So um thanks very polling to or our uh study session for May 12th.

It's my brother's work that's on the six uh briefly on the and uh we only have one thing on the agenda.

Well we have to work this too.

Um the only uh item staff presenting on our agenda tonight is Oregon moderate intel remote loan program.

Yeah, thanks very much your did you want to do okay?

Yeah, man.

Josie Daniel, assistant city manager.

I'm here with our development project manager Nanny Bird.

Uh as you know, we've been talking about mural for several months now.

This will be council's third uh discussion at the body stuff discussing it together.

And if you recall back in the March 17th meeting, uh this is essentially a continuation of that session that you all started.

Um I was directed to receive a number of questions from our council members, and then provide responses to the questions as best we could uh through talking to the state as well as our neighboring jurisdictions and those that you knew were pursuing the mural program have pursued the mural program are thinking about it.

So uh I can say pretty strongly and with a lot of confidence that um we both nanny and myself together are probably one of the two most informed people about what's going on in the state with the world.

We've talked if you see the list in the staff report of the number of jurisdictions we talked to.

We have not been taking any of this lately, or just saying our opinions based on nothing.

Um we've we have followed up with our our thoughts and concerns and tried to give you answers to your questions.

So with that, I know we have a presentation that looks like it's up there, uh, but really this is about going over the questions.

So um if you would like, we can go I don't know if it's necessary.

This could be just go right back in discussion.

We can go through the questions one by one uh with you all if or we can just play by here if you have questions about some questions and answers.

Are you saying the presentation is pitched as questions one by one?

Or I would ask um Nikki to pull up the sound report we can go through the matrix.

Yeah, if you want to do that way, we can so I don't know what people think.

Do we need to go through the answers one by one?

Or people feel pretty comfortable with them?

Yeah, I don't need to go one by one, but I do have some general some of the questions was only answered by staff.

The reason why OECS didn't answer those questions.

Yeah, you have questions about specific uh answers where those came from, how this came to be we can go into those, but uh none of them are just like staff's opinion, those are typically uh built from talking to ACS within this last round.

The questions that you need us or in previous discussion in contact with them for a month.

Um and also some of the responses are reflective of our conversations with other SJs sponsoring frustrations that can be done the program.

Um had their own experience with OECS or given us some their experience with working through the program as they have as far as they have to.

So um yeah, hopefully that helps answer your question.

based on the the questions that you gave us or in previous discussions because we've been in contact with them for a month um and also some of the responses are reflective of our conversations with other SJs sponsoring jurisdictions that can either done the program um have their own experience with OHCS or given us some their experience with working through the program um as they have as far as they have to want to so um yeah hopefully that helps answer your question council I think one of the most the things that jumped out at me most and maybe you can shed a little more light is the fact that Tillamook which is the only jurisdiction through uh that was supposedly leaving the charge is on hold yeah talk a little bit about that yeah absolutely um good question so thanks to Manny we got uh finally to connect with the TillMo County uh last Friday so very recent and we similar to you probably you also heard that uh C4 unless there's next OECS where this Tolomo County was that one that was for the South there the one that stop develops when it comes to Rome.

Our discussion with their community development director uh who's also building official and that's oversees their housing vision basically they they created a resolution so they don't have they can create a resolution and it gets more complicated when I talk about it but essentially if you enact a resolution you can accept projects but you kind of need an ordinance to also figure out what the project criteria is that you'd want to judge those projects on.

So they got into this they're currently in this cycle of they have a resolution they've already accepted a project now they're kind of backpedaling to go oh we need to do an originating ordinance to basically clarify what we want the program to really be the criteria to be and also they have a number they have a number of questions that have not been answered both from a county assessor as well as from their community development director about some liability issues when it comes to delinquencies and it's okay for me to say Joseph they actually provided the staff report that their staff um sent to their council um explaining the reason for the pause and we have printouts of that that we can provide to you as well public record um so I think we should have those out yeah literally this is all just happened recently so it's all random we have really thought in that conversation that we're gonna hear a lot more like oh yeah you know here's the check we've done this check and then this IgA we've got this question figured out um but it was the complete opposite it's interesting because you mentioned C4 and that uh president and I were both at C4 anybody else I don't know you were there yeah that's my thought um they did mention Tillamov who didn't believe when they were asked about who is doing it Tillamuk was kind of the only answer they gave whereas when Mark Gambl spoke to us in January he had met with them and he had said that he told us them five or six or seven we were one of seven or eight jurisdictions that were looking into so that being I would not them being the state them being OHCS yeah them being OHCS had told rep Gamba that there were seven or eight jurisdictions looking at it um but they included us and we knew we were in a very preliminary state um so I mean that doesn't speak uh well for the uptake of the program that could gone for January's really all they still we're you're where you're in so and that would be some whole who's big has been a speech part who's bay is pastor that's kind of scene they're still working through you pass merged originating ordinance you negotiate your ITs at the county assessment and you establish your project criteria and your application process work with that my understanding is Kuzbay is kind of still in that we're setting up a new program phase.

Exactly Kuze has they have adopted a origin ordinance essentially the sampling um now they're trying to figure out what their criteria is going to be really who's going to implement so I think when I mentioned I don't know if it was just to you mayor or to castle at large but the whoever is working trying to build a consortium um based on their CDD business development it's like a it's kind of like an SBDC sorts uh there they do a lot of loan products a lot of underwriting so they're working with them as well as a gentleman by the name Stevie Brooks who's I based in Portland who I've worked with in the past who's done some uh finance review and some you know a finance increment just finance person in general who's also part of that consortium so they're trying to create this group of professionals technical technical experts that cities can potentially contract with to implement our homework it's if you have anything else to add yeah I mean just to tie on that um the Coos Bay conversations that we had have the same theme as the Tillomook conversation that's in this memo so the reason Coo Space is trying to um work with this consortium is because of the capacity and risk them.

So the reason Coo Space is trying to um work with this consortium is because of the capacity and risk themselves.

I would just I think this the long staff requirement at that second page where it's gonna sound a lot like reference you might have heard from your own staff, county staff do not have the resources available, technically there's comprehensive review.

Um, and that makes us any project specification should not be considered until OHCS does address the county's questions and concerns related.

And so I think there's a fun idea.

And on the last page, numbers one through five that are listed there.

That's then they're letting I mean the sign that's where it was a big red flag for some of the company not able to sign, saying that they are they don't have um the expertise or staff to do those five of those five things to be able to assign that, and they thought that was gonna be what OHCS would do once OHCS receives the application, but that wasn't the case.

Can you you mention in some of the responses the hood river model that's not we're kind of talking about compliance for profit developers, talk about what so is the river doing moral, or what is the hood river model and how does that look different from output?

Yeah, that's a great question.

So um if you look on your answers to questions, your questions, the attachment uh question number 12.

It's gonna be a good place to look, but um I talked to everybody how we found out they were doing that originally more.

So they adopted an arrangement.

Um and they did some things that we thought were like if we were going to move forward, but it made some sense to us.

They have similar capacity issues, like the legal concerns.

Um, and so they vote in their originating coordinates, they basically in their compliance plan that they would only receive projects that were um from nonprofit developers, so that like wires to send built in.

Um and that awardees would basically do self-compliance, and that's really kind of goes hand in hand between nonprofit development uh housing owners typically have that built in because the clients portfolio that they have or the stack finance stack that they have is usually it's like there's cloud funds which require compliance and verification, so it kind of just happens.

Um, and then the final piece is that they also instead of like a lump sum uh grants, uh the last number three on response 12 in the Hood River model is that they they're doing something pretty smart when it comes to the volume that's releasing funds as the projects in certain models, it's very similar to construction.

So some of those, and I uh we have some like do you get pushback?

Of course, yes.

That's they're just don't they're just trying, they're like throwing stuff at the wall and work in some.

So OHCS approved this this part version, yeah.

So OHCS we had an LOC land use.

Uh OHCS was there, but we talked about it.

And they can't that's the thing, they kept because I asked them like what does the is there any guidelines to compliance?

What does that look like?

Because you just say compliance over and over.

Um, and they said, Well, that's the thing, well, it's flexibility.

It's so those you know, cities have flexibility to figure out what they want their compliance to look like.

So I'm not surprised that that is okay because there really isn't there's just a work, yeah, right.

There's no definitive, they don't define it in any way, and they top that to the flexibility that the program has in a lot of cities to figure that out on their own.

Um and I'm not gonna lie, I do like limiting it to nonprofits, honestly.

Uh and because again, they're the only ones that can do the compliance, no for profit developers gotta do that, or not they're gonna wow, you're gonna make them on their portfolios be responsible for three years of compliance.

Their investors are gonna be like okay, but uh nonprofits I can see to look at.

Um the other issue is you know, some of the word that worries me like it's mentionable as default.

Um that's the other question I asked OHCS was like if since this is a loan with the state, cities going into an actual loan with the state if we default due to somebody going into foreclosure.

Um how does that affect the city's credit rate?

They didn't have an answer, they didn't really know they remember, we're not really sure.

So I don't know if that's a question for that's five foot, like you might have some information, but I would really like to know what that impact is.

You might have some information, but I would really like to know what that impact is.

And they did say that there's all these things we can work with, and together you can work it out with um you know what once the property goes to foreclosure, once it's sold, you know, everybody gets paid.

It's like, yeah, that's great, but sometimes foreclosures can take two, three years.

So it's process.

We're on the hook for those those figures.

Um, so something I don't know if this is something we could do, but one of the things I would ask is that if we were to do if we if we were okay with nonprofits doing this, then I would ask the nonprofit have a contingency for at least one year in the event that for that house does go to foreclosure, so they can make sure that they can pay that payment.

So we don't want to default, and that essentially gives us basically two years to figure out what to do with the property.

Now that doesn't that doesn't satisfy what happens on the back end legally, right?

But at least that does put us in a better position to where we're not going into default right off the bat.

It is a once a year payment that the state, so they're not getting paid up.

Wouldn't I also allow a lot of non-profits though to have that much that's that's available as contingency because they they have to rely on rabbit competitors to potentially but I mean risking default is probably a lot worse.

Well, I will understand that's something that's where I see the two coming together.

Like that would amp up their risk at that point, such to the point where perhaps we wouldn't have nonprofits who would want to report concern.

So then we uh had the meeting you know last week, and uh they were here with uh C4 uh council president Anderson posed a question to OHSC.

Uh and specifically it was about default as high record.

And we kind of got this saying wish you watching case or about well, you know, we'll work with you and we'll do this and we'll try to figure it out.

But the words that would not cross their lips was the city will both stay.

They just can't get that across.

They did not say that, they just won't say it, but that's a fact.

And so I'm just it it doesn't give me a lot of uh of um you know comfort, but they won't even recognize um what the cities see as a potential problem.

They just kind of this you know really mouth answer, yeah.

Did you give this land in pressure?

Really mouth answer might not be the words I use, but I do think they're like give me give me your um your I think it's hard.

I mean that when OHTS is on the record talking about the financial liability compliance pieces, they're they give lawyerly answers that kind of don't commit any path.

My sense in talking to them is that the state would look at opportunities for us to hear this and would try and work with us, but at the end of the day, it's cities that are on the book.

They won't even say that, but not even say that.

I would have I would welcome a larger answer like that, but should I I would just like for them to say the words, the city's gonna owe the money, just like some simple plain English.

