Review of monthly operations report (CONSOC)
Ms. Sandra Joseph reported CONSOC has been very busy during the month of January. CONSOCprepared, printed, stuffed, sealed and mailed approximately 700 1099’S to landlords participating in the Housing Choice Voucher Program. They prepared the check run which the City’s Finance Department uses to prepare checks for each landlord and for participants to receive utility reimbursements. They will be preparing a final electronic version of those 1099’s for submittal to the IRS and City of Middletown. This is due to the IRS by March 31, 2010.
They have transmitted to the Community Revitalization Department a draft of the MPHA’s five‐year plan to be signed by an authorized official. All sections of the report have been completed except for 9.0 which will be completed after receiving and reading the City’s five‐year Consolidated Plan to make sure the two plans are consistent. This report must be submitted to HUD by April 16, 2010. She said this report will be presented again next month.
Ms. Joseph said much time in December and January was spent receiving, alphabetizing, sorting and assembling inspection forms and letters given to them by the Inspection Group and the City’s Revitalization Department. The results of the review were noted in a report emailed to Council, the City Manager and the Revitalization Department with errors noted. This effort allows MPHA to know which inspection books had been received, which letters were mailed to landlords and participants and were complete with the corresponding letters. They reviewed a total of 121 inspection books. As a result of this report, the Revitalization Dept. requested that all January and February inspection books be forwarded to them first for city staff to review. This is a labor intensive process.
CONSOC’s expectations were they would receive complete inspection books. This has not been the case. The inspection process as formatted is causing additional work for CONSOC and the City of Middletown. Currently 75% of CONSOC’s time is being spent with the inspection process causing additional costs as related to overtime.
There were 48 outstanding inspections sent to the Revitalization Dept. from CONSOC in February. They have concerns that some families are suffering a hardship. They are monitoring the time lines and flagging any inspections that are over two weeks old. A hardship can be created for families wanting to sign leases when inspections are not completed in a timely manner. Families must move within a designated time frame and when inspections aren’t completed in a timely manner, a family can be misplaced and have to pay their own rent.
Ms. Joseph said she received an email today from Mr. Adkins stating that the 48 outstanding inspections had been resolved and stating that starting today all inspection booklets will be complete when forwarded to CONSOC. Everything will be prepared and attached prior to being sent to CONSOC. Based on the past three months experience, CONSOC’s view is that the inspection process has failed to perform adequately, resulting in delays that have caused hardships for participants. She recommended the following be instituted for the inspection process:
• CONSOC to schedule inspections
• CONSOC to prepare inspection forms
• TIG would pick up inspection forms from CONSOC’s office each day
• TIG would return the inspection forms that evening or the next morning and pick up the next day’s inspection forms
• CONSOC would prepare all necessary paperwork and forward to the appropriate parties
• This would require reopening and renegotiating the current contract terms
Ms. Scott Jones asked about Ms. Joseph’s comments on the time spent doing these administrative things and asked if she had any recommendations or alternatives.
Ms. Joseph said they feel like they have to go through every inspection form. When they receive reports in an Excel format and it says passed or failed, they actually need the book that may state something different. It’s not enough to have just an Excel spreadsheet stating it passed or failed. They need to review the whole packet to see all comments.
Ms. Scott Jones asked about the overtime statements. With the contract that MPHA has with CONSOC, how do those overtime hours affect how CONSOC gets paid? She asked for a report with the amount of overtime and if that was not anticipated.
Ms. Joseph said there was about 170 hours spent between five people. They received books, letters not formatted in any manner, some came via email, and some were brought in. They came in at different times and they needed a hard copy of a completed booklet.
Mr. Armbruster asked if we had gone from a one ‐week inspection to a three‐week inspection process. Has there been a breakdown in the system?
Ms. Gilleland said anytime you change a system that has been in place for fourteen years, there are going to be some challenges. She is sure that CONSOC allowed for that, the overtime is unfortunate. Anytime the process is changed it will take some time to get set up. Things Council wanted focus on were the criminal background checks and the inspections, hence the contract with the Inspection Group. We have seen that 70% of our housing has failed inspection. It will take some time to work through these issues.
