 Good afternoon chair test we are still waiting for one more commissioner thank you to make a quorum okay so we we have a quorum now if you want to start but you're more than welcome to wait I agree I think we can wait another minute or two but yeah you're right I that's what I thought as well Jeff thank you that leads right into today's study session yes it does I think we have one more regarding von signed on here so I think we should probably proceed so I'd like to call the October 25th 2021 housing authority meeting to order 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 meeting to speak as members of the public during 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 zoom host 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 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 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 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 i'd like to ask the clerk to do roll call please okay we'll go ahead and do attendance roll call um we'll start with uh commissioner berke hi here uh commissioner downy hi commissioner mcorder commissioner roll hauser here commissioner lapenna here vice chair owen here and chair test here let the record reflect that all commissioners are present item three is um statements of abstention do any commissioners have a statement of abstention today chair test i will be abstaining from item point one on today's agenda and um it's addition to serving as a commissioner on the housing authority board i also serve as a volunteer uh board member of the vigil light uh that is also that's also a non-profit uh board uh vigil light ink told a uh 49 unit vigil light apartments here in san rosa that's an assisted senior housing development to pep housing um vigil light ink is now uh revitalized to grant funds uh to meet uh unmet housing needs in the community and vigil light ink is also in the process of reviewing grant requests uh to meet that objective of meeting unmet housing needs and as the grant request is assist caritas development that's the subject of item 11.1 on today's agenda so serve as a volunteer on both boards but there is a provision of the law which um um firms on uh pertaining in decisions that affect request from a single entity on tuna and profit board so i'll be abstaining from item 11.1 thank you thank you commissioner berg hey we'll move forward with a study session all right good afternoon housing authority commissioners we have one study session this afternoon it is review of Rosenberg's rules of orders and jeff berg our general counsel will be providing the presentation hey good afternoon everybody so um kelly you could start showing the slides now thank you um so i think it's a good idea and the timing seems right uh to be uh doing this study session we have uh several new commissioners and a new chair i will say that um i don't think i've ever given a training on this so it's actually good for me to take a fresh look at these rules and um and i'll go through the slides with you uh please feel free along the way to ask questions um as long as they're not too hard uh or if you want to wait till the end that's fine too so next slide please so these rules are designed to uh help provide a consistent process uh to guide you through the decisions that you have to make when items come up on the agenda and you know the process where staff does a presentation and then there's an opportunity for questions and public comment and the votes and when you get into motions um it can get a little bit muddy and uh it can get very complicated and i i think that's probably beyond this a little bit beyond the scope of what we're going to try to do today um but those issues do come up from time to time and you know i might have to take a breath and pull the rules out and make sure we're we're following them consistently but as the slide there states they are procedures to guide the decision-making process for decision-making bodies like yours and they're guided by these four principles to establish order they should be clear they should be user-friendly and they should enforce the will of the majority while protecting the rights of the minority and that's all about having a fair process next slide please so quorum uh we kind of talked about this as we were waiting to get started today and as the slide states more than half the body so quorum is required for for the housing authority to conduct its business and to vote on the items on the agenda so there's seven members on this body and we need four to establish a quorum before several of you got appointed there were only four on the board and there were three vacancies so that really that really made it very difficult if we just had one member who couldn't make it we wouldn't have a quorum the other point there is it says the body can lose a quorum during the meeting if a member departs or leaves the diet bias so if we only had four and one had to leave for whatever reason we'd no longer have the quorum and we wouldn't be able to continue taking action on items next slide please so this slide talks about the role of the chair but i think it's important of course other than chair test the rest of you aren't chairs but you may one day and it also kind of helps you understand a little bit of the framework that we're working in and when we get to the last point there i'm actually going to pull out the rules and read directly from them because i think they give kind of a short accurate summary of it but essentially the chair calls the meeting to order manages public testimony facilitates deliberation so if you're voting uh if you're taking action on an item uh and maybe there's some discussion and uh it's particularly controversial and maybe it's not going to end up with a unanimous vote it's an opportunity for the chair to make sure everybody's heard and and work its way through the the motion process maintaining order commitment to civility enforces the rules draws out the reason for the decision i think that's an important point but not necessarily one that we get hung up on usually it's part of the recommendation that staff makes and it's usually pretty clear-cut avoid disruptions at meetings and then the last part is what are what are the rules actually on the role of the chair so this is where i'm actually putting the glasses on here and read directly from Rosenberg's rules it says the chair makes the final ruling on rules every time the chair states an action so if there's some dispute as to whose motion takes place uh and whose motion gets voted on the chair does make the final ruling on that if there are objections and it says all decisions of the chair are final unless overruled