All right, I'm gonna go ahead and call our um March 2nd, 2026 City of Columbia Pre Council to order.

Uh we have a couple of things on our agenda today.

Up first is our housing affordable housing discussion, which I think is gonna lead up to next week's joint meeting with the counties we'll overview that.

And then we have our risk management report and then a closed session.

So I'm gonna go ahead and click this over to Bill and Clint because you are sitting there.

Take it away.

Hi, thank you, Mayor.

Um everybody.

Okay, so just uh start off.

Um we're gonna give some statistics, um, some illustrations, and we're gonna provide some crosswalk updates, which y'all are aware of that Boom County kind of prepared the crosswalk to kind of keep us on track with you know, tracking our progress towards the various recommendations that were in the housing study.

Okay, so first of all, we thought it would be important to show that the city has provided significant support for affordable housing.

And uh I went back and started with 2024 because that was the year when the uh housing study was done.

So just to kind of show what the city has done and what the city has funded uh for these various projects.

So you can see there uh there's a total of 14.3 million.

Um that includes new construction projects, uh preservation of existing housing, and direct assistance to home buyers and renters.

Okay, and as far as the funding, um we have two primary sources uh mainly federal, uh, but the from the American Rescue Plan Act to ARPA funds came from the US Department of Treasury, and uh HUD, the Department of Housing Urban Development uh provides community development block band funds and home investment partnership uh program funds, also known as home.

So since uh the study was done, um we've been involved with 440 units total.

Um now, not all these are complete.

Uh some of them are underway, some of them haven't started yet.

Um, but we just wanted to give the totality of the uh support the city is providing uh for all these projects.

So you can see there um there's about a hundred, there's 194 new construction units, about 12.2 million was invested in those, and 264 units that are already in existence, and about 2.1 million was invested in those.

All right, so as far as the new construction, um 19 of those were four sale units, um, and those were made available to households that are what HUD calls uh low moderate income, uh, meaning that they meet 80% of the area mediate income guidelines as defined by HUD.

And then there were 165 rental units.

Um the vast majority of those are also affordable.

Um there are smattering of some market rate units in there with some of the um housing authority projects, and then uh 10 transitional housing units uh that were are being done by local Columbia.

Okay, so this kind of breaks down the new construction units.

Um you can see the housing authorities responsible for the lion share of those.

Uh that includes Kinney Point, Park Avenue, Providence Walkway, Blind Boone, and then uh we have uh CMCA or Central Missouri Community Action.

They have 16 units, um, Providence Landing and uh Hickman Homes.

And then the Land Trust uh has two units, uh Colemore Cottages over on North East Street, and then Job Point has one over at 903 North Garden.

All right, and then uh besides the new construction, uh we provide support and funding for uh already existing units.

Um so our housing and neighborhood services department has provided funding for 174 of those units, uh primarily through our energy efficiency and home rehab program uh funded uh through ARPA, um although there's some CBG there.

Um, and then service for independent living uh provided funding for 20 units and Woodhaven also provided funding for another 20 units.

Um things uh I will want I want to point out to um because the question uh they received um was about other uh types of programs.

So um one thing that we are going to be seeking is a grant from HUD to provide funding for lead remediation.

Um we will need to wait until their uh NOFA comes out, the knows of funding availability, those typically come out in June.

Um applications will be due probably in August or September.

Um but if we get that that would allow us to not only assist uh owner occupied units but also rental as well.

And then we'll be able to replace windows, doors, other things like that to have lead paint hazards in those.

Um and then uh you know we're looking at some other.

I'm sorry, yeah.

Sorry, I'm gonna grab my microphone now.

Thanks.

All right, I wanted to ask if any of our existing energy efficiency um programs for home rehabilitation.

Um are any rentals allowable for those participation in those programs?

They're not currently.

Um, but that is something we're exploring uh potentially with the use of the trust fund to have a rental um rehabilitation program uh to maybe bring units that are offline online or to um you know do those repairs and in exchange we want increased affordability so they would have to maintain those units to be affordable for our setup period of time.

I think one clarification, I'm pretty sure in Heron, I'm sorry you just took a bite, but I think that our um energy efficiency programs through water and light rentals are eligible.

The property owner obviously needs to be on it, but it's um so those for those programs like the HVAC insulation, all of those uh rental units are eligible.

Yes, interesting.

Yeah, yeah.

Uh on the lead abatement money.

Um hope we get that.

Would that be something that we would administer, or would we make that available to local uh agencies as well who might be doing that kind of work?

Yeah, so we would be responsible as the grantee.

Um we could partner with different nonprofits, um, but we might look to hire staff and house to help administer that as well.

Um it is a competitive grant, I should point out too.

So of course, yeah.

So the 17 microphone again, sorry.

The 174 units on this slide are rehabilitation through the housing and neighborhood services energy efficiency programs.

Do we have a number on how many participated with water and lights programs?

I don't think we do.

No, we do not.

Um, we did have a recent update on because when we were talking about the our ARPA funds that we did for going door to door for the additional ones.

So I know we have that in some report recently came to us, but I bet we I bet we could get that information.

Yeah, bringing it back around in context is always helpful because I can't pull all that information from memory.

Okay.

Um direct assistance.

So this is assistance that we provided either directly to homeowners or to uh tenants.

So uh through housing neighborhood services, we have what we call the HOA homeownership assistance program where we provide funding for down payment and closing costs for first-time home buyers.

So uh we've assisted 20 home buyers uh with that program, and then the Columbia Housing Authority has a Tibor program, our tenant-based rental assistance, and which we provide uh assistance for paying the monthly rent.

Uh and we've assisted 17 tenants with that.

Uh, that's funded by the the home program.

And I mentioned earlier, love Columbia's uh 10 transitional housing units.

And I'll turn this section over to Clay.

Yeah, there we go.

Okay.

Thank you.

So we'll I think now we've uh kind of get into the section where we'll provide a little bit of updates on uh some of the recommendations that were uh provided in the city-county uh housing study.

Um and I won't spend a lot of time uh on these, just in recognition that city council or city and county will be meeting in a week and a half to kind of describe these uh go over these as well with some additional data.

But uh I did uh Bill is important to kind of bring them up in the context of the conversation around affordable housing.

Um one of the things that our planning staff have been working uh most directly on, I think, uh, in accordance with some of those recommendations is our small lot uh project.

And that uh that's one of the projects that we think um could have a quite sizable impact uh we think on on some of the goals within the housing study.

So one of the I think most direct ways to drive down the cost of housing is to allow smaller homes to be built on smaller lots.

And so that's what really this is trying to accomplish.

Uh there's a little more that goes into it as far as the details go, but uh from a from kind of a general standpoint, right now our minimum lot size is about 7,000 square feet, and we're looking at uh the ability uh for new lots to be uh created at 3,000 square feet.

And I should say you you can do that now, and this is why this kind of falls under that streamlining process.

Uh I think um that was adopted many years ago.

Um there was a process put in place where uh it was a board of adjustment process.

And I think after having a few of those come through and go through that process uh on top of that, if they need to be rezoned into the R2, um now you have individuals having to go through two separate two separate kind of discretionary uh zoning processes.

Uh and that's something that I think once we got down to um I think the the objective there, which is to allow these, that board of adjustment step really became unnecessary.

Um if we can as long as we can put the parameters in there that will make smaller lots work within neighborhoods and have uh again the guardrails that are are necessary to make sure these are successful.

Um we want to eliminate any unnecessary kind of discretionary steps in that process.

Um, so that is right now been reviewed by our planning zoning commission.

We have kind of a final framework for what that would look like.

Uh, our next step then is to have some of our develop development community partners kind of take a project and work through these guidelines to make sure that we've kind of uh crossed the T's and dotted the I's as far as making sure what the outcome is what was expected when we started this process.

So make sure they can build something and building effectively and efficiently and get something out of it that uh is actually viable in the end.

Are these go ahead?

Bring it closer.

We want to hear you Valley.

So I've missed some of the work sessions from when this started till now.

And I know we're talking more about lot coverage and other parameters.

Are the dimensions generally likely to be somewhat similar to what cottage standards were, which is now our two-part process.

Yeah, and and I'll podcast, I don't I don't have exact um, I'm not as up to date as I could be on that.

But I do know, yes, generally they are pretty similar.

Uh I think our current process is 3,000 square foot minimums, and that's what we're looking at doing.

Minimum lot widths, I think is 30 feet on each of those.

Um, one thing I kind of jumped to the next slide, just to give you an idea of some of the visual visualizations that we've gone through when trying to, I think, um, I think put into uh kind of uh an image of what that impact um kind of in an area could look like depending on what you can build.

And so there's been some iterations of this.

There was a lot of conversation um, you know, whether we uh should restrict uh some of the the footprint of a building and the floor area ratio, which kind of sets a maximum floor area depending on first floor, second floor.

Um, and like I said, we can get a little more details in that, I think, at a later date.

Uh, but just kind of give you an idea.

The one on the right is one that's been constructed um at this development.

So this is one of our earlier uh kind of small cottage lot developments, which are starting to develop now.

So I think it's important to kind of get an image of what this can look like.

Nick had one first.

