►
From YouTube: Housing and Community Development
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
B
Good
morning,
everyone
I
am
chair.
Sage
Turner
and
I'd
like
to
welcome
you
to
the
December
6th,
Housing
and
Community
Development
committee
meeting.
All
council
members
and
staff
are
participating
virtually
today
for
those
of
you
out
there
with
us
welcome
to
help
our
audience
follow
along
I'll
State,
each
section
of
the
agenda
aloud.
We
are
streaming
live
on
our
virtual
engagement
Hub,
which
is
accessible
through
the
virtual
engagement
Hub
link
on
the
front
page
of
our
City
website.
You
also
have
an
option
for
the
public
to
listen
live
by
phone.
B
To
do
so,
you
can
call
855-925-2801
and
when
prompted
there's
a
meeting
code
number
9791
for
today's
meeting.
We
also
have
the
option
for
people
to
call
in
and
comment
live
during
the
meeting.
It's
a
similar
process,
you'll
call
in
use
the
same
number,
855-925-2801
and
again
meeting
code
9791.
At
that
time.
You'll
hear
the
meeting
live
and
you
will
also
hear
a
recording
of
for
more
options.
Please
press
star
at
that
time,
we'll
press
star
3
and
that
will
get
you
into
the
comment
queue.
Each
speaker
will
have
three
minutes
to
speak.
B
As
a
general
reminder,
please
remain
on
mute
and
if
you
have
something
to
say
or
speak
up,
you
can
virtually
raise
your
hand
or
visually
and
I
will
call
upon
you
and
if
at
all
possible,
please
refrain
from
using
a
chat
function.
Not
everyone
can
see
it
in
real
time.
All
right,
I'm
going
to
go
through
roll
call
and
introduce
County
our
committee
members
staff
who
are
participating
virtually
today.
Council
members
as
I
say
your
name.
Please
say
a
quick
hello.
B
Vice
mayor
Smith
good
morning,
good
morning,
councilwoman
Mosley
good
morning,
good
morning,
assistant
city
manager,
Rachel
Wood
good
morning,
Community
economic
development,
director,
Nikki
Reed
good
morning,
affordable
housing
officer,
Sasha
bertinski
good
morning,
and
do
we
have
right?
Oh
yeah,
we
do
an
economic
development,
specialist,
Rachel,
Taylor,
good.
A
B
B
Thank
you
and
because
we're
virtual
we'll
do
a
roll
call
vote.
Vice
mayor,
Smith,
all
right,
councilman,
Mosley,
aye,
Sage,
Turner,
myself,
aye
all
right
item
number
one
is
complete.
We
have
approved
the
minutes.
Item
number
two:
Housing
Trust
run
policy
revisions,
an
exciting
one
and
I
believe
we
have
Sasha
patinski
to
run
us
through
it.
Sasha
go
ahead.
Yes,.
B
B
D
Great
thanks
Katie,
so
we're
here
before
you
today
to
discuss
some
revisions
to
the
Housing
Trust
Fund
policy.
Next,
these
are
headed
to
Council
next
week,
and
so
just
our
key
takeaways
here
really
quickly.
At
the
beginning,
the
Housing
Trust
Fund
was
established
in
2000.
D
Currently
we
have
approximately
7.65
million
available
for
loans
and
grants.
Staff
is
proposing
Housing
Trust
Fund
policy
revisions
to
respond
to
the
current
market
conditions,
make
the
policy
more
Dynamic,
so
it
can
respond
to
market
conditions
align
with
the
North
Carolina
Housing
Finance
Agency,
and
adjust
the
scoring
criteria
to
correspond
with
Community
priorities.
D
D
D
It
previously
had
an
annual
cycle,
but
evolved
over
time
to
be
on
on
you
know,
rolling
basis
through
the
budget
process.
Currently
500
000
is
approved
every
year
to
support
the
fund
during
the
bond
period,
which
we're
still
in
five
million
dollars,
was
allocated
to
the
Housing
Trust
Fund
and
just
recently
city
council
appropriated
another
6
million
of
the
remaining
bond
funds
to
the
Housing
Trust
Fund
in
October
between
2001
and
2019.
D
Looking
back
at
the
records,
the
Housing
Trust
Fund
has
loaned
out
approximately
15
million
dollars
and
produced
1300
units,
which
is
about
a
subsidy
of
around
11
500
per
unit
next,
so
you
all
have
seen
these
before,
but
just
really
quickly.
This
is
a
list
of
the
eligible
uses.
It's
a
fairly
flexible
fund.
D
It
allows
for
the
construction
of
sale
or
rental
land
acquisition,
hard
costs,
conversion
or
adaptive,
reuse
of
existing
non-residential
structures,
purchase
and
Rehab
of
existing
substandard
multi-family
housing
units
and
purchase
and
rehab
or
conversion
of
market
rate.
