Local Law to Amend the Administrative Code of the City of New York, in Relation to the Procedure for Determining That a Dwelling Unit Is Habitable for the Purposes of the CityFHEPS Program
Committee on General Welfare · September 22, 2026 · 3hrs 5m
Source: https://hearinghearings.nyc/hearings/committee-on-general-welfare-local-law-to-amend-the-administrative-code-of-the-city-of-new-york-in-2026-09-22/
Video: https://councilnyc.viebit.com/vod/?s=true&v=NYCC-250-8-2_260922-125559.mp4

================================================================

(00:00:04)

Thank you, Teddy.

(00:00:04)

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 a speaker's card with one of the sergeants. Moving forward, no one is to approach the dais. Chair, you may begin.

(00:00:36)

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 CityFHEPS. I am the General Welfare Committee Chair and my pronouns are she/her.

New York City is facing two 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 cannot make the rent because it is 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 is not enough. As a City it is imperative that we do everything we can to get people into permanent stable housing. CityFHEPS is one of the City's tools to do just that. As the City's main rental assistance program, CityFHEPS supports New Yorkers who are in shelters or at risk of losing their homes to move into and maintain housing. According to the Department of Social Services, between the inception of CityFHEPS in 2018 and March 2025, the program helped 123,762 individuals secure permanent housing. Understanding the dire need for this kind of assistance, the budget for CityFHEPS 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 CityFHEPS 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 units, and receive their rental assistance payments reliably and on time. Landlords participating in rental assistance programs also need to be able to navigate the CityFHEPS landscape. Unfortunately there are pain points at each of these stages that block New Yorkers who really need the assistance from benefiting from it. The five pieces of legislation we are hearing today attempt to remove these roadblocks.

Int 0098-2026, Int 0100-2026 and Int 0101-2026 are sponsored by my colleague CM Gale Brewer. Int 0098-2026 is about ensuring apartments are safe before CityFHEPS is used towards rent, while also balancing the need for move-ins to happen as efficiently as possible. Int 0100-2026 would require the Department of Social Services to report the average time it takes for an individual to secure housing after receiving a shopping letter, a document that applicants use while searching for an eligible apartment. Int 0101-2026 focuses on the time it takes to respond to an application for a CityFHEPS voucher. CM Brewer will give a statement later about her legislation.

Int 0641-2026, sponsored by a Council Member, addresses the timing of rental assistance payments. This Bill would require that the City make CityFHEPS rental assistance payments no later than seven 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 CityFHEPS is intended to provide. He will also give a statement later.

Finally, Preconsidered Intro T2026-1424, sponsored by CM Morano, seeks to make the CityFHEPS process smoother for landlords by requiring the administration of an online portal for landlords who participate in rental subsidy programs. He will also 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 Cohen, Nina Rosenberg, Justine Campos, Faria Raymone and Elizabeth Childers Garcia. I would also like to thank my staff: Andrew Wright, L'Echo Rutan and Demi Brown. I will now pass it over to the committee counsel to administer the oath to the administration. Thank you.

(00:05:49)

Good afternoon. My name is Aaron 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. Thank you for convening today's legislative hearing and offering me the opportunity to provide feedback on the five legislative proposals on the agenda for today.

I want to begin by expressing my appreciation for our ongoing constructive dialog on 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 Bills' sponsors. Turning to the central topic of today's hearing, CityFHEPS was established in 2018 with the consolidation of several predecessor housing voucher programs. Today CityFHEPS serves more than 71,000 households and 162,000 New Yorkers. CityFHEPS serves as a component of a continuum of care that sets vulnerable New Yorkers on a path towards permanent housing. While we work in a City that cares for its vulnerable neighbors, it is worth reminding us all that CityFHEPS is one of several rental subsidies established to support low-income people in need of housing 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 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 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 this year. Likewise, we have taken steps to improve the CityFHEPS review and approval process, including shifting to a single staff review and supervisory approval for cases and fine-tuning our focus on eligibility for property...

(00:08:20)

...ownership, pay 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 returned 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. Int 0098-2026, sponsored by a Council Member, would require the Commissioner of Social Services to deem a dwelling unit habitable before approving CityFHEPS rental assistance for that unit.

(00:08:50)

All New Yorkers deserve safe and affordable housing. We share the goal of ensuring that CityFHEPS 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 intent of Int 0098-2026.

(00:09:08)

For the last nine 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 pre-qualified list of third-party inspectors to allow approved organizations to inspect and approve vacant apartments prior to occupancy. For all newly constructed buildings, like the proposed legislation, our approach now distinguishes between minor and major repairs. Our expedited re-inspection process offers an opportunity to promptly remedy minor faults and relay that evidence to HRA. Landlords 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.

(00:10:21)

Each HRA area 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 we are concerned that 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 and move-in timeliness for CityFHEPS clients. We think the current process well balances the joint goals of processing quickly and ensuring safe housing for the New Yorkers we serve. We look forward to the discussion of the proposed legislation and the changes we have made to the process, and hope they meet the underlying goals of the proposed legislation.

(00:11:09)

Int 0100-2026, sponsored by a Council Member, would require the Department of Social Services to 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's sponsor around the interpretation of these metrics and whether they are the best metrics to use to assess the CityFHEPS program's impact on timelines from time of receipt of the 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.

(00:12:07)

In addition to the challenges posed by attempting to gain general insights from a nuanced metric, the agency already reports on various metrics including Local Law 79 lengthy stay reporting for rental assistance programs, and we would like to explore with the sponsor the benefit of adding this additional metric.

(00:12:30)

Int 0101-2026, sponsored by a Council Member, would require the Department of Social Services to respond to CityFHEPS 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 keeping applicants informed. Our average processing time for CityFHEPS, defined as the time from package submission to approval, is 28 days, down from last month or month and a half to 24.8 days currently. Clients are informed about their application status by case managers at bi-weekly independent living plan check-ins. In addition, by the end of the year we will be able to release an improvement to the ACCESS HRA client-facing portal where 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 CityFHEPS applications.

(00:13:38)

Int 0641-2026, sponsored by a Council Member, would require that the City issue CityFHEPS rental assistance payments no later than seven days before the first day of the month to which the payment will be applied. The Department of Social Services currently issues payment on the 26th of the month prior to when the payment is applied. For landlords enrolled in 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 on or around the first of the month. We believe this is a reasonable approach that is working well.

