Rental Housing Committee - Regular Meeting

Good evening. Welcome to the 04/23/2026 rental housing committee regular meeting. This meeting will be called to order at 6PM. I'll proceed with roll call. All members are present with the exception of member Keating who is absent. We'll move on to item three, consent calendar. These items will be approved by one motion unless any member of the committee wishes to remove an item for discussion. The purpose of the consent calendar is for the committee to efficiently and quickly consider routine or administrative business items with one motion. Public comment will occur after the discussion. We invite you to split the speaker card now if you like to speak on this item during public comment.

Would any member of the committee like to pull an item? Seeing none. I now invite public comments on the consent calendar. In person public comments will be called to speak first. Any member of the public wishing to provide a virtual comment on this item, please click the raise hand button on Zoom or press star not on your phone. I do not see any member of the public wishing to comment on the consent calendar. I'll bring it back to, committee action. I see a motion made by vice chair Cox. Vice chair Cox, would you like to say the motion?

Yes. I move that we approve the consent calendar including three point one minutes for the 02/26/2026 RHC meeting.

Second. And that's seconded by member Brown. Any other discussion on the motion? Seeing none, we move on to a vote. Motion passes unanimously. We will now open the meeting for oral communications from the public. This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to dish the committee on any matter that is not on the agenda. Speakers are allowed to speak on any topic for up to three minutes during this section. State law prohibits the committee from acting on non agenda items. If you would like to speak on this item in person, please submit a speaker card to city staff now. In person's comments, we call to speak first. If you are online, please click the raise hand button on Zoom or press star on your phone.

David Tang? Yes.

Can you hear me? Okay. Alright. Good evening, chair ma and vice cox and members of the committee. My name is David Tang. I've lived in Mountain View for ten years at in a CSFRA protected home. And before that, was a section eight landlord. The just cause protections in this ordinance have mattered to my family in '21 and '23. The division staff appointed us to those protections, and those protections held, and we're very grateful. Tonight, I just wanted to point to a pattern regarding the division's data, and perhaps it's I hope it could be helpful.

The 09/25/2025 annual update reports that last year, tenants contacted the division six thirteen times. Of those contacts, 44 became filed petitions. 21 reached a resolution through hearing our settlement. That means out of six thirteen tenant concerns, only 21 reached resolution, about 3%. The cases that do get filed are becoming more complex.

That seems to be the trend. In 2021, 2022, 13% petitions raised multiple issues. By 2425, it was 68%. So, there's a story about planes in World War II that came back from missions with bullet holes. The first instinct was to plug the the bullet holes and armor them.

And there's an engineer by the name of Abraham Walt who realized that it was actually backwards. You want to armor the areas where there's no bullet holes because that's those are the planes that are missing. And so, in my perspective, the missing data are the problem here. The 21 resolved petitions are the planes that never came back. I'm sorry.

The 21 reserved Resolved petitions are the planes that did come back and the missing evidence in the May tenant contacts that never came back became petitions. That, I'm sorry, that never became petitions are the ones that should be investigated and checked out. And so within the 3% who do reach the resolution, the division's data shows what I believe to be further warning signs, in my opinion. In the six twenty Alamo court decision issued 09/01/2025, the landlord offered $73 per month for loss of pool parking storage. The hearing officer found the correct reduction was $3.52, almost five times higher.

So, that gap matters because in April 2024, this committee received staff research on structured rent reduction methods used in other jurisdictions, but declined to adopt binding valuation guidelines. Even winning does not always end the burden. And I see I'm almost running out of time here, but I'm raising here this okay. Thank

you. You are able to also send an email to us via okay. Alright. Seeing no other public comments, we will now move on to agenda item 5.1, fiscal year twenty twenty six twenty seven recommended budgets for community stabilization, fair rent act, and mobile home rent stabilization ordinance. Public comments will occur after the presentation item and committee questions. We invite you to submit a speaker card now. If you know you would like to speak on this item during public comment, We start with staff presentation.

