County Housing Authority joins audit-palooza

 
 

Not long after SJ's Housing Dept was blistered by an internal audit over lax oversight of housing nonprofits, a grand jury rips the County Housing Authority re: mishandling property transactions. The Merc reports.

In June, a grand jury issued a scathing report that criticized how the Santa Clara County Housing Authority handled its purchase and then sale of a big office building at 3553 North First Street in San Jose.

“Flawed information, flawed decisions” was the title of the civil grand jury report on the Housing Authority’s botched efforts to handle its ownership and disposition of an office building on a prominent north San Jose corner that the housing agency had once eyed as its headquarters.

The Housing Authority’s purchase of the office building and the agency’s subsequent sale of the empty property triggered a jaw-dropping $16.2 million loss in less than two years for the county organization, the grand jury determined in its June 10 report.

Among the key findings by the grand jury — and the responses by the county Housing Authority:

— The County Housing Authority executive management presented “incomplete and financially incorrect analytical documents about the property” and omitted viable options for occupying, using, or selling the property. The Housing Authority responded that it “disagrees in whole” with this assessment.

— The housing agency’s current five-year plan doesn’t establish measurable objectives, goals, or accomplishments that would allow for the assessment of its performance. The Housing Authority responded that it “disagrees in part” with this analysis.

— The County Housing Authority’s five-year term plan does not identify specific office space needs and a funding plan to support those requirements. The housing agency stated it “agrees with this finding.”

— The grand jury recommended that the Housing Authority’s board establish a standard operating procedure that requires executive management to use internal or external experts to confirm the validity of financial analytical documents. The housing agency said it won’t implement this recommendation.

— The civil jury proposed that the county housing agency amend its five-year plan to include actionable performance targets and measurable objectives. These performance targets should be made part of the annual reviews for the housing agency’s executive director and staff, the jury stated. The Housing Authority said this recommendation will be implemented by July 2025.

— The Housing Authority should include an assessment of space needs and necessary funding requirements as part of its five-year plans, the grand jury recommended. The agency responded that it plans to institute the proposal by July 2025.

The county’s housing agency landed in hot water due to its decisions — and how it arrived at them — for transactions related to the 3553 North First office building, which totals 86,100 square feet.

In December 2020, the Housing Authority paid $37.5 million for the office building — which, ominously, was once occupied by LeEco, a China-based tech company whose Silicon Valley operations imploded without warning.

In September 2022, the Housing Authority sold the office building — which the county agency never occupied for only $24 million. That was a core loss of $13.5 million.

Insurance, maintenance, deferred maintenance and other costs tacked on another $2.7 million, which produced an overall loss of $16.2 million for the office building, the grand jury report found.

Read the whole thing here.

Follow Opportunity Now on Twitter @svopportunity

Related:

Opp Now enthusiastically welcomes smart, thoughtful, fair-minded, well-written comments from our readers. But be advised: we have zero interest in posting rants, ad hominems, poorly-argued screeds, transparently partisan yack, or the hateful name-calling often seen on other local websites. So if you've got a great idea that will add to the conversation, please send it in. If you're trolling or shilling for a candidate or initiative, forget it.

Jax OliverComment