[{"_1":2,"_98":-5,"_99":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,74,86],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":44,"_46":47,"_48":49,"_50":51,"_52":53,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":59,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":65,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":67,"_71":72,"_73":72},"mediaId",6664215,"mediaKeyId","2383226-3b23c69f8e97356f3ba39784331e1e07","parentId",2383226,"title","Authority updates pipeline: Cannery at Railroad Square nears lease‑up; Casa Roseland affordable component monitored","audioSeconds",0,"startMs",5102000,"endMs","viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2383226-3b23c69f8e97356f3ba39784331e1e07&start=5102&end=5102","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2383226-3b23c69f8e97356f3ba39784331e1e07/thumbnail_5102000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6664215/Santa-Rosa-City/Sonoma-County/California/Authority-updates-pipeline-Cannery-at-Railroad-Square-nears-leaseup-Casa-Roseland-affordable-component-monitored","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6664215-512ec798a817bd0e95d32f227b13e499/orig.mp4?Expires=1771187990&Signature=e1MbU0P3c9NmR~KmkRFQhTMMIlUWABxoAOOyDIzyv42vjpNPBWCC3lkhkYB~UkLz-QQk0S1sg8rBLWxQO28K5NsTSedFKh5Dm7QEfIW-HVnBzYhbwczY6LJL~1dih92acVUWRk2~bL6dxgUZy-BD00VAUx8b3Amq5YQaQJ2HPJTYTJKO0K3lur8ECSBq4v~2JK1qAa1AsMVXePM5MUab5WGpYkuPCYe713UvTdAqX6rUjIz3AEnfHuAzbxlciTolnVsEZGxIUKGK6zFhReV4vxcTTze~Ujt2~ZimmybJ0vUY29PCXjZWVFIHQ7MFhGcSIiHVDwiFpsBiQ2~f~Wu0Bw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City of Santa Rosa, CA","date","2025-02-24T23:19:06.29Z","article","Megan, the Authority’s executive director, gave a monthly pipeline update and highlighted two projects nearing construction completion or permitting.

Megan told commissioners the Cannery at Railroad Square—a project that has been in process for more than 20 years—is completing and beginning its lease‑up. She said the Cannery used multiple public funding sources, including CDBG‑DR (disaster recovery), project‑based vouchers, the state accelerator program and infill infrastructure funding, to reach completion.

Megan also highlighted Casa Roseland, the affordable component of the larger Roseland Village project on Sebastopol Road. Casa Roseland is a 75‑unit development; the housing authority is monitoring 28 units restricted as affordable under a density bonus. Megan noted the Authority does not currently provide direct funding for that site but retained the density‑bonus restrictions tied to affordability.

Commissioners asked clarifying questions about how the “% affordable” column works on the pipeline report; Megan explained that in some projects the percentage reflects a density‑bonus restriction monitored by the Authority rather than a direct local funding commitment.

Public commenter Dwayne DeWitt discussed long‑standing downtown housing planning work and urged the Authority to leverage prior studies and coordinate with the city and local affordable‑housing developers (he mentioned Burbank Housing) to pursue infill opportunities and earlier project delivery.

Ending: Staff will continue to monitor lease‑up at the Cannery and the financing and permitting schedule for Casa Roseland and will report pipeline changes at the monthly meeting.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","City of Santa Rosa Housing Authority February 24, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Staff reported the Cannery at Railroad Square is completing construction and entering lease‑up after a multi‑decade process; Casa Roseland (Sebastopol Road) is a 75‑unit project with 28 units restricted as affordable through a density bonus and several public funding sources identified on the Cannery project.","taxTitle","Santa Rosa City, Sonoma County, California","taxId",3913,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":75,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":76,"_41":77,"_43":78,"_45":79,"_46":80,"_48":81,"_50":82,"_52":83,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":84,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":85,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":67,"_71":72,"_73":72},6664220,"City attorney briefs Santa Rosa Housing Authority on Brown Act and conflict‑of‑interest rules",2495,2390000,4885000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2383226-3b23c69f8e97356f3ba39784331e1e07&start=2390&end=4885","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2383226-3b23c69f8e97356f3ba39784331e1e07/thumbnail_2390000.jpg","/articles/6664220/Santa-Rosa-City/Sonoma-County/California/City-attorney-briefs-Santa-Rosa-Housing-Authority-on-Brown-Act-and-conflictofinterest-rules","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6664220-1a64d7d96b49d17eb19cc985889f6dd6/orig.mp4?Expires=1771187990&Signature=RclzViLDI7dwOZLKaEvmJ7PBu4INEGj~VL9deyNeOm2ca2Ol8rNVfwlD7hkG-h0~Q1pY9qXZo6IExd5jKn5i6v5oCcV5KWDlldXSxPAbWEqRKERjw3YnzwMZQU5uX~d~ctLtLZ-w0kC~avOu6YuUgBoH1fSq3Vy6M2MtK4jF1M4zJuHaH2uUgxwwkMBRQccjbQI8fFYYFncg3T7zOQy53ltUFOKkmyJKOYxY2Pn5e~DI7yWzYVXrxWcL51928-tSvWKf82FVwlYpI35F60GwwMqjSXVZDqxRthamAbYFeP~jewqErIGrHNi0XN7N7mlSmf45qAXiuuWgqjD7QE3M1Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Sabrina Wolfson, Chief Assistant City Attorney and serving as general counsel for the Authority, gave a study session overview of California’s open‑meeting and conflict laws, explaining the Brown Act, serial‑meeting prohibitions and the financial and contractual conflict rules that apply to commissioners.

