good afternoon let's call this meeting to order

Order. Sacramento City Council slash housing authority.

Please call the roll. Thank you, Mayor.

Councilmember Kaplan is expected momentarily.

Councilmember Dickinson is expected momentarily.

Vice mayor Talamante. Councilmember Dickinson.

Councilmember Dickinson has arrived. Councilmember Plecubam is expected momentarily.

Councilmember Maple. Mayor Pro Tem Gada.

Councilmember Jennings. Councilmember Vang.

And Mayor McCarty. You have a quorum.

Thank you. Councilmember Talamante.

Can you lead us in the pledge and land acknowledgement?

All right. Please rise for the opiate acknowledgments

and honor Sacramento's indigenous people and tribal lands.

To the original people of this land.

The Nisanam people, the southern Maidu, Valley and Plains, Miwok, Petwin, Wintoon peoples,

and the people of 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

of acknowledgement and appreciation for Sacramento's indigenous people, history, contributions,

and lives. Thank you.

So let's pledge.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for

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

So may we move to the discussion calendar? You do not have a consent calendar. Item number

one 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.

Whitney Hinton with Sacramento Housing Redevelopment Agency. Staff is requesting approval of final

loan documents of the local housing trust fund, housing trust fund, and HOPPA funds

will entail a mid-rise five-story building with 52 units total including 35 studios and

17 one-bed rooms. There will be one managers unit. Amenities on site will include a lounge,

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 a homeless development

with 51 project-based vouchers. Danko communities develop the first phase of the project and

is the developer for the second phase. Danko 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, Mac Worthy.

You know, I've been coming here alone, and I never ask you off of nothing. But when I see my

language, I recognize it. I'm the only Negro student here and talk about a trust fund. A lot

of you are putting 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 off that trust fund. You can borrow it out of six,

but you've got to keep the money, the back bone, the back kickback coming out. You see, you can't

go along and give people $10 an hour instead of property managers. They're just there. Can any

of these people leave as they already know a car bank is held now? You're just there. Those

little jobs created, you can't own a million dollar house. Get out of there, get you a real estate

license and understand equity and property. Go to a group of people and they utilize that equity

and property and get you a broker to parlay it. That's from 50,000 to 200,000 each. And you build

the project and then once it's accepted, you've got dividends coming to you and the lien is lifted

off your property. Lines are 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 going to go right back

to the bonds, bonds, bonds. Well, what's the stuff in the paper that somebody got $3 million for a

lawyer? How did that corruption? Who signed off on those loans? Somebody better wake up here,

because you are aligned to the public. If your comments, Mayor, I have no more speakers on this

item. Okay. Thank you. Questions or comments from Council members? Council Member 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 that out are below 30% of AMI. I'm just curious on the

part that has been converted and opened the whole hotel, Sutter house. 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, you know, it would be preferable to me if

there was some mix of income levels, but this project is a good project. And 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

you know, one of the objectives to me with housing in general, affordable housing in particular,

is to get economic integration in neighborhoods. 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, where I spent a

fair amount of time over my life, I would be good to bring some economic integration to that

general vicinity. But we are where we are. But thanks for the answer.

Thank you.

Councillor Plocke-Bombs.

I'll move staff's recommendation.

Sorry.

Motion is second. No further questions from council members. All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

A noes or abstentions. None. Manager passes 8-0.

Next item.

Item number two is the Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency SHRA workshop, affordable housing policy

and funding impacts.

Good afternoon. Mayor McCarty, council members, Keisha Bolleware with SHRA.

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 SHRA 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 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 10-15% 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 SHRA 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 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 and 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 SHRA 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 opened 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 in 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 home key 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, SHRA was able to pull folks up from the wait list exclusively, but in 2016 HUD 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 with 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 move out has increased nearly 10-fold.

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 and additional wear and tear we've noticed with households reacclimating to living inside.

The next two slides will analyze how the city and county policy shifts have impact in multifamily 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 and exchange it.

And finally, new construction with the 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 tracks 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 SHA financed, you can see a shift over the 10 year 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 allot 30% of its vouchers to project based developments.

SHA 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 from an 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 SHA loans or shore up reserves.

Today, SHA'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.

But 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 policy shift towards 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 unit 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.

SHA is a dynamic organization that uses its levers to support housing stability in Sacramento.

