 let's start the meeting. Let's bring the meeting to order. So we're going to start with public invited to be heard. And I believe we do have one member of the public. Yes, Chair. We have one guest. If you would like to speak during this item, public invited to be heard. Would you please hit star nine, otherwise we'll continue on. I'm going to take that as a decline to speak. Let me go ahead and unmute him just in case he's just in case. Okay. Yeah. Eric, is this you? Yeah, it's true. There's no I have nothing to say. Just here to listen. Thank you. Awesome. Thank you so much. I'm going to mute you again. Thanks, Eric. All right. The minutes have been distributed. I think everybody should have had a chance to read them. Are there any questions or discussions on the minutes? Any corrections to make from anybody? If so, just go ahead and unmute yourself and weigh in. Okay. Without any discussion or questions, is there a motion to accept the minutes? I'll go ahead and move approval of the March 12 2020 Housing and Human Services Advisory Board meeting minutes. And I'll second that. Caitlin, was that you? Yes. Okay. Thank you. So we have a motion and a second to approve the minutes. What we're going to do in order to vote is if you are in favor, then you will raise your hand to the camera so we can see your hand and give Nicole a chance to leave it up long enough that Nicole can count. And then she'll give us the heads up and then we'll ask for any nays to do the same thing. So if you are in approval of approving the minutes, please raise your hand. Ann, is your hand raised? I wasn't at the last meeting, so I didn't think I could vote. Oh, fair enough. Okay, we're good. I got everybody. Chair, thank you. Okay. Is there anybody who declines approving the minutes? Please raise your hand. Okay. The minutes are passed. Thank you. I might want to do an abstention, Brian. Okay. Ann can, yeah. I'm sorry. Did you say? Someone wants to abstain from the vote. Oh, thank you. Any abstentions? Please raise your hands. Okay. Thank you for the reminder, Karen. Deanna abstaining. Yep. Deanna and Caitlin. Okay, perfect. Thank you. The minutes are approved. Deanna and Ann. Oh, you're right. We'll help you out there, Brian. Please. It's going to take a village. Okay. Our next agenda item is selecting the Housing and Human Services Advisory Board member to serve as the TRG liaison and then to recommend TRG members. Kathy, would you please leave that discussion? Sure. So in your packet, there was a memo kind of explaining everything that we actually went over in, I think it was your March meeting. It seems like it, that's a long, long time ago, but it really wasn't. That to, in order to continue the TRG and their work in reviewing affordable housing applications, we need to reappoint five members that were, had their terms expiring. If you remember, our intention was to analyze the work of the TRG and how we might, if, how, or if we might want to make some changes to the process and how the TRG interacted with the Housing Advisory Board as well as with staff because of a various number of things. We didn't get that analysis done last year. Obviously, we didn't get to it at the first part of this year. Probably it's going to be towards the end of probably second to, or third to fourth quarter this year. Hopefully things will get back to enough normal that we can, can complete that. I did make some changes just FYI to the way the affordable housing applications are going to be reviewed. So in light of our discussion in March, we have aligned the presentations for any applications that we get with the June, I think it's the June Housing Advisory Board meeting. So instead of the TRG hearing the presentations on their own separately, we're going to have a combined meeting. So that everyone can hear the presentation, then the TRG will go back and review, get additional information from the developers, and then make a recommendation which will come to you. And I'll have to let you know. I think it's the May-June meeting or the June-July meeting. I should have had that in front of me and I don't. But it is on the website. It does outline that. So that was one of the changes that we made as a result of the discussions that we had in March. So now we need to get a recommendation on filling those five positions as well as assigning or nominating somebody from the Housing Advisory Board to serve as the liaison to the TRG. The five existing members whose terms were expiring are good with staying on for another year in case we do need to make adjustments to the process for their adjustments. And I did include in the packet who those folks are. They've all been on the TRG for at least a couple of years, if not a longer time period in the case of Laurie Walker. So if you have any questions about any of them, then you can consider your HSAB liaison member and make a formal recommendation I can take to council at their May-26th meeting. Okay. Thank you, Kathy. Any questions for Kathy? Yes. Oh, you go ahead and unmute yourself, you. Sorry that I did that. I just wanted to disclose that one of the potential board members was my realtor several years ago. I don't think it's a conflict, but I just wanted to point it out. I don't have any ongoing relationship with her, but if you guys don't want me to vote on it, I would be okay with that too. Thank you. I don't know that there's any conflict there. It just seems like familiarity. Thank you for letting us know. Okay. Any questions? If there is, so let's do this. If there is a question, like Deanna did, raise your hand and then I'll be able to call on you. And if we have several, I'll be able to order everybody. Okay. We just lost two people to the refrigerator. Okay. Karen, did you have a question? No. Okay. All right. So here's my only question. Well, I'll start. So Diane, Groff and Jennifer are not listed as proposed. Have they timed out? No, they are. Their term goes through the end of next year. So they don't need any action. Thank you. Okay. So we need two, do we need two votes here? Kathy, one to approve the reappointments as presented and then the other one for the liaison or can we do them together? You can do them together if you want. Thank you. Okay. So do we have any members who are interested in functioning as liaison to the TRG for this next term? I'll just say that I've done it for the last year. I have really enjoyed the work. I've really enjoyed getting the chance to listen to those smart people. I would be happy to continue doing that if there's someone that was really burning to take it up. I'm happy to have that conversation as well, but I'm willing to start. Great. Thanks, Jake. Anybody have that burning desire, Caitlin? I just had a quick question to that point as Jake, can you, I think you discussed this at our March meeting, but it would be helpful to maybe get a quick like bullet points of what the liaison does in sort of attending those meetings. It sounds like we're going to have a maybe joint presentations with them, but it'd be helpful to hear that again. I was, I thought I had seen it and I am maybe just flipping a little too fast through all of my papers here. Yeah, the liaison functions in kind of a very similar way to how Councilmember Christiansen functions here attend the meetings. Listen, I don't know if I'm officially considered a voting member if the liaison is or not. I don't know. Yeah, that's what I thought. So so no, not necessarily a voting member, but someone who's able to be there at the meetings, communicate back to this board, have kind of a full picture of each application. It'll be really helpful. It'll be a little different this year if we are going to have those joint meetings, which I think is wonderful. I think that's great. If we are going to have those, it makes it a little different. But yeah, essentially it's being able to attend the meeting, go through the material that's presented, ask questions, perhaps if there are any, but primarily it's kind of a sit and listen to the smart folks on TRG and communicate, kind of be a go between for this group. Please correct me if I'm wrong, Kathy, or if that was a good summary. Great. Okay. Well then I would like to nominate Jake Marsing as our TRG liaison. John, is there a motion for that? All motion for Jake Marsing to be the liaison to the TRG group from H-H-S-A-B. Yes. All right. And Ann, are you seconding? Okay. We have a second from Ann Baldwin. Sorry. That's all right. I saw two fingers, so I assume that was code for seconding. Okay. So all in favor of approving Jake Marsing as the H-H-S-A-B liaison to the TRG, please raise your hand. I got it. I just can't see Madeline. She, I think she left the room. Okay. Just making sure it wasn't just my view. Yeah. Yeah. Thank you. So we've got everybody, any opposed, please raise your hand. Great. All right, Jake. Thanks, Jake. Huckleberry. Thank you for doing it. Appreciate it. Do we need to do? And then, Mayer, and then, Brian, you need to vote on the other vote. The other, the TRG members. I was going to try to get that in as one, and I totally, okay. Is there a motion to accept the re-appointment recommendations as made by staff for the TRG members? So moved on that front. A second. Diana, a second. Thank you. All in favor, please raise your hand to the camera. Okay. I got you guys. Who seconded? I'm sorry. Diana. Thank you. Okay. Any opposed, raise your hand. Okay. The motion passes. Thank you. Oh, boy. All right. Item five, updates and feedback on consolidated plan, human needs assessment and 2020 action plan, all of which Kathy is going to take us through these three items after the three items will have an opportunity to ask questions, get clarification, and otherwise have discussion. So take it away, Kathy. Okay. So I did provide a summary of the consolidated plan. We are going right up to the wire with this, unfortunately, this year. Good thing we started our public input process and community engagement actually last year to get all of that in because with everything that has hit, it's been quite exciting to work on this with everything else. I am still editing the actual consolidated plan even up until about an hour ago. But generally speaking, the summary that I is in your packet is still valid and is a good summary. So the consortium area that manages are the home funds that come into the consortium as well as the three communities that get CDBG funds. We combine together to have one consolidated plan that HED requires that directs are it assesses the needs in the communities for the upcoming five years and then sets strategic goals and then every year we update it with our annual action plan goals for specifically how we are going to spend our CDBG funding. So this is the consolidated plan, the big planning document plus the 2020 action plan that gets submitted to HED after the May 26 council meeting and the final public hearing that will be held at that council meeting. We already had made a lot of recommendations and funding approvals for the 2020 action plan and I'll get into that in more detail when we hit 5C. And then when COVID hit, we got an additional allocation so we are making some recommendations around reallocating some of the 2020 funding and doing something a little different and then new recommendations on the COVID relief funding. Generally, this summary of the consolidated plan, there's an analysis of housing market data and affordability gaps. We did a lot of community engagement including a resident survey of over almost 1,200, over 1,170 Longmont residents. We had several open community meetings where residents could attend. We did individual interviews with stakeholders who work with residents who have low income to talk about policy and program changes and then this will be the public comment period from May 20th to the 26th. So some of the findings were that as everybody is aware there's low vacancy rates and rising housing prices and rents throughout the region. Rents and for sale home prices reached new heights. Humongous increases in cost of housing across the board in all of the communities. Home values more than doubled the increase in rents. We increased about 64% over the time period and but we still remain in the most affordable jurisdiction in the consortium for what that's worth at this point in time. Interesting thing that seems to be poking up is that incomes have gotten a lot higher in Longmont and in the consortium as a whole with rental incomes increasing which have driven up rent prices obviously but it also increased the gap in very low income rental units needed. So what has happened is people with higher incomes have come in, they have taken over more of the units that used to be affordable. The folks property owners are charging higher rents so while in general incomes have increased in the renter population there's a greater need for very low income rental housing. The other interesting phenomenon is that rental the number of renters with lower incomes has decreased from the last consolidated plan which we think indicates that folks just couldn't afford to live here and have moved to a certain extent. So it wasn't a huge but it was noticeable that the change in the incomes in the renters. There are essentially no vacant rentals. We lost a significant number privately provided affordable rentals that kind of gets to what I was just talking about. As the private rental market now serves renters earning higher incomes than what they did under the last housing market analysis. This shows that the table that was included in your packet showed a gap of about 2,300 units affordable to folks with incomes below 35,000. So that's an increase over I think it was 1,800 to 2,000 under the last housing market analysis. We have a lot of folks with severe cost burdens where they're paying more than 50% of their income towards their housing costs and a lot more that are paying over 30% of their income for their housing costs. So cost burden and severely cost burden has increased across the consortium. So basically Longmont's primary housing needs include filling the shortage of 2,300 units which