***Amended*** Agenda Board of Commissioners Special Meeting ---Thursday, March 19, 2020 @ 3:00 P.M. at 2575 Grand Canal
On March 12, 2020 Gov. Newson partially suspended The Brown Act due to COVID-19. The locations noted below are sites that Commissioners may teleconference from for the special meeting set for 3:00 p.m. on Thursday, March 19, 2020.
Locations for teleconference:
1. 2083 Gerber Drive, Stockton, CA 95209; 2. 2402 S. Volney Street, Stockton, CA 95206; th 3. 323 W. 7 Street, Stockton, CA 95206; 4. 2419 Woodlake Court, Lodi, CA 95242.
***AMENDED*** AGENDA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL MEETING ------THURSDAY, MARCH 19, 2020 @ 3:00 P.M. AT 2575 GRAND CANAL BOULEVARD, SUITE 222, STOCKTON, CA 95207
Call to Order ------Roll Call ------Pledge of Allegiance
Approval of the Minutes of the Regular Meeting held February 20, 2020.
Recess
Convene Meeting of Delta Community Developers Corp.
Approval of the Minutes of the Regular Meeting held February 20, 2020.
Adjourn
Reconvene Housing Authority of the County of San Joaquin Board of Commissioners’ Meeting
Executive Director’s Report: 1. Summary of PBV Projects and current policy
2. Development Update: Creekside Apartments ৷ Victory Gardens | No Place Like Home | Turnpike Properties
Reports: Significant Purchases and Contracts Report; Capital Fund Projects; Draft Financials; Unlawful Detainer Report; Stockton Police Department Activity Report for Conway Homes, Sierra Vista, and HCVP Liaison; and Vacancy Report.
Public Comments: Resident representatives from Housing Authority owned properties and Members of the General Public.
Information Items: 1. HUD March 3, 2020 re Section 8 Management Assessment Program Score.
2. Housing Authority of the County of San Joaquin - Operational Changes re Implementing Strategies to Prevent the spread of COVID-19.
3. Vacant Building and Adaptive Reuse.
Consent Items: None
Action Items: 1. Consider Approving Results of Invitation for Bid (‘‘IFB’’) No. 1920-017 for ‘‘448 S. Center Street Civil Site Improvements’’.
2. Results of Request for Proposals (‘‘RFP’’) No. 1920-014 for ‘‘Temporary Staffing Services’’.
3. Submittal of Inventory Removal Application for Disposition of a Portion of Sierra Vista Homes for the development of a charter school.
4. Charter School License Agreement: Sierra Vista/Aspire Public Charter Schools.
Written Communications: None
Commissioners’ Questions & Comments/Agenda Building:
Closed Session: Conference with Real Property Negotiators. Government Code §54956.8. Property: Status of Sierra Vista Phase II, APN No. 169-270-08. Agency Negotiator: Peter W. Ragsdale. Negotiating Parties: Housing Authority of the County of San Joaquin and Real Estate Development Services (REDS) and Ashwood Construction. Under Negotiation: Financing, Construction and Partnership Related Agreements concerning Sierra Vista Rehabilitation ---- Phase II. Conference with Real Property Negotiators. Government Code §54956.8. Property: APN No. 169- 050-15 ---- Victory Gardens/Manthey Road, French Camp, CA. Agency Negotiator: Peter W. Ragsdale. Under Negotiation: Land Use. Conference with Real Property Negotiators. Government Code §54956.8. Property: Lease and/or
purchase of Mariani Property APN Nos. 149-062-10 & 15. Agency Negotiator: Alan R. Coon. Negotiating Parties: Housing Authority of the County of San Joaquin and Dan Dixon. Conference with Real Property Negotiators. Government Code §54956.8. Property: Purchase and Financing of Creekside South Apartments, APN No. 060-100-03, Lodi, CA. Agency Negotiator: Alan R. Coon. Negotiating Parties: Housing Authority of the County of San Joaquin and Jared Taubert. Conference with Real Property Negotiators. Government Code §54956.8. Property: Development of 3009 Pock Lane, Stockton, CA, APN Nos. 179-120-11 & 12. Agency Negotiator: Alan R. Coon. Negotiating Parties: Housing Authority of the County of San Joaquin and TBD. Conference with Legal Counsel --- Existing Litigation. Government Code §54956.9(a) Combs, et al. v. Gupta, et al.; San Joaquin County Superior Court Case No. STK-CV-UPI-2019-5843. Conference with Legal Counsel --- Existing Litigation. Government Code §54956.9(a). Claimant: Lynn Fochs v. City of Stockton; Housing Authority of the County of San Joaquin; San Joaquin County Superior Court Case No. STK-CV-UPI-2020-0001096.
Adjournment
Note: Persons needing disability-related modification or accommodation in order to participate in this meeting, should contact the Secretary of the Board at (209) 460-5065 at least 48 hours prior to the start of the meeting. [Government Code §54954.2(a)]
The Agenda Package material may be reviewed at the Administrative Office of the Housing Authority of the County of San Joaquin, 2575 Grand Canal Blvd., Stockton, CA, 95207, during normal business hours. Please contact the office in writing to obtain a copy of the Agenda Package. Persons requesting a copy may be charged a small fee for copying the Agenda Package.
The time limit within which to commence any lawsuit or legal challenge to any quasi-adjudicative decision made by the Housing Authority is governed by §1094.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, unless a shorter limitations period is specified by any other provision. Under §1094.6, any lawsuit or legal challenge to any quasi-adjudicative decision made by the Housing Authority must be filed no later than the 90th day following the date on which such decision becomes final. Any lawsuit or legal challenge, which is not filed within that 90-day period, will be barred. Persons wishing to challenge the nature of the above section in court, may be limited to raising only those issues that were raised at the meeting described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Housing Authority of the County of San Joaquin at or prior to the meeting. In addition, judicial challenge may be limited or barred where the interested party has not sought and exhausted all available administrative remedies.