Mr. Adkins said we are changing a system that has been in place for several years. Several things are going on here. The contracts state TIG will do inspections and deliver to CONSOC, they don’t state in what form. CONSOC thought all documentation would be together, TIG was delivering stacks of documents as they were generated. There could first be a pre‐inspection letter, then an inspection, then a letter stating whether it passed or failed. Those were being sent separately.
Getting all the documents together has been a nightmare for CONSOC. He had a meeting with the Inspection Group and they are going to take care of those issues. Another issue was the timing on getting the inspection requests. We were receiving them once a week, with a two week time frame for the Inspection Group. Those timelines have been changed to speed up the process.
Ms. Joseph said those were agreed upon dates for requesting inspections, the first week of the month and the last week of the month.
Mr. Adkins said in his opinion, December was a mess, January was a little better and February is even a little more organized. There are problems, but remember this program has been in place for over a decade.
Ms. Scott Jones said her concern was the one hundred plus overtime hours and how it affects the contract. Is that going to be billed or is CONSOC absorbing that?
Mr. Adkins said he feels it legitimate for CONSOC to bill for December.
Ms. Scott Jones expressed appreciation for the explanation, but said her concern was when the bid went out for this job that the time would have been incorporated into the bidding process, that the time for the transition would have been taken into account during the bidding process. CONSOC came in as the highest bidder. She said she would like to know what the costs were. She would like to know those hours and the costs before any payment is made for overtime.
Ms. Joseph commented on the November inspections being incorrect and that an Excel database should not be used because of the high risk of error. They did the inspections for November. They are going through January inspections which had some errors as well. They will chart errors and continue to monitor those books.
Mr. Joseph, Jr. said that during negotiations the City was warned that this could be a problem. His background is in construction. He gave an analogy of a plumbing issue on a construction job. At the time of negotiations the city was guaranteed by Mr. Wayne Chapman that this would not happen.
Ms. Scott Jones said she reviewed all interview tapes of the bidding process. Her concern was that CONSOC was the highest bidder. She did not vote to secure their company because they were the highest bidder and now we have incurred additional costs. She requested publicly before any payment is made for overtime, to know the exact hours and the rate of billing and what it was for.
Mr. Mulligan asked if agreement has been reached regarding the timing of the flow chart for the inspections.
Mr. Adkins stated yes, they have worked through many issues. The Inspection Group likes to work in Excel and CONSOC likes to work in Access. Many issues are being worked through one issue at a time.
Ms. Joseph said she believes they are fulfilling their contract. They were going above and beyond their contract to keep the process moving. There were piles of papers coming through and nothing was moving. Someone had to go in and sort and organize and get the job done so it would be manageable and it was not their responsibility, but they did it.
Mr. Joseph, Jr. said that was the responsibility of the Inspection Group.
Ms. Scott Jones said she appreciated CONSOC’s hard work, but if it were someone else’s responsibility that is also getting paid, maybe they should eat it. They have a fiduciary duty to account for what they do with taxpayers’ money. That was supposed to be anticipated and included. When you bid on a process, then there are overtime hours, to the public it doesn’t look good.
Ms. Joseph said they will get that information together and send to Mr. Adkins.
Ms. Gilleland said typically with public entities there is advance approval required for overtime expenditures, there is a process for pre‐approval of overtime before expenses are incurred. She would like to hear from Mr. Adkins on HUD’s process.
REPORTS
Harrison Joseph, Jr. reported on the following: (reports are attached to these minutes)
• Expense Report for the month of January
• Complaint Volume Summary and the Complaint Activity Report
• Tenant Turnover Summary
• Housing Units Occupied
• Applicant Wait List Summary
• Program Demographics
Mr. Mulligan asked how many total complaints were received in the month of January.
Mr. Adkins stated there were 202.
Mr. Smith asked for the number of complaints for December.
Mr. Joseph said he didn’t have that figure in front of him, but thought it was 180.
Ms. Scott Jones had questions about the year‐to‐date figures, previous month figures and this month figures. The Applicant Wait List summary profile was confusing.
Mr. Joseph will re‐label or separate some of these figures for clarification.
Mr. Laubach stated concerns that while the City is trying to move swiftly and affectively to a position to get a handle on the housing issues in the city, they are spending a lot of time on trivial issues such as software issues and people having to sort through and alphabetize forms, etc. Given the fact that
CONSOC has been dealing with the city for fourteen years, he stated he feels they need to be moving forward with the more prominent issues. The trivial issues should be worked out before these meetings. He understands it is a big transition but CONSOC is getting paid to perform. He had issues with the package of and presentation of information and how that information was given to Council.
