Loading...
AHA2002/03/19MARCH 19, 2002 II 177 The Anaheim Housing Authority met in regular session. Present: Chairman Tom Daly and Authority Members Frank Feldhaus, Lucille Kring, Tom Tait and Shirley McCracken. Staff Present: City Manager David Morgan, City Attorney Jack White, Secretary Sheryll Schroeder, Executive Director of Community Development, Elisa Stipkovich. A copy of the agenda for the meeting of the Anaheim Housing Authority was posted on March 15, 2002 at the City Hall inside and outside bulletin boards. Chairman Daly called the regular meeting of the Anaheim Housing Authority to order at 5:52 P.M. in the Council Chambers of the Anaheim City Hall, 200 South Anaheim Boulevard. ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO THE AGENDA: None. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS 1 - 2: Chairman Daly moved approval of Housing Consent Calendar Items 1 and 2, seconded by Housing Authority Member McCracken. Chairman Daly voted no on Item 1. Motion carried. Authorize the Executive Director to apply to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for 629 vouchers under the Fair Share Allocation of Incremental Voucher Funding for fiscal year 2002 and authorize the Executive Director to execute the required certifications and application documents. Chairman Daly moved for a three-week continuance on Item 1, seconded by Authority Member Feldhaus. Motion carried. Authority Member McCracken asked if there was a time element in applying for the vouchers and Executive Director of Community Development, Elisa Stipkovich, stated that there was a deadline and the application had to be submitted to Housing and Urban Development for the funding by March 25, 2002 Chairman Daly stated that the March 25, 2002 deadline had not given the Housing Authority Members very much time to consider the application. Director Stipkovich said that there were different periods to respond to the notice of fundability and her item was in conformance with the City's overall consolidated plan. The notice was received from Housing and Urban Development on February 22, 2002 which did not give Community Development much time to prepare. Chairman Daly noted that he was interested in the context of the regional situation, County wide and how much other cities were expending for subsidized rents. He said that it did not seem to him to be condusive to public policy making that if Housing and Urban Development only gave the Authority three weeks for turn-around and that maybe Housing and Urban Development should be challenged on the time frame. He said that Housing and Urban Development staff were not elected officials and were not directly accountable to the tax payers. He asked that the letter from Housing and Urban Development be produced and noted that this was tax-payer ANAHEIM HOUSING AUTHORITY MINUTES MARCH 19, 2002 PAGE 2 subsidized housing for 629 families in the City and he noted that the City was the leader in Orange County by a large margin and he said it should not be automatic especially when the State was challenging the City to do more in terms of affordable housing. He wanted context, fact and figures. In response to Authority Member Feldhaus, Director Stipkovich said that the 629 was the maximum that the City was eligible to receive and there was a formula that Housing and Urban Development gave the City to use. She said that there were 1,300 households in the City that were in the category of needing assistance and there were over 6,000 residents on the City's waiting list. Chairman Daly asked how many existing vouchers the City had and Director Stipkovich said that there were approximately 6,000 vouchers now in the City. She said that if the City was to receive the full allocation of 629 vouchers it would expand it by ten percent. Authority Member Feldhaus asked if the approval of the City's Housing Element depended upon the vouchers and Director Stipkovich said it did not. She said that this was a federal program and separate from the State approval of the Housing Element. Chairman Daly noted that the City did not receive any credit with the state for having vouchers and the state continued to challenge the City and use staff time that could be used in other areas of the City. He asked if they were working with vouchers with other cities as much as they were with Anaheim. He pointed out that the City could do 10,000 more of the federal housing vouchers in the City and receive no credit from Sacramento. Director Stipkovich said that the City received credit for existing housing providing subsidies and rental assistance to the existing population and she added that Chairman Daly was correct in saying that the 11,500 that was said to be added to the housing stock. She said that the new construction requirement was a lot tougher and technically the City had to show what they were doing for the existing need as well. Authority Member Kring asked for a breakdown of the 6,000 vouchers that were already issued and she asked about the number of senior citizens as opposed to the number of working people. Director Stipkovich responded that she had those statistics and there were approximately fifty percent of seniors. Allocations used to be for either seniors or multifamily and now it was mixed and it depended on how many people were on the waiting list, she noted. Authority Member Kring asked why the City had more vouchers than any other city in Orange County and she asked if it was because the City had more vouchers, that people moved into the City or that the people were already here so more vouchers were needed. She asked how that could be managed and the