Rental Housing Committee - Regular Meeting

Ready?

Ready? Alright.

Going live in five, 4, three, 2, one. We are live.

Good evening. Welcome to the 04/24/2025 rental housing committee regular meeting. The meeting is called to order at seven p. M. All members are present.

The rental housing committee will enter a separate room to discuss existing delegation regarding Leonard Siegel and Pamela Siegel, trustees of the Siegel Family Revocable Trust, petitioners v rental housing committee, rent stabilization program housing departments city of Mountain View respondents Santa Clara County Super Superior Court case number two five c v four six zero five eight nine. And Enlighten Investments Incorporated petitions v City of Mountain View, Rental Housing Committee et al. Respondents, Santa Clara County Superior Court case number 21 c v 390118. The committee will reconvene in the council chambers for the public meeting once the closed session has ended. Legal counsel will report any updates from the closed session during agenda item four.

I now invite public comments. In person public comments will be called to speak first.

Not yet.

Okay. Any member of the public wishing to provide a virtual comment on this item? Please click the raise hand button in Zoom or press 9 on your phone. Staff will display a countdown timer on the screen. Maybe. Can I be promoted please? Yes. Thank you. Looks like there's no public comment. Alright.

Alright. Without comment, we will now have a closed session. So see everyone when we get back. Welcome back everybody. We will now have a closed session report from legal counsel.

Yes. Good evening. The rental housing committee met in closed session to discuss two existing litigation matters, Enlightened Investment versus the city of Mountain View and the rental housing committee and Siegel versus the rental housing committee in the city of Mountain View. No action was taken in either matter.

Thank you. Alright. We will now move on to the 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 submit a speaker card now if you'd like to speak on this item during public comment. Would any member of committee like to pull an item? I now invite public comments. 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 quickly raise hand button in Zoom or press 9 on your phone. Right. Steve, staff will display a countdown timer on the screen.

Sorry. I want to confirm this is item six where I can speak about anything not on the agenda.

It is not. This is item five, the consent calendar.

I'll I'll wait.

Bless you. I'll now bring the item back for committee action. A motion to approve the consent calendar should include reading the title of the agenda item 5.1. We have a motion made by member Cox. And seconded by member Keating.

Okay. I make a motion to approve the consent calendar including five point one minutes for the 03/27/2025 RHC meeting.

Alright. Motion to approve made by member Cox, second by member Keating. Alright. Motion passes. Four yeas, one abstain.

Now we will open the meeting for oral communication from the public. This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the committee on any matter 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. Would any member of the public like to provide comment on non agenda items? If you'd like to speak on the side in person, please put a speaker card to city staff now. In person public comments will be called to speak first.

Hello.

Welcome.

Hi.

Yeah, so I'm an advocate of sustainable living as well as being fair to people. I'm also a property manager here in Mountain View, Sunshine Gardens, yes. And I don't like to think of myself as an evil person. I think we're all

just

human. So I'm here because, you know, I don't agree with the way the ordinance is about the shared housing, landlords paying for the shared utilities by room. I can agree with by occupancy like they do in other cities throughout California, but not by occupancy because I don't feel like this is a fair reflection of what is actual usage. And I think to be absolutely fair, we should treat people fairly. We should encourage people to see the accurate real time use of, you know, whatever resources they use, be it, you know, electricity, water, sewer, trash.

When I started at Sunshine Gardens in 2015, we had 48 cubic yards of trash that was per week that people made together. 44 units. Just 44 units. Imagine how many units there are in Mountain View. So I had to jump on top of these trash bins so that the trash wouldn't overflow and go on the road because nobody really cared.

It's just the trash, right? So I had to do it. I had to step inside those and jump on it to compact it so that it could be taken away. So now in 2025, I've decreased it to nine cubic yards per week from 48 to nine from twenty fifteen to 2025. And that was not just that wasn't just by using a magic wand and you know how many rooms do you have?

It wasn't by that, it was by encouraging people to save, empowering people to look at what they really use to be mindful, to be responsible, and that's how people were able to reduce their trash, compost, recycle, and I think everybody is capable of doing that whether they're working class, middle class, you know, white collar, whatever, blue collar. So I feel like it's kind of in a way taking away that incentive for people to really like be responsible and like understand that being green isn't an upper class thing because that we can afford it.

Thank you.

So I know you already passed it.

Thank you.

