Good afternoon everyone.

The joint meeting of the Sacramento City Council and the Sacramento Housing Authority will

please come to order. Would the clerk call the roll? Please to establish a quorum.

Thank you, Councilmember Capplin, Councilmember Tao.

We expect Mayor Pro Temt elementities momentarily. Councilmember Valenzuela, Vice Mayor Maple,

Councilmember Guerra, Councilmember Jennings, Councilmember Vang, and Mayor Steinberg.

I am here. Councilmember Jennings, would you please lead us in the landing knowledge room?

And then I want to ask McClatchy High School student Alina Wong to please lead us in the

pledge of allegiance.

Please rise for the opening acknowledgement and honor of Sacramento's Indigenous people

and tribal lands to the original people of this land.

Aniseon people, southern Maidu, Valley and Plains Miwak, Patnam Wintam, and the people from

the Wilton Rancheria Sacramento's only federally recognized tribe.

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

and acknowledgement and appreciation of Sacramento's Indigenous people's history, their contributions,

and their lives.

Would you please remain standing as Alina comes to the microphone to present our pledge of

allegiance?

Hi, pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic

for which it stands one nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you very much for coming to the meeting.

I know what Councillor Jennings interns and learning and doing a lot here, all of you.

Thank you.

Young people for staying engaged, involved, never giving up.

Okay?

Thank you.

Members, let us begin with the agenda items.

First with the housing authority.

I believe that two items, items three and four are going to be continued until, well,

those are part of the city council agenda to December the third.

Let us take items one and two, first, Councillor Mavang, did you want to move to continue the

three and four?

Yeah, we could do that.

I wanted to make some comments on three and four.

Okay, so let us hold off then.

Let us do items one and two, first.

Okay.

Item one.

Good afternoon, Mayor and council members.

Whitney Hinton with Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency.

Staff is requesting to hold a tax equity and physical responsibility act or a tougher

hearing.

Public hearing related to the conversion of Villajardine Coral Gables project.

Villajardine Coral Gables is located in the met-of-view area of the city of Sacramento.

The project is a workforce and permanent support of housing development.

There are 82 units, ranging in affordability levels of 25% to 50% of area median income.

The developer and property management are John Stewart Company.

Life steps provides on-site case management, supportive services, and 15 hours of resident

services per week.

The conversion began in November of 2021, and the project was scheduled to be completed

by the end of February of 2023.

However, due to construction delays, the project was not completed until June of 2023.

Since then, rents have stabilized, and now the project is ready to close on permanent

financing.

However, due to the delays, a new taffer is required as the old original taffer expired.

In closing, staff is requesting to hold a tax equity and physical responsibility act

called appearing for Villajardine Coral Gables project and staff and developers here to

answer any questions you may have.

Thank you so much.

A lot of work goes into this.

What do we have public testimony, Madam Clerk?

Okay.

Do we have council questions?

We have council member Van.

Mayor, I would like to open and close the public hearing and then move this item.

This was a really amazing project in the heart of met-of-view and just really want to take

this time to think SHRA with this last item will be able to just close the books on

this and so we want to make sure we complete this project.

With that, just really want to give Kudos to SHRA for their great work on this project.

Terrific.

That's moved.

Is the second?

Let's go back and look at the tape to see you cave in first, seconding.

I know.

Let me shift.

Okay.

I think it's council member Kaplan.

All in favor, please say aye.

I opposed abstain.

Very good.

Thank you.

Item two.

Afternoon, Christine Weigert from SHRA.

The report before you request authorization to delegate authority to issue tax exempt mortgage

revenue bonds for affordable housing projects as needed to meet state application deadlines

and to update SHRA's annual administrative fees.

Last month's staff was report council presenting the 69th street department's tax equity and

fiscal responsibility or tax fabric hearing and one or two of the approvals required for

one of two approvals required for issuing mortgage revenue bonds.

As you may recall, due to the late award of state funds, SHRA did not have the required

time complete the project review and write a report to city council before the bond application

deadlines.

That wanted to slow the project down, staff agreed to allow a statewide issue to finance

the affordable housing project.