(00:14:11)

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 two parts: at the beginning of the month and in the middle of the month. While we understand that this can be frustrating to landlords, we cannot change how or when the State issues those payments. The agency is also very clear with landlords up front about the State payment system. Landlords agree to the terms at the outset, acknowledging in a written and signed agreement that payments received within the month are considered timely.

(00:14:53)

Preconsidered Introduction T2026-1424, sponsored by CM Morano, requires the agency to create a portal for landlords to participate in rental subsidy 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 is 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 proposes that the landlord portal enact the provisions outlined in the legislation by 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...

(00:16:00)

...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 a 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, which we do not see accounted for in the proposed legislation.

In conclusion, the agency supports the intention of the Bills to improve timeliness, customer service and transparency. We believe that further dialog between the agency and the 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.

(00:16:58)

I would like to note that we have been joined by CM Nurse, CM Ung and CM Morano. I will turn it over to CM Morano for remarks on his legislation.

(00:17:08)

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 are considering today. I am a Republican from Staten Island. Chair Hudson is a Democrat from Brooklyn, and we probably do not 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 do not think that is a particularly radical proposition.

This legislation grew out of complaints brought directly to my office by landlords and tenants who were having an extraordinarily difficult time dealing with the City's housing voucher program. We have heard about missing checks, payments sent to the wrong address, paperwork errors, and landlords going months without receiving money that they are legitimately owed. When they try to get somebody at the City to fix it, they are bounced around from one office to another. Sometimes it seems like it is easier to get a reservation at a restaurant than to get somebody on the phone to address this.

There is a serious consequence to all of this, and it is one that results in less housing for everybody. I really have to say that the issue of getting more people into housing they can afford should not 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. It is not just about making sure landlords get paid. It is also about helping tenants remain housed and making government a little less frustrating for everybody involved.

I think the fact that Chair Hudson and I are working together on this demonstrates something important: you do not have to agree on every housing policy to agree that people deserve a functioning government. I am looking forward to hearing more from today's witnesses, particularly those who have experienced some of these problems firsthand. I want to know what we are missing, what else needs to be fixed, and I appreciate the Commissioner's testimony touching on a couple of areas. I want to know how we can make this legislation as effective as possible. Thank you again, Chair Hudson. I appreciate your partnership and I am looking forward to moving this Bill forward together.

(00:19:32)

Thank you so much. First let me acknowledge that we have been joined by CM Brewer and CM Wilson, and I will turn it over to CM Brewer for her remarks on her legislation.

(00:19:43)

Well, thank you very much for holding this hearing and for discussing this topic. I think we know how important CityFHEPS is. We know that families who leave for permanent housing do so with a CityFHEPS voucher, and we know all the challenges. We know that rental costs are $635 million in shelter costs, and we know how much has gone into this discussion about CityFHEPS.

I introduced three 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. Int 0098-2026 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 confirm the work was done. Serious problems would still require another inspection. We have many examples of this problem.

Int 0100-2026 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 is 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. Int 0101-2026 would require the agency to respond to a CityFHEPS application within 15 days, whether it is approved or needs more information. No one should wait weeks or months just to find out what is 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 Women in Need, all the advocates, and certainly Cynthia Hornig and my staff. Thank you very much. We had an op-ed on this topic yesterday in AM New York.

(00:21:48)

And one in the Daily News this morning. Yes, I read it.

(00:21:53)

Thank you, CM. I will jump into questions. For Int 0098-2026, in relation to the procedure for determining that a dwelling unit is habitable for the purposes of the CityFHEPS program, could you walk us through the current process when conducting habitability inspections? Say that three times fast — I had to say it twice in my testimony. I am going to turn that one over to the Executive Deputy Commissioner.

(00:22:34)

Thank you for that question. If you could just pull the microphone down just a little bit — yeah, there you go. Thank you.

(00:22:44)

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 two-step process consisting of a standardized pre-clearance process and a standardized walkthrough.

The pre-clearance process consists of an online review of housing units and building code violations and other information from New York City agencies including HPD, which is Housing Preservation and Development, the Department of Buildings, the Fire Department, FDNY, and also the Department of Finance for unit and building registration information. Once all those checklist items are conducted and there is a passed clearance, then it requires a physical inspection.

Physical inspections can be done by video or in person. Inspectors conduct the inspections 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 is a standard checklist called the Apartment Review Checklist, and both providers and HRA use that to conduct those inspections.

(00:24:23)

Thank you. And what is the average wait time to schedule an apartment for a walkthrough?

(00:24:28)

So with the reorganization, the inspection team now reports to HRA, and right now inspections are scheduled within two to three weeks.

(00:24:45)

Thank you. And what percent of unit inspections for habitability fail?

(00:24:50)

For the inspections that are conducted by HRA, a good 50% of them fail, and so there are about two inspections before an application is approved for lease-up.

(00:25:03)

Sorry — there are two inspections before they are approved? Did you say that?

(00:25:08)

Yes. About 50% fail of the ones that are conducted by HRA — the cellar, basements, attic, first floors. The inspections that are conducted by the provider, we do not 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. It would be helpful — I could provide some data on the numbers that are done by HRA. Would that be helpful? Yes, absolutely, because 50% is a large number.

(00:25:45)

So when we look at it, 25 HRA staff did about 8,500 — 8,509 specifically — and I think the Executive Deputy Commissioner is correct in saying about 50%. The actual percentage was 44% failed, so 66% were passing. I think it does bear mentioning that HRA, as already mentioned, does about a third of all the inspections, and so many more are done by the providers. We take the harder ones, so those are going to be more likely to fail. We think that the numbers — while we do not have the actual data for the inspections done by providers — fail far less often than the ones done by HRA, in order to ensure the safety side of this.

(00:26:37)

Can you get those numbers to us, or cannot?

(00:26:44)

We do not. Our systems do not collect that information at all on the provider side.

(00:26:47)

Future enhancements down the road — we are looking to be able to do that. I mean, it would be

(00:26:55)

great, obviously, to just have a sense of what is going on in the entire system. Before I continue my questions, I do want to go to your testimony, Commissioner, and ask a couple of quick questions. You mentioned with regards to Int 0098-2026 that you are exploring the establishment of a pre-qualified list of third-party inspectors to allow approved organizations to inspect and approve vacant apartments prior to occupancy and all newly constructed buildings. Do you anticipate a particular cost for that? I think that is still being developed with our partners at HPD as well, so we do not have that cost yet, but it is something that is actively being worked on.

(00:27:40)

OK. And then I want to confirm — you mentioned virtual inspections have been a valuable tool. Is that just limited to WhatsApp and FaceTime inspections, or are there other types of virtual inspections other than WhatsApp or FaceTime?

