to improve their tele-consultation, and now everything is tele-consultation anyway. So I'm assuming by now they've gotten really good at it. But in the commission we had, they do serve people well and they continue to work on how to better engage Longmont. Many other, I think the majority of their clients are from Longmont, and they're just trying to figure out ways to better serve them, but they continue, you know, because there is staff turnover and that is an issue that does hinder them at times. But I think overall they're doing a good job. Great. Thank you. Any questions for Ella Berto on that? No. Okay, thank you both for that. Okay, so before we leave, first let me check the agenda. Other business, is there other business outside of the business I have? Anybody else have other business? Yes, Graham. I wanted to kind of raise a question or an issue to see this port's interest and, you know, furthering a conversation about it. And so last year we made budget recommendations to council that were, I think, rejected, right? For an increase in funding that would bring us back to pre-recession, pre-human services funding, moving to housing funding, is that right? Those were not rejected. Well, they weren't. No. So they, we had a couple, if I remember correctly, we presented a few different options and council did select the option of increasing the percentage of general fund that they would contribute to this activity over three years, I think it took three years. Yeah, so I think what they selected, Graham, was to incrementally over a three-year period to increase up to 3% and that would be in 2022 that would, you know, then really shore up the money available for human service grants and have, you know, money to address housing issues. So unless you were thinking of something else, they did move that forward and we did see that in this year, that increase. So it went from 2.07, 2.05 to 2.37%. Okay, I guess I maybe would like to float the idea or entertaining idea of requesting that council dramatically increase that percentage and to get those funds from the police department funds. And I'm wondering if this board would be interested in talking about that or thinking about it or putting together a proposal to council to consider that. Yeah, thank you for raising that, Graham. So it ties into the other business that I have which is to recognize what's been happening across the nation. And so just from, for me, from my perspective, you know, there was a veneer kind of stripped in just the naked hostility and violence that we saw and that helped me much better understand the kinds of issues that we're having in this country and the extent of suffering that certain populations, you know, the black population, Latino, ethnic minorities in general are having with that and as well as low income for that matter. But so the, I think there's a lot of momentum right now and it's needed. And it's important that we don't go back to business as usual in two weeks or three weeks or two months because the riots are behind not riots. The police violence and the fresh memory of that is behind us. What I'm not clear on and I think this board has a particular role to play, Graham, to your point because we are about providing human services and that ties with many of our agencies directly into these kinds of issues. And I'm sorry that Madeleine's not here because I do wanna recognize that she has been kind of a lone wolf trying very hard to get diversification on boards of different agencies that we work with. And there's probably a number of efforts that we can and should take. I really don't know what those are. So I think to your question, Graham, and some of the thoughts of how do we as an agency participate in solutions related to the issues that are laid bare in front of us? Is there a process we can undertake to not study the issue? It's not about passing it, kicking it down the road, but how do we start thinking about how this affects our work and whether it's from funding, whether it is an element of working with our agencies on what they do and the kinds of ways that they do what they do. I don't have any answers. And I think that this is not the time for someone like Meadal Lead. I think that there's an opportunity here to support and facilitate the discussion with the people who've been directly affected by this. So I wanted to put it out there. I wanna put the question out there about how do we as a board engage with this specific issue of racism? And what can we do and what's appropriate for us to do? And like I said, I have no answers to any of those, but I have a real desire that we should act on them. Any comments? So Jake, are you raising your hand or is that? So Jake, Caitlin, and then Polly. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll speak to Graham's question first because I will confess that as proudly progressive as I am, I had not thought about that question and the question of how this board can lead on this issue. But it's a good one. And it's one that I do think we need to consider. And when we think about our role in the community as a board, our role is to support the agencies that are on the ground. In many cases, supporting people of color, supporting organizations that do the work that is needed to support those communities. And ultimately, it's our job to advise council or we're an advisory board. I think us leading on this issue makes sense to me. I'm with the chair and that I don't necessarily know exactly what that looks like, your idea is an interesting one that I'm certainly willing to entertain. And I don't know what that looks like. I don't know if it's a letter, if it's a this or that. And I also understand that from the city's perspective, that would be not, you know, I don't know how city manager staff or anyone would view it. But I also don't think that's necessarily the worst thing is to challenge folks a little bit and to challenge council and others