User Tools

Site Tools


meetings:2015-10-11

October 11, 2015

Present: Rebecca (minutes), Paul, Burgess, Richard, Ryan, Hannah, Donny (facilitator), Ann, Sam, Delia, Andi

Meet and Greet

Melissa- First meeting, Interested in becoming a member, looking for somewhere to live, has a 12 year old son, really interested in finding a community to be a part of, Son Marley lives with her full time, he's a home schooler, living somewhere til the 25th of October, I have a few more temporary options, but the sooner the better. Looking to share a unit, has a reliable source of income, likes gardening, but can do lots of things like cooking and cleaning.

Review of Minutes

approved

Wiki Updates

Corey not present

Agenda Item 1

(Richard) No member acting on behalf of the house may accept a residency contract for an individual person to occupy a whole unit if doing so would reduce the number of resident-members to a quantity fewer than 33. This restriction is waived if the individual receives financial assistance via HACA, has legal dependents, or is pregnant. The rules passed on August 30, 2015 in the form of agenda items 1 and 2 are repealed.

RIchard- attempt at reframing the rules that we have. from cap to member floor…. loosens the effective cap, the number 33 was picked was a direct translation from the cap of 7. On November 1,

CQ And POI:
Burgess- is 33 from a minimum number to perform those bnefits that go with our coop, like meals, gardens, is it consistent with our labor needs? that come with residency here?

RIchard- yes, its to the point of fitting into the schedule perfectly. yes it covers our labor requirements. We are short one dish of cooking, but as of tomorrow not anymore.

ANN- this will remove whatever has passed in August right?

Paul- yes

Ryan- what is the minimum number of laborers to effectively run this coop

RIchard- that depends on what we want to do here. theres no straight forward answer to that.

BURgess- We ask people to sign the lease and we tell peoplep what we're doing. i see nothing in the numbers that undoes that. So, there's no question in your mind that they are living up to the commitments that we say out loud and on paper.

Concerns:

RYAn- people who want a single occupancy unit, they are mostly older. majority are over 40. Will this skew the age demographic from older people to younger people?
Richard- theres the HACA Recipients that are required to have a whole unit. if we consider those that opt in, yeah i think it would skew. there is an aspect of economic power with older people. short answer is yes.

Paul- i like this proposal better than the cap. FA to add people who are in the process of adopting a child.

RIChard- accepts

CQ about FA: none

Concerns about FA: Andi: how would we verify that?

Paul: it would be a paperwork thing. it should be in there for a legal perspective

FA PAsses

RYan: The proposal first had 30 and then it changed to 33. why?

Richard- 30 was just a rounded number, when i thought about it if we had to have a number for a reason, i wanted it to be jsut a direct translation from the 7 cap

ANn- If you have 33 people, and we have some 3 people units, what if someone moved out of a 3 people unit, and then at the same time someone…..does this affect people who already live here? like if a single unit wants to renew their lease?

RIchard- no, that would not affect someone who already has a lease. they would not be lowering the number just by signing and renewing their lease.

Donny- i do like this change to the existing cap system, more broad, general and flexible. Propose a FA To change number to 32.

RIchard0- we can think of this as a floating cap. Richard accepts.

CQ about FA: none

Concerns about FA: none

FA is accepted

Burgess- we can spend a lot of time trying to think about the perfect number, but we should give it some time and see if this number over time. it will change but i like this approach better.

Ryan- DId that language include requesting variances? in the original proposal?

WHOLe proposal passes with 2 Friendly amendments

Agenda Item 2

(Hannah) Remove all meeting requirements for partner organization applicants (HACA and Caritas at time of writing.) Partner organization applicants must instead make a site visit and take a tour of the property . Site visits may only be offered if there is an opening which applicants may sign for. On the site visit, a member must explain how a coop works, and that if they do not abide by cooperative rules they will be asked to leave after one year.

Partner organization applicants will be given priority above associates and below current members when a full apartment unit becomes available.

For Discussion: Caseworkers still required to attend before making referrals or not, in consideration that this may be a barrier?

Hannah- It could be an interesting experiment. there are legit concerns, cooperation happens when people are part of the coop, not before they are accepted. lots of people have transportation issues, making it hard to get to the meetings. open to putting a time cap on it. it comes with risks.

POI ANd CQ:

Burgess- What are teh sources for potential membership that would require us to do a year lease instead of 6 month lease

HANnah- HACA requires this. they put us in a difficult bind as far as some of their program requirements.

Andi- if people arent able to sign a lease at that point, they are not allowed a site visit?

RYan- this proposal would put them at the top of the waitlist no matter what. current members can move into any unit they want and then we go to the wait list, its hard for people to come twice. they should be able to come here and if they like it, then sign a lease that day.

Donny- the problem that people have is not the transportation, but that there isnt a room available at the time or something else doesn't fit.

Hannah- there are a lot of reasons why people dont wanna move into a coop. this might make it easier for people to say yes to living here though.

paul- why is the second paragraph necessary

RYan- so they are not above current members. if you take that out, people could assume that they take priority over current members, and that's not the case. it's fine to keep it in there.

COncerns and FA:

RIchard- propose to strike the entire sentence that starts with “Site visits”. “Site visits may only be offered if there is an opening which applicants may sign for. ” Hannah accepts.

CQ And POI About FA: none

Concerns about FA: none

ACCepted FA

Hannah- strike “After one year” in sentence “On the site visit, a member must explain how a coop works, and that if they do not abide by cooperative rules they will be asked to leave after one year.” And change “they” to “the applicant”. Hannah accepts her own FA

CQ AND POI about FA none

Concerns about FA:

Richard- suggestion (FA) to strike the entire sentence.