Ms. Gilleland said as everyone knows, we just started having the Housing meetings and will have to weed through some minutia. Each month the reports will get better and be more efficient. Receiving the information in advance is very helpful. There is a PowerPoint presentation on the voucher number.
It is an agenda item that needs to be discussed. She asked if Council wanted to start the presentation now and be a few minutes late with the council meeting.
Mr. Smith asked some questions stating through the concerns of Mr. Laubach, CONSOC, the City and all parties involved, who are the parties, who is at the table, who have signed contracts, what are their job duties, and what is not being done. What he is hearing is there is a huge hole in the system and who is responsible for it. He also asked when the City expected the program to begin running more smoothly.
Mr. Adkins responded several overlapping things. CONSOC runs the whole program for the City on a day to day basis with everything except HQS inspections. The Inspection Group handles those inspections.
We have had issues with transmittal of data, software issues, expectations of CONSOC and landlords, getting paperwork timely, and overlapping schedules. Every time one of these crops up, we have to stop, re‐group and deal with it. Keep in mind you are handling a program with over 200 inspections per month, with a pre‐inspection letter and post inspection letters, over 1000 pieces of paper work per month.
CONSOC has been very inflexible with how they handle things. CONSOC wants everything collated and stapled together and nowhere did it state that was what would happen. For a process that involves this many inspections, it will take some time to straighten things out. We have to re‐educate all involved. The Inspection Group is putting together a master data base with every inspection performed.
We are getting better during the process and if the program is not running more smoothly before the next meeting, the committee should be asking some serious questions.
Ms. Scott Jones also asked when the committee could expect to adopt the Administrative Plan that includes all these requirements and guidelines for all involved.
Mr. Adkins said until all these issues are worked out, he doesn’t think it could be adopted as a final draft.
All these issues have to be addressed and amended in the Plan. If the committee doesn’t have it by next month, they need to be asking some serious questions.
Mr. Laubach asked weren’t there inspections before, why is there such a problem now. Mr. Joseph, Jr. said CONSOC always did the inspections.
Ms. Gilleland stated that the HQS inspection issue was identified and highlighted as a priority. The fact that 70% of our housing inspections failed this last time is a significant issue. We have been inspecting all along and have a high failure rate of inspections. This is a question we need to talk about. Mr. Laubach said we have been at this for a while. We weren’t doing something right for us to fail 70% today.
Mr. Joseph said the figures are similar to what they were in the past. It is not unusually for a unit to fail the first inspection.
Mr. Smith asked what threw the wrench in the system.
Mr. Adkins responded there were different expectations from all three parties. Most units are passing on the second inspection.
Ms. Gilleland ventured to state there is no perfect party in this matter. It is not a perfect system. It is a huge program, an $11 million dollar program that city’s typically don’t manage. We continue to iron out the problems.
Ms. Scott Jones asked if there was an escape clause in the contract for non‐performance or lack of performance that allows the City to reconsider somebody else. Mr. Adkins and Ms. Gilleland stated there is an escape clause in the contract.
Ms. Scott Jones stated if someone is being paid and supposed to be doing a job and is not, we don’t want that happening for two years. If it’s not CONSOC’s problem, then we need to know where the problem is. The ramp‐up time shouldn’t be that hard. The program has existed for fourteen years. We need to move forward and move forward appropriately.
Ms. Gilleland said the overall goal is to provide quality housing choices and not to point fingers. We will try to get to the bottom of the issues and work through them to have an excellent program.
Ms. Scott Jones said with all due respect, there will be fingers pointed. They will be pointed mostly at council. If she is going to get fingers pointed at her, she wants to know how to respond, she said she wants to know what she is taking the heat for.
Mr. Adkins said expenses have been submitted for $3,099 for City admin time that includes the Housing Agency members time, City Manager’s and his time billed through his time sheet.
Criminal Cross ‐Referencing ‐ In the area of criminal cross‐references, Mr. Adkins said they received eighty new incident reports. Forty are not criminal or program violations. They are reviewing all potential program violations and those will be submitted to CONSOC.