would be affordable at $625 a month or less. We've got a shortage of homes to buy priced at less than $375,000. Housing subsidies to assist 3,700 persons with disabilities, many of whom are seniors. That is going to be hard to take on but there's housing subsidies needed for 600 large families with housing cost burden and 1,400 female households with housing cost burden as well and then 1,500 Hispanic households. So some of those might be getting some subsidies or are in they're just not in units that they can afford. So what we're looking at for strategic goals is to increase the amount and affordability of rental housing for our lowest income renters and then we added a little bit to this just today to also add in that we want to preserve our existing affordable rental housing as well. That's really important that we don't backslide. We want to preserve our existing affordable housing stock which is primarily served by our rehab program keeping existing owner occupied housing stock in good shape and good repair helping folks who are struggling a little to keep up with those repairs with the rehab programs and preserving the existing that existing housing. So that was a high priority outcome in our community engagement process. We also want to support low modern income home buyers and increase the supply of affordable housing units that'll primarily be done through the inclusionary housing program versus using CDBG funds to do this. It is very difficult to use CDBG funds to help folks purchase or to construct housing at all. So using our inclusionary housing program is a good alignment and fit to meet these overall goals. Obviously we want to reduce homelessness within the consortium geographic area through the work of the homeless solutions for Boulder County and continuing to prioritize permanent housing for folks as we move forward in the next five years providing community development and economic assistance to businesses residents and neighborhoods and needs. So this will address some of the COVID related funding as we get into that in a little bit helping small businesses with some of the needs that they're having being impacted by with the COVID shutdown economic shutdown and then also around community development if we need if there's any of the facilities like the COVID release center that we created in order to address the needs of homeless folks who were experiencing symptoms of COVID-19 that is something that we can fund with our CV funds and is included here as well as rental assistance or direct assistance to individuals. So that is a quick brief summary. The document is probably over 170 pages in total. It will go up on the website probably early next week. Again the notice will be in the newspaper for the advertising the public hearing and the comment period on May 20th. So I would be more than happy to answer any questions that anyone has around this particular topic area. Thank you Kathy any questions for Kathy? I have a question Kathy. I did read an email from that was sent by Nicole from representative from Boulder County talking about these these various needs associated with COVID funding and and the COVID effect on these human service organizations and I guess I'm just wondering you know in light of an anticipated shortfall and all government budgets next year it would be smarter to allocate those funds to shore up shortfalls in the foreseeable future for you know just status quo budgetary concerns rather than expanding what we're funding now. Does that question make sense? I think so if you're asking can we use CDBG funds to replace lost government revenue? Yeah basically. Yeah we cannot. Okay yeah that is prohibited under yeah CDBG program yeah. Councilman Christensen? Kathy I'm wondering it seems to me over the since 2008 there's been very little detached housing built. It's almost home homes to buy particularly in the middle income and lower. Do you use is that seem like a trend that's going to keep up because that's a huge part of the problem? I would say yes that is a trend that's going to continue that probably we're going to be seeing more attached product for home ownership just based on what we're seeing coming through you know the development pipeline right now. And do we know how much of our previously available homes for purchase and for rent are now being used for Airbnb's? I can tell you a lot in my neighborhood are. Well anything that we invested in or subsidized is not because every year folks have to certify that they you know it is owner occupied and we do check utility bills as well. That doesn't mean they aren't you know occasionally maybe renting something out but we haven't really heard that and and usually folks that are in either under the previous inclusionary housing program or habitat units are generally not used that way which is our primary investment of CDBG funds in for sale housing product as well as Blue Vista they have quite stringent occupancy requirements and use requirements on them as well. So I would feel pretty comfortable saying I doubt if there's any of that happening. In the unit that the city has invested in or subsidized correct. I'm just maybe I'll ask Joanie or Don who shared about that. Just in general in the market affordable and what is going on with that that would probably be quite a different story. Yeah I think it's usually about you lose about two percent of your housing overall. So okay thank you. Thank you Jake. Thank you Mr. Chair. Kathy just quickly it's not necessarily on this topic thank you for the thorough presentation. I am curious about if staff at this point has any rough estimation of COVID's impact on the affordable housing fund in general. I'm curious specifically about the progress of any development that had been in progress. What's the tenor from developers that have been working with the city. I'm curious about you know we were on this kind of trajectory with the IZ that seemed fairly friendly and as we talk about these issues that this plan works with so many of them are connected to affordable housing. So I'm just I'm curious if there's any sense that you have about where we're at. Well so developers and developments under that were underway under inclusionary housing before we went into say stay at home orders appeared to still be moving forward at this point in time. We haven't had anybody that I am aware of withdraw anything. Things might have slowed somewhat. I'm thinking of some of the smaller developers that they might not be moving as quickly as they they were but so far nobody has stopped anything that I'm aware of and I'm also hearing from planning that they really haven't seen any big decline in new applications or they're still holding pre-applications or still holding DRC meetings development review committee meetings. So things at least at this point seem to be moving along as as normal. The things the projects that we funded that have been approved for funding over the past year or so are moving forward. The in-between is looking for something to purchase. They actually had an offer on one property and decided it was too expensive and are I think trying to go under contract on another property. So they're moving forward. We just received word that the Cinnamon Park senior independent apartments just got tax credits. So they're moving forward. So we're moving on our agreement with them for affordable housing funds. So nothing that I have heard of yet is in jeopardy or won't go forward at this point in time. Now something could happen. There's another project that's in for tax credits that we haven't heard if they've received or not. So we'll wait and see on that. But if we have allocated funding for it, everything that we've allocated is moving forward if they're if they're ready to go. We're not in danger of having my understanding and Karen can correct me of having any of the affordable housing funds that have been allocated to the fund to date are not in danger of being recaptured or recalled. The 2021 budget may be another story. Obviously marijuana tax that we get, the 50% of that may be down. I've heard that marijuana sales are down. That doesn't really make too much sense. But that's what I've heard. So we're planning on a lesser amount from that source. And then we just go through the budget process like everyone else and see where we fall out for 2021. That's great. Kathy, thank you so much. That's especially good news on the planning side as well if that's the case. So much better than I was hoping than I was thinking. So thank you. Caitlin. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Kathy, sort of along the same lines, but I guess the other side of that, we'll see what you've shown here is we've got a pretty big gap in the rental market. Have we seen any changes in terms of folks looking and applying for like city? I know that we've got some like affordable housing projects, but also we've got community partners. So we got a sense from any of those if there's an increase in folks that are looking for assistance right now, what those kinds of increases look like. From sort of like the COVID related things. Well, so if you're asking around if there is a need for assistance for people to make rent or mortgage payments as a result of layoffs due to COVID or job loss due to COVID or whatever, yeah, I would say that's up quite a bit. The R Center has been the main area in Longmont for folks to go to for that assistance. Boulder County has stood up, stand up. They have started a housing helpline to make referrals for folks and they have also repurposed a lot of the their emergency shelter grant money as well as what's the other source Karen that they they're TANF money emergency TANF money to help residents with that. So that has been a real help for folks being able to get assistance. It is still not enough if there probably isn't enough. Well, at some point there's enough money in the world, but we're probably not going to reach that point to be able to do that. My understanding is that a lot of the unemployment money is now coming through the $1,200 direct assistance is coming through and actually some folks that are already in subsidized housing that might have somewhat of a gap because of a loss of a job are between those two funding sources that if they get both of them are probably actually going to be better off unemployed than they were when they were employed. So that's kind of a different phenomenon for those folks. So people that are in the under a housing choice voucher that amount that the voucher pays increases as their income decreases. So they are in effect covered by that increased amount. So that is not harming people. So in Longmont because we have our housing authority has such a skew towards senior housing. They are in a particularly good situation because the seniors are not losing income. They don't depend on jobs for the most part. I mean, some of them have still work, but most of them are on some type of subsidy or pension or retirement that isn't impacted by COVID. So that has been a real actual benefit for the Longmont housing authority in particular. Thank you. Eliberto. So I just wanted to concur what Cathy said. I've had monthly meetings with the R Center and I just had a monthly meeting with them yesterday. And they basically said that there was a huge increase at the beginning of the crisis, but now that the UIB unemployment benefits have started kicking in, it has slowed down. They're concerned about later on this year. But the UIB is really helping people through these this month and next month. They feel that they that those are really helpful. Yeah, it's good news. Cathy, I'm wondering just looking at the big picture. So this we're going to have an ongoing economic issue for the next several years. So we're going to have increased need like we're seeing already starting. We know that local revenues are going to be lower from sales tax and other taxes. Are you seeing with some of the packages that are have been proposed or are still being proposed at the federal level that there may be funds coming that will help fill in that gap? Or is that just really unknown at this point? I haven't heard anything specifically to fill in government funding at this point or the loss of tax revenue or anything. There's been talk about it. But I have not seen anything proposed and I have to admit I have no idea what's in the recently proposed $3 trillion bill that just came out or was just proposed earlier this week. So whether that has something in there or not. But it's going to be bad, you know, unless the economy gets up and going. We are looking at using the CDBGCV funds for kind of later activities because of what Ella Bertha just mentioned that some of the federal funding is kicking in for individual residents. And so as that expires, then there may be if they aren't back to working, there may be assistance as needed is where we think that will come in that we will come in kind of more at the back end or in several months versus, you know, immediate kinds of assistance for the businesses as well. There's a new program starting called Strongmont where we're going to be providing with partnership with the DDA and the city and the Longmont Economic Development Partnership and the Community Foundation grants to businesses to help them over the hump and get open again. And we're thinking using the CDBG funds that we're proposing to be set aside that again, that would come in a little bit later when because we have to show that we're not duplicating other funding. So if businesses can show that they've been turned down by other funding, that will help with that. But also it is a resource that there's more strings attached to it. So it might be more palatable for businesses and a better use of funds to come in a little bit later as a kind of funding of last resort, I guess you might view it. Thank you. Any other questions or comments? Shakita. Thank you, Chair. I, looking at those numbers and looking at the burden, let me see what the actual terminology was for that. But, you know, what are we going to do to keep people who are not