HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 03012005 - HA.1 HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA
TO: BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
FROM: Robert McEwan, Executive Director
DATE: March 1, 2005
SUBJECT: ACCEPT REPORT ON THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE COUNTY OF CONTRA
COSTA'S PROJECT BASED SECTION 8 PROGRAM
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
ACCEPT the attached report providing information regarding the Housing Authority's Project
Based Section 8 Program.
II. FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None.
III. REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION/BACKGROUND
This report is provided to the Board of Commissioners to provide background on the Project Based
Voucher program and its implications for several pending affordable housing developments.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE '
RECOMMENDATION OF EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD
COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S):
ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED OVED AS RECOMMENDED O ER
VOTE OF COMMISSIONERS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A
(*/ UNANIMOUS (ASSENT ) TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN
AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
r
ATTESTED
.)1/1 avit
JOHN S WE TEN, CLERK OF
THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
cc: Jim Kennedy,Community Development Department
Kara Douglas,Community Development Department
BY ,DEPUTY
H:1JudyHayes\MSOFFICEIWINWORDIBOARDIBO-Accept Report.doc
HOUSING AUTHORITY
Of THE
COUNTY Of CONTRA COSTA
affordable kousing solutions
March 1, 2005
Project Based Section 8
At the Board of Supervisors meeting of February 15, 2005, a Board Order (D.2)
was approved reallocating HOME funds for several affordable housing
developments expecting Project Based Section 8 Vouchers be attached to those
developments in order to enhance the revenue for the development and provide
greater housing choice for Section 8 voucher holders. The purpose of this report
is to provide information regarding the Housing Authority's Project Based Section
8 Program in regard these developments.
Background:
The Housing Authority initiated a Project Based Section 8 Program under
its approved 2003 Annual Plan. The plan allocated 150 vouchers to eligible
projects under a competitive proposal process. HUD regulations provide for a
local housing authority to use Project Basing of tenant based vouchers to help
achieve local affordable housing objectives. This Housing Authority chose to use
this strategy in order to:
1. Promote affordable housing development.
2. Provide greater housing choice for Section 8 participants, especially
during peak rental markets.
Under the Project Based program, local housing authorities must operate
the program out of their existing allocation of tenant based vouchers. Contra
Costa County Housing Authority currently assists around 6800 low-income
families, seniors, and disabled under Section 8. These vouchers are portable,
i.e. the family may move from one rental unit to another (and, in some cases, to
other jurisdictions) and take their voucher with them. Conversely, Project Based
vouchers are targeted to a specific development. The ownership is required to
lease the unit to eligible Section 8 families but, upon the family moving from the
rental unit, the voucher assistance to that family terminates and the voucher is
then used by the subsequent resident family at that development.
Usually Developers using Project Based vouchers are using several
subsidized loan programs to fund the capital costs of development. These funds
may include Low-Income Housing Tax Credits, HOME funds, and/or CDBG
funds. All of these programs restrict occupancy to low-income families and
restrict rent levels. When combined with Project Based vouchers, higher rents
3133 ESTUDILLO STREET•P.O.BOX 2759•MARTINEZ,CALIFORNIA 94553•PHONE (925)957-8000•FAX(925)372-0236
www.contracostahousing.org
Housing Authority of the County of Contra Costa
Project Based Section 8
March 1, 2005
Page 2 of 4
may be charged for the Section 8 units while still being in compliance with the
funding restrictions. This provision allows for leveraging higher loan amounts
and contributes positively to the project economics.
Process — Project Based Vouchers:
In September 2003, Contra Costa Housing Authority issued a Request for
Proposals and ten developers submitted proposals that were reviewed under the
criteria stated in the RFP. Five affordable housing developments sponsored by
five non-profits were selected for the program. The Housing Authority issued
letters in January 2004 notifying the non-profit developers that they had been
selected for the Project Based Section 8 Program. These letters also advised
the developers that the award was contingent upon HUD site inspection,
compliance with the terms and requirements of the Administrative plans, and the
execution of the Agreement to Enter into a Housing Assistance Payment
Contract.
Letters were issued in March 2004 and the Housing Authority anticipated
no problem funding the needed vouchers in time to meet the occupancy
schedules for all five of the developments. The program's attrition rate is
approximately 16 per month — i.e, sixteen families drop off the program, on
average, per month and the agency planned to curtail issuance of new vouchers
at a point in time that would generate the vouchers in time to meet the project
construction and occupancy schedules.
d%.0
HUD Section 8 Funding Change.