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 rehousing funds and rental subsidies,

ensuring existing affordable housing remains secure and well maintained, and both public housing and our portfolio of SHA 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 costs.

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 housing tax cut 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 included adults caring for young children.

HUD is promoting the consolidation of housing authorities and fortunately with our joint powers authority structure, SHA 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 US citizens.

SHA does serve mixed status families where benefits are prorated for non-citizens, but there is a risk that entire households could be removed from our programs.

SHA is well equipped to manage this uncertainty and both address the urgent matters at hands and advance strategic initiatives.

As a path forward, SHA 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 fulfilling 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 a public comment?

I do. May I have four speakers? The first is Mac Worthy, Nor Calsoer, Michael Melton, then Jonathan Cook.

Dickson, you're going to have a ride. Just don't fall off the horse. People, is this anything other than a workshop?

A workshop is a two-sided figure. I always see it as charts. Nobody said how much money that the city is bringing in on property tax.

On property tax, where is the figure that the city is collecting on property tax of the low-income housing?

Now, we know developers involved. What is the split between private and the city on the income tax?

Tell us. How should we all these charts? You don't have to do that.

Per building, you got stuff going on in those buildings. It's education. Those things weren't designed to educate no damn at Dusty Hill, but you put those things in its killings.

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 Pell? It's when you went from Pats in the neighborhood.

The lady in the hikes told them you're going to lose the state-propelled investigation. Have you done so, too? You got no Pell investigation.

You're on a back for bonds and we ain't got enough money. It's sad. It's sad you come to this point. That property where you are at now, I know when that went in foreclosure.

I had a friend from the state, a contract up there, who really envelopes night trying to get stuff out to be in them.

Okay, when the city took over that, there wasn't no more property tax. Bail savings lost that property.

But the city of Sacramento, when the money came in...

Thank you for your comments, Norr, Kausauer.

Following Norr is Michael Milton.

Good afternoon, Council and Mayor. Norr Kausauer, the nonprofit affordable housing developer, EAH Housing.

We are focused on workforce, senior, farm worker and permanent supportive housing statewide, including here in Sacramento.

EAH wanted to thank SHA for their presentation today that provided a lot of really good context to understand our city's housing successes, challenges and opportunities ahead of us.

I can't sure that EAH is sitting at a lot of tables similar to this, including at the Sacramento Housing Alliance and several state and national coalitions, and we're all having the same conversation.

We support SHA'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 to 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 going 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 Melting.

I'd like to say that the SHA needs to be investigated.

We need to know what happened to the money that the governor gave SHA 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 a homeless shelter.

I've been homeless since 2018.

2021, I was selected. Then they took me off of 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 Lou like 500 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 the appointment will be three weeks out.

And then you'd be on the phone. 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, 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 T number for my housing. And it's been sent since February and I still haven't got any keys 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 to say.

I think we're going to get to that in a couple of minutes.

We have a couple of questions to make sure you have any comments. Jonathan cook?

Good afternoon. Jonathan cook, executive director with the Sacramento housing alliance. We appreciate this presentation and partnership with HRA and their staff and the important work that they are doing.

We're continuing to prioritize resources for extremely low income residents as well as 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. Council member.

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? Is it first come for servers? Is there another process for establishing priority?

Okay. Go ahead. Dr. Dodger.

Yes. In terms of the housing choice voucher, there are separate lists for different weight 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. There are additional preferences based on rent burden, veteran status, things of that nature.

As a percentage of the folks that we're serving, do we know how many were previously homeless?

Oh, yes. Absolutely. In fact, Mary Liz just walked back in at the most opportune time. 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. In our project based voucher program, and Keisha was talking about how many of the families or how many of the units we have that are

more adding, but many of those families are specifically homeless and the housing is targeted to serve specifically homeless. Like in the first presentation here for Sacramento's, Central Sacramento Studios is specifically available for homeless families.

So on that bar chart you're referencing it shows about a little bit under 30% of folks were utilizing the housing choice voucher were previously homeless. Is there some sort of barrier? Like is there a way for us to serve that population more? Is there something we could 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 want to say, pretty exclusively homeless. And I'm saying that because as you heard, we're in shortfall 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 in place program? Things where we're paying rental assistance, maybe something like street to housing or the Calium transitional rent? Is there something like that that we can do?

