FY 2027 Preliminary Budget Hearing

(00:00:10)

(00:17:37)

New York City Council hearing from the Committee on Housing and Buildings. At this time, I would like to remind everyone to please silence their electronic devices and at no point is anyone to approach the dais. Additionally, no one is to approach the witness table unless invited to testify. If you have not signed up to testify and would like to, you can fill out a slip located on the table in the hallway outside with the sergeant-at-arms chair. We are ready to begin.

(00:17:59)

Thank you, Sergeants, and good morning. Welcome to the March 24th hearing of the New York City Council Committee on Housing and Buildings. Today's hearing covers the fiscal 2027 preliminary budget for two critical agencies, the Department of Buildings and the Department of Housing Preservation and Development. I am CM Pierina Sanchez, chair of the committee. On behalf of the Council, I welcome members of the public and the Mamdani administration who are joining us here today. Commissioner, first congratulations. Glad to be working with you in this capacity again.

So let me begin with my framing remarks, starting with a simple but urgent truth. New York City, as we all know, is in a housing crisis, and it is hitting low-income New Yorkers the hardest. In my district and across the city, housing is not abstract. The questions are: will the heat work? Will the ceiling cave in today? Will I be able to stay in my home? What we do about this crisis must remain multifaceted. We must build more housing, hopefully faster. We must preserve what we have, and we must enforce the laws that we have passed. This Council took a major step forward last year through zoning reforms that will allow more housing in every neighborhood, paired with five billion dollars in housing and infrastructure investment. So one key question I will ask today is where are we on implementation?

Turning to the preliminary budget, the Department of Buildings fiscal 2027 budget is $317.7 million and HPD's proposed fiscal 2027 budget is $1.08 billion. Including NYCHA, on the capital side, HPD's fiscal 2026 to 2030 capital plan totals $12.16 billion, plus $2.27 billion in section 8 conversion pass-through funding, for a total of $14.65 billion. These are significant investments and this committee is going to be focused on the outcomes for HPD: preservation, enforcement, and systems in distress.

I want to focus on the way that that agency, although they are not here right now, sits at the center of the crisis. The preliminary mayor's management report shows that housing violations are rising, emergency repairs remain elevated with emergency interventions increasing, and distress in our housing stock is not shrinking. I am glad to work with the administration as they sharpen tools to go after the worst actors, as they did a few weeks ago with the announcement at 919 Prospect Avenue in the Bronx, and as they are constructively engaging in discussions around overhauling the city's power of municipal foreclosures for buildings in distress — my Int 0657-2026. However, with respect to the general financial and operational health of buildings across the city, we know that rent collections are down, costs are up, and while we go after the worst actors, we want to talk about what supports HPD is providing to owners who do want to do the right thing but are financially strained. We want to talk about stabilizing the entire housing ecosystem.

In terms of asset management, HPD is also a steward of a great number of buildings: Melama properties, Article 11 properties and other regulated affordable housing portfolios. So we want to talk about how HPD is monitoring compliance under its regulatory agreements and what the plan is for aging buildings that have received substantial public support but are still in disrepair. And lastly, on the HPD front, with respect to equity and home ownership, another concern that we cannot ignore is that New York City is becoming less diverse. Black New Yorkers are leaving the city in record numbers. What is HPD doing to protect and expand home ownership in communities of color? How are we ensuring that our housing policies are not accelerating displacement?

Turning to the Department of Buildings, DOB is responsible for the structural integrity of over one million buildings and tens of thousands of construction sites across the city. The preliminary mayor's management report shows that plan review timelines are increasing, meaning delays on the construction front. Enforcement activity remains high, but there is an outstanding unpaid fine total of $310 million uncollected by the City of New York just from the Department of Buildings. At the same time, we are hearing concerns from the field. Buildings that were newly constructed, or relatively newly constructed, are showing signs of failure, and workforce constraints are affecting our construction pipelines. So I will be asking where are we seeing the most acute labor shortages — electricians, plumbers, general contractors — and what is DOB doing to address these shortages?

With respect to Local Law 97, the Department of Buildings is also implementing that local law, one of the most ambitious climate laws in the country. With the first compliance deadlines now here, we ask for clarity on how many buildings are in compliance, what enforcement is looking like, and how the department is supporting building owners in meeting requirements.

I will close with the facts. We know what the housing crisis looks like. We see it in rising violations, struggling buildings, and families at the brink of displacement. The question that we have is whether our agencies are equipped for success, because at the end, this is about whether New Yorkers can live in safe, stable and dignified homes. I look forward to today's discussion with the administration and the public. Following DOB's testimony this morning, we will hear from HPD at approximately 1:30 p.m. and public testimony thereafter.

Before we begin, I would like to thank the finance staff: financial analyst Carla Naranjo, assistant director Daniel Kroo, deputy director Chima Oucher, and Percy Sutton fellow Katherine Mahan — sorry, I am saying that wrong — Mahan, for their work on this hearing, as well as legislative committee staff Austin Malone, Billy E, Jose Kund, Derk Spencer, Ree Hiro, Noah Slober and Muhammad Shadid. Finally, I would like to take this opportunity to thank my team: Chief of Staff Maria Valobos, Deputy Chiefs Ben Ratner and Kim Gasos, Gerard Fernandez, Delen Campos, Maria Jose Mises, Brenda Monise and Stephanie Kuzi. I would now like to acknowledge that we are joined by CM Feliz on Zoom, CM Joseph and Maloney here in person, and Public Advocate Williams. Before we turn to administration testimony, we are going to allow a few remarks from our public advocate.

(00:24:38)

Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning everyone. As mentioned, my name is Jumaane Williams, public advocate of the City of New York. I want to thank Chair Sanchez as well as the members of the Committee on Housing and Buildings for holding this hearing today and allowing me the opportunity to give testimony as well. Congratulations to the new commissioner as well.

Like much of the United States, New York City faces a deeply concerning housing affordability crisis, coming off the COVID-19 pandemic which saw the sunsetting of the eviction moratorium and a funding cliff for emergency rental assistance. Our housing agencies are facing high attrition rates, with the Department of Housing Preservation and Development, or HPD, seeing a peak of almost 300 job separations in 2022. Similarly, the Department of Buildings, or DOB, saw an attrition peak of 223 during the same year.

With this in mind, I am concerned by some of the cuts in the proposed fiscal year 2027 preliminary budget. While DOB sees very little change with a decrease of $18 million from the modified fiscal year 2026 budget, HPD's expense funding sees a $500 million decrease from the fiscal year 2026 budget as modified and a $395 million budget reduction from the fiscal year 2026 budget as adopted. While we understand that the City faces a real budget crisis, we must grapple with the reality of what these cuts entail, especially as we grapple with the uncertainty of federal funds. I look forward to hearing from HPD where the reduction comes from and how it will affect the work of the agency.

In the same breath, as we consider the budget crisis left to us by the previous administration, we have to look at CityFHEPS, the city fighting homelessness and eviction prevention supplement. This rental assistance program has been a critical tool in keeping families housed and preventing evictions. But over the past six years, the cost of the program has risen five-fold since the initial $25 million investment in 2019. The mayor's $1.64 billion investment in the program is a slight increase from last year's $1.25 billion. Yet, as advocates have cited, this number also falls short of the expanded eligibility cost passed by the City Council in 2023. The underbudgeting of the CityFHEPS program by nearly $800 million under the Adams administration is the single largest contributor to the $2.2 billion shortfall the City faces.

While I believe we must expand CityFHEPS and move away from costly shelters, I also recognize that in the short term we have a budget that the City is legally obligated to balance. So I look forward to working with the mayor, the City Council and the committee to balance these varying needs, also remembering that housing is probably the largest expense that most households face.

Finally, I want to recognize our partners on the federal level, because without their advocacy, New York State and the City at large would be in a much worse fiscal state, with the federal appropriations bill that recently passed funding Section 8 vouchers. In dire times like this, it is critical that City, State and federal officials work together to protect our communities and mitigate the harms being inflicted by the Trump administration. And the harm is not a byproduct. It is the intention. I am also hoping to hear from DOB to make sure that we have the staffing needed for folks who are coming to DOB to do what they need, either in their single family homes or to build additional rental units. Thank you very much. Appreciate it.

(00:27:47)

Thank you, Public Advocate. I will now turn it over to our counsel to administer the oath.

(00:28:15)

There it goes. Technology. Wow. Good morning, Chair Sanchez, public advocate Williams, esteemed members of the Committee on Housing and Buildings. My name is Ahmed Tani, and I have the great pleasure to serve as the commissioner of the New York City Department of Buildings. I am joined today by Yagal Shamash, our first deputy commissioner, Gina Ugarte, deputy commissioner for finance, Guatino, our deputy commissioner for policy and legal affairs, and other incredible members of the department's leadership team behind me. We are pleased to be here to discuss the fiscal year 2027 preliminary budget as well as the department's performance and priority initiatives.

This past Friday marked two months as commissioner and it has been a tremendous privilege to be back at the department after serving New Yorkers for five years at the Department of Housing Preservation and Development in various roles where we focused on delivering for New Yorkers by preserving and creating housing. While DOB's scope is wide, that work in this new capacity is still a responsibility I take seriously. As part of the housing and planning portfolio under Deputy Mayor Bozark, the department supports the construction sector, prepares for emergencies, serves communities that depend on our development and enforcement work, and partners with industries that deliver schools, grocery stores and hospitals, just to name a few. But this shift reinforces our central role in preserving and creating housing at a moment of urgent need while still maintaining our commitment across all of these work streams.

In all of these areas, we will hold owners accountable for maintaining safe buildings and use every available tool when they fail to meet their legal obligations. At the same time, we are streamlining processes to remove bottlenecks that delay development, especially for affordable housing, and are working closely with the mayor's office and partner agencies to advance the City's housing plan and key initiatives outlined by the mayor. While we are excited to be at the table on all things housing, central to our mission is the safety of those who live, visit or work in New York City. We will continue to monitor the existing building stock for compliance, to respond to complaints and emergencies, and to make sure that construction sites are employing safe work practices and when possible using our data to effectively and efficiently identify issues before they arise.

As I will discuss later in my testimony, we are moving forward with taking a proactive approach to building safety, which will complement our complaint-based strategies. Safety needs to be at the center of everything we do to maintain our buildings, whether we are discussing housing or hospital facilities, and is key to making the process of growing the City's physical footprint viable to support the needs of New Yorkers across the five boroughs. While I may be at the helm of this great agency, none of what I discuss today would be possible without the talent and expertise of the 1,634 individuals that make up the department. I am blown away by the progress that this agency has made since I was here last and I would like to specifically recognize a few of my colleagues who are leading the charge on transforming the agency and keeping us safe.

Olga Suto, who has been with the agency for 13 years, is our assistant commissioner for existing buildings compliance. In this role, Olga is key to keeping our buildings safe. Olga oversees a team dedicated to the structural integrity of the built environment, which includes overseeing the myriad maintenance requirements building owners must comply with, including those that relate to facades, parking structures and retaining walls, responding to crises, tackling the issue of long-standing sidewalk sheds, and moving the agency forward by utilizing predictive enforcement to keep buildings safe. Tar Khalil, who has been with the agency for nine years, is our assistant commissioner for mechanical and plumbing inspections. Tar's team is dedicated to building systems, including elevators, boilers and mechanical systems, which are building systems that we rely on and the people we serve rely on every day. They have been key to the implementation of local law 152 of 2016, which requires that a large portion of our building stock undergoes regular inspections of their gas piping systems, which has been a herculean effort. Tar takes a thoughtful approach to the regulations that govern their work and constantly finds ways to find efficiencies and to modernize.

On a more somber note, I would like to take a moment to recognize Chief Richard Bower, who passed away last week. Chief Bower served the department with dedication for 18 years in various roles where he put safety first as he rose through the ranks, including as part of excavation, interior demolition and construction safety engineering teams. Our condolences go out to his loved ones. These are just a few of the incredible people that keep the City safe and moving forward.

At this time, I would like to move on to discuss the budget that supports this important work. The fiscal year 2027 preliminary budget allocates approximately 214 million in expense funds to the department. Of this funding, approximately 181 million, 85%, is for personnel services, which supports 1,864 budgeted positions, and 33 million is for other personnel services, which primarily supports contractual services, equipment and supplies. This funding is critical to supporting the department's mandates and priorities. Of note, the department has received 23 additional positions to support the implementation of local laws passed by the City Council last year, which gave the department additional enforcement tools to get sidewalk sheds down faster, and 13 additional positions to increase staffing associated with conducting background checks for the trades the department licenses. These new positions will be funded by fees the department is introducing or increasing by rule.

As of today, the department's budgeted headcount is 1,853 and our actual headcount as of January ending is 1,635. Our budgeted headcount includes additional staffing received in recent plans that includes positions to establish a proactive enforcement program to enforce local law 152 of 2016, which requires that buildings undergo periodic gas piping inspections, and to support increased development activity, which includes positions related to the City of Yes for housing opportunity and basement legalization initiatives. While we have 218 actual vacancies, we have 55 candidates in the hiring pipeline, which includes among them 41 inspectors, and leaves us with 163 actual vacancies or a vacancy rate of around 9%. We are actively recruiting to fill these vacancies, including the positions we received in the preliminary budget to support priority initiatives such as reducing sidewalk sheds, and we look forward to keeping you updated on those efforts.

In fiscal year 2025, the last full fiscal year, approximately 275,000 construction jobs were filed with the department and we issued approximately 169,000 initial and renewal construction permits combined, which is consistent with the activity we saw in the previous fiscal year. So far this fiscal year, we are seeing a slight increase in construction job filings and a slight decrease in permit issuance. As it relates to service levels, I will focus on the service levels concerning job filings submitted through DOB Now, which represents about 95% of all our job filings. As we continue to transition to the DOB Now system, on average for all job filings submitted through DOB Now, it is taking the department about five days to complete its first review, which is an increase over 3.5 days during the same time period last fiscal year. Of note here, during this time period, we received about 2,500 more resubmissions, including more complex new building and demolition projects, which means the plans came back to us for review more than once. In about 650 additional instances, our customers opted to have us conduct a full plan examination over what can be considered a shorter, professionally certified approach for their job filings. Combined, these factors account for the uptick in our service levels for plan examination.

The wait time between a construction inspection request and an actual inspection, which occurs after a construction project is completed by a contractor, has remained at 4 days for construction inspection, has remained at about 9 days for an electrical inspection which is down from nearly 13 days from full fiscal year 2025, and has increased by about 2 to 6 days for a plumbing inspection. With respect to electrical inspections, it should be noted that there has been an increased demand for electrical inspections which could be attributed to the electrification projects that we are seeing come online. At the end of last year, the City Council passed a law sponsored by the chair, local law 42 of 2026, which would allow for electrical inspections to be self-certified, which is allowed for other trades. These changes will help improve service levels as it relates to electrical inspections as the demand for inspection from the department will decrease. Overall, there will be an increased demand for development inspections and a reduction in the use of overtime to support such inspections. The department reduced its overtime spending by 5.6 million since

(00:38:40)

Fiscal year 2026, which is a 60% reduction. We will continue to identify ways to not only support but also streamline development projects. We are investing in our most important resource, our people. We are working on establishing a plan examination training academy for the first time with a comprehensive curriculum and ongoing training on changes to the vast regulatory landscape we are charged with enforcing, which will be similar to our existing inspector training academy. We are also looking to technology to help support these ideas. We continue to partner with the Partnership Fund for New York City on their buildings tech lab, a public-private initiative to find, evaluate and test innovative technology solutions that will support our work, including to make plan reviews, permitting and inspections more efficient. We will soon be starting a pilot program with five companies which will come at no cost to the department, and are in the process of identifying additional companies to work with in the near future. The department is appreciative of the partnership support with this effort and looks forward to working with the companies that have been selected to incorporate innovative technologies into our work with the goal of working more efficiently. Finally, we are working closely with the mayor's office and our partner agencies on an inter-agency task force, streamlining procedures to expedite equitable development speed to accelerate affordable housing production.

The mayor's office will soon be releasing recommendations related to this effort.

While the department's enforcement has largely been driven by complaints in the past, we continue to conduct proactive inspections at larger construction sites and began conducting proactive inspections of existing buildings last fiscal year. Work which was made possible by Local Law 74 of 2024, which was also sponsored by Chair Sanchez. It tasks the department with establishing a proactive enforcement program. While our efforts were focused on recruiting to fill the 60 positions we received to support this program, which does include inspectors and plan examiners, data analysts and attorneys, we have now begun this work. Since we began conducting proactive inspections last March, we have conducted approximately 9,200 inspections that have resulted in the issuance of 7,000 summonses, which includes follow-up inspections following the issuance of a class one summons until that summons is corrected, and the inspections of potentially at-risk buildings which are identified and assigned a risk score through our data analytics. Proactive inspections make up approximately 30% of the 190,000 enforcement inspections we conducted last fiscal year. From experience, we know that proactive inspections keep the public, including the construction workers on those sites, safe.

As it relates to construction sites, between fiscal year 2024 and fiscal year 2025, we continue to see a reduction in construction-related injuries, with construction-related injuries dropping by 42% from 625 to 363. We urge the industry to continue working safely and to ensure that workers are appropriately trained. We will soon be implementing a new local law, Local Law 10 of 2026, sponsored by CM Lee, that will add to the existing site safety training program and require that workers receive training on mental health awareness, which will cover suicide prevention and substance awareness. We look forward to keeping you updated on this important work.

As it relates to our complaint-driven enforcement, we receive about 100,000 311 complaints each year. The most serious complaints, which are those related to conditions that may present an immediate threat to the public, are classified as priority A and are responded to within hours. However, our service levels for other complaints have increased, including for priority B complaints, which capture violating conditions that, while serious, do not present an immediate threat to the public. So far this fiscal year, we are responding to those complaints in 21 days, which is an increase over 15 days during the same time period last fiscal year. As with development inspections, this increase can be attributed to existing vacancies, which we are recruiting for, and to a reduction in overtime use. Of note, elevator-related complaints have driven this increase as well, given the reduced capacity of the elevator unit that responds to such complaints. To address this issue, we have launched a pilot program that allows for third-party inspections following elevator work in the building, which allows us to use our inspectoral resources to respond to complaints from the public. The inspections must be conducted and witnessed by qualified individuals that are licensed by this department. The program has been well-received by the industry and we are closely monitoring it.

As it relates to sustainability, the department is responsible for implementing and enforcing a number of sustainable building laws. This includes Local Law 97 of 2019, which requires the City's largest buildings to increase energy efficiency and reduce greenhouse gas emissions over several compliance periods, culminating in achieving net zero emissions by 2050. Our sustainability team has worked diligently to implement this important law, including promulgating rules, conducting outreach with our agency partners and issuing guidance to inform property owners and the industry about how to comply with the law. We have also hired a dedicated team to focus on the implementation and enforcement concerning the law. Last year, we achieved a major milestone as building owners were required to submit compliance reports to the department for the first time. We saw very high engagement rates for the first compliance cycle, but know that building owners have a lot of work to do to come into compliance with the 2030 emission targets and are prepared to support them with that work. In addition, the department enforces the energy code and the existing laws that require certain buildings to report their energy and water use, post energy grades, upgrade lighting, install submetering and perform energy audits and retro-commissioning.

Concerning the energy code, we worked with the Council on Local Law 47 of 2026 late last year, which was also sponsored by the chair and which resulted in the 2025 energy code. We will begin enforcing the new energy code later this month. We are also taking steps to continue to improve the quality of life of New Yorkers, which includes tenants, business owners and other members of the public. As it relates to tenants, we are proud to be partnering in the renter ripoff hearings the mayor's office is hosting and look forward to working on new initiatives to support tenants that will come out of that effort. This builds on our work to protect tenants in occupied buildings under construction. We have multiple teams dedicated to tenant protection, including our Office of the Tenant Advocate that intakes complaints and fields inquiries directly from members of the public, including addressing concerns related to required tenant protection plans, and our real-time enforcement unit, which responds to complaints concerning unpermitted work in multiple dwellings expeditiously. Finally, we continue to participate in the tenant harassment prevention task force, which includes conducting regular multi-agency inspections with our partner agencies in the interest of protecting and improving conditions for tenants.

As it relates to business owners, we have a dedicated small business team that provides one-on-one guidance to businesses, including conducting plan reviews for job filings submitted in connection with those businesses. We encourage small businesses to contact our small business team to receive assistance before they begin a construction project or at any time during a project should they have any questions. We also took steps during the last administration to improve the regulatory environment for small businesses, including extending cure periods for all class 2 and class 3 violations to 60 days and doing away with the $6,000 work-without-a-permit penalty that was imposed by the department on small businesses.

Finally, we are continuing to focus on reducing sidewalk sheds throughout the City with a focus on sheds that are up at buildings where no active construction work is occurring. Since we began this effort in 2023, there has been about a 15% reduction in the number of sidewalk sheds citywide, which benefits the public, including businesses that are negatively impacted by sidewalk sheds. We recently implemented a 90-day permit duration for sidewalk sheds, down from a year, which will require that building owners renew their sidewalk sheds more regularly and report their progress to repair facade conditions to the department during such renewals. Where a building owner does not make progress, we will use every enforcement tool at our disposal to prompt repair work, which includes the new enforcement tools we will be implementing later this year and taking legal action against the worst offenders.

We have also made tremendous progress reviewing the Local Law 11 program, which requires certain buildings to undergo facade inspections periodically. We issued a report late last year which includes recommendations made by our consultant Thornton Tomasetti. Based on our recommendations and regulatory changes made by the City Council last year, we expect buildings to go longer without having their facades inspected without sacrificing safety. Finally, we know there are sidewalk sheds that will continue to be needed in conjunction with new building construction, demolition projects and facade maintenance. Late last year, we released six new shed designs which are more aesthetically pleasing and allow more light and air to the ground, which will improve the look and feel of the public realm. We expect to make these new designs available for use by the public through rulemaking later this year.