really, who are renting and do not qualify for, you know, public services. And of course the rent is, you know, has increased in Longmont. Is there a plan to retain these people because the residents that are here who are contributing to our community, what are we doing to retain those residents who are like in the middle, you know, who are barely making it, who are not making $75,000 a year. But yet they're barely making it and every year rent increases. And how many times are they able to go in and ask for assistance with rent. How many of those people are just packing up and leaving when the rent is over, you know, when the lease is done. How are you retaining these people? I mean, I don't know if there's a program that I don't know about. It's beautiful here and everything and it's nice. But if you get people who are making $200,000 that's coming in and moving in, it's going to be like another bolder and people are moving out to less expensive places. Although I understand Longmont is supposedly, you know, less expensive to rent here and to live here. But for the people who are in the middle, who may not be really low income and it may not be making $75,000 a year. What about those people? I think they're kind of getting, you know, pushed under under the rug or pushed in the closet. I don't know. It's a comment. I'm asking a question, but yeah, that's just how I'm feeling listening to everyone. And I'm thinking because I'm like one of those people, you know, like I'm ready to get up out of here because like it's hard. It's really hard to afford it to afford living in Colorado. And Longmont was used to be when I lived here, when I moved here eight years ago, it was affordable even as a single mom. But now it's increasing. And what programs are out here to retain people like me? Well, I don't have a good answer for you. We try and have a range of services and understand that the funding that the city has control over is small in the overall scheme of things. So within the regional affordable housing partnership plan, which all of Boulder County communities have bought into and have approved and is using that as their goal, we do have a full range of services and housing that we're trying to provide. So the plan calls for everything from no income up to 120% of area median income for home ownership on the on the top side and everything in between. Right now the city's rental assistance programs where we are funding development projects can go up as up to 60% of area median income to be served, which is getting closer to that area that you're that you're talking about. 75,000 is probably 70 to 80% of area median income at this point. The home ownership programs are generally between 70 and 120% and rental is generally between nothing to 160% area median income. So we do try and offer that wide range. When you get into competitive funding situations, you are usually trying to prioritize the highest priority needs, I guess, which according to the market analysis is probably 40% area median income and below for rental housing. So it's a real balancing act. I have to say that a lot of the rental, the private sector rental market, especially if it's a tax credit project, is usually hitting at that 60% AMI level. So theoretically, there should be more units that are affordable, but again, and there's income limits to be in those units, but the competition is just so great across the board for that that they're just, I would say across the board, they're just aren't enough units. And how do we, how are we ever going to, you can't, you keep saying you can't build your way out of it, but that's a, how else do you create new units without building them? But it costs so much to build as well. So I really don't have a good answer for you. I think at this point, it is something that we are cognizant of and we're working on and we're including, but I would say that's one area we're not doing a great job in, unfortunately, because of a lack of sufficient funding. I think it's really difficult in an area that has a wealth gap this large to get traction on some of those issues because a lot of people fall in between. Yeah, yeah. Well, I mean, and the other thing is if we had gotten, been able to get to the point with a ballot measure in 2020, which is where we were heading as part of the regional affordable housing partnership before everything changed, you know, that might have helped a lot because we were looking at trying to raise 50 million a year. I think it was, it was a gouga sum of money. And we hadn't tested yet to really know if it was going to be successful. But that is the ultimate, about the only main way to raise a significant amount of funding is if we are able to pass some kind of ballot measure where it's whether it's a property tax or a sales tax. And then what are people going to be able to support coming off of this? You know, it's, it's a very bizarre situation we find ourselves in. Thank you, Kathy. Jake, were you wanting to say something? Yeah, I was just going to thank Shakita for the comment and then offer one little point because you hit the nail on the head. That is, for me, at least the core question kind of facing the city is how do you make sure that working class folks can make it in Longmont folks who built the community? That's the challenge. And I don't know that there's a good answer. And then I would just, I just wanted to add that part of the bill that's been proposed, Kathy, includes a trillion dollars for state funding, for state relief, how that trickles down to local governments is, I think there's an, it might be an additional appropriation, but I need to talk to Nakuza's people. He had a bill that kind of got folded into the big package. So that that is certainly on the minds of some folks in Congress, whether it happens or not. We'll see. Thank you, Jake. And thank you Shakita for the comments. Appreciate it. Okay, if there's no further questions or discussion, Kathy, are you, did you make it through all of your items? Not 5C. So I would like to put that up and just go over a little bit of what we're recommending because normally we would get you guys's input and sign-off before and because of the quickness that we were trying to move this through and the new allowances in citizen participation. Let me get my thing back here. We were taking staff recommendations right to council. So getting some kind of feedback here would be, would be good. I don't know that you have to take a formal vote or a formal recommendation, but I would like to kind of walk this through and hear your comments. So what we, over on the far left, my left, I guess, at your left as well, looking at it, where it says 2020 CDBG approved funding. That is where we, the last approval for 2020 that you guys recommended and actually council approved. So it had funding 304,000 for rehab program, the money for the housing counseling program, the security deposits for folks coming out of homelessness, and then competitive housing funds that were approved for the in-between and the Longmont Housing Authority, Aspen Meadows Apartments Refinance and Rehab for a total with reallocated money and estimated program income, a total of a million 21,000 that was recommended and approved. So what we are recommending in light of COVID is to repurpose some of the 2020 funding and basically taking the rehab money here in the middle, the 304,000, and repurposing that for additional funding for COVID related activities. So we're showing in this next column in moving to the right, still retaining 50,000 for housing counseling and the security deposit assistance, but then allocating 258,000 for individual assistance, which is likely to be a grant to the R Center to then turn around and give out for rental or utility assistance. Again, maybe a little bit later as things pick up. And then 70,000 being set aside for Longmont share of the COVID Recovery Center operations funding. We hope to get some FEMA funding to offset this, but in case we don't or in case we have to match it, we're setting aside our share of those operating costs. So that would be the bulk of the repurposed rehab funding. Everything else stays the same. And then the additional CDBG CV funding here kind of in the middle, we got just under $360,000 in a special allocation. And we are recommending that we use an additional 87.5 for individual assistance and even 200,000 for small business assistance. And again, we would be doing that either through providing loans or grants to businesses as part of the Strungmont business grant program, or we might do something. Actually, I need to change this because it's not for sure. We might do something with Colorado Enterprise Fund, CEF, to help offset some of the Longmont businesses that have outstanding loan payments to help do some forgiveness, especially for micro enterprises, businesses that are five or fewer employees. We are still gathering information Colorado Enterprise Fund. So I'm not sure yet what the split would be, or even if we would do anything with them, we have some time to gather that information, but generally 200,000 being set aside to help small businesses. So then the column titled totals just adds everything together with the CDBG funding 2020 and the new COVID money. The orange highlighted column is just what we are allocating or that would go for COVID relief, which includes the special funding as well as the repurposed funding. And then I added some information on the households or persons or businesses that would be we're estimating we would serve with this funding. So about 240 households would be served through the housing counseling program, which could be eviction prevention, or foreclosure prevention, or their normal funding with housing counseling and debt relief counseling. Estimating 230 households would be assisted at about 1500 each. I just had a wag there on the individual assistance. The CRC operations, I think we served for folks in the COVID relief center. That might be a little bit more. I'm not quite sure on that, but I plugged in four there. And then an estimated 20 businesses with a small business assistance funding, eight, at least eight for the in between when they finally purchase a project and then preserving 50 units through the Aspen Meadows refinance and rehab. So a total of a little over 550 total households, persons, or businesses would be served. And then under this allocation, over 15 million dollars would be leveraged in other public or private funding. So I think Susan, you can take this down and then I would be more than happy to answer any questions. You should have gotten this today, I think maybe. Sorry about the lateness of it. But I think Nicole sent it out today, but I'd be more than happy to answer any questions about what we're proposing. Thank you, Kathy. Graham. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think most all that looks great. I think the only one question I have is about the around a quarter million dollars you're giving to the care center for individual assistance. And I just am curious how that's going to be administered? How do we ensure the money goes where we want it? And that it doesn't just get wrapped up into the our center's day to day business as usual? And maybe just like why them? Why didn't staff administer that money? Those are my questions. Yeah, good questions. So we think it's usually better to fund a program that's already operational, as opposed to standing up something new and particularly staff taking on yet another new venture right now. So that's it. But we would have an agreement with the our center CDBG funds, like I have mentioned many times before, are quite different than other funding, the human service agency funding or any other private funding that they might be raising or even the county TANF funding that they have gotten. So we'll have to have a clear understanding with them. And we would have a sit down before to make sure they understand all of the requirements that they have to meet, what they would have to do to income qualify folks to determine eligibility, to ensure they're not duplicating other benefits. And then we would have all that wrapped up in a contract and there would be ongoing reporting and probably a little bit heavier oversight, and more often oversight of how things were going for that. So I think we can be fairly directive. It doesn't necessarily have to go to the center, but they are really the agency that is most prepared and is already serving folks and is well known in the community as the place to go for this type of assistance. That was our reasoning for that. Okay, thanks. I think if I could add is that, you know, most of the communities that are getting the in Boulder County that are getting the CDBG COVID relief dollars are really trying to invest that in those existing family resource centers. So sister Carmen, Effa in Boulder and then our center as because as Kathy indicated, they are already providing rental assistance and individual assistance. And so it just it just bolsters their ability to serve more people faster. Thank you, Karen. Yes, Caitlin. Thanks for asking. Thanks, Mr. Chair. Thanks for asking that Graham as well. I have the same questions. One thing I'm curious about is the repurposing of the monies that were previously allocated for like rehab funding that which help keep people in their homes. And then also about that that small business assistance and why, you know, sort of looking at the number of folks served by the small business assistance versus the individual assistance and why go through a small business assistance rather than giving more individual assistance? Good questions. So the reason we chose to repurpose the rehab funding is because with COVID people didn't want people in their homes and quite rightly so. So the rehab program was put in abeyance when this started. So and it's probably going to be quite a while before it comes back. So we felt that with those two things keeping in mind and the funding that we still have available in 2019 funding rehab funding that hasn't been allocated yet for specific projects that we could