Housing Authority Board of Commissioners - Regular Meeting

COMMISSIONER'S REGULAR MEETING FOR JUNE 25, 2026. THE TIME IS 4.07 P.M. ITEM TWO IS ROLL CALL OF COMMISSIONERS. PRESIDENT DOUG SCHUMAKER IS ABSENT. VICE PRESIDENT CYNTHIA ALVAREZ.

PRESENT.

COMMISSIONER PIKES, MARIANNE PIKES.

PRESENT.

COMMISSIONER JUAN CARLOS CANCINO. PRESENT. COMMISSIONER LJUANA KIM. PRESENT. COMMISSIONER SHARON LIE. PRESENT. COMMISSIONER FALAFU DESITILI.

PRESENT.

ITEM THREE IS ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THE RAMATUSHA LONI 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, who are 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 peoples 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.

Item four is 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 start with the speaker cards. Margaret McNulty. You have two minutes for public comments.

Hi. Good afternoon. I'm Margaret McNulty from Resident Council Advisors. And you're going to be looking at the HUD annual plan today. I wanted to go on record saying, commending Zawadi and Karina and Kendra, everybody at the San Francisco Housing Authority, because they did such a great job and put a lot of work into it. Also, as a resident, I'm moved in and settled, so I'm taking on more business for resident council advisors. If you have any needs for any tenant association, PR, or organization, feel free to ask.

Thank you.

Next is Angel Rittenberg, if you'd like to come up.

ANGEL RITTENBERG, I'M AT A SAN FRANCISCO HOUSING AUTHORITY PROPERTY, AND I KIND OF NEED SOME HELP, ADVICE. WE NEED TO ELECT A TENANTS ASSOCIATION. OURS SEEMS TO HAVE ABANDONED US. AND WE DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO. WE'VE REACHED OUT TO Housing says, well, you should talk to tenant services at Mercy Housing. Mercy Housing says, well, you guys should talk to the people management. Management says we should talk to housing. So we're kind of like in this loop, and we don't really know where to turn. And I really don't want to lead the effort. I'm not trying to be the one to do it. I'm just trying to kind of get the ball rolling. I appreciate anything you guys could do to help us out.

Which property do you live in? 1760 Bush. We'll follow up.

Thank you so much.

Any additional general public comment?

Hi, my name is Sister Stephanie Hughes. I am a resident at Rosa Park Senior Housing. I'm the president of the tenant association there. I had served as the vice president of CCSD, and Michael passed away in April. So I have been acting president and voted as president since Michael's passing. We've just been trying to gather up all the information collectively, because when Michael passed a lot of CCSD paperwork, we were not able to retain from the property management and his computer and everything. So right now, we're just trying to talk with all the buildings. I've been working with Helen Hill so that we can get things straight, get the MOUs together, find out which buildings need elections, and work with PHTA. So we've been doing a lot of background work trying to recover a lot of things right now. And I know that I was supposed to bring in a confirmation letter of my appointment. However, I've had a bunch of meetings today, today's meeting day, and we weren't able to get that done by the end of our CCSD meeting today. So I guarantee I will have that end to you before the next meeting. OK, thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Any general public comments in the room or online? OK, we can close general public comment. Tenant five is the tenant representative report for CCS year PHTA. I know we just spoke with Stephanie, but we don't see any representatives here in person today. So we can open public comment on item five. Is there any public comment specifically regarding the tenant representative report? Then we can close with a comment. Item six is the acting executive director's report.

Just one last thing. I'm sorry to interrupt. I forgot to mention the button outside doesn't work for the doors. Just to let you know. Sorry.

Thank you.

With consent for commissioners, we were going to have item 6B go before 6A. So the acting executive director's general communications first and then the finance report. Great.

Great, thank you. I have typically wanted to provide an update on our emergency housing voucher transition plan, and so just wanted to continue that series of updates. As I've mentioned, we have previously There are still a number of unknowns in terms of the actual resources we'll have. We have yet to receive HUD's tenant protection voucher letter clarifying the distribution and access for that resource. So this is not uncommon in my short tenure at the Housing Authority to be waiting on pins and needles for direction from HUD, and it's true in this case as well. But as we discussed last time, in general we're in a more positive place than we had imagined perhaps a year ago that we would be. So we have just recently issued a notice to all the households, EHV households as well as service providers, emphasizing despite certain unknowns still, it's our intention to try and keep as many households as possible in their current residence. So to limit to the fullest extent possible the number of moves to a project-based voucher unit as we can. We are going to start, because we have some reserve capacity now and we've exited shortfall, we're going to start issuing tenant-based vouchers, HCV, Housing Choice Vouchers, to emergency housing voucher holders starting in August of this year with the intent to issue 390 of those vouchers by the end of the year. So as we look at our 860 plus emergency housing voucher households, we have a plan to attend to the needs of 390 of those households by December. And I want to emphasize that we are blessed in this city to have resources to extend the voucher payments for those folks who will be farther down the list to receive a Housing Choice Voucher. And we'll be going to the Board of Supervisors, the Homelessness Oversight Committee, and then the Board of Supervisors to get an MOU with the HSH, the Homelessness in Support of Housing Department, to receive funds under their transition reserve. And we'll be doing that through the course of August. And I think it will finalize immediately after recess. The important parts are we're still waiting for tenant protection voucher guidance from HUD. No one is at imminent risk of needing to move to either lose their voucher or to move to another unit. We have reserve capacity to attend to nearly half of our voucher holders. And we have, through Housing Choice Voucher, and we have a reserve to extend the voucher payments on the balance of those folks while we identify additional funding sources. So for folks who may be listening in or talking to folks, I just want those talking points to resonate. Anxiety that is legitimate and real, but we're taking care of you. I mean, there are unknowns, but we've got our immediate next steps covered. And as I say, this notice went out on Monday and Tuesday to all EHV holders. I did also want to follow up on a question from Commissioner Lai last time about the change in our payment standard from 120%, which was a standard which we were allowed, 120% of a fair market rent or FMR, which required a waiver for us, which expired, and then we are now down to a more typical 110% of FMRs. The impact on a per-unit type basis has been de minimis. And in part, that's because of just the ways in which the market shifted. So even though it's a percentage change, the market increased, and so the the actual dollar impact was quite small. For SROs and studios, it was actually an increase of $3. For one bedrooms, and this is on a per month basis, one bedroom payment standard went down by 62. Two-bedroom down by $17. Three-bedroom up by $99. Four-bedrooms down by $29. Five-bedrooms down by $34. And for those folks who are in a six-bedroom unit, that was reduced by just $39. So I think this is... As I may have mentioned last time, we're very sensitive to the operating income of our project-based voucher portfolio. On the Mayor's Office of Housing side, we have made efforts to change our policies to allow properties to keep more of their cash flow and to cross-subsidize between cash. So it's been really helpful to be able to talk across Housing Authority to the Mayor's Office of Housing and back. We think these reductions are reductions that properties can handle and we would no longer be eligible for the same waiver to increase the payment that the criteria that we were applied previously we would not fall under. So we would intend to keep the same payment standard moving forward. In actual numbers, the rents should increase next year. And I think Those are my two updates. Thank you.

Can I go ahead and provide just some reflections on this? I mean, I just want to really commend the hard work that the Housing Authority has done to make sure that those folks that were so incredibly vulnerable were facing a bit of respite. So really appreciate that. It is something to feel really good about. So thank you for all that was done on it to the staff. I have a question just related to the PBVs. I'm glad that some of the rents kind of stayed somewhat flat but even I think you mentioned $62 decrease for the one bedrooms. I'm just curious as to the distribution and those decreases and even somewhat of a flat amount even though they didn't go down, it is still pretty significant to folks that are operating these units. I just maybe just wanted to put that out there as something for us to be thinking about the impact that it nonetheless will have on various organizations whose expenses continue to go up.

