Good evening.

Welcome to the April 23rd, 2026 Rental Housing Committee regular meeting.

This meeting will be called to order at 6 p.m.

I'll proceed with roll call.

All members are present with the exception of member Keating, who is absent.

We'll move on to item three, consent calendar.

These items will be approved by one motion unless any member of the committee wishes to remove an item for discussion.

The purpose of the consent calendar is for the committee to efficiently and quickly consider routine or administrative business items with one motion.

Public comment occur after the discussion.

We invite you to split a speaker card now.

If you'd like to speak on this item during public comment, would any member of the committee like to pull an item?

Seeing none.

I now invite public comments on the consent calendar.

In person public comments will be called to speak first.

Any member of the public wishing to provide a virtual comment on this item, please click the raise hand button on Zoom or press star not on your phone.

I do not see any member of the public wishing to comment on the consent calendar.

I'll bring it back to uh committee action.

Uh I see a motion made by Vice Chair Cox.

Yes, uh I move that we approve the consent calendar, including 3.1 minutes for the February 26, 2026 RHC meeting.

Second.

And that's seconded by member Brown.

Any other discussion on the motion?

Seeing none, we'll move on to a vote.

Motion passes unanimously.

We will now open the meeting for oral communications from the public.

This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to dish the committee on any matter that is not on the agenda.

Speakers are allowed to speak on any topic for up to three minutes during this section.

State law prohibits the committee from acting on non-agenda items.

If you would like to speak on this item in person, please submit a speaker card to city staff now.

In person comments we call to speak first.

If you are online, please click the raise hand button on Zoom or press start on your phone.

David Ting.

Yes.

Can you hear me?

Okay, all right.

Uh good evening, uh, Chairma and uh Bias Cox and members of the committee.

Uh my name is David Tang.

I've lived in uh Mountain View for 10 years at in a CSFRA protected uh home.

And uh before that I was uh uh Section 8 landlord.

Uh the just cause protections in this ordinance have mattered to my family in 21 and 23.

The division staff uh pointed us to those protections, and uh those protections held, and we're very grateful.

Um tonight I just wanted to point to a pattern regarding the division's data, and perhaps it's uh I hope it could be helpful.

Uh the September 25, 2025 annual update reports that last year, tenants contacted the division 613 times.

Of those contacts, 44 became filed petitions.

21 reached a resolution through hearing or settlement.

That means out of 613 concerns, only 21 reached resolution, about 3%.

Uh the cases that do get filed are becoming more complex.

That seems to be the trend.

In uh 2021, 2022, 13% petitions raised multiple issues.

By 24-25, it was 68%.

So there's a story uh about planes in World War II that came back from missions with bullet holes.

The first instinct was to plug the the bullet holes and armor them.

And uh there's an engineer by the name of Abraham Wald, who realized that it was actually backwards.

You want to armor the areas where there's no bullet holes because that's those are the planes that are that are missing.

Uh and so in my in my perspective, the missing data uh are are the problem here.

The 21 resolved petitions are the planes that never came back.

Um sorry, the 21 reserve resolved petitions are the planes that did come back, and the uh missing evidence in the 569 tenant contacts that never came back became petitions.

That I'm sorry, that never became petitions are the ones that uh that should be uh investigated and uh and checked out.

And so within the three percent who do reach the resolution, the division's data shows uh what I believe to be further warning signs, in my opinion.

Um in the 620 Alamo Court decision issued September 1st, 2025.

The landlord offered uh 73 per month for loss of pool parking storage.

The hearing officer found the correct reduction was 352, almost five times higher.

So that gap matters uh because in April 2024, this committee received staff research on structured rent reduction methods uh used in other jurisdictions, uh, but declined to adopt binding valuation guidelines.

Uh even winning does not always end the burden.

And uh, I see I'm almost running out of time here, but I'm raising here.

Uh the okay.

Thank you.

You are able to also send an email to us via the seeing no other public comments.

