[PAGE 1]
SCHENECTADY CITY COUNCIL
HOUSING STABILITY TASK FORCE AGENDA
for
Friday, April 10, 2026
6:00 p.m.
Room 110
1. Review enacting legislation – Resolution 2025-138
• New timeline began March 9, 2026, 87days remaining to complete tasks and
submit report. Target date July 6, 2026, City Council Committee meeting
• Tasks completed to date, review data collected
2. Discussion - collaborating with One Schenectady
3. Discussion - areas of housing challenges to focus on
• Hotels being used for temporary housing
• Identify local hotels used by DSS for housing
• Amount paid by DSS for hotels per room/tenant
• Do hotels meet code standards?
• Who is responsible for regulating?
4. City of Schenectady Fair Housing Event - April 21, 2026
• Task for members may consider attending workshops
5. Next meeting
Handouts for this meeting:
Resolution 2025-138
Article on Section 8 change in Utica (for review and future discussion)
New York State Comptroller report on responsibility for hotel standards
Fair Housing Event flyer
1

[PAGE 2]
CITY OF SCHENECTADY (518) 382-5195
NEW YORK
OFFICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
Room 107, City Hall, Jay Street
SCHENECTADY, NEW YORK 12305
MEDIA ADVISORY CONTACT: City Council
For Immediate Release (518) 382-5195
Friday, April 3, 2026
MEDIA ADVISORY
Schenectady Housing Stability Task Force
WHEN: Friday, April 10, 2026 at 6:00 p.m.
WHERE: City Hall, 105 Jay Street, Room 110, Schenectady, New York 12305
DETAILS: The Schenectady Housing Stability Task Force will hold a meeting to resume discussions regarding
housing stability in the City of Schenectady.
The Council and Committee meetings are broadcast LIVE to:
Spectrum CHANNEL 1303, 1302, 1303
Verizon FiOS CHANNEL 36, 37, and 38
You can also view the meeting LIVE at: http://www.openstagemedia.org/
(On the home page, select Government from the play window.) or
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8MFSmjoh6WMTUga_rhpzag
WHO: Schenectady Housing Stability Task Force
For more information please contact:
Samanta R. Mykoo, City Clerk
(518) 382-5195
Ekram J. Phanisnaraine, Deputy City Clerk
(518) 382-5089
-30-
2

[PAGE 3]
SCHE - CCADY, NEW YORK
RESOLUTION NO. 2025- 138
Councilmernber Mr .Mancini offered the following:
A Resolution Establishing a City Housing Stability Task Force
WHEREAS, the Schenectady City Council would like to evaluate gaps and possible
solutions intenantprotections, housingaffordability, displacement, andneighborhood stability in
a comprehensive approach;
WHEREAS, to assist in such evaluation, the City Council would like input
from stakeholders, including landlords that own property in the City, tenants that live in the City,
Schenectady based housing advocates that serve the City' s residents and landlords, Schenectady
based nonprofits that serve the City's residents and landlords, and developers that serve the
City (hereinafter " Stakeholders");
WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to establish aHousing Stability Task Force, to
conduct an inclusive, evidence -based assessment ofcurrent housing conditions, rental market
trends, eviction data, community needs, and potential impact of, and alternatives to, opting in to
Good Cause Eviction Law inthe City of Schenectady;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, aHousing Stability Task Force is
established, which shall be comprised ofnine volunteer Stakeholders, including one member of
the City Council ( who shall be the Chair ofthe Task Force);
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Housing Stability Task Force shall be charged
with:
Conducting areviewoflocalhousingtrends, evictionfilings, rentburdens, andvacancy
rates.
Hosting public forums and engaging stakeholder voices across the housing spectrum.
In light ofsuch review and public input, reporting (within 120 days ofits first meeting)
the potential impact ofGood Cause Eviction in Schenectady, and recommending short -
and long-term strategies to stabilize housing without increasing regulatory burdens
unnecessarily, and
BE IT YET FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Task Force shall comprise nine (9)
members to be appointed by the City Council; RECEIVED
24 2025
ScYcrk
3

[PAGE 4]
BE IT YET FURTHER RESOLVED, that the first meeting, and those thereafter, ofthe
Housing Stability Task Force shall be called by atleast one City Council member on notice to
the public via the City Clerk in the same manner that City Council meetings are published.
M13m-
mch, Esq.
Corporation Counsel
ADOPTED te" bythefollowingvote (amajority ofaN
members voting in the affirmative negative)
Damonni Farley V
Joseph Mancini i
John Mootooveren
Carmel Patrick
Marion Porterfield
Carl Williams
TOTAL J, 4
i" t IE OLLMON t OO64 4W.
ADOPTED unanimously _ Auji 28 210117.5
Approved byMayor0q. 20,25.
Vetoed by Mayor
4

[PAGE 5]
https://www.newsbreak.com/
New York Section 8 Housing Voucher Law
Overturned by Court
By Rachel Davis,
2026-03-09
A new court ruling in New York could reshape how affordable housing works across the
state.
Last week, the New York State Supreme Court Appellate Division ruled that a state law
requiring landlords to accept Section 8 housing vouchers is unconstitutional. The
decision could have major implications for renters, landlords, and the state’s already
tight housing market.
What the Court Decided
The ruling struck down part of New York’s Human Rights Law that banned “source of
income discrimination,” which made it illegal for landlords to refuse tenants simply
because they planned to pay rent using a housing voucher like Section 8.
Under that law, landlords effectively had to participate in the federal Housing Choice
Voucher program if a qualified tenant applied.
But the appellate court determined the requirement violated the Fourth Amendment to
the United States Constitution , which protects against unreasonable searches.
To participate in Section 8, landlords must allow inspections of their rental properties
and give housing authorities access to certain records. The court said forcing landlords
to accept vouchers also forces them to consent to those searches, which the court
ruled unconstitutional.
How the Ruling Will Affect Central New York
Affordable housing is already a major challenge across the Mohawk Valley and
surrounding regions.
Many renters rely on federal assistance through the U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program, which helps low-
income families cover rent by paying part of the cost directly to landlords.
If landlords are no longer required to accept vouchers, housing advocates worry fewer
apartments could be available to voucher holders. That could make it even harder for
families in cities like Utica , Rome , and other Central New York communities to find
housing.
Advocates say the decision could weaken a key piece of the state’s housing safety net.
5

