Committee on General Welfare

Ready? Ready? Ready. Hello, good afternoon. Welcome to today's New York City Council hearing for the Committee on General Welfare. At this time, please silence all phones. If you wish to speak in today's hearing, please fill out an appearance card with one of the sergeants. Moving forward, no one is to approach the dais. Chair, you may begin.

Thank you so much and good afternoon. Welcome to today's hearing on legislation concerning the City Family Homelessness and Eviction Prevention Supplement, more commonly known as City FEPS. I'm Crystal Hudson, General Welfare Committee Chair, and my pronouns are she/her. New York City is facing 2 intertwined crises. An acute affordable housing shortage, and a staggering number of New Yorkers who are unhoused.

According to the Coalition for the Homeless, in July 2026, 96,528 people slept in New York City shelters each night, including 30,824 children. The total number of people without homes is far higher. Between folks sleeping unsheltered and people living doubled or tripled up with family or friends, the number is more likely in the hundreds of thousands. Let that sink in.

Hundreds of thousands of our neighbors, school kids, people fleeing domestic violence, people who just can't make the rent because it's too damn high, have to question whether they will have a roof over their heads tonight. What a wholly unacceptable state of affairs. In New York City, everyone has a right to shelter, but frankly, shelter isn't enough. As a city, it is imperative that we do everything we can to get people into permanent, stable housing.

CityFEPs— I'm sorry, Sergeants, do you mind? Thank you. CityFEPs is one of the city's tools to do just that. As the city's main rental assistance program, CityFEPs supports New Yorkers who are in shelters or at risk of losing their homes to move into and maintain housing. According to DSS, between the inception of CityFEPs in 2018 and March 2025, the program helped 123,600 Excuse me. 123,762 individuals secure permanent housing.

Understanding the dire need for this kind of assistance, the budget for CityFEPs has continually grown. In fiscal year 2026, the city budgeted $1.78 billion for the program. In fiscal year 2027, that amount will rise to $1.97 billion, with even more projected for 2028 and 2029. In short, this is an important program and one that the city invests heavily in.

But the program is only valuable if people can actually access it. To do so, New Yorkers applying for CityFEPs need to be able to understand where their applications for assistance stand. They need to be able to find eligible apartments, move into safe and habitable homes, and receive their rental assistance payments reliably and on time. Landlords participating in rental assistance programs also need to be able to navigate the Unfortunately, there are pain points at each of these stages that block New Yorkers who really need the assistance from benefiting from it.

The 5 pieces of legislation we're hearing today attempt to remove these roadblocks. Intro numbers 98, 100, and 101 are sponsored by my colleague, Councilmember Gale Brewer. Intro number 98 is about ensuring apartments are safe before CDFEPS assistance is used towards rent, while also balancing the need for move-ins to happen as efficiently as possible. Intro number 100 would require the Department of Social Services, or DSS, to report the average time it takes for an individual to secure housing after receiving a shopping letter, a document issued by DSS that applicants use while searching for an eligible apartment.

Intro number 101 focuses on the time it takes DSS to respond to an application for a CityFEPs voucher. Councilmember Brewer may give a statement later about her legislation. Intro number 641, sponsored by Councilmember Ressler, addresses the timing of rental assistance payments. This bill would require that DSS make CityFEP's rental assistance payments no later, later than 7 days before the first day of the month to which the payment applies.

Timely payments are important not only for tenants but also for landlords who participate in the program. Payment delays can create uncertainty for both sides and can undermine the stability CityFEP is intended to provide. He also may give a statement later. Finally, preconsidered intro number T26— T2026-1424, sponsored by Councilmember Murano, seeks to make the city FEPS process smoother for landlords by requiring DSS to administer an online portal for landlords who participate in rental subsidy programs.

He also may make a statement later. I look forward to hearing from the administration and the public about these proposals. I want to conclude by thanking the committee staff for their work on this hearing: Hannah Cohn, Pnina Rosenberg, Justin Campos, Fariha Rahman, and Elizabeth Childers Garcia. I'd also like to thank my staff: Andrew Wright, Elica Ruantan, and Demi Brown.

And I will now pass it over to the committee counsel to administer the oath to the administration.

Thank you. Now, in accordance with the rules of the council, I will administer the affirmation to the witnesses. from the mayoral administration, please raise your right hand. Do you affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in your testimony before this committee and respond honestly to council members' questions? I do. I do.

Thank you. Before delivering testimony, please state your name for the record. Go ahead. Yeah. Good afternoon.

My name is Erin Dalton, and I'm the Commissioner of the Department of Social Services. Good afternoon, Chair Hudson and members of the Committee on General Welfare. I'm Erin Dalton, and I serve as the Commissioner of the Department of Social Services. Joining me today are HRA Administrator Scott French and Andrea Reed, Executive Deputy Commissioner of Housing Services Administration at HRA.

Thank you for convening today's legislative hearing and offering me the opportunity to provide feedback on the 5 legislative legislative proposals on the agenda for today. I want to begin by expressing my appreciation for our ongoing constructive dialogue on legislation and legislative proposals. To the extent that legislative proposals can benefit from more nuanced, detailed understandings of current practice and the impacts of these proposals, we look forward to continuing these conversations with the bill sponsors.

Turning to the central topic of today's hearing, CDFEPS. CDFEPS was established in November of 2018. with the consolidation of several predecessor housing voucher programs. Today, CDFAP serves more than 71,000 households and 162,000 New Yorkers. CDFAP serves as a component of a continuum of care that sets vulnerable New Yorkers on a path towards permanent housing. While I'm grateful to live and work in a city that cares for its vulnerable neighbors in this way, it is worth reminding us all that CDFAP is one of several rental subsidies established to support low-income people in need of housing assistance. assistance, and I urge us all to continue to advocate for federal and state housing and rental subsidy investments, which have been cut considerably in recent years.

Briefly, before turning to the specific legislation on the agenda today, I would like to take a moment to share my— to share the agency and administration's perspective on government efficiency and government excellence, which is at the heart of each of the bills being discussed today. The intent of each of the bills is to improve timeliness, customer service, customer service, and transparency of this critical government program.

This is a key pillar of the administration, demonstrated in numerous ways, but explicitly by aiming to accelerate the housing development and move-in process by issuing the speed report announced in May this year. Likewise, at DSS, we have taken steps to improve CDFAP's review and approval process, including shifting to a single staff review and supervisory approval for DHS cases, and fine-tuning our focus on eligibility for property ownership, payee, subsidy type, and clients.

Through increased staff and provider training and landlord engagement, our goal is that the streamlining of the process will result in fewer return packages and a reduction in the time it takes for clients to move into permanent housing. I now turn to the legislation on the agenda today. Introduction 98, sponsored by Councilmember Brewer, would require the Commissioner of Social Services to deem a dwelling unit habitable before approving CDFAPS rental assistance for that unit.

All New Yorkers deserve safe and affordable housing. We share the goal of ensuring that CDFAPS inspections are conducted quickly and result in safe, quality housing for the New Yorkers we serve. While we oppose some of the specific requirements of the legislation, we are pleased to report on a pilot program that we think meets the the intent of Introduction 98.

For the last 9 months, we have been operating a pilot program that tests many of the approaches articulated in the proposed legislation. We believe that the lessons from this pilot program set forth the foundation for an approach that balances the desire to process applications quickly with the need for safe housing conditions. This process allows for inspections to be conducted by providers in most instances and HRA inspectors for more challenging units.

We are also exploring the establishment of a prequalified list of third-party inspectors to allow approved organizations to inspect and improve vacant apartments prior to occupancy for all newly constructed buildings. Like the proposed legislation, our approach now distinguishes between minor and major repairs, and our expedited reinspection process offers an opportunity to promptly remedy minor faults and relay that evidence to HRA of the fix.

Landlords may send photos documenting that the failures have been addressed and that the unit now meets habitability standards. Virtual inspections have proven to be a valuable tool in both maintaining agency safety and habitability standards and from an efficiency perspective. HRA uses virtual inspections and/or— uses virtual inspections for re-inspection using WhatsApp or FaceTime to help streamline the process further.

We will be ready to roll out these process improvements system-wide in the first quarter of next year. While unintended, if adopted as drafted, this bill would limit our flexibility, increase burden and time to process, and require the addition of many more HRA inspectors and inspections. We are committed to responsible and expedited approval move-in timeliness for CityFAPS clients, and we think the current process well balances the joint goals of processing quickly and ensuring safe housing for New Yorkers we serve.

We look forward to the discussion of the proposed legislation and changes we've made to the process and hope they meet the underlying goals of the proposed legislation. Introduction 100, sponsored by Councilmember Brewer, would require the Department of Social Services to annually, annually submit to the mayor and the speaker of the council and to include in the mayor's management report the average time it takes for an individual to secure housing after receiving a voucher.

We share the aim of advancing transparency through timely and accurate reporting of relevant data. We are able to report on the metric proposed in the legislation, but we hope to have further discussion with the bill sponsor around the interpretation of these metrics and whether they are the best metrics to use to assess the CityFHEPS program. There are numerous factors impacting timelines from time of receipt of an initial shopping letter to move-out, including a historically low vacancy rate for affordable permanent housing units.

For instance, a survivor of domestic violence may be limited geographically to ensure safety. Another household may be focused on finding housing in a particular borough due to the location of their child's school and health services. In addition to the challenges posed by attempting to gain general insights from a nuanced metric, DSS already reports on various metrics, including Local Law 79, length of stay reporting for rental assistance programs, And we would like to explore whether the sponsor would— feels the benefit of— explore with the sponsor the benefit of adding this additional metric.

Introduction 101, sponsored by Councilmember Brewer, would require the Department of Social Services to respond to CityFEP's rental assistance applications within 15 days of receipt to inform the applicant of whether the application has been approved, denied, or requires correction or additional information. We understand the legislation's aim of processing applications in a timely manner and to keep applicants informed.

Our average processing time for City FEPS, defined as the time of submission to the complete package of approval, is 28 days, which has improved over the last month or month and a half to 24.8 days. Currently, clients are informed about their application status by case managers at biweekly independent living plan check-ins. In addition, by the end of October, we will be able to release an improvement to the Access HRA client-facing portal where CityFEP's application status will be posted and available to clients.

We believe that taken together, these enhancements meet the goal of the legislation in providing timely and transparent information on the status of CityFEP's applications. Introduction 641, sponsored by Councilmember Ressler, would require that DSS issue CityFEP's rental assistance payments no later than 7 days before the first day of the month to which the payment will be applied. DSS currently issues payment on the 26th of the month prior to when the payment is applied.

For landlords enrolled in the electronic fund transfer, they will receive this funding within 24 hours of that day, and for those who still opt to receive a paper check, they will receive it in or on around the first of the month. We believe this is a reasonable approach that is working well. That said, we understand that landlords do not just receive rental payments from the City of New York.

For some tenants, rental contributions are made from New York State's welfare management system, which issues a shelter allowance payment in 2 parts, at the beginning of the month and in the middle of the month. While we understand that this may be frustrating to landlords, DSS cannot change how or when the state issues those payments. Also, DSS is very clear with landlords up front about the state payment system.

Landlords agree to the terms in the CityFAPS payment structure on the outset, acknowledging in writing, being a written and signed agreement, that payments received within the month are considered timely. Preconsidered introduction file T2026-1424, sponsored by Councilmember Murano, requires the agency to create a portal for landlords who participate in rental subsidies programs administered by the Department of Social Services.

We agree with the aim of providing landlords a user-friendly portal to perform important administrative functions, receive updates, and register to receive payments electronically. That's why the agency launched the ServiceNow system back in 2016 and the current New York City Landlord Portal and the Apartment Offers Portal. both launched in 2023. Since then, we have continued to take strides in making these systems more capable of meeting landlord needs.

As written, the bill proposed— the bill proposes the landlord portal enact the provisions outlined in the legislation by January of 2027. We hope to discuss with the sponsor the significant additional lead time we would need to accomplish the elements this legislation proposes. While we have substantial IT work underway to pursue many of the functionalities this bill seeks to establish, We do not believe it would be feasible to have all of these functions up and running by January 2027.

For instance, today our portal allows landlords to upload some of the documents, but not all the documents they are required to submit. At present, some documents are presented as part of the application submitted by a provider. Over time, we plan to transition to a system where our portal can collect all of the required documents. Altogether, this work represents part of a larger IT build-out process that requires time set aside for testing, quality assurance, and the ultimate release that we do not see accounted for in the proposed legislation.

In conclusion, DSS supports the intention of the bills to improve timeliness, customer service, and transparency. We believe that further dialogue between the agency and council will contribute to crafting targeted solutions that accomplish those goals. I appreciate the council's leadership and attention to ensuring vulnerable New Yorkers find stable, permanent, affordable housing I also appreciate the opportunity to testify today and welcome your questions.

Thank you so much. And I would like to note that we have been joined by Councilmembers Nurse, Ung, and Murano. And I will turn it over to Councilmember Murano for remarks on his legislation. Thank you, Chair. And thank you, Commissioner, for your testimony. I look forward to asking a couple of questions in a bit. I want to thank everybody here, but especially Chair Hudson, for joining me as a sponsor of the legislation that we're considering today.

I'm a Republican from Staten Island. Chair Hudson is a Democrat from Brooklyn, and we probably don't agree on every housing issue, but we agree on this one: when the city promises to pay somebody's rent, it should actually pay the rent. I don't think that's a particularly radical proposition. So this legislation grew out of complaints and brought directly to my office by landlords and tenants who were having an extraordinarily difficult time dealing with the city's housing voucher program.

So we've heard about missing checks, payments sent to the wrong address, paperwork errors, and landlords going months without receiving money that they're legitimately owed. And when they try to get somebody at the city to fix it, they're bounced around from one office to another. Sometimes it seems like it's easier to get a reservation at Rao's than to get somebody on the phone to address this.

But there's a serious consequence to all of this, and it's one that results in less housing for everybody. I really have to say that the issue of getting more people in housing they can afford shouldn't be partisan in the least. If we want property owners to accept housing vouchers, we ought to make sure the city is a reliable partner.

This is about helping landlords get paid, but it's also about helping tenants remain housed and making government a little less frustrating for everybody involved. So I think the fact that Chair Hudson and I are working together on this demonstrates something important. You don't have to agree on every housing policy to agree that people deserve a functioning government.

So I'm looking forward to hearing more from today's witnesses, particularly those who've experienced some of these problems firsthand. I want to know what we're missing, what else needs to be fixed. And I appreciate the commissioner's testimony touching upon a couple of areas, but I want to know how we can make this legislation as effective as possible. Thank you again, Chair Hudson, and I appreciate your partnership, and I'm looking forward to moving this bill forward together.

Thank you so much. And I will turn it over to— well, first, let me acknowledge that we've been joined by Councilmembers Brewer and Wilson. And I will turn it over to Councilmember Brewer for remarks on her legislation.

Thank you very much for holding this hearing and for discussing this topic. I think we know how important CDFEPs are. We know that families who leave for permanent housing do so with CDFEPs voucher and all the challenges. We know that rental assistance with vouchers could save the city up to $635 million in shelter costs, and we know how much has gone into this discussion about city FEPS.