We will now move on to agenda item 5.1 fiscal year 2026-27 recommended budgets for community stabilization Fair Red Act and Mobile Home Rent Stabilization Ordinance.

Public comments will occur after the presentation item and committee questions.

We invite you to submit a speaker card now.

If you know you would like to speak on this item during public comment.

We start with that presentation.

Um good evening, Chair and members of the rental housing committee.

Um tonight I will be presenting a draft budget for both the CSFRA and the MHRSO rent stabilization programs for the upcoming fiscal year 2627.

And the purpose for tonight is for the rental housing committee to review and provide feedback on these recommended budgets.

And they are scheduled for adoption at the next meeting of the rental housing committee.

The CSFRA section 1709 as well as the MHRSO section 46.9, empower the rental housing committee to establish a budget and fee to recover the costs for the reasonable and necessary implementation of the C CRA and MHRSO, and to finance its expenses and to charge fees.

The outline for this evening is to first present the recommended budgets, including expenditures and reserves as well as revenues and fees, and this will be followed by public input and directions from the committee members.

The next step uh, as I just told you, it would be to bring the budget back in May so the rental housing committee can adopt the budget.

Fiscal year 2626 is going to be the 10th year of operations for the rent stabilization program.

Um the CSFRA states that the rental housing committee is an integral part of the city, but performs its duties independently of the city council, city manager, and city attorney unless requested.

This includes setting its own budget.

The rental housing committee previously decided to use the city's infrastructure for its operations.

Um reiterating the key program areas of the rent stabilization program.

They are listed here on the slide.

The staff continuously um evaluates effective and efficient methods for administering the program to further the goals of the CSFRA and MHRSO.

Um we're reflecting the budget reflects staff's best estimates, taking into account the results of adopted budgets previously, forward looking needs for operational costs, which are mostly ongoing annual expenses.

We will first discuss the CSFRE budget.

Um this slide represents the uh budget adopted by the rental housing committee for 2526 this year.

The comp uh compared with the estimated actuals for this year, and then this out the outline for the recommendation uh for the budget of 2627.

As you can see, for 2627, the recommended revenues are about 2.062 mil million or about 192,000 higher than the budget for this fiscal year.

The total recommended expenditures are about 2.6 million, which is about 1.1 million uh 1,108 dollars higher than this fiscal year.

And the estimated actuals for this year, um the revenues are estimated at about 1.84 million, which is about $30,000 below budget, and the total operating expenses are estimated at $2.11 million, which is about $480,000 less than budgeted.

Um this is due to as a result of salary savings and reduced hearing officer costs due to a lower number of petitions.

These savings are not expected to continue in the next fiscal year.

The end balance is trending downwards.

The recommended budget includes full staffing of the division expected in 26-27, resulting in no further salary savings, and a somewhat lower level of professional services expenditures.

Staff will also continue to identify opportunities to streamline program administration, including leverage leveraging technology where feasible.

This would result in an annual fee of $142 per unit or $11.92 per month.

Notably, the fee levels are trending upward because the ending balance and therefore the beginning balance of the next fiscal year are trending downward.

And the beginning balance helps offset costs and reduces fees.

There are options that can be evaluated by the rental housing committee and implemented to develop future budgets to help mitigate the fee level increase over time.

First, actual expenditures, as we have seen this year, might come in lower than the budget for various reasons.

One reason might be that after the fiscal year 26-27, we may no longer need temp personnel for the one-time utility petition process.

Another component of the decipit and estimated balance depends on the reserve amount, and the rental housing committee could determine to the to change the level of the reserve amount.

Next, we are going to move to the MHRSO budget.

As we all know, on March 25th, 2025, the City Council adopted amendments that changed the AGA, but also supported lowering the space rental fee by 50% compared to fiscal year 24-25.

And to facilitate the 50% reduction, a combination of this year's end balance and a subsidy of city funds are recommended.

Going forward, these numbers may fluctuate as well.

