City of Mountain View
Community Ownership Action Plan
Advisory Committee Meeting Summaries
Meeting #1 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 3 Meeting #2 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 8 Meeting #3 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 16 Meeting #4 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 23 Meeting #5 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 28 Meeting #6 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 34 Meeting #7 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 40 Meeting #8 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 48 Attachment 2
Context
The City of Mountain View has committed to exploring a Community Ownership Action Plan through the 2023 - 2032 Housing Element (Program 3.2). The City has convened an Advisory Committee to provide guidance on community priorities, plan development, and community outreach. The Committee is composed of representatives from local community organizations, nonprofit groups, and service providers.
The following notes summarize key themes from the committee’s conversation. Full notes can be reviewed via the link above.
Committee Members
• Alex Brown, Mountain View Mobile Home Alliance
• Angel Santuario, Mountain View Tenants Coalition
• Diana Castillo, Santa Clara County Office of Supportive Housing • Jan Lindenthal-Cox, San Francisco Housing Accelerator Fund • Julie Mahowald, Housing Trust of Silicon Valley (unable to attend Meeting 1) • Maria Marroquin, Day Worker Center of Mountain View
• Olga Melo, Fondo de Solidaridad de Mountain View/Mountain View CLT • Pilar Lorenzana, Silicon Valley Community Foundation
• Rachel VanderVeen, Santa Clara County Housing Authority • Regina Celestin Williams, Silicon Valley at Home
• Ray Bramson, Destination Home
• Sandy Perry, South Bay Community Land Trust
City of Mountain View Staff
• Mayra Cordero, City of Mountain View Spanish Interpretation • Wayne Chen, City of Mountain View Housing Department
Consultant Team
• Abbie Tuning, Community Planning Collaborative
• Amanda Ufheil-Somers, ECOnorthwest
• David Driskell, Community Planning Collaborative
• Kristy Wang, Community Planning Collaborative
Meeting #1 Summary
Monday, October 21, 2024
3:00 pm - 5:00 pm
Mountain View City Hall and online via Zoom
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Agenda
1. Welcome & Introductions - Introductions to committee members, overview of committee purpose, goals, and timeline.
2. What is Community Owned Housing - Presentation and discussion.
3. Developing a Community Ownership Action Plan for Mountain View - Discussion of City commitments, committee member goals.
4. Community Education and Outreach - Overview of previous and planned engagement efforts, outreach recommendations from committee members.
5. Next Steps - Review of project timeline and next steps for committee.
Meeting Notes
Welcome & Introductions
Mountain View and consulting staff provided an overview of City commitments to exploring community ownership policy options, the scope of work and project goals for the Advisory Committee as approved by the City Council.
Mountain View and consulting staff then invited Committee members to introduce themselves and discuss their motivations and goals with two questions:
1. What motivates you to do this work?
2. What do you want to achieve in this process?
Answers included:
• New resources to prevent further cultural and housing displacement • Keeping neighbors in their homes
• Stabilizing communities, preventing suffering and fear around displacement and loss of housing
• Preventing homelessness
• Addressing the economic changes in the housing market • Addressing racial disparities and promoting economic mobility • Learning from Committee members and the community
• Connecting with County and City resources
• Building infrastructure for community driven development and decommodified housing
• Learning from existing and effective models and organizations • Centering equity and the voices of vulnerable neighbors in City strategies • Creating an effective, innovative strategy for community ownership • Leveraging City and community energy into policy action with consensus building and collaboration.
What is Community Owned Housing?
Committee members discussed definitions of community owned housing and how it differs from affordable housing. Discussion included the following points:
1. What does community owned housing mean to you?
a. Residents have autonomy and can ensure fair and just housing outcomes. b. Different models can be shaped to meet the needs of different community contexts.
c. Can be structured to allow individuals to own equity in the property while operated under collective management.
d. Owners are custodians with responsibilities., not limited by income. e. Intentional community connections.
f. Not privately owned, can include partnerships with local government. g. Built with tenant power and community organizing strategies. h. Prioritizes community care for community needs.
i. Residents are able to remain in housing even as incomes grow to be higher than the target group.
2. How is affordable housing different?
a. Temporary in some cases (deed restrictions expire) and thus not sustainable for residents (when income goes up may have to move out). b. Lacks a sense of community ownership and autonomy, which contributes to resident stress. Units are managed by another entity, not residents themselves.
c. Still often driven by profit and does not prioritize community stability. d. Higher risk of eviction.
e. Income requirements are aligned with the County, rather than the neighborhood.
f. Built based on funding requirements which may or may not address on-the- ground needs.
Committee members then discussed challenges and obstacles that will need to be considered and addressed.
1. What obstacles are there to the housing we need? What problems are you hoping the Community Ownership Action Plan will help solve?
a. Lack of funding.
b. Potential opposition from some (who benefit from current system) c. Potential lack of stable political support (as councils change) to maintain and implement the action plan
d. The existing development ecosystem is complex (many players, many funding sources, complicated financing) and unresponsive to other needs. e. Lack of resources and infrastructure (funding and organizational capacity) to undertake alternative forms of financing, investment, and risk mitigation f. Land value structures favor for-profit development, with for-profit developers having better market leverage.
g. The existing development ecosystem and housing landscape is driven by profit-maximization and market speculation, inhibiting the creation and protection of housing that centers resident and community needs.
Finally, Mountain View and consultant staff asked Committee members to consider two key questions that might help address these challenges during the plan development process (for future consideration):
1. How do we introduce a new structure that addresses the challenges and obstacles?
2. What is our theory of change from which we can build this new structure? Developing a Community Ownership Action Plan for Mountain View Consulting staff provided an overview of the project timeline and framework for implementation, outlining the role of the Advisory Committee, opportunities for community input, and phases of City Council review.
Committee members then discussed factors that may impact the project and questions about goals and outcomes. These included:
• The City’s Housing Element includes commitments to develop innovative housing models to meet housing needs not met by the existing market. New policy recommendations and Council study sessions will demonstrate how structures proposed by the Advisory Committee align with this commitment. • The Advisory Committee is excited to explore innovative strategies. • In the midst of political and economic shifts, the Advisory Committee will need to carefully consider strategies for building public support and consensus. This will include prioritizing community outreach and education that keeps people informed and enthusiastic.
• Simultaneously, the City is developing a Homelessness Response Strategy, which staff will demonstrate is interconnected with a Community Ownership Action Plan.
