Loading...
SR 04-11-2023 11C City Council Housing Authority Report City Council Meeting: April 11, 2023 Agenda Item: 11.C 1 of 18 To: Housing Authority, Mayor and City Council From: Danielle Noble, Acting Director, Community Services Department, Housing and Human Services Subject: Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance Forming a Client Advisory Board Recommended Action Staff recommends that the Housing Authority Board: 1. Review and provide direction on the proposed approach for the creation of the Client Advisory Board (CAB) to replace the current Resident Advisory Board (RAB). 2. Extend the term of the Section 8 Resident Advisory Board (RAB) member on the Housing Authority Board until two CAB members are appointed (at least one a Section 8 voucher holder) by the Housing Authority. Staff recommends that the City Council: 1. Introduce for First Reading an Ordinance, adding Chapter 2.70 to create the CAB. Summary In 2022, the Housing Authority Board (HAB) gave direction that staff return to the HAB with a proposal for formation of a Client Advisory Board (CAB) to replace the current Resident Advisory Board (RAB), which is currently constituted with all the Housing Authority’s Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher holders. Staff recommends the creation of an inclusive seven-member CAB representing all voucher program participants, appointed by the Housing Authority Board, which conducts meetings following protocols used by existing City Boards and Commissions. The CAB would provide a forum for voucher participants to publicly gather to discuss voucher program issues, enhance understanding of voucher programs and policy, provide annual input to the staff during the Annual Plan process, and act as an advisory body to the Housing Authority Board. 11.C Packet Pg. 1251 2 of 18 Additionally, the HAB would appoint two of the seven appointed CAB members to serve as tenant representatives on the HAB, which acts as the governing body of the Santa Monica Housing Authority (SMHA). The recommended actions, if adopted, will carry out the HAB’s direction. The CAB would serve the same function as the Resident Advisory Body (RAB) but include all federally assisted residents (including Continuum of Care, Emergency Housing, HOME, and Veteran Affairs Supportive Housing voucher holders) instead of being limited to Section 8 voucher holders. The SMHA has historically included provisions relating to its administration of all federally assisted voucher holders (versus just Section 8) and HUD has never taken exception to the approach. Therefore, given the flexibility accorded to Public Housing Authorities (PHAs) in federal law regarding the formation and governing structure of the RABs, the SMHA could include other federally assisted residents in the CAB, as long as the CAB functions equivalently to a RAB. Due to federal requirements, at least one Section 8 voucher holder must serve on the CAB and the HAB. If the CAB is formed, it would begin providing input on the PHA Plans for fiscal year 2024-2025.The input for the PHA Plans for Fiscal Year 2023-2024 has been provided by the current RAB. Upon authorization to create a CAB, staff would conduct applicant outreach during April/May 2023, accept applications during a four-week period in May/June 2023, and prepare draft bylaws for CAB consideration at their first meeting. Appointment of the seven-member CAB by the HAB, appointment by the HAB of two CAB members to the HAB, and consideration of updates to the Housing Authority Board bylaws would occur at the first available HAB meeting after the application period closes, anticipated in July 2023. As there will be a gap between the time that CAB members are appointed to the HAB and the end date of the terms of the current tenant representatives to the HAB, staff recommends extending the terms of the current tenant representatives until the CAB members are appointed. 11.C Packet Pg. 1252 3 of 18 Background The SMHA administers approximately 1,675 rental assistance vouchers to extremely low-, very low-, and low-income Santa Monica households amongst five federal housing programs (Housing Choice Voucher [HCV]; Continuum of Care [CoC]; HOME Investment Partnerships Program [HOME]; Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing [VASH], and Emergency Housing Voucher [EHV]). Each year, the SMHA must submit an Annual Plan (a streamlined, 3-page federal form), report progress made towards the goals identified in the HAB’s 5-Year Plan and present any changes to the Administrative Plan (which contains the federal regulations, discretionary policies, and some local procedures that govern the SMHA’s operations) to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), seventy-five days before the beginning of the fiscal year. Additionally, every five years the SMHA must also submit a 5-Year Plan to HUD within the same deadline. Together, the 5-year Plan, Annual Plan, and Administrative Plan represent the SMHA’s Annual Plan process. The HAB’s consideration of the SMHA’s Fiscal Year (FY) 2023-24 Annual Plan is scheduled for the April 11, 2023, Consent Calendar and is due to HUD on April 17, 2023. In a typical year, SMHA develops an Annual Plan, captures progress made towards the goals identified in the HAB’s 5-Year Plan, and presents any changes to the Administrative Plan. All documents are posted for a 45-day public review period. Due to the highly regulated nature of the HCV program, opportunities for the SMHA to create discretionary policies are narrow in scope and generally limited to the Annual Plan process which occurs once a year. All documents included in the Annual Plan process including the 5-year Plan, the Annual Plan, and the Administrative Plan are available online year-round on the City’s website at https://www.santamonica.gov/housing-policy- and-reports. Most often, there are no proposed changes to the Annual Plan and minor proposed changes to the Administrative Plan to enhance voucher household opportunities, improve program flexibility within federal parameters, and clarify policies. Some years 11.C Packet Pg. 1253 4 of 18 there may be no proposed changes to the Annual and Administrative Plans. However, HUD requires an annual public review and Housing Authority Board approval process. Prior to the submission of the Plans, the RAB, other voucher participants, and the public must have an opportunity to provide input on the proposed Plans. The RAB, which currently includes all 1,350+ participants in the HCV program, is consulted annually regarding the Annual Plan process and any time significant revisions to the Plan are proposed. Participants in the SMHA’s other voucher programs are also notified of the Annual Plan process and encouraged to provide input on the SMHA’s policy documents. This year, all 1,675+ voucher participants (including the RAB) have been invited to provide input on the Annual Plan, Administrative Plan, and progress made to the 5-Year Plan, through email, mail, public comment at the March 2 Housing Commission meeting, and at a March 13 workshop. The notification to voucher participants describes the process for submitting feedback, allowing for various formats including email, paper mail, and/or telephone, as well as public meetings of the Housing Commission and the HAB. Legal Requirements for the RAB As the governing body of the Public Housing Authority (PHA) for the City of Santa Monica’s Housing Authority’s Section 8 voucher program and other federally assisted programs, federal law requires the HAB to provide opportunities for public participation before the HAB approves its annual and 5-year administrative plans (referenced in federal law as “the PHA Plans”). These plans are submitted to the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to ensure PHA obligations under federal law, and they provide a comprehensive guide to the PHA’s policies, programs, operations, and strategies for meeting local housing needs and goals. Federal law contemplates that participation by federally-assisted residents will occur through the PHA’s establishment of one or more Resident Advisory Boards (RABs). The purpose of these RABs is to provide the PHA and assisted residents with a forum for providing input and assisting in the development of the PHA Plans before they are adopted. While federal law does not specify how a RAB must be formed or governed, 11.C Packet Pg. 1254 5 of 18 HUD has provided significant policy guidance to PHAs, recognizing that the form of the PHA should be flexible enough to ensure participation by resident stakeholders, depending upon the nature of their interests. For example, the participation for RABs that are comprised of residents of public housing owned and/or operated by a PHA are likely to be different from the participation of residents who reside in privately-owned housing with Section 8 subsidies (like in Santa Monica). With one exception, federal law also requires that the governing board of the PHA must have not less than one eligible RAB member, who must be a Section 8 program recipient. (24 CFR § 964.415(a); § 964.420). The exception applies where the PHA does not own public housing (like Santa Monica) and where the PHA has provided annual notice and outreach for opportunities to serve on the PHA governing body, but no requests for participation have been made by any RAB member. (24 CFR § 964.425.) For many years, and under the purview of HUD’s local office, the HAB fostered public and Section 8 recipient participation through its Housing Commission (which has historically included no less than two Section 8 voucher holders as members). While not officially named as a “RAB,” the Housing Commission served as a functional equivalent of a RAB and provided a public forum for public participation in PHA Plan development. In 2020, SMHA staff made an inquiry to the local HUD office as to whether the HAB must have at least one RAB member since the SMHA does not own/operate public housing. HUD’s response was that once the term limits for the two resident board members on the Housing Commission end, if the HAB complies with the annual outreach provisions in federal law (24 CFR.§ 425(a)(2) to (a)(4)), and receives no interest to serving on the HAB, then no RAB member would be required to sit on the HAB. Rather than terminating the Housing Commission, the SMHA established a separate advisory body of all Section 8 voucher holders as “the RAB”, notified RAB members of 11.C Packet Pg. 1255 6 of 18 an opportunity to serve in the HAB, and then conducted a lottery of interested applicants to select two members of the RAB as board members on the HAB in June 2021. These two members have been provided opportunities to serve continuously on the HAB since June 2021, however, one member (Donna Brown) resigned on March 23, 2023. Consequently, since that date the HAB only has one sitting RAB member, which still satisfies the legal requirement under federal law that one eligible RAB member serve on the HAB. While federal law requires the PHAs to establish RABs, federal law does not expressly dictate the governance structure or terms of RAB membership. HUD provides policy guidance in numerous publications about RAB membership, the most comprehensive of which is the Public Housing [PHA] Plan Desk Guide (Chapter 4). The Desk Guide states that a PHA has discretion “in determining the method of appointment of RABs, as long as the PHA ensures that its RAB or RABs reflect and represent all the residents assisted by the PHA.” Because the SMHA does not own or operate any public housing, the SMHA is considered a “Section 8-only PHA”. According to the Desk Guide (p. 94), "Section 8- only PHAs have discretion in the RAB appointment process. Participation in a RAB is limited only to residents that are assisted under federally assisted public housing and the Section 8 tenant-based program.” For this reason, the RAB must be comprised of Section 8 members and only Section 8 recipients are eligible to serve on the HAB as to the single member required by federal law to be included on the HAB. The Desk Guide (p. 95) also provides that if the PHA is not successful in establishing a RAB, it may appoint all of the agency’s assisted residents as members of the RAB. The PHA must notify all of its members that they have been appointed as members of the RAB and inform them of their role and responsibilities regarding development of the PHA Plan. The SMHA RAB is currently comprised of all Section 8 residents based upon this HUD guidance. 11.C Packet Pg. 1256 7 of 18 City Charter section 1000 also authorizes the City Council to create by ordinance such additional advisory boards or commissions as in its judgment are required and may grant to them such powers and duties as are consistent with the provisions of the City Charter. While the City and SMHA are legally distinct bodies with different legal mandates, there does not appear to be any conflict if the City adopts an ordinance creating the CAB/RAB structure as a City board and commission. At the September 13, 2022, Council/Housing Authority meeting, the HAB discussed alternative, more inclusive approaches to the current RAB structure to represent all of Santa Monica’s voucher participants and provide opportunities for voucher participants to meet collectively in preparation for communicating input to SMHA staff regarding voucher program policies. A summary of the RAB, its structure, purpose, role, and requirements under 24 CFR Part 903 is included in the September 13, 2022, Council staff report: Section 8 Resident Advisory Board Approaches and provided in Attachment A. At that time, the Housing Commission also presented a recommendation for the creation of a Client Advisory Board (CAB), which would include voucher participants from all of the SMHA’s voucher programs and serve as a replacement for the current RAB. Community members have suggested that workshops and multiple CAB meetings per year would improve the exchange of information amongst voucher participants as well as comprehension of HAB and voucher program policies. The Housing Commission recommended the following structure for the CAB: • Be comprised of seven to fifteen members. • Include at least one representative from every federally-funded SMHA program. • Allow program participants to collectively decide for themselves how CAB members are chosen, meeting frequency, the content of bylaws. • Allow the CAB to decide who will represent them on the Housing Authority Board. • Have meetings be public and agendized, with sufficient notice provided. • Adopt a Memorandum of Understanding between the CAB and HAB Board, to be incorporated into the Housing Authority Board bylaws by reference and the Administrative Plan in its entirety. 11.C Packet Pg. 1257 8 of 18 • Include CAB bylaws in the Administrative Plan. • Use HAB federal funds allocated for administrative costs to pay for the CAB communications, basic administrative costs, and possible relevant educational and training opportunities. • Pay a $50 stipend for each CAB meeting attended. • Require staff advise all clients and the CAB about all regular timelines for the Housing Authority planning process to ensure maximum participation. • Periodically invite Housing Authority staff as needed, to provide educational presentations on the Annual, Administrative, and 5-Year Plans. A more detailed description and full list of the Housing Commission’s recommendations is provided in Attachment B. During the study session the Housing Authority Board discussed alternatives to the current RAB structure which included: • How to meet the needs of voucher participants for engagement. • The Housing Commission’s recommendations. • Approaches to RAB engagement by comparable Housing Authorities. • Initial RAB/CAB appointment. • How to make the RAB/CAB self-determining. • How to make the RAB/CAB Brown Act compliant. Unlike many other Housing Authorities in its immediate vicinity and Housing Authorities in larger cities, including those referenced in the HAB’s initial discussion of the RAB, Santa Monica operates a voucher-only program. The HAB does not own or operate a Public Housing program and is therefore not subject or have access to the same requirements or funding sources as other Housing Authorities which own and operate Public Housing. At the September 13, 2022, HAB Meeting, the HAB directed staff to consider its discussion, along with the Housing Commission’s recommendations, and return with a recommendation for a CAB. 11.C Packet Pg. 1258 9 of 18 In response to the HAB’s direction, staff turned first to researching approaches to the formation, implementation, and operation of an active, inclusive, self-determining CAB. Staff coordinated with both the Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles (LAFLA) and the National Housing Law Project (NHLP) to identify an experienced and available firm with relevant expertise to assist staff in the research. LAFLA and NHLP referred staff to the National Alliance of Resident Services in Affordable and Assisted Housing (NAR- SAAH), which provides technical assistance to Housing Authorities regarding the creation and execution of RABs. Independent Survey of RABs from Comparable Housing Authorities In September 2022, staff engaged the services of NAR-SAAH to conduct an independent study of RABs associated with Housing Authorities of comparable size and scope to the HAB. The study identified approaches to RABs, such as appointment process, number of members, meeting frequency, and budget/funding source. NAR-SAAH provided a detailed report of the findings and profiles of the Housing Authorities to staff which is provided in Attachment C. The report listed the 13 Housing Authorities surveyed which are comparable to the HAB, RAB administration approaches, and the recommendations of NAR-SAAH. Below are key points from the survey results. • RAB members at all 13 PHAs in the study cohort were appointed by agency staff and elected officials. • RAB membership ranges from seven to twelve members. • The average term for RAB member service is three years. • Seven of the 13 Housing Authorities have at least one RAB workshop annually. The RAB workshop provided updates regarding the Housing Authority, the Annual Plan, the 5-Year Plan, and the Administrative Plan. • None of the 13 Housing Authorities paid a stipend to their RAB members. • All 13 RABs have bylaws. • All 13 Housing Authorities have executed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the RAB and the Housing Authority. 11.C Packet Pg. 1259 10 of 18 • Although all 13 RABs have a budget, such funding is supplemented by the state, city, or another non-federal source in light of the insufficient funding provided by HUD for direct administration of voucher programs. Discussion The Housing Authority Board directed staff to take steps to facilitate a more inclusive RAB process and form a CAB that represents the entire HAB voucher population, rather than solely HCV participants. Staff considered the recommendations of the HAB, the Housing Commission, NAR- SAAH, and community members, and the desire for expediency. The model proposed would codify a HAB-appointed CAB in the City’s Municipal Code in the same manner as other City Boards and Commissions. CAB roles and responsibilities are detailed in the attached ordinance (Attachment D). This, plus the creation of CAB bylaws, would serve the same purpose as the Memorandums of Understanding used in other jurisdictions. Staff recommends an inclusive seven-member CAB to replace the current RAB model. The proposed CAB would expand traditional RAB membership beyond the HCV program to include other voucher programs like the Continuum of Care (CoC) program, which serves people experiencing homelessness and living with a disability. The CAB would represent all voucher program participants, provide input to HAB staff during the Annual Plan process, and act as an advisory body to the Housing Authority Board. Initially, the general structure of the CAB, its bylaws, rules, procedures, and meeting requirements would follow the Council-adopted template and the workings of Council’s other advisory bodies, unless certain aspects conflict with the HUD’s federal requirements for the RAB. Once established, the CAB may make recommendations directly to the HAB regarding its operation. CAB meetings would be open to the public, with the requisite public notices and agendas, and SMHA staff attendance would depend on the scope and purpose of the meeting, per the Housing Commission recommendation. All voucher program members would be eligible to apply for a seat on the CAB. The seven CAB members would be appointed by the HAB from the pool of applicants from all voucher programs. 11.C Packet Pg. 1260 11 of 18 There are several avenues for inclusivity and self-determination, including through ad- hoc committees or advisory groups appointed by the CAB, which may focus on various areas of voucher program policy and initiatives within the scope of the 5-Year Plan, Annual Plan and Administrative Plan. Additionally, the CAB may establish time-limited ad hoc committees of CAB-appointed members and voucher participants to formulate reports or recommendations to the CAB on specific topics. Such meetings would not be subject to the Brown Act, but must include less than a quorum of CAB appointed members. The CAB may also form advisory groups made up of CAB-appointed members and voucher participants. Advisory groups would be subject to the Brown Act and meeting rules and procedures. The HAB would select the two tenant representatives to serve on the Housing Authority Board from amongst the seven current CAB members. Appointments would be for two- year terms. To meet federal requirements, one of the CAB members and one of the Housing Authority Board members must be from the Section 8 program. The previous and existing RAB was/is not subject to the Brown Act because the RAB was appointed by SMHA staff for the purpose of providing input directly to staff during the Annual Plan process as recommended by HUD, rather than appointed by the City Council or Housing Authority Board. The creation of a CAB at the direction of the Housing Authority Board (which includes Council) would be subject to the Brown Act. The Brown Act applies to “legislative Bodies” of local government agencies and includes: the governing body of the local agency (e.g., Council) and any commission, committee, board, or other body of the local agency, whether permanent or temporary, decision-making or advisory, that is created by formal action of a legislative body (Section 54952).The Brown Act would require any meetings of the CAB to be open and public. The proposed model includes a $50 per meeting stipend for the seven appointed CAB members for up to four meetings a year. In accordance with City policy, City funds for Boards and Commissions are restricted to supporting Board or Commission-related 11.C Packet Pg. 1261 12 of 18 events, dues, memberships, conferences, trainings, and meeting materials and logistics. Staff recommends that, in recognition of their participation, the City offer $50/meeting stipends to the seven appointed CAB members for up to four meetings per year. Modifications to the City’s adopted policy regarding Boards and Commissions would be presented to the Council upon second reading and become effective thirty days thereafter. Existing departmental resources would be re-directed for CAB stipends and meeting support. Staff corresponded with HUD about the recommended CAB and received positive feedback. HUD reaffirmed that to meet federal requirements for a RAB, the proposed CAB must always include an HCV (Section 8) participant. Additionally, HUD indicated that stipend payments which exceed $200 annually must be reported by voucher participants and would be counted as income. The current staff recommendation that $50 stipends paid to CAB members for up to four CAB meetings annually, would not exceed $200 in annual stipends ($50 x 4 meetings). A summary of the recommended structure and operation of the proposed RAB/CAB is as follows. Recommendation Outline for Creating a CAB Membership • The CAB would have seven members to represent all voucher participants. • Participants in all SMHA voucher programs would be eligible for membership. • CAB membership would prioritize having a representative from each SMHA voucher program if eligible applicants are available during appointments. • CAB vacancies would not be held open if no eligible applicants are available (except for the HCV program which requires representation per HUD regulations) during appointments. • Each member would serve a four-year term. 11.C Packet Pg. 1262 13 of 18 Recommendation Outline for Creating a CAB Appointment Process • Outreach for CAB membership would be solicited via mail and email and follow Limited English Proficiency (LEP) guidelines. Notices would also be placed on the Housing Office website and in the Santa Monica Daily Press. • Application for the CAB would be modeled after the template used for other City Boards and Commissions. • The Housing Authority Board would review applications and appoint CAB members. Meeting Model • Meeting rules and procedures would follow adopted guidelines for Boards and Commissions. • Appointed members would receive a stipend of $50 per meeting for up to four meetings per year. • SMHA staff would participate in at least one annual meeting to receive input during the Annual Plan process. • Staff would host 1-2 workshops annually within the CAB meeting structure to engage with voucher participants and inform/educate about mandatory federal policy versus local, discretionary policy. • Meetings would be held in accordance with the City’s forthcoming administrative instructions related to access and language justice. 