|
Thursday, April 24, 2014
|
>> good morning, this is the regular meeting of the government audit and oversight committee.
I am the chair of the committee, supervisor london breed, and to
my right is the vice chair, kate
tang, and to her left is david chiu.
Today the clerk, is erica major
and thank you to sfgov tv.
>> items will be stated on the agenda than stated.
>> okay, call the first item.
>> item 1, ordinance amending
the park and police codes to ban
convicted graffiti offenders.
>> today, I am proud to
introduce this comprehensive
overhaul of graffiti here in the city of san francisco.
This is a month-long of collaboration with various city departments to discuss things
that are both administrative as
well as legislative.
The police department and the
department of public works and
the 3-1-1 board and advisory board, so many folks that have participated and bringing us together to make sure that we
are taking a responsible
approach towards dealing with graffiti ban throughout the city.
i want to thank city attorney, herrera herrera, in particular that will
spend a lot of time collecting
restitution and dealing with issues with this legislation.
And I want to thank ed miskin,
from the eta, and mohamed urer,
and Mrs. Kelly, and chief of
police suhr and director of finance. And the san francisco police department that is in charge of
managing a lot of graffiti
cases, and the gab members, the san francisco arts commissioners
and staff and artists and san
francisco beautiful and its members. Thank you all for helping to craft this proposal. I want to give a little
background about the reason why
we came together to really address this particular issue.
According to our knowledge and
legislative analyst, it costs
the city close to $20 million
annually to abate graffiti on
our buses and property and all throughout the city. And the city could use this
money to use for other things. As former director and
supervisor now, I see the huge
cost of graffiti incur.
And I hear from property owners
that paint over offensive
graffiti and to return the next
day. I have seen people wait for
the muni buses.
Many trying to remove graffiti, and needs solutions.
I didn't want to use those who
view crime as a harsher punishment. But yet to research best practices in jurisdictions all
over the country, new york and
chicago and san diego, and to
create a nuance plan to reduce graffiti and provide better
outcomes for offenders.
Most of our proposal is administrative, not just legislative.
But I want to explain all elements.
We will pursue repeat offenders.
We estimate that over 90% of
graffiti in san francisco are
tagged that are by serial offenders. Pursuing a criminal case for one
act of graffiti, one tag, is an effective use of resources.
But the criminal courts have
proven that it's not a medium
for the same tag.
The proof beyond a reasonable
doubt is difficult to achieve
unless you have many incidents.
Civil courts have preponderance
of evidence and they recognize
that a unique tag is specific to an offender.
We will collect and tag
evidence, we will as a result
centralize evidence collection
of tag employees, and particularly particularly particularly photograph offenses with their smartphones, with
their reports to the san francisco police department
leveraging existing resists.
We have customized the 3-1-1 office to give san francisco
police department the best data possible.
And so reporting employees don't
have to make estimates on each offense.
Chief suhr is providing for
analysts to catalog offenses and
reports of unique tags.
And another expert officer would
be needed on as-needed basis.
For serial offenders, not withstanding the last item, all
of this is administrative and
several on the way. Other jurisdictions in
california are using a similar system. In east los angeles they saw a
drop of 55% in the first four years of implementing this program. If that happens in san francisco, we expect to save
over $11 million.
Now the second element of this
legislation before us today, it
tightens graffiti controls and
codifies new procedures. I have a few amendments that I
will ask my colleagues to
support today, just clerical related. I want to give you what we are trying to accomplish with the legislative piece.
we will revise the city code
evidence public code 1300 so it
can be exercised against the
perpetrator and not just the victim.
We want to use rules for public
and private property and provide
for spray paint and eching tools
and slap tags in any city park.
And revise the code to provide
for any conviction of carrying
spray paint and eching tools on any city vehicle.
and finally for graffiti
evidence and to pursue all effective avenues.
I want to thank anyone who has
worked on overhauling this system. It's been a long time coming.
We have a lot of support, not
just from supervisor tang, and
chiu but also the mayor and
chamber of commerce are all in support of this legislation.
Over all we are to reduce the
cost of graffiti removal, not
costing the city much additional dollars.
And we want to intervene in the
lives of those folks committing
these graffiti offenses, so that
those things don't elevate into
more serious crimes.
I think restitution and
community service could make a big difference. Overall we want to be sure that
the city is better for graffiti
victims, and yes, better for graffiti offenders.
we have a lot of speakers here
today and our public works
director, I will start with you. I know you have another
appointment to get to.
>> I don't know if that's a
promotion or demotion, but I run
the department of parks.
But I work closely where my colleagues in the department of public works.
Thank you, I want to voice our
department's support for
supervisor breed's proposed
graffiti prevention and abatement ordinance.
As we have discussed in previous
discussions about this.
The department spent $300,000
last year to abate graffiti in san francisco parks.
it's more than the parks, it's
just sightfully painful for our
staff to work as hard as we can
to keep our parks beautiful. And to come in almost every
morning to find our most
beautiful and precious assets tagged with spray paint.
Whether a playground, a tree or
building or ball field, it just stinks.
And to put that amount of money, that amount of cost into perspective.
That $300,000, is equivalent of
more than three arborists to
maintain the health of our trees.
we don't have enough arborists
to touch our trees once every
300 years, we could invest in
more officers to help keep our parks safe.
Or it's worth four additional
swim instructors to help meet that demand.
There are just better uses for
money than cleaning up after
other people's bad behavior. We appreciate this board's
effort to give us another tool
in the tool box to take this on.
>> thank you, next speaker,
officer herrera from the san
francisco police department.
>> good morning, supervisor, I have been an officer for 13
years, starting in 2001, I have
been with the graffiti abatement
officer for the last three years.
And I think, I just wanted to thank you first and foremost for
your hard work on this program.
I am really excited about it.
I am ready to roll up my sleeves and get to work, and looking for
the resources that you dedicated
and for your interest in graffiti vandalism. Do you have any questions for me at this time?
>> supervisor chiu? I think we are good to go, thank you.
>> thank you.
>> nancy alfaro from the 3-1-1 center please is next.
Just want to start thanking you and your team for working hard
on revamping the 3-1-1 system to make this so much easier to report. >> thank you, supervisors and thank you supervisor breed for taking leadership on this issue.
we are really excited to make
enhancements to our 3-1-1 mobile
app, and at no extra cost to report graffiti.
And we are leveraging existing
data platforms so we can
centralize reports and provide reports to the police department, that will include
maps and pictures and cost
estimates and size and tag
I.D.S, so they can identify
trends and use this valuable information if taken to court. We are happy to be a part of this and collaborate with your office and all the various departments so we can improve on
this important issue. >> thank you. And thank you again for helping us with this.
I am going to ask larry stringer to come up from the department
of public works.
So many different departments involved. >> morning, supervisor. >> morning.
>> larry stringer, department of
public works and deputy of operations and chair of the graffiti board.
I want to thank you supervisor
breed for bringing this ordinance forward, it was
definitely needed and overdue.
the department of public works
currently processes 50,000 issues regarding private and
public graffiti, and spends
close to $3 million in efforts to deal with that.
The thing I would say, it's not fair, the public and the city
are victims.
The private property owners are
victim, and there is no means to rectify that.
This legislation will help not
only deter but hopefully reduce
the overall graffiti within the city.
And I would like to say, I think
it's fitting because the
graffiti advisory board sponsored its first international graffiti conference in your district last year. And you were there, that's right. And I think it's both fitting and right that you bring this legislation forward. Hopefully that we get to the
goal of zero-graffiti for san francisco, thank you again for that.
>> and shall I say that it was a
very well-done conference and diverse people from the
community and arts community.
And what bothered me the most,
the challenges that artists go
through the process of permits
for these murals and now their
work is vandalized.
And this is out of hand and glad that we are working together to get it done. >> much appreciated. >> I will ask john hanley from
the mta to come up and say a few
words.
>> thank you, supervisor.
Good morning.
i will focus on what we need to
do at the sfmta to help ensure
that the legislation that is proposed will be effective and make an impact. And I would also point out there
is no better timing than to introduce this than right now.
because as you can see from the
photo here, we are making over a
five-year period a billion
dollar investment in our rolling stock fleet. And one of the things that you
heard and we have looked at best practices for doing that. We expect when we are making the public investment that we are
making, to keep the vehicles in
the kind of condition and prevent some of this kind of
stuff that has happened over the past.
Just a moment you talked about
kind of the impacts of all of graffiti. It's not just on the money in particular.
It has a severe service impact.
we have to pull buses off the street, or hold buses in to take
care of graffiti. Certainly erodes the public
confidence that our riders have
in our ability to take care of
the system, and create an environment that is user friendly on the vehicles.
As pointed out earlier, we are
taking a number of crafts at the
sfmta, everything from grazers
to painters off of their regular
work to deal with this problem.
And it's also a great morale problem for the employees. that you are asking them to operate a vehicle that is less than it should be.
That has an impact on the way that we deal with the public.
This is a quick snapshot and I
emphasize here reported incident incidents.
I say reported is what is in our log.
At the bottom of the chart that
is not visible on the screen, but we will pass around the paperwork.
As I said this 220 incidents is
reported in our control center log.
but a division like presidio
division that runs along the
mission street corridor, on
average has 12,000 tag hits annually. And many occur on the back of
the bus and overhead panels and many are not reported until the vehicle pulls in.
What we are showing here is a snapshot of what we are reporting. But the bigger problem for us and I will get to what changes
we need to make to make sure that everyone is in a position
to report graffiti incidents. And again I won't highlight that.
for us this is a direct cost to
clean the vehicles and the facilities.
It's $15 million, it doesn't
include things like lost revenue or loss of service.
It's simply direct clean-up
costs and people leaving other
activities to deal with this problem.
Some actions we have taken, the cleaning techniques.
We have looked at all kinds of things, many places if painted
over and over we have to replace
interior panels and that has a cost. what we are doing and back to the timing.
First of all with the two-year budget for July includes an
additional resources for cleaning.
And also we will introduce first
at the two division operating,
woods and kirkland a zero-tolerance program.
what that means and basically, that's where the new vehicles
are and the rehab vehicles.
Vehicles will be held in if they
have any kind of graffiti.
We are reinforcing standards in that regard.
We have employed 12-14 hours a day at this point mobile cleaning crews. So we are encouraging people to report it and see if we can clean it up in the field. We have made a huge investment
in upgrading the onboard videos,
that will help us in follow-up and penalties.
I think one thing we have do a
better job of is public outreach
on this and inreach as well. One of the things over a period
of years, we haven't been
proactive and encouraged and expected people to report graffiti. All employees, not just operators. But we need to do that. And we have been working with
pd, not only to make arrests,
but also to use our existing arrangement with them.
To get more police presence on
the system as a preventive
measure, not just for arrests.
But to deter any kind of anti-social behavior including graffiti.
so with that, I want to thank
you again for your leadership with this legislation.
And for us, we will do our part
to help address what is a very
serious and problem that impacts
us both financially and our image very negatively.
i thank you for your time and I am happy to answer any questions you might have.
>> thank you.
Okay, so we are going to open this item for public comment. If any member of the public who
would like to speak on this item. Please come on up. I just want to acknowledge, i think we have someone here from
the arts commission, that I know
dede workman is here from the san francisco chamber and
members from the graffiti advisory board as well as san francisco beautiful.
Feel free, and bright business
alliance is another group of folks who are here. Why don't you come on up. Yes.
Come on up.
>> good morning, supervisors, I
am allison cummings with the san
francisco art commission, i manage the art collection.
And I want to thank you supervisor breed for bringing this forward. The support was unanimously approved by the arts commission in the last meeting.
And you know that we spend our
entire maintenance budget
dealing with vandalism abatement
abatement, and any efforts in our ability and supporting our ability to deal with graffiti
and deal with vandalism at all levels is tremendously helpful
for us.
Our collection is nationally known, internationally known cultural asset.
We struggle to maintain it with our limited resources. And it's expensive to maintain.
These are materials that require expertise to clean.
We can't just paint over the vandalism. Because of this and because of
our abilities in the past to not
bring criminal charges against
vandals to the collection.
We do document extensively when
it happens and filed many please reports. We are encouraged for this
legislation that allows for
civil progz secution, and if any questions, I am happy to take care of them. >> thank you.
>> good morning, supervisors, I
am dede workman, with the san francisco chamber of commerce.
We want to applaud supervisor
breed for bringing this legislation forward.
Representing businesses in san francisco, and the vast majority are small businesses.
Many struggle daily with
recurring graffiti on there is properties.
and I can tell you after talking
to the owners of these
businesses, they feel doubly
victimized, by the graffiti and the process which they are
responsible for eradicating the graffiti.
And they try hard to do that, but they can't keep up with it. And many don't have the resources to do that.
so this ordinance will make the
graffiti vandals financially
responsible for the destruction of property they are causing.
And we feel that is appropriate.
The price tag to the city is
astonishing, and where that
money could be spent makes this legislation important. This legislation works in other
cities, we know that it works well. It's very overdue here in san francisco, so the chamber
supports it, and we urge the board of supervisors to support it as well, thank you. >> thank you. Next speaker.
>> good morning, chair, vice
chair and President, I am the executive director of san francisco beautiful.
I want to thank supervisor breed
for bring forward this legislation. San francisco beautiful's board and membership supports this
legislation which will reduce
costs that could be otherwise
spent protecting our public investment.
Whether it be park land or our
transit system or public furnitured furniture. Graffiti vandals cost the city
money and impact our private property owners and business
owners in the way that mrs. workman described.
We support this legislation and encourage the board of supervisors as well. And we thank you supervisor
breed to bring on this nuance
approach, that works not to
punish artists but rather to
fight the problem, which is vicious vandalism, thank you and for your good work.
>> thank you, next speaker.
>> good morning, supervisors, I
am stephanie greenberg, and I represent district 3 on the graffiti advisory board.
I must say that I was thrilled
when I heard about supervisor
breed's legislation, I couldn't
wait to get involved and this is
game-changing for the city.
For too long this burden has fell on the city and property owners. And there is a general feeling
that there is too few consequences for graffiti vandals.
and this is true for repeat offenders.
With the legislation offering
new ways for graffiti offenders.
All is important as the information streaming and costs,
and the ability for the city to
seek civil and administrative
actions against the offenders. And of course better protection
of our parks and public vehicles
against graffiti vandals. I hope that you support this
effort to hold graffiti offenders for the damage they cause this city. It's a step in the right direction to shift the burden
from the victim to the offender.
And it sends a message that san
francisco is able and willing to
take steps to address the offensive and destructive graffiti problem. This is the right thing to do for the city and thank you for your effort and time. >> thank you, next speaker
please.
>> good morning, Madam Chair,
london breed and board President
Chiu and board of supervisors
tang, thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak.
i am here to represent, I am a
member of the graffiti advisory
board and a long-time resident and property owner of san
francisco, where I live and work. I have been a member of the graffiti advisory board for over
six year, s
years, and I have seen challenges in terms of its hope
to control graffiti vandalism in san francisco.
And I am really delighted and in
support of supervisor breed's
legislation to prevent graffiti
vandalism and shift policies to
penalize vandals than victims.
back in 2007 when I joined the graffiti advisory board.
It was said that the city was spending over $20 million in the control of graffiti vandalism in the city.
And that money could be better spent towards education for the kids.
Or for food for the elderly or
homes for the homeless. And so there are many, many things we could think of to better use that money.
But instead we are becoming
reactionary to someone's whim
and desire to disrespect our properties [Bell]
it's not one cure of the
problem, it takes a village to resolve it.
I am happy that we have the city
and the residents and all of us to control vandalism. Thank you. >> thank you, any other members of the public that wish to comment on this item? Seeing none public comment is closed. Again, everyone thank you for coming out today. I am excited that we have an
opportunity to really change the
face of san francisco by reducing graffiti throughout our
city.
I am looking forward to just the
visible changes I know will come in the next couple of months, I am sure. With that colleagues, I have before you a few amendments that
you received from the city attorney today.
Do you want to explain quickly
what those specifics are?
>> sure, deputy city attorney,
just as you described clerical fixes.
The title of the ordinance didn't exactly reflect the
content of the ordinance, so we
fixed the title to make it matchup.
So that it accurately described
the prohibition on graffiti
materials and parks.
And then just removing language
in a few provisions in the
park's code that referred to
prescribed materials, a term that is in the definition of graffiti. >> thank you, colleagues, can I have a motion to support.
>> motion to amend.
>> without objection, the motion
pas passes.
Is there a motion to move to the full board. I will recognize supervisor tang.
>> thank you, I want to mention about this legislation, we have
heard about those who have hit
transit corder -- corridors, and I appreciate it and we are trying to take different steps.