by the body itself so if the chair happens to make a decision with which you could agree someone can make a motion and try to overturn it with a majority of the commissioner's voting in favor since the chair runs the conduct of the meeting it is usual courtesy for the chair to play a less active role in the debate and discussion than other members of the body this does not mean that the chair should not participate in that debate or discussion and the chair of course has a full right to participate but what the chair should do it says is to strive to be the last person to speak at the discussion and debate stage it advises and these aren't hard and fast rules but they're just general suggestions the chair should not make or second a motion unless the chair is convinced that no other member of the body will do so at that point in time next slide please so basic procedures for meetings and this is what i kind of referred to a little bit earlier and it's kind of the step by step process you know even for the for you newer commissioners you've already seen this in action you know there's an item that's on the agenda and it talks about the process for putting items on the agenda i don't know that the housing authority has anything formal in writing but generally i think the practice has been for the executive director and the chair to talk about the upcoming meetings and the items that will be on the agenda so then we'll go through here what the procedure is when when an item is called and that is the first step in the process so at the appropriate time on the agenda the chair takes up an item for discussion and you see the little bullet point there you know are there any recusals on this item and you heard commissioner Burke announced that on 11.1 he will be recusing himself and he won't take part in that discussion and he will leave the meeting so the first thing that happens after the chair calls the item is number two the reporter presentation done by a staff member to present the an overview of the item together with a recommendation to approve or deny it next slide please and after the presentation by staff concludes that's an opportunity for the commissioners yourselves to ask any questions that you have of the person made the presentation when that concludes number four is public comment and in this hybrid meeting we're in you know folks can call up and raise a question a timer will appear on the screen and they generally have about three minutes to to make their comment but they can also comment in writing by email and and and those those comments can be read into the record once the staff has made its presentation and you've asked questions and the public has had a chance to comment the commissioner who chooses to do so at that point in time can make a motion to approve amend or deny the item next slide and there'll be a slide coming up where we talk about friendly amendments and other amendments and maybe alternative motions we'll spend a few minutes talking about that but assume it's a straightforward motion where it's seconded by another member of the commission and you know it's a good opportunity at that point number seven says understanding make sure that the the chair can ensure that the commissioners understand the motion that's on the floor and the chair under number eight then invites if there's any further discussion on it and there may or may not be if there's not the board takes a vote and the clerk announces the result of that vote and that's the general process assuming it's a straightforward item next slide motions so we just talked about a basic motion and its majority vote the next bullet point there is a motion to amend so this would be a situation where a motion has been made by a commissioner but another commissioner is not comfortable and wants to amend the motion in some way and if that motion if that amendment is seconded then you vote on the amendment first and it may be that the person who made the original motion says they withdraw it or it can become a friendly amendment meaning I think that's a good suggestion please allow me if I may to amend my motion and then it's seconded and you vote on that amended motion a motion to substitute so a commissioner can move to substitute a motion which effectively eliminates the motion that was already made and puts a new motion before the body that has to be voted on by a majority vote another possible action that could occur is a motion to continue and maybe for whatever reason a commissioner and is joined by a majority of the others feel that we need to stop the discussion on this item and maybe you're going to direct staff to come back with some further information so you're going to continue the matter at this meeting and discuss it at another meeting and so I'm reminded now of what chair test said before the meeting started about keeping a sense of humor during these meetings and I see the cat in the corner of that screen saying I second that motion and so this is an opportunity for me to give you a music trivia question and since I grew up in Detroit there was a Motown band in the 1960s that did a song and I'll spare you with my singing but it was basically I second that emotion can anybody tell me the name of that band what's your answer temptations no but that's an excellent guess I can hear it in my mind it's smoky robinson and there's a bonus question which is what was smoky robinson's real first name I haven't looked that one up myself even though I'm from Detroit it's it's William so all right next slide please I promise there's no more trivia questions I think I muted myself all right so friendly amendment so I kind of mentioned it already it's an alternative to an amendment or a substituted motion it's uh I guess it's maybe thought of as a little bit less controversial uh if the maker of the original motion and the person that seconded the motion agree uh this new amended motion it's just kind of a friendly way to say hey I think maybe you misstated something or would you be comfortable if we changed it changed the motion uh and then and then it gets remade with the friendly amendment next slide withdraw motion the maker of the motion at any time can interrupt the speaker lightly of course uh and withdraw his or her motion perhaps uh they're sensing that the uh that the commissioners want to go in a different direction or something came up and caused that commissioner who made the motion to think boy maybe uh maybe you know this really isn't the right motion to make and uh it's it's deemed immediately withdrawn at that point next slide multiple motions up to three at one time this is where it can get confusing and I don't really want