►
From YouTube: Asheville Regional Housing Consortium
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
Councilwoman
sage,
turner
and
I'd
like
to
welcome
you
to
the
thursday
september
23rd
asheville,
regional
housing
consortium
meeting
all
committee
members
and
staff
are
participating
virtually.
We
appreciate
your
patience
as
we
work
through
committee
meetings
a
bit
differently.
These
days
we
are
streaming
live
on
our
virtual
engagement
hub.
This
is
accessible
through
our
virtual
engagement
hub
link
on
the
front
page
of
the
city's
website.
It's
also
linked
on
this
committee's
page.
A
A
G
H
And
stage,
I'm
not
sure
if
aaron
is
here
with
brevard
caitlin
actually
took
a
a
different
job
recently
over
in
maggie
valley,
so
that
name
will
probably
come
off.
A
B
A
G
A
H
A
Cannot
hear
you
okay,
great,
thank
you,
so
karen
may
end
up
joining
us
all
right
one!
Second,
thank
you
all
for
checking
in
and
announcing
who's
here.
If
you
see
anything
on
that
list,
that
needs
to
be
adjusted
go
ahead
and
you
can
just
maybe
message
or
email
me
and
we'll
get
it
updated.
A
Okay,
so
we
are
on
to
for
those
of
you
at
home,
I'm
going
to
call
out
parts
of
the
agenda,
so
you
can
follow
along
with
us
and
for
right
now
we
are
on
to
item
number.
Second
item
number:
two:
I'm
not
sure
what
item
number
one
is
framework
for
meeting,
but
I'm
moving
to
item
number
two:
unless
there's
a
problem
with
that
approval
of
the
minute.
Does
anybody
have
an
opportunity
to
look
at
the
minutes
and
are
there
any
comments,
questions
or
concerns.
B
A
A
J
A
D
K
F
A
G
G
G
A
I
believe
jacob
and
aaron
were
not
here:
forrest
aaron,.
A
Hi
thanks,
you
are
still
a
little
bit
quiet,
robin
hi,
kate
hayes.
I
I
think
I
got
everybody
right,
okay,
great,
so
the
the
minutes
are
approved.
Thank
you.
Everyone,
we'll
move
on
to
the
next
item.
Well,
we
just
kind
of
went
over
the
membership,
so
if
you
have
any
changes,
send
them
to
me
so
we're
going
to
move
on
to
item
number
three,
which
is
new
business
and
reallocation
meeting.
A
A
We
have
paul
d'angelo
with
us
paul.
Did
you
want
to
open
this
up
or
say
anything
about
this
as
we
get
started.
K
I
do
want
to
be
able
to
take
a
couple
minutes
before
going
to
presentations
just
to
talk
about
a
couple
activities
that
are
listed
on
the
staff
memo
for
clarity
regarding
some
previous
program,
income
funding,
as
well
as
an
adjustment
to
the
final
award
amount.
So
if
you
will
bear
with
me,
I
can
go
into
that
discussion
just
for
reference
in
3b
last
year
it
came
up,
I
believe,
about
kind
of
keeping
track
of
the
emails
we
were
sending
out
and
really
reaching
out
to
the
community.
K
So
we
tried
to
share
the
emails
that
were
sent
out
as
well
as
the
reminders
that
were
sent
out
and
who
we
tried
to
reach
out
to
via
email,
as
well
as
bringing
up
this
second
round
allocation
as
much
as
we
could
to
any
meetings
we
attended.
So
briefly,
regarding
two
things
on
the
consortium
document,
when
the
email
was
sent
out,
we
talked
about
225
thousand
dollars
that
was
originally
listed
on
having
to
come
out
of
this
year's
second
round
allocation.
K
So
for
clarity
here
we
wanted
to
give
everybody
more
to
that
story,
which
was
in
july
of
2018
battery
park.
Apartments
paid
back
their
225
000
home
loan
from
20
2004,
but
there
was
conflicting
documentation
about
how
the
funds
were
recorded.
Attempting
to
correct
this
issue.
Last
summer
in
2020,
the
funds
were
reported
to
hud
as
program
income
and
included
in
fiscal
year,
2021
reallocation
that
went
out
the
door
last
year.
K
The
city
is
relinquishing
the
10
home
admin
22
500
for
that,
but
202
500
will
still
need
to
be
assigned
from
the
current
reallocation
to
make
up
for
that
over
allocation.
Last
year
we
worked
closely
with
the
hud
field
office
to
verify
a
lot
of
this.
The
hud
field
office
has
confirmed
that
this
is
a
good
solution
and
the
abclt
has
agreed
to
have
the
funds
substituted
for
their
2021
award,
still
pending
contract
to
be
able
to
have
funding
to
fully
award
their
contract
kind
of
as
a
bottom
line.
K
We
over
allocated
last
year's
funding
due
to
conflicting
documentation
on
the
program
income
from
battery
park
and
need
to
make
up
for
that
over
allocation
in
this
year's
funding
to
fully
fund
the
clt
contract.
So
we
did
want
to
take
the
time
it
was
in
the
email,
but
we
wanted
to
further
explain
that
to
the
consortium
this
morning
and
with
that
I
can
pause
and
happy
to
take
any
questions.
K
So
good
great,
thank
you
and
again
still
here
for
questions.
The
second
talks
about
the
reallocation
on
the
funding
so
on
the
emails
that
were
sent
out.
Originally,
we
stated
437
862
were
available
to
reallocate
after
the
tax
credits,
as
well
as
the
previous
program,
inc
and
previous
program
income
issue,
discussed
by
adding
that
22
500.
That
will
forego.
We
now
have
460
000
to
reallocate
in
home
funding,
and
we
can
talk
about
those
recommendations
when
sage
whenever
you
or
the
consortium
is
ready
about
how
we
recommended
to
do
that.
K
Overall,
we
have
a
recommendation
on
what
to
do
with
that
additional
forty
thousand
that
I
can
go
through
either
now
or
when
we
go
to
after
the
presentations,
but
we
did
wanna
clarify
that
with
the
22
500
coming
back,
we
now
have
460
000
and
that's
the
true
number
that
we
actually
reallocated
in
the
spreadsheet,
but
we
do
have
an
additional
forty
thousand
dollars
to
talk
this
morning.
Staff
has
the
recommendation
on
that.
G
A
H
I
have
a
quick
question:
paul:
did
we
ever
get
feedback
or
information
on
why
the
other
projects
weren't
funded.
K
Oh
from
the
north
carolina
housing
finance
agency,
we
don't
we
don't,
except
we
just
get
a
notification
that
they
weren't
awarded.
F
Kate,
kate,
this
is
andrew
from
buncombe
county
and,
and
I
would
concur
with
paul
it's
it's
often
difficult,
even
for
the
developers
to
to
really
get
clear
feedback
on
why
a
project
was
awarded
or
not
awarded
and
there's
a
little
bit
of
guesswork.
