 Good afternoon. I'd like to call the December 19th, 2022 Housing Authority special meeting to order. Due to the provisions of the Governor's Executive Orders, N2520 and N2920, which suspend certain requirements of the Brown Act, the Housing Authority commissioners will be conducting today's meeting in a virtual setting using Zoom webinar. Commissioners and staff are participating from remote locations and or practicing appropriate social distancing. Members of the public may view and listen to the meeting as noted on the city's website and as noted on the agenda. Hearing items will be able to do so by raising their hand and will be given the ability to address the commission. As a matter of housekeeping, I'd like to remind commissioners to keep their audio on mute unless they are speaking. Commissioners other than the chair can mute themselves. Staff will remain muted until needing to speak. As members of the public join the meeting, you will be participating as an attendee. Your microphone and camera will not, will excuse me, will be muted. Only today's panelists will be viewed during the meeting. If you're calling in from a telephone and choose to speak during the public comment portion of today's agenda for privacy concerns, the host will be renaming your viewable phone number to resident and the last four digits of your phone number. The city of Santa Rosa is committed to creating a safe and inclusive environment free from disruption. We will not tolerate any hateful speech or actions and are well staffed to monitor that everyone is participating respectfully or they will be removed. If necessary, we will also immediately end the meeting. Zoom host, please explain how public comments will be heard at today's meeting. At each agenda item, the item is presented. The chair will be lowering all hands until public comment is open for the agenda item. Once the chair has called for public comment, the chair will announce for the public to raise their hand if they wish to speak on the specific agenda item. If you are calling in to listen to the meeting audibly, you can dial star nine to raise your hand. The host will then call on the public to see. Once all live public comments have been heard, the meeting host will read email public comments. If you provide a live public comment on an agenda item but also submitted an email, your email public comment will not be read during the meeting. Additionally, there is one public comment period on today's agenda to speak on non-agenda matters item five. This is the time when any person may address the housing authority on matters not listed on this agenda but which are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the housing authority. Thank you. Roe call, please. Okay, we'll take an attendance roll call. We'll start with Commissioner Brauhauser. Here. And then Commissioner McWhorter. Commissioner Hanna. Here. Commissioner Downey has already said that he will be absent today. Commissioner Burke. President accounted for Vice Chair Owen. Here and chair test here. Let the record reflect that all commissioners are present with the exception with the exception of Commissioner Downey. Thank you. Item eight statements of abstention. Do we have any abstentions from commissioners today? I see no raised hands. So we'll move forward. Item number four is study session. And there is no study session today on this agenda. Item number five, public comments. We are now taking public comments on item number five, non-agenda matters. This is the time when any person may address the housing authority on matters not listed on this agenda but are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the housing authority. If you wish to make a comment via Zoom, please raise your hand. If you're dialing in via telephone, please dial star nine to raise your hand. Thank you. Item number six is approval of minutes. We have the minutes for the November 28th, 2022 meeting. Are there any changes? Proclamation, appreciation. If I could pause just for a moment. If you could give me just a moment to communicate with him. Okay. Then hopefully I can get some audio for him. Okay, great. Just one moment. Sorry, I've finally been able to connect. I apologize. Well, there you are. On this item, this is a proclamation of appreciation for Jeff Burke. Whereas Jeff Burke joined the city of Santa Rosa for the housing authority, general council for the housing authority. And whereas throughout his tenure as general council for the housing authority, Jeff provided immeasurable assistance on the matters and development projects brought before the housing authority. And whereas Jeff's role as general council to the housing authority has benefited the city's efforts in providing residents of Santa Rosa with well constructed and maintained affordable housing units. Therefore, be it resolved that Jeff is recognized as a dedicated and conscientious professional who has most certainly made a difference to Santa Rosa's residents. Be it further resolved that Jeff Burke will be greatly missed and is hereby wished continued success in all future devours. We have any comments or questions from