Wolfson said the Brown Act requires openness for meetings of a legislative body and defines a meeting broadly to mean a congregation of a majority of commissioners to hear, discuss, deliberate or take action on matters within the Authority’s subject matter jurisdiction. She emphasized two frequent pitfalls: serial meetings (daisy‑chain or hub‑and‑spoke communications among a majority of commissioners) and sharing of other commissioners’ views through staff, which can create an inadvertent serial meeting.

Wolfson walked through exceptions commonly used in practice: individual communications with staff (permissible so long as staff do not transmit other commissioners’ views), attendance at public social or ceremonial events (so long as no specific Authority business is discussed), and allowable uses of social media (Commissioners may post informational content but should not engage in threaded back‑and‑forth or use reactions that might be construed as deliberation). She recommended practical measures—brief public explanations to applicants about the Brown Act, routing substantive materials to staff for distribution to the full Authority, and avoiding “reply all” on emails—to reduce the risk of inadvertent violations.

On conflicts of interest, Wolfson summarized three legal frameworks: the Political Reform Act (which disqualifies participation in decisions that will have a material financial effect on a commissioner), Government Code Section 1090 (which prohibits participation in contracts in which a commissioner has a financial interest, with narrower exceptions), and common‑law bias (a broader, fact‑specific doctrine that can cover personal relationships or strong personal interest). She explained the common real‑property test under the Political Reform Act: ownership within 500 feet creates a rebuttable presumption of a material effect; beyond 1,000 feet a presumption of no material effect; and the 501–1,000 foot band requires fact‑specific inquiry about market or development impacts.

Commissioners asked practical questions. Vice Chair Downey asked whether an individual phone call to clarify an acronym would risk Brown Act exposure; Wolfson said individual contact is permitted so long as it does not form part of a serial communication. Commissioners were advised to direct technical or background research questions to staff so material can be disseminated evenly. Wolfson encouraged early consultation with the City Attorney’s Office or the Fair Political Practices Commission for complicated, fact‑specific gift, income or property questions.

Public commenter Dwayne DeWitt urged the Authority to restore a public binder of meeting materials at the dais and to use Brown Act allowances to brief the public during meetings; he expressed skepticism about past practice and urged better transparency. The Chair thanked DeWitt for his comments and Wolfson’s presentation.

Ending: Wolfson closed by urging commissioners to seek advice early, to use staff as a conduit for distributing materials and to avoid “reply all” email chains that could trigger serial‑meeting concerns.","Chief Assistant City Attorney Sabrina Wolfson reviewed the Brown Act, serial‑meeting prohibitions, public‑comment rules and conflict‑of‑interest standards (Political Reform Act, Gov. Code §1090 and common‑law bias); commissioners asked practical questions about permissible contacts and staff distribution of materials.",{"_33":87,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":88,"_41":89,"_43":90,"_45":91,"_46":92,"_48":93,"_50":94,"_52":95,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":96,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":97,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":67,"_71":72,"_73":72},6664225,"Santa Rosa Housing Authority hears midyear financial update; staff outlines federal funding risks and local reserve options",1892,454000,2346000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2383226-3b23c69f8e97356f3ba39784331e1e07&start=454&end=2346","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2383226-3b23c69f8e97356f3ba39784331e1e07/thumbnail_454000.jpg","/articles/6664225/Santa-Rosa-City/Sonoma-County/California/Santa-Rosa-Housing-Authority-hears-midyear-financial-update-staff-outlines-federal-funding-risks-and-local-reserve-options","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6664225-f70faf42294b37477a9e04f2d585423c/orig.mp4?Expires=1771187990&Signature=XM3JqZUFvK~8XGRRAX2ZHMN4Tbr0m1eOsveqa7krcpnup08V7mTbeNIJISgi7AXR-xJWRJTQAr16PJZ~gw-iPyuoXH0nARZstoDdbDNIYLjPlbIaqJQ8sCOAofPtbxt1dQDXODntnw9yspj8KtWDc~j55dIP8Ofsp2g1k9KZ0dn9Po5h03dv34VrcnG9b7BlvY~iW5QNeH874WCQVj8YznLJmJVcdnxLuk2Lr7o2Bm5W8GtS5xU4kR~ueMo~kb-zmB07iHRMCvbMwSEUAaf2poX1nEJQjOqotgzp7nQGJzb5DNapkC0mlVSWElWdIxJFScxWTvMvFmhC2A3VBiqWng__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Kate Goldfein, administrative services officer for the Housing and Community Services Department, presented the Housing Authority’s quarter‑2 financial update for the fiscal year 2024–25 (through Dec. 31, 2024), saying, “We are trending well in all areas.”