I introduced 3 bills, and I want to thank Women in Need in particular for their support in the crafting of these bills, as well as the council staff. 98 would make the inspection system more practical. Apartments still have to be safe, but if an owner fixes a few minor problems, we do not need to send an inspector back when photos or video can show the work was done.

Serious problems would still require another inspection. That is after much examples, many examples of this problem. Intro 100 would tell us how long it actually takes someone to go from receiving a voucher to moving into an apartment. If people are waiting too long, we need to know what the delays are. I know it's hard on the agency to have to fill out more paperwork and to do more intensive data analysis, but we really need to know that.

Inter 101 would require the agency, DSS, to inspect— to respond to a City FEPS application within 15 days, whether it is approved, denied, or needs more information. No one should wait weeks or months just to find out what's happening with an application. I hope these are practical. We certainly need the safeguards. We need to cut unnecessary delays.

And everyone wants individuals to get into housing faster. We have many people coming into our office with all of these kinds of questions. So thank you to Christine Quinn, Chris Mann, everybody at WIN, and all the advocates, and certainly Cynthia Hornig and Shula Puder from my staff. Thank you very much. And we had an op-ed on this topic yesterday in AM New York.

Thank you. And one in the Daily News. Yes. this morning. Yes. I read it. Thank you, Councilmember Brewer.

And I will jump into questions. So could you, for Intro 98, in relation to the procedure for determining that a dwelling unit is habitable for the purposes of the city FEPS program, could you walk us through the current process DSS follows when conducting habitability habitability inspections? Say that 3 times fast. I had to say it twice in my testimony.

I'm going to turn that one over to the Executive Deputy Commissioner Reed. Good afternoon, councilmembers. Thank you for that question. If you could just Just pull the microphone down just a little bit. Yeah, there you go. Thank you. Good afternoon. Thank you for that question. We share the goal of safety and habitability assessment, and we take that process very seriously.

The safety and habitability assessment is a 2-step process consisting of a standardized preclearance process and then a standardized walkthrough process. The pre-clearance process consists of an online review of housing units and building codes violations and other information in databases with New York City agencies, including HPD, which is Housing Preservation and Development, DOB, Department of Buildings, the fire department, FDNY, and also the Department of Finance, where we check for ownership information, and HPD for unit building registration information.

Once all those checklist items are conducted and there's a pass clearance, then it requires a physical inspection. Physical inspections can be done by video and/or in person. Both the provider and HRA conduct those inspections. HRA conduct the inspections that are for those units that are most likely not to pass the legal standards, and those are units in cellars, basements, attics, and first floors.

The other inspections are done by the provider agency. There's a standard checklist, it's called the apartment review checklist, and that both providers and HRA use that to conduct those inspections. Thank you. And what is the average wait time to schedule an apartment for a walkthrough by DHS? In the reorganization, the inspection team now reports to HRA, and so right now inspections are scheduled within 2 to 3 weeks.

Thank you. And what percent of unit inspections for habitability fail? For the inspections that are conducted by HRA, a good 50% of them fail, and so there's about 2 inspections before an application is approved for lease-up. Sorry, there are 2 inspections before they're approved, did you say? Yes, about 50% fail of the ones that are conducted by HRA, the cellar, basements, attic, first floors, right?

The inspections that are conducted by the provider, we don't have that information readily available because when those units fail, the provider works with the landlord to correct those failures before the application is submitted to us. Okay. And Chair, if it would be helpful, I could provide some specific data on the numbers that are done by HRA. Would that be helpful?

Yeah, absolutely, because 50% is a large number. Yeah. So when we look at calendar year '25, HRA staff did about 8,500, so 8,509 specifically. And I think the Executive Deputy Commissioner is correct in saying about 50% of the actual Percentage was 44% there. Approved or failed? Failed. So 64% were, or 66% were passing. I think it does bear to mention that HRA, as already mentioned, does about a third of all the inspections.

And so many more are done by the providers. Again, we take the harder ones. So those are going to be more likely to fail. So we think that the numbers, while we don't have the actual data for the inspections done by providers, fail far less often than the ones done by HRA, which are critical for us to do in order to ensure the safety side of this inspection process.

And sorry, you can get those numbers to us or cannot? We do not. Our systems do not collect that information. At all? On the provider side, no. Feature enhancements. Down the road, we're looking to be able to do that. Yeah. I mean, it would be great, obviously, to just have a sense of what's going on in the entire system, not just the portion that you all inspect.

And then before I continue my question, I do want to just go to your testimony, if I may, Commissioner, and just ask a couple of quick questions. You mentioned with regards to Intro 98 that you're exploring the establishment of a prequalified list for third-party inspectors. to allow approved organizations to inspect and approve vacant apartments prior to occupancy in all newly constructed buildings.

Do you anticipate a particular cost for that? I think that's still being developed with our partners at HPD as well, so we don't have that cost yet, but it's something that's actively being worked on. Okay. And then I want to confirm, you mentioned virtual inspections have been a valuable tool. Is that just limited to, or do you classify WhatsApp and FaceTime inspections as virtual inspections, or are there other types of virtual inspections other than WhatsApp or FaceTime?

We mentioned— thank you for that question, Councilmember. We mentioned WhatsApp and FaceTime because they're the most prevalent ones that are used. If you have an Android phone, everyone has WhatsApp. If it's iPhone, then it's FaceTime. I think there's other technology that offers video conferencing, but those are the main ones. Okay, but it is, it's all video conferencing.

I just worry with the word of virtual, that is a very broad description. And so with AI and everything else that we know is going on, I want to just make sure that it's actual video software that's being used as opposed to just some sort of like virtual Yeah, we are walking through with them as they do it.

It's virtually in regards to they're taking us through as they take the readings. They need to show that reading on the screen so that the staff person can look at it and affirm that the readings are within appropriate, you know, levels and those aspects of it. So yeah, it is a— we're walking through together. Just one person is virtually on the camera.

Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Just wanted to confirm.

And then with regards to Intro 101, you mentioned that there has been an improvement over the last month from the time of submission to approval going from 28 days to 24.8 days. What do you attribute that to? Yes, I will let the executive Deputy Commissioner give a little bit more detail, but there's been a significant reorganization of resources and refocusing.

So items that were once done by both DHS and HRA are now just done with one unit in HRA. And I think after the initial, of course, challenge of reorganization, we've really started to make strides in making those faster. But if you'd like to provide some additional details, that would probably be helpful. I'm sure. Thank you for that question, Commissioner.

So with the reorganization, we really tried to streamline the process for application review and approval. As the Commissioner mentioned, we went from a 3-touch review to a 2-touch review. So there's one staff reviewing and one supervisor reviewing. But we also changed the foundational lens of how we look at the review, and we look at 3 eligibility— 4 eligibility pillars.

It's the ownership eligibility, client and subsidy eligibility, and owner eligibility, so that the client— the staff have been trained and they are now given the tools to be able to critically think and make assessments along those eligibility lens. And so in the past, applications would go back and forth for simple reasons. Now they're able to look at those eligibility and make sure that those are being met, and so the application can move forward faster.

Additionally, we changed the life of the documents. And so documents were about 4 months, and now they're all at 6 months. And so less back and forth to update documents. Once the application is submitted, those documents also freeze in their valid timeframes, and so no longer back and forth for new updated documents. In addition to that, the supervisors now have increased the comment section in the electronic application, and so they're able to document whatever issues have been identified so that the providers, if we have to return the case, they know exactly what they need to do to send the case back.

So we've been able to move the needle. We're starting to see a turn. The applications are moving faster. The return rates have gone down. It's trending down. I don't want to boast yet, but we're starting to see a turn. And so hopefully as we continue to advance, we will see more progress. Awesome. I would say if there's a time to boast, now would be the time.

So you should boast away. That the streamlining that you mentioned and reorganization, that's all been since when? Just the end of September '25 or after? We integrated the units, yes, about a year ago. And then as the integration throughout that, we have implemented these different touchpoints. Several of the things the Executive Deputy Commissioner mentioned have happened probably in the past 6 months or so, sort of rolling out in a way, which is why we're starting to see them cumulatively actually turn the trend to lesser days to approval.

Great. Thank you.

And then with the preconsidered introduction from Councilmember Morano, you mentioned additional lead time that you think would be needed in order to accomplish what he's setting out to do by January of 2027. How much time do you anticipate needing in order to be ready? I think we can come back with specifics. I think there are things that will roll in over time.

So we are actively, right, we have systems already that we utilize that engage and support landlords, right, and property owners from our sort of current system, which is the main system that manages all of the CityFAP's packaging, our offer system where units are looked at for habitability and approvals, as well as our landlord portal system, which is a way for landlords to have more insight into their payments and also receive electronic fund payments.

We are in active sort of enhancements on all of those systems right now. Many of those enhancements actually speak to what's in the councilmember's bill. We can come back with specifics as to when we see different pieces of this starting to roll out. With something like this, it's often over many, many months because you try to sort of design it so you're releasing along the way rather than waiting till the end.

But we will start to see additional enhancements in the first quarter of 2027. And then periodically along that line, We can follow up with a more specific timeline and the sort of markers we think we're going to hit as it regards to the things outlined in the councilmember's bill. Okay, great. Thank you.

I'm going to ask just a couple more questions and I'm going to turn it over to my colleagues. What's the median time between a failed inspection and subsequent reinspection? This is another piece that we hope to have data on in the future, but we do not collect that data at this Okay. And then what is the average percentage of apartments which need a subsequent walkthrough to be approved for city FEPS?

I can take that. So I think as we already stated, there's 1.7 is the number, is the average inspections over the course of all the inspections. Some go— some only need one. And as the 1.7 would suggest, most don't need more than the 2. Okay. And then what's the average number of walkthroughs conducted before a unit is approved for CityFEBs?

I think that would be the— the 1.7 would be the similar metric we have at the moment. In the future, we hope to have data that might be able to look at it in different ways. Okay, great. Thank you. And then what's the median number of inspections a unit undergoes before passing inspection? So the last question was about reinspection.

This is just about inspection. Yeah, I think all we have is the one metric, which is 1.7 from start to finish. And just to again underscore, we are only reporting here on the HRA administered inspections, and so certainly for the broader universe, it could be fewer. Okay. All right. Thank you. All right. I'm going to go to Councilmember Murado, followed by Councilmember Brewer.

Thank you all for your testimony. Commissioner, in your testimony, you mentioned ServiceNow, which launched in 2016, and 2 other landlord portals launched in 2023. So by my count, We're talking about 3 different technology systems that have been introduced over the last decade. How many different websites, accounts, or interfaces does a landlord actually have to use today to participate in city FEPS from beginning to end?

Thank you. I'm going to defer to my colleagues on that one. Thank you for that question, Councilmember. So at the front end of the process, the landlords submit a unit that they're offering for rent in the offer system. So that's one system. As we move along and the application is approved, the landlord now have access when they sign up for the landlord portal.

Now they're able to see their payment history, all the government payments, the subsidy payments and the shelter allowance payments. They're also able to submit their documents regarding signing up for EFT and the landlord portal itself. In the future, as Administrator Scotch mentioned, there's lots of IT advancements on the horizon where the 2 systems will interface, and so that documents submitted on the front end will feed also the back end so that there's not multiple touchpoints.

So at the moment, can a landlord go to one place and see the status of their apartment inspection, their paperwork, their rental payments, And any outstanding complaints? Not at this time, sir. The communication process right now is once you're in the application phase of the journey that you're talking with your provider and they have the most up-to-date information that they can share with you.

I guess my motivation behind the legislation is, and it's kind of a combination question and comment, are we developing these systems with one unified strategy or are we building a new technological solution every time we discover another administrative problem? So I'll jump in there. I think these systems grew up in response to specific aspects of the process, right?

But I think, as I had mentioned before and what we've talked about, right, this next technological enhancement is about now interfacing and unifying those systems so that we can get to a single entry point for individuals, you know. But as our systems and processes developed over time, right, certain aspects of these, say the inspection aspect, was developing along a certain timeframe and the technology was needed there while the City FEPS sort of package processing was being developed in another way.

But we've acknowledged and sort of see we now need to bring all of those together, which is why, you know, the capital projects we currently have on hand are really moving towards that. And we can follow up with specifics as to, you know, how we see that working for the benefit of landlords, providers, and everybody moving forward as sort of a singular system one has to deal with.

Chair, may I ask one more question, or should I wait to— Only one more. One more. Yes. So, Commissioner, you said in your testimony that the January 27th deadline in my bill isn't feasible and that you need significant additional lead time. And I appreciate you being candid about that. But this isn't a request to build a spaceship.

We're talking about uploading documents, tracking payments and resolving complaints and functions that exist in other online services. So let me ask you as straightforward as possible. What date can you commit to? I don't have a date for you. We are happy to get back to you with specific timelines. I think we share the goal of the legislation you have introduced.

We do want to provide excellent customer service to to the landlords and property managers we're working with. Many aspects of the system are already underway. As Administrator French said, and we've probably testified to, some documents can be uploaded. We're working on additional, and we just have to lay out the IT infrastructure. If you could get back to me with a date certain, I'd appreciate it.

Thank you.

Councilmember Brewer. Thank you. Regarding Intro 98, I I was next door. You're lucky you're not dealing with signal. You're doing very well. Thank you. My question is— that's what we were talking about for the last 4 hours. My question is, if that inspection process is what is improving from 28 to 24 days, but we'd like to make it less days for getting into the apartment, what are some of the challenges?

Now, you mentioned that you're working perhaps on prequalified for inspections. Are you doing a pilot? So I was just wondering, because I do know in my, you know, not as half as experienced as you or as Wynne, but people are coming in that the smallest item is keeping them from moving into that apartment. Now, you also have, you know, people who have mold, and that's not fixable immediately.

So how does that— how can we fix that, if at all? In other words, what is it? I assume that the inspections, no matter how hard you try, are still slowing down the process. Yeah, I'll start here and then my colleagues may want to jump in. The pilot seems to have been working to achieve many of the things that you're after here, right?

So one of the things that we do think is important, as you could hear, we're only doing about a third of the inspection and the providers are doing the rest. We think that's important to keep that in place. You don't— I don't think you would want us to be doing all of those inspections. So that's— For the staff to do it, probably.

That's also correct. So I think that part we'd like to maintain. We completely agree that there's a difference between minor faults in an inspection and more significant ones. And so through this pilot process, we have made that differentiation, and we're allowing the landlords to fix and then prove to us that they've fixed the minor things using that kind of video. and photographic evidence to demonstrate that they fixed those.

So that's underway. And then for the more major challenges, we are then going out and reinspecting. And so I think those things in combination have started to move that process forward more quickly. And I think you would also share that there is always a balance between, particularly for these more difficult units that HRA is conducting, a balance between safety and speed.

And I think importantly, the lessons that we've learned, we are about to roll out to the whole system. And so for the entire system in the first quarter of next year, we would start to see the benefits of the innovations we've put forward over the last 9 months. Okay. And what are you like— that two-thirds being done by the private sector, that would not be done by the third-party inspectors.

That would still be done by the owners, basically. That's what I'm trying to figure out. Where do these third parties go? The third party goes to the last part of your introduction, which is about the new buildings. The new buildings. Okay. That's where they would be. All right. And then the other question just quickly is, there are 2,000 people who still need vouchers, right?