Multi-Family
developments
for
affordable
housing
also
manufactured
housing
in
modular
construction
are
also
included
in
this
policy
in
down
payment
assistance
loans,
as
long
as
loans
are
not
forgiven.
So
that's
the
current
state
of
the
policy
next.
D
So
some
other
restrictions
in
that
policy
they're,
not
housing.
Trust
funds
are
not
available
for
individuals
seeking
to
build
or
renovate
their
own
home.
D
A
minimum
of
20
of
all
the
units
must
be
affordable
for
the
proposed
development,
affordable
units
that
have
been
pledged
to
the
city
in
exchange
for
a
density,
bonus
or
conditional
zoning
or
other
special
consideration
will
be
ineligible.
That's
in
the
policy
today,
it
also
restricts
rehab
of
single-family
homes
and
duplexes,
and
and
projects
must
be
located
within
the
city
of
Asheville
limits
that
wouldn't
change
and
pre-development
expenses
are
not
an
eligible
use
next.
D
So
why
are
we
trying
to
do
these
policy
revisions
now?
Currently,
we
have
funding
caps
in
place
that,
because
they're
they're
attached
to
a
specific
number,
they
can't
fluctuate
with
the
market.
We've
seen
such
a
huge
increase
in
the
construction
costs
financing
that
costs
of
development
are
just
really
skyrocketing
right
now.
We
also
wanted
to
add
some
additional
underwriting
criteria
to
help
staff
evaluate
proposed
projects.
D
We
wanted
to
align
some
of
our
requirements
with
nchfa
the
North
Carolina
Housing
Finance
Agency
is
the
agency
that's
in
charge
of
low-income
tax
credits,
so
we
definitely
have
a
number
of
projects
that
come
to
both
the
city
and
in
chfa
for
funding
when
we
have
different
requirements
than
nchfa
we're
looking
at
different
numbers
and
that
doesn't
make
sense,
we
should
just
use
the
same
numbers
and
have
the
same
assumptions
and
then
again
we
want
to
align
City
applications
with
the
county
cycle
for
with
a
call
for
applications
in
December
later
this
month.
D
D
So
here's
our
proposed
schedule-
this
is
not
officially
a
part
of
the
policy.
This
is
an
operational
thing,
but
this
is
what
we
are.
You
know
working
from
in
approximately
two
weeks
or
possibly
less,
we
will
put
out
a
call
for
applications.
We
will
have
a
applications
deadline
in
February.
There
will
be
an
initial
review
by
hcd
in
March,
with
final
recommendations
from
hcd
in
April
and
then
going
to
the
second
council
meeting
in
April
for
final
funding
decisions,
and
this
is
very
close
to
the
County's
schedule
as
well.
Next,
so
we've
already.
D
This
is
our
process
for
the
policy
revisions.
You
all
saw
this
at
your
last
meeting.
A
hack,
affordable
housing
advisory
committee
has
seen
this
at
two
meetings.
We
just
spent
a
number
of
hours
last
Thursday
on
this,
and
so
again
after
today,
this
would
go
forward
to
city
council
next.
D
D
This
has
a
cap
that
seven
out
of
the
11
applications
last
11
applications
that
have
been
approved
over
the
last
four
years
have
been
over
a
million
dollars
so
clearly
there's
a
trend,
and
instead
we
are
proposing
using
10
of
total
estimated
project
costs,
which,
as
costs
increase,
that
also
increases.
D
Buncombe
County
uses
this
standard
for
non
four
percent
tax
credit
projects,
so
they
do
allow
for
a
higher
percentage
if
you're
doing
a
four
percent
tax
credit
product,
but
otherwise
for
all
other
projects.
It's
at
ten
percent.
D
This
would
allow
us
to
be
more
responsive
to
fluctuating
market
conditions
and
based
on
recent
applications.
I
think
it's
pretty
generous
and
even
in
some
future
ones,
where
we're
seeing
cost
come
up.
I
think
10
still
gets
us
where
we
need
to
be.
D
We
also
want
to
remove
the
existing
per
unit
subsidy
cap,
which
currently
is
twenty
thousand
dollars
per
unit.
We've
kind
of
blown
past
that
in
the
market,
that's
not
realistic,
not
really
doable.
It
is
occasionally
doable
for
some
bigger
projects
that
are
tax
credits
and
they
have
many
layers
of
funding,
but
even
then
I
think
we're
going
to
see.
That's
going
to
be
difficult
for
developers
to
to
get
to,
and
you
know
we
we
still
will
be
calculating
that
and
looking
at
that
number
and
Council
will
know
about
that
number.
D
D
D
Also,
we've
added
income
averaging
as
an
option
under
the
affordability
definition.
This
aligns
with
nchfa
which
allows
that
for
tax
credit
projects,
it
helps
get
income
diversity
within
a
project.
So,
instead
of
just
saying
everything
has
to
be
under
60.
If
you're
doing
income
averaging,
you
can
have
some
at
30
percent,
maybe
some
at
50,
maybe
some
of
80
those
kinds
of
things.
