 Good afternoon. I'd like to call the September 25th 2023 housing authority regular meeting to order Members of the public may view and listen to the meeting as noted on the city's website and as noted on the agenda As a matter of housekeeping and like to remind commissioners to keep their microphones muted unless they are speaking This next part something we talk about every meeting, but there's been an instance where this is different public meetings that have been an issue so Please note that the city of Santa Rosa's community creating a safe and inclusive environment free from disruption We will definitely not tolerate any hateful speech or actions and are well-staffed to monitor that everyone is participating Respectfully or they will be removed if necessary. We will also immediately end the meeting if as this applies to zoom We will cut people off on zoom if this happens Clerk, please explain how the public comments will be heard at today's meeting At each agenda item after the item is presented the chair will ask for housing authority commissioner comments After the commissioner comments the chair will open the item for public comment The chair will first call for in-person public comments and then request public comments from those participating via zoom For members of the public joining the meeting via zoom You will be participating as an attendee your microphone and camera will be muted If you are calling in from a telephone and choose to speak during the public comments portion of today's agenda For privacy concerns the host will be renaming your viewable phone number to resident and the last four digits of your phone number For members of the public attending in person and would like to make a comment on hearing items When the chair calls for public comments after an item is presented Please go to the closest public speaking podium in the upper tier of chambers Where I will unmute your microphone and permit your comment to be heard The zoom host will be lowering all hands until public comments via zoom are opened for the agenda item Once the chair is called for zoom public comment The zoom host will call upon each member of the public in the order that their hands are raised in zoom And will continue to call upon those who wish to participate until the list in zoom is exhausted If you're calling in to listen to the meeting audibly you can dial star 9 to raise your hand Public comments will be limited to three minutes per speaker per item Public comments are limited to one comment per speaker per item Once all live public comments have been heard the clerk will read email public comments If you provide a live public comment on agenda item, but also submitted an email your email public comment will not be read at the meeting Additionally There is one public comment period on today's agenda to speak on non agenda matters. That's item 7 This is a time when any person may address the housing authority on matters not listed on this agenda Which are with but which are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the housing authority Thank you. I can call item 2 like in a Now to introduce the newly appointed housing authority commissioners our new commissioners are Angela Conte and Excuse me if I mispronounce shivan Nanda Friedman we're appointed by the city council and sworn in by a recording secretary in August both Angela and shivan Nanda are in Long-term residence in Santa Rosa and bring a wealth of experience working with homeless individuals within our community We'd also like to welcome you both to the housing authority board Miss Conte would you like to make any opening remarks or introduce yourself me? I'm new here, but I'm glad to be here and looking forward to You know learning a lot more about what I can contribute to the community. Thank you. Hey, thank you Mr. Friedman, Commissioner Friedman. Thank you, sir Yes, I've also lived in Santa Rosa for a good number of years and I've been homeless briefly and Have been the beneficiary and and I'm currently Living with the benefit of section 8 housing and I look forward to helping people who have Marginal income and Helping them with housing issues and Not just people who who have a marginal income, but all Santa Rosa People but housing has the cost of housing has really outpaced inflation which effect and inflation affects all of us and Housing is is so important In in terms of living So I'm hoping that as one link in in the chain of of affecting Housing in this area that I can be effective in Being useful to the community So I'm obviously this is my first meeting so I'm very new here But I'm hopeful that I can be useful. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Friedman and the Commissioner Conti I'd like to go to item 3 before I ask the Q Clerk to do a roll call to assist the streaming the meeting and captioned commissioners there speaking when a commissioner has a question or comment Please ask the chair to be recognized as well allow time for the cameras to shift to a new speaker Like that ask the clerk for a roll call, please. Okay. We'll now do a attendance roll call We will start with Commissioner Smith here commissioner Newton Here commissioner Friedman Commissioner Conte Here commissioner Downey Commissioner Downey will be absent Vice chair LePenna here and chair Owen here Let the record reflect that all commissioners are present with the exception of commissioner Downey Thank you, you like to move to item 4 which is asking the commissioners if there are any statements of extension or any item on today's agenda Hearing none will move to item 5, which is a staff briefing the housing authority fiscal year 22 to 23 quarter for year and un-honored financial report I believe Kate Goldfine will be presenting Miss Goldfine Thank You chair Owen and good afternoon Chair Owen Vice chair LePenna and commissioners I am Kate Goldfine the administrative services officer for the housing and community services department in the housing authority And I'm here to briefly go through the quarter four memo with you I do want to note that this is these numbers are unaudited the city's accounting division prepares an audited Financial report every year that's generally done in January and we do forward that to the housing authority commissioners It's called the housing authority annual financial report the Haffer So we'll start with expenditures The authority came in at or under budget in all categories in Administration and overhead we were under budget primarily due to vacancies throughout all divisions and Additionally, we did not expend our full amount of HUD administrative allowance For services and supplies in our rental assistance division in sub recipient funding We just had about five thousand dollars of local funding remaining that was potentially for a Increase in the fair housing contract that did not materialize so that funding will go back to its source and be used for something else in the coming fiscal year With loan activity that one point one million remaining was primarily home funds that have been difficult to commit because home is a difficult funding source The trust did a special home notice of funding availability This year and the authority awarded some of those home funds to the Burbank Avenue project at its June meeting There's also in that one point one million is some Cal home funding and some local funds that will be committed to loans in the coming fiscal year So this table shows that there's about six and a half million in unused housing assistance payments, and I want to go through this Carefully with you because this is kind of misleading So this is so this is primarily a function of having to fit the federal housing programs Within the city and housing authorities budget process So the city and the housing authority budget once annually on a fiscal year basis HUD budgets on a calendar year basis, and then we have monthly updates So we also budget at the housing authority level to lease up a hundred percent of our vouchers at an average monthly cost In actuality we report to HUD monthly with our number of vouchers leased and the amount of expenditures and HUD sends us the funds to pay for those expense that those expenses as long as we do not exceed the limit on our number of vouchers or our budget So for example in practical application in the housing choice voucher program, which is our largest program We budgeted to use a hundred percent of the vouchers we had in 22 23 That was 1,903 vouchers and we budgeted at a rate of One thousand two hundred and sixty dollars per voucher per month so that budget came out to two point four million dollars Now that we have a year's worth of data to look back on we can see that our our actual average utilization Was 86 percent that's about 1636 vouchers and our average half hp housing assistance payment Was about twelve hundred and one dollars per voucher per month so that equates to expense of about about 1.9596 million, lower than the 2.4 million budgeted. So we budget this way to ensure that we have housing authority approval to expend as much as needed within the federal limits of our number of vouchers and our budget. And we are constantly reviewing and reporting monthly on our number of vouchers leased and how much of our budget we are using so that we can bring new people onto the program as our limits permit us. Okay, and then in CDBGDR, the developments continue to make progress with over 21 million expended. The projects funded by CDBGDR are on the affordable housing pipeline matrix which is included in this agenda. And the 4,000 that remains there is just our little bit of admin allowance remaining. On projects, those are mostly comprised of one time state or federal funding. So as noted in the memo, 4 million has been expended. 