Because they're getting kicked off of other vouchers from the federal government. Are you on top of that? You're going to give them all vouchers? I'll jump in there in a second, but I think I just also want to— Vouchers. I want to clarify first, it's not owners doing the inspections for the other 2/3, it's the DHS providers doing those inspections.

I just want to sort of be clarity on that, right? Regarding the— I guess 2,000 people are going to need vouchers. Regarding the EHV, which I believe you're referring to, I believe, you know, that is sort of a whole-of-admin approach. is being utilized to address that need amongst those individuals. I think the— HPD. The final details are being sort of developed between us, HPD, NYCHA.

There are some, you know, vouchers from the state that are coming available, HAVP, and some other vouchers as well. So I think the admin is very much focused on the housing stability of those households at risk. But it is something that's being done across— Do you have a November deadline? Is that— I believe it's the end of December is where it's rolling into.

So I believe there's also some things still at the federal government happening around that as well. Maybe the meeting yesterday helped. You never know. Yeah. Also, Chris Gonzalez is very good. I don't agree sometimes what he tells me, but he does get back to me. Thank you very much. I would have to agree with that assessment. Okay.

Councilmember Wilson. Thank you, Chair. Just one question regarding Introduction 101, which would require the response in 15 days. I noticed in your testimony you said that you've gotten it down to just under 25. So I'm just curious what the hurdles are I'll start, and certainly anyone wants to jump in after that. So there's just a couple of innovations to mention there as we answer.

I think we are providing information back to the partners involved on a very regular basis, but I think the important thing that we will be rolling out at the end of October is the client accessibility in the AccessHRA app for them to be able to see the current status. And so, you know, as soon as we receive the application, that will get posted, and we'll be able to provide additional details via the app.

And I think just having that kind of availability will really change both the feeling about the process as well as— might actually improve the process because if we need updates, if there are things that we— that need to be corrected, people will be able to see them more quickly. I think also just further, as the Executive Deputy Commissioner said, right, we've just started seeing the impacts of the more integrated, streamlined approval process.

So we expect that to further, right, hopefully reduce those numbers of days. I would say the average day, though, is also very much predicated on how many times an application package needs to go back and forth with the provider. I would say in instances where there is no back and forth, we are pretty close to that 15 days.

But I think while we've seen reduction, we are still seeing a good percentage of packages do need to go back and forth between us and the providers to make sure at least the information we really must have to be able to approve a package to go forward is actually correct in the package. So we're sort of Focusing on many different efforts to bring that down as much as we can.

Thank you. What are the most common reasons that units fail habitability inspections? I'll let the Executive Deputy Commissioner take that one. I've got it though if you need it. Thank you for that question, Councilmember. I got you. I got it. I've got it right here. And you can feel free to jump in. So the top reason, which happens about 40% of the time, are water temperature failures, followed by electric outlet deficiencies, missing apartment numbers.

Sorry, hold on. Hold on. Do you have the corresponding percentages for each? So 40% are water temp, Yep. And I'll give you the— if it's helpful, I'll give you the closer to exact. So water temperature failures are about 41%. Okay. Electrical outlet deficiencies are 33%. Missing or unlabeled apartment numbers is close to 19%. Window guard and bracket violations are also close to 19%.

Refrigerator and freezer temperature failures, 18%. Missing or defective GFCI outlets— Sorry, sorry, fridge is 18 or 19? 18. And we can provide this to you. Okay, great. The missing or defective GFCI outlets are 17, closer to 18%. Door self-closing failures, 17%. Missing or outdated smoke Or CO alarms are 13%. If you would like me to keep going, so there are a number of other lesser occurring deficiencies, but those are some of the most significant.

If you could follow up with us with those, that would be really helpful. Thank you. And again, unless I am incorrect, this is for the HRA inspections. But they seem like pretty common things that would happen in inspections regardless. Yes. Yes, they do. Okay. A recent report by the New York State Comptroller on the administration of the City PEP program for home-based clients found that DSS had repeatedly approved housing units with hazardous violations, including approving a client to move into an apartment with significant habitability issues despite previously approving another City PEP client's transfer out of that same apartment due to habitability issues.

Do you think the procedure envisioned by this bill would help avoid such problems in the future, or are there ways the process outlined in the bill could be improved or tweaked to be more effective? And then if I can also just ask specifically, because I've had a similar constituent case like this where I could not understand how the city would approve someone to live under such horrible conditions, what type of record-keeping is being done that somebody in this particular case, somebody new is moving into the same unit that somebody was already moved out of?

Thank you for the question. I think the agency does dispute some of the findings in the controller's report, including that there was somebody to be— there was somebody eventually to be moved into that unit but was not currently living in that unit. That said, obviously we care about the safety and habitability of the units that we're inspecting and that we're placing people in.

But I think I maintain that we think that the current process that we've been rolling out in the pilot strikes the right balance between providers and HRA, splitting the inspections, the use of virtual in all of the ways that you rightly point out where we can still check, but that we can use those kinds of technologies to make the process faster for smaller repairs, and then us, yes, going back out for larger repairs.

I think important to note that we've also established within our accountability office a rental assistance integrity unit, and they do reviews of our inspections. And so there, there is a backstop, there is additional accountability. But certainly we would want to hear about the experience of one of your constituents if or that you may have seen yourself a unit that you didn't find to be at the level we should be allowing folks to move into.

I think those are all very important, and we would want to understand what might have gone wrong in that process. Thank you. Yeah, I'm happy to share that in greater detail offline, but it was a situation with a mother who had 3 children, one of whom had special needs, and the conditions were just horrific. Rats, rodents, water leaks, mold, things like that.

And then the child, you know, essentially couldn't go to school. They couldn't shower. They stopped going to school because they were unable to shower. And we couldn't get them out of the apartment fast enough. You know, it's all the typical— you know, issues that I'm sure so many of us have seen and you all have experienced too, where we can't get the voucher transfer, we can't get approval for the new unit.

She had already secured a new apartment, but they couldn't get the payment. It's just, you know, bureaucracy, right? And— but in the meantime, the kids weren't in school, which was a separate problem, and they had to continue to endure those conditions while they sort of waited for everything to go through. That's exactly why we're here today. I wanted to just ask, go back to the units that don't pass inspection, the failing inspections, how many are major issues versus minor issues?

I don't think we have that with us today. We can get back to you on what we have in our data as to just the breakdown in regards And maybe what we can do is take that list that I read out the percentages of and know whether they're major or minor. Okay. That would be great. Thank you.

And how many— you may have mentioned this, and forgive me if you did, but how many apartments have been inspected as part of that pilot program? I don't know that we have that, but we do about 8,500 a year at HRA, so it's probably, you know, 9/12 of that. That would be my— but we can, we can perhaps get that. 9/12 of $8,500.

I'm writing that down. Has the pilot reduced the number of reinspections? It has simplified the number of reinspections, right? I think it has And Andrea, please jump in as well. But I think to be eligible for the pilot, not everything's eligible for the pilot. I believe it's 5 or more minor conditions, but I'll let the Executive Deputy Commissioner talk a little bit more about those specifics on the reinspection pilot.

Yeah, thank you for that, Administrator. So while it has simplified the process in terms of the provider will work with the landlord to remediate the issues and then send us photos and videos to show that it's corrected, Many of the failures that we see are minor, and so the way that the reinspection pilot works is that if you have about 5 or less, that you can then do the expedited reinspection.

So many of the items that Commissioner shared are minor inspections, like the water temperature and refrigerator temperature and the clogged sinks. Those are all minor repairs, and so that— they're quick turnaround when the landlord is able to remediate quickly. Are your definitions of minor versus major aligned with DOB and HPD? Our apartment review checklist is aligned with DOB and HPD.

Okay, just confirming. And then with the pilot, you've shared a lot of the learnings. Are there any challenges that have emerged? I don't know that there's challenges that we would say. I mean, I do, I think what's good is that we have found it to actually be useful and helpful, which was our hope, which is why we're very much looking forward to expanding it right across the system in the first part of 2027.

So I think, you know, with everything you learn along the way, but I think ultimately we see this as very positive and beneficial to everyone, especially speeding along, right, reinspections that really just need to address a few minor issues. Okay. Thank you. And I don't want to misspeak, but I think we have seen at least a slight reduction, which may be more than slight, from about 2.2 inspections per to 1.7.

So I think unless that's— unless I've got that wrong. That's correct. So we've also seen some improvement there as well. Okay, great.

And then, you know, we've already mentioned sort of some of the anecdotes with the challenges that we've heard about directly from constituents and also difficult landlords, you know, who are not making repairs. What are some of the challenges that DSS faces in working with landlords, especially when it comes to ensuring that tenants are living in safe conditions?

I mean, I think we, you know, we make it very clear, and I think through our really structured inspection process, that we expect a level of professionalism and care from our landlords, right? And that anyone, you know, moving out with a City PHEPS voucher should, you know, have the same care and treatment and responsiveness to their apartment as any other New Yorker.

And so, you know, During that process where we're doing the inspections, we obviously have more sort of leverage and oversight with the landlords in regards to, right, approval of the unit to be utilized in the program. We do also, when individuals are leaving shelter, right, really let them know also what their rights are once they move out, right?

Once you're a permanent resident, we don't have as much of insight necessarily into the relationship with the landlord, but we— make sure that everyone understands that, you know, what your rights are and how you can report issues where landlords are not being responsive to you in regards to conditions and other things that should be addressed in the apartment.

Do you have any sort of formal process for, or let's call it an exit ramp for landlords that have a history of refusal to do repairs or any of these complaints? consistent, you know, major failures, major issues that are causing them to fail inspections and so forth, is there a formal process for removing those landlords? So there isn't.

I don't want to misspeak necessarily. There isn't a removal process that is currently in place of that. There are some things we're looking at internally around, I think, assessment process for landlords, you know, who come to us with new units who we may have had issues in the past, we can follow up on. So I don't want to misspeak right here in regards to that.

Yeah, maybe removal isn't, you know, the most accurate way to express this, but essentially, is there a process when you know that somebody is a repeat offender, you know, for not renting more units from them or continuing to rent those Units where, yeah, we're, we're currently looking at what would be a process that sort of aligns within, you know, allowability of identifying landlords who have potentially had problematic units in the past or challenges engaging with the program and following the appropriate rules and expectations.

We can follow up with some more details. Okay. And then I mean, this is just coming to me, so forgive me. Sure. But do you know of any folks in the program that are on the worst landlords list? I would have to get back to you on that. I just, I can't, I don't want to speak specifically.

I would want to check. Yeah. You look like you have an answer. No, I don't have an answer to the problematic landlords, but we are working on a landlord elevation escalation list, but it's not related to landlords that are bad, poor character. It's around criminality and fraud. And so we don't yet have a process for the bad landlords.

So as the administrator mentioned, we'll get back to you on that. Yeah. Councilmember Brewer is suggesting the use of AI to complete that process for you. Okay.

Regarding Intro 100 in relation to requiring reporting of lease-up times for housing vouchers, what is the median time it takes for an applicant to lease up for the first time from shopping letter issuance to move-in? I think those are— thank you for that question. I don't have median, but I do have average or mean, so I can give it to you for The last couple of years.

So, starting with 2024, the average days was 244. For 2025, the average days was 221, and then year to date, it's 236 for 2026. Year to date, 236, so that's not necessarily looking great, at least in Comparing directly to 2025. Is there a difference in the time it takes applicants to lease up based on whether they apply while living in community versus residing in shelter?

There is. So when we think about that data, I'm going to go back to the time of application to processing on the CityFEP side. So you're not going to hear numbers in the hundreds here. You're going to hear So for in community, it's about 21 days, and for folks in shelter, it's 31 days. And then that's that average of around 28, where we're doing better in the last couple months with 24.8.

So those are, those are the numbers that fit together there. And it stands to reason that folks who are in community already have a unit established, and so They're often applying for CDFAP's voucher to stay in that unit, and so the timing is faster. Are there any specific steps you're taking to address the gap? I think all of the steps we have already mentioned in terms of reorganization and attempting to process as fast as possible, the inspections that we just discussed and and so on.

So I think we are very focused on doing that as quickly as we can. And is there a difference between folks leasing up with a city FEPS voucher versus a one-time assistance voucher? You're referring to SOTA? Right, the SOTA program. Yeah, I think first, and I'll let the Executive Director speak as well, um, uh, CDFAPS is a voucher.

SOTA would not be a voucher. SOTA is a sort of 1-year commitment, um, based upon certain criteria that individuals meet. Many of those people are not eligible for CDFAPS because they have employment, they have income, um, and so, uh, we track them differently. So we don't really have comparable timing between those Those 2 pieces. Also, when it comes to SOTA individuals, when they sort of step forward for SOTA, they have identified the unit most likely.

Okay. And what is the median time it takes applicants who are recertifying their eligibility to lease up? So as it comes to recertifications, right, that happens very differently than lease up. those are also not really comparable. For someone who's recertifying, 4 months before the end of that sort of lease period, we will start to send individuals reminders that they can actually renew their CDFAPS voucher now.

So individuals have a 4-month period, right? So basically from month 8 to 12, at any point, someone can step forward and say and submit the documentation that's needed to do a lease-up. I think, you know, we see about 90% of, you know, retention rates year over year. So I think that sort of gives a sense on like how things are going.

And we don't expect that to be 100% as people will move, people, you know, may pass away. There are many other reasons of that. But I would say that that, I think, gives an indicator on the recertification process in general. And we just— we allow a longer period of time where people can choose to start that process.

Yeah. Okay. Thank you so much.

And the reinstated rent reasonableness policy has increased the time between preclearance and lease-up. To your understanding, if this legislation was enacted, would that increase in time would that increase in time be captured? So we, we have, I mean, any period of time from, as this, as the legislation has it, right, it's from when the shopping letter and someone is initially deemed eligible to when they move out.

So that would include all aspects of that process, right? Both the period of time it finds to find a unit, identify it, the inspection process, and then the package process. I will say, as it relates to rent review and rent reasonableness, right? We did roll that out in the late spring with very good intentions of we do want to ensure, right, the city is not being charged rents that are outside of allowable rents, whether it's rent-regulated rent or market rate comparables.

We did understand and see an unanticipated impact of rolling that out, especially as it relates to the rent-regulated aspect and the engagement with HCR on legal rents that it did add to the preclearance and clearance process. Just last week, we sent a communication out to the community that that part of the process for all rent-regulated units will now be shifted to after move-in, as we have a process where we can still identify if someone has incorrectly charged a rent, where the city can collect the overpayments while not impacting someone's ability to move in.

So we should see, uh, that impact mitigate down shortly. We obviously have to get through some of the cases that have, have built up, but we think that that is, um, a very positive, uh, shift that I have heard people in the community are very happy with. So thank you for that.

Um, I, I'd like to move on to intro number 101, um, in relation to CityFEP's application response times. For people experiencing homelessness, what is the average length of time from issuance of a CityFEPs shopping letter to initial submission of a CityFEPs packet to DHS HRA? We do not have that information available at the moment. At the moment, but could you follow up with it?

I'll talk to our data people. I don't want to promise as to the level of effort that would take, but we can see. I think also we just would want to sort of understand that within that timeframe, right, there's much that could actually lead to that level of time for someone based upon, A, there aren't available apartments just for the general reason, or if someone has specificity like the commissioner mentioned, as well as some other things.