11.C Packet Pg. 1263 14 of 18 Recommendation Outline for Creating a CAB Formation and Operational Structure • The CAB would be created by amending the City’s Municipal Code. • The CAB would act as an advisory body to the Housing Authority Board, provide input to SMHA staff during the Annual Plan process, and represent the SMHA’s voucher population. • Bylaws would conform to the Council-adopted template for City Boards and Commissions. • Roles and responsibilities of CAB and HAB would be incorporated into the City’s Municipal Code. • Outreach for the CAB application period would occur over a four-week period during April/May. • Applications for CAB would be open in May 2023 for a four-week period; HAB would agendize appointments at the next available meeting date. 11.C Packet Pg. 1264 15 of 18 Recommendation Outline for Creating a CAB Staff Resources & Role • Staff would post general information (e.g., email addresses of CAB members, active members, and formal meeting schedule) about the CAB on the Housing Office Website. • Staff would encourage participation in the CAB and Annual Plan process, via email, mail, at a briefing for new voucher participants, and during the annual reexamination for existing voucher participants and in accordance with LEP guidelines. • Staff would create a designated email address for each CAB member so voucher participants and the public can directly correspond or connect with the CAB. • Staff would help identify and secure a physical meeting space for the CAB to meet in person during the Annual Plan process and for any staff-lead workshops. • Staff would conduct a mandatory orientation for CAB members. • Additional or redirected organizational and supportive resources would be needed to organize, implement, attend, and document meeting(s) based on the Division’s current staffing model. However, proposed restructuring of the Division would create sufficient staff resources. Housing Commission Role • The CAB meeting(s) would replace the annual Housing Commission meeting used as a forum for voucher participants to provide input for the Annual Plan process. 11.C Packet Pg. 1265 16 of 18 Recommendation Outline for Creating a CAB Opportunities • This model provides an opportunity for the CAB to represent the entire voucher population and convene multiple times during the year in a forum where other voucher holders may attend and discuss program issues. • The model includes the HAB appointing two of the seven CAB members as the two tenant representatives to the Housing Authority Board. The only requirement is that one representative must be from the Section 8 program per HUD regulations. Considerations • To meet HUD requirements the CAB must always have at least one Section 8 representative. • Generally, as a practical matter due to the public review period, amendments to the Administrative Plan and Annual Plan are feasible only once a year during the Annual Plan process. Housing Commission The Housing Commission may choose to agendize a discussion about the RAB/CAB at its April 6 meeting and provide input to the HAB in writing and/or during the April 11 meeting during public comment. A draft of this report was provided to the Housing Commission on April 4, 2023. Next Steps If the HAB supports the recommendation for the proposed CAB modeled after other Commissions/Boards appointed by Council, staff would coordinate with the Clerk’s Office to open the application process for CAB recruitment in April/May 2023. Staff would directly notify all voucher participants twice within a four-week period and post a notice on the Housing Office website and two in the Santa Monica Daily Press. The application period would be open for four weeks to ensure adequate time for interested 11.C Packet Pg. 1266 17 of 18 voucher participants to apply. The application would be modeled after the applications used with other City Boards and Commissions. After the close of the application period, the HAB would consider appointments to the CAB at the Board’s next available meeting date. At that time the HAB would also select the two CAB members to serve on the HAB and consider updates to the Housing Authority’s bylaws. The current Housing Authority bylaws were last adopted in 1974. The timeline anticipates that the CAB would begin meeting in early fall. Prior to the appointment of the initial CAB, staff would begin to coordinate with the City Attorney and City Clerk’s office to prepare draft bylaws modeled after the template City bylaws for Boards and Commissions adopted by Council. Review and adoption of bylaws would be considered at the CAB’s initial meeting(s). Environmental Review The actions contemplated by this report do not constitutes a “project” within the meaning of CEQA because they would not cause either a direct physical change in the environment or reasonably foreseeable change in the environment. Financial Impacts There is no immediate financial impact or budget action necessary because of the recommended action. Budgeted resources would be re-directed to support CAB stipends. In order to provide staff support for quarterly CAB meetings, existing HAB staff resources would need to be redirected from current voucher administration and projects. However, staff has developed a proposed restoration and enhancement of the Housing Division for Council consideration during the FY2023-25 Biennial Budget process. If the enhanced Housing Division staffing proposal is approved, the Division would have sufficient staff resources beginning in FY23/24 to support the CAB. 11.C Packet Pg. 1267 18 of 18 Prepared By: Patrick Komesu, Sr. Administrative Analyst Approved Forwarded to Council Attachments: A. RAB staff rpt 091322 B. Santa Monica Housing Commission RAB Recommendations C. CAB Formation Ordinance D. NAR-SAAH Independent Study E. Written Comments F. PowerPoint Presentation 11.C Packet Pg. 1268 City Council Housing Authority Report City Council Meeting: September 13, 2022 Agenda Item: 7.A 1 of 11 To: Housing Authority, Mayor and City Council From: Andy Agle, Director, Community Services Department, Housing and Human Services Subject: Section 8 Resident Advisory Board Approaches Recommended Action Staff recommends that the Housing Authority Board review and comment on the current and alternative approaches to achieving Resident Advisory Board input on the Santa Monica Housing Authority Plans, and direct the City Manager to return to City Council following the November 2022 election with actions necessary to implement direction received from City Council or further discussion regarding the alternatives presented, as warranted. Summary Each year, the Santa Monica Housing Authority (SMHA) must submit an Annual Plan and any updates to the Administrative Plan to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) 75 days before the beginning of July-June fiscal year. Every five years, the SMHA must also submit to HUD a 5-Year Plan within the same deadline. Together, the 5-year Plan, Annual Plan, and Administrative Plan represent the SMHA Plan (collectively referred to as the Plans). Prior to submission of the Plans, federal regulations require that the SMHA’s Resident Advisory Board (RAB) have an opportunity to provide input on the proposed Plans. Santa Monica’s RAB consists of all 1,300+ voucher holders whose Housing Choice Vouchers are administered by the SMHA. The current process involves notifying all members of the RAB and inviting direct input on proposed Plans via email/mail/phone. RAB members also have an opportunity to comment annually during a Housing Commission and Housing Authority Board meeting when the SMHA Plans are Attachment A 11.C.a Packet Pg. 1269 Attachment: RAB staff rpt 091322 [Revision 2] (5644 : RAB Update to Council) 2 of 11 agendized for review and approval. In April 2022, the Housing Authority Board asked staff to present alternative approaches to the RAB input process for consideration. The following report provides background information, key regulations, current compliant practice, and three alternatives, and seeks direction on any desired revisions to the RAB process. Background At its April 12, 2022, meeting, the Housing Authority Board directed staff to return with a discussion of options on alternative ways to facilitate RAB input on the Santa Monica Housing Authority Plans. The following report is provided in response to the Housing Authority Board’s direction. Purpose of Resident Involvement In Public Housing “The role of a resident council is to improve the quality of life and resident satisfaction and participate in self-help initiatives to enable residents to create a positive living environment for families living in public housing.” (See Title 24 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 964 for more information on tenant participation in public housing.) Given the substantial role a Public Housing Authority (PHA) may play in the life of its public housing residents, federal regulations allow tenants residing in public housing to create resident councils. Many PHAs own and operate public housing and therefore serve as the property owner to the tenants who reside in such housing, as well as the subsidy provider that ensures each tenant’s portion of the rent is affordable. However, other PHAs, such as the Santa Monica Housing Authority (SMHA), do not own or operate public housing and only administer rental-housing voucher programs, such as the Housing Choice Voucher program (commonly known as Section 8), which allow tenants to obtain affordable housing in the broader private housing market. Tenants with vouchers reside in hundreds of privately owned properties located throughout cities and PHAs do not have a role in how such properties are managed and operated, except for ensuring that federal Housing Quality Standards are met through periodic inspections. Different Ways to Structure Resident Involvement 11.C.a Packet Pg. 1270 Attachment: RAB staff rpt 091322 [Revision 2] (5644 : RAB Update to Council) 3 of 11 PHAs that own and operate public housing may have a resident (tenant) council for each specific public housing property or may have a jurisdiction-wide resident council to represent tenants of several public housing properties within a PHA’s jurisdiction. Since the SMHA does not own or operate public housing, it is referred to as ‘voucher-only’ PHA, and regulations regarding resident councils are not applicable to the SMHA. While voucher-only PHAs do not have resident councils, they must have a Resident Advisory Board to allow an opportunity for input into the PHA plan. (See 24 CFR 903 for more information on PHA Plans.) Key federal regulations regarding the role of a RAB are as follows (24 CFR 903.13): • “The role of the Resident Advisory Board (or Resident Advisory Boards) is to assist and make recommendations regarding the development of the PHA plan, and any significant amendment or modification to the PHA plan.” • “The PHA shall allocate reasonable resources to assure the effective functioning of Resident Advisory Boards. Reasonable resources for the Resident Advisory Boards must provide reasonable means for them to become informed on programs covered by the PHA Plan, to communicate in writing and by telephone with assisted families and hold meetings with those families, and to access information regarding covered programs on the internet, taking into account the size and resources of the PHA.” • “Where the PHA has a tenant-based assistance program of significant size (where tenant-based assistance is 20% or more of assisted households), the PHA shall assure that the Resident Advisory Board (or Boards) has reasonable representation of families receiving tenant-based assistance and that a reasonable process is undertaken to choose this representation.” • “The PHA must consider the recommendations of the Resident Advisory Board or Boards in preparing the final Annual Plan, and any significant amendment or modification to the Annual Plan, as provided in §903.21 of this title.” The purpose of the RAB is to provide input to SMHA staff regarding the PHA Plan for consideration prior to staff presenting recommendations to the Housing Authority Board, 11.C.a Packet Pg. 1271 Attachment: RAB staff rpt 091322 [Revision 2] (5644 : RAB Update to Council) 4 of 11 the governing body of the Housing Authority. Typically, the SMHA receives input from only a few voucher program participants, if any, although it is common to receives input from the Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles, based on their experiences in representing voucher-program participants. Public Housing Authority Plan The PHA Plan is a comprehensive guide to PHAs goals and objectives, as well as operational policies implementing the Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program. There are two initial components to the PHA Plan - the 5-Year Plan and the Annual Plan. The 5-Year Plan must be approved once every fifth fiscal year, and the Annual Plan, every year, 75 days before the start of the fiscal year. Since the SMHA is a ‘voucher-only PHA’ and uses a three-page streamlined Annual Plan form per federal requirements, the complete policies and procedures for administering the HCV program are detailed within 17 chapters of the SMHAs Administrative Plan, the third component of the PHA Plan. The HCV program is a highly regulated federal program (see Title 24 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 982) involving these aspects: 1) waitlist administration 2) initial program eligibility 3) annual recertification 4) Housing Quality Standards and periodic inspections 5) document verification hierarchy 6) annual income calculations 7) subsidy limits 8) appeals 9) terminations 10) monthly and annual reporting 11.C.a Packet Pg. 1272 Attachment: RAB staff rpt 091322 [Revision 2] (5644 : RAB Update to Council) 5 of 11 Therefore, PHAs have limited discretion in forming local policies and procedures. Subsequently, the SMHA’s Administrative Plan includes a combination of federally established regulations and a few local, discretionary approaches to administering the HCV program where allowed. For example, PHAs must adhere to the federal regulations regarding admittance to the program, ongoing eligibility, periodic inspections, and maximum subsidy limits, but can exercise local discretion in prioritizing certain applicant groups, allocating vouchers to specific properties (known as project- based vouchers), and selecting models to comply with maximum subsidy amounts. Evolution of SM RAB Approaches Given that the SMHA does not own or operate any publicly owned housing, there are no resident (tenant) councils that comply with the tenant-participation regulations under the tenant-based assistance program. Therefore, voucher-only PHAs have discretion in the RAB appointment process. Federal regulations and HUD guidance provide local PHAs broad discretion in the formation of the RAB, as follows: “Section 8-only PHAs have discretion in the RAB appointment process. Participation in a RAB is limited to residents that are assisted under federally assisted public housing and the Section 8 tenant-based program.” Also: “PHAs have discretion in determining the method of appointment of RABs, as long as a PHA ensures that its RAB or RABs reflect and represent all the residents assisted by the PHA.” Prior to 2020, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) recognized the Housing Commission as representing the function of a RAB due to its inclusion of two voucher program participants, monthly meetings, annual review and input to the PHA plan, and role as an advisory body to the City Council, which periodically convenes as the governing body of the SMHA, known as the Housing Authority Board. In early 2020, the SMHA staff selected a seven-member RAB, consistent with HUD written guidance that personal appeals are a strategy that may be more likely to obtain commitments from program participants to serve on the RAB. 11.C.a Packet Pg. 1273 Attachment: RAB staff rpt 091322 [Revision 2] (5644 : RAB Update to Council) 6 of 11 In March 2021, the SMHA expanded the RAB to include all 1,300+ Section 8 program participants (i.e., HCV participants). (Note that the SMHA administers other voucher programs, and those participants are included in all noticing of opportunities to comment on the SMHA plans but are not considered part of the RAB.) The decision to expand the RAB was made after discussion with the local HUD field office about RAB models used by other housing authorities. Another consideration was concern from some community members that a RAB selected by staff was not transparent. Among two general models, one model limits the RAB to a closed group of HCV participant representatives and the other model includes all HCV participants. SMHA currently uses the more inclusive option, which allows for participation by all HCV participants. Discussion Current RAB approach and Input Opportunities The RAB currently includes all 1,300+ participants in the HCV program and is consulted annually regarding the SMHA plan and any time significant revisions to the plan are proposed. SMHA’s Plan is available online year-round on the City’s website, consisting of the 5-year Plan, the Annual Plan, and the Administrative Plan. In a typical year, the proposed SMHA Annual Plan (a streamlined, 3-page federal form) and Administrative Plan (containing federally established policies and some local discretionary policies) are posted for a 45-day public review period. As mentioned earlier in this report, given the highly regulated nature of the HCV program, opportunities for the local SMHA to create discretionary policies are limited in scope. All SMHA program participants, including the RAB (which consists only of HCV participants), are directly notified annually via email and mail and are encouraged to provide input regarding each year’s Annual Plan and Administrative Plan. Typically, there may be no proposed changes to the Annual Plan and minor proposed changes to the Administrative Plan to enhance voucher household opportunities and clarify policies. Some years there may be no proposed changes to the Annual and Administrative Plans, but HUD still requires the public review and Housing Authority Board approval process to occur. The notification to program participants describes the process for submitting feedback, allowing for various formats including email, paper mail, and/or 11.C.a Packet Pg. 1274 Attachment: RAB staff rpt 091322 [Revision 2] (5644 : RAB Update to Council) 7 of 11 telephone, as well as public meetings of the Housing Commission and City Council (meeting as the Housing Authority Board). The current model of the RAB and the methods of input reflect a simple feedback loop between the RAB and SMHA staff in which attendance at (usually evening) meetings is not required. Additional opportunities for input at public meetings are also provided. The following summarized the current approach: 1. Email/mail/phone feedback method respects the privacy of participants not comfortable exposing their program participation in a public setting, or who may have obligations which conflict with attending meetings. 2. Housing Commission meetings are also held to receive public input on the SMHA plans and RAB members (and all voucher program participants) are notified of the opportunity to attend the Housing Commission meeting and provide input. 3. Housing Authority Board (HAB) meetings where the proposed SMHA plans are considered and RAB members, as well as the broader public, may provide input. It should be noted that the SMHA is required by federal regulations to recognize and address recommendations made by RAB members, whether such recommendations come from an individual or a group. The following table summarizes requirements regarding the RAB and describes how compliance is currently being achieved by the SMHA: RAB Requirement Current Compliant Approach PHAs have discretion in determining the method of appointment of RABs, as long as a PHA ensures that its RAB or RABs reflect and represent all the residents assisted by the PHA. Participation in a RAB is limited to residents that are assisted under federally assisted public housing and the Section 8 tenant-based program. All SMHA participants in the Section 8 (officially known as the Housing Choice Voucher program) have been appointed as RAB members, allowing for the broadest possible inclusion of voucher residents in the RAB. 11.C.a Packet Pg. 1275 Attachment: RAB staff rpt 091322 [Revision 2] (5644 : RAB Update to Council) 8 of 11 RAB Requirement Current Compliant Approach The role of the Resident Advisory Board (or Resident Advisory Boards) is to assist and make recommendations regarding the development of the PHA plan, and any significant amendment or modification to the PHA plan. All SMHA RAB members are provided both discreet (via email/mail/phone) and public opportunities (Housing Commission and Housing Authority Board) to provide input and make recommendations regarding the PHA plan and proposed modifications. The PHA shall allocate reasonable resources to assure the effective functioning of Resident Advisory Boards. Reasonable resources for the Resident Advisory Boards must provide reasonable means for them to become informed on programs covered by the PHA Plan, to communicate in writing and by telephone with assisted families and hold meetings with those families, and to access information regarding covered programs on the internet, taking into account the size and resources of the PHA. SMHA Plans (5-Year Plan, Annual Plan, and Administrative Plan) are available online year-round. City website has additional information about SMHA programs. RAB and assisted families are one in the same, and not distinct groups. RAB consists of all HCV assisted families and are invited to an annual meeting hosted by the Housing Commission as a forum for providing input, which must be considered by SMHA staff and communicated to the Housing Authority Board (HAB) prior to the HABs review and approval of the proposed SMHA plans. HUD has approved the current SMHA approach to the RAB as in compliance because RAB members are provided opportunities for input on the SMHA plans. The PHA must consider the recommendations of the Resident Advisory Board or Boards in preparing the final Annual Plan, and any significant amendment or modification to the Annual Plan, as provided in §903.21 of this title. When presenting the final, proposed SMHA plans to the Housing Authority Board and to HUD for consideration and approval, the SMHA includes both summary and verbatim feedback and recommendations from the RAB. Alternative to Current RAB Input Process While the current RAB approach and process has been approved by HUD, some community members have requested that the City take additional steps to facilitate a more robust RAB process. Examples of suggestions include an opportunity for the RAB membership to meet as a group, discuss issues, and make recommendations to the SMHA. Although the role of the RAB is to provide input on the PHA Plans, a process which occurs annually, some community members have also suggested that multiple 11.C.a Packet Pg. 1276 Attachment: RAB staff rpt 091322 [Revision 2] (5644 : RAB Update to Council) 9 of 11 RAB meetings per year, such as quarterly, could improve the exchange of information among voucher program participants as well as comprehension about SMHA policies. The three options described below and further detailed in Attachment A represent possible alternatives for Council consideration and direction regarding approaches to conducting RAB meetings and formation, in the order of least to most resource- intensive. Existing staffing resources are available to facilitate a virtual opt-in communication channel (Option 1) or a virtual annual RAB meeting in place of the RAB’s annual opportunity to provide feedback at a Housing Commission meeting (Option 2). Should Council desire Option 3 or a different approach not mentioned in this report, additional resources or direction to divert existing resources from current affordable housing priorities would be needed. Option 1 - Facilitate Opportunities for RAB Members to Meet Virtually and Independently of SMHA A virtual communication channel to facilitate group communication could be created as an informational forum for RAB members, who voluntarily opt-in, to converse in general about voucher program issues. This option would create an email group (e.g., LISTSERV) to provide opportunities for participants to schedule in-person or virtual meet-up groups. The communication channel could serve as a springboard to other types of connections. Once formed, participating RAB members would be responsible for the manner and frequency in which to communicate and/or convene (virtually, in- person, hybrid) without SMHA involvement. Option 2 - SMHA Organizes and Supports Virtual Annual RAB Workshop Staff would organize and conduct an annual RAB workshop, in-lieu of the traditional annual Housing Commission forum for feedback on the SMHA Plans. Option 1 could also be implemented to complement this Option 2. The next SMHA Annual Plan cycle begins in early 2023, so with Council direction to proceed with Option 2, the next annual RAB workshop could occur in February 2023. 