Whether working with the arts
commission or other entities to
prevent graffiti by painting
beautiful murals that represents
our district's character.
again I am really glad that we
are taking this to the next
level so we can be sure that the people committing these offenses
are hopefully deterred if the -- in the future, I am happy to support this and move to the
full board. >> thank you, supervisor chiu.
>> thank you, I want to echo
supervisor tang's comments, and
want to thank those working on this issue.
I was first confronted with the
challenge of graffiti in the
D.A.'s office and know how
difficult it is to go after the
perpetrators of graffiti.
I have been working with my
district and I want to thank my
reps, who have been working diligently for years, thinking
of solution to move forward.
this not only reflects a
wonderful effort of the city
departments but smart tools for the city.
I want to thank supervisor breed
for your efforts and I am happy
to support and add my name as a co-sponsor. >> thank you, supervisor chiu,
with that we have a motion on the floor, and without objection
this item moves to the full
board for consideration, thank you. Next item.
>> item 2, hearing to receive an
update from the city services
auditor on the status of audit recommendations. >> okay. Hello.
>> good morning, chair breed. And supervisor tang and
supervisor chiu.
I am tonya letitur, and director
of the city services auditor division.
today I have an associate
auditor, skogin, and I am here
to highlight my office's work to
follow up on recommendations we issued.
And an summary of our follow-up
that we reported is on the summary page.
the benefit is not in the findings but in the implementation of corrective action.
And by conducting follow-ups it
helps ensure that departments
are implementing change and helps city management.
And it allows us to assess the value of our audit work.
and our office does two types of follow-up work, regular and
field follow up. We do follow ups for two years
after they are issued.
In these follow-ups we periodically ask departments to
report to us on the
implementation status.
We May select certain high-risk audits for the field follow up. Where we go back into the
department and gather evidence and determine if each is implemented.
For details of our follow-up
process you can refer to the report. For the next slides I will provide a follow-up activity for
the second quarter, and provide highlights for specific reports
in the memorandum for the follow-up activity.
And I will give an overview of the follow-up work. And I will highlight the recently issued report. For the second quarter of the
fiscal year, we conducted 24 follow-ups, and nine recommendations.
The follow-ups are responsive to
the follow-up status. And with one recommendation open
and contested by the department,
six of these follow ups are still open.
If still open after the two-year
follow up, and we give a report on recommendations not implemented after two years.
Two follow-ups had still open recommendations after two years, all had a status of closed and six of these are now closed. After we receive our response
from the department and an
auditor reviews the response and based on the reported actions.
We determine if those actions
would resolve the problem underlying recommendations.
whether the department has fully implemented the recommendation
or that the department has provided a specific alternative
to the recommendation, or if the recommendation is not relevant
due to an operational change.
The department closed 82 of the
109 recommendations that we followed up.
22 recommendations remain open.
Three recommendations are elapsed elapsed. That means they are over our
regular two-year follow-up process.
And contested means that the
department has indicated that it
would not implement recommendations, which we have two on this quarter. The report of the follow-up
activity is on the controller website.
Today I want to highlight two of
the 16 follow ups here.
the 2011 record looked at different managements. The review found that many
employees were working outside
of their classification.
Some policies did not meet best practices and that the
department needed control of his financial management and
education of his cultural equity grants program.
We better aligned the department
and to provide for management of the grants program.
in the report, cfa found that
boondocks underpaid on its
lease, and on the report found
that they overpaid for the audit period.
And first I would like to show
what allows the department to
establish multiyear contracts for maintenance and minor
construction work based on predetermined tasking of tasks and supplies. Finding that the program had
some strengths but also had room
for improvement. the program found some projects
that did not meet the intent of the program.
The audit recommended the program mission and establishing
more rigid and specific criteria
for using the job program. Additionally asking for improvements in policies and
procedures and how assigned to
contractors and for better
monitoring of contractor reports.
The contested recommendation
related to invoice review and to
ask for staff outside of the job
program and the contract administration bureau review for accurate pricing.
The reason we did that, because
it's best practices to separate
the duties of awarding contracts
and approving payment on the contract contracts, if one person has the
ability to award a contract to a
contractor, and receive and
review invoice from that contractor.
There is increased opportunity
to cause fraud to the city, we are here to review those
recommendations.
>> good morning, I am the
director of assurance control of
the cfpsc.
I am joined by the manager of
construction and management of bureau. In February we provided the responses of the contract program. And of the three recommendations
that are still open, we had
implemented one and contested two.
The reason why two were contested were due to
alternative internal controls in place. the first primarily
recommendation, 10 and 11, were
for a separate bureau, the
contract administration bureau
to have access to the trojan
software, with pre-priced costs for individual items that
managers can use on their projects. What I understand there is a
level of review that is provided
by the project managers for that, and that's part of the alternative internal control.
For the other item, no. 11, also
related to using the contract
administration staff, that's
satisfied by the cost in the
trojan software, and I will
provide with more input into the program.
>> good morning, I am the
program manager for the bureau.
The software consists of pre-priced items.
So when a task order is issued,
the price for that project is
based on pre-priced items.
therefore the focus actually
should be checking the duration
of the work, or the amount of
volume or the quantity of items that were invoiced.
The line items do not change.
and therefore it should be the
project managers who are independent of construction management bureau.
The project managers are aided by the construction managers who
are the primary auditors I will
say -- sorry, nervous,
inspecting the contents of the invoices.
but the line items are already
pre-priced. >> thank you.
>> thank you.
>> okay and the controller's officer response to that. >> I will spend a little more time exploring their response. There are a couple of things I
want to get clarity on as it relates to where the program manager sits. They are within the program, and
we are still looking for an appropriate segregation of duty.
because they are overseeing the
project that this individual is approving within the job spectrum.
So we want to be able to still
see where that level of separation of duties. >> based on what they are proposing it doesn't sound like that's the case. >> yeah.
>> it sounds like it's still continuing, just an additional layer added to the system. >> yes. >> okay, you want to address
that?
Because that's what I heard.
>> we love work with csa, I will
make sure personally to work.
>> we need that extra layer of
checks and balances in order to address the concerns there.
It's a concern that I also have. And it's clearly missing. And based on what you provided
us in terms of your solution, it just doesn't cut it.
>> I will work with the bureau manager to be sure that something is put in place or a response to resolve their concern.
>> okay, so the next time we
come back to the hearing for the controller's office we are
highlight what is done since then. >> okay.
>> the next report I would like
to discuss is the 2013 audit for the public health structures.
The audit found that the
structure of dh ph purposing, and
they implemented solutions for medical supply purchasing in
some divisions but not all.
As a result transaction was not
imperial for purchasing wide. Policies were inconsistent
across divisions and in some
cases not clear.
though dph allows them to bypass
the city competitive, and with the discount on members behalf, the department did not have
controls in place to be sure
that the pricing was in fact competitive.
As a result dph is here today to
speak of their progress in
implementing these recommendations.
>> thank you, good morning,
right off the bat there are nine
recommendation its that the dph
wholeheartedly concurs and
supports supports. For the agenda to bring the
entire dph in line with industry standards and expectations
around technology and comparing benchmarks.
We have been working diligently
in my role around the hospital
in contract management, and with changes and I work in an effort
to collaborate and accord coordinate
across dph in the processes and as well sharing the tools around the authority. The bigger piece is getting the infrastructure in place at the various divisions.
That is still utilizing paper
and pencil across orders, and to
bring that up to speed and in
par with other systems of technology.
and we need to follow up with the education around the tool
that is a topic, to ensura that
we have benchmarks and industry pricing. Everything is slowly coming together for us, and we hope to
have policies and procedures to share in the next report. >> when are we talking about? What is the time line?
Because you still have nine open recommendations?
>> of the nine, the latter, I
believe 4-9 are around
developing codify policies and procedures and to have a process
to compare quarterly reports.
that's the next report to the
controller's office will closed.
The first one or two require a
recommendation of personalized structure whether at san
francisco general or dph that
will acquire additional software.
A previous update to this system took 24 months.
Now this contractor is sitting in a review process with the city attorney and oca.
We are looking at I would say
12-18 months to have a full
electronic system to have
comparable data. >> can I mention something in your report?
you mentioned there was no clear , can you provide this process.
>> oca has provided a waiver for
the process, what is an
admin-code -- I apologize, it's
in the admin-code that aprovides
for allowance for dph to have a different kind of bidding process.
They belong to a medical group
where that group is bidding for services.
>> we talked about that for medication as well. >> right, in order to be
effective for dph they need this centralized method to assess what they need.
So we are buying at a better rate.
>> but they have not done any comparison to determine how it actually is a better rate?
there is no comparison, for
example, one rate against another outside of the department specifically.
>> she worked on the audit form.
>> the issue, their system has really excellent reporting tools. And as part of that system --
>> sorry, can you introduce yourself.
>> I am kat skogin, the auditor
that led this audit.
In this system they had great reporting tools, and part of the contract had someone come in
from the vendor that has their
reporting structure to look at
their pricing and to make sure
they were maximizing the pricing
tiers, and maximizing the leverage with the individual contracts.
But there was not a comparison
with the vendors outside of this
group of the organization. That's what we were asking for
to periodically look at is this comparable to what you get outside of this group organization.
Or are we just trusting them to
get the best price.
>> okay, I got it, thank you.
And you are saying that process
will take between 12-18 months?
>> for the entire organization,
it's in place for two locations.
to share those tools and to
leverage that volume across the department and achieve the maximized savings. >> okay, thank you. >> any other questions?
>> no thanks.
>> now I would like to highlight
some field follow-up work as
related to a 2010 audit, two
audits, sfp release division.
release audits were hanson and
aggregate rock in alameda county, lease to operate a
public golf course, and they
located the facilities in the county. The audit sounds serious with
the leases.
the real estate division did not
have compliances for leases and
did not verify payments and did
not consistently assess late charges.
as a result they had a combined
248,000 and more in unpaid rents
and improperly charges.
My office conducted a report on
both of these this year.
as reminder we gather evidence
and whether protective actions
resolve the issues with the underlying recommendations.
As a result of that audit,
collecting funds beyond the
leases, and resolved the issues
causing the problems. The department affected changes
with a new director in 2011. The division implemented changes for the staff.
The director shifted to a system
to increase accountability internally.
the contractor had a technology
solution that will monitor some
tasks and enhanced controls, in
the reporting procedures.
And seeking advice with the city
attorney whether they can pursue
certain payments.
Because of these findings with
systemic changes, we report all reports resolved.
In our final part of the
presentation, I would like to
highlight two recently issued reports.
the first is audit of parks and
rec of lease of a city-owned
building, the lease began in
1997, looking at whether beach
chalet had adequately obtained their lease.
And we found that beach chalet
owed 53,000 in late fees and $33 in interest.
And found that rec and park did
not assess for the late payments
and monthly payments over the three-year period.
Rec and park has collected these funds from beach chalet.
And we found that there is a
lack of clarity about water uses and janitorial services.
The lease allows for beach
chalet to allow for water for
the rent, with a portion of the
facility use of the facilities.
Rec and park accepted beach
chalet with reduction of 40%,
with over $97,000 for the three-year audit period.
If our test results are typical of the lease overall, the
20-year impact would be over $650,000. However the lease does not state
how the deduction should be calculated.
And neither beach chalet or rec
and park could provide for this reduction.
Rec and park expected to have
completed the implemented database percentage for the
water usage credit by the end of last month. We will check back in on the
status of what the percentage should actually be.
And the lease does not state
that beach chalet with deduct
janitorial expenses for its rent.
on an average they are deducting $236 per month.
In our six-month period that we
test in the audit.
If the test results are
accurate, it would be $26,000,
we have asked rec and park to further investigate this process.
And determine if there are any
additional funds owed by the end
of the calendar year from rec
and park to beach chalet.
And I want to highlight our
audit of human services agency,
$19 million contract with guards
mart to provide security at the buildings.
The audit had findings and most
were agreed but one significant finding that I would like to discuss. Because of the value of this contract, approved by the board of supervisors.
the contract has expired and sha
has entered in a contract with
the same vendor, requiring
guards mart to provide for services.
However as approved by the
board, it does not require sha
to pay guard marts for security
services in other departments,
and due to cancel of buildings
closed for city holiday. As a result sha paid security
services that it did not need or
receive at cost of $600,000 for the contract five-year term.
And you see on the slide how sha came to that figure.
Paying for 11 holidays for 12
guards for five years. Sha agreed in earlier negotiation meetings to pay for
the holidays.
however this agreement is not reflected in the contract approved by the board of
supervisors, sha is here today
to discuss this finding.
>> good morning, Chairman Breed, supervisors, dave corto,
director of contracts for human services.
Though we agree with the
findings that our contract was
silent about the closure on holiday holidays, we did negotiate with the contractor early on that we
would account for these hours by assigning straight time for those times.
The holiday time was clearly not in the rate negotiated.
We purposely decided on this
term, to ensure that only security officers at that site
would receive the holiday pay on
the days that the city buildings were closed.
>> sorry, I am confused what you said. >> let me explain a little further.
So in this type of contract, you have a billing rate.
A rate per hour that you are
charged for security officers services.
The holiday pay required by the
ordinance was not paid in the billing rate accounted for the total hours in the contract.
We accounted for straight-time hours for the guards for those 11 days. >> so the city was still charged for holiday pay.
>> the city was still charged
for holiday pay and we authorized each payment.
We had a specific method of
payment with the contractor of
how to enforce it and authorize the payment.
The contract of the method of
payment did not detail this. That's a purely oversight of what we agreed to and what we put in the contract.
>> so you guys messed up.
>> in the contract, yes.
It should be delineated and accounted for in the contract that the board of supervisors
approved but not delineated in the pay.
>> so you are work on the change.
>> the new contract has it
clearly delineated and we will go forward on that basis. The new contract will be before the board shortly. >> what does the city attorney
say about the payment issued and
the contract that doesn't
coinside with the payment.
>> when the controller officer
looked at it and audited. I am thinking about past
payment, is there something to
rectify that situation?
Because it was delineated in the contract. >> it was acquired and the method we agreed to.
>> I understand that, but I want to make sure that the past of what was done in terms of the mistake, as result of what you are doing moving forward is resolved. Or is going to be resolved.
>> yes, the new contract will be approved by the city attorney before it gets to the board for final approval. So it has been addressed. >> and they are saying there is nothing else we need to do?
>> no, because the contract
acknowledges that we should have
compensated them for holiday pay and we did consistently throughout the five-year contract. >> okay, thank you.
>> thank you.
>> that ends our presentation. Unless you have other questions of me.
>> I just want you to, when you
come back to us the next time,
if you can give us an update on these particular items and the resolution to these items.
>> I will do that. >> colleagues, any other questions?
If not, we will open this item to public comment. If any members of the public
that wish to speak on this item, please do so now. Seeing none, public comment is closed. [Gavel]
>> I definitely would like to speak. >> okay.
>> can I entertain a motion to
reopen public comment. Okay, without objection, public comment is open.
>> thank you, I thought I put a card in.
As you see in this meeting,
sometimes things slip through the cracks. >> you have two minutes.
>> I am work it.
These audits, everyone appreciates it.
But I am here to say that this
is just a sample, of the audit, the housing authority.
That we are here to talk about,
ocii that is redevelopment, that you used to be a commissioner on.
And gtis, that controls the
television that goes on here.
which I had to be a large part
of creating something of the san francisco government channel, which I don't get the credit, I don't need it.
The oversight board, I was at a meeting with the redevelopment
agency, okay $50,000 for the
budget, and that committee is
the most that councils more meetings than anywhere in city hall.
What do they need $50,000 for, you need to check that out.
And the planning commission that happens in our black community.
They are trying to do a study on
us now, talking about african-american history.
We don't need more studies about
us, there is not of us to do studies on.
and another agency, the human rights commission, they need to be audited.
The last time they came to the community, they had their hands
spanked and a lot of their
activity put off in other departments.
And the puc needs to be monitored. i am very happy and tickled black that you are having this commission, but it doesn't mean
a damn thing, because things go on and on.
What needs to do, if the F.B.I.
Is still here at city hall and
try out what is happening with
the city hall, you call it city
hall and I call it silly hall.
>> thank you, any other members of the public that want to speak on this item. Seeing none, public comment is closed. Do we have a motion to file this -- we don't.
>> Madam Chair, do you want on continue this to the call of the chair.
>> yes, we do, do we have a motion to continue to the call of the chair.
>> so moved.
>> thank you, without objection continued to the call of the chair. Next item. >> item 3, hearing to understand
the needs for services for victims of violent crimes
including domestic violence
whose perpetrators are directly
supervisored by the adult
probation baptist department.
