Springfield City Council — September 12, 2022

0:04 i'm going to call this springfield city council work session to order with roll call mayor van gorden here councillor pitts here councillor moe here councillor rodley here councillor stare here councilor woodrow and council pictionary pierre thank you and councilor woodrow is excused for the evening we have three items this evening the first one is city council training with mary bridget smith uh good evening mayor and council i'm here this evening um to do a annual city council training does that sound is that loud it feels loud to me all right okay we do have a powerpoint that aj and neil are going to help me with

0:49 and i'm just going to put my timer on here because i know you have a couple other items tonight so my goal is just to talk for 20 minutes and then uh if feel free to ask questions um but i am mindful of timing um before i get going on the next slide i do want to do a little bit of housekeeping so um in the written materials and tonight i referenced some city administrative regulations i did not include those in your packet i'll send those separately it was just kind of getting to be a tonnage thing after a while and so many attachments i didn't want to include them and i'll also be sending some additional information on the new mandatory reporter requirement

1:34 and then i do plan to train the new counselors on public official ethics and meetings and records once they're in office and that the three of us can just do it at some point so um just so you know we'll be doing that and then i'll also be sending you an invitation for a webinar on harassment and discrimination similar to the one that you have took last year it'll be through cis and there'll be instructions there if there's any mix up there just let me know and we'll get that done it's not the same training but it's related topic um so trying to mix it up a little bit this year with the different training i watched it a little while ago and it's pretty good it's from an attorney at cis who kind of goes through what people should be thinking about with discrimination and

2:20 harassment um also just wanted to say thank you to council leadership and to councillor rodley for helping me kind of think about this presentation today you know we're really looking at changing council training a little bit trying to rework it as part of our enterprise risk management program and think about it in a way that hopefully makes you more aware of what the resources are out there and to talk about additional topics that maybe we hadn't done previously so this first slide just frames up the conversation in terms of why we come to the counselor regularly to train you on topics so obviously we always want a high functioning council to prevent liability and to stay up to date on laws and rules and changes

3:06 so just to frame a conversation there and then looking at the next slide the topics we're going to talk about tonight are a little bit different than what we typically do um they are new mandatory reporter requirement that's for child abuse reporting information security which is another way to say cyber security a reminder about political activities and then workplace discrimination and harassment and that should say retaliation instead of discrimination typo on our part there um public official ethics public meetings public records all still there also issues but no significant changes in this last legislative session in your packet there are some highlights there that have been updated um but you're you

3:54 know in a more experienced counselor you've had that training before if you have questions you can always call us but no significant changes here in those areas i think one kind of thread though in these areas which is interesting is thinking about all the different ways that counselors interface with the organization whether it's staff or the community or just the city itself it's often different than how staff does and so i think some of these areas sort of tease that out in a way and i think just thinking about i would imagine you've had the experience where you get treated much differently for people in your role as a counselor as a mayor than you do in other roles in your life and also you know your leaders of the organization

4:39 and policy makers yet you're not employees right we still have this volunteer status so it can feel i think kind of strange for you i would imagine and then also for staff in the community as they're trying to figure out kind of the best way to interact so something to think about as we talk about these topics so first topic is new whoa that's a lot of text on that slide okay it's not i test so i'll talk about this a little bit and there's more material in the written materials so last year in the legislative session the legislature changed the definition of a public official subject to mandatory reporting to be a mandatory reporter to include elected officials

5:25 now it may be that you already have this responsibility in other roles in your life because there's sort of a large group of people who already are mandatory reporters for example law enforcement some clergy some school employees i'm a mandatory reporter as part of my role as an attorney but that has to do with the responsibility to report to dhs if you're aware of a reasonable suspicion that a child that you've come in contact with has been abused i want to be clear that it's just a reporting requirement so really this is making the call you need to be the one to make the call you can't delegate that to someone else your responsibility that you hold um but from there they'll take it from there and someone from cps or law enforcement

6:11 will um further investigate to determine that no but joe's got his hand up oh okay just real quickly um in regards to mandatory report the what if is that information that you must personally personally observe or report reported to you what type of exposure where's that threshold at that's a good question my understanding is information that you have observed that you know but i'll confirm and then i can follow up okay because we're all of us are exposed to a lot of information provided by community members and and what to do with that is i think is an important part of our work yeah no

6:56 that's a great question and i think certainly um counselors and elected officials get lots of information from constituents right about information so i'll confirm my understanding is this information reasonable information that you have about abuse not something that someone's related to there are um oh i'm sorry go ahead yeah uh to follow up on what joe just asked um is it just going to be up to every counselor to decide what a reason well reasonable grounds are yes that is mean so if you consider it a credible report that's i think that's a good way to put it in the um training materials there's a guide from dhs and there's also what i'm going to send you is a a link to a video which is a 30 minute video that

7:42 does talk about you know a reasonable suspicion sort of what those things are and why that's important good thank you um something to think about the reporter statute the questions that come up are um you know could i get sued for making a report actually um the more legal liabilities if you don't make a report and you have credible information there is a potential of a monetary fine or being sued for damages for that for example if your question is could the family come back and sue me for making a report that was later found not to be true if you had reasonable grounds and you thought it was credible then no so that's sort of the flip there right it's it's you're you're more legally

8:29 liable if you don't act when you have information there are small insta cases where you may be a witness in a criminal matter or an administrative matter my understanding is that's a small amount of cases and your name should not be released unless subject to a court order any other questions about mandatory reporting okay i know that's new there'll be more to come um but you know i just think it's a reflection of how detrimental child abuse is through a family and an individual and our community and so really i think what the legislature was trying to do is widen the net for the people who might have exposure knowledge about child abuse oh i'm sorry yes so

9:14 in regards to mandatory report not familiar with the different areas of that for a long time and i don't i don't believe that applies to me anymore in all the areas so this is so the mandatory report for elected officials specifically deals with child abuse and not the other topics of mandatory report that's correct um counselor prisoner it's a good question for example as an attorney i think i also have a um for elderly abuse you know that same um mandatory reporter requirement this change was just the statute to the 419 b which deals with child abuse okay um next is information security so this is obviously a topic that's

9:59 getting more um notoriety and more attention i would say just sort of everywhere local governments are subject to cyber attacks so for example i think it was tillamot county had a cyber attack a ransomware attack a few years ago which was uh impactful to their uh county it's this is another interesting area to me right counselors aren't employees so you don't have like sort of access to our internal databases and other things but you do have an email address and you do have mobile devices and those are two areas that can be significant when it comes to information security so um just a note in here about phishing those are those emails where someone purportedly looks to have authority

