Santa Rosa Housing Authority reports stable third‑quarter finances; public raises questions on HUD VASH and project‑based vouchers

Housing and Community Services staff presented the City of Santa Rosa Housing Authority’s third-quarter financial update on July 28, 2025, reporting generally stable finances and steady voucher operations while answering commissioner questions about federal funding risks and project timelines.

Kate Goldfein, Administrative Services Officer, said the authority had more than 30% of its administrative budget remaining for the quarter ending March 31, 2025, citing department vacancies and below‑budget services and supplies. Staff reported cumulative expenditures of more than $27,000,000 in housing assistance payments for the fiscal year to date, averaging just over $3,000,000 per month; last year’s average at the same point was about $2,700,000 per month. Goldfein said HUD continues to fund the authority at a level that allows current voucher holders to remain housed.

Local revenue and reimbursements also showed positive signs, staff said. Housing impact fees totaled about $1,700,000 through March, exceeding the annual budgeted amount of $1,300,000; loan repayments totaled roughly $1,300,000 unaudited for the year; and staff reported timely draws on federal grants (CDBG, HOME, HOPWA) for reimbursable expenditures. Staff noted a 2% reduction in CDBG and HOME included in the FY25‑26 budget the authority adopted in June, and emphasized that potential changes to Housing Choice Voucher funding will depend on the outcome of the federal appropriations process this year.

Commissioners asked for more detail about projects in the pipeline. Staff said many projects have financial commitments and are pursuing state funding and tax credits; these processes can take months or years. Staff reported that Burbank Avenue Apartments is in lease‑up and estimated to be completed by September 2025; that project will include 16 project‑based vouchers.

Public commenters focused on HUD VASH (the HUD‑VA Supportive Housing voucher program) and project‑based voucher transparency. Duane DeWitt, a Roseland resident and housing advocate, said veterans and veteran‑service staff lacked clear, current information about how many HUD VASH vouchers were available, how those vouchers are used and whether vouchers are being “banked” or held for future projects rather than used for immediate placement. Another commenter, David Harris, asked how the public can track SB 4 (state law) qualified projects and project‑based voucher allocations.

Staff acknowledged there are complexities: project‑based vouchers can be used as predictable cash flow to finance development, but using vouchers in that way requires long‑term commitments and coordination with developers and lenders. Staff also said the housing authority manages vouchers countywide and that optimizing project‑based voucher use requires more analysis and coordination with other agencies and developers.

Separately, staff presented a communication about an annual 3% fee increase for various housing authority fees, effective July 1. Staff said the increase applies to compliance and developer/manager fees and to some single‑family loan processing items; at present the fee schedule contains the exact dollar amounts in the agenda packet and the housing authority has not adopted a hardship or deferral procedure for these particular fees.

Staff said they will return with further details when projects seek additional funding, and commissioners asked staff to work with planning and economic development to produce a comparison of newly built market‑rate versus affordable units over the past 24 months.