So
we
can
get
some
lower
area
median
income
households
into
those
developments.
D
We
are
recommending
some
changes
to
the
scoring
criteria
which
I'll
go
over
in
a
future
slide,
and
we've
also
added
some
additional
underwriting
criteria
to
help
evaluate
projects.
Next.
D
So,
on
November
3rd
ahac
met
and
looked
at
the
policy,
and
these
are
you
saw
these
last
month.
There
was
some
concern
around
an
annual
funding
cycle,
we're
looking
at
having
a
second
opportunity
later
in
the
year.
The
policy
does
not
dictate
the
schedule,
it
does
not
limit
it
or
say
it
has
to
be
an
annual.
So
we're
not.
We
won't
have
to
revise
the
policy
if
we
change
any
of
that.
D
The
scoring
rubric
favors
larger
projects
was
one
concerned
voice,
and
that
is
true.
The
scoring
rubric,
however,
is
not
like
the
the
ultimate
decision
factor.
It's
one
factor,
that's
being
weighed
in
the
decision.
It
doesn't
prevent,
counsel
from
funding
smaller
projects,
and
we
have
talked
with
ahac
at
length
and
Janice
is
here
as
well
to
talk
about
legal
limits
on
the
area
median
income.
D
We
clarified
the
process,
the
policy
around
home
ownership
and
left
it
at
100,
Ami
and
but
we're
sticking
with
the
80
of
very
immediate
income
for
rental
units.
Next.
D
Ahec
also
discuss
their
role
in
providing
preliminary
Project
funding
recommendations
to
you
all.
It
was
a
mix
of
opinions.
There
was
not
necessarily
agreement
on
that
issue.
They
did
not
talk
about
this
at
their
Retreat
last
week
and
it
was
not
a
part
of
their
motion.
D
I
think,
just
with
all
the
different
issues.
It
didn't
rise
to
the
top
I
guess
to
really
to
Hash
it
out.
D
D
It's
your
last
committee
meeting
on
November
15th.
There
were
a
number
of
issues
that
were
brought
up
and
discussed.
There's
and
some
of
these
are
going
to
come
up
in.
There
are
later
recommendations,
discussion
about
vouchers,
acceptance
versus
setting
aside
units
a
potential
second
round
again
ahex
role
in
the
process
and
also
a
discussion
about
where
are
there?
D
D
D
They
really
want
to
spend
more
time
on
it
later
in
2023
and
really
kind
of
dig
into
it
and
make
further
recommendations
to
make
it
better.
They
felt
like
there
needed
to
be
more.
We
do
need
more
data,
I
think
we're
all.
On
the
same
page
of
that
there's
some
things.
We
need
some
more
data
around.
They
also
wanted
Community
input
around
Equitable,
Economic
Development,
and
things
like
that,
so
that
it's
not
just
them,
they
really
want
to.
D
You
know
work
with
the
public
or
in
their
Partners
to
get
some
other
points
of
view
in
there
and
I
think
there
was
a
widespread
recognition
that
the
level
of
subsidy
needed
for
affordable
housing
is
substantial,
and
so,
if
we're
looking
to
serve
lower
area,
median
income,
folks
or
permanent
affordability,
that
takes
a
higher
subsidy
next.
D
Basically,
they
they
supported
the
text.
Amendments
to
the
policy
they
were
advocating
for
the
highest
subsidy
kept
feasible,
meaning
going
beyond
the
10
is
currently
written.
They
also
recommended
some
changes
to
the
scoring
rubric
rubric.
With
these
following
positions.
Provisions
excuse
me
removing
the
per
unit
subsidy.
It's
still
included
as
a
point
of
information
change.
The
bonus
points
for
housing,
Choice
vouchers
to
set
it
for
setting
aside
units.
D
You
get
the
bonus
points
and
they
committed
as
committee
to
do
this
comprehensive
review
of
the
scoring
rubric
to
discuss
more
robust
changes
and
remove
ultimately
added
remove
the
number
of
bedrooms
from
the
scoring
Matrix,
but
like
the
per
unit
subsidy.
Have
it
as
a
point
of
information
and
I
will
say
that
we
made
all
of
these
changes
in
our
recommendations,
so
they're
reflected
in
what's
before
you
today.
D
Next
So
to
that.
To
that
point,
here's
the
scoring
criteria,
we
just
cut
and
pasted
the
pieces
that
were
changing,
we're
leaving
everything
else.
The
same
the
number
of
bedrooms
is
is
one
of
those
things
where
we
really
need
some
more
data.
I
think
it's
still.
One
bedrooms
are
still
a
very
much
needed
thing
in
our
community.
It's
not
going
away.
Someone
at
the
meeting
said
that
they
from
their
experience,
and
so
this
is
anecdotal.
One
bedrooms
and
three
bedrooms
are
the
hardest
to
find
that
two
bedrooms.