[PAGE 6]
What Happens Next
The decision applies statewide for now, but the legal fight is likely far from over. The
case could still be appealed to the New York Court of Appeals , the highest court in New
York.
If that happens, the court’s next ruling could ultimately determine whether landlords in
New York must accept housing vouchers or if participation remains voluntary.
In the meantime, housing advocates say the ruling could create uncertainty for both
renters and landlords as the state works through its ongoing affordability crisis.
6

[PAGE 7]
New York State Office of the State Comptroller
Thomas P. DiNapoli
Division of State Government Accountability
Oversight of Hotels and Motels
Used for Homeless and Mixed-
Use Temporary Residency
Office of Temporary and
Disability Assistance
Department of Health
Report 2016-S-49 June 2017
7

[PAGE 8]
2016-S-49
Executive Summary
Purpose
To determine if the Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance (OTDA) and the Department
of Health (DOH) are adequately ensuring that hotels and motels used for homeless and mixed-
use temporary residency are properly permitted and adhering to public health standards as
established by State regulations. Our audit scope covers the period from January 1, 2015 through
December 16, 2016.
Background
According to a 2016 Department of Housing and Urban Development report, of the more than
86,000 homeless people in New York State, almost 13,000 (15 percent) are located in areas
outside of New York City (NYC). Counties throughout the State utilize hotels and motels to house
a substantial portion of their homeless populations. In fact, for many rural counties, hotels and
motels are the only option as there are no formal shelters. Of the 57 counties outside of NYC,
24 (42 percent) do not have a dedicated shelter facility. OTDA has assigned responsibility for the
inspection of hotels and motels housing the homeless to local Social Services Districts (SSDs)
and to the NYC Department of Homeless Services, but remains responsible for monitoring their
activities. Similarly, DOH oversees its own district offices and county health offices across the
State, excluding NYC, which are responsible for permitting and inspecting temporary residences
(hotels and motels).
Key Findings
• Of the 80 hotels and motels we visited, we found 24 (30 percent) to be in generally unsatisfactory
condition. Specifically, we observed multiple significant problems, including mold, water
damage, structural damage, exposed wiring, missing smoke detectors, missing linens, and
excessive garbage in rooms. In certain instances, the problems noted might have rendered the
facility in question uninhabitable. Twelve of the 24 hotels and motels were part of the same
group of facilities where we also found similar significant problems during our prior review of
homeless shelters conducted in early 2016.
• Since our 2016 report, OTDA has established a standard checklist that SSDs can use to guide
required six-month inspections. However, practices are still not uniform across SSDs, and
confusion still exists regarding the inspection process. Additionally, OTDA has not yet provided
SSDs with sufficient guidance about corrective action plans to address unsatisfactory conditions.
• Material aspects of OTDA’s inspection program are similar to activities performed by DOH.
Improved coordination and cooperation between these agencies represents an opportunity for
greater efficiency and effective use of government resources.
Key Recommendations
To OTDA:
• Provide additional guidance to local officials and establish uniform procedures that SSDs can
use to ensure full understanding of the goals of the overall inspection checklist as well as the
inspection function.
• Establish a process for analyzing the six-month inspection results submitted by the SSDs to
Division of State Government Accountability 1
8

[PAGE 9]
2016-S-49
better monitor habitability standards of hotels and motels used for homeless housing.
To OTDA and DOH:
• Seek out opportunities to better communicate and collaborate at both the State and local levels
where similar inspection efforts are occurring to strengthen the current inspection system and
create a more efficient use of resources to inspect temporary residences to house the homeless.
Agency Comments
In responding to the draft report, both OTDA and DOH officials generally concurred with our
recommendations and indicated actions that will be taken to address them. However, rather than
addressing the facility deficiencies we identified through our site visits, OTDA officials detailed
organizational, legal, and administrative functions that only indirectly affect long-standing
problems, such exposed electrical wiring and mold. In addition, several of OTDA’s comments are
misleading and/or incorrect. Our rejoinders to certain OTDA comments are embedded within the
text of OTDA’s response.
Other Related Audits/Reports of Interest
Homeless Shelters and Homelessness in New York State (2016-D-3)
Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance: Oversight of Homeless Shelters (2015-S-23)
Division of State Government Accountability 2
9

[PAGE 10]
2016-S-49
State of New York
Office of the State Comptroller
Division of State Government Accountability
June 27, 2017
Mr. Samuel D. Roberts Howard A. Zucker, M.D., J.D.
Commissioner Commissioner
Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance Department of Health
40 North Pearl Street Empire State Plaza, Corning Tower
Albany, NY 12243 Albany, NY 12237
Dear Commissioner Roberts and Dr. Zucker:
The Office of the State Comptroller is committed to helping State agencies, public authorities, and
local government agencies manage government resources efficiently and effectively. By doing so,
it provides accountability for tax dollars spent to support government operations. The Comptroller
oversees the fiscal affairs of State agencies, public authorities, and local government agencies, as
well as their compliance with relevant statutes and their observance of good business practices.
This fiscal oversight is accomplished, in part, through our audits, which identify opportunities for
improving operations. Audits can also identify strategies for reducing costs and strengthening
controls that are intended to safeguard assets.
Following is a report of our audit of the Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance and the
Department of Health entitled Oversight of Hotels and Motels Used for Homeless and Mixed-Use
Temporary Residency. The audit was performed pursuant to the State Comptroller’s authority
as set forth in Article V, Section 1 of the State Constitution and Article II, Section 8 of the State
Finance Law.
This audit’s results and recommendations are resources for you to use in effectively managing
your operations and in meeting the expectations of taxpayers. If you have any questions about
this report, please feel free to contact us.
Respectfully submitted,
Office of the State Comptroller
Division of State Government Accountability
Division of State Government Accountability 3
10

[PAGE 11]
2016-S-49
Table of Contents
Background 5
Audit Findings and Recommendations 7
Hotel/Motel Habitability Conditions 7
Monitoring and Guidance 13
Inspection Similarities 13
Recommendations 14
Audit Scope, Objective, and Methodology 15
Authority 16
Reporting Requirements 16
Contributors to This Report 17
Agency Comments - Office of Temporary and Disability Services,
With State Comptroller’s Comments 18
Agency Comments - Department of Health 25
State Government Accountability Contact Information:
Audit Director: John Buyce
Phone: (518) 474-3271
Email: StateGovernmentAccountability@osc.state.ny.us
Address:
Office of the State Comptroller
Division of State Government Accountability
110 State Street, 11th Floor
Albany, NY 12236
This report is also available on our website at: www.osc.state.ny.us
Division of State Government Accountability 4
11