to think about how nonprofits, how social services, how those communities and those agencies play a different role in a world where maybe we are a little less focused on the work that our police do. And let me say that Longmont does a, just since we're recording on record, Longmont's police department is not the Minneapolis police department. We do things that work. That agency is recognized widely as one that, you know, has use of force continuums, does a lot of the right things, but it's a good question. And if we were gonna ask for more dollars, if we're gonna be in this kind of world where we recognize the situations we're facing, I absolutely think this board is well within the right to say, look, we have a way of an obligation to support these communities. And the only way that we can be sure to do that is with additional funding. And if you're gonna cut it from somewhere, yeah, and I'm with you. So I'm willing to have that conversation certainly and I appreciate you raising it. Yeah. I'll leave it at that. Thank you, Jake. Caitlin? Yeah. I wanted to start by saying thanks for bringing this up and not leaving it as something that is, that we're quiet about is a parent and of children of color in this community. And I am not a person of color. I'm not black, but my family is. It's important to hear people acknowledge the pain that is facing so many people in our communities and across the nation. I do think that one of the things that comes to mind for me is the, we aren't necessarily the folks deciding exactly where all of the city funds are going. We aren't responding directly to demands from activists around defunding the police, but we are in a position to provide the scaffolding and to provide supports for the types, the type of world that I think many of us wanna see where there's a reduction in police violence. There is support for the most vulnerable in our communities. And that's along multiple axes, gender, race, income. And I think that the community services that we support through the funding are really vital to that, to providing many of the sort of things that I think we have a vision of. If folks are envisioning a world with a reduction in police forces and making sure that police aren't serving as social workers, that they aren't serving as mental health professionals, that they aren't serving in these things where they're not effective, the agencies that we support are the ones that are doing that on the groundwork and listening to the community members that are most affected by that. And the more that we can support those organizations and the people that are doing that, I think the better. And I really think that thinking about how our organizations are serving different populations in our community is really a huge piece of that. Are they doing, what are ways we can look at, are they doing it equitably? What are their boards look like? We've already talked about this and how can we use our recommendations and our application processes and all of those things to really further encourage building those support systems in our community that are really vital and necessary. So thank you for not leaving something unsaid about that because I think it's really important. Thank you, Caitlin. Let's go Polly. And then I think Jake wanted to add another comment. Polly. So last week, Chief Butler came to speak. And I would suggest that you listen to the last, oh, it was not exciting, listen to the last city council meeting. And this is a very strange time because he was going to be gone at the end of May. And now he's agreed to stay till the first of July, but we are going to be hiring a new chief of public safety. The problems that this country has with racial and gender and religious discrimination are from the beginning of this country, 1619. And they're not gonna go away, but this is an incredible opportunity for people, particularly white people, to educate themselves because we learn nothing, nothing in school about the reality of the history of black people in this country. We learn nothing about Native American people in this country. We learn almost nothing about Latino culture. We learn nothing about religious discrimination. My relatives came here because they got tired of being hung for being the wrong denomination. So, but all that being said, we need to be clear about what is the question we're dealing with that we wanna deal with immediately? Do we wanna deal with police, violence and bad police departments? Or do we want to try to take on racism as a whole? Because that's it. That means we need to change everything in this country. But Longmont is not gonna be able to do that, but we can concentrate on being sure that the police are accountable, that they have a protocol. And I'm gonna ask Chief Butler to tell us what the policy is that the city has for use of force and for numerous other things. He talked about it some of that last week. What our police department does because, so here's to me what's happened. Since 1971, Richard Nixon got us out of actually the United States government building housing and turn it over to developers building it. This is the early part of public-private partnerships. And we can see how well this has gone. Now we have one of those developers running the country. Then under Ronald Reagan, he cut the education budget enormously. He cut the housing budget by 75%. He eliminated the funding of mental health centers, which were supposed to be reduced in size and become neighborhoods, but he just eliminated them, period. So ever since then, we've had an enormous amount of homelessness and people who are mentally ill who are out on the streets. The police are the first people who usually run into them. And nobody, you can talk about giving the money to those mental health organizations, but as soon as there's any kind of difficulty, it'll get taken away. It will. So the police, because they're the first in line, our police have