950,000 of that was federal community development block grant CV or coronavirus funding or regular CDBG funding that went towards homeless programs. 197,000 of it went towards her and veterans village of permanent local housing state grant funds. And then 2.8 million of that is state infill infrastructure grant funding that went towards the projects, the Canary and Caritas Homes phase one. The remaining budget of over 10 million is made up again of several one time sources. So by far the largest of that is the state infill infrastructure grant at about 5.2 million. The projects funded by that grant have been identified and commitment paperwork is pending. It also includes 2.7 million of one time federal home ARP and ARP is American Rescue Plan funding. That funding is going to be utilized for homelessness prevention. Staff issued a request for proposals for that a few weeks ago and those are due October 2nd. Remaining in the projects, there's 2 million for the PG&E settlement funded down payment assistance program, which you'll hear about, and we'll begin taking applications on October 2nd. And then rounding that out is about 450,000 of ARP American Rescue Plan emergency housing voucher service fee funding, which is used to help lease up those clients that are receiving that funding. So I'm going to move to, or actually I'll stop here before I move to funding sources and ask if there's any questions about expense. The commissioners have any questions? No, I have a couple of questions. So the remaining funds, those are in all categories, those are rolled into the next fiscal year? Not in all categories, but in most categories. So in loan repayments are and sub recipient funding is. Housing assistance payments, we just, as I mentioned, we communicate with HUD regularly and stay within our limitations. So that funding is just, it's basically unused appropriations, if that makes sense. And then admin and overhead just goes back to the fund. For the voucher system, we've got two types. We've got housing choice vouchers and we have project based. And you discussed how not all the vouchers are being used. Is that, is the non-used portion of vouchers project based and the project's not completed yet? That's why they're not being used? Or what is the, what is the situation on that? So there's, there's several components to it. But there are some vouchers that are not leased up yet. We have about 109, I think is our leasing potential right now. And that includes individuals that are being called from the waiting list. And then we also have vouchers that we're holding for project based vouchers. Because we have a fair amount of committed project based vouchers for projects that are currently under construction. Examples of that are the Bennett Valley Senior Center, which has 30 project based vouchers. The Cannery at Railroad Square I think has about 33 an item that you will have on your agenda later today. Burbank Avenue has 16 committed to it. So there's a handful of projects that have, will have project based vouchers when those projects are complete. So we have to hold those aside so that we still have the budget and leasing potential for those units when they become available. Because we do have agreements with those developers. So basically on the voucher system we have about 100 that are just transitional. Is there a normal rolling people coming off and not people pulled off the wait list and then the rest are project based? I think our attrition rate right now is about 8%. So on a regular basis about 8% of our vouchers, which I think Kate said is about 1600, either come off the program. They come off the program for some reason, either they have moved on in their financial life. They have been cut from the program for a variety of reasons. Unfortunately some people do pass away while they're on the program, so then we end assistance there as well. So there are various reasons why we would roll vouchers or have attrition throughout the year. Thank you. So what funds have to be returned to the source that haven't been used? So it's not necessarily a return. We draw down funds from HUD, so they're constantly monitoring for the vouchers how much we're utilizing. So as we increase our utilization and units lease up, they'll provide us with more funding. So it's not a check or money being returned to accounts. Any other questions from commissioners? Just real quick. So the remaining in the projects, you said you expect that the rest of that to be used up on these projects before the end of our fiscal year? That's a good question. So we do draw down often on those funds when they are utilized and it depends on when the projects are finishing. So I would have to work with Nicole Del Fiorantino to see when those projects expect to finish to know when that funding will be used. Okay. Thanks. Okay, so I'll move on to funding sources and I'm just going to focus on the highlights here and then again I'm happy to answer any questions. So the best news is the housing impact fees which were budgeted at $1.4 million but received more than double that at over $3 million. Housing production did not slow this fiscal year and we continue to watch this very closely. Compliance monitoring fees also came in over budget. The main source of those being notice of funding availability application fees and loan document preparation fees. And then finally, loan payments continue to trend well. The commissioners that have been on the commission for a while may remember that last year we received about $2.4 million of Lantana Homes project payoffs which was very high for us. And then in November, the authority also appropriated $300,000 of loan repayments that we had received through September. So of that $3 million budget, we already have $2.7 million. We had budgeted to receive just around $300,000 of brand new loan repayments in this fiscal year and we received over $1.4 million which is great. So that funding will be used for loans in the coming fiscal year. And that concludes the briefing and I'm happy to answer any questions you have about funding sources or anything else. Questions from commissioners on funding sources? Go ahead. On the loan repayments, where did it come from that surprised you that came in so high? You know, I'll have to go back and look at that. We budget that quite conservatively because we don't want to budget more than we end up getting and commit to loans that we then have to pull back on. So the $300,000 is a very conservative estimate, but I'd be happy to find out which projects brought in the higher budget and get back to you if you would like that. Sure. I have a question on the housing impact fees. Was that mostly multifamily, the big surge of multifamily building permits that's been having in Santa Rosa? I don't know if it's isolated based on type of construction. We can certainly follow up with the building department and find out, but generally just comes in as impact fees associated with permits. Okay. Thank you. Commissioners, any other questions? Seeing this as a study session, there's not any votes on this. There are staff breathing. We'll go ahead and move on to item six, which is a study session. Chair Owen, we still need to take public comment. Oh, I'm sorry. That's correct. Can we take public comment on this item? We're now taking public comments on item 5.1. We'll begin with comments from those attending in person in chambers. Once we finish with in person comments, we'll hear comments for those participating via Zoom. If you wish to make comment via Zoom, please raise your hand. If you're dialing in via telephone, please dial star nine to raise your hand. So if anybody would like to make comment in person. Okay. Chair Owen, we have no in-person public comments on this item. Do we have any Zoom comments? Chair Owen, I'm saying no hands raised via Zoom. Do we have any email comments? We have no emailed public comments for this item. Okay. Thank you. Now we'll move it on to item six, which is a study session on housing choice voucher program and