staff or commissioners? Was Jeff success going forward? Both having kids to play soccer, I don't even want to know how long ago it's been a long time, but I wish him very much success going forward. Thank you. Commissioner Burke. I just want to join both Commissioner Tess and Commissioner Owens, thanking Jeff for his service. He's done a great job supporting the housing authority. Really appreciate it. Wishing you well in retirement and one last Burke to kick around and now that you'll be leaving. So I think you will enjoy retirement, Jeff, as much as if you do half as much as I do, you'll be doing great. Commissioner Lopano. Yeah, Jeff, I just wanted to wish you well on your retirement. I've only known you since I've come on to the commission, but we did have some time together rather close during the negotiations with the mobile home park owners. And I appreciate all your efforts and all you did to bring things to an end and get it resolved for the betterment of the mobile home community. And I appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you. And Jeff, I would just like to say thank you for your steady hand, your help, your calmness, and wishing you the best in retirement. Thank you. Do you have any comments to make, Jeff? So thank you. It's really been an honor and a privilege to serve for the housing authority in the city of Santa Rosa, 30 years in the public sector for the county and the city. And my wife and I raised our three daughters. In fact, I'm headed right now kind of passing the torch. My oldest daughter is just being sworn in and the voucher program are so critical. And it's just been a pleasure to be able to help serve that. So thank you all. Thank you, Jeff. Okay. We are now taking public comments on item 7.1. If you wish to make a comment via Zoom, please raise your hand. If you were dialing in via telephone, please dial star 9 to raise your hand. You will have three minutes. Sure, test. I see no hands raised at this time. Okay. Thank you. Item number 8 is chairperson or commissioner reports. Do we have any reports from any of the commissioners? I see nothing. We will be there for item 9, committee reports. Are there any committee reports today? Excuse me. I see a raised hand commissioner Burke. Probably doesn't fall under the category commissioner reports, but I'm just curious to know the status of the planning day. Right now we had a summary of that information before us at our last meeting. Just wanted to see where things were going from this point on. Thank you. Mr. Burke, thank you for that question. Chair Tess and I have been in some discussions about this, and we are looking at the January housing authority to meeting to return to review the recommendations that were made in the planning day. Thank you. Any other chairperson or commissioner reports? Seeing none. We are now taking public comments on item 8.1. If you wish to make a comment via Zoom, please raise your hand. If you're dialing in via telephone, please dial star 9 to raise your hand. You will have three minutes. Item number 9 is committee reports. I don't believe there are any committee reports at this time. Item number 10, executive director reports and communication items. Item 10.1 is pending development pipeline update. Good afternoon, chair Tess and members of the housing authority. You'll see attached to the agenda is our monthly pipeline update. So I'm happy to update. The first is that orchard commons, which is a 45-unit development on Boyd Street, is in the process of leasing up. So shortly we'll have 45 additional units targeted to low and very low income households. Working with those developers to close it, and then as noted by their status, these projects have a legal counsel. Everyone has really worked incredibly hard to. Do we have any questions from commissioners? I totally agree. Thank you so much for yourself and all the staff at the housing authority because all of the work that you have done to push these projects through and really appreciate the good work on staff's behalf. Thank you. Hey, right now we are now taking public comments on item 10.1. If you wish to make a comment via Zoom, please raise your hand. If you're dialing in via telephone, please dial star nine to raise your hand. You will have three minutes. Chair Tess, I see no hands raised at this time. Thank you. No consent items on this agenda. Item number 12. Item number 12 is a report item. I'm going to do my best to get through this presentation coughing as few times as possible. I will try to mute my mic if that happens. So we could go to the, there we go, first of the slides. So we can go ahead and move on to the next slide, things. This proposed project is located on Bennett Valley Road. It's at the corner of Rutledge Avenue and Bennett Valley. It is a city-owned site comprised of four parcels that was formerly used for the Bennett Valley to be surplus. And on the screen, you have the four addresses. Those are the four parcels that make up this site. Next slide, please. And here's the overhead so you can see where the project is located. Right there, you see Highway 12 at the top of the screen. And