Yeah, as I mentioned in the previous conversation on March 17th.

Um in preparation, but I kind of need to some of this conversation back the way it's happening.

Is I don't know that even the answers that we find or the answers we give for OCS will be satisfactory, like there is there's just a lot of ambiguity, there's lots of vagueness, there's trust, there's a lot of things that you kind of just untested waters.

I think head river, for example, is like I think they're sounds of it, and we'll see.

I mean, they just did originate orients, we'll see if they keep over and go.

Okay, second, say that happen.

But they're from our conversation with them, they put like they didn't originate an ordinance in a way that makes some sense for them.

Um and I think they also like coaching this like we'll see.

Yeah, well, I there doesn't seem to be anything.

I think they kind of understand like there's some risk here, and do they have a developer who's wanting to do it?

They made a non additional nonprofit, they have a nonprofit developer that was non-profit.

I don't have they did have the book similar.

It seems like every city we talked to has a developer that's kind of asking about it.

I know in Eugene, Dev Northwest has been working on their concepts, so Dev Northwest is a project in Milwaukee if they're interested to learn and there are any Eugene has like a clear project they're pushing for, but land doesn't have something like that to work in another city, but who does just have that?

But who does just have that?

Uh Lemon Land.

Yeah.

That's a land trust.

Yeah.

Oh, okay.

Show some.

Can I?

So obviously the I'm trying to kind of think about the other tools in our school kit like CET and a mural that's designed by the Hood River bottle.

And kind of putting myself in the shoes of a nonprofit.

Why one might be more or less attractive than the other?

Now obviously the CET is limited by what's in the fund.

And in this case, we'd be able to tap the city would be able to tap into the state pool.

But can you speak at all to like with Dad Ruth West, who's doing a project funded through us by C through C T.

You know, what's kind of what would be advantageous or not?

Like, is this really adding much to the toolkit if we already have the CET program is basically what I'm yeah?

I would say yes.

Uh because like as you said, the CTO yes.

Right.

That's it's just that.

So this is a grant.

This is a loan to us that grants it in.

So it's funny that we don't have another resource.

So I would say it's just another piece of the stack.

And another thing to administer.

Absolutely.

Yes.

So I've it's been weird to me through this whole process to be uh driven to what is clearly a problem late program or one project that I think we'd all like to see happen.

You know, um it's a good project.

Uh buildings don't uh new you know, buildings and townhomes at a price point that's more affordable to people.

Um but uh as you could see from some of my many unanswered questions.

Yeah, so I'm sorry, and there yeah, sorry, I'll apologize on record.

It's a fair point.

I was taking other solutions by the uh local from the district to build their street improvements since the state.

I will say um, I think you told me at LOC question seven content.

Uh the um all the city that I hear this at all the mayor's state, all this and the it was the big ask of the MOC this year was uh infrastructure money for affordable housing.

Yeah, that came with that money to build out the roads and build out the utilities, and we can build housing, and the state you know has budget constraints and watered that way down from the 40 million dollar ass to a 10 million dollar uh pool.

Um, you know, wouldn't we be competitive with our little project against some of the places that have urban growth boundary and more potential to build more houses with that funding?

I don't know.

I don't know question there, but I mean I just wanted to think beyond mural to how we could, you know, what other tools we might have to help this one project go forward.

And it's clear to me from your answers on this that even if we came back on June 2nd and the county said, yes, we will do your uh compliance, and we said, okay, we're gonna do umural.

It's gonna be many, many months, and that congregation has a timeline, right?

Um so I guess I'm just expressing my frustration.

I don't feel like this is a good tool for what they're trying to do.

I don't feel like it's a good use of our time to try and twist and turn into this project, this program uh for that one project.

Um I would like to find a way to help that.

Yeah, mayor if I but may uh two things talking to Ku's Bay was the first city state to do at least the original work is they they were pretty fun, like just for expectations say six to nine months at least that's where like active like much the original in the IGA's kind of like them.

They were still working on this actually last time we talked about April Sight.

Yep.

Um so they were still waiting and they had adopted, I think, back in September.

So there's that whole piece, you're right.

Like there's still a lot of time even after the original minutes gets updated that you actually can start uh see applications.

Uh the second piece is I I I told this the developer that's associated with the church online.

Um I've told them my conversations that we would happy to support and help entertain other funding sources that make sense for us to our credit.

Um I told them my conversations that we would happy to support and help entertain other funding sources that make sense for us to our credit, and I'll say that we don't just say no, like there's nothing we can do.

We just did this with Hillside again.

They came to us with for phase two.

We're like, hey, there's this loan out there, we'd love to go after our grant out there.

We'd love to go after uh, but it needs to be sponsored by your station.

Well, you guys sponsor said yes, so it's through business work again out there.

You guys all remember this they actually said yes for after it.

Um we got when we asked for three million, we just were awarded 1.5 a few days ago.

So this will reason we said yes to this is because the administrative loading is so much lower, and we're working with development quest who's also working with housing authority who also regulates these something of us.

Um yeah, who's who does this administration piece?

But we can just we can do pass-through grants.

That's something that we feel pretty comfortable with.

So I say that because it's not for lack of wanting to try to find it there again, but also it's not up to us to find a tool that works for that to be helpful if they for other things they're happy to obtain these, I guess.

Did they share what we do this?

Um did they govern ratio show behavior.

Um maybe I think that yeah, we don't have dedicated housing set.

So when folks come to meet with us, they meet with the two people you see here, and they are always happy to be partners and bounce ideas off it, but we also don't have time to be going out there and pursuing funding strategies for every project, and we we can't do that on a just kind of first come through the door um effort.

So in this case, I think there was an expression of a willingness if opportunities were to arise to as Joseph just point out with the hillside, take that exact same approach.

We've we we love to try to get to yes, but we can't uh supply, we just don't have the capacity or the expertise to supply the answers.

I don't believe in that case we well, the church basically they don't have the expertise to go out and get rates, right?

So I'm not surprised I'm just gonna just asking the question any centrist.

I've never also I just I've never talked to church and the propaganda.

Okay, I want to touch talk to the developers are interested.

I think about this a little differently.

I know there is one development that we can look at, but I think Merle is also a valuable in talking with some affordable developers to increase the amount of uh capital that's available for the funding staff, and the fact that these the state has relatively dollars here, those dollars could come to Milwaukee to build affordable housing that's been um as long as we can feel secure in our financial standing and accepting the project and feel like we have the safeguards in place, especially with the nonprofit called cards because that I also see there being real bad.

I mean, we've allowed the fact that we have less control for our land use process than we have in the past, and these are dollars that we can use to be able to negotiate with developers to try and see different things in our developments.

Um, and I think there are so few options to really have developers come to ask us asking for things that we would like to see, us having the leverage to make an ask things too.

Um I see this as a potential tool to be able to change the happening.

And granted, I don't think that like I hear very clearly from our staff that we don't have the capacity to do this if we are the ones during the affordable program.

Doesn't seem like it seems like Hood River is put forward an alternative pattern that we consider for nonprofits who are able to do this on their own.

Um I also think that like in terms of the liability, any project can come forward to us and apply.

We're we're not obligated to take off the project.

If we feel there's undue financial risk in any project, people get their capital staff get approved so far, we look at their cash on hand or the reserves, or what have you built on a safe swap to see what they accept in the program, but having this is a potential for nonprofits to be able to build a staff makes sense.

I would love to do it.

I I just always get back to the two of resources expertise capacity.

Then so we talked about the county, we've talked about the lower profits that are certainly willing to go to pursue those.

But I I don't think that the issue of risk is always handled in the upfront.

I mean, I think the risk exists through the through the duration of the project, but well, you know, duration of the term, you know, whatever's 10 years or 30 years or whatever.

I think that that risk is always there.

And I'm not sure that anyone is going to come away from this process with uh a real good feeling that you know they mitigated that sort of long-term risk because I think it's there, and I mean um it's just a it's just a fact of life that you know the mortgages go into delinquency, it may eventually go into foreclosure, and I don't think that that's a uh you know, a abstract you know, concern uh because I actually looked at the notes.

So if you the Federal Reserve has information about this, it basically the mortgages go into the labor city on average to be only the delinquency five percent since 1979.

Okay, and if you throw in something like the Great Recession, it's like 11%.

So those risks are there, and I'm not sure that there will ever be an answer for that, except that someone accepts that risk.

And uh, I'm just asking myself, should we accept that risk?

Because I don't know that there's an insurance product out there.

I don't think there is an insurance product, that's one of my questions is that the insurance product that covers that.

So if you really want to address the risk, it kind of gets back to what Adam was talking about earlier.

You'd say, well, you uh you build up the reserves.

Well, that's a hard I mean, reserves are hard to you know to pinpoint even where we are right now.

We've had this discussion in the last budget page.

So I just don't think that even when you set up the program, you can mitigate that sort of lifecycle risk.

I think that makes sense.

I think it's also if we're talking about like unit by unit foreclosure.

Um, I went through our county assessors to look at like the increment on for middle house mill.

Because I think some of these projects would be housing.

What's the increment that the city itself is getting on this project?

And on average for our middle housing, it's about 950 a year.

Um if you take five percent of tunnels over a state-to-one project we've had described to us for 44 units, that's about two foreclosures a year that are happening, and you multiply that by 950, even if we pop it up to 1500, assume that school district and other districts are losing much.

Um that's about three thousand dollars in liability that the city would have a year for projects going or foreclosure to cover the cost of that.

I guess I throw that out just as napkin, but I'm curious how much risk we're actually talking about, what the scale of that risk is.

Well, I don't know that you can limit that that uh liability to just that tax increment, can you?

Isn't it the whatever the loan was?

So that's whatever paying each year is the increment.

The way the loan is structured is it's yeah, yeah, 10 years times however much the increment is, and so your yearly payment is whatever the increment is, and so you would say for any individual unit, if a house foreclosed in this development, they would not be paying their increment to us in that year.

Um that increment, like we talked about might come later on down the line foreclosure process.

That's not money going to come right away, that's not going to come later on, and so we have to cover the cost of the increment for that year.

That is the financial risk that we're talking about.

And my sense is if we're talking on a 44-unit project about two units being foreclosed a year at that 5% rate, that's about three thousand dollars a year in liability to the contract.

Well, how does the loan get paid?

I mean, this is not unabody we're talking about.

Well, the other four, yeah, I guess he's saying the other 42 are paying, right?

Yeah, so it's only those two default, but I think the bigger question is default before there in the built.

That's what I was gonna say.

I'm not worried about the amount, I think that's manageable to my thinking with the reserves for a non-profit.

Um it's it's the default because I mean you miss a credit card payment, no matter what your payment is, that's a 30 degree lay of credit.

So I'm worried about the impact that it may have on our credit rate.

I was disappointed to not get an answer out of the HCS today in this meeting.

So I was really hoping they had an answer, like, no, it's not because it's not necessarily a loan in that manner.

Um but all they said is like we'll help you, but they didn't they didn't, you know, especially with our budget and our our constraints right now is we really need to take that seriously.

If we go into default, how that impacts on rating of the city.

It's a big deal.

Um that's more than what the impact of that is greatly amount that we're talking about.

Because I I like the book Riverset up, I like how they put that together.

