Outlook
FW: September 22, 2026 Council Item 8.2 - CAPER Questions , Possible Corrections, and Suggestions From City Clerk <[email protected]>
Date Mon 9/2 1/2026 9:28 AM
To Agendadesk <[email protected]>; Taber, Toni <[email protected]>; Rodriguez, Joy <[email protected]>
◄ From: brian darby
Sent: Saturday, Sep • • I • I ' :f.
To: City Clerk <city.clerk@sanjoseca .gov>
Subject: September 22, 2026 Council Item 8.2 - CAPER Questions, Possible Corrections , and Suggestions [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel Dear Mayor Mahan and Members of the City Council:
I am writing regarding Item 8.2 on the September 22, 2026 City Council agenda, the Fiscal Year 2025- 2026 Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report, commonly called the CAPER.
I want to be transparent about how I prepared this email. I am new to reviewing CAPER documents and the federal requirements governing them. These are complicated reports, and City staff work with these programs and regulations far more regularly than I do. I used artificial intell igence as a research and organizational aid to help me read the documents, compare the figures, locate relevant federal requirements, perform calculations, and organize my questions.
I understand that using Al does not guarantee that every interpretation is correct . I could be mistaken about some matters, particularly if relevant information is contained in the complete CAPER or another document that was not apparent in the Council agenda packet. I am therefore presenting these matters as respectful requests for clarification, verification, or correct ion--not as accusations.
Based on the materials I reviewed, I do not see evidence that anyone intentionally did anything improper or that federal money is missing. Several issues may be ordinary typographical errors, spreadsheet errors, reporting-system timing differences, or information that appears in the complete HUD report but was not repeated in the Council memorandum. My purpose is to help the City ensure that its report is accurate, understandable, and sufficiently transparent.
That is also why my public-comment letters sometimes become long . I am trying to be constructive and thorough and to give staff enough information to understand and respond to the questions.
Recognition of reported accomplishments
Before discussing my questions, I want to recognize the important work described in the report.
The City administered federal Community Development Block Grant, HOME, Emergency Solutions Grant, and Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS funding. These funds supported homeless outreach, interim-housing referrals, rental assistance, supportive services, tenant counseling, legal assistance, senior services, neighborhood programs, pedestrian improvements, public facilities, and nonprofit capital projects.
Among the reported accomplishments:
• Street outreach engaged 666 individuals.
• Staff completed 403 coordinated-entry assessments.
• Ninety people reportedly moved from unsheltered locations into City interim housing. • Twelve people reportedly moved directly from unsheltered locations into permanent housing.
• Rental assistance and supportive services reportedly helped 95 households affected by HIV/AIDS remain stably housed.
• Several community-service programs met or exceeded their projected participation levels. • Staff moved several transportation, public-safety, and community-development capital projects forward.
• The City provided two opportunities for public discussion and reportedly issued notices in five languages.
• Housing Department staff reported maintaining reserves and contingency plans because of uncertainty surrounding future federal funding.
These are meaningful accomplishments. My questions are intended to strengthen the accuracy and usefulness of the report, not discount the work performed by City employees, contractors, nonprofit organizations, and community partners.
Summary of my principal questions
The most important matters I hope the City will clarify are:
1. A $113,079 mathematical discrepancy in the HOME column of Table 1;
2. An apparent incorrect year for the multilingual public notice;
3. Whether the complete HUD-formatted CAPER was directly available through the Council agenda;
4. The $1,366,985 difference between the federal allocation and reported expenditures;
5. The use of contract ceilings rather than actual expenditures in several performance tables;
6. The description of public comments in the supplemental memorandum;
7. The methodology supporting the report's demographic-equity conclusion;
8. The exclusion of 161 minors from the income distribution;
9. The need for clearer permanent-housing and housing-retention outcomes;
10. Several smaller date, table-numbering, and document-quality issues.
11. Apparent $113,079 mathematical discrepancy in Table 1 If I am reading Table 1 correctly, the HOME expenditure column contains a mathematical inconsistency.
The table reports:
• $280,521 in HOME expenditures under "Strengthen Communities"; and • $93,079 in HOME administrative expenditures.
Those two amounts total:
$280,521 + $93,079 = $373,600
However, the table reports total HOME expenditures of $260,521.
