Good afternoon, and welcome to February 22nd City Council meeting madam city clerk. Can you please call the roll? Thank you mayor Councilmember Schwedhelm here councilmember Sawyer here Councilmember Rogers present councilmember McDonald here Councilmember Fleming Vice Mayor Alvarez present Mayor Rogers here let the record show that all councilmembers are present with the exception of councilmember Fleming All right, we start our day in closed session with items 2.1 through 2.3 Let's go ahead and see if we have any public comment on those items Dwayne Hello, my name is Dwayne D. Witt. I'm from Roseland. I had the clerk give some documents to you because in the past I mentioned that your real estate dealings on Herne Avenue are in the Bellevue district That isn't my designation that comes from Sonoma County Community Development Commission The study of 1987 a target 87 1987 88 to 1992 Study about the districts that were outside the Santa Rosa City limits at the time Including Roseland and Wright. I've just given you the maps to show you Bellevue and Roseland the reason this is important is because you'll be doing this real estate deal and Some housing units will be taken out of the mix Your right-of-way agent will say well, we're gonna work it out to make sure that those residents are able to go somewhere else But the housing units will be destroyed and this is something that the city of Santa Rosa does very often It destroyed 17 housing units on Stony Point Road for the widening of the road It destroyed four housing units over on Burbank and McMinn for other activities I'm here to ask you to find a way to replace those housing units This is something that you should be doing because you say we're in a housing crisis You use it as a rationale to approve housing to be built on green fields far away from the city center As a matter of fact Lantana homes were built over about four miles from downtown Santa Rosa But you called it city center because it was in the Santa Rosa City limits That's basically fudging on some rhetoric and some semantics What we're hoping for from the Sonoma County Housing Advocacy Group is that you would build housing units close into downtown Like Hugh Futrell is doing right now. He's been able to get buildings in very close Multiple story. He's building one on 4th Street right now. You could get many more of these And you could stop this green field building that you're doing which is basically suburban sprawl It's a model that Santa Rosa and Sonoma County has been using for 60 years Since Oakmont was put miles away from downtown Santa Rosa You folks in your business dealings should be looking out to make sure you follow What you preach you say you want downtown housing If you knock out these two housing units, you think well, that's a drop in the bucket But that in a housing crisis is two units that are not going to be able to be used by others to try to rent So with that in mind last but not least 625 and 637 3rd street. I've been looking for those street numbers. I can't find them Where is this deal going down at that you're going to buy with taxpayers money? Thank you Madam deputy city clerk. Do we have any hands on zoom? We do not mayor and we receive no voice message public comments on closed session. All right. We'll recess into closed session then Liz is um Shannon setting up the water and pictures Okay For those of you just joining the meeting live translation in Spanish will be provided And will be available to the members of the public or staff wishing to listen in Spanish You can join the Spanish channel by clicking on the interpretation icon in the zoom title Excuse me the zoom toolbar. It looks like a globe once you join the Spanish channel We recommend you shut off the main audio so you only hear the Spanish translation Interpreter charles. Can you please restate this in Spanish? I Thank you charles and it appears that our interpreter Pablo having some connectivity issues so I'm going to move you right away into the interpretation channel if you can really begin translation services immediately I'd appreciate it thank you Charles can we do a brief mic check one more time thank you loud and clear good afternoon let's go get the meeting started Madam City Clerk can you call the roll thank you councilmember Schwedhelm here councilmember Sawyer here councilmember Rogers present council member McDonald here councilmember Fleming here vice mayor Alvarez president mayor Rogers here let the record show that all council members are present all right Madam City Attorney can you please give a report out of our closed session yes thank you mr. Mayor council met in closed session on three items all real estate items the first regarding 625 and 637 3rd Street in Santa Rosa the second involving 3rd 1130 Herne Avenue and zero Pebble Creek Santa Rosa and the third will regarding 980 Herne Avenue in Santa Rosa and on all three items council gave direction to the real property negotiator and took no final action all right thank you so much we have no proclamations today Madam City Manager let's go on to our staff updates thank you mayor Rogers so item 7.1 COVID-19 response so new local case rates and hospitalizations have peaked in our declining echoing what is happening nationally and in California but both remain at high levels Sonoma County's vaccine campaign will achieve two major milestones this month this includes 80% of the eligible population now being fully vaccinated and the one million doses of the COVID-19 vaccine being administered as a reminder Sonoma County lifted universal mask requirements last week for most public indoor settings unvaccinated individuals over age two will continue to be required to wear masks in all indoor public settings businesses venue operators and hosts may choose to require all patrons to wear mask indoor masking continues to be required for all on public transportation in health care congregate and long-term care settings and in K through 12 and child care this month governor Newsom signed a $1.9 billion package to continue to bolster the state's ongoing emergency response including funding to boost testing capacity and vaccination efforts support frontline workers strengthen the health care system and battle misinformation with the focus on the hardest hit communities last week the county of Sonoma announced that it had paused accepting any new application applications for the emergency rental assistance program to date with federal and state funding the county has distributed nearly 25 million in direct assistance to households through Sonoma County's emergency rental assistance program with nearly 4,000 pending are completed applications the pause is to ensure that all of those with completed applications and in the queue will receive funds more information about local response to COVID-19 is available at socoemergency.org thank you thank you let's go on to item 7.2 our glass fire public infrastructure recovery update as well so item 7.2 will be delivered by assistant city manager Jason nutt good afternoon mayor and council members Jason that assistant city manager director of transportation and public works would like to take you through a brief update relating to our glass fire infrastructure recovery process about a year ago I provided you with a brief description of some of the challenges that the team was having in regards to not only working through the public assistance program but also with the type of damage that we were receiving next slide please and so as you recall the glass fire was part of a complex fire that was that started in Sonoma County is the shady fire and merged with a glass fire that was on the other side of the hill out of Napa Valley ultimately becoming glass fire from Calo yes and this was a fire that occurred immediately on the heels of the LNU fire which was over in the west side of the county and so we were as a county reeling from a number of different aspects of our fire season and very early fire season is that it did ultimately damage 34 homes five commercial structures within the city limits and quite a bit more outside of the city at that point in time when we did our initial damage assessment we we came up with about a million dollars of public infrastructure damage and about eight hundred thousand dollars worth of staff and resources assigned to that particular incident and so we had applied for we've made a request for public assistance through FEMA's program if you go to the next slide please. That particular program closed on the 21st as I reported to you last year the city was late in our submittal we got our our our request in on December the 4th unfortunately in February the 16th of last year FEMA did deny our request for public assistance what that means for us is that we're ineligible to go through the federal process through FEMA to recover any funds to restore services or to restore the facilities that were damaged during that course of time we did evaluate whether or not there was a second appeal that we wanted to make we felt we had a very strong position unfortunately FEMA determined that the the late nature of the submittal was was just simply out of class with their policy and therefore was a systematic denial in based on their language we made the decision to not move forward with a second appeal and ultimately FEMA gave us the final denial on June the 14th. Next slide. What does that mean for us that means the facilities that were damaged out there are things that are going to be restored and repaired by the agencies and and owners of the public facilities. Santa Rosa water as you can see on the slide has a couple of water tanks as well as some monitoring wells that have damage not necessarily anything dramatic associated with the facility itself it's more on the exterior it's it's the irrigation it's the trees they're retaining walls that were damaged all of those coming up at a price tag that we need to come forward and and handle and and Santa Rosa water intends to issue contracts to do the repairs on those there have been a few other locations that had similar types of damage on a much lower scale and Santa Rosa waters staff has already invested the time to make those repairs on a few of the other facilities that were damaged from the public work standpoint Skyhawk Community Park in the open space for the two that were most substantially damaged in in the public in the public works realm. We have already started to do repair and replacement on the damaged storm drain. As you recall from the Tubbs fire in 2017 we did identify that the plastic storm drain piping that was installed during this era of construction was susceptible to melting and burning which was inconsistent with the manufacturer's documentation and so we're happy to report that we're that there's a lot of communities that are starting to have discussions with those manufacturers of piping in an effort to try to change their practice and to begin to adjust their process so that we have less of that in the future. Skyhawk Community Park really is the biggest component that we have yet to make a substantive adjustment in and we'll be moving forward in the next spring and summer to try to restore some of the programs that are there. Realistically the primary thing is there's some irrigation components and the fencing are really the primary areas that we need to replace the playground does need some repair but for the most part the play equipment itself is still in reasonable condition. Next slide please. I just thought to give you sort of a visual of how the fire came in and impacted us center was a water put this together to kind of to demonstrate where their primary impacts were and some of the damages that we were able to see and I thought this was a nice visual to be able to conclude this briefing on and to see if council has any questions for me about the process that we went through where we're at in the recovery timeline and I'm happy to answer questions on the public works side I'll do my best on the water side but I know Jennifer Burke is also online as the director center was a water and she'd be happy to discuss any of the water facility damage if you had specific questions. Thank you Jason I'll look to my colleagues to see if there are any questions. Councilmember McDonald. Thank you Mayor. I just have a question on the FEMA deadline is that something that has to be done after the end of the fire there's a certain timeline that they set or how did that how does that occur? Yeah councilmember there's definitely a deadline that gets established by FEMA and Cal OES it is published I hate to say it it's just at that particular time and we documented this very well in our first appeal to FEMA that we were in the process of dealing with an upsurge in COVID-19 we were dealing with a substantial outbreak in our homeless population we had cooling and heavy winter weather coming in and so we were scrambling to try to come up with appropriate shelter practices and unfortunately our focus was there and not on the specific date the deadline and and you know we take responsibility for having missed that particular time frame we had hoped that we had caught it fast enough and were able to make the submittal in a reasonable time frame FEMA felt otherwise. Jason out of the 34 homes I know we have a data tracker that's online I haven't had a chance to look at it today out of the 34 homes that were damaged or destroyed how many have been able to rebuild and be reoccupied up to this point? Mayor that's a great question I apologize I don't have that information I don't know if Claire Hartman is online and could provide that response if not we'll get back to you as soon as we can to let you know what that update looks like. Great I appreciate it any other questions? All right we'll go to public comment on item seven that's our staff briefings to add your COVID-19 response near glass fire public infrastructure rebuild briefing if anybody would like to make a comment we can do so either here in the chambers at the podium or online via zoom I don't see anyone move in the chamber and I don't see any hands for public comment on zoom no voicemail messages we'll go ahead bring this back and let's move on then to our city manager and city attorney reports so do you want to kick us off today? Sure thank you I actually I have no nothing to report this afternoon so that's quick. Why we went to you first it makes it seem like things are moving faster now we'll go to the city manager. So with the dropping temperatures the staff along with Catholic Charities we're currently working to stand up a warming center we're in the process now of working through some logistics so more information should be coming to you in the next couple of hours and on Saturday March the 5th the Santa Rosa fire department will be hosting the first annual women public safety day this event will provide young women ages 15 to 20 with the hands-on public safety learning experience and showcase the jobs available in the public safety sector this immersive day will be led by local women from emergency medical services law enforcement and fire departments sharing what it's like to be a woman in public safety safety both on and off-duty participants will be able to network with women in public safety positions witness live demonstrations and take part in hands-on activities please join the Santa Santa Rosa please join the city of Santa Rosa and our partners at the Santa Rosa fire department training center located at 2126 West College Avenue on March the 5th from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. Thank you thank you so much and I really appreciate the team for scrambling and making the warming center happened here over the next couple of days we look forward to more information so we can help push that out to the public and make sure that folks have