 Hello. Good afternoon, Diane. Hi, Wayne. Annie Vaughn. And me. Oh, hi, Scott. Good chair test since we're a couple of minutes before 1.30, we can just hold off for a little bit. All right, chair test. If you'd like to go ahead and call the meeting to order. Hi, I'd like to begin with item number one, call this meeting to order. This is to remind the commissioners to keep your audio on mute unless they are speaking. Commissioners other than the chair can mute themselves. Staff will remain muted until meeting to speak. As members of the public join the meeting, you will be participating as an attendee. Your microphone and camera 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 comments 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. Claire, can you please explain how public comments will be heard at today's meeting? At each agenda item, the item is presented. The chair will ask for housing authority member comments and then open it up for public comment. The host and zoom 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're 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 who have raised their hands. Public comment will be limited to three minutes and a timer will appear on the screen for the commission and public to see. For today's agenda, public comment will be limited to the items listed on the special meeting agenda. Okay, item two, roll call. Okay, we'll go ahead and do an attendance roll call and we will start with commissioner Rawhouser. Here. And then commissioner McWhorter. Here. Commissioner LaPenna. Here. Commissioner Downey. Here. Commissioner Burke. Here. Vice chair Owen. Here. And chair test. Here. Let the record reflect that all commissioners are present. Thank you. Item number three, statements of abstention. Any commissioner, any statements of abstention by commissioners? Seeing none, we'll move to item number four, report items. Item number 4.1. Good afternoon. Item 4.1 is a report, July 2021 project-based voucher request or proposals. Funding recommendation for Bennett Valley Apartments. Julie Garan, a program specialist, will be presenting. Good afternoon commissioners, staff, and public present today. My name is Julie Garan and I'll be presenting on the July 2021 request for proposals for project-based vouchers and the funding recommendation they're in. All right, so the summary of the RFP, the RFP was issued on July 23rd, 2021 with a due date of August 11th, 2021. There were 30 project-based vouchers available. The RFP was targeted to projects specifically for those projects dedicated to permanent supportive housing for people who have experienced homelessness. And we received proposals for 62 units of PVV or project-based vouchers across three projects during this application. So here you will see a list of these six proposal ranking categories. And the proposal categories were project dedication to housing the homeless for a total possible 20 points, experience with similar projects for 10 possible points, project location for 10 possible points, commitment to providing long-term affordable housing for 20 possible points, on-site supportive services for 20 possible points, and affordability for 20 possible points, for a total of 100 possible points in the proposal ranking criteria. So we, as mentioned before, we've received three project applications for project-based vouchers for a total of 62 project-based vouchers. We received an application from Bennett Valley Apartments who has a total of 62 units and they were requesting 30 project-based vouchers. They scored 90 out of 100 and ranked first, number one. We received an application from Hearns Veterans Village who has a total of 32 units and they requested 27 project-based vouchers. They scored 75 out of 100 and ranked two second. We received an application from Mahonia Glenn who has a total of 99 units and was requesting five project-based vouchers. They scored 60 out of 100 and ranked third. August 30th, 2021, an ad hoc committee reviewed the proposals. And the ad hoc committee came to a recommendation to award 30 vouchers to the top-ranking project Bennett Valley Apartments. The ad hoc committee recommendation was unanimous. Here you see a locational graphic of the project Bennett Valley Apartments that is being recommended for the 30 project-based vouchers is at the address 702 Bennett Valley Road, these on the site of the old Bennett Valley Senior Center Complex. All right, the Bennett Valley Apartments proposal. The developer for Bennett Valley Apartments is Freebird Development Company, LLC. This is a new construction on the former site of Bennett Valley Senior Center Complex. There are 62 total units and 49% of the units are targeted for homeless individuals. And there are 30 project-based vouchers being recommended for the project. On included in the proposal is on-site staff to provide for the on-site services specifically targeted to formerly homeless. Again, this RFP was released to serve formerly homeless. And so part of the application was including on-site services for that pop-targeted population. On-site staff include a full-time clinical case manager, a full-time services coordinator, and a program manager. And on-site services targeted