Three minutes per person. We have very great staff. Steve? This is, not a generalized public comment, item six.

Got it. Thank you. I wanted to talk about AB 2,747. That is the law that went into effect April 1, requiring landlords to offer positive renting reporting to the credit agencies. I know that staff is aware of this.

I imagine council is aware of this. I wanna make sure the RHC committee is aware of this. I know the former are aware of it because I've reached out to staff over a month ago. Some of the details are the law allows landlords to charge for direct costs to do this up to $10 per reporting adult. The problem is is the CFRA does not allow the landlord to pass that charge to the tenant.

So the CSFRA is essentially precluding landlords' ability to comply with this law. I reached out a month ago asking staff how landlords are supposed to deal with this, And I haven't heard from them, and I assume that is because they don't have an answer. So know that the law AB 2,747 is required, and landlords are required to comply with it, but the CFRA is precluding us from doing so. So staff, committee, counsel need to get on that and come up with a solution to this issue. That's all I have.

Thank you. All right. Seeing no further comment, we will now move to agenda item 7.1, fiscal year twenty twenty five-twenty six recommended budget for community stabilization and fair rent act and mobile home rent stabilization ordinance. 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 the presentation from the staff.

Thank you, committee members. Today, we're going to be presented a draft budget for both the CSFRA and the MHRSO rent stabilization programs for the upcoming fiscal year twenty twenty five-twenty six. The purpose of tonight's meeting is for the Rental Housing Committee to review and provide feedback on these recommended budgets. And the budgets are scheduled for adoption at the next meeting in May of the Rental Housing Committee. The CSFRA Section seventeen oh nine as well as the MHRSO Section 46.9 empower the Rental Housing Committee to establish a budget and fee to recover the costs for a reasonable and necessary implementation of the CSFRA and MHRSO and to finance its expenses and to charge fees.

The outline for this evening is to first present the recommended budgets, including expenditures, rebudgets and reserves and the revenues and fees. And this will be followed by public input and then directions from the Rental Housing Committee members. The next step would then be to bring back the budgets in May so the Rental Housing Committee can adopt the budgets and fees for next year. So fiscal year twenty five-twenty six will be the ninth fiscal year of the rent stabilization program operations. CSFRA seventeen oh nine ks states that the rental housing committee is an integral part of the city, but performs its duties independent from city council, city manager, and city attorney unless requested.

And this includes setting its own budget. The rental housing committee previously decided to use the city infrastructure for its operations, and that is reflected in the budget. We would also like to preface the budget discussion by reiterating the key program areas. First, to develop policies and regulations to administer the programs. Second, to manage and administer the petition process, allowing tenants and landlords to request rent adjustments.

The third is to implement programs in the city state certified twenty twenty three to 'thirty one housing element related to the rent stabilization programs. We're thinking tenant relocation assistance ordinance and the MHARZO AGA that you recently discussed. The fourth key element is the organizing of the housing help center clinics. Further outreach and education, which is an essential part of our program. And lastly, to administer and monitor compliance and enforcement programs as adopted by the rental housing committee, I would say, two years ago.

So the staff continuously evaluates effective and efficient methods to administer the programs to further the goals of the programs. And the recommended budget reflects best estimates for these taking into account the results of adopted budgets, previous years' budgets and expenditures, forward looking estimates for operational needs and the evaluation of effective and efficient methods of program administration. So we will first go to the CSFRA program budget. This slide shows the CSFRA budget that was adopted by the Rental Housing Committee last year, fiscal year twenty twenty four-twenty five, compared to the estimated expenditures for this fiscal year, and the recommendation for twenty fivetwenty six, as well as the variance between the budget of this year versus the recommended budget for this coming year. As an overview, the recommended revenues are about 1,870,000.00 or about $140,000 higher than the budget for this fiscal year.

The total recommended expenditures for fiscal year twenty twenty five, twenty twenty six are about 2,580,000.00, which is about EUR 240,000 higher than the budget for this year. Looking at the estimated actuals column, most notably, the revenues are estimated at 1,780,000.00, which is about $78,000 higher than the adopted budget. The total expenditures are estimated to be $1,800,000 which is $328,000 less than adopted. This is the result from underfilled positions, staff time charged to other divisions and online portal costs not completely spent. This end balance will help with mitigating the fees for this coming fiscal year.