administrative plan overview. Rebecca Lane, housing and community services manager who oversees the housing choice voucher program will be giving this study session. She'll need just a moment to pull up the presentation. Good afternoon, commissioners. And thank you for their patience as I brought up the slides. My name is Rebecca Lane and I am the rental assistance manager in the department of housing and community services. And I am here today to present a study session about the section eight housing choice voucher program administrative plan. This study session is intended to be the first in a series of items related to the administrative plan, which is the major policy document guiding the housing choice voucher program. I will discuss our plans for the upcoming study sessions and report items later in the presentation, but I will start today with a wide angle view of the definition and purpose of the administrative plan. So to start with an overview of the housing choice voucher program, the program is the largest federal rental assistance program under HUD and was authorized under the section eight of the United States Housing Act of 1937. The program is funded and overseen by the Department of Housing and Urban Development and local public housing agencies or public housing authorities administer the housing choice voucher program in coordination with HUD. Each housing authority enters into an annual contributions contract or ACC with HUD for a specific number of vouchers to assist families in their jurisdiction. By entering into the ACC and accepting the funds for the program, the housing authorities agree to administer the program in accordance with the federal rules and regulations. The City of Santa Rosa Housing Authority is in contract with HUD to administer 1925 housing choice vouchers as well as 131 emergency housing vouchers. The ACC is updated as new vouchers are provided, but the fundamental purpose of the agreement remains the same. The regulations for the housing choice voucher and project-based voucher programs are found in Chapter 24 of the Code of Federal Regulations Parts 982 and 983 respectively. The federal regulations are written by the United States Congress as laws are adopted, but it's HUD's responsibility to interpret and implement the laws. HUD does this through supplemental guidance issued in PIH notices or public and Indian housing notices. Supplemental guidance could include an example is interim policies such as the guidance on the temporary emergency housing voucher program and implementation guidance and a more detailed discussion about what appears in the federal regulations. The administrative plan, also known as the admin plan, is the public housing authorities document that explains the federal regulations. The admin plan is also where the housing authority can describe their decisions about any discretionary policies that may be available under the federal regulations. It is a voluminous document. The current version is 524 pages long, which is in part why we plan to bring this item to you in several parts. The administrative plan must be reviewed and adopted by the Housing Authority Board of Commissioners at a public meeting. And revisions to the administrative plan will happen periodically and generally may only affect a small section of the document. Some examples of administrative plan revisions that the Santa Rosa Housing Authority has reviewed are the adoption of the temporary policy supplement that addresses the emergency housing voucher program, the creation of a project-based voucher program, and the subsequent policy revisions that were required when those federal regulations changed. These revisions also included discretionary policies allowing the Santa Rosa Housing Authority to project-based an additional 5% of our vouchers for special populations. Another example of discretionary policies and policies that the administrative that appear in the administrative plan is the adoption of a limited weightless preference for victims of the 2017 wildfires. Most of these revisions to the admin plan are limited in their scope. However, we are planning for a major mandatory revision that will affect all sections of the administrative plan. The changes to the slide, I'm sorry, offers further discussion of examples I've already provided regarding the local decisions that housing authorities are allowed to make. The housing choice voucher program is very strictly regulated, so in reality there are not many areas where local housing authorities have discretion to change their programs. However, where commissioners do have the opportunity to make policy decisions about the housing choice voucher program, staff will make recommendations based on local needs, best practices, and other resources and partnerships. For example, when the board adopted the limited preference for the 2017 wildfire victims, this was both a response to an urgent local need as well as an identification and establishing a partnership with a local agency that could best connect the families to the housing authority resources that were being offered. The changes to the administrative plan that we are anticipating now will be much more wide ranging than the previous revisions to the plan. These changes are a result of HOTMA, which is the Housing Opportunity Through Modernization Act of 2016, and will change among other things who is eligible for the housing choice voucher program, how annual income is defined in the housing choice voucher program, and how tenant rent is calculated in the voucher program. Every housing authority is required to update their administrative plans by January 1st, 2024. However, the implementing regulations are still pending. Before the changes to HOTMA not only affect the housing choice voucher program policies, but they also affect the day-to-day administration of the program and certain elements of this overhaul are still not complete. So when HOTMA goes into effect, it also will change how we communicate our data with HUD, all of our information about what we are expending for the program, as Kate mentioned in the previous item. The software that we use to communicate all of that information is changing, so there's several elements that we're still waiting on that need to go into effect. We are also required, along with every other housing authority, to implement all of the changes at the same time. So at some point in 2024, we must adopt and start practicing our program under the new regulations. At this moment, as of today, we don't know what that date will be, because we are still waiting on HUD to provide the implementing guidance for the changes under HOTMA, as well as these other elements that are necessary for the program to continue. We're also anticipating other changes that will be adopted with the new administrative plan. We at the Santa Rosa Housing Authority have been a demonstration agency with HUD on a change in the inspection standards for the housing choice voucher program. Previously, the Housing Quality Standards, HQS, were the inspection standards that we utilized for the Housing Choice Voucher Program. HUD has implemented or will be implementing a change to a new inspection standard called the National Standards for the Physical Inspection of Real Estate or Inspire. We have been practicing these standards as well as the HQS standards in parallel at this agency for several years as a demonstration agency. We've been testing the standards, so we're familiar with them, but they have not yet gone into effect. This will also happen. We anticipate in 2024 HUD actually just announced last Thursday that this change was delayed. It was supposed to go into effect initially October 1st of 2023, so this year, but because we are still waiting for those implementing guidelines, they've delayed the mandatory implementation to October 1st of 2024. So our new admin plan, when we bring it to you, will include the Inspire Inspection Standards. We will also be updating to identify our new waitlist process. We've recently transitioned to an electronic waitlist, so we will identify all the information regarding how that process works in our new admin plan, and there's additional minor language revisions that we anticipate will be required, as it usually is when we're going back through the document to update changes. So our plan going forward is today. The study session is the overview, the high-level review of the administrative plan and the changes that we are anticipating. I hope that by the October meeting, I will be able to bring you a draft of the administrative plan that will be contingent upon the implementing guidelines being published by HUD. The third study session in November would be to review any revisions to the draft document that you get under your direction from the previous meeting. And then in December, we hope that we will be adopting the new administrative plan. Because