to the population include clinical assessments, counseling, case conferencing coordination for off-site primary health care services, case management, housing stability support, health education, recreational activities, community building activities, financial literacy, computer training, employment assistance, conflict resolution, and mediation, and access to off-site vocational training. That is some of the on-site supportive services included. We couldn't fit all of them on the slide. There's more besides listed. So continuing on with the Bennett Valley Apartments Proposal Summary, the affordability mix was 32 units at 30% AMI, 29 units at 50% AMI, and one unrestricted managers unit. The unit mix is a 19-0 bedroom, 19-1 bedroom, 12-2 bedroom, and 12-3 bedroom. An environmental review, a National Environmental Policy Act, NEPA, Environmental Assessment is completed already for the project. And the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act or CEQA. Okay, now we'll go over the scoring for Bennett Valley Apartments. So in the category of project dedication to housing the homeless for a total of possible points of 20, Bennett Valley Apartments received 15 out of 20, 49% of the units will be dedicated to housing the formerly homeless. In order to receive 20 out of 20, you would have had to be over 50%. In the second category, experience with similar projects, Bennett Valley scored 10 out of 10 for four completed projects in the region. Five projects are in pre-development and significant development and management experience outside of the region, including with similar projects. For projects location, Bennett Valley scored 10 out of 10. The project is located in a census tract with a poverty rate at or below 20%, determined in the most recent American Community Survey five-year estimate. Project location is actually one of the scoring criteria that is mandated to be included in all product-based voucher requests for proposals. Commitment to providing long-term affordable housing is the next category and Bennett Valley Apartments scored 20 out of 20. They self-scored for CDLAC and MHP at a top 1% of total possible points. They are applying to the upcoming multi-family housing program, which is due in this month, 9, 20, 2021. This RFP was released with the intent to improve the financial feasibility of projects seeking upcoming competitive funding, including this MHP funding round. The next category, on-site supportive services. Bennett Valley Apartments scored 20 out of 20 with extensive and targeted on-site supportive services for formerly homeless population, including also on-site professional supportive staff to provide those services. And in the last category, affordability, Bennett Valley Apartments scored 15 out of 20. The project has 51% of restricted units or more at 50% AMI or below. The unit affordability mix is 32 units targeted to households with incomes up to 30% of area medium income AMI, 29 units targeted to household incomes up to 50% AMI, and one unrestricted managers unit. So out of the six rating criteria, Bennett Valley Apartments scored 90 out of 100 for a total of 90%. Projects not being recommended for funding. We received two other applications. Hernd's Veterans Village ranked second with a total of 75 out of 100 points, and Mahoney and Glenn ranked third with a total of 60 out of 100 possible points. So the recommendation, it is recommended by the Housing Authority AdHoc Review Committee and the Housing and Community Services Department, that the Housing Authority by resolution approve a conditional commitment of 30 project-based vouchers to Freebird Development Company, LLC, for Bennett Valley Apartments located at 702 Bennett Valley Road, 716 Bennett Valley Road, 921 Rutledge Avenue and 927 Rutledge Avenue, Santa Rosa, California. Thank you. Now we have our last slide with questions and discussions. Thank you, Julie. Housing commissioners, if you have any questions of staff, could you please raise your electronic hand, which is either at the bottom of the screen or the top of your screen, depending on which technology you have. I see Dr. Downey, would you like to ask a question? Yes, hi Julie, can you hear me? Yes. Okay. A couple of scenarios, if I was in a situation of being homeless, would this opportunity be targeted towards people who are currently in shelters? Or would this opportunity be available for people who wouldn't be living in their car? And then as far as the income, how would the income, how would my income play into my eligibility? If I'm to say 20% or below AMI, or do I have to have some sort of an income threshold to be eligible to transition from my car or a homeless shelter to a potential dwelling? So Dr. Downey, thank you for the question, I'll take that. So the unit mix is based on area median income, so the families who are going into those specific units will need to be eligible for that particular income level. And for the project-based vouchers specifically, the income level for the project-based voucher program is the same as the tenant-based program, which requires that participants are at or below 50% of the area median income. And so far as how the project will identify people who