MINUTES
Thursday, February 18, 2010
10:30 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: David Dolan-Wallace-Chair, Daniel
Slater, H. Genunzio, and Ald. Piton
MEMBERS
EXCUSED: W.
VandeCastle-Vice Chair.
MEMBERS
ABSENT: None
OTHERS PRESENT: Rob Strong, Robyn Hallet, Anne Monday, Matt Schampers,
Jacob Lopez, Molly Barron, Noel Halvorsen, Tom Dennee
D. Piton acted as the Chair until D. Dolan-Wallace
arrived at 10:42 a.m. The meeting was called to order at 10:38 a.m.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
1.
Approval of the minutes from the December 17, 2009 meeting of the
Housing Authority of the City of Green Bay.
A motion was made by H.
Genunzio and seconded by D. Slater to approve the minutes
from the December 17, 2009, meeting of the Housing Authority of the City of
Acting Chair Piton stated that the election of
officers would be held until D. Dolan-Wallace arrived.
COMMUNICATIONS:
3. Results
of On-Site ARRA Monitoring Review.
R.
Hallet reminded the Authority that ARRA is the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act money from HUD that we have chosen to use for the expansion at
Mason Manor. HUD chose the Green Bay
Housing Authority as one of eight Housing Authorities to receive an onsite
review, which was conducted a few weeks ago.
There were three issues noted but no significant findings. Two of the issues, obligation of ARRA funds
and expenditure of ARRA funds, were not able to be reviewed by HUD because at
that point we had not yet obligated 25% of the funds. The third issue, Physical Needs Assessment, has
not been conducted yet because HUD Headquarters is establishing a new protocol
and has advised PHA not to conduct the PNA until the new protocol is released.
A
motion was made by H. Genunzio and seconded by D. Slater to receive and place
on file the results of the onsite ARRA monitoring review. Motion carried.
4. Results
of REAC Inspection Appeal.
R. Hallet stated that a response was
received from HUD but it was very confusing because information from other
Housing Authorities was mixed into our letter.
She contacted Larry Wood at HUD-Milwaukee and explained the situation
and expressed our disappointment with the results of the appeal. Essentially, HUD has not approved any of the
numerous items we had appealed. One of
the items being appealed is the windows at scattered sites, which are under
contract to be replaced yet were noted as a deficiency. The inspector had stated that if we appealed
that finding that we would get the points back but we did not. HUD-Milwaukee has provided guidance that we
could write to various individuals at HUD Headquarters to express our
disappointment with this, but our sense is that it is probably not going to
result in anything productive. If the
Authority wishes her to go forward with this she would but there are other
priorities that she needs to attend to right now.
R. Strong stated that our time would
better be spent working on getting units back in shape so that the next time
there is an inspection we don’t go through this.
D. Slater questioned if the
inspector set our expectations for the appeals incorrectly or did we think we
were treated unfairly.
R. Hallet stated that she is not
necessarily sure that either of those is the case. In the case of the windows, what appears to
have happened is that because everything was submitted electronically, the
documentation that she submitted to show that we have windows under contract was
not a signed version of the contract, but because it was not signed, HUD did
not award us the points. It was not
communicated, nor was she aware, that an executed copy needed to be sent. It was more a lack of understanding on our
part and a lack of communication on HUD’s part on exactly what needed to be
submitted.
D. Slater asked if we have since
provided HUD with a copy of the executed contract.
R. Hallet stated that has not been
done because the response from HUD stated that this case is closed and there is
no further appeal that could be made.
She could send a copy of the executed contract if that is what the
Authority wishes but it gets to the point of how much time should we spend on
this issue when it may not be effective.
R. Strong stated that it frustrates
him that HUD did not make a phone call and ask that we send a signed copy of
the contract instead of just denying it.
He would rather that we focus our time and energy on improving the units
so that we are prepared for the next time there is an inspection.
A motion was made by H. Genunzio and
seconded by D. Slater to receive and place on file the results of REAC
inspection appeal. Motion carried.