I might limit it to nonprofits um because they can do the compliance, and I like the program in the sense that it's the only thing that it's the only way we can kind of dictate what gets built in our communities.

But I just I don't like how it's put together and the the default is really worrying.

I was really hoping that we would get an amplitude from OHCS because every city of everything is on there, it's just not what we expected.

So I'm hoping that might pay.

Okay, ask a question of clarification.

Um the legislation is pretty explicitly clear about what happens.

So are you saying that OHCS is interpreting that differently in terms of like the kit that they've put together for jurisdictions?

Or I mean they were just very vague, they didn't really have a response.

That was the thing.

It was more like, well, you mean default, but we have mechanisms to help with that.

And once the property goes into foreclosure and then it's sold, then everybody gets repaid, but they didn't answer how that impact they don't really because they're not the legal people, yeah.

But they didn't really it didn't clear it in clarify what that how they did tax our credit because the state doesn't determine our rating, right?

Right.

Yeah, that's that's the part that's murky for me is that this would be a loan with the state, not with a bank.

Um it's but but the legislative guidance or the guidance through the state, you know, is still calling for underwriting support.

I don't know what that really consists of.

We're still treating it like a home.

Yeah, but they're so I I don't know the extent to which it would hurt our reading, but everything that like that I know about how the state operates or how jurisdictions operates would led me to believe that it would most certainly have an impact that the state probably has to get some type of you know authority, um, you know, the same way that that a bank would and so if the legislation has very very clear that yes, we're on the hook to repay this money.

I don't see how in any of the guides that the state has put together that has changed, you know.

Am I just missing something?

And I'd be happy to talk to Mike, but I don't think he'll have a clearer answer.

I think we have the same assumptions, I guess.

So no, you're asking well, but it is concerning it is that they're not able to say right definitively you can find that in you know, whatever section 33 paragraph, whatever for in the legislation.

Well, then they pointed to the because I asked about if somebody was well, actually, I didn't even pass that much to find bills to manage pass in the event of somebody purchasing the home and then renting it out to someone at market rate.

How do you prevent that?

And again, they were like, Well, there's some legal things in the legislation, but again, it's on this sponsor jurisdiction to figure that out.

And it's like, how would we figure that out?

I don't even, you know, we we were like everybody out there was like, well, how are we supposed to figure that out?

We're supposed to do to figure that out.

That's why you know the nonfobby level would be the only solution, but then again, it's still you know how the default.

I think the default only comes into play if we can't make the payment for that year to the state, and I think that's where we would have to not rent a loan if we don't feel comfortable that we could make a payment to avoidable vault.

I mean, is there another way you can avoid that?

Or how can you determine that at the start of the program?

Say that anyone, I mean you said repeat you repeat what you said.

I think what council closer body is describing if we were to default on the loan, it assumes that we couldn't make that annual payment to the state that they are owed.

And so I think that if we were ever to consider a project, we would we should not go forward unless we felt confident that you could find someone to make that payment.

Well, I'm just you know, but I'm just giving you information that all the banks in the country who are pretty good at this, can get it right 100% of the time because they have a five percent default, right?

I'm not saying to perfectly predict it, I'm saying is there some contingency that we could have to protect us from that.

Could we set aside CET funds to say the liability that we have every year is $50,000?

That's the payment looking to the state.

If we set aside $50,000 of CET fund, is that some assurance that we could be able to pay back the state if there were something in it?

Um I guess actually this conversation has raised a new question in my mind.

Is I guess I um I assume the uh we're not making a payment to the state, the tax assessor is making a payment for the state, but then if there's default, we get notified by the tax assessor.

I mean, how do what's happening?

How is that what is that system?

You know, the IGA you work out with tax assent.

I guess I don't know if anyone's gotten to that point.

Yeah, anyone it is another concern that we've heard from the tax assessors that they don't usually act as collections.

That's a there's a new program for them.

Um I'll be interested to see what the other county is that we in this journey and what type of conversation they have.

Yeah, I think their June 2nd obviously lightning.

OHCS says um this is their response to one of my questions.

Um, very generally the sponsoring jurisdiction would work with the county tax office to do notification and attempt to cure a late payment prior to moving to default employment.

And so it seems like question 15a.

So it seems like there would be like our staff were saying, as we're making these IDAs, like the assessor we can create some kind of process, and there would be some in our IDA with OHCS, some process we set up to cure a failed payment or a foreclosure for some reason the payment was made.

But this is where I was saying if we if there is an opportunity cure, if we had funds to cure, that helps mitigate some of the liability.

If we don't have funds to cure, then we do take on the liability and we put the city in that position.

Um, so I'm kind of wondering are there ways that we could use CET funds or other funds to be able to have some type of contingency to cure our moral obligation on an basis?

If that was so that's that's a similar model that um uh Eugene and I remember I've expressed the competency our reserve, but also I couldn't know which earlier, they just they're just putting a reserve where the digital CET but you know they're putting it away for the ready day.

It's interesting.

Well, and yeah, okay.

So can you do that?

Yeah, we can do whatever we want with our reserve.

I mean, we can add more dollars to take over the sum of money.

I would say that we've had some tricky conversations about recently well, I'm saying no, I'm saying CET funds can we use CET funds?

Okay, yeah, I think I think the color money doesn't matter.

CET funds are for affordable housing, so long supportable houses.

But I'm sorry, were you saying in the event that one payment can't be made, or in the event that the project cannot move forward and we are on the hook for all the money that you're proposing that we just pay the annual payment every year until all the money is paid?

Well, I think it depends on that.

There are two risk scenarios that are to describe here.

One is after sometime later in the project, after it's already been built, there's a failure tree thing.

I think very it is much easier to have super that um the other is kind of what the mayor was looking to.

If you default during construction, there's a larger obligation.

There is, I think Hoda River has different ways that they go about this by slowly doling out the funds, not giving them all at once by saying we're gonna tranche this.

Um I think you have to structure the contingency to allow for at any time you're doing the tranched funds, being able to cover the funds that you're distributing out.

That makes sense.

Um I appreciate the creativity of the suggestion, and I and I you know that's why I'm asking for more clarification around it because the overall the risky part for me in this proposal is that we're trying to retrofit for a system that doesn't exist at our municipal, but we're trying to retrofit this idea to be able to fit something that the county isn't doing and that the state isn't handling themselves, which is why probably these the alliance of cities or the what is it, the sortium of cities?

I mean, that's cities working together to do something on a scale that they can't do individually, so um on a system level, it would make a lot more sense for the county to do this, or the state to to actually just make the change and not create a pilot program obligating a small amount of funds to ask cities to try doing instead.

So on a system level, it would make a lot more sense for the county to do this, or the state to actually just make the change and not create a pilot program obligating a small amount of funds to ask cities to try doing instead.

Does that make sense?

Which pieces don't make sense to me.

I guess I'm confused.

Are you talking about city county doing this?

Are you talking about the county assuming the liability for the repayment, or is this the county doing the um I'm talking about the county being a much larger jurisdiction, having um their self-insured?

Yeah, they have a housing program.

Yeah, um, they have a land use division.

Um, they have a lot more capacity than we as an individual jurisdiction do to take some guidance from the state and implement it for our region.

And I would say that it would make me feel um, I feel like the risk would be mitigated if they were doing it at a scale that gave some type of consistency across all of the jurisdictions in Glackmas County instead of individual jurisdictions being asked to implement something which could easibly look different in every single district jurisdiction.

Yeah, I don't know if this answers the question, but question 21 is more than I thought it was basically it was in the county serve those the mostly sponsored jurisdiction the answer for the state was no and they can't they can be a sponsoring jurisdiction for if they get the money, it can only be spent up unincorporated areas, right?

Yeah, they did it.

This was not in the manual, and this is like a couple other cities are off, we're operating on a similar assumption that the county could be covered the whole county.

Um yeah, we verified that no, that's not the case.

However, I will say the caveat in that talking with housing authority staff is that if for some reason Clarkmas County adopts their own rural, then they would consider opening up capacity to assist other cities that are also SJs to for ministry.

And capacity would be also consistency of rulemaking.

That's the question.

That's a good question.

Okay.

And but yet if we take on the implementation of our own mural, do don't we still have to have an agreement with the county?

Yes, yeah.

Because the assessor is the institute that collects and pays back alone.

And what um, sorry, changing years now.

Can you explain again the um the implications if we were to um implement this and a project came um about in the URA?

What would happen?

Because there are some specifics around URA areas, right?

This was the most recent change that they're made in the legislature.

So they said what would have happened before is it was ineligible to do it and you were in district.

You're now able to remake the payment through other or repay the amount due through other revenue sources.

Um you can choose to property taxes.

So you could either there are two ways you could repay.

One is working with assessor to do the automatic property tax things and you can use three pay alone.

The other is the city can find some other ways to do it, and they leave it very broad the city and choose what they want.

The implication would be your tip district pays through.

That is property tax.

Oh, and turning it funding source and you could do something else, but yeah.

So just what other funding exists.

I mean, if they were to, I'm saying, like if you wanted to use general fund dollars, you would choose to pay that with general fund dollars.

They don't specify the type, but it most likely would be easier technology or eight dollars.

I think that just goes back to where I feel really nervous about being um creative around reserve or a contingency fund because we might be on the hook for decades repaying, albeit maybe a small amount every single year, but that's taxpayer money for a project that might never come to fruition.

And and it begs the question, you're you're socking away those reserves in your CET, why not just give that CET as a grant that we administer?

That's cool.

I think what I would say this is so one, the length of the loan can only be 10 years.

That's the UP for you so you and the max amount of the loan is your increment times 10 years.

The I would say the reason why you wouldn't use CET dollars alone or just give CET if you have reserve because you're able to leverage the like size of the reserve for the amount of capital you can pull down.

I think you can use a smaller amount of reserve dollars to be able to effectively pull down more dollars from the state.

And so the amount of capital that we're able to provide to developers would be larger.

And I think you have to structure the reserve.

I mean, you would have to structure a reserve around the tronch payments that we do with that the highest highest amount of the loan is at any point and highest like liability of.

So you're saying use CET funds to bring bring in additional larger positive loan funds.

So that's like they say using CET as your debt service for the mural loan.

And it's debt service that you potentially have to use only clinical.

But that isn't that an opportunity most because you've lost control over the CET that you said so I think the way I would describe it is the minimum take Hood Rivers example.

The point when they're at maximum risk of default is when Hugo means put to 50 and Bitfight 15% final inspection is when they give the final loan amount.

So that's 85% of the loan total is when they're the maximum potential for something to go wrong.

You owe 85% of the units going through all of our infrastructure.

There's still a foreclosure process that happened there.

There's still some payment down the line that we could receive, but we would have to in here start making payments for the loan that we awarded 85% of.

And so by having that 85% in some tech reserve, you're able to pay off the total amount of the loan that we have.

But after that 85%, your liability is far less because the project has already been built.

It has intrinsic value, so it goes in foreclosure.

You're being able to like reap the reap the value of the sale when you sell the foreclosed asset that has some value more than just an undeveloped parcel or a half developed parcel.

And so your liability is less that 85% amount of the total loan grant is what is the highest potential payment that you have to make.

Well, yeah, I understand all that, but I think the question I ask is the reason I call it an opportunity cost, it's like I would look at it as like, okay, you've got you're gonna make a decision about how you're going to use your CET funds.