access to it but more information to follow council are there any questions for the city manager let's go to public comment on the city manager's report seeing none we have any voicemails okay we'll move on to statements of abstention by council members for tonight does anybody have to abstain from any of our items okay let's go on then to I'm sorry I missed your glance I will need to abstain from 14.2 as I was absent from that meeting in the minutes okay we'll show that abstention that was that was I was looking at a different piece but I do have to abstain hold on this one's 11.2 yes well are you looking at it the February 8th it's actually 11.1 11.1 all right thank you we'll show that abstention when we get to that item let's go on to mayors and council member reports who would like to start anyone have a report go ahead council member flooding thank you mayor for selecting me out of the throng of hands to go first I feel quite honored so a couple of things have happened I got to attend the first homeless ad hoc I'll let council member Schwedhelm give an update on that it be so chooses the renewal enterprise district met today and we have a new chair which is supervisor coursey and I was grateful to be appointed as our non-voting member to our nonprofit wing which on Friday will be meeting to discuss distributing some of the 20 million plus dollars that the city has contributed half of this money to and this is really exciting because what you're going to start to see in the next year to two years is the investment that each of you has made on behalf of the public materialized into housing units that you'll be able to see in the vicinity of where we are right now and so it's kind of you know I'm overcome and appreciative of all of the work that staff has done in the wake of the tubs fire in those early and awful days when they foresaw this as an opportunity to make the the best out of a really awful situation and so I'm really grateful to be part of that and to welcome council member Schwedhelm on as our new vice chair so and the the last update I have is we had a public safety subcommittee meeting last Wednesday and captain Cregan reported out about the beginning of the in-response teams first month of functioning and in their early days they received already 70 calls and I know that on the county side of things we're continuing to feel increasing numbers of calls and people seeing this as a viable resource for the community and I hope that not only is it comfort to people living with or living living with mental illness themselves or with a family member but also to our public safety officers who have more resources at their hands to to better address these concerns and not feel so pressed to to be a therapist and a police officer and a code enforcement officer and all of the other things that are on their plate so extreme gratitude to captain Cregan and his staff that he's worked with thank you thank you council member any other reports down here council member Rogers all right thank you I just wanted to say that I had I was able to attend the redistricting community meeting on last Thursday on the 17th and I was a little disappointed because there were not as many people as I would have hoped had attended but this is definitely the community's opportunity to weigh in on you know what the districts look like and we really do want to hear from each and every one of you so if you do not know how to use the tool when these meetings happen this is your time to learn how to use the tool and or draw on paper they have the maps available but to draw on paper what you think the maps should look like and you know the what you feel like the community how we can best represent the communities of interest so just want to encourage people to you know really either use the tool come down to City Hall and get a paper map come to the next meeting but it was very informative to get that one-on-one and really play around with the tool so that was that was pretty neat thanks thank you councilmember councilmember sweat on thank you mr. Mayor as councilmember Fleming mentioned I attended my first renewal enterprise district meeting this afternoon and somehow I was elected to be the vice chair for this year supervisor course he ran a very efficient meeting so that we would not be late for a closed session today a lot of good things going on there and then regarding the homeless and housing ad hoc committee meeting that we had last week on the fiverr 15th we received an update on sam jones hall and is I believe kelly kalk kikendall reported out we are accepting new admittance there received the update from the safe parking pilot program of which the city manager I think let everyone know it will be going live March 1st homeless services contract awards will be discussing that item today and on our next agenda we also are making recommendations for the homeless services strategic planning consultant and again that should become public as soon as next week's agenda gets published we also reviewed a draft policy for warming center and what are some of the criteria that would kick into play for that so that is very timely and we also received an update on the project home key application status we are still anxiously awaiting our award from the state housing and community development department I'm being very optimistic there that's all thank you great thank you council member any others okay I had the mayors and council members legislative committee on Friday we had the meeting about five hours before the bill introduction deadline was so we'd seen many of the things that have been introduced at least in spot bill form those certainly there were plenty that we're coming in at the last minute as well I wanted to flag two specific bills for the council one is SB 872 this is a bill that sponsored by the California State Association of Counties that dovetails very well with our conversations around in response it actually would allow wraparound services to include a mobile pharmacy that that's one of the impacts that they're seeing is as things such as in response are out there that actually folks are not able to dispense medicine as they need to so that is one bill that's been introduced the other is a SB 852 that's by senator bill Dodd who represents part of Sonoma County that bill would allow for jurisdictions to organize and create almost special districts based on the enhanced infrastructure finance district philosophy around climate change and putting in place funding options for folks to be able to fund climate measures the great thing for Sonoma County is that we actually are the only place in the state if not the country that has one of those already that's RCPA the regional climate protection authority what this bill would do is actually give financing tools that RCPA does not have so we've been meeting with the bills the bill the bill the bill author to make sure that he understands what types of amendments we might need to be able to try to transition over and grandfather in our existing structure which is RCPA I'll go ahead and get back to you with more of the bills as they come across our desk that are important and that meet our platform I know obviously Scott Alonzo has been working close with our lobbyists to be able to track this as well so expect more updates in the near future on that with that we'll go to public comment for council member reports you'd like to provide a comment go ahead hit hit the raise hand feature on your zoom or make your way towards the podium do we have any voicemail public comments all right Thomas go ahead I think you I was just going to try to ask when the next meeting is on the district yeah the redistricting meeting that would allow for the the next public hearing for redistricting will be on March 1st next Tuesday it's part of the city council meeting and it'll be a public hearing yeah so it'll be after 5 o'clock Thomas yep great and did you have a did you have a comment on the council member staff report or a council member report outs okay we'll get there right around 5 o'clock and let's move on to our approval of minutes we have two minutes for approval today that's items 11.1 and 11.2 January 25th and February 8th council meetings regular meeting special meeting we've already heard from council member Sawyer he will be abstaining from item 11.1 are there any amendments to the minutes I apologize I should have abstained from both of those as well okay we'll show you as an abstention on both of them yes thanks any changes let's go to the public and see if anybody had any changes to those minutes and any voicemails on it okay we'll bring it back and we'll show items 11.1 and 11.2 adopted as presented without objection with council member Sawyer abstaining from 11.1 and council member McDonald abstaining from 11.1 and 11.2 go on to our consent calendar mayor Rogers and members of council we have two items on the consent calendar today item 12.1 is a motion authority to issue design build requests for proposals for the fire damage roadwork roadway resiliency improvements project item 12.2 is a resolution it's a contract award six fire damage parks six fire damaged parks recovery all right council do we have any questions on items 12.1 or 12.2 let's go to public comment if you have a comment on either of these items go ahead to hit the raise hand feature on zoom and any voicemails all right we'll bring it back then mr. vice mayor can you please put a motion on the table thank you mayor I move items 12.1 and 12.2 and wave further reading of the text second have a motion from the vice mayor and a second from council member McDonald let's go ahead and call the vote council member Schwedhelm hi council member Sawyer hi council member Rogers hi council member McDonald hi council member Fleming hi vice mayor Alvarez hi mayor Rogers hi that motion passes with seven eyes okay it's not yet five o'clock so we'll come back to our public comment for non-agenda items let's move on to item 14.1 report item 14.1 is recommendations for homeless service providers and operation of the Samuel L. Jones Hall homeless shelter for fiscal year 2022 and 2023 the report will be delivered by killing kind can doll our homeless services provider. Good afternoon Mayor Rogers and members of the council can you hear me. Yes we can. Okay fabulous so as the city manager Ricky Smith was sharing with council staff will be making recommendations for homeless service for writers and an operator for Sam Jones Hall for the upcoming fiscal year 22 23 next slide please this is my overview slide so the first bullet here I just want to refresh your memory that on November 9th council our staff provided a study session to council I've presented a draft of the request for proposals received feedback on that RFP and then issued the RFP following that council meeting so during the presentation I will cover the request for proposals I'm going to call it RFP I'll cover a summary of the proposals received and recommendations on providers for homeless services and for Sam Jones Hall I'm not making funding recommendations this evening that will come at a later council meeting. Lastly I'll covered lessons learned through this process and next steps next slide please. The purpose of the RFP is explained in the slide to seek proposals from qualified and experienced organizations to provide homeless services and for operation of the city owned the Samuel L Jones Hall homeless shelter for the upcoming fiscal year 2022 2023 next slide please. For the purpose the council is as very aware that we've significantly significantly increased our investment in homeless services over the past several years and a decision was made to shift to a competitive process through the RFP. The last time we ran a competitive RFP was in 2004 when Catholic Charities was selected as the operator for Sam Jones Hall. We do run an annual application process through a housing and community services department through their public services program for community development block grant funding a portion of which is used to fund homeless services. Next slide please. The term of the RFP required providers to be able to implement programs by July 1st 2022. The initial term excuse me is for again the upcoming fiscal year 2022 2023 and up to five years so continuing through fiscal year 26 and 27. Of course that's condition it's a conditional approval based on available resources and contractor performance. Next slide please. In terms of the scope there are two key areas in the RFP. One was homeless services and those are listed here in the slide and the second area was Sam Jones Hall an operator for Sam Jones Hall. So as you can see in the slide there are a lot of services that are eligible under homeless services. Those include day services, street outreach and encampment resolution, emergency shelter other than Sam Jones Hall, housing support and then community based solutions through our community homeless assistance program and that through that program we partner with the faith based community to provide a limited number of safe parking sites throughout Santa Rosa. And then we opened it up to other innovative approaches in the RFP. Next slide please. The second key area of the scope of the RFP included selecting an operator for Sam Jones Hall. Proposers needed to show that their their model would allow for a low barrier and housing focused shelter. They had to demonstrate the ability to provide basic emergency services required by an emergency shelter as well as wraparound case management targeted at moving people out of homelessness and into housing and then also demonstrated experience operating a shelter of a similar size and scope of Sam Jones Hall. Next slide please. These are general requirements under the RFP so proposers needed to be a non-profit, have experience providing similar services, be able to demonstrate fidelity to housing first, also alignment with our continuum of care requirements or standards so that includes data entry through HMIS or the homeless management information system, coordinated entry and then ability to meet emergency shelter standards. Also demonstrate that they have procedures in place to seek client and community engagement and ability to partner with the city, the county and the continuum of care and experience reporting to the city, the county, the continuum of continue of care or other similar agencies. Next slide please. So here's the RFP schedule.  