No, it's a great point. I just want to assert again the project-based voucher portfolio comes under also the compliance and asset management oversight of the Mayor's Office of Housing and Community Development. The projects that we fund across our portfolio citywide are running in the red. So this is a real problem. This is not at all exclusively related to the payment standards, but insurance costs, operating expenses, one of the items that we're hyperfocused on is vacancies. So if you have a vacant unit, you're not getting paid on that unit. So we're meeting weekly to address vacancies. So we're trying to provide all the supports. to ensure ongoing cash flow. And so you'll be hearing updates from us over the months to come about our efforts to improve our referral to payment continuum so that we're really providing as much support as we can to our owners in order that they stay solvent. And again, that's across both Housing Authority and the Mayor's Office of Housing.

It is truly an ecosystem. So thank you. Yeah.

If there's no additional commissioner's comment, we can go to item 6A. Yes.

Thank you for that. I'm just curious how as you move forward to Encourage other city departments including HSH and the I think you mentioned also the Homelessness Oversight Committee, how can we as a board provide staff of support to continue to share our support? I'm assuming others here are supportive of that direction, because it's really exciting to know that there is actually funding at HSH to be able to help bridge this emergency situation. And if I remember correctly, I think you said that you may be bringing this to them after the August break. So perhaps if there is something that we can put in writing as a board to demonstrate our support in the July meeting, perhaps that might be something we can do.

Certainly. I will be at the Homelessness Oversight Board, and so I can certainly convey that message. And I think we're all rowing in the same direction. We've been meeting. This is as much a testament to HSH's efforts as it is to our staff efforts. HSH holds the services contracts with the service providers who are providing services to the emergency housing voucher holders. So I appreciate that sentiment, happy to carry that message either in written or verbal form, and I can assure you that the sentiment is shared across agencies now. It's really been a great coordinating effort. So I expect only positive reactions and more questions about how we are implementing this than anything else. But thank you for that offer.

I'm curious, and you may not sort of have a ready answer, but in terms of the, you know, reserves that are available to extend sort of the remainder of the EHVs, do you know how much sort of runway, you know, the reserves give you? Because it sounded like the question out there on sort of people's minds might be, you know, if they're worrying, Like, when is the funding up? When, you know.

Well, it's a... We've got a good runway. I actually don't have the answer right now. So in the previous budget that passed a year ago, for this year, there were $27 million set aside for a reserve to assist an emergency housing voucher transition. In this year's budget, there's proposed additional funding to backstop against federal threats That includes the potential for additional funds to flow to the Emergency Housing Voucher Reserve, as well as to address changes in the Continuum of Care Program, a movement from permanent supportive housing to transitional housing. I'm not in all of those machinations about how much money would go to X versus Y, but it does mean that there's likely... should we need it, even more funding available than the reserve. And as we move folks into the Housing Choice Voucher Program, it obviously reduces our carry from month to month. Our initial read of next year's budget, which is, of course, not passed yet, is that we'll still be on the plus side. So even without tenant protection vouchers, we're hopeful to have reserves to allow us to continue to issue housing choice voucher housing choice vouchers for this population without needing those tenant protection vouchers. So again, I'm knocking on wood. Thankfully, we have beautiful hardwood here to knock on. I don't have to knock on my own head. It's hard to predict the future. We've seen crazy things happen over the last few years that I never imagined would happen in our country. The trend lines are really positive. And so there's really no imminent need to contemplate actual moves. What I can't say is that after exhausting resources and all the things that no one will have to move. I'm not ready to make that statement in public or private right now. But we are doing everything we can to make it possible for everyone who wants to stay where they're living now To stay where they're living now. It doesn't preclude there could be somebody who might who might wish to move into a project-based voucher unit So that would be an available option for that likely minority of households, but we're in pretty good shape Yeah, thank you Thank you so much I have a question too when you're talking about the base of voucher and for all these

Bedroom, two, three, four, five. Is that based on their income in the family or what?

Great question. What I'm talking about is the payment that comes from the housing authority to the landlord or the owner of the property. But the tenant portion wouldn't change. That would always be calculated on 30% of the income. So there would be no adjustment, either additional payment required or reduction in the payment of the tenant. So that is held constant, and there's no change on that front.

Thank you so much. I think my other question is, if there is a lot of family for like four bedroom, five bedroom, and they all work, are they qualified for the base voucher, stuff like that? What is the max income for that?

That's likely a question we should, if you want to, it's probably too specific for me to answer right now, but if there's a certain family or family type that you want to consult, we can consult with staff and get that to you outside of chambers. Happy to follow up. Thank you so much.

I think one great thing also about the Housing Authority's website is that it actually provides some information also so that it's accessible to folks, yeah. So, yeah.

Okay.

Next would be item 6B for the finance report. SFGov TV, we do have slides for this presentation that will be presented by Roy Lobo, the housing authority's principal planning analyst.

Just maybe real quick before Roy, sorry. But we generally want to provide just quarterly updates on our budget, and this is one of them. And so we've had some, I don't want to steal Roy's thunder here, but for a while we didn't know, there was a period when I first started that we thought we were going to be in, you know, $40 to $50 million shortfall, we're in a situation where we can issue vouchers out of our reserve. And we're out of that shortfall. So good news. I'll let Roy go through the details. But this is a helpful budget summary for you all.

Actually, I was going to say that concludes my presentation. Anyways.

We'll actually let Doug know that all of this happened while he wasn't here.

Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is Roy Lobo. Thank you, Bennett. Finance Department of the San Francisco Housing Authority. Today I'll just update you on the 2026 budget for the Housing Authority. So if you can go to the first slide. Next slide. Yeah, so this just gives you a quick overview. These are all the various programs we run at the authority. And what it also serves is we administer to these households. And you can see the numbers by each program. Just to give you some context, because this is just a snapshot in time, right? Back in 2020, we served about 12,900 households. So we've seen pretty good growth over the years, almost 30%, or on average, about 5%. per year. And so we've been able to use our leasing to increase the number of households we serve. Next slide, please. And this is the different revenue streams that we have as a housing authority. And so we have, obviously, the housing assistance payments. And these are, like Dan talked about, this is the monthly rent that we give over to the landlord. And we can use these reserves that we get through the housing assistance payments to, in fact, issue more vouchers to increase our leasing that we have. The next subsidy we get is the admin fee subsidy. And the admin fee subsidy really helps us run the operations of each program. We do have access also in these individual programs. And we're able to use the success. We've done so in the past to help new voucher holders with application fees, with security deposit, with household items they may have to continue in that. And then we also use our excess reserve, which are unrestricted funds, to help our current tenants with a turkey drive, a toy drive, a backpack giveaway. And the third subsidy that we get is capital fund grants. And the capital fund grants is mainly used for the modernization of public housing and owning public housing. So think Plaza East. Next slide, please. And so this is one down. OK. I guess there's a slide missing.

OK. Sorry, one down again.

Sorry, one. One more.

One more.

All right. Let's just go with going to the BIDARE outlook and risk. Yeah, the next slide after that, please. So this will just give you, this will compare what we got in 2025 for HAP payment for HCV and mainstream. And what you'll see over here, we've seen a 4% increase in calendar year 2026. into the revenue. And the increase was mainly based on those two bullet points. We got an inflation factor of 5% and then a proliferation below that. Next slide, please. And so what this gives you out of that HAP revenue of $471 million, we then forecast how much our expenses. And these expenses that we are forecasting today is about $463 million. So let me go through what the details of these expenses are. A good portion of it is to currently pay for the households, those 16,000 households that I indicated about. We'll spend the majority of the money on that, about $456 million on that. In addition, that's also included in these HAP expenses is the filling of the RAD and PPV vacancies, project-based vouchers that Dan just spoke about, and also the conversion of our EHV vouchers to our HCV vouchers, the 390 number that Dan spoke of. Those are all built into that 463 expenses. On top of that, once we're done with all that spending, we'll still have a reserve of about $7.5 million. And it's always good to keep a reserve. We want to make sure we don't go into shortfall next year. We also have statutory rent increases for RAD and PBB sites, approximately about 5%. But we always want to keep a reserve. in the account. Now, that reserve represents about 1.5%. HUD's best practice is to have 4% of revenue. But we'd rather spend the money on converting, obviously, and filling the vacancies. My next slide is on the EA.

