MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING

OF THE

LAWRENCE-DOUGLAS COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

February 22, 2005                                                                                           Edgewood Homes

9:00 a.m.                                                                                                          Conference Room

1.         Call of Roll.

            The meeting was called to order at 9:10 a. m. by Chair Mark Gonzales.  Upon call of roll the following Commissioners answered present:

            Joe Helfert

            Willie Amison

            Mark Gonzales.

            Also present were James Dunn, Landlords of Lawrence; Julia Gaughan and Lane Williams, Disability Rights Center of Kansas; Saunny Scott, Lawrence Community Shelter; Hilda Enoch, Homeless Advocate; Milton Scott, Beverly Hyatt, Barbara Huppee and Vickie Butler, LDCHA staff members.

2.         Approve Minutes of January 24, 2005 Board of Commissioners Meeting.

            Commissioner Helfert moved to approve the minutes as presented.  Commissioner Amison seconded the motion.  The motion carried.

3.          Receive Comments from Tenants and Public.

            Mr. Dunn commented on the numerous phone calls he receives from applicants and/or their advocates who are confused about the Section 8 voucher process. He stated they don’t know what they are to do and are lost in the paperwork process.  He also suggested the agency hold an information or training program for landlords.  

4.         Receive FY 2004 End-of-Year Financial Reports.

            A.        Public Housing Preliminary 2004 Year-end Financial Report.

            The preliminary 2004 income statement shows ending the year with $991,101 in total rental income.  This is $2,299 less than the projected amount of $993,400. Total other income including investments and salary allocation reimbursements under Capital Fund and Ross Grants is $134,570.  This is $10,800 more than the projected amount of $123,770.  Operating subsidy was funded at 98.1% of eligible subsidy or $465,732.  Overall year-end receipts are $1,591,404, $8,502 more than projected. 

            With the 2004 year-end expense report there are changes in the HUD accounting system which affects various accounts. Employee benefits were previously charged under general expenses are now broken out between administrative salaries and maintenance salaries, as are employee benefits as well as December accruals.  The affect of this change on total general expenses is a reduction of $146,726 from the projected amount of $357,670; and an increase to the administrative expense line of $65,307 and increase to the ordinary maintenance line of $73,867.  Utilities expenses end the year at $240,715, $11,515 more than the projected amount of $229,200.

            The end-of-the-year statement is prepared in conformance with GAAP (General Accepted Account Principals).  Therefore it contains non-cash credits and debits.  These are paper accounting transactions and do not affect the actual income or expenditure experience of the agency. These credits and debits are compensated absences, depreciation expense and maintenance materials inventory.   With the inclusion of these non-cash transactions the end-of-the-year report shows a deficit of $314,755. However, when the report is reconciled to reflect the agency’s income and expenses under the 2004 operating budget, the end-of-the-year balance is an operating surplus of $89,961 which is more than the projected surplus of $83,152. The final report will be available by the February Board meeting. 

            B.         Section 8 2004 Year-end Financial Report.

            Ms. Huppee explained that the Section 8 program is structured differently than the public housing program.  The income source to the program is based on earned fees.  The largest source of income comes from earned administrative fees which equal $49.74 per unit for every unit under lease on the first day of the month. Other fees are hard-to-house fees, audit fees and HUD earned fees for a family self-sufficiency position.  The LDCHA Section 8 program actually consists of two separate allocations. One of 50 units and the other 541 units.  The smaller program is called the voucher program.  The larger program is called the MTW program because it represents the initial number of Section 8 units approved for participation in the agency’s MTW program.  Under the Section 8 MTW Program the operating receipts from all sources show fees earned in the amount of $360,111.  Expenses equal $381,494 including non-cash depreciation.  The reconciliation shows the agency has $32,903 in Section MTW administrative fee reserves.  For 2004 the agency paid $2,194,220 in housing assistance payments to landlords.  Under the Section 8 Voucher program, operating receipts show $89,156 in fees earned.  Expenses equal $71,526.  There is $126,613 in Section 8 Voucher administrative fee reserves.  For 2004 the agency paid $229,621 in housing assistance payments to landlords. 

