Housing Authority Board of Commissioners - Regular Meeting

TO ORDER. THIS IS THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CINNAMON COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO SPECIAL MEETING OF MARCH 10, 2026. THE TIME IS 2.07 P.M. AND ITEM 2 IS ROLL CALL OF COMMISSIONERS STARTING OUT WITH PRESIDENT DOUG SHOEMAKER. HERE. COMMISSIONER JUAN CARLOS CANCINO. HERE. COMMISSIONER CYNTHIA ALVAREZ. HERE. COMMISSIONER SHARON LIE. PRESENT. COMMISSIONER LUANA KIM IS ABSENT. COMMISSIONER MARIANNE PIKES. PRESENT. COMMISSIONER FALAFUTA CITILI. Thank you. Item three is the acknowledgment of the Ramaytush Ohlone community.

The housing authority of the city and county of San Francisco acknowledges that we are on the unceded ancestral homeland of the Ramaytush Ohlone. We're the original inhabitants of the San Francisco peninsula. As the indigenous stewards of this land and in accordance with their traditions, the Ramaytush Ohlone have never ceded, lost, nor forgotten their responsibilities as the caretakers of this place, as well as for all people who reside in their traditional territory. As guests, we recognize that we benefit from living and working on their traditional homeland. We wish to pay our respects by acknowledging the ancestors, elders, and relatives of the Ramaytush Ohlone community, and by affirming their sovereign rights as First Peoples.

Thank you. Item four is the president's report.

I just have a brief report today, which is that for those of you that were wondering about it, right now I am the president, but we don't have a vice president, which makes you kind of wonder. It is not a naked power grab. It is really just that when we were seating new commissioners, at one point we only had, I think, just enough for quorum. And then as we were adding folks, we decided to hold off on having an election so that when we added new commissioners, we would give everyone a chance to get seated and have a sense of what this is like, and then hold an election. So in consultation with Director Adams and Mr. Hodgson over there. We are proposing that we would have an election for the vice president next session. So the idea would be you could nominate a colleague, You could nominate yourself. I don't think I need to be, I'm looking at, I don't need to be re-elected, right? I'm president for life? OK, yeah, that's what I thought. So no, but my term runs until for a year from when I was elected. But this person would basically serve out the term from the previous vice chair who resigned. And so basically, next meeting, you can nominate yourself. You can be nominated. We'll have an election. You'll serve out the balance of what I think is like an eight-month term. And then we'll re-elect the president and vice president on our normal schedule, which is an annual meeting that we typically have in January, I think, or something like that.

February.

OK, February. Close enough. All right. Does that make sense? And are there any questions about that you can direct them to? Our skillful attorney here for any legal questions or otherwise. No. OK. So that gives you a one month campaign season. I'm just kidding. So no. It should be relatively modest. OK. And other than that, I don't have anything to report from the director's side.

Thank you, President Shoemaker. That reference next meeting is scheduled for April 23. Item five, general public comments. Noting this portion of the agenda is not intended for debate or discussion with the commissioner's staff. Please simply state your business or the matter you wish the commissioner's staff to be aware of. It is not appropriate for commissioners to engage in a debate or respond on issues not properly set in a publicly noticed meeting agenda. If you have questions or would like to bring a matter to the commission's attention, please send your communication via email to sfha, public comment at sfha.org. We did have a speaker card for Natalia, if you'd like to come up. And you'll have two minutes with a beep at 30 seconds and also when your time has elapsed.

I apologize. I'm not a native speaker. This is the first time I have been speaking in public. So I probably wouldn't be there if it wouldn't be for my mom. My mom, she's blind with dementia. She survived the siege in St. Petersburg and got blessed America. We came to this country in 94 when the Soviet Union was falling apart. And we were accepted and helped. And I mean, she was very, very happy. And she used to live in the apartment building at 1251 Turk Street. My father passed a year, the previous year ago, and she's completely blind with dementia. So it was me and another caregiver taking care of her. And there were a lot of things with the change of the management was going on there. It's a lot of mice, dirt, and... a lot of emotional scenes that are not right over there. So I was trying to fight for my mom's rights and I was 86 from the building on the 22nd of December when my mom was in this condition. And it was Sasha Brown and the management over there. It's the first time I got on my knees in front of them and asked, my mom is in such condition, that would kill her. They say she has another caregiver, and another caregiver was new, and of course, I mean, and I couldn't leave my mom alone over there, so I had to take her to my friend in San Mateo, because I live on the third floor with no elevator. And that's where the trouble started. My mom fell. We had been two months in the hospital. They pretty much closed the building when we started cleaning it, and the apartment was left alone and infested by mice so bad. Right now my mom is in a post-acute. She survived a subdural hematopoietic surgery. I was praying to the God and at the age of 87 it was a high risk she survived. But now it is a question to bring her back. And I came to this apartment. I have the pictures. I don't know where to go. You know, at the beginning, I was angry. I was trying to, like, it's not a revenge, but right now I just have to fight for my mom's life. And I really, really need help.

Thank you for sharing. Director Adams, you want to?

We'll have staff follow up with her to get the details on what's going on.

Thank you for bringing that to our attention. And I'm sorry you're dealing with a difficult situation.

Is there any general public comment in the room? We do have someone online too. We'll start with Mr. Dennis Williams. If you'd like to unmute yourself, you have two minutes.

Good afternoon, committee. This is Mr. Dennis Williams, community leader, executive director of the Fillmore Community Development Corporation, as well as the local community developer. And I just want to say today that What is happening in the low-income housing, particularly housing authority run, is horrendous. From D5 to D10, our buildings are falling apart, which is known. We're going through a capital improvement project at Plaza East. The plumbing is horrendous, and it's only Band-Aids being put on the projects. It's deplorable. People are having to move around like musical chairs, which is very stressful. You know, Plaza East has been a problem issue. Residents are forced to downsize citywide. But we can't add people onto our lease, which you guys know is an ongoing problem. We want to know, at Plaza East, is McCormick and Baron Salazar still a part of Plaza East? Residents deserve to know this. I mean, these are questions that should be answered. And these are problems that should be solved. And I implore you to start using local hire and adhere to that, from our community-based developers all the way down to our hyperlocal contractors, people that are going to do the work that are from the city, our union, because that's not what's happening now. So we need things done and not just to have two minutes to talk about it because we're out here and we're suffering in low income housing. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Williams. We also have Oronde Sterling. If you'd like to unmute yourself, you have two minutes.

Hi. Thank you, Commissioners. Good afternoon. My name is Aranda Sterling, and I'm here speaking on behalf of residents in Alice Griffith, Bayview, Hunters Point, Shoreview, LaSalle, Fillmore, and other historically Black communities in this city. We need to address what is happening inside these developments. Residents are reporting uninhabitable conditions, mold, water, intrusion, pests, unsafe living environments. And when they speak up, they are facing intimidation, lease pressure, and what appears to be retaliation. That is unacceptable. Developers and property managers such as John Stewart Company, Related, California, McCormick, Barron, Salazar, operate these properties under public subsidy, public land agreements, and regulatory oversight. When public dollars and public land are involved, this is not just a private landlord issue. This is a public accountability issue. The San Francisco Housing Authority cannot be a passive bystander. Under federal HUD regulations in California Civil Code section 19-1942.5, residents cannot legally be retaliated against for filing maintenance complaints, organizing with neighbors, speaking at commission meetings, reporting unsafe or uninhabitable conditions. If residents in Alice Griffith, Bayview, Hunters Point, or the Fillmore District are facing lease enforcement actions after speaking out, that should automatically trigger independent review. These neighborhoods have already endured displacement through redevelopment and broken promises. Revitalization cannot mean silencing residents while conditions inside units deteriorate. What we're calling for is independent third-party inspections of reported ability violations, a formal anti-retaliation review process before any lease termination or non-renewal proceedings, public reporting Public reporting on unresolved work orders and compliance timelines for each development. If oversight is not enforced, then public-private partnerships become shib or neglect rather than instruments for equity. Thank you.

Thank you for your public comments. We do have some additional speaker cards. Margaret McNulty.

Good afternoon. Thank you for the commissioners. I want to thank you for everything that you've done for me personally. And also today I'm representing Brian Voicy, who has had his house burned down last year and was waiting six months to try and get the fire department's report. And he has that now. And we're afraid that the emergency voucher system will go away before he gets helped. So I just wanted to bring him to your attention. Thank you.

Any questions?

Is there someone on staff that will Behind you, I think there's someone on staff that's going to.

Yeah, just a quick clarification. I mean, the Emergency Housing Voucher Program has ended. And so we. It did end already? Yes, it ended some time ago. There's no more funding. And so what we're in the process of doing, I'll give a brief update, is there are no more emergency housing vouchers. The program is over. And in fact, we're in the process of winding that program down. So just to make that clarification. But again, staff can follow up.

Thank you very much.

Thanks, Director Adams.

We have a Ms. Harrison to come up.