so much information is still pending, we are also anticipating that we'll be back in 2024, depending on what cleanup we need to do in the admin plan. But at this point, because we are still required under the regulations to adopt a new plan by the end of this calendar year, we have to start here with as much information as we know and continue to come back to you in a series of meetings as we learn more information. So this concludes the study session. I'm happy to answer any questions that you have that I know the answers to. Thank you very much. Do we have any questions from commissioners? Commissioner Friedman. When I was interviewing with landlords, one of the concerns that came up a number of times was about having their units inspected. And it sounded like, from what you were saying, that we in Santa Rosa were using advanced inspection standards. So will the inspection standards in 2024 be changing here? Or do you know if we're already using the advanced standards that will be going in place? Yes, thank you for the question. We are already using the Inspire standards. So our community has become very familiar with the inspection standards. For an owner, the process of an inspection is not that much different. So for example, if a window is broken in the property, if that inspection is being done to HQS standards or Inspire standards, a broken window will still fail the inspection and must be corrected before the tenant would be allowed to move in. So for our landlords, it's not that different. And we've already softened the ground a bit by being a demonstration agency and having practiced the standards for a while here. Any other questions? Yes, so thanks for that. There's a lot of good info. So there's still the requirement to have the plan approved by January, even though there's a lot that's outstanding. And whoever you're communicating with at HUD, they understand that. So whatever we get is we know it's going to be an unfinished plan in January, right? That's what it sounds like. Yes, you have that right. So in October, by the October Housing Authority meeting, I'm hoping that the implementation guidance will have been released, which would allow me to then draft the new administrative plan under those implementing regulations and bring it to you as a draft in October, and then you can provide feedback on those discretionary policies where they exist. I don't know yet where those discretionary decisions will be allowed. Okay. Is that when you say there's still regulations pending, is that what you're talking about, this implementation guidance? Yes, the implementation guidance from HUD is still pending. Okay. There's some pretty big changes. I was kind of surprised to see how comprehensive this is. There's things like software changes and stuff takes a long time. It sounds like you guys have been working on it already. Yes. What sort of confidence do you have that we can make this transition by the end of next year, given sort of how far behind the HUD is providing guidance on some of this stuff? We're in good company, that's one thing. Every Housing Authority is in the same position, and you are certainly not the only person who shares the opinion that this is a big change very late in the game. So that is one of the reasons that HUD changed the requirement from all of the HAPMA regulations going into effect on January 1st of 2024 to at some point in calendar year 2024, you will have to make the transition. We recognize, we as HUD recognize that we haven't been able to provide you the information you need to do that. So you still have to update your admin plan in anticipation that the changes are coming. We just don't know what that looks like yet. Okay. So some of these software changes, I guess, to better communicate with HUD, right? It's sort of aligning systems with them. Are they set up for this already? I'm just not slow moving some of the stuff, especially with federal government, and it's not easy. So does it look like they're doing what they need to be doing? Make these things happen? They're not moving as quickly as we would like, because when they change their software, we also at the housing authority levels have to change ours so that the two software systems will communicate with each other. So there's a lot of testing that we would like to be doing right now that we can't, but again, we're not the only housing authority in the same situation. Every housing authority in the country is facing the same timeline. We are participating in every work group that we can to get the information as quickly as possible when those items are released, the new forms that we need to use, the new data system. So at this point, we're doing everything that we can, and what I think will ultimately happen is when we bring back the draft administrative plan, we will have to set a target for sometime in 2024 where we do make the transition. Right now, my best guess is that that will be at the start of the fiscal year because that makes sense for a lot of other reasons with the shift in software and how rental income or annual income is calculated. There's a lot of reasons why it would make sense to make that shift at that time. But right now, that's just my best guess as to when we'll move forward with the change. Thanks a lot. Appreciate it. You're welcome. Can we get your comment? Yeah. So the staff is already being trained on the changes? Yes, we are. Our staff has been, for the inspection changes, already practicing those standards, and we are also sending our staff to the trainings, both private and through HUD, about the changes that are anticipated under HOTMA for eligibility and income certifications. However, the information in those trainings is still limited because there's a lot of detail that hasn't yet been finalized. That's what we're waiting for with the implementation guidance. Can you say what your main concerns are in general about all these changes? Kind of narrow in on what your concerns are? I think that my main concern is, as Commissioner Newton was just alluding to, that we'll be able to meet the target dates because that's out of our control. My other concern is that the changes to the eligibility determination is pretty significant, and so I want to make sure in the implementation timeline that we have enough time for our staff to understand what those changes are, as well as educate our community about what those changes are because it will affect everyone else who is currently on the program and people who are applying for the program. So we want to be able to make sure that we're communicating that information as quickly as we can. But it sounds like HOT is pretty aware that there are some issues here. Yes, indeed, yes. Okay, all right, thank you. When I got my housing choice voucher about 15 years ago, it took me about four years of waiting after I was deemed eligible to get it. More recently, it's about ten years or so. What changes to that do you see on the horizon and is it at all possible that the length of time can be shortened or is funding not going to keep up with the need of people and any other changes to the waiting time that you see coming down? Thank you for the question. The only thing really that can reduce the amount of time that someone is waiting for a voucher is more vouchers coming to our jurisdiction. It's simply a matter of there not being enough resources to meet the demand. So the changes under HOTMA don't... I do not see anything yet that would speak at all to more attrition on the program, anything like that that would help vouchers sort of cycle through a community more often. So it's really just a matter of the funding and HOTMA doesn't speak to any of that. Following up, in terms of the waitlist process and procedures, are you aware of what changes might be coming down with those? Yes. So that's really just a reference to changes that we have already made in the mechanics of our waitlist. So we changed over the last few years from an entirely paper-based system to an electronic system. So our policies didn't change, our procedures in terms of what's legally required to be outlined in the administrative plan. That didn't change. It was just a matter of how we were doing it. So we're going to just clean up that language to make sure that that's clear, that that's how we're operating the waitlist now is electronically primarily. Any other questions from commissioners? So I have one we were talking about. So this is something that started in 2016. Yes, HOTMA was passed by Congress in 2016 and has slowly rolled out. The project-based voucher regulations changed first. That was in 2021, I believe, that we brought those changes to the Housing Authority Board of Commissioners. Those were also, those were just specific to the project-based voucher regulations. And that rolled out earlier, for whatever reason, those implementing guidelines. So if we're looking at