(00:27:58)

Thank you for that question, CM. We mentioned WhatsApp and FaceTime because they are the most prevalent ones used. If you have an Android phone, everyone has WhatsApp. If it is an iPhone, I think there is other technology that offers video conferencing, but those are the main ones.

(00:28:20)

OK. It is all video conferencing. I just worry that the word "virtual" is a very broad description, and with AI and everything else that we know is going on, I want to make sure that it is actual video software being used as opposed to just some sort of virtual tool. Yes, we are walking through with them as they do it. It is virtual in the sense that they are 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 levels in those aspects of it. So yes, we are walking through together, just one person is virtually on the camera.

(00:29:07)

Okay, thank you. I just wanted

(00:29:10)

to confirm. And then with regards to Int 0101-2026, 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?

(00:29:31)

I will let the Executive Deputy Commissioner give a little bit more detail, but there has been a significant reorganization of resources and refocusing. Items that were once done by both are now just done with one unit, and I think after the initial challenge of reorganization we really started to make strides in making those faster. If you would like to provide some additional details, that would probably be helpful. Thank you for that question, Commissioner.

(00:30:03)

So with the reorganization, we really tried to streamline the process for application review and approval. As the Commissioner mentioned, we went from a three-touch review to a two-touch review, so there is one staff review and one supervisor reviewing. We also changed the foundational lens of how we look at the review. We look at three eligibility pillars: client and subsidy eligibility, and owner eligibility. Our staff have been trained and they are now given the tools to be able to critically think and make assessments along those eligibility lenses. In the past, applications would go back and forth for simple reasons. Now they are able to look at those eligibility criteria and make sure that those are being met so that the application can move forward

(00:30:58)

faster. Additionally, we changed the life of the documents. Documents were about four months and now they are all at six months, so there is less back and forth to update documents once the application is submitted. Those documents are also frozen within valid timeframes, so there is no longer back and forth for new updated documents. In addition to that, supervisors now have an increased comments section in the electronic application, so they are able to

(00:31:29)

document whatever issues have been identified so that the providers, if we have to return the case, know exactly what they need to do to send the case back. We have been able to move the needle. We are starting to see a turn — the applications are moving, the return rates have gone down, it is trending down. I do not want to boast yet, but we are starting to see a turn, and hopefully as we continue to advance we will see

(00:31:55)

more progress. I would say if there is a time to boast, now would be the time, so you should boast away. The streamlining and reorganization that you mentioned — that has all been since when? Just the end of September 2025? We integrated the units about a year ago, and then throughout that integration we have implemented these different touch points. Several of the things the Executive Deputy Commissioner mentioned have happened probably in the past six months or so, sort of rolling out in a way, which is why we are starting to see them cumulatively actually turn the trend to fewer days to approval. Great, thank you. And then

(00:32:41)

with the preconsidered introduction from CM Morano, you mentioned additional lead time that you think would be needed in order to accomplish what he is setting out to do by 2027. How much time do you anticipate needing in order to be ready?

(00:33:03)

I think we can come back with specifics. There are things that will roll in over time. We have systems already that we utilize that engage and support landlords and property owners — from our current system, which is the main system that manages all of the CityFHEPS packaging, to 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 development with enhancements on all of those systems right now.

(00:33:46)

Many of those enhancements actually speak to what is in the CM's Bill. We can come back with specifics

(00:33:52)

as to when we see different pieces of this starting to roll out. It is often over many months because you try to design it end to 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 markers we think we are going to

(00:34:20)

hit as it regards to the things outlined in the CM's Bill.

(00:34:24)

Okay, great. Thank you. I am going to ask just a couple more questions and then I am going to turn it over to my colleagues. What is the median time between a failed inspection and a subsequent re-inspection?

(00:34:34)

This is another piece that we hope to have data on in the future, but we do not collect that data at this time.

(00:34:40)

Okay. And then what is the average percentage of apartments which need a subsequent walkthrough to be approved for CityFHEPS?

(00:34:49)

I will take that. As we already stated, 1.7 is the number — that is the average number of inspections over the course of all the inspections. Some only need one, and as the 1.7 would suggest, most do not need more than two.

(00:35:11)

Okay. And then what is the average number of walkthroughs conducted before a unit is approved for CityFHEPS? I think that would be

(00:35:21)

the 1.7 — that 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

(00:35:30)

ways. OK, great. Thank you. And then what is the median number of inspections a unit undergoes before passing inspection? So the last question was about re-inspection — this is just about inspection. I think all we have is the one metric, which is 1.7 from start to finish. 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. OK, all right. Thank you. All right, I am going to go to CM Morano, followed by CM... thank you all for your testimony.

(00:36:13)

Commissioner, in your testimony you mentioned ServiceNow, which launched in 2016, and other landlord portals launched in 2023. So by my count we are talking about three 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 CityFHEPS from beginning to end?

(00:36:41)

Thank you. I am going to defer to my colleagues on that one.

(00:36:45)

Thank you for that question, CM. At the front of the process, the landlord submits a unit that they are offering for rent in the offer system, so that is one system. As we move along and the application is approved, the landlord now has access — when they sign up for the landlord portal — to see their payment history, all the government payments, the subsidy payments and the shelter allowance payments. They are also able to submit their documents regarding signing up for electronic funds transfer. The landlord portal itself, in the future, has a lot of advancements on the horizon where the two systems will interface so that documents submitted on the front end will feed also the back end, so that there are not multiple touch points. 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.

(00:37:53)

The communication process right now is...

(00:37:55)

once you are in the application phase of the journey, you are talking with your provider and they have the most up-to-date information that they can share with you.

(00:38:04)

My motivation behind the legislation is — it is 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?

(00:38:22)

I will jump in there. These systems grew up in response to specific aspects of the process, but I think, as I have mentioned before and as we have talked about, this next technological enhancement is about now interfacing and unifying those systems so that we can get to a single entry point for individuals. Processes developed over time. Certain aspects — say the inspection aspect — were developing along a certain timeframe and the technology was needed there, while the CityFHEPS package processing was being developed in another way. But we have acknowledged that we now need to bring all of those together, which is why the capital projects we currently have on hand are really moving towards that. We can follow up with specifics as to how we see that working for the benefit of landlords, providers and everybody moving forward as a singular system.

(00:39:22)

Deal with your management. One more question, or should I wait? One more. One more.