somebody when they know that something involves a mental health issue, they have a ride-along person who is a specialist in mental health because police have some training in that or are police too, but they don't have the expertise that's needed. And if you have to make a quick decision with somebody who's having a mental health issue and that can be really dangerous for everybody. So they have a ride-along mental health person. They deal with the recovery cafe. They started the angel initiative to help people get off of drugs. They have numerous agreements with all kinds of organizations from referring people and sometimes taking people to the hour center, to hope, to agape, to various resources. So our police are not exactly the problem, but I would like to hear from actual members of this community who don't have my experience. That's what I would love to have an open forum. We've done that with guns, with homelessness, but this is not gonna happen right now. And a Zoom meeting for the entire 95,000 of us isn't gonna work very well either. So I'd like some ideas on what to do because we need to hear from people who don't have my experience of being an old white lady, but have different experience. You know, when Chief Butler came to town, the changes that have happened in our police department are not, they didn't just happen. They happened because he made them happen. That's why I'm worried that he's leaving. In the early 80s, two guys, two Latino men were shot on Main Street by the police. That's the kind of town we had. We don't have that kind of town anymore. It's better, but it's intentional. It's hard, hard work, hiring the right people, not hiring the wrong people, training them. And I hope we can get somebody who's also very good. The chief of police right now is also, I think, quite good. But as I say, my experience is none. And I've had bad experience with the Oakland police, with the Denver police. They're just, well, when I was there, they were just racist scum. So my experience has not always been very good with police. Anyway. Thank you, Council Member Christensen. Jake, did you still wanna make a comment? Just quickly. I think we're in a budget crisis and I recognize that the city is. And what I just would like to say for the record is in this form of conversation, I would have a hard time just as a citizen of the community if I saw that as a part of Council's budget process, human services, especially if that increase would not happen for human services funding or human services funding generally would be cut and the LPD budget wasn't cut. I think that would be a problem. I think that would be a problem. And I think fundamentally what we're talking about is a values proposition for the community of what kind of a community we wanna be. Do we wanna be a community that's on some profits? Do we wanna be a community that does that work? What do you wanna be a community that doesn't respond at this moment? So I appreciate that. One thing for this board specifically just as I'm listening, and I've mentioned this before but I think I'm gonna say it very explicitly and I think this is more or less direction as we talk about the application process for human services funding. I think diversity and a specific diversity question needs to be a part of the application process. And it needs to be very clear and explicit and it needs to be something that we as community representatives score. Which is something that I struggled with last year in the application process. I quite frankly would factor it into my thinking in a couple of places, but there was never a point where I could say this is how the organization not just in terms of their internal structure and their board of directors, but in terms of how are they supporting people of color? How are they supporting at risk communities? Those kinds of things. That's something that I think this board needs to very clearly address and speak to. And then finally, and this is to Graham's point that I will be quiet. We need to be clear. I think something about what Graham is talking about would be largely as far as I know, I've never heard of a board doing anything like that. Unprecedented in the history of boards but I'd like us to look at it. I'd like us to look at it at one time when we haven't been doing it for nine, for two hours and had other things. And so I don't know if we need a formal motion or staff can just do it. I'd like us to bring up a discussion about some kind of formal action on this topic at our next meeting. And I don't know if I need a motion or not or staff can just say, hey, we'll just add an agenda item to the next meeting regarding some kind of a formal action, whether it's a letter speaking to Graham's point, we can discuss it and have anybody in the city attorney's office or city manager, whomever to flag this for. I think having this discussion is something I'd like to do at the next meeting. So then I'll be quiet, thanks. I think what would be helpful if I can, Brian, is that, so I think we'll put something on the agenda but maybe the question for clarification is, what is that? So is it, so Graham had a specific suggestion which was shifting funds or is it the broader question about how, what kind of action does this particular board want to take that there could be a variety of things? So is it more specific to Graham's suggestion about a funding shift or is it more general about what are all the different specific actions that this advisory board might wanna take to make a difference? Jake? Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to take some time out to do both if possible but to specifically focus on Graham's piece and have a conversation about that as a board when we're not necessarily feeling, you know, from time or what have you. So I think it's that specific question of, is that of, I think it's the broad framework of what can this board do? And then, you know, subheading A, is this a solution that makes sense and we wanna do this? And if so, what does that look like and how do we make that request of council? And, you know, and that gives you a staff time to, you know, flag it for anybody who needs to be flagged. Hey, the board's talking about this as well. So cool that that, so it's the specific action in the broader framework, I think. Got it. Okay, so I would just add, you know, the idea of values is really important. And I think that I don't know that, for instance, this board has a set of values that we have put out there in our work. Why are we doing the work? The idea of outcome is really important. So what outcomes are we wanting to achieve? And I think that's too, council member Christianson's point as well. And then what are our tools? What do we have, what authority, what leverage, what can we do in order to achieve those outcomes and meet those values, right? So for me, I would be, I think, not ready, certainly, to take action on Graham on your proposal until I understood a little more of that larger framework. But I do also offer that you as a board member, it's within your right to make a motion. And if there's a second, then there's discussion and a vote, right? So, and there are times that that happens, even if it's an optics component and not necessarily a, not because that exact thing is gonna happen. So think about that. I just wanted to offer that to you that as a member of the board, you have the authority to actually drive this question to action. So that mechanism is there. And the only other thing I would add is, I'm wondering, Karen, would it be okay if board members sent you or Alberto any thoughts on this prior to our meeting? So as this topic is front and center with us, that there can just be kind of documentation of those thoughts so we can consider them at the meeting. So you bet. And I think, what would be helpful too is is that as staff and Nicole, if you're listening, so it seems like it would make sense that we, we certainly capture the notes from this meeting and have the draft set of minutes available that we can send those out to you also. So that can also prompt your further thoughts and discussion so that we don't lose that, we can certainly turn that around more quickly. Okay, thank you. Jake? I was just gonna ask Chiquita, cause I wanted to hear from, Chiquita's the only person to call her on the call. I'd like to hear from her, Chiquita. Well, I raised my hand twice and I know everybody was sorry. It's okay. Yes, Mr. Chair, I know you was intentionally not seeing me. No, I'm just playing. I just wanna say truly, I appreciate everything that Graham has said tonight regarding the application process, bringing up about the police, everything, the funding and everything, I really appreciate that. And also, Mr. Chair, everything that, we have this kindred spirit, so I knew you was gonna bring it something up today. And I just wanna say I appreciate that. And also, Polly, when you said that racism is, it has to, it can't be eliminated by just one piece of a community. We all have to work towards it. And so everything else you guys already mentioned that I wanted to actually ask is like, what can we do? What kind of power does board has, right? And so I never even thought about having power to change it. And hey, it's 2020, a lot of things, we are doing a lot of things we never thought that we will be doing walking around with masks on our face every day, who would have thought that, right? So there's things that at least we can try and attempt. So I appreciate having that on the agenda. And the things that we decide on, I just want all of us to think about this, whatever we decide on will help us to get more people of color on the board, on these different boards all across Boulder County. So, you know, that's why I brought that up last meeting. They may kind of been out of context, but there's a problem why we can't retain people of color here, there is a problem. And so why is there a problem? And a lot of it is because of the racism issues, being stereotype prejudice and all the biases, microaggressions and all of that. And I think once this community work towards that and understanding what that looks like and what that means, then we can move forward as a unit of a community. And then people would love to be on different boards and know that they can sit down and their voices are heard. And people will accept their different perspectives, right? And we don't have that. It's unfortunate that it's not across the board of Boulder County. I mean, I'm grateful I'm on this board and I'm grateful for all of you. And so I just want to say, I just really wanted to say thank you, Graham. Tonight you just really touched me. And then Mr. Chair, thank you. I already knew you were gonna take the lead because we have that kindred spirit. And so I just appreciate you all. And I hope that we get to make a difference in 2020. And I hope that Longmont will take the lead and make a difference to where people want to be on boards, where people want to make a difference because you don't want to sit there and say the same thing. Well, my voice, they're not gonna listen to me. And it happens. I'm telling you, I'm a witness, it happens. So I just wanted to say thank you. Yeah, thank you, Shakita. I appreciate your comments. And so let's close it, I think, there for tonight. It's a lot to chew on, but I'm really encouraged that there is so much engagement on the board in wanting to act, wanting to be a vehicle for change. And I agree with Pauly, this is the time to do it. You know, I mean, it's always been the time to do it, but this is a time there's a lot of wind in the sails to make it happen. So... You can ban it. Yeah, yeah. Okay, if there is no other business, then I will thank you all for your participation and we will adjourn the meeting. Good night, everybody. Good night. Thank you. Thanks everybody, we'll see you next time. Thanks, Graham.