Good afternoon. My name is Ariane Harrison, and I am a seventh generation Bayview-Hunters Point District 10 resident. I've been there all my life, and my family has been there since the 1950s. Now, what's occurring in our new housing properties, they're supposed to be brand new, basically, is that all the things that you guys heard described through the phone calls. But it's not just a San Francisco problem. It's nationwide in these kind of units owned by this company. You know, so what I would suggest that you guys do, you guys need to trigger at least support with providing the resources and stuff that the community needs in order to have a safe space to actually file their complaints because they've been filing their complaints so it can get more structured and actually they can identify the problems and where they belong to fostering solutions for what they're going through in these residents. makes no sense to people that are wheelchair bound, are stuck on seven and eight floors, and can't even get out of their housing unit because the elevator is not working. A person, a client of mine, was disabled living in these units, had triggered an emergency. And the ambulance actually had to come in there and get them, go up all these flights of stairs to get them out of the unit, to get them downstairs to the ambulance to take them to seek care. That means that we don't know if they have an in-home care provider or if they're living independently. And they had to actually physically carry them up a flight of stairs to bring them back from seeking care. So knowing that there's more than just one client, I'm just giving you a scenario. There's several clients that meet this description. i would say that the health department needs to be needs to be called upon and i would like you guys support with doing that as well because one thing you want to do is you want to come out and make sure that these claims are not false correct and seeing that you have all these claims of mold being in the housing unit which is not It was just not unrealistic from that district, because it's happened in the old units as well. They need to come out and check these things out. It's just silly, for God's sakes, fill on a woman during a community event. She was a senior as well, and she got injured from that, from the roof. So there's water damage. There is definitely a dumping issue in District 10, as general as overall. So please, for me and for the families that you guys serve and supposed to protect through this process, please come out and see it on the ground yourself. That way, you can be more support to the people that really need you in this forum. Thank you very much.

Thank you for your comment. Malik Washington.

Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Malik Washington. I'm a journalist, and I'm also a coordinator with the Marie Harrison Community Foundation. written exhaustively about the conditions throughout the city. And we're looking at specific bad actors, corporate bad actors, Related California, Jon Stewart, and in some cases, Mercy Housing. But the most pronounced problems that we're having is from Jon Stewart in Related California. And I wrote a letter in January to Attorney Rob Bonta, open letter to Rob Bonta, about slumlords operating in the city of San Francisco. One week ago, I was contacted by a special assistant of the attorney general of California Department of Justice, Alex Fish. Mr. Fish is now actively investigating these allegations. Why is not David Chu doing this? Why is a special assistant attorney general from the California Department of Justice from Los Angeles concerned about what's happening here in the most progressive and liberal city in the United States of America? Why is that? We have a problem. If the attorney general, why does the attorney general have to do David Chu's job? He should not have to. We are rewarding these corporate bad actors with multimillion dollar contracts when we have historical evidence that shows that they're mistreating our community members. Why is that? Why are we rewarding them? This is what I want you to think about. And remember, District 10 Supervisor Shimon Walton warned us one year ago about this, and we ignored him. Why are we ignoring him? Because the people are poor, black, brown, Asian, white, people that look like me. Is that why we're ignoring them? My name is Malik Washington.

Evangelia Brewster, if you'd like to come up.

Hi, everyone. I'm Evangela Brewster. Thank you. So I am a resident in Alice Griffith, been there all my life. A lot of the things that you've heard, it's even worse than that. Um, firsthand knowledge. There is people in wheelchairs who have literally flung themselves from their wheelchairs to get onto the stairs to try to get down the stairs. Some of them are amputated. Um, It gives no one cares because we're Bayview District, we're District 10, the bad child of San Francisco, or whatever is being stated about us. My community has worked really hard, and yet we never see the fruits of our labor. Prime example, District 10 was where Chase Center is now, that was a part of District 10. And now it is no longer part of District 10. I think due to the last two years where it was kind of slid from us in District 10, which that was part of our district, which is also a problem because now we don't have funding that now SOMA has, which also SOMA has AT&T Park or Oracle, whatever we're calling it now, but where the Giants play. There is so many things. I think that instead of giving you the long laundry list of things, I would ask and compel y'all to get Jon Stewart and related here. Because I'll tell you two things. One, they're not going to come when you ask them to come the first time. They're going to laugh at you. But I want you all to see it for yourselves how much hard work that we have to go through just to ask for things that are necessity needs. When it comes to our lights being off, last week, or excuse me, last month, our lights was off multiple times. We had to make multiple calls to the offices outside of San Francisco just to get our lights cut back on. And that has been happening since we moved there for the last eight years. I will also say, yes, was the other housing part development bad? Absolutely. But I'll tell you this, a lot of the community would rather go back to that than to stay in this new housing. Thank you.

Any additional general public comment? We can close general public comment. Item six is the tenant representative report. Anyone from CCSD or PHTA in the room or online that would like to give a report out to the board today?

Good afternoon, Commissioners, President Shoemaker, Michael Zorn, President of 1880 Pine Street Tenant Association, and President of Citywide Council Senior Disabled, CCSD. I come today just to let you all know about a situation at 1750 McAllister, Rachel Townsend Apartments. Apparently, they've been without hot water for the last seven days. The treasurer of CCSD, June Woolery, informed me of this. Home Rise is the property management company. They have been notified numerous times, and so has the Department of Building Inspection. The tenant council president and treasurer are hoping to meet with management today. They've had little to no communication from the management or Home Rise about what's happening or when it's going to be fixed or anything of that nature. So she wanted me to bring that up today to you all. Thank you.

Thank you. Well, I'm sure staff will follow up. Yeah, we'll follow up.

We can open for public comment on item 6. OK. Closing public comment for item 6. Item 7 is the acting executive director's report. A staff has asked that we present item 7B first before 7A. So that is the acting executive director's general communications.

I think that's me. I have just a few updates for you all today. First, I wanted to call your attention to a recent proposed rule. You may have heard of this. HUD on February 20th issued a proposed rule change to the mixed status program. This would render ineligible a number of our current residents who qualify as mixed status households. A mixed status family is comprised of members who have HUD eligible and HUD ineligible immigration statuses. Those families are allowed to live in our housing authorities supported housing stock under current rules. The proposed rule would make those families ineligible for housing. The Trump administration proposed the same rule change back in 2019. There were a number of comments submitted. In fact, so the process is HUD proposes a rule. There's a 60-day period to make comments. We are in the process both as a housing authority, as a city, and in coordination with other groups around the country to develop comments against this proposed rule change. As I was just saying, this happened in 2019. The city and the housing authority submitted comments along with 30,000 other entities. It was the largest response to any proposed rule change that HUD had ever made. The administration changed before the rule could take effect, and the Biden administration pulled back that proposed rule change. So we're earlier in the same president's term this time around, but the rule book is established. So we'll have 60 days to make comment. We are working with the city attorney's office to submit comments again, both as a housing authority and as a city. And the comments will be based on exactly what we said last time, the detrimental impacts to the households themselves. The detrimental impacts to the housing authority and the city are the resources that we will need to invoke in order to support these households. And we believe that this rule change is unlawful. So we are preparing those comments now. Once they're complete, I'm happy to share them with this body. They will be public, of course. We will be submitting those before the deadline, which I believe is in April. HUD will then need to review all of the comments. And we anticipate there will be more than 30,000 comments this time around. So there will be a process. They will then issue a final rule, which will take 30 days to go into effect. And we would imagine that that rule would be litigated at that time. So I did want to make you all aware of both this proposed rule change, how we're engaged in the work, the process and timeline we're looking at. There's no immediate danger or threat to our households given the process that's outlined in HUD regulations. So happy to, I believe I can take questions on this item. Happy to answer any questions that you may have.

Director Adams, just for clarification's sake, is the principle in eligibility related to citizenship? That's the basic dividing line?

CITIZENSHIP OR LEGAL RESIDENCY.

LEGAL RESIDENCY AND CITIZENSHIP. SO PEOPLE WITH A GREEN CARD ARE ALSO NOT ELIGIBLE OR THEY ARE?

NO. YOU HAVE TO BE HERE UNDER A LEGAL STATUS. YOU WOULDN'T HAVE TO BE A CITIZEN PER SE, BUT YOU HAVE TO HAVE LEGAL RESIDENCY OR CITIZENSHIP. SO THAT WAS JUST TO CLARIFY. IT'S NOT A CITIZENSHIP. IT'S A LEGAL STATUS. GOT IT. The way the current program works is that the subsidy is prorated, and the idea is then that the federal subsidy that the household is receiving is prorated relative to the percentage of members of the household who have legal residency and are HUD eligible. And those who do not are not receiving direct subsidy but are allowed to live in the unit. This rule would make that impossible. So the tenancy of the entire household would be put in jeopardy. Okay. Thank you. Thank you.

Other questions?

Yeah. I'd be interested in how far you may have worked out sort of timeline. So last time around, it sounds like there was comments pushed, the rulemaking outside of the president's term. It doesn't sound like that's a hope this time around. And so if this were to happen, I go into effect? Do we have a sense of how much time San Francisco would have to prepare an actual plan of action?

