 Good afternoon, everyone. It looks like we are still waiting for Commissioner Olson and Commissioner Downey at this time. Good afternoon, Mrs. Kaylee. I do apologize for the delay, Chair Owen. I just tried to reach out to Commissioner Olson and Commissioner Downey. And I did not, or was not able to reach them. I do believe that we need four people for a quorum. How would you like to proceed? Is Council Jeff Burke on here? I am. What say you, sir? So we do need four Council, four form of commissioners present to conduct business. I suggest waiting at least a few more minutes. We do have one agenda item that regardless of the technical aspects of the quorum, I recommend proceed. And that's the proclamation. But let's put that aside for a moment and I don't know if somebody can reach out if we can text or whatever, but I think we should try to at least wait a few more minutes and see if we can get a fourth for a quorum. Okay. Following Council's advice, it's 138. I understand staff is trying to reach the other two commissioners. Yes, this is Kaylee. I left messages for both of them. I was unable to reach them. We'll send in, Steve and I will send an email right now in case that's a better way to get a hold of them. Okay, so let's stay on hold for another five minutes or so and we'll see. Okay, thank you. I'll send an email to Commissioner Downey and Commissioner Olson. Hopefully I'll hear back from them shortly. Thank you. Jeff, I have a question for you. I have Commissioner Olson on the phone. He is able to dial in. Will that work to get the quorum or do we need him on video? We can proceed with him as long as he is able to hear everything that's being said and he can communicate with us. I think that that will be okay. We really just have a couple of consent items and I'm comfortable proceeding in that fashion. Okay, thank you. Jeff, is that okay to start then? If he, as soon as we get confirmation that he is here and we'll do a roll call and then we can proceed. Okay, thank you. Commissioner Olson will be calling in momentarily. I have Commissioner Olson phoning in. Chair Ellen, Commissioner Olson is present if we would like to begin. Thank you very much. I would like to call the meeting to order. And little housekeeping is to remind the commissioners to keep their audio on mute and unless they are speaking. The commissioners other than the chair can mute themselves. Staff will remain muted until needing to speak. As members of the public join the meeting, you will be participating as an attendee. Your microphone and camera will 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 purposes. The host will be re-aiming your viewable phone number to resident and the last city of San Rosa's community creating a safe and inclusive environment free from disruption. We will not tolerate any hateful speech or actions are well staffed and well staffed and monitor that everyone is participating respectfully, or they will be removed. If necessary, we will also immediately end the meeting. I'd like to ask the clerk to now explain how the public comments will be heard at today's meeting. Of course, 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 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 hand. Public comment will be limited to three minutes and the 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 comment. 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 are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the housing authority. Thank you. And right now last the court for roll call. Indeed. All right. Start with Commissioner Burke. Commissioner Burke. You're on mute. Steve, you're on mute. Still on mute. Should be able to hear me now. I am here. Thank you. Okay. And next. Mr. Olson. Mr. Olson. He's on mute. Thank you. And then I've got Commissioner Downing. And vice chair test. Here. And chair Owen. Here. Thank you. Thank you. I could show that all commissioners are present except for Commissioner Downing. Item number three is a statement of as abstention or any commissioners need to file a statement of abstention or any item today's agenda. Hearing none. We have item four, which is a study session and there is not a study session this time. This is the public comment on non agenda items. We're now taking items on item five, which is the non agenda minds. Non agenda matters. This is the time when any person may address the housing authority on matters not listed on this agenda, 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 outlined public comments procedure and let us let the commission know if there's any public that would like to make comment. A countdown timer will appear for the convenience of the speaker and viewers. The first speaker will be acknowledged and invited to speak. Please make sure to unmute yourself when you are invited to do so. Your microphone will be muted at the end of that countdown or at the conclusion of your comment. The public comment will be from Colin resident and phone number ending in 5549. I have enabled your speaking permission. Hello. Hi, please identify yourself for public record if you so choose and your time begins now. Hello, Dwayne deal with from Roseland. I'm here to thank you folks today for continuing to try to provide more affordable housing in the entire city of Santa Rosa. I've been waiting outside the building as I am not an internet connected person and thought that by coming here I could at least see the files. And I find this problematic because many people in my disadvantaged neighborhood of the Roseland Creek area of Santa Rosa are also not on the internet. And they're essentially being zoomed out. By the way, the city is conducting these meetings and essentially excluding the opportunity for people to talk about how we could have a better approach to affordable housing and the homeless. We have lots of homeless who've come over into our area and essentially been be dabbling our community. And the city's policy of essentially focusing and steering more affordable housing over into our area than perhaps anybody else in the entire city, especially working with Burbank housing has really become problematic for a lot of us. We're hoping that you folks will open up the process during the