►
From YouTube: Affordable Housing Committee Meeting (April 26, 2022)
Description
Meeting of the Affordable Housing Committee on April 26, 2022.
A
To
follow
up
on
our
discussions,
our
last
meeting
around
initial
recommendations
for
the
public
services
program
fund
funds
that
will
be
recommended
to
the
county
commission
so
made
a
lot
of
progress
at
the
last
meeting,
and
there
were
a
couple
of
outstanding
decisions
that
we
we
didn't
quite
get
across
the
finish
line.
So
we
wanted
to
try
to
do
that
this
morning.
B
Sure-
and
this
presentation
will
be
brief-
to
leave
as
much
time
as
we
can
for
discussion
again.
The
summary
of
the
funding
available
from
general
fund
transfer
some
allocations
that
exist
for
the
laura
wood
project,
unallocated
funds,
as
well
as
an
alligator
program
income
through
march
31st
of
this
year.
That's
kind
of
the
cutoff
date
that
we're
using
though
some
additional
program
income
will
come
in
later
in
the
year
leaves
three
million
eight
hundred
and
eighty
three
thousand
six
hundred
and
forty
one
dollars
to
budget
towards
the
requests.
C
B
And
these
were
the
funding
amounts
that
had
been
kind
of
attentively
put
in
place
across
the
categories.
Since
that
time,
there
were
some
questions
that
were
asked
of
various
applicants.
We
received
those
and
forwarded
those
on
to
you,
as
well
as
looked
at
unit
impacts
and
and
revisited
with
both
asheville
area,
habitat
for
humanity
and
mho
on
their
emergency
repair
programs.
B
A
Okay,
thanks
matt,
so
we,
I
think
that
you
know
one
of
the
main
items
we
wanted
to
spend
some
more
time
on.
Were
the
three
emergency
hand,
repair
programs
that
were
proposed
and
one
of
them
has
an
arpa
application
in
so
there's
another
opportunity
to
look
at
that
program
through
that
pool
of
funds,
two
of
them
don't
with
habitat
and
not
housing.
A
It
didn't
didn't
give
us
recommendations,
didn't
tell
us
like
we
should
do
this
one,
so
we
still
have
to
wrestle
with
so
you
know
I
kind
of
lean
towards
like
doing
like
a
50
50
or
something
something
closer
to
that.
That's
kind
of
that's
kind
of
where
I
came
down.
You
know
the
it
looked
like
the
the
number
of
units
that
would
a
number
of
households
would
be
called.
There
are
some
differences,
but
they're
pretty
close.
A
A
D
Leaning
forward
alternative
three,
which
is
the
two
hundred
thousand
two
habitat
and
three
hundred
mho,
just
because
it
does
allow
us
to
have
the
greatest
household
impact
in
terms
of
numbers
of
units.
That's
92
versus
the
others,
and
I
mean
they're
close
in
terms
of
the
other
alternatives.
But
I'd
rather
go
all
in
and
reach
as
many
as
possible.
C
Okay,
I'm
on
my
phone
yeah.
The
audio
is
on
my
phone,
so
I'm
not
seeing
an
alternative
three,
but
I
guess
to
answer
your
questions
I
I
guess
I
hope
we
would
do
as
close
to
what
we
did
last
year
for
consistency
purposes
which
I
think
was
kind
of
divvy
the
money
up
between
the
two
based
on
the
quantity
of
units.
D
B
B
Mho's
request
would
result
in
66
units
being
impacted
in
alternative
four,
which
fully
supports
habitats
requests
would
result
in
81
units
being
impacted,
but
a
very
small
allocation
to
mhl.
Again,
the
programs
are
different.
The
populations
that
they
serve
are
different
and
their
merits
certainly
both
but
wanted
to
make
sure
that
we
kind
of
looked
at
maximizing
across
the
perspective.
B
A
Ask
this,
though,
but
in
terms
of
the
two
youtube
programs
I
mean,
I
agree
in
a
way
it's
kind
of
like.
Obviously,
we
want
to
help
so
many
households,
it's
possible
right,
but
does
the
mha
program
provide
a
bit
more
assistance
per
household?
So
in
a
way
it's
like
maybe
they're,
touching
less
units,
but
there's
actually
a
bit
more
improvements
being
done
and
that
should
be
kind
of
factored
into
the
thinking
too.
B
Right
and
so
their
request,
habitats
model
is
looking
at
six
thousand
one
hundred
dollars
on
average
per
unit.
Mhos
is
gonna.
Let
me
just
verify
it.
Looking
at
the
numbers
before
I
confirm,
I
think
it's
right
around
nine
thousand
and
a
portion
of
that
about
four
percent
is
admin,
but
let
me
just
verify
the
amount.