10:45 should be asking you questions about your password or other information um and as elected officials counselors can be more susceptible to what they call it they call it spear phishing or more targeted attacks your information is just out there right because you're an elected official there's just more information out there so just be aware if you get an email that looks strange and the next slide actually has uh this is from rit department i reached out to them just to say hey what should the which the counselors be thinking about so these are just items here if a message looks weird it probably is don't even open it you can tell it about it or delete it um if you'll nev you should never get a

11:30 message from it asking you for your password um and then if you get a message from someone at the city it should always be from a city email address so it's really critical to check that from line it's always the springfield or gov mobile devices can be lost please let us know as soon as possible if that happens and there you use that mobile device to access your city email or city information and then that's it help desk that's their email address you can always contact the city manager's office or us but also feel free to contact them directly if you have questions or particularly if you see something that seems odd they'd like to know about it

12:15 okay political activities so we're coming into an election year and this is another area where i think the interface is interesting because as elected officials you know if you had a job description political activities would be like the main part of your job and so and staff um are outright prohibited from participating in political activities during working hours on city time and so this is something that has not been abused here at the city i don't want to give the impression that it is as a problem but when we do especially on years when we have ballot measures come forward it's always this sort of interesting tension between staff like can i do this can i not do this you know because everyone just wants to stay on the right side

13:01 of what the law says for political activities so staff always needs to provide impartial information impartial is defined you know i mean i put it up there you know what it is what dispassionate and we do ask the state to review our materials and to try and give us that safe harbor to make sure that that information is impartial let's not it's getting increasingly more difficult to do with the state has more have to do with the state than with us but something to think about in terms of if you are participating on a ballot measure staff can be with you to provide kind of answer those questions right those sort of subject matter expert questions but the political activities with the pac and the elected officials

13:47 so even things like i don't know like aj couldn't uh help you put together a letter to the editor that would go out on behalf of the council you know that kind of thing so we can always work through kind of the work around with you on that but just be mindful of that and that staff is always kind of worried about that i think um in terms of answering those requests and you know my sense is when you're in those areas where it's kind of like what do we do here it's best just to ask you know you just call nancy and say hey this is what's happening how do we do this you know or amber or somebody or neil who's working on it but that is one area where i think um how counselors interface with the community in the organization is a lot different than how staff does so any questions on political activities or

14:33 anything no nothing's changed there much it's the same same thing but there is a complaint process through the secretary of state um you know and it's something that the public is aware of and looks for last item that i wanted to discuss tonight is discrimination harassment and retaliation so we haven't we've brought this to the council i think over the years in some manner but i'd like to have a little more kind of concrete discussion so you're aware of what applies to you and what doesn't so the city does have a uh policy it's we our policies are called administrative regulations that

15:18 prohibits uh discrimination and harassment and then retaliation which is if you take some adverse employment action against somebody who brings forward a complaint of discrimination or harassment um and the purpose behind that policy is to respect the dignity of all individuals it is also required by state law there is an oregon workplace fairness act which has particular things that are required to have in your policy so when you look at that policy you'll be like this is interesting it has some things in here but it's really written to protect and think about people who are experiencing these items right maybe experiencing these actions of harassment or discrimination what do i do who do i talk to you know it talks about

16:05 how you can talk to boley those kinds of examples and i think it's just really that recognition of trying to talk to those folks who do have a complaint and what they should do so the city's employ policy does apply to employees obviously independent contractors volunteers and elected officials it's one of the few areas where elected officials are specifically called out so it's something that you should be aware of i think bottom line what i want you to know tonight is that we have this policy we take it seriously if people are aware of discrimination or harassment they're to bring it to the city and we would investigate it i think the other thing to think about with discrimination and harassment and

16:50 retaliation when you discuss these policies or these actions is they can feel really fraught you know it's always evolving it's always changing and i think it can make people feel uncomfortable and particularly another area where counselors i think need to be aware of a power differential you know their role as a leader in the community and as a city councilor people may view them differently when they're interacting so it's something to consider there i think the other thing to think about is this concept of a protected class so a protected class is a group of individuals or who identify as in a particular group or in a particular activity and are protected under the law so think

17:35 about your traditional protected classes you know that's religion disability background gender those kinds of things but each state also has expanded that definition over time and oregon has things that in its protected class that you may not necessarily see by just talking with somebody and those could be things obviously disability i think is a huge one there but even someone who has um filed a workers comp claim is technically in a protected class in oregon uh could be gender identity fluidity issue you know those kinds of things and so i think you know one way to kind of get around this idea of like oh boy is that person in a protected class it's just to assume that everyone you interact with has something that

18:21 could make them be considered into a protected class and it's not to make you paranoid but i think it's just to bring a little level of awareness to how we talk to folks and how we interact with each other and then that gets you past sort of that sort of issue about you know what should i be doing is just like you know i'm just going to have a greater awareness when i am interacting with city staff in the community about these issues and in a way that may be perceived as me being discriminatory or harassing does that make sense okay yeah what would um what would you consider the standard for presenting an allegation of discrimination or harassment to the human resources department i would say that most of the alex most of the

19:06 discrimination or harassment that we hear about is probably going to be varying degrees of credible and so at what point is it sort of incumbent on us through our due diligence to report it to hr to go to shame and say uh hey i've heard about this uh this incidence of discrimination or harassment in the city um should i mean if if there's a [Music] if there's a degree of uncertainty i mean if you're if you're in some doubt would the presumption be to report it just in case i think so okay there's no i guess this is a real lawyer answer it depends it's a reasonable

19:51 standard right it's not going to be sorry but it's not yeah no no you get to section five and you're good to go so i think it would depend on the type of information and you know you can always bring something i i guess i would err on the side of bringing something forward yeah you know i wasn't expecting you to have the definitive answer here i mean you know there's they're going to be different uh different standards for different people a policy that i will give you will give you some examples of the type of behavior so that may be a good guide to look at you know that talks about everything from uh particular jokes uh things in writing you know pervasive cut you know even physical conduct and that may be like a like oh yeah okay this is getting there and this kind of what i want to be clear that we're talking about here is our interaction as an organization with one another you know you may hear about in

