Notes on Program Fees, Invoicing, and Portal-Ready Processes (PAMD, IZ, and Related Areas)

PAMD – Portfolio and Asset Management

• Overview

  • The meeting centers on the Program Areas: Portfolio and Asset Management (PAMD), Inclusionary Zoning (IZ), and related programs. The goal is to document current fee structures, invoicing processes, and opportunities to move away from paper checks toward a payment portal integration (Emphasis) and future API connections.
  • PAMD is responsible for several fixed and variable fees: monitoring fees, utility allowance fees, inspection fees, and reinspection fees. Invoices are largely generated by program support staff and sent by email; paper checks are still used in some cases. Emphasis is the intended long-term system integration.
  • Key theme: capture and codify the actual fees and processes from each program area, so a unified, trainable process can replace ad-hoc, paper-based workflows.

• People and departments mentioned

  • PAMD (Portfolio and Asset Management): monitors and invoices for fees; staff discussed generating invoices (currently manual, via email; Emphasis planned).
  • IZ (Inclusionary Zoning): habitable penthouse affordable housing fee (DOB issues invoices; payments tracked in Quickbase; discussion of future portal integration).
  • Other programs touched: violations/penalties in IZ; ZC audits; lease/lot payments in certain property agreements; some references to DHCD, DOB, OAG, DHCV, and DOB processes.

• Fees overview (summary of four main fee types in PAMD)

  • Monitoring fees
  • Basis: fixed per unit, tied to building size and number of units.
  • Rates discussed: $60$ per unit for the initial period; $35$ per unit for extended use after the initial period.
  • Timeframe: monitoring during the tax credit timeline, with a total span of $30$ years; $15$ years of compliance, followed by $15$ years of extended use.
  • Important clarifications observed in the conversation:
    • Some speakers stated $60$ and $35$ as per-unit amounts.
    • Others confirmed these are per-unit rates, not per building, and tied to the number of units.
    • The total description in the room suggested a per-unit basis with a 15-year switch to the lower rate, but there was back-and-forth on whether it’s per-unit vs per-property. Documentation should confirm the intended basis (per unit vs per property).
  • Utility allowance fees
  • Amount: $150$ per property.
  • Frequency: paid $annually$, but with nuance: charged when the utility allowance is adjusted/ delta occurs; not strictly every year if no delta.
  • Inspection fees
  • Rate: $50$ per hour.
  • Typical duration: between $2$ and $5$ hours per inspection.
  • Frequency/frequency drivers: inspections occur every $3$ years, with random selection based on property size (federal requirement). Also inspections can be triggered or augmented by complaints.
  • Reinspection fees
  • Rate: $50$ per hour (same as initial inspection).
  • Timing: follow-on inspections typically occur 30–60 days after initial inspection if corrections are needed; corrections can extend the interval to ~60 days depending on the property.
  • Invoicing and payment mechanics (current state vs. planned changes)
  • Current process: invoices generated by a small office team and sent via email; checks mailed to the vendor; no automated system in place yet.
  • Tracking: efforts to track payments in internal systems (e.g., EMPHYS/EMPHYS) and a plan to move invoicing into Emphasis.
  • Proposed improvements: replace paper mail instructions with a payment link in email, allowing online payments (bank account details) and to embed the project ID to tie payments to the correct property/file. Staff would need training to operate the new flow.
  • Project identifiers: each property has a project ID that should appear on invoices and be included on checks to ensure proper mapping.
  • Roles: a small number of office staff handle email invoicing across all fee types.
  • Potential parallel paths: some fee types (e.g., lease payments in certain programs) may be handled differently; the idea is to consolidate while allowing for future APIs (Emphasis integration) to connect with a portal.
  • Tracking and future integration notes
  • Emphasis/EMPHYS: a future integration goal to generate invoices electronically and unify payments; currently, invoicing is manual and via email, but EMPHYS is used for internal tracking.
  • The team views this as a “baby step” toward a broader DC payment portal and eventual API integration in a couple of years.
  • Revenue/accounting nuance questions raised during the call
  • Recurrence vs. one-off: monitoring fees recur annually during the tax credit period, but invoicing is not fully automatic; payments are triggered by emailed invoices.
  • The relationship between fixed rates and unit counts: based on the conversation, the soft consensus is that these are fixed per-unit charges (monitoring), with a higher rate in the first period and a reduced rate later, but documentation should lock the precise basis (per-unit vs per-property) to avoid ambiguity.