supposed general plan update that allows the public in the community, the homeowners and the taxpayers, along with their renters to have a voice in the sighting of where affordable housing will go. In the past when the city has claimed certain housing will go forward on sites and that would get their housing on the improved, then they haven't made the sites available or the sites haven't been used for affordable housing. Santa Rosa Avenue is a perfect example down by Yolanda, where a project was supposed to go in on Santa Rosa Avenue. Now it's going to be an in and out burger site. So please work with the community, involve us and let us know that you appreciate us. I appreciate Mr. going who will be apparently leaving and I can't stay for these proclamations. I also appreciate that you folks are giving more affordable housing units under article 34 for both the cannery and the veterans project on Western Avenue as a veteran I appreciate that you've been able to work with those folks. Now we need to work with the rest of the community to have affordable housing scattered throughout the city scattered site. Mixed income, mixed use affordable housing, the housing authority could do that time to move forward with a new approach in a better way. All the best to you in the new year. Be well and stay safe. Chair oh and I see no further hands raised, and we received no email public comments. Thank you and thank you Mr. do it for your comments. Moving on to item six which is the approval of minutes. I, Jeff Burke to these. Does this need a motion to approve the minutes. I can be approved by unanimous consent if no commissioners have any questions or concerns about them. And do we do that via a vote. No, you don't have to take a vote. Okay, thank you like to go ahead and move that the minutes from our last meeting are approved. Thank you. Thank you. The next item is item 7.1, which is a proclamation and Megan and you get to do the honors. All right, thank you. One moment while it loads on my computer. All right. Chair Owen and members of the housing authority, we'd like to present a proclamation of appreciation to David E. Gwine in honor of his retirement from the city of Santa Rosa. Whereas in March 1999, David Gwine joined the city of Santa Rosa as the program manager for affordable housing. And whereas David promoted to the director of housing and redevelopment in 2004. And whereas over the course of his leadership, David saw housing and redevelopment evolve to include neighborhood revitalization, economic development, parking, homeless services and code enforcement. And whereas David led the city's redevelopment agency to finance major projects benefiting Santa Rosa, such as the Hyatt Vineyard Creek Hotel and multiple affordable housing units and led the city through the dissolution of redevelopment. And whereas David led the neighborhood revitalization program, a citywide task force dedicated to improving conditions in neighborhoods throughout Santa Rosa through code enforcement and neighborhood outreach. And whereas during David's tenure, the city opened two homeless shelters with more than 200 emergency shelter beds, assisted Catholic Charities in purchasing the block for the development of Caritas Center. And whereas David led the city's efforts to expand homeless services and programs to address the changing needs of the community, including the adoption of a comprehensive housing first strategy. Implementation of a multidisciplinary encampment response team and activation of innovative programming in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. And whereas David led a team to bring over 1500 affordable housing units to fruition and assure their continued affordability for future generations of Santa Rosa residents through ongoing compliance and monitoring. And whereas under his leadership, the Housing Choice Foucher Program grew by approximately 40%, earned the High Performing Agency Award from the Department of Housing and Urban Development for 12 years and continues to provide ongoing rental assistance to over 2,000 households. And whereas the City of Santa Rosa, the former redevelopment agency of the City of Santa Rosa and the Housing Authority of the City of Santa Rosa have greatly benefited from David's leadership and insight. Therefore, be it resolved that David is recognized as a consummate professional and will be remembered for the kindness and professionalism that he brought to the City of Santa Rosa. Be it further resolved that David Gwine will be greatly missed and is hereby wished a well deserved retirement. Thank you, Megan. Do you want to say anything besides, do you want to add to the proclamation? Are you asking board members or Megan? Megan, we'll start with Megan. I just want to wish Dave all of the luck and happiness in his retirement. He has been a great mentor and a wonderful leader to our department and he's going to be greatly missed. Thank you. Any comments from the commissioners? Commissioner Berg? Thank you, Chair Owen. One of the things that kind of comes to my mind is that succession planning really works and it was proven back in 2004 when Dave took the responsibility for leading the Housing Authority and redevelopment agency. And it was interim at first, but then to the benefit of the city and its residents, Dave was appointed by the then city manager, Jeff Collin, to be the permanent director of the department. Dave's charted his own course and it's been a really good one. He's built an excellent staff of a very experienced professionals and that's the kind of the bedrock formula for success for sure. He's expertly handled just a vast array of programs and he's done that with calm and cheerful and very professional kind of leadership style. And bottom line is Dave has just kind of raised the bar in terms of the good work that can come out of a well-oiled machine led by a real professional. So thanks, Dave. I really appreciate all of your good work. Thank you, Commissioner Berg. Commissioner Olson, would you like to say any comments? Yes, I would. Can you hear me? Yes. Dave and I kind of came in together. He became the director of the first year that I was on the board. And David, you've always been a gentleman and a two