So this chart shows that the recommended revenues are 225,300, which is about $2,000 higher than this year's budget, and the recommended expenditures are about $281,000, which is about $19,000 lower than this fiscal year.

And the estimated actuals for this fiscal year are revenues estimated at $226,000, which is about $3,000 higher than the budget.

And the total operating expenditures are estimated at about $274,000, which is about $25,000 lower than budgeted.

And the ending balance is estimated at $438,000, which is about $38,000 higher than the budget.

The third party professional services is estimated to be $49,000, which is at the same level as this fiscal year.

And what also stays at the same level is the information technology budget.

Then the expenditures for general liability, compensated absences and equipment replacements, is about $8,840.

The reserves are 20% of the operating expenditures, an amount about $56,000.

Again, to date, no reserves have been used.

Again, explaining why the space rental fee is subsidized by money from the city general fund.

And that leads to a proposed annual fee of $140 per year or $11.83 per month, which is the same level as last year.

Taking into account the review and feedback we receive from the Rental Housing Committee.

And as we told you before, uh the MHRZO budget is supplemented by $50,000 this year.

Once they are adopted at the next rental housing committee, they will be forwarded to the finance department for incorporation in the citywide budget process.

That was the end of the presentation, and happy to answer any questions.

Member Bulch.

Yeah, thank you very much for the report.

You might have said this, and if you did, I'm sorry, and I missed it.

The the difference in 2526 between the adopted budget and the actuals is particularly uh uh disparate in operating expenses.

And uh could you could you characterize that uh difference?

Do you mean the for 2526 the budget versus the estimated actuals?

Yeah, um that is uh related uh mostly to a reduced level of hearing officer services.

We have quite a considerable um lowering of the file petitions this year.

And thank you.

Uh and I I thought I heard that.

And then um the 2627 budget it uh is more or less in line with the adopted budget for this past year.

And so is the staff recommending that because you you want to make sure that this wasn't an anomaly and that you want to go back to trend.

Yeah, we don't want to run out of budget for hearing officers when and we cannot control the number of petitions that are being filed or appeals.

Um and those numbers influence the hearing officer costs, but also legal costs.

Right.

And makes sense.

And so then, for example, if we're here a year from now and if we see a similar uh lowering of the expectation, let's say, then we might evaluate is this a pattern versus a blip?

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

Uh yes, thanks for the answer to the question that I submitted about um city administration in respect to operations and actuals.

Um and yeah, I raised the issue about the fact that there was uh uh increase 16 percent increase uh this year compared to the previous year.

And you uh uh correctly noted as the reason comes because this is a five-year running average, and that you know there have been large increases in the last two years.

I took your numbers and I went back and calculated them at 18 and 24 percent.

So they're they are large numbers, they're larger than the CPI.

And uh, but I mean, you know, I I you explained to me that the reason this is this way is because you know, this we we're up for 15 percent out of you know, just city administration in general, right?

And so those costs are imposed back on us without our decision.

That's the I mean the city makes the decision about what the administration budget is, and then we just pay 15% of it.

Is that right?

Um so the 15% is not related to the budget, but to actual expenditures over the last five years.

Okay.

Um but then um you know, I mean I look at it and I I think your answer is a mathematically correct answer, but it still raises the question, for instance, like why did it go up 24% last year?

I mean, that's something where we would have to go back to the city and ask them why we made the expenses.

The CSFRA budget uh made the expenses.

Oh so why did our expenses go up yes in the past years?

Uh huh.

Uh we hired more staff in the past years.

We had a more robust registration and fee payment um process was adopted a couple of years ago, so we needed staffing for that.

Um that increased the actual expenditures.

I understand now.

Okay, thanks for the clarification on that.

Yeah, I think that those oh, I won't make comments.

This is only for questions.

Okay, um, that's the end of my questions.

Thank you.

Thank you.

My turn for some questions.

Uh for the third party professional services.

We have incorporated the updated hearing officer compensation schedule, correct?