Community Outreach and Education
Mountain View and consulting staff reviewed recent community engagement efforts around housing and displacement, and proposed plans for future engagement as part of this planning effort, including:
• Input from key stakeholder groups
• Regular, public project updates
• Opportunities for community review
• City Council sessions
The Advisory Committee then made the following recommendations for effective outreach and engagement:
• The project should provide public education resources and build a shared vocabulary on housing and community ownership. This should include an explanation of how new policies will contribute to the preservation of existing housing and affordability. • Education materials should clearly identify the problem and frame issues around opportunities for action.
• The Committee should identify opportunities for collaboration with existing organizations and coordinated efforts, instead of dividing energy and capacity. • Work should incorporate regional strategies, sharing information about alternative strategies and identifying ways that the existing affordable housing system does not serve all communities.
• Engagement efforts should prioritize inclusion of diverse voices, centering the needs of communities and residents.
• Efforts should communicate the idea that someone has to be the first to implement a new strategy, and Mountain View can lead the charge and be the first to try something new.
Next Steps
Mountain View and consulting staff closed the meeting with a review of next steps for the Committee, including upcoming meeting dates and topics.
Meeting #2 Summary
Wednesday, November 20, 2024
3:00 pm - 4:30 pm
Mountain View City Hall and online via Zoom
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Agenda
1. Welcome, Introductions and Overview
2. Project Updates
3. Community Ownership: Definitions & Guiding Principles
4. Overview of Ownership & Shared Equity Models
5. Draft Evaluation Framework
6. Next Steps
Meeting Notes
Welcome, Introductions and Overview
After a welcome and reintroduction, Mountain View and consulting staff reviewed input gathered during Meeting #1 with the Advisory Committee. Committee members then discussed the reviewed content.
1. Is there anything missing from the recap of meeting #1? a. Decommodification of housing
b. Housing as a right rather than for profit, the right to shelter and community Project Updates
Staff gave updates on project progress and changes in the City Council schedule that will impact the timeline for the Community Ownership Action Plan (most notably that the City
Council’s schedule will require consideration of the plan’s adoption in the fall of 2025 rather than the summer).
Community Ownership: Definitions & Guiding Principles
Consulting staff opened a conversation about the vision, values, and guiding principles that will help the Committee define “community ownership,” laying the foundation for the rest of the Community Ownership Action Plan. Consulting staff presented draft statements to Committee members for discussion and feedback.
Please see the slides for draft versions of the Community Ownership Action Plan Vision Statement, Values, Guiding Principles, and Definition of Community Ownership.
Draft Vision Statement
1. Committee members recommended adding the following:
a. A direct discussion of housing and the goal of innovative housing models to address needs not currently met by the market.
b. Equity, using phrases like “equitable community”, “for all.” c. Escaping the pitfalls of rentier capitalism and a housing market that centers capital and decenters people and community.
2. Committee members discussed the challenges of measuring impact and attracting funders, making the following recommendations:
a. The idea of “measurement” in the Draft Vision Statement doesn’t fully encompass the project goals. Alternative phrasing could include:
i. ...where we strive to maximize…
ii. ...where we focus on…
iii. ...where we prioritize…
b. The Action Plan may be a valuable tool for working with funders, so it may be helpful for sections like the Vision Statement to speak to that audience as well.
c. The priority of community ownership may not fit neatly into traditional metrics of funding criteria.
i. Funders generally don’t provide funding based on vision, they provide funding based on impact metrics. However, as long as the vision is aligned with the impact metrics funders care about, they can be flexible.
ii. The vision can focus on community goals, rather than centering alignment with funding goals.
d. The Action Plan should include a process for measuring impact and assessing efficacy, but the vision statement can be just a statement of goals, coupled separately with a structure for measurement.
e. The Action Plan should include a definitions section to explain shared vocabulary.
Draft Values Statement
1. Committee members recommended adding concepts and phrases including:
a. Decommodification of housing.
b. Dignified housing with good living conditions.
c. Affordability.
2. Question: Is the phrase “self governance” a good way to capture some of these concepts? Committee suggestions include:
a. Yes, self governance is a good phrase.
b. Self determination.
c. Autonomy - resident participation in management.
d. Create community wealth and governance power.
Draft Definition of Community Ownership
1. Generally, Committee members agreed with this definition, but made the following recommendations:
a. Avoid use of the passive voice.
b. The agent should be the community.
c. Focus on housing.
2. Committee members then discussed the tension between permanent affordability and resident autonomy, and whether the Community Ownership Action Plan should allow residents sell the property for conversion to market-rate housing. Discussion points included:
a. Suggestion to add permanent affordability.
b. Permanent affordability places restrictions on a community owned asset. Is the goal of community ownership to preserve affordability in perpetuity? Or give the community voice and agency in the housing market? Some
combination of both? There may be a tension between these two concepts in practice.
3. Question: Is there a settled definition of community ownership, or is there variation in how different groups think about this concept. Responses included:
a. Definition depends on the idea of community. It's important to define what community means in the context of the Community Ownership Action Plan. b. The shift from corporate ownership to community ownership is in support of self determination. Residents may decide to make land affordable in perpetuity, or to leverage assets (sell property) to bring other resources into the community.
c. Community ownership facilitates participation in wealth building activities for marginalized communities, supports long term economic stability, and can fund other community needs. While limiting equity growth for individual owners helps to preserve long-term affordability, it can also be inequitable to limit wealth creation for some while others enjoy financial gains and flexibility through homeownership in the unregulated housing system. d. Affordable housing is lost over time if there are no controls to preserve affordability. If people in community ownership structures are able to liquidate their full equity to purchase housing in the private market, future generations lose out, perpetuating a cycle of exploitation. e. Avoid an action plan that encourages “for profit” housing. f. Consider the term “stewardship” rather than “ownership,” focus on community stewardship of homes and land.
g. The Action Plan can allow variation in the structure of ownership and avoid limiting self determination. There should be opportunities for different forms of community ownership, even allowing models we don’t yet have. h. We may want this definition to encompass multi-dimensional options, with opportunities for flexibility.
4. Next Steps
a. Further refine a shared understanding of community ownership. b. Explore what housing models fall under the Advisory Committee’s shared definition of community ownership.
Draft Guiding Principles
1. Committee members made the following recommendations:
a. Focus on innovative housing models.
b. Include care and stewardship of the environment and the land. c. Include dignity in housing, and clarify what we mean by dignity.