But we can see if that is a Okay, and if it is able to be run, could you please include— can you disaggregate it by DHS versus HRA DV shelters, as well as the average number of days it takes for HRA to review an application after it's submitted? We can look at that. I don't want to— I'm just putting it all out there.

Yes, I'm not the data expert, but yes, we will assess all of this. And we will obviously follow up with you. Thank you. Okay. What is the average length of time to process and approve a City FEPS application from initial submission to check issuance? I think we've provided that data. That's the same number, the 28 days, if I understand your question correctly.

And again, we're doing better in the most recent months. Okay. Slightly different for in-community. Yeah. And do you have that disaggregated by applications from shelter versus in-community? Yes. So I'll run through it, I think. And again, folks can tell me if I get this wrong, but from application to outcome on average over calendar year 2026, that's 28 days.

If you're in shelter, it's 31. So a portion of those folks are in shelter and it's 31 days. And if you're in community, it's 21 days. Okay. Those same numbers then. Okay. And then could you further disaggregate by average length of time from initial packet submission to final approval of the application or the average length of time from final approval to move-in date?

Yeah, I think the first one is the answer I just gave, right? So initial submission to approval. And we do not have with us the approval to move-in date. And I don't know if we capture that data, but we could certainly follow up. Okay. Great. Thank you.

And what are the most common reasons for rejections of CityFEP packages? I mean, I'll let the Executive Deputy Commissioner weigh in there as well. I think it's more of returns versus outright rejections necessarily, right? There may be people who ultimately are not eligible for CityFEPs at that point. So that would in theory be a rejection. But I think much of it is really more about what are the causes for returns, which the Executive Deputy Commissioner and her team have also done.

I'll boast for her great work to really start to turn the tide on the amount of returns that are going on with our providers. Thank you. Just for— yeah. Sorry. Thank you for that question, Councilmember. Um, as Administrator mentioned, it's very rare that we see denial at the point where applications are submitted. It's the return that's delayed.

Um, for application to be denied, it's because someone is employed and now they're over income or something like that. Very rare does it get to the point where it comes to us and get denied. once it's submitted, it's because you're eligible and it's just making sure the documents are correct. Yeah. Okay. Do you think it's possible to publish the most common reasons for rejections each year to improve overall submission accuracy?

We can look for that. And I mean, it's really tiny. Yeah. But yeah. Yes. I think just for clarity though, are you— is it rejections you're looking for or is it Return reasons that you're looking for, I think. Well, return reasons. Yeah, okay. If that's where the rejections are. Well, just ineligibility. Okay, ineligibility. All right, so that will— we can look at that, yes.

Okay. Okay. What percentage of city FEPS applications are returned for correction? I don't have that with me. Okay, I think we can get— I want to make sure we have the right data point for you so we can get back to you with the percentage that are returned for correction. Okay. And then sort of in the same vein, what percentage of packages are returned to providers because the documents, i.e., leases or pay stubs, grew stale or outdated while awaiting HRA review?

So we'll look into, I will say, I'm not sure how much we can sort of disaggregate by percentage-wise based on specific reason. I know we have gotten sort of much more specific around that moving forward. So there might be something that we can provide now and then potentially more detail in the future. But we have spent a lot of effort working with the providers, right, on sort of identifying to them, and we can provide that to you of like, these are the main reasons why packages are being returned.

I think also through the streamlining, right, we're looking at the whole of package, which has allowed us, I think, to hone in on these are the real reasons, these are the primary reasons from an eligibility perspective that we will return this to you versus some other things we may now, based on that approach, determine that is not something that needs to be returned for the package to move forward.

When does a lease or pay stub become outdated? Thank you for that question, Councilmember. I shared that we have now increased the time of the life of documents, and so 6 months. And because of the 6 months, also when the application— Oh, sorry, the increased time is now 6 months? Yes. What was it before? 4. Okay. From 4 months to 6 months.

And also at the point that the application is first submitted, we freeze the timeframe so the documents do not go stale. You freeze the timeframe at the point of submission. Right. Okay. Thank you. So you no longer have to update the documents. Right, or resubmit effectively. Resubmit, yeah. Yeah, okay.

What steps does DSS take upon receiving an application for City FEPS before letting the applicant know if the application has been approved? denied, or requires correction or additional information. So are you informing somebody immediately? Like, at what point are they finding out after that 6-month period that their application needs correction? Just a point of clarity. Thank you for that question.

So a shopping letter is issued to a client, it's good for 6 months. It's automatically updated unless something else happens. and they're no longer potentially eligible. So that's automatically done. At the point that the application is submitted, the client is in constant communication with their case manager or housing specialist on a biweekly basis. As we shared earlier also that going forward this October, we will be updating the client portal so that clients can now see real-time status of their applications.

So they'll see when it's submitted. They'll see if it's returned and whether there are any client dependencies that they need to take action on, or whether it's something that the provider needs to do, and then at the point that it's being reviewed and approved and ready for checks. So— And if I could add, I do think that's a very significant innovation and an important aspect of transparency for the whole process.

I think it will help put a lot of folks' minds at ease. They'll be able to check it whenever they want. And as the Executive Deputy Commissioner said, know if they have additional items they have to follow up on, know that we got it, know the exact status. I think it will go a long way. I mean, even not just transparency, but speeding the process so people can take action more quickly.

So I think it's important and would love everyone's help to get the word out that that will be available. We'll do our part as well. I think it's a game changer. But with regards to the shopping letter, you said they are automatically renewed after 6 months? They're automated. Thank you for that. They're automated, so it's an electronic process.

So it's issued, it's available in AccessHRA, so the client can go and see in their portal the shopping letter. The case manager and/or housing specialist provide a copy, and so that It's automatically renewed as long as they continue their eligibility. Do you know the average time it takes for someone to find an available unit? That we, we don't have that average time, just given there's a variety of different factors.

I think we're going to look at the data that we do have to sort of see what might be something we could track as to like when the CityFEPs, right, package is submitted. That is probably the best sort of one of the markers that we have at the moment to look at. And so— I guess I'm trying to figure out how do you determine that 6 months is the most appropriate time for the eligibility?

I think the 6 months is based upon What we think is an appropriate time to just reconfirm income eligibility in case there have been changes in income, given that it's really done on the back end. So it's not something that the individual in shelter needs to take action on. It's just, it's a good checkpoint. So in case something has changed, we would then address it at that point.

And if the person's no longer eligible, we would then address it at that point. And if the person's no longer eligible, we wouldn't want to renew that letter, and we would want the shelter provider to also understand you need to engage this household around a different plan for housing stability and what might their pathway be. So that's what bases on the 6 months.

It's really about just trying to confirm the income and those other baseline eligibilities have remained the same. Yeah. How many people are deemed ineligible After the 6 months based on that? I would need to get back to you on that data point. I'd need to talk to our data folks on that. Okay. Just— yeah, I understand. Sorry.

I understand where I'm going. Yeah, I understand what you're trying to get at. I think the data you've already requested, which we do have, will tell you that timeframe. So from shopping letter to process to application submission will give you that first data point. I haven't looked at the data. It's going to be longer than 6 months.

So I understand the secondary question about is that a meaningful— I'm just thinking, and I don't know the answer, to be clear, but I'm just thinking, you know, if somebody is eligible for a Citi FEPS voucher, 6 months from that point, they're probably still eligible. They're more likely to be eligible than not, let's say, to still be eligible.

And so I'm just trying to figure out why we have the 6-month duration on that. Yeah, I mean, right. And is that, and again, I don't know the answer, and I know that you may not know it in this moment, but something to consider is then, is that 6 months 6-month duration or expiration necessary? And maybe there's another opportunity for streamlining the process that allows that shopping letter to be eligible a little bit longer.

Yeah, I don't know. I understand. And we've already testified that it is very rare that people are found ineligible. It's only returns, really. We've already testified to that. So I understand. And then people have to go through the same hassle of you know, all of that after the 6 months. So— but I'm glad you're with me on that one.

If an application requires corrections or additional information and the applicant provides the requested updates, what is the median time it takes DSS to reprocess the application? We would have to get back to you on if we have that data point that can be pulled. Okay. I'm going to ask the next question just to ask it, but I feel like we've sort of addressed it.

But if you have anything additional to add, do let me know. What efforts are underway to help decrease package processing times? Okay. I'll move on. The software for processing packages, Q-Rent, lacks core functionality for shelter housing coordinators. For instance, they cannot search for clients by name, only their WMS case number, and there's no client dashboard. Are you aware of these limitations?

Thank you for that question, Councilmember. The current application system, you are able to search by client information and WMS ID, current ID. There's a number of search points, address and landlord information. So that our information is inaccurate? Yes. Okay. So the— some of these challenges with core functionality have perhaps already been addressed? Is that— In terms of the application submission, the functionality are pretty robust.

Okay.

And then moving on to intro— And before I do move on, I just want to check in with my colleagues. Are there any additional questions from folks? Yeah, Councilmember Brewer. You've discussed this a lot, but— and maybe you said it, but the 6-month— the expiration of the voucher, how often does that happen? Is it just my imagination that people come to our office because it's such a panic moment?

But maybe it's a very small number of people who actually have that expiration. experience. We have a lot of clients who come in with that. So I just wanted to understand that. Sure. And I think we would love further details from you to understand what might be driving that for them. So the 6 months is for the shopping letter, right?

So it's the sort of presumptive eligibility. And for, you know, that is automatically renewed as we do sort of backend data tracking to ensure the information looks the same. You are still income eligible. And that letter should be provided to the, to the household. So, um, if there's confusion or concerns about that that are happening, we would definitely want to talk to you about that.

Um, but as the Commissioner said— It shouldn't happen very often is what you're saying, and it's very fixable. It should not, and it is fixable. So we would want that brought to our attention, and we'll, as we said, look at if there is a longer period of time than 6 months that it can be expanded to as well.

One more question. Are you finding that there are more owners I'm sorry, I just wanted to add that we rolled out the 6-month timeframe in May, so we will just be coming up on the first sort of 6-month cycle. So we should see— it should not be so bumpy. Are there new owners that you're finding that are willing to rent, or you still have to go back to the same persons?

We have new buildings, I understand that, but there aren't that many new buildings. For the incomes that you're looking for, if I may suggest that. But are there new, you know, private owners that have buildings that are offering their apartments, or is it same old? I think we're always open to new coming in, and I think we do see new.

We could get back to you on what we're sort of seeing in the data. I don't know, Andrea, if there's anything there, but it's not just this— it's not just the same old, and we are definitely always trying to expand the universe of landlords to partner with us. Okay. All right. Thank you. Councilmember Murano.

Thank you. Commissioner, you say that DSS issues its portion of rental payments on the 26th and that landlords enrolled in electronic payments receive the money within 24 hours. But you also explained that the state's shelter allowance is paid in 2 installments at the beginning and middle of the month. So even when the city does everything correctly, is it possible for a landlord to receive only part of the total rental subsidy at the beginning of the month?

Yes, that is absolutely correct. Right, we can control the piece that we can control, and we pay, as you said, on the 26th. For the upcoming month. But right, the state pays in 2 tranches for people who are receiving that shelter allowance. And so in fact, of course, the landlord could receive up to 4 payments, 1 from us, 2 from the state, and then the client, the tenant portion.

Does DSS provide landlords with a payment calendar showing exactly how much is coming from the city, how much is coming from the state, and when each payment should arrive? I know we— and then I'll defer, but I know we are clear at the beginning and make a request, require the landlord to sign off on the payment process.

But I'll defer to see if there's any additional communication about a schedule. Thank you for that question, Commissioner. So at the approval point in the process, the landlord do get an approval notice that shows the payment amount. Certainly over time that may change, and so we are looking to update the system so that we would send out additional notices.

We're not quite there yet. It's one of the enhancements, but as I shared earlier, in the landlord portal, you're now able to see the government portion, so you can see the subsidy amount and you can see the shelter allowance amount. So then the only other portion is the client's direct share. I guess I'm wondering, does the landlord portal currently distinguish between an actual missed payment and a payment that hasn't arrived yet because of the state schedule?

I have to get back to you. I'm not sure the status of that. We'll have to confirm the language as to what's listed there. It definitely shows the payments made. I'm not sure if it would indicate a, say, missed payment from the state WMS system, but we can get back to you. Would you support making that distinction visible to every participating landlord if it's not already?

Yeah, um, not that I get to ask the questions here, but to ask my colleagues a clarifying question, and maybe it's clear because the amounts are different anyway, but when we say the government portion, does it, um, does it indicate the city portion versus the state portion? Um, thank you for that, Commissioner. Yes, it does say the subsidy portion.

There's a code, I think it's SE, and it says subsidy portion, and then you'll see the, um, shelter allowance portion. So it would seem to be that we're transparent about that now, and that it would be clear if there was in fact a missed payment from the system.

Let's say there's a family in a shelter that has found an apartment, and the landlord is ready, the family's ready, but the application is sitting somewhere in the city's approval process. Is DSS tracking how many additional nights people spend in shelters specifically because of administrative delays? We do not have that data available at the moment. We will look at our systems to see, but that is not a data point I have today, so I don't know.

And just to— sorry, just to add there, and again, my colleagues can correct me if I'm wrong, But that process is the process we've been talking about that's ranging from around 24 days to 28 days. And so it's a small piece, at least to my understanding, of the overall process. And so I think we certainly can know if there are— what we're giving you are averages, right?

There will be cases where it goes above that. I don't know that we would consider that administrative challenge. There are back and forth that need to happen in order for us to process appropriately. If we don't know how long, perhaps we know how many. Can you tell us how many households currently have an identified apartment but are waiting for final city approval?

We don't have that with us today, but we can look at the data and get back to you with what we have. When you do get that, if you could also include some sort of estimate or calculation about the additional shelter expenditures that taxpayers are footing the bill for associated with that waiting period? We'll look into that and see what can be estimated there.

Okay, thank you, Councilmember. Among landlords who are required to make a correction, what is the median time between notification of the correction and successful apartment registration? We do not have that information with us. Okay. And we don't capture that information in the system, right? So that's not something we can provide, I think. Okay. Okay. Among landlords currently participating in the City Phipps Program, how many are corporate landlords, professional property management companies, small to mid-sized private landlords, so owning just 2 to 10 buildings, and individual owner occupants?

We'll have to get back to you with that information. We don't have breakdowns with us today. Okay. It would be great to know, too, how your interactions may differ with different types of landlords. For example, you know, an individual owner occupant, somebody who owns, let's say, a private, you know, two-family home or something like that versus corporation, and if, you know, the challenges are the same.

What support is available to landlords who speak a primary language other than English? Thank you for that question, Councilmember. So at the point in time where the landlord is working with the provider, many providers have bilingual staff. In addition to that, they have language services contracts and interpretation services that's available across the agency also. Okay. So do you know which languages the forms are available in?

Yes, I do. I've got that here. So landlord forms are available— landlord forms are only available in English, but client-facing forms are available in English, Spanish, Arabic, Urdu, Bengali, French, Haitian Creole, Korean, Polish, Albanian, Yiddish, Traditional Chinese, Simplified Chinese, Italian, and Russian. Is there a reason you believe that materials are not available to landlords in all of the same languages?

