SAN FRANCISCO HOUSING AUTHORITY Rev. Amos Brown, President Mirian Saez, Vice President Micah Allen, Commissioner Dr. Veronica Hunnicutt, Commissioner Ahsha Safai, Commissioner Mathew Schwartz, Commissioner Dorothy Smith, Commissioner
BOARD AGENDA August 25, 2011 4:00 pm Board of Commissioners Room 440 Turk Street San Francisco Ca. 94102 (415) 715-3280 Henry A. Alvarez III Executive Director
.The Mission of the S
“The Mission of the San Francisco Housing Authority is to deliver safe and decent 1 | P a g for e housing for low income households and integrate economic opportunity residents.”
Table of Contents MEETING NOTICE .................................................................................................................................. 3 PUBLIC COMMENTS………………………………………..……………………………………………6 SECRETARY'S REPORT………………………………………………………………………………… 7 TENANT REPRESENTATIVE REPORT: ................................................................................................ 17 REGULAR BUSINESS AGENDA: ........................................................................................................... 18 COMMISSIONER’S COMMENT ............................................................................................................. 54 CLOSED SESSION .................................................................................................................................... 72 ADJOURNMENT....................................................................................................................................... 73
2|Page
EDW IN M. LEE, MAYOR SAN FRANCISCO HOUSING AUTHORITY
REV. AMOS C BROW N, PRESIDENT
SAN FRANCISCO HOUSING AUTHORITY Mirian Saez, Vice President Micah Allen, Commissioner Dr. Veronica Hunnicutt, Commissioner Ahsha Safai, Commissioner Matthew Schwartz, Commissioner Dorothy Smith, Commissioner Henry A. Alvarez III, Executive Director
440 TURK STREET SAN FRANCISCO, California 94102 www.sfha.org
MEETING NOTICE Thursday, August 25, 2011·4:00 p.m. 1.
The San Francisco Housing Authority holds its regular meetings at 440 Turk Street, San Francisco, California 94102.
2.
Disability Access: The legislative chamber at 440 Turk Street is accessible to persons using wheelchairs and others with disabilities. Assistive listening devices are available upon request. Agendas are available in large print. Materials in alternative formats and/or American Sign Language interpreters will be made available upon request. Please make your request for alternative format or other accommodations to the Office of the Ombudsman and Communication (415) 715-3232 (V); (415) 715-3280 (“TTDY”) by 4:00 p.m. on the Friday before the Board meeting.
3.
The closest accessible BART station is Civic Center, three blocks from City Hall. Accessible MUNI lines serving this location are: #47 Van Ness, #49 Van Ness, #71 Haight/Noriega, #5 Fulton, #21 Hayes, 36 Parnassus, #7 Haight, the F Line to Market and Van Ness and any line serving the Metro Stations at Van Ness and Market and at Civic Center. For more information about MUNI accessible services, call 415-673-6142. There is accessible parking across the street from City Hall at Civic Center Garage as well as across the street from the Federal Building on Larkin.
4.
Agenda, minutes and attachments are available at www.sfha.org as well as the San Francisco Housing Authority Administrative Office located at 1815 Egbert Avenue, San Francisco, California 94124. If any materials related to an item on this agenda have been distributed to the San Francisco Housing Authority Board of Commission after distribution of the agenda packet, those materials are available for public inspection during normal office hours at the San Francisco Housing Authority at 1815 Egbert Street San Francisco CA 94124
5.
In order to assist the San Francisco Housing Authority’s efforts to accommodate persons with severe allergies, environmental illness, multiple chemical sensitivity or related disabilities, attendees at public meetings are reminded that other attendees may be sensitive to various chemical based products. Please help the San Francisco Housing Authority accommodate these individuals.
6.
The use of electronic sound-producing devices at/during public meetings is prohibited. Please be advised that the meeting President may remove any person(s) responsible for the ringing or use of cell phones, pagers and similar sound-producing electronic devices from the meeting room. The presiding officer may remove from the meeting room anyone who is: disorderly or insolent toward any Commissioner(s); boisterous or violent; disobedient of any lawful order of the presiding officer.
7.
Requests for public comment may be heard on items not on the agenda as well as after staff presentation on any Regular Agenda Item. Speakers at Board meetings are requested, but not required, to identify themselves and fill out cards placed on the table at the entrance door. When the Board considers legislation, which has not been considered by a committee, testimony is welcome during the Public Comment portion f the meeting. Testimony is not permitted when an opportunity has been given at a committee hearing for testimony on an item. The public may address the Board for up to two minutes or four minutes for speakers who require an interpreter, or unless otherwise approved by the Board of Commissioners. The President, or the Board, may limit the total testimony to 30 minutes. The Board may not take action on a new proposal, which is not on the agenda.
3|Page
AGENDA ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ORDER OF BUSINESS 1. Call to order and roll call The Board of Commissioners may hold a close meeting pursuant to California Government Code for consultation concerning attorney-client matters, real estate, litigation, personnel and security matters. The board reserves the right to enter into closed meeting at any time during the course of the meeting
2. Approval of agenda 3. Public comments on items not on the agenda: limited minutes Note: This portion of the agenda is not intended for debate or discussion with the Commission or staff. Please simply state your business or the matter you wish the Commission or 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 Commissions’ attention, please contact the Executive Office of the San Francisco Housing Authority at leey@sfha.org.