Overview of Ownership & Shared Equity Models
Staff reviewed common collective ownership structures and shared equity models to help guide discussion of what models fall under community ownership, as will be defined by the Community Ownership Action Plan. Discussion of these models included the following:
• Tenant equity refers to structures where a payment is made to the tenant if they move out - often the owner/s set aside a portion of the tenant's rent to be paid out should the tenant leave. The example in this presentation is of models where the property is maintained by shared operating expenses that provide for tenant equity. • Community investment could look like a building society (a type of credit union popular in the UK and other countries that are member-owned and focused on mortgage lending) . Building societies historically functioned as banks with the function of building housing. Community investment could be modelled after this structure for acquisition and development.
o The East Bay Permanent Real Estate Cooperative has a similar structure. • The City of Oakland has a set-aside for community ownership preservation models.
The city provides technical assistance and set-aside funds to organizations with innovative models.
1. Question: How do we address the necessity of long term financial sustainability in the context of the current housing market, while striving for the decommodification of housing? Responses included:
• Innovation requires a different financial model, but must be grounded in financial reality. The Action Plan must consider the fixed costs of acquisition and development. Models should be tested for financial feasibility. • Staff should articulate to the City Council the decision process for the Action Plan, identifying tensions and tradeoffs and indicating the logic behind choices. • The community land trust model is a helpful example of a structure that accounts for the tensions between the goal of decommodification and the reality of housing finance. CLTs are usually structured with a board composed of residents, community members, and housing experts. This guarantees resident participation in governance and stewardship, but generally limits resident ability to sell the property and convert to market rate housing.
Draft Evaluation Framework
Staff gave a brief overview of factors that could be used as evaluation criteria for investment opportunities and community ownership models. Committee members briefly discussed the example criteria and gave the following feedback:
• Some example criteria have historically acted as barriers to populations that have been excluded from property ownership. Funding community driven development may mean working with groups that don’t meet traditional criteria. • What kind of structure and characteristics are necessary for community ownership to work effectively? How should public agencies think about guardrails, reporting, due diligence, and underwriting?
• How does the city approach investment? Does the city invest with the goal of limiting risk, or the goal of promoting successful community ownership?
Next Steps
Staff will share a meeting summary and notes, and Committee members are encouraged to send feedback on the draft vision statement, values, guiding principles, and definition of community ownership directly to staff.
During the next Advisory Committee meeting the group will finalize the vision and guiding principles, discuss capacity needs and opportunities within the housing ecosystem, and explore community opportunity to purchase as a possible model.
Meeting #3 Summary
Wednesday, December 18, 2024
1:00 pm - 2:30 pm
Online via Zoom
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Agenda
1. Welcome, Introductions and Overview
2. Project Updates
3. Unpacking “Community Ownership”
4. Evaluating Potential Housing Models
5. Next Steps
Meeting Notes
Welcome, Introductions and Overview
After a welcome and reintroduction, consulting staff gave a summary review of feedback gathered during Meeting #2 on the draft Vision and Values Statements. Staff then gave an overview of objectives for this meeting, which include discussion of outstanding feedback from Meeting #2.
Project Updates
Staff outlined major milestones for 2025, including revised City Council dates for the project, upcoming Advisory Committee meetings, and planned one-on-one conversations with stakeholder groups.
Unpacking “Community Ownership”
Using the Menti platform, the project team facilitated a conversation around community owned housing and decommodification. The goal of this discussion was to clarify shared values and better define priority outcomes for the Community Ownership Action Plan.
What Does It Mean to “Decommodify” Housing?
The theme of decommodification came up from several committee members at the second COAPAC meeting. To help further understand the term and what it means, participants were asked to share in Meeting 3 their individual responses to several questions and then discuss and vote on the answers they most agreed with. The responses shown in blue below were the ones receiving votes (no responses received more than one vote).
Discussion
• Decommidification is when actions are taken to remove housing from the speculative market and make it available and affordable as a community-serving asset.
• We need to develop mechanisms that can facilitate decommodification, and identify the housing models that work best to achieve this goal.
Who Can Own “Community Owned” Housing?
The next question posed to advisory committee members focused on being more specific about the composition of groups or individuals that could be owners of community-owned housing. Each member was asked to indicate their agreement or disagreement (along a scale) related to each of five statements (shown below along with the group’s rating of each). They then discussed their thoughts as a group.
Discussion
• Committee members identified a key tension between striving for housing models that align with values of community empowerment while acknowledging that the existing housing market is structured to incentivize private acquisition and operation, so that cooperative or communal acquisition and operation are difficult to achieve.
• Some committee members expressed that community ownership should exclude models that allow for underlying land or building ownership by a developer or
property owner from outside the community, even if it is a nonprofit and/or there is some form of shared equity. Others expressed that it could be included so long as residents are involved in governance and decision making. • There were also mixed opinions about whether community ownership should promote private wealth building, even as part of cooperative or shared equity models.
• There was general consensus that community owned housing should provide affordable, stable, and quality housing, while encouraging self determination and returning value to the community.
What Is the Difference Between Self Governance, Self Determination, and Community Stewardship?
In the second COAPAC meeting, members used different terms to describe the governance and decision making structures of community-owned housing. To help better understand and clarify differences in meaning, the group was asked to individually describe the differences between these terms and then identify which term best aligned with the goals of community-owned housing. Most of the group ranked Community Stewardship as the more important concept (understanding that the terms are not exclusive of each other).
Discussion
• Committee members discussed how the three concepts intersect, and generally agreed with the idea that self governance is a method for decision making, while community stewardship is a long term process that prioritizes the collective benefit of both existing and future residents.
• Committee members also agreed that it’s important that decision making be in the best interest of the community overall, not any single individual, even though there are times when self determination is appropriate..
What Are the Main Goals of Community Ownership?
Committee members were asked to indicate their level of agreement or disagreement with four statements in response to the question about community ownership’s goals. The group’s collective responses are shown below:
They were also asked to rank for statements related to the question: “How important are replicable, scalable housing models,” which was raised in the second COAPAC meeting:
Discussion
• Committee members largely agreed that an innovative approach to housing will require taking risks on less common models for acquisition and operation of properties and, similarly, that it would take time to get it right. • While replicability and scalability are important, concerns about these should not represent barriers to trying new approaches to housing. Instead, the COAP should focus on measurable outcomes for residents and community members. • There was concern expressed that “replicability” and “scalability” can be used to justify business as usual and say no to new ideas and new ways of doing things. • Most community ownership developments (if not all) will be unique, one-off projects.