OLD BUSINESS:
5. Update
and possible action on the status of the loan made to NeighborWorks®
N.
Halvorsen stated that this is a large building that in the past has been used
as an armory. NeighborWorks®
D.
Dolan-Wallace arrived at this time and N. Halvorsen briefly went over what he
had reported to the rest of the Authority.
His Board does not feel that there is any feasible development plan that
they can secure financing for in today’s market to move forward with this. There is a lot more real estate out there
that is closer to being occupant ready. Within
the next month or two he will have costs for the different options that he has
talked about tonight and will present them to his Board and the Authority. They will have to see what makes sense and
how they should proceed.
D.
Dolan-Wallace suggested that NeighborWorks®
A
motion was made by H. Genunzio and seconded by D. Slater to receive and place
on file the status of the loan made to
NeighborWorks®
Acting
Chair Piton turned the meeting back over to Chair D. Dolan-Wallace.
R.
Hallet suggested taking the issues that would involve reporting from M. Barron
next.
NEW BUSINESS:
9. Update
of review of tenant files by Barron Rentals, including final amount of
overpayments owed.
M.
Barron went over the chart she has provided to the Authority. She stated that Barron Rentals was asked to
go over the files of all of the current tenants, but excluding those who had
vacated, and check for any errors that had been made. The bottom line is that there is $74,926.00
in errors, however this is not necessarily what is due the Housing
Authority. The “Owe Tenant” column shows
amounts we owe tenants as refunds because they have overpaid in rent. The next column is “Reimbursement to WPS”,
which is what we need to pay to WPS because the tenant should have been
authorized that utility reimbursement.
R.
Hallet suggested that we could make an exception and pay this directly to the
tenants that already paid this money to WPS.
R.
Strong stated that we should put this back on the tenant and if they can
document that they had made the payment to WPS then we would give the money to
them. If they didn’t pay it or we don’t
hear from them, then it would be paid to WPS.
Ald.
Piton stated that when the letter does go out to the tenant that we do not need
to put in the exact amount of money.
M.
Barron stated that the column labeled “WPS Write Off” represents utility
reimbursements that were made on behalf of the tenant but should not have been.
At
this time, there was some confusion amongst the Authority regarding the
information being provided regarding WPS.
M.
Barron explained that the “Reimbursement to WPS” column is what should have been
paid as a utility reimbursement. The “WPS
Write Off” column is amounts paid for the utility reimbursements but for which
the tenant was actually not entitled.
The first one is underpayments and the second one is overpayments. Rent is based on income and if the tenant’s
income is so low that they don’t pay any rent, we pay a portion of their
utilities. The first WPS column is money
we should have sent to WPS on behalf of the tenants but we did not because the
calculations were wrong. We do not know
if the tenant did or did not pay WPS. The
second WPS column, “WPS Write Off”, is money we paid to WPS but that the tenant
should have paid instead. M. Barron stated
that the column labeled “Owe Tenant” is what the Housing Authority owes the
tenant. That amount is $11,042.00. The column labeled “Tenant Write Off” is
money that the tenant should have paid the Authority in rent but they did not
because they didn’t know that they owed it.
That total is $49,462.00. There
is also a column labeled “note” that has additional information that may explain
what transpired. Checks should be
written for the $11,042.00 and the $5,413.00 to be disbursed. The $11,042.00 was already collected from the
tenants but should not have been.
R.
Hallet asked how much money we should ask ICS to pay.
R.
Strong stated that it looks like the “WPS Write Off” and “Tenant Write Off”
column, totaling about $59,000.00 is what we need to speak to ICS about. ICS knows that we were planning on talking to
them after all the files were reviewed.
M.
Barron stated that she has spoken to HUD and they have told her how to make
these adjustments for record keeping purposes.
R.
Hallet asked M. Barron when she would be able to provide a bill for the work
she has performed in reviewing these files because she would like to include
that when she speak with ICS.
M.
Barron responded that she could submit her bill this afternoon. She has already
been paid for half of her work and she will include that also.
R.
Hallet stated that we should speak to ICS before we even notify the tenants. If
ICS wants to review the files they should conduct their review at the Barron
Rentals office.
