sfha_commission book_082511-final
Post on 10-Mar-2016
215 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
1 | P a g e
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
housing for low income households and integrate economic opportunity for
residents.”
2 | P a g e
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
3 | P a g e
EDW I N M. L E E , MA Y O R
SA N F R A N C I S C O HO U S I N G AU T H O R I T Y RE V . AM O S C BR OW N , PR E S I D E N T
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.
4 | P a g e
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. City Wide Council - senior/disabled (“CCSD”)
b. Public Housing Tenants Association (“PHTA”)
6. 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
5 | P a g e
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
6 | P a g e
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.
7 | P a g e
SECRETARY’S REPORT
8 | P a g e
EDW I N M. L E E , MA Y O R
SA N F R A N C I S C O HO U S I N G AU T H O R I T Y RE V . AM O S C BR OW N , PR E S I D E N T
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.
9 | P a g e
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
10 | P a g e
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.
11 | P a g e
12 | P a g e
13 | 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
14 | 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.
15 | 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 9-
30-10, 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).
16 | 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.
17 | P a g e
TENANT REPRESENTATIVE REPORT:
a. City Wide Council - Senior/Disabled (“CCSD”)
b. Public Housing Tenants Association (“PHTA”)
18 | 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
19 | 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
20 | P a g e
OF F I C E O F T H E O M B U D S M A N A N D C O M M U N I C A T I O N S EDW I N M. L E E , MA Y O R
SA N F R A N C I S C O HO U S I N G A U T H O R I T Y RE V . AM O S C BR OW N , CH A I R M A N
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 Present at Roll Call Absent Late Arrival Time Arrived
President: Rev. Amos C. Brown x
Vice President: Mirian Saez x
Dr. Veronica Hunnicutt x
Ahsha Safai x
Matthew Schwartz x
Dorothy Smith x
Micah Allen x
2. Approval of agenda
Commissioner Schwartz moved that public comment be heard after the staff presentation of an
item.
Motion: Hunnicutt
Second: Saez
Vote: 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.
21 | 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: Hunnicutt
Second: Allen
Vote: Unanimous
b. Action items
1. July 28, 2011 Minute Approval
22 | 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: Hunnicutt
Second: Allen
Vote: 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: Hunnicutt
Second: Saez
Vote: 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: Saez
Second: Hunnicutt
Vote: All Approved
23 | 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: Saez
Second: Schwartz
Vote: 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: Hunnicutt
Second: Schwartz
Vote: All Approved
7. Adjournment
Adjourned by consensus at 17:25 hours.
24 | 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:_____________________
25 | 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.
26 | 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.
27 | 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.
28 | 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:_____________________
29 | 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
30 | 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
$21,929,968
$13,706,316
$11,511,615
$11,903,012
$59,050,911
PBV Subsidies
W/O Tax Credits
$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
31 | P a g e
Housing Development & Modernization
August 25, 2011
Page 4
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
PBV
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
32 | P a g e
ATTACHMENT I
Project Based Voucher Conversion vs. Capital Fund Financing
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
44 | 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: ____________
45 | 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.
46 | P a g e
ATTACHMENT I
Resolution
47 | 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)
48 | P a g e
WHEREAS, the Authority plans to submit the disposition application in order to dispose of non-
residential, 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
49 | 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 96,968
Central Office Cost Center 190,174
Total $ 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: ______________
50 | 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.
51 | P a g e
ATTACHMENT I
Exhibit A-Operating Budget vs. Actual
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
59 | 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 McCray-
Dickerson, 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: __________
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. The total number of backlogged
inspections backlogged at the end of July was 562 or 7%.
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
top related