The recommended budget includes the same staffing levels as this year. It includes an increase in professional services. There is a trend of increasing legal costs due to the increase in volume and complexity of petitions, appeals and also the drafting of regulations. For this coming year, we're thinking about anti harassment regulations. There are also staff continues to identify opportunities to streamline program administration, including opportunities to use technology.

So now we are going into each of the operating expenses. First, we are looking at staffing, which is budgeted for EUR 1,600,000.0, and it reflects seven full time equivalent staff positions, which is the same as last year. This is about $114,000 higher than this year. Then we discussed the general operating expenses budgeted for $117,000 which is the same amount as last year. These expenses are used for office operation, outreach materials and supplies, noticing and expenses for workshops, events and educational opportunities and staff training and development.

The next category is third party professional services, which is budgeted for $509,000 This is about $85,000 more compared to this year's budget. Again, outside legal counsel retained for its expertise in rent stabilization and litigation expertise. Again, this is a higher level of a trend in legal expenses, mostly due to the higher volume and complexity of the petitions and appeals and drafting regulations. We have Project Sentinel that provides the settlement and hearing officers services for us, same level as last year. Then we have the community services coordination with $35,000 and that is increased just by the cost of living COLA adjustment.

A new item is community legal services of East Palo Alto with a budget recommended for $32,000 GRASPA provides much needed legal services for low income tenants, mostly centered around preventing evictions. This is consistent with the expressed rental housing committee's interest in these legal services for tenants, which staff was previously being able to fund by general funds through time limited federal emergency relief funds. Those funds are no longer available. And this service is supplemented by almost 50% through the city's federal CDBG funds. And then there are also costs associated with tenant relocation services, the MVCT broadcasting of the housing committee meetings and translation services.

The next category is information technology. This is used for annual software licenses that includes our annual maintenance for the online portal. The capital outlay is the remainder of the budget for the development of the online portal. The original RFQ included four phases. And the online petition process for tenants and landlords remains in progress due to other priorities that occurred.

This is an investment in streamlining the administration to incorporate technology in the administration. So the next category are city resources. As mentioned earlier, the rental housing committee chose to use the city infrastructure to administer the program, and these expenses are part of that supported infrastructure. This is most likely the most efficient way to operate the program. It is 172,000 is recommended by for the city's resources related to the indirect cost.

This is a 15% allocation over the average expenditures. That's about $7,500 higher than last year. And then there are the expenditures for general liability, compensated app and census and equipment replacement reserve for a total of about $87,000 which is $33,500 higher than this year. The last item is the reserves, which are proposed at 20% of the operating expenditures amounting to about $517,000 These are used in case unanticipated costs arise. And to date, no use was needed for these reserves.

These could be part of a budget reconsiderations in the future if the rental housing committee so desires. So the annual rental housing fee is intended to be full cost recovery for the cost of the CSFRA program, and it's calculated by dividing the total amount of the budget as approved by the Rental Housing Committee minus the prior year's ending balance and limited period funding by the total amount of CSF recovered units, which is $14,440 and this would result in a fee of $130 per unit per year or $10.83 per unit per month. As costs increase, staff anticipates that there is an likely an upward trend to the fee levels. However, there are options that can be evaluated, implemented to develop future budgets to help mitigate the fee level. Over time, first, the actual expenditures may come in lower than the estimate for various reasons.

Another component of the deficit and estimated balance is dependent on the reserve amount, as previously mentioned. And the Rental Housing Committee could determine the level of the reserve amount in future in the future. Also, staff will continue to evaluate potential options to streamline and use technologies to further support staff's operations. Periodically, staff scans comparable jurisdictions with rent stabilization to compare the fee levels, and Mountain View's fee levels are still on the low end of the spectrum. Then we'll move on to the MHRSO budget.

This slide shows the MHRSO budget as adopted for twenty fourtwenty five compared to the estimated actuals for this fiscal year and what is being recommended for twenty fivetwenty six as well as the variance between the two years. As an overview, the recommended revenues are about 2 and $23,000 or about $100,000 lower than this fiscal year. And the recommended expenditures for this fiscal year, 02/2026, are about $299,000 which is about $2,000 lower than this fiscal year. Looking at the estimated actuals, the revenues are estimated to be $338,000 or about $14,000 higher than the adopted budget. And total operating expenditures are estimated at 3 and 31,000 which is 10,000 more than adopted.