I'm sorry, if I can just interject. Please. You said the best practice or the recommended amount.

Is about 4% of revenues. So off the $471 million, about 4% of that you normally keep. HUD would like to see it in reserves, and they make sure that when you have that, they don't recapture that money.

Right. And so you're lowering it to?

We're lowering it to about 1.5%. Again, the goal is to get as many EHV vouchers converted over to HCV. Okay, thank you. And this is the slide on the emergency housing vouchers. I think Dan eloquently covered all the bullet points. We did submit for the shortfall funding request for about seven million. We do anticipate approval of that shortfall. We just don't know when we'll get it. And then having covering the app side, this is the operating budget side. We can go through the individual programs, but I just wanted to take a snapshot of all the programs. And what this is really showing, this is just the year-end budget, right? What this is saying is what are my revenues and my forecast and my approved budget minus my expenses. That's my net position. And I just wanted to show you across almost every program, we're in a good position. We're in a positive net position. Hope VI, again, this is related to Plaza East. The subsidy that we get from HUD is not able to cover the expenses that we have for that site. We monitor the expenses very closely. We monitor the budget for Plaza East very closely. And we understand the, you know, unanticipated expenses that come up during the year. Higher utility costs. You know, a great deal of on security. So I think a lot of those expenses come up unaccounted for. And so we take money out of our reserves to pay for that. Right. The public housing fund I just want to cover is the reason we saw an approved budget of minus $1.5 million. This was basically to cover the pension withdrawal liability. We pay on average about $1.9 million a year. The total pension withdrawal liability I think today stands at about $10 million. and we'll use the operating subsidies. And this year, we were actually pleasantly pleased with an additional $1 million that HUD gave us on the public housing site for subsidy. These are asset repositioning fees that take place when you convert a public housing site, like we did for Potoro and Sunnydale, over to HCVA, and they'll give us that fund for three years. That's the extra million dollars that we got this year. And so we can go through the individual programs. I don't think we need to, but I'll leave it up to you guys at a high level.

I need a little help orienting myself to this chart here. Could you go over, is this the, so this is the year-end budget that you are forecasting at closure?

September 30th, 2026.

September 2026. Okay, that's our fiscal year. That's our fiscal year. Okay, got it.

And so, if I can, what we've done is we've taken eight months of actual, as of May 30th, We've taken eight months of actuals, we've seen those expenses, and we've trended them out for the remainder of the year, either be it on revenue or on the expenses side, and that's our forecast.

Got it. Thank you. And then the approved is what this board has approved?

Approved back in September.

Got it.

Back in September when we went through all those machinations of whether the Senate bill, whether the House bill were passed, and then what was our best forecast at that point.

Got it, before my time, but catching up. And then I have to maybe just go back a couple of slides. I know that in one of the prior financial updates you provided, I think you shared that there is a small number of vouchers where we export to other jurisdictions.

Poured out and poured in.

Yes. And how should I be understanding how that fits into just the general distribution of the, I'm particularly looking at the programs. trying to understand how the exports work and then do we actually have and maybe this is a programmatic question for Director Adams, but do we have formal agreements with with particular jurisdictions?

I think Mamadou could speak to this. I think we have good news. I mean, I think in most cases, those vouchers will be absorbed into the programs in the receiving entities. So if not, we would need to budget them into our budget. But Mamadou, you can provide an update.

Yeah, so good afternoon, commissioners. So the port-outs are part of SFHA portfolio. Those are the virtual participants that opted to move out of San Francisco. So the port-out are part of discount, the $16,000, because we still get funding from HUD. And the receiving PHA is billing us for what they pay to the landlord. So port-out is still part of our portfolio. Port-in is going to be from the other PHA. So the port-in, I just, you know, let's say Oakland participant have a Oakland voucher, but they decide to move to the city. So they're still part of the Oakland Housing Authority sort of portfolio. So this will include only the port-out.

I was speaking to particularly emergency housing vouchers that had ported out. And so because that program is ending, there's a little bit of a different dynamic.

And specifically for the EHV, so we've been in conversation with all the PHA because almost 70% of our port out are within the Bay Area. So we have around 80 port out EHV that are ported out to the neighborhood, the Oakland, San Mateo, and Alameda. Most of those three hold most of our port out for EHB. So the plan, those PHA, because they are mostly MTW, they are planning to absorb those vouchers. So they're going to be off our portfolio. They're going to absorb them into their program. So we don't have to worry about the transition. So it's going to be, yes, helping us at this point.

And in total, they equate pretty much the same. We have about 99 port outs and about 77 port ins across all programs. So the number isn't that much different when we are seeing a majority on one. And then again, like I said, I think that'll be my last slide. We have the individual programs, if you guys want me to go through them.

Why don't you just very quickly, very, very quickly, right? I mean, I think you've been speaking to us about it, but just...

And the individual programs are listed on that summary, so we can do a quick review. But I defer to the commissioners, of course.

Let's just very quickly, and I appreciate that, just e-housing choice vouchers, et cetera.

No worries. And we'll go through the biggest ones, right? Certainly on the housing choice voucher front, you can see over here, and let's just concentrate on those very last columns, which is the year-end budget. because at this point that's what's more important. You can see over here we are forecasting really about $2.5 million excess in revenue. The other $2 million that you're seeing over there in other revenues is that port-in revenue that we just talked about. That's offset by about $1.9 million in port-in expenses. So it's a wash at the end of the day. And again, the reason for that excess revenue on the admin subsidy side was earlier in the year, we got some true ups from HUD as to the number of households that we have. And so really, that's what that is. It's very hard to predict that. It certainly doesn't match the formula we have. The management fee expense will be higher as you have more revenues. A percentage of that goes to management fee expense, which gets captured in COCC. So again, it's a wash, right? As far as on the administrative side of the expenses, the majority of those expenses is really the $1.9 million that I talked about in the port end expenses. And the offset to that is really for our contractors. We pay our contractors out of these HCV programs. Since there's been little issuance of vouchers, little activity on that front, now that will increase as we begin to issue more vouchers. The next big program is the Central Office Cost Center. And this is really all the back office operations. The legal expenses come out of here. Majority of the IT expenses come out of here. Again, that increase in revenue is that increase you saw on the HCV revenue side where that management fee expense gets deposited into COCC. So it's an expense in each program, but it's a revenue in the central office cost center. The other revenue being down $4 million, that was really In the past couple of years, we've got roughly about $2 million, $1.8 million from North Beach. I think this year, the amount of money we got was only about $1.4 million from North Beach. It's highly dependent on the excess income that the property generates. So we can only predict on what we got in the past and extrapolate from there. But we can't predict the economy into next year or anything like that. On the administrative expenses, the positive variance over there is tied to two things. One is a conversion, as you've heard about DT coming over that this commission approved. And so we've seen a reduction in the IT expenses we've incurred. The other reduction is we had initially budgeted for the executive payroll to be paid, and that won't occur until the July time frame. Next slide, please. On the emergency housing voucher, again, very small, not much activity in this program. The savings in administrative expenses is obviously there's no activity. the emergency housing voucher so there's limited expenses for that program hope six this is really the majority of this is the majority in this program is plaza east and we've we've talked about this uh we actually are getting lower revenue from hud for this program we started off the fiscal year which started in october at about 189 000 a month In January, that dropped to $154,000. Today, we're getting about $147,000. $147,000. So while our expenses are going up, the revenues that we're getting from HUD is going down. And this is why you see the loss that we have to cover out of our unrestricted fund for that very reason.