In closing, at the start of a new administration, we are building the foundation for a renewed vision for our City. The Department of Buildings will continue to evolve through community input and internal innovation, but our core commitments to customer service, accountability, safety, ingenuity and inclusive growth will remain constant. These principles will guide and support everything we do moving forward. We look forward to working with the City Council and community leaders to bring this vision to life. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today and we welcome your questions.

Thank you. Thank you so much, Commissioner. I just want to share that I share your enthusiasm about the progress that the department has made in the last several years, despite high obstacles — the number of vacancies that were reduced in the beginning of the Adams administration, and recovering from that. It is really incredible to see the amount of work that the agency has been doing.

Thank you. And just a note that this agency, the Department of Buildings, does much more than the rest of the City agencies, but you do much more for the City than the City gives back. So the more that we can strengthen your budget, increase inspectoral capacity and all the rest, the better off the City will be.

Thank you. That is certainly my position. So I want to acknowledge that we are joined by CM Epstein, CM Won and CM Salaam. I will ask a first round of questions and then the question order I have right now is CM Riley followed by Maloney, Epstein and then Joseph.

So to begin, the number of complaints that the department receives and the time it takes the agency to complete inspections are rising, as has been noted. The department has long struggled with a persistently high vacancy rate which is now at 13.8%, nearly two times more than the citywide average of 5%. Putting this into context, the Department of Buildings lost a net total of 90 budgeted positions during the Adams administration. So first, can you tell us about the steps the agency is taking to fill its vacancies and specifically where you are seeing the highest vacancies — plumbing inspectors, elevator inspectors. You mentioned a little bit about the elevator inspections, but can you tell us about the steps that are being taken to relieve the delays being caused by a shortage of plumbing inspectors?

Thank you for the question, Chair. I will start and then I will invite members of the team to add. So there are a number of different ways in which we are trying to make sure that we are staffed to meet the needs of New Yorkers. From an outreach and recruitment perspective, we have constantly been on the ground. We did 27 job fairs in 2024 and 25 job fairs in 2025. We are regularly working with our partners in DCAS on a number of different outreach campaigns. We currently have one through social media that we are working on with their consultants and colleagues. We have 127 bus stops with our job hiring information out there communicating to individuals. We are working with social media influencers who are specifically working to do job outreach and recruitment to get the word out about the work that we are doing, particularly in inspector and plan examiner titles. We have ongoing relationships with technical colleges throughout the City and we also have a number of recruitment pipeline projects with New York City public schools and with CUNY, where we are bringing people in as early as interns, externs, working with different fellowship programs and college aides in order to find people not only to meet the inspector staff or the technical staff but also our administrative and clerical staff as well.

I will say that right now we have at least 55 individuals who are candidates that we are waiting on approvals for. So our vacancy rate is around 9% once those candidates get approved. And the last thing is that the mayor has been very supportive of the work that we are doing. In the preliminary budget, we saw 23 lines provided to us to support not only the important sidewalk shed work that we are doing, but also licensure, which is a really key part to getting people out there doing work and helping to build the City.

Thank you. That is very helpful. Please send us all of those advertisements and all of those social media.

Absolutely.

What influencers? I want to be an influencer.

We will come up with the list.

Okay. Thank you. So the fiscal 2026 November plan included an additional $315,000 in City funds to investigate the NYCHA building collapse in the Bronx this fall in CM Gennaro's district. Can you provide an update on the status of this investigation? Has the department made a determination as to the cause, and who exactly was contracted in support of the review?

So the vendor that was contracted was IAQ Consulting Engineering. They are still doing the work of investigating and preparing the report, and so we do not have information to share at this moment, but the funds are there and the work is ongoing.

Thank you. And what is the timeline for the determination?

The focus is on wrapping up this work this year.

So this year, end of 2026?

That is my understanding. Yes.

Thank you, Commissioner. How much has been spent on DOB Now so far in the transition? How much is in the budget for fiscal year 2027 across the four-year plan? And when will we get to 100% of projects and work being reflected on DOB Now versus the BIS system?

So as of the end of February, the department has spent $172.8 million. Fiscal year 2026 is currently budgeted for $8.5 million, broken out as $2.7 million for expense and $5.8 million in capital. This includes capital funds and all commitments, and the out-years are baselined for $1 million.

What is the capital...

The capital work is typically associated with tech work that is long-lasting and capital-eligible. So when you look at the scope, you can break down what would be capital versus expense. Vendor services or consultant services would be expense.

Copy. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner. Earlier this year the department suspended the general contractor license of Mr. Yakov Eisenbach of Hexagon Industries after an uncontrolled wall collapse at one of his work sites just behind my district office. It happened to be adjacent to an elementary school. We are extremely fortunate that no one was injured. Furthermore, this was the seventh time that Mr. Eisenbach had been cited for violations for violating an active stop work order at a demolition or construction site. So can you describe how the department conducts oversight of general contractors in New York City broadly, and how the department considers expanding the use of this enforcement tool over the next fiscal year? What resources would be needed?

So I will start and then I will invite our first deputy commissioner to add, as he has worked on a lot of these programs and helped build them up to the place where we are. So in that particular case, that general contractor — since there is not a general contractor license, there is a safety registration that we can use in order to control whether or not they are doing business with the City of New York. We actually have information on not only the site that he was working on that we are talking about here, but on other sites across the City. We did a sweep of those sites that gave us more information and allowed us to act quickly on any issues on those other construction sites, whether it was a partial stop work order or the issuance of additional summonses. That led us, based on that information, to move quickly. I think for the first time we moved to revoke and bring a case on that safety registration. So that is just an example of both the benefit of the resources — again we thank the City Council — of proactive enforcement and using data to be able to quickly react. This is information that we were able to use in order to map out not only safety for your neighborhood but for other neighborhoods.

And while First Deputy Commissioner Shamage adds, I just want to thank you for the swift movement in that case. I think you were able to suspend that license within days of that collapse. So I just commend you, Commissioner, and commend the agency for really moving swiftly against bad actors.

Thank you so much. In terms of construction safety, we have multiple teams. Our construction safety compliance team is one that does proactive inspections. Last calendar year, 2025, they performed over 20,000 proactive construction safety inspections. Our construction safety enforcement team is the team that responds to incidents, accidents and complaints, but also sweeps general contractors and subcontractors. They performed over 21,000 construction safety enforcement inspections. That team is the team responsible for ensuring construction safety. That team works with a construction safety engineering team that will review the plans and audit the applications that are submitted post-incident and post-accident. Those two teams together will refer to our attorneys, our licensing disciplinary unit and our special enforcement team. They discipline professionals. The licensing disciplinary unit disciplines the licensees and they work together hand-in-hand to ensure that general contractors and professionals are performing the necessary duties per the code.

Thank you. According to the mayor's Preliminary Mayor's Management Report, the department issued 2,683 total stop work orders in the first four months of fiscal year 2026, a 20% increase from the same period in fiscal year 2025. This is a very significant jump and there is a related increase in the number of violations that have also been issued. What are the reasons for the increase in the number of stop work orders? Does the department believe that there has been a citywide increase in dangerous construction work?

So the increase in stop work orders can be a result of a number of things, but what we are looking at is we are responding to additional complaints and we are doing more proactive inspections. A stop work order can be something that is a short time period where we are working with the owner to make the correction on site, or it could extend for a longer period of time. At this point, as I mentioned earlier, construction injuries are down. We are

(01:01:26)

Seeing safer sites, and given that we are several years into our site safety training programs where construction workers have at minimum 40 hours of safety training, we do believe that overall our sites are safer. We are just taking more steps to make sure that as conditions laid out and plans exist, they also reflect what is happening on construction sites.

Thank you. I am going to turn it over to...

Oh, can I add one, please?

Thank you. Our newly formed strategic enforcement division, under the local law that was passed with you last year, created our proactive enforcement team, specifically our strategic enforcement team. That team specifically is leading the charge with inspections on work without a permit but also unlicensed work that is happening in the city, and looking for those bad actors. They are one of the leading reasons that we had an increase in stop work orders, both full and partial, in 2025. So it is the proactive enforcement team that is causing that trend in increase in stop work orders, and we think that is for a very good reason — that we are catching these bad actors before they cause issues for us.

That makes me so happy, in the context of just doing better as a city. That is really cool. Thank you. Thank you, Deputy Commissioner. On that note, actually, before I go to my colleagues for their first round of questions, on local law 79 of 2024 and the proactive inspections, can you share of the 60 staff — did you share already how many of those positions have been hired? And you did share the number of inspections and the 9,000 inspections and 7,000 violations. But can you also share just trends — what kind of illegal activity and dangerous conditions you have been observing? So I will ask Gina to start and then go to talk more about the trends.

Of the 60 budgeted positions received for proactive enforcement and predictive analytics, 49 positions are active and 11 are vacant.

And what are the vacancies?

I do not have the vacancies broken down, but I can get you that information after this hearing.

Perfect. Thank you.

So the three pillars of the proactive inspection program are focused on going outside and more actively being on construction sites on a regular basis, definitely when it is next to or adjacent to other sensitive buildings given the age of our building stock. We also have our Stay Vigilant program, which is a reinspection program mandated by local law 79 that makes sure that property owners remain accountable for maintaining code and safety compliance. We also have what is called our heightened enforcement work stream. It is a targeted force that identifies and neutralizes bad actors — recidivist property owners, contractors, licensed professionals — using data intelligence that we have internally, working through from a centralized team and then working out with the different units to think about next steps.

In terms of the vacancies, as the Deputy Commissioner mentioned, we have 11 vacancies. Five of those are in the class one hazardous reinspection program — those are five inspector positions. We have four in the heightened enforcement bad actor division. Again, those four are in inspectoral ranks. And then lastly we have two vacancies in the request for corrective action team, and those are also inspector positions. So we have filled all the investigative positions, all the attorney positions and all the analytics positions, including all the supervisory positions in all of those groups.

And maybe not obvious, but this team comprises all the different skill sets and backgrounds of the agency. There is an engineering component, there are quality of life inspectors, and then there is our strategic enforcement that includes the front-facing inspectors that work with tenants on a day-to-day basis. This is also an area where we have actually benefited from working with outside technologists to think about new software and programs to be able to make those connections between portfolios and owners so we see the bigger picture.

We are specifically proud of the increase in percentage of proactive inspections. At the end of calendar year 2024 we were around 27%, and year to date right now we are approaching 35%. So that is a significant increase for us. As the Commissioner mentioned, we are looking at technology to increase that, specifically through our new positions within analytics. They have specifically created an algorithm to provide a risk score on buildings, and that risk score is helping focus our inspections on the riskiest of buildings. We would love to show you the maps that we have created based on that and the algorithms. We would be more than happy to present that to you and share all that information. The analytics team has really created a machine learning tool where we input the information, they respond, and it is a cycle. We keep feeding that information and the machine keeps learning. Hopefully it does not outsmart us.

Machine takeover. I am sorry. We started at a point — as you know, when I came in we had the collapse at 1915 Billingsley. We were at this moment where we were like, how could this happen? How could we possibly not have caught that this owner was working with a risky contractor? And now we have 75 families that are displaced during the holidays, in the cold, out on the sidewalk — to 35% of inspections at DOB being proactive. I think that is just incredible, an incredible change of course, and I am very, very proud of you all. So thank you for that partnership. It means a lot to New Yorkers. I want to turn it over — if it is okay with CM Riley — I want to go to Chair Lee.

I will be very quick. Hi, Commissioner. How are you? Thank you.

How are you?

It is good to see you. And all these great things happened in the few months you have been here, right?

Yeah. I am so productive. It is just...

I know. Exactly. Super productive. Yes. So no, I really appreciate your efforts. To piggyback off the chair's point, it is interesting because I have been trying to ask a lot of the different agencies how we can better — I know sometimes tech, AI, all that stuff can be, you know, people have different thoughts on it, but I think this is one of the perfect ways where we can utilize it to not just give us better data, but also help on the customer service side and to allow folks to be able to see more in real time where things are at. So I really appreciate your efforts in that.

And just out of curiosity, going back to the vacancies that you talked about, it seems like since the report was given to us — as of February 2026 we had 1,597 actual headcount, but now you are saying it is up to 1,635, which is great. So in terms of the buckets and categories, I know you mentioned it, but if you go over really quickly, a lot of that has been positions filled with investigators and different engineers, you said, or...

The main tracks I think we organize by are inspectors, inspectoral staff, technical staff, administrative staff and clerical. Those are the buckets that we maintain, though obviously there is overlap and uniqueness in that. But I will let Gina correct me if I am wrong. Of the 1,635 active positions, 558 are inspectoral, 330 technical, 557 administrative and 197 clerical.

What was the second one? I am sorry, I missed it.

330 technical.

Perfect. Thank you. And just out of curiosity, in terms of the contract budget, I noticed that from FY26 to FY27 the number of contracts are relatively the same — I think there is one contract difference — but then professional services and computer services dropped a lot. So I was just wondering what that was due to.

Those were one-time expenditures that we do not expect to need to renew.

Okay. And then going really quickly to new needs — I know in FY26 there was $970 million and then in FY27 it jumps to about $4.6 billion. So I see in the PMMR there are new needs that you have listed out here, but if you could just walk us through generally what that jump is due to.

So we have received 23 positions totaling $2 million for sidewalk sheds. These are tax levy funded positions added to our PS and OTPS budgets to supplement local law 48 and 51 of 2025. Revenue brought in by permit renewal fees and extension request fees offset the new need and headcount. We also received 13 positions for licensing backgrounds totaling $725,000. This supplements the ability to conduct licensing investigations and license qualification reviews of the character and fitness of 30 different construction trade license applications. This new need and headcount is also covered by revenue generated by the unit. That is 13 positions — eight administrative positions and five clerical. And for the 23 positions received for sidewalk sheds: 12 administrative positions, 10 of those for customer service, nine technical positions and two inspectoral positions.

Okay. We also received a baseline increase of $350,000 for preclearance overtime for DOB elevator inspectors to perform inspections outside normal work hours. The funding will be covered by revenue accrued from inspection fees. And we also received $1.6 million in Modell's space renovation. This funding is for renovations of the Modell's lease space located at our headquarters at 280 Broadway to increase the capacity of our space by 100 workstations.

Okay, perfect. Thank you. And then actually talking on that point about the revenue generation and the fees to be increased — the revenue rather — I noted the FY27 preliminary plan also includes, as you mentioned, $353.1 million of DOB miscellaneous revenue, $1.9 million more than the FY26 adopted plan, and it seems like this is largely attributable to the increase of $2.9 million in construction permits and $1.1 million in licenses for trade professionals. So does DOB anticipate permit revenues to increase?

Yes, we do expect the permit revenues to increase because we are moving from an annual sidewalk shed permit renewal to a 90-day permit renewal.

We also expect fees from the extension requests and for progress reports. And on the licensing front, an increase in fees for license applications as well as fees for renewal applications.

Okay, perfect. And of course for the chief savings officer — who was identified as the chief savings officer in your...

Our Deputy Commissioner for Finance was identified, as the work overlaps with our day-to-day work. Also, Gina has been responsible for finding innovation and savings in the agency to date and was the right choice.

Okay, perfect. And it is the same across different agencies with 1.5% savings for FY26 and 2.5% for FY27.

That is right.

Okay, perfect. And will services like code enforcement and inspections that protect New Yorkers be held harmless from the budget decreases?

We are working through a plan right now, but I think we are on the same page that we have an obligation to keep people safe, and so finding a strategy that maintains that obligation is the direction we want to go.

Right. And that is one thing we have been trying to emphasize — that yes, we are trying to find savings but not in terms of sacrificing services for New Yorkers. And I know on the Council we have definitely added a lot more different legislative things that require more staffing, but hopefully these are all things that will work to improve daily lives for New Yorkers. So thank you. Thank you, Chair, and thanks, CM Riley.

Thank you, Chair Lee. Chair Riley.

Thank you, Chair Sanchez, and good morning, Commissioner, and good morning to the DOB team. Thank you so much for testifying here. As chair of land use, I see the Department of Buildings as one of the most important agencies in the city's ability to actually turn policy into housing production. We could pass resolutions, adopt plans and talk about affordability, but if the building process remains too slow, too costly or too unpredictable, New Yorkers will continue to feel the housing crisis that we are currently in. So I just want to focus my questions today on how we could build faster, smarter and be more sustainable.

So during your testimony, Commissioner, you spoke about the agency not being focused on just enforcement but also on production. Could you just state three ways you believe DOB can most directly help with the city's increase in housing production and also reduce the cost burden associated with development?

Absolutely. CM, I agree with you on the role that DOB holds. We are the steward of the zoning resolution. So as you pointed out, taking policy and language and putting it into action is something that we care about deeply. To answer your question directly, I think first and foremost, thinking about how we are investing in the people who are reviewing plans and doing the work of moving projects through our process is going to be a key way to moving projects faster. So the movement from taking continuing education that we currently have and moving it into a formal plan examiner academy — so that we are updating and continuously building up that staff so we are working through applications faster — I think is going to be very key.

Additionally, we are working on — and this is a public-private partnership — talking more about the standardization of the plans that come into our agency so that we are not spending time going back and forth over small matters and we are actually looking at material in the same way and in the same format, which will reduce review times in our opinion. The technology that comes with that, DOB now has allowed us to create a faster back and forth between plan examiners and the industry. But it has also drastically increased the number of applications that people are allowed to submit and when they are allowed to submit. So those two factors — better investment in training for the staff that we have coming in as plan examiners, and then also creating a standardization of the work that we do including reducing the number of unique objections and coming up with more clarity there.

The other part that I think is really important is the formalization and the streamlining of our codes and rules. I cannot understate how important the code committees are to creating more consistency and more updates to meet the construction industry where they are, to create a code format that makes sense. So we are grateful to the many people who volunteer their time for that. And I mentioned creating housing, but also preserving housing is a very big part of that.

Well, Commissioner, let me just go into some more questions. I only have five minutes. The existing building code that we passed, and then training and working with the outside world to implement, will save time, save money and create more consistency.

Thank you so much. And you spoke about something important about the plan examiners. What are the biggest challenges DOB faces in hiring and retaining plan examiners, inspectors, engineers and technical staff? Does it come with compensation competition from the private sector? We really want to highlight this because these are very important jobs and we want to make sure we have the best people for the jobs, but we are seeing a lot of our people going into the private sector.

Yeah, on average I think — in both inspectors and plan examiners, and our Deputy Commissioner for Administration will correct me — we see at separation they have been here for about a little over six years. Within that time there is a lot of competition. We compete with the private sector on wages, though I will say city benefits and compensation packages are strong. There is the opportunity to train and move up in their career and have a diverse portfolio. So what we are trying to do is create ways to diversify the workload of individuals inside the agency so they get the experience that they need.

For plan examiners in particular, as they have to go and seek their license, it may not be something you can do within the four walls of DOB because of the particular steps you have to take to get it. So we are actually piloting something — we are working on a pilot with other agencies to see if we can help plan examiners who are looking for their license be able to stay within the DOB world but get that extra accreditation that they need. And then separate from that, we are looking at ways to — and we are interviewing our plan examiners to figure out ways to keep them in city service longer by creating more positions and breaking up the flatness of the organization. So very recently, assistant chief positions were created to give people upward mobility into the agency.

Thank you. Chair, if I could just ask another question real quick. I am going to ask these two questions and then I will be quiet. So one concern we hear is that sustainability compliance can impose real costs, especially on affordable housing providers, co-ops and older multifamily buildings. So how is DOB thinking about implementation in a way that drives compliance without worsening affordability pressures for tenants and owners? That is one question. And my next question focuses on interagency coordination. How often are delays attributed to DOB that are really rooted in issues involving other agencies and sequential approvals? Would a more integrated interagency approval model help move projects faster?

So I think the question about interagency coordination is something that we are working on right now through the speed task force. I would say that the work that we are doing to integrate systems with partner agencies — HPD or other agencies — we actually have a couple of initiatives we are working on now to cut through that. I can come to you with more specifics, just to say that this is something we recognize as a place of work and we are working on it.

The first question — I would say that right now we have seen a very high compliance rate with phase one: over 91%, 89% of Article 320 buildings, 94% of Article 321 buildings, though the reality of complying is very difficult. We have the New York City Accelerator, which is managed by the mayor's office of climate and environmental justice, which provides people with direct technical support, access to financial lending resources, actual project managing and case managing to get them through. Our Deputy Commissioner of Sustainability can talk about our work with the sustainability center to also provide that work. We also citywide have tools at HPD for those who need lending support to be able to meet their retrofit and energy upgrade situation. And then as a city we have been advocating for J51 as a tool in this area. So there are still hardships faced by buildings that have to meet the 2030 requirement, and we are currently going through the audits of the phase one reports to better understand what they are facing, who needs to pay penalties, and then at that point we will have a better sense of what the landscape looks like and what tools we need.

Thank you, Commissioner. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you so much, Chair Riley. CM Maloney. Oh, I am sorry. I need to acknowledge that we have been joined by CM Brewer and CM Zhuang and Deputy Speaker Williams on Zoom. CM Maloney,

great. Thank you so much for being here. As a Manhattan council member, I have to ask about scaffolding, and I am thrilled about the 15% reduction. As you noted, the Council passed a legislative package on this last session, so hopefully we will see that trend continue. Could you give more information on when you expect DOB to fully operationalize those enforcement mechanisms?

We expect the rules to be out this summer, but we have already started doing the work. We already have the 90-day shed permit rule provision in place at DOB now. So going from a year to 90 days, we are already doing the education with the industry and we are hard at work on all the work streams. So the enforcement piece — we are working through the recommendations on the design piece, so making sure the new shed designs are available for the public as part of...

(01:24:53)

those rules. And then last but not least, we are working on the Thorn and Thomasi recommendations which will also make it more flexible but still maintain safety for property owners moving from five to six years and then going from, for new buildings under 40 years old with a safe report already under its belt, moving from one cycle to 12 years, which will also include visual inspections in between. And then last but not least, the radius of sheds will now be reduced to 40 feet, which will increase mobility and access to open space while still maintaining safety.