SIGNIFICANT PURCHASES AND CONTRACTS REPORT IN THE AMOUNT OF $10,000 - $250,000 February 1, 2020 through February 29, 2020 ONE TIME PURCHASES Housing Authority of the County of San Joaquin P.O. / PROCUREMENT SUPPLIER DATE AMOUNT DESCRIPTION LOCATION FUNDING CONTRACT METHOD SOURCE Services include providing hardware and software support including Software Assurances (keep licenses up to date, etc.) Contract not to exceed 5 years. Payment Schedule: Maverick Operating 33876 QSP 2/25/2020 65,200 Agency wide Networks Budget 2020-2021 $10,700 2021-2022 $11,800 2022-2023 $13,000 2023-2024 $14,200 2024-2025 $15,500 Storm water Maintenance and Monitoring for Crossway Development 33879 QSP Condor Earth 2/26/2020 26,685 Crossway Residences site. Total estimated cost Residences I and II Costs for 5 months is $26,685.
Total $91,885 The above expenditures have been approved and procured in accordance with the Housing Authority and HUD procurement guidelines. The funds set aside for these expenditures have been pre-approved in the Agency’s approved budget, by the Board of Commissioners and HUD, where applicable.
Delta Community Developers Corp. Harney Lane, Mattresses, box springs, and adjustable frames CARE Discount 33868 QSP 209 Furniture 2/19/2020 16,832 Artesi II, and Artesi for three (3) Migrant Centers Reserve III
Total $16,832 February 1, 2020 through February 29, 2020 NEW NOT TO EXCEED CONTRACTS P.O. / PROCUREMENT SUPPLIER DATE NTE DESCRIPTION LOCATION FUNDING CONTRACT METHOD AMOUNT SOURCE No New Not to Exceed Contracts
Total $0
The above expenditures have been approved and procured in accordance with the Housing Authority and HUD procurement guidelines. The funds set aside for these expenditures have been pre-approved in the Agency’s approved budget, by the Board of Commissioners and HUD, where applicable.
Delta Community Developers Corp No New Not to Exceed Contracts $0 Capital Fund Projects Procurement Grant Grant Remaining % Obligate Obligated % Expend Expended % Project Location Grant Amt. Project Cost Expended Type Yr Running Bal. Project Balance Completed By On Obligated By On Expended 2018 Capital Fund Projects $3,011,391 $3,011,391.00 Operations All 2018 $2,873,891.00 $137,500.00 $137,500.00 $0.00 100% 5/28/2020 11/15/19 4.6% 5/28/2022 11/15/19 4.6% Administration All 2018 $2,572,752.00 $301,139.00 $301,139.00 $0.00 100% 5/28/2020 12/31/18 10.0% 5/28/2022 10/9/19 10.0% Sierra Vista Phase II Dev. Activities SV RFP 2018 $1,572,752.00 $1,000,000.00 $1,000,000.00 $0.00 100% 5/28/2020 3/31/19 33.2% 5/28/2022 10/15/19 33.2% SV Waterline Replacement Phase II SV IFB 2018 $1,234,437.05 $338,314.95 $324,822.35 $13,492.60 96% 5/28/2020 10/31/19 11.2% 5/28/2022 12/15/19 10.8% SV Phase II Hydrant Replacement SV QSP 2018 $1,196,037.96 $38,399.09 $23,039.51 $15,359.58 60% 5/28/2020 12/31/19 1.3% 5/28/2022 12/15/19 0.8% Misc. Projects All QSP 2018 $1,038,825.11 $157,212.85 $142,037.85 $15,175.00 90% 5/28/2020 11/30/19 5.2% 5/28/2022 1/31/20 4.7%
Remaining Total $1,038,825.11 $1,972,565.89 $1,928,538.71 $44,027.18 65.5% 64.0% Grant Balance 2019 Capital Fund Projects $3,364,544 $3,364,544.00 Operations All 2019 $3,084,544.00 $280,000.00 $0.00 $280,000.00 0% 4/15/2021 8.3% 4/15/2023 0.0% Administration All 2019 $2,748,090.00 $336,454.00 $0.00 $336,454.00 0% 4/15/2021 1/31/20 10.0% 4/15/2023 0.0%
Remaining Total $2,748,090.00 $616,454.00 $0.00 $616,454.00 18.3% 0.0% Grant Balance
Page 1 of 1 3/5/2020
Central Office Cost Center (COCC)/Administration Budget Comparison October 1, 2019 to January 31, 2020
YTD Actual YTD 19-20 YTD 19-20 YTD 24428 PUM Notes FY 18-19 Actual Budget Variance INCOME: Management Fee Revenue 826,169 832,701 840,632 (7,931) 34.09 Legal Fee for Service 12,240 4,665 7,915 (3,250) 0.19 Interest Income 14 15 0 15 0.00 Other Income 69 48 167 (119) 0.00 Earned developers fees budgeted to cover Developer Fees from DCDC 66,400 176,720 83,333 93,387 7.23 development costs TOTAL INCOME 904,892 1,014,149 932,047 82,102 41.52
EXPENSES ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES: Salaries-Admin 472,726 523,309 554,491 (31,182) 21.42 Benefits 215,041 238,065 218,061 20,004 9.75 Proportion of auditing costs to be distributed to all properties/programs, Other Expenses 163,861 193,148 137,175 55,973 7.91 analysis of voluntary conversation of public housing to vouchers, public relations work TOTAL ADMINISTRATIVE EXP. 851,628 954,522 909,727 44,795 39.07
TOTAL UTILITY EXPENSES 4,373 0 0 0 0.00
MAINTENANCE-WAGES/BENEFITS: Construction crew salaries expensed directly Maintenance Labor 34,173 51,232 173,768 (122,536) 2.10 to projects rather than through fee for service model Construction crew salaries expensed directly Benefits-Maintenance 11,625 18,054 86,540 (68,486) 0.74 to projects rather than through fee for service model Construction crew salaries expensed directly Maintenance Fee for Service (36,433) (49,863) (260,333) 210,470 (2.04) to projects rather than through fee for service model Maintenance - Materials 2,928 395 833 (438) 0.02 Maintenance - Contract Work 9,891 4,214 1,667 2,547 0.17 Fleet vehicle maintenance and fuel
