RA1975/11/0475 -106
ANAHEIM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
November 4, 1975 (1;00 P.M.)
Council Chamber
Anaheim City Hall
PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom..
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
PRESENT: ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT: John Harding
CITY ATTORNEY: Alan R. Watts
DEPUTY CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR: Knowlton Fernald
HOUSING DIRECTOR: Rosario Mattessich
FINANCE DIRECTOR: M. R. Ringer
Chairman Thom called the regular meeting of the Anaheim Community
Development Commission to order at 1:00 P.M. for the purpose of
sitting as the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency and the Anaheim Housing
Authority.
MINUTES Approval of the minutes of the Community Development Commis-
sion Regular Meeting held October 28, 1975, was deferred to the next
meeting.
REPORT - FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION:
Demands against the Redevelopment Agency and the Housing Authority,
in the amounts of $605.12 and $401.20 respectively, in accordance
with the 1975 -76 Budget, were approved.
I. ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY The following matters were con-
sidered by the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency:
DRAFT E.I.R. GUIDELINES - PROJECT ALPHA: Consideration of Draft E.I.R.
Guidel for Project Alp a continued from the meeting of
October 28,.1975 and by general Commission consent further continued
two weeks, as requested by the City Attorney. *°*�
ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FINANCIAL REPORT Finance Director M. R.
Ringer briefly reviewed report dated September 30, 1975, advising
that there was , a cash balance that date of $7,194,264.83. Subtract-
ing the $4,000,000 advanced from the City's General Fund to establish
the Redevelopment Agency obligation and tax flow, there was a
$3,194,264.83 available cash balance for use by the Agency. He_
noted that any actions taken by the Agency over and above their
adopted budget would change that figure, such as the action taken
October 28, 1975, to advance $570,000.00 to the Orange Unified
School District for construction of an elementary school within
the boundaries of Project Alpha.
The second page of the report illustrated the Finance Director's
estimate of the Redevelopment Agency tax revenue for the fiscal year,
approximately $5,300,000.00 for property taxes, as previously pro-
jected. Also indicated were taxes to be provided through the State
reimbursing the City for lost business investment taxes and home-
owner exemption taxes. Therefore, considerable funds would be avail-
able for investment.
The final two pages of the report consisted of a comparison of
expenditures versus the adopted Redevelopment Agency Budget,
The Redevelopment Agency took no action on the Finance Director's
report.
II. ANAHEIM HOUSING AUTHORITY The following matters were considered
by the Anaheim Housing Authority:
ANAHEIM HOUSING AUTHORITY - FINANCIAL REPORT Mr. Ringer briefed
his financial report dated September 30, 1975, advising that a
cash balance of $41,659.80 was listed at the top of the page,
75 -lG''7
Community Development Commission Minutes - November 4, 1975, 1:00 P.M.
Anaheim Housing Authority, Continued
however, so as not to reflect a deficit situation for the Housing
Authority, he had included in that amount the October 17, 1975
pavment received from HUD. He was of the opinion there was no
major sum currently owed to the City by HUD.
Page 2 of the expenditure statement sets forth the itemized adopted
budget, the September 1975 expenditures, and the total expenditures
to date. Mr. Ringer reported that there was a proposed agreement
pending before the Community Redevelopment Commission for the
$19,400.00 contribution from the Redevelopment Agency to the Housing
Authority, as previously projected to make up the difference between
the budget and the HUD maximum contributions. He noted the largest
single item in the budget was the $178,457.00 for the Housing Assist-
ance payments, and during October there had been considerable activ-
ity and expenditures in that area although the statement did not
reflect any expenditures through September 30 in this category.
The Housing Authority took no action on the Finance Director's report.
HUD SECTION 8 UPDATE - REPORT, OCTOBER 1975 Housing Director Rosario
Mattessich referred to his October, 1975 report (copies furnished
each Commission Member), advising that since the report was prepared,
the number of families certified for rent subsidies in October had
been increased from 11 to 15, and the number of non - elderly families
certified had been increased from 1 to 3 (Part A). These people
were situated. In nearly every case, the Housing Office had found
it necessary to request from HUD a 10 to 15% increase, due to the
fact that the Fair Market Rents for 3 -and 4- bedroom units were not
adequate.
Part B of the report reflected a breakdown of total certificates
issued through October 31, 1975, with 27 certificates for elderly
families and 23 for non - elderly families. Very little difficulty
had been experienced in finding appropriate units for the elderly
--- people. However, due to the virtual non - availability of 3- and 4-
bedroom units within the published Fair Market Rents, or even at a
rental of loo above those figures, a 20% area -wide increase over
the Fair Market Rents had been requested to HUD by the Housing
Office, as had the Orange County Housing Authority and most others
in the State. In addition, a request had been made to HUD for a
waiver of the Housing Quality Standards which specify that a re-
frigerator must be provided or a utility allowance given on the
basis that refrigerators are not commonly provided by owners of
rental housing in the local market area and the approved Fair
Market Rents would be exceeded by giving the nominal utility
allowance. He requested support of that request from the Housing
Authority.
On motion by Commissioner Kaywood, seconded by Commissioner Seymour,
the Housing Authority indicated support of the request to HUD for a
waiver of the Housing Quality Standards requirement that a refrigerator
be provided a utility allowance given for housing under the Housing
Assistance Program. MOTION CARRIED.
Commissioner Kaywood questioned whether the higher rentals for 3 -and
4- bedroom units had occurred during the past two years, or were they
°- recent manifestations, and further, whether good cooperation had been
received from landlords.
Mr. Mattessich replied that the Fair Market Rents were published
in the April Federal Register and would probably be published again
in January of 1976. Although there may then be some increase
reflected, the 20% increase was being requested at this time.
Further, that the cooperation received from landlords had been very
ul•u he revor Led tha L flyers had been sent to apartment owners
and realtors, and the staff was working with the Apartment Owners'
Association.
75 -108
Community Development Commission Minutes - November 4, 1975, 1:00 P.M.
Anaheim Housing Authority, Continued
Responding to question by Commissioner Seymour, Mr, Mattessich
- F- 4-Inm- rcnnr+ =a +-h ai- tha WT7n A 1 l no -inn uTa a i-n nrnyvi rla f'nr 1 a
units for elderly people, and 67 for other families.
Commissioner Seymour questioned the near -even balance between the
numbers of certificates issued to date for the two categories of
families.
Mr. Mattessich advised that it had been recognized it would take a.
longer period of time to locate adequate apartment units for the
large non - elderly families, and therefore, proportionately more
certificates were issued early to these people. During October, a
total of 55 certificates were issued, and the ultimate placement
would not exceed allocation.
No further action was taken by the Housing Authority.
There being no further business before the Anaheim Redevelopment
Agency or the Anaheim Housing Authority, Chairman Thom entertained
a motion to adjourn the Community Development Commission.
ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Kaywood moved to adjourn. Commissioner
Seymour seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
ADJOURNED: 1:15 P.M.
Alona M. Hougard, Secretary, Anaheim Community Development Commission.
SIGNED: - / A9 Deputy