Evaluating Potential Housing Models
The last part of the agenda focused on an interactive exercise using the Mural platform.
This was intended as an introduction to work that will continue in future meetings:
evaluating alternative models to determine which are a “fit” for the COAP and which are not.
The group was given a graph defined by two axes: the “y” axis was residents’ ability to grow wealth, and the “x” axis was residents’ ability to make decisions about and control the place they live. They were also provided example housing models (such as “traditional home ownership” and “shared equity rental housing”) and asked to place each model on the work space based on how they evaluate the performance of each on the “x” and “y” axes.
As time was short, the group was not able to complete the exercise. However, members noted that the use of “wealth building” as a metric did not reflect their priority for measuring program impact. The group discussed the tension between de-centering wealth building and promoting resident decision making about equity investments. The project team noted that the committee should return to this topic for further discussion.
Next Steps
The project team will use feedback and discussion notes from Meeting 3 to draft the agenda and materials for Meeting 4 in February, including an evaluation framework for city investments.
The meeting closed with season's greetings and look-ahead to the work and schedule in 2025.
Meeting #4 Summary
Wednesday, February 12, 2025
3:00 pm - 4:30 pm
Online via Zoom
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Agenda
1. Welcome, Introductions and Overview
2. Project Updates
3. Updated Community Ownership Definitions
4. Evaluating Community Ownership Models
5. Opportunity to Purchase Act
6. Next Steps
Meeting Notes
Welcome, Introductions and Overview
Project staff summarized learnings from discussions during the previous meeting, specifically around the definitions and goals of decommodification, community ownership, wealth building, self governance, and scalability. Staff then presented an overview of the objectives for this meeting, including reviewing the definition of community ownership and the role of wealth building, discussing community ownership models, and introducing the Opportunity to Purchase Act as a potential component of the COAP.
Project Updates
Project staff gave an update on meetings held with individual stakeholder groups and noted that the staff team will summarize major themes from these discussions for the next Advisory Committee meeting. The Committee then reviewed the schedule of upcoming meetings.
Unpacking “Community Ownership”
The staff team reviewed project definitions resulting from previous Advisory Committee discussions, including a definition of community ownership where the core tenets are decommodification and shared governance. Further definitions include the meaning of decommodification, shared governance, what entities are eligible for community ownership under the COAP, and priority outcomes for COAP housing.
Who can own community owned housing?
Staff facilitated a discussion with the Committee exploring ownership models that would be eligible under the COAP, such as whether a nonprofit or private entity from outside the community would be eligible to acquire, own, or manage community owned housing so long as they have a demonstrated commitment to commodification and shared governance.
Discussion
• Requiring a “demonstrated commitment” to community ownership may not be enough to ensure that owning entities uphold the values outlined by the COAP.
Priority should be given to entities that are most likely to uphold these values based on their structure.
• Consider setting parameters for owning entities, and providing a legal mechanism for enforcement.
• Account for long term stability in ownership, for example setting contingency plans for if an owning nonprofit is dissolved.
Evaluating Community Ownership Models
Project staff walked the Advisory Committee through various models for community ownership, providing context on structures, residents benefits, and real life examples. The Advisory Committee then discussed priority factors for comparing these models, noting that the COAP should be understood as one piece of larger efforts to achieve housing goals, so that community ownership models supported by the COAP do not need to achieve all housing goals.
Opportunity to Purchase Act
Opportunity to Purchase Act options were introduced for the Advisory Committee to consider in relation to the goals of the COAP and its implementation. The Committee discussed the core themes of OPA, how it functions, and lessons learned from OPA processes in other U.S. and Bay Area cities. City staff noted that OPA has been presented to the Mountain View City Council as a tool to help achieve overall Housing Element goals.
Committee members who participated in a COPA/OPA process in other Bay Area cities discussed their experiences and lessons learned. They suggested that the San José COPA process focused too heavily on COPA as a singular item, rather than COPA as a tool for
furthering affordable housing and community benefits. Future efforts to advocate for OPA may benefit from combined advocacy for a package of community ownership programs and policies.
Committee members also noted that capacity building is critical for furthering community ownership goals. Community organizations and advocates can partner with city and county staff, as well as advocacy groups and service organizations in neighboring cities and throughout the state. The Advisory Committee also emphasized that community wellness should continue to be a priority in all COAP strategies.
Next Steps
The Advisory Committee discussed preparations for the next meeting, including sharing a summary and comparison of community ownership models, plans for drafting the Community Ownership Action Plan in full, and the need to discuss funding models and opportunities for COAP projects.
Meeting #5 Summary
Wednesday, April 9, 2025
3:00 pm - 4:30 pm
Online via Zoom
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Agenda
1. Welcome, Introductions and Overview
2. Stakeholder Outreach: Key Takeaways
3. Financial Modeling Approach
4. Opportunity to Purchase Action (Continued from Previous Meeting)
5. COAP Framework
6. Next Steps
Meeting Notes
Welcome, Introductions and Overview
Project staff summarized key takeaways from the previous meeting on the core COAP values of decommodification, shared governance, and long-term stewardship, as well as an introductory discussion of Opportunity to Purchase Acts and similar policies. Staff then introduced the objectives for meeting #5, including key takeaways from ongoing stakeholder engagement, financial modelling for the COAP, further exploration of OPA, and preparation for June’s City Council meeting.
Stakeholder Outreach: Key Takeaways
Project staff gave an update on meetings that have been held with individual stakeholder groups and a high level summary of key themes and concepts expressed across different groups (summarized on slides 7 to 15 of the meeting’s slide deck). Overall, a majority of stakeholder groups emphasized support for community owned housing, an interest in
directing funding towards COAP projects, the importance of partnership approaches, and the importance of maintaining flexibility in COAP guidelines as groups take on the unique challenges of preservation projects and tenant ownership.
Other Key Takeaways from Stakeholder Outreach
• The need for capacity building to support effective structures for decommodification, shared governance, and self determination in housing. • Flexible approaches to acquisition that balance long-term scalability with the need to immediately preserve units at risk of losing affordability. • Capacity building and long term partnerships are critical for effective COAP implementation. An ecosystem approach will facilitate connections between residents and experts, mitigate financial risk, and help advance regional system change.
• City funding can be structured with flexibility and creativity to leverage additional funding, support long term sustainability, and assist with capacity building. • Preservation initiatives are new for the housing finance ecosystem, but there is strong interest in contributing to preservation and community ownership.