Page 1 of 2 Central Office Cost Center (COCC)/Administration Budget Comparison October 1, 2019 to January 31, 2020
YTD Actual YTD 19-20 YTD 19-20 YTD 24428 PUM Notes FY 18-19 Actual Budget Variance TOTAL MAINTENANCE EXPENSES 22,184 24,032 2,475 21,557 0.98
GENERAL EXPENSE: Protective Service 821 264 0 264 0.01 Insurance 2,187 2,211 2,433 (222) 0.09 Workers Comp Ins/First Aid 10,716 11,639 9,190 2,449 0.48 Taxes & Assessments 648 0 0 0 0.00 TOTAL GENERAL EXPENSE 14,372 14,114 11,623 2,491 0.58
COMMISSIONER EXPENSES: Commissioner Per Diem 1,550 1,250 1,333 (83) 0.05 Commissioner Travel Expense 10,467 10,043 5,333 4,710 0.41 Commissioner-Other Expenses 2,334 2,037 1,500 537 0.08 TOTAL COMMISSIONER EXPENSE 14,351 13,330 8,166 5,164 0.55
TOTAL EXPENSES 906,908 1,005,998 931,991 74,007 41.18
NET INCOME (2,016) 8,151 56 8,095 0.33
Page 2 of 2 Admin/Central Office Cost Center Budget Comparison January 2020
YTD Budget YTD Actual Incr / (Decr) Revenues Revenues $ 932,047 $ 1,014,149 $ 82,102 YTD 01/31/20 - Budget$ 932,047 Major Variances Revenues $1,500,000 $1,014,149 $1,000,000 $932,047 Sum of all other items 82,102 $82,102 $500,000 YTD 01/31/20 - Actual$ 1,014,149 $‐ YTD Budget YTD Actual Incr / (Decr)
YTD Budget YTD Actual Incr / (Decr) Expenses Expenses $ 931,991 $ 1,005,998 $ 74,007 YTD 01/31/20 - Budget$ 931,991 Major Variances
Expenses Proportion of auditing costs to be distributed to all $1,500,000 properties/programs, analysis of voluntary conversation of 55,973 $931,991 $1,005,998 public housing to vouchers, public relations work $1,000,000 Sum of all other items 18,034 $500,000 $74,007 YTD 01/31/20 - Actual$ 1,005,998 $‐ YTD Budget YTD Actual Incr / (Decr)
Net Income/(Los YTD Budget YTD Actual Incr / (Decr) Net Income/(Loss) $ 56 $ 8,151 $ 8,095 YTD 01/31/20 - Budget$ 56 Net Income with on target revenues & lower expenses 8,095 Net Income/(Loss) $10,000 $8,151 $8,095
$5,000 $56 YTD 01/31/20 - Actual$ 8,151 $‐ YTD Budget YTD Actual Incr / (Decr) Housing Choice Voucher Program Budget Comparison October 1, 2019 to January 31, 2020
YTD YTD 19-20 YTD 19-20 YTD 20320 PUM Notes FY 18-19 Actual Budget Variance INCOME: Admin Fee-A C Earned-Vouchers 1,203,268 1,166,970 1,190,569 (23,599) 57.43 Admin Fee Revenue based on voucher utlization Fraud Recovery-Admin Fees 15,140 14,233 15,000 (767) 0.70 Interest Income 22 0 15 (15) 0.00 TOTAL INCOME 1,218,430 1,181,203 1,205,584 (24,381) 58.13
EXPENSES ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES: Salaries-Admin 377,974 462,294 470,198 (7,904) 22.75 Benefits 179,081 206,825 229,366 (22,541) 10.18 All Other Expenses 469,366 462,384 476,308 (13,924) 22.76 TOTAL ADMINISTRATIVE EXP. 1,026,421 1,131,503 1,175,872 (44,369) 55.68
TOTAL TENANT SERVICES: 0 0 8 (8) 0.00
TOTAL UTILITY EXPENSES 7,158 0 0 0 0.00
MAINTENANCE-WAGES/BENEFITS: Maintenance Fee for Service 0 1,546 83 1,463 0.08 Maintenance - Materials 1,134 3,050 167 2,883 0.15 Mail drop box Maintenance - Contract Work 5,736 858 1,667 (809) 0.04 TOTAL MAINTENANCE EXPENSES 6,870 5,454 1,917 3,537 0.27
GENERAL EXPENSE: Protective Service 143 0 250 (250) 0.00 Insurance 10,226 3,927 10,453 (6,526) 0.19 Workers Comp Ins/First Aid 6,550 7,114 9,869 (2,755) 0.35 Taxes & Assessments 1,060 0 0 0 0.00 Expenses for vouchers used through portability to Admin Fees-Portable Voucher 6,401 11,493 7,000 4,493 0.57 other counties TOTAL GENERAL EXPENSE 24,380 22,534 27,572 (5,038) 1.11
Page 1 of 2 Housing Choice Voucher Program Budget Comparison October 1, 2019 to January 31, 2020
YTD YTD 19-20 YTD 19-20 YTD 20320 PUM Notes FY 18-19 Actual Budget Variance
TOTAL EXPENSES 1,064,829 1,159,491 1,205,369 (45,878) 57.06
NET INCOME 153,601 21,712 215 21,497 1.07
Page 2 of 2 Housing Choice Voucher Program Budget Comparison Administrative Fees January 2020
YTD Budget YTD Actual Incr/ (Decr) Revenues Revenues $1,205,584 $1,181,203$ (24,381) YTD 01/31/20 - Budget$ 1,205,584 Major Variances Revenues Administrative fee revenue ($23,599) $1,400,000 $1,205,584 $1,181,203
$900,000 Sum of all other items (782)
$400,000 YTD 01/31/20 - Actual$ 1,181,203 $(24,381) ($100,000) YTD Budget YTD Actual Incr/ (Decr)
YTD Budget YTD Actual Incr/ (Decr) Expenses Expenses $1,205,369 $1,159,491$ (45,878) YTD 01/31/20 - Budget$ 1,205,369 Major Variances Expenses Employee benefits lower than forecasted$ (22,541) $950,000 $800,000 $650,000 Sum of all other items$ (23,337) $500,000 $350,000 $200,000 YTD 01/31/20 - Actual$ 1,159,491 $50,000 $(45,878) ($100,000) YTD Budget YTD Actual Incr/ (Decr)
Net Income/(Loss) YTD Budget YTD Actual Incr/ (Decr) Net Income/(Loss) $215 $21,712$ 21,497 YTD 01/31/20 - Budget$ 215 Net Income 21,497 Net Income / (loss) $500 $400 $215 $300 YTD 01/31/20 - Actual$ 21,712 $200 $100 $0 YTD Budget YTD Actual Incr/ (Decr) Public Housing Budget Comparison October 1, 2019 to January 31, 2020
