 Good afternoon, Commissioner Downey. If we can test your video and microphone, please. Perfect, I see you. Can you hear me? Fantastic, we can hear you as well. Chair Owen, I do not know if Commissioner Olson will be here but Jeff Burke is, do we now have a quorum? I'm sorry, so Ms. Jeff Burke, I'm staying where okay to start but we need to wait. I'm just double checking with him. Can you hear me? Yes, we can. There he is. So you're going to need four. You still need a majority of the seven, even though there's two vacant seats. Okay, perfect. So we do have four. And you're good to go. Fantastic, thank you. Thank you, Jeff. So I want to call the meeting to order and some housekeeping to remind commissioners to keep their audio on mute unless they are speaking. Commissures other than 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, will be renaming your viewable phone number to resident in the last four digits of your phone number. And as a reminder, 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 in our well staff to monitor that everyone is participating respectfully or they will be removed. If necessary, we will immediately end the meeting. I now ask the clerk to explain how the public comments will be heard at today's meeting. All right, thank you, chair Owen. At each agenda item, the item is presented and the chair will ask for housing authority member comments and then open it up for public comment. The host in zoom will be lowering all hands until public comment is open for the agenda item. Once the chair is called for public comment the chair will announce for the public to raise their hand if they wish to speak on a 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 council and 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. That would be item five. This is the item 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, Steve. I ask the court for a roll call. Of course. Commissioner Burke. Here. Commissioner Downey. Commissioner Downey. He needs to unmute himself. Commissioner Downey, can you unmute yourself for a roll call please? Okay, thank you. Commissioner Olson, vice chair test. Can you unmute yourself? Here. Thank you. And chair Owen. Here. Let the records show that all members except for commissioner Olson are present. Thank you. Moving on to item number three in the agenda and asking for the commissioners have statements of abstention on any items on today's agenda. Right here. Okay, hearing none, I'll move to item number four which is a study session. And this month's agenda, we do not have a study session. And we're moving on to item number five and this is where the public comment can be made. So are there any public comments for item we are now taking public comments on identified non-agenda matters? Matters, 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. 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. As the clerk to proceed with the above outline public comment procedures. The countdown timer will appear for the convenience of the speaker and viewers. The first speaker will be acknowledged and invited to speak. So please make sure to unmute yourself when you're invited to do so. Your microphone will be muted at the end of that countdown or at the conclusion of your comment. There are currently no public comments. And nobody's seeking public comment? No, no one. Okay, thank you. Moving on to item number six, which is the approval of the minutes. Yes, ask if there's any comments on the minutes or Jeff Berkley, we need to make a motion to approve the minutes. You can approve that by unanimous consent. There any comments from the commissioners on the minutes? No, down here. I got a shaking of head from Diane and nose from the other two commissioners. No. Thank you, Diane. So go ahead and approve the minutes and let the record show that we approve the minutes of the July 27th, 2020 meeting. Moving ahead to item number seven and see if there are any reports. Commissioner reports. The chairman does not have any reports. Are there any other commissioners have reports for this meeting? I'm hearing none. Call for public comments. As if you have wished 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 to our Zoom host. Ask the court if there are any members of the public wishing to make a comment. There are no members of the public requesting to make a comment. Thank you, Steve. We're moving on to item number eight, which are the committee reports. Any public comments on committee reports? I'm gonna assume that there are again, no public comments available for these any committee reports. Moving through the agenda here. Number nine, 9.1, executive director reports, communication items. And moving to David Glein. Yes, good afternoon commissioners. We have a couple of topics under item nine today. The first is the housing authorities 2019-20 year and financial report. This is, we do this quarterly and so the one you're seeing today is the year end. If there's questions, we have Kate Goldfein, our administrative service officer to help, but there's certainly a series of explanations and footnotes within the document. We also have my director's report. We have a couple of topics. The first is there were some questions raised about the timing of the council selecting tenant commissioners or maybe selecting other commissioners. Wanted to board to know that the city clerk's office is in the