to get in the weeds too much here uh if we have that situation come up I'll pull out the rules and we can go through it but generally speaking the vote proceeds first on the last motion that is made so somebody could make in second a motion somebody could give a friendly amendment somebody says I think that this item should be continued uh and you take the the last motion first if the third or second motion in that kind of sequence I told you passes the remaining motions are moots which means that they're you don't have to address them anymore next slide uh voting uh so um I mentioned earlier when we talked about a quorum that you have to have at least four people present to vote on an item and this this uh first bullet point here says bylaws allow a majority of the quorum vote so what that means is if you only had four commissioners present and it was a three to one vote three is not a majority but that would still pass the item because your bylaws say a majority of the quorum satisfies a vote requirement so in the unlikely event that you only have four commissioners and it was a three to one vote it would pass um the next bullet point really gets into the question of conflicts of interest a little bit and I think we'll probably have another study session in the not too distant future that talks about this and it talks about the difference between somebody who recuses themselves themselves because they have a conflict or abstains and I think there's actually still a little bit of an open question about the difference between those two but the bottom line is it means that that particular commissioner is not going to participate in the vote and it says there if it's a recusal that means it's a mandatory take yourself out of the vote because of a conflict of interest you have and and I kind of question that I think even for an abstention if you think that maybe you don't have a and the distinction there that they're trying to in the definition section they talk about a direct economic financial interest in the item and as commissioner Burke talked about today he doesn't have a direct financial interest but there is the appearance of possibly a conflict given his role as a board member of the non-profit and the fact that Catholic charities interacts with that board and and now they've got an item so I think that the better practice certainly is to recuse yourself and whether it's voluntary or mandatory or not I I think attorneys could debate that a little bit but the key piece is that the right thing to do is to avoid even the appearance of impropriety and and recuse yourself next slide please if one member is absent recuses or abstains the vote is tied three three and the motion fails so to pass an item three three would not do it and the only thing the other thing I'll mention there is about the roll call vote that that's generally a practice that we do to pass most items anyway but I'll mention that because we are having these meetings now remotely through zoom there were some requirements imposed upon boards to allow it to be remote and one of those is that all votes shall be done as a roll call vote so we're required to do that now while we're going through the the end here hopefully of the pandemic next slide please that's it so unless you have any questions or maybe Megan has some comments I'm happy to answer any questions if you have some I see some hands popping up Dr. Downey thank you Jeff although not covered um as an attorney what is the Brown Act and how is the Brown Act impacted by uh remote meetings thanks for asking that and I probably should have talked about it so the Brown Act is a state law in California that goes back to the 1950s and it has nothing to do with color I think the legislator's name was Brown and that's where they named the law after him and it's basically designed for requiring public bodies like yours to be transparent and to enact its business in a way that the public can see what's going on and have an opportunity to participate so it starts with the agenda and having agenda items crafted in a way that lets people understand what's going to be discussed um and that it's going to be open in public there's an opportunity for public comments and there's a handful of exceptions and this body doesn't do it very often but from time to time you're allowed to meet in what's called closed session maybe there's a threat of litigation or certain other items that are exempted under the Brown Act and allow you to meet in private and not have to have that discussion in public and you can imagine if there was some potential litigation if you had to have the discussion with your attorney in open session then the other side could hear your attorney-client communications and and you shouldn't be hamstrung that way with regard to COVID the governor had issued an executive order at the start of the pandemic maybe February or March of 2020 that allowed these meetings to proceed in this manner before the pandemic if a commissioner wanted to be in their home instead of present physically in the council chambers then the law the Brown Act requires you to post notice of that and allow members of the public to be wherever you are so if you were in your home you would have to allow you before the governor's executive order you would have had a lot of members of the public to be in your home and and the rationale for that is they want you know the legislature just wanted to make sure that there's no undue influence going on and that there's nobody telling you how to vote on an issue so the governor's executive order sunset about a month ago and the legislature drafted a law that allows the continuation of these remote meetings and relaxes those brown act rule requirements that allow you to continue to participate remotely and you don't have to have somebody be at your house and it's contingent on the county health officer continuing to make findings that it's safer to be remote and so when this law passed the Sonoma County health officer issued an order recommending continuation of these type of meetings so it's a little bit of a long answer but a good question. Commissioner Burke. Yes I have a couple of questions one is an order of voting you touched on it but we didn't get didn't go into detail rules do or don't but it's been my experience over the year typically on a motion usually it's the maker of the motion usually goes first and then the balance of the board and I'm not sure what order alphabetical I don't know sure how that one is has worked in the past but then to end with chair being the final person of the voting sequence is there anything in the Rosenberg rules or what's the city council's policy if