D
Folks,
looking
for
two
bedroom
units,
usually
don't
have
a
problem,
it's
the
ones
and
the
threes
again.
I
don't
have
hard
data
to
back
that
up
per
unit
subsidy
taking
that
out
and
then
the
bonus
points
for
setting
aside
units
for
housing,
Choice
vouchers.
D
D
So
this
is
just
a
summary
of
our
recommendation
hitting
all
of
those
points
of
the
you
know:
the
1
million
cap,
removing
the
1
million
cap,
removing
the
existing
subsidy
per
unit,
subsidy
cab,
things
I,
haven't
talked
about,
but
we're
kind
of
adding
back
in
or
not
back
in,
but
Rehabilitation
of,
single-family
homes
and
duplexes
could
be
an
allowable
use.
We
have
like
a
minimum
project
size
of
four
units-
it's
not
like
just
one
or
two,
but
you
really
have
to
be
doing
a
little
bit
more
substantial
work,
but
we
have
some
smaller.
D
You
know
non-profits
that
that
might
be
something
they
want
to
do:
income
averaging
again,
we
talked
about
pro
forma
requirements
and
then
the
scoring
rubric.
So
that's
that's.
D
So
in
the
future
we
are.
The
committee
has
expressed
an
interest
in
looking
at
these
other
pieces,
and
so
staff
is
working
this
into
our
work
plan
for
next
year,
looking
at
a
site,
Readiness
program
down
payment
assistance,
land
acquisition
and
I
think
in
previously
redlined
areas,
goals
for
reaching
lower
Amis
and
previously
redlined
areas.
Voucher,
set-asides,
even
though
we've
worked
part
part
of
that
into
the
scoring
requirements.
D
I
think
there's
still
that
question
out
there
about
requiring
those
set-asides,
and
so
we
would
like
to
make
those
future
policy
revisions
using
updated
data
such
as
an
updated
housing
needs
assessment,
also
stakeholder
engagement
and
public
input,
and
we
will
be
bringing
recommendations
back
to
this
committee
and
spring
and
summer
I
hate
to
say
the
word
spring,
but
late
spring
summer,
2023
next
Katie-
and
these
are
just
our
key
takeaways
again
I'm
not
going
to
reread
them.
D
B
B
I
can't
with
the
presentation
up
y'all
are
tiny
on
my
screen.
Are
you
all?
Okay,
a
couple
so
I
think
I
understood.
We
are
saying
that
the
this
is
about
the
100
Ami
versus
80.,
so
the
100
will
remain
with
the
homeowner
opportunity
and
because
the
HUD
allows
that.
But
the
80
is
a
state
statute
right
and
that's
right.
D
Yes,
and
no
so
and
I,
don't
know
if
Janice
wants
to
pipe
in
here,
but
basically
the
statutes,
referenced,
low
and
moderate
income,
and
if
we
use
the
HUD
definitions
of
low
and
moderate
income,
that's
60
and
80
Ami
I
feel
like
we
looked
at
all
the
major
cities
in
North
Carolina
and
they
all
use
that
80
standard
for
rental.
D
You
know
if
a
person
came
to
you
all
or
came
to
the
city
with
a
proposal
for
a
project
where
they
had
20
percent
of
their
units
at
50
Ami,
let's
say,
and
then
they
were
going
to
do
another
section
of
housing
from
80
to
100
or
80
to
120,
that's
still
doable.
The
minimum
is
just
we.
We
need
at
least
20
percent
at
80
or
below.
D
So
it's
just
it's
a
matter
of
like
I
think
the
discussion
was
like
well,
do
you
count
the
subsidy
for
those
other
units
80
to
120
a
year?
You
know
how
you
look
at
it.
You
think
I
feel
pretty
strongly
about
80
and
Below
myself.
Just.
B
C
Councilman
Leslie
and
correct
me
if
I'm
mistaken,
but
I
also
believe
that
part
of
the
reasoning
behind
removing
the
per
unit
subsidy
was
the
understanding
that,
in
order
to
get
lower,
Amis
necessarily
the
subsidy
would
be
higher.
So
the
thought
is,
while
we
would
prefer
lower
ones.
If
we're
going
to
suggest
80
and
60,
we
don't
want
to
inadvertently
preclude
the
development
of
lower
Amis.
So
that
was
the
reasoning
behind
removing
the
per
unit
subsidy
that
we
have
in
the
current
policy.
So
it's
kind
of
tied
in.
B
I
was
reading
the
draft
document
that
has
all
the
language
you
know
marked
out
and
added
and
I'm.
Looking
at
page
six,
the
loan
structure
we
can
kind
of
see
in
the
slides,
but
I'm
really
thankful
for
some
of
these
changes
about
second
lean
positions.