That produces a difference of $113,079.
I also checked the table in two different directions:
• The four spending-priority row totals add correctly to the stated grand total of $12,310,841.
• The four published grant-column totals add to only $12,197,762. • The difference between those two totals is exactly $113,079.
This appears more likely to be a correctable table or spreadsheet error than a problem with the underlying funds. Nevertheless, because the document concerns federal expenditures, I respectfully ask staff to confirm:
1. Should the HOME total be $373,600 rather than $260,521?
2. Alternatively, is one of the two HOME component figures incorrect?
3. Does the complete CAPER contain the correct figure?
4. Will the version submitted to HUD contain corrected and fully reconciled totals?
5. Does the correction affect any other totals, percentages, or conclusions?
6. Apparent incorrect public-notice year
The principal memorandum states that a public notice concerning the review and comment period was published in five languages on August 5, 2025.
The CAPER concerns Fiscal Year 2025-2026, and the draft reportedly became available for public review on September 1, 2026. A notice published in August 2025 would have appeared more than a year before the draft report became available.
I suspect that "2025" is simply a typographical error and that the intended date was August 5, 2026. If so, I respectfully request that the date be corrected in the official record.
Federal regulations require reasonable notice and at least 15 days for comments on a performance report before it is submitted to HUD. They also require consideration and a summary of written and oral comments. These requirements are contained in 24 CFR §91.105.
The stated September 1 through September 22 comment period exceeds the federal 15-day minimum.
My concern is not with the length of the reported comment period; it is simply whether the correct notice date appears in the memorandum.
Could staff please:
• Confirm the actual publication date;
• Correct the memorandum if necessary;
• Provide or link to the 2026 multilingual notices; and • Identify the newspapers or other locations in which the notices appeared?
1. Availability of the complete CAPER
The 19-page staff memorandum appears to be a summary of the CAPER rather than the complete HUD-prescribed performance report. The Council agenda materials I reviewed identified the memorandum as the attachment, but I did not see a direct link in the memorandum to the complete draft CAPER.
I may have missed a link or separate posting. If the complete CAPER was publicly available elsewhere, I would appreciate a direct link.
This distinction matters because the federal performance-report regulation requires information about:
• Resources made available and invested;
• Geographic distribution of investments;
• Families and individuals assisted;
• Race and ethnicity;
• Affordable-housing accomplishments;
• Homelessness outcomes;
• Actions related to fair housing;
• CDBG, HOME, ESG, and HOPWA program-specific information; • Proposed outcomes compared with actual outcomes; and
• Explanations when progress was not made.
These requirements are described in 24 CFR §91.520.
The missing details may be included in the complete CAPER. I am not claiming that they were omitted from the City's actual HUD submission. I am asking whether Councilmembers and residents were given convenient access to the entire draft that Council is being asked to accept.
For this and future CAPER items, it would be helpful if the Council agenda included clearly labeled links to:
• The staff memorandum;
• The complete draft CAPER;
• Public notices;
• Public comments;
• Staff responses to public comments;
• Any corrected tables or supplemental memorandums; and • The final CAPER submitted to HUD.
1. Reconciliation of the allocation and expenditures
The memorandum reports:
• Federal allocation: $13,677,826
• Federal expenditures: $12,310,841
• Difference: $1,366,985
I understand that this difference does not mean money is missing. Federal grant programs can cross fiscal years, carry balances forward, use funds from previous grant years, and experience timing differences between actual activity, reimbursement, and entry into HUD's Integrated Disbursement and Information System.
The report's footnote acknowledges that expenditure amounts can differ from the approved budget because of timing differences. However, the memorandum does not fully reconcile the $1,366,985 difference.
Could staff provide a simple reconciliation by federal program showing:
• Current-year allocation;
• Prior-year balances available;
• Program income, if applicable;
• Current-year expenditures;
• Prior-year funds expended during FY 2025-2026;
• Amount committed but not yet spent;
• Amount remaining uncommitted;
• Applicable commitment or expenditure deadlines; and
• Whether any balance is at risk of recapture?
It would also help to clarify whether the $12,310,841 in reported expenditures came entirely from the FY 2025-2026 allocations or included expenditures from earlier grant years.