Housing Quality Standards ‐ Housing quality standards had been discussed.
Executive Director Comments and Board Consideration of Resolutions ‐ No executive director reports and no resolutions were presented for board consideration.
New Business
Mr. Adkins, in a PowerPoint presentation, outlined the current subsidized housing by provider. Section 8 accounts for 45% and with Butler Metropolitan Housing, tax credits, and special needs, the total is about 3600 overall subsidized housing units in Middletown. Middletown has many more than anyone else in Butler County. Hamilton has 45% and most other jurisdictions have almost none.
In 2004, the City was creating its Master Plan and council at the time issued a moratorium on any new proposals for additional subsidized housing in Middletown. When this happened, HUD fired off a letter to City Manager Ron Olson, stating that in Middletown’s 2000 Consolidated Plan the City identified a need for 5612 subsidized housing units to address affordable housing units in Middletown. HUD reserved comment at the time and said they looked forward to submission of the 2005 Consolidated Plan and Master Plan before taking any actions. The MP came out and didn’t directly analyze or direct policy on subsidized housing.
The 2005 Consolidated Plan that was sent to HUD also went by on the issue stating we are a home consortium with Butler County and again didn’t raise any question marks on public housing. Although, the Butler County plan noted that all public housing was located in Middletown and Hamilton and it was determined unconscionable that BMHA had built no other public housing ventures in other jurisdictions but they went on to say there was public transportation in the county so they understand why you haven’t done it although it’s not a good idea. Council has had conversations regarding reducing the number of vouchers and the City talked to HUD in 2009.
HUD said as long as there was a need they were not willing to talk about reductions or partial reductions but would be willing to transfer vouchers to BMHA to keep the vouchers throughout Butler County.
Mr. Adkins explained voluntary voucher transfers. HUD is more interested in transferring the entire system.
There has to be a substantial and compelling reason for transferring. Mr. Adkins said the Police Chief Schwarber and Sgt. Cunningham were in the audience. They have been working with Mr. Adkins and the University of Cincinnati. UC mapped out the worst areas of Cincinnati and mapped out calls for service, nuisance activities, etc. They have a grant from the Dept. of Justice and are interested in doing the same type of research study for the City of Middletown. The idea is to see on rental housing what this is doing to the City, Section 8 versus non‐Section 8 and what percentage of calls are Section 8 versus non‐Section 8. We don’t know where the data will end up, but need the information on all subsidized housing to compare.
They will perform the analysis research. In addition, the Community Revitalization Dept. is working to define lost income tax streams due to concentrations of Section 8 vouchers in the City. What is it doing to us now? They will come up with socio‐economic and housing data that will be used with the data that the University of Cincinnati is coming up with. All the data will be compared and will be brought back to Council mid‐June or July for logical discussions on the positive and negative effects of subsidized housing.
Mr. Adkins’ opinion is that 3600 vouchers may be tipping the city’s economic viability. The data should give us a range to stay within that can be supported and provide adequate services and provide quality housing without tipping the city into problems economically.
After that there should then be discussions with Butler Metropolitan Housing as part of the solution, on where the program should go. Ms. Scott Jones said looking at the report presented and seeing over 200 on the waiting list that are not Middletown residents and another 90 or more that are from Middletown, it concerns her. We now know how we got here. If a council did it and created this beast, then a council should be able to undo it and tame the beast. She is all for affordable housing for people. The pendulum has sung in a whole different direction. It concerns her when there are a disproportionate number of persons on a waiting list that are not from Middletown.
Mr. Adkins agreed stating they will gather the data and go to HUD and show them the data with supporting documentation to show what it is doing to the city and where we need to be. Mr. Armbruster said when this data is gathered it will be a tool for attracting businesses and see what our customer base is. Then we can set our direction. He told Mr. Adkins, good job.
Mr. Smith asked about pros and cons with the City of Middletown managing Section 8 as opposed to Butler County Metropolitan Housing.
Mr. Adkins said this could be an hour discussion and could be brought back to a future meeting. Ms. Gilleland said bottom line was Council voted to have the City run the Section 8 program and they are trying to manage the program. They can get council a summary and the staff recommendation that was not to manage the program. Ms. Scott Jones added the consultant recommended the City manage the program for one year.
The meeting adjourned at 6:50 p.m. |
