Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/20/1992, C-5 - CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST BY PEOPLES' SELF-HELP HOUSING CORPORATION THAT THE CITY SUBMIT A HOME HOUSING GRANT APPLICATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,000,000 TO THE CALIFORNIA STATE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. CJ IIINIIIII►►►�NIIIIIIIIIIAIIIII�I r MEETING DATE: I►i�uq cityo san ais osIspo COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM NUMBER: 0 FROM: -,.. Arnold Jonas Community Development Director; By: Jeff Hook,..,Associate Planner SUBJECT: Consideration of a request by Peoples' Self-Help Housing Corporation that the City submit a HOME housing grant application in the amount of $1, 000, 000 to the California State Department of Housing and Community Development. CAO RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution approving the request and authorizing the City Administrative Officer to sign the grant j application. REPORT-IN-BRIEF i City policies encourage the development and rehabilitation of housing affordable to low-income households; however relatively few such units have been produced in recent years. Peoples's Self-Help Housing Corporation asks the City's assistance in applying for a competitive State housing grant which would be used to purchase an existing 48-unit apartment complex in San Luis Obispo. If the grant application is successful, the corporation would renovate the apartments and make them affordable to low- and very-low income households in perpetuity. BACKGROUND Peoples' Self-Help Housing Corporation's ("corporation") has asked the City to be the applicant for a Home Investment Partnership ("HOME") program grant. Under the grant program guidelines, private non-profit housing agencies like the corporation can receive funding.only indirectly through city or county sponsorship. The City's role would be primarily that of applicant, and all project administration, operation, and maintenance responsibility would rest with the corporation. A draft grant application for $1 million in federal funds has been prepared by the corporation based on HCD program requirements, and only minimal staff work would be necessary to finalize and submit the application (draft application available in the Council reading file) . HOME funds would be used to help purchase and renovate the Siding Apartments, located at 3350 Bullock Lane in San Luis Obispo. HOME funds would comprise about 46 percent of the purchase price, with the balance to be financed by the corporation with a conventional loan. City Council approval is needed to submit the application and meet the State Housing and Community Development Department's (HCD) early November deadline. Should the HOME application be funded, the State would enter into an agreement with the City, and the City in turn with the corporation to pass through HOME funds for purchase of the property. n s/ i1111i71��►�I�IIIIIIIII�1° IIUIII city Of San i-.AIS OBISPO COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Staff Report Page 2 The HOME program was authorized by Congress under the Cranston- Gonzales National Affordable Housing Act of 1990. Its purpose is to preserve and expand the supply of decent, affordable rental j housing. Acquisition of existing rental housing by experienced, community-based, non-profit corporations like Peoples' Self-Help Housing is the highest funding priority under the HOME program. Funds for non-metropolitan areas, including San Luis Obispo, are j administered by the State Department of Housing and Community Development. SUMMARY PROJECT DESCRIPTION HOME Funding Applicant: City of San Luis Obispo. Project Owner/Developer: Peoples' Self-Help Housing Corporation. Objective: Acquisition of a 48-unit existing apartment complex for. preservation as affordable rental housing. (APN 053-071-017) Project Name/Location: Siding Apartments, 3350 Bullock Lane, San Luis Obispo. Physical Description of Property: The property has 16 two-bedroom and 32 one-bedroom apartments in four, two-story buildings. The complex was constructed in 1975 and has been well maintained. There is a laundry and recreation building on the property. A recent termite report indicated some active termite infestation and other relatively minor items which the owner has agreed to correct prior to close of escrow. Price/Terms and Conditions of Sale: The agreed upon price is i $21160, 000 ($45,000 per unit) . Peoples' Self-Help Housing Corporation has entered into a 13 month Purchase Agreement with the owner based on the agreed upon sales price. Escrow must close by October 1, 1993 . Grant Funding Process I HOME funds are competitive, and there is no guarantee that the grant will be awarded to the City. Applications must be received by HCD 45 days from issuance of the NOFA (Notice of Funds Available) . The NOFA was temporarily delayed due to the State budget deadlock. Now that the State has adopted a budget, HCD staff indicate that they should issue the NOFA by September 21st. This would make applications due by approximately November 7th. The State must announce awards within 80 days from the application deadline. Given the current timing, this would take place approximately the last week of January 1993 . Corporation staff anticipates that it will take 6 months from announcement of awards ��iN�►xH��IIIIIIIIIII� �II�IU city of San . JS OBispo COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Staff Report Page 4 necessary reports for the City's review and submittal to HCD. Subsequent to grant closeout, the corporation would file annual reports to the City certifying occupancy and rent levels, and compliance with all HOME Program regulations. Current Occupancy I Current tenants would not be displaced by the project. The majority of the residents appear to meet the income requirements of the HOME program. Occupancy reports indicate that 85% of current occupants are low-income, with household sizes ranging from 1 to 4 persons and monthly incomes ranging from $800 to $1800. These residents currently pay between 40% and 75% of their income for rent. The corporation would reduce rents in accordance with the HOME guidelines stated above. Non-low-income residents would not receive the benefit of reduced/subsidized rents, and upon vacancy, these units would be rented to low- or very low-income households. DISCUSSION The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Regulations. By enabling more low-income households to afford decent housing in San Luis Obispo, the project implements several Housing Element programs: i ■ "The City will seek Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) and other state and federal funding to obtain and prepare suitable sites for assisted housing." (p.39) I ■ "The City will encourage construction of about 120 subsidized rental units during 1984 through 1990 . Additional existing units may be acquired by the Housing Authority or developed by private, non-profit sponsors. (p. 40; about 25 subsidized rental units were actually built during this period) . I ■ "The City will assist rehabilitation of houses .and small apartment buildings in older residential areas of the city. " (p. 43) ■ "The City will continue to assist the efforts of other agencies to help low-income, elderly, and handicapped residents maintain and repair their dwellings. " (p. 44) It would be in the public interest for the City to serve as applicant for the HOME program. The corporation has extensive experience with housing construction and rehabilitation, and has been actively developing affordable housing in San Luis Obispo County since 1970. If the HOME grant is awarded to the City, guarantees will be in place to ensure that the apartments remain ���������►►►�Ililllllllh' I�Illlll c1ty of san L-.,6 oBispo oh COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Staff Report Page 3 to enter into contracts and disburse funds into escrow for purchase of the property. If the grant application is funded, HCD would enter into a standard agreement with the City. The City in turn would enter into an agreement with Peoples' Self-Help Housing for "pass-through" use of HOME