 So I'd like to call to order the long run housing authority board. There's regular meeting this Tuesday, June 13th, 2023 at 7.25. We have roll call, please. I'll start with me, John Beck, Chair, Susie Lawman, Ferry, Commissioner, Marcia Martin, Commissioner. Everybody is Commissioner, Kim Lawrence, Commissioner. Paralymine is Paralymine, Executive Director. Interdainment is County Supervisor. I'll be O'Donnell, Housing Director. Paralymine is Regional Assistant. Sir, are you Bill of Safety? G. Cagallan, our Regional Manager. John McCoy, Commissioner. Tim Paul, Assistant City Attorney. OK, it looks like we're all here. We need to review and approve the May 16th minutes. Can I have a motion? I move we approve the minutes as per Senate. So that's been approved by the approval of the May 16th minutes. That's been moved by Commissioner McCoy, said we'd like Commissioner to double ferry. We are now at Public Invited Beekers. Oh, we have to go again. Oh, let's vote. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All those opposed. So that passes you the others. We're now at Public Invited Beekers. Is there anybody from the public that would like to speak? Where's Dryger? He wanted to speak. He's not going to speak today. Yeah, I think he would. Do you want to speak? Ask a question. Yeah, well, stand up. And your name? My name is Stan Tholl. And I'm having problems of being putting into a second class citizenship because of the type of address I have in some places of denying services. And I don't really know who, if it's they're saying the city is putting pressure on them to do this. And then some people in the city says no, that's just a private group doing that. And it doesn't quite make sense to me. So at the point right now, I'm just trying to figure out where exactly this is coming from and whose pressuring group. So anyway, that's where I'm at right there. OK, thank you, Stan. We're now at Old and New Business, appointment of the deputy secretary. Yeah, so I'll speak to that. So when we actually got into the closing element on Janine, based on some of the financing models, there was a point where they needed somebody to attest to my signature that it was actually that had an office with the housing authority. And so the way that it's structured is that, fortunately, the chair came in that day. And it was like, well, I know that the chair is going to be in, but it's just sitting to remind for the chair. But as we were moving to closing, had you not been coming in that day, it created an issue. So our proposal is to create a deputy secretary of the housing authority, which is Erica. And then in the sense of her citing these documents or somebody has to attest that it's me signing it, we can do it. We try to say, well, why don't we just get a notary? It's not a notary that you need in there. It's actually an officer of the organization. And so that's why we're putting this on is to have Erica in that position so that she can attest to my signature and leave for the life of office. You don't know why that's in play, but it was in play in that deal. What is that? That's not in here, isn't it? Do we need a motion to do that question? Do you have a question? We do. Who's the secretary? You're the secretary. You are? Yeah, I'm the secretary. Yeah, that's the way that it's always been created is that the executive director or my position is the secretary. And so instead of mangling everything to try to redo it, we thought that the easiest solution right now is to say, we can create a deputy secretary. Disagree, but around this for six years and didn't know you were the secretary. I'm going to take a point, Erica, when I asked the deputy secretary, I don't know why I said that. I have a question. Yes? Erica, are you fine with that? I already notarized his signature, so I'm fine. Good question. So that motion to nominate, no, to move that Erica would be the deputy secretary is to move by commissioner Rodriguez and seconded by commissioner Martin. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed, that passes to you. So congratulations. Good job. So we have our resolution 2023-20, the ratification of the formation of Walgreens Housing Authority Ventures, LLC. So you want to speak with her? So Molly O'Donnell, helping director, I'll go ahead and open up this item. If you recall, back on the May 23rd city council meeting where you adjourned and opened up as the LAJ board to make this special item go through, we created LAJ Ventures LLC as a limited liability company for the partnerships in which we, from this point on and going forward, would be a special limited partner only, not necessarily in the co-development role or the ownership structure other than this special limited partner. The special limited partner role is really because we're a housing authority, affordable housing developers want us to come in that ownership structure so that they can qualify for tax exemption and some benefits. And make sure the housing authority also has a network that is really the center of a web of affordable housing. So we ended up creating that late in the game on Zinnia at the advice of our special council, which Tim also was involved in and everyone agreed that this was a smart idea. On Christmas 2, back a year ago, we entered as an SLP as the LAJ. And legal advice is telling us that if we create an LLC that is designated for that SLP relationship and use that on Zinnia and then future SLP-only relationship going forward, it would just reduce the LAJ's liability when they're entering into those partnerships. Tim, do you have a supplemental information for that? A couple things to add. One thing is different. Our Christmas and Zinnia and Christmas, we were more general partners in that deal. Whereas Zinnia, we were in that deal mostly for a special limited partnership. And so the negotiations centered around at that point guarantees from somebody who is going to have actual assets protect us in the case that some liability got to the LAJ. And the partnership wasn't willing to put in somebody who actually had pockets to guarantee us. So adding an entity allowed us to give up the sub-buffer space between any potential liability. Another thing to add is the Housing Authority law explicitly allows the Housing Authority in one of the enumerated authorizations of the Housing Authority, you're allowed to create entities that are controlled and operated by the Housing Authority to act, invest as a partner in the partnerships and take any steps necessary to be and otherwise develop a project. So the idea