>> a couple of weeks agos I
asked for a hearing for victims
of domestic violence who
perpetrators are under the
supervision of our adult
probation department.
Dozens of those in active
probation have committed violent
crimes, and half of them are
crimes of sexual assault.
and if you add other family members, the number could just
to several of thousands.
Apd is mandated under the law to
require the reports for defend
defendents, that is to include a
condition of probation need to
pay restitution to a victim. Unfortunately there is no
services in place for courts to determine restitution and for
victims to have a voice in the
pro proceedings.
And at this time there is a lack
of fair restitution or effects
of victimization.
Moreover, those victims
adjudicated don't have services
to the road of restoration.
Adp is considering a restitution
program for the victims and the community.
This new program could be an
opportunity, because adp has the
longest relationship with those that commit violent crimes.
I want looking to support the
need for those who need services
for victims of violent crimes. And to better understand the
opportunities of adp and look at
how can coordinate with those
working with victims and offenders in our system.
Today we have a number from city
department consist, from the san francisco D.A. Office and department of status of women, and sheriff's department.
And I want to thank and welcome
the chief for an initial presentation. >> thank you, President Chiu and
committee members for providing me the opportunity to speak today.
And to keep with our efforts to protect the community and
serving justice and changing lives.
The adult probation department working to reduce victimization
and make our victims whole and decrease victim accountability.
We have worked with domestic
partners and we have done a lot
to support our services to victims.
but there is a lot more to be done.
In 2012 there was a unit where
an individual of child abuse is
referred to adp, in a 52-week program through the violence
program that complies with the
california statute.
And the program supported by adp
and we audit to ensure that the
program complies with the requirements.
And we also as with domestic
violence cases and warrants are
issued that violate their
probation, we hold them
accountable in their motion to evoke.
In addition we have enhanced our
efforts in 2012-13 to revise our audit tool.
And we conducted a comprehensive
audit of the bip programs.
the review that was critical in
programs and ensure compliance with the california penal code
and adp standards that ensure accountability.
This is an an ongoing bip accountability.
with bip classes in 10 programs,
and two failed to comply with the programs.
And the remaining nine will be held accountable.
But the bip review uncovered
gaps for the victims of violence. they will discuss now and leads
to where the gaps are related to
survival restoration and
offender accountability. There are approximately 4800
people under adp supervision.
conservatively thousands victims
of crime, and that grows when
you look at family and children of the victims.
>> if you could go through those numbers.
>> now we supervisor 540 clients
under the domestic violence cases.
and we supervisor 126 sex offenders.
And in addition to that we have
significant number of
individuals that have been
convicted of violent crimes.
Just on those pure numbers there
is over 1,000 individuals that
have violence-related crimes.
and in addition to that is the
children and the victims to the crimes. There are several thousands of individuals that have been impacted by crimes in san francisco.
And typically a person is on probation for average of three years.
And adp has the longest relationship with those that
commit those violent acts.
And in addition adp has an
obligation to the court that a
defendant of restitution is to provide for the victim impact statement. What that means on the front end
of the process, we are the
statutory agency that is
obligated to one, assess if is
there a victim restitution or
damage amount owed to that victim.
As well as what is the impact personally. And in the report and recommendation to the court, we make our recommendation. But as the process stands now,
we have no resources related to
the actual victimization,
assessing damage, doing forensic accounting.
The reporter has 2-1/2 weeks to conduct that process, which is not nearly enough time to identify with the victim and the
costs and to work with the
district attorney's office that
is processing the crime and introduce that recommendation to the court.
If that doesn't happen, then
what happens, the restitution
order becomes a general order of restitution and a low dollar amount.
A majority of the victims do not
receive restitution in direct orders.
And in penal codes 12.25 and 12-b, and the restitution to be paid to the victim, we are
obligated to ensure that the
actual offender is paying the probationer. And in fact we have to prepare a
report which is called a cr-110,
that is a victim statement in
order of economic loss and cr-15 --
>> could you slow down just a
second, right now we are in violation of state law in
regards of how we are not taking care of our victims. >> correct.
We have minimal efforts. I guess you could say that we comply with the letter of the law. We send out a letter to the
victim at the same time of 2-1/2
weeks that we are work on
interviewing the perpetrator and gathering the information for pre-sentence report. But there are no resources to
get in front of that 2-1/2 weeks to ascertain that damage and bring that information back so it's put together and can be
included in the report.
Over 80% of the reports that go to the court do not include direct orders. It's a lack of time and
resources to get on the front end. we send a letter that we are
required to, but there is no
follow up to the victim, it's a cumbersome process, and that's
why 80% of the reports go without feed-back to the victim.
>> you are saying if we had the resources to do this, we could
get five times as much by way of restitution to the victims. >> absolutely. >> do you have an estimate of
what we currently get as far as
restitution to victims if you
had to guess?
>> I would say on average, the
general orders are about $200, and our victim's crimes, they can experience in the thousands
of dollars of damage.
But that victim doesn't get the
benefit of having that direct
order that holds that specific offender accountable because we
don't have that information to
provide to the judge. and therefore the judge cannot order that. And a significant part of problem, without that direct
order there is a minimal amount that, that offender must be
required to repay prior to be released from probation.
If we have a direct order, we can also before an individual is through with their probation, we
can notice the court.
And there is a civil order that
can long exceed what the
supervision amount is. Guaranteeing that victim another
avenue in order to recoup what their losses are.
>> I did a back of the envelope calculation, and of the thousand
offenders and 800 don't have
restitution and we are leaving hundreds of thousands of dollars left on the table. >> absolutely.
and in addition to that, in this
county there is only 1800 orders of restitution.
And to put that in perspective,
there is 5,000 individuals under
community supervision.
Out of those 1800 cases, only 60
individuals are paying on those
1800 restitution orders.
So while the front end is
important, it's important to
monitor the process, and they
are in terms of meeting basic obligations.
And their time is invested in that.
Having these additional resources to not only identify
what those resources are to be
owed restitution to the victims.
Is having those resources to
follow up with forensic and
accounting and to communicate to bring individuals back into court. And to put additional
restrictions and requirements on
probation if they fail to comply.
One innovative piece is to
create a restitution work-through. For a lot of individuals they
have limited access to monetary means.
What we propose to do also is to
create a restitution work group
where we do community related projects, and create a fun that we would pay.
not the offender directly but
pay into the fund and directly
pay through the court, so that
victim would receive their
direct order compensation.
That is an important factor to lead to change of behavior.
>> and it's important of what restitution that is calculated
and not collecting, to have an
idea of the size of the problem.
And I would want to support a budgetary expenditure to do exactly that. >> thank you.
the other aspect also of our
population that needs to be
addressed the offenders of this
trauma that represent a rapid
growing segment of addressing
mental health and psychobehavior that contributes.
And this shows in childhood and
offending behavior and childhood
and adult trauma are high in incarcerated.
And in addition, childhood
trauma is linked to behaviors
such as alcohol and drug abuse
and behaviors in adulthood.
childhood behaviors confront our society.
A natural extension of adp is to
try to interrupt the cycle of
crime and invest in clients
change in behavior, and thereby
making our communities safer.
and a restitution and offender
accountability program will be a
big step intervention of
violence and crime, and of
crimes by perpetrators in these acts. >> thank you.
and next presentation is belief from the sheriff's department, someone from the sheriff's department?
Great, thank you.
>> hi, I am the supervisor of restoration of the sheriff's department.
I am here to talk about our
services and collaborations, for
the past 12 or 13 years the
sheriff's department has a victim restoration program.
The first goal is to work with
the survivors of the offenders
in our rccp program.
Since then the department has
developed its own survivor restoration program. That we provide for offenders in
the rccp program and also all
the other programs in our jail. Including roads to recovery and also our nova program.
providing services to the survivors of the offenders in our community programs.
We also have a survivor empowerment program.
The goal of the department is to
support survivors in their crisis, and to reach out to the community.
we have a strong collaboration
with the D.A.'s office and criminal justice agencies.
And providing services for
undocumented survivors.
And then strong collaborations
and support survivors on the next level of empowerment.
It's a 12-week curriculum that we provide in the community,
reaching out to women who are no
longer in crisis, but yet need long-term health. We found in the sheriff's
department that a lot of times our sister agencies and
partners, we get so caught up in dealing with the immediate crisis, we don't have the
opportunity to continue the empowerment.
the same types of services that
we offer offenders in long-term
behavioral changes, we provide that for our survivors. And another piece of the program is survivor impact. That we provide an opportunity for victims of violent crimes to
share their stories with offenders. And for the offenders to understand accountability and
the impact.
And with that we have been in collaboration with several different agencies.
And with the domestic violence consortium supports more opportunities for our survivors
to get the services and restitution. Because we see this a lot. In my 12 years, that's one of
the biggest challenges that we
do see with our survivors not
able to get restitution.
they are exhausted in the
process, even if they went through a court case by the end and to get restitution. To do follow up with that. We are some support of services
and funding to move that forward. Any questions? >> thank you very much. >> thank you.
next call up from the san
francisco district attorney
office, kristena berry.
>> good afternoon, chair breed and board.
I am happy to come and happy to
hear a hearing on victims.
Part of what you are hearing of
offenders in apb and the
sheriff's custody suffering from trauma, because so little is
done on the front end of victims
of a crime.
The conduct I have been exposed
to in the D.A.'s office, called parallel justice. If I leave you with anything today to embrace with the community.
In san francisco we try to be
innovative and help for them to
have a meaningful life.
And the question is how do we do that with victims. And don't leave them at the courthouse door, but make sure they have everything they need
to put their lives back together.
What the chief of at dp and D.A. Office struggle to meet the daily needs that we have and the mandates that we have. And very little opportunity to
do the additional work that we think would do so much in are
for victims and offenders.
By state law the district attorney's office and mandated to provide victim services.
And we do that and have to do
that in continuing state cuts.
In each of the consecutive
years, the state has cut the
funding for the victim advocates
and that's the cost that the city is picking up.
We are forced to pay as a county
than the state that paid for it.
Last year we served almost 6,000 victims, that's 16% increase from the year before.
those 6,000 victims are seen by
12 advocates in our office, you can imagine the case loads.
And of those 6,000, 90% are victims of violent crimes.
These are people that have had
the most unimaginable and horrific circumstances that
cross their paths. We are the first point of contact of those victims.
We see them in a day or two of the crime.
They come to our door and work
with an advocate and try to explain what happened.
from the state compensation fund we collect documents that will
be helpful to the adp and share them now and will continue to share them as they do the
restitution of the orders, we do a patch system of filling out
forms that the chief mentioned.
Because we are concerned about
the inability to collect restitution.
We would welcome adp to have
restitution members to help them collect.
the ideas of trauma speak directly to two requests we made
in this budget process for the D.A. Office for our victim's services unit.
I mentioned that 90% of our
victims come to us as result of a violent crime.
What we do in that process, is
make referrals to other agencies
that May offer them subsidized
or deferred payment for mental
health treatment or crisis counseling.
Most victims come to us in the worse moments of their lives.
What we would like to have is a
social worker in our victim
services office, to offer to people 10 sessions. What we have learned that most
don't take us on that. It becomes too difficult to meet
an advocate and share your
story, and we'll send you out,
here's a list of people that can help you.
It feels abrupt and most people
don't appreciate the brush-off in that process.
What we seek to is just have
one, we don't feel that it cover
the entire case load but will
improve the services the victims get. and the second request is a housing specialist.
The other thing that we see is real challenges around housing for most victims.
Most victims are low income and
struggle and they for
exasperated after a victim of a crime.
And we can provide temporary relocation.
And we make referral in --
referrals in that process and you can imagine that people that
just had their entire family and
life thrown into chaos as a
result of a crime and additional burden to figure out housing.
In what we know is an exceptionally challenging house other market.
Those are two our requests that
dovetail in what adp is doing. We think it's challenging to
take on this work and look forward to increased restitution
to be collected on their behalf.
>> do you have an estimate of how much restitution is not collected because of lack of resources?
>> I think that the chief's
numbers are accurate.
on our part we provide that restitution be paid to the victim.
What will make that more
effective, is restitution of
$400 to replace the window, and
etc., and we don't have that and
as we pass from adp they don't
have the time to put in a specific order for the court to
review and make a specific order. And the numbers that you
received I have no reason to believe they are less than accurate.
>> thank you very much, from the
final presentation from the
department of women.
>> good morning, committee
chair, President Chiu, and supervisor tang. I am the director of the
department of status of women.
i am here to express our
services, we oversee the city's
investment of $4 million of
services of women survivors of violence. And also part of the violence
reform, we have focused on long-term solutions to evaluate violence against women.
in strong partnership with city
agencies and specifically jail
probation departments and city providers.
We have greatly improved the response to violence.
And the proposal prohibit esented by
probation is a further step to strengthen san francisco's response to violence against women.
The program is provided to be comprehensive.
And to broaden the path of healing to victims.
And the proposed plan for
probationers is to provide
against recidivism. And of all the departments we
have worked with on the justice encouragement department, probation department is one of
the leading to adjust challenges and better san francisco.
>> thank you, I want to thank all various representatives from
your departments, I know this is
an ongoing part of the budget process, I for one want to work with you and move that forward
and hope our colleagues as well.
I want to go to public comment,
first we have Mrs. Upton and
cathy black.
If other members that want to speak, step up.
>> hi, I am cathy black, thank you for having this meeting today.
I am the executive director from
la casa villa, and I have been
there for 17 years.
And a panel member for the
justice panel and I co-chair the audit information committee.
Which took the audit findings
and then developed system changes.
And so I also want to recognize adult probation for coming up
with an innovative solution.
And say that it's probably no
secret that I am very
pro-offender accountability.
And would really support building a stronger
infrastructure that will ensure
that victims and survivors are made whole to the extent possible.
And I would say that if you were
to survey, la casa serves 19,000
victims and survivors per year.
From a hot line call to shelter. >> could you repeat that number again? >> 19,000.
And I think if you were to
survey them, you would find that
the number who maybe receiving
any kind of -- any kind of restitution is probably next to
none. Pretty much none, but thank you
very much, and I support this program.
>> thank you, very much, one comment I want to make.
I know that each departments in
the community, we believe that
there are thousands of victims that do not receive restitution and other support. and it would be go do try to
estimate that as a ballpark to figure out budgetary decisions around that.
That number is not unreasonable
and pretty staggering. >> I just heard about this
hearing, I wish I had known in advance.
We could have taken a couple week sampling, which I am happy to do. I would like to provide more
information if possible.
I think that we could inform much the decision by just
showing that a lot of victims who are definitely involved in the criminal justice process.
But are not getting that next
step of assistance. Thank you.
>> next speaker, please.
And I know ace washington has
submitted a card as well.
if you want to go after --
>> I am appearing here anonymously to answer possible
questions and also my own
statements May support retaliation.
And I would like not to have that occur. i think you have heard a lot
about people not getting the
restitution and the fairness and treatment and prevention.
People that you know the amenities of.
But who are the women and
possibly men too who have been victims of the crime which are
not reported.
that the police have responded
dismissively when there is an attempt to have police intervention and report.
Many of these people, they would
like to state that there are
routinely from four or five
events that I am personally informed on.
That the police have responded dismissively when there is an
effort to report crimes of magnitude.
One of them was the effort to
report an attempted murder,
hands on attempted murder in a shelter. The response of the police
department when the person went to the nearest police station to
try to report it, was a stand up
in the lobby of the police
station by the policeman.
And told and dismissively approaching the person once
found they were a shelter resident resident. Saying that an attempted murder was not a crime.
And an effort at the police
station to have another kind of report or something correction
of that.
Led to a false report of the
facts to lead to dismissal.
Now I can tell you about five other things but my time is up,
if you want to hear more about
this, maybe you would like to
Inaudible: To
residents in shelters that is
Inaudible: By the police department. >> thank you very much. Mr. Washington.
Final speaker then.
>> thank you, supervisors, good
afternoon, san francisco domestic violence consortium.
I first want to say it's been an
honor to work with adult probation, chief steele and their team. This is a huge opportunity for the city to take a huge step forward and fill a gap.
i would like to tell a quick story, because I have one case
that I think illustrates several opportunities for us to be way
more accountable as a city and
help victims and their families. So I received contact with a
victim of domestic violence
through a supervisor's office last summer.
I sat through the trial with
this survivor, and she was quite assertive. She knew her lost wages and costs were.
When we talk about housing, the screen door was torn off.
And the windows broken.
and she had to of course, as you imagine in this housing market,
she had to repair her housing right away. That's all out of pocket.