11.C.a Packet Pg. 1277 Attachment: RAB staff rpt 091322 [Revision 2] (5644 : RAB Update to Council) 10 of 11 Option 3 - Council-Appointed RAB Which Meets Quarterly Council would appoint a subset of HCV participants to a RAB to represent all 1,300+ HCV participants and staff would then organize and support quarterly RAB meetings. (A few community members have suggested quarterly meetings.) Before this option could be implemented, staff would return to Council at mid-year to recommend specifics regarding Council appointment of the RAB, RAB operations, and staff resources necessary for implementation. However, as the next SMHA Annual Plan cycle begins in early 2023, staff would continue the existing approach to RAB input involving direct communication between SMHA staff and the 1,300+ RAB members during February. Additionally, with Council direction, staff would implement the Option 1 approach of creating a group-level communication forum for interested parties to opt-in, to allow participants to convene and collaborate prior to the 2023 SMHA Annual Plan input process. See also Attachment A for further details regarding resources, implementation, opportunities, and considerations associated with each of the three options. Other Considerations In considering alternative methods to the existing formation and input opportunities of the RAB, Council may wish to wait for the outcome of the November 2022 election, as one of the ballot initiatives, if adopted, would generate funding for affordable housing programs and require a resident oversight committee. Given the existing RAB and the Housing Commission, and the possibility of a new resident oversight committee, there may be a convergence of affordable housing issues and policy that fall under the various bodies. An opportunity would then exist to clearly identify the roles and scope of the various bodies, the existing and necessary human and capital resources to adequately function, and the corresponding required budget actions. Financial Impacts and Budget Actions There is no immediate financial impact or budget action necessary as a result of the recommended action. Options 1 and 2 can be implemented with currently budgeted resources. Staff will return to Council if specific budget actions are required in the future 11.C.a Packet Pg. 1278 Attachment: RAB staff rpt 091322 [Revision 2] (5644 : RAB Update to Council) 11 of 11 associated with resources necessary to implement Option 3 or other Council-directed processes for RAB input. Prepared By: Jim Kemper, Housing Program Manager Approved Forwarded to Council Attachments: A. Alternative Approaches for SMHA Resident Advisory Board Input Process B. Written Comments 11.C.a Packet Pg. 1279 Attachment: RAB staff rpt 091322 [Revision 2] (5644 : RAB Update to Council) Santa Monica Housing Commission RAB Recommendations Adopted 1 September 2022 by unanimous vote of all Commissioners present After considerable individual research, including RAB configurations, bylaws, and practices in other jurisdictions; trauma-informed community engagement; and consultation with attorneys from nonprofit Poverty and Race Research Action Council (PRRAC) and National Housing Law Project (NHLP); as well as extensive input by Santa Monica Housing Authority program participants and other local residents; review of relevant Housing Authority staff report and recommendations; and extensive public discussion; the Santa Monica Housing Commission unanimously recommends the following to best support and empower Housing Authority program participants to exercise their federal right to self-representation: 1. The Housing Authority Board agrees to establish a Client Advisory Board (CAB) that represents all Housing Authority program participants, including Continuum of Care, HOME, Emergency, project-based HCV, and other voucher holders, in addition to tenant-based HCV holders, in compliance with 24 CFR § 903.13(a), which states "a Resident Advisory Board refers to a board or boards, as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, whose membership consists of individuals who adequately reflect and represent the residents assisted by the PHA." 2. The CAB be composed of 7-15 Housing Authority clients, with the inclusion of at least one member from each major federally funded Housing Authority program 3. Program participants collectively decide for themselves how CAB members are chosen, CAB meeting frequency, content of CAB bylaws, and who will represent the CAB on the Housing Authority Board (including at least one tenant-based voucher holder, as required by federal regulation) 4. SMHA Board directs staff to immediately schedule an initial hybrid CAB meeting and mail notice of this meeting to all 1600+ Housing Authority program participant households. Notices should be written in English and Spanish, with options to request translation in additional languages, to ensure recipients’ understanding. Notices should be sent by physical mail, and additionally by email to clients who have also provided an email address 5. All CAB meetings be public and agendized and staff notify all SMHA program participants by both mail and email in sufficient advance 6. CAB members hold special or subcommittee meetings as needed In addition to regular meetings 7. The drafting and adoption of a Memorandum of Understanding between the CAB and SMHA Board, to be incorporated into the Housing Authority Board bylaws by reference and the Administrative Plan in its entirety 8. CAB bylaws be included in the Housing Authority Administrative Plan Item 7.A 09/13/22 1 of 19 Item 7.A 09/13/22 Attachment B 11.C.b Packet Pg. 1280 Attachment: Santa Monica Housing Commission RAB Recommendations [Revision 1] (5644 : RAB Update to Council) 9. SMHA use federal funds allocated for administrative costs to pay for the CAB communications detailed below*, basic administrative costs, and possible relevant educational and training opportunities 10.The CAB, once established, proposes an annual budget for approval by the Housing Authority Board. An initial budget may be estimated before the first CAB meeting based on the cost of the Housing Commission recommendations 11.Each CAB member receives a $50 stipend for each CAB meeting attended 12.Staff advise all clients and the CAB about all regular timelines for the Housing Authority planning process to ensure maximum participation 13.In future, CAB members periodically invite Housing Authority staff to provide educational presentations on the Annual, Administrative, and 5-Year Plans as needed 14.The Housing Commission has created an ad hoc CAB Subcommittee to provide input and guidance to Housing Authority clients as needed while they form the CAB. We also recommend extending invitations to Denise McGranahan of LAFLA, Darryn Mumphery of the Poverty and Race Research Action Council (PRRAC), Bridgett Simmons of the National Housing Law Project (NHLP), and other independent and knowledgeable people or groups to attend the first CAB meeting and act as resources to clients while they make initial CAB decisions *Detailed recommendations for independent and fully accessible communications: A. Dedicated phone number with TDD & TTY accessibility and outgoing messaging that will be recorded and maintained by the CAB B. Physical city mailbox for written correspondence C. CAB materials in all new client onboarding, including new and ported vouchers D. Continuing city email addresses for Housing Authority Board members E. All mailings to SMHA clients translated in their preferred languages F. Translation support at CAB meetings as needed G. Occasional translator support for outgoing phone messages H. Physical and digital mailings to all SMHA participants to notify them of CAB meetings in sufficient advance I. Surveys sent 2x/year to all SMHA clients for the first two years and annually thereafter J. Occasional staff presentations at CAB meetings, by invitation, to inform CAB about the Annual, Administrative, and 5 Year Plans Item 7.A 09/13/22 2 of 19 Item 7.A 09/13/22 11.C.b Packet Pg. 1281 Attachment: Santa Monica Housing Commission RAB Recommendations [Revision 1] (5644 : RAB Update to Council) Notes on CAB costs and funding The Housing Commission's recommendations involve three primary expense categories: stipends, communications, and existing City infrastructure. ● Stipends would cost $350-750 per meeting for 7-15 CAB members ● Total listed communications, excluding initial website creation and existing city infrastructure, would cost approximately $590-775 per year ● Changing current staff mass mailing practices could dramatically reduce cost Federal funds are available to pay for all CAB related expenses. Note on staff support By design, these Housing Commission recommendations rely on minimal staff support. Submitted by Michelle Gray, Santa Monica Housing Commission Chair, on 13 September 2022 via written public comment Item 7.A 09/13/22 3 of 19 Item 7.A 09/13/22 11.C.b Packet Pg. 1282 Attachment: Santa Monica Housing Commission RAB Recommendations [Revision 1] (5644 : RAB Update to Council) 1 Vernice Hankins From:Ryan Bell <ryan@tenantstogether.org> Sent:Tuesday, September 13, 2022 10:09 AM To:councilmtgitems; Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Christine Parra; Phil Brock; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Gleam Davis; David White Subject:Input re Resident Advisory Board (RAB) EXTERNAL  Dear Santa Monica Housing Authority Board and SMHA Executive Director White, This letter is being submitted in support of the Santa Monica Housing Commission’s recommendations for the formation of the Santa Monica Client Advisory Board (CAB). Tenants Together is a statewide coalition of local tenant organizations dedicated to defending and advancing the rights of California tenants to safe, decent, and affordable housing. As California’s only statewide renters’ rights organization, Tenants Together works to improve the lives of California’s tenants by supporting local groups like those in Santa Monica. Tenants Together seeks to support and strengthen the statewide movement for renters’ rights.   As such, Tenants Together recognizes the importance of meaningful Housing Authority client representation and recommend that such representation be as independent and self-directed as possible. Our organization urges the Santa Monica Housing Authority Board to adopt the CAB recommendations that will be presented by the Santa Monica Housing Commission on September 13, 2022.  Sincerely,  Ryan Bell  ________________________________ Ryan Bell - he/him Southern California Regional Coordinator Tenants Together 323.313.4035 www.tenantstogether.org Item 7.A 09/13/22 4 of 19 Item 7.A 09/13/22 11.C.b Packet Pg. 1283 Attachment: Santa Monica Housing Commission RAB Recommendations [Revision 1] (5644 : RAB Update to Council) 1 Vernice Hankins From:Deborah Lynch <lyncham@hotmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, September 13, 2022 11:17 AM To:councilmtgitems; Theresa Marasco; Michelle Gray Subject:9/13/2022 Council Meeting Request for Presentation/Addressing the members EXTERNAL    Please accept this request for time to address the meeting attendees for the Housing Commissions recommendations  for a separate CAB (RAB) , and to add a few comments which I think are necessary.    Please know that I am also hoping to be a member of the first CAB, and hope to be an active and productive constituent  of positive, incremental change for all tenants whom are voucher holders within the City of Santa Monica.    Three Primary Issues I wish to address:    1) To create a CAB to be functional within 1 months’ time to avoid further delays in addressing specific tenant  requirements, questions regarding their vouchers, and enhanced representation within annual administrative  and the 5 year planning process  with the S.M. Housing Authority Program;  2) The need to address completely and in it’s entirety the difference of the CoC voucher (Continuum of Care) and  standard voucher and what additional benefits this voucher provides as well as how to access those benefits as  needed and without undue delay;  3) The desire and ultimate need to enact (or re‐enact) the provision for home ownership thru the S.M. voucher  program – this is a humongous asset NOT be wasting and it is my understanding that the funds are available thru  the Federal government for the housing program and indeed, already been distributed to those Cities….. why  are we not using those funds?  Cost is not a factor!    Thanking you in advance for considering my request for addressing the audience and the Board in the very important  matter.    Sincerely,  Deborah Lynch  (310) 869‐6472    Sent from Mail for Windows    Item 7.A 09/13/22 5 of 19 Item 7.A 09/13/22 11.C.b Packet Pg. 1284 Attachment: Santa Monica Housing Commission RAB Recommendations [Revision 1] (5644 : RAB Update to Council) 1 Vernice Hankins From:Michael Louis <dignitycompassionnetwork@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, September 13, 2022 11:45 AM To:councilmtgitems; Sue Himmelrich; Christine Parra; Gleam Davis; Kristin McCowan; Oscar de la Torre; Phil Brock Subject:Agenda Item 7.A: Section 8 Resident Advisory Board Approaches - City Council Meeting: September 13, 2022 EXTERNAL    Dear Mayor Himmelrich, Councilmembers, Santa Monica Housing Authority Board    As board members, you have critically important choices to make tonight. Simply put, this item asks that you distinguish (and choose) between two concepts: 1. the human right of self-determination and self- representation (for the poor, disabled, elderly, and working class), and 2. the human need to control, to further marginalize and disenfranchise these groups.     We all know which choice we say we prefer, in public. But how do we act when it comes time to walk the walk?     In my opinion, individuals who qualify (or will qualify) for federally subsidized housing and those clients who currently reside in such housing, do not seek or need sympathy from City Staff or Housing Authority Board for their hardship or life situation. They need action. They do not seek or need empathy or performative platitudes offered with the best of intentions from a distance — from the City staff offices or from the dais during Housing Authority Board/City Council Meetings. They need compassionate action. They need public officials and government employees to meet them where they are, as unique individuals. In need of self-representation. Not where Santa Monica City officials and many other governments across this land have historically left these groups. Without a voice. Without a unified voice and self-representation.    The human right to self-determination and self-representation along with the human right to independence and autonomy form the foundation of what we call a participatory democracy. Those who benefit from such a system have their agency recognized and nurtured. Their health, well-being, and life situation can stabilize or improve because they are valued as human beings. They are treated with dignity and respect.    As stated in the staff report for this item, the Housing Authority Board directed City staff to return with a discussion of options on alternative ways to facilitate Resident Advisory Board (RAB) input on the Santa Monica Housing Authority Plans. City staff’s report created in response to this Housing Authority Board’s direction came up with three options.     First, the report states: “Purpose of Resident Involvement In Public Housing ‘The role of a resident council is to improve the quality of life and resident satisfaction and participate in self-help initiatives to enable residents to create a positive living environment for families living in public housing.” (See Title 24 Code of Federal Regulations)”. This purpose of resident involvement would no doubt apply to all federal housing program participant representative bodies. Including the RAB.    Staff Option 1 - Facilitate Opportunities for RAB Members to Meet Virtually and Independently of SMHA    Staff Option 2 - SMHA Organizes and Supports Virtual Annual RAB Workshop    Staff Option 3 - Council-Appointed RAB Which Meets Quarterly    Item 7.A 09/13/22 6 of 19 Item 7.A 09/13/22 11.C.b Packet Pg. 1285 Attachment: Santa Monica Housing Commission RAB Recommendations [Revision 1] (5644 : RAB Update to Council) 2 Options 2 and 3 involve unnecessary and intrusive City government engagement and entanglement. These options should be immediately taken off the table, and are frankly absurd given City staff’s historical animosity, resistance, and outright intransigence to allowing the formation of a fully functioning, independent and autonomous RAB. Meaning not a RAB that exists only on paper.    Choosing option 2 or 3 would be analogous in many respects to a situation where the first-ever Amazon Labor Union (ALU), formed in 2021, would require the Amazon Executive Board and perhaps Jeff Bazos himself to be involved in “Organizing and Supporting Virtual Annual Employee Workshop” (Option 2) and the Amazon Executive Board and perhaps Jeff Bazos himself would be “Appointing Employee Union Representatives Which Meets Quarterly” (Option 3). While the RAB is clearly far from a “labor union”, it is a consumer union of sorts. Or it is intended to function like one in many respects.    Choosing Option 2 or 3 or anything else that resembles them, is essentially a form of union busting. This is obvious to anyone in the public or in public office who examines these issues in good faith. I believe that choosing Option 1 along with the following Housing Commission recommendations would be the best choice.    Below are my recommendations and discussion items, many of which are informed by and/or shared with those of the Housing Commission. Most, if not all of them are supported by a large number of RAB members, other Federal Housing Programs participants, and members of the public I have met informally with, as well as those I have watched while attending Housing Commission meetings. This is especially the case for the most recent meeting on 9/1/22, where the formation of a fully functioning independent RAB was a main topic. This historic and unprecedented meeting was attended by approximately 60 individuals — many of them RAB members. It was truely an inspiring evening.  1. The RAB: Optimal Participation, Independence, Inclusivity, Access, Representation a. Everything must be done, all the stops pulled out to ensure that the greatest amount of participation, access, and inclusivity will occur. Many US cities are trending in this direction. HUD is encouraging and enabling this trend. The City of Santa Monica, which considers itself rather progressive and regularly promotes and celebrates diversity, should follow suit. Better put, it should lead other cities in the right direction. b. Fundamental recommendations of the Housing Commission (among others found in this public comment) are as follows: i) that the RAB be as independent of City staff as humanly possible. ii) that there will be absolutely minimal staff involvement, in other words by invitation only. iii) support from the City will be limited to assistance with things such as access to translators, mailings and other functional/logistical supports to be determined by the RAB. iii) that staff will be welcome to show up to meetings a couple of times a year (by invitation) — perhaps more often — to explain various salient matters related to the RAB. c. d. 2. Widening the Scope and Diversity of Federal Housing Program Participation . The Housing Commission recommends that the RAB include all federal housing program participants, within a larger more inclusive tent, not just limited to tenant-based Housing Choice voucher holders. a. Federal housing program participants and RAB members have expressed resounding support for widening the umbrella. b. It is crucial that the Housing Authority Board direct staff to schedule a RAB meeting immediately. It is recommended that invitations be sent out expeditiously so that interested clients can all meet for the first time, as soon as possible.   3. City Staff has a long history of either incompetence or intentional neglect or both, when it comes to facilitating the formation of a fully functional, independent RAB ( not just a RAB on paper). City staff should not be allowed to usurp/replace/undermine the authority of the Housing Commission in its crucial representation of stakeholders. The Housing Commission’s mandate is to advise the Housing Authority. Item 7.A 09/13/22 7 of 19 Item 7.A 09/13/22 11.C.b Packet Pg. 1286 Attachment: Santa Monica Housing Commission RAB Recommendations [Revision 1] (5644 : RAB Update to Council) 3 a. It is evident that even by the current recommendations of staff, the City staff remain far out of touch with the clients’ actual needs. b. Staff is responsible for years of problems and non-responsiveness to the needs of voucher holders. c. After decades of lack of self-representation for clients, it’s inappropriate for Staff to be the ones making recommendations when their previous judgment has been so poor, and they have been so inaccessible, disconnected, and out of touch. d. The authoritative source of recommendations to the Housing Authority is the Housing Commission. Not the staff. Santa Monica City staff has a whole history of bad decisions, especially with regard to RAB formation. Unfortunately, they are currently defending those bad decisions. e. City staff has essentially no contact with clients. The Housing Commission, on the other hand, historically (for years, very often monthly and especially recently), has been actively engaged with clients. The Housing Commission has gone out of its way to solicit input directly and with candor from the clients. And every recommendation of the Housing Commission is informed by a genuine concern for what the clients actually need and want. f. With staff options 2 and 3, staff is clearly attempting to circumvent the Housing Commission — take them out of the review process. These last two options appear designed to simply get input all in one place and at the same time so that the Housing Commission will no longer participate in the Housing Authority planning process. This is extraordinarily problematic on so many levels. g. Staff is trying to conflate these two bodies, their jurisdictions and purviews. These are two distinct public bodies. Staff trying to cut the Housing Commission out of proceedings is just another way to disenfranchise, exclude, and sideline more housing clients. h. Merriam-webster defines disenfranchise as “broadly signifying depriving someone of any of a number of legal rights, it is most often used today of withholding the right to vote, or of the diminished social or political status of a marginalized group. [Also,] to deprive of some privilege or immunity; especially to deprive of the right to vote; disenfranchising the poor and elderly. If the Housing Commission is removed from the equation these groups are exactly who will be disenfranchised, sidelined, and excluded. i. Anyone who is genuinely working in good faith should welcome all the work the Housing Commission has done and is set to do, regarding the RAB, and their good faith interactions with federal housing program participants. But it is clear City staff are still trying to minimize the participation of program participants (and the Housing Commission) in general, by saying IF we get a couple of people who are clients, then the Housing Commission doesn’t have to weigh in anymore. This is extremely problematic. Generally speaking, City staff employees are not reliable narrators for this highly nuanced cause. They are not appropriate sources of recommendations. 