in the Housing Authority law explicitly, they set up the law so that we could do this. And then in the tax extension, they explicitly allowed that exact solution to flow through an entity that was wholly owned by the Housing Authority. And so the sole purpose will be to hold those special limited partnerships. So we're not going to put something as real ownership stake in an entity of property. It'll just be those 0.001% or 0.01% special limited partnerships that is just for the tax extension to the property. And so we can use that on any project that we have going forward. So it would be the same. OK. So we called it there were questions potentially about the taxing status of the entity. Could we want to address those? Sure, the entity is a limited liability company. I think there was questions last meeting about whether or not it was a nonprofit or a for-profit company. It is technically a for-profit company and not a nonprofit. That is the way those are always set up. That was the way it was set up as set on devices or a special counsel. I don't think you would actually qualify for a nonprofit status for what it does. But all it is is a pass-through entity. So for IRS purposes, it's a disregarded entity. And the money goes so there is a fee for us entering a special limited partnership. That goes straight to the Housing Authority. And then the ownership interest is held by this company. This company doesn't actually receive any assets. And I think in all of the deals, there's no residual assets that we can do with this. We're the sole corporate part of it, our member. Sole member. Which makes us the governing board of the LLC. Yeah. Makes the housing authority the governing board. Yeah, exactly. It's in sole owner and member management. OK, you raise a motion to move this resolution. So I'll move. Second, a resolution 2023-20 is moved by Commissioner Markle. Seconded by Commissioner Hedonokai. All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? So remember this conversation, because we're going to start building on this conversation related to the next few items that are coming forward. OK. Thanks for the heads up. Oh. Cheers. Thanks. So now we're at resolution 2023-21 to include the Adler College Property Tax exemption partnership. We were. That sounds complicated. So again, here, Molly again. So we're going to be talking about an affordable housing project, a proposed affordable housing project, that would not be owned by LHA. It would be more similar to the Zinnia set up, where we are a special limited partner if the board decides to do so. And then we'd be looking at being a third party property manager. So this is very similar to the Zinnia set up. Atwood Commons is 72 one and two bedroom units that are proposed at the corner of third and atwood. So there's, I think, a little gas in that. They're right now. And then the rest of the land is paved or bordered. So there's a long time long market developer that's had an option to purchase that property. They were looking at market rentals, market wholesale, and then eventually wanted to enter the Lytec realm and see how that goes. And also it is a good financing set up for this specific deal. Part of that, I think the project initially came forward with those oil and conservation regarding parking and other issues. One of the things that we also know about affordable housing projects is that when you look at what we see in parking and all of our affordable housing, is that it is lower than market rate. And so when our transportation, when our staff would get parking at Christmas 1, which is very similar to this, it actually was parked at a much lower level than what we would typically see at normal market rate units. And so that was another piece that started making sense as we were just looking at the deal in a holistic way. And this might be happening again, but I think we're looking at converting to Lytec. Molly, how do we use 72, one and two bedrooms? And so they are pretty far from the entitlement process. They do plan on putting in for a tax credit application August 1. And in order, they have to get some ducks in a row to give it to do that. One of those is proposing to do all of property tax exemption partnership. At this point, really what they need is just a commitment that we would enter into a partnership. In the past, what we would do is, for Christmas specifically is the model, we would bring forward a property tax exemption partnership concept with the fee built in and the fee is based on the affordability of the project and several factors. And then you would commit to that as a partnership. And then when we're preparing for closing, we would have an actual resolution outlining the entity entering the partnership. So usually that's what we would do. In this case, we are presenting it as a very conceptual commitment to a property tax exemption partnership that would be specific to following the policy in effect at the time that we are entering into the partnership, meaning they need a commitment for their August 1 tax credit deadline, but there are some changes happening in the world of income averaging that we're going to get into shortly that might affect our property tax exemption policy. And so we wanted to make sure it was flexible enough for you to decide later what the exact partnership would look like. It would still come back to you, but this is kind of an interim step to help them with their application needs. I think in pieces, even at the end of the day, it doesn't work out. We don't have to do it. It's just letting them be the requirements of the CHAPA application. And it's probably good to get into income averaging now. So the change condition, and I want to take you all back to Kristen, to when we started working that project. If you remember when we started working with Kristen, too, we were looking at income averaging. And what income averaging is, and this gets right, this is also related to the market study that you have to do, and where the units fit, and what it looks like with the component behind income averaging. So I'm going to make sure I go through this on my mind. The purpose behind income averaging is that what right now, under typical affordable housing tax credit bills, is really set at 60% AMI. And you try to get what you can, 30%, 40% in that mix. But you can't go over at 60% AMI. You remember at Crispin, too, we were talking about the fact that the IRS has said, you can do income averaging now, which meant you could go above 60% AMI, but you have to stay below 80% AMI. And you