And this would have an impact impact both on infill and greenfield kinds of developments, correct?

Uh it could.

And there'd be a cost savings here because of the elimination of some of the review previous to approval.

Yes, if we eliminate the board of adjustment step, that that would eliminate um time, which if you talk to any developer, time is a big component uh of their resources and also fees that go along with that, sure.

Yes.

Um, infill is is um you know it's a little bit of a different animal.

Um there are some, depending on where that infill is, if there's stormwater considerations that can come into play.

So that's something we kind of are further looking into and we'll be evaluating.

Um when it comes to what I would call green field development.

I don't think there's a lot of concerns there because they can incorporate stormwater typically as you would with a residential subdivision.

Okay, done.

Could you go back to the previous slide as far as the timeline?

So the draft, okay.

That all right, so be heard planning and zoning.

We can we're looking at getting that to us June time, right?

That that's that's our hope.

Um, you know, if if this uh information comes back and the hearings kind of take a little longer because of input and we need to revisit things, so that can drag out.

But that's our that's our kind of I think best case scenario right now, yes.

Okay, thank you.

Mallory, you had another question.

Yeah.

Yeah, um standard single lot infill.

Um they can already use what's existing cottage standards on R1 or R2 narrow substandard lot, right?

Correct.

So yeah, so so a substandard would be a a lot that is under ownership that doesn't meet the definition of a lot that we have currently, uh, and an owner of that law can still construct um uh I think a single family home on that lot, even if it's less dimensional uh wise than than what is uh currently required.

So I I'd have to go back and look exactly how that aligns with cottage.

I think as long as it basically uh as long as you can meet the dimensional standards of setbacks and things like that, you can build on it even if it's less than the current legal lot standard.

So if they meet the dimensional standards, do they need to go to board adjustments like they were on cottage, or do they just get to use cottage?

I I think they I think they're just allowed to build.

I don't think the cottage necessarily comes in.

Thanks.

Um, so two other uh aspects of um projects that we've been working with uh in accordance with the housing study uh that fall under kind of general zoning revisions, uh and there's a few others we're working on, but I wanted to kind of stress these tonight.

Um one's the definition of family, um, and just kind of a quick overview that our current definition family has has two components, um, and one generally uh defines a family as some sort of parental group, buried um domestic partnership, something along those lines, and their children.

Uh so and this was I think specifically identified in the housing study, um that uh to expand that to include kind of non-traditional families now, so not just kind of parents at the head and then going down, it's going both ways.

So um parents uh and grandparents and anyone essentially related by blood or marriage would essentially be considered a family per our definition.

So your expanded families now um wouldn't get caught up in the definition of only being parents and their children.

So it would open up the I think the ability for some of the again, those non-traditional family units uh to occupy one dwelling unit.

Before we get into questions, um Clay, you might want to go a little bit higher level right now.

Why do we care what P you are thinking about with defining families?

Why would that come up?

Sure.

So uh this is really an opportunity to to add that soft density.

So if we can allow uh takes a little bit more uh of a flexible approach to our definition of family, so uh that expands the ability for some family units to occupy one unit.

Uh the other component of that is going from three unrelated to four unrelated, so that increases again the ability for some of that soft density in neighbors uh neighborhoods uh that are currently R1, uh, because that's the distinction we have now.

Like how many people can be in a place, right?

Yes, so how many how many individuals can be one dwelling?

Thank you.

Yeah, yeah.

All right, we have some questions.

Don, did you have your hand up and then about okay?

So did you have a question?

Uh yeah.

Um yeah, so this does all go back to occupancy, and I appreciate that we've moved from three to four in R1, so it's more similar to R2 RMF.

Um, this kind of took a weird turn because the original discussions um at planning and zoning, granted, have changed a bit.

Um, but I think the recommendations that were coming from that body initially um were to get away from using a definition of family at all in determining occupancy and instead evaluate structures based on square footage of bedrooms, number of bedrooms and square footage of total living area by using a combination of IBC and IPMC, which the city has already adopted the 2018.

Um I and I understand kind of the trajectory that it took because that's used in more places in our code.

What I'd like to get an idea of just for the future of is what other places in our code use a definition of family.

Um, and then if we chose to move away from that, as opposed to changing the definition now.

Can we just say for the purpose of occupancy, we're gonna do it this way, and then we'll look at those other code parts separately.

Is that a trajectory that's still available to us without messing anything up?

Uh well, I I think I would say I think this is the version that we're that I mentioned was what has gone through P and Z.

So that's you know, it's not been a pass, so there's always an opportunity to uh I think provide additional direction on that.

Um however, council wants I think to direct that conversation uh is obviously in their in their in their court.

Um like you said, the trajectory of that conversation, I think may have started there, and I think after having some further discussions, my understanding uh this conversation's been going on for over a year um for a little while now, and I think it was a little bit of the the past research and and how we got here, and that's you know, at one point in time, you know, Columbia didn't have uh that specific uh restriction.

Um but as you see as time went on from I think the original 1930 definition, it it became more and more restricted.

And I think our interpretation there is kind of reaction to the fact that we are a university town, and and a lot of those specific number restrictions I think are really uh meant to address concerns with uh the number of uh university students perhaps occupying one dwelling.

Um just kind of overview on on the occupancy limits.

Uh right now we would say four unrelated individuals, so that would typically a four bedroom home.

You have four college students in there.

If we went to the IPMC, that it's it's per bedroom size.

So if you had, for example, a hundred square foot bedroom, you could have two people in that bedroom.

So a four bedroom house couldn't have eight people that were unrelated.

So that's I think that's what was kind of wrestled with a little bit, that impact.

Um with family, we do now default back to the IPMC definition.

So the family is uh defined very broadly, uh, and the only restriction on the number of people within that household that are a family is still that IPMC maximum.

So it is it is restricted in that regard.

But when it comes to underrelated groups, we do have that kind of cap still at four, which now makes it consistent across all the zoning districts.

So IPMC is a maximum, but not a set.

I don't it is the ceiling, not it is a ceiling for all no matter how we define it, that's the ceiling right now for occupancy.

Yeah, I wonder if we can set any other based on structure and health and safety standards um as opposed to family.

Um yeah, I see other hands.

Nick had a question, and then Vera.

Well, I'm just wondering if I know Valerie, you were probably involved in that when it first started in P and Z.

It's it's interesting.

I don't know if you is that a question for me to let me take it.

Well, the reason I'm asking you is that I wonder what whether PZ had this conversation.

It sounds to me like this was a part what Valerie's suggesting was a part of the conversation.

However, PNZ has moved to just addressing the the definition of family, at least at this time.

Is that is that right?

That's my it wasn't at all the meetings.

I've gone back and reviewed those minutes.

So that's that's kind of the tenor that I understand.

I think that conversation's okay.

It was discussed at work session.

I can't remember that might have been when you weren't with the city.

That might have been while you were at CHEP City.

Um, it was discussed at work session, but we never took any action on it.

Um, we brought the recommendation to council in the form of a letter.

Um, and it was never referred back to us by a vote of council, so nothing happened.

Okay, very good question.

I guess not so much uh I mean it is a question, but more of like uh I don't necessarily expect answers right now.

Um, and also recognizing that there is limited time at this meeting, but just uh I I'm very interested to understand more why P and Z moved away from this uh and flagging that I have major concerns about defining family by biology and marriage.

Um I am I am sure that I really really hope the definition is broader than that, otherwise we're gonna have some foster families in major trouble.

Um but there are also many other people in our community for whom we know um may choose not to get married or they're receiving disability or on social security, be unable to get married.

And so the idea of this definition resides on the fact that unrelated people would be in separate bedrooms, I think is not actually realistic to how people are living in the homes where they might not be able to get legally married, but they are sharing a bedroom.

I hope we'll have further discussion on this and then be very curious about why B and Z made this switch.

Okay.

Can I make one last point?

Yeah, yeah.

Um yeah, I know we've dwelled on this a while.

One of the other large concerns of PNZ at that time was a um concern about um multi-generational housing.

Um, and so it's more and more common for people in a housing crisis to want to either live with their parents or for parents to move in with their children on both ends of that spectrum.

Um, it's also more and more common in refugee populations to have multi-generational housing.

Um, and we do have a growing refugee population in Colombia.

And to be clear, that's really what I was referencing when I when I referenced not traditional family, so is that multi-gener generational component?

And if I could just to read what the the current draft version of that portion of the the it is um persons related by blood marriage, adoption or custodial relationship living together within dwelling units, a single householding unit.

So it is it is fairly broad, it doesn't just restrict to marriage or blood.

So there's some other aspects there too.

But it it would be marriage led or custodial relationship.

Correct.

So like um unmarried romantic partners would not qualify.

I don't know if I can answer that on the fly.

So let me look into that.

We'll we'll uh have that answered prior to bringing that forward, obviously.

Thank you, Frank.

Yeah, and and real quick, uh ADUs as well.

Um that's again uh that availability to add that soft density into neighborhoods right now.

Um we do have an ADU ordinance.

Uh we've had some uh feedback and some conversations about uh kind of again uh looking at some of the restrictions we have on ADUs, and so what PNZ uh considered most recently work session uh was to take some some I would say not insignificant steps.