[PAGE 12]
2016-S-49
Background
According to a 2016 Department of Housing and Urban Development point-in-time count, of the
86,352 homeless people in New York State, 12,829 live in areas outside of New York City (NYC).
Counties throughout the State utilize hotels and motels to house a substantial portion of their
homeless populations. In fact, for many rural counties, hotels and motels are the only option as
there are no formal shelters. Of the 57 counties outside of the NYC area, 24 (42 percent) do not
have a designated shelter facility.
The Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance (OTDA) administers the State’s most important
programs for its low-income residents, including emergency shelter through its Division of Shelter
Oversight and Compliance. OTDA has, by regulation, authorized the local Social Services Districts
(SSDs) and the NYC Department of Homeless Services (for the five boroughs of NYC) to utilize
hotels and motels to provide shelter to homeless people under certain circumstances. Although
OTDA has assigned responsibility for the inspection of such housing to the SSDs and the NYC
Department of Homeless Services, it remains responsible for monitoring the local governments’
activities.
The Department of Health (DOH) oversees its own district offices and county health offices
across the State, excluding NYC. The district and county offices are responsible for permitting and
inspecting temporary residences (facilities that house individuals for less than 180 consecutive
days), including hotels and motels, as they are considered temporary residences under the law.
Further, for hotels and motels located in a city with a population of 125,000 or more (i.e., Buffalo,
Rochester, Syracuse, and Yonkers), the inspection functions are performed by city officials; DOH
is not responsible for oversight of these hotels and motels.
State regulations require SSDs to inspect hotels or motels housing the homeless every six months.
Further, new regulations established following the State Comptroller’s risk assessment of homeless
shelters in 2016 require SSDs to submit their six-month inspection reports of hotels and motels
to OTDA. SSDs’ inspections focus on habitability standards such as building security, cleanliness
of rooms and bathrooms, adequate number of beds per room, access to clean linens and towels,
and compliance with local laws and codes. Alternatively, DOH’s district offices and county health
offices are responsible for inspecting temporary residences once within a permit cycle, which
may extend for up to three years. DOH’s inspections of temporary residences, while covering
some of the same aspects as the SSD inspections, primarily focus on public health hazards related
to facility structure, building code, potable water supply, electrical hazards, and fire safety.
Subsequent to the State Comptroller’s audit of the Oversight of Homeless Shelters (Report
2015-S-23) and other attention to this issue, the Executive announced a new Homeless Housing
Initiative that would give the State new oversight of the homeless shelter system. The homeless
plan would be aided by statewide independent homeless shelter risk assessment efforts by the
State Comptroller as well as the Comptrollers of New York City and the City of Buffalo. In addition,
the Governor’s Office and OTDA undertook an extensive inspection program and data collection
program at that time.
Division of State Government Accountability 5
12

[PAGE 13]
2016-S-49
During February and March 2016, the State Comptroller launched a large-scale assessment of
the State’s homeless shelter system, encompassing 200 emergency shelters and 187 hotels and
motels located across 48 different counties, exclusive of NYC and the City of Buffalo (Homeless
Shelters and Homelessness in New York State, Report 2016-D-3). Auditors found 26 hotels and
motels to be in very poor condition, confirming the State Comptroller’s observations from the
prior audit. While many facilities were able to provide “adequate” living conditions (i.e., basic
level of habitability), risks to health, personal safety, and fire safety were pervasive. Despite our
communities’ best efforts, there continue to be instances of deficient – and sometimes squalid
– properties that pose persistent dangers to the health and safety of this vulnerable population.
Further, the shelters we visited often indicated that they face an uphill battle in terms of facility
maintenance and upkeep – in some cases because of funding, but in others simply by virtue of
the transient and temporary nature of the population they serve. As a result, conditions can vary
considerably and change rapidly. Conditions that are deemed to be “acceptable” one day can
easily change to “unacceptable” the next.
This assessment brought to light counties’ significant reliance on the use of hotels and motels to
house homeless individuals, particularly where more formal shelters do not exist or are operating
at or above capacity. In general, the rate of poor conditions and health and safety hazards that we
observed was about twice as high in facilities that were not associated with a recognized hotel/
motel chain. Further, these facilities often house not only homeless individuals or families, but also
other populations participating in a variety of government-funded programs. As a result, in some
areas, homeless people may be housed with individuals receiving substance abuse treatment or
recently released prisoners.
Given the overall division of responsibilities among governmental entities in the State, there is
no one State or local agency that is solely responsible for oversight of this type of housing. From
a health and safety standpoint, most of the burden is borne by local officials such as building
inspectors, zoning officers, and fire officials. Other State and local agencies that may be involved in
placements are often focused mainly on the services provided to their own program constituents.
Because these facilities form an important link in the housing continuum for individuals in many
disparate programs, there is an apparent need for greater coordination and cooperation in what
is now a fragmented system of oversight. This risk was considered in the performance of this
audit.
Division of State Government Accountability 6
13

[PAGE 14]
2016-S-49
Audit Findings and Recommendations
Since our initial audit report and risk assessment (issued in 2016), habitability conditions at
mixed-use hotels and motels have shown some improvement. The deficiencies we observed
through this audit are not as severe or numerous as they were previously; however, unacceptable
conditions still exist and, importantly, can still develop very quickly. While OTDA has taken some
positive steps, we concluded that continued improvement and stability of conditions can be
realized through better guidance and monitoring of SSDs, with particular regard to inspecting
habitability and correcting deficient conditions. Continued opportunities also exist for OTDA and
DOH to achieve efficiencies by working collaboratively where their interests intersect, at both the
State and local levels, regarding hotel and motel habitability.
Hotel/Motel Habitability Conditions
We judgmentally selected a statewide sample of 100 hotels and motels to inspect for habitability
using an inspection checklist similar to that used by OTDA. Of these 100 hotels and motels, we
could not visit 20 because either they were closed or no longer accepting homeless clients, or
management was unavailable for our visit. For the 80 we were able to visit, we found 24 (30
percent) to be in unsatisfactory condition. Specifically, we observed multiple significant problems,
including mold, water damage, structural damage, exposed wiring, missing smoke detectors,
missing linens, and excessive garbage in rooms.
We were unable to compare our observations with the results of SSDs’ inspections because
OTDA has not developed a system to capture and analyze data from the inspection reports that
it receives. Regardless, the SSDs’ current process for inspections does not include a plan of
corrective action where conditions are found to be unsatisfactory.
The following photographs depict some of the unsafe/unsanitary conditions we observed:
Division of State Government Accountability 7
14