professional. And I've certainly enjoyed working you over the over the many years that we've been together. Thank you very much for your effort and for your friendship. Thanks, Phil. Vice chair test. Yes. Next year, the housing authority will be in existence for 50 years. And with David's tenure, almost half of that time, I have to applaud him for everything he's accomplished. He's the public to us as commissioners, and he has fostered trust and guidance for all of us here in Santa Rosa. Thank you. Thank you. And I would just like to say an honor to work with you, David. I've known you being in the real estate industry in the, in the marketplace for a number of years and and actually running into you at track meets when our kids were doing track probably junior high age middle school age so always enjoyed working with you discussing with you. And it's been honored to be on the commission in this, this past year is as as chair. You've done a phenomenal job, excellent leadership style. Just all around good person, and you're, you're going to be missed. You laid the groundwork with an excellent team to move the progress forward and again that takes phenomenal leadership to do that. As Commissioner Burke stated in the succession planning that started for you to have the current job and what we have going forward so it's been an honor. You'll be missed, and wish you the best of luck, and we will be in contact be able to have coffee on other matters. So I'm looking forward to that. Okay. Yeah, let me just let me just say that in reading through the proclamation thank you Megan thank you everyone the reminds me of a sign we had in our high school locker room there's. There's no I in team. And so the going, you know, even the Hyatt Vineyard Creek when we were dissolving redevelopment it required a refinancing but that had its origins with somebody named Steve Burke. I'm getting two shelters at its origins with Steve and fellow name Mark Krug. So I'm just fortunate to be part of a succession of very talented people to keep the mission going forward and I'm, I'm extremely confident that the team we have in place will continue to do so. It's such a great system such great people. This housing authority is solid. It has great leadership it has good staff, and we'll continue to have the mission go forward so I thank you for that thank you. And to move on to there's item a which is the chairman or commissioner reports here oh and if I may interject we do have some hands raised for public comments for the proclamation. Oh absolutely please go ahead. Perfect thank you. We are now taking public comments on item 7.1 proclamation of appreciation for David Gwine. 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 to make your comment. A countdown timer will appear for the convenience of the speaker and viewers. The first speaker will be acknowledged and invited to speak. Please make sure to unmute yourself or you are invited to do so. Your microphone will be muted at the end of that countdown or at the conclusion of your comment. Our first public comment will be from Mark Krug. Mark I have enabled your speaking permission. Yes. Let me bring the timer up on my screen. Can you confirm you see the timer. I can thank you. Perfect. Please identify yourself for public record if you so choose and your time begins now. Thanks again. This is Mark Krug with Burbank Housing and I appreciate the opportunity to embarrass David a little bit here. I don't wish to regurgitate some of the facts that have been said already. I have a couple new comments to make. I'll start with the fact that because I now work for Burbank Housing in the development department I spend a great deal of my time probably the majority of my time. It's great. I'm just going to say that I have a very good background at this. I'm going to focus on some of the issues of the president's time. I'm going to say that I also have a very good background at this. I'm just going to focus on some of the issues that you have to address. I just want to say that for us in the department of Housing and Housing and Housing, help us all achieve our mission of affordable housing. You know, some of the funding sources it feels sometimes like the point is to screen out applications rather than to support the mission. And so David, I wanted to point that out that I think it's just extraordinary the culture that you've maintained that handed off to you from Steve Burke to really be mission driven and help those of us trying to develop housing rather than being a hindrance and really appreciate the support. And I can't say how different that makes you from our experience with most funding sources. I want to also say that it's been a tumultuous 15 years that you've led the department through the dissolution of redevelopment, which I don't think too many of the listeners probably understand what administrative headache that really involved, not to mention the loss of the resources, but a great deal of time and the unraveling of redevelopment. You went through a number of city sort of budget crises and reorganizations and a lot of ups and downs. And you've been just really steady. One thing that everyone in this community realizes is it's just been really steady in your department in spite of what's going on elsewhere in the city. And I think that's a credit to your leadership. You've always been focused on the mission and supporting organizations like Burbank in achieving our mission. So, we've known one another a long time, David, 22, 23 years by my count, starting out as peers and working for Steve Burke and then going our separate ways. And I feel fortunate that we've stayed in touch socially and professionally and I'll conclude by saying, I look forward to the post COVID opportunity to literally toast you with a pint in hand and with that best wishes and good luck in the future endeavors. Take care. Thank you, Mark. Chair Owen, I see no further public comments. And I'm not sure if there's any other staff members that would like to make a comment at this time. Are there any staff members that would like to make a comment this time? Hi, this is Kate Goldfein. Can you guys hear me? Yes. Hi, Dave, I just wanted to say thank you for your leadership and