are interested in applying, that is all part of the outreach and marketing plan that the Housing Authority will also participate in because of the connection to the project-based vouchers. So it sounds like it doesn't matter if I'm in a shelter or my car, as long as I fill out an application and I can demonstrate my housing situation is consistent with what this opportunity is. And yet I would still have to have some sort of gratifiable income to be eligible for one of these units, is that what you're saying? Well, not necessarily for the project-based vouchers, you wouldn't necessarily have to have an income at the time that you applied, that wouldn't be a requirement of the voucher, no. Thank you. Commissioner Allen, Vice Chair Allen. Thank you. So the question is there's 30 project-based vouchers, but the project has studio units, one bedroom, two bedrooms and three bedrooms. So are the vouchers specifically for a bedroom size or are they spread across those? How does that work? Yes, that's in the supporting materials in the application. I don't have that right off the top of my head, but Julie might and we can look it up just a moment here. Hi, yeah, let me, it's in the staff report. I'm sorry, I didn't have that specifically prepared, but I can find the breakdown here of the PVV units. Just one moment. So of the 30 project-based voucher units, 12 will be zero bedroom, 12 will be one bedroom and three will be two bedroom and three will be three bedroom units. Thank you. And then one other question is they're going in for their financing with MHP at the state level at $15.1 million and they have tax credits, is if they do not receive that funding source, what happens to these vouchers? Is there a time when is to when these are made available? Yes, if they're not successful in the application that this RFP was intended to leverage then, they do have the commitment remaining for another, I believe it's three funding rounds over the next two years. Okay, so it's a commitment for two years. Thank you. If I can interject as well, this is Interim Director Bassinger, that's included in the resolution. It is the second condition of commitment in the resolution, the timeline for them to obtain their financing. Thank you. Commissioner Raul Houser. Yeah, I was curious regarding the selection of residents with the homeless population having a lot of mental illness and drug use. How will the residents be chosen to be a good cohesive living community that can improve their lifestyle instead of it being a holding pen for people who are just cycling through their issues and not going anywhere? Well, the tenant selection process will have to follow their housing law. And we're hopeful and anticipate that all the supportive services that are being offered on site will help address community issues, such as what you've raised. Thank you. Any other questions? Commissioner Burke. Thank you, Chair Tess. I was one of the three members of the committee and I was impressed with the three projects that were presented as opportunities for funding and the process the staff put together, I thought made a lot of sense and was very well thought out. And also the committee did, I think, a good job of asking questions and considering the options. I'm interested in hearing any comments that might come our way from any of the applicants before making additional comments, but I just wanted to say that the process seemed to me to work very well. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions, comments? Okay. We will move on and open the public comments on item number 4.1. We are now taking public comments on item 4.1. If you wish to make a comment via Zoom, please raise your hand. If you are dialing in via telephone, please dial star nine to raise your hand. You will have three minutes. Our first public comment will be from Mary followed by Robin. Mary, I have enabled your speaking permissions. Mary, there might be a pop-up that's allowing you to unmute yourself. Okay. Great. Perfect. Good afternoon. Do you see the timer on your screen? I do not. Oh, thank you. That's because I didn't share it. I'm glad I asked. Great. Okay. There we go. Okay. Wonderful. Good afternoon, everyone. Thank you so much for considering this application. My name is Mary Haynes and I'm the site director at Nations Finest Santa Rosa and we're the lead service provider for the Hearn Veterans Village application. And I was just wondering if it would be possible to re-score the section on or about onsite supportive services. This particular project would have a full-time resident service coordinator who would be providing case management and clinical support to all of the residents who reside there. Also, the project is located directly behind Hearn Behavioral Health Center, which is a program that provides mental health and substance abuse treatment to homeless veterans. And that program has a very large full-time staff with a licensed clinical social worker, clinical director, staff on call and a number of other supportive positions. And all of the residents at the Hearn Veterans Village would be invited to participate in groups and also other community activities onsite. So I just feel that the 10 