Following your direction, we issued the RFP on November 15th. It was due on December 20th and our Evaluation Committee convened on January 21st and I'm in front of you this afternoon, February, well not 15th, excuse me, this is the 22nd that the council item got pushed up a little bit but I'm in front of you this afternoon making recommendations on providers and the next section of the slide I'll cover later in the presentation when I get to next steps. Next slide please. So here are the criteria that were included in the RFP and they were also used to evaluate the proposals. I won't go through them here during the presentation but I did want to just share with the council that these were again the criteria in the RFP that were shared with applicants as well as the criteria that the evaluation committee used to evaluate the proposals. Next slide please. So I'll start with the summary of proposals that were received for Sam Jones Hall. This was competitive. We received three proposals from Catholic Charities, Shelter Inc. and DEMA Inc. And I'll go into greater detail summary of these proposals in upcoming slides. Next slide please. So the other category was homeless services. This was non-competitive. These applications came in from providers that the City of Santa Rosa is currently working with. Catholic Charities submitted three proposals for the Homeless Service Center, which is a drop-in center, the Family Support Center, which is our emergency shelter for families, and then the Homeless Service Service Service team. And YWCA Sonoma County submitted one proposal for their safe house shelter program. Next slide please. There are two existing providers that the City currently contracts with that did not submit proposals through the RFP. Can you go back? Thanks. So the two existing providers that we currently contract with that did not submit proposals through the RFP, that's the living room. And Community Action Partnership of Sonoma County, their HCA Family Fund program, I have reached out to these providers and they will be submitting an application through our public services program for community development block grant funding. I mentioned that earlier in the presentation. So we are trying to find a way to continue to work with them outside of the RFP process. And then our faith-based community, there was an option through the RFP to submit an application for assistance through the CHAP program. Our partners did not do that, but we have an existing over-the-counter application and we've reached out to our partners. We've received two applications and we will be putting in an additional needs request as part of the upcoming budget. So this slide is just to share with Council that we are finding ways to continue to work with our providers that didn't apply through the RFP process. Next slide. Thank you. So I'll start with the proposals for received for Sam Jones Hall. And the first one here is Catholic Charities. So Catholic Charities has more than 30 years of experience working in Sonoma County, serving vulnerable populations. They've operated Sam Jones Hall since it opened its doors in 2005. That includes, you know, all the changes that the shelter has gone through since that time. It started as an 80-bed shelter and overnight only and it's grown to providing up to 213 year-round beds operating 24-7. Catholic Charities has also been a key partner in our COVID response, including operating a new facility out at Sam Jones Hall. That's the annex. Catholic Charities has also operated several other city-sponsored programs, some of them I've mentioned this afternoon. And they do so in alignment with Housing First Fidelity. They recently received 178 points out of 180 through a continuum of care assessment of their Housing First Fidelity. Their proposal met the requirements outlined in the RFP including requirements that the shelter community should be low barrier housing focused, that they provide basic services as well as wraparound services. And one thing that really stood out in the proposal is their ability to partner with other community agencies to bring those services to Sam Jones Hall. And one example of that is their partnerships with Santa Rosa Community Health and Providence Mobile Health Clinic to provide on-site medical services at Sam Jones Hall. Their proposal also addressed feedback received from participants and the community and they're proposing a number of innovations to address that feedback. One of one of the approaches or innovations is Pulse for Good, which are kiosks that would be on site at Sam Jones Hall so that clients can easily and anonymously provide feedback about the services received at the shelter. The other innovation that they're proposing is to diversify their case management through a subcontract with Home First. They're an agency based out of Santa Clara County and will be working with the continuum of care to be the county's new coordinated entry operator. I will say that Catholic Charities as the existing operator of Sam Jones Hall had an advantage over other applicants given their direct experience. Next slide please. So the other proposal that we received for Sam Jones Hall, this is the second of the three that we received was from Shelter Inc. They're based in Concord, California. They have approximately 40 years experience serving vulnerable populations. They currently operate in Contra Costa, Solano, and Sacramento counties and they offer a wide range of programs including operating three emergency shelters, non-congregant shelter, prevention, rapid rehousing, and permanent supportive housing as well as programs that serve individuals with special needs. Also in their proposal demonstrated that they're operating their programs in alignment with Housing First. They were part of coordinated entry, getting up and running in Contra Costa County and they've been called on to take on underperforming programs in other communities. Again their proposal met the requirements outlined in the RFP and one thing that really stood out in their proposal is that they placed an emphasis on participants, their models participant driven. Quoting their proposal, they're in it with their participants in the Long Hall and incorporating participant feedback into their practice is a key component of their model. I'll say they're very experienced and they submitted a competitive proposal. I think their challenge was competing with a local provider like Catholic Charities. Next slide please. The third proposal we received was from DEMA Inc. And DEMA stands for Disaster Emergency Medical Assistance. They have two years experience as a nonprofit working in Sonoma County and then also operating two health clinics in Harris County, Texas. They have operated a number of programs for the County of Sonoma in response to COVID that includes non-congregant shelter as well as alternate care sites which we have used during COVID outbreaks at Sam Jones Hall. And their focus really is on improving the health outcomes of the individual step they serve. Their proposal met a majority of the requirements outlined in the RFP. I will say they are a new provider and while their staff is very experienced being a new nonprofit and not having or having limited experience responding to RFPs of this size and scope was reflected in their score. One thing to highlight about their proposal is, you know, their focus on health and providing medical services is their ability to provide in-house on-site medical services. Next slide please. These are the budgets for Sam Jones Hall. A couple things to note before I jump into dollar amounts. The cost per night is based on our full capacity of 213 beds and we have not operated at full capacity for some time now due to COVID. Our current capacity at the shelter is 150 beds and we are looking at ramping that up as, you know, things to continue to improve in the community as it relates to COVID. But starting with Catholic Charities, their operating budget is approximately $2.4 million that equates to a $32 per night per person cost or per bed cost. They do leverage approximately $430,000 in additional funding. That is included in the $2.4 million. Not included in the $2.4 million is approximately $370,000 that they leverage in staffing from other programs to provide case management services at the shelter. The next budget from Shelter Inc. was approximately $3.9 million. That's a $51 per night per person cost. Their proposal matches approximately $111,000 in staff and indirect costs for the first year. I will say that, you know, the cost of living in Contra Costa County translates to higher wages, which contributes in part to why their budget is higher than Catholic Charities. And again, Catholic Charities is leveraging staff from other program areas, which helps lower their budget. Lastly, DEMA, the operating budget estimated at $4.9 million translates to cost of $64 per night per person. I do want to share with you that in speaking with DEMA, they did express a willingness to work with the city on their budget based on available resources. Real quick on staffing, I just want to comment that all the proposals include case management ratios, so case manager to participant ratios of approximately one to 25. That's in alignment with best practices. So I did see that, you know, similar one to 25 or approximately eight case managers per proposal. And then their overall staffing model for the shelter ranged from about 30 to 35. And again, just some of the increased costs for shelter ink would be, at least in part, just the higher cost of living in that area. And then for DEMA ink, one thing I wanted to mention is that at least two of their case managers are registered nurses. And so that does contribute in part to their higher operating budget. Next slide, please. Evaluation committee, so there were nine members. The process was facilitated by the city manager's office, so I was the facilitator. There were city staff from police, fire, and human resources. We had representatives from the county, including health services and the community involvement commission, as well as staff from Runner Park and Healdsburg, those two cities. And council members Rodgers, my apologies here, a typo in the slide and Sawyer. And I just want to say thank you so much to everybody who participated in the evaluation committee. It was a big ask, and I think that council member Rodgers and Sawyer can also speak to that. I asked a lot of the evaluation committee members, so I just want to extend my thank you for their participation. Next slide. So the scoring for Sam Jones Hall. There are three methodologies in this slide. Staff's recommendation is based off of the average score. However, there was an interest in the evaluation committee to show these other two methodologies. So for average score, Catholic Charities ranks highest, followed by Shelter Inc. and DEMA Incorporated. For highest and lowest, we remove the highest and lowest score. And you can see again that Catholic Charities was highest scoring, followed by Shelter Inc. and then DEMA Inc. And then four ranking, five of the committee members selected Catholic Charities, followed by Shelter Inc. and DEMA Inc. Again, staff's recommendation is based on the average score. But the evaluation committee did want to share this with council just to be able to compare the different methodologies. Next slide, please. So moving from Sam Jones Hall, which was competitive to homeless services, which was non-competitive, I already mentioned that we received four total proposals, three from Catholic Charities and one from the YWCA for their safe house program. The first column here operating budget and the second column city funding. This is just to show council that our providers are leveraging funding from sources other than the city to operate their programs. I'm not going to run through all these dollar amounts. I will say that for the average score here, even though these were non-competitive, the evaluation committee did review and score all of them. We will be having, I mentioned additional needs early on in the presentation. We will be having for the homeless service center, there will be an additional need in the upcoming budget related to the warming center. And then also for the YWCA safe house, there will be an additional, there is an additional funding request from them, which will be part of the upcoming budget. Next slide, please. Lessons learned. There were so many, so many opportunities here. So in terms of outreach, so we did a pretty significant outreach to our existing providers through our provider community, through the continuum of care, and then to providers outside of the area. This was a new process for the city and a new process for our providers. There was some confusion for existing providers if they needed to apply or not. And so again, that's where I mentioned that we're working with some of those providers through another opportunity through our public services program. But from just staff lesson learned, we'll be really clear with future RFPs with our providers that they need to apply if they want to receive funding moving forward. Planet Bids Portal, I did receive some feedback from the providers that they struggled a bit using the portal to submit their proposals. Staff were available to assist them with that. Again, just a consideration for future RFPs. And then these last three bullets are really just themes that came out of the evaluation committee that I wanted to share with Council. The first bullet there is costs to run programs effectively. And it stood out to me and shared with you all this afternoon, you know, the range of budgets for Sam Jones Hall, for example, from $2 million to $5 million. And so, and not just for Sam Jones Hall, but at a future date, taking some time to really look at what it costs us to run our programs effectively, so we can move from sort of this quality to, I'm sorry, from quantity to quality. And we're really looking at, you know, what outcomes we want out of our programs, not just outputs. Also, a mechanism to fund and operationalized innovative approaches. We saw some innovative ideas in the proposals. We'd love to be able to fund them. And Catholic Charities is actually in their proposal for Sam Jones Hall. They're moving things around within their existing budget to make some of the new innovative ideas that they want to implement if the shelter happened. However, the concern is, you know, does that impact other program areas? And so, I know our resources are limited here at the city and we need to, you know, make sure we're using them wisely. But that was definitely something that came out of the process is, you know, is there a way we can fund these innovative approaches? And then lastly, developing metrics and measuring success that was raised during our conversation or during our discussion with the Evaluation Committee. And it's something that we'll be taking a look at and thinking through over the next couple months as we develop the contracts for the upcoming fiscal year. Next slide. So, subject to your direction this afternoon, I mentioned we'll be working on the contracts, including the scope of work budget metrics and reporting requirements over the next couple months. Coming back to Council in June with the contracts for your consideration and then executing those contracts starting July 1st. Next slide. All right, recommendation almost done here. It is recommended by the City Manager's Office that the Council, by resolution, approve catheterities of the diocese of Santa Rosa for the provision of city- sponsored homeless services programs for, excuse me, for the following programs, Homeless Service Center, Family Support Center and Homeless Outreach Services Team, approve YWCA Sonoma County for the provision of city-sponsored homeless services via operation of its safe house shelter program. Next and last slide please. Approve catheterities as the operator of the Samuel L. Jones home homeless shelter and direct staff to prepare agreements for these programs for Council consideration for the initial period, July 1, 2022 to June 30, 2023, year one and continuing for up to five years total. Fiscal year 2022, 2023 to fiscal year 2026, 2027. On a conditional basis subject to contractor performance and funding availability. With that, this concludes my presentation and I would be happy to answer any questions that you might have. Thank you. All right, thank you so much, Kelly. Council, do we have questions? Council Member Fleming. Thank you, Kelly, for all of your work. It sounds like it was a very involved process. I'm just curious to know if Council Member Sawyer or Rogers had anything that they would like to add to the presentation. Thank you, Council Member Fleming. I want to first thank the staff and all of those that worked on answering the questions in the RFP. By far was the most detailed and comprehensive RFP that I've worked on in my many years on the Council because there are so many elements to success and the respondents were as detailed in their responses as the RFP dictated. It would have been, had they not been as responsive as they were, it would have been, well, in essence it would have been easier on the team in trying