 I know. I know. I know. Sometimes, you know, just the word that we might need. Council Member Alvarez is absent. Council Member Okrepke. Here. Chair Rogers. Here. Let the record reflect that all members are present with the exception of Council Member Alvarez. Great. Do we have any announcements to start with today? The answer is no, that's cool. Did you want me to make that announcement? I don't know. It's all good. I can make that announcement. Okay. I have attended my resignation with the city of Santa Rosa, so today will be my last economic development subcommittee meeting, and it has been an absolute honor and pleasure to work with you guys for 18 years. 18 years. So thank you. I wasn't trying to force it out of you. I just wasn't sure if we get to give you accolades and say thank you. You can always do that. No matter what the appropriate time to do that is. Always, but it does matter for the for the for the agenda today. So yeah, that's for somebody said it out loud in public meeting. So together now. See if there's any public comments on announcements. Yeah, please. I'm sorry, I did want to take notice of that 18 years. Oh my gosh. And I want to know personally that you have, you know, your best interest at heart as you go forward. Do you know where you're landing yet? Or I do. Okay. Is it still in government? Yes. Oh, fantastic. Well, good luck to you with good health. Thank you so much. All right. That will go on to approval of the minutes. Do you have any amendments to the minutes? All right. See if there's any public comments on the minutes. All right. With that, we'll show them adopted as presented unless there's objection. I see no objection. Let's go on to public comments for non-agenda items. You're not here for this? Not for that. All right. We'll check in. We'll keep moving then. I don't see anybody else to give comments. Let's go to our new business item 5.1, that's the introduction of the economic and fiscal impacts of downtown housing studies. Yes. So this has been sort of a long time coming and it happened at fits and starts. But we had an interest years ago stemming from the urban three study that still gets referenced in terms of what is the economic fiscal impacts of infill housing, downtown housing and the efforts that we started putting in to place through the housing action plan back in 2016, working through 2017, 2018, 2019, going through recovery of the fires and this sort of dual track that we've been running on in terms of our housing efforts in the city. And it's come up a lot in the past about the idea of the urban three study, which again, really focused on the value of infill development and sort of where infrastructure exists, that housing is of value in those areas. So we wanted to do something and we hired EPS to do this for us to give actual numbers to that idea that was presented back in 2016, 2017. I'm going to let them go through the presentation. I just want it noted that this is a draft document. It's only being daylighted recently, not just with this committee, but also with the people who participated, the developers and giving information and what their assumptions are. So now is the time to ask questions, to sort of give some direction. I do want to set it apart from the EIFB process. We're doing a separate infrastructure finance plan. It's a different document than that. This is really serving a different purpose, but it could perhaps, I don't know, we can figure out on Thursday if there's any link or value to that long-term taxing increment financing document. This is really not that. They did use industry standard assumptions and so pick it apart. And I'm going to give it over to Jenny and Ben. Excellent. Thank you, Risa. Good morning, Honorable Committee members. Thank you for having us. I'm Ben Sigmund with Economic and Planning Systems, Principal in our Bay Area Office. I'm joined by Jenny Lin, Vice President with the firm, also here in the Bay Area. We're really happy to have been part of this work and excited to share it with you this morning. I'll tell you what, just because of the format on Zoom here, I'll run through the deck. It's probably 15 minutes or so. And then maybe we'll take questions at the end, if that's all right. I usually prefer conversational, but I think just given this format, let me get through it and then we'll back up to any slides we want to really dive into, if that's all right. Yeah, that works for me. Thanks, all. Okay, Jenny, let's go to the first slide. All right, most importantly, can everybody see the slides? Yes. Yeah. And then I do just to reiterate what Reyes already said, we gave this a hard look, coordinated with developers, coordinated with the business community. We studied your budget. We didn't have extensive conversations with the finance department or city manager's department or any department heads on this. So we are starting to get some feedback. And so very tough to claw back numbers once you put them out there, but I just ask for your sort of cooperation where very much in a draft format at the moment. So let's not wet ourselves to some of the finer points just yet. But we took a look at both fiscal and economic impacts. Fiscal is a sort of term of art in our world that relates to impacts on the general fund or the city's financial condition. The economic impacts are more the jobs and spending in the local economy, sort of not necessarily money going to the city. On the economic impact side, we did both what I consider a traditional look at what we can really expect to be a direct spending on both building maintenance and administration as well as resident spending in the local economy. But then we also took a look at more catalytic effects that housing could have in terms of building the economy in Santa Rosa. And we worked with through an interview process and then an analytic sort of illustrative process to show you how reducing the bottleneck around housing could really help you grow your economy. And that's a little bit of a, but we consider sort of catalytic perspective on housing as a jump starter to job creation. Okay, let's keep going. To begin, we go one more slide. We looked at everything. We will present it to you on a per unit basis. And then we sort of gross it up to what we think might be a build out or sort of a build out potential in the near term for the downtown. So here starting with the fiscal impact. And again, this is looking at what new housing could mean for the city's general fund. We look at both general fund revenue sources, tax sources. So that's property, tax sales, tax and other revenues the city takes in related to housing. And then on the expense side, municipal service provisions. So police, fire and all the other departments serving your citizenry. We looked at it across both market rate, that's the top table and below market rate units, as well as by unit type studio one, two and three. And each of those factors influenced the impact of housing on the city's general fund. Here you can see just on the top table, general fund revenue increasing from about $1,000 a unit for a studio to 1.1700 almost for a two bed. And then you can see as the units get bigger, you've got more population in a unit. And so the cost of providing municipal service also increases. But across the board on the market rate units, we think that they would deliver a net fiscal benefit to the city's general fund. That's discretionary funding that the city could put in a variety of places. We're not taking as notable here, we're not taking out revenue that might in reality go to an infrastructure financing district that you're contemplating. So this is sort of a stabilized post EIFD kind of perspective or no EIFD perspective. That's all revenue going to the general fund in our analysis. The lower table is the below market rate units. The smaller one because of the studio, because it has this sort of low population number, does achieve a fiscal benefit for the city. But we would anticipate on the one bed and two bed units that there is a modest fiscal cost associated with providing municipal service to those units after the tax revenue and tax revenues down on those because of the lower assessed valuations. And we are assuming that they do get on the tax