            C.        Combined Cash & Investment Report as of 12/31/04.

            The Board was presented with a report of the agency’s total cash and investments as of 12/31/2004.  It showed a total of $3,426,086 under Section 8 programs; $1,408,082 under the Public Housing program and $144,423 under the HOME programs.  The combined total cash and investments for all programs is $4,968,591.

5.         CONSENT AGENDA

            A.        Resolution 885:  Approve Revisions to the Admissions and Continued Occupancy Policy (ACOP) to Reflect Current Practices and Clarify Procedures.

            B.         Receive Update Report on MTW Extension Request.

            C.        Resolution 886:  Approve Revisions to the Inter-program Transfer Policy to Reflect Current Practices.

            D.        Receive Update Report on OIG Audit.

            Mr. Dunn requested that items A, B, and C be removed from the Consent Agenda for discussion.  Commissioner Helfert moved to approve item D.  Commissioner Amison seconded the motion.  The motion carried.  Chairman Gonzales stated that the remaining items would be discussed after the Regular Agenda.    

6.         PUBLIC HEARING

             A.       Conduct Public Hearing on the Housing Authority’s Intention to Establish an Admissions Preference for Working Families on the General Housing Waiting List.

             Chairman Gonzales opened the Public Hearing at 9:20 a.m.  The Executive Director reviewed the agency’s reason for seeking this preference.  The LDCHA has five waiting lists for five separate housing programs. Three of the programs are restricted to the elderly and disables.  In addition 80 units of Section 8 assistance are restricted to the disabled. The overall result of this is that the agency is serving a disproportionately higher number of disabled individuals because of these special programs, and a disproportionately low number of families. This rend will continue because two fo the programs funded with HOME funds require the participants to be transferred to Section 8 funding within two years.  The overall effect is that almost 50 percent of the agency’s housing is occupied by the elderly and disables.  This situation has a budgetary impact on the Section 8 program in that elderly and disables participants tend to rent smaller units which cost less housing subsidy.  The agency cannot lease more than 591 units on the Section 8 program.  The less money the agency spends on subsidy the less money it will have the next year since future year’s budgets are based on previous year’s spending.  The effect is that by renting smaller units that cost less subsidy the Section 8 budget will shrink overtime. Since families tend to rent larger units which cost more rent; since the agency has three housing programs and 80 Section 8 vouchers targeted to the elderly and disabled; and since the elderly and disabled already occupy almost 50 percent of the program, the agency is proposing establishing a preference for working families. The over-all consensus of the participants speaking addressed the intention to establish a working families preference as being discriminatory to the disabled, elderly and homeless individuals as many are unable to work; and, since many of these individuals are low-income it would force them to wait longer for affordable subsidized housing.  They stressed that the more vulnerable should be served first to avoid homelessness and substandard housing. Many of the comments centered on group housing for the homeless and other comments unrelated to the establishment of a preference.  After lengthy discussion Chairman Gonzales closed the public hearing at 10:25 a.m. and reconvened into regular session.

7.         REGULAR AGENDA

            A.        Resolution 887:  Approve if Appropriate the Admissions Preference for Working Families on the General Housing Waiting List.

             Discussion continued on this agenda item resulting in Commissioner Amison moving to table the item until the March Board meeting in order for the Executive Director to present statistics and demographics of the agency’s waiting lists. Commissioner Helfert seconded the motion.  The item was tabled until the March meeting. 

            B.         Resolution 888:  Approve 2004 Public Housing Assessment Submission (PHAS).

            Ms. Huppee presented the agency’s Management Assessment (MASS), one of four components of the Public Housing Assessment (PHAS) program.  The MASS assesses housing authorities against six elements.  These include Unit Turnaround Time, Capital Fund Expenditure rates, Work Orders, and Security and Economic Self-Sufficiency. The maximum score for this component is 30. Based upon the 2004 performance data presented the LDCHA should get a perfect score of 30 on the management component.

            Commissioner Helfert moved to approve the submission of the 2004 MASS.  Commissioner Amison seconded the motion and the motion passed unanimously.