M.
Barron stated that Rosemary from ICS has come over and taken a look at some of
the files.
D.
Dolan-Wallace stated that if ICS wants any copies, they need to pay for
them. He also suggested that maybe ICS
should run the copies themselves utilizing the machine in the Barron Rentals
office so that the files remain in that location.
M.
Barron stated that she will not sit with ICS while they review the files but if
they have any questions, she would be happy to answer them.
R.
Strong suggested that the Authority authorize staff to sit down with ICS and
review this information. If they are not
going to challenge or question the payments due the tenants, then we would be
authorized to send letters to the tenants and document whether the money is due
to the tenant or to WPS. If ICS chooses
to question the amounts then we would come back before the Authority next
month. We would also come back next
month and inform the Authority of any decisions or recommendations.
D.
Slater suggested that we should move forward with paying the money we owe
because we owe it no matter what.
D.
Dolan-Wallace asked if the Authority should be asking for interest also since someone
has been out this money.
M.
Barron asked what she should say to the tenant if they do ask if they are getting
interest with their money.
R.
Strong responded that she should tell them there would not be any interest
paid.
M.
Barron clarified that the same would hold true for WPS if they ask about late
fees.
D.
Dolan-Wallace stated that is correct.
WPS is only getting the dollar amount that was determined by Barron
Rentals.
A
motion was made by Ald. Piton and seconded by H. Genunzio to authorize Barron
Rentals to begin the refund process for the WPS reimbursement and for the
Authority to refund the overpayments in rent.
Staff is directed to collect the shortfall from ICS and report back to
the Authority at the next meeting.
Motion carried.
12. Discussion
and possible action on authorization to obtain bids for flooring and cabinets
at Scattered Sites.
R.
Hallet stated that she has met with T. Dennee from NeighborWorks®
A
motion was made by Ald. Piton and seconded by H. Genunzio to approve the
authorization to obtain bids for flooring and cabinets at Scattered Sites. Motion carried.
14. Review and adoption of Resolution No. 10-01, Adopting
Revised Flat Rents and Ceiling Rents for Mason Manor and Scattered Site Public
Housing.
R.
Hallet stated that included in the agenda packet is a chart which shows the 2010
HUD Fair Market Rents, Mason Manor’s rents, amenities, and square footage, and
comparables for two other apartment complexes.
Based on the comparables and that our units are smaller than the
comparables and the comparison of amenities, we recommend no change in the flat
and ceiling rents for Mason Manor.
D.
Dolan-Wallace asked how long the ceiling and flat rents have been at the
current amount.
R.
Hallet responded that this would be the fourth year.
A.
Monday stated that we have 15 tenants in a 0 bedroom, 5 tenants in the one
bedroom and 2 couples in the 2 bedroom who are all paying the flat rents. If the rents are raised, we do risk losing
good tenants, which would cost the Authority money.
R.
Hallet stated that historically for the scattered sites, the GBHA has matched
our ceiling rents and flat rents to HUD’s Fair Market Rent. Included in the agenda packet are the FY 2009
and FY 2010 Fair Market Rents that HUD utilizes. The recommendation is to match the Scattered
Sites flat and ceiling rents to HUD’s Fair Market Rents. R. Hallet stated that it is harder to do comparables
for scattered sites because the units are so different.
A motion was made by Ald. Piton and seconded by D. Slater
to adopt Resolution No. 10-01, Adopting
Revised Flat Rents and Ceiling Rents for Mason Manor and Scattered Site Public
Housing. Motion carried.
15. Review and adoption of Utility Allowances
for Scattered Sites.
R.
Hallet explained that every year the Brown County Housing Authority needs to
review the utility allowances for the Voucher Program and traditionally, the
GBHA has adopted the utility allowances from the BCHA. Included in the agenda packet are charts for two,
three, and four bedrooms that we have in the scattered sites.
After
some discussion, it was determined that in the future this item should be on
the December agenda so that the utility allowances would be effective for
January 1st. If this is
approved today, then the utility allowances would go into effect today.