4. Secretary’s Report a. Report on actions related to public comment 5. Tenant representative report: a. b. 6.
City Wide Council - senior/disabled (“CCSD”) Public Housing Tenants Association (“PHTA”)
Regular Business: Public comment will be taken after staff presentation on each agenda item. Speakers are encouraged to complete a comment card. Speakers will be limited to two minutes or four minutes for speakers who require an interpreter.
a. Consent Items 1. Minutes:
Minutes of a Regular Board meeting held on August 11, 2011
b. Action items 1. [Informational Presentation: Status of the Integrated Pest Control pilot project at the Sunnydale Housing Development.] Presented by Roger Crawford, Special Assistant to the Executive Director, Executive Office Public Comment
4|Page
2. [Informational Presentation: Project Based Voucher Conversion vs. Capital Fund Financing at Four Properties] Presented by : Barbara Smith, Administrator, Housing Development and Modernization Public Comment 3. [Resolution to submit applications to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) for removal of obsolete units and special use units from the Public and Indian Housing Information Center (“PIC”)] Presented by Dominica Henderson, Program Manager, Housing Development and Modernization Public Comment 4. [Results of Operations for Period Ending July 31, 2011] Presented by Roger Crawford, Special Assistant to Executive Director, Executive Office
Public Comment 5. [Status of the Corrective Action Plans required by the Department of Housing and Urban Development Ending July 31, 2011] Presented by Pamela Palpallatoc, Management Analyst, Housing Choice Voucher Program Public Comment 7. Commissioner’s comment 8. Possible closed session A possible closed session is scheduled in accordance with Government Code Section (GCS) 54950, in sequence
Closed session pursuant to GCS 54956.9 to receive advice from legal council on matters pertaining to jurisdictional-wide resident council.
Public Comment 9. Adjournment
5|Page
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA: LIMITED MINUTES Note: This portion of the agenda is not intended for debate or discussion with the Commission or staff. Please simply state your business or the matter you wish the Commission or 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 Commissions’ attention, please contact the Executive Office of the San Francisco Housing Authority at leey@sfha.org.
6|Page
SECRETARY’S REPORT
7|Page
EDW IN M. LEE, MAYOR SAN FRANCISCO HOUSING AUTHORITY
REV. AMOS C BROW N, PRESIDENT
SAN FRANCISCO HOUSING AUTHORITY Date: Thursday, August 18, 2011 To:
Board of Commissioners
From: Henry A. Alvarez III, Executive Director Re:
Responses to Public Comment at Commission Meeting on August 11, 2011
Commenters (Ace Washington and Randall Evans) requested information on the status of the “Ella Hill Hutch Community Center.” Staff Response: The Ella Hill Hutch Community Center, located at 1050 Mc Allister Street, is owned and operated by the City and County of San Francisco’s (CCSF) Department of Real Estate Services, 25 Van Ness Avenue Suite 400, San Francisco, California, 94102; 415-554-9860. All inquiries should be directed to the CCSF Department of Real Estate. Commenters (Richard Durham and Terry Bagby) commented regarding their difficulties with resident Abdul Kadir. Additionally, the commenters indicated that Mr. Kadir has a key to an access door. Mr. Durham also commented that he needed weather stripping on his entrance door. Staff Response: Staff has recommended the residents use the services of a third party mediator (staff is in process of identifying a mutually acceptable mediating service). Additionally, staff addressed the issue of the weather stripping on August 18, 2011. In response to the commenters’ concern(s) about the key to the access door: staff reports this is a result of a settlement of discrimination and reasonable accommodation complaint reached with Mr. Kadir, the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, (HUD) and the San Francisco Housing Authority, (SFHA) more than years ago. Staff is locating the settlement documents in order to review the settlement details, and will take any appropriate action needed. 8|Page
Commenter (Elizabeth Jones) indicated she would like financial assistance with her summer youth program. Staff Response: Staff will assist Ms. Jones in applying for DCYF, CBDG, and, or other appropriate funding sources to assist in financing her summer youth program. Commenter (H. Torres) requested his heater, toilet, and painting be addressed in his unit, and that his guest not be required to sign in with their government identification being logged. Staff Response:
His heater was fix this past Tuesday. The painting of his unit is scheduled for Monday next week. His toilet I will have to get an answer from Barbara when it can be replace .
Mr. Torres’ heater was fixed on Tuesday, August 16, 2011. Mr. Torres and Authority staff are communicating to schedule a date for Mr. Torres’ unit to be painted and toilet replaced. Additionally, the sign-in sheet will be adjusted and staff will be trained not to include logging of individuals’ government identification. However, residents in general are concerned about safety and security, and as such, staff believes it is pertinent for all guests to sign in and out when entering and exiting the building. The new log sheets will include the visitor’s name, destination, date and time in and out. Commenter, (Karen Huggins) requested information concerning the status of the Public Housing Tenant Association.(PHTA). Staff Response: The Authority is responding to a complaint filed with the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) as to whether or not the PHTA is compliant with 24 CFR. The Authority’s initial review indicates that it is not. As such, the Authority is scheduling a meeting with the presidents of the individual property Resident Councils, to discuss the PHTA in accordance with 24 CFR 964.105 and 964.115 in sequence to commence on August 23, 2011. Commenter (Catalina Cabello) requested a transfer from her current residence at Alice Griffith Housing Development to Holly Courts Housing Development. Staff Response: Staff met with Ms. Cabella to resolve her concerns. She stated that she no longer wanted to live at Alice Griffith and wanted to move to Holly Courts. Staff informed her that they will
9|Page
offer her a unit at Holly Courts as soon as one becomes available. She stated she was willing to wait for the next available two bedroom unit.
10 | P a g e
11 | P a g e
12 | P a g e
Overall Assessment - Fail Summary: The San Francisco Housing Authority (SFHA) failed its Stop Loss application for Year 2 for Criteria 1, 2, 3, and 4; therefore for Year 3, we review only those areas. Our review finds that the agency has not implemented the changes necessary to pass these criteria for Year 3. The major reasons for this assessment are reported below. Criteria 1- Project Based Budget and Accounting – Fail
Operating statements for the period ending 9-30-10 lack explanation for material negative variances. Further, no corrective action plan is presented. For example, project-wide Total rental Income for September is $1,533,079 per Budget but only $389,098 per Actual. Collection Losses reflects a material (much greater than 10%) negative variance, which is not explained. Additionally, of the 29 projects reporting financial activity, including balance sheet values, none of these projects report a cash balance, raising considerable concerns about the solvency of the projects.