It's a very good question. HUD has to review all of the comments. That's going to be the time lag. Unfortunately, I do not have kind of an estimate of how long that will take. But that is a requirement. So one of the strategies is to ensure that we're providing a lot of comments. And I am comfortable that, and given the conversations I'm having with partners around the country, there will be a significant response to this proposed rule change. Unfortunately, I don't know how long that process will take. But upon its conclusion and documentation of that process, HUD can issue their final rule, which would take effect in 30 days from that date. So that's the timeline. As I say, this was litigated last time. And the rule language in conversations that I've had with our city attorney's office is consistent with the previously proposed rule change. So there's a pattern, a playbook, a precedent that's been set. And we would imagine this process to be similar. But as you note, and as we discussed, we are earlier in the term. And so I don't think it's reasonable to expect that it would be a three-year process to get through in its entirety. But I do want to stress for this body and for those who may be watching this presentation or will watch it later that there is no immediate threat to mixed status households. We are doing everything we can to prepare cogent and incisive comments to submit under this comment period. And we are coordinated with partners around the country. And this will be something we're paying very close attention to. I wanted to also briefly pick up on our last conversation regarding the emergency housing voucher program. We had a presentation last time on EHV. We continue to have weekly planning meetings around this, as will be presented in the following presentation on budget. The budget, we had good news in this budget. It's not been a period of time in our lives where we get a lot of good news, but relatively speaking, the budget outlook is better. We anticipate having some number of tenant protection vouchers to reduce the number of people who will have to be rehoused into our project-based voucher portfolio. And it's likely that we may even get some more emergency housing voucher funding. That's because some programs across the country have already ceased their program or have ended their EHV program. So HUD is able to recapture some funding under the program and provide it to other jurisdictions. long, and Mamadou will go into this in greater detail, how long of a run that gives us is TBD. But I want to stress again that we do have our emergency housing voucher reserve funding. So while we are still waiting a requested waiver from HUD. No emergency housing voucher household is at immediate or near-term threat of losing their subsidy. The city has resources. We are likely to have additional subsidy to extend that program for a period of time. And the city continues to maintain a reserve to extend that voucher program even longer to be able to successfully rehouse folks so no one will be displaced during this process. So just wanted to provide that very brief update. Finally, we did release today the RFQ to select a development team to help us revitalize Plaza East. So this is the property that really needs. We have been investing in capital improvements, improving vacant units. We've initiated some exterior work and painting. We'll be making those near-term capital improvements over the next year to 18 months. And we need to bring on a development partner to help us develop the scope, access the financing, and undertake the larger rehab work that we anticipate will really set the property up for long-term success. So I'll be providing updates on that process, but we release the RFQ today.

And at the risk of being repetitive, since this comes up often in public comment and so forth, I think it's worth just noting that McCormick Baron Salazar is no longer part of the process or in any way involved in the ownership, management, or development of Plaza East. Just because that seems to come up and it seems worth repeating.

I think it's worth repeating. We have conveyed that. MBS is no longer part of the ownership structure. They will not be part of the ownership structure.

And for those folks that are in the audience or commenting from the phone, This is a great opportunity for people to reach out to local developers, local nonprofits, anyone who might be of interest in potentially getting involved as a developer or a development partner. Not everyone has to be a real estate developer to be involved in potentially being part of the solution at Plaza East. It could be a service partner. It could be any number of things that could be part of a development team for the work out there. Whereas previously, there had been a proposal to redevelop the site and build back with brand new buildings in a very different framework physically and otherwise, the RFQ, as I understand it, Director Adams, is to renovate the existing buildings

That's correct. What we've done in our RFQ, that's very well stated. We believe the most effective, impactful, and efficient way to upgrade the buildings is through a major renovation. And we're ready to move on that with developer partnership. There could be. in the scoping of the rehab work a discovery of something that is of such scale that we would need to consider a demo and build new proposal. So we have not discounted that as a possibility. I think it's an unlikely one. But I do want to leave open that potential. And the RFQ reads as such. We create two pathways. The primary pathway, which would be a major renovation, Likely would require, it would be an occupied rehab, but likely some relocation would need to take place. Outside possibility that we could discover something that we would need to take, you know, more dramatic action, including potentially demo and rebuild. But again, I think that's something.

OK. So anyway, because this comes up often in public comment, I just think it's important to say it. In public comment, we're not, as commissioners, in a position to sort of respond to every comment that is made, no matter how painful or important they are. And it's not that we're not listening. It's really that there's a protocol and a process here. And so I just want to draw attention to this. We recognize that the situation at Plaza Iza staff has brought forward a proposal and hopefully a very important process for rebuilding a site that has obvious physical problems that need to get repaired with urgency. And that urgency is the reason why staff has recommended a renovation strategy and not a teardown and a rebuild. And again, for those of you that are part of the Western Edition film work community or any other part of the San Francisco community that would like to be part of the solution, you can go to the Housing Authority website and find out more about the RFQ. And we encourage people to get involved. Even if you're not a quote unquote real estate developer, there may be ways in which you can be helpful to making a difference in this important community.

Yes. Yes. And just to put a finer point on that, we will have Section 3 hiring requirements. There will be local business enterprise outreach. There will be focus on encouraging resident hire throughout the process. So there are a number of programmatic and both goals and requirements to really encourage local participation in this work. And we'll emphasize that through the process.

And of course, we had this conversation last time, Director Adams, that it's really hard sometimes to handle workforce requirements on really small projects. This is a really large project. Correct. That's right.

So I think this provides greater opportunity for more participation. And we'll be very focused on ensuring access throughout the process. Right. OK.

Can I make one other comment here that I think is responsive? I don't know how much precedent there is for kind of this commission sort of as a body visiting or sort of sites, but I'd be interested in sort of heard an invitation in some of the public comment to come out and sort of see the sites. Wonderful. As a sort of newly seated. Yes. So, you know, to the extent that it makes sense to the body as a whole. or sort of some subset of us, NDU as staff, and I'd be interested.

I think that's a great idea. If you wish to attend as a body as a whole, it becomes a public meeting, which needs to be noticed and the like. So it may be easier to do it. Not opposed to that, but it provides a logistical. So it may be easier just as in pairs or, and again, love to tour you around however it makes sense.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is there a public comment allowed on the director's report?

We will have a public comment at the end of the acting executive report as a whole. So we still have the budget presentation to do, and then we can have public comment.

OK, so you have to wait. You have to wait. Is that OK? Yeah, that's fine. OK.

So that being said, we can do item 7a, the housing authority's budget presentation. And this will be presented by the authority's principal budget analyst, Roy Lobo. And SF Cup TV, we do have slides for this presentation.