Good evening, chair and members of the rental housing committee. Tonight, I will be presenting a draft budget for both the CSFRA and MHRSO stabilization programs for the upcoming fiscal year twenty six-twenty seven. And the purpose for tonight is for the rental housing committee to review and provide feedback on these recommended budgets. And they are scheduled for adoption at the next meeting of the Rental Housing Committee. The CSF-4A section seventeen oh nine as well as the MHRSO section 46.9 empower the Rental Housing Committee establish a budget and fee to recover the costs for the reasonable and necessary implementation of the CZFRA and MHRSO and to finance its expenses and to charge fees.

The outline outline for this evening is to first present the recommended budgets, including expenditures and reserves as well as revenues and fees, and this will be followed by public input and directions from the committee members. The next step, as I just told you, it would be to bring the budget back in May so the rental housing committee can adopt the budget. Fiscal year twenty six-twenty six is going to be the tenth year of operations for the rent stabilization program. The CSFRA states that the rental housing committee is an integral part of the city, but performs its duties independently of the city council, city manager, and city attorney unless requested. This includes setting its own budget.

The rental housing committee previously decided to use the city's infrastructure for its operations. Reiterating the key program areas of the rent stabilization program, they are listed here on the slide. I will not go over all of them. The staff continuously evaluates effective and efficient methods for administering the program to further the goals of the CSFRA and MHRSO. We're reflecting the budget reflects staff's best estimates taking into account the results of adopted budgets previously, forward looking needs for operational costs, which are mostly ongoing annual expenses.

We will first discuss the CSFRE budget. This slide represents the budget adopted by the Rental Housing Committee for twenty fivetwenty six this year. The compared with the estimated actuals for this year, and then the outline for the recommendation for the budget of twenty sixtwenty seven. As you can see, for twenty sixtwenty seven, the recommended revenues are about 2,062,000 or about $192,000 higher than the budget fiscal year. The total recommended expenditures are about $2,600,000 which is about $11.00 $8 higher than this fiscal year.

And the estimated actuals for this year, the revenues are estimated at about 1,840,000, which is about $30,000 below budget. And the total operating expenses are estimated at 2,110,000, which is about $480,000 less than budgeted. This is due to, as a result of salary savings and reduced hearing officer costs due to a lower number of petitions. These savings are not expected to continue in the next fiscal year. The end balance is trending downwards.

The end balance helps funds next year beginning balance, which offsets costs and reduces fees. So the beginning balance for twenty sixtwenty seven is estimated to be $300,000 lower than five-twenty six, and the end balance for twenty six-twenty seven is even lower at $5,594 The recommended budget includes full staffing of the division expected in 2627, resulting in no further salary savings and a somewhat lower level of professional services expenditures. Staff will also continue to identify opportunities to streamline program administration, including leveraging technology where feasible. Going into the operating expenses. The staffing level remains the same and is budgeted for 1,640,000, which is about an increase of $30,000, and it includes seven full time positions, some temporary hourly personnel for the onetime utility petition process, and translators from the city's multicultural engagement program.

The general operating cost includes miscellaneous non personnel and non contract services that are recommended for a total of $120,000 an increase of about $4,600 over last fiscal year. The third party professional services total is about $455,000 which is a decrease of $53,000 from last fiscal year due mostly to the lower budget for hearing officers. We see a downward trend in filing petitions, which is due to various reasons policy wise in the state and federal. The information technology is budgeted at EUR 55,000, which is an increase of EUR 5,000 over the last fiscal year due to increased cost for the annual software licenses that we are using. The capital outlay amount of EUR 43,000 is the same as last year for developing the online portal.

This is an investment in streamlining the administration through technology. At the time, the rental housing committee chose to use city resources and infrastructure to administer the program, which is the most efficient way to operate it. And for this fiscal year, about $200,000 allocation is recommended, which is an increase of about $28,000 over last fiscal year. This amount is calculated as 15% over the average expenditures the last five years. And then there are expenditures for general liability, compensated absences and equipment replacement totaling EUR 87,000, which is a decrease of about $13,000 from last fiscal year.