those four parcels highlighted in proposals. And in September of 2019, the council selected the proposal submitted by Freebird Development Company and Allied Housing for the Bennett Valley Apartments. Next slide, please. All right, a little bit about the project. I know you guys have seen it before. It is a proposed project that includes 62 units with over half targeted to formerly homeless individuals as permanent supportive housing units. Permanent supportive housing is a term that is used for the units that are dedicated to formerly homeless individuals and families. They receive additional supportive services to help them maintain their housing and successfully transition into being housed. So the term permanent supportive housing really relates to receive in those units. On the pipeline that you saw earlier and later on in this presentation, we also referenced 30 project-based vouchers in this project. So project-based vouchers are a financing tool. It's the Section 8 financing contribution to the project to commit 30 of the units to having vouchers assigned to those units and receiving that supplemental subsidy, rental income for a 20-year term. For the Bennett Valley Apartments, the 30 committed project-based vouchers will be assigned to the permanent supportive housing units, but that's not a requirement of either the project-based vouchers or the permits 20% of area median income, 29 units at 50% of area median income, and then one unrestricted manager's unit. There will be 19 studios, 19 one-bedroom units, 9 two-bedroom units, and 15 three-bedroom units. All right, next slide please. All right, so the City Council of 2021, the Disposition and Development, sorry, Agreement identifies the price in terms of the sale, including the provisions that the developer must have received funding commitments for the full development cost prior to the sale of the site to the property. So the City has agreed to a sale price of $1 to invest the site fuel into the project to make it successful for affordable housing. The developer so far has secured several funding commitments and anticipates being fully funded and purchasing the property in April of 2023, so coming up in a few months here. Next slide please. The Housing Authority has also invested in this project. You have an approved $5.8 million in loan funds and 30 project-based vouchers to the project so far. The project program, we also refer to that as MHP, Housing for a Healthy California Program, and they recently received a recommendation of tax credits and bonds from TCAC, so the project is nearly completely funded at this point. Next slide please. So these are two photos of what the site looks like now. In October, there was a fire that occurred at the site and damaged the structures, resulting in the City red-tagging the site because it's unsafe to inhabit at this point. As you can see in these recent photos, the structures are now boarded up and fenced. There's damage structures. These are all taken from ability to maintain. The City obtained bids on the cost to demolish the site and coming in at about $272,000. Now this bid contains a contingency and might be further reduced if there are any insurance proceeds that can cover this property. The amount is up to $272,000 for a reduction because it will likely be a little bit less. In a project anyway by agreeing to the $1 purchase price, the developers agreed to a reduction to the $5.8 million Housing Authority Award in the amount of up to $272,000 to cover rather than waiting until they purchased the site. The developer wouldn't be rich, is anticipated in April. The developer, the City and the neighborhood have all expressed desire to have the structures demolished as soon as possible now that the fires occurred. How this would work? Of the $5.8 million loan award from the Housing Authority, this item may be familiar to you because we've come back a couple of times. We ended up splitting the award into two parts. So there's a $2 million pre-development loan and a $3.8 million construction-related loan. We have already underwritten and move forward with dispersing funds for the $2 million pre-development portion of the loan. And what remains encumbered in the Housing Authority budget, loan documents have not been drawn up to loan that yet and the developer did not have access to those funds. Those funds cannot be accessed by them until we have completed the loan documents and everything's finalized and they've purchased the property from the city and we've recorded everything against the site under the developer's name. So if the Housing Authority approves the request and allows up to $272,000 to be reduced from the Housing Authority award, it would bring the total amount of the award and the encumbrance in the Housing Authority's budget down from the $5.8 million amount to the $5,528,000. That would allow up to $272,000 to be used for the demolition costs. The demolition costs, like I said, might end up being less than the $200,000. There's a little bit of leeway there while those numbers are still becoming less flexible. So similarly, if the reduction is approved but