I think it's a good point. It's something we can look at. Okay. Great.

And how do landlords currently submit complaints regarding administrative issues with rental assistance payments? Thank you for that question, Councilmember. So currently landlords are able to submit their complaints through the landlord portal, and just hot off the press, we now have on the DSS website just about 2 weeks ago— Heard it here first at the New York City Council.

There's a web-based form, and so there's a link that directly sends that to part of the reorg. We have the Stakeholders Outreach and Engagement team that specifically developed to support landlords around this issue. And so now they're able to submit their inquiries to us that way. Awesome. Thank you. And what are the common pain points you hear from landlords who participate in rental subsidy programs?

And I will be glad to share some of those I've heard directly from landlords. Thank you for that question. I want to say that, you know, when you think about the housing journey, there are different touchpoints. So certainly at the front end, landlord, all of what you talked about, timeliness and transparency, and then on the back end, it's about the payments, which we have shared the dependencies on the various payment types.

So those are usually the concerns that we get. And I'll say the tech enhancements that we're doing on the systems we've talked about today, many of them are directly in response to issues we've heard from the landlords to to increase transparency, access to information, and understanding where is something in the process. So I think when we follow up with, right, what are those enhancements and when are we going to see them, that will probably give you an additional insight into what we're trying to do to sort of expand and improve that type of communication and understanding of what's happening.

I do want to just share one quick anecdote and I'd have to get the specific details to you offline, but we had a landlord who, you know, owned a brownstone in the district and was trying to rent to someone with a voucher, and it was just an impossible process for him. They couldn't get somebody out to do the inspection, to verify certain things.

She was having some issues. And ultimately, and I wish we had more folks like this, he just rented it to her at the rate that he would have been— that she would have— whatever the total amount would have been outside of the program because she was just so desperate and he wanted to be able to provide the unit to somebody in need.

And so he, you know, went without the— he formally exited the program and just said, this is This has just been too difficult. It's too much, you know, but I want to keep her as a tenant or have her as a tenant. And so, you know, obviously that's an anomaly and we don't usually see people like that.

But just to share that, you know, there are probably so many more people who would be in safe and secure housing if some of these systems actually worked better. you know, for them. And if only we could have every landlord like this gentleman who was willing to take on this tenant no matter what, you know, unfortunately we don't.

And so, you know, I think the— a lot of— and I know you all share the end goals and a lot of these concerns, and I know we're all working towards the same thing, but— These are the types of things I think, you know, Councilmember Brewer was saying. We get the folks, whether they're tenants or landlords, who've just had, you know, impossible experiences trying to do the right thing and just trying to get housed or provide housing that we as government have just made it so incredibly difficult for them to do so.

So just wanted to— Thank you. share that. At the risk of— I'm just going to ask for this on the record. I was debating whether or not I should ask on the record, but I'm just going to ask. But is it possible to get a list of landlords that are receiving— that are in the CityFEP program? We'll get back to you on that.

I feel like I need to ask someone who's not— Yeah. One of the 3 of us. But yes, we will, we will speak with our general counsel and get back to you on what, what, what is able to be provided. Okay. Thank you. Okay.

I think we've gone through all of our formal questions and we will move into public testimony. Thank you all so much for your testimony. You know, I, I say this often, but I know this work in particular— government work isn't easy across the board, but this work in particular and the agencies that you all are at is extremely difficult work, challenging work.

And I know that you all are in it for all the right reasons. And so I thank you for your service. And hopefully together we can do all that we can to make these systems work better for more people. But thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. I now open the hearing for public testimony. I want to remind members of the public that this is a government proceeding and that decorum shall be observed at all times.

As such, members of the public shall remain silent at all times. The witness table is reserved for people who wish to testify. No video recording or photography is allowed from the witness table. Further, members of the public may not present audio or video recordings as testimony, but may submit transcripts of such recordings to the sergeant-at-arms for inclusion in the hearing record.

If you wish to speak at today's hearing, please fill out an appearance card with the sergeant-at-arms and wait to be recognized. When recognized, you will have 2 minutes to speak on Introduction 98, Introduction 100, Introduction 101, Introduction 646, or Preconsidered Introduction 2026-1424. If you have a written statement or additional written testimony you wish to submit for the record, please provide a copy of that testimony to the sergeant-at-arms.

You may also email written testimony to testimony@council.nyc.gov. Within 72 hours of this hearing, audio and video recordings will not be accepted. And the first panel is Jediah Francis, Jedida, excuse me, Jedida Francis, Akira Morris, Elizabeth Mackey. Mackey and Diana Ramos. And we can start with you and, and then go down the line. Press the button. Okay. Hello?

Hi. Good afternoon.

Uh, thank you for allowing me to testify today. My name is Judita Francis. I've worked over 20 years in the healthcare system, and I've always wanted to help others, which is what brought me here today. At the beginning of this year, I was chosen to be a member of the Client Advisory Board with Volunteers of America Greater New York.

I'm also the mother of a brilliant preteen. Currently, we reside at a Volunteers of America shelter. I'm sure you are familiar with Volunteers of America Greater New York, as they also are a member of FHC. 601 days ago, that's 1 year, 7 months, and 24 days, I entered the DHS system. Today is day 602. Life happened and I found myself homeless.

I never thought I'd be in this position. After months of living in the shelter, I finally secured a CityFEP shopping letter. In April of 2026, I was matched to an apartment, but to this day, I am still waiting final approval. I am doing everything possible to better our situation, looking for gainful employment, taking care of my child, and handling my end of the application process.

However, the issues with city FEPS are extremely frustrating, and there seems to be no sense of urgency by the 3-letter agencies to expedite the process and see it through to completion. I have dealt with HRA erroneously removing my child from my public assistance case, placing us in jeopardy of losing everything, including shelter and pending permanent housing. There are many more incidents that have caused anxiety and stress.

But time will not permit me to share them all today. Hearing that I have an apartment should be an exciting moment, but because of the hiccups within the system, it is difficult to feel or display that excitement. You can continue. Thank you. We are given many labels, many negative labels, because we are temporarily housed in shelters. I and many others are fighting to get rehoused But the constant errors and delays have left many of us emotionally and mentally fatigued.

I urge this city and its members to address these issues with urgency, reduce administrative errors and delays, and support all of us who are working diligently to, to move forward with our lives. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. Thank you so much.

But you could do like— you could do this. Thank you. Yes. Okay. Good afternoon, and thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Akira Morris, and I am a member of the Family Homeless Coalition. I am here to— I am here today to speak in support of the bills being introduced to reform CityFEPs is an important program that can make a real difference in the lives of families experiencing housing instability.

I believe these reforms are necessary because they can help families move out of shelter faster, make the process of obtaining a voucher easier, and help families maintain their vouchers once they have them. I say this not only as an advocate but also from my own personal experience. After a long and very difficult process, I was finally able to receive a CitiFEDS voucher.

I recently moved into my apartment, and while I am grateful to finally have stable housing, getting there was extremely difficult. I experienced housing instability and doubling up and came very close to losing the apartment that I worked so hard to secure. There were significant delays throughout the process, including delays with HRA and Homebase. Homebase was backed up with inspections.

There were not enough caseworkers to handle the workload, and there were communication problems between Homebase and HRA. I was always the middleman. These delays had real consequences. My landlord almost revoked my apartment because the process was taking so long. Imagine finally finding an apartment, believing that you are finally on your way out of shelter, and then being at risk of losing that apartment because of administrative delays that are outside of your control.

Landlords already discriminate families with vouchers. Families should not have to experience this. When a family receives a voucher, they should be able to move through the process efficiently and with clear communication and support. They should not have to constantly worry about losing their apartment because paperwork, inspections, or communication between agencies were delayed. These reforms are about more than paperwork.

They are about helping families. Finish up. Yep. Okay, I'll keep going. They are about helping families get back to their everyday lives and routines. They are about allowing parents to focus on their children, work, school, and rebuilding their lives instead of constantly worrying about whether they will lose the housing they worked so hard to obtain. My experience showed me how important CityFEPs can be, but it also showed me where the process can be improved.

I urge you to support these reforms so that other families do not have to go through the same difficulties I experienced. Thank you for listening to my story and for considering the experiences of families who are working hard to move from shelter into stable housing. Thank you for sharing.

Good afternoon. So my name is Elizabeth Mackey, and I am a member leader with Safety Net Vocal New York and other organizations throughout the city. So here I am to speak about the needed change with city FEPS. I have city FEPS, and I used to work for the city for 29 years with ACS. Who am I to say that I was going to be homeless?

Who am I to say I would ever need a voucher? Who am I to say that I was going to live in an apartment building? Who was I to say— I'm sorry. that here I am to testify in front of City Council. Who am I to say I was gonna be an advocate to here, to speak, to work, to do the things that I do?

But here am I to testify again, to say CityFEPs is a well-needed voucher program that doesn't work for all that is in need of. We have so many issues with CityFEPs vouchers, people that waited Like I did a year to get an apartment, waited for HRA to cut a check, waited to get an apartment to be inspected.

It took months and months for my apartment that I am in, that the landlord faithfully waited for me to get the apartment inspected. It took months for a system to fail me for the apartment that needed to be inspected, but failed twice. But the landlord never gave up on me. I prayed and prayed for the apartment that I thought that I was going to get, and he prayed with me while a landlord prayed that I would get that apartment.

But here am I, another part of the process. The city failed to not pay the landlord 5 months. The landlord wanted his money. Now here I am. gonna go to court with the same landlord who prayed for me to get the apartment. He's taking me to court. So CityFEDS, which I want the bills to get paid, to get introduced to, the city failed me.

And one thing that I want the city to do is to do right, to do right. And being part of all these organizations and being part of someone who have lived experience and to work here with others who have the same voucher and people that is in these shelters. All we want is for City Council, for all the organizations, and for even for the mayor to sit back.

Have y'all been in shelters? Do y'all know what it feels like? Have y'all been to court? Do y'all know what it feels like? Maybe not, but here am I. Thank you. along with all of these people here. They know what it feels like. They know what the experience is. All you have to do is to sign the bills and make people accountable.

Make DSS, HRA, and all these other agencies' people to make these bills be passed. We don't ask for much, and we should not have to beg, plead for little things that's going to help others to get out of shelter and make permanent housing. These people have children that rely on things that a system— these systems that we didn't ask for, but they are helpful for us.

So one thing that I'm asking for y'all, do the right thing, sign these bills, but also make DSS, HRA, and all these systems accountable for things that's supposed to do right for the people. Thank you. Thank you. You're here.

Thank you for allowing me to speak. My name is Diana Ramos, and I'm with the Safety Net Activists membership group. Um, I had a set testimony going, but thinking about my experience with City FEPS, um, started out with me going into, um, an apartment that looked nice But truthfully, no, it's about half of my outlets don't work.

I have pests. They had to replace my refrigerator within the first 3 days of me moving in because a brand new refrigerator wasn't working. I lost $80 worth of food. And, you know, that's the inspection process. But then it's the process of I put in my renewal, I give you my new lease because I renew my CityFAPS before I would renew my lease.

And then finding out that CityFAPS wasn't paying the right amount because no one put the new lease amount into being paid. It was a lot. Having to call to ask a question, you wait. Not knowing, you know, if they got everything they needed for your renewal, you wait. You know, there is no data. as to how long it takes.

I was— now mind you, I was in shelter during COVID so of course everything took a little bit longer. But, you know, people are waiting. And right now I'm trying to transfer out of that disgusting apartment that I live in because my bathroom barely works and, um, there's just so many issues. And I can't find a place because landlords don't want to take CityFEPs because CityFEPs not paying them on time.

These 3 bills is just the start. There's so much wrong that needs to be fixed. And I sit here thinking, I'm supposed to— my transfer voucher is expiring. I've had it for a year and I have not yet found a place. Because I don't want to stay in the same neighborhood because it's dangerous for my safety. And I want to move, but I can't because CityFAPS has screwed the pooch, for lack of better terming, with some of these landlords, and they don't want to take those vouchers.

And it's not just— this voucher. I don't understand how you have a program but you don't know your data analysis, because if this was a business, we'd be bankrupt, completely bankrupt. Thank you.

I do have a couple of questions very quickly. For Ms. Francis, you said you secured an apartment in April of this year but have not yet been able To move in? That is correct. And do you know the status, the current status? Because that's almost 6 months. Yes, it is actually 6 months. Is the apartment still available?

So yes, I spoke to the housing specialist Friday of last week, and he said that he had to review it again. He had to view the apartment again because there's some ARC apartment review checklist. Because of the timeframe, he had to review it again. He said everything was That's fine. The reason why I couldn't move initially is because when we went to view the apartment, though I was awarded it, there were problems in the bathroom and they had no refrigerator or stove.

So I was approved to move in, but I couldn't move in. And then it took about a month, and then I had problems with HRA. So it compounded. So yes, it's still available, they say, but now they're saying they're waiting for checks and— The 4 months was rent reviews, rent reviews, rent reviews, and just waiting. So it's been waiting.

And I applaud and I champion for those that have moved out that have kind of got the process after me, but I'm still waiting with my child to move out of where we are. Right. Okay. Well, I do want to acknowledge that the commissioner has stayed to hear testimony, which I'm very grateful for. There's always somebody here. from DSS, but I do think it's— and sometimes the Commissioner goes and watches virtually from her office, but I do think it's meaningful to have her here.

So just so you know, none of what you say here on record falls on deaf ears, but particularly today, it's being heard directly by the Commissioner in real time. So thank you. And then for Ms. Morris, what kept you In the apartment? I know you expressed some challenges, but you said you almost lost the apartment. Do you know why you didn't lose the apartment?

Because I played the middleman. So I was consistently— me and the landlord was consistently emailing Homebase, and I was going to HRA almost every day to see what the status of the rent, the payment checks. And, you know, the situation is— Okay. And I guess, you know, from my perspective, I always ask the question of— this is a rhetorical question, not one for you to answer, but what if somebody is in the exact same situation as you and does not have the time to do all of that, doesn't speak the language to play middle person, right?

What happens to them? Then they may have been kicked out of that apartment.

So, um, and then for, um, Miss Ramos, you said, um, for the, for the lease renewal, how did you submit that paperwork? Was it in person or electronically? Um, the first time, um, I renewed, I asked them, how do I give you guys my new lease? because I didn't know for sure if the rent was going to change.

I hit the— I checked the not sure, don't know if it's going to raise up or anything. And they gave me an email address to send pictures. And I did that. And I thought everything's good. They checked the email, right? Apparently not. There's no option really to say upload your new lease. to HRA. So yeah, it was difficult.

But then when I realized that they weren't getting paid the proper amount, I immediately— we worked on it with SMP. We remedied that quickly because I'm not one to— so they did get their money. They shouldn't have because— Okay. place is disgusting, but they did get their money. But now it's a different challenge. It's a different challenge because I used to be able to, on my AccessHRA app, see, did they give them what they gave them?

And now I don't have that ability, which we thought maybe it wasn't connected. And that's this is what I'm saying is I want to be able to, on my end, make sure things are getting done. This is just how I've always been, you know. Um, you know, when am I going to get paid? You know, you know, how much is going to be in my— coming into my bank account?

