renewal enterprise district (red) board meeting...2020/04/23 · listen or watch the live stream of...
TRANSCRIPT
Renewal Enterprise District (RED)
Board Meeting Regular Meeting
Date: April 23, 2020
Time: 1:00 p.m.
www.renewalenterprisedistrict.org
In accordance with Executive Orders N-25-20 and N-29-20 the April 23, 2020
RED Board of Directors meeting will be held virtually.
MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC MAY NOT ATTEND THIS MEETING IN PERSON
*UPDATE REGARDING VIEWING AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN APRIL 23, 2020 RED BOARD
MEETING*
The April 23, 2020 RED Board Meeting will be facilitated virtually through Zoom.
Members of the public can watch or listen to the meeting using one of the two following
methods:
1. Join the Zoom meeting application on your computer, tablet or smartphone at:https://zoom.us/j/98399509618
Meeting ID: 983 9950 9618
2. Call-in and listen to the meeting:
Dial 1 (669) 900-6833
Enter Meeting ID: 983 9950 9618
or
iPhone one-tap:
+16699006833,,98399509618#
Public Comment During the Meeting:
You may email public comment to [email protected]. All
emailed public comments will be forwarded to all Board Members.
During the meeting, if you have joined as a member of the public in the Zoom app or by calling
in, there will be specific points throughout the meeting assigned to public comment.
*END OF UPDATE*
1
2
Public Comment:
Public Comment may be submitted via recorded voice message or email.
Voice recorded public comment: To submit public comment via recorded message, please call
707-477-5653 by 5pm Wednesday, April 22, 2020. State your name and the item number(s) on
which you wish to speak. The recordings will be limited to two minutes. These comments may
be played at the appropriate time during the board meeting.
Email public comment: To submit an emailed public comment to the Board please email
[email protected] and provide your name, the item number(s)
on which you wish to speak, and your comment. These comments will be emailed to all Board
members and can be provided anytime leading up to and throughout the meeting.
HOW TO LISTEN OR WATCH THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING:
Listen or Watch the live stream of the Board of Supervisors Meeting: You may access the live
stream of the meeting by using one of the two following methods:
1. Join the Zoom meeting application on your computer, tablet or smartphone at:https://zoom.us/j/98399509618
Meeting ID: 983 9950 9618
2. Call-in and listen to the meeting:
Dial 1 (669) 900-6833
Enter Meeting ID: 983 9950 9618
or
iPhone one-tap:
+16699006833,,98399509618#
DISABLED ACCOMMODATION:
If you have a disability which requires an accommodation or an alternative format to assist you
in observing and commenting on this meeting, please contact the Clerk of the Board at (707)
477-5653 or by email [email protected] by 12pm Wednesday,
April 22, 2020 to ensure arrangements for accommodation. The rules for public observation
and comment supersede and replace the standard provisions for the duration of the public
health emergency.
The rules for public observation and comment supersede and replace the standard provisions on page
four for the duration of the public health emergency.
2
3
Agenda
1. Call to Order and Roll Call
2. Public comment on matters not listed on the agenda but within the subject matterjurisdiction of the Board
3. Consent Calendara. Approve minutes of February 26, 2020 Board meeting
b. Establish the Renewal Enterprise District as a Generation Housing (GenH) Founding
Member: Approve a one-time $10,000.00 funding commitment to Gen H to establish
the Renewal Enterprise District as a Founding Member and partner in pursuit of shared
housing goals.
c. Approve Year-to-date Financial Report
4. Informational Item - Update on Phase One of the Forsyth Advisors Feasibility Study exploringa new fund or financing program that could be implemented to support infill development.Progress report on screening models for financing infill development for their feasibility in thedowntown Santa Rosa market and other urban areas of the County.
5. Action Itemsa. Legislative Principles for 2020: Consider adoption of the 2020 RED legislative principles.
Recommended Action: Consider adopting the RED 2020 Legislative Principles.
b. Fiscal Year 2020-2021 Budget: Review and consider approval of Fiscal Year 2020-2021
budget.
Recommended Action: Approve the Fiscal Year 2020-21 Budget and Budget resolution.
6. Executive Director Report
7. Adjournment
Member Agency Directors
City of Santa Rosa Victoria Fleming (Chair)
County of Sonoma Shirlee Zane (Vice Chair)
City of Santa Rosa Jack Tibbetts
County of Sonoma David Rabbitt
Special Accommodations: If you have a disability which requires an accommodation, an alternative
format, or requires another person to assist you while attending this meeting, please contact Michelle
Whitman, (707) 543-3087, as soon as possible to ensure arrangements for accommodation.
3
4
Public Comment: Any member of the audience desiring to address the Board on a matter on the agenda:
please complete a Speaker Card and hand it to staff at the beginning of the meeting or prior to the time
the Board Chair closes public comment on the item about which you wish to speak. When called by the
Chair, please walk to the podium, state your name and make your comments. The public may comment
on closed session items prior to the Board adjourning to closed session. In order that all interested
parties have an opportunity to speak, please be brief and limit your comments to the subject under
discussion. Each person is usually granted 3 minutes to speak; time limitations are at the discretion of
the Chair. While members of the public are welcome to address the Board, under the Brown Act Board
members may not deliberate or take action on items not on the agenda, and generally may only listen.
Meeting Documents: The associated documentation is available at the offices of the JPA listed above
and on the website at: www.RenewalEnterpriseDistrict.org
Any changes to the date of the hearing, or any other updates will be noticed on the above website. For
more information, please contact Michelle Whitman, [email protected]
4
Renewal Enterprise District (RED) Board Meeting
Regular Meeting Minutes - DRAFT Date: February 26, 2020
Time: 1:00 p.m. Meeting location: SCTA Board Room
411 King Street, Santa Rosa, CA 95404 Renewal Enterprise District office: 100 Santa Rosa Ave., Room 5, Santa Rosa, CA 95404
www.renewalenterprisedistrict.org
Agenda 1. Call to Order and Roll Call, Vice Chair Jack Tibbetts called the meeting to order at 1:15 pm and
noted that a quorum was present, consisting of the following Directors: Jack Tibbetts, ShirleeZane, and Victoria Fleming. Director Fleming was excused for a teleconference between 1:30and 2:00. Chairman David Rabbitt was delayed by an earlier meeting and arrived at 1:30.
2. Closed Session (SCTA Large Conference Room): Prior to recess into Closed Session, the publicmay speak up to three minutes on items to be addressed in Closed Session. Recess ClosedSession and Reconvene to Open Session in SCTA Board Room.
a. Public Employee Appointment, General Counsel Pursuant to Government Code54957(b)(1), Executive Director to be present.
b. Public Employee Appointment, Audit Services Pursuant to Government Code54957(b)(1), Executive Director to be present.
3. Closed Session Report Out, The Board gave direction to appoint Burke, Williams & Sorensen asGeneral Counsel to the RED and to appoint Pisenti and Brinker as RED Auditor. The authority toenter into agreements for legal services and audit services was formally acted upon later in themeeting on the consent calendar.
4. Public comment on matters not listed on the agenda but within the subject matterjurisdiction of the BoardPublic speakers: noneChair invited public comment, none came forward.
5. Consent Calendara. Approve minutes of November 25, 2019 Board meetingb. Authorize Executive Director to execute contract for audit services with selected firm:
Appointment of outside auditor for the RED in an amount not to exceed $15,000.00.c. Authorize Executive Director to execute Legal Services Agreement with selected
Counsel: Appointment of General Legal Counsel for the RED in an amount not to exceed$30,000.00.
d. Approve contract for grant writing services: Contract for consulting services asnecessary for grant applications submitted to the State of California, Housing andCommunity Development (HCD) funding opportunities, including the Infill InfrastructureGrant (IIG), a program that supports affordable, infill, transit-oriented housingdevelopment, in an amount not to exceed $20,000.
5
2
e. Approve Year-to-Date Financial Report
Recommended Action: Approve items as presented.Time open: 1:33Public speakers: NoneTime closed: 1:34Board action: motioned, seconded, passedChair invited public comment, none came forward
AYE Zane AYE Tibbetts ___ Fleming* AYE Rabbitt* Vote not recorded due to excused absence
6. Action Itemsa. Selection of 2020 Officers of the Board: Accept Nominations and elect a Chairperson
and Vice Chairperson, per the Renewal Enterprise District Joint Exercise of PowersAgreement.
Recommended Action: Elect a Board Chair and Vice-Chair for Calendar Year 2020.Time open: 2:08Public speakers: Bob WilliamsonTime closed: 2:23Board action: motioned, seconded, Fleming named Chair, Zane named Vice ChairChair invited public comment, Bob Williamson came forward.
AYE Zane AYE Tibbetts AYE Fleming AYE Rabbitt
Nomination process:Rabbitt – Asks for nominations.Zane – Asks who wants to run the meetings as Chair.Fleming – Expresses willingness to serve as Chair.Zane – Nominates Fleming for Chair.Tibbetts – Seconds Fleming’s nomination as Chair. Asks if a Board member representingthe County would like to serve as Vice Chair.Zane – Expresses willingness to be Vice Chair, is nominated and elected.