B
Yeah,
so
it's
9090
and
I
think
it's
point
four
five
eight
so
around
400
of
that
is
for
admin,
so
it's
per
unit
investment
is
larger.
However,
habitat
puts
additional
funding
in
with
theirs,
so
we're
not
paying
for
the
full
repair.
So
it's
just
kind
of
a
different
different
model.
In
each
case,
different
population
served
both
have
certainly
have
merits,
but
in
in
I
have
the
goal
of
unit
servicing.
B
B
A
B
A
That,
like
you,
know,
there's
some
support
for
one
and
some
support
for
the
two
or
like
in
the
updated.
It
would
be
two
right
like
kind
of
relative
to
the
request
I
mean
also.
We
could
also
just
kind
of
do
kind
of
do
something
in
between
those
two
right,
so
it
would
be
a
somewhat
larger
allocation
to
the
habitat
proposal,
but
kind
of
you
know
kind
of
somewhere
in
between
the
one
and
two
scenario
and
I'm
open
to
any
of
those
yeah.
C
A
All
right,
so
I
I
I
guess
I
would
like
to
suggest
we,
we
sort
of
do
something
in
between
the
two
scenarios,
since
they're
sort
of
you
know
support
for
one
and
two
like.
If
we're
going
to
try
to
come
up
with
a
recommendation
that
we
could
take
to
the
commission,
would
people
be
open
to
like
option?
One
is
basically
250
each.
A
B
We
can
go
with
a
round
number.
We
can
give
you
a
number
that's
closer
to
the
kind
of
the
unit
deliverable
because
that's
how
they
they
operate
in
the
habitat
model,
let's
just
see
because
at
275
you're
going
to
get
roughly
45
units-
that's
just
50
more
than
if
it
was
61
10
times.
So
I
think
that
that's
a
fair,
it's
an
easy
and
round
number
to
use.
A
A
A
There
is
one
program
proposed
on
here:
that's
to
promote
more
utilization
of
vouchers
from
the
housing
authority.
We
also
have
like
a
kind
of
a
big
kind
of
a
big
proposal
related
to
vouchers
that
was
submitted
through
market
funding.
Honestly,
I
have
not
had
a
chance
to
read
it
yet
I've
heard
about
it.
I've
talked
to
some
people
about
it,
but
I
haven't
actually
read
it.
A
We
have
like
100
to
look
at
the,
so
I
guess
I
would
say
in
a
way
I
kind
of
like
the
idea
of
having
a
little
bit
of
unallocated
funds,
because
I'd
like
to
I'd
like
to
study
that
larger
voucher
program
and
then
be
able
to
look
at
this.
We
can
still
look
at
this
project.
More
kind
of
understand
what
everyone's
proposing
in
this
space
and
if
we
end
up
coming
back
and
saying
hey,
this
is
a
really
good
proposal.
C
Yeah,
I'm
really
sympathetic
to
your
point
about
quantity
of
arc
applications
we
have
and
the
other
kind
of
housing
related
requests
and
kind
of
wait.
You
know
kind
of
waiting
to
to
end
the
difference
here
but
yeah.
I
guess
I
like
the
idea
of
stopping
so
to
speak,
where
we're
at
there's
other
great
things
on
here
that
I'd
love
to
fund
now,
but
there's
some
yeah
there's
some
overlap
with
arfa.
B
And
procedurally,
what
we
would
likely
do,
kind
of
from
a
budgetary
perspective
is
not
move
the
additional
program
income
so
that
way,
you're
preserving
your
general
fund,
transfer
the
unallocated
and
will
move
a
portion
of
the
program
income
necessary.
So
it's
going
to
leave
that
83
000
in
program
income
there
we
do
anticipate
based
on
scheduled
payments
from
program
income,
another
45
000.
So
by
july,
1
around
120
000
in
program
income
would
be
available
to
repurpose
or
allocate.
B
You
know
at
the
discretion
of
the
committee,
recommending
to
the
board
to
do
so.
So,
procedurally
that
way,
you're
preserving
the
general
fund,
transfer
requests
at
the
same
level
and
not
leaving
unallocated
program
income
in
that
category.
We
can
just
leave
it
sitting
in
program
income
to
be
reallocated.
If
that
is
amenable
to
the
committee.
A
Parker's,
how
do
you
vote
hi
and
amanda?
Have
you
been
hi
hi
I'll
synthetic
all
right,
so
these
recommendations
will
go
on
to
the
county
commission
and,
if
they're
approved,
these
would
all
be
funds
that
become
available
in
the
new
fiscal
year
right,
but
it
would
provide
some
guidance
to
the
different
organizations
about
the
funds
that
the
county's
planning
to
apply
to
these
projects
all
right.