Uh so the version of the draft that they're looking at right now um would remove the requirement uh for a conditional use in the R1.

Uh so right now that's the only zoning district where you have to come to council essentially to get approval.

Everywhere else it's really as of right, as long as you can meet the dimensional requirements.

So this would kind of take that guardrail off uh of allowing ADUs to be incorporated in two bar ones.

In fact, I think we had one of those here uh a couple meetings ago.

Um, so and along with that too, it's reducing some setbacks along corner uh lots, which we've also had some board of adjustment variances kind of uh kind of aimed at that.

So we wanted to be responsive, I think, to to those concerns and also the opportunity there to have ADUs on corner lots and not have that uh as extreme setback from 25 feet to 12 and a half feet, but not to get into too detailed about it.

Hey, just a quick verification on both this one and the the family mind when you talk about a public hearing in March, is that public hearing at PNZ?

Planning and zoning, correct?

Okay, back to me.

Um so just some of the updates on the recommendations and uh housing study um from housing neighborhood services.

Uh one of them was to establish local housing trust fund, and as you all know, that was funded uh with you know some scene money uh to to get that uh going.

Um but what we're gonna do is uh at the community summit on the 14th, uh we're gonna have a board and we'll man it and we're gonna ask you know, community feedback and input on uh those trust fund, how to fund it, um, how to keep it sustainable, uh things like that.

So we want to see what the community kind of get the pulse of the community and see what they're thinking.

Um and then another one was to apply for what's called a pro housing grant.

Uh, that was a pathway to removing obstacles as a HUD grant.

Um, you all may remember that in the last city county meeting.

Um I mentioned that it was taken out of the budget.

Now it's back in the budget, uh, although it's cut in half.

Uh so there's half the funding there was last year from HUD for that.

Um, so it will be super competitive.

Um, but it does allow you to do things to look at zoning issues and even allows funding to like build new housing as well.

So it's very there's a lot of uses that uh could be eligible for that, and we'll look at applying for that as well.

But before you go on, Nick has a question.

Well, I have a question about each of these.

Uh will you be looking for feedback on how the fund might be used in addition to how it would be funded, how it could be funded.

We could do that too, yeah, certainly.

That's a good idea.

Well, I just think you know that this is one of the questions we have, how are we actually going to use the fund and getting input from the public?

I think would be helpful.

And then the housing, the probe grant.

Um, is this the one that CMCA had previously received and then determined that they wouldn't do it again or I don't think so because generally those are awarded to cities.

Okay, so this is something the city would make the application for.

Correct.

Okay.

Yeah, Valerie.

Yeah, actually, um, Nick had a good question about um feedback on how the trust would be used.

Um I'm wondering if you have ever been able to get in touch with Randy Cole.

I know he sent something to Carlin.

Um back when he was with the city, he had written something about how funds could be used and who could apply for them.

Um and and that was already adopted by counsel.

I'm wondering if we could find that piece of information and evaluate it to see if it can fit or apply to this housing trust fund.

Thank you.

I didn't I wasn't aware of that.

I'll reach out to Randy.

Right, thanks.

Okay.

Okay.

And then another one was to create a housing preservation inventory.

Um typo on here, but we surveyed uh almost 1800 properties.

It was actually in 2024, not 2025.

Um, mostly in the central part of the city, and found that 90% of those were in either good to excellent condition.

Uh, so there wasn't you know a huge you know showing that there are a lot of properties were uh substandard.

Um certainly we're open to expanding that and looking at other parts of the city as well.

Um we'll have to talk to staff and the city manager's office, but I think it might take a few months to get all that done.

Um, you know, especially now this is gonna be our busy time, and squeezing that in with our regular work uh will be will be an effort, but certainly something that's worth doing and finding out uh what that looks like.

And then that's our question for you.

Yeah, this is really cool.

Um Lee gave me a little sneak peek of what's been done on this already because I was asking questions that kind of touched on this.

Um I'm wondering if we'll get a chance to see it in regular, um, because it's really strong work.

Um, and I think that there's a lot of public interest, um, and to be able to see it in a regular session and report form um so that we can see those maps um with the you know, kind of heat maps of where the housing is and what shape things are in.

That's really useful information that I think benefits not just Central Columbia but the city as a whole.

Certainly we can do that.

Uh my question would be would it make sense to do that once we're finished with the next leg?

Or do it now?

We would certainly have more information.

We'll defer to whatever the what do you want to do?

It sounded like they wanted to keep getting more information, and then also they're getting into their busy time, so um come back, but is that way?

That would be preferable.

Okay, yeah.

We have our next besides this one on March, our next one.

We have an update with the county in June and then also September.

So making sure maybe that will be a good kind of touch point to see, especially the September one, maybe to be like where are we with that?

Give that more information.

Yeah, absolutely.

Well, and we could start working on it right away and you know, make it part of our rotation.

I wanted to add, um, and I sent some questions here that maybe are better addressed in September.

Um, I'm interested in how this compares to the ESRI data from the housing study.

Um, that you know, they showed a decrease in housing units in central Columbia.

Um, it was a 12% decrease from 2020 to 2020.

Um, and those numbers seem roughly similar um given that they called out loss of housing due to demolition and um devaluation.

Um I I'd like to kind of keep on top of these numbers that way I understand how our efforts are affecting um property valuation in central Columbia.

Yeah, certainly.

I'd like to see the source data as well, because that was just an afterthought almost and uh that's true.

Uh you mean in the report?

Yes.

Yeah, it's it's hard to, we don't have the granulation on the map that they gave us to really tell.

Right.

Yeah.

I I bet we could write them and get that information from them.

He gave us contact and he was helping.

Out of Austin.

Uh-huh.

Oh, yeah.

Yeah.

Yeah, he was helpful.

At least with me.

I don't know.

Your departments probably know him better.

Well, we can follow up, certainly.

Okay.

And another one uh was to replicate the home rehab and energy efficiency program.

Um, and we already talked about that before, but you know, currently it's funded by ARPA.

Uh, as you all know, that money has to be spent by the end of the year.

Uh sort of winding down with that.

Um, we do fund it with CDBG as well, but not to the extent it was funded with ARPA.

But one of the things we're going to be doing is we're going to apply uh two grant from the Federal Home Loan Bank.

Uh the application is due on May 1st.

And the idea with that would be to use this to continue that program.

And um we'll know in December if we get that grant or not.

All right.

And then along those lines, um, another recommendation was leverage public private partnerships.

Um currently we have our application process for our C E B G and home funds out right now for county year 2027.

Um, and you know, we're soliciting uh for proposals for nonprofits to do housing and other community development activities.

And then uh just another point on this.

Um the Federal Home Loan Bank grant does require collaborating with a participating financial institution, a member of the uh finance or federal home loan bank uh of Des Moines.

Um so uh that'll be we'll partner with one of them uh as well as for this application.

So uh it's part of this conversation.

We I I thought it'd be helpful uh to kind of I think review some of the housing data targets.

Uh I think anytime we talk housing now, I really try to make a point of saying, well, you know, what what's our goals and and and where are we progressing in those areas?

Because I think you know, we there's a lot of strategies, but in the end, you know what the goal is there is for for housing and certain types of housing per se.

So um, you know, I did have this at the end in case we ran out of time, but I'm gonna think we have a few minutes.

So um kind of wanted to point out this is our uh Columbia's housing targets.

Uh and it breaks it down by different types of housing um typology and also whether they're for sale or rent, uh, which just is a side note.

That's a little difficult for us to really track, I think, from a data standpoint whether a house you know that was constructed was was a house for rent or house for sale.

And we've been talking about a little bit how to maybe capture some of the data so we can better communicate, I think, where we're at with some of these goals, and that's kind of an ongoing conversation we're having.

Um, but I'd point out I think um the annual target at the bottom, so it's 527 dwelling units per the housing study for the next 10 years is is what uh the goal would be.

And then that actually kind of decreases really for the last 15 years of that horizon up to 2050.

Um I point out too there's there's uh been some conversation too about housing numbers.

I think 37,000 dwelling units is is discussed a lot.

So that comes from the county's uh master plan, which is a separate document, and that's referenced in here as you know as communicated through that the county's master plan.

Um but we kind of look at this as a little more granular specific, what the city really is is I think goals for what what the housing study at least has said is where uh we should be targeting any types of resources.

Uh and this is kind of overview of the the kind of the target area, like what if we were gonna incentivize or really uh I think encourage types of housing, uh, what's the size uh what's that price point?

I won't spend a lot of time in here, but I just like to kind of show it to make sure I think we're we're kind of understanding, I think with the direction the housing studies really kind of pointing with a lot of the recommendations that we're working on.

So uh again with the small lots, that's what uh we think really that's going to target.

So if we have smaller lots, we can have the smaller homes, and that's going to better, I think, target that price point there.

Um you see the very top one, that's it's an easy one to process a single family for sale.

So we have a size range of 900 to 3,000 square feet.

Um that price range of that 150 to 370 or so.

Um, but I also wanted to kind of show a little bit of of uh, I think where we have been building and what we've been building as far as quantities uh to kind of recognize, I think, compared to what the housing study targets are, where we have been as a community.