Just wanted to add specifically our long-standing shed program. We have reduced the number of years from five to three years of what we are considering a long-standing shed. So we are now targeting that group of buildings, most of them in Manhattan, that we are looking at. We are trying to wake up these owners that have not been maintaining their buildings and inspecting those buildings on a regular basis, communicating with those owners that we are looking at them. We want to make sure that they are making progress towards those repairs and if they are making progress, great. If they are not, we are coming after them. This is the area where we are using criminal summonses and nuisance abatement. This is usually where the legal work comes in and we partner with affirmative litigation at the law department for it.

And is there a mechanism for Council members and constituents to identify some of the problem sheds in our communities?

Especially in the Manhattan area, working through our intergovernmental team, Jamila, our deputy director, or Vlad can reach out to your office after this and we will make sure. But for any member, reaching out to any member of the senior staff or your intergovernmental representative, we can make sure we follow up on any complaints that come up.

Thank you. So it sounds like this summer most of the implementation will have started. So my follow-up question is when will we have enough data on whether the laws go far enough? When would be a good time for us to reassess that?

I think we can continue to give periodic updates. We can come back toward the end of the year and let you know what that looks like. It is a new, more aggressive regime and so there will still be questions, but sharing the outcomes of what those first couple of months look like sounds like a good way to start the conversation.

Great. Thank you. And the 23 employees that you are staffing, it is great to hear that the revenue generated will likely cover those positions. How far along are you with filling those roles?

So they are in the preliminary budget. We have to move forward with the process, but we already have inspector staff in our facades unit who are looking at this work. We have taken the first step of the 90 days and we are responding to complaints. This is a project and a program that is going to take several months to build out.

Thank you very much.

No problem.

Thank you, CM Maloney. Just a quick follow-up on that, understanding where we are in the process, but does the department have plans for how those inspectors will be distributed across the city?

The new positions for sidewalk sheds are broken up into essentially three distinct groups. The first one is for our bureau staff to process the permits. As you can imagine, we have around 7,000 to 7,600 active sidewalk shed permits. Going from one permit per 12 months to four permits per 12 months, right, every 90 days, that is a drastic increase in volume. Those folks will process those permits. The second group will be going into our engineering services team under assistant commissioner Jill Rebecki. Her team will focus on reviewing the reports that come in every 90 days per the local law to ensure that those owners are making progress towards those repairs and if progress is not seen then civil penalties will start accruing. And lastly is the inspectoral team. We are anticipating the inspectoral team to join our construction safety compliance team under assistant commissioner Juan Aras and focus specifically on inspecting sheds with expired permits, sheds that are there with no work going on, or even if they are telling us work is occurring, we will go out and confirm that that work is occurring. So it is threefold.

What was the name of the first division? The borough operations?

Thank you so much. Next up, I want to acknowledge we are joined by CM Avilés and next up is CM Epstein.

Thank you and thank you for your time. I just want to follow up with CM Maloney on the shed issue. Sheds that have been up, construction sites that have installed sheds for 5, 10, 15 years — what are the expectations for those construction sites that are in the middle of, you know, four stories up and they are not being done? What are we doing with those sheds that are just sitting there with a lot of debris?

So I can start and then I will ask the first deputy to add or correct. Stalled sites — there is actually a building bulletin that was put out several years ago that codifies steps that the owners of stalled sites are still responsible for taking action on and making safe. Additionally, if a stalled site is there and anyone sees issues, we respond. We issue complaints and we will force corrective action. And then, speaking more anecdotally, stalled sites that have lenders or individuals who are part of that process — if we need to and we are not getting responsiveness from the owner — we will often work with the law department and reach out to other parties connected to that site to try to compel action. And then if it is a sidewalk shed particularly that is connected to that site, that could be part of the package of enforcement. If it is just a stalled site itself, then we just focus on the stalled site.

I just want to flag that these sites have been — I have complained about these sites for years. The entire time I have been in elected office, those stalled sites have not moved and we have seen no change at all except more garbage and debris. So I think from the people in our district, they want to see some movement. Something physically happening would be really beneficial. I understand that you are working with the owner, maybe working with the lender, but we need to see some tangible results. Something you can do to tell people in the neighborhood, "Hey, I know this is a stalled site, this has been looking like this for 15 years, but here is what is happening." Something that communicates to the public would be really helpful.

I understand, Council Member. We will follow up.

Can I talk about harassment? Just early this morning I was at a building at 109 East 9th Street. There is a certificate of no harassment. There is a finding of harassment. Are you issuing permits for the property? They have taken bathrooms out of the floors where the SRO tenants are living. This is an ongoing problem. This has been a problem that we have seen across the city. I want to speak for CM Brewer as well — she has a lot of SROs too. What are we doing to protect those tenants? And is DOB the appropriate place? I am also responding to CM Riley. I know we want to build more housing. We also want to protect the people who are still here and especially some of the most vulnerable residents, the SRO tenants, to ensure that they are protected during these projects where we know there is a finding of harassment. What are we doing here to protect those tenants?

I cannot speak to the particular address because there is ongoing litigation involving the City to try to protect those tenants. In fact, one thing that is happening is that the owner requested permits to do work that they are not allowed to do because they do not have all the paperwork that is required and we would not allow work unless people meet the requirements. That being said, we want to make sure that tenants who are in emergency and hazardous conditions have a path forward to do at least that minimal work. So I think there are conversations going on about that building. But writ large, if we are faced with an SRO that has certain requirements in order to get work done, the owners have to produce and make sure that they show us they have the certificate of no harassment or meet any other zoning or code regulations about special protections that may adhere to that district before they can pull permits. We look at the scope of work and make sure that the scope of work is within the boundaries of what they are allowed to do. If they are doing things without a permit and anything that is permanent work without permits, we go out, we issue the stop work order and we issue the penalties and fines, which could be up to $25,000.

At least for this property owner who is still engaging in harassing behavior, and where there has been a finding of harassment, I would love to see other tools in our tool belt to protect those tenants. They took bathrooms out of people's floors, so people do not have bathrooms on their floor anymore. These are people who have lived in these apartments 30, 40, 50 years and they are living in really terrible conditions. I worry that maybe we need to figure out what tools are needed to help those tenants because what is happening now is not being successful.

I will say, even before but even more heightened by the rent ripoff hearings, myself and other senior members of the team are sitting and talking with members. There will be recommendations coming out that likely will overlap with the kind of tools that we may need HPD and other agencies to do more.

Thank you. I look forward to seeing those reports. Thank you, Chair Sanchez. I appreciate it.

Thank you, CM Epstein. Co-sign.

I want to acknowledge that we are joined by Majority Leader Abreu and the next Council Member is CM Joseph, followed by Salaam then Brewer.

Thank you, Chair. I want to continue on the same line of questioning. My office has received complaints about unpermitted demolition and construction projects that happen in my district causing major disruptions and health and safety concerns for people in neighboring properties. It seems like DOB summonses are just becoming the standard practice, just a cost of doing business with these developers. What do you think is driving this behavior and what kind of changes would need to be put in place to make it stop? We get constant phone calls about this. Sometimes we go out to the sites. I more than welcome your team to do a walkthrough in my district to come and see these problems ongoing.

I also know you work on elevators. I constantly have an elevator on Lefrak Avenue that has been out for two years. That means my older adults cannot go to their doctor's appointments. Their food has to be brought to them. When we talk about dilapidated buildings, these are the types of buildings we are talking about. We do not feel as if there is any support. So I welcome your expertise. Good to see you, Commissioner. Happy to see you in this role. Hopefully we can move things at a faster pace because these are ongoing — the harassment of tenants. I have one landlord who had one of his people dress as ICE agents to go knock on doors. That is unacceptable. That is unacceptable. So I want to know what can we do to support you as Council Members in making sure that our communities feel safe and our most vulnerable New Yorkers feel safe in their homes.

I appreciate those questions and everything that you and the other members are trying to do. Work around tenant safety and trying to push back against tenant harassment is something that is very important to me. Working in the Council, one of my first bills was working with CM Epstein, then an advocate, on the Office of Tenant Advocate. This is something that is very important to us.

Does it have teeth? We need some teeth now.

We are working on building out more teeth. The rules are moving or will be out soon — we are working on rules that even more clearly, going to the elevators first and then coming to the second question, more clearly show the owner's responsibility when there is an elevator outage in their building. Additionally, what we have tried to set up around the changes for elevator inspections is hopefully a way to get more elevators up and running, inspected and moving faster, given that outages obviously have an outsized impact on our vulnerable New Yorkers. We are in conversations now to think about what more we can do on elevators other than make clear in our rules the owner's responsibility for reasonable accommodations, and working to get inspections happening faster to put that work in service. That is in addition to the annual and every five-year inspections and the maintenance contract that they are supposed to have. We will have to do more. The elevator outages — we see this a lot. There are 70,000 of these units across the City and we know that when these outages happen, the disruption is massive.

How many elevator calls do you get per year? How many outages, how many inspectors do you have and what is the timeline to get them fixed?

The timeline varies. It depends on the age of the cab and the part that is broken. We are also in a time period over the last couple of years where elevators were required to modernize. By doing that, there are pros and cons. They are safer, more up-to-date elevators, but the program for that will have an impact on the repairs. We can get back to you on that as we continue conversations as part of the housing plan and this work that we are doing with the mayor's office to protect tenants. Elevators, especially in buildings where there is one elevator, is a priority for us and we are working out from that.

On the first part, the Office of the Tenant Advocate is a key part of that work, but there is a larger office of strategic operations under assistant commissioner Augustino who is working every day to respond to complaints. We are working with HPD, working with the AG's office, with our local DAs and we are bringing cases. This is also part of the proactive enforcement that we talked about earlier. So there are multiple ways in which we are trying to make it safer for tenants.

What about my demolition question? Demolitions that are happening and by the time you call, you give them a summons and tomorrow I am getting the same phone calls.

This is another thing that is coming up in proactive work. We are trying to understand whether there is a small cohort of subcontractors, general contractors or individuals who are flouting our rules, and taking on proactive portfolio cases. Just to answer your question, in terms of the number of single elevator buildings that have filed complaints, in calendar year 2025 we had 13,166 complaints for single elevator buildings. Currently we have 28 active elevator inspectors with four vacancies, although just last week we hired two more individuals. So that vacancy number would come down to two in the elevator unit.

And that is 13,000 divided by 28 inspectors to go out and do the job.

There is reactive enforcement and then there is, when you know that there is an issue, getting the elevator up and running and getting that inspection that allows it to run. That is where the third-party inspection program went into place so that we can get elevators running faster.

And how many people are in each of these units? I am trying to do the math. I used to be a teacher. I am trying to do the math because it is not making any sense as to the timeline that you want to achieve. You are not going to get all of those done. So there will be a building with an elevator out for two years.

The 13,000 complaints — most of those are multiple complaints on a building. If the building has a single elevator, we will receive multiple complaints from all the residents in that building. The long-term outages typically have to do with owners that are not moving fast enough and we need other tools, legal and otherwise, to move them. We do see outages that are long term because of the age of the cab, the issue with the cab and the parts they have to order. These are the questions that we are also asking about how to mobilize a repair in a faster way. What is the City role versus the private sector role? And then you had mentioned the walkthrough — we will absolutely follow up about the walkthrough.

Wonderful. Thank you so much, Chair.

Thank you, CM Joseph. Now, CM Salaam, followed by Brewer.

Thank you, Chair. Good afternoon. Borough-based staffing — the report notes that additional borough-based staffing should be considered. Is there a plan to decentralize DOB operations to improve response times in outer boroughs? And would this require capital investment or reallocation of existing headcounts?

I am not sure we would agree on decentralizing all parts of borough-based support, but we do have pretty significant and substantial borough-based teams in each of our boroughs. I would really want to talk more about what the issue is that we are trying to tackle, whether it is quality of life, elevators or a specialty that is seeing a high response time. For some of our work, particularly our forensic engineering for instance, having centralized teams that are working together and building off their expertise together is a more efficient and effective way versus, say, quality of life.

Our borough enforcement team, specifically under assistant commissioner Ronaldo Hilton, has offices in all five boroughs and they are the entity that responds to the majority of complaints for the department.

Dealing with staffing losses during the Adams administration — DOB lost a net 90 budgeted positions during the Adams administration, creating cascading delays. The fiscal 2027 plan adds only 42 positions. Does this restore adequate capacity or will you continue to request additional staffing in future budgets?

We are already working to identify and firm up what our initiatives and programs will be in the future. Right now we are already seeing the support of the administration around two key initiatives, which are our sidewalk shed work and our support of the sector around construction and making sure that we are getting people employed and able to do work. We feel confident that the ongoing conversations with OMB will get us the resources we need. In fiscal year 2027, the department received 36 new positions, but these are dedicated to specific initiatives. I would like to note that since the November 2026 plan, the department has received 185 new budgeted positions. We have received investments as of late. Just to name a few: proactive enforcement and predictive analytics, local law 152 gas piping inspections, City of Yes, basement legalization, parking structures and sidewalk shed monitoring and removal.

Thank you. Dealing with the plumbing inspector vacancy crisis — plumbing inspectors have a 21% vacancy rate, 16 out of 76 positions, the highest among all inspector categories. Given that local law 429 of 2025 now requires licensed master plumbers to conduct gas piping inspections, how will you meet increased demands without filling existing vacancies?

We are currently having negotiations with OMB on the impact of local law 429. That is an ongoing conversation.

Thank you. And I am going to ask about the sidewalk sheds as well. The $2 million baseline for 23 positions to implement sidewalk shed local laws assumes the positions are revenue-generated. What is the projected penalty revenue from these new positions?

(03:07:23)

So again, just to make sure I am speaking to two different pots of money. So there is the money that was allocated by the state and that money is going to remain with HCR. So it is allocated directly by them into projects, many of which we are co-funding with them in New York City. I think their total allocation breaks out to a number of different categories, but it is for new construction, Mitchell Lama preservation and then I think it is 250 million that they are passing through to NYCHA projects. And then there are other categories which Guardia can sort of break down into smaller numbers.

Then separately there is the city money. Thank you for providing that to us, which you will see reflected in both our expense and our capital budget over fiscal years 2025 through 2029. So again, multiple categories where those dollars are spread out. It is 875 million for our budget and then 125 million that is being passed through to NYCHA.

Yeah, just so thank you for the answer and for the question, Council Member. So for the city's portion of our capital for City of Yes, it is 825 million for HPD and 175 million for NYCHA PACT.

Copy. For the 250 million in state funds, focusing in on the state money going to NYCHA, is that for PACT RAD conversions or is that for section 9 support? Do you know?

So we have to confirm that. We do not have the details on exactly which part of that, but we can confirm that.

Okay.

But I can say, Council Member, we do have active projects now for the new construction portion that the state has committed through City of Yes. And if you would like to hear, I could also introduce our new DC for development who can name a couple of those projects, or we can come back to that.

Yeah.

Patrick, join us.

It is a party up here. It is really fun.

First on.

Yep.

Just raise your right hand. Do you tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and to answer all Council Member questions honestly?

Yes.

Thank you.

Phenomenal. So the new construction pot of money that the commissioner referenced before is being deployed in affordable housing projects across the city. The HPD and HCR work on a jointly financed portfolio of projects to stretch our resources as far as possible. In particular, the city and the state focus on and finance supportive and senior projects together. That is really where we kind of carve the lane out and carve our collaboration out, really trying to stretch the state dollars as far as possible in addition to the city dollars as far as possible.

So of that $500 million, that will be deployed to those types of projects. Within the next week, we are going to be closing a supportive housing project with Spatial Equity, an MBE developer, in addition to Housing Plus, a supportive housing provider in Brooklyn, 193 units. So that gives you kind of the flavor of projects that we work on jointly with HCR, and that capital will be deployed across the city for those specific kinds of senior supportive and also senior supportive together as well.

Thank you. Thank you so much. I just want to pause because it is just so incredible to go from this wonky numbers conversation to like there are going to be 193 apartments for seniors, and that is...

It is real and it is really, really exciting to hear.

And Council Member, just a quick correction: the NYCHA figure is 225 million, so just wanted to clarify.

The state...

But from the state, correct.

Okay. And then you will follow up on...

We can provide more details and break that down.

What about for the city capital? You said $825 million over what time frame?

Fiscal year 2025 through 2029. And it is broken out amongst many categories including both capital and expense.

Okay.

And then... so 825 is both capital and expense?

No, that is okay. So the 825 is for capital and that is broken over FY25 to FY29 over various programs. We also on the expense side did get a little over 30 million across a similar time frame for 94 positions that we are working to fill. We had 94 positions in the prior fiscal year and we are working to fulfill those positions. We have filled most of them and we are still working to hire more people.

I want to come back to the 94 positions and what they are — code enforcement versus development, et cetera. But just on the 175 million passing through to NYCHA, same question: is it for PACT in the city budget? Is it for PACT or is it for section 9 support?

I know it is for PACT. That is correct.

Okay. Just saying out loud: does HPD have any oversight over the PACT funds?

We do not have direct oversight over the PACT funds. We did though, as you have probably seen in the preliminary budget, get four new staff to be working at HPD who will be working more closely with NYCHA specifically on the PACT deals.

Okay. Thank you. And just to highlight that as we were having the City of Yes discussions, the Council really wanted to see an emphasis on section 9 support, not PACT RAD conversions. So I want to follow up, and I know you are saying that you do not have oversight, but I want to follow up on that.

In terms of the 94 positions, there were 200 positions that were supposed to be spread from City of Yes between HPD, DOB and Planning. So you are telling me 94 positions are within HPD. What is the breakdown of those positions and where are we on hiring?

So we can also provide more detail to you later as a follow-up, but we do have a breakdown of the list of positions that make up the 94 positions. And one second — can you give us a breakdown?

In relation to the amount of new construction and preservation that was done by HPD in fiscal year 2025 or calendar year 2025 as you described, can you tell us how much of that was new construction versus preservation? How much of it was supportive housing and what is the breakdown by income band?

Again, Guardia will correct me if I get these numbers wrong, but on preservation — so this is calendar year 2025 — there were just over 16,000 units preserved. There were just over 13,500 new construction, which is across both our financed projects and our tax incentive projects. Within the supportive world there were just under 2,000 units that were part of that. In senior there was just over 1,300 units and within that there were roughly 2,500 very low income or extremely low income units created for extremely low income households.

So out of the universe of 16,000 preserved, you are saying 2,500 were extremely low income. That is the combined total between new construction and preservation.

Are we as a city in compliance with the homeless set-aside law requiring 15% of units in new construction projects that receive city financial assistance, 40 units and above? Are we in compliance with the set-aside for homeless households?

We are, and all of our projects require the 15% set-aside. In some cases we have had developers go above the 15%.

And do all of these households receive voucher support?

A big majority of them do get FEPS, right. We are doing, through the homeless set-aside, placements outside of the housing lottery system directly through a process we have with DSS. So most of those families come to us with a FEPS voucher.

Thank you.

Excluding PACT funding, the HPD five-year capital commitment plan in fiscal 2027 has 12.6 billion, which is up from 10.55 billion in fiscal year 2026 adopted capital budget. Can you explain the change in HPD's five-year capital commitment plan? Where is the agency adding additional resources?

So I think I can take the first part and then Guardia will have to take the second part, but for 2027 the increase is roughly $16 million. And sorry, is that not the question?

Oh, sorry. Was this capital? Okay, so go ahead.

Sorry, just before I go there, just a quick point of correction, Council Member, on the City of Yes funding for NYCHA: the NYCHA amount, the 175 million, I have confirmation that that is specifically for section 9 with emphasis on vacant units. So I just wanted to correct that for the record.

I was very pregnant but I was paying attention. So yeah, we are used to the NYCHA funds usually being PACT. So I just want to make that correction.

Thank you.

And then for our capital plan, part of it is that as we mentioned last year, we did add 825 million in capital for City of Yes. So that increased our five-year capital with the last year. And then also there was some advanced capital for the current fiscal year, mostly in new construction, to advance projects and take advantage of some legislative changes that we are trying to take advantage of before the end of the calendar year. So those account for the increase in capital that you see in the first few years of the capital plan, and then it goes back to the normal range for the outer years.

Thank you. How is HPD's capital commitment plan changing due to passage of Local Law 57 of 2026, which mandates that at least 4% of new construction be for home ownership opportunity programs?

Yes, Council Member. So we are still trying to finalize what we think we need to make sure that we are in compliance with the 4% of new construction being for home ownership, which I just want to say I am a big fan of home ownership and worked on that issue for many years. So happy to be doing more of it. We do not yet have final numbers and we will be working with OMB to sort of make sure we understand the full cost associated with that requirement, but we have every intention of meeting it.

Thank you. I want to thank you for coming back. Welcome back. I am going to intersperse my questions in between so that I can get to my colleagues as well. So we are going to hear from CM Joseph first, followed by Zhuang and Brewer. CM Joseph, you are up.

Well, in the meantime, are you good?

I am ready.

Okay. Thank you so much. Good afternoon, Commissioner. Thank you for being in this role right now. We look forward to working with you, but we have got a lot to work on, right? For example, apartment repairs and tenant harassment complaints, especially from rent stabilized tenants, have become prevalent in my office. My office receives a ton of complaints on a daily basis from 311 calls, which becomes an acute problem, especially during wintertime. What does HPD plan to do to improve the user experience for tenants reporting complaints via 311?

And the second one, since I do not have a lot of time:

HPD violation programs and tenant-led HPD action in housing court have all shown their limited effectiveness in reversing the overall trend of landlord neglect for rent stabilized properties in my district. For example, 80 Clarkson Avenue and 75 Lennox Road were discharged from the AEP program. 80 Clarkson was discharged from the AEP program last year after showing improvement, but as of today it still has 61 open class B and 36 open class C violations, and my office still receives frequent complaints from tenants. How does HPD plan to make sure that buildings leaving programs like AEP are not merely not distressed, but that they are actually becoming the safe, warm, well-kept buildings all New Yorkers deserve?