She was in some ways a model
case to move forward towards restitution. I think everybody along the way
did everything they could to help.
her supervisor tried to help.
The D.A. Handled the case well,
and restitution was set, which we have heard was not in a lot
of cases. But the offenders
assets were not investigate and
put on a low payment plan. And this new program could look
into hidden assets of offenders. Not everyone has them but some do. And make the victims whole of those assets.
You can imagine if you were
granted say $2500 of restitution
that you paid out of pocket and
to receive 50 to $100 a month,
and you can imagine how long that takes.
I am out of time and thank you, we are supportive in the department. Any questions?
>> I want to thank you and your
colleagues to work with the city departments. I think we have a lot of work to
do to build a case for this, but thank you for your representation.
>> thank you, I think it's meaningful.
>> final speaker.
>> hello, my name is larry, I am
giving you a copy of an agenda.
Inaudible:
Acquitted and restraining order violation.
I am the face of a victim, I am
a black, gay man.
And here tndc where I stay at. There is a lot of offenders
coming out and speculators and
adult probation, they let these
people beat on us and not only me.
But several people are going
through abuse and move people out.
and I have been there and we are victims. Since obama has been President I
have faced more racism and bulyism in san francisco than ever.
I think it's time to bring the matthew shepard money to san francisco, we are not getting the justice that I believe that while and yellow people are
getting in this city.
Inaudible:
This is a letter that you get a copy. And the experience of working with you, and they confirm that
you are not a tenant that causes a lot of problems. And that there is a history of
people bullying you.
And I appreciate your honest and
integrity and the truth about this.
i didn't want to tell you that I received another incident report
of blocking the hallway.
I am telling you that victims in
the city for the housing market,
it's related and criminals
inside of the building.
in 2010 I was never in jail
until 2012 and I had a restraining order.
And I went to a lady that killed herself on easter sunday
Inaudible: Face of victim and
it's time that this city
Inaudible: . >> thank you very much.
Inaudible: . >> thank you very much.
Inaudible: .
>> did I give you that copy ma'am?
We should get three minutes like
everyone in the department. >> thank you. Supervisor chiu.
>> any other members of the
public that wish to speak on this item?
Madam Chair, public comment is closed. And I want to thank all the members of the public as well as
our advocates and the city
department heads, who are thinking but how san francisco can be smart on crime.
It's been a number of years since I held a hearing on victims of crime.
We obviously have a long way to go to be compliant with state law.
it's important to work with adp and the D.A. Office and the sheriff's department to get us there.
I hope in this budget process we can have a smart conversation around this and colleagues hopefully will have a conversation with the budget committee.
What we need to do to make sure
that hundreds of thousands of
dollars that are due to the
crime victims are going.
And create a safety net around
our victims, and around that if we keep this item. Don't need keep at the call of the chair, just table at this point.
>> thank you, President Chiu,I want to thank you for your leadership on this issue.
i find the comments inviteful --
insightful on the information
and the district attorney's
office working with families.
We should make sure there is a comprehensive approach that the victims are not further
victimized through the process. In many cases these are women with children, we need to bring the services to the location where they are needed the most. And that's something that we ought to be looking at as a city.
i appreciate the feedback and
understanding of what is happening and with this discussion moving forward. This item has been continued to
the call of the chair -- tabled, okay. Any objection to that?
no objection, okay, thank you.
Thank you supervisor avalos for
joining us for the next item.
>> hearings directed to the
housing authority and mayor's
office of housing in san francisco.
>> President Chiu has to leave.
>> I want to make a quick
comment that I have assigned
supervisor avalos to this item,
and this is an important topic
around questions of how to take
care of our residents.
I want to thank supervisor avalos and others on this item, and look forward to reviewing
the tape on this as it proceeds, thank you very much.
>> okay, thank you, President Chiu.
I called for this hearing with
the mayor's office of housing
for the recent approval of the
rad program, republican housing sites in san francisco.
I want to thank supervisor
avalos for being here and
co-sponsoring the hearing.
Mayor lee announced that the rad
program with the san francisco
housing authority will enter
into a public/private
partnership and leverage of $180
million for housing units. Rehabilitation work will improve
the housing urnt nits, and the rad program will provide in a land use structure. with the employment
opportunities for public housing
rez debt rez -- residents.
I must say that the plan sounds
positive as a supervisor this is important to me.
And to be sure that this program delivers on the promise it puts out there.
I want to thank mayor lee for working on the priority of housing in san francisco.
Last week we announced $5.4
million needed for elevate
repairs in nine units.
and I am working with the
mayor's office to leverage $2.3
million on housing units and make that available for homeless
families.
I am excited with this rad
program and that we understand
what the program entails and the challenges in place. And more importantly, I want to
be sure that we have a clear
plan and opportunities to the residents of public housing.
I want to know in detail how rad
will impact the 4,000 housing units involved, many of which are in district 5.
And I hope that the mayor's
office of housing can explain a
few things.
Tenant rights and how they are protected.
any fair housing implications, specifically should the
nonprofit providers be required
to report race, family size, etc.
The demographics who is admitted.
And how we can increase options
for housing ladder as residents
move up in income status.
Who from the city will be the person responsible to ensure
that housing providers comply with the rights and maintenance needs and all other things that we continue to have challenges with. And how will that compliance process work.
How rad will improve the quality
of life for job opportunities in san francisco public housing residents is of the most concern to me.
As I said my primary objective today and going forward is to
develop a clear, comprehensive plan for these questions, and other questions that many here May have.
rad is a complex and potentially intimidating process.
And we need a solid
communication and outreach plan.
There are multiple divisions involved with public housing,
and we need a cross departmental collaboration, and we need to
bring the answers to the residents.
So they don't have to come to city hall to find out what is
happening with their homes. Thank you for being here today.
I know we have a few folks to present.
Before I open the floor to the
departments, I want to provide supervisor avalos an opportunity to make comments. >> thank you, chair breed, and I
will be very, very brief.
I want to echo your comments you
made in the introductory remarks for this hearing.
Public housing is an important resource in san francisco.
looking at the numbers, who
lives there, 22% of african-americans in the city is in public housing.
And we haven't done enough to be
sure that we stem the tide of african-americans.
And our latino community, into better housing situations and better jobs. That's always a challenge.
But it's a main effort that our
city is to be involved in to make san francisco a sustainable city for everyone.
And housing is a big part of it. The rad program is one that
creates a great deal of uncertainty about how we manage our property moving forward.
Key questions that come up for
me are, how are we going to ensure that there is strong tenant protections that.
We ensure that we have
one-to-one replacement truly.
When we talk about one-to-one
replacement and with units, and
do we replace housing units. And how to have the highest standards for workers.
Now we have workers with
standards for prevailing wage and living wage jobs and benefits.
But if we go to a model that
contracts out that work, are we losing those benefits and standards?
I used to be an orgizer --
organizer with local 577, and a lot of people did the maintenance work in public housing.
And they spoke of enduring troubling work conditions, where
they were faced with many, many
units to work on and not enough resources to do that.
I realize that they need to have the highest standards possible.
If we are looking at there being
fewer resources under the rad program.
Then we will be seeing a diminishment of people able to
do the work under the code as supervisor breed is talking about.
I am open to hearing how that is addressed by our housing authority.
there are many, many key issues
to address. And I am very interested in seeing how a strong partnership
can be made to oversee this public/private partnership, one that keeps the public's
standards as high as they can.
>> thank you, supervisor avalos,
we will have presentations from
the housing authority and from
Mr. Torres, the President Of the
commission of the housing authority.
And the director's mayor of houseing on.
and we will have regina vascal from hud. We will start with you Mrs.
Smith, if you can give us a presentation and go from there. And after we are r are done with that,
we will open up to public comment. >> supervisors, good afternoon,
this is a great pleasure to come
to you and talk about this collaboration that we have with
other city agencies, workers and most importantly residents of
public housing. I will give you a little background.
And then we have our regional administrator here to talk about the rad program.
and ultimately will be talking
about the reenvisioning and rad for preservation of public housing in san francisco. And then we are going to talk
about tenant protections and tenant engagement, which we feel
is very important in this process. And also our labor
communications and work with our employees and bargaining units. >> Mrs. Smith, before you go on, is the slide set up to show the
public?
>> sfg-tv, we have a powerpoint.
>> thank you. >> thank you.
>> I am new at this -- I wonder if this works.
It doesn't. So the san francisco housing
authority was established in 1938, under california state government code.
It's separate from the city departments.
and it provides housing
subsidies for over 27,000 households.
That's both with the housing choice voucher program and public housing.
We currently have 5,372 public
housing units that we are managing.
That serve close to 10,000
public housing residents.
The average household income is
just $14,639.
And the average rent that our
residents are able to pay at 30%
of their income is $312, which in san francisco, where the
market rents are over $3,000 a month now, this is a very
important resource for the city
for low-income households. They could not compete in the
market in san francisco.
We also have 7,637 applicants on
our public housing waiting list.
And over 2,000 of those households are single.
About 5,500 are two plus persons households.
This is after we have done a clean-up of our wait list.
These are people that are actively seeking public housing at this time.
And the applicants were asked to self-certify their preferences.
Over half of the applicants did self-certify their preferences.
We take applicants in based on their preferences.
and over 1500 of those
applicants are actually homeless, single individuals,
elderly and families.
Very high number.
Our housing was built mainly between 1941 --
>> sorry, Mrs. Smith, in order for the public to follow along,
do you have a staff member who
can help move these along?
>> sorry, okay, our housings was
built between 1941 and 1973,
very old, and has $270 million
of additional needs, and $50
million of additional needs
because of age accrues annually.
But yet the capital money that
we receive is 3.5% of the need.
it would take more than $5
million of annual budget just to modernize the elevators.
And that $5 million that we get
is for our entire portfolio.
The capital needs have continued to increase.
as you can see by this chart in
1991, we received $24 million
for capital improvements.
And we are currently receiving,
we have about $5 million for
capital improvements this year.
While the needs have continued
to go up, the resources that we
have available to address those
needs has been decline ing declining. There are other federal
programs, and why we will talk about the rad program.
That do provide ways of greatly increasing the resources
available to fix up our public housing.
And right now our residents are living in conditions that really need improvement.
and what we would like to do is
pursue this rad funding, and
provide better housing for our residents. Make the kinds of improvements
that the housing needs.
And be able to preserve this
stock on into the future, for
future low-income households as well.
Our regional administrator will
tell you about the rad program.
Thank you.
>> good morning, supervisors,
breed and avalos.
I will take a few minutes to
describe the rental assistance program.
And it's set up on a national basis of why we ended up with this new program.
we have 1.1 million housing
units across the country.
And not much different than what Mrs. Smith described.
The capital needs is $1.6
billion across the portfolio.
the funding is received under
the united states act, and while
a steady source of funding many
years ago, it's unreliable.
Per the cuts, it's a reflection
of the appropriation process that congress goes on the budget. >> just on that, is there
anything you can share at some point later with my office.
How the funds have changed from
hud over the years, there was
probably a stronger entitlement where the funds across the
nation was rising and then over
the years not around at all.
Historically that would be good to see the difference. >> the slide before my presentation shows your funding decline over time. If you factor inflation and things, we would be happy to come in and show you. The housing authority specifically and the overall
federal budget how it's impacted
over time as you take in
inflation, be happy to do that.
>> thank you, I am interested in before 1991.
>> okay, and the other aspect of
the way that the annual contributions contract between the federal government and the housing authorities that fund
the individual housing authorities. Also limited access to the capital market.
As making it impossible to
access the capital markets called a declaration of trust on every public housing development.
What we found we were losing
10-15,000 units a year due to
disrepair and as they fell in decline.
And couldn't be repaired.
So when the hud secretary, donovan came in, one of his
goals was to find a stable funding platform for public housing.
That would not be subject to the
annual budget process, and that
deals with this aspect to access
other sources.
In 2012 congress passed in the act a demonstration program.
It authorized up to 60,000 units nationwide to convert from
public housing to this new program. It's a demonstration program to see what happens to this conversion of public housing to
a long-term rental assistance contract.
With the intent to see if it
preserves long-term rental
assistance and affordability and
improve the properties.
Enabling the housing authority
to address debt. And to put in place a system
that would allow for long-term capital needs to be reflect in
the funding source that would
come in. Next slide. so what is interesting about this graph.
You can see there was an initial
interest in October, 2012,
shortly after the program was implement and people could begin to apply. Housing authorities could begin
to apply.
there was a period of time as
was new not sure how it would work.
But as more used the program,
you see that it shot up dramatically, December, 2013, we have hit the cap.
And we have applications now for 170,000 units. well above the cap. The other units above the cap,
are sitting in a queue. Waiting either for applications that don't get approved. And they move up the queue.
But the other issue, we have gone in asking congress to lift the cap. That's where we are in the process.
i would note that san francisco
is one of the top 10 applicants by housing authority.
I think it's number six or so.
In terms of the number of units
submitted for the rad program.
So I believe that ultimately and
we'll be explaining how the san francisco housing authority will implement the program.
I just wanted to set for you the context. How the program was developed. And why it was developed. And happy to answer any
questions now, I am afraid I
have another meeting I need to go to. Anything I can answer generally about the program.
>> thank you. >> just briefly.
You know we talk about, I hear
that we are going to private
developers will be managing, operating our public housing properties.
Or some of them.
Does that mean private for profit? Nonprofit?
what is the rad qualifications mean for san francisco or around the country as well?
>> the housing authority establishes its process for
selecting developers.
In some it's through the housing
authority and some for profit and some not for profit.
It's the housing authority's decision.
>> have we seen housing
authorities around the country
part of rad is that selective?
>> as that chart shows there is a huge uptake of housing
authorities converting to rad.
So is there a lot of interest in
the program, 170,000 units is indicative of the units.
Clearly there is a lot left.
as the cap gets lifted and as people have the opportunity to
see the authority, we will see more. >> now we see san francisco, are there other cities you can mention or name? >> sure.
The top 10, and I will hit a couple of highlighted numbers.
Chicago is number one, they are
proposing to convert 11,000 of
their units.
El paso, nashville and
birmingham and greensboro.
>> are we seeing that the cities
and counties are doing the same
model in san francisco, does
that model vary greatly.
Here I see the list, includes
nonprofits or are we seeing for profits and does that skew the models?
>> what you see is people
tailoring to resources in their community. San francisco has a housing
trust fund, and not many cities
have that, it's a source for
potential financing.
And tax credits, and there is a
number of ways that cities develop their program.
You will use what we call
project-based vouchers.
and others choose what makes
sense for their needs for repair.
Hard to say there is any one particular model. >> okay, looking around the
country, are we seeing any main
organization or company that is
taking a large chunk of rad ownership or management?
>> you know not that ti -- that
I know of.
There are for-profit developers
who are appearing that have experience managing these developments through hope 6 or choice applications.
i don't know that their is one particular company doing the bulk of the deals. >> and here in san francisco?
>> I am not sure who is all of
your nonprofits and developers are, I think that olson can speak to that. >> I had a few questions about
the requirements for the list.
For example, when we, as we move forward and begin to implement rad. There is some confusion, and I know, the challenge I have right
now as a supervisor, who is
asking questions is there is so
much information I know that
will come as a result of this hearing.
some of these questions May be
answered as a result of future presentations. Because you have to leave and I
want to clarity around the issue, hud has a specific
requirement how the list is maintained under the current housing authority. I want clarity.
because there is uncertainty as
to whether or not the list will
be directly maintained by the individual properties.
Are continue to be maintained under the housing authority.
I wonder what the guidelines are
as it relates to hud's requirement under the list of rad. >> you are talking about the waiting list? >> yes.
>> my presumption is that the housing authority will continue
to maintain the list. Because you are vouchers. >> that can't be changed?
>> it depends on how you set up,
if you have project vouchers, the owner of the property can establish a list.
i am not sure how you are intending to set it. >> okay.
We can wait -- if olson is the one.
I am trying to understand what
the hud requirements are specifically.
>> it depends on how you use the
project-based voucher assistance.
in some project based vouchers
the owner can establish a list. So it is possible.
>> okay, that's something we would establish under this program as a city. >> yeah. Pretty much you figure how you go with that.
>> I know there is a commitment
of $180 million potential
dollars of renovation from the federal government under this new rad program. That's not familiar?
So that's something that olsonville olson
will have to explain.
>> yeah, the majority of the dhs
will come from leverage, we are
not providing additional capital fund for renovation.
>> you will continue to provide the same dollar amount? >> what you will get, the dollars convert from a grant
that you get from capital and operating funds.
They will convert to
project-based rental assistance.
They end up being equivalent,
because you have that long-term
contract you can leverage debt.