YTD Actual YTD 19-20 YTD 19-20 YTD 3820 PUM Notes FY 18-19 Actual Budget Variance INCOME Subsidy proration higher than forecasted during budget Operating Subsidy 1,550,206 1,733,524 1,383,601 349,923 362.20 development Dwelling Rent Income 1,020,247 1,063,090 992,768 70,322 259.89 Dwelling rents based on tenant's income Tenant Charges Income 34,566 48,359 37,706 10,653 9.87 Commercial Rental Income 0 9,000 6,000 3,000 1.57 Interest Income 33,361 29,140 14,100 15,040 3.69 Other Income 5,282 3,857 733 3,124 0.19 TOTAL INCOME 2,643,662 2,886,970 2,434,908 452,062 637.41
EXPENSES ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES: Salaries-Admin 275,480 220,272 258,985 (38,713) 67.80 Benefits 120,663 100,037 113,715 (13,678) 29.77 Other Expenses 421,056 424,737 448,188 (23,451) 117.33 TOTAL ADMINISTRATIVE EXP. 817,199 745,046 820,888 (75,842) 214.89
TOTAL TENANT SERVICES: 18,791 11,687 14,695 (3,008) 3.85 TOTAL UTILITY EXPENSES 304,881 331,163 335,675 (4,512) 87.87
MAINTENANCE-WAGES/BENEFITS: Additional temp staffing to assist with maintenance needs Maintenance Labor 343,338 380,046 309,914 70,132 81.13 and construction crew working on unit turnovers rather than contracting out work Benefits-Maintenance 123,269 156,327 144,028 12,299 37.70 Maintenance - Materials 166,242 153,393 156,617 (3,224) 41.00 Maintenance - Contract Work 363,199 348,078 385,694 (37,616) 100.97 TOTAL MAINTENANCE EXPENSES 996,048 1,037,844 996,253 41,591 260.80 0.00 GENERAL EXPENSE: Protective Service 2,080 2,706 54,387 (51,681) 14.24 Pending payments of police contract invoices Insurance 107,394 119,043 89,252 29,791 23.36 Increase in insurance premium Workers Comp Ins/First Aid 38,713 42,041 41,514 527 10.87 Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) 72,229 52,948 70,143 (17,195) 18.36 Taxes & Assessments 18,504 7,953 11,666 (3,713) 3.05 TOTAL GENERAL EXPENSE 238,920 224,691 266,962 (42,271) 69.89
TOTAL EXPENSES 2,375,839 2,350,431 2,434,473 (84,042) 637.30
Page 1 of 2 Public Housing Budget Comparison October 1, 2019 to January 31, 2020
YTD Actual YTD 19-20 YTD 19-20 YTD 3820 PUM Notes FY 18-19 Actual Budget Variance NET INCOME 267,823 536,539 435 536,104 0.11
Page 2 of 2 Public Housing Budget Comparison January 2020
YTD Budget YTD Actual Incr / (Decr) Revenues Revenues $ 2,434,908 $ 2,886,970 $ 452,062 YTD 01/31/20 - Budget$ 2,434,908 Major Variances Dwelling rent income 70,322 Revenues Operating subsidy 349,923 $452,062 $700,000 Repair Income and Tenant Charges 10,653 $450,000 Sum of all other items 21,164 $200,000 YTD 01/31/20 - Actual$ 2,886,970 $(50,000) YTD Budget YTD Actual Incr / (Decr)
YTD Budget YTD Actual Incr / (Decr) Expenses Expenses $ 2,434,473 $ 2,350,431 $ (84,042) YTD 01/31/20 - Budget$ 2,434,473 Major Variances Maintenance Labor and Benefits 82,431 $5,000,000 Expenses Quarterly Police Contract (51,681) $2,434,473 $2,350,431 $‐ Sum of all other items (114,792) YTD Budget YTD Actual Incr / (Decr) $ 2,350,431 $(84,042) $(5,000,000) YTD 01/31/20 - Actual
Net Income/(Loss) YTD Budget YTD Actual Incr / (Decr) Net Income/(Loss) $ 435 $ 536,539 $ 536,104 YTD 01/31/20 - Budget$ 435 Net Income with higher revenue and lower expenses 536,104 Net Income/(Loss) $600,000 $536,539 $536,104 $400,000 YTD 01/31/20 - Actual$ 536,539 $200,000 $435 $‐ YTD Budget YTD Actual Incr / (Decr) DCDC - Non-Subsidized Properties Budget Comparison October 1, 2019 to January 31, 2020
YTD YTD 19-20 YTD 19-20 YTD 68 PUM Notes FY 18-19 Actual Budget Variance INCOME
Dwelling Rent Income 62,308 71,372 67,990 3,382 1,049.59
Tenant Charges 1,130 1,355 692 663 19.93 Tracy 8th Street commercial property rent Commercial Rental Income 14,407 9,504 5,200 4,304 139.76 increase with new tenants Interest Income 7,681 5,331 5,333 (2) 78.40 Other Income 2,103 183 67 116 2.69 Laundry Income 0 5 0 5 0.07 TOTAL INCOME 87,629 87,750 79,282 8,468 1,290.44
EXPENSES ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES: Salaries-Admin 872 889 2,408 (1,519) 13.07 Benefits 263 270 1,159 (889) 3.97 All Other Expenses 15,789 4,533 6,269 (1,736) 66.66 TOTAL ADMINISTRATIVE EXP. 16,924 5,692 9,836 (4,144) 83.71
TOTAL UTILITY EXPENSES 3,674 4,228 5,600 (1,372) 62.18
MAINTENANCE-WAGES/BENEFITS: Maintenance Fee for Service 1,363 0 950 (950) 0.00 Maintenance- Materials 986 1,417 2,367 (950) 20.84 Maintenance - Contract Work 9,501 4,427 14,167 (9,740) 65.10 TOTAL MAINTENANCE EXPENSES 11,850 5,844 17,484 (11,640) 85.94
GENERAL EXPENSE: Protective Service (59) 413 0 413 6.07 Insurance 1,928 1,440 2,717 (1,277) 21.18 Workers Comp Ins/First Aid 20 21 61 (40) 0.31
Page 1 of 2 DCDC - Non-Subsidized Properties Budget Comparison October 1, 2019 to January 31, 2020