ROY LOBO, Hi. Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Roy Lobo. I work in the finance department for the San Francisco Housing Authority. I think today we will be presenting the budget for the housing authority. And this is more, we're not asking for approval of this budget. This is more to just... give you a sense of what has happened to our budget since we last presented back in September, and to update you on the budget that Congress just approved in the third bill, the Transportation and Housing and Urban Development Bill. So if we go to the next slide, please. Pretty much what we'll cover is we'll give you a program overview of what the San Francisco Housing Authority does. We'll talk about the various revenue streams that we get. into the San Francisco Housing Authority. We'll talk about the federal budget at a national level, at the outlook and the risk. We'll then talk about the operating budget that we monitor. And then we'll also share with you a budget to variance analysis for the first four months of the year, of our fiscal year. Our fiscal year begins in October. So this will include from October to January. Next slide, please. So this slide is basically giving you the number of households we serve and the different programs we run at the Housing Authority. The largest program with the largest households being Housing Choice Vouchers. Second largest program actually is the Veterans Affairs Program, and so forth and so on. And you also heard about the Emergency Housing Voucher Program. The next slide is really the number of participants we serve under each of these programs and how they are broken up into the different categories. And the next slide is really to give you an indication of how these participants are dispersed through the city, the largest being in District 10 and the second largest being in District 5. We'll now go through the revenue streams, and I'd ask you to try to make this as interactive as possible. I know this is probably the first time many of you commissioners are hearing this, so we're happy to answer any questions, clear up any confusions you may have. We get three forms of revenue stream subsidized by HUD through the Housing Authority. The first is the housing assistance payments, then the administration fee and subsidy, as well as the capital grants. Next slide, please. The housing assistance payments are really funds that we get from HUD, and the Public Housing Authority acts as a pass-through, meaning that we get the funds from HUD, we pass those funds on to the landlord. Where the importance comes in, in this HAP subsidy, is to be able to use this HAP subsidy to serve two purposes. One is... to control the expenses through what we call payment standards, rent reasonableness for each program, and two, also to control the leasing data, i.e., voucher issuance that we have. So we use a HUD budgeting tool. It's called the two-year tool, and we use this to strike a delicate balance between the payment standards, between issuing leasing, and ensuring that we do not go into a shortfall. Pause there if anyone has questions. The second revenue stream we get is the administration fee and subsidy. And these funds really enable the housing authority to administer each of the programs that I showed you earlier. The funds we receive for the administration fee is really to cover the operations of the program. program management, for example. We have contractors to handle our tenant-based vouchers and our project-based vouchers. We'll also use these administrative fees to help us run our back office operations. And lastly, we also use these admin subsidies to really run tenant services for the program. And tenant services include paying security deposit for tenants, paying the application fees, paying utilities and arrears, and so forth. Lastly, these fees, and a lot of times, In any given time period, we may have excess fees. We do use these excess fees to invest in initiatives to help streamline the operations of the public housing. So for example, if you think about last year, we invested in the landlord portal, which really helps us interact with the landlords. through a digital way of informing them of several things of upcoming inspections and also updates to payment standards. We've installed a kiosk at our location at headquarters where residents can now upload their documents through the kiosk and other initiatives like that. When we do cover the budget in more detail, we'll go through the different initiatives that we have. And if you have questions, please keep it interactive. Otherwise, I'll keep going. The last one we have is on the capital funds grant. These funds are primarily used for what we talked about, the modernization and improvement of public housing, mainly Plaza East and North Beach. But we also use it to help with the facilities in the administration office. We have an elevator modernization. We have HVAC. projects underway. We also have the projects of putting solar panels on a roof. So we use these funds to help pay for those expenses. And the last slide is really just to give you a sense of how the different revenue streams play out. As you can see, the majority of that revenue stream is in the housing assistance payments. what we call the HAP subsidy. 10% of it is really at administration fee, and then a small portion of it being capital funds. I'll now turn to the federal budget outlook that we have prepared. We came back to this commission, and many of you are new to this, but we came back to you back in September to give you a sense of really the thoughts that was put forth by this administration and by the House bill and the Senate bill as to what they believed the funding was for at a national level for transportation and housing and urban development. At that point, in consultation with various groups, we looked at the Senate bill at $73 billion as the best case that we thought going forward. When we prepared our financials, we prepared our financials using the Senate Bill funding. In January of this year, January 31st, 2026, Congress did pass the 2026 third bill funding HUD at the $77.3 billion at the national level, very close to what the Senate bill was. And so now we do not have a final funding letter. HUD does have 60 days from the date the president signed the bill to actually detail the renewal funding and the dollar amount that each PHA will get. So we don't have a final amount. We do have a projection for what we think it will be. Next slide. Again, like I said, using the budget tool that we get from HUD. And using their sort of estimates as far as what proration is, as far as what their inflation factor is, we are projecting or forecasting roughly about $462 million in revenues to the San Francisco Housing Authority. And you can look below as to the revision to the projections that we had from when we initially talked about in the Senate bill of $406 million. So again, like I said, we don't have what the final say is. We don't have the final surplus. This is just an estimate. When we do get the funding bill, we believe that will be in early April. We'll come back to you with detail. We'll come back to you for approval of this budget. Next slide, please. The next slide is on the emergency housing voucher. And I think you heard Dan speak on this at length about this. So I'm not sure I can add any more contextual value to this slide. So far, what I've covered is on the HAP side. This will be on the administrative fee side. This will be on how we run the operations. at the Housing Authority. And the operating budget that we have over here, like I said before, is really to be one caution. The funding that we get is for each program and to only run the operating expenses for that program. So whatever fees that we get for that program cannot be commingled to be run into other programs. And we'll show this. It will make more sense when we show probably the BVA slide. And you can see it from there. The way we calculated administrative fees, it goes through a various calculation. Or rather, it goes down a rabbit hole. There's a number of inputs that we use to actually calculate the fee. And we'll show you in the next slide what the fee is. In addition to the administrative fee, we also have other revenues. And the other revenues are basically ground lease and residual receipts that we get on the various properties that we have throughout the city. the largest being North Beach. We get some ancillary other revenues, dividends from insurance, interest income on our investments, and just chargebacks to our program administrators. Using these various calculations, the administrative fee and other revenue, we're forecasting an operating budget of $43.4 million in revenue, which will lead us to about a $1.7 million deficit for the whole program. This deficit of $1.7 million is strictly restricted to public housing, where in that program we face annually an expense of $1.5 million related to the pension withdrawal liability that we have to pay on an annual basis. And we can go into more detail about that if anybody has questions. That's a whole separate topic.

Actually, could you just clarify how we intended then covered that shortfall? We're showing an operating shortfall of $1.7 million. Yes.

Sorry. Absolutely. The operational shortfall is mainly, like I said, restricted to public housing. This is for the annual fee. We do have the excess funds that we've built up over the years in public housing, and we've also used that money to invest. So with the dividends that we get from that public housing plus the excess cash we have, we're able to pay on an annual basis that $1.5 million. So we're showing the deficit only because we do not get any more revenue for the public housing fund from HUD anymore. And so with the excess cash we have, with the investment that we have, we currently have $9.7 million in that fund, including the interest investments. And our liability for that fund is at $10.2 million.

Thank you.

We've been averaging roughly around a 4% return with treasuries coming down. But for this year, we've been averaging about a 4% return. on that investment. Next, I'll go through these very exciting slides of budget to variance analysis by programs. And keep in mind, I want to caution the approved budget over here is not the budget we shared with you. The approved budget over here is a budget that we shared back in September. OK, so if you add up these numbers, they won't come up to $43.4 million. They'll come up to something short of that. But I don't have an approved budget. When we come here next month, we'll come to you seeking an approved budget. And really, this is more to just give you a sense of where our expenses are by program for this period in time. And it also gives us a sense, we've seen the expenses that we've incurred from October to January, and we've used those expenses to forecast out what the remainder of the year is. So housing choice voucher program, for example, if you take a look at total revenue on a year-to-date basis, we are looking at a $1.5 million surplus. And then on a year-end basis, we're looking at a $3.4 million surplus over budget. It's just on the revenue side, right? And the reason for that surplus, if you take a look at the admin subsidy of almost $600,000, the reason for that subsidy is what HUD pays us is through true-ups. Usually that takes place in November and December, and they're just paying up catch-up on the number of vouchers we have versus the number of vouchers HUD has in their system. And so what we have seen is about $200,000 extra that we've got for the last three months, which is why you're seeing the $600,000 surplus. As we do this on a regular basis, it will make more sense.

loosely starting to get familiar with it myself. I just want to call attention to the fact that you're going to go through really six different accounts, right? Correct. But there's not like a singular budget that we're going to see that brings them all together. Is that right?

No, we do have that. We can present it to you.

The purpose of today's presentation, we're looking at each program individually.

Correct. And keep in mind, part of the reason we're looking at each program individually, because when we do show that summary, we'll probably show something like a Let me take an estimate. We'll show a summary, a surplus of $10 million. I think it's wrong for us to think that we have $10 million excess in the program. We may have $1 million excess in a program, $3 million excess in another program. And like I said earlier, those funds cannot be co-mingled. Right.

But part of it, I think, for our education is that there's a lack of fungibility between these programs. Like some things live in one program, and they are not eligible to be used in others.

Correct. And that's why we have most of the excess funds we use to extend its services, like I talked about, to pay for security deposits, to pay for utilities in areas. great all right go forward okay so uh the 2.9 million oh the 2.9 million surplus variance in revenue over the budget is really for porting revenues and what that is is tenants who have ported into the city from other locales and so what we are what we do is we charge those other cities because they're those cities are the ones getting the half revenue And so the tenants can port into us, we'll charge the city for the half portion of that rent. That is offset in expenses, by the way. So what we get in, we pay out. So not really much. Compensation is in line with budget. Management fee expense, the higher the revenue you get, the more management fee expense you'll incur. That's because we get to charge 20% of management fee to each program. We're running back office operations. Those revenues are then parked in our central office cost center, which is how we run the legal, the IT, all the various back office operations. Again, I don't think anything else rises to the level of materiality. So next program on the EHV front. Now, again, the admin subsidy is short over here. Starting in, I believe, in November of last year, we were starting to get 8,000 less than what we had projected. The month of October, we got 20,000 less than what we had projected. And so we're seeing some decline in the EHV funding on the HAP subsidy side. The other revenue in this, again, is dealing with the port-in, port-out that we have on the HEB side. We just have it on the EHV side as well. Right. On the administrative expenses here, this is on the EHV program. You will continue to see a surplus between now and the remainder of the year. That is because of the limited EHV activity that is currently going on. Now, this may pick up as we've talked about the EHV transition, as we've talked about different budget scenarios happening to the EHV. For right now, we can't forecast that, and so that's why you're seeing that surplus.

Where are we looking? Sorry. I'm trying to- I'm sorry.

On the last free line, administrative expenses? Yeah. Where you see the $153,000 in the variance dollars line, right?

And the detail you're offering is just sort of off page?

Correct. The problem is there's always a question about how far down the rabbit hole you want to go with each of these expense line items. And so we commingle all IT expenses, all legal expenses, all program administrative expenses into what's called administrative expenses, because that's really what it is. So all we're saying is that surplus is we had budgeted $500,000. for EHV actions. So as these people put interim re-examinations, as these people issue new vouchers, we'll pay them on those issuance. Since those issuance are limited today, since there's not that much that money to spend, if this turns around and they start issuing, they start moving from project-based vouchers to tenant-based vouchers, they start moving, you'll see this expense increase.