Staff is now returning with a recommendation on how to resolve this timing issue, which

will allow SHRA acting as the housing authority to issue bonds in a more expedited manner.

For background mortgage revenue bonds are exempt from federal and state taxes.

For this reason, bonds are an important funding source for affordable housing as they provide

lower interest rate loans.

Bonds for affordable housing issued in Sacramento, City and County are issued by SHRA acting

as the housing authorities and the bond issuance process is governed by SHRA's multi-family

lending and mortgage revenue bond policies.

As the bond issuer, SHRA ensures the necessary project due diligence, financial feasibility,

quality management and onsite services which are crucial to a development's long-term

success.

Having other things, SHRA confirms adequate oversight for performing annual onsite inspections

of units, common areas and amenities.

Onsite property records, resident service files and resident services are reviewed.

These activities play a vital role in confirming that residents are not overpaying for rent

and that they live and well maintain in safe housing.

If bonds are issued by another entity, SHRA does not have the authority to monitor the

project, conduct compliance visits, investigate resident concerns or replace property management

if needed.

All affordable housing projects that intend to use bond financing are required to have

an inducement resolution approved by the governing board.

To request an inducement resolution, the project developer submits an application to SHRA.

Once this information is reviewed, SHRA staff finals the report for inducement.

An adoption of the inducement resolution signifies the intent to issue bonds but is not

the final approval.

Currently approval of inducement resolutions required the staff have reported submitted

with required agenda deadline.

The report process, including internal review, requires the staff reports to be completed

approximately six to eight weeks prior to the housing authority hearing.

Since bond applications which include an adopted inducement resolution are only accepted

by the state debt limit allocation committee two times a year, affordable housing developers

are anxious to submit their applications as soon as they have secured all award of all

their funding.

In two recent projects, developers receive funding awards from the state less than four

weeks prior to the bond application deadlines and we're unable to serve, we were unable

to serve as the bond assure.

Staff simply did not have the adequate time to analyze and compile the information to

meet the City Council report deadline.

Since we are not the issuer, we will not legally have the ability to monitor the project.

At the request of the Sacramento Housing Redevelopment Commission, staff reached out to our

bond council, Oric, to determine if a solution could be found.

Oric suggested staff level approval of inducement resolutions.

Staff level authorization of the inducement resolution does not represent a board commitment

or by the housing authority or allow the projects to proceed with financing.

The City Council will still retain authority over the issuance of bonds through holding

the required Tefer hearing.

A Tefer hearing is a hearing conducted by the City Council, you just had one.

It gives authorization for interested parties or opportunities for interest and parties

to express their views on the proposed bond issuance and on the nature and location of the

project.

Even with the inducement resolution process delegated to SHRA's executive director, no projects

would be able to proceed nor receive any funding without the required City Council Tefer

hearing.

The staff level approval of the inducement resolution would serve to expedite the process

and allow more developers to participate in bond issuance through the City Housing Authority.

In addition to investigating the ability to move more quickly when issuing bond staff

also took this opportunity to review our bond fee schedule as it compares to other issuers.

The City SHRA receives an annual bond administration fee equal to 12 and a half basis points times

the original bond amount.

This fee is compensation for compliance monitoring and administration of regulatory restrictions.

The fee is capped at $25,000 annually.

This fee differs from statewide issuers such as CalFJ, CMFA and CalPFA, sorry to me,

acronyms.

Two of the primary differences between SHRA's fees and the statewide issuer fees are statewide

issuers charge five basis points versus SHRA's 12 and a half basis points and two statewide

issuers charge fees based on the outstanding bond amount versus the original bond amount.

As a result, we review staff is proposing the annual administrative fee be reduced to five

basis points of the outstanding bond amount to be in line with the statewide issuers,

but the fee should be not less than 15,000 annually to cover annual monetary costs.

This will make the bond of annual fee consistent with SHRA's loan fee, which is not to exceed

$15,000 annually, but still provide the revenue needed to monitor and force the bond restrictions

and to allow staff to respond to concerns brought to our attention by residents and other

community members.