Questions and comments from Board members:Rabbitt – thanks Board for the opportunity to serve as 2019 Chair, stresses that it ismost important that the Board stay on top of the need for solutions to the housing crisisand that the RED’s success is critical to making progress. Was in Sacramento recently fora housing panel and observed that while everyone agrees there is a housing crisis thereis pushback on any proposed legislation that dilutes local control. Not going to achievehousing goals if we can’t push through the politics around housing policy. When newRegional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) numbers come out, every jurisdiction isgoing to have a hard time satisfying requirements. Moving forward, RHNA compliancewill have more teeth. Plan Bay Area will go through and we’ll have a hard time meetingclimate goals.Zane – suggests that Board members travel to Sacramento with Working Groupmembers for advocacy opportunities. Executive Director Whitman will share invitationsas schedules allow, particularly when the meetings include a state elected official.
6
3
Suggests penalties for jurisdictions that don’t meet RHNA targets. Fleming - Also willing to help with advocacy; her flexible schedule will lend itself to the effort and help with scheduling. Wants to be inclusive of other Board members so long as in compliance with Brown Act. Would like to see the RED adopt a legislative platform, and as Chair, will agendize. Briefed Board colleagues on collective efforts advocating the equitable allocation of disaster Low Income Housing Tax Credits through the Tax Credit Allocation Committee under State Treasurer Fiona Ma’s purview. Leaders from Sonoma County and Santa Rosa, including Chair Fleming, have advocated with success for a distribution formula proportionate to the losses sustained in disaster impacted areas. Tibbetts – would like the RED Executive Director to track housing legislation. Would like to see the RED advocating for housing legislation that dies in Sacramento for lack of political will. Would like to agendize a legislative platform for the RED, through the Chair. Public speaker – Bob Williamson, proclaims the election of officers “brilliant.”
b. Authorize support for California Coalition for Rural Housing State Budget Proposal to
Achieve Funding for Disaster Housing Assistance: Support proposal for one-time state funding for a comprehensive, flexible block grant to fund a variety of housing-related activities, including acquisition, rehabilitation, new construction of emergency, transitional, and permanent housing for rent or purchase, mobilehome replacement, housing-related infrastructure, tenant-based rental assistance, and relocation assistance. Recommended Action: Authorize RED support of the California Coalition for Rural Housing State Budget Proposal to achieve funding for disaster housing assistance. Time open: 1:34 Public speakers: Bob Williamson Time closed: 2:08 Board action: motioned, seconded, passed, authorizing RED support for California Coalition for Rural Housing state budget proposal for disaster housing relief. AYE Zane AYE Tibbetts ___ Fleming* AYE Rabbitt * Vote not recorded due to excused absence Dr. Rob Wiener, Executive Director for the California Coalition for Rural Housing (CCRH), presented to the Board by phone a 2020, $1 billion state budget proposal for disaster housing relief and recovery with three components: flexible block grant, bridge fund and resiliency planning grants, with the objective of obtaining a RED endorsement of the proposal. Wiener stated that the problems their proposal seeks to address include that a) Federal Disaster Funding is insufficient, unreliable, inflexible and takes too long to receive; and b) State housing assistance programs are not prepared to respond quickly and comprehensively to California’s unprecedented and catastrophic recent disasters. Questions and comments from Board members: Rabbitt - asked for a definition for “naturally occurring affordable housing.” Wiener responded with the definition that includes rental and ownership units that have rent or mortgage payments affordable to lower income households, despite not having deed restrictions for low income residents and do not exceed. Mobile homes that are not
7
4
deed restricted would be an example. In cities, CEQA is sometimes stalling infill projects. There is also an unfortunate generational divide among between project proponents and opponents. Rabbitt asks if CCRH’s proposal, and AB 3085, precludes Sonoma County and its cities from benefitting. Wiener responds that there is nothing that would preclude a benefit provided to Sonoma County or any other disaster impacted County based on a narrow definition of ‘rural’. Tibbetts – What is the likelihood of a $600,000 block grant request being funded? Wiener responded CCRH doesn’t expect the total ask to be funded but getting political support would help. Have had support from legislators in both Senate and Assembly. Wiener has seen long shots happen if political pressure builds and Tibbett’s expressed interest in adding to the effort. Tibbetts also recognizes that Santa Rosa and Sonoma County would not be seeing as many residents moving away if more resources had been available earlier. Tibbetts asked about a proposal to advance funds in anticipation of CDBG-DR funding availability. Wiener responded the bridge fund piece of CCRH’s proposal would do just that. Zane – Asked about what the state might do with ~$20 billion in reserves. Rob responded that those are ‘rainy day’ funds and will also contribute to reserves at the end of the fiscal year. Zane countered that the rainy day has come in the form of a housing crisis and she believe some of those funds should be released to counties to make below market rate loans for housing production. Rob agrees and says the Governor’s promises for a ‘Marshall Plan’ for housing and other bold actions have not materialized, and this is why the RED’s support and advocacy is needed for the CCRH proposal. Public speaker – Bob Williamson, questions the rural orientation of CCRH, when a lot of their proposal is more city centric. Asks for clarification of the definition of rural in this case. Wiener responds that many of the solutions under discussion are applicable in urban and suburban areas. The funding request, if granted, would benefit a county like Sonoma, that is both rural and urban.
c. Accept grant from Community Foundation Sonoma County: Accept $40,000.00 grant from Community Foundation Sonoma County (CFSC) to support the commitment of the Renewal Enterprise District to increase the housing stock in Sonoma County, through partnerships with Forsyth Street and MapOneSonoma, and disburse funds consistent with grant agreement. Recommended Action: Accept CFSC grant, award contract to Forsyth Street Advisors for housing fund or program feasibility study, authorize Executive Director to disburse up to $10,000.00 to support participation in the MapOneSonoma collaborative exercise. Time open: 2:24 Public speakers: none, Chair invited public comment, none came forward Time closed: 2:45 Board action: motioned, seconded, passed, authorizing Executive Director to accept CFSC grant, award contract to Forsyth Street Advisors for housing fund or program feasibility study, and disburse up to $10,000.00 to support participation in the MapOneSonoma collaborative exercise. AYE Zane AYE Tibbetts AYE Rabbitt AYE Fleming
8
5
Executive Director Whitman introduced the item, history, and background. In October 2019 discussions began with Enterprise Community Partners (Enterprise) to present financial barriers slowing the pace of infill, mid to high density, mixed income housing near transit and services in Santa Rosa and Sonoma County’s urban areas. Enterprise suggested that Forsyth Street Advisors (FSA), a firm they have worked with to establish housing funds across the state and country, could be engaged in exploring the feasibility of a fund or finance program to accelerate infill housing production in Sonoma County. Following meetings with key informants in December 2019, including CFSC and other local stakeholders, Forsyth Street was invited to submit a Scope of Work and budget. CFSC subsequently agreed to fund Phase One of the Scope to Develop and test financing methods for catalyzing infill development, and evaluating and presenting an overview of these strategies to the RED. The timeline for the analysis is March through June and will include regular engagements with stakeholders, a working group and RED Board members. Rich Gross from Enterprise provided a brief overview of Enterprise, a national non-profit focused on affordable housing policy, financing and development. Enterprise is the largest investor in affordable housing development in the country and has worked with FSA to develop housing funds across the nation, including, nearby, the San Francisco Housing Accelerator Fund. Daniela Greville then introduced FSA, a firm with deep experience in real estate & affordable housing, clean energy, infrastructure and economic development projects. FSA has structured over $4 billion in transaction volume on behalf of clients (ranging from non-profits, financial intermediaries, public sector municipalities, and affordable housing developers, among others) since 2003 and currently manages approximately $706 million in capital commitments across its affordable housing & community development investment funds. Questions and comments from Board members: Zane – We know we need funding and political will to increase housing production here. What do we hope to achieve at the end of the study? Greville answers that there are barriers to housing production in other communities but they vary based on economics in each area. Need to get to know this marketplace specifically. From there, we look at solutions. Can we lower costs? Can we develop financial products to fill funding gaps? Phase One answers the question of what financial solutions can be developed to ensure funding gaps are filled and housing gets developed. Phase Two involves developing a business model, establishing a fund and recruiting investors. Zane recommends Kaiser as an investor. Zane suggests reaching out to Beneficial Bank. Questions where the funds could come from. Tibbetts – Rents here are too low and development costs too high to get proformas to a level that attracts enough investor interest to launch projects. Hopes that FSA’s work will looking to solve this problem. How will loans be structured; how will loans be repaid in a timely fashion if the RED has a role in being a subordinate lender, or a lender of last
9
6
resort? How will the loans be structured? Subordination is a way to not get paid for a long time. If a fund is established, would like to have a way to cycle money quickly out and then back into the fund so it can propel more projects. Concerned about subordinating loans. Greville answers that the goal is to find a suite of solutions or products that addresses various objectives. May be able to find corporate investors to put money in with a lower rate of return than a bank would do. Can blend funding sources to achieve established goals. Gross adds that subordination and low returns are the way to make projects feasible; a useful tool, actually, for getting projects built. Rabbitt – Previously familiar with both Enterprise and FSA in the context of CASA. Need funding for mixed income housing. Supportive of moving forward and the partnership of the RED, FSA and Enterprise in addressing funding gaps that are especially wide in Sonoma County. Fleming – Provide and example of a jurisdiction FSA/Enterprise has worked with and how FSA’s work has helped that community. Greville responds that the San Francisco Housing Accelerator Fund is a local example, providing loan products to acquire affordable units and keep them out of the conventional marketplace and in service to low income tenants. Clients want to see financial products for new construction or preservation of affordable housing stock for the working class. Gross adds that the Kaiser Fund has acquired three projects in Oakland, keeping them from going to traditional market by providing loan at 4% return instead of 12%-15% that most investors look for. Kept rents at current levels for existing tenants.