to decide who to pick. But it also, it needed to be difficult. It needed the questions, the RFP needed to be difficult, and the responses were also difficult to articulate. So it was a real process and I'm sure that as time goes on before the next time this process, before we go through this process again, some of those lessons learned will be how the process unfolded. I think that it was beautifully done, as difficult as it was to respond, and it was it was truly challenging in some areas to, in part because of a lack of familiarity on my part, and I have to assume perhaps also on Council member Rogers' part, lack of familiarity with the services that were being provided by these respondents. So that all came down to the reality that it was very difficult to to rate. Luckily there were subject matter experts on the panel making these decisions. They asked great questions and the staff did the best job they possibly could on addressing those questions and making for a very successful process. As you can tell by the some of the very close numbers, it it was tricky. I mean it was a real challenge to make a selection because of the expertise of the providers and the type of questions that they had to respond to in the RFP. So I would just, you know, I would thank the staff, thanks to all of the individuals that were on the selection committee for their diligence and their willingness to jump in on was truly a difficult process. Not because the staff made it difficult but because of the very complex charges that the providers needed to be able to respond to and to be able to provide to the community, to a challenged community and a challenged group of our unhoused residents. So I think it was all successful and again I think those that came up with the process and I'm pleased with the results and I just thank you. I think that the community, our homeless, those without shelter in our community are lucky to have the providers that have been chosen or recommended to be chosen by the committee. They will be, in my opinion, in good hands. So I share a lot of the same, I don't know, after 14 hours of going through all the proposals but I think that it was definitely something that needed to be done. I'm happy that the city took the time to you know have the RFP process. It was long overdue for us to have that process and I am very thankful for the staff for putting in so many hours. Kelly, I know you worked on this for a really long time so thank you very, very much for taking into account multiple comments, multiple suggestions that we made. The housing and homeless ad hoc, I know we went over this a bunch. So thank you to get it right. It was a very thorough process I feel and I feel like that's why it took me 14 hours to go over all the proposals, everything that that we were asking. So I do understand and I echo the thoughts about the innovative ideas and different, you know, what we want to see in our community and that may cost money and so we need to really we need to know what our goals are and how we're going to reach those goals and know that cheaper may not always be may not always be better and so just really where do we want to go how are we going to get there and are we willing to pay to get there and for us to really have a plan about how we're going to get there and Catholic Charities I would say have some very good ideas about how they can serve our community better and how they have not been serving our community in certain ways and I was very impressed by the ideas that they had so I cannot wait to see them implement some of those innovative ideas and to see how we can support them and implementing those ideas because it's a win for everyone if they can be successful in implementing those ideas so I just again would like to thank staff and the community members and everyone that participated in this process it was definitely a win-win for everyone and I can't wait to see everything implemented thank you. Any other questions from council yeah go for it. So I think I just have a couple questions you talked about performance how will the I think you haven't quite figured out how the performance will be measured is that correct? That's correct so tonight is about recommendations on the providers based on the RFP process and then over the next couple months we'll be working on the contracts for the upcoming fiscal year and that will include the scope of work along with you know the outputs and outcomes the metrics for the programs as well as the reporting requirements. Okay it seems like innovative ideas take take time and they take tweaking with time so I would hope that we just give our providers the opportunity to have multiple performance review check-ins and so we can provide them with with feedback and so they're able to know what it is that they need in order to maybe for a lack of better words to live up to our expectations or what we would like to see provided in our community not wait a year and then say you're not doing it right would just be my my hope in us getting the best outcome out of this and then I also wanted to ask about when I believe you said it was one to 25 for a case manager ratio for all providers that sent in proposals do you know happen to know that educational level for the staff that are providing the one to 25 ratio because to me that is also very important I don't have that information available this evening I'd have to go back and look through the proposals and then probably follow up with with the providers themselves and then for the the process part I think John was excuse me councilman Sawyer sorry okay I think he was pretty right on when he said that we were not all familiar with all parts for the proposals so in 10 years when we do this again or whenever we do this again I'm hoping 10 years but when we do this again maybe getting the the committee more familiar with all our all parts of like what is the living room and what it may be like a tour or something so they kind of just know what the different services are instead of reading them on paper but just really being able to see it I think that that makes a big difference is if you see it you're there you can really see what it is if they do you're not just like reading it um to me that makes a big difference when we're looking at the the interview I mean going over the proposals um because everyone does not know what all the areas are and also uh just wondering uh you don't have the answer to this but a question that I had and I know you don't have the answer um but I was looking at how often will um performance be measured and how how will it be measured so that is something that I think I've heard from the community before um and also um wanted to put that out there is that um perform I believe performance should be measured um more than annually maybe not to the same extent um but it should be looked at more than annually and I think that is uh that's it thank you thank you if I may address your question about um how often we are evaluating programs I can say that we do that quarterly and not just annually and so that that I can answer tonight like the specifics of what exactly will we measuring I don't have those answers tonight that'll come back to council in June with the contracts but we do quarterly for our existing programs for safe parking with new programs it's a monthly report what what happens with those reports um staff we have them um available you know and they're available from public they're available for council we do put our reports uh year end reports go up on our website um and we do have a dashboard that we update with some metrics typically um each quarter I will say I'm a little behind on that because my staff person left last month uh but we we do typically update our dashboard uh quarterly and in this far are we uh meeting the goals of what we are trying to measure uh like in the homeless department like are we meeting when we look at matrix are we meeting those those goals so I would say um the programs you know each program individually um overall for the most part is meeting their intended um goals and outcomes um and as a city I think you know are are we meeting our goals and objectives through the programs that we're funding I think that's something that we're going to be taking a closer look at um once we select uh consultant to help us develop a strategic plan um and I'll be in front of council next week um with a recommendation for a consultant to help us with that thank you council member mcdonald so first I just want to say thank you so much to the staff and the council members that had worked on this as well as community members and um I really appreciate that we went out to an rfp process again I think that's very smart business to continuously do that for anyone that we're um working with to provide services to our community so I had a couple just clarifying questions on the 2.4 million dollars that catholic charities is proposing you um said that the 432 000 dollars or so was included in that amount just so I'm clear and okay thank you I see you shaking your head yes so that was one of my questions and the other question is as they do some of their innovative ideas maybe a consideration that not only um you know catholic charities if that's who's chosen tonight as well as anyone else who would have something is there a way we could use that as a bright spot to say this is maybe what we used to do and this is what we're going to do now and how we've improved on this process for access to our um unhoused community or just for community knowledge in general I think that might be helpful to see how something's shifted and I can tell you when preparing before this council when I um was going to be questioned I was absolutely shocked and surprised at how many services the city has for um our unhoused population and I agree with councilmember rogers that it's it is one of those things that we don't even know how many services are out there and so I think it would be great if we had a better idea so that we could then become communicators to our community on what we have that could potentially help others so it would be great I'm sure some of you are very deeply familiar with all of it but I was shocked at the amount of pages of resources that we have for our community and very proud of them any other questions council my only question kelly there's a pretty big difference I mean yes the proposals all scored well but there's a difference between number one and number two and then we do see that there were still four people that when force ranked selected a different provider can you give us a little bit of the feedback why three people thought um three people thought shelter ink was the best option even though they scored lower and one person thought that dima was the best option even though they scored the lowest so I'm going to defer to our city attorney just real quick because I'm the rfp process and what we can and can't share in terms of that level of detail I just want to make sure I don't say anything that I I shouldn't sue but if you if you can weigh in sure I think you're free to tell general sense don't identify any of the reviewers don't give you know substantial details but just kind of an overview of flavor of what were the pros and cons of the different providers thank you I'm certainly not asking how people voted in and what each individual person said but just giving us enough for us to understand what were some of the concerns with catholic charities that led people to or what was it about the other proposals that they appreciated that pushed them into the number one if if you can provide some of that yeah so for the force ranking for the five three one your question was specifically you know even though catholic charities scored the highest there are still four on the committee that didn't vote for them so for dima ink I can say without calling someone out in particular that that was influenced by their direct working relationship with that agency and not so much based on the merits of their proposal so they're a new nonprofit and not as experienced in responding to an RFP but they have very experienced staff they're doing some great work in the county especially in response to COVID and so you know that's where that that one came in for for dima ink so based on sort of their track record right not necessarily their proposal and then for shelter ink I think I mentioned this in the presentation they're very experienced and they have you know not experienced in cinema county but they do have experience as emergency shelter operated operator and they submitted a very competitive proposal I think for some of the evaluation committee members their proposals stood out above catholic charities and I I could say you know one thing in particular would be that at least their proposal right because we haven't worked with them there was a lot of emphasis on participants and their programs being participant driven and there's been a fair enough fair amount of you know feedback from participants and the community that catholic charities you know there are areas that they need to improve improve upon and so I would say that that that feedback that sentiment possibly influenced why three of the committee members chose shelter ink over catholic charities I will say that one of the strengths of catholic charities proposals was that they specifically addressed the community and client concerns in their proposal and have presented you know ways to improve upon that I hope that answers your question it does thank you we'll go councilmember rogers and then councilmember Fleming I couldn't hear the question I'm sorry can the councilmember give her perspective as a voting person I wouldn't recommend it because we're trying to keep confidential in terms of who voted which ways if you want to speak generally in terms of you know pros and cons of different applications you can but I would really steer away from those discussions that all happen in the rfp process are confidential so actually as I'm as I'm talking and speaking it through I would recommend not talking about kind of those those details councilmember Fleming it occurs to me as I'm watching all this unfold that there's one other piece that I think would be really helpful to know and it's something that should have I should have asked you ahead of time so if you don't have the answer off the top of your head it I mean I'd be surprised if you don't do know the answer but is when we put the together the rfp there was one piece which was controversial which was whether or not we should have the preference for the existing operator and I'm wondering if you know if we took out that the points assigned for that preference if the rankings would have still gone that catholic charities was the the top ranked provide applicant thank you so there was a criteria in the draft rfp that we brought to council in November which provided to the best of my recollection bonus points for new providers or new and innovative right that's right and the feedback we received from council was not to include that and to instead we did include bonus points so like for any proposal that went above and beyond or had innovative innovative approach that sort of thing bonus points were were available but we didn't give a preference for existing providers or new providers okay well it sounds like the methodology that was recommended and then most importantly implemented by you and your team was was really well done thank you any other questions council all right we'll go to public comment on this i'll start on zoom where madeline has had her hand up and then we'll come back to the chambers after that hi everybody i hope you can hear me yes we can honorable mayor steam members of the center of the city council and a special welcome to city council