You
know
we
at
buncombe,
county
and
the
city
as
well.
Traditionally,
our
jurisdictions
only
get
one
nine
percent
award
a
year.
There
was
a
transylvania
county
project
that
didn't
come
to
the
consortium
that
did
get
an
award
this
year.
F
The
thought
was
that
some
of
the
disaster
recovery
counties
in
the
eastern
part
of
the
state
perhaps
received
a
little
more
of
an
allocation
than
the
counties
in
our
region,
but
it's
an
opaque
process
and
I
wish
we
all
knew
what
went
on
behind
the
screen,
but
yeah
that's
the
little
bit
of
feedback.
We
got
as
well.
A
F
F
In
that
you
can
kind
of
see
their
scoring
system,
we
at
buncombe
county.
I
think
haywood
and
transylvania
have
also
submitted
letters
requesting
that
we
be
considered
disaster
recovery
counties
because
of
tropical
storm
fred.
But
if
you
feel
that
there
are
certain
things
that
your
community
would
specifically
benefit
from,
you
can
influence
it
there
and
it's
something
that
we've
started
as
a
practice.
A
L
Yes,
thank
you
sage.
I
I
just
is,
as
the
one
of
the
applicants,
I'm
I'm
with
commonwealth
development,
representing
fair
havens,
summit,
the
9
application
that
was
awarded
funding.
I
just
wanted
to
kind
of
give
my
thoughts
and
insight
because
we
we
look
a
lot
into
the
scoring
and
so
there's
there
were
a
couple
of
factors
that
I
think
might
be
helpful
to
kind
of
understand.
At
least
my
experience
of
what
happens
in
the
selection
process
behind
the
scenes,
and
so
there
were.
There
were
two
things
on
scoring
it's
it's.
L
It's
always
challenging
in
north
carolina
to
get
a
nine
percent
award
because
it
ultimately
they've
made
a
change
in
the
qap,
the
draft
qap
for
this
year,
but
a
lot
of
it
has
to
come
down
to
two
factors:
how
applicants
play
their
bonus
points,
and
this
year
you
had
two
bonus
points
to
award
and
the
other
has
to
do
with
how
your
credit
request
falls
relative
to
the
cred.
L
The
average
credit
request
for
in
the
instance
of
buncombe
county,
the
metro
region
and
each
county
in
the
metro
region
only
receives
enough
credit
alec
well
in
buncombe.
County
only
receives
enough
credit
allocation
for
one
award,
it's
about
700
and
some
thousand.
I
think
it
was
this
year,
and
so
there
were
three
full
applications
submitted
in
buncombe
county.
L
There
was
a
fair
haven
summit
and
then
mountain
housing
submitted
two
applications,
lake
shore,
villas
and
arden,
and
then
pintland
place
in
asheville,
and
so,
as
I
recall,
our
application
ended
up
in
order
to
receive
maximum
points
for
credits
per
unit.
You
had
to
fall
within
four
percent
of
the
average
request
for
the
metro
region,
and
so
our
application
actually
fell
at
about
five
point.
Something
percent
which
gave
us
one
point,
not
two
points,
as
I
recall
from
the
analysis
that
we
did.
L
Pentland
plays
actually
fell
within
four
percent
of
the
average,
and
so
they
got
two
points
there
and
lake
shore.
Villas
was
very
low
108
anyway,
they
did
not
get
any
points,
but
mountain
housing
did
not
play
any
of
their
bonus
points
on
either
of
their
buncombe
county
applications,
and
we
played
both
of
our
bonus
points
on
our
fairhaven
summit
application.
As
we
told
the
committee
we
would
and
because
of
that,
basically,
we
we
were
selected.
We
won
by
one
point.
L
There
are
some
other
points
that
are
for
architectural
design
that
are
awarded
by
the
state
mysteriously
behind
the
scenes
after
you
submit
your
applications.
I've
yeah
I've
never
heard
anything
about
that,
and
you
know
all
the
years
working
in
north
carolina.
I
think
it's
just
points
that
the
state
uses
if
they
really
don't
like
a
design
that
they
can
kill
it,
but
generally
that
that
has
never
been
a
factor
to
me.
L
It's
always
been
one
on
bonus
points
and
credits
per
unit,
although
this
year
they're
proposing
to
take
that
scoring
mechanism
out
of
the
selection
process,
but
credits
per
unit
is
still
your
first
tie
breaker.
So
it's
ultimately
still
going
to
be
decided
on
credits
per
unit.
But
that's
that's
the
real
challenge
in
north
carolina.
Is
you
never
know
how
others
are
going
to
underwrite
their
credit
request?
And
so
you
never
really
know
what
it's
going
to
be
and
and
what's
kind
of
ironic.
L
There
are
two
applications,
the
the
one
in
arden
and
then
there's
another
one
in
charlotte
that
had
an
a
unusually
low
credits
per
unit
request
because
they
wanted
to
build.
So
many
units
that
actually
drug
the
average
for
the
whole
metro
region
down
if
those
two
had
not
been
in
the
application,
we
would
have
also
been
within
four
percent
of
the
average.
L
A
Oh
I'm
sorry
I
said
and
thank
you
sean
that
was
very
helpful
information.
I.
A
L
L
You
have
to
put
into
those
kind
of
things,
but
yeah
we're
we're,
really
thankful.
We
were
selected
and
are
excited
about
moving
forward.
It's
gonna
be
a
really
great
development
in
a
really
good
location.
A
For
selling
on
that
topic,
while
we're
on
it
okay,
so
we
are,
we
have
a
couple
things
here.
We
have
a
spreadsheet
and
we
have
a
staff
memo
of
potential
allocation
and
reallocation,
and
I
think
you'd
probably
be
best
at
this
point-
go
ahead
and
open
up
second
round.
Are
we
paul?
What's
the
disc
here
we
want
to
hear
from
the
applicant,
then?
Is
there
a
particular
order.
K
That
was
our
suggestion
at
this
point
to
allow
the
four
applicants,
who
came
back
with
the
letters
of
intent,
offering
them
the
five
minute
presentation
to
verbal
presentation
to
everybody,
and
we
just
put
them
in
alphabetical
order
in
the
staff
report
or
demo.
So
I
think
the
first
person
up
would
be
madison
chc
yep.
J
Yes,
good
morning,
good
morning,
we
submitted
a
request
for
a
reallocation
of
forty
thousand
six
hundred
fourteen
dollars,
which
I
believe
was
the
balance
of
choto
funds
that
were
remaining.