Management Fee Expense is $ 78 Per Unit Month (PUM) of Unit Months Leased (UML), which is $ 13 PUM higher than the $ 65.07 amount for San Francisco per the 2010 table of Fees. This represents management fees in excess of reasonable by almost $ 900,000.
The SFHA charged projects asset management fees when the projects had reported no Excess Cash at prior year-end. Asset Management Fees charged among all projects is $ 519,421, up from $ 418,320 at prior tiscal year end (FYE). The aggregate excess cashdeficiency of $ (10,228,1 17) at prior fiscal year end raises considerable questions about the allowability of this asset management fee. Hence, certain projects that paid an asset management fee were further examined, to determine what, if any, level of excess cash was available at prior FYE. Several instances were noted of Projects rep0l1ing an
13 | P a g e
asset management tee expense in 2010, while no excess cash was available at prior FYE. Some of these Projects are presented as: 966 2010 Asset management Fee: $26,662 2009 Excess Cash: $(483, 646) 967 2010 Asset Management Fee: $84, 282 2009 Excess Cash: $ (1,539,418) 970 2010 Asset management Fee: $32, 792 2009 Excess Cash: $ (320, 464) 972 2010 Asset management Fee: $5, 317 2009 Excess Cash: $ (989, 040) 986 2010 Asset management Fee: $ 25, 275 2009 Excess Cash: $ (888, 666) Criteria 2-Project Based Management Fail  As of November 30, 2010, the SFHA had not succeeded in establishing a maintenance Generalist position (see previous year’s assessment). In accordance with David Vargas letter to SFHA of October 14, 2010, one of the primary reasons for the failure to achieve Stop Loss in Year 2 was the fact that the SFHA had not established a maintenance generalist position, which has still not been corrected.
14 | P a g e
The SFHA does not appear to have an effective program to ensure proper rent collections. The Year to Dated (YTD) 09-30-10 rental collection losses was 367% above the budgeted amouont (all projects), and no explanation is presented for this material negative variance. In addition to the above items, it is unclear from the materials submitted whether the centralized management services, particularly in the area of maintenance, are in the best interests of the projects, considering cost, responsiveness, etc. Criteria 3-Central Office Cost Center (COCC) – Fail COCC asset management fee revenue materially disagrees with the charges reported by the projects. The 2010 Financial Data Schedule (FDS) – Unaudited was reviewed to assess th efinancial condition of the COCC. As presented in Criteria 1, above, the COCC is operating upon fees that are questionable, and material downward adjustments are likely. For instance, it is apparent that Management Fees are excessively charged to projects (reference FDS-unaudited ay 9-30-10), in the amount of almost $900K (see Criteria 1 above). The final amounts are more determinable upon receipt of an audited FDS for FYE 9-30-10. Additionally, as much as $519,000 in Asset Management Fees or some material portion thereof, is likely to be disallowed as well. This would represent $ 1.4 Million less in revenues to the COCC. Review of the COCC Income statement reflects only $89, 760 in Asset Managemetn Fees. Since this amount materially disagrees (i.e. understates) the aggregated project level asset management fee expense, the COCC income statement and/or project income statements and the reliance upon them is questionable. So, it is unclear to where the entire $ 519,421 expensed amount is paid, if not the COCC. These discrepancies exist among the Projects, and COCC Income Statements at 930-10, per FDS-unaudited. Further, the combined Project(s) reported Asset Management Fees is no supportable by the associated project level excess Cash at prior FYE. Criteria 4 – Centralized Services – Fail The lack of a maintenance generalist position prohibits the SFHA to arrange services in the best interest of the projects (see above).
15 | P a g e
 The SFHA continues to maintain salary allocations for certain centralized services, e.g., legal counsel that require timesheet support and cannot be allocated.
16 | P a g e
TENANT REPRESENTATIVE REPORT: a. b.
City Wide Council - Senior/Disabled (“CCSD”) Public Housing Tenants Association (“PHTA”)
17 | P a g e
REGULAR BUSINESS AGENDA: Public comment will be taken after staff presentation on each agenda item. Speakers are encouraged to complete a comment card. Speakers will be limited to two minutes or four minutes for speakers who require an interpreter. a. Consent Items 1. Minutes: Minutes of a Regular Board meeting held on August 11, 2011 b. Action items 1. [Informational Presentation: Status of the Integrated Pest Control pilot project at the Sunnydale Housing Development.] Presented by Roger Crawford, Special Assistant to the Executive Director, Executive Office Public Comment 2. [Informational Presentation: Project Based Voucher Conversion vs. Capital Fund Financing at Four Properties] Presented by : Barbara Smith, Administrator, Housing Development and Modernization Public Comment 3. [Resolution to submit applications to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) for removal of obsolete units and special use units from the Public and Indian Housing Information Center (“PIC”)]]Presented by Dominica Henderson, Program Manager, Housing Development and Modernization Public Comment 4. [Results of Operations for Period Ending July 31, 2011] Presented by Roger Crawford, Special Assistant to Executive Director, Executive Office
Public Comment
18 | P a g e
5. [Status of the Corrective Action Plans required by the Department of Housing and Urban Development Ending July 31, 2011] Presented by Pamela Palpallatoc, Management Analyst, Housing Choice Voucher Program Public Comment 7.
Commissioner’s comment
8.
Possible closed session
A possible closed session is scheduled in accordance with Government Code Section 54950, in sequence.