funds. Prior to close of escrow, the City would then drawdown funds from HCD and deposit the money into the corporation/current owner purchase escrow along with instructions to the escrow company. These instructions would mandate that the funds be used for . purchase of the subject property, and that funding be contingent upon recording of a deed restriction concurrent with close of escrow. Affordability Guarantees i A deed restriction would be recorded to guarantee that the units will be rented to low and very low-income households at affordable rent levels pursuant to the HOME Program regulations. Although HOME only requires that the units remain affordable for 15 years, the corporation proposes that the units remain permanently affordable. About 80 percent of the apartments would be reserved for low-income households (households earning 80% or less of the area median income) , and at least 20% of the apartments would be for very low- income households (households earning 50% or less of area median income) . Under the HOME program, monthly low-income rents cannot exceed 30% of 65% of the area median income (about $444 for a 1- bedroom unit) , including utilities. very low-income rents are restricted to 30% of 50% of area median income (about $337 for a 1- bedroom unit) . According to the 1990 census, the City's median rent cost, not including utilities, is $600. ownership Ownership will vest with Peoples' Self-Help Housing Corporation or a subsidiary non-profit corporation. The project will be managed by Peoples' Self-Help Housing Corporation, a HUD Certified Property Management Agent. The corporation manages several hundred HUD, FmHA and conventionally financed affordable apartments throughout San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara Counties, and if funded, would maintain a full-time, on-site resident manager in addition to its property management staff in San Luis Obispo. Documentation HCD will require quarterly, annual and closeout reports for the grant. Peoples' Self-Help Housing Corporation will prepare all �������►�►�►m�IIIIiI�iII II�III MY Of san _.FIs OBISPO COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Staff Report Page 5 affordable to low-income households, and to ensure that the property will be properly maintained at no cost to the City or to citizens. At this time, the State's criteria for awarding HOME program grants aren't available. However, based on previous discussions with HCD staff, cities and counties without state-certified housing elements may be at a disadvantage when competing for state-awarded housing funds. Like many California cities, San Luis Obispo's housing element was to have been updated by July 1, 1992 to meet new state housing laws. As yet, the City has not adopted an updated housing element. I In May the City's Planning Commission completed its review of the draft Housing Element update and referred the document back to staff for changes. On August 4th, the City Council postponed a decision on regional housing needs, pending further progress on the Land Use and Circulation Elements update, and to allow additional time to analyze policy options. It is now unlikely that the Housing Element can be adopted before March 1993 . Depending on the outcome of the regional housing needs question, state certification of the Housing Element is not likely before June 1993 . Consequently, the City's grant eligibility may be affected. This concern may also hold true for the City's recently awarded Community Development Block Grant for $444, 000 to purchase and remodel the Women's Shelter. It is not known how many other communities applying for the HOME program or for CDBG funds are in a similar situation; however as of early 1992, of the 509 California cities and counties required to have housing elements, only 107 localities had adopted housing elements which HCD found to be in substantial compliance with housing element law. ALTERNATIVES I 1. Do. not apply for the HOME grant. The City is under no mandate to act on the request, nor would the decision not to participate affect any current city .grant programs (eg. Homeless and Women's Shelters) . If the City does not apply for the grant, Peoples' Self-Help Housing Corporation would not be able to compete for the grant, and the proposed sale will fall out of escrow. Presumably, the apartments would then be resold, probably without any affordability controls. 2 . Apply for the HOME grant under special conditions. The current proposal does not involve City ownership or management of the property. Affordability controls are maintained as a deed restriction on the property. The City could, based on its participation as applicant, play a more active role. This i111611hIIIIVII����l��l lllll`� City Of San L.AIS OBISPO N mom COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Staff Report Page 6 could include equity participation, co-management of the property, first right of refusal guarantees to the City upon resale, or other provisions. Given the short timeframe for application submittal, and the long-term affordability guarantees planned, such conditions would unduly complicate the process and are not necessary to achieve the City's housing objectives. FISCAL IMPACT Other than incidental staffing costs associated with filing the grant application, the City would incur no costs as applicant for the HOME program. Peoples' Self-Help Housing Corporation will i assist city staff in preparing the application, and will be i responsible for all - costs associated with close of escrow, renovation, and on-going operation of the apartments. RECOMMENDATION Adopt the resolution approving the grant submittal request and authorizing the CAO to sign the grant application. ! i I I i I I Attachments: -Draft Council Resolution -vicinity Map -Letter from Peoples' Self-Help Housing Corporation RESOLUTION NO. (1992 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AUTHORIZING THE SUBMITTAL OF AN APPLICATION TO THE CALIFORNIA STATE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FOR FUNDING UNDER THE HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM, THE EXECUTION OF A STANDARD AGREEMENT IF SELECTED FOR SUCH FUNDING AND ANY AMENDMENTS THERETO, AND ANY RELATED DOCUMENTS NECESSARY TO PARTICIPATE IN THE HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS PROGRAM. - WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo, a political subdivision of the State of California, wishes to apply for and receive an allocation of funds through the HOME Investment Partnerships Program (hereinafter referred to as "HOME") ; and WHEREAS, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (hereinafter referred to as the "Department") has issued a Notice of Funding Availability for the HOME program and is authorized to approve funding allocations which will be made available directly through the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to be used for the purposes set forth in Title II of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act of 1990, the implementing regulations set forth in title 24 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 92, and Title 25 of the California Code of Regulations commencing with section 8200; and WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo wishes to submit an application to obtain from the department an allocation of HOME funds; NOW, THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Purpose. The City of San Luis Obispo shall submit to the Department an application to participate in the HOME program J Council Resolution No. (1992 Series) Page 2 which will request a funding allocation for the acquisition of 48 existing apartments located at 3350 Bullock Lane, in the City of San Luis Obispo, to allow the renovation and preservation of the apartments as low and very low-income rental housing. SECTION 2. Grant Application and Funding. If the application for funding is approved, the City of San Luis Obispo hereby agrees to use the HOME funds for eligible activities in the manner presented in the application as approved by the Department and in accordance with applicable regulations. SECTION 3. Authorization to execute grant application and related documents. The City Council authorizes the City Administrative Officer to execute in the name of the City of San Luis Obispo, the application, the Standard Agreement,and all other documents required by the department or HUD for participation in the HOME program, and any amendments thereto. .On motion of seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of 1992. Council Resolution No. (1992 Series) Page" 3. Mayor Ron Dunin The foregoing is a true and full copy of a resolution of the San ` Lu s Obispo City Council adopted at a duly convened meeting on the date. above-mentioned, which has not been altered, amended, or •repealed: - ATTEST: Diane Gladwell, City Clerk 'APPROVED: CI Cit, dm' istrative Officer C •f for ey Community Development Director J A e r f4f �% / C • H.