YTD YTD 19-20 YTD 19-20 YTD 68 PUM Notes FY 18-19 Actual Budget Variance Taxes & Assessments 27,542 29,673 11,622 18,051 436.37 Annual Assessments for Little John's Creek lots
Carrying costs for 448 S. Center Street, 421 S. Principle & Interest Expense 19,131 19,992 12,583 7,409 294.00 El Dorado during construction TOTAL GENERAL EXPENSE 48,562 51,539 26,983 24,556 757.93
TOTAL EXPENSES 81,010 67,303 59,903 7,400 989.75
NET INCOME 6,619 20,447 19,379 1,068 300.69
Page 2 of 2 Nonsubsidized Properties/Operational Reserves Budget Comparison January 2020
YTD Budget YTD Actual Incr / (Decr) Revenues Revenues $ 79,282 $ 87,750 $ 8,468 YTD 01/31/20 - Budget$ 79,282 Major Variances Revenues Dwelling rental income with lower vacancies 3,382 $87,750 Commercial rent -8th Street Property in Tracy 4,304 $90,000 $79,282 $75,000 $60,000 Sum of all other items 782 $45,000 $30,000 $8,468 YTD 01/31/20 - Actual$ 87,750 $15,000 $‐ YTD Budget YTD Actual Incr / (Decr) YTD Budget YTD Actual Incr / (Decr) Expenses Expenses $ 59,903 $ 67,303 $ 7,400 YTD 01/31/20 - Budget$ 59,903 Major Variances Assessments for Rose Creek lots 18,051 Expenses Maintenance costs lower than forecasted (11,640)
$59,903 $67,303 $70,000 Sum of all other items 989 $45,000 $7,400 $20,000 YTD 01/31/20 - Actual$ 67,303 $(5,000) $(30,000) YTD Budget YTD Actual Incr / (Decr)
Net Income/(Loss YTD Budget YTD Actual Incr / (Decr) Net Income/(Loss) $ 19,379 $ 20,447 $ 1,068 YTD 01/31/20 - Budget$ 19,379 Net Income with increased revenues and increased Net Income/(Loss) expenses 1,068 $25,000 $20,447 $20,000 $19,379 $15,000 $10,000 $5,000 1,068 YTD 01/31/20 - Actual$ 20,447 $‐ YTD Budget YTD Actual Incr / (Decr) Sartini Manor Budget Comparison October 1, 2019 to January 31, 2020
YTD YTD 19-20 YTD 19-20 YTD 62 PUM Notes FY 18-19 Actual Budget Variance SARTINI INCOME Dwelling Rent Income-Sartini 60,152 69,545 62,266 7,279 1,121.69 Dwelling rent based on tenant's incomes Late Charges-Sartini 20 0 67 (67) 0.00 Section 8 RAP-Sartini 11,629 11,569 17,476 (5,907) 186.60 Rental subsidy offset by increases dwelling rental income Interest Income-Sartini 428 665 317 348 10.73 Repairs-Other-Sartini 35 214 0 214 3.45 TOTAL SARTINI INCOME 72,264 81,993 80,126 1,867 1,322.47
SARTINI EXPENSES: Salary-Sartini 15,404 15,146 15,666 (520) 244.29 Employee Benefits-Sartini 5,063 5,649 7,667 (2,018) 91.11 Audit & Accounting Fees-Sartini 0 0 117 (117) 0.00 Legal Fee for Service Exp 0 0 167 (167) 0.00 Telephone-Sartini 477 432 883 (451) 6.97 Other Operating Expenses-Sartini 654 431 500 (69) 6.95 Electricity-Sartini 1,012 597 1,500 (903) 9.63 Water-Sartini 1,413 4,078 3,167 911 65.77 Gas-Sartini 80 59 250 (191) 0.95 Garbage-Sartini 404 401 833 (432) 6.47 Repairs-Sartini 1,178 1,431 1,867 (436) 23.08 Maintenance & Repair Contracts 4,338 1,221 7,450 (6,229) 19.69 Taxes & Assessments-Sartini 3,018 3,320 4,333 (1,013) 53.55 Insurance/Wkrs Comp-Sartini 12,571 20,137 13,067 7,070 324.79 Flood insurance higher than forecasted Mortgage Principle & Interest-Sartini 7,607 7,533 6,780 753 121.51 Management Fee-Sartini 7,030 7,087 6,930 157 114.31 Reserve for Replacement Payment 5,460 5,460 5,460 0 88.06 TOTAL SARTINI EXPENSES 65,709 67,522 76,637 (9,115) 1,089.07
NET INCOME 6,555 14,471 3,489 10,982 3,916.00
Page 1 of 1 Sartini Manor Budget Comparison January 2020
YTD Budget YTD Actual Incr / (Decr) Revenues Revenues $ 80,126 $ 81,993 $ 1,867 YTD 01/31/20- Budget$ 80,126 Major Variances
$100,000 Revenues Dwelling rent based on tenant's income 7,279 $80,126 $81,993 $80,000 USDA subsidy (5,907) $60,000 495 $40,000 $1,867 $20,000 YTD 01/31/20- Actual$ 81,993 $‐ YTD Budget YTD Actual Incr / (Decr)
YTD Budget YTD Actual Incr / (Decr) Expenses Expenses $ 76,637 $ 67,522 $ 9,115 YTD 01/31/20 - Budget$ 76,637 Major Variances
Expenses Repairs and Maintenance Contracts (6,229) $100,000 $76,637 $80,000 $67,522 $60,000 Sum of all other items (2,886) $40,000 $9,115 $ 67,522 $20,000 $‐ YTD 01/31/20 - Actual YTD Budget YTD Actual Incr / (Decr)
Net Income/(Loss) YTD Budget YTD Actual Incr / (Decr) Net Income/(Loss) $ 3,489 $ 14,471 $ 10,982 YTD 01/31/20 - Budget$ 3,489 Net Income with on target revenues and lower expenses 10,982 Net Income/(Loss) $20,000 $14,471 $10,982 $10,000 $3,489 $ 14,471 $‐ YTD 01/31/20 - Actual YTD Budget YTD Actual Incr / (Decr)
CONWAY HOMES Events
Map Legend:
Weapons Violation Theft SIERRA VISTA HOMES Events
Map Legend:
Assault - Other Theft
Operational Changes
As a safety measure and to keep our residents and HCV participants informed, we are working with our public health and city/county/community partners to take precautions to help prevent the spread of COVID-19, as well as other infectious diseases, including influenza. Between our Voucher, public housing, and owned housing units, many of our families have an elderly or disabled high-risk family member. The steps we are taking will help protect their health and minimize the risk of spreading the illness in our communities.