When we have vouchers available, we did. We do have a lease in place preference or priority. So that's 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 were folks were 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?

Yes. 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 very 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 who lost a voucher during that time, you'd 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 and 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 as we're talking about.

How many on least housing choice vouchers are there right now? 12,000? How many are at least? Over 12,000. Yeah, about 12,500.

And 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 find a unit?

No. At this point, what happens if they have a voucher? We 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's information about folks, about where folks can go 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.

Has 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, I'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 a second.

Public housing, how many available units of public housing are there in the city?

Does anyone, like even a ballpark number?

1650.

1650.

Is there a referral process for someone signing up?

Is there a way for, how do folks find the housing?

Is there, beyond knowing, you know, 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-ins are offered based on the preferences.

Executive director Dozier mentioned.

I'm sorry, but there was 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 were 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.

I might ask Susette Hawkins to come to the front.

Oh, Mary Liz, 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 project availability would be in the future for project-based vouchers?

So, yes.

So there is a regulatory limit that limits housing authorities to be able to project-based 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-based.

We're currently, as Kisha reported out, we're about 29% in that area of using all of the vouchers that are available for project-based vouchers.

So at this point, we're pretty close to being at the maximum that is available.

When de-districtions on a project are about to expire, is there anything that SHA 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, a recindicated, they call it, to extend that affordability.

But I think we have been discussing other options in terms of providing SHA financing to extend that affordability.

Christine, do you want to?

Yeah, Council Member.

A number, as Kisha went through our funding priorities in one of the previous slides, the number one priority still remains at SHA, those preservation of those units that are going to lose their affordability.

So that still is our number one funding priority, which can be losing a contract for vouchers, for HAP 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 at the most.

And that is what's now a concern to us that we could lose the ability to occupy some of the units.

Well, they 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 in the discussion this afternoon?

We're talking about stream mining, the building department. Are there 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 doing our different funding rounds with those projects.

They have, you know, purchases, hell agreements on properties.

They have plans for leveraging all sorts of federal and state funding sources, especially state, tax credits and things.

What they're really missing is that gap, that gap financing.

And so, as Keisha said, 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 worked very hard to leverage all the state and other funds that are available to make sure that our local dollars go as far as they can.

You know, the 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, they, you know, 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.

Council Member Diggs.

I'm going to pick up a little bit on what Council Member Plucky-Bomb 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.

That's the 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, 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 that 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 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 what, 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.

Oh, so it is the funding?

It's definitely the funding.

Yes.

Okay, I had understood it previously.

It was the other way around, which was kind of surprising.

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.

I'm their vice president.

And our recent trip back to DC, 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're 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 Council Member Pluckybaum.

In the early 2000s in the unincorporated 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 and 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 that says over 6,500 units.

I think that those were ones that we had looked at.

It was in a relatively short period of time either that are expiring in the next 10 years,

or that we think that we'll 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 occupiable.

So I think two things have happened.

I think statewide the resources for like 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.

But statewide we've shifted away from that in favor of new construction of homeless housing,

but also locally our priorities here at SHA are not to fund those projects.

If a new construction project is most likely a homeless or permanent supportive 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 and 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 uninhabitable, but it won't be uninhabitable.

And that has a whole set of elements and implications to it as well.

True. And I should point out when the, he's had her slide up there and 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?

Just about every project we bring before the council has some level of mortgage revenue bonds or tax credits or other state funding in it.

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 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 the extent to which out of that bucket we're able 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 quantify, Kaysha.

Do you have any ideas?

As with all of the funding programs at the state, it's competitive.

And so, SHRI 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, you know, certainly wouldn't want to overlook that source and push for as much as we could get there.

Not necessarily, it's easier than tax credits or other 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 the potential for a state housing bond and we're also in that conversation at the state level.

Did somebody remember Wix, introduce another bond?

Wix and Kabal, they're the same bond, they're just going through the two houses.

Yeah.

Okay, thank you.

That's Mervane.

Thanks, Mayor.

I just have some, mainly some comments and then just a few questions.

First, I just really want to thank LaShelle for your leadership and also your staff.

I 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, right?

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 SHA 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, really do that work, right?

And so a big part of this does come to funding in particular, right?

Not just here at the local level, but really at the federal level.

And I really appreciate hearing the work that SHA is doing to advocate at the state and national level.