And the ending balance is estimated at $379 or about 4,000 higher than the adopted budget. Going into the key elements of each of these budgets. First, the staff recommendation includes same staffing as this year with one dedicated full time analyst for a total of $199,000 This is about $20,000 higher than this year. The general operating expenses include miscellaneous non personnel and non contract services recommended for $8,000 which is $10,000 less than this fiscal year. Again, this includes office equipment and supplies, costs for meetings, workshops, outreach materials and events.

The third category is third party professional services. This is $34,000 less than this year, especially for outside legal and litigation costs. The Project Sentinel includes the settlement conferences and hearing officers, and we added $1,000 for translation services. The information technology line item is budgeted for $5,000 as a contribution to the annual software licenses, including the online portal. Then at the city administration, it's 27,000 to budget for the indirect costs associated with the implementation and operation of the MHRSO program and as well as the expenditures for general liability, compensated absences and equipment replacement for a total of EUR 11,000.

So the reserves are $29,800 recommended, which is 20% of operating expenditures. These are meant for unanticipated costs that may arise during the fiscal year. And here, too, the MHR's program has never used any reserves to date. So then we come to the calculation of the MHR's old space rental fee. On March 25, the City Council adopted amendments to the MHRSO and modified the allowed AGA to 60% of the CPIU with no floor and a 3% ceiling.

And it also supported a 50% lower space rental fee level. This fee reduction is facilitated using Citi funds and this year's end balance, resulting in an annual fee of EUR 142 per space or EUR 11.83 per unit per month. So this is an overview of the fees since the start of the MHRSO program in 'twenty one-'twenty two. So the fiscal impact for this discussion today is there has no fiscal impact for reviewing and discussions, And the budget and fees are scheduled for adopting in May 22. And as indicated earlier, both programs are intended to be 100% cost recovery, but the MHRSO budget is supplemented by the city general fund in an amount of $50,000 So, the next step is approving the budgets in the panel housing committee meeting on May 22, after which it will be forwarded to the finance administrative services department for incorporation in the citywide budget process.

And this concludes the presentation. If you have any questions, please go ahead.

Alright. I think our first question is from member Balch.

Yeah. Thank you very much for the presentation. Following on from the question that staff answered, and thank you for answering that question around the potential kind of midterm deficit or potentially having to increase the fee for the CFRA, A majority of the operating expenses are salaries for the employees. So 1,600,000.0 is about 60%, 61% of the operating expenses. And since we are now at a full allocation of seven people, that is unlikely to go down unless someone quits or we have some unexpected turnover, which hopefully is not going to happen.

So, that 61% is probably going to be pretty stable, as well as all the associated expenses of employees, of benefits, insurance, things like that. So, it seems to me like my question is, since in the staff's response, there were basically two mitigators for there not being a fee increase. One was lower than expected costs, and it seems like a substantial majority of the costs are pretty fixed and are not flexible in the coming year. And then lowering the reserve is really that doesn't address a structural deficit. That's just a way to pay a deficit.

But I would think that we don't really want to reduce the reserves. 20% is a good safety margin. So, I I guess I I am kind of coming back to this question of it seems to me like structurally, we are positioning a a material increase in the in the next fiscal year, whether it's 40% or something less, it is hard to forecast. But that seems almost a certainty. And I'm just curious, am I missing something, or is that fairly inaccurate scenario?

Definitely, there is an upward trend, especially since the end balances are being depleted over the years. Also, when you look at the estimated actuals, the actual end balance was higher than the budgeted end balance, which means that throughout the year, staff is really very aware and conscientious about the costs and all the budgeted amounts, especially for third party services. They only get charged when they are being used. So that is a big unknown before the year ends. But to date, in all the years, we always were able to come under budget.

But yes, in general, as you can see, the staffing go up even if there is no increase in staffing levels.

Thank you.

Member Hyslop, first question.

Am I allowed more than one question, the first pass? Just one? As

as many as you like.

That's all.

And I apologize in disin advance. They shouldn't be hard. They're mostly clarifying and curiosity. So for staffing costs, is there any indirect percentage that's added on top of that by the city, or is it all captured in that? Like you're paying for the infrastructure costs and finance to do things of that nature. Is that all captured in that 01/1979?

Yes. So, the added, the 15% added indirect costs is for the city services, like HR, finance, IT, all the services that we use to run this program.

Yeah, it's done both ways. San Jose, That's why I just wanted to make sure. Okay. Secondly, the Community Services Agency, contribution to it, how is that different from what they provide as part of the homelessness prevention system? Or what services is that providing?