And the reserves, they remain at 20% of operating expenditures, a percentage that decided upon a few years ago. The total for that is $518,000 They are available in case unanticipated costs arise, and to date no reserves have been used. This could always be part of future budget considerations. So the annual rental housing fee is attended to achieve full cost recovery for the CSFRA program, and it's calculated by dividing the total budget minus the beginning balance and reserves by the total number of CSFRA covered rental units, which is still 14,400. This would result in an annual fee of $142 per unit or $11.92 per month.

Notably, the fee levels are trending upward because the ending balance and therefore, the beginning balance of the next fiscal year are trending downward. And the beginning balance helps offset costs and reduces fees. There are options that can be evaluated by the Rental Housing Committee and implemented to develop future budgets to help mitigate the fee level increase over time. First, actual expenditures, as we have seen this year, might come in lower than the budget for various reasons. One reason might be that after the fiscal year 'twenty six, 'twenty seven, we may no longer need temp personnel for the one time utility petition process.

Another component of the decimate and estimated balance depends on the reserve amount, and the rental housing committee could determine to change the level of the reserve amount. Next, we are going to move to the MHRSO budget. As we all know, on 03/25/2025, the city council adopted amendments that changed the AGA but also supported lowering the space rental fee by 50% compared to fiscal year 2425. And to facilitate the 50% reduction, a combination of this year's end balance and a subsidy of Citi funds are recommended. Going forward, these numbers may fluctuate as well.

So this chart shows that the recommended revenues are $225,300 which is about $2,000 higher than this year's budget. And the recommended expenditures are about $281,000 which is about $19,000 lower than this fiscal year. And the estimated actuals for this fiscal year are revenues estimated at $226,000 which is about $3,000 higher than the budget. And the total operating expenditures are estimated at about $274,000 which is about $25,000 lower than budgeted. And the ending balance is estimated at $438,000 which is about $38,000 higher than the budget.

The staff recommendation includes same staffing level as this year with one dedicated full time staff position for a total of $199,000 which is a slight decrease from this fiscal year. The general operating costs include miscellaneous and non personnel costs recommended at a total of $8,000 which is a decrease of $1,500 compared to this year. The third party professional services is estimated to be $49,000 which is at the same level as this fiscal year. And what also stays at the same level is the information technology budget. Then next, 27,520 is recommended for city administrative support, again, based on 15% of the average expenditures.

This is about $500 higher than last year. Then the expenditures for general liability, compensated absences and equipment replacements is about $8,840 The reserves are 20% of the operating expenditures and amount about $56,000 Again, to date, no reserves have been used. Again, explaining why the space rental fee is subsidized by money from city general fund. And that leads to a proposed annual fee of $140 per year, or $11.83 per month, which is the same level as last year. This reviewing and discussing the budgets have no fiscal impact.

They are scheduled for adoption on May 28, taking into account the review and feedback we received from the Rental Housing Committee. And as we told you before, the MHRSO budget is supplemented by $50,000 this year. Once they are adopted at the next rental housing committee, they will be forwarded to the finance department for incorporation in the citywide budget process. So I would like to end this presentation to request your review and feedback of these budgets. That was the end of the presentation and happy to answer any questions.

Member Balch?

Yeah. Thank you very much for the report. You might have said this and if if you did, I'm sorry and I missed it. The difference in twenty five-twenty six between the adopted budget and the actuals is particularly disparate in operating expenses and could you could you characterize that difference?

Do you mean the for 2526 budget versus the estimated actuals? Yes. Yeah. That is related mostly to a reduced level of hearing officer services. We have quite a considerable lowering of the filed petitions this year.

And, thank you, and I thought I heard that. And then the 2627 budget is more or less in line with the adopted budget for this past year. And so is the staff recommending that because you want to make sure that this wasn't an anomaly and that you want to go back to trend?

Yeah, we don't want to run out of budget for hearing officers when and we cannot control the number of petitions that are being filed or appeals and those numbers influence the hearing officer costs but also legal costs.

Right. Makes sense. And so then, for example, if we're here a year from now and if we see a similar lowering of the expectation, let's say, then we might evaluate is this a pattern versus a blip? Yes. Okay. Thank you.