So it's roughly about a 25% decrease from the beginning.

From where we started, right? And we know that's probably going to be for the remainder of the year, which is what we have forecasted. Right. Next slide, please. On the public housing, this is really the properties we just talked about where we were getting the asset repositioning fee for converting the public housing over to HCV. Like I said, our revenue initially, and this is why the approved budget was only $347,000. But if you can take a look at the revenue today, we are forecasting about $1.3 million. this helps us tremendously offset that pension withdrawal liability of 1.9 million right we'll also use the reserves that we've invested and the portfolio that we've invested into to help offset these some of these expenses okay The latter two programs, the mainstream, very sporadic in expenses. There's not a lot of activity in here. We have about 91% utilization in this program. The expenses are really just allocation of expenses to the program. Same with the last one, mod rehab. We have about 86 units, 100% utilization. This is the SRO. This is the Senator Hotel on Ellis Street. It was supposed to be converted. Not sure when it's going to be. Sorry for the quick run through. Questions? Thank you.

Thank you for so clearly presenting this information to us. Really appreciate it. Thank you. And congratulations again, in some ways, yes.

Is there any public comment for item 6? Closing public comment. Item 7 is the consent agenda. We just have the meeting minutes from our last meeting on May 28th. Would commissioners like to pull this item for further discussion? Great. We can ask for public comment on item 7. Not seeing any, then we just need a motion for approval.

So moved.

Any second?

Second.

Roll call vote. Commissioner Pikes. Aye. Commissioner Cancino. Aye. Commissioner Kim.

I wasn't here, so I abstain.

Sure. Yep. Commissioner Lai. Aye. Commissioner Satili. Aye. Vice President Alvarez.

Abstaining. I was not here.

Great. And President Shoemaker is absent. Item 8 is regular business action items. Item 8A is the resolution approving and authorizing the selection of Burbank Housing Development Corporation as the developer for the Plaza East Housing Development under the terms of the housing authority of the city and county of San Francisco's request for qualifications on behalf of Plaza East Association's LP to commence negotiating an exclusive negotiating rights agreement with Burbank Housing on behalf of the partnership for the re-syndication, redevelopment, and transfer of ownership of the Plaza East Housing Development. And this will be presented by Karina Suarez, our procurement analyst.

Good afternoon commissioners Karina Suarez procurement analyst at the San Francisco Housing Authority I'm here to present the request for qualifications the authority conducted on behalf of the Plaza East Associates LP The scope of the services of this RFQ is the authority on behalf of the Plaza East Associates PEA sought to select a redevelopment partner through the request for qualifications based solely on the qualifications, experience, capacity, passive performance of the development team on comparable affordable housing projects. Following selection, the authority expects to negotiate with the highest-ranking developer partner regarding the development approach, financing structure, developer fee, resident engagement commitments, and Section 3 obligations. On behalf of the PEA, the authority seeks to rehabilitate or redevelop, capitalize, and operate the development in a manner that preserves its physical and financial viability for at least 20 years, consistent with RAD requirements. A little bit of background on the Plaza East housing development is a 193-unit apartment complex developed by the owner, Plaza Associates LP, on authority property through a HOPE VI implementation grant and low-income housing tax credit. From the time of the construction from March of 2018, the partnership consisted of two general partners, MBA Urban Development Company, Mudco, and an affiliate of McCormick Barron Salazar as a developer general partner, and Plus East Housing Corporation, also known as PHC. An affiliate of the authority as the managing general partner with a 0.1% interest in the partnership. And there were also two limited partners, Sun America Housing Fund 893 as an investor limited partner with 98.99% interest in the partnership, and SLP Housing. In 2018, at the end of the low-income housing tax credit compliance period, the investors withdrew from the partnership. And with no other entity requesting to be admitted as limited partnership, we were replaced with the PEHC on an interim basis to prevent the limited partnership from dissolving until the development could be refinanced with a new low-income tax credit housing investor. On January 17, 2024, HUD issued an award letter and commitment to enter into housing assistance payment contract for the site to move forward with the conversion. However, on September 18, 2024, Mudco formally submitted a written request to the authority to withdraw its interest from partnership. The authority's board of commission approved the withdrawal of Mudco from the partnership and the substitution of the authority's affiliate, SFHA Housing Corporation, as a substitute developer partner through resolution number 0027-25 on September 25, 2025. HUD approved Mudco's request on February 21, 2025. The Plaza East Associates' goal is to convert the site's 193 units from public housing to rental assistance demonstration RAD project base vouchers units. Transfer of ownership management through a new limited partnership structure with an investor limited partner secure financing, including LAHTC, and additional private sources entered in new group lease, residual receipt payments to the authority, preserve the site as a sustainable long-term affordable housing asset, and minimize resident disruption during redevelopment, and ensure the right of the residents to return following relocation. Next slide. As you can see on the screen, on the PowerPoint, this is the chronology of the RFQ. These are the dates that we went through. As you can see, it did take longer than a month. Next slide. The authority did an evaluation, and the results of the RFQ was the authority on behalf of the partnership conducted a procurement for a request for qualifications for the redevelopment and transfer of ownership of the Plaza East housing development pursuant to HUD procedure standards. The authority received two proposals from developers. After opening the response on May 18, 2026, a review of submissions was conducted to determine responsiveness and responsibility for the RFQ, and Burbank Housing was deemed responsible Deemed responsive and responsible and was forwarded to a five-person evaluation panel where they reviewed the developer's proposal and ranked the submission, identifying a score above 70 to continue to an interview. On June 15, 2026, the panel participated in an interview with Burbank Housing and scored according to the interview factors in the RFQ. Burbank Housing was determined to be a top-ranking respondent. The scores shown on this slide are the averages from the written part of the evaluation and the interview. Next slide. The authority staff recommends that the board of commissioners approve Burbank Housing as a developer and authorize the acting executive director to commence negotiating an exclusive negotiating rights agreement, NRA, with Burbank Housing for the re-syndication, redevelopment, transfer of ownership of the Plaza East Housing redevelopment subject to the approval of HUD. Thank you. Are there any questions?

I just have a quick question. What is the anticipated developer fee that this work will generate? Do we know?

I don't know. It would be likely meet the city's developer fee guidelines unless HUD provides any additional guidance or requirements on it.

So it's just going to be a straight RAD conversion, not like layered with tax credits?

It'll include tax credits. That's right. So it should match then our... We at MOCD has recently aligned its developer fee policy with tax credit fee policy. So that would likely be the fee policy applied in this case. But we don't have detailed pro formas at this stage. This was an RFQ process. And so that'll be part of the due diligence during the negotiating period.

Could you share a little bit about the financial performance of this property and just very basic, like, have we been losing money on it? Is it cash flow? Sure. What does this look like? And then I think the intention of this is not just for the rehab, but it's also transferring permanent ownership, right? And then if you can speak a little bit to that ownership structure, meaning are we remaining as a landowner and just transferring the ownership of the buildings, and are we keeping a I don't know, 1% interest or what does that look like? Thank you.

I'll address the financial question first. So this is, Roy just went through the HOPSIC slide. Plaza is part of the HOPSIC slide. So this is why it's a public housing property. So there you see public operating subject from HUD. It's been... This is 25% lower than what we were expecting. So this is a site that's been, it's not cash flowing. They've been in deficit for years. So we've been, for the past three, four years, we've been providing additional funding because of the operating costs. One example was the insurance costs went up almost from $200,000 to $800,000. So SSHA had to provide annually some $600,000 just to cover the difference. So this is going to be, by converting from public housing to RAT, RAT will provide some additional subsidy that will help cash flow.

