SR-407-006 (6)
:.
e
If(!J?--OOh
e
.
I
Santa Monica. California, April 16,1979
TO
Housing Authority
f/.A.~f
FROM
City Staff
APR 2 4 1979
SUBJECT; Approval and Execution of Annual Contributions Contract
for Redistribution of Section 8 Existing Units
Introduction
This report transmits an amended Annual Contributions Contract for Section 8
Existing Housing and recommends that the Housing Authority approve and execute
the contract.
Backg round
As a condition of approval of a l?-unit apart~ent proJect. the California Coastal
Zone Conservation Comnission required the developer to conmit 25 percent of the
housing units (4 units) to Section 8 Existing Housing Rent Subsidy Program. The
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) subsequently approved
additional funds for inclusion of the four housing units In Santa Monica's rent
subsidy program. The attached amendment to the Annua' Contributions Contract
will result in redistribution of the City's current allocation by converting
four units of "Non-elderly. Three Bedrooml' category to "Non-elderly, Four
Bedroom. Recently-Completed" category.
Recommenda t i on
City staff recomnends that the Housing Authority approve the execution of the
amended Annual Contributions Contract and adopt the attached resolution.
Prepared by'
John Ja 1 i I i
Nancy ~1cFarl and
JJ'NM.lT'h
fl/}. H~
At tachment
J
APR 2 4 1979
,
--
Santa Monica, Cal ifornia, July 14, 1978
TO. Housing Authority
FROM' City Staff
SUBJECT: Approval and Execution of Annual Contributions Contract
for Redistribution of Section 8 Existing Units
Introduction
It is necessary for the Housing Authority to approve and execute the Annual
Contributions Contract for Section 8 Existing Units.
Background
In previous applications to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
the City of Santa Monica was required to include in the request some three and
four-bedroom units, or units that would accommodate larger families. It
became evident that large units in the City of Santa Monica were impossible to
find with rents at or below the HUD-approved rent ceiling
In order to complete
the City1s allocation for approved units, a request was made for redistribution
of units to one and two-bedroom units which allows participation of small families,
Since this redistribution of Section 8 units has been approved by HUD, they have
submitted an amended Annual Contributions Contract showing the redistribution for
Housing Authority approval
Recommendation
City staff recommends that the Housing Authority approve the execution of the
Annual Contributions Contract.
Prepared by' Martha Brown Hicks
MBH' nm
,
-
Santa Monica. California, July 18, 1978
TO' local Housing Authority
FROM Housing Commission and City Staff
SUBJECT: Recommendations Resulting From Evaluation
of Section 8 Housing Program
IntroductIon
Several months ago, the Housing Commission directed staff to perform an In-depth
evaluation of the SectIon 8 existing housing program. Findings were reported,
conclusions developed, and recommendations are contained herein at the request
of the Commission.
Background
City staff presented an evaluation plan toward completion of an in-depth evaluation
effort to determine the effectiveness of both Family Service as a site office, and
the Housing Authority of the County of Los Angeles in their administration of the
Santa Monica program. A member of the Housing Commission was appointed to the
Evaluation Team and assisted With developing the questionnaires and interview
forms, and participated in on-site visits.
On January 9, 1978, the Commission briefly reviewed the Draft Evaluation Report
and scheduled a Study Session on February 1. 1978, to develop recommendations.
Alternative recommendations were reviewed and discussed and are presented here-
With for your review, recommended-additions and/or approval, and represent the
final recommendations of the Housing Commission.
Conclusions
Through the USe of all the evaluation tools employed and results contained In the
body of the report. staff concludes the following.
,
Local Housing Authority
-2-
-
July ]8, 1978
]. Family Service is a convenient location as a site office and provides easy
access to participants.
2. The two staff people at Family Service are courteous and helpful to
participants, but do not haye the responsibility nor decision-making
authority beyond developing mailing lists for submission to the County
Housing Authority; making referrals for transportation; and being good
listeners to persons with housing problems. Their minor involvement in
actual program operations does not even allow them to provide much
encouragement.
3. There are sufficient dollars from the program being provided Family Service
to offer additional housing Information services, In addition to providing
rent for the site office.
4. The Housing Authority of the County of Los Angeles has experienced large
turnover since they began operation of the Santa MonIca program. Some of the
problems encountered in the beginnIng have been resolved; I.e., reporting to the City.
5. At the beginning of program implementation, it was more cost effective to
contract With the County HOUSing Authority for administration of the program
because of the small administrative fee allowable by HUD. The City Council
chose not to provide additional dollars for developing In-house staff for
the Housing Program.