City could be more in line with other cities. Director Stipkovich said that a priority was given to people who lived in the City and the City had not yet run out of priority people so they were not coming into Anaheim and getting assistance. She stated that there were statistics that supported about 13,000 households currently living in the City that were over paying for rent or living in substandard conditions or over crowded conditions which meant that they were eligible for that type of assistance. There were 6,000 households in the City that were on the waiting list and people were not imported or attracted into the City because of the program, she said. The existing need was here and she said she had the data to support that. ANAHEIM HOUSING AUTHORITY MINUTES MARCH 19, 2002 PAGE 3 In response to Chairman Daly, Director Stipkovich said that the County Housing Authority, which served the County unincorporated areas and many other smaller cities, had a higher amount of vouchers, approximately 11,000, which was twice as many as Anaheim had. She said that was for all the smaller cities and then Santa Ana and Garden Grove had their own Housing Authorities and Santa Ana had about 4,000 vouchers. Chairman Daly asked for a breakdown and Director Stipkovich said she would provide that for the Authority Members. Chairman Daly said that when he had learned that the City did not receive credit from the state in terms of the formula, he said he was concerned that the state had asked the City to aggressively pursue things and were not asking cities that were similar to do the same things, which was not fair. He suggested that the City ask the federal government for a time extension to make a decision on the item and that the Authority consider this again at the next Housing Authority meeting. He asked Community Development to bring more backround information to the Authority. Director Stipkovich suggested an alternative so as not to miss the deadline of March 25, 2002. She suggested that the Authority approve the item and Community Development could withdraw the item for reconsideration at the meeting of March 26, 2002. Data would be provided for the Authority and they could decide at that time to withdraw the application. She added that if Authority Members decided to pull the item, the application could be withdrawn from Housing and Urban Development. Chairman Daly asked what would happen if the City did not respond to Housing and Urban Development by March 25, 2002. Director Stipkovich said that HUD would typically not give the City an extension. Authority Member Tait asked if a withdrawal after the deadline would have the same effect as not submitting the application at all. Director Stipkovich responded that he was correct. Authority Member Tait said that it would be all right to approve the item and then have a chance to study the information and withdraw it after that. Chairman Daly asked that staff explore with Housing and Urban Development why the turn around time was so short. Authority Member Tait moved, in the interest of not missing the deadline of March 25, 2002, seconded by Authority Member Kring, to approve the 629 vouchers; and that the item be placed on the next Housing Authority agenda for possible withdrawal. Ayes - 4, Authority Members McCracken, Feldhaus, Tait, and Kring. Noes - 1, Chairman Daly. Motion carried. Authority Member Kring directed the City Manager and staff to work with Assembly Members and Senators of the state and ask that they give the City credit for the vouchers. City Manager Morgan noted that he and staff were aware of the Authority's concerns and would be reporting back. Chairman Daly said that he thought that the state government was not being forthright with the tax payers and cities and it seemed that there was an expectation that if jobs were created, then a certain number of affordable housing units should be created also. He said it was not clear and that it was an indirect relationship. He added that if the state government wanted to tie responsibility for adding more affordable housing to the creation of jobs to any community in the ANAHEIM HOUSING AUTHORITY MINUTES MARCH 19, 2002 PAGE 4 state they should say that they require it. He said that there were other cities that were not adding many jobs and they did not have the same responsibilities imposed on Anaheim. 177 Authority Member McCracken said she had worked with the housing issue at the state level. She said that it was not like it was in the past where large homeowners provided a place for their workers. She said that they were living in cities like Anaheim, Santa Aha and Garden Grove and it was not just the jobs that the City provided, it was the Iow level jobs that were being provided in cities throughout Orange County. It was an issue that needed to be balanced, she said, and staff had been working with legislators to get some type of legislation that would help the City get the Housing Element approved and it was a challenge. It was not even affordable housing, it was just providing housing for people who are working in the community. 2. Approve minutes of the Housing Authority meeting held February 26, 2002. Chairman Daly moved, seconded by Authority Member McCracken, to approve the Housing Authority minutes of February 26, 2002. Motion carried unanimously. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, Chairman Daly moved to adjourn the Anaheim Housing Authority, seconded by Authority Member Feldhaus. Motion carried unanimously. The regular meeting of the Anaheim Housing Authority adjourned at 6:17 P.M. Sheryll Schroeder, CMC/AAE Secretary, Housing Authority