d. RED Criteria: Consideration and potential adoption of RED Project Criteria to be used by the RED Board and Executive Director to screen RED project applications, evaluate eligible projects, and identify housing projects eligible to receive RED financing or other support. Recommended Action: Hold public hearing. After public hearing closes, vote to adopt the final RED Project Criteria. Time open: 2:46 Public speakers: Teri Shore, Bob Williamson Time closed: 3:12 Board action: motioned, seconded, passed, adopting final RED Project Criteria AYE Zane AYE Tibbetts AYE Rabbitt AYE Fleming Christa Shaw, Deputy County Counsel, directs the Board to look at Exhibit B in their packets to review specific revisions made in response to Board and stakeholder feedback given at the November 25, 2019 Board meeting when the Board last deliberated on the RED Project Criteria. Changes include minor revisions and clarifications including an explanation that projects would need to be in the incorporated City or in an Urban Service Area of the County; language changed to align with revisions to state law; recognition of new PDAs approved at ABAG under Plan Bay Area; Springs was named a PDA and removed as a Rural Community Investment Area; and other editorial revisions, mainly adding clarifications and language consistent with
10
7
State law. Editorial changes also reflect Board direction including Director Zane’s request to incorporate universal design to evaluation criteria, Director Rabbitt’s requested emphasis on useable outdoor space verbiage and adding a standardized definition for disadvantaged community based on the state law general plan definition. Goal with final criteria was to incorporate Boardmember feedback, including keeping the criteria somewhat flexible according to circumstances. David Guhin, Assistant City Manager for Santa Rosa added that project readiness is a key component of criteria and yet in PDAs lacking a specific plan, projects will need to go through environmental review to meet project readiness threshold. Questions and comments from Board members: Zane: When was PDA adopted for south Santa Rosa Avenue? Shaw responded it was adopted by ABAG on February 20th and final resolution provided on February 26. Interested in Specific Plan for south Santa Rosa Avenue area. Guhin responds that funding needs to be identified for this purpose. Needs a resource and prioritization. Rabbitt: Is there a disadvantaged community in Sonoma County that qualifies as such under state law? Shaw responded that yes, there is one area in south Santa Rosa, on west side of 101. Counties can also self-designate disadvantaged communities and Sonoma County’s General Plan includes several. Any reference to financial criteria? Do we want to talk about per unit costs, recognizing that funds are limited, certain buildings may justifiably cost more, but want to make sure we get the biggest bang for the buck. Shaw answered there is language in the criteria but it’s not very direct, allowing for Board discretion. Guhin added that the RED is likely to fund only a share of a development’s cost. Rabbitt suggests that a per unit cost might be a consideration, not a requirement. Executive Director Whitman suggests that details like per unit cost guidance can be included in Notices of Funding Availability when the RED has funds to distribute. Generally fine with the Criteria but conscious of how it might add to per unit cost. Assess overall community benefit of any project once we have funding and projects to consider. Tibbetts: On per unit cost, suggests flexibility. Supports that cost be a consideration, not a requirement. Is there an opportunity for a conversation to determine the level of publicly funded financial support for a market rate project? Suggests 420 Mendocino as the type of a market rate project the RED could make a short-term equity investment in. What is the RED’s role in fostering downtown development, especially those pioneering infill projects that will prove market viability. Shaw would like City and County attorneys to look at the Joint Powers of Exercise Agreement to revisit what authority the RED has to be a lender or equity investor for a project. Public speakers – Teri Shore, Greenbelt Alliance, appreciates the work staff did to address stakeholder concerns, including language respecting urban growth boundaries and community separators, and adding the word “incorporated” with respect to City of Santa Rosa. Some concerns remain about PDAs where there are no specific plans. Bob Williamson would like to see effort made to reduce unit cost. Consider that Criteria contributes to higher per unit cost. Innovative Design is one example of his point.
11
8
7. Executive Director Report
Time open: 3:13 Public speakers: none Time closed: 3:21 Board action: accept report Executive Director Michelle Whitman provided a verbal report on her activities since the November 25, 2019 Board meeting, including capacity building and resource development, with a sharpening focus on attracting and pooling grants and other financial resources to spur infill, higher density housing production near transit, services and other amenities.
8. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 3:22 p.m.
Member Agency Directors
County of Sonoma David Rabbitt (Chair)
City of Santa Rosa Jack Tibbetts (Vice Chair)
County of Sonoma Shirlee Zane
City of Santa Rosa Victoria Fleming
Special Accommodations: If you have a disability which requires an accommodation, an alternative format, or requires another person to assist you while attending this meeting, please contact Michelle Whitman, (707) 543-3087, as soon as possible to ensure arrangements for accommodation.
Public Comment: Any member of the audience desiring to address the Board on a matter on the agenda: please complete a Speaker Card and hand it to staff at the beginning of the meeting or prior to the time the Board Chair closes public comment on the item about which you wish to speak. When called by the Chair, please walk to the podium, state your name and make your comments. The public may comment on closed session items prior to the Board adjourning to closed session. In order that all interested parties have an opportunity to speak, please be brief and limit your comments to the subject under discussion. Each person is usually granted 3 minutes to speak; time limitations are at the discretion of the Chair. While members of the public are welcome to address the Board, under the Brown Act Board members may not deliberate or take action on items not on the agenda, and generally may only listen.
Meeting Documents: The associated documentation is available at the offices of the JPA listed above and on the website at: www.RenewalEnterpriseDistrict.org
Any changes to the date of the hearing, or any other updates will be noticed on the above website. For more information, please contact Michelle Whitman, [email protected]
12
Agenda Item: 3b Meeting Date: April 23, 2020
Renewal Enterprise DistrictConsent Item
TO: Board of Directors FROM: Michelle Whitman, Executive Director SUBJECT: Establish the Renewal Enterprise District as a Generation Housing (GenH) Founding Member, with a $10,000.00 funding commitment.
Summary: Approve a one-time $10,000.00 funding commitment to establish the Renewal Enterprise District as a Founding Member of Generation Housing, creating a partnership that accelerates opportunities to increase the supply, affordability, and diversity of homes throughout Sonoma County.
Background Through the City/County joint application to the Hewlett Foundation requesting funding to establish the RED, a commitment was made that “community engagement will be driven by the JPA governing body.” Considering the modest in-house capacity of the RED to carry out the organization’s multiple objectives, partnerships will be necessary to engage the community and build public will in support of increased production of more dense, infill housing near transit, jobs and services.
Building public support for increasing the supply of housing, particularly affordable housing, has been identified as a top priority by government, nonprofit, business, and philanthropic stakeholders across Sonoma County. Unlike in most other Bay Area Counties, Sonoma County has not historically had an ongoing, countywide housing advocacy group to provide community education, policy support, project endorsements, and other housing advocacy leadership for the region. In recognition of this gap, Community Foundation Sonoma County provided funding to explore the feasibility of creating an ongoing entity committed to building community and political will for more affordable and mixed income housing. The product of this effort was the creation of Gen H, an organization that envisions complete communities where everyone has a place to call home and can contribute to an equitable, healthy, and resilient Sonoma County.
The RED leverages its efforts through collaboration across sectors to accelerate the production of mid-to-high density, infill housing that puts equity, affordability and climate solutions in the center of local economic strategies. GenH shares and advances the goals of the RED by advocating for and supporting the action to build the housing our community needs to thrive. GenH recently released its own project endorsement criteria and process. It is anticipated that RED projects would score highly enough to gain GenH endorsement, along with active advocacy by the organization. Working together, Gen H and the RED have the potential to move forward pro-housing policies and smart, community-building housing production needed to support a healthy and prosperous Sonoma County in the coming decades.
GenH demonstrated its worth by advancing the equitable distribution of approximately $100 million in disaster Low Income Housing Tax Credits allocated by Congress at the end of 2019. Recognizing a threat
13
Agenda Item: 3b Meeting Date: April 23, 2020 that the credits might be committed by the state’s Tax Credit Allocation Committee in favor of larger counties less impacted by 2017-2018 federal disasters, GenH organized stakeholders, including local officials, elected leaders and news media to make the case to state decision makers for an equitable allocation of the tax credits proportionate to the losses sustained in affected counties. If this advocacy is ultimately successful, and indications are that it will be, the group’s efforts will result in the production of over 1,000 new units of desperately needed affordable housing here in Sonoma County, above and beyond what might otherwise be built without the infusion of these credits. This one early example demonstrates that an investment in GenH is an opportunity to generate healthy returns for the benefit of the RED and all Sonoma County residents. Staff Recommendation Approve a one-time $10,000.00 funding commitment for Gen H to establish the Renewal Enterprise District as a Founding Member and partner in pursuit of shared housing goals. Fiscal Impact Approve budget adjustment reducing Consulting Services (Account #51226) by $10,000 and increasing Administrative Services (Account # 51201) by $10,000.00. No net impact on FY2019/20 budget. List of Attachments Exhibit A, Generation Housing Funding Proposal Contact Michelle Whitman, Executive Director, 707-543-3087 [email protected]
14
April, 23 2020
Exhibit A
15
16
17
18
Agenda Item: 3c Meeting Date: April 23, 2020
Renewal Enterprise DistrictConsent Item
TO: Board of Directors FROM: Michelle Whitman, Executive Director SUBJECT: Financial Report through March 31, 2020
Summary: The Renewal Enterprise District’s (RED) total YTD revenue is $128,786.76 and $149,116.44 in expenses were incurred through March 31, 2020.