4. It is inappropriate at the very least and unlawful at most, that the Staff Report and recommendations for this item include political speech concerning an upcoming election regarding a ballot measure. This might be considered a form of electioneering. Although the law allows for some exceptions (for purely informational purposes, for example), a public official may not promote or try to influence the outcome of a ballot measure or candidate’s election, if that dissemination of information is conducted in the capacity of or during the course of work as a public official. . Staff’s brief recommendation is essentially to postpone the forming of the RAB (or engagement in the necessary preparatory steps) until after the November election. a. Staff’s supporting reason: if the ballot initiative passes, staff could provide housing funds to support RAB efforts. And this could affect how the RAB forms and operates. Simply, this is staff repeating a political talking point. This is inappropriate in the context of a staff report and it is a ridiculous foundation for recommendations that affect thousands of Santa Monicans who’ve been waiting for 22 years to be able to exercise the right to self-representation. b. The formation of the RAB has nothing to do with this election year or a ballot measure. This has to do with the RAB only. For City Staff to try to mix it in with an election year, it gives the appearance that staff has its own agenda. That staff has a plan separate and apart for what is best for RAB members and the formation of a fully functioning independent RAB Item 7.A 09/13/22 8 of 19 Item 7.A 09/13/22 11.C.b Packet Pg. 1287 Attachment: Santa Monica Housing Commission RAB Recommendations [Revision 1] (5644 : RAB Update to Council) 4 c. City staff or any public official who will not allow or promote RAB independent self- representation and self-determination are hiding behind process arguments. This is similar in some ways to when Republicans in Congress would not allow a Supreme court confirmation hearing for Merrick Garland, just because it was to occur in the same election year. So, why would City staff use a process argument? Perhaps it is because they have run out of stalling tactics and other tricks in order to prevent the formation of a fully functioning, fully independent RAB. d. Staff unnecessarily gave a plug for the ballot measure and used it as a tool to delay any action on the RAB. It is not only political speech, but it is also irrelevant because this involves people participating in federal housing programs. This participation is regulated by something entirely different. It has nothing to do with what is happening locally. e. This inappropriate political speech demonstrates what we advocates have been saying for years about City staff bias, especially with regard to the formation of the RAB. That staff has a strong tendency to insert themselves into having their own agendas that are in conflict with sound public policy and the spirit of participatory democracy. And again, this is also completely irrelevant because the issue at hand concerns federal programs and federal money.   It is worth reaffirming what has been mentioned in numerous public comments submitted by advocates to this Housing Authority Board, City Council, and past Housing Commissions — that this RAB is 20+ years overdue and there has been vigorous advocacy for the past almost 3 years. The Housing Authority Board and City of Santa Monica need to move on this. The time to act is now.    Thank you for considering my public input.    Michael Louis    Item 7.A 09/13/22 9 of 19 Item 7.A 09/13/22 11.C.b Packet Pg. 1288 Attachment: Santa Monica Housing Commission RAB Recommendations [Revision 1] (5644 : RAB Update to Council) 1 Vernice Hankins From:OZ <zurawska@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, September 13, 2022 12:02 PM To:councilmtgitems Cc:Lana Negrete Subject:7-A (RAB) public comment Attachments:PRRAC NHLP policy brief.pdf EXTERNAL    This email, and the attachment, constitute my public input to item 7-A at the 9/13/22 meeting of the SMHAB. I urge the SMHAB to support the Housing Commission's well vetted recommendations regarding the formation of an autonomous, robust Resident Advisory Board that includes representatives of all the federally subsidized housing programs administered by the Santa Monica Housing Authority, with minimal staff involvement or and with zero impact on the City's budget. A proposed name would be "CAB," which stands for Client Advisory Board. Here are the highlights of the recommendations: a) RAB/CAB an entirely autonomous body, independent of staff, SMHAB, Housing Commission or any other city committee. b) CAB includes solely participants of federally funded housing programs, and has anarrow jurisdiction that pertains to those federally funded programs, therefore cannot be combined with, or conflated with any other housing related city board or committee. c) CAB includes representatives from all major federally funded programs administered by SMHA, not just tenant-based Housing Choice Voucher holders. Therefore the CAB would include Continuum of Care representatives, HOME program participants and representatives of project-based Housing Choice Voucher holders. It makes sense for the CAB to be inclusive of all the federally funded programs administered by SMHA. d) no city budget needed. Federal Housing Authority admin fees are supposed to be used for the CAB, plus soon there will be designated HUD funding for the RABs (there's advocacy at the federal level now via Congressman Andy Levin and PRRAC – Poverty and Race Research Advocacy Council and the National Housing Law Project). See the attached policy brief. https://www.prrac.org/expanding-federal-support-for-tenant-organizing-in-federally-assisted-housing- and-the-housing-choice-voucher-program-february-2022/ d. minimal staff time involvement (mostly to facilitate communications, which is actually already REQUIRED by HUD's RAB guidelines). Staff will be asked to send out notices of CAB meetings, provide translation if needed, from time to time present to CAB on the proposed Admin Plan changes or parts of the Admin Plan – by CAB invitation only. Item 7.A 09/13/22 10 of 19 Item 7.A 09/13/22 11.C.b Packet Pg. 1289 Attachment: Santa Monica Housing Commission RAB Recommendations [Revision 1] (5644 : RAB Update to Council) 2 e. MOU - Memorandum of Understanding between SMHA and CAB will serve as a document that spells out each party's responsibilities and duties. This was recommended by two specialized attorneys from PRRAC and NHLP. MOUs are very common in federally subsidized tenant participation. I urge the SMHAB to support the Housing Commission recommendations and to direct staff to use Housing Commission recommendations as guidance for facilitating the formation of an autonomous CAB, including a direction for the staff to immediately notice the very first formal meeting of the Santa Monica CAB. A notice of such a meeting should go out to all 1,677 voucher households by snail mail and by email if the family provided an email address. At this meeting CAB will discuss more details on how they want to organize themselves (with Housing Commission subcommittee being available to CAB during this meeting as a resource, and reps from PRRAC, NHLP and LAFLA SM – also as a resource only). CAB will then start working on a proposed MOU to be presented to SMHAB at a later date to formalize and codify the CAB. Participants of the SMHA-administered federally funded housing program have been waiting for this for DECADES, during which time the Santa Monica Housing Commission was violating federal regulations mandating at the very least a RAB. Regards, Olga Zurawska Item 7.A 09/13/22 11 of 19 Item 7.A 09/13/22 11.C.b Packet Pg. 1290 Attachment: Santa Monica Housing Commission RAB Recommendations [Revision 1] (5644 : RAB Update to Council) 1 Vernice Hankins From:Theresa Marasco <theresa.marasco@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, September 13, 2022 12:03 PM To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Oscar de la Torre; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Kristin McCowan; Gleam Davis; Sue Himmelrich; David White Subject:Public Input - 9/13/2022 City Council Agenda Item 7A EXTERNAL    Date: September 13, 2022   Subject: City of Santa Monica City Council Meeting September 13, 2022   Re: Public Comment - Agenda Item 7. STUDY SESSION SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND HOUSING AUTHORITY A.Section 8 Resident Advisory Board Approaches   Dear Santa Monica Housing Authority Board; and Santa Monica Housing Authority Executive Director, David White:   First, I want to be clear that even though I am the Vice Chair of the Housing Commission, I am commenting as a person of the public, but more importantly, I am commenting as an actual RAB member and someone who has been a Housing Choice Voucher holder for more than 27 years.   I could go into great detail about the fact that the City of Santa Monica’s Housing Authority has not taken steps to ensure that there is an active, engaged, robust, well-informed Resident Advisory Board, but I and many others have done that over and over for the last 5 years only to be ignored. Real simple, there has NEVER been a real Resident Advisory Board in the City of Santa Monica.   Regardless of the justifications and misleading statements in the “staff report,” the clients of the Santa Monica Housing Authority have never had a real opportunity to meet and organize to respond collectively regarding the Annual and Administrative Plans. The voices of over 1,600 voucher holders in the city have NEVER been allowed to be heard. For over 22 years, the City of Santa Monica has been out of compliance with HUD’s federal mandate to provide us with the resources we need to be active and engaged such as a place to meet, a Zoom account to hold meetings in a hybrid setting, a website to provide information to the clients of the SMHA and have refused to allow us to choose our own leadership. I respectfully request that the SMHAB vote to immediately create a CAB or Client Advisory Board to include all clients of the SMHA asap.   I am now requesting that the SMHAB do the following: 1. Adopt the recommendations of the Housing Commission that were voted on and approved by all present Housing Commissioners and the 66 people who attended the September 1, 2022, Housing Commission meeting 2. Immediately schedule 1st CAB meeting for 4-6 weeks from now 3. Mail meeting notice to all 1600+ HA clients, with translations (Housing Commission CAB Subcommittee can write the letter) 4. Take Housing Commission recommendations as direction for how to proceed, beginning with a meeting and letters to go out to all 1600 + SMHA clients   Thank you for your time and consideration.  Item 7.A 09/13/22 12 of 19 Item 7.A 09/13/22 11.C.b Packet Pg. 1291 Attachment: Santa Monica Housing Commission RAB Recommendations [Revision 1] (5644 : RAB Update to Council) 2   To help protect yMicrosoft Office pautomatic downlopicture from the  Very truly yours,    Theresa H. Marasco  (720) 226-4051  Item 7.A 09/13/22 13 of 19 Item 7.A 09/13/22 11.C.b Packet Pg. 1292 Attachment: Santa Monica Housing Commission RAB Recommendations [Revision 1] (5644 : RAB Update to Council) Expanding Federal Support for Tenant Organizing in Federally Assisted Housing and the Housing Choice Voucher Program February 2022 The federal government, through the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), provides legal protection and financial support for tenant organizing in several of HUD’s housing programs. Unfortunately, the housing choice voucher (HCV) program lacks the same organizing protections, creating uneven tenant protections throughout HUD’s housing programs. The right to organize has long been viewed as a key component of successful HUD housing programs. HUD directs Public Housing Authorities (PHAs) and private owners to support tenant organizing by acknowledging tenant organizations, responding to their advocacy efforts, and, in some cases, provide funding. HUD’s regulations also protect tenants in HUD assisted multi-family housing against retaliatory evictions for organizing.1 Voucher participants should have a right to organize, just as HUD has provided in the public housing and project-based rental assistance housing programs. HUD should promulgate tenant organizing regulations for the HCV program that allow for the greatest flexibility and have the lowest barriers to organizing. Additionally, HUD should fund voucher tenant organizing activities, as it has done for public housing tenants, but in a more consistent and meaningful way. Federal Protections for Tenant Organizing – Public Housing Public housing tenants have a right to organize under 24 CFR § 964.11.2 This regulation establishes that any Public Housing Authority (PHA) that has a Public Housing Annual Contributions Contract (ACC) must recognize tenants’ right to organize, elect a resident council representing their interests, and have that resident council recognized by the PHA.3 The regulation encourages PHAs to collaborate with the elected residents to improve the community overall. Under 24 CFR pt. 964, resident councils must be structured according to the statute for the organization to be considered legitimate. Members must be elected, and the council must create and adopt some sort of written procedures (like bylaws or a constitution) for governance.4 Resident councils can be comprised of members from one community, meaning multiple resident councils can exist within a PHA. These councils can represent a property or be city-wide.5 1 Dep’t of Hous. and Urban Dev., Revision of Tenant Participation Requirements in Accordance with 24 CFR Part 245 at 5-8 (Mar. 31, 2016), https://www.hud.gov/sites/documents/16-05HSGN.PDF. 2 24 CFR § 964.11. 3 24 CFR § 964.11. 24 CFR § 964.3 (a). 4 24 CFR § 964.115. 5 National Low Income Housing Coalition, Advocates Guide 2020: A Primer on Federal Affordable Housing & Community Development Programs, 2-50. Item 7.A 09/13/22 14 of 19 Item 7.A 09/13/22 11.C.b Packet Pg. 1293 Attachment: Santa Monica Housing Commission RAB Recommendations [Revision 1] (5644 : RAB Update to Council) Federal Protection for Tenant Organizing – HUD Assisted Multi-Family Housing HUD regulations convey the right to organize to tenants in properties that participate in HUD’s multi-family housing Project-based Rental Assistance (PBRA) programs.6 These programs include Project-based Section 8 Rental Assistance, Section 202, Section 811, and properties with specific HUD-held and HUD-insured mortgages.7 24 CFR § 245.100 gives tenants in qualifying properties the right to “establish and operate a tenant organization.”8 These organizations are to be created and led by tenants to address community development concerns, issues regarding the building or its units, and the “terms and conditions of their tenancy.”9 Property owners and property managers are to “recognize…and give reasonable consideration to concerns raised by legitimate tenant organizations.”10 HUD regulation requires owners and managers to make reasonable efforts to accommodate tenants’ requests for accessible meeting spaces within the property for organizing activities or organizational operations. Property owners may charge tenants “reasonable, customary and usual” fees for the use of meeting spaces on the property.11 24 CFR pt. 245 also provides protection for the organizing activities of non-resident organizers working with tenants.12 Under 24 CFR § 245.100 tenants in HUD assisted multi-family housing cannot be evicted for organizing. The regulation also explicitly delineates several organizing activities property owners and managers must allow tenants to partake in without prior permission.13 Federal Protection for Tenant Organizing – Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD) Tenants in public housing properties that undergo RAD conversion retain the right to organize regardless of whether their development is converted to Section 8 Project-Based Voucher property or to Section 8 Project-based Rental Assistance property.14 It should be noted that resident organizing at properties converted to Section 8 Project-based Rental Assistance are subject to the 6 24 CFR § 245.10 states the right to organize is applicable to tenants living in: multi-family housing projects subject to a HUD insured or held mortgage under the National Housing Act; formerly HUD-owned projects; state or local housing finance agency projects; projects receiving project-based assistance under section 8 of the US Housing Act of 1937, but not when PHAs administer the project-based assistance; projects receiving enhanced vouchers under the Low-Income Housing Preservation and Resident Homeownership Act of 1990, the Emergency Low Income Housing Preservation Act of 1987, or the Multifamily Assisted Housing Reform and Affordability Act of 1997; projects receiving assistance under Section 202 Direct Loan or Supportive Housing for the Elderly programs; projects receiving assistance under the Section 811 Supportive Housing for Persons with Disabilities program. 7 Jessie Cassella, Understanding Project-Based Rental Assistance (Mar. 22, 2018), https://www.nhlp.org/wp- content/uploads/2018/03/Saving-HUD-Homes-2-FINAL.pdf. 8 24 CFR 245.100. 9 Id. 10 24 CFR § 245.105. 24 CFR § 245.110 defines a “legitimate tenant organization” as an organization that has been “established by the tenants of a multifamily housing project covered under § 245.10 for the purpose described in § 245.100, and meets regularly, operates democratically, is representative of all residents in the development, and is completely independent of owners, management, and their representatives.” 11 24 CFR § 245.120 (c). 12 24 CFR § 245.120. 13 24 CFR § 245.115. 14 https://www.hud.gov/sites/documents/TENANTORGANIZINGAFTERRAD.PDF; Dep’t of Hous. and Urban Dev., Rental Assistance Demonstration – Final Implementation, Revision 4 at 129-34 (Sept. 5, 2019), Item 7.A 09/13/22 15 of 19 Item 7.A 09/13/22 11.C.b Packet Pg. 1294 Attachment: Santa Monica Housing Commission RAB Recommendations [Revision 1] (5644 : RAB Update to Council) requirements in 24 CFR pt. 245 rather than those of part 964 – subjecting those tenants to the same right to organize regulations as tenants in HUD-assisted multi-family housing.15 Funding for Tenant Organizing Through the ACC with HUD, PHAs are provided with funds to support public housing tenant participation activities. HUD gives PHAs $25 per unit each year via the Operating Fund Grant.16 This $25 allotment is to be used by PHAs to fund tenant participation activities, and at minimum, $15 of the $25 allocation must be used by resident councils for the support of training and organizing efforts.17 The $25 allotment has not increased since it was originally authorized and due in part to inflation, is generally too low to cover the cost of tenant participation activities.18 When there is no resident council, PHAs are encouraged to use their portion of the funding to encourage tenant participation activities, including training and capacity-building for residents to form a resident council.19 HUD allows PHAs to utilize a portion of that $15 to fund stipends for resident council officers serving as volunteers in their developments. These stipends are capped at $200 per month, per officer.20 PHAs are allowed to keep $10 of the $25 allotment to allowable expenditures, which includes a broad range of activities regarding tenant participation. These activities include community elections, printing, and meeting space rentals.21 Public housing converted under the Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD), whether converted to PBV or PBRA, retain the $25 per unit, per year allocation for tenant participation activities. Resident organizations in RAD conversions must still receive at least $15 per unit, per year for tenant organizing activities.22 Currently, there is no regulatory requirement for HUD to provide funding to PBRA tenants for organizing activities. Section 514 of the Multifamily Assisted Housing Reform and Affordability Act of 1997 (MAHRAA) authorizes HUD to spend up to $10 million annually from the Project Based Section 8 account, for tenant organizing, training and capacity-building.23 However, since 2001, HUD has committed approximately 7% of the available funding.24 https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/Housing/documents/H-2019-09-PIH-2019- 23_RAD_Notice%20Rev4_20190905.pdf. 15 National Low Income Housing Coalition, Advocates Guide 2020: A Primer on Federal Affordable Housing & Community Development Programs, 2-52. 16 24 CFR § 964.150; Notice PIH 2021- 16 (HA). 17 Id. 18 Josh Cohen, HUD Has Money for Tenant Organizing. Why Isn't the Agency Spending It? Shelterforce (2021), https://shelterforce.org/2021/03/19/hud-has-money-for-tenant-organizing-why-isnt-the-agency-spending-it/ 19 24 CFR § 964.150 (a). See National Low Income Housing Coalition, Advocates Guide 2020: A Primer on Federal Affordable Housing & Community Development Programs, 2-50. See also Notice PIH 2021- 16 (HA). Resident participation activities are not limited to organizing, however in this Notice organizing activities are explicitly mentioned by HUD as examples of appropriate ways to spend the allotted funds. 20 24 CFR § 964.150 (b). 21 Notice PIH 2021- 16 (HA). 22 National Low Income Housing Coalition, Advocates Guide 2020: A Primer on Federal Affordable Housing & Community Development Programs, 2-52. 23 42 USC § 1437f note. 24 The National Alliance of HUD Tenants estimates that HUD has committed only $13 million out of the $190 million that could have been used for this purpose. Item 7.A 09/13/22 16 of 19 Item 7.A 09/13/22 11.C.b Packet Pg. 1295 Attachment: Santa Monica Housing Commission RAB Recommendations [Revision 1] (5644 : RAB Update to Council) Tenant Organizing in the Housing Choice Voucher Program Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) tenants are typically scattered across a PHA’s service area, so tenants face additional barriers to their organizing efforts. Also, HUD’s regulations do not include the same legal protections for HCV tenants interested in organizing, nor does HUD provide funding for HCV tenants to organize. As with all voucher and public housing tenants, HCV tenants may participate in Resident Advisory Boards or become involved in the PHA Plan process.25 For broader organizing efforts, however, HCV tenants must turn to tenant organizing groups that operate more broadly within the community. Recommendations (in brief) The right to organize is vital and empowers tenants in federally assisted housing. 