20:38 your role as a counselor if there could be constituents says hey i think there's discrimination happening in springfield here this way could be another organization or something private you could still bring that forward to the city manager to address or to be aware of but what i'm talking about here is how we communicate and interact with one another got it okay so before we go to damien i i think i had a question about that in the policy it says go directly to human resources given how the hierarchy of this of the city works should we be go or should we if we saw something should we be going directly to that to the hr should we be coming back to either you or nancy with it i think in the case of the council you can come to me or nancy or hr and the the policy is written more from the direction right and even in there i think it would

21:24 say i think there might be something in there that lets them coach someone else if like hr's okay i think the point is you get it to someone high enough who's going to be able to move up forward perfect damian uh two questions first of all so you know a lot of people talk i've heard people talk about power dynamic and yeah city staff works for us and all that stuff so if there was a case of discrimination uh with the city with a city employee and and a a suit was filed or anything like that uh what is the protocol for uh alerting uh city council about it and if there is one what is the timeline for us to be aware of what's going on

22:11 uh at the city and two uh you know one thing that that i've seen in a lot of situations is that there's this uh conscious or even unconscious bias when it comes to any type of discrimination so i'm curious what type of uh training or what type of conversations are being held around un uh unbiased uh reporting and action great those are great questions so looking at your first question talking about when would city council be involved or notified i think you know again it would depend on the situation a particular counselor was involved um like for example if they're named in a suit we would be involving the counselor

22:57 as soon as we could if it were a situation where perhaps we didn't get to a lawsuit yet but we have an administrative complaint we have an investigation and a that were involved we'd be in and notifying them as soon as we could so they could participate or we could get their input if it's a situation where the city has a discrimination lawsuit that the council individual counselor is not involved in but would still want to know or may get questions about particularly we do try and notify you either through city manager's office or city attorney's office or you're aware so you're not caught sort of flat-footed like what are you talking about particularly if you think it's going to be in the media and so that again is kind of it depends answer but we do try and be responsive to that depending on the situation

23:43 um your second question i think has to do with if i got it right implicit bias or unconscious bias in terms of does the city do any training revolving around that is that right right but specifically when it comes to uh any type of reporting or investigations of any type of retaliation or discrimination yeah um i guess i would say that the trainings that the city staff participate in through cis are i'd have to look at the one i've recommended to you whether it really gets into unconscious bias it is a in reporting in in reporting an investigation

24:28 it talks more about you know the types of behavior that you may observe that would lead to a discrimination claim so i would have to think about that i can tell you that and i put on the front of the ais you previously cancer pitts you had asked about sort of community-based training or training that may be available to the community um and that our idea committee is looking at that having some opportunity for staff or council to be able to discuss or learn more about unconscious bias um and how that can impact uh operations cory so i just wanted to ask a little bit of a follow-up question to um counselor pizza's first question

25:13 if we happen to like hear rumblings or somebody's like i heard of this which kind of touches not what you said you know i heard of this thing happening in springfield who would we go to if it hasn't come to our attention would we go to you would we go to if we've heard if somebody comes and says well you know such and such is happening here because something and we are like we don't know about this who would we go to ask that of to get in the loop i'd recommend that you come to me okay yeah i think that way especially if you're like you hear rumblings it's like what is this then you then we could have like a privileged conversation and i can figure out their next steps from there you may get looped into hr city manager's office after that point but come to me would be the first step great thank you

26:02 okay i think i'm close to time i i have some homework in to confirm that um the mandatory reporter has to do with your observations not things that are related to you you'll see more information from me and counselor pitts i'll be thinking about your question about how unconscious bias can play in uh reporting and investigations and if there's if any of those trainings apply or look at that issue so okay i think we are good thank you for uh coming in doing the training i know that from a compliance perspective we're going to keep seeing more and more material coming our way as a council and thanks for keeping us straightened out on it okay all right thank you next item sdc waiver to encourage affordable home ownership with katie carroll

26:57 how's that noise level good okay great um so my name is katie carroll and i'm the housing analyst for the city um this is my first time before council and meeting most of you so it's nice to be here and i'm excited to work with you all on meeting springfield's housing needs um so i do have two items for council tonight this first one i think is going to take a little bit longer than the 15 minutes we have but i think the other one should move fairly quickly because i only have one question for council related to that okay so diving into this one this is a potential program to waive system development charges for affordable home ownership housing council discussed this back in may and directed staff to further design a draft program and bring it back to council um if there are any members of the

27:42 public i don't see this but for the sake of the recording i guess if there's anyone that's wondering what system development charges or sdcs are those are charges that are imposed on development to accumulate funding necessary to provide sufficient capacity and infrastructure for that development so the city collects these for transportation storm water and local wastewater and waving sdcs means that the city has fewer funds for capital projects in those areas waiting sdcs can be a way to incentivize types of development that might not otherwise happen because it reduces the upfront cost of doing that development and this is something the city already does for accessory dwelling units

28:28 up on the screen here i have summarized some program objectives for this program and those are also detailed in the draft program guidelines in your packet tonight so i'm going to skip over those for the sake of time um so first i'm going to give a quick overview of the proposed program that is before council tonight and then i have three questions for council that are related to the design of this program and for each of those i'll get a little bit further into the details of the program guidelines and staff's recommendations um so first staff is proposing this be started as a three-year pilot program and that for housing units that are granted a waiver that those be required

29:13 to remain affordable for a period of five years which is what council had discussed back in may the guidelines are written so that this waiver would be available to housing intended for home ownership so not affordable rental housing which is also what council discussed back in may and staff is recommending that the waiver be available to housing that's going to be sold to households with incomes of up to 100 of the area median income or ami um that any developer be able to apply for the waiver and that the waiver be a grant if certain conditions are met or otherwise be a forgivable loan and i have noted on the screen here in italics a couple of places where the recommendations before council tonight differ from what was discussed

29:59 in may and when i get to the questions for council we'll touch on that again yeah um i should i hold questions till the end yeah that'd be fine okay great um so the potential fiscal impact of this program would vary depending on how council sets it up so there are two questions before council tonight that would kind of decide how broadly the waiver is available and thus kind of the potential fiscal impact it could have so those have to do with the income level that council sets the program at and then what developers can apply for the waiver so staff is aware of two projects

30:45 that depending on how council sets up this waiver program might be able to apply and be found eligible for the waiver within the next year so the first one of those is habitat for humanity's fisher village project which is their current affordable home ownership project in springfield and based on what habitat has paid for sdcs for units that have already been permitted staff is estimating that the maximum potential fiscal impact of waiving sdcs for this project would be a hundred thousand dollars and that would be uh ten additional units which is kind of the rest of the project that hasn't been permitted did you wanna ask a question so could you clarify for us that that's just the

