The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 01281997 - C85 Contra TO: REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 97 FEB -5 PH 4: 46 • �� Costa FROM: Phil Batchelor i1P;IT`{ -r_ � �J` County Executive Director DEVELOPMENT'D.EPT DATE: January 28, 1997 SUBJECT: State Department of Housing and Community Development FY 1994/95 Report on Housing Activities of Redevelopment Agencies in California SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS ACCEPT the State Department of Housing and Community Development's FY 1994/95 Report on Housing Activities of Redevelopment Agencies in California which highlights the performance of the Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency as the second ranked Redevelopment Agency in the State in producing affordable housing units. FISCAL IMPACT None. BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS Annually, the State Department of Housing and Community Development issues a report summarizing Housing Activities of Redevelopment Agencies. A copy of the Executive Summary to this 250 page report is attached. The full report is on file with the Redevelopment Agency. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: .ACX YES SIGNATURE: Q RECOMMENDATION OF EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR E OMMENDTION OF A#tNCY COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF AGENCY ON JAN 2 St APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER VOTE OF COMMISSIONERS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A ZUNANIMOUS (ABSENT ) TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ON THE DATE SHOWN. Contact: Jim Kennedy 335-1255 ATTESTED A 8 cc: County Administrator PHIL BATCHELOR County Counsel AGENCY SECRETARY Community Development Housing Authority BY DEPUTY JKIh sra25ftgactiv.bos The Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency was reported to be the second ranked Redevelopment Agency in the development of affordable housing units. The summary of performance shown below is testament to the highly efficient and highly leveraged use of funds this Agency has accomplished. Number of Affordable Amount of Agency's Annual Area Units Developed Housing Set Aside ($000.000) San Jose 1,184 $13.5 Contra Costa 906 1.1 Los Angeles 481 21.4 San Francisco 378 3.9 • , ...< J O VO ><y t .rY' :Y � .O-p° J.�,p -° °°. 4. '�si.✓'M� '�'E�_'�.�F'^�".•-y� .t3; u •^an'V(A.�PJ CJOjLO°Aht•t'. l0O ° O 4:• f !'-:{C :>...--?t(-.?.:.��4�°�OOC�•ui ^.O JO:\JiY�wv>J.rPO'�.o4 ooy A ° V2'it%;ii_2:�Si:l�`o o._o`eo''•o`Z��:+i n°F T; °q,.;i+ Op O o > -- � .....; �'�• -_ _ _ s of Opp Ig >)<IW >< REDEVELOPMENT HOUSING ACTIVITIES IN CALIFORNIA Fiscal Year 1994-.1995 Executive Summary This is the eleventh annual report prepared by the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) designed to track the housing revenues, expenditures, activities, and programs of redevelopment agencies. Over the years, the report has provided important information to redevelopment agencies,the State Legislature, and the public by presenting clear, objective data on funds accumulated and spent by agencies and by focusing attention on emerging issues and problems associated with the use of agency housing funds. Providing accurate data on the housing fund resources and housing activities of redevelopment agencies will continue to be of critical importance because of the pre-eminence of redevelopment funds as an affordable housing resource. The decreasing availability of federal and state housing funds and the changing federal housing role is placing greater demands on local affordable housing resources. As greater emphasis is placed on the role of local governments in addressing the State's housing needs so will the need to ensure that this valuable resource continues to be effectively and efficiently utilized to address California's urgent housing needs. As the single largest source of local funding for housing, redevelopment agencies will play an increasing role in addressing the state's housing needs. HCD is committed to improving the ability of this report to accurately monitor the housing activities of redevelopment agencies and their use of these housing funds. Accurate reporting will enable redevelopment agencies and public policy makers to develop policies and programs that make maximum use of this critical funding resource. HCD is committed to assisting local agencies develop effective and efficient programs to address their housing needs. One of the most valuable components of the report, in this regard, is the summary of outstanding or innovative housing projects and programs recently implemented by redevelopment agencies. Approximately 95 examples of new program or project descriptions provided by agencies are reproduced in this report (see pages 21 through 54). 1 1994-1995 SUMMARY OF ACTIVITIES In Fiscal Year 1994-1995, 314 of California's 385 redevelopment agencies reported making deposits to, expenditures from, or having a fund balance in their Low & Moderate Income Housing Funds. Eight active agencies did not report, Highlights of the year's activity include the following: ► 312 redevelc ment agencies added$451 million to their housin P g g.fnds. This is $7 million i less than the amount added during the previous fiscal year. The difference is largely attributable to less tax increment revenue and bond proceeds being added during the fiscal year. ► 274 agencies spent, or transferred out, a total of$442 million from their housing funds; $58 million of the amount spent(1 S percent) was expended for planning and administrative costs. ® Statewide, the percentage of expenditures for planning and administrative costs is about the p� same as that reported during the previous year. Numerous agencies, however, continue to spend 50 percent or more of their funds for planning and administrative costs (see Supplemental Exhibit E). ► The statewide housing fund balance at the end of FY 94195 was$979 million, of which $462 million (47 percent) was reported to be unencumbered and generally available for housing activities. While some of this revenue has been designated or budgeted for speck housing activities, it is not legally encumbered The available balance is less than the $489 million of designated and available funds reported last year. ► $40 million of the available fund balance was reported as excess surplus, which must be ® expended, encumbered or transferred to a housing authority within three years. Agencies reported spending or encumbering $3 million in excess surplus funds from FY 93194, and reported a remaining excess surplus fund balance of$52 million from FY 93194. In combination, more than $92 million in excess surplus funds now exist. "1 ► 26 agencies reported making findings to defer setting aside housing funds and 8 made findings to exempt themselves from the housing set-aside requirement. Eight fewer agencies deferred funds and seven fewer agencies made exemption findings than did so last year. p4 ► 57 redevelopment agencies reported cumulative deferred housing funds yet to be repaid of $187 million. ► S,452 new units were constructed and added to the housing stock by redevelopment agencies or as a result of agency assistance. Of these,.249 were used to replace units previously removed or destroyed by agency:activities. 2S1 units were also added to the affordable housing stock in redevelopment project areas by entities other than the agencies. Overall, 585 more units were added to the housing stock this year than the amount of new units reported last year. 2 e• b 1994-1995 Summary of Activities Page 2 ► 3,287 units were substantially rehabilitated by redevelopment agencies, or as a result of agency assistance. 257 units were substantially rehabilitated in redevelopment project areas by entities other than the agencies. ► Redevelopment agencies acquired long-term affordability covenants for 1,055 units, which were previously not affordable to, or not expected to remain affordable to, lower-income households. ► 1,284 affordable units were maintained or preserved 2,119 units received minor or moderate rehabilitation improvements, 1,304 households received rental assistance or subsidies, 5,316 households received homeownership assistance, and 436 households were otherwise assisted with redevelopment housing funds. ► Redevelopment agencies removed 536 dwelling units, 477 of which must be replaced. ► 490 households, including 65 elderly households, were displaced due to redevelopment activities during FY 94195. Agencies anticipate displacing 147 households during FY 95196. 3