roll, but at a level that sort of commends with their rents. And it's notable here. So we're treating them as a inclusionary housing rather than a standalone affordable housing unit that actually could be entirely off the tax rolls. And we didn't analyze that. So here this is sort of a look at an inclusionary unit that does have a little bit of tax benefit. Okay, we'll keep going. All right, now we're looking at switching gears, switching lenses over to economic impacts. So with every unit, we expect what we call one-time benefit. That comes from construction. We call it one-time because you build the unit, enjoy the jobs and spending in the economy, construction completes in those jobs, go elsewhere, transfer to the next job, next construction project. We think it's about $450,000 a unit in direct construction spending. That's the upper right-hand corner of the top table. That's sort of the money the development community is putting into building the units. For every $450,000 that they spend on a housing unit, we think it's almost three jobs, three construction industry jobs. And then we do expect in Santa Rosa, specific to Santa Rosa City, some induced indirect, that's the multiplier or ripple effect as construction companies spend locally on supplies. And also the households, the jobs themselves, sort of with their household consumer spending, create some ripple effects in the city. So that $450,000 that a developer spends to build a unit turns into about $700,000 in economic activity in the city. The three construction jobs after you sort of factor in that multiplier effect to get up to almost four jobs in the city per unit, sort of on a, we might think of it on an annual basis. And then the bottom table thinking about operating the units once they're built, occupied, stabilized, it's about $5,000 a year to maintain multifamily unit in Santa Rosa that's through some of the conversations we had with your development community. And you get that same ripple effect there where there's some additional spending in the economy because of those management activities. So it's about approaching $7,000 a unit, about one job per 50 units that get built there overall. We can keep going. Now we're pivoting the other sort of ongoing impact of economic impact of having additional housing in your downtown is the spending on retail, entertainment and services. We use survey data from the Bureau, the US Bureau of Labor Statistics on consumer expenditure patterns to identify how households at the, at income levels, we think are commensurate with this type of housing, how they would spend in the economy. And so at the top table thinking about a market rate unit and it depends again, the smaller studios likely to be one person. So it's going to be less household spending than the larger units which are going to have more than one person. But it's something between three and a half and $6,000 a year and spending on goods and services in the local economy. Once again, you get that sort of ripple effect through the city. Could be upwards of $7,000 a year, any single market rate unit, or I guess that's the larger at the larger end of the spectrum, $7,000 a year they might create an economic activity in the city. And then as you would expect on the lower table there, below market rate units, not quite as much spending attributable to the restricted income level or their income level. And so it's more in the range of $3,000 to $4,000 a year and spending on goods and services which has a ripple effect gets you a bit above that. Overall though, we're looking at, in the range of one job in Santa Rosa between roughly 30 and 50 units, depending on the unit type. So modest effect, but it adds up. So that's good, Jenny. Thank you. So now we laid out kind of the range of values we see on a per unit basis. And I realized that was probably like drinking from a fire hose. So we'll definitely go back and look at that more if you wish. But we started here to consider what those per unit fiscal and economic impacts mean if you start to think about them across build out of your downtown. We recognize the downtown plan provides capacity for 7,000 units. That's sort of maybe a hypothetical or ceiling to the build out. So we considered here about half that 3,500 unit build out. We talked to a number of the developers actively pursuing projects in town. And they have different perspectives on how they're going to serve the market. But we created a blend here of studios, one bedrooms and two bedrooms that we think captures sort of the range of perspectives out there. Some of the developers are more interested in studios thinking they're really under provided at the moment. Some don't really share that. But 40, 40, 20 studios, one bedrooms, two bedrooms is the mix we ran in our scenario. And then we include the 8% for inclusionary housing policy perspective in this. And you can see that's the darker blue in the chart there. So all in 280 affordable units and 3,220 market rate units. And this is just a you could obviously ask us to do different scenarios with the modeling we've done. But this is what we went in with in terms of a mix of unit types and build out and market rate and below market rate. And we're going to show you what, if this were the program that were to be built in downtown Santa Rosa, what it means in terms of fiscal and economic impact totals. So that's where we're going next slide. OK, we'll start with the fiscal. So with that program, tax revenue to the general fund from the 3,500 units comes out to about 4.5 million dollars. Annually in today's today's money. So we're not escalating it for money 10 years from now when this might be built out. So four and a half million total revenue. And we think it would cost the city about 3.7 million dollars in municipal service costs to satisfy the demands from those units. So it's a net fiscal benefit to the general fund of almost $900,000 a year today's money when this program is built out on the revenue side. Property tax is the biggest contributor. It's about half the revenue on the cost-sided, no surprise, public safety. Police and fire make up almost 70% of the cost of providing municipal service to the units. So again, our first look at this and without the benefit of meeting with police and fire or reviewing this in great detail with the city. But we use cost allocation factors. They're very typical of a city of your size and there is a bit of professional judgment in there, but we think it's very much consistent with what we've observed throughout Northern California. Okay, keep going. On the economic impact side, we'll start with the construction jobs. It built out to 3,500 units, $1.6 billion in construction activity when it ripples through the local economy. You guys have this great economy there where you have a bit of an island and so you do have these really good multiplier effects as a result of that. So almost $1 billion, $900 million in ripple effect as all your suppliers jump into action to serve the construction projects. So all in it could be $2.5 billion in economic activity that comes from the construction of 3,500 units. It's almost 15,000, we call them job years and that's a little bit confusing which is why we provide the table below which is we take that one-time construction impact and we spread it out over a decade and even that might be a little bit aggressive. And you can see really all we're doing is taking the top table and dividing it all by 10 but it really helps digest the jobs number. So what that means is we'd have about 1,500 construction related jobs in service during the construction decade and it'd be about a quarter of a billion dollars a year in economic activity over that time period. Okay, we can come back to that again if we need to but pretty significant, the downside is just that it's fleeting. It only occurs when the construction's happening then it's gone. All right, Jenny, let's go to operational impacts. Okay, so then the residence spending all in really does add up almost $17 million a year in direct spending on goods and services in the local economy when that ripples through you get another two and a half million. So it's almost $20 million a year in spending in the economy that comes from