have a balance limit for you. 30, right. So you're getting to the point of income averaging is that what you do is you would use to utilize the higher incomes of, you know, in that 60, 70, to 80 to really generate more in that 20 to 30, 30 to 40, 40 to 50. So you get more down here, but you're offsetting that with the IRS. Well, we didn't use it in Crispin, too, because the IRS never came out with that third guidelines. And so everyone was sitting there waiting to go, where are the guidelines coming out? Well, the guidelines have come out. And so now we're seeing people come in and look at income averaging at the moment to this. This will be the only conversation the whole project were also looking at the same thing. And so there's some distinct, there's some differences in this. So when you look at income averaging, what do you think? Well, 70 to 80% is really market rate units. Maybe, not really. I mean, it depends on what you're doing, but again, you're leveraging the rents here to get more of this. One of the distinctions is that if you're in one of the 60 to 70, 70 to 80% AMI units, you still have to recertify your income every year. So unlike a traditional market rate where you just pay your rent, that's it. In this case, you have to recertify every year just like you would in a 40% AMI unit. So that's an additional burden that the people who live in those units have to deal with. It is also a burden that lets you maintain the rent structures because the rent structures are always gonna be in that range, it's not like you're gonna have market treatment and rents. So there's a benefit and there's a negative for the renter that's in that section in the average income piece. Every deal's gonna look different as we've kind of gone through this and it really basically, it's based on the variables that you're trying to reconcile. Is the primary variable gonna be increasing the affordability percentage? That may be right. Another variable is the type of units that you wanna put in to be a driving variable. That may be it. And there will be times where those two variables conflict with each other. So if you wanna put in three to four bedrooms, it's gonna be harder to maximize the percentage of affordability because the expense associated with building in terms of the amount of real estate that you're using because for every one, four bedroom unit, you could get definitely two, two bedrooms or depending on the space, you may be able to get two, two bedrooms and one bedroom. So every average income deal is going to be different which is this really most significant deviation in terms of how you look at this. Because it's hard to say well we're just gonna do this because the structure of every deal is going to tell you whether it's good or bad and it's gonna be dependent on a number of factors which is based on the type of unit that looks like applications. That's work that we have to do with you all. So I wanted to kind of jump in and cover that because that's gonna help you all frame your decision on this. So typing on to that and the reason why we're coming today with Atwood as more of a concept. The income averaging really does mean that you still, your final affordability for the property as a whole still has to be 60% AMI or below between when you average out all of the units. And so yes, the point is yes, there's a trade off. Let's buffer with these 80% units for example to get those lower AMI units. So in theory, you're supposed to be able to get deeper affordability in certain units but not have them fail a project. And that's the reason why they don't, most projects under traditional ITEC don't have as many 30% units but they just don't, they don't support the finances. So the reason in this is coming to Atwood. Atwood is a proposed income averaging project. Hover is looking at that as well but our property tax exemption policy that we just updated in February. Our calculation for our fee structure and the exemption that the project qualifies says all of your units at 60% or below. We wrote it that way because state statute requires the tax exemption to be proportional to the number of units or the percentage of the property available to low income people. It does not define low income, it leaves it broad. So we've been researching across other housing authorities. Some have had to figure this out and some haven't yet. Everyone so far is going to allow the property tax exemption to apply to a full development up to 80% if it's an income averaging latex project. So again, the difference is we have qualified the full tax exemption for a property that's all 60% below. So now we have projects that are qualified for latex. They're meeting the CHAPA requirements for affordability. CHAPA also values having mixed income communities and de-concentrating poverty, which this does. And so we just need to look at our policies and decide at some point coming forward, we'll bring it back to you whether we modify our calculation to make an every unit tax exempt up to 80% or not. So that's why for APA we're coming forward with a concept now, let us propose still researching, still discussing what this could do. And then we would bring back a property tax exemption policy update for you to consider, at which time these income averaging projects would then set in stone about their partnership looks like. So I may not have heard you correctly or interpreted you correctly. You said that the tax exemption policy does not define low income. The state statute. The state statute. What happens if you qualify under CHAPA, under LIFET, and an estate with your project doesn't recognize it as a low income since they didn't comply with it? So the statute, yeah. That is specifically speaking to the housing authority law. So it is in the context of the housing authorities. And so in the context of the exemption that we can give, like I was talking about through the entity, that doesn't define what low income is. The housing authority law and particularly that statute doesn't. LIFET, CHAPA, IRS has all said these qualify for the LIFET revenues. Okay. But our policy says 60%. Okay. So that's what we read low income. That's, you know, Walmart has used 60% for LIETEC in the past. We used 50% for the city programs. And we were basically just, we were making it. That's how you determine the proportion in our calculation. So that's how we were writing it. And then it can be averaging. Yeah. Yeah. And at the risk of making it more complicated when you're looking at what they're wanting to, what they're looking at in