Public Comment
19 | P a g e
OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN AND COMMUNICATIONS SAN FRANCISCO HOUSING AUTHORITY
EDW IN M. LEE, MAYOR REV. AMOS C BROW N, CHAIRMAN
Board of Commissioners of the San Francisco Housing Authority Meeting Minutes: August 11, 2011 ORDER OF BUSINESS 1. Call to order and roll call Commissioners President: Rev. Amos C. Brown Vice President: Mirian Saez Dr. Veronica Hunnicutt Ahsha Safai Matthew Schwartz Dorothy Smith Micah Allen
Present at Roll Call x x x
Absent
Late Arrival
Time Arrived
x x x x
2. Approval of agenda Commissioner Schwartz moved that public comment be heard after the staff presentation of an item. Motion: Second: Vote:
Hunnicutt Saez All Approved
3. Public comments on items not on the agenda: limited minutes Note: This portion of the agenda is not intended for debate or discussion with the Commission or staff. Please simply state your business or the matter you wish the Commission or 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 Commissions’ attention, please contact the Executive Office of the San Francisco Housing Authority at leey@sfha.org. Public Comment: Terry Bagby, resident of Clemintina Towers, communicates his concerns with resident Abdul Kadir. Jim Salinas, representative of the Carpenter’s union encourages the Authority to continue paying carpenters living wages.
20 | P a g e
Elizabeth Jones, coordinator of the West Side courts youth arts camp, read a letter stating how successful her program was and requested funding for next year. Karen Huggins, President of Holly Courts resident council, thanked the Authority for the temporary locks, and the change in security guard companies, at Holly Courts. Ms. Huggins provided a copy of an e-mail from Officer Ryan Hart discussing various issues between Holly Courts and Alemany. Ms. Huggins requested an update on the PHTA and whether they ever submitted the documents requested of them by the Authority. Randall Evans requested an update on Ella Hill Hutch. Charles Durham, ClementinaTowers resident, stated his concern with neighbor Mr. Abdul Kadir. Mr. Durham requested weather stripping and improved communications with the property manager at the site. Catalina Cabello, Alice Griffith resident, would like to be transferred to Holly Courts. Ace Washington, requested information on Ella Hill Hutch. Abdul Kadir, Clementina Towers resident, submitted a statement to the Commission and stated that he is not violent.
4. Tenant representative report: a. City Wide Council - senior/disabled (“CCSD”) Ms. Ramey discussed there are 22 senior disabled building and only 15 of them have social workers. Ms. Ramey requested that funding be expedited to put social workers at all sites. b. Public comments on item #9 Regular Business: Limited to 2 minutes Note: The public will have the opportunity to comment on new business prior to any action taken by the San Francisco Board of Commissioners (“Board”) pursuant to the San Francisco Housing Authority (“SFHA”) rules governing public testimony adopted 2/23/95 as resolution no. 4423.
5. Regular Business a. Consent Items 1.
Approval of the board of Commissioners of the San Francisco Housing Authority meeting Minutes for: i.
July 7, 28, 2011; June 9, 23, 2011; May 12, 26, 2011; April 14, 28, 2011; March 10, 24, 2011; February 24, 2011; January 27, 2011 Commissioner Schwartz requested the July 28, 2011 Minutes be moved from Consent to Motion: Second: Vote:
Hunnicutt Allen Unanimous
b. Action items
1. July 28, 2011 Minute Approval
21 | P a g e
Commissioner Schwartz requested an amendment to the July 28, 2011 minutes to change the last sentence under section 7, Commissioner’s Report to: “Commissioner Schwartz requests that staff be prepared to report to the commission any actions taken in response to public comment.” Motion: Second: Vote:
Hunnicutt Allen Unanimous
2. [Informational Presentation: Status of the San Francisco Housing Authority's 2011 Summer Activities Program] Presented by: Rose Dennis, Management Analyst, Executive Office Commissioner Allen recused himself. Public Comment: Randall Evans commended all the programs and encouraged more programs to get funding from within the community. 2. [Resolution authorizing the Executive Director to enter into a one year memorandum of Understanding between the San Francisco Housing Authority and the San Francisco Police Department for supplemental law enforcement services in an amount not to exceed $1,000,000 for fiscal year 2010-2011] Presented by: James Ferry, Security Coordinator, Office of General Counsel . Public Comment: Randal Evans encouraged more collaboration with the community and SFPD. Moved: Second: Vote:
Hunnicutt Saez All Approved
3. [Resolution authorizing the Executive Director to enter into a contract with BBJ Electric Inc. for standby generator replacement at cal 1-18(10), Woodside Gardens housing development in an amount not to exceed $168,753] Presented by: Simon Chu, Project Manager, Housing Development & Modernization. Public Comment: Woodside resident, stated that there is no heat in the building and that he would like his guests not to sign in when they enter the building. Moved: Second: Vote:
Saez Hunnicutt All Approved
22 | P a g e
4. [Results of Operations for Period Ending June 30, 2011] Presented by Roger Crawford, Special Assistant to the Director, Executive Office Public comment None Moved: Second: Vote:
Saez Schwartz All Approved
6. Commissioner’s comment Commissioner Saez asked where Public Housing Managers were during the Commission meeting. The Secretary stated that they were in the Commission Room or outside communicating with residents. Commissioner Saez encouraged the Authority staff resolves the issues as complaints are known.
Commissioner Saez acknowledged Ms. Dominica Henderson, who given a NAHRO award for her work with HOPESF. Mrs. Henderson spoke about the conference and announced that the SFHA received A 2011 National award of excellence for resident services due to the HOPE SF leadership academy. This is the first award that the Authority had received. Ms. Henderson recognized that Commissioner Smith is a graduate of the academy as well. Commissioner Allen asked who would be the custodian of the plaque. Mr. Alvarez answered that Ms. Henderson would be the custodian of the plaque and the Authority would receive a copy. Commissioner Schwartz thanked staff for communicating that Commissioner Hsu had passed away and stated that it was a privilege working with her. Commissioner Schwartz requested a moment of silence for Commissioner Hsu. Rev. Amos Brown echoed Commissioner Schwartz’s sentiments and adjourned the meeting in her memory. Moved: Second: Vote:
Hunnicutt Schwartz All Approved
7. Adjournment Adjourned by consensus at 17:25 hours.
23 | P a g e
AGENDA SAN FRANCISCO HOUSING AUTHORITY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Agenda Category:
Informational: Public Housing
Agenda Title:
Status of Integrated Pest Management
Presented By:
Roger Crawford, (Special Assistant to the Executive); Kendra Crawford (Property Manager Sunnydale Development); Cynthia Knowles (CCSF Department of the Environment
SUMMARY: Project History With initial support from Supervisor Sophie Maxwell, San Francisco Asthma Task Force members first approached SF Housing Authority management in April 2009 to explore building the Housing Authority’s capacity to provide integrated pest management (IPM), a practice which cooperatively involves tenants, property management, maintenance and contracted pest control operators in limiting pest access and harborage to minimize use of pesticides. By May 2010, Housing Authority management chose the Sunnydale site for an IPM pilot project, and the Task Force arranged for the Northeast Integrated Pest Management Center, a US HUD-funded consultant, to provide training to the site’s property management and maintenance staff. The San Francisco Department of the Environment (SFE) has provided the leadership for this Task Force project, and leveraged additional US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) funding to support this project by creating the San Francisco Healthy Homes Project (HHP), with the overall goal of improving indoor air quality, reducing toxics exposure and instituting safer and more effective pest management programs in public housing in the Southeast sector – all benefiting residents with asthma. Attachments: None Copies of any attached documents are available at the clerk’s desk [Continued on Page 2] DEPARTMENTS REQUESTED ACTION: None EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S RECOMMENDATION: None
Agenda Item No.___________ Date:_____________________ 24 | P a g e
Integrated Pest Management August 25, 2011 Page 2 Asthma is a significant public health problem, especially among the poor. According to 2009 CDC statistics, 7.7% of adults and 9.6% of children have asthma, with the highest prevalence among poor children (13.5%), black, non-Hispanic children (17.0%), and poor adults (10.6%). San Francisco’s low-income residents at Alice Griffith Public Housing report a similar burden of asthma: Of those participating in an initial home assessment, one in four individuals reported an asthma diagnosis. Many factors can contribute to asthma, including mold, dust, pests (such as cockroaches or mice), and certain cleaning products and pesticides. Field research at Alice Griffith also indicated that a large number of families have pest and mold problems (44% had cockroach problems, 37% had mold, and 18% had rodents). Many also live in homes with structural damage that contributes to infestations, and depend on hazardous consumer products that do not address the root causes of the problems. Since 2007, SFE has been working to educate public housing residents in the City’s Southeastern neighborhoods about pest prevention, safer pest control methods, and cleaning without the use of toxic cleaning products. The success of pest management depends on multiple factors, many of which are outside of residents’ control. The most environmentally sensitive, cost-effective, and safe approach to pest management is Integrated Pest Management, which relies primarily on preventive measures and good sanitation, and uses pesticides only as a last resort. The City of San Francisco enacted an IPM Ordinance in 1996 requiring IPM on all City property, and limiting pesticide use to products designated on the City’s Reduced-Risk Pesticide List. As a result, City properties have eliminated the use of the most hazardous products, and reduced overall pesticide use by 80%. Until recently, the San Francisco Housing Authority (SFHA) did not have an IPM program, resulting in the potential for unnecessary exposure to toxic products and ineffective suppression of the pests. The HHP is working closely with SFHA to identify policies and interventions that will reduce residents’ exposure to both pests and pesticides. SFE is helping fund a pilot IPM project in Sunnydale, employing one of the nation’s leading pest control firms to assemble IPM plans, implement pest proofing in housing units, and use other least-toxic methods. When pesticides are used, they are restricted to products that have been previously screened by SFE, and sprays have been completely eliminated. This project will soon be extended to the Bayview Hunters Point neighborhood with over $150,000 in support through a multi-year grant from the CDC. Community input will be gathered through public meetings, focus groups, surveys, workshops, and trainings on IPM and safer cleaning, and buildings will be inspected so that pest problems can be pinpointed and IPM plans assembled. Finally, the CDC grant is also funding the creation of an authoritative set of pest prevention guidelines, which lists specific design features that can be employed during the design or retrofit of buildings.
25 | P a g e
Integrated Pest Management August 25, 2011 Page 3
A national panel of experts is already assisting in the development of these guidelines, which will inform future construction/reconstruction of public housing in the City and elsewhere. Activities to Date:
SFE surveyed pest control and cleaning products available in neighborhood stores and found many ingredients documented as asthma-causing chemicals or respiratory irritants. SFE surveyed Alice Griffith residents to evaluate pest problems and use of hazardous products. Director Alvarez committed to working with SFE and its Asthma Task Force partners to pilot IPM at Sunnydale Public Housing Development. The Northeast Integrated Pest Management Center and its partners trained approximately six SFHA staff in basic IPM implementation. SFE provided contract language for SFHA to hire a Pest Control Operator with expertise in IPM. The Asthma Task Force and the Sunnydale property manager organized two Safer Pest Control Informational Fairs in November, 2010 & July, 2011, distributed Safer Cleaning and Pest Control kits, and educated residents on cleaning pest-prone areas. SFE paid for an IPM pest control firm, Pestec, to conduct walk-throughs of several buildings at Sunnydale (approximately 38 units). Pestec completed pest inspections, assessments and provided least toxic treatments in 14 of 18 Velasco units and provided recommendations for pest-proofing and improved housekeeping. SFE trained two IPM Promoters from its Environment Now program to educate residents about IPM and their role in the IPM pilot. (One IPM Promoter is a Sunnydale resident). IPM Promoters visited all occupied units participating in the pilot on three occasions; IPM Promoters scheduled to reach out to two additional buildings at Sunnydale. SFE encumbered $11,700 to help pay Pestec, aid in IPM implementation at Sunnydale, and initiate an IPM green job training program for public housing residents. SFE convened a national expert committee to work on pest prevention design.