not on so you cut out for part of it I'll repeat what I think was your question it sounded like two different issues but but the one that I heard at the end was what's the order of voting and generally speaking you know there's a maker of the motion in a second and then the chair reads a list and I believe that the chair I'm sorry the clerk reads the roll call list and the last person to vote is the chair and the person before that last vote is the vice chair and frankly the rest of the order I'm not sure maybe it's in order of who is appointed and maybe the clerk knows or maybe our executive director knows and by the way was that your question commissioner yes it was I use my space for but sometimes it doesn't work so I'm muted so hopefully you can hear me better this time you were cutting out earlier a couple times too which I need to kind of go back and fill in one of the pieces of info so yeah so it'd be the the maker of the motion goes first the seconder of the motion we're both undecided about how you get to the end but then it's the vice chair and chair are the two final voting members is that correct yes okay I'd like to see us follow that you know in the future I think we not necessarily followed that and kind of gotten away from that but I would I think that makes more sense just giving my background experience secondly so we talked about recue and I mentioned abstain recuse obviously is what is the appropriate term that I used do I need to do anything to kind of correct that or will the record for that one come to voting I think the record will we'll take care of that okay when the items voted on okay and then we'll use the term recuse okay thank you uh that that was you know basic thanks for the clarification I I learned something and and I realized that I need to modify comment so needs to recuse themselves and that item comes I know when the meetings in person the member who is recusing themselves typically leaves the council chambers and then comes back afterwards and participates in the regular meeting on on these in this case is it sufficient to simply mute and remove yourself from the screen or you actually have to just terminate your involvement entirely well I don't think there's really any case law on it I guess my suggestion if you really wanted to err on the side of being cautious would be that you exit the zoom meeting and then when the item is over you know we could have staff text the person and bring them back into the meeting I guess fortunately in this situation it's I think it's the last item on the agenda anyway so so you could just leave and enjoy the rest of your afternoon I think that that won't always be the case and so right no I appreciate that yeah so thank you if I can interject for just a moment if in the event we were live any commissioner who recused themselves would have to remove themselves from the chamber so they wouldn't have the benefit or see of seeing or hearing any of the discussion or deliberation so I think to support Jeff eggs in a zoom is consistent with with how we previously handled recusals okay Megan so for instance a member of the city council and other board and commission this meeting in person and they remove those if there's a television and the mayor conference room they can't watch that either they shouldn't be but once they okay thank you I think the issue is not so much them watching it as it is being there and potentially giving the appearance of influencing it by their mere presence okay um and then let's see here I think that's it thank you very much any other questions okay maybe you want to see if there's any public comment I think must Megan has any comments no just thank you Jeff for giving that great overview we're now taking public comments on item 4.1 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 chair test at this time I see no hands raised and we have no email public comment thank you we'll move along to um public comments on non-agenda items public comment on non-agenda items we are now taking public comments on item 5 non-agenda 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 and 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 9 to raise your hand chair test I'm seeing no hands raised at this time and we have no email public comment either thank you we'll move along to approval of minutes we have the minutes for September 27th meeting are there any changes hearing none I presume we are going to have unanimous consent of approval item number seven chairman commissioner reports I would like to make a brief report I attended a mayor mayor's luncheon which really there was no luncheon but it was a zoom meeting and it was very interesting there were five other chairs of various committees within the city of Santa Rosa and the meeting was organized by the mayor and what was amazing to me is three of the six of us had very active boards and agendas the others didn't meet very frequently at all and so that was that was kind of eye-opening to me I think we were one of the more active boards within the city one one interesting comment by the mayor was that the city will be having volunteers who will be riding in their own white vehicles to help in situations where normally a police officer was there and these individuals would be there to help anybody who has say a mental health issue or some other issue that's not really a crime-supported type of issue and that program is going to be starting soon and that's the end of my report for the mayor's luncheon move along to committee reports there are no committee reports today exactly a director reports and communications sure sure test if I may interject commissioner Burke and commissioner Downey both have their hands raised oh sorry okay thank you thank you yeah so I just wanted to mention that commissioner LaPenia and an opportunity to join a group I think you're cutting out a little bit Steve Lantana housing development which is a ownership program for moderate and lower income people in the community and inspiring Megan was there as well and number of other people the mayor and vice mayor made presentations and I know I know that chair Tess you were out of town able to attend and so you missed a very nice dedication some of the most things for that you're cutting out again our homeowners and how important that was them and their lives and their families lives thinking they would never have a chance to own a home given the income level and the incredibly high housing prices in Sonoma County so that was inspiring it was a it was a I think a very uplifting event no commissioner LaPenia has any comments in addition to that but thank you I would I would echo what commissioner Burke said