Yeah. So, they provide on-site services. They attend our housing help center. And they directly help the tenants that come to our housing help center to prevent the risk of eviction. And they do the same thing as the county, but we have direct access to them. And I have to say the people that come to the and be their clients have a direct into the program and get the services right on the spot. Okay.

Is any of it emergency rental assistance or anything, like, sort of kind of apart from HPS?

Yeah, so the community services know which program to use for So which they do the assessment, they do the intake, they do the complete county assessment, and then provide contact with the landlord and do the payout.

But the portion that the program's providing, does any of that go towards rental assistance?

Emergency Oh, the 35,000 does not go to rental assistance.

It's all just case management.

Yeah, okay.

And then secondly, CLASPA Community Legal Services for Palo Alto. Want to clarify that does the city still run the Mountain View Mediation Program? Yes, we do. Say a housing provider landlord saw this and thought that these are services that are being provided to tenants, but landlords don't get something equivalent. We can say the city funds and administers tenant landlord counseling that's open to everyone? This is more just for the record.

So, landlord counseling education is still provided by Project Sentinel, who runs our Mountain View Mediation Services. And then, on top of that, this community legal services provides legal services for low income tenants and for all the CCFRA tenants in preventing evictions as well. This was a wish that the rental housing committee declared a couple of years ago. And staff was able to find funds outside of the CSFRA, which are no longer available. And we've now come to the conclusion that half almost half of it is going to be covered by CDBD funds, and then the other half is recommended here for the CSF rate.

Okay. That's it. Thank you.

Any more questions from the committee? If not, we will open this up to public comment. Anyone on the line wishing to provide comment, please click the raise hand button in Zoom or press 9 on your phone. Seeing none, we can go into committee deliberations feedback and it's a race. Member Cox.

Oh, right. Yeah. I just wanted to make a few comments. First of all, I wanted to thank the staff. I'd put in quite a few comments of, you know, trying to understand the individual budget items, particularly the ones where the costs had increased.

And, you know, I mean, that's always a good thing to look at. And even in our current climate where we see, you know, there was a lot of miss expenditures, I guess I would call them, in the Mountain View School District. And there's a even on today's newspaper about the San Mateo Sheriff's Office. And I'm very happy to report that I love the answers that you gave me back and that, you know, it's great to see that this, committee works in an a plus clean way. So, just wanted to highlight on a few things there.

I'd wondered about why the staffing budget had gone up above inflation and this was not so much due to, you know, any individual raises or anything for the employees, but just cost of living agreements that had been negotiated and the selection of medical plans which is beyond the scope of the committee to be able to, control. So that's good. The question on, translation services for languages other than Russian, Chinese and, Spanish. I like the answer that we'll only pay for it if we need it, but we just need to budget it and so that's good and that as the council is looking at AI for use in translation, the committee here is, I mean the rent stabilization staff is keeping their pulse on technology and we'll think about using it when it's appropriate. Also a good answer to the question about why interest rates are going up for the MHRSO but down for the CSFRA but I don't think that's worth repeating here.

Thank you for pointing out and what we've heard before that the one third increase in the legal services budget is due to the volume and complexity of petitions that are anticipated because this is an ongoing and increasing issue. So, thank you also for showing what plays into the self insurance costs. As a person who just got a hike of $700 insurance. I know that these costs are just very much increasing and there's not a lot you can do about it and thank you for answering the question about the CDBG funding and how that is arrived on. That's what I have to say.

Thank you. Vice chair.

Thank you, chair. This is more of a request for staff. So we've been contracting with CLASFA as well as with CSA for a while, either indirectly or directly. I was wondering if we could get a report back from their side about what they've done, what their impact has been basically.

Yeah, so we do get their quarterly reports and we fold that into our quarterly activity report. But if you request a separate report from each of them

Yeah. Maybe something like that.

Sure. Okay.

Doesn't have to be very much, just like a small bullet point. You know, we help these people with these tasks or something like that.

Do we have subpoena power? No. Yeah. We can ask them nicely to come and talk to us. There's some nice people over there.

Any other comments deliberation? Does staff need any specific things other than oh, member Cox.

Yeah. I just there isn't anything to pass with this. Right? We're just looking at what the draft is, and then they'll come back for a vote. Right?

