Greetings!

Thank you very much for your prompt response to my public records request for the City’s quarterly report to the Treasury Department on the use of American Rescue Program Act funds.  I have incorporated the information in it into the original spreadsheet you provided me when the City allocated ARPA and PG&E funding (attached).  By doing so, I can better understand the progress of the programs begun by it, and the changes you have made to the City’s original decisions.

What is clear from the report is that the City has declared obligations to spend $22,629,794, and has expended $16,660,661 against those obligations.  That leaves a balance of expenditures of a little under $6 million.  Maxing out the expenditures on remaining obligations, you should be able to spend about $3.5 million of those remaining funds within your program design.  That will leave $2.5 million in funds to be re-obligated before December 31, 2024.  How and when will the Council make those additional obligations?

The only other question I have is “What happened to the original obligation of $10 million for the Roseland Community Center?”  The quarterly report seems to indicate that it has been shifted into the category of “Revenue Replacement”.  Your report states “Funding under the revenue loss provision will be allocated towards Roseland Community Center. Construction of Roseland Community Center would provide a publicly owned Community Center in Roseland which would ensure a culturally safe space and sense of belonging, would reflect the voices of the community in the design process, represent an equitable investment in the City infrastructure for the newly annexed Roseland, and provide more opportunities for the City’s youth and elders.”    May I assume that the shift to Revenue Replacement accounts for the drop in overall obligations from $34,937,000 originally to the current figure of $22,629,794?  The City is still going to apply the ARPA funding to the Roseland Community Center, correct?

Again, thanks for the report. 

Gregory Fearon

At the August 21st quarterly meeting of the Sonoma County Measure O Oversight Committee, discussions were held on the Crisis Care Mobile Response Program (see another post on this website), Measure O fund balances, Committee member terms of office (hopefully all being re-appointed), a soon-to-be-released NOFA (detailed in another post), and the progress of Measure O-funded projects.

Fund Balances. We’re still carrying reserves which the Committee feels are unnecessarily high. FY23-24 ending balance is projected in the draft annual report as $33.4 million. Even with an expected $43.7 million in expenditures in FY24-25, we would still retain a balance of $22.5 million.

Measure O Projects. See multi-year spreadsheet.

On July 25, 2024, Governor Gavin Newsom issued an Executive Order N-1-24, mandating state agencies to move with urgency and compassion to adopt clear policies for addressing homeless encampments on state property, and encouraging local governments to adopt policies that emulate the state’s approach. Shortly after the meeting of the Advisory Council to the California Interagency Council on Homeless (CalICH), an emergency teleconference was held to brief its members, and local government representatives, on the order. Coming this week to this post is the video recording.

Officials clear homeless encampment at California state beach

Valuable News (2023 & 0224)

Can licensed tent villages ease California’s homelessness epidemic? This nonprofit thinks so

UPDATE: Is San Jose spending too much on homeless outreach?

Sonoma County is building more permanent housing for unhoused people

Sonoma County nonprofit finds success renting shared homes to chronically homeless

Solid Ground Evaluations

The Unhoused in Reseda Are Moved Safely Inside

California gave Sacramento $25M for homeless at American River Parkway. Why hasn’t it spent it?

Soon, the Department of Health Services will release its Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) for $5.6 million from Measure O ($4.2 million) and State HHAP ($2.4 million) funding. Here is a summary of what is being planned:

Here is the background from the California Department of Health Care Services.

Here is Sonoma County’s latest summary of its program, and a presentation given to the Measure O Oversight Committee on August 21st.

Watch the webinar, review the slide presentation, and contact us with your questions, or to sign up for housing development.

The Application Portal is now open for the Bond BHCIP Round 1 funding, within the Proposition One rollout. Learning about the many components of this comprehensive state effort is not easy, but necessary. HEAPA board members serve on many of the policy and funding resources here in Sonoma County, and we will be working to coordinate and distribute any materials we an find. We will also be placing on our many agendas opportunities to allow intererested applicants to ask questions and gain insights.

Always in the pursuit of developing low income housing, I’ve stumbled upon a way to doing it using surplus city and county land, a new version of a successful state homeless housing program (Homekey+), and the skills and resources of small nonprofits and volunteers.

First, California counties and cities must gain approval of the California Housing and Community Development Department if they want to rid themselves of small parcels of unnecessary properties. Here’s a link to the 2,500 parcels which cities and counties have asked permission to declare surplus. Here is a link to a video the State Produced to explain the Housing and Local Government Local Land Development Opportunities Map.

Here is a link to the Santa Rosa webpage describing the City-owned Surplus Property and Process.

In Sonoma County, the list contains several parcels, mostly small ones purchased by government in order to build a road, or other public infrastructure, which were not needed once the project was finished. Government doesn’t want to have to maintain these parcels, and they are now trying to get rid of ownership.

Currently, larger nonprofit housing developers are using this list to find the larger pieces of developable land. It takes a lot of money to do so, but fortunately there are smaller parcels on this list which the nonprofit housing developers don’t want to bother acquiring. It just doesn’t pencil out to them unless there are 50-100 units being built. However, smaller service nonprofits are having some success build less than ten units on a parcel. This list contains 2,500 parcels all around the state.

If your nonprofit has any members who are skilled builders who have built anything from a granny unit to a couple of four-plexes on up to a half-acre property, you can be in the business of acquiring and building housing for your clients soon. Check out the applications the state has received from its government agencies, and go after the exempt surplus in your area. Download the communications between your city and the state, and sign up to have the properties transferred to you. Here are some examples of properties I am pursuing.

Among the properties that may be used for affordable housing are three parcels that stand out. One is in northern Cloverdale which I’m calling Cloverdale Commons. Another is near the Sonoma County Airport (Airport Commons). Finally, there is a site where several small parcels should be combined (Montecito Commons).

https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/124435523865104797/3055238435876262226

Read all about the Implementation of Proposition One, and how it might bring all of us together.

Over the next three months, these are the most important meetings in which to participate if you share an interest in health and human services program development in Sonoma County.