Mayor Tory Cox?

Yes. Thanks for the answer to the question that I submitted about city administration in respect to operations actuals. And, yeah, I raised the issue about the fact that there was a increase, 16% increase this year compared to the previous year. And you correctly noted as the reason comes because this is a five year running average and that there have been large increases in the last two years. I took your numbers and I went back and calculated them at 1824%.

So they are large numbers. They're larger than the CPI. I mean, you explained to me that the reason this is this way is because we we're up for 15% out of just city administration in general, right? And so those costs are imposed back on us without our decision. That's the, I mean the city makes the decision about what administration budget is and then we just pay 15% of it, is that right?

So the 15% is not related to the budget but to actual expenditures over the last five years.

Okay. But then, you know, I mean, I look at it and I think your answer's a mathematically correct answer, but it still raises the question, for instance, like why did it go up 24% last year? I mean, that's something where we would have to go back to the city and ask them why.

No. We made the expenses. The CSFRE budget made the expenses. Oh. So why did our expenses go up? Yes. In the past years. Uh-huh. We hired more staff in the past years. We had a more robust registration and fee payment process was adopted a couple of years ago, so we needed staffing for that.

That increased the actual expenditures Okay. Over the

Thanks for the clarification on that. Yeah. I think that those oh, I won't make comments. This is only for questions. Okay. That's the end of my questions. Thank you.

Thank you. My turn for some questions. For the third party professional services, we have incorporated the updated hearing officer compensation schedule. Correct?

We do that we did that late last year.

Okay.

So, that went into effect in January. So every year in January we just add the COLA.

Okay, but otherwise there would be no change in any other thing in the budget. Correct. Okay. For the capital outlay, was wondering is that still pending staffing availability or is there other reasons for it?

Yeah, so we still have that amount available for us but at this moment because we have such staffing vacancy there is just no time to spend on further building out the database and further features that we would like to have. The basics are there though so.

Can you elaborate on what is remaining?

You know every year we think about how we can further automate certain processes Like we, I think this year, and Andrea can speak better on this than me, like we build an automatic emails sent to landlords when they haven't paid the fee on time or when they haven't registered. So we try to automate it more and more and more. And then the other point that we haven't gotten to is how you can file petitions through the database.

Okay. Sounds fine. Given the number is the same year over year, do we expect that number to actually change once we get staffing on it or

Yes. Yes. Because then we have to pay for the further software development of features that we would like to have.

Okay. Sounds fine. And my final question is regarding the MHRSO 50% fee reduction. It was mentioned that contributions fluctuate. Is that because we set the we target what the fee should be and the city pays or is because the city might choose to not pay enough to make the 50%?

Next year's the total amount of the budget might be different. And then if we then have to recalculate what 50% is, then we have to collaborate with finance how much the city will contribute to the fee level.

If the city does not contribute enough, does that mean the 50% lifts or does that mean that's to be brought back to us or council?

If it's not the same amount as what we had this year we collaborate with finance to see what what the exact number is that will be subsidized.

Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions from any other committee member? Seeing none, we will now move on to public comment. In person public comments, we call to speak first. Please submit a blue speaker card if you wish to do so. If you are a member of the public online, please click the raise hand button on Zoom or press 9 on your phone. Is there anyone wishing to provide comment? If you don't, you you can come up if you would like to comment.

The question I have is, do you have any data or, potential reasons why the petitions went down in the last year? And, the other part of the question is, on average, do you have a number of how much these petitions cost? That's my two questions.

We cannot do a back and forth in public comments. So if you would like to provide your quick questions now, you can do so and then we'll just refer to staff.

Yep. Okay. Those are my two questions.

Okay. Sounds fun. Thanks. Seeing no other comments, or would staff like to do a crack on any of those questions? Would you like to answer any of the questions, or we can do it offline?

We will do that later. We don't have that data in front of us right now.

Sounds fun. Alright. We'll bring it back to committee deliberations and feedback. Does anyone want to say anything? No motion is required for this. This is just a discussion for direction. Vice Chair Cox.