J
From
the
original
allocation
and
when
we
did
our
first
round
when
we
were
awarded
165
000,
we
were,
we
still
had
an
application
into
dogwood
health
trust
for
365
000
to
do
the
to
make
up
the
balance
of
both
the
project
management
and
the
construction
cost
for
four
replacement
homes,
and
we
were
awarded
that
365
000
and
so
with
an
additional
funding
of
40,
000
and
change
in
choto.
Then
that
would
bring
our
give
us
the
funding
to
do
four
houses.
J
Our
original
shuttle
application
was
for
three
houses,
housing
replacement
projects,
and
this
would
give
us
enough
funding
to
do
for,
along
with
the
dogwood.
J
A
and
some
investments
by
madison
county,
so
not
a
whole
lot,
has
changed
just
really
just
a
little
bit
extra
money
to
help
us
get
get
that
fourth
project
completed.
G
A
Oh
sorry,
I
keep.
I
don't
know
why
my
I'm
being
mute
happy
today.
I
keep
thinking,
I'm
not
muted,
it's
got
a
delay,
I'm
so
sorry,
so
that
did
anybody
have
any
questions
for
chris
I
was
just
talking
and
no
one
could
hear
me
so.
Okay,
we're
going
to
move
on
to
number
two
which
is
fairhaven
sean.
Did
you
want
to
share
any
more
thoughts.
L
Yes,
I'd
be
happy
to
so
when,
when
commonwealth
originally
submitted
our
application
for
fairhaven
summit,
we
had
requested
a
500
000
funding
amount.
You
know
and
of
course
there
are
a
number
of
applications
and
that
wasn't
possible,
and
so
our
final
award
was
a
100
000,
which
is
great.
We
honestly
can
use
all
the
help
we
can
get
since
that
time,
we've
had
a
couple
of
things
happen
on
the
underwriting
side.
Of
course,
one
construction
costs
have
continued
to
increase.
L
I
think
we
had
one
increase
that
occurred
right
month
and
a
half,
or
so
I
guess
before
we
submit
it
to
a
north,
carolina,
housing,
finance
agency
and
then
another
one
when
we
revisited
cost
post
award.
Cumulatively,
it's
about
11
cost
increase,
and
it's
for
I
understand
from
the
contractor.
It's
based
on
a
variety
of
things:
lumber's
gone
down,
but
plastics
and
material
have
gone
up,
anyways,
it's
material,
drywall
and
insulation
and
labor
shortages
of
well.
Our
labor
costs
have
gone
up
a
lot.
Of
course.
L
We
you
know,
we
don't
have
final
bid
prices.
These
are
just
kind
of
the
current,
as
is
today,
hopefully
there'll
be
some
relief
there,
but
it
never
seems
to
ever
seems
to
work
that
way.
It
always
seems
to
ratchet
up
every
year,
and
so
that's
one
issue
that
we've
had
since
submitting
our
funding
award
request
to
the
city.
The
second
thing
that
we've
found,
which
has
been
a
surprise
to
me,
is
the
investor
community's
response
to
income
averaging.
L
So
you
know
our
development
will
be
the
only
in
the
market,
as
I
understand
it
from
a
market
study
that
will
provide
70
percent
ami
targeting,
in
addition
to
the
usual
60,
50
and
30
percent
ami
unit.
Targeting
and
the
only
way,
that's
possible
is
through
income.
Averaging
now
we
had,
we
had
underwritten
at
an
average
ami
of
59
the
response
we've
had
there.
L
The
irs
apparently
issued
some
guidance
earlier
this
year,
where
it
called
into
question
how
they
would
handle
compliance
on
units
and
made
it
much
riskier
in
the
eyes
of
investors.
As
I
understand
it,
and
so
the
response
that
we've
gotten
from
investors
has
been
not
great.
To
be
honest,
about
half
of
the
investors
we've
talked
to
have
said
they
just
aren't
interested
in
any
income
averaging
deals
right
now
until
the
irs
clarifies
its
guidance
and
the
other,
the
other
half
that
we've
talked
to,
who
are
interested,
aren't
paying
as
much
as
we
we
expected.
L
Our
investor
pool
is
lower
and
they're,
also
requiring
us
to
hedge
against
the
in
their
minds.
The
the
irs
compliance
risk
asking
us
to
target
our
units
more
deeply
lower
our
ami
income
average,
which
in
results
is
lowering
the
amount
of
permanent
debt
that
we
thought
we
could
carry
on
the
project,
and
so
it's
kind
of
a
one-two.
L
We,
we
kind
of
expected
construction
costs
to
go
up
a
little
bit,
but
we
were
not
expecting
the
lackluster
response
from
the
investor
community,
and
so
so
those
those
are
kind
of
our
two
factors.
I
mean
we.
L
We
have
requested
the
full
430
7862
that
we
understood
is
available,
but
you
mean
to
be
frank
with
you
know,
anything
would
be
appreciated
and
we
understand
we're
not
the
only
applicants
as
well,
and
we
want
to
be
sensitive
to
that-
that
the
consortium's
ultimate
goal
is
to
fund
as
many
affordable
housing
units
in
the
community
as
possible
and
we're
hopeful.
L
You
know
we'll
be
able
to
have
some
success
in
some
other
areas
with
you
know,
maybe
some
higher
equity
pricing
we're
talking
to
several
direct
investors
that
we're
optimistic
we'll
will
help
but
yeah
to
be
to
be
frank,
yeah.
We
could
use
some
additional
home
funds
to
to
be
able
to
cover
our
costs
and
be
able
to
close
and
move
forward
with
construction.
A
I
A
I
Nice
to
see
you
all,
thank
you
so
much
for
the
opportunity
to
submit
an
additional
ask
for
some
reverted
funds.
As
you
all
may
recall,
during
the
original
application
process,
helpmate
submitted
a
larger
application
with
the
intention
of
providing
tenant-based
rental
assistance
to
families
who
are
having
to
relocate
because
of
an
experience
of
domestic
violence
abuse
in
the
home.
I
Our
original
request
included
six
to
nine
months
worth
of
funding
for
those
families
that
we
were
assisting
with
that
rental
assistance.
I
The
award
was
was
offered
at
a
reduced
amount
from
our
original
ask,
and
so
we
tried
to
serve
still
a
reasonable
number
of
families.
Our
original
request
was
10
for
just
three
months
and
so
we're
coming
back
to
you
now
asking
to
have
an
additional
fifty
thousand
dollars
to
be
able
to
increase
that
term
of
assistance
to
an
average
of
seven
to
eight
months.
I
First,
three
months,
that
process
just
takes
longer
and
so
there's
a
substantial
amount
of
missed
work
that
happens
because
of
court
appearances,
counseling
appointments,
medical
treatments
that
may
be
ongoing,
getting
the
children
set
up
for
services
and
so
on,
and
so
what
we
found
is
that
a
longer
term
of
rental
assistance
in
the
six
to
nine
month
range
does
a
much
better
job
of
helping
families
find
stability
and
security,
so
that
we're
offering
enough
support
to
really
touch
the
need,
rather
than
just
sort
of
scratch
at
the
surface
of
it.
