1 September 13, 2022
(NOT APPROVED)
CITY OF SANTA MONICA
HOUSING AUTHORITY MEETING MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 13, 2022
A special meeting of the Santa Monica Housing Authority was called to order by Chair Himmelrich at 8:14 p.m., on Tuesday, September 13, 2022, at City Council Chambers, 1685 Main Street.
Roll Call: Present: Chair Sue Himmelrich
Vice Chair Kristin McCowan
Commissioner Phil Brock
Commissioner Gleam Davis
Commissioner Lana Negrete
Commissioner Oscar De La Torre
Commissioner Christine Parra
Absent: HAB Tenant Representative Donna Brown
HAB Tenant Representative Elizabeth Cochran
Also Present: Authority Secretary David White
Authority Attorney Douglas Sloan
Authority Clerk Denise Anderson-Warren
CONVENE On order of the Chair, the Housing Authority convened to a joint meeting with the City Council at 8:14 p.m., with Housing Authority Board members Brown and Cochran absent.
REPORT ON MEETING
COMPENSATION
Pursuant to State law, Authority Clerk Anderson-Warren announced that the members will receive $50 compensation for meeting as the Housing Authority.
STUDY SESSION:
RESIDENT ADVISORY
BOARD
7.A. Section 8 Resident Advisory Board Approaches, was presented.
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the Housing Authority Board review and comment on the current and alternative approaches to achieving Resident Advisory Board input on the Santa Monica Housing Authority Plans and direct the City Manager to return to City Council following the November 2022 election with actions necessary to implement direction received from City Council or further discussion regarding the alternatives presented, as warranted.
Questions asked and answered of staff included: how is the city in 2 September 13, 2022
compliance with Housing Urban Development (HUD) with regard to the Resident Advisory Board (RAB) regulations; is there an estimate of the value of housing vouchers that most Santa Monicans receive, and how many participants are there; does the money for the vouchers comes from the Federal Government; is it correct that the City Council is the body responsible for the Administering the City’s voucher program, and would be liable, if something were to go wrong with it; is it expected for people on the RAB to be able to understand the over 700 pages of regulations that apply to the various housing programs; is it safe to say we meet the minimum HUD requirements for a RAB; is there a reason the city doesn’t host an annual RAB meeting to receive feedback; has staff had a robust discussion about how to get more participation from RAB members; do all cities run their Section 8, HUD programs through their city’s Administrative staff, and how do most cities run their programs; is there a way to change this system, and look at other cities to see if there is a more efficient way to run this system; is it accurate that 66 members attended the last Housing Commission meeting regarding RAB; how are the RAB meeting notices communicated with the residents, is it done in other languages; is the basic function of a RAB to provide feedback on the Housing Plan; is there a way to have the functioning Administrative body, and have the RAB serve as a communication body to provide input on various Housing Plans; would the Client Advisory Board (CAB) be subject to the Brown Act; would the communications of the CAB be subject to the Public Records Act; how would the CAB members be selected; is there any Federal guidance on how a RAB would be selected; how do we ensure that the selection process meets all of the diversity and inclusive requirements; and, does the city have $68,000 for Administrative cost to form a RAB that is funded by HUD.
Members of the public Denise Barton, Deborah Lynch, David Morris, Olga Zurawska (time donated by John Alle), Theresa Marasco, Michael Louis, Ann Thanawalla, and Denise McGranahan commented on the
recommended action.
Considerable discussion ensued on topics including, but not limited to: let the RAB be self-determined; the Council needs to create the guidelines to select a RAB that meets the HUD guidelines; the Council is responsible for the Administration of the funds the city receives from the Federal government; that the CAB is an Advisory body; the CAB needs to be a Brown Act body; how will the Public Records Act apply; and, decide how many people and how they will be selected.
Motion by Councilmember Brock, seconded by Councilmember de la Torre, to give direction to the City Manager to return as soon as possible and support the Housing Commission’s recommendations and direct them 3 September 13, 2022
to schedule the very first meeting of the CAB, and include all legal descriptions, including Brown Act, etc., in this direction. And further, staff should come back and analyze what was said tonight and try and come back with their best representations. Maybe comeback mid to late October with recommendations that Council can look at to have a more substantial conversation.
The City Manager provided clarification that the October date may be too short of a time period and recommended changing the timeline to “as soon as possible.” The amendment to the direction was accepted by the maker and seconder.
The motion was unanimously approved by voice vote by all Council/Authority members present, , with Housing Authority Board members Brown and Cochran absent.
ADJOURNMENT: On order of the Chair, the special Housing Authority meeting was adjourned at 10:24 p.m.
ATTEST: APPROVED:
Denise Anderson-Warren Sue Himmelrich
Authority Clerk Chair