It's really concerning to hear that, you know, we are anticipating additional cuts from HUD.

My understanding is that SHA, our budget, S-H-R-A, our budget right now, correct me if I'm wrong, is about 75% of the budget.

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 S-H-R-A and to 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 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, you know, live within our city?

And so really appreciate you just highlighting these things.

I think one thing I just want to, you know, 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, yeah, it's a buffy and, yeah, Christopher Caboldon to do the 10 million affordable housing bond, right?

Billion.

10 billion.

10 billion.

10 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, right?

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, right?

And so, you know, 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 fully support, we also have to be ready at the local level.

And so I would love to, you know, I would like to make an ask or a request.

I know that there are conversations around a transportation measure.

I don't know if that's STA that's going to do pulling whatnot, the groups that are organizing around it.

But I do think that on the housing piece, whether it's a joint pulling or we do a separate one that we actually explore the appetite at the local level.

I think that's really important.

So 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'd love for the city to explore that option and I fully support that.

Thank you, mayor.

Thank you, councilor Maple.

Thank you, mayor.

And thank you. Thank you for the presentation.

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, that, you know, so much has 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, 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 who are unhoused and also folks who are the hardest to reach.

And the most, and often times 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, you know, I think it's really important. This work that's being done in that, and even despite the challenges with those, with those funding mechanisms.

So that was really, really good to know.

Also appreciated the preservation versus new construction look of 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. Cause we want to keep that existing housing stock and build on it as much as we can.

And so, but really be interested in, 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 interested in that.

And obviously it always comes down to money and we've had that conversation.

You know, 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.

Because 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, you know, whoever's involved with the transportation and then also housing 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 going to say what that is because I don't know, but hopefully people started the meal.

I'll get together and figure that out.

The one question I do have is, I'm sorry if someone else asked this and it was answered, but do we know how many emergency housing vouchers are currently in use?

It's just below 450.

450.

And we're not, we expect that to expire in 2026 or to sunset.

That's right.

Well, if I could chime in.

Yes.

The emergency housing vouchers were intended to go until 2030.

So it's supposed to be in 10 years.

And recently we've heard from HUD that instead of going 10 years, it's only going to 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, you know, 450 families that we have recently housed would not have a subsidy.

We would have to terminate their vouchers.

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 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 a while and it's, you know, the besides advocating at the federal level, you know, it's really out of your hands how much money is handed down to you.

And so, but, you know, I'm hopeful that we can all come together and make sure that we have a strategic plan in place, you 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, 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, you know, hate to get to a situation where, you know, 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 waitlist that's very long as well.

We have a lot of people who are waiting for housing, but I just that's that's top of mind for me, certainly.

And then another comment I'll make is I know that there is, I think, Councillor Dickinson mentioned that there's a conversation that's happening at the county level about, you know, that maybe their participation in SHA, what does that look like, how do 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 SHA. We need all of our partners that are in this room and beyond.

And I would like a CSP even more coordinated and have more of a structure in place rather than less.

And so however we can accomplish that together, I would like to do that.

But, you know, 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, Council Member Jennings.

Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you.

I want to join my colleague in just speaking to the resiliency of SHA through the years and the great leadership that you've 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 want to 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 more, 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?

I'll take a crack at that.

What's needed and 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 is an appropriate time to stop and take a look.

If we only focus in one area, what are we going to, 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.

The things that we do are not SHA policies, they're your policies that you have adopted and said, this is the way that I want you, SHA, to go.

This is the way that I want you to fund projects.

So, 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?

And I'm just asking out loud to see what we can do together to help in this effort.

I'm just throwing that B-hag out, that big Harry Audacious goal.

How is it going at home?

We've talked about that.

I've talked to some supervisors about that.

My understanding it's been 20 plus years since we had a meeting with all, what, 13 of us? 14?

Those are 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, 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 Steinberg was.

Oh, okay, you did one, 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 Council Member Maples' conversation.

This is essentially a marriage, a 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 communicating with several supervisors about this.

Some other council, 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.

El Grove, Rancho, other jurisdictions, maybe it's the county board of supervisors and one from each of the cities.

And so, two of these things have been kind of discussed, but we're talking about them.

But I think it comes down to the conclusion that we're all in these things together on housing and homelessness, especially homelessness.

Council Member Maples?

Oh, I'm sure. Were you done?