By reducing our fee, we feel confident that fewer developers were requesting the use

of statewide issuers, increasing the number of SHRA issuances will increase the overall

amount of fees received by SHRA and reassure that all developments in the city are managed

well.

In closing, staff is requesting approval of the attached resolutions, which allow for staff

level inducement approvals into men, SHRA's multi-family lending and mortgage revenue

bond policies to reduce our annual and what aren't being phased, and I'm happy to answer

any questions you may have.

So thank you, Christine.

So let me see if I can just summarize it in lay language as I've understood it.

One, you're reducing some fees.

And number two, by this inducement process giving the executive director some authority on

the Tefra hearing, you're trying to ensure that we don't miss out on competitive opportunities

to go after resources because of having to achieve a attain prior approval from the council

just to go out and compete.

But instead, if you compete and bring the project to us, we can still say no if we thought

it was a bad idea, right?

Is that the summary of it?

That is absolutely correct.

Okay.

Thank you.

All right.

Is there any public testimony on this one?

I have no public comments on the site.

Then we got councilmember Gettah.

Thank you very much, Mayor.

And thank you, Christine.

I appreciate the clarifying nature of it.

I think my biggest concern was that we wouldn't come back for a Tefra hearing.

And I think reducing the fee is important.

That's been a constant issue that we've heard.

But does the resolution, and for some reason I can't connect now to the internet here.

So does the resolution at all leverage that the applicant must go through SHRA if they

find that they could go through Cal HFA or another bondo shore?

Is there anything in language that restricts someone from coming specifically to SHRA?

No.

For example, if you go through Cal HFA, which is a state entity, they can hold their own

inducement hearings and their own Tefra.

They don't even have to become before you as this local entity because they are the state

California.

Sure.

Another issue we're used, which there have been instances by reducing our fees.

We hope there will be more interest in coming with us.

But they still have to come before this body for the Tefra.

We just did that again with the 69th Street in your district, not long ago.

That still could be an option.

Okay.

All right.

Good.

That's fine.

Thank you.

Moved and seconded.

All in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

Stain.

So it shall be.

Thank you.

We now move to I'm 3 and 4, which I indicated that there would be a motion, I think, by Council

Member Van to continue items 3 and 4.

But we do have some public testimony.

Do you want to speak first, Council Member Van?

Yeah.

We can actually take the public testimony.

No.

Okay.

I'll go first.

Again, if the motion passes, which I believe it will, we will have the full opportunity

to speak and organize community, et cetera, on the merits of the resolutions on the third.

So today is really about a continuance.

Thanks, Mayor.

Thank you so much.

As you know, Mayor, as Co-Chair of the Racial Equity Committee, there has been a lot

of work, tremendous work invested in both resolutions by residents, careholders, city

staff, community members, and also our Racial Equity Committee to get to this moment.

But unfortunately, as much as I would want to vote on both items today, I want to formally

make a request that this Council do move both agenda items 3 and 4 to a future 5 p.m.

This is a question for several reasons I want to put on record.

And I know, Mayor, you are backing this.

It looks like our agenda is pretty packed until you leave.

And so we're hoping that we can move both of these items to December 3.

I just wanted to just make a comment.

There's just two concerns that I had.

And the reason why we're moving both items.

First is, if we are to ensure full community participation, both items should have been

heard at 5 p.m.

Because this was always the intent of the work behind both resolution.

As a city, we have a set on record that we're committed to prioritizing racial equity.

And that starts by changing the kind of city practices that we currently have.

And that's to ensure that when a topic is big as racial equity and reparations comes

to Council, I understand we have ad hoc committees, we have committees.

But they're like working committees.

And once those policies are made, we put it forth to the full Council at 5 p.m.

for deliberation.

And so the intent was always to have both resolutions at 5 p.m.

In addition to concerns I have, not just the timing, because I would like for both items

to be heard at 5 p.m.

Is that I also just want to share on record that the draft racial equity resolution that

was presented to the public on Thursday, which was posted on Thursday, is actually not

the racial equity resolution that the racial equity committee amended or voted on on October

29th.