(00:39:27)

Yes. So Commissioner, you said in your testimony that the January 27 deadline in my Bill is not feasible and that you need significant additional lead time, and I appreciate you being candid about that. But this is not a request to build a spaceship. We are talking about uploading documents, tracking payments and resolving complaints — functions that exist in other online services. So let me ask you as straightforwardly as possible: what date can you commit to?

(00:39:56)

I do not have a date for you and we are happy to get back to you with specifics. I think we share the goal of the legislation you have introduced. We do want to provide excellent customer service to the landlords and property managers we are working with. Many aspects of the system are already underway, as Administrator French said, and we have probably testified that some documents can be uploaded. We are working on additional ones and we just have to lay out the IT infrastructure.

(00:40:25)

If you could get back to me with a date certain, I would appreciate it. Thank you.

(00:40:32)

Yeah, CM, thank you. Regarding Int 0098-2026, I was next door — you are lucky you are not dealing with the signal you are...

(00:40:40)

Doing very well.

(00:40:43)

My question is — that is what we were talking about for the last four hours. My question is: if that inspection process is improving from 28 to 24 days, but we would like to make it fewer days for getting into the apartment, what are some of the challenges? You mentioned that you are working on it. I do know — not as experienced as you — but people are coming in and the smallest item is keeping them from moving into that apartment. You also have people who have mold, and that is not immediately fixable. So how can we fix that, if at all? In other words, I assume that the inspections, no matter how hard you try, are still slowing down the process.

(00:41:35)

Yeah, I will start here and then my colleagues can jump in.

(00:41:41)

The pilot seems to have been working to achieve many of the things that you are after here. One of the things that we do think is important — as you could hear, we are only doing about a third of the inspections and the providers are doing the rest. We think that is important to keep in place. I do not think you would want us to be doing all of those inspections. I think we completely agree that there is a difference between minor faults in an inspection and more significant ones, and so through this pilot process we have made that differentiation. We are allowing the landlords to fix and then prove to us that they have fixed the minor things using video and photographic evidence to demonstrate that they have fixed those. That is underway. For the more major challenges, we are then going out and re-inspecting.

(00:42:36)

I think those things in combination have started to move that process forward more quickly. I think you would also agree that there is always a balance — particularly for these more difficult units that HARA is conducting — a balance between safety and speed. Importantly, the lessons that we have 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 have put forward over the last nine months.

(00:43:12)

OK. And what do you think of that two-thirds being done by the private sector?

(00:43:18)

That would not be done by third-party inspectors. That would still be done by the owners basically. That is not trying to weather the third-party folks. The third party goes to the last part of your introduction — the new buildings.

(00:43:35)

All right. And then the other question, as quickly as possible: there are 2,000 people who still need vouchers because they are getting kicked off of other vouchers from the federal government. Are you on top of that? Are you going to give them all vouchers?

(00:43:50)

I will jump in there in a second, but I also just want to clarify first: it is not owners doing the inspections for the other two-thirds, it is the providers doing those inspections. I just want to be clear on that. Regarding the thousand people who are going to need to be... regarding those individuals — which I believe you are referring to — I believe a whole-of-administration approach is being utilized to address that need amongst those individuals. The specific final details are being developed between us. There are some vouchers from the state that are coming available and some other vouchers as well. I think the administration is very much focused on the housing stability of those households at risk, but it is something that is being worked on.

(00:44:45)

You have a deadline. Is that...

(00:44:47)

I believe it is rolling into the end of the year, so I believe there are also some things still happening at the federal government level around that as well. Maybe the meeting yesterday helped — you never know. Also, Chris Gonzalez is very good. I do not always agree with what he tells me when he does get back to me. Thank you very much.

(00:45:08)

I would have to agree with that assessment. OK. CM Wilson, thank you.

(00:45:18)

Regarding Int 0101-2026, which would require a response in 15 days — I noticed in your testimony you said that you have gotten it down to just under 25. So I am just curious what the hurdles are to meeting the 15-day requirement.

(00:45:37)

I will start and certainly anyone who wants to jump in can do so after that. There are just a couple of innovations to mention 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 the year is client accessibility — the ability for them to be able to see the current status. As soon as we receive the application, that will get posted and we will be able to provide additional details. I think just having that kind of availability will really change both the feeling about the process and it might actually improve the process, because if we need updates or if there are things that need to be corrected, people will be able to see them more quickly.

(00:46:33)

I think also, just further to what the Executive Deputy Commissioner said, we have just started seeing the impacts of the more integrated, streamlined approval process, so we expect that to further reduce those numbers of days. I would say the average number of days 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 while we have seen a reduction, we are still seeing a good percentage of packages that do need to go back and forth between us and the providers to make sure the information we must have to approve a package is actually correct. So we are focusing on many different efforts to bring that down as much as we can. Thank you.

(00:47:30)

What are the most common reasons that units fail habitability inspections? I will let the Executive Deputy Commissioner take that one.

(00:47:43)

Unless... I have got it. Thank you for that question, CM. I have got it right here, and you can feel free to jump in.

(00:47:52)

So the top reason, which happens about 40% of the time, is water temperature failures, followed by electrical outlet deficiencies, missing apartment... sorry, hold on.

(00:48:06)

I will give you the corresponding percentages for each. If it is the top five, I will give you the closer-to-exact figures. Water temperature failures are about 41%.

(00:48:22)

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... sorry, fridges: 18 or 17... 18 or 19... 18.

(00:48:48)

18. And we can provide this to you.

(00:48:54)

Missing or defective door self-closing failures: 17%. Missing or outdated smoke or CO alarms: 13%. If you would like me to keep going — there are a number of other lesser-occurring deficiencies, but those are some of them.

(00:49:19)

If you could follow up with us with those, that would be really helpful.

(00:49:23)

Thank you. And again, unless I am incorrect, this is for the HARA inspections, but they seem like pretty common things that would happen in inspections regardless.

(00:49:38)

They do. OK. A recent...

(00:49:43)

...report by the New York State Comptroller on the administration of the CityFHEPS 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 CityFHEPS 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 if I can also just ask specifically — because I have 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 recordkeeping is in place so that somebody new moving into the same unit that somebody was already moved out of is flagged?

(00:50:41)

Thank you for the question. I think the agency does dispute some of the findings in the Comptroller's report, including that there was somebody eventually to be moved into that unit but who was not currently living in that unit. That said, obviously we care about the safety and habitability of the units that we are inspecting and that we are placing people in. I maintain that we think the current process that we have been rolling out in the pilot strikes the right balance between providers and HARA splitting the inspections, the use of virtual tools, and all of the ways that you rightly point out where we can still check but use those kinds of technologies to make the process faster for smaller repairs, and then yes, going back out for larger repairs. It is important to note that we have also established within our accountability office a Rental Integrity Unit and they do reviews of our inspections, so there is a backstop and there is additional accountability.