D.
Dolan-Wallace questioned trash collection on the charts.
R.
Hallet stated that the trash collection along with some other items on the
charts would not apply to the GBHA.
These are the charts that were approved for the BCHA and only the items
that directly apply to the GBHA would be utilized.
A
motion was made by D. Slater and seconded by Ald. Piton to approve the adoption
of utility allowances for scattered sites.
Motion carried.
16.
Approval to replace recycling bins at Scattered Site units with new
65-gallon carts.
R. Hallet stated M. Barron
brought this suggestion up several months ago and Ald. Piton brought it up again
recently.
Ald. Piton stated that
there is more space in the bins, you can co-mingle, they keep the neighborhoods
cleaner, and the city is selling them at cost.
It would be nice to have the Authority embrace this concept. It is a nice efficiency for the City.
M. Barron stated that if
there is not approval for all the sites, she suggests that we at least do this
for University where the carts would make a vast improvement.
R. Hallet stated that T.
Dennee had suggested pouring a concrete slab for units where there is only a
storage shed.
Ald. Piton stated that the
only rule is that the recycling carts and garbage bins can’t be visible from
the street. This is usually only a
problem on a corner lot because all four sides are visible from the street.
R. Strong stated that the
request for approval of these carts makes sense because we should be
encouraging people to recycle.
R. Hallet stated that
according to the website all carts are delivered.
M. Barron stated that she
would prefer to pick them up.
R. Hallet stated that the
website states customer pick up is not available but she will call and check if
they would make an exception for the Housing Authority and because of the
volume of carts we would be purchasing.
The cost is $38.00 per cart so for fifty units the total cost would be
$1,900.00.
A motion was made by D.
Slater and seconded by H. Genunzio to approve the replacement of recycling bins
at scattered site units with new 65-gallon carts. Motion carried.
INFORMATIONAL:
22. Report
on damage to Scattered Site property at
R.
Hallet stated that on February 4th, the Water Utility notified M.
Barron that there was excessive water usage at this property. M. Barron went to the property and found approximately
12 inches of water in the basement and 3 inches on the first floor.
M.
Barron stated that the meter reader saw water coming out of the second
floor. They called Barron Rentals and we
had the water shut off at the road. This
was a case where we were going to evict the tenant but the tenant agreed to
move out without us having to go through the eviction process. Then tenant was not present when Barron
Rentals went through the unit on the 1st and she still had a lot of
stuff there. We decided to give the
tenant a couple of more days to remove her stuff and so we did not change the
locks right away. The toilet upstairs
was broken but we do not know if it was intentional or not. We have no idea how long the water was
running. Barron Rentals was there on
February 1st and there were no issues. Recoveron, the restoration company handling
this emergency, felt the water was running for two or three days.
R.
Hallet stated that the charge for the emergency services from Recoveron is
$10,700.00 and their estimate for rehab is $22,500.00.
Ald.
Piton asked what the value of the property is.
R.
Strong stated that we do not have this information.
R.
Hallet stated that the insurance adjustor was out to the property and it can’t
be determined if the toilet breaking was an intentional act or not. It was inconclusive. We would not be able to go after the tenant
for criminal vandalization.
Ald. Piton asked about the ordinance dealing
with damage caused by tenants. You don’t
need to prove intent to cite the tenant.
It doesn’t recover anything but when a future landlord searches the
court records that would show up.
M.
Barron stated that it would be worth looking into but the tenant could say no,
I never came back to the unit. She
further stated that the stuff that the tenant left did get ruined with the
water damage.
R.
Strong stated that there was no evidence that this was intentional.
R.
Hallet stated that our deductible is $10,000.00. Because this is an emergency
we do not have to go out for bid. She
did however email the insurance adjustors to see if there was a benefit in
going out for quotes and is awaiting a response.
STAFF REPORT:
23.
Monthly report from Barron Rentals
of deficiencies found in previous month’s Scattered Site quarterly inspections.
M.