There were red line amendments actually made from the mayor's office, my office, and also

Councilwoman Kaplan.

And we voted on this resolution.

However, the draft that's in front of you today is an edited version from the city manager's

office.

And it actually deletes major components of the resolution.

And for me, this is just really concerning.

And I wanted to share this on record because I know that if there's a policy or ordinance

that is passed in long-ledged or budget and audit, there's usually no major changes that

happens before it comes to mayor and Council.

And I think it's important that the racial equity committee is treated the same way.

And so there are some major changes that is no longer in the current resolution that

was shared with the public.

Specifically I just want to name a few because I hope that when we have a debate publicly

that we keep these items, one is there was specific direction to the city manager that

was eliminated from the resolution.

There was also an ask from the committee that there's an annual assessment of our office

diversity and equity department and annual assessment to report back to the racial equity

committee.

That was omitted from the city manager's version.

There was a request to have a potential future ordinance given that this is only a resolution.

That was also omitted from the current resolution.

And then there was language about ensuring equity lands for contracts and RFPs from the

city that was also removed from the current draft.

These are major changes that does not reflect the community or even me as the co-chair of

the racial equity committee.

And so these are the reasons why I would like to move the item to December 3rd to give

us time to make sure that we have the amended resolution that was voted by the racial equity

committee so that we can have a robust community conversation with the public at a 5 p.m.

meeting.

And those are my comments, Mayor.

Thank you.

I think I want to speak to the process in a minute.

So maybe what we ought to do is hear from the public and then I'll make a comment.

Okay?

I have five speakers on this item.

First is Cal Yee Tao.

Then Lynn Barkley-Baskin.

Nia Moore-Weathers.

I was like, is it good afternoon?

Good morning.

Good afternoon.

Council and Mayor.

My name is Cal Yee.

I am a racial equity alliance member and I just wanted to come here to voice my support.

The words of Council Member Mai Vane to delay the hearing of this item to the December 3rd

meeting that would be more accessible for our community.

The reality is that it was a one week turnaround in terms of learning that it was also going

to be heard at today's 2 p.m. meeting.

I think in our end and I know that with the intentions of all of our Council members,

we want our community to really participate in this process because that has been the

process of the score initiative so far.

So I urge, yes, I just want to showcase my support in honoring us in providing more

time for our community to be able to come out and participate.

Thank you very much.

Thank you for your comments.

Lynn Falling-Lynn is nea more Weathers, Ryan McClinton and Keaunbliss.

Thank you for hearing us, Council.

Appreciate it.

I'm not a great extemporaneous speaker but I will say Council Member Mai Vane, thank you.

Thank you.

You covered almost everything.

I just want to say one more thing.

The racial equity alliance of which I'm a part, even previous to the name, we entered

into these negotiations and looking at this resolution in good faith that people believed

that we could move this forward.

And power innately is not bad but when someone tries to take or some entity tries to take

power away from the community, it starts to look like the integrity wings.

Let's put it that way, the integrity wings.

And so I really hope that we can bring back the integrity to this process because this

is not how the process should work.

Everyone knows that we cannot negotiate as a committee here.

We have to negotiate outside of this chamber.

And so in order to do that, we have to move this to December 3rd.

Thank you so much.

Thank you for your comments, Nea.

Hello everyone, good afternoon.

My name is Nea Morewethers.

I'm a member of the racial equity alliance, a proud member of youth forward local nonprofit

here in Sacramento and also district for citizen here in Sacramento.

Super happy to be in front of you today speaking about the resolution.

I just want to go ahead and mirror all of the comments that have been left by my fellow

alliance members and uplift the comments made by council member Mai Veng.

I think it's, this is a really important moment not to belabor too long on the state of our

national political space, right?

But I think when you look at that and then you look at a piece of a document like this

that has so much hope, that has so much promise and also counts on us speaking on integrity.

Like Lynn just spoke about speaks on us to challenge ourselves to be integral, right?

And to be working together and to be in a community space.

I think like this shouldn't be taken away from community members and my colleagues who have worked so hard

to make this a document with integrity and to see its integrity be removed.