out of 20 score might not have reflected those positive services that each of the residents would have. Thank you. Our next public comment will be from Robin followed by Craig. Robin, I have enabled your speaking permissions. Okay, can everybody hear me? We can, let me get the timer back to zero and your time begins now. Great, thanks so much. This is Robin Zimbler. I am the founder and manager of Free Bird Development, one of the co-developers of Bennett Valley Apartments. So I wanted to thank the Housing Authority for their continued support for our project. If we're awarded the 30 project-based vouchers, the award will definitely help us maximize our competitiveness under the upcoming state MHP round, which is due a week from today. I did want to just comment on a couple of things. Number one, just a quick update on the scoring or correction on the scoring. We are over 50% homeless. There were only 30 project-based vouchers available. So we only applied for 30 project-based vouchers, but we are over 50% homeless in order to maximize our competitiveness under state programs. So anyway, just wanted to add that since it was, we did sounds like we didn't get five points that maybe we should have gotten, but we're still obviously very happy to be recommended for an award. I did also want to address just a couple of the questions that came up with respect to tenant selection and incomes. So with respect to tenant selection for the homeless units, we have been working with and talking to the county, our intent is to get tenant referrals through the coordinated entry system through the county, and they send referrals based on those individuals and families who are deemed most vulnerable. So again, that would all be coordinated in partnership with the county. With respect to the incomes, as Julie noted, 32 units are affordable up to 30% of AMI, but we actually, our affordability targeting is actually much deeper than 30% of AMI. So for those 32 units, about two thirds of them are at 15% of AMI, and about a third of them are at 20% of AMI. So it's actually lower than the 30% of AMI. And finally, I just want to add again, FreeBird is just one of the developers on this project. The other developer is Allied Housing, and their affiliate abode services is very involved in the project as well. Allied Housing has a long history of developing projects for formerly homeless, and their services affiliate abode housing has 20, 30 years experience providing services to people experiencing homelessness. So again, I just wanted to thank you and then address some of the questions that came up. Our next public comment will be Craig, followed by Trevor. Craig, I have enabled your speaking permissions. Thank you so much. Let me get the timer going. I had a technological difficulty with it. Okay, your time begins now. Thank you so much. My name is Craig Meltzer and my associate Barbara. Counter and I are project management consultants to community housing Sonoma County for the Herndvets Village project. We would like to express our appreciation for the prior housing authority support for Herndvets Village. However, we do wish to contest the staff scoring on two aspects of the project-based voucher application. We self-scored our project at 100 points. We were notified that we received 75 points, and we'd like to address the two criteria in which we were not awarded full points. And the first category has to do with long-term affordable housing commitment. And the staff comments refer to the lack of eligibility of the project to apply for MHP funding and the project requiring more than 25% of the units to be project-based voucher assisted to be financially feasible. The actual criteria, again, appendix A, under commitment to providing long-term affordable housing references that the project will receive or pursue long-term affordable housing financing through a competitive process by a federal, state, or local government. Herndvets Village has received $285,000 from the housing authority, including home funding. So the project has in fact already received a commitment of competitive funding from the local housing authority. Secondly, the project plans to and indicated in the application plans to apply for state homelessness prevention and housing program assistance, BIP assistance in the 2022 application round as well as an allocation of tax credits and bond financing. It's an integral part of the financing plan for Herndvets Village and has been presented as such in the project-based voucher application. From that perspective, we believe that the project should receive the full 20 points. Yes, the project does require more than 50% of the units to be project-based voucher assisted for feasibility. The recommended project, however, has 30 of 62 units as project-based voucher assisted. Therefore, the implication from my perspective as a housing finance professional is that the project feasibility of that project similarly relies on the income stream from the 30 PVVs. Second category that we would like to contest the staff comments on, and by the way, I'm hoping I can have a few more minutes since we are representing one of the applicants for funding. Is that okay? Certainly, go