And to the ownership question, so you're very right. I mean, I'm really excited to move this project forward. This is a property that needs an infusion of capital. And I think Burbank is going to do an excellent job. They've become really experienced and excited to have a footprint in San Francisco, but excited for them to expand their participation in our in our city. Yes, you're exactly right, Commissioner Lai. This includes both a substantial rehab and a transfer of ownership. It is that transfer of ownership that unlocks the RAD subsidy. And so this is consistent with a conversion from traditional public housing voucher-supported, nonprofit-owned housing that the city has been engaged in over the last decade or more. So this will just add to that portfolio. The Housing Authority will retain ownership of the land. And so the ownership of the improvements will be Burbank or an affiliate of Burbank. We will own the land. We'll receive ground lease payments as part of our ownership structure. And we'll share in... what are called the residual receipts of the property. So that'll be the structure. It's sort of the common structure across, again, San Francisco's affordable housing portfolio. And as I say, over the last, since 2013 or so, we've been in a process of moving out of traditional public housing into this structure. But I want to assure the subsidies, again, Folks will pay the same rent under this new ownership structure. They'll have the same rights. And the housing authority's role will shift. We'll no longer be a direct owner, but we'll still be an asset manager and an oversight agency to ensure compliance with HUD regulations. And we'll be the subsidy provider through the course of its lifespan.

So through the chair, meaning we're not intending to be a JV owner of the actual property. So meaning we won't get a split from the developer fee in the rescindication, which is fine. Just clarifying.

Currently, that's not contemplated.

And then I believe Plaza East is the property that currently is managed by Bell Properties. Is that correct? Are we anticipating property management changes? I'm not familiar with whether or not Burbank does their own property management.

Their proposal included shifting to their own property management, I believe.

Okay.

Yes, that's correct, which is common for folks to have in-house property management. I will say we've been very pleased with Bell Properties, and so they've been great partners, and... Would love to see them partner and have been making connections with other developers through the city so that they might have other opportunities. They'll remain, of course, on at Potrero and Sunnydale through the course of that transition to nonprofit ownership. But again, want to really affirm their great work to date.

Thank you.

Thanks, Chair. I mean, just one thing. clarification in my mind, right, is and I understand the housing authority is not in the business of developing, right, or even directly really doing a rehab of the sites. But it doesn't mean that it potentially couldn't shift into that and still play a role in the work that it's doing as it looks to get other developers in.

I could not agree more. And so I think, you know, our When we think long-term, I think there's great potential for the housing authority to fully exploit and take advantage of the tools that it has and which other housing authorities across the country are able to deploy. We have generally not been in a situation where we've been able to fully deploy. take advantage of those and so I think following this period of really stabilizing the overall economics of the Housing Authority and and making continuing to make the process improvements that were engaged in thinking strategically and creatively about deploying our our nonprofit to engage in more development activities I think is definitely on the table

And I just wanted to say that one way of trying to do that within the tax credit requirements is to be named as a joint, even if it's minority, et cetera, just that it starts getting those points, if that's the way that we're thinking.

Happy to look at that for this deal moving forward. That's a great suggestion.

We have nothing to lose, really, if you will. And it's just in case to give the housing authority a little bit more options.

Great. We'll definitely review that. Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other comments from commissioners? I have one question.

You mentioned that Burbank is operating elsewhere in the city. This is sort of an expansion of its portfolio, or did I mishear that?

No, you're correct. I won't be able to quote chapter and verse, but they are a property manager for some limited equity co-ops in the city. And I believe they have a property. Mamadi, do you remember?

East Bay, Oakland, because they're based in Sonoma County, like up north.

Yes, they're primarily a North Bay owner-operator. They've been doing a big RAD conversion similar to this in Marin, and they have property management responsibilities. Thanks.

Okay.

I think we're ready for public comments. Is there any public comments? Not seeing any, then we can ask for a motion for approval for item 8A.

So moved. Second.

Roll call vote. Commissioner Pikes. Aye. Commissioner Cancino. Aye. Commissioner Kim. Aye. Commissioner Lai.

Aye.

Commissioner Satili.

Aye.

Vice President Alvarez.

Aye.

President Shoemaker is absent. So moved. Thank you. Item 8B. This is the resolution approving and authorizing the acting executive director of the housing authority of the city and county of San Francisco to submit to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development the authority's ANNUAL PLAN AS MANDATED BY SECTION 511 OF THE EQUALITY HOUSING AND WORK RESPONSIBILITY ACT OF 1998 FOR THE 2027 FISCAL YEAR. AND THIS WILL BE PRESENTED BY OUR PROJECT ADMINISTRATOR. WE DO HAVE PRESENTATION SLIDES FOR THIS AS WELL. THANK YOU.