those households out opening up their wallets and pocket books. It's almost 150 jobs that might be added just from that. The property management piece also pretty significant when you gross it up $17 million a year to run the apartments, a little bit of a ripple effect you get up to $25 million, $24 million total and so 70 jobs total in Santa Rosa that could be related to operations and maintenance of 3,500 new multifamily rental units in the downtown. So all in that operational perspective, we're not adding it up here but it's over 40 million total just ongoing operational benefit including the residence spending and the running of the apartments themselves. Okay, we can keep going. All right. So those were the sort of if any developer or city said what's the economic impact of a housing project fiscal economic impact. Those are the types of numbers we would show and very well accepted kind of methodologically in our world. And now we get into this sort of what was the interesting and more challenging perspective for this work that we did. And it's thinking about how Santa Rosa might actually become a more competitive location for economic development if the housing downtown were to be sort of built in a critical mass. As economists, we tend to come at this and say housing with the exception of what we just went over housing generally doesn't create jobs, right? Companies create jobs, business creates jobs. But what we did to sort of really think it through in this case is to reach out to the business community and ask them what's preventing you from growing more rapidly and or what keeps you up at night in terms of sustaining your business in Santa Rosa. And across these interviews, housing was far and away the number one concern. And granted, we're focused on housing. But so what we heard we've sort of summarized the key findings of our set of interviews here in this slide. And that basically we're hearing from both and we did sort of a mix of small local businesses as well as some of the larger international businesses you have that have sites in Santa Rosa. And we heard that these businesses are struggling with recruiting, they're struggling with retaining and they attribute that to housing the sort of number two might be childcare. There's an insufficient mix of housing that you don't find enough of the sort of smaller rental multifamily condo type housing in the city. And so when they're especially recruiting younger talent out of schools, it's just a very challenging sort of mix of housing that might be available to them. They strongly believed 75% of the interviewees believed that they would be growing their job base in Santa Rosa if the housing were more available, if supply constraints were relieved. And I'll come back to that in a second. And then also that what housing would do for the downtown in terms of creating more of a 18 hour district or a vibrant downtown core really would appeal to many of the types of employees they're trying to recruit and that that aspect of it would benefit the city from an economic standpoint. I want to come back to the third bullet point because that's the one where what we essentially find through this interview process is that the housing is a binding constraint on economic growth. And that's what got us comfortable with the idea if we fix the housing supply issue, it enables businesses to increase their workforce, grow their economic activity in the city. And so that's what we're essentially saying here and we're going to illustrate what that could mean in terms of jobs and dollars in Santa Rosa. But it was this interview process that got us to the conclusion that you do have a binding constraint around housing and if we can fix that, we think, we heard from multiple employers, there would be more jobs associated with their companies in Santa Rosa if the houses were there to support it. So okay, so let's go to the next. So then the question becomes, if you were to build 3000 to 4000, here we're doing a range, kind of around that 3,500 unit build out, how many new jobs would we expect? And we toyed with some different ideas, come up with sort of a hypothetical campus expansion. How do we sort of figure out what the economic development would be? And I think we came up with a very reasonable and also sort of somewhat novel approach. In the figure here, we're looking at the distribution of jobs in Santa Rosa today by industry. So heavy and healthcare, social assistance, retail, construction, technical services, government, in the dentalists use manufacturing. So that's the makeup of the economy today. And we simply said, if we add housing, we're gonna get more of the Santa Rosa economy in the mix of industries that we have now. So we didn't say, you're gonna build this housing and you're gonna get tech or you're gonna build this housing and you're gonna get nurses and doctors. We said the economy maintains its existing distribution of jobs and it sort of grows as it is that way. And what we're concluding, and we'll show you a little bit of the math on the next slide, is that those 3,000 to 4,000 units would get you about 2,000 to 2,600 new jobs. And in the mix of jobs distribution you have now, that might mean upwards of 450 healthcare jobs, could be 200 professional services jobs, another 100 to 150 manufacturing jobs. So you get the idea there. Okay, so I'll get back to the math in a sec then. So this is what that would mean in terms of, again factoring in the ripple effects. 2,000 to 2,600 jobs come in because of that housing, could be upwards of half a billion dollars a year in additional economic activity, direct performance of those businesses in Santa Rosa. And then again, that ripple or multiplier effect adding 50 to 70 million dollars. So we're, even with that ripple effect, well in the range of half a billion dollars a year in additional economic activity in the city. So really pretty meaningful, assuming you get the same mix of industry jobs that you have now. And then let me just walk you through a little bit. Maybe we go back one slide, Jenny, on this one. So the way we think about this, I don't know if it's sort of surprising or not that you had 3,000 to 4,000 housing units and you don't get 3,000 to 4,000 jobs. The idea is that we're gonna have about 5,000 new residents. And about half of them, we assume will be workers. And that's based on the makeup of the city today in terms of you have sort of stay at home folks, you have retirees. And we didn't want to again sort of presume that you build this housing and all you get is young tech workers. We do see this as potentially downsizing housing for retirees. There are a lot of different folks who would want these houses. So we essentially say just as we did with the industry makeup, these residents will look like the residents of Santa Rosa today, half of them will be working. And then so that you're down at about 2,500. And then we looked at your commute patterns and we said, and this was sort of an impressive factor when we considered it relative to other cities we work in. But more than a third of working residents living in Santa Rosa have their jobs locally in the city. So that's a really strong kind of capture of local employees relative to most places. And again, I think it's because you have this sort of island economy there in Sonoma County. And so we assume that same commute pattern of over a third, 36% of these new employees that would take residents in the downtown housing work locally. And then if you look at any on average employers in Santa Rosa, the employees 60% are commuting in. So we assume that same in commute pattern applies. So by releasing the binding constraint of housing supply, you get local employees. And then you get this also this sort of agglomeration effect that happens is that that local job base can be grown. You do get more in commuting to fill out the local employment potential. And so that, yeah, all in, right, we work it out to about 2,600 new jobs. And I think it's really, let's just flip to that last slide again, just really, you have some extremely valuable industries in town. And if you sort of uncork their potential, it really does, I think this slide here revealed the pretty significant economic benefit you