Strategies We are Implementing:
Following guidance from the California Department of Public Health, HACSJ will be implementing the following - canceling or postponing significant community events; conducting most business via email, telephone, mail; prioritizing emergency and urgent work orders, and monitoring homes with one or more ill persons before conducting inspections or completing work orders.
● When you receive a call in or email about a work order, ask if anyone is sick. ● Instruct the answering service to ask if anyone in the household is sick as part of their protocol. ● Before entering a unit, ask if anyone is sick. ● If someone is ill or has been exposed to COVID-19 within the last five days, the work order will be rescheduled unless it is an emergency or urgent item. If the staff enters the unit, they will enter using personal protection equipment. ● HCVP inspections: whenever possible, call participants on that day's schedule to confirm if anyone is sick and ask again before entering the unit. ● We are temporarily suspending all routine face-to-face office visits. All interactions will be between the glass partitions in each office. ● The two drop boxes at 2575 Grand Canal will be used for client drop off of paperwork. ● All community rooms will be closed. ● All client interviews will be conducted via phone or email. ● Do not shake hands.
As of Mar 11, 2020, there is one(1) confirmed case of COVID- 19 in San Joaquin County.
San Joaquin County Public Health Services (PHS) and its partners are planning and preparing for the potential spread of COVID-19 and will keep you updated.PHS is monitoring this rapidly changing situation closely and has plans and protocols in place in the event that we need to implement them, we are prepared to do so.
What You Can Do:
Practice daily preventive care Every person has a role to play. The best way to prevent infection is to avoid being exposed to this virus. However, as a reminder, CDC always recommends everyday preventive actions to help prevent the spread of respiratory viruses that are the same precautions you would take to avoid the flu including:
• Wash your hands frequently with water and soap for at least 20 seconds; especially after going to the bathroom; before eating and after blowing your nose, coughing or sneezing. If water and soap are not readily available, use an alcohol- based sanitizer with 60%-95% alcohol. • Avoid touching your eyes, nose and mouth. • Cover coughs and sneezes with a tissue, then throw the tissue in the trash. If tissues are not available, cough or sneeze into the inside of your elbow. • Avoid close contact with people who are sick. • Stay home if you become sick with respiratory symptoms like fever and cough. • Clean and disinfect frequently touched objects and surfaces at home, work and school. • Practice healthy habits: get plenty of sleep, be physically active, manage your stress, drink plenty of fluids and eat nutritious food. • If you have not received your annual flu shot, please schedule one with your provider to help protect yourself against the flu. • Follow CDC's recommendations for using a facemask: CDC does not recommend that people who are well wear a facemask to protect themselves from respiratory diseases, including COVID-19. Remain calm: While the progression of COVID-19 is still evolving, the CDC is reporting that for the general American public, the immediate health risk from COVID-19 is considered low.
Stay informed This is a rapidly evolving situation. We encourage you to check the following websites and their social media accounts routinely:
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) webpage https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/index.html
• California Department of Public Health (CDPH) webpage https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DCDC/Pages/Immunization/ncov2019.as px
• San Joaquin County Public Health Services (PHS) website www.sjcphs.org
WHAT SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY IS DOING:
Since the start of this outbreak, San Joaquin County has taken a proactive approach to prepare for and carefully monitor potential cases of COVID-19 in San Joaquin County. Actions taken include:
• Maintaining regular contact and following the guidance from the CDC and the California Department of Public Health (CDPH); • Conducting PHS planning meetings with programs such as Emergency Preparedness, Disease Control and Prevention, Epidemiology, and Public Information and Communication to allow for enhanced response coordination; • Working to insure that health care systems, first responders and schools have the guidance they need through presentations, phone consultations, and meetings; • Maintaining communication and outreach with federal, state and local partners, including the County EMS and other Regional entities; • Providing symptom monitoring for residents returning from travel who are considered low to moderate risk; • Distributing information and updates to health care professionals and educational settings; and, • Reviewing and adapting current pandemic plans for COVID-19.
As this situation evolves, HACSJ will continually update the community through our Website, our Facebook page and our Twitter account.
For more information, please call 209-460-5000.