for particularly you and I worked together through some really hard things while we were both here. And I'll always remember how kind and patient you were through that. And I always appreciated that about you and I'm very glad that now you and Lori get to enjoy your time together. So thank you again for everything. Thank you, Kate. Thank you. Yeah, this is Kelly Kaikendahl. Can you hear me? Yes, Kelly. I'll jump in on the staff comment and appreciation to Dave Glein. I've worked with Dave in Housing and Community Services for 15 years and as a program specialist in affordable housing. And the last five years, very closely with Dave leading the city's efforts responding to homelessness. And in that time, Dave has really been a mentor for me. I'm now the city's manager or program manager for homeless services. And I just wanna thank him for that, for his mentorship, for encouraging me maybe when I didn't see it in myself to step into roles that I wasn't necessarily comfortable in. So thank you for your leadership and your mentorship over the years and you'll be missed and have a great time with your family in your retirement. Thank you, Kelly. Thank you. This is Rebecca. I would also like to jump in. I'm the manager of the Housing and Community Services Program and have had the opportunity to work with Dave even more closely over the last year than in my previous 15 or 14 or so years with the Housing Authority. And I also just wanna echo what everyone else has said. You're a role model to me and I know I can speak for my entire staff when I say that you will be very, very missed. Here the culture that you have created in our department and in our office will live on and we will still miss you every day. And thank you for everything that you have taught me and I really appreciate it and I'll miss you. Thank you, Rebecca. Thank you. Are there any other people that would like to make a comment? Okay, well, Dave, this is definitely a highlight of the agenda. So I would just say it's back to succession planning. Steve set up a great shop. We were able to continue that and expand on it. We have a great team in place and we will continue to do so from the folks you just heard from and saw. So the Housing Authority, the Housing Trust of Voucher Program is in a great space and it'll continue to be that way. So that's a credit to the team. That's everyone, all of us. Thank you, David. The next item is the item eight, which is chairing and commissioner reports and there are reports that are any of those. Same with item nine committee reports. There are no committee reports. So we're moving, calling item 10.1. And David is the presenter in this end. This is the executive reports. Excuse me for that, yeah. So we have two items to report to you today. The first is a 10.1 A and that's to give you a status of the community development block grant disaster recovery multifamily housing program or as we like to say, CDBGDR. You might recall that the last meeting of October, October 27th, the city council accepted the standard agreement with the state of California, what meant after approximately three years after the disaster, where we'll proceed to try and get a solicitation for multifamily housing projects going. City council delegated that task to the Housing Authority and the loan and review committee comprised of council member Schweldhelm and Sawyer and Burke and Chair Owen. And so immediately Megan and her team went out the following week and solicited proposals. They were doing 30 days, which was December 4th. We had 17 applications totaling just under 1300 units, totaling around $149 million for the 35 point, I'm sorry, $38.5 million available. And then combination in the Housing Authority to Rebecca side is we did a companion solicitation for project-based vouchers. Oversubscribed as well, 259 requests. And so nose to the grindstone, we're looking through those proposals this month. We're vetting them internally and we plan to pull the loan committee together. Again, Steve Burke, Chair Owen, council member Sawyer and Schweldhelm, ideally by the end of the month to review these proposals in front of us and get some preliminary direction so that we can then schedule a special meeting of the Housing Authority in early January, early January, so that we can get a recommendation forward to the state of California. The reason that timeline is critical is because state housing and community development, HCD, are the people that would be reviewing what we recommend based on our expertise and solicitation to then go, yes, these are good projects to proceed. And then at least of the developer ready to start hitting the milestones of 2021 for tax credit, 4%, 9%, multifamily housing, other opportunities. And that is our goal. And so right now, if you don't see Megan's eyes get wide, we're pretty much on schedule to do so. And that's the report for the status of community DR and happy to CDBG DR. And we're happy to answer any questions or maybe Megan, you wanna add something that I might have glossed over, skip through. I think that was a great summary of the process that we are undertaking and we're very hopeful that we're gonna have some great projects that we're gonna be able to move forward. Yeah. Commissioner Burke, you're on mute. Commissioner Burke, there we go. Okay, yeah, for some reason my space bar isn't working like it's supposed to. I just wanted to do, maybe you mentioned it, Dave, but are we also, I believe I recall, having a parallel request for interest in project based vouchers as well for this, yeah. Yeah, I maybe glossed over that a little bit too much, but yeah, we ran a parallel process to see if anybody wanted to solicit proposals for project basing in the voucher program. And that's what I said, yeah, we have 259 units under request in the 17 developments. And so again, way oversubscribed. Great news to have this interest in our development community. But to Megan and Rebecca's credit, I just keep using the term nose to the grindstone. Where do we know where we can move the best resource to get the family's house the fastest? And so that's going on right now to go on through the holiday. And ideally, Chairman Burke will be able to have the Loan Review Committee