I would like to get your feedback on whether you have proposed any changes to this budget or not. And then, we can prepare the final budget for May.

None for me.

Member Hessel?

Very quickly, just a note that AI translation is cumbersome and we have it during San Jose City Council meetings. I get seasick trying to read it. And what impressed me about Mountain View going to I know I keep I will stop talking about San Jose, but the first meeting I went to, I it was in the middle of COVID recovery, you know, and I was horrified that there were not live translators at a city council meeting that concerns, you know, eviction moratorium in San Jose. And my experience at Mountain View had always been, you know, this is what we do. This is our community.

We have to serve our community. So the importance of interpretive services in hearings and other and even mediations is it's AI is no substitute for emotional understanding and all that. So just, I fully support any budget for interpretation and translation.

Fabricating.

Thank you. I'd just like to better understand the 50,000 on the MSRHO budget that's a transfer from the city and I, you know, remember their commentary and so on. But was there is that a who chose that amount? Is there a method behind that amount? And what can we expect in the future for that amount?

Yeah. So the city council wanted to support reducing the MHRs or housing fees by 50%. So, finance looked at it and concluded, looking at the budget, that that was needed to get to the 50% reducing fee level.

Member Cox.

Yeah. Just two follow-up comments. I I will admit that, you know, I did watch the city council meeting when that was being discussed and I wasn't initially enthusiastic that the taxpayers would pick up half of the bill. But I did feel a little bit better when I saw in the committee report that it it's $50,000 is not a huge amount of money. I mean, it wouldn't even pay for a typical one staff person in either government or public, private business.

So, I mean, it's not excessive. And so, what I wanna commend staff on is that in looking through the MHRSO budget, I can see that they tried to reduce a number of different items to try to come in with as reasonable a cost as they could. You know, while the council was even saying that they could use half and it's they didn't even need to take half. So, mean, I I appreciate your using your ability and discretion to get to the point of making this as affordable for the tax payers as possible. Yeah.

So then, the second thing I wanted to say about AI translation services, I'm not saying that you should use AI translation services as a substitute. We can always keep our pulse on what's going on with the technology, but I remember the first time, I'm also chair of the Old Mileview Neighborhood Association, first time we used AI dictation services. I looked over the minutes and they had four times in the minutes in one hour had written down the opposite of what somebody had said. So so I always caution people who are using AI that you need to check the result before you are okay with it. And, you know, in doing things in real time as far as translation goes, it's not clear to me at this point that that's possible.

So yeah, just wanted to clarify.

Thank you. Yeah, my experience with AI translation is also pretty terrible. Peloton has started using it for their other languages and some of my favorite instructors are German speakers. The AI translation is not good. Not good at all, not reliable, would not trust it, and I would not want to subject our community to potentially hearing the opposite of what we're actually deliberating on or discussing is misleading and I and and thus it is reliable.

We have a great we have great translations would find finding other languages before trying to hope a computer can do it. I don't have any proposed changes to the budget. Think that it all seems reasonable. And, Bolch.

I do not have a comment or question about AI. My my question or yeah, I guess it's a question actually is it seems like registrations have stabilized our very high percentage as as we've discussed in previous meetings. So what I'm wondering is that the the seven full time positions that we've kind of currently stabilized on, not asking for a commitment, just kind of over the next three to five years, would have to happen that since this is a a majority of our budget, what what conditions would have to happen that would motivate a change from seven to eight to nine? In other words, more people than we have today given that it seems like we've kind of stabilized on the rental inventory. I'm just curious what would push the number up.

I can't think of adding another program to it because that would that would be the only reason why we would have to increase staff. So if all of a sudden we come up with a whole different key program element of the CSFRA, which I cannot foresee right now, but that would be then probably cause for increased So

so you're saying that the the CSFRA and MHRSO as they are currently structured and our current deployment of them, let's say, in the city, we're pretty much where we need to be in terms of staffing, barring any major program additions.

Yes. That's my estimate. Thank you.

Vice chair?

Can staff confirm whether we have full staffing at the moment?

Well, we are currently recruiting for two analysts. Okay. Just So that that's what's happening during the year. People fall off. We need new recruitment. But they're close to being fulfilled. So, yeah. Hopefully, by next year, we are we're in complete capacity.

Okay. And sorry this was not brought up earlier. For the ending balance for the MHRSA budget, was there a reason we left it at the rate versus the one we did for the CSF array, which we base cut to the

bone. That

has to do with the phe level.

