Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. You guys are suffering. Good afternoon. Let's call the meeting to order. Good afternoon. Let's call this meeting to order. Sacramento City Council slash housing authority. Please call the roll. Thank you, Mayor. Councillor Member Kaplan is expected to move in terribly. Councillor Member Dickinson is expected momentarily by Senator Talumentes. Councillor Member Dickinson. Councillor member Dickinson has arrived. Council member Plecki-Bombs expected momentarily. Council member Maple. Mayor Pro Tem Gatta. Council member Jennings. Council member Vang. And Mayor McCarty. Here. You have a quorum. Thank you. Council member Talamante's, can you lead us in the pledge and land, Saladjima? All right. All right. Please rise for the OPEA acknowledgements and honor Sacramanists, Indigenous People, and tribal lands. To the original people of this land, the Nisanan people, the southern Maidu, Valiant Plains, Meawab, Patwin, Windtune peoples, and the people of the Wilton Ranch Rhea, Sacraman was only federally recognized by. May we acknowledge and honor the native people who came before us and still walk beside us today on these ancestral lands by choosing to gather together today in the act of practice of acknowledgement and appreciation for Sacramento's indigenous people history, contributions and lives. Thank you. Sillit? Ledge. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it do not have a consent calendar. Item number is Central Sacramento studios phase two approval to execute final loan documents in the amount of 7.8 million Good afternoon mayor and city council members Whitton Hinton with Housing redevelopment agency. Staff is requesting approval of final loan documents of the local housing trust fund, housing trust fund, and HAPA funds totaling $7.8 million for the new construction of central Sacramento studios face to project. The Sutterhouse Motel located at 1100 H Street was rehabilitated into central Sacramento studios. the Central Sacramento Studios Phase 2 project. The Sutterhouse Motel located at 1100 H Street was rehabilitated into Central Sacramento Studios I. A permanent supportive housing project with 92 units for formerly homeless residents. The project opened in November of 2023. The new construction modular project is the second phase of the project. Post-imolution of the former vacant restaurant, the project will until a mid-rise five-story building with 52 units total, including 35 studios and 17 one bedrooms. There will be one managers unit. Ammonities on site will include a multi-purpose room, fitness room, bicycle storage, common room kitchen, laundry room, on each floor, dog parts and roof terrace. Parking space and other amenities such as a pool will be shared between the two phases. Additionally, the project is the homeless development with 51 project-based vouchers. Danco communities developed the first phase of the project and is the developer for the second phase. Danco Property Management Group is their approved property management company. Lifesteps will be the resident service provider for the project. They will provide 15 hours of resident services which will include development support, education classes, and job search assistance. Lifesteps will also be providing supportive services with one and a half full-time equivalent case managers to provide more targeted services for formerly homeless residents. In closing, staff is recommending approval of the final loan documents for the new construction of Central Sacramento Studios, Phase 2, and staff is available to answer any questions you may have. Public comment? Thank you, Mayor. I have one speaker, Mack Worthy. I have been coming a long time. I have never asked you over nothing. When I see my language, I recognize. I am the only Negro student here in talk about a trust fund. A lot of you put in out here now. A trust fund is too late. You're lucky to have, you're lucky to have about 18,000 dollars a month gross income after a trust fund. You can borrow that a six, but you got to pay for it. You pay for it, you know, to keep the money, back bone, the back kickback coming out, you see, you can't go along and give people $10,000 an hour instead of your property managers. They're just there. Can any of these people leave as they should already and go with color bankers? Hell no. You're just there. Those little jobs created, you can't own a million dollar dollar house Get out of there get your real estate license and Understand equity in property go to a group of people and they utilize that equity in Property and get your broker to probably it that's from 50,000 to 200,000 each and You build the project and then once it's accepted, you got different ends coming to you. And the lean is lifted off of your property. Line something about real estate. Don't just sit here and say, well, oh, I got a job. In most of the job, people go and ask for loans here. You're gonna go right back to a bond. Bonds, bonds. Well, with the stuff in the paper that somebody got $3 million for allowing with, how that corruption, who signed off on those loans? Somebody better wake up here, people, because you are lying to the public. If you're comments, Mary, have no more speakers on the side of. Okay, thank you. Questions or comments from council members? Councilmember Dickinson. I just have a thank you, Mayor. I just curious. This phase two is all the units with the exception of the manager unit are designated for those at out or below 30% of AMI. I'm just curious on the part that has been converted and opened the old motel, how's the motel, is that also all units at that same income level? That is correct. It's interesting, I mean, I support this, but my experience tells me that having a mix of income, even in affordable projects, 100% affordable projects is a desirable thing to do. So it would be preferable to me if there was some mix of income levels, but this project is a good project. So I hope for future projects we'll keep in mind mixed income to the extent possible. I know it's easier to get funding for 100% affordable and at the lower end when we're talking about state money. But one of the objectives to me with housing in general affordable housing particular is to get Economic integration and neighbourhoods. So while it's housing is a primary objective, If we keep people isolated by their economic status, That has other ramifications to it that I think are not Necessarily desirable. So especially in that particular location, Or spend a fair amount desirable. So, especially in that particular location and spend a fair amount of time over my life, it would be good to bring some economic integration to that general vicinity. But we are where we are. But thanks for the answer. Councillor Meher, plucky bond. I'll move steps recommendation. Motion a second. No further questions from council members. All in favor please say aye. Aye. Any noes or abstentions? None. Measure passes 8-0. Next item. Item number 2 is the Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency SHA Workshop, Affordable Housing Policy and Funding Impacts. Good afternoon, Mayor McCarty, Council Members, Kishibol Wear with SHA. At the end of last year, Executive Director Dozier outlined projected reductions in the 2025 Federal Housing Budget. Council requested that we report back in early 2025 on the potential impacts to S-H-R-A and what steps could be taken to minimize our minimize harm to our programs and services. So we now, in fact, know that Congress approved a You're going to be a little bit more. taken to minimize our minimized harm to our programs and services. So we now in fact know that Congress approved a continuing resolution last month to largely keep federal funding flat at 2024 levels. With inflation still above the federal reserve's target rate and Sacramento's average rent remaining at its post-COVID highs, the agency's funding shortfalls will be exacerbated. The skyrocketing rents will lead to the sunset of the emergency housing voucher program in 2026 instead of 2030 as originally projected and the federal administration has suggested to look for a 10 to 15% reduction in 2026's budget. At the state level there is not a commitment to use or replenish general obligation bond financing to support affordable housing production. There is however a proposal to create a statewide housing and homelessness agency. Within this landscape, SHRA will adjust accordingly and continue to lean on the strength of its JPA structure that promotes collaboration between the City and county of Sacramento. SHRA has weathered significant external challenges through its history, and I'd like to provide a brief retrospective to provide context for where we find ourselves today. Starting in 2008, the nation was in the midst of the foreclosure crisis, and S.H.R.A. pivoted to deploy neighborhood stabilization program funds. And yet we continue to think strategically and conducted our first asset repositioning study to determine the feasibility of a comprehensive rehabilitation of our public housing portfolio. As a result, SHRA was well positioned to take advantage of the rental assistance demonstration or RAD program upon its creation by HUD three years later. The RAD program functions to address urgent capital needs in the nation's deteriorating public housing portfolio, currently estimated between 50 and 100 billion dollars. 2012 brought one of the biggest blows to our agency with the state's dissolution of redevelopment. This resulted in a 25% reduction in staff and a loss of 55 million in annual funding. Blow by blow, 2013, brought federal sequestration and SHRA used furloughs and reduced pay to minimize service disruption. The agency stood prepared with a plan to further downsize if needed. Fortunately next the following year's sequestration was ruled back and SHRA shifted toward financing more multi-family apartments to extend its reach to more households. This was also the year that we completed our first high-rise rehabilitation in conversion from a public housing platform to a public private partnership. Fast forward to 2017, and we see national housing policy priorities shift to address the growing homelessness crisis. At the direction of the city and county, SHRA also updated its financing guidelines. This was the year SHRA completed its first rad conversion. 2020 brought us a global pandemic, and S.H.R.A. experienced a precipitous drop in tenant payments and was subject to eviction moratoriums. However, the agency staffed up to create the Sacramento Emergency Rental Assistance Program, helping 18,000 families across the region remain housed. We also open three homeless shelters, leading to serving nearly 2,900 unique individuals, and facilitating 1,300 exits to housing. Emerging from the pandemic in 2020, SHRA shifted to recovery mode, addressing maintenance backlogs and our public housing portfolio. We focused on keeping existing tenants housed in the HCV program and the face of skyrocketing rents. HUD in fact directed housing authorities to stop issuing new vouchers in early 2024 to cover this shortfall. In spite of it all, we've had tremendous success in permanent supportive housing production using new state funding sources like Homekey and serving the unhoused with establishing preferences in our programs. Next we're going to run through a series of slides that demonstrate the impact of the city's housing policies over the last 10 years. For each of the data sets, we took a snapshot in time for 2014 in blue, 2019 in orange, and 2024 in gray as a proxy for the time period. In 2014, S.H.R.A. was able to pull folks up from the wait list exclusively, but in 2016, modified its regulations to allow for priority referrals for the unhoused. SHRA used this tool locally and we can see in both the HCV and public housing programs we are making progress with the intended population. Conversely, we are serving fewer families children and a greater proportion of one and two person households. Next, the chart to the left illustrates the current HCV shortfall. You will see that while the average subsidy per voucher increased 110% in 10 years, the total number of vouchers available only increased by 6.3%. Put bluntly, because rent increases have far surpassed income growth, SHRA is dispersing twice as much money to serve almost the same number of people. The chart to the right illustrates the impact in public housing. Over the last five years, the average amount due from families at MoveOut has increased nearly tenfold. And true, while 75% of the 2024 figure is attributable to unpaid rent from the pandemic, the portion of the cost related to repairs to damaged units has grown 1.4 times since 2019. This reflects both deferred maintenance due to the inability to access units during the pandemic, an additional wear and tear we've noticed with households re-acclamating to living inside. The next two slides will analyze how the city and county