review both proposals here in the next couple of weeks. Are there any other questions? Commissioner Olson or Vice Chair, I have a question, either David or Megan can answer. So it's $38 million. The normal CDBG funds that come in are approximately, how much each year? On an annual basis, we have about $1.1 million in CDBG funds that we include in our Notice of Funding Availability. These are slightly different in that they can be used for construction purposes because they are identified for disaster recovery and our regular CDBG that flows to us from HUD can be used for acquisition of land. And that's how we usually position it in affordable housing projects. And this is an item we've discussed in the past. And David, if you could answer this question. So quantifying to $1 million is normal CDBG. Now we have $38 million for a different purpose. Not only is the dollar amount available so much more, but the purpose is different than normal CDBG. And just, you've not had any increase in staff and the process in terms of NOFA has been, how has that been received from, and Megan maybe you can answer if you would like, that many applicants coming in. Were there any issues in terms of the process from the applicant side or were they pretty familiar with that process? I'd be happy to answer this. We received some new applications from developers we have not previously worked with. So we are looking at their experience and capacity, but the majority of the applications we received are from projects that we have been in conversations with, have previously sponsored or are familiar with in our community. We are just taking on the review of the applications as Dave acknowledged it is, it's a fair amount of work but it's certainly something that we are excited to do and are looking forward to positioning these projects to move forward. And on that $38 million, are any of that money available to use for staff costs or is all going into the projects? We can use some of the funds for activity delivery which is essentially reimbursement of staff costs. And do you have any idea what percentage of that $30 million is going toward that cost? I believe about $130,000 to $50,000 we've identified as going towards staff costs. Small amount. 150 out of 38 million. And I now would add to what Megan said that comes on the compliance side of the shop. Community Development Block Grant is a federal resource disaster recovery has a lot of quote unquote strings attached to the money. So it isn't so much the staff delivery to get developers interested, vet them and in front of decision makers. It's more on the back end where you have to monitor prevailing wage and title three and all the things that the federal government requires. That's really where the new administrative costs come from. And part B, which is Rebecca's area. Can you describe the process that you've had to go through for applications that they've been primarily from applicants that we know, applicants new to the area? Yes. Well, it's quite similar to what Megan said. There was crossover in the applications and that was actually part of our intention. We wanted to position projects to be able to use the DR resources in combination with the project-based voucher resources so that they're more likely to come to fruition and be more competitive, perhaps in the tax credit rounds. So that was our intention and we did see a lot of crossover. And so as what Megan said, there are projects that we're familiar with and a few that are new to us. There were four projects that applied for DR but did not apply for the project-based vouchers. And there were also four projects that applied for project-based vouchers that did not apply for the DR. And that is fine. We're still gonna review all of those in accordance with the voucher regulations. And as Dave had mentioned, we are oversubscribed on that request as well. We have 80 vouchers available and we got requests for over 250 units. So we'll be reviewing those carefully in conjunction with the DR applications. And of the applicants that came in for project-based vouchers for their projects, it's my understanding that a project can receive a maximum of eight project-based vouchers without triggering prevailing wage. So if they're in a funding category that doesn't require prevailing wage, who's gonna to only ask for eight? Can you discuss how many projects asked for eight or asked for the majority of the project just trying to get an understanding of how that played out? Sure, yes. You're right about that. And there were definitely projects that applied for just eight. I'm trying to grab the actual number. Sorry to put you in the spot. There were, there's definitely projects, I would say about four or more, four or five that apply just for the minimum amount that wouldn't trigger prevailing wage. But the majority did apply for more units than that. Some of them applied for the regulatory maximum, which is 25 units or 25% of the project. If that's for standard units, there's also exceptions that can be made under the regulations to have more units than that. If the tenants, if the project is designated for some kind of special population, so we did get a couple of requests for that as well. Okay, thank you. Commissioner. If I may, I just, I mean, just an observation, I guess, and that's, this is kind of like a no-fond steroids because I mean, it's much more complex, much more complex with the ability to use it for new construction. I mean, you know, you could probably have one or two developments that consume the entire amount just to be able to use it for new construction. I mean, hypothetically anyway. So I really appreciate the hard work that you are engaged in right now and looking forward to seeing the analysis come forward to the committee. Thank you. There any other comments or questions on the signer from commissioners? Hearing none, David, you wanted to go ahead with 10.1B. Yes, thank you, Chair. So the other item we wanted to update the commission on is a study session that occurred last December 8th, last Tuesday with the city council. And that was based on the request that the renewal enterprise district, known as the red, has to the city council to resource its efforts up to $10 