I
So
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
questions
you
all
have,
but
it
is
hopefully
a
fairly
straightforward
request:
10
families
at
rental
assistance
for
an
average
of
seven
to
eight
months.
That'll
include
some
security
deposits
or
rear
edges
utilities
and
those
kind
of
related
expenses.
Thank
you
all
for
your
consideration.
A
Okay,
great,
thank
you
for
being
here.
Item
number
four
is
hacc
housing
assistance
corporation.
This
is
a
2019
awardee
and
paul,
and
I
were
discussing
a
little
bit
about
how
we
don't
typically
have
a
previous
year's
awardee
on
here
for
a
second
round
request.
So
we
may
need
to
talk
about
two
things.
This
is
a
second
request
and
for
reallocation
funding,
but
also
whether
or
not
we're
looking
backwards
at
previous
years
instead
of
just
the
current
year.
So
if
we
could
hear
from
y'all
is
someone
with
hack
here?
Is
that
ashland.
N
N
We
just
kind
of
a
recap:
cottages
of
oklahoma
is
an
eight
two
bedroom
unit,
sro
style
for
persons
with
mental
physical
and
developmental
disabilities,
we're
working
with
thrive
here
in
hendersonville
to
provide
the
supportive
services,
and
we
do
have
that
supportive
housing
loan
from
nchfa
secured
on
dogwood
has
also
put
funds
into
this
project
as
well.
N
A
C
N
In
2019,
I
think
the
estimate
was
about
1.2
1.3
million
dollars
for
this
project
and
the
most
recent
estimate
that
I
received
was
about
1.9,
so
yeah,
I'm
sorry
to
hear.
N
So,
yes,
we,
we
talked
to
thrive
on
a
regular
basis
and
this
will
be
specifically
for
their
clients
and
they
do
have
an
ongoing
waiting
list
and
I
think
in
the
western
north
carolina
region,
there's
about
a
hundred
thousand
people
who
are
in
need
of
supportive
housing
services.
So
the
need
is
there.
F
Ashlyn,
I
don't
know
a
great
deal
about
this
specific
population.
Is
there
any?
Is
this
the
only
type
of
project
that
can
really
provide
long-term
housing
for
them?.
N
Sure
so
I
can.
I
can
briefly
I'm
not
an
expert
on
thrive,
specific
programs,
but
typically
thrive,
works
with
persons
who
are
homeless
and
experience,
mental
health
or
physical
disabilities,
and
so
this
is,
they
have
a
really
hard
time
housing
these
people,
because
of
the
needs
that
they
have
thrive,
also
provides
a
voucher
of
sorts.
It's
not
a
section
8
voucher,
it's
a
different
type
of
voucher
and
they're
able
to
use
this
on
this
project
and
they're
not
having
very
great
success
using
that
in
our
community.
N
G
G
A
Oh,
I
was
just
looking
at
the
sorry
something
on
the
nose.
Okay
great.
So
we
heard
from
the
four
applicants
and
we
now
can
move
into
a
discussion
based
on
reallocation.
Has
everybody
been
able
to
look
at
the
spreadsheet
and
have
that
open?
There
were
a
couple
I
don't
know
depending
on
when
you
saw
the
spreadsheet.
I
know
there
were
a
couple
tweaks
to
it
this
morning
you
may
want
to
look
at
it
again.
F
A
K
Happy
to
do
it
sage,
paul
here
I
may
start
out
and
then
flip
it
to
jonathan.
If
that
works,
as
the
discussion
all
happens,
but
let
me
share
my
screen
quickly
hold
on
one
moment.
K
So
sage,
if
you'd,
let
me
know
if
you
can
see
this
screen
looks
like
several
of
y'all
are
out
here.
K
K
So
right
now,
when
we
were
talking
earlier
about
that
total
of
four
hundred
and
sixty
thousand
three
sixty
two
stats
recommendations
were
thirty,
six
thousand
or
excuse
me,
three
hundred
sixty
nine
thousand
seven,
forty
eight
to
fair
haven,
seven
summit,
putting
their
total
award
at
469
748,
forty
thousand
six
fourteen
to
chc
madison
county
to
handle
that
chodo
part
taking
their
award
total
up
to
205
614,
which
is
the
cheddar
amount
and
then
50
000
to
help
mate,
and
that
adds
up
to
the
460
362..
K
If
you
go
down
a
bit
to
this
green,
which
was
again
awarded
to
the
contingency
that
we
now
have
extra
of
that,
forty
thousand
six
fourteen
staff
is
recommending-
and
I
can
change
these
numbers
or
not-
of
putting
an
additional
thirty
thousand
two
fifty
two
into
fair
haven
taking
their
award
total
to
500
000,
which
was
their
original
request
for
our
one
and
only
tax
credit
project
and
the
difference
of
ten
thousand
three
sixty
two
to
help
mate,
taking
their
award
total
up
total
award
total
up
to
one
hundred
and
ten
thousand
three
sixty
two,
we
did
not
hack
is
a
great
partner
and
all
the
work
they're
doing,
but
we
did
not
recommend
putting
any
funding
into
their
project.
K
Of
course,
there
was
a
question
about
eligibility
and
additional
gaps
there.
But
again,
this
is
all
a
consortium
decision,
and
with
that
we
can
take
any
questions
from
a
staff
perspective,
or
you
all
can
do
your
communication.
A
Thank
you
paul.
Perhaps
what
might
help
I
see
a
couple
raised
hands
for
just
a
second.
Perhaps
what
might
help
is
if
you
went
ahead
and
implemented
that
recommendation
on.
G
A
Spreadsheet
and
yeah,
and
then
okay,
I
saw
I
believe
I
have
in
the
queue
andrew
mayron,
then
kate,
andrew.
F
Sure,
what's
can
you
explain
a
little
more
the
rationale
behind
not
funding
the
the
hat
cottages
project,
also
pointing
out
that
this
is
a
project
that
we
funded
two
fiscal
years
ago,
and
you
know
I
understand,
there's
still
still
a
gap
outstanding
and
I
also
want
to
qualify.
This
is
a
choto
project
correct.
This
would
qualify
as
our
churro
investment
as
well.
F
K
That's
correct
and
what
was
the
rationale
so
as
always
difficult
with
limited
funding
to
figure
out
how
to
best
support
our
funding
when
staff
reviewed
the
letters
of
intent,
I
think
the
big
question
for
us
was
what
it
technically
would
not
be
eligible
based
on
the
language
that
was
sent
out,
and
we
hadn't
had
this
question
before
so
as
typical,
always
a
balancing
act
of
how
to
figure
this
out
when
it
comes
to
you
know,
should
we
allow
a
lot
of
intent?
