S.J. grand jury report cites improvements at county Housing Authority

Following an investigation by the San Joaquin County civil grand jury, the Housing Authority of the County of San Joaquin has taken steps to improve its operations, according to a grand jury report released on Wednesday.

The primary concerns cited in the report were the lack of any written procedure or plan for appointing successors to the Housing Authority’s executive positions and board of commissioners, as well as a lack of communication between the commissioners and the executive director.

Other issues in the complaint included excessive costs for services, conflicts among the board members and abuse of authority by board members and executives. The initial investigation began with the 2015-16 grand jury reviewing the Housing Authority’s actions in nine of the past 16 years, all the way back to 2009. As the previous grand jury was unable to complete the investigation due to time constraints, they recommended that it be continued by the current jury.

Founded in 1942, the Housing Authority provides assistance to more than 19,000 low-income residents each year, according to the grand jury’s report. The Housing Authority, which currently employs approximately 90 personnel, operates with an annual budget of $50 million, with 90 percent of that coming from the Department of Housing and Urban Development. With this budget, the agency distributes 5,000 housing vouchers, as well as manages 1,139 public housing units.

The Housing Authority also manages 31 subsidized units for migrant workers and their families, and distributes around 200 vouchers for Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing .

The Housing Authority recently received an award for Most Improved in the Housing Choice Voucher Program. The program utilizes $30 million of the Housing Authority’s annual budget, and was found to have 600 rental vouchers that were not being used.

The authority developed a strategy to increase voucher usage, contracting out inspections to save time, utilizing mail screening as opposed to faceto-face appointments to allow more time for case work and involving more staff to expedite eligibility determination. The Housing Authority also applied for more vouchers, as well as contracting a leasing coordinator to assist with VASH leasing. Through these efforts, the Housing Authority was able to provide assistance to nearly 500 new families.

The grand jury discovered that many of the agency’s problems were related to a lack of written procedure or succession policy for replacing executives in the Housing Authority. The Housing Authority had no executive director between 2008 and 2009, and the former executive director hired in 2009 was faced with numerous issues. These issues, according to a summary of the grand jury’s findings, included an “atrocious” physical appearance of the administration building caused by graffiti and a homeless population sleeping in the parking lot, which contributed to unsanitary conditions. The homeless were relocated and the parking lot was cleaned up.

Still more concerns include the capital fund, used for capital improvements and maintenance, being deemed “high-risk” by HUD due to millions of dollars not being spent, and was at risk of being taken back by HUD. The Housing Authority also had an adversarial relationship with HUD at the time, although the former executive director was able to improve communications between them, and the capital fund has been now been designed as “low-risk.”

The current executive director, Peter Ragsdale, applied for a grant for the Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program through HUD. According to Ragsdale, the Housing Authority recently received a $24 million tax credit to renovate 115 units in the Sierra Vista Homes community. Ragsdale said that the buildings are 70 years old, and need to be demolished and replaced with new homes.

Ragsdale expressed interest in having more home ownership in the county as well as providing other forms of assistance.

Other agency improvements listed in the grand jury’s report include an expedited eviction process, clarified roles for the executive director and general counsel, improved communications between all departments and strengthened relationships with the community. The majority of tenants interviewed expressed a renewed sense of pride in their communities, as well as an appreciation for the Housing Authority making it clear that the tenants themselves are responsible for their actions and enforcing the consequences if lease agreements are not met.

Despite the changes made by the Housing Authority, the grand jury still had a few recommendations for further improvement.

According to grand jury foreperson Bert Brown, other recommendations include ensuring that the general counsel’s time cards are completed correctly, finalizing and implementing a succession plan by Dec. 31, 2017 as well as compiling a job description for future appointed executives and board members by Sept. 30, 2017.

Even with this work left to do, this case was still much more positive than most of the grand jury’s other investigations, Brown said.

“It was gratifying to discover positive changes, so may of our cases involve a lot of criticism.”