[PAGE 15]
2016-S-49
Flexible gas line used in an unprotected area
(Relax Inn Motel, Watertown, Jefferson County DSS)
Mold on exhaust fan
(Liberty Motel, Liberty, Sullivan County DSS)
Division of State Government Accountability 8
15

[PAGE 16]
2016-S-49
Water damage to ceiling in room with improper repair
(Plantation Motel, Island Park, Nassau County DSS)
Water-damaged ceiling
(Schuyler Inn, Menands, Albany County DSS)
Division of State Government Accountability 9
16

[PAGE 17]
2016-S-49
Corrosive build-up on boiler pipes
(Budget Inn, Malta, Saratoga County DSS)
Leaking pressure release valve
(Community Gateway Motel, Saratoga, Saratoga County DSS)
Division of State Government Accountability 10
17

[PAGE 18]
2016-S-49
Rust in shower and mold on mat
(Budget Inn, Broadalbin, Fulton County DSS)
Mold in shower stall
(Gateway Motel, Saratoga, Saratoga County DSS)
Division of State Government Accountability 11
18

[PAGE 19]
2016-S-49
Our site inspections also included re-visiting 19 of the 26 hotels and motels that we had rated
as very poor in the 2016 homeless risk assessment. Of these 19 hotels and motels, we found 12
still had significant problems. (These 12 are included in the aforementioned 24 unsatisfactory
hotels and motels with problematic conditions.) The majority of the problems we found at these
12 hotels and motels related to excess mold, water damage, and fire safety concerns, including
missing smoke detectors. In certain instances, the problems noted might have rendered the
facility in question uninhabitable. The following map illustrates the statewide distribution of the
19 hotels and motels re-visited.
Division of State Government Accountability 12
19

[PAGE 20]
2016-S-49
We reviewed DOH inspection data for these 12 hotels and motels, and found that, in general,
DOH’s findings matched our own. For critical violations, the data shows local health offices have
taken some steps to eradicate the problems by performing re-inspections at many locations where
public health hazards exist. When non-critical violations are found, follow-up inspections are not
always performed; rather, facility operators are directed to correct the conditions and DOH then
re-evaluates all past violations as part of the next routine inspection.
Monitoring and Guidance
Although OTDA has taken steps to improve its oversight, it still needs to provide better guidance and
support to the SSDs in implementing its administrative directive to perform six-month inspections
of hotels and motels used to house the homeless. In cooperation with six County Comptrollers,
we interviewed officials at 22 SSDs across the State, and found that 13 SSDs only recently became
aware of the legal requirement to perform six-month inspections – a requirement that had been
in place since 1983.
Many SSD officials expressed the need for additional guidance and expertise to adequately
perform the required inspections. Although OTDA has established a standard checklist to be used
by the SSDs for six-month inspections, practices are not uniform across districts, and confusion
exists regarding the inspection process. Additionally, OTDA has not provided SSDs with guidance
regarding corrective action plans should they find unsatisfactory conditions. Examples of confusion
and lack of uniformity include:
• Uncertainty about withholding payment if unsatisfactory conditions are found;
• Lack of understanding regarding requirements to establish maintenance contracts and
public transportation;
• Confusion about the requirement to provide transportation for children to and from
school;
• Reluctance to inspect rooms currently occupied by clients; and
• Uncertainty about having the expertise to perform inspections.
OTDA officials have stated that they addressed the question of withholding payment as a corrective
action. However, we note that OTDA’s guidance on this issue was shared only with the one SSD
that raised the issue, and was not addressed on a statewide basis with all SSDs.
Similarly, as of June 2016, new regulations require SSDs to submit their six-month inspections to
OTDA. However, OTDA officials had not yet determined or finalized plans for using the inspections
to better monitor conditions at hotels and motels used for homeless housing.
Inspection Similarities
After reviewing and analyzing both OTDA’s hotel/motel inspection checklist and DOH’s inspection
form for temporary residences, as well as the results of their site inspections, we determined
that there are several areas of similarities in inspection activity between the two programs.
Division of State Government Accountability 13
20

[PAGE 21]
2016-S-49
Although differences do exist (e.g., DOH does not inspect occupied rooms unless responding to a
complaint), and in certain instances one agency’s requirements may be more stringent or specific
than the other’s, many of OTDA’s checklist items are also addressed by DOH’s inspection form to
some degree. Generally, both documents focus on safe, sanitary, structurally sound facilities that
are in compliance with public standards. As a result, of 11 topics covered by the OTDA checklist,
several are also covered by DOH’s inspection form for temporary residences. In addition, we
found site visits and inspections are also done at the same facilities by both local health offices
and SSDs’ inspectors addressing similar issues.
Although we found several SSDs are reaching out and making appropriate inquiries to other local
agencies to determine whether hotels and motels are in compliance with all applicable State and
local laws, regulations, and codes, there is little evidence of collaboration and communication
of monitoring efforts at the State level. OTDA has not approached or communicated with DOH
regarding the inspection process for hotels and motels, nor has either agency investigated the
possibility of sharing this information with the other.
Although both OTDA’s and DOH’s inspections are essential to ensuring safety standards are met
in hotels and motels across the State, we believe an opportunity exists for OTDA and DOH to
work together more collaboratively where their interests intersect regarding hotel and motel
habitability. Similar opportunities also exist across both the State and local governmental levels,
although in certain instances it appears to already be occurring at the local level. Not only should
joint efforts and expanded coordination result in more efficient and effective use of government
resources, but benefits can also be expected for the homeless housing entities, some of which
currently are subject to multiple and similar inspections.
Recommendations
To OTDA:
1. Provide additional guidance and establish uniform procedures for SSDs’ staff to ensure full
understanding of the goals of the inspection checklist as well as the inspection function.
2. Establish clear and concise policies and procedures for recommended action to be taken by
SSDs in the case of hotel and motel inspections that are found to be unsatisfactory.
3. Establish a process to capture and analyze data from the six-month inspections submitted
by the SSDs to better monitor habitability standards of hotels and motels used for homeless
housing.
To OTDA and DOH:
4. Improve communication and collaboration among pertinent State and local government
agencies to: prevent duplication of efforts; strengthen the current inspection system; and
ensure the most efficient use of public resources to inspect temporary residences used to
house the homeless.
Division of State Government Accountability 14
21