and for me for the first time seeing that it was really gratifying and you know it brought one of them brought a tear to my eye really when she was talking about how even even though you know she was a county employee she got into this program because she still didn't make enough to afford housing in the county so it was it's quite informative and very and very good thank you you commissioner Downey I was under the impression that there was a crew of people who were wearing blue coats in downtown Santa Rosa that were assisting people who were having some sort of a crisis to mitigate the police being activated is that not true and they're going to people wearing white some sort of uniform my understanding I don't know about the blue coats they the mayor had just mentioned white vehicles unlike a regular police car in the city these would be white vehicles that probably say something about city of Santa Rosa but in terms of that group you just mentioned there was no mention of that so I'm sorry I don't really know if I could attempt to provide a little bit of clarification I think you're referring to the in response team and this is a mental health support team and they're going to be driving white vans I don't know if they'll have any particular uniform but they are to assist with mental health issues that are arising out in the community and they're going to be called in response have any other comments okay we'll move forward item number nine executive director reports communication items all right so as part of my executive director report today I'm going to have a couple of staff members provide some updates first I want to let the housing authority know about the linda tunas senior apartments groundbreaking ceremony this is on friday afternoon at 3 p.m so hopefully you've all received email invitations about this and it's at the linda tunas senior apartments which is located at 600 acacia lane in santa rosa the next item and it's very timely given commissioner burkin commissioner lapenas update is a quick summary of the leontana homes project and so angela morgan is going to provide you with some um details on the home buyers that were able to um live in this community thank you megan and good afternoon commissioners uh so i do have the pleasure of reporting out um reporting out on a project named leontana as previously as previously just mentioned it's an affordable ownership project in santa rosa this project it has come it has come to fruition and i'd like to extend a congratulations to past and present housing authority commissioners and city staff for the success the project is located at um 79 pardon me 29 79 dentin meadow in santa rosa it was a new construction it's a new construction uh development of 48 affordable ownership homes on a 3.7 acre site it it is a mixed income development of which two are two households within the development um are at um income levels of extremely low income 28 of them are low uh income and 18 households are at the are at the moderate income tier of affordability uh the um five of which um we've exceeded the number of of the required affordable low income home households sorry uh by five units so the initial requirement for the for the project funding was 25 units and we've exceeded that uh by five so that's that's exciting news to share um so the median in the medium loan amount for the uh for the assistance that we've provided to the home buyers out there at lantana is 66141 all of the homes were sold for four hundred ninety four thousand one hundred dollars that was a sales the sales price across um all of the homes there within the within the project the uh the demographics for uh for each household that we've provided that we reported for the federal funding which is the the race and ethnicity information uh it includes 35 of the households uh 35 white of which 30 are latino or hispanic six black or african american households one american indian household and six asian americans five of the households were previously living in subsidized housing uh so those are you know those are great success stories uh to be able to share with you all uh four of the units were constructed um are considered uh accessible units the project was completed at the end of july in 2021 at that point or shortly thereafter the um bourbon housing who was a developer they um they had a um a tour a tour of the homes um to to showcase the homes shortly thereafter in august uh we were able to close escrow on all of the homes the home buyers uh received their keys and were able to move in and then finally as mentioned the grand opening was this last uh was um on the 16th um of october oh i apologize not the yes uh 23rd my apologies uh and um that's all the information i have to highlight on the land town of project thank you angela and then one more brief update is from rebecca lane and it is on our housing choice voucher program she has some exciting milestones to share thank you may again and good afternoon commissioners class our chair test and commissioners um so i'll be providing two brief updates today one is about the e h b or emergency housing voucher program um as you recall that's a new program for us uh we received notification that we were um being invited to participate in this program in may and we are pleased to report that referrals are now being received through the continuum of care and we have a total of 43 households who are referred so far of those households eight families have been issued vouchers they've gotten through the eligibility determination process and been issued vouchers and of those three are leased up uh with more leases uh expected at the beginning of next week with the new excuse me with the new month uh the resources that we are dedicating to this program uh combined with the support from partner agencies is allowing us to have an accelerated timeline uh between the receipt of a referral and the ultimate um issuance of the voucher uh determining eligibility can often be an arduous process but we've been able to to get through that quickly um in most of these cases um so uh all three of the households who have been leased so far uh have been housed within 30 days of being referred to the program um in addition this month our region's e h b program which includes the uh Sonoma County continuum of care and the Sonoma County Housing Authority we were invited by the HUD technical assistance arm uh branch to provide a live training to a nationwide audience about our program development and benchmarking so we're very pleased to join Detroit Michigan in providing that training and presentation and we extend our thanks to HUD for the opportunity to do that my second update