(00:51:52)

Certainly we would want to hear about the experience of one of your constituents, or a unit that you have seen yourself that you did not find to be at the level we should be allowing folks to move into. That is important and we would want to understand what might have gone wrong in that process.

(00:52:12)

Thank you. Yeah, I am happy to share that in greater detail offline. It was a situation with a mother who had three children, one of whom had special needs. The conditions were just horrific — rats, rodents, water leaks, mold, things like that. The child essentially... they could not shower. They stopped going to school because they were unable to shower. We could not get them out of the apartment fast enough. It is all the typical issues that I am sure so many of us have seen and that you all have experience with, where we cannot get the voucher transfer or the new unit. She had already secured a new apartment but they could not get the payment through — just bureaucracy.

(00:53:07)

And in the meantime the kids were not in school, which was a separate problem, and they had to continue to endure those conditions while they waited for everything to go through. That is exactly why we are here today.

(00:53:21)

I wanted to go back to the units that do not pass inspection — the failing inspections. How many are major issues versus minor issues?

(00:53:37)

I do not think we have that with us today. We can get back to you on what we have in our data as to the breakdown, and maybe what we can do is take that list that I read out with the percentages and note whether they are major or...

(00:53:51)

...minor. OK, that would be great. Thank you.

(00:53:54)

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?

(00:54:03)

I do not know that we have that, but we do about 8,500 a year, so it is probably...

(00:54:11)

That would be my estimate, but we can...

(00:54:14)

Perhaps get that — nine-twelfths of 8,500. Writing that down.

(00:54:22)

Has the pilot reduced the number of re-inspections? It has simplified the number of re-inspections. I think it has. Andrea, please jump in as well, but I think to be eligible for the pilot — not everything is eligible for the pilot — I believe it is five or more minor conditions, but I will let the Executive Deputy Commissioner talk a little bit more about those specifics on the...

(00:54:38)

...re-inspection pilot. Yeah, thank you for that, Administrator. So while it has simplified the process — in terms of the provider working with the landlord to remediate the issues and then sending us photos and videos to show that it is corrected — many of the failures that we see, if you have about five or fewer, you can then do the expedited re-inspection. Many of the items that the Commissioner shared are minor inspection items, like the water temperature and refrigerator temperature and the clogged sinks, and so those are a quick turnaround when the landlord is able to remediate quickly.

(00:54:52)

Are your definitions of minor versus major aligned with DOB and HPD? Our apartment review checklist is aligned...

(00:55:35)

...with DOB and HPD. OK, just confirmed. And then...

(00:55:45)

...with the pilot, you have shared a lot of the learnings. Are there any challenges that have emerged?

(00:55:49)

I do not know that there are challenges I would call out. I think what is good is that we have found it to actually be useful and helpful, which is why we are very much looking forward to expanding it across the system in the first part of 2027. With everything you learn along the way, I think ultimately we see this as very positive and beneficial to everyone, especially in speeding along re-inspections that really just need to address a few minor issues. Thank you.

(00:55:58)

And I do not 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 unit to 1.7. Unless I have got that wrong... that is...

(00:56:35)

Correct. Yes. So we have also seen some improvement there as well.

(00:56:50)

And then, you know, we have already mentioned some of the anecdotes with the challenges that we have heard about directly from constituents, and also difficult landlords 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?

(00:56:57)

I think we make it very clear, through our really structured inspection...

(00:57:23)

...process, that we expect a level of professionalism and care from our landlords. Anyone moving out with a CityFHEPS voucher should have the same care and treatment and responsiveness to their apartment as any other New Yorker. During that process where we are doing the inspections, we obviously have more leverage and oversight with the landlords in regards to approval of the unit to be utilized in the program. We do also, when individuals are leaving shelter, really let them know what their rights are once they move out. Once you are a permanent resident, we do not have as much insight necessarily into the relationship with the landlord, but we make sure that everyone understands what their rights are and how they can report issues where landlords are not being responsive to them in regards to conditions and other things that should be addressed in the apartment.

(00:57:30)

Do you have any sort of formal process for — let us call it an exit ramp — for landlords that have a history of refusal to do repairs, or any consistent complaints, major failures or major issues that are causing them to fail inspections? Is there a formal process for removing those landlords?

(00:58:27)

So there is not — and I do not want to misspeak — there is not a removal process that is currently in place. There are some things we are looking at internally around that, I think.

(00:58:52)

...

(00:59:06)

Assessment process for landlords who come to us with new units who we have had issues with in the past we can follow up on.

(00:59:14)

So I do not want to misspeak right here. In regards to all — that is not the most accurate way to express this — but essentially, is there a process when you know that somebody is a repeat offender, for not renting more units from them or continuing to rent those units?

(00:59:34)

Yeah, we are currently looking at what would be a process that sort of aligns within the ability 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.

(00:59:56)

Okay. And then — I mean, this is just coming to me so forgive me — but do you know of any folks in the program that are on the worst landlords list?

(01:00:10)

I would have to get back to you on that. I just — I do not want to speak specifically. I would want to — Jack, you look like you have an answer.

(01:00:20)

No, I do not have an answer to the problematic landlords, but we are working on a landlord escalation list. It is not related to a landlord's bad character — it is around criminality and fraud. So we do not yet have a process for the bad landlord on the administrative side. As mentioned, we will get back to you on that. CM Brewer is suggesting the use of AI to complete that process for you. Okay.

(01:01:01)

Regarding Int 0100-2026, 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?

(01:01:14)

Thank you for that question. I do not have the median, but I do

(01:01:18)

have the average or mean. So I can give it to you for the last couple of years. Starting with 2024, the average days was 244. For 2025, the average days was 221. And then year to date for 2026 it is 236.

(01:01:40)

Year to date, 236 — so that is not necessarily looking great, at least comparing directly to 2025. Is there a difference in the time it takes applicants to lease up based on whether they are living in the community versus residing in shelter? There is. So when we think about that data — and I am going to go back to the time of application to processing on the City side, so you will not hear... For those in the community it is about 21 days, and for folks in shelter it is 31 days. That is that average of around 28, where we are doing better in the last couple of months with 24 point...

