Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Bmr Recertification topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Menlo Park staff detail annual BMR tenant recertification; commissioners press on eligibility and tenant experience
Summary
Management analyst Ariana Milton presented the city’s below-market-rate tenant recertification report, reporting 185 BMR units across six complexes and explaining annual income-certification rules. Commissioners pressed staff on when tenants lose eligibility, how units ‘float’ between income categories, and a public commenter asked for the report to assess property management and tenant experience.
Management analyst Ariana Milton presented the Menlo Park Housing Commission’s annual below-market-rate (BMR) tenant recertification report at the commission’s Jan. 7 meeting, saying the program is administered through the city’s third-party provider, Housing Group LLC (also known as Housing Inc.). Milton said the report covers certifications required by the BMR guidelines (sections 11.1.7 and 11.1.8) and that San Mateo County income limits — set by state housing authorities — are the primary factor used to calculate BMR rents.
"Per the BMR guidelines in section 11.1.7, the city must annually certify a tenant's household income to continuously qualify for the program," Milton said in her presentation. She told commissioners the report summarizes the certification status and current occupancy for each participating apartment development and that the dataset in the packet lists six participating complexes totaling 185 units.
Commissioners sought clarification on how tenants and units move between income categories. A staff member identified as Tim said tenants are not immediately removed from BMR units for a single year of higher income: "A BMR tenant no longer qualifies to stay in the unit if their income becomes ineligible and does not meet their requirements for two consecutive years," and when a household permanently leaves eligibility the unit becomes market rate and the next available comparable BMR unit replaces it in the program. Tim described the BMR framework as intended to maintain the required program percentages (for example, the guideline target of roughly 15% low-income units in many projects) across a development’s unit mix.
Commissioners also asked about how area median income numbers are updated. Milton said AMI figures are typically updated annually by state authorities and that, for the current report, the county income limits had not changed from the prior year. She said unit mixes and the initial set-aside proposals are project-specific and are reviewed by the city before being included in the BMR restrictions for the required period (generally 55 years for many agreements).
During the public-comment period, a resident urged the commission to consider tenant experience and property management when evaluating the city’s investment in BMR units. "What really struck me is that you didn't say the same thing about the property management and the tenant experience," the resident said, asking whether future reports could assess whether tenants are treated respectfully and whether unit maintenance and tenant protections are effective.
Milton and staff said the recertification report is primarily an annual program-status snapshot intended to document certification and occupancy. They invited commissioners to suggest refinements to reporting or additional qualitative assessments if the commission wished to prioritize tenant experience in future work.
The meeting record shows commissioners discussed possible next steps for deeper work (including collecting tenant stories or additional survey elements) but did not take a formal action on the presentation during the Jan. 7 meeting. The commission’s staff packet and the BMR guidelines sections 11.1.7 and 11.1.8 were cited during the presentation and are the reference documents for the certification schedule and required contents of the annual report.