Okay.

So the question I would ask is say, okay, well, we use which use CEP funds for affordable housing.

So would you really use CET funds for Sparrow, or would you rather use it for is that is that a is that a good question for you know the city to ask itself?

I think the one difference that I would say is you need that 85% at one time, and it's only when that one project is going through from down out, you don't need a full 85% to be able to cover the liability of the loan.

You need to be able to cover the risk of foreclosure, which is going to be far less than 85% of the loan value at one time.

And so you're able to by setting aside some contingency, hold down effectively far more dollars than just 85%.

Counselor, I think this is sort of the question I was posing to Joseph.

I was doing it more from the perspective of the affordable housing nonprofit developer, but I think from the city's seat or from your seat, you might want to ask like council president's correct.

Merle allows you to leverage a much bigger pool of money than our CET accrues slow, and it's it's not that huge.

So Merle opens up more doors, but it adds, I would argue, significant administrative um burden um risk uh and capacity and expertise that I don't believe we really have.

So we'd be we'd be kind of struggling bumbling through some of this, but with a lot more opportunity to have access to a lot more dollars.

The CET program that you guys have established, it crews slowly, but you have been able to do things, and we I feel like are right sized at the administrative level for moving that forward.

So that's the opportunity cost.

It's less less amount to do things, but probably um with less administrative and overhead cost or access to a lot more capital to support development, but then we have to probably we will have to increase administrative uh capacity to so if we did fund you know a way to outsource the administrative tasks either to the county or to nonprofit, then is rural.

I mean, is is the is the CET money a better investment in rural or project watch better?

I think the staff recommendation, and I welcome my staff to disagree with me, but is it I believe it is still for the capacity we have within our within our city to to go the CET drift?

I think I know but what in my postulation I said it was taken out, and then we would found it in house, I assume for part of it for the compliance piece, but I still think there's an administrative element here.

Um we've had some interesting uh relationships negotiate with the tax assessor in the past, and they've been bumpy because we have a very small lean city team that is tracking a lot to just keep the day-to-day operations going.

So even if we can outsource the compliance thing.

Well, I'm done with you.

I have read the rural manual and the toolkits and everything like that, and it's don't help me understand this.

Is it is the nature of that burden?

I understand.

I mean, we're seeing this in Cuspey, they're doing a lot of work to set up the program.

Is it is the challenge setting up the program and asking to do that?

Or do we think if you had a nonprofit in the O River model that our 5% admin fee would be able to cover the costs of working with the nonprofits to be able to do that?

I don't think the five percent rendering fee is enough to actually say that, especially if you're adding monitoring and appliances.

This is the piece that we haven't really talked about.

Um one of the questions I would like to ask you all is the minimum amount is of term or affordability covenants that you want these properties of 120% or below, it's at least 10 years.

The maximum of turn is 15, so you can go as 15.

But that's just with regards to the loan.

There's been um the city also has the discretion to reconfigure the affordability AMI that we want.

So if you wanted to look at programming program criteria for projects that come through at like 80%, 60%, that can be changed some things.

In addition, you don't have to say just 10 years, you can say actually we want at least 30 years restricted.

I mean, it's probably for any of those these dollars, or even longer.

So I say that because you all have had a lot of interest in deep pro affordability as well as longer terms.

If you add those to be restrictioning cabinets, that creates a longer period of compliance and modern.

So the 5% administration fee on you know five million is not gonna account for that.

Well, I guess but if we went with the um the river model and we were using nonprofit developers, they're already doing those long-term compliance.

Exactly.

Yes, so you went with them, yeah.

That would deal with the compliance and the five percent would be what we could spend on other staff costs, right?

If the county said HXCC will do your compliance, they might want to do five percent, and then we don't have we don't have anything for our own costs.

So I do think yeah, I mean, just it's hard to think of what all those other staff things might be, but some that come to mind for me are I mean, apart from yes, there's a huge staff time stuff in getting the program established.

But say you get the program established, then what what are the time stuff on each uh application?

So there's the figuring out if the financing stack is right, yeah.

Um figuring out is this really a viable project that can be built and deliver on those, and you're kind of saying we don't have that.

We don't have that's the contract.

And this memo is saying oh HCS is saying they're gonna do that on some kind of provisional or advisory basis, they're working on a way to do that.

Yeah, that's one of the reasons why someone like I said, okay, we're not gonna so we thought they were gonna get more support when it came to underwriting specifically, and doesn't sound like we are at Lisa helped clarify it a little bit better.

You have a nonprofit that does all the admin.

We get the five percent admin fee for whatever once we would still need additional resources.

Yeah, can I can I try to spell out what I think the city burden would be?

So there's setup of the program, which is gonna be big lift, IGAs, hurting all you cats to come up with criteria, drafting ordinance language, preparing for those work sessions, but that's we have a lot of expertise.

I know you guys are genius.

Then it's up.

Then we gotta market it.

We gotta have communications, you gotta put it up on the website.

We've got to be able to talk to people who have to have all the the interface with developers as they come in and ask questions.

Um then there's once you put out once you get applications, you have to review those, you have to do the viability checking and testing.

Then a big piece here, and I wish I had brought Mike is the financial administration and and auditing, and that's frankly part of this that really stresses me out.

I mean, we push our finance team to the max already, just administering the financial policies that we already have.

The the reminder to check in with the tax assessor and then monitoring all of this into our accounts, it's doable, but it's it's it's an additional thing that we don't do today, and I think would would stress our system, and then there's compliance.

So I think you're talking about outsourcing the last bit of that, which is great because that's the biggest piece, but all those other pieces will have to be absorbed by community development city managers often finance.

Yep.

That's that's a counties it's because we'd be the sponsoring jurisdiction.

I mean, I honestly I was really hopeful they were gonna say the county can be an SJ, and frankly, it's like we'd still be waiving away our property taxes, but like at least they take on all those pieces.

I think it's still putting all that.

We are the program administrator for Milwaukee.

One question just as you know that on this, the five percent admin fee wouldn't cover assuming compliance is gone, five percent admin fee wouldn't cover all the other work we have to do, set aside also the same thing.

That's the deeper.

I mean, I can't I can't show you a table where I've crunched all these numbers.

Um but I I also you know, this is application by application, and I can't just staff up for you know, just I mean, it's time, and so it's sort of figuring out how the staff and the work and the workload can be absorbed on top when when these things come in.

Um I don't know what that would be within the five percent, but I think with this, I I think the compliance piece bottle up all of both of that.

So I think it's gonna be more tricky.

I think it gives you the best job working with the affordable housing developer because again, they're gonna have an interest and admission and also typically other financing sources that require them to do the compliance piece.

But what I don't understand and don't know is I I would I was a as a regulation of staff, I would also some reason to go down the route.

I would not like the city to have the covenant in our name to our benefit.

I'd rather have the covenant because with that verbal housing entity because they would be doing compliance on our behalf, and so therefore they would create another there is a piece of us that has to still be a part of that whole compliance piece and do that another way to make sure they're actually doing the thing that we have a deed restriction to our name.

Does that make any sense?

Yes.

Um, so there that is also a piece of the the puzzle is well.

I don't know.

Yeah, I don't think I'll see yes.

That's and I also say like housing authority, they're they're gonna want they would love that, they'll take the admin fee if they do one, and I think I think there might actually also be additional dollars we'll want because those won't be really third units, they'll be our the city's units via covenant that they'll be administering.

So I'm guessing when it's those long time, they're not their interests is not those units.

That's we're gonna want to work on our behalf, so there's gonna be some kind of interaction contacts.

And that five percent, if you're talking about a 30-year horizon doesn't go through 75,000 from but I do.

I mean, whoever brought up the thing of I mean, there's one thing to uh enforce on when it changes hands and you know, certainly compliance when it changes hands, but the thing about renting it to you know somebody who's wanted, and we know that I'm I know that from the SHS meetings I attended last year.

Um that that's there are people playing those games, right?

There are people getting housing vouchers and then renting them out and making a lot of money.

Um so uh that is a that is another piece of enforcement or compliance that is separate from what we're talking about the county or uh or the nonprofit too.

I mean, I guess the nonprofits are probably present enough that they know that's happening, should yeah, yeah, the chance we would that would take forever for the city to find that out.

Yeah, how is the five percent in comfort?

Is it all like once uh once in the at the beginning, or is it every year as part of this call?

I I I have the same question.

I assume it's like a lump sum, but I'm gonna be totally wrong.

It comes in its set of funds when the funds come in.

Okay.

And then it's at project by project, right?

So if we were trying to stand up a program to do compliance or to do implementation, then it would we would only receive that additional administration funding um as we have green lights on specific projects.

So I I feel like from a budgeting perspective, that creates that poses an inconsistency that can really have an impact on trying to stand up a you know some type of staffing model, and maybe it does go to a contract model at that point, which would you know behoove more of a formal relationship with a nonprofit?

But um, I think your concern is very collective, Joseph about you know they're doing compliance or incorporate you know enforcement on our behalf, and that becomes really messy.

Um I'm also wondering um I I and maybe I'm missing one of the questions, or maybe I would where does prevailing wage come in to this?

We should assume all projects are done with prevailing wage, right?

Yes.

Well, we got a thousand wage determination from question.

It's a huge point of concern for a lot of the jurisdictions of okay, because that makes it twice as expensive to do any of these projects.

Um which I think I'm just thinking of of the reasons that it would be less appealing for any developer, whether it's for profit or non-profit.

Um this developer did submit a bully letter said it wouldn't be subject to prevail that he sent us back before our March meeting that it wouldn't be, it would not be so um, but how would that you know there's some bully determination that it's about percentage of AMI that it's at or something?

Anyway, we have the it's in our packet from March from Austin, the letter he got involved.

He did get the determination that it would not be.

So help me understand then um the state is accepting that and and saying that there's a waiver from their program requirements because their program requirements state that that these should be done within prevailing wage, right?

The moral program requirements say that does it, or it just requires a determination letter up front, but if the money is coming through us as a public jurisdiction, don't we have an obligation to do projects with our main wage?

Well, Hillside wasn't built with program wage, and that's part of the reason why is that's part of the reason why there's no retail on the 32nd Street floor, because adding retail would have making it mixed use would have triggered prevailing wage, but as long as it was all affordable housing, it didn't trigger there's there is uh there is some cargo scene bullyage termination, but yeah, every project needs to say that's the fully process.

That's thank you.

And I I don't I remember the developers saying that they received termination.

Um what I don't remember is what was actually I mean the only it was like a two-page letter and it's saying if it's this and if it's that okay, that's right, then it wouldn't trigger prevailing way, right?

And set a bowling had seen a an actual form of that was my question.

So that's my question.

That's no that's a that's not a real determination, right?

That's just a if it means that there is kind of carve outs in the volume determination for usually ZMI, so like low AMI, it's um in public using public funds, there's the special we have to give this termination.

So that's what I'm wondering.

Is that one clarify or not?

I don't I remember an exam, I don't remember the yeah.

I mean, it was a yeah, it was if you're building this much and these prize levels are these AI, then it would not.

Um, but yeah, it I mean part of the whole frustration that we've spent so much time on this is we haven't seen a pro forma, right?

We haven't uh we're told they're gonna build them to this price point, and we don't know if they really can do that or not.