all could enjoy if that housing constraint were lifted. So I'll stop there. Thank you for letting me go on for as long as I did. I'm happy to take questions. We'll filter back to whatever slide you all want to see. But thank you, appreciate it. Thank you so much, Ben. Thank you for your work on this. I'm going to start with my colleague to see if he's got questions. Got no questions? Still taking his own. Yeah, I think it is. It's a lot. And I think it is, but I'm just going to editorialize a little bit. I think it puts some numbers and some not quite science, but some data behind what the theory has been on a lot of the conversations that we've had around the jobs and housing linkage in our community. And I know that this was hinted at when we did the urban three study and looked at the economic impact, but this is much more localized and much more specific. I did have two specific conversations for you. One, one of the things that I've been a really strong advocate for, for the city to do is to update our local preference. And our local preference currently, I believe it's five per, I believe it's 1% where local bidder on contracts can be up to 1% higher than somebody who is out of the area. And I've always thought that because of the multiplier effect and because of keeping that money locally, that that 1% seemed like kind of an arbitrary barrier. Whereas if we know the multiplier effect is going to be six, seven percent, that perhaps being able to go up to 3% or 4% still made economic sense for our city. In your analysis, do you see room for us to reengage on that conversation? And do you think that it'd be a benefit to us long term if we could find a nexus point that worked? Interesting. I do think so. Are you specifically speaking about construction or is it any city vendor? We'd have to talk about what we wanted it to apply to, but I believe it's mostly procurement. Okay. So with construction, we see typically you get the bulk of the jobs end up at the construction site. A lot of the materials can still be sourced within the city. Basically, I'm saying when you hire a construction company and they move the operation, essentially they operate in Santa Rosa for the period. They may still be achieving similar indirect and induced effects. If they in particular are local, some of the what are called induced, which is the household spending. If they're a local company, their employees live locally, their household spending is local, then you probably are getting a lot of that ripple effect. Whereas if you took a company from farther away and their employees are commuting in, then they're going home. At the end of the day, their household spending isn't really translating into multiplier effects. I do think getting a local company does probably increase the overall multiplier effect there. I'm just pointing out with construction that the economic activity is a little bit more mobile. If it's a professional service and you hire a company from Oakland, San Jose, whatever it might be, I think that that's fair. You're really probably not getting the benefit of the local multiplier effects. And I think that could be a justification for increasing the local percentage differential. And it's just important to note the modeling that we do is based on a lot of county level data that gets sort of interpolated down to local cities based on some of the economic characteristics locally. I guess what I mean is they are estimates. It's very difficult to actually run to ground the degree to which these multiplier effects are realized. But it's a very well accepted perspective and you're absolutely right that if you get a local company and they are there, particularly if there is meaningful inputs to the supply of the production process that they are generating. So local printing, if you're actually buying sort of physical wares like your parks department, they're out there buying concrete, bricks, cement, whatever it is. And if they're buying that locally, you're really going to get that effect. So I do think there's that argument holds water. I do think that particular industries, it might be more valid. And I think though you'd just be the word of caution is trying to be so precise as 1% to 3%. It worries me that it would be challenging to be technically accurate at that level of detail. Now I can appreciate that and thank you. And then my second question for you, you mentioned that particularly in construction that the analysis showed that it probably increased about 1,470 workforce jobs per year to hit that goal. Did your analysis look at all to see what the demand or availability was for those construction workers? Because as we talk about this, is there a need for us to put more emphasis on the training and the workforce development side if we're going to hit these goals? Or would that act as sort of a tailwind or a drag to it? Yeah, no, that's a great question. And we always try to be careful in choosing our words around economic impacts related to construction. And we tend to go with a construction project will support rather than generate jobs. Because usually what we're thinking is that construction industry is in place. And what this downtown housing does is give that existing industry something to do for a period of time. And then they move on to the next job. And in reality, the construction has been ebbs and flows and especially at the moment, minimal construction activity. And we've seen over the years where recessionary periods really erode the construction industry and it becomes very hard for it to ramp back up as you enter a boom moment in a new development cycle. I think this is a situation where if over time, I mean, we've sort of divided everything by 10, right, in terms of thinking about it, way overly simplistic. In reality, this sort of ramps up. And I think the industry kind of starts to accommodate that growth. I mean, what we saw in Oakland here when we went through a pretty significant multifamily construction boom, in basically the last looking back maybe five, eight years, is that there were a lot of relocations, right? Initially, we saw parking lots around these projects filled with license plates from Idaho and Oregon and all over. And then I think over time, as it became clear that there was a steady stream of work, more of those construction workers either came out of trade schools or apprenticeships or moved here for those jobs. And so I think, as the industry kicks into gear around opportunities, I think there may be ways that the city can support the trades or support training programs. But I don't think you sort of set yourself up for that initially anticipating a problem. You probably let this sort of kick off and get into gear. And if what you're hearing is there are certain kinds of constraints, you're more strategic in trying to sort of identify where the city can really plug in and alleviate problems with the construction industry. And I think maybe the simplest answer if it wasn't clear from this response is we did not evaluate is there sort of capacity in the construction industry now to accommodate this exact kind of level of activity. But it was notable, right? The construction is the, was it the third most significant employer in the city? So it's there and it's meaningful. And then last question, and it's just what I heard and I want to make sure I'm accurate on it is that your analysis use a loose inflation or escalator over the course of the 10 year period. And then I mean, obviously, that's, you know, thrown a dart at a dartboard based on what historically has happened. So I get that. But I just wanted to make sure that that was built into the model as well. So all the dollars we show you are today's dollars, $20, $23, zero escalation. So you certainly could take a crack at what you think escalation is and start to blow these up to future dollars. But I think for a couple of reasons, we tend to not do that in our work. And one, you know, it's hard for people to understand. If I tell you, you know, it's it's three, it's $3 billion, you're thinking that's $3 billion. But in reality, it's two and a half, right? Because that's what it means today. So people don't really understand future dollars. That's problem number one. And