ahead. Thank you. Second criteria was the availability of on-site supportive services for the project. Mary Haynes from Nation's Finest spoke briefly about the capacity and depth of supportive services available on-site at Herndvets Village. These were all spelled out in the application to the Housing Authority. The Housing Authority application included reference to over 1.3 FTE supportive services staffing and the budget to support that level of staffing. The final point I would make is that our project proposes 100% of the units for homeless vets. Therefore, it actually represents a superior proposal in terms of the percentage of units serving the homeless than the recommended project. We would appreciate your consideration of these comments, rescoring of our application, and more of at least some of the project these vouchers to Herndvets Village. Our next public comment will be from Trevor. Trevor, I have enabled your speaking permissions. And let me get the timer restarted. And your time begins now. Okay, good afternoon, everyone. Thank you. Just piggybacking really quick off of what Mary Haynes said. My name is Trevor Thompson. I'm the Assistant Site Director at Nation's Finest in Santa Rosa. And I just wanted to piggyback off of some of those other supportive services that would be offered at the Herndvets Village because the Hernd Behavioral Health Center is on the property. We have 24-hour staff that's available on the program for the residents there. And also a connection to our Nation's Finest 10th Street Office, which has the Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program, an employment grant through the Department of Labor, access to that, supportive services of veteran families, a VA-funded SSVF grant. Also, we have personal connections with a lot of the HUD-VASH team at the VAC box in town. And Nation's Finest as a whole has been in this community for celebrating our 50th year this year. We started in Sonoma County and for 50 years we've been specializing in serving veterans and the community through different outreach procedures and different grants to not only get veterans off the streets but into permanent housing and making sure that they're successful. That's all I have, thank you very much. Chair Tess, that is all of the hands raised for public comment. Thank you. Okay, now we have finished public comments. Is there a motion? Are you seeking a motion in advance of a response from the staff on some of the questions raised? Yes. Chair Tess. Yes. Okay, for the purpose of opening up the discussion I would make the motion to find the resolution here in a second. Resolution, make a motion of the resolution of the Housing Authority of the City of Santa Rosa allocating 30 project-based housing choice voucher for Bennett Valley Apartments awarding to Freebird Development Company LLC under a 20-year project-based housing assistance payments contract and waive the reading of the text. Thank you, Commissioner Burke. At this point, I would like to see if we can... Oh, Commissioner Allen, did you have a question or motion? Now I'll second the motion. So, Chair Tess, I would, and I'm always a little confused on the rules of order that are not the Robert's rules of order. There, if we get the name that we're using now, Colberg maybe, that a discussion can ensue following a motion in a second with more information to come before the members of the Housing Authority before a final vote. And if my understanding of that is correct, and maybe Megan or Jeff Burke can help us on that point, that's how I would anticipate the discussion proceeding. Yes, at this time, it would be appropriate if there were comments from staff or from the commissioners or any further discussion based on the public comment. This would be an appropriate time to have that. Thank you. I would be interested in comments from staff on the rescoring requests on the Hearn Village Project. Perfect, thank you. We did analyze based on the comments and feedback that we received from the Hearn Veterans Village applicants. And even considering the comments, the proposal would still have ranked second. And in addition to that, we are anticipating that, there will be additional funding rounds that Hearn Veterans Village or others would be eligible to apply for. This won't be our last project-based voucher request for proposals. And the Benevalent Project is applying for funding this year that the project-based vouchers can assist in leveraging. Rebecca, I had a question. So you mentioned that there may be future funding rounds for project-based vouchers on this particular type. Have an estimate when that would be, would it be early 22 or what's your general estimate on that? Yes, well, what we generally have been doing in the last few years is trying to time the release of our RFPs with the intent to leverage additional funding. So we keep an eye on SIDLAC and TCAC and other funding applications as they're coming available to try and make sure that we're using the project-based voucher resources in the most efficient way possible to stretch for further dollars. So it could certainly next calendar year, I guess, we'll be anticipating releasing additional RFPs. And in the last