            C.        Resolution 889:  Approve 2004 Section 8 Management Assessment Submission (SEMAP).

            Housing authorities operating Section 8 programs must submit a certification form on fourteen performance indicators each year.  SEMAP was scored nation-wide for the first time in 2004.  The agency is exempted from scoring on four of the indications under the MTW agreement.  An additional three indicators are based on data submitted to HUD under a system that has not been able to receive data from MTW agencies because the data deviates from data produced under federal regulations.  Last year’s SEMAP score was 88 due to the MTW exemptions not being considered in the scoring.  The agency has requested that the erroneous score be erased. This year’s submission reports show that the agency should receive full points on all fourteen indicators, or a 100% SEMAP score.  The agency is in the process of contacting the HUD field office to determine how best to insure the MTW exemptions are applied in the scoring process.

            Commissioner Helfert moved to approve the 2004 SEMAP submission.  Commissioner Amison seconded the motion.  The motion carried.

            D.        Discuss Recommendations for Appointments to the Board of Commissioners.

            Ms. Huppee explained that the two Board vacancies are county appointees.  This is the second opportunity for the County to appoint since the merger in 2001.  It did appoint the Board’s recommendations the last time.  The County Administrator informed the Executive Director that the commission would be willing to appoint someone from the City limits. The following individuals have agreed to serve and have their names forwarded to the County for consideration. The individuals are:  Wes Smith, an attorney that works in Topeka and the only individual on the list that lives in the county; Jane Eldredge, an attorney in Lawrence; Kay Huff,  a Lawrence attorney; Sonya Johnson, a community corrections officer with the Shawnee County Probation and Court Services assigned to the 3^rd Judicial Count; and Missy Martin, Financial Director of the Lawrence Arts Center.  All individuals have expertise in areas contained in the agency’s mission, function and organization. 

            After Board discussion centering on appointees being reflective of the community, Chair Gonzales moved to send the names of West Smith and Sonya Johnson forward to the County Commissioners with Jane Eldredge as an alternate.  Commissioner Helfert seconded the motion.  The motion carried. 

            5A.      Resolution 885:  Approve Revision to the Admissions and Continued Occupancy Policy (ACOP) to Reflect Current Practices and Clarify Procedures.

            Ms. Huppee explained that the Admissions and Continued Occupancy Policy is one of two primary public housing policies that describes the policies and practices of the public housing program with respect to applications, eligibility, admissions, assignment of units, rent determination and continued occupancy. The policy is reviewed and amended when federal regulations are either implemented or no longer current, and when document language previously approved in the Annual Plan or other policy statements are approved. 

            Commissioner Amison moved to approve the amended Admissions and Continued Occupancy Policy.  Commissioner Helfert seconded the motion and the motion carried.

            5B.       Receive Update Report on MTW Extension Request.

            The MTW program is in its sixth year of operation with a contract termination date of March 31, 2005. In October 2004 the agency wrote to HUD request a five-year extension and no response has been received to date.  Another letter was written February 10 again emphasizing the importance of the MTW program and requesting an extension. Even though the contract terminates March 31 the MTW funding is through December 2005.

            5C.      Resolution 886:  Approve Revisions to Inter-program Transfer Policy to Reflect Current Practices.

            The agency has an inter-program transfer policy in place that establishes the right of LDCHA tenants to transfer between programs if they meet certain eligibility requirements. With MTW the policy was amended to permit transfers across programs such as project-based housing (public housing) and tenant based assistance (Section 8). The current policy needs to be further strengthened by defining project-based to include Babcock Place, Edgewood Homes, Scattered Site units and Supportive Housing units funded under Section 8; and tenant based to include Section 8 and HOME housing assistance. 

            Commissioner Amison moved to approve Resolution 886.  Commissioner Helfert seconded the motion.  The motion carried.

8.         Calendar and Announcements.

9.         Adjournment.

            There being no further items of business, Mr. Gonzales moved to adjourn.  Mr. Helfert seconded the motion.  The meeting was adjourned at 11:40 a.m.

_____________________________                                 _____________________________

Chair                                                                                   Secretary                                 Attest