EDW IN M. LEE, MAYOR REV. AMOS C BROW N, CHAIRMAN
SAN FRANCISCO HOUSING AUTHORITY
MINUTES SAN FRANCISCO HOUSING AUTHORITY PUBLIC HOUSING RESIDENT ADVISORY BOARD MEETING
April 17, 2012 SCHEDULED: 10:00 a.m. at 1290 Fillmore Street, San Francisco, CA 94115 Resident Advisory Board Present: Joyce Armstrong, President (PHTA) Neola Gans (PHTA) Beverly Saba (CCSD) Dedria Smith (PHTA) Soloman Watkins (CCSD) Reggie Darty (CCSD) Dorothy Raimey (CCSD) Randall Glock (CCSD) Annette Johnson (CCSD) Suggested Preferences as of April 16, 2012 handed out. Ms. Raimey, RAB, asked if “disability” was general or referred to a specific disability. Mrs. Martin-Mason responded that the preference is written as it was suggested. Ms. Russell, RAB, suggested that individuals surrounded by drug dealers be included as a preference. Mrs. Martin-Mason added the suggestion. Mr. Soloman, RAB, asked for clarification regarding the Disabled Veteran suggested. Mrs. Martin-Mason responded that Veterans are already a preference and the umbrella of “Veterans” would include “disabled” Veterans. Mr. Glock, RAB, asked why the disability preference does not require verification. Mrs. Martin-Mason asked if he would like to add the verification requirement. Mr. Glock, RAB, responded “yes.” Ms. Saba asked for examples of Government Displacement. 1815 EGBERT AVENUE, 3RD FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94124 TELEPHONE: (415) 715-3951 TTY: 415.467.6754 WWW .SFHA.ORG
Mrs. Martin-Mason responded that the question was asked in the last meeting and is provided in the “Questions and Answers” provided. Discussion ensues regarding “What is Flat Rent.” Mrs. Martin-Mason takes note of the question. Barbara Smith, Administrator, Modernization and Development discusses conversion of public housing to project based subsidies providing an overview of the HUD Disposition application and how it would affect the current residents. She explained that the properties would come out of public housing through the HUD disposition process and then request project based subsidies that could be all Section 8 Project Based Vouchers (PBV) or a combination of PBV the Rental Assistance Demonstration program rent subsidies. Mrs. Smith further explained the benefits of conversion that would result in improved properties. Ms. Smith went over the HUD Disposition application with the RAB. Mrs. Smith stated that, at the present time, Clementina residents do not wish to move forward with the Conversion at this time but that Rosa Parks, Ping Yuen and Ping Yuen North residents support the process and applications are being submitted. Ms. Saba, RAB, asked what happens if HUD does not approve the application? Ms. Smith responded that the property would remain part of the Conventional Public Housing Program. Ms. Russell, RAB, asked what would happen to the current residents. Mrs. Smith responded that the current residents would remain in their unit even when the subsidy becomes Project Based. After 13 months, if available, the resident could request a traditional Housing Choice Voucher. Ms. Raimey, RAB, asked if some buildings have gas stoves. Mrs. Smith responded “yes” some buildings have gas stoves. Mrs. Smith shared that the Housing Authority has spent the last six months meeting with groups that include Bay Area Legal Aid, the Housing Rights Committee, the National Housing Law Project, Asian Law Caucus, and Chinatown Community Development Center. As a result of these meetings, a list of assurances for residents were drafted and translated. Ms. Raimey, RAB, asked if the community groups can assist the Housing Authority in encouraging Clementina to agree to the application. Mrs. Smith responded that the Housing Authority is continuing to work with Community Groups. Mr. Glock, RAB, asked if there are any disadvantages to this application?