Thank you, Council Member. So I will start with the harassment question. This is also something I have worked on historically in my career. We will be working very closely with the mayor's office to protect tenants, where this is a primary focus. I think one of the strategies that we are hoping to employ, which we actually used in the Pinnacle buildings and also in some pilot programs in Brooklyn...

And I have some Pinnacles in my district as well, 470 Ocean Avenue.

Got it. So the thinking here obviously is that where there are patterns of both harassment and distress across these larger portfolios, we do want to work more directly with tenant leadership to sort of schedule times for when we will come out to the buildings and really do a full sweep of those portfolios. I think that would significantly change some of the predatory behavior that we see in that space. So that is part one, and then again working with the mayor's office of tenant protection. I think there will be more capacity to make sure that tenants are organized and serving as partners to code enforcement so that we are more responsive in real time.

On the AEP question, I would be happy to set up a conversation about what happened there. We obviously have statutory requirements that guide us in the AEP program. But if the building has been discharged, which usually means compliance, and things are slipping again, we would want to know that.

Yes. And along with Pinnacle, there are quite a few other buildings in my district that are also facing bankruptcy. So I am working with another building, 55 East 21st, the owner filed for bankruptcy. So we are working with those and we are attending tenant meetings as well. 75 Lennox Road is also facing... if you watch their Instagram page, it is horrifying to see what is happening currently at 75 Lennox Road.

And I do these walkthroughs in real time. I go to tenants' homes. I went to 80 Woodruff Avenue when the public advocate and I did the worst landlord list. That is in my district. We actually did a walkthrough through the basement and through the tenants' homes, and what we are seeing is dilapidated conditions and folks cannot move. They are trapped.

They are not getting the repairs on time. No one is coming to help them. But again, they cannot move because they cannot afford anything else. When we talk about the affordability crisis, it is right here where these communities are trapped. So to me, this is a trap, and I look forward to working with you and seeing how we can support these tenants in turning these buildings around.

I would love to see more HDFCs. Chair Sanchez, that is something we should look into. People who are long-term tenants are not going anywhere. So they might as well invest in that property and make it their own. And we know when people invest in their properties, they tend to take care of it more, the rent is paid on time and they feel a sense of ownership. So I think those are the lines along which we should start looking if we are looking at affordability, keeping the Black community in place. We lost 200,000 and I am sure my community lost 20,000 constituents in the last 10 years, and we want to make sure we are aging in place and supporting communities where they are.

Understood. Can I just ask you quickly so I do not lose it? 75 Lennox, do you know who owns that property?

No, we can get that to you. My team can get that to you ASAP.

So I will just quickly say, to your point about tenant ownership as a preservation strategy, this is also something I worked on a lot. I am going to name all my old careers — at UHAB for many years as the head of organizing. It is a very appropriate strategy when a building is in distress or in bankruptcy and therefore going through foreclosure and can be transferred. One option certainly that should be available to tenants is to work with the nonprofit but also to own it if that is where they are inclined.

Right on time, Chair.

You get extra points for that. Thank you, Council Member. Council Member...

Thank you, Chair. Very good to see everyone here. I have a question. A lot of the time we see in poor and minority neighborhoods many homeless shelters being built in the area. I would like to know what metrics you use to pick the homeless shelter site.

I am sorry, just to make sure I understand you, Council Member. Are you asking when we choose a site for a homeless shelter?

Yeah.

So generally that is not how our development pipeline works. Projects are brought to us by developers and we are typically building housing, not shelters. So if a shelter is being built, it is not necessarily because HPD is choosing to build it there.

Okay. Thank you. And I have another question. With the affordable housing crisis in New York City, what is the plan for senior housing? And a lot of providers have given feedback that it is very hard to get the SARA program moving.

So I will say, just to repeat, we did do a fair amount of senior units last year through our new construction pipeline: just over 1,300 units of senior housing. And we do have about 11 projects right now in our development pipeline that are for seniors that also have an award for project-based section 8, which is critical to making a senior project get to closing. So I do think we have a lot more senior housing coming on deck. It is challenging and we do need to marry senior housing with section 8, and we are resource constrained on section 8 right now because of the federal government and all of the things they are doing. So we are very committed to building more senior housing. I think we have been doing a lot of it and we intend to do a lot more of it in the coming years.

What is the reason the SARA program moves very slowly?

I am sorry, are you saying the SARA program? Those are the statistics I was just providing to you, so the 1,300 units that we produced last year were through the SARA program and the 11 projects that I mentioned that are in our pipeline right now are also SARA, and that is about another 2,000 units.

Is there any particular neighborhood you prefer, because I do not see anything in southern Brooklyn?

So I do want to say again, we do not select the sites where developments happen. There are publicly owned sites that we do control, and there we do competitive RFPs to select a developer, and sometimes they are appropriate for senior housing and sometimes for very low income housing and sometimes for a mix of things. But mostly we are responding to where developers come to us with their projects. So if we are not getting enough senior housing in your district, we should have a conversation about how to get developers more activated.

And a lot of developers said to me that they do not make money on senior housing.

That is not accurate. We have limits in our term sheets for how much the developers can make, and whether they are building supportive or senior or a mixed income project, the compensation to the developers is roughly the same.

Okay. And then also they said either it is too slow or lower profit, and if they build a homeless shelter they can make more money.

That does not strike me as accurate. I am happy to have a conversation about this afterwards, or if there is a particular developer who you are having that conversation with, I would love to join you in that conversation.

That is what I was just going to offer. We would love it if there are particular developers that are in contact with you. We would love to set up a conversation and talk them through the program, the term sheets, what is available to them. And as Dena said, we would love to identify opportunities in the district if we can.

I approached a couple of developers about building senior housing, but they always said that is not going to make money.

We will get you to the right developers.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you so much. CM Zhuang, CM Brewer, and then I will continue with my questions.

All right. Thank you very much. Insurance. So there is a lot of discussion going on about how to lower it, because I assume that you agree it is a big challenge in terms of affordable housing.

I would say it is one of the number one challenges.

Yeah, I have lots of material here, but how are you approaching the issue of curtailing it? My understanding is that lawsuits unfortunately do focus on affordable housing. You have more lawsuits on affordable housing than for whatever reason the non-affordable. So how are we going to... this is a big issue and lots of people are trying to work on it in Albany and here, but what are you doing about that issue?

So first I want to acknowledge, Council Member, we saw the presentation that John Krauss did about the lawsuits and whether they are showing a disparity in terms of how many lawsuits...

(03:29:32)

are being filed in affordable housing versus market rate housing. We just saw it but we are digging into that conversation.

Secondarily, what I would say is we agree it is probably one of the biggest drivers right now of what is causing fragility in all types of housing. So both the housing that we finance and then have under our regulatory agreements and also just in the private market in the rent stabilization. And it has to be addressed. Again, I have been here a relatively short time, but in that time we have had a number of conversations with City Hall and external partners on what can be done to rein in cost. I think we are in the process of developing some proposals and we will be working both with OMB and with City Hall to figure out exactly what the government can do to drive down those prices. I think we do not regulate insurance. That is the state and the federal government, but I do think there are interventions the City can play and we just need to finalize those.

I would love to be involved if possible. Number two, HCFCs. As you heard earlier, we have a lot of them still in Manhattan. I do not know how many tills you still have and how you are looking to, as we suggest, do the home ownership. I guess it is called ANCP now and there are some challenges in terms of the new program. So how does the division focus on it? I know you are trying to get tills to become home ownership, etc. But there are some groups that are challenging on this topic. I think you know who they are. So we are trying to see where are you at with this HFC and what is the financial aspect to it.

Yeah. So a couple of things. As I said in my testimony, there are still 64 buildings remaining in the till. It is about 800 units. We happily are moving about 40 projects right now through construction. So they will get to the other end and be able to actually take ownership of their building.

40 of the 64 or is that something different?

Separate 40. Okay. And then there are additional funds that we were able to get for both 2026 and 2027 through the attorney general settlement fund specifically to work with the till buildings. So it is about 3 million for 2026 and 2.5 million for 2027.

That all said, that does not go very far.

It does not go very far because I have 8 million left over from the borough president's office and one building. Still sitting there.

Agreed. It is not sufficient. I think we need to do more to move these projects through. It would be my honor to have finished the till program during my time here since I started working in the till program when I got to UHAB. It is challenging for a couple of reasons, and not least of which we want to make sure that tenants are organized and ready for the challenge that collective home ownership requires. And I say that with all due respect to the model. I love co-ops but it is a challenging style of home ownership. So I think we need to do more to move the ones that have been particularly stuck, where folks have been out of their units for the longest. We are going to be moving those to the front of the pipeline, like Louise and 1610 West Street. I will give it to you.

And I was just going to add, CM, we want to thank you so much for your partnership. This is actually an area where partnership with Council members, where you have constituents and where you have till buildings in your district, can be so valuable.

It is not just my district. I have got all of Manhattan in many cases.

Yes. A final question is Bloomingdale. So that is a project that I think is EDC, but they would like to have HPD be in charge. So it is one of those above-the-library situations, but nobody is happy with EDC doing it. They would rather have you do it, perhaps with more affordable housing. It is on City-owned land. I thought that when something was on City-owned land it should be 100% affordable. This is not. So we could use some help making it 100% affordable. I am happy, like the Eliza. Maybe Robin Hood has to get involved again. I did that project in Washington Heights. So it would be a shame to put market housing on land that is City-owned land.

CM, can you say the name of the project again?

Bloomingdale library, 100th Street between Amsterdam and Columbus.

Okay. I am happy to reach out to EDC and then follow up.

Thank you very much. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, CM Brewer. Whatever all the things she says, cosign every time. Thank you. So I want to move toward uncollected fines and charges. As I was discussing with the Department of Buildings earlier today, there is an alarming gap between the amount of fines and penalties issued by our agencies and those that are collected. And I understand that at HPD we are looking at 80 to 85% of fines and charges not being collected. So first question is: can you give us a breakdown of the amount of HPD charges and fines that are issued versus how many are collected, say for the last fiscal year? And can you share your assessment of why that is? Is it finance collecting? Is it you?

So let me start with where collections are generally higher, and that is in the ERP program. So last fiscal year we levied — let us use the term levied — $26 million in fines. That has generally been hovering around a 70% collection rate. So that is much higher. The numbers then go a little lower as we get into the AE program. There was $5 million of charges in 2025, of which only 30% was collected. And then in our emergency demolition program it is about 24 million that was levied and around 13% collection. If I could just — I mean I do not know this for a fact but I can give you my instinct as to why collections are down in both AE and in demo. These are obviously the more distressed properties. In the case of demo, there is no property. And so I believe the incentive in those cases... I think in the AE program it is financially challenging for those owners who are obviously both physically and financially distressed. I think in the demo, again, this is somewhat speculation on my part, there is less incentive to pay when you have already lost the building. That said, I will just say, with all due respect, I do think the purpose of these programs is less about collecting fines and more about forcing compliance. So where we see 199 buildings being discharged last year from the AE program, we assume that is good and that we are getting to the point, which is compliance first and foremost.

Thank you. And I know... first just a narrow question on distressed properties, the demolition component of this. Is that amount levied going to become a lien against that property?

Yes. So all of the uncollected charges initially go to DOF for collection and when not paid convert to tax liens.

Got it. And there is an increased budget line — I am losing it in my rolling document here — but there is a new need for emergency demolition in this year's budget. Can you help us understand why that is and what can we do to reduce that?

So if I am to be frank, I do not think it represents necessarily an increase in the number of buildings where emergency demolition has been called for by an order by DOB. I think it really has to do with just the general cost of construction and in this case deconstruction, but because it is generally the same idea, right, all cost is going up when it comes to this type of work. So I think that is why we are seeing an increase in the cost of demolition.

Thank you. And HPD does that work through contractors, right?

Correct.

And can you tell us what percentage of those emergency demolition contractors are MWBEs?

Yeah. So there are about 125 pre-qualified contractors on that list and I believe 76 of them are MWBEs. Sorry, I am being corrected.

Oh, sorry. I was quoting you the correct numbers for ERP, not for the demo contracts.

So do we not have that, Emily? We do not have it here, but we will get you that information. But it is good to know for ERP. I was going to follow up. Okay. So for emergency demo, you will circle back.

Um, the current fines for hazardous and immediately hazardous violations are comparatively low. After an initial fine, owners are only required to pay $25 to $125 per day for B-class violations and $50 to $150 per day for C-class violations. For how many owners does this become simply a cost of doing business? And would the department consider working with the Council to raise these fines for repeat offenders or those who have consistently failed to correct these violations?

Yes. I want to make sure I do not jump ahead of my colleague Amory here, but I would say we would be happy to sit down and have that conversation. Again, I think our primary goal is compliance more than collecting or levying charges, but again, you are correct, it is a deterrent. And if it is not serving as a sufficient deterrent, I think we should definitely have a conversation about whether increasing those fines might help.

Thank you. Do you want to add anything, Deputy?

Yes. Okay. I am checking with the boss. Okay.

So moving to emergency housing. According to the PMMR, the average length of stay in emergency housing increased the most in the first four months of fiscal 2026 for adult families, from 445 days to 494 days, and for families with children from 300 to 353 days. HPD attributes this increase to families being impacted more by fires, vacate orders and housing availability. Makes sense. So how does HPD plan to work with other agencies to better prepare for emergencies like fires and winter storms? Can you explain the reduction of $136.3 million of city funds in the emergency housing program given these increases? Can you explain the removal of emergency funding for asylum seekers and are all HPD shelter contracts expiring in fiscal 27?

Okay. So starting with the vacate orders, CM, it is true it is taking a very long time to get folks back into their homes after a vacate order is issued for whatever reason, whether it is illegal occupancy or whether it is a fire. I think you may know a little from our conversation. This is a high priority for me and figuring out how to get owners, particularly where there has been a fire, to repair their buildings more quickly is challenging, but is definitely a place that we need to pay some attention. And if they will not repair the building, perhaps there are alternative ways to remove them from the building. So that is something we are definitely exploring.

We currently have 800 families as of now living in our shelters. That is across our 14 SROs and our three family shelters. In terms of who has been moving out, in fiscal year 2025, 20% of those who left our shelter were able to go back to their original unit. 60% of families who left our shelter moved into new housing and 40% of single adults who left our shelter also moved into new housing. I think one of the big challenges here, again, not just the limiting factor of units not getting repaired quickly, is that we also, as we have discussed, have limited section 8 tools available to us at the moment. That said, I do want to point out that through the state housing HAVP program, the vouchers that were allocated by the governor and the legislature, we will be making about 330 of those new vouchers available to folks across our shelter population in order to get them out. So we will obviously be targeting folks who have been out of their buildings the longest. And because I gave you a long answer, I forgot the second part of your question. Sorry.

Do I remember this? Oh, yeah. I just want to jump in also because, CM, you mentioned emergency housing funding being reduced. I just want to clarify...

Second part of the question. Thank you.

Sorry, excuse me. I just want to clarify that that is in reference to our asylum seeker program. So what happened is that the funding that is in our budget for that program is also in the same funding area where emergency housing service is. And that is because, as you mentioned, our emergency shelters are closed — we are down to one shelter at this point and that shelter is scheduled to close this year. As a result of that we will not see money in the out years to support that shelter. Our asylum seeker funding was over 120 some million dollars and that funding is only in this fiscal year and it goes away next fiscal year because the program is winding down.

I will say though, for the caveat, the last shelter that we have open may stay beyond June — we do not know yet — but it was on schedule to close this fiscal year. That is why no funding is reflected in next fiscal year. If it is open beyond this fiscal year then we will work with our colleagues at OMB to ensure that we do have funding in our budget to cover the cost for the shelter for next fiscal year.

Now on emergency housing services specifically, we did see an increase in our budget because we did get one of the new needs items, which was for our single room occupancy shelters for single adults. So we did see a small rate increase for providers there and we did see an increase in our budget to support that. So the funding for emergency housing services actually went up instead of going down. That was 1.6 million this year and then two million in each of the out years.

Thank you. Just staying on asylum seekers for a moment, where are they going?

So there is a plan. Right now for asylum seeker programs we have our sister agency, the mayor's office of housing recovery operations, that handles those operations. The plan overall, as we know, is to have those transition into the regular DHS system, but that is a plan that is still being worked out. It has not been finalized yet. HPD is not at the forefront of that plan. So we will have to get more information from our sister agencies around that plan. But the idea is that any migrants or asylum seekers left in our last remaining shelter are supposed to be transitioned into the regular shelter system.

Right. And who was being housed — what were the characteristics of the households or families being housed in the HEKs?

Single adult men in the last remaining shelter.

Okay. Thank you. So the Council should be seeing a shift in HPD's HEK funding somewhere else. As far as HPD, yes, if you look at our budget right now we do not have funding for contracts for asylum seekers in our budget for the out years. And again the caveat there being that if this last shelter stays open beyond this fiscal year then there will be funding reflected, but as of this point there is not.

Thank you. And then just rounding out the question on families exiting from HPD emergency housing shelters, what percentage of those have either section 8 or access to city vouchers or some other kind of rental assistance for the ones that are going into a new home or back to their old home?

So at the moment we have the set-aside of the HAVP vouchers, which is about 330 vouchers that we are going to make available to do the permanent transition out of temporary shelter and into permanent housing. Beyond that, we do not have at the moment the ability to issue new vouchers. These are the HUD housing choice vouchers that we get annually. So we are not able to offer more than right now the HAVP to this population. It is possible some of those households could qualify for FABS, but I do not have exactly what that number would be.

Got it. But looking backward to exits, say in the last fiscal year, is it safe to assume that most of those families or households were not receiving vouchers to exit?

I want to confirm with Amory, but do we know? Yes, it is safe to assume is what she said.

Okay. Thank you. So moving on to section 8 and housing choice vouchers. According to the PMMR, the utilization rate for section 8 housing choice vouchers over the first four months of fiscal 26 was just at 87%, which is down two percentage points from the same time last year. Over the same time period HPD issued 20% fewer vouchers. Can you explain why there is a downward trend on voucher issuance and utilization? How many section 8 vouchers are currently being utilized? And please explain the increase of 15.4 million in city funds and decrease of 13.9 million in federal funds to the rental assistance program.

So yes, CM, let me start with the utilization. We have between the federal government, both the major program which is housing choice vouchers and then the smaller programs including the HAVP vouchers, basically a total of just doing the math about 44,000 families that are getting this ongoing operating rental assistance. The utilization rate is really a function of the shortfall situation that I have described, in which we cannot issue new vouchers. So we have in some cases the funding to allocate but we are unable to issue those vouchers while we are in shortfall. That is a result of HUD having swept reserves from HPD. So we are working very hard with what partners remain at HUD to try to get out of shortfall. Then we will be able to issue new vouchers which should improve that utilization rate.

On the funding side I would ask Gardier.

Yeah. So CM, I have to get back to you on the section 8 changes. Just trying to confirm the exact figures because the only program it may be is our emergency housing voucher program, which is a program where this funding is in this year but not reflected in the out years. But we do have section 8 funding and we did see a slight increase in section 8 funding. So I just have to confirm to be sure. We can follow up with you in terms of the breakdown you just provided around section 8.

Thank you. Moving to the housing access voucher program. In 2025, state lawmakers allotted 50 million for HAVP, with 32.5 million going specifically to the City, and it is projected to create between 900 and 1,100 vouchers in New York City. So one, can you help us understand the delay in dispersement of these vouchers? What has HPD been doing during this time frame to make the program operational? And second, if the state were to increase HAVP funding to 250 million per year, would HPD be able to administer these vouchers?

Yes, CM. As I started to say, you are correct. We estimate it is about a thousand vouchers and we are going to be prioritizing about 330 of those for the emergency shelter population. The remainder will be focusing on families in shelter, so all the different regular families who are living in shelter. And I am happy to report that that program is now operational and we have started taking in applications and are processing people to get those vouchers. To your second question, of course, if we were to be given new resources through an increase in HAVP, we would 100% take those vouchers and use them.

Thank you.

Yeah. And just to add quickly to what the commissioner just shared in terms of what we have been doing so far, we have staffed up the program. We worked with OMB to schedule headcount into our budget. So you see reflected in our budget from last plan there were 15 lines that were added for the staff to stack up that program so we can start ramping up. As we do issue vouchers, our budget will be adjusted to reflect what we expect to spend each fiscal year.

Thank you. And so any increase in the number of vouchers, if we were able to see this $250 million materialize through the state budget, that would require additional staffing up at HPD to process. We will see. It might, but as we get more we assess and see what the needs are and work with our state partners to increase our budget accordingly based on what the implementation will look like.

That would be an excellent problem. Would it not? Go ahead. No, I was just going to say, now that the program is functioning, I think having more...

(04:12:49)

A couple of weeks ago, maybe days ago — what is time. A recent analysis from Gothamist found that nearly 10% of roughly 1,600 residential buildings that have opened since 2016 have at least one housing code violation per apartment. That set of properties averages 2.1 violations per unit compared to 0.8 average per unit citywide. Each building in the analysis received a property tax abatement through the state's 421A program. A lot of these are considered luxury apartments or luxury buildings. What corners are being cut in the new construction that we are seeing? Is it materials? Is it labor? What is happening to lead to this low quality of new buildings?

So I would be a little careful here, Council Member, not to speculate too much. I understand we read the same article. What I can say is obviously these are generally private buildings. They are not buildings financed by HPD. So it is a little hard for us to sort of see through what is going on there. Is it a trend? Is it a trend across a subset of developers? Is there anything more to be done? What I will say is they, like any other person in the city who is subject to the Housing Maintenance Code, can call 311. When they do call, Marie and her team go out and inspect and record violations and then expect those violations to be cured. I would say we would need a little time to look into this and to see whether or not there is actually a pattern and whether that pattern is again project type specific or developer type specific. It is a little challenging because we do not finance those buildings.