We do that.

Um we did that late last year.

Okay.

So that went into effect in January.

So every year in January, we just asked add the um COPA uh COLA.

Okay, but there's otherwise there would be no change in any other thing in the budget.

Correct.

Okay.

For the capital outlay, I was wondering, is that still uh pending staffing availability or is there other reasons for it?

Yeah, so we still have that amount available for us, but at this moment, because we have uh such staffing vacancy, there is just no time to spend on further building out the database in further features that we would like to have.

The basics are there though.

So can you elaborate on what is remaining?

Um, you know, every year we think about how we can further uh automate certain processes.

Like we I think this year, and Andrea can speak better on this than me.

Like we build an automatic emails sent to landlords when they haven't paid the fee on time or when they haven't registered.

So we try to automate it more and more and more.

And then the other point that we haven't gotten to is how you can file petitions through the database.

Okay, sounds fine.

Uh given that number is the same year of a year, do we expect that number to actually change once we get staffing on it?

Or uh yes, yes, because then we have to pay for the further software development of features that we would like to have.

Okay, sounds fine.

And my final question is regarding the MHRSO 50% fee reduction.

It was mentioned that contributions might fluctuate.

Is that because we set the we target what the fee should be and the city pays, or is because the city might choose to not pay enough to make the 50%?

Um next year's the total amount of the budget might be different.

And then if we then have to recalculate what 50% is, then we have to uh collaborate with finance how much the city will contribute uh to the fee level.

If the city does not contribute enough, does that mean the 50% lifts, or does that mean it has to be brought back to us or council?

Um if it's not the same amount as what we had this year, we collaborate with finance to see what what the exact number is that will be subsidized.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Any other questions from any other committee member?

See none, we will now move on to public comment.

Person public comments will be called to speak first.

Please submit a blue speaker card if you wish to do so.

If you are a member of the public online, please click the raise hand button on Zoom or press start on your phone.

If you don't, you you can come up if you would like to comment.

Uh the question I have is uh do you have any um data or uh potential reasons why the petitions went down in the last year?

And uh the other part of the question is on average, do you have a number of how much these petitions costs?

That's my two questions we cannot do a back and forth in public comments, so if you would like to provide your quick questions now, you can do so, and then we just refer to staff.

Yeah, okay, those are my two questions.

Okay, sounds fine.

Thanks.

See no other comments.

Would staff like to do a crack on any of those questions.

Would you like to answer any of the questions or we can do it offline?

Um we will do that later.

We don't have that data in front of us, right?

Okay, sounds fine.

All right, we'll bring it back to community deliberations and feedback.

Does anyone want to say anything?

No motion is required for this.

This is just a discussion for direction.

Yes.

Okay.

So yeah, thank you.

Um I just wanted to mention during the uh pre-consultation, I had asked a few questions that I thought were answered well by staff, and so I just wanted to uh mention some of them for the record.

I mean, one of the things is on operating expenses.

I had asked about the increase uh in staffing costs, and I was told that that's all due to cost of living increases.

I went back and recalculated that uh cost of living increases, and they're within the range of the CPI, and so that's you know, completely, you know, um perfect.

Um I asked about increase in the general operating costs and um uh why there were increasing training costs, and was told that this is a for uh succession training, which is perfectly reasonable.

And um uh we just talked back and forth a little bit about the 16% increase on city administration, and thanks for that explanation right now.

I mean, it's perfectly it it seems like a large number, but it's perfectly reasonable given what we're trying to do there.

I mean, it was very clear that when the CSF ARA was originally passed, um, we had a much larger problem with collecting the fees and also a uh big problem even registering the units.

And so I mean, you know, that's something that has to be done in order for us to have a well-working system, and so you know, recovering the cost for that is um not only perfectly justifiable, but it really is a responsibility.

So thanks for the clarity on that.

And also, you know, the idea that you know the the 10% increase this year over last year is due to what you just mentioned.