Yes.

Okay, so yeah, thank you. Just wanted to mention during the pre consultation I had asked a few questions that I thought were answered well by staff and so I just wanted to mention some of them for the record. One of the things is on operating expenses. I had asked about the increase in staffing costs and I was told that that's all due to cost of living increases. I went back and recalculated that cost of living increases, and they're within the range of the CPI, and so that's completely perfect.

I asked about the increase in the general operating costs and why they were increasing training costs and was told that this is for succession training which is perfectly reasonable. And we just talked back and forth a little bit about the 16% increase on city administration and thanks for that explanation right now. I mean it's perfectly, it seems like a large number but it's perfectly reasonable given what we're trying to do there. Mean it was very clear that when the CSFRA was originally passed, we had a much larger problem with collecting the fees and also a big problem even registering the units. And so that's something that has to be done in order for us to have a well working system.

And so recovering the cost for that is not only perfectly justifiable, but it really is a responsibility. So thanks for the clarity on that. And also the idea that the 10% increase this year over last year is due to what you just mentioned, initially the recovery fees for the CSFRA were set high because uncertainty of what would be happening going forward. That allowed us to have a beginning balance that was large and could be passed on year to year for almost ten years now but it's run out now. And so now we need to charge year for year.

And the good thing is that even after ten years, the fee, although it's higher this year, it's still lower than the initial fee. And so, that's the right way to handle that, so thank you for that. As far as those are all comments on the CSFRA MHRSO, You know, it's just worked swimmingly. Know, people always the landlords pay the fees. There are very few complaints brought back in hearing officers, and so it's just as my one of my original computer science professors said, it's a lead pipe cinch and so nothing more to say on that. So thank you all for helping me understand this stuff in detail and thanks for doing a great job, staff.

Anyone else would like to make a comment? Member Brown.

Thank you, chair. What he said.

Okay.

Thanks.

Seeing no other interest in discussion, I think we can close the item. I thank staff for presenting it. I think we're doing fine budget wise, and it is it's gonna be good for at least the next year. We will now move on to agenda item 5.2, adoption of the annual general adjustment of the CSFRA and MHRSA rent for twenty twenty six twenty seven. Public comment will occur after the presentation item and committee questions. We invite you to submit a speaker card now. If you know you would like to speak on this item during public comment, we will begin with staff presentation.

Thank you again. As we do every year, the rental housing committee is to review and adopt a resolution to set the annual general adjustment of rent under the CSFRA and the MHRSO for the period starting in 09/01/2026 and 08/31/2027, CSFR AGA of 2.5% and the MHRSO fee of 1.5%. The following sections of the CSFRA and the MHRZO dictate that the rental housing committee will be announcing the amount of the AGA effective September of each year. The CFRA annual general adjustment of rent is the percentage by which the rent for existing tenancies in covered rental units may be increased each year for 100% of the CPIU of the San Francisco Bay Area. There can only be one increase per twelve months and it's kept with a floor of 2% and a ceiling of 5%.

The

MHRSO was changed by council in 2025 and the percentage by which the rent of existing tenancy in covered units may be increased each year by 60% of the CPIU San Francisco area, one increase per twelve months with no floor and a ceiling of 3%. As in the original CSFRA, it refers to the San Francisco Oakland Hayward CPIU index, but since that no longer exists, the rental housing changed that to the San Francisco area. The CSFA also mentions that the annual CPI of March needs to be used, but again, that does not exist, so the rental housing committee had a choice between February or April and chose February. Same for the MHRSO, we're using the San Francisco area and the annual CPI ending in February of each year. The calculation is as follows.

Here you see the numbers for the CPI indexes and the difference rounded off to the nearest tenths, which brings the CCF rate 100% CPI to 2.5 and the MHRSO at 60% of 2.5, which I calculated to be 1.5%. And, again, this is effective from September '26 till August 3127. Landlords need to submit a written thirty day notice of the rent increase. The property must be in substantial compliance with the CFRA or the MHRSO, and a required information sheet as provided by the city must be given with the rent increase notice. So, for today, we request the rental housing committee to adopt a resolution adopting the annual general adjustment of rent for 09/01/2026 till 08/31/2027 of 22.5% for the CSFRA and 1.5% for the MHR zone.