Um, so this is just a little bit of hey, where where are we building?

And this is mostly single family.

We could we could do the heat map for multifamily too, but it's it's gonna be pretty sparse.

You know, we don't we don't issue that many permits uh for for multi-family.

I can tell you um we have a certain uh a pretty good number of multifamily dwelling units, not just permits, so it's dwelling units um issued um over the last couple years.

And so really the areas we're looking at for a lot of that growth is uh there's some in Discovery Park area um down uh it's Springbrook Park, which is uh the new multifamily development uh by State Farm Parkway uh east of Providence.

So there's a number of new units going in there.

Uh and there's uh a few other um corporate lake.

There's also some uh Lakeshore apartment development out there.

So and we'll get the number for the multifamily as well.

Um but as you can see, you know, this is our single family growth.

So there's some uh obvious hot spots there.

Uh if you are looking at that, uh definitely to the east, um, you can see vineyards and old and uh the brooks uh continue to build out old Hawthorne uh north.

Um to the north, uh you see Tuscany Ridge, uh, and to the southwest there is uh legacy farm.

So those are kind of our larger uh newer subdivisions.

That's where you expect to see a lot of that kind of concentration of permits, but you you also see a smattering of permits kind of across the city.

So those are uh most likely when you get closer to the city are our infill opportunities.

And so those are things we do uh like to see as well.

And so this is 24 and then 25.

There's some subtle differences, but I think um really what you see is kind of some some continuing build out to the east and a little bit more to the north as well, and a few more kind of uh I think concentration, the infill really in the center of the city.

So you see a few more permits there as well.

What are those?

I'm sorry.

So I see the center of the city looks like north central.

Which which ones were those?

Um, those, you know, I couldn't tell you particularly those addresses.

I could get you the report though with all the permits on there if you're curious on it.

Yeah, I think aren't some of it like I forgot the arise or whatever those little invil ones that are happening near Hipman, probably some of those, and then the cottages looks like from with us.

Don, you had your hand up.

Yeah, does this include um housing permits issued uh for Columbia Housing Authority construction?

Yeah, it would it would include anyone that received uh a permit uh that was issued to them, and yeah, all our partners do get permits, so they they would have been counted in this.

It's a little hard to make out the exact locations there, but I think you're probably right on some of those.

Yeah, it is uh so just overall uh over the last um really counting this fiscal year, but then the prior two years, uh, as you can see, our single family numbers, uh again, kind of referencing back to the housing study where uh 500 dwelling units a year was a target, about 260 or so with single family total, and that's combining the rental and the sales.

So uh as you can see um for the last two years, we we've exceeded that number for our target.

Doesn't necessarily mean those are all within the range that they are looking for that target.

Um, but I think there's uh there's also value in just continuing to build.

I think um construction in general, uh, as you increase inventory is going to have a positive impact on prices.

Doesn't mean we shouldn't also be targeting other goals, uh, but I think it's it's encouraging to continue to see that that growth, although we would say there's a little bit dip from 24 to 25.

But if you look at the multifamily on the right side, we had a pretty big uptick.

Uh, and those are again pretty cyclical.

We can have a lot in one year and then a down year or two, but um we're we're continuing that upward trend right now, I think this year as well.

Okay, Don and then Mallory, and then the numbers represented here, is this a number of permits or the number of units?

I had a question too, and I should have clarified.

So this is just dwelling units.

So one permit for a multifamily building could be 50 units.

So this is the number of units, which is what we're really interested in.

How many more units are we getting within the city?

Yeah, all right, Valerie and then Nick.

That was my same question.

Okay.

Um 585 is pretty huge.

That's a big deal.

So well done.

Yeah.

So um, and the next screen, you can kind of give you a better idea of the total we did, but I'll point out here it's a little easier to see ADUs at this moment, haven't been a haven't been a big um kind of tool in the toolbox for us right now.

So it's not really making a huge, and I don't think the expectation ever was that ADUs would want to solve the problem, but they are uh like like I said, I think they are one of the tools that we we like to bring to bear.

And I don't think the expectation ever was that ADUs would want to solve the problem, but they are uh like I said, I think they are one of the tools that we we like to bring to bear.

And so some of the revisions we're we're making, we hope to see that that uptick, and so we'll continue to monitor those.

Um duplex is a little bit of a downturn as well.

Um, and town homes and the duplex townhomes is really where you start to see that maybe that um middle density, that softer density, um, kind of housing units, the the three plexus, the four plexus townhome style.

So we like to see yeah.

So you're you're saying that the multi-family in particular could be cyclical.

Is that is that what we would say about the 2000 uh the two 2025 numbers here in particular for multifamily?

Um I would say that uh one permit hits on one date, so depending on where it falls, it could be in one fiscal year to the next.

So I think 585, you could distribute that a little better over those two years, and that's probably give you a better idea.

So we're a single family, you're gonna get a pretty consistent number every year that multifamily could change.

Um so five 585 is probably not where we're at, it's probably somewhere in that 300 units uh you know, give or take.

Well, a pretty good start in 26.

Yeah, we'd say so.

The I guess as I'm looking at these numbers, I'm wondering about the previous part of the conversation where we're talking about processes and so forth.

And can we make a direct well, maybe not yet, but how can we imagine that these new considerations would impact these numbers?

I guess I'm looking for a practical.

Yeah, and so I I won't get too ahead of myself, but I think um we've got um three to four cottage subdivisions now.

And so if we're looking at how the small lot um how we can actually see that maybe in this type of data, um we're able to pull out a little bit of of the housing size, and we haven't done that analysis yet, but I think that could be a future analysis to better understand of where is our our median, our average house size headed.

It is it decreasing, do we see, or just the amount that fall within a range?

So that's how I think we can track whether we're successfully seeing some smaller homes.

Obviously, if we have more small lot subdivisions, we expect smaller homes, but that that's one way the data might reflect it.

I think.

Okay, thanks.

And I would say we've had um maybe a couple more uh inquiries on on multifamily too.

So it's something that does continue.

I think the interest is is certainly there.

Uh and this I think is just a good um kind of overview of of the total units we're adding per year.

So it puts all those together.

2025 again, uh, a pretty good year.

Um, and again, I'd call out that that around that 500 mark or so is what the the target from the housing study was.

So um again, does that mean that we are building everything within their kind of target segment?

It doesn't, but we're also continuing continuing to build, I think, some some volume, and that's uh at least something I think is important to be tracking and to acknowledge as we go along.

So, but we'll continue to kind of track, I think hopefully some of those aspects that we're a little more interested in as well uh in the future.

And I think that's um all I had.

But uh Bill, do you have anything else?

I think that concludes the presentation.

If anybody had any further questions, any questions for clean tour bill, yeah, Valerie.

Yeah, um, we used to get a summary on PNZ.

It was roughly yearly, but kind of whenever somebody remembered to ask for it.

Um the um zoning acreage per um so we could track how a year of um rezoning requests and annexations affected how the city was growing and our total acreage of each one.

Um if I remember right, two years ago was the first year that R2 grew at a faster rate than R1.

Um, and that's something that I like to keep an eye on.

If we could get an update on those numbers, that would be really helpful.

Yeah, I think we can accomplish that.

Any other questions on this?

So this is you know, just continuing conversation, and we'll have more with the county on that, or some of the other recommendations that are within the crosswalk will staff have just kind of like where we are on the they're gonna update on where they are with updates for their um online permitting system and their review of what they're doing.

Um, I'm assuming that you all might have other things to share with them as well.

Is that to be expected?

You may hear some of the same information, so apologies for that.

But yes, we will have updates, and I think Bill will probably be showing sharing updates as well.

Yeah, we'll definitely have additional updates.

Okay, yeah, uh Nick.

Yeah, I I came in with this question, so sorry.

Um I I appreciate the the kind of things that you're looking at in terms of the recommendations come from the study, and uh, but I'm wondering are there any things that are on the horizon in terms of what you might consider next, how you're going about that, and if any other things are coming uh or bubbling to the top because you know it while the study is done for our our city and county, we are the city and county, and so we may see some things, the opportunities that weren't identified in the in the housing study.

Sure.

Yeah, I think that's a really good question.

And I think I would um acknowledge that we've got a few things we've been working on, um our planning staff and planning zoning and been working on for a little while now, probably a year or two.

Um, the ones we touched on tonight.

And those have been, I think, fairly in-depth projects.

Um, but what I what I would like to see, and I think where our our next direction will be is uh once we kind of have some of that wrapped up, we're gonna we're gonna start kind of a next phase.

So I think there'll be other things we'll be targeting.

We've had some internal discussions about what directions we want to go.

Uh I think just having these conversations um around the housing kind of spurs some additional ideas.

So there, I think there will be uh in the coming months to six to twelve months, we'll have kind of a game plan for where we want to go next with some additional, I think, um aspects of the zoning code will probably target.

So I don't I don't want to share anything yet.

Um, you know, I kind of want to come along uh kind of organically there a little bit, but we'll we'll uh that is the goal.

This isn't the only things we'll be working on as far as uh trying to address some of the the objectives of the housing plan.

I think it's kind of step one trying to get through some of these things we've been working on for for a bit of time now.

Okay, great.

Awesome.