Hannah- does not accept FA to strike the entire sentence.

Paul- the general understanding of people coming to 2 meetings is that they should be introduced to stuff like that. FA to change “A member” to “membership coordinator or designee” Hannah accepts

Amendment passes.

DONNy- concern: the house does not have a chance to say that this person has a reason why they shouldnt move in to the coop.

Hannah - Propose FA to memco emails name 24 hours before the site visit. if member has a concern and expresses concern to memco before site visit, will not sign contract, tells applicant that we will discuss at the next Sunday meeting.

POI AND CQ for FA;

Paul- does this violate confidentiality for HACA?

RYAN- only people that need to know to conduct business can know, but you could argue that everyone needs to know.

COncerns for FA:

RYan- a big part of this is membership is a lot of hard work, they are our partner organizations and we trust them, they wouldn't give us violent people if they knew it.

Andi- FA to FA: change it to 48 hours. we need to have the ability to protect our members. i feel like 24 hours may not be ample time.

Hannah accepts

Amendment passes as amended.

Donny: concern- we have done 3 amendments already, the language is not ready for a proposal. this is not the ideal way to make sausage. make it outside.

ANdi: the content has been discussed at 2 separate meetings. i disagree

Paul: what about having both options: either 2 meetings or a site visit? or One meeting or a site visit?

ANdi: FA: memco will encourage a case worker to come to a meeting before the site visit.

Hannah accepts.

RYAn- are they required to come as is? Yes.

COncerns about FA: Paul: do we have any other language about case workers?
Hannah: yes, there is something about the case workers having to come to 2 meetings.

FA PAsses

Donny- this is not fully baked and this is not the best way to make policy.

Back to main proposal:
CONsensus passed as amended.

Agenda Item 3

(Hannah) Discuss dividing Outreach Coordinator into two positions: Events Planner (for in-house events) and Outreach & Inclusivity Coordinator (for marketing and reaching out into the community with a specific requirement of marketing to diverse communities.)

Discussion:

Andi: my idea was to establish an outreach committee. we have a really big task with outreach and diversity. the second part: by the nature of doing outreach work, we need more voices to do that work. supervised by an outreach coordinator (2 of them)

Hannah- i'm not gonna write that, but you should!

Burgess- while coming up with that, at present we don't have anyone that wants to be a maintenance coordinator or kitchen coordinator. keep that in mind while drafting

Donny- i like the idea of having a dedicated events planner. we haven't done a lot of out reach since our original outreach. concerns; someone needs to make sure they are doing something. accountability to the house, very public.

BUrgess- the added diversity that we might enjoy will give us a maintenance coordinator maybe

PAul- i am inclined to like this idea, but i dont know about direct split between in house and out house.

Agenda Item 4

(Ryan) Long Term planning. Focusing on efficiency and lowering costs or renovations adding units and utility?

Ryan- this goes back to the work i''ve done looking at energy efficiency. we did get a quote, $200,000 for lots of different things like replacing AC units, etc. i didn't bring it up to the house……the other thing would be to add more units and do a kitchen remodel. i'm gonna try to do the furnaces, and roof replacement,

Discussion:

Burgess: i like the emphasis in terms of efficiency, it starts with not wasting what we have. if done well, it costs less.

Richard- do we have a comparison

Ryan- 5 furnaces $30,000, $150 per square foot for standard plumbing installation in kitchen remodel, build north to the property line and doubling the space in the commons. we wouldn't have to waste this kitchen, make it into an apartment. that plan would cost about 250-300,000 and kitchen supplies like 10,000.

Paul- energy efficiency will also add to the saving. I'd love to see numbers on all these things.

RYan- yes that is just harder to model. the coop pays for it, but the members benefit individually. we got the best numbers we can without commitment yet. our budget has a 5% surplus. we could just get a loan by putting all our savings on a down payment. some of its based on what we already have saved, some might come with a rent increase. it might be a 2 or 3% modify.

Paul- i'd like to see some of it set aside for the roof.

RIchard- i like the idea of the expansion,

Strawpoll on Long term planning: energy efficiency and lowering cost or adding more bedrooms and providing more affordable housing for people/bringing more people in here

CORey: adding extra units is changing the footprint of the building, its gonna have to be inspected. they potentially would inspect the rest of the building. we would have to fix things in a very short time frame.

Burgess: start with efficiency, we could cut out more waste and have more money in the future to add rooms and stuff.

Will we lose our grandfather status of being up to 1968 code instead of modern code. code compliance in AUSTIn is complaint driven. they are not looking for extra work to do, they need to be told basically.

PAul- energy efficiency would serve members individually

Corey- there might be other projects we can do to increase quality of life around here.

Ryan- its not accurate to say that energy efficiency would save money for members, we need to give people money to give us real accurate quotes.

New business

RIchard- labor holiday: the outside is amazing, the childrens closet is amazing, good job Lauren! I'm still powerwashing, if you want to powerwash you can! william put in close to 20 hours perhaps. Corey worked a lot too. Sign the labor sheet!!

Sam- Make proposal for One month extension til they can find another unit, will add it to the next meeting agenda

Paul- there is one bike rack in, it takes a while to sink the holes and whack it all into shape. we will probably put in a house rule that you need to lock up your bikes under the stairs or at the bike racks. its a safety concern.

meetings/2015-10-11.txt · Last modified: 2016/01/03 23:35 (external edit)