You mentioned the port and revenue we're reporting them in from. You said something about ATV. What does that stand for?

I'm sorry, ATB?

Or just three letters.

I couldn't hear you very clearly, to be honest. But can you explain what the port and revenue is? Yes, sure.

Sorry about that. So port and revenues are basically tenants that come in from other locations, like either Oakland or Marin or Haywood, and they port into San Francisco. And so when they port in, we do not get the funding from HUD, the location where they got the voucher from. gets the funding. And so what we do is we build those cities for the tenant revenue that we are paying the landlords. That make sense?

Yes. And by city, I think you mean other housing authorities? Other housing. OK. And are those one-time port-ins, or is it an ongoing basis? Or for how long does it occur?

No, it's an ongoing basis, right? So they will port in. And once they port in, that city or that PHA, let me use a very specific example. If I have a resident in Oakland who's moving to San Francisco, they have got a voucher in Oakland, an EHV voucher or an HCV voucher, and HUD is paying Oakland the HAP subsidy. When they move into San Francisco, and we've approved them to move here, and they found a locale, that voucher remains with Oakland. So HUD will continue to pay that HAP subsidy to Oakland. What we will do is then build Oakland for the HAP subsidy that we have to give the landlord who is in San Francisco.

OK. And just for clarity, I understood that. Just for clarity, I think your response is that it's in perpetuity.

Correct.

Even when the recertification process occurs again? That doesn't quite make sense to me. The recertification process? Your colleague is going to speak to that, perhaps.

It really depends on the funding situation. In typical year, like for SFHA, if you have reserve, that's one way to use the reserve. You can absorb those part in, make them part of your program. But if you don't have the reserve, like with shortfall, we have to build other. That's one way to reduce your cost. You just build other PHA. So typically, if a PHA has reserve, that's because that reduces the admin burden. So you're better off just absorbing if you have reserve. If not, you just continue billing.

Thank you.

So for example, that $2.9 million you see in HCV, that represents about 70 tenants. On Central Office Cost Center?

I'm sorry. I'm just curious about one additional thing on porting in. And if somebody's porting in, say, from Oakland, and the rents are higher in San Francisco, what happens to that difference?

You mean on the HAP subsidy that we get in? So I think we approve them for the same subsidy that they're getting, right?

say if the value that they have for a one-bedroom is $1,000, they come to San Francisco and it's $1,050, just to say something to... Yeah, basically, both...

Housing Authority have to approve that. And once it's approved, we bill them the full cost. But really, the other way of it is to port out. So there's more port out. Like for the ESV, there's definitely more than 100 port out. So people in our program actually port it out to other housing authorities. So that's where we see a lot more activity.

OK, thank you.

I do have two lifelines, Mamadou and Dan. on the central office cost center. Again, these are the management fee revenues that we get from each program. These are the 20% of the management fees that we get, and that's what those revenues represent. the other revenues over here again the reason for that shortfall on a year-to-date basis is we do not receive the north beach revenue that we normally get in december we received in february and so we've parked it in in the month of february in our year-end forecast uh As far as expenses go, they're relatively in line with the budget, with the exception again, once again, of administrative expenses. The majority of that surplus of $900,000 is more in line with the delay of reimbursing the city for the city employees. We had initially budgeted that to take place in October. That now won't take place until July of this year.

Question. What percentage of these expenses are direct cost to the city department versus to outsource third party?

And by city department, you mean the housing authority?

The housing authority, yeah.

Oh, sorry. Well, in these expenses that you're showing in the operating expenses, these are all, like we don't have any contractors. These are all direct expenses.

What do you mean by? And perhaps this is a question for Director Adams. I was under the impression that we manage a lot of our central back-of-house office functions through third-party contracts.

Exactly.

And I would expect that to show up as an expense to the housing authority. So the question there is... I only see three line items here. Where is that built in? Where is that built in? And what is that proportion?

That's a good question. I think Mamadou has an answer.

Actually, yeah, we outsource our operation for the programs, like Housing Choice Virtual Program, EHB. So on the previous slide, there was admin expense. That line, that's for the cost for CVR and PEM. That's the contractor we use. COCC, that's for especially staff and city staff. Like, we have currently around 30 staff, SFHA. And we have a small team that are also coming from the city. That's the transition team coming from the city. And that's what Roy was mentioning. That bidding hasn't really started yet. So it's pending a shared service agreement once we have that signed. And we work into the city to figure out what other support we can bring from the city. city and country, and city of San Francisco. Once we have that, we take it, you know, we bring it to the board for approval, and you'll start seeing that cost as part of the COCC. So COCC is the central office cost center. So that's where it's just SFJ staff and potentially city staff.

Thank you.

So just so I'm clear, so that the cost, where we would find the cost to support the contractors who are managing our voucher programs are in the program areas under the administrative line item, and that all COC costs are strictly office costs associated with housing?

Overhead costs, IT, finance. Thank you.

Thank you.

I think that's what I was referring to when I said the EHE activity isn't high. That's what we pay the contractors. And PEM runs the tenant-based vouchers. CBO runs the project-based vouchers. Those are the expenses that we incur for contractors. On the HOPE VI slide, so this is really the subsidies. These are really the programs that are for Plaza East and North Beach. Over here, really, the HAP subsidy that we get for Plaza East and North Beach are sent directly over to Plaza East and North Beach, right? In fact, if you take a look at over the last couple of years, to help them run the program, we've sent in more money than we've actually received from the HAP subsidy. And we've dipped into our general fund to pay for those expenses. Public housing fund, I think this is where... This is where you see the $1.5 million annual loss, if you will, in this program. If you look at the year-end budget approved, this is where we'll see those expenses. And that $1.5 million, again, like I talked about, is to pay for the pension withdrawal liability. The last two programs are the mainstream program. Again, this is really serving the non-elderly people with disabilities. In this program, we have about a 95%, 96% utilization into the program. And the expenses in here, and same with the next slide, for mod rehab, very sporadic. The mod rehab is a senator hotel. an SRO building that was supposed to be converted to MRAD that's been in the delays. But pretty much it's at 100% utilization. And I think that's it for me.

I'm sorry.

Could we just go back to public housing for one second? I'm sorry. I was just coming back into the room. I apologize. Operating expenses of $2 million, is that right?

Correct. Am I reading that right? Correct. So the operating expenses in here, what you have is a combination of the withdrawal liability that I talked about. But you also have- What was that last thing? The pension withdrawal liability of 1.5- 12 million of withdrawals?

Is that what that is?

No, the pension withdrawal liability is 12 million in total. That's what we owe on that pension withdrawal liability if we were to pay it today.

I see. I got it. So it's 2 million-

It's too many because we pay $1.5 million annually, plus the pension costs and the medical costs that we have for the craft personnel that belong to this program. These are the retirees that belong into this program, and so we pay for those expenses.

Thank you for the clarification. So the $12 million in the note is the total liability, not the amount that's being paid this year?

Correct.

Which is in the $2 million range. $1.5, yes. 1.5. Which is why we are showing the deficit.

Correct.

OK. Thank you for explaining that. I misunderstood. Perfect. Thank you. Any other questions on the pension liability? OK. I'm the only slow one. My second or third time. I'm going to get it. That's OK. Any other questions on the presentation?

I just wanted to make maybe one comment. And it's been an unusual year for us, and maybe we'll have more unusual years. I mean, we came in September to have a budget approved, which would be typically when we would come to approve a budget. Correct, in September. But we were experiencing a series of continuing resolutions. Short term, the government shut down. I think soon after that, we had funding shortages, speculation on whether the Senate bill or the House bill would prevail. And so it's an unusual moment in the arc of our of our fiscal year to be doing this level of budget analysis and projection. And as Roy mentioned, we have more to do. We have yet to get our final funding letter. So we won't do a detailed presentation next time. Hopefully we can just clarify and confirm the detail that Roy and Mamadou have prepared today. But I just did want to call out and I wanted to appreciate the work of our finance team It has been an extremely dynamic environment. It continues to be so. And so they're constantly adjusting and projecting and readjusting. And I want to appreciate their work and note that there's more clarification to come. So stay tuned. Thank you, Commissioner.

Other questions from the commissioners?

Thank you for the presentation and your patience with our questions as well. And it's a side question and maybe it can come back at a later time, but I'm just curious to hear a little bit more to get more clarity as to the delays on the conversion on the SRO community, the Senator Hotel.

Yes, we can. I mean, if you have information.

Actually, the RAD conversion package was just submitted this past month. So it's in the process right now. So it wasn't delayed. That's the last SRO that was supposed to convert to MRAD. But it picked up. So we just submitted the RAD package just two weeks ago. So we expect that to be done this year.

Great. I ask because that's hopefully going to improve people's quality of life there with that reinvestment.

Yeah, there's some rehab that's going to start soon. Great.

Thank you.

Okay.

Anything else from you, Roy? No? I'm going to take a bow. All right. Director Adams, anything else before we take public comment? Not for me. Thank you. Thank you for being patient.