Background This report covers the full fiscal year 2019/20 through March 31, 2020 The RED’s budget for FY 19/20 is $703,000.00 Income for FY19/20 is $128,786.76 Expenses for FY19/20 is $149,116.44 Net income balance for FY19/20 is (20,329.68)
Staff Recommendation Accept the financial report
List of Attachments Exhibit A - Agency Budget Performance as of March 31, 2020.
Contact Michelle Whitman, Executive Director, 707-543-3087 [email protected]
19
Account Title
Original
Budget
Adjusted
Budget
Year-To-Date
3-31-2020
Year-To-Date
Remaining
Balance % of Budget
Account Type 00004 -- All Revenues
44002 Interest on Pooled Cash 3,000.00 3,000.00 3,073.44 (73.44) 102.4%
46215 Other Grants 700,000.00 700,000.00 125,713.32 574,286.68 18.0%
Total All Revenues 703,000.00 703,000.00 128,786.76 574,213.24 18.3%
Account Type 00005 -- All Expense/Expenditure Accts
51201 Administration Services 20,000.00 20,000.00 9,242.83 10,757.17 46.2%
51207 Client Accounting Services 4,500.00 4,500.00 3,403.70 1,096.30 75.6%
51226 Consulting Services 320,000.00 320,000.00 136,456.07 183,543.93 42.6%
51602 Business Travel/Mileage - - 13.84 (13.84) N/A
53501 Contributions 355,500.00 355,500.00 - 355,500.00 0.0%
Total All Expense/Expenditure Accts 700,000.00 700,000.00 149,116.44 550,883.56 21.3%
Net Income 3,000.00 3,000.00 (20,329.68) 23,329.68
Exhibit A
20
Agenda Item: 4Meeting Date: April 23, 2020
Renewal Enterprise DistrictInformation Item
TO: Board of Directors FROM: Michelle Whitman, Executive Director SUBJECT: Update on Phase One of the Forsyth Street Advisors Feasibility Study exploring a new fund or financing program that could be implemented to support infill development.
Summary: Receive an update on Phase One of the Forsyth Street Advisors Feasibility Study exploring a new fund or financing program that could be implemented to support infill development. A verbal progress report will be provided highlighting the effort underway to screen models for financing infill development for their feasibility in the downtown Santa Rosa market and other urban areas of the County.
Background In response to the well-documented unmet need for affordable, infill housing in urban areas of Sonoma County, the RED has launched an effort to design and implement a new fund or financing program that could help accelerate the creation of infill, mid-to-high density housing near transit, jobs, services and other amenities that help build complete communities.
In October 2019 the Renewal Enterprise District (RED) Executive Director met with Enterprise Community Partners (Enterprise), a national nonprofit organization that brings together nationwide and local partners, policy leadership and investment to multiply the impact of affordable housing development. Discussions continued regarding financial barriers potentially inhibiting the pace of infill, mid to high density, transit-oriented, mixed income housing in Santa Rosa and Sonoma County’s urban areas. Enterprise suggested that Forsyth Street Advisors (Forsyth), a firm they have worked with to establish housing funds across the state and country, to lead on developing and testing possible financing approaches for feasibility.
Forsyth is an advisory and asset management firm with a national practice focused on assisting municipal and philanthropic clients with creating new funds for affordable housing, including, nearby, the San Francisco Housing Accelerator Fund.
Community Foundation Sonoma County (CFSC) awarded a $40,000.00 grant to support the RED’s commitment to increase the housing stock in Sonoma County, in partnership with Forsyth. $30,000.00 in grant proceeds fund Phase One of the Forsyth Scope of Work to:
• Explore the landscape for Infill Development in downtown Santa Rosa and other urban areasacross the County;
• Develop and test financing methods for catalyzing this type of development, and evaluating andpresenting an overview of these strategies to the RED;
21
Agenda Item: 4a Meeting Date: April 23, 2020
• Screen models for financing Infill Development for their feasibility in the downtown Santa Rosamarket and other urban areas of the County; and
• Evaluate whether a new fund or financing program could be implemented to support InfillDevelopment.
A Working Group, representing a wide range of sectors impacted by the ongoing affordable housing shortage, has been convened to support this effort. The Working Group will convene for 3-4, roughly monthly, calls/meetings. The Working Group held its initial meeting on March 19, 2020 via teleconference. Interviews with key informants and stakeholders, including housing developers, investors and financers, are in progress.
If a feasible model is identified in Phase One of the analysis, and the RED Board wishes to proceed with implementing a new fund or financing program to support infill, higher density housing development, Forsyth could assist with Phase Two— including fund or program design, planning, and implementation.
Staff Recommendation Informational only.
Vote Requirement N/A
Fiscal Impact None.
List of Attachments None.
Contact Michelle Whitman, Executive Director, 707-543-3087 [email protected]
22
INFI
LL D
EVEL
OPM
ENT
IN S
ON
OM
A C
OU
NTY
1
Presentation to the RED Board of Directors
April 23, 2020
INFILL DEVELOPMENT IN SONOMA COUNTY
23
INFI
LL D
EVEL
OPM
ENT
IN S
ON
OM
A C
OU
NTY
2
Agenda
1. Project Goals
2. Findings to Date
3. Development Assumptions
4. Role of a New Fund
5. Fund Goals
6. Considerations and Next Steps
24
INFI
LL D
EVEL
OPM
ENT
IN S
ON
OM
A C
OU
NTY
3
1. Project Goals | What Are We Trying to Accomplish?
Promoting infill development, initially focusing on downtown Santa Rosa, and leading to other urban areas within Sonoma County.
Development may encompass a range of housing typologies – multi-family residential and mixed-use, across the income spectrum.
How will we accomplish this?
Landscape Analysis: Identifying target urban areas within Sonoma County where infill development is feasible
Financial Analysis: Testing financing methods for catalyzing infill development within these designated areas; evaluating these strategies and their applicability given current market dynamics
Delivery Methodology: Evaluating methods for delivering capital to urban areas within Sonoma County and whether a new fund or financing program could be implemented to support these goals
25
INFI
LL D
EVEL
OPM
ENT
IN S
ON
OM
A C
OU
NTY
4
1. Project Goals | Workplan
March April May June From July
Phase 2
• Launch of Working Group
• Review local market information and research
• Begin outreach with initial stakeholders
• RED Board Meeting April 23rd
• Continue outreach with local stakeholders
• Begin modeling financial strategies
• Target additional meeting of Working Group
• Continue outreach with local stakeholders
• Continue modeling/testing financial strategies
• Deliver Options and Feasibility Assessment
• Discuss next steps for proceeding to Phase II
• Ben Wickham*, Sonoma County• Jesús Guzmán*, Generation Housing• Supervisor David Rabbitt*, Sonoma County• David Guhin*, City of Santa Rosa• Alena Ritch-Wall*, Kaiser Permanente • Dan Schurman*, Providence/St. Joseph Health• Karin Demarest,* Community Foundation of Sonoma County• Zach Berkowitz/Ed Khakbaz, Developers• Tom Robertson/Rob Robinson, IGH Partners• Eric Anderson, Urban Green Builders• John Stewart/Jack Gardner/Don Lusty, John Stewart
Company• Hugh Futrell, Hugh Futrell Corporation • Robin Stephani*, 8th Wave• Ali Gaylord, MidPen • Loren Brueggemann, Phoenix Development Co• Keith McCoy/Scott Ward, Urban Mix Development • Chris Dart, Danco Communities • Peter Stanley, Cornerstone/ArchiLOGIX• Larry Florin/Efren Carrillo/Rich Wallach, Burbank Housing
*Indicates member of the Working Group
Phase 1
Stakeholder Interviews to date have included:
26
INFI
LL D
EVEL
OPM
ENT
IN S
ON
OM
A C
OU
NTY
5
1. Project Goals | Evaluate Projects Across Income Spectrum
• Income Approach: Maximize rents to what market will bear based on location, building amenities, etc.
• Financing Approach: Commercial debt and equity, “friends and family” investments
Market Rate Developments
• Income Approach: Limited to tenants between 0%-80% Area Median Income (AMI) at federally set rents, no property taxes reduces operating expenses, but still a significant reduction in income
• Financing Approach: Commercial debt, Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC)/state tax credit equity, state/local subsidies
Affordable Developments
• Income Approach: Targets tenants between 80%-120% AMI, rents between Market and Affordable
• Financing Approach: Mix unit affordability to allow for cross-subsidization (higher revenue from Market units, or LIHTC from Affordable units). Currently, one subsidy source from CalHFA (projects are typically 90% LIHTC, 10% Middle Income).
Middle Income Development
27
INFI
LL D
EVEL
OPM
ENT
IN S
ON
OM
A C
OU
NTY
6
2. Findings to Date | Lack of Comparable Market Rate Projects
“Bay Area construction costs but Sonoma County/Sacramento rents” – high cost environment has created a landscape where there are no proven models for development
Higher density urban housing commands even higher construction costs due to typology (concrete parking podiums, fire ratings, etc.)
Unclear what rent premiums downtown projects will command
Priority types of development (infill, multi-family residential) have no proven track record or comps to base subsequent projects on – nothing has proven to developers that this type of development is financially feasible
Existing financial providers face challenges underwriting projects in the County due to a lack of a proven model for development
Potential pioneer projects – with public/private support – may prove that there is a market for denser, infill development
28
INFI
LL D
EVEL
OPM
ENT
IN S
ON
OM
A C
OU
NTY
7
2. Findings to Date | Need for Greater Coordination of Local Efforts
Applying for available sources is a complex process for developers
Limited affordable housing subsidy available from local municipalities and the County
County has ~$3-4M per year, which is able to fund a few affordable projects
Affordable projects benefit at the state application level when they have local commitments first (projects receive “leveraging” points for bringing other public funds to the table)
Developers have expressed how public funding (beyond subsidy) and support of projects can be used to push their projects forward
Are there public funds that could be allocated to streetscape and infrastructure improvements in priority areas, or low-cost land?