•• j • �1 R_4_S r: 07 zo 60 �aMwi.w t,.: `.� 4•iJ' e'• i��r Yi� y� en ale s 'so a ORCUTT ROAD '1 O O uu•ne n ri.: LA .-as mc y.u. �•I u�icY r rmrin w 1 WA uo,•� R— Sam,S ; e Y p Ras Y G A i eo A'♦ •� 0 rYfi ' �� •r• t 2+ sr.TMi•c VICINITY MHP NORTH S AUG 1 41992 Mayor Ron Dunin ADMiNISTRATiON August 14 , 1992 City of San Luis Obispo SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Dear Mayor Dunin: The purpose of this letter is to request that the, City Council consider submittal of an application to the State Department of Housing and Community Development, Home Investment Partnership Program ( 'HOME' ) on behalf of a Peoples ' Self-Help Housing Corporation project. We ask that consideration of the HOME application and authorization of its' submittal be scheduled for the September 15 , 1992 City Council meeting. Authorization must occur in the form of a resolution, which would be provided to City staff by PSHHC based upon State recommended language. The September 15th date is critical in that the State provides only 45 days from their issuance of the NOFA (Notice of Funds Available) to prepare and submit the application. we anticipate receiving the NOFA this Monday, August 17th, with applications due by October 2nd. Consequently, the first Council meeting in October would be inadequate. The PSHHC HOME project consists of acquisition and minor renovation of a 48 unit existing apartment complex in the Laurel Lane area of San Luis Obispo . The complex would be owned and operated as affordable rentals by PSHHC in perpetuity . Assurances would be recorded on the property to guarantee this beneficial use. The project consists of 16 two-bedroom and 32 one-bedroom apartments. The apartments are presently offered for sale as partial disposition of an estate . The trustees are agreeable to a long-term option to purchase arrangement with PSHHC in order to accommodate State financing. The buildings, grounds and units are in very good condition. Attractive, landscaped courtyards on the interior of the project add a warm, community feeling to the complex. Based upon information supplied by the resident manager, current residents appear to meet the income requirements of the HOME Program. The majority of the residents are employed in modest wage jobs within the .City of San Luis Obispo. The two-bedroom units are primarily occupied by small families. HOME funds represent approximately 46% of the purchase price, with the balance to be financed by PSHHC with a loan from a conventional lender. Peoples' Self-Help Housing Corp. 1411 Marsh Street, Suite 103 San Luis Obispo, Colifornia 93401 TEL: (805) 544-5717 FAX: (805) 544-1901 PSHHC/City of San Luis Obispo HOME Program Application 8/14/92 Page 2 The objectives adopted in the Housing Element of the City' s General Plan strongly support acquisition and rehab of existing housing as an effective means of providing affordable housing. City sponsorship of State grant applications plays a pivotal role in project feasibility. In many cases, such as with the HOME Program, only Cities and Counties -are eligible to apply directly to the State. HOME funds are competitive. PSHHC will prepare the HOME application, draft the authorizing resolution, and assist City staff with the staff report as necessary. Should HOME funds be awarded to the project, the State will enter into an Agreement with the City, and the City in turn with PSHHC to pass HOME funds through for purchase of the property. Due to State processing, PSHHC would expect escrow to close approximately 1 year from now (August 1993) . A schedule for the HOME application and funding cycle is attached. We appreciate your support of this request. I will be present at the August 18th Council meeting should you have any questions . aellyymith Director of Programs Attachment cc: Members of the City Council Mr. John Dunn "CETING AGENDA _.,TE_ITEM #1 City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department FRITOPUNEY n ❑ �7MEMORANDUM ❑ CDD DIR❑ RN.DUL❑ FIRE CHW❑ Fw DmRK/osrG. ❑ POUCEM TO: John Dunn and City Councihnembers<�D' ❑ M04T.TEAM ❑ REr- I I ik - I UTIL Pa F 7- p D/ FROM: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director -- BY: Jeff Hook, Associate Planner DATE: October 14, 1992 SUBJECT: Staff Report Supplement for HOME Grant Application OCT t b 1992 CITY CLERK *******s************+k**************************+k************* SANLUG OBiSPO.CA Summary Based on meetings with the housing agencies involved, and on the additional information submitted, staff believes the issues raised by the Housing Authority have been resolved. The HOME grant application is consistent with the City's general plan, zoning regulations, and housing objectives. Consequently, the CAO recommendation is unchanged from the original staff report. This item was continued from the Council's October 6th agenda at the request of the San Luis Obispo Housing Authority. The previous agenda report describes the proposal and related city policies, and is included in your October 20th agenda packet. This supplement describes the events which lead to the continuance. In the attached letter, the Authority's director, George Moylan raises several issues: 1. Initially, the City did not consult the Housing Authority regarding the application; 2. The project is denser and contains more apartment units than a typical assisted housing project in the City; 3. Project occupancy characteristics (number or occupants per unit and eligibility of single persons for affordable housing, desirability of mixing elderly and family groups, etc.); 4. Rental costs may not be truly affordable to low-income persons; 5. Tenant relocation costs may not be covered by HOME program funding; and 6. If the grant application is successful, the City will be responsible to administer the HOME grant. In the past, the City has been reluctant to assume that role. HOME Grant Application Page 2 Background On October 2nd and 12th, staff met with Mr. Moylan to discuss his concerns. Mr. Scott Smith, Program Director for People's Self-Help Housing Corporation (PSHHC), was also present at the October 12th meeting, and prepared the attached response letter. Mr. Moylan explained that the Housing Authority does not object to the HOME grant application per se, but feels that the above aspects of the project need careful scrutiny. Mr. Moylan noted that he had been contacted by PSHHC several months ago about the project; however it was not clear at that time that it involved the HOME grant funding. Mr. Smith explains that PSHHC has followed all required procedures as outlined in the HOME grant application, and has met with staff and City Council members to understand City requirements and procedures. At staff's request, Mr. Smith has submitted additional information regarding tenant characteristics, incomes, and relocation requirements. Discussion 1. Housing Authority Review: The Housing Authority is a public housing corporation, established in 1968 under state law. The Authority's governing board consists of seven members appointed by the Mayor; however it is not a city commission, nor does it receive any direct city funding. Its main objectives are to: build assisted housing, administer housing programs and projects through various government housing grants, and to advise local agencies on housing matters. While the City often seeks Housing Authority input on housing-related issues, such review is not required by law, nor has it been the City's practice to refer all grant applications and housing projects to the authority for their review. For example, the Women's Shelter CDBG grant was handled by staff without Housing Authority review since it involved grant funding for purchase of a facility already operating as a women's shelter. Due to the apparent short timeframe for grant application, and because the HOME grant was to purchase an existing apartment building for affordable housing, the matter was not routed to the Housing Authority. 