your averaging action. So they, part of it is to maximize the number of units, let's say 50% of them, to get more to put us up here. Kind of team and conversation will probably go more in depth in the development update is then in order to get financed, you have to do a market study. And basically what the market study is telling you in the financing world is, what is the likelihood that you can lease up all your units at certain AMI levels? And if you remember during Christmas when we talked about CHAPA stating that, I think it was CHAPA that stated that we're pretty saturated at 60% AMI. We're seeing that in the market studies. And so they then have to, in order to make the project financial, you have to really try to target where you're putting in the units where you have the lowest sort of inverse in the, so we're only going to go on to capture rates. So the lower the capture rate, the more likely it is to be leased. And so when we're seeing that this is the simple record, so on lower, what we're seeing is the capture rates are below 5% for 30s, 70s, 80s, which means the likelihood that you're going to lease those is pretty high. They're nearly zero for 70 to 80 because there are no 70 to 80s that we're seeing in the community. Light tax. Light tax in the long run. And then the capture rate at 50% AMI is 30%. So to give you a sense of the difference, you're reducing your rentability, the ability to rent the units at 50 because it's a good 25 point tire than the others. 60% AMI capture rate is almost 35%. And so they're having to manage that in terms of making the projects pass the financing test that the lenders bring into play. So you can start seeing where income averaging is becoming more of a discussion point in the light tech world because especially here is that if you see saturation here, then you're going to have to move here in order to make it more palatable or to the lenders as you're trying to figure out the limit. So that's another piece to this puzzle that as I stated earlier in the pre-session is something that's making us reevaluate, asks some additional questions on our housing needs analysis because we're seeing some things that aren't quite lined up. So the market studies are incredibly important to all of us. And I know it's probably going, what are you all telling us? Because it took us a while to start bringing these pieces in the puzzle together. But you can see that, you can see why they're trying to use this, what the market studies doing and it's really taking us this way and really moving out of that 50% to 60% or really more 60% than anybody would say. Right, basically we're saturated at 50s and 60s and we may not lease them very quickly which is not good for cash flow. Our markets show that we knew that we needed 40% and below. We've seen that in studies for several years. We need those and they will rent up quick because they're such a need. We're also seeing that this incitinance in maveraging is so new, there are no income restricted 70% and 80% units which again, the benefit of that is, amongst many things, you're not subject to rent increases that are unpredictable. You, it's very much more stable housing. So. And if I can add to this, remember I think it was a year or so ago when we heard the Councilmember or Commissioner McCoy joining us as we were talking through affordability, I think we looked up and said, it wouldn't surprise us in a few years if on the housing ownership side, we would go up and go 80 to 100% is shifting into that Capital A ownership. We said wouldn't surprise us if that's going to occur in the real market too. That's what we have to start digging into because we think, and I'm going to preface this by saying we think that a lot of our 70 to 80, our 60 to 80 inventory in our community are probably older units and all the newer units that are coming on are sliding out of that range and the lower rents are higher. And so we're going back on the housing needs analysis to say cart this up for us, show us what it looks like in new units, show us what it looks like in our sort of inventory because if we find that that's in fact what's occurring on the new units, that's just the canary in the coal mine to tell us that the rental margin is now going to be significant in that 60 to 80 because there's no units coming in to fill that. So those are the additional questions that are actually coming out of what we're learning in the market study that's now starting to inform a broader conversation. And to add on to that, we still want to see what our average rents are in the city because that's the people, that's what people have, they're not going to go to new or old, they're going to go to what they can afford. So that's the people, we want to see that. But when that is including both old and new stock, all we can affect change on new stock from here on with policy and what we choose to do. But we don't have control over existing stock and so we need to know that differentiation to guide policy. So our question again, when you say that you think it's going to go to the 60 to 80%, will that be defined through HUD as the next market for low income? Because my understanding, well to your question that the market is saturated, you think in the 60% AMI, can you, because of what you got your taxes into, you score, you tap up everything that you got funding for, can you reduce that in-house 40% AMI? And does that change your affordability to run yours? I think they agree with you. So HUD calls 80% AMI low income. Oh, they do. They do. For most places separate that between for sale and rental market. In our area, at least in the state of Colorado, 60% AMI below is traditionally what rental, rental tax credit projects were capped up. And then really like for our programs, our down payment assistance goes up to 80. So we've been looking at this 60 to 80 range as for sale market, even though that is changing. And 60 and below is rental. And then further in Longmont, because our prior housing data showed us that 60 was saturated for the inclusionary housing programs, council chose to set it at 50 and below because we knew 50 and below is where we actually need the units. We don't need them in 60. Okay. And Chaffa's now sliding to 80% AMI. Right, that's right, that's right. The state is now moving there, which we still have a lot of work to do on this, but I wanted to tie all of these pieces together because it's hard to look at this if you just go, well, what about this question, but it's related to income averaging, it's related to market studies. Once