member mcdonald i'm madeline keegan o'Connell i am the chief executive officer of the y wca and i wanted to thank all of you working with kelly and going through the rfp process has been very inspiring and rewarding for y wca uh we have a very unique role in our community since 1975 we have been sonoma county's one and only dedicated provider of domestic violence services families come to us individuals come to us through our crisis hotline five four six one two three four and many need the refuge of moving in with us at our confidential safe house shelter and we've operated it for decades um it is a refuge for families who find that living in their own homes is unsafe due to violence at the hands of those uh that are family members and those who should uh and are able to love them uh i can tell you that the covid pandemic has exacerbated difficult situations uh with families in sonoma county falls to our crisis hotline are the highest i've seen in my tenure of 10 years with y wca and demand for our unique type of shelter has never been higher so we are very grateful to enter into a relationship with you back in the 1819 fiscal calendar we are requesting an increase to our funding because it's been a few years since uh we entered into a relationship with all of you you can imagine salaries have increased associated benefits for our trained staff utilities in our shelter telecommunications and associated supplies so uh thank you very much uh for your uh interest in supporting y wca again we are the only domestic violence service provider and the shelter is the only place where families who would not choose to be homeless but choose to leave the home where violence has become the norm and they do come to y wca sonoma county i heard a mention earlier about possibly visiting and you are always welcome to see uh me and my team downtown here in santa rosa where we have our headquarters be glad to take you to our therapeutic preschool a special place and talk to you about our counseling and uh support services the shelter however i apologize i'm not at liberty to give tours thank you again for your time and attention to my message and i look forward to seeing you all in person very soon thank you all right thank you so much madeline and thank you for all of the work that you're doing in sonoma county we'll come back to the chambers now we'll go to thomas well uh thank you for responding to the request to have an rfp and send this out um you get what you check and so it's important and and i would just point out thank you for the admission from councilmember soyer and rogers uh about the lack of information or knowledge on the subject um you're not alone okay uh none of the uh plaintiffs council or the plaintiffs agencies had visited sam jones none of defendants council had visited sam jones regarding paducci none of them even though they were requested to go uh so you're not alone and it's fundamental to know and understand what is going on there and then of course what the services are overall and there are many more services that are offered within the city that are offered by the city because they're offered through the county uh those services were identified by the task force for the homeless we published uh a guide uh to homeless services 14 000 were published by the task force for the homeless annually and another 8 000 were published by the county itself we gave them the format and everything and they would publish another 8 000 so 22 000 a year on the minimum because sometimes it was published twice a year um but not necessarily at those volumes um each time but significantly because there's so many changes it's another thing there are so many changes uh to what's available and i just would have uh kelly high um when you ask for it's a very subtle process at rfp and when you asked for innovative processes i think one of which came through edema was the addition of two nurses and it's really hard to balance that i think it would have been good to take those costs out because if you have a nurse you must have an um an md that's a director so you have to have an md that's a director within your corporation in order to have nursing services it would have been interesting to to actually back that cost out should have been about 500 000 right there but um another thing would be to compare to cots so it's not just about where you are and what you have a services because cots has um the pedaluma health center they have nurses that come into cots down there and so it's really important to know and i appreciate it's a very hard process and i just want to say thank you for evaluating it and maybe we'll get it better thank you thank you thomas dwayne hello dwayne dewitt from roseland and the sonoma county housing advocacy organization in the past it was said that uh well 2005 when sam jones hall the former army reserve building was decided to be a spot for a homeless shelter that there would be 50 beds steward keel from out on the right district talked within mayor mike martini in the past and he pointed out that having such a a center is a positive for a city but it's so far out of town that it might be better in the future to look for other sites you've got the downtown site going now with caritas village that's a good thing in terms of these rfps one would hope that in the future maybe every few years you would do them again and you'd look to have more of these shelters perhaps in four quadrants of the city as well as the downtown site the reason why the problem's not going away it will probably just worsen is stated here today it went from 50 beds at sam jones hall to over 200 beds now and the woman from the ymca pointed out that it's been since 1975 almost 50 years that they've been providing this service and that's going to be continued to be needed in the future perhaps they'll also need more space one of the difficulties about trying to provide for a future situation is the constant concern of will we have too much and it's always been like well we have to just go with the bare minimum in terms of providing for these homeless folks but the problem just continues to grow it appears it's going to continue to worsen also our economy is now in an inflationary period things are probably not going to get better there could be a world war coming soon right next to us right here is a display for our sister city tricasi ukraine and they've been at war for eight years and now russia is perhaps widening that war that's going to create a lot of inflation because the prices of gas is going to go up when inflation happens people become homeless it's one of those sad realities of our system so i'm just hoping you won't take it off the table to have these rfps every few years three years at the minimum at least and then look into the possibility of future sites in the four quadrants plus downtown at korea's village so that these homeless populations are not all clustered on the west side besides korea's village that could be on the east side at los silicos and the other spots thank you if we have any other public comments on this item let's go to our voicemails this is susan hayes calling it's for the uh city council meeting on the 21st my name is susan hayes and i have a volunteer to catholic chari's homeless service center in sam jones hall for over a decade along with several dedicated women we help alongside the staff to help those who among us are we need a hand the most i count myself honored to do this work and so proud of the staff who do this every day we supply clothing and food once a month these last two years in particular have been painfully difficult but despite everything that has happened with the pandemic the team never ever gives up they're incredible sam jones hall is an opportunity for the community to come together and make a difference the folks staying there are counting on catholic chari's and all of us to help them find housing i can't wait to keep working with catholic chari's to make a difference thank you very much my name is larry i was a participant at the drop-in center for a few years and now i am a volunteer at the transitional residential program i want to thank the city for making these services possible and i wanted to thank the staff for all the help they have given me with this team i'm able to help people living on the streets have access to services and whenever possible help connect them with housing the staff here feels like a family and i have taught me a lot they have helped me with my housing with the skills i learned i am able to finally look for a new job where i hope i can't continue helping the community this has been a big deal in my life and i hope it can't be a big deal for many others thank you and joining this program can serve our community i'm sorry council i'm checking to see if they can increase the volume in the media room so we can hear the recorded messages a little bit better it is at maximum here on my cap on my screen but they may be able to do something in the media room hi my name is jen i'm calling on behalf of catholic charity number 14.1 i'm calling because i have a single mother of three children i ended up sick in uh june of 2020 and we became homeless uh six months later my children's father passed away and we had nowhere to live um we went to catholic charities and they helped us so much um Dom Gunn was our uh case worker he was always there for us always responded to us he helped with my applications because i'm not computer savvy he even went and viewed the places with us uh we ended up in a great home beautiful we cannot be happier my kids have never had their own rooms my kids have their own rooms now and it's all because of catholic charities and thank you to all that helped us with our voucher we appreciate you all so much we will not be where we are without you my name is jane lee and i'm an american member serving at catholic charity i am leaving this message for item 14.1 for the meeting on february 22nd my experience at sam jones hall is very special and it was like that from the very first moment i stepped in through the door the first thing i noticed was how committed they are to their work doing everything they can to keep the clients safe and comfortable going above and beyond for every matter that they take care of i am so impressed by how quickly they respond make adjustments and adapt to the needs that change every day despite the obstacles that they face every day they are so passionate and they love what they're doing it was the biggest inspiration of my service here anyone who walks into sam jones can easily recognize the passion and energy from the staff members and that's what makes it so special their work and the atmosphere they have created from genuine love and passion will leave everyone with a small inspiration in your heart that makes you want to help someone underneath just like they do every day thank you mayor that concludes the voice message recordings great let's go ahead bring it back to council councilmember schwendom can you put a motion on the table sure we more than have to do before i do that um for the city attorney i saw the resolution has got a typo missing a word there i can read it what should be there but if we have to do it before just so we don't have to do it again what would be your preference yeah that would be ideal if you would read it with the word inserted right so for those keeping track it's just on item three catholic charities of diocese of santa should be santa rosa versus diocese of santa i'm not even sure if there's diocese santa so i would move a resolution um of the council of the city of santa rosa approving the following uh one catholic charities of the diocese of santa rosa for the provision of city sponsored homeless services for the following programs homeless service homeless services center family support center and homeless outreach service services team two ywca sinoma county for the provision of city sponsored homeless services via operation of its safe house shelter program three catholic charities of the diocese of santa rosa as a operator of the samuel l jones hall homeless shelter and four directing staff to prepare agreements for these programs for council consideration for the initial period of july 1 2022 to june 30th 2023 year one and continuing for up to five years total fiscal year 2022 slash 23 to fiscal year 2026 slash 27 on a conditional basis subject to contractor performance and funding availability and way further reading the text second motion from council member schwedhelm with a second from council member soyer is there any additional discussion council member schwedhelm thank you i just really appreciate having gone through these processes the um how labor intensive it is but the end product uh is demonstrated with what the product we have here today so i'm very appreciative of that i did just want to make comment on innovative programs and there are some bonus points there um our current operator and our current homeless services with kelly uh in the lead we have done some innovative things over the years some people take it for granted that right now sam jones hall is a housing focused shelter for those of us there on the council when we made that change that was an innovative huge change we created the first you know in this neck of the woods it created a housing first fund to help those rapid rehousing dollars that happened with our current provider our excellent staff and some of us who have been involved in the game there so i would just really encourage everyone at the dais that innovation can occur now and we we can own that one of the other things i know we talked about there's a lot to know and understand what's going on in the homeless system of care i think invitations of incentive everyone here i've done the tour of caritas village because that is another innovative program that is going to breathe for writing services for vulnerable members of our community like nothing we've ever seen here so please take them up on that and we'll give another pitch for if you're not doing anything this friday at five in the morning we're doing our point in time count our homeless count you know i've done it probably seven or eight years and it's fascinating to see a different perspective of those that are living on the streets in santa rosa and understand how we get the data because that's going to be a data point that we'll be using saying how our program is working so again those are just a couple of opportunities this week that she can undertake and if you like any other suggestions again with my role on the continuum of care i try to report out with this body but there's a lot of other opportunities because it is a very complex system and we need to be in on it together thank you thank you councilmember councilmember rogers i just wanted to point out um probably more to victoria i mean council councilwoman phleming that um when we were talking about a new uh new providers coming in and giving them bonus points i think we had a pretty extensive conversation about that that uh when we looked at uh catholic charities and uh the reason why they were provided or the reason why they were chosen um and why they got uh were provided with more points or why we felt more comfortable with them was because uh they were a local provider is because they had more experience with uh um programs that were already here because they were established so uh initially when i have made the suggestion to provide um bonus points to people that were not um that was more so of the reason to try to even the the playing field from providers that we already had that were um that were not so but this would be a prime a prime example not saying that we it was not a a not a good proposal i'm not saying that i'm just saying but that would be part of the reason when i think it was