Several Charlottesville residents and attorneys urged the CRHA board on Nov. 24 to change how the authority handles rent arrears and transfers, telling the board that small dollar evictions and inconsistent staff communications are destabilizing families.

"When leadership gives the word in a public meeting, that word should mean something," said resident Terry Tyree, who told the board he was promised by CRHA leadership on Nov. 6 that voucher‑compatible units would be available but was later told no units existed. Tyree said he is awaiting a promised transfer list and asked the board to request a written explanation from CRHA about the change in information. He described delays in reasonable‑accommodation processing tied to an upcoming surgery and said the conflicting accounts were causing "fear" and "instability" for his family.

Victoria Borak, an attorney with the Legal Aid Justice Center, told the board her office documented a rise in eviction filings that involve CRHA residents. "There were about 30 families on the docket for last Tuesday," Borak said, adding that her review of court records showed "over a 100 filings in the last year." She urged the authority to increase resident education about rent calculations and reexaminations, expand use of repayment plans, and consider eliminating minimum rent requirements for tenants with no income.

Delphine, representing CRHA staff and counsel, responded that CRHA staff work actively on eviction mitigation and pursue court action only after repeated unsuccessful attempts to secure payment or a repayment agreement. She told the board staff will provide a fuller update on eviction‑diversion efforts.

Housing Director John Sales outlined CRHA’s eviction‑diversion approach: on‑site resident service coordinators who engage households at risk, flexible repayment plans set according to ability to pay (no fixed minimum), and referrals to community programs for emergency assistance. Sales said the authority has been generous and proactive but faces capacity limits and funding constraints — and that assistance from outside sources can count as income for HUD purposes, complicating repeated uses of ad hoc funds.

Key details from staff and advocates:
• Legal Aid cited about 30 families on a recent docket and said there were "over 100 filings in the last year" involving CRHA residents. (Legal Aid offered to provide court records to the board.)
• Sales reported tenant accounts receivable running materially above HUD targets: roughly $76,000 owed for the month (0>30 days), about $116,000 unpaid in public housing, and roughly $211,000 across CRHA properties; he said CRHA’s tenant receivable percentage is near 10% versus HUD’s 1.5% target.
• Sales described an eviction‑diversion program launched this year that assigns resident service coordinators to on‑site caseloads and emphasizes repayment agreements, referrals, and flexible terms — but staff noted limits in staffing and program lifetime caps at partner sources.

Residents and advocates asked the board for improved transparency and better notification practices (for example, clearer notices about hardship exemptions and recertification options). Legal Aid recommended that CRHA publish instructions about hardship exemptions and reexamination steps to ensure tenants know when to request recalculation of rent.

The board did not vote on policy changes at the meeting; Delphine offered to provide a fuller staff update and staff said they will follow up on the resident’s request for a written explanation regarding the voucher transfer statements.