26 In order to move in the direction of progress on this issue, HUD should consider: • Increasing the amount of funding per year, per unit for tenant participation activities across all of its housing programs; • Creating right to organize protections for HCV tenants; • Providing funds for organizing activities amongst HCV tenants; • Funding, separately from the money allocated to fund resident organizing activities, for resident capacity building programs throughout the country in all of its housing programs; • Creating opportunities for dialogue and centering experiences of tenants when considering how to improve the agency’s federal housing programs. Principles for a Right to Organize for Housing Choice Voucher Tenants Below is a brief initial outline of principles HUD should consider when developing organizing protections in the HCV program. The National Housing Law Project (NHLP) and Poverty and Race Research Action Council (PRRAC) will continue to engage our partners about the best practices for organizing Voucher participants and will update this proposal regularly. NHLP and PRRAC are committed to continuing the conversation about the importance of HUD-assisted participants having the right to organize and look forward to working with Voucher participants, organizers, and HUD on this issue. • A Voucher tenant organization should be defined similarly to 24 CFR § 245.110—an organization that meets regularly, operates democratically, is inclusive of the local voucher participants, and is independent from the PHA and owners (POAs). o HUD’s regulation must include an explicit protection against retaliation of PHA or owner (POA) interference.  A rebuttable presumption that an adverse action taken within 6 months of the tenant’s participation in organizing activities is an act of retaliation. 25 National Low Income Housing Coalition, Advocates Guide 2020: A Primer on Federal Affordable Housing & Community Development Programs, 2-52. 26 The need for federal regulation around the right to organize and funding for organizing activities has been recognized by Congress. Our recommendations align with those delineated in the Tenant Empowerment Act, introduced by Reps. Ayanna Pressley, Rashida Tlaib, and Maxine Waters. See “Tenant Empowerment Act of 2020” https://files.constantcontact.com/eee0e428701/f80f47a2-d611-4f27-8451-81cb2ac588ee.pdf Item 7.A 09/13/22 17 of 19 Item 7.A 09/13/22 11.C.b Packet Pg. 1296 Attachment: Santa Monica Housing Commission RAB Recommendations [Revision 1] (5644 : RAB Update to Council) o All protections extended to Voucher tenant organizations should also be extended to any organizing committee(s). o Individual tenants should be protected from any retaliation due to their participation in the tenant organization and, or participation in organizing activities. o There should be an enforcement process for tenants and, or tenant organizations to submit allegations of interference or retaliation.  HUD must prioritize enforcement of all tenant organizing regulations and respond swiftly to allegations of POA retaliation and interference.  HUD has a comprehensive enforcement process for the project-based rental assistance program that could be used as a model. See HUD H 2016-05.  HUD’s regulation must include an explicit protection against retaliation of PHA or owner (POA) interference. • A rebuttable presumption that an adverse action taken within 6 months of the tenant’s participation in organizing activities is an act of retaliation. o HUD should fund, separately from the money allocated to fund tenant organizing activities, tenant capacity building programs throughout the country.  PHAs should invite tenant serving community organizations to participate in the HCV orientation meetings to provide information about tenant organizing. • Possible Role of Voucher Tenant Organizations o Represents voucher participants in making demands to the PHA regarding the operation and policies of the local Voucher program, such as but not limited to, commenting on PHA plans and policies, Voucher utilization, payment standards, problem landlords, list of available units, or housing search assistance; o Appoint HCV household member(s) to serve on the PHA board in addition to existing tenant directors;27 o Appoint representative(s) to serve on the Resident Advisory Boards (RAB); o Encourage Voucher participants to join the HCV organization, including during the initial Voucher briefings and reaching out to persons on the waitlist;  HUD should mandate PHAs to provide notice to HCV tenants of the right to organize annually and amend the HCV tenancy addendum to include the right to organize.  PHAs should also include information about the right to organize to participating and potential participate landlords; the owner’s obligation to not retaliate or interfere with the right to organize must be memorialized in HUD’s HCV HAP form. o Educate tenants on issues and/or operations that affect tenant and their living environment; o Engaging in capacity building activities, specifically developing capacity about the Voucher program; o Formulate responses to changes in the operation and policies for the Voucher program, and; 27 Where the state law requires an executive to appoint board members, the HCV tenant group should have the right to recommend to the appointing official a candidate to serve in the position. Item 7.A 09/13/22 18 of 19 Item 7.A 09/13/22 11.C.b Packet Pg. 1297 Attachment: Santa Monica Housing Commission RAB Recommendations [Revision 1] (5644 : RAB Update to Council) o Organizing and advocating for federal, state and local housing policies and tenant protections, including but not limited to, source of income discrimination protections. • Funding o Voucher tenant organizing should be funded in a meaningful and consistent manner.28 Each year, per unit, HUD should make available funds for independent Housing Choice Voucher tenant organizations organized at the local, regional, or state level. Annually, the amount received per unit should incrementally increase. If HUD decides to continue the practice of splitting the funding between the PHA and the resident groups, the majority of the money should go to the Voucher tenant organization(s). o Organizing groups’ receipt of funding should not be contingent upon a Memorandum of Understanding or PHAs’ approval of the use of the funds. o Voucher tenant organizations should not be required to request the funding from the PHA and the funding should be automatically provided to the Voucher tenant organizing group. o Voucher tenant organizations should have the discretion to pay their officers and members stipend and to hire paid organizers. • Structure of Organization o The regulations should not proscribe a specific organizational structure or mandate the organization have a specific number of officers. Being proscriptive in this manner may disqualify otherwise eligible groups because the group is just getting started, there are limited number of members who can serve as an officer, etc. o Voucher tenant organizations should be permitted to form partnerships with other voucher tenant organizations, community organizations, organizers, and housing advocates to organize on issues important to Voucher participants. o All persons listed on leases should be able to participate in the tenant organization and organizing activities. o Each organization should have the ability to decide who is eligible to vote. 28 If the $25 per unit per year funding for tenant participation had kept up with inflation, PHAs would receive $37.44 per unit per year for tenant participation activities. See Interim Instructions on Distribution and Use of Operating Subsidy Funds Received for Resident Participation Activities, Notice PIH 2001-03 (Jan. 18, 2001); Value of 2001 US Dollars Today, INFLATIONTOOL (Mar. 8, 2021, 1:10 PM), https://www.inflationtool.com/us-dollar/2001-to- present-value?amount=25. Item 7.A 09/13/22 19 of 19 Item 7.A 09/13/22 11.C.b Packet Pg. 1298 Attachment: Santa Monica Housing Commission RAB Recommendations [Revision 1] (5644 : RAB Update to Council) Attachment D Page 1 of 7 City Council Meeting: April 11, 2023 Santa Monica, California ORDINANCE NUMBER _________ (CCS) (City Council Series) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA, ADDING SANTA MONICA MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 2.70 TO CREATE THE CLIENT ADVISORY BOARD (CAB) WHEREAS, Housing Authority of the City of Santa Monica (“SMHA”) was created on January 7, 1975, as the governing agency to administer the federal funds allocated to the SMHA by the United States Department of Housing Community Development (“HUD”) to assist the City’s low-income residents in obtaining rental housing; and WHEREAS, the SMHA administers approximately 1,675 rental assistance vouchers to extremely low-, very low-, and low-income Santa Monica households amongst five federal housing programs (Housing Choice Voucher (HCV); Continuum of Care (CoC); HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME); Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing (VASH), and Emergency Housing Voucher (EHV)); and WHEREAS, each year, the SMHA must submit to HUD an Annual Plan, reporting progress made towards the goals identified in the SMHA’s prior adopted 5-Year Plan, and presenting any changes to the Administrative Plan (which contains the federal regulations, discretionary policies, and some local procedures that govern the SMHA’s operations), seventy-five days before the beginning of the fiscal year; and 11.C.c Packet Pg. 1299 Attachment: CAB Formation Ordinance [Revision 4] (5644 : RAB Update to Council) Attachment D Page 2 of 7 WHEREAS, every five years the SMHA must also submit a 5-Year Plan to HUD within the same deadline. Together, the 5-year Plan, Annual Plan, and Administrative Plan (collectively, the “SMHA Plans”) represent the SMHA’s Annual Plan process; and WHEREAS, the SMHA Board will consider the SMHA’s Fiscal Year (FY) 2023-24 Annual Plan on April 11, 2023; and WHEREAS, federal law requires the SMHA to provide opportunities for public participation, including federally assisted residents, during the development of the SMHA Plans; and WHEREAS, federal law contemplates that participation by federally assisted residents will occur through the SMHA’s establishment of one or more Resident Advisory Boards (RABs); and WHEREAS, the purpose of these RABs is to provide the SMHA and federally assisted residents with a forum for sharing information about the SMHA Plans before they are adopted; and WHEREAS, federal law does not specify how a RAB must be formed or governed; however, HUD has provided significant policy guidance, recognizing that the form of the RAB should be flexible enough to ensure participation by resident stakeholders, depending upon the nature of their interests; and WHEREAS, with one exception, federal law also requires that the governing board of the PHA must have not less than one eligible RAB member, who must be a Section 8 program recipient. (24 CFR § 964.415(a); § 964.420); and WHEREAS, HUD provides policy guidance in numerous publications about RAB formation and membership, the most comprehensive of which is the Public Housing [PHA] Plan Desk Guide (Chapter 4); and 11.C.c Packet Pg. 1300 Attachment: CAB Formation Ordinance [Revision 4] (5644 : RAB Update to Council) Attachment D Page 3 of 7 WHEREAS, the Desk Guide states that a Public Housing Authority (PHA) has discretion “in determining the method of appointment of RABs, as long as the PHA ensures that its RAB or RABs reflect and represent all the residents assisted by the PHA”; and WHEREAS, Because the SMHA does not own or operate any public housing, the SMHA is considered is a “Section 8-only PHA”; and WHEREAS, according to the Desk Guide (p. 94), "Section 8-only PHAs have discretion in the RAB appointment process. Participation in a RAB is limited only to residents that are assisted under federally assisted public housing and the Section 8 tenant-based program;” and WHEREAS, only Section 8 recipients are eligible to serve on the SMHA Board as to the single RAB member required by federal law to be included on the SMHA Board; and WHEREAS, the Desk Guide (p. 95) also provides that if the PHA is not successful in establishing a RAB, it may appoint all of the agency’s assisted residents as members of the RAB; and WHEREAS, the SMHA RAB is currently comprised of all Section 8 residents based upon HUD guidance; and WHEREAS, City Charter section 1000 also authorizes the City Council to create by ordinance such additional advisory boards or commissions as in its judgment are required, and may grant to them such powers and duties as are consistent with the provisions of the City Charter; and WHEREAS, while the City and SMHA are legally distinct bodies with different legal mandates, there does not appear to be any conflict if the City Council adopts an ordinance creating a RAB as a City board and commission; and WHEREAS, in 2022, Council directed staff to present its best recommendation for the formation of an inclusive Client Advisory Board (CAB) to supplement and/or replace the current RAB, which is currently comprised of all the SMHA’s Section 8 voucher holders; and 11.C.c Packet Pg. 1301 Attachment: CAB Formation Ordinance [Revision 4] (5644 : RAB Update to Council) Attachment D Page 4 of 7 WHEREAS, Council desires that the CAB function as the RAB, but include all federally assisted residents (including HCV, CoC, HOME, VASH, and EHV voucher holders) instead of just Section 8 HCV voucher holders; and WHEREAS, the SMHA has historically included provisions relating to its administration of all federally assisted voucher holders (versus just HCV holders) in its SMHA Plans, and HUD has never taken exception to this; and WHEREAS, given the flexibility in federal law regarding the formation and governing structure of the RABs, there does not appear to be a legal conflict in including other federally assisted residents in the CAB, as long as the CAB functions equivalently to a RAB; and WHEREAS, due to federal requirements, at least one Section 8 voucher holder in the CAB must serve on the SMHA Board; and NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Chapter 2.70 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code is hereby added as follows: CHAPTER 2.70 CLIENT ADVISORY BOARD 2.70.020 Creation of the Client Advisory Board (a) Pursuant to Section 1000 of the Santa Monica City Charter, a Client Advisory Board (CAB) is hereby established. The membership of the CAB shall consist of seven members chosen by appointment of the Housing Authority Board. None of the members shall hold any paid office or employment in City of Santa Monica government. (b) No less than two of the CAB members shall consist of Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher recipients residing in the City of Santa Monica. 11.C.c Packet Pg. 1302 Attachment: CAB Formation Ordinance [Revision 4] (5644 : RAB Update to Council) Attachment D Page 5 of 7 (c) Two of the CAB members shall be appointed by the Housing Authority Board for two-year terms as Housing Authority Board members, with terms commencing at the next scheduled CAB meeting after appointment provided however, that no less than one appointed member shall be a Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher recipient. (d) The seven CAB members shall serve four-year terms, or until such time as the appointments by the Housing Authority Board are completed. (e) The CAB shall meet on a quarterly basis with the option to meet more frequently, when necessary, via designation of a special meeting and in accordance with the Brown Act. Further, the CAB may establish ad hoc or standing committees that may meet more frequently than quarterly. (f) The CAB shall be subject to City Resolution No. __________ establishing rules and procedures for the City’s Board and Commissions, as updated from time to time. 2.62.040 Powers and duties of the CAB The CAB shall have the power and be required to: (a) Provide recommendations and/or input to the SMHA on the SMHA Plan process within the 45-day public comment period, in accordance with federal requirements. The CAB would provide input to the SMHA specifically on the subject matters that pertain to: i. the development of the Annual Plan ii. the development of the 5-Year Plan iii. amendments/progress to the 5-year Plan iv. recommendations/input on policy changes to the Administrative Plan, and 11.C.c Packet Pg. 1303 Attachment: CAB Formation Ordinance [Revision 4] (5644 : RAB Update to Council) Attachment D Page 6 of 7 v. comment on the SMHA’s discretionary policy changes to the Administrative Plan (if any). (b) Support the SMHA during the PHA Plan/ Annual Plan Process by using at least one of the four designated yearly meetings to act as a forum for voucher participants/public to provide input during the public comment period of the Annual Plan process. (c) Consult with and maintain contact with the SMHA staff, voucher participants, groups, and individuals regarding the SMHA’s voucher programs. (d) Provide a written report on its activities to the SMHA Board on an annual basis. SECTION 2. Any provision of the Santa Monica Municipal Code or appendices thereto inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistencies and no further, is hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary to effect the provisions of this Ordinance. SECTION 3. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 4. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage of this Ordinance. The City Clerk shall cause the same to be published once in the official newspaper within 15 days after its adoption. 11.C.c Packet Pg. 1304 Attachment: CAB Formation Ordinance [Revision 4] (5644 : RAB Update to Council) Attachment D Page 7 of 7 APPROVED AS TO FORM: _________________________ DOUGLAS SLOAN City Attorney 11.C.c Packet Pg. 1305 Attachment: CAB Formation Ordinance [Revision 4] (5644 : RAB Update to Council) Attachment C Administering the Housing Choice Voucher Program (HCV): Page 1 of 16 Analysis of Data from a Cohort of Public Housing Authorities Introduction Resident Advisory Boards (RABs) provide Public Housing Authorities (PHAs) and residents a forum to engage and share information, especially the Annual Plan. Section 511 of the United States Housing Act and the regulations in 24 CFR Part 903 require PHAs to establish one or more RABs as part of the PHA Plan process. For this purpose, the role of RAB is to assist the PHA in developing the PHA Plan and in making amendments or modifications to the plan (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2020). It is well known that the Housing Choice Voucher Program (HCV Program), formally the Section 8 Program, does not have resident councils. Nonetheless, PHAs with a significant size tenant-based assistance program must ensure that HCV Program participants are adequately represented or that reasonable efforts are made to secure their participation in the RAB. A significant size tenant-based assistance program is one where at least 20 percent of the PHA’s total number of households receive tenant-based assistance. Some PHAs operate a low rent public housing program and a HCV Program while others manage a HCV Program solely. The Santa Monica Housing Authority operates the latter. Regardless, PHAs are not exempt from the RAB requirement and must also appoint one or more RABs that adequately represent the population served. Since there are no resident councils in the HCV Program that comply with the tenant participation regulations under the tenant-based assistance program, HCV Program only PHAs have discretion in the RAB appointment process and some potential flexibility in the way they operate. The regulations state that participation on the RAB is limited to residents who are assisted under federally assisted public housing and HCV tenant-based programs. Purpose of Report This report summarizes data collected from a cohort of PHAs that operate HCVs across the country. A total of 13 PHAs comprised the cohort that operates HCVs solely. These PHAs administer 2,500 or fewer vouchers, and are, in general, comparable to the Santa Monica Housing Authority. None of the 13 PHAs are responsible for providing conventional or low rent public housing units. A set of survey questions were developed to obtain qualitative and quantitative information from HCV Program personnel or other PHA administrative staff. Data were collected mostly via telephone interviews between November 3 and 20, 2022, but a 11.C.d Packet Pg. 1306 Attachment: NAR-SAAH Independent Study (5644 : RAB Update to Council) Administering the Housing Choice Voucher Program (HCV): Analysis of Data from a Cohort of Public Housing Authorities Page 2 of 16 few were completed by zoom and Microsoft Teams meetings as the method of engagement with PHAs in the cohort. Findings from the Survey: 1. Description of Cohort: Thirteen (13) PHAs, representing thirteen (13) states, comprised the cohort of agencies for this analysis. Each administers 2,500 or fewer vouchers. Like the Santa Monica Housing Authority, the HCV Program or tenant-based program at these PHAs is in high demand by participants seeking affordable housing. 2. Source of Findings: Information was obtained primarily by telephone interviews with PHA personnel and via Zoom or Microsoft Teams meetings in a few instances. Some data were taken from the HCV Administrative Plan to augment qualitative information. Significant findings are summarized below: a. Membership on the RAB is defined in Section 511 of the United States Housing Act and the regulations in 24 CFR Part 903 that stipulate RAB’s membership is limited to individuals receiving services under federally assisted public housing and HCV tenant-based programs. The regulations give participants in the HCV Program adequate representation on the RAB. b. RAB meetings are open to all HCV participants who are not only expected but are encouraged to participate in these meetings. Participants serve on committees and are able to vote on both operational and administrative matters. c. During the annual and/or 5-year process, public comments are solicited from the network of stakeholders, including the general public, housing advocates, service providers, landlords, voucher holders, etc. RAB members frequently help promote the importance of these public meetings that enable the PHA to document policy and programmatic recommendations to be included in the annual and 5-year plan. d. RAB members at the thirteen (13) PHAs in the cohort were appointed by the Executive Director/CEO of the agency. The Mayor appointed one member at each PHA. Letters of recommendation for appointment to RAB were generally received from community and faith-based leaders, local elected officials, HCV participants, landlords, PHA employees and union representatives. The pool of recommendations tends to be larger than the 11.C.d Packet Pg. 1307 Attachment: NAR-SAAH Independent Study (5644 : RAB Update to Council) Administering the Housing Choice Voucher Program (HCV): Analysis of Data from a Cohort of Public Housing Authorities Page 3 of 16 size of the RAB. Exclusive of the Mayor’s appointment, all other recommended appointments were approved by the Board of Commissioners. e. There were no elected members of RAB within the cohort. Note, however, at many, but not all PHAs that administer 8,000 or more vouchers, an election is held every three years to determine the RAB membership. These elections are managed by a Third-Party Independent Monitor. f. The average number of RAB members for most PHAs is between seven (7) and twelve (12) members at a PHA comparable in size to the Santa Monica Housing Authority. PHAs that administer a large number of vouchers solely have RABs with membership ranging between twelve (12) and twenty-one (21) members. g. PHAs in the cohort with HCV Program units solely do not pay members a stipend after they attend regular meetings or perform other functions as a representative on the RAB. However, they are reimbursed for transportation expenditures or cost of meals at approved events for the organization. h. Members of RAB meet monthly in a public forum. HCV participants are notified via email or the PHA website. The meetings are generally held at the PHA. i. Non-public RAB meetings are held at will as determined by the leadership. There is usually an Executive Committee meeting prior to the public meeting to discuss the agenda and other administrative matters. Some RABs meet with the PHA leadership prior to the public meeting as well. j. All of the thirteen (13) in the cohort provide some type of training. They include payment for RAB members to attend housing conferences and certificate training sponsored by public housing industry associations (i.e., National Low Income Housing Coalition, National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials, National Alliance of Resident Services in Affordable and Assisted Housing, Mass Union f Public Housing Tenants, etc.). RAB members also attend other training or webinars sponsored by housing institutes at universities, research and development organizations, and human service agencies that focus on the well-being of the family. Examples of these organizations include Health Care for Residents in Public Housing, Urban Institute, and National Housing Law Project. 