How do these priorities align with RED project criteria?
Developers believe there is potential for additional coordination among municipalities and the Countyacross funding efforts
29
INFI
LL D
EVEL
OPM
ENT
IN S
ON
OM
A C
OU
NTY
8
2. Findings to Date | Consistent “Gap” Across Models
While the City of Santa Rosa has successfully streamlined approvals process, reduced permitting fees, relaxed design requirements to cut costs and time …
Projects still struggle to pencil given remaining levers that drive project costs and revenue:
Land Costs: high sale prices unless public sites available at low cost
Construction Costs: typology, labor costs, materials, etc.
Design: building efficiency, density drives rentable SF
Offsite Costs: some projects responsible for adjacent infrastructure or streetscape costs
Rents: capped rents on affordable units, untested premiums on market rate units
Operating Expenses
There is no Silver Bullet to making a project pencil – developers are constantly tweaking the levers to find the most optimal and financially feasible project
Does a new financial product meaningfully add to a developer’s toolkit and create scale in moving multiple projects forward? 30
INFI
LL D
EVEL
OPM
ENT
IN S
ON
OM
A C
OU
NTY
9
3. Development Assumptions | Range of Assumptions Across Projects
While the sample size and data provided is limited, downtown projects assume higher rents/square foot than the existing housing stock. However, there are few direct comparables for proposed projects – existing housing stock is older, of different
typology, and are in inferior locations.
Average Rent per Square Foot1
Santa Rosa $1.98 Sunnyvale $3.25
Downtown Santa Rosa $2.26 Redwood City $3.50
San Rafael $2.62 San Mateo $3.53
Walnut Creek $2.81
Current projects from interviewed developers indicate a $2.80-$3.80
range in assumptions on average rent/square foot
In addition to assumptions on rent level, assumption on construction costs and timing vary widely among projects previewed by developers
The uncertainty around these assumptions, and how they will be tested given current market dynamics related to COVID-19, may only be exacerbated in the short- to intermediate-term
1: Santa Rosa Downtown Specific Plan Market Demand Study, August 6, 2019. Costar January 2019.31
INFI
LL D
EVEL
OPM
ENT
IN S
ON
OM
A C
OU
NTY
10
4. Role of a New Fund | RED Project Criteria
Projects require all of the following threshold criteria:
One or more of the following criteria:
Infill SiteMid to High
DensityResidential / Mixed-Use
Transit-rich / Planned Area
32
INFI
LL D
EVEL
OPM
ENT
IN S
ON
OM
A C
OU
NTY
11
4. Role of a New Fund | Priority Projects for Financing
Typology: Projects vary depending on the project typology and type of construction.
Income Levels: Interviews discussed 100% affordable, mixed-income, market-rate and workforce housing projects.
Development Capacity: Certain developers had more experience developing in Santa Rosa/Sonoma County.
Our interviews have identified approximately a dozen projects in need of financing, differentiated in the following ways:
After clearing an initial threshold of meeting RED Project Criteria, the Working Group may need to determine how to prioritize these projects further, given their disparate financing needs and limited availability of resources:
Timing: Some projects were farther along, while others were in need of more immediate financing.
Location: While most meet RED Project Criteria, projects’ proximity to downtown varies.
Prioritizing certain pioneer projects will influence which products a new Fund can
provide
Prioritizing types of products the Fund can provide will
influence which projects a new Fund can support
[MORE]: What other criteria are important?
Financial Readiness: How much additional funding does the project need, what type, what other sources are anticipated/committed.
Consistent with RED Criteria
33
INFI
LL D
EVEL
OPM
ENT
IN S
ON
OM
A C
OU
NTY
12
4. Role of a New Fund | Potential Products
Conversations with developers to discuss their projects have indicated a wide range of financial products that a new Fund could provide to move their projects forward:
• Predevelopment/ Acquisition/ Construction/ Permanent financing• Across this wide range, the Fund may have to determine how to prioritize these
projects further
Market Rate Developments
• Highly flexible land/ predevelopment funding • Low-cost, long-term permanent capital
Affordable Developments
• Depending on the developer and their experience, predevelopment, acquisition, and/or construction financing may be needed
• Low-cost, patient permanent capital, given the lower-than-market expected rent levels
Middle Income Development
Over the next few weeks, our team will work to further evaluate and refine these potential products, identifying consistencies across project needs where a new Fund can
play a role in financing and moving projects forward. 34
INFI
LL D
EVEL
OPM
ENT
IN S
ON
OM
A C
OU
NTY
13
5. Fund Goals | Emerging New Sources for Affordable Housing
Predevelopment Acquisition Construction Permanent
Generally provide predevelopment, acquisition, construction and bridge financing Different geographic focuses across the Bay Area from new sources Limited ability to support middle income and mixed-income projects such as may
be desired in Sonoma County Funding resembles similar, already publicly available sources, meaning that
projects that are unable to access certain types of financing are still unable to do so
Many local CDFIs already offer these types of products
Few permanent sources are available for projects beyond local and State subsidy, especially for projects that are not highly affordable, supportive and/or transit-oriented
In order to support a project’s permanent affordability at a designated income level (e.g., extremely low, low, moderate, etc.) low-cost, long-term capital is required State-level subsidy sources are oversubscribed and competitive, while local sources have limited resources
Our goal is to position a new Fund within this existing ecosystem, so that the financial products it offers can leverage these existing sources while also providing financing products that are largely absent from the current market, able to push potentially transformative projects forward
35
INFI
LL D
EVEL
OPM
ENT
IN S
ON
OM
A C
OU
NTY
14
5. Fund Goals | Sample Funds
New York City, NY
• Structure: LLC (LISC and Enterprise are co-members)• Capitalization: Blended mix of subordinate (from the City),
mezzanine/ philanthropic capital, and senior capital • Products: Early-stage bridge loans for vacant land or
occupied properties, predevelopment, or minor to moderate rehabilitation
• Public Sector Involvement: Directly bridges to permanent capital supplied by HPD/HDC
• Investment Origination Process: Designated CDFI originators (Enterprise, LISC, LIIF, CPC and CSH) originate loans for the Fund
• See New Generation Fund for similar model in Los Angeles
Baltimore, MD
• Structure: Independent 501c3• Capitalization: Blended mix of subordinate (from the City)
and senior capital • Products: Includes predevelopment, acquisition, construction
and subordinate/permanent loans (up to 10 years), as well as subordinate financing to support intermediaries
• Public Sector Involvement: Varies; no designated source of subsidy or permanent capital
• Investment Origination Process: Varies; Fund originates its own loans as well as through existing CDFIs active in the Baltimore market
San Francisco, CA
• Structure: Independent 501c3 and CDFI• Capitalization: Blended mix of subordinate (from the City),
mezzanine/ philanthropic capital, and senior capital • Products: Financing for vacant land and occupied building
acquisition, can fund rehabilitation; developing a permanent lending capability
• Public Sector Involvement: Directly bridges to permanent capital supplied by MOHCD
• Investment Origination Process: Fund is its own originator and works in collaboration with various CDOs
Homes for the Homeless Fund –Bay Area, CA
• Structure: LLC, SFHAF is sole member• Capitalization: Philanthropic capital from Tipping Point
Community • Products: Varies; capital used to support the
predevelopment, construction and potentially permanent financing of permanent supportive housing projects
• Public Sector Involvement: Varies; projects intended to leverage permanent City funding as well
• Development Process: HHF acquires a site and hires a development team; once capital revolves, HHF can move on to the next project
36
INFI
LL D
EVEL
OPM
ENT
IN S
ON
OM
A C
OU
NTY
15
5. Fund Goals | Capacity Map
Financing Availability
Subsidy Availability
Development Capacity
How do these funds complement their respective markets?
/Homes for the Homeless Fund
RED Fund?
37
INFI
LL D
EVEL
OPM
ENT
IN S
ON
OM
A C
OU
NTY
16
5. Fund Goals | Capital Stacks
New York City Acquisition Fund
New York City, NY
San FranciscoHousing
Accelerator FundSan Francisco, CA
RED Fund
Initially, Santa Rosa, CA
NeighborhoodImpact
Investment FundBaltimore, MD
Homes for the Homeless Fund
Currently San Francisco, CA
Senior CapitalFrom financial institutions 85% 75% 25%
Mezzanine CapitalFrom Foundations,
Corporations8% 11%
Subordinate CapitalFrom Public Sector 5% 14% 75%
Equity / GrantsFrom Retained Earnings /
Foundations / Philanthropies2% <1% 100%
The types of products offered by these funds are in part determined by how the entities are capitalized At one end, NYCAF and SFHAF have a mix of public, private and philanthropic capital; the funds can
leverage their relatively smaller public investments with a significant amount of capital from private sources
Comparatively, NIIF and HHF are primarily capitalized with subordinate, public capital and philanthropic equity, allowing them to offer longer-term, permanent debt products
A new RED Fund is anticipated to need a capital stack that supports providing very flexible, long-term capital
Bridge Lender
Permanent Lender
?