2. Project Size and Density: It has been the Housing Authority's policy to develop no more than 20 assisted housing units per site (projects. which exceed this number of assisted housing units include Parkwood Apartments - 34 units, Villa Rosa - 41 units, Anderson Hotel - 68 units, and Judson Terrace - 107 units). Because the Siding apartments are existing, and have been occupied by low-and moderate income households, the change to assisted housing is not likely to change the project's residential character, or result in significantly more persons or density problems. 3. Project Occupancy Characteristics. The Housing Authority tries to target its housing HOME Grant Application Page 3 for households least able to find affordable housing -- low-income elderly, families, and the handicapped. Mr. Moylan is concerned that the assisted housing could be occupied by single-person households and students who meet the upper end of the income eligibility criteria, thus excluding other more needy households. The project meets HOME guidelines regarding single-person households, and staff believes this project will meet a critical community need for affordable housing. City policies encourage affordable housing for all community members, without regard to race, age, religious affiliation, sex or family status. It is likely that the project will include a mix of tenants, including families, elderly, single working persons, students, young couples, and single parents with children. Staff views the potential diversity as a positive feature of the project. 4. Rental Costs. This is not a "public housing project" in the usual sense. It would be owned by PSHHC, a private, non-profit housing agency, with rents structured to be affordable to low- and very low-income households. There would be a resident manager at the apartment complex. Under the HOME program guidelines, the rent costs would drop approximately $85 to $180 per apartment, depending on unit size. The apartments would rent for substantially less than prevailing rental rates for equivalent housing. By law, the units' affordability would be permanently maintained as required by HUD. 5. Tenant Relocation. PSHHC does not anticipate relocating any tenants. The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requires that if any tenants were displaced, their relocation.costs would need to be paid as a requirement of funding. PSHHC intends to pay relocation costs if any tenant displacement occurs. 6. Grant Administration. As applicant, the City would be required to meet annual grant reporting requirements; however Mr. Smith has stated that PSHHC staff would complete all required forms and reports for the City's approval and use. All administrative and property management tasks would be handled by PSHHC staff, under a formal agreement with the City. RECEIVED Peoples' Self-Help Housing Corporation OCT 1 51992 cm N s oetspo MEMORANDUM LO Nr TO: Mr. Jeff Hook Community Development Department City of San Luis Obispo FROM: Scott Smith DATE: October 15, 1992 SUBJECT: Follow up to Siding Apartments meeting ***************************************************************** Jeff- This memo constitutes a follow up to our discussion with you, Arnold Jonas, and the Housing Authority on October 12, 1992 regarding the purchase and permanent preservation of the Siding Apartments as affordable housing. PSHHC supports the Housing Authority, has worked cooperatively with it in the past, and looks forward to doing so in the future. However, PSHHC feels that the housing need in our community is extensive and can benefit from the efforts of various groups. A most recent example is the joint effort between PSHHC and the Women's Shelter Program to expand their program and obtain funds for site acquisition. During the previous 5 year planning period the City identified the need to add 124 affordable units to the City's housing stock. However, only 20 units were actually produced during the 5 year period. Acquisition and rehabilitation as a means of providing affordable housing directly responds to City housing policy as adopted in the Housing Element of the General Plan. It produces the housing more quickly and at a substantially lower cost than new construction. It is an efficient and practical means of creating affordable housing without additional impact on existing resources and infrastructure. We sincerely appreciate all of the time and energy you have spent on this project. 11 Occupancy Restrictions HOME Program Regulations Section 92.253(e) outlines HOME requirements for tenant selection (Exhibit 1). The Regulations provide considerable flexibility in order to emphasize local housing goals and needs. In summary, HOME Tenant Selection regulations state that the owner (i.e. PSHHC) must develop written tenant selection policies. These policies must be consistent with providing low-income housing, give reasonable consideration to the 3 federal mandated preferences explained below, provide for selection of tenants from a written waiting list in chronological order, and provide written notification to any rejected applicant and grounds for rejection. PSHHC City Memo 10/15/92 Re: HOME Application Page 2 Federal guidelines for the HOME Program mandate three preferences in selecting tenants from a waiting list: 1) Displacement - an applicant displaced from previous housing through no fault of their own 2) Overpayment - an applicant currently paying in excess of 50% of their income for rent, 3) Substandard Housing- an applicant currently residing in substantially substandard housing conditions. Owners may adopt additional preferences as. long as they are incorporated in the written tenant selection plan, and are subordinate to the 3 mandated preferences. Development of additional preferences will ensure consistency with specific City housing policies and objectives (Exhibit 2). Maximum occupancy will be restricted to 2 persons per bedroom. For example, the maximum occupancy allowable in a 2 bedroom apartment would be a four person family. HUD does not require placement of a 5 person family in a 2 bedroom apartment, as suggested by the Housing Authority. HUD occupancy guidelines clearly specify a maximum of 2 persons per bedroom. HUD allows (but certainly does not require) an exception to these occupancy standards only under limited circumstances . HUD states that an owner may (at owners discretion) place a larger family in a smaller size unit only when such Placement is consistent with the owner's written tenant selection Plan. PSHHC considers more than 2 persons per bedroom overcrowded. Such densities would not be permitted or consistent with our tenant selection plan. (Reference HUD Guidelines, Exhibit 3). The 32 one bedroom apartments will not be restricted to elderly occupancy. The Housing Authority expressed concern that the 32 one bedroom apartments would naturally be occupied primarily by senior citizens, and the 16 two bedroom units by small families. The Housing Authority discourages mixing elderly and non-elderly residents in the same development. However, this is not City housing policy. PSHHC feels that there are many senior citizens who prefer to live in proximity to children and younger adults, rather than to be age segregated. While it is not PSHHC's intent to limit 1 bedroom occupancy to senior citizens, the need certainly exists for affordable senior housing, and PSHHC would welcome senior residents. However, we feel that there is a need for affordable housing for young couples and working individuals as well. 11 Management Plans PSHHC suggests that