(01:02:29)

eight. So those are the numbers that fit together there. And it stands to reason that folks who are in the community already have a unit established, and so they are applying for a CityFHEPS voucher

(01:02:46)

to stay in that unit, and so the timing is faster. Okay. Are there any specific steps you are taking to address the gap?

(01:02:56)

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 so on — I think we are very focused on doing that as quickly as we can.

(01:03:14)

And is there a difference between folks leasing up with a CityFHEPS voucher versus a one-time assistance voucher?

(01:03:28)

Yeah, you are referring to the one-shot program, right? The one-shot program. Yeah. I think first — and I will let the executive deputy commissioner speak as well — CityFHEPS is a voucher. One-shot would not be a voucher. One-shot is a sort of one-year commitment based upon certain criteria that individuals meet. Many of those people are not eligible for CityFHEPS because they have employment, they have income, and so we track them differently. So we do not really have comparable timing between those two pieces. Also, when it comes to one-shot, individuals when they step forward have most likely already identified the unit. Okay. And what is the

(01:04:15)

median time it takes applicants who are recertifying their eligibility to lease up?

(01:04:21)

So as it comes to recertification, that happens very differently than leasing up, so those are also not really comparable. For someone who is recertifying, four months before the end of that sort of lease period we will start to send individuals reminders that they can actually renew their CityFHEPS voucher. Individuals have a four-month period — so basically from eight months to twelve months — at any point someone can step forward and submit the documentation that is needed to do a lease renewal. About 90% retention rates year over year.

(01:05:06)

That sort of gives a sense of how things are going, and we do not expect that to be a hundred percent, as people will move, people pass away — there are many other reasons for that. But I would say that gives an indicator on the recertification process in general. We allow a longer period of time where people can choose to start that process. Okay, thank you so much. And

(01:05:35)

the reinstated rent reasonableness policy has increased the time between pre-clearance and lease-up. To your understanding, since this was enacted, would that increase in time be captured?

(01:05:50)

So we have — I mean, any period of time, as the legislation has it, is from when the shopping letter is issued and someone is initially deemed eligible to when they move in. So that would include all aspects of that process — both the period of time it takes 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, we did roll that out in the late spring with very good intentions. We do want to ensure the City is not being charged rents that are outside of allowable rents, whether it is 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 pre-clearance 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 been incorrectly charged rent and the City can collect the overpayments, while not impacting someone's ability to move in. So we should see that impact mitigate shortly. We obviously have to get through some of the cases that have built up. I think that is a very positive shift, and I have heard that people in the community are very happy with it. Thank you.

(01:07:35)

I would like to move on to Int 0101-2026, in relation to CityFHEPS application response times for people experiencing homelessness. What is the average length of time from issuance of a CityFHEPS shopping letter to initial submission of a CityFHEPS packet to HRA? We do not have that information

(01:07:59)

available at the moment. We would — at the moment, but

(01:08:02)

could you follow up with it? I will talk to our data people. I do not want to

(01:08:07)

promise as to the level of effort that would take, but we can look into it. I think also we would just want to understand that within that time frame, there is much that could actually lead to that level of time for someone — based upon whether there are not available apartments for general reasons, or if someone has specific needs as the commissioner mentioned, as well as some other things. But we can see if that is something that is able to be run.

(01:08:37)

Okay. And if it is able to be run, could you please include — can you disaggregate it by community versus HRA shelters, as well as the average number of days it takes for HRA to review an application after it is submitted? Yeah, we can look at that. I do not want to...

(01:08:55)

I am just putting it on the record. I am not the data expert, but yes, we will assess that.

(01:09:01)

And we will obviously follow

(01:09:03)

up. Thank you. Okay. What is the average length of time to process and approve a CityFHEPS application? I think we have provided that data — that is the same number, the 28 days, if I understand your question correctly. And again, we are doing better in the most recent months. Okay. Slightly different for those in the community. Yeah.

(01:09:31)

And do you have that disaggregated by

(01:09:38)

applications from shelter versus in community? Yes. I will run through it — and again, folks can tell me if I get this wrong — but from application to outcome, on average over calendar year 2026, that is 28 days. If you are in shelter it is 31 days, so a portion of those folks are in shelter at 31 days. And if you are in the community it is 21 days. Okay. Those same numbers.

(01:10:06)

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?

(01:10:20)

Yeah, I think the first one is the answer I just gave — so initial submission to approval. We do not have with us the approval to move-in date, and I do not know if we capture that data, but we could certainly follow up. Okay, great.

(01:10:38)

Thank you. And what are the most common reasons for rejections of CityFHEPS packages?

(01:10:45)

I will let the executive deputy commissioner weigh in there as well. I think it is more of a returns versus outright rejection — there are people who ultimately are not eligible for CityFHEPS 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

(01:11:07)

deputy commissioner and team have also done — I will boast of her great work to really start to turn the tide on the amount of returns that are going on with our providers. Thank you.

(01:11:19)

Sure. Yeah. Thank you.

(01:11:20)

Thank you for that question, Council Member. As the administrator mentioned, it is very rare that we see a denial at the point where applications are submitted. It is the return that causes the delay.

(01:11:33)

For an application to be denied, someone would have to be over income or something like that. It is very rare that it gets to the point where it comes to us and gets denied. Once it is submitted, it is because you are eligible — it is just making sure the documents are correct. Yeah. Okay. Do you think

(01:11:51)

it is possible to publish the most common reasons for rejections each year to improve overall submission accuracy? We can look into that. I mean, it is really a small number. Yeah. Yes.

(01:12:03)

I think just for clarity though — are you looking for rejections, or is it returns you are looking

(01:12:13)

for? I think return reasons. Yeah. Okay. If that is where rejections are — well,

(01:12:21)

just ineligible. All right. So we can look at that. Yes. Okay. What

(01:12:28)

percentage of CityFHEPS applications are returned for correction? I do not have that with me.

(01:12:40)

We — okay. I think we can get the right data point for you, so we can get back to you with the percentage that are returned for correction.

(01:12:49)

Okay. And then sort of in the same vein, what percentage of packages are returned to providers because the documents, leases or pay stubs grew stale or outdated while awaiting HRA review?

(01:13:04)

So we will look into that. I will say I am not sure how much we can disaggregate by percentage based on specific reason. I know we have gotten much more specific around that moving forward, so there might be something we can provide now and then potentially more detail in the future. We have spent effort working with the providers on identifying to them — and we can provide that to you — these are the main reasons why packages are being returned. I think also through the streamlining, we are looking at the whole package, which has allowed us to hone in on the real reasons, the primary reasons from an eligibility perspective, that we will return this to you versus some other things. We now, based on that approach, have determined that certain things are not something that needs to be returned for the package to move forward.