process of collecting applications. There was a commissioner briefing last week on what the housing authority roles and responsibilities were. Rebecca Lane, the program manager for the housing choice voucher program as circulating both electronically in paper, interest from our tenants groups to see who might be interested in serving as a commissioner. I imagine that once the city council seats their new council member in early December, they would schedule interviews, usually the start of the calendar year into the January, February timeframe, depending on if we're not too disrupted with COVID or other issues. So just wanted folks to know that even though we had two rescue nations earlier in the calendar year, the capacity of the city to reappoint people is different for the housing authority because it comes from a full interview from the full city council board. The other thing that we include in the packet is wanna let the full body know that on October 13th, the city council authorized us to execute the standard agreement for the community development, block grant, disaster recovery, multi-family program. In short, let's just call it CDBGDR. And they've agreed to form a review committee comprised of Chair Owen, Commissioner Burke, Mayor Schwedhelm and council member Sawyer. We met immediately to review that agreement, components of Notice of Funding Availability, which was accepted. And then that was immediately sent to the state of California for a turnaround review period for this Friday, October 30th. So pending any results or concerns with the agreement and the Notice of Funding Availability, staff will immediately be soliciting development proposals in the month of November, a 30-day period, for example. And then we would be reviewing those proposals, convening the review committee in the month of December, and then be before this body at a special meeting either very late in December, depending on the results or in the early part of January. What that does is based on a phone conversation we had with the state last week, council member Sawyer expressed the council's keen interest to move quickly as possible, because they have heard from several developers that they want to start applying for other financing, such as 4% state tax credits in the February, March timeframe. The state indicated they can turn around the review of your process in a two to three week period. So if this timeframe holds by mid-December or so, our development community will know whether they have been formally awarded or intend to be awarded CDBGTR funds. So that's a big step, very timely process in its exciting period of time. The other bullet is the Housing Choice Voucher Program, pending HUD approval. We plan to release a request for proposals for up to 80 project-based vouchers during as a parallel process in the same timeframe. And that is because many of the developers we've spoken with have indicated an interest, not just so much for the DR money or tax credit money, but also want to pair it up with some project-based voucher consideration. So there'll be a lot for the Housing Authority to consider and review in about a 45 to 60 day timeframe. So I just wanted to share that under my report today, certainly moving fast, plugging in into our existing system, the ability to run financing through various processes. And then lastly, right behind and immediately following the DR solicitation and recommendation and award and the voucher award, the staff will be out for what we call our Focus NOFA. This is your annual budget for production of affordable housing so that we can have that out, reviewed and recommendations by the early part of July to align with the 9% second round applications as we have the last two, maybe three years. So that concludes my report. Be happy to answer any questions. Thank you, David. There's a, that's a lot of information right there. Can we start with the Housing Authority 2019-2020 financial report and do the commissioners have any questions on this report? Commissioner Downey? I have a question, but I'm not pertain to this report per se. Did the city of Santa Rosa declare a state of emergency? And if so, is the city anticipating any revenues as a consequence of declaring a state of emergency as a result of this last fire incident? Yes, to your question, Chairman Downey, the city of Santa Rosa did declare a federal emergency that got recognized for the glass fire has become known and it's too soon to tell what, if any federal resources might be coming our way. I'm struck by that the 2017 Tubbs Fire, et cetera, that funding for recovery is just now arriving three years later. We're told by the state and federal representatives that because there's been fires in 2018-19-2020 that they have more of a routine and moving processes forward. So that is a long-winded way of saying, yes, we've declared an emergency. Are there any other questions on the commissioners? And I want to go through this one item at a time and we're looking at again, the 2019-2020 budget. I mean, the financial report, seeing no questions. I do have a question. And this is pertaining to page one under projects. It was a budget of 1.89 million and there was a remaining of 1.6 million. Can that be described and explained a little bit further please? Yes, this is Kate Goldfein. Can you guys hear me? Yes, Kate, hi. Hi, thank you. So the majority of the