Yes. I mean, I'm sorry.

Yeah, 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-oh.

And so there's a few things that we could just frankly have an opportunity to get updates on that we're already doing as well.

So, thank you.

Vice Mayor, Talamantes?

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 discussed some.

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.

Did I hear that correctly?

That's correct.

Okay, 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 it just kind of shook my heart.

You know, 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, maybe it 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 income.

And so I had to go through the financial 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 sacramentans.

And it's like these back-brown 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,

and number one, most cost-effective way of preventing homelessness.

And it's something that as we move forward for me, we got to continue reminding ourselves that we got to prevent families from becoming homelessness.

And especially in these next, I mean, gosh, we're what, four months into the Trump administration and 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 sacramentans.

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 it 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 of supervisors asking for help?

So I just like, you know, 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's the bond that I just learned about.

I don't keep up with state stuff too much. 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, three jobs to make ends meet and all this federal level uncertainty is just a big deal.

And so it's 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, I mean, we just have to figure it out.

So I guess for me, you know, 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? You know, 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, we just don't know what's coming our way. Every day is 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 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 SHA 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 SHA. 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 oversee SHA. 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 note 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 homeless 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 SHA, 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 SHA commissioner. Do you know that? Early in his career before some of your careers even started on this earth.

Before, yes, much before you were born. Yes. So he was a commissioner in its fifth year. It was a nice organization. And he served for one year before he went to tackle our RT issues.

So, but a lot of illustrious individuals served on this commission, including former mayor, Joe Cerna, former state treasurer, Phil Angelides. And I served on it for a few years as well. So,

Former mayor, Burnett Miller.

Former mayor, Burnett Miller. There's a big list. And, you know, back then it was all the redevelopment was the big focus. And that's where, you know, we could really make a difference in some of these communities.

And we talk all about not about EIFDs, but that was the notion EIFD on steroids when you focused on underserved communities can really make make a dent in, you know, during the great recession that was taken away. Thanks to our, our former president pro tem Darrell Steinberg.

You didn't vote for that, right, Roger? No, okay.

But those were tough choices. And I want to blame Darrell's, the governor and, you know, 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, 811th Street, right? And if you look in the attachment, roughly it was about $600,000 per unit.

And I think that's in 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, let's just for hypothetical purposes say we have 4,000 homeless people in the city of Sacramento, roughly.

I think the count is like, maybe double that county wide in the pits. Let's just say there are 4,000. And let's say we want to build a unit for all those like 815, 815 11th 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 600 grand a door.

So I think that's why we're seeing all this pressure. What can we do differently? And yeah, I, I, Councilor 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 love to have your engagement on that. We can, we can follow up and talk about that. But I think that the question is, is we see these projects in 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 the families. And then when I leave, I get great sadness. Like there's just, we give a lottery ticket to 5% of the people. And what about the 95% are like, what about me? I'm drowning over here. Throw me a life jacket. And so I feel too often that we're just, and know these projects are great.

No offense to people who are working on these, but we're building like a BMW solution for a small subset when like, like when you're in a crisis, you're like, maybe we need to be focusing on, you know, Toyotas 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. You know, we're, 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, you know, capital park homes right on the street, 800 grand a door, whatever it was.

And that's, that's the BMW on steroids. That's the, that's the model, whatever version. So I just know, I, 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, 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, that those communities are living in housing that's categorized as a D. And we'd like to get them to see, you know, 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 and the heat.

Not more with less, but, but, but more that maybe don't have all the, our bells and whistles. So we can just focus on the numbers because that's what our constituents are counting on us to do.

Yeah, take a crack at it. Good luck.

Good luck.

Okay. Well, I think one of the things that's important to know 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. You know, it's not just, you know, that we built it. It's the service providers.

It's, you know, all of the things that, you know, we really need to stabilize very, very fragile people that were 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, they're not going to be successful. They're going to end up, you know, 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're looking at something much less if you're 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 this a minute ago offline and you showed me that project. It was the hard costs were 600, soft costs were 400.

Correct.

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 300 years to get to those 4,000. 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're having a perfect plan for someone with services, but only 5% of the people are getting that.

And we're just telling you others, good luck. You have no services and attend 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 yesterday driving around by a bunch of sites in Sacramento.