Well, thank you, Bill.

Thank you, Clint.

Appreciate this.

You know, it's an ongoing conversation.

Uh, I'm afford to continue it.

All right, our next one is uh risk management, and I believe we uh have uh a substitute.

So Nancy is here because our risk manager is out with a family emergency.

Well, he is, but we we think he's in route, so he he could be arriving at any moment.

Okay, and we also have some folks that are gonna join us remotely.

I haven't run a Zoom call in a while, so I'm gonna try to uh bring them up and just see where we are.

Well, you're doing that.

I'm gonna make a run to the kitchen.

Can I take anyone's dishes a bit?

We could transition if you need to go to our screen.

Good time to take a break.

As this is clearing in as we speak.

Perfect time.

We're doing a five minute break.

Okay, you're good.

I'll throw this away.

Thank you.

So we'll just break this.

We're just taking one just taking a minute.

Taking a five minutes.

Okay, so you couldn't hear for two seconds now.

Well, I also want to bring up the presentation.

Okay.

So first or what happened.

Um yes, and probably tell me what she's supposed to switch on.

Email me by going through the city website.

I like the pride wise.

She can share hers and do the whole thing.

Yeah, I want to do my switch.

Yeah, you'll have to just stop sharing.

Okay.

So if I share our quick share, every year you're done.

Exciting.

Oh, I know.

I can go to the case.

It's just 11 to 12.

We'll talk afterwards.

Sorry.

I know you're running.

Yeah, we have Carolyn and Zoom.

They can't see they can see the screen.

Oh, yeah.

I can see your screen read now.

Okay, okay, we can hear you.

Yeah, I just unmuted right.

Let me unmute myself.

But I can see now.

I couldn't move forward.

Okay, great.

Oh, and we are going.

Can you see me or can you see the PowerPoint?

No, I can see the PowerPoint.

Okay, great.

So we will just we're gonna mute mute you until we'll get you back up on the screen whenever we get to that point.

I think we get together.

All right.

Well we're all gonna kick this over uh to Nancy Thompson and our risk management.

Chris, I don't think you've had that chance to talk with us yet.

Sorry.

So the most important thing is I want to introduce Chris Ubeck.

He is our uh risk manager.

He's been with the city now for a year and half, perhaps.

Yeah.

So he has produced, he's actually produced two annual reports.

One of them was for a year when he wasn't here.

Um but then for the most recent year um produced an annual report that we shared with you on Friday.

Um and so we wanted to go over that report a little bit of what um what risk management looks like, but we also have with us remotely.

Um Carolyn Dentino and Grover Eddie, who who is with um uh Huggins Acquarial Services, a large part of what risk management does is funded by um loss projections and our historical value.

And so kind of as we lead into the budget season, we thought it was good to have a report of what's going on in risk management, and then uh start to give you an education background on how those costs and expenses and our self-insurance fund are calculated.

Um and then once we get all those reports done, really that gets transferred back over to finance and finance um makes those uh projections and allocations as part of the budget process with our input.

So, anyway, that's just kind of where we are and why we're here.

Um got a lot of material to share today, so I'm just gonna kind of kick in and let um Chris start talking about um what it is that risk management does, and although it's not going anywhere.

Don't they need help?

I'm changing it on my computer, but it's not I did try the clicker.

That one there is material.

Oh, there we go.

Because we don't need Nick, you're in charge of coin.

Technology's listening.

Very good.

Okay.

That's Carolyn, everybody.

Briefly.

Okay.

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay.

Okay.

So hello everybody, I'm Chris.

Pleasure to be here.

Pleasure to meet you.

This is intended to be a very brief overview.

Um, I thought it was gonna be a very brief overview, but it wasn't for Grover, but um by all means ask me questions now or later at any time.

I'm happy to clarify anything.

So risk management responsibilities, adjudicate claims.

Essentially, everything that's a claim against the city in any way possible comes through me, comes to us first.

And so we make sure that we reach out to the department and get the information we need.

We decide kind of what direction it's gonna go, and then we kind of decide what amount of money we might need to set aside for that.

We work with our third-party administrator and we handle those always.

We do conclusion.

So we begin with the end in mind, meaning that if we're gonna look at something gonna be brought to litigation against us, we like to start with that thought process up front.

And that's a lot of the ways that we make the decision that we make.

So we try to be proactive as much as possible.

I think kind of the essence of risk management is to prevent the things that you can, but be prepared for the things that you know you kind of can't.

So we do have quarterly meetings.

We run an annual training program.

We'll get into it a little bit later in the slide, but we have a meeting monthly with everybody from every department to talk about trends that we're seeing, get ideas, have a round table, etc.

So every contract that comes to the city comes through me in terms of the insurance.

So we try to protect ourselves as broad as possible.

We have a standard form that sets the limits pretty high.

We want to protect ourselves against the highest sovereign immunity limits.

So we start there, we adjust on a case-by-case basis if we need to, or if it makes sense based on what the exposure is and based on what the contractors or whoever's doing the work is actually doing.

So we take a look at all the indemnity agreements that has a lot to do with a lot of the events that are housed inside the city of Columbia anytime someone wants to run an event or anytime we have anything that's going to be outside of the realm of a contract.

We still like to keep ourselves protected by reviewing an indemnity agreements.

Certificates of insurance.

So that that's another part of the contract review that we do.

We also provide certificates of insurance for people that we do business with or rent things from or supply things to, so we can protect them as well.

But a large part of what we do is take a look to make sure that if somebody's working for the city, they have allowed us to take a look at the limits that they carry to make sure that they're actually protected with what they're telling us that they're doing and that they have us as additional insurers.

So we do as much as possible to kind of leave limit our exposure to zero if we can.

So um risk management also handles the insurance policies for the city.

So there might be a little bit of confusion.

The city, we are self-insured, but we're self-insured on a retention kind of a deductible basis.

We do carry excess policies for most of the things that we have.

So but our insurance doesn't start at $1.1.

So our our own protection starts with our risk management fund, which again we'll kind of get into.

But we do have insurance policies, and that's an annual review that the risk management department is in charge of.

So uh vendor management again, essentially working with our kind of our partners over in finance and the and the business license section to make sure that when they say that they're covered, and we can we can ask them to prove that.

Um, and also it has to do with a lot of the contracts that we manage as well.

And then our partners at Huggins, we love them very much, and we help coordinate their actuarial process on an annual basis so they can get the numbers that finance needs to project what the upcoming years are gonna look like.

So started it way back in 1988.

Um historically financed it with 25 million in bonds, and you can kind of get an idea of what we thought maybe our reserve requirement was gonna look like.

Um, and then I think we're starting in the process of of maintaining what that number needs to look like in modern day exposures.

So and when when we say also um the reserves that were established at that point in time, um a big part of that was it was a more of a true self-insurance fund today, and we're gonna get into the self-insured retention as we go along.

But um, how much of that original 25 was dedicated toward um not having that stop gap insurance, but we'll get to that.

Yeah, uh, some of the things that we do general liability.

So if you can just kind of think of if there's any type of claim that a that a citizen or any other entity is gonna make against the city um or actions involving maybe our infrastructure or any of our employee actions.

Auto liability kind of speaks for itself.

Workers' compensation is one of the largest things that we manage.

So that's a true zero dollar starting figure.

Um, that's a large part of what our self-insurance fund goes towards physical damage.

Essentially, we're basically self-insured for all of the damages to our vehicles, particularly if it's during the operation of the vehicles.

So don't want to get too in the weeds, but if they're sitting housed or they're damaged as a result of like a weather-related incident, we have separate coverages for that, just like we do for the rest of our assets and properties and things like that.

So um, and then the property damage there too.

So outside of high deductible insurance, that's a good way to put it in terms of if you're trying to make it relevant to something we all know of.

It's sort of similar to like a high deductible health insurance plan.

Um, except ours just has a couple more comments than we'll most of us do.

So uh the retention, those are the amounts that essentially we have to pay before the policies put in.

Um well, I think we'll break that down here in a little bit, but it's essentially similar to a deductible.

So we look at those on an annual basis as well.

There's a lot of of that's one of the only levers that we have, just like insurance in general, to kind of take a look at what our premiums are gonna cost.

We take a look at what our exposures might be for the upcoming years, and then decide what we're comfortable with from a retention or deductible standpoint.

So uh and we also use the third party claim administrator.

That's just that's a good practice, so it it kind of eliminates it the the city versus the citizens type of type of mentality, in all honesty.

We've got third-party adjusters that are very highly specialized, very tenured, and they know how to administer claims primarily through municipalities.

So here's a look at kind of some of the retentions that we have.

The property damage up there, we have a very large um carrier that's been around for over a hundred and thirty something years.

We're we're proud to kind of partner with them because they can give us a lot of insight into the engineering and structures of our buildings, and they can come out and tell us exactly what we need to do to have better coverage.

Um, 250,000 for automobiles assets and most facilities.

We increased that in this past couple of years, primarily, I think if you recall about four or five years ago, the cost of construction materials kind of went through the roof.

Insurance had to follow that.

So we made a choice to significantly significantly increase our deductibles.

500,000 for select facilities was a move that we did last year in order to try to keep the premium low.