meeting, just as a reminder for all of the commissioners and public, in our April meeting of this year, determined that additional project-based voucher funding applications would be for two populations, two target populations, one being homeless and the other being veterans. Thank you. Any more comments from staff or commissioners? I guess I would like a little more information on, Rebecca, you indicated that the information that was received, it was, I'm sure, in your hands before today, would it result in some changes in your scoring or even if those changes have been made, it would still result in a lower score? And maybe a little bit more detail about your analysis on that. I mean, I know we're up against the funding opportunity that could be missed if we don't take action today and that concerns me, but I'm also interested in a little bit of kind of your take given the, you know, kind of what I was hearing from some of the Sparks people representing the HIRM project was that they believe that the scoring would have been equal to or greater than the 90 points that were received by the Benna Valley project. Can you talk a little bit more about, I'm not pointing to, so I better understand. I agree, I'd like to hear that too. Sure. The loan application site for HIRM Veterans Village sites, four out of five loans that were not yet submitted. Let me just bring this up to a closer screen so I can, sorry, pardon me. So the HIRM application, loan application cited four out of five loans that were not yet submitted, including two future Santa Rosa Housing Authority NOFAS and over $4 million in TCAC funding. They were not eligible to apply for the upcoming MHP funding. And this RFP did identify the MHP funding as one of the possible sources of funds that we're intending to leverage. To quote the RFP Santa Rosa Housing Authority is releasing this RFP with the intent to improve the financial feasibility of projects, seeking other competitive financing, and this RFP is specifically projects dedicated to permanent supportive housing for people who have experienced homelessness. So in terms of the scoring regarding the commitment to providing long-term affordable housing, it was the loans that have not yet been submitted that gave the project lower scores in that category. And insofar as the scoring for onsite for services that are being provided, the applicant provided information for onsite services, but the application did not specify the type of onsite staff and that is where the scoring was lower in that category. Thank you, that helps me a great deal. Thank you. Dr. Downey, you have a question. Just want to have a comment to feed off of Steve Berger. I'm aware that the funding opportunities are very time-sensitive and I just wanted to reiterate that that is the case for this particular application. Thank you. Commissioner Rawhouser, did you have a comment also? We can't hear you. Sorry. So it's my understanding that the vets problem was they don't have the secure financing and they weren't very clear as to the totality of the services they can offer to the residents and that's why they got the lower score because they didn't have the secured financing and they didn't express clearly the services they'd be able to offer. Those are the two categories, yes. Okay, thank you. And they didn't basically rise to the occasion which the other project fulfilled all those. Correct. Thank you. Thank you. Any other comments? Commissioner LaPana, did you have a question or comment? No. No, everything was answered. Thank you. Thank you. So we have a motion and a second. So, Clark, do you want to move forward? Okay, at this point, we will take a roll call vote on the resolution. We'll start with Commissioner Rawhouser. Commissioner McWhorter. Aye. Commissioner LaPana. Aye. Commissioner Downey. Commissioner Downey. Thank you, muted. Commissioner Burke. Aye. Vice Chair Owen and Chair Test. The motion passes unanimously with seven ayes. The resolution, excuse me. Thank you. The last one on our agenda is adjournment. Chair Test, I have my hand raised if just one final course. I would be interested in some time in the not too distant future to have an opportunity for a site tour of the Hearn project. And maybe that's something that I can arrange. If I'm the only one interested, I can arrange that on my own or if there's other members of the Housing Authority interested, they might want to join me just to visit the project to kind of get a more in-depth feel for the project. This is the only one that's in existence of the three that we're looking at right now that may change in the future. Thank you. I think that's a good idea. I think we do have the COVID restrictions, but there may be a way around doing that. I think that's a great idea. Yeah. Chair Test, if I may interject, the existing facility at Hearn is undergoing rehab as you may remember from a rehab loan you provided in February. So once that is complete, it would be a great opportunity to take a look at the site and the improvements that you assisted with. That would be great. Sounds great. Great. Okay. The meeting is adjourned. Thank you, everybody. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you to the public.