we can be into it as a policy perspective, we may have to come back and re-examine 50% number because we may see something else occurring on that, for lack of a better word, that attainment of peace. But we've got to dig into that. So does Chaffa keep up with HUD? Because, okay, that's already done. Can we fund that at that level? We can for certain programs, yeah. Okay, yes. Is Brickwell a subsidiary, another company? Brickwell is a development company. Then they created this LLC, is there subsidiary for this project? But overall, Brickwell is the developer, the my tech developer of the project. Using this as a long-time long-time developer. So there is a long-time long-time developer that is now partnered with a my tech developer. Brickwell is the my tech. Differentiate, second question, just to differentiate, capture rate from occupancy rate. Capture rate is your ability, is basically the market that you have to build the units. Occupancy rate is once you build the units, are they full? So it's more of, what's your, I'm saying this right, what's the market that you have in your community, the people in the units, as you're looking at the future? Occupancy is in the future, and we're just having people in there. So it's cut into addressable markets, excuse me. I was just offering, yeah. I was, second question. Sorry. I just went around and I didn't, so, all right. So there's what I was going to ask. What you just described sounds to be like a ratio of market potential to numbers of units. So could I use ratio as opposed to range? I wouldn't say the market potential sounds, right? It's telling you if there's a market for this product versus occupancy is how well are you managing that project and turning over and releasing it. So it's the number of potential residents or lease or, less or, please, please, please. Lesses. Lesses in relationship to the number of units and whatever the price will use. Yeah, that's, what's it been trying to do because it's the vernacular that we use, it's different. Is there any other discussion or questions? Could I have a motion into 2023-21? How about the resolution of 2023-25? Zach, can we also give direction to bring back the average income policy? I don't have any minutes. Sure, we can do that first after you make the second one. Okay, so the motion has been to approve 2023-21 was made by Commissioner Michael Ferry, seconded by Commissioner Rodriguez. All those who didn't say on, hi, hi, all those who post. So that carries unanimously. So we want to move to give direction to LHA staff to bring back the... I don't have any motion to move that we direct staff to bring back the income to the average income policy. Probably tax exemption policy to consider income. Is the property and tax exemption policy to consider income average income? Okay, so let's see. Yeah, I second. All right, ask that question. Is this for discussion by the Commission so that as soon as we could discuss it for now? We would, we could bring back red lines based on research that we continue to do. Oh, and then bring that back next month. Yeah. Okay, yeah. I just wanted to get a timeline because it sounds like you're going to have to be facing this pretty soon. Yeah, they were in front of us, so we don't have something to do by the 18th. Unless there's an outlier to become across, it doesn't make sense. It's a little late in the night. Okay, so the motion is to... All those in favor? Aye. All those in favor? Aye. And the passage unanimously. Very interesting. A lot of work. I'm computing a lot of work. So now we're at the interim executive director's re... Oh, our carol development distance. Oh, no. Whatever. Yeah. Whatever you want to do. Are we going to do the development updates first? Sure. So I'll start on those. All right. So our first big news, Zinnia is closed, which you may have heard that by now, but May 25th, we did close on Zinnia. Construction is in full force. We were out there this morning, and they are hauling a lot of old asphalt and doing a lot of grating right now. So that construction has anticipated to be 15 months, which means we would have lease up next fall, 12th 2024. And so we're still finalizing all of the paperwork associated with closing, but we're also moving into that construction phase. We're working to make sure residents are aware of what's going on, address safety issues on site, since we do have a whole building of people living right there next door. So we're moving into new phase here. Next we'll be preparing with all of the parties involved to plan our lease up process and nailing down our more specifics on what we're gonna do on our property management plan. So just to recap on the property management plan, that is the first time that LHA has entered into an agreement to be a third party property manager. So it's different than the rest of our LHA properties. And so that was its own agreement that we negotiated and we really took that one very seriously to make sure we could rely on that going forward and try to anticipate as much as we could that it's weighed down the road. So why is it different? Why is this project different than the other projects? It's different because the camp of member of the law is a party council. I think, again, everyone was a council member with a boy. If you remember when Fall River was being constructed and they had a gap leading to the build in the balance sheets of 750,000, the city actually stepped in with the Fortville Housing Fund and purchased the properties around these streets to allow Fall River to go under construction. And so the way that deal was created and it's created many, many issues is that was prior to the city sitting in the role of the housing authority. So the way that was structured was we were agnostic in essence of how it was going to be built. And in many ways, based on, I think, what we were seeing at the time felt in a different group, maybe more ready to do it based on all the challenges that the housing authority was dealing with. So that was this contract that sit over here. Based on how that was agreed upon with element, the way that the housing authority, now that we're doing it both, that we brought the housing authority into this was really operations in the facility, economies of scale in that world, but then also the special limited partnership. So that's a big reason why this one's different and more like that way because of the way that that original contract was established in element, long before we took over the housing authority. So I wanted to clarify that. Thank