Okay.

Alright, last call for deliberation. The staff have what you need?

So no changes recommended to the budget?

I did not hear any.

Everybody shades their head, no. So thank you very much.

Good job. We will now move to agenda item 7.2, adoption of annual general adjustment of rent for twenty twenty five-twenty six. Public comment will occur after the presentation item and committee questions. We invite you to submit a speaker card now. If you know you'd like to speak on this item during public comment, we will begin with a presentation from staff.

Thank you again. So this line item is to review and adopt a resolution of the rental housing committee announcing the AGA Annual General Adjustment of Rent under the CSFRA and the MHRSO for a period between 09/01/2025 and 08/31/2026. So, for the CSFRA it's recommended to be 2.7% and for the MHRSO 1.6%. As a background, the CSFRA section seventeen oh seven and the MHRSO section 46.6 declare that no later than June 30 of each year the rental housing committee will announce the amount of the AGA which shall be effective per September 1 of that year. So, the CFRA annual general adjustment is the percentage by when the rent for existing tenancies in covered units may be increased each year by 100% of the CPIU.

That can be one increase per twelve month period and there is a cap in place with a floor of two percent and a ceiling of 5%. For the MHRs, AGA which was recently changed by the council, is the percentage by which the rent for existing tenancies in covered rental units or spaces may be increased each year by 60% of the CPI U and there's only one increase per twelve months allowed with no floor and a ceiling of 3%. So the calculation, for the calculation we use the San Francisco area index which was revised from the San Francisco Oakland Hayward CPIU and the CFRA mentions this annual CPI for March but that one does not exist so the rental housing committee adopted the February annual CPI. Same for the MHRSO, we use the San Francisco area index with the annual CPI ending in February. So for the AGA, here are the numbers for the CPI indexes and the percentage is rounded to the nearest tenth which for the CFRA is a 100%, CPI U which comes out 2.7% and the MHRSO comes out to 60% of 2.7% which is 1.6%.

Again, it's effective from 09/01/2025 until August notice of written rent increase is required by the landlords. The property must be in compliance with the CSFA and MHRSO and a required information sheet must be given with the increase notice. The recommendation for tonight is to adopt the resolution announcing this AGA for the CFRA and MHRSO for the period 09/01/2025 until 08/31/2026 of 2.7% for the CSFRA and 1.6% for the MHRSO. This is the end of the presentation. Happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. Do we have any questions for members? Alright. Seeing no questions, we'll move on to public comment. If you would like to make comment on this item, please raise your hand.

Alright. And seeing no public comments, we can go back to committee deliberations feedback. Would any member of the committee like to propose a motion?

Okay. I made the motion to approve the adoption of the AGA.

Motion made by member Cox and seconded by member Hislop. Alright. Time time to read it.

Alright. I make a motion to adopt the annual general adjustment of rent for twenty twenty five twenty six. And is there anything else I need to read? Oh,

okay. The red one.

Oh, right there. Okay. Adopt a resolution of the rental housing committee announcing a general annual general adjustment of rent under the community stabilization fair act fair rent act for the period of 09/01/2025 to 08/31/2026 of 2.7% and an annual general adjustment of rent under the mobile home rent stabilization ordinance for the period of September 1 through that should be 2025 through 08/31/2026 of 1.6%.

Alright. Thank you. Does anyone have any comments, deliberation on the motion or we can move to the vote? Alright. Motion made by member Cox, second by member Hislop to approve the thing. Pass unanimously. We will now move to agenda item 7.3, annual election of chairperson, vice chairperson. Public comment will occur after the presentation item and committee questions. We invite you to submit a speaker card now if you know you'd like to speak on this item during public comment. We will begin with the presentation from staff.

Good evening again. This agenda item is mentioned to nominate and elect one member of the rental housing committee to serve as a chairperson and one member as a vice chairperson for the annual term from May 2025 until the April. This is FRA section 1709A and also regulations chapter three describe the role and the commitment for the chair and the vice chairperson. The chair presides all the meetings of the rental housing committee. It signs the written resolutions and meets with staff to set the agenda for rental housing committee meetings.

And in the event or during the absence or disability of the chair, the vice chair shall perform all the duties of the chair. So, they are elected on an annual basis in April of each year, and it is for an annual term. So, the recommendation is for the rental housing committee to nominate and elect one member of the rental housing committee to serve as a chairperson and one member as the vice chairperson.