Got it. And speaking of regulatory agreements and HPD oversight over 421A buildings, are we able to ask any questions about...

We only have, I think, a recorded deed structure for the set aside units, but we do not have a regulatory agreement and they have no reporting obligation back to us.

So how do we know that those units remain affordable? How do we know as a City?

That is why we have the deed recording for the set aside specifically, but for the market rate units we do not have any oversight.

And is HPD monitoring those in any way? Is there any kind of auditing that we are doing to make sure that...

We do track all the set aside units. At turnover, they have to go through the same process as the original. So in the first generation, second generation, third generation rentals, they all have to go through the same process which will soon, as you just heard, be vastly improved by getting off paper and into a 21st century system.

It is magical sometimes the way that government works. We are talking about AI takeover, but...

Not within our agencies yet — until now. Okay. The last set of questions I just wanted to ask was to get a sense of vacancies by department. What are vacancies in the inspectoral, in code enforcement among inspectors? What is vacancy looking like in the office of development? It has been a long-standing conversation and I just want to continue to be an advocate that if we are able to completely more and more just increase our staffing at HPD, that will have dividends for the rest of the City. Do you want me to do it or do you want to do it? Okay.

Okay, Gardy is going to share with you the...

So, thinking about the question, Council Member. Starting just with the specific title you were asking about as it relates to our project managers in our development programs, we budget about 114 headcount toward project managers in the project manager series. As of the end of January, we had about 89 staff active and about 25 vacant, so that is roughly about a 22% vacancy rate for that area. For our inspectors — both the SPE inspectors and the supervisors combined — we have about 459 total lines that we allocate to those titles. We have about 372 active and another 87 vacant, so that is about a 19% vacancy rate for those particular titles. But as the commissioner mentioned before, just overall for the agency, we are looking at roughly a 15% vacancy rate. We are however definitely excited about being close to lifting the hiring freeze so that we can move full speed to fill the remaining positions that we have.

Thank you. What is the vacancy rate in code enforcement?

So for code enforcement overall, sorry, just one minute, let me grab that. For code enforcement overall, we are looking at roughly about a 15% vacancy rate in that... yeah, roughly about 15% for that office. That is for all the titles, not just the inspectors.

Okay. What about inspectors?

Oh, that is...

And she is on deck. She has got the numbers.

Yeah, that is right. So I will go back. For the inspectors — both the field inspectors and the supervisors — that is why I mentioned earlier the total lines we allocate to those titles: about 459 total. We have active roughly about 372, vacant 87, roughly 19% vacancy. That is for the inspector series.

What are we doing to address these? And question two: who has HPD assigned to be the chief savings officer and are these positions on the chopping block?

So we have named our chief compliance officer as the chief savings officer and we have been working frankly as a team in the executive — myself included — and have been pretty embedded in this exercise. We believe we have identified the savings that we are being asked to find in both 2026 and in the out years, one and a half percent and two and a half percent respectively. This will not come from any of our essential services or a reduction in staff in any of our critical programs.

Okay. Definitely not the inspectors. They can bring in a lot to the City. Okay.

Yeah. Just echoing the commissioner. Yes. And just to say in terms of your question about hiring, yes, we do bring in hiring classes and even during a hiring freeze we did have an exemption for inspectors because we recognize how important those positions are. So we have a modified one-for-one as opposed to the across-the-board two-for-one hiring, and we will just continue to make sure we fill positions as soon as we have the hiring freeze, the two-for-one and the one-for-one, lifted.

Got it. Thank you. So I have a couple more follow-up questions. I do not have them written out right now, but I had some questions about term sheets. Actually, maybe I do have them. Let me see.

Term sheet investments. So just a quick general question while I find my actual question. Sure.

Term sheets have been updated. Are we seeing more interest from the development community? Are we seeing more applications to HPD?

So we have no shortage of interest from the development community, Council Member. I am very happy to say, having worked outside of New York City and frankly outside of New York State, we have a massive and robust both nonprofit and for-profit affordable housing community here. The term sheets have been updated and it was obviously overdue — it had been about five years — and I think it is more reflective of the cost environment that we are now in, which is good. I do think we will continue to monitor that and work with OMB should we see any need for changes, whether that is because of local laws that have passed or just because again the climate that we are in — costs do continue to change and unfortunately right now they are going up. Hopefully we can get to a point where we are actually bringing them down, the cost of construction, in which case we would reflect that in our term sheets.

Thank you. And then for partners and preservation, we also talk a lot about pillars. Any notable changes there in terms of what is allocated in the capital plan?

Not at the moment. I think the program for partners and preservation is about $5 million annually and I think that is holding. Is that right, Gardy?

Yeah. And that is for expense dollars, so it is not capital dollars, that is expense dollars. Yes, about five million a year across fiscal years. I would just say that they are a hugely important partnership to us and will be as we think about more strategic ways to utilize code enforcement at a sort of portfolio level. They will also be working really closely with the mayor's office to protect tenants and executive director Weaver.

Yeah. Great. Excellent. Well, with that, I want to thank you for your time, your testimony, and all the water — that was good luck for this hearing. I am really excited to know that you, Commissioner, are focused on the worst of the worst even as we are trying to build more, even as we are trying to be very ambitious across the HPD portfolio. So thank you for your time and I look forward to pushing so that you can have even more resources.

Thank you. All right, we have how many?

Now on to 30 people who are really excited to also testify on affordable housing and buildings in New York City.

Okay. I now open the hearing for public testimony. I remind members of the public that this is a formal 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 two minutes to speak on today's hearing topic of the fiscal 2027 preliminary budget for the Department of Buildings and Housing Preservation and Development. 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 at council.nyc.gov within 72 hours of this hearing. Audio and video recordings shall not be accepted.

I am going to take a one minute recess. Okay. I actually forgot one question for the commissioner, so she will be returning for that. But I just want the first panel to prepare. It is Tanya Oris, Johnson Gladstone, Angela Cummings, Richard Trout — sorry if I am saying your name wrong — and Yoselene Hanau. So you will be right up. The commissioner is going to answer one question first.

Commissioner, thank you. Thank you for coming back. I did forget to ask one question on the record that is really important to the Council, and we have talked about it in previous hearings. In January and February of this year, we had two major snowstorms with several inches of snow, the likes of which we had not experienced in a very long time in our City's history. During that time, we had devastating losses in New York City. It is my understanding that a total of 20 New Yorkers passed away this winter because of the extreme cold weather within their homes — 20 cases of hypothermia within residential spaces. First and foremost, I extend my condolences to the families of these individuals and their loved ones. I just wanted to ask on the record if, in HPD's investigations, there have been any correlations between the unfortunate deaths and heat complaints in multifamily buildings or otherwise.

Yes. So, Council Member, let me start by saying it is a terrible tragedy and we mourn the loss of all of those who passed during that very unusual weather event. There is really not much more to say about that other than it was a terrible tragedy. We did do a deep dive into where these deaths occurred. We did not see a pattern across any particular housing type. We do know that it happened in single family homes, in co-ops, and in multifamily buildings. We also know that none of the buildings were part of our special enforcement programs. Only one of the buildings where the unit was located where somebody did pass away had a recent code violation complaint specifically related to heat, but we also have record that that violation had been closed. So again, we mourn the tragedy. I do not think it was a Housing Maintenance Code driven issue, but that does not make the loss any easier.

Thank you. Thank you for coming back to answer that on the record. It is really important to share that with the public because it has been a recurring question.

Thank you, Commissioner. For real this time. See you later.

Thank you.

Okay.

Thank you. So now the first panel I called — you are welcome to come to the dais. Tanya Oris, Johnson Gladstone, Angela Cummings, Richard Trout and Joseline Hau. Whoever is ready can begin right away.

Yes. Good afternoon, Chair Sanchez and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. My name is Tanya Oris. I am the chief executive officer for Neighborhood Housing Services of New York City. I am joined today by several longtime partners in community-based housing services: Angela Cummings, executive director for NHS Brooklyn; Richard Trout, executive director for Brooklyn Neighborhood Services; Gladstone Johnson, executive director for Bronx NHS; and Yelen Janeo, executive director for NHS Queens. Together, our organizations have served New York City homeowners and neighborhoods for more than 40 years. While we now operate as independent nonprofit organizations, we continue to work closely together to preserve homeownership and neighborhood stability across the City.

Today, we are united in requesting $1 million from the City Council to launch a citywide pilot property management program to support small homeowners who are struggling to maintain their properties. Across New York City, many owners of one to four family homes find it difficult to manage routine exterior maintenance. For seniors, homeowners with disabilities, or lower income homeowners, tasks like snow removal, landscaping, trash and recycling management, and basic site upkeep can become physically and financially overwhelming. When these responsibilities go unmet, homeowners may face violations, mounting costs, and added pressure that can threaten housing stability. For many older homeowners who want to age in place, and many others who struggle with the responsibilities, property management support can make a difference between staying in their home and having to leave it. This pilot program will provide free property management services to eligible homeowners, helping them safeguard their homes and keep them well-maintained. This first year, the program is expected to assist at least 95 units and we are very excited about the program and hopefully it will be funded. I wanted to say about two more paragraphs, but it is...

You can go ahead. I just have to say that...

Neighborhood Housing Services of New York City would administer the property management program and provide coordination, training, and ongoing technical assistance to our neighborhood partner organizations. Through this collaboration model, our partners will be equipped to deliver services directly within their communities, ensuring that homeowners have access to trusted, locally based support. By strengthening the capacity of both homeowners and community-based organizations, this program will help prevent housing instability, protect small homeowners' assets, and promote responsible property management. We respectfully request that the New York City Council support this initiative as a practical and impactful step towards helping vulnerable homeowners remain in their homes, preserve generational wealth, and maintain the strength and stability of neighborhoods. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you.

That is all.

Good afternoon, Chair Sanchez and members of the committee. My name is Gladstone Johnson and I serve as executive director of Bronx Neighborhood Housing Services. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. Today we stand together in requesting $1 million from the City Council to launch a citywide pilot program for property management services. This investment will support small homeowners who are struggling to maintain their properties and keep them in their homes.

Across New York City and especially in the Bronx, many owners of one to four family homes are facing multifaceted challenges. For seniors, homeowners with disabilities and low-income homeowners, these challenges can show up as leaky roofs left unrepaired, crumbling steps and walls that are crumbling and causing safety hazards. Some of the homes that we go into are cluttered and unsafe, with unsafe common areas, unsecured basements, water in their basement, failing boilers, and broken exterior lights that leave property vulnerable. When these seemingly minor areas are not addressed, they can quickly escalate into housing code violations, pest infestations, unsafe living conditions, and increased insurance costs — all of which put additional strain on families already on the brink.

At the same time, we are seeing older homeowners fall behind on their property taxes and water bills, a major crisis in the northeast Bronx where we have a large housing stock, making them vulnerable to tax lien sales, predatory rescue schemes and deed theft. For many, the burden of coordinating repairs, vetting contractors, and staying on top of City requirements is simply too much to manage alone. This pilot program would provide free property management services to eligible homeowners, helping them keep their homes safe, compliant, and well-maintained. In its first year, the program is expected to assist at least 30 homeowners with an estimated total of 95 units. By offering organized maintenance, monitoring building conditions, and helping owners navigate City rules, we can prevent emergencies like fires, building system failures, and hazardous conditions before they occur. We urge the Council to invest in this pilot program, empowering trusted community-based organizations like us here from the NHS's of New York City, because we believe together we can protect vulnerable residents, preserve affordable housing, and stabilize our neighborhoods. Thank you for allowing me to speak.

Thank you. Where are we going? We are going to Queens or Brooklyn?

Brooklyn, then the House.

Good afternoon everyone. Excuse me, Chair Sanchez and the committee. My name is Richard Trout. I am the executive director for Brooklyn Neighborhood Services. I am here to support the pilot program that would provide free property management services to eligible senior homeowners to help them keep their homes safe, compliant, and well-maintained, thus assisting them to age in place in their own home.

Bedford Stuyvesant has been designated the first horizontal NORC — naturally occurring retirement community — in district 36. As a result of that, we have a very significant number of seniors and a lot of them are homeowners needing assistance. This work is very costly and these homeowners are now retired and living on very fixed incomes and unable to afford these expenses. Aging pre-war buildings require specific and often delicate repair processes, and property maintenance not only preserves the structural integrity but also ensures safe and comfortable living conditions. Historically, these types of properties have given homeowners the ability to rent units to generate additional income to help offset their expenses. Unfortunately, too many of these property owners are no longer able to manage the upkeep, and the units remain in deplorable and very often hazardous conditions, sometimes including the owner's primary unit.

Navigating New York's very complex housing laws and regulatory systems can be especially challenging for a senior homeowner who most often is unfamiliar with the requirements and understandably intimidated by the process. Many seniors face mobility issues and other age-related challenges that make it very difficult for them to manage routine property responsibilities such as collecting rent, tenant screening, maintenance coordination, responding to tenant inquiries and complaints, preparing lease agreements,

(04:41:00)

and advertising vacancies. By strengthening the capacity of both homeowners and community based organizations, this pilot property management program will help to prevent housing instability, protect small homeowners' assets, and promote responsible property management. Thank you.

(04:41:16)

Thank you.

(04:41:21)

Good afternoon, Chair Sanchez and others. My name is Angela Cummings. I am the executive director of Neighborhood Housing Services of Brooklyn. In the landscape of New York City's housing crisis, small residential units are frequently overlooked, yet they are indispensable. In Brooklyn, these properties form the architectural and social fabric of neighborhoods, providing a significant portion of the borough's unsubsidized affordable housing. These buildings are not owned by corporations. They are owned by families. Many of these families have held their properties for generations. Many are low to moderate income individuals who rely on rental income not to build empires, but to maintain stability, pay taxes, and preserve their homes that anchor their communities.

And yet, these small property owners are often left to navigate a complex and unforgiving housing landscape alone. NHS Brooklyn saw the need to assist this population by creating an affordable property management program. This program was built on the foundational understanding that stabilizing these small landlords is the most effective community-centered strategy for preventing displacement, preserving affordable housing, and closing the racial wealth gap. It was created to move beyond crisis responses to offer a proactive, holistic model for sustainable ownership.

This property management program helped a single mother and landlord in Brooklyn learn how to manage her property's finances. She was enrolled in a program where she learned how to make small repairs around the house, which helped to save her money. Through this program, she became eligible to receive a grant to hire a contractor to completely repair her bathroom, which had been an ongoing problem for her family. Our organization would like to affirm that small homes matter, that small landlords matter, that families who have kept Brooklyn's neighborhoods vibrant for generations deserve support, not neglect. Programs like NHS Brooklyn's Affordable Property Management Initiative and NHS NYC's Affordable Property Management Initiative are essential tools in the fight for housing stability, racial equity, and community preservation.

(04:43:24)

You may conclude. >> You have concluded. All right. Extra points.

(04:43:29)

Thank you.

(04:43:30)

Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair Sanchez and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. My name is Joseline Heno Estrea and I am the executive director of Neighborhood Housing Services of Queens. For the past 30 years, we have been on the front line working with both low-income homeowners and tenants to keep residents stably housed. But I want to be clear: supporting tenants and supporting homeowners are not mutually exclusive. They are deeply connected. When we stabilize homeowners, we preserve affordable housing. When we support tenants, we prevent displacement. This is one ecosystem.

Today, we are asking for a one million dollar investment in a citywide pilot property management program for small homeowners. As it was stated, every day we meet older adults, working families, and homeowners with disabilities who are doing everything right but are overwhelmed with the basic demands of maintaining their homes. Something as simple as snow removal or a minor unkempt condition can lead to violations, fines, and mounting pressure that can ultimately result in foreclosure or the loss of a home. This pilot program will provide practical, on-the-ground support to help homeowners stay compliant, safe and stable.

But this program alone cannot be a standalone program. We urge the Council as well to fully commit to a continuum of housing stability, including providing funds for foreclosure prevention to keep families in their homes, estate planning for protecting generational wealth and resolving title issues, as well as continuing to provide support for emergency repair programs to address urgent conditions before they become a crisis. At NHS, we see every day how unresolved issues such as repair barriers can lead to a spiral of displacement, but with the right support at the right time, the outcome is preventable. The reality is simple. When we lose homeowners, we lose affordable housing. When we fail tenants, we accelerate displacement. Invest in the property management pilot, foreclosure prevention, estate planning and emergency repairs, because keeping New Yorkers in their homes is not just good policy. It is our responsibility.

(04:46:18)

Thank you. You have all testified. Yes. >> Thank you. Okay. What are the eligibility criteria you propose for this pilot?

(04:46:29)

So this is a free service. I am kidding. Okay.

(04:46:34)

So the eligibility is simple. It is one to four units and we do provide a full home assessment and a commitment from the homeowner to work with NHS. It could range from simply maintenance services or a full-blown property management program where we help safeguard the home. And especially for seniors dealing with tenants, collecting rent, maintaining their expenses as it pertains to taxes and insurance, and just monitoring it on a regular basis.

(04:47:14)

Got it. I mean there are just hundreds of thousands of potential owners who might fall into this category. So how do you propose to limit it, or is it just first come, first served?

(04:47:27)

It is low to moderate income.

(04:47:29)

Low to moderate. Okay.

(04:47:30)

Yes.

(04:47:30)

Got it.

(04:47:33)

Yeah, I am wondering about this program with extra emphasis on seniors. I just want to...

(04:47:39)

Seniors. Okay. Low to moderate income seniors.

(04:47:42)

Yes.

(04:47:42)

Okay.

(04:47:43)

Yeah.

(04:47:43)

Not just one, but both.

(04:47:45)

Low to moderate income and seniors.

(04:47:47)

And seniors. Okay. What was I going to ask? It has been a great couple of hours, right? Well, with respect to the population you serve, is this an existing program in any of the NHS centers?

(04:48:08)

Yes. I have been with NHS for about two years and I am coming from NHS Brooklyn, which is here. We started the program. Property management is not new. But we have noticed, being on the ground, that many smaller homeowners are in trouble and they need more assistance in dealing with regular regulations, collection of rent, and not really knowing their landlord obligations. So it is a program that is educational and it is also one where we could actually teach someone how to look at their home as a business.

(04:48:51)

And in Brooklyn it has been successful.

(04:48:56)

Great. Yeah. If you can share with the committee just how the program as it exists has worked, how many you have served, and what kind of projects you have helped them with — the case study from Queens was very helpful. I am wondering... I am a client of NHS Bronx. I do not know if you know that — that is where I got my first homeowner education and then went and applied for my mortgage and everything with my husband when we were newlyweds. So I have a special place in my heart for NHS.

One of the programs that NHS Bronx runs — and a question is whether you all run it — is the green energy hub program. I would love information about how that is working, just because related to this problem of property management is finding a contractor, which is so difficult. Finding responsible contractors, finding licensed contractors is just a nightmare. So as you work on green energy hub projects, I am wondering about your experience and the lessons you have, because that is one of the areas that I certainly want to grow in this committee — conversations about how do we help all one to four family homeowners. What resource banks can we create? How much more do we need to be asking HPD to pump into home repair programs and everything else, because it just feels impossible. And even as the chair of Housing and Buildings in the Council, I feel like it is impossible. So thank you for coming to testify about this program and welcome your ideas for all of us who need help as one to four family homeowners.

(04:50:33)

Thank you. Thank you for this opportunity.

(04:50:34)

Thank you. The next panel is going to be Trisha Lendor, Yaniv Kot, Elise Brown, Rosalyn Black, and Sophia Fen. Whoever is ready can begin when ready.

(04:51:30)

Thank you, Chair Sanchez and the committee, for the opportunity to speak. My name is Sophia Fen and I am a housing attorney for the New York Legal Assistance Group, specifically within our Public Housing Justice Project, and I am one of the only attorneys in this city funded to represent NYCHA tenants in standalone HP actions. I want to focus my testimony today on small changes that would make a large difference for NYCHA's tenants.

To start, HPD inspections need to be reformed to be as accessible as possible to NYCHA tenants. Currently, NYCHA tenants cannot call 311 to request an HPD inspection. If they do call 311, they are often rerouted to NYCHA's customer care center. This is like if a private tenant called 311 to report that their landlord was not making repairs and instead of receiving help or information was rerouted to their landlord. Once NYCHA tenants do get an HPD inspection scheduled by bringing an HP action, tenants wait all day for an inspector to show up. HPD will call tenants a few minutes before they arrive, and if the tenant does not pick up the phone, HPD will not knock on their door and will simply skip their inspection. This policy is not routinely communicated to tenants when they request an HPD inspection, so tenants are not aware that they need to answer this call to receive their inspection. This is a huge access issue that leads to tenants missing their inspections either because they do not have access to a phone or simply did not pick up a call from an unknown number. This policy needs to be clearly communicated to tenants on the inspection request form and there must be a way for tenants to opt out and have HPD knock on their door.

There is a universe of rampant repairs and conditions that are not reflected in HPD data because of the barriers to inspections that only NYCHA's tenants face. Mismanagement plagues NYCHA's repair departments. Repair tickets are ignored or closed without any action being taken to address them. NYCHA's maintenance schedules access dates only to skip them, or shows up with no notice when tenants are unlikely to be home. There is seemingly no centralized project management or oversight for repair work. I want to stress that much more could be done with the resources that NYCHA does have. I also want to stress how little accountability there seems to be when NYCHA fails at its legal and moral obligations to its tenants. Thank you.

(04:53:44)

Thank you.

(04:53:48)

Good afternoon everyone. Hello. Thank you, Chair Sanchez and all the members of the committee, for the opportunity to testify before you today. My name is Trisha Lendor and I am the director of the Preserving Affordable Housing Program at Brooklyn Legal Services Corporation A, doing business as Buildup Justice NYC. We have two preserving affordable housing programs, one in Brooklyn and the other in Queens, using legal representation, brief advice and services, and legal education as well as advocacy to prevent evictions, combat tenant harassment and discrimination, and help organize tenants in buildings in Brooklyn and Queens.