is just a brief uh bit about the waiting list opening as you'll recall from last month um our waiting list for the regular housing choice voucher program is still open for one more week and as of this morning uh we had received 6,730 uh households had successfully submitted a waiting list lottery application through our online system as well as about 20 um uh paper forms that were requested and received uh for alternate access and as a reminder to all the commissioners and the community the opportunity to apply for the lottery ends on October 31st which is Sunday thank you very much that's it for me all right and one more quick item uh included in your packet was a memo uh regarding the need for an ad hoc committee so as you may have sensed through our two updates we have a lot of new programs which are providing opportunities for our community and one of them is the permanent local housing allocation program and so we need to convene an ad hoc committee to review the applications that were due this past Friday on October 22nd um so if the chair could um solicit the commission and see if there are two to three commissioners who are interested in participating in application review we would certainly appreciate it we need to review these applications and present uh recommendations to the housing authority ideally in November in order to move quickly to meet state guidelines thank you Megan um do we have a couple of interested uh commissioners to sit on this ad hoc committee don't be shy I'll do it thank you yeah I'll do it too fantastic we'll have third one two is great um I would like to participate in this uh just because I have not used the new um strategy guidelines that we have been working on for the past several months so I would welcome the participation as well thank you great thank you so much we'll move along are there any other questions by staff at this time before we move along if not I'm going to open this to public comment on item 9.1 we are now taking public comments on item 9.1 if you wish to make wish to make a comment via zoom please raise your hand if you are dialing in via telephone please dial star 9 to raise your hand you will have three minutes chair test at this time I'm seeing no hands raised and we received no email public comment thank you item 10 is consent items currently there are no consent items at this time item 11 is report items all right item 11.1 is a report loan modification request from Catholic Charities for the block in release of loan and regulatory agreement from parcels to be developed with keratoss home spaces one and two I will be making the presentation and I'll be recusing myself and leaving the meeting thank you very much thank you Steve all right so first I would just like to thank the housing authority for their patience we had to push out a revised agenda on Friday and the item that was included in the revision is an extension of the loan term which I had failed to include in the original packet so that is included in the request next slide please so to give commissioners a brief history of this site the block is located in downtown Santa Rosa it is the site of the former general hospital which was owned by memorial hospital and the primary component that may be noteworthy to commissioners of the public is the family support center which is a family homeless shelter the site was acquired by Catholic Charities in 2015 with the assistance of a loan from the housing authority in the amount of $750,000 following that acquisition in 2015 Catholic Charities was able to acquire two remaining privately owned parcels that were part of the block and then worked with the city and some of commissioners may remember reviewing requests for the remnant parcels which are the properties that remained from the city developing or assisting in the development of the Santa Rosa Plaza so there were some parcels where the streets were reconfigured that the city had retained ownership of until 2020 next slide please so here you'll see a aerial map of the block it is bound by 6th street on the south a street on the east side seventh street to the north and then morgan street and then you can see highway 101 is a little further to the west and so in the um sorry can you go back really quick the family support center is the larger structure that is located in the top right area of the block next slide please so when the housing authority provided the loan of $750,000 for acquisition there was a regulatory agreement that was associated with that had a 55 year term which goes until June 30th of 2070 a component of the block because as you'll remember there were numerous parcels 11 that were included had some residences that were used for temporary housing for households and they were restricted at or below 80 percent of median income so those are a component of the current regulatory agreement also the operation of an emergency shelter the family support center was included and another component that was included in the acquisition and part of the ongoing operations was the homeless services center which was located at 600 morgan street on the western edge of the block and that's a day center for homeless individuals next slide please so some of you may be aware or have read or heard of the caritas village project you've certainly reviewed caritas homes so this is a master plan that catholic charities pursued for the entire redevelopment of the block so there are three primary phases caritas homes phases one and two and caritas center so the home space and one and two are each 64 units of multifamily rental home space one received a community development block grant disaster recovery alone from the housing authority as well as housing choice vouchers to assist with the development caritas homes phase two is still in kind of a pre-development phase in terms of its financing so they are gathering their financing options and likely we'll see that come before us in the future and then finally caritas center is the redevelopment of the family support center and associated services so this is a new facility that'll be located on the southern end of the block that will have the facilities that were in the family support center the beds the services the medical center that they're incorporating respite beds for homeless individuals that are recovering or have been released from the hospital as well as other services next slide please so catholic charities as part of the development and financing associated with the block conducted mergers and law line adjustments to create three separate tracks as they were referred to in the staff report and so in order to do that and clean it up for the financing to