(01:13:59)

When does a lease or pay stub become outdated?

(01:14:05)

Thank you for that question, Council Member. I shared that we have now increased the life of documents to six months. Because of the six months, the increased time is now six months. Yes. What was it before? Okay — from four months to six months. And also, at the point that the application is first submitted, the documents do not go stale. You freeze the time frame at the

(01:14:32)

point of submission. Okay. You no longer have to update the documents or resubmit. That was a recent change. Yeah. Okay. What steps does HRA take upon receiving an application for CityFHEPS before letting the applicant know if the application has been approved, denied, or requires correction or additional information? So are you informing somebody immediately? At what point are they finding out after that six-month period that their application needs correction?

(01:15:13)

Thank you for that question. So a shopping letter is issued to a client. It is good for six months. It is automatically updated unless something else happens and they are no longer potentially

(01:15:26)

eligible. So that is 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 bi-weekly basis, as we shared earlier. Also, going forward, we will be updating the client portal so that clients can now see the real-time status of their applications. They will see when it is submitted, they will see if it is returned and whether there are any client dependencies that they need to take action on, or whether it is something that the provider needs to do, and then at the point that it is being reviewed and approved and ready for checks.

(01:16:09)

And if I could add — I do think that is a very significant innovation and will help put a lot of folks' minds at ease. They will 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 received it, know the exact status. I think it will go a long way — not just for transparency but for process — so people can take action more quickly. I think it is important, and I would love everyone's help to get the word out that that will be available. We will do our part as well.

(01:16:46)

I think it is a game changer. But with regards to the shopping letter, you said they

(01:16:54)

are automatically renewed after six months. They are automated — thank you for that. It is an electronic process, so it is issued and accessible in HRA, so the client can go and see their shopping letter in their portal. The case manager and housing specialist provide a copy, and so it is automatically renewed as long as they

(01:17:19)

continue their eligibility. Do you know the average time it takes for someone to find an available unit? We do not

(01:17:31)

have that average time, just given there are a variety of different factors. I think we are going to look at the data that we do have to see what might be something we could track — like when the CityFHEPS package is submitted, that is probably one of the best markers that we have at the moment to look at.

(01:17:54)

I guess I am trying to figure out how do you determine that six months is the most appropriate time for the

(01:18:04)

eligibility? I think the six 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 is really done on the back end, it is not something that the individual in shelter needs to take action on — it is just a good checkpoint. So in case something has changed, we would then address it at that point. And if the person is no longer eligible, we would not want to renew that letter, and we would want the shelter provider to also understand that you need to engage this household

(01:18:42)

around a different plan for housing stability and what their pathway might be. So that is what the six months is really about — just trying to confirm the income and those other baseline eligibility criteria have remained the same. Yeah.

(01:18:54)

How many people are deemed ineligible after the six months?

(01:19:01)

Based on that, I would need to get back to you on that data point. I need to talk to our data folks on that. Okay.

(01:19:13)

Yeah, I understand what you are trying to get at. I think the data you have already requested — which we do have — will tell you that time frame from processing to application submission. That will give you that first data point. I have not looked at the data, but it is going to be longer than six months, and so I understand the secondary question about whether that is meaningful. I am just thinking — and I do not know the answer, to be clear — but I am just thinking, you know, if somebody is eligible for a CityFHEPS voucher, six months from that point they are probably still eligible. They are more likely to be eligible than not — let us say two to one still eligible. And so I am just trying to figure out why we have the six-month

(01:20:06)

limit. Yeah. And is that — and again, I do not know

(01:20:10)

the answer, and I know that you may not know it in this moment — but something to consider is whether that six-month duration or expiration is necessary, and maybe

(01:20:22)

there is another opportunity for streamlining the process that allows that shopping letter to be eligible a little bit longer.

(01:20:29)

Yeah. I understand. And we have already testified that it is very rare that people are found ineligible — it is only returns, really. We have already testified to that. So.

(01:20:38)

I understand people have to go through the same hassle of all of that after the six months. But I am glad you are with me on that. If an application or additional information is requested and the applicant provides the requested updates, what is the median time it takes to reprocess the application? We would have to get back to you on that if we have that data point that can be pulled. Okay. I am going to ask the next question just to ask it, but I feel like we have sort of addressed it. But if you have anything additional to add, do let me know. What efforts are underway to decrease package processing times? Okay, I will move on.

(01:21:26)

The software for processing packages currently lacks core functionality for shelter housing coordinators. For instance, they cannot search for clients by name, only their W case number, and there is no client dashboard. Are you aware of these

(01:21:42)

limitations? Thank you for that question, Council Member. The application system — you are able to search by client information and CID, current ID. There are a number of search points: address and landlord information. So that information is inaccurate? Yes. Okay. So some of these challenges with core functionality have perhaps already been addressed. Is that

(01:22:14)

correct? In terms of the application submission, the functionality is pretty robust. Okay.

(01:22:23)

And then moving on to Int 0641-2026. Before I do move on, I just want to check in with my colleagues. Are there any additional questions from folks? Yeah, CM Brewer. Well, you have discussed this a lot, but

(01:22:38)

maybe you said it, but the six months — the expiration of the voucher — how often does that happen? Is it just my imagination that

(01:22:47)

people come to our office because it is such a panic moment?

(01:22:50)

But maybe it is a very small number of people who actually have that experience. We have a lot of clients who come in with that, so I just want to understand that.

(01:22:58)

Sure. I think we would love further details from you to understand what might be driving that for them. So the six months is for the shopping letter, right? It is the sort of presumptive eligibility. And for that, it is automatically renewed as long as you are still income eligible. The renewal letters should be sent to the household. So if there is confusion or concerns about that that are happening, we would definitely want to talk to you about that. But as the Commissioner said, often it is what you are saying and it is very fixable. It should not happen, and it is fixable. So we would want that brought to our attention, and we will look at whether there is a longer period of time than six months that it can be expanded to as well.

(01:23:49)

More ahead. Are you finding that there are more owners... Deputy, I am sorry, I just wanted to add that we rolled out the six-month time frame, so we would just be coming up on the first sort of six-month cycle. So we should see it — it should

(01:24:07)

not be so bumpy. Okay. So are there new owners that you are finding that are willing to rent, or do you still have to go back to the same persons? We have new buildings, I understand that, but there are not that many available buildings for the income that you are looking for, if I may suggest that.