This ends the presentation.

Thank you. We move on to questions from committee members. Any committee member? I'll go ahead then. Just to clarify the typo on the slides, the the CPS are meant to be compared between February 25 and February 26. Correct?

That's correct.

Okay. Just just correcting the slides. It says 2425, but the numbers are correct. Anyone else would like to give a question? No questions. We'll move on to public comment. In person public comments will be called to speak first. Online comments will be called second. Any member the public wishing to provide virtual comment would please because

the

raised hand button on Zoom and press star nine on your phone. If you're in person, please submit a blue speaker card. This is on the AGA. Go ahead.

Is there somewhere in regulation or the website where it defines what substantial compliance is?

I can answer that quickly. It's Go the regulations.

Thank you. And, the other thing is it says that the landlord may not be able to raise the rent unless they are in substantial compliance. However, the burden is still on the tenant to file that petition. Is that is that correct? There's nothing automatic about that? Okay. Thank you.

Go ahead.

Yeah. I was just plain observing, but I do have one comment because we were talking about the increase of rent for current tenants. My concern is how are we going to also make this cost effective for new tenants, folks coming in and coming to this new housing environment. So that's my biggest concern as far as, like,

you know,

making the city more expensive for folks who aren't living here and who do do want to live here and how the city's gonna address that. Thank you.

Thank you. Alright. That closes public comment. We'll bring it back to the committee for discussion. Are there is there any discussion from committee members or else a motion is in order?

Vice Chair Cox?

Yes. I'd like to make a motion to adopt the annual general adjustment of the CSFR ENM MHRSO rent for 2026 and 2027. Should I ever read the whole recommendation? Okay. Second.

Okay. So that is a motion to accept the staff recommendation, and by vice chair Cox, seconded by member Brown. Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, we'll go out to vote. Motion passes unanimously. We move on to item 5.3, annual election of a rental housing committee chair and vice chair. Public comment will occur after the presentation item and committee questions. Staff?

Thank you. A year goes by really quick. So, today we have to nominate and elect one member of the rental housing committee to serve as a chairperson, and another member as a vice chairperson for the annual term from May 26 until the April 2027. For background information, here are the sections in the CSFRA that stipulate that annually a new chair and vice chair will be elected. And it also describes the roles and responsibilities of the chair and the vice chair in chapter three of the of the CSFRE regulations.

Yeah. Please go ahead and nominate and elect a chair and a vice chair. Thank you.

Because we have to do this still in process order, we move on first with questions from committee members. Are there any members of the committee who would like to give a question on this topic? Seeing none, we move on to public comment. Are there any members of the public who wish to give comment on this item for election of a vice chair and chair? Seeing none, we will bring it back to the committee for deliberations and feedback. I I believe staff would like this to be in one big motion rather than two. So

Yeah. You can.

Okay. Sounds fine. Okay. I guess for purposes of structure, we'll start with chair. Are there any members of the committee who would like to nominate or self nominate themselves to be chair for starting May? Member Brown?

I'd like to nominate vice chair Robert Cox to serve as chair whether he likes to or not.

We're doing Sherman rules here so we're not doing that latter portion but what vice chair Cox? Conscription. I would

gladly accept committee member Burt Brown's nomination.

Alright. Are there any other members of the committee who would like to nominate or self nominate for the position of chair? Seeing none, we will move on to nominations or self nominations for vice chair. Member Brown. I do

have to unmute, yes. I'd like to nominate Member Stats Hussop to be vice chair. Also whether she likes to or not.

Does the member accept?

Yes I accept.

Alright are there any other nominations or sub nominations for the position of vice chair? Seeing none, I guess we will need to formally make a motion. Member Brown, would you like to make the motion?

I move to elect vice chair Robert Cox to be chair and member Stats Hyssop to serve as vice chair for the year 2627 for the IRC.

Seconded.