policy shifts have impact in multi-family housing lending and production. Our policies prioritize three main categories of development. First, preservation. That's existing affordable housing that is at risk of loss due to expiring title restrictions or obsolescence. Next is recapitalization. This is also existing affordable housing. But it needs additional funds to either rehabilitate or stabilize the property in exchange for additional years of affordability. And finally, new construction with a creation of new units through ground up construction, adaptive reuse, or motel conversions. Pre-2019, there was more balance between supporting existing affordable housing and financing new construction. And this era, our new construction efforts focused on workforce housing, which serves households earning between 30 and 60% of the area median income or roughly between 35,000 and 70,000 for a family of four. We were promoting new construction and higher income census tracts and focusing on transit oriented development. After the 2019 policy shift, new construction increased in priority and the focus was more towards serving the unhoused. Again, it should be noted that these charts represent a snapshot in time and that in 2024, nearly half of the new construction units represented were motel conversions. Of the new construction units that SHRI financed, you can see a shift over the tinier look back period to serving extremely low income households, meaning an individual earning no more than $25,000 annually or about $35,000 for a family of four. This was made possible due to a heavy reliance on project-based vouchers where the subsidy is tied to a specific physical location. HUD allows housing authorities to a lot 30% of its vouchers to project-based developments. SHRA is currently at 28.7%. Another impact from the policy shift is that we are now financing more studios in one bedrooms as opposed to a more diverse mix of one to three bedroom unit sizes. A significant external driver to this change was also the shift in the statewide tax exempt Bond Financing Program over the counter program to competitive awards. This created a greater reliance on state HCD programs that also prioritized extremely low income households. By serving the formerly unhoused and ELI households, developments operating costs have increased significantly due to higher service needs. Ultimately, that leaves less excess cash flow to pay back SHRA loans or short up reserves. Today, SHRA's typical loan contribution to a new development has grown to $10 million per project. I'd like to note that this year in January, there was a request from the development community for $39 million in financing. in 2025 the city only had $6 million and the county 10.6 million in new funding to meet that need. As a result of both the statewide and local policies shift toward serving the unhoused, The good news is that Sacramento has had success in reducing homelessness. Thanks to the efforts of Sacramento's collaborative houses, advocates, government officials, and organizations like Sacramento steps forward, there was a 29% reduction between 2022 and 2024 in the point-in-time count. We have exceeded our affordable housing plan goals set by the city and county for both permanent supportive housing and affordable housing production. The not-so-great news is that the demand for subsidy financing is ever increasing and the competition for those dollars is generating housing types that are less diverse and more costly to operate and regulate. S.H.R.A. is a dynamic organization that uses its levers to support housing stability and Sacramentorameno. It is a balance of keeping those who are housing insecure in their homes and moving the unhoused back into housing. Our housing preservation efforts include reducing rent burdens through programs like rapid and rehousing funds and rental subsidies, ensuring existing affordable housing remains secure and well maintained, and both public housing and our portfolio of SHRA finance developments. The challenge as we've discussed is insufficient funding and prioritization for preservation and or recapitalization at the state tax credit and tax exempt bond programs. With new construction we've had success with permanent supportive housing but we also need new affordable housing units for families within a range of incomes so that they can remain and thrive in Sacramento. Challenges to new construction are increasing costs for land, infrastructure, materials and labor, and rising operational cost. We anticipate the levels of uncertainty will continue and increase in the near term, stemming in part to the priorities of the new presidential administration. New international tariffs and buy America contract requirements will increase the cost of construction materials. Corporate tax cuts will reduce the demand for low-income tax credits, resulting in less equity contributed to affordable housing projects. The approach to immigration reform and deportations will increase labor costs for the construction trades, and the current efforts to shrink government, unfortunately, will leave agencies without crucial institutional knowledge and know how. And we're seeing this through line already at HUD. HUD is focused on promoting self-sufficiency of its beneficiaries with proposed work requirements. Yet we know that approximately 60% of public housing residents are elderly or disabled and many other households are include in adults caring for young children. HUD is promoting the consolidation of housing authorities and fortunately with our joint powers authority structure. S-H-R-A is well positioned, but we should be prepared to consider HUD mandates to extend our reach. And just this past Friday, HUD announced its initiative to restrict federal housing benefits to U.S. citizens. SHRA does serve mixed status families where benefits are pro-rated for non-citizens, but there is a risk that entire households could be removed from our programs. SHRA is well equipped to manage this uncertainty and both address the urgent matters at hands and advance strategic initiatives. As a path forward, SHRA will continue to support the Housing Choice Voucher Program by refraining from issuing new vouchers and closely monitoring payment standards. We will continue to identify opportunities to diversify revenue sources, including continuing our rad conversions and the development of new housing through dispositions. We will look to increase leverage of our limited housing funds and investigate ways to balance the preservation of existing affordable housing and the development of new homes. The agency can only do this with the continued collaboration between the city and county. One truth, however, is that for filling our mission requires dollars. And we ask with that for consideration of a local housing bond and support for the statewide initiative for a $10 billion general obligation housing bond. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Do we have public comment? Can you, Mary, have four speakers? The first is Mac Worthy, nor CalSour, Michael Melton, then Jonathan Cook. Dixon, you're gonna have a ride. Just don't fall off the horse. People, is this anything other than a workshop? See, a workshop is a two-sided figure. I always see his shots. Nobody said how much money that the city bringing in a property tax. On property tax, whereas the figure that the city is collecting property tax of the Loan Colhousen. Now, we know developers involved. What is the split between private and the city on income tax? Tell us. Actually, all these shots, you know, I do that. Per building, you guys stuff going on in those buildings, it's education. Those things wasn't designed to educate, no dam, at Dustyville. But you put those things in there. And it's children. How many people in this city gets a check from the investments? Those are the things that encourage people to be in this city. When did you lose the fellow? It's when you went from patch in the neighborhood. The lady in the hax told them you're going to lose the pedal investigation. If you're done something, you've got no pedal investigation left. You're on a back for bonds and we ain't got enough money. You know, it's sad. It's sad to come to this point. That property where you are now, I know when that went in foreclosure. I had a friend contract from the seat, a contract up there. We were in the envelope night trying to get stuff out to be in them. Okay, when the city took over that, wouldn't have more property. Bail savings lost that property. But the city of Sacramento, when the money came in. Thank you for your comments. Nor, Cal Sauer. Following Nor is Michael Milton. Good afternoon, Council and Mayor. Norcoaster of the nonprofit of Fort Blashing developer EAH housing. We are focused on workforce, senior farm worker and permanent support of housing statewide, including here in Sacramento. EAH wanted to thank SHRA for their presentation today that provided a lot of provided a lot of good context to understand our city's housing successes, challenges, and opportunities ahead of us. I can't say that E.H. is sitting at a lot of tables similar to this, including at the Sacramento Housing Alliance in several state and national coalitions. We're all having the same conversation. We support S.H.R.A.'s recommendations for considering both a local funding measure and putting our full support behind the statewide housing bond. I want to note that EAH and many other developers are also not planning to abandon permanent supportive housing and the work that we've done to date to help people experiencing homelessness get back into housing. But we do need to find some sort of a balance to make sure we can continue that work and also consider how to properly operate those buildings when we are facing a shortfall vouchers and operating support. So we hope to work with you all on trying to figure out that balance. As the Sacramento Housing Alliance co-president, we're also to be having conversations with our local school districts some of our faith leaders Many of you and some other partners to figure out what we can do in that space So I hope we can use this opportunity to continue these Conversations and come up with a solution at the local level. Thank you Your comments Michael and Jonathan. Hello, I'm Michael Melton. I like to say that that's our S-HRA needs to be investigated. We need to know what happened to the money that the governor gave S-HRA last year for 2024. I was homeless in the shelter for six months last year. I'm still homeless today. I was told things would move faster. If I go through homeless shelter, I've been homeless since 2018. 2021, I was selected. Then they took me all for the selection list because I didn't get my paperwork in. And then when I came in here, now they say that they're going to start emailing things to the people who are homeless because if you're homeless, you don't have an address to get any paperwork to go to in the first place. Okay. So then we need to know what happened to the money, though. Last year, the governor gave Mary Lua like $5 million or $50 million or something like that. And then she took a vacation, like the next week she was on vacation. And this whole last year, 365 days for the last past year, HRA has been closed to the public. You cannot walk inside of there, you cannot make a walk in, you got to make an appointment and an appointment will be three weeks out. And then you'd be on the phone with them. I have screenshots here on my phone where I call HRA and you'll be waiting for two hours to talk to somebody on the phone. And the places, and they have no traffic going in there at all. So where is the money going to? People are sitting in there, nobody's getting apartments. I got selected February 14th, background check clear. It says offer selected, T for my team number my housing. And it's been fed since February and I still haven't got an ekege yet. Like where's the apartments, where's the housing? You guys need to track the money. Somebody's embezzling the money. That's all I need. Thank you for your comments. Jonathan Cook. Good afternoon, Jonathan Cook, executive director with the Sacramento Housing Alliance. We appreciate this presentation and partnership with us at the staff and the important work that they're doing and partnership with our many affordable housing developers and community to make sure that we're meeting the needs of low income residents in Sacramento. We want to make sure that we're continuing to prioritize resources for extremely low income residents as well as a permanent supportive housing as a solution to our unhoused population. We're supportive of a local funding measure for the city exploring all of those avenues, especially a permanent funding source for affordable housing in addition to supporting the state bond that we're going to see on the ballot. Hopefully next year. Thank you. Your comments? Vice mayor, I have no more