you. Next I wanted to give an update on how we're doing with the over. So we are giving up for that tax credits in the middle of August 1st application. We just got that market study Friday. That's what has been part of this discussion over the last few days. So it's very encouraging. The market study looks great. And then we also got word on all the other developments across the state. They're submitting for tax credits at the same time as over. At one was one. So those two will be in the same bucket being considered. And then generally it seems like there is more applications than average, but not by a long shot. So there's more competition than average, but they do think that there are certain aspects of this project that are not being hit with others. And so they're hopeful, but there's still about three and a half applications to every one possible award. So, and that's not too far off of normal. And that's why sometimes it is common to go back for a second time if you're not successful first. Other than that, we're in full concept design. We're getting some really great visuals of what the property might look like. And we're on July 18th in our next meeting here. We'll bring some of those visuals and we'll, there's gonna be several over items coming to that day to prepare for that tax credit application. Then if there's any questions on the over, I'll pause. So over on income averaging is going to look different than at this or looking at, will it look different than at with? Because remember, at with is one and two better units. Over is one, two, three, four better units. So the point that I made earlier, that variable starts shifting how you look at the four billion piece because there's a point then it's likely in that conversation that we're gonna have to weigh those two variables against each other in terms of three and four better units per percent of affordability because it just takes up more space. And that's where it starts to adjust to that actual standard. Just curiosity, does the child person out on the moment? It is in at the moment. We are seeking data funding. We've got meetings set up with people all over the state. It feels like the next couple of weeks to talk about gap funding opportunities. So it was out and then it went back in because Shannon is made aware of some of the foundations and others that are interested in it. This project for the reason that the foundations are interested in it is because it's unique in that there's not many housing projects that are manly and looking at this from the moment. So a lot of them will do early childhood. Some will do housing and have a limit on both. So that's intriguing to them. We also think that makes a tax credit application more in five. Now all that being said, August one is the deadline to apply. So we're gonna go through another iteration of because you have to have all of your capital stack in that application or maybe another iteration where for some reason the foundations can't move fast enough. We may have to pull it out but hold it because I think we can put it back in. We couldn't, well, we're sorting that out. But we could hold it as a block and then say that it's self-funded and then back-funds. But there's, he wants us to have to keep it. Okay, thanks. And then the last key update I wanted to give is on the potential sale of the building at 6.15. So this is the building that's now currently leased by the Center for People with Disabilities. We've been negotiating with them about the purchase of that property. They're very interested. And in July, again in July's meeting it's gonna be pretty busy. We're finalizing right now a draft purchase and sale agreement for your consideration. And then an MOU for services that they can provide the LHA as the part of our commission. So that is all working permanently right now. 6.15, it's right next to Village Place. So to your goal, you all said for us six properties and then within five years we're directly involved in three. You've heard about and the risk management and over, we've not connected to it for that move that can go again facilitating those units. So there's four right there. And then we're bringing the property issue with rural properties to be for affordable housing. That's coming into play. We're probably gonna hold a little bit on that because we think there's value in the person and transition and trying to figure out how that works. So I think we're pretty good progress on your goal of six and we'll give you the next two bills. And you're five years after that. We started, we set that goal in mid-2022. One year ago, July. Amazing what you've done. I asked the question that we were in mid-2022. Who looks to cut the thread about the loss? Lossy. See. I don't know about that. And that's not housing authority that's actually the city that owns it. And so the stormwater fund owns it now and then the affordable housing fund is gonna purchase it from the stormwater fund. So yeah, nobody's contacted us in any way. There are many things about the situation that are being funded out several aspects of the deal. Their goal of paying that bill is to slowly work stop the bill and then get in person. I heard that. Yeah, it's gonna be good. So the plan for while was outlined in a city council information item that came to you on June 6th on the council side. So basically the plan is to plan take at this point so that you can have a nice rolling set of developments and to make those calls about how it plays into person and then allow the time for that to settle into that. Yeah, one of the things that you will probably see both as the housing authority and potentially as the city council. So we're maxed stat wise for where we're looking at all the development work. And so we were evaluating how we can bring on some additional development positions. And what we've realized based on the money we're putting into the affordable housing fund and the fee in blue that's coming in. We actually have enough money to support that but the financial policy doesn't allow us to do that. And so why it's gonna toggle both sides of the equation is because the benefit is that the housing authority and the development staff to help get these projects moving in capacity, potentially one more maybe down the road. But it's connected to this other side. And so I've asked Molly to work with Theresa and budget in terms of what we can do, what finances are available so that we can potentially create that position now. And in connection with the affordable housing fund and then move