significant changes to using slide 6 here, eligibility, definition of income, and rental calculations. So is that fall under, because everything I see works under area median income and a certain percentage of that if a builder's going in to get tax credits or tax exempt bonds, what percentage of affordability? So that, is that definition of AMI going to change or is the calculation of AMI going to change? It's the latter. So the percentages don't change. The Housing Choice Voucher Program will continue to serve people at or below 50% of the area meeting income with a majority of our participants at 20, at 30% of area median income. However, the definition of annual income and how we calculate that is what's changing under HOTMA. And I don't have any further details today about how it's changing because we are still waiting on those implementation guidelines. Okay. Thank you. I don't have any, any other questions. No other commissioner questions. I'd like to open it up for public comment. We're not taking public comments on item 6.1. If you were in person, like to make comment, please move to one of the podiums in the upper tier. Afterwards, we'll move on to comments via Zoom. Hello. Good afternoon. You may state your name for the record if you so choose and you will have three minutes to make a comment. Can you see the timer? Yes, I can. Okay. Your, your time begins now. Is this on? I'm not sure. Okay. Now I can hear myself. My name is Gregory Farron, and I'm glad to be here listening to the presentation that the staff is presenting. I've been a longtime housing activist and builder. I want to encourage the authority and its staff in its implementation of this new set of regulations to do what it has lately done a lot of, which is to collaborate with the county and with the continuum of care. We at Homeless Action and some of the activists have been pleased that the housing authority and the continuum of care have spoken a lot to each other, have used that forum as a way to transmit information. A lot of the people who you seek to help listen in on those conversations, they learn an awful lot about what's coming down the pike, and I've seen a lot of good work come out of it. I want to thank Rebecca and, you know, Megan and the folks in the authority for their leadership, and I hope that as these regulations become clearer, the kinds of things you want recipients to know will become clear through that process. I see it as a real win-win-win and I encourage you to do so. Thank you. Any more public comment? Seeing none, any comments on Zoom? Chair Owen, there are no hands raised via Zoom. Thank you. Any email comments? Chair Owen, we have no emailed comments on this item. Thank you. I'd like to open it up to Item 7, which is public comment. Taking public comments for those participating via Zoom. Well, first of all, we'll start with comments here, and then we'll go ahead and open up to Zoom. Thank you. Hello. You can state your name for the record. If you so choose, you have three minutes for your comment. Does the overhead projector work? It does. I'm not going to even think. One moment. Is there something I need to do? One moment. We're getting it on the send as well. Okay. There. My name is Cliff Wiggum. I'm a property owner and resident of the Roberts District. I'm also the representative of nine of the 10 property owners. We were made part of the downtown stationery specific plan, the Roberts District. They named this as part of Ray Road Square. However, you can see we're on the south side of Highway 12, which is a four lane elevated solid earth freeway from Ray Road Square. And they gave us the unrealistic, unachievable zoning of a 6.0 floor area ratio. That in English comes out to 258 units per acre, a midpoint of 129 units per acre. No developer will build that because it will require structured parking. They gave Mawley Farms on the other side of the freeway at 2.0, which is realistic, which would equate to 43 units to 86 units per acre. And the Roberts District with reduced parking and affordable by design units, we could probably get between 40 to 60 units per acre. It's 10 acre parcels. It adds up to 10 acres what I represent. That would equate to between 400 and 600 units, which would be 25% at least, if not 100% affordable units. At the current zoning, no developer will even approach it. They won't even come to the city and ask for a zoning amendment because it takes so long, it calls so much. They named us as part of Ray Road Square. However, you can see on this map that we are part of Roseland. We're across the street from Roseland and across the freeway from Ray Road Square. We are in a very handicapped area. Low-income housing is needed there. And I was reviewing the pipeline for affordable housing and nowhere do I see anything that is greater than 40 units per acre. And I would like to see this. I need your support, because I'm approaching the city council, of course, and the planning department and talking to a lot of others. I'd like this board to support and amending the zoning to a realistic number, and we will get housing built. I have developers that are interested in the property, but not at the current zoning. I would appreciate your support. And thank you very much. Thank you. Are there any other public comment? I don't have any public comment on Zoom. Chair Owen, there are no hands raised on Zoom. Thank you. Any e-mail public comment? Chair Owen, we have no e-mail public comments for this item. Thank you very much. And thank you for your comment on the Roberts-Dix Creek. We appreciate that. We will go ahead and move to item eight, which is approval of minutes. Are there any commissioners who have comments on the minutes from the last meeting? Seeing none, since this does not require a vote, we'll go ahead and approve the minutes from our last meeting on July 24th. We will move to item nine, which is chairperson and commissioner reports. I do not have any reports. Any commissioners have reports. Seeing none, we will go ahead and open us up for public comment. Seeing no public comment here, we'll open it up for Zoom public comment. Chair Owen, there are no hands raised on Zoom. Do we have any e-mail comments? Chair Owen, we have no e-mailed public comments for this item. Thank you. We'll move on to item 10, which are committee reports. Housing authority, there are any questions of staff or moving right along here. So no commissioners questions of staff or any public comments. Seeing no public comment in chambers, are there any public comment on Zoom? Chair Owen, there are no hands raised on Zoom. Thank you. Any e-mail public comments? Chair Owen, we have no e-mailed public comments for this item. Thank you. We will now move to item 11, which is executive director of communication items. Good afternoon, Chair Owen and members of the housing authority. I am pleased to announce that we have a new employee who started today, Coy Stewart. Coy is waving to you. So you'll see Coy in front of you in the future. He is a program specialist in the housing trust. Also, as Kate indicated on her financial briefing, our home art funding is out for proposals and these are funds that were provided to us in a one-time funding round that are specifically to provide services for homeless individuals. So we anticipate having applications selected and taking those forward for contract award in November with services expected to start in early 2024. Staff has been very busy leasing up various projects. As I'm sure you're aware, we've had quite a number of projects under construction in the last year and a half to two years. Those are beginning to lease up. So recently we celebrated the opening of Caritas homes, phase one, which is 64 units in downtown Santa Rosa. In late October, I anticipate there being a grand opening celebration for Laurel at Perennial Park, which is the site of the former journeys in Mobile Home Park. That's phases one and two, which are beginning their lease up. Phase one is being occupied. And then staff is also working on the former gold coin motel, which is known as St. Vincent de Paul Commons. That will be a permanent support of housing complex. And we hope to see that project begin occupancy in October or November. Also included in the report is the monthly update to the pipeline. So as has been our practice, you'll see projects that are completed within the last 24 months. So we've had some move off of that, but we've also had a handful of projects that have completed and are leasing up. And that includes some projects which have density bonus agreements. And so that means that the housing authority has not provided funding to the project, but we do have restricted units. The first one, Stony Oaks, which is off of Stony Point Road. This is an entirely affordable project. It received tax credits, but we have the density bonus. So we are only monitoring 15 of the 142 units in that project. So