circumstances outside of our control cause the demolition to not take place before the developer purchased the property in April, we wouldn't reduce the award at all and the developer would end up paying to have the structures demolished after they purchased the site in April. Next slide please. All other loan terms would remain unchanged. The term of affordability is still 55 years. The full amount of the award would be secured against the property by a deed of trust once the developer purchases the property and we execute the loan documents. Benefit of demolishing the structures on the site now means that when the developer does purchase the site in April they will be able to move more quickly to begin the recommendation. The city owns and is responsible for the site until it sold to the developer. That's estimated to happen in April. The fire in October significantly damaged the structures making it unsafe and there's a desire from the developer, the city and the neighbors to demolish the structures as soon as possible. Demolition was a cost that the developer was going to incur regardless so they agreed to reduce the loan award from the housing authority by the cost to demolish the structures so that the city can use those funds. All right, last slide please. So with that it is the recommended date is recommended by the housing authority I'm sorry it is recommended by the Housing and Community Services Department that the housing authority by resolution approve a reduction up to $272,000 to a prior conditional commitment of loan funds in the amount of $5.8 million to free for development prior to developer acquisition. So I'm happy to answer any questions from the housing authority. Vice Chair Owen. Yeah so I went through the background on this before so the city owns the property. Yes. It the fire happened while the city owned it. I'm assuming the city has insurance on the property so it's been I assume and I'm making a lot of assumptions. The there's been a claim made on the on the insurance proceeds. Yes so our real estate manager is working with the insurance and risk management. How does the waiting for that payout from insurance fall into the calendar of next spring them taking title and the property actually being demolished. So we would have an award fly so it's it is a matter of very tight time frame over the next couple months to have these all all these dominoes fall into place. And then if I go back to what we looked at before which is the project pipeline this property and is in the category of waiting additional funding or permits you know the property is not fully funded. They're 40 million dollar budgets not fully funded. Is that correct. That's correct. They are waiting on about 1.5 to 2 million dollars. There's a current infill infrastructure grant application to HCD that this city applied for free bird and the bed of valley apartments was one of the projects in the qualified infill area the QIA for that project. So we are waiting on the timeline to hear back from HCD for that last million and a half to million dollars. The rest of the project is fully funded. Is our closing on the transfer contingent upon them being fully funded. Yes they must be fully funded before the sale happens. Commissioner will. Cause of the fire was. I don't have that in front of me right now. Megan do we have that. Oh actually I've seen Jason turned on his camera. Jason not the assistant city manager. Commissures the fire we believe was started by homeless activity that had gone into the building. We've worked hard since closure the structure to harden and keep those types of illicit behaviors out. But it's been it's been a struggle. We've had small fires on the roof in the past. This particular one occurred inside. So if it disappointed it Nicole if I could if I could just also respond to your own comments previously. We have talked with our insurance. It is through the joint powers authority. We do have a $250,000 deductible. And so that's predominantly why this ask is to cover the first $250,000. Thank you for that information. Commissioner Burr. Thank you. I chair test. So in the development budget from free bird. So the development budget that was originally submitted to us when they applied for and were awarded the $5.8 million is they had actually anticipated a higher amount. So by the city reducing savings to the project. So it would leave a balance of some amount in the you know this resolution before us this action. Yes. The developer came to us with this proposal. Okay. And then in terms of the demolition and thanks Jason for the explanation about the coverage and that was kind of some questions that I have in my mind too. The so covered in this estimate that you have from the contractors. Yes. Commissioner I do believe those contingencies were put in place given the age of the building and what we know about it from our facilities maintenance team members who have been working on it for the last several years. Thank you. Thank you. Let's share on. So if I understand correctly Jason saying that the cities of policies $250,000 deductible looking at $272 is about make simple