it forward in the future because they're maxed. We can't take any more based on our workload. So we're evaluating now for people on pretty good. The timbers of your question about how we do it on the development and new reference to retreating to like carrying them on a cheap road to the county center before I go. And then I keep thinking, one of these days we're gonna return to the needs of, it takes back up where we are, what progress we make, what we learn, what needs to be refreshed, that there are some of the objectives, some of the outcomes that the dates have already passed. So in some ways it's out of date. But maybe I'm the only one who cares about this and I'm just gonna sit with Molly and get an update. I'm not suggesting a retreat. I'm not trying to add in the workload. But it would be helpful to me if somebody took that and you could turn it into a landscape document. So here's what we said we do. Here's what we've done. It's no longer applies, it does apply. Here's the way something can keep this current. Otherwise it's, we spent a day, came up with pretty good stuff and we've never looked at it. We looked at it all the time, I'm sure. We have not. We did go over an annual report in January showing the progress that we made in 2022 and what the focus were 2023. What, I'm tired of meeting you. I think it was actually the one where we discussed. Oh, well, I'm tired of meeting you. So I can provide that and then, I mean, already things are happening so quickly that that's six, we're six months off from that. It's our turn already. Have updates to provide. I think there was a, I have to watch the recording of the meeting. January meetings. What was going on? I only remember because I think we were coming back and we knew you were gonna be gone and we were presenting that, that particular, he was on the 30th. Did you choose that date? It was on the 30th. No, it was, it was, I think he, it was, it was, it was on the 30th. I was out of town for a week for the last week of January and it was, January 31st. I was told to do it. No, we didn't. What are you looking for? Are you using our, well, not me, you? It's, yeah, for our purpose. Send me a link, just send me a link. Yeah, I'll send you a link. So, Molly, you're very sensitive. You have a great update back here. Oh, it's a deal. So as you can see, we have raised occupancy up to 95% from the highs since I've been here. I think a lot of this is due to how we get to change our weightless procedures about a month and a half ago. We have Diana, our admin assistant managing all the weightless. She's calling us soon as we get a notice. We're trying to pre-lease these units. Going through the current statuses, I'm actually going to do an update more today and not even as of what I did in this report. So ask about those neighborhood. We now have five vacant. One's been down for meth and we're gonna probably have two more down for meth. And two others are pending rentals. Ask about those seniors that we had six vacant. We do have six vacant, but five of those are now rented as of this morning and just one not-beast. Fall River has just one unit down for meth, but that's already pre-rented and that should be back online on June 15th. So they will be 100% occupied by the end of the month. Person-in-Lodge, she has pending applications for both those units and her main focus is being ready for our REAC inspection with HUD tomorrow. So HUD will be out there doing the physical, going through all the cabinets, closets, everything and anything for probably about six to eight hours. The suites, we have just four vacants and three of those are down units. So one other, one rentable unit is already rented, it's an LHA unit. So once that's rented, all of our available units or built will be the highest occupancy this week has had in three plus years. Spring Creek has no vacancies at this moment and then the Briarwood and Village Base we currently are not leasing at, due to pending sales. Any questions on the occupancy? Just to curiosity, what is making the occupancy go up? Is we have more units available? Are people actually... We've changed our procedures in housing because we did have some stagnant wait lists that we were working on. So we did open up, all the wait lists are now open. We're not closing them. So that if one, for Aspen senior, for example, we call it 55 people, trying to get a rental on that one person's tub. So we're just looking at those wait lists open. So if somebody walks in and they're on the wait list and they have a voucher or they move next week, we're trying to get them processed in a unit. And it's not specific to a development. Like if they wanted to live in Spring Creek, for example, that's no vacancies there. So will you allow them to go somewhere else? They can apply for whatever properties they want. So we have a wait list for each property currently. So, because each property has different AMIs, different features, different layouts. So some don't want to be on the west side. Well, some want to east side, some want, you know. So they need to choose where they're at. We have, I'd say probably half of our wait lists are on every wait list applicants. Okay. Trying to get the first available. I did know. So then you get the first available. So property updates, two, two, that's me. I'm very short this month. We still moving from the silver to my events, but Susan Spaulding and the media agency have been out doing our pocket conversations and it's been great, amazing resident feedback after these meetings. Just they're learning a lot. We're doing fair housing with the residents, but we're letting Susan teach it and she's kind of going through reasonable complications at the same time or what property management has to deal with, why do we do what we do? Why do we say what we have to do with, deal with and how we deal with it? And she gives the laws and the situations going on going back to marketing that's a key and civil rights on some of these fair housing things. So it's making the residents understand where management comes from when we say, no, we can't do that. Or no, we have to treat you like we treat your neighbor. And it's been kind of eye opening for the residents and we've gotten a lot of great feedback from those. And those are continuing this week at two more properties. Everything else I think I've basically gone over with. The only biggest thing happening at a property is Village Place. They're very upset that we took away their assigned parking. They got a one year morning, but this is all leading up to