SR-407-006 (5)
H D : t1l : mh
e
~r-oOIh
e
~ant2 Moni~a. :d11forrla. November 9, 1981
TO:
~ous;ng Autho~!ty
\4-3
NOV 2 4 1981
FRot1:
C i U Staff
SUBJECT: ?roposed Cocperat:ion Ag....eeme"'lt by and between tne BOLlSill'J f-\Uthority
of the City of Santa Mcp'ca and the ~cusir~ A0thorfty of the County
of Los Angeles
I ntroduc.tio!l
Pursuant to Coune'; and HJusing Autr.ority cjrect~~r-. Slclff ha~ been reviewing a
number of ptogralTi optIons "[0 f3c~litate the rehabd:t3tion of rented housing.
This ;-epon_ t"-'insrrits 2. ?rCpOSed Ccol'e.-",tior, Ag~-?e"T.;ll "kde-h ....muld enable the
Hou~in9 Authol (tv of the County of ~os 4ng~!es to operate the Sectio~ 8 Moderate
Rehabilitatlo'l Prog'-alfl 11"' thE Ch:v 0+ 52'Ita Kor-ica. P,ntidpatio:'1 1'1 the "t~od
Rehab'l pr~gar;" would reprE.5-ent the TO '-st step in tbe proc{>~s of making a small
assortl'ient of mecl)anisrls available to oronerty O\"li'h:'i-~ and ten<.inls to upgrade the
housing stoc:'; wr.ile ,etain;ng affoidab~;it TO'" ".0"~eholds of to\oJ and flioderale inc.ome.
ProviSlon~ of the Cooperation Agre~ep~
The proposed Agreemert authorizes the Ho~si~g ALthnrity of t_os Angeles Counly to
act a;-, tb,:'. 3ge'1:: of t;"e City's 1i0usir-.g A:Jtiv:J;<tv ''-' the operation of tf,e Section
8 Hoderatc. Rehabilit.:;;Uon prog:-arn. The fL:r,os "-or f.',OG Reh<:lb tlave been allocated
to the COlJ'LY Tor use in the Santa MO'liC2 ,~arket area. County rehabl1ltalion staff
would be respons:ble for program ma~ayepe~( ;~~l~diny the provisio~ of cost estimate~,
feasibility studies, and O(jqo~n9 ar-c f:r,.;::l co""::':".IC!;Oil illspecllOns.
The Section 8 Moderate RehabiiitatIon prog"'a~
Tl"<:; Sec<;-lcJ"; 8 t'od P.3~a'; PI.Jgl'a;n is b;:'"I:bl;v a \t;::-:d'lt of tJ-:e Sectio;, 8 Exi3t1n;
prograrl. <'\ tenar.t re~.!di')g Ii" a :-ehat.;;;;tate6 'J,,:t PdY~ no f1'orc than 751:: of adjusted
gross tncome for rent"-; the i,OJ:-"'9 :'\,L~'iO,...;ty Od':" i+,C'- d;f1Grence betvleen the Lenant I~,
~HUD has been ordered to ircrease
incone. but it ;s no) certain as
tilG :E-"C:!'H 's CO'l~ribut ion to 30% or adjusted gr0S'i
to whe~ t~iS order will be implemented.
H-3
1ISj',j 2 4 198t
. Housing Authori tye
-2--
e
hovember 9~ 1981
contribution and the corlract ;er.L vp to & specified ce.linq. The basic differ-
ences between the programs are rhat the property ow~er ~ust complete at least ST~OOO
of non-cosmetic repoirs and that tl,e Moci R.ehab Fair J"'arck.ct Rent Schedule IS highet-
so as to provide property ownecs ~..jith 5t...fficient ref1ta~ Income to re.pay the costs
of needed repairs and iJ;1proVeme~t5.
The requi;eme~ts fe, owner partlcioatforc are
o A unit must require improvements cost1i'!9 a mhhurn of $l~OOO.
o Units assisted by the program must be occupieci by an eligible tenant or
vacant. Pe~manent displacement is prohibited.
o The owner must agree tc conLinue to rent the a5sr~ted unit to Section 8
eligible3 over a fifteer (15) fzar ?ericd.
Eligible tenants dfe those Hho meet. the; income. and Jccupancy <;tandards for the
Section 8 !=xisting prograrn. Because of tr>e occupancy standar~s. whic.h specify the
number of bedrooms requ i rEd due t3 age and sex of !,oLi<;eho 1 d membel-s ~ not <:l1} tenant <;
who are eligible by virtue of income Nill 1n faLt be 21igible to partIcipate. This
feature may narrow the Mod Rehab market to 50me extenL. ~owcver. in the cases fOI
which the program is aopropriate. it can p,ov:oe the dollar~ for improvewentS
while protecting affordability for tenants. The ~lod Rehab program sl,ould be vielved
2S one part of a menu of re~abi!itatior alte~natives Khich can be undertaken [n
the City,
The City ~ ~ Role
In addition to author~zing the Ccunty Hou~ing Authority to operate the Mod Rehab
progrcm~ there is a need to provice a financing l"'echanism to bring the costs of
rehabilitatior. '.lith;n the liMits orescribed bv !-IUD. Staff \'/111 suhmlt gUldelipes
for a Community Development Block; Gt<".lnt-f"nded :m'-''lterest loan program to the City
Counc j I un de r sepa '<a te cove r In Decembe r ,
Hous i ng Author! tye
-3-
e
November 9. 1981
Recommendation
It is reco~mendea that tbe HOUS!'lg 4uthoritv approve the proposed Cooperation
Agreement and authorize the Chairperson to execu~e the docwment.
Prepared by: Mindy Leltermar
ML:mh
Attachment
.
.
'If) =?--OO(;
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.
Backg round
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 City's 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 aporove the execution of the
Annual Contributions Contract.
Prepared by: Martha Brown Hicks
(
tfS
MBH:nm
e
e
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 ad~inistration 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 ~s contained in
body of the report, staff concludes the following. '
,
~ ~\
\~~ )
~,
the
-
Local Housing Authority
-2-
e
July 18, 1978
1. 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 have the responsibility nor deCision-making
authority beyond developing mailing 1 ists 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 bring~ng the program
in-house for administration. ThiS possibility IS now expressed because of the
recent appl ication for additional units, which will allow additional adminis-
trative costs.
e
Local Housing Authority
-3-
e
July 18. 1978
Alternative Solutions
Alternative
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 memorandum
from the Director of Finance:
"SUBJECT: SECTION 8 RENTAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM -
IN-HOUSE COST
Fringe Benefits for 3 personnel
TOTAL
$23,000
10,000
16,600
I ,000
2,000
2,000
I , 200
$55,800
12,400
$68,200
~~'
the ~ .-'
..
~>
As per your memo of January 16th, 1978 the budget needs for
above listed program would be as follows:
Program Administrator/Inspector
Clerk Typist
Accountant
Publication and Publicity
Data Processing
Office Equipment and Supplies
Automobile Allowance
(Includes $900 typewriter)
The a~ove c_ost does not ,include office ,.space rental. The revenue
anticipated ffom HU~would be 518.67 per unit per ~6nth Assuming
that the total 265 units would be leased, the maximum income for
the city on an annual basis would be $59,370. 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
desl re of all pa rt i es. II
The additional $8,830 required is an eligible cost under Community Development
Block Grant funds.
e
e
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 Specialist would be a housing special ist knowledgeable
about all aspects of housing programs and trained in the Section 8 process;
would possess abil ities to provide information on the City's 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 will ing 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
e
July 18, 1973