31:30 cities portion of it we would still be required to collect willamalane's portion of it yeah that's a good uh thank you that's a good clarification so this is just applying to the city's sdcs being waived um and then the other project that staff is aware of is from a private developer cultivate inc so that developer worked with square one villages on the c street co-op and they are looking at doing between i think approximately eight to 16 units of affordable home ownership sometime within the next year and they're still fairly on in the development phases so staff wasn't able to create a dollar estimate for that project and then the last thing i'll note on the fiscal impact is because staff is proposing this as a pilot to start that

32:16 would provide some room to make adjustments to the program if necessary kind of depending on what the actual fiscal impact is were there any other okay great so now i'm going to get into the three questions that staff has for council tonight so for each of these questions i have um some background and staff's recommendations related to it so i'm wondering let's hang on because we're going to start running into questions here joe well i i can wait a bit i mean i have some general questions not specific to not specific answers to your questions but i have some in general questions okay so then we'll start queuing up and let you finish your presentation and then we'll get into it that sounds fair

33:02 great and i had a question for you all which is so for each of these questions do you want me to just kind of run through all of the background information and the questions and then have council discuss all three of them at once or do you want to kind of discuss each one after it's presented so it's probably best for us to go through each one as it's presented okay so then should we take if there are clarifying questions before i get into that do you want to take those now then let's do that okay so let's go joe and then we'll go to leonard and then we'll come back to corey okay thank you sean so i have um i know we were talking about 80 and somebody decided to go to 100 i know i think i remember in the packet that it was mentioned that that council said let's look at 100 of the ami

33:49 as opposed to the 80 basically basically relative to this screen you have up now all right who's that whose idea was that counselor or staff so that's staff's recommendation and that's based on um having had conversations with the local nonprofit developers and then also a private developer cultivate inc that i mentioned who's doing affordable home ownership um so i can get into that more when we get to this question no that's that's fine i was really trying to find the root of where that came from so so with that being said um that that change alone may stimulate more interest which is exactly what why you did that and then that being said you're also talking

34:35 about a three-year pilot program where we kind of know where pilot programs go they never end i mean really how many pilot programs have we stopped when we still have people living in traders that that are okay to put anywhere they want on any property the way they want in a city which was a one-year pilot program it's extended to two years and now we're looking at the three years but that all still being said does eugene have a waiver of sdc's program and why they know i know they have just the same issues we have so do they have a program like this what is it modeled after and what percentages do they use if they have that model so eugene does have a program um

35:20 i encountered about i was able to find about four cities that had one so eugene's program is a little bit different because they don't wave sdcs they actually set aside funding right for that so they use a competitive um rfp process theirs is so their income level is set at eighty percent for homeownership units but they also have their program available for rental units i believe that for rentals the affordability is set at 60 percent um so they have kind of a set amount of funding for per year that they have available for this and then some criteria in that competitive process so the key point is so the key point is they're not risking anything for their own stc program with their own

36:05 infrastructure they're not suffering because they have the finances to be able to pay for those stcs which will go right back to the city coffers correct um can you rephrase that question sorry straight understand they have they have a funding stream that will reimburse the the developers those sdc charges and so that funding stream that pays for those developers stc charges those funds go back to the city general fund so they can be used how the city desires power the city desires correct correct i'm stepping up to say that eugene collects uh construction excise tax which is what they use to fund

36:50 um this type of program whereas springfield does not have that funding source in the construction excise tax so the other three or four cities that you spoke with how do they make up the loss of the sdcs or do they or do they just just take the hit um i'm not sure so i only spoke to staff from eugene so i would need to look into that further and how the other cities um i thought you said there was four or five cities that had the similar program right i looked into those but i didn't look into the potential details of that got you and then um so the city eugene has their own parts department and which comes out of city funding and

37:36 then but springfield has a separate taxing entity which is the landline park and recreation district which collects stcs on their on their own and so the uh the funding for there's no hit in regards to the parks recreation but we take a greater hit because we're taking the bulk of that sdc and and we're the only ones suffering that loss so in that in that in that same statement then if we have a three-year program but we also bumped from the 80 percent to the 100 ami do we know uh how how what kind of financial impact that will mean to us and i know that the estimate for the one project alone is a

38:21 hundred thousand dollar hit right so we don't know is that the next next project i can't remember which slide that was one or two back where you had another outfit that is doing um there you go cultivate incorporated is looking at eight to 16 units which has based on the fisher village has approximate impact of about a hundred and seventy thousand hundred and seventy five thousand on the top end so we're looking at over a quarter of a million dollars in less stc collection on two only two projects and so i would uh i'm gonna put my suggestion now just for something to people regurgitate on is that i would suggest not necessarily doing a time pilot

39:06 program but a cap on financial program this is how much we can take a hit nothing more so if it burns out in 18 months or two years or one year or three years we know it's got an end to it and that's the most the city is going to take a hit for okay joe do you have anything else no that's for now now that's it leonard i i hope i'm not jumping ahead in your presentation um you uh you laid out the criteria for households that would qualify for the stcs um what i'm looking for is what the criteria are for a and afford of what's called an affordable house

39:51 so the like what the affordability would be set up yes what what would the what would the house have to cost in order not to be affordable anymore so the way that the draft program um guidelines are set up and this does sort of jump a little bit forward so i'll do a little bit of explanation that we might um get into again later so they're kind of two different ways that someone could be found eligible for the waiver under one pathway if there was already other legal documentation in place securing a unit's affordability we wouldn't necessarily be looking at the unit's price but then under the other pathway where so if there wasn't some kind of documentation in place that secured a unit's affordability the city would be

40:37 looking at both the household income and then the price of the unit and the way that that's defined in the guidelines is based on the household's income so it's a percentage of their monthly income kind of a maximum of that that could go towards housing expenses so it's set at 35 is the way it is in the draft guidelines so how um how do we determine whether the household qualifies for a home loan i mean for the house you know you're saying that there's no particular value on the house that um that you would countenance a loan for or a or a mortgage for so i mean is there an amount

41:22 beyond which these people at the in this table right here would no longer qualify for a home loan yeah so they're kind of two different ways that you can set up um like an affordable price one is coming up with sort of a set cap like houses of no more than four hundred thousand dollars would be that way of doing it um and then the other way is tying it to the household income which is what i've described that's in the draft program guidelines and kind of both of them have benefits and drawbacks so that first setting a maximum price cap that does provide more predictability for a developer up front to know what that price would be however given various individual factors and like