Um and they give us they give pictures, um and they're out.

Some people are going out to neighborhood associations handing out pictures.

I cannot get them to tell me where those pictures are.

There are pictures of some um some town homes built in Portland somewhere that they're comparing to uh like uh short stack, and uh I was told that they were gonna get there are three developments that the developer has done in Portland, and yet when I ask for addresses, so I can look them up and get tax records and see what they sold for, never get addresses.

Just put pictures out there, um, but never tell us what they are.

So I mean we're jumping through a lot of hoops for an undefined and not at all clear that qualifying setting aside this development.

If we look at just nonprofitable course, you've noticed that um licenses and their capital stack they already likely would have public dollars, and so this program wouldn't necessarily if it was going to be subject to prevailing wage, it probably would already be some sectors that wrong.

Most public um projects that nonprofit developers will take on are subject to prevailing wage, yes.

And and my feeling is the reason I would want to go with a nonprofit developer is because we would be uh even more uh we would get even closer to the level of affordability that I would want to see built in to our infrastructure.

So yes, that is the fact that that's that's true.

Um, but I think you would also find that a lot of those developers will be unable to work on smaller projects because uh just the funding that they have to secure in order to meet those prevailing wage those bully requirements.

So then you're looking at how many units will it actually take to pencil out so that you know and they're on the hook for their funders too.

Yeah, yeah.

Um so and I think like what I'm reading as this very local flexibility that the Merle program is is promising, uh, sounds appealing, but then when I pair that with what I have seen in terms of implementation and the constraints of implementation for um for nonprofit providers or for local jurisdictions, those are in conflict with each other, the scale of those projects.

And I guess my question is more if you're a non-profit, you're capital stacked.

Yeah, it's hard to press someone to go.

If you're a nonprofit developer, your capital stack mark likely already includes public dollars.

So I would assume that it wouldn't make this moral allocation, it wouldn't necessarily change the ad you're getting public dollars in your maybe subject.

And you are correct.

I just I want to make sure that any path that we move forward with, we have a conversation about our expectations with prevailing wage.

Sure.

And local jurisdictions struggle with that.

Um, you know, you want to be able to build more housing, and yet the price of the project, you know, increases when that funding comes through a local jurisdiction, a public jurisdiction.

Um so it's a yes and I guess that um yes, I think that we would be more assured that we would have a developer if if we work with a nonprofit, we'd have a developer that is already comfortable going through that whole process and working with um you know contractors that are that are using prevailing wage.

Um but that doesn't mean it's an easier project to build just because they they have that comfort.

That makes sense, yeah.

You know, it kind of strikes me that you know, like a thought just passed through my brain that's why are we doing this?

Why I mean you look at all of the hours that have been spent by staff and council and the developers and whoever else trying to figure this out, and I'm just gonna like multiply that time all the jurisdictions in Oregon, Oregon that are trying to sort this thing out, and uh you know I mean I'm just I just don't think the state has done a very good job saying I think that they just um I don't I don't know who came up with it.

I don't know if it was based on another state's program, I don't know, but there is just an inordinate amount of time being spent with city councillors trying to figure out the intricacies of a housing project.

I don't know, but there is just an inordinate amount of time being spent with city councillors trying to figure out the intricacies of a housing project.

And I um um I don't think you know we talked about this the staff not having the expertise.

I don't think we have the expertise to make some of these decisions.

Well, I I was gonna do this anyway, but uh that's a good trigger for um the conversations I've had with other managers.

So um the mayors of Clackness County meet with the uh together with the chairs of the town commission on average every two months.

Um so when we first started hearing about mural and our approach, I asked uh I believe it was the September.

I asked at the mayor's meeting.

Is anybody else working on rural?

And like last year stayed, nobody knew what mural was.

Um the county uh administrator Gary Schmidt sent out a I gave him some links, he sent it out to all the mayors, said here's you know what we were talking about is uh so far Milwaukee is the only city that's expressed any interest.

If any other cities are interested, please let me know.

Um time went by, there were a couple more meetings.

I just kind of mentioned it in passing as a reminder to people, just wanting to see if there were mayors who said, Oh, yeah, we're working on that now.

Crickets, no other mayors had ever indicated that their cities are actively.

I mean, there were some questions and at C4 around this table last week.

There were a few questions, but I didn't hear any city saying, Oh, yeah, we're looking into the moral.

Oh, yeah, we want to do the moral.

No, so um, this perception that some people are putting out there in the community that everybody else is working on the world at Milwaukee and Milwaukee is we're actually doing a lot more on the rural than any other city in Plackness County.

Can't speak for the whole state, but I could say that for Clackness County.

Um yeah, I do not know having brought it up now at least three times in those mayor meetings and having been at the C4 table last week.

I do not know of another city, Plackness County that is pursuing this.

That said, it was noted that the county commission is gonna look at it and it's gonna discuss it on June 2nd.

So I'm glad that they're not having that question, but I don't yeah.

It is a does seem like a lot of energy burden and yes, I I would agree with your point that it's not a well-defined project.

And just to build on that, Mayor, I would just, you know, we've I made a pretty blunt city manager recommendation of your staff report.

Um, I'm so proud of Joseph and Manny and the amount of time and energy they've spent on this.

I truly think they might be the biggest rural experts in the state right now, and I need them to work so I do more work on this with direction.

So I I would like to kind of push you all to give us clear direction.

Are we um moving this onto an agenda on uh um June 2nd?

Um, so that you know you can take some formal action to move this forward, or or or if or you don't have to do that.

It's not currently in our forecaster, but I I think we do need to know if this is a um go-no-go.

I don't think we can turn, I don't think there's more rocks to turn over.

I think we've turned over the rocks that we can.

We provided the information that we can.

Um, and you know, we have an affordability goal.

This is this is a really intriguing affordability strategy, but there's other things that we've talked about.

Your housing production strategy calls for exploring and revolving loan program for first-time homebuyers.

Um that's something we can start working on, but but we can't do everything.

So I do I humbly am asking as your city manager that we we get some direction tonight on if you do want to move this forward so that we can put that on the June 2nd agenda and then define what moving forward is.

But I will say this that in the LLC meetings may too.

Um OECS had mentioned uh they're still working things out and still trying to work with cities to figure this out.

But they had mentioned there might be something in 27, but then the housing stability uh program or community came on the day.

They didn't see anything that was covered up in 207 sessions.

I don't know if you heard anything about anything changing in the next session.

They're gonna bring world up again, or is this kind of like they're just gonna setting where it is that kind of cities figure this out?

So right now agencies are developing their potential topics or bills to bring to the governor.

I have not heard from OHDS that they're putting together a bill on this topic.

That's not to say we couldn't ask our state legislators to try and put something together, but I don't have anything that is a legislative fix tomorrow that legislators work on this session.

Hey, Mark sort of expected that, but that was four months ago, and there's been a session in between.

So yeah, and then I do know that we like OC.

That's one of the topics that we're looking at for the logging things for LCDs to clarify that because I think the overall perception I got is there's a lot of places that want to do it, but they're just trying to figure out how to put a square paying around hole, basically.

Um state's kind of made it very difficult.

Um I I potentially see a path with the Hood River stuff, but I I do three have brought up uh good points.

Um I think there's still things to work out if we did want to go forward, but I just you know about the verse wall.

I mean, I think I just don't want this to go away because I do think that this is an opportunity, like I said, to kind of have more control over what's built, but I do see that it's a heavy live.

Um I'd like to see us at the table when the county has these discussions.

You know, I think less of the only should be on staff and more of the ways should be on us if we're interested in and trying to work with the entities that are also trying to figure this out.

Um yeah, that that's that's kind of working.

I I like where some of the stuff can go, but quite a lot of some points that have pull up some of the stuff that I can about having staff spend more time as opposed to us right now, given the compliance fees and the uncertainty, just the limitations that have been described with us being open in certain plans.

I don't see a way forward with our staff doing it for four-profit developers, unless we had some conversation with the county that is all uncertain right now.

So let's write that off.

I'm interested in thinking around this table if it's possible to do it for nonprofit developers only, but to make that decision, I think I do this kind of a question for you on like what are the trade-offs?

There's two things of staff left that we've discussed.

One is the standing of the program, and you mentioned a little bit about our housing production strategy.

If this is something that we pursued, how would it what would it look like for the next six months?

Our affordability work.

And as you think through the like work that we can do, it's also helpful to think about okay.

What's the like impact of these dollars for the time that we're spending?

I'm trying to think about the reason this is a PLN team is there's so much potential that's available, and the fact that other cities are driving that beat in some ways means there's even more money available.

Um, then it's like there's a large investment here, so how does it compare to others?

And then also setting aside the stand-up period.

I still don't quite understand a nonprofit, give them the units to invest or they do all of that.

What is that kind of ongoing piece look like for us and how much we're adding on to it?

Yeah, I'm gonna say a lot of crazy things, and then I'm gonna look to Joseph to bring me in.

Um so I think if if the direction was go forward with the Hood River style mural, I think I'd go back and I talk to Joseph and I talk to Laura about work plans, and I'd probably be coming back and saying for your affordability goal action plan, some of those HPS things have to get pumped in.

I don't think we can do the we can have the conversation about the first-time home buyer evolving loan and this.

I think that might break the system.

So we'd ask you kind of about which one would go first.

Um we we'd then start probably policy conversations with all of you about originating ordinances, criteria, those kinds of things, while meanwhile trying starting the train with the county on IGAs, and I think we all know how fun that can be.

Um, but so that'd be work we would do.

I use a six-month time horizon.

Correct me if I'm wrong, Joseph, but I I don't think we could have the program stood up in six months just with all those kind of nuanced pieces having to fall together.

So I think in six months from now, you'd still we'd still probably be coming to you with updates on the IGA development process and um yeah, working through those things.

Um, and then to the administrative piece, you know, so I think we can you know also get start getting things rolling.

Are we gonna communicate this?

How are we going to advertise it?

How are we gonna reach out to our existing nonprofit partners about it?

But we also have to start creating all of the templates um and application materials.

Um you just provided me what a 15 page document from the Merle handbook of all the things SJs are supposed to do, and Manning's amazing.

And if this is something you're excited about we are going to do it we're gonna do it well.

And I think it's going to be a kind of slow role to get some things to that.

I think if we if your direction was to not pursue this what we would do in our next affordability goal check in is bring up some of those HPS strategies that have already been approved and you've given us direction and talk about how we're gonna move those forward.

With all the response I'm not willing to put aside the other things that we know we're gonna have impact with something that is we don't know I think yeah I'm not to do that.

And I guess it's also you know if we say not now it's not saying not ever right it's saying uh when we know what the county's gonna do when we know what oh is going to do with dividing in terms of providing support for the um whatever you call it what did you call that compliance well not the compliance but the have they proven the viability of um underwriting right yes yeah yeah when we know that if the state's gonna support that uh you know I think there are it may make sense to come back to this in six months or a year but I don't I agree I wouldn't want to delay the rail from the four building so it's not I agree that there's I think there's checkpoints we need to wait a little to see whether we should go forward what is the county um what is the underwriting uh so that we can make a determination I I thought I heard you say you you were proposing you at least you got a drawband for the uh nonprofit model is there a reason why you set the tell me the reason why you would you're willing to set the county aside for the ten of I think we just don't know for profit developers would take staff time that we don't have to be able to distribute events.