speakers. Thank you so much. All right, so we will start with council comments. Councilmember Bojima. Thank you. I've got a list. How are the housing choice vouchers prioritized? When folks are getting on that list, how do we decide who goes first? First come for servers. Is there another process for establishing priority? Okay. Go ahead, Dr. Dozer. Yes. In terms of the housing to a voucher, there are separate lists for different wait lists. And they're prioritized based on preferences. The preference is for homeless. That was one of the council priorities. So those are the individuals who go to the top. their additional preferences based on rent burden, veteran status, things of that nature. As a percentage of the folks that were serving, do we know how many were previously homeless? Yes, absolutely. In fact, Mary Liz just walked back in at the most opportunity. Mary Liz is our assistant director over the housing choice voucher program. Yes. Good afternoon. And actually there was a slide here that showed how many of the folks that are coming into our program were previously homeless, but that is a preference. So we give priority to folks both within our housing choice voucher program and in public housing. our project-based voucher program and in public housing. In our project-based voucher program, and Kisha was talking about how many of the families or how many of the units we have that are we're adding, but many of those families are specifically homeless and the housing is targeted to serve specifically homeless. I'll begin the first presentation here for Central Sacramento Studios. It's specific. and the housing is targeted to serve specifically homeless. Like in the first presentation here for central Sacramento studios, it's specifically available for homeless families. So on that bar chart, your referencing, it shows about a little bit under 30% of folks were utilizing the housing choice boundary were previously homeless. Is there some sort of, like, is there a way for us to serve that population more? Is there something we can do different to help folks utilize those vouchers? So to be clear, those are the families who are currently being housed, but the families that are coming into housing right now are, I wanna say pretty exclusively homeless, and I'm saying that because as you heard, we're infall right now so we're not issuing vouchers generally to folks who need that and so the project-based vouchers are the only place that we can offer housing at this moment because of shortfall and again those are targeting homeless so that number will continue to grow as we continue to serve more and more. Using the housing choice voucher for those that have properties, is there a lease and place program, things where we're paying rental assistance, maybe something like street to housing or the Kelly and transitional rent, is there something like that that we can do? When we have vouchers available, we do have at lease and place preference or priority. So that folks don't have to move to be able to lease up and use a voucher. So again, that's on hold right now because of the shortfall. Last fall, when we were going through the shortfall with the housing choice vouchers, we're given an extension. Do we know how many folks were able to use the vouchers during that period of time? How many folks experiencing homelessness were not able to? Okay, so this is a test of my memory, but yes. We did house, it was over 50% of the folks. I want to say it was 70% of the folks who had vouchers, who at the time where we stopped giving the extensions were able to lease up and that's because we were working in a targeted manner with the families who had vouchers as well as working with the community service providers and really we're trying to assist those families who were homeless. And if you're a person experiencing homelessness, you lost a voucher during that time, you could be able to come back and still be prioritized towards the top of the list based on your- That's why we were trying to prioritize, again, in providing services when we went through that shortfall so that that didn't become an issue, so that we could help them get a unit before they lost the voucher. So at this point the families who don't have vouchers would go through the wait list or through one of the referral programs that we're talking about. How many unleased housing choice vouchers are there right now? 12,000? How many are over 12,000, yeah, about 12,500. What kind of assistance are we able to provide to folks as they're seeking housing units? Are we able to, when someone gets on that list and they've got a voucher assigned, are we able to help them? No. At this point, what happens if they have a voucher? work with a third party and very often there is a family who is working with one of our service provider partnering agencies and then they provide the housing assistance. And then on our website there is information about where folks can go to to be able to utilize their voucher. So we do that through education and through partnership as well. There's been a fair bit of discussion largely at the county board about inspections. Is there been any additional work to provide for the quality of the housing stock with landlord inspections and other tenant issues? We continue to work both to educate landlords and then we do, oops'm sorry, as you were mentioning, we do do an annual inspection with our properties. We do an inspection before the families move in. And then if there are issues, then we can do special inspections as well. Moving off housing choice vouchers for second just public housing. How many available units of public housing are there in the city? Does anyone like to even a ballpark number? 650, 1,650. Is there a referral process for someone signing up? Is there a way for how do folks find the housing? Is it beyond knowing someone like us, is there a way for us to help folks find that housing? Yes, similarly, there are wait lists, specifically for public housing. And so folks get on the wait list, and move ends are offered based on the preferences executive director Dozier mentioned. I'm sorry but there's a question can you walk in? Did I hear that? Yeah. Thank you. Is there, do we have data that shows where the people are who are previously homeless at admission, where they're coming from, if they're coming from different parts of the city, just off the street, shelter programs, other housing programs, do we do intake on our tenants that way? We do receive referrals. I don't know that we've dissected to that level of geography. You may ask, to set Hawkins to come to the front. Oh. we've dissected to that level of geography. You may ask Cicet Hawkins to come to the front. Oh, very less, sorry. Yes, and I can answer that. We coordinate centralized intake systems so that the HCV program oversees the intake for both public housing and HCV. So when families are coming off the waiting list, we do have information about where they're coming from. We don't generally track or report on that, but that is something I can get back to you on. So we do have the data. And then on project-based vouchers, can you tell us sort of what your expectation of the project availability would be in the future for project based vouchers. Can you tell us sort of what your expectation of project availability would be in the future for project based vouchers? Yes. So there is a regulatory limit that limits housing authorities to be able to project base up to 20% of their total stock for project based vouchers unless they are serving homeless and then there's an additional 10% that's available. So we can go up to 30% of our total vouchers for project base. We're currently, as Keisha reported out, we're about 29% in that area of using all of the vouchers that are available for project base vouchers. So at this point, we're pretty close to being at the maximum that is available. When deed restrictions on a project are about to aspire, is there anything that SHRA can do to preserve that affordable housing? Is there a process for that? I mean, there is an allocation at the state level specifically for those projects to be recapitalized and recindicated they call it to extend that affordability but I think we have been discussing other options in terms of providing SHRA financing to extend that affordability. Christine, do you want to? Yeah, Councilmember. As Keisha went through our funding priorities in one of the previous slides The number one priority still remains at S.H.A. Those Preservation of those you just they're going to lose their affordability So that still is our number one funding priority which can be losing a Contract for vouchers for half contract. It could be using the affordability is about to expire You know most of the affordable housing developments were regulated for 55 years starting in the late 90s. So we haven't sort of got to that point for most of our affordable housing developments. What we have gotten to the point is though, the projects need to be rehabbed, rehabilitated every 20, 25 years of the most. And that is what's now a concern to us that there could lose the ability to occupy some of the units. Well, there might stay regulated. They're not in a good physical shape. That's what we're concerned about. Is there anything you'd like us to do that we could incentivize, encourage more affordable housing development beyond supporting the legislation that we discussed earlier at the end of the slides? Was there more that we could be doing later. The discussion this afternoon we're talking about street and mining, the building department or the things out there like that that we could be doing. I think for the most part we have a lot of good affordable housing developers that are very interested in working in Sacramento and they come to us at least twice a year are doing our different funding rounds with those projects and they have, they have, you know, purchase and sale agreements on properties, they have plans for leveraging all sorts of federal and state funding sources, especially state, Dr. credits and things. What they're really missing is that gap, that gap financing. And so as Keisha said, every, every funding round we're having to turn away great affordable housing developments here in Sacramento at all Levels we are trying to leverage we've sure work very hard to leverage all the state and other funds that are available Make sure that our local dollars go as far as they can you know home key program is a great example of that what we've done recently But it often does come down to the financial assistance that we need to put in to help those developers. Of course, local dollars are usually the first dollars that go in and they make you competitive for the state dollars and the tax credits. So that is one of the biggest issues I think that we face, is lack of funding. Thank you. I'll remember days. Oh. I'm going to pick up a little bit on what Councilor Plucky-Bom was talking about, but also just some random questions. I'm just curious on the statistics you gave us, the charts you gave us. Those are combined city and county. I'm assuming it's a totality of what the agency is doing. Would any of them look demonstrably different if we were looking just at what the activity is in the city? Or is it pretty uniform across both the unincorporated area and the city? If I could, yeah, if I could just chime in. I think the huge difference would be in the location of the voucher. So if you separated out and looked at city versus county and we've seen this dramatic shift for a long time, it was about half of the voucher holders were in the city and the county. But we have now seen a shift where the majority of the voucher holders believe it's at 75% or so somewhere in there. So we do have. Yes, we do have more voucher holders located in the city. In the city versus the county. So that would be the big difference that you would see if you split them out. And is it the policy preference of using the vouchers as we have in the city that drives out more than anything else or is there another explanation for that? I think one of the drivers has been that the home key projects that we've been doing, even though we've done them both in the city and the county, but I think that has pushed people and then the availability within the city of smaller units, more one bedrooms and studios. Because we're not serving as many families we're serving more individuals. I see. And just with respect to the vouchers, as I've understood it previously, the challenge there is not so much the money, it's the number of vouchers. That is correct. The challenge that we have is regarding the funding for the vouchers. So even though we have over 12,500 vouchers that are funded, we still have more vouchers if the federal government gave us more money. So really, there's a difference between the number of vouchers and the budget authority that you have. We are using