Alright. Thank you. Do we have any questions from committee members? Alright. Seeing none, now is the opportunity for public comment. If you'd like to comment on this item, please raise your hand. Seeing none, we will bring it back for committee deliberations and feedback. Would any member of the committee like to propose a motion? No. I steal. Okay. Member Cox.

Yes. I was going to make a motion to for vice chair Ma to serve as chair next year.

Hit the button. So I can second it. Okay. Alright. Motion to nominate vice chair. Do you accept it? Do you accept the nomination?

I guess we should have discussed process before. Uh-huh. But yes. I I accept the nomination.

Okay. So motion for vice chair Ma to become chair made by member Cox, seconded by chair Brown. Motion passes. Motion passes. Four yeas. Okay.

Yay.

Motion passes unanimously. Now I can make a motion. I would move to nominate Member Cox to be Vice Chair for the following term, May '6. Alright. Do you accept the nomination?

Yes, thank you Chair Brown. Yes. Alright.

Motion made by Chair Brown, current Chair Brown, Second by member Keating. It's nice when nobody here has a speech prepared. I don't mind, motion passed unanimously.

Alright.

I believe that is it for that item. Thank you committee members and staff. We will now move to committee staff announcements and updates. We have some more staff presentations.

Thank you. All right, so I'll be going over the upcoming office hours and workshops. And again, I just like to start off by mentioning that we continue to hold our virtual office hours open to all members of the public every Tuesday from 10AM to noon and that's on Zoom. And then you can see here our upcoming workshop schedule for May kicks off May 8 at 2PM for a landlord focused virtual workshop about submitting utility adjustment petitions. Then also in the evening on May 8, we have 06:30 mobile home rent stabilization, sort of general information, workshop open to all, and that will be hybrid.

And that will be at the community center in the Maple Room. And then on May 15 at 2PM, we have another landlord focused virtual workshop connecting landlords with information about how to stay in compliance with both the CSFRA and the MHRSO. We continue to hold our landlord help centers every Thursday at this point. We are continuing to do that because we are having a a lot of landlords questions about rubs petitions specifically. So we will continue to hold these every Thursday for the foreseeable future, and that's from one to 3PM both in person and virtually.

And our tenant focused help center is still the first and third Thursday of the month in person and virtually. These are held in the evening, which works better for our tenant community after work in the six to 8PM. And here we have partners from some of those organizations we talked about earlier today so we have PLUSBA coming to give assistance with terminations and potential evictions, we have CSA who connects the residents with a lot of rental assistance and other programs. We have another person from our affordable housing division to talk about BMR and how to apply for those programs as well as our staff providing sort of general information about the law. And then I'll just add if there's not a slide for it but you do have the flyer for our summer kickoff.

Yes, there it is. Our wonderful flyer. Thank you to the communications team for our summer kickoff which is Saturday, May 17 so just in three weeks and I'll be from like two to ten.

Can you zoom in on it?

Can they? I don't know. Oh they did. There it is.

He's rotating. Beautiful.

So if anybody can come out we'll be at Rangstorf Park in the barbecue And I did want to ask if there's any of our wonderful committee members who are interested in being a judge for the chalk drawing contest? One or two.

I have a gavel if you need it.

It's very fun and the kids are very creative. Probably. Yeah, wonderful.

Probably as well.

Wonderful, thank you. Alright that is all. Any questions about events?

Great work.

Thank you.

Especially with the housing health center.

Thank you. Agreed.

Alright. It's my turn to announce the meeting items for the next meeting. We're gonna adopt the CSFRA and MHRSO budgets and fees, which will hopefully be a very easy item to put together. We'll also have the RHC meeting schedule and the work plan. Are there any additional comments or announcements from committee members or city staff?

Vammer Cox. Just a question. You don't anticipate any appeals this next time?

We have not received any new appeals to date. That's just today.

Are you trying to jinx us?

When can we expect another update on the utility adjustment petitions?

Since we extended the months for which they can submit their applications, we were thinking August.

For the meeting schedule, is there any room for discussion of an earlier start time or?

Yes, you can discuss that. Okay. Tired.

Seeing no further announcements, this meeting is adjourned at 08:35 p. M. Next Rental Housing Committee meeting is scheduled to be held on Thursday, May 22 at maybe seven p. M. Thanks everybody.

Yes.