The county has a housing authority but we don't know yet we could contract the housing authority for that um it's a conversation that they're gonna have on second tour up there um I asked about it all asked about it about asked about it so I think county or cities are pushing on the county to allow that but it's just something we don't right now to checkboard and I don't I just don't think that I don't think it's a useful you know investment time until we reach those two or three checkbooks and then describing you know it may you know I don't know maybe it's maybe even when you do this check for which we won't have any answers it maybe we don't see further from I would love for all the answers to go back yeah this is great yeah barely but you know this is the first time really the county is really interesting detailed and guess what we're a third meeting over four months or whatever it is maybe longer you know so I'll I'll build up against the county commissioners anytime I think we could do as good as I would work most like that's not highlighted um yeah you know the one thing you said at the beginning about dev northwest working with uh Eugene because I I look at this um I mean I think about all we've said today and I look at this Hood River model and I wonder if any um any nonprofits really want to engage in this or do they already have other enough other funding sources or does this really fill a gap for them so uh you know maybe Hood River has somebody that they're willing to do that with and and you've told us that BG and that Northwest so I'm kind of curious about how that those experiences play out too I think we can probably assume that if you ask any nonprofit housing provider do you want more money to be able to do nonprofit housing say yes that said I I think that if we're choosing not to go forward with one of the things that I think about is we spend with all the people in the room a lot of time more than any other city clients and one of the most city in the state wrapped in this program are there a list of things that we could bring direct down to act specifically in a legislative fix for the 2027 session are there things if we're choosing not to go forward and we'd like to state banks I think it would be helpful to think through okay what are the best things that we ask for in state banks assuming OHCS isn't gonna do that themselves.

I mean, one of the most of any city in the state wrapped in like this program.

Are there a list of things that we could bring to Rap Damba to act specifically in a legislative fix for the 2027 session?

Are there things if we're choosing not to go forward and we'd like to state banks?

I think it would be helpful to think through okay.

What are the best things that we asked for in state banks?

Assuming OHCS isn't gonna do that themselves.

I don't know what I mean suggestions.

Um I think if we were to do that, assuming like assuming that he's interested in being the champion to bring that forth because short session, you have your list, and your list is so oh right.

I've been out of the way.

I am convinced.

Um okay, so then my suggestion is still stands, but um, I think it might be helpful to collaborate with some of those other cities that are grappling with these same questions, so that there is some some you know economy of scale of ideas.

Um that takes staff time to do that.

Um, but if we are going to ask for some type of legislative involvement, I think it has to be informed by what a collection of jurisdictions are experiencing.

Well, so is that what your LOC committee is doing?

So pretty much, yeah.

Yeah, we haven't put our lobby list together yet, but uh we're like a big topic, so I think that that infrastructure what was the title of for the based of roads, September is our build on um and I don't literally want to refer 11 separate concepts for concepts, yeah.

So we have to have at least I remember that part.

We have to have anything really big.

We can say here are bullet points that we can progress and send the waters.

I think what would be helpful.

I'm not asking us to spend our precious lobbying dollars on this.

I'm saying more.

Um, could we think of around the table today?

What are some of the high-level things that we would want to fix in this program that we can just hand through a gamba and say, hey, as a starting point, so we're seeing there's a day of the catalog coming out too.

Yeah, lunch days are coming up in June.

No, the LOC lobby content is that what you mean.

No, I just met with uh charge issues saying that there's like there's a there's legislative dates.

It's also like the day of the LLC that that won't tell just yeah, that's not LSD things.

That won't be so funny.

Well, you have to legit, yeah.

We can go down if you need something to make an appointment at least prep.

Can I ask a ignorant question?

Because Joseph and Manu might know the most about Merle and the entire state.

I don't why like we said we could package up a bunch of things that can make this more palatable to cities, but the fundamental question that I keep wrestling with is the state has this money, everyone wants to do this money so to support housing.

Why aren't they just administering funds?

Oh that's honestly it.

This that's my that was my maybe my one good job.

Sorry, sorry.

No, no, it's but it's also been part of the conversation we've been having with other cities is like Shearer.

You're trying to do you know, square into a circle, hey, whatever that's where they are and it would be it's interesting on the state.

We see a lot of things that we have to care about, new laws.

Um that we have to implement the house of the state.

This is one of those things that's like it would be nice if we didn't have to implement because we don't most cities, a vast majority of cities in Oregon, do not have the ability to do this, like it's just you create a great lot of money, and it's frustrating.

I'll say as for all of us, this is a frustrating piece because we I think we all care about housing and we're trying to figure out how to unlock 70 million dollars of us now.

But um, and every other city's doing the same thing.

Like this this conversation, by the way, is I think maybe you're right.

We're probably we're probably one of the jurisdictions that have had the most conversation about it in the state.

I think that's actually a fair assessment.

But everyone that is having a conversation is either really excited because they don't they haven't talked about it.

Like, oh, I don't know about that.

How does that work?

Maybe just what key about or those that got into some progress and now they're like, oh, we can't, we don't know how to do that.

Like they just find out.

It's not so much of a fixed fix.

If you really want to unlock those dollars, just do what you've done with say you the state, how they've done other grant or loan programs, just direct.

Like this or grant, like it just stuff.

And maybe I'm missing something well.

So my sense is this is something that the agency put forward.

And I think the agency was trying to give local control over the dollars.

And I think they saw it by having a sponsoring jurisdiction, it gets to approve project kind of back to the cluster work.

Cities would have leverage to choose what projects they do overlooking the fact that cities don't have the capacity to actually do that.

But I think that this charming idea of local control gets dollars.

And therefore, like that's why you carve out cities from counties being able to just sweep over that and then sort of use as local as possible if we can do that control.

Yeah.

One of the things that we'll state.

Then just let us use the existing tools that we have and put the money through that.

That's local control.

I I see what you're saying.

I think it was good intent.

I just think I think all I agree.

Eight of us around this table would have decided differently.

I'm trying to see today.

Yeah.

While we're everyone's here, what are some things that we could say to Rebecca?

I state administered program, the bullet.

But are there other things that are helpful to start?

Yeah, but you got you can go through this because it's really all of our concern.

Unless we have more out of this 10 of my concerns right here.

Yeah.

Some fix of the compliance piece.

Um default piece, the liability piece.

Yeah, the compliance, yeah, local control and also local liability.

The compliance fees, and it honestly would be, I think it would be great to be able to offer a program to for profit developers to create affordable housing.

Yeah, that's like we can get affordable houses from horrible housing developers, but to get affordable housing from developers is pretty cool.

But they need to leave after the build, and we are on the hook for compliance and moderating.

That's uh that is the change.

I you know, I don't want to focus too much on the single project that sort of kicked this all off, but like if this had been a state administered program and the state had a solution for compliance, we would be thrilled to welcome that project.

Like it's the only it's just like we are not equipped as the body with to do that, you know.

So that's we it's not that we don't want these projects and these these actions in the city.

Um it's just what I'm just yeah, I'll tell you at the NDA meeting when this project was first presented at Lincoln, I was on Zoom, and I texted one of the people involved.

Hell yeah, the exclamation boards because they were like, this is gonna be total world.

I'm so excited, and then you get to this point, then you're just like, damn.

And even Rev Gamma was like, yeah, it was great until it got to the rules committee.

Yeah, so I think we can unlock those funds, but I really just I really like actually.

I mean, I think I I I think in a in a letter or or you know, advocacy to the state, I think Joseph hits on a really good point.

There's something here about unlocking private development of affordable housing.

It just it can't be put on cities that don't have that expertise, and I think that'd be a great nut for the state to crack.

Could the state establish a contingency fund?

Some of us do it yet, yeah.

And legal consultation fund or just grant us the dollars to really the one.

Well, I mean, that's a solving that's the problem.

Yeah, I think that's probably what's you know created this unlimited thing, is the desire for it to be an evolving fund and not just uh right.

But I was like, yeah, if they have 75 million dollars and said uh you could spend this for moderating funds that uh you know qualifies at this, you know, whatever AMI and you can build out their infrastructure for them in our and just give it as a grant and not like this common limit.

They would have all that money would be gone.

Longa would have gone so long a few sense.

I feel like we have some good bullets we could bring directly in the other thing that I'd say I sent around a letter to everyone, even if we're not gonna pursue mural in the short term, asking the county to set up some type of system if they'll pursue moral or cities to be able to contract.

That assumes the structure of moral stays the same, which if our lottery list of demands gets adopted, maybe it's different.

But I think sending that letter to the county um and circulating with other cities might be a worthwhile upgrade because we hopefully the county can get part of that.

Do you want us to pull the letter up?

Well true.

Um maybe before we leave this slide.

I mean, uh well, I I'll ask the question, but if you want to come back to it, we can I'm not hearing that there's consensus to put something on for June 2nd for you guys to take action.

I'm not here.

Okay.

So Nick, we need people off the council prep, not the letter I emailed views on the opening letter.

I didn't write a competing letter, it's a different problem.

It's better if he saw all the tickets.

This is this is sort of a off the wall question.

But has anyone thought about what sort of pressures we might encounter if we put in the rural program from developers who wanted us to approve um these projects?

What do you mean?

Like we if we implemented a rural, has anyone thought about pressures that might build the city council as we considered these projects?

I can foresee a lot of what's oh yeah, you can force the lot of arms we oh I mean what's challenging too.

I mean you still have to set up your criteria and you already have sort of a proposal on the it's an it's an interesting way we got to this place, yeah.

I think it's interesting that we might have funding for no one could be part of that.

I would say it already has kind of some message, yeah.

You're you're right.

This letter, yeah.

And you make it a little bit bigger here, can we work on sure maybe they'll be able to get there.

I was more involved.

Which AI had to choose?

Uh checkment.

Yes.

I thought the I mean that yeah, I thought the letter was good until the end, and then there was language at the end that can sort of I'm not wanted to any language, so yep.

So I wonder, do you want do you do you really want to say right now with participating cities paying the equivalent of the existing bifurcing administrative fee?

That seems quite specific.

Sure.

Um, I think if you just end it after programs, delete the with participating.

And is there a benefit to having the housing authority of Clackers County Crawl Dow specifically?

Or because that's like their guidance they receive from HUD.

So I feel like that complicates things a little bit more.

It could just say contracting with the county, it could say like you know, community development or something along those, like the department that the housing authority um resides within.

Yeah, that's where the contract was yeah, is H3S you know.

Yeah, I have an issue with the last part too.

First line of the last paragraph, actually.

If we want to delete that, we couldn't uh yeah, just we appreciate your consideration and look forward to getting the work together.

Yeah, that's more honest.

That's more honest, yeah.

Uh okay, so those two deletions.

Can you scroll back a little bit?

Okay, let's get okay.

Scroll down now.

Sorry.

So we're saying given that changing housing authority to be the H3S Administer local rural programs, period.