11.C.d Packet Pg. 1308 Attachment: NAR-SAAH Independent Study (5644 : RAB Update to Council) Administering the Housing Choice Voucher Program (HCV): Analysis of Data from a Cohort of Public Housing Authorities Page 4 of 16 k. PHAs provide refreshments for the monthly RAB meeting. Depending on the time of the meeting, food also is served, ranging from box lunches or a light dinner menu (salad, pizza/lasagna, chicken item, drink and desert). l. PHAs generally schedule workshops during the years to empower RAB leaders on PHA matters. Seven (7) of the thirteen (13) in the cohort provide at least one workshop annually for RAB members. Workshops, for examples, provide a HUD update, status on the waiting list, state of the PHA, proposed revisions for the annual /5-year plan, pending housing legislation, etc. These workshops provide timely updates and keep lines of communication open between RAB and the PHA administration. m. None of the PHAs in this analysis have a Client Advisory Board. n. All of the RABs have a budget, but four (4) RABs in the cohort developed a budget and submitted it to the PHA for approval (Annapolis Housing Authority, Charter Oak Communities, Fall River and York Housing Authority). The budgets were approved. The remaining nine PHAs support RAB with funds from the local government or by using discretionary funds charged to the budget that funds the office of the Executive Director/CEO. o. Camden Housing Authority, Nevada Rural Housing Authority and Annapolis Housing Authority provide technical assistance to RAB through an advisor. The scope of work for the advisor includes developing/revising by-laws, developing an electronic membership data base (email address, cell phone number, etc.), designing a RAB website, preparing an annual report of RAB accomplishments, etc.). p. For this cohort, three (3) RABs referenced above have had their tax exempt status for five years or longer: Fall River Housing Authority, Charter Oak Communities, and York Housing Authority. At each of these PHAs, the RAB implements at least one program to assist HCV Program family members (i.e., summer camping programs for elementary children, back to school supplies, distribution of free laptops and reduced Internet service for students in partnership with the Comcast Internet Essential Plus Initiative, etc.). It may not be reasonable for new RABs to implement social programs, but they should be expected to serve in an advisory capacity only. q. All of the RABs in the cohort have by-laws. There also is an executed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between RAB and the PHA for the 11.C.d Packet Pg. 1309 Attachment: NAR-SAAH Independent Study (5644 : RAB Update to Council) Administering the Housing Choice Voucher Program (HCV): Analysis of Data from a Cohort of Public Housing Authorities Page 5 of 16 cohort. It details the responsibilities of both parties. For example, in these MOUs, the PHA recognizes the importance of on-going discussions in good faith related to issues of mutual concern. RAB also agrees, for example, to hold regular meetings with HCV Program participants and promotes PHA strategic initiatives. The scope of roles varies, but the MOU provides a clear roadmap of the relationship between the two parties. r. The application process and appointment process are one and the same. To become a RAB member requires an appointment by the Mayor and or Executive Director/CEO of the PHA. There should, however, be an application process that includes an application form that collects socio- demographic information on nominees and a statement of his/her interest in serving as a member of RAB. s. The HCV Program is a complex operation. Understanding the many procedures and giving advice to remedy problems can be challenging at times for RAB members. Thus, the importance of receiving a comprehensive and initial RAB orientation cannot be overemphasized. All of the PHAs in the cohort provided RAB members an initial orientation. It included, for example, an introduction to the PHA, description of the tenant-based voucher assistance program, different types of vouchers, selection of landlords, inspection of rental units, rent payment standards, leasing procedures, participant grievances, management of the waiting list, termination of contract, and other information. 3. Statistics on Vouchers: For the cohort, 13 PHAs administered 2,500 or fewer vouchers. PHAs with the smallest number of HCVs administered were Rice County Housing and Redevelopment Authority (329), East Peoria Housing Authority (352) and Annapolis Housing Authority administered (389). Those PHAs that administered the number of vouchers similar to the Santa Monica Housing Authority were Charter Oak Communities (1,800), Housing Authority of Maricopa County (1,442), Nevada Rural Housing Authority (1,393) and York Housing Authority (1,402). The remaining PHAs in Table 1 (see attachment) administer between 2,000 and 2,500 vouchers. As a result of the demand for vouchers, many PHAs close the waiting list annually for a period of time. The goal is to be able to offer a voucher eventually to all applicants on the waiting list. However, demand is always higher than available resources. Too many applicants have been on the waiting list for years according to HCV Program directors. Residents are frequently vocal when vouchers are not available or if they remain on the waiting list an unreasonable length of time. Many residents 11.C.d Packet Pg. 1310 Attachment: NAR-SAAH Independent Study (5644 : RAB Update to Council) Administering the Housing Choice Voucher Program (HCV): Analysis of Data from a Cohort of Public Housing Authorities Page 6 of 16 resort to social action that includes filing a complaint with HUD, requesting help from elected officials, taking their experience with the PHA to the media, and seeking an audience with funders to cease payment to the PHA until the residents’ demands are met. These actions may have negative consequences for the PHA. 4. Federal vs State Vouchers: Fall River Housing Authority was the only PHA responsible for vouchers funded by the State of Massachusetts. Currently, the agency is administering 287 state vouchers, approximately 12% of the total number of vouchers the agency administers. Eligibility requirements for state vouchers are comparable to the federal litmus test. 5. HCV Program Budget: All PHAs in the cohort have a budget developed from HUD administrative fees and Housing Assistance Payments (HAPs) for administering the HCV Program. On average, the HCV Program administrative budget was relatively small and is reflected in the following examples from the cohort: Annapolis $4,667,447; Camden $15, 511,361; Maricopa $14,060,736; Nevada $15,171,202; Peoria $11,082,183; South Carolina $12,060,00; and York $11,248,626. Note further that Annapolis, Camden, and York receive an annual subsidy from the local government to support HCV Program operations. In previous years, the average subsidy ranged between $47,000 and $95,000 annually. More often, this additional funding helped to cover expenditures for managing project-based vouchers. 6. HCV RABs: All thirteen (13) HCV Programs in the cohort currently have a RAB. PHAs with a significant size tenant-based assistance program must ensure that HCV participants are adequately represented or that reasonable efforts are made to secure their participation in the RAB. As noted previously, a significant size tenant-based assistance program is one where at least 20 percent of the PHA’s total number of households receive tenant-based assistance. A profile of the thirteen (13) HCV Programs: a. Fall River Housing Authority administers approximately 2,500 vouchers. The program covers families, elderly, and handicapped persons. Subsidies are available to house families in private apartments in the Greater Fall River Area. RAB is comprised of nine (9) members. Eight (8) members of RAB are appointed by the PHA and one is appointed by the Mayor for a three-year term. There is no term limit. State and local funding support RAB operations. 11.C.d Packet Pg. 1311 Attachment: NAR-SAAH Independent Study (5644 : RAB Update to Council) Administering the Housing Choice Voucher Program (HCV): Analysis of Data from a Cohort of Public Housing Authorities Page 7 of 16 b. Charter Oak Communities is a leading champion for the tenant-based assistance program in Connecticut. The PHA administers 1,800 vouchers. It has a six-member RAB appointed by the PHA and Mayor jointly. RAB members serve a three-year term. Although the RAB does some fundraising and solicitation to support itself, it is funded by the local government and with discretionary funds from the Executive Director’s budget. c. York Housing Authority manages 1,402 vouchers for the county-wide service area. The program helps families afford safe, decent and sanitary rental housing that is available through private landlords. RAB is made up of seven (7) members. All are appointed by the PHA and serve a three-year term. RAB members meet monthly with the Executive Director and discuss administrative matters and concerns brought to them by HCV participants. Discretionary funds support the operation of RAB. d. Annapolis Housing Authority administers 389 rental vouchers which offer the opportunity to choose affordable rental housing through the Anne Arundel County area. It also offers participants a chance to improve their quality of life by selecting a location that provides significant employment opportunities and better schools. Freedom of choice enables families to obtain affordable housing outside areas of high poverty concentration. e. Camden Housing Authority administers 2,178 HCVs. Since housing assistance is provided on behalf of the family or individual, participants are able to find their own housing, including single-family homes, townhouses and apartments. The PHA partners with GoSection8.com which provides an enhanced program to list rental properties online. f. East Peoria Housing Authority is responsible for 352 vouchers. Participants rent from eligible landlords on the open market. Housing units include houses, apartments, and mobile homes. The waiting list has been closed for two years due to high demand for vouchers beyond the available number of vouchers the PHA administers. g. Lafayette Housing Authority administers 2,212 vouchers, serving Lafayette and Vermilion Parishes. At present, there are 108 applicants on the HCV Program waiting list which is down 46% from last year. In response to the decrease in applications, the PHA developed a marketing strategy to effectively communicate to the community the availability of affordable rental housing with opportunities for landlord participation in the HCV Program. 11.C.d Packet Pg. 1312 Attachment: NAR-SAAH Independent Study (5644 : RAB Update to Council) Administering the Housing Choice Voucher Program (HCV): Analysis of Data from a Cohort of Public Housing Authorities Page 8 of 16 h. Randolph County Housing Authority is responsible for administering 755 HCVs for Randolph, Barbour, Tucker, Lewis, Upshur and Pendleton County. Acceptable rental units include single-family homes, duplexes, apartments, townhomes and mobile homes. Eligibility for a voucher also includes certain categories of eligible non-citizens. i. Housing Authority of Maricopa administers 1,442 vouchers for its jurisdiction. The PHA only issues vouchers in surrounding cities that do not have their own housing department or are unincorporated. j. Nevada Rural Housing Authority administers 1,393 vouchers. Participants may use their vouchers in the counties of Carson City, Churchill, Douglas, Elko, Lander, Lincoln, Ney, Storey and White Pines. k. SC State Finance and development Authority administers 2,131 vouchers. A MOU was executed with the SC Department of Mental Health to assist participants with case management services, domestic violence, independent living, and transition from the Home Again Program to re-integrate in the community. l. Rice County Housing and Redevelopment Authority administers 329 vouchers. A major goal is to provide excellent service to HCV participants and landlords. Self-sufficiency is encouraged for participants and their family members by promoting opportunities for success. m. Youngtown Metropolitan Housing Authority administers 2,280 vouchers. The PHA encourages individuals who own rental properties to participate in the HCV Program. Good landlords with good properties are always sought. The program provides a great opportunity to assist families by providing low- income families safe, decent and affordable housing. 7. RABs As 501 C-3 Organizations: For this cohort, three (3) of the thirteen (13) RABs referenced above have had their tax-exempt status for five years or longer: Fall River Housing Authority, Charter Oak Communities, and York Housing Authority. At each of these PHAs, the RAB implements at least one program to assist HCV Program family members (i.e., summer camping programs for elementary children, back to school supplies, and distribution of free laptops and reduced Internet service for students in partnership with the Comcast Internet Essential Plus Initiative). RABs that are 501 C-3 organization have a recognizable advantage over those that are not. They are eligible to receive resources from 11.C.d Packet Pg. 1313 Attachment: NAR-SAAH Independent Study (5644 : RAB Update to Council) Administering the Housing Choice Voucher Program (HCV): Analysis of Data from a Cohort of Public Housing Authorities Page 9 of 16 foundations for their participants. Resources include, for example, technology to improve career opportunities, university scholarships or educational assistance, investment/savings accounts, and other amenities to enhance individual well- being. It may not be reasonable for new RABs to implement social programs but serve in an advisory capacity only. 8. RAB Membership: For PHAs that operate HCVs solely, members on the RAB were appointed. Mayors generally appoint at least one member on the RAB. For the cohort, an appointment is for a three-year term. None of the PHAs in the cohort have term limits at present. Recommendations for membership for these RABs were made by landlords, PHA administrative personnel, HCV Program participants, or via self-nominations. The PHA evaluated and selected members from each stakeholder group that submitted a recommendation. 9. Diversity and Inclusion: Three (3) of the PHAs that currently have an HCV RAB, an important goal is to appoint or elect members who are proponents of diversity, equity, and inclusion. RAB is expected to be a culturally diverse organization comprised of HCV family members it represents. To that end, RAB is expected to mirror the demography of the HCV Program. Based on comments from HCV directors, younger HCV residents are less inclined to serve on the RAB and older RAB leaders shy away from collaborating closely with residents who are culturally diverse, LGBTQ, or exercise other sexual orientations. Many believe that leadership training and coaching will help remedy this challenge and interest those from diverse walks of life to participate as board members. 10. Non-HCV Participants on the RAB: There is no evidence from the cohort that landlords are members of RAB. Resident leaders have expressed a belief that it would be a conflict of interest to do so. According to HUD, the Conflict of Interest provision of 24 CFR 982.161 prohibits the PHA from entering any contract or arrangement in connection with the tenant-based programs in which certain classes or persons have any interest. Landlords would, indeed, have a financial interest. There is no evidence from the cohort that members of a Continuum of Care Program (CoC) or Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing (VASH) serve on the RAB. However, some RABs believe it would be acceptable to HUD to create standing committees that include landlords, funding organizations, external service providers, representatives from partnering agencies, and other stakeholders. To do so eliminates the issue of priority treatment for landlords who receive HAP payments from the PHA. 11.C.d Packet Pg. 1314 Attachment: NAR-SAAH Independent Study (5644 : RAB Update to Council) Administering the Housing Choice Voucher Program (HCV): Analysis of Data from a Cohort of Public Housing Authorities Page 10 of 16 11. Profile of RAB Representatives: The thirteen (13) PHAs with RAB members in the cohort have a recognizable profile. They are parents, older residents, grandparents, disabled and elderly residents. Some are employed or receive retirement benefits. Others are retired or receive government subsistence (public assistance, food stamps, Medicaid, Social Security benefits, etc.). Noteworthy experiences include volunteers, members on other community boards, lay leaders at their place of worship, mentors to students and advocates for social justice matters. 12. Primary Responsibilities of RAB Members : During a typical year, RAB members in the cohort participate in many essential functions. Examples include: developing the annual plan, serving on departmental committees and work groups at the PHA, making recommendations for PHA policy revisions, and serving as primary advocate for participants of the HCV Program by communicating to management concerns, ideas and recommendations for change and program improvements. 13. Sources: HCV Programs are not eligible to receive Tenant Participation Funds from HUD and must look to local government to fund them. Without funding from local government, the operation of RAB at the Santa Monica Housing Authority would be incapacitated and unable to participate in essential training or attend housing events developed by industry associations on its behalf. 14. Structure of RAB: The structure of the HCV Programs with a RAB includes roughly five officers including general members. They are President, Vice- President, Secretary, Treasures, and Sargent at Arms. At the York Housing Authority, there is a Parliamentarian. The roles of both are similar. RABs in the cohort also have by-laws that specify terms, role of offices, committee structure and functions, attendance, conflict of interest, ethical conduct, and other requirements to ensure the organization runs efficiently. 15. Length of Term of RAB Members: Most RAB members serve a three-year term based on elections conducted by a Third-Party Independent Monitor. (TPIM). Most do not have term limits, but should, based on feedback from the PHAs in the cohort. Many, if not most, remain in office in perpetuity and enjoy the benefits of the position. For resident leaders in the cohort, they have been on RAB an average of four years. 11.C.d Packet Pg. 1315 Attachment: NAR-SAAH Independent Study (5644 : RAB Update to Council) Administering the Housing Choice Voucher Program (HCV): Analysis of Data from a Cohort of Public Housing Authorities Page 11 of 16 16. Achievement of Fair Representation: One of the challenges facing RABs across the country is achieving fair representation. RABs should mirror, to the greatest extent possible, the demographic characteristics of the HCV Program. Fair representation means that seats on the RAB should be filled by a diversity of residents - those who are elderly, disabled, young mom and dads, college students, employed persons and others with an interest to serve faithfully. Members of most RABs in the cohort are elderly residents. There is, however, a young representative on the RAB at Charter Oak Communities. Exciting young residents to sever on the RAB remains a challenge. 17. Payment of Stipends to RAB Members: All thirteen (13) PHAs in the cohort with HCV Program solely do not pay RAB members a stipend. 18. Accommodations to RAB Members: A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between RAB and the PHA was executed. The MOU specifies reimbursable activities such as transportation cost related to RAB functions and meals for attendance at approved events for the organization. To be compensated by the PHA, the RAB member must complete a monthly report. 19. Participation in the Development of the Annual Plan: There was 100% participation in the Annual Plan by RAB members at HCV sites only. RAB members also have a voice in developing the HCV Administrative Plan. Additionally, members of RAB have a role in town hall meetings that are organized by the Executive Director’s office for the purpose of discussing these plans and obtaining input from the community. 20. Required Community Activities by RAB: None of the PHAs in the cohort reported a PHA requirement that RAB members must participate in community activities. There was, however, an expectation that they do so as RAB leaders. Members of RAB at Camden Housing Authority and Youngtown Housing Authority confirmed that they support their children’s schools as volunteers, serve on a community taskforce, advocate for more affordable housing, organize events to address crime, advocate the elimination of neighborhood decay, work on ending homelessness, and participate in the eradication of other problems that disenfranchise families. HCV Participants are passionate about the well- being of families, especially children and elderly persons. 21. Meetings with Executive Staff: RABs in the cohort reported that they meet monthly with the Director of the HCV Program. Occasionally, the President/CEO participates in these meetings. An agenda is developed to keep the meeting focused. Residents believe these meetings strengthen their relationship with the PHA, give them an opportunity to bring matters of concern 11.C.d Packet Pg. 1316 Attachment: NAR-SAAH Independent Study (5644 : RAB Update to Council) Administering the Housing Choice Voucher Program (HCV): Analysis of Data from a Cohort of Public Housing Authorities Page 12 of 16 to leadership, and help track PHA response to HCV Program management and customer service challenges. At these meetings, RAB members discuss the Annual Plan and other PHA reports. Note that four additional PHAs that do not have a RAB schedule a bi-annual townhall meeting with HCV participants to engage with them on important matters. These meetings are facilitated by the Director of the HCV Program or CEO/President. 22. Training Provided to RAB Members: With restrictions for travel and in-person training imposed during the COVID-19 pandemic, most of the RABs have not attended conferences during the past three years. Certificate training occurs at these conferences on leadership development and capacity building topic such as repositioning the PHA, grass root organizing and engagement for social action, and working with culturally diverse populations. Housing industry groups sponsor these training activities for resident leaders. However, NAR-SAAH, for example, trained RAB leaders in 2021 at Fall River Housing Authority, Annapolis Housing Authority, Camden Housing Authority, Youngstown Housing Authority and York Housing Authority. More RAB training has been scheduled during 2023 and these RAB leaders are also taking advantage of online training or webinars to the extent there is funding to support these training events. 23. Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between RAB and PHA : There is an executed MOU between the RAB and the PHAs for the cohort. It details the responsibilities of both parties. For example, in the MOU, the PHA recognizes the importance of on-going discusses in good faith related to issues of mutual concern. RAB also agrees, for example, to holds regular meetings with HCV participants and promotes PHA strategic initiatives. The scope of roles varies, but the MOU provides a clear roadmap of the relationship between the two parties. 