million in match to what the Board of Supervisor by motion currently states. They received the chair's letter about lending systems that are in place, including you, the housing authority. So they invited me to participate in a presentation where the council heard both the renewal enterprise district ideas and the housing authorities ability to move one-time money into projects. If you're interested, you should look back to the council meeting of December 8th. It was a study session, started around three o'clock. But I wanted to let the housing authority know that that discussion took place and that the end result, I think, and several of you may have watched it, is that the city council now knows they have a choice if they wanna use one-time money from the PG and E settlement to help resource the development of housing that they could use your existing system called the housing authority or consider standing up a new organization called the renewal enterprise district. So it's on here just for your information. If you're interested, you can look at the December 8th slide deck and the study session that was at the city council and happy to answer any questions. Any questions from the commissioners? Mr. Berger? Just a comment, if I may. You know, it occurred to me, I thought that the study session was very informative and I certainly provided me some insight into what is being offered now by Red and their consultants and the opportunity to participate jointly with an effort. I guess I don't, and I think Dave did an excellent job of pointing out the experience that resides within the city of Santa Rosa and particularly within his department with the housing authority, in terms of reviewing these kinds of applications that might come forward if there is funding by the city that is joined with the funding that's being offered by the county. So it opens up another real opportunity for kind of a joint effort. And I guess I would see it as maybe not necessarily either or. I mean, I can see Red, which is more of an organization which is just kind of fledgling and has some objectives, which are obviously have a lot of commonality to what is being done within the city, but it also kind of is more focused on downtown kind of more dense developments. And Dave in his presentation mentioned that, you know, we can't handle lower income, moderate income market rate because the method that is being used is kind of interchangeable in that respect. So perhaps there's an opportunity there where we're used kind of the opportunity of some funds from the county with the expertise that lies within the city to review and have the participation by the city and county that kind of joins the two efforts together. Just a thought that I had after listening to the presentations last week. Those are my comments. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Olson, do you have any comments? And just to remind that you're on mute at this time. Commissioner Tess, do you have any, Mr. Tess, any comments? Just a little bit. So I was part of the public discussion and it was interesting hearing the comments from the public at large and the overwhelming were toward the affordable level of housing. And they mentioned medium priced housing. Maybe they know what that is. Maybe they don't know what that is. But I was heartened that there was quite a few who were for low income housing. And I also felt that the comments from the city council members after the towards the end of the study session were very interesting in that I think after the presentations, several of the council members signals sort of a feeling that perhaps the housing authority could very well handle these PG&E recovery funds and achieve some of the same things that Red was promoting. That's all. Thank you. Thank you. David, maybe you can answer this. Where is the city in terms of determining how much money they have? They're planning if this is even a possibility that money could go toward housing out of the PG&E settlement funds. Yeah, thank you, Chair Owens. So the process is tomorrow night, December 15th, the city council's hearing another study session and that's around fire safety and fire recovery and resiliency. And don't have the benefit of that presentation yet they want to, so far the city council said this is insurance settlement money based on a disaster from 2017 from fire. So let's make sure we address that. And so they're gonna go through that. They're gonna listen to that tomorrow night. I anticipate they'll be interested in some preliminary estimates. The next step will be they have a goal setting meeting set for February 18th and 19th. And this is annually where the city council sits down with staff and looks at where are our priorities and what can we make or may not achieve financially? And from that meeting, we anticipate as staff there'll be some direction to consider the budget for the 2021 June system year. And out of that, they'll be discussing how much they need to make sure the community is safe from wildfire disasters and how much are the other priorities in front of the city council? Everything from homelessness, housing, Rosalind library, everything you've been hearing. So it'll be quite the discussion. And we're not sure if the total PG&E settlement addresses all these needs, some of the needs or other. So that'll be a February into the spring discussion about budget. Okay, thank you. One of the things that, and I like that we have this executive director reports of part A and part B because I think they dovetail quite nicely. And that part A discusses $38 million at the city of Santa Rosa because the funds went to them first and then they, in the manner they already have in place. And that works well to the discussion that you had in the study session last time about last week about how the funds that can be used if there are any funds available for housing from the PG&E settlement. There's been prior discussion and maybe Megan or Rebecca can answer as well. The general administrative cost associated with a program in terms of what it costs, money's coming in and what it could cost to for the dollar amount that goes into providing housing units and what the average, and this is something that came up