Um the only other thing that I would suggest is perhaps some language around alignment for um like this could uh create alignment between any future implementation of Merle in an unincorporated area.

programs period were you looking at um the only other thing that i would suggest is perhaps some language around alignment for um like this could uh create alignment between any future implementation of merlin and unincorporated area yeah that would be another reason for them to contract with cities to do this yeah so that there's alignment of our implementation of land use uh program perhaps we could say that in the the paragraph that's half cut off at the top we talked i talked a little bit about unappropriated areas there because i do think that's that would be good thanks yeah and i think that the county feels a pull between their responsibility to unincorporated areas and all the things that cities request of them so this I think it like making that change and asking them to plan for the alignment of implementation across you know all of their extinctions it actually recognizes that that like difficulty for them yeah yeah with all the edits would we want to add our logo to this or the challenge that I'm thinking is is the letter move because we're not really going for it anymore do we want to be good regional partners and ask for something that other cities may be interested in as well because in some ways we're asking for something that we wouldn't actually take advantage of I feel a little bad about that but I do think if we if the county is doing this this is a fair ask to say yeah hypothetically because it's not like we're saying we're different this is this is one of the barriers that we have yeah so if this existed perhaps this conversation would be a little easier for us to have you convinced me I like it okay we make all those edits add our logo people are okay with that and then we'll circulate to other cities to see if they want to add their logos as well you're gonna do that sure I'll be curious to see what response you did and you're gonna try to do that before June 2nd or get to them ahead yeah um I would like to make a request that if in that process other cities request changes to the letter that you resurvey like technical yeah I can send it um I can send it around this week we can see if in one uh grapples with it at that time um we can send it around this week and wait a few weeks until we're back yeah basically uh two weeks after this week yeah the hard thing to send it directly to the cities not through the C4 mailing list yeah yeah challenge I think there is if we need on the 19 that's when we have to talk about things we just have to say no changes to the letter because we wouldn't mean again or we could say tonight that we're fine moving forward with the letter assuming no changes but then if there are proposed changes from other cities that that would necessitate further conversation on the night.

Yeah that's I mean that may be an argument for shortening the letter case and people less things to make it with but that's going that's going to be from the lawyer.

Yeah yeah council president back on you the list of the the bullets for rep gamba do you is the piece about counties being sponsoring jurisdictions like well I mean here's the thing that I see is attention if we're asking for the safety students I agree then it doesn't matter yeah I think if that's not something that you ask for then it makes sense to allow counties just to supersede local growth safes um and implement across the entire county right um so yeah I think go with the state yeah maybe any we have one um it's on our matrix it's number 22 um and it's something that we heard in some of our conversations on OCS response that the moral one would be in first position so I'm not sure that maybe something we ask about because it sounds like that would be hypothesis.

Yeah yeah that's a good point I think it would be the main thing that I do have no chance okay yeah I mean I think as um you know the somebody asked about the deadline for the legislature I mean LOCs well that's why these things are meeting now because they're nearly up for what LOCs asked will be anything in mid-summer it might be good to have a check in forgetten about what what's been identified to ask for and to kind of flesh out that list for sure actually have listening facility about just all the topics that could be just one like the brainstorm for any closing comments on that thank you for

That's why we see it because they're meeting now because they're nearing up for what LOC's asked will be anything kind of mid-summer, it might be good to have a check-in for a session about what's been identified to ask for and to kind of flesh out that was sure.

Actually have that listening facilitating.

Any closing comments on that?

Thank you for all the one.

Yeah, yeah.

Thank you.

Just a command here.

Yeah, go work at OHCS now.

Oh my god, that's when you're on takeaway, right?

Right.

I felt the human land in front of C4 laying.

So confident or selling something that is nice.

Yeah.

Yeah, but excellent work, you guys.

Yeah, I think that's all fine.

Okay, so you got all the stuff you have about this feeding up.

You're welcome.

It's all right.

So we have council reports.

Anybody have council reports?

Yeah, a couple things I'll hear up.

Is we you know we talked about the uh the this is not a council report, but it's it's timely here.

We talked about the solid waste uh oh yeah, we have that from Anna.

There's a lot of yeah, that's what I was gonna talk about.

Okay, yeah.

So basically uh we have a letter from uh five or six members of the regional uh advisory board uh going to the metro council, which basically you know supports everything that we said, so we've been asked to sign up the you know uh sign it on to that letter, and I think we should then does anyone have any questions on it.

There's five members um including kind of the names of the group and Mark Frayed.

So were they asking us to sign on?

So my read of Niels's email is actually that the signers of this letter are members of the RWAC, and he was suggesting if we like the talking points letter, we send our own letter.

Oh really, I believe so.

I can confirm that with him tomorrow if if you don't look for additional signatories, but see this the first line here is as entities of representation on the regional waste advisory committee, and I don't believe we are in a clear enough paper.

So I think what he's saying is they would love us to send a very similar letter.

Or is this the shorter letter that policy?

Yeah, I've yeah, yeah.

Um yeah, is anybody opposed to that?

No, no.

So in that case, um why don't I just double check that that is what Neils was proposing, and then I could um do you do you want to talk about all the pieces in this or really focus on that um future fee increase because feature fee increase okay?

Well, I'll have I have to say I found I mean yes, the future fee increase is what we're all interested about.

I found this food scrap technical assistance and specifically the breakdown they give of um how much is spent in different I found it pretty interesting.

Um keep going there.

We go this thing about how many uh regional how much goes into local waste local government waste programs has been going down, down, down um yeah.

I mean I I found all that interesting, but I don't guess I uh I mean if they felt it important enough to call out and they're the people at the table.

I guess I'm inclined to support them on both cases, but yeah, the only reason I didn't jump on is I just didn't you know I'm just not familiar with that's pretty detailed, but I mean we can we can give support to that in a more generic way to governmental private detail there, I think.

Okay, we will draft something up.

Um and this was there a timeline, did they need it before two check?

I mean you guys can I won't there meet as the 40 days okay, so we can we can just do anything like a week instead and you can you'll I won't be there but my authority.

Okay, thanks.

Cover my report.

Okay.

So um I don't have a stack report, but part of me it's next Wednesday, and uh so you can expect a very thorough fever the next party.

Yep.

I do have one or two.

Um so we met as the cap earlier this month, and we got some new members on our uh board, which one of them was from last week.

Uh-huh.

Congratulations.

Thank you.

Yes, we actually have a I think for the first time in CAP, we have a youth member, we go high school student, 16-year-old that goes to Rick's button.

Um be a great perspective.

Um and then we also got uh another member who works with the Father's heart.

So it's uh more I think it's pretty robust group, and um I think we're gonna do a lot of good things.

We we in our next meeting.

I know that we are that's our in-person meeting.

We're actually pivoting.

Maybe it'll tell you, but um, we're gonna pivot and kind of make that a mini retreat, uh, because we want to find out better ways to do what we're doing to get more involvement from people, so we're not is it the the main thing that people have come to join these boards that the counties can actually want to do something and make an impact.

Sometimes you can feel like you're meeting just to meet the same.

It doesn't work necessarily the way that our board boards be made is usually is you're working on something that could potentially will potentially make its way to council itself with something and be implemented in some way.

I really like that.

Like I said, we haven't had a county county commission or come to a cabinet because I did not have so that you feel disconnected, it always feels like if you're gonna be the handful chamber.

So we're gonna try to reimagine the cab in a different way right now.

Like our agendas are all done in executive committee meetings.

I feel like that's not very inclusive to our other members.

Um people might have joined the board for various reasons, and if we're just making the agenda, you may never get to that person's uh purpose for being there.

So we're we're we're gonna expand it to make it the the whole cabinet following that.

Um we did get an update on our strategic plan.

We are gonna continue to do the listing sessions again uh through the tour, I should say.

Um but that also isn't gonna be just town staff that's presenting.

Staff will present on the figures and numbers, but we're gonna actually have cab members be up the back.

We have staff to share their stories of what they're saying too to make it a little bit more impactful rather than just looking at the notes.

Um it's gonna be great.

I I I think I I'm also willing to I put it out there too.

It and I'll say it out there now, you know.

I'm the chair, but I'm more than willing to step down if my style has gone a little bit stale.

Um because the last thing I want to do is is feel like only I can fix it.

Uh the last thing I want to do is make okay, feel like they can't because there's still a power dynamic that exists.

People know I'm a counselor, so there's still that dynamic of you know it may not say, but I might be doing a crap job, right?

So I rather just put that out there than be more involved in that have the courtesy to get the hell out of the waste of times.

Um so that's all updates on the cab.

We're hoping that'll that'll uh get more people involved, and that'll that'll get more people say we lost two members, which isn't that like big, but a lot of it was for the same reason because they wanted to feel like they're doing which is great.

Um they should move to my body, right?

Um the other thing, so the chamber had their meeting as well.

Um and C PRD did a presentation, uh and so it looks like that.

So NCPRD right now is looking, is gonna be putting out a survey or levy.

Um it's gonna be 18 cents for any.

So they're gonna test the waters through a survey of what they can do with that, and if it's if it's something that it would be a five-year levy.

Um it would be it would if they get good polling, then they're gonna get it, they're gonna push it to they said November this summer.

So did you say 18 cents?

Yes, 18 cents per thousand.

It comes out to be 54 bucks a year.

Any increase or 500?

Yeah, increase, yeah, an increase in the form of a late, right?

So um is that gonna go 70 cents?

No, not quite.

Yeah, no, 72.

Um, I didn't realize that a rate increase would require a new board to be elected.

I didn't realize that a rate increase would require a new board to be elected.

Or just you have to dissolve the yeah, you have to do right board.

Yeah.

Um yeah, it's already currently pulling it.

Uh minimal amount they need.

That's the minimal amount they need to avoid fiscal.

That's like their floor.

Uh still too.

Sorry, my handwriting, I was in the car.

I mean, you were at least that.

Oh, I don't understand.

I might very writing.

So it's kind of hard to try to do.

Yeah, but um, still too soon to identify rate.

Uh aware of that.

If only is that they won't go in the fall.

Oh, and so there's like a there's a general consensus because they brought up the bills on real state, but and there's like a general consensus that the meals are shouldn't be parts.

Um that's coming from members of the chamber, which kind of kind of makes sense, right?

That's not really social service.

Um they're having conversations with local nonprofits for mills on wheels takeover, operate to take over operations, to cut these forward.

So wait, there was a general consensus that they didn't think it made sense under parks, but they didn't have a solution for what we're doing.

Yeah, well, I mean, the consensus was more than chamber members.

There were some chamber members that are like, Yeah, we don't think that they should even be understand.

No, I mean, I don't know, I don't can't see that.

I mean, even the NCPRV person that was there was anything to do, like that's not really a force operation.

Um, but they are having conversations with local nonprofits to take that over, that that whole process over.

Um I don't know when the impacts are gonna be, and I'd love to learn more about those conversations.

So if the if that doesn't get moved to another relevant program or department within the county, then we wouldn't be able to pull in the federal funding.

See, that's why I want to know why if they're gonna come if it's delivery, if it's the work of the logistics of it, yeah.

Like they still administer the funds, but the logistics is carried out by the nonprofit.

Yeah, I don't know what the extent is of that, but we should definitely find out what there's other pieces to senior services that provide beyond meals on wheels.

There's all the programming for you know, clad classes that are so focused on seniors and activities that are focused on seniors.

Yeah, they did they weren't saying anything about those those uh they were just saying like the bills.

So I think I I think it's more so just the logistics of it.

But you know, I don't know what it all entails, so I can't speak on it, but I do want to learn more because it's the bills on bills has been topping one corporate budget was gonna be connected for that.