our agency work cooperatively with the City to maximize City housing goals as adopted in the Housing Element. This could be accomplished by City input on PSHHC's specific Management Plan to be developed for the property, as well as input on the Tenant Selection Plan and establishment of selection 'preferences'. Peoples' Self-Help Housing Corporation is a HUD and FmHA approved property management agency. Our full- time property management division manages several hundred HUD, FmHA, HCD financed apartments. PSHHC develops a Management Plan specific to each property we manage. Prior to close of escrow PSHHC will develop a formal Management Plan for Siding Apartments. PSHHC will solicit City input for the Management Plan, and will provide regular reports to the City regarding its' implementation. PSHHC will also adopt a written Tenant Selection Plan, including selection preferences, which specifies the criteria for selecting and prioritizing tenants. PSHHC will seek City input regarding this Plan in order to ensure that local housing objectives are met. PSHEC City Memo 10/15/92 Re: HOME Application Page 3 HOME Regulations Section 92.253(d)requires that an owner of rental housing assisted with HOME funds must maintain the premises in compliance with all applicable housing quality standards and local code requirements (Exhibit 1). PSHHC maintains a full-time on-site resident manager and backup manager at each PSHHC development, so that close supervision is provided 7 days a week, 24 hours a day. The Housing Authority does not utilize on- site managers, and this may relate to their decisions on project size. 11 Verification of Incomes 11 The income of current occupants was provided to PSHHC by the Santa Barbara based management company presently managing the apartments. Our understanding is that these incomes were taken off of tenant application forms. The industry experience is that if anything, applicants tend to inflate the income listed on applications in order to appear acceptable to the prospective landlord. Ten of the 48 apartments appear to be occupied by 'over-income' residents. The remainder of residents are either low or very low-income. Their average income is $ 17,000, and it ranges from a low of$ 9,600 to a high of$ 25,000. Current tenant incomes is not of primary importance, in our opinion, since we anticipate occupancy changes between now and when escrow closes in approximately 1 year. During this interim period the development will continue to be privately owned and managed. With respect to 'over-income' residents occupying the apartments at close of escrow, PSHHC proposes that they be allowed to continue residency but without the benefit of reduced rents. This was acceptable on a federally financed housing development PSHHC purchased in 1989. HOME regulations state that should a resident's income increase beyond the low income level, the project is still considered an affordable housing project provided this tenant pays at least 30% of their income for rent (i.e. does not receive the benefit of subsidy), and that upon vacancy their unit is filled with a lower income household. (Section 92.252 (c). Exhibit 1). However, PSHHC will coordinate with the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), and an acceptable relocation plan will be developed if necessary. PSHHC has previous experience with developing and managing relocation plans. Typically this involves assistance in obtaining a comparable rental unit, assistance with moving expenses, and temporary payment of any rent differential. Since current rents are at market, PSHHC would not anticipate significant rent differential expenses. The immediate rent reduction (estimated at $75 - $180/unit)and benefit to existing tenants at close of escrow is a short term project objective. The 'bigger picture' and primary PSHHC project objective(beyond immediate benefit to the current project residents) is dedication of the complex in neMp city as affordable housing in the City. This use will be assured through recordation of a deed restriction on the property. Future rent levels will be regulated by HOME Program regulations. The HOME Program publishes low and very low-income apartment rent levels by County area. These rents are linked to area median incomes. Low income unit rents are restricted to 30% of 65% of area median income, including utilities. Very low income unit rents are restricted to 30% of 50% of area median income. PSHHC City Memo 10/15/92 Re: HOME Application Page 4 Verification of Average Number of People in Units Family size information for current occupants was provided to PSHHC by the management company. Total Number of Residents = 60 Total Number of Occupied Units = 37 (11 vacancies reported) Overall average persons per unit = 1.62 Average Household Size I bedroom units = 1.36 By Unit Type 2 bedroom units = 2.14 Current Resident Profile At the time management provided information to PSHHC 11 of the units were vacant. These were attributed to a transition in management resulting from the owners death and transfer of property to Sanwa Bank Trust Department. The complex is not located in proximity to Cal Poly. While some students have chosen to live at the complex, it has not functioned as a student apartment complex. PSHHC proposes to establish Tenant Selection Preferences which emphasize non-student occupancy. Seven children presently reside at the apartment complex. Elderly statistics were not available. Types of employment among the project residents is extremely varied. The following 'Resident Occupation List' supplied by the management company proves useful in understanding our community's housing need: Resident Occupation List Watchman Self-Employed (Dee Jay) Jeweler Probation Officer Computer Technician Hospital Aide Advertising Consultant School Assistant (General Hospital) Supervisor Retired Williams Bros. Market Assistant Manager (Shoe Sales) Stable Assistant Nanny for SLO Family Asphalt Paver (A-1 Asphalt) Clerk (SLO Library) Agricultural Attendant Retail Clerk X-Ray Technician Receptionist Rental Agent Secretary (SESLOC) Installer Designer (Nova Space) Medical Receptionist Clerk (SLO Library) Bartender Craftsman (Ernie Ball Guitars) Assistant Manager Nurse Self-Employed (Art Dried Flowers) Secretary Correctional Officer Computer Tech (SESLOC) Manager Broadcaster Life Guard rid 0JT 0934 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 241 / Monday, December 18, 1991 / Rules and Regulations project completion, as specified in the financial viability of the project and decision In connection with the lease; following table,without regard to the only by an amount that HUD determines and term of the mortgage or to transfer of is necessary to maintain continued (8) Tenant chargeable with cost of ownership. financial viability of the project.HUD legal actions regordless of outcome. expects that this authority will be used Agreement by the tenant to pay Minimum sparingly.Adjustments in fair market attorney's fees or other legal costs even Activity anperiod of rents and in median income over time if the tenant wins In a court proceeding in years should help maintain the financial by the owner against the tenant.The viability of a project within the tenant,however,may be obligated to Rehabilitation or acquisition of exist. qualifying rent standard in paragraph pay costa if the tenant loses. np houwV per unit amount of (a)(1)of this section. HOME funds: (c) Termination of Tenancy.An owner under st5,000....._...._......._...._.._.. 5 (Approved by the Office of Management and may not terminate the tenancy or refuse $1$,1300 to$40,000._..........__..._.. to Budget under OMB control number 2501- to renew the lease of a tenant of rental Over Soo=...._.._..___...___.._.... 15 001 3) housing assisted with HOME funds New construction or w4wotion of newt'oonatrueled fwuaino.._.