Agenda

Return

D.3

To:	Contra Costa County Housing Authority Board of Commissioners
From:	Joseph Villarreal, Housing Authority
Date:	January 13, 2015

Contra

Costa

County

Subject:

Public Housing Assessment System (PHAS) Unaudited Report for FYE 3-31-14

Action of Board On: 01/13/2015

APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED

OTHER

Clerks Notes:

VOTE OF SUPERVISORS

AYE:

John Gioia, Commissioner
Candace Andersen, Commissioner
Mary N. Piepho, Commissioner
Karen Mitchoff, Commissioner
Federal D. Glover, Commissioner
Aqueela Bowie, Commissioner

ABSENT:

Fay Nathaniel, Commissioner

Contact:

925-957-8028

I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown.
ATTESTED: January 13, 2015
,

BY:	, Deputy

RECOMMENDATIONS

CONSIDER accepting a report on the Housing Authority of the County of Contra Costa's unaudited Public Housing Assessment System Score for FYE March 31, 2014.

BACKGROUND

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) annually evaluates a public housing authority’s (PHA) management of its public housing program using four tools, referred to collectively as the Public Housing Assessment System (PHAS). The four indicators that comprise PHAS are physical condition, financial condition, management operations and Capital Fund. Each indicator is evaluated and scored separately and are collectively worth up to 100 points. The physical condition indicator is worth 40 points, the financial condition and management operations indicators are worth 25 points each and the Capital Fund indicator is worth 10 points.

BACKGROUND (CONT'D)

All PHAs that receive a PHAS assessment shall receive a performance designation. The performance designation is based on both the overall PHAS score and the four individual indicator scores. A PHA that achieves an overall score of at least 90 points and also scores at least 24 points for physical condition, 15 points for financial condition, 15 points for management operations and 5 points for the Capital Fund shall be designated a high performer.

A PHA that is not a high performer shall be designated a standard performer if the PHA achieves an overall PHAS score of at least 60 points and also scores at least 24 points for physical condition, 15 points for financial condition, 15 points for management operations and 5 points for the Capital Fund.

A PHA shall be designated a substandard performer if the PHA achieves a total PHAS score of at least 60 points but scores less than the threshold for standard performer in any individual indicator. These thresholds are 24 points for physical condition, 15 points for financial condition and 15 points for management operations. The PHA shall be designated as substandard physical, substandard financial, or substandard management, respectively.

A PHA that achieves an overall PHAS score of less than 60 points or a Capital Fund score of less than 5 points shall be designated as a troubled performer.

The Housing Authority (HACCC) received a PHAS score of 75 based on the agency's unaudited financials for the fiscal year ending (FYE) March 31, 2014. This is an improvement of 10 points from HACCC's audited score for FYE March 31, 2013 and also means that HACCC is no longer rated as substandard under the management indicator.

Because of the extremely-low occupancy rate at Las Deltas, staff and the SF HUD field office did not believe HACCC would be able to achieve a standard rating until the disposition of Las Deltas was complete. However, HACCC's long-term project to bring vacant units back on-line at all other properties has paid dividends for the agency's PHAS scores. HACCC's score rose to 75 as a result of increased occupancy rates at Hacienda in Martinez, Bayo Vista in Rodeo and El Pueblo in Pittsburg combined with improved tenant rent collections. Once HACCC's RAD application for the disposition of 90 units at Las Deltas in North Richmond is formally approved, the agency's score will further increase.

The PHAS score report received from HUD is attached.

VOTE OF SUPERVISORS

RECOMMENDATIONS

BACKGROUND

BACKGROUND (CONT'D)

FISCAL IMPACT

CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION

CLERK'S ADDENDUM