K
Should
we,
but
like
other
agencies,
hack,
is
struggling,
we'll
talk
about
at
the
end
of
this
meeting
to
update
the
language,
but
with
the
additional
gap
funding
that
they
had
out
there,
we
thought
it
would
make
more
sense
for
them
to
come
back
for
funding
home
funding
kind
of
similar
to
what
east
haven
did
for
their
tax
credit
project
and
come
back
for
a
larger
amount
in
december
when
the
application's
open
for
next
year's
funding
cycle
and
then
as
a
hopefully,
a
good
partner
continue
to
try
to
see
where
additional
funding
could
be
found.
F
So
your
two
points
out
of
curiosity
would
they
be
eligible
for
the
arpa
home
funds
because
of
the
community
they're
serving
or
the
population
they're
serving.
K
I
well
that's
a
great
question.
I
would
imagine
that
transylvania,
county
or
excuse
me
henderson
county
has
arpa
funding.
I'm
not.
K
A
hundred
pages
of
rags
and
four:
what
do
you
call
it
meetings
to
go
through
so
we're
trying
to
patiently
work
through
that
that
just
was
announced
last
week
and
listen,
maybe
possibly,
but.
G
A
Know
that's
a
good
question
too.
I
think
andrew
there's
you'll
see
an
item.
Five
on
our
agenda
is
talking
about
those
funds
and
I'm.
F
Yeah-
and
I
think
you
know
my
perspective-
is
without
full
clarity
on
whether
those
funds
are
eligible.
We
shouldn't
consider
that
that
project
is
eligible
for
those
funds
and
and
maybe
it
is-
and
maybe
if
there
is
still
a
gap
and
they
come
back
and
get
some,
but
I
think
I'm
going
to
work
under
the
assumption
that
those
won't
be
eligible
and
they
need
to
get
this
from
conventional
funds,
and
the
other
is,
is
the
technicality
you're
referring
to
paul
was
that
is
that
a
hud
technicality
or
is
it
it
was?
F
Was
it
based
on
the
timing
or
their
eligibility,
and
I
think
what
I
want
to
get
to,
and
maybe
we
can
get
towards
this
at
the
end
was
I
I
believe
there
was
supposed
to
be
a
meeting
in
august
kind
of
delineating
what
the
roles
of
the
consortium
board
and
staff
were,
but
I
would
consider
this
project
eligible.
I
don't
know
if
the
consortium
board
necessarily
agreed
that
there
were
any
kind
of
conditions
on
applying,
and
you
know
I
would
consider
this
fully
eligible.
F
K
Right
and
so
two
thoughts
is
number
one.
We
worked
with
you
all
with
the
consortium
last
year
and
and
even
I
think,
before
march,
and
january's
meeting
on
exacting
that
language
on
who
exactly
can
come
back
for
second
round
home
allocation
funding,
and
it
doesn't
say
that
previous
year's
applications
can
come
back
for
additional
funding.
It
focuses
on
this
year's
funding
that
happened
in
march.
K
But
at
the
end
of
this
meeting
I
do
want
to
ask
that
point
as
we've
all
worked
together
on
that
clarifying
language
on
who
comes
back
in
august
is:
should
we
open
it
up
to
not
only
the
current
year,
applicants
that
weren't
fully
funded
in
march
or
had
cost
increases,
but
previous
years,
applicants
who
haven't
gone
to
contract
and
that's
looking
for
guidance
on
from
the
consortium
on
that
language.
A
Yeah
great
discussion
guys-
and
we
do
want
to
have
that
meeting,
you're
going
to
hear
us
talk
about
a
special
meeting
soon,
but
that's
an
additional
special
meeting
where
we
talk
about
roles
and-
and
I
think
this
is
a
great
topic-
you
know
I
you
know-
I
fairly
knew
this
is
my
first
year
on
this
consortium,
and
I
had
to
ask
also
you
know:
do
we
award
to
previous
years
and
it
doesn't
seem
to
be
clarity,
so
it's
something
we
need
to
talk
about
as
a
group
and
perhaps
update
language
policy,
etc.
H
H
I
think
we
can
agree
that
we
probably
didn't
anticipate
to
be
where
we
are
now
when
we
were
developing
those-
and
I
did
want
to
clarify
if,
if
the
consortium
felt
that
that
project
would
fall
under
the
special
needs
housing
because
I
know
that's
a
high
priority
area
in
the
plan,
and
so
I
would
like
for
us
to
come
to
a
maybe
a
consensus
on
if
we're
going
to
allow
that
before
we
split
up
this
round
of
funding.
A
A
G
A
A
Okay,
all
right,
so
we're
going
to
interrupt
our
little
allocation
conversation
here
to
say:
hey,
do
we
want
to
look
at
previous
years?
The
thing
that
jumps
out
to
me
is
whether
or
not
we
allocate
towards
someone
we
know
to
have
a
such
a
large
gap.
I
mean
if
we
allocate
the
funds.
Does
this
hinder?
Someone
like
fairhaven,
who
also
was
just
awarded,
will
fairhaven
be
back
next
year
saying:
well,
we
didn't
quite
get
enough,
you
know.
Are
we
starting
a
trickle
effect
andrew,
go
ahead.
F
I
think
the
rationale
seems
to
be
shifting
here
a
little
bit.
I
thought
the
rationale
initially
was
that
they
couldn't
apply
because
they
didn't
meet
the
conditions
of
pre-application,
not
whether
their
gap
was
large.
I
think
just
stick
to
the
focus
here.
I
don't
know
and-
and
I
think
one
of
the
points
of
having
that
meeting
in
august
was
that
so
we
could
clear
up
these
items
before
funding
decisions
and
we
haven't
cleared
them
up
and-
and
I
find
it
really
difficult
to
disqualify
this
project.
K
Well,
two
things
just
for
clarity:
this
is
staff
is
only
for
your
role
is
the
as
the
main
role
as
a
consortium
is
funding.
So
this
is
just
staff
recommendation
and
we
did
work
with
everybody
on
the
language
to
go
back
out
for
the
second
round
in
the
emails,
which
is
a
link
under
3b,
and
I
can
happily
read
that
at
everybody
again
everything's
a
balancing
act,
we
didn't
ashlyn
and
hack
are
great.
We
didn't
anticipate
somebody
from
previous
years
reaching
out,
so
it
was
kind
of
a
after.
K
We'll
put
the
you
know,
put
that
out
there,
but
the
language
when
it
came
to
who
could
come
back
said
projects
that
were
not
funded
in
the
initial
round
or
that
were
partially
funded
in
the
initial
round
of
funding
and
tax
credits,
projects
not
awarded
from
nchfa,
etc,
as
well
as
chodo
projects
that
hadn't
been
allocated
or
new
projects
from
consortium
member
jurisdictions
that
are
either
not
awarded
any
funding
and
this
initial
round.