[PAGE 22]
2016-S-49
Audit Scope, Objective, and Methodology
The purpose of this audit was to determine if OTDA and DOH adequately ensured that hotels
and motels used for homeless and mixed-use temporary residency were properly permitted and
adhered to public health standards as established by State regulations. Our audit covered the
period January 1, 2015 through December 16, 2016.
To accomplish our objective, we reviewed relevant laws, regulations, and OTDA policies related
to housing the homeless in hotels and motels, as well as DOH policies related to inspection of
temporary residences. We also became familiar with and assessed OTDA’s and DOH’s internal
controls as they relate to inspections of temporary residences and hotels and motels. We held
numerous meetings with both OTDA and DOH officials to gain an understanding of inspection
procedures and habitability standards. We communicated our findings to OTDA and DOH
management, and considered information they provided through December 16, 2016.
Also, we surveyed all counties (except those in NYC) for listings of all hotels/motels used for
homeless housing within the last three years. We received responses from all 57 counties and
compiled a listing of 376 hotels/motels that were used to house the homeless in the last three
years. We then judgmentally selected a statewide sample of 100 hotels and motels from both
large and small counties, and from a mix of urban and rural locations, for site visits. Of these
100 hotels and motels, we could not visit 20 because either they were closed or no longer
accepting homeless clients, or management was unavailable for our visit. For the 80 hotels and
motels we were able to visit, located in 19 counties, we examined them for habitability using a
checklist similar to that used by OTDA. We also met with 16 SSDs to document their policies and
procedures, and collaborated with six County Comptrollers (Albany, Dutchess, Nassau, Onondaga,
Suffolk, and Ulster), who also met with their SSDs, for a total of 22 SSDs examined. In addition, we
interviewed officials at two DOH district offices and three county health offices, and documented
their policies and procedures.
We conducted our performance audit in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient,
appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on
our audit objective. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objective.
In addition to being the State Auditor, the Comptroller performs certain other constitutionally and
statutorily mandated duties as the chief fiscal officer of New York State. These include operating
the State’s accounting system; preparing the State’s financial statements; and approving State
contracts, refunds, and other payments. In addition, the Comptroller appoints members to
certain boards, commissions, and public authorities, some of whom have minority voting rights.
These duties may be considered management functions for purposes of evaluating threats to
organizational independence under generally accepted government auditing standards. In our
opinion, these functions do not affect our ability to conduct independent audits of program
performance.
Division of State Government Accountability 15
22

[PAGE 23]
2016-S-49
Authority
The audit was performed pursuant to the State Comptroller’s authority under Article V, Section 1
of the State Constitution and Article II, Section 8 of the State Finance Law.
Reporting Requirements
We provided draft copies of this report to OTDA and DOH officials for their review and formal
comment. Their responses are attached at the end of this report. In their responses, both OTDA
and DOH officials generally concurred with the report’s recommendations and indicated steps
that will be taken to address them. OTDA officials, however, also detailed organizational, legal, and
administrative functions that only indirectly affect the long-standing problems (such as exposed
electrical wiring and mold) we identified through the audit’s site visits. In addition, several of
OTDA’s comments were misleading and/or incorrect. Our rejoinders to certain OTDA comments
are embedded within the text of OTDA’s response as State Comptroller’s Comments.
Within 90 days after final release of this report, as required by Section 170 of the Executive Law,
the Commissioner of the Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance and the Commissioner
of the Department of Health shall each report to the Governor, the State Comptroller, and the
leaders of the Legislature and fiscal committees, advising what steps were taken to implement
the recommendations contained herein, and where recommendations were not implemented,
the reasons why.
Division of State Government Accountability 16
23

[PAGE 24]
2016-S-49
Contributors to This Report
John F. Buyce, CPA, CFE, CIA, CGFM, Audit Director
Brian Reilly, CFE, CGFM, Audit Manager
Bob Mainello, CPA, Audit Supervisor
Marisa Sutliff, Examiner-in-Charge
Joseph Robilotto, Senior Examiner
Jessica Strizzi, Staff Examiner
Mary McCoy, Senior Editor
Division of State Government Accountability
Andrew A. SanFilippo, Executive Deputy Comptroller
518-474-4593, asanfilippo@osc.state.ny.us
Tina Kim, Deputy Comptroller
518-473-3596, tkim@osc.state.ny.us
Brian Mason, Assistant Comptroller
518-473-0334, bmason@osc.state.ny.us
Vision
A team of accountability experts respected for providing information that decision makers value.
Mission
To improve government operations by conducting independent audits, reviews and evaluations
of New York State and New York City taxpayer financed programs.
Division of State Government Accountability 17
24

[PAGE 25]
2016-S-49
Agency Comments - Office of Temporary and Disability
Services, With State Comptroller’s Comments
4
w Office of Temporary
RK
and Disability Assistance
ATE
ANDREW M. CUOMO SAMUEL D. ROBERTS BARBARA C. GUINN
Governor Commissioner Executive Deputy Commissioner
April 18, 2017
Marissa Sutliff
Examiner in Charge
Office of the State Comptroller
Division of Government Accountability
110 State Street -11th Floor
Albany, NY 12236-0001
Re: Oversight of Hotels and Motels Used
for Homeless and Mixed-Use
Temporary Residences, 2016-S-49.
Dear Ms. Sutliff:
This letter responds to the Draft Report ("Draft Report") released by the Office of the State Comptroller
("OSC") regarding that agency's audit of hotels and motels used for homeless and mixed-use
temporary residences (the "Audit"). In this response the Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance
("OTDA") highlights the multiple legal and factual inaccuracies in the Draft Report. Indeed, as OSC
acknowledged, the habitability of mixed-use hotels and motels have improved due to
OTDA's enhanced oversight. However, OTDA disagrees with many of the conclusions set forth in
the Draft Report, because they are based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the controlling
law and are factually without basis. Many of these fundamental errors were not corrected despite
OTDA feedback to OSC's Preliminary Findings.
At the outset, please note one inaccuracy that runs throughout the Draft Report: the Draft Report
states that OTDA administers its emergency shelter program through its Bureau of Shelter
Services ("BSS"). Draft Rep., at 5. This is not correct. In order to enhance its oversight of
homeless shelters across New York State, OTDA created the Division of Shelter Oversight and
Compliance ("DSOC") in July 2016.
State Comptroller's Comment - In fact, for the majority of our audit period, OTDA referred to the unit
responsible for shelter oversight as the “Bureau of Shelter Services.” Further, the organization chart
provided by OTDA at the time of the audit’s fieldwork referenced the Bureau of Shelter Services and
had not been amended to reference the new division. To improve its technical accuracy, we revised
the final report to reference the Division of Shelter Oversight and Compliance. Moreover, we stand by
the accuracy of the observations and conclusions presented in the report. We are disappointed that
OTDA’s response largely avoids the specific deficiencies identified during the audit’s site visits.
1. OTDA Has Already Addressed the Specific Hotel/Motel Habitability Conditions Observed
by OSC.
Riverview Center, Suite 410, 40 North Pearl Street, Albany. NY 12243-0001 I www.otda.ny.gov
Division of State Government Accountability 18
25