you that asked well or no chris uh uh the mayor asked what was the difference between catholic charities and shelter ink i think that that is something is when you have someone that is very familiar with the land um of course they're going to know how to navigate it a little bit better so it's not as equal of a playing field and i do appreciate getting your perspective on it i think that there's an an inherent tension in between um wanting to make this um wanting to honor the work that people have done and to um leverage that work in the example of catholic charities but also wanting to make sure that we are solid stewards of public investments and i think that this balanced that out and that you and kelly and everybody did a really good job of that so i feel pretty comfortable going forward all right madame clerk could you please call the vote thank you councilmember schwaetham hi councilmember soyer hi councilmember rogers hi councilmember mcdonald hi councilmember fleming hi vice mayor alvarez hi mayor rogers hi that motion passes with seven eyes great thank you so much for all of your work on this kelly and for the entire team and everyone who put in the 14 plus hours reading through uh all of the rfps doing the discussion doing the design uh we're lucky enough we we got to read the rfps when they were finalized and not the drafts being kicked back and forth and then get to ultimately see the recommendation from staff and hear your thoughts on it so thank you for all of the time and effort that's been put into this let's go ahead and jump back council to item 13 that's our public comment on non-agenda items see we have at least one one person who'd like to speak on that yes i would like to excellent you'll have three minutes we can't get into a back and forth with you but we can take down notes and ask staff to follow up if appropriate okay i i have uh giving you a letter and two pages of photographs about this issue so you can look at the photos while i'm reading the letter um for six months out of the year between the fall and the spring equinox the three cypress trees on the north edge of the 4090 walker avenue property cast a shadow over our home at 4060 walker avenue the 4090 property is owned by the city of san aroza in the early morning just when our house should early afternoon when just when our house should be warming up the shadows from the cypress cover the house and the temperature drops we have to turn the heater on the shadows move over our house the roof and the yard including the backyard the cypress trees are quite large and growing larger every year we can't install solar panels on our house roof because of the lack of sunshine our laundry won't dry on the line we have to use the dryer we try to respect the need to protect our environment by using less energy because the cypress because of the cypress our energy use increases and also our costs the cypress trees are an environmental hazard in multiple ways we can't plant a garden on half of my front yard nothing much will grow because even in the summer shade falls on a good part of the front yard but worst of all on windy nights the cypress are proven danger and we fear for our lives in march 2020 60 feet of the top trunk of one of the cypress trees came crashing down also tearing off a huge piece of the top of the redwood tree adjacent to it examination showed the cypress tree was rotten this in spite of an arborist claim that the trees were sound all three trees are rotten if a high wind breaks one of the remaining treetops it could fall on my house killing my spouse and I in our bed or if we're lucky just cause many many thousands of dollars of damage to our home and property it just depends on which way the wind blows on windy nights I lay in bed and wonder if this might be the night a cypress tree trunk comes crashing down on us in the past I was told the city does not like to cut down trees in 2021 the city ordered the cutting down of 15 large trees on the laguna treatment plant property growing along metal lane 15 large stumps are left to remind us it would have been nice if the cypress trees had also been cut down at that time we have been asking for over five years now for city council members to cut down the cypress thinning the cypress was a stopgap measure that lasts only two years before the growth has thickened again and to what purpose it solved none of the problems I have outlined it was a waste of money when it would not have cost the city thank you I need you to please wrap up that's one more yes one more sentence here protect cut down completely protecting life and property we are again asking you to cut down the three cypress they are now even taller and the need grows more urgent all right thank you thank you so much we'll make sure that we pass this on to the appropriate staff person thank you you're up duane hello my name is duane duwit I'm from Roseland and I've had the pleasure of being a member of Santa Rosa sister city for close to 30 years so I wanted to take a moment to point out that 25 years ago Lisa Carano from the YWCA went to Tchaikovsky Ukraine because we have a woman's center there and I hope you'll keep Tchaikovsky in your mind and your thoughts is the war widens also wanted to point out there are five men in four camps at the Roseland neighborhood that should be counted on Thursday I'll find a way to connect with you folks so we can get that count in there there's also the fact that Kirk Veal the environmental resources group of Roseland business leaders and owners for almost 30 years passed away just the other day and I hope at the end of the meeting you might be able to put in a word for him I was here recently and submitted some documents because you've had a open government ordinance for over a year now and it points out that you want to have an effort to ensure public trust engage the community establish a system of transparency and public participation and collaboration so those documents were about a pomo elder Jamie Naruto who had felt discriminated against because of the pomos and the Native Americans and Rosen wanting to be a part of the planning for the Roseland neighborhood city staff just kind of shined them on said no it's our community park we're doing it our way the local Native Americans helping at Roseland neighborhood feel city staff has disrespected them and ignored them and an agreement that was made in 2010 for a pomo interpretive village near Roseland creek as part of the project this was agreed upon after many meetings and yet it's not in the plan now also today a submission of a letter from 2018 by congressman Mike Thompson supporting veterans proposals for a veterans trail a veterans healing garden and a veterans grove that designations were not in any of the planning from staff but were talked about for many many years over a decade about being near Roseland creek the veterans group will seek a new letter to the new city manager from congressman Thompson so that we can all be on the same page the project proposals should be analyzed in any environmental analysis for an environmental impact report preparations scoping anything of that nature they shouldn't be left out and last but not least there were letters from dry creek rancheria and the Lytton rancheria six years ago during the Roseland annexation eir and cultural analysis should be done it was mentioned that they might be needs to happen now in the future thank you kindly for your time thomas no okay i see no additional hands and no voice mails so we'll go ahead and bring it back let's move on to item 14.2 report item 14.2 is diversity of city council boards commissions and committees this report will be delivered by city clerk stephanie williams thank you council and mayor today i'll be presenting boards and commissions diversity report for the years 2018 and through 2021 i apologize for the number of slides but felt it was important that we give each year's information separately and plus we're also playing a bit of catch up on the reporting the last report that was published was in 2017 next slide please so our city charter states of the council shall undertake all reasonable methods to ensure appointments to boards commissions and committees to reflect santa rosa's diversity and that includes geographic and ethnic diversity and while this section 11 of the charter states it shall not apply to district commission redevelopment agency personnel building regulation appeals and housing authority boards i felt it was important to include those statistics because council does make appointments to those boards as well next slide please so in 2020 in 2018 you had 70 applicants and of those 70 applicants 20 appointments were made and whenever anybody applies to our boards and commissions there is a demographic form that is completely voluntary and so you'll see in some of the statistics that we give it may not match up exactly because some folks did not submit a demographic form with their application some chose not to report but in 2018 of the 20 appointments made 19 reported gender information and 19 reported race and ethnicity information next slide please so this slide shows the ethnicity of your applicants in 2018 and again this is self-reporting as you can see 71 percent or 37 applicants were Caucasian non-Hispanic and then the second largest reporting was preferred not to answer and that was three appointed applicants at six percent and then you have a variety of others we had two applicants who just left at blank and two applicants who reported other two applicants that were Hispanic two applicants that were American Indian Alaska native Aluish and one applicant that was an Asian Pacific Islander next slide please so this is your ethnicity of the appointments made and as you can see 70 percent or 14 of your appointees were Caucasian non-Hispanic and then the other two coming in second was African American there were two appointees and Hispanic or two appointees and then one was other and then one was left blank next slide and then this is your gender of the applicants 32 were male 17 were female and three of them preferred not to say next slide please and then these are the gender of your appointees made 13 of them were male six were female and one preferred not to say next slide please this is the geographic of your applicants where they lived so you can see 20 of them lived in the northeast area that's the largest slice of the pie nine lived in the northwest nine in the central core six in the southeast seven in the southwest and one did not report next slide please and then this is the geographics of your appointees nine lived in the northeast seven in the central core two in the southwest and two in the northwest and so this is your 2018 ethnicity of applicants by board so in 2018 you had three african-americans a total of five american-indian alaska native alluation one pacific islander asian pacific islander 41 were Caucasian non-hispanic two hispanic five other three preferred not to answer and 10 were left blank and you can see these are on the various boards and these are all this is all self-reporting what we received next slide please and so this is the ethnicity of your appointees by board and you can see that you have two african-americans one on the cab the community advisory board and one on the housing authority you have 14 Caucasian non-hispanic almost across all the boards with the exception of the community advisory board you have one hispanic on the bpu and one on cab and then one other on cab and then one left blank on measure o and that's of your 20 appointees for 2018 so this is the gender of your applicants by board so you had 20 female applicants total you had one on art and public places subcommittee the board of bicycle pedestrian advisory board the board of community services you appointed five no one on the bpu four on the community advisory board nobody on the cultural heritage board or design review board four females appointed to the housing authority no one appointed to measure o no female appointed to personnel board you had one appointee to the planning commission and five appointees to the waterways advisory committee now these are just applicants for 2018 what we received in 2018 there this doesn't go back some of this information may it may not align correctly because if there's a vacancy if somebody resigns we do go back and look at previous year's applicants and may give them to the council we hold them for a year for them to be reconsidered and then your gender you have 38 males that were appointed to the various board one preferred not to say and 10 were left blank and those were of the 70 applicants so your gender of your appointees you appointed one person who chose not to report to the measure o you appointed six females and you appointed 13 males to the various boards and commissions if you next slide please and then this is the geographic location of your applicants so 16 of your applicants lived in the central core 20 in the northeast nine in the northwest six in the southeast 10 in the southwest and nine that were left blank next slide please and then this is your appointees seven lived in the central core nine in the northeast two in the northwest and two in the southwest and those are the 20 appointees for 2018 next slide so moving on to 2019 so in 2019 you had 67 applicants and of those 67 50 appointments were made 50 of them reported gender information and the 50 of them reported race and ethnicity information next slide so in 2019 you can see that the Caucasian Hispanic quadrant is still the largest with 58 percent or 32 of the applicants then it's followed by nine Hispanic and then you have five who preferred not to answer and three American Indian Alaska Native Alewishan three other two Asian Pacific Islander and one blank next slide and then this is the ethnicity of your appointees for 2019 33 of them were Caucasian non-Hispanic and then 10 percent or five of them were Hispanic six of them preferred not to answer two were African American two were other and then you have one each in the Asian Pacific Islander and one in the American Indian Alaska Native Alewishan next slide so here's the gender of your of the applicants for 2019 65 percent or 36 of them were female 29 percent or 16 of them were male and you have two who preferred not to say and one who preferred to self-describe next slide please and then these are the genders of the your appointees 27 were female 22 were male and one of them preferred not to say or left at blank next slide this is the geographic of the applicants 14 were in the northwest 12 in the northeast 10 in the southeast 10 were left left at blank six were in the central core and three were in the southwest next slide and then this is the geographics of your appointees and again this was the of the 50 appointees 23 of them lived in the northeast 10 in the central core eight in the northwest five in the southeast and four in the southwest next slide so here's the ethnicity of applicants by the boards and as you can see you have of the various boards it looks like one got a little scrunch there I'm sorry about that three American Indian Alaskan Native Aleutian two Asian Pacific Islander 40 Caucasian non-Hispanic nine Hispanic three other nine preferred not to answer and one was left blank and again these are all self-reporting this is not um we don't require them it's all voluntary information next slide please and then this is your ethnicity of appointees by board so you have two African Americans one American Indian Alaska Native Aleutian one Asian Pacific Islander 33 Caucasian non-Hispanic five Hispanic two other and six preferred not to answer next slide and then these are the gender of your applicants you had 40 female 24 male one preferred not to say one preferred to self-describe and then one was left blank and then