A few months after we notified the five non-profits of their selection for the
Project Based Voucher program, HUD changed the way of allocating funds for
Housing Assistance Payments or HAPs for all housing authorities. HAPs are
the payments housing authorities make to landlords on behalf of eligible low-
income families. Previously housing authorities were reimbursed by HUD for
their actual costs of issuing a voucher. If we paid $950 on behalf of a low income
family to the landlord, we would get reimbursed $950. After the funding change,
we were notified that we would be funded at a fixed dollar amount per voucher.
At the time, the rate of reimbursement from HUD was about $40 less per voucher
than it cost the agency to support a voucher. This translated into a shortfall of
over$250,000 per month. To help stabilize this deficit without removing families
from the program, the Housing Authority implemented a variety of administrative
steps to reduce the Per Unit Cost (PUC). These steps have not generated the
savings hoped for. One of the factors that dampened the expected cost
reduction was the fact that many assisted families took advantage of the
2
Housing Authority of the County of Contra Costa
Project Based Section 8
March 1, 2005
Page 3 of 4
softening rental market and moved to more expensive units which generated a
higher HAPs. The steps taken to date are:
• Reduced the Payment Standard to the lowest allowable level, 90 percent
of Fair Market Rents
• Amended its Subsidy Standard to effectively reduce the bedroom size of
vouchers for approximately 1200 families
• Stopped issuance of new vouchers
• Instituted "interim" rent recertifications upon increase in family income
• Restricted family moves within the jurisdiction to one per year
• Restricted portability or family moves to jurisdictions with higher costs
• Froze rent increases since September 2004
Housing authorities were also notified that funding for 2005 would be
based on a snapshot of the number of units under lease during a portion of 2004.
Hence it was imperative that this agency maintain high numbers of units leased
under the program or face a significant reduction in funding for 2005. This
Housing Authority maintained full leasing for the remainder of 2004, using
reserve funds to cover the deficit.
On January 21, 20051 HUD gave notice of the final 2005 Calendar Year
HAP funding for HAPs. The new formula generated level of funding was $3.2
million or 4% less than anticipated. Had the 2004 leasing rate not been
maintained at a high level, this funding reduction would have been even greater.
To date, the pending funding shortfall has been discussed with all of the
Project Based Voucher sponsors. We have been working with these
organizations and the County Community Development Department to explore
ways to keep these developments moving.
Projections:
The Housing Authority has been in the process of analyzing the impact of
the HUD funding. This analysis focuses on both stabilizing the current Section 8
HAP's, i.e. lowering our actual PUC's to the reimbursement level, and estimating
if there is sufficient capacity to provide the vouchers for the developments
selected for the Project Based Vouchers.
Assuming estimated savings from the administrative and policy actions
taken and maintaining the existing leasing levels, a deficit of$635,000 would be
generated by the end of 2005. This translates to 54 families that would have to
be removed from the program or 988 unit months of program reduction. To the
extent leasing levels are reduced due to attrition (we are not currently leasing), a
3
w
A
Y
Housing Authority of the County of Contra Costa
Project Based Section 8
March 1, 2005
Page 4of4
portion, and possibly all, of this shortfall could be recouped by early 2006.
Please note that these projections are based upon the best information available.
However, many of the variables are not predictable at a high confidence level,
notably the attrition rate, the effect of the reduction in the subsidy standard
(effective upon annual recertification), and the effect of the reduction in the
payment standard (also effective upon recertification). A history of actual costs
reductions will be developed in the next few months and this will increase the
reliability of the projections. Again, our projections are that it will likely be early
2006 before the capacity to fund the Project Based Vouchers might be available.
This assumes HUD funds at the current level for 2006.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that the Housing Authority make every effort to provide
the vouchers needed for these five developments and to continue to collaborate
with the County Community Development Department in their efforts to
restructure these project to keep them moving forward. To this end, the Housing
Authority should continue to freeze the Section 8 Voucher Program and carefully
monitor the results of steps previously taken to reduce the overall HAP costs.
We believe that better"real cost" data will be generated by June or July.
Projections regarding developing excess capacity will then be provided to the
non-profit developers.
Further, it is recommended that the Housing Authority request a waiver to
HUD allowing unit reductions accruing due to the leasing freeze be counted in its
calculations for 2006 funding should HUD use a similar methodology for
allocation of HAP's for 2006 as was used for 2005.
As was directed in the Community Development Department Board Order
of February 15, 2005, the Housing Authority will report on this matter to the
Board of Supervisor's Finance Committee at its regular April meeting.
4