up 100% of the budget authority and the money that the federal government gives us. If they gave us more, then we could activate more vouchers. So it is the funding. It's definitely the funding. Yes. Okay, I understood previously it was the other way around, which was kind of surprising. So I'm just curious to that point. Are we working with either the or both the National Association of Agencies to try to increase the funding and with our congressional representatives. Absolutely. I do sit on the Council of Large Public Housing Authorities, their executive board, on their vice president. And our recent trip back to DEC, we were really pushing in terms of the additional funding that we needed to activate the vouchers. If you look at just California alone in terms of the number of vouchers versus what's funded, there is a gap between how much money we have. If we were to use every single voucher in the state of California, we would need $750 million more than what the federal government is actually giving us, just so that you can see in terms of order of magnitude. And so that is one of the things that we do through our national organizations is continue to push for additional funding allocations. Our concern is in this administration that we are not seeing a desire to increase the amount of funding that we have. I think we all realize, unfortunately, that this might be swimming uphill in the current environment, but. But we are not. We're still pushing. Yeah. Yeah, I think we have to. I don't think there's another choice. I wanted to move on to the recapitalization or preservation issue and you alluded to it when you were responding to Councilmember Pluckybaum. In the early 2000s in the on-acorporated area, we had a host of older projects that were bought and sold and then refinanced to revitalize them. The maintenance funding hadn't been enough in the original calculations of what the maintenance reserves were in the like. And so I'm just curious, I mean I see your recapitalization, I see your chart and the numbers on that for 14, 19 and 24. But I'm curious within the city, the extent to which we have aging, restricted, restricted housing that may be in that same category and we're not choosing to because of the allocation of resources or we're not able to preserve that housing stock. Can you offer some more qualitative comment on that? I think Keisha had a slide. It says over 6,500 units. I think that those were ones that we had looked at. It was an relatively short period of time. You're that are expiring in the next 10 years. Or that we think that when we have to be refinanced in the next few years. And so those are units that if not refinanced or rehabilitated in some way, again, could not be occupable. So I think two things have happened. I think statewide, the resources for mortgage revenue bonds and tax credits have shifted away from that sort of rehabilitation. You're absolutely right. I remember the early 2000s and that was absolutely what we were doing a lot of. The statewide we've shifted away from that in favor of new construction of homeless housing, but also locally our priorities here at SHRA are not to fund those priorities, those projects. If a new construction project's most likely homeless or permanent part of housing is submitted and we weigh the two. The homeless project is going to get more points and be funded that way. And I saw your slide with the balance. I mean it concerns me. I'd like to drill in the not too distant future down a little more deeply on this because there are parts of the city and North Sacramento is one of those, parts of the city, where we have deteriorating housing stock. It's older. Obviously it's not all deed restricted. In fact, probably majority of it is not. But I worry that if that housing stock continues to decline, that it has ramifications for the entirety of the area in multiple ways and multiple dimensions. And so part of the strategy, it seems to me that we need to be thinking about is how do we maintain or rehabilitate housing that otherwise is going to become, one might think legally on inhabitable, but be un-inhabited. And that has a whole set of elements and implications to it as well. Sure, and I should point out when the Hussi had our slide up there to show 2019 and 2024 recapitalization, most of that was our rad work, was transitioning our public housing to a new platform to keep them occupiable, right, to keep them, because you know some of them need so much work just to get them occupied again. So we really haven't been working on the non-public housing resources. And you referred to the preservation funding that's typically in the state budget. it is the proverbial drop in the bucket. But to what extent are we able to tap into that funding and help ourselves with some of this challenge? I just about every project we bring before the council has some level of mortgage revenue bonds or tax credits or other state funding. Again, it's hard to sort of score well, but you can, you still can get leverage those tax credits today for a project that needs to be rehabilitated. It is a little more difficult, but you still can't do that. Well, that preservation funding is a line item. So I don't remember the number. I'm sure the mayor remembers the number. But can you comment on extent to which, out of that bucket we're able to To access funding Up to what would be our fair share less than our fair share beyond our fair share Statewide yeah, I think that would be hard to to quantify a case. Do you have any ideas how? I agree. I think as with all of the funding programs at the state, it's competitive. And so as H.R.I.A. deals, we put our best foot forward with direct loan commitments as well as project-based vouchers or in our rad conversions, the value of the property itself. So I do think we're taking our fair share of what's allocated to our region. I just wouldn't certainly want to overlook that source and push for as much as we could get there. But necessarily it's easier than tax credits or their direct financial assistance, but it's one of those things people don't think about a lot. It seems to me. And speaking of tax credits, have we also advocated at the state level and the federal level for the expansion of tax credits. And we'll continue to do that. Absolutely. Yes. And in fact, even a lowering tax credits expansion and lowering of the bond cap. That's another strategy that we have been working on. And getting some traction at the national level. And finally, you mentioned on your slide at the potential for a state housing bond and we're also in that conversation at the state level. Did it have somebody member Wix introduce another bond? Wix and Cable, it's all the same bond. They just going through the two houses. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Thank you. That's Mervin. Thanks, Mayor. I just have some, mainly some comments and then just a few questions. First, I just really want to thank Michelle for your leadership and also your staff. Just thank you for the great work that you are all doing to really meet the needs, the housing needs of our families. And I also just really appreciate the high-level timeline to walk us through what has happened over the years in terms of the cuts and the reductions that we've endured and how we've been able to do our very best to stay afloat while our local needs, our local housing needs, continue to increase. And so just really wanted to reaffirm that and thank you for providing that context. And in particular, when redevelopment went away, I think we lost so much more resources. I think when I came in as a councilwoman, I know that building affordable housing is really expensive. And so one thing, the first thing I asked S.H.R.A. is like, what can we do to protect and preserve the housing that we have now. And a big part of that is because we don't have the resources in order to really do that work, right? And so a big part of this does come to funding in particular, right? here at the local level, but really at the federal level and really appreciate hearing the work that SHRA is doing to advocate at the state and national level. It's really concerning to hear that we are anticipating additional cuts from HUD. My understanding is that SHRA budget, SHRA, our budget right now correct me if I'm wrong, is about 75% is all based on, it's all federal funds correct. And so for me that's right, I feel like that is absolutely really concerning and as we do our very best to figure out what the local policy should be, I also just want to urge that I think it's so important at the local level, as local leaders, to support FHRA and do what we can, even at the state and federal level to demand our leaders that this is a top priority in our city and across this country. And I just also wanted to say thank you for sharing some of the concerns, right? The requirement for work at our properties. I think I really appreciate you highlighting that so many of our residents are elderly and disabled, right? And so what does that mean for that population in particular and also our undocumented families that live within our city? And so really appreciate you just highlighting these things. I think one thing I just want to ask the mayor and also just put on record is I think it's really great that we have state leaders that are moving on the assembly side and the state senate side. I think it's above Buffy and yeah Christopher Cable then to do the 10 million affordable housing bond, right? Billion. Billion, yeah, take it. Ten billion. Ten billion. Ten billion. Ten billion. Ten billion. Housing bond act. I believe it's scheduled for 2026 that we're shooting for. So also I think as a city, it would be wise of us to also perhaps do a visibility even if it's a poll to see what the appetite is at the local level because if it does pass, I think a big part of it is that we are always in competition with other cities and we have to be well positioned to be competitive. And so, if we don't have dollars at the local level, we can't compete with other cities. And so as we're monitoring the 10 billion affordable housing act, which I think we will all fully support, we also have to be ready at the local level. And so I would love to, I would like to make an ask or request. I know that there are conversations around a transportation measure. I don't know if that's STA, that's gonna do polling, what not, the groups that are organizing around it. But I do think that on the housing piece, whether it's a joint polling or we do a separate one, that we actually explore the appetite at the local level. I think that's really important. So I just wanted to share my support for that. Given that housing and homelessness is one of our top priority in the city and so we'll love for the city to explore that option and I fully support that. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Councillor Maple. Thank you, Mayor. And thank you. Thank you for the presentations. This is really helpful just being able to see everything in one place. And I also really appreciate the timeline being, you know, only having been here for a few years myself. It's really great to know that, you know, so much is shifted over the years and that you've always been able to pivot and make it work. even when it's been really challenging. I think that says a lot about your leadership and the team that you have. So just really appreciate that. And I think it was especially really interesting to me talking about how the financing tools available have really changed and how that has shifted what we invest in and what types of projects that we're doing. So it's not just, you know, obviously you get direction from us and from the county. And I've heard many times here, including from myself, and others from the county that we really want to prioritize housing for folks who are unhoused and also folks who are the hardest to reach. And oftentimes that's the most expensive type of housing to build, right? And but we know it's important to do because if not us who, it's not something that's going to be done in the private sector, right? Because the value proposition isn't there. And so that's where I think it's really important this work that's being done, and that even despite the challenges with those funding mechanisms, So that was really, really good to know. Also appreciated the preservation versus new construction. Well, the reality, I mean, we can tell you at the city when you talk about deferred maintenance. We've got a pretty big price tag. If you look at what we have going on, and so I know it's the same for you all. And I think that we do need to find ways to balance that out because we don't want to be at risk of losing units too. Right, because we want to keep that existing housing stock and build on it as much as we can. And so... I think that we do need to find ways to balance that out because we don't want to be at risk of losing units too Right