Last city fiscal year, Buildup Justice NYC handled approximately 3,600 cases across Brooklyn and Queens while also supporting 20 tenant associations fighting for habitable living conditions. Buildup Justice NYC joins our fellow civil legal service providers in calling for timely delivery of city contracts. We are also eager to see expanded enforcement of building code violations. Our affirmative legal work is supported by the anti-harassment tenant protection program, also known as AHTP, and our team regularly sees clients whose landlords leave them in uninhabitable and unacceptable living conditions.

One notable example of our work is with a group of tenants in Brooklyn — we will keep them anonymous but can say they are from the Red Hook area. These residents were told years ago by their landlord that their units would be demolished and rebuilt. Meanwhile, our clients and many of their neighbors across the multi-location complex have had to repeatedly demand that their landlord address issues like mold, leaks, broken front doors, roaches, rats, holes in the floor and ceiling, no usable mailbox, and more. Some residents have even unfortunately lost their Section 8 housing vouchers as a result of their units being deemed unfit. However, there are substantive updates on the rebuilding project despite slow response times for repair issues. We have fought for our clients to find themselves in acceptable and habitable conditions to ameliorate the issues that they had been going through prior to our representation.

The kinds of injustices that I previously spoke of are all too common, unfortunately, among our clients and across the city. Buildup Justice NYC would like to see the city as a partner with civil legal service providers in working to ensure all New Yorkers have the safe, stable, habitable housing that they deserve. Thank you again for the opportunity to testify.

(04:56:54)

Thank you.

(04:56:57)

Good afternoon, Chair Sanchez. Thank you for the opportunity to be here today. My name is Yaniv Kot. I am a staff attorney with the Legal Aid Society's Housing Justice Group Advocacy Unit. I first want to echo everything Ms. Lendor just said. I work under the same contract and agree with all of that. We work frequently with HPD and DOB towards shared goals of preserving affordable housing and preventing displacement and harassment. I want to acknowledge the new leadership there and say that we are very excited about renewed partnership on a lot of the issues that we are going to put in our written testimony. I just want to highlight a few of the most pressing issues for our clients.

The first issue is around vacate orders. We were really happy to see the mayor's announcement of the establishment of the Back Home Unit because it is so important that tenants have a centralized place where they can go to access social services and legal services, to get their belongings quickly from units that they have been vacated from without having to go through their landlords. In addition to that, we want to urge DOB to coordinate more closely with DHCR to make sure that landlords are not illegally modifying or even demolishing stabilized units that are under vacate orders. That is an issue that we have seen a couple of times.

Second, I want to touch on code enforcement. There is a troubling pattern of tenant complaints being closed without inspection, particularly when it comes to heat and hot water complaints. Just as a quick example, a building that I represent in Flatbush made 65-plus heat and hot water complaints during the most recent cold snap. Only one violation was placed on the building, and it was multiple tenants without heat and hot water — the whole building. We also want tenants to be able to use 311 to schedule and reschedule inspections. Can I finish?

(04:59:01)

You may conclude.

(04:59:02)

Thank you. And be able to respond to landlord certification of repairs online and not just by mail. When people can only respond by mail, HPD is not hearing from tenants in the way that they should be. Third, we want to see HPD give more support to HDFC co-ops and Mitchell-Lama buildings that are financially stressed and need support. And lastly, we want to partner more with HPD and push for housing court reforms, specifically applying pressure to judges to prioritize decisions in urgent repair cases. Another quick example: in one of my cases, my clients have been waiting for over 100 days on a decision for an unopposed contempt and civil penalties motion in a building with over 150 open violations. So we would love to partner with HPD and DOB to see if we can push the housing court to prioritize those emergency cases. Thank you so much.

(05:00:06)

Thank you.

(05:00:10)

Good afternoon. I am Rosalyn Black, the citywide director of housing at Legal Services NYC. Thank you for allowing me to testify today. I am going to speak on behalf of a number of the right to counsel providers about the program, the payment issues that are hobbling our program, and the need to substantially increase funding so that all eligible tenants receive representation in their eviction proceedings. The right to counsel program created by this Council and funded by New York City is in its ninth year, successfully keeping at least 84% of those New York City tenants sued for evictions in their homes, saving the city millions in shelter costs, improving health outcomes for families and reducing eviction filings. While the work we do is highly successful, the contracting implementation and payment process is putting providers on the brink of financial collapse. Our agency is owed at least $26 million by the city and we have already spent $700,000 in interest to cover expenses while we await reimbursement. That is $700,000 unavailable to provide crucial services to low-income New Yorkers.

In addition, our current right to counsel contracts carry harsh financial penalties where providers who do not meet certain performance thresholds will not get reimbursed 10% of the expenses we incur in performing. As nonprofits, we do not have financial cushioning or profits to set aside to bear this risk, which only further destabilizes our agencies. These ineffective penalties must be removed. Providers, the independent budget office, the comptroller and many of you have observed that the funding level has left tens of thousands of tenants each year without lawyers. The gap has only widened over time. In 2025, while 50,000 households were eligible for full representation in eviction cases, only 23,000 households received representation. This leaves the majority — 27,000 tenant households — with no hope of attaining a lawyer. The impact of this gap is seen in housing court every day. Tenants without lawyers agree to pay money they do not owe or are charged illegal rents and get evicted.

I conclude by saying that while we understand the city is in a difficult fiscal situation this year, the city is severely underfunding a successful and money-saving program. We ask that you continue to support the program and increase funding over the next three to five years until every eligible tenant receives representation. Thank you.

(05:02:37)

Hi, I am Elise Brown. I am the director of housing litigation at Mobilization for Justice. You will be happy to know that Rosalyn said a lot of what I was going to address, so I may get done early. I would just want to reiterate that eviction, I believe, is the largest cause of homelessness and our success in keeping our clients in their homes, their families in their neighborhoods and their children in their schools is a resounding success. It has also financially become extremely difficult because of the way the contracts are structured. For instance, we have a lot of legal tools from the state to defend our clients vigorously. We are lawyers. We litigate. We provide vigorous defenses for our clients. Sometimes our cases last longer than a year, but we are paid for one year for a client. We have cases from 2018 and 2019 that we are still actively litigating because it is our ethical responsibility to provide a defense and get the best result for our clients, but it comes at a huge financial cost for our organizations.

So there are a lot of things that could be fixed in the contracts. That is one that particularly irks me. Previously we were allowed to roll a percentage of our cases from one year to the next. Now we are not allowed to do that and it is just killing us. I will end it with that. Thank you for being here and listening. We are certainly part and parcel of the whole city effort on all sides to try to enhance the conditions and circumstances of tenants and low-income homeowners as well. Thank you.

(05:04:34)

Thank you. Just a couple of follow-ups on the contracting issues. Your contract is with HPD, correct?

(05:04:40)

Office of Civil Justice, right? Yes. And these delays are, I imagine, multi-year. >> We are owed $40 million from fiscal year 25 still and the rest of the money is for this fiscal year. >> Collectively, all of the right to counsel. >> No, just Legal Services NYC alone. I know UJC is... I mean, I do not know if MJ... >> We are behind a few months but it was for a year or so we were carrying a few million dollars of... >> Sorry. How do we get to $40 million? >> It is astounding. Yeah. >> Right. Mayor... >> We are four, just to be clear, four from last year and 20. So I am owed for this year. >> Okay. Got it. So I have not been on the General Welfare Committee, so not as read in. Although... >> Yeah, there was a hearing this morning about contracting issues and delays. I have focused particularly on this. >> Yeah. Got it. Okay. Well, I am certainly a champion for right to counsel. I will continue to be, and these are, you know... for as bad as eviction rates are, they had been and will be exponentially worse without your work. So thank you for your commitment to low-income tenants. It really matters and it really helps our communities.

The general question for all of you, all of your organizations... well, first a comment on the 311 recommendation for NYCHA tenants. You are speaking to the Section 9 and the Section 8 universe, or specifically Section 9? >> I am speaking specifically to Section 9. I cannot speak as well to Section 8. >> Okay. And what happens when an HP action is brought against NYCHA? >> When an HP action is brought, the court orders an HPD inspection. So when you file an HP action, you fill out a tenant inspection request form. >> So that is essentially the only way that NYCHA tenants can get an HPD inspection? >> To my knowledge, yes. And then the court orders repairs based on the violations within the inspection report that is created. So the inspections are hugely important to the success of an HP action. When they are missed, it causes massive delays. Sometimes you do not get a new date for weeks and this calling policy is having an effect on people being able to get their inspections. I just do not understand why it is not written on the form if that is what they are going to do. And then obviously it is a clear access issue and people need to be able to opt out and get a knock on their door.

Got it. Okay. Happy to work with you on addressing that issue. It seems like a pretty simple fix just on the access issue, on the tenant notification issue. I am sorry, I cannot get over this $40 million. What? Okay. In everybody's view, what is, aside from fully funding right to counsel, what is a top intervention the city can make to stabilize the clients that you all work with? >> Code enforcement. >> Roll call. Go ahead down the line. >> Or everybody agrees on code enforcement. >> I would say there is a host of interventions. Repairs and safe conditions are a very important priority, but also helping people access the income benefits that they are entitled to, like more resources from HRA to help people access one shots and more subsidies for rent. I know this Council has been working hard on those. Those are crucial pieces for me. >> I hear there was this really great bill, set of bills passed to give more people vouchers. >> Yeah. Do you all support that? >> Absolutely. >> Okay. I would say also appropriate staffing at the agencies because a lot of the reasons it takes us longer to resolve cases, particularly non-pays, is we are just waiting and waiting and waiting and pushing and sometimes having to bring in DSS or HRA to the proceeding to explain to the court why it is taking so long.

Another thing that is, I think, difficult is that litigating repairs takes a long time. We do right to counsel in the Bronx. Every client has apartments that have things that need to be fixed, but for us as right to counsel providers to litigate the repairs in that context is just not economically sensible. We often provide advice to tenants about how to get repairs, what they need to do, the various steps in it, and counsel them through it. We are also not paid by right to counsel to do any kind of brief advice. So unless it is full rep, it is nothing. We give a lot of free advice on the side, but my attorneys hate that they have to focus on preventing the eviction as opposed to leaving the clients in a much better position if we had been able to have the bandwidth to litigate the repairs issues. >> Got it. Thank you. Well, thank you for your advocacy. Thank you for your work and I want to follow up and continue working on these issues.

Brendan Cheney, Ariel Hersh, Pete Sakora, James... sorry, Kohar Koser... Koger, all right. What is up? And Darren Cely, you are the next panel and whoever is ready can begin.

Good afternoon. My name is Brendan Cheney. I am director of policy and operations at the New York Housing Conference. I have submitted written testimony, so I will just summarize it in the interest of time. First, while we look forward to the Mamdani administration's new housing plan, we want to highlight that currently HPD's capital budget is facing a fiscal cliff. HPD's capital budget in 2026 is $5.9 billion. In 2027 this drops to less than $3 billion and in the following years it is less than $2 billion. We estimate HPD needs about $4 billion per year to maintain historical production, adhere to the Construction Justice Act, while also adding capital to fully utilize the LIHTC expansion. This does not include $1 billion needed annually to support NYCHA's PACT program. We urge the Council to work with the administration to ensure the gap is addressed in the next plan.

Second, there is a growing crisis of financial distress in affordable housing. A recent study by Enterprise and Lisc found that more than half of the projects in their portfolios have negative cash flow. The city must meet this urgent need by investing resources and making reforms. As such, we are introducing the CRISIS agenda. Create a $1 billion loan workout and reserve fund for affordable housing buildings. Raise revenue by allowing vacancies to comply with current AMI rent limits in buildings under regulatory agreement. Increase capacity for loan restructuring. Staff DSS adequately to prevent non-payment evictions. Support homeless set-aside referrals and process city FEPS. Invest in a multifamily-backed affordable housing insurance program and save money on water bills by expanding the multifamily water assistance program to $100 million. With this agenda, we can help address the crisis facing affordable housing.

And then finally, bureaucratic issues are limiting affordable housing development and operations. The Mamdani administration rightly created the speed task force. Our recent reports track delays in Housing Connect lease-ups, estimated the cost of housing, and the excessive role of OMB. We look forward to working with the city to approve and implement the suggestions that will remove unnecessary delays in housing production. Thank you.

Thank you, Brendan. For the fiscal cliff you identify, how does this comport with the mayor's stated goal of tripling housing production during his tenure? What would we need to see on the capital side to know that the mayor is going to accomplish a tripling of housing production and preservation? >> I mean, they are working on their housing plan. On the campaign, he talked about $10 billion per year in housing capital to meet that plan. I do not know if they are going to revise that or not, but that is what they said on the campaign trail. I think we are looking forward to seeing what they come out with. >> Thank you. The crisis agenda, thank you. I am just going to ask questions as you speak because you are going to speak on different things. But for the crisis agenda, thank you. I would love myself a good acronym. For the $1 billion loan workout and reserve replenishment fund, do you all envision city funding, state funding, private funding? Have you talked to infrastructure fund folks that have funds available to us? >> I think for this we are calling for city capital funding for the $1 billion. I believe there are also asks at the state level for state support as well. >> Okay. Thank you. Those are my questions. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Ariel. Hi, Chair Sanchez and members... no members of the committee. It is good to see you online. They may be watching online. That is so true. My name is Ariel Hersh. I am the director of policy and new projects at UHAB. We are really heartened to hear this new perspective from Commissioner Levy and the Mamdani administration. It is great to see so many dedicated civil servants in the administration taking a different approach here. I wish I was here to talk about many really exciting follow-ups to many of the issues presented in today's testimony and in the budget. We are unfortunately here around contracts, like a number of other folks. We heard HPD confirm on the record today that there is only $1.3 million allocated for HDFC co-op technical assistance. This is a $1 million cut from the original contract funding amount for each fiscal year for the life cycle of that contract. It was cut through an administrative error in December, so just an accounting mistake. To HPD's credit, they identified the issue and have immediately worked to restore that contract amount. But we are now hearing differently. We are also seeing that OMB has blocked the correction and for the last six months has continued to fight HPD on restoring that contract amount.

For FY26, HPD supplemented the contract with another source of funding to plug that gap, but the remaining six years of the contract renewals are still at risk and OMB has thus far refused to allow HPD to correct the error. That means for our organization, which pales in comparison to some of the other shortfalls I am hearing folks mention, that starting this July, this will potentially result in the layoffs of eight or more UHAB staff and the termination of services to approximately 400 HDFC co-ops, affecting roughly 8,000 low and moderate income homeowners. We are really happy to see UHAB's work uplifted in the current administration. May I continue? We are excited to be in the fight together. But that fight does not get us paid and we need that to provide these essential services too.

Thank you, Ariel. What is your total reach with $2.3 million? >> It is the full scope of the TTA contract, which covers all about 1,200 HDFC co-ops in the city. >> And what is the depth of your relationship with these 1,200 co-ops? >> We have worked extensively with just about every single HDFC co-op in the city since their founding, often going back to the 70s and 80s and their incorporation. We helped many of those buildings go through the original process to convert to co-ops and have been trusted counsel and advisers assisting with board transition and governance for many decades in their buildings. >> Thank you. I specifically just want to get a sense of what does $2.3 million per year allow you to do with 1,200 co-ops? >> Yeah, it allows us to go above and beyond in our work as our really dedicated staff of project associates do in these buildings, providing not just basic trainings and technical assistance, overseeing elections, the sort of bread and butter of our technical assistance work, but doing deep and intensive workouts for HDFC cooperatives facing severe issues of financial and physical distress, which I know, Chair, you are intimately aware of from all of our conversations around the SAFER Act and where those buildings would be headed.

Without that additional really high-intensity assistance, those buildings face the Third-Party Transfer Program and worse in the meantime, while conditions deteriorate or board governance issues prevent those buildings from getting back on track and getting the support folks need. That also translates downstream into code enforcement and living conditions in those buildings. >> Great. Thank you. Thank you, Ariel.

Good afternoon, Chair Sanchez and esteemed members of the Committee on Housing and Buildings. My name is James Koger and I serve as the manager for Community Justice Connect Bronx, an initiative of the Center for Justice Innovation. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. Across New York City, housing challenges often emerge long before cases reach housing court, whether through unresolved repair cases, confusion around tenants' rights and responsibilities, or financial shocks that make it difficult to keep up with the rent. Too often these issues escalate because tenants and small property owners lack accessible, timely support to help navigate complex systems and resolve problems early. The Center for Justice Innovation's work is grounded in the belief that housing stability is strengthened when people can access support early within their communities and at key moments before challenges escalate.

Today I will be highlighting several initiatives that reflect that approach and demonstrate how targeted investments can strengthen housing stability, improve access to justice, and support more effective problem solving across New York City's housing landscape. I will start with the housing resource centers within Red Hook, Harlem, and Queens Community Justice Center in Far Rockaway. Then I will go on to my particular focus, the Community Justice Connect, where we are training community volunteers to help give access to civil legal issues. We also predominantly do work surrounding Housing Connect. I was very interested in hearing what HPD had to say about Housing Connect and as a frontline advocate it is very interesting. We also have the eviction diversion program which addresses housing needs for folks within housing court. We are really trying to transform what housing court looks like and court in general looks like. In conclusion, the programs outlined today...

You may conclude. >> Thank you. The programs outlined today reflect a comprehensive approach to strengthening New York City's housing ecosystem. Thank you for the opportunity to testify and for your continued leadership in advancing policies and investments and strengthening housing stability and access to justice for all New Yorkers. Thank you.

Thank you. Just taking a look at what you have submitted here to the sergeants, these are requests for Council support of the individual programs that you outlined in your testimony. >> Yes. >> Copy. Okay. I will take a closer look and circle back with anything. >> It is just not limited to the ones I mentioned. I just highlighted those three. We also have our neighborhood safety initiative. Yes, there is a lot of papers. They told me to print out 20 for everybody. But yes, a lot of stuff. Also, I did not color code it. The map is color coded but I was not able to get color prints. >> Good. All good. Thank you. This is excellent. We will take a closer look and hope to support. Thank you.

Thank you. The next panel is Edmundo, Alex Gomez, Graham Gale, Anthony Alberatti, Ustasia Smith and Marabel Rodriguez. Whoever is ready can begin when ready.

Good afternoon. My name is Anthony Alberatti. From 2019 to 2021, I lived in the New York City shelter system. Thank you, Chair Sanchez and members of the Committee on Housing and Buildings for holding this hearing and giving me the chance to speak. I am here because the city is failing the people who need it most, and I was one of them. I am calling on this Council and this administration to commit to creating 12,000 units of truly affordable housing every year for the next five years, 60,000 units total, reserved exclusively for homeless New Yorkers and extremely low-income households on the brink of homelessness. That means capital investment directed specifically at deeply affordable housing, not moderate income housing, not market rate subsidies, housing for the people who have nowhere else to go.

I should not have had to enter shelter to get a city FEPS apartment. I wanted to find one on my own. The facility I was placed in was a harm reduction program. The idea is to keep people alive. But what I saw was staff that was confrontational and disrespectful, where I had to watch my own back every single day. When I documented and reported problems, I faced retaliation. Despite all of that, I kept going. In 2021, I was connected to a city FEPS voucher. While in shelter, I applied through Housing Connect. I was told I won the lottery and was matched with a unit I liked. And then I was told someone else took the apartment. After everything I had survived, I still could not win.

Here is why. There are simply not enough deeply affordable units for people like me. When supply is this scarce, brokers and building managers can choose, and they do. Someone who never spent a night in shelter but who is also extremely low income looks like a safer bet. That discrimination exists because there is not enough housing for extremely low-income families. That is really psychologically devastating. It discourages people from even trying. The root cause of mass homelessness in New York City is not a lack of effort from people like me. It is a shortage of rental housing for the lowest income New Yorkers. This crisis will keep growing unless the city changes its priorities. We need more affordable housing for homeless people. Thank you.

Extra points. Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Alex Gomez, campaign coordinator at Coalition for the Homeless. Thank you, Chair Sanchez and members of the committee for this opportunity to testify. I am also testifying and asking for this Council to commit to funding or including capital investments for 12,000 units of affordable housing specifically for ELI and homeless set-aside units. Here is the scale of the housing and homelessness crisis. Over 100,000 people sleep in shelter on average each night. This January, that was just this January, so 100,000 people per night just in January 2026 on average. An estimated 200,000 more are doubled or tripled up in apartments, one crisis away from being homeless. Across the metro area, for every 100 ELI households there are only 35 available apartments that are affordable to them.

These people would qualify for an affordable unit if one existed. But our analysis of city production data from 2014 to 2024, that is over a decade, found that only 21% of city-financed affordable units were created for ELI households. That is just 22,565 extremely low-income units over an entire decade. While at the same time, nearly 70,000 units went to households earning between 51 and 165% of AMI. This mismatch between the households with the biggest needs and the units of affordable housing being created needs to be corrected. The City Council recently took a step by introducing and passing Intro 1443, which mandates more apartments for ELI and low-income households. But a mandate without money is just an empty promise.

We are urging the Council to dedicate capital funding in the budget for 12,000 units for homeless and extremely low-income New Yorkers each year for the next five years, so that is 60,000 units over five years. This is a capital investment. Every mayor has failed to address the needs of the lowest income New Yorker in their housing production plans. So much so that in 2024, the largest share of affordable apartments financed by the city required a minimum income of over $118,000 a year. The majority of affordable housing last year was restricted to people only making $118,000 and above, excluding people like my friend Anthony right here. I will conclude by saying that we can fix this by setting and funding an affordable housing production goal for homeless and extremely low-income households only and building from the bottom up. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you both from Coalition for the Homeless. I am going to say something controversial maybe, but I do not see...