And then we have a million dollars for our power generation facilities.

The one thing that we're watching very closely is what a large scale loss of a power generation facility would be because right now we're looking at significant cost and lead times to replace the things that are damaged.

So just for example, one of the turbines out at the energy center could take us anywhere from two to five years to even replace, and I'm not sure what it's gonna cost in five years, so but we're watching it pretty closely.

Yes, you want to grab the microphone.

And Chris, I might have you move closer to the microphone too, or have it come to you.

What does select facilities mean?

I would honestly have to look at our breakdown to I can get you that information of a total breakdown of what lands at 250, what lands at 500.

We only added like two or three of those, but I can get you that.

Yeah, I think what type of facilities need.

They're gonna be the larger ones that house some of the power generation facilities, but that million dollar one only applies to like the old power plant and the Columbia Energy Center.

So some of the other smaller electrical distribution facilities that have high dollar equipment inside of them as part of the facility itself is gonna fall into that category.

So would water treatment plant and wastewater treatment plant be select facility.

That is correct, yes, yeah.

Thank you.

And I can I can add some more clarification if I need to uh auto liability a set of a million.

That's part of our our kind of general liability.

Um we carry a policy that covers us up to three million dollars for that and up to 10 million dollars annually.

That's pretty standard for a municipality of our size.

Um that million dollar retention amount was also very carefully selected in an attempt to keep our premiums low whenever you operate an airport and a railroad and a police and fire department as part of the city.

So uh workers' compensation 500,000 for most employees, 750,000 for as you can see, the higher kind of exposure from an injury standpoint uh entities that we have.

Chris, I have a question on that one.

I remember when we were first talking about going to automated collection for trash and recycling refuse collectors, is higher for risk of those.

Are they included in that higher one as well?

They are not at 500,000 level is where they fall.

Okay, and I assume that's the sort of thing that you analyze based on you know what I mean, based on the history of what we see and then forecasting going forward if somebody were okay.

Yes, yep, absolutely.

Those limits are reviewed every single year with our broker.

Okay.

To make sure that we're adequate, yeah.

Uh you see, we got side reliability, the retention there is fairly small.

We've got a pretty large policy on that, two to three million, but that retention right there is actually pretty small.

That's a testament to our low to zero claims that we've had.

So we're the city's doing a great job to protect itself from cyber liability, and then some other specialized lines, um, anywhere from 5,000 to 25,000.

So with cyber liability include what kind of claims would those be?

Any any claim that's made because of a uh data breach, primarily.

Um I'm trying to think of, I don't have a great answer for the types of losses because we haven't had any.

That one makes sense.

Yeah, um, go ahead.

Yeah.

So is flock data is does that fall under their liability based on how it's stored, or does that fall under our liability?

That's gonna be primarily how it's yeah, and that's gonna be their liability.

And so, you know, that's an example of where when those contracts come through, we make sure that there's insurance in place and that there's indemnity clauses in those contracts.

Uh we procure it through a broker.

Um, we use Marsha McClinnon, they've been around for a long, long, long time.

Um, they have a high level of public entity knowledge.

So what we have them do is basically shop every single year, and they come back to us with a recommendation on what carriers and what limits, and then from there we break down kind of what we want the insurance to be set at in terms of the cost, and then in terms of what our deductibles are.

So the cost of insurance increasing is something that I hate to mention out loud, but it's it's true.

Um part of it comes from the claim experience, most of it has to do with what the cost of what we would be trying to replace in the event of a large loss.

So we're seeing a lot of of increased costs due to medical advancements and specialty equipment lead times that I mentioned with some of the power generation stuff.

So great thing about medicine is we can get people back to work faster and in better shape, but it's gonna cost us a lot more to do that, unfortunately.

Um, that's a that's a major major thing.

So our our property insurer, we we run a um appraisal about every five years, that's what they recommend, and then we increase it if we need to based on cost indexes of various building materials.

That remained flat last year, but we don't expect it to remain flat every year.

So that's gonna continue to rise.

So the claims experience piece is the kind of the only lever again that we have to pull and what we're trying desperately to do year over year to keep that as low as possible.

So and again, we evaluate away annually to see if we're need to change some things.

So uh administration, like I said earlier, all things come through us handled internally by us.

If it's less complex or fairly routine, we'll we'll retain it.

Uh, the mailbox damages um is unfortunately one of those, but we try to handle those as kind of quickly as fast as possible.

Most other claims, um, regardless of whether we think we have an exposure or not, are going to be sent to our third party inacquasure.

Um, and again, that's just kind of to maintain for one kind of an integrity in the investigation, right?

So that's there's a lot that we want to make sure that the citizens of our community are safe, but I also don't want to be in a position where the city's always gonna pay for one thing and always gonna deny another thing.

We need to investigate every single thing the same way all the time.

That's why we utilize the third-party administrator.

That's also who runs our loss reporting and where we get all of the actuarial data and a very large spreadsheet that we send to our huggins partners who in turn gives us the real numbers, so some things we try to do proactively.

You can reach me at any time.

If you want my cell phone number, let me know.

We've got a devic dedicated email address out there.

Uh, the departmental training we do and behavior modification.

I'll touch a little bit on that.

Uh what we try to do is is implement a true enterprise risk management kind of philosophy.

And it's gonna sound simple, but there's a lot to it.

We take the loss reports that we get and we do a deep dive.

We've hired uh a couple of safety specialists.

We're gonna continue to grow inside the program because what we want to do is take the losses and then go right to the department and analyze exactly what happened with the goal of turning that into something that can be mitigated into the future, whether it's additional training or making sure that we implement a new process or protocol to kind of prevent that.

That also looks really good whenever it comes to premium renewal time with our excess carriers as well.

So um litigation management is something that we do in conjunction with legal.

Sometimes we'll hire an outside council to do that, but that is one of the things that we we are doing a very good job in is documenting what we need to up front.

And when that's what I mean by when we start with the end in mind, we know kind of what videos and what claim processes we need to follow.

We know what documents need to be kept, and we need to know kind of what happens, and we understand the timeliness of reporting and getting all that information up front and then managing it and then storing it.

So case review meetings uh with human resources, so legal and human resources and myself talk about the ongoing cases that we have going on.

That's primarily for the um workers' compensation cases too, just so everybody can maintain awareness there.

One of our large things that we try to continue to do a better job of is managing our transitional duty program.

I think it what that is is that's kind of a temporary assignment somewhere within city hall that's going to be doing a job that'll prevent them from being out and receiving what we call total temporary disability workers' compensation payments.

So go ahead.

Well, that brings me to a question I haven't looking at the information that was sent to us previously.

The we the cost for total cost for claims of this comp in 25 were significantly higher than in previous years, but the the number of claims was less than in 21 and significantly less than in 21.

Are we talking about?

I'm thinking about what you said in terms of medical claims.

Is this largely the reason that just the expense of managing those and paying those out has increased this year more of a statistical anomaly than it is with a standard increase?

There is several if the type of injuries sustained was the primary factor there.

And I think Carolyn might touch on on kind of statistically why it's why it's higher and why we don't think that last year was a was a standard year, but part of part of that is true.

So the the type of injury being more significant is also going to equally translate into a higher cost, but it was more of an anomaly than it is true cost over last year.

So thanks.

But we're going to keep asking them.

Um we do executive safety committee meetings every month.

This is a great opportunity for everybody to just engage in a round table about what's going on with the city.

Um, and we're we're very diligent about continuing to do that, even though the the topics are sometimes the same, but it is delegates from all of the largest city departments, and oftentimes just having a general conversation leads us to the creation of a new training or something that's identified in the department who doesn't always have the ability or like the forum to share that outside of this.

So it's something that we try to regularly do every month.

Um we do use accident and injury information to develop safety programs.

Um one good example of that is that we have a lot of folks out of the field with both of our water distribution and and sewage management folks that work on pipes underground.

We had a significant injury two years ago that led to development of a specific training for using a specific type of saw that we didn't have before, and that's going to help prevent significant injuries going forward.

So that's just a kind of a good example of how we're using actual information and turning them into real safety programs that are making a difference.

So it's a good thing.

Um we do have one of our safety specialists primarily focused on ergonomic risk reduction, so that's cool.

Not a lot of entities, particularly municipalities have a dedicated um ergonomic person, and we do, so we do run that.

Another thing that they do is respiratory protection fit testing and training.

Um, we do manage kind of the citywide safety manuals.

I'll tell you, we're probably due for an upgrade there, I will admit.

Um, we do manage facility inspections and trainings for all of the facilities that we do.

So every every large facility that we have, we work in conjunction with the fire department, and we do a thorough investigation, and then we hold them accountable for making changes that are recommendation within a certain time frame.

Um we do distracted driver training, severe weather and evacuation training.

Um, a lot of these things are just brought up by these round tables that we have with the executive safety committees or direct feedback after a claim that we've had, and we turn it into actual items that we can act on.

Yeah, a lot of these things are things that they focus on or where we really think we can make an improvement in years to come and get some get some turn that dial backwards.

Right.

These graphs are really just kind of this is part of the annual report that I think you guys are previously gotten intended really to just show trends only, like uh Huggins kind of dives into kind of the lost numbers over here, but really as you can kind of see over the past five fiscal years, we've remained fairly flat, and then the bottom graph I'm not trying to hone in on the actual numbers.