because we want to keep that existing housing stock and build on it as much as we can and so But really be interested in and in recommendations I know you do it you already have your your prioritization and you balance that through your point system But if there's other things that we can be doing to preserve the housing stock that we have I'd be really really interested in that. Obviously, it always comes down to money and we've had that conversation. I'm concerned a little bit because I know we do have several possible measures that might be on the 2026 ballot and so I'll say the same thing. I say on every board and every seat that I'm in, which is I hope that we're really strategic about the decisions that we make that go on the 2026 ballot if there are too many things on there, they will probably all fail. And that will not benefit anyone. And so I'm just hopeful that whoever's involved with transportation and then also housing and and what other I heard there might be a parks one floating around as well That all those folks get into a room and talk about it because I think it'd be a detriment to our community if we didn't Put all hands on deck for the thing that makes the most sense and I'm not gonna say what that that is because I don't know but hopefully people started the me while I'll get together and figure that out. One question I do have is I'm sorry if someone else asked it and it was answered but do you know how many emergency housing vouchers are currently in use? It's just below 450 or 50 and we're not we expect that to expire in 2026 or to sunset. That's right. Well, I think it's my man. Yes. The emergency housing vouchers were intended to go until 2030. It's supposed to be in 10 years and recently we've heard from HUD that instead of going 10 years, it's only gonna be about four years. And so the funding will run out 2025, but probably somewhere maybe mid-2026 is what our estimate is. So that's 450 families that we have recently housed would not have subsidy. We would have to terminate their vouchers. So that's one of the things that we are pushing at the national level is to at least increase the amount within our funding allocation so that we can absorb the emergency housing vouchers into our program. The difficulty with this is the fact that the emergency housing vouchers were an initiative during COPE. housing vouchers into our program. The difficulty with this is the fact that the emergency housing vouchers were an initiative during COVID and so that was you know, ARPA money that has gone away. And so you just don't have the same type of support on both sides of the aisle to do something about the emergency housing vouchers. That's really helpful. I know this is a really tough issue and we've been talking about this for awhile and it's the sides advocating at the federal level. It's really out of your hands how much money is handed down to you and so. But I'm hopeful that we can all come together, make sure that we have a strategic plan in place. Plan know, plan for the worst hope for the best, for how we might all come in and support these 450 families. Should we be in that situation, which, you know, may happen, it is very likely to happen. And so maybe between now and, you know, the 2026, we can figure out whether that's working with private partners, all hands on deck, us, the county, you get together because I just hate to get to a situation where we're coming up to the deadline and we realize that we don't have places for folks to go. And so I know it's really challenging because we have a wait list that's very long as well. We have a lot of people who are waiting for housing, but that's top of mind for me certainly. And then another comment I'll make is I know that there is I think councilor Dickinson mentioned that there's a conversation That's happening at the county level about you know that maybe their participation in the S.H. Ray What does that look like? We modernize? What could this look like and I know it's in the very beginning stages still but I just want to state Publicly for the record that I think it's really important that we continue to work together as much as possible. I think something as important as housing for our region is something where we need all hands on deck. We need everyone working together. We need the city. We need the county. We need the SHRA. We need all of our partners that are in this room and beyond. And I would like to see CSP even more coordinated and have more of a structure in place rather than less. than less. And so however we can accomplish that together, I would like to do that. But I obviously know we haven't had that conversation here at the city level, but I know it's happening elsewhere. And I just don't want us to be in a position as a city where we are reacting to something versus being a part of something, a greater conversation. And so I just wanted to put that out there. And again, bless you. And thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Jennings. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. I want to join my colleague in just speaking to the resiliency of SHRA through the years. years and the great leadership that you provided, you and your staff have provided. And we're at that point right now that we need to be resilient as well going forward. And I just want to make sure that we're intentional in helping you with the path forward and understanding what our role should be and what it can be. And that's what I'm kind of interested in is, how is it that we can help in this time going forward? I see the path forward. I see all the things that are on here. And I just wanna make sure that we're intentional about our role as a city in helping to move these things forward. And what would that look like? Does that need to be formalized in a better way than it is right now? Do we need an additional group that works together with you to put these things in place in an action plan? So that the city understands its role. Is there something we can do with the current county and city collaboration that we can work together better moving forward? I'm just trying to understand how we take this path forward and turn it into a plan that will not fail. Turn it into a plan that helps us to meet all the shortfalls that we may have in the rest of the presentation that we saw earlier. And so I'm throwing it out to whoever can speak to that. What is needed that we don't have right now? You want to take a crack at that? So I'll take a crack at that. I think what's needed in a part of what we have attempted to do is to really just show the progression and how we got to where we are now, which is very intentional and needed. I mean, we had a home we had and continue to have a homeless problem. And so we have been all hands on deck, we have worked really, really hard. We think it's now an appropriate time to stop and take a look. If we only focus in one area, what's the opportunity cost? What are we going to give up in terms of our housing stock and preservation? So how do we balance those? And I think that is where we need to have a thoughtful conversation and then provide us with the direction. I mean, we work at your behest. You know, the things that we do are not S-HRA policies. They're your policies that you have adopted and said, this is the way that I want you S-HRA to go. This is the way that I want you to fund projects. So, you know, if that is still the desire, then we need to know and understand that, and that's exactly how we'll carry those things out. If there is an opportunity for discussion and there needs to be some shift or change, then let us know and we'll start that whole process of how we change our multifamily guidelines which dictate the priorities for the city. So I think that is the clear place of direction that we need in terms of what you want us to do in terms of next steps. Is there a desire to bring a joint meeting between the city council and the county board of supervisors to, and I'm just asking out loud to see what we can do together to help in this effort. I'm just throwing that beag out that big hairy audacious goal. We talked about that I've talked to some supervisors about that. My understanding it has been 20 plus years since we had a meeting with all what 13 of us? 14? I was those my teenage years so I don't remember that. Maybe Roger was on the board then. Do you remember Roger when the county and city met together? I think it was, I remember Heather Fargo talked about it and maybe she was early on the city council 25 years ago. I have to recall. I think it was, I've never had the fire go talk to about it, maybe she was early on the city council 25 years ago. I think it was. I'm going to recall. I think the last meeting was 2017, is that correct? It was right after Mayor's time, Berger was. Oh, okay, you did a lot. So you were here for that. Yeah, absolutely. And that's where I came up with the idea. And I think if it's something that this council feels has merit, I'd like to lead the charge to make that happen with the Board of Supervisors. Yeah. Well I think this goes back to Councilmember Maple's conversation. This is essentially a marriage. The partnership between the city and the county, SHRA, and coming together. So, you know, we could propose it but they have to be on will on both sides but I have been been communicating with several supervisors about this. Some of some other council some excuse me some other supervisors have thought that maybe it's not just the city and I think this leads to the notion that we're all in this together. I'll grow a ranch or other jurisdictions maybe it's a county board of supervisors and one from each of the cities. So, two of these things I've been kind of discussed but we're talking about that. But I think it comes down to the conclusion that we're all these things together on housing and homelessness, especially homelessness. Councillor Mabel? Oh, I'm sure are you done? Yes. I mean, tell them on to you. I I mean, I'm just trying to look for direction as far as next step. So my direction would say we go ahead and do it and we try to see if it's a bite of the apple, we may need to do it on a larger scale from a regional approach, but I know we can start right now with the city and the county. Yeah, and one thing that I think is important, three of us are new is an update on the city county partnership, for example, on providing services when we open up new homeless facilities and that's kind of an after-shoot of measure O. And so there's a few things that we can just frankly have an opportunity to get updates on that we're already doing as well. So thank you. Vice Mayor, Tallah Muthis. Thank you. To piggyback up Councilmember Jennings comments and various comments about just all the different bonds that are going to be on the ballot in the future. Housing, homelessness and transportation are all regional priorities for everyone. I think we all discuss them and so it would be a good idea for all of us to meet collectively as leadership to discuss our avenues and how we're going to make the Sacramento region more powerful. And I mean, just get funding that we desperately need to be able to solve some of our most difficult problems. But at the beginning, you mentioned how HUD is not helping Americans without citizenship. Is that what? Did I hear that correctly? That's correct. OK. Yeah, I just, I think every day, there's so many executive orders and so many policies. And it's so hard to keep up with them as they come in. And that one was new to me. And I just kind of shook my heart. You know what I mean? I just as a daughter of immigrant workers like who got their citizenship later in life, like, Ouch. Like, that would be my family and me impacted. And as you went through the resilient timeline of SHRA, I maybe just got kind of emotional with that comment and what's happening because it just, you know, it reminded me of the foreclosure crisis and my family getting evicted from their homes because we had bought a new home with low interest rates and then my dad passed away. And then my mom was left single, and he was our breadwinner, five kids. And it's like, just life happened to us. And life continues to happen to sacramentons. And it's like these backbone government programs that keep families intact and keep them in their homes and prevent them from becoming homelessness, which prevention is the number one reason, number one, the most cost-effective way of preventing homelessness. And it's something that, as we move forward from me, we've got to continue reminding ourselves that we've got to prevent families from becoming homelessness. And especially in these next, I mean, you've got to square what, four months into this Trump administration. We got three years and eight months to go. And we as local government need to unite in our forces and our resources and our money to help protect our Sacramento. Sacramento. We have to work together because