I can't get the paper that I wanted, but it's going to be OK. Y'all with me? OK. So what I'm hearing him say is that there's projected budget cuts for housing authority. Am I hearing that correctly for him?

Yeah. OK. What we had at the beginning of the year is we expected a massive set of budget cuts. There are still cuts, but they're nowhere near on the scale that we are. There's still deficits, but they're nowhere at the scale that we thought they were going to be.

OK, because I'm sure going to talk about it. But one of the things I do want to say while I'm sitting here before this body is that when we're talking about affordable housing, I don't want to say affordable to whom. I see, I speak with a lot of single parents every day, and that there's not enough shelters for those people that meet their description. And some people, unfortunately, are sleeping in their cars. Why is the waiting list so long? And why isn't there housing that fits the description of these people that are working in low-income earner jobs, like McDonald's and different stuff like that? San Francisco has systematically taken away the 30% rule in housing, where back in the days when I was younger, and that helped me out before I got started in the work that I'm doing now, is that they 30% of your income would go towards your rent. And if you got employed and you got another job that made more money, your rent would increase according to your income base. If you lost your job or you're on a hamster wheel, like most of us are in San Francisco working two jobs and got a hustle, they would decrease your rent according back to what your rent is to balance out with what your income base is. I think there's still a housing property over in District 10 that utilizes that model, if I'm not wrong, if it's still there on Hudson. Hudson has to be, I think it's Rural Street or something like that. But I don't see that in the city at all, which is really setting up a lot of people for not for success but for failure and more homelessness. And according to the BMR tax credit units, the affordable housing, when you might get in winning at $1,600 or, in some cases, $1,200 or $1,400. But the one thing about that particular design of affordable housing is that every year, according to a tax rule, HUD and Mercy are able to increase your rent by 4%, whether your income changes or not. which will eventually drag you, take it and scream it, to market rate rent, and you'll end up homeless and starting all over again. That's just something I wanted to put on your mind, your spirit, something to take a look at and think about what models of housing are being structured to keep people in San Francisco, especially young people that have families and they're just getting started. They haven't figured out their life path yet, but they're doing the best they can in this city.

Thank you for the comment. It is really confusing, because we're the San Francisco Housing Authority Commission. And so we're overseeing the programs that are related to the housing choice vouchers. So all the RAD properties, all the HOPE VI properties, and the other ones. So everything that has a rental voucher associated with it, which are on those 30% required adjusted. And then there are a whole bunch of other properties that are funded through the mayor's office of housing, typically, or what used to be the redevelopment agency. And those are more those fixed rents that you're describing, $1,200, $1,800. There is a range, and you're right. Some are easier to manage for some people than others. But the ones that are primarily coming through this commission are those adjusted based on income to 30% of your income to rent, keeping in mind utilities and the like.

Thank you for the clarification. I would too, but I speak pretty loud, right? Thank you for the clarification on that. Me, myself, personally, like I said, I've been here for seven generations in the city. I would like to see some programs, anticipate more programs like that to be incorporated into the city of San Francisco so we can serve families here. Got it. And they don't have to stay in SROs with five people and their families on top of each other.

Great. Thank you for your advocacy.

Hello, commissioners. It's Malik Washington again. One issue that I didn't get a chance to get out, and I want you to just understand that there's a pattern of conduct where community members who are tenants in these housing apartments that I've been talking about, they're being subjected to... intentional acts of retaliation just when they speak, or file a grievance, or ask for something to be fixed. Or maybe they might even, I had one tenant specifically, Maika Pinkston, who is the executive director of an organization nonprofit called From the Heart. She just commented in the article that I wrote, we cannot have corporate landlords retaliating against people for exercising their First Amendment right. This is the bedrock of our Constitution. I'm an Army veteran. I joined the military because I believe in this US Constitution, and I think you do too. So that's something that needs to be addressed. And lastly, There's an issue of inequity in the meeting out of contractual development opportunities for people of color. Dennis Williams, who I hope will be speaking soon, is a micro developer, a real estate micro developer from the Fillmore, born and raised. has been trying to break the glass ceiling. We have had buildings built in honor of iconic and legendary black people from this city. How many black developers were on those projects? Zero.

Good afternoon. Evangela Brewster with Bayview Hunters Point Coordinating Council and also a resident of Alice Griffith. One of the statements that I wanted to make was that I think for seven, the whole thing, I think A and B, it should be public comment after both of them. Because if you have something to say about both, you won't be able to get it out. So about the Housing Authority budget, you made a point about since 2019. I know you just got in the seat. Congratulations. And I know that you're doing some cleaning up. There are some other things besides this situation, as you spoke on, that I would love for the coordinating council to sit down and talk to you about. Also, Mr. Lobos speaking on the budget, I just wanted to ask, what about the funds from the organizations, i.e. Jon Stewart, i.e. Related, when it comes to renting them the... not the facility because they created the facility, but basically I know that housing authority is over the housing where everything is housed at, excuse me. So basically over the land. Is there a percentage of money that you receive from them? Because I do see that it says 1.5, I believe. Million is... The budget is access cut. So I wanted to ask about that. And then I think I'll leave it there. But I do want to say to the commissioners, thank y'all for asking questions. I think that you need to make sure you keep doing that because it's important for everybody who comes up here to know that y'all are serious about the changing as well. So I just want to say thank you.

Thank you.

If there's no additional public comment in the room, we have one online. Mr. Williams, would you like to unmute yourself?

Can you hear me?

Yes.

Good afternoon, commissioners. I just want to thank the commissioner that spoke out and ensured that we would be heard and that we were heard because we're very busy like you all. And as a community leader, board of supervisors awarded, I have a lot to do in the community. I spoke on Plaza East and the renovation but it should be only talks about the development, a development project that the community and myself as the head of Plaza East Development Advisory Committee painstakingly worked on for the better parts of five years alongside Supervisor Dean Preston's office as a monitor. I work side by side myself as a microdeveloper with Strata Investment and MBS, planning entitlement stages, hosted OCII, MOHCD, OEWD, and even been pictured with Meechan, a renowned architect in the Chronicle. The fact of the matter is in the Fillmore, large-scale developments without structured community participation, as we've seen, became political unstable. And that's not what we're trying to see because it only the community suffers this building should have been knocked down mccormick and baron asked for 40 million dollars we only got 10 in the capital improvement project and the 40 million dollars was to get the buildings up to code that was more than five years ago so what i'm telling the commission is that you have well-versed people in our community, from our Development Advisory Committee, as well as our residents, organized. We understand what is needed and we understand what we want. The fact of the matter is we continue to disrespect these housing developments and forgetting that people are educated, people understand, business owners, taxpayers, and the mayor, Lyndon Breed, came from Plaza East and became the mayor of our city. I hope going forward we can speak on, and I'm glad the RFQ went out, I would love to take a look at it, but we need community participation, particularly community-based development companies like myself, and I'm able. We shouldn't have to go to Washington, D.C., and bring back Mr. Richard Minocchio, who I'm still in contact with, who's a public housing chief, because Section 3 wasn't being adhered to, and there's models all across the nation from Chicago to L.A., that get HUD funding, federal funding, that are using local black developers, especially in urban sectors, where the statistics show, and it is compliant to Prop 219, that, 209, excuse me, that it does work, and we just need our agencies, and particularly for some reason in San Francisco, We haven't been getting that, unfortunately, whether the policies are outdated like we see in OCI and others. So we have an integrated CBA and a workforce and community pathway framework, which would stabilize everything and make a development at Plaza East both beneficial culturally and for the community. And I myself would love to be on this project because I was on the first one And I'm well-versed, as the Chronicle likes to say. So I would love to work close in hand with Dan. I already know his staff. But we have to get away from, you know, belittlement, bullying, and just allowing out-of-state developers to come in and not hire our union contractors, which participated in the meetings. Like one of our callers, Brother Arande, is a framer. worked on a beautiful $500 million project.

Okay, Mr. Williams, that has been over two minutes, so thank you for your public comment on item seven.

Well, I just hope I'm being heard.

I think, Mr. Williams, you've been heard regularly on this point, so it would be great if you could direct those comments back towards replying to the RFQ. Thank you.

If there's no additional public comment on item seven, we can close with a comment. Item eight is the regular business consent items for the commission special meeting minutes of our last meeting on February 5th, 2026. Would commissioners like to pull this item for further comment at this time?

No.

Then we can ask for public comment on the commission meeting minutes of February 5th. Closing public comment. And we can ask for a motion for approval and then a roll call vote. Is there a first motion for approval?

I so move.

Thank you. And a second? Second. Thank you. Roll call vote. Commissioner Lai?

Aye.

Commissioner Alvarez? Aye. Commissioner Cancino? Aye. Thank you. Commissioner Kim is absent. Commissioner Pikes? Aye. Commissioner Satili? Aye. And President Shoemaker? Aye. Thank you. Item nine is the regular business action items. ITEM 9A, THIS IS THE RESOLUTION APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE ACTING EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT FOR AN INITIAL ONE-YEAR TERM WITH AN OPTION AT THE AUTHORITY'S DISCRETION OF FOUR ADDITIONAL ONE-YEAR OPTION PERIODS FOR A MAXIMUM TERM OF FIVE YEARS IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $189,000 FOR INDEPENDENT AUDIT SERVICES. THIS WILL BE PRESENTED BY THE AUTHORITY'S PROCUREMENT ANALYST.