1. Contract ceilings versus actual expenditures
Several program tables list a "Total Contract Amount." A footnote explains that these figures represent not-to-exceed award amounts and do not necessarily represent the amounts actually expended.
Both figures are useful, but they serve different purposes. A contract ceiling tells the public the maximum possible award. Actual expenditures show what was paid or drawn down during the reporting year.
Without actual expenditures by program, it is difficult to determine:
• Actual cost per person or household served;
• Actual cost per successful outcome;
• Whether a contractor used its full award;
• Whether an unspent balance remains;
• How much nonfederal funding was leveraged; or
• Whether performance was proportionate to the amount actually spent.
For future reports, could the City consider a program-level table showing:
• Contract ceiling;
• Federal amount actually spent;
• Other funding used;
• Unduplicated individuals or households served;
• Principal outputs;
• Principal outcomes;
• Unspent or carried-forward balance; and
• Explanation for material differences between projected and actual performance? This would make it easier for Council and the public to evaluate effectiveness without confusing award amounts with actual expenditures.
1. Description of the public comment concerning $300 million The supplemental memorandum states that no written or verbal public comments were made at the Commission meeting pertaining to the CAPER materials. It then explains that a member of the public raised a concern that $300 million could not be explained or accounted for.
Staff determined that the comment was unrelated to the federal entitlement funds covered by this CAPER. That may be entirely correct. The commenter apparently did not provide sufficient details to connect the statement to this report.
However, a public comment was made during the item. I wonder whether the clearer approach would be to state that the comment was received, summarize it, and explain why staff concluded that it was outside the CAPER's scope.
Federal regulations require the City to consider comments received and attach a summary to the performance report. That requirement appears in 24 CFR §91.105(d)(2).
Could staff clarify:
• Whether the comment will appear in the final CAPER's public-comment summary; • Why staff determined that the figure was unrelated;
• Whether staff attempted to identify what City program or document the commenter may have meant; and
• Whether all comments received through September 22 will be summarized with the final report?
I am not repeating the $300 million statement as a valid allegation. I am only asking that the public record describe the comment and staff's response as clearly as possible.
1. Demographic analysis and the "Other" category
The report concludes that HUD-funded programs achieved equitable representation in serving San Jose's diverse residents. I support the City's effort to examine who receives assistance, but I am not sure the displayed information is sufficient to support such a broad conclusion .
Several matters may need clarification:
• Of 2,875 participants, 1,241-or approximately 44%-are classified as "Other'' race. • The narrative appears to discuss Hispanic ethnicity alongside White and Asian racial categories, even though race and ethnicity are reported separately. • The Census footnote appears to link to "San Jose CCD, Santa Clara County," rather than unambiguously to "San Jose city."
• Program data and Census data may use different definitions, denominators, years, or geographic boundaries.
• Similarity in overall participation percentages does not necessarily establish equal access, equal outcomes, or equitable program performance.
The Census Bureau presents San Jose city and San Jose CCD as distinct geographic selections. The official Census data portal is available at data.census.gov.
I am not suggesting that the data demonstrate discrimination . I am questioning whether the report's conclusion may be stronger than the displayed evidence supports.
Could staff clarify:
1. What responses are included in the "Other" category?
2. Does "Other" result from HUD reporting categories, self-identification, data-entry practices, or a combination of factors?
3. Did staff use the population of the City of San Jose or the larger San Jose CCD for comparison?
4. Were race and Hispanic ethnicity analyzed separately using comparable definitions? s. Were outcomes, rather than only enrollment, compared among demographic groups?
6. Does the complete CAPER contain a more detailed fair-housing analysis? If 44% must remain in an "Other" category because of HU D's reporting structure, the report should explain that limitation before drawing conclusions from the data.
1. Income reporting for participants under 18
The memorandum says that income was not reported for 161 participants because they were under age 18. Those participants were excluded from the income-distribution table.
I may not understand the applicable HUD methodology, but many income-eligibility determinations are based on family or household income rather than a child's personal income.
Could staff explain:
• Why these participants were excluded rather than assigned their household's income category;
• Whether HUD's reporting system requires this treatment; • Whether excluding the 161 minors changes the percentages reported for extremely low-, very low-, and low-income participants; and
• Whether the table could cite or briefly explain the applicable HUD reporting methodology?