So I would like to speak on that.

Secondly, I'd like to say that when you have the opportunity for a document like this, for our city,

I think that it's good to have all of our community members be able to be present to speak on it,

especially given the fact that this document speaks on communities that have seen oppression,

right, throughout the history of our city.

So I just leave that with you all.

Thank you.

Thank you, your comments.

Ryan McClinton and Kea Ambliss.

Good afternoon, Council Mayor.

Ryan McClinton, he and fam, as a family pronouns, I am also a regular equity alliance member.

Public health advocates as well as a number of hats that y'all have heard me say too many times.

I want to start by truly thanking Council Member Maivang for our leadership and courageously speaking to one move in the process,

but also the things that occurred within the process that are problematic.

This resolution is designed to address those very types of things, right?

How do we change the way that we govern for equity in our community?

For me, being a resident of this my entire life of this city council,

I don't know if I've seen a more representative council of the diversity of Sacramento that I'm looking at.

However, our practices have to mirror that too and how we value that, the equity part of it, right?

To move this process up a week, a week's time, where we know our communities can't be present, that's a huge failure.

I would have felt so much better about this process if I would have seen nine Council members say we need to move this.

That would have been the leadership that speaks to the spirit of this resolution.

So I'm encouraged that we're actually in supportive moving it and that we do have an opportunity to move forward.

However, I deeply encourage you to dig deep and understand what is it that we have to get uncomfortable doing differently so that our communities are truly represented.

Every one of you are elected by diverse populations that look just like this board right here, but not everybody's voices in that election or in the process that leads our governance.

This is our opportunity to get that right.

This is how we set the record straight.

So we need to have our community here.

We need to have those voices here and we need to engage in an authentic process that values every member of this community.

It's accessible to every member.

I encourage that we have zoom open back up for that for the folks who can't physically get here.

Let's do a trial.

We have this opportunity.

Let's not mess this up.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Keon Bliss is our final speaker on this item.

Greetings, City Council.

I'm here to speak as an individual that's been following this process somewhat and want to really thank you,

Council Member Wang, for speaking to the necessity of this.

I'd also like to do something on Orthodox and thank City Manager Howard Chan for demonstrating why this equity resolution and these proposed measures are actually necessary in the first place.

I mean, the profound lack of integrity it takes to change the very spirit of the resolution and make some significant changes while also seemingly agendizing it for 2 p.m.

Meaning when most people are busy working and just trying to keep roof over their heads and keep things going are not here when it's less likely for them to actually participate in this resolution.

I've seen I've been watching City Council meetings for since I first moved here back in 2016 and I continue to be just amazed at how at the lack of transparency and integrity.

And City like in the city culture that this measure is measure really gets into directly and I think this is immensely necessary at a 5 p.m. meeting and I think that it should if this council genuinely cares about democratic representation about meeting and talking with all community members engaging all community members that you would make this is the meeting and participation in this conversation as accessible as possible.

Including making it accessible via zoom because that's not a hard thing to do community based organizations that have been contributing in this process do it all the time.

You can make this a special meeting and I would also encourage you not to do the usual tricks either of trying to merge this item with things like reparations and then limit our ability to participate just 2 minutes because as we all know 2 minutes is not enough time to mean.

Thank you for your comments your time is complete.

Mary have no more speakers.

Right thank you.

I'd like to make a couple of comments if I might thank you to the members of the public for coming out.

I hear you and I think it is wholly appropriate that this item be continued to December 3rd in the evening.

And thank you for pointing that out.

We want to maximize participation it is true that in these last weeks of the session so to speak last months and my

mayorship with a lot of things happening that this is a at least equal priority to the other things that we're doing.

And so thank you councilmember van in the community for pointing this out and this will be continued to my last meeting.

On the on the 3rd of December at 5 o'clock I want to speak as well though to this process and what occurred here maybe in a slightly different way.

Like it or not and and believe me community as well as the other communities like the business community have been on different sides of this question depending on who sits in this center seat.

We have a system of divided government like it or not that's what the charter says.

And so here's what is the way this process should work.