First,
mortgage
lender
and
all
these
other
sport
net
lending
Partners
I,
think
that
was
these
are
good
additions
so
that,
in
the
event
like
here's,
one
of
them
in
the
event
that
Asheville
Housing
Trust
Fund,
is
providing
the
most
subordinate
mortgage
funds.
B
Requests
for
additional
financing
in
the
event
of
unforeseen
costs
or
budgeted
cost
overruns
shall
be
first
requested
from
lenders
in
lower
lien,
Physicians
or
equity,
syndicators
and
I.
Think
that's
a
helpful
thing.
We've
run
into
this
a
couple
times
and
I,
don't
remember
where
I
saw
it
in
this
document,
but
also
the
idea
that,
if
we're
going
to
have
a
second
application
period,
if
it
if
a
applicant,
is
in
the
first
and
the
second
that
we
would
merge
their
applications
as
if
they
were
one
I
think
that's
also
helpful
great
work
on
this
staff.
B
I
mean
this
is
this
is
very
thorough
and
I
encourage
any
of
you
at
home.
Listening
if
you
want
more
detail
this
version
of
the
draft
with
changes
writing
the
document
is
really
helpful
to
follow
along
I.
Don't
have
any
more
questions
really
just
appreciations
I
do
Wonder.
Just
generally
speaking,
you
know,
we've
had
this
as
we've
been
bringing
these
issues
to
light,
we've
said:
well,
you
know
we're
doing
this
because
we
keep
allowing
exceptions
to
our
policy.
So
here
we
are
adopting
more
policies
to
help
address.
B
Some
of
that
do
we
need
to
consider
looking
at
like
a
process,
an
established
process.
If
you're
not
going
to
be
able
to
meet
these
terms,
what
you
then
do
or
anything,
are
we
just
going
to
take
that
as
we
are
like?
So
what
if
some
applicants
ask
for
things
outside
this,
we'll
just
weigh
it
live
in
a
meeting
I
mean:
do
we
want
to
establish
a
process?
Has
anyone
thought
about
that.
D
Foreign
additional
processes,
I
mean
I,
think
there
will
be
exceptions,
I
mean,
unfortunately,
that's
just
the
hard
part
of
being
in
government
and
we're
trying
to
capture
something
that
will
fit.
You
know
most,
but
there
will
be
some
exceptions.
I
think
I.
Think
that's.
Okay,.
B
F
B
A
great
Point,
yeah
and
I
think
that
makes
a
lot
of
sense,
and
it
reminds
me
too
I
wanted
to
make
sure
to
thank
Kevin
because
we've
also
added
this
perform
a
requirement.
So
for
those
of
you
listening
at
home,
we'll
get
these
applications,
but
we
won't
have
the
whole
broad
picture
of
the
financing
for
the
project
available
to
us
all
the
time
sometimes
as
volunteer,
but
that
we're
adding
that
requirement
sort
of
apply
for
this.
You
will
submit
your
performa
and
I
think
that's
partly
because
Kevin
has
joined
us
and
has
that
expertise.
B
So
thank
you,
Kevin.
That's
all
the
questions
or
comments
for
me
on
this
item,
anything
else
from
councilwoman.
B
E
D
B
Right,
councilwoman,
Leslie,
aye,
myself,
I,
wonderful,
thank
you,
everyone
for
all
of
your
efforts
on
this.
That
feels
great
and
for
those
of
you
listening
at
home,
we're
now
moving
on
to
item
number
two.
Let's
see
if
I
still
have
it
up.
Yes,
oh
I'm,
sorry
I,
already,
remember
three
strategic
partnership,
funding,
status,
update
and
I.
Think
Rachel
Taylor
is
with
us
to
discuss
that
with
us.
Thank
you.
Go
ahead.
A
All
right
so
I'm
here
to
provide
an
update
on
the
pilot,
the
launch
of
the
pilot
SPF
program
and
some
lessons
learned
and
next
steps.
So
next
slide
please.
A
So
the
three
things
we
want
to
do
today
are
to
reaffirm
the
scope.
So
the
revised
focus
of
the
Strategic
partnership
grant
program
is
to
eliminate
the
opportunity
Gap
in
Asheville
for
those
moderate
income.
School-Aged
youth
will
also
provide
a
status
update
on
the
pilot,
so
the
grant
program
relaunched
with
a
pilot
in
the
summer
of
2022
after
about
a
three
year
pause.
A
This
relaunch
resulted
in
several
key
revisions,
including
a
refined
Grant
programmed
scope,
as
described
above
the
establishment
of
a
twenty
thousand
dollar
award
minimum
a
streamlined
application
process
and
the
inclusion
of
the
Nashville
city
schools
representative.
On
the
evaluation
panel,
then
July
of
22
city
council
awarded
nine
pilot
grants
to
nonprofit
organizations,
totaling
375,
000
and
500
dollars,
and
then
finally,
we'll
talk
through
next
steps
for
this
program.
A
We
want
to
continue
to
operate
the
grant
cycle
while
implementing
improvements
we'll
also
this
is
moving
to
a
new
committee,
so
we'll
present
updates
to
the
equity
and
engagement
committee.