Underwriting guidelines should be flexible but clear to best facilitate these contributions.
Discussion
A couple Advisory Committee members expressed interest in incentivizing sustainable and ecologically sound construction methods for the rehabilitation and renovation of preservation acquisitions.
Financial Modeling Approach
Project staff returned to the project’s financial modeling effort, which will analyze financial structures and performance of different models of community ownership. This modelling will help the Advisory Committee and the City understand what resources are necessary to support desired outcomes for the COAP.
Project staff explained the key questions that the financial modeling analysis is attempting to answer, the types of buildings and ownership models to be analyzed, estimated costs, and what outcomes to expect from this analysis. See slides 16 to 21 of the slide deck.
Discussion
• The permitting process can be challenging to navigate, causing financial uncertainty and higher costs. The City can explore options for streamlining permitting or providing additional support for COAP projects.
• The City should consider incentives for builders and vendors to encourage lower prices for COAP projects. This could take the form of a preferred vendor list or partnership with COAP organizations in the hiring process.
• Facilitating economies of scale will lower operating costs, and in turn lower acquisition costs. The City could facilitate collaboration between ownership groups to share administrative burdens.
• Look at ways in which acquisitions could be structured to reduce up-front purchasing costs, for example by limiting initial investment for rehabilitation of units to address only life safety issues, with other rehab investments coming later. • Close partnership with outside funders who could serve as first lender and carry more of the project risk could reduce the City’s risk exposure and allow greater flexibility in the COAP funding guidelines.
• COAP funding can be used to leverage other financing options such as low interest loans from private capital.
Opportunity to Purchase Act
The Advisory Committee reopened discussion of OPA and whether there are options to support this or similar policies through the COAP. Staff summarized key provisions of OPA and lessons learned from other jurisdictions, before introducing preliminary recommendations for review by the Advisory Committee. See slides 22 to 35.
Near term recommendations focused on options that could be pursued in the coming two years or more while more time is given to building the local capacities needed to make an OPA policy work effectively. These include policy and administrative alternatives to OPA that could achieve the same goals of acquisition and preservation, such as real estate
partnerships, building relationships with property owners of at-risk buildings, capacity building for tenant organizations, and incentives for selling qualified buildings to COAP eligible organizations.
Long term recommendations include implementing notification requirements, monitoring the housing ecosystem for conditions that would support OPA, and exploring policy options that achieve similar outcomes.
Discussion
Several Advisory Committee members emphasized the immediate need for policies that support OPA goals, even if those policies take a different form than OPA. This could be structured as a series of separate policy initiatives such as a Sale Notification Ordinance, a Time to Process Ordinance, and a First Right of Refusal Ordinance. Committee members noted that any incentives that the City can provide to property owners for selling to COAP- eligible groups will ease this process.
Some committee members also asserted that current political leadership supports OPA, even if the capacity of the housing ecosystem does not. For that reason it may be more politically expedient to bring OPA or similar policies forward now, rather than waiting and losing the political opportunity.
A Committee member also proposed exploring public-private partnerships where a funding entity could acquire units and hold them for the City or other organizations to purchase at a later date. This could take the form of a land bank or a regional funding source designated for purchasing units off the market for future preservation.
COAP Framework
Project staff will provide Committee members with a draft of the action plan framework document. Staff will be looking for feedback from the Advisory Committee on some key questions for finalizing the framework.
Next Steps
The next meeting will be held Wednesday, May 14th, 3:00 pm - 4:30 pm via Zoom. The Advisory Committee will refine key concepts necessary to finalize the COAP framework and draft recommendations for the Council session on June 24.
Meeting #6 Summary
Wednesday, May 14, 2025
3:00 pm - 4:30 pm
Online via Zoom
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Agenda
1. Welcome, Introductions and Overview
2. Financial Modeling and Feasibility
3. City Funding and Capacity
4. Next Steps
Meeting Notes
Welcome, Introductions and Overview
Meeting #5 Recap
Project staff reviewed items from the previous Advisory Committee meeting, including a summary of stakeholder interviews, the introduction to financial modeling, and continued conversation about Opportunity to Purchase Act lessons from other communities and preliminary recommendations for Mountain View. These included assessing conditions that would support the impact of OPA, and potential adoption of OPA or other policy options (like a notification process) to achieve desired outcomes. Based on experiences with OPA in other places, funding and capacity constraints, the City’s near-term recommendations included policy and administrative alternatives that could achieve the same goals and build capacity for future success.
Meeting #6 Objectives
Project staff reviewed the agenda for the meeting. Meeting goals included providing an update on the timeline for Council consideration, reviewing preliminary results from the
financial modeling work, discussing approaches to City funding, and discussing organizational capacity and technical assistance.
Project staff also shared that they need to shift the City Council presentation and discussion about the draft Community Ownership Action Plan from June 24th to September 9th. As a result, adoption of Final COAP will be shifted to early next year.
Financial Modeling and Feasibility
Project staff shared preliminary results from the financial modeling that will inform the action plan and support implementation. The presentation included an overview of the market context. See slides 9-14 of the presentation.
Project staff modeled the financial resources and rents needed to purchase and operate example buildings. Results reflected some key assumptions about the cost of purchasing and operating the building, including having a rental assistance fund to help cover rents when individual households are unable to pay. They found that the total fund needs to be closer to $25 million to preserve 50 units and cover potential rehabilitation costs (whereas the city has been targeting a goal of $20 million). See slides 14-17.
Project staff modeled specific approaches and goals articulated by stakeholders, including the MV CLT, to show different ways the city could invest in an acquisition project, with focus on the small apartment type (7–19 units). They also provided five examples of regional preservation loan programs to illustrate the variation in terms and rates used in each program.
Project staff modeled a sample budget for a small apartment, with rents affordable at 50% AMI (with households paying 30 percent of their income on rent). After saving for all expenses, rents provide cash flow of more than $140,000 per year to support a loan. They then tested different options for a long-term loan from the City, including 3% interest, 0% interest, and a 0% interest loan combined with other grant funds.
Project staff found that zero interest reduces the need for additional grants. They discussed the role of public funds in preserving affordable housing. Locally-generated dollars are typically distributed as loans, which allows cities to sustain programs over time by recycling funds for other projects. For local governments with limited funds this helps ensure that projects meet policy goals by being involved over the long term. See slides 18-
23. They then opened up conversation on the following questions:
• Based on this group’s experience, do we need to adjust our assumptions about rents and costs?
o Do rents need to be lower?
o How are others budgeting for community stewardship and resident support?