we just don't know what's coming down the pipeline and when these vouchers are going to be cut. And if and when they're cut and you don't receive that funding to keep able to pay the rent, what are our policies going to be for us? When people start coming to City Council and to the board supervisors asking for help. So I just like you know your your evolution timeline from that and then like loss of redevelopment dollars. I know there's conversations at the state like happening hey how are we going to get these funds back and that that's the bond that I just learned about. I don't keep up with state stuff too much. I have enough here. And then the pandemic, I mean the loss of funds and people becoming unemployed. And now just, I mean high rents, low wages, bad interest rates, tariffs, people working two to three jobs to make ends meet and all this federal level uncertainty is just starting to like combine. And it's up to us to for these next steps and it's up to us as a regional body of government to figure out these next steps because federal government may not be there to support us. And that's where a good chunk of your funding comes from. And we just have to figure it out. So I guess for me, my direction for this conversation is just like, how are we going to continue to help more people with less money, with less resources? What do we got to cut off? And I know Mayor McCarty and I have had this conversation in terms of level of service. Where can you shave off some dollars to be able to maximize your dollars from different projects? And like I said at the beginning, I mean we just don't know what's coming our way. Every day's a new day. Every day I'm learning about new executive orders and it's up to us to really lead the way for Sacramento make people feel home insecure here. Councilmember of orders and it's up to us to really lead the way for Sacramento to make people feel home and secure here. Council member Vang, back to you. Thanks Mayor. I just wanted to reaffirm my support for Council Member Jennings recommendation. I think when you look at the recommendations from SHRA to our City Council, one of them is to reinforce the City and County collaboration and I just want to reaffirm and also echo my support council member maple had mentioned this council member Jennings mentioned this too and I do think that it is very timely to have a joint city and county meeting because there are plenty to talk about from the MOU partnership to us overseeing SHRA even though I know there's conversation about what about outgrow for other city When we get there then we can have that meeting but right now City and County overseeing SHRA and I think it'd be important for us to have a joint meeting and so really just wanted to share that and the other piece I think that is really important to know is that so many of our residents move through the city and county, right? So if they lose housing in the city or in the county, it's easier for residents to move back and forth through one system. And so I just also wanted to uplift that as well. Because if housing and homelessness is one of our top priority in the city, then I think it is of utmost importance for us to have a joint city and county meeting. And even if that means starting with the MOU partnership and then SHRA, right? I think there are plenty on the table to have a conversation and a discussion. And so just wanted to share my support for that direction. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Let me just add some perspective here. I want to hear it from all of you of course first but I did want to note that as you know you know Mr. Dickinson was also an SHRA commissioner. You know that early in his career before some of your careers even started on the surface, much before you were born. So he was a commissioner in its fifth year. It was an ASEAN organization, and he served for one year before he went to tackle our RT issues. But a lot of Alastair's individuals served on this commission, including former mayor Joe Surnah, former state treasurer Phil Angelidis, a nice servant on it for years as well. So former mayor, there's a big list. And you know, back then, it was all the redevelopments was the big focus. And that's where, you know make a difference in some of these communities. And we talk all about EIFDs, but that was the notion, EIFD, on steroids. When you focus on underserved communities can really make a dent during the great recession that was taken away. Thanks to our former president, Protem, Daryl Steinberg. You didn't vote for that, right Roger? No, okay. But those were tough choices and I want to blame Daryl. The governor and the collapse of our education system and healthcare had to make really very difficult choices. And so we're left now with this agency that serves public housing, housing choice vouchers and overseeing basically half a dozen other funding sources. So all we can do is go forward from here. We can't go back. But what I do want to, I just was taking down some notes here. So an hour or so ago we voted on the project 815, 8113, right? And if you look in the attachment, roughly it was about $600,000 per unit. And I think that's an essence why people are having all these conversations. Because there's problems are this high and our money is this high. And we spend so much. So let's just for hypothetical purposes say, we have 4,000 homeless people in the city of Sacramento, roughly. I think that count is like, they double that county wide in the pits. Let's just say they're 4,000. And let's say we want to build a unit for all those like 815. Oh, I'm 815 11 street. So based upon my calculation here, $600,000 a door at 4,000 individuals is $2.4 billion. And based upon how we get money every year, cobbled together all these pots in the best of times. And we have a state bond that passes. We have, when we have a president's not taking money from us, based upon how much we get, on an annual basis, it would take us 300 years to build 4,000 units at a 600 grand door. So I think that's why we're seeing all this pressure. What can we do differently? And yeah, I, I, Councillor Mervang, I support going to the voters. I like that idea. I've been talking to our housing advocates, the real estate industry, and seeing if there's a mutual win. And I'd love to have your engagement on that we can follow up and talk about that but I think that the question is is We see these projects all of our district and and I whenever I see projects like this I drive by and I get great happiness seeing them like man I go in there and look at them and see their families. And then when I leave, I get great sadness. It's like, there's just, we give a lottery ticket to 5% of the people. And what about their 95% are like, what about me? I'm drowned in go over here, throw me a life jacket. And so I feel too often that we're just, and these projects are great, no offense to people who are working on these, but we're building a BMW solution for a small subset. When you're like, when you're in a crisis, maybe we need to be focusing on Toyota's Honda Civic versions. And what can we do different? And I'm not sure if we need to have a different, send a different direction. Our city staff are looking at other ideas around our city for housing. Just we're in a crisis. And we have people in tents and tarps and capital park homes right on the street, 800 grand indoor, whatever it was. And that's the BMW on steroids. That's the model, whatever version. So I just know, we can't keep doing this and picking these great projects that are just amazing and leaving 95% of the people who are struggling behind. Like I support what Roger's saying. We have some housing that is not in the greatest shape in all of our districts, primarily in a few of our districts. District two is one of them. And let's say that those communities are living in housing that's categorized as a D. And we'd like to get them to see, a little better conditions modernized. But in the meantime, people on the streets would be dying to get in the D, because they're in an F in the rain in the heat. So I guess to make a long story short, what are we doing? And this is for maybe Ms. Dozier and the team as well. To like, take a step back, be like, okay, we've been doing this for a while. And maybe we need to recalibrate to see how we can do not more with less, but more that maybe don't have all our bells and whistles. So we can just focus on the numbers because that's what our constituents are counting on us to do. So. Yeah, take a crack at it. Go ahead. Good luck. Okay. Well, I think one of the things that's important to note in terms of looking at the housing, especially permanent supportive housing. If you look at that $600,000 a door, it's for construction, it's much lower. So constructing the house is not the hard part. It's the ongoing services that you have to have for the population that we're dealing with over a long period of time. So all those costs get baked in. It's not just that we built it, it's the service providers. It's all of the things that we really need to stabilize, very, very fragile people that we're housing. And so the cost does look BMW-ish, but it's because of all of the things that you need to really provide service. Because if we put people just into housing with no services, it's not going to be successful. They're going to end up dumping out the back end. And we know that based on our experience and all the work that we've done for many, many years. So I think that is really the question is, is there a way for us to get cheaper services so that it doesn't cost as much and that we are looking at something much less if you are bringing in services and we don't have to bake that into our costs with our developers. I think is a way for us to really start to try and drive that cost down. I hear what I know we asked us a minute ago offline and you showed me that project. It was the hard costs were 600. It's off cost were 400. Right. So even if it was 400, so that's a 30% decrease. That's still $1.6 billion. So like we have that would take us 175 years as opposed to 400 years to get to those 4000. So it's still not really reachable. So what I'm asking is that we come back to us and be like, hey, we hear you, we want to do more. And these are some options to do more. And it may not be perfect because again we, we're having a perfect plan for someone with services, but only 5% of people are getting that. And we're just telling you others, good luck. You have no services in a tent out there. And so I know that what works in the perfect world, but we are focused on an absolute crisis here. And we're making incremental progress. And we spent four hours of today driving around by a bunch of sites in Sacramento. And I saw some amazing S.H. Ray funded projects and all of our districts. But it's like, man, if you just look at the pure mathematics and break out the calculator, we just need to think about doing things differently. So I don't want to beat that down over and over, but I want to ask you and your team to come back to us as we evaluate what to do in the future of SHRA. Because I don't know if we're getting our biggest thing for our buck or if we could do it better. And I think that's why other jurisdictions are asking the same questions. because it's not that they don't like your work, you're like, man, we have a lot of problems, only so much money. How do we be more effective? I want to ask, now, I think Mr. Plucky-Bomb talked about earlier, on the housing choice vouchers, how do we pick and choose what projects get the project-based housing choice vouchers as as far as, frankly, back to my first whole point, as far as cost effectiveness and the more amount of projects. So how do we evaluate that? We have a competitive process. So when we have project based vouchers available, we'll send out a notice and developers can submit proposals. It goes before a committee and we look at things like services provided, like where the property is located, whether they have control, whether they site control. There's a whole list of things that we'll look at. So we're looking at not just right now today, but the longevity of the project and the number of folks that it can support and supporting again with the services as Lishel mentioned. So let me walk that back a little bit. So we evaluate each project based upon maximizing the number of individuals and in different developers that we do like an RFP for, hey, we're looking for developers to get the most amount of people, the highest quality, how do we score that? So when we go out to RFP, we end up, we generally are targeting a population. And as I said, we're targeting homeless right now. And so we'll, we know how many vouchers we have available. And we're looking for the best proposals that come in that can serve that population. So we're looking at everything, the hard costs, the services, how they are serving the population and the