And then the bottom graph, I'm not trying to hone in on the actual numbers.

There's some loss reserve numbers that I'm not accounting for.

I really just primarily wanted to show what it looks like in terms of how many losses that we have claims, and then the actual amount of money.

So if we have somewhere between 70 and 100 losses turned in a year, and we're only paying a little over 219,000 a year, we're doing very well to maintain the infrastructure and keep our liability claims down.

And that's that's coming from our third party administrator and the division of labor and the division of workers' compensation as well.

We're doing a very good job of limiting the actual liability that we pay.

So uh some of the duties we have for workcom again, we receive and evaluate each report of injury.

Workers' compensation is is a very complex um insurance program that you have to act on right away.

There's a lot of statutory uh time limits that you have to turn things in.

And as you know, the faster that you can identify what it is that happened and exactly what's gonna need to happen for that employee, the better.

So we have to maintain uh responsibility on that from the moment that the accident happens, but we coordinate the resources here.

One of the good things about being self-insured for workers' compensation is that we do direct the medical treatment.

Um that's very powerful in terms of getting the right doctors and the right treatment and in the right time.

A lot of the times these doctors do give us priority uh because they know that our goal is to get the folks back to work as soon as possible.

Um, the transitional duty assignment, something that I previously mentioned, that helps with all things that lead to a return to work, and it also helps us cut down on the cost of of some of our workers' compensation cost, and then obviously a return to work.

That's the number one thing that we're we're trying to do.

Um, keeping in mind our goal is not just always to get somebody back to work as fast as possible, because if you come back to work too soon, nobody nobody wins in that situation.

So that's another benefit of us being able to coordinate the medical treatment as well.

Um we do have utilization review, so that that's one thing that our TPA is very, very good at, and we do have a medical provider network, vendor panel management, all of those things are designed and kind of things that we use to make sure that we're not just paying whatever the doctors tell us to pay.

So even though they are on our side, if there's only one of them, they have nothing to compare it to, and neither do we.

So that's why we utilize these provider networks and utilization reviews because we have a budget that we have to stick to too.

So yeah, Vera.

Can you explain what you mean by coordinating medical treatment in these situations?

Sure.

Yeah, absolutely.

So essentially the state of Missouri allows an employer to direct who the employees are gonna go see.

So we have contracts with uh the University of Missouri to provide the initial care.

Then we have a contract with Boone Occupational Medicine to provide the return to work care.

In between, then we can specifically choose what specialty providers that we send them to based on what what their knowledge of the procedures are based on what their reputation in the medical community is, and then based on how well they know workers' compensation laws dealing with what prevailing factors are and what return to work and disability ratings need to look like.

Does the worker have any part or say in this if they have uh a provider that they've been with for a long time?

Yeah, yeah.

There's exceptions that can be made, particularly if we always want to know if there's a uh a provider that they have had, especially if there's a pre-existing injury, that's always something we pay attention to.

So it's not a a law that they have to see the doctor, it's just that's where we're gonna send them to.

And if there's a specialty person that they've used, we're not gonna deny them payment for their treatment if they need it through that, but primarily we're gonna try to go through our medical providers if we can.

Did you have a question?

Okay.

Um, okay, I think Vera was on to the same questions that I did.

Okay.

How what kind of how do we interact with this kind of doctor patient medical information?

In terms of just sharing the information?

No, like how do we maintain confidentiality?

Um, and what departments have access to that information.

Yeah, risk management does essentially, then that's one of the reasons that we hire the third-party administrator too.

That's part of our contract and why we use them so they can have they can have that proper sharing or non-sharing of information to make sure that we don't violate any rules.

Um, but we essentially just have a platform that we share our information or our employees' information with them.

They handle all of the communication back and forth between the medical providers, and then we have conferences or regular discussions about what decisions are being made, where the medical treatment is going to.

So that's one of the large reasons we have a third-party administrator to handle those claims.

We will sometimes facilitate appointments, but that's really the extent of it, not the care, not the not the day-to-day care management.

Right, right.

Can I do a quick time check with you?

Because we're coming up on 6 30.

And I know we potentially are going, are we going into closed no, no?

No, well, no, not unless we have so I should say that.

Um we are we don't need to go into close unless there's a need to talk about specific claim information.

Um, we wanted to at least um put that on the radar and have it on your agenda in case we had to go into close.

So we don't have to go into closed, and I would actually suggest that we not and just keep it at a very high level.

And if we need to come back with specific information about claims and active claims, we can do that in a later date.

Okay, because we still want to hear from Huggins, and we're we're almost there.

Okay, I appreciate that.

Thank you.

Almost this is the slide Nick had earlier, and then um I I wanted to include this on there just to show the variability in these types of claims.

And I think you you alluded to it earlier.

Why is fiscal year 25 so much higher?

Particularly if you think that there was only you know a lower amount of claims than there were in prior years.

22 and 23 had very similar amount of claims, and you can see those are vastly different claims as well.

So this slide was really just kind of to highlight that this can fluctuate year over year, and there's a huge variance when it comes to what types of injuries and how many injuries you're gonna have.

So and those just and those numbers, I just wanted to note that if you can go back to the slide.

No, that's the total number of claims, the amount of those claims that doesn't necessarily give the what was actually paid from those claims, right?

Okay, just want to be sure of clear.

Oh, sorry, there we go.

So one of the reasons this slides up here is because why is this all important?

Um, it's important because in when we start looking at the annual budget and the self-insurance reserve fund and all the departments who are here, particularly Aaron, since she has all of the high deductibles.

Um, how do we allocate all of these costs back to the departments for the self-insurance fund?

So that allocation occurs based upon a combination of experience versus exposure.

Um, and the city made a policy decision many years ago to use a five-year claim history, which is your experience, and then 30% is based upon the department's workers' compensation exposure.

A lot of that has to do with your number of employees, the risk factors of their jobs, if they're in those higher risk positions, um, that's going to be the part of the exposure, the payroll data.

As our payroll goes up, those expenses go up as well.

And so we have to allocate that.

Um, again, it's it's part of the rising cost.

Um, it's a good thing, but it also is something that we have to account for and why we need the expertise of a company like Huggins to be able to take a look at that data and give us really good projections going forward.

Um, and and look at our historical as well.

And then also as part of the exposure is 20% is based upon your um department vehicle exposure, and that's part of your number and type of vehicles.

So when we start making decisions about the budget and whether or not we're going to provide take-home vehicles, for example, you need to know that that does impact more than just what's the cost of a vehicle.

It's going to impact your um your contributions to the self-insurance fund as a part of that.

Um, so the the actuarial process is um uses the historical claims experience to determine the ultimate cost level and the main results from the actual actual analysis are the outstanding liabilities, those projected costs, and then the allocating those projected costs using that exposure and experience that we talked about.

And with that, unless you have any questions for me, what I'd really like to do is get this turned over to Huggins to talk a little bit about the work that they perform in and trying to determine existing loss and the um I'm sorry, I'm gonna pull this up.

I'm trying to talk, I'm trying to multitask, I don't multitask very well these days.

Um, but anyway, they're gonna they're gonna talk about the numbers.

Let me see if I can pull them up on the screen.

You might need to exit full screen.

Uh do I have to drag them out of the presentation?

Yeah, Nick will ask you.

Can I just know whether you can answer this or not, Eric?

The um I'm wondering about the experience of employees with our insurance programs, and this may be an HR question, actually.

But do we do we um we get feedback from employees about their level of satisfaction with the coverage they're receiving through these kinds of claims and their experience of receiving medical care and so forth?

Yeah, and that's there's there's a it's not really like a formal kind of a discharge questionnaire type of a thing, but most of the time when we're when we're having a file review, we talk about the experience that they they've given to us as well.

And as you can imagine, if it was a bad experience, we're gonna we're gonna hear about it proactively anyway.

And we have taken some measures this year to actually eliminate some of the providers that we did in our network because of the bad experiences, and it had did have to do with them trying to get people back to work too soon, and that it was it was not good for us and then not good for the employees, so we've decided that we're no longer going to use them.

So um, and they understand that as well.

So, yeah, there's there's there's not a formal questionnaire process, but we do take it pretty seriously, and that's another part of what our TPA accuracy does because they're held to those higher standards by the division of workers compensation at the state level, and there's an annual audit that they do.

So okay, with that we're gonna introduce again um Carolyn Dentino and Grover Eddie.

Um Carolyn Rover with Huggins Actoral Services, and they are gonna talk about the analysis of the loss, and then it's the LIE is the loss adjustment expense.

So um, some fairly highly technical things.

And Carolyn, I think I'm gonna let you be able to share your screen at this point, and you want to go through the okay.

I will share the presentation.

I think we just ordered that.

Oh, that's not right.

Oh, no, you know what?

Yeah, but you're good.

She's sharing her screen.

Yeah, she's sharing.

Can you see my screen?

Yes.

There we go.

There we go.

I think you'll want to hit run on that slide show.

You see your whole PowerPoint.

Oh, okay.

Umbe that's right.

Oh, right here.