problem number two is we just be guessing, right, what the escalation rates will be. So we, we avoid both those problems by showing you all of the dollars in, you know, in today's money, it's more understandable and avoids making another assumption. And then the other thing is that all of the economic relationships we're constantly showing you, here's the dollars activity in the economy. And here's what it means in terms of jobs. Those relationships are also a snapshot of today, which, which keeps us on sort of solid footing. Now, that's really helpful. Thank you. And I know I'll have a lot more questions. I know my colleague will once we get a chance to digest it a little bit further and talk about how it fits with our economic development strategy plan and the EIFD work and, and all of that. Just want to thank you for that. Let's go to public comment on the item. Yeah, thank you, Chris. Is it okay if I stand here? Yeah, yeah, please say okay. Thank you. Thanks. I appreciate that. Yes. Give me a minute to pull up the public comment sign. Jenny, can you stop sharing your screen? Just give me up. I also can just do it off of the clock if that works for folks. I got it. I'm much more low tech sometimes. I've trained myself to be a three minute guy. So thank you so much. I appreciate the opportunity to make some comments. I do find the study a little bit flawed and distorted in some of its assumptions. First of all, what I know about EPS is not necessarily flattery. Studies I came by that they performed before really have not been vetted well. This particular study on of course, you know, for vacation, but the impact of vacation rental and affordable workforce housing in Sonoma County was really a textbook case of propaganda when we went to research this and pull this apart. So here I find some of the same trends are repeating itself. Clearly, this is a study that was paid for by these professional landlords that are coming on the scene to build about 3500 apartments. These are not properties that people will be able to invest in and build family well. I think that's a huge difference when it comes to economic analysis, as well as the retention factor for key employees and businesses. Furthermore, I see that this rental stack will be of service to the lower income households. Surely we'll have people moving into these units that don't have a car, for instance, and that are seniors that are low income. And that really needs to be taken into consideration when you're doing an economic analysis. Furthermore, here, and I think there should actually be a lot of that prevents this, I don't really see the initial scoping document, or, you know, when the project was assigned or any of those key points that go into fiscal management for government. Those are missing from this. I'm not sure why. I know that you guys have gone out of the way to say that this wasn't something that was ordained by city management or was it as independent of the special taxation dinner. But that's not really passing the SNF test, quite frankly. We do recognize that there's about a billion and a half dollars that are being invested by these professional landlords to build a housing stock. And this is a study that is essentially just pulling what their interests are and serving a backup for public consumption. So I think that's sort of, you know, something to be really concerned about. And I could quote about so many other questions here, but I understand this is just sort of a first step in the process. But I will say that things are sort of bearing off course in a big way and sort of a big bubble-ish, hyperactive way of raw rise of this type of data. And this is something that government needs to move away from because it doesn't create good policy. And the policy that creates cements into government, protracted conflict and drama over policy that wasn't really set in a factual basis. So I would suggest that you sort of give pause to this process, really understand what you're doing and dive deep on some of these assumptions and simulations. Thank you so much. I appreciate your time. Thank you, Eric. Are there any other public comments? I'll bring it back and I'll let Steph and folks answer. I think there's some good questions in there. But my assumption and correct me if I'm wrong was that the 3500 number was to coincide with our regional housing needs assessment and that the makeup of those units was largely driven by what the state is telling us we need to build also. Demand again, the arena. Right. I mean, I think Ben touched on that a little bit. I mean, we have certain numbers in the general plan, right? In the downtown stationary specific plan. And then yeah, that it takes into consideration arena numbers. But they took that correct me if I'm wrong, the 7000 from the downtown stationary specific plan and brought it down to 50%, which seems reasonable based on arena number. And I do I want to underscore the preface that rights are provided at the top of this presentation that this is an administrative trap, a draft that we have not discussed internally. I know that my CFO is going to put me in a headlock when we leave here, right? And so, yes, there are actually candidly like to see that. There are some questions. I think there's some really good qualitative data that has been presented. Very insightful interviews that were conducted. I do think that whenever you're talking about any theoretical framework, it's important at the top to understand what the assumptions are. And I understand that certain projections are included in this presentation. And again, we haven't had the opportunity to speak internally or with the consultant on those projections. I will tell you that at first glance, I'm not sure that the general fund expenses, if we've captured service delivery accurately in those projections, again, I don't know. And so I want to provide that context. And yes, we will work through this report. We will get with the consultant on the questions that we have. And we will absolutely come back to you if need be with updated projections. Great. And I'll add too, as far as the unit count goes, really what we're looking at with the 7,000 is more of the maximum densities that are allowed. What we've really been trying to strategize for is what is a reasonable number to scope around. And much of that is based on the market demands, what they can move forward with. So as they engage the development side, it's a better understanding of that product that the development team is moving forward. But overall, it is working within the constraints of the downtown station area plan when we look at the distribution of affordable units. It's all really based on that. I believe the numbers do come into that equation. And similar to what Darrell mentioned, I think an important point here is we have really two interesting processes going at the same time that will affect these numbers. And I think, Chair Rogers, you mentioned it with the EIFD moving forward. As we look at what our revenue projections are coming in, that's really the basis of this study. It's understanding what the revenue is and ultimately look at what those expenditures are against that revenue. So, and I know it was mentioned in the beginning of this, it's very difficult to call back numbers. I think it's good for the committee to see the methodology, how we tackle this problem. And it really is expanding on the Urban 3 concept, right? The Urban 3 concept was very high level, very general. And this starts really drilling down on the facts. But I think to an important point, we will vet it out. We'll work that through the committee. We'll understand what it looks like. And as the EIFD starts to evolve, and we better understand what those revenue projections look like through the EIFD in the downtown area, then that affects this study. So, this is really just the beginning conversation for that. And we appreciate the really open and honest feedback, and that'll help us move forward in the best manner possible to start working on this concept. I think it's a really important point for downtown. It's understanding the question comes up often about, is it a net gain or a loss with the development of housing? And this is helping to lay out