2
Mrs. Smith responded that some residents do not like the idea that the application requires a partnership with a tax-credit investor providing the Housing Authority a right of first refusal to retain the land after 15 years. Mr. Darty, RAB, asked when elevators would be fixed. Mrs. Smith responded that rehabilitating elevators will cost millions of dollars that SFHA does not have but in the meantime, money is being channeled into repair of elevators now. Ms. Saba, RAB, asked what would happen to tenant participation funding in the project based housing developments. Mrs. Smith responded that Ping Yuen is currently separate from the citywide organizations, CCSD and PHTA. The Rosa Parks residents would decide their status. Mrs. Smith asked the RAB to support the Housing Authority by signing a letter that she brought in. Ms. Russell, RAB, requested that Mrs. Smith add the language: “Subject to affordability requirements in place for 99 years.� Mrs. Smith agreed, wrote it into the letter, and read aloud what the letter said. Mrs. Smith thanked everyone for their attention. Questions comments or suggestions on Chapter 8: Ms. Russell, RAB, commented that she does not understand the abbreviations. Mrs. Martin-Mason took note of the comment. Ms. Gans, RAB, asked if the Housing Authority will take the entire deposit if there is only one problem in the unit? Further, what if the unit is destroyed after the final inspection by another party after the family has moved out; who will be charged for this under the proposed policy? Mrs. Martin-Mason took note of the comment. Ms. Saba, RAB, stated that when she moved in she was not at the initial inspection. Ms. Saba asked how the tenant would know what they are accountable for if they weren’t at the initial inspection? Mrs. Martin-Mason took note of the comment. Mr. Watkins, RAB, asked for verification regarding the return of deposit stating that his friend received it later than that stated in the ACOP. 3
Mrs. Martin-Mason responded that the policy in front of everyone is proposed, not the current policy. Ms. Saba, RAB, regarding “Late Fees, Repayment Agreements,” shared concern over late payment fees because seniors do not always receive their assistance on time. Mrs. Martin-Mason suggested moving the deadline for a late fee from the “fifth of the month” to the “fifteenth of the month.” Ms. Armstrong, RAB, suggested removing Ms. Paulson, Public, stated that SSI allows for a 10 day window of time to receive a check. Ms. Armstrong, RAB, asked if the Housing Authority would be able to deny a resident’s rent payment if not paid by the fifth of the month. Mrs. Martin-Mason responded that is what is being proposed. Ms. Paulson, Public, asked about the Repayment Agreement. Mrs. Martin-Mason referred the RAB to the bottom of the page which discusses the repayment agreement. Ms. Armstrong, RAB, commented that she felt the section was misleading. Ms. Gans, RAB, asked if she would get a 14 day notice in addition to a $25.00 fee if the rent is not paid by the fifth of the month. Mrs. Martin-Mason responded that the current policy requires residents to pay their rent by the fifth of the month and non-payment triggers the 14-day notice to be sent to the residents. The proposed language adds the $25.00 fee. Ms. Saks, Public, comments that Social Security Disability comes in late especially when it falls on a holiday, which makes it difficult to pay their rent consistently on the same day. Ms. Raimey, RAB, concurs with Ms. Saks. Mr. Glock, RAB, commented that he would favor moving the date from the fifth to the fifteenth of the month because his rent is not always posted on time. Additionally, Mr. Glock suggested that everyone communicate with their property manager if they will be late on their rent. Further, in the private sector, if rent wasn’t paid on time, the person would be evicted and thus, the proposed language is not unreasonable. 4
Richard, Public, asked if the late fee can be discretionary. Ms. Johnson, RAB, stated that not all residents feel they can communicate with their Property Manager and that Property Managers should not have the discretion to determine whether late payments would be accepted or not. Ms. Armstrong, RAB, stated that she is ok with the proposed language but suggested to remove “if the PHA does not agree to accept payment at a later date” from the proposed language. Mrs. Martin-Mason took note of the suggestion. Ms. Saba, RAB, agreed that date of “late” payment should be changed. Further, Ms. Saba suggested to remove the late fee unless at the discretion of the property manager pursuant to prior negotiation. Mrs. Martin-Mason took note of the suggestion. Ms. Smith, RAB, suggested that the late fee be removed. Mrs. Martin-Mason took note of the suggestion. Mrs. Martin-Mason alerted everyone that the last sentence will be changed from: “the decision of the area manager is not grievable” to: “The decision of the area manager is subject to the grievance procedures.” Ms. Paulson, Public, suggested providing incentives to residents to pay rent. Ms. Saba, RAB, asked whether a resident’s written note to the property manager that she will be late with her payment of rent is sufficient as notice of late payment of rent. Mrs. Martin-Mason responded that this can be done now but this becomes a problem when it becomes a pattern. Ms. Paulson, Public, commented that she feels residents should not be limited to a repayment agreement every two years. A discussion ensued regarding the repayment agreement language. Ms. Paulson, Public, asked what the cap is for the repayment agreement. Mrs. Martin-Mason took note of the question. 5
Ms. Raimey, RAB, referred to the proposed language on gas and lights and asked if some buildings pay gas and light? Mrs. Martin-Mason took note of the question Meeting Adjourned.
6