-•-••••••• 20 192.253 Tenant and participant except for serious or repeated violation protections. of the terms and conditions of the lease; for violation of applicable federal,state, (b)Rent schedule and utility (a)Lease. The lease between a tenant or local law; or for other good cause. allowances.The participating and an owner of rental housing assisted Any termination or refusal to renew jurisdiction must review and approve with HOME funds must be for not less must be preceded by not less than 30 rents proposed by the owner for units than one year,unless by mutual days by the owner's service upon the with"flat rents,"i.e., unite subject to the agreement between the tenant and the tenant of a written notice specifying the maximum rent limitations in paragraph owner, grounds for the action. (a)(1)(i), (e)(1)(ii), or(a)(2)(d)of this (b)Prohibited lease terms. The lease (d)Maintenance and replacement. An section,and, if applicable,must review may not contain any of the following owner of rental housing assisted with and approve, for all units subject to the provisions: HOME funds must maintain the maximum rent limitations paragraph (a) (1)Agreement to be sued. Agreement premises in compliance with all { of No section, the monthly allowances, by the tenant to be sued, to admit guilt, applicable housing quality standards i proposed byy the owner,for utilities and or to a judgment in favor of the owner in and local code requirements. services to be paid by the tenant.The a lawsuit brought in connection with the (e) Tenant selection.An owner of owner must reexamine the income of lease; rental housing assisted with HOME each tenant household living in low- (2) 7`eotment of property.Agreement funds must adopt written tenant income unite at least annually.The by the tenant that the owner may take, selection policies and criteria that— maximum monthly rent must be hold, or sell personal property of (1)Are consistent with the purpose of recalculated by the owner and reviewed household members without notice to providing housing for very low-income and approved by the participating the tenant and a court decision on the and low-income families, Jurisdiction annually, and may change rights of the parties.This prohibition, (2)Are reasonably related to program as changes in the applicable groes rent however,does not apply to an eligibility and the applicants'ability to amounts,the income adjustments, or the agreement by the tenant concerning perform the obligations of the lease, monthly allowance for utilities and disposition of personal property services warrant.Any increase in rents remaining in the housing unit after the (3)Give reasonable consideration to tcnuni has moved out of the unit.The the housing needs of families that would for lower income units Is subject to the have a preference under §980.211 provisions of outstanding leases, in any owner may dispose of this personal (Federal selection preferences for event, the owner must provide tenants property in accordance with state law; admission to Public Housing)of this of those units not leas than 30 days prior (3)Fxcusing owner from title;and written notice before Implementing any responsibility. Agreement by the tenant (4)Provide for— increase In rents. not to hold the owner or the owner's (c)Increases in tenant income. Rentsl agents legally responsible for any action (t)The selection of tenants from a lk housing qualifies as affordable housing or failure to act,whether intentional or written waiting list In the chronological ne It ent; order of their application,insofar as Is despite a temporary noncompliance E �S practicable;endwith paragraph (a)(2) or(a)(3) of this ( ) Waiver of notice.Agreement of the ac The prompt written notification to section,if the noncompliance is caused tenant that the owner may institute a (iiany rejected applicant of the grounds for by increases in the incomes of existing lawsuit without notice to the tenant; any rejection.tenants and if actions satisfactory to (5) Waiver of legal proceedings. (Approvedby the Office of Management end . HUD are being taken to ensure that all Agreement by the tenant that the owner Budget under OMB control number 2501- vacancies are filled in accordance with may evict the tenant or household 0013) { this section until the noncompliance is members without instituting a civil court ; corrected.Tenants who no longer proceeding in which the tenant has the §92.254 Ouslification as affordable t qualify as low-income families must pay opportunity to present a defense,or houslny:homeownership. as rent not leas then 30 percent of the before a court decision on the rights of (a)Purchase with or without. family's adjusted monthly income,as the parties; rehabilitation.Housing that is for recertified annually. (8) Waiver of o jury.trial Agreement purchase by a family qualifies as (d)Adjustment of qualifying rent by the tenant to waive any right to a affordable housing only if the housing: HUD may adjust the qualifying rent trial by jury; ' (1)(i)Has an initial purchase price established for a project under (7) Waiver of right to appeal court that does not exceed the mortgage limit paragraph(a)(1)of this section,only if decision.Agreement by the tenant to for the type of single family housing(1- HUD finds that an adjustment Is waive the tenant's right to appeal,or to to 4-family residence,condominium unit, necessary to support the continued otherwise challenge In court,a court combination manufactured home and 4350A CHG-5 2-19. PREFERENCES a. When selecting tenants from the list of eligible applicants, i .e. , those who have net both the economic triter a for the appropriate program as well as the owner' s uniform selection criteria, owners MUST adhere to the following rules. * ( 1) Families Who are Displaced, Occupying Substandard_ Housing, and/or Paying in_ Excess of 50 Percent ot Income _ orent. Give these families one or more Federal pre erences or admission. Each Federal preference is defined in paragraph 2-2. (Owners of. Section 236 and/or 221 (d) (3) projects need not comply with the provisions of this paragraph EXCEPT for applicants requiring either Rent Supplement or Sect o 8 assistance in the projects. ) (2) (a) Units Designed Specifically for Handicapped or Disabled ersons. Give preference toOuse o sT—wioamti -ice members s are handicapped or disabled. (b) Units Designed Specifically for the Elderly. Give preference to households whose head or spouse is elderly. If there are not enough such households to fill all such specifically designed units, owners may give preference to households whose elderly members are not the head or spouse. (Owners of Section 202/8 projects must obtain approval from HUD Headquarters before implementing the preference discussed in the previous sentence. ) (3) Residency Preferences. While owners may not make local residency a prerequisite for admission, with HUD approval * they may retain local preferences within the Federal preference requirements. Non-residents with a verified Federal preference must be admitted before residents with no Federal preference. HUD will approve a residency preference only if it is consistent with equal opportunity and Federal preference requirements. (a) When a residency preference is applied, persons expected to live in the municipality as a result of current or planned employment must be considered residents. "Planned employment" means a bona fide offer to work there. (b) If there are no eligible residents on the waiting list, owners cannot hold units open because of a re.sidency preference. In this situation, owners must admit eligible non-residents. 