Future Goals:
Pestec will return to all 14 units to carry out pest-proofing, based on initial assessment. Create a formal IPM housekeeping program for pilot buildings that emphasizes a residents’ role in keeping pest-prone areas clean and free of clutter. (Requires additional funding.) Expand Sunnydale Pilot Project to the Bayview Hunters Point neighborhood, starting with Alice Griffith Public Housing.
26 | P a g e
Integrated Pest Management August 25, 2011 Page 4
Work with HOPE SF to incorporate pest prevention design guidelines for new construction. Help SFHA adopt and implement an IPM policy for all of its sites and hire contractors who are only practicing IPM. Create a green jobs initiative – with on-the-job training through Pestec- to train public housing residents to implement IPM.
27 | P a g e
AGENDA SAN FRANCISCO HOUSING AUTHORITY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Agenda Category:
Information- Housing Development & Modernization
_
Agenda Title:
Project Based Voucher Subsidies vs. Capital Fund Financing at Four Properties
Presented By:
Barbara Smith, Housing Development & Modernization Manager____________
Since the last Commission update, plans and cost estimates for the proposed rehabilitation work are being developed, the HUD disposition application is being prepared, a letter requesting HUD waivers has been drafted and meetings have been held with residents and advocates. Evaluation of the scopes of work, financing requirements and HUD processing for two strategies, Capital Fund Financing Program with Tax Credits (CFFP) or Project Based Vouchers with Tax Credits (PBV), is straightforward. Resident consultation and securing letters of support required for the disposition application is more challenging. Residents are being given the attached briefing that has been translated into Chinese, Russian and Spanish. Minutes of the meetings are posted on SFHA’s website. Following an overview of CFFP and PBV, the two financing strategies under consideration, residents are asked to give us their questions, concerns and suggestions. Most residents at Rosa Parks and Citywide Council have supported SFHA looking for alternative sources of funding and some were very interested in Project Based Vouchers with an option for residents to request Tenant Based Vouchers after 12 months of occupancy. Most wanted assurances that:
rent and utility payments would be the same, existing benefits and tenant protections would not change, resident participation funds and laundry proceeds would continue to go to resident councils, and the properties will continue to serve low income households (they are not just being sold for money).
Attachments: I. Project Based Voucher Conversion vs. Capital Fund Financing Copies of any attached documents are available at the clerk’s desk [Continued on Page 2] DEPARTMENTS REQUESTED ACTION: None EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S RECOMMENDATION: None
Agenda Item No.___________ Date:_____________________
28 | P a g e
Housing Development & Modernization August 25, 2011 Page 2 Most residents at Ping Yuen and Ping Yuen North, expressed some of the same concerns but in addition, they do not like the idea of disposition, tax credit partnerships, conversion to project based vouchers and new unknown tenants moving into the properties. They are most concerned about the over-housed residents being displaced. Ninety-eight of 234 Ping Yuen households and 55 of 194 Ping Yuen North households are over-housed. Staff assured residents that they will not have to relocate during the rehabilitation and no one will be displaced because they are currently over-housed. HUD has previously approved PBV for the right sized households and Tenant Vouchers for over-housed. The over-housed residents would not have to move but when and if they do move, the unit would receive a PBV for a right sized household. The financing projections are based on this assumption where only the right sized units receive the full PBV subsidy. The other units with Tenant Vouchers would receive subsidy based on household size not unit size. Additional meetings are scheduled to talk with residents about their concerns. Staff are also working with the Housing Rights Committee, Bay Area Legal Aid, Asian Law Caucus, Chinatown CDC and the Housing Law Project to make sure the financings meet the needs of residents and that residents develop a greater level of comfort with the process. ACCOMPLISHED TO DATE HUD Disposition Application (the application is based on PBV Subsidies with Tax Credits but with some modifications the application could be adapted to CFFP financing with Tax Credits or split into separate applications if the financing strategies are different)
Environmental reviews for the four properties were completed and signed by the Mayor’s Office of Housing (Responsible Entity) in July. They have been submitted to the HUD Field Office for final approval. Appraisals for the four properties were completed – August 18, 2011 Justification for Section 18 Disposition to allow conversion to PBV/Tax Credits has been drafted – the change from public housing to Project Based Vouchers with Tax Credits at four properties is in the best interests of residents and SFHA, consistent with goals of SFHA, consistent with U.S. Housing Act of 1937, and will enable SFHA to address the developments’ substantial capital needs and bolster their viability as low-income housing for many years…………. Resident Consultation Meetings (see minutes posted on SFHA Website) July 18, 2011 Citywide Council – Senior/Disabled Board July 20, 2011 Rosa Parks and Clementina Towers Resident Meetings August 3, 2011 Rosa Parks Residents August 5, 2011 Ping Yuen and Ping Yuen North Board (PYRIA) August 12, 2011 Ping Yuen and Ping Yuen North Residents August 15, 2011 Citywide Council Senior/Disabled General Meeting August 24, 2011 Meetings scheduled at Rosa Parks and Clementina Towers September 2, 2011 Meeting scheduled with Ping Yuen & Ping Yuen North residents 29 | P a g e
Housing Development & Modernization August 25, 2011 Page 3
Drafting Board Resolution that supports and approves the “inventory removal action”. Since this resolution must be dated after the date of the last resident meeting and after letters of support from local governmental officials, staff is not expecting to submit this to the Commission until the second meeting in September. Completing On-Line Application Forms
HUD Waiver Requests – HUD waivers are only required for the Project Based Voucher strategy. The waivers would provide a means of allowing SFHA to address situations of current public housing residents who are over-housed or paying public housing flat rents without undermining financing for the capital improvements. The request for HUD waivers has been drafted and is ready to be submitted when the Disposition Application is submitted. Assembling the Team – Bond Counsel, Underwriter, Investment Banker, Financial Advisor and Special Project Based Voucher Consultant have been procured. Procurement of tax credit investor or investors will go forward when SFHA has settled on the appropriate strategy for each property. A Tax Credit Investor Request For Proposals has been drafted. Addition of developer partners may be considered and will also depend on the financing strategies, scope of work and ability of SFHA to provide guarantees for tax credit financing. FINANCIAL SUMMARY – Estimated potential funding Funding