Commissioner Lester Patrick
209-640-9790 Abandoned Building Reuse / Adaptive Reuse and /or Possible Acquisition
Background The city of Stockton and all other areas of California are experiencing a major shortage of affordable housing. In California the average cost of a three bedroom house is $533,000.00. In San Joaquin County that price is $410,000.00. The median annual income for the state is $75,277.00, and the median annual income for a family of four in San Joaquin County is $45,347.00. According to the California Association of Housing Authorities (CAHA) who represents 103 housing authorities in California, a full time worker needs to earn 32.68 per hour to afford a two bedroom apartment. If a person earns minimum wage he/she needs to work 93 hours per week to afford a one bedroom apartment. Nineteen percent of Californians live in poverty with that rate being in the low twenty percentage range in San Joaquin County. The conditions cited in the previous paragraph equals a large number of people in Stockton not being able to afford a place to live. Many of the people who cannot afford a place to live work daily, but as pointed out in the above paragraph simply don’t earn enough to buy food, rent or own a house, and take care of other essential needs. Consequently, the State of California and the City of Stockton is faced with a large and growing homeless problem. Currently about 553,742 people in the United States on any given night is homeless. About 24% of the total US homeless live in California. That equates to about 55,188 homeless people living in California. Roughly 2,000 people are homeless in San Joaquin County, with the majority of them living in Stockton.
1
Proposal This very brief proposal addresses the shortage of affordable housing problem by recommending that certain abandoned commercial buildings be rehabilitated to help address the crisis. It will cite three examples of how abandoned commercial buildings can be rehabilitated to house low income people, seniors, and / or the homeless. The first building I will highlight is a building that has been vacant for about 3 years.
Building 1
This building has 41,376 SF of available space and another 30,000 SF that was used for warehouse pickup and an outdoor nursery. Please see building description below for more specifics.
Building 2 The second building, building 2 has been vacant for some time. It consists of 16,198 SF available space and 2,600 SF of storage. Please see the description for building 2 below.
2
Recommendation There are a number of opportunities and possible configurations both buildings 1 and 2 could be rehabilitated for to help meet the housing shortage in Stockton. Several of them are listed below. Keep in mind that these are just some examples of how these abandoned buildings could be used to help with the housing shortage. An article describing how each of these models are being used in other parts of the country follows in the next section. The title of the article describing each configuration is found in parenthesis next to the configuration type.
Possible Configuration Types 1. Modular houses for the homeless.(modular homes inserted into empty and abandoned buildings) 2. Senior housing / library. (Chicago Public Housing) 3. Mixed income / mixed use housing 4. Crossway Residences – Housing Authority of San Joaquin County - Behavior Health Clients, 39 project based voucher units. The following pages describe projects that have been successfully implemented in other parts of the country and around the world.
3
Both of these examples show how abandoned buildings have been reused for housing and can also be applied in a mixed income environment.
Chicago Finds a Way to Improve Public Housing: Libraries
Other cities have combined books and subsidized housing, but the outgoing mayor, Rahm Emanuel, has embraced the concept with three striking new projects.
4
Images of the Independence Library and Apartments by John Ronan Architects in Chicago.Credit...John Ronan Architects
By Michael Kimmelman
May 15, 2019 o o o
CHICAGO — Cabrini-Green, the Robert Taylor Homes: demolished years ago, Chicago’s most notorious projects continue to haunt the city, conjuring up the troubled legacy of postwar public housing in America.
By the 1970s, Washington wanted out of the public housing business, politicians blaming the system’s ills on poor residents and tower-in-the-park-style architecture,
5 channeling tax breaks toward white flight and suburban sprawl. Now the nation’s richest cities invent all sorts of new ways not to solve the affordable housing crisis.
Is any city doing public housing right these days?
I recently visited three sites that the Chicago Housing Authority has just or nearly completed. These small, community-enhancing, public-private ventures, built swiftly and well, are the opposite of Cabrini-Green and Robert Taylor. With a few dozen apartments each, they’re costlier per unit than the typical public housing developments, and they’re not going to make a big dent in a city with a dwindling population but a growing gap between the number of affordable apartments and the demand for them.
That said, they’re instructive. As Cabrini-Green and other isolated, troubled old mega- sites proved, bigger isn’t necessarily better. These are integrated works of bespoke architecture, their exceptional design central to their social and civic agenda.
And they share another distinctive feature, too: each project includes a new branch library (“co-location” is the term of art). The libraries are devised as outward-facing hubs for the surrounding neighborhoods, already attracting a mix of toddlers, retirees, after-school teens, job-seekers, not to mention the traditional readers, nappers and borrowers of DVDs.
Co-location is of course not a new idea. Other cities today link subsidized housing developments with libraries, New York included, but Chicago’s outgoing mayor, Rahm Emanuel, has made a point of touting the concept, and seeing it through in ways other mayors haven’
These three new housing projects, on the city’s north and west sides, are clearly part of what Mr. Emanuel hopes will be his ultimate legacy. The projects mix public housing units with heavily-subsidized apartments and, in one case, market-rate ones. Editors’ Picks
6
Image
The Taylor Street Apartments and Little Italy Branch Library by Brian Lee, from the Chicago office of Skidmore, Owings & Merrill.Credit...Tom Harris/S The children’s area of the Little Italy Branch Library has open spaces and flexible furniture.Credit...Tom Harris/SOM
Mr. Emanuel talked often as mayor about the value of public space and good design. People don’t only need affordable apartments, as he has said. Healthy neighborhoods are not simply collections of houses. They also require things like decent transit, parks, stores, playgrounds and libraries.
7
Mr. Emanuel extended the city’s subway system, network of bike lanes and popular Riverwalk. He completed the elevated, long-discussed 606, Chicago’s version of New York’s High Line; brought marquee stores like Whole Foods and Mariano’s to grocery- starved neighborhoods like Englewood, and parks like La Villita, replacing a former Superfund site, to communities like Little Village.
He also commissioned leading local architects to design a string of small, civic gems, including two boathouses by Studio Gang and a new branch library in Chinatown by Brian Lee, from the Chicago office of Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, which I have stopped into on a couple of occasions. It’s a neighborhood linchpin and landmark.
Mr. Emanuel’s predecessor, Richard M. Daley, who tore down what remained of Cabrini and began to replace old, debased developments with New Urbanist-style mixed-income ones, gave Chicago Millennium Park and loads of planted flowers. He built cookie-cutter library branches, police and fire stations. I toured the Edgewater library one morning, a two-story, brick-and-concrete box, about as inviting from the outside as a motor vehicle bureau office and ostensibly indistinguishable from one.