Good afternoon, commissioners. Karina Suarez, procurement analyst.

Can you grab the mic for us?

I'm sorry? There you go. Thank you. Sorry about that. Hopefully, I won't be throwing a lot of numbers at you. So I will be presenting a short PowerPoint in regards to a RFP that we did do for audit services for the San Francisco Housing Authority. And today we're asking for approval to enter into a contract with Macias Guinea and O'Connell LLP for financial audit services for an initial one year. term with the option to extend for up to four additional one years in the period amount of $189,000. So the authority is required to conduct a yearly independent audit, and the authority must enter into a new contract as the previous financial audit services contract has reached its five-year maximum term. Next slide. We did a procurement process, which is highlighted in the slides. We sent out a RFP. It was issued on January 23, 2026. And what followed was a pre-proposal conference on January 28, 2026, a question submittal deadline February 9, 2026, Proposal submittal response deadline, which is when the packet is due, February 20, 2026, and a submission deadline, which is February 27, 2026. We did open the bid on March 2, 2026. This is a public bid at the authority. And an RFP panel was done for this RFP. And today we are asking for... the approval of Macias, Guinea, and O'Connell LLP, they were the highest ranking score in this RFP. As you can see in the PowerPoint, these are the scores that were done by the panelists from this RFP. And the winner of this request for proposals was Macias, Guinea, and O'Connell. And they scored based on services proposed, experience, overall quality, and organization. MGO has been working with the authority for more than 15 years. Their proposal was one of the highest ranking scores by the panel, and they have a working relationship with the authority, and MGO has listened to the authority's suggestions on improvements and have embedded the improvements to their plan. MGO has over 15 years of experience with public housing authorities and large public entities with complex federal programs. Next slide. So the authority will award a one-year contract to Macias, Guinea, and O'Connell in the amount of $189,000. And the board approval will be required to add additional funds if the authority elects to exercise an option at the end of the initial one-year term. Are there any questions?

Chair, may I ask a question? Sure. I'm not sure if I heard you correctly. Did you say that MGO, which is the recommended company, have they been our auditors in the past? They have, yes. For the past 15 years, you said? For the past 10-ish years, yes.

OK. And who sits on the review panel, the RFP review panel? We have different ones depending on what the RFP requires. For this one, we did have two staff members of SFHA from different departments, and we also had one from OCD. Thank you.

If there's no additional commissioner's comments, we can open for public comment on this item.

And just as a reminder, public comment on these items are restricted to the issue in front of us.

At hand.

OK.

Correct. Once again, hello. I am Evangela Brewster. Really quickly, my question becomes, as far as it goes when it comes to MGO, Sorry, lost it. Found it again, though. When it comes to the specifics about who will be doing the audit, I know that the company has a high turnover rate and also has some poor balancing in their own So as you said, they were the ones highest ranked. How long was the process of y'all ranking them? And then is it a possibility, because I know you're saying that you want permission today, is there a possibility to go back and see about the other companies? Like the first, the other two, the second and the third one. Thank you.

Any additional public comment? Items 9A. Then we can close with a comment and ask for a motion and a roll call vote. Is there a first motion for approval?

Motion to approve.

OK, we have a motion.

From Pikes, is there a second?

Second.

Roll call vote. Commissioner Lai? Aye. Commissioner Alvarez? Aye. Commissioner Cancino? Aye. Commissioner Kim is absent. Commissioner Pikes? Aye. Commissioner Satili? Aye. And President Shoemaker? Aye. Thank you. Item 9B, this is the resolution approving and authorizing the acting executive director of the Housing Authority of the City and County of San Francisco to enter an agreement with LC Builders Inc. for an initial three-year term With the option at the authority's discretion of two additional one-year option periods for a maximum term of five years in an amount not to exceed $3 million to upgrade the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning or HVAC system at the authority's administrative office at 1815 Egbert Avenue, San Francisco, California, 94124. And this will also be presented by Karina Suarez.

Hello again, commissioners. This item is for a HVAC project that the San Francisco Housing Authority really needs in regards to their HVAC system upgrade. For the scope of this project, it's aimed at upgrading the HVAC system, which is a comprehensive HVAC system upgrade is needed to improve air quality, reliable cooling and ventilation, reduce mainstream costs, and bring the administrative facility up to the modern standards. There's a little background. SFHA's HVAC hasn't been updated since 1962. And functioning HVAC on the first floor, we do have functioning HVAC for the first floor, but the second and third floor relies on outdated heating systems. And I could personally tell you that the third floor gets really hot. In 2023, SFHA replaced the boiler to stabilize heating performance. And overall, the HVAC infrastructure on upper floors remain inefficient and inadequate. And it gets, like I mentioned, it gets very hot on the third floor. It needs improvements. This project is funded using HUD Capital Funds, the HUD Capital Funds Program, the CFP. Thanks. And we did do a IFB. This is an invitation for bids. And we issued the invitation for bids for... Sorry, I got ahead of myself. So we're asking for the approval to enter into a contract with LC Builders Inc. to upgrade the HVAC system for a three-year contract at the authority's discretion to extend, if needed, for an amount not to exceed $3 million. And this includes a 15% contingency amount. And the scope of the services would be installation of HVAC units, new efficient equipment, installation of updated thermostats, controls, and sensors, improvements of duct work, air work, replacing aging electrical connections and refrigerant lines, warranties, and post-installation service requirements. Next slide. So we did do kind of like the same one. It was just a IFB for the HVAC. We issued the IFB on January 7. And the pre-proposal conference with a walkthrough of five contractors came to SFHA to view our HVAC system to see what needs to be done. And the question submittal deadline was January 27, 2026. And the proposal submittal response deadline was due February 13. And we did bid opened and reviewed. on February 18, 2026. And this one did not need a panel because it's not a request. It's not an RFP. This is an IFB, so there's no panel needed for this one. This is based on cost, as well as other, their document, their packets, and everything included with that. And the housing agency marketplace is a marketplace that we use for procurement. And 951 vendors were notified of this IFB. And out of the 951 vendors, 21 viewed the IFB. And three contractors responded. Five vendors attended the site walk on January 16, 2026. They asked questions. They were looking around. We did advertise this IFB as well on the SF Chronicle and as well as a website that we use called Dodge Construction. And the independent cost estimate was estimated of $1.3 million based on the cost per square footage of a comparable project. And next slide.

Great.

Proposals were received by three companies. We have ATC Mechanical, who unfortunately didn't respond properly to the IFB per the procurement rules. So they unfortunately were not able to go forward. And so the next lowest bidder was LC Builders. And LC Builders was determined to be the most responsive and responsible lowest bidder, meeting all the procurement requirements. So LC Builders has worked in multiple projects around the city and have more than 20 years of experience in contracting. They work with multiple subcontractors all over the city and the Bay to help complete their projects and serve as prime contractors responsible for overall project leadership. They are a minority-owned business in San Francisco. So they are local. And they have worked on projects such as apartment renovations, self-help elderly to renovate recreational buildings, complete renovations with ADA full compliance, and worked with the Carnival community in SF, which is a really big festival in San Francisco. to help with electrical, fire alarm, fire sprinklers, acoustic architectural features. And I spoke with some of their contractors for references, and they had given them very great references in regards to their work. We expect project completion within six months from notice to proceed. And the contract includes three years ongoing maintenance services after completion and an option to extend maintenance coverage to a total of five years. And the authority will award an initial three-year contract to LC Builders, the income to the contract amount of $3 million. Board approval will be required to add additional funds if the authority elects to exercise an option period at the end of the term. Are there any questions?

I just have a small question. Sure. Was maintenance sort of costed out as part of the bids? That is correct, yes. Beyond the three-year?

No, just for the current three-year. Beyond the three-year, if we do exercise that option, then we'd come back to the board.

Okay. Just curious if you have any sense of whether their sort of maintenance is sort of competitive with the others, you know, in terms of that cost.

It doesn't sound like... Like a difference in cost or...

Yeah, after the three years, if there's going to be a term of maintenance, whether the bids looked at that at all or there was any discussion of it.

Like past the three years? Yeah.

Yeah, Commissioner, we did our independent cost estimate. So the proposal from LC Builder for the first three years was in line with what we see on the market. So we limited it for three years. After the three years, we'll negotiate with LC Builder at that time if there's a need to do another bid to get more. We can open it up. Totally.

Cool. Thank you. Just curiosity.

Sorry. Hi. I have a couple of questions. So indulge my lack of knowledge here. How many square feet are we talking about? So that's one question. How many staff work in this location? And then have we done a full physical needs assessment of the space just to see what it will actually need over time?

Your first question. I'm sorry. Your first question. Square footage on the building. Square footage of the building. I actually don't have the square footage of the building.