Discussion
Several Advisory Committee members emphasized the importance of lower rents and flexibility of funds, especially the potential to provide grants instead of loans. Questions
arose about relocation policies if the acquired buildings have current residents who don't match the desired income targeting. Advisory Committee members emphasized that they would not want to evict existing residents. More detail is in the Detailed Meeting Notes.
City Funding and Capacity
Project staff discussed the city's initial thinking on leveraging resources, focusing on stability, capacity building, and systems transformation. Project staff acknowledged that more than $20 million may be needed to achieve the 50-unit goal (modeling shows need for closer to $25 million)
Project staff emphasized that they are trying to figure out how to approach the work in a way that focuses on both the sustainability of individual projects, recognizing the needs for cost efficiencies and the potential high cost of rehabilitation, and the need to create a sustainable local program that can effectively leverage other resources. The City has an obligation to steward public resources responsibly.
Project staff looked at the qualifications thresholds in several existing funding programs.
Each program required a clearly demonstrated experience threshold or a partnership with an organization with demonstrated experience.
Project staff also highlighted that the City is committed to figuring out what roles it can play within the requirements of being a public agency to best meet the needs of community
ownership projects, and what needs can be better served by others in the ecosystem. See slides 29 to 33.
Discussion
• One Advisory Committee member shared that a pilot functions as proof of concept and that demonstrating that we can create affordable homes for everyone in Mountain View may be worth prioritizing the success of an initial pilot over program sustainability in the COAP’s initial efforts.
• Two members highlighted the value of cross-subsidization through mixed-income projects.
• One Advisory Committee member emphasized that building organization capacity requires a long-term approach.
• Another member emphasized the importance of organizing tenants and that absent this the whole project may fail.
Wrap Up and Next Steps
Time was running short at the end of the meeting. Project staff teed up the following questions for the next Advisory Committee meeting:
a. Is there a role for the City to play? If so, what are some examples? b. Is there a role for the City in supporting early stages of a project? Additional discussion regarding capacity and partnerships will occur in Meeting 7.
The next meeting will be held Wednesday, June 11th, 3:00 pm - 4:30 pm via Zoom. The session with City Council has been shifted to September 9th, and adoption of the Final COAP has been shifted to early next year.
Meeting #7 Summary
Wednesday, June 11, 2025
3:00 pm - 4:30 pm
Online via Zoom
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Agenda
1. Welcome, Introductions and Overview
2. Updated Financial Modeling
3. Ecosystem Capacity
4. Partnerships, Capacity, and Technical Assistance
5. Next Steps
Meeting Notes
Welcome, Introductions and Overview
Meeting #6 Recap
Project staff reviewed items from the previous Advisory Committee meeting. This included a summary of the financial modeling presented in the previous meeting. In Meeting 6, an initial scan of potential buildings for acquisition shows current median rents are affordable at 50% to 80% AMI. Many of these buildings are older and will require rehabilitation, even if they have been generally well maintained. Based on recent sales prices and assumptions, rents would need to be set at 80% to 108% AMI to cover the costs of financing an acquisition + rehab in addition to operating costs. If rents are set at 50% AMI, then about $25 million will be needed to finance acquisition + rehab of 50 units. A project would still need additional grant or funding sources to work.
In the previous meeting, some COAPAC members expressed that rents at 50% AMI are too high. We need to look at lower rent targets if we are going to stop displacement. Some expressed that the city needs to maximize flexibility in order to support project success,
including potential grants instead of loans. CLTs work to counter displacement, and do not want to displace existing tenants even if they are above income limits.
Meeting #7 Objectives
Meeting objectives included:
• reviewing updated financial modeling based on Meeting 6 feedback, • reviewing summary of ecosystem capacity,
• continuing discussion about partnerships, capacity building and technical assistance, including the City’s roles, and
• looking ahead to the September Council discussion.
Updated Financial Modeling
Project staff shared updated financial modeling to inform the action plan and support implementation. See slides 7-12 of the presentation.
Based on COAPAC feedback, project staff tested a revenue scenario with rents affordable at 30% of Area Median Income, which is $60,250 for a family of four. Project staff emphasized that incoming mixing is still possible at this level.
Project staff also modeled a scenario with rents affordable at 50% of Area Median Income.
Project staff highlighted the following scenarios: low interest scenario: (loans from the City and other sources at 3%), zero interest scenario (loans from the City and other sources at 0%), and mixed scenario (loan from the City at 0% and other sources at 3%). The City offering 0% interest is equivalent to $400,000 in grants/no-cost funds. Project staff emphasized that the financing modeling demonstrates that even modest counts of slightly more expensive units can contribute to a project’s success.
Finally, project staff presented several high-level takeaways from the modeling:
• Ultra low-cost financing can help projects be successful. • Grants or other no-cost funding must be part of the mix of acquisition funds to keep rents affordable at low incomes for innovative community ownership models, because these models currently do not have access to traditional affordable housing finance sources like tax credits, project based vouchers, etc. • Mix of incomes and rents strengthens the project and can help achieve affordability for some units to serve very low incomes.
Discussion
Advisory Committee members raised questions about how the model incorporates fluctuations in a household’s income. One Advisory Committee member raised a question about the assumption that the only debt will be from the City. Project staff clarified that the last scenario showed two sources of debt, one from the City and one from another source.
More detail is in the Detailed Meeting Notes.
Ecosystem Capacity
Project staff discussed the current ecosystem capacity, starting with its strengths. See slides 13 to 19.
Strengths included the following:
• High level of interest in and support for the goals of community-owned housing, locally, regionally, and statewide
• City and partner willingness to invest in community owned housing models and to explore ways to be flexible while supporting project feasibility and meeting requirements for management of public funds.
• Effective community-based organizations that are experienced, smart, dedicated, passionate and well-networked, with demonstrated commitment to community ownership goals.
• Potential funders are paying attention to what is happening in Mountain View and want to support success.
• Regional networks and organizations that are focused on community ownership include both established organizations like SFCLT, and newer but active groups like South Bay CLT. Mountain View CLT is participating in these networks to build capacity.
Project staff detailed the following ecosystem challenges:
• Small scale, community driven, preservation projects are difficult, and require patience. There is no simple path to success.
• While the COAP seeks to change the status quo, there are various “nuts and bolts” that will continue to operate as is, such as the acquisition process, property management, etc.