That you wouldn't with a bank, I
am not going to lend because i
don't know how much money you will get next year.
This stabilizes that.
>> the last question is
residents of public housing and
the ability for them to get gainfully employed.
Can someone silence their cell
phone, please?
In past instances with public housing in particular, there are individuals who have gotten jobs
that are residents of public housing.
And in some cases they are a little above the requirement to stay in public housing.
But they can't necessarily afford another place to live in san francisco.
So they end up getting priced
out of their unit in public
housing and some many cases forced to leave the city. For example, if the requirement
is that you don't make over a
certain median income to qualify for public housing.
And if you get a decent income
but not san francisco wage, you
cannot stay in public housing,
but you more than likely have to leave the city.
So it doesn't encourage people
to work or to be gainfully employed to better their situation. The reason I bring this up, I want to know if there is a possibility that we can work on
making some changes to that?
>> yeah, I think there May be
some confusion.
There is income limit to admitted to public housing.
there is not a limit to stay in public housing.
Your rent is based on your income. The housing authority should
have flat rents, I presume they have flat rents.
Say I get a job and go from
$12,000 a year to making 40,000. >> let's say 80,000.
>> okay, 80,000 a year.
Do the quick math here.
>> and you pay 30% of your income.
If you make 80 or 100.
>> let's use 100, that is easy.
Let's say 120,000 a year.
you will take 30% of that, which
is 3600 a month. That doesn't mean you have to leave public housing. The question is do you want to
pay 3600 a month to live there,
or go out in the private rental
market to get a property with more amenities.
The housing authority should
establish flat rents, and you cap out. But there is nothing that says you have to move out because you
are making a certain income amount. >> okay. That's another discussion I guess we can have with housing authority staff.
that has been somewhat of a challenge with individuals who
have gotten higher paying jobs in the public housing developments in the past. >> yeah, I am not understanding
why that is the case.
>> so you can be wealthy and
live in public housing as long
as you started out not wealthy.
>> yeah, you could get a property with more amenities, and people choose to move at that point.
This has been in place for
years, allows housing
authorities to establish these
flat rents so they can keep
higher tenants if they chose to stay.
>> okay, I want to be sure
that's an option, we don't want
to penalize people for success. >> thank you.
>> supervisor avalos, any other questions?
Okay, thank you for coming today.
okay.
Director lee, are you next? >> I am next.
>> under this same presentation?
>> it's the presentation, on to
the next slide.
I will thank the regional administrator to leave all the
tough questions for me.
The mayor's housing of community
development, before I start my
presentation, I want to thank my
staff to get us where we are
today.
Erin and leah in my staff have
been working on this for a year,
to organize the rental program
and working with hud and our stakeholders at the housing authority. I want to take the opportunity to publicly thank them for getting us to this point.
We are not over the start line but we are close to the start line.
And it's a lot because of their
dedication and hard work.
And I want to thank sophie and
kay who pulled together this powerpoint presentation and
their efforts in our office.
Where do we start in terms of
the questions of rad and why are we doing rad?
It starts earlier, in terms of
December of 2012, when the housing authority was declared troubled by the regional administrator and the secretary of hud. And it was declared trouble for
a variety of reasons.
And at that point mayor lee called for a reenvisioning
process to say, what are the problems with the housing authority? What are the problems with the housing stock?
And what can the city do to ensure that we have affordable
housing for extremely low-income people.
So the mayor convened the big-10 process, and we sought out ideas on how we can solve some of the problems of the housing
authority.
So over a period of four months,
and there are many organizations involved. Many city departments involved and many public meetings.
And one of the things that we
learned in this process, is
doing nothing is not an option. What we heard from the folks at the housing authority is that
they didn't have the resources
to really take on some of the
problems that related to the
operational problems related to
finding enough money to do the repairs.
To do the capital improvements, and to really manage the housing authority.
What we heard from the residents
were, you know, what we really want in this process is we want
a good place to live. Like any other san franciscan, that we want to be able to press the button on the elevator and
be able to get on the elevator and get down to the first floor.
We want the bathtub to drain. We want the water heater to work.
what we heard from the tenants
is that we want decent housing like everybody else.
Doing nothing as it comes out of
sort of re-envisioning process, doing nothing was not an option.
And the consequences of not
doing anything was one, obviously the buildings continue to decline.
as director smith talked about.
Even though she's putting $5
million a year in repairs, the
deficit in terms of repairs is
growing by $15 million a year.
Every year an additional $10
million gets added to the list of deferred improvements. and as we know from the recent discussions about the elevators,
the mayor was successful in finding funds to try to address the elevators.
That amount was greater than the entire repair and maintenance budget for the rest of the entire housing stock.
So that's how bad things are now
in terms of what the operations
in terms of repair and maintenance of the buildings are.
Buildings continue to decline.
So one of the things that hud has the responsibility of ensuring that the monies they give to housing authorities is
spent wisely.
so there is this sort of joke.
They give you 70 cents on the
dollar, that's what they have done on section 9 funding for some housing authorities.
And because of what they would
say is, we estimated that the
cost of operating public housing
is $100 a year, and we will give
you $70, and you have to do the best you can.
And by the way, we will grade
you as you got the $100, they are in the situation that the
buildings continue to decline.
And hud has retained their requirements as they should for
the residents to have safe,
decent, sanitary housing.
The inspections have failed.
And what happens then?
Units are taken out of service,
and we know as well, we have 200 units out of service because the housing authority doesn't have
the money to turn the units over.
And as they are taken out of the
service, they are not providing
housing for san francisco residents. And in many cases they are creating a blight.
The units are vandalize and squatted and etc. what happens then?
As the housing authority
continues to fail their scores, they become troubled.
They lose their funding. They go into receivership. And someone comes in and hopefully saves the day. Puts a bandage on it. And makes it good for the next couple of years and waits for us to repeat the cycle over and over again.
So that is part of the reason
why the mayor's office said,
let's not do that.
Let's not just put a bandage on the problem and repeat the process. We have seen this before.
the director prior to director smith, was not the first
director we had that came and went in a short period of time.
What can we do as a city to
break this cycle?
So we jumped on one of the
solutions being presented by the secretary.
So among the secretary's initiatives were the choice neighborhoods initiative as well
as rad.
These are two signature initiatives.
And we figured out, if you can't
beat them, join them.
If the secretary has a new
program to help public housing.
Let's figure out a way to take
advantage of it and use it for the benefit of san francisco.
Both Mrs. Vascal and barbara
said, it's the simple way of looking at how to make this work.
We are taking money, housing
authorities get funded turned category called section 9.
And this is where the funding
for the annual contributions contracts get funded.
And this is sort of a lump-sum payment to the housing authority.
and the housing authority
divvies among the various developments.
We are moving the assistance
from the section 9 bucket to the section 8 bucket.
And why is that different?
We talked earlier about how often the section 9 sort of
bucket would give you $100 per unit per year, or whatever.
And only at the cost of operating.
But only give you $70.
So under the section 8 program.
Once you get a contract at an amount, that contract is generally fixed.
You are more likely to get 100%
of your section 8 amount than
you would be of getting 100% of the amount eligible under section 9. The one big difference.
The other big difference is the
popularity or the supporters of section 9 versus section 8.
The supporters of the section 9
are the residents of public housing and public housing authorities.
The supporters of the section 8 program includes suburban
jurisdictions and developers,
and tenant advocates and a variety of other people that
have more sway at the federal
government level.
So those resources are more likely to be there in the long
term than the resources based upon the section 9.
And that is another huge, huge difference.
in terms of taking advantage of the situation and the realities of the situation. It's not necessarily fair.
It's not necessarily just. But for us to be able to move forward we need to take
advantage of that situation.
The other thing that section 9
doesn't do is it has not funded
any new public housing forever.
And it has not funded any new
modernization for forever. So really what the secretary was
doing was saying, here guys, I
will give you this tool, and
this tool unlocks the access to
loan income housing tax credits and debt financing. And why does it do that?
We are creating these sort of
rental assistance vouchers.
The lenders and s and
s and investors are
used to project-based rental vouchers.
In the 80s there was lots of
projects with project-based
rental assistance vouchers. And in san francisco after the
20-year cycle, the lenders and the investors are very familiar
with this tool.
They can underwrite with this and buy credits based on it, they couldn't do that with that
section 9 financing. This is part of reason this is part of the solution.
In terms why we are looking at rental assistance demonstration program.
And the other part, the rental
assistance program comes with an obligation.
We will talk a little about the re
rehab obligations and the tenant obligations.
And one of the reasons, to take
part of this program, you need
to be obligated for 20 years. And we have to put more money
and we have to increase the
housing quality in these units.
therefore a part of this, and I
wanted to answer the question
about whether this is a demalation dem demolition demolition. Absolutely not. This is a rehab program.
There is no demos.
Inaudible: Or choice neighborhoods.
so we are going through and rehabbing everything for the next 20 years.
It doesn't mean that in 20 years
from now or 15 years from now,
we as a city decide we should
improve this housing and utilize
it to a higher level. But for now, this is a rehab.
There is no intention for displacing anyone.
and no issue of one for one replacement.
All the units will be replaced.
It does allow for minimal loss
of units to create community rooms and property management space and things like that.
But it's primarily a rehab program.
>> Mr. Lee, can I ask a question about the units or the properties that we know we have
to completely rehab, like west
side cords or holly cords, they
are not necessarily included in
this rad program.
>> they are absolutely included,
we will rehab them.
>> we are not going to demolish
them at all signal ? >> this program is a rehab program. It doesn't mean in the future --
>> Mr. Washington, please, I am trying to conduct a hearing, if you need to have a conversation, if you can take it outside, thank you.
>> this is a rehab program, and
what it will do, it will provide
for permanent affordable housing
as it is rehabbed. If people in the future want to do something different to the site. perhaps to do more housing on the site. More affordable housing. Different affordable housing. You can do that.
But it has to be affordable housing.
And this program is intended to
rehab and permanently provide
affordable housing.
>> Mr. Lee, west side courts,
holly courts, those places were
not meant to last this long.
The plumbing issues, and the rodent issues.
All the things we're trying deal
with now, are things that no
rehabilitation can address.
I am trying to understand --
>> well, again.
>> and this is -- I am very, as
you can see, I am blown away by
the fact that I have been
aggressively working to get west
side courts in particular on the
priority list, because holly courts and west side courts are
two of the oldest housing developments. And in desperate need of repair where we continue to have significant challenges.
I am trying to understand how
realistically we can make a commitment for rehabilitation. I don't see it.
>> we are in the process of getting the actual information about the scope of rehab for
each development.
We have done physical assistance assessment assessments. the developers that are
responsible for the site will have to take those physical
assistance assessments and work programs on them. You May be right.
>> we are not as a city looking
at the possibility of demolition.
>> not under this rental assistance program.
>> but before this we were. >> before this we were looking at a variety of things.
And some developments, including
potrero and sunnyvale are looked
at total rebuilds.
>> just for clarity, if we decide to move in direction we
won't have the option to demo
these properties?
>> you are right, we have
20-year obligations at minimum to provide as rental housing.
and there is a 20-year renewal
for the rental assistance project. But they have to meet the standards. >> that's not going to work for west side.
>> with all due respect, I would
say let's see what the rehab scope maybe.
And we will have happily share
that with you, to ensure that it
does indeed meet the standards
for 20-year livability. But one of the things we have to
balance right now, we are trying
to do a variety of housing in the city overall.
including we are working on
hunter's view and alice griffith, and on pipeline units and a variety of things.
Instead of making one of these
developments wait for 20 years,
or 10 years for potentially a
demolition and a rebuild.
We will provide for better housing within two years.
And that better housing the last
at least 20 years, while we try
to make up our minds which projects to address and make sure we have the funds to
deliver on the promises.
Again this is about improving
housing today as opposed to when
we May have the funds.
Sort of accumulated to do a
significant demolition and rebuild.
There is no concern about loss of units.
It is about a rehab.
It is definitely one-for-one replacement. Moving on with this presentation, one thing we are
layering with the rental assistance program is section 18 application.
and this allows for additional resources from the federal
government in the form of
slightly higher rents coming
from the federal government.
As you asked the regional administrator. Hud is not giving us the capital.
What they are giving us is a flow of income.
First based upon the rad.
Which is very similar to the income they gave us under
section 19 -- section 9.
And we are also applying for
additional rental assistance under this section 18 program.
And it's a combination of those
two sources that allows us to leverage all the funds we are seeking. And to do all the rehab work
that we are seeking to do.
so again, it allows us to again
get the loan tax credit equity,
and allows us to borrow additional funds than under section 9.
And the other part of this, it allows us to have higher operating costs.
It allows us to do more at the development.
so one of the things that hud did not allow the housing
authority to do, is to establish operating replacement reserves.
The lenders and the investors
will insist on operating reserves.
The notion of who pays for the
roof in year 15, or who replaces the water heater that breaks is
not a question that goes to washington, D.C. But just goes to the property
manager and says, I have actual
actually set aside the money
based on this income stream do that. and the goal and the last things on the question of operations. The other thing that this
program will facilitate is a service connector on each property. Which is something that the housing authority has not been
able to afford.
as Mrs. Vascal said, rad is a
limited program.
It's limited to 60,000 units
under the current authorization.
172 units were applied for.
That means that obviously there
are 112,000 units who are
waiting to get access to this program.
And unless hud does some things
through the budget process and the President Does something through the budget process to increase the cap. Or through authorizations.
It will be limited to 60,000.
Which is unfortunate, because if
we are -- if we are successful in pulling all of this together,
we will need more rad. For additional units in san francisco.
But we will be behind the rest
of the people who have applied today.
the other thing about this where
we are, san francisco portfolio,
though we are not the largest to apply.
We were the largest portfolio to
apply and be accepted.
The chicago portfolio is awaiting.
they are behind us.
So again the central component
of this is preservation.
The $312 tenant rent is not
sufficient by itself to even
cover operating expenses.
Clearly there has to be an
operating subsidy some place to cover operating expenses.
To run the buildings in a manner
that renters and investors would like, that level of support has to be higher.
We talked about how we are
converting this from section 9 funding to section 8 funding.
It provides a more stable,
long-term subsidy and provide for that leveraging. Again this is a combination of two different programs we are doing.
We are doing rad, which we
applied for and the house
authority has applied for which they have received authorization. The housing authority is in the
process of applying for section 18.
And that process is underway.
These developments will be using
4% lower tax credits and tax exempt bonds. One thing was whether a question
from hud, whether that was a scarce resource in california.
As for now it's not.
In other states it indeed a
scarce resource and they it were concerned about the 4% credit and the bonds it make the financing work.
And the projects will be new ownership structure and property management structure. And the tent
ant protections will
be established and codified.
so rad basically transfers the
building to the developer and operator.
And then the developers then
seek the private equity and the
lenders to finance the buildings. So it was really important in
terms of this process, that we
are involving the lender in that
community in looking and
bringing those resources to the housing authority. And those are resources that
were not available.
Again the section 18 provides
additional rental assistance in
helps to leverage debt.
So what does this sort of
rubic's cube puzzle produce?
Well, it produces over $200
million in tax credit equity. And produces approximately 240 in additional debt.
The overall scope of the project financing is about somewhere in
excess of half a billion dollars.
and it produces over 3500 units
that will meet health and safety standards and be affordable for at least 20 years.
But under a 99-ground leave se, hopefully forever.
We have better units and better building management, and better
housing services for the
residents and preserved long-term affordability under
the approved land trust model. Where are we now?
>> on that, I might ask this
later as well.
You have project managers for
different assets in the public
housing portfolio, and is each
one a stand-alone system so that
you people are not transferred
from one, should we call public housing sites but to another,
the transfers now.
is everything self-contained in those projects? In those assets? >> could I hold that question for a moment. >> sure. >> I will hold it too.
>> okay, thank you.
Let me make a note of it to make
sure I cover it.
So where we are right now is
again the chap, which is the additional housing payment
contract was approved by hud and accepted by the housing
authority commission in January.
the typical rad process says you
have to be in construction by 12
months, because of the portfolio nature of this work. Hud agreed to give san francisco
18 months to be basically underway with our construction. The housing authority released
the developer rfu in January of
2014, and the housing authority completed the developer
selection in April of this year.
One of the things in terms of
housing authority developer rfq,
I think one of the goals in the
process of utilizing rad is how can we create a san francisco centric solution?
What works in san francisco?
In terms of building affordable
housing, managing affordable housing. Working with neighborhood organizations.
Working with residents.
so the rfq was really tailored
in a way to ensure that we had a
san francisco centric sort of solution.