easily and repurpose that money. We are probably not going to even open up applications for rehab funding until later in the summer. Anyway, we are continuing to serve the folks that were in process and that we halted when stay at home went into effect. It's just now starting to open back up. So we are starting to work on exterior items. We're still holding on interior items until things get a little more clear around protocols and stuff like that. But then finishing up what we have in process will continue to process emergency situations. So if somebody's water heater goes out or furnace goes out or something like that, we'll continue to do those. But to open up the program again, I think it would be prudent to wait until later into the summer before we even start taking applications again. Sorry, those emergencies are coming from the 2019 funding that has not been fully spent yet. Correct. Okay, thank you. That's helpful. I remember we had talked about there being a carryover. I just thank you if that helps with that piece of things. Yeah, exactly. And then I think with assisting small businesses, what makes sense to me is that for every job you can bring back, you have help to family. It may not be included in this total because it's really the business we're assisting. But there's many more families that are being assisted when you help a business come back and they can bring their employees back. And it's kind of a back door housing assistance, if you will. So that's why we were thinking with the small businesses that it's another way of supporting families as well. The more employees they can bring back, that's another family that doesn't need rental assistance necessarily when they can their employed again. And Kathy, that small business piece, are those loans or are they grants? We're looking at grants, I think, as opposed to loans. One, it makes it simpler. And there's no long term reporting then. And, you know, when we did this before, many years ago, we did a small business revolving loan fund. And the purpose was to provide loans and generate income that would come back through loan payments and revolve it and support more businesses. So it's an ongoing kind of thing. This seems different. And, you know, to have a business take on more debt during this time just doesn't seem right. The strong fund is set up to be a grant. So we thought we would just do the same thing. And we're allowed to. We can choose to do grants or loans. And these funds, I think you said this, but just to make sure these would be, you know, available if there's not other funding available for these small businesses. That's correct. We can't duplicate or supplant other funding. Got it. So if they qualified for federal assistance for some piece of their operations, we wouldn't, you know, essentially give a grant that would cover that those same costs. It would have to be something different if they, okay. Exactly. Okay. Yeah, I certainly support the grants versus the loans. I think going into a major recession is a tough time to take on extra debt. So that's just going to lead to more mental health issues, more stress and more failures. So I'm glad to hear that. Any other feedback for Kathy? Yes, Madeline. Yes, I, before I have to go, I wanted to ask how are people, if we are making available grants for the small businesses that are experiencing what everybody else is experiencing right now, how, how would they go about, how do they find out about it? How would they find out about the requirements? And just more about it. Where would I, for instance, be able to direct someone to? Right. So the, like I said, the Longmont Community Foundation is administering the funds called the Strongmont Fund. I think it's called Strongmont Fund. I know it's Strongmont. I can't remember if it's Program or Fund. Anyway. So it will be on the Longmont Community Foundation website. I think they're going to open applications Monday, maybe the 18th. And it should also be on the Longmont Economic Development Partnership website, the DDA website, the Chamber website. And I would imagine the city website, since the city's also contributing to that, some of their direct funding. So all of those should be open. I think it is only going to be open for a very short period of time, though. So if you know of somebody that might be interested, I would start telling them and have them ready to, as soon as the application is open, to submit. All right. Thank you. Yeah. Good night. Good night, Madeleine. Yes, Jake. Just a quick question. Kathy, do you happen to know on that fund if nonprofits or religious organizations qualify for those dollars, which is, you know, just whether they, it's the same as the CARES Act and that way or is that the Community Foundation would know that answer? They would know that it should be on the thing, but I believe it is, does not include nonprofits. Okay. Cool. Thank you. Yes, Caitlin. One more question on that fund being administered by the Longmont Community Foundation is the 200,000 that is reflected here. Is that the only money that the city is putting into that fund, or is the city contributing from other sources in the budget or otherwise? Yeah. So the city is putting in, I think it's 50 or 60,000, I think, that they had allocated for, to support economic development efforts. So they're repurposing city funds, the general funds, I think basically are what happens. It's a little more than that. Okay. But I think it's close to maybe 90,000 or 100,000 or something like that. Okay. But it's from money they had set aside for economic development and they're repurposing into this fund. And also then the Longmont Community Foundation is raising private dollars for that, you know, and Eric's listening in if he wants to. If we're saying something wrong, stop us. But yeah. So I think that they're certainly drawing from different sources from throughout the community to bolster the amount of dollars that's available for these small businesses. The council is also contributing $30,000, which I wanted to go to individuals, but it's going to businesses. So we're trying to pull money from every place we can. And oh, there's also the Community Foundation is also going to administer a fund called Neighbor to Neighbor, which is really just for individuals. So if any of you have spare money, give it to the Community Foundation. That goes directly to individuals and they'll be administering that. Thanks. If only we had had a member, a somebody from the Longmont Community Foundation who had been on the line and spoke during the public invited to be heard. So many of these questions could have been answered. Okay. No shaming, Mr. Chair. Simply reflecting the possibilities, Eric. Okay. Any other questions or comments, feedback for Kathy? Okay. I think Kathy, everybody seems to be in pretty widespread approval of your reallocations and redirection of money. Okay. Great. I will convey that to council. I think it makes sense. Good. Great. Thank you. Okay. We're on to agenda item six, update on human services need assessment and review 2021 human service funding options. Alberto is going to walk us through that. Meeting board. Before jumping into the presentation, I did want to give an update that I just got today and I have not had a chance to send it out to the board for your information from Root Policy, who is the consultants that are doing the human services needs assessment. They just sent me the timeline. And so I, you know, their goal is to really start stakeholder engagement and stakeholder, by stakeholder engagement, they're really talking about agencies that serve low and moderate income residents in services in long months. And they're thinking about doing that the weeks, the weeks of June 2nd and 8th doing several focus groups. They may reach out or they would like to reach out starting May 26th or June 5th potential residential resident focus group post to gauge interest on hosting virtual resident engagement. And then doing that through the June 8th to the 30th and July 1st to July 31st, really developing the human services needs draft for in preparation for a board presentation in August. So I just received that timeline today and I want to share that with the board. But now we can, Susan, if you don't mind, we could jump into the presentation. We want to get some, as Karen mentioned earlier, we want to get some direction from the board around the 2021 human agency service funding just because of the reality of COVID and what that will mean for human services funding. So if you want to go to the next slide, one more please. So as you can imagine, COVID-19 crisis has impacted several essential components of the human service funding in particular. We don't know yet in complete detail what this crisis, how it's going to impact of our available funding for 2021. And of course we, I just shared you the timeline to complete the human services needs assessment. That was not our original goal to be finishing in August. We were hoping to be finishing closer to this meeting actually. And of course, this has not happened. So this of course puts us in a situation where we have to rethink what we do for 2021. Susan, if you don't mind going to the next slide please. So just as a reminder, this is what was allocated in 2020. 789,000 was to the human services and 815 was around homelessness and homelessness prevention work through the R Center, the Homestead program. Susan, can you move to the next one please? One more. So for some of our new members, just a quick background. So in 2018, this board decided to align our human services needs assessment with the con plan that Kathy has been talking about. And this would really help us coordinate resources and time frames and doing this community-wide assessments. So the board thought it was a good idea to put these in alignment. And so we started that process. So we do have some human services needs information now that was part of getting the con plan. But we wanted a little deeper dive. And so this is why we have extended our contract with root policy and are working on a much in-depth human services needs assessment. So one more slide please. So we're about to jump into the options where we're going to ask for some feedback from the board. A few things that you need the board needs to be contemplating as we look at this. Again, reiterating that we don't know what the final financial impact is in 2021. Also, while we are not sure, we believe that this impact will likely suspend Council's decision of the incremental percentage increase to human service funding. Karen, I think we were going to be going up to 2.75 in 2021. This is my understanding. And the human services needs assessment will not be complete in time for an early summer release. We were hoping to release the RFP. If everything was going as planned, we were going to release it in June after our May meeting. And the other thing to consider is our EC impact partners. EC impact for those who don't know is how we is how we run the application process. It's an online platform that agencies use to fill out the application and we use to review and also judge the applications where board members get to score. And we use those scores to help us determine what final allocations are. They already have, City of Boulder for sure has already has a plan to suspend their annual RFP due to COVID impacts. So we know that for sure. We're not sure what Boulder County is going to do. I think they're waiting on us and what our direction will be before making a final decision. So those are things to keep in mind as we go through these options and then we can have a conversation. So you want to go to the next slide Susan. So there's four options I want to go over pretty quickly and then we can have a conversation. Option one is simple. We know that we're not going to have the new priorities are set. But we could decide that that we are just going to go ahead with what our 2020 priorities are. The percentages that we have placed on them and just you know release an RFP that way. Things to consider is that again I know for fact that City of Boulder is not planning to release an RFP. I did talk to City of Boulder and they're willing to support us if we decide to go this option with the EC impact process. I am not an expert at EC impact but the City of Boulder has some folks that could help me. We would need to figure out how we would do this process in particular around the hearings. Would they be virtual? You know all of these things would have to figure out pretty quickly as staff and as a board. Can you go to option two? So option two we could postpone the 2021 application until fall. We are expected to get our final human services needs assessment done by August. And really the things to consider is how late would we be comfortable releasing the application to provide recognition to Council? Karen did tell me that it doesn't have to be in December. It could be after. It's just been traditionally been in December but there's no there's no regular saying it has to be that way. And I think just to clarify that the Council authorizes the amount set aside for human service funding as part of their budget process. So that amount would be allocated and available and then you know so but we could wait another couple months and go back to Council if this is how we want to distribute the money. But the money would be allocated in the early fall. And again as in the first option we may be proceeding without our partners as far as you know the EC impact system. And of course we have to rework our hearing and schedule our hearing our hearing to schedule it to meet tight deadlines. So Susan can you go next to option three? So option three is we the board could just recommend that staff just continue the 2020 contracts and modify the scope of work based on funding availability. This would provide time for the human services needs to be completed and allow it to be considered for 2022 funding. There has been precedent this has happened at least as far as I know it's happened at least once. Yeah I happen to have partook of that one where I just renewed