that concludes my presentation. I'd be happy to answer any questions. Any questions from commissioners? No, I'm not seeing any. Again, the comments I always have on this and Megan, thank you for bringing this up. Stony Oaks is a perfect example where you've got numbered units 142, but number of affordable units is 15, which only represents the density bonus that the housing authority is required to monitor. However, the entire project, I assume it's probably a manager's unit. So it's probably 141 units that are affordable. And between the DR funds available, both in CDBG DR and also 9% tax credit DR is the amount of units going up for multi-family or affordable or more than I have seen in my almost 30 years living in Santa Rosa. This is all excellent news in terms of being able to take care of rena numbers and also being able to take care of the housing needs for the community. Any other questions? Okay, I'm not seeing any. I'm going to open it up for any public comment. My name is Gregory Farron. Again, I want to take the opportunity that Megan's handed us by using the word affordable. We've all seen affordable from different lens and different views. I've chided a couple of developers who think that their projects are all affordable because they get down to 80% of median income. From the point of view of homeless, 80% of annual median income is not affordable at all. So I guess what I'm telling you is that I'm going to be chiming in every once in a while to remind us that HUD has a definition of affordability, and as Megan and others have told you, it's somewhere down around 50% or maybe even 30%. So when we carelessly say affordable, I want us to remember that it has different impact on those listening. I would love to see a standard that said you couldn't use the word affordable unless it was, by some definition, affordable. I look at 30% as affordable, I look at maybe 50%. HUD has always said we shouldn't be paying more than 50% of our income for housing. But when it gets up to 60 and 70 and 80% of median income and sometimes 100, and people are using the word affordable, I know what it means to a developer to say our units are affordable, but it's wrong and we shouldn't allow it. Thank you. Thank you. Any other public comment? Any public comment on Zoom? Chair Owen, I'm seeing no hands raised on Zoom. Thank you. Any email public comment? Chair Owen, there are no email public comments for this item. Thank you. We'll go ahead and move on to item 12, which is a consent item. And when consent items are brought to court, the staff provide presentations to the commissioners. If there are no objections with a motion and second, the Housing Authority commissioners can take a single vote on all consent items on the agenda after public comments. Are there any questions from commissioners on what's going on with the resolution? This is for the PEP housing for vigil light senior apartments project here in Santa Rosa. Not seeing any commissioner questions. Do we have any public comment? No public comment here in chambers. How about Zoom? Chair Owen, there are no hands raised on Zoom. Thank you. How about any email public comments? We have no email public comments for this item. Jeff Burke, we need to have a motion. So is there a motion to approve the resolution? Anyone to commissioners? I move to approve it. Thank you. Is there a second? I'll second. Thank you. So now we go to a vote. Okay, one moment. Okay, we'll now take a vote on this resolution. We will start with Commissioner Smith. Aye. And then Vice Chair LePenna. Aye. Commissioner Newton. Aye. Commissioner Friedman. Aye. Commissioner Acante. Aye. And Chair Owen. Aye. Okay. That motion passes with six ayes with Commissioner Downey absent. Thank you. We'll move on to report item 13. Again, I don't, there's no, are we, there's no, is there a presentation? There is a presentation. So item 13 is a modification to prior housing authority resolutions to change the borough entity and to allow additional uses for the funds to incorporate pre-development. Nicole Delphi-Orentino, Housing Community Services Manager, and Julie Guerin will be making, program specialists will be making this presentation. Good afternoon commissioners. Again, my name is Julie Guerin. I'm a program specialist with housing and community services. Today, the first report item is a modification for prior resolutions for Burbank Avenue Apartments to change the borrower entity from Waterstone Residential LLC and WSA Burbank Housing Partners LP to BHDC Burbank Ave LLC buy-in through Burbank Housing Development Corporation and to allow pre-development as an eligible use for local and state funds. So the developer of Burbank Avenue Apartments is a partnership between BHDC Burbank Ave, a limited liability company, and also a subsidiary of Burbank Housing Development Corporation, BHDC, a California nonprofit, and Waterstone Residential LLC. The project, I'm sure you guys are familiar with, is a new construction 64-unit multi-family affordable housing project with a 25% set aside for households at risk of homelessness. The affordability mix for Burbank Avenue Apartments ranges from 20 to 60% AMI, and the project also has 16 Section 8 project-based vouchers. The CEQA Environmental Review is complete, and currently the NEPA Environmental Assessment is open to public comment. So it's in its public comment period, which will be ending on October 5th. The current slide shows an aerial photograph of the project site, which is located at 1780 Burbank Avenue in the Roseland area. The 2.06 acre lot is currently vacant. This slide shows a mock-up of what the development will look like, and the project will have 21 bedrooms, 25-2 bedrooms, and 18-3 bedroom units. So the table in this slide outlines all of the prior housing authority awards made to Burbank Avenue Apartments. The date the award was made, the resolution number, the entity awarded, the source of funds, and the amount of the award. And the housing authority has been working towards moving this project forward since June of 2020, as evidenced by the six awards previously made. The housing authority has awarded the project a total of 16 project-based vouchers and $13,184,325 in loan funds from various different federal, state, and local sources. So the proposed modification today, the developer's ownership structure has evolved over time, and the housing authority funding awards were made to different borrower entities during that timeframe. So both BHDC, which is Burbank Housing Development Corporation and Waterstone, have requested modifications to the prior housing authority awards to change the entity to BHDC Burbank Avenue LLC by and through Burbank Housing Development Corporation and to allow pre-development costs as an eligible use for permanent local housing allocation or PLHA and local funds. BHDC Burbank Ave LLC is wholly owned by Burbank Housing Development Corporation, a California non-profit corporation, and a well-known local developer. So through the proposed modification, BHDC will be taking over the development activities and assuming the loan and contract obligations by and through its subsidiary entity BHDC Burbank Avenue LLC. BHDC is an experienced non-profit developer with the capacity and knowledge to successfully fulfill this new role. I'm sure the housing authority is very familiar with Burbank Housing. By changing the borrower entity to BHDC Burbank Avenue LLC, Waterstone Residential will be removed from the ownership structure. However, Waterstone will remain in the project as a consultant and provide support through construction completion. Due to future tax obligations to the project, if Waterstone remains in the ownership structure, it is financially beneficial to the project to modify the entity. Aligning the housing authority awards under the same entity, BHDC Burbank Ave LLC by and through BHDC will maintain administrative consistency and funding agreements and reduce a future tax obligation to the project. Another benefit of this modification is that the approval would allow the project to include pre-development related costs as eligible uses and allowing the project, which would allow the project to draw down the funds and begin construction more quickly. It is recommended by the Housing and Community Service Department that the Housing Authority by Resolution modify Housing Authority Resolution 1694-1704-1707 1707, 1731, 1743, and 1759 to change borrower entity for the prior commitments for Burbank Avenue Apartments from Waterstone Residential LLC and WSA Burbank Housing Partners 1 LP to BHDC Burbank Ave LLC by and through Burbank Housing Development Corporation and allow pre-development related costs as an eligible use of funds. Thank you. Thank you. Any commissioner questions? Mr. Newton? I appreciate it. I'm not a lawyer or banker. I know there's maybe some on this board, but it sounds to me like this isn't going to affect