[PAGE 26]
2016-S-49
Over the past two years, OTDA has successfully enhanced its oversight of Social Services
Districts (SSDs) in order to improve habitability conditions at all hotels and motels used to house the
homeless. As OSC acknowledges, OTDA's work has improved the system. Draft Rep. at 7. Building
on our past success, OTDA will continue to require regular inspections of hotels/motels, and will also
continue to aggressively monitor the SSDs to ensure that deficient conditions are detected,
corrected, and the facilities used to house homeless persons remain as safe, secure, and as
habitable as possible.
From OTDA's perspective, OSC failed to fully respond with sufficient detail on several purportedly
specific examples of problems in hotel/motels. For example, on pages 7-13 of the Draft Report,
OSC noted several deficiencies at hotel/motels being utilized as shelters. Immediately after OSC's
Preliminary Findings were released, OTDA requested (i) that OSC identify the locations within the
respective hotel/motel facilities where the unsatisfactory conditions were observed; (ii) that OSC
identify specific deficient hotel/motel rooms by number; and (iii) that OSC inform it of the dates
when the conditions were observed. OSC did not provide this data to OTDA. Despite the fact that
OSC could not provide sufficiently detailed information to OTDA, OTDA worked with the relevant
SSDs to ensure that each issue cited by OSC was being appropriately remediated.
State Comptroller's Comment - OTDA’s assertion is incorrect. In fact, on December 23, 2016,
we issued a preliminary finding to OTDA that contained a listing of each site visited, including the
site’s name, its full address, and the nature of the issue(s) auditors observed. Further, OTDA
contacted us on January 10, 2017 requesting more detailed information, and we provided the
requested data on January 12, 2017, including the room number(s) at each hotel and motel. We also
note that, prior to our site visits, we invited OTDA officials to accompany us on those
visits. However, OTDA officials responded that they only wanted to be informed prior to us
contacting any SSDs or providers for site visits. Further, OTDA officials elected to not accompany OSC
staff on the site visits.
2. OSC mischaracterizes and misunderstands OTDA's oversight role over the New York
State shelter system.
At earlier points in this audit process, OTDA clarified its role, in contrast to the roles of New York
State's 58 SSDs, multiple times. To clarify again: OTDA, as a matter of law, does not
operate homeless shelters, but instead oversees the New York State Homeless Shelter
System. This oversight role is specifically articulated in law. It is not a role chosen by OTDA,
but rather it is a division of labor determined by the legislature that passed the relevant statute.
Despite patient and diligent efforts to demystify this point, OSC persists in its misunderstanding and
continues to incorrectly assert that "OTDA has delegated authority for oversight and inspection of
hotels and motels housing the homeless ... to [the SSDs]." Draft Rep., at 5.
Again, as mentioned above, the Legislature made each SSD responsible for "the assistance and
care of any person who resides or is found in its territory and who is in need of public assistance and
care which he is unable to provide for himself" by enacting Social Services Law ("SSL") §62(1 ).
OTDA did not delegate authority for oversight and inspection of hotels and motels. Instead, the law
requires SSDs to provide assistance and care to homeless families and individuals and in doing so
squarely places the burden of inspections on those SSDs. The Legislature merely authorized OTDA
to supervise the State's 58 SSDs. SSL § 20(3). While OTDA will be inspecting hotels/motels as the
need arises, the primary responsibility for performing inspections continues to fall with the SSDs, as
it has since 1983.
Riverview Center, Suite 410, 40 North Pearl Street, Albany, NY 12243-0001 lwww.otda.ny.gov
Division of State Government Accountability 19
26

[PAGE 27]
2016-S-49
For over three decades OTDA has required SSDs utilizing hotels/motels as part of their shelter
system to pass a fairly high bar to begin using those locations, and to continue utilizing those
locations. For example, in 1983, OTDA promulgated 18 NYCRR § 352.3, which clarifies that
when no other suitable housing is available, SSDs may use commercial hotels and motels to
fulfill their statutory obligation to house those in need of public assistance and care. If an SSD
elects to use commercial hotel/motels to fulfill its statutory obligation, however, it must
(a)reassess its need to continue using hotels/motels on a monthly basis (§ 352.3(e)(3)), and
(b) inspect the hotels/motels it uses every six months to confirm that those facilities comply with
the detailed standards explicitly and unambiguously detailed in § 352.3(g) (§ 352.3(h)). As OSC
acknowledges, both the regulatory requirement that the SSDs inspect the hotels/motels they use to
place homeless families and individuals and the standards applicable to those hotels/motels have
been in place since 1983. Indeed, thirty years ago, the New York State Court of Appeals held:
[w]ith the adoption of the departmental regulations (18 NYCRR 352.3[g], [h]),
there can be no question about the minimum level of habitability which [SSDs]
now must meet when they undertake to provide emergency housing. These
regulations ... are, by their terms, binding on local social services districts (18
NYCRR 352.3[h]).
McCain v. Koch, 70 N.Y. 2d 109, 120 (1987). The promulgation of these regulations was a key
part of OTDA exercising its supervisory role over the homeless shelter system. Consequently, and as
OTDA previously pointed out in response to OSC's Preliminary Findings, because the statute
requires OTDA to supervise and the SSD's to implement, it is the SSDs that have the primary
responsibility for ensuring that the hotels/motels they use to house the homeless are habitable.
State Comptroller's Comment - We amended the report’s wording to address OTDA’s concerns.
According to State law, each SSD is responsible for the assistance and care of any person who resides or
is found in its territory and who is in need of public assistance. Under its general powers and duties,
OTDA is required to: establish regulations for the administration of public assistance and care by State
and local government units; enforce the provisions of the Social Services Law and its regulations within
the State and in the local government units; and exercise general supervision over the work of all local
welfare authorities. Accordingly, OTDA has, through its regulations, specifically authorized the SSDs to
use hotels and motels for housing, and it has assigned the responsibility for the inspection of these
facilities to the SSDs. Under its general powers, OTDA has the duty to supervise the work of all SSDs and
to enforce its regulations. With respect to the inspections of these facilities, OTDA has specifically
required that inspection reports be filed with OTDA, which is a clear indication of its oversight function.
3. OTDA Has Provided Detailed Guidance to the SSDs Regarding Hotel/Motel Inspections.
While OSC acknowledges that OTDA has taken steps to improve its oversight of hotels and
motels, it nevertheless insists that OTDA "needs to provide better guidance and support to the
SSDs in implementing its administrative directive to perform six-month inspections of hotels and
motels used to house the homeless." Draft Rep., at 13. As OTDA previously stated in its
response to OSC's Preliminary Findings, this conclusion is unfounded and fails to take into
account the robust and thoughtful guidance that OTDA has provided to SSDs regarding the
performance of six month inspections of those facilities.
State Comptroller's Comment - OTDA’s assertion is incorrect. In fact, auditors did not fail to take into
account OTDA’s efforts to improve program guidance and oversight. Nonetheless, despite such
efforts, multiple SSD officials expressed the need for additional guidance and support to address the
multiple concerns they have. Further, our conclusions are supported by the fact that 12 hotels and
motels that were in unsatisfactory condition during this audit were also in unsatisfactory condition
Riverview Center, Suite 410, 40 North Pearl Street, Albany, NY 12243-0001 lwww.otda.ny.gov
Division of State Government Accountability 20
27