my contract with the City of Longmont. So that it has happened in the past. So that that is another option that we could do. And then finally Susan you get to the fourth option. So this is a this this option is a little different but it could go in line with with option three. This would be the board asking us as staff to use the information that we've been gathering and I'm going to share a little bit a little bit. I don't think you're going to be able to see it but I do have some recent survey results from our funded agencies and really respond to the COVID piece with everything that we've gotten and funding could be redirected from current agencies that are not meeting emerging needs. So the idea would be what needs are coming up that are coming out of this COVID crisis that we want to fund. So this could help us address some of the emerging needs that we're seeing. I can tell you that the City of Boulder is looking at a model like that potentially creating a logic model saying here are the activities and outcomes that we want to see based on what we're learning during this COVID emergency. Some of the things we got to consider is do we want to create a new hearing process or a new some type of another if not RFP some other process to do it or would we want to negotiate the contracts. So those are things to consider. We want to create a separate process based on the emerging needs and there's a lot of questions that are not on here that we need to answer as well but you know I think it's a way that we could address the needs but it would look different than what we've done in the past. So we could also combine option four and three to say you know within our funded agencies right now we want to look at those that are meeting the needs that are emerging and just renegotiate the contracts that way without having to open another process asking agencies to apply and explain how they're meeting this emerging needs. So that's I guess that's a fifth option it's combining those two. So those are the four options that we've created. Susan if you want to move on to the next one if you all have any other thoughts we could we could also entertain those as well tonight. I think what we're looking for tonight more than anything is direction on where the board wants us to do more research and to look into what the possibilities are. Yeah that's what we're asking for tonight. So I think that that's it there's the next slide it's just a question slide. So I think we can turn this off Susan and jump into discussion. Can I ask a question please Ann? Would we I'm more interested in in number four just because I'd like the money to go to the highest needs but would we know who's received funding extra funding or whatever through this process because I think that some agencies probably you know have benefited by donations and others have not at all. So would we know who that's a good question. So Karen and I and Eric who's on the phone too we are part of the Boulder County Funders Collaborative and while we don't know private funding we the most local government and foundation funding we've been we created what we call a master tracker a very large spreadsheet that has tracked where funding has gone. So for example in the city of Longmont what we did is we didn't have any extra funding but we were willing and able to expedite second and third quarter payments fourth quarter payments that needed to agencies that needed the funding upfront and we've released some funding early for some of these agencies who have dealt with some you know immediate needs increase in demand and you know just lack of resources so we have released some of their funding early but you know the neighbor to neighbor fund that the community foundation they've released 185 thousand so far to agencies Boulder County Community Foundation I think has released I'm not exactly sure but I think it's in a realm around three or four hundred thousand dollars. So we do know some of that but we you know when it comes to private donations that's a we don't know what what that what some agencies are receiving and others are not. Karen do you want to? I think um yeah so I think as Ella Berco mentioned so we have this big mother spreadsheet big master spreadsheet so we are tracking like all the federal dollars that have come through the the county so so we are tracking where are those funds going and who's receiving those so we will have we'll have all that information you know other than what Ella Berco mentioned in terms of any private donations that come in directly to the agencies but we have a pretty good system of tracking all the rest of it. One of the things that's been frustrating for me is that just you know when I go to if I go to do a donation somewhere is I have no idea like does the our center are they flesh okomite you know who where is the need um it's just difficult and I I just would like the money to go to the places that can use it the most I guess I think the other thing that would add I add to that and is that um we have also been uh distributing or asking agencies to give us feedback from surveys and saying you know what what your needs what are you struggling with so we actually have a lot of data at our disposal that we've been tracking around you know which which agencies are are struggling in what and what areas and just as a as an example with them with the um the family resource centers um so we kind of have an idea of they've indicated how much money that they have available for say direct financial assistance and and and so you can really see who has been more successful in raising additional monies and actually it's the our center that we've had chats about is is probably the agency that has the smallest amount of money available right now for individual assistance needs so so we do we do have a lot of data and um that can help inform the advisory board if you wanted to go with this option that helps to focus money on the impact of the pandemic um we do have a lot of data at our at our disposal that will help inform that it just would be so nice if they put that in the paper for just regular people that want to you know help with this or that you know it's very confusing like even if it's $25 or brings some food or whatever um it just it's not really been there and I think it's a missed opportunity thank you and so let's go with Jake and then council member Christensen just a quick question Karen Ella Berto thank you mr chair uh are we just on that big spreadsheet you mentioned are we just tracking agencies that we funded or applicants or are we tracking every dollar that comes down from the non-profits from the feds so you know we're tracking um again we're tracking the the the dollars head of that have come to the carers act to say the boulder county government so also we're tracking this our cdbg cv dollars we're tracking the the additional dollars that have come through for tanaf and um you know for the snap the nutrition program for rapid rehousing so um so the monies over which boulder county city of boulder city of longmont the boulder community foundation and the longmont community foundation those are the dollars that we are tracking great thank you I was just curious if we were we were we're tracking everything it sounds like not just the 25 or somewhat funded agencies we had everything everything that's coming through right great thank you thank you pauli sorry um I I guess I I see what you're doing I like the fact that you're giving us four choices um I think there's a great deal of money coming in from hither and yawn that has to do with COVID for the sake of the agencies I think it would be best to go with number one so that they they don't have to stress out on top of everything else that they're going to lose their funding because of whatever you know every year this is incredibly stressful for them and um I think uh there are organizations that may not be appearing to be uh affected by COVID but I think virtually every single human service agency and provider is going to be stressed out by this I would suggest that we just go with this so that they know that they are going to have we hope um what they had last year and then they can apply for extra funding and grants um to um to different agencies that are doing that uh for example um you know most of these agencies have fundraisers our center has a big fundraiser hope has a big fundraiser um el comate has a big fundraiser they had to call that off so they have no no big excites x you know no big bucks coming in meanwhile what they're dealing with is people who um household will come in two members of that household have already died of uh COVID they're living together because some of them lost their jobs um they are because these are jobs that are maybe gig economy they're not going to be eligible probably for um the $1,200 health or the unemployment or any of this stuff so people are living people who are low income are in this community and everywhere else in this country particularly minority people are losing are much more highly impacted by this and the service agencies that do that are working even harder and so I would suggest that we just give them a break and say okay we're just going to fund you the way we did last year if we can and we'll we'll deal with it next year but here are these other agencies other places you can get supplementary funds for all the stuff that you're doing relative to COVID focusing on COVID for the next two years is to me um kind of short-sighted I mean I I know it's a big serious thing but it will not last forever and then we will have made a commitment of money to something that we don't know from day to day what's how this is going to play out so so do you mean number one or number that sounded more like number three where we just oh all right the one where we we said I don't have your slides right here um the one where we said we will um just for this year we're not going to review you we're going to give you what we did last year right depending on funding availability okay okay so let's let's do this um so Anne Graham and then I I would like to hear from some of the board members who haven't weighed in on some of these issues uh Karen and Deanna if you could think about it if you have questions as well so go ahead Anne I just wonder and maybe this is just thinking outside of the box or the responsibilities we have but you know I stopped giving any money recently because I don't know who to give it to and it just I don't know if there's some way that the city or the county or someone could say these are the agencies like I I understand what um Polly is saying that yes I mean I I get that now that if we want to take all the money away from all those agencies they won't be up and running so I can understand that part of it but for me just as a citizen I don't know who to give my $25 or my $100 to because there's no one that says these are the agencies that are really hurting and maybe just creating that along with what we're going to do I don't know I just like that like these are the agencies like El Comete or whoever it may be that really does need help and then maybe I guess we can't track that because it's private but I just that's frustrating for me not knowing who's flushed with money and not so echoing Brian's statement if only we had somebody from the Longwood Community Foundation that talks to these agencies on a daily basis knows what they're going through so I on that note alberto I is there any reason we can't invite Eric to weigh in on some of these issues after we've all had our discussion I'm unaware of any procedural elements that would prevent that I think that's up to the the chair to determine so if you want to invite invite comment I think that's fine I I know the chair pretty well so we'll probably do that so let's go with Graham and then Karen and then Deanna thanks Mr. Chair I feel like there has to be some kind of process of accountability to check in with these organizations before we give them money I'm I'm fine with using last year's sort of priorities as a good baseline and not sort of overreacting to the COVID thing and restructuring human service funding but I do think there needs to be some manner of check-in some application process I think we should probably try to simplify it you know make it simpler on the organization that's going to be stressed and us and not try to force this that was the EIC system and certainly give them an opportunity to to to voice increase needs as a result of COVID but yeah I my vote is to have some kind of application process still in place I guess my question about the postponing is one is that going to help organizations that might otherwise struggle to meet the deadline and two would postponing the application process postpone them receiving the funds so if the organizations are injured by postponing I would not vote for that but if there's no net negative impact on the the nonprofits by postponing I my vote is to postpone have an application and review process using you know technology or not at the time it doesn't matter but yeah that's what I got thanks thank you Graham Karen well I'm just I don't know how this works I don't know how you know so until I have something to base this on I'm not even sure what's going on you know as far as how we make a decision and and so this kind of new to me and I don't quite have anything to base this on so I'm not sure okay that that's fair so if you if there are specific questions so I would only invite you to think about how we could help make sure that you have your questions answered so that you know as you move along it'll be a little bit clear but I completely understand that position Dina I guess I don't know if I'm allowed to ask this but I am sort of wondering if staff who prepared these options have an opinion on which of these make the most sense in a couple of different ways first of all what's workable from the staff perspective and from a board perspective and what makes the most sense in terms of satisfying needs of these organizations and to echo both what Graham and Polly said I am