(05:27:31)

Why, as a city, we could not have a vision of having a right to shelter that means a right to a home and not the right to a bed in a shelter, right? I think, yeah, we it would probably cost a lot less for the City of New York to operate this way. Shelter is not anybody's first choice, right? You want your home, you want your privacy. And so I just encourage us as a city to have a different conversation about what it means to have a right to shelter, especially as we talk about interventions like expanding city FEPS, which this Council legislated and has not been able to come to a conclusion with the previous mayor or the current mayor.

(05:28:10)

You are exactly correct, Chair Sanchez. And if I may just say that it is an expensive program and what we are asking for is a lot of money, but it is a lot of money that has a major impact on the city that we can likely see have years and years and years of positive impact, just by simply putting people into stable and permanent housing. This is not to say that our right to shelter and the shelter system is inappropriate. We absolutely need shelters, but we need housing also.

(05:28:38)

Absolutely. Thank you. Thank you both.

(05:28:43)

Hi there, my name is Graham Gail. I am an organizer with Food and Water Watch, which is a national environmental group. We are in coalition with New York Communities for Change, We Act, Triage, the Central Labor Council and the Steamfitters 638 local, to talk to you about this program that we are putting forth called Heat Pumps for All. We have already met with your office and shared some language, so I will just keep it short. It is a program to fund heat pumps for one and two family homeowners while lowering energy bills, reducing air pollution and creating good union jobs in the green energy market. We are asking for $10 million in the city budget as a starter program. We want to build the program year by year, so this small amount of money makes a huge difference.

Just to highlight the difference that this program could make, I want to share a quick story. I have been out petitioning every week in my neighborhood and local neighborhoods. When I met Luis, who is a homeowner in Ridgewood, he shared with me that his gas bill last month was $767 and that his bill this month is over $500. When I told him about our plan, I could see him light up. I could see him picture a future where he could actually afford his energy bills and see a pathway towards a cleaner New York City. Heating our homes should not cost us so significantly, not only from our pockets, but also our health, our city and our planet. Thanks.

(05:30:33)

Thank you. What would the $10 million be used for? Are you covering the cost for certain households?

(05:30:39)

Yes. So the way that we are considering the program would work is to target a geographical area. So it would essentially be a universal program in that neighborhood. It would fund most of the replacement from oil and gas boilers to heat pumps. Heat pumps cost around between $15,000 to $20,000. So we would try to allocate $10,000 to 1,000 homeowners to make that switch. And as was mentioned earlier today, there are a lot of great city and state programs that help to bridge that remaining $10,000. So getting folks most of the way there. We are also attaching this to labor standards so that you are connected with a good contractor to do the work. So yeah, that is the basic idea of the program.

(05:31:39)

Thank you for sharing the proposal here today. I just want to push my friends in advocacy to, in addition to creating programs that would help specific households, even just the question of the labor standards portion of it. It is extreme — as you may have heard me complaining about earlier — as a homeowner of a two family home, it is like impossible to find contractors who think it is worthwhile to work with me, right? With us, right? So even just creating a pool of reputable or trustworthy or willing contractors would go a long way. And of course it is a high price tag for the machines, but then just helping folks navigate through issues that come up, like the house cannot sustain that electrical load and so now there is a lot of electrical work and the house needs a new service line and whatever.

So I am really interested in seeing from advocates suggestions about how we can, just like we are talking about local law 97 compliance, how we can have a local law version for the small homes, right? It is a substantial number of New York City buildings, to really help them, provide them technical assistance and knowhow and resources and everything else so that they can also electrify and become sustainable.

(05:33:03)

Yeah. Our idea with this program is to make it easy. We want it to be smooth, we want it to be easy. So it is not only that you get the money, but you also get a contractor who knows what they are doing, who is going to do a correct install and who is also there to do the assessment and assist every step of the way. So thank you.

(05:33:27)

Thank you so much. I look forward to talking more about this too. Thank you.

(05:33:32)

My name is Ustaceious Smith. I am from Westside Federation for Senior and Supportive Housing. Thank you, Chair Sanchez, and the entire committee for the opportunity to testify. We currently house 200 low-income older adults, many who are formerly homeless, across a portfolio of supportive housing and affordable senior housing. Older adults make up 20% of New York City's population. They are the fastest growing age group of people becoming homeless, rising 10% every year for the past 10 years. There were 520,000 seniors on wait lists for affordable senior housing at last count, most of whom were extremely low income. These facts together make it critical that New York City dramatically scale up development of new housing for older adults.

Instead, we are facing the fiscal cliff in the coming years that New York Housing Conference talked about. We call on the city to support the 5-year aging New York City platform and create at least a thousand senior units for extremely low income per year, even if there is a Section 8 shortfall. Preserving the units of housing we currently have is also vital. Take for example our 120 unit SRO that opened in 1987, where seven residents on the hall share one toilet and bathtub and one small kitchen. The average tenant is in their late 70s and our experience is that an SRO environment does not work well for older adults as they age in place. The only services funding is the state's 1980s era program NICHIP, which by today's standards is grossly underfunded. Many of the units have no dedicated rental subsidy. This combined with skyrocketing operating costs means that we cannot afford minor upgrades like converting the bathtubs, which are difficult for seniors to use, into showers.

We need preservation funding that would allow us to rehabilitate the entire building, converting it into studio apartments. We ask the city to support the supportive housing network's ask for $65.3 million to be included in FY27 for preservation of supportive housing. The operational costs in affordable senior housing are growing rapidly and revenue is shrinking, putting these buildings at risk. Just this year, we got a 35% increase on our insurance costs. We ask that the city fully fund and support the crisis agenda that New York Housing Conference talked about, that would help reduce operating costs and aid preservation efforts such as expanding the multifamily water assistance program. We have applied to that every single year and we have never received the credit because it runs out of money too soon. Thank you.

(05:36:03)

Thank you for your testimony. Thank you to this panel. My staff told me I have to ask less questions. I am blaming you. Sorry. Okay, Brianna Stury, Malikica Kalsa, Sarah Newman, Frank Shentaro McMullen, Katie Muy from Shinny and Kevin Wolf. Whoever is ready can begin.

(05:37:15)

Good afternoon. My name is Brianna Stury. I am a pro bono scholar at New York Lawyers for the Public Interest. This testimony is on behalf of NLPI's disability justice and environmental justice programs. Thank you to the chair and members of the committee for allowing me to testify today. NLPI's disability justice program assists New Yorkers with disabilities in matters involving housing discrimination, including requests for reasonable accommodations such as apartment and common area retrofitting, transfers to accessible apartments and protection for use of service animals. It is imperative that all New York City agencies ensure that housing is accessible and free of discrimination. Although the Federal Fair Housing Act was passed nearly 60 years ago and New York City and New York State's human rights laws have likewise long been in effect, countless people in New York City continue to face discrimination when it comes to their housing needs.

Consistent and aggressive enforcement of anti-discrimination laws allows more people with disabilities to remain in their homes. Enforcement of accessibility requirements of New York City's building code should therefore also be a priority for the city. We urge the City Council to fund aggressive enforcement of the code by the Department of Buildings and the Department of Housing Preservation and Development. Such enforcement will ensure accessible spaces for New York City's disabled residents and senior citizens and allow them to continue to be part of their communities and live independently. We also urge New York City and the public advocate to investigate and track evictions of tenants with disabilities to enforce New York City's anti-discrimination laws in a systemic way and create new causes of action and penalties to aid in enforcement. Tracking evictions will enable New York City to identify and monitor housing providers who routinely evict tenants with disabilities. Treating this as a systemic issue will also help address the root causes of disability discrimination in housing. Because one of the most impactful ways anti-discrimination laws are enforced is through private action, we also advise adding a mechanism for enabling easy public access to records of discrimination patterns in addition to public oversight hearings and reports of general findings. May I continue?

(05:39:21)

You may conclude.

(05:39:22)

Building complaints and violations filed with the Department of Buildings are already available on the department's website through the building information search. Discrimination records must similarly be publicly available. NLPI's environmental justice team strives to ensure timely and proper oversight and implementation of the city's landmark building decarbonization law, local law 97. We urge this committee to ensure that local law 97 is fully implemented with the expert assistance from New York City agencies like the mayor's office of climate and environmental justice, which offers an accelerator program to all owners for free, the Department of Housing Preservation and Development and the Department of Buildings. A more detailed written testimony has already been submitted on NLPI's behalf. Thank you for your time and consideration.

(05:40:06)

Thank you.

(05:40:12)

Good afternoon. My name is Sarah Newman. I am the deputy executive director for the Open Hearts Initiative, an organization that builds solidarity between homeless and housed neighbors and communities throughout the city. I am here alongside colleagues from Coalition for the Homeless and appreciate the opportunity to testify today. I am here because we need more affordable housing for people who are homeless or extremely low income. I am here to say that is something that many housed New Yorkers support as well. New York City must prioritize investing capital in deeply affordable housing specifically for folks who are extremely low income or currently experiencing homelessness. I am asking the city to commit to creating 12,000 units of truly affordable housing each year for the next 5 years, for a total of 60,000 units.

Our members work closely with neighbors experiencing homelessness and see how easily folks can become homeless and how hard it is for folks to get out of shelter and find housing. We know that homelessness is a housing problem. There are not enough available affordable units for extremely low-income folks. We saw that in the housing and vacancy survey a couple years ago, where less than 1% of the units renting for under $1,100 a month were available. The affordable housing that our city is creating is not meeting that need despite record levels of affordable housing production in recent years. Most of that housing created by the city excludes households who are homeless and extremely low income. The homelessness crisis will continue to grow unless the city corrects that misalignment between the greatest need for affordable housing and the priorities for affordable housing production. I urge the administration and this Council to right this wrong and to give homeless and extremely low-income New Yorkers more opportunities to get permanent affordable housing. Thank you.

(05:41:54)

Thank you.

(05:41:58)

Good afternoon, Chair Sanchez. My name is Kevin Wolf and I am here on behalf of the Center for New York City Neighborhoods. The center is one of the largest homeowner service organizations in New York City. And just to help explain the importance of our work protecting homeowners, I did want to share a story of a homeowner that we have served. Her name is Miss V. She was a first-time home buyer who purchased an affordable home in East New York, Brooklyn. She is a Black woman and an immigrant. Although she was a high income earner, she was denied access to a traditional mortgage and steered towards purchasing a home in East New York with a predatory loan. What was supposed to be a dream quickly became a nightmare. Her home was entangled in violations, lawsuits and bureaucracy and a prior illegal construction which put her at risk of losing the home. Miss V told us that the property had two deeds with technical issues and it rendered one of the deeds invalid, and due to an illegal conversion, she was unable to live in the home. Despite this, she had to continue paying legal fees, covering property violations, paying rent to live elsewhere and financing repairs, which led to her financial ruin. She was on the brink of homelessness when she came to the center for help.

Miss V's story highlights the challenges that many New Yorkers face in achieving sustainable home ownership. Since 2008, the center has worked to promote and protect affordable home ownership across the city so that working and middle-class New Yorkers can remain in stable communities. Our network has assisted 200,000 homeowners and invested $60 million across New York City. I want to emphasize a simple and important truth. Foreclosure remains a serious and growing threat, especially for our communities of color. Through the foreclosure prevention program which the City Council funds, we support a network of nearly two dozen housing counseling and legal service organizations, and this year the network helped 2,000 homeowners avoid foreclosure and stabilize their finances.

I did also want to note that we commend the new administration, Mayor Mamdani, for addressing affordability with home ownership, including suspending the tax lien sale this year, which our research shows disproportionately affects Black and brown homeowners. At the same time, homeowners are facing increasing challenges: rising foreclosures — we saw foreclosures rise 8% — increased scams targeting vulnerable residents and homeowners who are unable to meet home repair needs. Programs that the City Council funds like Home Fix are critical to ensuring homeowners can safely remain in their homes. This is why we are requesting $9.7 million from the City Council to continue supporting foreclosure prevention, home repair, outreach and estate planning services. These investments will strengthen the existing programs that homeowners have and bring support to the communities that need it most. With the Council's support, we can protect homeowners, preserve generational wealth and ensure that New York City remains a place working families can stay and thrive. Thank you for your time.

(05:45:19)

Thank you, Kevin. Thank you for your testimony. Your reaction to the number of people we have been able to reach through down payment assistance and Home Fix — I think the numbers were 142 and 50 something.

(05:45:32)

With both HomeFix and Home First, we definitely need to do more in making sure that the programs are built at scale to the need. There is a huge need for both HomeFix and Home First. We see with HomeFix, 4,000 homeowners apply every year and we are only able to help around 100 homeowners every year. We need to increase the scale. Without the Council's resources, we would not have been able to do as much as we have done with home repair thus far. The Council has stepped up to the plate. We also want to make sure that we have the partnership with the new administration, which we are excited about, in order to provide those services. We do want to scale our down payment assistance as well so that more New Yorkers can access home ownership.

(05:46:28)

Thank you. The down payment assistance is a grant, correct?

(05:46:30)

Yes, that is right.

(05:46:31)

And you said 4,000 applied for which program?

(05:46:34)

This is for HomeFix.

(05:46:35)

For HomeFix. And that is income restricted, right? It is sort of a sliding scale, so it is a zero interest...

(05:46:47)

Low interest to zero interest forgivable loan.

(05:46:51)

Who gets forgiven?

(05:46:52)

I would have to get back to you on the exact statistic, but it is for those homeowners who are low income, very low income. They would have their loan forgiven, and they would have to remain in their home for a certain period of time. It would be forgiven incrementally year by year.

(05:47:12)

Excellent. Thank you so much for your testimony.

(05:47:13)

Thank you.

(05:47:18)

Good afternoon — good evening — Chair, Council members.

(05:47:22)

We live here now.

(05:47:23)

Sorry.

(05:47:24)

Of course. My name is Frank Mullen and I am the communications manager at Live On New York. Our membership includes more than 110 community-based nonprofits that provide core services under the NYC aging portfolio and many other home and community based services in our city. I have submitted our housing needs report alongside this testimony for your review. Thank you for this opportunity to testify.

The affordability crisis is crushing older New Yorkers. Homelessness among older New Yorkers is growing at three times the rate of any other demographic and senior housing waitlists stretch over six years long. At the current rate, our most conservative estimate is that it will take 250 years to clear the current waitlist, which is a while. There are two problems, obviously. One, the senior homelessness crisis demands new housing. Two, older adults who are already in affordable units are watching their rents rapidly outpace their income, which is often only a Social Security stipend, or they are watching the buildings they live in fall into greater disrepair.

The funding we need to confront this crisis is minuscule. It is nothing in comparison to the billions in homelessness prevention and mitigation that we will have to pay if we fail to provide adequate senior housing. Study after study has found that senior housing programs like SARA and SCRIE do more than just provide older New Yorkers with the life they want. It is also fiscally responsible and a smart decision.

Our recommendations are threefold. One is to develop at minimum a thousand SARA units per year, as we are calling for in the Age Strong New York campaign, with priority given to one-bedroom units without sacrificing unit counts. Two is to commit $250 million to fully fund the Senior Citizen Rent Increase Exemption, or SCRIE. Currently it is funded to 47% utilization. A rent freeze may provide temporary relief, but once that rent freeze inevitably ends, older New Yorkers will be unable to meet their rents and risk homelessness again unless SCRIE is fully funded. And third, we want to ask the city to commit $200 million to HUD 202 residence repairs across New York City. There is not currently funding to repair HUD 202 buildings and they are falling into disrepair and are at risk of condemnation. It is essential that we make sure those buildings get repaired. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

(05:49:47)

Thank you. For the SCRIE advocacy, the $250 million — can you help me understand how this works? Where would this funding flow through?

(05:49:59)

The funding comes through the city. There is a state bill to expand SCRIE, but currently it is funded by the city and right now at current funding levels it is funded to 47% utilization.

(05:50:11)

47%?

(05:50:12)

47%. Yes, that is correct.

(05:50:13)

So does that mean that not all eligible households who are submitting an application are being approved?

(05:50:20)

Yes, that is correct.

(05:50:22)

Good to know. Okay. Thank you.

(05:50:24)

Of course. Thank you.

(05:50:27)

Good afternoon, Chair and members of the committee. I am Katie Muy, the policy and programs manager at the Network, a membership organization representing over 200 nonprofits that develop and operate supportive housing across the state. As you know, supportive housing is one of the most effective tools to end homelessness and strengthen communities. However, the model faces mounting challenges as ongoing federal uncertainty, rising costs, and workforce challenges place increasing pressure on our providers.

We are here today to discuss the need for targeted investments to preserve the city's existing supportive housing stock, advancing the goal of 1,300 units preserved by 2030 in alignment with the New York City 15/15 reallocation plan. Now it is time to put that plan into action. We are asking the city to invest $44 million in capital funding and $21.3 million in the expense budget to preserve 325 supportive housing units this fiscal year. Our data shows that at least 7,600 units are prime for preservation but are at serious risk of closure. Federal cuts to Continuum of Care are imminent, meaning nonprofits will lose their operating subsidies for thousands of units, which will destabilize programs and displace tenants. By investing in preservation right now, the city can mitigate this loss.

On the services side, the units that we have identified are currently operating service contracts through NY/HIP HR SRO support services, which is the lowest funded service contract rate in existence. While the Network was successful in securing a $17.8 million increase in last year's state budget, the pass-through rate is still five times lower than the New York City 15/15 service contract rate. Allowing nonprofits to claim New York City 15/15 rates will address the significant gap in funding and provide the level of care that is needed.

The $44 million in capital funding will support the preservation needs of at least 325 units that are 15 years or older to complete necessary renovations, meet energy efficiency standards, and offset rising maintenance and operating costs. This will also support the conversion of outdated SROs without private bathrooms or kitchenettes into modernized studios that are more functional and desirable for formerly homeless tenants, many of whom are older adults. A speaker on our previous panel highlighted a program facing such challenges. If the state does not address the significant preservation needs, we will have to contend with the reality of programs closing, residences shutting down, and tenants losing their home. Proactive investment in preservation is crucial to the stability of nonprofits and formerly homeless New Yorkers. Thank you for your time.

(05:53:18)

Thank you. Thank you to this panel. We are now moving to our last in-person panel. If you have inadvertently been left off the list after this, please see one of our sergeants: Melanie Reyes, Emily Klein, Vanessa Leang, Pamela Herrera and Greg Roberts. Whoever is ready can begin.

(05:54:28)

Hi, good evening. Thank you, Chair Sanchez and members of the Council for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Emily Klene and I am the assistant vice president and deputy director of public affairs at the Community Preservation Corporation. As the city works to determine its budget for the next year, we urge prioritizing the increasingly tenuous financial and physical conditions of the city's rent stabilized housing stock.

For the 1 million rent stabilized apartments across New York City, rent levels have been kept stable for the past many years. However, the cost of operating and maintaining these buildings has not. Across CPC's New York City rent stabilized portfolio, per unit operating expenses rose 22% between 2020 and 2023, with insurance and admin costs climbing more than 50% each during that period. Despite these cost increases, pathways to revenue growth remain tightly constrained, creating a fundamental mismatch. When expenses grow faster than revenue, building finances develop a shortfall. As shown by the only expense line with flat or negative growth in the past three years, some owners are choosing to defer repairs and maintenance to stay afloat, which can quickly lead to decreasing housing quality.

We urgently need to address runaway operating costs that are eroding the financial viability of the city's affordable housing stock. We suggest exploring the following pathways. First, a modernized J51 can once again become a powerful tool for supporting regulated housing stock. We encourage the mayor and Council to work with Albany to ensure that J51 is reenacted this session. Second, we need innovative solutions to slow and ultimately stop runaway insurance costs. The recent successes of new affordable housing insurance captives demonstrate market appetite and economic feasibility of these alternative approaches. Third, a long-term 100% property tax exemption for distressed rent stabilized buildings could effectively slow financial decline and free up vital capital to support much-needed building improvements. It is important to say that any increase in property taxes would be devastating for rent stabilized properties that are already operating on thin margins, especially paired with a proposed rent freeze.

Lastly, we encourage the city to work with public agencies and service providers to establish reasonable and reliable cost increases for water, sewer and utility costs, and when needed, to step in to offer relief for the most severely distressed buildings. In addition, our written testimony goes through a number of reforms for existing government systems and administrative programs, including capital subsidy allocations, housing voucher administration and marketing and lease-up. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. Happy to answer any questions.

(05:57:17)

There is a lot of text. I am reading it.

(05:57:23)

Good afternoon, Committee Chair Sanchez and members of the housing and buildings committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. My name is Pamela Herrera and I am the land justice coordinator at Western Queens Community Land Trust. Since 2022, our organization has received City Council discretionary funding through the citywide CLT initiative. With the support of this funding, our team has grown to include a full-time staffer and a new part-time project manager. We have been engaging with tenants across Queens regarding the need for deep affordability and the role of community land trusts in addressing the housing crisis.

Our organization is currently applying for this funding for the first time without a fiscal sponsor. Without these resources, our capacity to serve the Queens community will be limited. To date, we have hosted general meetings to welcome the community into a CLT model and have maintained strong relationships with local organizations. We are also actively working on two mixed-use housing projects that include opportunities for low-cost community space. We are working closely with creatives, Queens residents and small business owners to collectively address the need for space for a publicly owned site on Anable Basin's waterfront. We have reached over a thousand community members this year alone and spoken to several buildings that want to work with our community land trust to combat the neglect they face from their landlords. We have collaborated with CHIA CDC to work closely with the community to address the uses of vacant property scattered in Elmhurst. We have hosted community potlucks, town halls and a block party that generated a wave of support for the CLT work.

We urge the City Council to fund the CLT initiative at $3 million for 23 organizations in the FY27 expense budget, up from $1.5 million for 15 groups in FY26. This urgently needed funding will provide essential support not only to CLTs, but will allow us to address the affordability crisis in New York. A recent report by the London School of Economics and Political Science stated that low-wage workers have seen their income stagnant. May I continue?

(05:59:28)

You may conclude.