Goldfein told commissioners that, while dollar expenditures are higher than last year at the same point, the Authority’s percentage of budget spent in most categories remains consistent with prior years. She said administration expenses are being used at roughly the same rate as last year and that subrecipient spending has caught up after low first‑quarter activity.

The presentation corrected an error in the meeting memo: the remaining loan budget was reported as $1,800,000 but the correct remaining budget is $3,200,000 after a late December journal carryover adjustment. Goldfein said those funds are largely already committed to developers and that staff expects most to show as “committed” in the quarter‑3 update as loan documents are finalized.

Goldfein reported nearly $18 million expended in housing assistance payments year‑to‑date—about $2.9 million per month across programs, up from an average of roughly $2.6 million per month at the same point last year. She said the increase tracks higher rental assistance payments this fiscal year. She also reported local revenue collection performing well: housing impact fees were nearly at the budgeted $1.3 million (about $1,275,000 received), compliance monitoring fees were $170,000 versus $128,000 at midyear last year, and loan repayments had increased to $733,000 (versus $631,000 at midyear last year).

On reimbursements, Goldfein and other staff said the Authority has drawn federal grant reimbursements from HUD for CDBG, HOME and HOPWA expenditures and that those federal grants and executed agreements have thus far been reimbursed. Staff noted one exception: a disaster recovery CDBG line (CDBG‑DR) that flows through the state (California HCD) rather than directly from HUD.

Commissioners asked how exposed the Authority would be if federal payments were paused or contracts not honored. Goldfein and Megan (Executive Director) said staff is monitoring developments in Washington, D.C., and drawing down reimbursements quickly when possible. Megan noted the city retains federal lobbyists who are tracking the situation and will share new information with the Authority.

Vice Chair Downey and other commissioners asked what local options exist as a bridge if federal reimbursements were delayed or stopped. Staff recommended two primary tools: 1) appropriating local receipts that exceed conservative budget assumptions (for example, using loan repayments or higher‑than‑expected housing impact fees) as a short‑term bridge, and 2) relying on the housing trust reserve. Staff said the housing trust’s policy requires a reserve equal to 15% of administrative expenditures and that the trust currently holds approximately $505,000 for that administrative reserve. Staff clarified that the Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program is federally administered and HUD does not permit a local reserve for HCV funds.

Commissioners also raised technical budget questions that staff answered: some federal housing assistance (HCV and Emergency Housing Vouchers) is funded on a calendar basis and provided monthly by HUD rather than reimbursed; HOME tenant‑based rental assistance is included in a HUD grant agreement; and the Authority’s allocation of HCV vouchers is capped at 1,925 and coupled to HUD budget authority, so if per‑voucher costs exceed budget authority the Authority must stop issuing new vouchers until HUD or other funding addresses the shortfall.

Public comment came from Dwayne DeWitt of Roseland, who thanked staff for the presentation, asked for the dollar amount of the 15% reserve, and suggested the Authority explore local philanthropic or foundation support to build a contingency fund. DeWitt also asked about HUD‑VASH vouchers in the county and whether project‑based vouchers could be expanded to assist veterans; staff responded that precise VASH counts are handled with county partners and that project‑based vouchers had been used on past projects.

Staff left commissioners with a clear next step: continue monitoring federal actions, proactively draw down reimbursements, and consider requesting appropriation of any local funds that exceed conservative budgets to create temporary bridging capacity if needed. No formal Authority policy change or budget appropriation was adopted at the meeting.

Ending: Commissioners thanked staff for the detailed briefing and asked for ongoing updates as federal funding and continuing resolutions evolve.","Staff reported midyear fiscal 2024–25 figures, including higher rental assistance spending, corrected loan-balance figures and a 15% administrative reserve of about $505,000; commissioners pressed staff on risks from possible federal funding interruptions and local bridging options.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Authority updates pipeline: Cannery at Railroad Square nears lease‑up; Casa Roseland affordable component monitored

City attorney briefs Santa Rosa Housing Authority on Brown Act and conflict‑of‑interest rules

Santa Rosa Housing Authority hears midyear financial update; staff outlines federal funding risks and local reserve options