Loading...
AHA2002/04/09177 174 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 April 5, 2002 at the City Hall inside and outside bulletin boards. Chairman Daly called the regular meeting of the Anaheim Housing Authority to order at 5:26 P.M. in the Council Chambers of the Anaheim City Hall, 200 South Anaheim Boulevard. ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO THE AGENDA: None. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Jimmy Gaston, 2110 East Virginia Avenue, encouraged the Authority to not withdraw the 629 housing vouchers. He noted that there were many Iow-income elderly people that needed the assistance to be able to get into permanent, decent housing and he said he believed it was important to gain additional housing certificates to assist Iow-income families. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS 1 - 3: Chairman Daly moved approval of Housing Consent Calendar Items 1 through 3, seconded by Housing Authority Member Feldhaus. Motion carried unanimously. Reject all bids for tenant improvements for the property located at 425 South Anaheim Boulevard. RESOLUTION NO. AHA2002-1 RESOLUTION OF THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM regarding its intention to issue tax-exempt obligations for Parkview Apartments. Executive Director of Community Development, Elisa Stipkovich, said that the program was an acquisition-rehabilitation program and the owner would propose to acquire the units. She said that the units were owned by one owner and were subdivided into about ten parcels and were developed out as four-plexes. The bond financing would allow them to acquire the property and put significant dollars into rehabilitating the units, she said, and if they received the allocation from the State, Community Development would issue a tax-exempt bond and money would not be put into the project. The rents would be kept within 60 percent of the median which was around $40,000 per year for a household of four. Executive Director of Planning and Community Development, Joel Fick, said that 50 percent of the area median was $795 per month plus utilities and 63 units were available for households at or below 60 percent with a monthly rent of $965. ANAHEIM HOUSING AUTHORITY MINUTES APRIL 9, 2002 PAGE 2 Director Stipkovich said that it was required that the property be kept under one ownership and Community Development would ask for a new parcel map to be created. She said that covenants would be placed limiting occupancy to two people per bedroom plus one additional person per household and there would be covenants regarding management and maintenance. Chairman Daly asked that a follow up report be prepared showing how many total units in the City had been rehabilitated to date. He said that in exchange for the Authority's and the State government's participation in the rehabilitation of the properties, the landlords agreed to reduce the rent on some or all of the units for a period of 55-years. It would be helpful to have totals because the Jeffrey-Lynne project involved similar limits on rents, he added. Authority Member McCracken asked Community Development to include the expiration dates. She noted that some of the same projects had been done years ago and they were approaching the expiration dates since it was 20 to 30-years and once they expired, it would go onto the free market unless another rehabilitation was applied for. Other cities had experienced a drop in the number of available apartments, she added, because the loans had expired and were paid back. Director Stipkovich stated that a full report would be prepared on all affordable housing, time frames and rents and Community Development had tracked the information and it would be provided to the Authority. Authority Member Feldhaus said that the units were built at market rates for rental and Director Stipkovich said that he was correct. He asked what the occupancy factor was and if the units had vacancy rates. Director Stipkovich said she believed that the units did not have a very high vacancy rate. She said she had taken a tour of the project and it seemed in fairly bad condition and Community Development wanted to work with a potential buyer on the site. She did not have an occupancy report since it was too early to know the true occupancy and they seemed to have an unusual amount of vacancies. She said she believed that the majority of the people already living in the units would be in the income level. She did not have the statistics on the developer's investment in the property and the overall cost of the project but if the developer did get an allocation from the State, Community Development would have him prepare a pro forma that would be reviewed and the statistics provided to the Authority. This was to allow the developer to apply for an allocation and should they be successful, she said, Community Development would work with them on all the factors and how much money would be placed into rehabilitation since the developer was required to put a certain amount per unit into the rehabilitation of the property. Authority Member Feldhaus asked if the units would go from the market rate to affordable, which would be subsidized housing and Director Stipkovich said that it would because of the tax benefits. Chairman Daly asked if any of the 71 units were involved with the Section 8 housing vouchers and Director Stipkovich said that 23 were involved with Section 8. Authority Member Kring said if the units were at market rate now and some of the tenants would be eligible for the affordable units, she asked how they would be able to pay for the market rate housing. Director Stipkovich stated that it was either over crowded or the tenant was paying more than 30 percent of their income for rent. She said that this was not the final approval of the project and that it was an approval to allow the application for the developer to apply for his allocation from the State. She added that most of the tenants were at that income level and were either over paying or over crowding. 117 ANAHEIM HOUSING AUTHORITY MINUTES APRIL 9, 2002 PAGE 3 Authority Member Kring asked where the other family would go if there were two families living in one apartment and when vacancy was so limited. Director Stipkovich responded that Community Development would assist the families with relocation and the developer would be asked to fund that since this was a project brought to the Authority by the developer. Chairman Daly informed that the 71 apartment units were at least 45-years old and among the oldest in a neighborhood that had a heavy concentration of apartments. 