9/88 2-20 4350.3 CHG-5 * (4) Preferences Required _byState/Local Law. Owners may apply these a preferences using the a eraTpreferences. (a) An owner may order the waiting list among those eligible for a Federal -preference using local preferences. (b) An owner may not use a local preference to place a family with no Federal preference higher than a family with a Federal preference. (5) Military Personnel . Owners of Section 236 projects must give preterence to eligible families of active-duty military personnel if HUD has designated the project a "military set- aside". b. Owners may establish additional preferences if: (1) they are subordinate to those Federal preferences listed in paragraph 2-19a ; and (2) the preferences are specified in a written tenant selection plan. * c. Owners may apply the Federal preferences several different ways: (1 ) All preferences may be treated equally. Applicants with one or more Federal preferences are taken in chronological order before applicants who do not qualify for any Federal preferences. (2) The number of preferences may be aggregated. Families on the waiting list are ordered on the basis of the number of Federal preferences for which they qualify. Families with all three preferences receive priority over those qualifying for two, etc. (3) Owners may choose to rank preferences. An owner may choose to give a higher priority to one of the Federal preferences over the others or to rank each of the three Federal preferences differently. (4) Owners may rank by definitional elements of each preference. Owners may choose to give priority to a subgroup within one of the preferences. Some examples include preference to applicants from buildings condemned by local governments over others living in substandard ; and families paying more than 50% of income for rent over those whose housing is substandard only because it lacks a useable bathtub or shower in the unit. 2-21 9/88 Handbook 4350.3 U.S.oep+rtr,*M of Hou&Jnp end urban owww6opmerd Orf"of HouaJrV Departmental Staff and Program Participants Nownber 1881 Occupancy Requirements of Subsidized Multifamily Housing Programs Reprinted To Include Chgs 1 Thru 18 (12/2/91) V-1, v-2, Y-3, v-3-1, u-4. R-1, a-2, A-3, A-3-2, 1-4, A-4-2, 1-3, R-5-2, Spec L 1 Distribution to Lions, Are+, and Service Office 4350.3 CHG-.1 the final decision but will consult any State agency, Fm HA office or contract administrator involved with the project. e. Using Exceptions ( 1 ) If an owner receives an exception under Situation (7), -the owner must still take all reasonable steps to attract very low income applicants. The owner may give Section 8 assistance to lower income fami- lies whose incomes exceed the very low income limit only when no very low income applicants are available. (2) Owners =ay NOT reuse tenant-based (Situations 1 and 2) exceptions if the tenant for whom the exception was granted moves out or stops receiving Section 8 assist- ance. (3) Owners may reuse project-based (Situations_ 3_through 7) exceptions unti t e HUD Field Office recalls them. Section 3. Occupancy Standards 2-9. DETERMINING UNIT SIZE AT MOVE-IN. Owners must balance the need to avoid overcrowding with the need to make the best use of available space and to avoid unnecessary subsidy. Owners must consider both the number of persona in the household and the relationship and sex of those persons. a. Household Members . To determine how many bedrooms a family may have, owners may count: (1) all full-time members of the household (2) children who are away at school but live with C.`o family during school recesses (3) children who are subject to a joint custody agree- ment but live in the unit at least 50% of the time (4) an unborn child (5) fatter children (6) live-in attendants Owners may not provide bedroom space for others who are not members of the household -- such as adult children on active military duty, permanently institutionalized family members, or visitors. - - - 3/RS 2-11 4350..3 CAG-1 b. General Occupancy Standards ( 1) Children of the same sex should share a bedroom. (2) Two persons should occupy a bedroom. (3) Unrelated adults and persons of the opposite sex (.other than spouses) may occupy separate bedrooms. (4) Children should not share a bedroom with parents. c.. Smaller Units . Owners may approve a unit that is smaller than the occupancy standards in Paragraph 2-9b require if: ( 1) doing so is consistent with the owner's tenant selection standards and will not cause serious overcrowding; and (.2) the family requests a smaller unit because: (a) the family would otherwise be rejected because no units of the appropriate size are available; or (b) assigning a smaller unit would avoid a higher rent . (Applies only to 236 and BMIR projects.) d.. Larger Units. Owners MAY assign a larger unit than Paragraph 2-9b permits if: (1) the family provides a certification that a large.r unit is required for medical reasons; or (2) no eligible family requiring the larger unit will be available to occupy the unit within 60 days; the project contains the correct unit size for the family; and the family agrees to move to the correct size unit, at its own expense, when one becomes available. 2-10. OVERCROWDEn OR UNDERUTILIZED. UNITS a. After move-in, if a unit becomes overcrowded or underused because of changes in household composition, the owner should usually require the family to move to an appropriate size unit when one becomes available. (Paragraph 5-9 explains when unit transfers must be considered.) b. A family may be required to move from the project because the unit it occupies is an inappropriate size, only if the family has refused to move to an appropriate unit. 'JR5 2-12 RECEIVED OCT - 61992 CfTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DEVELOPAENT MEMORANDUM OCTOBER 6, 1992 TO: John Dunn, Arnold Jonas and Jeff Hook FROM: George Moylan, Executive Director Housing Authority of the City of San Luis Obispo SUBJECT: People's Self5Help HOME Application As per our discussion of Friday the following has been prepared after reviewing the staff report not the proposal itself. Since the Notice of Funding Availability has not as yet been issued some of my questions/concerns may well be answered in that document. However, and I guess that's one of my points, the NOFA has not even been issued, so it would appear to me there is time to attempt to answer some of the concerns. Anyway here are my concerns/comments. OCCUPANCY--I find several concerns here: A. DENSITY—Over the years we have gone out of our way to develop no more than twenty units on any one site because of all the concerns as to people density and ghettoization of low-income persons. While this concept is our policy and not that of the City, it has been very happy with the low crime rate we have in our developments, the upward mobility, the social mix, etc. such a concept promotes. To the best of my knowledge exceptions in this community have been for elderly developments, Judson Terrace, Park and Anderson Hotels, where less. social concerns predominate, and Madonna Road Apartments where a wider range of economic mix is permitted by the applicable Federal regulations. Tenants are to be low and very low income in this development, which equates with Public Housing and Section 8 qualified applicants. The regulations clearly state that the housing is limited to low income families as defined at Part 812 of appropriate Federal Regulations, which I believe is a mis-reference or a re-numbering of old Part 912 of the regulations. That Part clearly defines family as one or more persons living together who are related by marriage, adoption or operation of the law. Or persons who are 62 years of age, handicapped or disabled. Single persons are only eligible to occupy such units when certain things are in place, chiefly a substatntial occupancy problem. If I am right and this is the applicable HOME definition occupancy of the 32 1-BR units will undoubtedly be limited to'elderly and handicapped persons and the 2-BR units to small families, up to four and five persons. Does the City want this people density? Is this an appropriate location to house elderly and handicapped people? Does the City want to mix elderly and family populations? Is the development serviced by elevators? If not does the City want to house elderly and handicapped tenants on the second floor? -2— COST--Staff reports indicate that 85% of current tenants are low-income, 80% of the County's median income, or less, for their particular size of family. That means that a single person could be earning up to $22,250 a year and still be qualified for assistance. Our experience, and that of all practitioners in the assisted housing business, is that these maximums are seldom reached. In reality elderly applicants typically have gross incomes of less than $10,000 per year, and families are usually on AFDC or have salaries that are in the $10,000-$15,000 a year- category. Thus even with the HOME subsidy persons in this category would be paying an unusually high