And I saw some amazing SHA funded projects in all of our districts. But it's like, man, if you just look at the pure mathematics and break out the calculator, we're 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 SHA.

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 want to focus now on, I think Mr. Plochkibomb talked about this earlier, on the housing choice vouchers. How do we pick and choose what projects get the project based housing choice vouchers?

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 Lashel 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 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.

And if 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, how do we evaluate people that are applying from SHRA projects or other projects, city projects, county, does SHRA kind of oversee projects, have first crack at the project based housing choice vouchers or it's all open to anybody to go for them?

We cannot 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 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 more individuals that might have been homeless are going into public housing.

And so challenges when they move out and the damages, I guess, to those units as you outlined, what's the overall roughly occupancy or conversely vacancy rate for our public housing units?

As I recall for our, on our county side, I think overall occupancy were 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 operating.

And 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've had COVID, it 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, that Kisha showed, show the dramatic jump between what is that cost when people move out that went from, I think, on your slide.

800 to 8000.

8000.

Average of what we're seeing.

So when we go in to turn a unit in the past, it would take us maybe, you know, two or $3,000.

We, you know, be able to put in some new flooring and, you know, paint.

Here we having 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, that we fund and target homeless, are we going to our shelter programs, to Stockton Safe State, to Roseville,

to the WX Navigation Center or the MetaVee 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 grandma or a relative and doubling up.

And that's not optimal, but some would argue it's better than living in a shelter or encampment.

Well, as we mentioned, people who are homeless or 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 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 in 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, Broadway or here off of Richards, you know, do we go after certain populations or just whoever pops up first?

We have staff 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 they prioritize people in 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 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.

And it's not, 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?

We pick way more losers than 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 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.

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 fund 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.

So years ago, when we did 7th and 8th, 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 services or things like that, whoever's helping them.

But today in probably the last five or plus years, more years, Keisha's absolutely right.

Not only has SHA required, but the state of California has required that the individuals go through a coordinated access program.

So that is Sacramento Steps Forward.

So all the projects we have financed in recent years, if they're homeless, they must be referred from Sacramento Steps Forward.

But they also all have very intense service providers that help feed into Sacramento Steps Forward.

So if you are connected maybe at the shelter or maybe, you know, not through the shelter, maybe you're on the street, but you've been connected with a service provider, they'll help you get to SSF and then SSF refers them to Central Sac Studios soon, right, in a couple years.

Okay. And then I know it's so depressing looking at what's happening at the federal government and threats on a daily basis and it makes our heads spin.

But what, and as Councilman Reveing asked the question, that 75% of our money is from the federal government, and I think most of the money is for our public housing and housing choice voucher.

That's almost three quarters, two thirds of our SHA money, right, those two programs?

Correct. And also we have CDBG, HOME and a few other.

Correct. But what is, 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 something like that?

Around 350 or so.

350, so 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 off 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, which of these programs are in most jeopardy from what we've heard so far from the federal government? What should 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 the...

Well, the public housing, even though it is, there's a deed of trust that the federal government has. So technically they're 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 most in jeopardy?

Yeah, the housing choice voucher, the home, I guess, is Huapa.

Right. So I think...

CDBG, which of those are, are buzzed, you talked to the federal partners, which, 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 on 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 would be housing choice vouchers.

That is correct.

By far.

That is correct.

Okay. And just to follow up this, if there's one thing out of all of my words, I'm sorry 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 you know, we can only go forward from 2025 onward.

And how do we deliver more at a different price point?

Because that's like, that's the only way I think we're going to be viable and have comfort from our elected leadership.

Council member back to council member, maple and bang.

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, 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 have 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, what do we want to tell, you know, Lachelle Dozier and her wonderful team to do and that what are our priorities?

And so 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, Library Authority, Transportation Authority, Saacog and others that I can't even read 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, 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?

Is that something that you do as the mayor?

What does that look like?

I don't know who, I guess maybe that's to you.

Yes, they collectively have to agree upon it.

So I've 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, if we 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.

It went away.

Kind of rocked my brain, but well, you know,

I'm not quite a mysterious.

Obviously, you know, it's no secret.

I've been a big proponent of this and I have spoken to folks in our state 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's, 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 SHA RA2 to be really clear.

And we can even frame it as a priority setting activity.

So, so, because I mean, it was 2017 that was almost 10 years ago, which is also really crazy to think 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, Councilor Vang.