We're pulling the information. But there's three floors. We'll get the information. The current count of staff, we have around 180 staff. So the contractor, Paul Edward, management, and CVR each have around 75 staff. And SFHA has around 30 staff. So at any given time, that's the count. And then the first floor, we do have a lot of food traffic, a lot of talent coming in daily. And then longer term plan, right now we're looking into that also with the city partner to try to figure out what's the long term strategy for the building. Because the site is around three acres. And there's a lot of space where it used to be for the craft. We had the electrician plumber working at the public housing. That's not in use right now. It's more warehouse space. But we're looking to potential for the future. But the admin building itself is in use. We have staff.

OK. So I'm sorry if I missed it. Have we done a capital needs assessment on the building itself and what it would take? I'm just wondering, because if it's $3 million, is there an additional, I don't know.

Have we done a physical needs assessment on the entire property?

Not that I've seen. There was some proposal on renovating the building. That was done maybe in 2018. But that was the last time any study was done.

Maybe I could speak to this. I think the I think we as a body and as a city need to do some longer term planning about how we want to use the Egbert property in the mid to long term. So as part of our integration, there's 180 staff there today working every day. As was mentioned in the presentation, something needs to happen with the HVAC system. And as you'll hear in the next presentation, something needs to happen with the elevator. So I encourage this commission to make these approvals today. And that will help the staff there be safe when they go up and down between floors and be more comfortable as they're exercising their duties on a day-to-day basis. I think there's a question about how long we continue to use Egbert in its current capacity. So these are really important near-term investments. We also have capital dollars that we will lose if we do not spend them. So they become even more, I think, important for us to move quickly on the two proposals before you. Happy to engage in a conversation about overall physical needs, but I would want that to be part of even a broader conversation about how we intend to use the property over time, in particular as we explore ways in which the city and the housing authority increasingly become integrated. In the immediate term, given the level of retail activity, by which I mean voucher holders, interested parties, and the number of contractors, we don't have a near-term option to move 180 staff somewhere else. though over time that could become a reality. So I think we're asking for these very specific investments to keep the property going as it needs to in the immediate term, but happy to look more holistically over time.

And the near term there, Dan, is like three to five years? Yes, exactly. Thanks.

Okay, so I guess a couple of things. Yes, people should be able to work and be in a place that provides them adequate ventilation at the very least. So that's not, you know, I think we just need to be a little bit more disciplined and really understand what are going to be the financial needs, the physical needs of the property, even within the next three to five years. so that we can adequately plan for that. But yeah, I mean, certainly don't take it that I'm against making sure that it's not so uncomfortable for you or anybody else. Yeah.

So we'll work with you, Director Adams, to agendize at some point in the future a conversation about the future of Egbert. That would be great. Following your lead. For sure. Okay. And on this particular item, I think we are done with a very excellent staff report. Thank you for your thoroughness. And now we are looking for a commission comment, public comment? Yes. You're all set.

Thank you.

Once again, Evangela Brewster. I definitely think that the staff needs air conditioning as it gets hot, definitely in the summers, and if you need heat in the winter. So, yes. My question is... When it comes to, because it's a busy space and place. Every time I've gone, sometimes I haven't even been able to get into my meetings or whatever so swiftly. It is very busy. What does that look like as far as people trying to get help with housing? As far as when they're having meetings and things, how will it affect everybody getting the help that they need? Thank you.

OK, great. So thank you for the public comment. Anything else?

Yeah, there's no additional public comment on item 9B. We would ask for a motion for approval. OK, great.

So moved.

And a second.

Second.

Roll call vote. Commissioner Lai.

Aye.

Commissioner Alvarez. Aye. Commissioner Cancino. Aye. Commissioner Kim is absent. Commissioner Pikes. Aye. Commissioner Satili. Aye. President Shoemaker. Aye.

Aye. And then as this motion has been approved, I think just based on the question from the public, obviously you'll do your best to update the public in a proactive fashion if there'll be any disruption of service as it relates to the installation of either the elevator that we're going to hear next and the HVAC. So thank you for your comment.

Our final action item is 9C, the resolution approving and authorizing the acting executive director of the Housing Authority of the San Diego County of San Francisco to enter into an agreement with LC Builders Inc. for an initial three-year term with the option at the authority's discretion of two additional one-year option periods for a maximum term of five years in an amount not to exceed $867,000. $716 for elevator modernization services at the authority's administrative office at 1815 Eaglet Avenue, San Francisco, 94124. This is also presented by Karina Suarez.

Ms. Suarez, what a surprise to see you here.

I know. That just mocked me.

Thank you for coming.

Thank you for having me, commissioners, for the third and last procurement.

You're two for two, so don't, you know.

So this is also an IFB, an invitation for bid, and it was for the elevator modernization upgrade at the- Would you mind speaking into the mic? I'm sorry about that. So this is another IFB for the Summer School Housing Authority in regards to the elevator modernization upgrade of Egbert's building. And the authority's administration building located at 1815 Egbert is approximately 63 years old or so. And it experiences frequent services interruptions, outdated control systems, and higher maintenance costs. The elevator hasn't been updated for 63 years, just like the HVAC system. The recent inspections indicate that key components have reached the end of their useful life, and modernization is recommended to restore reliability, improve accessibility, and ensure current code compliance. The only upgrade that we have had in the last few years was an upgrade on the elevator door safety sensors, which were done about two to three years ago. And this project is funded through HUD capital funds program as well and We're requesting For the contractors with LC builders who also bid on this project as well To modernize the elevator system at the authorities administrators office for three year for a three-year contract at the discretion to extend if needed in the amount not to exceed of $867,716. And the scope of the service of the elevators is replacement of wiring door operators and safety circuits, updated emergency communication systems, cab interior upgrades, testing, inspection, and commissioning, and warranty coverage in a postmodernization service period.

Great.

So this also ran for about a month in regards to procurement rules. So we did issue the IFB in January 14, 2026. Pre-proposal conference and walkthrough, which about seven contractors and subcontractors walked the San Francisco Housing Authority on January 23, 2026. Questions, submittal deadline, January 30. Proposals, submittal response deadline, February 16th, we did have to extend this one around twice due to, sorry, we extended three times. Due to the holiday, there was a president's day holiday, a request for a potential contractor for more time, and due to technical issues with the marketplace, which is where people input their packet, and it wasn't functioning that day. So we did finally have a seminal extension deadline, which just passed February 27, 2026. And on March 2, we did a bid opening and reviewed the packets. The housing agency market notified 562 vendors. And of the 562 vendors, 18 viewed the IFB, and two contractors responded. And seven vendors attended the site walk on January 23, 2026. And advertisement was done at the SF Chronicle as well as Dodge Construction website. And the independent cost estimate for this one is about $800,000, based on the cost per square footage of a comparable project in the Bay Area region. which includes material expenses and labor costs. As you can see, there was two people who submitted their proposals, their bids. LC Builders was the lowest, and the second was SF Elevator Services, and so SF Builders, Inc. was determined to be the responsive and responsible lowest bidder, meeting all procurement requirements. And the project completion is expected within six months from notice to proceed. And contract includes three years of ongoing maintenance services after completion, same like the HVAC as well. Option to extend maintenance coverage for a total of five years. And so the authority will award an initial three-year contract to LC Builders, Inc. in the contract amount of $867,716. Board approval will be required to add additional funds if the authority elects to exercise optional periods at the end of the initial term.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

We'll find out. Minister's questions?

So LC Builders is also the vendor that was selected for HVAC. They did end up bidding for both, yes. And LC Builders would also be providing maintenance to the elevators for three years?

That is correct as well, yes.

And I'm assuming that part of the background was to also check that they're providing adequate maintenance on elevators at other locations directly?

Okay.

No? Nobody wants to know who's going to provide HVAC in the elevator? That's like the... Sorry. I had to... It's the only thing that occurred to me. All right. Public comment? Yes.

Yes. Any public comment? I was going to.

You were going to ask that? It was like a Venn diagram. I knew it was going to be LC. I just didn't know under what contract.

Evangela Brewster, for the record. My question then becomes, Commissioner, I appreciate you noticing that. My question becomes, with LC Builders, does anybody in Housing Authority have any connection to them in any way, shape, or form that they both had, they got both the bids? It's kind of... Interesting for me. And what I notice is a lot of things like that happen in District 10 and then jobs don't get done correctly. So I want to ask that question out loud on the record, but also to this body. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you.

If there's no additional public comments, we can open for a motion for approval.

Motion to approve.

And a second.

Second.

Thank you. Roll call vote. Commissioner Lai.

Aye.

Commissioner Alvarez. Aye. Commissioner Cancino. Aye. Commissioner Kim is absent. Commissioner Pikes. Aye. Commissioner Satili. Aye. And President Shoemaker. Aye. Thank you. That just leaves item number 10 for any additional commissioner's comment or report.

Any comments or things to say from commissioners? No, seeing none, I move to adjourn.

Thank you so much. The time is 4.03 PM. Thank you, everyone.

Thank you, staff, for the great presentations.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Ms. Suarez. Very thorough.