And here are two truths under the charter and our rules of procedure number one when a committee of the city council makes a decision in representation that decision or recommendation needs to be taken to the city council unfiltered.

Period.

However the city manager maintains every right under the charter to make a recommendation that is different from what the committee does both at the committee and before the entire city council.

I know so I'm just saying the way the process should be going forward.

And then this esteemed elected body whoever sits in these seats can look at the committee past resolution the city manager's difference of opinion.

A third option a fourth option the community's option and then make a decision and five votes wins.

That's the way it should work and it didn't quite work that way this time.

But going forward that's the way it needs to work.

The committee resolution needs to be if it's past needs to be the lead.

The city manager every right then to juxtapose an alternative right next to it and let the council decide.

We all learn we're all on a journey together everybody.

We're all learning.

Learning about the explicit things that affect community we're looking we're also learning about.

We call it the implicit things that affect communities belief and trust.

I would just urge all of you to keep the faith because thank you Keon to keep the faith.

Because when you look at the evolution of this process and how far we have gotten in terms of the substance in terms of the community building in terms of the conversations that have been had that had not been had previously.

That there's a lot of progress and there's a lot more work to do a lot more work to do.

So I just want to say that in terms of how the process should work going forward and look forward to a great discussion on the third of December about how we turn over the leadership to the next group of elected officials including a number of returning members and that we build some momentum behind this crucial effort.

Thank you.

Mr. Jennings.

Thank you Mayor.

I want to second the motion is on the floor.

I don't believe it's been second.

Okay.

Good.

I want to second the motion and make sure that we move this to December the 3rd at 5 p.m. where the entire community can attend and participate actively participate.

Whether that means opening it up to a zoom or just having a regular meeting.

But I want to make sure that whatever means is possible for the entire community to be able to participate that we take value in that and make that happen.

And thus in doing so we give power back to the people.

We give hope back to the people and we give promise back to the people.

And so I just want to make sure that I get the second on the floor and I'm confident that this will happen on December the 3rd at 5 p.m.

Or later.

Thank you.

Okay.

It's a motion to continue.

All in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

Deputy.

All right.

Thank you very much everybody.

See at 5 o'clock on the 3rd.

If not before.

All right.

That does conclude the agenda.

I don't know if I'm going to put it in 4.

Or the reparation.

But now I think we included 3 and 4 as part of the motion to continue.

That was 3 and 4.

So they're both continued to the 3rd of December.

Can I do a re-do it with the record?

We do.

So that does conclude the agenda.

Is there a reading into the record?

Clend.

So Mary, you have a closed session that follows this agenda.

So if I can read that to the record then you don't have to reconvene at the diet.

OK.

So we have a special meeting at 3 p.m. for a closed session.

The closed session is four items.

Pursuit to government code section 54956.91 to discuss matters pertaining to pending litigation.

Christina McGarvey, Varsity of Sacramento, Sacramento Superior Court case number 3, 4-2021-00293531.

Item 2 is pursuant to government code section 54956.91 to discuss matters pertaining to

pending litigation.

Via Conch, Martinez, V city of Sacramento, Sacramento County Superior case number 3, 4-2023-00334021.

Item 3 is pursuant to government code section 5495.69D1 to discuss matters pertaining to pending

litigation.

Sharon Frye, Varsity of Sacramento, U.S. District Court for Eastern District of California,

list number 2, 2, 2, CV, 01936.

And the final item pursuant to government code section 54956.9D.

That's 54956.9D1 to discuss matters pertaining to pending litigation.

Gary Loach, Varsity of Sacramento, Sacramento Superior Court case number 3, 4-2022-0032669.

So we do have a quorum.

You may adjourn to closed session.

All right.

Thank you.

Are there council ideas and questions or members of the community that want to testify and

matters not on the agenda?

Do we have any Madame Clerk?

Nope.

No council members.

Do we adjourn at 3 o'clock to closed session or is it quarter to three?

I mean, do we go right in?

Closed session will start at 3.

Okay.

So we are adjourned to closed session of 3.

And then regular session at 5 o'clock.

We're adjourned.