K
You
all
have
that
in
that,
so
we
didn't
anticipate
an
application
coming
in
from
previous
years,
so
why?
I
think
it's
a
great
conversation
and
something
that
we
can
at
the
end
of
this
meeting
or
now
figure
out
if
we
in
future
years
of
reallocations,
if
we
should
accept
previous
year
applications,
we
you
know
would
love
to
hear
what
the
consortium
thinks
on
that
this
application
came
in.
I
think
it's
the
end
of
august.
A
Point
about
whether
it's
criteria
or
funding
gap,
however,
like
you
know
here
and
now
not
having
had
this
conversation
already,
I'm
looking
at
you
know
when
ashlynn
was
speaking,
I
asked
you
know:
would
this
close
the
gap?
Would
this
get
the
project
going
and
there
was
an
intent
behind
that
question
because
I'm
a
little
hesitant
personally
to
award
funding
to
someone
that
still
has
such
a
large
gap
to
close
and
I'm
not
sure
if
there's
a
plan
to
fill
that
gap
or
we're
just
kind
of
leaving
a
hundred
thousand
out
there
that
can't
be
utilized?
A
A
There's
not
a
different
recommendation,
it
looks
like
we
can
move
forward
with
this
one.
I
don't
want
to
just
disable
the
conversation
about
criteria
and
whether
or
not
we
should
do
previous
years,
but
I
also
don't
want
to
derail
this
whole
reallocation
based
on
a
conversation
we
might
need
to
have
in
a
different
time.
D
Sage,
I'm
not
actually
clear
on
what
you're
asking
us
at
this
point
sure.
Okay,
I
can.
A
Restate
so
there's
a
there's,
a
staff
recommendation,
we've
heard
a
little
feedback
about
whether
or
not
this
previous
year's
awardee
can
request
reallocation,
whether
it's
for
meeting
the
requirements
of
the
application
or
things
we
haven't
really
fleshed
out
like.
Would
it
close
their
gap
and
fund
the
project?
F
Us
yeah,
so
I
think
I
would
like
to
suggest
that
we
award
a
hundred
thousand
dollars
this
project
that
would
fill
our
shutter
requirement
as
well.
You
know,
I
guess
I
understand
we're
saying
so,
we'll
consider
this
project
and
this
application
is
eligible
and
then
you're
asking
what
the
funding
is
yeah.
F
I
I
think
a
hundred
thousand
dollars
the
critical
need
of
that
project
and
the
community.
It
serves
the
fact
that
she
chose
a
project
and
the
fact
that
it's
already
received
home
funding,
and
you
know
it's.
I
have
to
be
honest
as
well
with
both
buncombe
county
and
the
city
of
asheville.
We
have
local
resources
that
these
other
communities
don't
have.
F
I
appreciate
the
tax
credit
project,
but
that
tax
credit
project
can
come
to
us
to
buncombe
county
to
the
city
of
asheville,
for
housing,
trust
fund
and
the
state
of
north
carolina
in
in
their
proposed
budget
has
an
increase
of
40
million
dollars
for
the
nchfa
workforce.
Housing
loan
fund
to
specifically
cover
the
increase
to
the
coveted
cost
on
construction.
So
I
I
think
all
these
are
great
projects.
I
think
that
one
has
more
resources
open
to
it
than
these
these
projects
in
the
two
surrounding
counties.
A
A
K
Well,
I
know
that
that
might
be
a
better
question
for
ashland,
but
I
do
know
that
you
know
we
do
have
a
you
know.
It's
timeliness
with
home
funding
to
a
certain
extent,
you
know
to
get
to
contract
et
cetera.
There's
been
some
coveted
waivers
around
all
this,
so
maybe
a
better
question
for
action
and
quickly
to
something
andrew
said
was
another
reason
again
in
this
balancing
act.
We
know,
I
don't
think
anyone
anticipated
somebody
coming
in
from
previous
year
was
there
was
no
award
for
henderson
or
transylvania
county.
K
So
that
was
another
reason.
We
were
trying
to
figure
out
whether
to
move
something
forward
or
bring
it
all
to
you
and
then
quickly
is
just
to
say.
You
know:
staff
city
staff
can
bring
back
two
versions
of
the
second
round
allocation
funding
for
when
we
meet
and
towards
the
end
of
october,
one
which
is
taking
previous
year
allocations
or
applications
that
that
were
funded
and
need
more
money,
and
one
that
says
just
this
year
focus
so
we'll
bring
that
language
back
to
you
all.
D
You
know
one
of
our
goals
or
commitments
in
this
consortium
is
to
make
sure
that
the
three
smaller
counties
are
taken
care
of,
and
this
would
accomplish
that
with
madison
and
with
henderson.
The
project
for
helpmate
did
not
receive
anywhere
close
to
what
they
requested
previously.
D
D
A
Project,
that's
some
good
10
thanks
robin!
Thank
you.
So
your
suggestion
is
that
the
40
60
to
basically
give
us
that
hundred
thousand
to
oklaho
and
move
fair
haven
to
300.
or
what
you
said
fully
fund.
I
mean
we
can't
fully
fund
help
mate.
D
E
Thank
you.
I
just
wanted
to
get
some
clarity,
and
maybe
I
missed
it
in
the
conversation,
the
reason
that
the
request
was
only
for
a
hundred
thousand
dollar,
given
the
larger
gap
was
there
any
rationale
for
not
requesting
a
larger
portion
of
the
gap?
I
guess
that's
kind
of
my
first
question
recognizing
again,
as
has
been
stated,
the
existing
commitment
to
the
project
in
prior
year
award.
I
think
that's
important.
I
think
recognizing
that
balance.
E
I
what
concerns
me
and
it's
the
same
concern
I
had
before,
given
the
volume
of
tenant-based
rental
assistance,
funding,
that's
flowing
through
other
channels,
and
these
are
special
cases
but
and
special
populations
that
we're
serving
through
that,
but
all
that
tenant-based
rental
assistance
money
is
also
asheville
buncombe-based
and
we're
adding
additional
dollars
there
so
again,
an
equity
in
fairness.
E
N
Yeah,
I'm
I'm
going
to
be
honest
when
I
spoke
with
nancy
and
paul,
I
believe
we
started
talking
about
my
reapplication
back
in
may.
I
know
nancy
and
I
did
I
was
told
then
that
probably
the
amount
awarded
for
choto
projects
would
be
40
000
and
it.
N
In
my
perspective,
that
was
the
amount
that
I
maybe
should
have
applied
for
that
wouldn't
cover,
like
you,
said
the
gap,
and
I
do
know
that
there's
a
large
gap
that
needs
to
be
filled
here.