your gender of your applicants 27 were female 22 male and one preferred not to say these are the gender of your appointees excuse me next slide and then this this is the geography of applicants by the various boards so six lived in Central Corps 15 lived in the Northeast 19 in the Northwest 14 in the Southeast 3 in the Southwest and 10 left at blank next slide and then this is the geography of your appointees by the various boards so 10 lived in the Central Corps 23 lived in the Northeast 8 in the Northwest 5 in the Southeast and 4 in the Southwest next slide so in 2020 you had 45 applications and you made 12 appointments and of those 12 appointments all 12 reported gender information and race and ethnicity information next slide so the ethnicity of applicants in 2020 was 25 Caucasian on Hispanic 5 Hispanic 3 other 5 preferred not to answer and one African American next slide and then this is the ethnicity of your appointees and 75% were Caucasian non-Hispanic 9% were African American 8% were other and 8% reported Hispanic next slide and then these are the gender of the applicants this is 21 of them were male 16 female and two preferred not to say and then this is the gender of your appointees 9 were male that was 75% and 3 were female that would comprise 25% next slide this is the geography of the applicants so you had 12 in the Northeast 9 in the Northwest 8 in the Southeast 2 in the Southwest and 8 in the Central Corps next slide and then this is the geography of your appointees 5 of them are from the Northeast 2 live in the Northwest 1 in the Southeast 2 in the Southwest and 2 in the Central Corps area next slide so this is your 2020 ethnicity of applicants by the various boards and these are just self-reporting of the information we received African American we had 1 you had 26 Caucasian non-Hispanic 7 Hispanic 3 other and 8 preferred not to say next slide and then this is the ethnicity of your appointees by board 1 African American 9 Caucasian non-Hispanic 1 Hispanic and 1 Other next slide and then this is the gender of the applicants by board you had 16 female 24 male and 5 preferred not to say next slide and then the gender of your appointees by board you appointed 3 females and 9 males in 2020 next slide and then this is the geography of the applicants by the various boards so you had 9 living in Central Corps 12 in the northeast 11 in the northwest 8 in the southeast and 5 in the southwest next slide and then this is the geography of the appointees that you made by board 2 lived in the Central Corps 5 in the northeast 2 in the northwest 1 in the southeast and 2 in the southwest next slide and now this is for 2021 we received 98 applications and 61 appointments were made and of those appointments 12 of them reported gender race and ethnicity information next slide so here you can see that 61% or 51% of your applicants were Caucasian non-Hispanic 12 were African American 8 were other then you have 4 who preferred not to answer 3 were Asian Pacific Islander 2 were American Indian Alaskan Native Alluition 3 Hispanic and 1 unknown next slide and then this is the ethnicity of your appointees 34 were Caucasian non-Hispanic 5 were Hispanic 6 reported as other 6 reported preferred not to answer you have 1 person American Indian Alaskan Native Alluition 5 African American 3 Asian Pacific Islander and 1 was left blank and then your gender of your applicants you had 39 female 42 male you had 1 non-binary or 3rd gender 1 preferred not to say and 1 preferred to self-describe next slide please and so here's the gender of your appointees for 2021 34 were male 25 were female 1 preferred not to say and 1 was non-binary or 3rd gender next slide so this is your geographics of your applicants this again this is 98 applicants 25 lived in the northeast 23 in the northwest 11 in the southeast 11 in the southwest 2 were blank and 12 were in the central core area next slide and then this is the geographics of your appointees with 19 living in the northeast 11 in the northwest 13 in the southeast 10 in the southwest and 8 in the central core next slide and then here's the ethnicity of applicants by the various boards so you had 16 African American 2 American Indian Alaska Native Alluition 3 Asian Pacific Islander 59 Caucasian non-Hispanic 3 Hispanic 9 other 5 preferred not to answer and 1 is unknown next slide and this is your ethnicity of the 61 appointees that were made to the various board 5 were African American 5 are American Indian Alaska Native Alluition 3 are Asian or Pacific Islander 1 was left blank 34 are Caucasian non-Hispanic 5 are Hispanic 6 reported other and 6 preferred not to answer next slide excuse me and then this is the gender of your applicants for 2021 47 were female 46 were male 2 non-binary or third gender 2 preferred not to say and 1 preferred to self-describe next slide and then this is the gender of your appointees by the various boards you appointed 25 females 34 males 1 non-binary or third gender and 1 who preferred not to say and that's of your 61 appointees next slide and this is the geographics of your applicants by the various boards 18 lived in the central core 27 in the northeast 25 in the northwest 14 in the southeast 12 in the southwest and 2 were left blank next slide so this is kind of the trend over the years as I know it's a little hard to see we did have some we do have some numbers in there for 2014 through 2017 and a lot of that information was called manually in 2018 we started using the granicus application reporting and putting all of the information when applications are submitted online and if they are submitted hard copy we also include that information so all of that is in here so for gender and as you can see across the board it looks like we're doing better but there is some work to be done next slide please so these are final thoughts with this expanded report format it responds to council's ongoing commitment to diversity and inclusion it provides for more and better data especially with using the reporting through the granicus application data and then it also highlights the value of self reports by appointees and we do stress that when we do put out a recruitment or we follow up on applications that it really that information really helps us gauge and track how we're doing with our appointments and recruitments so with that that ends my presentation I welcome feedback and questions I also have Socorro on like a line if she needs to answer any questions and I also want to thank my deputy city clerk Dina Manas who got all of this information in reports and these reports will be published online with the other two reports that are there if the council wishes me to do so great thank you so much madam city clerk do we have questions councilmember mcdonald it's more comment so one I want to thank you for the thorough report it was great to get updated especially coming in right now and so I appreciate that I'm happy to see an increase to women applying for positions coming from the commission on the status of women that's something that is encouraging and I want to take an opportunity to encourage women to apply I also want to encourage more by our BIPOC community to apply I'm a firm believer that if you don't have a seat at the table then you cannot help us set good policy and have thorough discussions on how best to represent our full community so I see that there's an increase and I do think it's helpful that we have council members that have a more diverse background but I do see that we still have a significant amount of Caucasian folks applying so I want to encourage everyone to apply and would encourage council to look at those carefully thanks thank you any questions let's go to public comment on this item if you have a comment go ahead and hit the raise hand feature on your zoom do we have any voicemail public comments we do not mayor all right I'll bring it back let's have council member Sawyer put a motion on the table and then we'll do additional comments council I don't think there was any motion unless you wanted to make an emotion to accept or provide feedback for changes to future and that's barring any recommendations for changes in how we conduct the or to gather the information I would just move that we accept the report is that acceptable madam clerk yes that is acceptable thank you I'll second that we have a motion from council member Sawyer and a second from council member Fleming comments council member Rogers I just wanted to say a barrier to me in diversifying and making sure that the appointments in the committees are inclusive are definitely times that they meet and that they don't have child care for a lot of them if we want to get more people involved from the community and I say that as a woman of color that has not one not two but eight children so when we start to chip away at some of the barriers that we have that we have in place I think that hopefully I'm hoping that we will start to see more people that are able to participate but until we get get away with some of those barriers it's going to be really hard for people to do that and the last one I would say is if you have a meeting at six o'clock and the meeting is going to go till eight please feed the children because then they just go home and they go to bed don't like let them go home and then you have to prepare dinner and you have to do all you know there's a lot that goes into that so yeah I just think a little bit more of a thought process around the committees and the appointments and how we do that would more people would be able to participate from the community thank you council member fleming you know a hearty thank you to the clerk and to dina for doing this and this is something that I've had an interest in understanding how the city operates both on the staff level but on the council level and I think what this provides the council with is an opportunity to hold ourselves accountable because in these statistics what we're able to glean is that the numbers of people who are applying from various parts of the city and of and female applicants and people of color far outweighs the percentages at which we're appointing them and so this allows me and the rest of my colleagues an opportunity to reflect on the manner in which we determine how we're going to appoint individuals to these essential functions of which are essentially extensions of our political influence and what's so important about these positions is not just the work that they do but the large majority of council members end up coming from having experience on a border commission and it's often a really impactful stepping stone and as somebody who's served as the only woman on the council I can personally state how important it is to me to have balance both racial, geographic and gender on our council and how much more inclusive it feels when things are balanced and that I have a great appreciation for how my male colleagues have stepped up in the last few years and really embraced the value in not just in words but in actions through our selection of seed collaborative and the changes that you can see in the trends and so one request would be going forward it would be interesting to see a year over year trend chart you know and also I think we should have council member appointments be one of the metrics so that we can hold ourselves accountable and know that we're going to see how we're doing and I think it's reasonable to understand that some districts have very different demographics than other districts and I don't I may be the only council member who wants to see my reflection in a chart but I think that it could be a useful tool in us examining our own biases and being really deliberate in the ways in which we choose to appoint people and to council member Rogers excellent point about child care one of my passions along with diversity equity and inclusion I think that as long as we can continue using remote or hybrid methods that allow working parents and people who are strapped on time or who may even be able to participate in a meeting during a break at work if they have an internet connection I think we should as long as it's legal and we're able to do so provide people with options to participate in whatever manner is most conducive to them and their families so thank you for highlighting that important point all right thank you council member and I'm going to echo a lot of my colleague sentiments one of the things that I was very proud of the council for is the deliberate nature and how we did our appointments to the charter review committee which I do think is one of the most diverse bodies that I've seen Santa Rosa have and just a reminder as we look at this data to keep that deliberative nature as we do our day-to-day appointments and as we move things forward the other piece of feedback that I was going to give is that now that we're in districts I hate the quadrant system I'll be really honest we have four different districts that touch the northeast quadrant and so while it is over-represented it would also be really helpful to see based on districts that are equitable distribution of population how are our appointees being distributed as well and if the point of district elections was to provide better representation for each district across the city I think that that's the metric that we should be using to judge whether or not on our boards and our commissions we're achieving that goal so going forward I'd really like to see us break that out into that and to the council member's point that means that each council member will then be held accountable by their district are you appointing people from your district who represent your district and that won't always be the case but it gives us a chance to pause and to reflect and see better where our demographics are coming from throughout our community and our representation with that go ahead call the vote Madam City Clerk thank you council member Schwedhelm hi council member Sawyer hi council member Rogers hi council member McDonald hi council member Fleming hi vice mayor Alvarez hi mayor Rogers hi that motion passes with seven ayes excellent let's go on to item 14.3 report item 14.3 is the tubs fire public infrastructure recovery update and funding plan this report will be delivered by assistant city manager jason nut Dina can you give me permission to start the video back up please all right good at good evening mayor and council members again jason nut assistant city manager director transportation of public works I want to do a second update with you this evening to talk about in this case the tubs fire public infrastructure recovery update and funding plan since 2017 this particular fire has been a very big challenge for our community both from a recovery standpoint personally but from a recovery standpoint as a community and as a city organization and I'm very proud of a lot of the activities the city has done and staff and stepping up and working hard to ensure that our community is fully restored not just to the standpoint of where we were but above and beyond in a more modern and forth forward thinking approach to our activities next slide please when we originally worked with FEMA following the cessation of active fire within the burn area of the tubs boundaries we did an initial damage assessment with FEMA and Cal OES and determined we had what we estimated at that time is a hundred and eleven million dollars worth of damage to our public infrastructure and in coordination with our federal and state partners we organized those into a series of projects and we found out that 29 projects were able to accommodate our ability to work through the reconstruction of our community in an efficient way and staff has been working hard since that time since November of 2017 to really clearly understand the nature of the damage to