Starting
in
January-
and
we
also
want
to
launch
the
next
application
period
in
February
of
23.
next
slide.
A
So
now,
I'll
give
a
little
bit
of
a
background
of
the
program.
Next
slide,
please
so
historically,
the
Strategic
partnership
program
has
lacked
a
dedicated
organizational
and
operational
framework,
and
this
has
caused
some
constrained
program,
management
and
operations
that
you
know
kind
of
partially
led
to
that
pause.
It
has
also
impacted
relationships
with
non-profits
in
our
community,
due
to
Prior
experience
with
the
program
and
some
inefficiencies.
A
So
when
the
program
relaunched
in
22,
it
started
with
a
fund
balance
of
711
000.
It
had
because
it
hadn't
been
dispersed
in
several
years
that
violence
was
allowed
to
to
grow.
A
So,
as
I
mentioned
in
July,
Council
awarded
nine
Awards
and
the
remaining
total
fund,
assuming
that
all
of
those
awards
are
disbursed,
this
year
will
be
335,
000
and
500
dollars,
and
so
we
anticipate
it
has
received
an
annual
budget
allocation,
assuming
that
it
continues
that
annual
allocation
is
242
000..
So
our
anticipated
program
balance
for
fiscal
year
2324
is
just
under
six
hundred
thousand
dollars.
So
that
gives
us
a
little
bit
more
flexibility
as
far
as
the
awards
that
we
want
to
offer.
A
We
also
want
to
continue
to
look
into
multi-year
Awards,
so
we'll
talk
through
some
of
that
in
a
little
bit,
but
I
just
wanted
to
highlight
that
this
program
has
has
got
a
little
bit
more
wiggle
room
so
to
speak
than
it
has
in
the
past,
so
excellent.
A
So
here's
a
list
of
the
organizations
that
were
awarded
you
can
see
their
requested
amounts
and
their
award
amounts,
and
so
we'll
talk
about
this
a
little
bit
later,
but
the
median
award
amount
was
36
000
and
the
median
requested
amount
was
50
000.
So
we'll
talk
through
some
of
that
in
in
our
pilot
table
thanks
the
goal
of
the
pilot
program
for
threefold
first
to
reduce
the
burden
on
organizations
during
and
after
the
application
process.
A
We
also
wanted
to
issue
grants
into
the
community
after
that
three-year
cause,
and
we
also
wanted
to
provide
funding
at
amounts
to
allow
organizations
to
positively
impact
their
target.
Service
Groups
there's
some
key
revisions
that
occurred
with
that
pilot
program
were
that
the
program
scope
was
refined
and
confirmed,
and
those
projects
funded
activities
to
close
the
opportunity
gap
for
school-age
children
in
Asheville
I
mentioned
the
award
minimum
that
was
established
and
then
also
expanding.
The
evaluation
panel
to
include
subject
matter
experts.
A
Another
few
items
that
happened
were
that
the
online
the
application
process
was
able
to
be
conducted
online
and
staff
also
held
an
information
session
for
applicants.
This
was
not
required,
however.
It
was
recorded
and
posted
online
and
staff
also
compiled
a
frequently
asked
questions
document,
which
was
also
posted
online
and
then,
finally,
through
the
agreement
process,
the
pilot
introduced
grantee
informed
reporting
requirements
to
reduce
administrative
burdens
side
so
for
the
eligibility
criteria
and
the
pilot
applicants
must
have
been
a
certified
nonprofit
organizations.
A
A
Next
slide
so
now,
I
want
to
kind
of
talk
through
some
of
the
legal
framework
and
context
and
how
that
relates
to
the
skill
next
slide.
So
this
grant
program
is
governed
by
the
Community
Development
statute.
A
This
allows
municipalities
to
disperse
funds
to
support
Community
Development
activities
that
serve
a
public
purpose,
that
the
city
would
otherwise
be
able
to
provide
and
that
the
person
served
are
of
low
to
moderate
income
and
in
section
A2
it
highlights
the
different
types
of
activities
that
can
be
funded
so
really
focusing
on
programs
concerned
with
employment,
Economic,
Development,
crime,
prevention,
Child,
Care,
Health,
drug
abuse,
education,
welfare
needs
of
persons
of
low
and
moderate
income.
So,
as
I
mentioned,
this
really
informs
the
parameters
of
the
grant
program
and
the
scope.
A
So
as
we
continue
our
recommendations
and
our
revisions
of
this
program
that
these
are
our
parameters
that
we'll
work
within
okay,
so
I
thought
I'd
like
the
committee's
affirmation
on
the
scope
it's
fairly
similar.