• Organizations need expertise throughout the project lifecycle, including early due diligence/tenant outreach, site acquisition, rehab/general contractor management, tenant relocation (if any), operations (such as lease-up, maintenance, etc), asset management, and more.
They then described the current status of the ecosystem:
• The Mountain View ecosystem for community ownership is in its early stages.
Capacity, expertise, funding and other resources need to be enhanced across all participants and partners.
• The City team is new to community ownership projects and financing. There are also limited resources with a high level of need across multiple priorities. • The regional community-of-practice is still growing and evolving, and working to figure out how to support and transfer capacity to emerging CBOs.
Finally, they described key areas of need:
• Identification of organizations that can and should be part of the ecosystem to leverage resources and make things work. Need to clarify roles. • More funding and leveraging opportunities to grow the resources to support this work.
• Evaluation of funding and program flexibility - Where can flexibility be achieved and where are there constraints?
• Effective capacity-building strategies in the overall “ecosystem,” for individual organizations (especially new/young organizations), and to ensure expertise in each step of the project lifecycle.
• An overall program to fund a range of potential project needs/outcomes.
Discussion
• One Advisory Committee member shared that, given that the CLT model is still nascent, people do not always trust the CLT model or new people coming into these spaces. Another member later reiterated this point.
• One Advisory Committee member shared the key role that attorneys play in envisioning what kind of ownership structure tenants would want to pursue. • One Advisory Committee member shared that they were thinking about the second line of debt in particular and wondering if part of the City’s contribution to the ecosystem is to buffer one or two CLTs to get them to a place where they are stable and trusted. Another member agreed with this point.
• One Advisory Committee member shared that they would like to see the City step in, in a more substantial economic way and buy as much land as possible as it becomes available and sell it to CLTs.
• The committee also identified possible topics for future discussion, including prioritizing city land for community ownership and a conversation with local funders about potential to purchase naturally occurring affordable housing and hold rents constant.
Partnerships, Capacity, and Technical Assistance
Project staff provided a recap of last meeting’s discussion of partnerships and capacity.
They highlighted the following points:
• Flexibility is key.
• Funding guidelines need to anticipate different project types and varying needs. • Consider how best to balance between ensuring success of initial projects and supporting long-term program sustainability.
• Create a framework that supports a sustainable process and project. • Provide multiple ways to demonstrate capacity for various aspects of project success, including tenant organizing and support, project financing, property acquisition and rehab, financial management, and property management. • Be clear about how flexible the City can be. As stewards of public funds, need to ensure there is demonstrated need as well as fairness, consistency, transparency and accountability.
• Be clear about the City’s roles and capacity. Focus on what the City is uniquely positioned to do and what others are better at doing.
Project staff then posed the following questions for discussion:
• How can we best balance our shared desire to support the success of an initial project with our shared desire to reach or exceed our goal for an ongoing community ownership program (50 units, and more)?
• Should City funds be allocated to technical and capacity support for emergent organizations, and if so how should that support be delivered? • What do you see as the ideal format for continued local collaboration on our goals and stewardship of the COAP over time?
Discussion
• One Advisory Committee member highlighted the importance of keeping an eye on both short and long term goals and factoring in a contingency for the first few years. • Another Committee member suggested a pipeline approach, where the program supported two or three emerging community land trusts or other similar models. • One Committee member shared that a short-term goal is to have a building to showcase the model’s effectiveness. But in terms of the bigger picture, their priority is that the money comes in the form of a grant, not a loan, so that they will not have to pass debt on to the community.
• Two Committee members emphasized the importance of cross-sector collaboration, sharing that there are various ways that the City can continue to incorporate a collaborative process to stewardship, and that it is important that the Advisory Committee come together not just to discuss different funding models but as an alliance with the shared goal of supporting their communities. • One Committee member shared that in San Jose they have a Community Preservation Collaborative that convenes independently, with many members coming from the tenant organizing space.
Wrap Up and Next Steps
The session with the City Council will be held on September 9th. At this session, project staff will provide a status update and draft action plan framework for Council input.
Project staff anticipate holding a meeting to continue conversations from Meeting #7 on Wednesday, July 9th via Zoom. More details to follow.
Meeting #8 Summary
Wednesday, July 9, 2025
3:00 pm - 4:30 pm
Online via Zoom
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Agenda
1. Welcome, Introductions and Overview
2. Community Ownership Framework
3. Potential City Funding Parameters
4. Draft Metrics
5. COAP Governance Structure
6. Next Steps
Meeting Notes
Welcome, Introductions and Overview
Meeting #7 Recap
In the previous meeting, project staff shared updated financial modeling to inform the action plan and support implementation. Based on COAPAC feedback, project staff tested a revenue scenario with rents affordable at 30% of Area Median Income, which is $60,250 for a family of four.
Project staff highlighted the following scenarios: low interest scenario (loans from City and others at 3%), zero interest scenario (loans from City and others at 0%), and mixed scenario (0% loan from City and other loans at 3%).
Staff presented high-level takeaways from the new modeling at Meeting 7:
• Ultra low-cost financing can help projects be successful.
• Grants or other no-cost funding must be part of the mix of acquisition funds to keep rents affordable at low incomes for community-owned housing as these models currently do not have access to traditional affordable housing resources (tax credits, project based vouchers, etc.).
• Mix of incomes and rents strengthens the project and can help achieve affordability for some units to serve very low incomes.
Project staff also presented on the current ecosystem’s strengths, challenges, status, and key areas of need at Meeting 7, highlighting the following:
• Flexibility is key. Funding guidelines need to anticipate different project types and varying needs.
• Need to balance between ensuring success of initial projects and supporting long- term program sustainability and the need to provide options to demonstrate capacity to successfully deliver project.
• Importance of clarity about the City’s potential roles, capacity, and flexibility.
Meeting #8 Objectives
Meeting objectives included:
• Revisiting key components of the Community Ownership Framework and the City’s roles
• Reviewing and discussing draft thinking about the City’s funding parameters for community-owned housing
• Reviewing and discussing draft metrics for measuring the COAP’s success • Seeking input about the COAP governance structure and membership • Looking ahead to September Council discussion
Community Ownership Framework
COAP Vision
Project staff shared the vision for the COAP: “a future where innovative housing models support community well-being, health, connectedness, affordability and stability for all (instead of profit maximization and individual wealth accumulation).” Staff raised the question of whether wellbeing, health, connectedness, affordability and stability are at the same level of importance, or if wellbeing, health, and connectedness are a result of affordability and stability. See slides 9 to 14.