6. The County Housing Authority does an adequate job of administering the program;
however, it is the pOSition of some Commissioners and residents that the City
might wish to review again the feasibility of eventually bringing t~e program
in-house for administration. This possibility is now expressed because of the
recent application for additional units, which will allow additional adminls-
trat I ve costs.
,
Local Housing Authority
-3-
Alternative Solutions
Alternative
-
July 18, 1978
The Housing Authority may elect to determine that the Section
8 existing housing program of 265 units (plus the additional 180 units
recently approved) be administered by the City, rather than contract services
with the County Housing Authority and Family Service. This would constitute
a Housing DIvision in the City structure with the entire Section 8 program
being run in-house. The cost analysis is outlined below in a me~orandum
from the Director of Finance:
"SUBJECT: SECTION 8 RENTAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM -
1 N-HOUSE COST
As per your memo of January 16th, 1978 the budget needs for the
above listed program would be as follows:
Program Administrator/Inspector
Clerk Typist
Accountant
Publication and Publicity
Data Processing
Office EqUipment and Supplies
Automobile Allowance
Fringe Benefits for 3 personnel
TOTAL
$23,000
10,000
16,600
1,000
2,000
2,000 (Includes S900 typewriter)
1,200
$55,800
12,400
568,200
The above cost does not include office space rental. The revenue
anticipated from HUD would be $18.67 per unit per month. Assuming
that the total 265 units would be leased, the maximum income for
the city on an annual basis would be S59,370 This is $8,830
less than the projected cost for performing this function.
The costs for operating the program are based on first class
performance and sufficient personnel which I am sure IS the
des i re of all pa rt i es .11
The additional $8,830 required is an eligible cost under Community Development
Block Grant funds.
,
-
Local Housing Authority
-4-
July 18, 1978
Alternative 2
The Housing Authority may elect to authorize that a review
be made during the next year toward developing strategies for bringing the
program in-house with immediate action taken to Implement the following
changes toward program improvement:
a. Continue contractual services with the County Housing Authority for
one year with periodic reviews to update the evaluation effort_
b. Continue the site office at Family Service with increased marketing
efforts and personnel changes to expand the provision of informational
services.
Inasmuch as payment of rent and part-tIme bookkeeping services reflects
substantial savings in the amount of money Family Service receives, it is
determined that dollars saved could be better used to provide a stronger
program of housing information. It is specifically recommended that Family
Service employ a full-time Housing Information Special ist with final screenIng
for the position by the Housing Commission and/or City housing staff. The
HOUSing Information Special ist would be a housing special ist knowledgeable
about all aspects of housing programs and trained in the Section 8 process;
would possess abll ities to prOVide information on the City1s hOUSIng
rehabilitation program, any new construction or proposed new construction of
housing units; to market SectIon 8 with local landlords; establ ish a working
relationship with the Apartment Owners Association; create an inventory of
landlords willing to participate; provide transportation, when needed, to
elderly or handicapped persons certified and seeking hOUSing, and generally
provide adequate information and referral to elderly persons and low-income
persons seeking housing assistance in Santa Monica. The present budget would
accommodate this recommendation.
,
Local Housing Authority
-5-
Recommendation
The Housing Commission recommends Alternative 2.
Prepared by: Martha Brown Hicks
MBH.mh
-
July 18. 1973
.
'/trl-COt
Santa Monica, CalIfornia, February 6, 1978
-f>
TO: Chairman and Members of Local Housing Authority
FROM: City Staff
SUBJECT: Submission of Application for Additional
Section 8 Housing Units
Jntroduct ion
The City of Santa Monica has been invited to apply for additional Section 8
Existing Housing Units in accord with the Cityls Housing Assistance Plan.
Bac k~ ro_und_
In September, 1975, the Housing Authority of the City of Santa Honica submitted
an application for 90 units of Section 8 housing for the elderly. The application
was approv€d and the Annual Contributions Contract executed in the amount of
$193,080.00. Subsequently, the AuthorIty submitted an application for 175
additional units and were approved for an amended Annual Contributions Contract
totalling 265 units in the amount of $599,280.00.
Although the invitation from HUD to apply for additional units came shortly after
the last Housing Commission meeting, Commissioners are on record as favoring a
recommendation for your approval to file an application for 200 additional
Section 8 existing unIts at an approximate increase in the Annual Contributions
Contract of $500,000. Members of the Commission have stressed the need to
include units for the handicapped and non-elderly. There still exists a waiting
list of close to 200 elderly residents requiring units.
Although HUD allocated 50 units for non-elderly during the last approval, it
has been almost impossible to find 3-bedroom units for lease under the HUD
ceiling of $297 Including utilities. [n an effort to solve this problem. the
--~ --~