1. Homelessness outcomes and the 40% figure
The memorandum reports several different measures:
• 666 people engaged;
• 403 coordinated-entry assessments;
• 3,249 light-touch outreach interactions;
• 801 case-management sessions;
• 90 people entering interim housing; and
• 12 people moving directly from unsheltered locations into permanent housing.
These figures describe different activities and populations, so I understand that they should not automatically be treated as a single progression or conversion rate.
The supplemental memorandum also states that approximately 40% of individuals typically transition from the City's interim-housing system into permanent placements.
That information is encouraging, but the source and denominator are not provided. Could staff clarify:
• The period and population used to calculate the 40%;
• Whether it applies to all 22 interim-housing sites;
• Whether it applies to exits or to everyone admitted;
• Whether it includes the 90 individuals described in this report; • How many of those 90 later entered permanent housing; • The average or median time from outreach to interim housing and from interim housing to permanent housing;
• Housing-retention rates after placement; and
• The number returning to homelessness?
Federal CAPER requirements include evaluating progress in helping homeless people transition into permanent housing, shortening the period of homelessness, and preventing people from returning to homelessness. See 24 CFR §91.520©.
I recognize that not all of these outcomes may be attributable solely to the federal dollars covered by this report. Even so, connecting the federally funded outreach results to later housing outcomes would help the public understand the program's effectiveness.
1. Outputs compared with outcomes
The report contains many useful output measures, such as:
• Contacts;
• Assessments;
• Meals;
• Transportation services;
• Classes;
• Legal consultations;
• Counseling sessions; and
• Program enrollments.
Those figures show that work occurred, but they do not always show whether a participant's situation improved.
Where possible, future reports could pair outputs with outcomes such as:
• Permanent housing obtained and retained;
• Evictions prevented;
• Rental disputes resolved;
• Barriers to stable housing removed;
• Income or employment improved;
• Repeat homelessness reduced;
• Capital projects completed and placed into public use; • Accessibility or safety improvements measured; and
• Outcomes sustained after six or twelve months.
Federal regulations call for a comparison of proposed and actual outcomes and an explanation when progress was not made toward goals. See 24 CFR §91.5200).
If that comparison appears in the complete CAPER, a direct link and page reference would resolve this concern.
1. Program-specific federal reporting
The Council memorandum does not appear to include all the program-specific information described in 24 CFR §91.520. That information may be contained in the complete CAPER.
Could staff identify where the complete report addresses the following? HOME
• Inspection results for HOME-assisted rental housing;
• Affirmative-marketing actions;
• Outreach to minority-owned and women-owned businesses; • Program income and its use; and
• Applicable emergency-transfer information.
HOPWA
• Individuals as well as households assisted;
• Types of assistance;
• Housing-stability outcomes; and
• Applicable emergency-transfer information.
ESG
• Number of people assisted;
• Types of assistance;
• Performance outcomes developed in consultation with the Continuum of Care; and • Applicable emergency-transfer information.
CDBG
• Relationship between expenditures and the City's highest-priority objectives; • Reasons for changes in objectives;
• How experience will affect future program implementation; and • Applicable income information.
Overall CAPER
• Geographic distribution of investments;
• Actions taken concerning fair housing;
• Proposed-versus-actual outcomes;
• Explanations for unmet goals; and
• Corrective actions or program modifications.
Again, I am not concluding that these elements are absent from the actual CAPER. I could not verify them from the Council memorandum alone.
1. Capital projects and delayed expenditures
The supplemental memorandum provides reasonable explanations for several delayed expenditures, including pending environmental review, construction timing, reimbursement processing, and the mechanics of recording expenditures in HUD's system.
I do not criticize the City for delaying expenditures until required environmental reviews are completed. Compliance with environmental requirements is important.
A project-status table could nevertheless improve transparency by showing:
• Original award;
• Actual spending;
• Percent complete;
• Original completion date;
• Current estimated completion date;
• Reason for delay;
• Remaining federal balance;
• Risk of cost escalation;
• Applicable federal deadline;
• Corrective action; and
• Whether the facility is operational.
A simple status label-such as "on schedule," "awaiting environmental review," "delayed," "at risk," or "completed"-would help residents understand why a project may have received funding but reported little or no expenditure during the year.