And sort of if you read the rfq,
if you have spare time late at night. it outlines a lot of san
francisco principles in the rfq.
It talks about the san francisco experience in building and owning and managing affordable housing.
Why is that important?
It's important because san francisco based affordable housing developers are really the envy of the country. They have done a wonderful job
of creating up to this point
somewhere between 12 and 15,000
units of affordable housing in san francisco.
And when you compare that to the
size of the housing authority portfolio
portfolio, it dwarfs the housing
authority portfolio.
They have had a long track record of working in san
francisco and boards and with residents in san francisco. We want to award that through
the rfq process.
>> any other city or county like that?
>> no, even in new york city.
Most cities have one or two
nonprofit developers.
Even new york city has a few
nonprofit developers.
Obviously their scale is greater
and they rely much heavier for-profit developers.
and we use for-profit developers
in the city too, but they have
san francisco experience.
And it's important whether through the planning process or the commission process or the
board process or through the building department requires a knowledge of what it takes to get through that process.
As opposed to coming and sort of
saying, well, I did this in st.
Louis, I can do it anywhere; right.
So we really wanted to sort of
encourage those folks who have
been working in the field,
providing affordable housing to
take on this responsibility. One reporter early in the
process asked me, these
developers will get paid
millions of dollars, won't they.
i said they will get a developer
fee from the mayor's office schedule. It's barely enough to compensate them for two things.
One the time they take on the development and the risk.
These developers in san
francisco are guaranteeing that
tax credit equity and the repayment of the debt on the property.
And in exchange they get less
than the maximum developer fee, because that's the city's practice.
And they get a restricted cash
flow, because that's also the city's practice.
and in part because we subsidize those developments or heavily. The developers are doing this in
part, because they are part of
the solution and part of
affordable housing system as the case May be.
And trying to assist the housing authority in this process.
>> what other structures make san francisco unique, you referenced in the rfq, and
talked about we have providers,
and what else in terms of financing? >> it's the financing, what the
board has put in my budget.
It's what the voters have authorized as prop c.
It's our history of supporting
developers as they do affordable housing.
>> with prop c, was it clear to
the voters that prop c dollars would go to public housing?
>> I think the whole question
about -- it's about the question
of preserving, and then
producing affordable housing. And this is clearly preserving
affordable housing.
And I think we could -- if we don't save this housing and improve this housing as
affordable housing, and spend the rest of the time building new housing.
this is actually more cost
effective if you want to do it
on dollar and cents basis, but
also san francisco residents deserve better housing.
We are looking at this as part
of the mayor's goal for affordable housing and as we
look at the pipeline of income
and pipeline for new family
housing and supportive housing.
This is something that is clearly in the guidelines of prop c.
>> it seems laced up to use prop
c for building, rebuilding affordable housing.
In rad it's a lot of community housing developers. It's almost locked in to be this way. That we would have developers
operating and managing the sites.
So we are also losing dollars on
the other part of the affordable housing as well. >> hopefully we will expand
capacity through other things.
But you raise good points, these are some of our familiar developers.
And because they have the
experience with the form of the financing.
And they also have the
confidence of the outside lender
lenders and investor that is we
have to seek out.
And they also will pass the hud test.
They won't take our word for it
that these are good developers. Hud will review it.
and the investors will have say whether these developers
selected by the housing
authority pass the mustard or not.
We do like them and feel they
are confident, but we are not the final word on this. There is at least three other
groups of people that will
decide if we made a good choice of the developers or not. >> who are they?
>> the lender will be lending money to the developers, and
they will decide if the developer is capable of returning the money.
Or the guarantees is worth the paper they are executing. the investor that will be
putting the money up and buying the tax credits.
They will want to know if this
developer has a track record of
owning and managing tax units, and if they screw up, they it
will pay for the cost of the development. And hud.
hud wants to know that these developments will be affordable. And managed well for the next 20 years.
>> and who is the lender and who
is the investor? >> we don't know yet. >> who is interested?
>> I think that everyone is interested.
the housing authority will be
doing an rfp and rfq, rfp for lenders and investors.
And the goal is to obviously to
get the best price to do more
work for the developments.
So moving on.
where we are now, we will seek
the approval of the section 18 applications.
The developers continue their
due diligence at the properties.
The goal is to extend the bond
by January and begin work by June 15. Part of the reason why we don't
have lenders and investors right now.
We want the developers to get onsite, to look at the
buildings, work with the residents and determine the scope of work and get a costing on it.
We had a consultant do a preliminary estimate of the cost.
but that does not sort of
substitute for developer and
contractor trying to get the cost of the particular
development.
So we talked a little about --
so we talked a little bit about,
and the questions were raised
about what does this do for the resident residents; right. One there is no change in how the rents are calculated. No rescreening.
Again this is not a demolition program.
So hopefully we will not have
people out of their units for less than a short period of time.
And no displacement.
The other aspects for the residents.
This is a long-term affordability.
we are not selling off the land.
It's not going to some other corporation.
It's being held by the housing authority, in terms of the 99-year lease.
There is a 55-year tax credit affordability requirement.
There will be requirements
related to the project-based
rental assistance contract.
Mocd will have secondary loans
on the property.
To ensure stewardship of the
sites as long-term well-run affordable housing.
The residents will have the same eviction protections.
Will have the same affordable rents.
Will maintain the same grievance
procedures, and maintain the right to file complaints with housing authority and hud. There was some mention about the wait list.
This remains a centralized wait
list with some modification.
Residents on the wait list with
identify specific sites they wish to be preferenced for, but
it's a sprlized -- centralized wait list.
>> just to point out the same protections and the same standards, is that going to be codified?
>> it would absolutely be codified at some point, whether in the land agreement or loan agreement, it would be codified.
>> are we able to apply a city-wide standard as well?
>> our goal is to do the best practice. Whatever they are.
We will work with the tenant adsoicate ad advocates advocates, with the tenants themselves. This is an opportunity to change
things, to blur the lines between affordable housing. And take the opportunity to figure out what works best.
>> and we talked about transfers from one. >> that's an issue.
The whole question of transfers. We have spent a little time
talking with the questions of transfers.
And I think the questions of
transfers is really a fund
fundamental goal of getting residents in the right place. Whether it's seniors who need more intensive housing.
So they need to go from public
housing to senior housing with ground floor adult bay.
So they can stay independent.
if it's a disabled person in
public housing who needs more assistance in terms of a supportive housing environment. How do we get them into the right housing. Or the other way.
A person who is in our supportive housing and who has
been stabilized.
Can we use sort this opportunity to find an exit for them. we don't know.
We don't have the answers, but
we are asking the questions and thinking about this. Not in just terms of transfers
you talked about.
But can we do this in the rules
and regulations of fair housing. And can we get people on the
right housing so their needs are met. And that's ideally a goal of this process. The other part of this is about
the residents associations and how they are being supported.
That we will continue to do that.
And I think again the nature of
this work in terms of resident engagement.
We are working with the housing
rad committee and national
housing program, enterprise
foundation and city-wide counsel on senior and disabled. We will work with everyone in this process.
There is going to be change. and change is always difficult
for everybody, including residents and including developers and including other
folks and including the mayor's office of housing and community development.
And will be on us to ensure that
we are providing adequate nomgz
information to all of those groups s groups. One of the first thing that our developers will do, is to meet with the residents and talk to them about the needs in the buildings.
There is ongoing work through
the housing reg's committee and
other resident-related organizations. And make sure that not only do
the residents have the appropriate information but that
the developers have the appropriate information of what
it means to take on this endeavor.
And lastly on this question of the resident engagement.
Who is responsible for all the
things that I have promised at this podium? it's both the housing authority
and the mayor's office of housing. The housing authority will
continue to own the land in this
process, again a 99-year lease.
The mayor's office of housing will continue to be stewards
because of our ongoing relationship at the bond issuer
and lender, because we will have
debt on these developments.
We as asset managers and lenders
will be always be involved in
how these projects are managed in the future.
At this point I will turn it
over to the President Of the housing authority.
>> good afternoon, thank you for
having me here.
I am here to speak briefly about our employee engagement at this
time related to the potential impacts of the rad program.
And what it has on the employees
who serve our public housing residents here in san francisco.
We have developed what is called
the care initiative. Communication, action and resources for our employees.
To make sure that we are
providing an effective change management to those who are serving the residents.
And we have established ed ed dates and milestone its of communication to those employees. We want to be accurate in terms
of how we are talking to folks. In transition, and doing that in
small groups and the employees. And again this is a development
process and as needs come up and
address them appropriately and
tailor the needs to the bargaining units with questions on this process.
We want to have opportunities
onsite for feedback, the acting
director will make themselves
available for one-on-one
meetings that those questions can be answered.
And support workshops for people
to explore options outside of the authority if they choose.
And so that people can see what
is being talked about and that those are updated.
and to provide those in newsletters and touch as many people in the housing authority with as much information as possible as we can. This is a phased process.
We are looking at employees
being affected in June of next year. The second part of that will happen in June of the following year.
Again June of 2015. June of 2016 are estimated times. And we want to make sure that we are doing everything we can to
support our employees through that process.
We want to make sure that we are
communicating very simply and directly about any updates that we have on each phase.
so that the people can make the appropriate choices for themselves and their families.
>> what kind of updates and accurate information? What could the information?
>> it could be is there a rumor mill going on in terms of what
is happening to employees. Is people going to be laid off today.
and we hear that notices are
coming out right now.
Inaudible: .
>> yeah, and to make sure that, that was not going to be the case. And they could hear from not only the commission but from
senior staff at the housing authority.
>> under your understanding is
layoffs inevitable or possible?
>> there will be impacts to the housing authority and the employees. And that's something that we have made clear, I will talk about in a moment.
And that's why we are creating options. For those employees.
>> how many are you expecting?
>> we are looking at over this two-year process about 100
employees will be affected.
>> out of how many?
>> what is the total number? Of the 100. Of the 100.
>> no, in terms of the overall employees.
>> 100 out of how many?
>> around 250 employees.
So 100 of those May be impacted.
And again I want to be sure that is understood that something is happening in two phases over time.
>> can I ask a quick question,
of those 250 employees do any of
them live in public housing? >> yes, they do. >> do you know how many? >> I do not. >> how many live in san francisco? >> I believe that a majority of
them live in san francisco, I can get those numbers.
>> a large number live in public housing?
>> I don't have that number but can get it.
Over time we are looking to make
some time to have strategies in plan for employees.
And to allow for employees to be
absorbed in programs that may experience growth. The document that is talked about, we want to ensure that
housing developers that are taking over management at properties will interview those employees.
They know the people that live in public housing.
They know the issues with the buildings.
They should be interviewed because of their expertise and time and commitment to the authority.
We are also committed as an
authority talking with other
employers to ask them to inform us of job opportunities of
staff, including the city and county of san francisco and other bay housing authorities.
And we want to be sure that if
the employees hear of those
opportunities to communicate to
senior staff so we can get that information to employees and
they can take advantage if they choose.
With regards to communications,
back in jan 6 we were advised
that the housing authority was
approved for the rad notification. And we wanted to meet and confer
over the impacts of the program.
And over a week we spent a
letter to the bargaining units
and a week after that sat down to have those meetings.
to date we have had seven
meetings with sciu and two meetings with special
organization and three meetings
with specialty crafts and to be specific about those employees
that May be impacted. Currently in negotiations still with all labor negotiations with the employees that work at the housing authority.
We believe they have been very productive. We have a lot of work to do still.
But to ensure transparency with
everyone, we made promises and even items that don't need to be approved for action.
We wanted to hear them at the
full commission and at the
recently established committees.
At the residents of operation committee and finance committee. So that everyone has a chance to hear what is going on at the same time we do.
Just to conclude again, as we
finalize the presentation. We should view this opportunity as one, that provides better housing for our residents.
We are talking 27,000 residents
that can benefit through improved living conditions through this program.
and those are leveraged through
$440 million in tax equity debt.
And the mayor of the housing
authority said $560 million in rehabilitation rehabilitation. and we said that capital budget
had $5 million in the bank to
deal with needs.
And lucky to have that go
towards elevator repairs at
needy sites. We want better management from
housing developers with better
expertise for the benefit of our residents. Thank you very much, and we will
take questions after public comment. >> thank you.
I have a lot of questions.
But I think supervisor avalos, I want to go ahead and open for public comment.
you want to take a break? Okay. >> one minute. >> yeah, me too.
We don't have a quorum if one of us leaves.
We will take a five-minute break
and be back and open it up for
public comment.
>> okay, we are back, and thank you for your patience.
I want to make the time during public comment efficient. so I ask that you stay within
your two minutes.
So that you respect other speakers who have been waiting here for a while. I will call a few names, I ask
that you line up to your right.
And walk to the podium and as
soon as someone finishes speaking.
Come on up to the podium and you
don't have to wait are in your name is called.
I will start with charlie
walker, ace on the case, michael
brown, rico landry. Mr. Walker.
>> good evening, I would like to compliment you for calling this hearing.
And I am very upset over the fact that that man over the housing authority stand here and
tell you a deliberate lie. They are selling those units to
those developers.
i am involved with one of the companies, the only black
company that bid.
There is no black company
involved in their construction.
They think this is a joke of theirs. But for him to stand and tell
you they are not doing demolition.
They are already doing demolition.
And he has no respect of you as a supervisor, and stand here and
tell you a lie, they are not going do that.
they are going to tear down po
potrero hill, and those places
are already falling down.
And to add insult to injury,
what you don't know, the
developers get the land for free. Because the government is going to give them the money to do the
work for the city, and they ain't out of a dime. And they don't have no black
contractors on the job, and only
say they have to have that tabernacle group work for them.
This is no way -- 40% of the all evictions in the housing authority are black people. You know.
So this -- y'all need to do something about this. Because this ain't going to work the way it's working.
All they are doing is figuring a way to put black people out of
these housing units, that's all it is. >> thank you.
Ace, you were called second. Come on, Mr. Brown.
>> mike brown, I concur with what charlie just said.
And if you offer anybody destitute another money for
relocation, they are gone.
You take section 8 voup cher and out of the city. We are calling you on city
leaders to ensure that african-american economic
development that we are doing in
excelior and hopefully you can
include some african-american
equity in what is going down.
Because everyone is winning
except us, they are getting ready to build the warriors thing over there.
And getting ready to move on the rad.
like I said, people take money and they are gone.
And you got them bought and paid for.
And what do you ensure our being endangered.
What is john evulus that will have his name on.
you have a unit with 40% african-american population and now sitting at 4%.
If we can as a nonprofit acquisition that building that is 27 units.
Then you lend your name to
include the african-americans to stay here. Because we have economic impact, then we can provide jobs and
things of that sort. That's what I count you y'all
that you ensure our viability in this city, thank you. >> thank you. Ace, you want to go last, like you usually do?
Or you want -- okay.
>> hi, how are you doing, supervisors.
My name is omar hamilton, I am with the new community
leadership foundation. I am vice President.
At this point we have 100
members from bayview-hunter's point and the western community.
and I came to listen in and to
hear what is going on.
And sometimes when I listen, I have the urge to speak.
I am from a family that is born
and raised, and our family has
been displaced and I am a survivor, probably five of us that still live in san francisco. I think that's very important. To me this sounds like this is
the final stages of urban renewal.
When you look at the final
print, and a lot of information
they give out sound like that fame plan we all have been hearing through all the different stages. This stage seems more strategic
when you think about it. Know that london breed and yourself, and with all the
questions, I can hear the
sincerity in your voices. And I know you have our best interest at heart. And I definitely want to say
that we are willing to stand by
both of you guys when can comes to this issue. It's very important that we
protect the african-american and latino community, all
communities that this disadvantages.
And make sure they have quality housing and building on the economics and everything like that.
If we allow this to happen, and it's a backlash in terms of redevelopment.
And we know all the key players
that played a huge part in that.
We will be outmigrated.
We want to be sure that doesn't
happen and preserve the cultural in san francisco. >> thank you, I will call a
couple of names. Daniel.
Larry edman.
Robert woods.
Romitta mason. Sabrina cheek. I don't know if I am reading
these names right, hope you forgive me. Teresa lee.
>> well, good afternoon.
Not good morning, good afternoon supervisors.
First of all, thank you supervisor breed and supervisor avalos for being here and calling this important hearing. I don't think that one hearing will be enough.
This is a very heavy issue. However, we got to start somewhere.
straight up, to me hearing from
hud, hearing from lee, this is about developers again
positioning themselves in san
francisco to take advantage of low-income housing.
Of disadvantaged people who stay in these dwellings throughout our city.
And if we don't stop them, we
are going to pay a dear price.