[PAGE 28]
2016-S-49
during the risk assessment (and related site visits) we conducted in February and March 2016. Thus,
there is material risk that deficiencies went several months or longer without being adequately
addressed.
This guidance has been written, telephonic, in person, informal, and formal, and has included:
• Administrative guidance in the form of General Information Statement ("GIS") 16
TA/DC 049, which was issued on August 8, 2016. That GIS was issued "to facilitate the
inspection process and ensure the consistent application of standards across the state."
Along with the GIS, OTDA published a Habitability Standards for Temporary Hotel/Motel
Accommodation l nspection Checklist (the "Checklist") to be used by SSDs in completing
their inspections of the commercial hotels/motels in which they place THA recipients;
• Conference calls with SSD Commissioners were held to discuss the requirement that
SSDs inspect commercial hotels/motels used to place THA recipients, and the use of
commercial hotels/motels pursuant to 18 NYCRR 352.3(e) has been addressed at
conferences hosted by the New York Public Welfare Association (NYPWA); and\
• On-going written (email, verbal, (telephonic) and in person communications/meetings
with individual SSDs to discuss inspection procedures and results and to
address other concerns and questions. A number of districts have requested, and
OTDA has provided, on-site technical assistance. Among other things, DSOC staff
has accompanied SSD staff on walkthroughs of hotels or motels so the SSD staff
could gain a better understanding of how to conduct hotel/motel inspections. Inspection
procedures were also discussed with the SSDs at multiple NYPWA conferences over the
past two years.
Notwithstanding the fact that OTDA issued voluminous and robust guidance (which were all shared with
OSC), OSC concluded that SSDs are not clear about recourse available to rectify hotels/motels
in substandard condition. In reaching this conclusion, OSC completely overlooks 18 NYCRR
§ 352.3(g), which is not ambiguous: "[n]o family shall be referred to a hotel/motel, nor shall
any reimbursement be made for costs incurred from such referral unless all of the requirements set forth
[in that subsection] are met." Pursuant to this very clear regulation, if an SSD inspects a hotel/
motel and finds conditions unsatisfactory, the SSD can, and should, direct the hotel/motel operator to
address any deficiencies. The SSD also can stop using the hotel/motel if the substandard conditions
are not properly remediated. Moreover, and as also explained in response to the Preliminary
Findings, the SSDs enter into contracts with hotels/motels used to house homeless persons. It
is the SSDs prerogative to include a provision requiring that the facilities be safe, clean, properly
maintained and equipped, and in compliance with the standards set forth in § 352.3(g) as a
precondition of payment in such contract. Because the guidance OTDA has issued is clear,
and the tools available to SSD's to remedy deficiencies are robust, OSC's conclusions on this issue
are confounding at best.
OSC further contends that "confusion and a lack of uniformity" remain regarding how to conduct
inspections of hotel/motel rooms. OSC's conclusion is baseless and belied by published documents. In
fact, OTDA's published GIS 16 TA/DC 049 on August 8, 2016 particularly to address such concerns. As
noted by OTDA in its response to OSC's preliminary findings, the GIS provided detailed instructions about
how to perform hotel/motel inspections and provides, among other things, that:
Riverview Center, Suite 410, 40 North Pearl Street, Albany, NY 12243-0001 lwww.otda.ny.gov
Division of State Government Accountability 21
28

[PAGE 29]
2016-S-49
[w]hen conducting inspections the SSD should inspect each room being used for
temporary housing assistance on the day of the inspection. In instances where there
are no or very few units in use to provide temporary housing assistance, the
SSD should inspect at least one unit in each section of the building, on each
floor of the building. . . . The SSD should conduct inspections on an unannounced
basis and should randomly choose which units to inspect.
(Emphasis added).
OSC also alleges "confusion and a lack of uniformity" as to whether SSDs have the expertise to
perform such inspections. OSC's conclusion is once again baseless and contradicted by the facts.
In fact, along with the GIS, OTDA also published a Habitability Standards for Temporary Hotel/Motel
Accommodations Inspection Checklist. Even a rudimentary review of that Checklist confirms that
OTDA has issued clear guidance as to what uniform steps SSDs should take during inspections,
and that SSDs have the necessary level of expertise necessary to perform the required inspections
of hotels/motels. For example, this guidance requires, among other things, that hotel rooms and
bathrooms be clean and properly maintained, that rooms be properly heated and furnished, that
there be sufficient beds, or cribs for children under age two staying in the room, that the doors and
windows lock, that there is a private bathroom and that garbage ls being removed from the room.
These are not difficult tasks to perform and if a SSD must turn to using hotel/motels for shelter for
homeless individuals, it is entirely reasonable to expect the SSD to· have personnel who can perform
these tasks.
State Comptroller's Comment - As previously stated, our conclusions are based on statements from
directors, legal staff, and support staff (who actually performed inspections) from multiple SSDs
expressing the need for additional guidance and support.
OSC also erroneously contends that OTDA has not provided sufficient guidance to the SSDs
regarding providing transportation for children to and from school. In fact, adequate guidance on
governing law (federal and state law) is already provided by both OTDA and local school
districts. As OTDA explained previously, the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act, 42
U.S.C. § 11301, et seq., and New York Education Law § 3209 are the primary federal and State laws
dealing with the education of children and youth in homeless situations. The McKinney-­
Vento Act protects the right of homeless youth to, among other things, maintain school access.
The law requires students be provided with transportation to school. Every school district is
required by the law to designate a "liaison," whose duties include ensuring that transportation is
available to homeless students, and OTDA has issued extensive guidance to the SSDs clarifying their
responsibilities with respect to transporting homeless students to and from school. See 06-ADM-15
(https://otda.ny. gov/policy/directives/2006/ADM/06-ADM-15. pdf).
State Comptroller's Comment - We reiterate that SSD officials (and not OSC) cited confusion about the
requirement to provide transportation for children to and from school and expressed the need
for additional guidance and support from OTDA.
Riverview Center, Suite 410, 40 North Pearl Street, Albany, NY 12243-0001 ] www.otda.ny.gov
Division of State Government Accountability 22
29