in a prior meeting we had with the mayor in terms of what the housing subsidy is per unit on a kind of an average basis. And David, I think you know that figure. And my point being that if there are funds available and again, the housing authorities ability to take those funds and plow them straight into housing units versus administrative costs to run the program as well as housing units. And if there are in fact funds matching with the counties putting out a $10 million and right now as we discussed in 10.1A, there's $38 million going through with really no increase in the staffing levels and the administrative costs on the front end, not talking about the compliance and I'm talking about the front end to be able to put those dollars out into units. So David, I think you have the kind of the average subsidy per unit that the housing authority puts out. Is that correct? That's correct. Yeah. And can you kind of run through that math? Sure, sure. So in very general terms, what we see is that the Board of Supervisors by motion agreed to put $10 million of their PG&E settlement money one time funds towards housing. And they're challenging the city council politically to match that. So 10 plus 10 is $20 million. So then you consider what's a reasonable administrative cost for this if you're standing up a new lending institution called the red. If you use the guidelines of the community development block grant, you can spend up to 20% 20 cents on every dollar towards your administrative costs. So that means $4 million goes into administrative costs under this example to set up a new lending institution called the red, right? 20% of $20 million. What does $4 million mean? Well, if you consider that the housing authorities looking at between $100 to $150,000 a unit as local match to get things built and you take, let's just say $150,000 divided by $4 million. Sorry to be a math instructor here. That's 26 families, 26 families that would not be housed because resources are going into a new lending institution. And so that's what we at the housing authority see prior to closure during the pandemic, having folks lined up at our front counter seeking help. Folks emailing us, texting us, calling us wanting housing is I think a key policy decision whether to establish an additional administrative entity or not, because it comes at the expense of low income folks trying to be housed. That's, sorry, that's my statement. That's good, I think it's good to be able to quantify because as we are working towards housing as many people as we can for a low income or housing people in general, depending upon what stratification you have for their income that taking a maximum of 20% allowable that doesn't necessarily mean it would be that number but it's allowable for entity to run that those funds would be available for administrative costs. Well, if you're using it pretty simple math, if you're using the money toward administrative costs you're not using it for providing what we're here to do, which is provide units. So just I wanna thank you for that and I'll look forward to see how this works and ultimately what the city decides to do with those funds and appreciate your efforts and your team's efforts in terms of being able to discuss this and present especially with new city council members what the housing authorities here and what they're able to do and how much money they do and what they do for from an admin cost and how much money goes actually to what we're here to do which is provide units. So I appreciate that from you, David and your staff. Any other director reports or comments that would like to be made at this time? Our own commissioner Olson would like to make a comment. Yes, please, Mr. Olson, who's go ahead. I would just like to affirm that whatever information we could give to the city council to encourage them to use the existing housing authority versus a whole new entity with a whole new need of staff and a whole need of time to get up. I think we should do whatever we could to make our case known to the city council especially the new members of the city council who may not be aware of the housing authority at all. That's it. Thank you, commissioner Olson. I'd like to not hearing any more discussion. Move on to item 11.1, which are the consent items. Sorry, chair, we do have a public comment on this item. Oh, okay. Thank you. We'll just go ahead to the public comment. You're now taking public comments on item 10.1 executive director reports. If you wish to make a comment via Zoom please raise your hand. If you are dialing in via telephone please dial star nine to raise your hand. You will have three minutes to make your comment. A countdown timer will appear for the convenience of the speaker and viewers. The first speaker will be acknowledged and invited to speak. Please make sure to unmute yourself when you are invited to do so. Your microphone will be muted at the end of the conclusion or at the end of that countdown or at the conclusion of your comment. Our first public comment will be from Gregory Fierin. Gregory, I have unmuted your mic or enabled your speaking permissions. If you can please unmute yourself. I have. Can you see the timer on your screen? Yes, I can. Perfect. Please identify yourself for public record if you so choose and your time begins now. Thank you. I wanted to point out that Dave going just demonstrated the kind of gutsiness that I've always felt he's given which is to clearly state what it is the housing authority is capable of doing and in a way that lets everybody know where he's coming down. It's where I'm coming down and where a whole lot of other people are and that is that we have three concerns. He demonstrated or he indicated the clear ability of the housing authority to do housing for what I think can serve the 80% and below AMI target group. I'm a little worried and I said it in the meeting of study session that the red is going to end up doing all the Porsche Cayennes and not the Volkswagen bugs that they're headed for a target group that's far above what the group is that I normally run into. And in fact, I'm trying to get them down to the extreme Volkswagen bugs of 30% and below. So that's a concern of mine that whatever