That um that you know the initial uh initially the the uh recovery fees for the CSFRA were set high because of the uncertainty of what would be happening going forward.

That allowed us to have a beginning balance that was large and could be passed on year to year uh for you know almost 10 years now, but it's run out now, and so now we need to we need to charge year for year, and the good thing is that even after 10 years, um the fee, although it's higher this year, it's still not uh it's still lower than the initial fee.

And so I mean, you know, that's um that's the right way to handle that.

So thank you for that.

And you know, as far as the those are all comments on the CSFRA, uh MHRSO.

Um, you know, it's just works swimmingly, you know, people always the landlords pay the fees.

There are very few complaints uh brought back in hearing officers, and so it's just um as my one of my original computer science professors said it's a lead pipe cinch, and so nothing more to said on that.

So thank you all for helping me understand this stuff in detail, and thanks for doing a great job, staff.

Anyone else would like to make a comment?

Member Brown.

Thank you, Chair.

Uh what he said.

Okay.

Thanks.

Seeing no other interest in discussion, I think.

We can close the item.

I thank staff for presenting it.

I think we're doing fine budget-wise, and this is it's gonna be good for at least the next year.

We will now move on to agenda item 5.2 adoption of the annual general adjustment of the CSFRA and MHRSO rent for 2026-27.

Public comment worker after the presentation.

Item and committee questions.

We invite you to submit a speaker card now.

If you know you would like to speak on this item during public comment, we will begin with staff presentation.

Thank you again.

Um, as we do every year, um, the rental housing committee um is to review and adopt a resolution to set the annual general adjustment of rent under the CSFRA and the MHRSO for the period starting in September 1, 2026.

And August 31st, 2027, CSFRA AGA of 2.5%, and the MHRSO fee of 1.5%.

Um the following sections of the C SFRA and the MHRSO um dictate that the rental housing committee will be announcing the amount of the AGA um effective September of each year.

Um the CSFRA annual general adjustment of rent is the percentage by which the rent for existing tenancies in covered rental units may be increased each year for 100% of the CPIU of the San Francisco Bay Area.

It can only be one increase per 12 months, and it's kept with a floor of 2% and a ceiling of 5%.

The MHRSO was changed by council in 2025, and the percentage by which the rent of existing tenancy in covered units may be increased each year by 60 percent of the CPIU San Francisco area, one increase per 12 months with uh no floor and a ceiling of 3%.

Um in the original CSFRA, it refers to the San Francisco Oakland Hayward CPIU index.

Um but since that no longer exists, the rental housing committee changed that to the San Francisco area.

Um the CSFRA also mentions that the annual CPI of March needs to be used, but again, that does not exist.

So the rental housing committee had a choice between February or April and chose February.

Um MHRSO, we're using the San Francisco area and the annual CPI ending in February of each year.

Um the calculation is as follows.

And again, this is effective from September of 26 till August 31st, 27.

Landlords need to uh submit a written 30-day notice of the rent increase.

The property must be in substantial compliance with the CSFRA or the MHRSO, and a required information sheet as provided by the city must be given with the rent increase notice.

So for today, uh we request the rental housing committee to adopt a resolution adopting the annual general adjustment of rent for September 1st, 26 till August 31st, 27, of 202.5% for the CSFRA and 1.5% for the MHR.

So this ends the presentation.

Thank you.

We move on to questions from committee members.

Any committee member.

Just to clarify the typo on the slides.

Uh that's correct.

Okay, just correcting the slides.

It says 2425.

But the numbers are correct.

Anyone else would like to give a question?

No questions, we'll move on to public comment.

In-person public comments would be called to speak first.

Online commons would be called second.

Any member of the public wishing to provide virtual comment would please look at the raised hand button on Zoom for starting on your phone.

If you're in person, please submit a blue speaker card.

This is on the AGA.

Go ahead.

Is there somewhere in the uh uh the regulation or the website where it defines uh what substantial compliance is I can answer that quickly?