remaining funds in projects are for the Cal Home Mobile Home Assistance Program. And that's a state grant that we received and those will be loaned out to Megan. I may need your help here to the eligible mobile home. Nope. Yeah, Megan, I apologize. I need your help exactly as eligible. No problem. This is Megan Bassenger, Housing and Community Services Manager. So it's actually a Cal Home Disaster Assistance Loan Program that the Housing Authority was awarded in, I believe, 2019. And this was to help property owners whose units were destroyed in the Tubbs Fire. So far we have provided a loan to one household. They need to be at or below 120% of AMI and the unit needs to have a post improvement value of approximately $650,000. We have had recent interest in the program so we are hopeful we'll have a few more loans but this is the balance of that state program. But I'd be happy to answer any questions. I do have a question. How was that program being advertised? So we have it on our website. When the program rolled out, we did extensive outreach to the Coffee Park neighborhood. We went to the Coffee Strong meetings. We had a meeting at the Finlay Community Center. It was in the city's email newsletter. I believe it was also in the Press Democrats and it's currently on our websites. And again, is this only for mobile homes? No, it's for mobile homes can now be included but it's also for single family dwellings that meet the post improvement values as well as homeowners that are at or below 120% of area median income. So I missed, is the value 650,000 they have to be below that amount or above that? Below that amount. And that's an approximate amount off the top of my head but the state sets a value based on an appraisal after construction. So we need to be very cognizant of what that is. So it's a very narrow field of units that can possibly qualify. And what is the timeline for those monies to be expended if they are not, would they go back to the state or what would happen to those problems? The timeline is September of 2021 and I believe the money would revert to the state if we do not expend it. I'd hate to see that money not get used. I'm concerned is that the 650,000 again, I understand making that that's an estimate and that's very difficult to do especially with construction costs on rebuilds to be under that value. We're concerned if there's any way that we can as the, to go ahead and try and advertise that more putting something else out to the press Democrat in some fashion. What, how did the one applicant find out about the program? We've had several applicants over the year but we have one approved loan in place and it's a unit up in the Stonefield condos in Fountain Grove. They were applicants following the extensive outreach we did last spring and we can certainly revisit our outreach efforts. We have a new staff member who'll be starting in two weeks and so we'll have expanded capacity to run the programs. Thank you. Another question is the housing assistance plan programs with six point almost 6.3 million dollars remaining. Can you have that explained as to how those funds are still remaining? Yes, Kate here again and Rebecca please chime in as well. So the budget for that program is as if every voucher was being was not, was not vacant. Every voucher was being utilized at a certain rate per month. And so if any voucher is vacant we're not expending funds for that in that month. And we also increase the amount per unit per month slightly to account for increases throughout the year in per unit costs. So if, so not every voucher is utilized every month and the combination of that and then plus over projecting somewhat the amount of monthly assistance is why that amount is lower. Does that make sense? Yes, it does. Is the, I guess the follow-up question would be now we're talking dollars. What are we talking about in terms of headcount? How many people will receive those vouchers? This is Rebecca. Okay. This is Rebecca having a choice voucher program manager. So Rebecca Lane. So we are currently at about 96% utilization program wide and that's for a couple of reasons. The first is that there are fewer Vash referrals right now. The voucher program for veterans is a big chunk of our program at this point. We have 414 vouchers that are dedicated to veterans. We work with the VA on utilizing those vouchers because the VA maintains that waiting list. And the VA has had some staffing slowdowns due to the pandemic. And if they are not fully staffed, then they can't fully utilize the vouchers because they have requirements based on the clinical case management rules that a case manager can only have so many participants on their caseload. So some of it is related to that. Some of our underutilization of the Vash vouchers is due to that. And some of it is also due to the fact that we have project-based vouchers coming online within what we hope is the next year 55, which is a big chunk of them in Windsor and another 10 in Sonoma. And so the VA, the way that they manage project-based voucher referrals is they start to work with families ahead of time who might want to move into those projects. So they're basically waiting to refer those families until those projects are ready to move in. Thank you, Rebecca. What happens to those monies if they're not expended? We will hold on to them, essentially. They're not, it's money that we get back