So oh no, that would take me back to the beginning.

Uh let's see if I can just fast forward.

Okay.

You know what?

It's my screen that's showing up.

I'm sorry to do this to you, but that's my screen.

There we go.

No, you're um escape.

I'm going to zoom.

So let's start with other liability.

Uh let me just minimize this here.

Um IT there.

So the change in ultimates for 2026 and prior, and 2026 is just a projection year, um, was an increase of 438,146.

Um changes for 2025 and prior was actually a decrease.

Um then the change in reserves was an increase of 1129.

Now, I did want to point out that you did, you know, you you listed the SIRs earlier in your presentation on the self-interpretentions, but I wanted to mention that you did recently increase some of those.

Um, and that was very recent, for instance, the other liability SIR uh was increased in the 2023-2024 basical year, and so that does impact our estimates, at least in the beginning.

Um, just because you raise your SIR doesn't mean your losses are actually going to go up, but the potential does.

And so at first, we do have to sort of account for that, and then as the year matures, that's when we see the actual impact of whether or not increasingly SIR actually increased your losses.

Um the 2025 exposures uh decreased this year to 562 700.

Um, however, the projections that we were given for 2026 is an increase for the city budget.

Um the major directive for this increase was the addition of the 2025 year.

Uh next slide of visit this property.

Um change in ultimates was an increase of 556, 648.

But like I said, 2026 is a projection year.

So for 2025 and prior, it was just an increase of 332,720.

However, reserves went up 447,899.

Once again, there has been a recent increase in the self-insured retention.

And in the same year, 2324.

And again, this could impact or not impact losses in the long run.

2026 exposures are up to 1,263, 553, and they have been increasing for the last four years.

And the addition of the 2025 accident year was the major driver in 447,899 increase in reserves.

Next is auto liability.

So the change in ultimates for all years, including the projection year of 2026 was an increase of 557,345.

But the change in ultimates for 2025 prior was only an increase of 112,145.

And reserves went up 129,207.

Again, for this line is business, there's been a recent increase in the SIR.

It was previously 750, but now it's increased to 1 million with a cap of 3 million, and then there's a 10% quota share.

This increase took place in 2324.

For 2025, you had a vehicle count of 762.

Nope.

Okay.

Excuse me, of this ultimate increase of 112, 145.

Partially offset by a decrease in fiscal year 2024 this year.

And as far as the reserves, the addition of fiscal year 2025 was the major driver for that increase.

But if you're excluding that 2026 projection year, it was only 328-286.

And the change in reserves was an increase of 175-829.

This line of business, like the others, had a recent increase in the self-insuring retention.

This increase took place in 2024-2025, which again impacts projections of ultimates.

However, if you remove the projection year, it was only 924-712.

And the increase in reserves was 681.

The SIR for workers' comp is still 750.

The 2025 exposures, which we use city payroll, it increased to 104.799 this year.

And the addition of 2025 was the major driver for the 68172 increase in reserves, partially offset by decreases in 2024, 2023, and 2019.

We do at this time analyze uh loss and defense cost containment together.

Um, we feel that it gives the data more validity.

Um Carolyn, just so that we so that everybody's aware, DCC is defense containment costs.

That is what that's for.

So it's yeah, yeah.

So it's what you were referring to earlier when you were saying LAE, it's uh falls into that.

Um this slide pertains to the triangles in our actual actuarial report.

Um, this is an example of a loss triangle, and as the age goes out, it becomes more mature.

So for instance, 2019 at 12 months it's at 100, at 24 months it's at 110, at 36 months it's at 125, um, and so on.

And this is how we sort of look at how each accident year sort of develops and how the losses come in.

So looking down in a column, you know, obviously I'm showing this at the 36 months.

It shows increase in accident year.

And then as I pointed out a minute ago, um, use value in a row to calculate differences in an accident year at different valuations.

So this example is 2020 at 12 months, which is 130, 2020 at 24 months, which is 142, and then 2020 at 36 months, which then has grown to 148.

Um, this is an example of background information that assists the actuary if you had procedural changes, operational changes, um, definitely legislative changes, uh, underrating changes, processing changes, um, also which I've already discussed insurance changes.

Um, if you change your SIR, that makes difference involved.

Um, the loss reserving techniques that we used in this report are listed here.

We use the incurred loss development method, paid loss development method, the paid and incurred or incorporated Ferguson methods, and the IBNR to case outstanding method.

Um each technique has its own advantages.

Um the incurred development technique, it uses all of the data, both paid and claims reserves.

Data is usually readily available.

Um, however, if there's a change in reserving patterns, um, let's say you switch to a different TPA, um that could uh impact results and make them less accurate.

Um exact thing for the paid loss development technique.

It's mechanically identical to the incurred loss development technique.

The board of Ferguson methods um provide theoretical framework for working with different lines of business, can be used with very little loss history, and they take available data into consideration.

Um, however, it's considered to be the most misused technique, um, and the correct assumptions have to be selected.

The IBN art case outstanding method is advantageous for loss programs with strong and consistent case reserving practices, maybe been with the same TPA for a very long time, for instance.

Um, and it works best on slightly more mature accident years.

Um, however, if case reserving practices are not consistent, um, this method would not be appropriate to use.

Um popular and common questions to ask your actuary.

What assumptions underlie the reserve estimate?

Do you see trends in the data?

Have you accounted for any changes in the mix of business?

Um, what can cause improvement or deterioration in reserves, and have you accounted for underwriting changes?

And I'll add to that also obviously extra insurance changes.

Oh, okay.

It looks like I'm back to your slide.

You're back to our slide, but if you would like to go through this, that would be since these are your um confidence levels and assumptions that you use as part of your analysis.

Okay.

Do you mind doing that?

Yeah, yeah.

I don't want it at all.

Uh let me okay.

Huggins actuarial services.

Um, performs actuarial analysis to develop a reasonable rate, reasonable range and estimate of unpaid claims as of the end of the fiscal year.

Also projects expected losses for the next five year period, provides basis for annual funding recommendations and reserves for incurred losses.

Liability estimates provided on both undiscounted and discounted basis using annual interest rates of 2% and 3%.

Projected losses provided on expected level, 75% confidence interval and 90% confidence interval.

Trend assumptions or annual increases in number of exposures and cost per exposure.

Insurance programs should be funded at a level greater than expected.

And can you also explain what uh expected level is?

What do you what interval is that?

Expect expected level is at or close to the 50% confidence level, and then we also give you the higher estimates of 75% and 90, which those numbers are going to be higher.

So, you know, more and more normal worst case scenario.

Um a lot of people like to sort of err on the side of caution and carry maybe reserves at the 75 confidence level or 90 instead of the 50 percent.

Um, if that makes sense.

Estimated net liabilities for unpaid claims as of September 30, 2025.

Undiscounted was 8,353.

Um, and discounted at 2% was 8081, and discounted at 3% was 7954.

Estimated retain losses for fiscal year 2026, which is the projection year.

Um discounted at the expected level was 3974, uh 3,974,000.

Um discounted at 2%.

The expected level was 3,828, um, and then 2% discounted the 75 confidence level was 4,385,000, and then 2% discounted the 90% confidence level was 5,479,000.

And so just to talk a little bit about that confidence level, um, a 90% confidence level means that nine out of 10 years, um, you would not exceed that number generally.

I mean, obvious, obviously there's a 10% chance that you could, but um, but that's the the confidence level in the numbers that are produced as a part of the actuarial report.

So I'm gonna actually can we go back to that slide just real real quick, Carol.

Thank you.

Yes.

So these are the summary numbers that are contained within the actual actuarial analysis that Huggins has performed.

Um, what Carolyn went through for you were all of the details related to the various lines in their presentation, but this uh this number really pulls it back together, and this is the number, these are the numbers um that you'll see um going forward as we start looking at the budget and we start assigning the self-insurance um fund out to the various departments.

Um I will also point out that the estimated retain losses for FY26 in the Huggins report actually carries out five additional years all the way to uh FY30, so they carry that out five years.

This just shows you the FY26.

So when you say um when you were in earlier slide, you said 50%, you know, basically goes back to the department, and then you know for as far as budgeting purposes, 50% uh expected, 50% like what is 50% of what?

Well, so what we last year the um the budget for the self-insurance reserve fund was nine million dollars, and typically, and we we also had a um uh fund balance in the self-insurance fund of at the end of at the end of FY in the FY26 budget, the reserves were 14.8 million.

Okay, um, but not all of that nine million got allocated out to the departments um in the budgeting process, a portion of the fund balance was used to help meet the anticipated annual expenses of nine million dollars.

So normally what we would say is that that nine million dollars is what you would try to allocate out to the departments, along with making sure that we have adequate reserves for um large losses, unexpected things, not not just the annuals.

So that's what we would expect.

Any questions for Chris or Nancy or Carolyn or Grover, you're silent, but we see you.

Or Grover, you're silent, but we see you.

Nancy.

Anything else you want to share, Nancy?

I don't think so.

I'm really happy to have Chris on board.

Yeah, yeah, appreciate it.

Yeah.

All right, appreciate that.

Uh anything else for the good of the order?

If not, we'll go ahead and call to close our pre-council at 652.