That type of thing. I've always been like that my whole life. But now, you know, I'm in an apartment that I'm almost wanting to say, yeah, please don't pay them, you know, because they haven't fixed anything. And now I've got a new management company, but the old management company screwed up so bad that when I talked to the super, the new super, he said, you'd have to leave your apartment for a week.

We can move you. I don't want to move within that building. It's become dangerous. There's issues. Yeah. And then it's on the first floor. I have a dog. She would be triggered all the time. They always hang out in the lobby. So I find myself in a catch-22. It's very stressful for me. I have chronic illness, chronic pain, and of course, gotta love the CPTSD always likes to kick you sometimes.

And sorry, I find myself in a freeze so then I can't really take care of myself or my apartment because then I'm flared up because I'm stressed out and I'm anxious and I ask for help and it's a cycle that I'm sorry, I didn't mean to cry today. It's okay. It's a cycle that's really difficult for me because I don't like living like this.

I have to replace all my furniture because of bugs and mice. That means I have to replace my bed. I have to replace— I mean, maybe the only thing I could take is my table, my dining room table, if I— if pots and pans, you know. Thank you. I mean, I get SSI, you know, it's not like I get a lot of money.

And I shop frugally, but I also don't shop cheaply. I mean, I know the value of good quality. And all I want to do is move out and, and get into a one-bedroom, which is a little bit more room, and I have a separate room, you know, and because some people don't like big dogs. My girl's a sweetheart and I love her to death.

And, and, but some people don't like big dogs. And so not having a space for her, and I'm not kenneling her because she's trauma herself. We're a good match. And to, to not be able to shower. I shower at my office because I can't be guaranteed that plumbing is going to work right. But when the plumber came to, quote unquote, look at my bathroom, he saw my dog.

And he ran. And I said, get me a different plumber, and they won't. So, you know, it's— I'm damned if I do, damned if I don't. And my situation is pretty gross, you know? I mean, almost hoarder's level because I'm always moving stuff and I'm piling stuff up so it looks bad. And because I'm trying. And it's hard when you can't even walk to the garbage room to take out your trash because it hurts so much.

And you have tons and tons of things you have to throw out because of the mice and the roaches. I— my refrigerator is about to go bad. I have a toaster oven that we're talking, it's disgusting, and I want it fixed. Yeah. I mean, I will clean the apartment completely, you know, and do what I can to reverse some of the damage that was done because of the situation, but I need a new place.

I mean, I'm literally starting from scratch with like the clothes on my back and a few things I can— I can't even have a bookshelf. I love to read. I can't even have a bookshelf and books because of my celidom or it'll get contaminated with roaches. It's bad. It's really bad. And I wish the system was a lot more efficient to get someone like myself when we find out that the management company isn't good people to get us out of these situations.

Well, thank you for sharing. I mean, that, that's why these personal experiences are so important, um, so that folks can hear directly and really understand the challenges that that people who are in the system are facing. So thank you for sharing that. And then, yes, I did want to ask, I know you mentioned 5 months it's been since your landlord has been paid.

Is that— that's the current status? Yes. If you could just press the button, press the button on the microphone, please. Thank you.

And I want to make sure we do move on to the next panel. Yes. And I think Homebase to me is a joke. No one should have to plead to go to Homebase for services. and still have to wait to get the assistance that you need? Because they tell you to go to home base. You go to home base and they have you wait.

Even if you want to move, why do I need to let you know I need to move when it's an emergency? And you give them all the paperwork and they seem like you bound into a system, locked into a system in order for you to move. And you could let them know, I found a place. And you still seem like you got to show and prove that you need to move.

Like, I'm like, you know, have my own medical issues. And I provide them medical information. And they made me lose my apartment. You know what I'm saying? Like, a nice apartment from where I was living, you know, where I'm living at. Because they needed this, they needed that, and all this other crap. So Homebase, I don't even understand why the city deals with them.

Because if I want to move and if I have a landlord that is willing to take my voucher, I shouldn't have to go to Homebase. All I have to do is just go to HRA, who governs the CityFED voucher, do the paperwork with them, and I should be out. Yeah. I should not be bounded under no other agency but HRA, who pays it. who's supposed to be paying the landlord.

But for some reason, when I get the ledger, they saying that they send the checks to the landlord, but I don't know. That's what they say. Then the landlord say that he don't get it, and they say, well, the landlord is not cashing it. So it's important that someone should be accountable. I don't know if it's the landlord or the city, but if they have these so-called portals, then we as tenants need to see the same thing that they seeing.

Yeah. So at the end of the day, somebody is lying. But then the landlord got me going to court for the city responsibility. Is that right? No, it's not right. Yeah. So somewhere, somehow, I just need to be out. You know, I do need the voucher, but I also need to move. Because if the landlord saying that he didn't get it, but they saying that he got it and he refused to not cash in the check.

So he's playing some form of game. And maybe because I speak up for my tenants, And everything, so I don't know what game they're playing. Yeah, but then you're caught in the middle. Yeah, I get it. Thank you. Thank you all very much for your testimony. I do appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you.

The next panel is Maritza Rico, Eric Lee, Jade Vasquez, Kathy Batista, and Kelvin Wallace. Sir, you should start if you're ready. Excuse me. You should go first if you'd like. Okay. We can start on my left if you're— whenever you're ready.

Good afternoon, Chair Hudson and members of the committee. I'm Kathy Batista and I'm the Chief Program Officer at Anthos Home. We help New Yorkers move from shelter into permanent homes. And since 2023, we've helped nearly 1,500 New Yorkers move in with vouchers. We're also members of the Family Homeless Coalition and support the testimony of the coalition members you heard from earlier today.

Their experience informs our policy requests today. We strongly support intros 98, 100, 101, and 641. Vouchers work. They are the fiscally responsible choice. Sheltering a family costs more than $8,100 a month. and a 2-bedroom voucher costs $3,058. At the same time, vouchers can be very hard to use. The state comptroller found that only 21% of households with a shopping letter get their CityFunds voucher approved.

Too often, administrative difficulties stand between a family and their home. A complete voucher package can be over 100 pages, and one minor error can send it back. Voucher holders resubmit and resubmit, and while they wait, documents expire. Incomes change and property providers walk away. Property providers also face delays scheduling inspections, reinspections over small repairs and late payments.

These bills address just that. Intro 98 establishes a separate process for resolving minor unit repairs. Intro 100 requires the city to report how long the process actually takes. Intro 101 guarantees review and response within 15 days. And Intro 641 makes sure property providers are paid on time. We also ask that the city report the most common reasons packages are rejected so we can fix the errors that reoccur.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on these bills, which present, which present logical, impactful, and low-cost changes to CityFev's process. We appreciate the committee's consideration and support advancing the bills to the full council. Thank you so much.

Good afternoon, Chair Hudson and members of the General Welfare Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on these critical CityFEP administrative reforms. My name is Jade Vasquez. I am the Director of Policy and Research at WIN, the largest provider of shelter and supportive housing for families with children in New York City. We operate 16 shelters and 500 units of supportive housing across the 5 boroughs, and each night 7,000 people call WIN home, including 3,800 children.

Despite a moderate decline in the shelter census, today 97,000 people sleep in New York City shelters, 70% of whom are families with children. CityFAPS is our most effective tool to solving this homelessness crisis, but constant administrative delays are keeping families trapped in shelters far longer, far longer than necessary. necessary. For example, the most recent mayor's management report stated that the average length of stay for families in shelter jumped 12% last year, from 372 days to 415 days.

For the 15,000 children under 6 in DHS shelters, that is nearly a quarter of their lives. And this isn't due to lack of available vouchers, but oftentimes due to city policy— delays caused by city policy. For example, the administration's new rent reasonableness process has added months to application reviews causing CityFAPS exits in wind shelters to plunge by 21% from this time last year.

We thank Speaker Menin and the council for your leadership on recent investments to CityFAPS expansion and the legislative package being heard today. We proudly co-crafted some of these bills with direct input from our clients. Intro 98 speeds up housing by establishing an inspection hierarchy and allowing minor issues to be fixed on spot rather than forcing weeks of reinspection delays.

INTRO 100 mandates transparency by tracking the exact time it takes to secure housing after receiving a voucher. And INTRO 101 establishes predictability by requiring CityFAPS applications to be processed within 15 days. CityFAPS has proven to work, but it must be modernized and set up for success. These bills represent a massive step toward helping our lowest-income families find stability.

Thank you. Thank you so much.

Thank you, Chair, um, and Council Member Brewer and Marano for staying. Uh, my name is Maritza Rico, and I am the policy and advocacy manager at New Destiny Housing. New Destiny is the only organization in New York focused entirely on permanent housing for survivors of domestic violence, which is the leading cause of family homelessness. We operate the city's first and largest federally funded rapid rehousing program for survivors, and we are the biggest developer and provider of supportive housing for New Yorkers impacted by domestic violence.

As a co-convener of the Family Homelessness Coalition, we support the testimony of the members with lived experience who spoke during the previous panel. Their experience informed our policy requests. We will submit written testimony with our full comments, so I will highlight our main points today. I must begin by raising the alarm about NYCHA-administered emergency housing vouchers and the thousands of households at risk of losing their homes when funding runs out in November.

Thank you, Councilmember Brewer, for meeting with us on this yesterday, and Chair Hudson, for your advocacy, your joint letters, and everything else. We urge the administration to create a dedicated city FEPS carve-out for NYCHA EHV households An administrative step that DSS can take now to prevent homelessness and preserve the communities and support networks families have rebuilt. We deeply appreciate the council's efforts to address CityFEP's administrative burdens through today's legislation.

As we've all said, CityFEP is critical for the more than 60,000 households, including those survivors with children, especially as the federal funding dwindles. Our housing navigators work with voucher holders every day and have seen administrative breakdowns cause month-long delays, returns to shelter, and at times return to unsafe housing. We support the intent of the bill, including— of the bills, including improvements to inspections, response times, data reporting, and payments.

May I please wrap? Yes. Thank you. Our recommendations are informed by our work inside the system and by survivors' lived experiences. For instance, response time should account for both DHS and HRA review, and faster processing must not result in more denials. We support allowing quick fixes during inspections, but any portal-based improvements will only work if the platform itself is functional and can handle increased volume.

And while we support faster payments, we are concerned that if lease reviews remain slow, more packages could stall past their leasing dates and require new ones. Um, we're happy to be a resource to the council and the committee staff as the bills move forward. Thank you so much. Thank you so much.

Hi, good afternoon. My name is Eric Lee. I'm Director of Public Policy for Volunteers of America Greater New York. Thank you, Chair Hudson and members of the committee, for allowing me to testify today. Um, Thank you. So while these bills aren't being heard today, I would— I do want to flag that VOA supports Intro 232 to shorten housing history requirements for PATH family intake to 1 year, as well as Intro 816 to allow families to self-attest their housing history at PATH intake.

By addressing shelter eligibility, these 2 bills can help also address housing eligibility and streamline access to permanent housing. Currently, our shelter staff report that applications for CDFAPs They note that since the rent reasonableness test has gone into effect in April, that they've seen delays stretch out to months, and we urge HRA to reconsider the impact of this cost containment measure.

We support the goals of Intro 98 by Councilmember Brewer. We appreciate the ability for same-day corrections of minor and significant errors. Thank you. issues there, as well as limited focus reinspections so that conditions don't continue to churn when they're looking at different reviews. We did want to flag that changing the language from assessment to inspection and assessors to inspectors may necessitate additional city funding just so that shelter staff, if they're doing these, have building code certification training.

Let's see, Intro 100, we also support this. We have some recommendations how to further disaggregate the data by the approval process and different referral and eligibility mechanisms to more closely reflect the experience of the different types of applicants and help outline potential bottlenecks and areas for additional resources. We have that in our written, so you can read that.

Intro 101, we also support that. We just flagged that you may want to change the 15-day to 10-day 10 business days for consistency's sake. And for preconsidered Bill 1424, we support this bill. We wanted to flag that landlords have been messaging to our staff that they are hesitant to take City FEPS because of payment delays. One of our survivors recently left our DV shelter, got into permanent housing, and while the 3-month advance for City FEPS was paid to the landlord, the ongoing rent never was.

So now she's worried that her housing is at jeopardy, and we're trying to work with her and the landlord to try to get the issue resolved there. And I just wanted to also flag Councilmember Banks' Intro 1023 related to HPD building registrations. That is creating a bottleneck because small landlords are not aware that they need to register with HPD.

Creating an electronic option can help with that bottleneck. Thank you. Thank you so much.

Good day, Chairperson Hudson and distinguished members of the City Council Committee on General Welfare. My name is Kelvin Wallace. I am a program participant at Santos Home and a founding member of their new initiative, the Speakers Bureau. I'd like to share my experience transitioning from a DHS shelter in the Bronx to permanent housing in the vibrant community of Harlem.

I'm here to share my experiences navigating New York City's City Department of Homeless shelter system and securing the CityFEP voucher and finally finding a permanent home. I'll be testifying in support of Councilmember Gale Brewer's legislation to improve CityFEP's processes, especially voucher response times. I've searched for an affordable apartment for months, but my savings ran out. I got scammed several times during my search.

I eventually ran out of options. Thus began my 11-month journey navigating the New York city shelter system. I entered on November 17th, 2024. I was initially told that I would be at the shelter for 90 days. It seemed as if my particular case didn't warrant extra steps and I should be able to move through the process quickly.

I'll explain in my written testimony the steps I took before each IOP meeting to be in compliance while still it took many months, many months to obtain my CityFEDS voucher. while in the shelter. It felt as if the goalposts for the applications were constantly being moved without any sense of purpose or clarity in the explanation. It took me 7 and a half months living in the shelter trying to do it on my own because my case manager kept changing just to learn how to apply for the CityFEP voucher and have all the required paperwork in hand.

This leads me to emphasize how connecting with Ansel's Home became the best thing that could happen to me. In 2 short months, I was escorted to tour 3 different apartments. The last one visited became my current residence. Working alongside the staff at Anthos Home provided me with the help I needed to cut through the overwhelming bureaucracy. Honestly, I don't know how anyone is expected to handle this process on their own or with very little support.

Clearly, some common sense legislation reform is needed. And if nothing else, to have everyone— state, city agencies, shelter caseworkers, and residents who are recipients of the much-needed services— all on the same page. Councilmember Brewer's bill would require Department of Social Services to respond to an application for a CityFIP voucher within 15 days after receiving the application. The response would inform the application— would inform the applicant of whether the application has been approved, denied, or requires correction or additional information.

Bottom line, all city FHEPS processes should be about the removal of any guesswork impediments for applying for, receiving, and using a voucher. I truly believe that a centralized standard which is applicable across the board would not only streamline the process but makes the transition from homelessness and housing insecurity less traumatizing. Just the mere fact of being in the shelter system is testimony enough of how urgent housing voucher application reform is greatly needed.

These desperately needed changes to the process would be a dramatic improvement to the current state of uncertainty and apprehension felt by many attempting to navigate the requirements of DHS and the administrative staff at the shelter facility. Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to testify. Thank you so much for your testimony. Thank you.

Thank you. Yes. Okay. The next panel is Gene Stevens, Helen Strom, and Graham Horn, and Lauren Price. Whomever would like to begin, go ahead.