(05:59:29)

Thank you. Low-wage workers have seen their income stagnant in addition to an overall increase in work precarity. While the city is addressing this supposed housing shortage, the shortcoming is in addressing affordability. By giving CLTs an opportunity to be on the same playing field as big real estate, we can create housing that not only supports New Yorkers, but we can preserve land and communities for generations to come. Thank you for your time and consideration.

(05:59:58)

Thank you.

(06:00:04)

All right. Good afternoon, Chair and committee. My name is Vanessa Leong. I am a homeowner in Long Island City, Queens and a steering committee member of the Western Queens Community Land Trust. I am here with two requests. Please fund the community land trust initiative at $3 million in the fiscal year 27 budget, which is an increase from last year. And two, create a $50 million community land trust capital fund. This is a game-changer that the mayor committed to during his campaign.

If New York City wants neighborhoods that still feel like New York, we need tools like CLTs that keep land in community hands. Walking through the industrial blocks of Long Island City today, you will see the Bangladeshi halal cart operator preparing food. You will see the Ukrainian cabinet maker in a woodworking shop and the Chinese produce wholesaler that is supplying restaurants across all five boroughs. You see the economy that makes New York unmistakably New York. Nearly half of all small businesses here are immigrant-owned, and LIC alone is home to more than 6,000 small businesses employing over 100,000 people, and they are in danger of being displaced.

That is why the Western Queens CLT wants to transform a large city-owned building on Vernon Boulevard into the Queensboro People's Space. Not just for more luxury condos and national coffee chains, but half a million square feet of permanently affordable space for small businesses, manufacturers, arts, food justice and community space. Yes, affordable housing matters deeply, but housing alone does not make a neighborhood. A neighborhood needs the mechanic, the maker, the rehearsal studio. These are the places where culture is created. CLTs give communities the tools to hold on to the people and places that make them flourish.

So please fund the CLT initiative and address delays in our funding. Our CLT has gone three years without receiving the $300K in allocated funds. We need your help to invest in the neighborhoods that make New York New York. Thank you.

(06:02:23)

Thank you. And bonus points for time.

(06:02:26)

I tried.

(06:02:29)

Good evening, Committee Chair Sanchez and committee. My name is Melanie Reyes and I am the housing organizer at Nos Quedamos in the Bronx. We are also members of the NYC Community Land Initiative. Our organization has received City Council discretionary funding through the citywide community land trust initiative, which has helped catalyze the growth of more than 20 CLTs across the five boroughs in low-income and Black and Brown communities. We urge the City Council to fund the CLT initiative at $3 million for 23 organizations in the fiscal year 27 expense budget, up from $1.5 million for 15 groups last year.

Nos Quedamos has an innovative model of community ownership rooted in decades of South Bronx organizing, planning and co-development. Through the South Bronx Land and Community Resource Trust, launched in 2017, we are institutionalizing permanent affordability and resident power. We do this through an emerging resident committee to improve quality of life and help raise awareness about issues that affect our community. We additionally urge the City Council to support the creation of a $50 million CLT fund in the fiscal year 27 capital budget. Nos Quedamos has secured 450 affordable units across four buildings and aims to expand its permanently stewarded portfolio to approximately 610 units by 2027, a goal that requires more CLT initiative funding and technical support. These investments would especially help with tenant organizing to prepare our residents for structured governance roles.

Affordable housing preservation is a major priority at Nos Quedamos. Enhanced CLT funding in the city's expense and capital budgets will strengthen these essential grassroots institutions. For decades, the South Bronx has demonstrated that community-led planning can reverse disinvestment and restore stability. Our CLT model can ensure that the next era of development in the South Bronx is rooted in affordable housing preservation, equity and community control. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.

(06:04:23)

Thank you. Bronx in the house.

(06:04:25)

Hi, good afternoon. My name is Greg Roberts on behalf of all of us at SKF Development. We are a fully integrated residential owner and property manager. We currently own and operate 2,300 units across 32 properties in the Bronx. All of our projects include affordable units and we are proud to work extensively with HPD and other city agencies to accept tenants with vouchers who are exiting the city's homeless system. We regularly work with HPD through its inclusionary housing programs and are now seeking to redevelop our first 100% affordable housing project with the department. We are here testifying to urge that the final budget include new funds to allow HPD to carry out its mission of affordable housing preservation and would like to bring to your attention an outrageous delay that is currently destroying our business and will ultimately impact low-income renters of two of our properties.

66 East Fremont in Chairwoman Sanchez's district and 2097 Daily Avenue in CM Feliz's district are two of our properties that we developed in 2018. Both buildings are fully rent stabilized and with very few if any violations. In the coming years, the buildings' 421A tax exemption will start burning off. In anticipation of this exemption ending in August 2024, we applied for an Article 11 tax exemption from HPD. After being told that the department was oversubscribed, we enlisted the help of a consultant and began to meet regularly with HPD to let them know how urgent our situation was becoming. As our loan was approaching maturity, HPD still could not take us into their program by the end of 2025 and we are now falling into default and are facing possible foreclosure by our bank.

Despite every plea we made to the department, they continue to say that they are understaffed and are only prioritizing buildings that are in poor fiscal condition. Should we let our buildings fall into disrepair so that we do not lose them to foreclosure? Should we hand the keys over to the bank? We pride ourselves on being diligent developers and property managers and it breaks our hearts to be treated this way. To conclude, as this committee works with the administration to set HPD's budget, we urge its attention to building owners who are trying to do the right thing but are locked out of the city's tools due to capacity constraints.

(06:06:43)

Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. Thank you all for your testimony and for staying with me until 5:30. Appreciate you. >> Oh, there are more in person. Jackie, where are you? Jackie Dev and Jesus. And again, if you are here in person and you wanted to testify, please see one of the sergeants and then we are going to be moving to online testimony.

(06:07:12)

Bringing them here is cheaper childcare, so do not tempt me.

(06:07:25)

It is okay. Save the best for last.

(06:07:27)

Sorry. No thanks. Good afternoon, good evening. I guess I should say thank you for having us. My name is Pil Jesus. I am a senior advocacy coordinator at True Justice. I am here with my colleague Jackie. So I am going to let her do a lot of the technical and I am going to submit a lot of my specifics and technical online.

I mostly just want to share a lot. One, to confirm a lot of what folks from Legal Aid said — we need to be paid. A lot of these contracts need to be paid. Organizations have rent to pay, employees to pay. It does not feel good having the conversation that we possibly may not be able to make payroll. We work very, very hard, as you have heard and as I am sure you know, really trying to keep our tenants in their housing and also fight against landlords who are targeting them. So again, just want to really encourage more of the funding and also consider being a little more open to the deliverables or giving us more money so that we can also get a little creative in our work. Personally, I love to do investigations on landlords and go really down rabbit holes, but unfortunately I do not get paid to do that and have that time. I would like to do more investigation on landlords and be able to have more experts come in. Right now I have a building where it is unstable and it would really benefit if we had an engineer. So funding for our organization to also do a lot of the things that are already not in our scope would be helpful.

I would like to talk really quickly about... I appreciate the new administration and look forward to the many things to come, but there is a problem with the AE program in my experience. Their contractors are, for lack of a better term, interesting and how they show up to do work is interesting. If I may conclude, and I will try to be fast — contractors are interesting when the inspectors come out. I have personally been there when the AE program inspectors come out and I have to show them, "Oh, well, there is mold." And they say, "Well, that is not on my list. You are going to have to call that in." And I do not understand that process. It was really frustrating.

311 operators — I am noticing more and more, I am not sure what is happening with training. Some of them know how to take repair calls, some of them do not. Some of them know how to take calls around vacant units, some of them do not. We have this issue where 311 closes tickets and the issues still exist, as you have heard. We would love to see more proactive inspections because again we know that there were a lot of issues. Do I have a building in East Harlem? The tenants there, if you remember, testified last year when my mom translated. If you remember, 245 East 110th Street. During that same time, we went to court. The landlord brought my clients to court for non-payment. We made an agreement, an amazing agreement that would benefit the tenants. The landlord still has not complied. HPD knows of all the violations. DOB, after that hearing last year, actually went and did an inspection and found out that the building is unsafe. Here we are a year later, still nothing. I cannot get a court order to move this landlord. HPD is not enforcing. DOB is not enforcing. So I would like to see really some real enforcement.

And then really quickly on the jobs — I only know this because a friend of mine, who unfortunately is not working, receives benefits and goes through the HRA back-to-work program. He is very well qualified to get a position at HPD. He has attempted and I guess his developer at HRA does not make that connection. I do not know. I am just saying it seems like there are people in the HRA back-to-work program who have the qualifications and want to work for these agencies but somehow there is not a connection being made.

I did have one more point but I cannot remember, so I will leave it to Jackie. But you know, thank you. I have been doing this work for over 10 years and yes, there have been some amazing wins, but it just feels like Groundhog Day. I would also really like to see the district attorney's office and all the boroughs start working closely with these agencies because I think what the landlords are doing is criminal. And I do think, you know, if we can arrest people for jumping the turnstile for $3, I do not see why we are allowing landlords to have millions of dollars in fines owed to the city. Maybe we should consider that the money they owe should be given back to the tenants. >> Thank you.

(06:12:22)

Thank you.

(06:12:23)

Thank you. What was the address your

(06:12:25)

mother translated for?

(06:12:25)

Oh, yes. 245 East 110th Street. And yes, the building... because of the MTA doing the work, the shaking — it is constantly shaking — the tenants are living in anxiety. The landlord was ordered in our court agreement to file the permits and do the work and here we are as of March 2026 and nothing yet.

(06:12:50)

Thank you. Thank you.

(06:12:53)

Thank you so much for waiting. My name is Jackie Davay and I am the coordinator of Stabilizing NYC at Take Root Justice. We are requesting on behalf of the coalitions that we are a part of: $5.3 million for Stabilizing NYC, which funds Take Root to do legal work and 19 other organizations to do the kind of organizing that the new leadership in HPD is really supportive of; $3 million for community land trusts; and $4.9 million for the community housing preservation strategies initiative.

But the increases do not matter if we cannot get paid on time. $9,250,000 — that is how much the 20 groups that make up Stabilizing NYC are owed through this fiscal year. And Stabilizing NYC's unawarded funds represent close to about half of that. Even with all the progress that has been made on improving contract delays, in this current situation we will be lucky if we reduce that number by 10% by the end of June. This is unacceptable and immediate action needs to be taken.

What we recommend is that groups receive an advance of at least 50% of their contracts. The new legislation on advances does not apply to discretionary funds. HPD must be properly funded to hire more contract managers to process contract registrations and invoicing. The backlog of contract registrations must be cleared and money for past fiscal years needs to be made immediately available. Many of the groups' contracts have recently registered but there is no money in them. I learned at the contracts hearing that this is called budget readiness and both OMB and... identified this as a huge bottleneck. Ultimately OMB, which releases the money from the budget, needs to come under scrutiny for these delays and we need to start having them at these hearings and asking why we are not getting paid.

Further, to conclude, I would like to highlight one more number. Thanks to the Make Them Pay campaign, which we are part of, it has been determined that New York City is owed at least $1.5 billion in unpaid penalties from large corporations and bad actor landlords. Much of it is tied to housing and building violations that impact tenant safety and quality of life. So thank you, CM Sanchez, for your leadership and all the members who gave their time, and to our great financial analysts and committee counsel for your time. It has been a really long day.

(06:15:23)

Thank you. I cannot understand these payment delays, but thank you for highlighting them again and again. Let us know how and when and whatever you know about how we should push further and I will task us with the same. Thank you.

(06:15:39)

Can I make one more point just really fast? HPD should do grants for people who need money for arrears because right now it is only a one-shot deal and that is a loan. If you are a middle-class person and you make a little bit too much, there are not really many options for you to get large amounts of money for arrears. Right now the one-shot deal is really the main thing for most people but that does not always help everybody, especially if you are undocumented. So maybe if there are ways for HPD to give out housing grants. Thank you.

(06:16:09)

We are going to have to print more money. Okay. Thank you so much for your testimony. We are going to move to online. We will now turn to remote testimony. Once your name is called, a member of our staff will unmute you and the sergeant-at-arms will give you the go-ahead to begin. Please wait for the sergeant to announce that you may begin before delivering your testimony. Jonathan Gaffney,

(06:16:38)

you may begin.

(06:16:55)

Tamika Mapp.

(06:16:58)

You may begin.

(06:17:00)

Oh, hi everybody. Thank you so much.

(06:17:03)

Hello.

(06:17:05)

Hi. >> Wait. Hello. Did you guys

(06:17:09)

It is everybody. Hold on. Hold on one second. Okay, guys. One second. Council member, who was the first person that you called?

(06:17:19)

Jonathan Gaffney.

(06:17:21)

Okay, Jonathan Gaffney is here. I am just going to unmute him. Tamika, you can go next because he just responded late. Sometimes the Zoom is a little delayed. Okay.

(06:17:33)

You may begin.

(06:17:36)

Thank you so much. Sorry about the technical difficulties. My name is Jonathan Gaffney. I am the supervisor of the tenant organizing program at Catholic Migration Services. CMS provides free legal services and community education to low-income New Yorkers in immigration, workers' rights and housing. It is our mission to welcome the stranger in our midst by advancing dignity, stability and justice for immigrant and working-class communities. I am here today to speak in strong support of increased funding for Stabilizing NYC and community housing preservation strategies. These programs fund a model that works: deep collaboration between legal services and tenant organizing at CMS. Our attorneys work side by side defending tenants in housing court while also building tenant associations, developing leadership and organizing collective action to preserve affordable housing.

Through the Stabilizing NYC and CHPS funding, our team has been able to carry out sustained on-the-ground organizing across Queens neighborhoods like Corona, Jackson Heights, Elmhurst, Jamaica and Flushing. We are seeing lack of hot water, persistent mold, water damage, rodent and cockroach infestations and dangerous conditions. In one of the buildings that I organize in, tenants have organized a beautiful tenant association while raising serious conditions of harassment. Through consistent organizing, tenants formed this association, developed collective demands and secured their first meeting with management that they have had in over 10 years. As a result, management has given this tenant association serious concessions. This work is labor intensive. It requires repeated door knocking, follow-up conversations, translation, meeting facilitation, coalition coordination... >> Can I just have two seconds to finish? >> Yes, you may conclude. >> Thank you.

Stabilizing NYC helps us do this amazing work. Something that happened at our tenant association meeting last week was that somebody was going hungry in their home and because of the organizing that I was able to do, that person was able to get fed through collective action. So we strongly support allocating $5.7 million to Stabilizing NYC and allocating $5.37 million to the community housing preservation initiative. These increases are necessary to sustain and expand the work that is already proving effective in stabilizing tenants and preserving affordable housing. Thank you so much for your time and thank you for allowing me to go over.

(06:20:36)

Thank you, Jonathan. Thank you for joining us and for your advocacy. Tamika Mapp,

(06:20:43)

you may begin.

(06:20:46)

All right. So hi. Thank you so much. Chair, my name is Tamika Mapp and I am a proud co-op owner in East Harlem and a district leader for the 68th Assembly District. I am here today in support of Resolution 009-2026 because our co-ops and affordable homeowners are in crisis and we cannot ignore it any longer. Let me be clear: these buildings are not being neglected by residents. They are being strained by a system that has not provided the resources to keep them stable. One of the biggest drivers of this crisis is expiring tax abatements. For years, these abatements have kept maintenance costs stable for working-class homeowners. But now, as they expire, we are seeing sharp increases in monthly maintenance, buildings unable to fund critical repairs, seniors having to decide between their health or a place to stay and families being pushed closer to displacement.

In East Harlem, these are not investors. These are families, seniors on fixed incomes and first-generation homeowners who were finally given a pathway to stability. Now that stability is being taken away. I support this resolution but it must go further. We must recognize that the co-ops belong to homeowners, not developers. We need fair property tax abatements, extended and reformed taxes, real funding for repairs and consistent support from HPD. Because without intervention, we will just keep losing buildings. We are losing one of the pathways to affordable homeownership in communities like mine. So I ask you today: stand with our residents, protect our homes and act with urgency because East Harlem families cannot wait any longer. Thank you for your time.

(06:22:22)

Thank you so much. Just highlighting that the Council has no control over DFTA and so I just encourage you to also advocate at the state level. Thank you. I would now like to call James Dill.

(06:22:36)

You may begin.

(06:22:38)

Hi, I am Jim Dill, executive director of Housing and Services, Inc. We provide permanent supportive housing, the most cost-effective and humane way to end chronic homelessness, to 725 households in Manhattan and the Bronx in both congregate and scattered settings. Like our peer organization that testified before us, we are members of the Supportive Housing Network in New York and echo their testimony about urging the city to allocate $65 million of NY 1515 funding for the preservation of SRO supportive housing. We are proud to have been one of the organizations to pioneer housing first and the first generation of supportive housing, where shared bathrooms and kitchens were the standard. With the success of this first generation, it paved the way for increased expectations for supportive housing, wherein the HPD standard is now studio apartments with full baths and kitchenettes. However, we now have SRO units that have been online for over 40 years in buildings that are over a hundred years old. SRO rents are low and, as you heard before, the state night shift funding for social services contracts has been stagnant for decades. Accordingly, operating revenues are insufficient to fund major repairs and long-term maintenance. Given the low revenues, cash debt service on government or private loans is not an option. The proposed $65 million allocation would greatly and significantly increase crucial SRO preservation opportunities.

During this period of record high homelessness, the city cannot afford to lose any supportive housing units. It is an imperative that the first generation SROs be preserved with NY 1515 funding. We will submit written testimony and on behalf of our tenants and staff I very much am grateful for this opportunity to be able to speak.

(06:24:45)

I am inspired.

(06:24:48)

Thank you so much for your testimony, James, and for paying attention enough to still be with us at 5:54. Appreciate you. Emily Goldstein,

(06:24:58)

you may begin.

(06:25:01)

Good afternoon. Thank you for the opportunity to testify and I apologize that I was not able to be there in person today. My name is Emily Goldstein and I am the director of organizing and advocacy at the Association for Neighborhood and Housing Development, or ANHD. I will use my time to highlight just a few priorities from our longer written testimony.

First, ANHD is very concerned about the lack of resources dedicated to the preservation of existing affordable housing, which we believe must be a top priority in the city's housing capital budget. The administration's preliminary budget allocates approximately $304.9 million for its primary preservation loan programs. We believe the need for preservation capital is likely closer to $1 billion. We strongly urge the mayor and the Council to increase capital funds specifically for preservation of our existing subsidized affordable and deeply affordable housing. On the operating side, we also urge the mayor to fully implement the changes to city vouchers that passed into law several years ago. These vouchers are a critical resource for homeless New Yorkers to access permanent housing, for preventing eviction and to enable deeper affordability across our affordable housing stock.

Second, we are grateful for the Council's long-standing commitment to the Community Housing Preservation Strategies initiative, or CHIPS, which enables community-based organizations to provide essential preservation and anti-displacement services in at-risk neighborhoods across the city. However, funding for this program has remained flat since 2016, despite skyrocketing demand and increasing costs. We call on the City Council to increase CHIPS funding to $5.37 million in FY27. We also urge the City Council to continue funding ANHD's displacement alert project and our capacity building, training and technical assistance for the CHIPS program.

Finally, we encourage increased staffing allocations at HPD for various key areas including development, asset management and code enforcement. I will note that our written testimony includes further information about how improved collection of fees and penalties for code violations could help offset some of these staffing costs, in addition to being good policy to protect tenants. Thank you very much for your time.

(06:27:14)

Thank you so much for joining us, Emily, and for your testimony. Memo Salazar,

(06:27:21)

you may begin.

(06:27:23)

Hi. I hope you can hear me. My name is Memo Salazar. I am the co-chair of the Western Queens Community Land Trust. We have only been around a few years, but already we have managed to make great headway here in New York City, in Queens specifically. We just secured $2.2 million from then-Assembly Member Zohran Mamdani, who is now our mayor, of course, to purchase a building in Astoria that is going to house some families upstairs and downstairs house the Historic Food Pantry, which is a mutual aid organization that is incredibly useful and loved here in the community. That will now give them a home that they do not have to worry about getting booted from or losing. They have a permanent affordable space to work. We are pursuing a couple of other building projects as well this year, so it is a very exciting time for us.

However, this is only possible because of our deep roots in the Queens community. We are a very trusted group. We are all volunteers except for one full-time staffer and one part-time project manager that we just hired. So funding is really crucial for us. We are mostly just people like myself donating their time while in between jobs and, you know, every day there is family and all the other things that we have to deal with. Many of the issues that we discussed in the first part of today's meeting could be addressed by the many CLTs that are in the city, but only with a substantial increase in funding. So we are asking the City Council to fund the CLT initiative that you have heard about today at $3 million for 23 organizations. We need the money. We need so much money and policy changes and so many things. Hand in hand with that, we are also asking — and you have already heard this from others — please address the chronic delays in registering the discretionary funding contracts. Our CLT has already gone three years without receiving the funds that were allocated to us and it is making us cash-strapped as an organization. We have lost our fiscal sponsor because they can no longer cover the overhead. We are now on our own. This is an —

Time expired.

So anyway, I will stop, but thank you. Both of those points are

(06:29:33)

incredibly important for us. >> Thank you so much, Memo. Heard, and appreciate you participating today. Todd Baker,

(06:29:44)

you may begin.

(06:29:52)

Alexis Foot,

(06:29:54)

you may begin.

(06:30:01)

Dean Rio.

(06:30:06)

You may begin.

(06:30:12)

Paul Draw.

(06:30:16)

You may begin.

(06:30:20)

Zara Nazir,

(06:30:22)

you may begin.

(06:30:28)

And a representative from the Flatbush Tenant Coalition.

(06:30:34)

You may begin.

(06:30:43)

If we have inadvertently missed anyone that has registered to testify today and has yet to be called, please use the Zoom raise hand function. If you are testifying remotely, you will be called in the order that your hand has been raised. If you are testifying in person, please come to the dais. Seeing none, I will now close today's hearing. Thank you to the members of the administration and the members of the public who have joined us today. This hearing is adjourned.