• Detailed notes on each fee type (per the transcript)

  • Monitoring fees (PAMD)
  • Basis: building size and number of units; fixed per unit.
  • Rates (as discussed): $60$ per unit for the initial period (in-service) and $35$ per unit for extended use after the initial 15 years.
  • Timeframe: first $15$ years at the higher rate, then $15$ years at the lower rate (the total tax credit timeline is $30$ years).
  • Clarifications sought in the meeting: some statements indicated $60$ and $35$ as per-unit rates, and others seemed to indicate per-property; documentation needed to settle this.
  • Utility allowance fees
  • Amount: $150$ per property (per-unit vs per-property clarified as per-property in the conversation).
  • Frequency: annually, but charged when there is a delta/adjustment to the allowance rather than strictly every year.
  • Inspection fees
  • Rate: $50$ per hour.
  • Typical duration: $2$–$5$ hours.
  • Frequency: inspections occur every $3$ years, with random selection based on property size (federal requirement). Also inspections can be triggered by complaints.
  • Reinspection fees
  • Rate: $50$ per hour.
  • Timing: generally 30–60 days after the initial inspection, depending on whether corrections were needed and whether extensions were granted.
  • Invoicing workflow (current vs. desired)
  • Current: manual email-based invoicing by program support staff; checks mailed to vendors; no centralized automated system yet.
  • Tracking: efforts to track in internal systems (EMPHYS/EMPHYS) and eventual integration with Emphasis.
  • Desired: replace US mail instructions with a payment link in the email; the link would collect bank details and include a parameterized project ID to map payments to the correct property.
  • Checks: still require project ID on checks; the email invoice should instruct to include the project ID in the check memo.
  • Potential for API: Emphasis integration is a future goal; initial step is a simple payment link; API integration would come later as a stretch goal.
  • Other payer types mentioned in PAMD context
  • For some properties with lease payments (lot payments) under BAMD, payments occur via lease agreements; staff track via Quickbase; there is little or no formal invoice process for those, but there is recognition of potential for a unified payment portal. By year-end, seven properties are involved in such annual lease payments, from a pool of 9,000+ properties.
  • The goal is to allow those to switch to a portal-based payment method when due, tying payments to project IDs and property addresses.

• Inclusionary Zoning (IZ) – Habitable Penthouse Affordable Housing Fee (HP AHF)

  • Official name of the fee: Habitable Penthouse Affordable Housing Fee (HP AHF).
  • Invoicing party and process
  • Invoiced by the Department of Buildings (DOB) to the developer.
  • Payments flow: appear to be made to DHCD; the IZ team tracks payments in Quickbase (a spreadsheet-like database).
  • Frequency: payments can occur multiple times per month depending on issuing events by DOB (estimates range from two to six times per month).
  • Documentation and clarity still evolving: the exact invoicing format and whether there is a single combined DOB invoice or separate line items is still being verified.
  • Calculation basis
  • The amount is determined by DOB based on the square footage of the habitable penthouse and the bonus density granted to the developer.
  • The specific formula details were not fully disclosed in the session; staff noted that they would need to verify the exact calculation method.
  • Relationship to other agencies
  • Payments are intended to go to DHCD (not just within the IZ program). There is some ambiguity about the exact routing, which will require follow-up.
  • Tracking and future improvements
  • Currently tracked in Quickbase; no integration with Emphasis noted yet.
  • The team discussed aligning IZ payments with a portal approach in the future, similar to what is being considered for PAMD, to reduce paper-based workflows.

• Other IZ-related payments discussed

  • Violations payments
  • Context: Occasional penalties issued to developers for noncompliance (e.g., failure to submit annual reports or misreporting, or rent overcharges in IZ/ADU units).
  • Example: 8 payments in 2025 so far (as observed in the transcript) with amounts around $10{,}000$ each for a specific property (1410 Quincy Street).
  • These are handled outside the standard fee schedule and would benefit from categorization in the system (e.g., a code for violations).
  • Zoning Code (ZC) audit or related order payments
  • Mentioned as a “ZC order” with an amount of $179{,}000$ (the exact purpose of the charge would require verification).
  • The note suggests creating a designated payment code for miscellaneous or one-off payments to avoid derailing routine processing.
  • Other miscellaneous amounts
  • The team discussed other occasional payments (e.g., audit agreements, nonstandard charges) that may arise and the need to codify them with proper payment codes for future tracking.