Now I looked in this 30-page
presentation or booklet, and the
question is for me that is a big
concern, the depopulation of
black people in san francisco. And nowhere in there could i
find anything that speaks to the
depopulation of black people in san francisco.
I think no matter what, if we
look at the public housing, and
we have of the 4,000 residents
in public housing, that's an issue we can't ignore.
20 years from now, when I am a young 65, hopefully, will still
be there. So I think that's what I am really concerned about.
The black depopulation, and
someone has to address that. What will san francisco look like in 20 years? When all of these other things going on. How can we make sure and put
things in place that the
depopulation won't fall even
lower than the 40,000 of us that remain now. Thank you. >> thank you.
>> hello, my name is larry edman.
And I realize that I stay in
district 6, and jim kim said
that we're the largest black residents in san francisco as of tuesday.
If I am not in bayview or
western edition, I feel
disconnected from our
Inaudible: .
Of blacks in san francisco, they found out two years ago in the
library that we are facing
Inaudible: .
I hope that people come out in
tndc where I stay at, and I know
Inaudible: And
Inaudible: , but tndc allows many criminals.
You know I stay in a crack infested hotel where people can
smoke crack and attack you.
there is things that this city
needs to be looking at, that
crack in tndc and many don't know us down here.
We are treated as part of the homeless.
I hope this resident can do what
lincoln did as emancipation and
Inaudible: , our President Has been here 19 times. He needs to come here and find
out what is going on. This housing thing is
transferring across the nation. Whatever san francisco do, it will affect our nation.
He needs to bring back housing for humanity.
Something that jimmy carter started.
He's in the paper with the five presidents.
It's time for america's greatest terror is no housing, and that's
the war on us, and we must stop this.
And I hope Mrs. Breed that it
can start here today, thank you. >> thank you.
mr. Washington, you are cutting in line? I am just messing with you. Come on, ace on your case.
>> okay, let me say now, I only
have two minutes, should I save
the last minute for the sock -- song. all of this talking we are
doing, it doesn't make any
difference, hud is responsible. Hud knew 20 years, when I was involved with hud and the
housing authority, 20 years,
before they built hayes valley,
and I was with the supervisor
Inaudible: Started with san francisco and
now we got rad. Everyone is sad. And everyone is mad, because we don't know about the things
going on here.
May name is ace
I have been on this case
some people don't want me on on their case
but it's not history, just look at my history
I have been working on cases and conspiracy
what is going on down, down, down
the black population is going down
and when these benefits come,
we ain't going to be anywhere around
listen this 50%, hiring is
just a bunch of shit
when I can't afford to pay the dog-gone rent
trying to be a san francisco resident
anyway, there is corruption all
the way from the head to the butt.
And I am sure that there is
F.B.I. Around here, and speaking
of ed lee, he knows me
it ain't no mystery, if you ask ed lee
he will say that ace is
working on some damn conspiracy
>> thank you, Mr. Washington, next speaker please, someone
give that man a contract.
>> hi, I am juanita mason, and I
work at the hospital, and this
is my co-worker and we have 40 years of experience at san francisco hospital.
Experience is priceless.
I am the property manager more holly court and almany.
i know about the rehab issues.
I am in agreement, I don't
understand how the rad program
can help our public housing residents effectively.
The issues at holly court, I
hear about the problems every day.
We have the plumbing issues and
the mold and mildew, and we have the walls sweating.
We have so many issues in holly court. It's ridiculous what rad is attempting to do is probably not going to work.
My biggest concern is for our
residents as well, as far as our
residents are already isolated
in living in public housing.
Our residents don't have a voice
in this here.
If you ask how many appeared in the vision program, maybe 10.
We have to start informing our residents about what is going on.
So they will have the proper rights. As far as the employees, we are
very concerned about our jobs, which is definitely totally important to us.
And more than that we are concerned about our residents as
far as the services they will receive.
We are with them every day, and so we are very concerned about that.
i think that's it. >> thank you.
Next speaker.
>> good afternoon, my name is
sabrina cheeks, I work at the housing voucher program.
I have worked there 20 years.
i am here about the rad program, and I understand that it's
important to implement to
improve the housing conditions for the tenants.
But we know that our jobs will be eliminated.
And we are rushed into
negotiations and after four months I still don't know what will happen.
Even though we had a meeting
with management, they speak
about the housing voucher program. And I work for them and that program is not well, and that's
not said woochlt .
we have a program that is not
working properly and mismanaged.
If we continue this way, the employees from the public housing to the voucher program is not going to work.
Because we are not going to have
a voucher program.
i ask you to have someone with authority to sit at the table
with us, that can guarantee our
jobs for the city and county.
Or see that the voucher program
is dealt with as the system and
being mismanage period g anaged mismanaged. Thank you. >> thank you. next speaker.
>> my name is teresa lee, I have
been an employee for the housing
authority for over 20 years.
Though I stand here united with
my union members, I speak to you
as a union member but also a
member that is a product of public housing.
My siblings and I was raised by our parents that were responsible for the first
successful public housing rent
strikes in san francisco at
chinatown housing development, I
share this bit of my family history to illustrate my commitment to the residents of public housing.
And the concerns I have for the
future, should the rad program
with its public/private approach
not succeed for the residents.
At this point we still know
letter
letter -- know little about the rad program.
And to the employees of the
housing authority it's presented
as the only way to keep the agency solvent.
What is not presented to any of
us, is just how all of this will really work. From the beginning the participation in the rad program strategic working groups were
not inclusive for the majority
of residents and employees. Because little information was shared with us from the
beginning, this created a
general atmosphere of distrust
of the residents and employees alike.
Suffice it to say that we still don't have enough information to
rest these concerns.
And on our research, it's found
little to prove that the rad
program is successful in other cities. and though the rad program is
not in all ways and we can use
Inaudible: >> thank you, ma'am. We have to move to the next person.
I want to call a couple other
cards.
espinola jackson. Adam noe.
Grace martinez.
Latonya -- can't read the last name, yes.
Will daniels.
Inaudible: Yes. Thank you.
okay.
>> good afternoon. Members of the supervisors.
My name is robert woods.
i have been working in the
bayview-hunter's point community
since working for the city that coordinated the construction of
all units.
There is 833 units on the hill. The community built that through
the model city's program.
my job was to make sure that the
community kept those projects rolling and they was constructed.
And here we are today, the
housing authority and the
mayor's office of housing selected eight developers.
And not one of them was black.
Not one of them.
and we built that hill up there.
And here we are 40 years later,
we cannot go up there and get a contract to construct?
to build or rehab?
The contract, the rfp was
written for the housing
directors cronies.
They are the true beneficiaries of the contracts.
And not only that, when you look
at those eight that those chosen.
Didn't choose not one black
contractor we also gave up 1500
acre to one developer, leonard. 1500 acres.
You know if I had control of
1500 acres, I would have 15
other developers in this community bringing jobs,
bringing money and the city is
being -- the city is being
Inaudible: . >> thank you.
Inaudible: . >> thank you.
Dr. Jackson.
>> yes, Dr. Jackson here.
I have here in 1992, because you are not getting the facts.
I am here to give facts.
And in 1992, the vice president
of the united states came to bayview-hunter's point. His name was dan quayle, and
there was a program set up by
the tenants called resident management council. Some people in the audience were trained to be managers.
and the men were trained to be plumbers and electricians, and
all areas to take care of the public housing. Who was supposed to run the public housing? The tenants. And the city is still receiving those funds.
You hear the hope, the hope
started in bayview.
that program was to get the men and women off the drugs and put them in training so they would have stable jobs. I have the information here.
I gave this information to the housing director.
I mean -- no the President -- what are you baby? President Of the commission. I had him make copies of it,
because I wanted him to know.
That so-called rad is an excerpt
from what the tenants should be doing.
And I asked you at a meeting,
asked for an audit of hope, the
mayor's of housing, all of those
funds are to go to the 10 tenants.
And the city is getting those
grants that started at bayview-hunter's point.
and the tenants did reconstruction of the buildings themselves. They were trained to do this. They were trained.
And 20 people were trained to be managers.
And only 12 retired.
Inaudible: .
>> thank you, Mrs. Jackson. Thank you, thank you, Dr.
Jackson.
>> good afternoon, supervisors,
I am adam maguire, I am a maintenance man for the housing authority.
i was born and raised holly
court and I am a product of the housing authority. 20 years ago when I started my
job, I was on the verge of going one way or another.
Meaning to be a criminal-type gangster person or worker.
And when I got the job for the
housing authority it took me in the right direction.
There are a lot of black,
polynesian, asian kids that will
not get hired for a good-paying job unless the housing authority.
I want you to consider this,
when you hand this over for the
directors to make a good amount
of money and the maintenance workers don't. There will be a problem.
My workers and I insulted by Mr.
Torres that the maintenance will
be better, and without the workers I don't see how. >> thank you.
>> I am grace martinez, I am an organizer for ace.
I organize typically around foreclosure issues.
But previous to that I did
organized work in public housing
for years in the southeast sector.
And a member from seiu made a
good point, where are the
residents in this.
do we have poor planning for the
residents to way until they start.
I am sure that all of these nonprofit developers are great, I don't know. Can we show that they will have
a population that is diverse as
the current housing. And question of how people will
have access to these units.
For a major plan like this, and there was a lot of concerns in question that were only provided today for my understanding.
For a major impact that will
impact 5-6,000 families in san
francisco, there is a lot of, I don't know happening. That's unfortunate.
And it's amazing that we don't have public housing residents out here.
If you were to knock on the door right now, and ask someone if they knew about this project, what would they say?
They would probably say, heard on the news, and wonder what
questions I need to ask, I think this plan should stop. That there should be more input
by the board of supervisors that represent these communities,
than rather leaving it in one
place with the mayor's authority of housing, we need it talk about the residents impacted and they need to have a voice in this process. >> thank you.
Next speaker, please.
>> good afternoon.
My name is latanya harris, I am
standing before you representing employees.
And I am also representing residents. Because some of them are employees of the housing authority.
With this rad program coming
onboard, it's going to affect
half of our bargaining unit at
the housing authority.
Employees that are residents will be misplaced.
And I want to say this is mismanagement.
We as a bargaining unit took a
12% cut last June, and told if
we do this, all of these
variables would fall in place. And eight months later, we are told that didn't work. i believe in the 26 years I have
been there, they are washing
their hands of the heavy ticket
items, public housing. Before the asset management
development came in play, asset
management, which henry alvarez
helped to establish with hud,
and we were making our repairs.
We were not hitting our scores,
and when you don't hit your scores, hud doesn't give money.
and you have to cut somewhere.
All of them know what is going on. They are vague.
We have been at the table for months. Yes we have. And it seems like good faith, yes it does. But it's vague. Because at the end of all of this in two years, people are going to lose their jobs.
And the residents in public housing have become very
familiar with employees. And you all know how important
that is for people to feel
comfortable who is serving them. Thank you. Have a great afternoon.
>> thank you.
>> good afternoon, supervisors,
I name is will daniels. I am an employee for the san francisco housing authority.
I will start by saying there was
a statement made that this will allow better building and property management at the sites of public housing.
In my time at the agency, i
worked in section 8, I managed
my case load and handled another case load and managed workers that are still there as a
housing authority.
I am a property manager now at robert development, and I worked
at potrero hill and sunnyvale.
That means I have been involved
with the thousands of families in san francisco.
In my time here there is
shooting and robberies and domestic violence.
I had an incident where an
employee was attacked by a resident. all things that you won't hear, because there are people that work for the agency that care about the employees and
residents that are out there
every day doingor: -- doing our
jobs to the best of our ability
with limited resources.
and that statement is a slap in
the face to those of us that
worked to provide physical assistance. And psychological needs, all
things that we have to implement to provide services.
Those are things that I do day to day on the front line.
And how much money I don't get
from management, I still do a good job. I don't care what nonprofit
comes in, you would be hard pressed to find somebody that
can do it better than we do. Thank you.
>> I will call a few cards.
I think this is anita.
And last -- I can't read this.
David cannon.
James doxy.
Joyce armstrong.
candy small body wood. Ed donaldson.
Inaudible: , thank you for calling this hearing, while there is no question that the housing
authority is in a crisis,
entangling bank on debt and the stock is not the solution. We have a question about the
loss of jobs and the potential displacement of african-american
families that are most likely
impacted by the implementation of rad.
The information from the mayor's
housing authority is unclear.
And we don't have a complete
understanding of the long-term
financial situation of the
program, and whether demographics won't shift an
others take control. The board is responsible for all
parties impacted by rad, and
request power authority for more
services, and you can produce a
study conducted by rhoades, and ensure this to stay within the
city and county of san francisco. >> thank you.
>> good afternoon,
commissioners. Joyce armstrong, President Of
the public housing association,
phta, not pta, that shows how
little he works with us.
i am joined by the President Of
ccde, that is the council of
disabled, and she wants you know
that she supports the rad program.
As far as we know it's the only
program that can help the public
housing in dire need of help.
and she wanted me to tell you
that the elevator problem, and
they are blessed that something
bad hasn't happened in the
senior disabled buildings.
She's hopeful they have service providers.
Right now we don't have social
worker in the building, except maybe four.
That's a service that is needed
in the senior disabled buildings as well as the family developments.
Yes, as President Of the phta, I support the concept of rad.
We are still contacted and we
requested training so we can understand and articulate what is going do happen to residents in the proper way.
Residents have to get up off of
their behinds and become active.
We send out information and beg
them to come to meetings.
And we don't have a grassroots following, people are comfortable, and when they are
victims they want to call, we
want endoctrinate them now.
Please get back with us soon, we will like to meet with you if you need us to.
>> thank you, next speaker.
>> david cannon will not be speaking.
Inaudible: . >> this is your writing.
>> it's not mine but it's me.
thank you for being here, kind of hard to cover anything more.
My workers did a good job and a lot of people voiced their concerns.
I wanted to remind folks, I don't want any future generation
to sit at any classroom at any
university and say what urban
renewal taught me as a cal student.
That we displaced and did a project that doesn't serve the community and residents.
And we have questions about
lenders and vendors and who is
going to manage.
And hud is going on provide a waiver for those folks that are
going to be fixed or better.
I want us to be mindful that an agreement would serve us that we
have well-paying jobs with the living wage.
And we have tenant right protections.
and it serves the board in its best interest to do that. So we can work together, not
just the housing authority or
the mayor's office but a larger group.
I am concerned on a 18-month path and we still don't have all of these questions.
To rely on who is going to give the loan to which group.
that's our residents, that's our community.
We want a better san francisco. And I am not sure I am hearing that today.
I think we need a better
dialogue and transferred to
joints power agreement to protect all communities of color. Thank you for your time. >> thank you.
>> good afternoon, supervisors,
I am the rad outreach specialist
at san francisco, and I am
former resident of alice griffin. I understand the need for rad, and I understand two important things. Tenant education and input and tenant protections. It's very important that there
are people in these properties
educating and empowering and
listening to the tenants.
Many tenants have discussed that
this development is chosen and now with the properties they didn't have a say.
The tenants want to be involved
in these processes, and now that
there is time for door-knocking opportunities and the beneficiary
ies of rad, are not left in the dark. And for the tenants to
understand the protections in rad.
There needs to be education to ease the fears.
It's important to get out-reach
teams out there to teach others and to get more leaders on the ground.
So that the residents know their
protections and can get their concerns heard. Thank you. >> thank you.
Next speaker.
>> good afternoon, supervisors.
I want to say thank you for the opportunity to speak at this hearing, and actually for you
guys to have the courage to call this hearing. to flush out some concerns and
issues that people have around
the rad program.
You know it isn't an option to do nothing. I agree wholeheartedly with the city on that point.
When you think of the decrepit housing conditions that people
are forced to live under.
Though I have concerns about the
whole process is played out.
And in particular in the african
african-americans of san francisco.
A collaborative report from
2011, that 45% evictions are african-americans, and 29% in
the city of san francisco were african-american
african-americans, but only
represent 4-6% of the population.
There are other people on the wait list, and whether those on
the wait list and getting into
public housing and if they merit one another.
And with evictions we believe
there is serious housing right
concerns that lie there that May
be a basis for a lawsuit.
and resources like they did for
district 9, that folks get resources for tenant organizing.
And we believe that the workers
should allow to become civil worker employees.
And we believe to ensure that
there is adequate participation
and equity in the process, that african-americans are at the
table, so that some of those
folks are hired for these positions. And the financial feasibility
all of that is in question --
[Mic turned off] >> thank you, next speaker,
please.
>> good evening, supervisors, I
have notes that I want to address. But after listening to the
presentation over two hours,
it's frustrating to go over these.