(01:24:25)

But are there new private owners that have buildings that are offering their apartments, or is it the same old?

(01:24:34)

I think we are always open to new landlords coming in, and I think we do see new ones. We could get back to you on what we are sort of seeing in the data. I do not know, Andrea, if there is anything there. But it is not just this, and we are definitely always trying to expand the universe of landlords to partner with us. Okay, all right.

(01:24:57)

Thank you, Council Member. Thank you, Commissioner. You say that the agency 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 two installments at the beginning and middle of the month. So even when the City does everything correctly, a landlord would receive only part of the total rental subsidy at the beginning of the month. Yes, that is absolutely correct. We can control the piece that we can control, and we pay, as you said, on the 26th for the upcoming month. But the state pays in two tranches for people who are receiving that shelter allowance. So in fact, the landlord could receive up to four payments: one from us, two from the state, and then the client's tenant portion. Does the agency provide landlords with a payment calendar showing exactly how much is from the City, how much is coming from the state, and when each payment should arrive? I know we are clear at the beginning and require the landlord to sign off on the payment process, but I would prefer to see if there is any additional communication, like about a schedule.

(01:26:24)

Thank you for that question, Commissioner. So at the approval point in the process, the landlord does get an approval notice that shows the payment amounts. Certainly over time those change, and so we are looking to update the system so that we would send out additional notices. We are not quite there yet — it is one of the enhancements. But as I shared earlier, in the landlord portal's e-government portion you can see the subsidy amount and you can see the shelter allowance amount. So then the only other portion is the

(01:26:57)

client's portion. Yes. I am wondering: does the landlord portal currently distinguish between an actual missed payment and a payment that has not arrived yet because of the state schedule? I have to get back to you. I am not sure of the status. We would have to confirm the language as to what is listed there. It definitely shows the payments made. I am not sure if it would indicate a missed payment from the state system. But would you support making that distinction visible to every participating landlord if it is not already?

(01:27:34)

Yeah. I do not get to ask the questions here, but to ask my colleagues a clarifying question — and maybe it is clear because the amounts are different anyway — but when we say the government portion, does it indicate the City portion versus the state portion? Thank you for that, Commissioner. Yes, it does. It says the subsidy portion. There is a code — I think it is "SE" — and it says "subsidy portion," and then you will see the shelter allowance portions.

(01:28:01)

So it would seem that we are transparent about that now and that it would be clear if there were a missed payment from the system. Let us say there is a family in a shelter that has found an apartment and the landlord is ready, the family is ready, but the application is sitting somewhere in the City's approval process. Is the agency 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.

(01:28:42)

I am sorry, just to add there — and again my colleagues can correct me if I am wrong — but that process is the process we have been talking about, that is ranging from around 24 days to 28 days. So it is a small piece, at least to my understanding, of the overall process. We certainly — I think what we are giving you are averages, right. There are cases where it goes above that. I do not know that we would consider that an administrative challenge. There is back and forth that needs to

(01:29:21)

happen in order for us to process appropriately. If we do not 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

(01:29:35)

approval? We do not have that with us today, but we can look at the data and get back to you with what we have.

(01:29:40)

And 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 will look into that and see what can be estimated

(01:30:03)

there. Okay, thank you, Council Member. Among landlords who are required to make a correction, what is the median time between notification of the correction and successful resubmission? We do not capture that information in the system, so that is not something we can

(01:30:29)

provide. Okay, thank you. Of landlords participating in the CityFHEPS program, how many are corporate landlords, professional property management companies, small to mid-sized private landlords owning just two to ten buildings, and individual owner-occupants? We will have to get back to you with that information. We do not have breakdowns with us today. It would be great to know if challenges differ with different types of landlords — for example, somebody who owns a private two-family home or something like that versus a corporation.

(01:31:21)

If the challenges are the same... what support is available to landlords who speak a primary language other than English? Thank you for that question, Council Member. So at the point in time where they are working with the provider, many providers have bilingual staff. In addition to that, they have language services contracts and interpretation services that are available. The agency also

(01:31:52)

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

(01:32:31)

I think it is a good point and something we can look at.

(01:32:35)

Okay, great. And how do landlords currently submit complaints regarding administrative issues with rental assistance payments?

(01:32:45)

Thank you for that question, Council Member. Landlords are able to submit their complaints through the landlord portal. And just hot off the press — you heard it here first at the New York City Council — we now have a web-based form on the website. There is a link that directly sends that to, as part of the reorganization, the Stakeholder Outreach and Engagement Team that is specifically developed to support landlords around this issue. So now they are able to submit their inquiries to us that way. Awesome, thank

(01:33:25)

you. And what are the common pain points you hear from landlords who participate in rental subsidy programs? I will be glad to share some of those I have heard directly from landlords. Thank you for that question.

(01:33:40)

I want to say that when you think about the housing journey, it is different at different stages. Certainly at the front end, landlords raise all of what you talked about — timeliness and transparency — and then on the back end it is about the payments, which we have shared the dependencies on the various payment types. So those are usually the concerns that we get. I will say the tech enhancements that we are doing on the systems we have talked about today — many of them are directly in response to issues we have heard from landlords, to increase transparency, access to information, and understanding where something is in the process. So I think when we follow up with what are those enhancements and when are we going to see them, that will probably give you additional insight into what we are trying to do to expand and improve that type of communication and understanding of what is happening.

(01:34:36)

I do want to just share one quick anecdote, and I would have to get the specific details to you offline. But we had a landlord who 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 could not 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 she would have paid, 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. So he went without the subsidy, formally exited the program, and just said this has just been too difficult, it is too much. But I want to keep her as a tenant, or have her as a tenant.

So obviously that is an anomaly and we do not usually see people like that. But just to share that there are probably so many more people who would be in safe and secure housing if some of these systems actually worked better for them. If only we could have every landlord like this gentleman who was willing to take on this tenant no matter what. Unfortunately we do not, and so I think a lot of — and I know you all share the end goals and a lot of these concerns, and I know we are all working towards the same thing. But these are the types of things — CM Brewer was saying — we get the folks, whether they are tenants or landlords, who have just had impossible experiences trying to do the right thing and just trying to get housed or provide housing. And we as government have just made it so incredibly difficult for them to do so. So just wanted to share that.

At the risk of... I am just going to ask for this on the record. I was debating whether or not I should ask on the record, but I am just going to ask: is it possible to get a list of landlords that are receiving — that are in the CityFHEPS program? We will get back to you on that. I feel like I need to check with someone who is not here and get back to you on what is able to be provided. Okay, thank you.