proceed for caritas homes phase one and ultimately phase two catholic charities is requesting that the housing authority approve the release of the deed of trust in the regulatory agreement from homes phase one and two that the housing authority consider revising the loan of the regulatory agreement to reflect the loss of those six temporary housing units and that this document now reflect that it's a homeless services facility catholic charities requested that the surplus cash term be removed from the loan and this just for the benefit of all the commissioners is a provision we include in our promissory notes to require any projects that are generating income to provide us with repayment as as they can next slide please they've also asked that the loan be forgivable at the end of the term like I mentioned eliminate the reference to the six affordable housing units and then modify the income requirements next slide please so staff reviewed this request over the course of several months as we were proceeding with the environmental review for the property and working through the various financing mechanisms for caritas homes phase one and then the center so staff is recommending that the housing authority approve the following and these are not all of the items that were included in catholic charities request so we are I am recommending that the housing authority release homes phase one and two from the existing loan and regulatory agreement revise the regulatory agreement so that it applies solely to the caritas center site which is the homeless shelter and facility remove the loan term that requires surplus cash repayment because this will be applied to an emergency shelter this is the new component that was added in the revised agenda extend the loan due date from 2045 to 2070 so it'll coincide with the regulatory agreement and this is consistent with actions that we currently take we usually have our loan term and the regulatory agreement be the same number of years next slide please staff is not recommending that the loan be forgiven at the end of the term we are supportive of the reference to the six affordable housing units being removed from the regulatory agreement as they were demolished as part of the caritas homes phase one project and the six homes that were subject to the regulatory agreement are essentially being replaced by the 64 unit caritas homes phase one project so we are going to benefit from more affordable housing units on this site release the mitigation declaration and this was part of the original loan and environmental review because they were older housing units located next to the freeway they did not have adequate ventilation and as part of the environmental review we had to record a mitigation declaration against the site which essentially put residents on notice of the lack of ventilation and adequate windows that the those units would have the new project is constructed in such a way that they were able to address that through their windows through their hvac system and other aspects of the building so that's not required in the new caritas homes phase one structure next slide please so this is a very long recommendation but i am recommending that the housing authority approve the termination release of the data trust from caritas homes phase one and two require catholic charities and this is an important component require catholic charities to enter into an affordability agreement for caritas homes phase one so we'll have a document recorded against that particular site but until we have a project that has received approval from the housing authority we won't have specifics on the income levels that will be restricted modify the existing regulatory agreement to remove the six affordable housing rental units release the mitigation declaration and approve a modification of terms that eliminates surplus cash receipts and then finally extend the term of the loan to june 30th 2070 so that concludes my presentation i'd be happy to answer any questions commissioner downey hi man one of the issues that we've been having for a number of years in the housing authority is the the behavior of forgivability and forgiving alone and it seems like something that's been kicked down the road uh as a can uh can't be kicked down the road i'm wondering if there could be some policy or some language that would put an end to this is this going to be an exception to the rule or is this going to be novel out of all or is this going to be on a case-by-case basis i'm glad that staff flagged it as issue in the language to take out of this particular proposal but i'm wondering going forward if there's anything else that can be done addressing the issue of forgivability um i'd say to respond to your question we've received requests in the past and i can't think of anywhere we've forgiven the loan oftentimes we do extend the loan if the project is in compliance and the loan extension would then coincide with the term of the regulatory agreement i don't know if we want to develop a policy that would prevent someone from requesting it because there certainly could be circumstances that come up in the future that we would want to evaluate um but i think we've been pretty consistent in not approving those because our ultimate goal at least in my opinion is to make sure that we have the affordable housing or the the shelter resources available to the community so that's what we're trying to achieve and by keeping our deed of trust and regulatory agreement on the property um we certainly have the mechanism to do that i'm going back to commission Lemke and certainly commission former commissioner Olson where we debated on a a plan pertaining to a woman's recovery center so that particular instance that loan was not forgiven they did repay the loan and the accrued interest but we did release the regulatory agreement so that was a slightly different circumstance but ultimately we were able to recover the loan and the accrued interest and we're able to move that into future loan products so let me assume that going forward that for good ability it's going to become a slimmer option on the staff side of the house it certainly is an issue that we we take very seriously when requested and evaluate what the the potential benefits to the housing authority and the community are because we use our dollars to help obtain affordable housing units and ensure their long term compliance okay thank you commissioner vice chair thank you so as i understand we've got three parcels but are now going to be three parcels the keratoss center which is what we are going to keep this loan on and we're releasing what will be keratoss village phase one 64 