[PAGE 30]
2016-S-49
OSC also erroneously concludes that OTDA has failed to finalize plans for ongoing monitoring
inspections and remediation of hotel/motels. Draft Rep., at 13. As OTDA previously explained in
response to the Preliminary Findings, OTDA has put in place several oversight and recourse
mechanisms for chronically out of compliance hotel/motels. First, pursuant to § 352.3(h) SSDs will
be required to submit to OTDA inspection reports documenting the six-month inspections of all
hotel/motels. Second, when an inspection report submitted to OTDA by an SSD indicates that
health, safety, or other problems exist at a hotel/motel used by the SSD to provide shelter to the
homeless, OTDA can direct the SSD to undertake remedial actions or ensure that the property
operator has taken appropriate measures to address the deficiencies. OTDA also can direct that
an SSD cease using a hotel/motel that is out of compliance. In fact, OTDA has already directed
SSDs to stop using certain hotels/motels with serious deficiencies. OTDA also may withhold
reimbursement to an SSD if it learns that the SSD has placed a recipient of temporary housing
assistance in a hotel/motel that fails to comply with § 352.3(g). Again, § 352.3(g) itself explicitly
provides that reimbursement cannot be made for costs incurred from a referral to a hotel/motel
unless all of the requirements set forth in that subsection are met.
State Comptroller's Comment - As stated in the audit report, OTDA officials have yet to finalize formal
plans (including pertinent policies and procedures) for using inspection reports to better monitor
conditions at hotels and motels.
4. OTDA and the Department of Health Already Are Collaborating.
OSC is wrong when it states that "OTDA has not approached or communicated with the
Department of Health ("DOH") regarding the inspection process for hotels and motels, nor has
either agency investigated the possibility of sharing information with the other. Draft Rep.,·at 14.
As OSC previously was informed, OTDA and DOH have engaged in discussions about how
information can be shared to enhance oversight and more efficiently address conditions at
commercial hotels and motels used to house homeless families and individuals. Nevertheless,
OTDA will continue to meet with DOH to discuss each agency's program requirements, and to
determine if there are ways to assist each other in meeting these goals. OTDA will incorporate
improvements identified into policies that it will implement.
State Comptroller's Comment - Throughout the audit’s fieldwork, both OTDA and DOH officials
advised us that no formal communication and coordination existed at the State level. Neither
during the audit’s fieldwork nor with their responses to the draft report did OTDA or DOH officials
provide evidence of formal communication and coordination. We did identify communication
between SSDs and county health departments, which we described in the report.
5. Irrespective of OSC's Recommendations, OTDA Will Continue to Enhance Its Oversight
Over Hotels and Motels Used to Place Homeless Families or Individuals.
Irrespective of OSC's recommendations, OTDA fully intends to (1) provide additional guidance to
the SSD's regarding the SSD's inspection function as necessary, (2) continue to establish
policies and procedures to clarify how SSDs should address unsatisfactory conditions they
observe while performing inspections; and (3) continue collecting and analyzing data from the
six-month inspections. OTDA also will continue to communicate and collaborate with DOH and
the SSDs to prevent duplication of efforts, strengthen the current inspection system, and ensure
the most efficient use of public resources to inspect temporary residences used to house the
homeless.
State Comptroller's Comment - We are pleased that OTDA officials tacitly concur with the report’s
recommendations and indicate that certain steps will be taken to address them.
Riverview Center, Suite 410, 40 North Pearl Street, Albany, NY 12243-0001 ] www.otda.ny.gov
Division of State Government Accountability 23
30

[PAGE 31]
2016-S-49
If you you have any questions concerning our response to the Draft Report, please contact me
at (518) 473-6035 or Kevin.Kehmna@otda.ny.gov.
Sincerely,
Kevin Kehmna, Director
Audit and Quality Improvement
cc: Bob Mainello
Barbara Guinn
Krista Rock
Cheryl Contento
Tim Ruffinen
Kevin Hickey
Kathleen Murphy
Riverview Center, Suite 410, 40 North Pearl Street, Albany, NY 12243-0001 ] www.otda.ny.gov
Division of State Government Accountability 24
31

[PAGE 32]
2016-S-49
Agency Comments - Department of Health
Division of State Government Accountability 25
32

[PAGE 33]
2016-S-49
Department of Health
Comments on the
Office of the State Comptroller’s
Draft Audit Report 2016-S-49 entitled,
Oversight of Hotels and Motels Used for Homeless and Mixed-Use
Temporary Residences
The following are the Department of Health’s (DOH) comments in response to the Office of the
State Comptroller’s (OSC) Draft Audit Report 2016-S-49 entitled, “Oversight of Hotels and Motels
Used for Homeless and Mixed-Use Temporary Residences.”
General
 It is not clear in the report that the portions of the 24 unsatisfactory hotels and motels that
were used to house the homeless are, in fact, regulated by DOH. The report acknowledges
that Temporary Residences regulated by DOH are facilities that house individuals for less
than 180 consecutive days; however, the report does not identify the length of stay for the
residents at the facilities in question. Portions of a Temporary Residence that are occupied
by the same persons in excess of 180 days are excluded from DOH oversight.
 The report acknowledges differences between the Office of Temporary and Disability
Assistance (OTDA) and DOH inspection protocol, but does not identify which agency’s
standards were violated causing a facility to be considered in an unsatisfactory condition.
OSC Recommendation to OTDA and DOH
Improve communication and collaboration among pertinent State and local government
agencies to: prevent duplication of efforts; strengthen the current inspection system; and
ensure the most efficient use of public resources to inspect temporary residences used to
house the homeless.
DOH Response
The DOH will meet with OTDA to discuss each agency’s program requirements, and to determine
if there are ways to assist each other in meeting these goals. The DOH will incorporate any
improvements identified into policies that will be implemented by the state and local departments
of health.
Division of State Government Accountability 26
33

[PAGE 34]
34