that thought process and that argument. Any additional comments? No, I just think that what I do appreciate it is administrative draft. There's a lot of moving parts. There's things that could change. There are some points in here that I think are very valuable and some good takeaways. We've talked before in this subcommittee about our island economy and how that can be a detriment sometimes to attracting businesses and talent. But it's also good to hear the double-edged sword of that, that there's multipliers that come in with that as well. That once you get things here, it multiplies in various ways to be more beneficial, which I think is great. And then I understand their hypothetical and that is large, bold, all caps on this. But it is good to see that the reports of downtown's demise have been greatly exaggerated and that I think there's real opportunity considering what we can have available to us and what we can do. If these are remotely accurate, I'm very pleased to see some of this. You know, just Ashley just pointed out too, some of the information on the hypothetical bill that like units at 8% designated below market, it's actually 4%. So then some of these things are, again, I think going to be reflective like it couches what this is on the assumptions that we make. And not counting, not discussing the fiscal piece of it. I will say there are findings in the current discussions with developers on terms of what the needs are and with businesses are consistent with what we've been finding since we started on the Housing Action Plan. And some version of this way back in 2016, housing filed by Child Care remains one of the top issues of growth here. So what kind of growth? And we'll get into that in the economic development strat plan. But there's easy money with retail, right? But then the kind of growth that we're really looking for is affected by housing. And so I think the ongoing discussion about what this looks like is going to matter over time. You know, for the growth of our industries. Yeah. Well, but that, thank you, Ben. Thank you, Jenny. Let's jump into the economic development strat plan. Thank you guys so much. All right. Thank you all very much. We appreciate it. We'll be in touch. Okay. All right. Take care. Yeah. So that it is a very interesting conversation about this because, you know, I just want to preface before we get into the strat plan is that for a long time, the question I've been asked a lot was why don't why didn't you update the strat plan earlier? You know, we did do a hard pivot in economic development and worked really specifically in housing and housing, specifically density, infill housing. And so this is really the first step back out into an actual plan. I'm going to actually send this around because I'm the way I was thinking of doing the going through this strategic action plan is focusing on the implementation part, because I think it's going to be easier for us to sort of go through it in this way. So that'll make its way to you. It's just that I just pulled out and made larger the back section of the of the plan. All right. Eric, anybody need one? Oh, please. So in going through this, I have one extra two. This is, like I said, this is the just the last section is the pull out of what was attached on the agenda. So it's not something new or different. So in going through the economic development plan, I just want to start with what the elements are. So we've been working on this, I have to say for over a year, really, we started moving it forward really beautifully. I think when we had the public conversations here in this subcommittee, the the way it's set right now, I do need to add a background element to it. I just put a page in there saying that that I need to add that it's where we are now what broadest this point, the general back on information, how it addresses council policies and priorities or counter goals and priorities. And really hitting on the fact that one of the things that we need to do is recognize that we need fiscal stability and and revenue growth. So I will work on some language for that first background section. The second part of it, of course, is the summary. It lists the three, the three primary goals. And we had landed on three elements, which we'll get into under the next part, which is the strategic plan part of it. But one of the questions that I want to ask now and was raised actually by the city manager's office is, are these do we need more goals? Do we capture what we need within this? What is missing? Or do we need to expand it at all? The second part, of course, is the plan part. So again, it's set up to where there's goals, objectives and tactics, which is mirrored in the implementation plan part of it. The monitoring and evaluation and the implementation plan. I've left the evaluation metrics target blank, because for one thing, it's a living, breathing document. Not all things are going to be priorities. Not all things are going to be done, you know, from the get go, you know, once this is adopted. And so we need to be able to have space to look at the things based on the market and the situation and whatever the environment is now when we're starting on some of these tactics and objectives or objectives and tactics. So my hope was, and we can certainly change this because staff can certainly build it out, is to be able to address these things and work with you on what are the metrics and targets you want. Sometimes we have ideas on what the evaluation tool will be, but that evaluation tool either takes money or it's something that's a resource that we don't have access to yet. So that's why I sort of left it blank that we can review that. So again, the next part of it was the implementation plan. And we'll get into that. Then I put the San Rosa landscape just so we have an understanding of sort of who we are right at this moment. I will say that the landscape piece of it, we do updates on a quarterly basis so we can modify what the economic development quarterly reports look like and add additional information. I think it's helpful that we periodically review that here and then have that maybe help us focus in on the implementation. And then finally I have resources in this in it. So if there's not any questions on what the format looks like or comments, like if you'd like to see anything just on the format, we can actually start digging into the goals, objectives and tactics. I can actually add one thing, right? Yeah. So as we move forward, just give clarity on process, obviously, right since transition and career moving forward, the team will pick this up. I just She's not doing both. She's not planning on doing both. So I just really want to make it clear on deliverables and next steps so the committee is aware. Typically, it's helpful to engage on implementation strategies because it helps to better understand the goal and what the thought process of the goal is. But I'd like to make it incredibly clear is implementation strategies are usually not included in the adopted plan. And there's a few different reasons for that at the staff level, we need the flexibility to be able to to generally understand the goal, generally understand the parameters around implementation, but we need to be able to have that flexibility to shift that on the back end when it actually comes down to that. So I want to make it just incredibly clear to the members of the committee as well as the public is the implementation strategies likely will not be part of the adopted document. We can discuss those as we move forward. But typically, and happy to answer any questions about that, but typically that plan would live outside of the overall adopted strap plan. It would be a companion to that. And it would be something that we implement and we start showing council work plan items and there would be other ways we move that forward. But I just want to make it incredibly clear is that although we're presenting that today that it won't be part of that final plan most likely. Yeah, just to reiterate make sure so the plan will come forward the document will come forward. We'll continue with engagement on it up until and quite frankly probably after adoption from the council. And then the