partners that they bring to the table when they are responding to that proposal as well. In fact, I could just add on a little bit in terms of the RFP. That RFP goes out to developers, but it's also based on the priorities that the board has set, which is permanent supportive housing. And as you know, a lot of the development that we've done have been home key projects. And it's critical that home key projects have project-based vouchers in order for it to pencil out. So on the housing choice voucher side of the organization, those are the types of RFPs that then the developer will come forward and make an application. Once they get that vouchers, that's a critical part of their funding that they need to make the project go. And how do we evaluate people that are applying from S-HRA projects or other projects, city projects, county, does S-HRA kind of oversee projects have first crack at the project base, housing choice vouchers, or it's all open to anybody to go for them? I think you might be referring to when S-HRA does a rat or rental assistance demonstration project, those are ones that are previous, that are public housing that we're moving off of that platform onto a project based voucher platform. But those vouchers are special allocations that HUD gives us. They do not come out of our 12,500 units. We get actual 12,500 vouchers. We get actual special vouchers allocated for us to convert public housing. And so sometimes maybe there, that's where the confusion is, is that SHRA is not in competition with developers for those vouchers, those are separate. Okay. And then I want to ask a few questions on public housing. What's roughly the occupancy numbers on our? You said that you've had some challenges the last few years and that number was striking that the orange individuals that made my event homeless are going into public housing and so challenges when they move out and that damages I guess to those units as you outlined. Well, what's the overall roughly occupancy or conversely vacancy rate for our public housing units? As I recall, on our county side, I think overall occupancy we're at about 95%. I see my staff shaking their head. That's correct. On the city side, we do have more challenges there. And I think we're around 80, 92, 92%. And the goal that we have is to get somewhere between 96 to 98% is a normal operation. And what are some of those challenges? Why do we have more vacancies? We have more vacancies now because as a result, if you look back at that timeline and you see kind of the different things and challenges we had, COVID was huge. And we still have a lot of issues as a result of that. One of the number one challenges is our tenant accounts receivable, in other words, the rent. We have many, many residents who are on repayment agreements or who just have stopped paying. So that's one of the challenges. The other challenges is damage to units. We are seeing an increase. I think the one slide that Keisha showed a dramatic jump between what is that cost when people move out that went from, I think, on your slide. 800 to 8,000. 8,000. Average of what we're seeing. So when we go into Turner Unit in the past, it would take us maybe $2 two or three thousand dollars. We'd be able to put in some new flooring and paint. Here we have to do major, major renovations where we have to really tear out a lot of the flooring. We have to really almost break that unit down to studs because of the level of damage. And therefore the costs have gone up. So those are the challenges and they take much longer to turn than what we've seen in the past. And it's back to the aging inventory, you know, their units that were built in the 40s. So as they age, they cost more. And then as far as our public housing or projects that we fund in target homeless, are we going to our shelter programs to stalked in safe stay, to Roseville to the WX Navigation Center or the MetaBee Women and Children saying, hey, we have spots here, come one, come all. How does that work and how do we ensure that we're getting people from the shelters to housing. You know other people potentially could qualify and maybe they're living with grammar or relative and doubling up and that's not optimal but some would argue it's better than living in a shelter or in camp. Well, as we mentioned, people who are homeless or are at risk of being homeless are the ones who receive priority on the wait list. So the great thing about people who are going into the shelter system is that they get immediately paired with someone, a social service worker, and then they start working with them to make sure that they're taking advantage of any other type of social support systems that they need, but also getting on the list for all of the different housing programs. And so that's where the support within the shelter helps to move them throughout and into housing. And that's the connection that goes on. Yeah, I get that, but I guess what I'm curious on is that if you look at the definition of homeless, it could be you're sleeping in your friends garage, your relatives couch, a car, an encampment, front of city hall. They're all legally defined as homeless. So when we try to prioritize like, hey, we have a space now in public housing, a Broadway or hereoff, Richards, do we go after certain populations or just whoever pops up first? We have Saf who are at the shelters who are helping folks who are living in the shelters ready for housing apply for whatever housing is available including our wait list. And so with that information and as they are coming in, then they come as we said they have a preference so they come to the top. So as units become vacant. My oratized people and shelters, number one. People who are homeless, we don't distinguish between whether they're in shelters. But what's different is in the shelter they have somebody there who's helping them go through the process to apply. And then they're providing a contact as well. So when their name comes up, if they're working through the shelter, they're easier for us to reach and they're going to be more successful. I will add we have that So when their name comes up, if they're working through the shelter, they're easier for us to reach and they're going to be more successful. I will add, we have a coordinated access system that we rely on for those referrals and that system helps us with determining who might be ready to move into housing. So it's not, you know, SHRA deciding, as Mary Liz said, which homeless type is preferred, it's we, you know, SHRA deciding, as Mary Liz said, which homeless type is preferred, we rely on our partners to help us with that assessment. Who's the arbiter of that? Who picks winners and losers? Who pick way more losers and winners unfortunately? It's not a matter of picking who is winning or not. So we pull people from the wait list based on preference. And those folks who go through who submit the paperwork, who work with us, that we can reach. Those are the ones that quote unquote win. But one of the challenges is there's not any increase in public housing or in the vouchers. So the only time that's available is as there's turnover within our properties or within the voucher units. So we're working all the time to get people ready to be available so that when a unit becomes available, we've got folks who are ready to move in. Right. I was also talking about, that's true, that's public housing in the vouchers, but also projects that we fund through our home money, our federal state money, our housing trust and money, those many times we say, even tonight, that project we went over there a couple hours ago on the corner here, targeting homeless individuals. Right, yeah. So, years ago, when we did 7th and 8th, right, it's right down the street, those individual projects were primarily homeless and each project used to keep their own waiting list. And so if it's an older project like that, they may still have that waiting list. But they're beginning referrals from other case managers, like maybe it's Luther's social versus or things like that, whoever's helping them. But today in probably the last five or plus years, more years, Kisha is absolutely right. Not only has SHRA required, but the state of California has required that individuals go through a coordinated access program, so that is sacraments steps forward. So all of the projects we have financed in recent years, if they're homeless, they must be referred from sacraments steps forward. But they also all have very intense service providers that help feed into sacraments service forward. So if you are connected maybe at the shelter or maybe not through the shelter, maybe you're on the street, but you've been connected with a service provider, they'll help you with SSF, and then SSF refers them to Central Sac Studios soon, in a couple of years. OK, and then I know it's so depressing looking what's the happening at the federal government and threats on a daily basis and he makes sure our head spin. But what and as Councilmember Vane asked the question that 75% of our money is from the federal government and I think most of the money is for power public housing and housing choice voucher. That's almost three quarters, two thirds of our SHRMoney, right? Those two programs? Correct. And also we have CDBG home and a few other. Correct. But what's the combo of our public housing and housing choice voucher of our federal, of our overall budget? How much of that, those two programs? The largest amount is for the housing choice voucher program. It's 200 million. That of our budget is like what, $375,000,000? Around $350,000 or so. $350,000,000. Well over 50%, and then how much is the public housing? I would say this is my best guess as I'm looking at it between public housing. It would probably be about I'm looking at my at Mark. Do you know up the top of your head? We'd have to get back to you. Yeah. Okay, I think I asked last time too, so you can remember those two. And which of these programs are in most jeopardy from what we've heard so far from the federal government? Which of the CDBG housing choice voucher? Public housing we own already so that it's not as much they give an annual basis as housing choice voucher in some of that. Well, the public housing, even though it is, there's a deed of trust that the federal government has so technically they are in control of that. So we receive money for the operations as well as the capital needs to maintain public housing. And then the other part of your question was regarding which ones are most in general? Yeah, the housing choice voucher, the home, I guess, is Hwapa. Right, so I think- CDBG, which of those are buzz, you talked to the federal partners. Which are we most nervous about right now? The ones I would say that we're most nervous about is CDBG and more importantly home. The home program, which is the one that Christine uses for the gap financing, has been kind of the ropes for quite some time. It definitely hasn't seen any big increases other than what we saw during COVID. But that is one I think that potentially has probably the most risk. The housing choice voucher does have a large constituency in terms of the landlords who mobilize very quickly nationwide. And so that does get way more support than we do for our public housing. Well, not good. That's better than the one. We get over half of our money through home choice vouchers. That's more stable than the CDBG and home, which is money that we get for programs. But it's a sliver compared to what we get for housing choice vouchers, right? Correct, it's a sliver, but it is the money that we use to leverage many times over. So that's the critical part of those funds. It's not, you know, even though let's say you're getting, I don't know, four million or so, we, that is a critical money, that is a part of our financing. yeah, I'm just thinking like worst case scenario if they chopped one which one would have Correlation to more homeless on our streets that it be housing choice vouchers that that is correct by far that is correct Okay, and just to just to follow up this if there's one thing out of all of my words I'm sorry for for going on here, is if you can come back, I think it would help the council and our mayor focus on just getting more comfortable in delivering projects at a different price point. I know we've always done it this way, but we can only go forward from 2025 onward and how do we deliver more at a different price point? That's the only way I think we're going to be viable and have comfort from her elected leadership. Council member, back to Council member Maple and Vang. Thank you and I really appreciate those comments mayor. I know we are just a few minutes from our closed session. So I'll be brief, but I was inspired by the conversation, and especially by the comments from some of my colleagues. And what it really brought to me is that we obviously have a lot of questions. A lot of questions on