concerned also about making sure that organizations that really really need the money right now actually get the money but I also know that probably they're spinning right now trying to get everything taken care of and maybe if we can delay application without delaying receipt of money that does make sense to me but I don't know if that's workable from a board perspective thank you so just for my own input I also have a concern about the loss of continuity in what agencies are providing and those are underlying foundational needs that we've identified in the community and you know as soon as we break that continuity it really puts future risk for these foundational ongoing needs so I almost see this more like a this kind of weird like a chart almost where there's these needs that we've identified and I think COVID is actually going to the the impacts are very much in alignment with what agencies are already providing right it's just more we need more housing we need more healthcare we need more mental health services whatever it is so I wonder Eliberto and Karen if it makes sense to consider just if we can identify some of those areas that have clearly increased needs not that they're the only maybe that just helps us identify if like you know this agency that need isn't quite as high as this need is temporarily so we move a little bit but we still figure out what that critical mass is to maintain that continuity that's a pretty big theoretical ask but I'm just trying to visualize it in a way that that makes sense I keep thinking of the organization that does the visitations with children and their parents I forget what the organization first of the Rockies yes thank you you know and that's one of those things that it's like that need is it's there through all circumstances and it's such a critical function that it's hard for me to think about displacing that and underfunding and allowing children to maintain that contact in the safe manner and you just need more money but it's going to be a pretty nuanced I think yes go oh go ahead um I was going to say I think um just to I would echo what Graham has said I think the concerns that councilwoman um christiansen had about um the stress on these organizations I think that the idea of um delaying uh the applications and then doing a simplified process for these organizations so that we continue to have some measure of oversight or accountability on them um but also recognizing that like getting them to maybe put together a full package when they're trying to apply for five other grants to supplant you know to supplement them because they can't do their usual annual fundraiser like that's a lot that's on their plate trying to find ways to do that I think that that makes the most sense is to try to find a way to do that um reducing the burden but also making sure that we're not just sort of like handing funds um I would also be somewhat curious if come you know if we wait till the fall um whether there are any of these organizations that don't that don't make it um and I don't mean that in a like I'm not trying to be pessimistic about that but I do think that we're in a very unique time and that some of these organizations um you know some of the smaller ones some of the smaller amounts that we've given may not um and so continuing the funds maybe doesn't make sense from that sense but also understanding like if there are organizations that are essentially going to be wrapping down um their operations um letting us be sort of agile to respond to some of that um thank you Caitlin Karen uh so I guess what I am hearing or I just wanted to check is that it sounds like that the advisory board is is interested in um releasing some kind of application process uh for um so that gives everyone a shot at being able to ask for um ask for money not just say well we're just gonna we're gonna change our priorities because that's the thing I heard you talk about Brian was that we could certainly look at some priority shifts doesn't mean that we wouldn't consider some agencies that maybe we're in a lower price but we would kind of move our um our weighting and our priorities a little bit so it sounds like there's still some interest in doing a competitive application process um and not just continuing what we had in 2020 into 2021 and not just focusing on COVID so if I if I'm hearing correctly and and then I think really the question is um if if you want to have application process might it make sense for us to schedule that application process later in the year we will we will have a few more months of finding out how um what our world is continuing to look like with uh recovery from uh working on our recovery from um from the pandemic plus if in August that we will have our our updated needs assessment information then that gives us a chance to kind of look at a whole a whole picture and and reset what we think our priorities we want those those to be that um that the question about how much longer if we went if we if we waited until the fall to release our our application and go through that process probably what would happen is that it would be it would take a little while longer for us to get their 2021 applications and contracts um it might be a month or two delay in getting the contracts in order but you know we would work really hard to um to move that along so it sounds like that there's a desire to have some application process and so whether that is facing that on the you know the previous uh target areas or whether you want to wait um you know a couple three months and have it incorporate the new um needs assessment data that we are collecting jake and then council member christensen thank you mr chair thank you karen i think you're you're hearing us right i do have one thing that i just wanted to mention i'm seeing every day um that there is a lot of money going out because of covet there's there's a lot of money connected to um to to the virus a good chunk of that probably the vast majority of it is going to the for-profit sector right going to support small business going through although nonprofits can't apply for ppp can there there's a there's a blend there i think ultimately what this process is in the human services funding is it's designed to support nonprofit agencies who are meeting community need here in the city along so from my perspective for this one very unique funding cycle i think it would be a mistake for us to not in some way incorporate covet into that conversation um i i i came into this kind of very much set on option four but i think council member christensen made a great point which is we need to support agencies that that are continuing to that are having a hard time so my preference just to get it out would be that we do an application process that we delay that application process until we can get um the human services needs assessment back but that that process also in some part of the matrix it doesn't have to be the number one priority it doesn't have to be anywhere i would like agencies to be able to at least communicate to us how they're dealing with the covet how they how they're addressing need in the community and then we can decide as a board how we want to weigh that into the overall decision on funding that's ultimately our decision so i think it would be delay the application process absolutely have an application process grams a hundred percent right i do not want to just extend contracts um without being able check in with some of these folks some of those agencies were right on the right on the line and i want to see how folks are doing and katlyn has a great point about you know seeing where folks are at in two to three months so i think my preference would be delay it you incorporate covet into the overall picture of funding without necessarily totally changing the structure um and make sure that's part of the application and then we as a board do a do a competitive funding process so that's my i agree great councilmember christensen um yes i like what shake said it's um to just include as part of the application process a question on on what their how covet has impacted them in their provision of services and what their new needs are um i also want to remind people though if we delay it too much um these agencies are using our funding to get leverage for other funding so if we delay it then they they can't apply for anything else because they can't say that you know we got this amount of funding from the the city of longmont and so when we delay things too long it's going to cause them um uh yet more stress and more economic problems so let's try not to delay it too long right and i guess to councilmember christensen's point so i mean i think what what that would look like is probably the earliest because we have the needs assessment data and then you know we have to go through the process of waiting and and what are going to be our priorities so so it's it's probably a ellie bergeron just making a guess that it's probably um you know a mid to late september release of that of that rfp um so before before j just really quickly um so something that would change though i mean in what i'm hearing and that would help is a simplified you know um application process where we may or may not use easy impact we use something else that's easier um you know so that would also help speed up the process if we're not doing the full on grant application that we do through um easy impact so that's just something to throw out there to think about not that we couldn't do easy impact i'm just talking about if we could simplify it that would speed up the process and we also think about we also think about this the um hearings as well you know that would also if if we remove that or modify it to make it easier then that would also speed up the process because that does take time all right jake thank you ellie bergeron just a quick yeah i completely agree um i think i think it's a simplified application um that includes kind of you're probably going to have to restructure a good deal of the logic model um to incorporate covet and also to weigh shrink it down um and then also i think a hearing process that is as much as it is hard on us perhaps um to condense it and kind of stack it instead of i don't know how long how many how long it took us to get through hearings last year you know a month basically of once a week long hearings maybe we condense that down and say can we get these done in two weeks or what have you and then i mean i i'm curious from as a question as well from because council member christian again makes a great point from caron or liberto what the timeline would be for us for when we needed to have the process done so that we're not having that negative impact on our agencies um what when roughly would like when do they need to have that info i know it's kind of all up in the air but i'm be curious i guess how i would answer that um jake is that if tonight if the advisory board wanted to give us direction on where you would like to head with this then we would come back to you in the all these months and just roll it again at the june meeting and uh and we could flesh out more details so i think really what we're looking for is is is there one option you really want one or two that you want us to pursue we could then come back with um with more detail about what that would look like great i think i think i've said my my piece my i think people kind of get a sense for where i'm at with it i think that's the approach that makes the most sense so does that does that if everybody understands that that's more man so thanks thank you jay katelyn i have two questions and i'm not sure exactly where to direct them but um the first is um regarding waiting for the human um for the needs assessment um what i heard was it that if we want to take that into account we have to wait until we get that to determine to actually put out the rfp for these is that actually a blocker do we have to have that needs assessment before we can ask agencies until agencies that were accepting applications so i i think that's really up to so that's really the difference between uh option one and option two so option one is release an application use the same uh funding priorities as we had the last three years and option two is is have an application process but use the new funding priorities from from the assessment and then plus the either one of those you could incorporate the the the covid impact questions so it's really about do you want to where we'd be a couple of months away from having fresh data about the needs in long months so do you want to wait for that for a couple of months or you want to move forward with the with the the data that is is about three and a half years old and that's really the change are those priorities incorporated in the application process to help applicants understand what the priorities are um and how we're waiting them is that the the gist of it is that we sort of have to specify what those priorities are to allow them to customize their applications accordingly it's really for you to determine how when you look at what are the needs in the community what are we going to ask for um or what do we want to fund we want to fund services that target x y we had six areas of need that came out of the last needs assessment so this is really to inform you as the advisory board what are the most critical um and compelling needs in our community that we think the um these dollars that we're responsible for should be invested in and then and then that informs what the application looks like in the areas that we are considering funding um so my follow-up question to that is do we have a sense from any of the draft or the information that we have so far if there is a any kind of dramatic shift in what those are or would be because it seems to me like those areas that we've talked about that are the needs I could see maybe them shuffling a little bit in terms of like which one is the top one but not necessarily something one of those six things dropping off completely and being replaced by some need that