implementation plan will be with it as a discussion point not part of the approval. But then the public in the council will get periodic updates and further discussion on the implementation plan as it's actually working through its process. Correct. And it's similar to the balance prevention partnership strategic plan. So you all were seeing the actual strategic plan. There was conversation. But I believe every quarter we come back to you all with implementation on the plan that was adopted. That's very similar to that. I think that's helpful because I think some of the concern that folks sometimes have is the plan is going to be internal and they're never going to get they're never going to know what's happening. What's not happening. They're never going to get another chance to ask questions. So I think making that really clear right off the bat is really helpful. Yeah. And just the previous funds that we've had we've done that it's again it's usually through the economic development subcommittee to be fair. One of the models that I looked at was Oakland. They have it included so you can look at priorities but it should always be a living document. So decoupling it makes sense in this case. And then it's just a tracking tracking mechanism goal. Okay. So just working off of the spreadsheet then. So again the three goals that we have are the business climate communication. So I mean really that is what is it like to do business with the city how business friendly are we. So if we're going to be doing business attraction retention expansion are we is our house in order on the inside for us to be able to accommodate those efforts. The second goal is economic vibrancy which really is the business attraction retention expansion. And then the third part of it is resiliency and community investment. That's really the upstream efforts. We are you know stepping a little bit back from the housing elements but it's got you know those things like the guaranteed basic income things that we're currently doing because again we've been working on this for a long time. We do have some of our ongoing projects in here. It's also the childcare effort that's an ongoing thing housing anything that fits within that sort of community investment piece of it isn't that third resilient the third bucket. Is the sick manager on actually she wasn't let me check again okay because if she is if you could just promote her because there was an interest in passing and saying that you know she was interested in some additional goals. I don't know yet what those goals are but again I put on the table are these the right three goal areas. I'm digging into the first one objective one which is the business friendly policies and processes. It's the three pieces of it. We are in the process right now and Gabe's running it. If the development oh I should say as I say this not everything lands on economic development. Economic development has been really like two people it is impossible to do. Economic development lives in every department everywhere so though it may be in some of these things and we may have a statement in it we are not economic development the staff people who are going to be coming in after me are not the sole proprietors of any elements of this of this plan. So the first objective the development and implementation of strategic I mean a service development services strategic plan that's actually underway and that is under the purview of Gabe right now in the NPD. The other element of it is coming up with an ad hoc group that's flexible that's able to be take advantage of and influence some of the issues that we're seeing and it's not just an internal group but it's actually you know working with the chambers of commerce or you know we've been involved with the Bay Area Urban Manufacturing initiative anything that can sort of like as we identify an issue or an opportunity can weigh into policies or objectives that we have that are sort of city-wide and the last piece of that objective is the you know one-stop shop sort of making it easy and identifying new things to help people get the information that they need at any given time like sometimes we have an influx of people needing signage information we look at the signs we're actually looking at the sign policy so it can lead all of those things into that first objective. I can keep going and if you or do you guys want me to go through it piece by piece or do you want to sort of do you have highlights where you'd like to actually focus on stuff? Whoops. Now you want to do it because we've both we've seen this we've talked about it this is yeah multiple meetings how about let's do public comment okay comment okay see if there's questions from the public that can kind of guide what we have not made particularly clear in some of the meetings yeah see if it shakes a couple of things leads to then come back for comments okay good because yeah it's a lot to go over individually like it is it is it's it's that's a good thing yeah so let's let's start with public comment thank you thank you so much I appreciate the work on this Eric Frazier the center of it so what strikes me about this is that these issues are not necessarily new issues and what's not coming forward are prior metrics of performance that judges how well the job was done already so that's really quite concerning I find that sort of all sort of a mishmash of not really good clear planning quite frankly because of that there is no continuity from a management sense or a way to have accountability over prior activity and expenses at the city so that is actually very concerning I'm going to put an overlay on this about the Churchill rental ordinance because I think that's important and represents a major policy initiative that was very expensive very divisive isn't solved yet and at the end of the day what we ended up with if you marry the three ordinances that have to do with short-term occupancy to taxing ordinances and then the short-term rental ordinance itself what you guys did and you made it a misdemeanor offense for somebody to have a guest in their own home while they're there that on a short-term basis if that property is not registered it's really quite embarrassing how bad the policy became because you put the community through a series of urgency ordinances that totally negate the sensibilities that you're putting forward in this plan you did not provide a mechanism for fact-finding and verification when you're making policy furthermore the policies seem to be driven by interest self-interest so that's very very concerning so you can put a lot of ink on paper about what your strategic planning is about but at the end of the day how are you actually serving your community are you standing up and being accountable to the voters when it comes to how money is spent and what happens when that money is spent i don't see it in this plan and that's fundamental to business so when you have a business you're paying attention to how your employees spend their money you want them to be accountable for that spend none of that's here thank you thank you Eric so i'm going to bring it back so the first question that i think we should dive into is you asked do we need an additional goal and your thoughts i don't think we do personally i understand economic development i mean economic development and you and i've had this discussion i've had discussion with people in certain touches pretty much everything we do as a city right whether it be housing child care all of these things um i think that we've gone through this i mean i've gone through this ad nauseam um and discussed it at i don't think we need an additional one honestly what do you think i mean i was leading the same way if there was something very concrete and direct that uh particularly folks who are working with the business community that are hearing from neighbors that are doing that level of engagement if there was something that came in that was this is what's completely missing from the goals of what we're trying to accomplish i think right let's keep piecing away at it um but i think we also have a tendency to keep revising and revising and revising and i think we'll know pretty quickly if we've we've missed something and