Good afternoon. Thank you for this opportunity to testify. My name is Graham Horn. I'm here from New York Legal Assistance Group. I'm honored to stand with and learn from our FHC members who live this reality that we— some of us work in. They live it every day. And I am really grateful that the commissioner is here as well.

Our written testimony will follow with more detail, but it is forged in partnership with our Shelter and Economic Stability Project and our tenants' rights Public Housing Unit, who have come together to support all of these bills, these intros, as efforts towards improving the administration and effectiveness of CDFEPS. As many of the speakers today so far have suggested, as first steps or second steps or many in a sequence of never-ending steps that we are excited to continue to be a part of.

Transparency is deeply needed at all levels across the CityFEP system, and a client of ours, Miss G, and her young child submitted three years of CityFEP renewals without the subsidy ever changing, and now are seventeen thousand in arrears and facing eviction from a CityFEP funded apartment. I was I was really excited to hear about the the October-ish. coming of an online platform that will allow participants in the CityFabs program to look and see what's going on, to see if those changes have been accepted or if the payments have been issued in the proper amount.

I think that is deeply needed and a great step forward. A few notes on some of the intros, more detail in the written testimony, but Intro 98, we fully support, ask that it require specific timelines for inspections and reinspections because that interstitial time can be really dangerous. Additionally, in eviction prevention cases, housing attorneys are already responsible for the repairs section.

So there should be— I'm going to start to wrap up. Go ahead. Yeah, please. I'll submit it all. All right. Thank you so much.

Hi, good afternoon. My name is Helen Strom, and I'm testifying from Safety Net Project at the Urban Justice Center. I also support the work of the Safety Net Activists, where our members who have direct experience with homelessness are organizing to get everyone housing in New York City and in the state. So on the bills today, I just want to say I think we appreciate the efforts to make improvements to CDFEPS.

They're Definitely sorely needed. We also have seen significant slowdowns in people's packets with rent reasonableness. People whose packets are stalled for 2, 3 months and they cannot get them moving because of these rent checks. We are glad that the city has changed policy on that. I'll just note that policy change is for rent-stabilized apartments, and so still yet to be seen whether for people who are trying to get approved for CDFAPs with market-rate apartments, if they are still going to also see delays with the new rent reasonableness policies.

Because it has also been a delay for market-rate apartments as well. For Intro 100, we're very happy to, like, see a push to speed up application processing times. I think one thing we'd like to discuss with the council is there are so many parts of the process that happen before the application is submitted, right? Before you submit an application, You need to do the preclearance, you need to do rent reasonableness, you need to do inspections.

All of those things happen before an application can even be submitted for CDFAPs. So we believe the whole process should be taking 15 days. Like, there's months and months and months that are happening of work after someone finds an apartment. Like, from when you find an apartment to when you're approved, like, we want it to get to where that is 15 days.

Like, right now people are waiting 2 or 3 months before they can even submit an application. So, and at one point the agency, a year or two ago, was saying that they were going to review and turn around packets in 48 hours, like from when they— so I think our goal would be something that like really captures the whole process because there's so much waiting before you're even allowed to submit your application packet.

And then on Intro 100, just wanting to make sure that we're thinking about all the people who have vouchers who never find or have not found an apartment. And how is that getting factored into the average? Because the average number of days, that's for people who actually find an apartment. But we know that there's thousands and thousands of people with shopping letters sitting in shelters who have not found one.

So making sure we're capturing that too in this data and then also capturing why as well. Thank you.

Good morning, council members. My name is Jean Stevens. I'm the director of the benefits Law Project at Volunteers of Legal Service. Thank you so much for the opportunity to testify. VOL strongly supports Introduction 101 because we know that a rapid decision on a CityFAPS application would assist in shielding our clients from eviction. We also urge the council to explore other legislation to expedite and streamline, with similar time limitations, the process for applicants applying through Homebase.

The Benefits Law Project assists New Yorkers who rely on public assistance programs, including CityFAPS, to survive. With regard to CityFEPs, we work with pro se tenants facing eviction in Manhattan Housing Court to help them resolve their court case and avoid eviction by essentially obtaining rent benefits to pay their arrears so the case is over. Generally, there are 2 types of CityFEPs applications: those who are obtaining CityFEPs to help them move, so they're in shelter or they're being evicted and they need to move and they need CityFEPs to move, And many of my colleagues' testimony today was about that.

Our office, we primarily assist with CityFEPs to Stay. So they're getting CityFEPs to help them stay in their current apartment, and that'll get the arrears paid and help them pay their future rent. We work with veterans, former city shelter residents, and APS recipients. They are the people eligible for CityFEPs to Stay. In other words, they're very vulnerable.

So what we do is, our office is not able to submit CityFEPs applications itself, so we have to work through Homebase. We send our clients to Homebase with incredibly specific instructions of how to seek services. We then follow up with their Homebase workers by email and phone. We shepherd them through the intake process, the assessment, the application.

We check in weekly for updates. What documents do you need? We're working with landlord attorneys in the background to obtain the required landlord documents. and we're having our clients sign their required documents. Throughout this process, our clients are running against a very short clock in their eviction case. While we know that Introduction 101 will give a time limit on HRA's application process, we see the major bottleneck is with Homebase.

It's not uncommon for them to take up to 10 months to put together an application. It loses documents, makes repeat patchwork requests fails to communicate even to us what exactly is needed, doesn't keep tenants sufficiently updated as to what's going on. There's no portal. They often pivot our clients away from City FEPS into different types of benefits, which will not help them in their court case and will not prevent eviction.

And also, we need to get involved ourselves as attorneys to be like, no, no, no, no, process them for City FEPS. To ensure that applicants are approved for City FEPS at a time that would actually prevent their eviction and avoid going into shelter, the council should pass 101 and implement other legislative efforts to streamline the process at the home base stage.

Thank you so much for your time. Thank you for your testimony. I was going to say there was— there are many, many nods in agreement. We'll have to look into that separately. Okay, thank you.

Good afternoon, Council. I'm Lauren Price. I'm the associate director at Brooklyn Defender Services in our civil practice. I won't belabor— you saw me nodding along to everything all my colleagues said. We agree on many of these things. We support all of these bills, and we, you know, encourage the council to expand this oversight to the time limit process that everyone else has mentioned about rent reasonableness, about all the delays at Homebase.

Our clients have a common and incredibly frustrating experience, even with advocacy and lawyers and advocates on their side. of finding an apartment when they're desperate to find an apartment, going to Homebase to seek out the shopping letter and all the processes to move, and then losing that apartment because it takes so long for everything at Homebase before the packet goes to HRA.

So yes, the time constraints on the HRA packet approval is important, but I agree with what everyone else has said, that it needs to be applied to all the other parts of the preclearance, the rent reasonableness review, and everything else at Homebase and in the other pre-steps before the application. One other part of this process I want to note is that CDFEPS doesn't mean that you have— having a voucher doesn't mean you have an apartment.

And despite— I'm sorry, CDFEPS doesn't— can you just pull the microphone a little bit closer? Having a shopping letter doesn't mean you will get an apartment. And part of that is because we have strong source of income discrimination laws, but landlords and brokers very much know that enforcement is weak. And they're not likely to be held accountable.

Nonexistent, almost, one might say. Yeah, also nonexistent. They're unlikely, absolutely unlikely to be held accountable for turning away voucher holders. I also want to share that we've experienced a kind of insidious form of voucher discrimination where we've heard that brokers don't want to rent to voucher holders who have a portion of their own. So they want to rent only to people whose voucher will be paid— the rent will be entirely paid by the voucher instead of people who work or have Social Security income or other income that would mandate that they have a portion to be paid.

So this discrimination and all other forms of voucher discrimination erode the program and the rights of tenants and people who would be using the vouchers. The council should work with the commission to enforce source of income discrimination laws and make sure that home-based and shelter staff are equipped to address these. And I know the city has increased funding for staff and CHR in this budget, but the level of funding is still very insufficient.

Thank you. sufficient to allow discrimination to be appropriately investigated in a timely manner, because that needs to be done very quickly. That's an immediate turnaround; otherwise, the apartment will go to somebody else just because of that delay. Finally, as everyone else has already said, for the program to run efficiently, it's essential that it moves smoothly and quickly.

At all of the stages, there's delays, there's errors, there's lapses in communication, and this is all advocates who work with tenants and voucher holders are telling you this, and we are begging the agencies that we work with to work faster. People who don't have people on their side sending those emails and calling and following up, I don't know how they ever achieve an apartment.

So we encourage the council, make sure that the appropriate HRA offices and home-based offices are funded, staffed, and trained to meet these guidelines. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you so much. Thank you all for your testimony.

Good morning. The next panel is Yvonne Peña, Brandon Lloyd, Frank McMullen, and Jerry Hippolyte. Let me just call the names again to make sure, because I have 4 here. Yvonne Peña, Brandon Lloyd, Frank McMullen, and Jerry Hippolyte. Okay. We can begin on my left. Thank you. Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Brandon Lloyd, and I am the Director of Government Affairs here at URI. URI is the largest provider of domestic violence shelter services in the country and a leading provider of transitional housing for families experiencing homelessness. Each night, URI provides safe temporary housing to 4,000 individuals across 28 locations here in New York City across 4 boroughs, and through trauma-informed and client-centered services, we work to disrupt cycles of violence and homelessness for survivors, youth, and communities all over New York City.

I want to especially thank Chair Hudson for your continued leadership and partnership on behalf of our residents in your district. URI is proud to operate shelters in your community, and we deeply appreciate your ongoing support for both the families and pets that we serve. We would also like to thank Council Members Brewer and Ressler for their leadership, and the members of the committee for helping New Yorkers maintain stable housing.

URI strongly supports Intro 101 and 641, as together these bills would extremely streamline CDFEPS application response times and increase transparency within administration of CDFEPS by establishing clear expectations For timely application responses and recurring rental payments, as these improvements are essential to ensuring that eligible households experiencing or at risk of homelessness, including families and individuals living in both DHS and HRA shelters such as domestic violence shelters, can use these vouchers to secure safe and maintain stable and affordable permanent housing.

For the families that we serve here at URI, access to safe and affordable housing is essential to leading independent lives free from violence and crisis. CityFEPs is a crucial lifeline for families and individuals transitioning from temporary housing to permanent housing. However, access to vouchers alone does not guarantee that a family can secure and maintain permanent housing. As many of you know, administrative delays unnecessarily prolong shelter stays when families are ready to move, and late subsidy payments can lead to increased rental arrears Disputes with property owners, and the fear of losing permanent housing placement that took months to secure.

These delays can carry serious consequences for all households that rely on city FEPs, including families and individuals in shelter and those at risk of homelessness losing an apartment opportunity, extending a shelter stay, or facing pressure to return to a harmless environment— to a harmful environment. Um, in conclusion, URI applauds the council efforts to make this process more responsive and trauma-informed.

Intro 101 and 641 take meaningful steps in addressing administrative delays by keeping these households informed while they seek housing and delivering rental assistance on a dependable schedule once they're housed. We respectfully urge the council to pass Intros 101 and 641 and to work with the Department of Social Services to ensure clear communication support systems capable of meeting these deadlines.

We look forward to continuing our partnership with the council and to help families secure permanent housing and remain there safely. Thank you. Thank you so much.

Good afternoon, Chair Hudson and members of the Committee on General Welfare. My name is Jerry Hippolyte, Chief of Staff and Head of Government Affairs at Housing Solutions of New York. Across more than 30 sites, including 187 of housing units. HSNY serves over 7,800 New Yorkers each year and helps over 1,000 into permanent housing. From that experience, we know that CDFEPS is one of the city's most important tools for moving New Yorkers out of shelter.

But issuing a voucher is not the finish line. The real measure of success really speaks to vouchers that go through door to permanent housing. And so that's why HSNY supports the goals of Intros 98, 100, 101, and 641, to which you'll see the full details of our support in the written statement. But together, these bills address critical points in the journey, from timeliness to practical determinations, greater transparency around lease-up times, faster application decisions, and reliable rental assistance payments.

So for individuals experiencing homelessness, every unnecessary delay means more time in a shelter. For landlords, delay really undermines the confidence in the program. And for providers, not to belabor it, but I've heard it from many of my peers, this means losing out on an apartment that we worked really, really hard to secure for one of our clients.

And so we truly encourage the city to measure its CityFEPs from application truly to move-in. And I'll even add one of the statements that our peers mentioned earlier, even the prescreening, really looking at the entire process with this focus on speed, transparency, and accountability. One of the exciting things that I heard was the live dashboard straight off the press.

I would love to see what that assessment period actually looks like. Last but not least, ultimately success is not a voucher in someone's hand, but the keys to their home. And for that, I say thank you. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Chair Hudson, for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Yvonne Peña, and I'm a policy analyst at the Community Service Society of New York, or CSS. We are a nonprofit that promotes economic opportunity for all New Yorkers. Earlier this year, CSS surveyed 727 New Yorkers who had applied for or renewed CityFEPs. Of these, 550 had been determined eligible and 497 were currently housed.

We asked about their experiences applying for and maintaining CityFEPs, searching for housing, and resolving problems with their subsidy. Our findings speak directly to several issues the committee is considering today. First, we want to emphasize that CityFEPs is highly valued by recipients. 93% said the program was worth the effort required to apply for and maintain it, and more than one-quarter said they would change nothing or offered positive feedback.

While most said the instructions of the paperwork were clear and knew which documents to submit, respondents still experienced delays and unnecessary hurdles. More than half had to submit the same documents more than once, and 44% said the process took a long time to complete. A respondent said, the waiting period is very long and stressful And it's hard to get updates on where my application stands.

Having a CityFEP shopping letter does not mean quickly securing housing. More than half of our respondents had trouble finding an apartment within CityFEP's rent limits, and more than one-third spent 5 months or longer searching. 76% experienced some form of source of income discrimination, which contributed to shopping letters expiring. One respondent said, finding a place that accepts the program is nearly impossible.

Finally, payment interruptions can risk housing stability. 25% of respondents said their rental assistance stopped at some point in the previous 3 years, and of those, 83% accumulated rent arrears, 65% were taken to housing court, and 56% reported being evicted. One respondent told us, I'm having a problem with CityFest paying my rent. I just moved in not that long ago, but they're not sending payments on time.

I don't want to lose my place that I just got. While our research does not tell us what every legislative or administrative solution should look like, it does show the importance of timely decisions, understanding how long it takes to find housing, and having systems for tenants, landlords, and DSS to identify and resolve payment problems before they threaten stable housing.

Thank you. Thank you so much. Thank you all for your testimonies.

Okay. The next panel is Pepper, Alec Vanderbilt, and Jorge Jimenez. Thank you. We can start to my left.

Um, hello, my name is Alec Vanderbilt. I've been 9 months and 3 weeks trying to get the City Phelps voucher, but it started with the tenant situation. So, I went to Homebase, and I took Homebase, everything they require, you know, your HPD form saying you're in danger in the building that you live in, everything that they required.

And the staff that came to me and everyone was super kind, but none of them even knew what the documents were. And, they were like, well, you got to bring this, you got to bring this, you got to bring this. I said, this is all, this is it right here. And, they still didn't comprehend the documentation that was put before them.