money gets put there, not only ends up being spent in high administrative costs but generates the kind of housing that if a lot more developer math were done and a lot other things were offered to developers we'd end up getting without having to have any administrative costs and not have to put a whole lot of public funds in. I noted that Jack Tibbetts and a couple of others spoke of this fund that they're trying to set up through red as a revolving fund where they really were gonna get the rents back. They're gonna get their money back 100% by having rents that can make the pencil work. Anybody who's done development of low income housing knows that you've gotta be pretty flexible as to what you expect back. As all of you know, I've been for years trying to get you guys to forgive some of the loans that were given out real early because we're not charging rents could pay you back those interests or the principal. The second point is, I think that this system is gonna compete against itself. This Thursday's meeting of the red has some 20,000 bucks being put out into a consultant who's gonna be applying for grant funds that are also available to you. I mean, I think competing grant writers between the two agencies is gonna be a problem. And I think you guys either gotta play well together or it's gonna be something that worries me. The third I think is that I think this system has to work within the homeless system. No matter what happens with this 10 million or this 20 million or whatever it is and your 39 million, there's also gonna be money that's gonna creep into the county to try to do homeless permanent housing. And I really, really want to see, I wrote in an email recently about homeless permanent housing and I wanna see them get a good shake whoever gets the money. And I trust the housing authority to give them a better shake than I do the red. That's all. Chair Owen, I see no further hands raised and we received no email public comments on this item. Thank you very much. And one of the things before we moved to 11.1 is I wanted to bring up the commissioners whether or not it was deemed to be a good idea to have an ad hoc committee to discuss this item 10.1B. And to the extent that discussion goes further because the city's ability and reviewing possibilities for use of PG&E funds sounds like it's gonna go on for a little while. And I think it'd be who's the housing authority to be able to have a commission in place from its commissioners to be able to set that up and be able to respond accordingly. The commissioners have any comment to that proposal? So if I may through the chair, I do think we have to be a little bit mindful of the Brown Act. And that sounds like you're asking for a little bit more of a formal creation of an ad hoc committee. This is just an information item to bring to your attention. So I think it's probably discretion is the better part of valor and that you come back. I think there'll still be time anyway, hopefully, I believe if you come back at the next meeting and agendize this in a more transparent way. Thank you, Jeff Burke. I think that's a very good idea. Commissioner Burke, you have a comment? I said a question about Jeff Burke's comment. Does the chairman not have the ability to appoint a committee without having to have consensus or input from the housing authority? I think that's consistent with the bylaws. You may know the bylaws better than I do, but if the bylaws do provide for that, then yes, it could be done outside the scope of a Brown Act noticed meeting. So that might be an option to look into. Thank you. That's true. Dude, when is our next scheduled meeting? This is Megan Bassenger. Our next scheduled meeting will be the fourth Monday of January, but as Director Gwine mentioned in his comments, we likely will be scheduling a special meeting in the early part of January to address the CDBGDR. So we can certainly put it on the agenda for that time. I'd like to propose that we put that possibility setting by ad hoc committee to discuss possible use of PG&E funds at the next meeting. I've made a note. Thank you. Thank you. And thank you, Jeff Burke on commenting and keeping us in line for that. Appreciate that. And then 11.1 is the resolution allocation of 15 additional article 34 units for Canary at Railroad Square. And I believe Megan Bassenger is presenting. So on a consent item, if I may, you could just ask if there's a motion to approve the consent calendar. And if somebody wants to pull an item off for discussion, that's certainly within the commissioner's prerogative. Okay, thank you. Are there any commissioners that would like to have discussion on these consent items? And this would be 11.1, which is the 15 additional units for the Canary Road property. And 11.2, which are eight additional units for the Heron Veterans Village property. Any commissioners have comments or questions? Seeing none. Since these are consent item, Jeff Burke, do we need? So somebody needs to make a motion to approve a second and then a roll call vote. Do we have a motion to approve? We'll make a motion to approve. All second. Thank you. And then we can do a roll call vote. Correct. And this is to approve both items on the consent calendar. Correct, 11.1 and 11.2. Steve, are you able to do a roll call vote? Do you want me to do it? I'm sorry. Sorry about that. It looks like Commissioner Olsen does have his hand raised. Yes, Commissioner Olsen. Commissioner Olsen, you're still muted. It looks like you're unmuted, Commissioner Olsen. Yes, I'm just waiting to vote. Okay. I'll do the roll call vote. Commissioner Olsen. Hi. Commissioner Burke. Hi. Vice Chair Tess. Hi. Chair Owens. Hi. That's the record show that all commissioners have voted yes on the consent calendar. Thank you very much. Thank you, staff for putting that together. And it's always nice to see that we are getting more units into the pipeline. Item 12 is report items. And I see none listed. So we will move on to item 13, which is adjourning the meeting. Just going, we are going to miss you. And thank you very much for working with us these many, many years. I appreciate that. Thank you, Jeff. And with that, I'll go ahead and adjourn the meeting. Thank you, everyone. Thanks.