42:07 interest rates for example that could result in a monthly payment for someone that is higher than you know maybe we thought it would be based on setting uh the sales price so like right now for example with really high interest rates a house that is 400 000 now might result in a much higher monthly payment for someone so that was kind of the thought and tying it to the actual monthly page well i i think there's a danger built in and i think if you think about it you can see it um the danger built into uh building or um making affordable home ownership based on the income level of the household as opposed to the value of the house they're buying i mean you know that it seems to me like an affordable home would be would cost a certain amount i

42:54 mean i i we can't just base it completely on unless i'm misunderstanding we can't just base it completely on the income level of the people who are buying can we so um from what i've seen from the other programs that i looked at they generally are based around household income so they set a you know 80 of the area median income as sort of the cap and so there are different ways that individual developers kind of arrive at what price is affordable and so what the city is doing here is just setting that affordability price so it can be done by basing as you're suggesting based on the price of the housing unit itself that

43:40 requires making assumptions as well so it's just sort of a trade-off of which assumptions you're making like yeah the the danger that i'm alluding to is that the people's declared income level and their actual income level might be two different things i mean i i don't think that we can really count on the fact that a household is saying that they make x amount per year is the actual thing and you know if they're if they're buying a really expensive house and living beyond you know quote beyond their means but are actually getting their income from different sources that they're not declaring then at that point the benefit that were that we're supposedly extending to people for this sdc um

44:25 waiver um would would be negated um because the because the homeowners who are showing this income level are actually are actually not enjoying that income level they're enjoying an income level it's roughly twice then so leonard did you did you have anything else so we can go to corey and then yeah yeah go go ahead i'm sorry i i didn't i didn't mean to fill a buster well i appreciate your question because it was really kind of wrapped up my question that i just wanted us to talk out loud um about how we were defining affordable housing because exactly as you explained it could be done differently and i want folks who are watching to just understand how we are defining that one of the challenges i think always with housing

45:10 leonard is that you know the value of a home isn't determined like the value of you know an apple you know it just it's just it's a different market and it's part of what makes it so wiggly for us to try to figure out what's affordable because i think of like five years ago when we bought our house how much it cost and how much houses are selling for and we wouldn't you know necessarily maybe being able to afford it you know that kind of stuff that wiggles around so i appreciate you bringing that up around the link between income and the value of the house so that we could just mostly so we could talk about it and know that we we could choose whichever way to go or a combination of how we define it it's just getting really clear about what it is and back to the the point of

45:55 um of this which is how do we get developers to build units that folks who fit within whatever realm of affordability we're defining can afford to purchase and move into so that we have a homeowner so i appreciate that because depending on how we look at we're like how do we how do we get those units built so that people can purchase them and move into them and live in springfield and then the other sort of thing that i had which is you know thinking about counselor pictionary and talking about you know we look at the numbers we try to to quantify what that means impact-wise for the city of springfield and one of the things that we don't talk about is since this is home ownership um they are you know what what is that going to look like in terms of future revenue in terms of like

46:40 property taxes and and that sort of thing so it's like how do we kind of compare the the apples and apples as opposed to just like okay here's how much it's going to cost us from these fees but in what other ways might we be getting revenue moving forward because these are units and properties that folks own so that's all i had not really a question it's just more like how do we also make that part of the conversation okay so before we go to joe maybe we can get sort of focused on because we got like four more four questions here so are people comfortable with um a program that's designed around 100 area medium income immediate income depends

47:25 yes joe damian are you kind of good with with it about being a 100 of area median income and i know that there's some questions about the length of the pilot and some of the other stuff that we need to get into but just conceptually is everybody comfortable with this question i think it's too great of a risk for me so do you want to go back do you want to go back to 80 like is it the financial outlay yep okay eighty percent would be a lot closer to what i was uh what i had in mind here and i'm just looking at a shot as far as okay if we want to target a specific population by increasing the valuation we are broadening it to the point of where other folks they're competing all these

48:10 folks going to be competing in my mind and and as far as what what leonard was saying you know i assume that these buyers are going to go through a mortgage purchase and i assume that they're going to go through a mortgage lender and i assume that that's going to go through some underwriters and so i make the assumption that it's going to be heavily dependent upon the debt to income ratio which will make sure that they do these statements of exactly what their income is so it's going to come out clean in my mind but i think again that that 100 is too much of a risk for the city and and i think it also lessens if the total numbers that may be available if we have a cap on how much stc we subsidize these homes with well i think that's the that's the other

48:55 question right like i you know when you look at the when you look at the overall risk i think we've got to impose a cap that is different that's monetary opposed to timeline based absolutely so i think the question is i think we were saying that we want we want 80 but how much is everybody comfortable with putting a cap on it and you know and also sean sorry to interrupt but i think that's also a question for our city manager because the city manager is the one that's going to have to figure out how to budget what was lost so how much can we absorb without getting ourselves into a critical posture for office [Laughter]

49:42 it's not a political question it's a financial budget question and we've just been through the training about this that's exactly right well you know i i think that the the real strain in the city's budget is really a focus on our general fund that's where we have our structural imbalance so system development charges are generally focused more on improvements and so being able to maintain our infrastructure so we know that it's challenging to maintain the infrastructure that we have i think the our excuse me our community has done has really been very supportive of the for instance with the street bond of trying to get more infrastructure more

50:27 streets repaired but it does put you further behind it'd be hard to quantify on a budgetary basis without knowing the number and scale of projects but i could say that it would make the city um it would put us more behind our ability to maintain so so could we do this right because we're gonna have to come back and approve the program anyway is that maybe you could recommend you know a number that would be reasonable for a check-in right to go three years or x amount of dollars you know before we talk about it again so that we have a a safety check if you will if this thing takes off i think that's reasonable i you know i think a conversation about you know i know that the community does value affordable housing and we realize that that's that housing is a

51:12 real critical issue here not just for our community members also for our employers i've seen that here with the city people interested to come work here in the city but then when they see the price of housing are unable to do so so it is a real issue um it is kind of a trade-off right so we have more affordable housing we do these waivers maybe that sets us back a little bit more in our infrastructure repairs however you're hoping that over time people are going to stay in that housing stay in our community and you would um see home ownership which is a good thing and and increased assessed value so it's a trade-off okay before we go to the next question joe send one mice and thank you nancy appreciate that um the other part to that stc though is