You're gonna cut when they were delivering bills, which is make sense because people have to be but anyways.

Um I'm trying to figure out what this says, but tax bit of the oh, but where tax fatigue?

There you go.

So that's the thing.

They're wearing the tax details because of all the other things that are currently.

So I mean now the schools don't have to tell us.

Um and then obviously LOC we met this morning.

Um kind of already something one thing that struck me, and there was another stuff.

But I can't get America.

Okay, so forgive me.

Uh there's a potential.

Actually, but we didn't.

Um potential short.

Okay, so the ask for the like the I guess there's there's a shelter-wide, like a statewide shelter program.

Um and the governor, because the governor's a bunch of people were there, and the governor asked for a certain amount, but she was they it doesn't look like this the legislature's gonna give her what she wants, so there could be a uh slightly shortfall there, but apparently there's some whispers among the legislative legislatures that they don't see that as like a state thing, and that there is some there is some momentum to put it more on cities, and a lot of people at LC level cities don't have capacity to run these things, like this should stay at the state level.

So um, I'm gonna find out more about that because that's concerned.

Um, I don't know if you heard anything about that as it pertains to the statewide shelter program.

No, I don't know, but that's like that one.

I mean, we're just implementing that bill that was passed.

that as like a state thing and uh there is some there is some momentum to put it more on cities and a lot of people at LC level cities don't have capacity to run these things like this should stay at the state level so um I'm gonna find out more about that because that's concerned um I don't know if you heard anything about that as it pertains to the statewide shelter program no I don't know but that's like that one I mean we're just implementing that bill that was passed by so still yeah so yeah that was the that was the gist of it there were some good comments on on the rural stuff and you know a lot of a lot of trusts are trying to figure it out one comment that was made that was really awesome was from the city manager who said you know you guys want to help us like the housing even the housing strategy you made a comment that the housing strategy is pretty much useless because unless you have the infrastructure housing so he's like just give me the money to build a road and I'll build a thousand houses.

So I know infrastructure is another big topic that's most likely gonna stay on top of all this but also just because that's always an issue um that's about it and please if there's any specific issues that you would like me to take to them uh you know we reach out to me if there's any land use or issues that we could work that without that's it other reports um I just thought I'd see if anybody had any questions about like I don't know I I don't feel like I have um you know the state of downtown kind of this time but um we have seen two of the farmers market Sundays now and hopefully everybody has had a opportunity to stop by and see how bustling it is um there was a wine walk on uh Sunday um so that's the second one that the business of Milwaukee group has put together um and that group seems to be building more momentum and structure behind it which is exciting um and just I think that there's kind of a general excitement there are two uh shops just here by Windhorse that did their soft open um they're gonna be closed for various reasons for the next you know couple of weeks I guess and then in June I think they'll be open with more regular hours but that's exciting and um I hope that they're looking at first Fridays.

Or uh a yarn shop right or for both I think maybe for both.

Because um Terry's going to oh okay well then she might be back in time.

Yeah I think it's really cool that the ribbon cutting is starting to you know be more locally organized um because we had an opportunity when we opened our shop to do a ribbon cutting through the chamber but it was like if you become a member and we didn't have an extra 500 is that what they're doing well that was just the email because they brought up oh we've been doing a lot of codes I don't try to yeah I think you're right that they're gonna local groups are calling the boy um I'm going to kind of tomorrow at one are they said oh really hindered if they look uh extra writing some things from another world it's very a very dangerous tour I guess too much money in there it's like between your shots it's like somehow the dollar just fall out of my pocket as I watch that um there's also like I've seen a um call for uh vintage vendors um the one of the shops that's opening up one of the two vintage themed shops that's opening up in the collector's mall space the Rexall building um they put out a call for vendors so they're hopefully bringing some of the I don't know if others who were in that space originally will be able to come back to that space but um hopefully connecting with some local folks um for first Friday we had a first we had a first Friday um it was a little bit of a slow start as well for that because it also it fell on um may day and um the one of the national economic strike days so um there were some of us who who just made that choice to keep it kind of low key um and that seemed to work well as people were just you know finding their way back to first Friday kind of you know I don't know what do you call that the routine of things um the groove so June will be the next first Friday um and then July will be skipped and then it will be August and we're kind of hoping I think September October but it'll be weather dependent too um so Rob Campbell and um I think very very small mighty crew from the downtown alliance is trying to pull that together but there will be hubs so um unlike last year where there were zones of downtown that were closed um and it stop me if you've all heard this already so if you if you know this already

were some of us who who just made a choice to keep it kind of low key um and that seemed to work well as people were just you know finding their way back to first friday kind of you know I don't know what you call that the routine of things uh the groove so June will be the next first Friday um and then July will be skipped and then it will be August and we're kind of hoping I think September October but it'll be weather dependent too um so Rob Campbell and um I think a very small mighty crew from the downtown alliance is trying to pull that together but there will be hubs so um unlike last year where there were zones of downtown that were closed um and it stop me if you've all heard this already so if you if you know this already I won't okay so last year they did they did um like sections working their way down Main Street and a block you know level block party where it's kind of like had and a small section of Main Street was closed at a time this time um they're focusing on um hubs um and there will be activity at those hub locations each first Friday and then other businesses as they have capacity are encouraged to um add things so there will be a night market um around main street and Jackson um it's right on a school couple blocks down um that'll start on um the first Friday in June but we're anticipating that that might continue every Friday for the summer try um and so there's enough interest uh this time for that hub to be full of vendors um and for made Milwaukee's hub to be the overflow for that location so that's really exciting and a lot of vendors who had um participated in first Friday previously are uh coming back through that so that's big um a big thank you to Rob and to Darkhorse for the utilization of their lot um for first Friday because then that allows us to create space for vendors to set up um so it's going well um downtown exists more than the business of Milwaukee group has also um you know it's it's the entire city um so it's been really interesting to be part of the conversation and coordinating with folks in that network um that has been really good and we had a really cool opportunity um a few of us who um have been doing some creative economic development things downtown and like um let me not be so big um creativity as an economic driver those types of events like music and performances and crafts and creating and um uh theater and things like that so around um all of Milwaukee um I convened a uh group to meet with ADX Portland which is a makerspace in Southeast um and there were probably I would say about 15 people maybe maybe more 15ish um who showed up for that and we had conversation about what it would look like for Milwaukee to be on the map officially as ADX has this um creativity festival in October so it's a regional uh festival created you're focused on creativity as an economic driver um and they had reached out wanting to like you know see if we could highlight a couple of the events and what they got was this meeting of so many people who are doing creative things across the whole city and this like really wonderful response so um they're excited to try and build that out and it'll probably look like a Milwaukee um like itinerary as part of that festival in October so we'll have more details on that soon so I report the city information brief on Sunday yeah and the hot ticket was not stickers it was the passport they were flying off the table really great that's awesome yeah yeah awesome and I was surprised to see a Pilates place opening I am a founding member and it happens to be right next to Luna's my plan is to be Pilates and make it club Pilates I thought that was interesting place that makes total sense Pilates an ice cream and the wind watchers at the avert yeah that's exciting um how many passports does the city oh I don't know I done I'm sure we can always get more but oh can you just get a oh I actually didn't know that Jason was put it out there so that's great they were really I'm telling you what they were people were really interested in that's awesome uh local businesses received I think 20 passports and then there are some businesses um along Main Street who paid extra to get more of the passports they were sponsored

That's exciting.

How many passwords does the city?

Oh, I don't know.

I don't sure we can always get more, but okay, just get a oh, I actually didn't know that Jason was put it out there, so that's great.

So they were really, I'm telling you what they were really interested in.

That's awesome.

Uh local businesses received, I think 20 passports.

And then there are some businesses along Main Street who paid extra to get more of the passports.

They were sponsors of the passports.

Um, but I think they're still a real hot commodity out there.

So very happy that they went Maroon this time.

Yeah.

I did hear on the creativity firm.

I did hear from uh Lynn at some change that she she has a big table in the front window.

She does plan to do a uh crafting night once a week where people can commit or do other crafts and just kind of hang out social.

And I know I know that spoken word does something out.

Yeah, that's great.

I think it's really special that there are multiple stores um along Main Street at least that have utilized their front window space as a way to showcase community.

Um doing those workshops and like having places for people to gather.

I think it means when you look through the windows, you're seeing more than just things to buy.

You're seeing ways to create and connect with each other, and that is very Milwaukee.

It's exciting.

Two things on my end.

Um the C4 retreat overlaps with the mayor's state of the city.

So if any of you want to miss the state of the city, you can go to the C4 Retreat and find some other way.

Um, the other thing that's more real is tomorrow.

We have a hold on our calendar for the hillside opening.

Is that still happening?

Or you didn't get a reminder today?

Yeah, it's still happening.

It is that what time's our remarks, mayor at 10.

Oh, the remarks are at 10 45.

If it starts at 10, they are gonna have some tents because they know there's rain now.

We need rain so much.

The remarks are at 1045.

Yeah, we're on my way to work.

Pardon?

No, no.

Oh, did they show it send a one on the calendar?

Oh, I don't think it will be.

It'll be yeah, it's at 30 and I'll be 11:15.

Yeah, they'll have coffee and like the the I started at 10.

That's like mixing time, and remarks are at hear more well.

No, I was gonna say if you can send out I will try.

I don't know if I received anything, but I will see what I got I got an email.

Might have gotten caught in some worse.

Yeah, um, I wanted so next Tuesday.

We have uh I can't remember though, I don't remember you ever missing them.

But we have Robert and Lisa will be well.

I need to have confirmed.

I need to know if you're gonna be there because if you're not, we don't have a quorum, and we will cancel the meeting.

Everything I've been here tonight.

Uh oh, the pressure.

Yeah, metro uh 2050 vision uh presentation.

Uh guys, we're still on there.

Community survey results, which we can we can reschedule.

Uh and that's a lot the the set is a lot of proclamations.

Um, but we can figure out other ways to celebrate those proclamations, and I think that without actually took a point.

Ah, you can see kind of where my event is, but I'm happy to keep the meeting and this guy's gonna read them.

No, yeah.

Yeah, I feel like if people in community members are showing up for the documentations we're trying, we should be here.

Okay, but I will need like we can't even start the work session until all three of you are there or call or someone's called in the boss.

Shared things.

Two friends might text every Tuesday.

Okay, so we're on next Tuesday.

Sounds gonna be great.

All right, I don't think I have any um any reports to give, but I will enter tomorrow.

I guess tomorrow I have both uh DAC and SHS meetings.

So it's a packed day of things tomorrow.

So if I have anything to report from that, I will probably do a written report, a email um to be added to the packet for next week or whatever.

I won't be there.

Um you won't be at the week.

I'm gone next week.

Oh I thought you're gone next week.

So I'll go into these two meetings tomorrow.

Uh DAC and SHS Regional Oversight Committee.

Uh and um so if I have anything to report from those, I will submit it right in the wrong one.

Thank you for still going to those.

Yeah.

It's interesting.

I mean that's year enough again.

So um yeah.

All right.

Anything else from anyone?

Okay.

Uh entertaining a motion to adjourn.

So second.

Second to adjourn.

All those in favor say aye.

Do we have to do not the work session?

It works.

We still enjoyed books.

But we don't know.

No, the mayor just said.