Excuse
me,
I
am
in
constant
con
conversation
with
a
few
different
funders.
We
do
have
several
applications
out
there
that
we
are
waiting
to
hear
from,
but
that
was
the
rationale.
I
know
we
didn't.
N
There
wasn't
a
lot
of
money
coming
back
in
this
round
and
I
know
there
are
other
projects,
I'm
I'm
happy
to
you
know
if
this
and
and
to
your
point
stage.
Thank
you.
There
are
contingent
funds
like
outside
of
the
home
funds
too,
that
I
have
to
start
using
this
funds
by
the
middle
of
next
year
for
nchfa
and
others.
So
there
are
other
people
waiting
for
this
project
outside
of
the
consortium
to
kind
of
go.
N
So
I'm
happy
if
you
know,
I'm
really
glad
this
conversation
is
being
held
and
you're
all
hearing
hearing
me
in
this
project
because
it
is
very
important
if
it's
up
to
you
all.
I
can
come
back
in
december
and
ask
for
more
and
maybe
we'll
have
some
of
the
gap
closed
by
then
with
some
announcements,
but
the
funding
is
highly
needed
for
this.
I
hope
that
helped
answer
your
question.
Some.
E
Ashlyn,
just
I
guess,
as
a
follow-up,
can
you
give
us
a
little
bit
more
information
on
the
time
frames
for
some
of
those
other
pending
funds
like?
Is
that
going
to
be
decisions
that
you
would
have
by
december,
for
example,
and
I
think
from
our
perspective-
and
this
gets
into
the
larger
conversation
of
looking
at
our
past
allocations
that
haven't
gone
to
contract,
you
know
it
may
be
that
we're
gonna
have
to
reallocate
what's
already
been
awarded
as
well.
N
Would
happen
sure
the
other
commitments
I
have
to
have
executed
by
august
of
this
coming
year,
and
so
that's
for
hacc
dc,
that's
for
nchfa
and
that's
also
for
dogwood,
so
everyone's
kind
of
on
the
same
timeline
as
far
as
funding
commitments
go
for
this
project.
Trying
to
think
is
that
is
that
the
answer
you're
looking
for
matt.
E
Sorry
is
that
are
those
the
ones
that
you
have
you
imagine
that
you
were
seeking
other
funds.
Those
are
the
ones
that
you.
N
Those
are
the
ones
that
we
already
have
in
the
pipeline
committed
ready
to
go
the
other
applications
that
we
have
in
progress.
We
should
know
something
I'm
hoping
by
december.
N
N
So
that's
200,
000
of
it
and
the
other.
I
think
the
remaining
three
will
be
from
other
sources.
Sarah
grimes
and
iron
talks
about
that
and
nancy
recommended
another
funding
source
that
I've
reached
out
to.
A
Wait
I
want
to
make
sure
I
heard
that
right,
just
a
second
andrew,
so
you
have
several
other
things
lined
up
and
should
everything
come
together,
this
hundred
thousand
could
be
the
last
hundred
thousand
in
that
gets
it
off
the
ground.
Yes,
okay,
I
didn't.
I
didn't
catch
that
the
first
time.
Thank
you
so
much
for
clarifying
then
matt
great
question.
Andrew
you've
got
one
more
question
and
then.
F
Yeah
yeah
and
then
we
need
to
move
on.
This
is
something
I
want
to
put
a
pin
in,
and
maybe
we
can
discuss
it
later
at
the
end
of
this
meeting
or
in
that
special
meeting
we
have,
it
sounds
like
there
was
a
miscommunication
between
hacc
and
city
staff,
and
I
think,
that's
probably
the
the
correct
interpretation,
but
that
diminished
or
depressed
the
the
actual
amount
she
requested.
F
You
know,
I
think
this
is
one
of
these
brass
tax
things
we
can
discuss
in
that
meeting,
that
home
funds
are
actually
the
pooled
funds
of
all
of
the
entities
in
this
home
consortium.
You
know
we
want
to.
I
think
you
know
be
very
certain
that
people
applying
are
not
discouraged
from
applying
for
any
certain
amounts
or
for
any
certain
reasons.
You
know,
but
especially
in
a
case
like
this,
where
it's
a
county
who
does
put
resources
in
and
then
lets
another
unit
of
government
staff
manage
it.
F
You
know,
I
I
think
that's
one
of
these
things
we
can
discuss.
I
don't
I
don't
want
to
hear
about
miscommunications
that
depress
the
applications
or
the
amounts
that
people
ask.
For
you
know,
I
think
our
perspective
at
buncombe,
when
we
have
local
funding,
is
ask
for
what
you
need
ask
for
everything
and
then
we'll
make
the
decision
afterwards,
but
it
it
unfortunately
has
perhaps
affected
our
decision
today
that
we're
only
able
to
consider
this
up
to
a
hundred
thousand
dollars
instead
of
more
because
of
communication
before
this
application
occurred.
K
And
this
is
paul
here
I'll
look
forward
to
when
we
get
that
meeting
sage,
which
I
think
you'll
call
for
four
hours
or
a
full
day
meeting
for
everybody.
But
just
so
everyone
knows
we
always
try
to
do
our
best
to
remind
people
that
the
church
application
you
know,
there's
the
15
minimum.
But
it's
a.
K
K
So
all
the
money
could
go
to
wichita
and
we
always
try
to
do
our
best
to
communicate
that
as
well
as
we
get
questions
all
the
time
for
people
asking
us
to
guestimate,
what's
available,
what
do
we
think
and
we
really
try
to
steer
away
from
that
because
all
of
that's
ultimately
a
consortium
decision,
but
I
take
a
myriad
of
calls
asking
me
to
guess
how
much
I
think
is
available
and
we
try
to
navigate
that,
hopefully
well
and
always
look
forward
to
anybody
who
has
a
better
idea
on
how
we
can
do
that.
K
Just
to
be
clear
that
the
funding
is
available.
What
that
funding
is,
but
as
always
with
everything
and
challenging
times,
we
can
do
better.
E
E
So
to
say
that
that
100
000
cap
exists
is
not
necessarily
accurate.
What
I
was
curious
about,
and
just
trying
to
it's
so
hard
with
this
setup,
is
there
a
voting
representative
from
henderson
county
that
might
want
to
speak
on
this
project
at
all,
just
curious
if
they
had
any
input
or
thoughts
about
the
need
there.
O
I
do
not
have
any
other
thoughts
to
add.
I
thought
robin
did
a
great
job
of
summing
it
up
and
I
think
all
the
questions
that
I
have
have
been
adequately
answered
by
ashland,
like
some
of
the
rest
of
you,
I'm
torn
between
the
propriety
of
funding,
something
that
came
from
a
previous
request
in
the
past
versus
looking
just
at
the
present
requests.