51:58 that how much the sdc fees go towards our our payroll for our planning staff and then that department development department i know some of that money goes right back to that department so there's there's a personnel trade-off not only in infrastructure but personnel so i think it's very critical that unless i'm wrong i got somebody walking up that's going to tell me i'm wrong um yes counselor i i i can step in on the sd sure because i probably help haiti out here um so we'll step back so on putting a dollar figure i think is going to be really tough i think as we come forward and you're looking at approving the program we can work together and kind of give you a history of where the sdc's have been how much we collect the year

52:43 and kind of look at that split and and one thing to remember is not all of our sdcs go to repairs some of that is to provide for growth so we're talking about growth but then we also need to make sure we're funding for that growth and how do we make sure we get upgraded signals intersections things like that to account for that so um but to your other question which you'll have to remind me because i was stepping back to a previous one was staffing ratios the actual amount that we pay for staffing is very limited and it has to be very specific and it's to administration of the sdc program itself um so if i was to look historically there is probably that this amount of

53:29 staffing paid for um out of that so let's just take my funding my position i think is there's like one percent or two percent is out of that sdc and it's really for that planning and programming of those and developing those projects okay well i appreciate that but also don't forget to include the five percent technology fee that we will lose as well yeah well then the technology fee is kind of different that goes to something different don't they pay that based off of the stc the five percent double check i mean we can double check i i'm off the top of my head i don't remember exactly where that five percent comes in and what it's based on

54:15 right builders remind me all the time that they pay five percent for all the permit dollars that they that they pay for yeah i i think when i think about this program and what gets where i struggle with that question of putting a cap on the amount of sdcs is it's hard to quantify how many projects we're actually going to see because what katie was trying to with the 100 percent ami or this and that what i heard katie reference from what she was hearing from developers is it's really tough right now with the materials costs and and all of that and supplies to build affordable units today and so really what they're looking for is a mix of affordable plus market rate and so

55:01 it's that balance of how can they make a project pencil today well so i i think the issue is not that it whether or not it pencils or not about the cap it's more you know as a body that you know we can be a little bit risk adverse and wanting to have some sort of safety check that says you know if it goes crazy right we want to know that we've actively decided to to plan our capital that way right so having a having a dollar figures not about completing projects it's more to go okay how do we have a natural update mechanism that so that we we can understand what's going on before we wait three years from now yeah no and i think maybe the annual budget because we'll have an idea of what the numbers are as we look to preparing that budget because we'll know

55:46 what's on the books because these are forgivable grants or loans so we're going to track how much is out there and so we can you know that we've waived and i think maybe two years is too long to go rather than putting a cap it's like maybe we check in annually yeah so here's the thing right it needs to have a cap okay is you know because we if we're if we're going to walk back from this we've got to at least say clearly what we're thinking and by by saying that up front we understand that we're going to check in and have a conversation about it yeah i so i think in that next conversation i think talking about historical numbers will help us arrive at a cap i think if you were putting me on a spot today to come up with a cap it'd be really difficult to recommend a number oh yeah absolutely like take time

56:33 figure out what it is right it's not really about the dollar figure that's attached to it it's about understanding that as we create programs not to create holes from like it from a capital expenditure perspective you guys craft that however you want from a professional perspective all right leonard um just one quick question um is there a drop dead date for either the projects that were specified there for the habitat for humanity project or the other one because i they seemed like worthy projects and i certainly don't want to lose either of them as a result of dithering over the sdcs um so in terms of a drop dead date you mean by which they is there a date that they have to be approved by an order to make sure that they actually get built so the way i would actually think about that is um so habitat for humanity for

57:20 example they kind of base the price of the house to my understanding on what the buyer's actual income is so for them it's more calculus of how much additional subsidy do they need to find to make that up so the sdc waiver isn't going to necessarily stop that project from moving forward it may just take them longer to get to where they need to be and then in terms of the other project mentioned um so that developer i think their understanding um initially was that they may be qualified for the waiver though i know what council had first discussed was limiting it to non-profits which we'll get to as well um so in that case i don't want to speculate for them but maybe that would mean that some of those

58:06 units are not sold at a lower income level but a higher one just kind of depending on you know it depends on each developer and how they sort of make up those subsidies and they all kind of did a little we're not necessarily losing either one of them no but you yeah so the habitat one i guess long story short they might need um to seek additional subsidy and for the other one then maybe that would impact what ami level it's sold at corey thank you um and i may be thinking of this just slightly different than everybody else and i just want to say it out loud um i think that we need housing along the entire continuum of housing and i i hear the mayor talking about you know that we're a little bit risk aversive my

58:51 concerns around us being risk aversive to leaning into what are what are the ways that we can incentivize affordable housing is we're going to end up with all market rate housing and i don't i think a lot of us don't want that right so there's a lot of things in between sort of subsidized or wraparound services or supportive housing and market rate housing and so taking a program this size that's sort of scalable and saying which is what i'm like yes 100 it's like what are the ways that we can really incentivize that so we and we we get some affordable housing units built um that are guaranteed to stay affordable for five years so there are things built into this program that i really like because they add to that whole continuum of housing that i think

59:36 that we need and if we lean into housing again i might be like pie in the sky optimistic like if we lean into housing we're gonna see you know we're going to see more market rate housing that's going to help to offset the sdcs for these affordable housing projects so i'm just i'm just saying we need all of it and if there are places that we can incentivize affordable housing to balance out the market rate or or and the subsidized or the not the size but the supportive because people are going to come for me the support of housing but i want that all right joe and then we're going to dive into the other questions and the way i look at i understand what you're seeing corey but i still look at it from the other angle is that if you uh start at 80 percent there's nothing that says because it's

1:00:22 nothing's happening is when we hear crickets that we can't increase it at a later time i just don't want to start at the top and then all of a sudden have to backpedal so that's my that's my opinion and also i'm very fearful and apprehensive as to how much this is going to cost the city we're not eugene we don't have tons of funds we don't have construction tax we just don't have near the spending power as eugene and we cannot go forward pretending like we're eugene and have programs like eugene we have got to model it as under a springfield budget all right so let's go to the next question okay so um a little bit of background on this one so i think i alluded to this