Barron stated that the Authority should be in receipt of the quarterly home
visit report. They have tried to get the
same units on the same schedule. By
doing that, on any given month you know which units are being inspected. She explained that for 1339 University the
unit is deteriorated and so repairs will need to be done. The tenant is being
evicted so the repairs will be done when unit is vacant. 1404 University has roaches and because this
is a single family, the residents have been asked to call an exterminator,
which the Inspection Division does allow.
Ald.
Piton asked how many units are vacant.
M.
Barron replied there are 4 vacant units.
After
this item, D. Dolan-Wallace returned the agenda to the regular order.
ELECTION OF OFFICERS:
2.
Election of officers.
R. Strong stated that we
need a nomination for the Chair.
Ald. Piton nominated D.
Dolan-Wallace for Chair. He stated that
there does not need to be a second to the nomination.
R. Strong asked 3 times if
there were any other nominations. There
were not.
D. Dolan-Wallace accepted
the nomination for Chair.
R. Strong called for a vote
of the nomination of D. Dolan-Wallace.
All members voted in favor
of D. Dolan-Wallace as the Chair.
D. Dolan-Wallace called for
a nomination for Vice-Chair.
Ald. Piton nominated D.
Slater for Vice-Chair.
D. Dolan-Wallace asked 3
times if there were any other nominations. There were not.
D. Slater accepted the
nomination for Vice-Chair.
D. Dolan-Wallace called for
a motion.
A motion was made by H.
Genunzio and seconded by Ald. Piton to approve the nomination of D. Slater for
Vice-Chair. Motion carried.
R. Strong stated that the
Planning Director is the Secretary according to the bylaws.
R. Strong stated that we
should call W. VandeCastle and inquire if he wants to continue to serve.
Ald. Piton stated that while
we are discussing bylaws, he would like to see a provision added where if you
have three unexcused absences in a row that it would qualify as a voluntary
resignation.
D. Dolan-Wallace stated
that he would also like to consider formalizing the make up. He thinks the opinion of an attorney would be
desirable.
H. Genunzio congratulated
A. Monday on her award.
R. Strong stated that both
A. Monday and R. Hallet passed the Certified Public Housing Managers
course. He congratulated them both.
OLD BUSINESS:
6. Update
on Mason Manor Expansion project.
R.
Hallet stated that the architectural plans have been approved by the State and
contracts have been signed with Howard Immel.
We will put together a tentative schedule of when the work will take
place but Howard Immel would like to start as early as mid-March. We had a resident meeting with the architect
and responses were put together for the questions the tenants had.
A.
Monday stated that the responses have been distributed to the tenants.
NEW BUSINESS:
7. Discussion
and possible action regarding term limits for commissioners.
D.
Dolan-Wallace asked for a motion to postpone this.
A
motion was made by Ald. Piton and seconded by D. Slater to hold this item until
the next meeting. Motion carried.
8. Approval
of amendment to GBHA By-Laws to clarify time and date of annual and monthly
meetings and Order of Business.
R.
Hallet stated that the changes to the By-Laws are in red. The time of the meeting was corrected and the
Order of Business was changed to follow what we normally do according to the
agenda.
A
motion was made by Ald. Piton and seconded by H. Genunzio to adopt the
amendment to GBHA By-Laws to clarify time and date of annual and monthly
meetings and Order of Business. Motion
carried.
10. Discussion
and possible action on use of money in “excess Operating Funds/old Capital
Funds” account for Mason Manor Expansion Project instead of movement of funds
within Capital Funds, as discussed in December meeting.
R.
Hallet stated this item can be held.
A
motion was made by Ald. Piton and seconded by H. Genunzio to hold this item
until the next meeting. Motion carried.
11. Discussion
and possible action on goals for Five Year/Annual PHA Agency Plan.
R.
Hallet stated that at this point in the preparation she reviewed the goals of
previous years and has put together goals for the upcoming five years. She is bringing this item before the
Authority to see if there are any comments or changes that the Authority has to
these goals. This is time sensitive.
There will be a resident meeting held on March 16th for the comment
period. If the Authority has any changes,
they need to be implemented into the plan before the next meeting where she
will ask the Authority to approve this.
