**Resident Involvement/Self Sufficiency Notes**

**Public Housing Administrative Reform Initiative**

**July 18, 2007, Conference Call**

-   **[Attendees]{.underline}**: Chairs: Joy Johnson and Mae Bradley;
    HUD: Marianne Nazzaro, Margaret Skiffer, Lorraine Walls (notetaker);
    Group: Joe Feuerhert, Valerie Buchand, Crystal Palmer

-   **[I. Welcome ]{.underline}**

-   **[II. Notes:]{.underline}** July 12^th^  notes accepted

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **[III. Website Overview]{.underline}** -- Send information to
    Marianne Nazzaro for posting -- maintain link sent this week. She
    described the homepage for the ARI.  Reminded -- do not need to
    reach consensus - recommendations are key -- OK to disagree. We are
    third study area -- four CFR references should be read and under the
    green tab see recommendation from varied sources as tools/tracking. 
    Plus, we have our own chat room so please sign up -- name; e-mail
    and password.  Use the registration form if not signed up yet. 

-   **[IV. Discussion --]{.underline}**

1.  [Resident Involvement Waiver]{.underline} (24CFR 964) Table or not?
     Decision -- put comments in Chat room for discussion in future.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
1.  [Flat Rent]{.underline} (24 CFR 960.253) -- May be better addressed
    under the occupancy group- we can send comments to the group for
    their consideration.  The Chicago participants will be contacted to
    discuss their concerns.   Rent calculation period -- is a concern
    and RC's can have a workshop to train residents on the process. 
    Overview of flat rent was provided and recommendation was continuous
    training on flat rent -- for consistency and transparency.  

> COMMENT: Send recommendations to occupancy group and include in "our"
> document.

2.  [July 24 & Sept 12:]{.underline}  Meeting dates were discussed --
    in-person and call in meeting.

3.  [Negotiations with PHA Flat Rent (24 CFR 960.253 (e):
     ]{.underline}CFR states "PHA informed choice": A RC could propose
    recommendations to this process -- if you have an active RC
    negotiation is a good tool.   Negotiation could be centered on PHA
    plan where the residents could participate in a study group for
    market analysis, planning process.  Other items are not a negation
    -- regulation cannot be taken away- matter of RC participating in
    the process of how it is going to provide the residents an "informed
    Choice" 

> KEY -- TRAINING!

4.  [Resident Involvement w/ development of policies- Flat Rent (24
    960.253 (e))]{.underline}: RC can go to Board with concerns.  A
    process for the ACOP being updated/ changed and notification to
    Residents -- access to the document -- PHA should identify changes/
    updated.  A methodology for sharing information on ACOP location
    changes/updates, training opportunities, posting, delivery
    (mailing/posting). 

> [THEME]{.underline}: Consistency, transparency and more training.

5.  [Capital Funds (24 CFR 905);]{.underline} How can we make sure sites
    that are not in good condition be better kept up.  June 18, 2007
    article from CLPHA's concerns on AM was shared -- the general
    concern is operating fund rule -- capital fund should have its own
    rule as opposed to operating fund rule. A comprehensive capital fund
    rule.  Loss of flexibility 20% of funds to move to operating expense
    -- under AM goes to individual property.  Not allowing capital fund
    to be used under centralized cost -- resident services, maintenance
    etc. PHA may not be able to support some of these services.  

> MAINTENANCE will be directly affected by AM.  
>
> RESIDENT SERVICES could be cut under AM.  It depends on how PHA
> structures accounting books -- if a Resident Services Coordinator is
> PHA wide as opposed to a property -- may have situation on how that
> position is paid for. Capital funds can't be used to support those
> positions if centralized. PHA Plan process is a format for RC to
> participate in the planning process.  Routine maintenance is paid for
> out of operating funding -- PHA receiving 83% to operate day-to-day
> should be a local decision on how to use capital funds.  Percentages
> may not be a good way to decide on capital funds -- overall cutting
> the capital funds is not a good thing -- stop cutting and put more
> money into it.     
>
> GENERAL QUESTION: The HA does not currently provide funds for RC
> members to go to meetings for training etc. Capital fund money could
> be used for this purpose.   Is their somewhere in the guidelines for
> PHA's to send residents to training. 
>
> RESPONSE: Resident services dollars come from other areas --
> traditionally capital fund dollars pay for property expenses. 
>
> GENERAL QUESTION: Resident relocation can capital fund be used any
> guidelines?
>
> RESPONSE: Held for HOPE VI discussion including replacement.    
>
> [THEME]{.underline}: Consistency, transparency and more training.

6.  [WHAT IS ASSET MANAGEMENT (AM)?: ]{.underline} Where is RM leading?
    Redevelopment of PH? Gentrification? With the capital fund being
    reduced, grants reduced and residents not well informed- AM -- we
    need best practices -- feedback.  Harvard cost study shared and
    operating fund rule overview provided.  AM came after the Harvard
    cost study which recommended a move to AM without the details. 
    Charlotte is the best practice model for AM and we all should read
    he report -- it is on the HUD AM website.   In January individual
    properties will get funding as opposed to one stream of funds.   

> [THEME]{.underline}: Consistency, transparency and more training --
> Board, PHA, residents, resident advocates in the same room getting the
> same training so we can learn at the same time to share with one
> voice.

7.  [Resident Board (24 CFR 964]{.underline}): Preserving resident
    rights/protections to recognize RAB's and RC and no other recognized
    entity.   Further discussion Tabled

-   **[V. GUIDING PRINCIPLES]{.underline}**:  They will be typed and
    shared for the next meeting.

-   [**Status of Call 7/25/07 -- next in person meeting 7/24 -- DECISION
    TABLED -- WILL BE E: MAILED TO** **GROUP:**]{.underline} Those not
    attending meeting can call in.  Ms. Nazzaro will be contacted to
    assist in this process for location, numbers: Currently physical
    attendees:   May; Joy; Willie; Marianne; Chicago; rest will be
    notified for call --in time.  Please be cognizant of folks around
    the country concerning the time.  It will be confirmed for physical
    meeting dates -- 7/24 & 9/12 and group will be updated through
    e-mail by tomorrow.