the project in any material way. It's more of a change in the ownership structure for tax-related purposes, and that will be beneficial overall to the project. Is that accurate? That is correct. Okay. It's been a while since our briefing on the different funding sources and their associated rules, but the pre-development costs are those currently not authorized for PLHA and local funds, and this would be a change to that? Is that correct? Yeah, that's correct. The PLHA awards and the local funding awards were previously for construction-related costs only. Pre-development are an eligible use of those funds in general. We just did not identify that in those resolutions, so this is just allowing that eligible use for those two funding sources. Okay. Thanks. Appreciate it. Any other commissioner questions? So I have a question that, knowing all the layering because this project is shown up on Housing Authority many times, as you can see through the resolutions, the push over that got it funded was the accelerator funds that came from the state. Is that also being transferred over to the new entity name? So the accelerator funds will flow through the CDBG DR loan documents and through those estoppel agreements with those DR funds. So we will have all of the loan documents changed to reflect the new entity name. I just want to make sure that everything is consistent. And Jeff Berks, as we know that these projects, funding sources go toward the project and then there's an ownership name assigned to the project. Is there precedent that the Housing Authority has done this in the past to change an owner name, even though all the funds are still going in the same project? Either Megan or Jeff? I know we've done it in the past. I can't think of a recent example because in the last couple of years we've been very focused on a lot of our DR projects, but there have been instances where projects have changed their entity. And I just would tag on to what Nicole said in that the accelerator funds do have a very tight timeline and they are currently in the process of working on the closing of all the funding sources. So that's why this is before you today is all that the lenders are meeting on I think a weekly basis to walk through the various aspects of the deal and make sure that everything is aligned in order to close and fund. Okay, thank you. Any other questions from commissioners? Not seeing any other public comment. Good afternoon, commissioners. Peter Skellinger, Waterstone Residential. Just wanted to say thank you very much again for all your support. Both Jocelyn and from Burbank Housing and I are here if you have any further questions about the technical aspects of this request. But if not, thanks very much. We appreciate you being very patient. We're almost to the finish line here and thanks again for the support. Thank you. Any other public comments and chambers? Seeing none, are there any Zoom questions? Comments. Chair Owen, I'm seeing no hands raised on Zoom. Any email comments? Chair Owen, there are no email public comments for this item. Okay, thank you. I'd like to close public comment on this issue and I'm looking for a motion for the resolution. Any of the commissioners? Thank you. Is there a second? Second. Thank you. I ask the clerk for a roll call vote. So we have a motion from Commissioner Friedman and a second from Commissioner Smith. When I do a roll call vote on this resolution, we will start with Commissioner Friedman and then Commissioner Smith. Aye. Commissioner Newton. Aye. Commissioner Conte. Aye. Vice Chair LePenna. Aye. And Chair Owen. Aye. Okay. That motion passes with six ayes with Commissioner Downey absent. Thank you very much. It's good to see this project keep going. Get some sticks in the air. We'll move to item 13.2, which is the Down Payment Assistance Loan Program. So item 13.2 will be presented by Angela Morgan, Program Specialist and Nicole Delphi-Orentino, Housing and Community Services Manager. All right. Good afternoon, Housing Authority commissioners. Nicole Delphi-Orentino here with Angela Morgan. We are going to go over our Down Payment Assistance Loan Program. Now this is the first time this item has been before the Housing Authority Board. So just bear with us. We're going to give you a little bit more background than typical for these types of programs. Today we are seeking authorization for the Executive Director to execute loan and program-related documents. So if we're going back to July 2020, the City received a $95 million settlement from the PG&E lawsuit from the 2017 Tubbs Fire. From that settlement in February 2022, and over time between the two years, the City Council allocated funds for various uses from that settlement funds. $2 million was appropriated by City Council to establish a Down Payment Assistance Program from those funds. Since then, the staff has been working to develop the program per the City Council's direction. A brief overview. So for the borrowers, this is for our first-time homebuyers that are at 120% of area median income or less. This is moderate income. They must be Santa Rosa residents and have lived inside city limits for the past three years. The borrowers must complete a homebuyer education course and that there's a minimum Down Payment contribution that they must contribute of 1% of the sales price of the home that they are looking for. For the property, the maximum price established by CARDATA, which is the California Association of Realistars, the property must be within Santa Rosa city limits, must pass an inspection, it will require an appraisal, and this is eligible for a handful of different home types, including single-family residences, condos, co-op units, duplexes, townhouses, and manufacturer homes if the borrower also owns the land. Regarding the loan specifically, the loan can be up to 10% of the purchase price or $75,000, whichever is greater. 3% simple interest on these deferred payment 30-year term loans, which become due upon sale, refinance with a cash out, a default, or at the end of that 30-year term. There is an owner occupancy requirement for this program, so the owner must live on site. They cannot rent out the property. With this program, there are a handful of loan documents and program documents that staff has developed. There will be an owner occupancy agreement, a promissory note, a writer to the deed of trust, support nation agreements, and program guidelines. As far as timeline goes, we have held educational webinars with the lending community at the end of August. Public marketing and outreach began earlier this month. We have an upcoming potential buyer meeting that's going to be held this Wednesday on the 27th at 6 p.m. at 35 Stony Point Road, which is the Utilities Field Office building. It is an online webinar with an option to view at that in-person location if folks would like. We will start accepting applications on October 2nd, which is a Monday at 8 a.m. Our public-facing counter also opens at 8 a.m., so we will receive paper and electronic applications. This is a first-come-first-serve program, so we will receive applications and reserve funds until all of the funds are expended. Simultaneously, with the rollout of this program, Burbank Housing Development Corporation is also rolling out a similar down payment assistance program for Sonoma County. So they are using a Cal Home program that they have been awarded about $14 million for. Their program is slightly different than ours. They can help with up to 100,000-dollar loans, and they do not have the requirements that folks live inside Santa Rosa City Limits. It's a county-wide program, focusing mostly on folks at 80% of area median income with up to 120% of area median income for folks who are directly fire affected. We are doing joint outreach to the lender and buyer communities and to the borrower communities, so Wednesday's meeting will be a joint webinar between City and Burbank staff. Our D-POW program for eligible buyers can be layered with the counties, with Burbank's program, so that's up to $175,000 for down payment assistance for folks who are qualified for both programs. So that's the overview of this new program. We are seeking authorization for the Executive Director to execute those documents, which is why we're here for you today. Our recommendation, it is recommended by the Housing and Community Services Department that the Housing Authority by Resolution authorize the Executive Director to execute loan and program-related documents for the down payment assistance loan program. Angela Morgan and I are here to answer any questions that you may have. Thank you for your presentation. Are there any questions from commissioners? Let's start with Commissioner Conti. Yeah, on the owner occupancy, how long does that generally last? So that is a requirement for the term of the loan. I'm sorry. For the term of the loan for the 30-year term. The 