It's the regulations.

Okay, thank you.

And the other thing is um it says that the landlord may not be able to raise the rents unless they are in substantial compliance.

However, the burden is still on the uh tenant to file that petition.

Is it is that correct?

There's nothing automatic about that.

Okay.

Thank you.

Go ahead.

Yeah, I was uh just playing observing, but I do have uh one comment.

Because uh we were talking about the uh the increase of uh rent for current tenants.

My uh concern is um how are we going to also make this uh cost effective for new tenants, folks coming in and um coming to this uh new housing environment?

So that's my biggest concern as far as like you know making uh the city more expensive for folks who aren't living here and who do want to live here and how this is gonna address that.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, that closes public comment.

We'll bring it back to the committee for discussion.

Are this is there any discussion from committee members or else a motion is in order.

Yes, I'd like to make a motion to uh adopt the annual general adjustment of the CSF for E and M H R S O Ranford 2026 and 2027.

Should ever read the whole recommendation.

Okay.

Second.

Okay, so that is a motion to accept the staff recommendation made by Vice Rog, seconded by my member Brown.

Is there any discussion on the motion?

Uh seeing none, we'll go out to the vote.

Motion passes unanimously.

We move on to item 5.3, annual election of a rental housing committee chair and vice chair.

Public comment will occur after the presentation item and committee questions.

Staff.

Thank you.

Um year goes by really quick.

Um, so today we'll have to nominate and elect one member of the rental housing committee to serve as a chairperson and another member as a vice chairperson for the annual term from May 26th until the end of April 2027.

Um for background information.

Here are the sections in the CSFRA that stipulate that annually a new chair and vice chair will be elected.

And it also describes the roles and responsibilities of the chair and the vice chair in chapter three of the rec uh of the CSFRE regulations.

Yeah.

Please go ahead and uh nominate and elect a chair and a vice chair.

Thank you.

Because we have to do this still in process order, we will move on first with questions from committee members.

Are there any members of the committee who would like to give a question on this topic?

Seeing none, we move on to public comment.

Are there any members of the public who wish to give comment on this item for election of a vice chair and chair?

Seeing none, we will bring it back to the committee for deliberations and feedback.

I believe staff would like this to be in one big motion rather than two.

So yeah, you can.

Okay, sounds fine.

Okay, I guess for purposes of structure, we'll start with chair.

Are there any members of the committee who would like to nominate or self-nominate themselves to be chair for starting May?

Member Brown.

I'd like to nominate Vice Chair Robert Cox to serve as chair.

Whether he likes to or not.

We're doing chairman rules here, so we're not doing that latter portion, but would vice chair coxcription.

Um I would gladly accept uh committee member Brown's uh nomination.

All right.

Are there any other members of the committee who would like to nominate or self-nominate for the position of chair?

Seeing none, we will move on to nominations or self-nominations for vice chair, uh member Brown.

I would like to nominate first.

You have to be I I do have to unmute, yes.

Uh I'd like to nominate member Statsop to be vice chair.

Also, whether she'd like to or not.

Does the does the member accept?

Yes, I accept.

All right.

Are there any other nominations or sub-nominations for the position of vice chair?

Seeing none, I guess we will need to formally make a motion.

Okay.

Uh member Brown, would you like to make the motion?

I move to elect vice chair Robert Cox to be chair and member stats as hope to serve as vice chair for the year 26-27.

The RC.

Seconded.

That is a motion made by member Brown, seconded by Member Balch.

Are there any discussion other discussion on this motion?

Go ahead.

Don't speak.

Uh I can't believe it's been 10 years.

It's an honor.

All right then.

In that case, uh Vice Chair Cox, would you like to say something?

Same here.

In that case, we'll I know, right?

You're not recognized.

All right.

Time for vote.

Motion passes unanimously.

All right, then that will go into effect in the next meeting.

Until then, I'm still chair, so item six.

We'll move on to item 6.1 in particular, which is upcoming workshops and help and you guys ready.