1:01:07 earlier but when council first saw this proposed program staff had suggested that it be available to non-profits that are doing affordable home ownership so this is kind of the other area where this would broaden the availability or narrow it depending on how counsel goes but staff is recommending making the waiver available to any developer to apply and the reason for that being so there are three non-profits locally that are doing affordable home ownership and of them only habitat currently has a project which is that fisher village project and that will add 12 single unit dwellings there is that other private developer that i mentioned who's interested in doing affordable home ownership as well

1:01:52 and so the thought on making this more broadly available is that it might incentivize more developers to do this kind of work while helping those that are already trying to do it make those projects pencil affordably leonard well if we're i mean to go back to the first question if we're going to base affordable home ownership on the people who are applying for the mortgages then how can we figure out whether these developments are actually going to be affordable or not we don't know who the homeowners are going to be at do you see i mean it seems like it's a chicken or the egg problem so i think that's related to the third question somewhat which is maybe i'll just go ahead and explain could you advance one slide okay so this

1:02:39 might help explain this a little bit better so in these draft program guidelines they're kind of two compliance pathways which are basically two different ways that a developer could be found eligible for the waiver so under this option a this would most likely be like the habitat for humanity the square one type of developer who's looking at doing more long-term affordability and has some kind of legal documentation in place that secures the housing's affordability like a deed restriction or some kind of compliance agreement and so if there was some kind of legal documentation in place that secured a unit's affordability like that the developer could submit that to the city the city would review that to see if it aligns with the program guidelines so basically that it secures

1:03:24 affordability for five years at least at whatever the ami level council decides to go with and then if it were to be resold within that five-year period of time that it is resold affordably so this option would kind of rely on whatever other legal mechanisms are in place to secure affordability so that's kind of how it would be handled under one way and then under the other way if there wasn't this kind of documentation in place then the city would actually request that the applicant give the actual buyers household income information and their actual monthly payment information to the city so the city would verify that it meets the program guidelines and in the

1:04:10 program guidelines we've defined what an affordable price is okay so let's go back and do the first question before we kind of dive into the second one so for a minute is that is the second question whether or not we want non-profits and for-profits okay or just limit it to non-profits joe thank you sean i don't if we want to like corey says i agree if we want to have houses built then why would we why would we limit who can build them so i think we ought to include uh developers as well they're gonna have to pencil it out if they're not interested they won't they won't apply that's kind of self self-limiting i think so there's no reason to put a rule up to eliminate someone when they can possibly do it so i don't see any

1:04:55 difference between them and anybody else and i'm going to move on to the next one sean is that i i think option b to me is the cleanest and the waiver can be forgivable at 16 per year afterwards which will which will eliminate the debt after five uh after five years okay so let's not get into the compliance pathways yet i'm looking around you had nods about this you know developers and non-profits being available to use the program all right okay so i think that slide just everyone can see it i think we're good on that one okay so just clarity for me so um we're not limiting it to just nonprofits okay great thank you okay so then let's talk about the compliance pathways so can i clarify that really quickly so this is

1:05:41 not um a question of whether to pick between a and b the question that was just kind of background for the third question okay um so the i guess the reasoning on why um staff has proposed having so the program is proposed as having both of these pathways and the reasoning that staff has for that is basically that we think this will help balance minimizing the administration for the program while also creating a low risk that the waiver is being given for housing units that are not actually sold affordably so these option a type of development staff is imagining these are more the types of affordable housing units that are like community land trusts or they're

1:06:26 receiving other subsidies where they're being monitored so basically what staff is trying to do with that option is to rely on whatever that other legal mechanism in place that secures a unit's affordability to do that monitoring for the city so from from a developer perspective it would be depending on your model depending on your choice you could go route a or you could go route b correct so basically if they did not have any kind of legal documentation in place securing affordability or if it didn't meet the city's requirements then they would go route b where the city would require the actual buyers information and the price that the buyer is paying for the housing unit and these two

1:07:11 options are designed specifically to reduce our administrative cost correct so that basically this removes staff from having to review every buyer for every housing unit joe thank you sean and that makes more sense thank you it makes yeah i understand that now um although it makes some assumptions that staff made with 100 ami as opposed to 100 or 80 so i would agree with this compliance pathway but i do not agree with that with the percentage or the of the ami i would think it would be i would like to see 80 ami and then the option b would show us 16 for driven forgiven per year under the 80 model

1:08:01 can i clarify um as a clarifying question counselor pictionary um i'm just trying to make sure that i understand so the 20 is based off of five years so 20 uh per year equaling 100 so not based off the i'm sorry yeah i got it twisted around in my brain that happens a lot no worries so in that case is the 20 yes um okay okay sorry my my bad but 100 should be changed to 80 in my mind and i think there's others that agree any other questions so we could probably advance yep to the question did we provide you with an answer for question one yet i mean

1:08:47 okay okay thank you that was gonna clarify that too um so then for this final question um does council want to minimize administration for the program by offering the waiver as a grant under this option a pathway and then a forgivable loan under the option b pathway yeah i think i'm fine with that damian yes are there any situations where uh an applicant will have to repay any of this money whether we find negligence or something not so great that might cause us to say hey give us our dang money back that's a great question thanks for bringing that up because i didn't get to

1:09:34 could we go back one slide again so kind of the other big distinctive piece between these two different pathways this under the option a we're providing this as a grant and under option b as a forgivable loan as i mentioned and so in the forgivable loan context that would be secured with a promissory note and a lien so if that initial buyer were to sell the housing unit within the five years of the affordability period they would be required to pay the city a reduced amount of the waived sdcs depending on you know how much time is left in the affordability period so under that circumstance um they would have to pay sorry some of the waived sdcs

1:10:20 um i think counselor pitts are you referring more to the developer having to pay some of the waived sdcs uh either the developer or even you know because craig if wrong this the money that we would give would be to the developer not to the individual homeowner or potential homeowner correct so the idea of weighting sdcs is that those savings could then be passed on through to the homeowner in the form of a reduced uh sales price so yes i mean i guess i meant you know uh just thinking you know about the situation uh to where a for-profit organization might have

1:11:06 more resources uh or a non-profit i mean once again just really depends on the situation might end up cutting corners which would end up being counterproductive to what we want to do and so i'm just curious uh are there any situations where they might have to pay back into that money that we provided so um under option a because the city would be providing this as a grant that would be kind of the risk that the city would be taking on there however the thought is that risk would be very low because often times when there are these other affordability documentation things in place those are either um kind of being monitored by other agencies or the city