That is a motion made by member Brown, seconded by member Balch. Are there any other discussion on this motion? Go ahead.

I can't believe it's been ten years. It's an honor.

Alright then. In that case, Cox, would you like to say something?

Same here.

In that case

I know. Right?

You're not recognized. Alright. Time for a vote. Motion passes unanimously. Alright then, that will go into effect in the next meeting. Until then I'm still chair so item six. We'll move on to item 6.1 in particular which is upcoming workshops and help. Are you ready for staff presentation? Okay, go ahead.

I'm taking over Andrea's job here for a minute. Just wanting to give an overview of the office hours and workshops. As you can see, in May, we have a nice lineup again for workshops. Some are just virtual, others are in person. And we keep informing all interested parties through postcards and or newsletters and email, of course.

As As we've done in the whole past year, every Thursday afternoon from one to three we have a landlord house health clinic. You can come to us with any question you have regarding the CSFA or the MHRSO. And every other Thursday from six to 8PM, we have a housing help center for tenants. Again, if you have any questions, any concerns, please come to us. And we we also have support services from other non profit agencies on-site, as well as legal resources.

And we also wanted to give you a little taste of where we perform our outreach events. So we were at the Lunar New Year celebration. We were at Earth Day Festival. Bianca was there. As usual, there is always a lot of interest, also because we always have fun kids activities on the table, so that draws in quite a crowd. And that is that agenda item.

Thank you. Are there any questions or comments from committee members on any of the items presented? Seeing none, we move on to 6.2 expected future agenda items for our c meetings. The next meeting will involve approval of the budgets and annual fees that we discussed today. Are there any additional comments or announcements from committee members or

from staff? Do. I I also wanted to mention for next month, there's also the set of the l annual calendar and the set of the annual work plan.

All right.

And then, also want, I am owing you a little summary of where we are with the one time utility adjustment petitions. Of Total submitted, I'm going to do in percentages unless you want to hear numbers. Total submitted petitions are 85% of all CSFRA properties. The ones there are 90 properties or 15% that have not submitted anything. We really think those smaller are properties. We know that. They just don't let us know that they don't even use rubs is our suspicion.

But

we are still putting efforts out there to reach them. Although we've done a lot in the last couple of months. 10% of the submitted petitions are in a queue. Another 5% are in a process, further down in the process. Another 5% have been completely completed, and hopefully, the adjustment has been applied to the tenants.

And we found that 65% of all properties did not use the RUPs. So, do really see that the bigger properties are using the RUPs, but the smaller properties have not incorporated RUPs at all. Yeah, that's an overview. I'm sorry, was that? 65% do or don't, I just didn't get it. Do not have RUPs.

Advisor Cox, did you have something to say on this?

We're not expecting any appeals next time?

We have no appeals in process.

Oh really? Okay. Yeah. Go ahead.

Lenoir Balch? Yes, had a quick question. So for the large properties, what's the percentage of the properties now who completed the one time adjustment? Roughly.

I did not split it out between large medium or small companies in this overview.

Okay, was asking because I know previously I think you observed that a small number of large properties account for a very large percentage of the units and so I'm just curious like how many have been done.

I can figure that out for next month and then I can also I mean I do remember a 100% of the large companies did submit their petitions.

Right.

So they are I think on track.

So that's trending well. Okay. Yeah. Thank you.

And just to confirm the numbers, you said that 10% were waiting to be processed, 5% are being processed, another 5% are completed, and 65% are exempted out of the process. Is that correct? But that doesn't add up to either 8015%

is have not submitted their petitions.

Okay. But Yeah. That still doesn't add up to a 100. Right? Ten fifth ten five five is 20 and then 65 is

85.

Okay. Never

mind. 85% total submitted petitions and 15%.

Okay. Got Got it.

Yeah. Mathing the math.

Yep. Nice to do it on fly. Alright. Are there any other anything else from the committee? Otherwise, this meeting is adjourned at 06:49PM. The next rental housing committee meeting is scheduled to be heard on Thursday, May 28 at 6PM. Oh, yeah. Meeting adjourned.