percentage of their income for rent. We have had similar problems with this concern in our Poinsettia Street units, it is •difficult ,+o find persons who are eligible for assistance who can pay the rents demanded by the program. And in that development rents cannot exceed 30% of 60% of the median income, here they can be set even higher, 30% of 65% of the median income. But the bottom line concern is that even with the HOME subsidy these units may not be truly affordable , to low-income persons. I have some other questions as follows: Relocation—Scott Smith, who I respect very much, tells me that relocation expenses are not a problem in the HOME program. That may be the case but I have not read anything to that effect. In any program involving Federal funding that I have been involved with the Uniform Relocation and Acquisition Act has always applied. In fact section 92.353 of the HOME regulations speaks to displacement, relocation and acquisition, but frankly I haven't had time to read and comprehend all of the provisions outlined therein. We are involved in a Transitional Housing program right now and relocation .is a requirement, even when college students occupy a property without benefit of a lease. CHA'S--The staff report speaks to an adopted housing element but it doesn't speak to the Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy. Section 105, State and Local Housing Stratgeies of the HOME Act itself reads, "The Secretary shall provide assistance directly to a jurisdiction only if. . the jurisdiction submits to the Secretary a comprehensive housing affordability st-rategy. ." I presume the answer to this is that since these funds are coming through the State we are using the State's CHA's but do we know this for a fact? Especially since the final state regulations and NOFA have not been published. City Involvement--The City is clearly the applicant for these funds and thus will be held accountable to administer the funds, record-keeping etc. In our past experience with the City it has not wanted to be in this position, the homeless shelter being the most recent example. Thus it has contracted with some other entity to carry-out it's administrative responsibilities. Is it doing the same in this case? If so I would doubt that the Federal and State government's would approve People's Self-Help both being the recipient and administrator of the funds. -3- In conclusion let it be re-stated the Housing Authority is not attempting to block any proposal for assisted housing in the City of San Luis Obispo be it from People's Self-Help or anyother non-profit or profit-motivated group. We are not egotistical enough to think we are the only one who can do this job. However, we take very seriously our responsiblities to the City as the public agency chosen by the City to address it's assisted housing needs. And in that position we consider it our duty to raise issues as to assisted housing proposed for the community. That is the intent of this memo. As you know this was done in haste. I apologize for that, however, given the short turn around time from receipt of the Council agenda, to our meeting of Friday and my being gone from the City for three days there was little choice in the matter. I am sure I lave missed some things and probably mis-stated some other concerns. Again we are not trying to be obstructionists. We have a Commission meeting on Thursday, October 15th, I will be here from now until then. Surely if removed from the consent agenda the item can be brought back to the Council well before the end of the month. George .T�4ii6a.Fr�-P✓..WJ+u '_ . . .� M 1 _ - u w+ ...°....... ...� .r..• � l �i ill -.,,� I j u:lY aG ,.,,' �h r'•rW, n u' _ G h,iL..'Y� rl n 1 I +Li ''� Jy•J+Y�'d�' IIJI'4N-r d'>Jla9.� nm i Fhl�k .{ ► �ED V E- 10r°� 2rro5�Y;1Q91 5 j'1 V}l n rl I +11+41 �lln J 4•: T,�y {�• U '1 1 M. •Y Y �L °J ��yy�� �1'r( LIl L 5t•7h x.C.1 �7 �(' 11r 111P 1Y,a�, 4t �., n y� IYr r'..' -." a { Ixr�"41. x ,r# t 4n t 7 �;m r ��SA 9-'° l I'•_ 1'I .°�} I. .c - fi • , t r �°�' r.'JL � r;r � . . }�I•. � I �I r I Ir/ " L,' _ ` Lt n. . .. •° fi Lf L c4 ^r ..1 M 7 1.1 ., t. S j%' + L - .I _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __� � __ __ i-•'s.rL- 1 t A f yr L't , I I National Affordable ,Housing Act. of 1990E ti,.� w p T !,I l u CTrJ >. I'r J 1 1 r SII Il#11 I r�^x p T 'r 1 '1 a 1 r a A y � . .� .. s �rr nl k al A s.� u IUT,i""� L � ., ur n. a ;,. .M1°•�,i J,^ J d.. g ,q ,r �J.a, ' ., 1 1. '„ly+ f+�' '• �J ''.� h PI .0 IN y'� Y � v F 1 ru tl r .0 ILIr k l IFcI A ' NI° 1 \ �(• 4 4 1 � U 1 • 4 " 'e •a WI�Lf41,1, 1 i -L I. .. �•: >v�YN � f +'^}p',id f r ° 'F }J. IM 1 JC1 '171� l r ,. T ry1 J ' -1 _ j ,.j'I 1 n i Y it •'• il I \ r .. :If '.I:� �� 1 1 Tn.l jH 1LL M}. �PIM y,r'. r r Y SA: P Briefing Mater als on the _ .. , it � N. •I! 'A'',. . �• N,I t' d' h ~ ' t Po.r rY Q I : 11�Tational Affordable Housing Act of 1990 � r w �1��r ?Ktlrc, "Iry January 1991 LL y Fa N ILI c� w 19 � .. r' rY Y:r.' - L � °7 C M i 1 WI• •^° '1. 'L�1��: }'. .. , it L°„j' i J; y 4 ' I E t.,•�yl•}w fhElo...iF"� �y J a c. .0 :. P � J N". o-f Q �i ur�tq J�L�yti fir:r'"' , P. u l l r 11 ha 13µ y� tl Y,'`� .•A a !�G � �TI'��N rIIA„'A{L I I i n 'r.e IY 1 :,” J 1) r 1 1• ! w�. }y 1 11�'. f 'l. .yll .. II.YJr4�•\" °•`n Q'I v 7 v I. r ar�. t I I " . Y r G r ��uu �•xy fpu dr J '. i n t�-IL yetb nJirv� Y z ..r f IY+ 1, L ' :ryn._ J 1.. t I 1 '., - I t ••y L � f�I u y� I L IP •I�LIf1v V ni i t r? %5IN _ "I4p 4..a1 t N P.I•Yr I+ IS X7-'0in Act of 1990 National Affordable Housing • Other Important Definitions ✓ Families: Now includes single persons, without regard to handicap or age ✓ First Time Homebuyers: those who have had no homeownership interest in the previous three years, as well as single parents and displaced homemakers. Displaced homemakers cannot be disqualified even if they owned a home with former spouse ✓ Substantial Rehabilitation: work that costs more than $25,000 per unit • Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strateg ies ✓ Must be submitted by all applicants for new HOME grants ✓ 5-year strategy that requires annual updating ✓ Replaces the Housing Assistance Plan (HAP) under CDBG program and the Comprehensive Homeless Assistance Plan (CHAP) under McKinney Act programs Tale I General Provisions and Policies 6 SFR" is the acronym used for the Code of Federal gegulations. "CHDO" is the acronym for Community Housing Development Organization and means those organizations which meet the criteria set forth in 24 CFR section 92 .2 . "c/mi"-is the computerized system operated by HUD which manages disburses , collects and reggrts on-the use of-funds in the HOME fund: .�. "Commitment" means the same as defined in 24 CFR section 92 . 2 . JAI "Department" means the State of California, Department of Housing and Community Development which shall serve as a participating jurisdiction as defined by 24 CFR section 92 . 2 . for the purboses of this program_ Li l "Director" means the director of -the department. "Displaced homemaker" is an adult who has not, within the preceding two years worked on a full-time basis as a member of the labor force for a consecutive twelve.-month period and who has been unemployed or underemployed, experienced difficulty in obtaining or uRgrading employment and worked primarily without renumeration to care for his or her home And family. "Entitlement Jurisdiction" means a unit of general local government which is eligible to receive funds directly from HUD. j� "Family" is a household consisting of an individual or two or more persons who by blood or marriage or otherwise live together in a housing unit . Lm1 "Funding cycle" means the annual period of time during which HUD makes funds available to the department for distribution pursuant to the Act and includes the Period -of- time during which the department solicits applications and makes funding allocations . (n� "HOME" is the abbreviation used for the department administered Home Investment Partnerships Program. "HOME fund" means the account established in the U.S. Treasury Account of-the HOME Investment Trust Fund, to which funds for the department's- use in the HOME program are allocated . 2