HELLO, COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS AND YES, I'M GOING TO PRESENT THE SYNOPSIS OF THE ANNUAL PLAN. HERE WE GO. OK, so what action is the board being asked to take today? We just want to lay it out there for you. So we are asking you to approve the 2026 fiscal year 2027 annual PHA agency plan, the revisions to the HCV administrative plan, revisions to the admissions and continued occupancy policy, and then ultimately authorizing us to submit all of this to HUD. And today, actually, we are also going to ask for approval of a revision of the title for the resolution for the title to actually end up stating, resolution approving and authorizing the acting executive director of the Housing Authority of the City and County of San Francisco to submit to the US Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD, the authority's five-year action plan update annual plan and capital grant fund as mandated by section 511 of the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998 for the 2027 fiscal year. So the agency plan does already include the five-year capital action plan. Those are the two HUD financial documents that were a part of the attached packet. And the five-year update is also in the agency plan, which I believe is attachment one of your packet. So that's just including those in the title. The next slide. What is the PHA agency planning? For those of you, many of you are new to the board, so this should be your first year doing this process with us. So Section 511 of the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998 mandates that all public housing agencies have to submit a public housing agency plan 75 days before the end of their fiscal year. So our fiscal year ends on September 30th of 2026. So you would either, during a planning process, you might be in a five-year process or an annual plan process. This year is an annual plan. Next year, when someone goes before you to do this, it will be the five-year plan. Whichever one we're doing, whichever year that you fall in, what the purpose of the plan is to provide a ready source for interested parties to locate basic authority policies, rules, any operational or programmatic updates or revisions. And it also informs HUD, who has to make sure that all of the public housing agencies are doing what they're supposed to be doing and spending the money the way they're supposed to be spending it. So they look at these plans just to understand where we're going in the future and how we're making progress toward our five-year goals that we've presented and get approved by HUD. Next slide talks about the public participation process that this plan goes through. So the agency plan process requires a minimum 45-day public comment period. This year's annual plan elements were posted to the authority's website on May 5, 2026, which marked the start of the public comment period. The comment period was scheduled to end on June 19th. However, due to an error on the authority's website where the HCV plan did not post a marked up version, it looked like just a clean version, we did add an additional five days to the comment period. So the comment period actually ended yesterday. But in addition to the public comment period, which entails anyone from the public just emails me any of their comments. But in addition to that, we also held six meetings this year. So we met with the Resident Advisory Board. We met with stakeholders, which were legal aid advocates, city departments, developers, property managers, resident services. And then we had three public meetings where anybody can show up to those, where we just go through any substantive changes that are being made to the plan so that people can understand the impacts and then give us any feedback to the plan changes. This next slide gives just a quick overview of the base policies that inform our policy documents. So primarily, the implementing policies that we follow are in the Code of Federal Regulations under Title 24. So parts 5, 8, and 100 apply across programs, public housing, or Section 8. And then part 982 governs the tenant-based voucher side, the tenant-based assistance. 983 governs project-based assistance. And then 960 governs the public housing program. And then in addition to that, our policies are also informed by HUD PIH notices, the HUD guidebook to the policies, and things of that nature. So the next slide covers some of the primary reasons why we might update our policy. So we are looking at it every year. And you're wondering, OK, well, what are you changing year over year? So we might be updating it just to check for any, do we need to update any regulatory references that we've made? Have the regulations changed? A lot of sections in the policy, we almost literally restate in the policy what the CFR says. So if the CFR did change, then it might be outdated. That language might be outdated. So then we would update the citation as well as the language to align the policy across the whole document. A lot of times when you're doing this process, you might focus in piecemeal on different things that you're changing and then One year, we might look at it as a whole, and it's like, does this flow? Does this make sense? So then we might make changes just to make sure that it all cohesively looks right throughout the document. To reduce redundancy throughout the policy, because that can definitely cause some confusion. And our goal is always to make sure the policies are applied consistently. So we don't need one person making one interpretation or another. So these are the sorts of things that we're looking at every year when we review the policy. OK. This is the five-year progress update. The last five-year plan that was submitted by the authority and approved by HUD was submitted in 2021, covering the agency's goals for fiscal years 2022 through 2027. The authority has made the following progress toward accomplishing those five-year goals. So next slide. The first goal was to expand the supply of assisted housing. And the authority did increase the supply of assisted housing by 30%, expanding from 12,831 units in fiscal year 2021 to 16,688 units in fiscal year 2025. This growth was driven by disciplined financial management and strategic use of HUD's two-year tool, as Roy presented. THE AUTHORITY ALSO EXPANDED ITS PROJECT-BASED VOUCHER PORTFOLIO FROM 7,651 UNITS IN 2021 TO 9,972 UNITS, EXECUTING NEW PBV HAP CONTRACTS IN HIGH OPPORTUNITY AREAS, THEREBY INCREASING BOTH OVERALL UNIT AVAILABILITY AND ACCESS TO NEIGHBORHOODS WITH GREATER ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY. The second goal was to improve the quality of assisted housing. In the last five years, the authority has transitioned from a direct service provider to a high-performing contract management and monitoring organization. So we don't do the direct service the way we used to when the housing authority was the you know, property managers on site and all that. So now we are definitely monitoring the overall progress of third party property management, third party administrators of the program within our building, and things of that nature. And we are monitored by HUD through the CMAP process. And so we have advanced from being troubled at one point And now in 2025, we do have the high performer distinction for CMAP. And then also, we are moving toward a 100% electronic tenant files. So we do anticipate that we'll be finished with that particular electronic document management system by the end of fiscal year 2027. And that has definitely enhanced access to client records and decreased the time to lease from 160 days to 100 days. So all of these forward-moving processes, we've got the kiosks in the lobby. So we are definitely doing things to increase the speed of the service provided to residents and just overall administrative ease, if you will. Goal three, increase assisted housing choices. The authority conducted ongoing outreach to recruit and retain Housing Choice Voucher landlords with a focus on expanding participation in high opportunity neighborhoods. These efforts were paired with regular evaluation and adjustment of voucher payment standards within HUD approved limits to improve voucher competitiveness in the local rental market and to increase leasing success rates. So the number of sites that the authority had under PBV HAP contract was 179 in fiscal year 2021 versus 229 in fiscal year 2025. And the number of landlords has increased by 12% since 2021 as well. So we've got more landlords participating in the program, which we love to see. Fourth goal was to provide an improved living environment. When we were direct providers, we had very strong assistance from the police departments. They had police on location to help. So it's been a little bit of a transition between police budget cuts and things of this nature where we don't have the same level of assistance there. But we have tried to figure out, without us having direct ownership or control over a lot of these sites anymore that we served, how can we still improve the living environment of the residents of the sites And some policy revisions that we have done that have reflected these shifts are revisions to emphasize enforcement of housing quality standards with our improved inspection standards. We have increased the... life of a past inspection rate. That's something that can sometimes hold up. The ability of a landlord to lease up their unit has to pass inspection. But the inspection validity period was short. So we've increased it to 120 days. The inspection is still good so long as no one has lived in there in the interim between when the inspection is good so they can lease up quicker and things of this nature. So we are... Always just trying to find ways to make the process as smooth and seamless as possible while still maintaining high standards. And then the last goal was to promote self-sufficiency and asset development. The authority has made measurable progress in advancing economic self-sufficiency and home ownership among assisted households through targeted initiatives and strategic partnerships with city departments and nonprofits that provide resources and services under the Family Self-Sufficiency Program. Participation within that program has increased from 75 households in fiscal year 2021 to 170 households in fiscal year 2025, with the participating families collectively accruing $720,938 in escrow savings. 15 households successfully completed the FSS program with a subset achieving key milestones such as increased earned income and were applicable transition to home ownership. They set their own goals for the program. To further strengthen service capacity, the authority pursued external funding opportunities and did secure $676,000 in HUD grant funding for the FSS program, supporting the expansion of the program to service the residents. Currently, the program is used on the HCV side and the they are currently planning to roll it out to the public housing side. We do just have those two public housing sites, and we do want to bring them into that program as well. So we're now going to move on to the proposed substantive policy changes for for fiscal year or for calendar year 2026, fiscal year 2027. I have grouped them. This year, we didn't really have a lot of, like massive policy changes that we had to do. Like in 2024, when HOTMA came, we had a ton of policy changes. So this year was really just about, how can we improve the process? Are all of the citations up to date? So it was a lot of updating of citations, but it didn't really affect the policy. So you'll see in your revision matrix It will have the specific chapters, sections, title of the sections, what the current policy language is, what the proposed policy language is. And there's a lot more of them than what I will necessarily talk about in this plan. But we just let everybody know what all the policy changes were, even if they weren't substantive, even if it was just an update of mandatory legal authority language.

And just real quick, and if it's through the chair, I think we can assume that the commissioners have read the presentation. And so if you just want to touch on the kind of highlights for each slide, I don't think we need to go through all of the points individually. Thank you.