1. Additional document corrections or clarifications
I noticed several smaller matters that may merit correction:
• The September 18 supplemental memorandum identifies itself as September 18 on its first page, but continuation pages display August 31, 2026. • One passage refers to fiscal year "2025-2626. "
• Two different demographic tables are both labeled "Table 8." • The section titled "Commission Recommendation and Input" does not identify a formal Commission motion, vote, or recommendation.
• The main memorandum discusses two future public meetings, while the later supplemental reflects that one meeting had already occurred. This is understandable given the sequence of publication, but the final record should make the chronology clear.
Individually , these appear to be ordinary editorial errors. Together with the HOME calculation and public-notice date, however, they suggest that a correction sheet or revised memorandum would be useful before the final CAPER is submitted.
Practical recommendations
I respectfully suggest that the City consider the following practices for future CAPER reports:
1. One-page financial reconciliation: Show allocation , prior-year balances, program income, expenditures, commitments, and remaining balances by grant.
2. HUD-requirement crosswalk: Identify each applicable federal reporting requi rement and the page of the CAPER where it is addressed.
3. Planned-versus-actual table: Show each major performance target, actual result, variance, explanation, and proposed corrective action.
4. Contract-versus-expenditure table: Distinguish contract ceilings from actual federal spending.
5. Homelessness outcome pathway: Distinguish outreach, assessment, interim placement , permanent placement, housing retent ion, and return to homelessness.
6. Capital-project status table: Show financial and construction progress, delays, federal deadlines, and risk levels.
7. Demographic methodology note: Explain geography, denominators, race and ethnicity categories, the "Other " category, and limitations on comparisons.
8. Public-comment response matr ix: List each material comment, staff's response, and whether the report was revised.
9. Clear version control: Label documents as draft , supplemental, corrected, Council -approved, and submitted-to-HUD versions.
10. Plain-language public summary: Provide residents with a shorter explanation of how much funding was available, how much was spent, who was served, what changed, and what remains unfinished.
11. Direct agenda links: Link the staff memorandum , complete CAPER, notices, comments, corrections, and final HUD submission from one location .
These suggestions largely support the transparency, participation, performance, and reporting principles already reflected in 24 CFR §91.105 and 24 CFR §91.520.
Requested actions
To summarize, I respectfully ask the City to consider the following before or during Council consideration of Item 8.2:
1. Correct or explain the $113,079 HOME discrepancy.
2. Verify the actual year and date of the multilingual public notice.
3. Provide a direct link to the complete draft CAPER and, after submission, the final CAPER.
4. Reconcile allocations and expenditures by program and grant year. s. Distinguish contract ceilings from actual expenditures.
6. Clarify how the $300 million public comment will be reflected in the final report.
7. Explain the demographic methodology and the 44% "Other" category.
8. Confirm the Census geography used in the equity comparison.
9. Explain why participants under 18 were excluded from the income distribution.
10. Provide the basis for the 40% interim-housing-to-permanent-placement figure.
11. Provide longer-term housing outcomes for participants where available.
12. Identify where all applicable HOME, HOPWA, ESG, CDBG, fair-housing, geographic, and proposed-versus-actual reporting elements appear.
13. Correct the continuation-page date, fiscal-year typo, duplicate table number, and unclear Commission heading.
14. Consider using the recommended financial, outcome, project-status, and public-comment tables in future reports.
Conclusion
The programs described in this report provide important assistance to people experiencing homelessness, tenants, seniors, people living with HIV/AIDS, low-income families, and neighborhoods throughout San Jose. I appreciate the work required to administer four complicated federal funding programs and compile the information required by HUD.
Accurate and understandable reporting protects the public, City employees, service providers, and the continuation of federal funding. Correcting a calculation or typographical error should strengthen the report, not weaken it.
Because I am new to this process, I may have misunderstood some of the information. If so, I would genuinely appreciate clarification. If the missing details appear in the complete CAPER, providing a direct link and page references would answer many of my questions.
My purpose is to help improve accuracy, transparency, public understanding, and confidence in the City's administration of these important programs . I respectfully ask that staff address these matters during the Council discussion or provide a written response afterward.
Thank you for your time and for considering these questions.
Sincerely,
Brian Darby
San Jose, California
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.