Minutes Housing Comm. 6 28 05
MINUTES OF HOUSING COMMISSION MEETING
DATE:
TIME:
PLACE:
28 June 2005
4 p.m.
Housing and Community Development Department
Chairperson Kapler called the meeting to order at 4:05 p.m. following staff assurance of
compliance with Iowa Open Meeting Law.
Commissioners Present:
Harry Neustadt John Plein
Dave Kapler Jim Holz
Dorothy Schwendinger, OSF
Dorothy Culbertson
Commissioners Absent:
Angie Mozena
Bill Helling
Char Eddy
Danita Grant
Staff Present:
David Harris
Tim O'Brien
Janet Walker
Tusdee Blus
Public Present:
Jerry Maro
Review and Certification of Minutes of 26 April 2005 Commission Meetina
Commissioner Neustadt proposed to strike the last sentence from the last page, first paragraph,
regarding the Washington Street Neighborhood project, and noted that this is a City-wide
program. He then motioned to approve the 26 April 2005 minutes with noted change.
Commissioner Schwendinger seconded. Roll call. Commisioner Holz abstained. All others
present in favor. Motion passed.
Correspondence I Public Input
None
Chairperson Kapler suggested that the discussion move directly to items 4a, 5C and 5D, which
he stated were Section 8 items, and then pick up with Tim O'Brien's presentation upon his
arrival.
Old Business I New Business
Financial Update: Housing Voucher Program; Proposed Occupancy Subsidy Standards
Amendment; Proposed Fair Market Rent Changes
Janet Walker reviewed the projections for FY'05-06 expenditures and revenues, and provided
additional information to the Commission regarding information that had been projected in
February 2005. The HAP projections are based upon the actual dollars with the exception of
June. She presented a comparison on where we felt we would be vs. where we actually are.
Chairperson Kapler noted the differences of dollars in the red between the projection chart
(February) and the current numbers. Janet stated that the projection shortfall was $86,000 and
our actual deficit is $42,000, which shows that we did gain. Janet stated this is due to several
factors: reduced payment standards for new admissions and reduced unit size. However, she
stated that the downside to this is that participants are finding it very difficult to find units within
their limits and lease-ups are down. This has significantly reduced our. occupancy rate. This will
have an adverse effect on the overall numbers, and Janet stated that the proposal on the table is
due to this fact.
Janet then explained HUD's funding procedures, stating that they base the next year's budget on
the previous year's activity. Ideally, she said that we prefer to stay within 99 - 100% occupancy.
HUD picks 3 months out of the year to use as their standard, and in the past it has been May,
"
June and July. These months have been difficult for us this year and utilization is down. We
went from 98% to 90%. Fortunately, YTD total is 97%; however, HUD doesn't renew our funding
based upon YTD. In fact, recent notification from HUD states that if we do not maintain a 95%
lease-up rate, we will be considered a troubled agency and have to establish a work-out plan.
We must continue to look to the future and turn this trend around to prevent the troubled agency
designation in the coming year. .
At this time, Tim O'Brien arrived and the discussion moved to his presentation.
Commissioner Training: Section 8 Appeal Hearings presented by Tim O'Brien
Chairperson Kapler welcomed Mr. O'Brien and stated that the Commissioners have had some
concerns regarding procedures for conducting appeals hearings. Mr. O'Brien stated that he
would like to introduce the concept of "due process", which he said is the bottom line for
conducting hearings. He would like to assist the hearing officers in combining their flexibility with
due process to be as effective as possible. He stated that common sense is critical and fairness
essential. He will also provide a check list for the hearing officer. The following are some of his
suggestions:
1) Regarding proper notice - make sure it is proper and timely, and at hearing, ask the
appellant if it was received.
2) Provide the Hearing Officer's name and position and assure their neutrality in the
process.
3) Address the substance of the hearing
a. Be careful to stay on track. Limit discussion to issue at hand. Stay focused.
b. If they try to appeal something other than the issue on the table at the hearing,
direct them to appeal that in a separateTequest after the hearing has concluded.
4) Staff has the burden of proving their side of the argument. If this is not done, the
appellant should win. Therefore, the hearing should begin with Staff presenting their
case. Afterward, the appellant may respond.
5) Appellant is entitled to have an attorney. They are also entitled to have non-legal
representation.- -,
6) Staff must accept all evidence presented.
7) With regard to any witnesses, both sides must be able to cross-examine them.
8) Critical: under rules of due-process, the Hearing Officer must be completely independent
and take into consideration only information presented at hearing - no outside
information and no outside discussion prior to hearing. (Note: timelines can be waived if
both parties agree.)
9) If the hearing becomes disorderly, you may ask that they (anyone other than the
appellant) leave; if they refuse, you may adjourn to another date. If it is the appellant who
is out of order, you may end the hearing at that point.
10) You may put them under oath or however you feel comfortable 'going about ensuring the
information you receive is truthful.