Thanks, Mayor.

I just want to echo Councilwoman Maple as well.

Councilmember Maple.

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 a direction at SHA to actually come back with perhaps different alternative in terms of price point.

I think that's really great.

And I think that's a direction that that that I agree with.

I think it'd 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.

And 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 unintended consequences that can happen?

Because I think that's really important.

I share that because earlier we just heard from Lachelle that, you know, oftentimes it's not just the construction, but it's the services that cost more.

I have a story to share because there's a there's an apartment complex in my district that is low income that is not overseen by SHA and so many of those families have been evicted one because they don't have the job, the workforce and the onsite 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 point?

That's that's all I'm our

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 up with 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 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 Garra. Thank you, mayor. 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

in their in their language that they used, but we should be just as clever in making sure

we litigate on that and also on the impoundment clause. So and obviously Congress did the

CDBG funds in 1974. So they've already have a clear record of where 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. Mac Worthy.

I have Mac Worthy, Michael Melton, then Oliver Romo. Mr. Worthy.

Public comment. This is public comment for matters 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. And I ain't seen nothing that you can do and nothing you can't do 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 going to do with Turks instead of coming up with an idea

to find this by yourself. I urge him to keep cut because you refused

into deal with the Constitution of the United States, the state of California. And you should

catch hell. Before you can do anything here, mayor, you got to get your corruptions out.

You just like the previous three. Same bullshit out here. You can't. Those little nice words

saying they come. Like Dickson, we remember Dickson, the old

Al, with Ted Sheet, his wife, with this or two. We know that. But could we see them?

But nobody wants to listen. Hell is where we got some ideas. You ain't got no ideas.

Hell how you put together for yourself, you can refer back to nothing. This is what this

city fell into. How many people have left the low income

housing and own a house now? A plan, a policy. You are designing again to keep a man. Suppose

that a man like Mac will say, look, we got enough housing and help grow to move out 3,000

years. Where would you go? You're a fan of the government.

They just don't think about it, put them on the table and ask questions. What should we

do if the money keeps being cut? It's going to be cut. It'll lend you a lesson. It's going

to be cut. Don't worry about the term. You worry about what you can do for the state here.

You're not. You worry about what you can get from the money.

If your time is complete, Michael Melton, then Oliver Romo.

Like I said before, SHRA, sorry to come at you all. You 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 buy 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

Habitat for Humanity. It's 100,000 people right now ready to help to build Sacramento

up and get these people off the streets. There's no reason for us to be in the same situation.

There's no reason for somebody to have a $600,000 house that champagne wishes with beer money.

That'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 Elk Grove like

you guys, Laguna or in the Granite Bay. Everybody's not out in Greenhaven. We need houses for

North Natomas. We need to go back to Wilton, Oak Park, Del Paso Heights. We need to build

low income, not places that's going to cost that much money. That's just ridiculous. We

need to rebuild the neighborhood. What else was I going to say? About these shelters, there

are money grab, they're 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 SHRX place, do it yourself. That's what I was telling them.

That's how I ended up back up in here. All right, not because-

Keep your comments. Your time is complete. Our final speaker is Oliver Romo.

Hi, everyone. My name is Oliver Romo. I'm at Ella Dining Room and Bar. My name is Oliver.

Will you start again? I didn't have your speaker on. Sorry. My name is Oliver Romo. I work at Ella

Dining Room and Bar. I'm just here to talk about parking prices. Before that, I just

want to say that- I don't know why I'm- it's funny how I'm here listening to the SHR. My

first- my house that I bought, it was through SHR8. I remember Dosir being there. I was the

first home buyer. It changed my life. Anyway, sorry that is happening to you.

Keep fighting for it and you'll get there. Anyways, I work 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 management wage in the kitchen. However, since the discount was

continued, 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 coworkers as well as staff from other nearby restaurants

are starting to reconsider working somewhere else instead of downtown because of the parking

situation. Just to be financially sustainable. If this trend continues, it could lead probably

into serious staffing shortages since a third of us are already talking about moving out.

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 want to pay what it's right. Please consider this.

I got to go back to work. Thank you for your 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 in chambers. There is one item on the closed session agenda

pursuant 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, stationery engineers,

local 39, Sacramento airy firefighters, local 522, Sacramento Sierra building and construction