categorize it to determine its appropriateness in receiving funding from FEMA from Cal OES and from other funding sources and began the process of recovering our public infrastructure I've given a couple of updates over the course of the last four years as we've been going through this and in most cases it's to update council on our status working with FEMA to try to deal with a couple of very contentious areas of our public infrastructure recovery and I'm going to cover those in just a little bit but I do want to really talk to council as updating us from last year when I and colleagues from centers of water and our capital projects engineering team provided you with with a detailed project by project update on how we were coming in delivering our program and we had really great news and I'm going to tell you the news is only improved over the last 12 months next slide please 16 of the 29 projects are now complete three of those 29 projects have been withdrawn for various reasons for the most part it's either the project had such a small approved dollar amount from the federal government that it actually was inappropriate or unreasonable for us to go through the processing with city staff to make those occur or the projects just no longer made sense at this point in time and we have one additional project that we're in the process of withdrawing because as I said there there just isn't enough federal funding to make that particular project worth pursuing further knowing that closeout can take a substantial period of time and in that particular case we actually have identified other funding sources that we think can help deliver that project expeditiously without having to deal with FEMA and so I'm going to use that as an example that's project 37829 this is roads and bridges citywide asphalt and pavement damage from burnt debris and I'll say that we've had community members talk to us over the last two or three years as to why this particular project has been on our books for a long period of time with no significant investment or improvement to try to change or to to repair those areas of damage roadway and to get an image of that it's a portion of the road where you might have had a car burn or a garbage can burn and the pavement itself actually shows specific signs of damage that relate directly to the fire the small amount of money that we incorporated and the nearly 250 spots and there are spots throughout the community we waited to see if FEMA would approve an actual full-on comprehensive pavement damage project and council as you may recall we've been lobbying through our federal legislative partners we've been lobbying FEMA and we've been lobbying Cal OES in an effort to try to get them to understand that that the fire directly damaged all of our roads in the burn areas predominantly as a function of the debris removal mission and the over-weighting of vehicles that were that traveled through our residential streets that really aren't that so we held this particular project this spot damage project with the idea that at some point we might get success from FEMA to do the larger program and we wanted to combine all of those rather than going out and having what it would amount to is large potholes repaired and the community not understanding how that would look like a comprehensive repair program in this particular case as you'll see as I get further into the presentation we're we're recommending withdrawing that particular application that that particular project and and I'll describe why in the near future two projects have been out for bid one you awarded tonight which was the six fire damaged parks we're very excited to see that project come to fruition it's a long time coming we've had a lot of work going into the design of that and I know on the slide it said to be awarded to 15 it was one of those items that we shifted because of the changes to the February 1st council meeting and soon we're going to have the fire damaged roadway landscaping come to council and I know it says March 1st we're actually going to have to slide that to March 15th due to some work that we have to do as we unload and review all of the bids that we received for that particular project but it's very exciting that we're finally going to get these two particular pieces that have been so distinct for community members who live in our fire damaged areas starting to see repair and recovery and rebirth in those areas and and it's it's it's an exciting program and we're happy to see that come forward fire station five you acted last week to approve this purchase of the property that will that will house fire station five I expect as we're finalizing some of the design aspects you'll see that come to council for bid and bid award later this summer into fall it's it is a very exciting time for us to see these projects get further and further down the line and actually all projects of those 29 are now underway or in some form activity leading towards conclusion to date we've received just under $18 million in reimbursements from the federal and state government and we still have more to go I would like to let you know that there's a couple of places where the community can get more detailed information about all of these projects you can go to srcity.org forward slash rebuild and there are two areas that will give you more detail about halfway down the page is a tab labeled repairing the public infrastructure that tab will give you detailed description of each of the projects that are remaining as well as some other aspects that we were about we evaluated over the course of the last several years a little bit further down on the right you'll find another tab that talks about FEMA public assistance program that'll actually take you to a dashboard where staff from finances actively working to keep track of each of the projects that comes forward all of the financing or all of the reimbursements that we've received all of the invoices that have gone out and it's a great place for you to be able to see exactly where we've been able to have success what we were able to actually achieve close out and how that's impacting our overall budgets the other URL I want to mention is if you go to srcity.org forward slash infrastructure recovery all one word that is another way to get toward our project list and be able to learn about the projects that are underway each of the project engineers that are leading these will be updating that on a regular basis to provide detailed descriptions of what work is being done when we expect the work to be completed and any celebrations that we may be having once they once the work is ultimately finished next slide this is these are the some of the figures that we showed you a year ago and I've highlighted in yellow those particular areas that have seen a change in the last year you can see that we've shifted one of our roads bridges storm drain pipe catch basins to 100% that project is now complete it'll identify when we believe our projects are going to be completed on the right hand side and if we've gone ahead and shifted that from active to a withdrawal situation next slide this is really where all the excitement is on this particular page you'll see that we're finally working our way through and finishing up all of the water and sewer projects it's very exciting these projects created substantial concern an issue for the community in fountain growth where we had a number of significant damages that the Santa Rosa water team worked really hard over the last several years to keep together to keep operational so as we started to see our community rebuilt we were able to provide both water and sewer services to all the new homes I can tell you and I know that there are staff from Santa Rosa water available if you have detailed questions but I think they're very excited to start to see these projects come to final to final punch list review so that we can actually close them out and get these in through the system with FEMA and begin working on our reimbursement program from the federal and state governments it is truly an exciting time and we're looking forward to getting all of our projects across that finish line next slide I did mention we had some challenges over the last the last five years really dealing with the with FEMA over projects that either they believed didn't fit their program guidelines or ones that were just misunderstood by FEMA and you'll see when we originally had the fire and had a lot of community conversations we talked a lot about sidewalks pavements and trees and FEMA's policy guidelines and their book really doesn't understand how fire interacts with all of those services it really doesn't focus on the types of damage that occur on the west side of our country and is focused pretty heavily on hurricanes and flooding and so when you think about trees and I know several of you have heard this you know a tree isn't eligible for damage or for reimbursement unless the tree one is a damage and a hazard in and of itself but it's really only the tree to within a six inch diameter portion of the trunk and then everything below the trunk would be local assistance unless the root ball is 50% exposed and you can see how difficult FEMA makes it for us to really evaluate this and I get an understand the concept of wanting to expose the root the root ball if you're in a hurricane or a tornado but if you're in a fire a dead tree is a dead tree let us remove that dead tree and all of the components associated with that tree because it's a hazard in and of itself and we want to be able to look towards recovery unfortunately FEMA didn't side in our favor they are in the process with our legislative support of changing and modifying the policy and guidance documents on a number of things things that you're seeing here and they're doing that because the staff and the leadership team that you have here in the city has really made an effort working with those legislative with our legislative representatives to explain why we're different here on the West Coast and why they need to help us represent something unique and I think between Congressman Thompson Congressman Huffman and Senator Padilla and Senator Feinstein you'll see that a lot of initiatives have been put forward that are making dramatic and specific changes and they relate to a lot of these projects that you're seeing here that have been specifically denied by FEMA next slide please because of those projects and because of the community's interest in wanting to see the concept of full recovery council you've been asked a number of different times to look at of various funding mechanisms to help restore some of those projects that FEMA denied us on such as pavement such as landscape restoration such as sidewalk improvement ultimately we're able to make substantial investment in a number of those based on the funding sources that you see in front of you through the PG&E settlement council you in July of 21 approved 20 million dollars of that fund going towards restoring our community in various areas from the fire we were successful in working with our with Congressman Thompson on making adjustments in what the housing and urban development department up at the U.S. government issues as community development block grant disaster recovery months and actually increased the amount of funding coming to the city of Santa Rosa both in the infrastructure and the mitigation side where we saw we're seeing almost 34 million worth of project available funding that we can begin to invest in our community and then kind of hidden in the background staffs been working with the federal highway administration to utilize a program called the emergency relief fund and when we think of federal emergency management agency in the FEMA programs the FEMA programs are have a limitation and the limitation is if you are part of or the damage exists on a roadway that is that is considered part of the federal roadway system you are ineligible for FEMA dollars and that's where the federal highway administration comes in with their emergency relief program and so roads like fountain Grove Parkway Thomas Lake Harris Hopper Piner Coffee Lane those are all streets that are on that national highway system and are ineligible to receive FEMA dollars staff worked really closely with federal highway administration to be able to receive emergency relief dollars so that we can begin to restore those streets that were also damaged by the debris removal mission and we're really excited to be able to show you what the team has come up with to try to fully invest all of these funds to the greatest ability to restore as much of our community as possible next slide so when we brought this when we at the staff level started looking at these this last summer this was our initial take on how we would utilize the funds to help restore our community and you can see fire station five was our primary focus for the CDBG funds both the infrastructure and the mitigation they gave us a substantial amount of funding and we figured we could go ahead and divide those in a great way we figured we would utilize a portion of the mitigation funds to do street residential street repair that would match the PG and E dollars that would make that a fully funded project the CDBG money is not specific to the fire however even though that we get the benefit of the funds as a result of the fire it really is a mitigation for any future disaster and so knowing that the Laguna treatment plant flood wall was a high priority we utilized this funding source to identify funds to help keep to help make that project fully funded and active and underway you'll see we were looking at trying to incorporate some of the infrastructure dollars to help us match or to cover the city's local match for our public assistance recovery because that wasn't identified eligible activity and then through the PG and E dollars council you went ahead and said we can put a seven million dollars towards park and landscape restoration and six million dollars towards the Hopper Avenue corridor restoration component and really those are areas that we knew that FEMA had no intention through their policy guideline of providing us any assistance we knew there was going to be a substantial investment needed for those and then lastly you can see the FHWA emergency relief program we were six successful in bringing a little over four and a half million dollars to be able to do pavement restoration along Hopper Avenue Fountain Grove Parkway and Bicentennial a couple of the streets that I mentioned earlier we actually removed from the request partly because we had other funding sources that were active such as Piner Road we already had a project underway and we received other grant funds to be able to repave that surface there were other areas and other roadway segments that FHWA deemed is ineligible due to the specific type of damage that they saw but we were pretty excited that the FHWA recognized damage caused by the debris removal mission was truly damaged and that's an area where we've been unsuccessful getting this getting FEMA to to recognize and I can guarantee you we'll be working with FEMA a little bit further in the future to educate them on the hard work that FHWA did now when we started really looking at this last summer the California State Department of Housing Community Services were trying to deal with the CDBG infrastructure and mitigation programs this was one of the first times that they've gone through that and the mitigation program it really is one of the newer things newer aspects of the CDBGDR programming nationwide and so there aren't a whole lot of examples what that means is housing community services changed their minds many many times they altered the program they changed the conditions they changed the type of p