can revise but but i think these three goals really for me capture what my understanding of the plan was going to try to accomplish right and i think that they're i mean i we can even look at language like so if there is something that like fundamental that we missed does it fit within something or can something be modified to manage that because they there should be enough flexibility that if an urgent issue comes up and well one we always have the opportunity like a fire to divert into just do that but how how do we capture it in here and i think in the every other month subcommittee meetings staff could sort of look at something and address it and see where it fits in and it would modify then the implementation itself okay and i do want to give a nod to eric's comments i think it'd be really helpful when we come to our conversation at council with a discussion in the presentation about what accountability looks like what checking back with the public looks like what metrics look like what track record looks like just even if it's i know it's gonna be hard to go go back and look but even if it's something that we can put in the plan so that as we develop this in the future that the public feels good about is this achieving what we hope that it would achieve right kind of tell off that i think yeah historical context or what we what you can provide would be important i think when we have the benefit of having employees that have been here for 15 18 20 some years you all have that in grand already because you've done the work but then we turn over on a regular basis and you know we find not just an economic development you know plenty of strategic plans and whatever else was like oh yeah we did this in 2012 and i was like i wasn't even paying attention to certain things in 2012 so um anything you could supply i think um to give us context would be would be much appreciated okay i was going to make a sundevils joke but please do no i'm okay they're funnier when you explain them yeah yeah i've learned that with my puns all the time all right then let's go into with the different objectives i know you've gone through them are there any that you can start with are there any that you think are unclear i don't i don't really think so because i think like as you've said we've we've been working on this and yeah it has been drilled down already based on feedback um i don't personally think anything needs to be made more clear but again it's also one of those things where when you get into the weeds you understand what you're trying to convey you know it may not be clear to the external stakeholders so but for me being in circles so to speak i i think we're good and as you've discussed that and i agree and as you've discussed things with folks have has there been any glaring conditions than that anybody's brought up with you no not nothing glaring that needs to be addressed immediately i think to to raise this point about um uh goals the same with objectives as we can if something does come up we can always i mean it's easy to expand things but just like oh what is that another one but i think you know for sake of efficiency we can just you know find a way for it to fit um within reason and not just shove it in somewhere yeah i think and i think you know what is interesting to me and of course now that i'm not going to be doing it anymore but what i would hope you carry forward is you know the the quarterly reports are you know it's just me doing them right um but i think that we can actually dig further in like and the one that um for october that's um currently being vetted you know we look at manufacturing so what does that mean well that then you know that discussion maybe at the next subcommittee meeting can dig deeper into that element in this and business attraction or tension or something like that um right so we can we can use the quarterly reports um a little bit to also enhance that community understanding um because we are seeing that those are being used i mean had reporters calling me and saying i just read this thing um so my suggestion would be let's start merging those and being reflective yeah and i think i can commit to doing that i think the quarterly report is a good mechanism for reporting out progress on any level of a strap plan um it may not get into the level of detail that we need other forms to discuss implementation strategies but once we have this plan in place i think the reporting moving forward we start looking for the best mechanism to do that data dashboards quarterly reports there's there's quite a few tools in the toolbox to make that work um but i think that that that's a fabulous idea and we can look in through this committee and what is the best tactic for communicating through that quarterly report is it working isn't there ads and deletes it's a very helpful body to vet that out um but i can absolutely commit to that today um that that's a very reasonable request and i think an excellent tool for helping increase the reporting on it well with that said i'm comfortable if we advance this to the council and then that allows for initial public comment and it has the staff report it gives people a chance to kind of outside of this room because we've got very limited uh interest and at the time right of the day i know it matters but the council meeting i think is where we'll really hear a lot of that feedback from folks that aren't here right now um what about before we um got this the priorities i mean any uh because i went through and thought okay what are we currently doing um are you comfortable like it's got three columns it's a five-year program but you know things bleed over um did anything jump out off the cuff if you haven't looked at this part yet on um how i've set some of the priorities in the forward no so there were a couple where i might have might have quibbled with but i'm gonna defer to staff on what current workload looks like and what you think your expected delivery time is um i think i think overall i think we can move things a little bit but i'm not overly concerned and again this being a living document we certainly can but i just want to be able to have something to um give staff to move forward to um council with on sort of what what current capacity was um and what we're kind of looking at okay cool well that was way easier than that was i mean i wasn't sure if we were going to walk through individual items but we kind of did that last time so i figured yeah all right let's go on then to our department reports we have anything to report i'm leaving uh no the department for the other piece of that um i'm in an all seriousness and my um goal and i think why i was pushing so hard to keep this on track to um uh you know the study session and the council item was um making sure that we have a good transition through here i do feel like we're leaving you in a good place i will also state that tarah Thompson has also given notice um so she's the third of the three of us uh myself uh tarah and rafael um she heard last days on the 27th um we are also leaving that in a very very good place uh in that we have the um public art strap plan um the art public places committee all in just like record form for the whole that since we've been working on it um and we've been here with that since the beginning um so i think that we are leaving you in very good hands um rafael is going to hold down the ship uh for us along with um everyone else for whatever you choose to do with the division but again i know speaking on behalf of myself and uh tarah it's just been an absolute honor yeah thank you so much right yes thank you i would just like to quickly thank risa for all years of service for the city center rosa that's it's an impressive career um and you've made quite a bit of difference in the city and i just wanted to publicly thank you for that and wish you the best in your new endeavors and we will do our best to move your initiatives forward i will be watching you're still a resident thank you thank you so much right we'll do public comment on department reports oh that's necessary i said cool all right well with that everybody thank you we'll adjourn and we'll see you at the council meeting in about an hour thank you