24. RAB Meetings and Notification: Routine meetings of RAB are held monthly and committee meetings more often. Announcements are mailed to members and are posted in the HCV administrative office. Three PHAs in the cohort places a RAB meeting notice on the PHA website or in the resident newsletter. HCV participants are permitted to attend RAB meetings. Meeting notices are prepared in the language spoken by residents (i.e., English, Spanish, and other languages as requires). 25. Use of Consultants to Provide Technical Assistance : For the PHAs in the cohort that have a RAB, none are currently using consultants to provide technical assistance. RAB responsibilities can become complex and challenging at times. PHAs should not assume RAB members always have the skillsets and 11.C.d Packet Pg. 1317 Attachment: NAR-SAAH Independent Study (5644 : RAB Update to Council) Administering the Housing Choice Voucher Program (HCV): Analysis of Data from a Cohort of Public Housing Authorities Page 13 of 16 experiences to manage these challenging responsibilities absent technical assistance from consultants or other housing experts. 26. Providing Legal Representation for RAB: In some but not all situations, the PHA provides legal representation for RAB. Examples include policy disputes and removal of members from office. RABs seek assistance from Legal Aid and local attorneys who will provide pro bono legal assistance. A drawback at times, however, is that Legal Aid and private attorneys seek business from the PHA and are potentially using their assistance for RAB to get in the front door. Many PHAs require RAB to report their engagement with external law firms and legal organization to determine whether the PHA can remedy the situation internally. 27. Participation in Meetings of Legislative Bodies: In reviewing State law for the cohort, there were no guarantee to attend and participate in meetings of legislative bodies. Nevertheless, many RABs attend these meeting to stay connected with elected officials. For example, the RAB at the Fall River Housing Authority attends meetings of the County Commissioners; in Annapolis, RAB representatives attend meetings of the City Council and State House of Delegates located in walking distance of the PHA administrative office. RAB leaders give remarks during the public comment segment of these meetings. Elected officials frequent follow-up with PHA management in response to the remarks provided by RAB members. The dynamics at play are noteworthy. 28. Documents Subject to Public Records Act: Some RAB documents are subject to the Public Records Act. However, in California, for example, “Government Code 6255 exempts from disclosure any records if on the facts of the particular case the public interest served by not making the record public clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of the record.” It is the customary practice by RABs in other states to agree to make records available if they are requested by the PHA Director or its Legal Department. Some PHAs include this requirement in the above referenced MOU between the two parties. 29. Participation in Grievances, Lease Hearings and Administrative Matters: Frequently, participants feel their rights are not protected by the PHA. HCV participants expect RAB members to participate in meetings to address their concerns. Participation in these matters gives participants “a voice” in decisions regarding lease violations by the landlord; HCVP inspections; closing or opening the waiting list; and other administrative matters. A frequent problem is convincing RAB members to preserve confidential of information discussed. 30. HCV Program Reporting Requirement: For the cohort, the HCV Program reports directly to the Deputy Executive Director or President and CEO of the 11.C.d Packet Pg. 1318 Attachment: NAR-SAAH Independent Study (5644 : RAB Update to Council) Administering the Housing Choice Voucher Program (HCV): Analysis of Data from a Cohort of Public Housing Authorities Page 14 of 16 PHA. The reporting requirement may vary by other PHAs elsewhere in the country. In some instances, the HCV Program reports to the City Administrator, City Council, or a Municipal Board. In such cases the PHA is not an independent municipal agency but is a department in the city’s human services agency. 31. Impactful RAB Activities: Based on survey responses, activities that have been most impactful include expenditures to attend annual housing conferences in different cities around the country; free computer/laptops and school supplies for HCV students; meetings with the PHA Director and other senior personnel; and in-kind support from the PHA. These are also interpreted as incentives and have tremendous appeal to RAB members. Recommendations 1. Consult with HUD to determine the eligibility of a Client Resident Advisory Board vs a traditional RAB for the HCV Program. It may be possible to receive a waiver to the Conflict of Interest provision (24 CFR 982.161) if it is not a Federal statute. Members of Congress enact Federal statutes and are the only ones to amend them. The Secretary of HUD has the authority to grant a waiver to a regulation. 2. Pay a monthly stipend to the HCV members who serve on the RAB if the cost is funded by local government. Resident participation funds allocated by HUD cannot be used for this purpose. However, in lieu of paying stipends, other benefits could be provided, and they include leadership training, payment to attend housing conferences, and reimbursement for business-related transportation. These may be acceptable alternatives. 3. Once the RAB has been organized, it should file an application to become a 501 C-3 tax exempt organization. The application is an 18 to 22-page document and generally takes about six months to be processed. A consultant should assist the RAB in completing the application. Once tax exempt status has been received, filing the annual IRS Form 990 timely is important. Delinquent filing will result is revocation of the exemption. 4. Allow each City Council member to appoint two HCV participants to serve on the RAB. Procedures for appointments and eligibility requirements to serve on the RAB should be developed. Eligible appointees should be: an HCV participant at the Santa Monica Housing Authority; 18 years of age, named on the HCV; has been a HCV participant for a minimum of one year; have no rental payment delinquencies if head of household; and have a valid ID (CA Driver’s 11.C.d Packet Pg. 1319 Attachment: NAR-SAAH Independent Study (5644 : RAB Update to Council) Administering the Housing Choice Voucher Program (HCV): Analysis of Data from a Cohort of Public Housing Authorities Page 15 of 16 License, State ID, Passport or ID issued by the PHA. Note that Live-in aides are ineligible to serve on the RAB. 5. Develop application procedures for those interested in serving on the RAB. Residents interested in becoming a RAB member must complete an application for appointment and submit it to the PHA. The application will obtain standard contact information, a brief statement of the applicant’s interest in serving on the RAB and contact information for two references. 6. Conduct a mandatory orientation for those appointed to serve on the RAB. The orientation will serve as the appetizer before the main course of training to be offered at a later date. During the orientation, the facilitator will review the responsibilities of the RAB, its mission, responsibilities of each officer, required meetings with HCV participants, management of funds, required reports, code of conduct and other matters. 7. Finalize a RAB operating budget for year one and two, as a start. Funding for RAB operations at the Santa Monica Housing Authority is not allocated by HUD and should, therefore, be provided by the City Council. 8. Develop a RAB structure appropriate for the Santa Monica Housing Authority. The structure should emerge from strategic planning sessions with RAB members and PHA personnel. During these sessions, models of RAB structures from different PHAs in the country should be discussed, including the responsibilities of ad hoc and standing committees. 9. Draft by-laws for the new RAB. The PHA should file an application with the appropriate city or state agency to establish RAB as a non-profit organization in the City of Santa Monica. Accordingly, by-laws and articles of incorporation should be developed. The Legal Office at the PHA can assist with these activities. 10. Resolve upfront the fair representation challenge if it exists. This matter should be appropriately addressed in the development of by-laws and MOU between RAB and the PHA. 11. Procure technical assistance to support the start-up and implementation of RAB. A consultant should be hired to provide technical assistance to RAB for start-up and implementation functions for a minimum of one year. 11.C.d Packet Pg. 1320 Attachment: NAR-SAAH Independent Study (5644 : RAB Update to Council) Administering the Housing Choice Voucher Program (HCV): Analysis of Data from a Cohort of Public Housing Authorities Page 16 of 16 Conclusions: The HCV Program addresses housing needs for extremely low-income households and gives recipients the freedom to choose the kind of housing and location that best meet their needs. Many recipients can find housing in neighborhoods that offer social, educational, and economic opportunities for themselves and their children. However, not all recipients are happy with the HCV Program and have strong criticisms of it. For example, shortage of moderately priced rental housing, tight market conditions, racial and ethnic discrimination, landlords who are unwilling to accept voucher payments, and ineffective local administration of the program contribute to the problem. The biggest problem is that federal spending for affordable housing is woefully inadequate. Over the years, residents attending NAR-SAAH events specifically and other housing industry conferences have expressed their opinions about the strengths and weakness of the federal HCV Program absent a RAB at their PHA. According to many residents, the strengths of the HCV Program are appreciated, but the structural weakness of not having a RAB cannot be ignored. Based on size, by not having a RAB violates Section 511 of the United States Housing Act and the regulation in 24 CFR Part 903. During NAR-SAAH conferences, HCV recipients frequently do not understand payment standards and they also complain about the way African-Americans and Hispanics are over-represented in neighborhoods where vouchers are clustered and under-represented in communities where they are widely dispersed. The HCV Program does not work perfectly, but improvements can be made. HCV participants have good ideas and opinions that “make sense” for the PHA. Excluding the voice of residents in discussions to improve the program will continue to have negative consequences. Creation of a RAB at the Santa Monica Housing Authority will give members a structure to engage with the leadership of the agency on a range of topics such as landlord relations, unit inspections, payment standards, and portability provisions as examples. Some families in the HCV Program experience complex social problems (i.e., substance abuse, depression, domestic violence, gang affiliation, illegal household members, etc.). The PHA’s regular engagement with RAB can be a benefit for addressing these social entanglements and family circumstances. 11.C.d Packet Pg. 1321 Attachment: NAR-SAAH Independent Study (5644 : RAB Update to Council) TABLE 1 Survey Results of PHAs Administering 2,500 or Fewer Vouchers A B C D E F G H I J K 1 Public Housing Authorities and State # of Vouchers In Compliance? RAB Budget (Rounded) RAB Budget Per Voucher RAB Funding RAB Size How Often Meetings? Stipend to RAB Members 501-C3 Have a CAB? 2 Annapolis Housing Authority (MD) 389 Yes $ 7,500 $ 19 Local Gov't 5 Monthly No No 3 Camden Housing Authority (NJ) 2,178 Yes $ 13,000 $ 6 Local Gov't 7 Monthly No No 4 Charter Oak Communities (CT) 1,800 Yes $ 9,200 $ 5 Local Gov't 6 Monthly No √ No 5 East Peoria Housing Authority (IL) 352 Yes $ 5,000 $ 14 Discretionary 4 Monthly No No 6 Fall River Housing Authority (MA) 2,459 Yes $ 14,000 $ 6 State Gov't 9 Monthly No √ No 7 Lafayette Housing Authority (IN) 2,212 Yes $ 8,600 $ 4 Discretionary 4 Monthly No No 8 Randolph County Housing Authority (WV) 755 Yes $ 5,100 $ 7 Discretionary 4 Monthly No No 9 Housing Authority of Maricopa County (AZ) 1,442 Yes $ 4,750 $ 3 Discretionary 6 Monthly No No 10 Nevada Rural Housing Authority (NV) 1,393 Yes $ 10,600 $ 8 Discretionary 6 Monthly No No 11 SC State Housing Finance & Development Authority (SC) 2,131 Yes $ 8,000 $ 4 Discretionary 5 Monthly No No 12 Rice County Housing & Redevelopment Authority (MN) 329 Yes $ 10,000 $ 30 Discretionary 4 Monthly No No 13 York Housing Authority (PA) 1,402 Yes $ 11,300 $ 8 Discretionary 7 Monthly No √ No 14 Youngtown Housing Authority (OH) 2,280 Yes $ 10,100 $ 4 Local Gov't 7 Monthly No No Page 1 of 1 11.C.d Packet Pg. 1322 Attachment: NAR-SAAH Independent Study (5644 : RAB Update to Council) 1 Vernice Hankins From:Debra Shepherd <dshepherdnation@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, April 10, 2023 6:28 PM To:councilmtgitems Subject:Item 11c EXTERNAL          Good day, Board Members:    HUD requires that the Public Housing Authority create a Residential Advisory Board that “adequately represents” the  households that receive tenant‐ based assistance. Currently, the city of Santa Monica has a Resident Advisory Board that  is composed of all tenant‐based voucher holders. The current structure of the RAB does not adequately represent the  voucher holders, because this RAB lacks a formal structure. There are no officers or set meeting times. Without those  things in place, it’s difficult for the RAB to operate in a meaningful way.   Initially, it’s going to take about seven people, with designated alternates to set the foundation of the Board. The scope  of the work is significant. It requires representation from marginalized communities AND people who are willing to  dedicate themselves to learning the complexities of the HUD requirements.   As you transition to a Client Advisory Board, I would like to see the City meet the requirements from HUD, not just  technically, but in a meaningful way that benefits all stakeholders.   As for the Housing Authority Board voucher holders, those two members should, understand the documents that come  from HUD, the staff reports, attend regular meetings, and rigorously participate in the dialogue regarding Housing  Authority Board issues.     Regards,  Debra Shepherd  Voucher holder/ Santa Monica resident   Former Chair of SMMUSD SEDAC  Former Community Advisory Chair         Sent from my iPad  Item 11.C 04/11/23 1 of 16 Item 11.C 04/11/23 11.C.e Packet Pg. 1323 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5644 : RAB Update to Council) 1 Vernice Hankins From:Elizabeth Lutz <elizabethjlutz7@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, April 11, 2023 11:46 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:Comment for April 11 council meeting EXTERNAL    Hello,    Regarding agenda items 11‐C and 12‐A.     The approved Administrative plan repeatedly insisted the City will make process accessible to elderly, disabled, and  those using Federally funded housing subsidy.     The revised CAB which the council discussed Fall 2022 is still not supported, so the input from the elderly, disabled, low  income constituents are NOT included in the Housing Element / Administrative plan as PROMISED to the State and City  residents. This plan should not be passed without this input. The Council opened the City to massive unchecked  development by their refusal to incorporate input mandated by HUD and the State.     Other unfulfilled promises:    The housing authority remains with 6 vacant positions.     There is no one helping ADA residents with concerns.     Second, the City is not providing the same financial incentives to residents to build and own housing as it does  developers. The CITY can take this role and provide affordable HOME purchase opportunities for voucher holders.  Otherwise, this is economic discrimination on a large scale and our city is potentially target of a massive class action.     Thank you,   Elizabeth Lutz  Item 11.C 04/11/23 2 of 16 Item 11.C 04/11/23 11.C.e Packet Pg. 1324 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5644 : RAB Update to Council) 1 Vernice Hankins From:Hajar Muqtasid St. Claire <mrshstclaire@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, April 11, 2023 11:58 AM To:councilmtgitems; councilmtgitems Subject:Agenda items 11-C and 12- A EXTERNAL    I would like to give public comment on agenda items 11‐ C and 12‐A.     As a housing authority voucher holder, I am in full support of the Housing Commission recommendations to the Santa  Monica Housing Authority Board. I encourage you all to accept the revised version of recommendations provided to you  11 April 2023.     I encourage you to allow a representative of the Housing Commission to deliver formal recommendations to the SMHA  Board immediately after the respective staff presentation and before board members deliberation and potential action  instead of during public comments. This process seems like you are silencing our voice and possibly violating HUD  recommendations. It also pairs with the fact that the current Resident Advisory Board ( RAB) has been prevented from  meeting, not given proper education regarding the SMHA planning process and documents nor have they been provided  with staff with collective input in the annual planning process as required by federal policy for more than 20 years. Our  voices cannot be silenced any longer. If this silencing is not your intention we demand immediate reversal of all the  current silencing policies.    Thank you,    Hajar Muqtasid  St. Claire        Item 11.C 04/11/23 3 of 16 Item 11.C 04/11/23 11.C.e Packet Pg. 1325 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5644 : RAB Update to Council) 1 Vernice Hankins From:Clerk Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, April 11, 2023 12:21 PM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Items 11-C and 12-A. Meeting 4/11/2023 From: Danielle Charney <shineshuge@gmail.com>   Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2023 11:52 AM  To: CouncilItems@santamonica.gov; Douglas Sloan <Douglas.Sloan@santamonica.gov>; Clerk Mailbox  <Clerk.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>  Subject: Items 11‐C and 12‐A. Meeting 4/11/2023  EXTERNAL  I am far to sick and have had no sleep to do a by item  response to support this Housing Commission in a detailed  and legal way but others will do that>  I want to say that my illness now could have been prevented  and helped had I been able to go to anyone in this City  during my awful treatment by the Housing Authority from March of 2014  to   August of 2016.  I was the victim of serious abuse by Barbara Collins, and other workers  there   ‐ my rights were violated, i was humiliated for fun by Collins, I was  prevented   from using a voucher unless I agreed to live in a substandard unit   hanging over the freeway or be moved into. a depressing old age home  to die.  My civil rights were repeatedly violated. I was told by Collins to leave  Santa Monica.  I had been here since 1982 ‐ she had been here for six years.   I was very ill at the time ‐ my conditions are worse now. I would  have  been able   Item 11.C 04/11/23 4 of 16 Item 11.C 04/11/23 11.C.e Packet Pg. 1326 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5644 : RAB Update to Council) 2 to help myself had I been given a fair shot. I went to every single council  person, to Legal Aid and to Gary Rhoades. I went everywhere. I was  ignored, shut out and not even responded to‐‐  so  this is my request.   DO WHAT THESE TWO SMART BRAVE AND KNOWLEDGEABLE WOMEN  ARE ASKING OF THIS CITY. It is more than clear to all of us who have tried  to have   our cases dealt with honestly that this City won't do that.  We need a clear resident RAB ‐ we always. have. We finally have a  Housing Commission who functions for the residents and the most  vulnerable of us. We have NEVER HAD THAT.    We have a political group moving to disparage and remove them. DON'T  LET THAT HAPPEN.  THEY ARE CALLING OUT THE WRONGS OF THIS CITY.  Do what this Housing Commission requests. Stop the political games .  Stop Abusing US.  DO THE RIGHT THING.     Danielle Charney   Resident Since 1982      Item 11.C 04/11/23 5 of 16 Item 11.C 04/11/23 11.C.e Packet Pg. 1327 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5644 : RAB Update to Council) Housing Commission Recommendations to the Santa Monica Housing Authority Board Formally adopted by unanimous vote on 6 April 2023; submitted to city leadership on 10 April 2023 The Housing Commission unanimously voted to provide the Santa Monica Housing Authority (SMHA) Board with important and time sensitive recommendations regarding SMHA clients, including amendments and additions to Housing staff's current Client Advisory Board (CAB) recommendations. These recommendations come after extensive consultation with Santa Monica residents, including numerous Santa Monica Housing Authority (SMHA) clients, and discussions with housing and advocacy nonprofits. They also follow several productive conversations with new SMHA Senior Administrative Analyst and supervisor Patrick Komesu, who prepared the current staff CAB recommendations.   Housing Commission Client Advisory Board (CAB ) Recommendations Background As discussed at the previous HAB meeting, SMHA program participants have been prevented from meaningful participation in a functioning RAB, and subsequently meaningful participation in the annual SMHA planning process, for more than twenty years in direct contravention of HUD federal requirements. At the previous HAB meeting the Housing Commission presented extensive recommendations for creating and supporting a functional Client Advisory Board (CAB) composed of all SMHA clients. These included size parameters, communications support, budget estimates, codification and legal agreements, and meeting guidelines.  Most of all, in light of both HUD policy requirements and a long history of SMHA client disenfranchisement, the Housing Commission recommended that the CAB be formed and operated with as much independence and self direction by SMHA clients as possible and only minimal, necessary administrative support by staff. That advice continues to inform the new recommendations below. Item 11.C 04/11/23 6 of 16 Item 11.C 04/11/23 11.C.e Packet Pg. 1328 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5644 : RAB Update to Council) Recommendations Codification 1.In contrast with staff recommendations, which propose establishing a HAB- appointed CAB in the City’s Municipal Code in the same manner as other City Boards and Commissions, the Housing Commission recommends that the CAB be established solely by inclusion in the HAB bylaws, as it is an advisory body solely to the HAB and with a very narrow, federal mandate. Codification via city ordinance creates a more cumbersome body, entailing adherence to city staffing requirements, uniform city bylaws and agenda templates, and some direct oversight by city government. Conversely, establishing the CAB with only HAB bylaws allows for a leaner, more responsive, self directed, and independent advisory body, as supported by HUD policy and guidance. 