recidivation because we need to have spots available, move people around, spots for construction dumpsters here and there, surveying, you name it, but we just wanted to have flexible parking spaces and make it consistent with the rest of the property. Well, and if you all remember, that was the property where previously probably home and home support at the time was pretty ups, the property manager was assigning parking spots, but also assigning ADA parking spots, which you're not allowed to be kind of ADA around. And so, you know, we had a bit of an upheaval when we started it, we said, okay, turn it over, we're gonna give you a year, but we're still gonna do it. We're now transitioning into a getting ready for the recidivation. And probably some of those conversations with Susan Spaulding has helped you let them understand the reasoning behind it. It actually was very beneficial at that property because she went through a reasonable accommodation and what qualifies for a reasonable accommodation where we can grant residents who need a closer parking spot and assigned parking spot, it just can't be an ADA. So we have seen a few reasonable accommodations and we're treating them just like we do all the other properties that submit the same request. Good, we're done with property updates. Oh, yeah. And safety updates. So, all right, so Calls for Service have actually taken a dip, which is, that's real good, I hope. Everybody's not gonna have to wait for this. Seems like a lot of our problem, you know, I want to say folks, not necessarily problems, but a lot of them have resolved themselves, so that is good. We will, now I know Molly fills us in last time when I was absent last month, but the ROI with MHP. So that document is completed, it's in MHP's hands and it actually had started from Andy Feister, the Sergeant of our Corps Unit. So I've been working with him and have that document listing several different entities for folks to sign off of for release of information from both hospitals to the school district, to public safety to LHA, and we did this for many reasons, but I'll give you one example. So we have a person that's having some significant issues, Calls for Service are crazy. Property management has some information, public safety has some information. MHP has a lot more information and really just us asking the question, do you know if this person's on their meds? We get the him and ha, so basically this document is still optional and MHP will present it to each tenant and they'll be explained and at the end of the day it's to create a better situation for those people that get into this crisis. So that's great, that will be coming, it's done, it just needs to be presented to basically the LHA staff. It's pretty simple document. So, can I ask a question here? This is a paper document? Correct. Do you share information through a database so that you would know exactly where this person is if you're on medication? So, due to HIPAA that cannot be shared so MHP would take that ROI and it would be verbal, yes or no, this person in. And there are some specificities to the document meaning that if this person doesn't want to discuss, maybe they don't want to discuss their medications. They're given the choice, but they're also talking, it's spoken to them really through MHP how valuable it is to discuss that. So, again, all options are on the table but at least it's on the table for them and we don't struggle so much. Good. And lastly, I know Harold mentioned the P-Alert meth detector, we've received that. We've installed it in Village Place the last 24 hours, got some readings there. Really, we're trying to figure out some of the few inconsistencies with it but now it's in Harold's office on a glass shelf and we're hoping it basically levels out to some normalcy so we have basically a place to start. And so just a recap, we'll put that in a unit that we know is positive and vacant. And so we're testing, because we have our recycle regular math test process and then we have this vacant in Harold's office. So it's not in an occupied unit. No, okay. And if we placed, the decision was made to place it anywhere where we already knew the numbers. So still working through the data on that to see if it registered the same number as you came home. Correct. And it did not. Right, good. That's to be determined. I'm still trying to determine where I'm going to call on. Did I? Well, you're so focused. So we've got the feed through the software system. So we've been looking at it. And so we saw it do what it was supposed to do. It bought one of the things, we really need 24 hours based on talking to them to see what we've got because we're still rescued that may interfere. And so they wanted a longer period of time. So it did what we thought it was going to do originally. And then it just did something that I'm sitting there going, I don't know what to do. So, you know, somebody's going on the mountain, so I didn't know it. Oh, yeah. But so we're going to be watching this over the next 24 hours and probably move it around the building. So we can just kind of get a sense of what baseline is. Make sure that everybody's clean. Good. Good. Good. Good. Good. And there's a reason it's holiday. Oh, OK, thank you. That is, that's anyone has any questions? Do you have any questions to say? I want to live in with all these concrete factors. I want to live in with all these concrete factors. So can we share comments? Not this one. Not this one. Not this one. Just maybe a question about the question about the forum and meds and information being shared in HIPAA and all the issues around HIPAA. The Dix and Dix project was an attempt to address that very issue. Yes, so Christina and Albert were at the next base and what we want to do is actually beta test that communication system with the housing authority. Again, the PE students there are talking about it in the ROI and there will be a different version of that. So, Christina and Albert are having this conversation. But it's still active. And we just got to go, is it ready to roll so we can start trying it out because that can actually be a really good communication tool because it can fire wallets. So if it's a medical issue and they allow, let's say, paramedics to have it, we can fire wallet off of police or they love police and paramedics but not us. So they're still moving on that and then they were talking about it yesterday. And so hopefully soon we can do beta test that. That's what we're pushing for. Anyone else? Anyone else? Anyone else? So move.