11) Hearing must be open to the public, unless the appellant requests it to be private, which
they may do.
12) It must be recorded if it is the 3rd hearing, which is held before the full Commission.
13) The decision must be rendered in 20 days; damages hearings within 10 days. A copy
must be mailed to the appellant.
14) The decision made is to be based solely on evidence presented at the hearing:
a. It must have formal findings of fact with logical progression (i.e. A, B, C, therefore
D is my decision).
b. There must be included a brief description in layman's terms.
Financial Discussion Continued:
Janet stated that the current situation is creating a problem with the tenants not being able to
afford units (after the reduction from 2 bedroom units to 1 bedroom units). She explained that
,
the difference in the payment standards and the lower dollar amount they are allowed to spend is
forcing them off the program. The tenant is not allowed to pay more than 40% of their gross
income within the first year of the leas, which means the gross rent cannot be more than then
payment standard with the difference being more than the tenant's allowed 40% maximum. The
lease must also be acceptable, and the unit must pass inspection before we can assist. This is
resulting in tenants not leasing up, which is essentially freezing vouchers.
Janet then referenced Section X - Subsidy Standards of the Administrative Plan. Staff is
proposing revised subsidy standards regarding the "relationship" of persons in the household.
The changes are as follows:
"However, if the household consists of minor children, guardianship of minors or
dependents, or other dependent household members, the head of household shall be
allowed a separate bedroom upon issuance of the Voucher. Additional persons in the
household shall not increase the voucher issuance beyond the assigned bedrooms
according to the chart listed below. A single person household that does not qualify as
an elderly or disabled household shall be issued a 1 Bedroom Voucher at the efficiency
subsidy standard. "
Also, in the first paragraph, second page the words "or live-in aide" were added to the first
sentence regarding the addition of household members increasing the Voucher unit size.
Janet noted the Waiting List Summary, and stated that it is moving quickly and single persons
may be coming to the top very soon. She stated that Staff is proposing to give single persons a
zero bedroom unit. This will raise our per-unit cost, so it is not a perfect solution, but it will also
raise our occupancy.
She then referenced a HUO waiver that we would like to apply for, which would decrease the
payment standard without waiting the required one year. Currently, we must wait one year from
a participant's annual renewal to make the change or we can reduce their payment standard now
only if the tenant chooses to move. If we are able to obtain this waiver, we could make the
change at their 2005 renewal, which could effectively reduce the dollars we are losing from the
program. Projected implementation, if approved, would be August or September, and all tenants
and landlords/owners must be sufficiently notified prior to the change. .
The final proposal by Staff is to change the Fair Market Rents (FMR's). Voucher Payment
Standards (VPS's) are currently set at 95% of the FMR. Janet stated we would like to keep the
current VPS rates for the coming year, which will result in them being 93% of the proposed new
FMR. However, she indicated that the FMR has not yet been permanently established for the
coming year so these projections and rates are somewhat preliminary.
Finally, Janet stated that Staff would like to change the Program Eligibility Guidelines, noted in
Section II of the Administrative Plan. The changes proposed effect single persons and college
students, to allow preference for "families with dependents, guardianship or minor children; and
pregnant female head of household or disabled persons sharing residency or requiring a live-in
aide" over the single person applicants who are not elderly, disabled or displaced. This places
families ahead of single person households. The change regarding "Additional Guidance on
College Student Admissions" section was added, limiting their eligibility based upon their
financial support, household make-up and age.
Commissioner Holz motioned to approve the following, with the noted change to item #4:
1) to adopt the amendment to the Administrative Plan to change the occupancy
standards;
2) to approve the waiver request to HUD;
3) to keep the VPS the same;
4) to adopt the changes to single person:
a. placing families ahead of single persons on the waiting list, and;
b. college student eligibility definition. (Commissioner Holz requested a change,
sug.gesting that the dates be removed so that the plan does not have to be
revised every year, eliminating the sentence regarding the student's age
requirement in our Plan and effectively utilizing the Department of Education's
yearly definition of age.)
Commissioner Culbertson seconded. Roll call. All in favor. Motion passed.
EIV I UIV Certification
David Harris stated that this is for information only. This is the HUD electronic system used to
verify information / income, which the Commission had approved Staff to use. HUD has asked if
we have a policy in place to use it, and we have assured them that we do. However, the system
is not yet ready for use.
Information Sharina
Washington Neighborhood Update
David provided information, noting the press kick-off. He stated that it went very well.
Commissioner Neustadt requested an update on Commissioner attendance at the next meeting,
which Tusdee Slus will provide.
Adiournment
There being no further business to come before the Commission, Commissioner Neustadt
moved to adjourn. Commissioner Holz seconded. Motion passed by a voice vote. Meeting was
adjourned at 5:29 p.m.
Minutes taken by:
Zwk 8k
Tusdee Blus .J
Assisted Housing Secretary
~eSpeCtfUIlY submitted by:
;\.~t~
"\ ~,~ ~
David Harris
Department Director