B
We
actually
travels
through
the
budget
process,
so
this
will
be
one
of
the
attachments
to
the
full
budget.
You
know
the
listing
of
projects
we'll
be
sharing
that
with
the
budget
staff
after
this
meeting,
so
that
they
have
that,
and
it
will
be
part
of
the
overall
budget
consideration
for
general
fund
transfer,
request.
A
On
the
county,
commission
is
like
these
guys
got
this
all
wrong,
and
I've
got
some
different
ideas
like
basically,
it
would
just
be
better
as
part
of
the
budget
unless
some,
unless
somebody
on
the
commission
feels
like
they
want
to
spend
some
more
time
talking
about
it
or
if
any
of
us
change
our
mind.
So
don't
do
that.
B
A
Agreed
and
many
of
them
do
have
our
proposals
in
front
of
them.
So
it's
really
just
sort
of
this
part
of
the
work
is
done
and
now
we're
going
to
continue
to
look
at
these
others.
What
is
on
our
agenda?
We
did.
We
have
a
meeting
scheduled
for
next
for
may
3rd.
I
have
it
on
my
calendar,
but
I
wasn't
sure.
B
So
a
staff
was
going
to
recommend,
given
the
rapid
number
of
meetings
we've
had
and
the
lack
of
time
in
between
this
and
next
to
prepare
additional
materials
that
we
not
hold
a
may
meeting.
You
all
have
been
through
many
many
meetings
and
we
appreciate
that,
but
then
meeting
again
at
the
regular
schedule,
beginning
in
june,
if
that
is
all
right
with
the
commission.
A
You
know
I
so
appreciate
that,
but
here's
why
I
think
we
may
need
to
possibly
have
a
mate
turkey.
So
so
you
know,
the
arpa
process
is
really
just
starting
for
phase
two
I've
got
just
last
week.
We
got
the
portal
open
to
look
at
this
100
or
so
projects,
and
you
know
most
of
those
are
going
to
be
deliberated
over
a
period
of
at
least
several
months,
most
likely
and
as
we
did
in
the
first
round.
A
So
we
have
a
couple
of
different,
affordable
housing
projects
that
are
kind
of
in
a
similar
situation,
mostly
due
to
tax
credit
related
time
for
deadlines
for
applications,
and
so
some
of
those
projects
are
being
looked
at.
We've
talked
about
this
before,
but,
and
I
think
that
the
you
know
from
the
conversations
with
other
commissioners,
I
think
you
know
we're.
I
mean
these
are
all
decisions
that
the
commission
needs
to
make,
but
where
possible,
I
think
they
would
like
for
the
for
our
subcommittee
to
make
recommendations
or
share
any
feedback.
A
We
have
on
these
proposals
since
we're
spending
a
lot
more
time
digging
into
these
projects,
the
budgets
for
the
projects
and
things
like
that.
So
it's
you
know
it's.
I
think
they've
expressed
it's
very
hard
to
weigh
in
on
specific
funding
recommendations
unless
you're,
you
know,
if
you're
not
very
familiar
with
the
project.
So
for
that
reason
I
would
suggest
we
do
have.
A
A
C
A
B
A
A
And
you
know-
and
I
can
see
how
they're
they're
I
mean
we'll
just
have
to
kind
of
see
how
the
time
frame
on
the
other
kind
of
less
time-sensitive
arpa
applications
go.
It
may
be
that
that
meeting
on
june
3rd
would
be
a
meeting
where
we
could
deliberate
further
about,
like
the
you
know,
the
other
projects
that
are
there
to
make
recommendations
to
the
commission.
If
the
commission
wanted
some
recommendations
sooner,
we
probably
would
have
to
call
a
special
meeting
to
address
it
sooner,
but
all
right.
A
So
the
you
know
the
only
other
thing
I
would
just
kind
of
add-
and
this
is
just
sort
of
for
discussion
purposes-
about
the
that
may
third
meeting.
So
one
of
the
proposals
that
came
in
that
was
that
we
talked
about
at
several
meetings,
the
idea
of
and
which
there
was
a
proposal
submitted
for
in
the
first
round
of
arpa
funding
was
the
potential
use
of
our
funding
for
land
acquisition
or
land
costs
related
to
affordable
housing
projects.
A
A
A
Had
okay
all
right?
Well,
I
appreciate
all
the
work
the
staff
put
into
this
and,
as
amanda
said,
to
all
the
groups
that
put
forward
a
great
proposal
and
always
difficult
decisions,
but
there's
a
lot
of
great
work
being
done
here
and
we're
glad
to
do
what
we
can
to
support
it.
So
I
think
we
have
completed
everything
we
need
to
do
so.
This
meeting
can
be
adjourned
and
we
have
we're
starting
a
special
budget
work
session
at
11
o'clock.
So
we
do
have.