38
INFI
LL D
EVEL
OPM
ENT
IN S
ON
OM
A C
OU
NTY
17
6. Considerations and Next Steps
Our interviews returned a wide range of development assumptions.
We will continue to sift through this information to interpret and organize available data and incorporate into our models.
We will test our ideas for financing products with developers.
Once we’ve analyzed the data, we will test the appetite for providing funding from private, grant and philanthropic sources.
Possible effects of COVID-19 – the ability to determine current development assumptions and availability of financing may be hindered in the near term.
39
Agenda Item: 5a Meeting Date: April 23, 2020
Renewal Enterprise DistrictAction Item
TO: Board of Directors FROM: Michelle Whitman, Executive Director SUBJECT: Legislative Principles for 2020
Summary: Legislative principles have been developed based on direction given to the Executive Director by the RED Board. The Board is requested to review and consider adopting the 2020 RED Legislative Principles attached here.
Background The RED Executive Director suggests that the RED adopt legislative principles to help guide staff and Board members on legislative matters at the State and federal levels. These are general guidelines and when specific legislative measures are in process, the Board may be asked to review and take a position.
The proposed principles are informed by the RED Joint Powers of Exercise Agreement and RED Criteria as well as legislative platforms of the County of Sonoma, Association of Bay Area Governments and Metropolitan Transportation Commission where they align with the RED Criteria and Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement. The City of Santa Rosa does not currently have a formal legislative platform to consult or align with. The proposed principles support RED priorities approved by both the Santa Rosa City Council and Sonoma County Board of Supervisors when each body voted independently in December 2018 to create the RED.
On occasion there are time sensitive matters the RED is asked to comment on, support or oppose. These requests can range from comment letters on program guidelines to feedback on pending legislation. Due to sometimes tight deadlines, it is not always possible to bring each matter to the RED Board for approval before a given closing date. In order to respond in an appropriate and timely manner, the Executive Director requests permission to engage in these processes so long as the requested action is aligned with the RED’s legislative principles.
Staff Recommendation Consider adopting legislative principles and provide direction to the Executive Director regarding providing comment letters and other advocacy on pending guidelines and legislation.
Vote Requirement N/A
Fiscal Impact None
40
Agenda Item: 5a Meeting Date: April 23, 2020
List of Attachments Exhibit A – 2020 Legislative Principles
Contact Michelle Whitman, Executive Director, 707-543-3087 [email protected]
41
Exhibit A
1
2020 Legislative Principles
The formation of the Renewal Enterprise District (RED) Joint Powers Authority by the County of Sonoma and City of Santa Rosa provides the opportunity to address persistent
housing challenges in new ways, including piloting new financing vehicles that may be available through state and federal sources.
Goal: Support policies aimed at increasing production of housing and increasing funding to
produce and preserve affordable and mixed income housing and associated infrastructure
to help build complete communities.
Action: Sponsor or support legislation that would:
1. Preserve or expand existing funding sources, or create new sources that further the
purposes identified in the RED’s Joint Powers of Exercise Agreement, including:
a. Achieving the Founding Members’ disaster recovery goals and meeting
current and previously unmet regional housing needs
b. Honoring community separators and urban growth boundaries, and
implementing existing and future general plans and specific plans
c. Incentivizing higher density, infill and transit-oriented housing in Priority
Development Areas, Transit Priority Areas, Designated Opportunity Zones,
Rural Community Investment Areas, and Employment Investment Areas
d. Promoting zero net energy development and advancing climate resilience at
the regional, neighborhood, and homeowner scale
e. Ensuring affordability and equity in housing development
f. Improving opportunities for local employers to recruit and retain a skilled
workforce
g. Ensuring transparency and accountability regarding achievement of housing
goals
42
2. Incentivize jurisdictional cooperation and regional housing planning.
3. Prioritize projects and reward jurisdictions that focus local resources to meet highest
climate readiness and resilience criteria, and to areas impacted by natural disaster.
4. Address disparities in housing.
5. Ensure that disaster recovery resources reach all impacted households, including
those with the lowest incomes who are often the hardest hit by disasters and have
the fewest resources to recover.
6. Support local government planning, coordination and delivery of a broad array of
programs to improve health, human, housing, energy and transportation services
that could stabilize and transition underserved communities to sustainable and
secure communities.
7. Support incentives for jurisdictions that provide opportunities for more infill
housing, including affordable and transit-oriented developments and encourage the
siting of these developments near transit rich areas.
8. Increase funding available for affordable housing and other supportive infrastructure
while also reducing the cost of housing production.
9. Support upzoning near public transit and jobs-rich areas with reasonable levels of
flexibility.
43
Agenda Item 5a
Proposed RED Legislative Principles
Review and consider adopting the 2020 RED Legislative Principles
44
Proposed principles informed by and aligned with:
• RED Joint Powers of Exercise Agreement• RED Criteria• City and County agenda items creating the RED• County of Sonoma Legislative Platform• Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and Metropolitan
Transportation Commission (MTC) 2020 Advocacy Program
45
Goal: Support policies aimed at increasing production of housing and increasing funding to produce and preserve affordable and mixed income housing and associated infrastructure to help build complete communities.
46
Action: Sponsor or support legislation that would:
1. Preserve or expand existing funding sources, or create new sources that further thepurposes identified in the RED’s Joint Powers of Exercise Agreement, including:
a. Achieving the Founding Members’ disaster recovery goals and meeting current andpreviously unmet regional housing needs
b. Honoring community separators and urban growth boundaries, and implementingexisting and future general plans and specific plans
c. Incentivizing higher density, infill and transit-oriented housing in PriorityDevelopment Areas, Transit Priority Areas, Designated Opportunity Zones, RuralCommunity Investment Areas, and Employment Investment Areas
d. Promoting zero net energy development and advancing climate resilience at theregional, neighborhood, and homeowner scale
e. Ensuring affordability and equity in housing developmentf. Improving opportunities for local employers to recruit and retain a skilled workforceg. Ensuring transparency and accountability regarding achievement of housing goals
47
Action: Sponsor or support legislation that would:
2. Incentivize jurisdictional cooperation and regional housing planning.
3. Prioritize projects and reward jurisdictions that focus local resources to meet highest climate readiness and resilience criteria, and to areas impacted by natural disaster.
4. Address disparities in housing. 5. Ensure that disaster recovery resources reach all impacted
households, including those with the lowest incomes who are often the hardest hit by disasters and have the fewest resources to recover.
48
Action: Sponsor or support legislation that would:
6. Support local government planning, coordination and deliveryof a broad array of programs to improve health, human,housing, energy and transportation services that could stabilizeand transition underserved communities to sustainable andsecure communities.
7. Support incentives for jurisdictions that provide opportunitiesfor more infill housing, including affordable and transit-orienteddevelopments and encourage the siting of these developmentsnear transit rich areas.
49
Action: Sponsor or support legislation that would:
8. Increase funding available for affordable housing and other supportive infrastructure while also reducing the cost of housing production.
9. Support upzoning near public transit and jobs-rich areas with reasonable levels of flexibility.
50
Discussion: Authority of Executive Director to comment, support or oppose legislation, guidelines or initiatives.
• Occasionally there are time sensitive matters the RED is asked to commenton, support or oppose. These requests can range from comment letters onprogram guidelines, letters of support and feedback on pending legislation.
• Due to sometimes tight deadlines, it is not always possible to bring eachmatter to the RED Board for approval before a given comment closing dateor other deadline.
• In order to respond in an appropriate and timely manner, the ExecutiveDirector requests permission to engage in these processes so long as therequested action is aligned with the RED’s legislative principles and does notrun afoul of the Hewlett Foundation grant agreement.
51
Hewlett Foundation Grant Agreement states: Grantee agrees to not use any portion of the grant funds to any extent for any of the following: a. To participate in any political campaign on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for
public office or to otherwise influence the outcome of any specific public election as described in Section 4945(d)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code; or
b. b. For any non-charitable purposes.
Prohibition on Lobbying Activity. No grant funds may be used for the carrying on of propaganda or attempting to influence legislation within the meaning of Internal Revenue Code Sections 501(h), 4945(d)(1) and 4945(e) and related regulations (these provisions include local, state, federal, and foreign legislation).
Nonprofits may freely engage in legislative lobbying as long as that activity amounts to only an “insubstantial” amount of the nonprofit’s activities.
52
Questions?
53
Agenda Item: 5b Meeting Date: April 23, 2020
Renewal Enterprise District
Action Item
TO: Board of Directors FROM: Michelle Whitman, Executive Director SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2020-2021 Budget
Summary: Review and Consider approval of Fiscal Year 2020-2021 budget
Background The JPA for the RED (Section 8.06 – Budget) requires that “By a date no later than sixty (60) days before the end of each Fiscal Year, the Board shall adopt a budget for the Agency for the ensuing Fiscal Year. The Board may authorize mid-year budget adjustments, as needed.”
The Renewal Enterprise District’s (RED) startup costs are funded through a $1,000,000 grant from the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. The Sonoma County Transportation Authority (SCTA) served as fiscal agent for the RED until the RED became fully operational. On October 14, 2019 the SCTA Board of Directors approved the transfer of the Hewlett Foundation grant to the RED. On November 25, 2019, the RED Board approved the receipt of the grant funds, releasing the SCTA of future fiscal or administrative responsibility to the RED.
In February 2020 the RED was awarded a $40,000 grant from the Community Foundation Sonoma County (CFSC) to support the RED’s commitment to increase the housing stock in Sonoma County, through partnerships with Forsyth Street and MapOneSonoma. Most of this grant, $30,000, is funding an effort to design/implement a new fund or financing program for affordable and mixed income housing production while a smaller portion is designated to support participation in the Map One Sonoma Housing strategy. The balance of the Hewlett Foundation and CFSC grants will carry over to the FY2020-2021 budget.