from HUD after we spend it. So our budget projections, and they might also I should say our per unit costs will up tick starting in this month in October because of our payment standard increases. So the amount of money that the Housing Authority is spending per unit did in fact go up. And so we might see a little bit more spending on that side anyway, but the way that the voucher program is funded, we do not have the same kind of pressure that other programs do to expend funds by a certain date. Okay. Thank you. I didn't have any other questions on that item. Any commissioners have any other questions on that item? Okay, hearing none. We talked about the CDBG DR funds of $38 million, for the benefit of the Housing Authority and the commissioners. Can we talk about the projects as to how they're classified? And there were seven categories from HCD in terms of what was going to be utilized to evaluate those. Are those available that can just be mentioned? Yes, they're available. So I want to preface my remarks by reminding the Housing Authority this is very much a federal state driven notice of funding availability. The prioritization criteria of the state is that projects must meet one, one of the following. Providing housing for extremely low income individuals, projects providing a greater ratio of affordable rent units to total units. Projects accommodating deep affordability with at least 10% of the units targeted to households below 30% of area meeting income. And once again, you'll have these criteria as you're reviewing the proposals as they come in. Projects providing permanent supportive housing, projects which are providing residential units for elderly persons, projects providing residential units for people with at least one disability. And then projects which provide a prioritization for persons displaced by the fire. As we've been discussing this, these are all monies that would go within the city of Santa Rosa projects. Correct, this is an award to the city of Santa Rosa as an entitlement jurisdiction to feed your existing, sorry, to support your existing pipeline of projects. And the 38 million is I look at this for the CDBGR funds and I look at the report we just went over. CDBG was a part that you had home and Hapua funds last year of 5.138 million. And this is 38 just for a CDBG and how does this, how does that dollar amount represent with what the housing authority has looked at in prior years? It seems like a much higher amount than's ever been processed through CDBG through housing authorities, is that correct? Yes, that's correct. This is one time money for recovery. We might receive additional DR funds if other communities cannot expend theirs in a timely manner. But this is by far the largest notice of funding availability that housing authorities ever conducted. And how does that affect a staffing need in terms of being able to process that much more? Doesn't affect the staffing need to get the solicitation and the review and the recommendation together. We might be looking at some supportive help for the compliance piece. We haven't decided on that yet. We might either use existing staffing should we be able to fill the vacancy or we would be using a consulting firm. And the reason I say that is because these are federal dollars. So there's multiple quote unquote strings attached to it. So prevailing wage, section three, timely reporting of other things. So we're still evaluating the back end of being able to support this. And so, and the mechanisms in place for putting those funds out, how does the housing authority and department have the ability, are those mechanisms and evaluations in place already or does something happen to be created fresh for this amount of funds? No, the administrative infrastructure for lack of a better term is in place today. We had to adjust based on federal regulations but the staffing model, the documents, the process already exists. And to the extent that those, the infrastructures in place, has there already been requests from the developer group for these funds? Yes, not formally. Correct. Yeah, we've met with a couple of developers on your pipeline as we speak and we can send you an update. And maybe I just take a moment to let the housing authority know you currently have 188 units under development, currently under construction. And then you have another 12 developments totaling around 950 units at various stages of project readiness. The housing authority has several of these 12 projects with funding in it already. But I might have forgotten your direct question, Chairman, I'm sorry. No, that's quite all right. And what I'm getting toward is that the huge influx of $38 million, the infrastructures in place, and we've discussed this, I just wanna have it out for the record that the infrastructures in place to have those funds evaluated, the projects evaluated to go through the process to fund the loan mechanisms are in place. So nothing new needs to be created for these funds to go out, even though it's a much larger amount of funds in there than the housing authority is seeing. Is that a fair assessment? That's correct. And again, just to refresh every's memory, what is the waiting list for people looking for units right now in terms of time? For the voucher program or just development new constructs? For the voucher program. So this is Rebecca Lane again, the voucher