30-year term? Okay. Okay. And does the property ever revert back to market rate housing in the life of the property itself? Sure. So these are assistance loans to that borrower that is secured against the property with the deed of trust. So should the owner decide to sell, the loan would be repaid to the Housing Authority and it can be sold without resale restriction requirements. Commissioner Newton. Appreciate it again. How is the max price set? Is there a max price for this? The maximum sales price of the homes or the loan price. The sales price of the homes are listed on the California Association of Realtors website or CAR data. That's a website where they update the median sales price for Sonoma County every month. August was just published at I believe 850,000 as the medium. So that would be our maximum. All right. You guys have an estimate of how many folks you think are going to be able to take advantage of this? Sure. So we have a $2 million total for the program. If everybody is utilizing the full 75,000, that's around 26 households. So we would anticipate anywhere from 26 to 30 to benefit from this initial offering. And then over time, as the loans are repaid, those funds would come back into the Housing Authority and we would be able to roll out a second wave of the program. This is an interesting program. I'm just curious, did you guys take any other programs from anywhere else and sort of use them as a model for developing your own rules? Not to take anything away from any of them. I'm just curious. We have done assistance programs similar to this in the past. This is very closely modeled after the Cal Home Program, which is a state level. And that's also why it pairs so well with the Burbank Housing Program that's being rolled out as well. Thanks a lot. Commissioner Freedman, did you have any questions? Okay. Commissioner Smith? Yeah, I was just curious why the City Council thought helping 26 people is going to make a big difference, number one. I would hope in coming up with this program, they were doing enough to build middle-class housing in the city. I don't know how successful they are. If you want to get people in home ownership, things like condominiums are probably the best first step. I've been in real estate and then people can, over time, you know, sell and take their equity out. I'm just wondering what's driving this to use $2 million. It doesn't look like it's going to be making a big impact. Are they trying to help build more middle-class housing with condominiums? I don't see a lot of condominiums in this city, just single-family houses and townhouses for the most part, at least where I live. Thank you. So I'll interject. This project, as was indicated on the slides, started back in July of 2020. And so when the city received its PG&E settlement funds, there was an emphasis on using those funds to create opportunities that would spark generational change and have an impact on residents. So allowing individuals who are up to median income to become first-time home buyers, although a small amount will make an impact on those households, the city also used a portion of the PG&E settlement funds to create a baby bond program to help provide funding for college opportunities for some residents of our community. They've also put funds into a guaranteed basic income program. So it was part of a suite of programs that were intended to help improve the lives of Santa Rosa residents. So certainly if we can gain some traction with this first round of down payment assistance and any loan repayments, it could expand in the future. There aren't currently funds that are earmarked to provide additional funding. But I think this is a good step in assisting a population that we don't normally assist with our resources. Any other commissioner questions? So I have a few. So this is going to be going at once. The maximum sales price is the median priced home, correct? Slide five just has a maximum established by car data. It didn't talk about it being median priced. So that will cap it. The home buyer is going to have to qualify for their loan, so the income qualify for that. And then the particular down payment loan, there's no payments until the loan, until the house sells. They sell the house and they have to stay in the house. If they are owner occupied and rent the house, what happens to the loan? Is it called? That would be a default under the terms of the loan. So you have to live on site. So that would be a default provision that would probably have a cure period and then allow them to, and then they only do upon sale, refinance with cash out, default, or end of 30 year term. So the, and it's going to be subordinate to any bank loan or purchase loan they have on that. So it actually, from a bank standpoint, it walks and talks like equity in the house. Okay. And if we're looking at somebody moving into a home using these funds, the $2 million as we discussed, well, it's nice that it's there and it's, and it wasn't there before. $2 million is not going to go that many buyers and it doesn't look like this money's going to churn very much because say somebody, everybody stays in the house for five years, this money's, and it all goes out at once. We're not going to see any money come back. What happens when the money gets repaid? Is it go back into, is there a provision to, it goes into the same program? Because it doesn't look like the program is designed to churn money very, very much. Yeah. As loans are repaid, that would be going back into the housing authority's budget as a revolving loan fund. So as we would accumulate enough of our, what we call program income through loan repayments, we would then redeploy their program as we have sufficient balance to assist another handful of homeowners. So if a repayment comes back into the loan repayment pool, that doesn't, as I understand it doesn't necessarily mean it would go back out for down payment assistance. Is that correct? Or is it, is this set up that any loan repayment goes back out as down payment assistance? The intention is that it would go back out as down payment assistance. So we would use this, this particular tranche funding as a revolving loan fund. So when we get repayments, we would then solicit for additional home buyers to redeploy those funds. So it doesn't just go back into the loan repayment pool. It's not going to go into the general, and all of our, just to, this may be more detail, but all of our funds are separated by funding type. So we do track them based on their source. And we would know that any repayments came from this particular program. Perfect. So I want to make sure that the funds, when they do come back, and again, if somebody stays in the house for five years, it's not going to be back in the pool. But when it does come back in, perfect, thank you very much. Any other commissioner questions? I want to open it up for public comment. Gregory Farron again. I believe that government every once in a while needs to be creative and imaginative and innovative. And as Megan described, the monies that fund this were a part of a package when, as you remember, PG&E money was available, ARPA money was available for both the city and the county. Almost $130 million was allocated in a very short period of time. I served on the review committee for the county for its ARPA and our $39 million was put out very creatively. I encourage this program to do its best to meet its hopes and expectations because I think we need to say to our own citizens every once in a while, we're going to try something new. We're going to do something that may not have a giant impact, but it shows that we've still got some spark and we're looking at the things that we don't often get the chance to do with straight government money, but when some free, relatively unrestricted money comes down the pike, we're going to stretch a little and we're going to do some good. Thank you very much. Thank you. Do we have any Zoom comments? Chair Ohn, I'm seeing no hands raised on Zoom. Thank you. Any email comments? Chair Ohn, we have no email public comments for this item. Thank you very much. So this does require a vote, so I'm looking for a motion from any of the commissioners. Commissioner LePenna, is there a second? I'll second. Commissioner Conti. No, I think we haven't been reading the motion. We'll go ahead and go for a vote. I'll take a vote on this resolution. We will start with Vice Chair LePenna. Aye. And then Commissioner Conti. Aye. Commissioner Smith. Aye. Commissioner Newton. Aye. Commissioner Friedman. Aye. Chair Ohn. Aye. Okay. This motion passes with six ayes, with Commissioner Downey absent. Thank you very much. And we will move to the last item, which is number 14, which is an adjournment. Thank you very much, staff, for putting together a great presentation as always on all items. And thank you commissioners for your time and energy. Appreciate it.