Identifying a sustainable revenue source or sources for the RED will be key to the long-term viability of the organization. The RED Executive Director projects that the proposed Fiscal Year 2020-2021 budget, as it stands currently, will fund the RED through the end of Fiscal Year 2020-2021.
Fiscal Year 2020-21 Proposed Draft Budget The RED Executive Director anticipates that Fiscal Year 2020-21 spending will be $608,930, a 13% decrease from the previous fiscal year.
Expenditures: As the RED is essentially a contract governmental entity, the largest expense is associated with consulting services, including Executive Director, General Counsel, strategic planner, auditor, and grant writing/technical assistance, totaling $295,000 or 49% of total budgeted expenditures. The second
54
Agenda Item: 5b Meeting Date: April 23, 2020
largest expenditure line item is a RED grant to a housing project, totaling $250,000 or 41% of total expenditures.
Revenues: The $599,190 in revenue would be derived from the estimated remaining balances in the Hewlett Foundation grant ($586,190) and Community Foundation Sonoma County grant ($10,000), in addition to interest on pooled cash ($3,000).
Renewal Enterprise District Fiscal Year 2020-21 Proposed Budget
Staff Recommendation Approve the Fiscal Year 2020-21 Budget and Budget resolution.
Vote Requirement Three-fourths vote needed for budget approval.
Fiscal Impact Proposed Fiscal Year 2020-21 budget with expenditures of $608,930, revenues of $599,190 and starting fund balance of $607,134. .
Final Prelim Budget
2019-20 2020 - 2021
Account Description
Revenues
Other Grants - Hewlett Foundation 700,000 586,190
Community Foundation Sonoma County 10,000
Interest on Pooled Cash 3,000 3,000
Total Revenues 703,000 599,190
Expenditures
Administration Services and Supplies 20,000 13,930
Consulting Services 320,000 295,000
Contribution to Other Governments for Services 110,000 50,000
RED grant to housing project 250,000 250,000
Total Expenditures 700,000 608,930
Starting Fund Balance 7,871 607,134
Revenues 703,000 599,190
Expenditures (700,000) (608,930)
Unearned Revenue Adjustment - Hewlett Foundation (586,190)
Unearned Revenue Adjustment - Community Foundation (10,000)
Net Increase/(Decrease) in Fund Balance 3,000 (605,930)
Ending Fund Balance 10,871 1,204
55
Agenda Item: 5b Meeting Date: April 23, 2020
List of Attachments Exhibit A – RED Preliminary Budget Exhibit B – RED Budget Worksheet Budget Summary & Approval
Contact Michelle Whitman, Executive Director, 707-543-3087 [email protected]
56
Exhibit A
RED Preliminary Budget Final Actual Expected Projected Variance from Prelim Budget Change from
2019-20 7/19 - 2/20 3/20 - 6/20 Full Year Budget (U)/F 7/20 - 6/21 PY Projection
700,000 114,575 97,247 211,822 586,190 - 30,000 30,000 10,000
3,000 3,073 3,073 3,000 703,000 117,648 127,247 244,895 - 599,190 -
20,000 9,008 4,504 13,512 6,488 13,930 (418) 320,000 104,298 112,122 216,420 103,580 295,000 (78,580) 110,000 1,269 10,621 11,890 98,110 50,000 (38,110) 250,000 - - - 250,000 250,000 (250,000) 700,000 114,575 127,247 241,822 458,178 608,930 (367,108)
7,871 7,871 7,871 607,134 703,000 117,648 127,247 244,895 599,190
(700,000) (114,575) (127,247) (241,822) (608,930) 586,190 (586,190)
10,000 (10,000) 3,000 3,073 354,368 (605,930)
10,871 10,944 607,134 1,204
57
Exhibit B
Budget Worksheet
Renewal Enterprise District JPA 74751 66150100 FY 2020-2021
Preliminary Account Account Description Budget
44002 Interest on Pooled Cash 3,000 44000 Total Revenue - Use of Money & Prop 3,000
46215 Other Grants - Hewlett Foundation 586,190 46215 Other Grants - Community Foundation 10,000
46000 Total Miscellaneous Revenues 596,190
Grand Total Revenues 599,190
51201 Administration Services 13,930 51226 Consulting Services 295,000
51000 Total Services and Supplies 308,930
53501 Contributions 50,000 53501 RED Grant to housing project 250,000
53000 Total Other Charges 300,000
Grand Total Expenditures 608,930
Adjustment for prefunded grant revenue (596,190)
Increase/(Decrease) to Fund Balance (605,930)
58
FY 2020-21 Preliminary Budget Summary Renewal Enterprise District JPA
74751 66150100
(1)* Estimated Beginning Fund Balance @7/01/20 $607,134
(2) Plus: Budgeted FY 2020-21 Revenues: 599,190 (total from attached worksheet)
(3) Less: Budgeted FY 2020-21 Expenditures: (608,930) (total from attached worksheet)
(4) Adjustment for prefunded grant revenue (596,190)
(5)* Estimated Ending Fund Balance @6/30/21: $1,204
(6) Preliminary Budget Approval Date:
___________________________ ___________________________ David Rabbitt Jack Tibbetts
___________________________ ___________________________ Shirlee Zane Victoria Fleming
* If District Fund Balance is separated into multiple categories, each districtshould keep records to identify how much beginning and ending fund balanceis available for each fund balance category and should work with their externalauditors to identify appropriate GASB 54 fund balance classifications.
59
Agenda Item 5bPreliminary Budget for Fiscal Year 2020/2021
60
The Renewal Enterprise District (RED) Joint Powers Authority (JPA) Agreement (Section 8.06) requires that, by a date no later than sixty (60) days before the end of each Fiscal Year, the Board shall adopt a budget for the RED for the ensuing Fiscal Year.
61
Background
• In August 2018 the Sonoma County TransportationAuthority (SCTA) received a grant from the HewlettFoundation to support the creation of the RenewalEnterprise District Joint Powers Authority (JPA).
• Until November 2019, the SCTA had been managing thefunds, paying invoices and reporting to the HewlettFoundation. Now that the RED JPA is fully operationalthe funds have been transferred to the RED.
62
The RED’s total FY 2020-2021 budget is $608,930.
To date, the RED has been primarily funded by the Hewlett Foundation Grant.
In February 2020 the RED was awarded a $40,000 grant from the Community Foundation Sonoma County (CFSC) to support the RED’s commitment to increase the housing stock in Sonoma County, through partnerships with Forsyth Street and MapOneSonoma.
63
Final Prelim Budget2019-20 2020 - 2021
Account DescriptionRevenuesOther Grants - Hewlett Foundation 700,000 586,190 Community Foundation Sonoma County 10,000 Interest on Pooled Cash 3,000 3,000 Total Revenues 703,000 599,190
ExpendituresAdministration Services and Supplies 20,000 13,930 Consulting Services 320,000 295,000 Contribution to Other Governments for Services 110,000 50,000 RED grant to housing project 250,000 250,000 Total Expenditures 700,000 608,930
Starting Fund Balance 7,871 607,134 Revenues 703,000 599,190 Expenditures (700,000) (608,930) Unearned Revenue Adjustment - Hewlett Foundation (586,190) Unearned Revenue Adjustment - Community Foundation (10,000) Net Increase/(Decrease) in Fund Balance 3,000 (605,930) Ending Fund Balance 10,871 1,204
64
• Looking forward, the RED’s preliminary budget assumes a starting fundbalance of approximately $607,134. If the RED were to receive no otherrevenue in the next fiscal year, this number plus interest on pooled cash, isthe funding we have to work with.
• Total expenditures are projected to be $608,930 resulting in a net decreaseto the fund balance of $605,930.
• The bottom line is that if there are no additional revenue sourcesdeveloped, the RED is funded through the end of FY 2020-2021, with anending fund balance projected to be $1,204.
65
Breakdown of significant line items:
• As the RED is essentially a contract governmental entity, the largestexpense is associated with consulting services, including ExecutiveDirector, General Counsel, strategic planner, auditor, and grantwriting/technical assistance, totaling $295,000 or 49% of totalbudgeted expenditures.
• The second largest expenditure line item is a RED grant to a housingproject, totaling $250,000 or 41% of total expenditures.
• Contributions to other governments, budgeted at $50,000, pays forCity and County staff time used for the benefit of the RED.
• Administration services and supplies includes office supplies andequipment, travel, and insurance. 66
Final Prelim Budget2019-20 2020 - 2021
Account DescriptionRevenuesOther Grants - Hewlett Foundation 700,000 586,190 Community Foundation Sonoma County 10,000 Interest on Pooled Cash 3,000 3,000 Total Revenues 703,000 599,190
ExpendituresAdministration Services and Supplies 20,000 13,930 Consulting Services 320,000 295,000 Contribution to Other Governments for Services 110,000 50,000 RED grant to housing project 250,000 250,000 Total Expenditures 700,000 608,930
Starting Fund Balance 7,871 607,134 Revenues 703,000 599,190 Expenditures (700,000) (608,930) Unearned Revenue Adjustment - Hewlett Foundation (586,190) Unearned Revenue Adjustment - Community Foundation (10,000) Net Increase/(Decrease) in Fund Balance 3,000 (605,930) Ending Fund Balance 10,871 1,204
67
Questions?