3. Approve minutes of the Housing Authority meeting held March 19, 2002. END OF CONSENTCALENDAR 174 Consider the withdrawal of the Application to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for 629 vouchers under the Fair Share Allocation of Incremental Voucher Funding Programs for fiscal year 2002 (Application previously approved at the Housing Authority meeting of March 19, 2002, with consideration of possible withdrawal continued from the meetings of March 19, 2002 and March 26, 2002). Reaffirm decision to authorize the filing of an application for vouchers under the Fair Share Allocation of Incremental Voucher Funding Programs for fiscal year 2002. Chairman Daly had asked staff to provide a depiction of where all the Section 8 vouchers were located and there was three times the number of vouchers in the City. The next largest city had a larger population than Anaheim and the City had three times the number of vouchers. He was not sure that the Authority should add to that burden until he was furnished with more comparative information of other jurisdictions. He suggested that the application be withdrawn since Anaheim already had 6,000 Section 8 housing vouchers. Chairman Daly moved, seconded by Housing Authority Member Feldhaus, to withdraw the application and revisit the housing voucher program in the near future. Housing Authority Member Feldhaus noted that the State did not give the City considerations for the number of Section 8 housing certificates in developing the Housing Element and he said he believed that the City needed to go to the State. Housing Authority Member Kring said that the City had the 629 vouchers and if Section 8 housing was not provided to the elderly and working poor, there would be two or three families living together. The Authority did not want that and infrastructure could not take it and there would be too much pressure on sanitation and on utilities. She noted that Section 8 housing was mostly in the central and west end of the City and Section 8 units were usually very maintained and not blighted and was an acceptable place to live. She explained that the landlord would have the power of the government behind it and if a tenant did something wrong, they would be barred from ever receiving Section 8 vouchers again and it was not a detriment for the landlord to take in a Section 8 tenant. Housing Authority Member McCracken said that she could not vote to withdraw the application for the vouchers since this was separate from the Housing Element. She said that the Housing Element had been appealed and she had worked on a committee in Sacramento to change State law and the way they operated. There were owners that were willing to take a Section 8 voucher and they were willing to abide by the federal regulations and inspections to provide the ANAHEIM HOUSING AUTHORITY MINUTES APRIL 9, 2002 PAGE 4 housing and the owners were willing to choose to accept tenants who took a subsidy. She spoke about the changing economy, senior citizens and widows that did not have enough money to eat and had been sent to the Housing Department. This was not the time for the Authority to not send in the application and there were people who were struggling and needed the assistance, she added. Authority Member Tait stated that he did not support the motion and that it was a regional issue. He said that he was concerned that the State did not give the City credit and it did need to be addressed. He said that the federal government was willing to give the City 629 vouchers to help the affordable housing problem and he said he believed that they ought to be accepted. Chairman Daly noted that the City seemed to handle and accept a larger percentage of the Iow- income housing subsidies offered by the federal government. He said that distribution of the vouchers was predominantly in central and west Anaheim and he thought that the issue needed to be discussed. It should be part of an overall citywide plan and the cities that bordered Anaheim and that the cities around Anaheim were not adding these types of subsidies nearly as fast as Anaheim was. He requested more information from staff on how the program worked and the waiting lists here and in other cities. Roll call vote: Ayes - 2, Chairman Daly and Housing Authority Member Feldhaus. Noes - 3, Housing Authority Members McCracken, Kring and Tait. Motion failed to carry. Housing Authority Member McCracken moved, seconded by Housing Authority Member Kring, to reaffirm the decision to authorize the filing of an application for vouchers under the Fair Share Allocation of Incremental Voucher Funding Programs for fiscal year 2002. Chairman Daly said if the Authority approved the item, there would be approximately 6,600 of the subsidized housing vouchers. He asked how often the program was revisited and if the Housing Authority would be in a position to approve it. Director Stipkovich responded that the action on Item 4 would not give the City the allocation and it was simply to reaffirm the application at Housing and Urban Development. She pointed out that there were 2,700 vouchers available for the entire State of California and it was up to the regional office as to how many would be allocated and she did not know how many would be received. She said that once the Housing Authority had a contract and Housing and Urban Development awarded the units, Community Development would come back and reaffirm that with the Housing Authority. She said that once the units were accepted, the Authority would be funded and it depended on how many years the program was extended by Congress and was not a continuing action. She said that it really depended on the allocation of the federal government because the contracts were renewed by them every so often and they usually renewed it and she did not ever know the total amount of funding and how many years it would go on. She added that some of the contracts were for one year and some for five years and it just depended. Chairman Daly asked if the Authority had the option to turn the vouchers back in the future if the Authority chose to and Executive Director Fick said that it afforded the opportunity to do that. The Authority accepted the vouchers at the last meeting, he said, and it afforded the opportunity to look at the core businesses, practices and programs and a review would be undertaken in the upcoming months. He said that the Authority would be directly involved and would either reaffirm the practices or alter the scope of any touch programs. ANAHEIM HOUSING AUTHORITY MINUTES APRIL 9, 2002 PAGE 5 Authority Member Feldhaus asked if there were any units east of State College where people were 50 to 60 percent of the median. Director Stipkovich responded that there were not many apadments beyond State College and additional data would be provided to the Authority. Chairman Daly asked if the Authority had received most of the units applied for based on past experience and Director Stipkovich said that the units had been received prior to the last couple of times. She said that it was likely that the Authority would not receive them all and would receive word in about a four-month time frame. Housing Authority Member McCracken moved, seconded by Housing Authority Member Kring, to reaffirm the decision to authorize the filing of an application for vouchers under the Fair Share Allocation of Incremental Voucher Funding Programs for fiscal year 2002. She added that there should be conditions to go with Section 8 housing because she believed that it upgraded some of the older housing. Roll call vote: Ayes - 3, Housing Authority Members McCracken, Kring and Tait. Noes - 2, Chairman Daly and Housing Authority Member Feldhaus. Motion carried. 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 mee~m Housing Authority adjourned at 6:10 P.M. S~der, CMC/AAE Secretary, Housing Authority