program waiting list. So the time from when someone applies to the list to the time that they might expect to be called to receive a voucher, is it about seven years at this point? And then on average, our folks find the people who are issued vouchers do find housing generally within 90 days. So it's obvious just by that one statistic and wait time is seven years that the need is extremely high in terms of providing units whether or not they're project-based vouchers or individual vouchers, is that? Yeah, yeah, that's often a statistic we use to demonstrate local need is the length of the waiting list. And my point is if we're looking at the timing on this, HCD has already come back at the state level for the 38 million approving. David, you went through this in regard to how long it would take to review the projects and the timeline on this is that there's gonna be a NOFA out in November. Applications come in in December or January? With the principles. Excuse me, Chair, yeah, we would have the applications do 30 days after release. So we're thinking the month of December is when we close the period and start reviewing what the solicitations, the results of the solicitation. Okay, and this is for all the 38 million projects. And then those funds, those results would be reviewed in January and have to go to HCD and we were looking for about a two-week turnaround for them to approve the recommendations. That is correct. And that puts those monies in play in the spring that allows for these developers to go in to the state and leverage those funds for either tax credits or tax exempt bonds, is that? Again, correct, yes. Okay, so to me, that's incredibly fast. They have 38 million dollars go through the system and have existing mechanisms in place to put those dollars back out so that the units as Rebecca lined out in terms of the demand of seven years. Now, again, that's through looking for vouchers, but it does prove the amount, the extensive, very high demand for these types of units. So I wanna applaud the housing authority and your staff for being able to push that much money out that fast and have the mechanisms in place without having to go to outside. And I understand that because it's federal money, you might have somebody to review budgets and things. But that's, I think that's, it's quite, I applaud you for being able to get that much money out. Is there any other source of funds that the housing authority might be getting? And in addition to these CDBGDR funds? There's the possibilities. So through the chair, the city is currently in the process of getting community feedback from the use of the one-time PG&E settlement from the 2017 fire. We've been sitting through community meetings. They ended Thursday night. That information is being compiled. There was both a survey as well as an opportunity to provide feedback directly via Zoom. Those recommendations are heading to the city council finance committee on November 12th. And then to the full city council in a study session on November 17th. And so we'll learn more about what the city may or may not intend the use of those dollars to be, I've been certainly hearing a lot about a fire recovery, tree and brush management. Certainly a lot of folks don't want to have to, you know, evacuate their homes as frequently as we have. That's been the primary information so far. Do you think any of those monies would be eligible for affordable housing? Oh, yes, absolutely. If the city council wanted to earmark some of those funds for affordable housing, we could plug it into our existing system. That's true. Has the city council been made aware that the housing authority's ability to process that in a very efficient manner? Has the council been made aware? Yes. The answer is yes. As a matter of fact, going back to October 13th, the date that they agreed to the standard agreement for the CDBGDR, the message from the council was just go fast, help developers align their financing. Let's meet the demand for affordable housing and get units constructed as soon as possible in people and homes. One of the things that I've been reading is what the county is doing with their money from PG&E, they have not settled on anything. It's far greater dollar amount than what the city is going to see. Is that they're looking to set aside $10 million of that to Red in terms of their housing funds. And I'm not sure the language of whether or not the county stated that they were looking the city to match that. So it was a conditional pledge or how that was worked. I wanna make sure that the city knows that if there are funds available for affordable housing, that there is a mechanism in place already to be able to disperse those, evaluate the requests for those funds and also to be able to disperse those funds. And I'll use a simple supply and demand side. I mean, the supply side from the housing authority is basically there, it's in place, it's efficient. And a mechanism in place to be able to turn it around rather quickly, just like the CDBG DR funds are put out. And I would assume that could be replicated if any other funds were brought into play. And then on the demand side with the developers since they are already used to NOFAS and just again looking at the CDBG funds and a 30 day turnaround. Is that 30 day turnaround for NOFAS typical or is that an accelerate for the CDBG DR funds? It's pretty typical. Usually