But
I
am
interested
in
you
know
a
discussion
with
the
board
with
that,
maybe
at
a
future
date
to
get
that
language
resolved.
H
A
A
A
Janice,
do
we
need
any
fancy
language
in
there.
C
No,
I
don't
think
so.
Thank
you.
It's
showing,
as
shown
you
you
might
want
to,
because
not
everybody's
looking
at
this
for
the
minutes.
Maybe.
A
As
shown
with
fair
haven
summit
at
300
000
world
replacement
housing
at
40,
614
cottages
at
oklahoma-
I
can't
say
it:
oklahoma,
100,
000
and
rental
assistance
for
help
mate
at
60,
sixty-two
totaling
well
this
year,
you
can
see
and
is.
Can
I
get
a
second.
A
E
Yeah
I
just
wanted
to,
because
we
kind
of
have
that
discussion
is
just
recognize
that
we
aren't.
We
are
providing
more
funding
than
requested
for
one
applicant
and
still
falling
short
of
the
request
of
another.
A
It's
fine
for
discussion.
Archie,
you
have
a
archie
just
joined,
I'm
not
sure.
If
archie's
having
problems,
I.
A
G
G
A
G
E
No-
and
I
I
mean
I
just-
I
think
it's
fine
given
their
initial
request
and
then
the
second
request
you
know
they're
still
well.
Under
their
initial
ask,
we
were
able
to
fully
fund
other
tbra
requests
and
others
at
75,
so
they're
still
sitting
at
about
30
percent
of
their
original
requests
with
that
allocation,
but
again
just
making
sure
that
it
always
makes
me
not
nervous
but
want
to
ask
the
question
when
we're
awarding
more
than
what
was
asked
for
again,
because
the
initial
request
was
still
more
than
this
combined
allocation
together.
E
I
think
it's
fine,
but
just
wanted
to
at
least
point
that
out
and
and
then
recognizing
too,
if
if
we
need
to
have
any
additional
discussion
about
whether
this
creates
a
gap
or
issue
for
fair
haven
being,
you
know
under
funded
for
their
second
request.
A
J
J
E
E
A
G
A
O
B
A
A
Okay,
all
right,
then
that
is
approved,
and
this
spreadsheet,
as
posted,
is
how
we
will
reallocate.
I
appreciate
the
lively
discussion
I've
taken,
some
notes
for
our
future
meeting
of
who,
how
what
and
where
and
when
we
do
this.
So
we
have
one
more.
We
have
a
couple
more
things
on
the
agenda.
We
have
a
public
comments,
we're
moving
on
to
item
four.
A
Were
there
any
folks
waiting?
I
don't
believe
we
got
any
public
comment
ahead,
but
do
we
have
anyone
that
has
called
in.
M
A
You
christina
all
right,
then
we're
closing
public
comment
at
1108,
and
that
puts
us
at
item
number
five
meeting
schedule
and
a
potential
work
session
around
the
arpa
funding.
So
if
you
click
through
on
five,
a
three
webinar
information
you'll
see
four
key
dates:
they're
actually
coming
up
pretty
quick,
they
will
all
have
occurred
within
the
next
two
weeks.
I
wanted
to
personally
I'm
going
to
attend.
A
I
believe
I
can
attend
three
of
them
and
I
wanted
to
encourage
all
of
us
and
as
well
as
potential
applicants
that
might
be
listening
in
to
tune
into
these
and
learn
as
we
learn
how
this
goes
and
then
a
goal
for
this
consortium
would
be
to
perhaps
maybe
at
the
end
of
october,
about
a
month
from
now
to
try
and
organize
a
longer
thing
that
is
focused
only
on
this
round
of
funding
and
paul,
and
I
discussed
it
could
be
a
couple
hours
three
four
hours,
so
we're
looking
for
some
conversation
around
that
and
folks
availability
on
whether
or
not
you'd
be
able
to
do
that
last
week
in
october.
K
And
sage,
if
I
can
jump
in,
we've
worked
closely
with
our
hud
field
office
who's
recommended
that
you
know
taking
our
time
and
a
deep
breath
as
we
read
through
the
hundred
pages
of
regs,
as
well
as
attend
the
four
meetings
and
we're
asking
kind
of
a
you
know
all
hands
on
deck:
4.7
million
dollars
for
the
four
county
region.
That's
a
lot
of
funding
and
so
any
help
we
can
get
there.
We're
definitely
seems
to
be
directed
towards
homeless
talks
about
some
public
outreach.
K
A
G
F
I
remember
reading
the
letter
in
june
as
well,
and
it
seemed
like
also
domestic
violence
was
one
of
the
categories
as
well,
and
you
know
I
know,
april's
on
the
call
and
I'm
I'm
sure
some
of
the
other
surrounding
counties
have
groups
that
do
that
work
as
well.
But
that
seemed
to
be
an
eligible
use
for
the
cost
as
well-
and
I
know
there's
a
helpmate
shelter
in
the
works.
A
F
A
Okay,
I
think
we
need
to
just
schedule
this,
and
hopefully
you
guys
can
get
to
these
webinars
so
that
we
can
have
a
really
fully
informed
discussion
that
day.
What
do
you
think
two
hours
three
hours,
I'm
guessing
three
hours.
K
And
then,
if
we
don't
need
all
the
time
for
everyone's
commitment,
but
we're
happy
to
put
a
for
a
half
day,
maybe
8
30
to
12
30
or
perhaps
one
to
five.
A
A
A
Does
that
sound,
good,
okay
and
I'm
sure
city
staff
will
take
care
of
noticing
that
meeting
and
you
have
the
webinar
information
in
your
agenda.
Please
do
go.
Look
at
it
read
everything
you
can.
Let's
come
to
the
table
with
that
meeting
with
as
much
knowledge
as
we
can,
and
that
is
all
I
have
for
the
agenda
anything
else
before
we
adjourn.
K
Yep
sage
paul
here
we
did
think
with
the
previous
25.
There
was
a
motion
just
so.
The
clarity
is
on
record.
There.
A
A
Let's
see
so,
I've
got
a
motion
here,
so
we're
jumping
back
to
this
reallocation,
the
202
500,
the
mass
we
were
talking
about
early
on
in
the
meeting.
Everyone
know
what
I'm
talking
about
we're
going
to
make
a
motion
here.
At
the
end,
I
forgot
this
was
a
process
thing,
so
we
do
need
to
make
a
motion
that
the
fiscal
year
2021
and
fiscal
year,
2122
action
plans
should
be
amended
and
to
correct
and
properly
assign
225
000
in
home
project
income
received
from
battery
park
apartments
in
the
fiscal
year
1819
program
year.