we have not um previously prioritized um so I would say and Ellie Bertow maybe I have not done a deep dive into the I mean there are pages and the good news is we have over a thousand respondents to the surveys there's a lot of pages there's a lot of data in there so I can't answer that question yet but the thing that we are interested in that we had to wait on because of the pandemic is the focus groups so we will have the data but the the additional work that we are contracting um group policy to do is to really help us dive in a little deeper and try to get the story behind the data that really helps inform what are the types of services that we might want to be funding um so it just it makes the data richer by helping our community members interpret what that really means. Got it. The second question that I had was when we were talking about this about the hearing process and I'm curious if we have the ability to um for example um not I guess if we have to condense it down to change who we hear from so for example if an agency comes in and it's sort of like everything's basically the same we're meeting the same needs everything is fine like we're asking for the same amounts do we necessarily need to hear from those folks or the folks where it's changing a lot um do we have the ability to sort of um make that determination or do we have to hear from everybody as part of that process. So this is Karen again so I would say that the the hearing process is really uh up to the advisory board to um to determine I would say that for consistency sake again um that because these are these are city and tax dollars that that whatever you decide to apply in terms of your funding process that you really um do that um consistently and equitably among the agencies how you um how you want to do that and the process you want to develop is really up to you. Great thank you very much. Thank you so we are running out of time Diana. Just quickly I'm not sure I really understood the answer to this question but in terms of delaying the application impacting the receipt of funds by organizations if we delay the application by a couple months are we automatically delaying the receipt of funds by a couple of months or can we compact the hearing process and maybe the gathering of information through the application process sufficiently to sort of offset that delay or is it just unavoidable from a staff perspective that that delay is going to happen? You know if you give us some direction we will certainly look at that most of the um the the challenge is I mean is in the contracting process so it takes a while because we have to create individual scopes of work for each of the individual agencies there's a negotiation back and forth then it then we get every contract reviewed by our city attorney's office so it just takes us a little while to move through that we do that as fast as we can but we're not the only ones that have a hand in that so it depends on how fast the agencies get back to us um and sometimes that doesn't we have to wait in terms of you know their work and then our attorney's office also has to approve all the contracts so that's really it takes it takes a little while to once we get the approval from council that they're good with the what we're recommending and it doesn't mean that we can't expedite it on the front end so we can certainly work in the front end with a boilerplate plate contract with our attorneys for 2021 that we could get done early and then it's really just around the negotiation of the scopes of work for each of the individual agencies and like this year we had I don't know 30 35 contracts so it just takes a little it takes a little while so that that that helps thank you Karen Jake thank you Mr. Chair um so just to for clarification do you need a motion and a vote on one of these options is that what staff is asking for okay I I'm gonna put this out okay so I I feel like because we had so many people so many of our residents become a part of the survey process because we would be a couple of months out from getting new data which we don't know if it's going to be substantially different or not at this point we need to make a decision now I want to go ahead and move option two which would be to delay with the assumption and the belief that there will be some COVID element as a part of that application as a part of the overall application so that's that's my motion and I'll look for a second all right is there a second Deanna okay we have a second okay so discussion any discussion on the motion and how far are you saying to delay because that concerns me I it was alright Mr. Chair if I yeah um I would uh think that delay makes sense unlike as soon as we get that data back that as expedient as staff finds possible once we have the human services needs assessment in our hands to get that application done get it out begin the process so I'm not talking about waiting I would put some power in staff's hands at that point to say all right we have this data back let's move on it include some COVID elements in the applications and then get it out to our agencies so as expediently as possible after the receipt of the human services assessment you know and and what I would add to that is what would be what what we're really looking at is some direction from you in terms of what option we're really going to flesh out and then bring back to you in June with more details and then that's what time you can say ah we don't want to do that we want to do this so but to have at least the narrowing of options um that we could you know flesh out and bring back to you is what we're looking for nothing you're totally committed to that so uh for my part of the discussion I would add just I think along the lines of what you were saying Karen that we're we're agreed we're going to pursue an application process simplified application that will incorporate COVID-19 questions Jake I think you covered that in your motion and I would suggest amending the language to include that the direction the direction includes staff developing timeline benchmarks for opening applications closing and seeing how much elasticity there is in that process uh and then also just as a comment I wonder Karen with the contracts you know I think the the interviews we need to do it's possible for those agencies that have existing contracts this year that maybe that could be a way we could expedite that process is if the the scope of work changes but the contract language remains the same that that's just a curiosity and what do I say Brian is that the contract the boilerplate contract language doesn't really significantly change year to year it's really in the individual review and negotiation but it doesn't change significantly okay unless there's some big change in insurance requirements or you know or some kind of change in the law but it doesn't change okay so any other discussion on the motion on the tip Jake I would just say that's a brilliant point on benchmark timelines Mr. Chair I happily accept that as a friendly so so for I think that's a great idea Nicole were you able to capture that my space bar isn't working to unmute me I apologize um yes I believe I have it so um basically option two delay until the needs assessment funding priorities with the assumption and belief that there'll be a COVID element as part of the application and also a request for staff to develop a timeline benchmarks for opening and closing along with elasticity in that and I would include a simplified application please oh yes great thank you okay let's take a vote all in favor please raise your hand I got you guys thank you any opposed to raise your hand okay the motion passes thank you so we have I think the site visit updates we should table until our next meeting the update on Longmont housing authority Karen is that something you'd like to cover quickly and I do want to invite Eric to just answer a few of the questions if he chooses to do so so um so Mr. Chair that is that is certainly up to you it was a request of one of the advisory board members that we give an update on um on really what's what's happening with the Longmont housing authority so you can tell me if you want me to move forward or not if you say make it 10 minutes make it five minutes I can't really find a way of five minutes but I'd probably make it 10 minutes so whatever you want whatever you want me to let's let's do it in 10 minutes hey you want you want to do your timer well it would give me some sense of purpose isn't if you would pull up the powerpoint that would be fabulous and you can go to the next slide please so um so so basically the the um the background is that we had um the the city and the Longmont housing authority had been in conversation since the beginning part of this year about creating some kind of a different partnership between the two entities um you know Jillian Baldwin the director came in about um less than two years ago after the Longmont housing authority went through uh you know kind of a crisis and and she had really um she she had worked really hard to try to stabilize the Longmont housing authority she made some great strides um and and the the process for continuing to do that and the kind of issues that continued to come up and the the you know the the challenges of the agency that she was not seeing a sustainable path for the Longmont housing authority um in without some kind of major um examination or shifts or changes in the system and and how it business um so we were in conversations with um you know with the Longmont housing authority about that we had started to put a plan together Kathy and and me with our city manager we had in you know we had had talks with the boards um with our city council and um and that that discussion with the board with the Longmont housing authority and Longmont housing development corporation board happened that first week in March and you know what happened the second week in March so so we so that work really took went on the side burger until Jillian um announced the end of April that she um that she had accepted another position and she would be leaving the Longmont housing authority so we jumped back in with warp speed around this this work that we started so we we looked at so this is this slide is really this is the vision of our city council um in terms of where they see their focus and the need to make sure that folks have adequate access to housing next slide please this is the Longmont housing authority's vision to be the leader in providing affordable housing and the next slide is um this is the work that we we we probably worked pretty um intensely in February to cut to really look at what are the challenges that are experienced that the Longmont housing authority was experiencing and what's in front of you is is really a list of things that we identified in February which really had to do with um their staff capacity they continued to have staff turnover um they they don't have enough ongoing revenue really coming in from their business model that that allows them to probably have all of the staff that they really need to have to provide the services that they um they provide we identified um challenges within the organizational culture within the culture of their residential facilities that really needed to be addressed of the need for the housing authority to have a really a future vision for where it's where it really needed to be and what kind of support sustainable structure needed to be in place for them to reach their vision we wanted to look at more um ongoing development opportunities and really expansion opportunities and expansion opportunities really has to do with the expansion of their housing choice voucher program so there are opportunities you know along the way for for housing authorities to apply for additional um what we used to call the old section 8 housing choice the housing vouchers now they're called housing choice vouchers but because the um the the housing authority is just kind of trying to keep their head above water they just really haven't been able to focus on the pursuit of new development opportunities expansion opportunities that bring in more revenues that allows them to do their jobs better right um and then the fourth the fifth bullet is really about looking for an opportunity to better integrate the work that the city is doing and the housing authority on um on affordable housing goals and strategies that are coming out of the regional housing partnership next likely system and so this was the vision that we created back in the first part of march that we shared with uh with the housing authority board and i won't read this all to you but it was really about an integrated partnership model so that we could leverage resources and we could continue to have a continuum of housing opportunities available to our our to our community next slide please so um so we these are the we went through and we identified what are the things that we really need to focus on in the next um that basically the next five six months and this is work that we did since um whatever end of april so so we really looked operations is uh is one of the big issues so we need to end in there is really um looking at staff development staff training needs for the housing authority you know making sure that we have all the different kinds of protocols and policies and things in place there are um as well as looking at how they are in compliance with all their federal funds um HUD you know what that looks like for cdbg so making sure that we're in compliance with that and really looking at what would be the optimum staffing levels that the housing authority needs to have to um to really perform their work well next slide please this is another area that we said we wanted to look at is both in terms of their organization culture and their residential culture um so that it is uh so instead of fighting fires and problems and conflicts that we are figuring how to shift to a more positive way um of the residents for living together and the first and the staff for working together