R.
Strong stated that this represents our mission and our goals of where we see
the Authority going over the next five years.
Ald.
Piton asked what is different with this plan than the one from last year.
R.
Hallet responded that last year was just an annual update to the previous Five
Year Plan and this year we are required to do a new Five Year Plan. She does not have last year’s goals with her
and she does not recall exactly what they were.
The first two objectives are new.
The maintenance plan could be removed because she just found out we do
have a maintenance plan. She reworded
some of the goals to make them more quantifiable. Some goals remained the same.
Ald.
Piton stated that our goal should be to achieve high performer status every
year.
R.
Hallet stated that while that is true, we need to be realistic and from where
we are now with scattered sites, we are going to strive to make the
improvements necessary to achieve high performer status for three out of the
five years.
D.
Dolan-Wallace stated that we should look at maintenance schedules for the
scattered sites. There seems to be a
substantial amount of renovation occurring at one time again. We need to be able to space these things out
and ensure we have the money available.
Preventative maintenance is always less money. At the beginning of the year there should be
someone sitting down and looking at warranty periods and see when warranties
are coming due. Barron Rentals should be
helping out with this also. This should
be a goal.
R.
Hallet explained that the intern, J. Lopez, was piecing together warranty
information, age of appliances, etc.
R.
Strong stated that could be added as a goal for the Authority properties.
A
motion was made by Ald. Piton and seconded by D. Slater to approve the action
on goals for Five Year/Annual PHA Agency Plan.
Motion carried.
13. Review
and approval of 2010 Operating Subsidy.
M.
Schampers stated that this is not something that needs to be acted on. It has come to staff’s attention that no
motion is required. What happens is that
we submit our results for the past year and then HUD uses those results to
determine our Operating Subsidy.
A
motion was made by Ald. Piton and seconded by D. Slater to receive and place on
file the 2010 Operating Subsidy. Motion
carried.
INFORMATIONAL:
17.
Distribution of annual schedule of GBHA events
and summarized list of GBHA actions.
R.
Hallet stated that in the packets are both a schedule
of annual events as well as a summarized list of actions. The list of events was put in place before
she came on board. J. Lopez put together
the list of action items after reviewing the minutes for the past four years.
18. Installation
of stovetop safety elements for four more units at Mason Manor.
A.
Monday stated that the Green Bay Fire Department contacted her that they had
some extra grant money that they are giving to Mason Manor, which will supply
four more units with stovetop safety elements.
R.
Strong stated that he would be sending the Fire Department a thank you note.
19. Update
on an injury claim at Mason Manor.
R.
Hallet stated that this did go to court and the court dismissed the injury
claim.
20. Commissioners’
Corner articles from NAHRO.
R.
Hallet stated that these are publications from NAHRO. She contacted NAHRO to get permission to copy
them for the Authority. They are very
interesting and suggests the commissioners read them.
21.
Update regarding Freedom House Ministries
request for financial assistance.
R.
Hallet stated that the GBHA had decided to follow in the footsteps of what the
BCHA decided to do. The BCHA agreed that
at this time Freedom House does not need the financial assistance because of
successful fundraisers but are leaving the door open for them to come back at a
future time if necessary to request financial assistance.
FINANCIAL REPORT AND BILLS:
R. Hallet distributed the bills but
there is no financial report.
A motion was made by Ald. Piton and
seconded by D. Slater to authorize the payment of the bills. Motion carried.
R.
Hallet passed out the audited financials to the Commissioners.
R. Hallet explained to the Commissioners
that instead of sending the packets through the mail, we are looking at emailing
the agenda and attachments as a .pdf. Hard
copies would be provided at the meeting for each Commissioner.
The Authority has agreed to have the
agenda packets emailed as a .pdf with the exception of H. Genunzio, who does
not have email, so her packet would still be mailed out in advance of the
meeting.
A motion was made by Ald. Piton and
seconded by H. Genunzio to adjourn the meeting at 12:46 p.m. Motion carried.
:dr