having the notice of funding availability out for four weeks, 30 days is that's pretty typical term. Okay. And the developers that have been talking preliminary to see if those funds are available, they're familiar with the NOFO process and the forms associated to go through that process. Yes. I'd like to open it up to the rest of the commissioners to see if there was any thought to potentially putting something out to the city council as they're looking for use of those PG&E funds that if there was money set aside for affordable housing that the housing authority makes some sort of comment or correspondence to them to have them be aware that the housing authority is in place and able and definitely willing to be able to process those funds. I happen to look online and participated just by visual the public, some of these public meetings on the PG&E money. And one of the slides that I believe was from the city said there was money, one of the goals would be jumpstart affordable housing opportunities. What that brings to mind for me is the journey's end mobile home park that was destroyed and most of those residents were low or very low income. And it would seem to me that I don't know where those residents went. They could be in multiple places. Hopefully they're still in the city, Santa Rosa. But it seems timely to me with the PG&E monies possibly being available that if it's appropriate and the housing authority feels it's a good use that could be put to use. As you mentioned, Jeff, I would like to see if there's additional interest beyond myself to move forward and look into some amount of money coming to the housing authority. Commissioner Burke or Commissioner Downey, any comments? Commissioner Burke, you're still muted. I think the question I have is somewhat existential as far as the amount of land that we have in the city. And I don't know if anyone's calculated how much land availability do we have that would translate into buildable low income housing in proportion to our need for low income housing? I don't know that makes sense, but do we have enough land to put a dent in our need for affordable housing? Or are we looking at potentially running out of real estate to build facilities that people can afford? Perhaps we can go ahead, Megan. Okay, as I say, this is Megan Bassinger, trust manager. As part of the city's housing element preparation process in that housing element is a component of the general plan that needs to be submitted to the state every five years, the city has to identify parcels known as opportunity sites for housing where they can accommodate the projected housing growth. So I can't answer specifically if it's going to be affordable housing, but they need to identify locations for potential growth within the city. Thank you. David, did you want to address me further? Can you hear me now? I was having some problems with my ear. Commissioner Burke, go ahead. I think that the housing authority in the city of Santa Rosa is kind of well situated to be able to handle the additional funds that are available, not only through CBGDR, but also many funds that might come our way through the PGD settlement. I think that because typically, if I'm not mistaken, CBG funds aren't able to be used for new construction, but with the DR program, that's been waived. So you can use them for new construction. So it really opens up some opportunities to handle some of the projects that have been added in the Considerables pipeline for a very, very, very long time. And I really do think that even if there was a request from the county to be able to have the funds available, the county, the PGD funds process through the city, I think that's even a possibility. I don't want to make any commitments to without having further discussion and evaluation by staff. But we've done that in the past with different programs on the BASH program, for instance, as in this current one, where we're able to handle that. Our system is pretty, I think it's very viable. I think it's strong. I think it's something that is ready for these additional funds, particularly again, with the fact that the CBGDR funds are able to be used for new construction. So I would be very supportive of us putting out the communication whenever a form that might take to the city council that we're ready, we'll enable. Commissioner Downey, did you have any comment on whether or not the housing authority be sent some sort of correspondence to the city council to let them know that we believe that we're in the position to be able to handle any additional funds, should they be made available? Oh, absolutely. I think we should make them very aware and let them know that we're here. And I can't justify their level of awareness of us, but I would like to remind them of our capabilities of what we can do, just in case we might have, we're not as present as we should be. I don't know that many since, I hope so. Thank you. Well, I think it's something that we should have this city be made aware of as Commissioner Downey said, it's not always present of mind that the housing authority is sitting here, how much gets processed. And so you look at what the funding sources that we just went over through the, in the 1920 budget of $45 million that shows how much money actually flows through the housing authority to be able to provide housing vouchers, go through programs and provide