So, I went back to HRA. They did, they took care of the situation. I'm still waiting for the city voucher. Thank God to Erin Dalton, and I'm on the committee of the Urban Justice Center, and also the NYU— Judeo-Biznai Committee. They, like, educated me more, and we've been there, like, 2 years. And, they helped me, like, reach my voice out, and I've been on outreach, doing a lot of outreach everywhere.

The point is that nothing's coming out of this. Like, Homebase is, like, garbage. It's not— shouldn't even exist. We shouldn't even be working with them. The committees are all doing all that they can to help everyone. Even the city is doing the best they can. It seems like someone is just in the middle of the mail and just like causing all the problems for everyone back and forth.

In the building that I live in, there was 26 people. Now there's only 9. All of them have accidentally died, and only 2 had medical care, medical problems. Everyone there is in danger. Mondavi put our building on the list because it's on the media right now where I live, thanks to his aid and help. And the City of Alps voucher is needed.

I know that. That's why I'm still trying to get it. That's basically all I have to say. Thank you. Thank you for sharing that. Thank you for being here.

Hi, my name is Jorge Jimenez. I wanted to point out something. There was a confusion, and I think there's some people that are in the public housing hearing that don't know that— This is where we are. So maybe the interns are taking notes that are incorrect notes, just to let you know. Okay.

Madam Chair, my name is Jorge Jimenez. I had a written statement that I wanted to share with you, but pretty much when you mentioned the issue about timelines and months, I was thinking about 4 words that came to my mind: synchronicity, time, waiting, and human factor. 10 years ago, I was a city council worker. I'm currently homeless. 10 years ago, I worked at that building.

I was actually a volunteer for that councilwoman. She left. She did not recognize me because that was a hair ago and some pounds ago. I've been going through those birds, like birds like wait. So I have waited. I had a concussion as a result of an attempted robbery. My Puerto Ricanness did not allow me to actually accept it.

That's why I wanted to fight back, but I couldn't find the guys. They went away in a scooter. I blame Yamaha for that. What happened after that was waiting, waiting 2 weeks to actually find out that the concussion became a post-concussion syndrome, waiting 6 months to find out that my savings were gone, then becoming homeless, street homeless, tent homeless.

Sleep on the beach, homeless. Fight with the guy next to you, homeless. Fight at the Bowery Mission with some gangs and having to call your cousin, Papo, who is actually in jail, so he will call another guy from the Asociación Neta, so you will be able to stay in one of the corners of the shelter waiting. So I waited and then I depended— You can continue.

On the specifics. There was an issue that I had. I was like, how do I actually sort this out? I navigated underground networks. The Chinese of Flushing helped me. The Mexicans of Jackson Heights helped me. The people that actually have mastered the art of homelessness and progressing through it helped me. Brighton Beach helped me. My crisis turned me into a new New Yorker.

I received a voucher. I lost it. No. I went back to the streets. I needed to do vestibular therapy. I have a concussion. It has been 3 years. At the beginning of this year, I went to a drop-in center after actually increasing the amount of performance for a post-concussional person. I went from 62 to 82. That's actually good.

I went to a drop-in center that is supposed to actually help me in 30 minutes. It took 5 days. Come tomorrow. Not today. Tomorrow. Tuesday morning. After that, it has been 9 months. I lost a total of 8 apartment units. 4 with Housing Connect. 4 with a private broker. I'm here in support of Intro 101. As someone that used to help people to navigate this system.

But I actually am also here to talk to you about what happens before Intro 101. What happens after the voucher opportunity, it's actually mentioned, and when you enter the shelter. We must keep that in mind. I have survived homeless. I actually became well-skilled, stuff like that. But this process has been burdensome. At this point, I'm sorry. I'm trying to actually renew the voucher, and they haven't answered.

I mean, the specific people that were helping through the drop-in center. I lost another unit last week. If it happens like this to a former council worker, what do you think is going to happen to people that don't have the experience of dealing with inquiries? I'm sorry. and the development of how policy affects daily lives. Thank you.

Thank you so much for your testimony. Thank you for being here.

Hi. Good afternoon. My name is Pepper Pavlish, and I'm the Director of Communication and Member Support at Homeless Services United. Okay. Thank you. HSU is a coalition representing more than 55 mission-driven homeless service providers throughout New York City. We thank the New York City Council for considering these important improvements to the City FEPS program. As a coalition representing providers across the 5 boroughs, we know firsthand about the challenges faced by organizations on the ground and the clients we serve.

As it currently stands, City FEPS is riddled with delays, disruptions, and bureaucratic— Bureaucratic. Bureaucratic, sorry, hurdles that impede the process of applying for and assessing housing for tens of thousands of eligible recipients. We support the 5 pieces of legislation being discussed today, Intro 98, Intro 100, Intro 101, Intro 641, and T2026. 14-24. And we are resolute in our assessment that effective implementation by the city remains essential to the success— sorry, to their success.

These introductions improve CityFED's voucher administrations by standardizing the unit inspection process, establishing clear limits and application timelines, mandating reporting on how long it takes for voucher recipients to to secure and move into stable housing, ensure voucher payments are made to landlords on time, and creating a portal for more efficient program administration and documentation. However, we need reassurance that the HRA will implement these processes according to legislation, thereby making the process of applying for, receiving, and securing housing with city FEPs increasingly clear, transparent, and efficient.

Our written testimony provides additional details on HSU's evidence-based advocacy in support of these bills. Thank you. Thank you so much for your testimony. Thank you all. Thank you for being here.

Okay, I'm going to call again Frank McMullen. Frank McMullen. Okay. We will now move to virtual testimony. Please wait for your name to be called to testify, and please select unmute when prompted. First one is Elizabeth Schlitt. Okay, Elizabeth Schlitt. Thank you. You may begin. Elizabeth Schlitt. Okay. Ann Korczak. You may begin.

Hi, good afternoon. My name is Ann Korczak, and I serve as the board president of Sponi, the Small Property Owners of New York, and we Um, who wanted to speak today, or I wanted to speak today regarding 1424 and to thank Councilmember Marano for introducing it. Uh, this bill addresses a problem that many small owners experience regularly.

Uh, the city's housing agencies need to bring their technology and administrative systems into the 21st century. We've seen the value of this approach because just recently Congress Councilman Banks introduced 1023, which would help modernize the HPD building registration process. So, uh, Councilmember Morano's bill applies the same kind of common sense principle to rental assistance programs. Small owners often don't have property managers or administrative staff, and these processes, especially if you're not dealing with the agency regularly, it's very difficult to deal with many of the hurdles that one faces when dealing with placing a voucher tenant into a unit of housing.

So the proposed portal would provide a centralized way to upload documents, manage payment and information, enroll in electronic payments, track payments. All these things would just really lighten the administrative load for, for small housing providers. So again, We thank, uh, Councilman Marano. And, uh, Chair, thank you for this, uh, hearing today. I listened to, um, most of the testimony, and I think especially the first panel that spoke about their firsthand experiences with challenges and dealing with the programs, um, was really, uh, very moving.

And I, and I hope that, you know, some of the changes that you're discussing here today can help the process for them as well as the members of my organization. Thank you. Thank you so much. Thank you for your testimony. Yes.

Okay. Daniel Brown, you may begin. Daniel Brown. Okay. If there's anyone present in the room or on Zoom that has not had the opportunity to testify, please raise your hand. Do you want— would you like to testify? Well, sir, if you want to testify, I'm happy to have you come up and testify. But if you say anything from your seat, it's not going to be on the record.

Okay, great. Both of you come up. And do we have forms that they can fill out? Yeah. Whoever's ready can, can begin and just state your name, please, for the record. And just press the button at the bottom there. There you go.

Hi, my name is Miranda DeNovo. I don't have a ton to say. I was doing the nodding in the back to all of this. So mostly just wanted to add some specific examples about timelines that I've experienced. Like the gentleman who spoke, whose name I didn't catch, um, I have lived experience of homelessness and have just kind of fallen into like trying to help my friends because, as everybody has said, um, it's pretty impossible to navigate this if you don't have it— have anybody to advocate for you.

Um, so everything that everybody has said already, I agree with. Um, was gonna say just as like an example of timelines, um, a friend that I have been trying to support for— they've been homeless for almost 2 and a half years. Mm. The most recent engagement with Homebase started in June of this year. Actually, I think it was before that.

So some amount of weeks or months before that, we put in a referral. We heard back from the referral in June, did the 2 eligibility interviews, and then at some point last month were told Uh, sorry, we submitted the documents somewhere last month, were told that this person would receive a shopping letter within 2 weeks. It's now been, I think, about 6.

Um, part of what seems to be happening is that the case has been passed through at least a couple of different case managers. And so I finally did get a call from the case manager, uh, last week, and it had just been on her desk and she hadn't had a chance to look at it. And like, that's not even her fault, that's a staffing thing, but she just Truly, I don't think had even opened the file until I got on the phone with her.

And then now the shopping letter is hinging on, I think, some piece of documentation that we submitted that she just said, I'm not familiar with this. I've never seen this particular documentation of the eviction before. I have to ask my supervisor. But, like, who knows how much longer it's gonna be before this first— like, this interaction that's actually led to maybe a shopping letter coming someday soon?

The very first time that we tried to submit a referral was, oops, over a year ago. They lost the referral. Had to submit a new one 3 months later. Also, sorry, I know I'm out of time. When APS gets involved, because that is one of the only eligibility pathways, as you know, APS is not helpful. They do not know how to follow up on the existing application.

They only know how to start a whole separate application from scratch. So that is a terrible system. Thank you.

Thank you. Good morning. My name is Calvin Michael. I was homeless for 7 years, 3 years in the shelter system. I was at Clark Thomas Men's Shelter on Randall's Island. What I want to say is that City PEPs has a lot of drawbacks, you know, for what's going on, especially what's going on now. with some of the delays and stuff like that, but I have had good experiences with City Peps.

I just want to say that, you know, I had really good experience with them. Right now I'm going through an issue because City Peps underpaid what they pay— supposed to be paying to the landlord. So the discrepancy is coming back to me now. Got it. So now I have a, you know, I owe rent because they underpaid it.

So I'm dealing with that right now. But on the whole, CDFEP is a good program. I speak for CDFEP. I think you've seen me do it, Ms. Hudson, a couple times. So I believe in the system. It works. That's the whole thing about it. I wanted to say that it works. And all the negative stuff that was said today, whatever, but CDFEP does work.

And I think it's going to work better even in the future. I think they're going to start working on themselves. I think they're going to do a good job of it. I think they could turn that city agent into a A really, you know, a very good agency. I really think it could work. So that's what I have to say, basically.

Thank you. I testified before the general hearing, so thank you for allowing me to testify now. Absolutely. And thank you both for your testimony. And, you know, I think most would absolutely agree with you that City FEPS does work. And that's why, you know, we just want it to work a little bit better, a little bit more efficiently, so that more people can reap the benefits. of such a great program, and that the people who are recipients of the voucher, you know, can— we can reduce some of the hurdles and the burdens that people are experiencing.

But I would absolutely agree with you that it is a great program, one that we need to fund more robustly. So don't disagree with you there.

And then I did want to just ask Very quickly, the staffing issues. You said that the application had gone through a number of case managers. Is it because they left? Do you know? I have no idea, unfortunately. I certainly wonder these things too. I will say there is one person who I think is a supervisor who has really, really gone to bat.

And I hate doing the, like, oh, I'm going to call the person at the top, but that's the only reason that this has moved at all is that eventually we get frustrated. I'm like, I'm going to call Tracy-Ann, and then she fixes it. Yeah. No, and I ask because I think, you know, particularly with Homebase, but so many of these different organizations and agencies and subcontractors and contractors and so forth, staffing is an issue.

And whether it's turnover or, you know, low pay, you know, inadequate training or people who are, because of the low pay, are leaving quickly. And then there's a knowledge gap, you know, like you said, people who are starting up that don't even know, you know, necessarily what they're doing. Yeah. Um, and so, okay, thank you. Thank you both for your testimony.

I just want to say I'm grateful for the program. Yeah. Yes. Thank you. Very grateful. Thank you for everything the City Council has done to expand the program. I am frustrated at the way that's gone, but I know how hard you fought for Thank you. Thank you so much.

Okay. Online, I would like to call again Elizabeth Schlitt. You may begin.

Hi. Thank you for taking the time to listen to me. I have a little bit of a different point of view. I'm here today to ask you to protect NYCHA EHV households to Carve out a city FAPS lifeline for these vulnerable houses before they are pushed back towards homelessness. This is very important for the safety and security of many people, including survivors of domestic violence.

I myself am a survivor of domestic violence and know how important this program is in keeping survivors of abuse safe and fast. When escaping an abusive relationship, it's not as simple as just leaving. The abuse is not just physical, but emotional and psychological. It's not just escaping an apartment or a house, but an entire ecosystem that an abuser has created to keep you trapped.

Adding kids to that makes it even more dangerous to escape without a getaway plan. Nyjah, EHV helps make a getaway plan a reality. The hardest thing I have ever had to do in my entire life was to escape my abuser. Between the constant gaslighting and my brain locking away the worst of, uh, what went on until I could get away safe made it near impossible to see a full picture of what was possible in getting safe, including programs like this.

Uh, in my situation, everyone that my abuser kept around us, uh, kept reaffirming that they were a great person— friends, family. Anyone that saw different, uh, seemed to vanish. No idea why. The whole world he created around us kept us, uh, kept me trapped. Uh, if I tried to confide in anyone, um, I was ignored. They looked at me like I was exaggerating.

I stayed trapped in this situation until things got worse and my life was threatened. I had nowhere to go at the time, not that anyone would have believed me, uh, was forced to make a plan and— Time expired. You can continue. Uh, it took years for me to get safe. Even after he tried to end my life.

After he tried to end my life. If I had known about this program, it would have spared me years of torture and torment trying to find a way out of my situation. When you have nowhere to go, or all the places you could go are places your abuser can find you, the likelihood of surviving an escape is minimal.

Even with calling the cops in a situation, oftentimes an abuser ends up right back in the house. Very little is done to keep a survivor safe. Intimate or former intimate partners make up 63% of the killers in female homicide cases and 90% of people they know. What all this means is that survivors of abuse need help. housing protection, and fast.

When someone needs help, you help them. Any great society helps those in need, and this is something that people need, and they need it immediately. Thank you for your time. Thank you so much for your testimony.

Okay, and if there's anyone present in the room or on Zoom that has not had the opportunity to testify, please raise your hand. I think you're good. Okay, thank you to everyone who has testified, and seeing no one else, I would like to note that written testimony, which will be reviewed in full by committee staff may be submitted to the record up to 72 hours after the close of this hearing by emailing it to testimony@council.nyc.gov.

And I, you know, just want to reiterate what I just said after one of the last people to testify, that CitiFEP's program is a great program. I think we need more programs like CitiFEP's, more funding and resources for programs like CityFEPs. And what we're trying to do here today through this package of legislation is to make it work just a little bit better than it already is working and to make sure that people have an easier time securing housing and staying in housing.

So I sincerely thank everyone again for their testimony today. Appreciate everyone being here. Thanks to those of you who showed up to the rally earlier this morning. Thank you. and continue the advocacy around such an important issue like this.

And with that, we adjourn. Thank you.