Mm-hmm. So VAWA protections, for this policy change, the purpose of the changes within the VAWA policy, primarily the main change was that we are coming combining the emergency process for the PBV portfolio and the RAD portfolio, we had a separate emergency referral process for RAD that required site selection within RAD sites only. We found that to be problematic and limiting in where they can go if they need to find a safe site. And so we're now expanding it so the emergency referral process will just be for the PBV program in general, which includes RAD. And the site selection list will include all PBV sites within the portfolio. So that greatly improves where a PBV participant can move to under a VAWA emergency move. The next slide are processes that has to do with the due process rights. So applicants have a right to an informal review. Participants have a right to an informal hearing. And so we did add for applicants, if they get a denial of RA request, they can they can get a review that didn't used to be the case. For participants, we added an additional reason that they can ask for a hearing is if there is a determination made against them that they owe the authority some sort of debt due to their failure to report family composition or income changes within the required time frame in the policy. If they want to challenge that, they can now. And then we just updated to state that whenever these notices of their ability to have a hearing go out, it should include the VAWA occupancy right and certification forms. And then we also streamline the scheduling of the hearing process. Our current policy is extremely like, we'll try to make it work, and we'll try to coordinate schedules type of a thing. It streamlines it. You ask for a hearing. We'll give you a date. If it works for you, great. Make sure you show up. If it doesn't work for you, tell us what will. We'll schedule that, and then we expect you to be there sort of a thing. So we're trying to reduce a lot of the back and forth. We couldn't reach you. We can't figure out when to schedule the hearing so that people can get their due process rights heard in a timely fashion. The next slide is the grouping of reformatting and updating policy language. So that was the main thing that we did this year was just to look through, make sure that we update the language if anything was outdated, if any PIH notices had changed, and therefore we're stating incorrect information that we updated all of that. And then just taking any discretionary authority that we have that could potentially create some flexibility for individuals, we did. So there was definitely a policy change where Under HOPMA, a new asset limitation was added for eligibility. An applicant is not eligible for the program at all if they have assets over $100,000 or if they own real property that they could use as a resident. And the way that the code is written, you can apply that at admission as well as at recertification. And we did make the decision that we will only apply it at admission. But once you're in the program, should you then inherit land or win the lottery or something, It won't get you terminated from the program. It's not an eligibility question at that point. It's simply, it's just your net assets and what is your portion of the HAP going to be now. So we will calculate it in that manner. But it won't be disqualifying you from the program itself. The next slide covers administrative and operational improvements. So we did reduce the amount of time that it takes for us to notify applicants if they were eligible to be placed on the wait list by half. So we went down from 120 days to 60 days. clarify the removal procedures when a person is placed on a wait list and we send a letter for them to come in for their interview and they don't respond. We have to send a second letter. They don't respond again. They will be removed from that wait list. That's so that we can keep the wait list from going stale. We also reduced the trigger for increasing the payment standard from 40% of total tenant payment to 30%. So that went down so that a person does not have to literally live with being rent burdened at 40% before we can choose to increase the payment standards. So if you see that the standard would put you over the 30%, we can go ahead and increase it at that point without waiting for you to get to the 40%. We've done that. We did add the ability for a person who might need some additional time to search with their voucher, that there's a possibility to ask for an additional extension beyond the one currently granted. Right now, we do believe that we give a good amount of time for a search. It's seven months for a search. That's from the initial base of 120 days to the original amount of extension that you could ask for is 90 days. But if something were to happen within those seven months that really made it difficult for a person to be able to actively search during that time, we have just tried to add a little bit more flexibility, like you can... tell us what your circumstance is, and we can see about an additional 30 days. And then the verification of disability We are aligning that to our timing conventions. Again, we're always asked why do certain processes take so long. We are trying to make sure that things can run smoothly. So we have a timing convention across our policy that applicants and participants, they get us things within 15 days so that we can respond within 30. So the whole process from request to response is just one month. And the verification of disability is basically just saying, if you have a non-apparent disability and you want to ask for a reasonable accommodation, we are requiring that you do have to give us third-party verification. By requiring it like that, you already know ahead of time. There's no timeline on when a person can choose to ask for a reasonable accommodation. So if you know you want one, go ahead and get the verification from your third party source and bring it with you as a part of the process of asking for the reasonable accommodation. That way, we get the information timely so that we can get your response timely. If a person were to ask for the request and they didn't have it, or if there was additional information that was needed, they would have 15 days to do so. And then the final thing was the emergency housing voucher transition planning, where we did add some additional preference-based points. These are plus points. Currently, if you're familiar with our policy, we only have one category that has a plus point, and that's veterans, which means that the veteran status can be added to any other preference on the list. where nothing else can be added. So you would just state what all your preferences are and then whatever the highest preference is which you would get. And if you also are a veteran, then the plus one can be added. So all of the added EHV points are all plus points. And that is for us to be able to sort just amongst the EHV holders so that we can make sure that the EHV holders, they're all in dire need. But the ones in the most dire need can go to the top so that we can prioritize them. And then the EHV holders that can wait a little bit longer can wait. So we did add those plus points. OK, so what you don't have in this particular presentation is a public comment slide. As I said, since we extended the public comment period, it did end just yesterday. So I only was able to really compile the public comments. So I do have one additional slide. And I don't know. We'll find a way to get it to you all and to make sure that it's on our website for posterity. But we received 30 public comments. of the public comments received. Nine of them resulted in us choosing to reverse what we were going to do. So nine of them had to do with chapter one. It was a streamlining chapter. We've been trying to figure out how to make the policies extremely long. It's well over 550 pages. So we're trying to figure out how to make it more streamlined. And so we did do a revision to chapter one, just feeling like it was a chapter that doesn't have a lot of policy in it. It's just an introductory chapter. But we actually got a lot of... comments about why we shouldn't change certain things. So since a comprehensive review of the document is being looked at to revise the whole policy document for user friendliness, and that'll be something that'll get presented in the years to come, maybe next year, we're just going to go back to the way Chapter 1 used to be and then revisit this comprehensively later. So that's going to happen. of the comments resulting in updates to the, OK, four comments did result in updating of the policy language. So I'm emailed like, this says that we can only apply the payment standards at annual recertifications. This should say an interim. And then we checked the CFRs and said, you're right. And so we did update those sorts of things. Oh, great. So they're going to put up the slide for you. So we had four comments like that where something was pointed out to us. We then went and did the research of a PIH notice or the CFR or whatever someone said. they had gone to the meetings. And it's like, oh, we were talking about how VAWA was going to combine the emergency referral process. I didn't see that in the red lines. I looked, oh, you're right. So then we added it to the thing. So four of those comments resulted in us correcting some policy language. 13 of them were just people saying, yeah, we like that policy. Thanks for making it make sense. And then four of them are not going to result in a change. So I will say that one of the things was we did have a group who did not want us to exercise our waiver under EHV to transition EHV holders through the PBV program. But as the executive director pointed out, that's not our priority to transition them in that fashion. We asked for the waiver from HUD when we thought we were going to be in shortfall just to make sure that we could help those families if we didn't have funds to transition them through the HCV program. It doesn't look like that's going to actually be a problem for us. But at the same time, we don't necessarily want to remove the ability to do that just in case something were to happen. So we're going to leave it, but it's not our priority to use it. The second one was search term additional 30-day. For the additional 30-day limits, the commenter felt that that was I guess not enough time. But I will state that the ability to give additional search term time, that is completely at the discretion of the authority. And we do believe that our current search term policy gives more than enough time to actually do this. And the only reason why we're even adding the ability to ask for the additional time is because our contractor, PEM, who administers this policy, is like, while it's a significant amount of time to do it, he felt that we were being too restrictive in that if something tragic had happened to someone during that seven-month period, he had no ability whatsoever to take it into consideration and give them that additional time. So that's what we're trying to do there, but we're not trying to elongate this process too much. So we're going to leave the policy as we're planning it So if a person does not respond when you are put on the wait list and we send out the letter for an interview, you have to respond. Come in so that we can get you out the door to find an apartment. If they don't respond to this, we remove them from the wait list. And then we say, you have up to a year to be placed back on that wait list if you want to. And they want us to remove. They said, no, that's too restrictive. They should be able to be placed back on whenever they want. And we're like, no, we do need to keep the wait list moving. We actually need to be able to exhaust it so that we can reopen it and new people can get on it and things of this nature. So if people can just kind of just be responsive, pay attention to the process if you're on the list. I think a year is a good enough time to realize, oh, I'm not on that list anymore. Let me ask to get put back on it. So we're not going to change that one. although we do hear the comment. And then the final one was about the disability verification. They did not like that we are requiring the verification within the 15-day period. But we are wanting to keep the policy in that way. And as I explained, I think that that argument would make more sense. They're saying it's very restrictive to folks with disabilities when you should be more flexible with them and all of this. But I could understand that if this policy was saying that the person had 15 days to request it or something of that nature. But no, if you know you want to request the RA, you can request it at any time. So if you know you want to request, all we're trying to do is make it clear up front that if you have a non-apparent disability, because this does not apply if your disability is very readily apparent, then you just state you like it, we see why you need it, and then we move forward from there. So this is really, you're asking for an accommodation, and we can't tell why. And so we have to verify the disability, verify that the accommodation being asked for makes sense and would actually alleviate whatever the issue is. So provide that nexus. So if you know you want one, you now know ahead of time that you're going to be required to have a third party verification. So go ahead and get that. And that way, if it takes 30, because their argument was sometimes administratively at the doctor's office, it might take longer than 15 days. It might take 30 days. It could take however long. But so long as you just go and You know you need it, so you just go to the doctor. However long it takes is not going to matter administratively, because you won't have asked for it yet, because you're trying to get all of your stuff together to get ready to ask for it. Once you have all your ducks in a row and you've got your verification, then you put in your request and say, hey, I want this disability. I mean, I want this reasonable accommodation. Here's my verification. My doctor said I need it. And then we can move forward quickly and get you what you need. Otherwise, it's just a holdup of a process. A person's asking for it, and it's taking months and months and months, several months, in order to get the information we need to even decide whether or not to give it. So this is just... Everyone wants us to improve our policies, but without insults and things that are ways we do it. That's the last one, yeah.

