CB council addresses housing lottery process issues

Humans make mistakes

By Mark Reaman 

After a major mistake occurred at the January 22 affordable housing lottery that ended up necessitating a redraw, town of Crested Butte officials formally addressed the situation at the March 3 council meeting apologizing for the error and looking at ways to better conduct the lotteries in the future. While admitting there is always the possibility of error when humans are involved in a process, the council supported some initial staff ideas to tighten up the lotteries.

At the January 22 event, a lottery ticket was accidentally omitted from a drawing for two-bedroom rental units in Paradise Park. That resulted in town housing director Erin Ganser calling for the redraw. While four of the five original unit winners were reselected, one family that had been told they had a rental unit were not redrawn and so they were informed by phone an hour later of the change. This resulted in personal trauma for the family and general community concern over the process.

“Staff apologizes for the mistake and the impacts it caused,” Crested Butte town manager Dara MacDonald told the council and audience at the March 3 meeting. “We are here to improve the lottery process and restore trust with the town.”

Ganser said the fact there is a 1% rental vacancy rate in the county adds stress for everyone and described the local housing situation for workers as “broken.”

As for the actual lottery, Ganser said the events are always stressful and emotional for everyone involved. She described the check-in process on January 22 as “challenging” due to noise in the council chambers, making communication with online participants particularly difficult. “From this lottery experience, it is clear that the pre-lottery check-in process was not sufficiently rigorous,” Ganser explained in a memo.

She and the staff suggested several possible adjustments to the lottery for the council to consider. Based on other similar lotteries held in other places, she said town might consider a “closed” lottery where participants are not allowed to attend the drawing. She said digital lotteries are used by some municipalities. Town could require all participants to attend in person or allow both in-person and virtual participation, or only online participation could be used. “Each approach has benefits and drawbacks, and there is always a tug of war between transparency and privacy,” she noted. 

She also recommended separating the check-in and pre-lottery audit processes, and most importantly, she said town communication needed to be clearer so that participants understand that the lottery itself is not final until the “objection period” concludes.

In a lengthy discussion, councilmembers and the public brainstormed various ways forward. Councilmember Anna Fenerty asked if the drawing for different sized units could be held on separate nights so as to avoid the mixing up of tickets. 

“That could happen, but it would extend the process,” said Ganser. 

Mayor Ian Billick warned that focusing on fixing the last problem could lead to new problems.

“We’ve heard a lot of complaints, multiple times about the process,” said Fenerty.

“I appreciate the staff focus on this,” said councilmember Kent Cowherd. “I don’t think we should do a closed lottery or online only. And let’s definitely not use a garbage can as the bin to draw tickets from.”

Councilmember Gabi Prochaska who attended the January 22 lottery said having both in-person and online participants added to the miscommunication possibilities. She also was not in favor of conducting “closed” lotteries and asked if the Gunnison Valley Regional Housing Authority (GVRHA) could conduct the lotteries instead of the town. 

When asked by councilmember John O’Neal, Prochaska said she was against a closed lottery because “as difficult and emotional as the lottery is, there is a deep sense of community felt by the participants.”

“Two of our value words are authentic and accountable and it is hard to achieve those in a closed lottery,” said Fenerty who suggested more than one councilmember attend each drawing.

“I’m impressed with the improvement suggestions,” said O’Neal. “We can’t do it all, but we do need to be transparent and clear.”

“The process has to be transparent but there are limits and not everyone should know the financial situation of all the participants,” said Billick.

“I kind of like the online lottery,” said O’Neal. “A lot of the problems seem because there are too many people in the room and all the drama. Take it out of the room and reduce the error potential as much as possible.”

“There will be errors,” said Billick. “Humans are involved in the process. The question is, do we give each other grace when they occur? Can we move together as a community beyond the mistakes?”

“That has to happen throughout the whole process, not just at the end with the lottery,” said Fenerty. “Whether or not we want the town to be providing housing, we are, and given the numbers, that means some people won’t get it.”

Billick said transparency was important but if something doesn’t go exactly right, not every minor ministerial error should result in a redraw. As for the trauma experienced by the family in the last drawing who thought they had a rental unit but then were informed they didn’t, Billick asked council if they thought they could issue them more tickets at the next lottery drawing or even put them at the top of the list for a new unit.

Two two-bedroom rental units will be finished this summer in Paradise Park and a lottery will be held for them. A triplex with a one-, two- and three-bedroom units will be complete around the end of the year and will also be awarded through lottery.

“I think we need to do something,” said Prochaska. “That night I wanted to give them a unit. Is giving them additional tickets enough? Is there something we can do that doesn’t push another household out?”

“Not really,” said Billick. “There is a limited number of units. It’s just something for council to consider.”

“I agree and think we should think about how to make it right for that family but I’m not sure how,” said Cowherd.

Members of the public commented on the situation with varying ideas.

“I was a participant in that lottery and it was a wild ride. One of the hardest things I’ve done in a while,” said Shane Palmer. “The opportunity to be part of that lottery as a 23-year resident when there is zero housing inventory was a blessing. But the fact is not everyone can win the lottery all the time. I was lucky. I think Erin handled the situation professionally. I don’t think it’s a good idea to give the people who lost out, a unit. That doesn’t seem fair either.”

Donny Davol urged council to get the GVRHA more involved. “It’s their role. They should be doing the lottery,” he said.

An emotional Karen Morgan said housing is the foundation of what builds a life and supporting working families like hers helps keep Crested Butte thriving. She said her family is next on the waiting list for a three-bedroom unit and relayed that she felt the family who won a three-bedroom unit ahead of them hadn’t followed the rules when they didn’t disclose that they owned a mobile home in Gunnison. “You need to honor your guidelines to make sure the integrity of the lottery is upheld,” she said. 

Ben Hess said he thought those in the lottery should show up for the lottery. 

“Don’t change too many things in your policy but change some of the process and do better with communications. Housing is a need and thanks to you for trying to address it,” Hess said.

While making no final decisions, council indicated to staff that they want an open lottery process that has an active in-person element but not active online participation. While it could be viewed online, there would be no virtual participation. 

As for the idea of integrity in the process, Ganser said town staff assumes good intent from applicants. “It is a complicated process and very personal. To expect things to come in perfect isn’t realistic. No one turns in a clean application on the first try,” she said. “Town is diligent to review each unique situation against the intent and language of the guidelines with the very real understanding that no policy can ever address the myriad of circumstances that each household faces.”

In regard to the idea of an applicant having to sell something like a mobile home before they have been selected for an affordable unit, she said that doesn’t make sense. “We wouldn’t force an applicant to sell an asset on the hope of possibly securing housing through the lottery,” she said. “The staff tries to navigate the intentions of the council to provide housing in a fair and transparent way. If the cure and end result to an issue is the same at the beginning or the end, does it impact the results of the lottery?” she asked.

“Compliance is an issue that always comes up,” said Fenerty. “It’s important for us to deal with that, I think.”

“If we start the process with staff assuming people are applying and being fraudulent, that’s not a good space. Staff works hard to look at complicated applications and make hard decisions. Someone will lose out in the lottery and that’s painful,” said Billick. “Until we solve the housing issue, it won’t go away. All of this is in some ways a product of our success. We have units to help people. But we are going through growing pains. We need trust to build community and we need to do our best.”

Staff will present a formal recommendation on general updates to the guidelines and how to better conduct the affordable housing lotteries at the May 19 council meeting.