math $22,000 that could come from insurance. And if this is a $272,000 reduction and alone I don't know what category that came from when we were putting it allocating these funds if it was CDBG fund pays for it. It's the housing authority have to reimburse the city in any fashion because I don't think you can do that with maybe Megan. This is a question for you as to does this does the housing authority source of this 200 this portion of the fire while owning any of the property. So the funding source for this project is local funds. So we don't have to worry about the various layers that federal funding would impose on this project. It is anticipated if this is approved today that the housing authority funding would be applied to the payment. So we would pay the city's vendor for demolition. So there's not as cost savings to the housing authority is just going to the city versus versus the developer for the demolition. Well, yes, the project will realize cost savings as Nicole indicated with the reduced demolition costs. How does this translate into a change in the purchase and sale agreement because I we didn't see that but I would anticipate it would be a sale of the property as is where is with all faults. But now the city is going to have to deliver a property that's cleaned. Are there toxic reports the city has to provide? How does that work in terms of any additional liability? Jason, are you able to answer that Jill's absence? You know, Commissioner, I don't know if I can answer it in a come, you know, as comprehensive as I would like this afternoon. We are still selling the property in an as is condition given the fact that we have to remove it is to some extent incumbent on the city to try to at least provide the property in the condition that they originally intended to purchase it. It's mutually beneficial for us to go and raise the entire structure. It benefits both the city and the and free bird as the developer. So that's that's why we're we're supportive of the action. Okay, thank you. Are there any other comments or questions from commissioners? Seeing none. We are now taking public comments on item 12.1. If you wish to make a comment via zoom please raise your hand. If you were dialing in via telephone please dial star nine to raise your hand. You will have three minutes. Chair test, we have Robin Zimler who has her hand up. So I'm going to move forward with her public comment. Thank you. Hi, can everyone hear me? Yes. Okay, great. I'm Robin. I'm the founder and manager of free bird develop development. So I just wanted to address some of the questions that came up and answer them from from my perspective. Number one, yes, we're super supportive of this. It was kind of our idea to take the money from our loan so that we could get this done sooner rather than later, given the recent fire and the neighborhood support for for taking the the building down as soon as possible. So very supportive. With respect to the hazmat abatement we had done hazmat testing in both the senior building and the ancillary building. So we know what led in asbestos are out there. We forwarded it to the city who forwarded it to the demo contractor. So all of that abatement, my understanding is included in the addition. Does it create additional liability for after the demo to do additional just some additional environmental testing so that we know what we're dealing with. But I talked to my environmental first inch or foot of topsoil will have to be disposed of in a different way than the rest of the soil. But we don't expect this fire or the demo to contaminate any soil deep underneath. So it won't be a financing came up. So as Nicole mentioned, we do have a pending application with the city for IIG funds. That award was initially supposed to be made. But we're like we're so high up on the scoring list that we definitely think we're getting those funds and we are proceeding as if we're getting those funds towards an April closing because we want to get the construction started as soon as possible. So I think that covers the questions that came up. But yeah, that's it for me. Thank you, Robin. Sheriff, would any of the Housing Authority commissioners like to make a motion regarding this resolution 12.1? I will move to approve the resolution of the Housing Authority of the city of Santa Rosa, approving a reduction of up to $272,000 to a prior conditional commitment of loan funds in the amount of $5.8 million to Free Bird Development Company LLC for the Benton Valley Apartments Project to allow funds to be utilized for demolition of the site prior developer acquisition and waive the reading of the text. I would second that motion. Okay, we'll proceed with a vote on the resolution. We'll begin with the mover, Vice Chair Owen, and the second chair test. And Commissioner Rawhouser? Aye. Commissioner McWhorter? Commissioner LePenna? Aye. Commissioner Burke? Aye. Okay, that motion passes. Thank you. Last item on our agenda is the adjournment, and I want to wish everybody happy holidays, and we'll see you next year. Happy holidays. Thank you. Thank you. Happy holidays. Thank you. Bye, everybody.