I work with a lot of clients who
live in public housing. My background is real estate
finance, and have worked in the
city for 10 years, and do large-scale projects outside of the country. And listening to the dog and
pony show, with all due respect
to the leaders that spoke up.
A lot of vague responses.
If I went to my clients and gave vague answers, they wouldn't
listen to my proposals.
And the only way to get san francisco to address changes in
the community on how you treat blacks blacks. That you start working with
local film producers in the
community, trust them to come in.
Videotape, show that you look as
if you live in a third-world country. I have seen some pictures that
my clients have brought to my
office to get me to help with the housing authority.
And how as a professional in the industry how the department
heads talk to me, even when I give them the law.
The only way to get san
francisco to change, do video
and make it viral and put it the
on the youtube, and you will
something besides this dog and
pony show and vague answers.
>> thank you, virinna.
>> good afternoon, I am a housing authority with the bay
area legal aid.
We provide free legal services
to low-income tenants. And having worked with public
housing tenants, and that's a
different experience and property managed by property authorities.
And it's not a good difference. While the rights of the tenants in either of those properties should be the same. In reality they play out differently in real life. One of the examples I want to
bring to you, the issues we have
had with transferring tenants between buildings.
And this is a concern in an emergency transfer when domestic crimes are involved.
And the problem we have, the privately managed properties
have their own screening
criteria on top of those that public housing should have.
And that is a barrier for a
domestic violence survivor to
transfer securely and to a safer place.
And because of the developers
involved, those problems will
magnify and prevent more people
from transferring into safe environments.
And transfer policies that take into account emergency
situations such as domestic
violence and other violent crimes. And I want to mention that
public housing tenants are
entitled to procedures before
the case proceeds to eviction.
With private developers we are
having trouble getting those procedures followed.
And to be followed through due diligence, and for most developers eviction is the first step.
Thank you.
>> I am nancy cross, and I am
here to bring to your attention danger of having what sounds
like a very good partnership
between the city administration
and the developers.
In relation to a project that is
funded for the benefit of the public.
And the public doesn't have any meaningful say about what is happening here.
and I will illustrate by this
public/private partnership in
Inaudible: And
the shelters in the city in relation to smoking. When you consider what the
hotels want and the hotel users
in the tourist trade.
you say, we wish for the hotels
to preserve 75% of their room
dedicated to nonsmoking.
Not what happens on separate floors with separate elevators. But when it comes to shelters
and sro's, we allow smoking and
provide smoking patios.
And we don't enforce no smoking
in front of the shelter on polk street.
And if you look at the
statistics you feel, you find
this is a primary cause of death.
And that the people that are
homeless have 20 year shorter life expectancy in the
circumstances they are put.
None of the developers will
develop
developer, and you spread the epidemio
c and you impose welfare
costs of smoking through the shelters.
and sro's [Mic turned off]
>> thank you, ma'am. Ma'am, thank you, we have one more speaker.
We appreciate your comments. >> good afternoon, supervisors,
i am sarah short with the housing rights committee.
I want to second the sentiment
you heard br -- about the tremendous need for education
and it needs to be resourced. And it needs to be independent,
and done by trusted community groups and residents themselves.
To work with other residents to
apprise what is happening in their buildings.
People are feeling in the dark,
and it deprives residents to
have input in the process and
involved in the negotiations around the important tenant
protections that we need to preserve and strengthen.
I want to flag some of those that we think need to be further discussions about.
And to say that what we need is
a standard, fair and reasonable
set of policies around such
things as grievance procedures,
transfer policies.
Eviction policies and back-rent
payment plans. Leases.
And house rules. Those are the types of things
that we hope before we get
rolling with rad, and we work
with the city as holson said that it's worked in the
agreements and codified some more than just assurances. And we need the residents involved in that and we need to go out and talk with the residents and explain how they
can be involved and what exactly is proposed, etc.
So they can be a part of the process.
And then we need to ensure that
we are looking very closely at
any loss of rights between the conversion from the public
housing program to what will now
be the product-based voucher
program [Mic turned off] >> thank you, any other members of the public that would like to
make public comment at this time? Seeing no members at the time,
public comment is now closed. [Gavel]
supervisor aval val valos avalos, this is a very interesting hearing, you
have any comments? >> I do have comments. Mostly I live in a district where we don't have a great deal
of public housing.
A few sites on randolph street.
not a very large one.
A lot of section 8 in the district.
I wanted to co-sponsor this
hearing, because I saw a lot of
great changes proposed.
And a lot of framework provided by the federal government, that
we have to align ourselves with to shore up public housing and
make sure we have the resources to move forward. Often these mandates that come from other levels of government are completely unfair. And puts us in a difficult situation, where we have to create changes that people are
not comfortable with, at a speed
that is not -- or not able to see the changes happen as they are happening.
I think it creates great caution
for san francisco, how we can also as Mr. Lee talked about the
values that went out in our rfq,
and we have to ensure other
values strong in san francisco,
that is public oversight and involvement in the creation of these changes.
I want to be sure that our city can uphold that value as we are making changes.
I think the issues raised around
tenant rights, the right of f
of
tenants to be have assurity of staying in their property.
That they will be able to return to their units.
And the ability to be transferred.
Whether it's, you know, trying to avoid a dangerous situation they are living in.
or other ways, other reasons why they have been transferred.
I think it's a right that has to be upheld. I am concerned about financing
and who the investors and lenders will be.
Often we are at the constraint
of the banks and the lenders.
it's incredible that the profit
model, even if we are creating a public/private partnership, the
model from the lenders
perspective compromises our resources, I am concerned about that.
i have worked on since July of
2011, to create our own
municipal bank that could be
infused with our values as a city, and infrastructure, and education infrastructure.
and to couple our resources, and to add resources.
The public bank is one to make sure we have adequate dollars
for our housing is an area to focus on.
There was recommends --
recommendations that came out of
the fsu and regarding the
important assets.
For decades the idea is that the
board of supervisors should play
a role over public housing.
And I think that the public
housing without that oversight
has suffered greatly in what
tenants face and resources provided.
And I think those days really should end.
And maybe this change that is being forced upon us in terms of
how we can access resources from the federal government is the
time where we actually can make that change here. Provide that oversight from the board of supervisors. And I am willing to look at that.
With my colleagues and would
love to hear your thoughts, supervisor breed.
>> thank you, I honestly -- this has been an enlightening hearing. And I have so many questions, so
many concerns.
I have had for some time. I have been mostly concerned about the communication.
I am not concern that this
hearing helped me.
It confused me a little bit more.
but it also made me a little
more frustrated because there was a certain, there was
something else in my mind that I understood was going to happen with public housing.
Yes, the rad program and certain properties.
but I wasn't completely aware
that those properties that truly
need to be rebuilt completely,
are not.
Not only not going to be rebuilt
in a timely manner, and we will
be required once rehabilitated
to keep them online for 20
years, we won't be able to demolish those particular buildings. That's news to me. I am concerned about so many things I don't know where to start. I lived over 20 years of my life in public housing.
And you know it was a part of my existence.
I had a strong community.
but we constantly had challenges.
What is really sad, I have gone
on walks informally to all the public housing establishments in my district.
And the conditions that existed
then, the broken pipes and the
roaches and the mice holes, and
the smell and the sewage stuff.
The list goes on and on. And to go back and I have family
and folks who still live there.
But to go in as a supervisor and to hear not just the complaints
of my friends and family.
But to hear the complaints of so many other people living in
these same conditions that existed when I was growing up
there is really pretty horrible. It's really difficult for -- I
am excited on the one hand in
that we finally have an
opportunity with a mayor that has agreed to work with us.
And really focus on helping me
to invest city resources into
public housing, unlike never before. But on the underhand there are some challenges to that. And what that really is going on mean for residents.
For the folks that kind of suffered through the challenges
of public housing. The difficulties of dealing with
some of the things that exist.
For far too long public housing
has operated in isolation.
And the most frustrating thing
for me as a spfrs
upervisor, is to be
treated different than any other
housing development in san francisco. Separate services for police,
and not to mention the
market-rate costs that are sucking the budget dry.
What I want to know as a supervisor when we talk about moving forward, when we talk about how this program is going to work.
I want to know exactly how the current dollars that are being spent from the public housing
are working for the current residents.
And I would like to know how we
plan to just continue to have this discussion around the transition of what this is going
to mean for both residents and employees of the property. Especially as many of those employees are actually residents.
And when we talk about better
service, are we talking about
better training it or opportunities for existing employees of public housing? I mean there are so many unanswered questions.
And I have to say from my perspective, from growing up I
knew that a lot of residents would often get a job with public housing.
And it was really difficult to
get a job any place else in the city.
City employments in the city
were hardly available to us, and
working in a public housing site
where you lived was probably the
job of many young people.
And folks grew up in public housing, and doing eligibility work in other things.
Some of my friends ended up
working and getting other jobs through public housing.
I want to be sure there is a real connection for the folks
that have been around for a long time whether employees or residents. But we are trying to work to make sure they are included in the process, and not just saying
out with the old and in with the new. There is a better way do it.
And I am not comfortable with the plan is, there are still a lot of questions I have.
And I don't want to prolong this hearing by going through the laundry list of questions and concerns.
but this is the first of what I feel needs to be discussions around this issue. So we can make sure that we are working together in this effort.
I know that the mayor's office
of housing is working with housing authority.
You guys are all working
together. But those workshops out in the public housing
developments were rushed, they were confusing.
And we talked about ways in which we could better communicate to the folks that live in these developments. And we got to continue to work
harder and smarter as how we
communicate that message. And I definitely don't feel confident we are there yet.
There is a lot of things going
on, a lot of pieces to the puzzle. And I don't understand how they
all fit together in order to ultimately serve the residents.
For example, I don't know how
you rehabilitate west-side courts. I don't understand how that is
going on make it better for
residents to rehabilitate a
property that needs to be torn down. I won't go into discussions with
the plumbing issues that back up in certain rains. And the challenges there.
And to rehabilitate that
property and with the maintenance calls, that doesn't
make sense to me as a policy maker.
I don't think that's a wise investment or responsible.
I feel we have to continue to have these discussions to make this work.
For in properties, yes, they could definitely use the support.
and secondly the city is going to have to invest. I know that people believe that
we shouldn't invest proxy monies
because I guess the voters voted
on prop c money for affordable housing are folks.
i get that, but public housing
is affordable housing, and kwee we have to be sure that we invest in the current residents that
are actually housed there now. We have so much work to do. And the last thing I will say
about that.
It's not an overnight problem.
Housing authority has been
screwed up since I was a kid,
well, since before I was born.
It's not an overnight solution.
and now we have to figure out
how to put the pieces of the puzzle together and we make sure that people have affordable,
safe, clean housing in our city. So I am committed to that, and I
will continue to work with our
various groups to try and get there.
but again the last thing -- I think I said that last time.
But I know that there is a lot of uncertainty.
And I don't want to turn this into a discussion around employment.
But I am asking that the housing authority and the mayor's office of housing continue to work with
the current employees there. there could be opportunities to make sure that people hold on to
their jobs by adding additional training opportunities. If the jobs are going to train.
I don't know what is going on in terms of the details of what all that means. But I think it's important that we be sure that we do everything
we can, if we are changing classifications.
if we are changing job
descriptions, if we are changing the way we do business.
That appears to be the case in
nonprofits and how this works under rad.
We need to look at the existing employees that continue to manage these properties.
and for years when whey had, specific
especially in the western edition when we had the homicides and the problems in public housing.
No one was there to be found.
There wasn't phone calls is everyone okay. And now there is money in public housing and everyone is knocking on the door. I am leary of that, as soon as you start opening the door and
making things before. All of a
sudden the reality is that african-americans tend to lose
in this fight. I am very concerned about that.
and I want to be sure that we do
everything we can to handle this better, especially the communication. Especially working together. And Dr. Jackson made a really good point.
Back in the day, I know my
grandmother and Mrs. Rogers, and
all of those folks would meet about public housing. Whether for rehabilitation or anything going on.
The residents determined how they wanted their developments develop. Or who they wanted to work in their development.
And now it's just a lot
difference.
now I hope we have a strong process of open communication
and feedback and working together.
Because there is a lot to do. And I know there some time
limitation here, in terms of a 18-month time limit to get
onboard with rad.
but we have to be sure that we onboard in the residents, and
include them in the process.
It can't be come to city hall, we have to be in the community,
and know the folks in the neighborhood communicating about the residents. yeah, it's a lot.
And we got a lot of work to do. And I want to thank everyone for coming out here.
And hopefully we can continue this discussion.
Because there is so many more things to talk about.
And thanks again.
>> there was a question I wanted
to ask for the housing
authority.
I guess that's for Mr. Torres.
Or -- yeah, please come forward.
The question is really around
questions about the layoffs and what specific jobs are looked at. Those 100 jobs.
And is there a transition plan?
A few years ago when it was
propose to lay off workers here in the building, maintenance
staff here in the building of the the -- there was talk about moving them to other existing
jobs in the city, and I wonder
what that plan and which jobs are discussed.
>> there won't be any reduction
in jobs for about 15 months.
And then it will be as properties spin off in the rad program. We are working with the bargaining units. We are having meetings with them. Since we are still under
negotiations with the bargaining
units, we have identified classifications for those
bargaining sessions.
There will be some jobs in about
15 months and then some more about a year later.
We are looking at all options
for those positions, including
matching up classifications at
the housing authority with city jobs.
And also while we are shrinking on the public housing side.
we will still be managing about
1460 public housing units.
But we will be growing on the public voucher jobs.
Some of those jobs will be to
the voucher jobs, eligibility for example. >> so availability workers and
property managers, what are the
jobs we're talking about?
>> and some maintenance workers impacted as well.
>> so in previous years, I
recall 2009, there were hundreds
if not thousands of jobs of
clerks in our human service
agencies and as well as laguna honda and general hospital that were descaled. They were laid off and hired
back at a lower rate.
It was really terrible thing
that happened. As a matter of fact all members
of fciu put together their money
so those descaled wouldn't lose
their salaries.
And we want to be sure that we
transfer jobs, and if we transfer, the model is that we transfer with equal pay and
benefits, and not lose anything
at all in that process.
Everyone is trying to maintain
their standard of living, a difficult place to maintain your
standard of living and create a
huge disruption if -- in their lives. >> that's part of the matching
and we hope to identify opportunities between now and when the impact takes place.
so people have the option to
move into other employment opportunities.
When they want to. There May be opportunities that come up in the near future.
And we would back-fill those positions with temporary workers. We are working hard.
We care a great deal with the employees.
and making every opportunity for
them to move into comparable positions. >> I expect what will happen if
you move to five years out and you have nonprofit providers who
are doing the work, eventually
they will be union jobs, they
will be union members, I expect.
>> we can speak to that, yes.
>> Mrs. Smith, if I were told
that my job is probably going on
end in 15 months.
I would be stressed out.
and -- you know, there is so much uncertainty here.
And I don't feel like I clearly
understand what the plan is. In terms of not just the
employment, but just the
transition and -- >> we can have this hearing back.
>> yeah, I think we will need to
have another hearing in order to
get an update.
Because there were some things that I said out to understand,
and like I said, I am still confused.
>> again what we are working towards san francisco housing transition.
And we are talking about
maintenance I and maintenance ii
and property managers, so many people that do incredible work
for the residents of public housing.
We are in negotiations right now. Exploring options. Again I am saving those conversations for when we sit down with each bargaining unit at the table.
But we are happy to come back,
whenever you would like to have us. Always coming to you to talk to you. And more in depth about the communication plans.
and how it will work for residents as well as employees. And provide you with the feedback and any concerns you hear about, let us know.
Like I said earlier, it's a tailored process based on the
specific needs of our residents as well as our employees. And I agree with you, if I found
out that my job was to go some
place in 16-18 months, I would stressed. And why we are asking to hear
these reports and be sure that
those communications are
happening effectively and
consistently and accurately.
That's what our employees deserve.
i appreciate the comments and if
you need information, please let
us know and we are happy to come in.
>> thank you, supervisor avalos,
what do you call, the joint -- power of authority.
I think we need to have
discussions around that so we
can have consistency in terms of
a public process for information for the public with this process.
As I said, I have reviewed the
application and reviewed information. I thought I understood it, and still not completely there. We have to continue the discussion around this issue. Again thanks everyone for coming out. And we will definitely have other hearings to continue this discussion.
Would you like to make a motion on this item?
>> you want to file or continue this item? >> continue. >> my motion is to continue to
the call of the chair.
>> thank you, without objection
our item is continued to the
call of the chair.
Madam Clerk, any other items? >> no, that concludes. >> thank you, meeting adjourned