1:11:52 under these guidelines has the ability to monitor those ourselves um and there would just kind of be um if they were not to follow through with the affordability requirements that could put them at risk for other work with the city and depending on kind of what other funding sources they were getting so there's kind of that built in deterrence there and then under the option b if the city had this out as a lien then yeah they would have the option to regain some of the waived sdcs so an example of when this might come up would be if the homeowner no longer occupied the housing unit as their primary dwelling and maybe was renting it out instead

1:12:38 so the city would do monitoring for situations like that joe just a quick question from out and out from left field is there any circumstance where if there's going to be building by any party based on what you're talking about different funding sources would the potential of the requirement for prevailing wage come into play which makes most things unaffordable to build i am not i'm not sure it's sandy it's probably a sandy it's probably a sandy question i don't know enough about the details of that so i'm going to call on sandy to help with that question she i think she knows exactly what i'm

1:13:24 talking about because of different projects where we get hammered with prevailing wage issues is it is this a setup or potentially ripe for that potentially some of our federal funds if the projects are large enough would require that prevailing wage so then again it's a matter of is there sufficient subsidy in place with those other funding sources in the sec waiver to make it affordable for homeownership so what i've seen typically and i think you've seen too is that the moment your prevailing wage kicks in that pretty much boots out all private developers correct i mean unless unless they have some other i mean it is possible for private developers to

1:14:09 access federal funds we don't typically see that because they don't typically have the patience to do it when they can develop market rate without all of the strings but federal funds are not limited to non-profits so a private developer right access yeah it's just a requirement that whoever's happened to be building that if it's getting federal funds they're going to have to pay prevailing wage no matter what the entity is and that part i understand i'm just concerned that it may put some of this i mean i i guess we'll have to be very cognizant of that being triggered and to help try to prevent that so because the higher the cost of the house is going to drive the the cost to the person that needs it so so if we can help try to make sure that that does not happen or help prevent if

1:14:55 possible then that would be i think ideal oh leonard so um the um the idea that the developer passes the sdc waiver to the new home owner in the form of a lower sales price is there an enforcement mechanism for that so under option b there is the f uh the city would be collecting the actual buyer's monthly payment information for housing expenses okay well yeah that's what i was looking at that then that that was why i i had the thought that you know there might be a developer who might try to pocket it but if it's the initial buyer that has to occupy or repay

1:15:40 then they're going to be the ones that are actually directly profiting from it right so they would be the direct recipient of kind of the passed on sdc waiver benefits well yeah that that being the case i would definitely uh i would definitely back option b um given the choice well i i think the it's an either or right like you're asking us to put we want to yeah do both these pathways so are we are we saying we want both pathways okay option option a um what is the mechanism for making sure that the sdc waiver that's given to the developer is passed on to the homeowner

1:16:27 so in that case we're looking at the what kind of documentation the developer has in place to secure a unit's affordability so we're not looking directly at the price in that case but what if it's secured the unit's affordability is secured for five years at whatever the area median income level is and the reason for that being so this like i said is targeted more towards those non-profit developers or developers doing long-term affordability and they kind of all set affordable sales prices they figure that out differently so the idea was to try and avoid setting something that conflicts with how they do it if they're all doing it a

1:17:12 little bit differently but it is still intended to secure the affordability so it's not quite as direct of a way to show that it's being passed through does that answer your question i it doesn't seem to me like there's any guarantee to be pastor at all um so i'm i'm hesitant about auctioning so i think so let's try to wrap the whole conversation up do you have enough direction on the questions because i know you're going to take this aback and sort of keep designing and working on the actual program and the plan is we would get to see it again correct so um i guess for my clarity so for the first question we are talking 80

1:17:57 percent ami for the second question not limiting it to non-profits and for the third question that's the one that i'm um wanting maybe a little bit more direction on than the one that wasn't one of my questions but was from you all was a cap determining kind of how to look at a cap and is that cap a maximum for the program or a check-in point i would say a pause right so when you hit the when you hit that cap you're coming back and asking the council do you want do you want to continue would you want to continue on towards three towards three years and i don't know um i think we're good with with option a and a and b right so joe

1:18:43 yeah i'm fine with a and b but on the cap thing as far as i'm very hesitant by saying hey let's do a check in we got this pilot program and then it goes into perpetuity because we have these convenient check-ins and no one wants to be the bad guy by saying let's stop this i mean we've got a ton of check-ins that happen in our city and no one really wants to say hey let's stop this because it's it's a a tough subject to just stop but it continues to cost the city so i i sean would be more in favor like an end it an end date an end date and and that we can always start it back up we can always do that but but this check-in thing typically tends to send things into

1:19:28 perpetuity i mean we've seen seen it a dozen times okay so corey do you have something about the check-in yes perfect i i'm suggesting um which i think you suggested is tying it to the budget process so that we're looking at it in relation to the money like we're actually looking at if what we're concerned about is um that if we don't collect these sdcs we're not going to be able to afford these pieces that if we tie it into the budgeting process and it's like once a year or however and whether we talk we attach a number or a trip or whatever to it so that it actually is part of a big picture just doesn't sit over here by itself when we just pick an arbitrary number that's too high

1:20:19 so i i think we're still going rounds here so how about we do this right like we let him put together the package give us the give us the date that we can uh that the amount of money that you know a recommendation for the amount of money about when you might wrap it up and then we can sort of uh hash it out at that point at that point it can either turn into a choice that we either close the program when we hit that date or i think what corey is suggesting is we tell the city manager to program that amount and you can't exceed that you know at a certain time yeah so to clarify what i heard from the mayor and what i was working on thinking through this because sdcs are complex and the way they budget are is bringing some options to you by looking at all the numbers and saying what well because what i heard was risk

1:21:05 level right and what are we at risk at on an annual budget and so kind of presenting those numbers to you or giving you some some ideas to think about and pick a number so and i think that and i think the the point is going to be right like if the program continues it's a choice we actively make opposed to we just put this thing on set it and forget it okay so did you guys have enough yeah that's great thank you okay um we're gonna do some we are now 30 maybe 45 minutes over um aj we don't have a work session next week can we roll this is there is there any reason why we can't roll this second item or nancy now that you're back can we roll um update on recreational temporary

1:21:51 housing until next week sure oh they really gave you an easy one the first time in front of council didn't they all right thank you all it's nice to work with you thank you and i'm not normally this brutal um he absolutely is okay i am so then we're gonna reschedule item three um and then i'm gonna go ahead and during the work session so we can um make sure that cetus starts up here we are adjourned right we can probably uh be