Shall we move to final steps here?

That's it? That's it. So final step is to, we've done the public process. We will make any revisions. If there's any additional comment or if there's anything that the board wants us to consider and revise, we would make whatever those revisions are before we submit to HUD. So you do still have the ability to give us more direction. But we do have to submit to HUD by July 17th.

I just might make one comment. I do think the updates that we're making this year are very modest. And I want to appreciate Zawadi's work. Our outreach was quite comprehensive. And as you can see from this giant Pile of papers. I'm going to hold them up here for all to see. The Admin Plan enumerates every policy or permutation of that policy. So it's an important foundational document for the work of the Housing Authority. It's also quite impenetrable. for folks who are not professional attorneys who are versed in procedural law. And so one of the things that we're engaged in now, and we have a consultant working with us, is to think about how we restructure this document so it's more user friendly. And think creatively about, I mean, I really want to, commend staff we go way beyond in terms of public outreach than what we're required to do but I think there's also some process improvements to be made because you know this is a lot of information that's coming to you the comment period ended yesterday and so it's a lot to take in so I think we're We weren't in a place to make those kind of structural or procedural shifts this year, just we need, given the time span, but we will be looking at that next year. And I think the updates that we're proposing this year, despite the detailed presentation, necessarily detailed, are quite modest in their scope and aspiration. But, of course, happy to answer any questions or take comments.

So I do. I've been on this journey with Zawadi for several years in doing this. I thank you very much for doing this in previous iterations, which was great and helpful for me. But we used to go through line by line every edit that went through. And Zawadi knew. I mean, I can just assure you, she knows every single word and punctuation in this entire document. And it takes a lot of work and effort to condense it to what it is to present. And so I have lots of confidence in Mr. Adams and on the team in having gone through and making the edits. And lastly, I will say I do really appreciate your comment and your thoughts regarding making this. easily understood. I think I've been a career government person for years and understand long bureaucratic policies and things and can do it with the best of them. But when you talk about access to housing, This is where it's important that people truly understand and have confidence in the system and can navigate and understand it. And so I do really thank you on your thoughts regarding sort of the next stage of making this work happen. And this is impactful, and that will be particularly impactful. So thank you. It's going to be tough to translate this into plain speak, but...

It may take a couple of iterations. It's an opportune time, given that next year is our five-year plan. So I actually think the timing is quite good. And we're already working on it. So we're already receiving recommendations from our consultants that we can start to work on now. So we're not doing this at the last minute. And again, I thank you for that affirmation. I think it's going to be really important work.

I have just a few quick remarks. One, thank you for the presentation. It was really clear and clear that you sort of know your stuff. Yeah, and I think one comment is just I'm curious whether there's sort of a process for look backs on these policy changes. I mean, how do you guys? This is obviously with the intent of making this work better. I'm curious if at the one year mark you do a look back.

Yeah, you know, that's the fun thing about it. That's what I like about this process is that since we do look at this annually, we will make a policy. And then when we're looking at it, administrators are like, OK, well, how did that go? Did that work out? And if it didn't, we can reshape the, we won't necessarily scrap it, but we can strengthen the language, fix something. Sometimes it might be unintended consequences. consequences of a particular policy. So then you can close up any loopholes if you created unintended loopholes, or you can give yourself more flexibility if you accidentally made something way too rigid and difficult for people. So yeah, when we look at it, that's why it's great that we look at it every year.

Great. And is that a part of, I mean, in a year's time, would we sort of expect to hear how these had gone?

Not necessarily. So it's not done uniformly in that sense. Typically, you might hear again only if we had to change it for some reason. So maybe something, yeah, if we had to tweak it. But if it's going well, then it probably won't come up again. It just lives on and continues to.

I'd offer that it might just be nice to hear that they're going well. It could be globally. But just to have sort of a touch point in the future that we know sort of that that look back went well. The other quick comment I had, I really appreciated sort of the presentation also on the goals and sort of mission achieved or ongoing. And clearly there's a lot of progress in a lot of different areas. I'm curious just sort of if you could speak a little bit to were those sort of key outcome areas identified on the front end? And were there, I guess, in the second part of that question, were there measures where there was in progress or you might have hoped to see something? And then finally, Just to take one example, the lease up sort of improved by 60% or something. Was there a goal line or was it just let's do better? And not that that's not OK, but just curious if you thought, oh, we could get to 80 days and we got to 100.

Now, that I can't speak to only because the five-year goals for this one, they were crafted, I guess, if you will, in 2021. And I didn't come to the agency until 2022. So by the time I came, we were already just in the annual process where you're just meeting your goals. So I don't know what thought went into as they crafted it. Next year, they will be crafting their next set of goals. And so, you know, yeah.

Yeah, I think it would be. wonderful and sort of the next set to know sort of what you're shooting for and so we can track how far we've come toward it.

Thank you again. And thank you for making something that is already very complicated easy for us to follow and even seeing all of the red lines, it was very evident that a lot of thought and heart went into it. So thank you.

Thank you. I appreciate that.

If there's no additional commissioner's comment, there is public comment for item 8B.

Hi, thank you. I did benefit from being in person at a meeting discussing these changes. But I have a suggestion in regards to streamlining the hearing scheduling. It was mentioned that there's been difficulty with back and forth. And are you available in the state? If not, I'd have to stay in the back and forth for scheduling. So I'd like to suggest something that works well RCA my Resident Council advisors when we're scheduling TA training meetings since RCA is tasked with educating the TAS and Properly since 2024 and that's a pause for a business plug but The suggestion is to offer three choices say like for example that would look like are you available July 5th at 2 p.m. July 7th at 4 p.m. Or you know July 30th at 1 p.m. And it's just to give three choices And then if they're not available for any of those then they're just not cooperating.

So, thank you Any additional public comment Okay. We can ask for a first motion for approval with the amended language on the title to include the five-year plan and the capital funds. Is there a motion to approve? And a second?

Second.

Roll call vote. Commissioner Pikes? Aye. Commissioner Cancino? Aye. Commissioner Kim? Aye. Commissioner Lai? Aye. Commissioner Satili?

Aye.

Vice President Alvarez?

Aye.

President Shoemaker is absent. Item 9 is any additional comments or report?

I just had one additional item, and it's some sad news that our Zawadi Lang is going to be leaving us for the wilds of Madison, Wisconsin. It's cold. Yes, I know. She has not been there in the winter yet, so we may see her back here one day, which we hope so, but she's moving there with her family. Unfortunately, I'm not empowered to do proclamations, but if I could, I would make this Zawadi Lang Day possible. I really wanted to appreciate her hard work, evidenced by the presentation that you just received today. I appreciate your comments, Commissioner Kim, recognizing her diligence on the admin plan over the year. I've been very new to the Housing Authority, but Zawadi has been a total delight to work with, a real professional, and she will be missed. And so I want to adjourn recognizing her important contribution to the Housing Authority. Thank you.

Any other comments from commissioners?

Normally, the chair does not make a motion. So if we could do the motion again so that it won't get technically rejected, that would be great.

Thank you for that.

Yes.

Okay, so we'll do the full process again. Is there a motion to approve? So moved. Okay, and a second?

Second the motion.

And then roll call vote again. Commissioner Pikes. Aye. Commissioner Cancino. Aye. Commissioner Kim.

Aye.

Commissioner Lai.

Aye.

Commissioner Satili.

Aye.

Vice President Alvarez. Aye. And President Shoemaker is absent. Thank you. If there's no additional comments, that would be item 10 for adjournment. Is there a motion?

Motion to adjourn.

Thank you. Time is 5.51. Thank you.