But
it
says
that
the
revised
Pro
focus
of
the
Strategic
partnership
grant
program
is
to
eliminate
the
opportunity
Gap
in
Asheville
for
children
and
students,
agents
K
through
12
of
low
and
moderate
incomes,
and
this
Focus
area
is
in
alignment
with
Asheville
City
council's
priorities
of
an
equitable
and
diverse
community
and
a
thriving
local
economy.
A
A
Deaf
also
solicited
feedback
from
the
evaluation
panel
and
support
staff
across
the
different
departments
and
a
couple
of
key
thing
themes
that
came
forward
were
that
the
application
period
was
short,
and
that
was
challenging
for
both
applicants
and
staff
that
there
could
be
an
opportunity
to
clarify
the
evaluation
process
and
include
more
subject
matter.
Experts
and
also
the
award
minimum
was
helpful,
but
feedback
suggested
that
the
minimum
amount
award
amount
could
increase
next
slide.
A
So
that
application
period
was
20
days,
as
I
mentioned
earlier,
staff
hold
one
information
session
that
was
reported
and
created
a
frequently
asked
questions
document,
both
of
which
were
posted
online
and
also
staff
held
one
presentation
session
in
which
applicants
had
the
opportunity
to
present
to
both
this
committee
and
the
evaluation
panel.
A
The
program
received
31
applications
of
which
nine
were
awarded.
The
total
requested
amount
for
these
funds
were
just
under
2
million
dollars,
and
the
awarded
amount
was
375
000
and
500.
and,
as
I
briefly
mentioned
earlier,
the
median
requested
amount
was
50
000
and
the
median
awarded
amount
was
36
000.
A
And
so
today,
of
the
nine
Grants
awarded,
we
have
seven
fully
executed
agreements,
so
that
has
to
happen
before
we
were
able
to
disburse
funds
we're
soon
to
have
eight
and
of
the
nine
we've
got
nine
recipients
who
have
received
at
least
one
initial
payment
soon
to
have
six
and
the
awards
disbursed
today
are
just
under
seventy
thousand,
and
the
amount
of
scheduled
payments
remaining
are
just
under
170
000.
So,
together
the
percentage
of
payments
dispersed
in
regular
payments
is
63
percent.
A
So
we
do
have
some
some
work
to
do
to
get
folks
back
on
schedule,
but
for
the
most
part,
we're
we're
on
track
with
that
next
day.
A
So
here's
where
we
really
saw
a
lot
of
some
need
for
improvement,
so
I
want
to
talk
through
some
of
the
steps,
try
not
to
get
too
bogged
down,
but
there's
some
room
for
improvement
in
the
next
Grant
cycle.
A
So,
the
time
from
the
receipt
of
Grant
application
to
award
notification,
we
sent
a
notification
to
all
applicants
of
their
status
just
after
Council
voted
on
the
awards,
so
that
was
15
to
35
days,
depending
on
when
the
application
was
submitted
and
the
median
days
for
an
agreement
to
be
fully
executed
was
91..
A
You
definitely
have
some
opportunities
to
shorten
that
time
frame.
However,
the
median
days
from
notification
to
First
disbursement
were
only
98,
so
that's
showing
us
that
the
bulk
of
that
time
that's
really
happening
and
that
agreement
execution
and
development
phase,
but
we're
able
to
move
quickly
once
that's
totally
done.
A
So
the
steps
required
to
disperse
an
award
payment
are
20
to
25.
it's
a
little
loose,
because
sometimes
the
steps
can
be
combined
and
of
those
steps.
Roughly
10
steps
or
documents
are
required
for
your
recipients.
One
of
our
recommendations
is
to
only
ask
for
some
of
that
key
information
one
time
and
really
improve
the
application
process
to
be
able
to
directly
translate
information
from
the
application
into
the
agreement
development.
A
So
that
way,
those
steps
can
be
dramatically
reduced
and
the
timelines
disbursement
company
that
you
still
the
median
days
to
complete
the
steps
and
or
receive
the
completed
required
documents
for
60
days
and
the
median
number
of
interactions
with
each
grantee
were
30s.
That's
called
emails
meetings
so
moving
forward.
We
really
want
to
focus
on
streamlining
how
we
ask
for
information
and
how
we
translate
that
information
into
the
steps
that
we
require
as
a
city
and
also
improving
the
quality
of
interactions
with
not
only
grantees
but
applicants
as
well
website.
A
So
our
long-term
recommendations-
sorry
next
slide-
are
to
lengthen
the
application
period
to
two
to
three
months.
So,
with
a
longer
application
period,
we
can
have
more
communication,
materials
and
really
front
load,
a
lot
of
the
questions
and
things
that
kind
of
slow
down
the
process.
On
the
back
end,
we
can
work
on
that
on
the
front
end
with
a
longer
application
period.
We
also
want
to
improve
communication
and
information
sharing
throughout
the
grant
cycle.
I
mentioned.
A
We
definitely
want
to
front
load
some
of
that
information,
but
we
want
to
continue
those
touch
points
throughout
the
entire
life
of
the
grant.