One Advisory Committee member raised concerns about quantifying wellbeing, health, and connectedness. Another shared that housing is connected to community wellness but not a direct outcome. One Committee member shared that she would love to include sustainability in the vision.
Core Principles
Project staff shared core principles behind the COAP vision, which were defined in previous COAPAC conversations inform the overall plan framework:
1. Decommodification – removing housing from the profit-focused market and ensuring it remains affordable in perpetuity.
a. One Committee member shared that residence governance and eviction protections could be added, as they make decommodification meaningful.
2. Community Stewardship – nurturing shared governance to empower residents while ensuring long-term sustainability
3. Stability – ensuring financially feasible projects that are stable and managed to help residents stay in place
4. Capacity Building – building partnerships, training, and systems to deliver and sustain community ownership
5. Metrics and Learning – setting clear objectives and evaluating progress to support continuous improvement
6. System Transformation – sustaining this work to create more options, support every project, and build the infrastructure for success
a. Project staff shared that they were also thinking about the language of system change or systems creation.
One Advisory Committee shared that there’s more to learn about community ownership and emphasized that it is important to center people in the principles. With the exception of community stewardship, the principles are asset-focused instead of people-focused. The top principle for her would be something about people being able to stay or have agency.
Other Advisory Committee members expressed agreement with this sentiment and emphasized the need to find different language to help officials and people in general think of this in a different "box.”
Existing and Emerging Community Ownership Models
Project staff outlined that existing and emerging models for community ownership that meet our definition include: Community Land Trusts (for both rental and ownership housing), Limited Equity Cooperatives and Mutual Housing Associations, and Community Investment Trusts.
Potentially Eligible Models that could meet our definition if certain conditions are met include: Shared Equity Rental Housing, Social Housing, and Resident-Owned Manufactured Housing Communities (ROCs).
The EcoSystem
Project staff walked through the following graphic displaying the ecosystem. One Advisory Committee member added the need for a contractor component beyond technical assistance.
The City of Mountain View’s Role
The City of Mountain View’s Roles in supporting community-owned housing outcomes may include:
1. Convening partners to coordinate planning and align on priorities
2. Supporting growth and capacity of the local ecosystem to create and sustain community owned housing outcomes
3. Providing funding to help with property acquisition and rehabilitation
4. Helping with technical assistance on specific projects to ensure success
5. Adopting policies that align with and advance the COAP’s goals
Project staff spoke about how much technical assistance in the ecosystem at present is front-end, but that more support is needed over the lifecycle of a project.
Potential City Funding Parameters
Project staff provided an overview of similar programs in the region and how they compare to the vision for the COAP. They emphasized that they will provide more specificity but that the goal is to be more flexible than the other programs. One Advisory Committee member raised the examples of San Francisco, Oakland, and the Sogorea Te' Land Trust and how they didn’t necessarily require experience or proof of ability to steward the land. See slides 15-22.
Project staff outlined the current and envisioned City finance programs.
Project staff shared that the funding approach is still subject to Council input/direction, but that they envision the following:
1. Dedicate City funds for community ownership.
2. Maximize flexibility within the constraints of fiduciary responsibilities related to City funds (City has limited means compared to traditional State and Federal funds).
3. Tailor each loan to the demonstrated needs of individual projects.
4. Low or no interest possible; City has option to allow for deferred payment or loan forgiveness based on project needs and defined criteria.
5. Repayments build project equity and allow City funds to be reinvested in other projects.
6. Ongoing partnership and regular monitoring to ensure project success.
Discussion
Project staff asked for feedback on the following questions:
1. Questions and thoughts about the draft proposal?
2. Ideas about how to clarify or strengthen it, balancing the desire to be flexible and support project success while being responsible stewards of public funds?
3. Thoughts about how projects can build up equity/grant financing to close funding gaps?
4. Thoughts or concerns about how this information is shared with City Council?
• One Advisory Committee member shared that, when presenting to Council, it would be helpful to include that increasing the proportion of people at 80% AMI or higher increases the viability of projects.
• Another Advisory Committee member raised the question of how the development of a draft finance program fits into the way the City is talking about the previous discussion of goals and roles.. She knows that the City’s goals and roles are broader than just a finance program and feels it’s important to reframe how funds are used and put the emphasis on changing the ecosystem.
• Another Advisory Committee member echoed these sentiments. She mentioned that they are focusing a lot on only fifty units, and that the money could be exponentially more useful if it’s not used just for one project. • Project staff echoed this commitment to systems change and that this work goes beyond funding the development of fifty units. They shared that they have also been talking about roles the City could play in terms of a) a funder role and b) a TA/connector role to change the space, the dialogue, and how people think. The City is important, but they’re just one part of this ecosystem. • Another Committee member raised the point that the City will always be a bit behind the community organizations. It is pleasantly surprising to work with a city like Mountain View who is thinking about these issues. It is on the City and community organizations to change the narrative around housing.
Draft Metrics
Project staff presented the following draft metrics:
1. Decommodification sources – Number of homes and properties under community ownership
2. Community Stewardship – Number of residents engaged in shared governance a. One Advisory Committee member shared that this may be tricky as the number of residents engaged may not be the best indicator of the quality of the stewardship.
3. Stability – How long residents remain in housing and reasons for leaving. a. One Advisory Committee member raised the point that some attrition is not necessarily negative.
4. Capacity Building – Number of partners actively involved in community ownership efforts
5. System Transformation – Level of investment in community ownership, including leveraged partner funds.
COAP Governance Structure
Project staff shared the following vision for an ongoing governance structure:
1. Continue the COAP Advisory Committee (with potential for new members).
2. Meet quarterly and/or as-needed to provide feedback and direction on:
a. Implementation of the COAP
b. Project applications and funding decisions
c. Capacity building priorities
d. Program performance and refinements
One Advisory Committee member shared that a smaller group might be more effective. She shared that it may be helpful to have a diversity of voices, similar to the current Advisory Committee, including people with technical expertise (for example with experience in underwriting) and community organizations with strong community ties.
Wrap Up and Next Steps
The session with the City Council will be held on September 9th. At this session, project staff will provide a status update and draft action plan framework for Council input. The agenda packet will likely come out Friday, September 5th.
There may be future conversations about the action plan and how we collectively drive systems change, likely after the September City Council meeting.