Clementina
Ping Yuen
Ping Yuen North
Rosa Parks
Total
CFFP/EPC &Tax Credits
$11,262,357
$5,200,316
$3,141,139
$4,242,412
$23,846,224
PBV Subsidies &Tax Credits PBV Subsidies W/O Tax Credits
$21,929,968
$13,706,316
$11,511,615
$11,903,012
$59,050,911
$15,000,000
$9,300,000
$8,600,000
$9,000,000
$41,900,000
NEXT STEPS CFFP with EPC Complete initial resident consultation process to develop support for CFFP and/or PBV – 9/11 Determine which properties are best candidates for CFFP with EPC or PBV – 9/11 Submit HUD Disposition application for CFFP tax credit partnership (HUD review 60-90 days) – 9/11 Apply to CDLAC for bond allocation and TCAC for tax credit allocation – 9/11 or 2/12 Solicit Tax Credit Investor – 9/11 30 | P a g e
Housing Development & Modernization August 25, 2011 Page 4 PBV
Develop proforma with Cap Fund bond structure for debt financing and negotiate tax credit partnership for equity – 10/11 Submit HUD request for CFFP approval (HUD review 60 days) – 10/11 Submit Mixed Finance Proposal to HUD (HUD review 60 days) – 10/11 Complete construction documents and procure contractors – 9/11 to 12/11 Close and start rehabilitation work – 12/11 or 2/12 Complete initial resident consultation process to develop support for CFFP and/or PBV – 9/11 Determine which properties are best candidates for CFFP with EPC or PBV – 9/11 Submit HUD Disposition applications (HUD review 60-90 days) – 9/11 Submit HUD waiver request (HUD review 30-60 days) – 10/11 Submit Request for Tenant Protection Vouchers after Disposition Application approval (HUD review 30 days) – 11/11 or 12/11. Complete construction documents and procure contractors 11/11 to 2/12 Solicit developer partner if determined to be advantageous to the project – 1/12 Solicit Tax Credit Investor – 1/12 Solicit Lender or bond structure for debt financing – 1/12 Apply to CDLAC for bond allocation and TCAC for tax credit allocation – 2/12 Negotiate partnership and financing structure and close - 1/12 to 3/12
31 | P a g e
ATTACHMENT I Project Based Voucher Conversion vs. Capital Fund Financing
32 | P a g e
33 | P a g e
34 | P a g e
35 | P a g e
36 | P a g e
37 | P a g e
38 | P a g e
39 | P a g e
40 | P a g e
41 | P a g e
42 | P a g e
43 | P a g e
AGENDA SAN FRANCISCO HOUSING AUTHORITY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Agenda Category:
Action- Housing Development & Modernization Department_____________
Agenda Title:
Resolution to submit applications to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) for removal of obsolete units and special use units from the Public and Indian Housing Information Center (“PIC”)
Presented By:
Dominica Henderson, Program Manager, Housing Development & Modernization Barbara T. Smith, Administrator, Housing Development & Modernization
Summary: Under asset management, the San Francisco Housing Authority (“SFHA”) must meet certain criteria for each Asset Management Project (“AMP”), in accordance with recently adopted goals established for portfolio management and vacancy reduction by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”). In order to provide as many families as possible with “decent, safe, and sanitary housing”, HUD instructed the SFHA to maximize the number of units available in public housing by leasing up all available units at each AMP and removing uninhabitable or special use units from the inventory. In line with this latter goal, the Authority will seek approval for demolition and/or disposition of the units to remove uninhabitable units (i.e. mothball) and non-residential special use units (i.e. service provider) from the inventory at the Hunters View and Potrero Annex sites. Demolition of these uninhabitable units is critical because HUD currently provides operating subsidy for a limited number of vacancies. All of the mothball units are considered ineligible vacancies under the new HUD rules. Each AMP is allowed 3 percent vacancy rate, including a limited number of “allowable” vacancies, without financial penalty. With occupancy at 97% or above, HUD provides operating subsidy at 100% for the entire AMP. Potrero Annex and Hunters View have 137 and 162 units respectively. At Potrero Annex, eight units were identified as uninhabitable; at Hunters View 11 units were identified, and all are proposed for demolition to help achieve the 97% occupancy level. This is necessary in order for the SFHA to continue to receive the maximum annual subsidy for each AMP and to maintain positive scores during the annual Real Estate Assessment Center (“REAC”) inspections. [Continued on Page 2] Attachment(s): I. Resolution A copy of any attached documents are available at the clerk’s desk. DEPARTMENTS REQUESTED ACTION: Staff recommends adoption of this Resolution. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S RECOMMENDATION: Agenda Item No. _____ Date: ____________ 44 | P a g e
Demolition and Disposition Applications August 25, 2011 Page 2 Demolition: A demolition application is the only mechanism that HUD provides for public housing authorities to remove “mothball� units, or chronically uninhabitable units, from its inventory. There will be minimal physical demolition of the units as most of them have been cleared out, all window openings have been infilled to match adjacent wall construction, and all doors have been replaced with locked steel security doors. Most of the units are ground level and will be completely sealed. One building at Hunters View has been gutted for about ten years, and staff may proceed with demolition of this building, in order to eliminate the potential for nuisance, to promote safety, and to minimize the costs associated with securing it. Disposition: The SFHA also will seek to dispose of some units to its non-profit instrumentality/affiliate. There are at least 12 special use units that serve two childcare facilities and a food pantry at Potrero Annex that are proposed for disposition. Hunters View has at least four special use units. These units count against the total cap, as the limit is two percent Authority-wide or about 125 units for the entire public housing portfolio. Disposition will allow the Authority to maintain control of the properties without having the non-residential use units counting against limitations imposed by HUD's "special use" unit regulations. The Authority’s instrumentality will execute a term agreement with the current occupants, which will allow the units to maintain the same use. Additionally, the dispositions will allow planning for future HOPE SF revitalization to continue without interruption.