Are you ready for that presentation?

Okay, go ahead.

Um I'm taking over Andrea's um job here for a minute.

Just wanting to give an overview of the office hours and workshops.

As you can see in May, we have a nice lineup uh again for uh workshops.

Um are just virtual, others are in person.

Um, and we keep um informing um all interested parties through postcards and or newsletters and email, of course.

As I um as we've done in the whole past year, every Thursday afternoon from one to three, we have a landlord house help clinic.

Um you can come to us with any question you have regarding the CSFRA or the MHRSO.

And every other Thursday from 6 to 8 p.m.

we have a housing help center for tenants.

Again, if you have any questions, any concerns, uh please come to us, and we also um have support services from other non uh nonprofit agencies on site as well as legal resources.

And we also wanted to give you a little uh taste um of where we perform our outreach events.

We were at Earth Day Festival.

Bianca was there.

Um and as usual, there is always a lot of interest, also because we always have fun kids activities on the table.

So that draws in quite a crowd.

And that is that agenda item.

Thank you.

Are there any questions or comments from community members on any of the items presented?

Seeing none, we'll move on to 6.2 expected future agenda items for RC meetings.

The next meeting will involve approval of the budgets and annual fees that we discussed today.

Are there any additional comments or announcements from committee members or from the staff?

Okay.

Um I also wanted to mention for next month there's also the uh set of the annual calendar and the set of the annual work plan.

All right.

And then I also want um are I am owing you a little summary of where we are with the one-time utility adjustment petitions.

Um total submitted, I'm gonna do in percentages unless you want to hear numbers.

Um total submitted petitions are 85% of all C Sephora properties.

Um the ones there are 90 properties or 15 percent that have not submitted anything.

We really think those are the small, those are the smaller properties.

We know that.

Um they just don't let us know that they don't even use rubs, is our suspicion.

Um, but we are still putting efforts out there to reach them, um, although we've done a lot in the last couple of months.

Um of the submitted petitions are in a queue.

Uh another five percent are in a process, further down in the process.

Another um five percent have been completely uh completed, and hopefully the adjustment has been um imply uh applied to the tenants, and we found that six sixty-five percent of all uh properties didn't not use the rubs.

So we do really see that the bigger uh properties are using the rubs, but the smaller properties um have not um incorporated rubs at all.

Yeah, that's an overview.

I'm sorry, what's that?

65 percent do or don't.

I just didn't get do not have rubs, yeah.

Uh Vaisher Cox, did you have something to say on this?

Or we're not expecting any appeals next time.

We have no appeals uh in process.

Oh, really?

Okay, yeah, good.

Number Balch, yes, had a quick question.

So for the large properties, what's the percentage of the properties now who have who have completed the one-time adjustment?

Roughly, I did not split it out between large, medium, or small companies uh in this overview.

Okay, I I I was asking because I know previously uh I think uh you observed that a small number of large properties account for a very large percentage of the units, and so I'm just curious like how many have been done.

I can I can figure that out for next month, and then I can also I mean I do remember 100% of the large companies did submit their petitions.

Right.

So um they are um I think on track.

So that's trending well.

Okay, thank you.

Yeah, and just to confirm the numbers, you said that 10% were waiting to be processed, five percent are being processed, another five percent are completed, and sixty-five percent are exempted out of the process.

Is that correct?

That but that doesn't add up to uh either and 15% is have not submitted their petitions.

Okay, but yeah, that's all doesn't add up to 100, right?

105 10.55 is 20, and then 65 is 85.

Okay, never mind.

85 percent total submitted petitions and 15 percent.

Yeah.

Matt and the math.

Yep.

Nice to do it on fly.

All right, are there any other anything else from the committee?

Otherwise, this meeting is adjourned at 6:49 p.m.

The next rental housing committee meeting is scheduled to be heard like on Thursday, May 28th at 6 p.m.

Oh, yeah.

Meeting adjourned.