2.Codification should include CAB bylaws written by the first CAB, approved by the HAB, and amended as needed by future CAB recommendation and HAB approval. These bylaws should be included on the city and CAB websites respectively and in the SMHA Administrative Plan. 3.In contrast with staff recommendations, which state that establishing a CAB via city ordinance and CAB bylaws, together “would serve the same purpose as the Memorandums of Understanding used in other jurisdictions,” the Housing Commission strongly recommends that codification include a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the CAB and HAB. MOUs are potentially qualitatively different than disparate, technical city ordinance and CAB bylaws, allowing the creation of a more nuanced agreement that acknowledges SMHA clients’ collective history as well as current operating agreements. All thirteen comparable jurisdictions surveyed by SMHA have MOUs, and lawyers from nonprofits Poverty and Race Research Action Council (PRRAC) and National Housing Law Project (NHLP) both explicitly recommended the creation of an MOU signed by both the CAB and HAB. Composition 1.Given the amount of work required of the CAB and the high level of interest expressed by SMHA clients in serving as CAB members, the Housing Commission suggests the CAB be composed of nine (9) members instead of seven (7). Item 11.C 04/11/23 7 of 16 Item 11.C 04/11/23 11.C.e Packet Pg. 1329 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5644 : RAB Update to Council) 2.Furthermore, given the importance of CAB member participation and the hardships and complications often experienced by SMHA clients, all of whom have low incomes and who are disproportionately older and disabled, the Housing Commission suggests the CAB also include two (2) alternate members who will serve on the CAB when one or more members are absent or unavailable. 3.The Housing Commission recommends that each CAB appointee serve a two (2) year term, with the option of reapplying for additional terms. 4.In order to fulfill the HUD federal Desk Guide requirement that CAB composition “reflect and represent all the residents assisted by the PHA”, and to advance city priorities to advance racial and social justice and enhance equity, the Housing Commission strongly recommends the following: 1.Require at least one CAB member who meets each of the following criteria: HCV holder; CoC holder; resident of a neighborhood with a Title 1 school; 62 years or older; disabled; and current or former experience with homelessness.  2.Give priority to people who meet any of the following criteria: veteran; HOME voucher holder; Emergency Voucher holder; identify as Asian, Black, Latinx, indigenous, or LGBTQIA. Administration 5.The Housing Commission recommends that the initial CAB applications be based on existing city board and commission applications, with potential modifications based on Housing Commission and SMHA client input to accommodate the unique requirements of CAB membership and needs of the potential applicant pool. Once the CAB is established and filled, CAB members may alter future applications at their discretion with HAB approval. 6.The Housing Commission strongly recommends that CAB appointments be made by the HAB with consideration given to the recommendations and input of the Housing Commission and individual SMHA clients. 7.In order to comply with federal law, SMHA should reach out to all clients at least once a year to notify them of the opportunity to serve on the CAB and to solicit new application submissions. 8.As one SMHA client pointed out, no one on City Council appoints their fellow councilmembers. In keeping with the Housing Commission’s recommendation that the CAB remain as independent and self directed as possible, and in recognition of the fact that HAB members appointing other HAB members stratifies the HAB, the Item 11.C 04/11/23 8 of 16 Item 11.C 04/11/23 11.C.e Packet Pg. 1330 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5644 : RAB Update to Council) Housing Commission strongly recommends that the two (2) CAB representatives to the HAB are elected by the CAB, while ensuring that at least one HAB representative is an HCV holder and at least one HAB member has current or former experience with homelessness, as required by federal law. 9.In contrast with staff recommendations, the Housing Commission recommends that CAB members receive a $25 stipend per CAB meeting, with the option to receive this in the form of a gift card or to decline the stipend. Note that the staff report statement that stipends over $200 per year must be declared as income is incorrect. According to HUD rules, receipt of over $199 per month must be declared as income. 10.In alignment with practices of comparable jurisdictions as noted in the current staff report, CAB members should have access to outside training opportunities when available, for example those provided by nonprofit housing and advocacy organizations.  Communications 11.As previously recommended and discussed at the 13 September 2022 HAB meeting, the HAB is a city body and establishing the CAB via HAB bylaws will make the CAB subject to the California Brown Act. Therefore, all communications by CAB members acting in their capacity as CAB members, whether issued via city email or other platforms, will be subject to Public Records Act requests as required by the Brown Act. 12.The Housing Commission reiterates its previous recommendations of specific tools necessary to facilitate independent and fully accessible communications among SMHA clients: a.Independent website (as current staff report notes that comparable jurisdictions operate) with email for CAB members and secure area for SMHA client chat b.Dedicated phone number with TDD & TTY accessibility and outgoing messaging that will be recorded and maintained by the CAB c.Physical city mailbox for written correspondence d.Dedicated Zoom account for meetings e.Dedicated online fax account for accessible correspondence f.CAB materials in all new client onboarding, including new and ported vouchers g.Continuing city email addresses for Housing Authority Board members h.All mailings to SMHA clients translated in their preferred languages i.Translation support at CAB meetings as needed Item 11.C 04/11/23 9 of 16 Item 11.C 04/11/23 11.C.e Packet Pg. 1331 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5644 : RAB Update to Council) j.Occasional translator support for outgoing phone messages k.Physical and digital mailings to all SMHA participants to notify them of CAB meetings in sufficient advance l.Surveys sent 2x/year to all SMHA clients for the first two years and annually thereafter 13.The Housing Commission further recommends that the dedicated CAB phone number be routed to a few inexpensive cell phones in order for CAB members to speak with SMHA clients who need phone accessibility without compromising their privacy by having to share their personal phone numbers. 14.In addition to staff recommendations, notices of opportunities to apply for CAB appointments should be sent directly to all SMHA clients by mail and email at least once a year, included in onboarding materials for ported voucher participants, and posted on city social media. Meetings 15. As previously recommended and discussed at the 13 September 2022 HAB meeting, the HAB is a city body and establishing the CAB via HAB bylaws will make the CAB subject to the California Brown Act. Therefore, all CAB meetings with a quorum present will be properly noticed, agendized, and open to public participation as required by the Brown Act. 16.The Housing Commission strongly recommends that CAB meetings should be held monthly for at least the first two years, after which the CAB can recommend changes. Note that all thirteen comparable jurisdictions surveyed in the staff report meet monthly. 17.With the exception of hybridity, as discussed below, CAB meetings should be held in a manner similar to existing city boards and commissions unless and until the CAB makes other recommendations that are approved by the HAB, which they should be as long as the recommendations are legal (with or without modifications to existing policy) and reasonable. 18.Given the disproportionate representation of seniors, disabled people, and people without access to reliable transportation among the SMHA client population, and the federal requirement that SMHA facilitate communications and participation among clients, the Housing Commission strongly recommends that all CAB meetings be hybrid, with options to attend in person or via video or phone. Note that this can be done without staff attendance and largely without staff support, and Item 11.C 04/11/23 10 of 16 Item 11.C 04/11/23 11.C.e Packet Pg. 1332 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5644 : RAB Update to Council) will be done in compliance with applicable Brown Act rules regarding hybrid meeting noticing and access. 19.To encourage attendance and foster community among SMHA clients, and in keeping with comparable jurisdictions’ practices, CAB meetings should have refreshments available for attendees. 20.The Housing Commission recommends researching the feasibility of holding nonpublic meetings of CAB members and SMHA clients (for purposes other than conducting CAB business), as the staff report notes that comparable jurisdictions hold, in light of Brown Act requirements.  Respectfully submitted by Michelle Gray, Housing Commission Chair, on behalf of the Santa Monica Housing Commission Item 11.C 04/11/23 11 of 16 Item 11.C 04/11/23 11.C.e Packet Pg. 1333 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5644 : RAB Update to Council) Housing Commission Recommendations to the Santa Monica Housing Authority Board Formally adopted by unanimous vote on 6 April 2023; submitted to city leadership on 10 April 2023 The Housing Commission unanimously voted to provide the Santa Monica Housing Authority (SMHA) Board with important and time sensitive recommendations regarding SMHA clients, including advice to postpone the approval of current SMHA plans. This recommendation comes after extensive consultation with Santa Monica residents, including numerous Santa Monica Housing Authority (SMHA) clients, and discussions with housing and advocacy nonprofits. They also follow several productive conversations with new SMHA Senior Administrative Analyst and supervisor Patrick Komesu, who prepared the current staff CAB recommendations. Housing Commission Recommendation Regarding Approval of SMHA Plans Background As discussed at the previous HAB meeting, SMHA program participants have been prevented from meaningful participation in the annual SMHA planning process for more than twenty years in direct contravention of HUD federal requirements. While the likely forthcoming formation of a Client Advisory Board (CAB) is a positive development, it does not change the fact that the current nominal Resident Advisory Board (RAB) has been prevented from meeting, receiving full orientation regarding the SMHA planning process and documents, deliberating, and providing staff with collective input in the annual planning process as required by federal policy. SMHA clients receive a single annual notice of the opportunity to provide planning feedback by email, mail, phone, or at a designated Housing Commission meeting. However, the majority of clients are unaware that the Administrative and Annual Plans exist. Of those who are aware, few have any idea of their import, contents, and the discretionary status of their contents. This knowledge is necessary for any RAB member to provide planning input. Despite claims otherwise, this annual notice does not fulfill HUD federal requirements for client inclusion in the annual SMHA planning process. Federal regulations require SMHA to Item 11.C 04/11/23 12 of 16 Item 11.C 04/11/23 11.C.e Packet Pg. 1334 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5644 : RAB Update to Council) provide technical assistance to facilitate program participants’ understanding of the planning process and documents, to engage with and secure preliminary feedback from the RAB well in advance of the forty-five day comment period, and to actively facilitate the RAB meeting, deliberating, and providing collective input as a body. In a positive development, staff recently scheduled a “planning workshop” to educate clients about the planning process and provide an additional opportunity to share feedback. Unfortunately, clients received only one week's notice of the event and it was scheduled for 1PM on a weekday, both leading to poor attendance; staff provided insufficient explanation of the Annual and Administrative Plans and did not include discussion of the 5-Year or Consolidated Plans which determine SMHA goals and funding sources; and some attendees were prevented from participating by an inaccessible meeting setup. Plans for SMHA clients’ successful self representation are progressing and staff are taking positive steps toward empowering this disenfranchised population. However, the current planning cycle has not been informed by collective RAB feedback as required by federal regulations because the RAB has never had a single properly noticed meeting, orientation, or discussion regarding these plans. Moreover, on 13 September 2022 the HAB unanimously voted to explicitly and formally direct staff to schedule and facilitate such a meeting “with haste”, but the direction was not followed. When Housing Commission leadership inquired on 3 October 2022, staff denied such direction was given even after being provided with a transcript of the successful predicating motion. Recommendation Given the RAB’s continued denial of the opportunity to communicate, meet, deliberate, and provide collective input as required by HUD federal policy, the Housing Commission recommends that the HAB choose to refrain from approving the current SMHA Plans unless and until the current RAB (that is, all Housing Choice Voucher [HCV] holders) is able to meet, discuss, and submit collective feedback to staff. While SMHA Plans are due to HUD by 17 April 2023, HUD permits requests for extensions without adverse consequences to requesting jurisdictions. Respectfully submitted by Michelle Gray, Housing Commission Chair, on behalf of the Santa Monica Housing Commission Item 11.C 04/11/23 13 of 16 Item 11.C 04/11/23 11.C.e Packet Pg. 1335 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5644 : RAB Update to Council) Housing Commission Recommendations to the Santa Monica Housing Authority Board Formally adopted by unanimous vote on 6 April 2023; submitted to city leadership on 10 April 2023 The Housing Commission unanimously voted to provide the Santa Monica Housing Authority (SMHA) Board with important and time sensitive recommendations regarding SMHA clients, including changes to their current representation on the SMHA Board (HAB) and the placement of the Housing Commission’s presentation of recommendations in the forthcoming meeting. In light of their time sensitivity, and with the belief that fulfilling these requests is within Housing staff purview, the first two recommendations below were submitted to City Manager David White on 8 April 2023 for consideration and possible action before the 11 April 2023 HAB meeting. These recommendations come after extensive consultation with Santa Monica residents, including numerous Santa Monica Housing Authority (SMHA) clients, and discussions with housing and advocacy nonprofits. They also follow several productive conversations with new SMHA Senior Administrative Analyst and supervisor Patrick Komesu, who prepared the current staff CAB recommendations. Housing Commission Recommendation 1—Tenant Representation on HAB Background •Federal HUD policy requires tenant representation on the SMHA governing board, and the City of Santa Monica has dedicated two (2) SMHA Board (HAB) seats to this tenant representation. One of these seats is currently vacant. •The current SMHA Resident Advisory Board (RAB), composed of all HCV holders in Santa Monica, was created by staff decision and not via codification in HAB bylaws or city ordinance. •The two tenant representatives named to the HAB two years ago were chosen, named, acknowledged, and thereby seated on the HAB solely via SMHA staff decision, and not via direction codified in HAB bylaws or city ordinance. Item 11.C 04/11/23 14 of 16 Item 11.C 04/11/23 11.C.e Packet Pg. 1336 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5644 : RAB Update to Council) •One of the two named tenant representatives has never attended a HAB meeting and recently formally resigned. The other named tenant representative did not attend the last HAB meeting and has not responded to any emails or calls from SMHA clients.   •HUD federal policy requires SMHA staff to reach out to all program participants at least once a year to ask if any of them would like to serve on the HAB and staff has not done so for more than two years.   •SMHA clients recently held two grassroots virtual RAB meetings: a five hour meeting on 19 March 2023 with twelve attendees, and a seven hour meeting on 4 April 2023 with sixteen attendees, during which clients unanimously elected SMHA clients Courtney Lauretano and Hajar Muqtasid St Claire to act as their two interim RAB representatives until a CAB is formed, with Joyce Sawyer and Stephanie Leah S. as alternates.   •It is essential that SMHA clients have two representatives sitting on the HAB in time for them to participate and vote during Tuesday’s HAB meeting.   Recommendation To ensure meaningful RAB representation on the HAB until a CAB is formed, the Housing Commission strongly recommends that staff recognize SMHA clients Courtney Lauretano and Hajar Muqtasid St Claire, and in their absence, alternates Joyce Sawyer and Stephanie Leah S, as interim RAB representatives serving on the HAB in the two seats dedicated to tenant representatives, until a CAB is formed and can provide two CAB members as tenant representatives on the HAB.  Housing Commission Recommendation 2—Placement of Advisory Body Input Background There are no current city provisions that permit appointed public officials to speak on behalf of their respective boards and commissions regarding a City Council or HAB agenda item at the same time as city staff, that is, immediately before City Council or SMHA Board deliberation and possible action on that item. Instead, these public officials are allowed to deliver formal advisory body input as public comment.  Item 11.C 04/11/23 15 of 16 Item 11.C 04/11/23 11.C.e Packet Pg. 1337 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5644 : RAB Update to Council) In principle, this practice is flawed because city boards and commissions are composed of appointed city officials whose mandate is advising city leadership, and their input is not, therefore, commensurate with individual public comment. In practice, this convention is flawed because public input is given at the beginning of meetings and therefore heard long, and often many hours, before the agenda item in question.  While City Council and SMHA Board meeting agendas dedicate item 13 to board and commission reports, presenting advice from staff and appointed public officials on the same topic separately is inefficient and unduly disenfranchises city advisory bodies. Given the nature of city advisory boards and commissions, including the hundreds of hours of hard work and communication with residents undertaken by their volunteer appointed public officials, hearing board and commission recommendations alongside related staff recommendations is most appropriate. Recommendation In order to facilitate communication and maximize busy SMHA Board members' understanding of complex issues, the Housing Commission recommends and requests that a representative of the Housing Commission be permitted to deliver the Housing Commission's formal recommendations to the SMHA Board immediately following the respective staff presentation and before board members' deliberation and potential action, instead of being heard during public comments. Respectfully submitted by Michelle Gray, Housing Commission Chair, on behalf of the Santa Monica Housing Commission Item 11.C 04/11/23 16 of 16 Item 11.C 04/11/23 11.C.e Packet Pg. 1338 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (5644 : RAB Update to Council) Client Advisory Board Housing Authority Board/Council April 11th , 2023 11.C.f Packet Pg. 1339 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5644 : RAB Update to Council) History Santa Monica Housing Authority SMHA •5 Rental Assistance Programs Housing Authority BoardHAB •Council and two tenant representatives •The SMHA’s governing body Resident Advisory BoardRAB •Advisory Board during the Annual Plan process •Federal Requirements 11.C.f Packet Pg. 1340 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5644 : RAB Update to Council) History and Direction Annual Plan Process HAB/RAB •Required by the U.S. Housing and Urban Development (HUD). •The Annual Plan process affects all program participants •RAB ONLY allows for Section 8 participants September 13, 2022 Council Meeting Direction •Inclusive Client Advisory Board (CAB) 11.C.f Packet Pg. 1341 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5644 : RAB Update to Council) Considerations •National Alliance of Resident Services in Affordable and Assisted Housing (NAR-SAAH) •Recommendations •Federal Requirements •Other City Boards •The Direction received from Council HAB Direction Legal Requirement Independent Study Housing Commission 11.C.f Packet Pg. 1342 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5644 : RAB Update to Council) Proposal Client Advisory BoardCAB •Modeled after other City Boards •The CAB would be appointed by the HAB •Seven-member advisory body •All voucher participants are eligible •Advisory Body to the HAB •Replaces the current RAB •Open and Public (Brown Act) 11.C.f Packet Pg. 1343 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5644 : RAB Update to Council) Client Advisory Board Self-Determination CAB •Similar to other City Boards •Appoint Ad-Hoc Committees and Advisory Groups •Meeting Agendas and schedule •Make recommendations to the HAB Members •Website •Email 11.C.f Packet Pg. 1344 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5644 : RAB Update to Council) Client Advisory Board Membership & Meeting ModelCAB •Adopt Council-approved uniform bylaws used by other City Boards •Meeting flexibility •$50 stipend -four meetings per year ($200 annually) •1-2 Staff annual workshops within CAB meetings 11.C.f Packet Pg. 1345 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5644 : RAB Update to Council) Client Advisory Board Appointment Process CAB •Applications modeled on processes for other City Boards •HAB would appoint 7 CAB members •2 CAB members would serve on the HAB •HAB would appoint the 2 tenant representatives Outreach •Website •Email •Newspaper •Mail HAB From 7 CAB Members Appoints 2 HAB Members From Eligible Applicants Appoints 7 CAB Members 11.C.f Packet Pg. 1346 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5644 : RAB Update to Council) Client Advisory Board Formation and Operational Structure CAB •Created by the City •Scope and bylaws would be codified •Advisory body to the HAB •Replace the RAB for the Annual Plan process 11.C.f Packet Pg. 1347 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5644 : RAB Update to Council) Client Advisory Board Staff Resources & Role CAB •Post Information •Secure a physical meeting space •Encourage participation in the CAB •Orientation for CAB members. •Resources are based on the restructuring of the Department. Outreach •Website •Email •Meetings •Mail 11.C.f Packet Pg. 1348 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5644 : RAB Update to Council) Client Advisory Board If the HAB Supports the Recommendation Next Steps •Recruitment can begin in May 2023 •All voucher participants would be notified •Application period would last four weeks •Appointments made at next available HAB meeting date •The HAB could appoint the two HAB members Outreach •Website •Email •Newspaper •Mail 11.C.f Packet Pg. 1349 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5644 : RAB Update to Council) Client Advisory Board The Housing Authority BoardStaff recommends 1.Review and provide direction on the proposed approach for the creation of the Client Advisory Board (CAB) to replace the current Resident Advisory Board (RAB). 2.Extend the term of the Section 8 Resident Advisory Board (RAB) member on the Housing Authority Board until two CAB members are appointed (at least one a Section 8 voucher holder) 11.C.f Packet Pg. 1350 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5644 : RAB Update to Council) Client Advisory Board City CouncilStaff recommends 1.Introduce for First Reading an Ordinance, adding Chapter 2.70 to create the CAB 11.C.f Packet Pg. 1351 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5644 : RAB Update to Council)