the table. And all those questions, to me, seem like they go back to what is our direction? What is our shared goal and values? And what do we want to tell you know the Sheldosher and her wonderful team to do and and that what are our priorities and so I'm I was really struck by this idea of doing like a joint meeting because you know I sit on I was counting them in my head a lot of different JPA boards air district regional transit Transit Library Authority, Transportation Authority, State Coggin, and others that I can't even ring off the top of my head. And this is the only one that we don't meet jointly together. And that makes it really challenging because you have, you come to us and we tell you what we think, you go to the county, they tell you what they think, and yet there's not really a joint shared conversation about what are our shared priorities? What does that look like? How do we want you to act upon those? And I think that would be really valuable for you all, but also for me and for us to have that conversation. And so I just really want to uplift that request and say, and just ask the question, how do we make that happen? Is there, do we do a formal request to the county? Is that something that, you know, we need to do together? or something that you do as the mayor? What does that look like? I don't know, I guess I'm maybe that's to you. Yeah, they collectively have to agree upon it. Right. So I tested the waters and we're still doing that. We have a follow-up meeting soon to go over this specifically. So it's on our to-do list. But the big picture, you're right. If anyone would try to write a law about having us meet and talking about our top regional issue, that's almost like you had a bill on that. I want to try to rock my brain. But well, you know. It is a mysterious death. Obviously, you know, I, it's no secret. I've been a big proponent of of this and I have spoken to folks in our state and delegation But my preference and I think maybe all of our preference might be what can we do together? And not necessarily have something imposed upon us but what we can do together and I know that's something that you're working on mayor And I really appreciate you for it and just wanted to you know make a fine point of it. I think it. I think it would be in the best interest of us as the city and the county of the residents and for the team at S.H.A. too to be really clear. And we can even frame it as a priority setting activity. So, cause I mean, it was in 2017, that was almost 10 years ago, which is also a really crazy thing about. But that's a long time to go by and maybe maybe the time is now to revisit. So with that I'm done. Thank you Councillor Ving. Thanks Mayor. Just wanted echo Councillor Mabel as well. Councillor Member Mabel. But yes, actually your question actually really inspired me to also just queue up really quick. And really appreciate actually your direction, because this is direction at SHRA, to actually come back with perhaps different alternatives in terms of price point, I think that's really great. And I think that's a direction that I agree with, I think, could be really great to kind of see what could we do differently. Because what I'm hearing from you is that perhaps we could do more with less. I would add because not but and I would say I also want to know that if we did more with less, what are some unattended consequences that can happen? Because I think that's really important. I share that because earlier we just heard from LaShel that you know, often time it's not just the construction, but it's the services that cost more. And so I have a story to share because there's a, there's a apartment complex in my district that is low income, that is not overseen by SHRA. And so many of those families have been evicted one because they don't have the job, the workforce, and the on-site services. They have management, but that's not sufficient to support low income families and seniors. Right? And so I think we should bring this back, right? What are the various price points? But as a council, we also have to think about the unintended consequences because if we were to move in that direction, what I'm worried about is that we're also recreating the same kind of structure that we're trying to fight against. And that is the worst thing we could do as policy makers. But I also hear the mayor on that. We are serving just a small segment of folks who are very vulnerable, which is great, but then you have a large majority of folks that are also struggling as well. And we have to figure out how to change the system that we now operate in to make sure that we meet the needs of those individuals as well. And so I just want to reaffirm, you know, the mayor's comment, because he's absolutely right about that. And I think he's, he, all of us are trying to figure out what is that balance, right? I mean, like the answer is more funding, obviously, but that's not going to come right now. And so we are trying to figure out that piece. So just really want to uplift the mayor's point on that and counsel when people on the collaboration piece. I think Mayor, I appreciate that you have already started those conversations, so that's great. And I- the mayor's point on that and Councilwoman Maple on the collaboration piece. I think mayor, I appreciate that you have already started those conversations so that's great and I really hope that my colleagues on the county would hear our call and hopefully follow up with you as our mayor to have a joint meeting and so thank you so much mayor. Thank you. Councilmember Gera. Thank you mayor. I only have one directive here and this is maybe for Brad and I had asked for it last time. It was any efforts on litigation and I know those are going to take time but has SHRA entered in Amicus or others and I don't need an answer now but if they haven't or cannot depending on their status I want to make sure that either SHRA or the city or combined can at least litigate on the equal protections clause for LPRs and you know under the INA they're provided the same equal protection so I know that the executive order made a kind of clever in their language that they. But we should be just as clever in making sure we litigate on that and also on the impoundment clause. And obviously Congress did the CDBG funds in 1974, so they've already have a clear record of where money should be going. Those are my only directions. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. This was information item no vote. We have three public speakers on this item. Please call the first speaker. Thank you, Mayor. MacWorthy. I have MacWorthy, Michael Melton, then Oliver Romo. Mr. Worthy. I have public comment. This is public comment from Outish, not on the agenda. Do you have comments, Mr. Worthy? Well, listen to a lot of garbage. I was around when you got in this truck. And I ain't seen nothing that you can do. And nothing you can't do when you depend. When you are a parasite, you depend on others. And that's what this state come to be, a parasite. You hear a word about what Trump gonna do with turrets instead of coming up with an idea to find this by yourself. I urge him to keep cut because you refuse into deal with the Constitution of the United States, the state of California. And you should get here. Before you can do anything here, Mayor, you got to get your corruptions out. You just like the previous three, same bullshit. Oh, yeah. You can't. Those little nice words saying, they come. Like Dickson, we were in the Dickson of the Old El with ten seats wife was all in the Dixit too. We know that. But could we see being, yes, but nobody wanted to listen. How did we guess my ideas? You ain't got no idea. How you put together who yourself, you can repurpate to nothing. This is what your city fell into. How many people have left to learn from housing in owner house now? A plan, a policy. You are designing again to keep a man, suppose that a man like Mike Warrantissé look, we got enough housing and help grow to move out to 3,000 years. Where would you go? You're a fan, I'm coming. There's a thing, take a bite and put them on the table. I ask question. What should we do if the money keep being cut? It'll be cut. It'll earn you a lesson. It'll be cut. Don't worry about the turf. You worry about what you can do for the state yet. And you're not. You worry about what you can give more. If your comments, your time is complete. Michael Melton, then all of our Roma. Like I said before, S-H-R-A, sorry to come at y'all, but y'all need to get investigated for embezzling Sacramento's money for taking the capital's money. Like right now, ask for $600,000 per unit per door is ridiculous. When in Laguna right now you can go buy a whole house for $200,000. You can go to Oak Park right now and go by a whole house for $100,000. You can go to Del Paso House right now and go get a whole house. I'll talk about and to rebuild the house, to rebuild the house back up, you can go to have a task for humanity. It's 100,000 people right now ready to help to build Sacramento, who up and get these people off the streets. There's no reason for us to be in these same situations. It's no reason for somebody to have a $600,000 house, $600,000 house that champagne wishes with beer money. That's not the way you should not suppose, it's not the way you're supposed to be thinking about things. We're supposed to be spreading that wealth out. We're not supposed to be thinking like we got everybody's in Elgrove like you guys, or Laguna, or in the Granite Bay. Everybody's not out in Green Haven, okay? We need houses for North Natomas. We need to go back to Wilton. We out park, they'll pass all heights. We need to build low income, not places that's gonna cost that much of money. That's just ridiculous. We need to rebuild the neighborhood. And what else should I was gonna say? Oh, and about these shelters, there are money grab, there are fake, nobody's getting no help in there. The counselors, they're not giving nobody assistance. I was telling the people up in there to come down here, to get your assistance to the 60 to the SHRX place, do it yourself. That's what I was telling them. And that's how I keep up, ended up back up all right not because if your comments your time is complete our final speaker is Oliver Romo Hi everyone my name is Oliver Wood. I'm a dining room and bar. My name is all over. We start again. I didn't have your speaker on. Sorry. My name is all over Romo. I work at Dining Room and bar. I'm just here to talk about parking prices. But before that, I just want to say that. I don't know why. It's funny how I'm here listening to the SHR. my first, my house that I bought it was through SHR8, and I remember those here being there. I was the first home buyer and it changed my life. But anyways, sorry that is happening to you. Keep fighting for it and you'll get there. Anyways, I worked full time at Ella and before the pandemic, many of us were working downtown. We were able to afford parking with the help of a monthly discount. We were paying $5 a day, which was manageable for most of us, especially those earning minimum wage in the kitchen. However, since the discount and was discontinued, daily parking now ranges from 11 to $24 a day. So that's paying like 220 to 280 a month. That's a huge burden, especially in the restaurant industry where wages are already like minimum wage. Many of my co-workers as well as staff from other nearby restaurants are starting to reconsider working somewhere else instead of downtown because of the parking situation to just to be financially sustainable. If these trend continues, it could lead probably into serious staffing shortages, since like a third of us already talking about moving out. And it could really affect the restaurant. We work really hard to like some of you folks go there and have a good time and we just wanna pay what it's right. Please consider this. I got to go back to work. Thank you, Fiery comments. So Mayor, we will now adjourn to a special meeting for the purpose of a closed session. We have a quorum of council members and chambers. There is one item on the closed session agenda. to government code section 54957.6 for a matter pertaining to negotiations with recognized employee organizations. Sacramento City exempt employees association, Sacramento Police Officers Association, International Union of Operating Engineers, Stationary Engineers, local 39, Sacramento area fire fighters, local 522. Sacramento, Sierra building Building and Construction Trades, Council, Plumbers and Pipe, Fitters, Local 447, Automarine and Specialty Painters, Local 1176, Western Council of Engineers, International Association of Machines and Aerospace Workers, the purposes to confer with the city's chief negotiators, Shelley Banks Robinson, Aaron DeNado Tim Davis. We have no speakers on this agenda item. Mary, you may adjourn to close session. We are adjourned. Thank you. you