The cookie-cutter model was conceived to lower building costs and insure a kind of architectural equivalence across diverse neighborhoods. Library officials tell me the one-size-fits-all design invariably needed some tweaking, from site to site, so it didn’t turn out to be especially economical. And the common denominator obviously did nothing to beautify Chicago or celebrate communities with distinct personalities and desires.
Mr. Emanuel adopted a different model. Capitalizing on the city’s architectural heritage, he touted striking new civic architecture as an advertisement for the city and a source of community pride. Distinguished civic buildings in underserved neighborhoods constituted their own brand of equity. Good architecture costs more but it pays a dividend over time.
The three new housing projects partner the Chicago Housing Authority with the Chicago Public Library system and two private developers, Evergreen Real Estate Group and Related Companies. Working with Eugene E. Jones, Jr., who runs the Housing Authority, Mr. Emanuel persuaded federal officials that public libraries could be co- located with public housing projects without putting federal housing subsidies at risk.
That freed up streams of money for the co-location idea, which was partly strategic: the library helped sway community groups resistant to public housing in their neighborhoods.
8
Image
The Northtown Affordable Apartments and Public Library, near Warren Park. is a four- story snaking structure, shaped like a twisty garden hose. Credit...James Steinkamp
9
Image
The interior of the library at Northtown.Credit...James Steinkamp But co-location was also just plain good urban planning. In cities across the country, branch libraries, which futurologists not long ago predicted would be made obsolete by technology, have instead morphed into indispensable and bustling neighborhood centers and cultural incubators, offering music lessons, employment advice, citizenship training, entrepreneurship classes and English-as-a-second-language instruction. They are places with computers and free broadband access. (One in three Chicagoans lacks ready access to high-speed internet.)
For longtime neighborhood residents and tenants of the new housing projects, the branches at the same time provide common ground in a city siloed by race and class.
A city-run architecture competition in 2016 attracted submissions from 32 local firms. The winners were John Ronan, the architect who did the beautiful Poetry Foundation headquarters in downtown Chicago; Mr. Lee from Skidmore; and Ralph Johnson, who also designed the O’Hare international terminal, from the local office of Perkins + Will.
The libraries share real estate with the apartments but maintain separate entrances. The apartment blocks are designed to command views from a distance; the glassed-in libraries, to command the street.
Mr. Johnson’s project, the $34 million Northtown Affordable Apartments and Public Library, near Warren Park, is a four-story snaking structure, shaped like a twisty garden hose, trimmed in fluorescent green, backing onto a historic bungalow district, along a
10 stretch of avenue that features a Jiffy Lube and Mobil station. It’s meant to be, and is, a beacon and an eye-catcher.
The building’s upper floors include 44 one-bedroom apartments for seniors. They perch atop a bright, glazed, double-height, 16,000 square foot library, which curves around an interior, teardrop-shaped garden, the library’s roof doubling as a terrace for the housing tenants. The apartments I saw looked great, with floor-to-ceiling windows. A community garden in the back helps negotiate the tricky transition between the bungalows and the busy avenue.
11
Dezeen Magazine
Abandoned buildings can be converted into homes with modular kitchen and bathroom block Amy Frearson | 9 March 2016 7 comments Rotterdam studio Kraaijvanger has designed a modular kitchen and bathroom unit that can be inserted into an empty building to turn it into a residence (+ slideshow).
12
Called the Hub, the boxy 15-square-metre unit is designed by Kraaijvanger to be installed into almost any type of building, from disused office blocks to warehouses, as long as the structure has electricity and water connections. Each module contains a kitchen, bathroom and toilet, as well as facilities including heating, a sound system and a Wi-Fi connection – providing residents with almost everything they need to live comfortably.
13
It is also possible to insert more than one unit into a building to create a series of homes, meaning the Hub could be used to accommodate families, students or even refugees. "The Hub is a modular, easily dismantled system that allows empty buildings to be turned into homes in a few days," explained architect David Hess. "When a building gets a different function or will be demolished, the Hub can easily be removed and placed somewhere else," he told Dezeen. "The idea is for users to rent or lease a Hub rather than buying it. So they aren't purchasing a home, just the comforts of one."
14
The project was the winning entry in a competition entitled "How will we live in the future?", organised by housing association Havensteder. The first Hubs have now been installed in a building in Rotterdam's Zomerhofkwartier district.
These pilot units are built from a mixture of high-pressure-laminated blockboard – a material made from softwood strips – and solid timber boards. They link up to mains power and water through piping and wiring in the floor.
15
Hess has produced a series of drawings showing how different layouts can be created to suit different target audiences. In these arrangements, the units also forms partitions to frame living spaces around them. There is also the possibility to add supplementary Hubs to create bedrooms or office areas.
"We believe different target groups can be interested, it all depends on how the Hubs are placed," explained the architect. "One family can share a Hub and use BedHubs as sleeping rooms, with the space in between used as a living area," he said. "But a Hub can also be shared by students or refugees. Then the room in which the Hub is placed becomes a communal area."
16
The Hub follows in the footsteps of similar projects launched in other countries. A Hong Kong studio has inserted bamboo micro homes into old factories, while a Bangkok office has designed temporary homes for abandoned towers. Similarly, a Russian firm created portable sleeping capsules that have been installed at an airport and a hotel.
Architecture studio Kraaijvanger has been established in Rotterdam since the 1920s. Other recent projects by the firm include a pair of buildings added to a school in The Hague. It is one of a number of forward-thinking studios based in the Dutch city, which is fast becoming a world-class destination for architectural innovation. Other projects to come out of the city in the last year include a smog-eating tower and the world's first crowdfunded bridge. Photography is by Ronald Tilleman.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Possible layout for single person
26
Possible layout for students
Summary This brief report has simply sought to introduce some very basic approaches to rehabilitating abandoned buildings into livable housing units. The City of Stockton has a major housing shortage and an abundance of vacant buildings that can be used to address the problem. As the Housing Authority of San Joaquin this is a great opportunity for us to take advantage of these opportunities to address some of the housing needs of Stockton, and at the same time meeting our mission of providing low cost safe and reliable housing for low income residents. Lastly, it is my hope that commissioners will approve the executive director to explore these opportunities and report back to the board his findings.
27