that really propels the agency forward rather than keeps us it keeps them in a crisis mode next slide please and then um and then to really look at a couple of development opportunities so uh I think as you all know is in terms of we are looking at the the refinancing and rehab of the Aspen Meadows Apartments um and so that we knew that we had to work on that make sure that that was successful and and figuring out our project management of that without Jillian in in in that role and then we also have a property it's really the other the undeveloped portion of the sweets property that the city was 51% in owner in and and so we are working with uh element is the uh is the development group and so we have um they submitted uh tax credit um application and to develop that parcel on the sweets and so we should hear back about whether or not that project was awarded tax credits um probably yet in May or maybe the first part of June if that is awarded those tax credit um funds or tax credits then that's another project that goes um that goes on the the front burner for immediate action next slide please and then you can just hit all those little animations so so then we're also looking at at the whole financial picture of the of the housing authority and you can see you can see all of the all of the activities there next slide please that gaps um then this area is really looking at the level of support services needed in and basically all of the resident most all of the residential units are our senior units our senior developments with the exception of one which is a family development um and those really need what we call like a lighter touch so how do we support residents that are living there um and create a model that they really don't have in place now and then the heavier touch case management is really looking at the suites which is more permanent supportive housing um model and and residents that are living in the suites need much more support in case management than they're getting now so we need to look at how to address that next slide please um and then and then kind of the those are the those are the things that are immediate action that we need to take care of in the next few months and then really look at um the strategic planning forward expectations looking at how do we really address and repair the um you know the the image of the the housing authority but we need to take care of all those other immediate actions first to stabilize the um the llama housing authority next slide please and then continuing to look for the longer term about um development opportunities which I talked about initially so about your utilization expansion how do we have the llama housing authority be a stronger partner in our inclusionary housing efforts as the money comes in from inclusionary housing you know how do we establish the llama housing authority as a viable development partner um and then there are a couple of other uh areas that we identify in there that will need some redevelopment um or and development in the um in the not too distant future but it's a little longer term down the road next slide please and then this is our warp speed time frame so so right now uh and then in the next couple of weeks we'll be working on um an operational agreement that uh that really formalizes the role between the housing authority and um and the city of long months uh it'll probably be a two-part process I'm imagining first will be um like a memorandum of understanding um and then that will identify up you know how we're going to work together and in essence that the the city the the goal would be that the city is going to have operational oversight if you will of the kind of the daily operations of the llama housing authority the housing authority board will still have its policy making role and um and our our attorneys and their attorneys are going to structure that so but they still remain separate organizations with um separate liability um but that the that the city will have um operational oversight of um of the llama housing authority so we're trying to figure out that and then you can you can kind of see the um within the the next six months to really have address some of the um the how the to stabilize to look at some of the um a new operational model and then continue to do some of the other kinds of changes with some time for evaluation and then after three years and again this time frame I'm sure will change but it's it's the best time frame we come up with with the information that we had to really look at you know after uh at least a three month three year period that that we will have a better idea of what does that sustainable model for the llama housing authority look like is it do we think that we'll be able to kind of return that back to be an independent housing authority or whether there will need to be a more um permanent integration of the of that llama housing authority with the city of long mod government or or something else so you know part of it because it is a small housing authority it's really hard for them to achieve the economies of scale um to do what they need to do without significantly raising rents and we really are not wanting to try to to do that at this point in time so we need to we need to explore we need to um work with them to figure that out um and we don't want to when this happened you know two years ago and we hired and they hired jillian and it was really that there were so many things that had to be stabilized that she never could get her head above water if that makes sense and so this time and her recommendation is is that hey two years ago we probably should have taken this step then to get things stabilized before bringing in a new director to then position the agency for the future so that is my warp speed presentation i think susan i think that's it thank you there you go thank you so you can turn it back to bryan and i have to get answer questions thank you karen any questions for karen clarifications councilmember christianson jake you're waving off go ahead poly i just want to say karen i am very very thankful for doing this i've been advocating for us to do something about lha for six years and i think this is a very good move um anyway i i really have been shocked at the what at log mod housing authority you know and i think a lot of that is well so it's a lot of different things and so we we just are it's a big heavy lift just fyi i so so if you don't hear from kathy and karen for a while you know what happened um but it's going to take all of us really doing our best work together because we need the llama housing authority they provide housing for our most vulnerable and our lowest income residents we need them to be successful and that's why we are all in thank you jake thank you karen so much for the presentation i was the one to ask for it so i really appreciate um i really appreciate that it was a very thorough i i do have one quick question just you mentioned it actually just about capacity and about you know staff's ability to take this on you know i i'm continually amazed by your ability personally to just take keep taking stuff on and run with it in the in the whole department can just talk briefly a little bit more just about kind of the plan for leadership over lha and oversight and are you going to be the point person for lha for the next period of time or kind of what's the what's roughly the who what's the leadership plan well that that's uh that's a great question for which i do not have an answer yet um we are we are working at that now i would say that we've identified it it is it is going to be a team it's going to be a team approach okay for a while um obviously there are going to you know we're going to have to have some identified point people um but we are bringing in um the best of the city staff that we have in the areas that we need that we identified in terms of that discovery and opportunity we'll probably bring in some consultation some outside consultation uh for certain aspects and uh and it it will be several city staff members along with Longwood housing authority staff members great thank you Karen for that and thanks for the work and for staff's work and taking that on i'm with council member christiansen completely lha has been in line for some reform for some time so i'm glad to see the city taking it on thank you thank you aitlin uh sorry um i actually have to run i thank you so much karen for the additional information um really appreciate it and appreciate all of the work that staff has put in for all of the presentations and keeping us up with this with all of the changes in the world right now so thanks thanks for hanging in there i do want to quickly invite eric if you would like to try to answer a few of the questions that were thrown out about longmont community foundation your program go for it thank you all actually i want to commend you all and uh and the enormous responsibility you have to uh make for uh dealing with the uh funding and the responsibility that you undertake with the with the public dollars so thank you very much for your service um let's see i think i think everybody was fairly spot on with their with their information about the uh strongmont fund which karen it's strongmont fund or kathy i think you said strongmont fund it is indeed strongmont fund uh and that is for small businesses uh 25 employees or fewer and it is um uh pending an assessment really all the businesses are encouraged to take an assessment before they actually can apply uh we have received when you look at the data you look you uh we're kind of hitting the groups who you want to hit so we're looking at minority businesses veteran owned businesses women owned businesses so it's it's really exciting to look at the data um that has come through initially in that that application will be ready to go on the 18th and the review committee will make those grants the turnaround time is the 26th is what we're looking at the may 26th to actually make those decisions and we'll be gosh granting out those dollars shortly thereafter um so we're looking at uh we we are indeed raising money from public private dollars and we're also using or being the housing or the hub for the the other public dollars that are coming into that fund um then finally the neighbor to neighbor fund that is we've actually had two rounds of funding we raised about a quarter of a million dollars and have granted out 185 thousand dollars and two rounds of funding and the third round will probably be sometime um we actually had a board meeting this morning and we had talked about delaying the third round um the sense is that uh we reached a peak and donations to that and it's it's fallen pretty precipitously um so we are kind of in the uh kind of the final stage if you will but we want to see how things are in the environment right now for nonprofits I think everybody aptly mentioned the fact that you know all organizations are hurting and human services organizations that are even aren't really directly involved in COVID-19 relief are certainly hurting um it's not unlike any other business they are having to lay off people and reduce salaries and reduce staff so it's not like your low restaurants or anybody else in the community that's really suffering so it will remain to be seen um what happens to some of those organizations but we expect that in the third round of funding we're probably going to be looking at maybe issues of childcare um mental health um and maybe broadening it to expand to other organizations that are actually seeking general help to kind of bridge those loss of fundraising dollars right now um that's essentially what I'd say but I I think the one thing I really am was really excited to hear is that you're all looking at simplicity in your application which I encourage I think that um with shortened staffs and smaller staffs and overburdened staffs I think it's really wise to to go with a shorter and simpler application so thank you sorry for going on too long no that's great Eric thank you any questions for Eric while we do have them on the line okay Eric I just want to say that you know I feel like the profile of Longmont community foundation is really increased during this time and I commend you on that and particularly because I think that's a function of the fact that you really acted when it was needed and I it's impressive so thank you for everything that you're doing thank you okay so uh we are about to be ready to adjourn I just have one question is there any other business uh council member christensen has one piece of business well this isn't really happy but I just wanted you know we got an update uh for the last two weeks from Jim golden the chief financial officer first we were on a 14 million dollar shortfall now we're on an 18 million dollar shortfall but we don't know it might not be that bad but it's always better to be conservative when you're talking about you know not to underestimate how much money you're going to have rather than overestimate so that's not so so good but you know the amount of money that this organization gets is a very small amount of our overall roughly 450 million dollar budget so um and and it's very important that all of these organizations be funded because they're doing the work of the city so anyway thank you everyone stay well thank you and I just have one other piece of business real quick and that is to congratulate jake on his the the receipt of his degree I don't know how long it was in the oven but it's it's done congratulations which degree oh thank you mr chair yeah I took um three years off from my undergrad at cu denver to go do sports and travel the world and do stuff and I'm finally finished it up and then I start grad school in the summer so I I I'm finished up with a BA in history from the University of Colorado Denver and headed to go be a history teacher as the plan so congratulations thank you so much okay is there a motion to adjourn a motion to adjourn well done Karen and a second if there's no other business and the meeting is adjourned thank you everybody