housing to people and as Rebecca was staying the seven year wait list is a true indicator of the amount of need. So if it's okay with the rest of the commissioners, I'd like to draft something up and have Dave Wein review it to make sure that it's kind of accurate. And it's just a simple correspondence to let them know that the housing authority, if PG&E funds do become available or is well positioned with systems in place as exemplified through the process through $38 million of CDBG DR funds to process any additional funding that would come through be whatever dollar amount might be. It's my understanding that this PG&E decisions and the public input is gonna be discussed tomorrow with by the city council. So I think if we agree to move forward with some kind of correspondence about our interest, it would be very timely to do it as soon as possible. David, do you know the process to which that correspondence would have to be put through? Yeah, chair and commissioner test, you got my attention there when you said it's going to be discussed tomorrow. I know it's on the agenda for November 17th. I didn't see it on the agenda for tomorrow. Do you remember what you were referencing or I'm scrolling through it now? What I remember is I believe it was on the city website where they were taking public comments. And I think that's where I saw that date of tomorrow. Okay. So chair Owen and commissioners, this is Jeff Burke. So I think what you're wanting to do, I mean, this is on the agenda today is simply a communication item. There's really no provision to take action. But I'm not, I wanna enable the commissioners to provide this communication. I'm trying to be mindful of the Brown Act. I think if it sounds fairly plain vanilla-y to me in that you're just making them aware that you're available. So it's not like you're making any recommendations or taking a position. So I think with that kind of slight word of caution, I think you can proceed with what, if I'm understanding correctly what it is that you wanna do. Thank you, Jeff. Again, just communication to make an awareness and point out that the assistance are in place that if any monies were to become available, the housing authorities has shown its ability to process those funds to meet the end goal of providing affordable units as quickly as efficiently and cost effectively as possible. And I think that's fine. And as long as you aren't going further than that in terms of making a recommendation or taking a position, I think that's fine. And it's not that you couldn't do that. It's just that you're not really agendized today for that type of an action. Correct. And just to make sure that we're clear, we'll make sure that we run any sort of correspondence through you, would that be okay? Sure. Thank you very much. Are there any other comments from the commissioners or staff on item 9.1? Hearing none, go ahead and call item 9.2. Yeah, Chair, I don't have anything. Oh, we just went through that. I'm sorry, I'm planning to catch up on trying to follow the script here. And then we have consent items. So I'll call item 10.1. Well, maybe Jeff, that can help with this, but your consent calendar is as a group. So both 10.1 and 10.2 would be considered consent unless the commissioner wanted to pull one or both for discussion. Are there any comments on either one of these consent items from the other commissioners? I'm certainly fine with going forward and adopting those. I did have a question a little bit about the program that changed some of the income standards for Boyd Street, but I can follow up personally and just get that out of my own curiosity, but in terms of what's being proposed for both 10.1 and 10.2, I'm fine with supporting adopting both of those as consent. So are you making a motion to approve the consent calendar? I would make that motion. Are there any seconds? I'll second that motion. We need to do a roll call vote. Unless there's comment. Are there any comments from the commissioners? How about the public? Do they have an opportunity to comment here? Absolutely. So before we do the roll call vote, if this is where we have the taking public comments, if you should make a comment via Zoom, please raise your hand. If you're dialing in via telephone, please dial star nine to raise your hand. Are there any members of the poet? There are currently no members of the public wanting to make comment. Thank you, Steve. So, Jeffberg, do we have to vote on these? They're consent items? Yes, and because we're operating in the Zoom, it needs to be a roll call vote. Thank you. So we'll take a roll call vote. And Steve, you could take the roll call vote please. This is Kaylee. We'll go ahead and do the roll call vote. Thank you. Commissioner Burke. Commissioner Downey. Aye. Vice Chair Test. Aye. Chair Owen. Aye. Let the record show that the consent calendar has passed with Commissioner Olsen being absent. Thank you. Moving on to item 11, which is a report iron, and there aren't any on the agenda, which allows us to move to item 12, which is the adjournment of the meeting. So thank you very much. I appreciate everybody's time and effort to put these meetings together. And we only get to see commissioner's faces, but I'm grateful for that. So thank you very much, and look forward to talking soon. And with that, I'll adjourn the meeting. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.