units and keratoss village phase two keratoss village phase one was awarded um making me help me a cdbg dr money so they're and the dollar amount's not what's important but they will receive it and so there will be a regulatory agreement on that particular property is that correct that is correct so they were awarded cdbg dr funding roughly 8.9 million i think but that will be secured with a deed of trust with a regulatory agreement from the housing authority and then a regulatory agreement from the california department of housing and community development so that project and we are in the process of working on that closing package so those should be recording probably within the next 30 days or so but there will be two regulatory agreements and a deed of trust on that that parcel so we did have six units and now we're going to have 64 correct so that's that's a that's a great positive the but what we're what i i'm clear on is that keratoss village which what this loan will be um securitized with collateralized with is is a support center so it's not the same type of cash flow that you would see from an apartment project it's an operating expense that may or may not justify that may or may not need funding from care catholic charities so the catholic charities funding from catholic charities to keep the operations going through their normal budgetary process did did the housing authority receive any sort of cash flow projection to show how this loan that is not going to be forgiven it eventually be repaid we don't have a cash flow projection on how it will be repaid the funds are already in the site we want to ensure the long-term operation of that particular project so shifting it from the entire parcel to the keratoss center site will help them with at least the funds that are their capital that's in the project and then additionally the keratoss center site has benefited um in the past in the form of the family support center and the homeless services center from operational funds provided by the city's cdbg public services component so that is likely to be a future funding source for operations and as you mentioned homeless shelters or facilities don't usually generate cash flow they require operating subsidies on the annual basis as part of our review of operating requests the applicants are required to provide us with financial statements and then all of the funding requests throughout the term of our assistance are required to be accompanied by reports so we're able to track the the cash flow in the the operations of the project okay i would just make a recommendation when something like this is because this is a different type of project normally you will see projects cash flow projections for properties for and for their cdbg funds and also for uh if they're going in for tax credits to show how these types of funds soft money funds can be repaid but this is a different type of property because it's operationals for a basically a homeless center um and they do provide very valuable it's a great project is doing very well it's it's under construction and doing incredibly well but i just wanted to have that noted that and it's good that it's not being forgiven but that it be tracked going forward as you suggested megan to show that there is cash flow excess cash flow and over the period of time it wouldn't take a lot of excess cash flow it'll pay this thing down and pay it off sorry one other component that slipped my mind is all of the housing authorities loans do require an annual report so we do collect the audit of financial statements from projects that haven't benefited from loans from the housing authority and those are reviewed generally in the spring of each year depending on when the particular projects um year ends so that will continue to be a requirement of the loan perfect thank you very much thank you um jeth berck so um perhaps a bit of a housekeeping item and perhaps i am looking at um an older resolution but i want to make sure that the one uh if you are going to approve this today that the resolution has something at the bottom of page two or the top of page three that talks about extending the term of the loan and the one that i pulled off doesn't have it but i may have uh an outdated one so um in the materials that are presented to you if if the housing authority is inclined to approve this request it is the resolution that is labeled resolution revised and that should be in your ledger star packet well as long as that's the one that you're voting on um it's not the one that i pulled up off ledger star but i just want to make sure that that is consistent with with what the commissioners are voting on thank you are there any other comments from commissioners seeing none we'll open this now to public comment on item 11.1 we are now taking comments on item 11.1 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 tested this time i'm seeing no hands raised and we received no email public comment thank you do we have a motion coming on this particular item any commissioners if i make through the chair i just wanted to note that i do see the correct resolution so you're you're good to go i apologize for that okay thank you chair person test the in jeff berg i'm looking at the resolution that came off the agenda that's posted for public uh public and uh bottom of page two starts the now therefore be resolved language um monoface in the terms of loan to reflect the okay so where is the provision for the extension of the maturity so that would be number six of the whereas i just clicked on the wrong thing as long as the the action has six components in the final line is approved an extension of the loan term for 30 years to june 30th of 2070 okay the one that's posted for public only has five points um i will go ahead and move the resolution the housing authority the city of santa rosa approving the loan modification request from the catholic charities for the block loan number 90202525-15 not to rise the release of the loan regulatory agreement from parcels to be developed with parentage almost one and two and weigh the reading of the text and that would second that thank you any other comments okay i guess we can move forward for a vote okay very good we will now do a old call vote for this item um we'll start with commissioner brawl hauser hi uh commissioner reporter mr lapena and i commissioner downy hi vice chair owin hi and chair test hi uh let the um let the record show that the motion passes with six eyes with commissioner burke recusing himself thank you next item on our agenda is the adjournment thank you everybody and i appreciate your time today thank you don thank you thank you thank you