45 | P a g e
ATTACHMENT I Resolution
46 | P a g e
RESOLUTION NO._______________ DATE ADOPTED: _______________
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO SUBMIT INVENTORY REMOVAL APPLICATIONS FOR CA001000974, HUNTERS VIEW AND CA001000971, POTRERO ANNEX WHEREAS, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) informed the San Francisco Housing Authority (“Authority”) that it needed to submit an Inventory Removal Application to demolish and/or dispose of dilapidated and out of use units at CA001000974, Hunters View and CA001000971, Potrero Annex; and WHEREAS, the Authority followed provisions of 24 CFR Part 58 in order to ensure compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act; and WHERAS, the Authority must comply with certain provisions of Section 18 of the Housing Act of 1937 as amended by Section 121 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1987 in the demolition and/or disposition of any of its properties and obtain HUD approval prior to demolition and disposition; and WHEREAS, the Authority must meet and comply with the policies, procedures and requirements prescribed by HUD for conducting demolition and disposition activities of public housing units, including requirements set forth in 24 CFR 970; and WHEREAS, as part of the Application, the Authority must provide for the replacement of the public housing units and for the relocation of tenants in accordance with the requirements of 24 CFR Sections 970.19 and 970.21; and WHEREAS, the Authority plans to submit the demolition application in order to remove vacant and uninhabitable units from the inventory list as maintained in the PIH Information Center (“PIC”); and
(continued on next page)
47 | P a g e
WHEREAS, the Authority plans to submit the disposition application in order to dispose of nonresidential, special use units to its non-profit affiliate or instrumentality in order to continue to provide the same services as currently exist. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, THAT: 1. The Executive Director of the Authority is authorized to submit inventory removal applications for units at CA001000974, Hunters View and CA001000971, Potrero Annex. 2. This Resolution shall take effect immediately.
APPROVED AS TO FORM
REVIEWED BY:
AND LEGALITY:
________________________
________________________
Tim Larsen, General Counsel
Rev. Amos Brown, President
48 | P a g e
AGENDA SAN FRANCISCO HOUSING AUTHORITY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Agenda Category:
Report: Executive Office
Agenda Title:
Results of Operations for Period Ending July 31, 2011.
Presented By:
Roger Crawford, Special Assistant to the Executive Director.
SUMMARY: The results of operations for the ten months ending July 31, 2011 (Exhibit A): Public Housing
$
370,589
Hope VI
592,404
Housing Choice Vouchers
(243,897)
Local Programs Central Office Cost Center Total
96,968 190,174 $ 1,006,238
The results of overall operations reflect a positive surplus of $1,006,238. This is a result of the $2.230 million in proceeds the Housing Authority received from the sale of a parking lot at the JFK housing development. Attachments: Exhibits Copies of any attached documents are available at the clerk’s desk.
DEPARTMENTS REQUESTED ACTION: None Requested EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S RECOMMENDATION: I concur with the requested action
Agenda Item No. ______ Date: ______________ 49 | P a g e
Results of Operations for Period Ending July 31, 2011. August 25, 2011 Page 2
The Housing Choice Voucher Program has a deficit of $243,897, which results from a reduction in the Administrative Fees the Housing Authority receives from HUD. Staff intends to make the appropriate adjustments to balance this item by year’s end. Currently, the HCV program is at 98% occupancy.
50 | P a g e
ATTACHMENT I Exhibit A-Operating Budget vs. Actual
51 | P a g e
52 | P a g e
53 | P a g e
54 | P a g e
55 | P a g e
56 | P a g e
57 | P a g e
58 | P a g e
AGENDA SAN FRANCISCO HOUSING AUTHORITY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Agenda Category:
Report - Housing Choice Voucher (Section 8) Department
Agenda Title:
Housing Choice Voucher Department Monthly Corrective Action Plans Update
Presented By:
Pamela Palpallatoc, Management Analyst, HCV Department; Nicole McCrayDickerson, Acting Director, HCV Department
SUMMARY: Updates on the Authority’s Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) Department corrective action plans for the Office of Inspector General (OIG), Section Eight Management Assessment Program (SEMAP), and Rental Integrity Monitoring (RIM), include the following [see attached Voucher Monthly Systems report with voucher count and utilization percentages]:
[Continued on Page 2] Attachments: Exhibit A - Voucher Monthly Systems Report for July 2011; Exhibit B - HAP Utilization Report; Exhibit C - Master CAP Deadline Chart. A copy of any attached documents are available at the clerk’s desk. DEPARTMENTS REQUESTED ACTION: None. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S RECOMMENDATION:
Agenda Item No. _____ Date: __________
59 | P a g e
Monthly CAP Update August 25, 2011 Page 2 July 2011 The PIC reporting rate for July was 97%, compared to 97% in June. The number of re-examinations completed in July was 823. The number of re-examinations backlogged in July was 221. The total number of backlogged re-examinations at the end of July was 623 or 0.08%. The number of inspections completed in July was 952. inspections backlogged at the end of July was 562 or 7%.
The total number of backlogged
The HCV program utilization (lease-up) in July was 96.2% by unit, and 99.9% by Housing Assistance Payment (HAP) expenses. The VASH utilization in July was 71.3%. Other Department Updates VASH: HCV Department managers met with the HUD field office and Veteran’s Affairs on August 18, 2011 to reconcile lease-up by unit reports. A follow-up meeting will take place on September 1, 2011. Quality Control: The Nelrod Company will return for the fourth and final quarter of tenant file reviews on October 3, 2011.
COMMISSIONER’S COMMENT
POSSIBLE CLOSED SESSION
A possible closed session is scheduled in accordance with Government Code Section 54950, in sequence. 
Closed session pursuant to GCS 54956.9 to receive advice from legal council on matters pertaining to jurisdictional-wide resident council.
ADJOURNMENT