We
want
to
streamline
the
application
process.
We
can
refine
the
activity
categories
and
the
evaluation
process
they
mentioned
really
planning
in
on
asking
for
that
basic
information
on
time
across
all
steps
and
then
funding
fully
funding
Awards
instead
of
partial
funding,
partial
funding
has
led
to
a
little
bit
of
back
and
forth.
A
It
also
is
difficult
for
applicants
to
kind
of
account
for,
and
so
it
not
only
slowed
down
the
process,
but
also
led
to
a
little
bit
of
some
pain
points
around
okay
where's.
This
other
fund
they're
going
to
come
from,
and
so
we
also
want
to
develop
long-term
program
improvements
to
create
a
positive
and
lasting
impact.
A
This
pilot
program
was
extremely
helpful
because
we
were
able
to
gather
that
cycle
time,
data
of
how
long
we're
able
to
or
how
quickly
we're
able
to
return
a
specific
document.
We
want
to
continue
to
implement
that
Baseline
monitoring
of
grantee
activities
and
performance
evaluation.
I
mentioned
the
the
pilot
program
used
a
grantee
informed
reporting
requirements.
We
haven't
gotten
enough
of
those
back
yet
to
to
really
make
a
recommendation
on
those.
So
we
want
to
continue
to
collect
that
information
and
see
how
that
can
be
refined
in
the
future.
A
We
also
want
to
assess
the
options
to
reallocate
Awards
and
the
event
and
agreement
is
not
fully
executed
or
is
canceled.
This
is
I,
think
a
key
step
into
in
considering
the
options
to
award
multi-year
Advanced.
So
if,
for
whatever
reason,
an
award
doesn't
get
to
full
a
fully
executed
agreement
or
if
an
agreement
has
to
be
canceled
for
whatever
reason
we
want
to
make
sure
we've
got
steps
to
be
able
to
move
quickly
and
to
get
that
money
back
into
the
community
with
another
organization.
Okay,
excellent.
A
So
our
steps
for
this
grant
process
moving
forward
are
to
we're
working
on
updating
materials
and
developing
additional
communication
materials
in
January.
We
will
provide
an
update
and
the
introduction
to
the
newly
formed
equity
and
engagement
committee,
and
so
then
January
through
March.
We
will
have
the
evaluation
and
application
period
open
and
then
February
through
March
on
the
back
end,
staff
will
do
some
pre-work
to
really
update
those
draft
agreements
and
streamline
those
processes
as
well.
A
The
March
and
April
will
present
award
recommendations
to
the
new
committee
for
a
vote
of
approval.
We
anticipate
in
April
presenting
those
recommendations
to
city
council
for
a
vote
and
confirming
the
awards
so
April
and
May
again
really
hoping
to
streamline
that
time
frame
and
finalize
the
agreements
and
encumber
funds
and
anticipate
disbursing
funds
in
June
of
2024..
Sorry.
A
I
just
feel
like
that,
and
so
not
in
June
of
2024.
She
ended
up
23
next
year.
There
will
be
no
pause
on
granite
funding,
we'll
be
able
to
disburse
payments
to
recipients
before
fully
execute
agreements
and
they'll
be
able
to
submit
their
initial
invoices
and
I
think.
That's
it
all
right.
Katie
next
slide.
A
So
again,
here
are
the
key
takeaways
highlighting
some
reforms
that
the
grant
program
implemented.
The
pilot,
reaffirming
the
scope
and
with
that
I'll,
take
two
questions.
B
Thank
you
Rachel
appreciate
that
extensive
update
and
summary
councilwoman
any
questions
comments
for
Rachel
from.
E
A
So
from
from
the
survey
applicants
indicated,
respondents
indicated
that
they
would
like
to
see
more
subject
matter,
experts
that
are
familiar
with
something
like
squishier
topics,
so
some
of
that
social,
emotional
understanding
that
eligibility
categories
were
extremely
Broad
and
so
I
think
that
led
to
a
wide
array
of
types
of
applications
that
we
saw,
the
applications
that
tended
to
score
higher
and
that
were
ultimately
awarded
really
centered
on
education
and
and
kind
of
elements
that
it's
natural
that
we
can
kind
of
clearly
see
things
like
parades
things
like
that.
A
So
having
additional
subject
matter,
experts
that
can
help
us
really
refine
and
understand
those
elements
that
aren't
as
kind
of
numbers
oriented.
A
B
Great
well,
it
sounds
like
you
got
the
feedback
you
need
and
and
great
thank
you
for
being
with
us
today,
all
right.
Well.
That
concludes
item
number
three.
On
our
agenda.
Leaving
only
item
number
four
public
comment:
we
did
receive
one
email
ahead
related
to
the
HTF.
Thank
you,
Greg
Borum,
for
constantly
reminding
us
that
we
need
family
size
units
and
do
we
have
anybody
on
the
line
Katie?
No,
we
do
not!
Okay,
wonderful!