• Other program references and cross-links

  • DP numbers
  • There are references to DP numbers used to identify which program a payment belongs to; the team discussed the challenge of mapping DP numbers to programs and the importance of clear identifiers.
  • Quickbase and Emphasis integration
  • IZ uses Quickbase for payment tracking; PAMD uses Emphasis and is exploring integration.
  • The overarching goal is to build a consistent, scalable framework so future payments can be routed through a portal with appropriate project IDs and program codes.

• Real-world relevance and potential impacts

  • Operational efficiency
  • Moving from paper checks to an online payment portal would reduce handling time, expedite reconciliations, and improve accuracy in mapping payments to properties.
  • Fraud risk and auditability
  • A stable, auditable, digitized process would reduce misapplied payments and improve traceability (project IDs, property addresses, and invoice numbers).
  • Compliance and program integrity
  • Clear, codified fee structures with consistent invoicing help ensure statutory or contract-based obligations are met on schedule.

• Practical and ethical implications

  • Accessibility and training
  • Transitioning to an online portal requires staff training and user-friendly instructions to avoid mispayments or missed payments.
  • Equity considerations
  • As fees and processes become more automated, ensure that smaller developers or districts with slower tech access still receive adequate support during the transition.
  • Data governance
  • With multiple programs and agencies (DOB, DHCD, OAG, DHCV, etc.), a centralized payment portal must respect privacy and data-sharing constraints while enabling proper audit trails.

• Next steps and agenda items mentioned

  • Document the exact fee structures for every program area (PAMD, IZ, and others) with final values and definitions (per-unit vs per-property for monitoring; exact frequency and timing).
  • Confirm the invoicing workflow details: who sends invoices, how they are routed, and how project IDs are embedded in the system.
  • Finalize a phased plan for moving to a payment portal (start with simple links for online payments; later integrate with Emphasis; potentially pursue an API in the longer term).
  • Schedule follow-up with Kathy and Mecca for IZ details; consider inviting Kathy to the next meeting for a complete IZ fee rundown.
  • Prepare a consolidated list of miscellaneous payments (e.g., ZC orders, violations) with a dedicated payment code to simplify categorization.

• Closing notes and tone from the meeting

  • The group views the effort as a meaningful first step toward removing paper checks and increasing process efficiency, with Emphasis serving as the long-term integration target.
  • There is general agreement on the approach and a plan to document questions and provide answers before the next meeting.

• Quick reference to explicit numeric items raised in the discussion

  • Monitoring fees: $60$ per unit (initial), $35$ per unit (extended use); corresponding to a $15$-year split within a $30$-year tax credit timeline.
  • Utility allowance fees: $150$ per property; paid $annually$ or when adjustments occur.
  • Inspection fees: $50$ per hour; typical inspections last $2$–$5$ hours; interval $3$ years; adjustments for complaints.
  • Reinspection fees: $50$ per hour; typically triggered 30–60 days after inspection depending on corrections and extensions.
  • IZ Habitable Penthouse Affordable Housing Fee: amount based on habitable penthouse square footage and bonus density; invoiced by DOB to developers; payments typically 2–6 times per month; tracked in Quickbase.
  • Violations payments: observed payments in 2025 (e.g., 8 payments) around $10{,}000$ each for specific properties; used to address noncompliance.
  • ZC order: $179{,}000$ (audit/one-off category); goal to create a dedicated misc. payment code.
  • Future integration: Emphasis as a portal; API as a long-term goal; focus on a quick, link-based payment method in the near term.

• Summary takeaway

  • A structured, digitized approach to invoicing and payments across PAMD, IZ, and related programs is feasible and desirable. The immediate steps involve finalizing fee definitions, standardizing the invoicing process, and piloting a payment link system while keeping Emphasis as the long-term integration target.