68
Agenda item: 6 Executive Director’s Report – April 23, 2020
Building the Renewal Enterprise District’s (RED) Capacity to Accelerate Infill, Mid-to-High Density Housing Near Transit, Jobs and Services
In the time passed since the February 26, 2020 RED Board meeting, work continues toward building a strong organization capable of supporting the ambitious objectives of the Renewal Enterprise District and Board of Directors. Examples of this work product are evident throughout the April 23, 2020 agenda packet, including these noteworthy developments:
• Coordination and facilitation around housing fund/program feasibility analysis of newfinancing strategies to address gaps in capital access identified by developers; effort todesign and implement a new fund or financing program that could help accelerate thecreation of infill housing.
• FY 2020/2021 budget development.• Public will building, advocating for and supporting the action to build housing to meet
community needs.• Facilitation of the RED’s first audit.• Research and drafting of legislative principles.• Engagement of all sectors – public, private, civic and philanthropic – in addressing
housing challenges.
Significant effort went into the following priorities as well:
• Finally submitting Affordable Housing Sustainable Communities and Infill InfrastructureGrant applications requesting over $37 million in state funding to build 349 infill housingunits, 37% of them affordable. Organize stakeholders with request for support fromstate delegation, who are reaching out to contacts at Strategic Growth Council andCalifornia Department of Housing and Community Development.
• Continued stakeholder outreach and relationship building within the developmentcommunity.
• Work with City of Santa Rosa staff to seek funding for Enhanced Infrastructure FinancingDistrict feasibility analysis; submit Letter of Interest for $400,00 in funding from HousingIncentive Pool Program grant through Sonoma County Transportation Authority.
• Execute contracts for legal and audit services.• Prepare for public presentations to Los Cien, Urban Land Institute and MapOneSonoma.• Preparation and transition to remote office in response to shelter in place orders;
convert in person meetings to online or teleconference.• Trainings for housing finance programs and compliance AB1234• Form 700s• Engagement with Metropolitan Transportation Commission regarding AB1487 and the
Bay Area Finance Authority, possible funding measure.
69
• Participate on California Coalition for Rural Housing Disaster Recovery/PreventionCommittee re COVID-19, challenges faced, adapting focus from natural disasters toinclude pandemic.
• Website maintenance.• Coordination between SRJC and Housing and Community Development re funding needs
for student housing project.
Working Group
The RED Working Group generally meets monthly to inform and propel the work of the Executive Director. At this time, Working Group meetings have been suspended in deference to competing demands on members’ time. Executive Director reaches out to individual members on an as needed basis, recognizing that City and County governments are currently focused on only the most essential services. Regular Working Group meetings will resume when shelter in place orders have been relaxed and when City and County staff can return to relatively normal operations.
Networking and Community Outreach
Despite shelter in place orders changing the way we work, advancing goals to accelerate infill housing production depends on collaborative relationships developed and fostered over time. According to Chris Thornberg of Beacon Economics, housing is a long run phenomenon while covid-19 will be shorter in duration. Without fundamental changes aimed at increasing housing production, shortages of available housing will remain. Now is not the time to lose hard won momentum.
Below is a partial list of policymaker, public agency, stakeholder, and community member engagements, efforts and events that the RED hosted, was represented at or has participated in since February 26, 2020:
• California Coalition for Rural Housing Disaster Recovery/Prevention Committee• Generation Housing• MapOneSonoma• Senator Mike McGuire’s and Assemblymember Wood’s staff re: State grant applications• Housing and Community Development, Infill Infrastructure Grant and Affordable
Housing Sustainable Communities grant assistance for joint applicants including localdevelopers, City of Santa Rosa, County of Sonoma, SMART, Community DevelopmentCommission
• Los Cien, in preparation for March 27 presentation, to be rescheduled• Housing Fund feasibility, ~15 key informant interviews—Working Group and developers
active in RED members’ jurisdictions• Burbank Housing re tax credit advocacy and funding opportunities
70
• Enterprise Community Partners• Local affordable housing advocates• Local, state and federal elected officials• Urban Land Institute steering group• Sonoma County Alliance• MTC meeting re AB1487, regional housing ballot measure• Congressman Mike Thompson and staff federal housing legislation• SRJC to advance student housing
As is the case for most organizations, several community events and conferences that the RED was to be represented at have been cancelled or postponed.
Attracting and Pooling Resources to Spur Housing Production
The RED is fortunate to have its startup costs funded by a grant from the Hewlett Foundation. The Community Foundation Sonoma County has also invested in the RED’s work with a $40,000 grant. Looking forward, short term efforts to spur development are focused on partner agencies at the state level, including the Strategic Growth Council and Housing and Community Development, among others. The 2019‑20 Governor’s budget included an unprecedented level of funding aimed at improving housing affordability and inventory statewide. This state investment generated opportunities for jurisdictions like Sonoma County and City of Santa Rosa, who, in partnership, have several entitled, shovel ready mid-to-high density, transit-oriented infill projects in the pipeline ready to break ground once resources have been identified to address remaining funding gaps. However, in response to impacts of covid-19, state and local governments are expected to tighten their financial belts through austerity budgets for FY 2020-2021. The impacts of financial realities on local housing production are unknown at this time. That said, there is a spirit of cautious optimism among developers interviewed for the housing fund feasibility study, with several projects expected to break ground in 2020.
The RED continues to assess state grant funding sources and has assisted financially and with in-kind support to submit recent applications for over $37 million in funding to advance mixed income housing production.
Other sources of funding to be tracked include federal, state and local public funds, private philanthropy, employers, developers and other stakeholders who have an interest in accelerating infill, mid-to-high density housing development. Again, covid-19 may impact available financial resources and markets. This will be a period of constant adaptive management to avoid threats and maximize opportunities.
The RED continues to track AB1487, the Bay Area Regional Housing Finance Act that was signed by the Governor in October 2019. The Act establishes the Bay Area Housing Finance Authority with the purpose to raise and allocate funding for affordable housing in the nine county Bay
71
Area. Proponents are engaged in due diligence before a November 2020 housing or housing/transportation ballot measure that could create funding opportunities for the RED. The Executive Director will also scan for any new federal funding that might become available in response to covid-19 recovery.
Discussions continue with Enterprise Community Partners, a national leader in affordable housing finance tools matching socially conscious investors with opportunities that yield economic returns. Enterprise provides technical assistance for Affordable Housing, Sustainable Communities grants, in addition to assisting organizations like the RED in establishing housing funds that address financial gaps that stall affordable and mixed income housing production. Enterprise has relationships with several natural RED partners, including Kaiser Permanente and Community Foundation Sonoma County, among others. With Enterprise and Forsyth Street Advisors, the RED and community partners continue to explore different operational models for a housing fund or other program, determining what capacities are needed from such a fund.
Phase one of the housing fund analysis includes: • Exploring the landscape for Infill Development in downtown Santa Rosa and other urban
areas across the County;• Screening models for financing Infill Development for their feasibility in the downtown
Santa Rosa market and other urban areas of the County; and• Evaluating whether a new fund or financing program could be implemented to support
Infill Development.
Planned Effort
The focus for April, May and June will continue to be on capacity building and cultivating a sustainable source of funding for the RED. Effort will continue on preparation for Board meetings and facilitation of the FY 2018-2019 audit conducted by Pisenti and Brinker. All activities identified in the Executive Director Work Plan continue as the RED continues to build out its structure. Advocacy continues re: Infill Infrastructure Grant and Affordable Housing, Sustainable Communities applications with staff from Senator McGuire’s and Assemblymember Wood’s staff, however, this effort has been slowed by covid-19 response at the local and state levels.
Attention remains focused on assisting stakeholders, including developers, the City of Santa Rosa and County of Sonoma, with progress toward submitting strongly competitive applications for funding for projects through multiple, primarily state, programs. Additionally, the RED ED continues scheduling and facilitating meetings including the Community Foundation, Enterprise Community Partners and Forsyth Street (affordable housing financial advisors), a Working Group, lenders and developers to evaluate potential new approaches for financing the production of affordable, middle income and workforce infill, mid to high density housing close to transit. If a viable model for financing middle income and workforce housing can be identified, the RED Board of Directors may consider establishment of
72
a new fund or program specifically designed to provide financing for this much-needed type of development. The RED received a $40,000 grant from Community Foundation Sonoma County to fund this work.
The RED ED continues working with local, regional and statewide stakeholders, including California Housing Partnership Corporation, Non Profit Housing, and California Rural Housing Coalition, and local stakeholders to ensure that a recently allocated $1 billion in federal disaster Low Income Housing Tax Credits is committed to the 13 California counties that experienced federally declared disasters in 2017-2018. We continue to collectively work toward a solution that might include a local authority, possibly the RED, to recommend projects to the Tax Credit Allocation Committee, ensuring that projects moving forward are aligned with smart growth objectives. The tax credits are a key component of affordable housing finance and have the potential to significantly accelerate the pace of production in Sonoma County.
Finally, the RED ED will work with local affordable housing developers to offer technical assistance for the Transit Oriented Development grant applications once the Notice of Funding Availability is released in late April, in addition to cultivating a pipeline of projects for the Affordable Housing Sustainable Communities grant.
Summary
The RED’s administrative foundation is stable and ready to support the collective housing goals of its members. Despite the realities and uncertainties surrounding the impacts of the covid-19 pandemic, the focus continues to sharpen on attracting and pooling grants and other financial resources to accelerate infill, mid-to-high density housing located within transit, service and amenity rich, planned areas.
73